766 CONGRESSIONAL~ RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 27, 

citizens of H.:'tnover, N. H., in favor of internat-ional copyright-to the 

Committee on Patents. 

By .l\Ir. GEST: Petition-.of 159 citizens of the Eleventh district of 

Ilfmois, for: prohibition in the District of Columbia-to the Select Committee on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic. 

By Mr. GLASS: Papers in the claim of Willis Bennett, of S. W. 

Reiney and others, and of James L. Blackemore, of Gibson County, and of Mrs. Caroline E. White, of Shelby County, Tennessee- to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. GREENMAN: Petition of 10 citizens of Rensselaer County, 

New York, in favor of international copyright law- to the Committee 

on: Patents . By Mr. GROUT: Paper& in ·support of Honse bill for the. relief of 

George W . Bolton, alias Charles \V. Andrews-to the Committee on 1\Iili tary Affairs. 

Also, petition of letter-carriers of Brattleborough, V t., for increase o±: compensation-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By l\fr. HARMER: Petition of aeaf soldiers, sailors, and marines, 

of Indianapolis, Ind., for increase of pension- to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. HEMPHILL: Petition of Walter H. Brooks and 128 others, 

citizens of the District of Columbia, for prohibition in the District of 

Columbia-to the Select Committee on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic. 

By 1\Ir. HERMANN: Petition of the Board of Trade of Chicago, for 

retaliatory measures against France and Germany for the prohibition 

of the importation of American salted pork-to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. . By Mr. HOOKER: Petition of George W.. Cato, heir-at-law of Lewis 

Cato, deceased, of Jefferson County, Mississippi, for reference of his 

cbim to the Court of Claims- to the Committee on War Claims. By Mr. JACKSON: Petition of Miss Lizzie A. Gilkey and 44 others, 

citizens-of the Twenty-fourth district of Pennsylvania, against the admission of Utah as a State- to the Committee on the Territories. 

By l\fr. LEE: Petition for relief of Downham & Strauss- to the Com- mittee on Ways and Means. 

By 11fr. McCULLOGH: Remonstrance of citizens of the Twenty- first district of Pennsylvania., against the admission of Utah- to the 

Committee on the Territories. 

By Mr. MILLS: Memorial of Friendship Grange, Patrons of Hus- bandry, for relief- to the Committee on Agriculture. 

By l\fr. NEAL: Papers in the claim of Rebert Hoodenpyle; of S. E. 

Belcher; of James Fryor, and of Frederick Schneider, of Tennessee-. 

to the Committee on War Claims. 

By l\1r. O'DONNELL: Petition of 154 citizens of Barry, Branch, 

Calhoun, and Eaton Counties, Michigan, in favor of the act to prohibit 

the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquoi'S in the District of Columbia- to the Select Committee on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic. By Mr. O'FERRALL: Petition of Rebecca L. Boggs, formerly of Pendleton County, ·west Virginia, now of Frederick County, .Virginia, for 

reference of her claim to the Cofirt of Cla.ims-to the Committee on 

War Claims. 

By Mr. CHARLES O'NEILL: Petition of. Mrs. Laura Hooper Denby, 

for an increase of pension- to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. OUTHWAITE: Petition of Henry Gerst and the faculty of 

Otterbein University, at Westerville, Ohio, in favor of an international copyright law- to the Committee on Patents. . Also, memorial of post-oftice .clerks of Col_umbus, Ohio-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By M1:. PARKER: Petition of23 citizensofMassena, N. Y., in favor 

of prohibition in the District of Columbia:-to the Select Committee on the Alcoholic Liqu01: Traffic. 

By Mr. PEEL: Papers in the claim of John L. 1\Inrphy, of Robert 

Booth, jr., of Jonathan Elms, of Joseph G. Sutton, and of Mrs. Airu1Ilda 

Packard, of Arkansas- to the Committee on War CJaims. 

Also, petition of Amanda Packard, of \Vn.shington County, Arkansas, 

for reference of her claim to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on 

WaTClaims. 

By ltfr. REED: Petition of l\faria Smitll and others, of Maine, for 

prohibition in the District of Columbia--to the Select Committee on the 

Alcoholic Liquor Traffic. 

Also, petition of the president and faculty of Bowdoin College, in 

favor of international copyright- to the Committee on Patents. By 1\Ir. RICHARDSON: Petition of John T. Crockett, for reference 

of hi& claim to the Court· of-Claims- to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. ROGERS: Petition of Missouri Hendricks, for the payment 

eflier war claim- to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. SENEY: Memorial of Lake County (Ohio) Vetemns, for a 

service-pension bill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. STAHLNECKER: Petition for removal of charge of desertion from the record of Abel E. H. :Merrell, Company F, Eleventh New 

York Cavalry, and of Aug. A. Langenbahn, Company I, Seventy-ninth 

New York Volunteers- to the Committee on Military Affairs. By Mr. STEELE: Petition of 134 citizens of the Eleventh district of 

Indiana, for prohibition in the District of Columbia- to the Select 

Committee on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic. By Mr. CHARLES STEW ART: Petition of sundry citizens of Brazos 

County, Texas, in favor of international copyright-to the Committee 

on Patents. By Mr. J . D. STEWART· Petition of Lemuell\f. Murphy, Thomas 

Mitchell, and A. P . Wells, of Clayton County; of F . M. Winn and 

Henry Cooper, of Douglas County; ofL. J . Riser and John W. Smith, 

of Campbell County, and also James J . Cowan, of DeKalb County, 

Georgia, for reference.of their claims to the Court of Claims- to the 

Committee on War Claims. By 1\I.r; STONE, of Kentncky : Petition of citizens of Smithland, Ky., and vicinity, for an appropriation to remove obstructions from the 

mouth of said river- to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. 

Also, petition of Thomas P . Bell, for reimbursement of certain moneys 

paid out by him- to the Committee on Accounts. By Mr. WHEELER: Petition of John Lawler, of Madison County, 

Alabama, for reference of his claim to the Court of Claims-to the 

Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. WHITTHORNE: Petition of the elders of the. Cumberland 

Presbyterians, of Pulaski, Tenn., for property taken :md used by the 

United States Army-to the Committee on. War Claims. 

Also, petition of James- F. Davidson, of Maury County, Tennessee, for reference of his claim to the Court of Claims- to the Committee on 

War Claims. By Mr. YARDLEY: l?etition of 112 citizens of the Seventh district 

of Pennsylvania~ for-a bw prohibiting the manufacture, sale, and importation of all alcoholic beverages in the District of C:0lumbin.-to the 

Select Committee on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic. 

The following petitions for an increase of compensation of fourth- class postmasters were severally referred to the Committee on the PostOffice and Post-Roads: By Mr. C. R. BRECKINRIDGE: Of citizens ofl\1oreland, andFree- man, and Hanks, and Obin, ancl Enders, and Shiloh, and Rushing, and 

.Laurel, and Cherry Grove, and Santos, and Bee Branch, and St. James, 

and also Stevens Creek, in the State of Arkansas. 

By Mr . • J. R. BROWN: OfT. J. Reynolds and others, citizensofViola, 

Pittsylvania County, and John Philips and others, of Burcham, Carroll 

County, Virginia. 

By l\fr. COWLES: Of citizens of Valle Cruces, Watauga. County; 

and Boomer, county- of Wilkes; and Austin, county of Wilkes; .and 

Buscham, county of Wilkes; and Little River, Alexander County, 

and also of Watauga County, State of North Carolina. By Mr. ENLOE: Of A. G. Hill and 13 others, of Grovewood, Ca.rroll County, Tennessee. By ltfr. GROSVENOR: Of Peter Yost aud 45 others, of Centre.View, 

and of J . l\f. Curdy and 44 others, of Laing's, Monroe County, Ohio. 

By Mr. ROGERS: Of citizens of Black-Fork, Scott County, Arkansas. 

By 1\Ir. WHEELER: Petition of John Sayre and 28 others, of Alabama. 

By Mr. YARDLEY: OfW. B. Hendricks and' others, of Creamery, 

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. 

By Mr. YOST: Of citizens of New Hope, Augusta County, and of 

Wildway, Appomattox County, VIrginia. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATnTES. 

FRIDAY, January 21, 1888. 

The House met at 12 o'clock m. P~n,yer by the Chaplain, Rev. W. 

H . MILBURN, D. D. The Journa.l of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved. 

PROTECTION OF FORESTS, 

M:r. WHITE, of New York, by unanimous consent, introdn.ced a bill 

(H. R. 6045) for the protection and administration of the forests on the 

public domain; which was read a first a.nd second time, referred to the 

Committee on the Public Lands, and ordered to be printed. 

DEFICIENCY ESTIMATES. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House a letter from the 

Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting deficiency estimates from the 

Secretary of War for appropriations for contingent expenses of War Department and salaries .Jn Surgeon-General's Office; also amendetl.esti- mates for salaries of firemen in Surgeon-General's Office; which was re--

ferred to the Committee on AppropTiations, and ordered to be printed. 

WILLIAM H . QUIN:N VS. THE UNITED STATES. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore also laid before the House a letter from 

the assistant clerk of the Court of Claims, transmitting a copy of the 

findings of fact in the case of William H . Qhinn against ·the United 

States; which was referred to tbe Committee on Claims. 

MARY J . DOOLEY VS. THE UNITED STATES. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore also laid before the House a letter from 

the assistant clerk of the Court of Claims, transmitting a copy of the 

findings of fact in the case of Mary J. Dooley against the United 

States; which was referred to the Committee on Claims. 
1888 . . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 767 

A. H. TAYLOR, ADMI.NISTRATOR, VS. TRE U TITED STATES. 

The SPEAKER p ro tempore also laid before the House-a. letter from 

the assist.'lnt clerk. o( the Court of Claims, transmitting a copy of the 

findings of fact in tw case-or A. H: Taylor, administrator, etc., agaimt 

the United.States; which was referred. to the Committee on War Claims. 

TARIFF ON FRUITS, NUTS1 ETC. 

The SPEAKER pro te-mpore also laid before the House a letter from 

the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a. communication relative 

to t he revision of the tariff on fruits, nuts, etc.; which was _ referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means, and ordered to-be printed. 

SKNA:'.I:E JULLS REFERRED. 

The SPEAKER p1·o te-11-,pore also laid before the House Senate bills 

of the following titles; which were read twice; and· sev-erally referred as indicated: A bill (S. 24) to extend the limits of the port of Portland as a.. port 

of entry-to the Committee on Comme.rce. 

A bill (S. 25) to amend an act entitled "An act to amend the statutes in rebtion to immediate transportation o( dutiablegoods, and for 

other purposes," approved June 10, 1880-to the Committee on Commerce. A bill (S. 26) to create. a port of delivery at Port A..ng.eies, iri the 

district of Puget Sound, Washington Territory-to the Committee on 

Commerce. 

A bill (S. 190) for the relief of W. H. Tibbits-to the Committee on 

the Public Lands. 

A bill (S~ 257) granting a pension to Mary S. Logan-to. the Com- mittee on Invalid Pensions. · 

A bill (S. 574) to increase the pension of l\Irs. Apolline A. Blair-to 

the Committ ee on Invalid Pensions. 

A bill (S. 418) granting to the-State of California. 5 per cent.. of the net 

proceeds of the ec'\sh sales of public lands in said State-to-the Committee on the Public Lands. _ 

A bill (S. 509) authotizing an increase in pensions ih case of deafness-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

A bill (S. 473) to authorize the. Secretary of the.Treasury to cause 

to be examined certain vouchers filed or to be filed by the State of 

Missouri, or her agent or agents, for smns claimed to be due from the 

Government of "the United States on accoun1J of the payments made by 

said' State- since April 22, 1882, to the officers and enlisted men of her 

militia forces for military services rendered to the United States in the 

suppression of the rebellion, as evidenced oy the proper pay-rolls heretofore filed with, examined, and accepted by the Government of the 

United States, and report to Congress-to the Committee on War Claims. 

LE.A VE OF ABSENCE. 

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

To 1\Ir. ELLIOTT, for two days, on account of important business. 

To Jl,fr. KELLEY, fo1· one week from. to-morrow, on account of important business. 

To Mr. RusK, for to-day and to-morrow, on account of important 

business. 

URGENT DEFICIENCY BILL. 

1\ir. BURNES. I am instructed by the Committee on Appropria- tions to report back, with the amendments of the Senate, the bill (H. 

R. 4271) making appropriations. w supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the fiscal year ending JlJne 30, 1887, and fol' prior years and 

for other purposes. The Committee on Appropriations have instructed me to move concurrence in these amendments. · · 

111r. HOLUAN. Isitt he w.ishofthegentleman tolnYe.theseamendments considered in the Honse? 

Mr. BURNES. l ask unanimous consent that they be considered in 

the House. 

:M:r. HOL1'liA.N. Aa in Committee of the Whole. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore._ The_ gentleman_ from Missouri [Mr. 

BuuNES] asks unanimous consent that the amendments of the Senate 

be considered in the House. There was-no objection, and it was ordeTed accordingly. First amendment: Under the heading· "Engraving and printing" 

strike out- these words: 

.And the numbercf plate printers-arid plate printers' assistants may; by direc- tion of the Secretary of the Treasury, be increased to two hundred and two hundred and thirty, respectively. 

And in- lieu: thereof inser.t these words·: 

Fourth, fifth and sixth, amendments: Under the. heading "Ship, 

steam-boat, and way letters" insert the following: 

For manufacture of adhesive postage and special-delivezy stam.ps. $6,884A5. For manufacture of stamped.en velopes, newspaper-wTappers,and letter-sheets, 

$65,237.78. For manufacture of-registered-package, tag, official, and dead-letter envelopes, $17,813.49. 

The amendments were· severally con:curred in. 

Seventh amendment: Under the- heading "Senate" strike out the 

following : · 

For comperu;ation of officer!>, clerks,_ messengers, etc., in th.e empl-by or the 

Senate for the fiscal year· ending-Jun-e 30, !887, ~4 2:29. 08. 

The amendment was concurred in. 

Eighth amendment: Under the heading " ·Senate : For fuel, oil, etc. " 

strike out the words ''two thousand dollar.s,'' in. the thir.d paragraph, 

and insert in lieu thereof the words ''two thousand eight hundred and 

ninety-foul' dollars and twenty-seven cents." 

The amendment was concurred in. Ninth amendment.:- Under·theh.eadi.ng" Senate: For:fn:rniture, etc." 

strike out the words" three thousand dollars" and insert in lieu thereof 

the words "three thousand two hundred and forty-nine dollar.s n,nd 

twenty-nine-cents .. ' 1 

The amendment was concurred in. Tenth amendment: Under the heading_" Senate" insert as. fOllows: 

For packing-boxes, $41.83. 

The arnen.dment was concurred in. · Eleventh amendment: Under_ the heading. "Senate: For folding 

speeches and pamphlets" stl'ike out. the-words'' four thousand five hundred dollar.s ' ' and insert in lieu thereofthe words ''six thousand seven hundred ancl seventy-eight dollars and thirty-three cents. " 

The amendment was concurred in. Twelfth amendment: Under the heading "Senate: For miscella- neous items, exclusive oflabor" strike out the words "fi..ve thousand 

dollars" and insert in lieu thereof the wordS "three tneusan.d nino 

hundred and sixty-two dollars and seventy cents." 

The amendment was concurred in. Thirteenth amendment: Un-der the heading "Senate: For clerk of 

Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry'' insert the name '' (C. S. Wilbur) ~ 

The-amendment was. concurred.. in. 

Fourteenth amendment: Un.der tire heading "Government Printing Office" adcf at the end of the first paragraph, the words: 

· Provided, That in estimating the said 25 per cent.; credit shall be gi.ven the 

Government for whatever has already been paid;. or-is now being paid, to said 

employes above the rates· for day wotk. 

The amendment was concurred in. Fifteenth amendment: Under the- heading "Fox and Wisconsin 

River improvements" strike out the name "Sweeting" and insert in 

lieu thereof the name "Swetting. " · 

The amendment was concurred in. 

Sixteenth amendment: ·Under the heading ~'Fox and Wisconsin 

River irnproYements" strike out the initial ''G." in the name "John 

G. Tufts-" and insert in lieu thereof the initial "Q~" 

The-amendment was concurred in .. 

Seventeenth, amendment: Under the heading " Fox and Wisconsjn 

River improvements" strike-out the name "Tamer" and inseTt-in 

lieu thereof the name ''Tanner.'' 

The amendment was concnrred in. Eighteenth amendment: In section 3, in·the paragraph "For _deficiency in postal revenues-, etc.," strike o~t the- word "claim" and 

insert in lieu thereof the- word "claims. " 

The amendment was concurred in. 

Nineteenth amendment: In section 3, same paragraph, insert tlie 

words "and nine thousand fom! hundred and ninety-fi-ve." 

The amendment was concri.n:ed. in. 

Twentieth amendment: In. section..3, s.ame paragraph-, strike 6ut-the 

words "nine hundred and forty-eight dollars and four" and insert in 

lieu thereof the wonls_ "eight hundred: and fifi;y-four dollars and 

seventy-nine." 

The amendment was concurred in. 

1\Ir. BURNES moved to reconsider the vote by which the Senate 

amendments were concurred in; and also moved that the motion tore- consider be laid on. the table: The latter. motion was agreed to. 

PROHIBITION OF AMERICAN PORK IN FRANCE .AND GERMANY. .And the number of p1·inters' assistants at $1.51) a day may, by-direction of the 

Secretary of the Treasury, be increased to thirty-eight, and the number of print- ers' assistants at $1.25 a.day redu<:ed to one hundred and seventy-six. Mr. DUNHAM.. I ask, by unanimous consent, to present a resolution 

The amendment was concurred in. of the Board of Trade-of the city of Chicago, and to ask that the letter 

Second amendment: Under the heading ''Repayment to importers of 1\u·. Stone, its secretary, and the accompanying let.teT of the United 

excess of deposits" add these words: "But this amendment shall not States consul at Havre, France, be printed in the RECORD. 

affect existing suits or demands." Mr. LANHAM. I will not insist on the dema-nd for the regular 

The amendment was concurred in. order of busine..."S, if it is understood the gentleman does not ask for the 

Third amendment: "Under the heading "Miscellaneous expenses'' reading. of these pa.pers. strike out the words ''one hundred and seventy-two dollarsa.ndseventy l\'lr. DUNHAM. Of oomse I would like to have the-m read, but 

cents'' and insert in lieu thereof the words ''one thousand seven h~ under the circumstance& will now merely ask thab they be printed in 

dred and twenty-seven. dollars.'' j the RECORD, so that they may be read by members. 

The amendment was concurred in. Mr. LANHAM. I do not object to that. 
768 C.ONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 27, 

The1·e was no objection, and the papers were ordered to be printed 

in the RECORD. 

They are as follows: 

CONSULATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Hawe, .F\·ance, December 28, 1887. 

To the President of the Ch.icago Board of Trade, Chicago, IU.: 

DEAR Sm: It being most likely that Congress during its present sitting will 

take up the revision of the revenue tariff, it may not be amiss to call the atten- tion of your honorable body to the prohibition of the importation of American 

salted pork, etc., still existing in France. In the course of the many changes which have taken place in French ministries since 1881, we find that quite lately ·Mr. Tirard, the originator of the pro- hibitory edict, has turned up as prime minister, and as it was he who, under the 

vain plea of its unwholesomeness, by a stroke of his pen struck at a most important article of American export, it is but proper that he should be called upon to repeal this most odious edict of unjust and unfriendly discrimination. 

