1276 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD--HOUSEo FEBRUARY 16, 

Third Lieut. George .A. Starkweather, of Wisconsin, to be a second 

lieutenant in the revenue service of the United States. 

Third Lieut . .John C. Moore, of Maryland, to be a second lieutenant 

in the revenue service of the United States. 

Third Lieut. Charles D. Kennedy, of Massachusetts, to be a second 

lieutenant in the revenue service of the United States. ·John E. Rein berg, of the District ofColumbia, to be a third lieutenant in the revenue service of the United States. 

Frank H. Dimock, ofMassachuset~, to be a third lieutenant in the revenue service of the United States. 

PROMOTIOYS IN THE N .A VY. 

Passed Assist.ant:Paymast{lr William W. Barry, to be a paymaster in 

the Navy. 

.Assistant Paymaster Leeds C. Kerr, to be a passed assistant paymaster in the Navy. . Commodore DanielL. Brame, a resident of New York, to be a rearadmiral in the Navy from the 4th September, 1887._ Capt. George Brown, a resident of Indiana, to be a commodore in 

the Navy from the 4th September, 1887. · 

Commander William Whitehead, a resident of Pennsylvania, to be a captain in the Navy from the 4th September, 1887. 

Lieut. Commander Charles .A. Schetky, a resident ofNewJersey, to 

be a commander in the Navy from the 4th Sept{lmber, 1887. · 

Lieut. Benjamin F. Tilley, a resident of Rhode Island, to be a lieutenant-commander in the Navy from the 4th September, 1887. 

Lieut. John 0. Nicolson, junior grade, a resident of .Alabama, to be a lieutenant in the Navy from the 4th September, 1887. 

Ensign George W. Den:field, aresidentofMassachusetts, to be alientenant, junior grade, in the Navy from the 4th September, 1887. 

Lieut. George T. Emmons, junior grade, a resident of New Jersey, 

to be a lieutenant in the Navy from the 1st November, 1887. 

Ensign .Albert W. Grant, a resident of Wisconsin, to be a lieut{lnant, 

junior grade, in the Navy from the 1st November, 1887. 

Naml Cadets John G. Tauresey, a 1·esident of Delaware; .Albert C. 

Diffenbach, a resident of Pennsylvania; Theodore C. Fenton, a resident 

of Pennsylvania; Volney 0. Chase, a resident of Louisiana; George R. 

Slocum, a resident of Illinois; William G. Miller, a resident of Virginia; George W. Kline, a resident of New Jersey; John P. McGuinness, a resident of Idaho Territory; Joseph Strauss, a resident of Virginia; Charles S. Stan worth, a resident of Virginia; Robert L. Russell, , a resident of Georgia; Harrison .A. Bispham, a resident of Pennsylvania; .Armistead Rust, a resident of Virginia; George R. Evans, a resident of Massachusetts; Edward W. Eberle, a resident of .Arkansas; 

.James E. Shindel, a resident of Pennsylvania; DavidS. Nes, a resident 

of Pennsylvania; Charles M. McCormick, a resident of Virginia; Glennie Tarbox, a resident of South Carolina; William W. Gilmer, a resident 

of Virginia; Robert E. Coontz, a resident of :Missouri, and Benjamin ·wright, a resident of Tennessee, all graduates of the Naval .Academy, 

to be ensigns in the Navy from the 1st July, 1887. 

PROMOTIONS IN THE .ARMY. 

Paul Shillock, of Minnesota, to be assistant surgeo.n with the rank 

of :first lieutenant, January 31. 

Second Regiment of Cavalry. 

Second Lieut. Francis D. Rucker, to be first lieutepa.nt, Janna~ 31, 

1888. . Fourth Regiment of Artillery. 

Second Lieut. Clareu'ce P. Townsley, to be :first lieutenant, January 

16, 1888. 

TM1·d Regiment of Infantry. 

Second Lieut. John H. Beacom, to be first lieutenant, January 20, 

1888. 

SECOND LIEUTEN .Al-.TTS IN THE ARMY, TO RANK FROM FEBRUARY 61 

1888. 

Third Regiment of Infantry. 

2. Corp'l William C. Neary, Company E, Battalion of Engineers. 

Fifth Regiment of Infantry. 

1. Sergt. James Baylies, Company .A, Fifth Infantry. 

Si.-vth Regiment of Infantry. 

4. Quartermaster Sergt. George A. Detchmendy, Third Infantry. 

Eighth Regiment of Infantry. 

3. Scrgt. Joseph C. Beardsley, Company B, Fourth Infantry. 

Eleventh Regiment of lnfantry. 

5. First Sergt. Thomas J. Watkins, Light Battery C, Third Artillery. 

'l.ivelflh Regiment of Infantry. 

6. Corp'l Earl C. Carnahan, Company G, Sixteenth Ibfantry. 

Twentieth Regiment of Infantry. • 

7. Sergt. Archibald .A. Caba.niss, Troop B, Fourth Cavalry. 

Twenty-second Regiment of Infantry. 

8. Sergt. Maj. Thomas 1\i, Moody, Ninth Infantry. 

Twenty-foutih Regiment of· Infantry. 

9. Sergt. Charles E. Tayman, Company K, First Infantry. 

Twenty-fifth Regiment of Infantry. 

10. Sergt. Thomas H. McGuire, Company B, E.ighteenth Infantry. 

POSTMASTERS. 

Orlo S. Rockwell, to be postmaster at Kent, in the county of Portage and State of Ohio. 

Morgan H. Hoyt, to be postmaster at Brewster, in the county of Putnam and State of New York. 

John B. .Abbott, to be postmaster at Geneseo, in the county of Livingston and State of New York. 

James L. Clark, to be postmaster at Glenwood Springs, in the comity 

of Garfield ana State of Colorado . J o1m H. Rolfe, to be postmaster at Penacook, in the county of Menimack and State of New Hampshire. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

THURSDAY, February 16, 1888. 

The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by Rev. Dr. BRUSH, president of Dakota University. 

The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved. 

UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY. BOISE CITY, IDAIIO. 

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter· from the Secretary of 

the Treasury, transmitting an estimate from the .Attorney-General of an appropriation for the improvement of the United States penitentiarJ!" 

at Boise City, Idaho; which was referred to the Committee on .Appro 

priations, and ordered to be printed. 

GEORGE W. CH.A.Pl\f.AN VS. UNITED STATES. 

The SPEAKER laid oofore the House a letter from the assistant clerk 

of the Court of Claims, tmnsmitting a copy of findings of fact in the. case of George W. Chapman vs. The United States; which was referred 

to the Committ{le on War Claims. 

W. R. BILLINGSHED VS. UNITED STATES. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the assistant 

clerk of the Court of Claims, transmitting a copy of findings of fact in 

the case of W. R. Billingshed, administrator, vs. The United States; 

which was referred to the Committee on War Claims. 

J. S. THOl\fPSON VS. UNITED STATES . 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the assistant 

clerk of the Court of Claims, transmitting a copy of :findings of fact in 

the case of JosephS. Thompson against the United States; which was 

referred to the Committee on War Claims. 

APPROPRIATION FOR MILITARY .ACADEMY. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a lett-er from the Secretary 

of War, recommending an amendment to the bill J:lll1king appropriations 

for the support of the Military Academy for the next :fiscal year; which 

was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be 

printed. URGENT DEFICIENCIES, POST-OFFICE DEPARTl\IE~T. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary 

of the Treasury, transmitting an estimare from the Postmaster-General 

of appropriation for urgent deficiencies in the Post-Office Department; 

which was referred to the Committee on .Appropriations, and ordered to 

be printed. IMPORTATION OF .ADULTERATED FOOD. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Mr. S~aker, I desire to present to the House, 

and to have printed in the RECORD, a resolution of the Cincinnati 

Chamber of Commerce, asking legislation to prevent the importation of 

adulterated art.icles of food. 

The SPEAKER. The resolution will be 1·eferred to the Committoo on Ways and Means, and, in the absence of objection, will oo printed 

in the RECORD. 

The resolution is as follows: To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in CO'Jl{lress assemblecl: 

The board of directors of the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce and Mer- chants' Exchange has 1·ecently memorialized your bodies for the enactment of 

such laws as will prevent the mixture ot certain articles of human food, hurtful or otherwise, to be sold under names that were calcu~a~ed to pra~tice an impo· sition upon consumers, on the one hand, and to work lUJury to great industnes, on the other. This was intended in its application to reach, in general terms, 

articles of domestic production. We, however, can not fairly impose exactions upon our own people which do not attach to articles produced in other lands. We do therefore pray that such laws may be enacted as will prevent the introduction into this country of all adulterated, mixed, doctored, or compoun_ded articles entering into the consumption of the people, whether of food or drmk, 

under any other name than that which legitimat-ely pertains to the same,~ the 

end that the health of the people may be protected, a better code of bus1.ness 

morals created, and that honest industry, both at home and abroad, may find 

suitable encouragement and protedion. LEVI 0. GOODALE, President. 

WM. E. HUTTON, SecretanJ. 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 

A message from the Senate, by Mr. PLATT, one of its clerks, a::1• 

' 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1277 

nounced that the Senate had passed with amendments, in which the concurrence of the House was requested, the bill (H. R. 6439) authorizing the appointment of eleven division superintendents of railway 

mail service. 

The message also announced that the Senate had passed bills of the 

following titles; in which the concurrence of the House was requested: 

A bill (S. 313) for the relief of R. R. Tinsley; and 

A bill (S. 371) to aid in the establishment and temporary support of common schools. 

Mr. MILLS. I call for the regular order. 

REPORT UPON DOCIDIENTS WHICH CAN NOT BE SUPPLIED. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I rise to make a privileged report from the 

Committee on Printing. . 

The Clerk read the report, as follows: 

The committee have' made the investigation called for under Rouse resolution adopted on January 23, which is as follows: "Resolved, That the Committee on Pl"inting inquire into and report the reason why members of Congress can not procure books standing to their credit on the books of the Doorkeeper, if such fact exists." In answer to the inquiry the committee submit the following letter from the Doorkeeper of the Rouse, dated January 27, 1888: 

" OFFICE DOORKEEPER, "ilOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES UNITED STATES, 

"Washington, D. C., Janua1·y 27,1888. 

"SIR: Your communicatio~ of the 25th instant, inclosing a copy of a resolu- tion introduced in the House by Hon. W. P. TAULBEE, and stating that the com- mittee will be pleased to receive from me any communication I may desire to make in answer to the proposed inquiry, has been r eceived. . "In reply I have the honor to hand you herewith a letter from the superin- tendent of. the folding-room, which explains the reasons why certain books Rtanding to the credit of members can not be furnished. I have no personal 

knowledge of the matters st11.ted by the superintendent in r e ference to Fish and Fisheries, Agricultural Report for 1880, and Shackelford and Garfield eulogies. "The report of L. F. Warder, Acting Doorke eper, dated December7,1885, House Miscellaneous Document No. 20, first session For~y-ninth Congress, shows that there were only 44 copies of the Agricultural Report of 1880 on hand at that time, and I do not suppose that any copies have been printed and delivered since this report was made. "'l'he report of my immediate predecessor, House 1t1iscellaneous Document N o.17, first session Fift.ieth Congress, shows that there were but 27 copies of Fish and Fisheries on hand at the time the inventory was taken, while a. later in- ventory, taken at my instance, shows that therewere14 sets of this book on hand at that time, copies having in the mean time been delivered to the members en- titled to receive them. There are due members and ex-members 437 sets of Fish and Fisheries. 

" Very respectfully, 

"A. B. HURT, 

'' Doorkeeper House of. Representatives. "Hon. JAMES D. RICHARDSON, 

"Chairman Committee on Printing." 

Upon the same point the committee submit the following letter from the superintendent of the folding-room: 

"OFFICE SUPERINTE~-r>ENT FOLDING-RoOlii, "HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES UNITED STATES, . " Washington, D. C., Jamwry 25, 1888. 

"DEAR SIR: In reply to your verbal inquiryfor information in regard to the subject-matter of the resolution of Mr. TAULBEE, which resolution is as follows: "Resolved, That the Committee on Printing inquire and report the reason why members of Congress can not procure books standing to theircrediton the books of the Doorkeeper, if such fact exists," Ihavetostatethat the only books stand- ing to the credit of members of Congress on the books of the folding-room which can not at this time be promptly furnished, are the following: 

"1. Agricultural Report of 1880. '' 2. Shackelford eulogies. "3. Hayden's Report, volume 3. ''4. Fish and Fisheries. "5. Eulogies on Garfield. "The reasons why these books can not be furnished are as follows: "First. AgricuJtural Report., 1880: The deficiency in these reports occurred, I am informed, during the Forty-seventh Congress, and was occasioned by the failure ofthe then Public Pl'inter to furnish the folding-room with the full quota as required by law. "Second. Shackelford eulogies: During the Forty-eighth Congress a. fire oc- curred in the folding-room a.nd destroyed, or damaged so badly as to be unfit ' for distribution, a quantity of books, among which were the Shackelfo.rd eulo- gies. "Third. Hayden's, volume 3: As will be seen from the accompanying letter from the foreman of the bindery of the Printing Office, there is still due the fold- ing-room 473 copies of this report. The supply of these books in the folding- room being exhausted, no more orders for them can be filled until the remain- der are furnished by the Government Prinbing Office. "Fourth. Fish and Fisheries : It seems that in prorating these books about the 1st of February, 1886, a mistake was made by prorating 6,000 copies instead of 5,000 copies, the actual number printed for the House. This mistake credit-ed each member with three more sets of this book than they were entitled to re- ceive, making the folding-room about 1,000 sets short of the number credited. As the mistake was not disccvered for nearly eighteen months after, and very many members had in the mean time drawn the number thus placed to their credit, it was too late to fully correct the error. .After it was discovered, how- ever, three sets were deducted from the accounts of members who had that number still remaining to their credit, and where only one or two sets were to the credit of members the account was canceled. On account of this error there are 437 sets of this book still to the credit of members and ex-members which can not be furnished until some provision is ma.de to supply the folding- room with that quantity of them. 

"'l'he Department is short of the Garfield eulogies about 100. "Why this is so I have no means of knowing. They wm·e received during the Forty-seventh 

Congress. 

"Respectfully,'your obedient servant, 

"JOHN G. REAL Y, Superintendent. "1\Ir. A. B. RunT, 

" DoOTkeeper House of Representatives." 

~e foregoing letter of the superinten~ent of folding-room shows there are Agncultural Reports for 1880 to the credit of members which can not be now supplied. · 

The reason of this appears, in part at least, from the letter of the Public Printer herewith submitted, dated February 1, 1888: 

" GOVERNliiEKT PRINTING OFFICE, 

"Washington, D. C., February 1, 1888. 

"SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of January 

28, in reference to the shortage in the delivery of the Agricultural Rep01·t for 1880. "From the best information available, I beg leave to state that the shortage oc- curred in this way: When the r eport for 1879 was about all delivered it was dis- covered that it was 4,6811 copies short, and Mr. Defrees, Public Printer, arranged with Mr. Parrish, a book-dealer of this city, to supply.theshortage,and he (Mr. Defrees) to repay him with an equal number of the report of 1880, saying it was cheaper than to put the 1879 r eport back to press. When the 1880 report was printed :rtlr. Defrees paid Mr. Parrish the 4,680 books, but failed to m a ke that number extra, for the reason, I learn, that the 4,680 extra lithographs necessary were not ordered. I further learn that when Mr. Rounds took charge of the office his attention was called toJthe matter, but he questioned his authority to order the lithographs and make good the shortage'in books. "Respectfully, yours, · "TH. E. BENEDICr, "Public Printer. " Hon. J AlliES D. RICHARDSON, 

"Chairman Committee on Printing, House of Representati1:es." 

The statement is m ade in this letter that "when the report for 1879 was about all de livered it was discovered tha t it was 4,680 copies short-," etc., and further explains how the Public Printer (Mr. Defrees) attempted to remedy this error. 'Vhy this shortage occurred in the report of 1879 is not shown, and t.be commit- tee can not answer.further upon it. It may possibly have been a mistake sim- ply in the count·, there being so large a number printed. At any rate the com- mittee have no knowledge as to how the error was made. · The shortage in the "Shackelford eulogies" is explained by reason of the fire which occurred during the Forty-eighth Congress in the folding-room. Anum- ber of these volumes, it seems, -were damaged in that fire and thus lost to mem- bers. • 'l'hc "Gal"field eulogies.•· it appears, are about 100 short. Why this is so the superintendent of the folding-room says he does not know. The Garfield eulo- gies were received in the F01·ty-seventh Congress. The number short is so small, and the error, if any, so far back, the committee did not prosecute the inquiry further as to these eulogies. The error in the account as to the volume entitled "Fish and Fisheries" is fully explained by the superintendent in his letter, and need not be r epeated here. .A. letter from the PublicP1·inter, herewith filed, shows that the full num- ber ordered has been printed and delivered to Congress: 

"GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 

"Washington, D. C., Februa1·y 2, 1888. 

"DEAR Sm: In reply to yours of January 28, in the matter of Fish and Fishery books referred to, I find that the full number ordered has been printed and de- livered to Congress, a.nd there are nofurther numbers due ·from this office. We have on hand 507 sets r eserved in this office for sale under authority of l a w, for which we have regular demands at the hands of pl'ivate parties weekly. "Respectfully, yours, "TR. E . BENEDICT. "PubUo Pt·inler. "lion. JAl\IES D. RICHARDS01i, 

" Chairman Committee on Pl·inting, House of Representatives." 

From the foregoing letter it will appear that there a re now i9 the Government Printing Office 507 sets of this work, Fish and Fisheries, which, under the law, have been reserved for sale to private parties. The deficit in the House fold- ing-room, as shown hereinbefore, in members' accounts is 437 sets; so that if it is desu·ed, and the former law on the subject so modified, instead of selling the sets in the Government Printing Office, they may be turned over to the D oor- keeper of the House to supply the deficit. The only remaining work which can not be supplied, as appears from the let- ter of the superintendent of the folding-room, is Hayden's Report, volume 3, which was ordered about 1876. The facts in relation to this deficit are shown in a letter from the Public Printer of this date, February 15, which is herewith submitted, and i51 as follows : · 

" GoVERN:uEb"'T PRINTING OFFICE, • " Washingtcm, D. C., Feb1·uary 15, 1883. 

"DEAR Sm: I am enabled now to dispose of the last of your three req nests for information, received January 28, after a long and painstaking examination and inquiry. "I find that a part of Hayden's Report, volume 3, ordered about 1876, is in this office in an incomplete condition, owing to the lack of the necessary plates to finish same. The deficiency on the order amounts to 1,236 volum«;ls, as near as we can make out from the imperfect records conce1·ning same, of which we have the printed signatures complete for about that number of volumes. "We find that there is a deficiency in eighteen differentplates,averaging a short- age of 1,230 down to 50. Before the work can be finished Congress must author- ize new lithographic work to meet this deficiency. As yet we have been unable to find the original books showing the receipt of plates, and can not answer as to whether the same were paid for. I learn from one of the clerks, verbally, that they were not delivered, and it is probable that they were not paid for. "Respectfully, yours, 

"Ron. JAliiES D. RICHARDSON, 

"Cltairman of House OommiUee Oil Printing." 

"TH. E. BENEDICT, 

"Public Print~r. 

The committee have thus answered the inquiry ordered in said resolutioM, and ask to be discharged;from the further consideration of the subjec~ involved. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. If the House will indulge me, I desire to oc- cupy only a few moments in explaining the facts covered by this re- port. 

The resolution directed the committee to inquire what documents 

standing to the credit of members on the books of the Doorkeeper could 

not be furnished. The fact is developed that there are :five publications 

thecopiesofwhich can not be supplied. These five aretheeulogies on Shackelford, the eulogies on Garfield, the Agricultural Report of 1880, 

the Report on Fish and Fisheries, and the third volume of Hayden's 

Reports. The number of Garfield eulogies which could not be supplied 

was very small; and the committee suppose that possibly a mistake was made in counting them in the :first instance. They were ordered 

furnished, however, and were published during the Forty-seventh Congress. 

In regard to the Shackelford eulogies, it is shown that a numbe.r of 
1278 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 16, 

copies were destroyed or damaged in the fire which occurred in the 

foiling-room during, I believe, the Forty-eighth Congress, so that the 

shortage in respect to that work is thus accounted for. 

In regard to the Agricultural Reports for 1880, the deficit has occurred 

in this way: A very large number were printed-possibly 300,000-

and the committee suppose that the Public Printer made an error in 

the computation of the number printed. 

It appears that of the edition of 187!) there was found, when.the documents came to be delivered, a. shortage of 4,680 volumes; and the 

then Public Printer, Mr. Defrees, borrowed from a private dealer in this 

city that number of copies in order to ~mpply Representatives and Sen .. ators, promising that he would return to this dealer an equal number 

of copies of the edition of 1880. When the edition of-1880 was printed 

the Public Printer failed to get the appropriation to cover the publication and lithographing for the additional number of copies, and therefore be could not comply with his promise. He returned to the dealer 

the number of copies be had borrowed of the edition of 1879, but tho 

quot..'l. of members was thereby diminished to that extent. 

:M:r. BURROWS. The gentleman from Tennessee has referred to the 

Public Printer getting a number of documents from a private dealer. 

I wish to ask the gentleman whether he has ever had occasion to inquire 

into that matter, so as to ascertain how it happens that very valu:tble 

documents, like the Medical and Surgical Hist-ory of the Rebellion and 

other Government publications, can be obtained here of second-hand 

dealers. The question is, where those volumes come from and how the 

dealers get them. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, our committee has had no Qfders 

to make any such investigation; and of course any information I might 

give on that subject would be entirely perso1;1al. 

Mr. BURROWS. I believe I shall introduce a resolution on that 

subject at an early day. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I suppose it is possible that impecunious mem- bers sell their books, though I know nothing of any sale. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Or Senators. 

:M:r. RICHARDSON. Surely not Senators. I do not know any other 

way to account for the fact. 

Mr. BURROWS. These books belong to the public, and are not the 

personal property of members. 

Mr. PAYSON. I would liketo ask the chairman of the Committee on Printing whether his committee is advised, or whether he can ex- plain, how the Public Printer could procure from a second-hand dealer 

this large number of Agricultural Reports, when they had not yet been 

delivered to the folding-room, and were supposed not to have gone 

out of the Public Printing Office. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I am unable to answer that question. The 

Public Printer at that time was ?tfr. Defrees; and as he is dead, I do 

not know how we can get that information. These reports are taken 

away from the Printing Office and delivered to members in installments; 

that is, they begin to deliver before the entire edition is ready. It is 

possible, I suggest, that the private dealer got some of the first books 

sent out. 

:Mr. PAYSON. It seems very strange that a Public Printer, finding :1 deficiency of documents to which members of Congress are entitled, 

should make up that deficiency by gQing to a second-band dealer down 

town, and borrowing from him more than four thousand volumes in order to supply members of this House. 

1\Ir. RICHARDSON. It does seem a little singular; but it is possible, 

if the dealer procured the books from the first lot sent out by the Printing Office. 

1r'h·. PAYSON. It is wholly inexplicable. 

1\fr. BURROWS. How did the dealer get them? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I have no means of knowing; it occurred away 

back in 1879 or 1880. 

Mr. CUTCHEON. He probably "raised" them. 

Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. Speaker, it is utterly impossible to know 

what is going on. :M:r. RICHARDSON. I shall detain the House but a few moments 

longer. 

I do not know positively how it is possible-I answer in response to 

gentlemen-that this could have occmred, tb.at book-sellers in the city 

of Washington are able to supply public books; but as a matter of fact, 

while I have never bought or sold one of these in my life, I 1."'llow fTom 

very reliable information that these books can be bought from regular 

dealers in this city. How they get them I am not able to say, nor is it 

a part of the inquiry imposed upon the committee. 

That, however, explains the _deficiencyin the number of .Agricultural 

Reports for 1880. In regard to the book "Fish and Fisheries" I will 

state that this was ordered printed by the Forty-seventh Congress, and 

it seems that when the Doorkeeper of the House came to make the allotment to members, he supposed, on information be received, as he 

says, that the edition comprised 6,000 copies, and he made a pro rata 

distribution upon that basis. It turned out, however, that the whole 

number ordered printed for the House was only 5,000, and therefore 

there being the mistake of 1,000 volumes there were at least 3 books ·.too many given to each member who received his allotment. Now, 

a number of members came forwal'd and got the 17, the full number 

they would have been entitled to if the number printed had been 6,000. 

Some eighteen months after the distribution, when the error was discovered, it was found that he -could not supply the members with 17 

copies each. Each would have been entitled to about 14, if a proper 

distribution bad been made from the beginning, but be could not supply them that number because of the fact that the number of members 

who bad already received 17 copies reduced the tot..1.l number for distribution to such an extent that he could not even supply to the mem- bers the number to which they were properly entitled-that is, 14 

copies. Thus 437 volumes of this work can not now1 be supplied to 

members, that number havtng been taken out by members under the error made in the first allotment, in excess of what those members were entitled to. 

But in this connection let me say there are now 507 copies of the 

work in the hands of the Public Printer, left there under the law which 

authorized their publication, for sale by the Public Printer to private 

parties. In addition to the 5,000 copies ordered printedfor the House 

and the usual number for the Senate, there were 1,000 copies ordered 

to be left in the bands of the Public Printer for sale to private parties. 

If Congress desires it, a portion of the number left there to be sold 

may be appropriated to make up the allotment to members, rather than 

have them sold as first contemplated. A change of the law, however, 

will be necessary in order to turn o>er t members these 437 copies. 

In this way the deficit in the numbers of this book can be supplied, 

and it would still leave, of course, a small number in the hands of the 

Printer for sale to private parties. _ 

The only other volume unaccounted for is Hayden's volume, num- ber 3, printed by order of the Forty-fourth Congress, some ten or twelve 

years ago. Four hundred and seventy-three copies of this work are 

short. How they came to be missing the Public Printer is unable to 

state, as he says, and the committee have no me.ans of determining how 

the deficit oecurred. He is also unable to find all the plates necessary 

for a reprint of the book, or the manuscript; and hence is unable to 

supply the demand unless Congress makes a new appropriation to cover the cost of the lithogiaphic plates ::md other work necessary. 

But, Mr. Speaker, permit. me to say in this connection that I do not 

believe the volume in question ought to be republished, but all the 

facts in .relation to it will be included in the subsequent report that the 

committee will make as to delayed work in the Government Printing 

Office under a resolution heretofore passed. This volume relates to 

some of the old geological surveys, as I am informed, and I believe that 

the plates are plates of old bones, discovered in the great West, of animals that inhabited the forests there many, many years ago. I doubt 

very much whether the expense incident to the republication ought to 

be incurred. 

Now, I believe I have noticed all the facts in connection with this 

matter. There is nothing in the report to rellectupon anybody. The 

committee could find no reason to think in any of the cases that there 

had been anything more than unintentional error, and which, as I have 

shown, crept into the accounts of members, and which now prevents a full distribution ofthe documents in question. 

I move that this report be printed and ordered to lie upon the table 

for the use of members. 

The motion was agreed to. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. SAYERS. I demand the regular order. 

Mr. GROSVENOR. I hope the gentleman will yield to me for a 

moment, with the view of submitting four resolutions of the Ohio Legislature, as I am compelled to leave the House. 

Mr. SAYERS. I will withdraw the demand for the regular order 

for that purpose. 

Mr. GROSVENOR. I request unanimous consent, 1\Ir. Speaker, to 

submit at this time certain joint resolutions of the Legislature of the 

State of Ohio, with reference to reimbursing the States for interest on war loans; a resolution in reference to arrears of pensions to certain 

pensioners; one in reference to the paym~nt of bounties, and another 

with regard to the cattle industry of this country, which I ask to 

have printed in the RECORD. 

There w~ no objection, and it was so ordered. 

The resolutions are as follows: 

INTEREST ON WAR LOANS. 

[Senate joint resolution No. 13.1 

Joint resolution relative to requesting our Senators and Representatives in Con- . gress to do all possible for the passage of Senate bill No. 260. 

Whereas there has been introduced in the Senate of the United States a bill 

(No. 26U) ·• to reimburse the several States for interest paid on war loans, and for 

other purposes: " Therefore, Be it resolved by the Ge11eraL .Assembly of t.h.e State of Ohio, That our Senators and 

Representatives in Congress be, and they are hereby, requested to vote for and urge the passage of the same; and that th.e gove~nor forward a copy of this res- olution to each of our Senators and Representahve!:! rn Congress. 

Adopted February 9, 1888. 

ELBERT L. LA !PSON, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

THEO. F. DAVIS, 

President pro tempo1·e aj the Senate. 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1279· 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OHIO, 

Office of the Secretar'IJ cf State: 

I, James S. Robinson, secretary of state of the State of Ohto, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of n. joint· resolution a.dopted by the General 

Assembly of the ~tate of Ohio on the 9th day of February, A. D.l888, taken from 

the original rolls filed in this office. In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my official seal at Columbus the lOth day of February, A.. D. 1888. 

J.Al\IES S, ROBINSON, 

Secretary of State. 

EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, Oolumbus, Ohio, FW.ruary 10, I888. 

In compliance with the request contained in the resolutions above set forth, 

I have the honor to transmit a certified copy of the same herewith. J. B. FORAKER, Governor. 

ARREARS OF PENSION IN CERTAIN CASES. 

[Senate joint resolution No.7.] 

Joint resolution instructing our Senators and requesting our Representatives in 

Congress to use all honorable means to secure the passage of Senate bill No. 913. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of .America in Oongrus assembled, That from and after the pas age of this act all persons on the pension-rolls of the United States who are drn\Ying pensions on account of loss of lim~ or limbs shall be entitled to receive arrears of pen ion 

from date of discharge or disability, and covering all the time up to the passage of the act or acts authorizing the issuance of their last pension certificate, at the same rate per month to which that certificate entitles them:" Therefore, Be it resolved bv the General .Assembly of the State of Ohio, That our Senators in 

Congress are instructed and our Representatives in Congress are requested to use all honorable means to secure the passage of such bill ; and that the governor be 1·cquested to forward a copy of this resolution to each of our Senators and 

Representatives in Congress. ELBERT L. LAl\:IPSON, 

Speaker of tile Rouse of Representatives. 

THEO. F. DAVIS, 

Adopted February I, I888. 

President pro t.P.mpore of the Senate. 

UNITED STATES oF AMERICA, Omo, 

Office of the Secretary of Stale: 

I, James S. Robinson, secretary of state of the State of Ohio, do hereby certify 

that the foregoing is a. true copy of a joint resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio on the 1st day of February, A. D. 1888, taken from 

the original rolls filed in this office. In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my official seal at Columbus the 2d day of February, A.. D. Ui88. , . JAl\1ES S. ROBINSON, 

Secretary of State. 

ExECUTIVE CHAMDER, Columbus, Ohio, February 3, 1888. 

In compliance with the request contained in the resolutions above set forth, I have the honor to transmit a certified copy of the same herewith. J. B. FORAKER, Governor. 

PAYMENT OF BOUNTIES. 

[House joint resolution No. 14.1 

Joint resolution requesting Congt·e s to pass Senate bill No. 1206, Fiftieth Congi·ess, first session, to equalize the bounties of soldiers, sailors, and marines 

of the late war for the Union. 

Whereas unjust discrimination was used in granting and payment of bounties 

by the United States Government to the volunteer soldiers, sailors, and marines 

of the late war for the Union; 

Whereas the1:e are many soldiers, saiJors, and marines suffering at this time 

from said unjust discrimination: Therefore, 

1k it resolved by the Gener ~l .Assembly of the State of Ohio, That it is the sense of 

this General Assembly that Congress should at the earliest possible oppor- tunity pass the above-named Senate bill No.1206, popularly known as the "Logan 

bill," and recently reintroduced by Senator PLU1tiB, of Kansas. &solved, That the governor be requested to forward to each of our Senators 

and Representatives in Congress a. copy of these resolutions. ELBERT L. LAMPSON, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

THEO. F. DAVIS, 

President pro tempore of the Senate. Adopted February 1, 1888. 

UNITED STATES oF AMERICA, Omo, 

Office of the Secretary of Stat~: 

I, James S. Robinson, secretary of state of the State of Ohio, do hereby certify 

that the foregoing is a true copy of a. joint resolution adopted by the General 

Assembly of the State of Ohio on the 1st day of February, A. D. 1888, taken 

from the original rolls filed in this office. In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my official seal at Columbus, this 2d day of February, A. D. 1888. JAMES S. ROBINSONr 

Secretary of State. 

EXECUTIVE CHAMDER, Oolumhus, Ohio, Feb1·uary 3, 1888. 

In compliance with the request contained in the resolutions above set forth, I have the honor to transmit a certified copy of the same herewith. J. B. FORAKER, GO'Vernor. 

PLEURQ-PNEUMONIA AMONG CATTLE. 

[House joint resolution No. 15.] 

Joint resolntion requesting our Senators and Representatives in Congress to support Senator T. W. PALMER's bill relative to the eradication of contagious pleuro·pnenmonia among cattle. 

Whereas the danger to the cattle indL1stry of this country from contagions pleuro-pneumonia is so great as to necessitate the most thorough means of 

eradication of this insidious disease ; and, 

Whereas the bill indorsed by all the Cattle Breeders' Associations, and introdnced by Senator T. W. PALMER in the United States Senate, is the only adequate measure devised for the swift and sure slam ping out of this_ disease: 

Therefore, 

Be it resolved, That this General Assembly commend this measure, thus indorsed by the cattle growers of America, and request our Senators and Representatives in Congress to giye said bill their support. 

&solved, That the governor be requested to transmit a copy of these pream- bles and resolutions to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress. 

Adopted February I, 1888. 

·' 

ELBERT L. Lll1PSON, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

THEO. F. DAVIS, 

President pro tempore of the Senate. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OHIO, 

Office ofth~ Secretary of Slate: 

I, James S. Robinson, secretary of state of the State of Ohio, do hereby certify 

that the foregoing is a true copy of a joint resolution adopted by the General 

Assembly of the State of Ohio on the 1st day of February, A. D. 1888, taken 

from the original rolls filed in this office. J n testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my 

official seal at Columbus, the 3d da.y of February, f.A¥fis~. ROBINSON, 

Secretary of State. 

EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, cOlumbus, Ohio, February 4, 1888. 

In compliance with the request contained in the)-esolutions aboye set forth, I 

have the honor to transmit a certified copy of the same herewith. J. B. FORAKER, Governor. 

, SOCIETY OF OLD BROOKL YNITES. 

Mr. FELIX CAltfi>BELL. I desire to present a. petition from the 

"Society of Old Brooklynites," containing nearly 10,000 names, for~ 

appropriation for the erection of a monument to commemorate the Vll'-

tues of the "1\Iartyrs of the prison-ships." I ask that the memorial be 

printed in the RECORD without the names, and that it be referred to 

the Committee on Military Affairs. 

There was no objection, and it was so ordered. 

The memorial is as follows: BROOKLYN, January 5, 1888. 

To the Senate anr!House of Representatives of tM Uni.led Sia!es in Congress assembled: 

Your petitioners, an incorporated society of the city of Brooklyn, under the 

title of the "Society of Old Brooklynites," would respectfully represent: 

That the remains of more than 11,500 martyrs to the cause of liberty lie en- tombed in this city, whodiedduringourRevolutionarywar, on board the prisonships of the British at the 'VaUabout, and which were buried on our shores d,urino- that memorable struggle, mRny of which were, by the action of the waves, w:sbed out of their shallow graves, their bones scattered along the beach, ex- posed to the summer's sun and winter's storm, until the year 1808, when the 

Tammany Society or Columbian Order, of the city of New York, bad t.hem col- lected and buried with imposing ceremonies, in which the governors of several 

States, mayors of cities, and civil, military, and ecclesiastical dignitaries from 

all parts of the country took part. 

The place of burial was on Jackson street, in t.hls city, and the tomb, a tem- porary wooden structure, in which they were placed became so dilapidated by reason of changes made in the surroundings, and from natural decay, that the 

sacred remains were again exposed to the gaze of the multitude, until the park com.missioners of this city, with the sanction of the city government, prepared 

with great cn.re and expense a permanent and imperishable tomb for their re- ception on the historic ground of Fort Greene, a charming elevation in Wash- ington Park, in this city, o\erlookiog the scene of their sufferings and death, to which the sacred remains were carefully removed and deposited. 

Those devoted patriots, from eyery one of the original thirteen States, were prisoners of war taken by the British army and navy, and numbered mm·e than were killed in all the battles, both by sea and land, in that long and desperate 

struggle for freedom. ' When it is remembered that constant and unremitting efforts were made by 

the British officers to induce these prisoners to purchase their freedom and save their lives by enliE.ting in the service of the enemy; that many, probably t-he 

majority of them, had families who were suffering by reason of their absence; 

tltat to remain in these horrible prisons was almost certain death, and that 

undet· all these circumstances they remained faithful to the cause in which they 

had enlisted, and ?,referred death to dishonor, w~ must concede that they 

earned the title of' l\fartyrs of the prison-ships," and deserve such recognition from the Government, to aid in the establishment of which they sacrificed their 

lives, as will show to the world that republics are not ungrateful, but that we cherish.their memories, honor their devotion to their country, and will erect such an enduring monument to commemorate their Yirtues as will stimulate 

future generations to emulate their patriotism. We therefore most respectfully a~k that your boborable body will make an appropriation of not less than $10:>,000 toward the erection of a suitable monu- ment to be erected at or near the spot where their sacred remains now lie, the 

site for which will be donated for that purpose by the city of Brooklyn. 

