1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. ·1559 

always takes pla.ce. That is the advantage of having banks everywhere. 

1\fr.ANTHONY. But you must have the water. How are you going 

to get the currency unle you have the ca,pital to buy it wHh 1 If 

you apportion ten millions of cmTc,ncy to the State of Indiana, sho mu t have the capital to get the curr ncy with, and the capital of In illana can be employed much mm·e pr~fi.tably than in banking. 

Mr. MORTON. .Allow me to suggest there that that is c;me of tho 

mistakes that tho Senator and others have made in this debate all the 

time. They say we have not got tho water; we have not got the capi- . tal. They a sumo that we ar~ poor. · Mr. ANTHONY. No, sir. 1\fr. MORTON. If wo are poor,. of course we caunot take it. I say we ha,ve the capital; but we cannot invest it, because you do not allow us to do so. l\1r. ANTHONY. I bog pardon of my friend. I say the State of 

Indiana can employ its capital more profitably than in banking, not 

that it has not capital. 

Mr. 1\IORTON. Let us judge. 

:Mr. ANTHONY. Let not my friend put into my mouth what I did 

not say. 

1\!r . .l'IIORTON. No. . 1\fr. ANTHONY. We know Indiana is·wealthy; and I say it may 

employ its wealth more profitably than putting it into bank circulation, which yields abont It per cent. profit. 

l\h. MORRILL, of 1\Ia.ine. Evidently wo shaH not conclude this 

bill to-night, and I want a short executive session. I move that the 

Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. . The motion was agreed to. 

MESSAGE FTIOM TilE HOUSE. 

A message from tho House of Representatives, by Mr. LLOYD, its 

Chi f Clerk, announced that the House had pas ed a bill (H. R. No. 2074) to amend an act entitled "An act to provide for the establishment of a military prison, and for its government," approved l\1arch 

3, 1873; in which the concurrence of the Senate was requested. 

E~"ROLLED BILLS SIGNED. 

The roes age al o announced that the Speaker of the House had 

signed the following enrolled bills; and they.were thereupon signed 

by tho President of tho Senate pro tempore: 

A bill(H.R. No.17Gl) granting certain swamplands in Holt County, 

l\1i ouri, to said HOlt Cotmty, for school purposes; and · A bill (H. R. No. 1769) for the relief of Colonel DanielMcCluro, assistant payma..ster-goneral. 

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED. 

The bill (H. R. No. 1284) authorizing the chief clerk of tho War 

D partmont to si~n requisitions on the Treasury during the temporary absence of tho Secretary of War, was rea,d twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Finance. . The bill (H. R. No. 2073) restricting the refunding of customs duties 

and prescribing certain regulations of the Trea ury Department, was reacl twice by it<> title, and r eferred to tho Committee on Fina,uce. 

Tbe. bill (H. R. No. 2074) to amonu a,n act entitled" An act to provide for the establishment of a military prison and for it· government," 

approveu March 3, 1873, was read twice by its title, and referred to 

the Committee on :Military Affairs. · 

EXECUTIVE SESSION. 

The Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business. 

After five minutes spent in executive session the doors were reopened, and (at fouro'clock.and fifty-fiveminntes p.m.) the Senatea.djourncd. 

H OUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

TUESDAY, February 17, 1874. 

Tho House met at twelve o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. 

J . G. BUTLER, D. D. 

Tho Journal of yesterday was read and approved. 

The SPEAKER. The morning hour begins at ten minutes past 

twelve o'clock, and reports are in order from tho Committee on Military Affairs. W A.R DEP ARTME!I."T REQUISITIOXS. 

• Mr. COBURN, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported back a bill (H. R. No. 1284) authorizing the chief clerk of the War Department to sign requisitions on the Trea..sury during the temporary absence 

of th Secretary of War, with the recommendation tha,t it do pass. 

The bill, which was read, provides that when, from illness or other cause, the Secretary of War is temporarily absent from the War Department, he may authorize the chief clerk of the Department to sign 

rcqui itions upon the Treasury Department, and other papers requiring tho signatme of said Secretary; the same, when signed by the 

chief clerk during such temporary absence, to be of the same force 

and effect as if signed by the Secretary of War himself. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I wllih to inqrnre whether this practice has been 

nulnlgctl in by·any oth r Department of the Government' It confers 

101po:rtant powers upon this chief clerk. 

1\!r. COBURN. It has not been indulged in by a,ny ot.hor Department, but there is no Assistant Secretary of War. It is a matter of 

convenience, and is recommended by the Secretary of War himself. 

It is one which, so far a t he committee can see, will work no harm. 

Of course .the Secretary of War will not authorize it except in extreme cases. 

l\Ir. HO~IAN. It is a grave responsibility to impose upon this 

chief clerk. · The bill was ordered to bo engrossed and read a third time ; and 

being engrossed, it wa..s accordingly read the third time, and pas ed. 

1\fr. COBURN moved to r econsider the vote by which the bill was passed ; aud also moved that the motion to reconsider be la,id on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

ISSUE OF TOBACCO TO TRE ARl\IY. 

~1r. COBURN. I am directed by the Committee on Military Affairs 

to report back, with the recommendation that the committee be uischarged from the further consideration of the samo, and thc<tt it do 

lie on tho table, a bill to authorize the issue of tobacco to enlistcu men of tho Army. 

The SPEAKER. There does not appear to·be any.record tha,t this 

bill was over referred to the committee. Mr. COBURN. It was referred in connection with a communication of the Secretary of War. 

The SPEAKER. This is an illustration of the inexpediency of 

having bills referred in that way. 

fr. COBURN. Let the record be altered so a..s to refer to the com- munication of the Secretary of ·war. There was no objection; and tho committee was discharged from 

the further consideration of the memorial of the Secretary of War, 

asking the passa-ge of a law providing for the issue of tobacco to 

the enlisted men of the Army. 

GE!I."ERAL DON CARLOS BUELL. 

Mr. COBURN. I am instructed to present a report of the Committee ou :Military Affairs, in relation to the communication of the 

Secretary of War, concerning a copy of the proceedings in the matter of the comt of inquiry in the case of General Don Carlos Buell. I ask 

that the report be read. 

The report was read. Tho committee to whom was refened the 

letter of the Secretary of War in relation to the copy of the proceedings in the matter of the court of inquiry in the case of General Don 

Carlos Buell, which is to bo furnished by him to Congress, state that 

they have had the samo nuder consideration, and find that a copy has 

been put on file in the office of the Secretary of War; that there is no ftmd out of which to pay for the required copy, and no clerk to do 

the work. They therefore recommend that the sum of $500 be appropriated to employ a copyist to do the work of transcribing tlte 

said record, which the report of the Secretary of War shows to con- tain one hundred thousand words. The committee recommend the 

passage of the following resolution: 

Resolved, That the Committee on Appropriations be in tructen to r eport in the proper bill :m appropriation of $500 to enable the Secretary of War to furnish Con· gress with a copy of the proceedings of the court of inquiry concerning General Don Carlos Buell. • 

The resolution reported by the Committee on :Military Affairs was agreed to. 

NAVIGATION OF SNAKE RIVER, IDAHO. 

l\1r. HAWLEY, of Illinois, from the Committee on Military Affairs, 

reported back the bill (H. R. No. 44.2) authorizing the Secretary of 

War to have a survey and estimate made of the cost of removing 

obstructions to navigation from Snake River in the Territory of Idaho; 

and moved that the committee be discharged from its further con- sideration, and that it be referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

The motion was agreed to. 

MILITARY PRISOX. 

Mr. HAWLEY, of illinois. I am also instructed by the Committee on Military Affairs to report back the bill (H. R. No. 1035) 'vith an amendment in the nature of 2 substitute. The substitute (H. R. No. 2074) to amend the act entitled" An act 

to provide for the establishment of a military prison, a.ndfor its government-," approved l\Iarch 3, 1873, was received and read a first and 

second time. The bill proposes so to ameud the said ant that all acts and things 

therein required to be done and performed at Rock Island, in the 

State of Illinoi~ shall be done and performed at the military reser- vation at Fort Leavenworth, in the State of Kansas, provided t.hat 

the Government buildings, now on said military reservation at Fort 

Leavenworth, shall bo modified and used, so far as practicable, for 

the purposes of said prison. The question was on ~rdoring the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. 

Mr. HAWLEY, of illinois. At tho last session of Congress a law 

was passe<l for the pmpose of establishing a military prison at Rock 

Island, in, the State of Illinois. That act was approved on the last 

day of th~ session, the 3d of March. The first section of that act is in 

these words : That there shall be est..,blisherl at Ro k I sland, in tho St.."l.te of lllinoi.s, a. prison for the confinemoutand reformation of offt:>udors against the rules, regulatio.us, and 
1560 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. FEBRUARY 17, 

laws for the government of the Army of the United States, in which shall be 

securely confu:ied, and employed at illuor, and governed in the manner hm·einafter 

directed, all oftimders convicted before any court-martial or military commission in 

the United States, and sentenced according to law to imprisonment therein. 

The act contains twelve sections. It provides, among other tbings, 

for the appointment of a board of commis ioners, to consist of five 

members, three of whom shaH be officers of the regular Army, and two 

chosen from civil life. The act makes it the busine s of these com- missioners to establish the prison, to locate the place where it shall 

be properly located at Rock Island, and also to prescribe the rules for 

its government. 

Under the authority given to the Secretary of War by this act, he 

appointed three officers of the regular Army for the purpose of locating the prison. This commission visited Rock Islancl la t summer and made to the Secretary of War a roport of their doings at somo time previous to· the pre ent session. The report does not seem to 

bear any date. This board of Army officers in their report have 

})re ented to Congress the regulations which they have deemed 

proper to adopt for the government of the military prison. They 

also made a report on the practicability of locating this prison at all on Rock Island military ruservation. 

It was unque 'tionably the intention of Congress to locate the prison on the military reservation at Rock Island, although the language is 

simply "at Rock Island, in the Stato of Illinois." It wa the intention 

of Congress to locate it on the military reservation, for the reason that 

the Government owned the grounds. These commis ioners upon ex- amining the locality, found and reported to the Secretary of War 

that there is no suitable place on the island for the location of the 

prison, without interfering with the purposes for which the island has 

been set apart. I will read a part of this report, that the Honse may 

understand the reasons on which it is based. The commissioners say : 

The board visited Rock Ismncl, in the Missi sippi River, with a view t{) the con. sideration of the question submitted in the letter of instructions. A topographical examination established the fact that there are but two points on the island where a sufficient drainage can be obtained, a want of the very first importance. One of 

these is at a point near tho principal entrance to the armory grounds, lying in full 

view of the cities of Davenport, Iowa., and Rock Island City, lllinois, and between buildin~s already erected for tho purposes of the armory. As the safe. keeping of the prisoners would necessitate the inclosing of the prison buildings within a high wall, it is thought that their erection at this point would lJe a. blemish to their surroundinas. The other point is more remote, and is a desir:1ble ·one for the purpose, should it 'be :finally decided to select any part of the island. The points above referred to are indicated on the map of Rook Island, herewith 

submitted, by numbered flags; the one first referred to being numbered 1 and the 

other 2. 

As to the probable infiuence upon the interest of the armory, the board are of 

opinion that the erection of J?rison building on the island at all would be extremely detrimental, interfering, a.a 1t necessarily would, with the carryinf out to fulftll. 

fu~n~v~~:!:f~~b:~b~~! ~~f~.d~~~~:ud~~¥r~ which have thus a.r governed in 

For instance, t~e point thought to be the only one at which a prison should, with 

due regard to good taste, be erected is the one, as will be seen by the map, where 

the plans for the completion of the armory, a..s originally adopted, contemplate the 

establishing of a foundory for heavy ordnance. · In the vicinity of Rock Island City, and on the high and desirable land near Rock 

River, a site c:m be purchased at from four to five hundred dollars per acre, and as twenty acres. is thought to be all the ground nece sary, the light saving to be 

ef:fucted by the usc of'Gml on the island cannot be held of much weight agaln.st the attenclant probable injury. 

Although not called upon to offer any suggestions as to the advisability of select- \ 

ing any other site than the one indicated in the a.ct of March :1, 187:$, the board, in 

view of the fact that the armory at Rock Island promi~es to answer for fllrnish- ment with material all the western portion of the country, woulcl most respect- fully suggest that the ar anal grounds at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, wo:lid be a fur more eligible and convement location for a prison than Rook Island, while the 

buildings, nQw of but little practical use to the Government, could be readily con- verted to J?rison uses. Indeed, 1t is believed that for one-third of the sum which will be necessary to l)roperly construct entirely new buildings tho e indicated maybe made into briild- mcrs of a model character and surrounded by the requisite wall. 

lfhe cost of supporting the prisoners would be fully as small at Fort Leavenworth as at Rock Island, and it is believed that even should it not be conHidered proper to allpropriate the arsenal groundH and builclings for the purpose, some other portion of the Government reservation at that 11oint should· be taken. 

The Secretary of War, in transmitting this report to Congress, uses this language : 

In regard to the island of Rock Island as a site, attention is particularly invited to the remarks of the· board. On Rock Island, owned by the Government, there are but two sites 'Yher~ drainage, a:bsolutely neces ary, can be had. Either of these 

s1te would matermlly mterfere With and mar the plan for the armory. The idea 

of tho location of the prison near the armory in order that the labor o'f its inmates 

might be utilized is not fea..siule. The most profitable labor of prisoners would be 

upon clothing, shoes, wagons, &c.; while tho vations branches of the armory work 

wonlcl have to be performed systematically by skilled artisans. 

1'hc military reservation at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, possesses every advantage pos ible over every other locality. The ground is already owned by the Gov. ernment. It is the grand center of military transportation, from which rail com. munioation radiates t{) all parts of the United States. It is a military post, and the ne?essary details for pri on.gnards, &o., can be made most convemently at that 

JlO!Jlt. In regard to economy in constructing and maintainina the prison, it cer· t:1i.nly po sasses superior advanta~es. In this connection attention i invited to a communication dated February 13, 1873, written before the pas age of the act to est.abli~h a military J?rison~ by Captain D. W. Flarrler, commandiri.rr R.ock Island ar enal, a copy of which is nerewith. 0 0 

I will now ask the Clerk to read the letter referred to by the Secretary of W a.r. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

BOARD ON HEAVY·GUN CARRIAGES, ARMY :BUILDING, 

New York City, February 13, 1873. 

GE_NElUL: I have the honor to submit for your consideration the followina remarks 

relative to the establishment of a military prison at the Rock Island arse~al. 

It is presumed that the reasons to be advanced for the establishmmit of a prison at so unusual a place as an ar enal would beth~~n~at the labor of the prisoners might be applied to the work carried on at 

Secondly. That the arsenal being situated on an island, the location mi rrht furnish 

safety from escape of prisoners. . <> 

:Both of these reaso.ns are fallacious, because1. Tho prisoners could. not be employed on arsenal work. (a) Arsenal work is 

of such a character that 1t would be unsafe to intrust itt{) prisoner , or to any dis· 

affected person. The experience of our last war has shown the dancrer of intrusting tho pro::luction of material of war to any but thoroughly loyal ~nd competent 

persons, devoted to the interests of the United States. It is extremely easy for an eru_p.loye inclined to do so, to in~oduce imperfections into such material, and also at. times t.o .renuer such m~tenal-particularly ammunition- highly dangerous. 

(b) Even if 1t were. safe t? mtrust the work to prisoners, they are incompetent. 

Arsenal. work reg=es .skilled '~orkme~. Military .prisoners would come to the w~rk w1thout s~; and the ordmary time of the:tr mcarceration would be insuffiCient for the a.cqrurement of the necessary skill and experience or for officers to ascm1run whether they could be intrusted 'vith work. ' 

2. The island does not ofter the supposed safety from escape. During the sum- mer the shallow water alon" the Illinois shOl'e offers little or no ob truction to the 

escape of a pri oncr. During the remainder of the year there is a perfect brid"e 

of .ice around the whole islarid, and no ob truction to escape. A wall around fue 

pnson would be required, as in other localities. Mo~-eover, the arsen~l wot:J.d offer un:nsual and very great facilities for the escape of pnso!lers. When m active operations several thousand workmen will be em- ployccl m the arsenaL Unle sa surveillance so strict as to interfere materially wit~ the operations of the arsenal were employed, these workmen could connive ea 1ly and successfully at ilie esc..'tpe of prisoners, especially if the prisoners were employed at work wi~h the other employes. . The f~regoing. is ~nly intended to show .th~ fallacy of any known reasons for 

mtroducmg a pnson mto an arsenaL But 1t lS believed that the serious injury which such a course would in1lict upon the arsenal would render insi!!llific..'Wt in 

coml_lari on any benefit that could accrue to the prison. <> 

It 1::1 well known. that Congress is building at Rock Island probably the greatest and finest arsenal m the world. It is a gr<Jat national institution upon wliioh the 

wh?le country shoul~ ~ook with pride; but .it is built entirely for use, and is a m~n feature. m o.ur. ~ili~'try system of defolli!e, and we cannot consistently do any- thing t.bat will diminish 1ts s:ifety and capac1ty for work, or its completene s and 

perfection. It was with a. f<lil: un~erstanding of the plans for the arsenal that 

Con!!Tcs expended so mnch le171Slation and money to exclude every claimant from a. foo~hold on t.he isl~d, and s~t it asid~ exclus1vely for the great establi bmcnt 

that 1s now bem,g bmlt. T'::te mtroduction of a priSon into the arsenal is com- pletely antagonistic to the plans of the Government for the plaoo. 1. All the great bridges, avenues, and railroad built to the arsenal are no more than sufficient to transact the business of the arsenal when in full op'eration even whe!l used to their best advantage. If these bridges and roads become a.venhes to a pn~on they would be obstructed to the full extent required for safety and could not then transact the. business of. the arsenal; that is, for arsenal ptirposes we w~t them open _to therr full capamty for work, and for the admission of people on busme s, and ':'orkmen; for priSOJ?. purposes w~ want them gated and guarded. ~. The most nnportant element man arsenal IS safety. Nothin,.,. should be left ~done whic.h can add to its safety from a{)cident, explosion, fire, or any other lDJt:try. 

The ip.troduction of a prison is deliberately introducin" an element of danger. The pnsoners must be looked upon as disaffected persons, probable anomies and some of them-:-as sh<?WJ?. by experience-are insane in their enmity, and the 'most 

dangerous of mcendiancs. 

3. Rock Isl:md arse!l-'11 is to be a. gr~at natioJ?.al establishment, perfect in every 

respect. :Sv mtroducmg an ant.'t~rustic establishment, the arsenal becomes crip- pled, ~mp er!~t, and th~ plans o~ \Jongress are defeated. 

I will Clte, m conclus1sn, the history of the Washin!!ton arsenal. A penitentiary w:as located near ~t, but e~~ely outSide the arsenal,0 and separated from it by a high wall. Even 1ts proxumty was deemeu so clangorous that during the war the pusono~s were re~oved, :1D;d .~e prison torn down and taken away. Tho objections to a pnson even m the VlCrmty of the Rock Island arsenal are much greater because of the character of the establishment:· ' 

If the matter were fully undtll!tood, it does not seem possible that Con!!Tess 

would n.ppropri.tte money to build a prison within the arsenaL " 

V'Jry respectfully, your obedient servant, 

D. W. FLAGLER, 

Captain of Ordnance, Brevet Lierttc-nant.Colonel, U. S. A ., Oommanding Rock I sland Arsenal, Illinois. 

Mr. HAWLEY, of Illinois. I ask the Clerk now to read the next 

lette:t in the report from Major Benet, of the Ordnance Department. The Clerk read as follows : 

ORD~.A.."iCE OFFICE, Feb'rultry 14, 1873. 

The Rock Isla.nd arsen:J.l is intended t,o be a. grand manufadurin" esta.blishment. 

When in operation, a portion of it~ manufactures will consist of dangerous explo- siv~, requirin,. the utmost care in their manipulation. Ma~azmes s~red with gunpowder and other explosives must necessarily consti- tute part of the ::u-sen..~; and it is .submitte~ that none but r eliable p~rsons shoultl 

be employed upon the 1sland. It 1s not believed that the prisoners could be made u e of to advantage .except as labo~ers on the roads an4 grounds, and scattered, as they would necessarily bo, over an 1sl.and of one thousand acres, the guards for their 

supervision nnd ca.re would hn.ve to be much larger than in an ordinary prison where 

the.v are confined within high walls. 

The competition between oonvint and ordinary labor when brought in contact always leads to ill-feeling and irritation. 

It i the opinion of this Bureau that the interests of the public seiTice will be best 

subserved by having the prison establishment elsowhere than at the Rock Island arsenal. 

By oruer of the Chief of Ordnance. 

Respectfully submitted to the Secretary of War. 

S. V. :SEnT, 

•Major of Ordnance. 

.A.. B. DYE~ 

General, Ohief of Ordnance, U. S. A. 

1.Ir. HAWLEY, of Illinois. I will statefurther,forthe jnformation 

of the House; that I called upon and had an interview with General 

Shorman in reference to this same subject, for the purpo e of ascer- taining his views. He is very decided in the expression of opinion that this military prison ought not to be located upon the island of 

Rock Island; that its location there would be entirely inconsistent ~th the purposes for which the island was set apart; .that it cannot 

WJ.th n,ny propriety be located upon that island as long as it is set apart 

for m-scnal pnrpo es. He also is clearly of opinion that it should go 

to Fort Leavenworth. 
-

1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 1561 

I am instructed by the unanimous vote of the Committee on Military Affairs to report this bill favorably and recommend its passage. 

Every member of that committee is of opinion, from the reports re- cei ved not only from the commission appointed for the purpo e of 

visiting Rock Island, but from Army officers whose opinions are en- ti~led to weight, that Fort Leavenworth is the proper place to locate 

this military prison, and that the buildings already erected there will answer the purpose; and, as stated··by the com'rnission, the work can be done there for one-third of what it will cost anywhere else. Mr: HOL:rtl.A.N. I wish to make this inquiry: Whether an appropriation has been made for the erection of a military prison at Rock 

Isl;md; . and if so, whether it is proposed to change those appropriations so that they may be used at Fort Leavenworth Y 

Mr. H.A. WLEY, of Illinois. I will state, in reply to the gentleman 

from Indiana, [Mr. HOLMAN,] that no a-ppropriation whatever has 

been made; that if he will turn to the bill of the last Congress he 

will see that no appropriation was made in that bill, and none has 

been made at any time for this purpose; and, so far as I know, not a dollar has been expended in connection with tho establishment of 

this prison at Rock Island. The only persons who have visited Rock 

Island by authority are the three officers of the Army appointed by 

the Secretary of War. The portion of the committee appointed from · civil life have not been at Rock Island at all. Mr. HOLMAN. This bill makes no appropriation f 

Mr. HAWLEY, of Illinois. None whatever. The only effect of the 

pass:tge of this bill is simply to provide that a military prison instead 

of being located at Rock Island shall be loca,ted at Fqrt Leavenworth. • ( Mr, GARFIELD. I desire to take this occasion to call the atten- tion of the House for a moment to this bill, with a view to inquire 

whether we need build a military prison at all. I happen to know 

something of the origin of the proposition for a milita,ry prison. 

Som.e two yeMB :tgo a number of officers were sent to examine the 

condition of military discipline in the British army in Canada,. They 

found tha,t the systems of military punishment were very different 

from those in this country, and they reported some reforma,tory 

measures, which were laid before the Secretary of War, and by him 

tonsiderably modified n.nd laid before Congress. . The result of that series of investigations was entirely different 

from what the original board of officers contemplated. It was not 

their idea at all that there should be a separate central military 

prison. But the modifications that their first suggestions received 

from the various persons through who e hands they went resulted, 

a,t 1.\l'st, iil a bill passed without much deb:tte to esmb1ish a milita.ry 

prison a,t Rock Isla,nd. . I wish to say that the officers who made the first investigation, and 

who made their report in the interest of humanity for the better government of the Army, and, if possible, to do away with some of the 

old barbarous methods of punishing soldiers, reg.trd this central 

prison as a very bad institution, and earnestly request that it may nev.er be built. I have in my desk, and have had for months-indeed 

I received it last session- a most earnest, and I may say eloquent, 

l etter from one of the ablest officers of the Army, showing why Congress should not build a military prison for the imprisonment of soldiers. The same officer called our attention to the need of an amendment to the Army regulations, which I offered to the Army appropriation bill of last year, and which· ended the barbarous practice·of 

burning, branding, tattooing American citizens serving in the Army . on their bodies, perhaps on their faces, and as a mark of disgra-ce and 

deo-radation. Never until last yeat was it unlawful to thrust a branding-iron 

against the cheek of an American citizen, if a little court composed 

of half a dozen lieutenants saw fit to condemn a soldier to that punishment. And he mi~ht be thus branded for some t:Fivial offense-an 

offense unknown to the civil courts, and which would never be punished anywhere else than 41 the Army. For a mere infraction of military regulations a soldier might thus be disfigured and disgraced for 

life. By an act passed last year such punishment wa forbidden ; 

and as a part of the process of abolishing cruel and disgraceful punishment, the prison commission of which I have spoken was sent to 

Canada. The result of their report was the law which now stands on our statute-book, and which I pray this House may take this occasion to repeal. 

I am in favor of removing the military prison from Rock Island, as proposed by this bill; but I am also in favor of removing it from 

th.e face of the earth, of l_ocating it nowhere. Fortunately no money 

h as yet been appropriated for its construction, and I hope none will ever be made. 

I now ask for a moment the attention of the Honse to the operation .of the original law. Here is an officer in Oregon with a squad of 

soldiers, one of whom commits some offense-perhaps deserts-for 

which he is sentenced to one year's imprisonment. Another soldier 'in Florida commits an offense, for which he is condemned to be imprisoned; another in Maine, and another in Texas, subject themselves 

to similar punishment. Now what is to be done1 When we shall 

have expended several hundred thotisand dollars to build this prison, 

either at Fort Leavenworth or at Rock Island, a guard of troops is to 

be sent to convey these sentenced soldiers from Oregon, Florida, 

Maine, or Texas, carrying each of tliem more than a t housand mile , and deliver them at the military prison at Rock Island, or Fort 

Leavenworth, as thQ ca.se may be; and then this guard of troops must 

travel back to their posts of duty. And when tbe term of imprisonment is served out, the soldier must of course be remanded to his 

regiment, must be taken back under guard and put upon duty-if a man disgraced by having served a term in the penitentiary c:m any 

longer be called a. soldier of the Army of the United Sta,tes. 

No system so expensive for punishing soldiers was ever devised; nor could there be anything more degrading to the soldier,· or better 

calculn.ted to unfit him utterly for ever becoming a soldier again, than 

to tmnsport him thousands of miles from his regiment, make him. an inmate of a regular penitentiary for a series of years, and then transport him back again. 

Mr. H.A. WLEY, of Illinois. The gentleman will :illow me to ask 

him whether he thinks it tends to elevate the moral tone of the Army 

to put a soldier in a State penitentiary T 

Mr. GARFIELD. I say that whenever a soldier has committed :my 

offense for which the legal punishment is confinement in the penitentiary, the civil courts will always take action in the case. Then the 

punishmentbyimprisonmentinthepenitentiaryisappropriate, thouo-h a soldier thus condemned ought not afterwards to be re tored to t'he 

Army. But for the punishment of mere infractions of military discipline, not amounting to felony, there ought to be no penitentiary. 

