8304 CONGRESS! ON AL RECORD-HOUSE. 8EPTE1\IBER 5, 

to state that mv colleague fMr. BECK] is paired with the Senator from 

Maine [Mr. HALE], neither-of them being present. My colleague would 

vote ''yea,'' if be were present and not paired. 

:Mr. PADDOCK. I desii·e to inform the Senator from Kentucky that 

my colleague [Mr. MANDERSON] would vote "yea," if he were here. 

Mr. BLACKBURN. Then I shall ask leave to have my vote recorded 

in the affirmative.' 

Mr. ALLISON (after having voted in the affirmative). :My colleague 

[Mr. WILSON of Iowa] is necessariJy absent to-day, and is paired with 

the Senator fr~m Maryland [:M:r. WILSON]. I have a general pair with 

the senior Senator from Delaware [Mr. SAui.SBURY]. I leave it; with 

}lis colleagues to say what I shall do respecting the pair. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Tlle senior Senator from Delaware [.Mr. SAuLsBURY] would vote "yea," if he were present. 

Mr. ALLISON. I will allow my vote to stand unless some Senator 

thinks I ought to observe my pair. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Let it stand. I am paired with the Senator from 

Connecticut [J',Ir. H.A WLEY]. Ileave it to his colleague to say whether 

the pair shall be observed. 

Mr. PLATT. I do not know how my colleague would vote. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I have voted "yea." I will withdraw· my vote 

if the Senator says so. I withdraw my vote. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri withdraws his vote. 

Mr. HISCOCK. Did I understand' some Senator to announce that 

he wa,c:~ paired with my colleague [Mr. Ev .ARTS]? 

]',{r. CULLOM. The Senator from New York [Mr. EVARTS] is 

usually paired with the Senator from Alabama [Mr. MORGAN]. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The announcement of the pair was 

made. 

Mr. PUGH. My colleague [Mr. MORGAN] is paired with the Senator from New York [Mr. EVARTS]. 

The PRESIDENT pm tempore. ~oth Senators are absent. ·. 

Mr. HISCOCK. I have no doubt that my colleague [Air. EVARTS] 

would vote "yea," if he were here. 

Mr. 'fELLER. I desire to announce the pair of my colJeague [Mr. 

BoWEN] with the Senator from Florida [Mr. CALL]. If my ·colleague were present he would vote '' yea.'' 

Mr. PUGH. The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. KE:NNA] requested me to announc'e his pair with the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 

SABIN]. The Senator frol\l. West Virgipia would vote "yea," if he 

were present. 

Mr. BATE. My colleague [Mr. HARRIS] is necessarily absent, and 

is paired with the Senator from Vermont [Mr. MoRRILL]. IfmycolIearne were present he would vote '' yea.'' Mr. BLODGETT. I am paired with the Senator from New Hamp-

. sbire [Mr. CHANDLER]. I understand that he would vote "yea," if 

he were present. 

Ur. BLA.IH. My colleague [Mr. CHANDLER] would vote "yea," 

if present. 

Mr. BLODGETT. Then I vote "yea." 

Jl,fr. BLAIR. - I will simply say that my colleague [Mr. CHANDLER] 

is necessarily absent, and, as has been stated, if present he would vote 

''yea.'' 

The result was announced-yeas 32, nays 0; as follows: 

Allison, 

Bate, 

Berry, 

Blackburn, 

Blair, 

Blodgett 

Chace 

Coke 

YE.AS-32. 

Colquitt, 1\IcPherson, 

Cullom, :Mitchell, 

Davis, Paddock, 

Dolph, Palmer, 

George, Pasco, H ampton, Plumb, 

Hiscock, Pugh, Jones of Nevada, Ransom, 

NAYS-0. 

.A.BSENT--44. 

Reagan, 

Sawyer, 

Spooner, 

Stewart-, Teller, 

Turpie, 

Vest, 

Walthall. 

Aldrich, Edmunds, Hawley, Quay, 

Beck, Eustis, Hearst, Riddleberger, 

Bowen, Eyarts, Hoar, Sabin, 

Brown, Farwell, Ingalls, Saulsbury, Butler, Faulkner, Jones of Arkansas, Sherman, 

Call, Frye, Kenna, Stanford, Cameron. Gibson, 1\Ianderson, Stockbridge, 

Chandler, Gorman, Morgan, Vance, 

Cockrell, Gray, :Morrill, Voorhees, 

Daniel, Hale, Payne, Wilson of Iowa, 

Da.!Yes, Harris, Platt, Wilson of Md. 

The PRESIDENT 1Jro tempore. A quorum not having voted, the Secretary will call the roll of the Senate. 

Mr. PLUMB and Mr. COCKRELL addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas. 

Mr. PLUMB. Is it in order to move an adjournment? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is in order. 

Mr. PLUMB. It seems to me, though I do not care to make the motion--

Mr. COCKRELL; I rose for that purpose myself. 

Mr. PLUMB. It seems to me that perhaps we should not lose any 

time by letting this matter go over until t?·morrow morning when 

there will no doubt be a quorum present. Sllll, I do not make a motion to adjourn. 

·. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will call the roll of 

the Senate. 

M:r. BROWN. I move that the Senate adjourn. 

The motion was agreed to; and (at 5 o'clock and 42 minutes p. m.) 

the Senate adjourned until to-morrow, Thursday, September 6, 1888, 

at 12 o'clock m. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.· 

WEDNESDAY, September 5, 1888. 

The Honse met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by Rev. J. H. CUTHBERT, 

D. D. 

The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved. 

MISSOULA RESERVATION, 1\IONT.AN.A. 

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

War with accompanying papers, recommending legislation to secure 

for ~ilitary purposes certain lands within the limits of the Missoula 

reservation, !\fontana; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

CLAil\fS DISMISSEP UNDER BOWMAN ACT. 

'£he SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the assistant 

clerk of the Court of Claims, transmitting a list of war claims under the 

Bowman act dismissed for failure of proof of loyalty; which was r~­

ferred to the Committee on War Claims. 

ESTABLISHMENT OF LIGHT-SHIPS AND LIGHT-HOUSES. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 5716) for establishing a light at the mouth of 

Otter Creek, Lake Champlain. 

Mr. CRISP. :M:r. Speaker, this is one of several bills that are on the 

Speaker's table which have been amended by the Senate by iilserting 

in the House bills the appropriation of the money for the erection of 

the light-house or the establishment of the light-ship, as the case may 

be. Under the rules of the House the Committee on Commerce bas no 

authority to make· appropriations for such purpose. The Senate W?k a 

conference, with the House on the amendments to these several bllls; 

and I ask unanimous consent that the House non-concur in the amendments of the Senate and agree to the conference asked. 

M:r. ADAMS. Let me ask the gentleman what difference there is 

between the request in this case and a somewhat similar request a few 

days arro to which objection was then made? Thegentlemanisaware 

of the fa~t that I have been strenuous in my desire that in some way 

on all such questions there should be an expression of sentiment on the 

part of the House, although whenever a good reason has been given I 

have withdrawn any objection to such requests . 

Mr. CRISP. The gentleman perhaps did not hear my statement. 

tJ nder the rules of the House the Committee on Commerce does not incorporate in any of their bills a provision appropriating the money for 

the work. 

Mr. ADAMS. I am aware of that. 

Mr. CRISP. The cases to which I now refer are House bills pro-

"idinrr for the establishment of light-ships or the erection of lighthouse~ in some half dozen different localitie~ which are on the Speaker's table. 

Mr. ADAMS. The rule is the same in regard to them. The gentleman asked, if I understand it, unanimous consent, a few days ago, 

that the House should take action upon these bills ~ithout reference 

to the committee at all. 

Mr. CRISP. No, sir; t!ley are different bills. 

Mr. ADAl\IS. The bills are of. the same character. 

Mr. CRISP. They are of the same general character. In each case 

the Senate amendment appropriates the money. My request is that 

the House non-concur in these amendments and agree to the conference, in order that we may make an effort at least to enforce the rules 

of the House in this respect. · · The SPEAKER. If there be no objection,-that order will be made. 

There ·was no objection, and it was so ordered. 

The same order was made with reference to the following bills, 

namely: 

A bill (H. R. 1239) to extend the jurisdiction of the Light-House 

Board to the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, California; 

A bill (H. R. 1641) for the erection of a.lig~t-hot;me at ?r near a point 

about midway between Barnegat and Navesink lights, 10 the State of 

New Jersey; 

A bill (H. R. 1249) for establishing a light-bouse and fog-signal on 

Roe Island, Suisun Bay, California; 

A bill (H. R. 5700) to fa.cilitate the transportation of life-saving a!ld 

liO'bt-house supplies at Hog Island, Virginia; and 0

A bill (H. R. 8855) for the establishment of a light-ship with a steam 

fog-signal at Sandy Hook, New York Harbor. 

BONDS OF DISBURBING OFFICERS, ETC, 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House the Senate:amendments 

to the bill (H. R. 8873) in relation to the bonds of disburaing or other 

officers and t.he monthly payments of the Army; which were referred 

to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

• 

. 

. 
• 

.. 

1888: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8305 

NICHOLAS J. BIGLEY. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House the bill (S. 3074) for the 

relief of Nicholas J. Bigley; which was read twice, and referred to the 

Committee on Claims. 

RETURN OF BILLS TO THE SEN ATE. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House the request of the Senate 

for the return of the bill (S. 3086) granting a pension to Victor, Gertrude, Margaret, and Helen, minor children of Lieut. George L. McGuire; and the bill (S. 3087) granting a pension to Mary A. Pfeiffer. 

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection, this request will be agreed 

to, and the Clerk will be directed to return the bills to the Senate. 

There was no objection, and it was so ordered. 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. 

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

To :Mr. PHELAN, for ten days, on account of important business . 

To fr. WHITTHORNE, for ten days. 

To Mr. WARNER, for three days from September 5. 

Mr. JoHNSTON, of Indiana, asks leave of absence for three weeks, on 

account of important business. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair has also received a letter from the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. GAINES] asking that his leave of absence be 

extended until the 20th instant, on account of serious sickness in his 

family. Without objection this leave will be granted. 

There was no objection. 

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED. 

Ur. KILGORE, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that 

they had examined and found duly enrolled bills of the following titles; 

when the Speaker signed the same, namely: 

.-/ A bill (S. 2871) granting a pension to 1\frs. Sarah J. Martin; 

A bill {S. 3035) to grant a pension to William Thields; 

A bill (S. 3118) for the relief of Mathew 0. Regan; , 

A bill (S. 3178) to remove the political disabilities of William L. 

Bradford; 

A bill (S. 3364) to provide for an American register for the 8teamer 

Saginaw, of New York; 

A bill (S. 2371) granting a pension to Jacob Fitner; and 

A bill (S. 2716) granting a pension to Carl M. Schwantes. 

FORTIFICATIONS APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. SAYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am directed to submit a privileged 

report from the Committee on Appropriations. 

The Clerk ·read as follows: 

The Committee on Appropriations, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. J 0998) making appropriations for fortifications and other workq of defense, for 

the armament thereof, and for the procurement of heavy ordnance for trial and ervice, and for other purposes, together with the Senate amendments thereto, 

having considered the same, beg leave to report as follows: · They recommend non-concurrence in all of the amendments of the Senate. 

Mr. SAYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this re- port be considered in the House a.s.in Committee of the Whole at the 

present time; that the House non-concur in the Senate amendments, 

and agree to the conference asked by the Senate thereon. 

There being no objection, the request was agreed to. 

The SPEAKER announced the appointment of Mr. SAYERS, Ur. 

FoRNEY, and Mr. BUTTERWORTH as managers on the part of the House 

at said conference. 

ALLEGED IRREGULARITY IN LIBRARY BUILDING CONTRACTS. 

?!fr. STAHLNECKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a privileged question, 

having discovered this morning upon my arrival at the House of Representatives the following article in the New York World, which l 

send to the Clerk's desk to have read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

A CONGRESSMAN TO BE ACCUSED. 

[Special to the World.] 

'V ASHINGTON, September 4. 

:Mr. KELLEY, of Pennsylvania., to-day oftered a. resolution in the House directing the special committee investigating the construction of the new Library building to inquire whether any member of the House has used improper means to influence J. L. Smithmeyer, the architect, in the selection, acceptance, or ap- proval of inferior or improper material to be used in the construction of the 

building. .1\Ir. KELLEY refused to name the member his resolution would prob- ably bit, but when the time came for testimony the name and evidence would 

be forthcoming. During the discussion it was intimated that the gentleman 

accused might be a. member of the special Library committee. The resolution was therefore amended by providing for a new committee, and then adopted. 

The Post says: "It is nnderstood that the resolution ig directed against Representative STAHLNECKER, of New York, who is now at Atlantic City, but who 

will return to-morrow." 

l\1r. STAHLNECKER. If this resolution (and I commence in the 

subjunctive mood) aims at me, I most emphatically pronounce the statement therein contained as false in every particular. I am not in that 

frame of mind to answer the base insinuations contained in this article 

at present, as I would not trust myself to do so under the aggravating 

circumstances surrounding me, and with my present information as to 

the meaning of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I have a reputation that I feel is well guarded at home, and I believe that here I have 

the confidence of my peers. I have certainly no knowledge why this 

article should have been printed or this resolution offered. This move 

XIX-520 

may have been made to divert attention from an investigation now in 

progress of the new Library building on the question of the architect's 

plans and the cost of the building, and of which investigating committee I am a member. It· may have been on that account. If so I cer- tainly must say that it is a very unwarrantable and inexcusable movement on the part of its propagators. I have never in the least degree 

failed to practice and adhere to the principles of honor that were taught me in my childhood. I demand from this House a speedy and most 

searching investigation of the charges made and insinuated in the reso- lution offereu by the member from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY], and I 

will be perfectly willing to abide by it::s result, feeling confident that 

such investigation, regardless of party, sectional, or personal feeling, 

will disclose the fact that the alleged charge is absolutely without foundation. [Applause on the Democratic side.] 

LAnORATORY BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to discharge 

the Committee of the WholeHouse on thestate of the Union from the 

further consideration of the bill (H. R. 9083) to erect a suitable laboratory building in Washington, D. C., and to have it considered in the 

House at this time. 

I ask that the bill and the report be read, so that the House may_ understand the importance of this bill at this time. 

The Clerk read the bill, as follows: · 

A bill to erect a. suitable laboratory building in Washington, D. C. 

Be i t enacted, etc., That the sum of $150,000, or so much thereof as may be nec- essary, is hereby appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise 

appropriated, for the purpose of enabling the Commissioner of Agriculture to erect, on public reservation numbered 2, in the city of Washington, a suitable 

laboratory building, to be constructed of brick and to be fire-proof, for the scientific purposes of the Department of Agriculture, the same to be expended on plans to be made by the Supervising Architect of the Treasury and approved by 

the Commissioner of Agriculture. 

Mr. ROGERS. Before I yield for its consideration I want to inq u·ire 

of the gentleman from Missouri [1\fr. HATCH] why this bill should 

take the construction of this building from under the control of the 

Supervising Architect of the Treasury and put it under the control of 

the Commissioner of Agriculture? 

Mr. HATCH. I think the gentleman is mistaken, for there is no 

such provision. 

:Mr. ROGERS. The Architect is to make the plans and specifications, which are to be approved by the Commissioner, but the building is to be constructed under the control of the Commissioner of Agriculture. It occurs to me as extraordinary to take the construction ot a public building from under the charge of the Supervising Architect 

of the Treasury and to put it under the control of the Commissioner or 

Agriculture. 

The bill was again read. 

:Mr. HATCH. That is exactly the same provision that is made in 

regard to all public buildings ofthe different Departments within this 

District. Now, the importance of this building is this--

Mr. HOLMAN. It is not understood to be before the House. 

The SPEAKER. It is not. The Chair understood the gentleman 

from Missouri desires to make a statement. 

M:r. HATCH. As stated in the report, the chemical and other scientific divisions of the Departme'nt of Agricu1tur.e are located in the ba.<=ement of the building, and all their experiments are conducted in the 

basement of a building occupied by the employes of the Department. 

There are a very large number of them, and it is not only dangerous 

but it has been condemned from time to time by the Commissioner and 

other officers of the Department as exceedingly unhealthful to the em- ploy .s "in the building. This is a matter that has been under consideration for a long time, and there has been no question as to the neces- sity and importance of it. I hope there will be no objection to the 

consideration of the bill. 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection? 

Mr. ROGERS. Before I withdraw my right to object I wish to say 

that this simply involves a matter of correct business principles. [ 

have not noticed the construction of any of the bnildings for the various 

Departments of the Government heretofore, but unquestionably this bill 

provides that the plans, etc., shall be made by the Supervising Architect 

of the Treasury, and that they shall be approved by the Commissioner 

of Agriculture. To tbatlhavenosortofobjection; but the expenditure 

of public money for the construction of this building, involving the letting of contracts and the control and management of it, is taken from- under the control of the Treasury Department, where it properly belongs, and it is put under the control of the Commissioner of Agricu 1 ture. 

Mr. HATCH. Let me suggest to my friend that I will make an amendment adding the Secretary of the Treasury to the Commi sioner 

of Agriculture. 

Mr. ROGERS. ·-I do not see why it should be taken from the control of the Secretary of the Treasury. 

Mr. HATCH. I do not think the Secretary of the Treasury would 

like to have this duty added to him. 

Mr. ROGERS. Whether be would or not, it should be made his 

duty. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. Has unanimous consent been 

given for the consideration of this bill"t 
8306 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. SEPTEMBER 5 I '· 

The SPEAKER. It has not. 

Mr. KILGORE. I demand the regular order. . . 

Mr. DIBBLK I would ask the gentleman from Texas to withdraw 

the objection. It is a very important bill for the Department, and 

there is nothing objectionable about it. 

l'lir. HATCH. I have made my statement, and gentlemen objecting to the consideration of such a bill as this can take the responsibility for it. I am not going to make an appeal to any one to withdraw 

his objectiCin. · 

SUPPRESSION OF INFECTION IN INTERSTATE COJUl\IERCE. 

Mr. FORNEY, from the Committee on -Appropriations, reported 

Senate joint resolution 102, appropriating $200,000 to suppress infection 

in the interstate commerce of the United States; which was referred to 

the Calendar of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 

Union. 

ORDER OF BUSL."'ffiSS. 

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

Jltir. McCREARY. I move to dispense with the call of committees 

for reports, and that unanimous consent be given that members having reports to submit shall :file them with the Clerk for reference. 

There was no objection, and it was so ordered. 

FILING OF REPORTS. 

The following report:.s were filed .by being handed in at the Clerk's 

desk: 

BRIDGE ACROSS COOSA. RIVER, ALA.BA.MAMr. CRISP, from the Committee on Commerce, reported back favorably the bill (H. R. 11338) to authorize the construction of a bridge across 

the Coosa River at Gadsden, in the State of Alabama; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Pxivate Calendar, 

and, with the accompanying report, ordere~ to be printed. 

HERMAN: LIEBMANN. 

Ur. TAULBEE, from the Committee on Claims, reported back favorably the bill (H. R. 7098) for the relief of Herman Liebmann; which 

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

FINAL ADJOURNMENT. 

Mr. OATES offered the following concurrent resolution; which was 

read, and refened to the Committee on Ways and Means: 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, That the President of the 

Senate and the Speaker of the House of Repres;entatives be authorized to close 

the present session by adjourning their respective Houses on Thursday, the 

20ili day of Eeptember, l!lSS, at. 12 o'clock m. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

The SPEAKER. The hour for the consideration of bills begins at 

thirty-one minutes past 12 o'clock. The call rests with the Committee ou the Judiciary. That committee has a bill pending before the 

Home, the title of which the Clerk will read: 

The Clerk rea-d as follows: 

A bill (H. R.l873) to limit the jurisdiction of the district and circuit comts of 

the United States. 

Mr. CULBERSON.- Mr. Speaker, a~ the conclusion of the consideration hour yesterday there were two amendments pending reported by 

the Committee on the Judiciary. I desire now to submit another 

amendment, which I ask to have read and considered as pending. 

The amendment was read, as follows: 

Add at the end of the bill the following: "Provided, That nothing in this act shall be so construed as to affect suits pend- ing in the courts of the United States at the time this act shall take effect.'' 