This society will most cheerfully give all the aid in their power toward the 

accomplishment of the object of this petition. Very respectfully, 

SAMUEL A. HA Y~""ES, Secretary. JOHN W. HUNTER, President. 

To the Senale and House of Represer.talives of the United Statesin Congress assembled: 

Your petitioners, citizens of the United States, do respectfully and earnestly pray your honorable body to hear and grant the petition of the Society of Old 

Brooklynites, and to canse the erection of the long-delayed monument to the 

"Martyrs of the prison-ships." 

WIND:\IILL ISLAND, DELAWARE RIVER. 

Mr.BUCH.ANAN, byunanimous consen(presented ajointresolution 

of the Legislc'l.ture of New Jersey request~g Congress to make an ap- propriation for the removal of Smith's or Windmill Island from-the 

Delaware River; which was referred to the Committee on Rivers and 

Harbors. 

PUBLIC BUILDING AT NEWBURGH, N. Y . 

Mr. BACON, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R 7312) 

for the erection of a. public building at Newburgh, N. Y.; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Public Build- ings and Grounds, and ordered to be printed. 

REGULATION OF COMMERCE. 

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

7313) to amend chapter 10-l of the statutes of the United States of 

America., passed at the second session of the Forty-ninth Congress, 

entitled "An ad to regulate commerce;" which was read a. first and 

second time, referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to 

be printed. 

FEES, ETC., OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND l.\IAB.SHALS. 

Mr~ COWLES, by unanimous consent, submitted a. resolution asking 

. I 
1280 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 16, 

information as to compensation and fees of United States district attorneys and marshals; which was referred to the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Justice. 

SERVICE PENSIONS. 

Mr. JOSEPH D. TAYLOR. I ask unanimous consent to have printed 

in the RECORD, and referred· to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, a petition of eleven old soldiers of Hendrysburgh, Belmont County, Ohio, 

praying for a service pension. · There was no objection. 

The petition is as follows: . IIENnRYSBURGII, OHIO, February 13, 1888. 

To the honorable Jfembers of C01!(1'1'tss: 

In the name of common justice, have the old soldiers of the country got no friends among the law-makers of our nation? All the legislation for years has 

been to the interest of the moneyed men. '.rhe dear bendholder has been pro- vided for, while the old soldier has been left out in the cold. The widows of 

generals have been provided for. Can't we old soldiers, who stood the burd en and the heat of battle, get nothing? ·we are poor; we have nothing to payment{) work for us. "\Ve do all we can. We vote for what we think to be men who will advance our interests in Congress, but yet they seem to entirely 

forget us when they get there. If we had remained at home when the war broke out where wonld our country h~ve been to-day? The resu!t would have been ·an entirely diftercnt form of government than we are now enjoying. But, instead of the boys staying at home, they went to the front at the call of the Pres- ident for volunteers; and then what kind of money did we ~et paid off in? 

Money worth about 33 cents on the dollar. The bondholder got his in gold, 

just what the soldier was promised would he enlist. 

So you ~ee 've performed our part of the contract, but the Government has 

failed on her pa.rt. 'Vhat the old soldiers of the country want is a service pen- sion; that is, the long-termed men, the men who went at tho first call and staid 

until the last gun was fired at Appomattox. 

Look what was done for the l\Iexican soldiers. They got their land-warrant 

for 160 um·es of land and now get $8 per month pension, and they saved 'the 

State of Texas. while we saved the nation, and we were promised a land-war- rant; that is, those of us that went in 1861. Have we got it? No, we have not. 

~-!\IDes and length of service: Leander D. Bevan ........................................................................... months ... 47 

{$t~r~K:~~k:·::::::::::::::::::.:·::::::::.·:::::::.::::::::::::::::·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~:::::: ~ David Smith ...................................... , .................................................. do ...... 52 · Hugh Donley ......................................................................... ............... do ...... 12 Henry Conkel ................................................................. , ..................... do...... 48 R. A. Heaney .................. .......................... .............................. ............... do...... 2-! James W. Thompson ............................................................................. do...... 36 

Napoleon B. Agy ...................................................................... , ............ do...... 43 

William I. Clark .................................................................................... do...... 48 

John ,V. Taylor ............. ....................................................................... do...... 36 

SUBMARINE CABLES. 

1\Ir. NORWOOD, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, reported 

back with a favorable recommendation the bill (H. R. 5614) to carry 

into effect the international convention of the 14th of March, 1884, for 

the protection 'of submarine cables; which was refeiTed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and, with the 

accompanying report, ordered to be printed . 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. SAYERS. I call for the regular order. 

The SPEAKER. The regular order is the call of committees for 

r eports. 

.\fr. SAYERS. I move to dispense with the morning hour for the 

call of committees. . Mr. TAULBEE. I have two reports which I desire to present which 

I have had in my hands for some time. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Let it be understood that gentlemen can hand 

the reports to the Clerk. 

Several MEMBERS. Oh, no! 

Mr. ADAMS. I ask unanimous consent to make a report from the 

Committee on the Judiciary. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Texas has called for the regular order, which cuts off requests for unanimous consent. The: question 

is on the motion of the gentleman from Texa.s to dispense with the 

morning hour for the call of committees. 

The question being taken, there were-ayes 31, noes 47. 

So (further count not bein_$ called for) the motion was not agreed to. 

ADVERSE REPORTS. 

Mr. ADAMS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported back 

with adverse recommendations bills of the following titles; which were severally laid upon the table, and the accompanying reports ordered to 

be printed: 

A bill (H. R. 3403) appointing the :first Monday of October in each 

year a.s the day on which Congress shall meet; 

A bill (H. R. 1830) to provide for the execution of bonds of all officials by their sureties in aliquot parts; 

A bill (H. R. 2361) for the relief of Weissinger and Bate, Ed ward 

Holbrook, and others; 

A bill (H. R. 1808) to amend section 8-17 of the Revised Statutes of 

the United States; and 

A bill (H. R. 1807) to amend section 1014 of the Revised Statutes of 

the United States. 

NIC.A.BAGUA CANAL COMPANY. 

Mr. CLARDY, from the Committee on Commerce, reported back with 

amendments the bill.(H. R. 5615) to incorporate the Maritime Canal 

Company of Nicaragua; which was referred to the Committee of the 

Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying re- port,-ordered to be printed,. . Mr. CLARDY. I ask that my colleague on the committee, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. PHELAN], be perniitted to present the 

views of the minority on this bill. 

There was no objection, and the views of the minority were ordered 

to be printed with the report of the committee. 

HYDROGRAPHER OF THE NAVY. 

Mr. HERBERT, from the Committee.onNavalAffairs, reported, as a substitute for the bill H. R. 5024, a bill (H. R. 7314) to authorize the 

appointment of a. hydrographer and assistant hydrographer of the Navy; 

which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee of 

the Whole House on the state of the Union, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

JOHN W. PHILIP. 

1\ir. HERBERT also (for Mr. CocKRAN) reported back withafavorable recommendation the bill (H. R. 639) to authorize Commander 

John W. Philip, of the United States Navy, to accept a silver pitcher 

from the Government of the United States of Colombia; which was re- ferred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, 

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

DIVISION OF GREAT SIOUX RESERVATION. 

Mr. PEEL, from tbe Committee on Indian Affairs, reported back, as a substitute for the bills named below, a bill (H. R. 7315) to divide the 

Great Sioux Indian reservation into separate smaller reservations, and 

for other purposes; which was read a first and second time, -i'eferred to 

tbe Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and, 

with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

The original bills, as follows, were severally laid on the table: 

A bill (H. R. 1940) to divide a portion of the reservation of the Sioux 

Nation of Indians in Dakota into separate reservations, and to secure the relinquishment of the Indian title to the remainder. 

A bill (H. R. 3286) to divide the Great Sioux reservation in Dakota 

and Nebraska, and to secure to the Indians the title in fee-simple of 

lands in severalty, and to open a portion to actual settlement, and to 

provide for the better education and civilization of the Sioux Indians. 

A bill (H. R. 3287) to divide a portion of the reservation of the Sioux. 

Nation of Indians in Dakot-a into separate reservations, and to secure the relinquishment of the Indian title to the remainder. 

SAN JU.AN COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. 

Mr. JOSEPH, from the Committee on the Territories, reported back 

with a favorable recommendation the bill (H. R. 1983) to ratify an act 

entitled "An act creating the county of San Juan, in the Territory of 

New Mexico;" which was referred to the House Calendar, and, with 

the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

ADVERSE REPORT. 

Mr. TAULBEE, from the Committee on Claims, reported back adversely joint resolution (H. Res. 19) to provide for the payment of com- pensation to jurors summoned in the condemnation of a site for the new Congressional Library; which was laid on the table, and the accom- panying report OTdered to be printed. 

ALBERT A. EMERY. 

Mr. TAULBEE also, from the Committee on Claims, reported with an amendment the bill (H. R. 3176) for the relief of Albert A. Emery; 

which was referred to the Committee of the Whole Horu;e on the Private 

Calendar, and the accompanying report ordered to be printed. 

On motion of Mr. TAULBEE, leave was granted to Mr. LYNCH, of 

Pennsylvania, to submit the views of the minority, to be printed with 

the report. ~ 

C0!\11\IISSIONERS OF CLAilUS. 

Mr.· STONE, of Kentucky, from the Committee on War Claims, re- ported baek with a favorable recommendation the bill (H. R. 3367) to 

authorize the President to appoint three commissioners of claims; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the· Union, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

.ADJUDICATION OF CLAI!IIS. 

l\ir. STONE, of Kentucky, also, from the Committee on Claims, re- ported back with oa favorable recommendation the bill (H. R. 3366) 

authorizing the Court of Claims to adjudicate certain claims arising 

under the provisions of the act of March 1~, 1863, entitled 11 An aet 

to provide for the collection of abandoned property, and for the prevention of fraud in insurrection districts within the United States;" 

which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state 

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

PROMOTION OF AN ATOl\IICAL SCIENCE. 

Mr. ATKINSON, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, 

reported baek with a favorable recommendation the bill (H. R. 5042) for 

the promotion of anatomical science, and to prevent the desecration of 

graves in the District of Columbia; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, with the accom· 

panying report, ordered to be printed. 

_ ... 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1281 

ADVERSE REPORT. 

Mr. BOOTHMAN, from the Committee on Accounts, reported back 

adversely the bill (H. R. 5843) for the relief of Robert Dougherty; 

which was laid on the table, and the accompanying report ordered to be 

printed. 

ORDER. OF DUSINESS. 

1\Ir. DOCKERY. Mr. Speaker, I nsk unanimous consent that when 

the business of _this day shall be concluded, the House shall take a re- cess until8 o'clock this evening for the purpose of debate only on the 

bill (H. R. 1426) to require the Pacific railroads to maintain telegraph 

lines. 

There was no objection, and it was so ordered. 

CLAIMS UNDER EIGHT-HOUR LAW. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of 1\fissouri. I rise to make a privileged report from 

the Committee on Labor, which I ask the Clerk to read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESE -TATIVES, Fem·uary 7,1888. 

Mr. TAULBEE submitted the following; which was referred t{) the Committee on Labor: 

'"Resolved, That theSecretaryoftheTrcasury, the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Interior, the Postmaster-General, and the 

Attorney-General be, and theyare hereby, requested toinform the House what amounts are deemed necessary to pay the claims arising in their respective De- partments, under the provisions of a bill now pending in the Senate, entitled 'A bill providing for the a<ljustment of the accounts of laborers arising under 

the eight-hour law,' and numbered 1853, should said bill become a law." 

The Committee on Labor, to which was referred the accompanying resolut.ion 

of inquiry, report the same back with the following amendment, and request its adoption as amended: 

Amend by striking out the word "Senate," in line 11, and all after, nod inserting •· House, entitled 'H. R. 1322, providing for the adjustment of the aecounts of laborers and mechanics arising under the eight-hour law,' should said l>ill 

become a law." 

Air. O'NEILL, of1rlissouri. This amendment simply substitutes the 

title of a House bill for that of a Senate bill which has not yet been 

reached in the House. _ 

Mr. TAULBEE. I ask unanimo~ consent that the bill to which the 

nmendment relates may be printed in the RECORD with the resolution. 

l\fr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. I do not object to that. 

The SPEAKER p~·o tempore (.1\fr. HATCH). The first question is on agreeing to the amendment reported by the committee. 

Tbe amendment was agreed to. 

The question being taken on the adoption of the resolution as amended, 

there were-ayes 51, noes 13. 

Mr. OATES. Ncr quorum. 

Tellers were ordered ; and Mr. O'NEILL, of Missom·i, and 1\fr. OATES were appointed. 

The House again divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 130, noes 10. 

1\fr. OATES. I withdraw my point that no quorum nas voted. 

So the resolution was adopted. 

Mr. O'NElLL, of Missouri, moved tn reconsider the vote by which 

the resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to recon- sider be laid on the table. • The latter motion was agreed to. 

Mr. TAULBEE. Did the Chair submit to the House my request for 

unanimous consent that the bill to which this resolution relates be 

printed in the RECORD with the report? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will submit that question now. If there be no objection, the bill indicated by the gentleman 

from Kentucky will be printed in the RECORD. The Chair hears no objection, and it ·is so ordered. 

The bill is as follows : 

A bill (H. It. 1322) providing for the adjust.ment of accounts of laborers, work- men, and mechanics arising under the eight-hour law. 

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

America i11 Congress assembled, That whoever, as a laborer, workman, or me- chanic, has been employed by or on behalf of the Government of the United 

Stntes since the 25th day of June, 1868, the date of the act constituting eight hours a day's work, shall be paid for each eight hours he has been employed as for a full day's work, without any reduction of pay on account of the reduction of 

the hours of labor. EC. 2. That all claims for labor so performed in excess of eight hours per day 

al'e hereby referred to the Court of Claims, to be adjudicated upon the basis t.hat 

eight hom·s constitute a day's work, and are to be paid for at the price per day as provided for in the first section of this act, and judgment given against the 

United States in favor of each claimant for the amount found due, to be paid as other judgments of the Court of Claims against the United States; and no stat- ute of limitation, or payment made or receipt given for a less sum per day than 

the full price of a day's work, as provided m the first section of this act, shall 

bar the right of reco,·ery: Provided, That all suits under this act shall be com- menced within two years from and after its passage; and any number of said 

claimants may join in the same suit. 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. 

1l1r. WHITING, of Massachusetts, by unanimous consent, obtained indefinite lea.ve of absence, on account of important business. 

DIVISION SUPERINTENDENTS, RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE. 

The SPEAKER p1·o tempore Jaid before the House, · with the amendments of the Senate, the bill (H. R. 6439) authorizing the appointment 

of eleven division superintendents of railway mail service. 

The amendments ofthe Senate were read, as follows: In line 2 strike out" eleven" and insert "two." In line 3, after the word "service," insert "in addition to those heretofore au- thorized." 

XIX-81 

Amend the title of the bill so as t{) read: "An act authorizing the appoint- ment of two additional division superintendents of railway mail sen·ice." 

Mr. DOCKERY. I ask that these amendments .be concurred in. ' 

They are only verbal and make more specific the intention of the House 

bill. 

The amendments were concurred in. 

URGENT DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. SAYERS. I move that the Honse now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the purpose 

of considering general appropriation bills, my purpose b~ing that the 

House resume the consideration of the bill (H. R. 6437) to provide for 

certain of the most urgent deficiencies in the appropriations for the serv- ice of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1888, and for 

other purposes. - Mr . ..ttDAMS. Mr. Speaker, is that motion in order before the second morning hour? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is. 

The motion :was agreed to. 

The House accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole 

House on the state of the Union (Mr. BLOUNT in the chair), and resumed 

the consideration of Hom;e bill No. 6437. 

The Clerk, 1·esuroing the reading of the bill, read as follows, under the 

beading "Increase of the Navy:" 

I\avigation: For complet.ing the navigation outfit of the Chicago, including compass binnacle and electric-lighting supplies, $2,500. 

Ur. HERBERT. I offer the amendment which I ask the Clerk to ~ 

read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Between lines 10 and 11, on page 11, insert the following: "For the purpose of making 100 feet longer the dry-dock now under contract to be built at the Brooklyn navy-yard, $100,000, or so much thereof as may be 

necessary." 

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman desire to be heard on this 

amendment? 

Mr. HERBERT. I do not think it necessary. The Committee on Appropriations make no objection to the amendment. I will simply 

ask that the letter which I send to the desk be p1·inted in the RECORD. 

There was no objection. 

The letter is as 1ollows: 

BUREAU OF YARDS Al~J) DOCKS,NAVYDEPARTMENT, 

Washington, February 6, 1888. 

Sm: Referring to our conversation this afternoon in relation to the lengthen• ing of the dry-dock: at New York, I beg leave to state that the dock can be 

lengthened 100 feet for the sum of $100,000. The contractors are now at work on the excavRtion and are driving the piles around t.he dock to which the timbers are secured, and it is important that the money required should be appropriated w .thin three weeks, in order that there maybe no extt·a expense to haul out the 

piles referred to. The advisability for this increased length is apparent. Two companies owning steamship lines that cross the Atlantic are building ships of 560 feet in length and 64 feet beam, for which there is not a dock in the United 

Stntes large enough to take them in. Although these ships are under the English flag, all the money in them is the money of citizens of the United States. 

This increased length would accommodate these new vessels and would also be 

of great advantage to the Government, as it often happens that two vessels of 

less than 300 feet in length require docking 1\,t the same time, and H could be done in this dock, if 600 feet in length, atmucllless cost than if docked singly. I beg leave respectfully to urge upon Congress speedy action in this matter, ns it seems but a proper thing to do, in view of the disposition of the Govern- ment to foster, as far as possible, the shipping interests of the citizens of the 

United States. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, D. B. HARMONY, Chiefof Bw·eau. Hon. H. A. HEI!BERT, 

Chairman CommiUee on Nat1al Affairs. 

The amendment of Mr. HERBERT was agreed to. 

The Clerk read as follows: 0 ffices of sun·eyors-general: Office of surveyor-general of Arizona: For salaries of clerks in his office, $1,000. 

Office of surveyor-general of California: For s!l.laries of clerks in his office, 

$2 000. 

Office of surveyor-general of Colorado: For salaries of clerks' in his office, ~I,OOC. 

Mr. CANNON. I move to strike out the last word. I wish to call 

attention, Mr. Chairman, to these appropriations to different surYeyorsgeneral. The cost of these offices in the way of salaries in the aggregate for this year is over $100,000, and has been more than that for 

the two years past. Their duties are to make contracts for the smvey 

of the public lands. ,. Since the commencement of this Administration 

the survey of the public lauds has been practically abandoned. Yet 

here is the machinery in all these surveyors-general's offices in the dif- 1 ferent States and Territories costing over $100,000, and no suhstantial 

I 

expenditure being made for survey of the public lands! 

There was some talk yesterday about the industries down in Arkansas, namely, the expenditures of large amounts for witnesses, etc., 

in the courts; in fact, that was said to be the principal industry in that 

State. [Laughter.] I wish to call attention, for a moment, to some 

of the industries in these Territories, useful so far ns these surveyors· 

general are concerned in the main in the payment of salaries to officials, but not in the expenditure by these offi.cinls in the survey of pub· 

lie la-nds. In addition to that which they now receive they are still 

hungry for more,' and come in and ask for additional appropriations Ly 

way of deficiencies. Ancl the Committee on Appropriations, of which 
1282 _CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 16, 

I have the honor to be a member, not with my approval, but against 

my vote, report these deficiency appropriations. 

I apprehend gentlemen know what these surveyors-general do. Their 

principal business is to make contracts with deputy surveyors or con- tract surveyors for the survey of public lands. In theory of law they 

examine the work of the deputy surveyors, but in point of fact they 

do not examine it after the work is done. The deputy surveyors get 

no pay until after their work is examined by special agents sent out 

from the Department. 

So then, 1\fr. Chairman, we have in most of the Territories and some of the States a lot of clever gentlemen, I take it, with corps of clerks, 

in many instances from their own families, who are drawing these com- fortable salaries, doing substantial1y no work in facilitating the survey 

of the public lands. I will call the attention of the gentleman from 

Arkansas again to the fact that some other porbions of the country besides Arkansas have industries connected with the civil service of the 

Government. [Laughter.] 

I withdraw the pro forma amendment. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Office of surveyor-general of Dakota: For salaries of clerks in his office, $3,000. 

1\Ir. HERJ\1ANN. I desire to ask the gentleman froin Missouri [Mr. 

BuRNES], having charge of this bill, why it is there is no appropriation made for the surveyor-general of the State of Oregon? Why is 

not that office mentioned in connection with these deficiencies for clerical service? 

1\fr. CANNON. It was estimated for like all the others, but I do not 

know for what reason it was omitted. 

1\fr. BURNES. It was with the greatest reluctance that the Committee on Appropriations consented to incorporate in the bill any of 

these deficiencies. The committee were inclined to follow the suggestion of the gentleman from illinois as the result of his experience in 

reference to these matters and strike them all out. Why Oregon should 

be omitted I am at a loss to determine. If the others remain in the 

bill, I think Oregon should also be included, and will help the gentleman to have the bill so amended. 

1.1r. HERMANN. I thank the gentleman from Missouri. Let me 

inquire whether Oregon was not also included in the recommendations 

of the Department? 

Mr. BURNES. Yes; I think it was included in the recommendations of the Department. · 

Mr. HERMANN. For how much? 

Mr. BURNES. One thousand dollars. 

Mr. HERMANN. Then I move an amendment for that amount. 

Mr. BURNES. The estimates of the Department were scaled in 

ea.ch case, and the amendment of the gentleman should provide as in 

the other cases, and $800 would be the proper amount. 

The CHAIR~1AN . . Does the gentleman from Oregon move any 

amendment to the bill? 

Ur. HERMANN. Mr. Chairman, with the consent of the chairman 

of the subcommittee, I move a further amendment to this paragraph. 

The Clerk rea,d as follows: 

Offic~ of surveyor-general of Oregon: For salaries of clerks in his office, $1,000. 

Mr. BURNES. Say eight hundred, and we will accept it. 

~Ir. SAYERS. Make it $500. 

l\fr. HERMANN. I think ! have suggested the proper amount. 

Mr. SAYERS. I desire to call the attention of the committee, and 

especially that of the gentleman from Oregon, to the report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office in reference to the condition of 

the surveys of public lands in Oregon: 

The number of ae1·es surveyed up to June 30, 1887, was 39,867,995. The lands 

dJsposed of up to that date, June 30, 1887, amounted to 19,652,488 acres, leaving surveyed and u~d.isposed of 20,215,507 acres. 

So it seems, Mr. Chairman, from the report of the Commissioner of 

the General Land Office that there is really no necessity for this deficiency, because there are already more than twenty millions of acres of 

land that have been surveyed and are now undisposed of in the State 

of Oregon, or were on the 30th day of J nne, 1887. 

Mr. HERJ\IANN. lli. Chah-man, permit me to state, in response to 

what the gentleman has said, and also in addition to it, that there is 

possibly no State or Territory in this Union which has been so sadly 

neglected by the Committe~ on Appropriations as my own State in connection with her public lands; and I will further supplement what the 

gentleman from Texas has said by stating that while there are in round 

numbers some 20,000,000 acres of public lands which are surveyedand 

undisposed of, there are 20,000,000 acres or more yet unsurv-eyed and 

which it is desired shall be surveyed in order that settlers who are 

awaiting the opportunity may go upon them, make their settlements, 

and obtain titles. 

Permit me also to make the additional suggestion that the surveyorgeneral of that State, by the report of the last Committee on Appropl·iations of the Honse, was cut down from the compensation allowed 

to other surveyors-general to the miserable pittance of $1,800, where 

the maximum allowed has been $2,500; and yet, 1\Ir. Chairman, that 

officer, as competent possibly as any othe1· officer holding a similar position in any State or Territory of this Union, is, or was, compelled by 

the action of the House a year ggo to live on this beggarly sum of 

$1,800 in a city where the cost of living is possibly as great as in any 

other Western city on the continent. I asked that the amount should 

be increased to the maximum, but that amendment was rejected; and 

when I asked that it be increased to at least $2,200 it was refused. 

Every amendment looking to an increase to a reasonable sum was rejected. 

In view of the rapid settlement of that State and the demand for 

public lands, in view of the incoming tide of settlers moving very rapidly into that region and seeking a resting place and an opportunity to 

acquire title to lands within the dominion of this country, I ask, Mr. 

Chairman, this committee to grant this small pittance of $1,000 as an addition for clerk-hire in the office of the surveyor-general there, the same as you have granted in other land offices. 

And in further corroboration of the statement I have made, that great 

injustice has been done to this officer, I submit that the bill as it now stands, from this Committee on Appropriations, entirely ignores my 

State, Oregon not even being mentioned in this connection, notwithstanding the report of the Secretary that this officer should have at 

least $1,000 for this service. I ask, therefore, in bare justice, that the 

amendment I offer be accepted, and I hope sincerely in the name of 

justice that there will be no objection from any quarter to it. 

Ur. SAYERS. If the gentleman from Oregon will accept $800 as a compromise in order to get along with this bill, we will agree to it. 

Ur. HERMANN. Veryw~ll; I wm agree to it as a last alternative. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon modifies his amendment. 

Mr. HERUANN. I move that the amount be fixed at $800. 

Mr. CANNON addressed the Cha.ir. . 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 

of the gentleman from Oregon. 

Ur. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I was endeavoring to get the attention of the Chair before the question was submitted to the committee. 

I wanted a minute in connection with this subject, and will move as an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Oregon to strike 

from the bill all of the appropriations for offices of surveyors-general on pages 12 and 13 of the bill; and I want to say upon that amendment 

that thfl gentleman from Oregon is right, and that if any of these appropriations are to go into the bill Oregon ought to have a share. 

Mr. BURNES. She has got it. 

1.Ir. CANNON. I want to say further that I congratulate my friend, 

as well as the surveyor-general of Oregon, that they are such good 

friends; and want to add that in my opinion in the present condition 

of the public service $800, in addition to the appropriation for Oregon, 

and these other appropriations in addition all along the line here, will 

not survey one-acre of public land or make contracts for one extra acre. I call attention again to the fact that for this year. there is but 550,-

000 for public surveys and that is not all being spent. Mr. BURNES. I want to call the attention of my friend from Illinois to the fact that all of these items are for mere clerical assistance. 

It is not proposed to survey an acre of land with any of these appropriations, but to give the surveyors-general clerical assistance to enable 

them to dispose of the rapidly accumulating business in their offices. 

b1r. CANNON. Let us see just how much work has accumulated. 

Mind you, the Democracy came into power in 1885 on the cry of '' re- form." They were going to have a new order of things. Well, the 

surveys of the public lands amounted to $6,000 in 1886. In 1887 the 

surveys amounted to substantially nothing; and in this year you will 

expend less than $40,000 in the survey of public lands, and now, with 

three years' experience, with a force in the offices of the surveyors-general costing over $100,000 annually, you come with an additional appropriation for clerical service, and say it is needed in these various 

land offices for surveys of the public lands. In other words, you keep 

the machinery to do the work, but you have not and are not now working. 

Well, I suppose it is desirable that in the State of Oregon, and the 

other States and Territories which have these officers, our Democratic 

friends who have been long out of office should have these salaries; 

and I suppose it is desirable that they should have this clerk-hire. 

But I want to call attention to the fact that in three years for this 

service you have spent over $300,000 in salaries and less than $60,000 

in surveys or contracts for surveys, and that is all these officers do 

substantially; so that the claim of the gentleman, that this is merely 

for clerical service, which he claims to be necessary, is tolerably thin. 

Therefore, I shall insist on my amendment to strike out these appropriations for all these surveyors-general. 

111r. RICE. I desire to state that these appropriations are absolutely 

too low already. The gentleman from Illinois should take into con- sideration that west of the Mississippi River there is now a large ex- tent of territory into which people are swarming all the time, and that 

Washington Territory, New Mexico, and other Territories are clamoring for more surveys, bnt can not have them because the L'\w does not 

justify them or because the appropriations are insufficient for the clerical work of these offices. 

I have lived on the Mississippi River for more than forty years, and 

have been over all these TerritQries, and know it is absolutely neces-
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1283 

sary this expense should be· incurred. The public-land system of this 

Government can not be carried on unless these offices of surveyors-general are maintained and money appropriated to carry on this work. 

They are just as necessary to the practical conducting of the publicland system as the engineer department is to the management of a railroad. No one would undertake to say that railroads could be carried on without an engineer department and an efficient one. The records 

must be brought up, the work must be prosecuted: and sufficient appropriations made for carrying on the public-land system. And I will 'say to the gentleman from Illinois that instead of the appropriations in ·this bill being too large they are not half enough for the purposes intended. Having submitted these observations I will not take up more of the time of the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands the amendment of the 

gentleman from Illinois [1\Ir. CANNON] to cover the amendment of the 

gentleman from Oregon [Mr. HERMA.NN] as well as the paragraphs making appropriation for offices of surveyors-general, on pages 12 and 13 of 

the bill. · Mr. CANNON. My amendment is intended to cover all, including 

the amendment of the gentleman from Oregon. 

The question beirig put on 1\fr. CANNON's amendment, there wereayes 62, noes 43. 

Mr. RICE. I make the point that a quorum has not voted. 

Mr. RANDALL. This is an amendment, which will be reported to 

the House, and can be voted upon in the House. 

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman withdraw the point of no 

quorum? 

Mr. RANDALL. I suggest to the gentleman from Minnesota that 

the amendment can be voted upon separately in the House. 

Mr. RICE. I withdraw the point of no quorum. 

The Clerk read the following paragraph: 

Transportation of Indian supplies: To pay necessary expenses of transporta- tion of goods, provisions, and other articles for the various tribes of Indians, including pay and_ expenses of transportation agents, $!0,000. 

Mr. SA. YERS. I am instructed by the Committee on Appropriations 

to offer the amendment which I send to the desk. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

' ervations, and to extend the protection of tbe laws of the United States and Territories over the Indians, and for other purposes,' $10,()()(1." 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The Clerk read the following paragraph: 

POST-OFFICE DEPARTMENT. 

I,etter-balances, scales, and test-weights: For letter-balances, scales, and test- weights, $7,000. 

Ur. SAYERS. I am instructed by the Committee on Appropriations to offer the amendment which I send to the desk. 

The Clerk read as follows : On page 15, after line 13, insert the following: ·• For compensation of clerks in post-offices, $100,COO. "For rent, fuel, and light, $25,000." 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. SAYERS. I am instructed by the committee to offer an amendment to come in on page 16, after the heading ''Department of Justice.'' 

The Clerk read the amendment, as follows: 

Support of convicts: For the support, maintenance, and transportation to and 

from the penitentiary of convicts from the District of Columbia, to be expended 

under the direction of the Attorney-General, $15,000. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. I move to strike out the last word, and 

desire to print as part of my remarks a statement of appropriations for 

expenses of United States courts. It covers the last ten years. 

I call attention to the fact that this statement does not include most 

of the deficiencies for 1887 and 1888, which will be considerable. - Since that statement was prepared we have notice of $90,000 more than we had before, and I desire to call attention to certain facts which 

will appear from this table. The expenditures for 1886, when we had 

the deficiencies in, as compared with the expenditures for 1878, show an excess in round numbers of $429,000. In 1886, as compared with 

1881, there is an excess of $191,000, and as compared'with 1888 the ex- penditure in 1881 is$180, 000 less. Take the years 1878, 1879, 1880, and 

1881, aggregate them and get the average, and you have $3,140,000, 

which is, in round numbers, $280,000 less than the expenditures for 

1886. In this connection I desire to call attention to the fact that the 

internal-revenue laws have been practically wiped out, and that a vast 

number of prosecutions which used to be conducted under the Department of Justice have ceased. I merely state these cold, naked facts, 

On page 14, after line 11, insert the following: and call the a~tention of the House to them. I withdraw the pro form{], "This amount for pay of special agents and necessary expenses to carry out dm t 

the provisions of section 3 of the act approved February 8, 1887, entitled 'An net amen en '• to provide for the allotment of lands in severalty to Indians on the various res- The statement is as follows: 

Statement of appropriations for expenses of United States courts. 

[Inclu<l;ing items in the deficiency bill already passed and the accompanying bill.] 

1878. 1879.-

Expenses of U. S. courts: Annual appropriation. $2, 650,000. 00 $2,750, 000. 00 

Deficiencies ........••.•..... 286,000.00 425,000. 00 

Claims......................... 19, 481. 57 66. 520. 49 

' 

Total .................. 2, 955,481.57 j 3,241,520.49 .................... ................... ...••••............. .................... .••••••••.•.•....... •......•............ ....••.•••.••...•... ........•...... .............. _,-

Fees and expenses of mar- I 

shals: 

Annual appropriation. ····················· ··············· ...•.. $600,000.00 $650, 000.00 $600,000. 00 $600,000. 00 $600,000. 00 $600,000.00 $675,000.00 675,000 $675,000 

g~~:~~~~~~::·.::::::::·::.:·.: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: .... ~?:.~:~. ~: ~: ~ sg: ggg: gg 1gg: ~: ~ 91, ~~: ~b ... :~ ... ~~:~ ..... ~·.~:~. ::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::: 

TotaL ..................................... , ..................... , 630,000.00 I 742,243.37 652,058.55 780,549.96 692,510.97 727,155.03 705,000.00 675,000 675,000 

FeesA':t~~~~;~~~~:l!~r;~. ..........••.••...... ..•...•••..•......... aoo,ooo.oo I 35o,ooo.oo 325,ooo.oo 1325,ooo.oo a25,ooo.oo 325,ooo.oo 350,ooo.oo 350,ooo 325,ooo 

g~~~~~.~~~·:.::·.::·::::.::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..... ::>.·~:~. 2g:m:~ ~:~~:~ n::~:~ 80,~:~ ..... ~?.·.~:.~ ..... ~ ... ~.~:~~ .. :::::·::::::::: :::::::::::::: 

Total.................. ...... .............. ..............•.•.... 325,000.00 I 372,417.06 415,437.42 I 44.7, 728.33 405, 175. 60 365,000.00 375,568. 81 350, 000 325,000 

Pay ~:S~!~t:;;:~~J:t~~!~ ..................... 1-.... : ............... j .................... ! .................... j ................... .' ·-············ ...... !.................... .................... .................... ............... 100,000 

Fee~~~!f~~ropriation ...................... -···················-1160, 000.00 1160,000.00 150,000.00 160,000.00 I 160,000.00 160,000.00 175,000.00 175,000 175,000 

Deficiencies................. ...•...•............. ..••...........••.... 25,000.00 45,000.00 55,000.00 60,000. 00 50,000.00 54,744.50 8, 465. 87 ............................ . Olaims .. ..•. •. ••••••••••••.... ..•••.••....... ...... .•• .•..•••••.•• .•..•. .. ••..•.. ...•.•..•.. 1, 257. 65 65. 49 1, 283. 20 38. 00 ..•..................••.•..............•......••••••.••...•••••...... 