Among the most zealous advocates of repeal have been the population of the 

city of Havre. The Journal du Havre of the 14th instant published an article on this subject, of which I beg to inclose a translation. A concise sketch of 

another paper is addressed to you under a separate cover. I am of opinion that a majority of the laboring classes, who have been deprived or a wholesome and cheap article of nourishment, would hail with delight a thorough discussion of this matter in Congress, threatening, if advisable, 

with retaliation, if the prohibition is not repealed. If there is one article which may be mentioned as unwholesome amongst 

French exports to America, it is wine, the greater part of which is doctored and 

adulterated. France, fwm having been an exporting cou:1try of wine, has 

turned to be an importing country. Enormous quantities of low-priced Spanish and Italian wines are being imported, manipulated, doctored, decorated 

with high-sounding labels, and drank in the United States and elsewhere as selected vintages. Nothing but retaliation will bring French legislators, now strongly imbued 

with protectionism, to their senses; the plea that American hog produce is un- wholesome has been abandoned long ago. I have the honor to be, sir, yours, most respectfully, F. F. DUFAIS, United States Consul. 

BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, 

Chicago, January 10, 1888. 

Upon the receipt of a communication from F. F. Dufais, United States consul, 

resident at Havre, a copy of which ,is herewith submitted, the board of direct- ors of the Board of Trade Of the city of Chicago adopted the following resolutions: 

".Resolve,I, That the prohibit-ion of the importation of American salted pork 

by the French and German Governments, upon the pretext of its unhealthful- ness, is an act of great injustice to the Government and people of the United 

States as well as to the inhabitants of France and Germany, who are to a great ex t ent deprived of a wholesome article of food at moderate cost. ''Resolved, That the U nite<I:States Government should no longer tolerate such an insulting discrimination against American commerce without an indignant 

protest and the enactment of vigorous retaliatory measures. "Resolved, That there ought to be such legislation regarding our commercial - r elations with those countries as will comport with the dignity of the nation 

and unqualifiedly denounce the unfounded charges against one of the great 

and beneficent industries of our country. "Resolved, That a copy of the foregoing resolutions be forwarded to Representatives and Senators of the United States Congress." 

GEO. F. STO~E, Secretary. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. LANHAM. I demand t.he regular order of business. 

The SPEAKER pro te1npo1·e. The regular order of business is the 

call of committees for reports of p1·ivate bills. 

JAMES ALBERT BONS.A.CK. 

llfr. VANCE, from the Committee on Patents, reported back with an amendment a bill (H. R. 593) for the relief of .Tames Albert Bonsack; 

which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and the accompanying report ordered to be printed. 

PETER A. ALLENDORF. 

Mr. BLISS, from the Comm~ttee on War Claims, _reported a bill {H. 

R. 6046) for the relief of Peter A . .Allendorf; which was read a :first 

and second time, referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be 

printed. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCHf SMITHLAND, KY. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky, from the Committee on War Claims, re- ported back favorably a bill (H. R. 300) for the relief of the trustees 

of the First Baptist Church at Smithland, Ky.; which was referred to 

the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and the 

accompanying report ordered to be printed. · 

GROVENOR A. CURTICE. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky, also, from the Committee on War Claims, 

reported back favorably a bill {H. R. 439) for the relief of Grovenor 

A. Curtice; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and the accompanying report ordered to be 

printed. 

WAR CLAIMS, SCHUYLKILL COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky, also, from the Committee on War Claims, 

reported back favorably a bill (H. R. 1796) to authorize the proper ac- counting officers of the Treasury to audit and pay the claim of"the 

county of Schuylkill, in the State of Pennsylvania, for money advanced by it under allotments made by soldiers from said county during the late rebellion, by virtue of section 12 of the act of Congress 

entitled "An act to authorize the employment of volunteers to aid in 

enforcing the laws and protecting public property," approved .July 22, 

1861; which was referred to the Committee .ofthe Whole House on the 

Private Calenda1!, and the accompanying report ordered to be printed. 

JAMES TRABUE .AND OTHERS. 

M:r. STONE, of Kentucky, also, from the Committee on War Claims, 

reported back favorably a bill {H. R. 5349) forthereliefof.Tames 'l'rabue, 

Thornton Thackery, Michael Callahan, and the widow of John Waters; 

which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and the accompanying report ordered to be printed. 

CUl\ffiERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, ATHENS, ALA.. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky, also, -from the Committee-on War Claims, 

reported back favorably a bill (H. R. 39) to refer the claim against the 

United States of the trustees of the Cumberland Presbvteriau Church 

at Athens, Limestone County, Alabama, to the Court oi Claims; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and the accompanying report ordered to be printed. 

CL.A.Il\IS FOR SUPPLIES TAKEN BY Ul\TJTED STATES ARl\IY. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky, also, from the Committee on War Claims, 

reported a bill (H. R. 6047) for the allowance of certain claims for stores 

and supplies taken and used by the United States Army, as reported 

by the Court of Claims under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1883, 

known as the Bowman act; which was read a :first and second time, re- ferred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, 

and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

JOHN E. WILLIAMSON, ADMINISTRATOR. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky, also, from the Committee on War Claims, 

reported a bill (H. R. 6048) referring the claim of .John E. Williamson, 

administrator of the estate of John B. Thompson, deceased,and others, 

of Paducah, Ky., to the Court of Claims; which wa.s read a first and 

second time, referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF WILLIAM CLIFT, DECEASED. 

Mr. CROUSE, from the Committee on War Claims, reported back 

favorably the bill (H. R. 1083) for the relief of the legal representatives of William Clift, deceased; which was referred to the Committee 

of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, with the accom- panying report, ordered to be printed. ' 

LUTHER l\1. BJ,ACKMAN. 

Mr. CROUSE also, from the Committee on War Claims, reported back 

favorably the bill (H. R. 1082) for the relief of Luther M. Blackman; 

which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, with thell.ccompanyingreport, ordered to be printed. 

JAMES B. MITCHELL. 

Mr. BOWDEN, from the Committee on War Claims, reported back 

favorably the bill (H. R. 615) for the relief of James B. Mitchell; which was referred to the Committee ofthe Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

JOSEPH DIEHL. 

Mr. STOCKDALE, from the Committee on War Claims, reported ba~k 

favorably the bill (H. R. 861) for the relief of Joseph Diehl; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

SARAH E. PERINE. 

Mr. THOMAS, of Wisconsin, from the Committee on War Claims, 

reported back favorably the bill (H. R. 3196) for the relief of Sarah E. 

Perine, widow and administratrix of William Petine, deceased; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

RICHARD ATKINSON. 

l\Ir. LAWLER, from the Comreittee on War Claims, reported back 

favorably the bil1 (H. R. 3878) for the relief of Richard Atkinson; 

which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, with theaccompanyingr.eport, ordered to be printed. 

GEORGE F. BROTT. 

Mr. HIESTAND, from the Committee on War Claims, reported back 

favorably the bill (H. R. 3118) for the relief of George F. Brott; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

SOPHIA B. MOORE. 

Mr. BROWER, from the Committee on War Claims, reported back 

favorably the bill (H. R. 3902) for the relief of Sophia B. Moore; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

LOUISA. KEARNEY. 

Mr. WILKINSON, from the Committee on WarCla.ims, reported back 

favorably the bill (H. R.. 5315) for the relief of Louisa Kearney; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report., ordered to be printed. 

LUCIEN GOYAUX. 

Mr. WILKINSON also, from the Committee on War Claims, reported 

back favorably the bill (H. R. 3716) for the relief of the heirs of the late 

Lucien Goyaux, of Louisiana; which was referred to the Committee of 

./1 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 769 

the Whole House on the .Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

SARAH H. WOOD. 

1r. WILKINSON also, from the Committee on War Claims, reported 

back favorably the bill (H. R. 3744) for the relief of Mrs. Sarah H. 

Wood; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on 

the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to 

be printed. 

UNION NATIONAL BANK, LOUIBIAN A. 

Mr. WILKINSON also, from the Committee on War Claims, reported 

a bill {H. B. 6049) for the relief of the Union National Bank of Louisiana; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee 

of the Whole House on the Private .Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, 9rdered to be printed. 

J Al\lES BARNES AND OTHERS. 

:Mr. THOMAS, of Wisconsin, from the Committee on War Claims, 

reported back favorably the bill (H. R. 436) for the relief of James 

Barnes, Joab Williams, and William Titus; which was referred to the 

Committee of-the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, with the 

accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

ADVERSE REPORTS. 

1\fr. MATSON, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported 

back adversely bills of the following titles; which were severally ordered to lie upon the table, and the accompanying reports to be printed, 

namely: 

A bill (H. R. 134) to increase the pension of David M. Rennoe; and 

A bill (H. R. 129) granting a pension to Jesse H. Gaines. 

CREDITORS OF THE POTTA W ATTAMIE INDIANS. 

Mr. PEEL, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, reported back 

favorably the bill (H. R. 4487) to enable the Secretary of the Interior 

to pay certain creditors of the Pottawattamie Indians out of the funds 

of said Indians; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report,-

ordered to be printed. 

BRIDGES ACROSS TilE MISSOURI RIVER. 

M.r. CLARDY, from the Committee on Commerce, reported back favorably the bill (S. 274) authorizing tbe construction of a bridge across the 

Missouri River at some accessible point in the county of St. Charles, in 

the State of Missouri, below the city of St. Charles; and 

The bill (H. R. 2606) authorizing the construction of a bridge over 

the Missouri River, at or near the city of Jeffer:_sori, Mo.; which, with 

the accompanying reports, were severally ordered to be printed, andreferred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Priva~ Calendar. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. LANHAM. I call for he regular order. I suppose the first 

thing in' order would be to vote on the bill H. R. 7211, which eomes over 

from a former private-bill day. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The first thing in order at this time 

would be the motion that the House resolve itself into Committee of 

the 'Vhole House to consider business on the Private Calendar. 

Mr. LANHAM. But this bill was reported from the Committee of 

the Whole two weeks ago. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It will be considered after the Committee of the Whole rises. 

1\Ir. LANHAM. It comes over as unfinished _business. I demand 

the previous question on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Those_ bills are taken up after the Committee of 

the Whole rises. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlenrtnl from Illinois is correct. 

Those bills will be in order after the committee rises. 

:Mr. LANHAM. I think I am entitled at this time to ask the previous question upon that bill. 

1\fr. SPRINGER. I make the point of order that the bill can not 

come up until after the Committee of the Whole rises. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair apprehends the point made 

by the gentlemaJl from Illinois. The gentleman has the right to raise 

the question of consideration. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I do not raise the question of consideration; but 

the rules of the House provide that the order of business at this time 

shall be going into Committee of the Whole House to consider the 

Private Calendar. At this time unfinished business is not in order. 

The SPEAKER pro te-mpore. No motion has been made that the 

House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House to consider 

the Private Calendar. 

Mr. SPRINGER. But that is the business in order. The House 

must either go into the Committee of the Whole now or refuse to do s~. 

lr. LANHAM. I do not know that there is any such rule as that. 

:Mr. SPRINGER. It has been the universal custom of the House for 

unfinished business to come up after the Committee of the Whole rises. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is no doubt as to-what is the 

custom of the House. The gentleman fr<~m Texas can call up this bill 

after the committee rises. · 

Mr. LANHAM. Do I understand the Chair to hold that this motion 

is not in order~ 

XIX-49 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will submit the gentleman's 

motion. 

OWNERS OF STEAMER I. N. BUNTON. 

The title of the bill was read, as follows: 

A bill (H. R. 7211) referring the claim of the owners of the steamer I. N. }3un- ton to the Court of Claims. 

The SPEAKER pro tempm·e. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. LAN., 

HAl\1 J demands the previous question on the engrossment and third 

reading of the biJJ. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. Is it in order, pending the 

motion the gentleman from Texas has made, to move to refer the bill to 

the eo·mmittee on the Judiciary? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That motion is not in order at this 

time. It will be subsequen1ly. 

The previous question was ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The first question is on the amendment 

reported by the Committee of the Whole; which the Clerk will read. 

Tbe Clerk read as follows: 

In the eighth line strike out the words ''as a. court of admiralty jurisdiction." 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and 

third reading of the bill as amended. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. Is it in order now to refer 

the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary? 

The SPEAKER pro te1npore. That would not be in order on the 

question that the bill be engrossed and read a third time. 

Mr. BRECKIN-RIDGE, of Kentucky. Will it be in order on the 

question for the pas...c::age of the bill? 

The SPEAKER pro tempoTe. Before the passage of the bill. 

The bill as amended was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 

tim.e; and it was accordingly engrossed and read the third time. 

.Mr. LANHAM. I demand the previous questidn on the passage of 

the bill. 

~Ir. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. Pending that motion I move 

that the bill be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. I call for -

the reading of the bill. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, ftc., That the claim of the legal owner or owners of the steamer I. N. Bunton, her cargo, freight, tow, and personal effects, alleged to have been sunk by collision wit-h the pier of the Davis Island Dam, in the Ohio River, on or ~bout the 2d day of January, 1884, be referred to the Court of Claims, to hear and determine the same to judgment, with the right of appeal as in other cases: Protrided, That no suit shall be brought under the provisions of this act after six months from the date of the passage thereof. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. On the motion to refer I call 

for the yeas and nays. - Mr. RANDALL. Would it be in order to inquire whether the damage to this steamer occurred when the Government was in possession 

of the works or not? 

Mr. LANHAM. It was the Government's agents who were constructing the works. -

Mr. RANDALL. Not contractors? _ 

Mr. LANHAM. No, sir; not contractors, as I understand. 

1\Ir. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. The damage was done at a. time when there is no proof that any Government agents were there. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the yeas 

and nays on the motion of the gentleman from Kentucky. 

The yeas and nays were ordered, there being-ayes 47, noes 15. 

The questiOn was taken; and there were-yeas 101, nays 130, not 

voting 92; as follows: 

Abbott, Dockery, 

Allen, J. M. Enloe, 

Anderson, G. A. Fisher, 

Anderson, J. A. Forney, 

Bacon, _ French, 

Bankhead, Fuller, Barnes Gest Biggs,' Gibs'on, 

Bland, Glass, 

Breckinridge, C. R. Glover, 

Breckinridge, WOP Granger, 

Browne, T. H. B. Greenman, 

Bryce, Grimes, 

YEAS-101. 

Lane, 

Latham. 

Macdonald, 

Martin, 

Matson, 

1\lcClammy, 

1\lcCreary, 

McKinney, 

McMillin, 

McRae, 

McShane, 

Mills, - 1\f.:mtgomery,. Buckalew, Hare, 

Bynum, Henderson, J. S. Morg-an 

Neal, 

Campbell, Felix Hogg, Newton, 

Candler, Ho)man, 

Clements, Hooker, 

Cobb, Hudd, 

Cothrn.n, Hutton, 

Cowles, Jones, 

Culberson, Kerr, 

Cummings, Kilgore, 

Dargan. Laffoon, 

Davidson, A. C. La Follette, 

Da\idson, R. H. l\1. Landes, 

Allen, C. H. Allen, E.P. Anderson, A. R. Anderson, C. L. Atkinson, - Baker,C.S. 

Baker, Jehu 

R'l.yne, - Belden, 

Bingham, 

Blanchard, 

Bliss, 

Boothman, 

Boutelle, 

Norwood, 

Oates, 

O'Ferrall, 

O'Neall,J.H. 

Payson, 

Peel, 

Penington, 

Perkins, 

- Perry, 

Phelan, 

NAYS-13). 

Bowden, 

Bowen, 

Browe1· 

Brown~, T. 1\1. 

Brown, C. E. Brumm, 

Buchanan, 

Rice, 

Richardson, 

Robertson, 

Rogers, 

Rowland, 

Russell, J. E. Sayers, 

Shively, 

Springer, 

Stewart, J. D. Stockdale, 

Taulbee, 

Tillman, 

Townshend, 

Turner, H. G. Vance, 

Walker, 

Washington, 

Weaver, 

Wheeler, ~ 

Whitthorne, 

Wilson, Thomas 'Vilson, W. L. 

Bunnell, 

Burrows, 

Butler, 

Butterworth, 

Caruth, 

Caswell, 

Catchings, 
770 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- · HOUSE. JANUARY 27, 

Cheadle, 

Chipman, 

Cogswell, 

Conger, 

Cooper, 

Crouse, 

·Cutcheon, 

Dalzell, 

Davenport, Davis, 

Dibble. 

Dorsey, 

Dunham, 

Farquhar, 

· Felton, 

Findlay, 

Flood, 

Ford, 

Funston, 

Gaines, 

Gallinger, 

Gear, 

Go1l', 

Grosvenor, 

Guenther, 

Hall, 

Adams, 

Arnold, 

Barry, 

Belmont, 

Blount, 

Bound, 

Brewer, 

Brown,J.R. 

Burnes, 

Burnett, 

Campbell, J. E. Campbell, T. J. 

Cannon, 

Carleton, 

Clardy, 

Clark, 

Cockran, 

Collins, 

Compton, 

Cox, 

Crain, 

Crisp, 

Darlington, 

Hatch, 

Haugen, 

Hayden, 

Heard, 

Henderson, D. R Henderson, T. J. 

Hiestand, 

Hires, 

Hopkins, A. J. 

Hopkins, S.T. Hovey, 

Howard, 

Hunter, 

Jackson, 

Johnston, J. T. Kelley, Ketcham, 

Lanham, 

Lehlbacll, 

Lind, 

Lodge, 

Long, 

Lyman, 

Lynch, 

Mansur, 

l\Iasou, 

McCullogh, 

1\-IcKenna, 

McKinley, 

Milliken, 

Morrill, 

Morrow, 

Nelson, 

Nichols, 

Nutting, 

O'Donnell, 

O'Neill, Charles 

O'Neill,J". J. 

Osborne, 

Outhwaite, 

Owen, 

Patton, 

Peters, 

Pidcock, 

Post, 

Pugsley, 

Reed, 

Romeis, 

Rowell, 

Ryan, 

Scott, 

Scull, 

NOT VOTING-92. 

DeLano, Dingley, 

Dougherty, 

Dunn, 

Elliott, 

Ermentrout, 

Fitch, 

Foran, 

Gay, 

Grout, 

Harmer, 

Hayes, 

Hemphill, 

Herbert, 

Hermann, 

Hitt 

Hohnes, 

Hopkins, S. I. Houk, 

Johnston, T. D. Kean, 

Kennedy, 

Lagan, 

Laidlaw, Laird, 

Lawler, 

Lee, 

Maffett·, Mahoney, 

Uaish, 

McAdoo, 

McComas. 

l\fcCormick, 

:Merriman, 

Moffitt, 

:Moore, 

l\forse, 

Parker, 

Phelps, 

Plumb, 

Randall, 

R-ayner, 

Rockwell, 

Russell, C. A. Rusk, 

Sawyer, 

Sherman, 

Simmons, 

Smith, 

Snyder, 

Spooner, 

Stahlnecker, 

Stephenson, 

Stone of Ky. 