Mr. CULBERSON. I now askthatthe Clerk be directed to read the 

bill again. 

The bill was again read; with the pending amendments. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, the effect of this measure, should 

it become a law, may be stated in very few words. 

I propose now to make such a statement, reserving the privilege, in 

reply, to answer any objection to the bill that may be offered, if deemed 

necessary. 

The law of citizenship of corporations has not escaped mut.'ttion from 

conflicting decisions of the court:.s. 

It is conceded now, however, .that it is definitely settled by the law 

as interpreted by the Supreme·Court that a. corporation organized under the laws of a State is a citizen of such State for all judicial purposes. 

It follows that such a corporation, in a proper case, may sue in the 

courts of the United States located in any other State, or if sued in a 

State court may remove the cause to a circuit court of the United 

States, provided the amount inYolvecl in th~ controversy is within the 

jurisdiction of the court. 

· Congress having vested in the circuit courts of the United States 

jurisdiction over controversies between citizens of different States when 

the amount in controversy is within the limits prescribed by law, corpomtions avail themselves of the right to sue in the courts of the United 

States as citizens. 

Thio bill does not propcs? to jnterfere with the citizenshlp of c.or-

\ 

porations or in any manner to change the law :fixing their status as 

ci~izens; but the object of the bill, and such is its sole pmpose, is to1 

withdraw from the comts of the UnHed States jurisdiction over controversies arising betw~en n. corporation and a citizen of a State other 

than that in which the corporation was organized, in which such corporation may be carrying on business authorized by its charter at the 

time the cause of action accrued. 

The 1egal operation of the proposition contained in tho bill may e . illustrated, as follows: 

A corporation organized under the laws of M~sachusetts may open 

an office and conduct its buriness in the State of Iowa, under a license 

granted by that State or under the comity existing between the States. 

If a contro\ersy arises between such a corporation and n, citizen of Iowa, 

and the amount in•olved js within the jurisdiction of a circuit court 

of the United States, such corperation may under existing law sue the 

citizen of Iowa in such court. The corporation organized in l\Iassachusetts being a citizen of that State, althouah domiciled n.ud conducting its business in Iowa, may properly und~r the law as now settled 

bring such a suit. 

If this bill should become law such a suit could not be maintained in 

the courts of the United States. The corporation would be remitted 

to the courts oftbe State. 

The proposition to change existing law in this regard is not inspired 

by any feeling of hostility to corpomtions, but rests on the doctrine of 

equal and exact justice to the corpomtion and citizen. 

If a corporation avails itself of the license of a State other than that 

in which it is organized to conduct its business within such State, it 

should not be entitled to greater privileaes than the citizens with 

whom it dwells and deals. 0 

There is no reason why such corporations should be clothed as now 

with the right to drag the citizen from his home to distant and expeu- sh-e tribunals. 

. Our observatio~ shows that this power or authority under the law 

IS often employed to vex, harass, and oppress the citizen litigant for 

the purpose of ext.orting compliance with unconscionable demands 

upon the part of corporations,. or compelling the citizen to surrender 

just claims rather than litigate under such circumstances. 

There is another object in the passage of this bill which I think 

should commend it to the favorable consideration of Congress. 

We are all advised of the immense amount of business pending in the 

Supreme Court of the United States. This does not arise from a want 

ofindustry upon the part of the judges of that court. 

The flow of·business into that tribunal under existing law is so 

great that it is simply impossible for the court to ruspose of it with 

any greater dispatch. 

It is w.ell "!ln~erst.ood, .Mr. Speaker, that it requires about t}1iee 

years ordmarily after a cause is :filed to reach a trial of a case on the 

docket. This delay, unavoidable, it is true, results oftentimes in an absolute denial of justice. . 

What remedy ought to be applied to change this condition is a question of great importance to the country. The bill now under consideration will contribute largely to the reduction of business in that 

court. · 

It has been estimated that one-third of the business now upon the 

docket of the Supreme Court arises out of controversies between corporations and citizens of States in which corporations are conductina 

their business under license or comity. 0 

By the passage of this bill, therefore, two objects, worthy of our attention, and of great interest to the country, will be attained, namely: 

Corporations doing business in States, other than those in which they 

were or~anized, will be placed on the saree plane with the citizens with 

whom they deal, and the Supreme Court will be largely relieved of the 

burden of an overcrowded docket. 

The limited time allotted to the committee does not permit me to 

extend my remarks further. Other gentlemen desire to submit remarks upon the bill, and I desire, as far as possible, to accommodate 

them by yielding such time as I am permitted to do before the hour 

expires. 

But in anticipation of an objection to this measure upon the grouud 

of unconstitutionality, I beg to submit very briefly that the inferior 

courts of the United States do not derive their jurisdiction directly 

from the Constitution but from the laws of Congress. 

Congress creates inferior court:.s and vest:.s in them such jurisdiction 

within the judicial power of the United States as it may deem proper. 

On this proposition I submit the following authority: 

T:Q. the case of Cary vs. Curtis (3 Howard, page 245), the Supreme 

Court held: 

Secondly, in the doctrine so often ruled in this court, thnt the judicial power of the United States, although it has its origin in the Constitution, is (except in 

enumerated instances, applicable exclusively to this court) dependent fori ts clistribution and organization, and for the modes of its exercise, entirely upon the 

action of Congress, who possess the sole power of creating the tribunals (inferior to the Supreme Court) for the exercise of the judicial power, and of investing them with jurisdiction either limited, concurrent, or exclusive, and of withholding jurisdiction from them in the exact degrees and character which to Congress may seem proper for the public good. To deny this position would be to elevate 

the judicial over the legislative branch of the Government and to give to the 

former powers limited by its own discretion merely. It follows, then, that the courts created by statute must look to the statute as the warrant for their au-

• 

• 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSB. ~307 

thority; certainly they C!l.n not go beyond the statute and assert an authority with which they may not be invested by it, or which may be clearly denied to them. This argument is in no wise impaired by admitting that the judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the 

United States. Perfectly consistent with such an admission is the truth that the 

organization of the judi cal power, the definition and distribution of the subjects 

of jurisdiction in the Federal tribunals, and the modes of their action nnd au- thority have been, and of right must be, the work of the legislature. The ex- istence of the judicial act itself, with its several supplements, furnishes proof 

unanswerable on this point. The courts of the United States are all limited in their nature and constitution, and. have not the powers inherent in courts existing by prescription or by the common law. 

. In the case of Sheldon vs. Sill (8 Howard, page 441) the court decided as follows: 

The only question whichitwill benecessarytonoticein thisca.seiswhetherthe 

circuitcourthadjurisdiction. Silll..thecomplainantbelowt~.citizenofNewYork, 

filed hts bill in the circuit court or the United States for .Michigan a.,.o-ainstSheldon, claiming to rocover the amount of a bond and mortgage which had been as- signed to him by Hastings, the president of the Bank of Michigan. Sheldon in 

his answer, among other things., pleaded that the bond and mortgage in contro· ve1·sy, having been originally given by a citizen of Michigan to another citizen of 

the same State, and the complainant being assignee of them, the circuit court had no jurisdiction. The eleventh se~tion of the judiciary act, which defines the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, restrains them from taking "cognizance of any suit to cover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of an assignee, unless asuitmighthave been prosecuted in such court to recover the contents if no assignment had been made, except in cases of foreign bills of ex- change.' I The third article of the Constitution declares that "thejudicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the Oongress may from time to time ordain and establish." The second section 

of the same article enumerates the cases and controversies of which the judicial 

powershallhavecognizance, and, among others, it specifies "controversies be- tween citizens of di1ferent Slates." It has been alleged that this restriction of 

the judiciary act with regard to assignees of choses in action is in conflict with this provision of the Constitution, and therefore void. It must be admitted 

that if the Constitution had ordained and established the inferior courts and 

distributed to them their respective powers they could not be restricted or divested by Congress; but as it has made no such distribution, one of two consequences must result-either that each inferior court created by Congress must exercise all the judicial powers not given to the Supreme Court, or that Congress, having the power to establish the courts, must define their 

respective jurisdictions. The first of these inferences has never been as- serted and could not be defended with any show of reason; and if not, 

the latter would seem to follow as a necessary consequence; and it would seem to follow also that, having a right to prescribe, Congress may withhold from MJY court of its creation jurisdiction of any of the enumerated con- troversies. Courts created by statut~ can have no jurisdiction but such as the statute confers. No one of them can assert a just claim to jurisdiction exclusively 

conferred on another or withheld ft·om all. The Consbitution has defined the 

limits of the judicial power of the United States, but has not prescribed how 

much of it shall be exercised by the circuit court; consequently the statute which does prescribe the limits of their jurisdiction can not be in conflict with 

the Constitution unless it confers powers not enumerated therein. Such has 

been the doctrine held by this court since it..;; first establishment. 'l'o enumel·- ate all the cases in.which it has beeneitherdirectlyadvancedor tacitly assumed 

would be tedious and unnecessary. In the case of Turner 11s. Bank of North 

America (4 Dallas, 10} it was contended, as in this case, that, as it was a contro- versy between citizens of different States, the Constitution gave the plaintiff a right to sue in the circuit court notwithstanding he was an assignee within the 

restriction of the eleventh section of the judiciary act. But the court said: 

"The political truth is that the disposal of the judicial power (except in a few 

specified instances) belongs to Congress; and Congress lS not bound to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Federal courts to every subject in every form which the 

Constitution might warrant." This decision was made in 1799. Since that time 

the same doctrine has been frequently asserted by this court, as may be seen in 

Mcintyre vs. Wood, 7 Cranch, 506; Kendallvs. United States, 12 Peters, 616; 

Cary vs. Curtis, 3 Howard, 245. 

In the case of Turner vs. The Bank of ;North America ( 4 Dallas, page 

10), Judge Chase remarked during the trial: 

The notion has frequently been entertained that the Federal courts derived 

their judicial power immediately from the Constitution; but the political truLh 

is that the disposal of the judicial power (except in a. few specified instances) 

belongs to Congress. If Congress has given the power to this court we possess it, not otherwise; and if Congress has not given the power to us or any other 

court, it still remains at the legislative disposal. Besides, Congress is not bound, 

and it would perhaps be inexpedient to enlarge the juris.diction of the Federal courts to every subject, in every forni which the Constitution might warrant. 

:Mr. ADAMS. :Mr. Speaker, I do oppose this bill; and aB a member 

of the Judiciary Committee I prepared a minority report on it, which 

has been spread upon the record. In ten minutes I can not state all 

that I might otherwise have to say about the bill. I can not argue the 

question of constitutionality or the question of policy. All that I 

shall attempt to do is to sta,te the question as clearly as I can and let the 

House pass upon it. 

First, I wish to state what my understanding is of the character and 

effect of the bill. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee mentions an abuse. He supposes a Uassachusetts corporation doing business in 

Iowa; and he gave ns to understand that the supposed corporation 

maintained its principal office in Iowa, and therofore he said it was not 

fair that this corporation thus doing business in Iowa should have the 

right to sue an Iowa defendant in a United States court. But the bill 

is ve~y much broader than would be indicated by that illustration. I 

will give au illustration of my own· which I think is fair. 

The bill provides that the corporation shall not sue in the United 

States courts if it has done any business in the State where the defendant resides at the time the cause of action accrued. Now, take the 

State of Massachusetts and the State of illinois. The State of Illinois 

has two judicial districts, the northern and the southern. It has a great 

city at the north end, Chicago, and n. city at the south end, Cairo. Now, 

suppose this Massachusetts corporation was three years ago doing busi- ness for three weeks in the city of Cairo, in the southern district. Suppose that at the same time, and without any connection with that business, a cause of action arose between the Massachusetts corporation and 

a citizen of Massachusetts. Suppose that the citizen of Massachusetts 

should afterward remove to Chicago and reside there for a term of years 

less than the statute of limitations upon that cause of action. The corporation going to Illinois could not, if this bill becomes n. law, sue that 

person who had become a citizen of the State of Illinois; and the reason 

it could not sue him would be that ye.'IIS before the suit was brought 

the corporation was doing some business-no matter what-for some time, no matter how short-in the most distant corner of the State of 

lllinois. 

The reasons alleged by the chairman of the committee do not apply 

to the bill as it actually is. I shall only have time, as I have said, to 

state two or three objections to the bill. One is that I doubt its constitutionality. The chairman of the committee says that he does not 

propose by this bill to interfere with the citizenship of corporations; 

yet the report itself bases its support of the bill on the following con- sideration and no other: 

The committee believe that a corporation that pursues its business in a State or States other than that in which it was organized ough.t to be regarded as a citizen of such State or States for judicial purposes. 

The Judiciary Committee of this Honse think that under those circumstances the corporation "ought to be regarded for judicial purposes" as a citizen of the foreign State; but the Supreme Court has 

decided in repeated cases that such corporation is in fact a citizen of 

the State under whose laws it is organized; and further, the Supreme 

Court has decided in two cases which I have under my hand that if it 

does business in another State than that under whose laws it is organized, it does not even acquire a residence in that State. The cases to 

which I refer aie Insurance Companyvs. Fraucis,11 Wallace, 210, and 

Railroad Company vs. Koontz, 104 U.S. Reports, 10. I shall not have 

time to do more than refer to those cases. The leading case on the subject of citizenship of a corporation in the 

State under whose laws it is organized seems to me to be now the case 

of Louisville Railroad Company vs. Letson, 2 Howard, 554; and the reason why I call this the leading case is that although the leading 

case was for many years a case in 5 Cranch, yet the decision of that case having been questioned, the cases were all reviewed in this case, 

the decision of which has been confirmed in two subsequent ca.<Jes1\Iarshal.l vs. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 16 Howard, 314, and Drawbridge Company vs. Shepherd, 20 Howard, 233. 

These cases settle the question that the corporation is a citizen of the 

State under whose laws it is organized; and even if we should believe 

that it ought to be regarded as a citizen of the other State in which it 

does business-if that could make it a citizen of the State, the result 

would simply be that it would be a citizen of two States; for no one can claim that a :Massachusetts corporation, by reason of its doing busi- ness in the State of Illinois, ceases to be a Massachusetts corporation. 

The constitutional question which I desire only to submit to the House 

is, can Congress pass a law pursuant to the Constitution by which the 

United States courts having jurisdiction of controversies between citi- zens of different States, give the benefit of that jurisdiction to a cer- tain class of citizens of a State and deny it to another class? Under 

the laws and Constitution of the United States all citizens of Massachusetts, for instance, have a. right to sue citizens of other States in 

proper cases in the Federal courts: Can Congress say that one particular 

class of 1\lassachusetts citizens shall have that right and other classes 

of Massachusetts citizens shall not have that right? If Congress can 

make that difference between two classes of Massachusetts citizens, 

then it can make a similar distinction between any other two classes 

of Massachusetts citizens; and I do not see what is to prevent Congress • from providing that a native-born citizen of Massachusetts may have 

the right to sue in the Federal courts, while naturalized citizens of that 

State shall not have that privilege. 

I can see no distinction in lope if you once admit the power of Congress to give Federal jurisdiction under that clause of the Constitution 

to citizens of different States generally, and then take a particular class 

of citizens and exempt them from the benefits of that law. That is all 

I desire to say on that particular point. 

But now on a question of policy. A suit between a corporation and an individual is just the same in its proceedings and the principles applicable to it aB if the claimant was not a corporation. The evidence 

is the same, the proceeding is the same, therefore this bill can not have 

any motive except to discourage the existence of this particular sort or non-resident citizen. I maintain that is the province of State Legislatures to say whether State corporations shall exist or not, and, to 

speak with all respect to the JudiciaryCommittee, it is an unwarrantable interference by Congress to say a bill shall be ·passed which will 

put to disadvantage that particular sort of business association known as corporations by way of discouraging the fornmtion of them under 

State laws. · The SPEAKER. The gentleman's time has expired. 

Mr. ADAMS~ That is not all I wanted to say, but I will not ask 

for further time. 

M:r. CULBERSON. I now yield to the gentleman from Wiscc1rin 

[Ur. CASWELL]. 

Ur. CASWELL. Mr. Speaker, under the laws of Congress, and the 

decisions of the Supreme Court, a corporation created by a State may 
8308 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. SEPTEMBER 5, 

bring an a-ction in the Federal courts against the citizen of any other 

State. The corporation is deemed a citizen of the State granting its 

charter. If an action is brought in the State courts against such cor- poration, in any State other than the one granting such charter, such 

foreign corporation may, on petition. remove the action to the Federal 

court. In other words, a railroad company may obtain its organization 

in Massachusetts, and proceed at once to Wisconsin and there construct a railroad and carry on its business. So may an insurance company, 

created in one State, conduct its business in anot9er State. In either case such corporation may bring suits in the Federal courts; or. if sued 

in the State courts, may file a petition causing a removal to the Federal courts. In this way great embarrassments often attend the citizen 

of the State where the business is transacted. He is often su~jected to 

great expense and taken hundreds of miles from the scene of conflict 

to attend the Federal court. Such practice often amounts to a denial 

of justice and ought to be corrected. Great prejudice exists in the 

States against the Federal courts because of this unnatural right ex- tended to corporations which may have obtained their charter or organization in another State. 

It seems to me reasonable to provide that if corporations see fit to 

conduct a business in another Statethattheyshallhave the same but no greater rights or privileges in bringing actions, or in their defense, than 

the citizens of that State may themselves enjoy. Usually these bodies 

have great wealth and power, anu certainly they should ask no greater 

privileges than are granted to a single individual. They necessarily 

become local in their business, and reap the benefit-s of protection un- der tiJe police powers and laws of the State where t]Jey are operating, 

and they should seek their remedies and defenses in the ordinary way, 

and in the tribunals furnished under the laws of the State where they 

are transacting such business. 

In reply to the constitutional objections raised by the gentleman from 

illinois [Mr. ADAl\18] I.wiil remind the Honse that a corporation is the 

creatur{l of legislation; from that source it derives all its powers and 

privileges. Legislative authority may restrict · such powers and curtail its privileges, especially, to the limit of those enjoyed by the citi- zens of the State where the litigation is had. · 

Congress, through the judiciary act, conferred npon the courts the 

jurisdiction which they exercise. The same authority may withdraw or modify that jurisdiction, and especially that which pertains to bodies 

created by law. 

Mr. CULBERSON. :Mr. Speaker, I now yield two minutes to the 

gentleman from Iowa [Mr. WEAVER]. 

.l\fr. WEA. VER. Mr. Speaker, this is an important measure and 

should. pass. I shall occupy only a moment of time. I had the honor 

to introduce a bill similar to this in the Forty-sixth Congress. Why 

should the corporations of the country be privileged above the people 

with whom they transact their business? Take the railroads that 

traverse my State, for example. The majority of the great trunk lines 

running through the State of Iowa were not organized under the 

laws of the State, and are foreign corporations. Their principal places 

ofbusiness are in Boston, New York, or Philadelphia perhaps. Yet 

they are permanently located in the State and are carrying on business 

with our people and expect to do so for all time to come. Now, will any one tell why they should not be required to litigate 

their causes in the State courts? Are they any better than the people? Why should the people be dragged away from their homes before strange tribunals and before packed juries? Is it to insure justice? No! It is done that justice may be saC1·ificed. If the corporations can trust the people in business matters, they can trust the State conrts in the administration of justice. This removal of causes from 

::State courts to Federal courts by the corporations is all wrong, and this 

Congress should put an end to it. Let the corporations be placed upon a level with their customers, the people. ·Let us have one tribunal - for both. This is simple justice and sound constitutional law. I hope 

the bill will pass. 

fr. CULBERSO~. I now yield to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 

HAYES]. 

111r. HA. YES. That this bill should pass is, to my mind, clear, and 

I think the objections made to it in the minority report are more imaginary than real, although personally I would not object to mere detail in the provisions, so that they might cover some of these objections. 

Great volumes· of the business of the country is done through the 

medium of corporations, and doubtless they are practically a neces- sity, although attended bymanyobjectionable features. It should be 

the aim of legislation to make these objectionable features as few as possible, and the way to do this is manifestly by at~ching, as far as possible, personal attributes to the corporation..:.....in other words, make 

the attending circumstances and consequences of its business transactions as near like the same between individuals as can be. 