Total ................................. ...... ......... ............ , 185,000.00 I 206,257.65 205,065. 4.9_ 221,283.20 210, Ois.OOj 214,744.50 183,465.87 175,000 175,000 

Annual appropriation. ......•........ ...... .•••....•...... ...•.. 140, 000. 00 140, 000. 00 100, 000. 00 130, 000. 00 130, 000. 00 100, 000.00 100, 000. 00 100, 000 50, 000 Fees of commissioners: I I 

~!~:::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::1::::::::::::::::::::: ···~~.=·:· 1 ~~::: I ,::::: :::.: I ~:::: ···;:.·~:~· ···~:.·::~. ···~~:~· ····~:~ Annual appropriation ..................... , .....•... ............ 400,000.00 400 000.00 450 000.00 450,000. 00 

~~~~~~~.~.:::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::·.::: .... ~?:.:.~.~;·~ · ~: m: ~ 20: ~: ~ ···········a7:7o·· 

450,000.00 

60,000.00 

80.20 

400, 000. 00 450, 000. 00 450, 000 

50, 000. 00 90, 000. 00 50, 000 

450,000 

150,000 

Fees of jurors: I I 

---------I----------1---------:---------;--------I------ Total. ......................................................... ~. j 440,756.35 442,154.65 470,062.20 j 450,087.70 510,080.20 450,000.00 540,000.00 500,000 600,000 

Fee~~]t,;~~~~t~~:~~~~: ::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::1 ... ~:.~:·~···- ~: ~: g& I ~: ~: ~ 1=600=6 =8':=: ~= ===== ===== ;:" =====1====1=== 

6,135.83 247.55 3,171.66 ~:~:~ ... ~:~:~ .... ~.:.~:~ .... ~:·~- ... ~:-~ Total ............................................................ ,=61:::;;0:::;;, 4:::;;97=.1=4=!:::;;:::;;5:::;;86=, =185:::;;-=· 83=!1=6=70=, =24=7=. 55=1

!:=609='=2.5=1= . 66=ll=660='=420=. 30=1 621,408. 74 787,150. 00 ~50, 000 850, 000 
"-. 

1284 CONGRESSIONAL RECOR.D-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 16, 

Statement of appropriations f01' expenses of Unitecl States comts-Continued. 

-----1----- ·1 -----1--- -------- ------- ---I--1-Eri-18_. _ _ 1---1-fr7_9_. __ 1 189J. I 1881. I lB82 

Support of prisoners: - l 1883. 1884. 1885. 1886. 1887. 1888, 

Annual appropriation. .. ............ ....... .. ............. ...... $193, 000. 00 $200, 000. 00 $325, 000. 00 $325, 000. 00 $300, 000. 00 $300, 000. 00 $250, 000. 00 $240, 000 ~250, OOC 

Deficiencies................. ................... . ..................... 128,972.13 100, 000. 00 ................... ...... ......... ..... ............ ........ .................... 11,740. 68 40, 000 ............ .. Claims ................................................................... 1 

................. M 31 657.93 3, 804.50 5, 678.53 263.00 ....................................................... ..... ........ . 

Total.. ..................................... ..................... 1 321,972.13 303,657.93 828,804.50 330,678. 53 1 300,263.00 300, 000.00 I 26,74.0.68 ~ 

Rent of court-rooms: I I I I Annual appropriation. ..................... ..................... 67, 000. 00 75,000. 00 75,000. 00 70, 000.00 I 50, 000. 00 50,000. 00 I 50,000. 00 50, 000 60,000 

~~~::~~~~~::::::::::::::::: :::::: :::::: ::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ......... :~·-~ .. :::::::::::.:::::::: ......... 7oo:oo· ::::::::::::::::::: ...... .~ :.:~~ .. ::.:.:::.::.~0:.·.~ .. ...... ~~:~ ...... ~~ ... ~. :::::::::::::: To !AI.................. .. . ....... ..... ... .. .. ...... .... .. ....... 67, 360. 00 75, 000. 00 75, 700. 00 I 70, 000. 00 I 55, 559. 40 57, 409. 90 I 58, 628. 00 I 63, 000 I 00, 000 

Pay i£;~~~~~~:::::~~: 1· :::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::.:.:.:::::::!·::.:::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::I::::::::::::::::::J::::::::::.::.::::::: ::::::::::.::::: ::I:::::::::::::::::::J:::::.:::::::·::: :::: 

Miscellaneous expenses: Annualappropriation. 1

............... ...... ..................... 280,000.00 300,000.00 325, 000.00 325,000.00 310,000.00 

&~~~~-~~~.: .. ::::::.:·.:·::::,::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: .... ~~ ... ~.~:~ ....... 6.;858:91' ...... i.,'4is:oo· ......... M9:93· ~:~ 

325,000.00 300,000.00 

13,361.53 

314,400 

20,000 

214,400 

1---______ , ____ ,____ ······················································· I I ·············· Total.. ................ 1

. . ....... . . ......... ..................... 306, 608.04 306, 858.91 326,418.90 325, 949.93 327, 02L. 50 325, 000.00 313,361. 53 334, 400 214,400 

Total by years .... ;$2, 955,481.57 53,241,520.49 13, 027,·424. 56 3, 193,895.20 3, 299, 625.56 13,386,018.24 13,296,200.82 3, 206,774.39 3, 384,914.92 \3,227,900 13,374,400 

The Clerk read as follows: For miscellaneous elt})enses, Depa1·tment of Justice, being a deficiency for the 

fiscal year 1886, $244.04. For miscellaneous expenses, Department of Justice, being a deficiency for the 

fisrol year 1885, $68.88. 

1\Ir. HOOKER. I move to strike out the last word. 1\Ir. Chairman, 

I desire to ask of the gentleman having this bill in charge some explanation of the deficiencies which occur in the Department of Justice, as set forth-in this bill. I find, on page 17, these deficiency appropl·iations: 

Fees of jurors, United States courts: To supply a deficiency in the appropria- tion for fees of jurors, United States courts, $150,000. Fees of witnesses, United 

States courts: ~'o supply a deficiency in the appropriation for fees of witnesses, 

United States courts, $300,000. Pay of bailifl's, etc., United States courts: To supply a deficiency in the appropriation for pay of bailiffs, United States courts, 

$75,000. F ees and expenses of m a rshals: For fees and expenses of marshals, 

United States court·s, being a deficiency for the fiscal year 1H86, $10,000. F ees of 

commissioners: For fees of commissioners and justices of the peace acting as commissioners, b eing a deficiency for the fiscal year 1886, $10,000. For fees of wit- nesses, United States courts, being a deficiency for the fiscal year 1884, $321.50: For fees of witnesses, United States courts, being a d eficiency for the fiscal year 1883, $5,080. 

Then comes an item of $20,000 for "miscellaneous expenses of the 

United States courts," making an aggregate of deficits in the United 

States courts for the payment of fees of witnesses, marshals, bailiffs, 

and commissioners of $550,080, deficiencies, some of them running 

back, as will be observed, as far as 1884. Now, sir, I take it that or- dinarily deficiencies ought to be provided for in the next ensuing fiscal 

year after they have occurred, and I think that they most generally 

are. I can not understand how this accumulation of deficiencies in 

the United States courts cou' ·' lave grown up, extending as far back 

as 1884, and I want some exp ... wation of it from the gentleman having 

the bill in charge. 

It will be observed that in one case there is a deficiency for witness 

fees alone of $300,000. I refer generally to the3e appropriations, be- cause I do not care to take them up seriatim at this time. I refer to 

them collectively in order that the gentleman having charge ofthe bill 

may explain how it is that these extraordinarily large deficiencies have 

grown up, and I think that a solution of the difficulty that occurs in 

this case, and some explanation of the suggestions made by the gentle- man from Arkansas [1\Ir. ROGERS], in the general remarks which he 

submitted upon this subject the other day, might be found if the Judiciary Committee, which, I suppose, would be the appropriate committee 

for the purpose, would formulate a law providing that the compensation 

of district attorneys in these courts should be by annual salaries of 

proper amount to pay them for the labor they perform. If that was 

the case, if a salary was attached to this office of district attorney instead of fees, then these extraordinary expenses, the fees of marshals for 

the transportation of witnesses, and the fees of the witnesses themselves, which grow up in the multiplied suits which are engendered in 

these courts, might not be incurred. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

1\Ir. RANDALL took the floor and yielded to Mr. HooKER. 

1\Ir. HOOKER. · I have said this much on this subject because heretofore in my experience in the Congress of the United States,_ and also 

in Congresses of which I had not the honor to be a member, it has been 

suggested that we should compensate, by fixed salaries these officers who represent the United States in the prosecutions ~ich grow up 

nuder one form or another, whether under the internal-revenue laws or under the timber acts, which latter are the most prolific source of 

prosecutions in the Federal courts. In whatever form these suits arise 

it is undoubtedly proper and most desirable that the prosecuting offi- cers should be paid regular salaries, and should not be animated by a desire to accumulate a large number of snits so as to show extra effi 

ciency on the part of the land officer or the district attorney himself. 

Let the prosecuting officers be salaried, and if these fees are to be colleded, let them be paid into the Treasury of the United States to help 

to defray the expenses of the Government. 

This measure of reform has at times been proposed heretofore, and I 

think the adoption of such a proposition would add largely to thejustice with which the Government pursues its citizens for violations of 

these very highly penal laws, under which, in some cases, the question 

of intention is eliminated from consideration, so that a technical violation of the internal-revenue law, or the timber act, renders the ·party 

amenable to very severe penalties. 

A ME"ll:BER. A bill of that kind is now pending. 

Mr. HOOKER. I am informed by a gentleman sitting near me that a bill of that sort is pending. I think that the enormon.s expenses in 

the administration of our Federal courts, for which the Committee on 

Appropriations now find it necessary to provide, demonstrate the ne cessity of some such legislation as will abridge the exercise of these 

extraordinary penal powers on the part of the courts. You might as well say that the judge sitting upon the bench to determine these ques 

tions should receive a salary in proportion to the number of cases de 

cided, a salary paid by the litigants who may be defeated in the suits, as to say that the district attorney should be compensated in this way. 

He is an officer of the Government, and, like the Attorney-General of 

the United States, ought to be a salaried officer. If it is proper that 

fees be collected, they should, when collected, be paid over into the - Treasury of the United States in order to avoid these large deficiency 

bills which constantly recur and which grow out of the exercise of this 

jurisdiction on the part of Federal officials. 

1\Ir. KERR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word of 

this clause, or, ifinorder, I will move to strikeout all these appropria 

tions for extra expenses of the Department of Justice. In this connec 

tion I wish to say that I listened with much interest to the debate of 

yesterday. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BURNES], in his closing 

remarks on this subject, said he would not favor just.now a change of 

policy in this respect. The gentleman, however, represents in part the 

State of Missouri; and a few years ago a Democratic convention of that 

State passed a resolution in favor of sweeping out this entire internal revenue system-in favor of overthrowing it altogether-giving as one 

reason for that position the vast expense attending the administration 

of the system. 

Mr. BURNES. Do I understand my friend to say that in a Demo 

cratic State convention of Missouri such a resolution was passed? 

Mr. KERR. I do, sir . . 1\Ir. BURNES. I am not aware of it. 

1\Ir. KERR. A resolution adopted in their State convention made 

such a declaration; and if the gentleman will examine their platforms 

of a few years ago, he will find it. • Ur. BURNES. How many years ago? 

ltfr. KERR. Some few years ago; I can not at this moment state the 

exact number. 

Mr. BURNES. I feel confident the gentleman is mistaken. 

Mr. KERR. Now, I wish to know whether the reason of the change 

of position on the part of the gentleman and his party is that they now 

have under their control the Federal offices for the administration of 

those laws? I wish to know whether the vast expenses attending the 
• 

1888. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. 1285 

administration of the law in connection with prosecutions for the en- forcement of the tobacco and whisky taxes, which expenditures go into 

the pockets of members of the gentleman's political party, are the rea- son for this change of policy? I know that in my own district these 

expenses are very large. A man who places two cigars on top of a tobacco box is prosecuted and fined to the a.mount of $100; and such - fines go into the pockets of men belon~g to the gentleman's party. 

There is a universal demand that these laws shall be swept out of ex- istence. 

I wish further in this connection to call attention to the platform of 

the gentleman's party, adopted in Chicago three years ago: 

Sufficient revenue to pay all the expenses of the Federal Government, eco- nomically administered, including pensions, interest and principal of the public debt, can be got under our present system of taxation from custom-house taxes on fewer imported arti~es, bearing heaviest on articles ofluxury and bearing lightest on articles of necessity. 

That is the pledge on which the national Democracy have been standing before the country for the last three years. 

Mr. BLAND. Why does not the gentleman read the whole of that 

platform? 

Several MEMBERS. It is too long. 

Mr. BLAND. Read the wholeofit, and thengiveus yourown platform on the same subject. 

Mr. KERR. Mr. Chairman, I might read also the provision of the same platform in regard to civil-service reform [laughter] and many 

other things; but I do not choose to do so. Now, I ask that this party, claiming to represent the views of the 

American people to-day, shall redeem the pledges they have made, or else in plain terms repudiate those pledges, and say that the time has come in the history of their organization when the pledges made by a great party are to be repudiated in the administration of the law. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. Chairman, I will yield time enough to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. KERR] ifp.e will tell me in what year and by 

what Democratic body in the State of Missouri any resolution was ever passed asking for a repeal of the internal-revenue system. 

Mr. KERR. I have it at home. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HATCH. I will wait till the gentleman can go home and get 

it. It will take the balance of his life to find it. It never had an ex- istence. No Democratic convention or Legislature in the State of Missouri ever passed such a resolution. 

Mr. KERR. The gentleman is mistaken; such a resolution was passed. 

Mr. HATCH. I challenge the gentleman to produce it. 

Mr. KERR. I will produce it. 

Mr. HATCH. Very well; bring it out if you can. The gentleman can not find it.- He will find that the Legislature of the State of Missouri and every Democratic convention that has been held in that 

State for the past ten years have passed resolutions demanding that 

Congress shall wipe from the statute-book that provision of the internal-Tevenne law which prevents the farmers of the country from selling 

their leaf-tobacco to anybody but a licensed dealer. That is as fur as they have gone; and that provision which they have asked to have re- pealed was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republi- can President. It fastened the shackles upon the farmers of this coun- try, po that they could not sell a pound of tobacco unless to a licensed 

dealer without violating the law and being subject to fine and imprisoment. .. 

M:r. JOHNSTON, of Indiana. Whydo younotrepeal the law? You 

have the power. 

Mr. HATCH. We have been knocking at the doors of Congress ever since my advent here in the Forty-sixth Congress trying to have it re- pealed. We can pass it through a Democratic Honse, but we can not 

get it through the Republi<'.an Senate. [Laughter and applause.] 

Mr. ROWELL. Have you ever tried to pass it through a Democratic 

House? 

J'4r. HATCH. Yes, we have repeatedly. 

Mr. ROWELL. When? 

Mr. HATCH. In the Forty-sixth and Forty-eighth Congresses. 

[Laughter.] · 

:Mr. MILLIKEN. The gentleman's party is in power and why is it 

not passed now 9 

:M:r. HATCH. It passed the House in one bill and went to the Senate and was modified there so that at this time the growers of tobacco are allowed to sell the products of their farms to the extent of $100 in 

value. 

Mr. HENDERSO~, of Iowa. Will the gentleman from Missouri 

yield to me? 

Mr. HATCH. Yes, with pleasure. 

Mr. HENDERSOJ9", of Iowa. Why was the tax put upon tobacco? 

[Applause.] 

Mr. HATCH. For the best reason in the world; the Government 

needed the amount of money at t.hat time. [Applause.] 

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. A moment, if you please. Then my friend from Missouri takes his share of the responsibility? 

Mr. HATCH. Yes; the gentleman from Missouri never shirked his 

share of the responsibility. [Applause.] 

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. If my friend will allow me to finish 

my question. 

Mr. HATCH. Certainly. 

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. I understand that he does not cri-ticise the Republican Congress which put the tax on tobacco? 

Mr. HATCH. I do not. 

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. Nor the Republican President who 

signed the law? 

Mr. HATCH. I do not. ~fr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. I wish that to be understood. 

Mr. HATCH. I only criticised--

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. Let the responsibility for the repeal 

lie with the Democratic majority which has the control of this House. 

Mr. HATCH. I only criticised the House that put that law upon 

the statute-book, and which I regard as one of the most infamous, which 

prevents the growers of a great product in this country like that of tobacco from selling it to anybody but to a licensed dealer of the Government. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. I rise to a point of order. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of M~mi. What is the section of the bill which 

this discussion relates to? [Laughter.] 

Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Chairman, I only want to say, so far as the 

country is to-day involved, it matters not what has been the action of 

the past; let us in the future all join hands and strike fr"Om the statute-book this iniquitous system. [Applause.] 

Mr. HATCH.· I will join the gentleman from Pennsylvania in that 

when the bonds and debts of the Gov~rnment for which that tax was imposed have been paid and when the clothing and fuel of the poor 

people of the country have been relieved from taxation. - Mr. RANDALL. Neitherthebondsnoranyotherdebtofthe Uni~d 

States is in the least danger of not being paid. 

Mr. HATCH. Ah, you levied this war tax to pay war debts so long as one of them is in existence. When the money was needed this was a fair rate and this was a fair subject of taxation. 

Mr. REED. Let me ask the gentleman a question. Are you opposed, then, to the repeal? 

Mr. HATCH. I am opposed to the repeal until the price of blankets comes down. Wait until we reduce the tax on the necessaries oflife. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman, I hope in the heat and ardor of 

the discussion on economic questions that the effect of the amendment 

of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. KERR] will not be lost sight of. 

I desire, in the few remarks I shall make, to call the attention of the 

committee back to the question under consideration. Tbe amendment 

of the gentleman from Indiana is to strike out this deficiency for jurors 

and witnesses in United States courts. I hope that motion to strike out 

will not prevail, and for this reason: On the 12th day of December last 

the Attorney-General of the United States notified this House, through 

its Committee on Appropriations, that the appropriation to pay wit- nesses was alxeady exhausted when only five and a half months of the _ fiscal year had expired, so that in many sections of the country the 

United States courts had practically to suspend their operations. And 

they remain, so far as the criminal business is concerned, suspended 

to-day, and if this amendment prevails they will remain suspended 

until the 1st day of J nly next. 

Now, I do not hesitate to say that there is something strange about 

this. Who is responsible for it? The originator of this state of things 

I do not know, and do not care to know. It is enough for me that this 

state of facts is in existence, and that there has been mismanagement 

somewhere. 

If, Mr. Chairman, an appropriation of $550,000, made at the last 

session of Congress, was thought to be sufficient by the Department of 

Justice, and at this session of Congress we are called on to supplement 

that by on additional appropriation of $300,000, nearly three-eighths 

of the whole sum necessary, five-eighths of that which was necessary 

having been appropriated in the first instance, either the Department of 

Justice did not understanditsbusinesswhenitmadeupits estimates, or theCommitteeonAppropriations did not understand its businesswhen 

it made up its bill; and I do not care whet.her the responsibility rests 

upon the one or the other; it is somewhere between them. I repeat, 

this money must be voted, or the business of the courts will remain at a standstill. In my own State the courts have been suspended since 

December 12. 

M:r. SAYERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 

HooKER] asked a few moments ago for information in regard to those 

items of appropriation for the Judicial Department which appear in 

the bill now under consideration. I have to say on behalf of the Committ-ee on Appropriations that they have in this bill given every dollar 

that was recommended by the Judicial D~partment. 

For the fees of jurors in the United States courts, coverjng $150,-

000, I have to state that $450,000 were appropriated originally, being 

the sum estimated for, and that the committee were informed but a. 

few days ago that of this amount of $450,000 only-$25,000 was on hand for the balance of this fiscal year. 

.As to the item of $300,000 for fees of witnesses, $550,000 were appro- priated in accordance with the recommendations of the Department of 

. 

I~ 
1286 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. - FEBRUARY 16, 

Justice, and a few days since the Committee on Appropriations was officially informed that of this amount only $100 remain on hand, all the 

rest having been exhausted, and that an indebtedness of about $70,000 

has accrued. 

As to the pay of baliffs, the appropriation for which amounted to 

$100,000, in accordance with estimates sent to Congress, the information was given the committee that it was completely exhausted on the 

1st of January last. Seventy-five thousand dollars has been recommended by the committee. This is in accordance with the· estimate of 

the Department. 

The deficiencies for prior years were ascertained only since the Fortyninth Congress. They are deficiencies not previously reported, and the 

committee felt it their duty to provide for them. So that the committee in its action has thus far given to the Judicial Department every 

dollar that has been asked for. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Do I understand my friend from Texas to say 

that when the Department of Justice asked for an appropriation for 

witnesses of $550,000, it really asked for $300,000 le..."S than was necessary that year? 

Mr. SAYERS. That seems to be the necessary deduction, because 

it comes now and asks for an additional $300,000. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. And you are satisfied that it is needed? 

Mr. SAYERS. We have the word of the Department of Justice. 

Mr. HOOKER. I will call the attention of the gentleman from 

Texas to that clause of the bill t-o which I referred, which provides: 

For fees of witnesses, United St.1.tes courts, being a deficiency for the fiscal year 1883, Si),080. 

How does that happen to be incorporated here, or that it has not 

been provided for in previous bills? · • 

Mr. SAYERS. Because the estimate only came_ to the present Congress. 

Mr. HOOKER. And was not called to the attention of any intervening Congress between that date and this? 

Mr. SAYERS. So I am informed. 

Mr. BURNES. Mr. Chairman, on yesterday there was slight allusion made to the subject of tobacco during the course of the debate, 

and another allusion of the same sort has been made to-day. From 

the ever-constant readiness with which this House bubbles over at the 

mention of this commodity, I am inclined to believe that if another 

commodity, also covered by the internal-revenue laws, and from which 

a large tax is derived, were mentioned that there would be a regular 

Pandora's box opened upon the floor of the House, and confusion would 

reign supreme. [Laughter.] At all events, the mention of the subject which has so aroused the House in connection with this amendment induces me to turn to the consideration of that other element 

under the internal-revenue laws, which upon this occasion need not be 

mentioned. and ask unanimous consent that this debate on this provision and 'the pending amendments be now closed by the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. To what paragraph does the gentleman's request 

apply? 

:Mr. BURNES. I ask unanimous consent that the debate be closed 

with reference to all the items under the head of "Department of Justice." and all amendments pending thereto. 

There was no objection, and it was so ordered. 

The Clerk again reported the amendment offered by Mr. KERR. 

The question being taken, the amendme_nt was not agreed to. 

:Mr. NEAL. I offer an amendment, to come in after the heading 

"Judicial" at the top of page 17. 

The Clerk read the proposed amendment, as follows: 

Insert the following: 

"For pay of assistant district attorneys for f.he year ending June 30, 1888, 

$20,550." . 

Mr. NEAL. I desire to send to the desk a communication from the 

Department of Justice, to be read as an e£planation of that amendment. 

1\Ir. SAYERS. I raise the point of order against the reading of that 

letter. The committee having unanimously agreed that further debate 

should be stopped on th~ amendment offered by the gentleman from 

Iowa, and on the provisions of the bill to which that amendment referred, I submit that reading the letter, being in the nature of debate, is 

not in order. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair sustains the point of order. 

1\fr. BUCHANAN. But the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa 

only applied to the paragraph ending with line 17 on the sixteenth page. 

Mr. NEAL. I desire to be heard on the point of order made by the 

gentleman from Texas. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the gentleman from 

:Missouri [Mr. BURNES] asked unanimous consent that all debate be 

closed on the provisions rebting to the Department of Justice and all 

theamendmentsthereto. The Chairsubmitted tbatrequesttothe committee, and it was agreed to. Mr. ~~AL. Will the Chair hea.r me on the point of order? 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not think it necessary to take 

up time in discussion as to the point of order, as he has already ruled 

upon it. The Chair sustains the point of order. The question is on 

-the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee. 

The question being put, the Chairman stated that, in the opinion of 

the Chair, the noes had it. ' 

Ur. NEAL. I call for a division . 

The committee divided, and there were-ayes 20, noes 23. 

So (further count not being called for) the amendment was not 

agreed t-o. 

The Clerk read the following paragraph: 

Pay of bailiffs, etc., United States courts: To supply a deficiency in the appro- priation for pay of baili1l':~ , United States courts, $75,000. 

Mr. LAIRD. I call the attention of the gen~leman having charge 

of the bill to the necessity of amending the enumeration of items in 

that paragraph relating to the "pay of bailiffs, etc." 

Mr. SAYERS. This item is in the exact language in which it came 

from the Department of Justice; but t.he committee recognize the propriety of the amendment suggested by the gelltleman from Nebraska: 

1\Ir. LAIRD. I submit that the language of the law should be followed. 

Mr. SAYERS. We have an amendment for that purpose which I 

send to the desk. 

The Clerk read the proposed amendment, as follows: 

On pr.ge 17 strike out lines 8, 9, and 10, and insert in lieu thereof the following: 

"For pay of bailiffs and criers; of expenses of dis•rict judges directed to hold court outside of their districts; of meals for jurors ·when ordered by the _court; 

of compensation for jury commissioners, not exceeding S5 per day, not exceeding 

three days for any one term of court; for stenographic clerk for the Cbief-J ustice 

and for each associate justice of the Supreme Court, at a sum not exceeding $l,GOO each, $75,000." 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. SAYERS. I offer the amendment which I send to the desk. 

The Clerk read the amendment, as follows: 

On page 17, after line 10, insert: 

"Support of United States prisoners: For support of United States prisoners, ~cl~diog nece;;;;arY clothing and medical aid and transportation to pl!:l.ce of con- Vlchon, S90,000. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The Clerk read the following paragraph: 

Fees and expenses of marshals: For fees and expenses of marslmls, United 

Stqtes courts, being a deficiency for the fiscal year 1886, $10,000. 

Ur. CANNON. A~ I understood the agreement limiting debate, it 

bad reference to all items under the head ''Department of Justice,'' on page 16 of the bill, and did not apply to the provisions on page 17, 

under the headin~ '' Judicial.'' I desire to offer an amendment pro 

forma, to strike out the last word, and I do so for the purpose of calling the attention of the committee for a moment to the appropriations 

recommended for witnesses. 

Mr. BURNES. I will not make the point of orde:c on the gentleman 

from illinois, but will ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to 

make his statement, 

l\1r. CANNON. I did not understand that the agreement covered 

page 17. 

Mr. BURNES. The Chair has already decided that unanimous consent has been given for closing debate on all these paragraphs relating 

to appropriations for the Department of Justice, including judicial expenses. 

The CHAIRMAN. If there has been any misunderstanding as to 

this, the Chair does not desire to enforce his ruling. He asks the gentleman from Missouri to restate his request, as there seems to have 

been a. misunderstanding as to its extent. · 

Mr. BURNES. I now ask unanimous consent to terminate debate 

in five minutes on all the paragraphs relating to the Department of 

Justice1 judicial expenses, and miscellaneous expenses of the United 

States courts. 

!J1r. CANNON. I prefer not to be limited. 

1\fr. ·BURNES. Well, say ten minutes. 

Mr. CANNON. I do not think the debate will run over ten or fifteen minutes. The gentleman from Tennessee [.l'tfr. NEAL] desires to 

offer an amendment, and to be heard on it. 

The CHAIRl\IA.N. The Chair begs the attention of the gentleman 

from Missouri [Mr. BURNES]. There is some question as to the extent 

of the request made by that gentleman. The Chair may be in error in 

regard to that, and does not desire to take ad vantage of any gentleman 

by reason of his own error. He desires therefore to know from the gentleman ft·om Missouri the extent of his request. 

Mr. BURNES. It was my intention to cover the whole matter relating to these appropriations for the Department of Justice. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair so understood and so submitted the 

request, and will enforce that agreement. 

Mr. CANNON. I was paying particular attention, and I did not 

understand that the items under the head ''Judicial,'' on page 17, were 

covered by this agreement. 1\Iy understanding was that the agreement 

applied only to those on page 16, under the head "Department of Justice.'' 

Mr. BLAND. The gentleman [lli. BuRNES] first asked that unan- imous consent be given to close the debate on all matters in the bill 

relating to the Department of Justice and on all amendments thereto. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair so understood the gentleman from 

Missouri (Mr. BURNES], and so submitted the question. 

I 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1287 

Mr. McCULLOGH. Mr. Chairman, it would obviously be impossible for the gentleman to get unanimous consent to curtail debate OJl 

matters which had not been read. Any gentleman may have an amendment to submit to some of these items that have not been read. 

The' CHAIR IAN. The House 'does many things by unanimous 

consent. 

1\Ir. BURNES. I am satisfied that th~ Chair is right, and I am satisfied of my own intention in regard to this matter. Let us, therefore, 

not be lu'trsh, and, a.s there was some misapprehension upon the other side, I am willing to meet the gentleman in a spirit of a.ccommodation. - Mr. CANNON. If the Chair understands that I am 'DOt entitled to 

the floor on an amendment on page 17, I can say all that I deshe to 

say on an amendment on page 18. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BURNES. Very well. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Miscellaneous expenses: For miscellaneous expenses, United Stn.tes courts, 

$20,000, being a deficiency for the fiscal year 1837. 

Mr. SAYERS. I send to the desk an amendment which I desire to come in at that point. 

The amendment was read, as follows: 

Page 18, after line 4, insert the following: 

"Salary of ci rcuitj udge : For salary of an a.ddi tional circuitjudge in the second 

judicial circuit, authorized by the act of Ma.rch 3, 1887, $6,000." 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Public printing: To enable the Public Printer to comply with tha provisions of the law granting 

fifteen days' annual leave to the employes of the Government Printing Office, 55,000. 

M:r. CANNON. I move to strike out the last word, in order that I 

may say what I desired to say a few moments ago. I wish to call the a~ention of the committee to the fact that if the Attorney-General and 

the officers subordinate to him in his Department who appeared before 

the Committee on Appropriations can be relied upon, the courts will 

be closed about the middle of Uay next under the appropriations for 

the current year re-enforced by these deficiency appropriations. Take the 

Hem of witnesses. If gentlemen will turn to Appendix K, page 25 of 

the Estimates, they will firid the Attorney-General making use of this 

language: FEES OF WITNESSES. 

The appropriation $550,000 has borne expenses that properly belonged to the year 1887, owing to the fa ilure to pass a deficiency bill at the last session of Con- gress. Theaverageexpensepermonth from July 1,1887, toDecember1,1887, five 

month!!, is $110,000 a. month. If the expenses for the remainder of the fiscal year shall equal this average there will be needed 5660,000, thus making the expenses of the appropriation for this year $1,100,000. 

Now, I have no doubt from that statementthattheexpenses for wit· n~es will be at least $1,100, 000, because--

:Mr. BURNES. Let me ask the gentleman what becomes of the appropriation for the deficiency of 1887, which was in the bill that we passed the other day? 

:Mr. CANNON. That is to be expended. I am not now speaking of 

the sufficiency of the excuse that the Attorney-General gives for this 

increased appropriation; I am merely reading what he says and calling 

attention to the fact that this appropriation for witnesses was exhausted 

on the 1st day of last4 December, leaving seven months of the year, and 

if it runs on for the remainder, seven months, as it ran for the first five 

months it will require $1,320,000. And the gentleman will recollect 

that when the officials from this Department were before the committee 

they did not claim that this appropriation of $300,000 would last 

longer than the middle of May. So that while we have given the full 

amount of the estimate it appears that the courts will close by the 

middle of next 11Iay unless additional estimates are sent in and additional money given. That is all I wanted to say, and I wanted to say 

it in the hearing of the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. RoGERS]. 

When I made substantially this statement the other day that gentleman said that the statement, coming as it did, was entitled to but little 

consideration, and I wanted to show that it comes not from me, but from 

his Attorney-General. 

Mr. BURNES. I move that the committee now rise. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The committee accordingly rose; and Mr. HATCH having taken the 

.ehair as Speaker pro tempore, Mr. BLOUNT, from the Committee of the 

Whole, repo.rted that they had had under consideration the bill (H. R. 

6437) to provide for certain of the most urgent deficiencies, etc., and 

had come to no resolution thereon. 

Mr. BURNES. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to my friend from New 

York [Mr. BELMONT], the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

BUSINESS OF COIDII'ITEE ON FOREIGN .AFFAIRS. 

Mr. BELMONT. :Mr. Speaker, this day was, by special order of the 

House, assigned for the consideration of business reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, subject, under the rules, to the priority of 

a-ppropriation and revenue bills. Under this provision Of the order, 

the consideration of the deficiency bill has occupied a considerable part 

of the time which might have been devoted to our business; and the 

hour is now so late that in justice to important bills reported by our oommittee, we feel bound to ask the assignment of another day, in-

,, 

stead of to·d:ly, for our business. Saturday of this week has already 

been assigned to us; and on consulting the Calendar we find that Thursday, the 1st of March, is uno~cupied. I therefore ask that, in addition to next Saturday, Thursday, the 1st of March, be assigned in 

place of to-day for the business of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

The SPEAKER 1Jrotempore (1\fr. HATCH). The gentlemanfrom New 

York asks unanimous consent that Thursday, the 1st day of March, be 

assigned--

Mr. SPRINGER. After the consideration hour. 

The SPEAKER p1·n tempore. After the consideration hour be set 

apart, in lieu of this day, for the consideration of business reported by 

the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Is there objection? The Chair 

hears none; and it is so ordered. 

URGE..~T DEFICIENCY APPROPRI.AT O~ BILL. 

Ur. BURNES. I now move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further 

consideration of the urgent deficiency bill. 

The motion was agreed to. . The Honse accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Wh~le 

(Mr. BLOUNT in the chair) and ~umed the consideration of the bill 

(H. R. 6437) t-o provide for certain of the most urgent deficiencies in 

the appropriations for the service of the Government for the fiscal year 

ending June 30, 1888, and for other purposes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Unless objection be made, it will be understood 

that the p1·o forma amendment which was pending is withdrawn. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri I move an amendment to be inserted as a new pa..--agraph between the first and second subdivisions of the 

bill in regard to public printing. I ask the Clerk to read the amendment. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

The Public Printer is hereby directed to rigidly enforce the provisions of the 

eight-hour law in the department under his charge. 

Mr. BURNES. Mr. Chairman, I feel constrained to say that this 

amendment is in my judgment subject to a point of order. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will please state his point of 

order. 

Mr. BURNES. I am willing to reserve my point of ordC! if my colleague [Mr. O'NEILL] desires to be heard. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri .. Mr. Chairman, I fail to realize how this 

amendment can be subject to a point of order, as it does not increase 

expenses and has a tendency to improve the service. It looks to improving the efficiency of the service at no additional expense of the 

Government. 

The necessity for a provision of this kind arises from the fact that in 

the Government Printing Office to-day you will find hundreds of men who, under some peculiar system of managing their work as to over- time and extro compensation, are employed and paid for ten, twelve, 

fourteen, and sixteen hours a, day, while you see hundreds of printers 

walking this town with their toes out of their shoes. The object of this 

proposition is simply to pare down the bills of men who are taking more than their share of the work. This amendment proposes that they 

take their equal chances with others. 

This clause may very properly be attached to a provision granting 

privileges to these employes in the Printing Office. We have on our Calendar a bill granting to these employes an additional fifteen days' 

leave of absence, and I am in favor of that measure. But when workingmen are demanding of us an eight-hour law I demand that they 

themselves shall live up to it. The spirit of an eight-hour law means that men should not work longer than that time if thereby they deprive others of the opportunity to be brought within the ranks of 

industry. That is the spirit in which· this amendment is offered. It 

can not be subject to a point of order. It will give us better service 

and with no additional expense to the Government. 

:Mr. BURNES. 1\fr. Chairman, I believe I but state a fact when I 

say there is now a law regulating this matter. (To :Mr. O'NEILL, of 

:Missouri:) We have an eight-hour law, have we not? 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. There is a general eight-hour law, which 

bas not been enforced for years. 

Mr. BURNES. Well, then, we have such a law. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of :Missouri. The object of this amendment isto en-~ 

force the law. You believe in enforcing laws, do you not? 

Mr. BURNES. Now, Mr. Chairman, there is a law covering this 

subject. It seems to me this provision has no place in an appropriation 

bill. It is either legislation or it is nothing. We have no authority 

to direct any officer of the Government to enforce diligently the law. 

That is not our business. If an officer fails to execute the law, we can perhaps deal with him in some form; but I do not see why we should 

undertake by a provision in an appropriation bill to direct any officer 

of the Government to enforce strictly the law. It seems to me this 

provision is clearly out of order, and ought not to be engrafted on this 

bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will ask the gentleman from Missouri 

[M:r. BuRNES] to cite the statute in reference to this matter. The 

gentleman seems to admit with his colleague that there is an eight-hour 

law applying to this class oflabor. 

A MEMBER. To the various classes of Government employment. 

-
-. 

1288 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE. FEBRUARY 16, 

:Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. There is an eight-hour law, or, rather, 

there wa.s one. There is one which is frequently invoked just before 

elections, and forgotten just after them. [La.ughter.] There is that 

sort of an eight-hour law. This is a good time to enforce •that law-a 

very opportune time; and if the Chairman of this Committee of the 

Whole has that political sagacity for which I give him credit, he will 

certainly rule on my side of this question [laughter], and give members 

of this House the chance to show their political sagacity in voting for 

it. Tbis·is a question properly to be submitted to the House. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understood the gentleman from ~fissouri [Mr. BURNES], in charge of the bill, to ntise the question of order on the ground that the amendment offered by his colleague changed 

existing law. The Chair now understands him to admit that it does 

not change existing law; and if it does not, the Chair would not feel 

disposed to exclude it. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri; I move the adoption of the amendment. 

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, let us understand precisely the situation of this amendment. The amendment is in order, because the 

law is that way; that is, it does not change existing law, and is therefore in order. What is the nec-essity, then, of the amendment, if the 

law is that way now? What does it accomplish? 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. Let us have a vote on it, so that everybody shall know it is the law, and enforce it. 

Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana. Read the amendment. 

The amendment was again read. 

Mr. CANNON. I wish to ask the gentleman from MissoQ.ri his reason for merely mentioning this one office of the Public Printer? 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. I wish to enforce it in every one of 

them. 

Mr. CANNON. The mention of one excludes the other. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. Not necessarily, as they are not all em- braced in this section. This is the only one before the House. 

Mr. CANNON. The gentleman will repeal the eight-hour law in all 

of the other Departments of the Government. 