The punishment ought to be administered in the camp, 1IDder the con- trol of the officers commanding the delinquent soldier, and should 

have in view the maintenance of military discipline and the restoration of the offender himself to his rank in the Army when his punishment shall have been completed. A little over one year ago, happening to be in New York, I visited 

Governor's Island and sqme of our troops there. When the soldiers 

in the pri on at that place were called out on dress parade, I stood 

there and witnessed fifteen men wearing the ball and chain on the 

leg, and in some cases the chain was so short that the soldier was obliged to stoop with his hand almost to his knee in order to hold the 

ball while on parade. At the request of the general commanding I 

had all tho e ball-and-chain men called to one side, and I ascertained 

the duration of the punishment to which they were sentenced and 

thccrimes'forwhich they were condemned. They had been sent.enced 

to two, three, and four years' imprisonment, wearing ball and chain on the leg, for infractions of military law. Our military punishments in 

time of pea,ce are now, in ma.ny cases, excessive; and if we est.ablish a central military prison it will become the Army penitentiary for in-

:f]:'actions of military duty. I do not believe, as a matter of good discipline for the Army or of economy for the Government, that this 

central prison ought to be established at aU. I will vote to discontinue it a,t the location already authorized; but I will not vote to build 

it in :my other place. If the gentleman from Illinois will allow me, 

I will move to strike out all after the enacting clause of the bill, and 

to insert a provision tha,t "the act authorizing a. military prison id 

hereby r epealed." 

Mr. HAWLEY, of illinois. I now yield to the chairman of the 

committee, the gentleman from Indiana, fbh·. COBURN.] 

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GAR- FIELD] has a mistaken view of this whole matter, except as to the fact 

that he himself did ·last year introduce a humanitarian amendment to 

the law in relation to the branding of prisoners, after the pas a.ge of this 

act, if I am not mistaken- a little step which he magnifies now. The 

object of the law now under consideration is in the interest of humanity, and also in the interest of economy, on the most liberal and en- lightened scale. Whatever may have been the origin of the law in 

the mind of some general of the Army, its true basis was a report of 

the Secretary of War, made during the last Congress, in which he 

expressly asked and insisted upon the estabfuhment. of a prison for 

the Army. For what reason Y If members of the Honse will look a,t 

that report-No. 70 of Executive Documents of the lru;t Congre s- it 

will be seen, as there stated, that there is an immense number of mili- tary prisoners, the average of whose term of confinement runs over four years, and who are scattered throughout a large number of States, 

imprisoned with malefactors of the foulest character, and maintained 

at a very great expense. 

The report of the Adjutant-General shows that the a,nnnal expense 

is over $15,000 for keeping these unfortunate men in the various State 

penit,entiaries. They are in eleven States. 

Let me call the attention of the House to the precise facts. There are in State penitentiaries: thirty-eight in Arkansas, fifteen in New 

York, five in California, thirty-three in Iowa, three in Kentucky, fiftyfour in Kansas, one hundred and twenty in Louisiana, seventeep. in 

Minnesota, thirty-two in Missouri, seven in "Mississippi, and twentytwo in Texas; three hundred a,nd forty-six in aU, scattered throughout 

the land in these penitentiaries. Besidesthesethere are three hundred 

and eighty-four general prisoners k ept at thirty-two different military 

posts. 

Now what is to be gained, in a moral point of view, by tn.king the 

prisoners who have been guilty only of some military delinquency, of some crime against the laws of the Army, involving perhaps no moral 

obliquity- what is to be gained by putting them in a State penitentiary, where none but felons, guilty of crimes of the blackest dye, are incarcerated Y The very object of this law is to take men from prisollB 

of that character, and the very thing the gentleman declaims against is now the sy tern; that is, soldiers, for merely military offenses, are confined in places where the worst criminals are kept. In order to 

obviate that. very thing in the int.erest of the Army, in the interest of, 

. 
1562 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. FEBRUARY 17, 

the country and of humanity, this prison was provided, and for nothing 

else. Upon that grounu it met favor in the House, and has the indor ement of the country. The gentlem:1n from Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] 

says it was not cliscussecl here. I believe he did not participate in the 

debate. If there is nodi cussion in the Honse tmless he takes part, 

perhaps it was not well discussed. But I tell that gentleman, and I 

t ell the Honse, that every consideration of humanity anu decency 

re11.uircs these soldiers, who arc not criminals in the ordinary sense of the term, and who have been guilty only of infractions of the 

military law, should be taken out of these penitentiaries-scattereu 

nurseries of vice throu~hout the United States; for in the very best 

of them we find it is tne concurrent testimony that even now, with 

all the improved systems which have been adopted, men, in nine cases out of ten, come out of them worse than they went in. Let ns therefore, l\Ir. Speaker, h:1Ve a place where the soldiers 

of the Army can go and be caretl for kindly, under officers of the 

Army and under Army rules and discipline. As they are now scat- tered throughout the la.nd they have no protection, no guardian, 

nobody who has any interest in them whatever. They are indeed 

orphan chiluren of the Army, scattereu far a,nd wide in Stato prisons, 

subject to abuse antl objects of cruel oppression, without a pitying eye or helping h~d. The States take care of their prisoners; the United 

States do not. Let thls system cease, with its barbarities. 

In addition to those in State prisons, there is a large number of men, over three hundred andeighty, scattered throughout tho various military posts in the country, subject to the caprices of petty tyrants, 

to abominable humiliations, and to the most outrageous cruelties. The gentleman has said something about branding. No longer ago 

tha.n last week I receivecl a letter from a man confined in one of OUT 

forts. He writes to me that the practice there is to tie men up by the 

thumbs until the victims faint, and forcing them to carry weights tmtH the belt that suspends the ball and chain has made the waiSt raw; 

and such barbarities are repea,tcd and enforced in these militru:y posts. 

Tho blood runs cold a,t their recital notwithsta,nding the little !Jill of 

the gentleman from Ohlo. And outrages are committed upon prison- ers which would harrow np the soul of anybody but a, wolf. These 

things are occurring, and they call loudly for redress. Now, wo must 

take -care of these men; and in the na,me of decency and humanity we ask the House to take a step of progress now a,nd stand by this prison. It was expected to establish it a,t Rock IsL.<tnd, where the prisoners 

would he able to aid in the construction or repair, or whatever was to be done, in the a,rsena,l. Army officers ha,ve reported against it on a-ccount of the expense, of in con vcnience, and of a better loca,t.ion. We provide, therefore, that it shall go to Fort Leavenworth, where 

there is a, large reservation, a healthy situation, and a centml point. There are large stone buildings there which can be utilized at very 

little expense to the Government. We a.re told that at Rock Isla,nd it 

''wuld cost $500,000 to construct this prison, but if taken to Fort 

Leavenworth but little expenditure would establish such a,n institu- tion as we could point to as a monument of the good sense a,nd decency 

and humanity of those who manage the Army and those who guide 

nation& affairs. The Secretary of War and milita,ry men of the 

highesthuma,ne impulses are 1.!'11 in favor of it. I ha.,ve heard nowhere, 

except bore and from the m.outh of one genera,l officer. of the Army, 

any protest a,gainst this prison. SiJ:, the House will be tmveling back 

towa-rd bar·barism instead of going forward on the path of progress 

if they abolish this great advance step in the direction of humane 

management of military prisoners. .1\Ir. POTTER. I hope the gentleman will yield to me for :five min- utes. · . - Mr. KELLOGG. Does the gentleman from Indiana propose that 

all milita1:yprisoners scattered throughout the United States shall be 

sent to this military prison T 

1\fr. COBURN. I do. 

Mr. KELLOGG. Has the gentlema.n made any estimate of what 

tho cost will be in tmnsporting all military prisoners to this prison¥ . ~1r. COBURN. It will not cost any more than to tnko them to the 

11enitentiaries where they are now taken and confined; in fact, not 

nearly so much. The Government now pa,ys for boarding, and employs 

the officers of Sta,te prisons to gua,rd, care for, and supm·intend the 

J)risoners, besides feeding a,nd clothlng them. But if the United Sta,tes 

has its own prison it gets the benefit of the convict la,bor. The Army 

officers are tho prison officers; the guards arc soldiers, and the clothing 

and rations of the A..rmy are f-urnished; this is a, great sa,ving. 

1\fr. KELLOGG. Does the gentleman propose to ha,ve transported 

to this prison all those who ma,y be guilty of mere trivial military 

offenses f ~fr. COBURN. Those that are guilty of mere slight offenses will 

be p1mished at their posts. It is nut expected to have the entire dis- cipline of the Army confined to this prison. Only those convicted of 

graver milit:1ry offenses will go there. Mr. POTTER. I ask the gentlema,n from Indiana, [Mr. CoBU&~] 

to yield to mo. Ur. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. DEWITT] for n. 11uestion. :Mr. DEWI'IT. Will the building of thls prison stop the practice of officers of tho .Army tying up men by the thumbs 

Ur. COBURN. Tho board of comillissioners, all of them humane 

gentlemen, composed of three gentlemen in civil lifo ana· three officers 

of the A.rmy, noted for their huma,nity a,ml common sense, ha,ve 

adopted a code of rules, under and by virtue of the hw JXts eel last 

winter, which provides that the most humane treatment of prisoners 

possible shall be the system adopted in thls military prison. 

:Mr. ALBRIGHT. The law itself makes thn,t provision. l'lfr. COBURN. Yes, sir; I sa,y that these commissioners ha,ve adopt-ed a code of rules in pursuance of the law itself, which proviclcs that 

the prisoners shall be treated with a, view to reformation :md an eye 

to humanity. They provide that the prison bar·barities sha,ll uo ex- pressly prohibited and abolished, barbarities whlch ha,ve been con- tinued too long, to the disgra-ce of the Army and the disgrace of the 

nation, in the eyes of a,ll men who have a regard to humanity. 

J';.1r. POTTER. I was glad to hear the remarks of tho gP-ntlem::m 

from Ohio [ 1r·. GARFIELD] in regard to the establishment of this 

military prison. From all I can learn it ought never to ha,ve been 

authorized at all; and I agree tha,t the best thing tho Honse crur now do is to repea,l the law authorizing it. I happened last summer to be 

in the company of a very distinguished officer of the Army-not, I 

t.hink, one of those to whom my friend from Ohio alluded, but a, gentleman distinguished as well for his high military standing as for his 

humane private charactel.'- and the view!'! he expressed tallied ex- actly with the views of the officers to whom the gentleman from 

Ohio allucled. It seems to me that the offens~s of soldiers which, a the gentleman 

from Ohio put it, are in the nature of offenses a',{;ainst the civill::Lws, 

and crimes in themselves, ought to be punished by sending tho of- fenders t~ t.he prison of the locaJity where the crime is committed, 

wherever that may be, and he himself deba,rred from returning to 

the Army. If he commits any hlgh crime for which he should be , imprisoned in a penitentiary for a long period, his time of service 

will be well spent when his term of imprisonment has expired; antl a man convicted of a, grave crime ought not then to be received brwk 

into the Army. · But as regards the other class of offenses-offenses aga,inst milita,ry 

rule and military discipline, offenses maltt1n p1·ohibitzun only-nothing, as it seems to me and as my informant assured me, can be worse for 

the soldier than to take him, when guilty of mere breach of milita.ry 

rules and regulations, and transfer him as a criminal hundreds or thousands of miles across the country, there to put hlm into a regular 

prison. The mere tra,nsit across the country for imprisonment would 

put a stigma on him, and his character be injuriously affected by his 

being treated as a common criminal. 

Mr. COBURN. This will not imprison ono more m::tn than is now put in the penitenti:1ry. 

:Mr. POTTER Then the provisions forimprisoning soldiers were well 

enough as they were. The gentleman from Indiana [.Mr. CoBUR..:] saystha.ttheSecretary 

of War recommended this prisop. a,t Rock Island a year ago. But, sir, 

it is the same Secretary of W:11· who recommended that tho prison 

should be established a,t Rock Island who now wants it removed sev- eral hundl.'eds of miles west to Fort Leavenworth. The gentlema,n 

from Indiana [~1r. Conun....~] sa,ys this prison is intended to protect 

soldiers against ba.rbarity, and tha,tin the bill to establish this prison 

it is provided that there sha,ll be a code of rules for their humane government. Surely it is not necessary to build a grea,t Federal military 

prison to get rid of barbarity. Let us rather supply a proper code of 

rules for the Army everywhere, and not limited to this prison a,t Fort 

Leavenworth. Tho truth is, that whatever abuses there m:;ty ha,vo · been in the trev,tment of soldiers in the Army, the remedy for such 

abuses should be applied to the treatment of Olll' soldiers eve1·ywhcre. But to go to the expense of erecting :1 great milita,ry prison in which 

to confine- as the chairman of the lilitary Committee now says- men guilty of crimes for which they would otherwise be confined in loca,l 

penitentia.ries, is to set on foot an enormous expenditure of money, of no possible goo<l to the Army, to tp.e prisoners, or to the country. Therefore I trust the sentleman from Ohio will persist in his a,mendment repealing the onginal act authorizing this prison . ~1r. HAWLEY, of Illinois, rose. ~1r. COBURN. Before my colleague on the committee, the gentle- man from illip.ois, proceeds, I wish to s:,ty that the report of the 

Adjutant-General last year shows that we paid $75,115 per annum for the board of the prisoners that we have now- more than enongh 

to repair all these buildings at Fort Leavenworth, and make a gootl 

prison out of them, without a dollar's additional expense. ~1r. HAWLEY, of Illinois. I desire to say to the Honse that tlte 

bill now pending is simply for one purpose, to ch::tnge the loca.Jit.y of 

this prison. It was provided, by the law passed last session without 

any opposition whatever, that this prison should be established, and 

that certain rules should be adopted for its government. 

Now the gentleman from Ohio, [!11r. GARFIELD,] I h::tve no doubt, was present here when this bill was considered last March. I remember very well its introduction by the Military Committee at that time. I was not then a member of the committee. It was reported, a · I 

nmlcrstood, by the Uilita.ry Comm.ittee, providing that the prison he 

locat-ed at Rock Isla,nit, because the Government owned. the laml 

there. There wa no (lifficulty then, as I under tood it, as to the 

propriety of having such a prlson. I hear thls morning, for the first 

time, anybody cla.iming, hero or elsewhere, that a, military prison ought not to l>o estalilished for the use of the Army. 

Although I havo had nothin~ to do with thls previous legislation, 

yet with the gontlerna,n from Indiana, the chairma,n of the Commit-
'l 

1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 1563 

tee on Military Affairs, [Mr. CoBUR~,] and other gentlemen who have l.Jcen members of that committee, I can see good reasons whythelaw 

of the ln.st session should not be repealed. In the first place, I believe 

t.hat men -..vho a.ro convictell for offenses of::' military character only, 

ou"'ht not to be ifnprisoued with those who are sent to the peniten- tia~y char~ed with muwler, robbery, and other heinous crimes kno"\\"ll to 

1ho hw. 1 hold that t.hose men in the Army should not be imprisoned 

with thcr scoundrels who have been convicted and sent to State peni- tentiaries. I believe, f1ll'ther, t.hat t.bere is nothing that to-clay tends 

to deplete our Army by desertion so mnch as the confinement of sol-

<liers in Sta,to penitentiaries, where they are degraded both as men and as soldiers. 

It is claimed that this system will be much more expensive than 

the system of confining soldiers in State penitentiaries. I deny that 

it will be so much more exponsi ve. It is proposed to locate this prison 

at Fort Leavonworth, because, as is sa.i(l by these officers, it is chen, per 

to locate the prison thorel. where it will be nearer tho central point of 

the military operations ot t.he Army. The gentleman from Olrio [:Mr. GARFillLD] will not deny that that is a more central 11oint of the 

opemtions of the Army. These builclings now erected at Fort Leavenworth, as this report shows, can be useu for this purpo o n.t a cost of 

one-third what the buildings can be constructed for anywhere else. In answer to the objection made on a,ecount of tho cost of transportation, I will say this: we send prisoners from n.ll parts of tho 

country to the penitentiary at Albany. We send from this District 

to Albany every man convicted of crimo and sentenced to tho penit entiary. We propose to locate this milita,ry prison at a central point, 

where it can be easily reached; wbero the building can be cheaply 

erectetl and che.tply managed, and where the Army shall hn.ve for 

itself a place to confine Army prisoners and offenders. I ask the gentleman from Ohio why he should not apply the same argument to the 

Insane Asylum over thero on the hill. There is located an asylum for 

the insane of the Army. Why not put them in the State asylums¥ 

Why construct a magnificent bmlding here in which shall be confined 

the men of the Army who have been so unfortunate as to become 

insane¥ Why bring them from all part-s of the country to be con- fined hme¥ \Vhy not put them in tho State asylums¥ 

l'lfl:. G.ARPIELD. Doc ' not the gentleman make a,ny difference 

between an insane man and a convict 

Mr. HAWLEY, of Dlinois. The di.fterence is wide. You might take a man from the Army and put him in a State insane asylum, and be 

wonlll not be degraded by being confined there with other men . But 

when yon take a man from the Army and put him in a State peniten- tia,ry with a man from your district, for instance, who ha.s committed 

:1rson, robbery, or any heino!l-8 crimo known to the law, yon b.1ve 

degraded a soldier of the Army of the United States by confining him 

in a penitentiary with common criminals, when he ought not to have 

been so confined-when he may not have committed a penitentiary 

offense. Ir. GARFIELD. Then he should not be sent there. :Mr. HAWLEY, of Illinois. The gentleman says be should not be 

sent there. He must be confined somewhere. 

JHr. GARFIELD. Send him to the guard-house. 

Mr. H.A. WLEY, of Illinois. :S:e will still be sent to the guard-house 

fo1· such offenses as deserve that character of punishment. But if this 

military prison shall-be erected for snch ofienses as you now send him 

to the penitentiary, he ill be confined in this military prison. I 

think this legi lation ha.s the support of every officer of the Army here. 

Tho Secretary of War recommends it earnestly. General Sherman, 

the Adjutant-Genera-l of the Army, and other officers with whom I 

have conversed with regru:d to it, deem it important that there should 

be a place for the confinement of soldiers of the Army of the nited 

Stat.es. Mr. S~llTH, of Ohio. I would like to know if the Committee on Military Affairs have made any estimate of the cost of the transpor- tation of these men to Fort Leavenworth'? 

l'lfr. HAWLEY! of Illinois. I have stated already that I had noth- ing to do with the preparation of the origina,l bill on this subject; I wa.s not then a member of the Committee on Military Affairs. But 

the bill was cru·efully considered at that time, and Congress then, I 

believe. without any opposition at all, passed the bill for the establishment of a military prison. 

Mr. S HTH, of Ohio. Have the committee made any estimate of 

the cost of supporting these prisoners after the prison bas been built¥ 

11:1T. HAWLEY, of Illinois. It seems to methatthiswholeqnestion 

has been forced upon the Honse at this time without any need of it. 

No proposition is brought forward here to build a prison, for it bas 

already been directed by Congress. The committee had no idea that 

this question would be raised in the proposition simply to change 

the location. There was no reason why the committee should come here t.his morning prepared with figures to show that a military prison wasncce ary, when Congress only at the last ses ion had declared it was neccs ary and passed a bill to establish it. I call the previous 

question. Mr. HOLMAN~ I understood the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] to ubmit a substitute for this bill. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. H.A. WLEY] did n ot yield the floor for tlmt purpose. :kfr. HOL dAN. Should the call for the previous question be voted - down, would such :1 motion be in order¥ 

The SPEAKER. Of course. Tdlers wore ordered; and:Mr.HAWLEYof Illinois, anJ.Mr. Hou.IAN, were appointed. .. The Houso divided; a,ncl the tellers reported- ayes 84, noes not 

counted. So the previous question was seconded. The main question was ordered; wlrich was on OTdcring the bill to 

be engrossed for a third reading. The question being taken, there were-ayes 78, noes not counted. Mr. MELLISH. I call for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were not ordered. 

So the bill was ordered to be engTossed and read a third time ; and 

being engrossed, it was accordingly rea-d the third time, and passed. :.l\fr. HA. WLEY, of illinois, moved to reconsider the vote l.Jy which 

the b.ill was passed ; and also moved that tho m~on to reconsider 

be lrucl on the table. · Tho latter motion was agreed to. 

ISIDORE DOIGLE AND ROSA DOIGLE WOODRUFF. • 

Mr. WILLARD, of Vermont. I enter a motion to rcconsitler the 

vote by which the House yesterday adopted the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the southern claims commi sion be directed to send to the House 

of Reprcsenmtives the petition, proofs, and papers r elating to the cla..im. of lsiuore 

Doigle and Rosa Doigle Woodruff, of the State of Louisiana.. 

The SPEAKER. The motion will be entered. 

MESSAGE FROl\1 THE PRESIDENT. 

A message, in writing, from the President of the United States, was presented by Mr. BABCOCK, one of his secretaries. - · 

PRINTING THE LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. GARFillLD, by unanimous consent, submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred, under the law, to the Committee on Printing : 

R.38olved, That there be printed for the use of the House seven hunrlrcd cxtrn copies of the billma.king appropriations for the lc~islative, executive, and judicial 

expenseo of the Gove=ent for the fiscal year enning June 30, 1875. 

ARKANSAS ELECTIO~ CONTEST- GUNTER VS. WIL HIRE. 

Mr. THOMAS. I rise to a question of privilege, and call up tho 

contested-election case from the third congressiona,l district of tho 

State of Arkansas. I ask that the resolution reported by the majority 

of the committee bo read. • The Clerk read as follows : 

Resolved, That W. W . Wilshire is entitled prima facie to a seat in the Fort.y- third Congress as Representative from the third congressional district of the St:r.l.!.e 

of .Arkansas, without prejudice to the right of Thomas M. Gunter, claiming to have been electeu thereto, to contest his right to s:ti.d seat upon the merits. 

Mr. THO?tf.A:S. Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the argument 

of this case, I think it desirable to have an understanding in refer- ence to the time which shall be occupj.od in -the discussion and bow 

it shall be divided. 1\h-. L.A.M.AR. I desire thn.t the resolution reported by the minority of the committee, anu which I desire to offer as a substitute for 

the resolution of the majonty, be now read for information. The Clerk read as follows : 

Resolved. That the contested-election ca-ae from the thircl district of .Arkansad bo 

recommitted to tho Committee on Elections, with instructions to report, upon tho 

merits of the c:loSe, who is entitled to represent said district in this House. 

The SPEAKER. This resolution is pehding as an amendment to 

the resolution reported by tho committee . . The gentleman who caJ.ls" 

up the case desires some unclerstn.ncling as to the time to be occupieu 

and how it shall be divided. 11I.r. LA Ll.AR. I do not think that on the side of tho minority we shall want more than an hour. Mr. THO:l\!A.S. Does the gentleman moan tha.t one hour shall be 

occupied by the committee in debate after the previous question has 

been demanded a,nd seconded f 

Mr. L.A.MAR. I ask for a,n hour after the seconding of tho previous 

question. The SPEAKER. 'l'he question of the gentleman from North Caro- lina [Mr. THoMAS] was probably not apprehended by the gentleman 

from :Mississippi, [ lr. LAMAR.] The pmport of it was whether there 

should be an hour on each side before the previous question, and tl.tat 

the hour afterward should belong to tho committee. Mr. LAMAR. I accept the proposition t.b.at there shall be an hour 

and a half allowed for debate on ea.ch side. Upon that understanding I snppo e the minority would be entitled to ha,lf the time a,ftcr 

the seconding of the previous question. Is that the proposition Y 

Mr. THOMAS. I would suggest tha.t the two hours preceding the 

call of the previous question bo divided; and tben7 as there are other 

gentlemen who- desire to speak, but not at length, I am willing to 

fru·m out pa,rt of my hour, and the gentleman can farm out his as he 

chooses. I make this suggestion because it is in accordance with 

what was suggested to me privately by the gentlemn.n himself. 

Jl.lr. SPEER. Is it understood that the debate shall close at tho 

time the previous question is demanded; that two hours shall be occn- pie(l in debate before the previous qnestiori is called, and that aft-erward there hall be no further debate~ 

Mr. Tll01IAS. I am not able, in justice to this case, to a!!Tco to 

that; but I will not decline to offer any portion of the hour to0 which 
1564 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. FEBRUARY 17' . 

I may be entitled after the seconding the previous question to gentle- men of the opposition to debate the minority report. 

The SPEAKER. As the question cannot probably be settled by 

unanimous consent, the debate had better proceed. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina [:Ur. Tamus] as entitled to one hour; he will then recognize the gentleman from 1\lississippi [Mr. LA..l'IAR] as entitled to an hour. At the expiration of 

two hours the sense of the House can be tested upon seconding the 

previous question. The rules provide ample scope for that. 

1\fr. THOl\IAS. That arrangement is satisfactory to me. I have no disposition to detain the House except for a brief period. I think 

fifteen or twenty minutes will be sufficient to enable me to present 

this case fairl:v. This is a p?'im.a facie case of election. It was referred 

to the commi'ttee on the 2d of December last by a resolution which 

seemed to make it imperatively the duty of the committee to report 

upon it as aprimafacie case. I ask the attention of the House to the 

distinction between this case and the contested-election case pending 

before the committee. In the language of the resolution certain cre- dentials and papers were referred to the committee, and to those 

credentials and papers the committee deemed themselves restricted. 

Just here I wish to say that the minority of the committee, in endeavoring to establish the primajacieright of Mr. Gunter to the sen.t, have 

introduced testimony entirely irrelevant, if that be a proper word to use in a public inquiry of the nature of the one bef~re the Housetestimony entirely irrelevant to a priTna jade ca-se. In order to establish the p1'ima facie right of Mr. Wilshire, I rely 

entirely upon the certificate of Governor Baxter, which! ask the Clerk 

to read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows : 

4.bstract of the retzt1"n8 of tlte election lteld in the third congressional distt'ict 

of tlte State of Arkan,sas O"n the 4th day of November,..&. D. 1872,for Rep-

·resentative in Congress, showing tlte vote. 

Counties composing the third congressional district. 

:Benton ......................................... . Boone ....................... , ................. .. Carroll . ........................................ . Crawford ...................................... . Clark . ........................................ .. Franklin ....................................... . Johnson ........................................ . Little P..iver .................................... _ Madison ...................................... .. Marion ....................................... .. 