Right here is the reason that an apparently different rule should be 

made as to the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. It may seem paracloxical, but as a matter of fact the different rule brings the same result. 

I do not refer to exceptional or imaginary cases, but to business as it is 

actually transacted. The great bulk of the business of the country 

transacted between individuals is so done .that controversies respecting or growing out of it are or may be settled in the local State tribunals, 

and there is little, if any, such business done in a way so as to be at all 

analogous to corporation business, like the business of railroads and 

insurance companies for instance, and no wrong is done by leaving the 

doors of the Federal comts wide open for litigation respecting this 

business when between citizens of different States, whereas if the same rule is applied to the business done by tbes~ corporations it nece~ itates 

in frequent or most instances the settlement of these difficulties in a 

court far removed from the locality of the business itself, from the 

residence of the individual and the place of business of the corporation, 

which is irksome and expensive to the individual, wholly unnecessary 

to the ends of justice, and very largely amounts practica1ly to a denial 

of justice to the individual. 

I have personally known in practice ipsnrance companies to use this 

right of removal as a lever to force settlements at less than was honestly due by reason of losses under policies, and its right and exercise 

by railroad companies in my State is apd has been in practical effect an unmitigated outrage upon persons havingjnst claims against them, 

and with no necessity to the companies for any purposes of mere justice. This bas, of course, been lessened somewhat since the j urisdictional amount by reason of damages claimed has been raised to $2,000. The great trunk lines of railway crossing the State of Iowa are the 

illinois Central, the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul, the Chicago 

and Northwestern, the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific, and the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy, and only oneofthem, the Chicago, Rock 

Island and Pacific, is an Iowa corporation, and the result is that al- ' 

though these other companies have great.mterests in the State, do their 

business there with its citizens, and are thoroughly identified with 

its interests and locally all along their lines, and are only citizens of 

another St.ate, in relation to this business, in an ideal sense, as is the case with most insurance companies, they have a different, an unneces- sary, aud a mischievous right of removal of suits from what ordinary individuals have, ·and for which there is no just reason or excuse, and 

which is used oppressively and to gain unjust advantages rather than 

from any necessity in obtaining j nstice. 

I do not believe that the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway 

suffers the slightest injnstice for not having this right, and doubt if it 

would even be claimed. _ 

I have never heard but one apparently substantial reason advanced 

by those interested in the matter why the companies should have thi~ 

right, and this is that otherwise they would have to employ local attorneys all along their lines to attend to local litigation, and at an increased expense. This is not true in fact, as is well illustrated in Iowa 

by the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway, but even if fully 

true it would afford no good argument. All saved to the companies 

would be vastly more than lost to the individuals on the other side, 

and the joint increased expense of witnesses, travel, and other incidents 

would make this insignificant. The argument that the greater ex- pense, etc., to the individual should not be considered because it would 

be the same in litigation between individuals is fallacious from the 

fact that there is comparatively so little of such litigation that thequestion is not a practical one. If the corporation does it-s business locally it should stand on the 

s:1me footing as individuals of the locality in business transacted at the 

s::tme pla~e, and there is co justice in its claiming any different right. 

A doubt has been suggested as to the constitutionality of this act, 

but it is hardly necessary to even consider it. The jurisdiction of the 

Federal courts in cases'' between citizens of different States" is manifeslly sn~ject to legislative control and regulation, as is evidenced by 

the time-honored custom of fixing :;\jurisdictional amount of damages 

claimed for original jurisdiction and for removal, and even if otherwise, 

except in thi'l way, this jurisdictional a_mount can be so placed as to answer aU practical purposes. 

:Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa.. Mr. Speaker, I have not had opportunity to give this bill the careful consideration that it merits. I assume that this has been done by the Committee of the Judiciary. 

I can see that this may, in some cases, work a hardship to certain 

corporations in the matter of forcing them to encounter local prejudice 

in the' trial of their causes. But there is one clear way out for them so far as this difficulty goes, and that is by their so conducting their 

business as to avoid any such prejudice. The rule that places all litigants upon an equal footing can not be considered a harsh one. The 

conditions are> daily changing in this rapidly growing country. To~ 

da.y many States are full of the workers and representatives of corporations that do not exist under the laws of the States where they are coining money, and the rule that brings these corporations into the 

home courts of the people ean only result in a more delicate regard for 

the people's rights. 

It is true that in Iowa the conditions, as to the Federal courts, are 

better· than in many of"the States. We have two -districts, with three 

divisions in each. Terms of the circuit and district courts are held at 

Keokuk, Des Moines, Council Bluffs, Sioux City, Fort Dodge, and Dubuque. These points are so distributed that with two terms a year in 

each division the people of Iowa are in better relations to the United 

States courts than in other States. Since the creation of two districts 

and six divisions we have bad good Federal court facilities. But still 

there is every reason why, even under our favorable conditions, Iowa. 
-1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8309 

~hould have the benefit of the proposed legislation. It will strengthen railways and people, proving to my mind that a change in the law for 

he hands of the masses. It will make corporations more careful of the the removal of causes, as contemplated by this measure, will be a step 

people's rights, and I heartily favor its passage. in the direction of a restoration of a better understanding. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I now yield five minutes to the gentleman from The railways in Iowa have been extortionate in their rates and 

Arkansas [Mr. ROGERS]. charges and needlessly independent, if not insolent, when they have 

Mr. ROGEHS. Ur. Speaker, I desire simply to submit a few ob- been criticised for their misdoings, and one of the leading reasons for 

servations on a single point suggested by my friend and colleague upon thi<> is found in their non-a<!countability to the people of the State for 

the Judiciary Committee, Mr. ADAMS, of Illinois. He seem5 to have their conduct. When a farmer hM had n.- claim against them for dam- a doubt astowhether or not Congress bas power to withdraw this juris- age, one of theiT elements of strength that gave t.herailroadsan undue 

diction now vested by law in the Federal courts". The mistake, I take advantage over their adversary was the thought of a distant United 

it, into which he bas fallen occurs from the fact that be assumes the States court, where expenses were enormous, and where juries were circuit courts and the district courts of the United States acquire their selected by methods somewhat peculiar, and watched over in a careful 

jurisdiction directly from the Constitution, and may exercise it with- way by corporate agents that was very suggestive at times in the light 

out legislation by Congress. That is an error. The judicial power is _of_the verdicts they returned. 

limited by the Constitution; its confines are fixed by the Constitution; These corporations are as permanent fixtures in the States as the 

but the jurisdiction conferred upon the courts other than the Supreme farmers they serve, and where they do their business and make their 

Court originates with Congress. The power which creates tha courts money is good enough place for them to sue and be sued. It is an unis here, for we both create the courts and delegate the power; and it mitigated, wicked libel on the farmer to say that. he is so prejudiced 

any question is settled by the Supreme Court of the United States it is against railway companies that the compan~es can not obtain juStice 

the question that they have acq nired their jurisdiction from Congress from farmer juries. Whatever of feeling the farmer bas against corpoby virtue of the power confenecl by the Constitution upon Congress., rate power and corporate influence is a just feeling that will entirely be 

Chief-Justice Chase said-- removed whenever the corporation shall conform to the principles of 

1\fr. ADAMS. I hope the gentleman from Arkansas will not under- ju tice and fair dealing with their patrons. · stand me as claiming that the jurisdiction of the Federal courts depends Why should the people along the line of a road on which they deupon the Constitution only; because without legislation these courts pend have a feeling of hostility against it without just cause? There 

would not exist at alJ. is no reason for it, and nothing will have a greater tendency to show 

Mr. ROGERS. That, however, is the logic of the gentleman's argu- the truthfulness of this assertion than such acts as tend to the equaliment; for if Congress has power to confer j uris<Uction upon the eircuit zation of tbe.se forces. Let the corporations feel that they must depend 

courts over citizens of different Sl:fltes it bas also power to withhold or more or less on the people and that if they expect fair treatment they 

withdraw that jnrisdiction. The circuit courts a~quire the jurisdiction must themselves extend it, and the so-called prejudice they talk so 

by virtue of the act of Congress~ which confers upon them jurisdiction much about wiJl be a thing of the past. 

oYer citizens of different States. The Supreme Court of the United As to the unconstitutional phase of the question as presented here, 

States have construed the word "citizen" to embrace a corporation, that is to be expected. We are always met with objection to all legisand by virtue of that construction put by the courts upon the judiciary lation which has for its object restraint upon corporate greed and inact, the Federal courts acquire jurisdiction over the corporations of the .solence. It may be possible that there is doubt on this score but I 

country where they are prosecuting suits against citizens of a State for one am willing to resolve the doubt in favor of my constituents and 

other than that in which they were created. let the corporations seek their remedy, if they have one, in the courts. 

But Chief-Justice Chase in passing upon thatquestion used this Ian- The pa.c;sage of this measure is but an act of simple justice, long deguage: ferred, against which there should be no opposition. T~e. n~t~on has fre9-uently been ent rtai.ne~ that the Fede_rl;l-1 courts ~erive Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, without intending to consume any the1r JUdlcJal powet:dn·_e<;tlY from the Cons~Itut10n, but t~epo~ttlCal truth 1s that more time of the House with the discussion of this matter I ask per- the disposal of t.he JUdJctal power (except m a few speCified mstances) belongs . . . . . . · . ' . . to Congress. If Congress has given the power to this court, we possess it-not miSSIOn to prmt With my remarks tlle autbont1es on which the bill Is 

otherwise ; and if Congress has not given the power to us, or to auy othe.r court, founded. 

it still remn.ios nt the legislative disposal. Besides, Congt·e!"s is not bound, and Mr HENDERSON of Iowa Let that permis_sion be general to the it would perhaps be inexpedient to enla1·ge the jurisdiction of the Federal courts H · ' · to every subject. in every form which the Constitution might warrant. ouse. 

Just as that provision of the Constitution which enables the Con- ?-'~e SPE~KER. Without ?bjection.all_genttemen who desire that 

gress of the "Onited States, if it sees fit, to pass Iegis~tion for the elec- pnnlege will have. lea_ve to px:mt on thts bill. 

tion of members of Congress. Con{.!;ress leaves it where it bas been There was no ObJectiOn. . . • since the foundation of this Government under the control of the State Mr. CULBERSON. I now demand the previous questiOn upon tne 

Legislatures. So in this case, if Congr~s had not seen fit to confer bill and a~endments: . . upon the circuit rourts of the United States jurisdiction over contro- The previOtlS questiOn was ordered, und~r the operatiOn o~ ~h1ch the 

versies between citizens of different States, that power would still re- amendments r~commended by the Comnnttee on the Judiciary were main with Congress; but it bas confened it, and the power which con- ad?pte?; the bil~ as amended _wM ordered to be engrossed a~d re_ad a ferred still exists to withdraw it, and that is the object of this bill as thud time, ~nd It was accordmgly engrossed an~ read the third time. 

it applies to corporations doing business in States other than those in The quest~on recurred on the passage of the bill.· 

which they were created. The questwn was taken. . .. 

The effect of the bill is as my friend from Illinois suggests: It will Mr. ADAMS · I demand .a _eli VISIOn. 

put the corporations-foreign corporations doing business in a State- The Honse proceeded to divide. . .. on an equality with .the citizens of the State in which they are doing Before the anno~mcem~nt of the result of the dtvts~OJ?•: 

business; and it is but fair, equal, and right that it should be so. Mr. ADAMS satd: I Withdraw the demand _for a ~lYI.siOn . . . Whatever, therefore, may be the view of the House as to the ques- The SPEAKER pro. tempore. T~e ?emand for a diVISion berng Withtion of expediency, about whjch I have no doubt, I take it that the drawn, the ayes have 1t, and the b1ll1~ passed. . . constitutionality of the bill is placed beyond all controversy. Mr.:. CULBERSON moved to reconsider. the vote by :whlCh th~ bill 

Mr. CULBERSON. I now yield to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. "\Yas passed; and also moved that the motion to recons1der be latd on 

ANDERSON]. the table. . . 

Mr. ANDERSON, of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, in the brief time allotted The llltter motion was agreed to. 

me I have but time to put myself on record in favor of the proposition l\1UTILATED SILVER corn. embodied by this bill. I know not, of course, except as I reason by a process of analogy, how important this bill may be to other sections of The SPEAKER pro tempore. This concludes the hour for the conthe couuh·y; but I can safely say that in the State of Iowa, which in sideration of bills reported from the Committee on the Judiciary. 

part I have the honor to represent, where all the great railroads with Mr. BLAND (when the Committee on Coinage, Wei'ghts, and Meas- wbich the people have to do business, with which they come into com- mes was reached). I call up .House bill 7933, providing for the ex- mercial relations, are domiciled in other States, there is not a proposi- change of worn, defaced, clipped, punched, or otherwise mutilated sil- tion pending in Congress that in one particular item will do more good ver coins of the United States of smaller denominations than one dol- or will be more acceptable to the people of that State than the proposi- Jar, for new or unworn subsidiary silver coins, at designated places and 

tion contained in the pending measure, eoniining corporations doing under certain circumstances. , business in the State to the State courts. The bill was read, as follows: 

One of the most vexatious things arising in connection with litiga- Be i t enacted, etc .• That the holder of any of the silver coins of the United· tion in Iowa is the matter of our citizens bein0

cr dragged to distant States, of smaller denominations than Sl, which have become defaced, punched, clipped, or otherwise mutilated, may, on presentation of the same in sums of the 

courts at great expense, which has been carried on to such an extent nominal value of S5, or any multiple thereof, at the office of the Treasurer, or and in such manner as to leave our people who get into litigation with n.ny assistant treasurer, of the Unit-ed States, receive an amount of new or un- the railroads practically without their day in court. Iowa is some- worn subsidiary silver coins equal to the coinage -value in subsidiary silver coin of the ~;aid coins, by weight, so presented, and when so redeemed the same shall 

what peculiarly situated, as nearly all the great railway lines that be recoined into current subsidiary coins at the discretion of the Secretary of serve her people ~ue corporations organized under the laws of other the Treasury. 

States, having citil'!liln~bip outside the _State. To this is due, in good Mr. BLAND. I will ask to have read a letter f1·om the Director of ·part, the ba_d feeling that prevails to-day in that State between the the Mint, M.r. Kimball. 
83LO CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. SEPTEMBER 5, 

The Clerk read as follows: 

T REASURY DEPARTMEM, BUREAU OF THE 1\frNT, 

Washington, D. O!, Feb·ruary 18, 1888. 

Sm: At the request of the chairman of the Committee on Coinage, Weights, 

and Measures, I ha•e the honor to submit an opinio~ as to the provisions of H.ouse bill 6631, "for the exchange of worn, defaced, chpped, pun~hed. or otherwise mutilated silver coins of the United States, of smaller denommatwns than 

Sl for new or unworn subsidiary silver coins, at designated pla.ces and unde r ce~tain conditions." 

The redemption of worn subsidiary coins at nomi_n!-ll value by the Treas ury of the United States is not excluded from the prons10ns of the act of June 9, 

1879 (21 Stata. L., 7). Moreover, Tre9:5ury regul!"'tions for ~he redempt_ion of sub- sidiary silver coins sr-ecifically proVIde for t~eu redempiwn nt nommal •al_ue. Gold and silver coins of all kinds in a. mutilated state, f?r whose red~mpt10n 

by the Treasury the law fails to provide, may be deposited tor re<?omage_ at mints and assay officers at bullion value, not, however, In the case of stlvercoms without a. loss to the depositor of the now large difference between coin~ge and 

bullion value, in addition to all other losses, such. as correspo~d to abrasiOn and 

depletion. This difference corre~pouds. to the se1gno_rag!'l wh1ch has accr~ed to the Government in the a ct of their firstlssue, and whlCh mdeed upon recomage will accrue to it again. In the case of subsidiary coin thereisalossof26.7grains 

of standard silver more than in the case of a sil>er dollar. 

Although the present bill applies alone to mutilated subsidiary coins, t.h~re 

seems no reason why the silver dolln.r should be exempted from any proviSion 

made for the redemption of mutilated silver coin of less denomination . It seems that tile present penalty imposed up_on the holder of muti~ated subsidiary coin, is considerably moro severe t_han m the ?RSe of other coms. Prima facie, indeed,' it would seem to be Just to prov1de by law for the rede~ption of such uncurrent coins as are now excluded from recourse to a valuatiOn at mints and assay offices by w e ig ht at coinage value, and thus in respect tore- demption to put them on an equality with all other coins whose bullion and 

coinage values are coincident. 

Respectfully yours, 

Hon. CnABLES S. FAIRCHILD, 

SecretarrJ of the Treastwy. 

J AS. P . KIMBALL, Director of the Mi nt. 

Mr. BLAND. This bill is intended to redeem the subsidiary coin 

at its coinage value instead of at the bullion value. In 1880, I think 

it was, Congra.<;S passed an act f?r.the pu:pose of preyenting the punching or mutilating of the subsidiary cornage, and It was done by re- pealinn- the le!7al-tender character of any coin so punched, so that a quarte~ of a dollar or a dime that might have a hole made in it for the 

purpose of placing it around a child's neck or for any ot~er purpose 

loses its money value and could be redeemed only as bullion. I am 

informed by those representing the Pacific coast, especially the gentle- man from Ca1ifornin. [Mr. MoRRow], that a large number of these 

coins have been punched and some have been defaced by the Chinese; 

and they have a great deal of trouble with them on the street cars and 

in other places in making change. Now, this bill provides that this coin may be exchan~ed for legal 

coin and recoined at the mint. Under the present law It can not be 

received except at its bullion value, and that would be a great loss. 

It is in the interest of the public that this coin should be received at 

its coinage value for recoinage. I demand the previous question upon 

the passage of the bill, ~le:;s there should be some membe:rs w ~o wish 

to speak on it; and I will yield to the gentleman from Califorma [Mr. 

MORROW] _if he desires. 

Mr. MORROW. I do not think it is necessary to hav.e any further 

expJunation of this bill. _The report from the Director of ~he l'lf_int explains the necessity for It, and the gen~leman from 1l~1ssour~ [l\Ir. 

BLAND] has stated_ quite_ cor~ectly ~he ?Ifficult:J respectrng this subsidiary coinage wh1Ch exlSts ill Califorma. It lS a fact, as stated by 

the gentleman from 1\Iissouri, that a considerable portion of our smaller 

coins have been defaced from time to time by the punching of holes in 

them, in some cases by marking the names of firms on th~m; an~ in some instances the Chinese have marked names on the corns. Now, 

that coin under the present law can only be received at its bullion 

value. !tis claimed that that is a hardship on the poor people, who 

generally have these coins, and it is b~t fa~ th~t t~ey shoul~ be re- deemed at their coinage value, as provided ill this bill. It will be a measure of relief to our people, a proper and reasonable thing to do, 

and I hope the bill will pass. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being 

engrossed it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

1llr. BLAND. I ask that the original bill be laid on the table. 

It was so ordered. 

Mr. BLAND moved to reconsider the vote hy which the substitute was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on 

the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

)Ir. CRISP (when the Committee on Commerce was reached). 1\Ir. 

Speaker there are but twelve minutes of the hour remaining--

The SPEAKER pro tempo1·e. There are fifteen minutes of the hour 

still remaining. 

Mr. CRISP. The Committee on Commerce desire to call up one or 

two very important bills. One is the act amendatory of the interstate- commerce law· and I ask not to be forced to go on with it now. JHy own preferenc~ would be to have that bill go over till to-morrow. 1\fr. O'NEILL, of :Missouri. I would ask the gentleman to change 

his request and ask that his committee be passed. There may be other 

committees that-would like to use the thirteen minutes. 

Mr. CRISP. Mr. Speaker, I hardly think it would be just to the 

other committees. They might, perhaps, want the same privilege I 

ask. 

Mr. BLAND. I move that the House take arecessfortenminutes. 1r. CRISP. Is there any objection to the request that I made that 

the hour be considered as closed? 

The SPEAKER pro tempo1·e. The Chair has heard no objection, and 

will now ask, Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 

Georgia that the hour be considered as having expired? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. OUTHW .AITE. I rise to a privileged motion. 

Mr. BRUl\Bf. I rise to a question of privilege. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio. 