Mr. BURNES. I have no objection to putting in anything which 

pleases the taste and fancy of the House; but I wish to put myself on record against incorporating into one of the general appropriation bills 

mere directory legislation in regard to any officer of the Government 

failing or not failing to execute the law. It is not any item of appropriation. It has no plaee in the bill. It is foreign to the nature and 

to the purpose of the bill. These items are appropriations to supply 

deficiencies. This is not any ·deficiency of appropriation. It seems to 

be a deficiency as to the execution of the law, and that is the only deficiency there is about it. I hope the House will not place itself in the 

attitude of appearing to be ridiculous by engrafting the amendment on this appropriation bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. The point stnted by the gentleman was not 

raised on the point of order. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. The Public Printer should enforce the 

law. He did not offer one reason why he should not enforce the whole 

of it; therefore I have moved that amendment. 

1rlr. BURNES. In reply to the gentleman from Indiana and to my_ colleague, I wish to say there has been some talk and some innuendo 

in regard to the failure of the Public Printer to execute the laws; but 

that I have yet to learn from any authority, from any one I deemed to 

be authority, that this officer has really failed to execute the law. My 

colleague seems to be under the impression that the Public Printer has 

failed in the execution of the law, but I presume he speaks from the 

information derived from others. His word would be sufficient for me, 

but I say that it is not right to assume, in reference to a faithful and 

efficient officer of the Government, that he is violating the law unless 

there is some good, substantial authority for making such assertion. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. I have no intention whatever to reflect on the Public Printer, but knowing there is enough-! have had man after man, until they have amounted to dozens of printers who have 

come to me appealing for aid to get employment in that department, 

and claiming they could not because they say a certain class of em- ployes, under some system, managed to work fourteen, fifteen, and eight- een hours a day; under their system of paying two hours for one hour at 

night they could earn pay for eighteen or twenty hours-I say there is 

proof enough. • Mr. WARNER. How is this done? 

Mr. O'NEILL., of Missouri. Of course it is done under the foremen 

of the Public Printing Office. I do know one thing, that there is a large number of public printers standing around your streets not having the means of li velibood, because of a set of men in there of greedy 

proclivities absorbing all the revenue of the Printing Office to themselves. When that is thecaseitistime, in my judgment, to call attention of the House to the necessity of compelling the Public Printer to 

enforce the law. 

Mr. W ABNER rose. Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. I can not understand why there should 

be so much trouble about the enforcement of the eight-hour law under 

the Public Printer; but it is a fact that the law is not enforced. 

Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana. I am with the gentleman from Missouri 

in the proposition which he submits. I wish him t{) state for the information of the House whether he has any information he regards as reliable that the officer he instructs here is not enforcing the law? 

Mr. O'NEILL, of 1\Iissouri. I know the law is not being enforced 

to limit the work to eight hours. 

Ur. BROWNE, of Indiana. All the statute-books declare on the 

part of Congress is that eight hours shall be regarded as a day's work. 

That is all of it. 

·Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri That is it. 

Mr. BROWNE, o! Indiana. They pay a certain class of employes 

by the hour, and ·if they work ten ·hours they ought to be paid for the 

ten hours, and if they work f<1r fourteen hours they ought to be paid 

for fourteen hours. Does the gentleman from Missouri mean to say 

that a man shall not work for more than eight hours a day if he want3 

to or the necessities of his family compel him to do so? 

Mr. O'NEILL, of ~fissouri. The meaning of the eight-hour Jaw is 

to limit a day's work to eight hours: so as to reduce the number out 

of employment to as gre.1.t an extent as possible. If I had the power I 

would prohibit all the Departments from violating the spirit of the 

eight-hour law, so that an additional number of. unemployed labor, 

out in the country, might be enabled to go to work. That is the spirit 

of the law. 

·Mr. WARNER. Is not that the purpose of the amendment-to pre· 

vent men working more than eight hours a day? 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. Yes, that is the object of it. 

Mr. OATES. Does not the gentleman know that a large number of 

the employes there work by the piece ? 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. Thls does not apply to them. 

Mr. OATES. Does the gentleman think the Government ought to ,provide work for the people; to take care of them, and say when they 

shall work or quit work, and how long they may work? 

Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I happen to know some· thing about laborers in the Public Printing Office. I know that there 

is a class of men who labor there and do the drudgery of that office who 

receive a rate of compensation equal to 25 centS an hour. If they work, or are permitted to work, but eight hours, their compensation will be 

then but $2 per day. These men have house rent to pay, children to 

educate, families to support, and I undertake to say that if we adopt 

this amendment these men have either got to suffer or else Congress must 

increase their compensation. 

The other day one of them came to me and said that notwithstanding he had been given fourteen hours a day for many days during the 

mouth, that when he paid his little grocery bill, his house rent, and 

bought some school-books for his children, he had not only been compelled to invest every penny that be had earned, but he had to borrow 

$2 from a friend to meet the monthly expense. I would be glad to see the day's labor, or the labor of every man, cut down to eight hours if 

it were possible to do so; and while I favor an eight-hour law I never 

intend to vote to prohibit men from working just as many hours in a day as they please. That is liberty; it is the liberty of the citizen, 

and I never will, so far as my vote is concerned, assist in touching the 

liberty of the laboring man to labor so long as he may find employ· 

ment with adequate compensation. 

This eight-hour law that we talk about is simply n statute that says 

in the absence of any other or different agreement that eight hours 

shall constitute a day's labor. '!'hat is to say, if the engagement is to 

labor a day in any public employment, that day shall mean eight hours. 

That is all it means. It does not say that the bureaus of the Government may not give longer hours employment than that. It does not 

prohibit it. It ought not to prohibit it, I undertake to say, and the 

Public Printer is doing exactly right when he permits theso poor men laboring at this small pittance of 25 cents an hour to work ten hours, or 

fourteen hours, or even sixteen hours, if he is prepared to give th;em 

work for that length of time at that compensation. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. And let the balance starve. 

Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana. The object of the gentleman from Missouri, however, appears to be to establish by his amendment the fa<:t 

that he is determined to follow the law. Now, I aiD. glad to know that a Democrat occasionally does observe the law, or tries to observe it 

[laughter], for it is not often that they do so when they can avoid it; 

but when they do I am opposed to casting any reflections upon them 

for it. [Laughter.] 

The CH.AJRMAN. What was the amendment of the gentleman from 

Indiana? 

Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana. My amendment was to strike from the 

amendment tbb words "eight ·hours," so it will read, "the Public 

Printer shall enforce the law." 

The question being taken on the amendment of Mr.· BROWNE, of Indiana, the House divided, and there were-ayes 31, noes 30. 

~fr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. Tellers. 

Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I simply offer~ my 

amendment to emphasize the point; and inasmuch as it has prevailed, 

I will, with the permission of the committee, now withdraw it. 

There being no objection, the amendment was withdrawn. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. I now ask the adoption of the resolution 

I have presented. 

Mr. ROGERS. Let it be again reported. 
f 

•. 

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. .1289 

The amendment was again read. 

The question was taken; and on a division there were-ayes 60, noes 43 . . 

Mr. RICHARDSON and Mr. OATES. No quorum has vol:ed. 

The CHAIRMAN. The point of order being made that no quorum 

has voted,· the Chair will appoint tellers. 

Mr. RICHARDSON and Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri, were appointed tell- ers. Mr. BURNES. With the understanding that we shall have this matter disposed of in the House, I hope my friend from Tennessee will 

withdraw the call for tellers. 

111r. '()'NEILL, of Uissouri. I am perfectly willing to have a yea 

and nay vote in the House. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. With that understanding I am willing to withdraw the demand. 

The CHAIRUAN. If the point of no quorum is withdrawn, the 

Chair will announce the result. The amendment is agreed to. 

Mr. OATES. What was the announcement made by the Chair? 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair announced that the amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. OATES. I thought there was a call for tellers on the -point of no quorum? 

·The CHAillMAN. That was withdrawn, as the Chair understands, 

by some private understanding. 

:l!Jr. RICHARDSON. No; not by a private understanding. 

l\1r. RANDALL. It was withdrawn on a public statement that there 

might be a yea and nay vote in the House. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. Why should there not be a yea and nay 

vote? 

Mr. RANDALL. Well, if gentlemen want to make the arrangement 

that there shall be a yea and nay vote, without regard to the requirement of one-fifth of the members demanding it, I see no objection. . 

Mr. RICHARDSON. This is a very important matter, and that 

ought to be clearly understood before this demand is withdrawn . Mr. OATES. I shall certainly object to withdrawing the point of no quorum, nnless there is to be a yea and nay vote in the House. 

Mr. BURNES. I ask ·unanimous consent that there be a vote in the 

House. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will ,state that the Committee of the 

Whole can not bind the House. The matter, however, is in the con- trol of the gentleman in charge of the bill, who has the right, in the 

House, to ask for a separate vote. 

Mr. ROGERS. I rise to a question of order. The gentleman from 

Alabama [Mr. OATES] made the point of no quorum. 

The CHAIRMAN. The point of order !las been made by the gentleman from Alabama that a quorum has not voted. · The Chair will 

appoint as tellers the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. OATES] and the 

gentleman from Missouri [Mr. O'NEILL]. 

The committee divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 95, noes 58. 

So the amendment was adopted. . Mr. BROWNE, 9f Indiana. I offer the amendment which I send to 

the desk. • The Clerk read as follows: 

Insert after the amendment just adopted the following: 

"Provided, That no employe in the Government Printing Office shall have 

employment or pay for more than eight hours for work on any one day." 

Mr. BLAND. I make the point of order that that amendment 

changes existing law. The amep.dment of the gentleman from Miseouri [Mr. O'NEILL] made no change of existing law. 

I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 

BROWNE] in which he stated that he would not support any measure that prohibited employes in the Printing Office or elsewhere working over eight hours if their necessities required it. I indorse that sentiment myself. But the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri 

did not change that, for the eight-hour law provides, as I understand, 

that employes in that department and others, if they agree and make a contract to that effect, to work over eight hours, may do so, or they 

may work by the piece. It seems to me this provision looks to cha.ng-

.Jng that part of the law and preventing the very thing which my friend 

from Indiana a moment ago said he was in favor of. 

l\Ir. BROWNE, of Indiana. I am very much inclined to the opinion 

'that the point of order is well taken. But as I am sure the gentlemen .of the majority who voted for the amendment of the gentleman from 

Missouri intended to have the working people of this country understand that that amendment had some force and did in some way change 

existing law in favor of the wage-worker, and inasmuch as I suppose 

it was sought to have them believe that it was intended to limit the 

number of hours of employes in that office, I thought I would see whether or not the point of order would be interposed to an amendment 

which crystallized the fact that gentlemen wanted some people in this 

country to believe that they were doing this thing. If it be true that 

the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri leaves the law just 

where it was before his amendment was adopted, then we have put our- selves to a-good deal of trouble in occupying the time of the House and 

the country in doing nothing but manufacturing, I suppose, a very small 

amount of exceedingly cheap buncombe. 

The CHAIRMAN. Tlie Chair sustains the point of order. 

The Clerk proceeded to read the portion of the bill headed "Judgments Court of Claims," beginning on page 19. 

Mr. BURNES. There are several pages occupied by these judgments 

of the Court of Claims. The reading is simply the reading of the names of the judgment creditors and the amounts. I ask unanimous consent 

that the Clerk may pass them. 

Mr. McMILLIN. What do the judgments aggregate? 

l\Ir. BURNES. Three hundred and forty-five thousand dollars. 

Mr. McMILLIN. I suggest the propriety of having that portion of 

the bill read. • The Clerk proceeded to read it. 

Mr. SAYERS. I offer the amendment which I send to the desk. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

On page 20, after line 2, strike out the word "dollars" and insert the word 

"cents;" so that it will read: "Patrick H. Dt·ake and \Villiam P. Ward, $4.83.53." 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. GLASS. I ask the gentleman who has charge of the bill what 

is the difference between these claims and the claims on the Private 

Calendar coming from the Court of Claims? Are these all judgment 

claims? 

Mr. SAYERS. These are judgments rendered under the law which 

gives the Court of Claims exclusive jurisdiction and makes its judgments final. 

Mr. SAYERS. I offer the amendment which I send to the desk. 

The Clerk read the amendment, as follows: 

On page 23, after line 11, insert: 

"Frederick Frerich, Sl.O,l30.31, with interest at 5 per cent. from March 10, l.BSG. "George E. Hendee, $3,178.01, with interest at 5 percent. from March 21, 1887." 

And on page 24, in lines 14 and 15, in lieu of the sum proposed, insert "$263,-

595.52." 

The amen~ment was agreed to. 

The Clerk read the following paragraph: For ordnance stores, mounting guns, etc., 1887,$25.50. 

Mr. McADOO. I offer the amendment which I send to the desk. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

.A.m;md by inserting after line 10, page 35: 

"The claim of the Hoboken Land Improvement Company the sum of $15,800." 

Mr. BURNES. I suppose my friend is hardly serious in the presen· 

tation of this claim. 

Mr. McADOO. I am always serious. Does my friend from Mis· so uri oppose a point of order against the amendment? 

Mr. BURNES. No, sir; I shall make no such point. 

Mr. McADOO. I desire to state to the House that this claim bas 

been pending against the Government for many years. It has been 

examined repeatedly by the Treasury Department and allowed. The 

claim is for a steam ferry-boat owned by the Hoboken Land Improvement Company, of Hoboken, N.J., a corporation in my district, which 

was contracted for and chartered by the Government during the war. After she had been chartered by the Government she was put in 

charge of a Government pilot; she was subject entirely to his control; 

she was taken down to Hampton Roads, and .finally, I believe, to Hatteras Inlet. After she reached Norfolk she collided with another vessel 

there and was taken up to Baltimore for repairs. The Government disallowed the time that she was being repaired, as well as the time they 

did not actually use this boat. The collision occurred while she was in charge of the Government pilot, and after she had been repaired the 

Government saw fit to allow her to remain at the Roads without using 

her. Now, the claim on the part of the claimants is, that they are en- titled to pay for every day that that steam-boat was under the control 

of the Government, under the terms of their contract and in charge of 

the Government pilot. I will read from the decision of Judge Maynard, 

of the Treasury Department, who has examined all the facts of this 

case. He concludes his report as follows: . It"' ill be seen from the statement of facts in the foregoing report that on De- cember 20, 1861, the claimant was the owner of the steamer Chancellor Livingston, and that upon that day the Government, by its duly authorized agent, en- tered into an agreement with the claimant, known as a" charter-party of affreightment," whereby the Government immediately took the steamer into its service and employ, and agreed to pay the owner the sum of $200 for each and every day that the steamer was so employed . It is satisfactorily shown that the steamer remained in the employ of the Gov- " ernment, subject to the control and direction of the military authorities, until 

September 29,1862, when she was discharged and returned to her owner. For the time between February 22,1862, and 1\Iarch 21,1862, and between ~pril 

6, 1862, and the time of her discharge the owner has been paid for her serVIce at the charter-party rate; but no payment has been made for the time embraced 

between December 20,1861, and February 21, 1862, and between !1arch 21,1862, 

and April 6,1862, amounting in all to seventy-nine days. Inasmuch as it satisfactorily appears that the steamer was in the Government 

service during all of this time under the charter-party, and that the owner has 

fully performed all the terms and conditions of the agreement on his part, I am unable to reach any other conclusion than that the United States is indebted to 

the owner for the service at the price agreed upon, which is correctly stated 

above. 

I. H. 1\IA YNARD, Oompt1·oller. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, the whole case is this: This steam-boat was d!sabled in an accident after she reached Norfolk, while, as I have srud, 

she. was under the control of the Government pilot. She was delayed 

in movements by storms and heavy seas. She was in the Government 

service at all times; she was subject to the control of the Government 

during the time that she was being repaired; she ~as taken out of the 

' \ 
/ 

... 

1290 CONGRESSIONAL-EECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 16, 

very valuable service of her owners as a ferry-boat between Hoboken 

and New York, lo their great loss; and after she was repaired, if the 

Government saw fit not to use her, or to use her sparingly, or could 

not from her shape and size use her under all conditions, tbat.was their concern. Her owners lost her services, and I do not see w by, in justice 

and in law, the Government of the United States should not pay for 

this boat during the time they had her in use or in possession under 

this solemn written charter-party contract for use and employment. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

:Mr. BUCHANAN. I wiJI take the floor, and yield to my colleague 

if he desires further time. 

Mr. ]!icADOO. I thank my colleague, but I have said all that I 

desire to say until I bear from the committee. 

Mr. BURNES. Mr. Chairman, I desire to very earnestly call the attention of this committee to the principle that is involved in the amendment submitted by the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [ 1\Ir. 

McADOO J. Here is a claim originating in the year 1861, a claim w bicb 

was presented to the Government in the year 1862, which has been before the Congresses of the United States successively, off and on, from 

that time to the present, and has never been considered without meeting rejection. 

The judgment of.Congressand the judgment of the country has been 

uniformly against it. Not only the judgment of the committee, but 

the judgment of the Forty-eighth Congress, and, I believe, of the 

Forty-ninth Congress, and of numerous Congresses preceding, has been 

against this claim. This vessel was chartered at the rate of $200 a 

day, an extraordinary price, to begin with. Then there were seventynine days when, in consequence of unfavorable winds or something 

else, the vessel was not in the service of the Government. The Government of the United States settled with the parties and paid them at 

the rate of $200 per day for every day that the vessel was in service; 

but the claim was made for seventy-nine days when the vessel was not 

in service. Now, will this Committee of the Whole Honse of the 

Fiftieth Congress reverse the judgments of preceding Congresses, reverse the judgments of twenty-seven years of administration of the 

Government, simply in consequence of a recent adjudication by one of 

the accounting officers of the Treasury Department? I need not say 

more than this. If it be the judgment of Congress ye.'tl' after year io 

meet and throttle tbjs claim and then, after innumerable considerations and rejections of it, then, in the exuberance of our good will and 

in the abundance of public money in the Treasury, we are now to reverse aU precedents and now pay it, let ns meet it and do it boldly and 

bravely. 

Let us say that the Departments of this Government 'vere unwilling 

from year to year for twenty-seven years to pay a just debt; let us say 

that every administration of the Government in all these years has 

been unjust and dishonest mth regard to this transaction; let ns say 

that preceding Congresses, meeting nearer to the time when the transaction took place than we meet, knew nothing with regard to the subject on which they acted, and that we now take up this twenty-sevenyear old claim thus investigated, thus adjudicated, thus settled, ami 

gravely put it in an appropriation bill for pa.yment, when there can be no pretense that it is other than a constructive cln.im against the 

Government. When we have paid men or corporations for the time 

actually employed in the service of the Government; when we have 

paid every reasonable claim that they can possibly make; when all 

these tribunaJ.s have decided that the Government has done its duty to 

this Hoboken Land Improvement Company, I do submit in great earnestness to the Committee of the Whole that this amendment should 

be voted down. I hope that we shall not be compelled year after year 

and generation after generation to figat these claims which have not 

received proper sanction from those best qualified to ascertain the facts. 

Mr. McADOO. Mr. Chairman, it is only just to say that this claim 

has ne-ver hitherto been before the House. My distinguished fi·iend 

from 1\Iissouri [Mr. BURNES] says that Congress bas time and again 

r ejected this claim. Sir, the claim finds voice on this floor nowf<;>r the 

fir t time. It has been passed upon by the Treasury officials time a d 

again, and instead of being r~jected has been allowed. Mr. DUNN. Why did they not pay it? 

ltir. BURNES. Let me ~;;ay to my friend from New Jersey [~!r. McADoo] that I am sure he is mistaken. This claim, within my knowled~e, was before the Forty-eighth and Forty-ninth Congresses. 

1\ir. REED. Before the House? 

Mr. BURNES. Before the House once dru:ing those two Congresses. It came here in the Forty-ninth Congress as a. Senate amendment. 

Mr. McADOO. If my friend from Missouri will permit me, I will 

read the record, which I think will set him right. 

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, SECO:t."D CO:.IPTROLLE.R'S OFFICE, 

Washingtc,n, D. 0., November 20,1886. 

This claim was originally examined and adjusted by the Thu·d Auditor August 23, 1884, and a certificate made that there. was due from the United States to the claimant the sum of 515,800, and the certificate and papers in the case were transmitted to the Second Comptroller, who, on September 2, 1881, confirmed 

tho settlement of the Auditor and certified the balance above stated in fa>or of 

the claimant. 

That is the first step. 

T here being n o app~opriation available for the p ayment of the amount so 

certified, the same was reported by the Secretn.ry of the Treasury, under exist- ing laws, to the second session of the Forty-eighth Congress, which adjourned 

without making any appropriation therefor. 

I presume, in other words, the Committee on Appropriations did not 

put the necessary item in an appropriation bill. 

Before again certifying the amount allowedObser-ve the languageBefore again certifying the amount allowed to the first so...ssion of the Fortyninth Congress, t.he Secretary of the Treasury returned the certificate and papers in the case to the Second Comptroller for re-examination under section 191 of 

the Revised Statutes, and the claim was thereupon re-examined by me and the 

former allowance nppro>ed, and the claim was again certified 1;o Congress, in 

Executive Document No. 210,page 22. 

That wus the second step. 

No appropriation was made by the last Congress for its payment, bnt in the 

deficiency bill, page 53, the Secretary of the Treasury was directed to cause the proper accounting officers of the Treasury to re-examine this claimThat was Congressional inaction, not a-ctionand if it should be again certified to Congress the reasons in full for the certifi- cation should be submitted with a detailed sta.tement of the facts upon which 

the claim origina.ted. Pursuant to that direction, the Secretary of the Treasury has again refened 

the claim to the Second Comptroller for r e-examination; and pursuant to such 

reference and the authority thus given, I do hereby certify and report that I 

have re-examined said claim, and again certify the sa me for allowance, with my reasons in full for such certification, and a detailed statement of the fads upon which the claim originated. 

The Third Auditor in his original report upon the claim has presented an ex- haustive review of the facts and tra.usactions out of which the claim arose, and 

being satisfied from a personal examination of the proofs and papers on file with 

the claim that such report contains a full and fair statement of the facts, for tho 

information of Congress I insert herein a copy of anmc, which is as follows. 

Then follows the statement of facts. 

Mr. REED. By whom is that signed? 

l\1r. McADOO. By Mr. Maynard, then Second Comptroller of the 

Treasury. 

1\Ir. REED. And at present Second Assistant Secretary of the Treas- urv? 

~fr . .McADOO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SAYERS. How long a period elapsecl between the time when 

this claim is said to have accrued and the time when it was first presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury? 

Mr. McADOO. So iar as this record shows, I presume from the time 

of tue war untill884. Of that I am not certain. 

llfr. SAYERS. How many years was that? 

Mr. McADOO. I do not know; the gentleman is an arithmetician 

and can make his own computation. 

Mr. SAYERS. l!fore than twenty years. 

Mr. McADOO. Now, sir, here is a fuct which can not be gotten away 

fl'Om--

(Here the hammer fell] 

Mr. BURNES. Mr. Chairman, I find in the report of the Third Auditor this statement: 

The Quartermaster-General states that the records of his office show that the 

services of the steamer terminated on the 29th of September,1862, and that pay- , ment for services fwm December 20, 1861, to February 22, 1862, and from March 

21, 1862, to April 6, 1862, was refused for the -reason that proper certificates cov- ering services for those periods were not presented as required by the charlcr. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. But does not the Comptroller, on a review of all 

the facts, find that the claim is just, and should be paid? The conclusion of the accounting officers of the Treasury is that the claim should 

be paid. 

l!fr. BURNES. I have read this statement from the report of the 

Third Auditor for the purpose of showing that in 1862 the officers of the 

Treasury solemnly adjudicated that every dollar due to this corporation 

had been paid. 

Mr. REED. Where is that statement? Will the gentleman please 

read it? 

Mr. BURNES. I )lave just read it. 

The Quartermaster-General states that the records of his office show that the 

sCI· vices of the steamer terminated on the 29th of Scptember,1862, and that pay- ment· for services from December 20, 1861, to February 22, 1862, and from March 21, 1862, to .April G, 1862, was refused for tho re ason that proper certificates cov- ering se:-vices for those periods were not presented as required by the charter. 

Mr. REED. That does not agree with what the gentleman just said. 

Mr. BURNES. (Reading:) 

The claim presented is for the unpaid time, to wi~, 79 days, as stated by the Quartermaste1~General, amounting to the sum of $15,800. 

Mr. REED. I call the gentleman's attention to the fact thn.t what 

he has read does not agree with his statement a moment ago, that it 

has been solemnly adjudicated by the officers of the T1·easury that the 

claim should not be paid. 

Mr. BURNES. This is a solemn a.djudication--

Mr. REED. What the gentleman has read simply shows that at the 

time referred to certain certificates bad not been presented. 

Mr. BURNES. It is stated that payment ''was refused for the 

reason that proper certificates covering services for those periods were not presented as required by the charter." 

Mr. REED. That merely shows that at the time in question those certificates bad not been produced. 

M:r. BURl\TES. I will say to the gentleman from Maine that this 

decision of the accounting officers of the Treasury in 1862--

' 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1291 

Mr. REED. There is no decision. . 

Mr. BURNES. There must have been a decision, or the claim would 

have been paid. 

They said there were certain things lacking. 

Mr. REED. The present Secretary--

~Ir. BURNES. Never mind about the present Secretary; he can 

take care of himself. The point I wish to call attention to is that this 

corporation thus refused payment of this claim in 1862, seemingly ac- cepted the judgment of the a-ccounting officers of the Treasury and 

made no claim, according to the gentleman from New Jersey, who I 

think is mistaken, until 1884, twenty-two years after this Anilitor's 

decision, or this refusal being made to pay the amount of the claim. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Was the decision of the accounting officers accepted? 

Mr. BURNES. My opinion is, and my underst.anding and belief 

are, they came several times before Congress with their claim, and 

when defeated in Congress they subsequently, in 1884, appealed to the 

accounting officers of the Treasury. 

Mr. REED. Is that in the record you h.:we in your hands? 

Mr. BURNES. It is not. I will say furthermore that, having passed 

on so many of these claims duTing the past year, I m.,'ty be mistaken as 

to some of these things and confuse one case with another; but I do not 

believe I do. 

Mr. REED. On what ground ilid the present A.ssista.nt Secretary of 

the Treasury decide that this claim ought to be paid? 

Mr. BURNES. He has made no such decision in the matter. 

Mr. REED. But the gentleman from New Jersey has just read it. 

:Mr. BURNES. I beg pardon, he read from the Third Comptroller. Mr. REED. No; Third Auditor. 

1\fr. BURNES. No; Third Comptroller. 

Mr. REED. But it is the same one. 

Mr. BURNES. It is the same man, but not the same official. 

Mr. REED. Yes; it is the same man who is now the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. 

1\lr. BURNES. That may be his position now, but his position then was Third Comptroller. 

Mr. REED. What was the decision? 

Mr. BURNES. That the contract covered seventy·nine days--

Mr. REED. That the money wn.s due? . 

Mr. BURNES. It was that something ought to be paid; but these 

certificates have never been furnished to this House. 

[Here the hammer fell. J 

1\ir. McADOO. 1\ir. Chairman, I think that the gentleman from 

Maine [Mr. REED] is right, and that the present Assistant Secretary of 

the Treasury Maynard bas given a decision. In point of fact, when I 

first assumed the floor I read from the decision of :Mr. Maynard, wherein 

he followed in the line of his predece&;ors in the Comptroller's Office, 

and in my judgment that decision was a just one. 

Now, so far as this case is outside of the record I have no personal 

knowledge of it. I have never conversed with any of these claimants 

who live in my district about this matter. I place the case before the 

House upon the facts which are to be found in the official records. 

I presume the silence in reference to this claim was occasioned by 

the factthat the claimants had not presented a case, butassoonasthey 

presented the facts to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 

and they ex..'tmined them, this claim was unhesitatingly allowed. And 

when I take up the Book of Estimates of ln.styen.r, I find the same statement which is in this Book of Estimates, and which was in the book 

for the year before. It is here now, and I ask the House on voting on 

this item to be guided by the official estimates incorporated in this 

book. 

But the gentleman says that $200 a day is a large sum to pay for this 

ferry-boat, and that the owners can afford to lose seventy-nine days 

when in the employ of the Government and not used by it. 

But I call the attention of the House and of the gentleman from 

Missouri to this fact: This was a steam ferry-boat, plying between two 

large and populous cities, between Hoboken and the city of New York. 

She was worth that as a ferry-boat, and especially when we remember 

the rates of caniage for persons and freight were much higher then 

than now. She was worth that to this company, and her lo~s for sev- enty· nine days on this great ferry route between New York City and 

Hoboken was a loss of $200 a day to the New York and Hoboken Improvement Company. 

If this claim is not just, if you can show me that it is not backed by 

testimony, that it is unjust, that it is inequitable, not good in law and 

conscience, I will join with the gentleman in asking the House to reject it; but when the facts bear out the deductions and conc1usions 

of the accounting officers of the Treasury- -

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

Mr. McADOO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. . Has this claim ever been r~ferred to ~ny CO;ffimi~tee of the House; and has it undergone the or- dinary consideratiOn gzven to_such matters by a committee, and been 

reported to the House,? 

Mr. McADOO. I can not answer that question, I will state to the 

gentleman, because I do not know the secrets of committees. 

Mr. BRECKINRID'GE, of Kentucky. Thegentlemanknowswhetherit has been introduced in the ordinary way, as such claims are introduced, and gone to a committee and been reported back in the form of 

a bill, or otherwise. 1\fr. McADOO. - I know that it has gone to a committee of the House, 

but whether it has been examined or not I do not know. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. Has it ever been introduced 

in the form of a bill? 

1\ir. REED. It is introduced by the report which comes to the com- · 

mittee from the Department, and is acted upon in that shape. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. But bas this ever undergone 

an investigation by a committee of the House and been reported back 

one way or the other? 

Mr. McADOO. It has never been introduced as a separate bill that 

I am awara of; but it has been before a committee. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

1\fr. CA.J.'{NON, 1\Ir. Chairman, a wordonlyinreferencetotbismatter. Whether in fact this amendment has or has not merit, I do not 

know. I do know, however, that under the law, and from a long-established practice, ever since the organization of the Treasnry Department, I may say substantially since the foundation of the Government, 

the United States has referred under its laws a certain class of claims, 

covered by contract,, for adjudication to the accounting officers of the 

Treasury. Gentlemen here are familiar with the course of proceeding 

there. First the Auditor examines and approves the contract and 

makes a finding, then it goes to one of the Comptrollers, in this case t o 

the Second Comptroller, and the Comptroller has power to overrule or 

modify or confirm the finding of the Auditor. 

Now, in a great many classes of claims presented heretofore, when 

these officers of the Treasury perform the duties, the judicial duties 

imposed upon them, and have made their :findings, without any further 

ceremony the claims have been paid under existing appropriations. 

But lately, with the repeal of permanent appropriation.s, these claims, 

known as ''audited claims," have been certified to Congress for appropriation, and the rule is that Congress makes the appropriations: 

Why take up the bill which is before us? Here are claims covering 

nearly haJf of the bill certified for appropriations; claims sounding in 

contracts adjudicated by the accounting officers of the Treasury, the 

Auditor and Comptroller, and without further form or ceremony are 

sent to Congress and the appropriations made by this body. 

For instance, I read: 

Interior Department (Indian) claims allowed by the Second Auditor and Second Comptroller. 

And then follows a list of appropriations under that head, and so on 

throughout the bill. The bill is full of them. Now, while I am not 

upon the subcommittee that prepared the bill, and I can not rise here 

in my place and say that this allowance of these audited claims, amounting to many thousands, yes, hundreds of thousands, of dollf\rs is absolutely correct, for I do not know, yet I must take the facts as I find 

them. Life is not long enough for me to examine them all; but the 

judicial authorities of the Treasury under the law, the Auditor and the 

Comptroller, have investigated the matter under the law, and we are 

compelled to rely upon them and the performance of their duty, and 

when we have received their findings we do our duty by appropriating 

the money to pay them. 

I do not say that Congress would be wise in making appropriation.s 

for every audited claim. Perchance there may be fraud here or there, 

or a mistake may be committed; but if fraud is alleged, or a mistake is 

made u~on the part of the j udicial tribunal which has charge oftheinvestigation, then it is our duty to go into a full investigation of the 

matter, and if we can say that there has been gross error or fraud our 

duty would be to refuse the appropriation. For one I can not say this 

touching the pending amendment. It stands on the same footing as 

any claim in the bill that has been audited. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, aslinterrupted 

the gentleman from New Jersey before he got through with his argument, I now take the floor for the purpose of yielding him the time 

allotted to me so that he shall not suffer by that interruption. 

Mr. McADOO. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, and take 

the floor by his courtesy for the purpose of answering the question that 

he has asked me. 

The gentleman from Kentucky asked if this claim had been before 

Congress, and if it had ever received consideration by a committee or 

had been 1·eported upon; in other words, if it had gone to a committee 

of the House for investigation. So far as I know, certainly since the 

beginning of my service in the Forty-eighth Congress, this has never 

been introduced as a separate and independent proposition, and never 

has been before any committee in that shape, so far as my knowledge 

goes, because, as it came from the Treasury Department and was certified in the ordinary way, it was sent direct to the Committee on Ap- propriations. 

Mr. REED. These audited claims never are submitted in the shape 
1292 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 16; 

of original bills. They go to the committee in the reports from the 

Department. . Mr. McADOO. No; they go in the ordinary course of business to 

the Committee on Appropriations. Whether this ha.s been analyzed 

by that committee, before which it was placed, I must leave to the 

determination of the House, because the committee have been asking me questions in reference to it which it would seem, if they had examined the claim, would have been known to themselves. 

Therefore, I take it, with the highest respect for the committee and 

the gentleman from Missouri, that this claim ha.s simply been passed -over by them; that it has been sent up by the Treasury Department 

with the facts and the deductions and the statements and the official 

request to appropriate for it. The committee have simply ignored it. 

If the claim is unjust let us settle it onceforall. Idonotwantthese 

constituents of mine to come here year after year before Congress with 

the official certilication of those officially bound to pass on such matters 

saying it is a just claim, if it is unjust; and I know the gentlemen interested in this matter are claimants who do not want this thing if it 

is an ineqnimble or unconscionable claim on the Treasury. And I have -brought it up to-day that the House may pass upon it, lestthe committee in the future, as in the past, may ignore it. 

.:Mr. WILSON, of Minnesota. Does this claim depend upon legal 

evidence or not? · 

Mr. McADOO. It is based on a contract, a charter-party. The Government solemnly and in writing contracted for this boat at $200 per 

day, put her under Government control and kept her so. What they 

did with her was no matter to the claimant. Mr. WILSON, of l\1innesot..'1. Then by lapse of time the evidence is 

not at all obscured? 

Mr. McADOO. Not at all, because when the claim was made the 

officers) engineers, and pilots gave their testimony, it is in this book, 

that she was absolutely under the control of the officers of the Government every day she was away from the company. 

Mr. BURNES. I movetostrikeontthelastword. I take my friend 

from New Jersey [Mr. McADoo] at his word, and I have as much confidence in him as I have in any man. But I propose to show t.o this 

committee absolutely, unconditionally, and beyond all question, that 

this is au "unconscionable " claim. · 'l'o do this I will read a paragraph from the report of the Third Auditor on the claim in which he concludes by recommending its payment. 

Here is wpat he says: 

By the charter of the steamer which was executed on the 20th day of Decem- ber, 1861, the claimant agreed that she should sail at the first good opportunity 

from the port of New York, or elsewhere, and proceed direct to such ports and 

places as ordered by the quartermaster or duly authorized agent of theW ar De- partment; and the Government was bound to pay during the existence of the 

contract, as hire of the said steamer, the sum of $200 a. day for each and every day she might be employed. 

Now, for sevetity-nine days she was not employed; and this very 

auditing officer declares that by the terms of the charter-party, which 

we have not before us, the owners of the vessel were not to be paid 

except for the days employed. 

Mr. REED. Why, then, did he decide to pay this? 

Mr. BURNES. I do not know. 

Mr. REED. Let us have both sides of the question presented. 

Mr. BURNES. I do not know what made the Auditor decide that 

they should be paid for the whole time. 

A. MEMBER. Read what the Auditor says. 

Mr. BURNES. Life is too short to read the whole. It is stated by 

the Third Auditor that that is the law of the contract. Why he 

reached a different conclusion God knows; I do not. He says the contract was to pay $200 a day for each day she might be employed. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. The word is not ''running," but "employed." 

Mr. BURNES. That is, employed in the business for which she 

was engaged. 

Mr. DUNN. ·I wish to ask the gentleman from Missouri one ques- tion just there. He read from the Auditor's decision in 1862 or the 

quartermaster's decision, that pay for these seventy-nine days was then 

refused because the claimant failed to produce certificates of employment for those seventy-nine days. Now these officers who have made 

this decision twenty-four years later bold that those seventy-nine days ought to be paid for, not because certificates of employment for those 

days have been furnished, but because their construction of the contract is that it would be equitable to pay it. That is the status oftbe case as I understand it. 