Struble, 

Taylor, E. B. Taylor, J. D. Thomas, G.M. Thomas, 0. B. Turner, E. J. 

'Vade, 

¥Varner, 

White,J.B. 

White,S. V. Whiting, William 

Wickham, 

Wilkinson, 

Williams, 

Yardley, 

Yoder. 

Seney, 

Shaw, 

Sowden, 

Spinola, 

Steele, 

Stewart, Charles 

Stewart, J". W. Stone of Mo. Symes, 

Tarsney, 

Thomas, J. R. Thompson, A. C. Thompson, T. L. Tracy, 

Vandever, / Weber, 

West, 

Whiting, J. R. Wilber, Wilkins 

Wise. ' Woodburn, 

Yost. 

So the motion of Mr. B.RECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky, was rejected. 

On motion of Mr. LANHAM, by unanimous consent, the reading of 

the names of members voting was dispensed with. 

The following-na~ed members were announced as paired for this 

day: 

hlr. WILKINS with M:r. CLARK. 

Mr. BURNETT with Mr. LAIRD. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of California, with Air. VANDEVER. 

l\fr. CLARDY with M:r. ARNOLD. 

Mr. MOORE with .Mr. DARLINGTON. 

' :M:r. WISE with Mr. KEAN. 

!1-Ir. RANDALL with Mr. McCOMAS. 

The following were announced as paired on this vote: 

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio, with Mr. WILLIAMS. 

1\Ir. ER:\1ENTROUT with 1\Ir. CANNON. 

Mr. SENEY with 1\ir. ROCKWELL. 

The following were announced as paired until further notice: 

hlr. SPINOLA with 1\Ir. THOMAS, of illinois. 

nfr. TRACEY with :Ur. DE LANO. 

1\Ir. CARL'l'OX with :Mr. WEST. 

1\Ir. STOCKDALE with Mr. THOMPSON, of Ohio. 

-rr. Coc:n..rnAN· with Mr. WILBER. 

The following were announced as paired until Monday, January 30: 

Mr. RusK with Mr. FITCH. 

Mr. ELLIOTT with 1\fr .. HARMER. 

:Mr. HoPKINS, of Virginia, with Mr. RUSSELL, of Connecticut. 

l\1r. CUMMINGS and J)ir. ~fOFFITT were announced as paired until 

Fehruary 7. · · . • 

J\Ir. McCOR..l\ITCK and Mr. PEKING TON were announced as paired on 

all political questions until the 28th of January. 

U .. RANDALL. Mr. Speaker, I had voted no, but I find that I was paired, so I have withdrawn my -rote. 

The result of the vote was then announced as above recorded. 

1\Ir. LANH.A.l\I. Now, Mr. Spen,ker, I renew the demand for the 

pre,ious que1stion on the passage of the bill. 

The previous question was ordered. 

Mr. McMILLIN. On that I call for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered, 47 members_ voting in the affirmative. 

The questj:on was taken; and there were-yeas 130, nays 94, not voting 99; as fo!lows: 

Allen, C. H. Allen, E. P. Anderson, A. R. Atkinson, 

Baker, C. S. Baker, Jehu Bayne, 

YEAB-130. 

Belden, 

Bingham, 

Blanchard 

Boothman: 

Boutelle, 

Bowen, 

Browne, T. 1\I. 

Brown, C. E. Brown,J. R. Brun1m, 

Buchanan, 

Buckalew, 

Bunnell, 

Burrows, 

Butler, 

Butterworth, 

Campbell, T. J. 

Caruth, 

Caswell, 

Cheadle, 

Chipman, 

Cogswell, 

Conger, 

Cooper, 

Crouse, 

Cutcheon, 

Dalzell, 

Davenport 

Dorsey, 

Farquhar, 

Finley, 

Flood, 

Ford, 

Funston, 

Gaines, 

Gallinger, 

Gay, 

Gear, 

Gest, 

Glover, 

Goff, 

Granger, 

Grosvenor, 

Grout, 

Hall, 

Hatch, 

Haugen, 

Hayden, 

Henderson, D. B. Henderson, T. J. Herbert, 

Hiestand, Hires, Hoilnes, 

Hopkins, S. T. Hoyey, 

Howard, 

Hunter, 

Jackson, 

Johnston, J. T. Kelley, 

Kennedy, 

Ketcham, 

Lanham, 

Lind, 

Lodge, 

Long, 

Lyman, 

Lynch, 

Mansur, 

lUason, 

McCullogh, 

McKeDfa, 

McKinney, 

Morrill, 

:Morrow, 

Nelson, 

Nichols, 

Nutting, 

O'Donnell, 

O'Neill, Charles 

O'Neill, .J. J. 

Osborne, 

Outhwaite, 

Owen, 

Patton, 

Penington, 

Peters, 

Plumb. 

Pugsley, 

Randall, 

Reed, 

Rice, 

Rockwell, 

Romeis, 

Rowell, 

Ryan, 

Scott, 

Scull, 

NAY8-94. 

Abbott, Dunn, 

Allen, J. M. Enloe, 

Anderson, C. L. Fisher, Anderson, G. A. Fm'ney, 

Anderson, J. A.. Fuller, 

Bankhead, Gibson, Barnes, Glass, 

Bland, Grimes, 

Breckinridge, C. R. Hare, 

Breckinridge, WOP Hemphill, 

Bryce, Henderson, J. S. Bynum, Hog-g, 

Campbell, Felix Holman, 

Catchings, Hooker, 

Clements, Hudd, 

Cobb, Hutton, 

Cothran, Jones, 

Cowles, Kerr, 

Culberson, Kilgore, 

Cummings, Lafl"oon, 

Dargan, La Follette, 

Davidson, A. C. Landes, 

Davidson, R. H. M.' Lane, 

Dockery, Latham, 

Lawler, 

Maish, 

1\Iurtin, 

l\Intson, 

McClam my, McCreary, 

l\lcMillin, 

1\lcShane, 

Montgomery, 

]\forgan, 

Neal, 

Newton 

Norwood 

Oates, ' O'Ferrall, 

O'Neall, J". H. Peel, Perkins, 

Perry, 

Phelun, 

Pidco ck, 

Richardson, 

Robertson, 

Rogers, 

NOT VOTING-99. 

Adams, Crain, 

Arnold, Crisp, 

Bacon, Dai·lington, 

Barry, DaviS, 

Belmont, De Lano, 

Biggs, Dibble, 

Bliss, Dingley, 

Blount, Dougherty, 

Bound, Dunham, 

Bowden, Elliott, 

Brewer, Ermentrout, 

Brower, Felton, 

Browne, T. H. B. Fitch, 

Burnes, Foran, 

Burnett, French, 

Campbell, J. E. Greenman, 

Candler, Guenther, 

Cannon, Harmer, 

Carleton, Hayes, 

Clardy, Heard, 

Clark, Hermann, 

Cockran, llitt, 

Collins, Hopkins, A. J. 

Compton, Hopkins, S. I. Cox, Honk, 

So the bill wns passed. 

.Johnston, T. D. Kean, 

• Lagan, 

Laidlaw, 

Laird, 

Lee, 

Lehlbach, 

1\Iacdonald, 

l\Iaffett, 

Mahoney, 

1\IcAdoo, 

McComas, 

1\fcCormick, McKinley, ..; McRae, 

:Merriman, Milliken, 

Mills, 

Moffitt, 

l\Ioore, 

Morse, 

Pa.rker, 

Payson, 

Phelps, 

Post;, 

Shaw, 

Sherman, 

Simmons, 

Snyder, 

Spooner, 

Steele, 

Stephenson, 

Stewart, J. W. 

Stone, of Ky. 

Tarsney, 

Taylor, E. B. Taylor, J. D. Thomas, G. M. 

Thomas, 0. B. Turner, E. J. 

Vance, 

Wade, 

Warner, 

.. 

White, s. v. Whiting, William 

"\Vickham, 

'Yilkinson, 

Yardley, 

Yost. 

Rowland, 

R.liSsell, J. E. Sayers, 

Shively, 

Smith, 

Springer, 

Stahlnecker, 

Stewart, J. D. Stockdale, 

Stone, of Mo. Taulbee, • Tillman, 

Townshe11d, 

Turner, H. G. Walker, 

Washington, 

"\Vea\·er, 

Wheeler, 

"\Vbitthorne, 

Wilson, Tholll.ltt8 

Wilson, W. L. Yoder. 

Rayner, 

Russell, C. A. Rusk 

Sa.wy~r, 

Seney, 

Sowden, 

Spinola, 

Stewart·, Charles 

Struble, 

Symes, 

ThomasL J. R. Thompson, A.. C. Thompson, T. L. 'fracey, 

Vandever, 

Weber, 

·west, 

White, J. B. Whiting, J". R. Wilber, 

Wilkins, 

Williams, 

Wise, 

Woodburn. 

On motion of Mr. LANHAM, by unanimous consent, the reading of 

t.he names of members voting was dispensed with. 

The following additional pairs were announced: 

Mr. BRIGGS with 1\Ir. FELTON on all political questions for the rest 

of the day. • . Mr. MILLIKEN with Mr. DIBBLE on all political questions for the 

rest of the day. 

The following pairs on this vote were announced: 

1\lr. ERMENTROUT with Mr. CANNON. 

Air. CAMPBELL, of Ohio, with Mr. WILLIAMS. 

1lfr. l\fcRAE with Mr. STRUBLE. 

The result of the vote was then announced as above recorded. 

1\Ir. LANHAM moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was 

passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 1 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

UNITED STATES COURTS, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA. 

1\Ir. HENDERSON, of Iowa, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. 6051) regulating the times for holding the terms of the 

United States coruis in the northern district of Iowa; whlch was read a first and seyond time, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 

and o~dered to be printed. 

ORDER OF BUS!NESS. 

1\fr. LANHAM. I move that the House now resolve itself into Com-
I • 

1888: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-ROUSE. 

mittee of the Whole for the consideration of bills-on the Private Calendar. 

The motion was agreed tQ. . 

The House accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole 

on the state of the Union, Mr. HATCH in the chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. The House is now in Committee of the Whole 

for the purpose of considering bills upon the Private Calendar. The 

Clerk will report the first bill. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

A bill (H. R. 6336) for the relief of Martha. J. A. Rumbaugh, administratrix of George H. Rumbaugh . . 

1\fr. LANHAJ\I. Mr. Chairman, I desire to invite the attention o.f the 

Chair for a few moments to a point of order upon this bill and an objection to its consideration, which it seems to me are tenable and ought 

to be insisted upon, and perhaps may apply to some, if not all, of the 

succeeding bills on this part of the Calendar, which contains a list of cases reported fi:om the Court of Claims at a former session of Congress. 

Now, this bill, which has been read by its title, was introduced in the 

Forty-ninth Congress byl\fr. Bragga.nd was reportedinthatCongress by 

Mr. Geddes. These gentlemen are no longer members of Congress; at 

the end of the Forty-ninth'Congress their official career ceased. An~ it seems to me, upon a more thoroughexaminationofthe rules which ought 

to govern in cases of this sort, that these bi\ls and these reports died 

with the expiration of the Forty-ninth Congress. In other words, when 

that Congress expired all the bills introduced and reported in that Congress which had not been finally acted upon wentintothewaste basket 

oflegi.Slative history. · 

It is true that in the Bowman act it is provided in the seventh and 

last section thatThe reports of the Court of Claims to Congress under this act, ifnotfinallyacted npon during the session at which they are reported, shall be continued from ses- sion to session and from Congress to Congress until the same shall be acted upon. 

Reports fr0m the Court of Claims "shall be continued from session 

to se~sion and from Congress to Congress;" but does this statutory pro- vision, l\fr. Chairman, give any authority to revitalize in this Congress au 

unconsidered bill and an unconsidered report of the Forty-ninth Congress? It is proper, perhaps, that these cases reported from the Court 

of Claims should be upo'n the Calendar for appropriate reference by the 

Ilouse. • ' 

When was this bill, the title of which has just been read by the Clerk, 

introduced in this House? It appears by the Calendar that it was "introduced 1\Iarch 1, 1886, read tw!ce, and referred to the Committee on War Claims.'' That bill has not been introduced in this Congress at 

all. I submit, therefore, that it is a mere fugitive paper and can not 

be the basis of a legislative appropriation in the Fiftieth Congress. 

We are now entering upon the work of considering some forty-four 

bills and reports coming over from the last Congress, involving, in the 

aggregate, an appropriation of nearly a quarter of a million of dollars, 

yet no committee of this Honse has pasSed upon tbese questions in the 

Fiftieth Congress. No member of this Congress has introduced this 

bill now called for consideration; This bill has never been read twiceit bas never been read at ali-in this Congress. 

111r. BUTTERWORTH. 1\Iay I ask the gentleman a question? 

Mr. LANHAM. Certainly. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Is it not true that these several bills have 

been placed upon this Calendar by the direction of the House? I understand that the Speaker directed these bills to be placed on the Calendar. And I will say to my friend that I ask the question because one of these bills, the second on the list, has been reported favorably 

to the House a number of times; His for salaries due to employes of 

the Government for twenty-four years, and I feel a little solicitous 

that the bill should pass. I would have ur$ed its being placed on the 

Calendar if I had not been under the impression that it was upon the 

Calendar by order of this House. 

Mr. LANHAM. I will answer the gentleman. A parliamentary 

question was asked of the S_peaker with reference to this bill; and on page 469 of the RECORD you will find this language: 

The SPEAKER. •The bills will be taken up in the order in which they appear on the Calendar. Under the provisions of what is known as the Bowman act, all reports from the Court of Claims upon matters referred to that court by the committees of the House, and not disposed of, are continued from Congress to Congress, and go over, standing first, as a. matter of course, on the Calendar. 

Bu~ the distinctiqn I make is this: Here are reports from the Court 

of Claims for appropriate reference, it seems to me. I do not believe 

that the Speaker held, or that he would have held if this question had 

been pointedly made, that a bill introduced in the Forty-ninth Congress 

by a member whose term has now expired, and a report submitted in the 

Forty-ninth Congress by a committee of that Congress, could properly 

be considered a bill and report in this Congress. 

1\Ir. BUTTERWORTH. M:y friend will agree that these bills were 

placed on the Calendar by direction of the Speaker during the session 

of the. House. 

]')Ir. LANHAM. That seems to be the fact. 

Mr. ·BUTTERWORTH. And no objection wa.s made. 

Mr. LANHAM. Well, sir, there was a parliamentary inquiry raised 

by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER], but this precise point 

,was not suggested to the Speaker. I went myself to him and asked him 

about these bills. His idea seemed to be that they ought to be p1aced 

upon the Calendar; yet the particular point which I now make was not, 

I think, made to the Speaker. Gentlemen well know the fact that 

under the rules all bills have to be introduced and have to be read a specified number of times. 

1\fr. BLAN:O. I desire to ask the gentleman whether these bills now on the Calender have been reported from any committee of this House? 

Mr. LANHAM:. .I have ende::ovored to state the exact facts in refer- ence to this matter. Here is a bill, No. 6336~ introduced in the Fortyninth Congress by Mr. Bragg; here is a report, No. 1556, from the 

Committee on War Claims, by Mr. Geddes, in the Forty-ninth Congress. The terms of both these gentlemen have expired. This bill 

has never been introcTuced in the present House, so far a.~ I am ad vised, nor has a report ever been made upon the bill from any committee in 

this, the Fiftieth Congress. . 1\'ir. BLA.ND. I understand that these bills have been placed on the 

Calendar under the order of the Speaker at the beginning of the ses- sion. That is the point I wanted to get at. 

1\Ir. STONE, of Kentucky, rose. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky will suspend for one moment. The Chair will state to the committee that this is a very 

important point of order submitted for his decision, and he \vill be 

obliged to gentlemen of the House if they will preserve o:t:der on the floor 

before he is called upon to decide it. 'Mr. BLAND. The question is whether that was done by order of 

the House. I am not informed particularly about it, but my impression 

is that there was some order of the House about it.• 1\Ir. LANHAM. I am not able to say whether there was any order 

of the House. The matter was called to the attention of the Speaker 

by the gentleman from illinois [Ur. SPRI ~GER], as stated in a parlia· 

mentary inquiry submitted on the 14th of January. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. What page? 

Mr. LA.NHllL Page 469. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I desire to call attention to the 

fact that it was not on the request of the gentleman from Illinois [~Ir. 

SPRINGER] that the Speaker made his ruling, bnt it was on the point 

of order raised by the gentleman from Maryland [1\fr. McCoMAs]; but 

it was afterwards referred to by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 

SPRINGER], and on that occ..<tSion the Speaker repeated the ruling be 

had made on the point of order raised by the gentleman from Maryland. The ruling of the Speaker on the point raised by the gentleman 

from Illinois was made subsequently to the ruling on. the point raisecL 

by the gentleman from Maryland, and I will send to the Clerk's desk 

and ask to have read the ruling of the Speaker on the point raised by 

the gentleman from Maryland. 

The CHAIR.l\IAN. The Clerk will read it. 

:Mr. LANHAM. I had not seen that. 

1\ir. RICHARDSON. It was referred to by the gentleman from Illinois, and then the Speaker repeated the ruling he had made on the application of the gentleman from 1\Iru·yland [1\fr. McCoMAS]. The ruling on the point of the gentleman from Illinois was made subsequent 

to the ruling on the point of the gentleman from Maryland. 

It will be found on page 103 of the RECORD, in the proceedings of the 

House of the 19th of December, which were published in the RECORD 

of the 20th. 

The Clerl~ read as follows: 

REPORTED CLAIMS OY TJD!: CALENDAR. 

Mr. McCoMAS. I desire to make a parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. , Mr. McCoMAs. The Bowman act, chapter 116, volume 22, of the Statutes at Large, in section 7, provides: "That report.s of the Court of Claims to Congress under this act, if not finally acted upon during the session at which they are reported, shall be continued from session to s ession and from Congress to Congress until the same shall be finally acted upon." 

Now, in order to give effect and force to that continuance from Congress to Congress, my question is, will not claims thus reported back f1·om the Court of Claims to the last Congress and then reported by its committee to the Forty- ninth Congress with an accompanying bill standing on the Cale::J.dar of the lasr Congress-will not those claims, under the force of the terms of the section which I have read, be placed upon the Calendar and be the first claims in priority on the Calendar for consideration during the present Congress? I send to the Speaker's desk the act to which I have 1·eferred. The SPEAKER. The Chair remembers the terms of the act. The practice in the House has been when a report is received from the Court of Claims it is re- ferred to the committee which had original jurisdiction of the matter, the Com- mittee on War Claims or the Committee on Claims, as the case may be. If that committee during that Congress reports the claim back again to the Honse, the Chair thinks that the section of the act to which the gentleman from Maryland refers requires the report to be continued on the. Calendar, and the Chair has so instructed the Clerk in the present session to pla-ce on the Calendar in regular order all the reports made by committees on reports from the Court of Claims. That will be done. 

Ur. RICHARDSON. Now, Mr. Chairman, I desire to ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] that he will be kind enough to 

speak to the point of order he submits. 

.Mr. LANHAM. I will say in response to what bas been read that 

the Speaker did not, I think, hold that these c1aims should be con- sidered in the House on bills and reports introduced in the Forty-ninth 

Congresn. · 

• 
• 

CONGRESSIONAL RECO-RD-HOUSE. JANQARY 27, 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. Will the gentleman permit me to ask 

him a quest-ion? 