Mr. OUTHWAITE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 

[:Mr. BRUMl\I]. 

l\Ir. BRU IM. On yesterday it was agreed that I should be recog- nized for the purpose of vindicn.ting myself against charges which had 

been made by my colleague.[Mr. ScoTT]. I have been waiting for ltfr. 

SCOTT for some time. He has just arrived, and he wants me to agree 

to a continuance of this matter until to-morrow morning. He wishes 

to speak on the retaliation bill to-day. It would be too laborious for 

him to do both, and I ha.ve agreed to withhold this matter until to- morrow morning. He agrees with me that I shall be· recognized, if the 

Speaker will do so, immediately after the reading of the Journal to- morrow morning. 

1\Ir. McMILLIN. I was just goinf! to suggest that I supposed the 

question as towhetherornotthematterconstitutesn. question ofprivi- lege would come up then as it -would now. The SPEAKER. If that question is made. , Mr. McMILLIN. 'It would be a question for the House to determine whether the gentleman presents a question of privilege. 

Mr. BRUMM. There is no don bt in my mind of its being a matter 

of the highest privilege, and it was agreed yesterday tha,t if I would 

consent to have this matter go over there would be no question of its 

being considered. 

Mr. McMILLIN. What I wonted to say as a member of the House 

and for the integrity of the proceedings of this body is that the House 

will have the right to say as to what shall come before it on to-morrow 

or any other day; and I think it is well to have it understood that no .agreement between these p::trtiesconcerned can take away that right of 

the Honse. If the gentleman bus a grievance which is a privileged 

question, I would be the last to prevent any member from getting the 

full benefit of any-explanation he wished to make; but I do not want 

the a-ction taken either yesterday or this morning to deprive the Hou e 

itself of the ri!7ht, if this is to be a degeneration into a simple airing of 

the views that gentlemon hav.e; and while I do not think from my 

knowledge of·tbe gentleman from Pennsylvania that he would bring a 

matter of that kind up, still I think th!tt the right of the House should 

be reserved to determine for itself whether it is a matter for its consideration or not at the time. 

Mr. BRUMM. If there is to be any factions opposition or objection, or if there are to be technical points raised, we may as well go right 

on and have them raised now. :Mr. McMILLIN. I was speaking only as un individual member of 

the House. I have seen cases of this kind here so often wh~e one word brings on another, as it does in private disputes, that I thought 

it well to make th"' suggestion I have made. If there is a real ques- tion of privilege involved, of course I should not think of interposing 

any objection. 

Mr.llRUl\IM. ThegelitlemanfromOhio[Mr. OUTHWAITE] yielded 

to me for a moment, and I now gi>e way to him; but under existing 

circumstances I can insist on my right to go on with this matter to· 

day. 

OHIO CENTEXNIAL E:X:POSITIOX. 

Mr. OUTHWAITE. I call up the motion to reconsider the motion 

to reconsider the vote by which the amendment of the gentleman from 

Iowa [Mr. HENDERSON] was adopted to the bill (S. 3182) making an appropriation to enable certain Executive Departments to partici:pate in 

tbe Ohio' centennial exposition. 

The SPEAKER. The motion was made to lay the motion to recon- sider on the table, and upon that the yeas and nays were ordered by 

the House. Mr. McCREARY. ~Ir. Speaker, I dislike very much to interfere 

with the aentleman from Ohio, but the special order for this hour. was and is th:' consideration of House billll309, which was under consitl- • 

eration yesterday. 

Mr. OUTHWAITE. We have already entered upon the consideraation of my motion, and it hns prior privilege. 'l·he SPEAKER. The motion to reconsider is a privileged matter. 

The SPEAKER. The motion to reconsideJ; is privileged. · Mr. McCREARY. I know it is; but can not I raise the question of 

consideration against it? 

Ur. OUTHWAITE. I b:n-e not yielded to the gentleman from Ken- tucky. 

The SPEAKER. Still, the gentleman must have an opportunity at some time or other to raise the question of considehttion, and this seems 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8311 

to be the proper time. It is always in the power ot the House to determine whether it will consider a proposition or not. 

Mr. OUTHW .AJTE. The title of the bill having been read and the . 

question stated, I supposed we had really entered upon the consideration of the motion to reconsider. 

The SPEAKER. That is the proper time to raise the question of 

consideration. 

Mr. McCREA..RY. And I rose at that time. 

Mr. OUTHWAITE. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is only a vote to be 

ta.ken upon this motion to reconsider; there will be no debate. Now, 

it will require a vote to decide the question of consideration, and therefore no time will be saved by raising that question. I wish to state 

further that this exposition has already commenced, and that if there 

is to be any appropriation for the departments of the Government to 

make an exhibit at all, the matter ought to be decided at once. On 

sevexal occasions I have yielded and at other times I have kept back, 

not wishina to interfere with the business of the House; but I feel it 

my duty ~ call up this motion at this time. Mr. McCREARY. I have great respect for the motion ofthe gentleman from Ohio, and when the question was up before I voted with 

him: but I remember that we consumed several hours in the consideration 'of the matter which he now seeks to call up, and as the gentleman 

has the right to call up his motion t o reconsider at any time, I hope 

that he will not this morning interrupt the progress of the bill which was under consideration yesterday. It is very important that that bill 

should be disposed of, and if the gentleman will refrain from inter- rupting its consideration it will not take long to dispose of it. Mr. OUTHWAITE. What length of time does the gentleman suppose it will take? 

Ur. M'cCREARY. I have been trying to agree with the other side 

upon a limit of time, but we have not yet consuiD.lllated the agreement. 

I would like to get through to:day and I expect that we shall do so; 

and, as the gentleman's motion is a privileged one, and.. as he bad it up 

before and can call it up again at any time, I hope he will not insist 

upon it at this time. I voted with the gentleman 9n this question, 

and I very greatly dislike now to get in his way, but I feel it my duty to 

insist upon continuing the consideration of the bill which the House 

was considering yesterday. 

Mr. OUTHWAITE. 'l'he gentleman proposes that the bill that he 

hn.s in charge shall run for awhile- I do not know how long. I "\Vant 

to have the vote taken on this motion to reconsider when there is a 

quorum present, and that is why I desire to have it taken now, because 

there will not be a quorum present at a l ater hour in the afternoon. 

Mr. McCREARY. There will be a quorum present as long as this 

bill is under consideration. There will be a quorum here when the 

vote is taken upon it, and after that will be the time fQr the gentleman 

to call up his motion to reconsider. 

The SPEAKER. The question before the House is, Will the House now proceed to consider the motion called up by the gentleman from 

Ohio' [Mr. 0UTHW AITE]? 

Mr. McCREARY. Mr. Speaker-- The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio has not withdrawn his 

proposition. Mr. OUTHWAITE. I do not intend to withdraw it. I feel it my 

duty at this time to press this motion. _?.rr. McCREARY. Then I raise the question of consideration. 

The SPEAKER. The question is, Will the Honse now proceed to 

the consideration of the motion called up by the gentleman from Ohio? 

The question was taken; and the Speaker declared that the noes 

seemed to have it. _ Mr. OUTHWAITE. I ask for a division. Th~ House divided; and there were-ayes 53, noes 55. Mr. OUTHWAITE. I demand tellers. 

The SPEAKER. As no quorum has voted, the Chair will appoint 

to act as tellers the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OUTHWAITE] and the 

gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. McCREARY]. Mr. BLAND. Mr. Speaker, to save t.ime I demand the yeas and 

nays. 

The House divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 6~, noes 61. 

Several MEMBERS. No quorum. 

:Mr. BLAND. Mr. Speaker, no quorum has voted; but before I in- sist upon the point I ask the gentleman from Ohio if he proposes to do more than to take a yea-and-nay vote on the motion to reconsider? 

Mr. OUTHWAITE. I propose to take a yea-and-nay vote on the 

motion to reconsider. :Mr. BLAND. If the motion to reconsider is agreed to, what does 

the gentleman propose to do? 

Mr. OUTHWAITE. I then propose to take a yea-and-nay vote on the passage of the bill. 

Mr. BLAND. There are one or two amendments pending which 

are to be disposed of, and if the House is going to lay aside a great 

public measure to take up a bill which simply regulates a circus and 

side-show in a few of the States of the country, I shall insist upon the 

point of no quorum. If this Honse wants to stultify itself, let it do it. The tellers resumed their places; and after further dhision they re- ported...:_ayes 63, noes 64. 

So the motion was disagreed to. 

FISIIERIES. 

Mr. McCREARY. Mr. Speaker, I now c~ll up for consideration the 

special order, which :is House billl1309, to enfpower the President to 

carry out the purposes of an act entitled "An act to authorize the President of the United States to protect and defend the rights of American 

fishing vessels, American fishermen, American trading and other vessels 

in certain cases, and for other purposes," approved March 3, 1887, and 

will yield the floor to the gentleman from New Jersey [Ur. PHELPS]. Mr. FORNEY. How long is this debate to run? It is necessary to 

pass the sundry civil appropriation bill. I do not wish to interfere 

with the pending bill if the time is limited, but unless it is limited I 

must insist upon taking up the sundry civil appropriation bill to-morrow. • 1\fr. BELMONT. It seems to me that it would be wise to lin»t tbe 

debate on this bill. 1\Ir. McCREARY. How mnch time, let me 2.Sk the gentleman 

from Illinois, do they wish ? 

M:r. HITT. Let the gentleman fTom Kentucky indicate how much 

time will be taken up by the other side of the House. A considerable number of gentlemen ha>e asked to be heard on this side. Mr. BELMONT. It has been suggested to me a good many mem--

bers might desire to print their remarks. [Cries of" No!" on theRe- publican side.] I understand one gentleman has already made that 

request. Mr. McCREARY. To facilitate matt-ers I ask unanimous consent 

that all members who desire to print remarks in the RECORD on the 

subject may do so. M:r. ANDERSON, of Kansas. I object at this stage of the debate. Mr. IDTT. I suggest to the gentleman from Kentucky th~t he allow the debate to proceed until the members of the committee have 

spoken, and then pe.rhaps we may agree speedily upon a time to which 

to limit the debate. Bnt I would be"• unwilling to attempt to put a· 

limit on the debate before my associ.'ltes on this side of the Honse have 

been heard. Mr. McCREARY. All right, then. Let the debate go on until the 

members of the committee have been heard. Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. There are one or two members who are 

not on that committee who would like to be heard. [Laughter.] 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 

PHELPS] has the floor and will proceed. 

Mr. FORNEY. I give notice that I shall insist upon proceeding 

with the sundry civil appropriation bill, according to the notice I have 

already given to the House. 

Mr. PHELPS. The statement made yesterday by my friend from 

Illinois [Mr. HITT] was so clear and comprehensive that but two considerations induce metosayanything. Asonrviews are, with oneun- important difference, similar, my remarks will furnish the summary or recapitulation which he had not time to add to his great effort. And 

as the facts he marshaled are not familiar ones, I may add to the aggre- gate of human intelligence by repeating them. '.rhe power of repeti- tion was well illustrated yesterday. I had heard the gentleman from Missouri characterize the fishery message as a good campaign document. 

Mr. O'NEILL, ofM:issouri. Well, do you not think it was? . l\fr. PHELPS. I do; and the gentleman from Kentucky had also 

said that this message ought to be kept with the free-trade message of 

the President, the two 'being, I suppose, a kind of Siamese twins ot 

Presidential policy. l\Ir. McCREARY. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him 

just there? 

Mr. PHELPS. Certainly. 

1\Ir. McCREARY. I know my fr'iend will allow me to correct him. 

Mr. PHELPS. · I yield to a correction. 

Mr. McCREARY. I did not say that this message wonld stand with 

the "free-trade" message, for I deny that the President sent to Con- gress any free-trade message. [Derisive laughter on the Republican 

side.] 

:M:r. PHELPS. The gentleman from Kentucky does not deny that 

be said the one message should stand with the other? 

Mr. 1\IcCREARY. I said that the message sent on this subject 

should stand with that message sent by the President at the beginning 

of this session of Congress. The President sent to Congress at the be- ~inning of the session a message to reduce taxes and to relieve the bur- dens imposed upon the people of the country. Mr. PHELPS. I understand, then, as I said in the beginning, as there are but two messages under consideration, that the gentleman 

has in mind the same two that I have, and his wish was that the two 

might stand before the country together. I thought, therefore, that I 

might possibly illustrate his wishes in that particular when I added 

that they ought to stand together as the Siamese twins of the Presidential policy. [Laughter.] But if they had not been repeated by the 

gentleman from illinois [Ur. Hrrr] both pieces of testimony might 

gave been forgotten and lost. 

We give the President this additional power cheerfully, and we will 

give him any other additional power be may ask for, but we wish that 

there were any more likelihood that he would usc these additional 

powers now than there was that he would use the original powers of 

'· 
8312 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. SEPTEl\IBER 5, 

eighteen months ago, when we gave them to him. The powers were I appropriated the cry of "fishermen's rights or retaliation," he forgot 

then thought to be am,ple, and they. were. If the treaty stipulations to turn to the Republican Senators and say, "I thank you, gentlemen, are abrogated, as the President claims, they are sufficient to cut off for those words." [Laughter and applause.] This conversion of the 

Canada from all commercial intercourse, foreign and domestic. ·If they President from the opinion of the treaty, that the rights were Canada's are notr the powers are still sufficient to deprive Canada of all inter- and we must bny them, to the opinion of the message, that the rights 

colonial or interstate commerce both by sea and land. In one section were ours and we must take them, was instantaneous. And yet he 

of the act of March 3, 1887, the President is authorized to exclude any bad fought long and well for his original opinion. His opinion was Canadian vessel from our harbors. This stops all communication by that we bad no right to transship our catch, and in order to maintain 

water. And in the other section be is authorized to deny entry to any this opinion and to justify Canada in refusing to let us do it, he wa~ 

product of the dominions or any goods that come from the dominions. forced to do and suffer many unpleasant things. He had first to get 

This stops all communication by land. rid of the twenty-nintb article of the treaty of 1871. 

[Public-No. 125.] 

An o.ct to authorize the President of the United States to protect and defend 

the..:ights of American fishing vessels, American fishermen, American trading 

and other Yessels, in certain cases, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted, etc., That whenever the President of the United States shall be 

satisfied that American fishing vessels or American fishermen, visiting or being 

in the waters or at any ports or places ofthe British dominions of North America. are or then lately l~ave been denied or abridged in the enjoyment of any rights secured to them by treaty or Jaw, or are or then lately h"o.ve unjustly vexed or harassed in the enjoyment of such rights, or subjected to unreasonable re- strictions, regulations, or requi.I-ements in respectofsuchrights; or otherwise un- justly vexed or harassed in sa.id waters, ports, or places; or whenever the Presi- dent of the United States shall be satisfied that any such fishing vessels or fisher- men, having a permitundet· the laws of the United States to touch and trade at any port or ports, place or places, in the British dominions of North America, are or then lately have been denied the privilege of entering such port or ports, place or places, in the same manner and underthesa.me regulations as may exist thcreiu 

applicable to trading yessels of the most. favored nation, or shall be unju t ly 

vexed or harassed in respect thereof, or otherwise be unjustly vexed or harassed 

therein, or shall be prevented from purchasing such supplies as may there be 

ln.wfully sold to tra.ding vessels of the most favored nation; or whene,·er the President of the United States shall be satisfied that any other vessels of the 

United Stntes, their masters or crews, so arriving at or being in such British waters or ports or places of the British dominions of N orthAmericn., are or then 

lately ha,·e been denied any of the privileges therein accorded to the vessels, 

their masters or crews, oft he most favored nation, or unjustly vexed or harassed 

in respect of the same, or unjustly vexed or harassed therein by the authorities 

thereof, then, and in either or all of such cases, it shnll be lawful, and it shall 

be the duty of the Pre identof the United States; in his discretion, by proclama- tion to tllat effect, to deny vessels, their masters and crews, of the British dominions of North America, nny entrnnce into the waters, ports, or places of, or within the United States (witt1 such exceptions in 1·egard to vessels in distress, stress of weather, or needing supplies as to the President shall seem proper), 

whether such vessels shall have come directly from said dominions on such destined voyage·or byway of some port or place in such destined ,·oyage elsewhere; 

nn<.l also, to deny entry into any port or place of the United States of fresh fish 

o1· salt fi ·h or any other product of said dominions, or other goods coming fi.·om 

said dominions to the United States. The President may, in his discretion, ap- ply such proclamation to any part or to all of the foregoing-named subjects, and mny reYoke, qualify, limit, and renew such proclamation from time to time as he may deem ueccssary to the full and just execution of the purposes of this act.. Evet·y Yiolation of any such proclamation, or any part thereof, is hereby declarec.l illegal, and all vessels and goods so coming or being within the waters, 

ports, or places of the United States contrary to such proclamation shall be forfeited to the United States; and such forfeiture shall be enforced and proceeded upon in the same manner and with the sa.me effect as in the case of vessels or goods whose importation or coming to or being in the waters or ports of the 

Unit cd States contrary to law may now be enforced and proceeded upon. Every per~on who shall violate any of the provisions of this act·, or such proclamation 

of the President made in pursuance hereof, shall be deemed guilty of a. misde- meanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a. fine not exceeding 

$1,000, or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or by both sa.id 

punishments, in the discretion of the court. Approved, l\1arch 3, 1887. 

At the time these powers were granted, everybody thought them 

ample. They ought to be. I do not see what more there is to give. 

And nobody si nee, President or citizen, bas suggested that there were not 

all the powers necessary to harass and coerce Canada into good behavior, 

until Thursday, August 23, then the President went out alone and 

shot the rocket of his Presidential message into the clear and peaceful 

nir. [Laughter.] It was so clear that you could hear the Senate 

Chamber still echoilrg with the voices of the Presidenthtl Senators urging their fellows to come and .buy the rights which Canada bad re- fused to give. It was so peacefnl that, in the Democratic view at least, 

there was only the cbeer1Ul chatter of a market, and the only question 

between Canada and the United States was one of price. Holding the 

President's bargain in their hands, they advised the Senate to close 

with it. Canada would sell the right to buy supplies and reship our fish if we would give free entry to their fish and fish-oil. 

The supplies we needed might be worth $50,000, and the duties re- mitted $GOO,OOO; but then it would be peace. Besides, until this won- derful bargain was signed our fishermen could supply and transship 

upon buying a license for a dollar and a half a ton, and although this 

to the fishermen was a nwdtts moriendi we can call it a modu,s 1:ivendi, 

and that, too, is peace. Is not this a fair statement of the fifteenth article of the Chamberlain treaty and oftbe protocol to it? The Senators 

pleaded, but pleaded in vain. The Senate would not buy. The Senate refused to ratify and confirm the treaty, and the President bad 

scarcely beard the Senate's reasons before be went back upon himself, 

upon his Senators, upon his treaty, and adopted the Senate's view. It 

was, he admitted, no longer a question of the price of the goods-it 

was a q11estion of the title. . The rights he proposed to buy were our rights alren.dy; they belonged 

to us, and in."tead of buying them we would take them; and the President, reversing his engine so suddenly, bas no time to provide for con- sistency or courtesy. He urged Wednesday that the rights were Canada's, nnd we must buy them. He was urging Thursday that the rights were ours and we must take them. And in the baste with which be 

ARTICLE XXIX. 

It is agreed that, for the term of years mentioned in Art-icle XXXIII of this 

treaty, goods, wares, or merchandise arriving at the ports of New York, Bos- ton, and Portland, and any other ports in the United States which ba.ve been or may from time to time be special1y designated by the President of the United 

States, and destined for Her Britannic Majesty's possessions in North America, may be entered at the proper custom-house and conveyed in transit, without 

the paymer;t of duties, through the territory of the nited Rtates, under such 

rules, regulations., and conditions for the protection of the revenue as the Gov- ernment of the United States may from time to time prescribe; aud under like 

rules, regulations, and conditions, goods, wares, or merchandise may be con- veyed in trapsit, without the payment of duties, from such possessions through 

the territory of the United States for export from the said ports of the United 

States. 

I t is further agreed that, for the like period, goods, wares or merchandise ar- riving at any of the ports of Her Britannic Majesty's possessions in North America and destined for the United Sta.tes may be entered at the proper cu tom- llouse and conveyed in transit, without the payment of duties-, through the said 

possessions, under such rules and r egulations, and conditions for the protection ,of the revenue as the Governments of the sa.id possessions may f1·om time to time prescribe; and under like rules, regulations, and conditions goods, wares, or merchandise may be conveyed in transit, without payment of duties, from 

the United States through the said possessions to other places in the United 

States, or for export from ports in the said possessions. 