1\fr. BURNES. That is true, precisely. 

1\fr. DUNN. Then this claim is the result of an afterthought and 

a construction of a contract invented by somebody twenty-four years 

afterward-! guess by some shrewd attorney. . Mr. BURNES. I suggest to the gentleman from New Jersey if these 

certificates have been presented for the seventy-nine days during w bicb 

the vessel was employed in the service of the Government, that lle 

should show them to the committee. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

1\fr. McADOO. I have no papers in this case, and have no knowledge of it except the facts officially stated here. I take the gentleman 

from Missouri at his word. He recites the contract, the charter-party, 

as saying "for every day she is in the employ of the Government." 

That is the language recited by t)le officer who made this decision and 

after he had examined all the facts; after he bad examined this fact, 

for instance, that every day that that vessel was at Hampton Roads or Hatteras Inlet her engineer reported to the United States authorities 

what were the orders for the day; and following that very word "employed" Mr. ~Iaynard in his decision says this: 

n is satisfactorily shown that the steamer remained in the employThe very word with which the gentleman from Missouri confronts me as against this claimremained in the employ of the GovernmentUnder a charter contract to be employed under the Government of 

the United Statessubject to the control and direction of the military authorities until September 

29,1862, when she was discharged and returned to her owner. 

1\fy friend from Arkansas [Mr. DUNN] makes a suggestion; he says 

the quartermaster decided differently. 

1\fr. BUTTERWORTH. Let me ask yon right there: During those 

seventy-nine days could the captain have moved his vessel away and 

used it as he might please without violation of the charter? . Mr. McADOO. Of course not. Every hour and every minute that 

that vessel was there she was subject to the control of the Government. 

No1v, as to the word ''employed," does my friend from Missouri 

[Mr. BuRNES] mean to rest his case on the kind of employment, on the quantity of employment, or upon· the fact upon which ~fr. :Maynard 

makes his decision, that the vessel was employed at all? It does not 

make any difference as to this case whether she made one trip a day or was working one hour a day or twenty-four hours a day. So long as her owners were deprived of her use, so long as she was subject to the 

control of the United States, so long as she was used at all and kept in 

control of the Government, she was employed in the legal meaning of 

that word as used in this contract, and the Government should pa.y for 

her. 

Mr. BURNES. Will the gentleman allow me a word? 

Mr. McADOO. Certainly. 

Mr. BURNES. This having been an employment by the day, I 

claim that the words used in the report of the Third Auditor mean that the Government was to pay for every day that the vessel was in use and at work. If I hire a man by the day, and he is to have $2 a day for every day that he is employed, that means every day that he 

works. But there is another question that I desire to present to the 

gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. McADoo]. 

1\Ir. BUCHANAN. Let me ask the gentleman from Missouri a 

question. 

Mr. BURNES. Wait a moment. I now .ask the gentleman from 

New Jersey [Mr. McADoo] if he is not aware ofthefact that this vessel was not waiting subject to the orders of the Government during 

these seventy-nine days? I say to him, and if he will read the record he 

will ascertain the fact, that a collision took place between another vessel 

and this boat, which belonged to the owners, whose duty it was to.repair 

it, and that this boat went into the docks and was there undergoing re- pair during a portion, and perhaps the greater portion, of these seventynine days. ~Ir. MILLIKEN. Under whose control was she when the collision 

occurred? 

1\fr. BURNES. She was the vessel of her owners, the property of 

her owners; she was chartered by them, by the day, to perform service 

for the Government-, and it was their business to keep their boat in 

order to do that service, and when a collision took place it was the duty 

of the owners to repair the boat and keep her in condition to render the 

service w bich they bad contracted to render. I ask the gentleman from 

New Jersey if that is not the fact? 

Mr. McADOO. I meet the gentleman in the same spirit of frankness which be manifests. This vessel was under the control of the 

Government officer at the time the collision occurred.. That was the 

very question of fact that the .Treasury Department was dealing with, 

the question of who controlled the vessel's movements, and after elaborate argument and investigation they found that it was the Government pilot who directed the movements of this vessel, and hence they 

fastened the responsibility upon the Government. 

Now, since the gentleman has called my attention to the word "employed," I have examined a little more carefully the statement of tho 

Comptro1ler, and I will read what he says about the terms of the contract: 

By the charter of the steamer, which was executed on the 20th of December, 

1861 the claimant agreed that she should ~1 at the first good opportunity from 

the port of New York or elsewhere, and proceed direct to such ports and places as ordered by the quartermaster or duly authorized agent of the War Depart· 

ment, and the Government was bound to pay duxing the existence of the con- tract as hire ofthe said steamer the sum of $200 a day for each ande'\"ery day she might be employed. 

The charter-party was, in snbsi:.o'lnce, this: That the steamer was to 

be subject to the control of the Go'\"ernment; that she was to leave the 

port of New York at a certain date and to be employed in certain work, 

and during the time that she was away from the control and use of her owners her hire was to be $200 a day. That is the substance of the 

contract, and that is the basis upon which this claim rests. 

Mr. STEW ART: of Vermont. And the right of it. 
\ 

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1293 

Mr. McADOO. And the right of it. 

Mr. BURNES. One word more. I submit that this is an urgent deficiency bill; and as this corporation has elept upon this claim so long, it can not possibly be said that it is a very urgent one. I submit, further, 

that when we pass upon this claim the contracts ought to be before the 

Honse. We do not want to pass, and the law does not authorize us to 

pass, upon a claim like this on the opinion of an Auditor or Comptroller. 

They only certify to us for consideration. The general deficiency bill 

will come up in a few days, and I am so confident that a review of the 

papers and of the facts will show that this is an unworthy claim that 

I am ready to prepare all the facts, to demand the charter-party and 

lay it before the lawyers of this House, and let them and the House 

determine the question upon the general deficiency bill a month hence. 

Mr. McADOO. Will the gentleman allow me at that time to offer 

this amendment to that bill? J 

Mr. BURNES. I will allow the gentleman to offer it, as I did today, and I submit that this claim ought not to be considered in the 

absence of the con tract. 

Mr. McADOO. For myself I would gladly do what the gentleman 

suggests, but in view of the murmurs of dissent around me I do not 

wish to take the responsibility. 

Mr. REED. Since this Auditor made this decision he has been promoted by the Secretary of the Treasury. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BUCHANAN. And very properly promoted. 

The question was taken on the amendment of Mr. McAnoo, and the 

Chair announced that the noes seemed to have it. 

11fr. McADOO demanded a division, but withdrew the demand. 

The amendment was not agreed to. 

The Clerk resumed .and concluded the reading of the bill. 

Mr. SAYERS. I ask unanimous consent that we may return to page 

13 in order to adopt the following amendment: 

After line 21, on page 13, insert: 

"For the examination of surveys heretofore made, $10,000." 

There being no objection, the amendment was considered and adopted. 

Mr. SAYERS. I now move that the committee rise and report the 

bill with the amendments to the House. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The committee accordingly rose; and Mr. HATCH having taken the 

chair as Speaker pro tempore, Mr. BLOUNT reported that the Committee 

of the Whole on the state of the Union, having had under consideration 

House bill6437, had directed him to report the same backwith sundry 

amendments, and to recommend that it be passed as amended. 

Mr. BURNES called the previous question on agreeing to the amendments and on ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. 

The previous question was ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is now upon agreeing to 

the amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole. Is a separate vote demanded on each amendment? 

Mr. BURNES. I call for a separate vote on two amendments-the one striking out the provisions for clerks in offices of _surveyors-general 

and the amendment inserted on motion of the gentleman from St. Louis 

[Mr. O'NEILL]. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. I want to correct the gentleman's ref- erence to me. I am from the State of Missouri. I do not claim to represent solely the city of St. Louis. [Laughter.] 

The SPEAKER pro tempo1'e. If there be no objection, the vot.e will 

be taken in gross on all the amendments, except the two on which a separate vote has been demanded. 

There was no objection, and the remaining amendments were agreed 

to. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. A separate vote has been demanded on the amendmentwhich will be read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

On pages 12 and 13 of the b~ strike out the following: 

''Offices of surveyors-general : "Office of surveyor-general of Arizona: For salaries of clerks in his office, 

$1,000. .. "Office of surveyor-general of California: For salaries of clerks in his office, 

$2,000. 

"Office of surveyor-general of Colorado: For salaries of clerks in his office, 

$1,000. "Office of surveyor-general of Dakota: For salaries of clerks in his office, 

$3 ~ffice of surveyor-general of Louisiana.: For salaries of clerks in his office, 

$1,000. . ''Office of surveyor-general of Montana: For salaries of clerks in his office for 

fiscal year 1888, $1,500. . "Office of surveyor-general of )Tevada: For salaries of clerks in his office, 

$1,000. . " Office of surveyor-general of New 1\Ie::rico : For salaries of clerks in his office 

-~ "Office of surveyor-general of Utah: For salaries of clerks ' in his office, $1,500. 

" Office of surveyor-general of Washington: For salaries of clerks in his office, 

$3,000. 

"Office of the surveyor-general of Wyoming: For salaries of c~erks in his office, 

$1,000. 

" Office of the surveyor-general of Qregon : ·For salaries of cla-ks in his office, 

~." 

Mr. NELSON. Was there not, in connection With that, an amenddent as to the surveyor-general of Minnesota? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is advised that the Clerk 

has read the entire amendment adopted by the Commi~teeof the Whole. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. The amendment just rea-d is 

recommended by the Committee of the Whole, not by the Appropriations Committee. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is an amendment reported from the 

Committee of the Whole. 

The question being taken on agreeing to the amendment, it was not 

agreed to; there being-ayes 34, noes 80. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The next amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded will be read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

After line 9, on page 18, insert the following: "And the Public Printer is hereby directed to rigidly enforce the provisions 

of the eightr-hour law in the department under his charge.'' 

The SPEAKER pro tempo•re (having put the question on agreeing to 

the amendment) said: The noes seem to have it. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missauri. I demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered; there being ayes40, noes72-more 

than one-fifth voting in the affirmative. 

Mr. DUNHAM. As this vote by yeas and nays can be taken in the 

morning just-as well as now, I move that the House adjourn. 

Mr. RANDALL. Oh, no. Mr. DUNHAM. Inasmuch as a session has been ordered for to-night, 

I will modifY my motion so as to take a recess until 8 o'clock this evening. 

Mr. RANDALL. That will bring everybody here to-night on this 

bill. 

:Mr. DUNHAM. The understanding is that this bill can not .come up to-night. 

The SPEAKER p1·o tempore. Debate is not in order. 

M:r. DUNHAM. I desire to ask a parliamentary question. I un- derstand that under the order of business for the evening session this 

bill can not come up. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. By unanimous consent the House 

agreed that when it concluded the business of this day's session, it 

would take a recess until 8 o'clock this evening, the evening session 

being set apart for debate upon a certain bill, no other business to be 

transacted. 

Mr. DUNHAM. Then I make my motion for a recess. Mr. RANDALL. I hope the House will consent to dispose of this 

bill before we take the recess. The question being taken on the motion of Mr. DUNHAM for a recess, 

there were-ayes 84, noes 76. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. No quorum. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point being made tha.t no quorum 

has voted, the Chair will appoint tellers. 

.Mr. REED. This bill, at any rate, will come up as the first busi- ness in the morning. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. I desire to know whether this bill will be pressed 

to-morrow morning to the exclusion of private business. 

Mr. RANDALL. It will be pressed constantly until disposed of. 

Mr. REED. It comes up without any pressing. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Then I withdraw my point. 

Mr. BURNES. This bill provides for at least 10,000 soldiers who 

have bounty and back pay dne them, by the non-payment of which 

they are suffering. 

1\fr. BUCHANAN. I asked whether this bill would be pressed to· morrow morning, and on being assured that it would I withdrew my 

point. 

Mr. LONG. Then, Mr. Speaker, has not the recess already been ordered? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. No time was set for taking the recess; 

the agreement was that when the House should conclude the business 

of the day session it would take a recess until 8 o'clock. 

Mr. LONG. But by the vote just taken the recess has been ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point was made that no quorum 

voted. 

Mr. LONG. That has been withdrawn. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Being assured that this bill will be pressed to- morrow morning I have withdrawn the point of no quorum. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That point being withdrawn, the mo- tion. for a recess is agreed to. 

The House accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 5 minutes p.m.) tocrk are· cess until 8 o'clock p. m . 

EVENING SESSION. 

The House reassembled at 8 o'clock p. m., and was called to order 

by Mr. THmrAs 0. TOWLES, Chief Clerk, who had read the following 

letter: SPEAKER'S RooM, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington, D. 0., February 16, 1888. 

SrR: Ron. CHARLES H. MANSUR, of 1\fissouri, is hel."eby designated to preside as Speaker p1·o temp on; at the session of the House this evening. JOHN G. CARLISLE, Spea1cer. 

Hon. JoHN B. CLARK, . 

Clerk House of Representatives. 

· The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. MANSUR in the chair). The House 

is in session this evening for debate only on bill H. R. 1426, supple-

/ 
1294 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 16, 

mentary to the act of July 1, 1862, entitled "An act to aid in the construction of~ railroad and Ullegmph line from the Missouri River to the 

Pacific Ocean, and to seen re to the Government the lise of the same for 

postal, military, andotherpurposes," andalsooftheactof July2, 1864, 

and other acts amendatory of said first-named act. 

Mr. DOCKERY. Mr. Speaker, I had expected the presence of the 

gentleman ftom New York [Mr. WHITE] this evening, and that he 

would make some definite arrangement in reference to the distribution 

of the time for this debate; but he is not here at this moment, and I 

will yield the floor to my colleague on the committee, the gentleman 

from Mississippi [l\fr. ANDERSON]. 

~fr. ANDERSON, of Mississippi. ~fr. Speaker, the design. of the 

bill under consideration, briefly stated, is to force the land-grant railroads to resume their telegraph functions in connection with and as 

part of their respective railroad systems, and to operUtte their telegraph 

lines without discrimination against the Government or the public, or against any connecting line of telegraph. In other words, to compel 

these favored corporations to obey the fundamental laws of their ex- istence. ' 

The bill is the outgrowth of an investigation had by the Committee 

· on the Post-Office and Post-Roads in the Forty-ninth Congress, puTSuant to a resolution of that body. The authority for the bill is derived 

from certain provisions of the acts of Congress incorporating the several 

Pacific rail ways. Each of these acts, beginning with the Union Pacific 

act of July 1, 1862, provided that the railroad company thereby incorporated should ''lay out, locate, consb·uct, furnish, maintain, and enjoy a continuous railroad and telegraph, with the appurtenances," etc. 

The right of way and authority to use stone, timber, and other materials were granted '' for the construction of said railroad and telegraph 

line;" aml "for the purpose of aiding in the construction of said railroad and telegraph line" large subsidies of public lands and bonds 

weTe granted. These grants were upon theexpressconditions that the 

company should keep '' said railroad and telegraph line in repair and 

use," and "that the whole line of said railroad and branches and telegraph shall be operated and used for all the purposes of communication, travel, and transportation·, so far as the public and Government 

are concerned, as one connected continuous line.'' 

The investigation by the committee disclosed in detail what was alre.:'\dy known to the public in a general way, that the land-grant roads 

had, in one way and another, transferred their telegraphic franchises 

to the Western Union Telegraph Company. This,.I hold, was a violation of their charter obligations. It separated their ·telegraphic functions from their railroad functions and resulted in a monopoly of the 

telegraph business, whereas it was the intention of the acts by which 

they were incorporated to create competing lines of telegraph. They were as much under obligation to maintain and operate a telegraph line 

for the equal benefit of all as a railroad line. In support of this asser- tion I need only to read a provision contained in the acts referred to: 

That the several railroad companies authorized to construct the aforesaid 

roads are hereby required to operate and use said roads and telegraph for all 

purpose!;! of communication, travel, and transportation, so far as the public and 

the Government are concerned, as one continuous line; and, in such operation 

and use, to afford and secure to each equal advantages and facilities as to rates, time, and transportation, without any discrimination of any kind in favor of the 

road or business of any or either of said companies, or adverse to the road or business of any or either of the others; and it shall not be lawful for the pro- - prietors of any line of telegraph authorized by this act, or the act amended by 

this act, to refuse or fail to convey for all persons requiring the transmission of news and messages of like character, on pain of forfeiting to the person injured for each offense the sum of SlOO, and such other damage as he may have 

suffered on account of said refusal or failure, to be sued for and recovered in any court of the United States, or of any State or Territory of competent jurisdiction. · 

The investigation by the committee OTiginated from complaints made 

by the Baltimore and Ohio Telegraph Company of gross discriminations 

against it by the Western Union in the latter's operations of the landgrant wires. 

At that time the Baltimore and Ohio was the sole remaining telegraph line in the country which offered competition with the Western 

Union, all the others having been absoroed by that giant corporation. 

The evidence showed that wherever the Baltimore and Ohio line con- nected with a land-grant wire it cost from 30 to 50 cents more to 

send a dispatch, say, from Washington City to San Francisco, on the 

Baltimore and Ohio line, than it cost to send the same dispatch on the 

Western Union, notwithstanding the r.ates on the Baltimore and Ohio were cheaper than on the Western Union . . And this was because the 

line of the Baltimore and Ohio extended no further westward than 

Omaha, and from that point the dispatch had to be carried on the wires 

ofthe Union Pacific, which wereunderthecontroloftheWestern Union. 

Since the adjournment of the Forty-ninth Congress the Baltimore 

and Ohio, like all the other telegraph lines which dared to cope with 

the Western Union, has succn.mbed to the wealth and diplomacy of 

its all-powerful rival. This is in keeping with the other acts of the 

Western Union in the deals by which it had acquired possession of other 

lines of telegraph, notably in the transactions by which it gained control of the wires of the Union Pacific. In its lawsuit with the Union 

Pacific, which has been referred to in the debate, fearing an adverse 

decision, it forestalled the action of the court by buying up the Union 

Pacific and paying half the cost, and the suit was dismissed by mutual 

agreement. Doubtlessly, in buying up the Baltimore and Ohio, it 

thought to forestall the action of Congress, as had been so successfully 

accomplished with the courts. It remains to be seen whether this estimate of the American Congress is correct or not. 

The minority report, which accompanies the bill, and the debates on _the floor of the House present two questions for our consideration. The 

one relates to the power of Congress under the Constitution to pass this 

bill, in view of the effect it would have upon the alleged vested rights 

of the Western Union; and second, whether there is a demand or public 

necessity for the proposed legislation. The majority report insists that 

Congress has the power, and that there is a public necessity for its ex- ercise. Both propositions are denied by the minority, who argue in 

effect that the bill will commit the Government to harsh and oppressive measures against the Western Union Telegraph Company and the 

land-grant railroad companies, impairing the rights of the one and com- pelling the others to violate their obligations solemnly entered into 

with the Western Union. 

The constitutional and legalquestions at issuehave been ably, and, I 

think, sufficiently argued by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. DoCKERY] and the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. PETERS]. 

They have brought to the attention of the House all the prominent 

features of the committee report and of the evidence accompanying it. 

I do not care to weary the House by following too closely in the same line of discussion. I will therefore, for the present, take for my text 

another and a different report. I refer to the report of the Pacific. 

Railway Comm.lssion, appointed .under the act of Congress approved 

March 3, 1887, '' to investigate the books, accounts, and methods.of the 

railroads which have received aid from the United States, and for other 

purposes. '' 

The limited time allotted me will not admit of my going far into this 

report, whichisrathervoluminous. I think, however, lean cull enough 

from it to convict these subsidized corporations of having willfully and 

systematically violated their obligations to the Government and the 

people, from the time they turned the first shovelful of earth in the 

consrruction of their roads up to the present time. In the fust place, 

let us see what the Government has done for these Pacific Railroads. 

On page 49 I find this statement: 

The following is a general statement of the aid extended to these companies 

by the Unit-ed States: 

Bonds. I Amount. 

-------

Union Paci.fic ....................................................................... 1sz7,236,512 Kansas Pacific . . . . ......... ... . . .. . ........... .... . . . .. ... . . .. .. ... . . ...• .. . .. .. .. 6, 303, 000 

Central Bro.nch Union Pacific............................................. 1, 600,000 

Sioux City and Pacific......................................................... 1, 628, 320 Central Pacific..................................................................... 25, 885,120 Western Pacific.............................. ...................................... 1, 970, 560 

Lruids. 

Union Pacific ......................................... . Kansas Pacific ........................................ . Central Branch Union Pacific ............... . Sioux City and Pacific ............................ . Central Pacific .............................. , .•....... Western Pacific ..................................... . 

Rate 

per 

acre. 

11, 309, 844 $1. 25 

6, 000, ()()() 1. 25 

222, 560 1. 25 43,336 1.25 8, 000, 000 1. 25 

453, 794 1. 25 

$64, 623, 512 

14,137,803 

7,500,000 

278,200 

54,170 

10,000,000 

. 567,243 

Total ... ..•..•. ... .................. .•...•... ...... 26,029,534 •.••••.•.•.••••.•..•....•• 82,536, 918 

Total bonds and lands ............................................................... 97,160, 430 

This statement is a refreshing little exhibit of bonds to the amount 

of more than sixty-four and a half millions of dollars, and public lands 

which,estimatedat $1.25per acre, amounttooverthirty-two and a half 

millions. And still thew hole is not told. The accrued interest on the 

bonds exceeds the principal. Sum up th~ whole and it runs so far up 

into the millions that all actual comprehension of its magnitude is lost 

in mere verbal sound. This enormous extension of the Government's 

credit and this lavish expenditure of the public lands could enly be 

justified, if at all, on grounds of the highest public utility. As to that 

I am content for the purposes of this argument to adopt the language 

of the Wilson committee contained in its report made on the 20th of 

February, 1873: 

Your committee can not donbt that it was the purpose of Oon gress in all this to provide for something more than a. mere gill of so much land and a. loan of so many bonds on the one side, and the construction and equipment of so many miles of railroad and telegraph on the other. 

The United StatilS was not a mere creditor, loaning a. sum of money upon mortgages. The railroad corporation was not a. mere contractor, bound to ~ur 

Dish a specified structure and nothing more. The law created a body politic and corporate, bound as a trustee so to manage this great pnblio franchise and 

endowments that not only the security for the great debt due the United States 

should not be impaired, but so that there should be ample resources to perform 

its great public duties in time of commercial disaster and in time of war. This act was not passed to further the personal interests of the corporators, nor for the advancement of commercial interests, nor for the convenience of the 

general pnblic alone; bnt in addition to these, the interests, present and future, 

of the Government, as such, were to be subserved. A great highway was to be 

created, the use of which for postal, military, a.nd other purposes was to be se-
·. 

. 1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE . 1295 

cur~d to the Government "at all times," but particularly in time of war. · Your committee deem it important to call especial attention to this declared object of this act, to accomplish which object the munificent grantoflands and loan of the Government credit was made. To make such ahighwayandtoha.veitready "at all times," and" particularly in time of war," to meet the demands thatJ;Dight.be made upon it; to be able to withstand the loss of business and other casualties incident to war and stilt to perform for the Government such reasonable serv· ice as might under such circumst.lnces l>e demanded, r equired a. strong, solvent corporation, and when Congress expressed tho object and granted the corporate powers to carry that Dbjectinto execution, and aided the enterprise with subsi- dies of lands and bonds, the corporators in whom these powers were vested and under whose control these subsidies were placed were, in the opinion of your committee, under the highest moral to say nothing of legal or equitable obli· gations to use the utmost degree of good faith toward the Government' in the exercise of the powers and disposition of the subsidies. 

Here, then, we have it from this high authority that the prime object 

of projecting these railroads into the remote regions of theW est was to 

provide the Government with military and postal roads. This makes 

itapparentwhythelanguageoftheincorporatingactsinvariablycouples 

telegraph with railroad functions. 

Telegraph facilities are not less a military necessity than railroads, 

and the importance and usefulness of either are increased by having 

them under one and the same system and management. To accom- plish the great enterprise in view, required" a strong, solvent corporation," and upon that ground alone is it attempted by the Wilson com- mittee to justify the Government in having endowed the Pa~ific railways with such munificent portions of the nation's wealth. In the 

language of the report, they were ''under the highest moral to say 

nothing of legal or equitable obligations to us0othe utmost degree of 

good faith toward the Government in the exercise of the powers and 

disposition of the subsidies.'' 

It was never intended that their properties and franchises should be 

made the basis of pooling and stock-jobbing deals by which to defraud 

the Government, impose on the people, ancl destroy the solvency of the 

corporations themselves, to the end that a few unscrupulous individuals 

might be enriched. The magnitude of the enterprise is not more amaz- ing than the childlike confidence of the Government in delegating to 

these corporations such high powers· and intrusting to them such im- mense wealth without requiring of them any guaranties or bonds for 

the faithful discharge of their duties. Let us see in what light they 

viewed their high moral obligation. I read from page 51: 

The Union Pacitic R a ilroad, from Omaha to Ogden, was constructed under three contracts, known as the" Hoxie contract," the" Ames contract," and the "Da·ds contract." Through the intervention of assignments, made by the hold- ers of these contracts to trustees, and through the intervention of the construc- tion company known as the "Credit Mobilier of America," the profits from t.hese contracts were secured to the officers and promoters of the Union PacificRail- l"oad itself. '£be persons who received these profits de~rmincd the amount thereof by their own votes. The result of these three contracts was as follows: 

Cost to railroad company: · Hoxie contract .............•..................•......................•.................. 512, 974., 416. 24. Ames contract........................................................................... 57,140,103.94 

Davis contract ............................................ :······························ 23,431,768.10 

Total ...... ............ ...... .••............ ......•.............. .................... ... ... 93, 54.6, 287. 28 Cost to contractors: Hoxie contract .............. ........•.............................. frl, 806,183. 33 

Ames contract .. ~ .................................................. '1!l, 285,14.1. 99 

Davis contract ..•.•...............•................................• 15, 629, 633. 62 

50, 720, 958. 9! 

42, 825, 328. 34. To this should be added the amount paid Credit Mobilier on ac- count of 58 miles ........ .................................................................. 1, 104,000.00 

Total profit on construction..................... ..... .. .. .. .. . .... .. .. ....... 43, 929, 328. 34. 

The actual profits realized from the three contracts, after reducing the bonds issued to their cash value and charging the stock issued at 30 cents on the dol- lar, were $23,366,319.81. These profits are stated as follows: 

Ames and Da'ltis contracts. Bonds (cash value) ........................................................................... $11,310,900.00 

$24,000,000 stock, at 30 ..................................................... ········~·· ...... 7, 200,000. 00 Cash....................................... .................. ....................................... 2, 346, 000. 00 

20, 856, 900. 00 

The profits on the Hoxie contract, as before stated, were $6,272,232. 'i1. 

Treating all of this as stock. except $1,125,000of first-mortgage bond.~, divided as hereinafter stated, the profits, cash values, on this would be as follows : 

11,125,000 first mortgage bonds, at 85... ....••......•.... ....... ... .. . ...... ......... $965, 250. 00 65,147,232.71 stock, at 30........................... .................. ....................... 1, 544,169.81 

Total cash profit ....................................................................... 23, 366, 319. 81 

The benefits arising from the Hoxie contract were secured by an assignment to Thomas C. Durant, Corn eli us S. Bushnell, Charles A. Lam bard, and H. S. Mc- Comb (all directors of the Union Pacific Railroad Company), and Gray. The profits arising from the Ames contract were secured to the stockholde1·s of the Credit Mobilier, and the contrac~ itself was assigned, in trust, to Thomas C. Durant, Oliver Ames, John B. Alley, Sidney Dillon, Cornelius S. Bushnell, 

Henry S.l\IcComb, and Benjamin E. Bates, all of whom were stockholders in the Union Pacific Railroad Company. · 

The profits arising from the Davis contract were secured to the Credit Mobil- fer stockholders by an assi2'nment to the same trustees. 

These officers and promoters of the Union Pacific, these trustees, whose 

sense of moral obligation had commanded the supreme confidence of 

the Government, manifested . their appreciation of the compliment by 

accepting the trust with a still keener appreciation of the grand oppoftunity it afforded for spoils and plunder. By that ingenious contriv- ance familiar to history as the Credit M:obilier, they secured to themselves out of the construction ofthe road net cru:~hprofitstoan amount 

exceeding twenty-three millions of dollars. 

To tha't extent they impaired the solvency of the Union Pacific, and 

lessened its capacity for paying its debt to the Government. But that sum does not measure the damage done to the innocent stockholders 

of the company itself. It necessitated the issuance of many millions 

more of the company's stock and bonds which cotild not be floated ex- cept at a heavy discount. If the Credit :Mobilier were but a single 

and isolated act of bad faith, we might let the many years which have 

intervened throw a mantle of silence over it. But we are not permitted to do so, in the light of recent developments, which show that that 

scheme was only the beginning of a series of like transa~tions which 

have followed it, and for which it has served as an example. . The directors of the Union Pacific who were involved in the Credit 

Mobilier, after being exposed by the investigation of the Wilson com- mi~tee in 1873, were sued by the United States to make them disgorge 

their ill-gotten gains. They demurred to the complaint on the ground 

that the United States had disclosed no cause of action; that the money 

which-they had stolen was not the property of the Unit-aU States, but was the property of the Union Pacific Company . . The demurrer was sustained, and on appeal the decision was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court. 

After this it seems to have become a favorite plan to build railroads 

by the Credit Mobilier method. . When a railroad was to be built cer- tain men, whose names have become famous in railroad circles, would 

buy a controlling interest in the stock, and at the same time organize 

themselves into a "construction company," put in a bid for the contra-ct for building the road, then, as directors of t.he road, vote to accept 

their own bid. I notice in the report of the.Pacific Railway Commission such names as the ''Construction Finance Company,'' ''The 'Vest- ern Development Company," "The Pacific Improvement Company," 

and other names equally as high-sounding. I will only take time to 

read from the reporb of the Commission the latest scheme of the kind 

mentio!ted. On page 79 I find the following: 

The Pacific Improvement Company was subsequently formed for the same general purpose. Its stock: was 55,000,000. The ownership was in Stanford, Hun- tington, Hopkins, and Crocker. No money was paid for the stock of any of these companies, theavailablefunds needed by the company being in the form of direct loans of money or credit by the stockholders to the respective companies. The contract between the Central Pacific Railroad Company and the Pacific Improve- ment Company for the construction of the California and Oregon Railroad be- tween Delta and the State line was made in October, 1886. This contract was awarded to the Pacific Improvement Company by. the votes of Stanford, Hun- tington, Hopkins, ·and Crocker. The consideration for the construction of these 103 miles of railroad and of the equipment., as stated in the contract, was 80,000 shares of the stock of the Cen- tral Pacific Railwad Company, $B,OOO,OOO, and $4,500,000 of the bonds of the Cen- tral Pacific Railroad Company, part of which bonds were issued under a mort- gage of the California and Oregon Railroad and part issued under a mortgage of the Central Pacific Railroad Company, dated October 1, 1886. The stock was to be delivered on the execution of the contract, the bonds as the work pro- gressed. The stock was accordingly delivered in October,1886. All ofthe bonds have been deli>ered except $317,000. (See evidence of Douty, volume 5, page 2703.) The amount reserved is sufficient to cover the cost of the completion of the contract. (Same page.) The average market value of the Central Pacific stock, taken from the actual quotations of the New York Stock Exchange, during the month of October, 1886, was $48. At this rate, the $8,000,000 stock was worth, in cash, $3,84.0,000. The bonds paid to the Pacific Improvement Company were worth par. They were accepted by the Central Pacific Railroad Company from the Pacific Improve· ment Company in payment of a loan due bythem to the Central Pacific sinking fund. (See evidence of Stanford, volume 5, page 2666.) 

The actual cash value then paid to the Pacific Improvement Company for the construction from Delta to the St-ate line, and for the equipment, wasIn stock .................................. ... ............................................................. $3, 840, 000 In bonds ...... ........................................................................................... 4, 500,000 

Total. ..................................•..... ._ ......... ................................... - ...... 8,340,000 

The books of the Pacific Improvement Company, showing the actual cost of this construction and of the equipment, were examined by Mr. Stevens, and this cost, exclusive of the unfinished work, which l\Ir. Douty testified would not exceed the $317,000 of bonds which had been retained, was $3,138,609.32. (See evidence of Stevens, volume 6, page 3528.) The accuracy of the conclusions reached by :Mr. Stevens was conceded by the counsel for the Cent~ Pacifi.c road. (See Haymond's statement, volume 6, page 3534.) In the statement of cost of construction contained in the table at page 3531 the retained $317,000 bonds have been added to the above figure, making the total cost of'fhe completed road and equipment $'3,505,609.32. As compensation /- for this expenditure Stanford, Huntington, and Crocker have voted to them- selves stock and bonds of the value, as above stated, of $8,340,000. And this extraordinary transaction is being consummated to-day, in the face of this in· vestigation and in violation of every duty which these directors owe to the stockholders of that company and to the Government as its chief creditor. 

This needs no further comment. The slight notice that it has attracted from the press and the public, as compared with the storm of 

popular indignation which arose on the disclosures of the Credit Mobi- lier, is a commentary on the times in which we live. I trust that this 

silence is but an indication of confidence in the determination of the 

Government to right these wrongs, which will not be disappointed. 

Mr. PETERS. If the gentleman from Mississjppi will allow me, I 

would like to put in a word there abont a fact which has come to my 

knowledge since I spoke the other day; that is, as to the ?<>St of ~he 

original telegraph line. The PacificTele~aph Companybml~ the line 

from Brownsville, Nebr., to Salt Lake C1ty, Utah, 1,100 miles; and 

the entire cost of that line was $147,000, according to the evidence of 

Charles U. Stebbins, who was the contractor who built it; and that 

line, by the management and financiering of two Western Union directors, wa.s capitalized at a million of dollars. and this million of dollars 

of Pacific Telegraph stock was afterward taken into the Western Union 
1296 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 16, 

Telegraph Company by issuing therefor two millions of dollars of West- ern Union Telegraph stock. 

The basis, therefore, of that two million of Western Union stock was the $147,000 which was ihe actual cost of construction of this Pacific 

Telegraph. 

Mr. ANDERSON, of ltfissU?sippi. I am obliged to the gentleman for 

supplementing my remarks with that valuable statement. 

Naw, sir, 88 a further illustration of the way in which these corporations have performed their obligations, I will read an extract from paae 

107ofthisreport: o 

By the second section of the o.ct of July 2, 1864, the Union Pacific Railroad Com- pany was required to make assessments upon its stockholders of not less than S5 per share, and a~ intervals not exceeding six months from and after the pas- sage of the act, until the par value of all the shares subscribed should be fully 

paid. Money only was to be received for any such assessment or as equivale nt for any portion of the capital stock authorized. ' The <;ommis;Sion reports th.at this oblig9:tion has not been kept by any of the bond-aided railroad compames. The capital stock of the Union Pacific Railway 

~~n~.Ph~~Yb~~: r~~~~~ddi~~~~,86S 500. On this amount not more than 16 per 

The stock of the Kansas Pacific Railroad Company before consolidation was 89,687,900. Of this amount no part was issued for cash. . The capital stock of the Western Pacific Railroad Company before consolida-

;~~~hl::~~~,OOO. Not more than $200,000 was received by the said company 

• The capital stock ?f the Central Pacific Railroad Company now outstanding JS $68,000,~. Of this amount not more than $7,000,000 was issued for cash. The capital sto.ck of the 5Jentra.l Bran~h U~ion Pacific Railroad Company was $1,000,000, on which $392,2?..a.53 was received m cash. 

I think enough hn.s been said to show that the financial and :fiduciary 

relations of the land-grapt companies to the Government have been 

characterized by wanton and reckless bad faith on the part of the cor- porations and by wonderful forbearance on the part of the Government. 

In this connection, however, I want to read an account of a little transactioh and call the attention of the House to it-a little episode in which son:e prominent railroacl men figured in more respects than one, but in w hlCh Jay Gould was the hero by long odds. It will be borne in mind 

that Mr. Jay Gould is a gentleman who is appealing to Congress to re- spect his alleged vested rights in the telegraphic franchises granted by 

the Government to the Union Pacific Railroad. 

I will ask the Clerk to read the marked passage on page 58. 

Mr. WHITE, of New York. Will the gentleman from Mississippi 

please favor us with his authority for the statement that Mr. Gould is 

appealing to Congress in behalf of his vested rights· in the Western 

Union? 

~r. ANDERSON, of M_ississipp~. On behalf of the telegraphic franchises of the Weste:m Umon acqmred from the Union Pacific. 

M:. WHITE, of New York. I desire the gentleman to give his au- thonty for that statement as I have seen nothing of the kind in the 

record, and I desire his authority for making the statement that we may 

be prepared to answer it. 

Mr. ANDERSON, of Mississippi. My authority is the gentleman 

. from New York (l\fr. WHITE] himself. His argument the other day was based a.lmost upon the sole ground that the Western Union Telegraph Company, which is nothing more nor less than Jay Gould had 

acquired vested rights in the telegraphic franchises of the Union P~dfic Railroad Company by virtue of the contract entered into between the 

two companies. 