Mr. LANHAM. If the gentJeman will pardon me, I will in a mo- ment. The point of order could be well taken if it depends upon the 

1S.;:;i that there is no bill on the Calendar or none introduCled in the Fiftieth Congress making appropriation to pay the claims mentioned on 

the Calendar coming over from the Forty-ninth .Con~ss. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. There is none, so far as I know. Under that 

statement I submit the gentleman is mistaken. On the 4th of J l:!.DDary 

I had t-he honor to introduce into this House a bill which provides appropriation in each one of these cases so reported in the Forty-ninth 

Congress favorably.-

1\ir. L ANHAM. This case? 

Ur. IUCHARDSON. I am not speaking of this case; Jam speaking 

of the cases from the Court of Claims. If the gentleman wishes to 

make a point of order to apply in all cases, I hope he will except out 

of his point of order those to which I have referred. 

Mr. LANHA ~I. " Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.". 

11-lr. RICHARDSON. Your point of order went to those ca-ses . . "Mr. LANHAM. I a.m making the point of order on this particular 

bill, and incidentally have mentioned the fact that there were other 

bi.lls on the House Calendar tlmt might be subject to the same objec- tio~ · • 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. I wish to ask the gentleman from Texas 

wb:tt has come over the spirit of his dream? What bas induced h!m 

to make tb is objection to this bill after he bad successfully put through 

the House a bill in the same position? 

I want to ask tb~ gentleman another question, and· he may answer them both at the same time. Please tell the House for what purpose 

hills referred to committees go upon the Calendar or are referred to 

the Committee of the Whole House. Is it not that they are to be 

taken up and acted on? And when the Speaker decided that these 

hills should go upon the C:tlendar! he meant that they should go there 

1or the action of the House, or for the action of the Committee of the 

Whole upon them. Is not that so? 

Mr. LANHAM. I will to the best of my ability answer the question of the gentleman from Kentucky. He asks what change bas come 

O\·er the spirit of my dream. Now I wish to say that I have never 

claimed any superior parliamentary knowledge. I called the attention 

of the Speaker to these cases on the Calendar early in the session, under 

the impression that they were not properly on the Calendar. I went to 

the Speaker before the first private-bill day and called his attention to 

these cases from the Court of Claims. 

I have been studying the question since, and tb~e special objections, 

I will state to the gentleman, did not occur to me until after we had 

entered upon the com;ideration vf the other bills. I bad charge of but 

one of them; but upon a more thorough investigation of the rules of the 

l fouse bearing upon the subject, my opinion is, and is deCidedly, that 1 his bill and others of like character now upon the Calendar can not 

he considered here unless they had been introduced into the Honse at 

the present session, and properly reported from committees. 

Now, if the gentlem~;~.n from Kentucky will be kind enough to state 

his last question again. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. The last quest:on was in substance a request that the gentleman would state to the House why these bills 

are put upon the Calendar at all. The Speaker has ordered, as we have seen, under the statute and the rules of the House, these bills to 

go upon the Calendar. 

Mr. LANHAM. Yes, sir. 

l\Ir. STONE, of Kentucky. Does the gentleman contend that that 

ruling simply meant they should go there and then be referred to the 

committees? Do I understand that to be his construction? If that is 

the position he takes, it is wholly untenable, because bills are placed 

upon the Calendar of the House to be considered by the House, and 

not to be referred to the committees for reports. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I do not understand the gentleman's point of 

order to be so broad as that. If I understand the gentleman from Texas, 

his point of order does not apply to a case where a bill is now pending 

in the Fiftieth Congress of the same character as the one upon the Calendar coming over from the last Congress. 

Mr. LANHAM. I am not making a point of order at present beyond 

the bill to which I at first referred. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Then the point of order applies only to where no bill is pending, as I understand the gentleman. 

Mr. LANHAM. As a matter of course I am taking the <:aSe in the 

order I find it here. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. If the gentleman from Tennessee will 

nllow me to suggest to him, the point of order raised by the gentleman 

from Texas will include all that class of bills which have come over from a former Congress and are now upon the Calendar. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I do not so understand it. I understand him 

to state distinctly t,hat his point of order applies only to those cases where no bill in the present Congress is pending. 

Mr. LANHAM. The gentleman from Kentucky asks why it is that 

these_ case..s, reported from the Court of Claims, are now upon the Calendar. In answer I will /state, I presume they are placed there in 

pursuance of the seventh section of the Bowman act, which provides 

that reports from the Court of Claims, not bills of a former Congress or 

reports of a former Congress, but judicial ascertainments of fact reached 

by the Court of Claims and· transmitted to Congress, shall be considered 

fl'om session io session a,nd from term to term until finally acted upon. 

Now, what was the exact purpose of that section I am not prepared 

to say. It may be that these matters should not be again referred to 

the Court of Claims; that having found the facts once, they should be 

transmitted to Congress for its · action, upon proper bills being introduced :mel proper reporfB being made from the committees, and to avoid 

reconsideration of the same matters by the Court of Claims. 

I do not understand that there is any rule of the House to be found 

which perpetuates and holds over a bill of the Forty-ninth Congress, w bich bas expired, and a report of a committee of that Congress which 

is no longer in existence, and makes action upon both obligatory in 

this Congress. 

Mr. CATCHINGS. May I ask the gentleman from Texasaquestion? 

Mr. LANHAM. With pleasure. 

JI.Ir. CATCHINGS. What does the gentleman from Texas understand the Speaker's mling to be? Under his ruling what is to go upon 

the Calendar, the report of the committee of a former Congress, or the 

reoort of the Court of Claims? 

-.Mr. LANHAU. It is perhaps not very clear what be did mean in 

that respect. He may have meant that the bills and reports of a for- mer Congress should be put upon the Calendar, but not·that they should 

be considered in the order in which we now find them. He did not 

mean to say that General Bragg's bill in the last Congress, and the re- port of Judge Geddes in the Forty-ninth Congress, should be made the 

basis of legislative appropriations in the Fiftieth Congress. 

Mr. QATCHINGS. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him 

further? It is clear tba Speaker intended to rule that some reports 

should go upon the C:tlendar. Now if it was a report from the Committee on Claims, it is manifest that the ruling of the Speaker not only 

bad reference to the findings of the Comt of Claims, upon which the 

report was predicated, bnt to the bill reported at the time which accompanied the findings of the Court of Claims, and which bill is properly upon the Calendar under that ruling for consideration. 

Mr. LANHAU; I maintain that reports from the Court of Claims 

are distinct and indept>ndent of bills introduced and reports submitted 

from committees of a former Congress; and the statute says that reports 

from the Comt of Claims shall be continued, but not that these bills of a former Congress shall be revitalized and perpetuated for future Congresses. 

Mr. BLAND. I would like to suggest to the gentleman from Texas 

that it seems to me the Speaker bas already decided upon that law and 

its effect; and under hie; decision these cases are upon the Calendar by 

consent of the House. No ap,Peal was taken from that decision, and 

hence it has the force of a construction of law placed upon it, and 

a-ssented to by t.he House. These bills are on the Calendar therefore by 

consent of the House, and the committee can do nothing but consider 

tb~m under that order of the House. 

Mr. CATCHINGS. Precisely. 

Mr. LANHAM. In response to the gentleman, I will say that these 

bills were upon the Calendar when the Speaker made his ruling as 

stated here. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. The gentleman ismistakenin that. The Calendar was not published until after the 1st of January. 

Mr. LANHAM. But the Speaker said that be bad directed them to 

be put upon the Calendar. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. That be had directed the Clerk in making up 

the Calendar to put them upon it. But that decision was made on the 

19th of December and the Calendar was not published until the 1st of 

January. 

:Mr. LANHAM. But did the Speaker of the House intend by that 

decision to hold that these bills could come up for consideration in Committee of the Whole House, even if the-point of order is raised to the 

effect that we are predicating an appropriation of public money upon a 

bill of a former Congress? 

Mr." BUTTERWORTH. The Speaker, I think, has indicated very 

clearly what was to go on the Calendar. I call the attention of the 

Chair to what appears on page 469 of the RECORD, which I will read: 

·Mr. LANHAM. I now renew my motion that the House resoh-e itself into 

Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering bills on the Priva te Calendar. Mr. SPRINGER. Before t.hat motion is submitted I desire to make a parliamentary inquiry. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it . . Mr. SPRINGER. As our Calendar is paged it contains two lists of private bills. 

One of these contains the bills coming over from the last Congress, reported 

from the Court of Claims under the provisions of the Bowman act, and the other 

such bills as are reported from the committees of the House at this session. 

'Vhat I wish to inquire is which class of bills will take precedence? The SPEAKER. The bills will be taken up in the order in which they appear on the Calendar. 

Under the provisions of what is known as the Bowman act, all reports from 

the Court of Claims upon matters referred to that com·t by the committees of 

the House, and not disposed of, are continued from Congress to Congress, and go over, standing first, as a matte_!.' of course, on the Calendar. 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-ROUSE. 773. 

Mr. SPRINGER. But as the Calendar is printed the bills reported from the different committees of the House are put first. 

The SPEAKER. Then the Calendar is wrong. These bills which came over from the last Congress will take precedence. Mr. RICHARDSON. I think the gentleman from lllinois is mistaken in saying 

that they come first. They are printed upon one page of the Calendar; but 

those which came over from the Forty-ninth Congress are under a separate 

heading on another page. · 

Mr. SPRINGER. Read further what the Speaker said. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH (reading): 

Mr. SPRINGER. That is true; but I always read a book from left- to right. 

[Laughter.] 

The SPEAKER. On page 5 of the Calendar, as printed, the bills reported from 

committees of the House at the present session appear in the order in which 

they were reported to the House, and on page 6 will be fouqd the bills which come over from the last Congress. This order of paging should be reversed. 

The reports which come over from the last Congress should be first considered. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. It thus appears, in confirmation of what 

the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. RICHARDSON] has said, that the 

House understood, in pursuance of the first ruling of the Speaker, that 

these bills should go upon the Calendar, to be disposed of in the ordinary course of business. For what other purpose they should go on the 

Calendar it is difficult to conceive. That ruling was reaffirmed, as is 

shown by what I have just read from the RECORD, in the presence of 

the House, and the House, in the regular course of business, took up, 

considered, and passed two or three of those bills, thus recognizing and 

affirming its former action, which was in accordance with the ruling 

of the Speaker, and we have acted upon that order of things ever since. 

Mr. LANHAM. Iwillsayin reply to the gentleman from Ohio [.M:r. 

BUIT.ERWORTH] that it is true those bills are first on the Calendar. 

The directions of the Speaker have been carried out litera.lly. But has 

the point been raised befo:re the Speaker that is now raised here? Will 

the gentleman be candid enough to inform me if he thinks that if the 

Speaker were now in the chair he would hold that Mr. Bragg's bill of 

the Forty-ninth Congress could bepropetlybroughtupto be passed now? 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. I hold it is in the power of the House to 

consider any bill upon that Calendar, however it may have_ been re- ported to the Honse, so long as it comes before the House in pursuance 

of its order. {. 

Mr. LANHAM. A further effect of the consideration of these billS' 

will be that this House will devote the most of its time for pe haps sev- eral months of this session to the consideration of bills reported by the 

committees of the former Congress. 

Now, what opportunity will there be to reach for consideration the measures which we investigate at this Congress-the reports we make 

from the different committees-if we are charged with passing upon the 

action of a former Congress, the bills introduced and the reports made 

therefrom? 

I submit the point o.f order that this bill can not be now considered, 

but that its appropriate treatment would be to make a reference of it 

to the Committee on War Claims, from whenceitcame, which committee could report the bill back to the House, when it would be placed on the Calendar, and it might be given the same priority, if it is entitled to that, when it-shall come back from that committee. , I submit the point of order that the bill can not be appropriately and 

properly considered at this time. I will reserve the balance of my 

time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Upon.a point of order the debate is not governed 

by the rule limiting debate. The Chair will listen to gentlemen who 

desire to express any views upon the point of order. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. I desire only to reply to one point made 

by the gentleman from Texas, as I think his argument has been clearly 

met by the remarks heretofore made, except the last point, when he 

said there was no rule of this House that gave these bills preference on the Calendar. I hold there is a ruleofthe House, and it growsout 

of this state of things, that there is a law under which these bills have 

been referred to the Court of Claims. They went there under the 

Bowman act. That same law goes on to say what shall be done with 

those bills when they are returned here. When they were' returned 

and the question of what should be done· with them was raised in the 

House, the Speaker gave his decision, and that ma.kes a rule until the 

Speaker's decision is reversed. His decision was that these bil1s should 

go upon the Calendar. 

The gentleman from Texas refers especially to a bill as a bill of General Bragg, who was a mem bef of the last House, and not a member of 

this House; but that bill goes upon the Calendar as a report from the 

Court of Claims, made by one department of this Government to the 

lower Honse of the legislative department of this Government .. Then, by a ruling of the Speaker, it goes upon the Calendar. That 

creates a rule for the House under which we are operating; and the 

statement that there is no rnle of the House can not be maintained, I 

think, because this state of facts does exist, and this House can not 

make a rule that will set aside a law of the Congress of the United 

States. The enactment of a law requires, besides the action of the 

House, the concurrence of the Senate and the approval of the President; and while the power to do both these things, to make 'the rule 

and to ~nact the law, is derived from the same source, the House of 

.Representatives can not make a rule that will set aside a law. 

Mr. BLAND. Will the gentleman-yield to me for a moment? 

Mr. STONE, of K..entucky. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BLAND . . I hardly concede the proposition of the gentleman 

that this House has not the power to make rnles to govern itself, even though those rules .may be in ronflict with some law which undertakes 

to regulate its proceedings. But, sir, that is not the question here. The 

real point is that this Committee of the Whole has no power to deal 

with the question, and the point of order can not be raised in committee, 

but only in the House. These bills have been sentto the Calendar by 

the order of the Honse and the rt.1ling of the Speaker, and this committee has no power over them except to consider them, and if any point 

of order is to be made with reference to them we must first go back 

into the House. The House of Representatives has full control of its own rules and its own order of busine.."lB, and the point of order, if made 

at all, must be made in the House. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. I fully agree wit.h the gentleman fr,om 

Missouri [Mr. BLAND] in what he has said upon the point which he 

has just stated, namely, that we can not make a role in Committee of 

the Whole to govern this question, and that it c.1.n only be done in the 

House. Bot upon the point of order as raised by the gentleman from 

Texas, I do hold that the positions taken by him are altogether: un- tenable, because the Speaker of this House had made a rule by which 

these bills were placed on the Calendar, and the gentleman from Texas 

[Mr. LANHAM] never has refuted the proposition which I presented 

in order that he might refute it if he could, namely, that when we found these bills on the Calendar the only thing we could do with them 

was to take them np and dispose of them like other bills o~ the Calendar, pes;ause we find bills upon the Calendar only for the action of the 

House and not far reference to committees. Therefore, sir, I hold that 

the point which the gentleman from Texas makes comes too late, be- cause we have already gone into this class of legislation under the rules 

of the House. His point comes too late, and the only effect that the 

maintaining of his position can have upon legislation will be to hinder 

and retard it, to throw all of these reports from the Court of Claims 

back into the Committee on War Claims and othercomi:nittees, adding 

nothing to the carefulness with which they are examined, but hindering and delaying action upon them. _ Mr. LANHA1\f. Does not the point of order embody the idea that 

when a bill is upon the Calendar and objected to, the committee shall 

rise -and report the fact to the Honse? 

M:r. STONE, of Kentucky. I do not know what the gentleman intendetl upon that point. _ 

Mr. LANHAM. I simply raised the question of consideration and 

stated objections. That was the object. . 1\fr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I am not disposed to say a word with 

reference to the point made by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 

BLAND], because my convictions a.re not sufficiently clear upon that subject. I have not the slightest interest in the question involved here 

except to have a correct determination of the point of order sought to 

be enforced by the gentleman from 'l'exas [Mr. LANHAM], and I want 

to supplement that, if I can, with tlre view which I entertain with ref- erence to the position of these bills and their right to be placed upon 

the Calendar. w·e have a rule of this House, adopted at the present 

session of Congress, the eleventh rule, which contains this provision: 

All proposed legislation shall be referred to the committees na.med in the 

preceding rules. 

Then it goes on to designate the subjects and the committees to which 

"proposed legislation" shall be referred. No one, I 1iake it, will con- trovert the idea that the bills now sought to be considered in Committee of the Whole are "pi:oposed legislation" within the meaning of 

the provision which I have just read, because they are propositions 

that are now presented to the House to be enacted into laws, ·which 

makes them '' proposed legislation.'' There is a provision of the Constitution of the United States which tells us that each House-each 

House, not both Houses, bot each House-may determine rules of its 

proceedings. · 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield for a question? 

Mr. ROGERS. Wait a moment; let me proceed in my own way. 

The provision of the Constitution is that each Honse may determine 

the rules of its own proceedings; not that the Senate and the House 

by a concurrent resolution, or by a resolution signed by the President~ 

may make rules ·for the guidance of this Honse or of the Senate--

1\fr. STONE, of Kentucky. Will the gentleman permit a question 

at that point? 

Mr. ROGERS. I m nst decline to yield now. I want to be CQurteous, 

but I can be more logical if the gentleman will let me proceed without 

interruption. Each House is to make its own rules of proceeding. There 

is a principle of the common law which tells us that acts in derogation_ of the powers of a future Parliament bind not. So I hold, Mr. Chairman, 

that the Congress of the United States, acting in concert with the President of the United States, can pass no law that c.'ln bind this House in 

the regulation of its proceedings. ''Acts in derogation of the powers of -

a future Parliament oind not;'' so that if the power exists in each House 

of Congress to prescribe rules for its own proceedings no legislation that 

Congress may enact candeprivethis House of that constitutional power. 