~~!t~~~~~::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

Pula-ski ....................................... .. Perry .......................................... . Pope ........................................... . Pike ........................................... . Polk ........................................... . Sebastian ...................................... : Sevier ......................................... .. 

~~~-~~~.: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

Sarber ......................................... . 

255 

188 

272 

9:12 1 31'"' 

'529 

119 

505 

434 

140 

177 

278 

3,160 

168 

521 

226 

120 

1, 017 

264 

703 

536 

784 

1,189 

746 

330 

590 

806 

259 

75 

276 

557 

684 

-···---· ---·---- 407 - - -- - - -- -- -- -- - - 184 

1,~~ ·----~~- :::::::: 310 .............. .. 125 .............. .. 342 ............... . 578 ............... . 

425 ........ -------- 1,218 .............. .. 1,011 .............. .. 

276 -. --. . .. . .. -- -- . 

Total . • • • .. • • .. • • .. .. .. • • . . • .. • • .. • .. • .. •• .. 12, 644 11, 499 12 591 

Scattered votes polled for "Guntee," "S.M. Gunter," "T. M. Glmtee," "Thos. 

M. Guntee," "T. Ros Gunter," n.nd "Thomas ll. Crenter," in .Pulaski County, 

1,456. Boone County ha-s not been made a part of the third congressional district by any 

R.Ct of the Legislature. · The votes given to "Gunther" from Montgomery and Newton Counties were probaply intended for T1tomas M. Gunter. 

The scattering vote in Pulaski County given to "Wilshire," "Gun tee," "S. M. 

Gunter," "T.ll. Guntee," "Thos. M. Guntee," "T. Ros Gunter," and "Thos. M. 

Crenter," is a literal copy of the clerk's returns. A certificate of the clerk is appended j,o the returns from WMhington Countr, 

questioning the validity of the election in Richland toWllShip. If this objection 1.8 

:ill owed, the vote will stand: For Wildhire 686, and Gunter 1,125. 

Sarber County has not been made a part of the third congressional district by any ant of the Legislature. · There are no returns from the clerk of Scott County. 

STATE OF ARKANSAS, 'Executive 0~ : 

Whereas t.he acting governor failed t{) issue a certificate of election to the person 

who received the hignest number of votes for Representative in Qongress from the 

third con!ITe.Ssional district of Arkansas, at the election liCld in said ilistrict on t,he 

5th day o'I November, A. D. 1872; and wherea-s, mi. the 14th day of Febronry A. D. 

1873, tne secretary of state, in my presence, did cast np the votes polled f~r sn,id Representative at said fllection from the returns on file·in his office: 

Now, therefore., I, Elisha Baxt~r, o-overnor of the State of Arkansas, do certify 

thn.t the foreo-oing statement, with the expla.riatory notes, is a full, true, and cor- rect exhibit ol the votes polled for Representa,tive :!Tom the third congressional district of ~rkansas, at the election held in said t;tistrict ~n the 5th day of November, 

~sl~~~o~~t2~lli~ ~~ ~ies~g= o;f s~~~ection on file and certificates of 

In testimony whereof_ I have hereunto set my hand and cauaed the seal of the 

State to be affixed, at Little Rock, on this 18th day of Febru.'J!y, A. D. 1873. 

[L. s.J ~ ELISHA BAXTER, 

Governor. Bytl1e Governor: J. M. JOHNSON, s~retar1J of State. 

l't1r. THOl\IAS. I will now ask the Clerk to read section 50 of the 

laws of Arkansas. I purpose to show that the certificate is in form, 

and in accord:mce with the laws of Arka.nsas. · The Clerk read as follows : 

SEc. 50. It shall be the duty of the secretary of state, in the presence of the gov- ernor, within thirty days after the time herein allowed, to mlke returns of elections t~ the clerks of the county courts, or sooner if all the returns shall have been re- ceived, to cast up and arrange the votes from the several counties, or such of them as have mads returns, for such persons voted for as members of Con_gres ; and the 

governor shall immediately thereafter issue his proclamation declaring the p erson having the highest number of votes to be duly elected to represent the State in the Houae of Represenmtives of the Congress of the United States, and shall grant a 

certifica-te thereupon under the seal of the Sta.te to the person so elected. 

Mr. THOMAS. Now, Mr. Speaker, during th~ history of election 

cases, a certificate in that form has been considered to be in due form, 

and a. memorial or certificate in such form, furnishing evidence of 

p1'intafacie right, from the earliest history of election cases has been 

deemed satisfactory. It has been held to be such evidence as would, . when addressed to the fair sense of right and the conscientious discretion of members, influence them to vote for seating the person m 

whose case it was produced. 

Now, let me say, this is not a case at law between Wilshire and 

Gunter. · It does not present a case between the people of the third 

congressional district of Arkansas and any other party. It is a great 

parliamentary inquiry which this House is conducting by virtue of its 

constitutional power-" each House is the jud~e of the qualifications, 

returns, and elections of its own members." In such an inquiry the 

House is not absolutely bound by any statute, even by the statute of 

Congress. Such a national statute can only operate in the nature of a rule. It has always respected such statutes, and it has further 

resorted to the laws of the States and respected them in contestedelection cases without being absolutely bound by them. 

Prior to the 9th of February, 1851, therewasnona.tionallaw regulatingthe subject of contested -election cases. Reference therefore wa had 

to t~e laws ?f the several ~tates; and to-da;y there is_ no law regulat~g 

a pnmafacw case of electiOn, except what IS foundm the law making 

it the duty of the Clerk of the House of Representatives to place on the roll of the B;ouse the names of members from States which before 

that had been represented, and the names of such only. The looguage 

I particularly desire to quote is this: "And of such persons only, and 

whose credentials show they were regularly elected in aocordance 

with the laws of their States respectively." The House has alway& 

looked to the laws of the State where there were any provisions in 

the laws in relation to evidence, to ascertain whether crede:ntials were in due form, and whether :1 member waselectedpl'inwfacie in accord- ance with them. Section 50 of the laws of Arkansas shows that in 

this case it was the duty of the secretary of state to ca-st up and 

arrange the votes from the several counties, or such of them as had 

made returns, and to do so in the presence of the governor. The then 

acting governor, 0. A. Ha<liey, went out of office, having failed to 

make proclamation and issue certificate as provided by this section. 

Governor Baxter succeeded him, and deemed it his duty and right to 

make the proclamation and issue the certificate. It is said this power 

to make the proclamation and issue certificate ceased when Governor 

Hadley went out of office; but I submit to the lawyers of this House 

whether this statute is not merely directory, and a suming that it 

might not be so held in the courts of the State, whether this House, 

passing upon its construction in this great public inquiry, ought not 

to hold it to be directory. Sir, it should not be said, because the 

phrase "in presence of the governor" is used and Governor Hadley 

went out of office, that therefore, his successor not being present, the 

governor cannot issue the certificate and make the proclamation. 

Such construction would or might defeat the right to representation 

of the people of the State, as well a.s the rio-hts of parties who claim 

t.o have been· elected. do not suppose that the statute would be 

interpreted to mean tha the secretary of state should cast up and 

arr:;m.ge the votes in the governor's actual presence. I SUJJpose if the 

governor had been in the offic·e of the secretacy of state, and had 

turned his back while the secretary was casting np and arran~ing the 

votes, smoking his cigar arnd in conversation with his friends, 1t would 

not be held to invalidate the result of the secretary's action; and 

had the acting governor resigned or died an hour afterward, Governor 

Baxter would have had power to issue· the proclamation and certificate. 

The objection has been made that the certificate was not in due 

form. The minority, in expressing thefr views to this House, seem to rely enterely upon that objection, that it wa.s not in due form. 

In the case which was decided in this House during the last Congress, Giddings vs. Clark, and decided entirely upon the evidence 

afforded by the certificate issued by the governor of Texas, which I 

will not trouble the House with reading, the governor had certified 

that Clark was duly elect-ed; but he went on to say in the certificate 

expressly that he had evidence that so many frauds ha.d been com- mitted in that district, that were he not compelled by the law of May 

31, 1870, he would not declare the result of the election, and he would 

say that the election ought to be remanded to the people. .And yet 

the committee in that case recommended to this House that Mr. Clark was entitled prima facie to his seat. 'The House did seat him, and 

afterwa,rd Mr. Giddings, the contestant, on the merits of the con- tested ca o, was admitted to his seat. 

Sir, that may be so here. The majority of the committee diet not 

undertake to report the case upon its merits, as the minority seem to 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 1565 

have done. I do not know whether upon the hearing of the pending 

contest Mr. Wilshire will be deemed entitled to his seat or not, nor do 

the majority say so. I r!3peat, the minority had no right to bring in 

the testimony which they have brought in in the minority report, testimony outside of that to which we were restricted.. If the gentleman from Mis issippi [Mr. LAMAR] will take the same liberal view of this case which he dill the other day of the ca o of 

Hodges vs. Gause, he will see w~ were restrictetl in the evitlence in 

this a in that cu e, and como to the conclu ion now to wbich he did come in committee, that Mr. Wilshire was entitled prim,a facie to the 

seat . .Af3 I am not speaking in any regular orcler, the gentleman will par- don me for xeading at this stage his own language in this case : 

Whilst the majority of the committee are of the opinion tha.t, upon the evidence to which they are legally restricted. Mr. W. W. Wilshire is prima .facie ontitleu to be atlmitted as tho sitting member of this Hon. e, 1) mling the contest, yet the 

doubts arisin~ from tha,t evidence, in relation to hi election, are so grave, that the 

committee asKs the adoption of tho following resolution : Resolved, That tho Committee on Elections are r tricte(l to investigate and determine the said case on its merits, a.nd report the result to thi~ House. -

From this xe olntion- the same as that which has been offered as an umtmdml'lnt-it was understood that the gentleman from Missis- sippi believed that Mr. Wil ·hire was entitled. to tho p1·inw fame seat. Mr. LA.l\IAR. I do not exactly understand what the gentleman 

reatl just now. What was the docum@t which he read 

Mr. THO:\IA. . I understood that the gentleman himself had 

admitted that 1\Ir. Wilshire wa-s entitled printa facie to his seat; but 

held at the same time tha,t there were such gmve doubts in rega,rd 

to his election, doubts suggested by the evidence, which wa,s pertinent or relevant only to the pending contested case, that he would 

recommend tlJat the contestetl ca e be decidetl first. 1\fr. LAMAR. Did you say Mr. Wilshire! 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir. Mr. LAMAR. The gentleman is mistaken. 1\.fr. THO:\IA.S. I send to the gentleman his resolution in his own handwriting, and will say that I have not been able to draw a distinction, and I should bchappyto seethe minoritydmwn. distinction 

between this ca e and. thecae already decided of Gause va. Hodges. 

The same certificate of the secxetary of state, the same proclamation, 

and the arne form of certificate of Gov rnor Baxter, were referred 

to the committee in both case . The who1e difficulty with the minority has arisen from the fact that they have gone into testimony 

which belongs to the contested case, and not confined themselves to 

the testimony to which they were restricted by the resolution of the 

House. 

As to , the form of the certificate, let me call the attention of the 

Ron e to the celebrated case of· Foster t·s. Covotle, of Pennsylvania,. Under the law of that State it was the fluty of the governor to issue 

his proclamation of election upon the returns of the officers author- ized by law to make them. The govemor did issue his proclamation. Mr. LAMAR. I wish to make an explanation in 1·eference to this re olution offered. by myself in the committee. The facts connected. 

with the resolution are these : The gentleman who thought 1\Ir. Wil- shire entitled to the p1•ima faci{} seat wag not willing to eat him upon 

that evidence, because he aid there was a moral certainty in his 

mind, or at least a moral conviction, that the merits were against him. 

Several of us attempted to draft a resolution embodying tba,t view; 

am.ong others myself. My own opinion was, and I expres ed it in the 

committee over and over again, that this did not give Mr. \Yilshil'e 

the prim.a facie right. The gentleman from North Carolina. is at fault 

in his recollection of what occurred in the committeo-room. This is 

in my hanclwriting, but I was simply transcribing and embodying 

the view of another gentleman whose view was contrary to my own. W o wexe simply seeking to harmonize different view in one resolu- tion. It recited that a majority of the committee were of the opin- ion that 1\fi. ' Vilshire had the printa facie right, which excluded. the 

inference that all of the committee were of that opinion. Mr. THO :MAS. I do not wi h to present that as the view of the gen- tleman from l\li sissippi if it was the view of another. All I have now to say is, it was the correct view. And let me say it was the cor- rect view, for this reason, that the committee were xeRtricted as to evidence, and could not go into that evidence refeiTed to them in the 

pencling contest; and no gentleman of that committee could be influ- enced by a,ny yiew of theca e which he might have from having looked 

i nto the evi<lence relating to the pemliug contest. In the case of 

Clark <VB: Gidclings, I believe the majority of the Committee on Elections 

thought Clark could beun eated after he had been admitted to a prima 

facir. eat and had been sworn in. Antl it turned out that he was afterward un eated. 

Perhaps I am about to speak hastily, but I will say that I think, if 

I knew now to-day that ·wilshire would upon the hearing of his con- te ted-election case be declared not elected to the seat, still it would 

b the clnty of the Committee on Elections to r~1ort this resolution, 

and the duty of the Honse to admit him to a seat, until the question 

of fact is ascertained in the mode pointed ont in the tatute and the 

case decided upon its merits. The committee have nothing then to do 

wj th that view of it; tha ~ is a matter to come up hereafter. The question involved in this case is a great question, reln.ting not 

only to the organization of this House, but to the right of represen- tatjon of the· people of a State; not merely to the rights of these 

pn.rties, nor to the rights of the constituents of a particular district, 

but in some sort to the right of the people of Arkansas, and the right 

of the whole American people, under the Constitution, which has 

given us the power to judge of the election, qualifications, and 

returns of members, with a view to tb~ constitution of the national 

Legislature. Now let me go back to what I was about to cito, to show that this 

certifica,te is in true form, or in form, (words which I do not consider 

material,) to tbe case of Foster against Covode. In that case the 

governor had issuetl a proclamation as to which the committee ·ay 

it is a blank in reference to the twenty-first di trict, and they did 

not con ider it. Subsequently the governor wrote a short private 

letter, which I ask the Clerk to n~ad. · 

The Clerk read as follows : PEX~BYL VANIA E:xli:CUTIVl!: CHAMRER, 

Har-risburgh, Pennsylvania, February 23, 186!J. 

Sm: I have the honor to transmit herewith additional affidavits :ind evidence of 

frauu submitt-ed to me in regar<l to the election of member of Con!!re in the twenty- first cong1·e ional district of this State. These affidavits were t.'l.ken before officers properly authorized to administer oaths, and indic:1te the election of Hon. John 

CovOlle. . Most respectfully, your obedient servant, 

Hon. Emv ARD McPHEnsos, 

JOHN W. GEAnY, 

Govenl01' of Penn:;-ylvania. 

Clerk House of Representatives, Washington, D. 0. 

Mr. THOMA&. I call attention of the House to the fact that this 

is a mere private letter from the governor of Pennsylvania to the Clm·k 

of the House of Representatives, not under the broad cal of the State, 

having no worcling to show that it is a certificate, not using even the 

word "show"- n.nd I take it there is some difference between that 

word ancl the word "indicate"- simply transmitting evidences of 

framl. In this private letter he says that these affidavits indicate 

tha,t the Ron. J ohn Covocle wa elected. The Coinmittee on Elections 

held that that supplemented the proclamation and wa.s intendetl to 

show the decision of the governor's mind that Mr. Covotle had been 

elected, a,nd the House so decided. 

Mr. LAMAR. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him f 

Mr. THOMAS. Certainly. 

Mr. LAMAR. The gentleman is mistaken; he is laboring. under a. misapprehen ion. 

Mr. 'rHO:J.fAS. Upon what point f 

Mr. LAl\1AR. The House did not decide that Mr. Covodo had the 

prima facie right to a, seat, but adopted are olution similar to that 

which the minority of this committee have now reported. In drawing up this resolution, I tried to make it an exact copy of tho one which this House pas ed in the very case from which the gentleman 

is quoting. That ca e wa.s one in which it was propo ed to seat Mr. Covode upon the cretlentials of the governor; and on account of the 

irregularity of tho e credentials the House overruletl the action of the 

majority of the Committee on Elections, and remanded the ca e back 

for their investigation and determination of the question upon its 

merits. The history of that case is directly the oppo ite of what the 

gentleman says. I have copied the pxecise re olution which the 

Hou e then adopted, the resolution xeported by the minm·Hy of the 

committee in that ca e. lli. THOMAS. I will read from the syllabus of the case: 

Neither party held the governor's certificate; but ex pa·rte afficlavits aJle!!ing frauds in behnJ.f of Foster, were sent to the House by the governor. Itwa.'i held that, 

under the instrucLions of the House, Covoue had the P'"inta facie title to the eat. 

Mr. LAMAR. "Held" by tht; committee ; but the holding of the 

committee wa overruled by the Hou e, and the whole ca e was referred 

back to the committee to examine and determine upon it merits. 

The committee adopted the resolution which I, as one of the minority 

in this case, have reported to the House. The distinguished gentle- man from Massachusetts [lli. G. F . HoAR] is here and can verify my 

statement. Mr. G. F . HOAR. That is my recollection. 

Mr. L~. My recollection is distinct as to the correctnes3 of 

my statement. 

Mr. THOMAS. I will not detain he Honse as t{) the correctne s of 

my statement. I may have been misled by the syllabus. I think not, 

however. But I have introduced this letter t•o show that no particular form of certificate ha.s ever been required by this House. And 

I do not think any form should be required or adhered to even if a. pa-rticular form had been required by State law. It is saitl tl1a.t this 

is not a certificate to either one of the parties claiming to be elected, 

but th:tt it is a mere abstract or statement of the vote polled, and was given to both partie , as it would ha,,e been given to anybody who 

might choose to call upon the governor of the State for it. Upon the very face of the certificate the governor staMs that, as the 

acting governor had failed to issue a certificate, for thn.t rea on be (the 

governor) certifies" that the foregoing statement \\ith 1,he explanatory note "is a ''full, true, Q.nd correct exhibit of the votes polled for 

the Representative from the third congre ional district. of ATkan a ." 

This certificate, as it i called by the governor himself shows upon its 

fuce that fr. Wilshire received a, majority of 1,195 votes. The footnotes, or" explanatory nol;es," as the governor calls them, are no part 

of the certificate. They show that the scattering votes were cast for 

"Guntee," "S.M. Gunter," "T. M .Gun tee," "Thos. M. Gnntee,''"T. Ros 

G1mter," and "Thos. M. Crenter." If it be a sumed on the part of the 

minority of the committee that these votes wexe intended as a matter 
1566 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 'FEBRUARY 17, 

of fact to be cast for Thomas 1\I. Gunter, I reply that this can onJy be 

determined ur on the contest. Other evidence is needed to establish 

that conclusion; and that evidence was not before the committee, a.mllli not before the House. 

Suppose the governor of n. Stn.te, in conformity v.Tjth the State law 

directin<Y him to i sue a certillcn.te, were to ay simply that A. B 

received"' at a certain election, held in n. certain district, 5,000 votes, 

and that C D received 1,000 votes, and should append to thi statement the seal of the Stn.te and his official signn.ture. Would any 

gentleman in this House, whether a judicially minded gentleman, to use the Janguage of the gentleman from Ma sachusetts, [I\lr. BuTLER,] or a party-minded gentleman, or any other-minded gentleman, 

say that that was not ullicient, when it appeared mathematicn.lly 

to the House that one of the parties received a majority of 4,000 

votes 1 Sir, I think it would not be held here thn.t any additional 

words, such us "duly elected," " elected," or "therefore elected/' 

would be required; it would be presumed to have ocen intended 

by the governor as the decision of his mind that the person ecuring 

the majority of votes was elected ; it would 13how conclnsively to tho 

House that he hau been elected, n.nd it would be held sufficient eviuence to establish the p1'inta facie right. 

I 'vish to call the attention of the minority of the committee to a. statement embraced in their report, which I think has either been 

made tlu·ongh inadvertence or is ami print. In giving a copy of the 

certificate of the clerk of the county court of PulaSki County they 

nn.me, as per onsreceivingvotes, Thomas :M.Gunter,1,621; then agn.in, 

in another column, Thomas :M. Gunter, 343; then, in still v.nother 

column, Thomn.s M. Gunter, 50 votes ; and, in another column, Thomas· M. Gunter, 506 votes. Now is it to be supposed thn.t the clerk of thn.t 

county, in making up his abstract, would hn.ve put in separ:::,te col~ 

umns votes for the same person, 'l'homas M. Gunter¥ The mistake 

either arose at the Public :frinting Office, or from inauvertenco on the 

part of the minority of the committee. A.ll the votes for Thomas l\1. 

Gunter would of course properly b e put in one column, as all the 

votes for W. ,V. Wilshire are. I 11resume tho name inten<led to appew: in some of these columns was "Thos. M. Gun tee," or some other name which appears in the certificates of the originn.l votes in the 

office of the secretary of state. 

As I hn.ve already made allusion to n. phrase which was used the 

other day in the West Virginia. ca es by the gentleman from 1\fassn.-

chnsetts, [ Ir. BUTLER,] allow me to say that I do not regard this as a. case requiring for its decision "judicial-minded gentlemen," ml(l 

certn.inly not party-min<led gentlemen. I do not profess in this ca e to belong either t.o tho e who stand up straight or_ to those who lean 

to one side or the other. Sir, there is another class of gentlemenhonest-minded gentlemen-who are good judges in matters of public 

inquiry like this. There is a quality of min<l of highest impo :wee, 

and thn.t quality is integrity. I have said upon good n.uthority that 

all that is required in <leciding upon a case of this sort is a fair sense of right '-111ll conscientious discretion, and these involve what I have 

spoken of as integrity-not that sort of integrity which discharges the 

ordinary obligations of life between mn.n and ma.n, but tha.t sort of 

integrity which produces an inclination in the mind to tnrn ever to 

the truth aa the magnetic needle turns always to tho pole. This is the sort of integrity which is essential to make n. law~ er, or a judge, or n. statesman. 

Without attempting to evoke any party feeling, if it were possible 

to do so in this case, I ca.n fairly say that, in my opinion, this is as ()]ear a case of prima facie right to n. seat as has been presented to this 

House for yom·s. The action we propose is fully justified by precedents. If the Honse should adopt tho view of the mvJority, that it 

is the duty of the Honse upon the highest rea ons which respect the 

right of representation of the people of the States, rea ons which 

look to its own more complete organization, and it might be, in some ca es, to its original organization, to a<lmit n. mn.n first to hiss at beforo the contest upon the merits has been decided, thou I n.m sati tied 

the House will adopt the reoolution reported by tho mn.jority of the 

committee. 

I yield fifteen minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. HARRISON.] 

!Ir. HARRISON. Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I shall I'eqniro even fifteen minutes to present to the House the views which I desire 

to submit in order to a ist the House in coming to a correct conclusion upon this ca e. I am thoroughly satisfied that beyon<l doubt 

thfl intention of the House in referring thi matter to the committee wn.s with the view of hn.ving a decision as to who was entitled to be sworn in as the sitting member; in other words, to hn.ve the judgment 

of tho committee as to which of the contestants was entitled p1~ima 

fcwie to the sen.t. I presume there can be as little doubt as to tho 

propriety of the policy which the Honse has adopted heretofore-the 

propriety of acting in pursuance of that great principle which looks to representn.tion upon the floor of this House from every section of 

tho country. I presume there can be no sort of doubt about the propriety of the course which the House has heretofore adopted in every 

proper case of deciding a soon as prapticn.blo who is entitled prin"a 

facie to the right ton. scat upon this :floor, notwitbstancling tbe House 

may afterward come to a different conclusion on the question as to 

who is entitled to the sen.t upon an investigation of the question on its merits. 

Now, sir, the resolution adopted by the House, which submittctl 

this case to the Committee on Elections, is n.s follows : 

Resolved, That the crouentials :md papers, in posses::~ion of the Clerk of tho 

Hou e, in tho cases of contested elections from the firnt aml tl1i.rd dis c(..~ <•f .A.rkansa. , be referred to the Committ-ee on Elections, with in tructious to report at tho earliest day pra-cticable, who of the contesting parties a.ro ontitle;.l to bo sworn in as sitting members of this IIou e. 

I sv.y there can be no reason for the conclusion that it was intemletl 

tho. Committee on Elections s~ould go into .the question of who was ent1tled to the sea.t on the ments, an<l oxamrne the lengthy record in 

this case with the view of determining that question. 'l'ho o!lly reason why the credentials aml papers in tho possession of tho Clerk of tllc 

House in this case were submitted to the committee withou~ seating one or the other of the contestant , was that the c cre<lentJa1-; were somewhat peculiar. There was no certificate or proclamation by the 

governor of the State of Arkansas, recitin~ in so many words that :Mr. 'Wilshire or 1\fr. Gunter had been duly elect d . There ha<l been 

under section 50, of the act of 1868, passed by the Legislature of the 

State of .A:rkansas, an ananging aml casting up of votes by the sec- retary of state in the presence of the governor. 'l'ktt section of tho 

act of the Legislature is as follows : 

SEC. 50. It shall be the duty of the secretary of state, in tho presencooftbo ~OYc.rnor, within thirty days after tho time herein allow d to mahJ return:; of clcctw:H\ to the clt>rks of the county courts, or sooner, if all tho r eturns shall ba,-u uecu ro- cei ,-etl, to cast up :mtl arrange tho votes from the several counties, or !luch o.f 1 hem as have mnuc returns, for such p l'SOns votetl for as ruemum'!l of Con!!rcs · and the ~ov~rnor sh~ immediately tl~ reafter is~me Lis procL'1Jlll1tion, c.leclarlng t~ o per on uavmg the highest number of votO-'I to be duly elect.ed ro repr sent tlw t:;tattJ in tho 

llouseof Representatives of the Congress of. tho United. State., :uul sllall grant a. certificate thereof, under tho cal of the Sta.te, to the person so clectcc.l. 

Instead of tho governor of A.rkn.nsas having issued a corti.ficn.te of 

election or having issued n. proclamation reciting in so many wonls 

that either one of tho claimants was duly electell, willch would ha.ve 

b en a literal compliance with the fiftieth sectiou of the act of lt!GS, 

he proclaimed the I'e ult of the armnging an<l casting up by the secre- tary of state of all the returns from tho ili.fl:erent counties in tl1e thinl 

congTessional district. This table or abstract of the vote thus cast 

up n.ud arranged shows upon its face that \Y. W. Wilshire ha<l a rna.- jority of the votes cast, unless it may be contemletl that tho numbflr 

of votes recite<l in that table as "scattering" shoul<l be put uown for one or the other of the e contestants. Will n.ny gentleman contend 

that, taking this table or abstract which shows n. ruajority of tho vot-es 

cast to hn..ve been cast for ir. vVilshire unless the scatterinrr votes are cotmte<l at a venttu·e, it does not in substance ant.l efi'ecli show W: 

\V. Wilshire is elected from the third congre sional district of the 

State of A.rkansa ·1 And will any gentleman contend that the com- mittee of this Honse, upon such investigation as has been made by 

the committee and upon the question as now p1·e ented to the Honse, can presume . to say that a single one of these scatteriug votes was cast for either one or the other of these contestants 'I 