Mr. WHITE, of New York. I move one step further into the transaction; and I want to know where it appears in the record that Jay 

Gould and the Western Union Telegraph Company are substantially 

one and the same. Mr. ANDERSON, of Mississippi. .If the gentleman will delay a 

moment I will come to that. 

Mr. WHITE, of New York. I will delay. 

Mr. ANDERSON, of Mississippi. What I have asked the Clerk to 

read t·efers to the consolidation between the three land-grant railroads 

mentioned just above the marked passage. I ask the Clerk to call them 

off. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

The Union Pacific, the Kansas Pacific, and the Denver Pacific. 

Mr. WHITE, of New York. Where is the Clerk reading? 

Mr. ANDERSON, of Mississippi. From page 58 of the Report of 

the United States Pacific Railway Commission. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

The scheme of a consolidation between these three companies appel\l'S to have had its inception in the spring and summer of 1879. In October of that year ~ess~s. Gould, Sage, Dexter, Atkins, F. L. Ames, and Baker addressed a commu- mca~lon to Solon ;Humphreys and Grenville M. Dodge, requesting them to in- vestigate the three railroads and to report what in their judgment would be a fair plan for consolidation. Messrs. Ames, Dexter, Atkins, andBakerresided at Boston. Much discussion appears to have occurred during the month of October between these gentlemen and Messrs. Gould, Dillon, and Sage, relating to the subject of consolidation. 

They all favored consolidation, but differed as to the terms. (See evidence of F. L. Ames, volume 2, page 661; Dexter, volume 2, pages 702 to 704; Atkins, vol-

:tt3.ea~~~:) 755; Baker, volume 2, page 739; Oliver Ames, volume 2, pages 612, 

Early in November negotiations for a consolidation came to an abrupt end. The Boston gentlemen above referred to declined to accept a consolidation on the terms demanded by 1\Ir. Gould. The rupture appears to have been a sharp and angry one. (See evt<lence of Dexter, volume 2, pages 703, 704; Oliver Ames, ~olume 2, page 808.) . Mr. Gould immediately went to Kansas, and in an incredibly short space of tune effected a purchase of the following railways: On the 13th of Novem- be.r, 1879, aJ!t>arently without extensive negotiation or deliberation, he bought 

from ~mmodore C.~- Garri~on the MissouriPaciflc_Railroad, extending from St. LoUIS to Kansas (hty, !1- diStance of about 300 miles, and paid therefor the s!im of$3,000,000. (S~e eVIdence of Gould, volume 1, page 477; volume 2, page 5-9.) A~ th~ same t.tme, and as "'Jlart of the same transaction, he purchased a controll.mg J.I?-terest m the Kansas Central, a narrow-gauge road about 166 miles lo~g, extending from L.eavenworth, Kans., on the Missouri River, about 25 miles north of Kansas Ctty, and extending thence westerly parallel with the Kansas ~aci:fic and ~tan average distance of 30 miles therefrom. He paid for a. controllmg mterest m the stock and bonds of this road $479,000. I On and shortl~ af~er the 7th day of November, 1879, he purchased from Oliver Ames a con~rollmg !nter~t, represented by 7,616 shares of stock, of the Central Branch Umon Pacific Railroad Company, extending from Atchison about 50 miles north of the Kansas Paci.fic, and thence westerly and parallel with the Kansas Pacific, a distance of 100 miles. The average rate paid by 1\Ir. Gould for the stock of the Central Branch Union Pacific was $238 per share. (See evidence of Gould, volume 1, page 524; Oliver 

Ames, volume 2, page 807 to 812.) The stock of that company had sold within ~year of ~his transacti?n as lo~. as 10 cents on the dollar, and there was noth- mg _at all m the ~anCial conditiOn of the company which ju.c;tified, as a mere busmess transactiOn, the payment of any sum approximating in any deooree the nmount paid by 1\Ir. Gould. (See evidence of Nichols, volume 7, page fl14; see · I'eport of Perrenoud, volume 8.) The objectofthesepurchases by Mr. Gould is explained by him with great clear- ness i~ his ?Wll evidence. He. states that h_e had formed a plan of constructing a Pacific railway from St. Louis to the Pacific Ocean by extending the Kansas Pacific through the Loveland Pass to Salt Lake City and thence to San Fran- cisco by the Central Pacific. (See evidence of Gould, volume 1, page 505.) At page 509, when asked how g reat an injury the extension of the Missouri Pacific according to his views, would have been to the Union Pacific he answers "It 

would have destroyed it." ' ' His purposes were immediately made public, and the effect on the Boston di- rect<lrs, were it not for the magnitude of the interests involved, would appear al~o t ludicro_us. They appear to have been, one and all, terror-s.tricken. (See evide nce of Ohver Amest volume 2, page 808; Dexter, volume 2, page 704; Baker, 

volume 2, page 740.) Til ere followed a. series of interviews between these gentlemen and Mr. Gould 

which finally culminated in an agreement which led to the consolidation of th~ compa.nies, effected at ~he house of Mr. G~uld on t~~ evening of January 14., 1880. The witnesses alldescnbe Mr. Gould as bemgconCiha.tory, persuasive and much more reasonable than during the prior negotiations. Persistent eff~rts on the part of the examiners failed to disclose in what respect, if in any, he modified the terms. -

Mr. ANDERSON, of Mississippi. Here we find that ltfr. Gould, the man who now owns the Western Union Telegraph Company, and the man to be affected by the proposed act, admitting that his purchase of 

the railroads mentioned was for the purpose of destroying the Union 

Pacific Railroad, which had been created by the Government as a military and postal road, to subserve the highest ends and interests of the 

Government. We have it from his own lips that be was bent upon de· 

stroying a railroa-d to which had been intrusted more than $27,000,000 

of the people's money, and the earnings of which road afforded the sole 

chance of the Government to get the money back. And yet he is the 

Iruln-I repeat it notwithstanding the objections raised by the gentle- man from New York [Mr. WHITE]-who is appealing to Congress 

while considering this bill, to respect his vested rights. What respect 

had he for the vested rights of the people in the Union Pacific when he 

went into that scheme to compel the road to accede to his terms or to 

go under? 

Before laying aside the report of the Pacific Railway Commission I 

will call attention to another misdeed of the land-grant roads, more 

iniquitous than any to which I have yet referred. It will be remem· 

bered that these roads are solemnly prohibited by their charters from 

discriminating against the public. They have violated this obligation 

not less grossly than their obligations to the Government. I have not 

the time to relate the many acts of this kind which are detn.iled in 

the report. The Clerk will please read the marked passages on page 182. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

When theCommission visited the communities which were served by the Union Pacific Railway Company there was a. general complaint of high rates. But the greater complaint made by shippers was against discriminating rates. 1f rates were uniform, certain, and permanent, a shipper knew that skill, abil- ity, and enterprise would help him on. But when the question became one of favor with the railroad manager then capital was paralyzed. Farmers complained (see p. 1527) that they could not get rates for shipment to Chicago within 5 or 8 cents of the figure which the elevator men obtained. The firm of Himebaugh & Merriam, of Omaha, owns thirty-two elevators 

along the Union Pacific system; and when the farmers at :1\Iarysville, Ka.ns., tried to ship directly to the market they found they could not comt>ete with that firm. '£heir complaint was that three-fifths of the product of their labor went to the railroad company, one-fifth to interest, and one-fifth was left for subsistence. .At Marysville, Kans., it was testified (see page 1540) that at one time the Union Pacific Company reduced its rates on corn from 32 cents to 27 cents per 100 pounds, to enable farmers to ship to market; but the rate went back again to 32 cents as soon as the market justified it. It, therefore, mattered little to the farmer whether his crop was large or small. 1f large, the company appropriated a considerable proportion of it in high rates; if small, it only allowed him enough to live on. The following is a list of the favored shippers who had the greatest preferences: 

Name. Article. 

Omaha. and Grant Smelting and Refining Company................ Ore and bullion. 

Continental Oil Company (Standard) : ................................... } 0'1 Consolidated Tank Line Company (Standard)....................... 1 • 

1il.imebaugh & Merriam, Omaha ............................................. } Grain. 

Union Elevator Company, Council Bluffs ............................. . Union Stock Yards Company ~.A. Paxton) ........................... Cattle. 

Utah Forwarding Company (Lyman & Wallace).................... Salt and coke. Adams & Keisel ............... ... ............................................... ....... Sa.lt . l\Ia!shall C_onsoli?ated Coal Mining Company ...................... } Coal. Umon Pacific Railroad Company, coal department .............. . 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1297 

The O!Daha. S:fid Grant S~elting and Refining Company received rebates of $57~,000 m a pen?d of three years, and, in addition, was allowed free switching at 1ts yards, whiCh w:a.s ~orth $15,000 a. year, while other smelting companies were force~ to pay s:w1tchmg charges. Afnong the stockholders in this company were Mr. S1dney Dillon and 1\.fr. Freder1ck L. Ames directors of the Union Pa- cific Railroad Company. ' When the president of the Union Pacific Railway Company was asked to ex- plain why it had disc!iminated in favor of the Omaha. a.nd Grant Works, he said 

that the other roads mto Denver were backing other smeltinoo establishments 

and. that the Union Pacific therefore backed the Omaha. a;_d Grant 'Vork~ agamst all other smel~ers in tb~t .system. He admi~ed that it was a. great evil 

(see p.1997), and that 1t was a v1c1ousway ofconductmgbusiness but confessed 

his utter inability to remedy the evil. ' 

:M:r. ANDERSON, of l'IIississippi. These are but a sample of the 

many acts of like nature recited in the report. There is nothing the 

magnates of. the Paciiic ra:ilways believe in if not monopoly. They 

have ceutrallzed the most Important industries along the line of their 

roads into the hands of a few, t."tking care to come in themselves for a share of the profits. The iron and coal mines, the smelt.ing works the 

sal.t works, the quar~ies, the elevators, the stock-yards are allowed to ex1s~ only under th1s arrangement, and the farmer must be content 

with one-fifth of his labor. Is it, then, to be wondered at that we find 

their telegraphic franchises concentrated into the hands of one com- pany, the Western Union? 

Hr. Speaker, the bill makes no reference to the Western Union Telegraph Company, nor is it the intention to injure that corporation. It 

does not devolve on us to consider what effect the bill may have in that 

respect. We are dealing with the land-grant and bond-aided railroads. 

We. cla~m that the 'contracts by which they surrendered the control of 

theu w1res to the Western Union are void and vicious so far as the 

Government and the public are concerned. The bill merely ignores 

these contracts, or nullifies them, if you please, by amending the charters of the Pacific roads. The power to amend is reserved to Conaress 

by an act passed before any of these roads were built. c. 

The debate so far has had reference particularly to the contract between the Western Union and the Union Paciiic, which has been taken as a sample of all the contracts between the Western Union and the ·land-grant roads. This contract has been spoken of as an assi{Ulment 

by the Union P~ciiic Railroad Companyofits telegraphic franchises to 

the Western Uruon. I do not so construe it. In my opinion the con- tract creates a partnership, pure and simple. 

What kind of a p~utnership is it? In the first place I read from the 

contract to show that up to the time that it was entered into on the 1st 

day of July, 1881, the Union Pacific Railroad Company was'exercising 

its tE(legraphic functions. 

1\Ir. WHITE, of New York. .And is doing so now. 1\Ir. ANDERSON, of Mississippi. Yes, sir; in a certain way-in a 

way, how~ver, to ev~de its charter obligations. It is obvious, from all 

th.e OJ?eratio?s o.f this company, that so far from carrying out in good 

flllth Its obligatiO~ to the Government and the public, its whole purpose has been to tnm, so as to appear to be complying with them while 

at the same time flagrantly violating them. · ' 

I will now read the portion of the contract to which I refer. 

After the usual whereases is the following: 

. Now, therefore, for ~he J?u,rpose of providing telegraphic fadlities for the par- tu~s hereto, and of ma~ntamu:w and operating the lines of telegraph along the 

railway company's rmlroads m the most economical manner in the interest of 

both parties, und for the purpose of fulfilling the obligations of the railway com- pany to t~e Gov~rnment.of the United States and the public in respect to the 

telegraphic serVIce l'Cqmred by the act of Cono-ress of J.uly 1 1862 and the ame~dments_ thereto, and .in consideration of t.h~ covenants an'd ag;eements 

herem contamed, the parties hereto have mutually agreed as follows. 

H~re is a distinct ~cknowledgment by both of the high contracting 

parties, that at the time the contract was entered into to wit July 1 

1881, the Union Pacific was under obligations to the Govern~ent and 

the public in respect to telegraphic service. But how unfounded is 

the P!etense that the contract was entered into for the purpose of 

fu~hng these obligations. ~here is nothing in the whole range of 

testmwny taken by the committee which shows, or tendstoshow that ~he Union Pacific ~as unable to fulfill its own obligations._ The truth lS the Western Umon had already got control of the wires of all the 

other land-grant roads, and the Union Pacific was the only one left 

which ~~ered competition, and th~ contract was made to destroy this 

r..ompehtwn.. I want ~o better eVIdence than the testimony of Nor-vin 

Green, who IS t~e president of the Western Union, to establish what I 

say. I quote hlS language from the report of the committee: 

The Pacifi~ r a ilroads. ~uilt t?eir own telegraph lines, and for a long time op- erated them ~n competitiOn w~t!J. the Western Union Telegraph Company. They 

connect?d With every oppositiOn that came along, and fouo-bt us during the 

whole time np to 1881. "' 

And the battle was ended by negotiations which resulted in the sur- render of the Union Pacific for a consideration. The contract contains 

the terms of capitulation. It starts out with a declaration of honest 

purposes as regards the Government and the public but this is followed 

and falsilied by a series of provisions which sedure to the Western 

Uni?n the t~legraphic franchises of the Union Pacific, guarded by stipulati?ns which effect.ually prevent competition. In the few moments of 

my time left me I can only briefly state the substance of those clauses 

of the contract to which I wish to call the attention of the House. 

XIX-82 

By item third of the contract the "railway company assures to the telegraph companytheexclusiverightof way over its lands and bridges, and 

binds itself not to transport men or material for any competing line of 

telegraph, except at the railroad's regular locaJ charges, and not to furnish to any such competing line any facilities which the railway company may lawfully withhold, nor to stop its trains, nor distribute ma- terial therefor at any other than regular stations. 

Item four provides that no employe of the company shall be employed 

by or have any connection with any other telegraph company than the 

Western Union, and that the latter shall have the exclusive right to the 

occupancy of, and connection with, the railroad company's depots, for 

commercial and public telegraph purposes as a.guinst any other telegraph company. By another provision ofthe contract the railroad com- pany is permitted to retain from one to three wires to be used exclusively for railroad business, and the rai.lroad is pledged not to transmit 

any message for any person or any officer of the Government unless 

expressly required to do so by the person t-endering the message. 

Theevidenceshowsthat the railroad have but few, if any, up-town tel-

~graph offices at Omah~, Kansas City, Cheyenne, and other towns along 

Its line, and that the s1gn-boards of the Western Union are posted at all 

the depots and station-houses, w bile the railroad has no such sign-boards. 

How shallow, then, is the pretense that the Union Pacific is still carrying on its telegraphic functions for the use of the Government and the 

public. 

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. GUENTHER. Mr. Speaker, I have voted in the Committee of 

the Post-Office and Post-Roads, of which I have the honor of being a member, in favor of this bill, although I should have preferred a bill 

to place the whole telegraph business of the country under Government 

regulation, which in my opinion would accomplish more good to the 

whole people of the United Stn.tes and remedy all the evils that this 

bill seeks to accomplish much more effectually, and which would not 

interfere with any of the alleged vested rights about which the gentle- man from New York [Mr. WHITE] and the minority report of the committee speak. But as the committee had only to:deal with those railroads and telegraph lines which had received subsidies from the General 

Government, the committee was not competent to consider the greater 

and more important subject of regulating the whole tele-graph service 

of the 'iOuntry. 

Therefore, when the alt-ernative presented itself either to adopt or rejecl the bill under consideration, I voted in favor of it, believing that 

the. effect ?f this legislation would tend to bring about competition, 

wh1ch, owmg tothecontractsentered into by the Paciiic roads and the 

Western Union Telegraph Company, whereby this company acquired an absolute monopoly, bas been impossible. 

If this bill becomes law, equal facilities will be afforded to every telegraph company, and competition, heretofore impossible, may at least 

result. In any event I consider it good and sound policy to require 

railroad, telegraph, and all other companies, created and aided by the 

Government, to live up to the stipulations and requirements of their 

charter. 

As to the fine and complicated principles of law and the constitutional 

questions }nvolved, I do not pretend to address myself. I am not a lawyer, much less a constitutional lawyer, an.d I trust you will take my 

word for it as freely as I accept that of the gentlemen who say they are. [Laughter and applause.] 

I believe, however, that if this proposed leaislation should be in violation of the Constitutionand become law, th~ Pacific railroads and the 

Western Union Telegraph Company would lose no time to take the 

question before the courts and have it passed upon by the highest judicial tribunals. • 

I have observed during this debate, as well as in many others involving the Constitution, that gentlemen of acknowledged legal ability 

and .high standing as jurists differ quite largely. Row, then, is it possibl~ for a layman like myself to arrive at aR intelligent and sound 

conclusiOn? It is, however, a fixed principle with me in cases like 

this_, where the rights of the .people of this country a;e involved as agamst powerful and subsidized corporations, to give the benefit of the, doubt to the people. If I do err, I want to err on the side of justice • 

to the people. If I do lean, to lean toward them, not toward the power 

of aggregate~ ca~ital, knowing that if the slightest injustice is done 

the co~rts will give adequate,, I think I may say even technical, legal 

remedies to powerful corporatiOns, which to my mind at least was am- ply illustrated in the recent decision of Justice Field concerning tho 

power of the Pacific Railroad Investigating Commission. 

But n? matter what the courts may deem their duty, let us, the representatives of the people of the United States, without distinction of 

P.arty, justify the confidence reposed in us by them by defending their 

nghts and prerogatives, and by our votes uphold their dignity and their 

sovereignty, their supremacy, and d~clare in a manner that can not be 

misunderstood, that the people of the United States are mightier than 

the most gigantic corporation i more powerful even than a combination 

of all of them, and that all the tremendous influence their unlimited 

weal.th can procure, all the legal talent they can command, all the p'ersua-siVe eloquence they employ, all the sophistry they so adroitly use, 
1298 CONGRESS! ON .AL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 16, 

count for nothing when arrayed against the law of the land, against the 

people, the common people of this great Republic. [Loud applause.] 

Mr. LIND. Mr .. Speaker, when the bill was reported by the committee I did not intend to discuss the measure on the floor of the House. It 

has occurred to me, however, since it was brought up for discussion, that 

inasmuch as the principal objection made to the bill is not on the question 

of expediency, but rather because it is alleged to violate constitutional 

rights, that I would occupy the time of the House sufficiently long to 

state my reasons why I think there is absolutely no constitutional question involved in the consideration of this bill. If there is a constitutional question it of course merits the most careful consideration. But, 

as stated, I think I am justified in saying that there is no such question 

involved, and to demonstrate this I will cite authorities further on. 

Upon the question of expediency, which is always a question of prime 

importance for legislative bodies to consider, I think there is room for 

difference of opinion. I do not think, if this bill becomes a law, that 

it will settle the question of telegraphic communication to the satisfaction of the people of the country, for I do not believe that the solution of the problem lies in the direction of creating competing lines, 

and this for the simple reason that duplicating your telegraph lines 

and multiplying the offices, and thereby increasing the employes to be 

maintained on those lines and the officers necessary, is not going to 

cheapen the telegraphic service in the ap;gregate. Hence I believe 

that the telegraph business, being a natural monopoly-you can make 

nothing else out of it-and· being only another branch of the mail-another method of transmitting intelligence and communications between 

the people-should be entirely under the contro1 of the Government itr 

self. And in my opinion a postal telegraph, owned and operated by 

the Government, is therefore the only solution of the piOblem. 

But until Congress shall adopt postal telegraphy or some better system 

than we now enJoy, it is necessary to have some remedial legislation, 

and the bill under consideration is a wholesome measure, as far as it 

goes. So long as the policy of the country is to secure relief by establishing competing lines, and if possible to obtain competition on the 

Pacific lines, which we have not now, we should legislate to make this 

system effective. I stated that I did not think that any constitutional question was involved in the consideration of this bill. It was 

stated the other day, andrather broadly, by a gentleman from the State 

of illinois, as I understood him, that the power.:; of Congress were as 

supreme in regard to the matters of this kind as the powers of Parliament are, and that it wa.s under no other or greater limitation than Parliament is. 

That, perhaps, was stating the question a little too broadly-putting 

it much too broadly-as a general proposition, but when it comes to regulating either a railroad or telep;raph company in the manner of executing its business, or the manner in which it shall execute its trust 

in serving the people, then I say there is no limitation whatever upon 

the powers of Congress. So long as Congress exercises, as we may call 

it, and as the books call it, "the police power," it is not limited. The 

power "of police "-of regulation-is something that can not be contracted or bargained away, and the question involved in this bill being, 

as the highest court of the land ha.s already decided, nothing but the 

attempt to exercise and establish police regulations with regard to the 

manner of conducting the business of these companies, it can not possibly involve any constitutional question. And upon that point, Mr. 

Speaker, I ask the indulgence of the House to cite authorities. 

In the case oiStone vs. Mississippi, 101 United States Reports, page 

817, Chief-Justice Waite adopts and uses this language with approval: 

.All agree that the Legislature can not bargain away the police power of the 

State. Irrevocable grants of property or franchise may be made if they do not impair the supreme authority to make laws for the right government of the 

State. But no Legislature can curtail the power of it. successors to make such 

laws as they may deem appropriate in matters of police. 

So I say it is settled in the Supreme Court of the land that upon 

questions of "police"-there can be no such thing as a violation of 

charter or contract rights, because they are not involved. 

Now, then, the next and only other question that can possibly arise 

as to this bill is, what does Congress assume to do? Does it assume to 

exercise these " police powers?" If it does, and if the provisions of 

the bill are in that direction, as they are, then it is entirely within the 

powers recognized in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 

States which I have just cited. On the point that the provisions of 

this bill are but the exercise of ''police powers,'' I will cite you to one 

of the "Granger cases," that all the members are probably familiar 

~th. I refer to Munn vs.lllinois, 94 United States Reports, page 113: 

Under these (the police) powers the Government regulates the conduct of its 

citizens one towards another, and the manner in which each shall use his own property when such regulation becomes necessary for the public good. In their 

exercise it has been customary in England from time intmemorial, and in this 

country from its first colonization, to regulate ferries, common carriers, hack- men, bakers, millers, wharfingers, inn-keepers, etc., and in so doing to fix a maximum of charge to be made for services rendered, accommodations furnished, and articles sold. To this day statutes are to be found in many of the 

States upon some or all of these subjects with the:fift.hamendmentinforce. Congress in 1820 conferred power upon the city of Washington "to regulate * * * 

the rates of wharfage at private wharves, • * * the sweeping of chimneys, and to fix the rates of fees therefor, and the weight and quality of bread " (3 Stat- utes at Large, 587, section 7), and in 1848 to make all necessary regulations rl? 

specting hackney carriages and the rates of fare of the same, and the rates of 

hauling by cartmen1 wagoners, carmen, and draymen, and the rates of commission of auctioneers \.9 Statutes at Large, 224, section 2), 

It was held in the other Granger cases, which involved the identical 

proposition that is before the House at this time, that passing the laws 

involved in those cases was only exercising the "police power;" .and 

on that ground the illinois and Iowa and all the other "Granger laws " 

have been su~tained, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated 

that so far as the exercise of police power is concerned there can be no 

such thing as the right of one Legislature or one generation to bargain 

away the rights of the next. 

Hence I feel that I am justified in saying that the constitutional question is entirely out of this inquiry, because from any view in which 

you consider this bill you c..<tn not say that it is anything else but an 

attempt to exercise police powers. 

There is one other point I would like to suggest, because I think that 

in the course of the arguments that have thus far been made some 

members have, in my opinion, wandered fmm the real point involved 

in the question before us. I shall not weary the House by reading 

long extmcts either from the statute or from the reports. I will simply call attention to the status of the railroad scheme and the telegraph 

companies a.t the time of the passage of the act whiCh I will cite. The 

overland telegraph companies were in existence at the time that the 

laws incorporating the Pacific railroads were enacted. It was thought 

undoubtedly at the time that it was a great and stupendous undertaking to span this continent with a continuous line of railroad, and 

so it was-the greatest undertaking that the world had known. 

No one had any accurate idea of the amount of money that it would 

require.- The men who were the incorporators and undertook the enterprise, while wealthy, did not have the money in sight to build this 

road. By the charter which incorporated the railroad companies they 

were required not only to construct and operate a raihoad, but also, in 

connection with it, to construct and operate a telegraph line. The company was granted vast amounts of aid in the way of bonds and lands 

to enable it to undertake this great enterprise; and, further, Congress 

virtually said to them this: ''There being already an overland telegraph line, if you can make an arrangement with the companies owning that telegraph line to move it to yonr right of way we will considerthat a compliance with the condition requiring you to construct a line 

of telegraph.'' 

Congress in effect said, ''If you have not sufficient means to construct 

new lines we will permit you to make use of a 'second-hand' line for 

the time being (if I may use that expression), and obtaining this 'sec· 

ond-handed' line we will consider a compliance with your charter requirem(mt:s, so far as construction goes." I submit to any man who 

will read this statute and consider it in connection with the circumstances and surroundings of the company at the time when it was enacted whether my view is not correct, and whether lie will not come to 

the same conclusion that I have. In support of this I will read section 

19 of the act authorizing the construction of a telegraph line between 

the Atlantic and Pacific States. It provides as follows: 

That the several railroad companies herein named are aut.horized to enter into an·arrangement with the Pacific Telegraph Company, the Overland Telegraph 

Company, and the California State Telegraph Company, so that the present line 

of telegraph between the Missouri River and San Francisco may be moved upon or along the line of said railroad nnd branches as fast as said roads and branches are built; and if said arrangement be entered into, and the transfer of sa.id 

telegraph line be made in accordance therewith to tbe line of said railroad and 

branches, such transfer shall, for all purposes of this act, be held and considered a. fulfillment on the part of said railroad companies of the provisions of this act in regard to the· construction of said line of telegraph. 

Construction, that is the entire extent to which the transfer shall be 

considered compliance with the requirements imposed upon the compapy by the charter-nothing else. And if any corporation or any company has assumed to make a contract or secure rights other than those 

expressed and allowed by the statute it is ultra vi1·es. [To Mr. WHITE, 

of New York:] You ca.n base no rights upon it; you can assert no 

claims under it, because it is in violation of law. The Government said, 

"Weare willing you should for the time being serve the public with a 

'second-hand' line instead of a new one." But that is the extent a11d 

the entire extent to which Congress has as yet spoken on the subject. 

Then how can you speak of vested rights? It is bosh. There are no 

vested rights in it. The duty rested on the Union Pacific Railroad Company when it accepted its charter to operate the franchise of telegraphy 

as much as to conduct its railroad; and it has never been relieved from 

it. That duty is imposed on the company to-day. 

All that we seek to do by this bill is to requb.·e them to fulfill the 

promises that they made and the legalrequirementsthatwere imposed 

upon them. Is that unjust? Isitunreasonable? Whatcontractright 

do we violate? I assure the House that I would not think for a moment 

of voting for the violation of a contract even with Jay Gould, but why 

raise these bugbears of constitutional violations every time that a question in behalf of the rights of the people comes up (as my friend from 

Wisconsin [Ur. GUENTHER] has suggested)? It is for this reason that 

I, though a young man, have taken the liberty to speak on this bill, 

which otherwise I would not have done. 

Mr. PETERS. Right there I would like to call the attention of my 

friend from Minnesota [Mr. LIND] to another proposition oflaw, namely 

that in grants from the sovereign to the subject ·nothing passes by implication; that only passes which is, in clear and unmistakable terms, 

granted. 
'· 

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1299 

Mr. LIND. Yes: and it isafundamentalprincipleoflawthatwhen 

the exercise of a public right or duty is conveyed to an individual, t~e 

grant implies that he shall exercise that right fully and COlJl_pletely and 

by himself; be can not delegate it to anybody else. Now _that the gentleman calls ~y attention to that proposition of law, I shall weary the 

· House a few minutes longer to express another thought that occurs to me. !llr. HERBERT. Before the gentleman leaves that point, will he 

state the date of the passage of the act which he bas just quoted? 

Mr. WHITE, of New York. July 1, 1862. 

:rtlr. HERBERT. How long after that, if at all, did the railroad 

compa.nies themselves operate these lines of telegraph that had been 

moved over onto their right of way? 

lli. LIND. As I understand it, the railroad companies did not operate the lines of telegraph at all over the entire distance from the Missouri River to the Pacific. 

lli. DOCKERY. The gentleman is in error as to that, I think. 

Mr. LIND. They operated only over a portion, not over the entire 

distance. · 

. Mr. DOCKERY. I think the gentleman is in error on that point. 

The railroad companies operated the telegraph lines, th~ Central Pacific Railroad until 1877 and the Union Pacific until July 1, 1881. 

They did construct and did operate their telegraph lines until those 

dates, respectively. 

:rtlr. WHITE, of New York . . Will the gentleman from Minnesota 

pardon me if I make a suggestion in answer to the question of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HERBERT]? · 

Mr. LIND. Certainly. 

Mr. WHITE, of New York. As I understand the history of these 

transactions between the railioad companies and the telegraph companies, the railroad companies never did exercise the telegraph functions as companies. The Union Pacific formed the Atlantic and Pacific 

Telegra.ph Company, which it owned, and that telegraph company operated that portion of the line along the Union Pacific road. The Central Pacific Railroad Company organized the Pacific and Atlantic Telegraph Company, and that telegraph company exercised the telegraph 

1 functions on that part of the line, and the two telegraph companies, in 

combination, exercised those functions in behalf of the railroad companies over the whole line. Those telegraph companies were finally 

absorbed by theW estern Union Telegraph Company, or an arrangement 

was made between them; but the railroad companies themselves were 

not engaged at any time in the business of sending through messages, 

as they were bound to be under their charter, if the law placed that obligation upon them. 

Mr. LIND. That is what I understand from the report, that they 

never did carry on the business of telegraphy over the aggregated road; 

that is, over the continuous line from the Missouri River to the Pacific · Ocean. 

Mr. HERBERT. Then they never did at any time comply fully with 

their obligations, as yon nndeTStand it? 

Mr. LIND. They never did. _ 

Mr. PETERS. The Central Pacific and the Union Pacific proper, 

exclusive of what was afterwards known as the Kansas·Pacific, did 

construct and operate their own line of telegraph. The only portion 

of the land-grant roads that did not construct its own telegraph line 

was the Kansas Pacific for a distance of three hundred and about fortythree miles west from Kansas City, Mo. • 

Mr. HOPKINS, of illinois. Did not the Kansas Pacific, in applying 

for the aid which it was to receive under the act of 1862, report to the 

Government commissioners that they had constructed the telegraph line 

in accordance with the provisions of the charter, and did not the Government extend its aid on the faith of that representa,tion? 

Mr. PETERS. Certainly. 

:Mr. WIDTE, of New York. The question of the gentleman from 

Alabama [~Ir. HERBERT] was not as to construction, but as to operation, and the facts will bear me out in what I b:we said, to wit, that 

the railroad companies never did operate as common carriers of commercial messages from one terminus to the other terminus of those 

lines, that is, as telegraph companies, but they organized a wheel within 

a wheel, the Atlantic and Pacific from Omaha to Ogden, the Pacific and 

Atlantic from Ogden to San Francisco, and demitted the telegraph busi- ness to those companies.. 

1\fr. HERBERT. Did those milroad companies at any time perform, 

or cause to be performed, the duties imposed upon them by the act of 

Congress, or by .their charter, which duties they disabled themselves 

from performing by subsequently making a contract with the Western 

Union Company? 

1tlr. WHITE, of New York. Never, sir, as I claim; but others m::.y 

differ with me about that. It is a question for elucidation. 

Mr. DOCKERY. If my friend from Minnesota will yield to me a 

moment, I wish to say that under the acts authorizing the construction 

of the Union Pacific Railroad and telegraph line and the Central Paci.fic Railroad and telegraph line, it was provided that each 40 miles 

of railroad and telegraph line, as completed, should be received or accep4 ~d flU th.e part of the Government by commissioners to be appointed 

by the President; and the 1·ecords in the office of the Secretary of the 

Interior show that the commissioners thus appointed certified to the 

fact of the completion of the railroads and telegraph lines as each sec- tion of 40 miles was received. 

Mr. WHITE, of New York. That is conceded. 

:Mr. ANDERSON, of Mississippi. And t.be officers of the c.ompanies 

had to make affidavit. · . Mr. DOCKERY. Certainly; the commissioners in receiving-each 40 

miles of railroad and telegraph line accepted them on the o.ffidavits of 

officers of the company. 

:Mr. ANDERSON, of Mississippi I would like to explain, before the 

gentleman from Minnesota resumes, that the Union Pacific Railroad 

extends only from Council Bluffs, Iowa, to Ogden, in Utah Territory, 

and does not extend to the Pacific coast. . 

Mr. LIND. That fa.ct, I think, is generally appreciated by members. 

Without wearying the House, I wish to make only one additional 

suggestion. It is immaterial, so far as this bill is concerned, whether 

the railroad companies did or did not construct these lines in the first 

instance. If they did construct the lines, then they have already 

done what the bill in hrec verba requires them to do; they have complied with their charters so far as the construction of ~hese lipes is con- ~ 

cerned. If they did not construct the lines, and did not fulfill their 

obligations by having second-hand lines, as I have termed them, placed 

on their railways, then the bill simply requires them to comply with 

the original requirements of the law. That is nothing more that what 

we have a legal right to insist upon, and aside from that, I so.y that, 

without reference to any obligations in their charters, we have the common-law right..:....a right which no previous Congress had the power to 

alienate .fu>m us-to dem::md of these companies that they carry messages for each and every individual, whether a corporate or a natural 

person, without discrimination, and upon equal, fair, and reasonable 

terms, and that is virtually all that this bill demands . . 

l\1r. WHITE, of New York, rose. 

lli. LIND. Under these circumstances, what can be urged against 

this bill? I will yield to the gentleman from New York for a qn~­

tion, if he wiahes. 

1tfr .. WHITE, of New Yo:rk. I did not wish to ask a question. In 

reply to the gentleman's suggestion as to the requirement that these 

companies transact their business without discrimination and upon 

equal and reasonable terms; I was about to remark_, so say we all of us. 

Of course they are bound so to do. 

Mr. LIND. If tha.t is conceded by the gentleman, then I will sit 

down. [Applause.] 

Mr. ANDERSON, of lllinois. Mr. Speaker, I consider this one of 

the most irupbrtant measures that can be presented to this Congress. 

I do not know, however, that I ought to say anything upon it, because 

the minority, who have opposed the bill, seem to have been so completely routed that they have fled from the field. I always have a great 

deal of sympathy for the "under dog," and for this reason I feel a}:. 

most inclined either to say nothing or to take the other side of the 

question, if my conviction would permit me to do so. . 

This bill, which I had the pleasure of voting in our committee toreport favorably to the House, seeks to comJ>el the railroad companies,_ 

known as the "'land-grant railroads," to do certain things. I think 

but one question can arise in the consideration of this measure; and 

tha.t is, was there any legal obligation on the part of these companies 

to do what this bill seeks to have done? If I could be brought to the 

conviction that no such obligation existed,-! certainly would oppose 

the measure. I do not believe in fastening upon corporation~~ any 

more than individuals, requirements which do not rest upon any legal 

obligation. 

In this connection I will remark that I do not share in the extremely · 

hostile feeling that some persons entertain toward corporations-a feeling which inclines them to antagonize such companies whenever the 

occasion will permit. I believe that individuals and corporations, when 

they exercise their functions in the proper manner, as some of them 

have done, are a blessing to the country. I believe that when an individual or a collection of individuals use their money in a creative 

sense in developing the resources of the country, as has been done in a 

great many cases, they are entitled to the consideration of the people. 

But, on the other hand, I feel th:;ttwhen acorpora-tion has sought fayor 

of the people and has received it, it ought, of all others, to be compelled 

to discharge its legal obligations. Iri. looking at the act to which reference has been made, we can readily see whether any legal obligation 

rests upon these companies to do what this -bill seeks to enforce. 

The act of 1862 requires these companies to construct, maintain, and 

operate railroads and -telegraph lines. There is no distinction between 

them; they are put upon the same footing. Under the law the obligation is just as urgent for these companies to maintain and operate a 

telegraph line and conduct public business upon it in the manner specified as it is to conduct the railroad business. The language is so plain 

that no person, however warm an advocate he may be of these railroad 

and telegraph lines, CH.n gainsay this position. 