We have another rule adopted by the present Congress which prescribes what bills shall go upon the Calendar. That rule does not say 
774 OONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 27, 

that bills reported to this Honse in a former Congress shall go upon ] were from time to time considered in pursuance of the assignment and 

that Calendar; but it does say that bills reported from the committees were passed; and whether or not my friends here might have insisted 

of this Honse shall go there, and prescribes upon which of the Calen- on sending those bills to sundry committees is not the question, but 

dars they shall go, for we have three Calendars under the present rules. whether the House, in the exercise of its power under the Constitu- Another point: Judge Story, in his Commentaries, lays down this tion, had the power to make the order under which we are proceeding. maxim touching the construction of the Constitution-that you can not The Speaker as the organ and mouthpiece of the House directed this 

construe one provision of the Constitution so as to nullify another; all Calendar to be made up. There was no objection. Attention was its provisions must stand together, if possible. Now, if I am correct subsequently called to the matter, and the arrangement of the bills on upon these two propositions-and I think there can not be any very great the Calendar was changed by the House, through it.s Speaker, in open 

doubt on this-:what did Congress undertake to do when it-passed the session, a,nd bills on the Calendar, as rearranged, were taken up and con- Bowman act? Did itundertake to say thatthereportsof the Court of sid~n·ed and passed. Now, and for the first time, the authority of the 

Claims to Congress shall go upon our Calendars? Notatall. There is no Honse to do this is questioned. Mark, the power of this body to make 

such provision as that. It does not say what disposition shall be made of rules and regulations for the government of its proceedings is in no these reports, except that they "shall be continued from session to ses- wise questioned, but what we claim is that in the exercise of its high 

sion and from Congress to Congress until the same shall be :finally acted prerogative the Honse has made this order by which we are bound until 

upon." What is the fair construction of tha,t provision of the Bow- this body shall otherwise orde1-. 

man act? Why, Mr. Chairman, I take it to mean this, and it could not The action of the Senate had nothing to do with it; the action of the mean more than this, because if it did it would be in derogation of that Forty-ninth Congress nothing to do with it, except in so far as the Bowprovi::;ion of the Constitution which I have read, giving to each House man act presented the necessity of an early adjustment of these claims. 

of Congress the right to presClibe the rules of its own proceedings-it It was the action of this body. 

simply meant that it would not be necessary for the Court of Claims Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I t,hink if we will take into considerato certify these claims to each Congress, but that the certification of tion some primary rules of construction it may avoid all difficuJty 

them to one Congress would necessarily place them before a. succeeding here; the :first of which is to so construe all laws as to carry into effect 

Congress, if they should not have been disposed of. This, I think, is the object which the legislature had in view in enactingthe l1\W. All 

all that can be fairly construed as being required by the provisions of gentlemen whowere here when the Bowman act was passed will agree 

the seventh section of the Bowman act, that ''reports of the Court of the purpose Congress haU in view in the enactmenf of that bw was to 

Claims to Congress under this act, if not finally acted upon during the get rid of the biennial reintroduction and reconsideration and reinsession at which they are reported, shall be continued from session to vestigation of these claims. 'l~ey were put through the mill once 

session and from Congre.ss to Congress until the same shall have been every two years and they remained here. The pm·pose Congress had 

:finally acted upon." in view was to provide a tribunal for the consideration of those mens- Whatever is embraced in the reporting of these claims to Congress ures and for the pmpose of getting an ascertainment of the real facts 

is meant to be continued from Congress to Congress without any addi- in each case. Then the law provided when the Court of Cl:1ims sh::ill 

tiona! action on the part of the court; that is, they shall remain here have made its report that the bill which brought the claim in, and was as reported to this body fro-m Congress to Congress, requiring no addi- the vehicle which took it to the Court of Claims, should cease, and the 

tional action on the part of the court until they have finally been report of the Court of Claims thereafter should remain until Congress disposed of. This seventh section, I maintain, can embrace no broader, _ "' ed upon it. no wider, no more far-reaching construction than that with reference ' r. SHA. W. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. 

to the procedure of our body without nullifying that provision of the The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. 

Constitution which gives us the power to prescribe our own rules of Mr. StrA. W. Has not the Speaker of this House the power to deprocedure. . . cide questions of order; and has not the Speaker and the Honse already 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. _,.. Mr. Chairman, waiving the point made by passed upon the question before this committee? Would it be compethe gentleman from 1\Iissouri, I wish to say that no question is raised in tent for this Committee of the Whole to reverse that decision? 

any proposition before the House as to the right of this body to pre- The CHAIRMAN. That is one of the things which the Chairman 

scribe rules for the government of its own proceedings. The only ques- of this committee is called upon to decide, and he will decide it when 

ti.on is whether the House has in this case exercised that right. No one the argument has been concluded. will contend that the Bowman act could, for one moment, control the Mr. DUNN. Therefore the report of the Court of Claims remains, 

right of this body to prescribe how or in what manner the reports from and there is one of the difficulties the gentleman from Texas [M:r. LANthe Court of Claims should be de-alt with by this body, if at all. But HA.lli] falls into. He is desirous of p1·oceeding with the reintroduction 

has this House, in the exercise of the right which t~e gentleman from of these bills, but the law itself dispenses with that necessity. The 

Arkansas claims for it, provided for the case in hand? We think it bill has become functus o.tflcio when it carries a claim to the Court of 

has. . The Bowman act provides that these reports shall be considered Claims. The language of the statute is f\1at the reports of the Court of as before Congress from session to session. Now, clearly, it is perfectly Claims shall remain until they are disposed of by Congress. Therecompetent for this Honse to provide that the .bills to which these re- port against any claim by Congress is the :final disposition of it; and in 

ports relate orin connection with which they were made should be placed my opinion the point of order may be made against any bill which may 

upon the Calendar for consideration by this body. Can there be any be attempted afterwards to beintrodncedin behalfofsomeclaim which 

doubt about that? Can there be any doubt that it was competent for Congress has once rejected. When Congress has once rejected any of 

the Speaker to place a bill upon the Calendar with the coru;ent of the these reports of the Court of Claims, that is the :final disposition of it 

House, regardless of Rule XI? That is precisely what was done in this within the meaning of the statute. Those reports remain here, and case. Congress must deal with them. 

The Speaker is the mouthpiece of this Honse; and when this ques- Now, the point made by my colleague [1\Ir. ROGERS], that no law in 

tion was presented to the House, he directed, without a trace of dissent., derogation of the right of each House to :fix its own rules is allowable, 

and hence with its approval, that these bills with the reports should is very good law pro>ided it fits the premises. But this rule is made 

be placed upon thePrivateCalendar. · When theattentionoftheHouse tmder the statute on the subject of these reports. These reports are was again challenged to this matter, upon the point of order being sui generis. They are not included in any other measure or cl~s of 

raised as to the place these bills should occupy upon the Calendar, the measures which comes before the House. The language of Rule XI, 

position was reaffirmed that they were rightfully upon the Calendar, which sa.ys "proposed legislation," means legislation proposed in the 

and to be considered by the Honse; for they are only upon the Calen- way provided by tne rules of the House. You must introduce the 

dar for the purpose of being considered, and .for no other purpose-that bills, resolutions, petitions, and so on, with reference to committees, 

is, for such disposition as this legislative body may order. etc. The rule goes to that extent and no other. We have no rule in 

Now, I will not undertake to dispute the position of my honored this House as to these reports. What, then, must govern? These refriend from Texas, that a. point might have been properly made as to ports stand alone. They stand stti generis. Then the statute must 

whether these measures should go upon the Calendar without reference govern in the absence of a rule. The statute must govern where there 

to a committee. But the House has made its order in this matter. is no rule to govern the particular matter in question. 

The Speaker directed that these bills should go upon the Private Cal- The point made by the gentleman from Uissouri [1\fr. BLAND], that 

endar; the House assented to it, and hence, wit.h the unanimous ap- the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole can not decide the point 

provaJ of the House, this thing has been ordered to be done; and no of order, is not tenable. There are certain contingencies which may 

rule of the Hous,e can stand in the way of any act which this body, arise in Committee of the Whole which under the rules may require the 

acting a.s a unit, may by unanimous consent decide to do. And I in- committee to rise and report to the House for a. decision. Hut ~ is 

sist it having made that order-whether it might have properly been not a parliamentaTy question as to whether the House will consider the 

objected to or not, it was not objected to-it was made a rule, or rather proposition or not. an order of the House, and the bills under it are rightfully on the Cal- Mr. BLAND. Let me interrupt the gentleman to state the poin b I 

endar. · made. It is that the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole can I ne_ed hardly say it would work a gross injustice to a great many to not of himself decide the point of order as to a question of consideradisregard that order of the House, for beyond question it is an order of tion in Committee of the Whole. 

the House, made with the assent and approval of every member-at The Chairman ca.n not decide whether the Committee of the Whole 

Iecrst there was no dissent, which amounts to an affirmation-and bills will considm· a bill upon t~e Calendar or not. To determine that q ues-
J • 

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECOR.D-· HOUSE. 775 

tion we must first go into the House. The billi are upon the Calendar by order of the House for consideration, aml the Chairman of the 

Committee of the ·whole can not vacate that order of the House by deciding that any bill shall not be considered. He must get the authority 

from the Honse to do so. 

Mr. DUNN. That applies to one single condition in the category, 

which isfamiliartoalltheoldmembers oftheHouse; thatis, thatwhen 

we shall have gone into Committee of the Whole and it is desired to 

pass by without consideration a certain measure for the purpose of reaching one lower down upon the Calendar, then, of course, it is necessary 

that the committee shall rise and go into the House, and the motion is 

made in the House to dispense with the consideration of that particular 

bill in committee. But that is not such a question as is here presented. 

This is not a bill which it is sought to pass over. This is not a question as to whether or not we will consider one or the other of these 

reports. Not atalJ. But the question is, finding thesemeasures upon 

the Calendar, shall they be considered at all? Who shall decide that 

point except the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole? The Speaker 

will tell you if you go into the House that it is a question for the Committee of the Whole and not for the House to deal with. The Speaker 

has already made his ruling upon it, and has placed the reports upon 

the Calendar. They are upon the Calendar to be dealt with. We have 

no rule except that statute which places them before the present Congress; 

and hence they are before it for consideration-. 

Mr. KERR. Let me ask the gentleman this question: Can any bill 

be passed by thi~ Congress to carry out the recommendations of the 

Court of Claims, in any given case, without first having that bill introduced and properly referred in this Congress? 

Mr. DUNN. No bill can be; but this statute has provided specially 

that when a bill has been heretofore introduced in another Congress, 

and has, under the statute1 been referred, not tQ a committee of the 

House, but to the Court of Claims, that when that report comes back 

tQ the Honse it shall remain until it is disposed of by Congress, either 

at that term or some succeeding term. That is the condition of things 

existing now; and tha.t is the condition with which we have to dea.l. 

Mr. WARNER. As I understand the language of the Bowman act-, it 

is substantially this: tha.t the reports, if not disposed of at the first 

session--

1\Ir. DUNN. No, not the first session. 

1\-lr. WARNER. When not disposed of, shall be continued from session to session and from Congress to Congress until finally acted upon. 

Mr. DUNN. That is the language. 

Mr. WARNER. That is, until they are finally acted upon by Congre...c::s. 

:n1r. DUNN. That is it. 

bir. W A.RNER. Then, how can Congress finally act upon a report 

of the Court of Claims save by the introduction of a bill, with reference to that report, and tha,t bill acted upon by a committee of the 

House as other bills are acted upon? The sta,tute does not continue 

the bill of the Forty-ninth Congress from session to session or from Congress to Congress, but only has reference to the decision of the Court of 

Claims-its report-so as to provide against the necessity of that court 

reporting from Congress to Congress upon the same claim on which the 

report is already predicated. It is that report which is continued from 

CongresS to Congress. 

Mr. DUNN. Undoubtedly. But it does not require-or contemplate 

a reintroduction of the bill as an enabling measure to empower Congress to deal with the subject. The law perpetuates the substa.nce of 

the bill, but deals with it afterwards as a report. 

:Mr. McMILLm. If the gentleman will permit an inter.ruption--

Mr. DUNN. Certainly. 

Mr. Uc.rtULLm. The gentleman holds, as I understand, that n. bill 

introduced in the last Congress is a proper foundation for an appropriation of money in this Congress to carry out its provisions? 

Mr. DUNN. If it has taken the course directed by the Bowman act. 

The bill was originally the proper vehicle to bring the cln.im before 

Congress; but the Congress having expired~ the statute perpetuates the 

report. 

Mr. McMILLm. Perpetuates the report; but what about the bill? 

Mr. DUNN. It is immaterial. The bill is functus officio when the 

Court of Claims acts upon the case. 

Mr. McMILLIN. Now, if that be correct, if the bill is functus officio, on what do you base your appropriation'? 

M1·. ,DUNN.· On the report of the Court of Claims. 

Mr. McMILLIN. Then you will have your legislation upon the 

statute-books headed as reports instead of bills? 

Mr: DUNN. Why will the gentleman not read the Calendar here? 

Mr. McM:ILLm. I have read it. 

Mr. DUNN. Here it is styled a "report." That is the language 

· all the way through. 

Mr. Mc111ILLm. I understand that. But each report is accompanied by a bill. What I ask the gentleman is this: The bill being, 

as he states, functus o.tfi.cio, upon what does he propose to base his appropriation? Because the reportis not in that form upon which to predicate legislation providing an appropriation of money. 

Mr. DUNN. Why, sir, Congress, in appropriating, must use the 

necessary language for that purpose, aud designate the claim to be satisfied. There is no difficulty ·about that. 

1\fr. McMILLm. Then the gentleman from Arkansas admits there 

is nothing befor~ the House that would do this in the Rumbaugh case? 

I make these suggestions because this is a new question and an important one. 

1\Ir. DUNN. If the gentleman's rule was good, the Appropriations 

Committee could never make up a bill, because there is not a bill pend- -

ing for each item. 

Mr. McMILLIN. The gentleman from Arkansas can not switch me 

off on that line, because the Appropriations Committee brings in a bill 

in form, which the Court of Claims does not propose to do and has not 

done, and we would necessarily have to legislate without a bill in form. 

Mr. DUNN. That can be all provided for. 

Mr. McMILLIN. It has usually been customary to put bills in 

form before they are passed. 

The CH.AJRMAN. The Chair must insist on better order in the 

committee. Business will be suspended until conversat.iou ceases on 

the floor. It is necessn.ry that the committee and the Chair sboulcl 

hear the discussion. 

Mr. LANHAU. Will the gentleman from Arkansas permit, me n. 

question? 

1\Ir. DUNN. Certainly. 

llir. LANHAI\L Do I understand the gentleman to hold that this 

report, submitted April 6, 1886, ::md committed to the whole House, is 

a part of the finding of fact or a part of the report of the Cou-rt of 

Claims! filed January 25, 1886? 

Mr. DUNN: That is a matter that I do not know about, nor do 

I understand how much the gent~eman's question covers. I suppose -

when the report is made by the Court of Claims it is a complete report, nnd that the court sends back here all the papers connected with 

the case in their entirety. 

Mr. LANHAU. In~ particular case the court, on January 25, 

1&l6, found the facts and transmitted them to Congress; tpen on the 

6th of April, 1886, the Committee on War Claims made a report upon 

the findings of fact by the Court of Claims. Now, does the gentleman 

from Arkansas go so far as to hold that this report of the Committee 

on War Claims is a part of the report of the Court of Claims contemplated in the Bowmauact? 

1\Ir. DUNN. I will say to the gentleman that I am not familiar 

with the details of any particular case. I am dealing with the question of the effect of this law and its obligation on this Honse in the 

absence of any rule of the House governing these particular cases. I 

take it for granted that the Clerk in placing these bills upon the Calendar obeyed the order o the Speaker of the House and placed them 

there in their entirety as they cam.~ to the House in accordance with 

the Bowman act; and I take it for granted thatthereisin those reports 

everything pertaining to the particular case that originally came into 

Congress, with, the findings of the court superadded. 

:M:r. LANHAM. But in this particular case, if the gentleman will 

permitmeMr. DUNN. I am not talking of a particular case. 

Mr. LANHAM. In this case the bill was introduced in larch, 1886, 

repor"ted by the committee in April, 1886, whi.le the report of the Court 

of Claims was filed January 25, 1886. All this could not be part and 

parcel of the same matter. 

l\fr. DUNN. If they are disconnected in any way, that may be 

ground for special objection in that case. 

Mr. ADAMS. Has the gentleman from Arkansas completed his re- marks? 

Mr. DUNN. No, sir; I have been ~>imply answering questions. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. There is this point which I wish to submit. 

The report made by the committee to which this finding of the Court 

of Claims was mnde is based upon the finding of the Court of Claims 

after they had examined that finding, and they submit the finding . 

with their '"'report in each case. Of course they may bear different 

Il!1Illes, but one relat-es to the other. 

Mr. LANHAM. But the report of the committee is not a part of the 

report of the Court of Claims. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. It is based upon the finding of the Court of 

Claims in each particular case. 

Mr. ADAMS. I believe gentJemen who have discussed the supposed 

contradiction between these propositions on the Calendar-whether you 

call them reports or bills-and the rules of the House have overlooked 

the fact that when these propositions-whether reports or bills does not 

matter to my mind-were placed upon the Calendar for the considera-· 

tion of this House, this Honse of the Fiftieth Congress was not acting 

under an)~ rules whatever, but was acting under the general parliamentary law . . 

The order to which the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BUTTERWORTH] 

referred, or rather the announcement which the Speaker made of that 

order, occurred on the 19th of December; but the Committee on Rules 

did not make its report until two days afterward. Accordingly, when 

this order was D12.de by the Speaker, without objection from any one, 

placing these propositions on the Calendar, this House had not adopted 

the rules of the Forty-ninth Congress, or any other rules, but was act-
I 

776 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-- HOUSE. JANUARY 27, 

ing under general parliamentarY- law. Under general parliamentary 

law there is no reference to a committee that I know of; there is no 

rule that a bill shall be read once, twice, or thrice. 

There is no rule that a proposition to be voted on by· the House must 

be introduced in written form by any particular member or in any particular way. It is enough that the Speaker announces to the House some propoSition on which the House is to act yea or nay; and for a House in that condition of affairs, acting not under specific rules but 

under the general parliamentary law, I believe it is perfectly competent to take up any proposition or any set of propositions and place 

them on any Calendar which it chooses to place them on, and in that manner make such limitations on the action of the House in recrard to 

th9se propositions as it sees fit. 0 

Mr. DINGLEY. I wish to ask the gentleman if the Speaker of the 

House, on a point raised during t,his session, has not ruled that this 

House, previous to the adoption of the rules, was acting under the general parliamentary law as modified by the practice of the House of 

Representatives, and I wish to read from page 436 of the Digest this: 

While the question as to the binding effect of the rules of the preceding unon the existing House bas been frequently raised at the commencement of each Con- gress, it has been almost uniformly decided that the rules of the preceding House remain in force until otherwise ordered ·by the existing House. 

Mr. ADAMS. That may have been a. convenientrulefortheSpeaker 

to adopt in passing upon any question of order in the House of Representatives of the Fiftieth Congress, but it is just as incompetent for the 

House of Representatives of the Forty-ninth Congress to bind this House 

by rules as it is for the legislative power of the Forty-ninth Congress 

to bind this House by a statute. Undoubtedly, questions of parliamentary law arising at the beginning of a Congress must be setLled according to principle. Undoubtedly, in settling such questions, it is conven- ient and proper for the Speaker to consider what the practice of the 

House has been. But when it is proposed or when the Speaker of the 

House proposes that certain propositions shall be placed upon the Calendar instead of being referred to a committee, it does not follow that 

any rule of any preceding House providing for consideration by a committee, or by any other method of procedure, shall render that action 

incompetent or improper. 

Mr. BLOUNT and Mr. HOOKE:R rose. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from 

Mississippi later. The Chair is under obligations to recognize the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. BLOUNT] at this time. 

Mr. BLOUNT. Mr. Chairman, it is important for us to get at the 

true condition of the Calendar and to ascertain the exact facts before we undertake to determine the proper disposition of the question now being discussed. To illustrate, there is on the Calendar, designated as 

a ''report," a bill for the relief or Martha J. A. Rumbaugh, administratrix of George H. l{umbaugh, which was intJ:oduced by Mr. Bragg 

in the last Congress. Accompanying that bill is the report of a com- mittee of the last Congress made by Mr. Geddes, of Ohio. That bill 

and that report are put upon the Calendar. This is not the report of 

the Court of Claims at all. The gentleman' from Texas [Mr. LANHAM] 

has already stated that the report of the Court of Claims simply finds 

conclusions of fact. 