This was the article which gave to ~ch country the right to transport its goods through ·the other's tetTitory in bond, and it was under 

this article that for thirteen years our fishermen exercised the privilege of sending their fish directly borne through Canada. To deprive 

them of this right it was necessary to cancel the article. There were two ways: one·was to bold that the article was canceled by infraction 

when the Canadians refused to perform their duty under it; the other 

way was to bold that it was canceled by formal abrogation with the 

fisheries treaty. The fu~st way was direct and certain. The obligations of the article were canceled by infraction, and everybody knew and 

acknowledged the fact. The other way was indirect and uncertain, 

but the Pre~ident chose it. He determined to adopt the belief that it was abrogated. He found many difficulties. First of all, the Cana- dians did not believe it was abrogated. 

They gave their reasons for refusing to transvort our catch, and 

strangest of al~ the President never told them that be believed that 

the article was abrogated, and I venture to assert that the first intimation that the Canadian authorities bad that the President thought so was when they read his message. How could they tbi n k otherwise? 

If it was abrogated it ceased to be operative July 1, 1885; but eYerything went on as far as our side was concerned just as before, and so on their side until June, 1886. Then they told us that the privilege 

granted us under the article and used by us for thirteen yeart>, to transship our fish, was withdrawn. This was a vioiation of the article and 

canceled it. But the President diu not say so. He did not say tllat 

it was canceled by abrogation a year ago. He said nothing. He did 

not protest; be submitted; and what i5 worse, be continued to perform 

all our obligations under the article just as if it were not canceled 

either by abrogation or by infraction, ::md to perform them with increasing effusion and alacrity. 

1\Ir. BELMONT. Will the gentleman from New Jersey yield to 

me for a question? 

Mr. PHELPS. The gentleman from New Jersey will yield cheerfully for a question. 

Mr. BELMONT. It is only in order--

Mr. PHELPS (interrupting). But will not yield for a speech, be- cause the gentleman bas his opportunity afterwards. I will chee~fally 

yield to any gentleman who desires to submit a question, bnt to no one who desires to interject a speech. - Mr. BELMONT. I should regret that the House should be in the 

least misled--

Mr. PHELPS (interrupting). That is not a question. That is stating the reason why the gentleman wants to ask a question. Mr. BELMONT. I would ask the gentleman if he does not know 

that the operations of commerce of which be i speaking have been 

allowed and continued under legislative enactments, and that Article 

XXIX, whether it is violated or not, does not apply to them as they 

exist t.o-day? 

Mr. PHELPS. Let me now ask the gentleman a. question. If the 

right to send goods from the one country throu~h the other in bond was not created nn<l gi,en to both sides in the twenty-ninth article of 

the treaty of\Vashin~tou, will the gentleman from New York be good 

enough to refer me to the treaty and to the article wherein these rights 

were created and exchanged between· the two countries? 

Mr. BELMO~T. Tli c gentleman seems to forget that there was 

legislation upon this subject--
1888 CONGRESSIONAL RECOllD-HOUSE. 8313 

Mr. PHELPS. I am not asking what I forge~; I am asking the 

gentleman, as he stated that tl:!is right was J;lOt a right created under 

the twenty-ninth article of the treaty ofWashingt<>n, if he will state exactly the article and the treaty wherein that right was created. 

Ur. BELMONT. I say it was recognized by the twenty-ninth article, though not created by it. 

Mr. PHELPS. Then, will the gentleman be good enough to state 

in what treaty and in what article oftbe trea.ty it was created? 

Mr. BELMONT. The gentleman with his usual perspicuity will undoubtedly be able to apprehend my meaning. 

Mr. PHELPS. The gentleman from New York bas stated that the 

right existed between these countries before the twenty-ninth article 

ofthe treaty of Washington was adopted. Now, that statement is so 

startling, so extraordinary, it gives information at once so valuable to 

our State Department and to the foreign office of Great Britain and to 

the world that I insist he shall not beat around the bush, but shall 

give the country and the House the benefit of the information which 

he seems alone to be possessed of. 

Mr. BELMONT. I do not think it necessary--

l\1r. PHELPS (interrupting). I think it is absolutely necessary, be- ~'tuse the gentleman said that this right was given somewhere else. 

Now, I did not know it was given anywhere else, just as your State 

Department does not know it is given anywhere else, as Salisbury, 

abroad, does not know it, as Macdonald, in Canada, doe:s not know it; 

lor bad either known it, he would have said so. Will not the gentleman 

then condescend, as I yielded him the time in response to his solicitation, 

to explicitly state in what treaty and in what article of the treaty 

these important rights were given and exchanged befmc the twentyninth article of the treaty of 1871? 

Mr. BELMONT. Iunderstc'\nd the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 

PHELPS] has yielded to me in order to make a--

Severall\IEMBERS (on the Republican side): Oh, no. 

Mr. BELMONT. Statement in regard to this matter for his information. 

Mr. PHELPS. Will the gentleman state where the article is, and 

in what treaty? I was saying that the Canadians--

Mr. BELMONT. I understand the gentleman yielded to me to .answer him. 

Mr. PHELPS. The gentleman refuses to answer the question. He 

has his own time, and be ca.n perhaps state then where the treaty is. 

Mr. BELMONT. It is not in any treaty or article of a treaty, but 

in statutory provisions that founded the present commercial operations 

with Canada. The gentleman from New Jersey interrupted me at 

eveTY opportunity that be could, and he prevented me from answering. 

1\fr. PHELPS. The gentleman refused to answer a categorical question; and because my time-- • 

Mr. BELMONT (interruyting). I will very easily answer it in my 

own time. 

Mr. PHELPS. You better, for my time would not be sufficient for 

you, nor, I fear, eternity. [Laughter on the Republican side.] 

It is a painful retrospect-the catalogue of our performances during 

'.;he last two years in that direction. The President, under the article 

which he belieYed to have been abrogated, which he knew to be canceled by infraction, and which was constantly and insultingly disregarded by Canada, was heaping favors on Canadian shippers· by land 

and sea that they might compete more successfully with their Ameri- can rivals. The conn try will read with especial pains, if the information shall ever be given it, of the special favors given to Canadian railways. They know what Canadian railways are. They are the creatures of the Canadian Government. They were built by the government for political purposes. They are-maintained by government sn bsidies, and they are operated without any of the restrictions of the interstate-commerce act. Yet these are the railways to which the President has generously extended all the facilities of a bonded transit. 

The Senate, now knowing his views, committed itself against them. 

In the debate on passing the joint resolution of 1883 to terminate the 

fisheries article, the direct question was asked Senator EDMUNDS, and 

he answered no, and the bill was passed without a Senator disputing 

his answer. So did the House, for on the same occasion, when Mr. 

Rice, a Representative from Massachusetts, was asked the same question he made the same answer, and the bill was passed without a single Representative disputing his answer. So did the Committee on 

Foreign Affairs of the House, for it reported unanimously, February 

1G, 1887, a retaliation bill, in which the twenty-ninth article was referred to by name as being in force. [Applause.] 

And upon proof that the privileges secured by Al"ticle XXIX are denied as to goods, wares, and merch::tndise. * • • * 

'.rhe President may also by proclamation, etc. 

So did his Secretary of State, for Mr. Bayard wrote to Senator REAGAN, of the Committee of Interstate Commerce: 

Only the fishery articles of the treaty of Washington are nbwgatcd. 

But more regretable than the unfortunate position into which the 

President's silence forced his friends was the effect it had upon the 

Canadian authorities. Finding that what they knew to be an infraction of one treaty stipulation was accepted without protest, they waxed 

bold to disregard at their pleasure other stipulations of the treaty, and 

the resnl t has been a new series of annoyances and aggressions, which 

seemed to be in"\ited by the failure of the President to make manful 

protest and to employthe pea{Jeful means of self-defense committed to 

him. But theae unpleasant things are behind us. If Article XXIX 

was not canceled by abrogation itwas by infraction, and onr hands are 

free, if we wish them to be. 

The President is now the President of the message, not the President 

of the treaty; he is no longer the go\ernor-general of Canada; he is 

now the Pre ident of the United States. He no longer takes the Canadian view; he takes the American view of the stipulation. If now he 

will act-if he will do anything-we will encourage him in his new departure. We will give him everything he- asks for, necessary or unnecessary. The past will be forgiven. 

I reserve the remainder of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro temporr. The gentleman has eleven minutes remaining. 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 

.A. message from the Senate, by Mr. McCooK, its Secretary, announced 

that t"he Senate still further insists upon its amendments to the bill (H. 

R. 11242) making appropriations for the support of the Army for the 

.fiscal year ending June 30, 1889, and for other purposes, numbered 32, 

R3, and 35, disagreed to by the House of Represen~tives, and agrees to 

the further conference asked by the House of Representatives on the disagreeing votes thereon, and had appointed Messrs. ALLISON, PLU:UB, and 

GOR"llA • conferees on the part of the Senate. 

The message further announced that the Senate disagrees to the 

amendment of the House on the bill (S. 832) to provide for an additional mode of taking depositions of witnesses in causes pending in 

courts of the United States, and agrees to the conference asked by the 

House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and had 

appointed Messrs. CoKE, EvARTS, and GEORGE as conferees on the 

part of the Senate. 

The message further announced that the Senate had passed .with 

amendments the bill (H. R. 1073) for the relief of the Roman Catholic 

Church of St. Peter and St. Paul, at Chattanooga, Tenn., and ask for 

a conference on the disagreeing votes thereon, and had appointed Mr. 

MITCHELL, Mr. SPOONER, and Mr. HARRIS as conferees on the part 

of the Senate. . 

The message further announced that the Senate had agreed to the 

report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 

two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. H. 7708) 

to increase the pension of Annie Gibson Yates. 

The message further announced that ·the Senate requests the House 

of Representatives to return to the Senate the bill (H. R. 5716) for establishing a light at the mouth of Otter Creek, Lake Champlain. 

FISHERIES. 

What will the people say when they learn what was done after the 

Canadian Government had, in June, 1886, refused to give our goods 

the facilities of transit even after Congress had passed the retaliation 

a{Jt in U~rch, 1887? Will they believe i.t? On the 20th of May, 1 87, 

the Canadian Paci.fic Railway was opened to Vancouver. On that \"ery 

day the Secretary of the Treasury bonded the Pacific Coast Steamship 

Company, and in July following gave that company a permit to carry Mr. BEL IONT. Ordinarily I should find it a most difficult and so- goods in bond from San Francisco to Vancouver, tube transported over rious undertaking to reply to my colleagues of the Committee on 

the Canadian Pacific to Boston, New York, or any other harbor of the Foreign Affairs, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HITT] and the genUnited States. That business, which was entirely American, which 1 tleman from New Jersey [Mr. PHELPS]. I have had a long experience 

belonged to the American railways, might be given to this foreign rail- of their ingenuity and their ability in dealing with such questions as 

way, the President authorizes a steamship company to carry goods this, and I have a respect for their opinions. Bnt in this instance. 

over the high seas, to deliver them to its Canadian rival. I know that after listening to the ru·guments which they have made, and rememCongress has Legun to think that railways have no rights which we bering that in not one single sentence has either of them declared his 

are bound to respect; but is there any reason why a broken treaty intention to vote against the bill, my only difficulty is to belie\e that 

should he used to take from an American railway and give to a Cana- even those who ;may be politically opposed to the President of the 

dian railway the business of carrying goods from San Francisco to New United States should, in such a grave crisis as this, charge upon him 

York? motives inconsistent with his duty-so bravely and well performedThe President, because he would not tell any one that be thought the to guard and protect the riglrts of American citizens and to maintain 

twenty-ninth article abrogated, bot would keep on executing its pro- the dignity and honor of the nation. visions without hint or protest or retaliation,justasifitwerrl in force, Why, Mr. Speaker, we ought not to be, and I am sure upon reflechad trouble not only with Canada but, with everybody else. tion we will not be, Democrats and we will not be Republicans when 

·• 
8314 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. SEPTEl\IBER p, 

contronting unfriendly acts of a foreign power. The gentleman frcm 

New Jersey [Mr. PHELPS] surprised me, who had approached him in 

the most fair and frien'dly spirit in the endeavor to make a correction 

of a statement which I am sure the House will see is unfounded 

utterly unfounded. And it is more surprising 'because the gentlem:u~ from New Jersey ought to be familiar with all the phases of this important subject. I deny in common with all who have looked into 

this question with care, and who have considered the statutes as well as the treaty of 1871, that these commercial operations or privileges 

originated in the twenty-ninth article. I call the attention of the 

g~n.tleman to the fac~ that there exist upon the statute-book laws proVIdmg for the operatiOns of commerce between the United States and 

Canada; laws antedating the treaty of 1871. There is a--

.Mr. PHELPS. Will the gentleman permit me-- Mr. BELMONT. I will not yield to the gentlem::m. 

Mr. PHELPS. Tha~ is scarcely reciprocity, Mr. Speaker. 1\fr. BELMONT. That is exactly what it is. 

Mr. ROGERS. "Retaliation." [Laughter.] [Cries of" Regular 

order!" on the Democratic side.] 

Mr. BELMONT. The statute of 1862 is the foundation of this series 

of legislation providing for the warehousing of foreign merchandise upon our territory for a certain period free of duty. Then there was an act approved by President Johnson March 14, 1866, five years before 

the treaty of Washington, which distinctly provides •· that neither this 

nor any other'act shall operate to prevent the transportation of bonded 

goods, wares, or merchandise from warehouse within three years from 

the date of the original importation nor their exportation in bond from 

the port into which they were originally imported into any other port or ports for the purpose of exportation." This was followed by s~ll 

another act approved July 28, of the same year, which mentions the 

British provinces by name. I did not think I should be called upon to have those statutes read, 

but it does seem necessary for the information of the gentleman from 

New Jersey, and I therefore ask the Clerk to read section 5 9f the act 

of 1866, which I send to the desk. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

And be it fw·ther ~~acted1 ~hat from and after the passage of this act, goods, wares, or merchandise arnvmg at the ports of New York, Boston, and PortlAnd or any other port of the United States which may be specially designated by' 

the ~ecretary of the Treasury, and destined for places in the adjacent British 

provin<:es, or arriving. at the port of ~oint Isabel, Texas, or any other port of 

the Umted States which may be spemally designated by the Secretary of the 

Treasury, and destined for places in the Republic of Mexico, maybe entered at the custom-bouse and conveyed in transit through the territory of the United 

States without the payment of duties, under such rules, regulations, and con- dition~ for the protE'ction of the revenue as the Secretary of the Treasury may presc~·Ibe. 

1\fr. BELMONT. The date of that act is 1866. Now I will endea\or 

to remind the gentleman from New J e.rsey--

1\Ir. PHELPS. - Will the gentleman yield to me to say-- Mr. BELMONT. I can not yield. I should have gladly done so had 

I been met in the spirit which at theoutseti intended toshowtohim. 

The gentleman from New Jersey was a member of the Committee on 

Foreign Affairs in the last Congress, and he has referred to the bill which we unanimously reported at thatiime, and has endeavored to point out 

an inconsistency in the position of the committee by reason of the fact 

that that bill makes reference to the t:wenty-ninth article. In view of 

the existing statutes running parallel with the twenty-ninth article 

which was already terminated, it is very clear that it was quite prope~ that these operations of commerce should be described by some phrase 

which could properly enter into a bill of that nature, but the language 

employed does not imply at all that the twenty-ninth article was then 

in Ioree. It could not imply any such thing. IftheHouse will permit, 

I will here insert the text of that bill, which was as follows: 

That he1·eafter whenever the President shall be satisfied that vessels of the 

United States are d enied, in ports or territorial waters of the British dominions 

in North America, rights to which such vessels are entitled by treaty or by the l::tw of natious, or are denied the comity of treatment or the reasonable privi- le.ges. usuapy accorded betw:een neighi?oring and fx:iendly nations, he may, in 

h1s tllscretwn, by proclamation, prohibit from entermg the ports of the United 

States, or from exercising such privileges therein as he may, in his discretion, 

by such proclamation, define, vessels owned wholly or in part by a subject of Her Britannic Majesty, and coming or arriving from any p ort or place in the 

Dominion of Canada, or in the Island of Newfoundland, whether directly or having touched at any other port, excepting such vessels shnll be in distress of 

navigntion and of needed repairs or supplies therefor, and he may also forbid 

the entrance or import.ation, either by land· or water, into the United States of ::my goods, wares, or merchandise from the aforesaid Dominion of Canada: or Newfoundland , or any locomotive, car, or other vehicle, with. any goods that may be therein contained, from the Dominion of Canada; and upon proof thn.t the privileges secured by Article XXIX of the treaty concluded between the United States aml Great Britain on the 8th day of 1\Iay, 1871. are denied as to goods, wares, and merchandise arriving at the ports of British North ~meri<:-"'~ the Pre ident may also, by proclamation, forbid the exercise of the 

like pnvi!eges as to goods, wares, and merchandise arriving in any of the ports 

of ~he Umted States; an~ a~y person violating or attempting to violate the pro- '\"lSions ?f any proclamatiOn 1ssned tmder this act, and any person preventinz or attemptmg to prevent any officer of the United States from enforcing such proc- lamation, shall be guilty of a. misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall 

be liable to a fine of qot more than 81,000, or imprisoned for a term not exceeding two yenrs, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court; and 

if, on and after the date at which such proclamation takes effect, the master or oth.er person in charg~ of any vessel thereby excluded from the ports of tho Umted Stales shall do, m the ports, harbors, or waters of the United States, for or on account of such vessel, any act forbidden by snch proclamation aforesaid, 

such ves3el, and its rigging! t..'\ckle, furniture, and boats, and all the goods on board, sha.ll be liable to SE)IZure and forfeiture to ~be United States; and any ~oods, ware~, or mercha.I?dts~, an? any car, locomotive, or other vehicle, coming rn~o the Umted. Stales, 1n vtolatlon of any proclamation as aforesaid shall be 

SCJzed and forfeited to the United States. ' 

SE?· 2. rr:bat 'Yhenever, afterth~ issua~ee of n. proc~~ation under this act, the Prest~ent 1s satiSfied that the de~? tal of ngbts a~d pt'lvtleges on which his proc- lamatwn was based no longer exists, he may Withdraw the proclamation or so n:u<:It tllereof as he may deem proper, and reissue the same thereafter when in 

hiS Judgment the same shall be necessaJT, 

~he gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. McCREARY] very clearly ex- pl!lm.ed.to the ~o~se ;res~erday that the twenty-ninth article contains 

w1thm 1t a p~ov1s10n 1o~· ~ts own teriiliruttion. I do not desire to weary 

!he ~ouse w1th a repehtwn of that argument, but it seems necessary m -y1ew of tl.Ie statement of ~he gentleman from New Jersey. The a.r ~1cle ~on tams~ reference to Its own termination in the provision that 

th1S article (Article XXIX) shall continue in force for the time men- tioned in Article XXXIII. Article XXXIII is the article terminating the fisheries clauses, from No. 18 to No. 25 the time being ten ye~rs, with a notice of two years. I was mvself ~member of the com- mittee in 1883, when the House gave the- necessary notice and the 

fishery articles, together with the articles of the treaty linked with 

them, were terminated at that time. I will say further that it was not necessary that tlle twenty-ninth article should have been named 

because the thirty-second article \las not named but was also then con~ sidered as terminated. 

That Canada considered this article as no longer in force is obvious 

from the course of her officials, and much more so if we observe the 

character of her legislation. In referrin"' to the bill which was the subject of controversy between the Senate ;nd the House in the last Congress, I think it not improper for me to say that at the time of the preparation of that bill the President was consulted as to the amount of pow~r to be vested in him, and I state to the House that the President 

at that time desired the same measure of authority for which he asks 

in th~ l_ll~age now before us. I trust I shall observe the rules usually 

:rrevmhn~ m bo~h Houses as to the proceedings in either House, but it 

1s almost Impossible to properly discuss the questions presented without a reference to the action of the Senate. The Senate was unwillinO' 

to grant the power which the House and the President considered ne.c~ essa~y to carry out the policy which we are now again endeavoring to 

put mto effect. 