We have, then, first, this obligation imposed upon these companies 

in the manner provided in the acts. As a part of the consideration for 

the discharge of these obligations, these companies have received large 

assistance from the Government, and the oblhra.tion is one which they 
' 

1300 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~HOUSE. FEBR.UARY 16, I • 

can not lay aside or a oandon at their will or pleasure. The only remaining question is, tllen, whether they ha>e in any manner performed 

this obligation or done that which exempts them from what this bill 

proposes to require. 

As I understand, the minority of the committee take the position 

that section 19, which authorized the overland telegraph lines which 

were in existence at that time to be removed to the line of these railroads as they were constructed, under such arrangements as could be 

made between the companies, lifted the obligation from the railroad 

companies to maintain these telegraph lines themselves. Now, in my 

view, there was in the mind of the National Legislature at that time 

some reason for that proVision. It is well known that at that time no 

individual or company could construct a line across our western plains 

which would be a productive line. Congress knew that the moment a 

raih·oad was constructed through that section of country the necessities 

of the people in the cities and towns which would be built up along 

the line of the railroad :would require telegraphic accommodations. 

And inasmuch as the overland roads had been assisted in building by 

Government aid, it was considered a public ad>antage to give them permission to remove their lines there. It was never intended, it was 

never thought, that by doing that it would remove the obligations of 

these railroad companies to carry on, to operate, and to maintain, as 

requiTed by the statute, their own telegraph lines. 

When these lines were removed over there (and I ngree with the 

gentleman from New York [Mr. WHITE] in his position in reference 

to the manner in which these comp&nies have acted-that they have 

not attempted to comply with the law); I say after they removed their 

lines over there, they made an arrangement by which these lines were 

removed over there, and they were allowed to ope.ate them for the 

public. That was continued until competition arose. We can trace 

this throughout. 

There were a number of them, but the principal competing lines were, 

first, the United States line, under which it sought to avail itself of 

the advantages of this section. When they bad built their line to reach 

the western termini of these lines, which ought to have been built and 

maintained for the benefit of all without discrimination- when they 

sought to avail themselves of the advantage of this they found that the 

land-grant companies bad not fulfilled the obligations of law and they 

could make no connection for the simple fact that the Western Union 

bad swallowed up the overland telegraph line, and their only method 

of competing with them through to the Pacific coast was by building 

a line themselves through the non-productive section of the country 

known as the plains. 

I say that no individual, and no company, could afford to do that, 

and the reason of this provision in the statute was wisely meant to meet 

that necessity. They knew no company could compete with any line 

built by Government aid through those vast plains. That was the reason 

the statute required them to maintain a telegraph line in connection 

wi th the raill'Oad. The Western Union having swallowed up those overland lines stood in the attitude of refusing to allow the United States 

Company to have the same ad vantages they were getting from the railroad companies. The result was that the United States Company, not 

being able to compete, was swallowed up. 

Another company was organized in the State of New York, the Atlantic and Pacific Telegraph Company, I think. with$5,000,000, which 

built its lines to Chicago and made an arrangement by which they extended them to Omaha. That company didgetin. a position tocompete 

with the Western Union by tbeterms of this statute by making an arrangement with the Central Pacific Railroad Company. The history of 

the competition that followed there will explain the whole attitude of 

this measure. With their line to Chicago and through lines tc Omaha, 

and their contract -with the Central Pacific Railroad Company, they 

l1a>e stood in thepositionofcompetingwithtbeWcstern Union. What 

was done then ? 

The Western Union and the Central Pacific Railroad Company, in 

the face of the statute, in the face of the obligation resting on the Central Pacific. entered into a contract by which they cut off the privileges 

of the Atlantic and Pacific and made a monopoly for the Western Union. 

'l'hat competition was so vigorous before this contract was entered into 

between the Western Union and Central Pacific that a telegram often 

words from New York to Kansas City only cost 25 cents. It was a 

bitter competition, and the OJ;lly manner in which the Western Union 

could oppose it was by persuading the Central Pacific to evade the Jaw 

and in tace of the law and in defiance of its obligations, to enter into~ contract by which they cut off the privilege they were entitled to under 

the statute, and enter into a contract with the Central Pacific to cut 

them off. The end was that the .Atlantic and Pacific Telegraph Comp:my was also swallowed up. 

M:r. OATES. What was required of these companies by the granting act in respect to the operations of these lines of telegraph, and 

wherein is the present metbodofoperatingadeparture from or failure 

to comply with what was required in the granting act? 

~Ir. ANDERSON, oflllinois. Under the act of 1862, under which 

these railroads were lmilt, they were required to construct in connection with their railroad lines telegraph lines, so that their eastern termini would receive telegraph business from every individual and company, without discrimination. They were obliged to maintain and 

operate them for the public benefit, without discrimination or faYoritism to anybody. These companies bad a right to expect--

1t1r. OATES. Can you give the language of that partalf the act? 

Jtfr. ANDERSON, of Uississippi. I think the same provision applies to all of these land-grant raihoads. , 

1\Ir. ANDERSON. of Illinois. It is found in section 3 of the act: 

That messages received from any individual, company, or corporation, or from any telegraph lines connecting with this line or either of its termini, shall be 

impartially transmitted in the order of their reception, excepting that the dispatches of the Government shall have priority. 

.Now, these companies that were organized after the Western Union 

hu.d swallowed up the Atlantic and Pacific were governed by that provision; but I will answer the question by referring to this in another 

way. Another company was organized, called the American Union 

Telegraph Company. It built its bra.nches and lines from the east 

until it reached the eastern terminus of the railroad lines, and expected 

when it reached the eastern termini of the land-grant roads to have its 

me sages received by the railroads operating telegraph lines, according 

to the obligations resting upon tllem under t he statute. They went 

to that expense and built their lines in order t o make connectionwith 

the eastern termini of the railroad lines. 

Wben they got there and demanded that these roads should live up 

to the obligations of the statutes and 1·eccive for tran'lmission their 

messages over their lines, they found that the railroads were not operating telegraph lines at all, and thattheirmessages couldnot be received. 

They were simpl,y told, ""We are not doing any telegrapllic business; 

this is in the hands of the Western Union Company, and you must contract with them." The .American Company, after working wit.h the 

officers of the several roads and the Western Union, found that the 

only terms upon which their messages could be transmitted was by 

paying an increased amount on their messages. 

Mr. PETERS. Will the gentleman permit me to interrupt him. to 

state that in addition to that the evidence taken before the Committee 

on the Post-Office and Post-Roads shows that these land-grant railroad 

companies bad no telegraph office at all at Kansas City or Omaha ? 

Mr. ANDERSON, of Illinois. Yes, sir; I was going to state that. 

When the Western Union offered to take tlleir messages, that is to say, 

when a message sent from Washington City, for instance, reached Omaha 

or Kansas City, they added to it an additional amount; and their excuse for this was that they bad to repeat the name of the city and the 

date, and charged an additional amount, making the tariff so heavy 

that the telegraph companies were absolutely cut off from doing anything at aU over these land-grant lines. 

Mr. DOCKERY. Will you state what was the additional amount 

required? 

Mr. ANDERSON, of Illinois. I think it was from 30 to 50 cents 

additional on each message; so that if the gentleman from New York 

[Mr. WHITE] takes the position that the Western Union was operating 

so as to discharge these railroad companies from their obligations to the 

public and to the Government under tbeix charters, then be ought to 

show that this Western Union Company was doing what was required 

of the railioad companies which it claimed the right to succeed in this 

business. 

Mr. OATES. Or, in other words. that the public did not suffer by 

the arrangement made with the Western Union. 

1\fr. ANDERSON, of illinois. Yes, sir; and be can not do that because all this testimony shows that there was a discrimination. In 

other words, that the telegraph lines were turned over to the West-ern 

Union, and they dictated the terms in their own interest to cut off all 

com"petition. 

At that time, it must be remembered, Ur. Speaker, that it was absolutely unreasonable to Tequire this new company to build its line 

across that part of the country. It would not have been possible to do 

so. They could not have done it, because they were not in the line of 

competition, unlesstbeywerefavored by Congress and were voted money 

to build the line with. The reason of this grant was manifestly to protect all lines that wanted to reach the Pacific, and to give each of them 

the benefitofwhat the Government had done for these other companies. 

So that the reason of this action on the part of the Western Union was 

!!lanifestly to get all the benefits itself of what Congress bad done for all 

these companies by destroying all possible competition. That ended tho 

American Union Company. 

It had constructed its line, at a considerable expense, up to the eastern termini of the land-grant railroads, assuming, as I have said, that 

they were operating telegraph lines according to the terms of the stat· 

ute, but found they were mist..'tken. 

Mr. LIND. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him for a mom~;nt, to read one passage from the contract entered into between 

the Western Union and the Union Pacific R~ilroad system, which bears 

particularly upon this point? 

No employe of the railway company shall, while in its service, be employed 

by or bn.ve any connection with any other telegraph company than the tele· 

graph company party hereto. 

That is, the Western Union. 

And the telegraph company shall have the exclusive 1·ight to the occupancy 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-~ HOUSE. 1301 

of and connection with the ro.ilwaycompany's depotsorstation-housesfor com- mercial or public telegraph pw-poses as against any other telegraph compauy. 

Mr. ANDERSON, of Illinois. Now, Mr. Speaker, when the American Union Telegraph Company found that they could not receive the 

benefits expected under this section of the statute, and to which they 

were entitled, they wrote a very pertinent letter to the officials of these 

roads. and demanded of them that they comply with the requirements 

of the statute. That called forth from the attorneys of these railroad 

companies, the eminent counsel, Mr. Dillon and Mr. Bartlett, a rather 

lengthy opinion, in which they stated to both the railroad companies 

that the obligation resting upon them to maintain and operate telegraph lines in connection with the railroad lines was just as much of 

an obligation as the maintenance of the road itself. 

At once they saw that something must be done, and then it was that 

they took forcible possession of the telegraph line that led to the injunction that my friend from Kansas spoke of the other day. This brought 

about this condition of affairs. When the railroad companies found 

that their legal advisers took the position that they were violating the 

statutes, and the obligation to maintain the 1ine of telegraph rested 

upon them, and could not be avoided, in order to fortify themselves 

and come within the statutes they took forcible possession of the first 

tel6cOTaph line constructed on this right of way. 

They applied for an injunction, and Judge McCrary, in passing upon 

this question--. 

Mr. OATES. Who applied for an injunction? 

Mr. ANDERSON, of Illinois. The Western Union applied for an. injunction restraining these Pacific railroads from interfering with or ta.kingpossessionoftheirlines. Judge McCrary, in passing upon that, says 

that the obligation resting upon the railroad companies to maintain 

these telegraph lines is as binding as that of maintaining the railroads, 

and that it can not be abandoned, and that any contract entered int<> 

with these railroads by the Western Union was ultm 'Vi1·esj that they 

had no power, no legal authorityto make such a contra-Ct. That question also came up before Justice Miller, of the Supreme Court, and he 

reiterates the language of Judge McCrary and says the same thing; 

that although they had entered into a contract with the Western Union 

by which they sought to abandon the requirements of operating or maintaining a telegraph line and turn over the whole thing to the Western 

Union, yet, says Justice Miller, of the Supreme Court of the United 

States, that was a matter they had no power to do; they could not abandon their obligation, and any contract with that end in view was ultra 

'Vires. 

Mr. WHITE, of New York. Will the gentleman from Illinois explain why Justice Miller continued that injunction? 

Mr. ANDERSON, of Illinois. I will. He passed upon the question 

between the two parties, the equities between the railroad and the 

Western Union. It was not a question as to the rights of the public, 

as to whether the railroad company had abandoned its obligation or was violating the statute. But in passing upon the equities between the 

two companies he said he thought the railroad company had treated in 

its acts the Western Union Company in such a manner that it was entitled to some consideration at least; but he did not in all of his decision, or in any part of it, in passing upon the question of the ·contract 

between these two companies and the equities between them-be did 

not in passing upon that feature of the question touch the question of 

the legal obligation resting upon these railroads to maintain and operate their telegraph lines. 

Mr. WHITE, ofNewYork. Hasthegentlemangot Justice Miller's 

opinion before him? 

Mr. ANDERSON, of Illinois. I have. 

Mr. WHITE, of New York. Will you please read where he made 

that decision? 

1\fr . .A,:NDERSON, of Illinois. It is quite a long decision. 

l\1r. WHITE, of New York. There are only a few words bearing 

upon that question. I will find the part which I should like to have 

read. 

:Mr. ANDERSON, of Illinois. Here is what Judge McCrary says: 

This suit was brought to prevent the Union Pacific Company from ousting the telegraph company, the railroad company having so attempted because of thA written opinion of Counsel Sidney Bartlett and John F. Dillon to the effect tbat it was the duty of the railroad company under its charter to operate its telegraph lines without discrimination for the business of all corporations. 

He says further: In my judgmentThis is quoted from page 750, 1 Federal Reporter, giving the opinion 

of Judge McCrary- - · 

In my judgment the act of July 1, 1862, and its amendments must he con- ~ti:ue~ ~ chartering the Union Pacific Railroad Company and devolving upon 1t mdlvidually and personally the power and duty of constructing, operating and main,ta.inin~ a line of telegraph as well as a. railroad. This is made mani: fest by th~ consideration that the Government endowed the corporation with large grants of land and bonds to aid in the construction of these lines, and impressed upon the company the duty of reimbursing the Government from the earnings of the road and telegraph line. 

I can not find Justice Miller's decision just now, but he says in substance this: "I concur in what Judge McCrary has said." And there 

is not one single syllable--! say, the gentleman from New York notwithstanding, there is not one single syllable in Justice Miller's opinion that is contradictory to this. .He affirms it and says in specific 

words, "I concur in what Judge McCrary says." - There were certain things required of this company. Their mortgage covers both the railroad and the telegraph lines. And I wish to 

say right here, there were commissioners appointed, and it is a strange 

and I might say an unfortunate commentary upon the officers of this 

Government that this state of affairs should have existed so long as it 

has done without detection. 

Officers who were appointed especially to look to this matter and see 

that these statutes were complied with, commissioners whose duty it 

was to see that this law was enforced-I say they stood blindly, and 

were in some manner or other put to sleep by the Pacific railroads, so 

that they were absolutely blind to what was being done; and it was 

only brought out by the competition of telegraph companies struggling 

to compete with the Western Union. I say it is strange, and it is unfortunate, and it is sad to think that with all the officials that had to 

do with this matter it rested wit.h the telegraph companies themselves 

to bring on this fight. 

Now, the American Union Telegraph Company, as I was saying, was 

swallowed up by the Western Union when it found that it could not 

reach the Pacific coast. On top of that another company struggled to 

compete the Baltimore and Ohio Company. They built their lines 

through' at a large expense, expecting, and having the same right to 

expect, that they· would find open lines to the Pacific when they had 

reached the eastern termini of these railroads; and when they had 

reached Kansas City and Omaha, respectively, they let that fact be 

known, and asked the railroad companies where they would connect 

and upon what terms their business was to be received. Week after 

week aml month after month for six months did the officers of the 

Baltimore and Ohio Company pursue the officers of the Pacific railroads and of the Western Union Telegraph Company before they could 

get them to admit that the railroad companies had :f!ot a single telegraph office. 

In all this immense line sb:etching along these railroads not one single 

telegraph office under the control of the railroads or operated by them 

was open to public business. Over the doors of aU the offices was the 

sign of the Western Union Telegraph Company, and finally the railroads had to admit that there was no place where they could receive the 

business of the Baltimore and Ohio Telegraph Company, and then the 

Baltimore and Ohio people carried the fight to Congress and brought on 

the investigation that has disclosed to the public this state of facts. It 

seems to me that any peTson cognizant of all these faets and believing 

that the laws ought to be upheld has certainly very warped views if he 

Cc:'Ul undertake to justify the conduct of these railroad companies. 

For one I believe that these companies, who have been favored by 

the public, whose roads have been built by Government aid upon condition that they should accommodate the public-Ibelieve, I say, that 

they ought to be held to the strictest account and ought to be made to 

live up to the very letter of the law. Yet we find gentlemen here who 

know full well the amount of aid that these roads have received, and 

that it was granted and received wit.h the exp1·ess understanding that 

they should afford facilities to the public and construct and maintain 

telegraph lines for the benefit of the public, and who, I am sure, can 

not possibly persuade themselves into believing that the companies 

have fulfilled, or intend to fulfill, if they can help it, the requirements 

of the law-we find gentlemen knowing all this who are yet willing to 

sta:nd upon the floor of this House and justify and defend these companies. It seems to me very strange indeed. 

Mr. WHITE, of New York. I thought you said in the opening of 

your speech that the representatives of the other side bad disappearedthat they were a.U gone. 

:M:r. ANDERSON, of illinois. Probably that is the answer. 

!(Ir. GUENTHER. There is the minority report., though. 

Mr. ANDERSON! of Illinois. But, Mr. Speaker, I would go further 

than I have stated. If gentlemen will examine the statutes they will 

find that in 1864, before any part of this work was done, there was an 

amendatory act passed which contained a penal clause; and I, for one, 

believe not only that these railroad companies ought to be compelled 

to do what they were obligated by law to do, what they undertook to 

do, and what they received compensation for doing-not only that, but 

that they ought to be punished for violating the law, and punished to 

the utmost extremity of the law. 

Mr. WHITE, of New York. I call the gentleman's attention to the 

fact that I have now found the portion of Judge Miller's opinion to 

which I referred awhile ago. The gentleman can read it, or I will read 

it myself. 

Mr. ANDERSON, of Illinois. The gentleman may read it. 

Ur. WHITE, of New York. I read from page 215 of the report of 

the committee: I concur with Judge McCrary in the opinions delivered by him on the former applications before him to dissolve this injunction: that on the face of the acts of Congress of 1862 and 1864, called "the Pacific railroad acts," t~e obligat~on of building a. telegraph line along its right of way, and of operatmg that lm~ or having it operated under the control of the railroad company, was an obllga- tion which they could not abandon, and which was inconsistent with the con- tract made in this case, so far as those two acts are concerned; anCLthat if the case 1·ested on the provision of these original Pacific railroad acts, namely, the act of 1862 and amendat-ory act of 1864, the present contract "fV"Ould be void. as in 
1302 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 16, 

violation of the obligation m;.posed upon the railroad company by those actsj and I do not propose to add anything to what he has said on that subject. Ir, 

therefore, there are no other acts of Congress on the subject, nor anything else that will remove that inherent vice in the contract between the two companies, the injnnctlon ought to be dissolved and the railroad company permitted to operate the telegraph in accordance with the obliga.tions which those acts impose upon it for the benefit of the public. The amended bill, however, which was not before judge McCrary 'when he decided that proposition, sets up an act approved .July 2., 1864, entitled "An act for increasing the facilities of telegraph communication between the Atlantic and Pacific States and the Territ{)ry of Idaho,'' and:claims that by virtue of that statute the present contract is a valid one. The first section of that act declared that "the United States Telegraph Company and their associates were author- ized to erect a line of magnetic telegraph between the l\!issouri River and the city of San Francisco, in the State of California, on such route as they may select, to connect with the lines of said United States Telegraph Company now con- structed and being constructed through the States of the Union." It gave the right of way over the public lands of the United States and the right to draw materials for the construction of the line from the same public lands. The fourth section is as follDws: u That the several railroad companies author- ized by the act of Congress of July 2, 1862, are authorized to enter into an ar- rangement with the United States Telegraph Company, so that the line oftere- gra.ph between the Missouri River and San Francisco may be made upon and along the line of said road and branches as fast as said road and branches are built. And if said arrangement be entered into and the transfer of ~aid tele- graph line be made in accordance therewith, to the line of said railroad and branches, such transfer shall, for all purposes of the act referred to, be held and considered a fulfillment on the part of said railroad companies of the provision 

in the act in regard to the construction of telegraph lines. And in <'ase of dis- . agreement said telegraph company is authorized to remove their line of tele- graph along and upon the line of railroad therein contemplated, without pre- judice to the rights of said railroad companies.'' The allegation of the amended bill is, that the 'Vestern Uni.,n Telegraph Com- pany was at the time it made the contract for the erection of the telegraph line now in question with the Kansas branch of the Pacific Railroad Company, the successor in right and in power of the United States Telegraph Company men- tioned in this act. 

And thereupon, upon the act of July 2, 1864, added to the original 

acts of 1862 and 1864, J udge-1\iiller continued the injunction, and held 

that if these facts were successfully controverted on the final hearing 

there might be a ecree in favor of the railroad company, but that if 

such were not the case the injunction would have to be continued. :Mr. ANDERSON, oflllinois. I yield to my friend [Mr. HoPKINS) 

to answer the gentleman from New York and to address the Houseon 

this bill. . I 

:M:r. HOPKINS, of illinois. :Mr. Speaker, in the inception of my re- marks I will refer to the question put by the gentleman from New York 

[Mr. WHITE] as to the decision of Judge Miller, promising that latter, if 

it will not trespass too much upon the House, I shall state clearly my 

position on that question. But, sir, every person who has read the decision of Judge Miller just quoted by the gentleman from New York 

knows that that opinion was predicated upon the state of facts presented by the telegraph company; that a demurrer was interposed hy 

the railroad company admitting those facts to be true as between the ·railroad company and the telegraph company; and Judge Miller, while 

he innorsed all that liad been said by Judge .McCrary in the decision re- ferred to bythegentlemanfromlllinois [Mr. ANDERSON], said that in 

view of the claims and allegations of the telegraph company predicated 

upon what is known as the '' Idaho act,'' he would grant a preliminary 

injunction, not for the purpose of passing upon the question, but simply 

to give himself an opportunity to investigate it; and while the :railroad 

companywasadmittingeverything claimed by the telegraph company, 

Judge Miller was so guarded in his position that he used this language: 

I am not prepared to say with any degree of assurance that if this case comes to a final hearing, and no m.ore evidence is then given of the corporate exist- ence of the first UnUed States Telegraph Company of New York, and of the transfer of the powers granted to it by the act of Congress of 1864-

The Idaho act already referred toto the Western Union Telegraph Company than has been presented on this hear- ing, that the contract can be sustained under the act of 18M. 

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. PETERS] when on the 

floor on the day before yesterday stated what is the fact, that all the con- eli tions on which the opinion of Judge Miller was predicated are denied 

to-day by the railroad company and by the public, and that the West- ern Union Telegraph Company does not now claim that those charges 

and allegations are true. That statement was made in tlie presence of 

the gentleman-from New York, and went unchallenged. I understand. 

J\.Ir. WffiTE,ofNewYork. Thetimefor. "challenging'' willcome 

by and by. 

Mr. HOPKINS, of Illinois. It lS a safe thing, Mr.. Speaker, for a man, when his position is an untenable one, to reserve his fire until his 

opponents have no chance to reply. I commend the discretion of the 

gentleman. 

:Mr. OATES. Will the gentleman from illinois allow me a question? 

Mr. HOPKINS, ofillinois. Yes, sir. 

:Mr. OATES. Did not Judge Miller continue the injunction up_on 

the ground that as the act of 1864 permitted, as the railroads were completed, these telegraph lines to be removed upon them, such removal was a compliance with the requirements of the granting act so far as construc~ion went, but left the question of operating untouched? 

Mr. HOPKINS, of illinois. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OATES. And the question of operating is the real question involved in this bill, is it not? 

Ur. WHITE, of New York. I want to say just one word in reply to 

the remark of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HoPKINSl in regard to 

'' resening the shot.'' I would like to inquire-it is a sort of a parliamentary in~uiry-whethe.r the gentlemen having charge of this bill 

will not have the right to close the debate? Am I not right in that? 

Mr. HOPKINS, of Illinois. That does not apply to gentlemen who 

have spoken upon this question, and towhomthegentlemanfromNew 

York claims he is reserving his time to reply. 

Mr. WHITE, of New York. Does the gentleman impute to the 

manager of this bill incompetency to reply to the arguments which 

shall be made by those who may speak in support of the minority re- port? 

Mr. HOPKINS, of Illinois. Not at all 

Mr. WHITE, of New York. I imagine the gentleman in charge of 

this bill will have the "last shot. n 

~fr. HO~KINS, of Illinois_ I claim that that gentleman is not only 

capable of replying, but will do so in a manner which will completely sa:tisfY the gentleman from New York, if reason and argument and law 

will satisfy him. 

:M:r. ANDERSON, of :Mississippi. In this connection I would like 

to read a brief extract from the testimony of Mr. Norvin Green, the 

president of the Western Union Telegraph Company. Referring to 

these injunction cases, he says: 

The railroad immediately repudiated it, and connected with the American Union Telegraph Company, then running in opposition to our company. They went fu.Tther, and attempted to cut our lines off from their bridge at Council Bluffs, and to .restrain us from doing business on the road. We got an injunc- ~ion restra~~ng t~em from interfering with our lines or our business, and pred- Icated our InJunction, as far as we could, upon that contract, also upon our rights under the charter~ The decisions, which were never final, but which squinted 

adversely, were altogether in respect of that contract. We were very willing to liave that contract dissolved, because we would then get back our two millions and a half in stock, or its equivalent in money, which was worth more to ns than their connt-ction. Although all the decisions per- petuated our injunctions and we carried our point in every instance before the courts, still there were intimations that that contract was one that the railroad company had no right to make. 

:M:r. HOPKINS, of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, when this bill was brought 

before the House the other day by the gentleman from Missouri, I had 

not had an opportunity to examine the majority and minority reports 

ofthe Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads, and of course WM 

compelled to rely for the time being upon the statements of parties 

representing the majority and minority of the committee as to the facts 

at issue and the law. In listening to the debate I felt constrained to 

take issue with the statement of law announced by the gentleman from 

New York, the champion of the minority report in this case. I had 

occasion during the debat-e to state that the Dartmouth College case, 

cited by him, did not, in my judgment, apply to thic; class of cases; 

that the people of this country are supreme upon all questions of this 

kind1 andtheirrightscannot be legislated away. I found. :M:r. Speaker, 

that my position was criticised by men for whose good opinion I care much; and this has caused me to examine more carefully not only the 

report of the committee, but the evidence before the committee in the 

Forty-ninth Congress and the la.w which governs the case. This investigation has not only confirmed me in the view which I took of 

the law while the debate was in progress, hut has caused me to dissent from the statement of facts as given by the gentleman from New 

York on behalf of the minority of the committee. I take issue with 

him as to the rights of the Western Union Telegraph Company-not 

only as to the facts upon which he claims there is a. valid contract between that company and these railroad companies, but as to the law 

itself. 

The Dartmouth College case has ever since 1819 been invoked in aid of 

the rights of corporations, little and big; but the principle involved in 

that case is not, in my ju~ament, applicable here. .As stated b ~Ir. 

Webster in his celebrated (argument before the Supreme Court of the 

United States, theDartmoubh College was not a civil, although itwas a lay, corporation. He claimed that it was an eleemosynary corporation and it wa(:! for private charity. The argumep.t made by 11-Ir. 

Holmes and the Attorney-General of the United States in opposition, 

attempted to enforce as a fundamental proposition that-it was a public corporatio~ and therefore subject to the legislation attempted to be 

enf.arced intheStateof New Hampshire. lli. Hopkinson, who was asso- ciated with Mr. Webster in the argnment in that case, in replying to 

Mr. Holmes and the Attorney-General, took issue with them on that 

question and insisted, as did Mr. Webster, that it was a private corporation, eleemosynary in character, and therefore had certain vested rights 

which could not be legislated away. 

I have not the time to read that decision here this evening, or to go on and show wherein that case is not applicable. Anyperson who has 

examined the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in this 

class of questions knows that from the time of the case of 1\Irum vs. Illinois, which is reported in 94 United States Repoits, and even long 

beforethat, thebroadgroundassumed by thegentlemanfromNewYork 

[Mr_ WHITE] has been limited and curtailed. That and the Granger 

cases, referred to during the debate by the gentleman from :Minnesota 

[Mr. LmnJ, hold that on all questions of a publlc character which relate 

to the welfare of the people no Congress nor State Legislature can grant 

vested rights. 

I, sir, spoke in the language of the law when I took the position I 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1303 

• 

did the other day in that debate, and now, with the time given me to 

investigate this subject, will, with the indulgence of the House, challenge the attentionofthegentlemanfrom New York and the members 

of the House to decisions of the courts which sustain my position. 

This proposition, Mr. Speaker, comes under what are known as the 

police powers of the Government. In the License cases, 5 Howard. decided when Chief-Justice Taney was on the Supreme bench of the 

United States, in speaking of police powers, that learned justice gave 

this definition, which in my judgment is comprehensive enough tocover 

the question involved in the pending bill. The definition is as follows: 

But what are the police powers of a State? They are nothing more nor less than the powers of government inherent in every sovereignty to the extent of its dominions. .And whether a State passes a quarantine law, or a law to prrn- ish offenses, or to establish courts of justice, or requiring certain instruments to be recorded, or to regulate commeree within its own liniits, in every case it exercises the same power, that is to say, the power of sovereignty, the power to govern men and things within the limits of its dominion (License cn.se, 5 How ard,583). 

In the opinion of the court in the Munn case, to which I have referred, Chief-Justice Waite used the following language: 

From this source (referring to the maxim sic utere tu.o ut alienum non laldas) 

come the police powers, which, as was said by Mr. Chief-Justice Taney in the License cases, 5 How., 583, "are nothing more nor less than the powers of govern- plant inherent in every sovereignty, that is to say, the power to govern men and things." Under these powers the government regulates the conduct of its citizens one toward another. and the manner in which each shall use hi:s own property, when suchregulations become necessary for the public good. 

In the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, in Stone 

vs. Mississippi, 101 United States, 814, after referring to the Dartmouth 

College case, where the court held that a charter to a private corpora.-

tion maycontain a contract which can not be impaired by subsequent 

legislation, it is said: 

In this connection, however, it is to be kept in mind that it is not the charter which is protected but only any contract the charter may contain. If' there is no conkact there is nothing in the grant in which the Constitution can act. Consequently the first inquiry in this class of cases always is, whether a. con- tract has in faet been entered into, and, if so, what its obligations are . 

And aftEr discussing the terms of the charter, which authorized the 

maintenance of a lottery for the term of twenty-five years for an ex- press pecuniary consideration, the opinion proceeds: 

If tbeLegislature that granted this charter had the power to bindlthe people of the State and all succeeding Legislatures to allow the corporation to continue its corporate existence, there is no doubt about the sufficiency of the language 

employed to effect that object. * * * Whether the alleged contract e:rists, 

therefore, or not. depends on the authority of the Legislature to bind the State and the people of the State in that way. All agree that the Legislature can not bargain away the police power of a State. 

The court then quote with approbation the following from Metropolitan Board of Excise vs. Barrie, 34 N. Y., 657: 

Irrevocable grants of property and franchise may be made if they do not impair the su,preme authority to make laws for the government of the State; but no Legislature can curtail the power of its sucaessors to 1nak:e such laws as they deem proper in matters of police. 

And further on (page 820) the court lay down these general propositions, the soundness of which ought never to be questioned: 

But the power of governing is a irust committed by the people to the gov- ern1:nent, no part of which can be granted away. * * • 

I may remark in passing that in the case to which I have just called 

the attention of the House the question presented was whether the 

State of Mississippi, in its sovereign capacity, could bind itself irrevocably by a co~ tract-to permit a certain corporation, for a limited number of years, to receive subscription and sell and dispose of certmcates of 

subscriptions which would entitle the holders thereof to any land 

books, paintings, ete., or any other property or things, et-c., awarded fu 

them by the casting of lots, or by lot, chance) or otherwise. 

It is undisputed that under such an arrangement the Legislature of 

the State of Mississippi chartered a lottery company, having all the 

powers incident to s~ch a ~o.q>oration for a limited number of years, 

and that the corporation pru.d mto the State treasury $5,000 in consid- eration of such chartered privileges. 

· A subsequent Legislature attempted to repeal the law granting these 

rights to that lottery company; and it claimed, as the gentleman from 

New York [Mr. WHITE] claims here, that it had obtained vested 

rights under a charter of the Legislature of the Sta~ and that that contract could not be violated by subsequent legislation. The question 

came to the Supreme Couxt of the United States, and they gave expression to the construction of that contract which I have just read to 

the House, and in 'that decision held that those powers could not be ·granted away by any Legislature. 

Now, I desire to call the attention of the membe:rs of the House to 

the situation of these parties under the contract that is claimed by the 

Western Union Telegraph Compan v. 

' As was stated by the g~tleman from._NewYork the other day, some 

of these telegraph compames were :first m the :field; that is, under the 

act of Congress of 1860. These land-grant railroads, the Central Pa-

,cific and the Union Pacific roads, were built under the acts of 1862and 

1864. Now, in this case the incorporators were required to construct 

maiD;tain, and operate a. t~leg~ph line precisely the same as they wer~ 

reqmred to construct, marntam, and operate the railroads. These two 

propositions were integral parts. of the same great object in view. 

In section 4 of the act of 1862 It was provided that if the incorporators 

under these several land-grant acts would go on and comply with_ them 

in the spirit and letter of the legislation, that :~ henever 40 miles ?f 

road was constructed and 40 miles of telegraph lille was constructed m 

compliance with it, and a report made to the Government, that commissioners would be appointed to go out and examine the constructed 

portions and make reports thereon, and then aid would be granted them 

in accordance with the original stipulations in the charters. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, every one of these land-grunt railroads, I care t;ot 

which one it may be, claimed in every instance ~hat the telegraph lme 

was constructed and operated precisely as the railroad was constructed 

and operated, and it was upon that representati?n, _and th:~.t _representation alone that the United States granted th1s md by gtvmg them 

millions of ~cres of land, and thousands, and even millions, of m_oney. 

I hold, sir, that whatever the subsequent fucts may be, these railroad 

companies are bound by the representations they made to the General 

Government at the time they procured the land grants and the money 

aid. I claim that the doctrine of est.oppel applies here, and these parties can not be beard to say when the Congress of the United States un, 

dertakes t.o enforce their charter duties and obligations and compel-them 

to maintain and operate the· telegraphlines, as they are compelled to 

operate and maintain the railroads, that they ha.ve made any contract 

with the Western Union Telegraph Company or any ot_her telegr~ph 

company. That doctrine is as old as the common law Itself. It IS a 

doctrinethatwillcommenditselftothejudgmentofeveryman. Every 

lawyer in the House knows that it applies in the most _primary and 

every-day transactions oflife. 

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague here sitting at my l~ft [~~.RoWELL] 

is the owner of a :fine horse and carriage, and I am w1.th htm_, and some 

person comes along and desires to buy the horse. and carr~ge, and I 

assume the ownership or r:ight to make a contract and the nght to s~ll 

the horse and carriaO'e in the presence of my colleague, who perm1ts 

the contract to be ~de without dissenting, .the law comes in with its 

estoppel and says that be shall not be beard after that "to claim that 

property from the person to ':hom I bad sold it; _and thaticannotrepudiate my assumed ownership to escape any clann t~e purchaser may 

bring a..,O"ainst me. And so·I insist that where these railroads have come 

to the General Government and claim<::;d to. have complied with their 

charter obli<Yations, ·and on the faithofthat obtained aid from the Gov-

. ernment, th~t they can not be heard in Congress or in the coul'ts to de~y that statement when the General Government attempts to enforce 1ts 

reserved rights under the terms o.f their charter. 

1\Ir. PETERS. Will the gentleman permit me to interrupt him a moment to say that that position is still stronger if it is shown, as in ~his 

case that the Western Union is the successor of these telegraph lines 

and 'was privy to that condition of things? 

Mr. BRUIDI. In other words, they have made false statements by 

which they secured Government aid, and they can not take advantage of 

their own fraud. That is the proposition. 

1\Ir. HOPKINS, of illinois. Yes, sir; that is correct. 

All of these facts were known to the telegraph companies that the 

Western Union claims under as having vested rights in the premises. 

This was all known, as has just been stated by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. PETERS]. . 

I stated, Mr. Speaker, that on investigation I was constrained to dissent from the facts as presented by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 

WHITE]. If I understood his argument the other day, he claims that, 

as a matter of fact, under what is known as the Idaho act, certain portions of these land-grant railroads at least took advantage of that act 

and instead of constructing a line of telegraph along their roads, as required ht the statutes of 1862 and 1864, made co~ tracts with telegra.J?h 

lines by which these lines were conveyed to the r1ght of way of the railroad companies, and that thereby they had complied with all the requirements of the General Government, and then had power to er~ter 

into the contract which the Western Union Telegraph Companyclatms 

as the contract of 1881. If I am not correct in stating· the position of 

the gentleman, I ask him to set me right. 

Ur. WHITE, of New York. I did not intend to be so understood. 

I will state the legal proposition in a word or two, if the gentlemarr 

desires. 

Mr. HOPKINS, of illinois. I ask the gentleman to state the facts. 

Mr. WHITE, of New York. Then I will state the facts. I have not 

claimed that there was any attempt made at the time to take advantage 

of the nineteenth section of the act of July 1, 1862, on the part of 

either the railroad company or the telegraph companies. 

Mr. HOPKINS, of Illinois. What do you claim, then? 

, Ur. WHITE, of New York. I will state what I claim. I stated that 

the right was granted by the acts of July 1, 1862, and of July 2,1864, 

to these railroad companies to enter into an arrangement with the telegraph companies that the telegraph companies should be operated or 

constructed over their right of way; and that those laws are unrepealed 

to-day, and it was so held by Judge Miller when he continued the injunction at Topeka., Kans. 

:rtlr. HOPKINS, of Illinois. My answer to the gentleman from New 

York on that branch of the case is this: That those rights under the 

provisions of the acts of 1862 and 1864 that the gentleman speaks of were simply as to the construction of the telegraph lines. Now, if the 
1304- CONG:{lESSIONAL ~EOORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 16,' 

railroad companies, which were required to construct and maintain telegraph lines along their railroad lines as an integral part of their obligation to the Go\ernment and the people, did not take advantage of 

that in the construction of their lines, then the power ceased under 

those sections; and after that any contract that might be made would 

be in violation of the chartered rights of these companies. And I am glad to have the gentleman from New York state~ frankly as he has 

done to-night his position, because it cuts away the last vestige of 

ground from under him, both in law and in fact. 

There is no lawyer who has studied carefully these acts and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States who will ever sustain him in his position eith~r in this House or out of it. 

Mr. WHITE, of New Yoik. Was Justice Miller's professional standing up to the concert pitch in 1880, when that decision was made, when 

he continued the injunction, the vitality of which depended solely upon 

the act of 1864, giving the right to the Union Pacific Railroad Company 

to make a contract with the telegraph companies-was that eminent 

jurist's standing at that time sufficient to satisfy the gentleman? 

Mr. HOPKINS, of Illinois. Judgel\Iillerisoneofthe greatestlegal 

lights of this country. 

Mr. WHITE, of New York. So I think. 

Mr. HOPKINS, of Illinois. He is a man for whose great legal learning 

and high character I have the greatest respect; and I believe Judge 

Miller will be found as vigorously dissenting from the position taken 

by the gentleman from New York to-night, if that question is brought 

before him, as I have done in my weak way. 

Justice Miller does not in his decision take the position the gentle- man has assumed for him. I want to state in defense of that great 

man's character and integrity and legal learning, that his position in 

that opinion is not the position that is assumed for him by the learned 

gentleman from New York. I stated when I was first upon the floor that 

that opinion of Judge Millerwaspredicated upon the truthfulness ofthe 

charges made in the bill filed by the Western Union Telegraph Company. 

Mr. PETERS. I call the gent]eman's attention to another fact, that 

the final demurrer by the railroad company admitted the facts for the 

purposes bf the demurrer. 

Mr. HOPKINS, of Illinois. Yes. I stated further, Mr. Speaker, that 

the railroad company, which now eeems to be aiding and abetting the 

telegraph company, came into court before Judge Miller and admitted 

as true all of these charges and allegations which were made in that 

bill. Judge ~IiUP,r stated that if these allegations were true, the law 

would be so and so; "Qutas I read when I was on the floor before, Judge 

Miller said tbat even then if, on the final hearing, the telegraph com- pany did not bring more proof t~ show the organization of the United 

States Telegraph Company and its transfer to the Western Union, he 

should be constrained not to continue the injunction. That is the substance of his decision. 

M:r. WHITE, of New York. In other words, Judge Miller did not 

decide the case finally, because it was a preliminary motion to dissolve 

the injunction, but he stood prepared to decide it according to the facts 

as they should be put in proof upon the trial of the case, and held, 

prima facie, that the averments of the bill were sufficient, and that the 

act of July 1, 1864, did grant the power to the railroad companies to 

give the telegraph companies the right to operate over their right of ~~ . Mr. HOPKINS, of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, that statement of the gentle- man is the worst kind of special pleading, because every lawyer knows 

that where a p:1rty goes into court and asks for a preliminary injunction, and a demurrer is interposed, it admits as true the facts stated--

Mr. WHITE, of New York. I have heard of that demurrer a good 

deal, and I now call upon the gentleman to show that there was a de- murrer. The hearing was upon a motion to dissolve, upon the bill. It 

may be in the nature of a demurrer, but there was no demurrer. 

Mr. HOPKINS, of Illinois. I will ask the gentleman if a motion to 

dis.'3olve an injunction has not, in legal parlance, the same effect as a 

demurrer? 

Mr. WHITE, of New York. It may have, or it may not. A man may contradict the facts or he may support them by affidavits, and he 

does not sign away his case. 1\Ir. HOPKINS, of Illinois. How was it in this case? Were there 

nny affidavits filed? 

Mr. WHITE, of New York. I don't know, sir. 

:Mr. HOPKINS, of Illinois. Do you not know, from the reading of 

the case, that if it was a motion it h:1.d the same force and effect as a demurrer? 

Mr. \VHITE, of New York. I know this--

Mr. HOPKINS, of Illinois. Don't you know that, sir? Answer my 

question. 

Mr. WHITE, of New York. I have answered your question once. Mr. RO"\rnLL. Is nota motion to dissolve on a bill without answer equivalent to a demurrer? 

.Mr. WHITE, of New York. If there are no affidavits in the case, 

yes. If there are affidavits, no. Mr. ROWELl~. I said on the bill. Is not that equivalent to a demurrer? 

Mr. LIND. The record shows this to have been on the bill. 

Mr. HOPKINS, of Illinois. The record shows that it was on the bill, 

and I was trying to get the gentleman from New York, who ha<> an- nounced such extraordinary bw here, to admit the fact.. 

1\fr. WHITE, of New York. l\1y law is of the most ordinary kino, 

such law as is dealt out by the Supreme Court of the United States. It 

is not extraordinary law at all. Now, I do not wish to interrupt the 

gentleman any further. I have stated with the utmost candor my reasons for believing that this bill is unconstitutional, and I predicate my 

belief upon Judge Miller's deci. ion, to which I have called attention. 

When I come to discuss the pending bill, I will cite that decision and 

show the gentleman and the committee its bearing and force in relation to this question. 

Mr. HOPKINS, of illinois. I have read Judge :Miller's decision carefull_y. 

Mr. WHITE, of New York. So have I. 

Mr. HOPKINS, of Illinois. , And I say that it does not decide any 

question in this case. As was shown by the gentleman from Kansas 

[1\fr. PETERSl the other day, that decision was predicated upon a series 

of'' ifs, '' a series of contingencies, none of which the facts show to exist; .and, as suggested by the gentleman from Kansas, even the Western 

Union Telegraph Company does not now claim that they exist. · Now, if that he true, how absurd it is tu invoke the great name of 

Judge Miller before the members of this House in support of a proposition 

that can not be sustained either upon the law or upon the facts. Why, 

Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand the opinion of two of the attorneys of 

the Union Pacific Railroad Company, one of whom, as I understand, 

drew this contract of 1881 between theW estern Union Telegraph Company and the Union Pacific Railroad Company, wherein they both say · 

to the president of this great railroad corporation that under these acts 

of Congress the railroad company has no power to make any lease or any coutract with the Western Union Telegraph Company, or with any 

other company. In that opinion they hold that the right or duty to 

construct, operate, and maintain a telegraph line is an integral part of 

the great object had in view by Congress in granting these rights, and 

that that right or duty can not be delegated to any other corporation. That decision is found on page 19 of Executive Document No. 2, and, 

with the indulgence of the House, I will caJl attention to the exact language which was used by Mr. Dillon and Mr. Sidney Dart.lett: 

The Pacific railroads were authorized by Congress to construct, maintain, and manage a continuous railroad and telegraph from the Missouri River to the P~ 

cific Ocean. Lands were granted, and bonds issued by the Government to aid in the construction of the railroad and telegraph lines. It was only on the com- pletion and equipment ot said railroad and t-elegraph lines that the companies became entitled to lands and bonds from the Government. 

Now, mark that! As these attorneys themselves claim, it was only on the completion of. the telegraph line, as well as the railroad, that 

the companies were entitled to the bonds and lands which in the acts 

to which I have referred the Government agreed to give them. 

One of the conditions of the grants by Congress is that the compa!lies shall 

lteep said railroad and telegraph lines in repair and use. and shall at all times 

transmit dispatches over said telegraph lines. The companies were, moreover, required to operate and use said roads and telegraphs for all purposes of com- munication, travel, and transportation, so far ns the public ana Government are concerned, as one continuous 1 ine, without discrimination of any kind; and it was expressly enacted not to be lawful for the proprietors.of any line of telegraph authorized by this act to refuse or fail to convey messages and news for 

all persons requiring such transmission. • On well-known principles oflaw, such franchises are inalienable with?ut ex- press legislative authority. Not only is there an absence of such authority. but its existence is plainly negatived by the nature of the rights reserved to the Gov- ernment and the special duties toward the Government and the public enjoined on the companies, which they alone can perform. It results, therefo1·e, that na valid lease or other contract can be made by the companies to surrender or to devolve on other parties their duty to maintain, control, and manage their re- spective lines of telegraph. They can no more do this in respect of their lines of 

telegraph than they can in respect of their lines of railway. Any lease or con- tract to that effect is, in the language of the law, ultra 1Ji1·es. 

This opinion, Mr. Speaker, was rendered upon the 22d of February, 

1880, three years after the contract of 1877 was made. This opinion was given by two of the great constitutional and corporation L'lwyers 

of this country, with full knowledge of all the rights and pow~rsguarantied under the several acts of 1862 and 1864 and the Idaho act to 

which I have referred. This opinion was rendered, if I remember correctly, after the decision of Judge Miller. 

Mr. WHITE of New York. You will find by reference to the minority report th~t October, 1880, was the date of Judge Miller's opinion. 

Mr. HOPKINS of Illinois. That point is immaterial. This opinion was rendered 1

by these attorneys to the railroad company prior to 

the contract of 1881, under which the gentleman from New York claims 

the Western Union Telegraph Company has "vested rights." I speak 

of this to show to members of the House, and all interested in this subject, that the railroad company and the telegraph company entered i~to 

this contract with a full knowledge of what was understood as berng 

the object and scope of the legislation which had_preceded this contract. 

To show that theW estern Union Telegraph Company bad full knowledge as to what was claimed, I call attention to section 3 of this con- tract which is so sacred in the eyes of the gentleman from New York . 

I find there this language: 

The railway company, so far as it legally may, hereby "rl\nts and agrees to 

assure to the telegraph company, etc. 
1888. CONGR.ESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1305 

Thus the very question at issue was reserved in this contract. The 

m::magers of the railroad company had before them this opinion of 

these lawyers, their own attorneys, that they had no authority what- ever to enter into a contract of this kind; and by the langua.ge of the 

contract itself they recognized the limitations on their. power in this respect. 

But again, the gentleman says, rights were acquired under previous 

contracts and by other telegraph companies which have been absorbed 

by the Western Union. I call attention to the closing sections of this 

contract of 1881, where the Union Pacific Railroad Company expressly 

dissents from the claims which are made by the Western Union Telegraph Company, and denies that it has any lawful contract with it by 

which it can control and operate these telegraph lines to the exclusion 

of the railroad. 

M:r. Speaker, the lateness of the hour admonishes me that I should 

draw my remarks to a close. This bill is a matter of prime importance 

to the people of this country. When these acts were passed this country was going through a crucial period, the like of which has not been seen in any other nation, ancient or modern. These acts were intended, not 

for the benefit of private individuals, but for the purpose of cementing 

and uniting the different portions of this great country. 

The object was, by aid of steam and electricity, to make the people 

upon the Pacific coast and in the southwestern portion of our country 

brethren and friends with those in the Middle and New England States. 

Congress hedged about these grants in a manner which they supposed 

would protect the people. They did all that could be done. It has 

only been by the inertness of subsequent Congresses that these great 

corporations like the Western Union have been able to make contracts 

in violation of law, of justice, and of the commercial rights of mankind. 

I would not take a dollar from the Western Union Telegraph Company, but when it makes a contract which under the law of the land 

is unlawful, when and by virtue of which it claims a right inimical to 

the interest of the American people, then I say, as a represent.:'\tive of a portion of those people ·in this Congress, that it is my duty to do what 

I can to check its growing power and to see that these land-grant companies shall be compelled to carry out their charter obligations and duties 

to the A.merkan peoplE:. 

Mr. BUCKALEW. Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire of the 

gentleman who spoke last, whether I am in error in supposing these 

railroad charters reserved the power in Congress to amend, alter, and 

repeal the charters which they have granted to these companies? , 

Mr. HOPKINS, of Illinois. Yes, that power is reserved to Congress 

in every one of these charters. I did not speak on that point of the 

case, because it was gone over so fully by the gentleman from Kansas 

[Mr. PETERS] in hi<; remarks. . 

Mr. BUCKALEW. I submit, then, the debat-e on the abstract power 

of Congress to pass this bill is irrelevant, because no doctrine is clearer or of more general acceptance than that where the power is reserved by Congress or a State to amend, alter, or repeal a charter under the provision 

of the Const.i tu tion and the decisions of the courts, the question of the 

sacredness of a contract is entirely out of the question. I do not see, 

therefore, why this debate in its future progress in the House need cover 

that field of inquiry. If this power is reserved by Congress it holds it 

independently. The simple question is whether the proposed amendment to the charters of these companies is obnoxious to some other objection? 

Mr. WHITE, of New York. I feel my sense of obligation to the 

gentleman in outlining to me the course I should pursue in this matter, and if I do not take his advice it will not be from want of personal 

respect for him, but because of difference of judgment. 

Mr. BUCKALEW. I may be allowed to say the observations just 

made by the gentleman from New York were not · called for by anything said by me. :My remarks were general, and had no reference to 

him more than to any other member of the House. 

Mr. DOCKERY. Before submitting the motion to adjourn, I ask, 

l>y unanimous consent, that members desiring to do so may have the 

privilege of printing their remarks on this bill in the RECORD. 

There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly. 

1\Ir. DOCKERY. I had intended to say something on the first section 

of the bill, but as the hour is growing late I will defer it for the present. I move that the House do now anjourn. 

The motion wasagreed to; and accordingly (at 11 o'clockp. m.) the 

Rouse adjourned. . 

'' 

Also, a bill (H. R. 7319) for the relief of Emory R. Seward-to the 

Committee on Claims. 

By Mr. BLISS: A bill (H. R. 7320) for the relief of :Margaret MalJoy-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 7321) granting a pension to Phebe A. Romaine, 

widow of Joseph Romaine-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. CHEADLE: A bill (H. n. 7322) granting a pension to James 

G. W. Hardy-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 7323) granting a pension to Robert C. Spurlockto the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. FORD: A bill (H. R. 7324) to remove the charge of desertion 

and to grant an honorable discharge to Elijah J. M:ingis-to the Com- _ 

mittee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. GLASS: A bill (H. R. 7325) directing the Secretary of War 

to remm·e the charge of desertion from all soldiers mustered\ into the 

Seventh Tennessee Infantry, and for other purposes-to the Committee 

on War Claims. 

By :M:r. GLOVER: A bill (H. R. 7326) for the relief ofF rank Backof-· 

to the Committee on Military Affairs. - Also, a bill (H. R. 7327) for the relief of D. H. Silver-to the Committeeon War Claims. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 7328) for the relief of the officers and crew of the 

United States steamers Forest Rose and Argosy, late of the Red River 

expedition-to the Committee on War Claims. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 7329) for the relief of 0. H. Applegate-to the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions. - Also, a bill · (H. R. 7330) for the relief of Frederick Linnes and 

others-to the Committee on War Claims. ~ 

Also, a bill (H. R. 7331) granting a pension to John F. Smith-to the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 7332) granting a pension to Michael Caulfieldto the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Ur. HATCH: A bill (H. R. 7333) granting a pension to Joseph 

S. Wickham-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. LIND: A .bill (H. R. 7334) granting a pension to Mary A. 

Canfield, widow of Job A. Canfield-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By ~fr. LODGE: A bill (H. R. 7335) granting a pension to Mrs. Za. 

linda Hill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. McCOMAS: A bill (H. R. 7336) for the relief of Ellery C. 

Folger-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. SENEY: A bill (H. R. 7337) granting a pension to Lydia 

Harringer-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 7338) for the relief of John P. Howenstine-to 

the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. STONE, of Kentucky: A bill (H. R. 7339) for the relief of 

James Oakley-to the Committee on War Claims. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 7340) authorizing the ~onstruction of a bridge across the Mississippi River at Hickman, Ky.-to the Com.mittee on 

Commerce. 

By Mr. G. M. THOMAS: A bill (H. R. 7341) for the reliefofEli 

:Qavis-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. VOORHEES: A bill (H. R. 7342) authorizing the Secretary 

of the '!'reasury to refund to Charles A. :McDaniel the sum of $2,959. 55-

to the Committ-ee on Claims. 

By Mr. WALKER: A bill (H. R. 7343) relieving William Howard 

of the disability of a prior homestead entry-to the Committee on 

the Public Lands. 

By Mr. WICKHAM: A bill (H. R. 7344) granting a pension to Henrietta Waldron-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. STEELE: A bill (H. R. 7345) for the relief of Samuel J. 

Jackson-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. 6'406) for the relief of Thomas McDonald-from the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions to the Committee on Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 359) for the relief of JohnS. Boswell-from the 

Committee on Claims to the Committee on War Claims. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 3876) for the relief of Jeremiah Rumsey-from 

the Committee on Pensions to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 2956) to repeal section 4716 of the Revised Statutes-from the Committee on Pensions to the Committee on Invalid 

Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 2576) granting a pension to John F. NevillePRIV ATE BILLS AND JODl"T RESOLUTIONS INTRODUCED AND RE- from the Committee on Pensions ·to the Committee on Invalid PenFERRED. , sions. 

Under the rule private bills and joint resolutions of the following 1 

titles were introduced and referred, as indicated below: 

By Mr. ATKINSON: A bill (H. R. 7316) granting a pension to Mary 

P. Thompson-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

~Y Mr. BELDEN: A bill (H. R. 7317) for the relief of Mrs. Jane 

Lester, widow of William H. A. Lester-to the Committee on Invalid 

Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 7318) for the relief of Richard Good-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

The following petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk:s desk, 

under the ru1e, and referred as follows: 

By Mr. ADAMS: Petition of the Cigar-Makers' International Union, 

No. 15, of Chicago, Ill., for speedy settlement of the internal-revenue 

tax reduction question-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. C. H. ALLEN: Petition of John F. Kimball, Adams & Co., 

Putnam & Co., and 80 others; of William Shepard, F. Nickerson, and 
1306 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 16, 

otherS'; of W. M. Sawyer, E. B. Patch, Aug. Fels, and others; of Charles ell, against abolishing the internal-1·evenue tax on cigars-to the ComE. Carter, F. P. Spalding and others, and of Staples Bros., P. 0. Hearn, mit.tee on Ways and Means. 

and others} citizens of Lowell,. Mass., in aid of _a public building for Also, memorial of James Viek, for reduction of postage on seeds-to 

that city-to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. E. P . .ALLEN: Protest of the '\Vest Branch Lumberman's Also, memorial of E. L. Goff and othersr for 1·eduction of postage on Ex chang~ of Williamsport, Pa., against the repeal of the duty on lmn- seeds, and for fractional currency-to the Committee on the Post-Office be.r~to the Committee ou Ways and Means. and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. A. R. ANDERSON: Petition of the faculty of Amity Col- By 1Ir. FISHER; Petition of Frank Emerick and 39 others, and of 

lege, College Springs, Page County, Iowa, favoring fuller security to W. A. French and 18 others7 for a harbor of refuge at Fa.l.~ Presque 

literary property, and asking the speedy enactment of an international Isle, Michigan-to the Committee on Ri..-ers and Harbors. 

copyright law-to the Committee on Patents. By :Mr. FORD: Petition of V. W. Seelyr Jacob Baar, and others; of 

.Also, resolution of the Republic,;'l.n Club of Creston, Union County, R. B. Vanderhoef, W. S. Walkm\ and others, and letter of V. W. 

Iowa, for a pension to each Union soldier who served in the Mexican or Seely, foT increased compensation for keepers and surfmen in the Lifethe late war, on sole conditio:g of an honorable discharge-to the Com- Saving Service-to the Committee on Commerce. 

mittee on Pensions. Also, memorial of the Grand Rapids (Mich.} Board of Tracle, for a 

Also, joint resolution of the General Assembly of Iowa, as to when survey of a water route from said city to Lake .Michigan-to the ComFederal judgment shall constitute a lien on real estate-t.Q the Com- mittee on Rivers and Harbors. 

mittee on the Judiciary. By Mr. FORNEY: Petition of citizens of St. Clair Couutyt A1aAlso, petition ofDorus M. Fox1 for pension relief-to the ()()mmittee bama, for national aid to education :md in. favor of the Blair bill-to on Invalid Pensions:' the. Committee on Education. 

By Mr. C. S. BAKER: Petitionofcitizens ofRome,andofcitizensof By Mr. GEST: Memorialfrom thecitiesofBnshnellandMonmonth, 

Rochester, N. Y., in favor of th~ bill to reduce letter postage-to the Ill. 1 concerning the erection of Government buildin~to the ComCommittee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. mittee on Public Buildings and Grounds. 

By. Mr. BARNES (by request): Petition of the Woman's Christian By :Mr. GIFFORD: Petition of Lincoln Evans and 20 others, of WillTemperance Union of Gem'gi:l, for the repeal of the internal-revenue iam M. Penwell and 10 others, of A. A. Fanst a.nd 20 others, of .Rutax on all alcoholic liquors-to the Committee on Ways and Means.. dolph Olander and 13 others, of James 0. Dean and 35 others, of C. 

Also, petition of William' Gibson, administrator of Sterling Gibson, Christianson and 12 others, of C. R. WateTs and 14 others, of Geo.rge 

of Warren County, Georgia, fo.r reference of his claim ro the Court ·of Bainey and 13 others, of John Dickinson and 15 others, ofS. W. MelClaims-to the Committee ou War Claims. · cher and 20 othe:rst o.f Lewis Peterson and 10 others, ofW. F. Lott and 

By Mr. BINGHAM: Petition for reduction of letter postage from 2 8 others, of Charles G. Brown and 95 others, o.f P. E. Anderson and 

cents tu 1 cent an ounce-to the Committee. on the Post.-Office and Post- 20 others, and ofW. A. Drake and 8 others, citizens of Dakota, for a 

Roads. posta.l-telegJ"aph system-to the Committee on the Po t-O.ffice and PostEy Mr. C. R. BRECKINRIDGE: Petition of J: A. McEven, heir of Roads. 

A. M. McEven, of Pope Courrty, Arkansas, for reference of his claim .By Mr. GLASS: Petition of James Burress, of Gibson County, and 

to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. of H. H. Mahon, administrators of Josiah B. Moss, of Crockett County, 

By Mr. W. C. P. BRECKINRIDGE: Petition of the Typog:rnphic.c'\1 Tennessee, for reference of their claims to the Court of Clnims-to tbe 

Unions of Frankfort and Lexington, Ky., asking that the employes of Committee on War Claims. 

the Government Printing Office be paid the rates paid prim to March By ML GLOVER: Petition of workingmen employed in the ma.nu4, 1877-to the Committee on Printing. facturing of painted and stained glass, relative to tariff on stained glassBy Mr. T. H. B. BROWNE: Petition of Capt. John E. Parker. and to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

other citizens of Accomack.County,Virginia, for continuing the improve- Also., petition of citizens of the Ninth district of Missouri, for a ment of Onancock River-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. , Government system of telegraph-to the Committ€e on the Post-Office 

By Mr. BUCHANAN: Joint resolution requesting an app.ropriation and Post Roads. 

for the removal of Smith's or Windmill Island from the Delaware By Mr. GROUT: Resolutions of Pomona Grange, of Royalton, Vt., 

River-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. for reduction of postage on seeds, bulbs, etc.-tothe Committee on the 

By :Mr. BUTTERWORTH: Petition of the board of directors of the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

Chamber of Commerce and :Uerchant.s' Exchange of Cincinnati, Ohio, By l'tfr. HAYES~ Petition of J. !f. Huston Post, No. 394, of Victor, 

against the importation of adulterated articles of food-to the Com- Iowa, for a service-pension bill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

mittee on Ways and :M:eans. By Mr. HIRES: Joint resolution for an appropria.tion for the removal 

By 1\Ir. FELIX CAMPBELL: Six numerously signed petitions from of Smith's or Windmill Island from the Delaware River-to the Com-

. the Society of Old Brooklynites, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for the erection mittee on Rivers and Harbors. 

in that city of a monument to commemorate the prison-ship martyrs- ·By Mr. S. I. HOPKINS (by request): Petition of the West Branch 

to the Committee on the Library. ' Lumberman's Exch::mget against placing lumber on the free-list-to 

By M:r. CAREY: Petition and memorial of residents of Sm1dance, the Committee on Ways and Means. 

Wyo., for a land office at tbat pJa.ce-to the Committee on the Public ' By Mr. JACKSON: Petition of David F. Enoch and 35 others, citiLands. zens of Washington County, Pennsylvania, against the admission of 

Ry lli. CASWELL: Petition of the faculty of Racine College, fo.r the Utah as a State-to the Committee on the Te:nit.Qries. 

passage of an international copyright law-to the Committee on Pat- By lli. J. T. JOHNSTON: Petition of J. L. Sebring and 57 others, solents. · diers and citizens of Sullivan County, Indiana, fo:r the passage of Hou e 

By :M::r. COGSWELL: Petition of the heirs of :Michael Coughlin, a bill 5052, or a similar one-to the Committee on Military A:tfairs. 

sailor in the American Navy, in the war of the Revolution7 for certain By Mr. LAIRD: Petition of faculty of Doane College, C.rete, Nebr., 

prize-money-to the Committee on War Claims. tar removal of duty on books-to the Committee. on Ways and 1\leans_ 

By Ur. COX: Memorial of the mayor, aldermen, and commonalty Also, petition of same1 for au international copyright law-to the 

of New York, praying for the passage of a bill to pay the claim of said Committee on Patents. _ city for principal and interest on bonds issued to the Union defense By Mr. LYMAN: Papers in support of House bill No. '701~ for recommittee of that city in 1861 and 1862 forne~quipments, etc., lief of John Dungan-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

of troops engaged in the service in pursuance of the requisition of the By Mr. McCOMAS: Petition of the faculty of F.rederick Cellege, 

President of the United.States-to.the Committee on Claims. . Maryland, fo:r an international copyright-to the Committee on PatAlso, memorial of the authorities of·Sing Sing, N.Y., for discon- ents. 

tinning the present system of appropriations for public buildings, and Also, petition of the heirs of Jesse Hinckle, of Alleghany County, 

favoring a general appropriation bill for Government post-office build- Maryland, for payment of their claims-to the Committee on War 

ings in every city and town of the Union of 3,000inhabitants or over- Claims. · to the Committee on Appropriations. Aiso, memorial of the Modern Language Association of America, for 

J?y Mr. CUTCHEON: Petition of citizens of Pentwater, Mich., in repeal of tarHfon foreign books-to the Committee on Ways and Ueans. fu~orofincreaseofpayofcrews in Life-SavingService-totheCommit- Also, petition of Henry Show, of Washington County, 1Iaryland, for 

tee' on Commerce. , payment of his war claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. ENLOE: Petition of 1\Iartha A. Robinson, administratrix of By Mr. McKINLEY: Petition of citizens of Bucyrus, and of WyanWilliam L. Robinson, of Uadison County, and of George W. Differ, dotte and Carey,. Ohio, for speedy action on the petition for protection 

administrator of Moses Differ,. of Henderson County, Tennessee, for ref- to the wool-growers and woolen manufacturers of this country-to the erence of their claims to the Court of Claims-to the. Committee on Committee on Ways and Means. 

War Clabns. Also, joint resolution of the Legislature of Ohio, urging the passage 

By Mr. ER'M:fu~ROUT: Petition of West B.raneh Lumbemian's of Senate bill No. 260, to :reimburse the several States for interest paid 

Exchange of Williamspor~ Pa., against free lumber-to the Commit- on war loans, and for other purposes-to the Committee on War Claims. 

tee on W a.ys and Means. · Also, memorial of the Society of Friends in conference at Richmond, 

Also, memorial of the Reading l Pa.) Boord of Trade and Lahar Conn- Ind. 1 S.eptember1 1887-to the Committee on Fo.reign Affairs. 
I· 

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- HOUSE. 1307 

By Mr. MAISH: Petition of Mary Gibson, for increase of Iier pension-to the Committee on Pensions. 

By :Mr. MILLIKEN: Petition of C. M. Bailey and others, for the settlement of international disputes by arbitration-to the Committ~e on 

· Foreign Affairs. 

By Mr. MOFFITT: Memorial of the Eastern Iron Ore Association, 

protesting against any reduction from the present duty on iron ore-to 

the Committee on Ways and 1\Ieans. 

By Mr. ~TEAL: Petition of W. R. Henson, administrator of John Henson, of Sequatchie County, Tennessee, for reference of his claim to the 

Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

Mr. NORWOOD: Petition of Mary E. Cullane and Gertrude Power, 

of Harry Hayne, and of Levi Lilienthal, of Georgia, for reference of 

their claims to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. O'DO:N""NELL: Petition of the Central City Soap Company, 

of Jackson, Mich., G. F. D. Bennett, president, for removal of the duty 

on tin-plate-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

Also, protest of the \Vest Branch Lumberman's Exchange, of Williamsport, Pa., against the repeal of the duty on lumber-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. CHARLES O'NEILL: JoiutmemorialoftheBoardofTrade, 

Commercial, Maritime, Drug, Grocers', and ImpOiters' Exchanges, Vessel-Owners and Captains' Association of Philadelphia, Pa., urging the 

removal of Smith's and Windmill Islands and the shoals, etc., so as 

to hupro>e the channel of the Delaware River-to the Committee on 

Rivers and Harbors. 

By Mr. OSBORl\TE: PetitionOfWilliam Schaus, in regard to the tariff 

on imported works of art-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By 1\Ir. PEEL: Petition of Samuel Gollaher, heir of Henry Gollaher, 

of \V ashingtou County, Arkansas, for reference of his claim to the Court 

of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. PENINGTON: Petition of William Schaus, on the subject 

of the tariff-t9 the Committee on Ways and M:eans. 

By Mr. RICHARDSON: Petition of P. Y. Butler, administrator of 

T. 0. Butler, of Rutherford County, and of Clement A. Featherstone, 

of Franklin County, Tennessee, for reference oftheir claims to the Court 

of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. C. A. RU SELL: Memorial from the authorities of Danielson,ille, Conn., in fa"for of erecting Government post-office buildings 

in places of 3,000 inhabitants or over-to the Committee on Public 

Buildings and Grounds. 

By 1\Ir. SENEY: Petition of A. G. Brown and 20 others, of Seneca 

County, Ohio, favoring the wool schedule as agreed upon by the Wool 

Growers and Woolen Manufacturers' Convention at Washington, January 14, 1888-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

AJ o, joint resolution of the General Assembly of Ohio, favoring Senate Lill No. 260, to reimburse the States fo:r interest paid on war loansto the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. SHAW (by request): Petition of William Schaus, of New 

York, for :pla.cing imported pnintings and sculptures on the free-listto the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. HENRY SMITH: Petition of Lafayette Brockway, for in-

. crease of pension (House bill6804)-tothe Committeeonim·alid Pension.. . By Mr. SPRINGER: Address to Congress by the constitutional convention ofDakota, relative to division of said Territory and its admission into the Union-to the Committee on the Territories. 

By Mr. STAHLNECKER: Petition of the West Branch Lumberman's Exchange, of \Vil.liamsport, Pa., respecting their interests and 

tariff changes-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By 1\Ir. STEPHENSON: Memorial of the authorities of Stevens 

Point, Wis., for a general appropriation for erecting public buildings 

in cities of 3,000 or over-to the Committee on Publi_c Buildings and 

Grounds. 

By M:r. J. W. STEW ART: Petition of Thomas Ryan and others, to 

incr:ease pay of court bailiffs in southern district of New York-to the 

Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. G. 1\f. THOMAS: Petition of Eli Davis, to accompany bill for· 

his relief-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, petition to accompany )>ill for the relief of John G. Harmonto the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Ur. V A.t"{DEVER: A bill for thesurveyoftheharbor of San Buenaventura, Cal., and an estimate of the cost of making it a harbor of 

refuge-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. 

By 1\Ir. WHITTHORNE: Petition of:Mrs. Canyada Brewer, of Wayne 

County, Tennessee, for reference of her claim to the Court of Claimsto the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. WICKHAM: Memorial of authorities of :Mansfield, Ohio, for 

a. general act for the erection of post-office buildings in cities and towns 

of 3, 000 inhabitants or ove~-to the Committee on Public Buildings and 

Grohnds. " 

The following :petitions for an increase of compensation of fourthclass po tmasters were severally referred to the Committee on the PostOffice and Post-Roads: 

By :Mr. IIOGG: Of A. J. Cunningham and 23 others, of Pleasants 

County, West Virginia. 

By Mr. HOUK: Of 31 citize:as of Sevier County, Tennessee. 

By l\Ir. KENNEDY: Of Francis Harper and 54 other citizens of Logan County, Ohio. 

By Jltir. WHITTHORNE: Of James McGhee and others; of Wayne 

County, Tennessee. 

The following petitions, praying for the enactment of a law providing temporary aid for common schools, to be disbursed on the .basis of 

illiteracy, were severally referred to the Committee on Education: 

By 1\Ir. C. H. ALLEN: Of 327 citizens of Middlesex County, J.'Jlassachusetts. 

By l\Ir. DAVENPORT: Of 232 citizens of Ontario County, New 

York. 

By Mr. ELLIOTT: Of 423 citizens of Beaufort County, South Carolina. 

By Mr. FLOOD: Of 280 citizens of Schuyler County, New York. 

By Mr. HAUGEN: Of 259 citizens of Pierce County, Wisconsin. 

By Mr. MAISH: Of390 citizens of York County, Pennsylvania. 

By Mr. MORROW: Of 112 citi2:ens of San Francisco, Cal. 

By Mr. NELSON: Of 155 citizens of Morrison County, Minnesota. 

By Mr. PAYSON: Of132 citizens ofLivingston County, illinois. 

By Mr. SAWYER: Of 483 citizens of Genesee County, New York. 

By 1\Ir. SHAW: Of 220 citizens of Baltimore County, Maryland. 

By Mr. WICKHAM: Of 599 citizens of Lorain County, Ohio. 

By Mr. THOMAS WILSON: Of 100 citizens of Fillmore County, 

Minnesota. / 

The followingpetitions, ash.'ingforthe passageofthe bill prohibiting 

the manufacture, sale, and importation of all alcoholic beverages in the 

District of Columbia, were severally referred to the Select Committee 

on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic: 

By Mr. DINGLEY: Ofl23 citizens of the Second district of Maine. 

By Mr. GRANGER (by request): Of254 citizens of the Fourth district of Connecticut. 

By Mr. HAUGEN: Of 109citizensof theEighthdistrictofWISconsin. 

By :Mr. MAISH: Of 100 citizens of the District of Columbia. 

By Mr. MOORE. Of 129 citizens of the District of Columbia. 

By 1\Ir. ROWELL: Of 172 citizens of the Fourteenth district of Illinois. 

By Mr. WEBER: Of 135 citizens of the Thirty-third district of New 

York. 

HOUSE OF REPRES&~ATIVES. 

FRIDAY, Februa1-y 17,1888. 

The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by Rev. Dr. BRUSH, president o!Dakota University. 

The Journal of ye3terday's proceedings was re..'ld and approved. 

11\IPROVE:Mlli~T OF PATUXENT RIVER, MARYLAND. 

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Sec~·eta.ry of 

War, transmitting, with a letter from the Chief of Engineers, reports 

of examinations and surveys of Patuxeut .River, in 1t1aryland; which 

was referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, and ordered to 

be printed. SENATE BILL REFERRED. 

The SPEAKER, under the rule, laid before the Honse the bill (S. 

371) to aid in the establishment and tempmary support of common 

schools; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the 

Committee on Education. 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. 

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

To Mr. PE.NINGTO.N, indefinitely, onaccountofsicknessinhisfamily. 

To Mr. liiESTAND, for six days, on account of important business. 

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL A~l> MECHANICAL COLLEGE. 

Mr. OATES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to discharge 

the Committee of the \Vllole House from the further consideration of 

the bill (H. R. 4082) for the relief of the Agricultural and Mechanical 

College of Alabama, and put it upon its passage. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state to the gentleman from Alabama that, as shown by the Journal, a bill comes over this morning as 

unfinished business to be first disposed of. 

Mr. OATES. I ask unanimous consent that this be considerednow, 

as it will take but a very short time. 

The SPEAKER. The bill will be read subject to objection. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacled, etc., That the Recretnry of War be, and he is hereby, authorized nnd directed to relieve the Agricultural and Mechanical College at Auburn, Ala., from all money re:;ponsibility for so much of the ordnance and ordnance stores issued to said college under its bond dated February 9,1886, as was destroyed by fire on June 24.1887.