The committee in the last House tQok up the whole question, investigated it and reported a particular bill, and tha.t bill, with the report, 

is on the Calendar-not the report of the Court of Claims, but the report-of a committee of the last Congress. 

Mr. LANHAM. The finding of the Court of Claims was precedent 

to the report of the committee and the bill. 

Mr. BLOUNT. Yes; the finding of the Court of Claims and thereport of the committee are two di.atinct things. I do not mean tha.t their 

subjects are different, but I mean that one of them is the product of the 

Court of Claims, while the other is the action of a committee of the last 

Congress. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. The gentleman is mistaken in that. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I understand from the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 

LANHAM], the chairman ofthe Committee on Claims, that that is the 

status of the matter. But whether that be correct or not, Mr. Chairman, I hold that now for the first time this question of order has been 

brought distinctly before the House. For the purpose of illustration I 

will read from the RECORD what took place here on a former occasion: 

1\Ir. LANHAM. I now renew my motion that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering bills on the Private Calendar. 

1\fr, SPRINGER. Before that mo~iion is submitted I desire to make a parlia- m entary inquiry. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. SPRINGER. As our Calendar is paged it contains two lists of private 

bills. One of t.hese contains the bills coming over from the last Congress, re- ported from the Court of Claims under the provisions of the Bowman act and 

the other such bills as a re reported from the committees of the House at this session. What I wish to inquire is which class of bills will take precedence? 

onTt~~~~~: The bills will be taken up in the order in which they appear 

Under the provisions of what is known as the Bowman act~ all reports from 

the Court of Claims upon matters referred to that court by the committees of 

the House, and not disposed of, are continued from Congress to Congress and go over, standing first, as a matter of course, on the Calendar. ' l'r!r. SPRINGER. But as the Calendar is printed the bills reported from the different committee~ of the House are put first. 

The SPEAKER. Then the Calendar is wrong. These bills which came over from _the last Congress will take precedence. Mr. RICHARDSON. I think. the ~entleman from illinois is mistaken in saying tha~ they come first. Theyareprm~d upon one page of the Calendar; but those 

whiCh came over from the Forty-mnth Congress are under a separate heading on another page. - 1\fr. SPRINGER. That is true; but I always re.<td a book from left to right. [Laughter.] · The _SPEAKER. On page 5 of the Calendar, as printed, the bills reported from 

committees of the Bouse at the present session appear in the order in which 

they were reported to the House, and on page 6 will be found the bills which come over fron;t the last Congress. This order of paging should be reversed. 

The reports which come over from the last Congress should .be first considered. 

Mr. BLOUNT. Now, sir, it would -appear from the RECORD that 

the question raised by the gentleman from ll1inois [Mr. SPRINGER] was not whether these bills came over .from the last Congress, but 

whether they took precedence of the bills reported in this House, and 

that is the question that was decided by the Speaker. The question 

of order raised this morning was not raised there, and was not passed 

upon by the House or by the Speaker. The only question upon which 

the Speaker pa.<~sed on that occasion was the-question as to the right of 

precedence of these bills upon the Calendar. 

Mr. COBB. Not the question of their right to be on the Calendar 

at ~ll. 

1\lr. BLOUNT. Not, as suggested by my friend from Alabama, not 

the question of the right of these bills to be upon the Calendar. If 

that question bad been raised alld decided by the Speaker, the decision 

might have been excepted to and the House might have reversed it, 

but that question never was raised at all. 

Are we in such a condition that in this way, without any deliberate 

action of this House and contrary to its rules, we must aecept this as the action of the House? 

Mr. DUNN. I would like to read to the gentleman from Georgia a portion of the Bowman act to show him that the very report which-he 

describes is here in exact accordance with the Bowman act; that it is 

such a report as the statute contemplates: 

When the facts have been found by the Court of Claims, the court shall not enter judgment thereon, but shall rep01·t the same to the committee or to the House by which the case was transmitted for its consideration. 

Then section 7 provides that the reports of the Court of Claims-meaning, of course, the report made to the committee-" shall be continued 

from session to session and from Congress to Congress.'' There is a perfect and absolute description of this report in the terms of the law. 

Mr .. BLOU~T. My fi'iend discussed that point ·for some time, and 

I supposehis ideanowis simplyto inte:rject itintomyremarks. !have no objection to recurring to that question. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I insist that in the face of the rules of this House 

prescribing that bills of different character shall go to different committees for consideration and report to this House, we ought not to accept a construction not debated which has the effect of upsetting those rules. 

My friend from Arkansas seems to think that his reference to the Bow- man act relieves this situation entirely. 

Mr. LANHAM. My friend from Georgia will all{)W me to sta.te in 

this connection that the report of the findings of fact in this particular case by the Court of Claims was wevions to the introduction 

of the bill and the report of the committee. Hence the bill and the 

report of the committee can not be considered in any sense as a part 

of the findings of fact by the Court of Claims which were transmitted to 

Congress. 

Mr. BLOUNT. My friend from Arkansas undertakes to draw a dis-

~c?on between a report of t~e Court of Claims and a bill. Why, 

s1r, m the very nature of a 1(\,0"J.Slative body there can be no such distinction as he is attempting to make. There .can be no appropriation 

of money except by the joint action of the two Houses in the form of . a bill. The distinction sought to be made is one which I can not perceive at all. 

It is a matter of great importance, sir, whether we are to preserve 

the right of this House to make its own rules. We have never by any 

deliberate action indicated any disposition to abdicate that authority. 

On the contrary, we have deliberately, as have all former bodies, determined emphatically upon our rules of procedure, and amongst other 

things we have determined upon a rule as to claims, directing specifically to what committees they shall go. 

MI·. BUTTERWORTH. Now, my friend will not deny that when 

these bills have been reached in their order and are called up for consideration upon the Calendar under the order made, there.is a sanction by 

the House of the order assigning them to the Calendar. Can the gentleman get away from that proposition? Bills upon the Calendar under 

that order have been reached, the House llas proceeded to their consideration from time to time, and has passed one or two, I think, which 

were advocated by my friend from Texas. This, I submit, is not only a recognition of and acquiescence in the order which authorized the 

making of this Calendar, but is an approval of that order. So that, if 

there has been any disregard of the rules, the suspension bas been by 

the order of the House-bv its deliberate act. 

:M:r. BLOUNT. I do not so understand the' case. The question has 

never been raised until now as to what course should be taken in ref- erence to these bills. They were, it is true, directed to be placed on the Calendar. · 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 777 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Why, my friend knows the question was raised as to the place they should occupy on the Calendar. 

Mr. BLOUNT. And nothing else. That was all the question raised. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Well, if a bill has no business on the Calendar, the House, through its Speaker, will hardly direct where it shall 

be placed on the Calendar. . Mr. BLOUNT. Ah, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman seeks to fasten upon 

this House a ruling by inadvertent action when the House has delib- ei~tely declared what shall be the course taken with reference to all 

these matters. In the face of our rules, does the gentleman, knowin~ 

that if all he says is true it has been inadvertently done, ask us to affirm 

such action as a rule of the House? 

Mr. BUTTiRWORTH. I only ask that those who have beo-placed 

in a certain p3"sition by the action of the House shall not be wronged by 

other action of the House. Let these bills be disposed of in accordance 

with the action already taken, and then, if you choose, suspend or re- scind the rule, if you think it has been adopted through inadvertence. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I understand the gentleman asks that no one shall 

be wronged by the reversal of inadvert-ent action on the part of the 

House. Sir, there are many hardships arising in matters of this kind. 

Bills of very great importance are often in such a position that they can not be reached under the rules. But that does not touch the 

question whether the ruleS shall be construed as of binding force. I 

trust, Mr. Chairman, that this House is not going to hold deliberately 

that a class of claims which have never been investigated by any com- mittee of this House, the present committee entertaining perhaps en- tirely different views from the committee of a former House, shall be 

brought up forconsideration in such a manner that the House is denied 

the benefit of the usual machinery which looks to proper precaution in 

matters oflegislation. They are ex parte claims any way, and if there 

is any direction in which caution should be observed it is in the mode 

of the consideration of these claims. 

Mr. BAKER, of New York. Will the gentleman allow me to ask 

him a question? 

Mr. BLOUNT. Certainly. 

Mr. BAKER, of New York. The gentleman says these are claims 

which have never been investigated by any committee of the House. 

Now does he not consider the reference of these claims to the Court of 

Claims under the statutes constitutes the Court of Claims in the nature 

of a committee with power to investigate and report upon facts? 

Mr. BLOUNT. That is a different question. This House does not 

shut it.s eyes blindly to the action of that court. On the contrary, it 

ought to considerit, and it was contemplated it would take it into con- sideration in reference to these claims. We have done it in reference 

to some cases at this session of Congress. 

Mr. MILLIKEN. Let me ask the gentleman from Georgia what is 

the object of sending bills t() the Court of Claims, if Congress, after the 

Court of Claims has investigated the facts and given the result of their 

investigation to this House-this House is going through the same ex- amination and investigation of them it would if they never went to 

any court and were never investigated by any court? 

Mr. BLOUNT. It may seem unreasonable to my friend from Maine 

that Congress should not shut it.s eyes blindly to the conclusions of 

the Court of Claims, but it has never done so, and I trust never will 

do so. 

1\ir. MILLIKEN. That is not the question I asked. Why send 

them there at all? 

Mr. BLOUNT. The action of the Court of Claims is merely advisory; 

they find the facts in the cases referred to them and report their findings to Congress for its action. 

Mr. MILLIKEN. If I understand my friend from Georgia, he asks 

for advice which he will never take. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I can not help my friend's understanding, but I do 

not think that those who have listened to me believe I had1any such 

idea in what I said. It has never been in the cont-emplation of the act 

of Congress as the argument of my friend from Maine would seem to 

suggest. I have not said so. Why do you shrink from your logic 

when your attention is called to it? 

Mr. MILLIKEN. I prefer to draw my own conclusion rather than 

to Jet the gentleman from Georgia draw it. - Mr. BLOUNT. I know the gentleman would, because he is en- thusiastically for the consideration of these claims; I do not mean bnproperly so. 

Ur. MILLIKEN. I prefer to draw my own conclusions. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I know you do, as I see the gentleman is pleased 

with himself. 

Mr. HOOKER. The point of order made by the gentleman from 

Texas is that these bills which have not been reintroduced in this 

Forty-ninth Congress are not the subject qf consideration properly by 

this Committee of the Whole House in the order of business under which 

it is now proceeding; that at the head of the Calendar which you are now considering are the following "Court of Claims cases reported in the 

Forty-ninthCongress,andbroughtforward;" thatontheCalendarwhich 

you are now considering the question arises when each case is called 

whether or.not the committee has proper jurisdiction to consider that case. I take it, under the Bowman act, if there is a report from the 

Court of Claims upon a specific bill or subject-matter pending before 

the House or any committee of the House, which under the Bowman act 

had been referred to the Court of Claims either by the House or by a committee of the House for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and 

reporting back to the committee or back to the House, then under that 

act which we passed in·1883, and by which all matters pending before 

the House by bill or resolution were referred to the Court of Claims fot 

the purpose of reporting on the facts-I say that ever since the passage 

of that act these matters report-ed on by the Court of Claims would come forward naturally from session to session and Congress to Congre,ss un- til the subject-matters were disposed of. 

Mr. BAKER, of New York. Would Congress be compelled to act 

upon a bill introduced in a former House? • Mr. HOOKER. I am glad the gentlflman has asked that question. 

Ithasbeensaid bythegentleman fromArkansas [Mr. DUNN], to whose 

judgment I defer, that when a report from the Court of Claims comes to the House or the committ-ee the bill or resolution referred to it be• comes functus officio and can not again be introduced or referred. It seems to me the act of 1883 ought to keep alive the subject-matter re- ferred to the Court o~ Claims, and that it does keep it alive till it is 

acted on and disposed of. 

Mr. DUNN. What I meant to say was that the reintroduction of 

that bill into this Congress is not necessary. 

Mr. HOOKER. I agree entirely with the honorable gentleman from 

Arkansas. 

Mr. DUNN. And so ·far as the bill formed a part of this report 

and in its entirety it is here. 

Mr. HOOKER. I think the true construction under this act is that 

when a bill is referred to the Court of Claims for ascertainment of the 

facts of a case, and reported back to the Honse or to a committee of 

this House, that keeps the case alive until it is disposed of. 

But the very purpose :md object of the Bowman act, the motive in 

question, was that we s.hould have a reference to the Court of Claims 

ofthe legal questions involved, for the purpose of ascertaining through 

the proper legal machinery of that court tho actual facts on which each 

given case was predicated and on which the House was called to act. 

Having that finding of the Court of Claims before us, it enabled the 

House, being then in possession of the subject-matter upon which it 

desired to be informed, to shape its legislation in accordance with those 

findings. 

For instance, if the Court of Claims should report back that there is no foundation in fact for the recognition of a given claim referred to it 

by the House of Representatives, the House would probably determine 

that, under the finding of the Court of Claims, there is no foundation 

in fact for this claim, and we recommend that it do not pass. But if, on the other hand, the court find the existence of a given state of £.1.cts ·upon which they are not allowed to pass judgment, they report their 

findings in that event-assuming it to be a question of loss or damage 

to 'Property-back to Congress, and that report keeps alive, ex necessitate 

1·ei, the subject-matter which bad been referred to the Court of Claims 

to pass upon. I think there is no other construction, in the absence of 

any rule, of which the Bowman act is susceptible, except that it keeps 

alive the subject-matter and the facts upon which the court has been 

called to act. 

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, as I stated at the outset of my 

remarks, I do not understand that the question presented here is one which this committee can dispose of. We find these bills. and reports 

upon the Calendar by order of the Speaker of the House, with the con- sent of the Honse. Whether they are put there for the consideration 

of the committee or not, seems to be a question ; and a question has 

arisen whether this committee of .the House shall consider the bill in a given case, or the whole of them as a class; and that being the case, 

it seems to me we must :fhst rise and go into the House before we can dispose of that subject. It is manifestly a question for the Honse to 

determine whether the committee shall consider them or not. 

How do these bills happen to be upon the Calendar and called up for 

consideration? If they are upon the Calendar and have been called in 

their regular order for consideration in Committee of the Whole, what - disposition will the ~mmittee make of them? Is it for the Chairman 

of the committee to decide what bills the committee shall consider, or is it not rather a question for the House to determine? Ifthe ruling 

of the Speaker in placing bills upon the Calendar is not in harmony 

with the regular order in which they shall be considered, it is the function of the House to determine a different order. Hence in any event, 

to dispose of the subject, it is necessary for the committee to rise and 

go into the House, and let the House determine whether it shall con- sider them upon the Cal~ndar; and if so, when, where, and how. If 

they are not to be considered, and it is so determined by the House, we will understand that they are to be referred to a proper committee, 

and that committee can report them back for reference; but we have 

no power here to refer them to a committee. We have no other power 

in the premises than to consider them here in ,committee and make some order, either reporting them to the House for further consideration or recommending that they shall not pass. It is not for the Chair- man of the committee to determine w bether or not the committee shall 

consider them. We are bound to consider them if upon the Calendar 

·, 

: 
778 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 27, 

and called up for consideration. What consideration they shall h::tve 

is another question. If the committee desires to return them to the 

House for its determination, it is in order; but it is not in order for the 

Chairman to say that the committee shall not, under any circumstances, or for any purpose, consider the bills. . 11fr. STONE, of Kentucky. Ur. Chairman, it is very evident, as this discuSsion has progressed, that the question is not a point of order 

against this bill, but the question, as stated by the gentleman from 

Texas at one time during his remarks, is the question of consideration. 

The question is whether or not we shall consider this bill. And I want 

to call the attention of the House to one state of facts that has been 

developed by the discussion. 

It was said in the outset of this discussion. with reference to the con- sfiieration of these claims now, that because· they had been considered 

by no committee since the report of the Court of Claims, that it was not in order to consider them now by a committee of the Honse. 

Mr. LANHAM. The point was that they had not been considered 

by a committee of the present House. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. But in answer to a remark of the gentleman from Ge01·gb, awhile ago, the gentleman from Texas developed the fa<Xi that this Yery bill on which the question of considera· 

tion has been raised had been referred to the Court of Claims, the 

facts found, and they bad been reported ba-ck to the Forty-ninth Congress, and upon that finding of fact the bill was drawn and the committee to whom it was referred reported it back to the House. 

1\Ir. LANHA.M. I think the gentleman from Kentucky misapprehends the sugg;estion in reference to this particular bill being refeiTed 

to the Court of Claims, because I :find the Court of Claims, antecedent 

to that reference, had made a report in that case. Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. That is just what I have sa.id. The 

court made its findings in the case, and based upon the :findings thereport was made and the bill introduced. 

1\Ir. LANHAM. In the Forty.,.nintb Congress? 

1\Ir. STO~TE, of Kentucky. In the Forty-ninth Congress. . 

Now, what was the object of this Bowman act? It was simply to 

faciLitate the consideration of claims against the Government. What 

is the result of the action of this House to-day upon this question? It 

is to retard the consideration of claims. It is to pile back upon_ the 

committees this immense amount of work that they have gone through 

before. I shculd like the members of this House just to look into the correspondence, of the Committee on War Claims especially, and there 

hear the heart-rending appea.ls of people all over this country that are coming up to the Congress of the United States to grant them relief in 

the small sums of money asked for in these bills. Yet here we come and,like a set of children, quarrel over the consideration of a bill which 

has been placed on the Calendar, and thereby say to these people, '' W c are too dignified; we must have too much order in our proceedings to 

enable us to do justice to you who are starving for bread all over the 

country.'' , Mr. LANHAM. Are we not met by the same appeals and importunities in this Congress as in former Congresses? 

1\Ir. STONE, of Kentucky. We are met by the same appeals; and 

that but adds force to the argument. If yon tum these people back 

who, the Court of Claims has said, bavejru;t claims against the Government, yon force upon them again the necessity of appealinp; to the 

members of this Honse and the Committee on War Claims for help from 

the dilemma in which they are placed. 

The gentleman from Arkansas [1\fr. ROGERS] took the position that · this House bad a right to make any rule it chose or set aside any law 

of Congress. Does the House have that right? I deny it. I deny 

that we have a right to ma.ke a rule that will deprive any class of our 

citizens of their rights under a law made by Congress for their benefit. 

Mr. BLOUNT. Will the gentleman permit me a question? ~1r. STONE, of Kentucky. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BLOUNT. Does the gentleillftn from Kentucky declare that 

Congress may legislate against the right of this House t.o make rules 

of its own procedure? 6 

1\Ir. STONE, of Kentucky. I hold that a law .of the United States made in the interest of any class of it.s citizens is supreme, and must 

govern the action of this Honse until a law is passed repealing it. 

1r. BLOUNT. Then do I understand tbe. gentleman to say that 

the act must control where admittedly it is in conflict with a rule of 

this Honse as to bow these claims should be considered? 

' Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. I bold that the rule of this House can not set aside the law made by the Congress of the United States. But 

if the position of the gentleman from Georgia is tenable, that this House 

has a right to abrogate any law of the United States--

_?\fr. BLOUNT. I hope my friend will not mistake me. I never " took the position that this House had the right to abrogate any law of 

the United States. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. I understood the gentleman to ask me if I did not believe that. 