Jt will be seen by r eference to this abstmct of the vote , ca t np 

and arranged by the secretary of state, that tu.king the nnmber of 

votes put down as having been polled for "Gtmthe1·,'' as ~:~ot forth on 

page ~ of the committee's report, rmd giving Mr. Gunter tho full 

benefit of the votes hown on the face of the a.b tract to ha..-e been 

polled for "Gunther," it still leaves 1\lr. Gunter in the minorit.y n.ml 

gives Mr. Wilshire a majority of the votes cast. I repeat, unless tlJjs 

Honse comes to the conclusion that in n.1n·i.ma facie ca e they can tako 

into account the o scattering votes for ono of these claimant , it :rriust; 

come to the conclusion that M.r. Wilshire received a majority of tho 

votes and is prima facie entitle<l to the seat. It is shown on the face 

of this n.bstract that her ceived a. majority of tho votes an<l io enti- tled to~ seat on this :floor untiL a U.ecisiou of tho case on its merits is 

hatl. · • 

Jlli:. Speaker, that is about ill I have to say. When I camo to t.he 

conclusion th:tt the llou o iutentletl by this re::~oln tion to snbmi t to t.he 

committee the prima facie ca e, I ha(l no sort of doubt or tlifticnlty 

about the duty of the committee. I hn.vo now no sort of doubt or difficulty as to tho duty of this Hon e. It is important that th thiru ill ·-

trict of the Sti1te of Arkansas should be repre ent ><1 on this floor pomli:ng the investigation of the merits. Although then" n.re cru es in the 

hi tory of conte ted elections before this Honso wh re parties hav-e 

been eatetl upon what wn.s apparently a pri1na facie I'igbt to th SC[tt 

and been a.fterwar<ls ej cted, having had to gi vo wn.y to tho succ sfnl 

competitor in theca e upon it merits, yet it does not change tho wisdom of the policy of aw:.mling promptly, and as promptly a~ it can Lo 

done, to the party who appe:ll's to be elected, his sen.1i npon thi:3 tloor, 

npon the principle that the people of the <.listrict are interc t tl, n.ud 

that t.he whole cotmtry is iutereste<l, in having every portion of tho 

country repreeented. . Mr. THO.M.AS. How much time ha e I remaining¥ 

The SPEAKERp1·o tempote, ( fr. ScoFIELD.) Thirteen minutes. 

Mr. THOMAS. I had purpo ed to yield the rest of my tim to my 

colleague on the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania., [l\lr. 

ToDD.] Does he desir to speak 1 

Mr. TODD. :Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to participate in 

this debate. As, however, tho floor i awarded to me, I will say a. fow 

words. It seems to me +bat this is a very plaiu, simple CUI::H.). Tho 

facts are few and the p1·inciples of law arc simple; au<l to enuule t.ho 

Hou e to understand it thoroughly there neo<.ls neither an extended 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. · 1567 

statement nor an elaborate argument. To my mind the case is identicnJ, on all-fours, with the ca~e of H~ges and Ganse, which was decided 

the o-ther day by the House, and upon which Mr. Hodges was seateu. 

In the Committee on Elections there was no disagreement in regard to 

J utlge Wilshire's right on the p1"irna facie case. Some of the members 

of the committee, however, refused to conc1p:· in the· pending resolution on the ground that in the consider:1tion or examination of the 

p1ima facie case certain facts were developed which led them t o believe that Judge Wilshire would not be entitled to the seat upon 

it merits; and they were unwilling to declare in favor of seating a man on the prima facie case when probably they would be compelled 

to eject him from that seat upon the m.,erits. · The majority of the committee, however, declined to take this view 

of the case, for three reasons: First, they were limited by the reso- lution of the .. House to inquire into the p1·inta fad.e case; secondly, 

they regarded the JYrima facie case as separate and apart from tho ca~e 

on its merits and entirely independent of it; and, thirdly, they con- sidered that pending the trial of the case upon its merits the people 

of the third district of Arkansas were entitled to representation on 

this floor. 

Now, upon an examination of this case it appears that on the 5th 

day of November, 1872, an election for Congressmen was held in the 

State of Arkansas. By the law of Arkansas tho precinct returns are required to be returned to the county clerk within five days after the 

election is held. It his duty then to mn.ke an abstract of those votes, 

and forward them, under his certificate, to the secretary of state, who, 

by the same law, is required in thirty dn.ys after that time to arrange 

and cast up the number of votes given for Congressm·an in each district; n.nd then it is made the duty of the governor to issue his proclamation declaring the result of that election, and to·issue a certificate 

to the member-elect. - The majority of the committee hold that under the law of Arkan- sa the secretary of state wa-s constituted the canvassing board for 

the purpose of ascertaining the result of the election, and that the 

order to the governor to issue his proclamation and certificate on the 

ascertainment of that result was merely directory. In this case, on the 

14th of December-the thirtieth day, as required by law-the secre- tary of state did ca t up and arrange the votes given for member of 

Congress in the third district. By that casting up and arrangement 

it clea.rly appears that Judge Wilshire had a large majority of the votes. 

It is in evidence that this wa-s done, as required by law, in the pres- ence of the acting governor; and that the acting governor, either then, or at least not later than the 28th day or December, actuallyclid make 

out and write his proclamation declaring the results, and filed thn.t 

"'--ith the secretary of stn.te in his office; but either through neglect, 

omission, or a willful non-compliance with his duty, that proclamar 

tion and certificate never were issued. 

The committee hold thn.t, this result having been legally ascertained 

by the canvassing board, a.nd thn. t J ndge ·wilshire was elected, the non- performance of :1 directory duty on the pn.rt of the governor does not 

clestroy his right to a seat on this floor. Then, if I remember cor- rectly, the a.cting governor went out of office on or about the 5th of 

January, 1873. He was succeeded by Governor Baxter, who, upon 

inquiry, ascertn.ining that the proclamation and certiticn.te had not 

been is ned, assumed to discharge the duty which was incumbent on his predecessor, n.nd in his proclamation and certificate he cites the rea-son. In the proclamation, which will be found on page 4 of the 

report, he starts out in these words : 

Whereas the actin"' governor failed to issue a certificate of election to the person who received the hi~~est number of votes for Representative in Congress from the 

third congressional uistrict of Arkansas, at the election held in said district on tho 

5th day of November, A. D. 1872. 

Here, Mr. Spen.ker, is :1 clear recognition of the fact that on the 11th 

{la,y of December the secretn.ry of state, who is constituted o. canvass- ing board, did cast up ancl n.rrn.nge the votes cast at that election, and 

ascertained th'1t Mr. Wilshire was elected. But the governor sn.ys in 

this proclamation that, inaSmuch as the then actin~ governor did not 

i sue his certificate and proclamn.tion on that" castiDg up, he undertakes to do it at a subsequent day. 

We believe that this act of Governor Baxter, on the 18th of February, 1873, wn.s clearly an act of supererogation; that it neither adds 

to nor detracts from the printa facie right of J ndge Wilshire to his 

seat in this House upon the canvass ma.de by the . secretary of stn.te on the 14th of December, 1872. If, however, there is any weight or authority to be given to th.4; procln.mationof Governor Baxter, 1t supplements and strengthens the certificate of the secretary of stn.te himself, because it will be observed that, in the very tn.ble publish~d by 

him, the right to the seat is admitted to be in Judge Wilshire, and 

the notes n.ppcnded to his certificate form no part of the canvass or of the procln.mn.tion itself. That whs the individual act of the governor, giving his interpretation of the character of the votes, and wa-s wholly out ide of the certificate. They can neither control, contradict, nor impair it; they axe no part of the certificate what-ever, be-. cause the governor, by his official character and .position, was not 

authorized to make any of tho e notes, the law not conferring upon 

him the power to determine the canvass of votes. They n.re over- whelmed and overridden by the text itself, n.nd caJ1 have no importance and no application whatever. Now this ca-se is presented simply in one aspect. If I npprehend 

rightly what has been the practice of the House heretofore it hn.s been 

to determine printafacie ca es upon the documentary and legal evidence 

ad<lnced in support of them; and in no ca e where the 11rima facie case has been brought before the Honse have the merit ever been permitted to como in n.nd interfere with the legal and documentary title. Thn.t is a question subsequently to be inquired into, and the +wo questions are entirely sepn.rate and distinct, controlled by different 

principles of law. They stand upon different and individual grounds. 

In this case we have the plain facts clearly stated; the p1·ima facie 

right of .Judge Wilshire to the seat is estn.blished by the cn.nvassing 

board, and it is the duty of the House to seat him upon that prima 

facie right, irrespective of any re ult that may follow hereafter upon an investigation into the merits of the ca~e. 

I desire here to call attention to whn.t I have no doubt is a misprint in the table submitted by the minority of the committee. On 

page 5 of their report there is published an abstrn.ct of returns of an election held in Pulaski County, Arkansas, on Tuesday, NovAmber 5, 

1872. In that abstract there is a tabular statement of the votes cast. 

The first column, according to that statement, shows the votes for 

"W. \V. Wilshire;" the second columufor"Thos. M. Gunter;" tho third 

column for "S.M. Gunter;" the fourth for "Wilshire;" the fifth for 

"Gunter;" the sixth for "T. M. Gunter;" the seventh for "Thos. 1\I. 

Gunter;" the eighth for "Thos. N. Gunter;" and the ninth for "Thos. M. Gunter." They are all printed as if they were given for a man named "Gunter." The votes set out as given for "T. M. Gunter," footing up 343, were cast for "Thos. M. Gun tee;" as al o the votes footing 

up 138 in another column, set out as given for "Gunter," wore given 

for "Gunther." So also in the next column there is a misprint; it 

should be" Guntee." And in the second before the last column, where 

it is printed "Thos. M. Gunter," it should have been printed "T. Ros 

Gunter." 

Now, on the examinn.tion of this table the committee confined 

themselves to the question as to the number of. votes given for W. 

W. Wilshire and Thomas M. Gunter, and they did not inquire into 

tho question of fact whether the votes cast for "Tho . N. Gnntee" or "T. Ros-Gunter" were in reality votes cast for Thoma.s 1\£. Gunter; for 

upon the face of this table the name was essentially diftcrent, and we had no authoritytoi.riquire into the question of fact whether they were the same. · 

Mr. SPEER. Will my colleague allow me to make an inquiry Y 

Mr. TODD. Certainly. 

Mr. SPEER. Do not the original returns on file show that the name is "Thomas M. Gunter," and that the names r turned "T. Ros 

Gunter'' and "Thos. M. Gun tee" are forgeries, made by somebody 

else' 

Mr. TODD. I do not so understa.nd it. 

Mr. SPEER. Are not the returns on.file showingthe namo "Thomas 

l\L Gunter¥" 

Mr. TODD. I think my colleague is entirely mistaken. 

Mr. POTTER. On file with the committee 

l\h·. SPEER. On file with the committee; not a certified copy but 

the original returns. Itisthecerti:fiedcopythat shows "T.RosGtmter" or "Thos. M.Guntee ;" theoriginalreturnsshow "ThomasM.Gunter." 

Mr. TODD. I am not prepared to say whether my colleague is cor- rect or not. But I do say that these names n.ppear in the manner and 

spelled in the mode in which they are in the certificate of the gov- ernor as filed, and which is the only evidence before the committee. Mr. SPEER . . You refuse to look at the original returns on file 

with us. Mr. TODD. The ap.swertothat is simply this: that in considerinfl' 

the p1·i1na facie ca-se the gent.lema.n. desires to travel out of that and 

investigate the merits of the ca~e, which the majority of the commit- tee believed were not before them. The evidence before them was the certificate of the governor, and thn.t certificate shows upon the 

face of it that the nn.mes which tl;te minority of tho committee h:we 

had printed a.s "Gunter'' were "Gun tee" a.nd '' Gunther." The com- mittee were not allowed to arrive at the conclusion that the one was intended for the other. 

[Here the hn.mmer fell.] 

Mr. L.A.MAR. I do not de ire to detain the committee in vindicar 

tion of the positions which the minority hn.ve a sumed iu tho report 

and the resolution which they have submitteJ to this House. I may, 

before the conclusion of the debate, correct some of the mistakes of 

fact into which the gentleman from Pennsylvn.uia [Mr. TODD] has 

fallen as to what transpired in the committee. At present I will yielu a part of my time to the gentlemn.n from Iowa, [l\1r. McCRARY.] 

Mr. McCRARY. Mr. Speaker, it is with a· good den.l of reluctance 

that I feel bound to antagonize the report of the committee in this caso. If it had been a ca~e involving the consideration of testimony 

to a.ny great extent, I should probably not have taken the pains to 

look into it; n.ncl should have followed the committee, as is my usual 

rule in such cases. But, sir, it being a simple case as to the p1•i1na 

facie right to :1 seat in the House pending tho contest, which is to b0 

decided upon the face of the papers themselves, I have felt it my duty 

to look into it, and have como to the conclusion that the case ought 

to be recommitted for investigation upon the merits. · I adhere as firmly as n.ny gentleman can do to the ruJe which has 

been la.id down in mn.ny ca ·es of this character, that wbere there is a fn.ir p1·inut facie case made out upon the face. of tho credentials, the 

House ought not to go beyond thn.t and make any investigation or inquiry in the first instance as to the merits of t-he contest. Rnt, sir, 
1568 .CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 

there is no case here upon tlie face of these credentials. Tho gov- ernor of A.rkans!lB does not certify that either of these gentlemen was elected. His certificate only goes to the extent of· stating that an abstract of the votes which is appended to the certificata is a colTect 

abstract. This is a very significant fact, Mr. Speaker, because the 

stn,tute of Arkansas itself expressly requires that the governor shall certify the person having the highest number of votes to be duly 

elected to represent the S~ate in the Honse of Representatives. 

I read from the fiftieth section of the statutes of thn,t Stn,te, as copied in the majority report. After providing thl1t the votes shall 

be counted and cast up in the presence of the governor, the stn,tute 

proceeds: · 

· ..A.nd the governor shall immediately thereafter issue his proclamation declaring the person having the highest number of votes to be duly electeu, &c. 

Now, the proclamation .which· the governor issued in this case and 

the certificate which he subsequently issued made no statement at 

all as to the person whQ was duly elected at that election; hut, on the 

contrary, simply made a statement of this character: 

I, Elisha Barker, governor of the State of Arkansn.s, do certify that the foregoing statement, with the explanatory notes, is a. full, true, and cortect exhibit of the votes polled for Representative from the thii·d congressional district, &c. 

Now, I grant you, 1\Ir. Speaker, if that statement showed upon its 

fn.ce necessarily or p1'ima facie that any gentleman was elected, this 

certificate of the governor might be held to be sufficient. But the certificate itself refers us to the schedule, and simply declares that 

that schedule is a correct statement of the votes as returned. Now, sir, does the schedule show that Mr. Wilshire was elected? 

Gentlemen say that it does, because it shows that he received more votes than any other individual who is therein named. · It shows that 

Mr. Wilshi.Te received 12,522 voteR, while Thomas III. Gunter received 

11,961 ; and it shows 1,456 votes returned as "scattering." That is a very remarkable fact upon the face of it. I should be inclined to sus- pect that there was something wrong with a certificate that returned so large a number of votes as" scattering" without having said for 

whom they were cast. But the governor n,ppends as part of the certificate what he calls 

"explanatory notes ;

2

' and in those explanatory notes we are told that 

these scattering votes were polled for "S. M. Gunter," "T. III. Gun- tee," "Thos. 1\I. Gun tee," "T. Ros Gunter," ::mel "Thos. M. Crenter." 

Nearly 1,600 votes referred to as scattering are in this note shown to 

have been cast for the names that I have read. . Now, Mr. Speaker, it is almost self-evident-it is morally certain to 

every man who will give a moment's reflection to the matter- tha.t 

every one of these votes thus referred to in the governor's certificate, 

and made a part of it, were intended to be ca-st for Thomas M. Gunter. It is a very easy thing to change a capital "T" into a captal "S." 

Perhaps it may have been orig:inally written "T. M. Gunter" andre- turned by some person's mistake as '' S.l\1. Gunter;" or, what is perhaps more probable, returned in that way by design. Then, here is the name'' Guntee." Unquestionably it is simply a change of the last letter from an '' t" to an "e," making it reacl 

"Gnntee" instead of "Gunter." Then I call the attention of the 

House to the name printed "T. Ro.s Gunter," which is undoubtedly in 

the original "Thos." or "Thomas"- at least I have no doubt of it 

myself. There is a ·large number of votes returned as sca.tte~g 

because the nn,me was written in this way. I call attentipn of the House to these matters not because they pertain to the case on its merits, for I do not go into that; I call atten- tion to them because they are a part of the governor's certificate 

itself. He returns to the House this one in which he returns these 

votes as scattering which are set down to these na,mes. Will :my body 

say su ch a paper a.s that on the face of it showsl\Ir. Wilshire was ele_cted a.s the Representative from that district If there was no explana.tion 

in regard to the votes returned as scattering, it might be claimed with some show of reason we are forbidden to inquire whether any of them wa-s intended for either of these gentlemen; but when explanation is 

given, I say it makes it morally certain to every man in. the House · . these votes were thrown out because the orthography of the na,me 

had been slightly changed when they were fairly and honestly cn.qt 

for Mr. Gunt-er. Now, since the governor does not certify either of these gentlemen 

is elected, since he returns to us this abstract and refers us to these 

votes, and since on the face of these papers it is appn,ront there iR at 

least grea.t doubt as to the question which of these gentlemen is 

elected, it seems to me it is a case which ought to go to the committee 

for investigation on ·the facts. 

Reference has been made to a case decided in the last Congress, and 

the r eport of the committee seems to be based largely on the prece- dent est..'tblished in that case. I refer to the case of Mr. Cln,rk, of 

Texas. If any gentleman will take the pains to examine that case, 

he will see it wa-s a very different case from this. In that ca e the 

statute of Texas created a. board of officers known as the returning board. It conferred upon them judicial powers. It authorized them 

to investigate the charges of fraud, intimidation, and violence at the 

polls, and it empowered t.P.em, upon such investigation, to reject any polls they believed 011ght to be rejected. The governor ~ertifi d that 

!Ir. Clark was duly elected, but went on t o say a large numbor of 

votes hnd been rejected by reason of violence, intimidation, and fraud 

under the statutes, and tho testimony was laid before the committee. 

What the House decided in that case was, thi!? board of officers, createtl 

by the statute of Texas, having j u.dicial power in the premises, hn,viog 

decided the question and declareu 1\Ir. Clark to be duly elected, and 

declared _certain polls to be tainted with fraud and violence, their 

action was printa facie colTect, and must be accepted by the House until after the investi~ation into the facts, and it was ascertained it was not colTect. This 1s a very different case. The governor of ATkansas, as I have already said, does not decide the question. He does not ·declare anybody to be elected. In viol:.ttion of the statutes of tho 

State, he declines or refuses, or at any rate he fails to certify, but 

lays before the House these returns ant! this scheuule, and leaves it 

for us to determine. I say under these circumstances the committee ought to investigate 

the facts. If I am not mistaken it will turn out on the proof- and I 

judge only from what I saw on. the face of these returns- it will turn 

out these votes returned .as sc:1tte1ing were fairly and honestly cast 

for 1\Ir. Gunter, and the confuSion has arisen either by mistake or design in changing one or the other of the letters of his name, making it what we see in these returns. I suppose the evidence has been taken, and I presume the. ca e can only be docided on its merits. This 

district cannot be long left without representation upon this floor. But if I am compelled to make a choice between admitting to a sen,t 

pending the contest the gentleman who, from the papers before me, 

wad not elected, or leaving the district vacant until there can ~ an investigation, I prefeT the latter course. But I do not care to prose- cut-e the consideration of this case any further. 

Mr. G. F . HOAR. I should like the gentleman from Mississippi 

[Mr. LAMAR] to yield to me two or three minutes. 

1\Ir. LA.l\IAR. I yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. G. F . HOAR. I had the honor of making the report froJ,D. the 

Committee on Elections of the last House in the case of C1ark anll 

Giddings, which it is claimed is the authority upon which the pre ent 

committee have proceeded. I desire to reau one sentence from thn.t 

report. That single sentence seems to me to sum up the whole case: 

It is enough for n. prima facie case if a certilicate come from the J!Ioper officer of 

the Stnte, and merely shows th .. ·1.t the person claiming under it hn.s been adjudgeu lo 

be duly elected by the official· or boarU: on whom the law of the State baa imposou the duty of a.scertaining and declaring the result. , 

1\Ir. THOMAS. If the gentleman wili permit me, I will say that thn,t case was merely cited to show that no special form was required. Sup- pose tha,t instead of having the words " duly elected," the governor had said that 1\Ir. Clark had received 20 000· votes and Mr. Giddings 5,000 votes, and said: no more, would not that have been equivalent to 

declaring 1\Ir. Clark elected 'I 

1\Ir. G. F. HOAR~ I will come to that presently. To give a man credentials, that is to give him a certificate which entitles him to have 

the Clerk put his name on the rolls of the House, the adjudication 

and certific;1to of the proper State officer are necessary, showing in some :form that he was duly elected. Now in the case of Giddings vs. Clark, the governor and secretary of state declared in terms that 

Mr. Clark was dnly elected, and the question was whether or not, 

under the law of that State, they were the proper certifying officers; 

::md we held that they were. . But in this ca-se the governor does not declare any such thing. If 

a certificate declares that on counting the votes it appears that John 

Brown had 1,000 votes and that John Smith ha(l 950, and that 100 

votes were scattering, it does not show whether the person who . received those scattering votes was or was not the same person or one of the other candidates to w.hom the addition of those· votes 

would give a majority. And this certificate does not declare whether 

the law of that State makes a majority or plurality necessary t o elect. · Now', if you go into that question you go into the merits. You 

cannot go into the State law on the p1·intafacie ca e or into the facts 

except just far enough to see who is the proper certifying offic~r. 

You are to do just what the Clerk of the House would do if the party 

presented himself before the House and asked to have his nn,me put on the roll. Now, in answer to the question of the gentleman from North Caro- lina, [Mr. THmus,] I will say that I conceive that no form of words 

is necessary in the credentials ; that if the governor or secretary of 

state says it appears a man was duly elected, that will do; that if ho 

says an election was duly held, at which A. B ha.cl all the votes, which 

is substantially the same case as the gentleman. put, that would be 

sufficient. But it must appear _clearly and distinctly that there was an adjudication in some form by the governor, that· he declared his 

opiniori in such a form that it becomes a necessary inference thn,tthat was the result. Now here there is no such statement. The certificate of the gov- ernor is entirely consistent with the statement that either Wilshire or Gunter was duly elected, because he says Wilshi1:e had so mllily 

vote , Gunter had so mn,ny votes, aud that there were so many scattered vot.es polled for Guntee, so many for Gunter, and· so many for 

other persons, without saying for whom that large number of votes was to be counted. He leaves that entirely indeterminate; aud, 

therefore, I submit that the case of Clark and Giddings is :1 direct 

authority, as far as the opinion of the committee goes, for 1\Ir. Gunter, 

and not for Mr. Wilshire; and, in fa-ct, is a direct authority against 

seating Wilshire on a prima facie case before the merits are investigated., 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 1569 

Jl,fr. LAMAR. How much time have I remaining¥ 

The SPEAKER P'I'O temp01·e, C~fr. ScoFIELD.) Thirty-five minutes. 

Mr. LAMAR. I yield to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. 

POTIER.] 

Mr. POTTER. It has been my mi fortune in election en es to 

sometimes differ from my friends on this side of the House, so much so that it has occurred that I have been the only member on this 

side of the Hall voting as I did. In the Forty-first Congress I was for a short time a member of the Committee on Elections, the chair- man of which was Mr. Paine, of Wisconsin, a very radical repub- lican, but a sound lawyer and an honorable man. During the brief 

time that I was on the committee with that gentleman I never had 

occasion to differ from him on any election case. I also served for a short space in the Forty-second Congress on the Committee on Elections, of which my friend from Iowa who has spoken in tllis case [1\Ir. McCRARY] wa-s chairman; and if my recollection serves me, I 

rarely or never had occasion to differ with him in regard to any case which came before that committee. And 1 am glad to be able to-day 

to find mys lf clear in taking exactly the same views of this case as he has done. · · This is, ·as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [l\fr. ToDD] has said, 

a ca e of apparent right, not of me1·its. But all that clearly appears, as I think, is, that the prima facie case is with nobody. The law re- quired the governor of Arkansas to declare who was duly elected. 

And if he had so declared, even if he had declared it erroneously, we should be bound in the first place, and until investigation of the 

merits could be had, to accept his certificate; but he has taken good 

care in this ca e to declare nothing of the kind. 

There were two governors in power during the period covered by 

the e certificates, and they have neither of them certified any person 

to have been elected from the district in question. In the first place, 

acting Governor Hadley refused to ma.ke any certificate, and there- · upon the succeeding governor, Governor Baxter, because his prede- cessor has refused to take any action, proceeds in accordance with 

law to declare-whatf Who is dnly elected as the statute provides'? 

Not a bit of it. Bnt he proceed to declare the returns of certain 

votes cast, which returns he sends here to us, expressing no conclusion from them whatever. 

Now, even if-as I am not prepared to concede-even if it be true 

that we could loo'k at that return and determine the prirna facie right 

by that alone, the return, as has been well said by the gentleman from 

Iowa, [Mr. McCRARY,] shows no right in Mr. Wilshire. It disclo es when analyzed this condition of things: that l\fr. Wilshire by his 

full name received 12,644 votes; that Mr. Gunter by his full name received 11,499 votes; that Wilshire without any pre-name received 

12 votes; and Gunter without any pre-name received 591 votes, 

making for Wilshire 12,656 votes, and for Gunter 12,090 votes, leaving, as the count then stood, 566 majority for Wilshire. It then shows 

certain counties that, perhaps, onght not to have been included at all, 

because they were not by law in that congressional district. One of 

these gave majorities for Wilshire, the other for Gunter. Subtracting 

the vote in both, we would have 50 votes more to add to the majority 

for Wilshire. Then an error is stated in Wa hington County, which 

would make, if allowed, Wilshire's majority 656 votes. And then 

there is a return from Pulasb County giving 1,456 votes to various names of Gunter. 

Now, in order to determine upon that return that Wilshire is elected, w must take it for granted and assume that those 1,456 vote from 

Pula ki County, or the majority of them, at least, were not intended 

for Gunter. Without that assumption, even this certificate makes no JJrima fac ie case for Wilshire. But the moral probability, as the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. McCRARY] says, is immense that these votes were all intended for Gunter; for they were votes for a person whose name answers so clo ely to his that the slightest miswriting would 

produce such a result as was produced. We have therefore a showing 

here in which l\fr. \Vilshire has more votes than Mr. Gunter by name, 

excluding all these alleged miswritten vote , but have also to deal 

with 1,456 votes more, some of which certainly were cast for Gunter, 

:md all of which probably ought to be counted for him, and which 

appear by this very certificate equally with all the other votes for 

eit.her candidate. Had the return stated how many of these so-called 

scattering votes were for ea<Jh name we might decide at once what, 

like the votes for" Crenter," ought not to be allowed prima faeie to Jl,fr. 

Gunter. But the certificate does not give tbist and we therefore can- not tell how many of these misspelled votes should be allowed; but 

since they may amoim.t to votes enough to overbalance the majority 

in the other counties for Wilshire, you cannot ay, judging even by the 

certificate alone, that Mr. Wilshire is elected. 

Upon such a return as this, I say that nobody wonld be Justified in 

saying that Wilshire wa elected. On the contrary, if it justified anything, it would ju tify the oppo ite conclusion. But I think the 

minority of the committee are right in aying the certificate itself 

does not- justify :tny conclusion at all a to who was elected, and 

therefore this matter hould be recommitted to the committee, to be 

proceeded with upon the merits. 

It is very signilicant to my mincl that when the law reqn.ired the 

governor of Arkansas to make declaration of who was elected, he 

should _have declined to do anything of the kind. The gentleman 

from _Pennsylvania [Mr. ToDD] says we must discard this certificate 

99 

which t,he governor did give and take tbe former count of the secre- tary of state. The l8,w says nothing of the kind, and if the gentleman will look at the t.wo counts made by the secretary of state, he 

will see that these counts do not a~ree. In the former count, made 

prior to the 13th of January, he gives a different result from what 

h e gives in the count he made on the 14th of February. Besides, even in that first count he returns 1,127 as scattering votes, which it appears 

by the sub equent certificate should, to some extent at least, be 

counted for Gunter, although in this fir8t certificate they are returned 

under the general lump head of "scattering." 

Now, it may be well to notice in this connection what has been 

the practice in the State of Arkansas. The law says the governor 

shall declare who is elected under the seal of the State. I bold 

two certificates in my ha,nd-one for the first district of that State 

for the Forty-second Congres , and one for the second district for the 

present Congress. The certificates, as the .House will see, are gotten 

up with most elaborate seals, finely engrossed, and in due form. The one declares as follows : 

I, J. 0. Hadley, a~ tin"' governor of the State of .Arkansas, do pereby certify, that at the general election h eld on the 5th day of November, 1872, 0. P. Snyder was duly elected a member of Congress to r epresent the State of .Arkansas in the 

s~~~~~1c~of lfh~e~~~tes beginning March 4, 1873, from the second oongresThat is the one for the last Congress, and the other for the pre ent 

Congress is exactly in the same form, and equally formally got up. 

And yet this identical Governor Hadley, who signed both of those cer- tificates, refused to give to Mr. Wilshire any certificate of this kind at 

all. On the contrary, he refused to give him anything. His successor sends, whatt Nothing but this tabular result of votes, which, if it 

shows anything, shows that Mr. Gunter was elected, as the gentleman 

from Iowa says. Upon that state of things it would be a very dangerous precedent, as it seems to me, to attempt to seat anybody; cer- tainly to seat 1tfr. Wilshire. 

One word to the gentleman who report this resolution [1tfr. TH01\1AS] 

about the case of Covode and Foster. He refers to that case a-s one of authority, and says it is decisive of this case; it was exactly parallel. In that case the governor of Pennsylvania gave certificates to 

every member elected from that State, except in the district in which 

Covode and Foster ran. In regard to that district he refused to cer- tify who was elected, just as the governor of Arkansas refused to 

give any regular certi:fica,te for the district in que tion here. In the 

Covode and Foster case the governor of Pennsylvania sent certain 

lists of figures here, and a stMement in which he declared that in 

his opinion 1tfr. Covode was elected. Upon that the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania [ Ir. CE SS~A] introduced a resolution to the effect that 

Mr. Covode had the P'l'i1n4 facie right to a seat. But the chairman of 

the Committee on Elections moved as a substitute for that resolution 

that which I send to the Clerk's desk to be read, and which will be 

found in the Congre8Sional Globe. 

The Clerk r~ad as follows: 

RP-aolved, That the contested-election case from the twenty.:firstcongressional district of Pennsylvania be recommitted to the Committee on Elections, with instructions to r eport, upon the merits of the case, who is entitled to represent said dis- . trict in this House, with authority to make r egulations in reference to the mode 

of conducting the oontest and taking testimony. 

Jl,fr. POTTER. That resolution is exactly like the resolution re- portcdfrom the minority of the committee in this case, and it was then 

adopted; and by turning over to the next page of the Congressional 

Globe ~entlemen will see the vote by which the House adopted that re olut10n, refusing Covode the seat on his p1'inta facie ca e, and recom- mitted the case to the committee. That is exactly the precedent 

which I think should be followed in this case, and is the only action 

which this certificate, upon which alone our action i now to be predi- cated, seems to me to justify. · · [Here t.he hammer fell.] 

l\fr. L.A.l\I.A.R. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut, [Mr. 

HAWLEY.) 

l\fr. H.A. \VLEY, of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I had no thought of 

saying a word upon this subject; but some chance remarks which 

I have made in conversation upon the que tion have, as I judge, led 

the gentleman from Mis issippi to call me out. I have been looking over the report in this case, seeking to make up my j nd~ment as to how 

I should vot-e ; and I will say plumply, to begin with, that if I a.JQ. 

required to decide to-day, I shall vote to seat fr. Gunter. If it be 

thought best that the case shall go through the form of recommitment, so that there may be some further investigation into the matter, 

I am willing to vote with the minority of the committee in favor of 

that proposition; but judging by what appears in this report, I do not see how any man can have a reasonable shadow of doubt that Mr. 

Gunter was the man elected. by the people of that district. This paper of the governor, which is not a certificate of election, 

but a certificate of certain returns, shows that Mr. Wilshire received 

12,644 votes ;· that Thomas 1\I. Gunter received 11,499 votes, and that 

there were a number of scatteo1:ing votes for "Guntee," "S. M. Gunter," ' T. M. Guntee," "Tho . M. Guntee," "T. Ros Gunter," and 

"Thos. 1\I. Crenter," and also 591 votes for "Gunther,." No one can doubt for whom those 591 votes were intended. There wa8 no man .named Gunther running; and those votes beyond question must have 

been intended for Mr. Gunter. There were over 1,400 votes in P u- laski County which are returned as "scattering." Now, we find the 
1570 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. FEBRUARY 17~ 

return of that county on page 11 of the report, and it clears up a good deal of the mystery which arises in connection with the following note t~ the g~neral a~stract : . " . . , " , " 

The ac.attenng vote m Pulaski County gwen to Wilshire, Guntee, S.M. 

Gunter," "T. ::M:. Guntee," "Thos. :M. Guntee," "T. Ros Gunter," anu "Thos. M. 

Crenter," is a literal copy of the clerk's returns. 

Now if any man will amuse b.:imseU by taking a pen or pencil a?d 

Acribbling the name "'rhomas M . Gunter," be will see how very easily a careless or dishone t clerk might make all those variations of the name. But, as I have said, this note is explained in a great measure by the return from Pula ki County, a given on page 11, from which, 

if it be truly printed, it appears that there was for "S. :M. Gunter" 1 

vote; for "TbomasM. Gunter" 343 votes; for "Gunter" 138votes; for 

"T. M. Gunter" 353 votes; for "Thomas M. Gunter" 50 vote ; for 

"Thomas N. Gunter" 33 votes; for "Thomas M. Gunter" 506 votes; for 

"Thomas :M. Crenter" 32 votes. These 32 vote for "Thomas :M. Crenter" are the only ones about-which any man can have any doubt,; and 

yet it is about as easy for a dishonest or carele s clerk to write 

"Thomas M. Crenter' as to write "Thoma M. Gunter." Now if you 

treat these vote according to the obv'lons intent of the people of the 

district in casting them, you obtain from 900 to 1,400 majority for l\lr. 

Gunter. vVith these things before us in the reports and in the documentary 

evidence, what ense can there be in giving fr. Wilshire a seat upon 

what is called aprimafacie case¥ Sir, the philosophical reasons, if I 

may use the expression, or the judicial reasons, for awarding a prima 

facie seat, are ab ·ent in this ca{';e. It is not nece sary to the organization of .the House or to the commencement of the business of the 

nation that the prirrtafacie seat be awarded to anybody. Two months 

and a half of the session have gone by, and nearly all the documentary evidence upon which the contest on the merits is to be decided 

is already before the committee. Though I do not know that I have 

any right to say it, yet I cannot see how the committee itself can have any doubt as to who is ultimately to occupy this seat; and perhaps it is not unkind to add that I do not see how Mr. Wilshire himself can come here and say that he ha-s any right to a seat in this 

House. 

I have never made any inquiry concerning the politics of these 

claimants. I suppose, however, from what I have heard, that Mr. 

Wilshire is a republican and l\lr. Gunter a democrat. Of course, 

however, that has nothing to do with the judicial determination of 

the case. As I have said, unless there should yet be made orne very 

strong statement in contradiction of what appears on the face of t he 

papers from the committee, I should individually feel safe in voting 

at this moment to seat l\Ir. Gunter. I certainly hall not vote to give 

Mr. Wilshire a seat for one hour. 

l\Ir. LAl\IAR. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, [l\Ir. MARSHALL.] · 

M.r. MARSHALL. l\fr. Speaker, I shall occupy the time of the gentleman (which is so nearly exhausted) for not more than two or three 

minutes. Indeed, since I conceived the idea of making a remark or two on this ca e, the principal point that I intended to make have 

been presented by other gentlemen around me o much better than I can hope to present them, that I have in fact cea ed to desire to submit any argument upon this question. It seems to me most manife t 

that the majority of the committee have mistaken, not only the efl:'ect 

of the credentials which were before them, but the purpo e of the 

House in submitting this case to the committee for their report. If 

there bud been any credentials showing clearly prim.a facie who was entitleu to represent the third congressional district of Arkan as in 

this House there would have been no neces ity for a reference of the case to the committee. But it is manifest tliat there· were no such 

credentials before the House. The Clerk of the House, with the 

authority conferred upon him by law, declineu so to decide, and re- fused to place the name of either of thes gentlemen upon the roll as a member of the Ron e; and as I have suggested, if it had appeared -on the face of the credentials that either claimant wa clearly entitled to be sworn in a a member there would h ave been no neces~ ity 

for a reference. But it is manifest that the proclamation of the gov- ernor does not show who was elected or who was entitled to the seat. As bas been remarked by the gentleman from Connecticut, [l\lr. 

RAWLEY,] if we were compelled to decide to-day as towhichofthese 

gentlemen is entitled to represent the district during the r e idue of 

this term, it would, as I conceive: be manifestly the duty of the House 

to give the seat to Mr. Gunter instead of J!lr. Wilshire, and that 

without looking further than the facts appearing in the proclamation 

and certificate of the governor. Indeed, the manner in which the vote 

is given shows a fraudulent purpose somewhere to deprive :Mr. Gunter of the seat to which he was clearly elected, and it doe not become 

this House to permit this fraud to be consummated. Over 1,400 votes 

·given for Gunt-er are returned as "scattering," without setting forth 

the persons for whom they were cast. Perhap no betterillustration 

could be given of the maxim that fraud.deals in generalities. Upon the papers before us for our determination it is impo ible 

for any member, it seems to me, to look at them, and from them 

alone to come to the conclusion that Judge Wilshire is entitled to a seat on any prima facie case before this House. But I wish to make this one point, and I rose simply for that purpose. The authority of the committee to act in this case was derived 

from the resolution referring the case io the committee. 

Now, what was the resolution' It was thatThe credentials and papers in possession of the Clerk of the llouse in tb cnse!! 

of contested elections from tbe first anu third districts of Arkansas b'e referred to the Committee on Elections, with instructions to r<'port at the earli'est day pmcti-

~fb~:~~~!e~o contesting parties are entitlell to b swom in a sitting members 

It was not t hat the mere proclamation of the governor containinocolumns of figures to be ac.lded up should be submitte(l. That could 

have been easily done ut the bar of the House; that was not the duty 

devolvec.l upon the commHtee by there olution of the House; but that 

the credentials and rapers in th e Clerk's office, inclndinO" of course the 

notes contained in the governor's proclamation, shonlc.lbe submitted. 

They were all, by the resolution, referred.; and on the whole of these 

paper the committee was to decide who was entitled to be sworn in 

as sitting member. With. that resolution, which gave the only authority, the committee had to act in the case. The majority has not, and 

cloes not pretend to have, looked further than this table of votes and 

has refused to look at the notes appended thereto, which are as m~ch a portion of the proclamation, and as important for understanding the 

case, as any other part. 

It is argued, indeed, on the other side, that they had no riO"ht to go 

further, and that in face of the bet that the resolution whlch gave 

jnrisrliction to the committee, gave them directions to look into not 

only the credentials, but also the papers in pos e ion of the Clerk of 

the House. And it has been stated here on the floor by a, member of 

the committee, and not controverted, that the original returns of the 

election, now in the hands of the committee and referred for their 

information, show that the 1,45Svotesgivenin the proclamation as scattering were in fact ca t plainly for Thomas 1\f. Gunter, giving him a clear majority of all the vote ca t. Yet with the e papers in the 

hands of the committee, with the resolution of the House directino-· them to look into the e papers, they have declined to do so, and they come here and report in favor of seating a gentleman whom even the 

proclamation of the governor, fairly construed, fails to show has re- ceived a majority or plurality of the votes cast. 

,fr. S~fiTH, of New York. I ask the gentleman to yield to me for one moment. I intended to keep out of this debate, but I wish to cor- rect he gentleman from illinois in his statement. The paper was before the committee upon which the secretary of state acted and 

the governor in making his proclamation, and the e vote a.re given 

correctly in the end of the governor's proclamation. There was a sub equent paper, which is said to be in evidence in the case, never in the office of the secretary of state, which .I ha e never een, 

although I have looked for it among all the papers. l\Ir. SPEER. The original ret urns from the respectiv-e countieR are on file in the room of the Committee on Elections. They were referred there by thi House; but when they were called for by a member of the committee investigating this case a ma,jority of tho 

committee refused to look at them. 

lr. SMITH, of New York. I desire to correct my colleao-ue. I do 

not know what action the committee has ever taken to 0 which bo 

allude . They have never refu ed to look at these paper on the 

application of any member of the committee; nor has any mem- ber of the committee here, or in their report, claimed the right to go 

to those papers. 

Mr. SPEER. I do not know whether the gentleman belongs to the 

mujority or not. I know he did not vote either way in the com- mittee. 

J!lr. MARSHALL. I will conclude with the simple remark that the 

resolution referring this case directed he committee to look not only 

into what are called credentials, but which in fact are not credential , bnt into all of the papers in the case in the pos ession of the 

Clerk of the Hou e; and they do not pretend that such papers would 

make a case favoring the resolution which they have reported. I fear 

that I h ave already trespa sed too far upon the kindness of the gentleman from Missi sippi, who e brief time I am consuming. I have 

not thought proper to attempt to add to the force of the argument so forcibly made by other gentlemen on the questions ari ing on the face 

of the pretended credentials. Confining the inve tigation to that 

alone, it has been conclu ively shown that the case hould be recom- mitted, and. I hall therefore ote for the resolution report d by the minority. 

Mr. L!.~IAR. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas. 

l\Ir. HYNES. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy, although I 

fear the limited time allowed me will be too short to do justice either 

to tl1e ca e or to my view . I r pre ent the constituency interested 

in the ettlement of this question equally with the gentlemen claiming ea. in this contest, representing as I have the honor to do the 

State of Arkan as at large. I therefore feel it in cum bent upon me to 

sa.y what I shall upon this que tion. There is nothing of party in it; 

there is nothing of per onal preference. Both gentlemen are my personn,l friends, and I should be glad to have them both in Congress. 

But we are not now electin(J' a member of Congress. Our votes are not constituent votes to m~e a member of Congre . That is suppo ed to have been done by the electors of the third congressional 

district of Arkansas. 'Ve are imply, under our oaths and responsibility as members, saying who in our opinion was elected, and who 

is entit.led to a seat upon this floor upon the papers before us. I introduced the resolution which referred the credentials and 

papers in the hands of the Clerk of the House to the committee for 
1R74. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 1571 

the determination of the question who was entitled to uo sworn in as a sittirig member upon this floor. I submitted that resolution to the 

·contestants upon both sides; both sides, I suppose, understanding 

perfectly well what papers were in the Clerk's possession, an.d therefore what papers would be referred to the committee. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, the fir t inquiry is, what is the evidence before 

the committee T The House can only lmow o far a it i presented 

to us in the reports from the committee. Has either one of the gentlemen a certificate of election from the governor, as required by the 

State statute Of course one of the parties has this and the other has 

it not, such party is at once entitled to a seat prima facie upon this 

floor; and the Clerk of the House has done him great wrong in not 

having originally placed his name upon the roll of the House. If 

both parties have certificates of election, then both are equally entitled so far as the certificate can give title; and therefore both are worthle s, because, of equal solemnity and force, they falsify each 

other. 

The majority report says that ~fr. 'Wilshire has such a certificate. The minority report informs us that Mr. Gunter has precisely a similar certificate. 

But it is said that the failure of the governor to issue a proclamation and certificate cannot deprive the party of any right growing 

out of his election. Of cour e not. It only deprives him of a proclamation and certificate as evidence of that fact, and compels the 

House to find other evidence thereof. But it is held that the succeeding governor did, two months after said canvass, make proclamation 

and clid issue a certificate of the result. Well, assuming that he had 

the right to do that, what should he have done T The canvass had 

already been made as the law required. The secretary of state certifies 

that it had been made. The law also required that the secretary of 

state keep a record of such canvass. The canvass was a ministerial 

act, and when executed was exhausted. Now, if the succeeding gov- ernor wanted to issue a proclamation or certificate, will it be denied 

that he should have issued such proclamation or certificate upon the canvass so ma-de But he does nothing of the kind. The certificate 

it elf shows that it was based upon a canva s made just two months 

after, entirely unknown to the law, and setting forth different results 

from that discovered by the original canvass. This of itself would 

vitiate the certificate. 

But I think it is clear that the governor never intended the paper 

called by the report a certificate to be understood as anything of the 

kind. His foot-notes clearly ·how that, as well as the fact that each 

gentleman obtained precisely the same thing from him, while the law 

provide that he shall give the certificate only to the party elected. 

But let us see what is this which the committee calls a certificate. Why, Mr. Speaker, let me direct the attention of the House to the 

terms in which this paper describes itself: "Abstract of the returns 

of election." It is simply a certified copy of an abstract in the office 

of the secretary of state, only that the governor assumes the functions 

of the secretary of state, and certifies to it instead of that officer, making it wholly worthless even · as a copy of a record, so that in law 

it is not worth the paper upon which it is printed. But give them ~ll the weight they were intended by the governor 

to have-that of certified copies of a public record-and let us see what they are worth. We have one certified copy, under the seal of 

the secretary of state, who is the proper officer to certify to public 

records; and one under the signature of the governor, attested by 

the secretary; both pmporting to be copies of the same original, with 

the exception that the returns from .Johnson County are included in 

the latter. We have the certificate of the secretary of state, assur- ing us that the only returns received between the canvass of December 14, 1872, of which the certificate of the secretary of state gives us an abstract, and tha.t of February 14, 1873, of which the governor 

purports to give us an abstract, were tho e received from .John on CoU11ty; and yet we find Pulaski County returned in the one 11,961, 

for Thomas M. Gunter, and in the other 11,493; while in the one 184 

votes from Newton County are given to Thos. M. Gunter, and in the 

other given in a eparate column for Thos. M. Gunther. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is no time for characterization. Sufficient for me to say that these facts alone turn this document out of doors, even as a copy of record. 

But having exposed the character of the certifil!ates, yet, such as they are, let us ee what they show. They show 23,202 votes cast in 

all, of which W. W. Wilsbh·e lacks over 900 of receiving a majo1·ity. 

Now, who has received that majority! It is given to various moclitications of the name of Thomas M. Gunter. They show upon their 

face that the certificates of the secretary of state and governor are not true when they say that they show a fl;ill, true, and correct statement of the vote as shown by the records on file in the office of sec- retary of state. I~ is not f~, true, or correct, because it aggregates 

th vote~ of Carolme town hip 506, an~ of Ashby township 227, and so on With over 1,400 vote as scattenng, when they are certainly 

la~e enough for separate collU'lllls if 12 votes for Wilshire is a number 

sumcient for that purpose. 

But to return to the question whether there is a certificate of election. Our State statute requires in its fiftieth section that after the canvassThe ~ove_rnor sh~ immediately thereafter issue his proclamation, decia,r;_ng the person navmg the htghest number of votes to be clulyelecte:l to represent the State m the Hous~ of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, and shall 

grant a certificate thereof, under the seal of the State, to the person so elected, 

Has that been clone f Does it require that the certificate shall be 

granted to all the persons who are candidates, and can we suppose 

that the governor expected us to regard it as a certificate when the same document is issned to both contestants Y Has the governor 

issued it to the party elected, or does he declare that any body is duly 

elected Not at all. It may be argued by the majority of the com- mittee that after the certificate was issued to Mr. Wilshire, it was then competent for somebody to is ue a copy of the same as a public 

record to Mr. Gunter. But if that were the case the certificate would 

have been of record and the secretary of state would have been the 

proper officer to have certified a copy of it to l!fr. Gunter. But we see by the foot-notes, as well as by the duplicate certificates, that the 

governor never expected that he would be regarded as certifying anybody elected. -

So, :Mr. Speaker, we discover that this is not a certificate of election 

at all, that it has none of the elements of a certificate in iti and that 

it never was intended to be regarded as a s::ertificate of e ection by 

the officer who i sued it. 

As my time is limit.eJ, I will not delay further upon this branch of 

the case. What do we find in the absence of any certificate of election' I agree with the reasoning of the minority in every respect 

but one, and it is this difference which has led us, I think, tu different 

conclusions. The minority seem to labor under the mistake that the 

secretary of state has certified to the correctness of both these statements of the vote. Of course, if that were so, I should agree with 

them that, being contradictory, they were both worthless, and forced us to go to the merits for any ascertainment of the results. But that 

is not so. The secretary of state is not responsible for a single state- ment signed by the governor. His name comes to be on the certifi- cate only in attestation of the governor's signature; and that si~ed 

by the g~vernor be~g of no value at all, as he is not the proper otncer 

to certify to a public record, the secretary's certificate stands as far as it goes. 

In the absence of such a certificate, what is the Honse then forced· to de 'f To take the next best evidence that is at hand1 as the report 

of the majority says. What is the next best evidence 1 It would be 

the original returns in the offices of the various county clerks in that 

district, if we could have them here; but we cannot get them, because 

the law requires that they shall be kept on record there. If we can- not get them, what is the next best thing we can get as the evidence 

upon which to determine the prima facie ca e of the Representative 

from the third district of Arkansas 'f Why, certainly, copies of these 

original returns, jm;t what the governor decides from, in the office of 

the secretary of state. Have we copies of the original returns f We 

have them only so far as Pulaski and Scott Counties are concerned. 

Mr. TODD. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question f 

Mr. HYNES. Certainly. 

l!fr. TODD. I would a k the gentleman whether under the law of 

Arkansas the precinct returns are sent to the secretary of state, or whether the law of Arkansas does not simply prescribe that an ab- stract of these precinc.t returns shall be made by the county clerks, 

and that abstract certified to the secretary of state, so that there is no provision in the law of Arkansas by which the precinct returns 

shall get into the office of the secretary of state. · Mr. HYNES. That is true. 

Mr. TODD. Therefore the argument of the gentleman, that we should go to those original returns, as found in the office of the sec- retary of state, refers to a record that cannot exist, and for which 

there is no authority of law. 

:Mr. HYNES. I must. have failed to state my point sufficiently 

clearly, for I see I am miSunderstood by the gentleman. The original 

returns in the offices of the county clerks of the various counties to 

which I have referred, and which are knpwn as county clerks' retn;·ns the clerks are bound by law to retain; tha.t is, the original abstract~ made by them from the precinct retmns a.nd of which they send copies 

to the-secretary of state. My posHion is that, in the absence of the 

governor' certificate, the best evidence it is po ible for u to get is ' 

the certified copies of the original ab tracts in the offices of the county 

clerks, and that they must rank as evidence the certified abstract of 

the copies to be found in the office of the secretary of state. 

Mr. POTTER. If copies of these returns of the county clerks sent 

to the secretary of state had spelled "Gunter 17 " Gun tee," that fact 

would be disclosed by an examination of the originals. 

Mr. HYNES. Very likely. Let me repeat; my inquiry is, what do we find on record from which to determine a prirnafacie caseY Wo 

find copies of the original abstracts in the offices of the clerks of 

Pulaski and Scott Counties; and as far as they go they are the best 

evidence that we have. So far as evidence from the other counties 

is concerned, we have to take the next best which we can find and 

that is the evidence contained in the certified abstract of the ~ecre­ tary of state. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

I ask permission of the House, as this is a matter of great interest 