I do not think it neces~ary to recall the points of difference which 

then existed. There is reason, however, to believe that obstacles which 

were then placed in tb~ way. of ~uch a measure have in part at least 

been removed. Closer mvest1gation has shown the wisdom and ne- cessity of the policy inaugurated and adopted by the House and many 

minds hitherto in doubt as to the power under the treaty 'of 1871 to 

withdraw certain privileges from Canadians have now become clear in 

the opinion that the t~e~ty-ninth article of that treaty is no longer in 

force, and that such pnvileges can and should be withdrawn. 

We iu .th.e H?use, during the course .of the. debate-many of us, at 

least-said It might be that the large railroad mterests which undoubtedly would be affected were very sensitive about the measure. It may 

be so to-day, and we baTe yet to see the course of this bill to its con-

?lusio~. The Sena~e has not only. placed itself in the way of the polIcy wh1ch the President then desued, but it has also interposed by a party vote itR opposition to a fair, honorable, and advantageous treaty. 

Not only that, but the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate has 

announced that the fisheries questions, in controversy between Great 

Britain and the United States, are not subjects for treaty n~gotiation. 

The country, it seems to me, will apprehend that the Senate has 

thereby abdicated its share in the settlement of these gtavc questions, 

and that it now rests with the House to give direction and force to the 

position of our Government; that it rests with the House to uphold 

the President in the policy which the country has so well received. 

The gentlem.an from Illinois [Mr. HITT] has referred to the projected 

treaty of 1888 m terms of contempt, and has made the statement which 

appears also in the report of the majority of the Senate Committee on 

Foreign Relations; that by the treaty there was a surrender of a vast area of fishing waters. The reportoftheSenatecommitteestaled that 

that area amounted to 1,127 square miles. I have hacl a tabular statement prepared, from which it appears that the entire area amounts to 

749 squ::u·e miles as against 4,000 square miles claimed byC:mada· and 

tbe majority of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations ad1~it in 

another part of their report, in the third, fourth, and fifth of their 

conclusions, that the fisheries in those surrendered waters are practically worthless at the present time, though they contend that they 

might become profitable in the future, and should therefore not be 

given np. The exact areas surrendered, if the House cares for the 

figures, were as follows: In square miles, (1) Baie des Chaleurs, COO 

miles; (2) Bay of Miramichi, 23; (3) Egmont Bay, 20; (4) St. Ann's 

Bay, 5; (5) Fortune Bay, 160; (G) Sir Charles Hamilton Sound, 2; (7) 

Barrmgton Bay, 2; (8) Chedabucto Bay and St. Peter's Bays, 18; (0) 

Mira Bay, 7; (10) Placentia Bay, 7; (11) St. Mary's Bay, 5. This is an actual area of 749 square miles , and is nearly all in two bays. 

While we have much to learn, apparently, from our friends on the 

other side of the aisle about this treaty, we can also learn somethinO' 

from our enemies across the border; and I will ask the Clerk to read~ ; 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-H01JSE. 8315 

statement made in the Canadian Parliament by 1\Ir. Ellis, a prominent 

member of thltt body, on the 18th of April last. 

The Cler&: read as follows: 

First. We have by the very act of making-this treaty receded from the position maintained so long in practice, that Canada and Great Britain could impose 

their own interpretations upon the meaning of the treaty of 1818, thus enlarg- ing the restrictions of that treaty. By doing this we have given the United 

States a precedent upon which to base new demands for the amelioration of the 

regulations applied to their fishing vessels, should the need arise. 

Second. We have almost wholly abandoned the contention that fishing YCS- sels are a class by themselves, and therefore not entitled to any commercial 

privileges. Third. We entirely and fot·c•er abandon the 3-ruile headland theory. ""Fourth. 'Ve fore,·er admit the rigllt of United States fishermen to navi~te 

the Straits of Canso. 

Fifth. We no longer compel American fishing vessels to depart from our shores in twenty-four hours after arrival. · Sixth. We relieve tbem from the obnoxious opers.tions of customs reg·ulations 

enforced against them as fishing vessels, and which were specially sever!.', as the true intent of these laws was to regulat~ commercial trading only. Seventh. lVe free them from harbor, pilotage, and other dues, which arc sometimes inhospitably and often capriciously imposed upon them, eYcn in cases where they sougllt sheller, dealing with them in these matters as com- mercial vessels, though denying them the rights of commercial vessels. 

Eighth. We have prac~ically abandoned the course of ordering them to depart if supposed to be hovering within our wate1-s, and also the plan of putting an officer on board of them as a matter of cout-se. Ninth. We permit them, under certain circumstances, to purchase b:lit, to re- plenish outfits, to ship men, and to transfer cargoes. Tenth. We issue to thcm, free of charge, permits which enable them to pur- chase supplies in ports of entry on all occasions, just as trading vessels, except 

that thev may not do it for barter, and this applies both to the homeward Yoy- nge and.outward voyages. This section does not name bait; but there will be no difficulty whatever of purchasing bait under it. Eleventh. By the fourteenth article we abandon our previous contention that 

preparing within Canadian wate1-s to fish is evidence of intention .to actually 

:fish within Oanadian waters, and we therefore recede from the pos1tion taken 

by the act of 1886. Twelfth. We have limited and defined and reducecl the severe penalties imposed by that :wt for violation of our exclusive rights of fishing. Forfeiture of 

the vessel is no longer a penalty except for fishing within Canadian watf'I'S or preparing within those waters to fish therein. In all other cases S3 a ton is the 

highest fine which can be imposed. 'l'hirteenth. We have provided a summary process of law for dealing with 

arrested or captured \essels, instead of the old and slow process of the admiralty court. Fourteenth. And lest the punishment of an infraction of. the new h·eaty or that of 1818 should seem to be unjust, and to prevent the danger of giving offense to the United States, the Government of Canada can reverse the judg- ment of the court. 

Mr. BELMONT. . Mr. Speaker, I do not like to bring into this discussion anything like an accusation of unfairness to the President and 

to his Secretary, but I do not think it just to the House to pass unno- ticed the statement of the gentleman from New Jersey, who has said 

that the Canadian acts have been passed over by our Government wit]fout protest. If it will not weary the IIouse I "\\'ill ask the Clerk to 

read, and I hope the House will attend to the rea.ding of, a very seri- ous and e..'l.rnest prote.st-such n. protest as indeed calls for the action 

which we are ende..woring to ta.ke to-day. Mr. PHELPS. Will the gentleman be good enough to state where, 

at any time, by agent or directly by himself, the President ever intimated before the 23d of August that be considered this article of the 

treaty canceled either by abrogation or infraction? 

Mr. llELl\10NT. The gentleman, whoissofruniliar with diplomatic 

affairs, will recognize that the statement of the Secret.,'\ry of State is the 

statement of the President. I ask the Clerk to read. The Clerk read as follows: 

[l\Ir. Bayard to Sir L. 'Vest.] 

DEPARTMfu.'\T OF STATE, Washington, May 29, 1886. 

Sm: I have just reccive:l :i.n official imprint of House of Commons bill No. 136, now pending in the Canadian Parliament, entitled "A.n act furthex: to amend the act respecting fishing by foreign vessels," and am informed that it 

has passed the House and is now pending in the Senate. 

This bill proposes the forcible search, seizure, and forfeiture of any foreign 

vessel within any harbor in Canada, or hovering within 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors in Canada whru:e such vessel has entered 

such waters for any purpose not permitted by the laws of nations, or by treaty or convention, or by any law of the United Kingdom or of Canada now in force. I hasten to draw your attention to the wholly unwarranted proposition of the 

Canadian authorities, through their local agents, arbitrarily to enforce according to their own construction the provisions of any convention between the 

United States and Great Britain, and, by the interpolation of language not found 

in any such treaty, and, by interpretation not claimed or conceded by either party to such treaty, to invade and destroy the commercial rights and privileges of citi- zens of the United States under arul by virtue of treaty stipulation with Great 

Britain and statutes in that behalf made and provided. I have also been furnished with a copy of circu1ar No. 371, purporting to be 

from the customs department at Ottawa, dated May 7,1886, and to be signed by J . Johnson, commissioner of customs, assuming to execut-e the provisions of the 

treaty between the United States and Great Brit.ain, concluded October 20,1.818, 

and printed copies of a warning, purporting to be issued by George E. Foster, 

minister of marine and fisheries, dated at Ottawa, March 5,1886, of a similar 

tenor, although capable of unequal results in its execution. 

Such proceedings I conceive to be flagrantly violative of the reciprocal com- mercial privile&es to which citizens of the United States are lawfully entitled 

under statutes of Great Britain and the well-defined and publicly proclaimed 

authority of both countries, besides being in respect of the existing conventions 

bel. ween the two countries an assumption of jurisdiction entirely unwarranted 

and which is wholly denied by the United States. In the interest of the maintenance of peaceful and friendly relations, I give you my earliest informat.ion on this subject, adding that I have telegraphed Mr. 

Phelps, our minister at London, to make earnest protest to Her :Majesty's Gov- ernment against such arbitrary, unlawful, unwarranted, and unfriendly action on the part of the Canadian Government and its officials, and have instructed :Mr. Phelps to give notice that the Government of Great Britain will be held ' liable for all losses and injuries to citizens of U1.e United States and their property caused by the unauthorized and unfriendly action· of tho Canadian officials to which I have referred. I have, etc., 

T. F. BAYARD. 

Ur. PHELPS. Will the gentleman from New York yield to allow 

the date of that letter to be read? What I wish to know is whether 

the date of this letter is after notice of the infraction of the article or 

of an intention to break it was given-- Mr. BELMONT. I fear, ~ir. Speaker--

lHr. PHELPS. Let us have the date. That will answer the ques- tion. 

1\fr. BELMONT. I fear the gentleman does not understand-- 1\Ir. PIIELP,3. Is th~ gentleman unwilling that the elate should bo 

read? 

Mr. BELl\IONT. I do not yield any further. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. UcMILLIN). The gentleman from 

New York declines to yield. Mr. PHELPS. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. I think it in or- der for me to expect--

The SPEAKER pro tempm·e. The gentleman from New York is entitled to the floor, and declines to yield. .Mr. PHELPS. I rise to a question of privilege. I claim that it is 

the right of a member to have a public document so read that if he ia 

giving careful attention and is not naturally deficient in hearing he 

shall hear what is read. I did not hear the date of this letter. 

The SPEAKER p1·o tempore. The Chair will sta.te in repiy to the 

gentleman's "question of privilege" that the gentleman from New 

York, in addressing the House, is entitled to send to the desk and have 

read in his time such document as lle sees proper; and only such portions tQ.ereof as he desires to have read can be read in his time with· out his consent. :Mr. PHELPS. I think, if the Chair will pardon me, the date was read, but I did not catch it. 

Mr. BELMONT. I think the difficulty can be easily overcome. I 

will read the dateWashington, l\Iay 29, 1886. 

I was proceeding to say--

Mr. PHELPS. Now, will the gentleman yield for a question which 

will be significant in that connection? 

Mr. BELMONT. I was proceeding to say that I do not think the 

gentleman quite understood the nature of the protest. He seems to 

imagine that it has reference to certain infractions of the twenty-ninth 

article. It was, in fact, a protest against the proclamation by the Queen 

of a legislative enactment of Canada. It was an endeavor to urge upon 

Great Britain the importance of exercising some restraint on the Do- minion.-

1\Ir. Speaker, I think the reading of that protest is certainly a suffi- cient answer to the statement of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. PHELPS] that no protest had been entered in regard to the infraction 

of our treaties and the unfriendly and unn~ighborly enactments of the 

Canadian legislature. The policy which we are endeavoring now to 

establish is a wise one, because it undertakes to protect; the rights of our citizens. And more than that, it is an absolutely necessary one in 

the face of the protest which we have made. If such protests as this are not followed by action on our part, it would be notice -to Great 

Britain and other governments that protests coming from us are mere formalities not to be followed by action. It is well enough for those who are hostile to us, eithe~ in England 

or Canada, to look upon the rivalry between Democrats and Repub- licans in maintenance of American rights as the mere struggle of party, 

but it is a rivalry, Mr. Speaker, in which we can take great pride and 

satisfaction, a rivalry with a worthy aim in view. We know well when 

the moment comes to act that when a great crisis comes upon the na- tion party differences must be sunk in a united purpose to uphold the 

rights of ow· people and the dignity of our Government. 

If I have time left, I desire to reserve it. The SPEAKER pro temJJore. The gentlemRn has twenty-seven minutes. 

Mr. ROCKWELL. I desire to yield thirty minutes of my time to 

my colleague [Air. DAVIS]. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, events do not stand alone. They must 

be judged by their relation to other fucts with which they are connected 

in order to ascertain their true character and the causes and motives 

from which they have resulted. This relation is the logic of e-vents 

and its recognition is the philosophy of history. Keeping in view this principle we may possibly be able to under- stand the purpose of the message which the President has recently addressed to Congress. · This message reeks with thesp.iritofretaliation. It demands additional power to that already given by Congress in order 

that this policy shall be made sweeping and effective. 

Now I do not object to this. I have always believed in this policy 

toward our neighbors over our northern frontier until we could prove 

to them that their aggressive and unfriendly conduct was a blunder in 

dealing with a great people who can give blows as well as take them. I do not think he needs the powers he asks for in addition to those 

conferred upon him by the aet of 1\farch 3, 1887. But I would not cool 
8316 CON"'GRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. SEPTE~ffiER 5, 

his new-born zeal or thwart his late purpose of defending our interests have hated the word ''delimitation "as be hates the enemy of his salvo.~ 

in the manner pointed out by Congress. But I am concerned to in- tion. 

quire what has led to this S!ldden conversion. The exigency calling It left the question of the alleged infraction of this treaty to be de~ 

for the exercise of the powers he already possesses, not to speak of those termined by Canadian courts, and permitted harsh penalties, extending 

he calls for, is by no means as imperative as it was when the retaliatory to forfeiture of vessels and cargo and supplies. Thel'e courts are prej uact was passed. The fishing season is nearly over, and there is little, diced against our fishermen and the witnesses are substantially bri bed 

if any, disturbance on tbe Canadian coast. What, then, has aroused by the·share they would receive of the confiscated property in case of 

the President so suddenly to the importance of retaliation? conviction. 

It is known that following the revocation of the fishery articles of The burden is placed upon the defendant to prove his innocence-a 

the treaty of 1871, a. series of annoyances, aggressions, .and outrages monstrous perversion of justice. And if the seizure should be adj udged 

were practiced by the Canadian officials upon our fishing vessels: The illegal, nominal damages only can be secured. This treaty ile~l to 

commercial rights which they had enjoyed almost uninterruptedly for secure "ndemnity for the numerous and wanton injuries and ou trages 

more than half a century by virtue of reciprocal arrangements between committed upr n our fishermen, and for which Secretary BayaTd had 

Great Britain and the United States were denied them. They were declared compensation would be demanded. 

molested and driven away or seized when exercising their rights under It sacrificed the commeTcia,l rights which our fishing ve scls had exthe t reaty of 1818. In short, a condition of commercial non-intercourse ercised almost uninterruptedly lor more than :fifty years, and for which 

and hostility was pot in practice by the Dominion Government t.oward we had rendered D. full equivalent by the concession of similar privia class of our ~essels apparently because they dared to pursue a. calling leges which this treat.v did not disturb or impaiT. Instead of these 

upon the high seas which the New England fishermen had prosecuted fu ll commercial rights, which were and still arc conceded t o Ca uadian 

a. century before the British occupation of Canada. More than t wo fishing vessels in our ports, it only secured what no civilized government 

thousand of our fishing vessels had been molest-ed and harassed in t his could deny-the privilege of pnrchasiog provisions and supplies on the 

manner. These viola tions of international law, comity, and treaties homeward \Oyage if needed, and these not to be obtain.ed by Larter. 

had been vigorously protested against by our present Secretary of State In other words, it was not to be in any sense a commercial right, bot a 

, and minister at the Court of St . .Tames, and in each case the British privilege to be exercised in the most expensive manner to a•ert actual 

Government had been notified that compensation for damages would want or possibly starmtion on the homeward trip. 

be demanded. It ceuld not be and was not intended to be of the sHghtest use in 

The object of this injurious policy on the part of the Canadian au- prosecuting the business of the vessel. lf the _provisions should be 

thorities, sustained by the mother Government, was of course well un- spoiled or run short while engaged in .fishing, except by casua)ty, not 

derstood and st::tted by our Government in the official correspondence an ounce of bread or meat could be purchased in all Her .Majesty s 

arising from it. Itwasintendedtoforceustoabolishourcnstomsdoties North American dominions, unless the vessel should agree to leave the 

upon fish and fish products in order that they might ha.ve free entrance fishing grounds and return home, abandoning of course her season's 

into our markets for the products of Canadian fisheries in competition fishin,g. . 

with our American :fishermen. Their expedence of the treaty of 1871 What a concession from one civilized nation to another-kindred 

had proved that with their cheapness of vessels, outfit, and crews and nations, as we are so fond of saying. Then, under stress of weather or 

the bounty they received they could eventually destroy our fishing other casualty, we might unload, reload, transship, or sell, subject to 

industry and take possession of our market. customs laws or regulations, all fish on board, when such proceedings 

It was because of this state of facts that Congress passed, with sub· were ''made neces-sary as incidental to repairs, and may replenish outstantial ~mauimity, the retaliatory act, which clothed the President fits, provisions, and supplies damaged or lost by disaster." 

with discretionary power to prohibit for such a period of time as he saw The concession of those privileges only when necessary to save vessel 

fit the eut.rance into port~ or places of the United States of Canadian or cargo was a simple act of humanity which needed no treaty stipn·· 

tishi ng vessels,. fish, or the products of Canada. L'l tions to en fore~ and which no government could decline to grant withThis was the obvious method of dealing-with the subject. It would out disgrace. Rut I wish to call the attention of the Honse to a most 

teach the Canadians that their policy could not accomplish' its object, serious surrender of onr interests contained in this article. 

aml that so long as it was pursued tney would be utterly Hhut out from Under the twenty-ninth article of the treaty of 1871 we secured the 

our markets; that, so far from suc:!eeding in forcing us to their position right to convey in bond goods, wares, or merchandise arriving in any 

and securing the entrance of their fish free of duty, they would exclude of the ports of Her Britannic Majesty's possessions in North America 

that product by their own act from our ports and markets. It can through said possessions without the vayment of duties. 

hardly be doubted that the exercise of this power by the President for The representative of the Administration and chief negotiator on om; 

a short time would have been effectual, and would haYe inflicted no side of the rejected treaty declares that this article is not abrogated, 

serious injury upon any American interest.. and therelore agreed to Article XI of the Bayard treaty under the conThen when Qur northern neighbors had discovered their mistake it viclion that Article XXIX of the treaty of 1871 was then in existence. 

"-ould have been easy, either by reciprocal legislation to have secured Now, it is clear that by express implication this article repeals the 

onr rights, or, if a new treaty were desirable, we could have restored right to convey fish in bond secured by the former treaty, and only 

the previous status, and in return demanded commercial rights and fair - preserved the right to transship in case of casualty or disaster. 

and liberal treatment in all respects. The President, however, pre- Two years ago the British Government notified us that this right 

ferred to negotiate a treaty, which was properly rejected by the Senate. which we had enjoyed under the treaty of J 871 would no longer be· 

I shall not attempt to discuss this treaty in.deta\l. I firmly believe, conceded, and this article of the treaty of 1888 virtually admitted tho 

however, that if it had not been for that pressure tha.t an executive propriety of the refusal of the British Government to obey its treaty 

knows how to bring in favor of a measure it would have been rejected stipulations and gave away the most important right which our fisherby a two-thirds vote of the Senate. men possessed under it. The President now says that--

Tt utterly failed to protect onr fishing inte rests, and was in the most In the year 1886 notice was received by the representath·es of our Government 

important respects a surrender of our ancient claims and a submission that our fishermen would no longer be allowed to ship their fish in bond and 

to t he most arro!rnnt British pretensions. It admitted the British head- free of duty through Canadian territory to this country; and ever since that - time such shipment has been denied. land theory, never belore conceded by our Government or even insisted The privilege of such shipment, which had been extended to our fishermen, 

upon by Great Britain; and by its specific delimitations and the in~ was a most impo"'tant one, allowing them to spend the time upoc the fishing- "d h h ths f" 1 d d b f' 6 t 10 grounds which "ould otherwise be devoted to a voyage home with their c!l.tch, crease of the Wl t across t e mou 0 exc n e ays rom 0 and doubling their opportunities for profitably prosecuting their vocation. 

miles shut us off from vast areas in which we had claimed and exer- In forbidding ~he transit of the catch of our fishermen over their territo1·y in 

cised common :fishing rights. bond and free of duty the Canadian authorities deprived us of the only facility 

h th te th B f Chal d d epe ndent upon their concession, and for which we could supply no substituk. It occur.:; to me t at among o er wa rs e ay O eur was e- 'fhe value to the Dominion of Canada of the privilege of transit for the ir ex 

limited by this treaty-a bay 70 miles in length and 20 miles or more ports and imports across our territ-ory, and to and from our ports, though great 

in width-where our :fishermen have sailed and fished almost from time in every aspect, will be better appreciated ~hen it is remembered that, for aeonimmemorial,· yes, sir, since the first mackerel was caught by the first side1·able portio n of each year, the St. Lawrence River, which constitutes the direct avenue of foreign commerce leading to Canada, is closed by ice. Yankee "fishermen, two hundred and .fifty years ago. During the last six years the imports and exports of British Canadian provI can recollect when the chief catch of the mackerel fishermen was inces carried across our territory, under the privileges granted by our hnvs, 

h h . f: b · f h amounted in value to about $270,000,000, nearly all of which were goods dutia ble taken in those waters, and t e name oft lS amous ay lS one o t e undet·ourtaritrlaws, byfartbelargerpartofthistrafticconsistingof excbanges 

familiar sounds of my childhood. of goods between Great Britain and h er American provinces brought to and carThe Massachusetts fisherman knew these waters as l1e knew those of ried from our port-s in their own vessels. 

Barnstable Bay. He knew its coast line, the rise and fall of its tides, 'fhe President is now of the opinion that th.e article of the treaty ot 

and the familiar roar and swell of its waves. He had seen year by · 1871 under discussion was revoked, but this probablywn.s not his opinion 

year, month by month, day by day, upon its surface those vast schools when the treaty-of 1 88 was negotiated, as be and the Secretary would 

of the most beautiful of the finny tribe, their delicate forms leaping hardly have entertained opposite views on a matter of such impor~ 

and their blue sides glancing in the sunlight, as be merrily plied his 1.anee. 

l ines or drew in his nets. Sir, the Yankee fisherman exclu~ed ftom But suppose the twenty-ninth article were revoked, tl1e reciprocal 

those wat-ers would feel astheScotchHighlanderfeltwhendrivenfrom I legislation which preceded it was iu force, and, as the President has 

his native mountains by the greed of rapacious landlords. shown, was of much more importance to Canada than to us. Why, 

If t his treaty had been ratified, the New England fisherman would then, did he assent t o a treaty which j ustified the Canadian Government 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8317 

in refusing to convey fioh in bond through its territory, and fortified 

its position that fish was not included ill the treaty stipulations or 

in the preceding legislation? I say that the President in that treaty 

yielded American interests, up to that moment inflexibly maintained 

by treaty and legislation, to Canadian interests, and would have left our fishermen helpless, notwithstanding the enormous advantages of transit 

given to Canada. Couldnottheseadvantageshave been used insecuring something for our fishing interestB in the treaty instead of flourishing their threatened withdrawal in her face since its defeat? 

The President has been aware for two years of the refusal of Canada . to allow the tmusit of fish in bond destined for some point in this coun- try. Has he made proper remonstrances against her refusal to fulfill 

her reciprocal obligations? If so Congress has not been informed of the 

fact, and if he has made representations concerning·such important interests, reflecting upon the good faith of the British authorities, it is yet 

to appear. 

But if conclusive evidence were wanting in the eleventh article; for 

which the President is responsible, that we surrendered the privilege . of traneshipment of fish in bond through Canadian territory, it is 

found in the fifteenth article, where that privilege is accorded with 

certain commercial privileges, provided the United States shall admit 

free of duty the products of Canadian fisheries. So that the two articles show beyond question that this valuable privilege was distinctly 

snrrendered and the British Government could ever afterwards insist 

that it should be excluded from any reciprocal transit arrangements, 

although 'the President now admits that this was the only important 

concession that the Canadians could make to us. I will insert in my remarks the views respecting t.he character of 

this treaty of one of the most eminent members of the Democratic 

party, who is, perhaps, better informed upon the subject of our fisheries relations than any American now living. 

The letter of Mr. Woodbury is as follows: 

To the Editor of the Sun: 

Sm: The Chamberlain treaty is now be ore the Senate. It surrenders every- thing the United States have contended for since 1838, when the dispute on the 

3-mi1e limit began, cont-entions which the British authorities have assented to or temporized about as often as pressed, so that really in no entire year since 

then have they insisted on enforcing their headland theory. The commercial rights of the United States under the agreements ofl830were 

utterly abandoned by l\Ir. Bayard after much previous insistance on their obligation. 

The rights of common humanity toward our vessels in distress, accorded 

everywhere except on the Canadian coast·, are hereafter to be allowed only upon the condition that the United States shall change its present registry laws by 

repealing them, and enacting such new ones as are acceptable to tke British 

Government before going into effect. This of course leaves the humanity of 

Canada to vessels of the United States in distress withheld until the United 

States shall pay the consideration by repealing its laws and making such new ones. 

Commercial intercourse by our fishing vessels is disallowed, but they may be 

permitted to buy a narrow line of supplies, whose extent would not exceed 

l!OO.OOO 11> year, when the United States shall have repealed existing duties, now over S6ll,OOO a year, on Canadian fish and oil, and made them free in our mar- k~L • This is the substance of the treaty, all losses to the United States both in honor 

and profit. General Jackson and Mr. McLane, Van Buren and Forsyth, Ste- venson and Everett, Webster, Rush, Grant, Evarts, and even Bayard and Phelps 

for two of their official years, are buried beneath this treaty and their memories 

dishonored by its retreat from their patriotic contentions for .American rights. Cavilers have said the treaty of 1818 was wrung from our weakness, but this · treaty, made in the hour of our strength, surrenders what that never did-our 

markets; and it doubles the waters from which it requires we shall be forever 

excluded. 

The consequence of adopting this treaty would be the destruction of the fish- ery under the American flag, the paralysis of our hope of naval power, and a British monopoly of our markets, aggrandizing its dangerous naval power. Let the treaty be rejected. 

CHARLES LEVI WOODBURY. 

BosTON, May 4, 1888. 

Sir, that treaty failed to protect American interests or to maintain 

American honor. It surrendered the New England fisherman naked 

to his enemies. It was the weakest and the worst treaty ever negotiated 

by an American administration. It leads us to question either the· intelligence and competency of our negotiators or their loyalty to the 

interests they represented. The fifteenth article relieves them from 

any imputation of lack of intelligence and reveals the true animus of 

the instrument. It <eads as follows: 

Tbe fifteenth article of the treaty is as follows: 

Whenevet· the United States sha11 remove the duty from fish-oil, whale-oil, seal-oil, and fish of all kinds (except fish preserved in oil), being the product of 

fisheries carried on by the fishermen of Canada and Newfoundland, including Ln brad or, as well as from the usual and necessary casks, barrels, kegs, cans, and 

othe r usual and necessary coverings containing the products above mentioned, 

the like products, being the produce of fisheries carried on by the fishermen of 

the United States, as well as the usual and necessary coverings of the.same, as above described, shall be admitted free of duty into the Dominion of Canada 

and Newfoundland. And upon such removal of duties, and while the aforesaid o.rlicies are allowed to be brought into the United States by British subjects without duty being reimposed thereon, the privilege of entering the ports, bays, nod harbors of the aforesaid coasts of Canada and Newfoundland shall be a ccorded to United States fishing vessels by annual licenses, free of charge, for 

ti.Je following purposes, namely: 

I. Ti.Je pmchase of provisions, bait, ice, seines, lines, and all other supplies 

and outfits. 

2. Tr~ns:'hipment of catch, for transport by any means of conveyance. · 3. Sh1ppmg- of crews. . . Supplies shall not be obtainea by barter, but bait may be so obtained. 

The like privileges shall be continued or given to fishin"" vessels of Canada 

and Newfoundland 0::1 the Atlantic coasts ofthe United states. 

The purpose is here as plainly as if expressly stated that the fisher- man must submit to all annoyances, grievances, and wrongs to which 

he has been subjected until Cana-dian fish and fish products shall be 

admitted free of duty into our ports, when, and not before, be shall be 

relieved from these injuries and harassments, and be entitled to qualified commercial privileges. 

In order to secure these privileges, to which he was entitled by the 

principles of international comity, no less than by existing treaties and 

laws, he is asked to make this fatal concession against which he has 

struggled from the beginning as a man fights for his existence. And 

who is responsible for this attempted injustice? who but the President who controlled the negotiations upon our side and to-day defends 

the treaty? Sir, I denounce this treaty as part and parcel of the freetrade conspiracy which, inaugurated at the White House and continued 

here, seeks to prosti:ate American industry and impoverish and degrade 

American labor. 

The other party to the negotiation understood this perfectly. 

I have endeavored to show that where legislation providing for re- ciprocal commercial convenience or treaty stipulations of a similiar 

character were violated by Canada for the purpose of forcing u8 to alter our customs laws in her interest, the remedy would be found in retaliatory or 1·esponsive legislation in the same direction. The enforcement 

of such a policy would have secured promptly and fully the needed con- cessions by Great Britain. The moment our northern neighbors were made to realize that inconveniences and disadvantages could be mutual and bea with at least equal force against Canadian interests we should have found them in a mood to concede to uswhatwasessential 

to their interests that we should concede to them. This was the policy 

of Congress embodied in the act of l\farch · 3, 1887. But it was not 

the policy .of the President until this sudden conversion, almost as sudden as that of Saul of Tarsus. Doubtless, like him, he has seen a great light, which is growing brighter and brighter as November approaches. That light the Republicans in this Chamber and out of it 

hail as the dawning of a new and glorious day. 

I speak of the President's conversion, and will ask the Clerk to read 

a letter written by him to 1\Ir. Steele, of Gloucester, Mass. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, .D. 0., Ap1'il7, 1887. 

GENTLEM:n'N: I have received your letter lately addressed to me and have given 

full consideration to the expression of the views and wishes therein contained 

in relation to the existing difficulties bet.ween the Government of Great Britain 

and the United States growing out of the refusal to award to our citizens en- gaged in fishing enterprises the privileges to which they are entitled either 

under treaty stipulations or. the guaranties of international comity and neighborly concession. I sincerely trust the apprehension you express of unjust or unfriendly treat- ment of American fishermen lawfully found in Canadian waters will not be re- alized. But if such apprehensions should prove to be well founded, I earnestly 

hope that no fault or inconsiderate action of any of our citizens will in the least 

weaken the just position of our Government, or deprive us of the universal 

sympatily and support to which we should be entitled. 

The action of this Administration since June, 1885, when the fishery articles of 

the treaty of 1871 were terminated under tj:J.e notification which had two years before been given to our Government, has been fully disclosed by the corre- spondence between the representatives and the appropriate Depa.rtments of the 

respective Governments, with which I nm apprised -by letter you are entirely 

familiar. An examination of this correspondence has doubtless satisfied you that in no case have the rights or privileges of American fishermen been over- looked or neglected, but that, on the contrary, they have been sedulously insisted upon and cared for by every means within the control of the executive 

branch of the Government. 

The act of Congress approved 1\farch 3,1887, authorizing a course of retaliation 

through executive action in the event of unfriendly conduct and treaty violations affecting American fishermen, has devolved upon the President of the 

United States exceedingly grave and solemn responsibilities, comprehending 

highly important consequences to our national chaoracter and dignity and involving extremely valuable commercial intercourse between the British posses- sions of North America and the people of the United States. I understand that 

in case recow"Se to the retaliatory measures authorized by this act should be invited by unjust treatment of our fishermen in the future the object of such 

retaliation might be fully accomplished by "prohibiting Canadian-caught fish 

from entry into the ports of the United Stat~s." 

The exist-ing controversy is one in which two nations are the parties con- cerned. The retaliation contemplated by the act of Congress is to be enforced, not to protect solely any particular interest, however meritorious and valuable, but to maintain the national honor, and thus protect all our people. In this 

view the violation of American fishery rights and unjust or unfriendly acts to- wards a portion of our citizens engaged in this business is but the occasion for 

action, and constitutes a national affront which gives birth to or may justify re- taliation. 

. This measure once resorted to, its effectiveness and value may well depend upon the thoroughness and extent of its application; and in th~:~ performance of 

international duties, the enforcement of international rights, and the protection of our citizens, this Government and the people of the United States must act as a unit-aU iritent upon attaining t.he best result of retaliation, upon the basis 

of a maintenance of national honor and duty. . A nation seeking by any means to maintain its honor, dignity, and integrity, 

is engaged in protecting the rights of its people, and if in such eff'orts particular interests are injured and special advantages forfeit-ed, these things should be 

patriotically borne for the public good. An immense volume of population, 

manufactures, and agricultural productions, and the marine tonnage and rail- ways to which these have given activity-all largely the result of intercourse 

between the United States and British America and the natural growth of a full 

half century of good neighborhood and friendly communication-form an ag- gregate of material wealth and incidental relations of the most impressive mag- nitude. I fully appreciate these things and am not unmindful of the great 

number of our people who are concerned in such vast and diversified interests. In the performance oi the serious duty which the Congress has imposed upon me, and in the exercise upon just occasion of the power conferred under the 

~j:ge~~~ ~~;. ~~~~:~:~~ ~ls~l:o~~~~t~ iln~~c;ll11~e~~~~h:i!:~~a~fi'f!ch: 
8318 CONGRESS! ON AL RECORD-HOUSE. SEPTEJ\IDER 5, 

ingly guided by a sense of what the self-respect and dignity of tho nation de- maud. In the maintenance of these and in support. of t.he hor.or of the Govern- m.ent, benroth which every citizen may repose in safety, no sacrifices of per- sonal or private interests shall be considered us against the gene1·al welfare. Yours, very truly, GROVER CLEVELA...."'\D. 

GEORGE STEELE, Esq., 

President .An ~-erican Fishery Union, and others, 

Gloucester, Mass. 

infant heir of the throne in her arms and introduced. him to the French 

.Assembly as their King. She was greeted with sllon ts of '' Trap tard! '' 

"J.'rop iard! "-"Too late!" "Too late!" [Applause.] 

So it is with this latest product of Democratic wi dom which is pl·esented to us. The position of the President is in effect thatthe treaty 

was a mistake; that the Secretary of State was overreached by J.fepbistopbeles Chamberlain, and tllat the result was "too truly English" 

[applause]; but that now be presents us with a genuine Democratic 

Mr. DAVIS. Several things are to be noticed in this letter. First, baby, having the strawberry mark of paternity on its shoulder, and 

there is no intimation that the remedies proposed in the statute are not that, young as it is, if pinched a very little by an Englishman, it will 

sufficiently comprehensive and efficient; no suggestion that they do not cry ''Retaliation." The answer will be, that although it is a handgofar enough to effect the purpose of the law. It do.es, however, take some child and looks as if its father might be a Republican, it comes the extraordinary ground that the statute should be enforced on gen- too late. [Applause.] 

eral considerations, and not to protect the interest specially involved. ir, death- bed Tepentance is better than none, but it can not be conI think the Presidei).t is clearly wrong. No other interest was im- , >erted. into a song of triumph, or treated as if it bad any concern with 

periled. This interest, and this alone, was in issue. The antagonistic the affairs of this world. And this utterance of the President in the 

attitude of the two governments related to this question only. The expiring hours of his officiaJ service, which is in opposition to the enretaliatory legislation of Congress was intended to meet and correct tire policy of his Administration, can not aud ought not to command 

this difficulty. The national honor was of course involved in securing the confidence of the country. 

iustice for our fishermen, whose rights and interests had been wantonly Mr. Speaker, tnis message will fail to affect the >ery class it was inassailed. tended to influence. However much they may distrust and dislike 

He could maintain the honor of his country no more effectively than the Tory Government of England, or its plenipotentiary, who was weiby protecting against foreign aggression and outrage any class of citi- corned by this Administration, they do not ask tha"t their feelin., may 

zeus or any single citizen. He should ha>e recollected the maxim be shared by this Government in its diplomatic relations with that 

which has come down to us from antiquity, that that form of govern- country. They are1 fiTst and last and above evet·y other consideration, 

mentis the best in which an injuryuone to tbe meanest of its citizens American citizens, and they only ask that the Government of their 

is an injury to the state. He had before him the glorious example of adopted country shall adequately defend it against all undue foreign 

tl1e greatest of aU the ancient nations, which resented with the whole influence or aggression. 

fo rce ofher irresistible power any insult or injury to a Roman citizen, This class, among whom I am proud to rank myself, are profoundly 

2nd whose policy in this respect was so well understood that the sim- grateful for the rjghts, privileges, and measureless and boundless blesspie expression, ''I am a Roman citizen,'' was a shield none dared pierce, ings which a generous and paternal Government bas conferred on them, 

wherever the name and power of the great republic were known and and they would not seek to embarrass her relations with any foreign 

fe~rel L [Applause.] power. 

Aml, sir, in modern times the grandest feature of the English Gov- American citizens of Irish bi.r.th or descent doubtless have faults, but 

ernment, representing a great people who have extended their dominion you can not reckon among them their warm and uncalculating devoto every quarter of the globe, with an unequaled energy, ambition, and tion to American interests and institutions, their readinesS to defend 

enterprise, is her protection of the rights of Englishmen wherever as- them when attacked with tongue and pen and sword, a readiness which 

sailed. was proved by Montgomery beneath the walls of Quebec by the severest 

I regret tha,b an American President could not find inspiration and of all tests, the offering of his life, and by uncounted thousands of his 

courage in such examples when confronted with similar exigencies and humbler countrymen in our every hour of trial and martial conflict 

clothed with ample power. He refers to the great and increasing in- from then till now. [Applause.] , 

terests of the two countries in such a manner as plainly betrays a dread They will justly resent as an insult to their intelligElnce and patriotof responsibility. No fisherman after reading that unfortunate letter ism the idea that a sham menace of opposition to Great Britain and 

ever expected the President to enforce the legislation of Congress. The Canada, closing a career of surrender and subserviency to both, should 

shea llled sword which was pla.ced in his hand he dared not draw from influence their suffra.ges. They have discovered the determination of 

its scabbard. No, sir; he dared not touch its hilt with his nerveless this Administration to carry out its free-trade and British policy to the 

hand ! Ob, for one hour of Dundee! Oh, for one day of Jackson or bitter end in the destruction of American industries and the impoverof Grant! [Applause.] But be has at last-thanks to the rejection ishment an{l degradation of American labor, and thousands of them 

of his treaty-found his courage. He has at last, perforce, taken the have decided to cast their lot with that gra<tt party which wielded the 

gronud assumed by Congress eighteen months ago. Of course he has destinies of our country for many glorious years in war and peace 

not enforced the retaliation act, but he has written a very courageous during the stormiest and grandest period of its history, and raised it 

me1·sage to Congress asking for more power. He has not tried the ex- to a height of honor, pr9sperity, and power unmatched in all the tide 

periment to ascertain whether a law deliberately pansed by Congress of time. [Applause.] 

and signed byhimselfisadequatetothe emergency,and, if not, whether This party is about to resume its sway as the rightful representative 

the Secretary of the Treasury has not sufficient power under existing of American ideas, policy, interests, and destiny, and its conquering 

law. as the ablest st.o'\tesman living who has occupied that position battle cry is proteetion to American labor and American suffrage repdeclares that he has, and that it bas already been exercised in similar resented by a pure, intelligent, and unintimidated ballot. [Applause.] 

cases. Of course no imperious exigency exists at present for the action of 

Con·gress or the President, as no outrages are now being committed, 

and the fishing season is nearly closed. The exigency does not relate 

to our foreign affairs. It is strictly domestic, not to say partisan, and 

will terminate with the election, as the English friends of the Administration believe. 

With the remaining part of his message concerning unjust discrimination against our commerce through the canals, along the course· 

r0f the lakes and the St. Lawrence, and tbe steps to be taken to. correct · 

it, I am in entire accord. The attention of Congress and the country was months ago directed to this subject by the gentleman from 1\faine 

(Mr. DINGLEY] and it has been discussed in the press ever since. 

Can it be possible, however, that the President has not called tbe 

attention of the British authorities to this subject, and that they will 

first learn by his message to Congress that he is aware of this grievance 

and is determined to redress it? If this be so, or if complaint has been 

made so r~;Jcently that they have not had sufficient time to reply, and 

diplomatic comtesy should be thus violated, they will doubtless attribute it to the political necessities of the situation, which are so 

urgent and grave as to call for an unusual step; and such seems to be 

the generous view taken by the English press, who are e~tremely 

friendly towards the Administration. 

J\f r. Speaker, I apprehend that this movement, with all its dramatic 

accompaniments, with ali the applause here, and the telegrams of con- gratulations from the outside, is a little late. This change of bas3 to 

Harrison's Landing is rather tardy. [Applause.] I am reminded of 

rui incident in recent French history, where, during one of her re>olutions, when the royal family had fled, the Duchess of Orleans took the 

APPOINTMEl\'T OF CONFEREES. 

The SPEAKER announced the appointment of conferees on the disagreein"g vo.tes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to 

the bills of the House numbered 7421, 7604, 8752, 10183, 1641, 5700, 

1249, 8855, and 1239, in relation to the establishment of light-ships, 

light-houses, etc., JIJir. CRISP, ])Ir. ANDERSON of Iowa, and Mr. THmiAS 

H. B. BROWNE. 

LEAVE TO PRINT. 

Mr. HITT. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts [1\Ir. LoDGE] may be permitted to print certain remarks in 

connection with the pending bill. 

Mr. McCREARY. I think leave was given generally this morning. 

Mr. SCOTT. No, it was objected to by a gentleman on the other 

side. 

1\ir. McCREARY. Then I now submit the motion that any member 

wbo desires to do so may have leave to print on this question. 

There was no objection. THE FISHERIES. 

Mr. ROCKWELL. I now yield twenty min-ates to the gentleman 

from Massachusetts [Mr. COGSWELL]. 

Mr. CHIPMAN. Before the gentleman proceeds I have twenty-two 

minutes of my time remaining since yesterday, and I ask unanimous 

consent to give that to my colleague [Mr. TARSNEY]. 

The SPEAKER pro temp01·e. If there be no objection, the gentle- man will be permitted to reserve that time. 

Mr. COGSWELL. Mr. Speaker, if it be true of this world as of 

Heaven, ''that there is joy over one sinner that repenteth more than over 

the ninety and nine just persons which need no repentance," then the 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8319 

American fisherman will be just paralyzed with joy to know that the 

disgraceful, ba.yardly policy of surrender of his rights has been "confronted with a condition" which has made necessary a change of that 

policy to one of an apparently manly and courageous determination that 

those rights shall be recognized and respected. True, he may think the 

change comes suspiciously late after these years of insult to the flag 

which he thought should have at once protected him. He may think 

there is and has been for a long while ample and sufficient law to 

promptly and effectively redress his wrongs and vindicate his rights, 

and of this he has no doubt. The '' condition '' which may have possibly prompted this may not inspire his confidence or his vote. 

He may think it somewhat overdone. He may think it would be 

better to have been "faithful over a few things," by enforcing the 

present all-sufficient statute before more power was asked for, which 

may possibly be used to prejudice his cause with other great mterests, 

that he may be ultimately forced into some other jgnominious treaty 

and the surrender of his markets. He may wonder that the ''lamb 

of })eace at any price" has suddenly assumed the habiliments of the 

"lion of revenge," but I guess he will be " Yankee" enough to guess 

the reason why. But he will not ''look a gift-horse in the mouth," as any interest in his cause by the pre<>ent Administration will be regarded as not only a most gracious, but a most unexpected " gift." 

And his only real fear will be that the Canadian cors.1.ir may regard 

it as not sincerely meant, for his premier, Sir John Uacdonald, already 

regards the President's message as illustrating to his mind, to use his 

own words- More forcibly than ever before the wonderful and moustrous pitfalls which 

American politics will lead a man into. 

And a London journal says: 

There is no expectation that heThe Presidentmeans to take any retaliatory measures against Canada. * z ·~ Nor does any one attach the least importance to the message which 1\Ir. Cleveland has addressed to Congress in consequenceof the rejection of the treaty. 

Ur. Speaker, this is, indeed, a wonderful transformation. The United 

States, in strict accordance with its conditions, terminates a treaty dis- advantageous to its interests. A Secretary of State, in the n.bsence of 

the Senate, extends, or attempts to extend, the provisions of that disadvantageous treaty for six. months, in violation of the Constij;ution. 

The United States Senate on assembling declares by an almost unani- mous vote against any negotiations as to matters growing out of the 

termination of that treaty preferring to rely upon our rights under 

previous and existing treaties and certa\n reciprocal legislation. The 

Congress of the United States, by an almost unanimous vote, gives the 

President ample powers to enforce, by retaliation in kind, those rights, 

which under those treaties and reciprocal.legislation and international 

comity are all the rights and privileges the parties aggrieved and most 

interested- desire or claim. ' 

The retaliatory power is not exercised, nor is any attempt made to use it, even so much as by a hint. The policy of retaliation in kind, 

that is, denying to others the same privileges they deny to us, is ignored. Meanwhile, daily and hourly, more and more, the American 

fisherman is harassed, deprived of his rights and privileges, his voyages are broken up, his property destroyed, his occupation gone at the hands 

of Canadian cruisers in waters which are his in common with Great 

Britain. Then comes a proposed treaty, which nobody ever asked for 

and against which every fisherman in America protested, a treaty which 

surrendered much and gained nothing, except by further humiliation 

and sacrifice on his part. It contained no redress; it settled no griev- ance. It curtailed our fishing area. It yielded important and vital 

positions taken by us in regard to our fishing rights which bad long 

been acquiesced in by Great Britain. It crept on its belly so low that it even agreed our fishermen should wear distinctive marks that they might 

be the more 1·eadily detected if they should unwittingly or otherwise 

infringe upon a provincial law or ordnance; that our navigation laws 

should be submitted to Her Majesty's Government before taking effect, 

and it actually proposed that this nation of ours should purchase im- munity from barbarous treatment by a colony. And t<> all this truckling business the Democratic party said "Amen." ".All bail to such 

great diplomacy." 

Thanks to a Republican Senate, such a treaty was rejected. 

And now, behold! Up from such abject and craven depths of almost 

disloyal diplomacy spring these treaty-proposing and rights-surrendering parties, and for what? To put in execution the ample and allsufficient power already in their hands? No; but ask that the great 

and enormous power of retaliating upon everybody and everything may 

be granted; and again the Democratic party says "amen" and- flops. 

:Mr. Speaker, if thi-3 be political buncombe, then it is trifling with a 

great cause. If it be in good faith, then it is grotesque; it is taking a 

sledge~ammer to kill a fly to ask for all this great additional power 

to bring a few provincials to a sense of ordinary decency. It does not 

"make the punishment fit the crime." Already a returnina- sense is 

theirs since the treaty bas been rejected. Says a leader of th~ Domin- ion Parliament all thisIs due to the vicious policy of the Canadian Government in the administration of the rights secured to us by the treaty of 1818. If the Canadian Govern- ment had followed a more friendly course, there would not have been any unfriendly feeling to-day. Time and time again in the yeax 188-5 American 

fishermen were arrested and their vessels d etained for a sing-le >iolation of the customs laws, which in all probability they did not know. It is no wonder that 

their hearts were bitter and that they ma.de complaint at Washington. If, on the contrary, the Canadian Government had administered our laws us they 

conceived them under the tl-eaty, in a friendly spirit, there would not haYe 

taken place what has taken place. * * * It is high time we reversed the 

policy we have been following toward the United States for the past tweuty- fiye years.-Extract f rom s-peech of Han. Mr. Lour-i.er, at St. 'l'homas, August 2i, 

1888, taken from the New York 'l'ribune of .August 29, 1888. 

The question is too great, too important, involving as it does rights 

older than the Constitution, and as sacred as the Declaration of Independence, to be treated either in anger or caprice. 

:But if there be a "Presidential doubt" again, that existing author- ity is not sufficient, which I do not admit, and it is thought best that more power be granted, then let it be done; but let it be understood, 

and I say it, as representing the largest fishing district in this country, 

that the American fisherman asks for no additional powers of retaliation, 

and that if granted and applied to the needless injury of other interests, the responsibility will alone rest with him who shall so exercise 

or abuse the power, and that such interests then must seek their remedy 

at the polls, and that if undue exercise of this new power of retaliation 

shall be attempted to prejudice and make odious the cause of the Ameri- can fisheries, which is no more t.hecauseoftbe fisherman thanitisthe cause of the entire country, he will trust the American people to vindicate their own. Mr. Speaker, I hope this bill may pass, that there may be n:> possible excuse for any further exhibition of a want of pluck and patriotism in this regard. 

I do not think this bill is really needed, or at aU, and in my judgment its effect will only be to cause the scales to fall from the eyes of 

some, and let them behold-a pretender. [Applause. J 

Mr. ROCKWELL. I reserve the remainder of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro ternpore. The gentleman has eleven minutes of 

his time remaining. 

Mr. HOOKER. MI. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania . 

lAir. ScoTT] desires to address the House on this subject, aud as he is 

necessarily called away by matters of urgent bu!.iness, I have agree:! to 

yield to him my position in the debate, but not my time, and hope 

the House will concede him the right of being heard now. 

[Ur. ScoTT addres,sed the House. For his speech complete see the 

proceedings of the succeeding day.] 

Beiore concluding his remarks1\fr. McCREARY. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania dcsirfl to 

conclude his remarks this afternoon? 

Mr. SCOTT. I would prefer to proceed· in the morning. There is 

very important matter connected with the debate, to which I desire to 

call the attention of the House. 

Mr. 1\fcCREARY. Then I suggest that the gentleman proceed with 

his remarks until two minutes to 5 o'clock, when I will ask him to 

yield to a motion to adjourn. 

Mr. SCOTT. I shall be very much obliged if the House will con· sent to permit me to conclude my remarks in the morning, when I will · also answer the question ofthe gentleman_from New Jersey. 

1\Ir. McCREARY. If the gentleman will now yield, as the hour for 

adjournment is close at hand, I will make that motion. 

Mr. SCOTT. Certainly. 

Mr. McCREARY. Before making the motion to adjourn, I de3ire 

to ask unanimous consent on behalf of the gentleman from Pennsylvania that he may be allowed to conclude his remarks in the mornin_5. 

How much time, 11fr. Spea.ker, remains to the gentleman? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has occupied fifty-five 

minutes of his time. 

Mr. BELMONT. I yield fifteen minutes to the gentleman out of my 

time. 

· Mr. BAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I have no objection whatever to the ra- quest that time be allowed to the gentleman from P~nnsylvania, and I 

hope it will be granted; but in connection with that I trust there will 

be no effort to limit debate, but that all gentlemen will be given the 

right who desire to be heard on this question. 

1\fr. :McCREARY. I will say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 

that the gentleman from New York [Mr. BELMONT] has yielded fifteen 

minutes of his time,_and it is very likely that the gentleman from Pennsylvania will not require any considerable addition to his time from the 

House. 

Mr. BRUMM. Why not give the time directly to the gentleman 

from Pennsylvania and not take it from any other gentleman? 

:Mr. McMILLIN. And let it be understood that similar time will 

be given to gentlemen on the other side. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 

g~ntleman from Kentucky? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. McCREARY. I move that the House do now adjourn, 

The motion was agreed to; and accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 59 

minutes p. m.) the House adjourned. 
8320 CONGRESSIONA-L RECORD-SENATE. SEPTEMBER 6, 

PRIV .ATE BILLS INTRODUCED .AND REFERRED. 

Under the rule private bills of the following titles were introduced 

and referred as indica.ted below: . 

By Mr. BANKHEAD: A bill (H. R .. 11363) for the ~elief of Maek 

Holmes-to the Committee on the Public Lands. · · By Mr. BELDEN: A bill (H. R. 11364) for the relief of James 

Nicholas-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. ROGERS: A bill (H. R. 11365) for the relief of Mary Ann 

Bowers-to the Committee on War Claims. 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

'Ihe following petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk, 

under the rule, and referred as follows: 

By Mr. BELDEN: Petitionofnumerous citizensofSyra.cuse, N.Y., 

for a pension to James Nicholas-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. BRUMU: PetitionofHon.C. L. Pushing and others, citizens 

of Pottsville, and of Joseph McArkieand others, citizens of Port Carbon, 

Pa., against tbe admiSsion of Utah with polygamy-to the Committee on the Territories. 

By Mr. FELIX CA~iPBELL: Petition of John H. Percival, of 

Kings County, New York, for a pension-to the Committee on Pensions. 

By Mr. CANDLER: Petition of Joseph M. Fountain, executor of 

Artenessa Fountain, of Cherokee County, Georgia, for reference of his 

claim to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. CRAIN: Memorial for a deep-water harbor of the first class 

at Galveston, Tex.-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. 

By Mr. ENLOE: Petition of Frederick A. Repogle, of Madison 

County, Tennessee, for reference of his claim to the Court of Claimsto the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. ·MORROW: Memorial of the citizens' committee and of citizens of San Francisco, Cal., on Chinese immigration-to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. By Mr. OSBORNE: Petition of the Commercial Exchange, of Philadelphia, for the prompt passage of Senat~ bill 2851, amendatory of • the act regulating commerce-to the Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. ROGEH.S: Petition of Mary Ann Bower, for payment of her 

war claim-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. ·TAULBE.E: Petition for the relief of Harvey H. Robinson, 

of Kentucky-to the Committee on Military Affairs. · 

By :Mr. W. L. WILSON: Petition of W. H. Gilbert, heir of Jacob 

Gilbert, and of John Gibson, for the estate of Ebin Fussell, for refer- ence of their claims to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War 

Claims. 

The following petition, i~dorsing the p'er diem rated service-pension 

bill, based on the principle of paying all soldiers, sailors, and marines of 

the late war a monthly pension of 1 cent a day for each day they were in the service, was referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions: ·By Mr. BELDEN: Of 150 ex-soldiers and sailors of New York City. 

SENATE. 

THURSD.A.Y, September 6, 1888. 

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. J. G. BuTLER, D. D. 

The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and appr9ved. 

.ALLEGED TIMBER DEPREDATIONS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of the Interior, trans~itting, in response to a resolution of August 27, 1888, a report from the Commis~ioner of the 

General Land Office, together with other papers, upon whi~h t~e Commissioner of the General Land Office based the statements m h1s letter 

to Hon. J.AMES N. BURNES, of the House of Representatives, dated 

August 18, 1888, with regard to the ame~dment to the. sundry_c~vil 

appropriation bill relating to the prosecuhon of persons rn the l!nmng 

region of the United States for cutting, for mining or domestic purposes, dwarfed or scrubby ti~ber, u:nnt to be sawed or ~ewed into lumber of commercial value; wh1ch, with the accom.panymg papers, was referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and ordered to be printed. 

PETITIONS .AljD MEl\IORI.ALS. 

:Mr. BLAIR presented the petition of Caroline V. English, widow of 

the late Lieut. Col. Thomas C. English, of Philadelphia, Pa., praying 

to be allowed an increase of pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

.Mr. PLUMB presented a petition of citizens of Hayes County, Nebraska prayinO' for the location of the Indian tribes of the Indian Territory ~pon th;ir lands lying within the eastern portion of that Terri- tory, etc.; which was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. 

Mr. PUGH. In-the absence of the Senator from California [Ur. 

HE.ARST], I wish to have read resolutions showing the action of a mass meeting in the city of San Francisco upon the subject of the Chinese 

exclusion bill now before the Senate. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama asks 

unanimous consent to have a telegram re.ad. Is there objection? 

Mr. SHERMAN. That subject will come up in a few minutes, whtm 

it wi!i. be more appropriate. _ 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is a telegram purporting to transmit resolutions adopted at a meeting in San Francisco by it.8 chairman, 

addressed to Hon. GEORGE HE.ARST. Shall it be read? 

Mr. SHERMAl."{. It could mere properly be read in a few minutes, 

when the Chinese bill·comes up. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The 'telegram will lie on the table, 

under objection, until that bill is before the Senate. 

1\Ir. SHERMAN. I have no objection to its being read, but the reading had better be deferred. 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 

Mr. DAVIS, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 3060) granting right of way to the Pima L::u'i.d 

and Water Company acro!!B Fort Lowell military reservation, in Arizona, and for other purposes, reported it without amendment, and submitted a reporh thereon. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S. 

952) for the relief of A. W. Hager, submitted an adverse reporh thereon; 

which was agreed to, and the bill was postponed indefinitely. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S. 

3287) to authorize the appointment and retirement of Nathaniel C. 

Sawyer, late United States Army, submitted an adverse report thereon; 

which was agreed to, and the bill was postponed indefinitely. 

He also, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the 

bill (H. R. 10856) for·pension.for ElizaN. Aiken, reported it without 

amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(S. 3353) granting a pension to Mrs. Eliza N. Aiken, reported adversely 

thereon, and the bill was postponed indefinitely. 

Mr. SPOONER, from the Committee on Public Buildings and 

Grounds, to whom was referred, the bill (S. 1574) for the erection of a post-office building at St. Paul, Minn., repoi·ted it with amendments. 

Mr. PAD DOCK, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom were referred the following bills, reported them severally without amendment, and submitted reports thereon: · A. bill (H. R. 10342) granting a pension to John Dauper; 

A bill (H. R. 10563) gra.nting a pension to William S. Latham; 

A bill (H. R. 7185) granting a pension to Samuel Neikirk; 

A bill (H. R. 10824) granting a pension to Mary A. Van Buskirk; 

and 

A bill (H. R. 201) granting a pension to Edward Waters. 

1\Ir. DAWES, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom were referred the following bills, reported them each with an amendment: 

A bill (S. 3446) granting fo the Oregon Railway and Navigation Company certain tracts of land upon the Umatilla Indian reservation for 

station and railroad purposes; and 

A bill (S. 3506) to amend an act entitled "An act providing for allotment of lands in severalty to the Indians residing upon the Umatilla 

reservation, in the Sta.te of Oregon, and granting patents therefor, ap.d 

for other purposes," approved l\Iarch 3, 1885. 

Mr. H A. UPTON. I am directed by the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 3458) for the relief of General 

George Stoneman, to report it without amendment, and submit a re- port thereon. I ask that t~e memorial of General Stoneman be printed 

with the report. 

The PRESIDENT p1'o tempore. The bill will be placed upon the 

Calendar. and the memorial will be printed with the report if there be no objection. · 

Mr. HAMPTON, from the Committee on llilit::try Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (R. 2429) for the relief of Charles F. Holly, re- ported adversely thereon; and the bill was postponed indefinitely. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(H. R. 3595) for the relief of C. M. Stinson, reported adversely thereon; 

and the bill was postponed indefinitely. · Mr. JONES, of Arkansas, from the Committee on Indian A.ffair.s, to 

whom was referred the bill (H. R. 7186) to authorize the Leavenworth 

and Rio Grande Railway Company to construct and operate a railway 

through the Indian Territory, and for other purposes, reported it with 

amendments. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(H. R. 6612) to grant right of way through the Indian Territory to the 

St. Louis and San Francisco Hailway Cornpany, ·aud for other purposes, 

reported it with amendments. 

Mr. JONES~ of Arkans1s. I am directed by the Committee on Indian Affairs to whom was referred au amendment intended to be proposed to th~ bill (H .. R: 1~896) making appropriati~ns to supply deficiencies in the appropnahons for the fiscal year endwg June 30, 1888, 

and for prior years, and for other purposes, to report it unfavorably on the ground that the 1·elief proposed by t'!le amendment can not properly be disposed of on an appropriation bill, and there should be a separate act to provide for the rna iter itself. I therefore report it adversely. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The a:nendment will lie upon the