1\fr. BLOUNT. I willstatetheqnestionagain, sothatthegentleman 

may not misconceive me. Does be hold that Congress can pass any 

law which shall abrogate the mode of procedure in the J1onse of Representatives, and that the Honse can not change that? 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. No, sir; nor does anybody else that I 

know of hold that sort of an idea. But I do bold that a law of the 

United States, made by the Congress of the United States nnd approved 

by the President, is supreme over a rule of this Honse until abrogated 

by a Jaw of the same kind. ' 

M:r. BLOUNT. Does the gentleman say it would not be competent 

for the House to declare that these bills should go before a committee 

while that law is in existence? 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. I s!ty it mn,y be competent for the House 

to do so, but this Honse has not done it. - Mr. BLOUNT. Docs the gentleman say the House has not the power 

to do it? 

1\'[r. STO:NE, of Kentucky. We are not dealing with suppositions, 

but we· are dealing with the facts in the case. And the fact is, the re- sult of the action of this Honse to-day is to rctn.rd legislation and prevent the execution of a law that was made in the interest of a worthy 

class of the people of the United States. Its operation is to prevent 

them from getting justice, and it acts ap;ainst them in every way. That is what I say in regard to the action to-day and the rnle of this 

House. 

Mr. OATES. Will the gentleman from Kentucky allow me a question? 

1\fr. STONE, of Kentucky. Cert::tinly. 

Mr. 0...-\.TES. Has not the Supreme Comt of the United States decided that wherever Congress by a law creates a tribunal for the pur- pose of adjusting a claim against it, and the case is submitted to that 

trjbunal and is decided, the decision is binding upon the Government? 

Mr. STONE, ofKentucky. Yes; theSupremeCourthns madeadecision exactly of that kind. It has bean said here that these .:findings 

of the Court of Claims were on ex parte evidence. Why, sir, the action 

of the committees of this House is on ex parte evidence in a great measure. The court has the attorney of the Go>ernment upon one side, who is 

confi·onted by the attorney for tbe claimant upon the other, and thus the 

facts are more definitely bTonght out and justice is more surely done 

to the claimant. Those who oppose this order which has been made by 

the Speaker, oppose ibe execution of a law which was enacted to give 

relief not onJy to claimants, but also to Congress. All around these 

corridors, and all over the country, you wUl find people who baYe been 

waiting for twenty years and more for the consideration of their claims. In the poor-bouse of the District of Columbia to-day there are people 

who came here twenty years ago with just and legal claims against the 

Government that ba\e been put off by this sort of action from Congress 

to Congre s, until at last their little accumulations have been exhausted, and they find themselves pensioners upon this District. · Mr. Chairman, while the effect may not ha-re been intended-a11d I 

would not charge my friend from Texas [Mr. LAKHAM] with having 

taken action here to delay the consideration of just claims or the transaction of the business of the House-while that was not his intention, 

I state that it was announced to me on this floor this morning-this 

being Friday~ the only day in the week that is given to the consicreration of priYatc claims-it was announced to me on this floor this morn- ing by a prominent member of this House that the consideration of 

claims was not to be entertained by the Fiftieth Congress. Now, I 

want to say to this House right here, that I am iu favor of the passage 

of bills for the allowance of the just claims of the people oft hi~ country. 

I believe that if we bad taken these claims up in the order in which 

they come, and had proceeded with them to-day, w:::~ could have been half 

through with them by this time. 

But they have been delayed in this manner, and I for one protest 

here and now, and so long as I have :1 seat upon this floo1· I sh::~ll protest, against this dilatory action which prevents the public bosiuess 

from going forward and justice from being done to these people. [Applause on the Republican side.] I appeal to members of the House to 

stant}-by the people in this matter, and let it go out to the country that 

the Fiftieth Congress is willing to go forward in the transaction of its 

business and to do justice to this worthy class of people from all parts 

of the country who have been so long kept out of their rights. [Applause.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair desires to ask the gentleman from 

Texas [M:r. LANHAM] to state definitely and speci:fical1y his point of 

order. 

Mr. LANHAM. It is t.his, sir. I objected to the consideration of 

this bill and raised the point of order tba.t it was a bill introduced in 

the Forty-ninth Congress, and that the report upon it was from a committee of that Congress. It is not a bill of this Congress, nor a report 

of this Congress. It never has been introduced or considered in the 

Fiftieth Congress. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has no difficulty in deciding the point as now presented by the gentleman from 'Iexas. It is not within the 

province of the Committee of the Whole to determine the question of 

the consideration of a bill. The question of consideration being raised, or a motion made to pass over a bill, it becomes the imperative duty 

of the committee to rise and report that fact to the House. 

Mr. LANHAM. Then, sir, I move that the committee now rise--
. . 

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 779 

The CHAIRMAN. It does not require a motion. The committee 

will now rise. 

The committee accordingly rose; and the Speaker pro temJJO?'e having 

resumed the chair, Mr. HATCH, from the Committee of the Whole, reported that they had under consideration bills upon the Private Calendar, and had reached the bill H. R. 6336, entitled "A bill for therelief of Martha J. A. Rumbaugh," whereupon the question of consideration was raised by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. LANHAM], and the 

committee rose and instructed its Chairman to report the fact to the 

House. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chairman of the Committee of the 

Whole reports that they ha>e had under consideration bills upon the 

Private Calendar, and that on reaching the bill (H. R. 6336) for therelief of :Mal'tha J. A. Rumbaugh, the question of consideration was 

raised upon that bill; whereupon the committee rose and instructed its 

Chairman to report the fact to the House. 

Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have objected in the Committee of 

the Whole House to the consideration of bill No. 6336, introduced at 

the first session of the Forty-ninth Congress, March 1, 188G. Accompanying this bill is a report from the Committee on War Claims of the 

Forty-ninth Congress, first session, April 6, 1886. This bill, as I am 

advised, has never been introduced in the ·Fiftieth Congress, and no 

report in writing has ever been made upon it by any committee of the 

present Congress. I maintain that we have no jurisdiction in the Fiftieth Congress to pass upon a bill of the Forty-ninth Congress and a 

report coming from a committee of that Congress. 

The SPEAKER pro ternpoJ:e. The Chair is ready to decide ihe question. After hearing attentively the argument in the Committee of the 

Whole, the present occupant of the chair would decide that the class 

of bills ofwhich the bill referred to is one were reported to the Fortyninth Congress with accompanying reports from the Comt of Claims. 

They were, by direction of the Speaker during the present session, ordered to be placed on the Private Calendar for consideration on Fridays. In the opinion of the Chair, it does not follow that these bills 

of a former Congress are here for passage by the present House without the formalities contemplated by our rule..c:;. They are on the Cal~ 

endal' for appropriate action. What is that appropriate action? It 

may be the reference of, them to a committee; it may be to lay them 

on the table. The reference of the bills to the Calendar does not necessarily import that they are t o be passed or are to be considered with 

a view to their final disposition. Even messages of the President are 

often directed to be placed on the Calendar; but no one would suppose 

because a President's message is placed on the Calendar of the Committee of the Whole that that committee should at once consider, for 

instance, the question of a tariff presented by that message without such 

preliminary steps as the rules contemplate. 

The Chair therefore holds that these bills of the Forty-ninth Congress are before the House for appropriate action, but not for final disposition, inasmuch as under the rules certain preliminary steps are 

indispensable. There is nothing in the Bowman law, as the Chair conceives it, which antagonizes this view. 

The, present occupant of the chair, holding this place only temporarily, has some diffidence in deciding this proposition, and would be 

glad if some gentleman who differs from this ruling would take an appeal from the decision, so that the House may determine the question. 

MT. STONE, of Kentucky. I appeal from the decision of the Chair. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. The language used by the Chair was in the 

pluraL I desire to know whether this decision is to be considered as applying to more than one bill ? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair spoke of this bill as one of 

a class. 

111r. RICHARDSON. Then the ruling will be considered as applying to this bill alone. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. One moment. I understood my friend from 

Texas to refer to cases in which no bill had been introduced in this 

Congress. Now, a number of these cases do not come within that c.ategory at all. For instance, the next bill on the Calendar is accompanied 

not only by the report of the Court of Claims, but by the report from 

a committee as well; and I have introduced a bill in the same form as that introduced before--· 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will state--

Mr. BLOUNT. I desire to move that the appeal from the decision 

of the Chair be laid on the table. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That motion is in order, but the Chair 

desires to state that he has made this ruling with reference to only one 

bill. That point will distinctly appear of record. The .gentleman 

from Georgia moves thl:\J; the appeal from the decision of the Chair be 

laid on the table. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I wish to make a parliamentary inquiry. If the 

Hoose should sust-ain the Chair in this ruling, will this bill still remain 

in the Committee of the Whole House, or will it, under the ruling of 

the Chair, be referred to a committee of the House for its action before 

it can be taken up on the Calendar? 

The SPEAKER pro te-mpore. The Chair can not answer a question as to the future. 

Several MEMBERS. Regular order ! 

Mr. SPRINGER. Iri other words, I desire to ask the Chair what 

will be the status of this bill? 

The SPEAKER pro tempare. The Chair will be guided by the opinion of the House. 

Mr. BAYNE. I wish to make a parliamentary inquiry in order that 

we may know exactly how to vote on this proposition. Has the Chair 

decided that this bill which has been reached in the Committee of the 

Whole Honse could not, in its present status on the Calendar, be considered by the Committee of the Whole and reported to the House? Does 

the Chair so decide? 

The SPEAKER pra tempore. The Cl1air has not decided that. 

Mr. BAYNE. Then as I understand-- • 

Mr. BLOUNT. The motion to lay the appeal on the table is not debatable. • 

1\Ir. BAYNE. I am making a parliamentary inquiry. We wantt.o 

know how to vote on this proposition. Would it have been competent, 

in the opinion of the Chair, for the Committee of the Whole House to 

consider this bill and report it to the Hoose for action by the House? 

The SPEAKER pro tempo·re. The Chair would think that the Committee of the Whole could not consider the bill by amending it or recommending its passage to the House. The question is on the motion 

of the gentlemanfrom Georgia [111r. BLOUNT] thatthe appealfrom the 

decision of the Chair be laid on the table. 

The question being taken, there were-ayes 115, noes 37. 

Mr. STONit, of Kentucky. I demand the yeas and nays. 

The House divided; and there were-ayes 21. 

So (one-fifth not having voted in the affirmative) the yeas ancl nays 

were not ordered. 

So the motion was agreed to, and the appeal was laid upon the table. 

Mr. LANHAU. I move the Committee of the Whole House be dis- ·charged from the further consideration of the bill H. R. 6336, rrnd it 

be referred to the Committee on War Claims. 

:M:r. BLAND. I rise to n, parliamentary inquiry. Is it in order t.o 

amend that? -

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is. 

Mr. BLAND. I move the House resolve itself into the Committee 

of the Whole House to consider bills in the order in which they were 

reported by the committees of this House. 

A ltiEMBER. That is not in order . 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That motion is not germane. It is not 

in order. 

Mr. :McCREARY. I move to amend the motion of the gentleman 

from Texas [Mr. LANHAM] so as to include all bills of the class affected 

by the decision of the Speaker so that they may be reported back to the 

Committee on War Claims. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I make a point of order on that. 

Mr. LANHAM. I accept it as a modification of my motion. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I move to amend so as to make it applicable 

to bills not yet reached. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It can not be made applicable to bills 

except as they are reached. 

Mr. McCREARY. I wish to avoid the necessity of taking the q uestion on every bill. 

Mr. BLAND. The ruling has been made, and I ask it be applied 

to all the bills of the class referred to under the decision of the Speaker. 

Mr. :MILLIKEN. Do not some of the bills belong to other committees than the Committee on War Claims? 

The SPEAKER-pro tempore. The Chair is not advised. 

Mr. MILLIKEN. In the case of the gentleman from Kentucky--

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands the gentleman 

from Texas modifies his motion. 

Mr. LANHAM. I have accepted the :lmendment of the gentleman 

from Kentucky~ ' 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is advised they go to other 

committees than the Committee on War Claims. · 

1\1r. BUTTERWORTH. I understand my friend to refer now to bills, 

or rather to cases where bills have not been introduced into this Congress and referred. That is the case to which the honorable gentleman 

from Texas refers. 

Mr. MILLIKEN. But I refer to bills reported by the Committee on 

War Claims: 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Well? 

Mr. MILLIKEN. And now upon the Calendar. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. The Speaker ruled on one bill. It appears 

that there is no such bill before the Fiftieth Congress. 

Mr. MILLIKEN. It would apply to every bill of that class. 

Mr. BUTTEJ.{WOR'l'H. But the Speaker ruled these bills wera 

pr~erly on the Calenuar. Now, it may be it is not'competent for the 

House to discharge a committee from the consideration of a bill before • 

this Congress and consider it, looking to a report of the Court of Claims 

to a former committee of this House. If there is such a bill, I do not 

want it referred. One of these bills, the second on the list, has been re- ported favorably to the House a number of times. It is for salaries due 

employes who have waited for twenty-four years and whose children 

have gone supperless to bed for lack of it. 

1\I.r. BLOUNT. I rise to a point of order. 

I 
• 

; 

780 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 27, 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. I have risen to a point in which there is 

gt-eat pertinency. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I have no doubt the gentleman thinks so. 1\fr. LANHAM rose. Mr. TAULBEE. I trust the gentleman will allow me tQ ask unan- imous consent to proceed to the consideration of a resolution whlch I 

introduced on the 16th instant, which I think will solve all the difficulties under which we now labor. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I object to every request whlch does not apply to the bill under consideration. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I make the point of order. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on referring this bill 

to the Committee on War Claims. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Has not thls bill been introduced into this House 

under the rule? -How can the House refer a bill not before it in the 

ordinary way ? . Mr. DUNN. It can refer any paper. 

])fr. SPRINGER. But the paper is not here under the rule. 

Mr. LANHAM. It is like any other petition or bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is to refer the papers in 

this case to the Committee on War Claims. 

The motion was agreed to; and they were so referred. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. LANHAM. I now movethattheHouseresolveiteelfintoCommittee of the Whole for the purpose of considering bills on the Private 

Calendar. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The House accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, 

Mr. HATCH in the chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. The House is now in Committee of the Whole 

for the consideration of bills upon the Private Calendar, and the Clerk 

will report the title of the first bill. 

The Clerk read as follows. 

A bill (H. R. 6203) for the relief of Peter 1\Iarch, Thomas :J. Wright, adminis- trator, and ot·hers. 

Mr. LANHAM. M:r. Chairman, I object to the consideration of that 

bill, for the reason that it appears also to be a bill of the Forty-ninth 

Congress, and a report submitted from a committee of that Congress. 

I make the point of order that this bill has never been introduced into 

this House, or considered or reported by a committee of this House. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas raises the question 

of consideration. · 1\ir. BUTTERWORTH. I want, with the permission of the Chair, 

to call the attention of the gentleman from Texas to this fact. While 

it is true that this particular bill was not introduced and referred to 

the Court of Claims by this Honse, the same bill has been reported 

upon time after time by committees of the House, and it has been again 

introduced and is now pending. · 

Mr. LANHAM. Has it been reported by any committee? 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. There is no report from ·any committee of 

this House; but according to the decision o~the Speaker oftheHouse, 

this bill is on the Calendar for such disposition as the House may order. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I rise to a question of order. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. I would like to be heard for a moment. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has indulged the gentleman from Ohio 

make a statement. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I have no objection to that. . Mr. BUTTERWORTH. · I want to make a statement in behalf of 

the parties interested in this bill, ·and appeal to the gentleman's bowels 

of compassion, if he has any, to permit a word in their behalf. 

That bill has been reported, as I have said, time after time, and 

once since this report from the Court of Claims. It refers to the salaries of the men captured upon the steamer Prima Donna., and who were kept in Confederate prisons for months. The money due to them 

has been unpaid for all of these years. For more than twenty-five 

years they have been deprived of what is due to them. [Cries of" Regular order!"] 

What I want the House to do is to instruct the committee to nass the 

bill. It appeals to us by every sense of justice, and does not infringe 

in any way the right claimed by my friend from Texas. 

The CHAIRMAN. Objection being made, the committee will rise 

and report the objection to the House. 

' The committee accordingly rose; and the Speaker pro tempore having 

resumed the chair, Mr. HATCH reported that the Committee of the Whole 

Honse on the Private Calendar having reached the consideration of the 

bill H. R. 6203 of the Forty-ninth Congress, objection was made thereto, 

• whereupon the committee rose, and he was instructed to report the objection to the House. 

The SPEAKER pro tempm·e. The question is, Will the House direct 

the committee to consider the bill? 

.Mr. LANHAM. I think that this bill and report are subject to the same objection made to the preceding bill, No. 6336. It has not been 

reported by any committee of this House, and I move that it be referred 

to the Committee on War Claims. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. I move that the House do now adjourn. 

Mr. SCOTT. PendiDg that motion I move that when the House 

adjourns to-day it be to meet on Monday next. · The motion was agreed to. 

The motion of Mr. STONE, of Kentucky, was then agreed to; and ac- cordingly (at 3 o'clock and ~5 minutes p. m.) the House adjourned. 

PRIV .ATE BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS INTRODUCED .AND REFERRED. 

Under the rule private bills and joint resolutions of the following 

titles were introduced and referred as indicated below: 

By Ur. WHEELER: A bill (H. R. 6052) tor the relief of John Martin Fennell-to the Committee on War Claims. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 6053) for the relief of Alexander F. Dutton-to 

the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. NORWOOD: A bill (H. R. 6054) for the relief of Allen D. 

Hazzard-to the Committee on Claims. 

By Mr. J. D. STEW ART: A bill (H. R. 6055) for the relief of the 

heirs of C. A. J. Flemister-to the Committee on War Claims. · Also, a bill (H. R.. 6056) for the relief of William T. Trammell-to 

the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. PAYSON: A bill (H. R. 6057) to place on the pension-roll 

the name of Edward Healy-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. MATSON: A bill (H. R. 6058) for the relief of Eliza Stanton-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Ur. OWEN: A bill (H. R. 6059) correcting the military record of 

Lorentz Radkey-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 6060) correcting the military record of Edwin S. 

Button-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 6061) granting a pension to Robert A. Stuartto the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. J. H. O'NEALL: A bill (H. R..~062) for the relief of Nicholas 

McQuinn-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 6063) for the relief of Hila E. Geyer-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 6064) for the relief:of Elijah H. Tomey-to the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions. · 

Also, a bill (H. R. 6065) for the relief of M:athias Y akely-to the 

Committee. on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 6066) for the re1ief of Amanda E. Pol-to the 

Committee on Military Affairs. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 6067) for the relief of Austin P. Cox-to the Committee on Claims. 

By Mr. FINLEY: A bill (H. R. 6068) for the relief of Henry !senburg-to the Committee on Military Affairs. . By Mr. WILKINSON: A bill (H. R. 6069) for the relief of Thomas 

G. Ma{lkie and the heirs-at-law of William A. Hyde, deceased-to the 

Committee on Claims. 

By Mr. MILLIKEN: A bill (H. R. 6070) granting an increase of pension tQ Thomas Benson-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. BURROWS: A bill (H.·R. 6071) for the relief of Mary Penfield-to the Committee on In:valid Pensions. 