to my constituents, to proceed a little longer. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from North Carolina [?lfr. THoMAs] 

is entitled to the floor. Mr. THO:\fAS. I was about to call the previous question, but I do 

not object to an extension of time for the gentleman. . ~~. HYNES .. ~ow for the o~her counties.. After considering the copies of the ongmal abstracts from Pulaski and Scott Counties, we have to rely upon the certified copies or abstract of copies in the offic~ 
1572 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. FEBRUARY 17, 

of the secretary of state. These added together elect 1\Ir. Gunterwithout ~ny of the modific~tion~ of names, amounting to 100 votes-by a majority of about 1,300 votes. It is not in our power to use the 

copy of the copy, which scatters the votes, when we have before us~ 

copy of the original, upon which to ascertain the vote of Pula.sk1 

County, and which does not scatter. I therefore dissent even from the conclusion of the minority of the 

committee, and holcl that upon the papers that have been brought 

back to the House by the committee, giving rank to the stronge t 

te timony, a clear p1intajacie ca e has been made out for Mr. Gunter, 

and that it is the duty of this House to seat him upon the case that 

has n,lready been made. 

'I'hanking the House for its indulgence, (his is all I desire to 

say at this time. If the previous question is not seconded, and I can rret the opportunity, I shall move to amend the resolution of the 

gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. Tnm.us,] by inserting the name of Thomas M. Gun~r in place of that of W. W. Wilshire, n,nd 

test the disposition of the House upon it. 

Mr. TRO~fAS. I now call the previous question. 

TREASURY CONTRACT . 

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the Treat3ury, in answer to n, re olution of 

the House of February 1:3, 1874, in relation to contracts made under 

the authority of the Treasury Department in compliance with the 

act of May , 1872; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means, and ordered to be printed. 

CONTINGE~T FUl\TD OF TREASURY DEPARTMENT. 

The SPEAKER also, by unanimous con ent, la,id before the H ou e a letter from the Secretary of the Trea nry, transmitting a detailed 

statement of expenditures from the contingent fund of his Department for the fiscal yea.r ending June 30, 1t;73, in compliance with the 

act of Ma.rch 3, 1869; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriu.tions, and ordered to be printed. 

Crv.ITrSERVlCE REFOR~. 

The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of War, tra.nsmitting reports from 

the various Bureaus in his Department in relation to civil-service reform; which was referred to the Committee on Reform in tho Civil 

Service, and ordered to be printed. 

H. K. BROWN'S STATUE OF WTh"'FIELD SCOTT. 

The SPEAKER also, by unanimou consent, laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of War, in relation to the memorial 

of H. K. Brown, for an adclitional allowance for his equestrian statue 

of General Winfield Scott, lately erected in this city; which was refeiTed to the Committee on the Library, and ordered to be printed. 

DIPROVEME~"'T OF GA.L VESTO~ HARB~)R. 

The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent,.la.id before the House a. communication from the Secretary of War, in relation to an appropriation for theimproYementof Galveston Harbor, Texas; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed. 

DIDIAN A.FFA.IR • 

The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laicl before the House 

a, communication from the Secretary of the Interior, trn,nsmitting a draught of a bill to a.mend the act entitled "An act making appropriations for the current and contingent expen es of the Indian Department, and for fulfilling treaty stipulations with various Indian tribes, 

for the year ending June 30, 1849;" which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. 

PA.Y OF 1\fiLITARY PRISON COMMISSIONERS. 

The SPEAKER also, by una.nimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of War, in relation to an appropriationfor the payment of two commi sioners from civil life appoin'"ed 

on the military prison board under the act of March 3, 1 73; which wa referred to the Committee on Appropriation , andord 1' <l to be printed. 

D1PROVEl\iE~T OF OHIO RIVER. 

The SPEAKER also, by unanimous com :mt, laid before the Honse a communication from the Secretary of W n.r, in relation to the improvement"of the Ohio River; which wa.s referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed. -

COAST SURVEY REPORT. 

The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, l.:'1id before the Hou e a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting the 

annual report of the Superintendent of the Coast Survey; which wa referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed. 

INDIANS OF SILETZ AGENCY, OREGON. 

The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the Hou e a communication from the Secretary of the Interior, in relation to 

the condition of the Indians of the Siletz agency, in Oregon; which was referred to the Committee on Indian A:ft'airs, and ordered to 

be printed. -

MA.RTIA.L LA.W L"'{ THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.. 

The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, lmd before the House a communicatipn from the Secretary of War, in rela.tion to the cbte 

of the President's proclamation declaring martial law within the District of Columbia., and the period of jts continuance; which was r eferred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

NA V A.L APPROPIUA.TIO~ S. 

The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the Honse a. communication from the ecretary of the Navy; in answer to are o- lution of the House of December 9, 187:3, in relation to the approprinr 

tion made for the :fiscal year ending Jtme 30,1 74; also how much of 

said appropriation was expended prior to Janua;ry 1, 1874; and also 

how much of the 4,000,000 appropriated by the pre ent Congress has 

been expended, and forwhat purposes; which wa referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered t o be printed. 

SEA-BOARD A1-."'D ROANOKE RAILROAD. 

The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, lnid before the House a communit:ation from the Secr etary of War, in relation to House bill 

No. 785, for the relief of the Sea-board and Roanoke Railroad Company ; 

which was referred to the Committee onMilitMy .A..ffairs, a.nd ordered 

to be printed. 

E~TROLLED BILLS SIG~TED . 

Mr. PE:t\T))LETON, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported 

that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled bills of 

the following title ; when the Speaker signed the same: 

An act (H. R. No. 1761) granting certain swamp lands in Holt 

County, 1\lissomi, to aid Holt County, for school purpo es; and 

An act (H. R. No. 1769) for the relief of Colonel Da.niel McClure, 

assistant payma, ter-geneml. 

AR.KA:XSAS ELECTIO~ CONTEST-G~TER V . WILSHIRE. 

The SPEAKER. The question is on the seconding the demand for 

tho previous question. 

The que tion being taken, there were-ayes 79, noe 4 . Mr. ARCHER. I cn,ll for tellers. 

The SPEAKER. As no quorum has voted, the Chair will order tellers, and appoint the gentleman from North Cu.rolina, 1\Ir. THOMAS, 

nnd the gentleman from Maryland, 1\Ir. ARCHER. 

1\Ir. ~VILLARD. I wish to make a parliamentary inquiry. If the 

previous question be seconded what will be the first question to be 

voted on' 

The SPEAKER. The first question will be npon the resolution of 

the minority of the committee, which has been offered as a substitute 

for the re olution of the majority, and which pmposes to recommit 

the que tion. 

Mr. HYNES. If the gentleman from North Carolina will yield to 

me, so that I rn a get in my amendment and te t the ense of the 

House upon it, I will not resist the previous question. 

Mr. TODD. I understand that the gentleman from North Carolina 

[1\lr. THO:\IA.S] did yield for the purpo e of enabling the gentleman 

from l\fissi sippi [Mr. LAMAR] to offer his amendment. 

The SPEAKER. That wa the underst.amling when the report was made; and the Chair stated this morning that such was the state of 

the case. The Chair begs to state in regaTd to election cases "the uniform habit has been, whatever phase may be presented, to let the 

propositions proceed pari pa8 tb, :1nd have a vote on each. That is in 

accordance with the usage of the House, and the Chair regards that 

amendment as pending. 

Mr. ARCHER. I withdra,w my dem~d for tellers. 

The previous question was econded, and the main question ordered. 

l\1E SAGE FROM THE SE~A.TE . 

A message was received from the Senate by Mr. SYMPso~, one of 

its clerks, notifying the House that that body had pa sed a joint 

resolution (H. R. No. 29) authorizing the Secretary of War to detail 

meclica.l officers of the Army to inquire into, and report upon, the ca e of epidemic cholera, with ameudments in which the concurrence of the House was requested. 

The message further announced that the Senate had pa.ssed, with- out u.mendment, bills of the following titl es : 

An aot (H. R. No. 1040) giving the consent of Congre s to tho 

acceptance by Jn,mes McDonald, a warmnt officer of tho United 

States Navy, of a present from the King of Ita,ly ; 

An act (H. R. No.4 3) to authorize the cancellation of an export 

bond for a portion of the distilled spirits of JohnS . . Miller, on bonnl 

of bonded cars of the United States; and 

An act (H. R. No. 1041) for the relief of Robert N. McMilln,n, lat e collector of custom and superintendent of lights for the district of 

Teche, in the State of Louisiana. 

The me age further announced that the Sena,te had pa sed bills 

of the following titles; in which the concurrence of the House was 1·eqne ted: 

An act (S. No. 100) for the relief of Lieutenant Alonzo V. RichMds; 

An act (S. No. 269) to change the titles of certain nn,val officers, nnd 

for other purposes ; 

An act (S. No. 36:>) for the relief of l\htthew Woodruff, la.te first 

ergeant of Company G, Twenty-fil'st Regiment Missouri Volunteers; 

An act (S. No. 366) for the relief of Oliver Powers; and 

An act (S. No. 3131) granting a pension to Sciotha Bra.shears, late of 

the Seventeenth Regiment Kentucky Cavalry. 

ARKANSAS CONTESTED ELECTIO~. 

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from North Carolina pro· 
1874 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 1573 

pose to take the hour to which he is entitled after the previous question¥ 

Mr. THOMAS. I do not desire for myself more time, but I cra.ve indulgence to make some remarks expla.natory of what has been said 

on the other side. 

Mr. LAMAR. I wish to know whether this division of time is to go 

on according to the understanding t 

The SPEAKER. The Chair is not ad vised. 

Mr. THOMAS. They have had the last hour, and I have promised 

to yield to several gentlemen on t~s .sic~e o.f the House. If I can I 

will yield to the gentleman from MI.Ssi.SSippi. 

Mr. SPEER. I thouiJ'ht the understanding was we should h ave 

the time divided equally, both before and after the previous question. 

Mr. THOMAS. Surely not. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair does not think that understanding 

was arrived at. 

Mr. SPEER. It was said publicly by the gentleman from l\1ississippi that such arrangement had been made. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania w~ remem- ber that the Chair said, in the absence of the House comrng to any 

agreement it would proceed under the rules of the House, and the 

gentlem::m' from North Carolina. would be recognized :first, then the 

gentlenian from l\fis is~ippi, and if the House se.conded the demand 

for the previous question he would of course give the floor to the 

gentleman from North Carolina to close the debate. . . . . Mr. SPEER. I understood the gentleman from MI.SSISSlppi to say, 

bofore the debate began, he was per:fec ly satisfied with the arrangement for ::m hour and a half on each side. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair suggested it shoulcl proceed under the 

rules of the House. The gentleman from North Carolina, however, 

indicates a purpose to yield a portion of his time. 

Mr. THOl\IAS. 1\Ir. Speaker, the case before this House, judging 

from remarks made by many gentlemen in support of the resolution 

offered by the minority of the committee, has been entirely misapprehended, as I assert with perfect deference to those who differ from me and the majority of the committee in relation to the case. By a resolution of this House, introduced by the gentleman from Arkansas, as he stated, on the second day of December last, two ca-ses, one from 

the first district and the other from the third district of Arkansas, were referred to us with certain credentials a.nd papers, to which we were restricted as a Committee on Elections, and to which this House 

properly ought to confine its attention in the consideration of this case. These credentials and papers are set forth in tho majority re- port . Still, on the ot her side, in the minority report, the sta,tement 

is persisted in that there was other evidence than that stated in this 

report. The minority has lugged in testimony entirely irrelevant to 

this case. You, sir, as Speaker, laid before the House, subsequent to this r es- olution of December 2, the testimony and papers in the following 

contested-election cases, and the same were r eferred to the Committee on Contested Elections: Arkansas, first congressional district; 

Ark::msas, second congressional district; Arkansas, third congressional district; Georgia, &c. These papers subsequently r eferred, were in contested-election cases, and they have no appropriate place 

in this report of the minority, and none in the discussion on this 

:floor. Hence the misapprehension which has arisen. I choose to confine myself to and to rely upon the certificate of Gov- ernor Baxter, both as to its form, substance, and legal intendment, as the only instrument of evidence, (if it be proper to call any cer- tificate an instrument of evidence, using the word in its legal sense,) as sufficient evidence to establish prima facie right of fr. ·wilshire to 

his seat. But the gentleman from Iowa [ fr. McCRARY] the late chg.irman of the Committee on Elections, admits thn.t if this paper 

shows upon its face that :Mr. Wilshire was elected, then it was a proper certificate in accordance with the law of Arkansas. But I 

think he goes off and allow his own mind to be misled by discon- necting the abstract which shows the relative proportion of votes 

received from the certificate itself. Sir, the certificate makes that 

abstract a part of itself. But the governor, as it was his duty to do, 

set out an abstract obtained from the casting up and arranging of 

the votes, which was done in the secretary's office, and by which it 

is shown that l\.fr. Wilshire received a majority of 1,195 votes. He 

then appends certain explanatory foot-notes, and then follows: 

STATE OF ARKANSAS, Executive O.!Jice: 

Whereas the acting governor failed to issue a certificate of election to the person who received the highest number of votes for Representative in Congress from the 

third congressional district of Arkansas, at the election held in said district on the 

5th day of November, 1872: * * * Now, therefore, I, Elisha Ba,xter, governor of 

the State of Arkansas, do certifythat the foregoing statement, with tbe e:!..-planatory 

notes, is a full, true, and correct exhibit of t he votes polled for Representative from 

the third congressional district of Arkansas, at the election held in said (listrict on . the 5th day of November, A. D. 1872, a.s appears from the returns of said election on file and cerliftcates of clerks deposited in the office of secretary of state. 

And that is duly signed by the governor. This certificate proper, if 

I may so designate it, following the foregoing statement; to wit, the 

abstract itself, makes the abstract a part of it. And would the gentle- man say, if the abstract had followed it, that that would have made 

a.ny difl'erence, or that it would have made any difference if inserted 

in the body of the writing or the certificate proper It is admitted 

that if the governor of the State had stated in any language that A 

B hu.d 10,000 votes and C D 9,000 votes, it would thereby have been 

shown without any words on the face of the certificate that the "OVernor intended to say that the majority of votes was cast for A B. And 

if that appears in any memorial or certificate transmitted by the gov- ernor to this Rouse, I think they will consider it as seating l\.Jr. Wilshire. · 

Is it to be said that the governor of Arkansas, who seemed at lea-st 

willing to do his duty, would send a paper to this House that could 

have no legal effect, that ought to be" kicked out of the House "to use 

~n elef1ant p~ase e~ployed by a gentleman on the other side' to-day, 

if he did not mtenclit to be what It purports 1io be 'I Will it be said 

that he sent this without intending that it should declare any one 

duly elec.ted 'I ~ it not the rule, rather, that acts done by official 

persons, rn t~e discharge of a legal duty, are presumed to be rightl~· 

tlone 'l Was It not the duty of the governor, under this section 50 of 

the statutes, immediately after the vote was arranged and cast up 

t o issue the proclamation and give his certificate of election 'I If ~ did not mean to do that he meant to do nothing. So that I think 

clearly that this House will say that he intended to show that some- body was elected. 

I will not start to guess, sir, who has been guilty of fraud. I might g~ess tha.t the clerk of Pulaski County had been guilty of fraud. I 

nnght guess that Governor Hanley had some motive for failina to 

issue a certificate, because in his presence the vote had been arranged 

and cast up. 

But it is said that the words "duly elected" do not appear on t he face 

of the certificate. I repeat, there is no form of a certificate which 

bas ever been recognized by this House. There is no form prescribed 

in the laws of Arkansas ; and if there were one prescribed the House 

would not consider a mere variance occasioned by the omis~ion or mis- use of words a sufficient cause for keeping a member out of his seat. I think it is natural that the governor should have made this state- ment precisely in the form in which he did make it. The secret:1l'y 

of state h ad previously stated that there were scattered votes to the 

number of about 1,:~00; and the governor, two montli.S after the sec- reta,ry of state had cast up and arranged the votes and ascertained tho 

result in order to issue a certificate, and so discharge his duty under 

t his section 50, had a new ca~ting up and.arranging; and he means to 

declare through this paper the result. \Vill this House then stop to 

inquir~ whether this gover~o~ had pro:perl~ a new casting up and 

arrangmg of the vote 1 Will1t stop to mqmre how he ascertained at 

the secretary's office what number of votes Wilshire had received¥ 

.A.ll these inquiries would be proper in the determination of n, contested- election case, but not here. It is to be presumed that the governor 

acted rightly, in order to determine his duty. 

Now, sir gentlemen, go off and guess, or assume, rather. If I should 

say that these scattering votes for Thomas l\f. Guntee, &c., were all 

cast for Thomas S. Gunter, this may perhaps be true. But your. com- mittee were not instructed to inqutre into this matter of fact, and 

there was no evidence to show in what proportions the scattering 

votes were cast-how many for Thos. M . Crenter or others named. If 

that be true, this House cannot know it by any evidence before it ; 

cannot know it otherwise than from statements of gentlemen who as- sume it to be true in this case. If that be true, it can only be ascer- tained in the contest pending, and it may affect the decision of the case upon the merits. 

.A.llow me to say that this case is not a merely legal one. The State 

of Arkansas has rights on this floor. There is a duty for this House to discharge, in this great public inquiry, to the State of Arkansas, 

if it properly can do so, without being bound by strictly legal rule:> 

of evidence. Will you keep that State from representation here for 

six or twelve mouths it may be, if further time shall be allowed to 

these parties to take te.:;timony, ana additional evidence is taken before 

the report is made by the Committee on Elections, and the case deter- mined upon its merits¥ Ought it not rather to be the practice of this 

House, and has it not been the practice of this House, to admit one to 

hi!:! seat pending the contest¥ Let the pending contest in this case go on, 

but admit Ir. Wilshire to his seat, in order that his State may be h eartl 

here, and that the House may be more thoroughly organized. Let justice be done to him and his State, without prejudice to the rights of 

the contestant by the adoption of the resolution reported by the majority of the Conunittee on Elections. I now yield a portion of my time to the gentleman from Ohio, [:Mr. 

Rom~so:N.] . Mr. ROBINSON, of Ohio. It was not my intention to say a single 

word upon this question, and I would not now did it not seem to me that gentlemen, on this side of the House at least, are about to cast 

their votes upon a mistaken view of the facts. The question sub- mitted in the resolution sent to the Committee on Elections was, who was entitled to be sworn in as the sitting member from this district 

of Arkansas t Of course, the papers, tho certificates, and cred~ntials, 

. which would bear upon this question as to who was thus entitled to 

be sworn in, were proper subjects of consideration by the committee. 

The committee took the highest evidence thn.t was before it. It 

took the certificate of the abstra-ct of votes, as they were certified to 

the committee and to the House by the secretary of state of the State 

of Arkansas, aud the proclamation and certificate of the governor 

of the State showing what was the result of the election in that dis- trict. Both the certificate of the secretary of state and the procla.- mation and certificn.te of the governor of the State show by the footings of the votes cast in the different counties in that district that 
1574 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. FEBRUARY 17, 

Mr. Wilshire had distinctly received a majority of the votes cast. 

Having taken this, the highest evidence of which the case was sus- ceptible, the committee decided that it wa.s neither proper nor within 

their jurisdiction in this state of the case to examine in regard to 

other matters, and to consider evidence of au inferior character. 

I now wish to direct the attention of the House a moment to a question raised by the gentleman from Connecticut, [l\fr. HAWLEY.] 

He says that these votes that were cast for" Mr. Guntee," "T. H.os Gunter," and a few other names, different from Thoma M. Gunter, are morally certain to have been cast for Thomas l\f. Gunter; and being 

so, this House ought not to shut its eyes to that fact, and seat Mr. Wilshire on a prirna facie case in the face of that fact. Now, the 

gentleman from Connecticut ought to be awa,re, it occurs to me, in 

making the statement, of the further fa-ct, which gentlemen in. this 

House seem not to have considered thus far, that this caHe is contested on many other grounds than mere differences of names. I am au- thorized to state, from my own examination, that the printed record 

of the evidence alreadv filed and before the Committee on Elections 

will make a volume of.from two to three thousand pa~es, and involving questions. of intimidation, of fraud, and of imposition throughout 

hat district. 

Gentlemenhereundertaketosubmitthiscaseupontheideathatthere is nothing involved in it except as to whether these votes forT. Ros Gunter, for Gun tee, and others, shall be counted. I state that if this case is referred back to the committee, it must be in the face of the 

i:act that the committee will be compelled to go through a volume of 

evidence of two thousand or three thousand printed pages, involving 

questions of fraud and intimidation. . Now, the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. McCRARY,] my distinguished 

friend, who I am told was formerly chairman of the Committee on Elections, says that the effect of these certificates is that there is no prima facie case. I submit to the lawyers, at least, upon this floor, 

whether the footings of the votes in the different counties, as shown 

in the report and the certificate of the secretary of state and of the 

proclamation of the governorJ are not in substance and legal effect a declaration that 12,644 votes wero cast for vV. W. Wilshire, and 11,499 

votes were cast for Thomas :t\I. Gunter, and that the legal effect resulting from these facts is that Mr. Wilshire is therefore elected, having a majority of the votes cast. The foot-notes and explana.tions in con- nection with that report are not a part of that certificate, so far as to 

change the result shown by the footings in these different columns. 

One more fact, and I am done. The minority of this committee in 

their report have inserted what they call a copy of the abstract of 

votes in the county of Pulaski, in the State of Arkansas. Now to show 

that the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. LAMAR] is mistaken in 

asserting this to be a true copy, I will call his attention to this fa-ct, 

that on page 11 of the report, as printed, there are four columns of 

the abstract, the second, fourth, seventh, and ninth, which purport 

to give the votes cast for Thomas M. Gunter. There are four columns 

in which the name is spelled with precisely the same letters in each 

column. 

Now, while I have not seen the abstracts at all, and I have been 

unable to find them, the fact that there are four cqlumns headed with 

the sa.me na.me, spelled wit h precisely the same letters, is proof positive to every gentleman that this is not a true copy of the original. 

I undertake to say that no clerk that has any qua.lifications for the 

position would, in making out an ::tbstract, give four headings to 

columns, ea.ch one with the same natne, spelled with precisely the same letters. And I call the a.ttention of the gentleman to the fact 

that, by a mistake of his or a mistake of the printer, the House is 

being misled a,s to the fact. . Mr. LAMAR. The transcript to which the gentleman refers is on file in the office of the clerk of the Committee on Elections. There it 

is; and all that the gentleman ha.s to do is to open his eyes and see it. I do not believe that this resolution of the House forbids any such 

exercise of the senses with which we are endowed by nature. If I am . mistaken as to my copy, let it be verified by the production of the 

p::tper itself, which is on file. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of Ohio. In answer to the gentleman's speech 

which I have allowed him to inject into mine, I say that there is the 

original certificate of the secretary of state, which declares, under the 

seal of the State, what is the original copy on file in his office. Then 

when I say that the original is there, the gentleman tells us that which 

he ought to know is not true. The original is on file in the county, 

and no man can remove it under the law. 

1\Ir. LAMAR. The gentleman is mistaken. I have made no such 

statement; and I will respectfully submit to the gentleman that he 

will advance the ends of truth by not allowing himself to be betrayed 

into such harsh expressions. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of Ohio. What, then, did the gentleman say f 

Mr. LAMAR. I said that the certified tr~nscript of the original 

abstract on file in the clerk's office is in the committee-room. I 

have never stated that the original was there; and if the gentleman 

will read my report, he will see tha.t I state that the transcript certified by the clerk is on file. Mr: ROBINSON, of Ohio. Then the gentleman admits that he has ~l!JY a certified copy of a copy f 

_, :Pt~r,,LAMAR. No, sir; I sa.ythat we have a transcript of the original 

J:'t)tiUJI'zhtta,Qd that the certificate of the s ecretary of state certHies to 

&J,P0?Y. \'>-f ~fl9PN• . The gentlem;:t.~ ~o who~ the member from Ohio would 

give the seat-not the ma.n to whom I would award it-has that copy 

of a copy. The paper on which I rely is a transcript of the original 

consolirlated returns of Pulaski County. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no disposition to 

hinder the gentleman from p:mh"ing any statement of facts, but he 

must see that his evidence is of an inferior character to tha.t on .. which 

I rely. The original returns of the county are required by l::tw to bo 

placed on file with the secretary of state. Now a copy of those returns 

is certified by the secretary of state, their proper custod ian. Bnt 

gentlemen on the other side undertake to make a. record by going 

back to the certificate of the clerk, which is not legitimate evidence, 

while the paper on which I rely is evidence of the highest character. 

I have thus gone over this matter, although I do not consider it 

proper in conne~tion with this case; for I claim that,priJna faaie, the case must be decided upon the certificate of the officers having in 

charge the seal of the State ; that we cannot in this case go behind 

that certificate, unless we violate another principle of law and hold 

that we will not allow a man to be sworn in as a sitting member until we a certain that he i by right entitled to t he seat. :row, in the face of the fact that this case is to be contested, as I stated before, upon a. large amount of evidence which mu t be examined, and the exa.mina.-

tion of which must neces arily take time, I insist, ~Ir . Spea.ker, tha.t 

there is not only a pri1na faaie case made out here, but one which this 

House is bound to respect by admitting to the seat the gentleman who e claim ha.s t.he sanction of the majority of the committee. 

Mr. TRO:l\-IAS. I now yield fifteen minutes to the gentleman from 

New York, [Mr. Si\HTII,] the chairman of the committee. 

l\lr. SPEER. Did I understand the gentleman from North Carolina 

[Mr. THOMAS] to say that he was going to occupy the whole of this 

hourf 

The SPEAKER. The Chair is not advised upon that point. 

Mr. SPEER. I understood the Chair so to state. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair understood the gentleman from North 

Carolina at the b eginning of his r emarks to indicate to the gentle- man from ~Iississipp i that he would divide the time. l\fr. SPEER. Does the gentleman from North Carolina. intend to 

occupy the whole hour¥ 

l\ir. THOMAS. I do. I trust in doing so I sh all not be considered 

guilty of any discourtesy. Inasmuch as the minority have in their 

report lugged in evidence entirely irrelevant to the case, and calculated to prejudice the mind of the House, I must occupy the whole 

hour. 

Mr. SPEER. Then you intend to remedy one wrong by the com- missiqn of another. 

:Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. 

S:vnTH.] 

1\lr. S~ITTH, of New York. I surrender my right to the floor. I 

yielfl my fifteen minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. 

SPEER.] 

Mr. SPEER. I do not desire to speak upon the question. The chair- man of the committee surely should not exhibit any pa,ssion in this matter. 

1\lr. S~IITH, of New York. Not at all. I think it fair that the other 

side should have a part of this time. 

111r. SPEER. I do not ask the time for mysolf. I do not want to 

occupy one minute in the discussion of this case. 

1\Ir. Sl\IITH of New York. I yield my time to the gentleman, and 

he ma.y dispose of it as he chooses. Mr. SPEER. I thought the gentleman having charge of this case would be fair and would divide the t ime; but when he does not choose 

to do so, I do not of course wish to object to the gentleman from New 

York going on. Mr. S~IITH, of New York. Then I yield to the gentleman from 

Mississippi, [Mr. LAMAR.] 

l\ir. LAMAR. l\lr. Speaker, I dislike very much to avail myself of 

the offer of the distinguished gentleman from New York, and would 

prefer that he shonld occupy some of the time which he has so generously accordefl to me in giving his views to the House. If it i his 

wish to do so, I have not the slightest objection, and will assure him 

that it will not in the slightest degree interfere with any purpose of 

mine. 

It was not my purpose to participate in this discussion. I was perfectly willing that the resolution submitted by the minority should 

stand or fall upon the reasons given in the r eport. 

I do not, therefore, propose to detain the House by any argument 

upon the subject, but will briefly correct one or two erroneous statements which have been made. As reference has been made by the 

member from North Carolina [l\lr. THOMAS] to party influences, I 

de ire here to disclaim any offensive imputations of that cha.racter 

against my colleagues on the committee. The position of a mem b cr 

of this committee who belongs to a majority of the House is a delicate and tryinO' one, and it is a painful one when it becomes necessary 

to take a stand against the interests of paJ"ty friends to whom he is deeply attached, ancl possibly under great obligations of party fealty. 

The risk of losing their good opinion, or incurring ridicule for being 

too conscientiou.<J, or too judicial, makes the performance of duty bard 

and embarra ing. I concrir with the member from North Carolina [.Mr. THOMAS] 

that this question should be decided without r eference to party prejudices. There is, perhaps, in the Constitution no power which a mar 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 1575 

jority can so easily use as an instrument of oppression as that which 

makes this House the judge of the election, returns, and qualifications 

of its own members. It opens an avenue by which the Government can reach the very fountains of political power. He who would drag such a question into the arena of party debate, or give his vote or raise his 

voice upon it with any motive less ptue than truth, or with even a glimmering thought of party profit, trifles with the rights of the 

people, and is untrue to the high re ponsibilitie of his position a a.n American Representative. 

The question referred to the committee was, . who is entitled, on the credentials and papers in po session of the Clerk of the House, to 

b e sworn in as sitting member of this House¥ Taking this to mean, 

who is entitled to the prima facie right f the majority of the committee 

seemed to think that we were bound, no matter wha.t was in those 

papers, to find th:1t .some one had the p1inta facie right to the seat. 

Such was not the view of the minority of the committee. Their view wa that no person had such right from the paper to which the 

majority of the IJommittee felt bound to restrict their examina.tion. 

The report of the majority, and the argument of the member from 

North Carolina, [Mr. TB:mi.AB,] if I do not misunderstand it, a sumes that the prima facie right is to be determined and established by the 

credentia.lissned by the propercertifyinrrofficerofthe Sta.te; that a cer- tificate of f,he governor is the credentiJ. authorize<l by the laws of .A.rkansa.s; and that the certificate of Governor Baxter is in itself sufficient 

to establish the p1~i11ta facie right of ~Ir. Wilshire. And he objects to the 

Honse coru>idering the certified abstract of the r eturns from counties, uecause it goes behind the credential. Then why did he put the cer- tificate of the casting up of the secretary of state mto his report f 

Did he not go behind the credential when he drew from the secretary 

of sta.te's office this aliunde evidence¥ When he lea.ves the credential 

for other evidence, who shall say where the line shall be drawn 

Allow me to call the attention of the Honse to this paper. A copy 

of it is on the first page of the I'el)Ort of the majority of the committee. What do you see there You see 12,522 vot.es for Wilshire, 

11,961 votes for Gunter, and 1,127 votes "scattering." Why are these 

1,IZ7 votes not put down to the names for whom they were voted, as the law of .A.J.·kansas requires t.o be done It was because it would 

show unmistakably that they were cast for Thomas M. Gunter. 

So far from being a fair and intelligible and honest casting up, it 

is on its face a cheating, deceptive, fraudulent contrivance to con- ceal t he truth. Why did he not say who t.hey were for-1,127 votes 

"scattering " Whatever its motive, its effect is to r ender it impossible to tell from its face who is elected. This is as fatal to this paper us the unsupported evidence and credentials of Mr. Wil hire. But 

the governor's certificate show the motive of this word "scattering ." 

It shows that these votes were not scattering, but that they were caat for Mr. Guilter. The number of votes given for Thoma 1. 

Crenter (evidently meant to be Thomas M. Gunter) is not specified; 

a.nd therefore it is equally impo ible to ascertain from the govern- or's certificate which received the most votes, W. W. \Vilshire or T. 

M. Gunter. 

According to the la.w of .Arkansas the governor is required to cer- tify and proclaim who is duly elected. Neither in this proclama.tion nor his certificate does he s1ate or show who was elected. He does 

not even certify who, in his opinion, is elected; but he gives a sta.tement which does not say who is elected, but shows Wilshire received 

12,522 votes, Gunter 11,961, anu then that there were some 1,400 odd 

votes cast for Gunter under various desigua.tions. 

The gentleman says I have sought in the transcript of the ab- stract of the county returns to find something contradictory in this re- turn. He is mistaken. Every reference I have made to the recordS 

ha.s been ma.ue for Lhe purpose, not of contradicting the governm·'s 

certificate, but for remedying the defect arising from its ambiguity. The member from North Carolina [lli. THOMAS] insists that the 

tr:1nscript of the returns in Pula ki County is irrelevant. How irrele- vant I have shown that the governor's certificate does not establish 

a.ny pr'inta facie right in a.ny one. I am right in this; I have the 

authority of the gentlema.n's report for resorting to the transcript of 

those returns. On page 5 of his ~eport he say~ : 

The most usual kind of credential is a. certificate of the governor of a State, and 

such kind is required by the law of ArkauSM. No particular form of one has here- tofore been considered necessary by the House; and while such certificate, when it 

showed that the person named therein wa-s regularly elected, &c., has always been 

<tdmitted and held to be competent and satista{)tory eviueuce of prima facie right to a seat, t!J.e H?use ha~ fr_equently ?-ccided, ~t the want of it from any rea.son would not tmpa'tr or preyudwe such pnma f acte nght of a member-elect, but only remit him to other evidence to establish it. . 

Surely if he can be remitted to other evidence to establish hi~ printa 

facie case, the committee and this House a,re not to be excludecl .from 

examining such evidence to see if it does .or does not establish this 

rjght. But I have resorted to this evidence not for the purpose of 

showinganyprimafacie case for lli. Gunter, but imply tosbow (a the 

minority report distinctly states) that these.returns, so far from rem- edying the defect.s of 1\Ir. Wilshire's claim, based on the certificate 

either of the governor or of the secretary, show .Mr. Gunter to have 

been elected. 

One gentleman says tha.t in the investigation of this case frauds ~ill l;>e dev~lope~. The~, sir, there is the greater necessity for investigatiOn of It on Its ments. Do not seat a man on the fluor of this 

House who comes with no title at all, whose entire claim is based on 

the slightest of misnomers, and who comes with a notice of a contest; 

and whose very certificate, when he presents it, does not say he is 

elected or show him to be elected. I ought not to say his certificate, 

for he ha none-at least his competitor has one identically like it, 

which he filed here. The governor is ued one to Gunter and one to 

Wilshire. Both are filed on the record. But neither gentleman is 

the bearer of a certificate which confers the pr·irna facie right. And 

the minority <lo nothing but simply report tha there is no prim.a facie 

right in the ca e, and they ask that it shall be recommitted to the 

Committee on Elections with the instruction to report upon the 

merit-s. , · What ha. been the practice of the House ' In the Pennsylvania case of Fo ter t·s. Covode the attempt was made in like manner us the attempt is made here to seat Covode on papers relating to the 

prima. fa ci-e title. The House refused, and adopted the resolution 

almo t identical with the one I felt bound to report to the House. 

Such, too, ha been the practice in the Senate. I <lo not wish to detain any longer the House from the tlisposition 

of this case. Mr. THOJI.A.S. How mucb time have I remaining f 

The SPEAKER. Fifteen minute . :Mr. TIIOM.A.S. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman 

from Ma sachusetts, [.1\fr. BuTLER.] · l\1r. BUTLER, of Ma sachusetts. Usually, wherethemajorityofthe 

committee have given a decision upon an election question, I follow 

the r eport of the majority without question; because I assume that 

they have made a more careful investigation than I can, and therefore 

that they would be more likely to be right than I shoul<l. The only case in r eference to which, I think, in two Congresses, I have taken a part in the debate was the case of West Virginia, where I suppo ed 

there was no majority to support. H ere I understand that a majority 

of the committee, composed of republicans, have unanimously made ' a r eport. 

Ir. SPEER. The gentleman is in error there. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusett . I see no dis ent from them; that 

is all I meant to say ; and I hearu no ilissent from them on the floor. 

Mr. L.A.M.A.R. Dissent from what¥ Di sent from the r eport of the 

minority Y 

~Ir. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Pardon me; I have heard nothing 

but clissent from the minority. 

I find, then, that the majority of the committee have examined this case and have come to a conclusion, antl that conclu ion is that ~Ir. 

Wilshire has a pr·inta facie right to his seat. Now, finding that some of those gentlemen who go w ith the majority party of this House, 

not being members of the committee, have come to a different con- clusion, and haYe endeavored to instruct the House how it should vote on this question, I think it may be permitted to me for a moment to 

give the views which will guide my own vote. First, I a.m inclined 

to think we have got two reports here upon two separate ca es. I 

find that there was first submitted to the Committee on Elections the 

p r·ima facie question on the credentials of Mr. ·wilshire, and afterward 

there was submitted the question of the contest of 1\Ir. Gunter. The majority of the committee have reported only upon the p1•ima facie case submitted to them. The minority have reported on the other 

question. • • Mr. L.A.l\f.A.R. The gentleman must allow me to correct him. The minority of the committee have reported on no feature of the ca e except the prirna f acie right to the seat. 

lli. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Pardon me; I think I can show the 

gentleman that they ha.ve. The minority reason from the evidence 

and step out of the record to see what is the truth, and they assume that certain scattering votes here were given to Gunter. I do not 

know whether they were or not. If I were disposed to guess in the 

matter, I mi<Yht guess the opposite. ~Ir. SMITH, of New York. If the gentleman from Massachusetts 

will allow me to interrupt him, I will sa,y that the counsel of Mr. Gnnter before the committee occupied six pages .of his brief in showing 

that the e votes which are now counted for Gunter could not be 

counted for him. 

~Ir. BUTLER, of Ma-ssachusetts. That only shows wha.t I was trying to impress upon the House, that we have to go into the eviuence 

before we c:1n support t he views of the minority. 

The minority reason from evidence, reason· from certificates, reason from similarity of names, reason from many things in order to show 

that Mr. Gunter is elected. I do not kno'v whether he is or not. 

Therefore both of these reports may be correct, the ma.jority ou the 

prima facie case and the minority on the contested case. 

l3ut it i said that there is not a printa facie case. Very well; if 

that is so, that is an end of it. Let us see whether there is or not . In the first place, it is made the duty of the governor to certify to 

Congress, o this Honse, the result of the election. That is ma<le his 

duty by a statute of the State. Then we have a statute passed May 

30,1870, which is very controlling, and which makes it a .crime in him 

if he doe not certify to the House there ult of the election. Gentlemen will find it in volume 16 of the Statutes at Large, pacre 145. It 

makes it a crime in the governor if he fails to so certify. Under that 

statute Mr. Baxter first proclaimed the result of the election. This is 

what ~ says : "I, therefore, make proclamation of the same;" that is, 

the re-sult of the election. Then he makes a certificate, as it is hiB 
1576 CON.GRESSIONAL RECORD. FEBRUARY 17, 

duty to do, which will be found on page 4 of the report of the majority of the committee. This is his certificate: 

STATE OF ARKANSAS, Executive OjJice: 

Whereas the acting governor failed to issue a. certificate of election to the p rson who received the highe t number of 'otes for Repre cntative in Con~ess from the 

third con!ITessional district of Arkansas at the lection held in said ai trict on the 

5th day o1 November, A . D. 1872; and whereas, on the 14th day of February, A. D. 

1873, the secretary or state in my presence, did cast up the votes polled for said 

Representative at aid election from the returns on tile in his office: . Now, therefore, I, Elisha Baxter, governor of the State of Arkansas, do certify that the foregoing statement, with the eA.cplanatory note , is a full, true, and correct exhibit of the votes polled for Repre entative from the third cong:essional distr1ct 

of Arkansas at the election held m said district on the 5th day of November, A. D. 

1872, as appears from the returns of said election on file and certificates of clerks 

deposited in the office of secretary of sta'l>te. 

In testimony whereof I have heretmtQ set my hand and caused the seal of the 

St.1>te to be aftixod, at Little Rock, on this 18th day of F ebruary, A. D. 1873. 

[L. s.] ELISHA BAXTER, 

Governor. By the Governor: J. M. JOin'SON, Secretary of State. 

That is, the governor obeys the law. Now, to whom did he give 

that certi:ficate1 He gave it to Mr. Wilshire, who brought it here . :Mr. LAMAR. And to Mr. Gunter. 

Mr; BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I am not on Mr. Gunter's certificate. He gave a certificate to Mr. Wilshire. \Vho brought it beret 

Mr. Wilshire. Who had it referred to the Committee on Elections 

Mr. Wilshire. Who by law was bound to issue th::tt certificate Y Thfl 

governor. We are only to look at whatison this page of the report. 

He puts in certain votes. Very well. But myfriendfromMississippi 

[Mr. LAMAR] says with great force that if we look and see, we can see that those votes were for Mr. Gunter. The governor did not see it in that light, and we have to guess that "Crenter 'means'( Gunter." 

It does not up il}. my country. [L::tughter.] How it is in .A.rkansa I 

c:J.nnot say. We are put into the region of conjecture. Now that is 

a matter of conte t . Looking upon the face of this certificate there is a cleardeclar::ttion 

that :Mr. Wilshire received a mn,jority of the votes legally ca ·t, and 

not put in the return as scattering. By t::tking the scuttering returns you cn,n a,lways defea,t any man's election in a close election. 1\.fr. LAMAR. The governor does not say "sca,ttering," but he 

says "scattering" for "Thomas Gunter," for "T. I. Gunter," and 

other names, plainly designating Thoma-s M. Gunter as the person 

voted for. 

Mr. BUTLER, of :Ma sachusetts. Precisely; scn,ttering votes, polled 

for "Gunter," "S. M. Gunter," "Thomas M. Crenter," or "Thomas M. 

Grunter," I do not know how it is. The gentleman from Mississippi 

says that means Gunter. 

Mr. LAMAR. No; I do not say "Crenter" means "Gunter." 

Mr. BUTLER, of 1\failsn,chusetts. If it does not me:1n Gunter, who 

does it mean Y 

Mr. LAMAR. I <lo not say. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. And Gunter does not say ; no gentleman can saytha,t it is Gunter. Why should the House say it is 

Gunter¥ That is the whole of it; there is the trouble. We have to 

go to the evidence ; we have to go into an examination. The governor 

Rut these votes out of the list by putting them under the heacl of '~cattering ;" scattering votes for half a dozen different men. Mr. LAMAR. If the gentleman will a.Uow me-- Mr. BUTLER, of fass::LChusetts. If I had time I would allow the 

gentleman all he wants. Mr. LAMAR. I know th::tt. I desire to '3ay that ls just this very 

point: there are 1,400 votes cast for "Gun tee," "Gunter," "Thomas M. 

Gunter," "S. 1\f. Gunter," "Thoma-s M. Crenter," &c., and I sn,y the 

impossibility of aying whom those votes were for demonstrates th::tt 

there is not a certific::tte of a majority for anybody. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Mas achusetts. Ah, p:1rdon me ; the governor 

states those votes were scattering. Mr. LilfAR. For tho e n::tmes. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. For tho e gentlemen, yes. Not 

for Gunter; they were not sc::tttering for him. 

Mr. LAMAR. Yes, sir. ~.fr. BUTLER, oi Mas achusetts. They were scattering for other people, and the governor takes them out of the Gunter c:1lculation. It 

is perfectly proper that on :1 contest they should be counted; and if 

it should be shown that hose men intended to vote for Mr. Gunter, I should certainly vote for his seat on a contest. But, the governor 

performing his duty, and certifying who is elected, states th::tt vVilshire had a majority of the votes cast; and the11 he state who ha,d the 

scattering votes. 

Mr. RYNES. Will the gentleman allow me a que tion! 

Mr. BUTLER, of Mas achusetts. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HYNES. Wa-s it not the duty of Governor Hadley to issue that 

certificate upon the canvass made within the time prescrib¢ by law, 

and certified as mad13 by the secretary of state 7 

Mr. BUTLER, of 1\.:lass:whusetts. Very good; I will answer that. I a.ssume from the nature of the question that I have demolished the 

trouble with the certificate, and I will pass to this question of time. 

Mr. HYNES. The gentleman misunuerstanus my question if he 

takes it that w::ty. Mr. BUTLER; of Massachusetts. I did not get it, then. 

Mr. HYNES. I will state this .fact to begin with, that Governor Hadley failed to issue a. proclamat-ion an<l certificate. 

Mr. BUTLER, of :Massachusetts. Yes. Mr. HYNES. Governor Baxter succeeded, and did issue :1 certificate, so called by a majority of the committee. Mr. BUTLER, of Massa.chu etts. Yes sir. 

Mr. HTh"'ES. Now, knowing the standing of the gentleman from 

Mastlachusetts in this body a ::tla.wyer, I wiSh to ask him whether it wa not the duty of the governor, upon the making of the canvass kno"'n to the statute, to issue the certificate within the time prescribed by law. 

Ir. BUTLER, of Ma ssachusetts. When the governor came to do an official :wt he wat~ bound to do it according to what he viewed to 

be his duty. He was giving but :1 prima facie certificate, and it wa not for him to go into any inquiry. Mr. HYNES. Just so; the gentleman exactly meets my point. I now ·want to sta,te t o the gentleman (as he was not in the House when I made my remark ) that the law of our State requires the secretary 

of state to keep a record of all acts and proceedings of the governor. 

The certificate shows that on the 14th of December, 1872, a canva s of the returns was made. Now, my question to the gentleman is, 

whether it was not the duty of the governor, if he issued any certificate or proclamation at all, to issue it upon a c::Lnva s made according 

to law Y For the former governor h::Ld biled to issue the proclam::ttion or certificate. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I answer, no; and I will state 

why. It was the duty of the governor to issue a, certificate of elec- tion; and it was his duty t o certify to what he was convinced of. 

It would have been a sufficient certificate for him simply to have said, "I certify that l\lr. Wilshire is elected." If Mr. Wilshire had come here with such a certific::tte, there would have been no doubt 

arising upon this ca e. Now, if the governor might have certified 

simply that Mr. Wilshire wa elected, he is not bound to tell you 

where he obtained his knowledge, and if he does, it is none of your 

business how it a,ffects his mind. Mr. HYNES. E.xn,ctly so. The gentleman comes precisely to my 

point. The governor failing to certify that anybody was elected, and 

doing what the gentleman from fassachusetts sn,ys it wa not nece - sary for him to do-stating that he issued n, certificate upon a, subsequent canvass not known to the law at all-1 ask the gentlem3.ll 

whether that vitiates the certificate or not Y 

Mr. BUTLER, of Mas achu etts. The governor's action wa-s entirely 

within his power. He came into office and was told that he would be 

indicted for a crime if he did not certify who wa elected. He goes 

to work and, on his official responsibility, makes his certific::tte upon 

what appears right to him. If he ha,a clone wron~, (and here is the erroroftheminoritycase,) tha,t is :1 question for the contest upon the merits. Now, as I was about to say when interrupt d, the majority come in. here and report simply upon a prima facie case, because our law 

declares that whenever a man comes here with cTedentials legal in 

form he h as a right to the seat. The majority of the Committee on Elections ha,ve found thut this ma,n upon his credentials is entitled 

to the seat, subject to the right of conte t by hi oppouent. 

Now, the committee cnn turn :1round neA-t we(',k, after they ha,ve 

all the evidence before them, and can report in favor of unseating 

this man. But the difficulty with the minority report is that it attempts to unseat a man without evidence; that we are thrown into 

the region of conjecture; and it is proposed that .Arkansas shall be 

deprived of her representation, that her governor's certificate, issu u 

in pursuance of his legitimate authority, shall be ignored, and that 

the cn,se shall be sent back to the committee uecause there is a, con- test. 

[Here the hammer fell.] _ Mr. BUTLER, of Mas~mchusett . If the House will permit me-for 

my time has been very much taken up with interruptions-! wish to 

say but :1 word further; and th::tt is this: When the governor has done 

his duty it is for us to do our . This was precisely the ground tuken 

in the Senate, upon the election ca e of Pinchback, by the learned 

chairman of the Committee on Privileges and Elections. He s::tid, 

''Seat ~:h. Pinchback on the p1'imafaciecase; n,ndif anybody has anything to say n,gainst it, he can be tui·ned out on a contest." 

If we recommit this case to the committee, for what purpose do we recommit it Y That they may do simply what we told them to do in 

the first instance-report who i entitled to the seat upon the p1·ima 

facie case; that iB their first duty. Afterward comes the report as t.o who has the right upon the contest. ~:h. LAMAR. That is not my resolution. l\lr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. That must be the effect of a, res- olution to recommit. 

l\lr. LAMAR. No, sir. 

:hlr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. You recommit the question ao it 

stands. ~:h. LilfAR. I Mk that my resolution be read. 

Mr. HYNES. I hope that the gentleman from Massachusetts, he- fore he sits down, will tl.nswer me one question to settle a difficulty in my mind. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I do not think I can do it. 

[Ln.ughter.] 

Mr. HYNES. I know the gentleman can do it if n,nybody can. If 

the governor of Arkansas, after the canvass known to the law h<td 

been m..tde, had issued his certifi.c::tte of election, I suppose the gentle-
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RF)CORD. 1577 

man from Massachusetts would not hold that then the suoceeding 

governor, upon a subsequent canvass, could have issued another cer- tificate. Assuming that to be the position of the gentleman from 

Massachusetts, I now ask him this question: The secretary of state, in 

the presence of the former governor, having made the canvass, and so much of the ministerial duty having been performed, was there anything left for the governor succeeding him to do but to finish the act 

by issuing the proclamation and certificate 'f If he refuses, and goes 

back over the act of canvass performed by the secretary of state and 

the governor prior to that time, he would, to my mind, have an equal 

right to issue a second oertificate upon a second canvass, if returns 

subsequently arriving should give him an excuse for so doing. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Suppose that when Governor 

Baxter came into office the secretary of state had said, "For 10,000 

I will agree to strike out so many votes from one side;" would Gov- ernor Baxter ha.ve been obliged to issue his certificate on that fraudulent record, knowing it to be fraudulent¥ Clearly not. 

1\!r. HYNES. The fraud would vitiate it then, and the governor 

should oertify that fact in justification of a second canvass, and it 

would then be for the House to pa ·s upon it. But here there is no 

taint upon the first canvass. The SPEAKER. The time allowed for debate on this question has 

expired. The fiTst question .is upon the substitute offered by the 

gentleman from Mississippi, [1\lr. LAMAR,] on behalf of the minority 

of the committee. It will be reported. The Clerk read as follows : 

Resolved, That the contested-election case from the third district of Arkansas be recommitted to the Committee on Elections, with instructions to report, upon the 

merits of the case, who is entitled to represent said district in this Honse. 

The House divided ; and there were-ayes 83, noes 81. 

Mr. THOMAS demanded the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The question was again taken; and it was decided in the negativeyeas 116, nays 117, not voting 56; as follows: 

YEAS-Messrs. Archer, Ashe, Atkins, Beck, Bell, Berry, Bland, Blount, Bowen, 

Bright, Bromberg, Brown, Buckner, Buffin ton; Caldwell, John B. Clark, jr., Comingo, 

Cook, Cotton, Cox, Creamer, Crittenden, Crocker, Crooke, Crossl:md, Alexander 

:M. Davis, John J. Davis, Dawes, DeWitt, Durham, Eames, Eden, Eldred~, Field, 

Freeman, Giddings, Glover, Eugene Hale, Robert S. Hale, Hamilton, J:ia.ncock, Benjamin W. Harris, H enry R. Harris, John T. Harris, Hatcher, Hathorn, Joseph 

R. Hawley, Gerrv W. HazP-lton. H endee, Hereford, Herndon, E. Rockwood Hoar, 

George F . Hoar, ilohnan, Hunton, Hynes, Jewett, Kasson, Lamar, Lamison, Leach, J~ynch, Magee, Mar hall, McCrary, McLean, Mellish, Merriam, Milliken, Mills, 

Monroe, eal, Niblack, O'Brien, Hosea W. Parker, Pemlleton, Perry, Pierce, Potter, 

Ransier, Rawls, Rice, Robbins, Ellis H. Roberts, William R. Roberts, James C. Robinson, Milton Sayler, John G. Schumaker, Sener, Small,J. Ambler Smith, John 

Q. Smith, Southard, Spee1~ Stanard, Standeford, Starkweather, Stone, Storm, Swann, 

Townsend, Vance, Wadnell, Waldron, Wells, White. Wbiteheaa, Whitthorne, 

Charles W. Willard1Charles G. Williams, Willie, James Wilson, Wood, Woodford, 

John D. Young, ana Pierce M. B. Young-116. NAYS-Messrs. Albert, Albright, Averill, Bass, Biery, Bradley, Bundy, Bur- chard, Burleigh, Burrows, ~amin F. Butler, P..oderick R. Butler, Cannon, Cason, 

Cessna, Amos Chu:k, ,jr., Clayton, Clements, Clinton L. Cobb, Stephen A. Cobb, 

Coburn, Conget·, Corwin, Crounse, Crutchfield, Curtis, Danford, Dobbins, Donn::u1, Duell, Dunnell, Fort, Foster, Frye, Guncke1, Hagans, Harrison, Havens. John ll. 

Hawley, Hays, Hodges, Hoskins, Houghton, Hunter, Hurlbut, Hyde, Kelley, Lam- port, Lawrence, Lawson, Lewis, Loflancl, Loughridge, Lowe, Lowndes, :Martin, 

Maynard, Alexander S. McDill, James W. MCDill, MacDougall, McJunkin, Mc- Kee, McNulta, Moore, Negley, Orr, Packard, 'Packer, Page, Isaa-c C. Parker, Par- sons, P elham, Phelps, Pike, .fames H. Platt, jr., Thomas C. Platt, Rainey, Rapier, Ray, Richmond, James W. Robinson, Ross, Rusk, Sawyer, Henry B. Sayler, Isaac W. Scudder, Sessions, Shanks, Sheats, Sherwood, Lazarus D. Shoemaker,' Smart A. Herr Smith, George L. Smith, H. Boardman Smith, ·william A . Smith, Snyder, 

Sprague, St-owell, Strait, Strawbridge, Sypher, Thomas, Thornburgh, Todd, Tyner, 

Wallace, W'tlls, :Marcus L. Ward, WhittJley, Wilber, George Willard, John :M.S. 

Williams, William Williams, William B. Williams, Jeremiah M. Wilson, and 

Woodworth-117. 

NOT VOTING-MesSI's. Adams, Arthur, Banning, Barber, Barnum, Barrere, 

Barry, Begole, Cain, Freeman Clarke, C1ymer, Darrall, Elliott, Farwell. Garfield, 

Goocn, Harmer, John W. Hazelton, Hersey, Hooper, Howe, Hubbell, Kellogg, Ken- dall, Killinger, Knapp, Lansing, Luttrell, Mitchell, Morey, Morrison, Myers, 

Nesmith, Niles, Nunn, O'Neill Orth, Phillips, Poland, Pratt, Purman, Randall, 

Read, Scofield, Henry- J. Scudder, SheldonJ Sloss, Stephens, St. John, Taylor, Tre- main, Jasper D. Ward, Wheeler, Whitehouse, Ephraim K. Wilson, and Wolfe-56. 

So the resolution was reject&l. 

Dunng the roll-call, 

Mr. NUNN stated that he was paired with Mr . .ADAMS, who, if present, would vote in the affirmative, while he would vote in the negative. 

1\lr. WOOD. I would like to know if the gentlemen who are now voting were within the bar when the last name on the roll was called f 

Tho SPEAKER. The rule is that they vote with the assurance they were within the bar when the last name on the roll was called. Mr. WOOD. Some are new members, who do not know the rule. 

The SPEAKER. It is repeated every roll-call. The vote was then announced as above recorded. 

The question next recurred on the adoption of the following reso- lution : 

Resolved, That W. W. Wilshire is entitled prima facie to a seat in the Forty- third Congress as Repres"lntative from the third congressional district of the State 

of Arkansas, without prejudice oo the right of Thomas M. Gunter, claiming to have 

been elected thereto, to contest his right to said seat upon the merits. 

Mr. SPEER. I move the !Jouse do now adjourn. The House divided; and there were-ayes 75, noes 82. 

So the House refused to adjom·n. 

Mr. SPEER. I demand the yeas and nays on the adopti<1n of the r~lution reported by the majority of the committee. · 

The yeas and nays were ordered. · 1\fr. ELDREDGE. I IJlOVe the House do now adjourn. 

The House ilivided; and there were-ayes 78, noes 82. 1\fr. ELDREDGE demanded tellers. 

Tellers were ordered ; and l\fr. ELDREDGE and 1\lr. RusK were 

appointed. 

The House again divided; and the tellers report.ed-ayes 66, noes 109. 

Mr. Lll1AR demanded the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were not ordered. 

So the House refused to adjourn. 

The SPEAKER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the adoption of the resolution reported by the majority of the comT!littee. 

The question was taken ; and it was decided in t.h e atliTllla.tiveyeas 118, nays 96, not voting, 75 ; as follows : 

YEAS-Messrs. Albert, Albri~ht, Averill, Bass, Biery, Braclioy, Bun<ly, Burchart!, Burleigh, Burrows, Benjarrun F. Butler, Rotlerick R. Butler, Cannon, Cason, 

Cessna, Clayton, Clements, Clinton L. Cobb, Stephen A. Cobb, Coburn, Conger, Cor- win, Cox, Crounse, Crutchfield, Curtis, Danford, Dobbins, Donnan, Duell, Dunnell, 

Field, Fort, Foster, Frye, Gooch, Gunckel, Hagans, H::u'lison, Hathorn, Ha,ens, John 

13. Hawley, Hays, Hodges, Hoskins, Hon!:lhton, Hunter, Hmlbut, Hyde, K elley, Lam- port, LaWI·ence, Lawson, I£wis, Loflanu, Lowe, Lowndes, Martin, :Mayna-rd, Alex- ander S. McDill, James W. McDill, :MacDougall, McJtmkin, McKee, :Mc~ulta, . 

Merriam, Moore, Negley, Orr, Packard, Packer, Page, lsa.-'lc C. Parker, Parsons, Pike, James H. Platt, jr., Thomas C. Platt, Ha.iney, Rapier, Ray, Richmond, James W. Robinson, Ross, Rusk, Sawyer, Henry B. Sayler, baac W. Scudder, Sessions, Shanks, Sherwood, Lazarus D. Shoemaker, Smart, A. Herr Smith, George L. SmithJ 

H. Boardman Smith, William A. Smith, Sn,yder, ~pragne, Stowell, Strait, Strawbridge, Sypher, Thomas4o Thornburgh, Todtl, Tyner, \Vallace, Walls, Marcus L. 

Wara, White, Whiteley, Wilber, George Willard, John M.S. Williams, William 

Williams, William B. Williams, Jeremiah M. Wilson. and Woodworth-11 . N AYS-:Messrs. _.Archer, Ashe, Atkins, Beck, Bell, Bland, Blount, Bowen, Bright, 

Bromberg, Brown, Buckner, Buffin ton, CalclweH, John B. Clark, .ir., Comingo, Cook, 

Cotton, Creamer, Crittenden, Crooke, Crossland, .Alexander M. Davis, John J. 

Davis, Dawes, DeWitt, Durham, Eames, Eldredge, Gicld~s, Glover, Robert S. 

Hale, Hamilton, Hancock, Benjamin W. Harris, Henry R. .l:iarris, John T. Harris. 

Hatcher, Joseph R. Hawley, Gerry \V. Hazelton, Hereford, Herndon, E . Rockwood 

Hoar, George F. Hoar, Holman, Hunton, Hynes, Jewett,Ka.,son, :Magee, Marshall, 

McCrary, McLean, Mellish, Milliken, Mills, Monroe, Neal, Niblack, O'Brien, Hosea W. Parker, P endleton, Perry, Pierce, Potter, Ransier, Rawls, Rice, Robbins, Ellis H. 

Roberts, William R. Roberts, :Milt{)n Sayler, J. Ambler Smith, John Q. Smith, Southard, Speer, Stanard, Standeford, Stone, Storm, Swann, Townsend, V:mce, 

Waddell, Waldron, Wells, Whitehead, Whitthorne. Charles W. Willard, Cha.rles G. Williams, Willie, James Wilson, Wood, Woodford, John D. Young, and Pierce 

M. B. YOtmg- 96. . :NOT VOTll,G-Messrs. Adams, Arthur, Banning, Barber, Barnum, Barrere, 

Barry, Begole, Berry, Cain, Amos Clark, jr., Freeman Clarke, Clymer, Crocker, Darrall, Eden, Elliott, Farwell, Freeman, Garfield, Eugene Hale, Harmer, John 

W. Hazelton, Hendee, Hersey, Hooper, Howe, Hubbell, Kellogg, K endall, Killinger, 

Knapp, Lamar, Lamison, Lansing, Leach, Loughrid~e, Luttrell, Lynch, Mitchell, 

Morey, Morrison, Myers, Nesmith, Niles, "unn, 0 Neill.J... Orth. Pelhan1, Phelps. 

Phillips, Poland, Pratt, Purman, Randall, Read, James C . .tWbinson, John G. Schumaker, Scofield, Henry J. Scudder, Sener, Sheats, Sheldon, Sloss, Small, Stark- weathor, Stephens, St. John, Taylor, Tremain, Jasper D. Ward, Wheeler, Wbit..ahouse, Ephraim K. Wilson, and Wolfe-75. 

So the resolution was aclopterl. 

During the roll-call the following announcements were made: 

Mr. SENER. I am paired with Mr. LOUGHRIDGE, of Iowa. If he were present he would vote" ay," and I would vote "no." 

1\fr. NUNN. I am paired with Ir . .ADAMs, of Kentucky. If he were h ere he would vote "no," and I would vote "ay." 

Mr. COX. 1\!ay I ask a parliamentary question 

The SPEAKER. The Chair cannot interrupt the roll-call for any 

ptupose. • The result of the vote was then announced aA above recorded. 

fr. COX . . I move to r econsider the vote just taken. 

!lr. THO:\IAS. l move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted; and I also move that the motion to reconsider uo 

laid on the table. 

1\lr. COX. Was I not recognized by the Chair to make the motion 

to r econsider'? 

The SPEAKER. The Chair prefers to recognize the gentleman 

whom the rule says he shall recognize. He therefore recognized the 

gentleman from North Carolina, [1\Ir. THOMAS,] who has moved to 

reconsider the vote just taken; and also moves that the motion to 

reconsider be laid on the table . .Mr. ELDREDGE. On that motion I call for the yeas and nays. 

1\Ir. PENDLETON. I move that the House do now adjourn. 

The q~estion being taken on the motion to adjourn, there were- ay(:)S 63, noes 81. 

lr. ELDREDGE. I call for the yeas and nays on the motion to 

adjourn. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

1\lr. BECK. I move that when the Hou e adjourns to-day it be to 

meet on Thursday next; and on that motion I call for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

1\fr Sl\HTH, of Ohio. I desire to make a parliamentary inquiry . .A.s I understand, a motion to adjourn is before the House, and the 

yeas and nays have been ordered upon it. Does not that motion take 

preoodence of a motion to adjourn to a particular day 'I 

The SPEAKER. The motion to :fix a day to which the House will 

adjourn necessarily takes precedence of the motion to adjourn. Mr. SPEER. I desire to make a parliamentary inquiry. Pending 

the motion that when the House adjourns to-day it shall adjourn to 

meet on Thursday, would it be iu order to move that when it adjourns it adjouTn to meet on Friday next' , 
1578 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. FEBRUARY 17, 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman need not multiply motions. The 

two already pending may be interchanged ad injinitwrn. 

Mr. SPEER. I want to have enough material to work on for a short time. [Laughter.] If my motion is in order I desire to make it. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman's motion can be offered in the form 

of an amendment. Does the gentleman desire to move to amend the 

motion of the gentleman from Kentucky f 

Mr. SPEER. ·I do. I move to amend the motion of the gentleman 

from Kentucky by striking out" Thursday" and inserting "Friday; ' 

and I ask the yea8 and nays on my amendment. 

The veas and navs were ordered. 

lli. ELDREDGE. I hope the gentlemen on the other side of the 

Honse will consent to an adjournment till to-morrow morning. We 

only desire that gentlemen now absent may be here to have an opportunity to vote. That is the only purpose in these motions. :Mr. PLATT, o:f Virginia. I demand the r egular order. Go on with 

the roll-call. 

The question was on a~eeing to 1\fr. SPEER's amendment, to strike 

out "Thursday," in Mr. BEcK' motion, and insert "Friday." 

The question was taken ; and there were-yeas 12, nays 114, not 

voting 163 ; a8 follows : 

YEAS-Messrs . .Archer, Bland, Blonnt, Bowen, Bromberg, Brown, Buckner, Cald- well, St.ephen A. Cobb, Henry R. Harris, Lawrence, and Marshall-12. 

NAYS-Me srs. Albert, Albright, .Atkins, Biery, Br::ulley, Bright, Buffinton, 

Bundy, Burchard, Burleigh, Benjamin F. Butler, Roderick R. Butler, Cason, Cessna., 

John B. Clark, jr., Clayton, Clements, Clinton L. Cobb, Coburn, Corwin, Cotton, Crooke, Crutchfield, Dawes, Dohbind, Dunnell, Eames, Field, Fort, Foster, Free- man, Gooch, Hagans, Eugene Hale, RobertS. Hale, Benjamin W. Harris, Harrison, 

Hathorn, John B. Hawley, Joseph R. Hawley, E. Rockwood Hoar, George F. Hoar, 

Hodges, Holman, Hoskiils, Houghton, Hunter, Hurlbut, Hyde, Lawson, Lewis, J..ofiand, Lowe, Lowndes, Lynch, .A.lex.'l.llder S. McDill, James W. McDill, Mac- Dougall, McJunkin, McKee, McNulta., Mellish, Monroe, Moore, Orr, Packard, 

Packer, Page, Isaac C. Parker. Pelham, Pendleton, James H. Platt, jr., Rice, Robbins, Ellis H. R.Qberts,James W. Robinson, Ross, Rusk, a.wyer, Henry B. Sayler, Isaac W. Scudder, Sessions, Shanks, Sherwood, Lazarus D. Shoemaker, Smart, A. Herr Smith. George L. Smith, H. Boardman Smith, John Q. mitb, Snyder Sprague, Stanard, Standeford, Starkweather, Strawbridj!e, Sypher, Thomas, Toc'J.d, Town- send, Wallace, Wails, Marcus L. W arrl, White, Whitehead, Wilber, George Willard, 

Charles G. Williams, John M.S. Williams, William Williams, Willia.m B. Williams, James Wilson, J eremiah M. Wilson, and Woodford-114. 

OT VOTING-Messrs. A. dams, .A.rthur,Asbe, Averill, Banning, Barber, Barnum, Ban·ere, Barry, Bass, Beck, Begole, Bell, Berry, Burrows, Cam, Cannon, Amos 

Clark, jr., Freeman Clarke, Clymer, Comingo, Conger, Cook, Cox, Creamer, Crit- t enden, Crocker, Crossland,·Crotmse, Curtis, Danford, Darral!, Alexander M. Dans, John J. Davis, DeWitt, Donnan, Duell, Durha.m, Eden, Eldredge, Elliott, Farwell, 

Frye, Garfield, Gidi:lings, Glover, Gunckel, Hamilton, Hancock, Harmer, John T. 

Harris, Hatcher, Havens, Hays, Gerry W. Hazelton, John W. Hazelton, H endee, 

Hereford, Herndon, Hersey, Hooper, Howe, Hubbell, Hunton, Hynes, J ewett, Kas- son, Kelley, KelloPg:' Kenoall, Killinger, Knapp, Lamar, Lamison, Lamport, Lan- ~<ing, Leach, Lougnridge, Luttrell, lligee, Martin, Maynard, McCrary, :McLean, 

Merriam, Milliken, Mills, Mite-hell, Morey, Morrison, Myers, Neal, Negley, N mith, 

Niblack, Niles, Nunn, O'BJ:ien, O'Neill, Orth, Ho ca W. Parker, Parsons, P erry, 

Phelps, Phillips, Pierce, Pike, Thomas C. Platt, Poland, Potter, Pratt, Pnrman, 

Rainey. Randall, Ransier, Rapier, Rawls, Ray, Re-atl, Richmond. William R. Roberts, James C. Robinson, Milton Sa_yler, John G. Schumaker, Scofield, Henry J. Scudder, 

Sener, Sheats, Sheldon, Sloss, :Small, J. Ambler Smith, William .A.. Smith, Southard, 

Speer, Stepheus, St. John, Stone, Storm, Stowell, Strait., Swann, Taylor, Thornburgh, Tremain, Tyner, Vance, Waddell, Waldron, ,fasperD. Wartl Wells, Wheeler, Whitehouse, Whiteley, Whitthorne, Charles W. Willard, Willie. Ephraim K. Wil- son, Wolfe, Wood, Woodworth, John D. Young, and Pierce ALB. Young-163. 

The SPEAKER. The roll-call shows tbn,t a quorum h as not 

voted. 

Mr. ELDREDGE. I rise to a question of order. The House eems 

to be turned into a lunch-room. £Laughter.] I wish to know of the 

Chair if it is in order to smoke or to eat in the Hall of. ~ep.resentatives f . The SPEAKER. The rules prohibit smoking, but are silent in re- gard to eating. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. If the gentleman r efers to me, I 

will say to him that I won't eat h ere any more. [Laughter.] 

The SPEAKER. There being no quorum present, only the motion 

to adjourn, or the motion that there be a caJ.l of the House, is now in 

order. 

Mr. PLATT, of Virginia. I move a call of t.lJe House. 

lli. CRITTENDEN. I move that the Hone noQw adjourn. [After a pause.] I will withdraw that motion. 1\fr. COMINGO. I renew it. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I rise to a parliamentary inquixy. 

Were not the yea8 and nays ordered on a motion to adjourn, before it was shown by the last vote that no quorum was voting t 

The SPEAKER. They were. The Chair begs the attention of gentlemen to the fact that the question that now arises pre ents a singular case. A motion to adjourn was made, and the yeas and nays ordered 

thereon, when there waa pre umably a quorum in the Honse, as it had 

been shown by a vote just before taken. Then a more privileged 

motion was made, to fix the day to which the House should adjourn, 

upon which the yeas and nays were ordered. Then a motion of till 

higher privilege was made, to amend the motion so as to fix a different 

day to which the House should adjoum, upon which the yeas and nays were also ordered. Upon calling the roll upon the latter motion, no quorum voted. 

The rule is specific that when less than a quorum is'disclosed, there can be but two motions submitted, one to atljonru, and the other for a call of the House. Should the Chair rule that the motion to adjourn 

could not then be entertained, because there was pending a motion of 

higher privi~ege, it might be in the power of certain gentlemen to 

keep the, House in session indefinitely. The motion to adjourn comes 

in at this point by a special rule, ancl is more highly privileged than 

motions which, with a quorum present, would r eally be above it, in 

order that the Hou e may have the chance to di~:>entangle itself from an embarr assment. The only motions, therefore. now in order, are the motion to adj ourn and the motion for a call of the Honse, both of 

which are now pending. 

The question wa then taken on the motion to adjourn, and upon a divi ion there were- aye 50, noes 73. 

Before the r ult of this vote wa8 announced 

Mr. COX called for teller . 

Tellers were ordered ; and Mr. BUTLER, of :Massa husett , and Ir. 

Cox were appointed. 

Ir. ROBINSO , of Ohio. In view of the lateness of the hour, I suo-ge t to gentlemen on this side of the House t h at we had better 

adjourn. 

Mr.PL TT ofVirginia. If anydebateistobeallowedonthisque - tion I desire to say a word. The gentleman expresRes a desire that our side of the House should give up and adjourn. Now, I desire to 

.light it out on thi line if it takes all night. 

Mr. HARRIS of Virginia. I desire to make a parliamentary inquiry. If the House shouhl now adjourn, when will this A.rkansa case come up again 

The SPEAKER. The first thing after the reading of the Journal 

to-morrow morning. 

The House again divided on the motion to adjourn, and the tellers 

reported that there were-ayes 67, noes 7 4. 

So the motion to aajourn was not agreed to. The question recu:r'red upon the motion for a call of the House. 1\Ir. PLATT, of Virginia. I desire to make a parliamentary inquiry. 

My impres ion is that under a new rule of the House, if no quorum 

is pre ent, fifteen members can order a call of the House. The SPEAKER. Fifteen against a larger number. 

Mr. PLATT, of Virginia. Is not that the rule . The SPEAKER. The Chair is under the impre sion that the gentleman is in error. Mr. PLATT, of Virginia. I simply made the inquiry. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will direct the Clerk to read the rule t.o which the gentleman refers. 

Mr. ELDREDGE. Why not pass the book over to the gentleman 

from Virginia, [~Ir. PLATT,] and let him reacl it for himself. [Laughter.] 

The Clerk read the rnle, ~ts follows : 

.A.uy fifteen members, including the Speaker, if there be one, shall be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members; but where less than that number are present, a motion for a call of the House caunot be entertained. 

The SPEAKER. That implie that only .fifteen members are present. 

:Mr. PLA.TT, of Virginia. Very well; I withdraw my inquiry. 

The question wa taken on the motion for a call of the House; and 

upou a division there were-ayes 64, noes 70. 

Before the re ult of this vote was announced, 

Ir. PLATT--, of Virginia, called for tellers. Tellers were ordered, (the affirmative being one-fifth of a quorum,) 

UJHl Mr. PLATT, of Viro-inia, and Mr. ELDlillDGE were appointed. The House again divided; and the tellers reported that there were- ayes 67, noes 73. 

Before the result of this vote was annOlmced, 

Mr. PLATT, of Virginia, called for the yeas and nays. 

Mr. HAWLEY, of Connecticut. I think I can ugge t a solution of 

thi difficulty. I believe all that members on the other side desire is one sqnare vote to-morrow on the Arkansas case. Mr. ELDREDGE. That is all we want. 

Ir. BUTLER, of Tennes ee. I move that the House now adjourn. '£he question wa taken; ancl upon a division there were-ayes 81, noes 71. 

Before the result of this vote was announced, 

Mr. PLA.TT, of Virginia, called for tellers. Teller were ordered, (one-.fifth of a quorum voting in the affirma- tive,) and lli. BUTLER, of Tennessee, and Ur. MACDOUGALL were ap 

pointed. 

The Honse again di vitled; and the tellers reported that there were- ayes 72, noes 70. 

Before the result of this vote was a.nnounced, 

Mr. PLATT, of Virginia, called for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nay were orclered. · 

The cruestion wa again taken; and there were-yeas 87, nays 81, 

not voting 121 ; as follows: 

YEAS-Messrs . .Albert., .A.rcht> r, l~ ec , Bell, Bland, Blount, Bowen, Bright, Brom- berg, Brown, Buclmer, Buftint.Qn, RoJI.ll-ick R. Butler, Cahlwell, John B. Clark,jr., 

Cobm·n, Comingo Cott.Qn. Uox, Urittemlen, Crossland CrutcWield Alexander .hl. Da"\-is, Dawes, Dm·bam, Eames, Elili:edge, Gillililigs, Glover, Gooch, Eug ne Hale, RobertS. Hale, Hancock, BenJamin W . Ilarris, H enry R Harris, John T. trrili, 

Harril:!on, Hatcher, Joseph R.llawley, Herefortl. E. Rockwood Hoar, Holm..'lD, Ho;;. 

kins, Houghton, Hunton, Hyde, Hyne ·, Lamar, Lowndes, Lyn0b, Ma"ee, Marshall. 

McCrary, McLean, :Milliken, Neal, Orr, Packer, Hosea W. Parker, n~lleton, P erry, Pierce, Rawl , Riel', Robbins, Sawyer, Senor, Sessions, ll. Boarilinan Smith, John 

Q. Smith, Southard, Speer. Stananl, Standeford, S!;one, Storm, Swann, Va,nce. Waddell, Well , Whitehead, Whitthorue, Charles \V. \Villard, Charles G. Williams, 

Willie, John D. Yoll.llo-, and Pier ce M. B. Yonng-87. 

N AYS-:llessrs . .A.leright, Averill, Barber, Biery, Bradley, Bun(!y, Burleigh, Ben- jamin F. Butler, Cason, Ce sna, Clayton, Clements, Clinton L. Cobb, Stephen .A.. 

Cobb, Co1·win, Crooke, Crounse, Dobbins, Donnan, Dunnell, Field, Fort, Fo ter, 

Ha.,.ans, Hathorn, John B. Hawley, Havs, George F. Hoar, Hodges, Htmter, Hurlbut, 

Lawson, Lewis, Lofland, :Mayriard, James W. McDill, .MacDougall, McJunkin, 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 1579 

McKee, MeN nita, Mellish, Monroe, Moore, Negley, Packard, Page, Isaac C. Parker, 

Pelham, James H. Platt~ jr., Rainey, Ray, Ellis H. Roberts, James W. Robinson, Ross Rusk, Henry B. Sayler, Isaac W. Scudder, Shanks, Sherwood, La.zarus D. 

Sboeinaker, Smart, A. H err Smith, George L . Smit.h, Sprague, Starkweather, Strait., 

Strawbridge, Syp~er, Thomas, Todd, :W:allace, \Y~. ~?us L. ~::rrd, Wbi~e, 

Wilber, George Willard, John M.S. Williams, William Williams, William B. Wil· 

liams, J ames Wilson, and Woodford--81. 

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Adams, Arthur, Ashe, Atkins, Banning, Barnum, Bar- rera, Barry, Bass, Begole, Berry, Burchard, Burrows, Cain, Cannon, Amos Clark, jr., Freeman Clarke~.-.Clymer, Con!?~r, Cook, Creamer, Crocker, Curtis, Danford, Darrall, 

John J. Davis, ueWitt, Dueu, Eden. Elliott Farwell, Freeman, Frye, GartiolU, Gunckel, Hamilton, Harmer, Havens, GerryW. Hazelton, John W. Hazelton, Hen- dee, Herndon, Hersey, Hooper, Howe, Hubbell, Jewett, Kasson, Kelley, K ellogg, K endall, Killinger, Knapp, I:amison, Lamport, Lan ~n"", LaW!ence, J:each, ~oughrirlge, Lowe, Luttrell, Martin, Alexander . McDill, Mernam, Mills, Mitchell, 

Morey, Morrison, Myers, Nesmith, ""ibl:wk, ile , Nunn, O'Brien, O'Neill, Orth, 

Parsons, Phelps, Phiilip , Pike, Thoma C. Platt, P oland, Potter, Pratt, Purman, 

Randall, Ransier, Rapier, Read, Richmond, William R. P..obert , James C. Robinson, 

Jili.lton Sayler, John G. Schumaker, cofield, Henry J. Scllllder, Shoats, Sheldon, Sloss, Small, J. Ambler Smith, William A. Smith, nyder, tophens, St. John, 

Stowell Taylor, Thornburgh, Townsend, Tremain, Tvner, Waldron, Ja;rpP.r D. 

Ward, Wheeler, Whitehouse, Whiteley, Ephraim K. Wil on, Jeremiah M. Wilson, 

Wolfe, Wood, and Woodworth-121. 

So the motion to adjourn was agreed to. 

Before the result of the vote was announced, 

:Mr. HYNES said: I rise to a privileged question. I wish to know 

how I am recorded on the proposition to substitute the resolution of 

the minority for that of the majority Y • 

The SPEAKER. That is not a privileged question. 

Mr. HYNES. I supposed it was, as it is a matter affecting the record. 

The SPEAKER. It does not affect the r ecord of this vote. 

Mr. HYNES. No, sir. The result of the vote was then announced as above stated; and 

accordingly (at six o'clock and thirty minutes p. m.) the House 

adjourned. 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

The following memorials, petitions, n.nd other papers, were presented at the Clerk's desk under the rule, and referred as stated: 

By Mr. ARCHER: The petition of Nathan S:Gurney, for arrears of 

pension, to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. By Mr. BUTLER, of fassachusetts: The petition of certain mem- bers of t h e Georgia Legislature :mel others, for the passage of a supplementary civil-rights bill, to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Also, the petition of citizens of Cape .A.nn, fassachusetts, for the 

improvement of Annisqnam River, to t he Committee on Commerce. 

Also, the petition of Adam ::md Lydia Freshour, for a pension, to the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, the petition of Benjamin Webb, of Salem, Massachusetts, for 

payment for the brig Leontine and her cargo, sunk n.nd destroyed by 

collision with the United States storeship Release, to the Committee 

on Claims. 

By l\lr. CESSNA: The petition of citizens of Bedford County, Pennsylvania, for the repeal of duties on friction and lucifer matches, to 

the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By :Mr. CLAYTON: The remonstrance of Treadwell & Co., of San 

Fmnci co, California, against the renewal of the Haines pat-ent for 

machine for clipping the heads of grain, to the Committee on Patent . By l'!lr. COBURN: The petition of Tarvin C. Grooms, for arrears of 

pay as first lieutenant One hundred and .fifteenth Indiana Volunteers, to the Committee on Military .Aifairs. 

By Mr. CONGER: The petition of citizens of Saint Cln.ir, Michigan, for the improvement of Pine River, Michigan, to the Committee on Commerce. 

Also, the petition. of E. B. Ward, and other vessel owners, for an appropriation for a light-house at Alpena, :Michigan, to the Committee on Commerce. 

By 1\lr. HARRIS, of Virginia: The petition of the trustees of the 

Richmond Female Institute, situa.ted in Richmond, Virginia, for com- . pensa,tion for the use by the United States of the buildings and grounds 

of said institute, to the Committee on War Claims. By l'!lr. LOWE : The petition of certain homestead claimants in 

Kansas for the protection of their titles against the claims of railroad 

companies under land grants, to the Committee on the Public Lands. 

Also, the petition of the Leavenworth Medico-Chirurgical Society, 

for the passage of the bill to increase the efficiency of the Medical 

Department of the .Army, to the Committee on Military .Aifair . By 1\lr. MARTIN: The petition of citizens of Centralia, l\Iarion 

County, Illinois, that a. pen ion be granted Irs. Sarah Summerville, 

widow of Alexander Summerville, formerly deputy provost mar hal 

eleventh Illinois district, to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. McDILL, of Wis~onsin: The petitions of citizens of Juneau County, Wisconsin, for an rncrease of duty on imported hops, to the 

Committee on Ways and Means. 

Also, the petition of druggists of Madison, Wisconsin, for the repe'tl 

of the stamp tax on medicines, to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By :Mr. 1\UTCHELL: The memorial of the city authorities of Milwaukee, Wisconsin,forthe improvement of :Milwaukee Harbor, to the 

Committee on Commerce. 

By :Mr. MOORE : The petition of C. H. Beall, and other citizens of 

'Vashington County, Pennsylvania, for the repeal of the second sec- tion of the act of June 6, 1872, which made a reduction of 10 per 

pent. in certain jinties, and al~o re~onstrating against an increase of 

internal ta.xe , and a restoration of the duty on tea and coffee, to the 

Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. NEGLEY: The petition of James Laughlin, jr., and otheTs, 

of Pitt burgh, Pennsylvania, for the appointment of a commission of 

inquiry as to the results of the tmffic in alcoholic liquors, to the Committee on Way and 1\Ieans. By Mr. NES~llTH : Sundry memorials and petitions of the Legislature and p ople of Oregon and Idaho, in favor of aid in the construction of the Portland, Dalles and Salt Lake H.ailroad, to the Committee on Railways and Canals. 

By Mr. SENER: Papers relating to the claim of St. Mary' chmch, 

of E1:edericksburgh, Virginia, for the destruction of property during 

the war, to the Committee on War Claims. 

By fr. S:\llTH, of Pennsylvania : The petition of the Columbia 

National Bank of P ennsylvania: to be indemnified for the destruction 

of the Columbia bridge on the 28th of June, 1 ,33, by order of :MajorGeneral Couch, to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. SOUTHARD : The petition of citizens of Licking County, 

Obio, J'or the repeal of the second section of the act of June 6, 1 72, 

which made a reduction of 10 per cent. in certain dutie , to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. SW .ANN: The petition of citizens of Baltimore, Iaryland, 

of simiJa;r import, to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

Also, the petition of Louisa Sheckels, for compensation as an employ6 

in t he United States secret service during the ln.te war, to· the Committee on Military .Aifairs. 

By Mr. TOWNSEl\TJ) : The petition of the Penn's Grove Monthly 

Meeting of the Society of Friend , of Che ter County, Pennsylvania, 

for the appointment of a commi ion of inquiry concerning the alcoholic liquor troffic, to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. VANCE : The petition of citizens of North Carolina, fur n. post-route from Murphy to Elia M. Kilpatrick's, in Cherokee County, 

North Cru:olina, to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

IN SENAT.fiJ. 

WED.NESDAY, February 18, 1874. 

Prayer by Rev. E. D. OWEY, of W::tshingt'On. 

On motion of Mr. MORTON, and by unanimous consent, the reading 

of the Journal of yesterday's proceedings was dispensed with. 

EXECUTIVE COi'IIMUNICATION. 

The PRESIDENT pro ternpore laid before the Senate a message from 

the President of the Unite.d States, transmitting a communication of 

the Secretary of State, accompanying a copy of the report of Mr. John 

M. Thacher, who was appointed in June last as a delegate to repreent the United States at the international congress which was held 

at Vienna in August, 1873, for the consideration of the question of the 

protection of patents; which was ordered to lie on the table, and be 

printed. PETITIO~S AND IE:~10RIAL . 

The PRE IDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate a communication by telegraph from the common council, Board of Trade, 

and Chamber of Commerce of Cincinna.ti, protesting against the discontinuance of work on the public building of that city. The telegram 'Yas received several days ago, and by accident mislaid on the 

table. It will be referred to the Committee on Public Buildings and 

Grounds, if there be no objection. 

The PRESIDENT pro te;rn,pore presented r esolutions of the Legislature of Kansa , charging misconduct on the part of the Union Pa-cific 

Railroad Company; which was referred to the Committee on Railroads. 

He also pre ented a resolution of the Legislature of the State of 

Iowa,. relative to improving the Fox and Wisconsin Rivers; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

He ::t:l o presentee! a memorial of the Legi lature of Montana Terri- tory, in relation to the protection of citizens of Deer Lodge and Missoula Counties; which was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. 

He also presented the memorial of stockholders of the Wisconsin 

Central Railway Company, praying that the time :fixed for the com- pletion of their road be extendeu; which was referred to the Committee on Pu ulic Lands. 

Mr. KELLY. I pre ent the petition of J. F. Boyer a.nd 176 others, citizens ofWa hington Territory, prayin.K for the passage of the Portland, Dalles and Salt Lake Railroad bill. In pre enting this petition, I simply w:ish to call attention to the object expressed in it. 

The e gentlemen repre ent that they are living in a very i olated 

condition, remote from all the railroad systems of the United States, 

and they simply ask Congress to pa s a bill giving to that company a sum of money which will be barely sufficient to carry the mails and 

the military supplies of tbe country, and for which they state in their 

petition that the company will be willing to tmnsport not only the 

mails, but the troops and military supplies, and supplies for the IndianDepartment, in perpetuity, for all time to come. They show many reasons why the prayer of this petition should be grante<.l. I move its reference to the Committee on Railroads. The motion was agreed to. l\Ir. TIPTON presented tho petition of J. H. Humphries and other