By Mr. KEAN: A bill (H. R. 6072) for the registry of the barges 

Albert M., Condor, and Adelante-to the Committee on Commerc.e. By Mr. ·PHELPS: A bill (H. R. 6073) granting a pension to Eliza J ; 

Booth-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 6074) to remove the charge of desertion from the 

record of John Burchell-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. COX: A bill (H. R. 6075) for the relief of William Wolffto the Committee on Invalid Pensions. · 

By Mr. SAWYER: A bill (H. R. 6076) for the relief of William C. 

Croggin-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. PEEL: A bill (H. R. 6077) to remove the charge of desertion 

from the record of James Fanning-to the Committee on Milita1-y Affairs. · By Mr; DORSEY: A bill (H. R. 6078) granting a pension to Alexander J. Phillips-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. WHEELER: A bill (H. R. 6079) for the relief of Hiram N. 

Roberts, administrator-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. MAISH: A bill (H. R. 6080) for the relief of Harry S. Kellogg1 administrator of the estate of Lyman W. Kellogg, deceased-to 

the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. BOOTHMAN: A bill (H. R. 6081) granting a pension to 

Mary F. Warner-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 6082) granting an increase of pension to J ohn W. 

Pearce-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. BINGHAM: A bill (H. R. 6083) granting an increase of 

pension to Sarah R. Boyle-to the Committee~n Invalid P ensions. 

By Mr. CHARLES O'NEILL: A bill (H. R. 6084) for the relief of 

Charles D. Freeman-to the Committee on Claims. By Mr. SCULL: A bill (H. R. 6085) granting an increase of pension to Peter Krepp-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. . By Mr. O'FERRALL: A bill (H. R. 6086) for the relief of Daniel 

Thomas-to the Committee on Claims. By Mr. SNYDER: A bill (H. R. 6087) to pay to Urias Buskirk the 

amount found due hlm by the Court of Claims-to the Committee on 

War Claims. 
-· 

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 781 

By :M:r. HOGG: A bill (H. R. 6088) granting a pension to William 

W. Miles-to the Committee on 1nvalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 6089) g~anting an increase of pension to James 

S. McHenry-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 6090) for the relief of Josiah P. Higgins-to the 

Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. HAUGEN: A bill (H. R. 6091) to pension He3ekiah F. 

Keister-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Changes in the reference of bills improperly referred were made in 

the following cases, namely: 

A bill (H. R. 2300) for the relief of C. C. Colmesnil-to the Committee on Claims. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 901) granting a pension to Mrs. Fannie Carmanto the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 6336) for the relief of Martha J. A. Rumbaugh, 

administratrix of George H. Rumbaugh-to the Committee on War 

Claims. 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

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

under the rule, and referred as follows: 

By :M:r. J. M. ALLEN: Papers in the claim of Thomas Shelby, of 

Washington County; of J. T. Barnett, administrator of J. W. Barnett, 

of Tishomingo County; of Daniel O'Sullivan, of Hinds County; of Seth 

R. and Charles W. Strong, of Warren County, and of Levi B. Field 

and Cyrus Maish, of Natchez, Miss.-to the Committee on War 

Cl:::\.ims. 

By 1\Ir. J. A. ANDERSON: Petition of J. H. F. Billings and 172 

others, citizens of Clay Centre, Kans., for prohibition in the District 

of Columbia-to the Select Committee on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic. 

By Mr. ATKINSON: Petition of 352 citizens of Duncannon, of 100 

citizens ?f~ew~ort, and of100 citizens of Shermansdale, Pa., against 

the adm1ssl0n of Utah as a State-to the Committee on the Territories. 

By Mr. BAYNE: Petition of 65 citizens of the Twenty-third district 

of Pennsylvania, for prohibition in the District of Columbia-to the 

Select Committee on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic. 

By 1\Ir. BOOTHMAN: Petition of Francis McKinney, for removal 

of charge of desertion-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

Also, petition of Charles H. Milbourn and of Mary F. Warner for 

pensions-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. ' 

Also, petition of John W. Pearce, for increase of pension-to the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By :M:r. RO~DEN: Resolutions of the Legislature of Virginia, indorsed by the board of health of Portsmouth, Va., for the esta.blishment of a national quarantine at Cape Charles-to the Committee on Commerce. 

Also: memorial of the council and board of health of Portsmouth, 

Va., for the same-to the Committee · on Commerce. 

Also, papers in the case of H. D. Spear, late postmaster at Spear's 

York County, Virginia, for relief-to the Committee on Claims. ' 

By Mr. BREWER: Petition of Cigar-Makers' Union, of Lansing .Mich., for retention of tax on cigars-to the Committee on Ways and ~eans. _ -

. Al~o, petitio?- of ~45 ~itizens of the District of Columbia, for pro~ibihon m the said Dtstnct-to the Select Committee on the Alcoholic 

Liquor Traffic. 

By 1\Ir. T. H. B. BROWNE: Petition of John W. Waltz and other citi- zens of Fredericks burgh, Va., for building a road to the national ceme- tery at that place-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

Also, petition ofW. C. Bunting and others, of Chincoteague, Va., for a fog-buoy-to the Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. T. ~L BROWNE: Petition of 188 citizens of the Sixth district of Indiana, for prohibition in the District of Columbia-to the 

Select Committee on the ~coholic Liquor Traffic, 

By ~r. BUTTERWORTH: Petitions for the relief of Lewis Gore 

Brown, of Cincinnati, and of Peter Eichels, of Red Bank, Hamilton 

County, Ohio-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

A..lso, petition for the relief of James Malloy, of Cincinnati Ohio-to 

the Committee on Claims. ' ' 

Also, petition of the gold nnd silver beaters of the United States for 

increased duty on certain articles-to the Committee on Ways 'and 

Means. 

By.l\~r. T. J .. CAMPBELL: Petition of Louise M. Sippell, widow 

of Wilham E. S1ppell, late of Company H, Thirteenth Regiment New 

Jersey Volunteers, for a pension-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. CARUTH: Papers in the case of the American ·l\Iutual Benefit Association of Mexican War Veterans, for relief-to the Committee on Pensions. · 

By Mr. CONGER: Paper to accompany bill for relief of Robert McNutt-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

. By Mr. D~RLINGTON: Pe~ition of William R. Blakeslee, for a speCial act of rehef-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

Also, petition of 102 citizens of the Sixth district of Pennsylvania for 

prohibition in the District of Columbia-to the Select Committee on the 

Alcoholic Liquor Traffic. 

By Mr. DAVIS: Petition of George W. Marshall and 60 other shipmasters, for the improvement of the harbor of Edgartown Mass.-to 

the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. ' 

By Mr. DINGLEY: Petition of 189 citizens of the District of Columbia and of Anacostia, for prohibition in the District of Columbia-to the 

Select Committee on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic. 

By Mr. DUBOIS: Protest of 50 citizens of Kootenai County, and of 

the county co~missioners of Boise County, Idaho, against any division 

of Idaho Terntory-to the Committee on the Territories. 

By Mr. FORD: Petition of Ezra W. North and 170 others, ofMichi· 

gan, for prohibition in the District of Columbia-to the Select Committee on the Alcoholic Liqour Traffic. . By 1\fr. GALLINGER: Memorial of Mrs. Laura L. Wallen, widow 

of Henry D. Wallen.tlate colonel of the Second Infantry, United States 

Army, to accompany House bill5593-to the Committee on Pensions. 

By Mr. GROUT: Papers in support of House bill granting a pension 

to Margie Garvin-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, remonstrance of Cigar-Makers' International Union, No. 18, of 

Brattleborough, Vt., against the removal of internal-revenue tax on oigars-to the Committee on Ways and Means. . 

~y Mr. HA U:G EN: Petit~OJ?- of the Board of Trade that West Superior, 

Wis., be constituted an ongmal port of entry-to the Committee on Commerce. • Also, petition of 124 citizens of the Eighth district of Wisconsin, for 

prohibition in the District of Columbiar-to the Select Committee on the 

Alcoholic Liquor Traffic. 

By Mr. D. B. HENDERSON: Petition Hon. 0. P. Shiras, judg~ of 

United States district court, northern district of Iowa, relating t-o bill 

for changing the time.ofholding terms of United States courts in said 

district-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. KEAN: Petition and affidavit of John Scully, of South Amboy, N.J., asking fortheregistryofthe bargesAlbert:M:., Condor, and 

Adelante-to the Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. KETCHAM: Petition of S. A. Peugh, for compensation as · witness before an investigating committee of the House of Representatives-to the Committee on the District of Columbia. 

Also, memorial of Patrick Carroll, for compensation for services as 

assistant librarian of theW ar Department-to the Committee on Claims. 

Also, papers in the case of John R. Bond, of Port Deposit, Md.-

to the Committee on Naval Affairs. · · 

By.l\ir. LA FOLLETTE: Petition ofT. Jenkins and numerous others 

citizens of Grant County, Wisconsin, for the adoption of a law requir~ ing packages containing all compounds of lard to be so labeled as to 

prevent fraud and deception on consumers-to the Committee on Agriculture. · 

Also, resolutions of Pomona Grange, of Rock County, Wisconsin 

approving and indorsing the operation of the interstate-commerce law: 

and against any repeal or amendment thereof-to the Committee on Commerce. 

Also, petition of George H. Lawrence, for relief-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. . By Mr. M.A.ISH: Petition of George W. Emmert and others; of Ennice· 

D. Smith and others; of R. M. Anderson and others, and of George 

Norcross and others, citizens of the Nineteenth district of Pennsylvania, against the admission of Utah as a State with. polygamy-to the 

Committee on the Territories. 

By M:r. MANSUR: Joint and concurrent resolution of the Legisla- _ tu re of Missouri, asking au appropriation of $50,000 for the purpose of 

straightening Grand River-to the Committee on Rllvers and Harbors . . By Mr. M.A.TSON: Petition of 147 citizens of the Fifth district of 

Indiana, for prohibition in the District of Columbia-totheSelectCom· 

mittee on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic. 

By M:r. MILLIKEN: Petition of James Moore and others, of S. H. 

Leland and others, andofG. E. Soper and others, forn public building 

at Bar Harbor, Me. -to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. 

By Mr. O'FERRALL: Petition of Thomas W. Russell, of Clark 

County, Virginia, for reference of his claim t-o the Com-t of Claims-to 

the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. PLUMB: Petition of Henry H. Rassweiler1 president o{ 

Northwestern College, of Naperville, Ill., and seven others of the same college, for an international copyright law-to the Committee on Patents. 

By Mr. RANDALL: Resolutions of Ortonville Board of Trade, asking· an appropriation to improve Big Stone Lake, in Minnesota and 

Dakota-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. . By Mr. ROCKWELL: Petition of citizens of Savoy, Berkshire 

County, Massachusetts, for reduction of postage on certain articles, 

etc.-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By M:r. C. A. RUSSELL: Petition of Mystic (New London County, 

Connecticut), Board of Trade, in favor of appropriation fQr improvements in Mystic River-to the Committ{!e on Rivers and Harbors. 

By Mr. SENEY: Memorial of the Chicago Board of Trade, respecting 

tbe discrimination against American salted pork by France and Germany-to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

By Mr. J.D. STEWART: Petition of George C. Bancroft and othei-s, 

letter-carriers of Atlanta, Ga., for amendment ofthe postallaws-to the 

Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 
I 

I. 

7~2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JANUARY 30, 

Also, petition of druggists of Atlanta, Ga., for removal of duty on alcobolior medical purposes-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

Also (by request), petition of John H. Hamrick, of Andrew J. Wells, 

and of James B. Morris, of Clayton County, and of Henry G. Andrews, 

of John South, and of A. B. Ford, of Henry County, Georgia, for .refer-

' ence of their claims to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War 

Claims. 

By 1Jfr. TAULBEE: Petition for the relief of William P. Pattonto the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

. By Mr. WASHINGTON: Petition and papers of Alexander Joseph, 

of Davidson County, Tennessee, for payment of war claim-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. WILKINSON: Petition of Henry Von Hofen, of Orleans Parish, Louisiana, for reference of his claim to the Court of Claims-to the 

Committee on War Claims. 

The following petitions for an increase of compensation of fourthclass postmasters were severally referred to the Committee on the PostOffice and Post-Roads: 

By Mr. C. L. ANDERSON: Of S. C. Carter and others, citizens of 

Ocobla, Neshoba County, Mississippi. . -

By Mr. J. A. ANDERSON: Of J. H. Grist and· 30 others, citizens of 

I wacura, Kans. 

By Mr. BACON: Of citizens of Bath, Richmond County, Georgia. 

By :Mr. COOPER: Of D. C. Baker and 87 others, of Knox County, 

Ohio. 

By 1\fr. GLASS: Of citizens of Fremont, Tenn. 

By Mr. HOOKER: Of citizens of Bridgeport, Miss. 

By ~Ir. M:cCLAMMY: Of citizens of Lanier, and of Swansborough, 

Onslow County, North Carolina. 

By ],fr. NEAL: Of citizens of Red Bank, county of Hamilton, Ten- nessee. By Mr. ~OGERS: Of citizens of Galloway, Pulaski C<>unty, Arkansas. By Mr. J. D. STEW ART: Of citizens of Sandy Ridge, Ga. 

· By 1J1r. YOST: Of citizens of Alleghany Station, Alleghany County, 

Virginia. 

SENATE. 

MoNDAY, Ja·nuary 30, 1888. 

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. J. G. BUTLER, D. D. 

The J oumal of the proceedings of Thursday last was read and appro'\"ed. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e laid before the Senate a communication 

from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, in response to a resolution of January 23, 1888, information concerning the progress made 

in examining the claim of the State of Massachusetts for expenses paid 

and incurred at the request of the President and the Secretary of State 

during the war in protecting the harbors and strengthening the fortifications on the coast, stating, on the report of the Third Auditor, that 

the act ot June 27, 1882, section 4, required examination at the. earliest 

practical time of the claims of several States for the reimbursement of 

expenses incurred in Indian hostilities, etc., and the available force of 

the office has been employed in making such examination, which has 

suspended the invf!Stigation and settlement of the claim of the State 

of Massachusetts under the act of July 7, 1884, and further stating that 

unless an unforeseen contingency arises the claim will be taken up and 

adjusted during the present session of Congress, and in time for an appropriation, should a balance be found due; which was read. 

Mr. DAWES. The statute under which that inquiry was made was 

passed in 1884. It is to be regretted exceedingly that Congress has not 

furnished the Secretary of the Treasury with sufficient clericalforce to 

carry out the provisions of that act earlier. I have no disposition to 

criticise the Secretary. I am at this moment disposed to suggest that 

if he has not force enough it is the duty of Congress to furnish him 

with sufficient clerical force to discharge the duties which we impose 

upon him. 

I have no doubt of the Secretary's desire to carryout that statute at 

the earliest possible moment. I am glad to know that he feels that he 

is working his force fully. He has not asked for any increase that I 

know cif. If he had represented that he could not carry out existing 

law with his force on hand, I have no doubt that Congress would have 

furnished him with additional clerks. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo're. What disposition shall be made of 

the communication and the acCompanying papers? 

Mr. DAWES. I move that they be referred to the Committee on Appropriations and printed. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo1·e laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, tra.n&mitting, in response to a resolution of January 17, 1888, certain information as to the per cent. 

~f money pa.id the States and Territories on ~e sales of public lands; 

which, with the accompany~g papers, was referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and ordered to be printed. 

He also laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary 

of War, transmitting, inanswer to a resolution of January 27, 1887, the 

results of an investigation of the salmon fisheries in the Columbia River, 

in the State of Oregon and Washington Territory; which was read. 

The PRESIDENT pro tem,pore. The Chair would suggest, as the ac- companying report is voluminous and accompanied by a large number 

of photographs, evidently intended for engraving, which would probably involve considerable expense, that the communication and the 

accompanying report ha-d bette;r be referred, perhaps, to the Committee on Printing. 

Mr. DOLPH. I call the attention of my colleague [Mr. MITCHELL] 

to the fact that a letter has come in from the Secretary of War, transmitting his report and the report of the local engineers upon a resolution which I think was introduced by my colleague and reported from 

the Committee on Commerce by myself, in regard to fish-traps and obstructions in the Columbia River. I understand the report is very vo- luminous and accompanied with photographs and maps, and it is suggested by the President of the Senate that the papers should be referred 

to the Committee on Printing before an order to print is made. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I hope that will be done. I think it very advisable that the report should be printed. It is a very valuable report. 

The communication and the accompanying report were referred to 

the Committee on Printing. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of War, transmitting, in answer to a resolution 

of December 13, 1887, a report from the Adjutant-General regarding 

the military reservation of Fort Canby, Washington Territory; which, 

on motion of Mr. MITCHELL, was, with the accompanying papers, re- ferred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

He also laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary 

of the Interior, transmitting, in response to a resolution of December 

20, 1887, certain information as to whether persons are being ejected 

at the instance of the Interior Department fromlandspurcbasedofthe 

Chippewa and Muncie Indians in Kansas, etc.; which, withtheaccompanying papers, was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs, and 

ordered to be printed. 

• REPORT OF C01\:IMISSIONER OF PATENTS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a communication from the Commissioner of Patents, transmitting his annual report 

for the year 1887; which, with the accompanying report, was referred 

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

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore presented resolutions adopted by the 

National Board of Trade in favor of reciprocal trade relations between 

the United States and the Dominion of Canada; which weye Teferred 

to the Committee on Foreign Relations. 

He also presented a :resolution adopted by the Board of Trade of 

Wichita, Kans., favoring legislation to organize the Territory of Oklahoma; which was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. 

He also presented resolutions adopted by the mayor and city council 

of Topeka, Kans., in favor of the proposed world's exposition; which 

were referred to the SelectCommittee on the Centennial of the Constitution and the Discovery of America. 

He also -presented the petition of H. A. Thompson, of Shawnee 

County, Kansas, praying to be allowed compensation for losses incurred 

during the war of the rebellionj which was referred to the Committee on Claims. 

He also presented a petition of 123 citizens of the Fourth and Seventh Congressional districts of Kansas, and a petition of 228 citizens 

of the Second Congressional district of Kansas, praying for prohibition in the District of Columbia; which were referred to the Committee 

on the District of Columbia. 

He also presented resolutions adopted by the National Grange, Par 

trons of Husbandry, of Washington, D. C., in favor of the world's 

exposition in honor of the four hundredth anniversary of the discovery 

of America by Columbus ; which were referred to the Select Committee on the Centennial of the Constitution and Discovery of America. 

He also presented a petition of the trustees of the Young Women's 

Christian Home, of Washington, D. C.~ praying that an appropriation 

be made for the benefit of that institution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Appropriations. 

Ur. BUTLER presented the petition of Governor John P. Richardson and other citizens of South Carolina, praying that an appropriation be made for the improvement of the Congaree River; which was 

referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

1\Ir. TELLER presented the petition of David H. Moore and others, 

members of the facnlty of the Denver University, of Denver, Colo., 

praying for the enactment of an international copyright law; which was referred to the Committee on Patents. 

He also presented resolutions adopted by the Leadville (Colo.) Chamber of Commerce, protesting against the removal of the duty on lead 

and lead ores; which were referred to the Committee on Finance. 

He also presented a petition of the Grand Lodge of Good Templars of: