.; . ··; 

~. -- ·-

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8663 

reported favorably the bill of the House (H. R. 7964) granting a pension to Margaret Pratt, accompanied by a report (No. 2978)-t.o the 

Committee of the Whole House. 

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS. 

Under clause 3 of Rule XXII, bills and a joint resolution of the following titles were introduced, severally read twice, and referred as follows: 

By Mr. McDUFFIE: A bill (H. R. 11757) t.o amend section 847 of 

the Revised Statutes of the United States-t.o the Committee on the 

Judiciary. 

By !{r. DICKERSON: A bill (H. R. 11758) to authorize the construction of a brldge across the Kentucky River and its tributaries by 

the Louisville, Covington and Cincinnati Rail way Company, the Carrollton and Louisville Railroad Company, and the Westport, Ca.rrollton and Covington Railway Company and their as.signs-to the Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. SA. WYER: A bill (H. R. 11759) to promote the construction 

of a safe deep-water harbor on the coast of Texas-t.o the Committee 

on Hivers and Harbors. 

By Mr. COVERT: A bill (H. R. 11760) for improving the road between Willetts Point, New York Harbor, and the railway station at 

Whitestone, N. Y., and makinganappropriation therefot-toth°e Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. ATKINSON, of Pennsylvania: Ajoint resolution (H. Res. 

212) authorizing the commi..c:sioners of the District of Columbia to 

grant the temporary use of rooms in the Briggs school building for 

religious meetings-to the Committee on the District of Columbia. 

PRIVATE BILLS, ETC. 

Under clause 1 of Rule XXII, private bills of the following titles 

were presented and referred as indicated below: 

By Mr. CANNON: A bill (H. R. 11761) to correct record and grant 

discharge to Levi C. Mann-t.o the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. DOLLIVER: A bill (H. R. 11762) t.o pension Mrs. 1tfary E. 

Donaldson-to the Committee on Pensions. 

By Mr. FEATHERSTON: A bill (H. R. 11763) for the relief of John 

M. Hill, of Conway County, Arkansas-t.o the Committee on Military 

Affairs. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 11764) for the relief of Dr. J. H. Seegraves, late 

surgeon Unit.ed States Army-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. HAYES: A bill (H. R.11765) granting an increase of pension to Louisa Kearney-t.o the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. LACEY: A bill (H. R.11766) to correct the military recc>rd 

of Marcellus Pettitt-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

Under clause 1 of Rule XXII, the following petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk and referred as follows: 

Hy Mr. CANNON: Petition of Levi C. Mann, Company A, Se\'enth 

Dlinois Cavalry, t.o accompany bill-to the Committee on Military Af- fai~. . 

By Mr. DING LEY: Memorial of the Dry Goods Economists, in behalf of American flax and linen-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. GOODNIGHT: Proof to accompany House bill for the relief 

ofR. G. Potter-to the Couunitteeon War Claims. 

By Mr. GROUT: Petition of the bankers and other bank officials in 

the District of Columbia, in favor of the p~ge of the bill establishing a home and hospital for inP;briates in the District of Columbiato the Committee on the District of Columbia. 

By Mr. HERBERT: Petition of Joel D. Murphree and others, for ex- tension of time t-0 the Mississippi and Gulf Railroad Company-t.o the 

Committee on the Public Lands. 

Also, petition of D. M. Heustiss and others, for House bill 5353, dealing in futures-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

Also, petition of J.P. Gantt and others, for the extension of time to 

the Mississippi and Gulf Railroad Company-to the Committee on the 

Public Lands. 

By Mr. LESTER, of Georgia: Memo'rial of Decker & Fawcett and 

others, citizens of Savannah, Ga., protesting against legislation by Congress compelling railroads to transport petroleum barrels free-t.o the 

Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. 0' FERRALL: Petition of Samuel A. Bnracker, of Page 

County, Virginia, praying that his war claim be referred to the Court 

of Claims under the provisions of the Bowman act-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. O'NEILL, of PennEylvania: Petition of General D. B. Birney Post, Grand Army of the Republic, recommending passage of Senate concorrent resolution requesting the family of General U. S. Grant 

to consent to the removal of his remains to Arlington Uemetery-to 

the Committee on the Library. 

By Mr. REED, of Maine: Petition of :J. Belt and 57 others, of Oklahoma, Indian Territory, asking that Congress take st..ep:-i to relie-ve the 

suffering in Oklahoma-to the Committee on the Territories. 

'• ,_ 

SENATE. 

SATURDAY, August 16, 1890. 

The Senate met at 10 o'clock a. m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. J. G. BUTLER, D. D. 

The J onrnal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a commnnica-. 

tion from the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a.n estimate of appropriation from the Secretary of the Navy t.o reimbume the owners of the tug-boat A. F. Walcott for expenses incurred by them 

in repairing the injuries sustained by that vessel in a collision with 

the United States tug Catalpa in the East River, New York, June 15, 

1890, and for compensation for the detention of the vessel while undergoing such repairs; which, with the accompanyinJ? paper.3, was re- ferred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. 

He also laid before the Senate a communication from the Acting 

Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a letter from the Supervising 

Architect of that Department, requesting that an appropriation of 510,-

000 on account of the public building at Winona, Minn., may be included in the deficiency appropriation bill; which, with the accom- panying paper, was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and 

ordered to be· printed. 

He also laid before the Senate a communication from the Acting 

Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a letter from the Supervising 

Architect of that Department, requesting that an appropriation of $10,-

000 on account of the public building at Key West, Fla., may be in· 

eluded in the deficiency appropriation bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. 

He also laid before the Senak acommunicatiGn from the Actinj?; Sec· 

retary of the Treasury, transmitting a letter from the Supervising Archi· 

tect of that Department, requesting that an appropriation of $10,000 on account of the public building at Dayton, Ohio, may be included in 

the deficiency appropriation bill; which, with the accompanying papers, 

was referred to the Committee on Appropl'iations, and ordered to be 

printed. · He also laid ltefore the Senate a communication from the AttorneyGeneral, stating, in further response to a resolution of Au.gust 1, 1890, 

that there should be added to the list of judgments for damages dne 

for the improvement of the Fox and Wisconsin Rivers the name of 

Adam Velte, in' the sum of $671.17; which, with the accompanying 

papers, was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered 

to be printed. . He also laid before the Senate a communication from the Acting 

Secretary of the Trea.slll'y, transmitting estimates of appropriations re- quired by the commissioners of the District ot Columbia to complete 

the service of the fiscal year ended June 30, 1890, and for prior years; 

which, with the accompanying papers, wa.s referred t.o the Committee 

on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. HOAR. I ask consent of the Senate to make a suggestion whi01h 

I think will be very greatly for the convenience of the Chair and for 

the convenience of the Senate, especially towards the P-nd of busy sessions of Congress, and that is that the Chair exercise its discretion as t.o the reading of communications from the Executive Departments, 

and that in ordinary cases, unless it seems proper to the Chair that an- other course s~ould be taken in any particular case, the subject should 

be announced and the communication printed in the RECORD. 

We have some days a dozen or twenty letters from beads of Departments communicating some formal documents which never would re- main in the memory of any Senator who listened to them, relating to 

matters that if they had originated in the Senate never would be read 

in full I should like to ask unanimous consent that it should be con- sidered the sense of the Senate that tho Chair shall exercise a discretion 

in regard to directing those documents to be read in lull. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Except where the reading is called for by a Senator? 

Mr. HOAR. Yes, except where the reading is called for by some Senator. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That would not apply, the Chair 

supposes, to communications from the Executive? 

Mr. HOAR. No, sir; not from the President; only from the heads 

of Departments. 

·1'he PRESIDENT pro tcmpore. Then, if there be no objection, hereafter communications from the heads of Departments and subordinates 

wn be announced by subject, and referred without reading, unless 

called for. 

Mr. HOAR. And printed in the RECORD. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. And etated in the RECORD. The 

Chair hears no objection. 

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. 

The P~ESIDENT pro tnnpore presented a petition of Encampment 

69, Union Veterans, of the District of Columbia, praying for the removal 

of General Grant's remains t.o Arlington; which was ordered to lie on 

the table. 

. ,-

-· 

.· 

I > 

.·, 

I I •. 

• J 

.-

' '• , . 

' '\ , _ .. 

- .... • c 

·· ... .. ...... - ___, 
: 

·-

-.,; - . - ~ . ....... .... ,, 

-· 

8664 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 16, 

REPORTS OF CO!\flliTTEES. 

Mr. DA VIS, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred 

the biJl ( H. R. 6992) to pension Susan E. Freeman, reported it without 

amendment, a.nd submitted a report thereon. 

Ile also, from the same committee, to whom was referl'ed the bill 

(H. R 5851) t-0 pension Mathew Lambert for services in the Indian 

war; reported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

Mr. RA WYER, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (S. 792) granting a pension to Martha. J. Dodge, reported 

it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(II. R. 4853) to pension Gabriel Stephens, reported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

BILLS INTRODUCED. 

Mr. PASCO-introduced a bill (S. 4330) granting a pension t-0 E. A. 

Tucker; which was read twice by its title, and, with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

Ur. REA.GAN introduced a bill (S. 4331) to confirm the title to certain lands to the town of Albuquerque, N. Mex.; which was read twice 

by its title, and, with the accompanying papers, referred t-0 the Committee on Private Land Claims. 

AMENDMENT TO A BILL. 

Mr. HIGGINS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed 

by him to the deficiency appropriation bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Appropriations. 

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

.A. message from the House of Representatives, by M1'. McPHERSON, 

its Clerk, announced that the Honse had passed the following bills; in 

whir.h it requested the concurrence of the Senate: 

A bill (H. R.1186) granting a pension to John 0. Mathis; 

A bill (H. R.1284) granting a pension to Theodora M. Piatt; 

A bill (H. R.13::IB) granting a pension to Mary A. Green; 

A bill (H. R.1433) brranting a pension to Caroline Hayes; 

A. bill (H. R. 1568) granting a pension to Mrs. Delphina P. Walke1·; 

A bill (H. R. 1738) granting a. pension to Philip H. Emmert; 

A bill (H. R. 2120) granting a pension to Julia W. Freeman; 

A bill (H. R. 2518) granting a pen!'i0n to Ozro Harrin~ton; 

A bill (H. R. 2550) granting a pension to William C. Ebert; 

A bill (H. R. 2968) for the relief of Thomas W. Honts; 

A bill (H. R. 3070) granting a pension to Clara Fowler; 

A bill (H. R. 3143) increasing the pension of Mrs. Rochie Brien Bnell; 

A. bill (H. R. 3229) for the relief of Samuel Burrell; 

A. hill (H. R. 3503) for the relief of Delila Roe; 

A bill (H. R. 3528) to grant a pension to James Knetsar; 

A. bi11 (H. R. 3587) to pension Stacey Keener, widow of Tillman B. 

Keener, tleceased, who served in the Indian war; 

A bill (H. R. 3611) for the relief of John F. Mahler; 

A bill (H. R. 3796) granting a pension to Abraham Zimmerman; 

A. bill (H. R. 3952) for the relief of Henry A. King; 

A bill (H. R. 4013) granting an increase of pension to Alfred A. 

Jerome; 

A bill (H. R. 4369) to increase the pension of Milton Barnes; 

A. bill (H. R. 4825) granting a pension to A.rthnr Connery; 

A bill ( H. R. 4888) granting a pension to N. E. Palmer; 

A. bill (H. R. 5106) granting an increase of pension to Squire West; 

A bill (H. R. 5265) granting a pension to Emma. Chapman; 

A bill (H. R. 5472) to remove the charge of desertion from T. J. 

Nichleson; 

A bill (H. R. 5654) to pension Elizabeth R. Lockett; 

A. bill (H. R. 5712) granting a pension to J. G. Fetherstone; 

A bill (H. R. 6070) gr.:tnting an increase of pension to Agnes M. Bradley; 

A bill (H. R. 6084) for the relief of Thomas Nelson; 

A. bill (H. R. 6148) granting a pension to Mrs. Mary J. Sanders, the 

widow of Thomas A. Sanders, who was a scout in the service of the 

United States Army in the war of the rebellion. 

A bill { H. R. 6179) to remove the charge of desertion from record of 

James Blythe; 

A bill ( H. R. 619.=>) granting a pension to Clarrissa. Barker; 

A bill (H. R. 6676) granting a pension to John J. Tully; 

A. bill (H. R. 7375) granting a pension to Mrs. Susan A.. Dean; 

A bill (H. R. 7676) for the relief of Alexander Sturgeon; 

A bill (H. R. 7718) granting a pension to Thomas Egan; 

A bill (H. R. 7917) granting an increase of pension to Eliza Efner, 

a pensioner of the war of 1812; 

A bill (H . .R. 7937) granting an increase of pension to Mrs. Harriet 

E. :Martin; 

A bill (H. R. 8016) increasing the pension of John B. Reed, late 

lieutenant-colonel of the One hundred and thirtieth Regiment Illinois Volunteers; • A bill (H. R. 80!19) granting a pension to Mrs. Emma A. Stafford; 

A bill (H. R. 8234) }!;ranting a pension to Catharine S. Lawrence; 

A bill (H. R. 8561) granting a pension to Martha Torrence; 

A. bill (H. R. 8700) granting a pension to Mira Baldwin; 

A bil\ (H. R. Bd90) granting an increase of pension to Lewis Solomon, a private in Company A, First Indiana Infantry, Mexican war service; 

A bill (H. R. 8~23) increasing the pension of James M. Monroe; 

A bill (H. R. 9030) to remove the charge of desertion from the record 

of James M. Thompson; • A bill (H. R. 9054) granting a pension to Sarah McCormick; 

A bill (H. R. 9138) granting a pension to Elizabeth Gushwa; 

A bill (H. R. 9163) granting a pension to Mrs. Mary Hogan; 

A bill (H. R. 9212) to relieve John J. Murphy from the charge of de 

sertion; 

A. bill (H. R. 9371) for the relief of Fanny A. Putney; 

A. bill (JI. R. 9582) to grant an increase of pension to Simon J. Fought; 

A bill (H. R. 9590) granting a pension to Matilda Evans; 

A. bill (H. R. 9666) granting an increase ot pension to Ransom E. 

Braman; 

A bill (H. R. 9692) granting a pension to John A. Johnson; 

A bill (H. R. 9763) granting a pension to Tunis S. Danford; 

A bill (H. R. 9897) granting an increase of pension to William B. 

McCreery; 

A bill (H. R. 10083) for the relief of George Murray; 

A. bill (H. R. 10101) granting a. pension to Elizabeth Phillips, widow 

of Reuben Phillips, who was killed in engagement while member of 

Arkansas State Militia; 

A. bill (H. R. 10127) granting a pension to Celia Eichele; 

A hill (H. R. 10154) to increase the pension of John N. Harris; 

A. bill (H. R. 10202) granting a pension to 0. E. Hukill; 

A. bill (H. R. 10208) granting an increase of pension to Mose.ci Graham· 

_A bill {H. R. 10224) granting a pension to William A.. 0Aborn; 

"I A. bill (H. R. 10234) restoring Rebecca Young to the pension-rolls; 

A bill tH. R. 10246) granting a pension to Thomas Thompson; 

A bill {H. R. 10263) granting a pension to Robert A. England; 

A bill (H. R. 10320) granting increase of pension to Nancy Cato; 

A. hill (H. R. 10334) granting a pension to Wiatt Parish; 

A. bill (H. R. 10427) granting a pension to Ruth Collier, of Tennessee; 

A bill (H. R. 10465) granting a pension to Margaret Durand, hospital nurse; 

A. bill (H. R. 10491) granting a pension to Halem L. Cook, of Franklin. Ky.; 

A bill (H. R.10602) granting a pension to Charles T. Sloat; 

A bill (H. R.10651) gr<\nting a pension to J. W. Robertson; 

A bill (H. R.10679) granting a pension to Clara Reed: 

A bill (H. R.10682) granting a pension to Jerushu P. Harding; 

A bill (H. R. 10710) granting an increase of pension to James H. Vosbur~h; 

A. bill (H. R.10810) granting a pension to Samuel S. Humphreys; 

A bill (H. R.10811) granting a pension to Asa Joiner; 

A bill (H. R. 10951) granting a pension to Lucinda Rawlingson; and 

A bill (H. R. 11547) granting a pension to Lucinda Chapin. 

The message also annonnc.ed that the House had passed the following bills: 

A bill (S. 314) for the relief ot Mary B. Le Roy; 

A bill (S. 388) to remove the cbargeot desertion now standing against 

the record of Noyes Barber on the rolls of the Navy Department; 

A bill (S. 510) granting a pension to John W. Reynolds; 

A bill (S. 775) granting a pension to Andrew J. Foust; 

A bill (S. 848) granting a pension to Mary J. Eadie; 

A bill (S. 916) granting a pension to Mary E. Harney; 

A bill (S. 973) granting nn increase of pension 1o Virginia. L. M. 

Ewing; 

A bill (S.1203) gra._nting a pension to MiRS Margaret Stafford Worth; 

A bill (S.1256) granting a pension to James A. Myers; 

A bill (S. 1732) granting a pension to Nancy A.. Thornton; 

A bill (S. 1740) granting a pension t-0 Mary J. Welch, an army nurse 

in the late war; 

A. bill (S. 2036) granting an increase of pension to Mrs. F. Selina 

Buchanan; 

A. bill (S. 2043) granting a pension to Edgar M. Cherry; 

A bill (S. 2066) placing the name of Elizabeth Do mm on the pensionrolls; 

A bill (S. 2366) granting a pension to Florida Kennerly; 

A bill (S. 2644) for the recognition of F. A. Patterson as a captain of 

the Third West Virginia Cavalry: 

A bill (S. 2698) granting a pension to Johanna Loewingel'; 

A bill (S. 2832) for the relief Jesse H. Strickland; 

A bill (S. 2859) for the relief of Caroline Baker Stevens, relict of the 

late Col. Robert J. Stevens and daughter of the lat.e Col. Edward D. 

Baker; 

A bill (S. 2976) granting a pension to Mary L. Bradley, formerly 

Mary L. Smith, who served as a nnrse in the war of the rebellion; 

A. bill {S. 3101) granting a pension to Anne Rodgers Macomb; 

A hill (S. 3177) granting a pension to Ursula Lucretia Haight; 

Ab 11 (S. 3194) granting a. pension to Joseph H. Scoopmire; 

A bill (S. 3498) granting a pension to G. L. Pease; and 
.... 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE: 8665 

A bill (S. 3840) to remove the charge of desertion against George Fetterman. 

DAVID L, TRUEX. 

:Ur. DA VIS. The other day, in passing the pension cases unobjected 

to, I stated that the committee bad eliminated from those that tht:Y 

designed to call up the cases rerr ediable under the law passed recently; 

but in doing that I made two mistakes, one in the case of David L. 

Truex and the other in the case of Niel Nielsson. I shall ask the Senate to proceed to the consideration of these two bills and relieve these 

parties from the state they are now in. 

First, I ask the Senate to proceed to the consideration of the bill 

(H. R. 5107) for the relief of David L. Truex. 

There being no objection, the Senate, a~ in Committee of the Whole, 

proceeded to consider the bill. It p1oposes to place on the pension-roll 

the name of David L. Truex, dependent son ot John Truex, late a private in Company D, Eighty-second Indiana Volunteers, at $18 per 

month. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered 

to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

NIEL NIELSSON. 

Mr. DA VIS. I ask the Senate to proceed to the con&ideration of the 

bill (S. 3477) for then.lief of Niel NieL~on. 

There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, 

proceeded to consider the bill. It proposes to place the name of Niel 

Nielsson, of Wilmington, Del., late master-at-arms on board the United 

States revenue-cutter Seward, on the pension-list. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to 

be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

RIVER AND HARBOR BILL. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no further mornin 

business, that order is closed, and the Calendar under Rule VIII being 

in order-- · 

Mr. FRYE. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of 

the bill known as the river and harbor bill. 

The PRESIDEN'r pro tempore. The Senator from Maine moves 

that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (H. R. 9486) 

making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation 

of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes. 

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the 

Whole, resumed the consideration of the hilt 

The PRE~IDENT pro tempore. The Chair understands the pending 

question to be on the amendment proposed by the Senator 1rom New 

York [rtir. EvARTS] to the amendment offered by the Senator 1rom 

Maine [Mr. FRYE]. Theamendmenttotheamendmentwill bestated. 

The CHIEF CLERK. On p~e 2 of the printed amendment, line 18, 

after the word "prescribe," insert "the times and;" so as to read: 

That the Secretary of War she.11 prescribe the times and proper and rea.sona· ble regulatious for the opening and operating of the draws in said bridges. 

Mr. GORMAN. I call attention to the fact that, while the proviso 

provides that the Secret.ary of War shall prescribe the times and proper 

and reasonable re~ulations for opening the draws, there follows in the 

same proviso a provisil)n that the draws shall not be opened between 

half past 6 and ha.If past 10 in the forenoon, and between 5 and 10 in 

the afternoon. It seems to me that the provision that the Secretary shall 

prescribe the times, etc., bas no place in thi~ amendment, for if the 

amendment is to be adopted we fix the hours in whit'hthedraws Rhall 

not be opened, between 6 in the morning and half past 10, and between 

5 and 10 at night; and it would seem that that ought to be sufficientt 

unless it is intended to confer the power in addition to thatfor him to 

prescribe other times in which the draws shall not be opened. 

Mr. EV ARTS. If the Senator will allow roe, a general regulation 

in regard to what is suitable about opening draws, etc., is in the bill 

otherwise. This temporary regulation comes in in addition to the 

statutory regnlation that the draws shall not he opened during these 

hours, and thus the Secretary pan regnlate it the rest of the day and at 

night. . 

Mr. GORMAN. So it is the intention to authoiize the Secretary of 

War to prescribe regulations. 

Mr. EVARTS. Yes; such as are provided for. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I am going to present a proposition 

ag a substitute for all there is on the table and to be on the table on 

this subject, and I shall say a few words about it. All sorr.s of compromisE.s are distasteful to me in some respects, but this is a great deal 

better than anything that bas been before the Senate. 

The P !{ESID ENT pro tempore. The proposed substitute will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: . 

Improving Hariem River, New York: Continuing im.pro,-ement $3.'iO 000· and the Secretary of War is directed to cause the low bridg es 11ow cr~ssiog'sa. d H11.rlem River to be replaced, e.t the expense ot the owners thereof by other b ridi:-es as soon as the ne es~ary le:risle.tion by the State of New York shRll have enabled the cbauge in grade to the appro11.ches of sa id bridges, thus required, to be made, and a lter the nece!sary work therefor shall have been completed and opened to travel: and said brid esshall lea veaclenrspace of24 feet between the h 1gh w_nter of spring-tides and the under side or said brirl goes.and said brid·.{es shall be wttho.ut any rlr~w-Rpans or draws or openi.'.lgs in them: Provided, That theplRns of said new bridges shall in all resJ)tlcts cow ply with this law and con- form to the requirements of the Secretary of War: .tindprovided, No part of 

this appropriation shall be expended until the ownen of said bridges she.II be respectively J~gall~autho1·ized to me.k:e_ such changes ill the grndes of the ap- proaches of said bridges as ma.y be requtred to conform t-0 the elevations of said new bridges. 

Mr. HAWLEY. If I am correctly informed (and if I am mistaken 

either of the Senators trom New York can correct me), when the railroads were authorized to make tho e great improvements in the northern part of the city of New York they established certain grades for 

streets, established the bridges, and reit;ulated the whole affair. Any 

change requires the assent of the Legislature of the State of New York. 

The proposition to raise these bridges so that they shall be 24 foet in 

the clear between them and the highest of spring-tides rai..:es the bridgec:t 

7 feet and requires a change in all the cost ot the approaches to that 

Fourth avenue bridge, the chief brid~e , that will extend for I do not know 

how far-iar enough to easily overcome the 7 feet. -ind easily descend. 

Upon a rou~b estimate by a railroad man that will cost two and a half 

million dollars. That would be the railroarl contribution, JilOt needed 

for any of their purposes and in their way, and be simply a mere tax: 

upon them in order to preserve a mud basin between the East and 

North Rivers,· because that there will be any ex.tended commerce ever 

going on through that so-ca.Bed Harlem River I do not believe, but 

there will be a commerce, a trifle compared with the commerce of the 

railways, and yet embarrassing enough, so that $100 worth of it will 

make $500,000 expense to a qnarte.r of the people of the country. 

But this roposition will give us of New England a clear, straight 

road into :i.. ew York City, without any draw-bridges, and we can stand 

our sh e ot the money thrown away on the Harlem River improvemen as well as the rest of you. 

y the way, I should say-I knew there was one point more--

Ir. GIBSON. I will ask the Senator if Mr. William D . .Bishop did 

ot express the willingness on the part of the railroad company that 

the bridges should be ~feet clear above high-water mark. 

Mr. HAWLEY. That suggestion was made in view of what was 

better for commerce. Twenty-four feet will be sufficient for heavy 

barges and tugs and binged funnels. I thought 25 feet would be better, 

but I am told that the other bridges established are 24 feet, and it is 

not worth while to give this additional foot, because the others are not 

likely to be changed. 

I WHinted to say that in my judJZ:meat the only far-sighted, sensible 

conclusion for the Government of the United i--tates to come to, and the 

city of New York, and the State of New York, is to fill up the whole 

of Harlem River and make a grand boulevard through there which in 

one day with its carts will carry more commerce than these mud flats 

will ever maintain. Fill up the river. That is what the Chief of Engineers says. That is what he bas told the Committee on Commerce, . 

and that is the bottom judgment, though they would. not say it, of the 

Central Railroad, and the whole of them. Fill the whole thinrz up. 

New York wants not more whartage; she bas got a great deal of it unoccupied; a hundred miles of Hudson River she can occupy; also some 

on the Long Island side that is not improved, some on the east side of 

New York City, on East River, that is not improved, and more just 

above Harlem and all about there; but what New York wants is standing room, and wherever the popnlation bas been able to encroach on 

the mud flats along the b tys anywhere it has stolen in and built upon 

it: and it wants those flats about Harlem filled up there now and a very large area given to building. That is what it ought to have. All 

these things compromise it. It will all come to it in the end. No big 

water way through the heart of a big city has ever existed, or will ever 

again, if they can get at the same purposes otherwise. 

Mr. REA.GA.N. Mr. President, I was not present.and did not have 

the benefit of bearing this discussion yesterday, bot this is a subject 

to which my attention ha~ been directed for several years in another 

branch ofCongres..~. and it seems to me to be as chimerical a scheme as 

it is p,ossible to conceive of. 

It is propOded to make an open way for shipping between North 

River and East River by way of tfarlem River and Spuyten Duyvil 

Creek. After that work was done it would render necessary the 

bridging of this channel at the several plaees where railroads and other 

roads cross that creek. If it is to be by draw-bridges, as seems to be 

contemplated by this amendment, then with the population and the 

bm~iness going into and returning from New York the draws would 

have to be in almost perpetual work. 

Any one familiar with the extent of travel and transportation that 

does now and will hereafter cross that channel must see the utter im· 

practicability of keeping the channel open for navigation and keeping 

bridges upon it open for railroad and other transportation. Besides, if 

that difficulty were not in the way the cost of transporting vessels 

through that canal after it i~ made would he greater than the cost of 

carrying the freights around the Battery from one river to the other; 

and that fact wa.~ made clear to a committee which bad this matter 

under consideration by a gentleman who was the owner of a large 

amount of shipping, one of the largest ship-owners in New York, who 

stated that it wonld he cheaper to take tug- boats and carry tows around 

and other vessels around from one river to the other than to pass them 

through that canal. 

As sa~ested by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. HA WL"EY], there 

is no need of doing it for the purpose of wharfage, because the wharf-

•"" T 

- ! 

-~ 

·. 

i. 
'· 

.- . 

... 

i 

· ... 

.. ·· 

:. ~ I 

. , -... ,_ ' · . . ; 

, - -~ . 

8666 OONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. AUGUST 16, 

age is abundant that is unoccupied. Every way it can be looked at, 

except possibly in the lightofa private speculation in lands-and that 

it seems to me is of a very doubtful character-in every public aspect 

in which it can be looked at, this sooms to me not only to be a useless, 

but a seriously injurious pi"Oject, not merely to the commerce of the 

country, but to the prosperity of the city of New York. 

Suppose that we provide for the elevation of the bridges and for the 

elevation of the roads. The Government can not destroy private property nor take it for public use without paying for it. If you elevate 

one of th~e railroads above so as to affect the business of the propertyowners along its line, when you have injured them, the railroad company if it carries out your purpose will be responsible to these private 

owners for the damage done to their property, and the Government 

compelling them to make the sacrifice would be very unjust if it did 

not cover the responsibility that it drove the railroad companies to. 

In every possible aspect it seems to me that it is wild and chimerical, 

that it is based upon an idea of a private speculation in lots and lands 

which ought not to control Congress when considering a measure which 

affects the vast transportation that crosse~theHarlem River and Spuyten 

Duyvil Creek. I trust that the amendment will not be adopted, and 

that the committee's report in 1avor of striking the clause out of the 

bill will be sustained. 

Mr. W ASIIBURN. I should like to ask a parliamentary question. 

What motion would be in order now to leave the bill in the same condition as when reported from the Committee on Commerce; in other 

words, to strike oat the appropriation for this •'Harlem River improvement?" 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That will be accomplished by disagreeing to all pending prop08itions. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Then I move to lay the whole subject on the 

table, with that view. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota moves 

to lay the pending amendment on the table. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I ask for information whether that would not dispo e of the whole question? What would that leave pending before 

the Seoate--the amendment of the committee? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. A motion to lay on the table can 

only be applied to the pending amendment to the amendment, except 

by unanimous consent. Of coarse the question, by agreement, might 

be taken upon laying on the table the amendmentoffered by the Senator from Maine [l\fr. FRYE], as well as the amendment to the amendment proposed by the Senator from New York [Mr. EVARTS]. If there 

be no objection and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr.WASHBURN] desires to test the sense of the Senate on that question, the Chair will suggest that the motion to lay on the table may apply not only to the pending amendment. to the amendment, but to the amendment itself, offered 

by the Senator from Maine. 

Mr. GORMAN. That is right. 

The PRESIDENT pro t.empore. The Chair hears no objection to that 

~urse. 

Mr. FRYE. If the Senator from Minnesota will withdraw his motion to table for one moment.--

The PRESIDENT pro tern.pore. The Senator from Maine may proceed by ummimous consent. The Chair hears no objection. 

Mr. FRYE. The Senators from Connecticut and Texas underrate 

the importance of this improvement commercially. As the river stands 

now, only navigable 2 or 3 miles, last year there were carried on it 

3,500,000 tons of freight valued at $120,000,000. Now, that is not to 

be ignored by any Senator and it is not to be called a mud-hole by any 

manner of means by any Senator. 

Mr. BLAIR. How does that compare with the commerce of Galveston? 

Mr. FRYE. Galveston is not nearly so large a town now, but it is 

hoped it will be very much larger one of these days. 

So it mast be considered that here is a way which can be made 

of very great importance commercially. Of course, it is to be done 

at large expense and at serious damage to the over-river commerce. 

There is no doubt about that. There is to be inconvenience and some delay and all that Mrt of thing. 

My first view of this was that of the Senator from Connecticut, that 

it was better to fill this up than itwas to have a riverwayat all. But 

remonstrances came from New York, from boards of trade and chambers of commerr.e and from the press of New York, against any such 

idea as that, which were entitled to consideration. 

Now, it is not a. serious question for this brid~e matter to wait, in 

my judgment. The first appropriation made for Harlem River was 

made over ten years ago, $350, 000, and was made to be used provided 

title to the land was given to the United States without expense. It 

took ten years to obtain tho5e titles. They were obtainer! by heavy 

contributions by the people up and down the Harlem River. I think some contributed very heavily in land, and probably the expense ran up to millions of dollars already paid to secure this way. 

Ttiis wonlcl be a matter of infinite convenience undoubtedly to the 

people np and down the Harlem River for landing all building materials 

which are to be used for that section of the city. They are practically 

cut out now. But they waited ten years in order to complete those 

titles. Then two years ago that appropriation was made available, and 

another ap'(>ropriation was added to it, and a plan was adopted by which 

the cost of this improvement would be $2,200,000. At the rate we 

make these appropriations (we are making one now for two years of 

$350,000) it will be six years at least, if not seven or eight years, before 

this improvement will be completed. 

So that, even if nothing is done ahout bridges now, there is no great 

harm to....come from it, in my judgment. When the Committee on 

Commerce struck oat this Honse item of appropriation, it was done 

with the understanding that the committee of conference should have 

more time and could give more careful consideration t.O what ought to 

be done than could be given by oar co:umittee at that time in our 

haste, and my judgment is that it is a great deal better place to settle the question than it is upon the floor of the Senate with the Jack of 

information which there i-; to a certain extent of the matter in controversy; and I think now that it is safe myself to trust the committee of 

conterence. 

The House of Representatives sentacommittee over toNewYo~k and 

they spent some considerable time there in investigating this whole 

matter of the Harlem River improvement, the bridge question, and 

everything connected with it; and I presume that they have information which the Senate committee did not haw. But, so far as I am concerned, I recognize the importance of the travel between the West 

and the North and the East to New York City. I believe myself, personally, in solid bridges, although down in my section of the country 

the feeling would be against solid bridges, because the lum her and 

bricks and everything of that kind to be carried into this Harlem River 

for the erection of buildings would come largely from my section of the 

country and would come in schooners that could not go through a. solid 

brid~e. The cargoes would have to be transferred to barges and then 

floated up. 

But my own impression is in favor ot solid bridges, and, as I stated 

yesterday, I have no doubt the city of New York will demand solid 

bridges in less than ten years. 

Now, I am perfectly willing that any of these amendments slmll be 

adopted by the Senate and the matter of any of them will be open in 

conference, and if the conference committee can not agree and can not 

settle the question, in my judgment no great harm will be done. Then 

we can take up the question by itself at the next session of Congress 

and give a hearing to all parties interested on this very question of 

bridges. 

Mr. HAWLEY. MayI ask the Senatorwhetheritcould in anyway 

embarrass the question or endanger our views in this matter if the 

Senate should favorably consider and should give its approval to the 

amendment I have offered, because that means solid bridges, and then 

that we should either lay the whole matter on the tahle or-· -

Mr. FRYE. I have not the slip:htest objection to the Senate adopting the amendment which the Senator from Connecticut has offered. 

The whole question will then be in conference. 

Mr. HISCOCK. Mr. President, it the Senator will yield to me a 

moment, it is fair to assume that the city of New York bas no desire 

to impede, obstruct, or divert travel from the northern and western 

partsot the State and all of New England to the city of New York. It 

is fair to assume that there bas been no such intention or purpose as 

that on the part of the city of New York. And it is fair to assume 

that my distinguished colleague [Mr. EVARTS] would be about as jealous of the commerce of the cityot New York and of its being protected 

and sustained as any gentleman from that State or from any other State. 

Now, the policy ot the city of New York in respect of Harlem River 

bas been and is bridges 24 feet high. There are some three or fourone is now, as I understand, already planned to replace a wooden bridge, 

costin2: some two or three million dollars, I think, and I understand 

it is to be upon the plan of 24 feet above hiizh water in Harlem River 

at spring tide. I would sooner that the proposition I nndersto~ that 

the Senator from Connecticut had offered should be voted upon, that 

there might be an expression of the Senate with respect to solid bridp:es, 

and that the whole question should go to the conference in that shape 

rather than to go there in any other, that leaving the whole matter open. 

One remark made by the Senator from llaine I desire to make a reply to. I refer to his remark in respect to this bridge question being 

left open. If this appropriation is made and this whole bridge question is left open while this improvement is being made, which will 

cover, as I understand, a period of probably six or seven years, what 

will be the state of affairs? The reasou I object to that suggestion is 

on account of this section in the bill: 

SEC. 4. That section 9 of the river and harbor n.ct of August 11, 1888, be amended and re-enacted so as to read as foll ows: "That wh~never the Secretary of War shall ha~e good reason to believe that any railroad or other bridge now constructe. J or which may here after be con- structed over any of the navigable water wa ys of the United States is an ob- struction to the free navigation of such waters by reason of insuflfoient height, width of span, or otherwise, or where there is difficulty in pas.sing the draw· opening or the draw-span of such bridge by r a fts"-

Mark the 1angnagesteam-boa.ts, or other water craftWe can not tell what size they may belt shall be the duty of the said Secretary to give notice to the persons or corpo· 
. -'./ - I • 

, .. 

1890. ' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8667 

rations owning or controlling such bridge so to alter the same as to render 

navigation through or under it free, easy, and unobstructed." 

I have read the provision as it was reported, though in some respects 

it bas been amended. 

Now, the reason that I do not desire to leave this question open absolutely about the bridges is that nntil it is settled by Congress what 

sort of bridge is to be built there, with, say, seven years in the front of 

us, I do not care to lea.veto the exerciseoftbejudicia.l power (ifitmay be 

so called) of the Secretary of War or of the engineer in charge the removal of the present bridge. I do not care to trnst it to the judicial 

power of that officer or of any board of officers to institute proceedings 

that within a month or two months' time or six months' time may 

tear up the present bridge and absolutely cut off the railroads from en- tering the city of New York. As long as we can reserve that question 

t-0 ourselves I prefer to do so. That is too serious a question, and I 

say to the Senators from Connecticut, who are anxious upon this question, that that is a far more serious question than any other which has 

been presented in this discussion. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I will say to the Senator that the whole provision, 

existing some two years, giving the Secretary of Warthis extraordinary 

power, ought to be revi ed. 

Mr. HISCOCK. It exists and it has existed for two years; but what 

do the hearings amount to nnder the language of that provision? Let 

the Senator mark the language of it: 

Or otherwise, or where there is difficulty in passing the draw, opening of the 

draw-span of such bridge by ra..fb, steam-boa.ts, or other water-era.fl;. 

Nothing about their size; and as the Harlem River is to be improved 

and the occasion for running bricks and lumber and building materials 

up there increaaes, the question of tearing down the present Harlem 

River bridge becomes more imminent and will be more warmly pressed; 

and that is the serious point in this case. I am entirely willing that this matter should go to conference upon 

the amendment which has been proposed by the Senator from Connectica t, and let the conferees of the House and the conferees of the Senate 

hear the parties who are interested in respect of this matter and attach 

such provisions to this appropriation as they may deem wise; and I desire here a~ain to call the attention of the Senator from Maine to the 

fact that the most serious question in this case is the one I have suggested, vesting the War Department, under the language of that sectio11, with the power to tear down or remove the present bridge. 

Mr. EV ARTS. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine has eaid some 

things that I had intended to say and which I therefore can omit. A 

most intelligent examination of this whole question has been pending 

in the minds of the people of the city of New York interested, including the railroads interested in traversing this canal. The House of 

Representatives sent a committee for au examination commensurate 

with the difficulties and reported the conclusions which they arrived 

at, which are now impressed upon the river and harbor bill. 

An examination by my colleague and myself anti those interested in 

New York City on all sides, discovered that there was this infirmity 

in the present condition of the law, that the Secretary of War had a 

perfect right now to remove this 7-foot bridge-I mean this bridge 7 feet 

above the tide-on the ground that it interrupted ordinary schooner 

navigation or even lighter draughts, and that the railroad companies 

were placed between the fires of this exposure and that of the Legislature which is properly the master of the grades and its street.a and necessarily of the right of opening draws or bridges that obstruct navigation 

wholly within the State of New York. If a solid brid~e had been authorized by the Legislature of New York the section which bas been 

read and bas been amended and made more vigorous here to embrace 

all the rest of the country in regard to impedimenta to navigation, i1i 

woulrl have swept away a solid bridge at once by authority of Congress 

under this general legislation. 

We a re enlightened by the Senators from Connecticut and from Massachusetts, and now re-enforced by the Senator from Texas [Mr. REA.GAN], 

that thev all know better what the interests of New York a.re about 

four miles of wharfage on each side of open navigation than do the 

Senatorstrom New York. Why, Mr. President, in anotheritem which 

all the members of the Committee on Commerce will appreciate, when 

we show that the appropriation of $198,000 to widen the dept.hs of 

water there would be opened by private strt-ets and the system of 

streets and wharves at private expense of $10,000,0uO, that would add 

four miles to the whartage of the city of New York and of Brooklyn in 

nn unbroken series, and there would be room for the commerce of the 

whole country, including that of Texas and Connecticut, and that improvement would reduce the price of wharfage, so high now, greatly 

necessary for navigation and all interested in its burdens. It would 

reduce it from fifteen dollars to seven.and with alacrit.v and unanimity, 

with a knowledge thus imparted without consulting the Senators from 

Connecticut, or from Massa.chusetta, or from Texas, they concluded 

that it was worth while to do that. 

Now, Senatnrs spea~ here of the large range of wharfage upon the 

two rivers. The merchants know how much space there is. The mer- chants know whether there can bewharlage alongforfour or five miles 

on the North River and whether the East River is not now taken up 

and the Brooklyn shore now taken up, and nnde.r that evidence and 

on that argument $198,000 was put into this bill to open additional 

wbarfage. Who can estimate the importance to the commerce, including that of Connecticut and Massachusetts and Texas, in having 

wharfage reduced from $15 to f7. And now we are enlightened also 

that, if counsel can be taken from the Senators from Texas, and Con· 

necticut, and Massachosetta, the Legislature of the State of New. 

York, the common council of New York City, the Chambers of Commerce, the Maritime Commerce Association, and the dozen representatives of all the interests in New York that present themselves hereand 

desire the Harlem River improvement to proceed are to be met by the 

suggestion from Texas that this is a mud-hole and that there is no 

navigation. 

Mr. REAGAN. I did not make that suggestion. 

Mr. EV ARTS. And at the same moment we are asked to appropriate $500,000 for Galveston without anybody from the State of New 

York talking about the better wisdom of enlargements down there. 

Mr. REAGAN. If the Senator will allow me, ldidnotsayanythin~ 

abont that being a mud-hole. 

Mr. EVARTS. I thought you did. 

Mr. REAGAN. I did not. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I think that was my remark. 

Mr. EVARTS. You described it distinctly as being an operation in 

real estate to fill the pockets of individuals at the expense of the appropriations of Congress, and now $2,000,0UO have been appropriated out 

of the pockets of the riparian owners to put it in the power of the Government at this moderate expense to produce this important change in 

navigation. 

Mr. HOAR. Mr. President, the Senator from New York alluded to 

the Senator from Massachusetts. I suppose he refers to me. All I 

said was that I was perfoctly willing this excavation should go on, but 

that I thought the arrangements for providing tor the convenience of 

the railroad crossings and of the commerce ought to be broup;ht up in a 

separate bill, when the statistics could be brought before the Senate 

end experts could give their opinion, and that we had not before us 

now furnished sufficient data to give an intelligent vote on that sub. 

ject. I distinctly said that I was perfectly willing that the whole 

work should go on, reserving only this one thing until we could get 

further information about it, and I said no single one of the matters 

which the Senator from New York has attributed to me. 

l\lr. EVARTS. On the contrary, the Senator wentelmost to the extent of objurgation against he Senators from New York and arraigned 

them for the presentation of this subject here with an ignorance that 

they supposed was universal on the subject. 

Mr. HO AR. The Senator from New York will pardon me for saying 

that I did nothing of the kind, and that the only ignorance which I 

impute to the Senator Jrom New York is an ignorance of what I saida. crass, Egyptian ignorance of it. 

Mr. EVA~TS. The ears are masters of what words are said after 

they are uttered. That is a universal proposition. A man who is objurgating may not know that be is objurgating, but the man who is 

objurgated knows it. When two Senator,g are arraigned here for having brought in as a new proposition an arrangement so important, so 

long studied, and so well understood, we are told that now an improvement must go over for the year because of these ideas resting entirely 

upon the question of the interruption of travel, all of which we are 

familiar with. You do not want a map of the canal, a dull subject 

always and not picturesque-you do not want a map to show what a 

canal 400 feet wide and 5 miles long will look like. 

The question is of the people that live there, the interests there, and 

the interests of the mass ot population that urge their tides of travel 

across it. You do not wa12t a map for them. The Senators from New 

England are alive to that subject of the amount of travel. We take 

their word for it, that all the people of the country wish to go across 

it at least twice a year, or even twice a day. We will also take the 

othPr proposition, that all commerce is interested, and that the farthest question of shipment on water or any portion upon railroad transportation that from the time these flatboat.a and scows become the burden of the wealth of trans!)ortation at the cheapest rate, and they are 

all in favor of having this process of enlarged wharfage for their accommodation, and not to be put in competition with the ~reat steam-ships 

and foreign commerce that can afford to pay great rates of wharfage. 

I have not heard a word from the great mass of population in our own 

State, over, I believe, 6,000,000, that will not fall very mrich short 

of thepopulationot all New England, and they travel over this Harlem 

River and then come down on the Harlem Railroad and the Central 

RaiJroa<l.justasConnecticut travelers and Mas~chusetts travelers come 

on the New York and New Haven, and the confluence of all that tide 

of travel passes over this bridge. 

Do not the people of New York who travel back and forth, do not 

the snburhan travelers who live up the Hudson and along the Sound, 

within the State of New York, know themselves wbat comes from impediment and what comes from convenience? And then the whole 

West that comes down through that gap in the Alleghanies where the 

.. 

, . 

.. '· ' 

Ir I '• 

·- . 

·' 

.. 

.. 

, f • • • 

· .. :' 

····' 
'• 

. , 

-. 

8668 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE: AUGUST 16, 

Central Railioad passes know all about this. They have to pass over this and go to the city of New York by that route, and some of them 

have to take this route to get to New England. 

What I object to, Mr. President, is not confined to one thing. The 

Senators from New York are always happy to take the estimate of Senators and public evidence and public authority on subjects that are pertinent to them. One common su hject only that is pretended by the 

Senators from New England is that this travel across the railroad bri~e 

and the other great interest spoken of in this very limited and curtailed 

operation of 3 miles, amounts in volume of tonnage and the val ae ot the 

property to what would make the fortune of a small seaport town. 

l\lr. President, this difficulty from the existing law was brought to 

the attention of the Senators from New York; it was brought to the 

attention of the Commerce Committee, and has been under thefr deliberation for three months. All the enlightenment comes from the other 

House, from their investigations, and the diffi<'ulty is, as my colleague 

has pointed out, that it will not do to leave the matter under general 

legislation if there is an intention that there 1:1hall be an improvement 

in the travel across the Harlem River as it now exists, for all these brid~es are over the part of it that is now used by commerce and rightfully used by commerce. In that difficulty, then, there were two propositions. One was solid 

bridges. But the Legil!llat.ure is to be consulted in that arrangement. 

They may not authorize, if they consider it inconsistent with their policy, if they are asked to depart from what is now the arrangement for 

the existing bridges-I mean new bridges that are raised 2-l feet above 

the tide and under the regulation of draws. .All these interests have 

been fixing their attention on this very subject of this compromise between travel across and the commercial interests and the wharfage interests and all the prices thatare affected. .There is not one building that 

will come within the ran~e of 2 miles ou either side of this canal that 

will not feel in the reduction of the cost of getting moreabundaut materials water-borne and hauled only some 2 miles. 

And yet here on this fine summer morning we are entertained with 

these liberal notions about New York City and its injury and the 

blame of its merchants, its Chamber of Commerce, its i\Iaritime Association, its .financial bodies, and its citizens, that it they follow the advice of the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Connecticut and 

the Senator from Massachusetts they will be a great deal better oft 

and all the rest of the country! Sir, I believe it has been the custom 

that particular interests were represented before the Commerce C-Ommittee and to bear starements by Senatora_and citizens who are introduced to them on that particular matter. Now, this whole matter 

has been wei~hed from top to bottom; everybody has been consulted, no matt.er whether be aJ?;reed or <Ud not agree. The present situation 

of power with regard tothe removal of the obstmctions and this newl.v invigorated power by which all existing structures not protected by 

twenty years of existence or by affirmative legislation are at the mercy 

of the Secretary of War all over this country-in what interest I should 

like to know? In the int.ere.st of commerce, water-borne commerce 

which we all understand and all appreciate and all intend to maintain? 

Where have we any solid bridges? Are the bridges of Boston solid? 

Themenof Boston arcsolid, but the bridges are not. Tbeyhavedraws, 

and us thinWJ are now those bridges are crossed ma.inly by persons who 

make money tber€' and pay their taxes outside of the city. They all corne out again every mornin~ and every evening;. Why do they not 

close the draws there? So with Connecticut. We had an example of a draw there in the Norwalk disMter. What wa~ the policy of Connecticut about that? Did they close that bridge against schooners? 

Not they. They passed a law that every train should come to a halt 

whether there was any need of it or not, in order to be sure that nothing was to interrupt the train. Whether that is now in force I do not 

know, but it was the subject of much criticism by travelers. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I will say, if the Senator will pardon me, that the 

object of it was not to save the schooner. It was because one big train 

pitched in and we lost many good people; and it was to save the people, the passengers. · Mr. EV ART~. That was the motive, and as strong a motive as anybody could feel, to have the draws opened to navigation of the sloops 

that go into that creek, however deep they may penetrate; but I believe all the travel on this very road, which is a very great road, that 

the Senators from New England are talking about, every train stopped 

there, whether a schooner was in sight or not, and there we c;at in silence until the train started again. I do not complain of that. I believe in avoiding open draws; but I do not want to be told here that a ' lesson is to be taught us by Connecticut about close bridges. Is there 

not a draw at the mouth of the Connecticut on the Shore Line, where 

all the sloops- passing in that river up to Hartford are under observavation? Is there not one at l\Hddlet-mvn? 

Every clause, every section pnt into this amendment that the Senators from New York have supported was a change of existing law. a change of the provisions in the House bill, and all in favor of travel across and modification of the close limitation that is to be found on the statute-books of this Government in regard to navigation; and yet we are told here that in a mire of ignorance the Senators are found and 

"-

can not make either land or water out of it unless there is a year's delay to examine into this subject. 

Mr. President, it is not ve1y important whether this goes to confer- ence with closed bridges or with open bridges under the limitation. 

It is my judgment under the limitation in the present stage of public 

feeling and public interest and public action that this qualified open 

draw is the best one, because there is to come about and should come about a general a<:ceptance of what are regarded by the State of New 

York and the city of New York with equal interest, that is, travel by 

railroads and navigation and wharf accommodations. Therefore I have no objectfon to its taking one form or the other. So far as I am advised or have any judgment, the other House is not willing to strike 

out the whole matter. 

Now, Mr. President, look at the great property intere!'!ts which are involved, and involved upon the promise of the United States tbatthis was to be an improvement and the Government would cont,ribute to it 

if the land-owners would devote their property to this use. Merchants, dealers for the three or four miles that are now open, have accommodated their trade, have accommodated their communications 

water-borne outwards and inwards, and the population are now using 

the great benefits of this imperfect na.Yigation already. Now we are to be told in one breath that we are to incorporate in this very river 

and harbor biJl one of the most searching and comprehensive provisions ever determined upon to remove from all the United States bridges 

upon no other consideration than that they obstruct water-borne com· merce, and in the same breath it is said that this navigation, which 

transcends in its importanc.e, which transcends in its now nse-I will 

not say hnw large a proportion, but a very large proportion of the navigation that is seeking nurture and protection, and receiving it Jrom 

every clause in this manifold bill-must not interfere with the con- stant use of the bridg<:is. 

This is au impossible situation, and it must be solved, for the problem will remain if we take no action for which we have authority and we have j ndgment that can make an accommodation between the com- petition of water-borne commerce and wharfa\l.e interests in which the 

whole country is involved, and the traffic across thestream by railroads 

and otherwise then this imperfect condition can be made by the legislation of New York, but the opportunity of concurrence ot opinion among 

the citizens and their interests will be postponed, if not del!ltroyed. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Mr. President. in view of the statelli.ents made 

by the chairman of the committee and the su~J.!:estionaofotbers, lam 

perfectly willing that the vote should be taken on the amendment as 

offered by the Senator from Connecticut, and then let the matter go to a committee of conference for final determination. I confess that I am not very familiar with the situation at Harlem River, although my 

prejudices are rather unfarnrable, that is, rather against the improvement which bas been contemplated there, and which has partly taken 

place in the last four or.five years. During my term in the other House, 

when I was upon the Committee on Commerce, I came to the conclusion that there was not much in this improvement. But now it seems to me that this matter should go to the committee of conference and 

there receive a final determination. 

What led me to make the motion at this time to lay the who1e subject on the table, leaving the bill without any appropriation for this 

purpose, was the statement made by the Senator from Connecticut that 

the War Department had advanced the opinion that ultimately this 

river would be closed, and if such is likely to be the easel thought the sooner Congress stopped the appropriation the better. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Let the Senator understand me exactly. It was not an official declaration of the War Department, though I think the 

opinio:i was clearly expressed by the Chiet of Engineers that it was his 

judgment. He was not making it as an official report, and I do not 

know that I violate any confidence in saying that he told the chair- man of the Committee on Commerce that his iudividaal opinion was that the best thing to do was to close the river up. 

Mr. WASHBU~N. For the reason I have stated, I will not renew my motion to lay on the table. 

Mr. HA. WLEY. Mr. President, the Senator from New York [Mr. 

Ev aRTS] who has just spoken smiled at the remarks some of us made on this side that we knew nothin~ about this question until it was proposed yesterday afteruoona.bout5o'clock. He said it was all understood. 

Now, there has been a negotiation, conversation, and controversy going on bdween the varions interests here that not over five or six Senators 

knew anything about; and when the river and harbor bill appeared 

here our New England interests were satisfied by seeing that everything 

concerning the Harlem River was crossed out by the report of the Senate Committee on Commerce. 

Then, between 4 and 5 o'clock yesterday, when we were reaching, as we supposed, the end of the discussion of the river and harbor bill, a very different proposition was broup;bt in here, an entirely different 

affair, which none of us who have a vital interest in this matter knew 

anything about. That was the ignorance of which I spoke. It was inevitable. I did not claim that we were wholly ignorant as to the 

great interests of transportation and the Harlem Hiver question. I 

have seen a great deal of literature in the past three or four weeks on that subject, and, for that matter, tor ten years past, and I suppose 

·. - 

j 
. ~ 

-. ~ 

.- .-

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8669 

every New England Sena.tor has been supplied with it.. I have been 

by there time and again, crossing over and over ~"'8.in on the Hudson 

River Railroad and the New Haven Railroad and looking out, and I 

have never passed there without some thought in my mind of this 

pending question. 

But the Senator made quite a contrast between the people of Central 

and Western New York and the people of New England. Their interests are entirely common in this matter. The Senator asked if they 

in New York had no interest, if they did not understand this question 

as much as we did, and he gave us to understand that the people of 

Central New York being wiser than the people of New England were 

quite willing to agree to draw-bridges. Now, the Senat.or bas never 

taken a census of opinion of the great Central and Western New York 

upon whether they would have the Central Railroad trams interrupted 

every fifteen minutes by little vessels coming into the Harlem basin. 

Their judgment will be just exactly ours, and I say to the Senator 

from New York that a.c; the question stands now the judgment of New 

England and Western New York and the West would be that Harlem 

River had better be all filled up and rebuilt, for there will ultimately 

be practically the center of the magnificent city of New York; and 

these railroads, whatever they may be willing to compromise upon, 

think so. 

But I am willing to yield this, that as to whether there might not 

be large docrcs there, to say nothing about transit through, whether 

there might not be large basins and docks like those below London, is 

to a large extent a local question. Of coarse, upon that question the 

merchants of New York are better judges than I am. . If the two things 

can be reconciled, if large docks in that river can be providef;l for by 

p:tssa~e under the bridges by steam-vessels or vessels drawn by steam, 

and at the same time the wonderful tide of travel and traffic by rail 

can be left uninterrupted, I shall be willing and glad of it. 

Let the people interested tax: themselves; let them even come here 

to Congress and insist upon taxing the Government millions upon 

millions of dollars to provide these local docks and I will not particularly 

complain about it, I will not make any ugly fight about it. lint what 

I am straggling for is a. commerce a great deal larg r than that and a 

traffic of two hundred and fifty trains a day, and the road choked and 

crowded with travel and spending hundreds of tho·usandsof dollars every 

year to increase its facilities for getting into New York, and probably 

fifteen millions, a quarter of all the people of the country, are directly interested in that matter of access to the great city. That is what I was 

talking of; that is the broad question which interests all. 'It is as 

much a Connecticut question as a New York City or a New York State 

question; if anything, a larger question to us than it can be to them, 

but at least it is equally our question. 

Mr. EV ARTS. I ask the Senator whether he has had the census 

taken of Connecticut? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes; very subst.antially. 

Mr. FRYE. Mr. President, I should like very much to have a vote 

on this question. 

Mr. REAGAN. Mr. President, the remarks which I made on this 

subject were the result of an investigation of this same qu~tion each 

session of Congress for abont twelve ye 1rs, and the hearing of evidence 

and the consideration of all the phase.q connected with it. I had not 

had the opportunity of knowing the views ot the Senator from New 

York [Ur. EVARTS] and did not know that I shonlU be antagonizing 

them, and I hope the Senator from New York will understand that my 

observations were not with a view of anta)?onizing his views. They 

were the result of investigations long continued, and a consideration 

of the subject in all its aspects. It is my misfortune, perhaps, that I 

reach a conclusion different from that which has been reached by the 

Senator from New York. 

I concede that the local situation of the Senator and the immediate 

interests of his constituents are much greater than any that I represent, 

while I look upon the question as one affecting the commerce of the 

entire country, and one upon which fair argument from any Senator 

might be listened to without offense. 

The first view I had was-and that has been heretofore sustained by 

the evidence I have beard upon the subject from those directly interested-that if an open water way is made from North to East River, it 

will cost more to pass vessels through it than it would to take them 

around from one river to the other by tows or by the convenience of 

steam-vessels. Tilat is one point. 

.Another point is that the enormous amount of travel passing over 

what would be the line of this channel connecting the two rivers is so 

great that if draw-bridges were made it would require a continual 

whirl of them to meet the various demands ofpa..qsing trains and passing vessels, and I repe&t-the Serrator may consider it unwise or offensive, as he sees proper-that it is in my judgment utterly impracticable 

without a serious interruption to commerce and travel to make drawbridges over that stream. 

Besides, as I sugg:ested before, if the plan be adopted of requiring 

these bridges to be raised from 7 feet to 24 feet above high water, it 

involves the raising of railroad tracks on either side, which must affect the property adjoining them on either side and must affect it injoriOMly; and either the railroad company or some one else will have to 

.. 

foot the bills for doing that. The Senators perhaps have considered 

that. Beyond that, if it should be determined to make solid bridges 

high enough for vessels and their masts to pass under them, that would 

require another extension of the grade a Jong way on each side of the 

river and would injure the property on each side of these tracks to the 

amount of millions of dollars. The Senator no doubt has considered 

that, too. 

Mr. President, I will enter into no controversy now with the Senator from New York. He can have his way if he chooses. I merely 

tell him that if he can succeed it will be for him to receive the condemnation that will come from an interrupted commerce and an interrupted traffic. 

Mr. BLAIR. Mr. President, I want to suggest to the Senator from 

Maine. who will take this matter into conference, one point which has 

not been evolved during this debate. 

Mr. FRYE. The :5enator from Maine is afraid that he will never get it into conference. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BLAIR. He had better take this idea with him if he does. 

That the construction of this canal, giving a passage northward to the 

population and wealth of New York City from the East Rh-er to the 

Hudson Hiver and inLerchanJZ;eably, adds unquestionably immensely 

to the defense of the city of New York in the case of war. An assault 

by way of the mouth of the harbor or by way of Long Island Sound or 

from bot.h directions would be relieved of a very large proportion of its 

danger by this transit for a retrea.tin,g naval force or defensive force 

through this passage, which by being opened in the manner contemplated by the appropriation-for I presume it will-will be made suitable lor the transit of a navy provided it be not blocked up by solid 

brid~es. 

Whenever this matter is finally settled, whether it be by a bridge 

which shall not be opened, except in great emergencies, or one which 

shall be opened daily for transit back and forth, I insist upon it that 

the war interests of the whole country demand that there should be 

draws in these brid~es even if they are to be used only on an emergency. 

Mr. HOAR. Mr. President. I wish to take one minuteonly to point 

out what is the precise condition of this debate and what is the precise 

relation, as I understand, that my honorable friend from New York 

[Mr. EVARTS] occupies in this matter. 

The Committee on Commerce bro.ught in this bill striking out everything in regard to the i;;tructnre of new brid~es, leaving only the provision for going on with the work of excavating. Yesterday afternoon, 

as we were just about coming to a vote, as we hoped, upon the bill, it 

was moved to strike it all out, not only to strike oat going on with the 

work, but I thi;lk it was stated by one of the committee that he was 

willing to allow that to go on. Therenpon my honorable friend from 

New York introduced an amendment providing for draws in all these 

bridges, and New England Senators pointed out the inconvenience to 

their constituents as well as to others, and I said, what I think every 

Senator will bear me out in the truth of, that we were ignorant of the 

statistics sbowinJ?; the comparative claims of the water commerce on the 

one side and the land commerce on the other, and that before thequesticn was adj nsted between them the Committee on Commerce oagh t to 

send for experts and we should have their testirrony laid before the 

Senate. 

Now, the Senator from New York, thinking that there is great disrespect to him or to somebody in that suggestion, as I understand it, 

comes 'in this morning and not only goes-as far as that, but goes a great 

deal further, and he and his collea~ue announce their willingness today to abandon for the time being the draw altogether and to provide 

for a solid bridge. 

Mr. HISCOCK. We are willing that it shall go to conference on 

that proposition. 

Mr. HOAR. I do not suppose yon propose to have this whole thing 

settled by four men in conference without the acqniesence of the Senate. No'~ it seems to me that when these honorable ~enators, or either 

of them, one day want a solid bridge, and the next day want a draw, 

and the next day go back to the solid bridge again, there is no~hing 

disrespectful to them and other Senators in asking to be enlightened 

by having the statistic.s that will show which is the best. 

.M:r. WASHBURN. .As the Senators from New York it seems agree 

to the ame.ndment proposed by the Senator from Connecticut [ fr. 

HAWLEY], which provides for solid. bridges, bridges without draws, I 

do not see the use of any further discussion on the subject. We all 

seem to be agreed upon that amendment, and I hope, therefore, we may 

have a vote. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair understands the Senator 

rrom ~Iinnesota to withdraw his motion to lay the amendment on the 

table. 

Mr. WASHBURN. I withdrew it. 

The PRESIDE~T pro t.empore. The question then recurs on the 

motion of the Senator from New York [Mr. EVARTS] to amend the 

a.nendment proposed by the Senator from Alaine [Mr. F.&Y.E], which 

will be again stated. 

Mr. HAWLEY. The Chair may be right, but my amendment is 

pending, I suppose. 

The PRESIDENT pro Cempore. It can not be entertained now be-

--. 

. .... , 

---

.· 

-.. ,.. 

.· 

·-

"' -

-.. " . 

.. -

-' 

I· : 
'! 

... 

. • 

'·• 

·. 

,. .·

-.. 

'' 

.· 

' . ... - ,, . I . . '· . .- . . 8670 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. · AUGUST 16, 

cause an amendment in the second degree is pending. The Secretary 

will a~ain state the pending amendment. 

The SECRETARY. In line 18 page 2 of the amendment, insert, after 

the word •' prescri Qe," the words " the times and;" so as to read: 

.And providedfurthPT, That the Secreta.ry of War shall prescribe the times and proper and reasonable regulations for the opening, etc. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is the Senate ready for the question 

upon agreeing to the amendment proposed by the Senator from New 

York to the amendment offered by the ::::lenator from Maine? 

The amendment to the amendment was rejected. 

1t1r. PLUMB. I move now that the whole subject lie on the table. 

I mean that all the amendments lie on the table. 

Mr. HOA.R. Including the committee amendment? 

Mr. PLUMB. I understand the amendment of the committee bas 

been disposed of. 

The PRESIDENT pro fcmpore. That bas been disposed of by agreement. 

~Ir. PLUMB. There ha.<1 been developed the widest possible di verai ty 

of opinion in the Senate in re~ard to this very important question. I 

am not prepared to express any opinion about it mysel~ although I happen to have seen recently the place and the circumstances a.nd sur- roundings of this connecting link between the south shore of Harlem 

River and the north shore, and it impressed me very greatly in certain 

ways; but I believe that after this discussion to have this whole subject go to a committee of conference without any further instruction 

except that which may be embodied in the discussion so far bad would 

be the best course. Mr. HAWLEY. I have offered an amendment this morning in 

which I shall be glad, and I think the Senate will, to express its judgment, providing for closed bridges through there; and that is apparently 

the sentiment of the Senate in general, if the sense of the Senate can 

be taken upon the question. 

Mr. PLUMe. The point is, if tbe Senate should express its opinion on that branch and not upon the other, it possibly might prevent any 

solution at all. It is better to have something than nothing . The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair understands the Senator 

from Kansas to submit a motion to lay on the table. 

Mr. CULLOM. May I inquire if the amendment of the Senator from 

Connecticut is pending, so that that will be laid on the table if the motion of the Senator from Kansas carries? 

The PRES ID ENT pro tempo re. 1 t has not yet been formally offered. 

:Mr. TIA. WLEY. I offered it, but I was not a.ware that an amendment to the amendment was pending. 

The PRE !DENT pro tempore. Therefore it was not offered. 

:\Ir. PLUMB. If that amendment has not been offered, I withdraw 

my motion. 

.Mr. HAWLEY. I offer the amendment now. 

Mr. PLUMB. Then I renew my motion. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut moves 

to amend the amendment proposed by the Senator from Maine by 

striking out and inserting what will be read. 

The 8ECRETARY. Insert the following: 

Improvi~g Harlem River, New York: Contfnuing impro'\"ement, S.3.50,000; and the 8ecretary of 'Var is directed to cause the low bridges now crossing said Harlem River to be replaced, at the expense of the owners thereof, by other bridges as soon all the necessary legislation by the State of New York shall ha'l"e enabl~d the change in Ftr.i.de to the approa.che';I of said bridges, thus re- quired, to be m&de aud after thececessary wCJrk therefor shall ha'\e been com- pleted and openeJ to travel; and sa.td bridges shall leave a clear space of 24 feet bet.ween the high wri.ter of spring tide!! and the under side of said bridges, and said bridge!! shall be withonta.nydraw-spa.nsor dra.wsoropeoings in them: Provided, Tha t the spans of said new bridges shall in all respects comply with this law and conform to the requirements of the Secretary of War: And pro· 1:ided, No part of this appropriation shall be expended until the owners of said bridges "hall be respectively legally authorized to make sucll changes in the grades of the approache-;i of the said bridges as may be required to conform to the elevations of said new bridges. 

The PRESIDENT pro fempore. The Chair understands#he Senator 

from Kansas to morn to lay the amendment on the table. 

Mr. ALLISON. Before that vote is taken, if the Senator from Kan- sas will allow me a moment, I desire to ask what will be the situation 

of the question if these amendments are laid upon the table? 

Mr. EDMUNDS. It will stand on the clause of the bill. 

Mr. ALLIRON. It will stand on the committee amendment? 

Mr. PLA.Tl'. No, it will stand on the clause of the bill. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. As the Chair understands, the bill 

came from the House of Representatives with a provision included between lines 7 and 20, on page 29. The Committee on Commerce reported an amendment to strike out that provision, which has been 

agreed to. Therefore, the whole provision concerning the improvement of Harlem River has been eliminated from the bill. The Senator 

from Maine proposed to amend by insert.mg another provision upon the same subject, to which the Senator from Connecticut has o:ffered an amendment. 

Mr. HAWLEY. As a substitute. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas moves to 

lay the amendment on the table, which, if it prevails, will leave the 

provisi.on eliminated from the bill. 

Mr. PLUMB. That is what I desire, Mr. President. 

... , 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Then the question before the com- mittee of ~onterence, if the decision stands, will be upon agreeing to 

the amendment ot the Senate strikin_g out the provision. 

Alr. PLUMB. I do not make the motion in order to cut off debate. 

If any Senator wishes to speak I shall withdraw the motion for that 

purpose; but it seems to me the Senate will get by a short cut at some re.-mJt on this subject by means of the motion I have made better than 

otherwise. I think, on tbe whole, it will be better to let the matter f!.O 

to conference in order that there may be that adj astment which finally 

mmit come under some different circumstances than tho e obtaining 

here now. 

The PRESIDENT p1'o tempore. The Chair then understands the Senator from Kansas to withdraw his motion to lay the amendment on the 

table. 

Mr. PLUMB. I will, for the purpose of allowing any one to speak. 

l\lr. EDMUNDS. I think we had better take the direct question, in 

order to have the sense of the Senate to guide the conferees on the subject. I think the debate is pretty much exhausted. 

Mr. PLATT. I should like w make an inquiry. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will hear the Senator 

from Connecticut. 

Mr. PLATT. Was the motion of the Senator from Kans1S, which is now withdrawn, a motion to lay the amendment of the Senator from 

.Maine on the table or the amendment of my colleague? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It could only be applied, except by 

unanimous consent, to the amendment proposed by the Senawr from 

Connecticut, that being the pending question. By unanimous consent, 

the question can be taken upon laying the amendment of the Senator 

from Connecticut and the amendment of the Senator trom Maine on 

the table as one question, if the Senate de.~ires. · Mr. EVARTS. Mr. President, I apprehend that the Senator from 

Kansas was not pre:~ent at the whole of the debate this morning and 

is not quite apprised of the situation reached in the minds of Senatore. 

There came to be a somewhat general feeling tbatit was not of any very 

vital importance whether the improvement went in to a conference with a solid or with a draw bridge; but the Senate has disposed of the latter 

point ofprE"ferring a draw-bridge to go into conference, and I supposed 

had reached very e:eneral concurrence that this amendment for solid 

bridges should go to conference. 

We shall have made very little progress if we are to come back here 

with the question whether we shall adhere to our rejection ot the Harlem Rtver improvement, and the House adhere to it, as seems to be 

quite probable that they will do. We therelore reduce somewhat, 

perhaps I should say a great deal, the elements of discussion, because 

all these amendments relate to the appendant provision of the House 

proposition, not to the appropriation at all. It is to leave the whole 

matter open, to have the bridges removed at once with all the inconveniences that have been point.ed oat. Now, as the Senator from Vermont suggests, let us take the sense of the Senate whether we wish 

this to ~o into conference with solid bridges. 

Mr. GORMAN. Mr. President, this is an improvement in the State 

of New York, and it is not a gracious thing perhaps to oppo~e the 

wish of the Senators from that State; bat as a member of the Committee on Commerce, which bas given this matter a great deal of attention, I desire to say that the House committee which framed this bill, as was well stated by the Senator from New York nearest me, appointed a special s-q.bcommittee to go over with the Government ex- gineersto determine whatwas the proper thing to do in this particular 

case, and the resnlt is the provision found on page 29. When it ca.me to the Committee on Commerce of the Senate that committee recom- mended that the provi.5ion sl:ould be stricken out with a view to have 

further information and further investigation when it came to a matter of conference between the two Houses. 

I think that what we have before us is probably a very extreme proposition, and for one I do not want to be committed to a provision th:lt 

requires a solid bridge over the Harlem River and that the improvemenb; of that river shall be suspended until after the action of the Legislatme of New York, and the determina.tion of that question, and therefore I shall vote for the motion of the Senator from Kansas, beiieving 

that if it is left precisely as the SeMte has it now, with the House provision stricken oat, when it goes into conference the conferees on the 

part of this body and the House can tbl:'n consider all the various propositions that are presented, and remodel this clause in some form that 

will be exactly right and just to the J farlem River improvement and 

to the railroad company and to the commerce of that great metropolis. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I ask theSenator ja: taquestion. Why notleta vote 

be taken upon this proposition, which certainly interests a great. many 

people and will settle three-quarters of it1 and then make a motion to 

lay the whole question on the table if he wants? 

.Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, I.think th:it conferees-perhaps 

that is a very old-fashioned notion-are supposed to in ist upon and adhere to the views of' the body they represent, and that we do not send a thing to conference as we do to a committee of seven, or nine, or 

eleven izentlemen of the body to report to us for consideration, but we 

send a thing to a conference on account of a disagreement between the 

two Houses in respect of which the conferees of each represent the 

-. 

• 
'-

·. \ ~ ' I • • l 

,, ' . ...... ·· ... · ... : I 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD-SENATE. 8671 

views that either House has before expressed and with due diligence 

and firmness present the considerations and insist upon them. 

Now, then, to leave this thing at se:i., as I may say-although there is 

not any sea in the Harlem Hiver until we make one by digging out 

above tliese bridges-it seems to me it is not just to impose such a responsibility upon whoever the Senate conferees may be (and we know 

exactly who they will be of course, according to our usual course of proceeding), but that the Senate ought to express itself. We have discus ed this question quite as much as the conferees could and the Senate 

ought to express its opinion as to what, according to the light it now 

has, it desires to have done, so that our conferees, if the matter should 

go to conference, will understand what it is that they repre.~ent as the 

judgment of the body that has appointed them to confer with the other 

Honse. 

I hope, therefore, that we shall take a vote by yeas and nays on these 

pending propositions as indicating the judgment of the whole body of 

Senators after this debate. 

The PR.EBIDENT ]ll"O tempo1·e. The question is on the motion of the 

Senator from Kansas, to lay the amendment upon the table. 

Mr. CULLOM. I hope the Senator will withdraw the motion, and 

let us take a vote directly upon the amendment. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Taking a straight vote. 

Mr. CULLOM. On the discussion now. 

Mr. PLUMB. Very well; I withdraw the motion. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion to lay the amendment 

on the ta.ble is withdrawn. 

Mr. PLUMB. I want to say now that I very much hope the amendment will not be adopted; and in saying that I say it, of course, with 

much deference to the wishes of the.Senators from New York and those 

from New England, who are closely interested in the subject-matter. 

I was up there last fall, and, in company with a friend, examined the 

situation, and it seems to me it would be a great national misfortune 

to have that channel closed by the erection of a closed bridge only 

24 feet high. 

I do not want t.o regard this wholly as a local question, and I should 

dislike very roach to have the Senat.e commit itself in favor of an obstruction of that kind to the permanent navigation of the Harlem River. 

There ha.s been found elsewhere opportunity to adjust the relations of 

those interested in navigable waters to those who by means ot railroads cross them. That ought to be done in this case. It can easily 

be done. The corporations coming in there are amply able to build 

bridges of sufficient height and with draws which, while aC<'.ommodating their purposes, will accommodate also the purpose of those interested in the water transportation and the other purpose which has 

been spoken of here, what might at some time be termed one of national defense; and whatever is done in this way ought to be done 

after a great deal of deliberation and care, and I very much hope that 

whatever is done it will not take this shape. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempMe. The question recu:s on agreeing t.o 

the amendment proposed by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. HA w- LEY]. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Let it be read. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will be again read. 

The SECRETARY. Substitute for the amendment proposed by Mr. 

FRYE the following: 

Improving Harlem R!ver1 New York: Continuingim~rovement, $350,000; and the Secretary of War 1s directed to cause the low bridges now crossing said Harlem River to be replaced, at the expense of the owners thereof, by other bridges as soon as the necessary legislalion by the State of.New York shall have enabled the change in grade to the approaches of said bridges thus re- quired to be made, and after the necessary work therefor shall ha Te been com- pleted and opened to travel; and said brirlges shall leave a clear space of 24 feet between the high water of spring-tides and the un•ler side of said bridges, and said bridges shall be without any draw-spans or draws or openings in them: Provided, That the spans of said new bridges shall in all respects comply with this law and conform to the requirements of the Secretary of War: And pro- .n.ded, No part of this appropriation shall be expended until the owners of said bridges shall be respective1y le~ally authorized to make such changes in the grades of the approaches o f said bridges as may be required to conform to the elevations of said new bridges. 

The PRESIDENT pro te1np01·e. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. .As this covers the whole matter, though I am in 

favor of it, I ask for the yeas and nays upon it, in order that we may 

get n definite judgment of the Senate. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempure. The Senator from Vermont asks 

that on this question the yeas and nays may be entered on the Journal. 

The yeas and nays were ordered; and the Secretary proceeded to call 

the roll. 

Mr. BLACKBURN (when his name was ca.lied). I am paired generally with the Senator from Nebraska. [Mr. MANDERSON], but I have 

his authority to vote upon all questions involved in this bill. I vote 

"nay." 

Mr. PASCO (when his name was called). I am paired with the Senator from lliinois [Mr. FARWELL]. In bis absence I withhold my 

vote. 

Mr. SHERMAN (when his name was called). I am paired with my 

colleague (Mr. PAYNE]; and not knowing how be would vote on this 

question, I withhold my vote, unless it shall be necessary to make a 

quorum. 

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa (when bis name was called). I am paired 

with the Senator from Maryland [Mr. WILSON]. 

The roll-call was concluded. 

Mr. BA.TE. I wish to state that my colleague [Mr. HARRIS] is absent, not well enough to be in the Chamber this morning, and is paired 

with the Senator trom Vermont [Mr. MORRILL]. 

Mr. PASCO. I wish to give notice that my colleague [Mr. CALL] 

is absent, and is paired with the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. PETTIGREW]. 

Mr. CULLOM. If the Senator from Florida will allow me, I will 

state that I am satisfied my co league [l\Ir. FARWELL] will be entirely 

willing that be shall vote on this question in any way he choQses. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Florida desire to be recorded? 

Mr. PASCO. I vote "nay." 

Mr. TELLER. I wish to state that my colleague [Mr. Woworr] is 

paired with the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. KENNA]. My colleague is detained from the ~enate by sickness. 

Mr. PLA.TT. I am paired with the Senator from Virginia [Mr. 

BARBOUR], but I do not think he wouldobjeet to my voting upon this 

question, and after consultation with his colleague [Mr. DANIEL] I will 

take the liberty to vote. I vote "yea." 

Mr. HIGGINS. I am paired generally with the Senator from New 

Jersey [Mr. McPHERSON], but I do not think he will object to my voting on this question, and I vote "yea." 

Mr. FRYE. I desire to state to the Senator from Dela.ware that the 

Senator from New Jersey with whom he is paired requested meto say 

to tile Senator that on the river and harbor bill he could vote as he 

pleased. 

Mr. MANDERSON. I desire to announce that my colleague [Mr. 

PAD DOCK] is necessarily absent from the Chamber to-day and is paired 

with the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. EUSTIS]. 

Mr. STOCKRRIDGE. I desire t.o state that my colleague [Mr. McMILLAN] is absent, and is pa.ired with the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. v ANCE]. 

Mr. CULLOM (after having voted in the affirmative). I observe that 

the Senator from Delaware [Mr. GRAY] is not present, and I should be 

glad if the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Go:&MAN] would indicate, if 

be knows, how that Senator would vote. I am paired with the Senator from Delaware [Mr. GRAY]. 

Mr. GORMAN. I do not think it makes the slightest difference. 

Mr. CULLOM. I will allow my vote to stand, then. "' 

Mr. DANIEL. I wish to state, to avoid any possible misunderstanding, tbatl a.m paired with the Senator from Washington [Mr. SQUIRE], 

but not regarding this question such as to require a recognition of the 

pair, I take the liberty of voting ''yea." If there is any eiception 

to it or if any one thinks it will be objectionable, I shall withdraw my 

vote. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Under the circumstances I 1eel at liberty to vote, 

and I vote -'yea.'' 

Mr. QUAY (after having voted in the affirmative). I observe that 

the Senator from West Virginia. [Mr. FAULK.NEB], with whom I have 

a general pair, is not in his seat, and while I am not clear that the pair 

applies to this vote, I shall prefor to withdraw :i;ny vote. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempcre. The Senator from Pennsylvania withdraws his vote. 

Ur. EV ARTS. I am paired with the Senator from .Alabama [Mr. 

MORGAN.) 

Mr. HISCOCK. The Senator from Alabama [l\Ir. MORGAN) mentioned to me that he was about to leave the Chamber, but was willing 

that my colleague should vote upon this question. 

The PRE" IDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from New York 

desire to be recorded? 

Mr. EV AH.TS. I have stated the grounds upon which I place my 

view of the competing views of open draws and closed bridges, and I 

have agreed that it shall go into conference. .As I understand that is 

the vote, I shall vote ''yea.» 

Mr. COCKRELL. I am paired with the Senator frflm Massachusetts [Mr. DA WES]. I do not know how he would vote on this matter and I do not know whether I should vote. .A. good many have been 

voting irrespective of pairs. I will leave it to his colleague to say 

whether I shall vote or not. 

Mr. HOAR. I have had no conversation with my colleague upon 

this question, but from my general knowledge of the intere::1ts of the 

community that he represents I should feel very confident that be · 

would vote ''yea." Bat I have no right to represent him and I shall 

content myself with that statement. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Then, under the circumstances, I shall observe 

the pair, for I should vote "nay." 

Mr. QUAY. I desire to announce Lhe transfer of my pair with the 

Senator from West Virginia [Mr. FAULKNER] to the Senator from 

Illinois [Mr. ~A..RWELL), and I vote "yea." 

Mr. PASCO. That arranJ.!:ement will be s!l.tisfactory to me. As I 

have already voted, I shall allow my vote to stand. 

- '• , 

·. 

.-

·-

,. 

.. 

~ .. . ... 

.•. 

.' . 

. ., 

; 

.. ,. 

.·. 

-.r". 

• I 
-· -:-'-

t. 

,-· 

-. 

--

8672 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. : AUGUST 16, 

The result was announced-yeas 22, nays 26; as follows: 

YEAS-22. 

Allison, Evarts, MitcheU, Sherman, 

Casey, Hawley, Platt, Spooner, 

Cullom, Hi~ins, Power, Teller, 

Daniel, Hiscock, Q.nay, Washburn. 

Dixon, Hoar, Reagan, 

Edmunds, Manderson, Sawyer, 

NAYS-26. 

Allen, Coke, Gorman, Ransom, 

Bate, Colquitt, Hale, Stockbridge, 

Rerry, Davis, Hampton, Turpie, 

Blackburn, Dolph, Ingalls, Vest, 

Blair, Eustis, Pasco, Walthall. 

Cameron, 1''rye, Plumb, 

Carlisle, Gibson, Pugh, 

ABSENT-36. 

Aldrich, Farwell, McMillan, Sanders, 

Barbour, Faulkner, McPherson, Squire, 

Bl{)dgett, George, Moody, Stanford, 

Brown, Gray, Morgan, Stewart, 

Butler, Harris, Morrill, Vance, 

Call, Hearst, • Paddock, Voorhees, 

Chandler, Jones of Arkansas, Payne, Wilson of Iowa, 

Cockrell, Jones of Nevada, Pettigrew, 'Vilson of Md. 

Dawes, Kenna, Pierce, Wolcott. 

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question recurs on the amendment proposed by the Senator from Alaine [Mr. FRYE]. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I move to lay the amendment on the table. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut moves 

to lay the amendment on the table. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. .Are there further amendments to 

tbe bill as in Committee of the Whole? 

Mr. FRYE. The committee amendments have all been acted npou 

except one touching the authority to be given the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Company for a new wagon-road near the Long Bridj?e. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That was ruled out of order. 

Mr. FRYE. I do not know whether the then Presiding Officer 

ruled it out o~ not, but it was understood that at a later period I 

would renew it, alter the Senator from Vermont had had an opportunity to investigate the matter somewhat, and I simply reserved that 

amendment to offer it at some time later. 

The PRESIDENT pro tcmpore. It can be renewed in the Senate. 

Are there further amendments to the bill in Committee of the Whole? 

Mr. VEST. I offer an amendment, which I send to the desk. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will be reported. 

The SECRETARY. On page 69, after the word '' sum,'' in live 23, 

insert: 

Antl of all unexpended balances from former appropriations for the improve· ment of the Missouri River, or any part thereof; 

So as to read: 

Providf'd, That in the discretion of the commission such portion of said sum and of all unexpended balances from former appropriations for the improve- ment of the Missouri River, or any part thereof, &s they may deem proper, shall 

be expended in the protection of harbors and localities on any part of the river 

within said limits. 

Mr. DOLPH. I should like to ask the Senator from Missouri if it is 

the intention to transfer any unexpended balances of any previous appropriation for the Upper Missouri to the improvement of the stretch 

of river mentioned in this clause. 

l\Ir. VEST. No, sir; nothing of that sort. 

Mr. DOLPH. Would not t.he amendment as offered·have that effect? 

Mr. VEST. No, sir. I will just state to the Senator thattheo~ject 

is to put under the control of the .Missouri River Commission the.bal-

::mces unexpended under the last two river and harbor acts, to make 

those amounts subject to the discretion which we vest in the commission by the pending bill, and nothing that goes to the upper portion of 

the ri>er above Sioux City can be affected by it at all. 

Mr. DOLPH. The amendment, though, as read at t.he desk, provides for the transfer of the unexpended halances of appropriations for 

the improvement of the Missouri River or any part thereof. 

Mr. VEST. That is true. 

Mr. DOLPH. Is it not possible that there is an unexpended balance 

of appropriation to improve the river above Sioux City? 

Mr. VEST. No, sir; not above Sioux City. 

l\fr. DOLPH. Did not the last river and harbor act make an appropriation for tha..t purpose? 

Mr. VEST. No, sir; all below. The whole object of my amendment is this: We made appropriations for specific localities in the last 

river and harbor act and the work was not dnne. There were balances 

left in some instances, and in others the amount was not touched at all 

because it was not deemed sufficient by the commission to do the work 

intended. Those are continuing appropriations; they are not covered 

back into the Treasury. 

Mr. DOLPH. I understand that perfectly well, but I can not see 

the object of the amendment. I suppose it is to allow those unexpended balances to be distributed under this proviso. 

I I 

Mr. VEST. Under the last river and harbor act we made appropriations for specific localities, naming the points. We have done away 

with that system now and leave it to the general discretion of the commission, and my amendment simply proposes to take the amounts that 

were unexpended at these different localities for the general improvement of the river, if there is any, and put them under the discretion 

of the commission, as we do in regard to the appropriations we make 

in this bill. 

Mr. DOLPH. The last river and harbor act contained the following provision: 

Improving Missouri River from mouth to Fort Benton: Continuingimp1·ov.-

ment, Sl,000,000, including removal of obstructions, surveys, and examinatioi;is, to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War, in accordance with 

the plans, specifications, and recommendations of the Missouri River Commission, except a.s herein modi.fled. 

I have an impression-perhaps the Senator can tell me whether it is 

correct or not-that there has been work done on the river above Sioux 

City, and that there is in progress now a. survey and examination of the 

river ·above. The effect of this amendment would be to transfer all 

the funds appropriated by the last river and harbor act unexpendP-d to 

the portion of the river below Sioux City. 

Mr. VEST. If the Senator will notice this bill, it uses in the last 

line on page 69, the twenty-fifth line, the words ''within said limits.'' 

That would confine it below Sioux City. That answers the objection 

the Senator makes. 

.M:r. DOLPH. It would confine the application of the appropriation 

therein made, but it would not confine the transfer of the balances to 

that part of the river. 

Mr. VEST. I do not intend to take any unexpended balances for 

points above Sioux City and I have not the e.lightest objection to modifying the amendment so as to make that ~lear. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I desire to suggest that the amendment is t-00 

broad. If confined within the last tour years I should have no objection to it, but there may be balances of appropriations made for the 

last fiity years for the Missouri River, for forty years at least. I think 

the provision ought to be limited. If, as the Senator says, he only desires to cover the last two river and harbor acts, I would say 11 appropriations within the last four years." 

Mr. VEST. I have no objection t.o that. I do not intend to take 

any more. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment as modified will be 

reported. 

The SECRETARY. On page 69, line 23, after the word "snm," it is 

proposed to insert: 

And of all the unexpended balances from former appropriations during the 

last four years for the improvement of the Missouri River below Sioux City, or any part thereof. 

Mr. SHERMAN. That is right. 

Mr. MANDERSON. I ask that the proviso be read with that 

amendment. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The proviso will be read a.a it will 

stand if the amendment be adopted. 

The Secretary read as follows: 

Provided.. That, in the discretion of the commission, such portion of said sum and of all the unexpended balances from former appropriations during the last 

four years for the improvement of the Missouri River below Sioux City, or any part thereof, as they may deem proper, shall be expended in the protection of 

harbors and localities on any part of the ri'rnr within said limits. 

Mr. DOLPH. The shape that t.he amendment is put in now obviates one objection that I made to it, that by the last river and harbor bill the appropriation was $1,000,000 for the improvement of the 

river 1rom the mouth to Fort Benton; and that amount covered not 

only the reach of river described in the paTa.graph under consideration 

in the present bill, that is, the Missouri River from its mouth to Sioux 

City, but also the reach covered by the paragraph on the top of the 

next page, "Improving Missouri River between Great Falls and Sioux 

City." · The effect of the amendment now would not be to transfer any portion of the appropriation for the improvement of the Missouri River 

made under the last river and harbor act, or rather would not be to au- thorize its expenditure under thi~ proviso of the present bill, but I think 

would cover the portion of any unexpended balances of the appropriation made for the improvement of the Missouri River under the last 

river and harbor act included in the paragraph which undertook to distribute that appropriation to the imμrovement of different points on the 

river, as, for instance, at Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebr., and 

the Omaha and Council Bluffs bridge, and Sioux City, Iowa, etc. The 

effect of it would be to authorize those express appropriations. 

Mr. WIL80.N, of Iowa. Of the appropriation of $1,000,000 mafle in 

the last river and harbor act, $775,000 was designated for particular 

places named in tbeact, leaving about $225,000 for !tpplication to the 

river in the discretion of the commission. 01 course, only apart of that 

amount could be applied to the river above Sioux City. 

l\:lr. DOLPH. It would be for division by the Secretary of War, or 

else it would be a question that they were not competent to determine, 

as t-0 what portion of the unexpended balances should be applied above 

Sioux Citv. 

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I suggest, however, if the amendment of 

.. , 
. ! .. ' .. :. • 7 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1 

.8673 

the Senator from Missouri prevails for talcing whatever unexpended J civilians, and the three engineer officers control the commission. Under 

balances there are applicable to the river, either above or below Sioux the provisions of the present bill we have simply changed the name of 

City, and applying them to the river below Sioux City, leaving nothing the controlling power. The Bureau of Engineers controls the river 

for th~ river above out of the unexpended balances, it is unjust to the now above Sioux City; but it is exadly the same power that controls 

river above Sioux City. it below in the shape of the :l\Iissouri River Commission. Of course Mr. DOLPH. The amendment as it is now worded only :places they will take this legislation of Congress as indicating that ~ch porappropriations made for the improvement of the river below Sioux tion of the river shall have its j nst proportion of the balance remaining 

City within this proviso; but7wbat I was going to suggest is that the unexpended, this $203,000. 

last river and harbor act provided for a distribution of $775,000 of the Mr. POWER. That is the Sena.tor's idea of his amendment? 

appropriation to various named points. It is quite possible that the l\Ir. VEST. There is no doubt about that, none in the world. 

expenditure of that money at those points has been commenced and Mr. POWER. That is satisfactory. 

that the material has been contracted for. I call the attention of the The PRESIDENT p1·0 tempore. The Chair will state that the amendSenator from Missouri to what appears plain to me, that bis amend- mentofthe committee which it is proposed to amend having been agreed 

ment woald authorize the Secretary of War to stop the expenditure of to as in Committee of the Whole, it can only be amended in the Senate. 

the money appropriated in the last river and harbor act at those points Mr. VEST. Let me understand the Chair. Does the Chair mean and to distribute it at any point he chose below Sioux City. the amendment originally offered? 

:Mr. VEST. Mr. President, my object is to make this bill consistent The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment proposed by the 

with itself. We have now in the bill done away with the appropria- committee having been agreed to as in Committee of the Whole, it can tions for specific localities. I think we have wisely done so, and I pro- only be amended when the bill comes to the Senate. 

pose by this amendment to make the unexpended baln.nces subject to Mr. VEST. I suppose there will be unanimous consent to its amendthe same gen£;ral discretion of the Commission which is provided for ment now. in the bill. It is just as fair to one locality as another. If work has The PRESIDENT pto tempo1·e. If there be no objection, the question 

been commenced at Sioux City, Iowa, or Plattsmouth, Nebr., or St. can now be taken upon the amendment ot the Senator from Missouri. 

Joseph, Mo., or any other point, and the Missouri River Commission Mr. SHERMAN. I suppose additional matter could beadded to the 

think that the unexpended balance with the amount appropriated in amendment already agreed t-0. 

this bill should be applied in certain proportions to any of those local- The PRESIDE~T pro t,empore. Kot after it ha.s been agreed to as in 

ities, I would leave it to their discretion. That is the criterion which Commitbie of the Whole, except by unanimous consent. we have adopted in the pending bill. That is all of it. It is just as Mr. SHERMAN. I do not so understand the rules. We can not 

fair to one locality as to another. We ought to leave all these mat· strike out what has been agreed to as in Committee of the Whole, but 

ters to the Missouri River Commission or we ought to abolish it. There we can add. to it, by an express provision ·of the rules. However, I do 

ic:; no other logical conclusion. I have al ways contended that we onght not WJsh to make the point. 

to trust the commission or not trust it. Mr. VEST. I a-sk unanimous consent that my amendment may be 

Now, what is the condition of affairs at present? We appropriatell entertained. a certain amount, $40,000, for instance, at Plattsmoutb,Nebr. It was The PRESIDENT protempore. The Chair hears no objection. The 

not enough, and the Missouri River Commission did not use it. They question will be taken on the amendment a9 in Committee of the 

said it would be throwing it away to commence the improvement with ·whoJe, if there be no objectioJl. 

thatrunountof money; thatitwouldrequirethreeorfourtimesasmuch Mr. PLUMB. Let the Secretary read the amendment. 

in order t-0 do anything at all. That amount was not covered back into Tile PRESIDENT pro temporn. It will be again read. 

the Treasury and not a dollar was used, and yet in this bill we provide The SECRETARY. After the word ''sum, 11 in line 23, page 69, it is 

for a general discretion to the Missouri River Commission and let that proposed to insert : 

$40,000 remain there not to be used at all. It is not right. And ofall unexpended balances from former appropl'iations during the last. 

J)Ir. ALLISON. 1\fay I ask the Senator from Missouri what in for- four years for the improvement of the Missouri River below Sioux City, or any 

mation he has respecting the amount of these unused balances? pnrt thereof. 

Mr. VEST. The amount is stated in the report of the engineers as .Mr. GORMAN. I suggest to my friend from Missouri that instead 

about $600, 000 for different localities, and a part of the amount for the of saying '•all unexpended balances ' 1 be say '' the unexpended balgeneralimprovement of the river, continuing appropriations not covered ances, amounting to $203, 000, are hereby appropriated." 

back into the Treasury, that have not been expended. Mr. ALLISON. "Not exceeding $203,000.'1 

Mr. ALLISON. Are those balances of specific appropriations made Mr. GORUA.N. "Not exceeding $203,000." 

for certain points on the river? Mr. VEST. I will ask the chairman of the committee what is the 

Mr. VEST. Yes, some of them; forimtauee, atPlattsmouth,Xebr., exact amount. I have not the report before me. $40,000 was appropriated. Mr. FRYE. Two hundred and three thousand dollars. 

Mr. FRYE. The Senator's amendment relates only to the Missouri Mr. VEST. That was my recollection. I have no objection to modiRiver, I understand. fying my amendment so as to insert ''amounting to $203,000." 

Mr. VEST. That is all. Mr. DOLPH. Allow me to a.sk the chairman of the committee or Mr. FRYE. The amount of unexpended balances is only $203,000. the Senator from Missouri what is that $203,000? 

Mr. VEST. I stand corrected. I was speaking about the whole Mr. VEST. That is the amount of unexpended balances. 

amount for the Mississippi and the Missouri. It is $203,000 for the Mr. DOLPH. That is the amount of the whole balances. 

Missouri. Mr. FRYE. Made up of eighteen balances for diffet'.ent works on Mr. POWER. M:r. President-- the Missouri and $63,509 of appropriations made by the act of Feb1\Ir. VEST. Does the Senator wish to ask a question? ruary 22, 1890. Wherever an appropriation has been made for a special 

Mr. POWER. I wish to say a word. The appropriation in the last work, a particular sum for a particular work,, they always withhold, 

Congress was $1,000,000 for the river from the mouth to Fort Benton. if they pos.~ibly can, a balance for contingencies, and very many of these 

Now, they have done some work above Bismarck, but very little, most balances are simply balances that have been held for contingencies. 

of the work being below. According to the Senator's amendment, with Mr. DOLPH. Do I understand that in addition to the $203, 000 there 

his understanding, that money is taken by the commission, and as the is another balanca of $63, 000? 

present bill divides the ri>er at Sioux City it seems to me it would be Mr. F1'YE. .No, they are $203,000 in all. 

fair to give a portion of this unexpended moneytotheupperriver from Mr. DOLPH. The total balance of the $1,000,000 appropriated in 

Sioux City to Fort Benton. This is all I wish, and it seems to me to the last river and harbor act is $203,000? 

be plain equity. .l\fr. FRYE. Yes, sir. 

M.r. VEST. Under the provision.c; of this llill all the i·iver above Mr. DOLPH. That is precisely what I clo not want to see put in 

Sioux City is taken away from the Missouri River Commission and put this appropriation, because, as has been stated, $775,000 were appro· 

tmder the Bureau of Engineers. That was done in deference to the priated for works at various points near and below Sioux City. Then 

wishes of the Senators from Montana and the Dakotas. there was lefli a balance of the $1,000,0UO of general appropriation for 

l\'Ir. POWER. Yes, sir; that is right; for which we are very thank- the entire river from the mouth of the river to Fort Benton. I see no ful. We want that done. objection to providing that the Secretary of War may now apply the 

Mr. VEST. As a matter of course, if thIB amendment is adoptell balance which has been appropriated for various points below Sioux: 

the proportion of the general appropriation of $1, 000, 000 in the last City to different points in his discretion, but the Senator from Montana 

river and harbor act, which was intended for the upper river and was objects that the entire balance of the whole appropriation of$1,000,000 

not expended, will be applied by the Bureau of Engineers in the im- for the whole river, from the mouth of the river to Fort Benton, should 

provement of that portion of the Missouri River. be put within the discretion of the Secretary of War to be expended 

Mr. POWER. That is all we wish. below Sioux City, and I think his objection is a valid one. The wa)' 

Mr. VEST. That is all. We can not, of course, mark it out and the amendment nowstands, it would only cover the appropriation mad& 

limit it in so many dollars and cent.s. 'Ve have got to leave that to for different points below Sioux City. the Bureau of Engineers, and it is all ''leather and prunello, 11 because Mr. VEST. How could it be apportioned? substantially the whole river is under the Bureau of Engineers. The Mr. DOLPH. I am not proposing to apportion U. I understood th.& 

Missouri River Commission has three engineer officers on it and two Senator to propose that the general balance, that is, the balance ofth& 

XXI--543 

I • • 

: 

... .,., 

r. 

" -

... ·· 

.r. 

·. . ·~ 

, - . 

' . . . ) 
.. 

,• 

'. 

,, -· . 

·. 

.1 • 

•' ..... ,_ .,. • .. _. • I 

8674 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 16, 

amount which was appropriated by the last river and harbor act, which 

could be applied generally for the improvement of the river, should be 

distributed by the Secretary of War. 

Mr. V.&>~. The trouble about that is that we have divided the jurisdiction in the present bill. All that part of the river above Sioux 

City under the pending bill is to be under the control of the Secretary 

of War and all below is under the C!lntrol of the Missouri River Commission. I do not want to take anything from the upper part of the 

river. 

:Mr. ·DOLPH. But if yon appropriate the whole unexpended balance you will do so. • Mr. VEST. There is not one dollar of unexpended balance of the 

general fund for the improvement of the whole river, the million dollars. The whole of it comes out of the specific appropriations. 

Mr. DOLPH. That is what I understood a moment ago, but I understood the chairman of the committee to say that it embraced the 

entire balance. 

Mr. VEST. That is really the fact. 

l\Ir. ALLISON. I under tood from the Senator in charge of the bill 

that of these unexpended appropriations $63, 000 was from the appropriation o1 $1, 000, 000 and that the remainder was from specific appropriations made for specific places. So there is no trouble in dividing 

it if you want to divide it. 

}fr. DOLPH. The pecifi.c appropriations were pm of the $1,000,-

000; $775,000 was taken out of the $1,000,000 appropriation, and the 

Secretary of War was directed ro apply it to specific points. If the 

whole of the balance, that is, the difference between $775, 000 and 

U, 000, 000, has already been expended, there is no trouble about it; let 

the whole balance be applied in the discretion of the ecretary of War to 

these points; but if it has not, I do not think the Senate wants now to 

take the amount which was appropriated for the general in:tprovement 

of the river in the last river awl harbor act and apply it to particular 

points or allow the Secretary of War in his discretion to do so. 

As the amendment srood before the last proposition was made, it 

only allowed the Secretary of War or the Missouri River Commission 

in their discretion to expend the appropriations made for the improvement of the Missouri lliver below Siomr Ciiy at these various points. 

As there was no specific appropriation for the improvement of the Missouri River between its mouth and Sioux:. City, except the appropriations for these 1ocalitie , that would do no harm, and it would leave 

the general balance of the $1,000,000 t-0 be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War anywhere on the river where the condition of work seemed to require it. 

Mr. ALLISO~. It seems to me an easy thing to arrange this $203,-

000; and that appears to be the object desired. I suggest that threefonrths ofthls sum be placed under theMissouriRiverCommission, or 

two-thirds of it, the remainder to be expendedaboveSionxCityunder 

the direction of the Secretary of War. Then you will have a fair division. 

Mr. DOLPH. Does not the Senator see that that may divert from 

the localities for which specific appropriations were made under the 

river and harbor act money appropriated and devote it to the improvement of the Upper Missouri n.bove Sioux City? 

l\Ir. ALLISON. I do not think there is any danger of that if a 

proper amount is reserved for the portion of the Missouri River above 

Sioux City. I think under the Missouri River Commission the tendency 

has heen to expend all the money as near the mouth as possible. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. The Cha.ir understands that the 

words ''not e:.:ceeding two hundred and three thousand dollars =1 are 

proposed to be inserted by the mover of the amendment after the word 

"balances." 

Mr. DOLPH. I object to that. I think the amendment is well 

enough as iL is, and I am not certain yet that it does not cover the entire balance of the whole appropriation for the Missouri River. 

The PHESIDENT pro tempore. In order that there may be no misunderstanding, the Secretary will read the proposed amendment as 

modified by the addition suggested by the Sena.tor from Missouri. 

The Secretary read as follows: 

And nll unexpended balances from former appropriations during the last four years for the improvement of the Missouri River below Sioux CiLy, or any part 

thereof, not exceeding $203,000. 

The PRESIDENT pto fcmpore. Is the Senate ready for the question 

on agreeing to the amendment? 

The amendment was agreed ro. 

Mr. PLUMB. I move, after the word-" Commission," in line 22, 

to insert "to be approved by him;" that is to say, I want the plans 

for the improvement of the Missouri River robe approved by the Sec· 

retary of War or the Chief of Engineers. It seems to me that there 

ought to be that much supervision over this commission at headquarters. There ought to be some responsibility in the War Office for the 

expenditure of this money, and not have it as it i$ now, when you go 

to the War Department about these appropriations robe told that they 

do not pretend to e:irnrcise any supervision over them. I do not know 

but that the Missouri River Com.miesion is composed of men who know 

all about this business. .A.tall event.s, the plans onght robe approved 

by the Chief of Engineers. Of course they will be if they are subjected 

by law to the approval of the Secre~ry of War • 

Then there is another important matter to be considered. This river 

is subject to the jurisdiction of two separate forces. The part from 

Sioux City down is under the jurisdiction of the Missouri River Commission, and from there up it is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of War. There ought to be some uniformity about the buiiness, 

and it certainly can not do any hurt in any event that the plans which 

this commission propose shall be subjected to tho scrutiny of the Secretary of War. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The proposed amendment will be 

stated. 

The SECRETARY. After the word "Commission," in line 22, on 

page 69, insert "to be approved by him." 

Mr. VEST. I do not know that I object specilically to the amendment. The whole matter ha.s come to be in such a nebulous condition 

that I do not know that any satisfactory solution can be reached at all. 

I have never contended but for one thing from the beginning, and that 

was that we ought either to abolish the commission for the Mississippi 

and the Missouri Rivers or we ought to accept their conclusions. If 

we are to subject all their estimates and all their plans to the Secretary of War, then it follows, ns a matter of course, that the commissions 

are utterly unnecessary. 

Mr. PLUMB. Oh, not at all; they are advisory. 

Mr. VEST. They are composed, the majority of each of them, of 

officers of the Engineer Bureau and under the control of the Secretary 

of War, so that substantially we have exactly the same result in either 

case. This division of the jurisdiction over the Missouri River wn.s against 

my protest and opposition in the committee. I agree with the Senator 

from Kansas that we ought to have the control of this river as a.n entirety. We ought not to split it up; it ought to be under one jurisdiction, and it seemed t-0 me the worst sort of legislation ro divide it. 

But the Senators from the new States were so persist.ent and had such 

iuftaence in the committee that they succeeded in taking tha.t part of 

the river above Sioux City and putting it under the Bureau of Engineers, so that we have the anomaly of one part of the river under the 

Missouri River Commission and the other part under the Burea.u of 

Enlrineers. 

If the amendment of the Senator from Kansas prevails, the whole 

river is substantially under the Bureau of Engineers, because the plans 

will be subject to the approval of the Secretary of War, and we know 

how the business there is transacted. He refers everything ro the Bureau of Engineers and accepts their .conclusions. The way in which 

the work is done is very well known to every Senator wbohashad any 

connection with it. There is a local officer of the Bureau of Engineers 

in control of each district, all the navigable streams in the United States 

being divided in to districts. That engineer officer reports to the Chief 

of the Bureau of ~gineers, and whenever the Secretary of War desires informa.tion in regard ro these navigable streams be refers the 

matter to the Chief of the Bureau of Engineers and he refers it to the 

local engineer in charge. 

I have neYer known a case yet, in my experience of twelve years in 

service upon the Committee on Commerce, where the opinion of the 

engineer officer in charge was not accepted by the Chief of the Bureau 

of Engineers and by the Secretary of War. 

As a matter of course the Secretary of War knows nothing about it. 

He defers to his bureau officer, ro the Chief of the Bureau of Engineers, 

and he again defers to the opinion of his subordinate who is in charge 

of the river or lake, and that is all of it. 

Under the influences, which all of ns understand, that operate in 

legislation, frequently of course under protestations and representations 

of Senators as to their local interests, this river has been chopped up. 

It was done against my judgment, but it has been done. I represent 

a State upon the lower part of the river, and with my experience as to 

the work done by the Missouri River Commission, I want it retained. 

I want it if for no other reason because even at Kansas City and for 12 

miles above there they have increased the depth of the river from 3 

feet to 12 feet by using dikes and wing-dams. I have the official reports here to show that fact and I know it to be so personally myself. 

If anybody has any doubt about the operation of the jetty system, let 

him go to that portion of the .Missouri River and he will have an ocular demonstration of it. 

Mr. GIBSON. I should like ro ask the Sena.tor from Missouri what 

proportion of the amount appropriated in the last river and harbor act 

was allotted to the general improvement of the river and how much 

out of that went to special local improvements which were of no advantage t-0 the river itself. 

Mr. VEST. Seven hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars out 

of $1,000,000 went to local improvements, and $225,000 went to the 

general improvement of the river. That shows the result of local influence in this body. Senators will come in here and say, "My rown mm1t be provided for;" another one says, "My town must be provided 

for;" and in the mean time we complain of the Missouri River Commission because the general improvement of the river does not go on; 

and yet when they try to improve the river generally and systematically, and it is the only way it can be done, Senato.rs prot.est against it 

and say, "There is an unjnit distribution of this money and I demand 

that my State shall have so much 9f it." 

-. •,. ' 
: t - ... 

'· ..... . ·. - !.. .. 1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-'SENATE"° 8675 -, 

I have more towns in the State of Missouri applying for approprin.-

tions to-day than in any other State upon the banks of that river. If 

I were here simply as a J..;Olitician I would advoca.te specific appropriations, because I could make political capital by securing them. But 

it is wrong. The same argument applies to the Mississippi River. 

We ought to do one thing or the other. We ought to act as states· men or we ought to act as politicians. If we want to improve these 

great rivers let us abide by the recommendations ot the commissions or let us abolish them and take the matter into our own hands and 

scramble for appropriations at these differentpoint.s. That is the whole 

of it. 

Mr. PLUMB. Mr. President, it seems to me there are the best of reasons for having the commission subject to the jurisdiction of the 

Secretary of War. We have a parallel t-0 what I propose in the operations of the War Department with reference to the coast defense. We 

have a boal'll on ordnance and fortifications, of which the Secretary 

of War is ex officio the president. That board adopt.s a plan for the 

manufacture of guns and thin~ of that kind, which are committed 

to it by Congress, and yet everything in regard to the expenditure of 

money, everything which goes to determine that which shall finally 

be done, is subject to the discretion of the Secretary of War, and he can set aside the findings of this board; be can decline to expend any 

of the money in the manner which they recommend. 

In practice, of conrse, he does not do that, I suppose, aut.1 yet, after 

all, representing the nation at large, that he should have that power I 

do not doubt. I do not think we ought to set up within his Department a commission over which he bas no control whatever. We.,ought 

to have him for our own purposes, because we can reach him as we can 

not reach the Missouri River Commission, located at a distance. The 

Missouri River Commission is composed arbitrarily. Its personnel may 

change at any time. It may be g;ood to-day and bad to-morrow-of course I speak relatively. We ought to have here at the seat of Government the opportunity to supervise and overlook what is going on 

through the medium of the commission on the Missomi River. That 

does not disturb the Missouri River Commission at all. 

On the contrary, itgivesto the Missouri River Commission the benefit 

of the counsel of the Chief of Engineers, who is supposed to be more familiar with all the plans for the improvements of rivers and harbors throughout the entire country than anybody else. It enables him 

to put them in the pos.session of matters which maybe matters of great 

importance to them, which othel'wise they might not get, and brings a proper subordination into the affairs of the War Department. I think 

it will tend to unify and make more available the funds which we appropriate for the improvement of the Missouri River and make one plan 

applicable to the entire system. 

I am not urging that there shall be any segregation of portions of 

this money for the purpose of improving the river at particular points. 

I did believe, and do believe now, that we shall get more good out of 

money to be spent in that way if it were so spent reasonably and judiciously, but it has been deeided to do the thing the other way and I am willing that it shall be done that way; and we can see whether 

that is best or not; but I do believe that we ought to have the plans 

of the Missouri River Commission snbjected to the scrutiny of the 

Secretary of War anLl the Chief of Engineers. 

?t1r. MANDERSON. .Mr. President, I quite agree with the suggestions made by the Senator from Kansas as to the advisability that 

there should be a supervision of the reports and schemes of the Missouri River Commission by the Secretary of War. If the propositions 

submitted by this commission are propositions.. that look to the good 

of this river and to its permanent improvement, certainly nothing can be lost by that supervisory control that will be given to their schemes 

by the engineer force of the Secretary of War. So I think this amendment should prevail. 

But I rose more particularly, Mr. President, to protest against the 

suggestion of the Senator from Missouri that it is a waste of the public 

money to make expenditures at particular localities. The scheme he 

refers to, the improvement of the Mis1muri River, has changed under 

the operations of this oommission. The original proposition was not 

to improve the river by a system of reaches commencing at its mouth, 

but to take particular localities and improve tho~e localities. Congress authorized here and there along the Missouri River the construction of bridges for railroad purposes, and it was important not only for 

the interests of the railroads, but for the public good, that the channel 

of the river at the points where those bridges were constructed should 

be confined between the piers of the bridges. An expenditure was 

made on this system of improving the river here and there by the direetion of the commission and by the engineer force of the War Department in the earlier days, and work was done here and there that it 

was presumed would make permanent banks where the work was done. 

I know on the eastern border of the State of Nebraska, at Nebraska. 

City, at Brownville, at Omaha, and other points, years ago the Government supplemented the work of privat.e parties and made that 

which looked like a permanent and well established bank, and the1'eupon private parties made improvements upon the-bank. Many manu- facturing establishments were erected, notably at Omaha, upon this 

supposed permanent bank of the river, and upon the invitation of this 

work that was done by the Government of the United States large 

manufactnring est:i.blishments were erected. There is an enormous smelter, tlL'l.t it seemed was properly placed and properly located be- cause of this Government work. If there is to be no expenditure upon 

localities, then the hundreds of thousands of dollars that have been 

expended under the direction of the engineers of the United States will 

go for naught and much of the work done will be destroyed. 

.Mr. President, I favor the present scheme or the Missouri River Commission for the general improvement of that river. I think the system 

of improvemen~ by reaches, commencing at its mouth, is the correct 

system. But at the same time I do not think that we ought to lose 

sight of the fact that great industries ha•e been established on the invitation of the Government of the United States and that the work 

here and there along the river should not be permitted to be destroyed 

because we are unwilling to make further expenditures in those localities. I think it was not for political purposes that these expenditures were made, but it was for the public good, and it really has worked 

to the permanent improvement of that great water way. 

Mr. VEST. Mr. President, I want to say in reply to one observation of the Senator from X ebraska, that, if he has read the report of the 

Missouri River Commission, the supplementary report especially, he 

will have found that there is no disposition on the pa.rt of the Missouri 

River Commission not to expend any more money at loca.litiP.s. On the 

contrary, they distinctly statf!, as distinctly as possible, thattheypropose to preserve the work already done at localities, and therefore in 

the pending bill we have provided a discretion to them to continue that 

work. 

Mr. MANDERSON. I may have misunderstood the position of the 

Senator from llfissouri. I understood him, without reference t-0 what 

the repo:it of the commission was, to protest against the expenditure 

in particular localities. 

Mr. VEST. I stated that I had from the beginning protested against 

these specific appropriations because they took away the discretion of 

the Missouri River Commission which we had created by law, or els~ 

we ha.d created nothing. In other words, we make a commission for 

the improvement of the river and pay their salaries and pay their ex- penses for that purpose, and we then say to them, "We created you to 

improve the river, but you sha.11 do so and so." Now, is that rie;ht? 

Is it logical? We either ought to have a commission and abide their 

recommendationand hold them responsible or we ought to take this 

matter entirely out of their hands. 

But that is a different proposition from an absolute neglect of the 

work which we have compelled them to do. On the other hand, I hold 

that since we have, against my protest, expended money at specific 

localitit-.s which ought to have been expended in the general improvement of the river, we ongbt not to throw that money away that has 

been spent on those im provement.s, but we ought to preserve them. We 

have created a certain condition of things by the improvements at different localities, and after having done that we ought to retain those 

improvements and at any rate prevent their having been put there from 

doing mischief to the river as it was. If we were now to stop the improvements at different localities we should put the river in a worse condition than if we had never done anything there at all. That is 

not proposed by this commission. 

What I have endeavored to do here to-d~y by the amendment was, as I have always tried to do, to have something like a systematic improvement of the river. This thing of jumping sporadically from one point to another, as one Senator and another is able to obtain an appropriation by superior adroitness or superior industry, is all wrong. 

Take the Mississippi River for instance. There is not a meeting of the 

Commerce Committee on the river and harbor bill but what our com- mittee-room is thronged with Senators representing constituencies upon 

that xiver pleading with us to take the general sum appropriated for 

the whole river and apply it to localities within their States. What is 

the result? We have a Mississippi River Commission and continual 

complaint that the :Uississippi River is in a bad condition, overflowing 

it.s banks, etc., and yet when we look into the facts we were responsible. We take away the money from the general improvement of the 

river and give it up to specific improvements. A. great many of them are half done and the next overflow washes them out. 

The only possible way in which to defend such a state of things is 

upon the general ground that yol'. take the money out of the national 

Treasury and expend it, distribute it, put it into circulation. That is 

the only argument, forwhateveritisworth; because as a businessproposition it is utterly indefensible. It is unjust to the commission, it 

is unjust to the people. 

Whenever you open the door to these solicita.tions for improvements 

a.t specrnc localities, they become irresistible, and whenever you make one you are bound to make the rest. If I put in a river and harbor bill 

one dollar for a sing1e point in Missouri, I am immediately constrained 

to appropriate for every other point. They are all my constituents, and 

ifI do not do it I subject myself to the charge of having been partial 

to certain localities at the expense of others. The result is that the 

whole appropriation substantially is taken, aitainstthe remonstrangeof 

the .Missouri River Commission and of the Mississippi River Commission, and then at the next session of Congress Senators and Representa.-

ti ves abuse these commissions because they have not done what they were created to do • 

. , 

... -: · ..- " 

_.- .: 

I - _,: 

..:. 

.,. , .. 

.' 

-. 

-· .... 
.. . o•I- • •' 

·. .. ' ... · 

....: 

... 

.. 

. , 

•• ,,,11' . .J 

........ ·.· 

-- . . . 

8676 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE . AUGUST 16, 

I think practically the amendment of the Senator from Kansas will 

le::i.ve matters as they are. I have no idea that the Secretary of War 

would ever interfere with the discretion of these commissions. He 

would do just as he always bas been doing. He knows notbin~ about 

it, and be subordinates bis judgment to that of the officers in charge of 

the work on the river. 

But there is one other thing about it, and I call the attention of the 

Senate before they adopt this amendment to this fact: You have 

created a commission; yon have given them some discretion; you pay 

them to do a certain work. Is it treating that commission with exact 

courtesy or fairness to say that yon will put their judgment entirely 

nnder that of the Secretary of War, who knows nothing about it? Is 

it not a. reflection upon the commission itself? 

Mr. ALLISON. It seems to me that it can be no reflection upon 

this commi8sion. Three of them are engineer officers, I understand. 

Mr. VEST. That is true, but they are members of the commission. 

Mr. ALLISON. The majority of them are engineer officers and the 

other two are civil engineers. Can it be possible that the commis ion 

is not to be under the snpen-ision of the Department that has the ex- penditure of this vast sum of money, because it will be the vast sam of money, as the Senator knows, before the river is improved as it ought 

to be and as I hope it will be? It see111s to me tbat when we appro· 

priate in a river and harbor bill a large sum c,f money it ought to be 

under the general control and supervision of the head of the War De- partment, so that if t.he commission make improvident contracts or make mistakes the Secretary of War himself cau call their attention to 

them. 

I agree in the main with what the Senator says as to the effect of 

this amendment. Under ordinary circumstances we know the Secretary of War will not interfere with this commission any more than he 

interferes with the other engineers on these great rivers. I know the 

chief of this commission, one of the most eminent engineers in the 

Army. Undoubtedly, when they make a report or suggestion for an 

improvement t6 the Secretary of War, the matter will be referred to 

the Chief of Engineers, and, unless it is materially defective, it will be 

adopted. But it is possihle that ernn these three engineers may make a mistake in respect to some branch of the improYement. I hope the 

Senator will not object to the amendment. 

Mr. VE'n. I do not care particularly about the matter, though I 

think it is rather illogical, because, if what the Senator from Iowa says 

has any force at all, it goes to the extent of saying that the War Department, which acts as a bureau of engineers, ought to have control. 

Mr. ALLISON. I ask that the amendment be read again. 

The PRESIDENT 1n·o tempore. It will be again :reported. 

The CHIEF CLERK. On page 69, line 22, after the word "commission," insert the words : to be appro>ed by him. 

Mr. VEST. That is, by the Secretary of War. 

Mr. ALLISON. I do not see any objE5ctiou to tho Secretary of War 

exercising general supervision over this matter. 

Mr. VEST. Then I make another suggestion, that if that is <lone 

for the Missouri River Commission, it ought to be done for the Missis- sippi River Commission. 

Mr. ALLISON. Undoubtedly; they should all be served alike. When we are expending these great sums of money it ought to be done 

under the supervision or eye of the head of the Department. 

Mr. GIBSON. Mr. President, !take some interest in the work being uone by the Mississippi River Commission. It is a mistake to suppose that the commission handles the money furnished by our appropriations for the purpose of executing that work under the plans they submit. The Mississippi River Commission recommend certain plans for 

the regulation and improvement of the river, but those plans are exe- cuted by the army officers, detailed by the Secretary of War, and who 

report to the commission, so that the whole work of the Mississippi 

River commission is in the hands of West Pointers, young men who 

have learned their trade at West Point, and to-day they have bad about 

eleven years' experience in works on that river. 

I should be perfectly willing to accept the amendment offered by 

the Senator from Kansas, that the plans and works on the Mississippi 

River should be approved by the Secretar,y of War or by the Chief of 

Engineers. I see no objection in the world to that. It does not nec- essarily refer to the sums e.ppropriated to any particular locality, nor 

do I believe it woulcl arrest the progress of this great work for the com- - merce of the Missis.sippi River. 

.Mr. VEST. Mr. President, I do not want to consume any further 

time, but I wish to state, so that I shall not be put in any i·idiculous 

position, that we have always provided that these appropriations, since 

the creation of the commissionSball be expended by the Secretary of War in the systematic improvement of the river according to the plans and specifications of the commission. 

We have always adopted that provision both as to the Mississippi 

River Commission and the Missouri River Commission. Any Senn.tor 

can see that that is entirely different from what is proposed to be 

done by the amendment of the Senator from Kansas. The Secretary 

of War expends the money, but he must do thata.ccor<ling to the plans 

and specifications of the commiesion. If that amendment prevails we 

~, 

·take away the discretion of the Missouri River Commission as a final 

act and vest it in the Secretary of War; and, instead of the Secretary 

of War simply expending the money, as the Senator from Louisiana 

says, as he has been doing, according to these plans and specifications, 

he will now expend it according to his own plans and specifications. 

That Lei the difference. 

Mr. GIBSON. Mr. President, I do notconcurwith theSenatorfrom 

:Missouri. He will expend the money in accordance with the plans, 

specifications, and recommendations of these commissions, approved by 

the Secretary of War--

Mr. VEST. Exactl v. l\Ir. GIBSON. Or by the Chief of Engineers. Now, I fake it that 

under any circumstances all the engineering work conducted by the 

officers of the Government or by officers appointed by the President 

would be done by those who report to the Chief of Engineers, and the 

Chief of Engineers in forwarding their report.s to the Secretary of War 

would approve or disapprove the plans that had been submitted by them 

to the Secretary of War. 

~fr. VEST. Is that done with'this commission now? 

Mr. GIBSON. It is not done for the Mississippi River Commission, 

because it was expressly provided in the act creating that commission 

that they should report to Congress. 

Mr. VEST. Exactly. 

Mr. GIBSO~. There was a reason for it. There was a divergence 

of opinion among the engineers of the United States as to the proper 

method of treatment of the Mississippi River. A new plan bad been 

devised by Captain Eads, the plan of contraction, which plan had been 

condemned 1:>y many of the ·engineers of the United States Army. 

When Captain Eads proposed to apply this plan for the treatment of 

the mouth of the river in order to secure deep water there, it was obiecled to by many engineers of the United States Army and by the 

popular opinion in New Orleans and in the southern valley of the Mississippi River. The Chief of Engineers at that time was not in favor 

of that plan. General Humphreys was the Chief of Engineers at that 

time, and I think he had been a member of the board that had given au opinion against the plan proposed by Captain Eads. 

The representatives from that portion of the country desired to have 

a commission which would give full efficacy to the plan which had been 

propo ed by Captain Eads and which had been successful at the mouth 

of the river. lie came before the committees of Congress and declared 

that it could be readily applied to the whole river, and that if applied we would have 20 feet of water all the way from New Orleans to Cairodcep water-whereas there was at that time only 4} feet to 5 feet of 

water in low seasons; and that there would be 16 feet of water from 

Cairo to St. Louis, whereas during low seasons they only had 4} feet on 

the bar. 

In order, therefore, to escape the influence of the Chief of Engineers, 

who bad been brought up in the old-fashioned belief that the bed of 

the river was harder than its banks, and that if an attempt was made 

to contract the channel it would wash away the banks or jetties instead of washing the bottom of the river, the act was oo framed that 

he should report to Congress directly. 

While I am willing that this change should be made in the actfor it would be tantamount to that-for the creation of the Mississippi 

Rh·er Commission, I do it for this reason: The engineers of the Army 

barn been educated for the last seven years; they have been educated· because they have given personal attention to the phenomena of the 

Mississippi River, and especially have the young engineer office1·s of the 

Army who have been engaged in this work become acqua.inted with 

the laws that control the phenomena of that ri"ver. They are all familiar with these theories. 

You can hardly find any one in the Mississippi River Commission or among the en~eers of the United States Army who would oppose the 

plan of contraction as the proper plan for dealing with that river. I 

think it is hardly possible that yon would be able to find a person in 

the :Mississippi River Valley who would oppose it seriously. It is the 

universal sentiment. The Chief of Engineers himself is strongly in 

fayor of that plan. I take it that aU the proprieties of military relations and conduct should be observed as far as can be done without 

injury to these great improvements. 

Therefore, I think that when an engineer of the Army or a civil engineer undertakes to devise plans to execute these great works of inlernal improvement his plans should be submitted to him who has 

lJeen selected by the President of the United States to be the chief of 

this army of en~ineers, the chief to preside over the execution of these 

f!reat works, under whose administration the money is to be expended. 

For that reason I can not, sir, agree with the Senator from Missouri 

that the recognition of bis position in this relation is any disparagement whatever to the jnnior officers of the Army, who constitute a majority of these commissions, or to the engineers who have been appointed from civil life to occupy places on these commissions. 

These are my reasons, Mr. President. I nm perfectly willing, if the 

Senate should adont the amendment proposed by the Senator from 

Kansas in respect to the Missouri River CommiMion, that the same ame11dment may be adopted with.respect to the l\iifil;issippi River Commission. 

.· 

,.. 
. \ . 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8677 

I 

Mr. VEST. Mr. President, what I said has been repeated with here upon the Secretary of War? He has control now of the upper 

great elaboration by the Senator from Louisiana.. I simply wanted to part of that river. Suppose be finds that steamer is not adapted to 

call attention to the fact that we were making a change in the law, and that service anywhere, or that he wants a more powerful boat, or that 

whenever you put in the provision that the plans and specifications of it is out of repair, or anything of the sort, why should we take this 

those commissions shall be approved by the Secretary of War, you do discretion away from him? 

away substantially with the commissions as commissions. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unless there be objection, the vot.eby 

Of course, a majority of the commissions have always been consti- which the amendment of the Senator from Montana was adopted will 

tuted of officers of the Engineer .Bureau, but they have acted as engi- be reconsidered by the Senate. The Chair hears no objection. The 

neers, and their plans and specifications were a .finality. Now we do amendment is before the Senate. 

away with that, because when you say that the Bureau of Enrineers Mr. VEST. I should like to hear from the Senator from Montana 

or the Secretary of War can approve or disapprove, that will be the end some reason why he thinks the amendment should be adopted. 

of this finality of discretion in these officers completely and absolutely. Mr. POWER. Mr. President, my reason tor offering the amendMr. ALLISON. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him a mo- ment is that the property now on the Missouri River above Sioux City 

ment? I think three or four commissions have been crell.ted in respect was purchased by the Engineer Corps from appropriations made for that 

to specific improvements on the river above the rapids. improvement, and not by the Missouri River CommissioD, which had 

Mr. VEST. Exactly. charge of it under one of the last.appropriation bills; and the rea!;On for 

Mr. ALLISON. Those commissions assembled, and they prepared offering the amendment is that the upper river could get the property 

the plans and specifications which are always submitted before :final back without contention that belonged tothat por-t1on of the river. It 

action to the Secretary of War. was purchased by the Engineer Corps, under the Secretary of War, with 

11-Ir. VEST. .As a matter of course, and the Senator could not bring appropriations made for that specific purp<>Re and for the upper river. 

a better illustration and one which is more applicable to the truth of 1'-Ir. VEST. Let it remain there, Mr. President. What is the use what I have said than just what he now says. We always provided of any legislation about it? It is the property of the United States 

that they should report to the Secretary of War; and when we created and is under the control of the Secretary of War. If we takeaway the 

the Mississippi River and the Miesouri River Commissions we specific- Secretary's discretion in the matter by this amendment, what is to be 

ally provided that they should report to the Secretary of War. done with that boat? 

Mr. ALLISON. Very well, then, Mr. President, if that be the case, Mr. POWER. If you will read the amendment you will see. 

the sooner we retrace that step the wiser, and the better it will be for Mr. VEST. Let it be read again. 

this Government, in my judgment. It seems to me that there ought The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be again reported. 

to be no imperiu.m in imperio here, no one connected with these im- The amendment was again read. 

provements higher than the Secretary of War, who is responsible for Mr. VEST. There is a mandatory provision that the Secretary of 

all these great improvements. War shall use this property whether it is :fit for use or not. We just 

Mr. VEST. I am not discussing that question, Mr. President. I absolutely take away his discretion and say he shall use all the property 

have already stated that it will be practically the same thing with any be has tbore. That will never do. 

commission created with a majority of engineer officers upon it; it has Mr. POWER. The property bas never been below. 

always been that way; and a.s long as you have these gentlemen ap- Mr. VEST. Very well; let it stay above. Nobody wants fo take it 

pointed it will be exactly as if they reported to the Secretary of War. away. 

But I wanted the Senate to understand that they are making this Mr. POWER. Suppose the commission take that boat down the 

change and that it is absolutely useless to retain these commissions if rirnr. 

that is done. Mr. VEST. The commission could not take it away. 

Mr. ALLISON. Well, Mr. President, the Mississippi River Com- Mr. POWER. Then what harm will be done by the amendment? 

mission is located on the Mississippi River at St. Louis and St. Paul, Mr. VEST. The commission has no iurisdiction above there and 

and it has three engineer officers and two civilian engineer experts. Is the Secretary of War bas absolute control. If this amendment is 

it not perfectly plain that in making plans and projects for the expend- adopted we step in and tell him he ihall use that property whether he 

itnre of this $900,000 these gentlemen will be upon the ground and wants to do so or not. It may not be fit for the U...Q0 it was intended 

will prepare their plans, can report them to the Secretary of War, and for. There is no trouble about the matter. The amendment is utthat he can look over them and see whether or not they are defectirn, terly unnecessary. 

whether or not they are extravagant, whether or not they involve much The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the proposed 

more money than the Government is willing to expend in that way? amendment. 

It does seem to me that this commission is a necessary part of this ex- The amendment wa! rejected. 

penditure, but that it ought to be subjected to the proper scrutiny of The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana (Mr. 

the chief of the War DenartmeM. POWER] has offered another amendment! which will be reported. ~Ir. VEST. Would the recommendationsofthe engineer officers on The CHIEF CLERK. On page 88, in line 20, after the word "and," 

these commissions, or their reports, be worth any more, if made to Con- insert "ca.iion next below;" so as to read: 

gress, than if made to the same officers as officers in the Engineer Bu- l\Iissouri River, between Great Falls and canon next below Stubb's Ferry. reau? It is just the same thing. 

Mr. ALLISON. Then what is the objection to the amendment? The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. VEST. And if we abolished that commission the very same Mr. REAGAN. I ask the chairman of the committee if we are now men would be detailed to do the same work upon the Mississippi River in a condition to take up and act on amendments that have been passed. 

and would make the same reports. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair calls the attention of the 

Mr. ALLISON. Very well; and the reports would be received by Senator from Texas to the fact that there is pending an amendment 

the Secretary of War. offered by the Senator from Montana. 

Mr. VEST. Two years ago I proposed to abolish this commission, Mr. REAGA.l. ~. I thought that.was disposed of. 

and with the concurrence of the committee moved an amendment to The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana o:fters an the river and harbor bill having that object in view; and r·did it for amendment, which will be read. 

the very reason I am giving now, that three engineer officers were de- The CHIEF CLERK. On page 88, between lines 19 and 20, after the 

tailed for that duty and that it was useless to have these salaries paid word ''Montana,'' insert the words: 

and all the expenses of the commission paid, when we paid no attention Missouri River, between Sioux City and Fort Benton. 

whatever to their recommendations. · But the Senators from the other 

part of the river resisted me so strongly that my amendment was defeated. Now that the change has come on the other part of the river 

and those gentlemen want to abolish the commission, as a great many of 

them do, the whole thing is in such a condition that we are going on 

from one river and harbor appropriation bill to another in a nebulous 

sort of way, without any system. It is simply "catch as catch can." 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. M.ANDERSON in the chair). The 

question is on the proposed amendment of the Senator from Kansas 

[Mr. PLUMB]. 

The amendment wiis agreed to. 

Mr. POWER. Mr. President, I offer an amendment, on page 70, 

after line 5, to add the following proviso: 

Provided, The steamer Josephine and all the property now in use above Sioux 

City, the property of the United States, ehall be used in the prosecution of said 

work. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. VEST. What is the necessity for that, Mr. President? It is 

the property of the United Stat~, and why should we put a limitation 

-· 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. REAGAN. Mr. President, I was not pre ent when the committee's amendment on page 64 was passed which authorized the Secretary of War to pay to M. J. Adams $5,000 for claims growing out of 

the test made by him of what is known as the Adams flume. 

Mr. FRYE. That is not open to amendment now. If the Senator 

desires a disagreement to the amendment, a motion will have to be 

made after the bill is in the Senate. 

.Mr. MITCHELL. I offer an amendment which I send to the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be reported. 

The.CHIEF CLEBK. On page 92; after line 15, insert the following: 

Yam Hill River, from its mouth to l\IcMinnville, with a. view to imp1·oying the same by removing snags and other obstructions. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I also offer another amendment On page 83, 

after line 15, I move to insert a new headini: and the following item: 

IDAHO. 

The Upper Snake River between the Huntin&-ton Bridge and Seven Devila' 

, .. · 

. . 

,· 

.. 

- ' .... 

. .. ! 

( . 

'· 

. .. ( 
... \ 

}' 

.· 

·. 

.· 

•' 

--

.. 

~ .. •" I 

""· . .. · . , .. 

8678 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. - AUGUST 16, 

mining district in Idaho, with a view to overcoming obstructions to steam-boat 

navigation. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. M?PHJl'.RSO~, 

it.a Clerk, announced that the House had passed the following bills; m 

which it requested the concurrence ot the Senate: 

A bill {H. R. 1466) granting a pension to Mrs. Mary Ewald; 

A bill (H. R. 2279) grantin~ a pension to Abraham W. ~ackson; 

A bill ( H. R. 2414) increasing the pension of Nelson Rich; 

A bill (H. R. 2415) granting a pension to Nancy Carey; 

A bill (H. R. 2427) granting a pension to Fletcher Galloway; 

A bill (H. R. 2526) authorizing the President of the United States to 

grant an honorable discharge to William L. Lenau; 

A bill (H. R. 3734) granting a pension to John Mann; 

A bill (H. R. 4396) granting a pension to John Grant; 

A bill (H. R 4688) granting a pension to Rev. Thomas James; 

A bill (H. R. 5065) for tlle relief of John R. Brown; 

A bill (H. R. 5239) granting a pension to Mrs. Mary Hyde; 

A bill (H. R. 5860) for the relief of Andrew J. Blackstone; 

A bill (H. R. 5861) for the relief of George Farwalt; 

A bill (H. R. 6129) to relieve Luther Green from the charge of desertion; . A bill (H. R. 6170) directing the issuance of an honorable discharge 

to David L. Lockerby, late of Company A, Ninety-sixth New York 

Volunteers; ~bill (H. R. 6338) granting a pension to Eben Muse; 

.A bill (H, R. 6686) for the relief of Coplin McKelvey; 

A bill (H. R. 5736) granting a pension to John L. Lindel; 

A bill (H. R. 6853) for the relief of Allen Morris; 

A bill (H. R. 7124) granting a pension to Mrs. Adelia Near, widow 

of Sylvester Near, of Company H, One hundred and twentieth Regiment New York Volunteers; 

A bill (H. R. 7252) for the relief of Thomas A. McLaughlin; 

A bill (H. R. 8210) granting an increase of pension to Maria L. 

Caraher; 

A bill (H. R. 8570) for the relief of Maj. John l\I. Laing; 

A bill (H. R. 8997) granting a pension to Charlotte B. Nutting; 

A bill (H. R. 9084) granting a pension to David Stockwell; 

A bill (H. R. 9252) for the relief of Frank Schader; 

A bill (H. R. 9270) granting an increase of pension to Charles E. Osborn; . h G A bill (H. R. 9316) granting an increase of pension to T omas . 

Boss; G l' b H zik A bill (H. R. 9504) granting a pension to ott ie un er; 

A bill (H. R. 9529) granting a pension to Emma G. Clark; 

A bill tH. R. 10033) granting a pension to Isaac Riseden; 

A bill H. R. 102:{1) to increase the pension of Sanford Ki::.-kpatrick; 

A bill H. R. 10245) to place the name of Hettie McConnell on the 

pension-roll; 

A bill (H. R.10350) granting a pension to Elizabeth Patten; 

A bill (H. R. 10526) to remove the charge of desertion from the record of Ezra Abbott, late of Company I, Twenty-first Michigan Volunteer Infantry; 

A bill (H. R.10557) for the reliefofW. G. Triece; 

A bill (H. R.11122) granting a pension to Sarah Anderson; 

A bill (H. R. 11169) granting a pension to Isadora Ritter, formerly 

Isadora De Wolf Dimmick; 

.A bill (H. R.11309) granting a pension to Maria Hassendeubel and 

Apollonia Hassendeubel; 

A bill (H. R. 11345) to increase the pension of Thomas Beaumont; 

A bill (H. R.11417) to increase the pension of Cecilia I. Woods; 

A bill (H. R. 11530) granting a pension to Thomas J. Wilkins; and 

A bill (H. R.11543) granting a pension to James H. Means, doctor 

of medicine. 

'£he messaae also announced that the House had non-concurred in 

the amendm~nts of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 11380) making appropriations for additional clerical force ~nd oth~r expenses .to carry 

into effect the act entitl~d "An act granting pensions to soldiers and 

sailors who are incapacitated for the performance of manual labor, and 

providing for pensions to widows, minor children, and dependent parents," from July 20, 1890, for the balance of the fiscal year.endmg 

June 30 1891 asked for a conference with the Senate on the dlSagreeingvote~ of th

1

e two Houses thereon, and had appointed Mr. CANNON, 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH, and Mr. FORNEY managers at the conference on 

the part of the House. 

The messaae further announced that the House had passed the 

joint resoluti~n (S. R. 71) directing the Librarian of Congress, the librarian of the Senate the librarian of the House of Representatives, 

and the librarian of the Department of Justice, respectively, to deliver 

extra. or duplicate copies of law books to the law department of the 

Howard University, with an amendment in which it requested the 

concurrence of the Senate. 

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED. 

The message also announced that the Speaker of the House had 

signed the enrolled bill (H. R. 7058) to ratify and confirm an agreement entered into by commissioners on the part of th.e Stat.es of N e_w 

York and Pennsylvania in relation to the boundary lme between sa1cl 

States; and it was thereupon signed by the President pro tempore. 

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION. 

Mr. QUAY. Mr. President, with the <'..onsent of the chairman of the 

Committee on Commerce, I desire to introduce some morning business, 

if there be no objection. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (l\Ir. MANDERSON in the chair). The 

Senator from Pennsylvania asks unanimous consent that the Senate 

cocsider a resolution which he sends to the desk, and which will be 

read for information. 

The Chie{ Clerk read as follows: 

Ordered That during the present session of Congress the Senate will not take up for co~sidera.tion any legislative busin!'.ss .othe~ than the. pen?ing ~m (H. R. 9416) ; conference reports; general appropriation bills; pension bills; b1lls.1·ela.ting to the public lands, to the Umted States courts, to the po9Lal service, to agriculture and forestry, to public buildings; and Senate or concurrent resolu~~J1e~ed 2 That the consideration of all bills, other than such as are mentioned 

in the for~g~ing order, is hereby postponed until the session of Congress to be 

held on the first Monday of December, 1890. 

Ordered, 3, That a vote shall be taken on the bill (H. R. 9:£16) n~w under con- sideration in the Senate and upon amendments then pendmg, without further 

debate. on the 30th day of Augm:it, 1890, the votingt-0 commence at 2 o'cloc~ p. m. on said day, and to continue on that and subsequent days, to the exclusion of 

all other business, until the bill and pendingamendmentsare fina!Jy disposed <?f· 

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to Rule XL, that the foregorng orders will 

be offered for adoption in the Renate. It is proposed to modify for the foregoing stated purpose the following Rules, 

namely, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII, XIX, XXII, XXVII, XXVIII, XXXV, and XL . 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of 

the Senator from Pennsylvania. that he be allowed to introduce the order just read for information? 

!tfr. EDMUNDS. I object to his being allowed to introduce it. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection being made, it can not be 

received. 

AMENDMENTS TO DEFICIENCY BILL. 

Mr. HIGGINS submitted• an amendment intended to be proposed by 

him to the deficiency appropriation biil; which was referred to the 

Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. 

l\Ir. COCKRELL (by request) submitted an amendment intended to 

be proposed by him to the deficiency. al!propriation bill; which ":as re- ferred to the Commi ee on Appropriations, and- ordered to be printed. 

Mr. ALDRICH oil!:. the Committee on Rules, reported an amendment intended u; be proposed to the deficiency appropriation bill; 

which was referr to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered 

to be printed. RIVER AND HARBOR BILL. 

The Senate n in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consider.ation of the blll (H. R. 9486) making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and 

harbors, and for other purposes. 

Mr. SANDERS. On page 70, under what I believe was a misapprehension the Committee on Commerce proposed to strike out the words 

"Great 1Falls," in line 1, and insert in lieu thereof "Fort Benton." 

The geoaraphical situation there is this: The town of Great Falls 

stands at the hea.d of a series of rapids and cascades about 18 miles 

long, the lower fall of whic? is the Great Falls of the Missou_ri River. 

In the apprehension that it was contemplated to expend this money 

upon some of those cascades and up to the city of Great Falls, it was 

changed to Fort Benton. I did not have it in contemplation that any 

of that money should be expended except upon the navigable reach of 

the Missouri River at the foot of the falls, about 18 miles below Great 

Falls. 

What I wish to do now is to have the vote reconsidered-and I make 

that motion-by which ''Great Falls'' was stricken out and '' Fort 

Benton" inserted when I shall move to insert, after the words "Great 

Falls "the words''' of the Missouri River in Montana;" so that it will 

be deflnite that there is not contemplated an expenditure of any money 

in th~ rapids or falls of the river it.self. 

J wish to state why that is of some consequence: This is an aTenue 

of commerce for the settlements of the State of Montana. Fort Benton bas been for many years the most eastern settlement of that State, 

and lowest down the river. I believe that an examina' ion of it, without material expense, will show that the river is navigable for 40 miles 

further towards the remainder of the settlements of that State. Hence 

I am anxious that it should be clearly defined that it is not intended 

that this shall be to the city of Great Fal1s1 but simply to the fo?t of 

the falls themselves in the river, and that -the matter shall remarn as 

I intended. . Mr. FRYE. M:r. President, this amendment would not now be m order. but I ask unanimous consent that, having been put in by the 

committee, the words" Fort Benton'' be stricken out--

Mr. EDMUNDS. On what page? 

Mr. FRYE. On page 70, at the top of the page. I ask unanimous 

consent that "Great Falls" be inserted in the place of "Fort Benton," as suggested by the Senator from Montana. 

' ' . . ' 

. •' .. ~ 
·. :. . ' , .. 

- 1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8679 

Ur. EDMUNDS. Let that be read for information, so that we may 

see where we are. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana will 

please send his amendment to the desk, so that it can be reported. 

Mr. SANDERS. My motion is to strike out "Great Falls" and 

insert these words in lieu thereof: 

The foot of Great Falls of said river in l\Iontana. 

The PRE:-. ID ING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana asks unan- imous consent that ·the vote whereby the words "Great Falls" were stricken out and "Fort Benton" inserted be reconsidered by the Senate and that the following amendment be adopted by the Senate. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Let it be reported for information. 

The CHIEF CLERK. In the :first line strike out the words "Fort 

Benton,'' and after the word ''between'' insert the following words: 

The foot of Great Falls of said river in l\Iontana. 

So as to read: 

Improving the l\lissouri Rker between the foot of Great. Falls of said river 

in :Montana and Sioux City, 5350,000. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection' to this request for 

unanimous consent? 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I would like to have it explained, Mr. President, 

how that differs from what had been agreed to by the use of the words 

''Fort Ben ton.'' 

Mr. SANDERS. It extends by some 40 miles the area or length ot 

the river upon which this $350,000 may be expended-I speak in round 

.figures-into and towards the settlements in the State of Montana. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. It goes above Fort Benton? 

Mr. SANDERS. Yes. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. By 40 miles? 

Mr. SANDERS. 1\1y colleague says it is not so far as that. It has 

been supposed to be 40 miles, and has been called that distance for 

several years. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Is Fort Benton now at the head of the Uissouri 

River navigation? 

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, it has been known as the bead of navigation. 

It is where freight has been loaded and unloaded. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. What are the obstacles between Fort Benton and 

Great Falls? 

Mr. SANDERS. There are none except in low water; the water is 

shallow; but the river is an essential unit from the foot of Great Falls 

to Sioux City. Heretofore we have said Fort Renton because, there 

being no settlements near Fort Benton, nobody has been accommo- dated by boats going farther up; but now other settlements have grown 

up in that vicinity and near by that may be accoiμm.odated by this 

extension of, say, 40 miles. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Butwhatiwish to ask, asaquesti!)noftopography, 

geography, or hydrography, is whether between Fort Benton, by name, 

which bas heretofore been understood to be the bead of navigation 01 

the river, and the foot of Great Falls there are any cascades or cataracts that require the building of locks, or canals, or anything of that 

sort? 

Mr. SANDERS. Not any. It is a stretch of level river. 

Mc ED~IUNDS. Very well. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There being no objection to the reconsideration, the question is on the amendment of the Senator from Montana (Mr. SANDERS). 

The amendment was agreed to. 

1\!r. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, I move to amend, on page 15, the 

paragraph concerning the use by private parties of one of the Government piers on Grand River, at Fairport, in Ohio, by striking out all 

after the words "eighty-one," in line 15, including the word "army," 

in line 22, and inserting in lieu thereof : 

On prepayment of such rent therefor and under such arrangements as to time 

and use and such other conditions of such right as shall be prescribed by the 

Secretary of War, and al ways revocable by him, and which shall not be extended 

beyond the close of the year ending June 30, 1891, and thereafter no Government 

pier or dock shall be leased to or used by private persons. 

Mr. President, I offer this amendment at the request of my friend, 

the Sena.tor from Ohio [Mr. PAYNE], who was compelled to J!O away. 

He is familiar with that subject. I also offer it, I may say additionally, on my own account, for we had _some consideration of this matter, 

I think, on the last river and harbor bill. 

The old law authorized the Secretary of War to grant permission to 

private parties to use Government jetties and piers for their private 

purposes, generally railroad purposes, on the payment of rent to be 

fixed by him. The occupation of that pier by vessels lying alongside 

to discharge coal, iron, et.c., to the railroad tracks running onto the pier, 

has obstructed by just that much the narrow channel between the two 

jetties, enough to prevent vessels from going into the interior part of 

the harbor. 

When I made an inquiry, having had my attention called to it a month or two ago by the War Department, it was found that the 

$2,000 rent had not been paid. But it is due to the railroad company 

to aay that, their attention having been called to it, as I am informed 

by the Secretary of War, they have since paid the rent, so that so far 

the United States has received $2,000 on that particular pier for giv-

. ' .. -

iog the exclusive ri~ht to use it to this railroad company as against 

all comers, which I think is wrong of itself. The piers were not built 

for that purpose. They were built for the common interests of everybody. 

Meantime, this business on Lake Erie, particularly at Buffalo and 

other places, of private interests getting the advantage of the use of 

these piers, to the exclusion of other people and to the obstruction of 

the passage of vessels between them, had become so extensive that the 

attention of the whole transportation interest, the whole internal sea interest, as I may say, was called to it; the attention of the whole 

North western Lake interest and of the people engaged in the trade was drawn to it. 

There have been given me by a gentleman of the highest character 

these original documents: First, a protest by the Erie Board of Trade 

(Erie being a Pennsylvania town on Lake Erie) against the whole of 

this sort of thing, as follows: 

Ata meeting of the Erie Board of Trade, held on Monday evening, JL1ly 14-

This yearthe following preamb'e and resolutions were unanimously ndopted: 

"Whereas the United States has expended large sums for the ereation, improvement, and maintenance of harbors in the interest of commerce and for 

the benefit of the general public; and 

"Whereas this body bas become a.ware that legisln.tion in Congress is pro- posedOne of the propositions being this very item which we are now speaking ofwhich conveys the right to control certain property of the United States at.the entrance to several harbors on the Great Lakes to private corporations; and 

"Whereas the policy of granting the use of United States docks and piers to private parties would be a dangerous and pernicious policy that would extend in eYery direction if once inaugurated; 

"Resolved, That this board of trade looks with disfavor upon any and all such 

concessions, and does hereby urgently protest against such legislation. 

"Resolved, That the secretary of this body is instructed to transmit copies of 

these resolutions to our members of the Senate and House of Representatives." 

A true copy from the minutes. Attest: 

A. K. McMULLEN, President. 

D. BENSON, Secretary. 

The following resolutions were adopted by the board of directors of 

the Board of Trade of the city of Chicago at their meeting held July 15, 

1890: 

Whereas this Board of Trade is informed that certain legislation is pending 

in the Houses of Congress of the United States which in effect proposes to give to private parties or corporations certain water frontage, which is national 

property, at the entrances to different harbors upon the Great Northern Lakes; 

and · Whereas the sense of this body is opposed to the granting of such concessions 

and the dispossessing of the National Government of its power over such of its 

property as is involved in this proposed legislation: It is resolved, That this board of trade does in the strongest manner protest 

age.inst such legislation a.s in the highest degree prejudicial to the public inter- ests in the matter of transportatiou on and navigation of the said lakes. 

It is further resoli•ed, Tbat the secretary is directed to transmit to the Commit- tees on Commerce and to the Committees on Rivers and Harbors of both House! 

of Congress copies of these resolutions, and also to the secretaries of the sev- eral boards of trade in the Jake cities. 

GEO. F. STONE, Secretm·v. 

Then follows a protest by a great number of private shippers and 

persons engaged in transportation, addressed to Hon. THOMAS J. HENDERSON, chairman of the House Committee on Rivers and Harbors: 

Sm: The undersigned, vessel-owners, managers, and agents at the port of 

Chicago, Ill., respectfully petition your committee to do all in your power to compel the remove.I of individunls or corporations occupying the Government 

pier at the port c.f Buffalo, N. Y.-

That is not this particular pier, bnt it falls within what has been 

said beforeand we would further respectfully request that individuals or corporations 

be prohibited from using the United States GoverumentThere is evidently the omission of the word "piers," I supposeat any of the ports of the Great Lakes, such piers having been constructed for the purpose of protecting the entrances to the harbors and not for the occupancy of 

private individuals or corporations of any kind whatsoeYer. W. M. Eagan, D. T. Helm, P. Finn, Thomas G. Crosby,C.W. Elphicke, James A. Myers, Calvin Carr, Hugh llfol\Iillan, A. L. Fitch, E. E. Richardson, J. G. Keith, D. Talbot, J.C. Evans,_ J. J. Rardon, C. A. 

McMcDonald, C. J, McGill, D. B. Linsted, John Prindiville, A. T. Spence1·, J. L. Dunham, J. L. Riggie, T. T. Morford. 

Then, Mr. President, follows a set of resolutions that are in print, 

and are not therefore to the same extent authentic as the others I have 

presented, but I have no doubt the resolutions express tlfe opinion of 

tne Lake Carriers' Association in respect to their interests and affairs. 

It appears that they bad a m~eting at Buffalo on July 15, 1890--

Mr. FRYE. I will say to the Senator from Vermont that that has 

been laid on the table four different times already. That will obviate 

the necessity of reading it, unless the Senator desires. 

l\:lr. EDMUNDS. I would like to state them for the information of 

Senators who may not have seen them. I shall not occupy a great deal 

of time. I think this is a matter of sufficient importance to justify me 

in stating them. I will condense, for the purpose of getting alon~ and 

saving time-. 

These resolutions were adopted at a meeting of the Lake Carriers' 

Association, held at Buffalo, N. Y., July 15, 1890. They refer to 

three bills pending before Congress, in which in some way the Government :viers on the Great Lakes are given over to the free and exclusive use of certain firms and corporations for purposes of private gain • 

. , 

. : ~. 

'\ 

--

.- :"'• 

i -

. . ~ 

·' 

• I 

.•' 

'. 
.-

.. 

,.. . 

.. , 

r • 

.. ·- ... 

,_ 

• .. 

·,, 

.. ... 

-, . 

8680 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 16, 

They further declare that the use of these piers for commercial pur- ment we bad better refuse to pass this bill. I know how these lake 

poses necessarily diminishes the available width of the harbor entrances harbors are. The rivers emptying into Lake Erie are very small com- at these points, and thl}-S creates an obstruction to the commerce of the paratively, but very important. Their mouths make very good barGreat Lakes. bors, but the streams are small and narrow. The widest of these openThey then recite that these bills before Congress are therefore inju- ings, I think, is about 200 feet.. I will a.sk the Senator from Maine if 

rious to individual commerce and injurious to every vessel navigating I aru correct about that. 

the Lakes and to every shipper whose property is carried on these ves- Mr. FRYE. I think it is about 200 feet. 

sels, and that the policy is a dangerous and pernicious one. Ur. SHERJl.IAN. The Government makes an opening usually at 

They further protest against the passage of any and all bills and en- the mouth of these rivers. The Government, in improving these haractments designed to grant the use of any United States pier, wharf, bors, has cut out the bar and opened it for some distance up the body or other Government property to private individuals or corporations. of the creek or river, and then extended a pier out one or two or three 

Then come the resolutions of the Chamber of Commerce of Milwau- hundred feet, according to the sboalness of the bank. 

kee of the 31st of July last, a little more than two weeks ago, referring Now on Lake Erie, nnd especially at this port of Fairport, there is a. to the same subject and declaring that that body is opposed to the commerce almost marvelous. The Senate would scarcely believe the 

granting of such concessions and the dispossessing of the National figures if I gave them. The total tonnage that now comes out into the 

Government of its power over such of its property as is involved in lake through the Sault Ste. Marie and along the shores of the State 

this proposed legislation; and therefore the board resolves that it pro- of Ohio and going to Chicago amounts to over 10,000,000 tons of the single 

tests in the strongest manner against such legislation as in the highest item of iron ore. In this town of Fairport, according to the statements 

degree prejudicial t-0 the public interests in the matter of transporta- made to me, the tonnage has gone up within a few years to 1,200,000 

tion on and the navigation of the said lakes. tons, an amount so vast as to seem almost impossible for a little harbor 

Then 1ollows a resolution of the Philadelphia Maritime Exchan~e, like t-hat. 

which refors .Pti.rticula1l.Y and directly ii? t~e Buffalo a1!air, which is Then iron ore is also received in this harbor by the railroad companies, 

not th~ 9-uest1on I have m band, but which is embraced m the general largely Pennsylvania companies and Ohio companies, and is transported 

proposition. and converted into all forms of iron. Vessels necessarily must come up 

The Boston Chamber of Commerce, on the 25th of July, passed reso- this mouth and must be unloaded over this pier, and these railroads 

lutions ~f the same cba~acter, agains~ allowing to private person~ or I have purchased land behind these piers or out beyond them aud have 

corporations the oc~upation of these piers of the Government, and Jet- made artificial earth embankments by extending out opposite the pier 

ties that are built rn order ~o secure a_full and free passag~ between the ground where they can receivetbisironoreand transport it to their 

~hem in~ t_he harbors .and rivers to which ~bey belong, as ~emg an nn· trucks running down alongside the pier and thence off into the country 

J nst favoritism to particularly favored parties and corporations, and as where it is converted into iron. obstructi~e,. a_nd eve~ybody must see that it is obstructi:e1 to the free Therefore this last provision inserted here would absolutely dC}Stroy 

and undmumshed width.of the passa~e b~tweeu those piers. all the benefit derived by the commerce of the country from all these 

Mr. HOAR. M:r. President, _I wou~d hk~ to ask the Sena~or from piers, I may say, on all the lakes, because they are all more or less 

Vermont, as he seems to have gwen thIB subJect much attention-and subject to these conditiong I have named. ! have not giy-en it any-in regard to the amendment, which I see is To the first part of this, which my colleague showed me, I have no 

m the folloWlllg words: objection, because I think the Government of the United States ought 

And thereaner no public pier or dock shnll be leased to or used by p1·ivale to have the right to provide that when its vessels are unloaded along- persons. side these piers they shall not be unreasonably held there, and that if 

So that it would cut out, the entire length and breadth of the United they sbou11 receive any damage caused by this commerce the owners States, the smallest possible use of Gov-ernment piers or docks by any of that commerce should repair it. But the railroads must carry over private person under any circumstances. Now, are there not many the Government piers t-0 their land, by the heavy machinery they have 

localities where there would be found no other pier but a Government planted there, this iron ore, without which they could not get along 

pier and where the uses of commerce might require thatsome temporary at all. or other arrangement for the use of such Government pier be made? I The result is that different raill'oad companies have1 insiae the piers 

ask the Senator for information, whether this phraseology of his is not of the Government, purchased Ol' made land, and they have there vast more sweeping thanjusticerequires. machinery, powerful machinery, by which they unload a vessel in a 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Ithinkitisimpracticable, Ur. President, to make very short period of time. 

any exclusive provision unless you make it sweeping and general or As a matter of course, so far as the first part of the amendment is 

unless you give a discretion to some executive officer to determine what concerned, I have no objection to saying that any damage or any un- piers, and under what circumstances, should be used for private pur- necessary delay sh-0nld be prohibited; and the Secretary of War should 

poses; and that opens the very mischief that now existsJ to the great have power to make regulations to prevent any injury from being done. 

discontent of commerce. But the vessels mru;t lie alongside the pier in order to reach the place 

I do not know any such instance, though I can imagine one at the for unloading the iron ore. frontofthetown where I live, the breakwater, which may be called a pier, The last part of the amendment is the part to which I mainly re- and which is, f!ay, 300 yards away from the docks; a schooner might fer. That is clearly su~ject to the point of order that it is legislation run in there in distress du.ring a gale and might run to that pier and on an appropriation bill, and legislation of the most dangerons chartie fast. It is true that that w011ld be a trespass, but nobody would acter. Certninly I think the Senator from Vermont can hardly be ever take any notice of it, and nobody ever did. There is no authority familiar with the peculiar characteristics of the localities and the natof law now to occupy a pier for any such purpose. ure of these piers on Lake Erie, or he would hardly propose it. At 

But I do not think there is any danger in respect to having this ex- any rate, I make the point of order now that it is not in order so far as 

clusion general and sweeping. So I hope, Mr. President, the Senate the regulation ot the pier is concerned. 

will agree to the amendment drawn by my friend from Ohio [Mr. I have no objection at all to the useofthis pier, the necessary use of 

' PAYNE] and which I have offered at bis instance, but which, having it, by all those companies on their paying a reasonable amount for their 

ha-0. some knowledge in regard to before, I most heartily concur in. use. Whatever may be proper legislation in connection with the use Mr. FRYE. I would like to ask the Senator from Vermont if the of tbe pier, what guards should be bad to prevent injury, and, if inlast three lines were in Senator PAYNE'S amendment. jured, what sum should be paid therefor-I do not know what kind 

Mr. EDMUNDS. All tbat I have changfld in bis amendment was of a charge it would be, but something should be paid for the use of 

to change the date to June, 1891, in order t-0 make it perfectly clear the pier while the vessel ie lying alongside. The channel is never le~ 

when the thing was to end. than :200 feet, so that vessels can go in and pass out. Sometimes a half 

The PJ\ESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be read. dozen of these vessels will be unloading at the same time close toThe CmEF CLERK. On page 15, line 15, after the words "eighteen getber and not interrupt the passage of other vessels in and out. 

hundred and eighty-one," strike out all down to and including the That is the only way by which the commerce of that country can be 

word "Army,'' in line 22, as follows: conducted. To destroy that is to destroy the commerce. It were betUnder such limltalions ns to time aQd use as shall be approved by tile Secretary of War; a.nd in consideration thereof tile owners of such dock property 

shall, at their own proper cost a.nd expense, sufficiently re1>air, renew, and pro- tect the portion of said pier so used, and do a.11 necessary dredging in Grand 

River, in front thereof, a.11 such repairs, renewals, and dredging to be done un- der the supervision of the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army. 

And insert the following in lieu thereof: . On prepayment of such rent therl'for and under such limitation a.s to time 

and use, aud l!UCh other conditions of such right as shall be prescribed by the 

Secretary of War, and always revocable by hlm, and which shall not be ex- tended beyond the close of the year ending June SO, 1891; and thereafter no Government pier or dock shall be leased to or used by private persons. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. President, that lastcla.use would seem to me to destroy every harbor on the lakes. Rather than adopt that amend-

. 

ter not to make any appropriation, better not to build a pier. A. pier, 

from the nature of things, is necessarily built along the line of the 

river and also out into the lake, sometimes two or three hundred feet, 

and all this commerce must J!:O over this pier. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands the Senator 

from Ohio to raise the point of order as to the latter part of the proposed amendment, the point of order being that it is general legislation on an appropriation bi11? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, sir; I make the point of order on the last 

part. 

So far as the amendment of my colleague jg concerned, which was shown me by him at the time, I do not see that there is anything un- reasonable in it. But I am quite sure that it did not contain this 

\ . 
.. 

.......... ·. -. ... - .. ' .· 

·. ' 1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA.TE. 8681 .-

clause, for my colleague, who knows all about this -commerce, would see that it would destroy the commerce of Cleveland, and Ashtabula, 

and other places where the amount of commerce is simply immense. 

Cleveland is in precisely the same condition. If the Government piers 

could not be used there, so that vessels might be unloaded on the Government piers, or over them, as they usually are, the commerce of 

Cleveland would be practicaJly closed. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, either the whole of the amendment I have offered is in order or the whole of it is not. It is legislation, but it relates directly to the management of the property that we have provided for in the next line above. 

Mr. SHERMAN. It relates to \he whole country around. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. It relates to the property provided for in the next 

line above, where we appropriate $21,300. It has been held many times 

in this Senate-though it may be held the other way to-day, I do not 

know-that when an appropriation bill contains a legislative provision 

it is competent to amend that without being subject to the point of 

order. It is unnecessary to state what otherwise would happen. It 

would be perfectly absurd. The House has put in here twelve or thirteen lines of pure legislation in regard to the management of the property of the United States. 

Now, my proposition is-or rather that of the Senator from Ohio, 

although I concur in it with all my heart-to amend that legislative 

provision already in the bill by putting it into shape, as I think, better for the public interest. So much for the point of order. 

I wish to tell my friend from Ohio that the whole of that amendment, except the matter of a change of date to make it 1891 instead of 

the year 1890-which I thought was not clear, as the Senator will see by looking at it-is the same amendment that was left with me by our 

honored friend, Senator PAYNE. Whether the Senator from Ohio now absent was right or wrong in it, it is his amendment just as it stands, 

except in the matt.er of perfecting the date in order to make it clear in 

that respect. 

Mr. President, in order to meet the suggestion of my friend from 

Massachusetts and my friend from Rhode Island in regard to some of 

these piers and breakwaters, that for our common interest they have 

to be resorted to at times and in case of distress, etc., by everybody on 

equal t.erms, I desire to modify the amendment I have offered, so as to 

make it read as the Clerk will report. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont modi· 

:ties his amendment--

The CHIEF CLERK. So a.a to read: 

On prepayment of such rent therefor, and under said limitations as to time 

and use and such other conditions of such 1·ight as shall be prescribed by the 

Secretary of 'Var, a.nd always revoka.ble hy him, and which shall not be ex- tended beyond the close of the year ending .June 30, 1891; a.nd thereafter no Government pier or dock shall be leased to or be permitted to be used by private persons otherwise than in common by all, under such regulations as the Secretary of War may prescribe. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. That, Mr. President, I think, nieets the suggestion of my friend from M~chusetts, that wherever this may be done 

with safety to the public mterest it shall be done freely and to everybody alike, and that exclusive privileges shall not be given to anybody. 

Mr. SHERMAN. The question is subject to a division, and 1 make 

my point of order ou the last part, that it is legislation applying to all 

the property in docks in the United States of America. 

But I wish to call attention also to the provision as it stands. It 

seems to me that it accomplishes every object that is desirable, with a simple addition that a reasonable charge might be made for the use of 

these docks. I will read it as it now stands in the bill on page 15: 

The-owners of dock property abutting on the east Government pier on Grand River~ 

That is proper legislationshall have the right to load and unload coal, ore, and othe1· freight over so much of said pier as lies north of the inner shore-line represented on map in 

the Report of the Chief of Engineers of 1881, under such limitations as to time 

and use as shall be approved by the Secretary of War, and in consideration 

thereof the owneM of such dock property shall, at their own proper cost and expense, sufficiently repair, renew, and protect the portion of said pier so used 

and do all necessary dredging in Grand River, in front thereof, all such repairs' 

renewals, and drediring to be done under the supervision of the Chief of Engi: neers of the United States Army. 

Now, Mr. President, this proposition, as it stands. contains every 

safeguard that is reasonable and right; that is, they shall control the 

part that they occupy temporarily, and any repair or renewal of the 

pier at the place shall be borne by the company, and all necessary con- trol in front of their property, of such renewals and repairs, shall he 

under the supervision of the Chief of Engineers; so that if any possible 

damai;?;e is done to the pier it mu.st be restored, replaced, and repaired 

by the railroad company. 

! think myself it would be well enough, although it is rather a small 

matter for the United States Government to deal in, to charge them a 

reMonable rent for the use of this pier. But from the very nature of 

thinga they mast use the pier. They could not unload their vessels 

without using the pier. 

The extent of the navigation is on1y so far as the improvements have 

been made, probably not more than 200 leet from the shore. Then 

the pier is run out to the lake-shore line, and these railroad companies 

that use the pier or who run their tracks over the pier build out ex- tensive works on this shore-line by ma.king new land; and it is utterly 

impossible for them to unload their vessels in any other way except 

alongside the pier, and tlley must carry the freight over the pier. It 

is impossible to do it in any other way. 

Mr. MITCHELL. If the amendment should be adopted, would it 

not be wall to provide for vessels engaged generally in private enterprises though they might sometimes have Government. freight? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Oh, yes; I take it that the general provision contained in the bill will accomplish that. I made the point of order on that, but I do not suppose that will be adopted any way. I am only 

talking about this particular case now. 

Sometimes I know there is a struggle between rival railroads, but ~ach of the railroads that has a connection at this port has a place 

where it can unload its vessels. They own the land in the rear of the 

pier, made at great expense, and, without that privilege of carrying 

their commerce over the pier, as a matter of course they would withdraw their railroad tracks and withdraw all that commerce, and that 

would be the end of it. 

You might just as well require t.hem before they touch Lake Erie to 

build a pier to enable them to bring their vessels op to land. That is 

the idea, to apply to all the commerce of the country. As a matter of course that disposes of all your river and harbor improvements. 

Now, these railroads are the agents of the people. They come there 

fer the purpose of carrying this lake commerce to the interior, and they can not approach the waters of the lake except at a Government pier 

unless they build a pier themselves, and that is beyond the use or the means at the disposal of any private company or private corporation. 

They must necessarily use the facilities furnish•.!d by the Government. 

No private citizen, no private corporation could build a pier into Lake 

Erie without beinggailty of a criminal act. 

Individuals can not invade the navigable waters of the lake without 

the permission of Congress, and Congress does not in any case that I 

know of give private parties the right to build a pier into navigable 

waters. That is done by the Government of the United State'3 in aid 

of commerce; and then private corporations and citizens come and nse the facilities which have thus been rendered to commerce; they ought 

to use them wisely .and it ought to be under strict regulation, but nec- essarily they must use these piers as the places and meansof transporting or handling products, whether corn or wheat or iron ore or coal. 

Here at this particular place and at all the ports along Lake Erie 

the great articles of commerce are coal and iron ore. The amount of 

coal now shipped from Ohio to Canada is greater far than the amount 

of coal shipped from Nova Scotia to the United States, while the 

amount of coal shipped to other ports of the United States, especially . the Northwest, is greatly larger than the entire tonnage of coal from 

Nova Scotia. 

This.commerce is in these great articles, one of coal going northwards clear up to Port Arthur and far np to Duluth and all along the 

upper country. The coal is carried from here one way, and iron ore is brought back, and at half a dozen of these wharves along the shores 

of Lake Erie these articles are exchanged, one sent away and the other 

coming in, and these piers are good for nothing at all and there is no use in building them_unless they are aids and facilities for this com- merce. 

To say by the general provision of the amendment of the Senator 

from Vermont that no Government piers shall be used by private people is ab!lol ntely to destroy their use. The Government of the United 

States does not want to use these piers, or very rarely. While there 

is only one Government vessel on the whole of the northern lakes and we are bound by treaty arrangement not to have any more, if nothing 

~uld land at these piers but that poor Government vessel, what would 

be the use of building them? They are built for private purroses, to 

aid commerce conducted by private individuals, and to deny that use to them is to destroy them. 

I think I need not discuss the m.:itter farther. I know of no objection to the bill as it stands in this respect, and I shall vote against any 

amendment since I have come to read carefully the provisions of the 

bill. 

Mr. FRYE. Here are the two piers at Chicago [indicating on a map]; 

here is the crib· work on the left-hand side on the Chicago River, about 

2,500 feet Jong, extended right a1on~the shore of the river on this side. 

On this side the crib-work here and here and here and here [indicating]-the scale is about 150 feet to the inch-it is about 600 feet. Then comes the Government pier, about 600 feet Ion~. 

Now, if the amendment proposed by the Sena.tor from Vermont is 

adopted, of coarse nobody could have the use of any of this 2,000 feet 

[indicating] or of any of this on the ri~ht-hand side of the river, and 

over 2,000 feet of that river front would be actually closed up to com- merce. 

On the left-hand side this is owned here [indicating], the first 400 

feet, by Mr. McCormick, and occupied by the Western Transit Company. The next 200 feet are occupied by the Lehigh V:alley Transit 

Company, and soon, the whole length of the Government pier thereon 

the left-hand side being occupied. 

There is no way on the face of the earth for them to make any use 

, ' 

~· 

·. 

·-

·-

I 

'. 

·. 

- ) ' 

-. 

-. 

.{ 

. -· 

: , ' 

'\ : ., 

I • -

.: . 
. , " -

'• 

-. 

.. 

.. ' 

' 

' . 

.. \ 

... ' .. ~ ' .. • 

·. 

.· -, 

, 8682 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 16, 

of the Chicago River for that 2, 000 feet nnless they handle their freight 

over that le1t-hand pier [indicating], which renders it practically useless. 

On the right-hand side take the Government pier in red ink, about 

600 or 700 foet long. The Illinois Central Railroad has built in the 

rear of that pier the whole length, about 200 feet wide and about 600 

feet long-has built up land, owning right up against the Government 

pier. The Illinois Central Railroad can not use that land and the 

river unless it ean handle its freight over the Government pier. The 

Government pier is not worth one cent to the Government of the United 

States. It b3S been built and has served its purpose, and is to all intents and purposes the boundary line of the river dock on each side, 

and the Senator's amendment proposes that no one shall be permitted 

to use that for the entire length. 

I wish to say to the Senator that the vessel-owners have sent in a 

very heavy petition in favor of permission to use this Government pier, 

and a bill passed the Senate a short time ago to authorize that use. 

Now, the Senator proposes to amend his amendment by providing that 

all people shall have the free use, and in that way to obviate the objection which was made. Buthowcan anybo~yhave thefreeuseofthese 

piers when the land behind them is owned by private parties? It 

would be a trespass every time they undertook to make use of it if 

those parties forbade their going over the land. 

Here is where the lliinois Central Railroad has owned this land, the 

whole 600 feet [indicating]. How can anybody except the Illinois Central Railroad land goods over that pier on to the land, and how on this 

other side [indicating], where it is owned by private parties the whole 

distance? 

When these piers were started the land did not go down to the piers, 

but it has been made by gradual accretions until it extends the whole 

length of the pier except about 175 feet, as I understand, on this righthand pier [indicating], reaching out into the lake, and all of the accretions are owned by somebody. In the rear of the Government pier the 

land is owned down to it. On each side of the Government pier the 

land is owned up to it by somebody. 

Now, as a matter of course no one can desire to obtain a lease except 

the party who owns the land adjoining. The Government could not 

sell this pier to anybody except the person who owned the land adjoining. I do not see for the life of me the slightest objection to using 

these piers, and I do see a very serious objection to the latter part 01 

the amendment of the Senator from Vermont. 

Now here [exhibiting another map] is Fairport, which is under consideration. On the lefli-hand side [indicating] is a pier and on the 

right-hand side a pier, extending out, perhaps, 2,000 feet into the lake. 

It is all deep water between those two piers. The Government pier on 

the right-hand side [indicating] extends the whole length there. The 

land has been made by accretion until it reaches out to that point on 

this side [indicating]. It did not reach it at all when it was started. 

On the other side the accretions have extended the land up to this 

point nearly 1,500 feet [indicating]. Now, the fand on the outside of 

each of these piers is owned by private parties, and if the Senator's 

amendment were adopted no one could use these piers or could be permitted to do so, for that is all that the amendment of the committee 

provided for, that the freight should be landed over the Government 

piers. That is the only way that that river can be used from that 

point [indicating], the northerly end of the pier to the southerly end 

of the pier-the only way that that river can be used by vessels bearing freight to be landed on the shores here [indicating] is by landing 

over the Government pier. 

Take the pier at Buffalo, about which considerable disturbance has 

been made. The pier bas been occupied over and over again by railroad corporations; and cribs, or whatever they call them, for coal, have 

been built right in the piers, and the Government has been compelled 

twice to send a company of soldiers there to clean out the Government 

piers occupied without any authority of law. I went down and had an interview with General Casey in relation to these things, and be 

told me be could not see any earthly reason why these piers ehould 

not be occupied. They vary from 15 feet wide on the top to 25 feet. 

They extend from 2,500 to ~.ooo feet out into the lake, and gradually 

these accretions come until perhaps the pier of itself will not be more 

than 100 feet into the lake. 

All that land is owned by somebody, and General Casey says why 

all that should be closed up and commerce not have free access into 

these piers is beyond bis comprehension. The only objection that has 

ever been made to it by anybody before the committee, or made to me 

privately, has been that very likely two or three vessels might lie side 

by side in front of one of these piers unloading, and if they did that 

that would fill up the passage and delay and binder vessels which were 

coming through the opening. Of course it would, but there is not a 

city in the United States, certainly none of the large cities, that does not 

confer the authority on harbor-masters, sa that the harbor-master can 

make a rule that no more than one vessel shall be permitted to lie beside the pier, thai no one shall discharge more than one hour or two 

hours or three or four hours. It is entirely within the power of the 

harbor-master. If there is no harbor-master then the municipal authorities can provide without the slightest difficulty that these vessels 

shall not lie so as to discommode vessels that are coming in and going 

out. 

General Casey says that these piers are utterly useless to the Government. They can all be leased to parties who are entirely responsible, so that the Government cap be relieved ot all expense of keeping 

them up and keeping them in repair; it can be relieved still further 

from the expense of dredging the river in front of the piers, and even 

beyond that it can obtain rentals from parties who desire their use. 

Of course, I have..not the slightest intere.st uuderthesunin this matter. It does not have any extension down into the region of the country where I live. The only care I have about it is to give commerce as 

free and unlimited and uncontrolled liberty in these piers and over these 

piers as possible. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I think we should all agree that commerce should 

h~ve free intercourse and that it should not be sold out to private corporations for the exclusive occupation of works of the United States. 

Perhaps that is an obsolete idea, but I still retain it for one. 

Now, when we take these two maps that my friend has referred to, 

what do we find? What he calls the Chicago River beginning with 

the first map, as shown on that blue map, is part of Lake Michigan. 

That is, the piers were not built along the shores of the Chicago River. 

They were built in order to get over the bar outside of the mout~. of 

the Chicago River into Lake Michigan, unless I am greatly mlSlnformed. 

Mr. FRYE. That is simply a just criticism of my language. That 

is what I understand it waR. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Am I not right? 

Mr. FRYE. Youare right. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Very well. I suppose the Senator meant that. 

We should not have any controversy about topographical facts. 

Now, in order to admit vessels, all vessels of all people of the United 

States, on equal terms into the city of Chicago and into what is called 

the Chicago River, there being a bar at the outside of the river, the 

United States was called upon tobuild and did build two piers extending from either end of the bank of the river oat into the lake across the 

bar, and then dug it up. There were some people at that time who 

supposed that the United States at Chicago owned the land on one or 

both sides as a reservation-Fort Dearborn reservation, I believe it 

was-and whatever there was in front of it out to navigable water on 

the lake belonged to the United States as a piece of property, but 

through one arrangement and operation, partly by the vote of the Senate and otherwise, it turns out that the railroads became the proprietors of it without the United States getting any compensation. 

That may have been right, it may have been wrong, but that is the 

fact. Having got into possession of this shoal water outside of the 

piers in Lake Michigan, they ran their tracks close down to the edge of 

the piers and probably upon them, but I am not sure about that, but 

no matter, and then undertook to exercise or obtain authority from 

time to time to make use of those piers as wharves and docks for their 

exclusive use, the United States having built them, to the exclusion of 

everybody else who might wish to run a schooner alongside of a pier 

or drive UT.> on the pier without touching the railroad trackata.11, which 

is outside of it, being 25 or 50 feet wide, into the city. But no, the 

railroad corporation is to have the exchi.Qive privilege of that frontage; 

by right or by wrong it bas become the possessor of the waters of the 

lake which have filled up artificially and otherwise behind the pier. I 

may be entirely wrong, but I do not think that is right. 

The same thing is true at Fairport, in the State of Ohio. It is not a 

lining by a dock of the shore of a river inland; it is the projection of 

two jetties to make a free passage between them from the deep waters 

of the lake up into the river, where everybody stands on an eqnal footing. The piers being projected, it would be extremely convenient for 

a railroad that wishes to monopolize the whole business to run down 

to this pier, where there would be shelter against the wind, and have 

nobody else allowed to go on the pier and run there in this case, and 

getting a monopoly. 

I do not believe in monopolies, and I do not believe in the Government of the United States-differing from my friend from Obio-buildiug these works for the benefit of private parties. The Government 

builds them to make a passage-way in these shoal waters of Lake Erie 

into a river that it was thought commen·e required to have improved 

and give access to . Now, there is a curious thing about the pro~ress of this legislation. 

In the former law it was provided that the Secretary of War might 

grant licenses to anybody that he pleased to occupy by tran.-,it over it 

of this Grand River pier that we now have in the bill on the payment 

of such a rent as be should think would be right. That gave, in my 

opinion wrongfully, power to the Secretary of War to put the use of 

that pier into the exclusive possession of one party. However, he did 

it at a rent to be paid of $2,000 a. year, and only a lease for one single 

year. That expired a few months ago and the railroad company did 

not pay the rent. They occupied the pier to the exclusion of everybody else. They have since paid it, since attention was called to the 

fact that they had not paid it. So the rent is now paid, but the lease 

has expired • 

Under the old law, if this was all out, the Secretary of War would 
:· I 

, . , ....... ... --; ... ,, . .. • • • l 

.· ... ..... •' 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. .. 8683 

· have the right to lease that pier again to that company or to anybody 

else who would pay for it for such rent as he could, bnt this House 

bill provides a perpetual and irrevocable grant to the owners of the 

dock property abutting on this Government pier; that is, the people got 

out in the shoal water and in possession and ownership, I assume, of the 

thing behind it, a perpetual right, irrevocable as it stands, a grant of 

title to make use of that pier for their purposes and an exclusive use 

for their purposes; and for what compensation? I am not reading the 

wonls now of it, but the effect of it is that the consideration they are 

to pay for it, the limitation only being as to time and use, the time 

and manner of use to be approved by the Secretary of War-and in 

consideration of it what are they to do? Pay $2,000 a year as they 

did last year? Not at all. They are to agree that they will take care 

of that pier as far as they occupy it on their front at their own expense, 

and they agree that they will take out the sand in front of it! 

In other words, it becomes the exclusive property of these people, 

they agreeing to keep it in repair, to keep the sand out in front of it. 

'l'hat is a great deal worse than the law was last yea1·. It becomes theirs 

absolutely, with an obligation which it will be somewhat difficult to 

enforce, as we have found about some other property of the United 

States-a duty t-0 keep the navigation clear. Supp.ose they do not, 

what are you going to do about it? Yon are going to tax the peopleot 

the United States to dig it out at the public expense, and then you are 

going to bring l1Jl action at law against them, and what luck you would 

have in such an action at law remains to be seen. 

Mr. FRYE. The firstportionoftbeamendmentoftbe Senator from 

Vermont I do not have t be slightest objection to, and as the amendment 

is capable of diviRion, one portion of it relating to the item under consideration and the other portion being general law, I ask for a division 

of the amendment. 

Mr. DOLPH. I do not prop.ose to discuss this precise question, but 

there are some suggestions I desire to make in regard to the use of 

Government bulkheads or breakwaters made for the purpose of improving the navigation of the navigable waters of the United States. 

I do not agree with the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHER~IAN] that they 

are constructed intentionally for the purpose of affording what might 

be'called dockage room or wharfage. The United States, I apprehend, 

would have no power to construct breakwaters for that purpose unless 

it was for its own use as docks, but under the authority of Congress to 

regulate commerce between the States Congress has power to improve 

the navigable waters of the United States and can exercise it and protect the same, and in the exercise of that power wherever it is neces- sary to build a bulkhead and breakwater proceed to occupy the bed 

of the navigable waters of the United States for the purpose of constructing such works. 

The beds of the navigable streams belong to the States by virtue ot 

their sovereignty. The ownership, however, as I understand it, is subject to the right of the necessary use of the same for the l?urp.oses of 

navigation. Congress, therefore, in constructingthesepiersoccupiestbe 

property of the States and necessarily interferes even with the riparian 

rights of shore-owners, who are subordinate also to this right of the use of navigable streams for the purpose of their improvement. 

Sometimes these piers or bulkheads are built at right angles with 

the shore, sometimes they are built diagonally from the shore, so as to 

form an acute angle with the shore, and sometimes they are built along 

nearly parallel with the shore. In fact, they may be conceived of as 

being built in almost any direction anil interfering more or less with 

riparian rights. I do not apprehend for a moment that the United 

States acquired, by the use of this property, the bed of the stream 

and the shore and, by its interference with and appropriation of the 

rights of shore-owners, a right to construct a public wharf or to maintain erections for that purpose. The right of the United States to 

maintain such a structure, I apprehend, is for the purpose of improving navigation. But there are certain equities in favor of the shortowners, who are entitled to certain riparian rights which !think ought 

to be recognized. Certainly they ought to be recognized if the license 

is to be issued or executed. by the United States to use these structures. I do not know that the case under consideration in the city of Chicago 

differs materially from any other case. To be sure, there it appears 

that there bas been an accretion of the shore, but that accretion be- comes a part of the shore, becomes subject to private ownership, and 

is undoubtedly at the present time subject to private ownership. It 

would certainly be beyond the power of Congress, and it would be 

inequitable to say that the entire public should have the right to the 

use of this bulkhead or breakwater, so as to connect with the adjacent 

shore and deprive the owner of bis riparian rights. 

It was for that reason that I thought when this portion of the bill 

was under consideration in the committee that this was a fair provision, because it seemed to recognize the right of the shore-owner and to 

give him the opportunity of utilizing his riparian rights in connection 

with the Government work and at a fair compensation to the Government in the way of rebuilding and maintaining in repair the Government breakwater. 

The question is accompanied with difficulty in any light in which 

you view it. I think the shore-owner has certain rights which ought 

to be recognized, and the power of the ("xovemment is limited in the 

u~e of the property. 

I suppose the Senator from Vermont does not believe for a moment 

that, if one of these piers should become no longer necessary for the improvement of navigation or should be in fact no longer u ed in that 

connection, still the Government could maintain the pier and interfere 

with private property both upon the ground and the pier itself, and 

lease it out for the purpose of a dock and receive revenue from it. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is exactly what I am opposed to. I think, 

as far as we are concerned, there should be a common right to everybody, and let the riparian owners and the vessel-owners arrange their 

own affairs on their own account. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MANDERSON in the chair). The 

Senator from Maine [Mr. FRYE] bas demanded a division of the pending question. The Chair is of opinion that the amendment is clearly divisible, and he will indicate to the Secretary the point where it seems 

to be clearly divisible.~ That which will now be read is the first proposition to be acted upon. · 

The Secretary read as fol1ows: 

On prepayment of such rent therefor and under such limitations as to time 

and use and such other conditions of such right as shall be prescribed by the 

SecretaryonVar, and always revocable by him. and which shall not be extended 

beyond the close of the year ending June 30, 1891. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The second proposition will now be 

read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

And thereafter no Government pier or dock shall be leased or permitted to be 

used by private persons otherwise thl'n in common by all under such regula- tions as the Secretary of War may prescribe. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to strike 

out and insert the first proposition. -

Mr. SHERMAN. I think the Senator from Vermont is in error in 

proposing to strike out the clause which enables the Chief of Engineers to 

require them to make certain repairs, because the motion of the Sena.-

tor from Vermont strikes that all out. The last clause in the part that 

bas been read I move to strike out. Let it be read again from the beginning. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

On prepayment of such rent therefor and under such limitations as to time 

and use a.nd such other conditions of such right as shall be prescribed by the 

Secretary of \Var, and always revocable by him. 

Mr. SHERMAN. That last clause I propose to leave out. 

Mr. ED~1UNDS. Not the last. 

Mr. FRYE. That prepayment of rent takes the place. It is fully 

as well for the Government to make its own repairs. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I have no objection to their paying a reasonable 

rent. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. The Senator from Ohio wishes to get out the 

limitation to 1891. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheSenatorfromOhiowishes to strike 

out the words which will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

And which shall not be extended beyond the close of the year ending June 30, 1891.. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on striking outfrom 

the first proposition the words just read. Is the Senate ready for the 

question? [Putting the question.] The "ayes" seem to have it. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Let us have a division. . 

The question being put, there were, on a. division-ayes 27, noes 5. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote disclosing the want of a 

quorum, the roll of the Senate will be called. 

Mr. EDMUND3. The shortest way will be to have the yeas and 

nays. That will save one call. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Let the amendment be again reported. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question being on the motion to 

strike ont and insert the first part of the proposition, the Senator from 

Ohio moves to strike out of the first proposition the words which will 

be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

so~I's~~hich shall not be extended beyond the close o! the year ending June' 

The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. CULLOM (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from Delaware [1\Ir. GRAY]. I withhold my vote until I see 

whether a quorum is obtained, and, if not, I shall cast my vote afterwards. 

Mr. PASCO (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from Illinois [Mr. FARWELL]. In his absence I withhold my 

vote. 

Mr. SHERMAN (when his name was called). I am paired with my 

colleague [Mr. PAYNE]. 

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa (when his name was called). I am paired 

with the Senator from Maryland [Mr. WILSON]. In his absence I 

withhold my vote. 

The roll-call was concluded. 

, ,, 

., 

. / . ,• 

'.-· 

,. 

.. -

.. 

. 

.' 

... 

. ': 

·' 

... - 1"'\ 

,,. . 

._ . '- .,· . . 
. , 

·~ 

r • 

·. 

8684 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN.ATE. AUGUST 16, 

l\Ir. DA VIS. I am paired with the Senator from Indiana [Ur. 

TURPIE], but by arrangement I am at liberty to vote. I vote ''yea. n 

Mr. COCKRELL. Notwithstanding I am paired with the Senator 

from Massachusetts [Mr. DA WES], I undersliand from his colleague 

[Mr. HoARl that I am at liberty to vote, and I vote "nay." 

Mr. CULLOM. If a quorum has not yet voted I will take the liberty of castin~ my vote. 'The PRESIDING OFFICER. No quorum has yet voted. 

Mr. CULLOM. Then I vote " yea." 

Mr. PLATT. I am paired with the Senator from Virginia [Mr. 

BARBOUR]. My vote can make no possible difference, and I withhold 

it. 

Ur. BATE. My colleague [Mr. HARRIS] is absent from the Senate on account of sickness. He is paired with the Senator from Vermont 

(Mr. MORRILL]. 

Mr. FAULKNER. I desire to say that my colleague [Mr. KENN_A] 

u detained from the Senate by reason of illness. He is paired with 

the oenator from Colorado [Mr. WOLCOTT]. 

The result was announced-yeas 40, nays 9; as follows: 

Aldrich, 

A.lJen, 

Allison, 

Berry, 

Blackburn, 

Cameron, 

Carlisle, 

Casey, 

Coke, 

Colquitt, 

Cullom, 

Daniel, 

Davis, 

Dixon, 

Dolph, 

Eustis, 

Faulkner, 

Frye, 

Gibson, 

Hale, 

YEA8-40. 

Hampton, 

Hawley, 

Higgins, 

Hiscock, 

Hoar. 

Manderson, 

Mit.chell, 

Moody, 

Plumb, 

Power, 

NA)"S-9. 

Pugh, Quay, 

Ransom, 

Sanders, 

Sawyer, 

Spooner. 

Stockbridge, 

Teller, 

Walt.hall, 

'Vashburn, 

Bate, 

Blair, 

Cockrell, 

Edmunds, 

Gorman, 

Hearst, Reagan, Jones of Arkansas, Vest. 

A.BSENT-35. 

Barbour, George, Morrill, 

Blodgett, Gray, Paddock, 

Brown, Harris, Pa!!!co, 

Butler, Ingall!S, Payne, 

Call, Jones of Nevad<~, Pettigrew, 

Chandler, Kenna, Pierce, 

Dawes, McMillan, Platt, 

Evarts, l\Ic.Pherson, Sherman, 

Farwell, Morgan, Squire, 

So the motion to etrike out was agreed to. 

Slflnford, 

Stewart, 

Turpie, 

Vance. 

Voorhees, 

'ViJson of Iowa, Wilson of Md. Wolcott. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now recurs upon the 

first propoeition as amended. · Mr. FRYE. There i8 no objection to that. 

The amendment as amended was agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now recurs upon the 

second proposition of the amendment,. which will be stated. 

Mr. SHE.KMAN. I raise the point of order on that that it is general 

legislation applying ro all piers. 

The PRESIDINGOFFICER. The second proposition of the amendment will be stated. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows : 

Thereafter no Government pier or dock: shall be leased to or permitted to be used by private persons otherwise than in common by all under such regula- tion!! as the Sec:etary of War way prescribe. 

The PRESIDING OFFIOER. Upon this amendment the Senator 

from Ohio raises the point of order that it is ~eneral legislation upon an appropriation bill. The Chair holds that it is general legislation,· because while it applies to this particular section it applies to all other 

docke and piers, and is clearly, the Chair thinks, general legislation, 

and therefore it can not be received nnder the rules. 

The bill is still in Committee of the Whole, and open to amendment.. 

Mr. SPOONER. I send ro the desk and offer the amendment of 

which I gave notice yesterday, to come in after the amendment proposed yesterday by the Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS] and 

adopted. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from 

Wisconsin will be stated. 

The CHIEF CLERK. After section 6 it is proposed to insert the following as a new section: 

That it sball not be lawful to cast, throw, empty, or unlade, or cause, suffer, or procure to be cast, thrown, emptied, or unladen, either from or out of any ship, vessel, lighter, barge, boat, or other craft, or from the shore, pier, wharf, 

furnace, manufacturing establishments, or mills of any kind whatever, any ballast, stone, slate, gravel, earth, rubbish, wreck, filth, slabs, edgings, sawdust, 

slag, cinders, ashes, refuse, or other waste of any kind into any port, road, 

roadstend, harbor, haven, navigable rivers, or navigable waters of the United States which shall tend to impede or obstruct navigation, or to deposit or place, or cau!!le, suffer, or procure to be deposited or placed, any ballast. stone, slate, 

gravel, earth, rubbish, wreck, filth, slabs, edgings, sawdust, or other waste in any place or situation on the bank of any navigable waters where the same shall be liable to be wMhed into such navigable waters, either by ordinary or high tide or by storms or floods, or otherwise, whereby navigation shall or ma.y be impeded or obstructed: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall extend or be construed to extend to the casting out, unlading, or throwing out of any ship or vessel, lighter, barge, boat, or other craft any stones, rocks, bricks, 

lime, or other materials used, or to be used, in or toward the building, repair-

·. 

ing, or keeping in repair any quay, pier, wharf, weir, bridge, building, or other work lawfully erected or to be erected on the banks or sides of any port, 

harbor, haven, channel, or navigable rh•er, or to the casting out, unlading, or depositing of any material excavated for the improvement of navigable waters into such places and in such manner as may be deemed by the United State~ 

officer supervising said improvement most judicious and practicable and for the best interests of such improvements, or to prevent the depositiug of any substance aboV"e mentioned under a permit from the Secretary of Wnr, which he is hereby authorized t-0 grant, in any place designated by him where navi- gation will not he obstructed thereby. SEC. 2. That it shall not be lawful to build any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, 

dam, weir, breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or other structure 01o1tside established harbor-lines without the permission of the Secretary of 'Var in any port, road- stead, haven, harbor, navigable river, or other waters of the United States in such manner as shall obstruct or impair navigation, commerce, or anchorage of said waters; and it shall not be lawful hereatter to commence the construction of any bridge, bridge-draw, bridge piers and abutments, causeway, or other works over or in any port, road, rondstead, haven, harbor, navigable river, or navigable waters of the United States, under a ny act of the Legislative Assembly of any State, until the location and plan of such bridge b1we been submitt.ed to nnd approved l>y the Secretary of 'Var, or to excavate 01· fill, or in any manner to alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity of the channel of said navigable waters of the United States, unless approved and authorized by the Secretnry of War: PrO'Lided, That this section shall not apply to any bridge, 

bridge-draws, bridge piers and abutments, the construction of which has been heretofore duly authorized by law, or be so construed na to authorize the con- struction of auy bridge, draw-bridge, bridge piers and abutments, or other works, u11der any act of the Legislature of any ::-tate, o\·er or in any stream, 

port, ro1tdstead, haven, or harbor, or other navigable water not wholly within the limits of each State. SEC. 3. That all wrecks of vessels, and other obstructions to the nangation of any port, roadstead, harbor, or navigable river, or other navigable waters of the United States, which may ha Ye been permitted by the owners thereof or the parties by whom they were caused to remain to the injury of commerce and navigation for a longer period than two months, shall be s ubject to be broken up an•J removed by the Secretaryof\Var, without liability foranydamage to the owners of the same. SEC. 4. That it shall not be lawful for any person or person to take possession of or make e for any exclusive purpose, build npon, alter, deface, injure, ob· struct, or in any other manner impafr the usefulness of any sea-wall, bulk-head, 

jetty, dike, levee, walk, pier, or other work built by the United States for the preservation and improvement of any of its navigable waters, or boundary 

marks, tide-g·auges, s1uveying stations. buoys, or other established marks, nor remove for ballast or other purposes any stone or other material composing such works. :SEC. 5. That every person, persons, or corporation offending airaim1t the pro· vision!!! of this act shall, for each and every such offense, for1eit and pay a pen· a.lty of $2.~. besides such other sum as may be found, in any a.ct.ion for the re- covery of the penalty or penaltie;i incurred under this act, to be the expense of making good the damage incurred or of removing to a proper place the things 

deposited in vioiation of this act, such penalties to be recovered by action in the name oft.he United StateM in any district court within whose jurisdiction 11uch otrense shall he committed, or in any district wherein the defendant may be found, said action to be instituted by the district attorney for such district at the instance of any person complainina. SEc. 6. '!'hat nuy damage tor injury done to any property of the United States mentioned in section 4 of this act by any vessel shall be a lien upon such ves- sel, her machinery, apparel, and furniture, the payment of which may be en- forced by the United States in a suit instituted in the admiralty court of the di <>- trict wherein said injury was done, or in the district where said vessel may be found. 

SEC. 7. That it shall be the duty of officers and agents having the !Supervision, on the part of the United States, of the works in progress for the preservation and improvement of said navigable waters, and. in their absence. of the United States collectors of customs and other re,·enue officers, to enforce the provisious of this law by giving information to the district attorney of the United States for ~he district in which any violation of any provision of this act shall have been committed. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

of the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. SPOONER]. 

Mr. CARLISLE. Do I undeirst.a.nd the Senator from Wisconsin to 

offer this as an amendment to the bill now pending? 

Mr. SPOONER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CARLISLE. It may be that the provisions in this amendment 

are entirely unobjectionable, but it seems to me that it is too important a measure to be taken up in this way, and I make the point of 

order upon it. 

Ur. DOLPH. I hope before that is done the Senator from Keot\;c'ky 

will allow me to state that this is a precjse copy of a bill which ha -

passed the Senate at the present session and bas been reported favor- ably in the other House by the Committee on Rivers and Harbors ancl 

is upon the Calendar there. It has been three times considered and 

repo1·ted by the Committee on Commerce of the Senate. It bas bee:i 

twice passed by the Senate and twice reported favorably in the other 

House. 

Mr. CARLISLE. My only purpose fa making the point of order is 

to facilitate the consideration of the bill now before the Senate. I think 

it is the desire of Senators on both sides of the Chamber to dispose of 

the bill to-day, and it does seem to me that if we take up n. long and 

important matter like the one just read we shall not be able to dispose oftbe river and harbor bill to-day. If I could be assured that it could 

be disposed of in a very short time I would not in ist upon the point 

of order, but I am afraid if we get into a discussion of this amendment 

it will continue for the remainder of the day. The measure, as I understand, has passed the Senate as a separate bill and is now pending in 

the House of Representatives, and if we pass it here as part of this bill 

it will still have to be considered in the House and it seems to me tbat 

the House might just as well dispose of the bill that they have. 

Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair calls the attention of the 

Senate to the rule which requires that when thi." point of order is made 

it shall be decided without debate. · Senatvrs can proceml only by con-
' . 

f 

. , . . 

. ' 

•,..._ .... / 

. ' 

.. 1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE. . , 8685 

sent of the Senate. Is there objection to the Senator from Wisconsin 

proceeding? 

Mr. CARLISLE. I will reserve the point·of order until the Senator 

from Wisconsin conciudes. 

Mr. SPOONER. I shall take no time of the Senate in discussing 

either the point of order or the proposed amendment. I suppose the 

point of order is well taken, if the Senator from Kentucky desires to 

press it, although this amendment is not more general legi'!lation than some propositions which the Senate has ingrafted upon the pending 

bill. 

As stated by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. DoLPII]-the bill, I think, was drawn bv him and is kno.wn as the Dolph bill-this Jtroposition was consider~ by the Senate some years ago and pa.ssed. It was again 

passed at the last session on the unanimous report of the Committee on Commerce, I believe, and it was again passed at this session, the Committee on Commerce unanimously reporting in favor of it. 

The Chief of Engineers very earnestly recommended the passage of 

the measure in his report, which will be fonnd on page 16 of the re- port of the Secretary of War, and my attention was called to the necessity for it by obstructions which were being vlaced in the St. Louis 

River at the bead of Lake Superior, which will almost inevitably cause in a very short time an obstruction to navigation and defeat the utility 

of expenditures being made there by the Government. 

Mr. FRYE. Will the Senator allow me a moment? 

Mr. SPOONER. Certainly. 

Mr. FRYE. I call the Senator's attention to the fact that a very 

important amendment, offered by the Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS], has been adopted which will take care of just such cases as the Senator mentions on the St. Louis River. 

Mr. SPOONER. As I understand the amendment adopted on the 

motion of the Sena.tor from Vermont, it does not take care of such cases. The amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont deals 

with existing obstructions, but practices which will result necessarily 

in an obstruction. which constitute in themselves each day a trespass 

in a sense, but which are not yet obstructions, would not be covered, as I understand it, by the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont. After they become obstructions, not having been authorized by 

law and not having existed for twenty years, they could be removed 

under tbe proposition ingrafted upon the bill yesterday on motion of 

the Senator from Vermont. 

What I wanted to accomplish was to put itin the power of the War 

Department all over the country where the public money is being ex- pended in improving harbors and rivers, great or small, to prevent, by 

prosecution or by the remedy of injunction or such other appropiia.te 

remedy, these daily trespasses which in the end are to constitute ob- . traetiolli; and to cost the Government a great deal of money to re- move. There have been, within my own recollection, a number of instances 

where obstructions have been created in this way. I called the attention of the War Department to the trespass which was inevitably to 

become an obstruction, and they wrote me that there was now no power 

under the law to prevent it, and called my attention to the fact that 

the Department had been for years back urging the necessity of some 

legislation that would protect our harbors and rivers from obstructions 

to navigation and commerce, and referring to the report in favor of this 

bill and the recommendation for it. In fact it has passed the Senate, 

but has not yet passed the other House. 

Of course the power to make these im prov em en ts involves the power 

to protect them after they have been made, and it is a very singular 

fact during ali the years the Government has been expending hundreds 

of millions of dollars that this power which clearly exists in Congress 

bas lain dormant and unexercised. It seems to me proper that in con- nection with a bill appropriating such a vast sum of public moneya.nd there are no unwise expenditures of public money on the whole 

among these improvements-there should be clearly in the War Department power to protect them from trespass and ultimate destruction. 

If there are provisions in this amendment which are objectionable, 

they may be stricken out in the conference committee, and they may 

make such changes as will adapt the proposition to that offered by the 

Senator from Vermont, and make the whole harmonious; and that was my purpose. But, if the Senator from Kentucky insists upon his point 

of order, of course the amendment will have to go out. 

Mr. CARLISLE. I thin!: under the circumstances I must insist on the point of order. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair sustains the point of order, as the amendment is clearly general legislation. 

!IIr. BA.TE. I ofr'er the amendment which I send to the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. 

The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to insert at the end of line 2 on 

page 53, in the clause making appropriations for" Improving Cumberland River, Tennessee and Kentucky, below Nashville," the following: 

The $5,000 heretofore appropriated by act of 2d of August, 1882, for "improv- ing the Cumberland River above the mouth of .Jellico, Kentucky," which said sum of~,000 is yet held over under said act and not expended, be applied to the 

removal or snapandeand·bars in the said Cumberland River above Nashville, 

Tenn., said amount to be thus expended under the direction of the engineer in 

charge of that work, and with the approval of the Secretary of War. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of 

the Senator from Tennessee. 

l\Ir. BA.TE. I would state that this is not an appropriation of money, 

but it is merely a transfer of an appropriation, which baa heretofore 

been made. to snit the convenience of the en~ineer who has charge of 

the entire work, and I offer the amendment at his suggestion. 

'fhelaw ofl882, under which that $5,000 was appropriated to part 

of the Cumberland River above the mouth of J ellieo, will not allow it 

to be applied to the other part of the river for the removal ofsnags and 

sand-bars between that point and Nashville, and the engineer suggests 

that this $5,000 be allowed to be utilized in that way. It is now of no use. It bas been appropriated since 1882 and unused. I ask that 

the amendment be adopted. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I should like to hear an explanation by the chair- man of the committee of what the Chief of Engineers says on this subject. 

Mr. BA.TE, I have it here, and I have his report. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I should like to hear it read. 

Mr. BA.TE. Here it is. Let it be read. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pa.per will be read, if there be no objection. · 

The Secretary read as follows: 

E~GIXEER OFFICE, UNITED STATES AR:UY, 

ll'ash-ville, Tenn., June 30, 1890. 

MY DEAR Sm: I desire to ask your attention to the inclosed clipping from my annual repor\ of 1887 in reference to change of application of the $.5,000 ap- propriated by act of August 2, 1882, for "improving the Cumberland River 

above the mouth of .Jellico, Kentucky." 

This money conld be very advantageously used for keeping in repair the 

present system of works and snagging in the "Cumberland River above Nash· 

ville, Tenn." 

The appropriations now a>ailable for this part of the river are strictly .appli- cable only to the construction of locks and dams, leaving nothing for other 

much-needed work; and as the above-named $5,000 can not be expended at the 

place specified in the act until further legislation is ha.d, of which there is great 

doubt, it would seem adviSl\hle to change the application to "improving Cum.• 

berland River abo"t"e Nashville, Tenn.," as above suggested. 

Yery respectfully, your obedient sen-ant, 

J. W. BARLOW~ 

Lieulenant-Colonei of En91neers. Hon. 'VrLLJAM B. B.-4..TE, 

United Mates &nate, Washington, D. C. 

Mr. EDM:UNDS. That letter is not from the Chief of Engineei-s oi; 

from the War Department. I should like to have the chairman of the 

committee tell us what his information about the matter is. This U, 

from the gentleman in charge of the particular thing, sent direct to thQ 

honorable Senator from Tennessee. What do his superior officers say 

about it? 

Mr. FRYE. The Chief of Engineers says nothing in relation to it, as I remember, at all. It was not brought to the attention of the Chief 

of Engineers, and he makes no allusion to it. 

Mr. BA.TE. I would say to the Sena.tor from Maine, as well a.a to 

the Senator from Vermont, that this letter came to me, as it will be seen by the date, not very long since, and I offered an amendment immediately covering the proposition and sent it to the Committee o.Il 

Commerce. I calied the attention of the clerk of that committee to 

it, as the chairman was not present at the time, and it was printed, anc:I 

bas been lying npon the table here for at least two weeks. The amendment merely provides for the transfer of the appropriation, as Senator\! 

will see, from one point ou the river to another, t-0 be under the charge 

of the same man, who is a lieutenant-colonel of the United States 

Army and assigned to that duty as an engineer. I think the transfer 

should be made. That part of the river that we ask the appropriatiouto be used for is navigable, and boats are daily plying on it, but snags 

and sand-bars are in it that ought to be removed, which are obstructing 

navigation and which nre also endangering to some extent the lives of 

the people passing upon these boats. 

This money has been lying idle for eight years. It has been alreadJ' ' 

appropriated to that particular river: and this bill confines the mone1 

that has been appropriated to the Cumberland River and other localities specifically, and not for this purpose; and therefore I ask that this 

little amount of $5,000 be placed under the direction of the engineer, 

subject to the approval of the Secretary of War, so that it may be utilized in this way and the snags may be taken from the river. It asks no increase of appropriation whatever. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, this item, of course, as I understand, has not been estimated for by th~ Chief of Engineers or by the 

Secretary of War or by the 8ecretary of the Treasury: and would therefore be objectionable as a matter of order; bnt I do not make the objection. To simply add $5,000 at the wish of my friend from Tennessee to the $26, 000, 000 already in the bill is so infinitesimal a matter 

that I for one shall make no point of order about it. 

While I am up, I might just as well say that I had intended to offer an amendment to this wholo bill, when it should have been gone 

through with, to put the law, if agreed to by the Senate, into the con- dition we ha.ve put it on one or two former occasions, when the appropriations proposed were immense and when the state of the Treasury 

.. . : ,, ,, 

,. 

..· 

... 

I 

,. 

i. 

.: 
'I .• 

:... 

:.. 

.. 

; .. 

: : - 1. 

"- - .. " 

8686 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-_ SENATE, AUGUST 16, 

waa quite otherwise, of granting one-half this sum! say $H,OOO,OOO in appropriations of two years ago. I wish to say to the Senator and to 

round numbers (which is a little over one-half of the total amount the Senate that these expenditures are carefully guarded and controlled 

appropriated by the bill), to be expended by the Secretary of Wat, under by the Chief of Engineers and by the Mississippi and Missouri River 

the direction of the President of the United States, in continuation of Commissions, and that they in their discretion determine that there 

the works going on ayd their preservation, as the public interests shall must be always a reserve for contingencies; and the propriety of this 

best require; which would lead him, as it did on former occasions, to course was illustrated the other day when an accident happened at 

expend the bulk of the money for great rivers and places, the expendi- the Sault Ste. Marie Canal. Suppose there bad been no reserve for 

ture on which would accommodate the largest body of the people of contingencies, what would have become of the commerce of this coun- tbe United States for the time being, just as in any municipality the try passing through that gateway between the lakes? One million 

people would all agree that the greart, principal highway through their seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars were reserved from the apviJJage or town ought to lJe first put in repair before they went to the propriation of two years ago for this purpose and had not been expended. 

lanes and the by-ways. It is in thi Treasury of the United States. · The state ot the Treasury, Mr. President, I am very much afraid-I Again, I can point to the Senator a dozen or twenty items in the last am almost afraid to say it; it may not be Republicanism or whatever- river and harbor bill where the appropriations were so small that the 

may turn out, as we now stand on the appropriations proposed in this Engineer Department determined that no work could be economically 

bill and in the other bills that have passed both Houses and that have done until farther appropriations had been made, and thus have all 

passed one or the other, and which, in the round effect, will come to be been held back for another appropriation in order that the work could 

the law that is passed, will turn out on the 30th of June, 1891, to be I be done economically. 

fear, $50,000,000 in round numbers short of the estimated income, as- Again, there are some $700,000 reserved or held to-day in theTreassuminp: that we do not take the duty off sugar. ury of the United States because contractors in their bids refused to 

But take the estimate of the income as it is reported to us by the make a bid, in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers, prudent and 

Secretary of the Treasury in his annual report, which estimates the in- economical for the Government. 

coming revenues on the supposition that the customs laws and the in- Again, about $600,000 of the $4,000,000 have been reta.ined beternal-revenue laws are to be substantially what they arc. In that I cause on a few of our great rivers the high water of the la.st year instate of things, although I have always been in favor and still am of terfered with its expenditure, which is now going on. liberal appropriations out of the Treasury of the United States·for na- At tlMJ end of the next two years, if this appropriation be made, un- tional purposes of internal improvement: as distinguished from mere donbtedly it will be found that from three to four million dollars will 

loca.l and neighborhood purposes, with which !think "¥l have nothing still he in the Treasury of the United States; and, Mr. President, under 

to do, I am quite unwilling to bear my eighty-fourth part of the re- no circumstances, under no contingencies, will the Treasury Departsponsibility of sending to the President of the United States an aggre- ment be called upon this year for more than one-half of the money in 

gate appropriation of $26, 000, 000, when we have already $5, 000, 000 un- this bill, and the next year for one-half; and in view of the commerce 

expended from the last appropriation. I say $5,000,000; I state that of this c.ountry, in view of the commerce of the Great Lakes, the inin rnund numbers. I believe there is in the hands of the Secretary crease in the size of the vessels, and the demand for deeper water, are of War a little over $5,000,000, drawn out of the Treasury and in the $13,000,000 a yen.r an extravagant sum for a. reasonable response to 

hands of disbUTSing officers and liable on contracts-a little less, but the requirements of our immense commerce, for making and keeping 

it is safe for all the purposes I have to say five millions, which added in condition three hundred and sixty-four rivers and harbors? 

to the $26,000,000 to he drawn from the Treasury, makes $31,000,000. Complaint is made, Mr. President, of the increase in the Senate bill. 

I have said, Mr. President, that I had intended to submit such a One million dollars of these became necessary because the Honse did 

proposition to the Senate, which I have here drawn up in a carefal not appropriate the $1,000,000 for the Mis5issippi River, but sent it to 

way, and following the action of Congress on one or two previous occa- the Senate in a separate resolution. Two million dollars have been 

_ sions that, I think, were similar to this, but I have become convinced added, or nearly two million, because the Senate committee, wishing to 

that I shall only weary the patience of the Senate and enter upon a adopt a new policy, and a true policy, of providing for the completion 

perfectly useless acd hopeless enterprise to do it; but I think it right of certain great works, reported and the Senate passed two bills, one 

to say w bat I ha.ve said. for Gal vcston and the other for the Sault Ste. Marie, and they are still 

Mr. FRYE. Mr. President, in reply to the Senator from Vermont, in the House unacted upon, and hence the Senate is compelled to inI desire to say-and what I have to say shall be said briefly-that the crease this bill by that amount, and no Senator will rise and say that 

deepening and preservation of rivers and harbors, everybody will ad- the expenditure is injudicious or unwise. 

mit, are an absolute necessity to the commerce of the country. I have Intimation is made by the Senator from Vermont that what he calls 

no hesitation in saying that the appropriations made for harbors on the local improYements are ~f no special importance to the people of this 

lakes in the last twenty years have reduc.ed the freight rates one-half. country, and that he is willing to spend what is necessary for great 

Any Senator who will look into the commercial growth of the lakes harbors and rivers of the Republic, and so on; and the Chamber of 

will be perfeetly amazed~ There is nothing like it in the whole world Commerce of New York is represented before the Committee on Comoutside of the United States. The size of the vessels has increased merce by its president and directors, and insists upon expenditures of 

within the last ten years one-half, and that increase in size has been ten and fifteen million dollars for building levees up and down the Mis- an absolute necessity, because in small vessels freighting can not be sissippi River, at the same time criticising "local" improvements, and 

done at pre5ent prices. That increase iu the size of vessels and their the metropolitan press of New York insists that many items in the bill 

draught has demanded of the United States increased water, and it is are money thrown a way; that every bayou and creek improved is aim-

.inst as important that Congres.'3 should make the necessary appropria- ply wasting the public moneys; that the expenditures for most of the 

tions for that increase as it is to make any appropriations for any pur- rivers of the South are simply local, of no account to the Republic. I 

pose of the Government. wish to say, in response to these suggestions, that I once held myself 

Mr. President, the appropriations for rivers and harbors are sub- similar ideas, only rejected when it became my duty as a member of 

jected to a scrutiny that no other appropriations are. In the first place, the Commit tee on Commerce to investigate in relation to these matters. 

in every district there is a local engineer, without any selfish interest I wish to place in the RECORD a statement. The State of North 

whatsoever. He makes bis examinationq and investigations and re- Carolina, I think, bas been abused in this direction as much as any 

ports to the Chief of Engineers how much money, in bis opinion, ought State in the United States, because the distinguished Senator from 

to be expended fort he next year. Then the ChiefofEngineers takes each North Carolina [Mr. RL"""8mr] is the most persistent man for appro- one of these estimates, examines it with great care, and gives his opin- priations for his own State there is the Senate and is said to be the 

ion as to how much Congress ought to appropriate for each particular most successful. Roanoke River, North Carolina and Virginia.: Eximprovement for one year. Now, take it for the coming year. The penditures commenced in 1872; have continued for seventeen years; 

local engineers have reported that $46,565,095 ought to be appropri- improvement over 129 miles; total expenditure, $82,000; reduction of 

ated for the rivers and harbors of the United States for this year, and freight charges from 25 to 75 per c.ent·.; development of annual comthe Chief of Engineers has reported, after a careful revision of their merce, total, $10,800,000; increa e in commerce, 130percent. Does the 

figures, that $38,532,550 should be approp1·iated, and to that is t-0 be Senator from Vermont say that that is local and ought not to be ex- added $8,346,250, the estimates of the Mississippi and :Missouri River pended and is not justified? 

CommLc:;sions. · Pamlico and Tar Rivera, North Carolina: Work commenced in 1876; 

Mr. President, every Senator knows that this bill which is now under continued thirteen years; total expenditures, $64, 500; reduction of freight 

consideration is a bill to cover two yea.rs. The bill passed two years charges, 12 to 50 percent.; developmentofannualcommerce, $4,000,000, 

ago was for two, and this is for two, and if it does carry $26, 000, 000 it 60 per cent., by reason of the improvements made. 

does not carry, counting it two years, over one-quarter of what the I am reading from a. report of one of the best engineers in the United 

Chief of Engineers, whose duty it is under his oath to deal fairly and State.c; Army, Mr. Bixby. I could go on here, but I will not. I will 

jusUy with the Treasury of the United States, estimates ought to be ask that these tables be printed in the RECORD as a part of my re- appropriated. It is not the one-sixth of what the local engineers esti- marks. I will say that these rivers were not selected themselves as 

mate ought to be appropriated. In my judgment, that is a sufficient. illnstmtions, but simply because this engineer in charge of this district 

reply to the Senator from Vermont in bis intimation that this bill is obeyed a request of theChietofEngineers, made some four or five years 

extravagant. a£!o, that the en~ineers should make careful c.omputation as to the 

One word more. The Senator says there are $5,000,000 left of the improvements and the increased commerce by reason of the improve-

-. •/ 
.;· .· ,--~ .. - -

1890 . . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE . . -- ·8687 

ments, •and the decrease in freight r4tes and illS1lrance rates. I shall . Mr. ED~IUNDS. I am speaking of the tonnage of the vessels. 

append the statement to my remarks.-::- Mr. FRYE. I do not know anything about the tonnage of the vesSo much has been said about creeks-and it is an unfortunate name sels. 

for a great river-I wish to call attention to three or four creeks that l\Ir. CULLO~I. The number of vessels is 1,092. 

are not in the South. Mr. FRYE. Last year it was 2,228 in eleven months, in 1889. 

Wappinger's Creek. That is in New York, where most ofthis criti- Mr. CULLOU. This is for the year 1889, ns is shown here. 

cism comes from. The commerce which annually passes through this Mr. FRYE. That is only entry. I had entriesand clearances both. 

creek amounts to 70,000 tons, and its value is $6,500,000; and yet it is Now, I can remember when the great Kanawha River was the buga creek. bear of the United States. It was buffeted to and fro in the newspapers 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Where is that? as an attempt on the part of an extravagant Congress to make a river. 

Mr. FRYE. I do not know. Well, it was an attempt to make a river. There is no doubt about that. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. What is the kind of commerce there? There was the river there, but it had such leaps in it that it was use-

.Mr. FRYE. I do not know that. less as it stood, and the attempt on the part of the United States was " 

MaHawan Creek, New Jersey, bas an annual commerce of 130,000 to make a river. It went to work. It has its two-thirds made now. 

tons, valnecl at over $2, 000, ODO. It commenced in 1881, and during tbat year there was freighted down 

Alloway Creek, New Jersey: Its commerce annually is $1,000,000. that river 9,000,000 bushels of coal, and in 1889 26,921,000 bushele; 

Now, I do not go into the South tor creeks. I simply happened in and, further, by the railroad in 1881 there wag carried some 7,000,000 

looking over the river and harbor bill to see these creeks in New Jersey bushels of coal, and last yea.r 27, 000, 000; so that the coal product the 

and New York and I selected them as illustrations. Many more can Great Kanawha sent in last year was 52,000,000 bushels. 

be found in the South. Now, it is estimated that both river and railroad freights have been 

Now, take some other imprornments. Suppose we had refused im- reduced one-half-one-half on 52,000,000 bushels of coal, and reduced 

provements, for instance, on some of the lake harbors. Take Ash ta- only because Congress had the courage to create a river, notwitbstandbula Harbor, Ohio. In 1867 151 vessels, with 13, 000 tons, used that ing the newspapers charged them with folly in doing so. That sum of 

harbor. We went to work improving it. In 18 9, during eleven I saving alone in one year is equal rotheentirecost ofthis improvement, 

months, 2,228 vessels entered and cleared whose cargoes were valued and t.hat sum is saved annually. 

at $8,B65,534, and the entire expenditurP.s made on that harbor-up to Mr. President, that is only one illustration. I have not the right to now are $427, 000. The business of this harbor will increase the next take the time of the Senate to go further in these illustrations. I ask 

two years enormously, and there has been a committee on here de- that the few I have here may be printed, and I ask the pardon of the 

mantling a large increase of the expenditure there on account of the Senate for occupying the time that I have. 

increased size of the vesssels. There are two or three more.harbors I The statements referred to by l'iir. FRYE are as follows : 

might put in. 

Mr. 8HEl{MA......"l'IT. Ha.s the Senator got the tonnage there? 

Mr. FRYE. No, sir. Two tbonsanrl two hundred and twenty-eight 

vessels entered last year. Ittloes not give their tonnage, but the freight 

they carried was worth $8,965,534, and I made the remark that probably in the nex t two years it will be doubled. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Call it ten millions. 

Mr. FRYE. No, Mr. Pre·'iident, I will not call it as the Senator sug- gest<~. I call it exactly what it is. 

Ur. ED~IU:N"DS. What is it? 

Mr. FRYE. Eight million nine hundred and sixty-five thousand 

1he hundred an d thirty-lour dollars. 

* The table refe rred to is as follows : 

Ben rji!s of rfr er aml harbor i mprovements iii 1''01·lh Cm·o!ina and l::Ottlh Carolina. 

o ·1:.. ~ ~-;. Development ~.; f a;- .B ·

0 ~ of annual a 5 ~ ·;:: ~ ;a .;: g commerce. 

a-i! b

1 

.... ·a c ;:: ... 

00 ;:: o;;- 8. ~_9 I ~-t:i 

~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ :3 ~ I ::g ~ ~§ ~;:; -..... asobG ca "'o ~ s £ 3 ~ 0 ~~ 0 Zl ~ A E-t ~ o E-t 1110 

Name of riYer or harbor. 

--- 1·----- i---- 1. noanoke River, N.C.11nd Va ...... 187217 ]291$82,0002.5 to75$l0,800,000 $130 2. P11.mlicoandTa.rRivers,N.C ...... 1187613 86 64,50012 to50 4,000,000 60 3. ContentniaUreek,N.C ................. 1881 8 63 43,40040 toM 1,200,oru 30 

4. T rent R ivc r,N.C .......................... llSl910 43 49,5002.5 to75 500,000 10 5. NeuseRiver, N.C .......................... 1187811 19 •233,00025 to75 4, 220,000 20 

6. Ne1v Berne to Beaufort, N. C ........ 1188.51 4 42 24, 0001 25 200, 000 8 7. lfo ue :Sound, N. C .. ....... ............... 1886

1

3 41 14, 500 25 80, 000 5 

8. BT, Y!~r.~~~:?.~.~:.~:.?:. ~~ .. ~~~~ ........... ·····-· ................ ..................... ···-···· 9. New River,N.O ........................... 

1

1

1882 7 42 18,00015 to 20 500,000 30 10. Black Rh·er, N. C .... ....... .............. . 1886 3 70 2, 250

1

...... ...... 400, 000 200 

11. C1\pe F t!nr River, N. C., above Wilmington ............................... 1881 8 112 81, 000

1 

33 2, 000, 000 30 

12. Cape Fear River, N. C .. below I 

\\'ilmington (see note below) .. ... ...... .......... --········· .................................. . 13. Georgetown Harbor, S. C .............. 

1

1880 9 ....... 24, 000 ... ... .. .... 3, 000, OOOi 125 

14. 'i~~~~~ .. ~~~:.~:.~:. ~-~~.~ ~~ .. ~.~~. ······ ... ······· ........... \ .................................... . Totals ........... .............................. ······I··· 826 608, 150! *311 23, 900, 0001 *4.0 

*Average. 

Nos. 6 and 7 (see above): A. considerably greate1· development may be ex- pected as soon as improvement is completed. Beaufort Harbor, North Carolina.: In 1880 the bar entrance was rapidly de- teriorating. Now erosion has b een stopped, and a fine harbor made permanent. Cape Fear River, North Carolina, below Wilmington: The available depth 

in the river and on the bar has been increased from about 9 feet in 1873 to an average depth of 17 feet, and the commerce (now about $"..0,000,000 per annum) 

is increasing more rapidly than ever. Georgetown Harbor, South Carolina.: The increase in the commerce is in part d11e to the Government improvement of the neighboring rivers. Winyaw Bay, South Carolina: The completion of this improvement (just be- gun) will probably be accompanied by an addition of at least $8,000,000 to the <'ommerce of Eastern Sooth Carolina. In general, the above-indicated increase in commerce has also been quickly followed by a. rapid development of the adjacent country, and, in m:l.ny cases, by a latge increase in the population and value of re;i.l estate in the river towns. 

.... ' ·•. 

ASHT A.BULA HARBOR, OHIO. 

In 1867, 151 vessels, having a. tonnage ofl3,283 tons, entered and cleared from the port of Ashtabula. Dudng eleven months of 1889, 2,228 vessels entered and cleared, whose car- goes were valued at $8,965,534. Total expenditures at this point to June 30, 1889, $427,401. 

SANDUSKY HARBOR, OHIO. 

Year. Vessels Vessels Tonnage I Ton nl\ge entered. cleared. entered. cleared. ' 

1

- - --------------1----- --------- --

i~i:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::: 1,200 1,298 240,254 236, 101 1,846 1,818 287,266 279,415 

1,6&5 , I., 662 282, 447 280, 458 

1883 {U months) .................................... . 1887 ................................................... ..... . 

18 '9 (11 months) ...................................... . 

776 772 179, 352 ]83, 209 

2,619 2,611 4-07, &'7 407,849 

3,367 3,398 478,513 485,060 

Present project adopted iu 1880. Expenditures since that year, $2il ,989.87. 

AH~.APEE HARBOR. WISCO~S!Y. 

[For calendar year 1871, when improvements were commenced.] 

Vessels. Arrived. Cleared. 

~ No. J Tons. No. I Tons. Steam-vessels...................................................... ...... 107 1 27, 100 1071 27, 100 Sailing vessels........... ................................................ 203 53, 900 201 53,.785 

Total...... .......................................................... 300 81,000 \ 308 100,885 

Year. I Veasels 

entered. 

--~------------

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I ~ 

Vessels 

cleared. 

607 

555 

Expenditures to June 30, 1889, amount to 8154,189.94. 

llIILWAUKEE HARBOR, WISCO~ IN. 

Tonnage 

entered. 

169,010 

133, 931 

[For 1852, year when improvements were begu.n.J 

Tonnage 

cleared. 

168,800 

131,063 

Arrivals of vessel-s............ ..•... .. . . ....• .. . ......... ...... ...... .... .. . . .•..... .. . ...... .. . ... 1, 599 Departures ofvessels ........................................ .... :.... ......... ...... .•.... ...... 1, 600 Total receipts of lumber, laths, and shingles for same period ..... feet ... 20, 034, 426 

As an indication of the growth of the lumber industry a.lone in this section since 1&52, the receipts of lumber and shingles during 1886 amounted to 318,475,-

000 feet. 

Arril:als and departures of vessels. 

Year. . I Depar -1 Tonnage I Tonnage A1·r1vals. ures. entered. cleared. 

~m l ~~1~i::I ~i= 1886 ..................................................... . 1887 ..................................................... . 

1888 .................................................... .. 

'· 

-. 

... 

'. . 

".·-

·-

.-.. 
. ": 

·. 

• r 

,' 

• I 

. , ... 

·' 

' .. ,,; .. ~ v· \."·· . -: ""' ._ ' ..... 

8688 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 16, 

As showing the beneficial effects of the improvement on rates of insurance upon first-class ve11Sels, the following table is gi_ven, compiled from the annual reports of the National Board of Lake Underwriters: 

I Rate. I Y_ e_a_r._

1 

_ ____ c_1a_s_s_. - ---i 

Pa ce1t1. Pei· cent. 

Class. Rate. Year. 

1855 

1855 

1860 

1860 

1865 

]~ 

Sail-vessels . .. ... .. ..... ... .. 8 1873 Se.il.. ... ....... ......... ...... ... 6. 5 Steamers....................... 9 1873 Steam.......................... 6.5 Sail.............................. 7.4 1874 Sail ... ............ ,.............. 6.5 Steam........................... 9 1874 f:team .. ....... . ............... 6. 5 Sail ............ ...... .. .... . ..... 8. 83 188.5 Sail.............................. 6. 46 Steam .......... ,, .. • .... .. .. .. .. 10 1885 Steu.111 . .. . • . • .. . .• .... .. .. .. .. .. 5. 6 

The increase of shipments by water has caused a corresponding, if not greater, reduction iu the rates of freight and transportation. In 1853 the rate per barrel for flour from Milwaukee to Buffalo was 75 cents. The ayerage of freight on flour to th.e sea.boa.rd in 1886 was 32 cents per barrel from Milwaukee. The saving in transportation upon this one article alone in one year is more than three times as much as the total expenditure made by the United States Government in the improvement of Milw11.ukce Ile.rbo1·. Total amount expended for impro'Y'ements by the Uniteu tates to June 30, 

1889, ~.103.87. 

SMYill\'A. RIVER (DCCK CREE K ), DELAW.iRE. 

Amount appropriated, $20,000. 

Freight on material used in manufacture of pllosphates reduced from $3.90 to ~l.ll1 l\nd from $2 to 50 cents per ton on shipments from K cw York and Philaclelpnia since vessels of large draught can pass up river. 

GREAT KANA'WHA RIVER, WEST YIRGIXIA. 

Before improvements were commeuceu this river was navigable only duriug hi~h wat.er, and its navigation was unsatisfactory and intermittent. Since that time the development of the river commerce has been enormous, as is eviden::ed by the following statement, showing the number of bushels of coal transported 

annually: 

Twelve months ending- -

.June 30, 1881 ........................ ........................ ......... .......... ............... .. June l, 1883 ..................................................................................... . J'une 1, 18'44 .............................................................................. ....... .. 

~~: t ~= :::::·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: J'une 1, 1887 .............................. ........ .... .............................. .............. . June 1, 1888 ..................................................................................... .. June 1, 1889 .......................................................................... .......... .. 

Shipments 

by rh·ei·. 

9,628,600 

J .), 370, 4;)8 

18, 421,034 

li,812,123 

17,861,613 

23, 233, 374 20, 100,625 

26, 921, 738 

It is estimated that both river a.nd railroad freight rates have been reduced fully one-ba.lf, and that e. sum equal tQ the entire cost. of this improvement is annually saved the consumers of the various commodities shipped. 

PASCAGOULA :CIVER, Ml SISSTPPf. 

Amount expended to .June 30, 1889, $"..3,600. Annual commerce has increased in value from ~29,748 in lSSO to SL,6!0,994 in 1889, and freight rates have been reduced from 25 to 33} per cent. Therefore each dollar expended by the United States has resulted in the development of $'.i9.79 worth of commerce. 

RED RIVE R , LOUI.SIA.::S-A. 

Amount appropriated to date, $8.57,000. Before improvements were commenced in 1872, navigation above Shreveport ,y-as practically impossible on accountofthe obstruction offered by an enormous mass of logs,ce.lled the "Great Raft.'' This has been destroyed and its reforma- tion prevented, thus opening up to navigation and cultivation a.rich and fertile f!ectlon of country, 'l'he river's annual commerce is now valued at $>,370,000. 

UAYOU LA FOURCHE, LOUISIANA. 

Total a.mount appropriated, $60,000. Before work of improvement was begun in 1880 the only boats for which 

navlgr.tionofthe river was possible were luggers drawing not over 2 feet. In year ending May 31, 1889, seven steamers made 24& trips on the river and C!lttied freight valued e.t over $5,000,000. 

TENSAS RIVER A.::S-D BAYOU MACOX, LOUISJ..\.JS"A. 

Amount appropriated to date, $16,000. Work was commenced in 1881. Improvements have shortened the steam- boat run from Be.you Macon to Floyd QVer twelve hours. During 1889 eight 

steamers, drawing from 2 to 6 feet lllld of from 40 to 350 tons burden, made ~early a hundred trips on these streams and carried over $1,2i50,000 worth of Might. 

IIAUBOR AT SUPERIOR BAY AlS"D T. LOUIS BAY, '\YISCOXSIX, 

Comparative statement of al'ri~•als and cTeal'ances of vessels for six years. 

Comparative atalement of feceipls and shipment.sfo1·five years. -~ 

Year. Value. Year. 

lSM ................................... . 188! .................................. .. 1888 ........... .... .. ......... ... ... .. . ... $9, 099, 655 1887 ...................................... 4, 723,514 1886 .. • ........ • • • • .............. ... . .... 3, 2!}3, 2{8 

• • 

Ve.lne. 

1934,805 

484,395 

Present project adopted in 1881. Expenditures under its provisiom1 to June 30, l&l9,8128,371. Development of annual commerce since 188i for ea.ch dollar expended by the United States Government since adoption of present project in 1881, $17.11. PLYl\IOUTII HARBOR, 11.ASSACllUSETTS. 

In 1868 the tonnage entering and clearing from this port amounted to 4,5M 

tons, and the customs receipts to $37,435. 

During 1889 the total tonnage was 37,029 tons, and the amount of revenue col- lected Sl00,56'!.58. WAPPISGER'S CREEK, NEW YORK. 

The commerce which annually passes through this creek amounts, approximately, to 70,000 tons and has an estimated value of $6,500,000. 

MATTAWAN CREEK, NEW JERSEY. 

It i-;i estimated to h:we an annual commerce of 130,000 ton~. va.lued at over 

$'~.000 000. 

AJ.T, OWAY CREEK, NEW JERSEY. 

The country adjacent has no railroad facilities and is dependent upon it!rnavigation for transportation of produce and manufactures. Its commerce an· nunlly amounts to over $L,OOO,OOO. 

KE!{TUCKY RIYER, KE~TUCKY, 

An iucrease of over 100 per cent. in amount of annual commerce within the past six years is directly attributable to iruprovementR in navigation made by the United Stat.es, as a decrease is noticeable in ra.ilroatl shipments during same period. By competition railroad rates ba.\·e been reduced from 45 to 65 per cent., and the cost of the farm and mining products consequently lessened to tbe con· sumer . 

ralue of Kenfu cky Ricer COllW1Cl'ce fo1· ~ix yca1·s past. lB!H .......... ......... ........................................................................ ....... $5, 013, 142. 36 1835 ...... ...... .. ......... ....... ........... ......... .. ................ ... ............ ............... 5, 38.:>, ·!46.15 

1886 .. . ... .... . . .. .. ......... .. .. . .. ... . ... .. . . .. ......... .. .... ...... ... ...... ..... ...... ......... ... 5, 52·i, 002. 47 

t~ :::·::.::::::::-.:::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::: ::::::::: :::::: :::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::: 1~: ~~: ~: ~ 1889 ...... ....................................... ....................................... .. ......... ... 10, 368, 708. 22 

NOXU llEE IllYEI~, .MISSISSIPPI. 

Amount appo:opriated to dale, $50,000. Before improvements were begun iu lSSU 11avigation, except. by small :flat- boat , was practically impossible. At t.110 present time a. completely improved and navigable channel exists to Me.con, 91 mile.'! from the .mouth of the river. 

and, in addition to other produce, nearly 500 bales of cotton are trans ported 

annually. 

The reduction of railroad freight rates on cotton and other commodities due to improved rh-er navigation is estimated to amount t-0 S20,000 yenrly. 

BIG St:;~LOWER RIVER, m;:;su~ 'IPI'I. 

Amount appropriated to date, fl)::?,000. 

Improvements were commenced in 1879. .At that time tweh·e and oflen fif- teen days were required to make a trip from the mouth of the river to the head of navigation, a distance of nearly 200 miles, while now sel dom more than six days are nece!:l8nry. Freight rates have been reduced from 40 to 50 per cent., and the corumerce of the river increased to over Sl,C00,000 in value annually. 

CHOCTAWHATCHEE RIVER, FLORIDA A~D .AL\BA'M.i., 

Amount expended to June 30, 1889, $88,486. Prior to the beginning of improvements in 1872 the river tmffic was carried by one small steamer of 100 tons burden. There are now four steamers, carrying a large amount of cotton, farm produce, and general merchandise, with an ag- gregate tonnage of 499 tons. 

B.~YOU BARTHOLOlCEW1 LOUISIANA A.XD ARK.U\SA8. 

Amount approprialeu t.o date, $'28,000. • Improvements, be~un in 1880, have doubled the length of navigation sea.son, and boats make their trips in about on~third less time. Freight rates have been reduced fully 33} per cent. The river now has an annual commerce of over ~.000,000. 

PEARL RIYEil, llIISSISSIPPI, BELOW JACKSO);", 

The amount appropriated to date is Sl08,000. Before improvement navigation was impossible at low water and dillkult nt 

bigh water. Light-draught. boats cnm now navigate with comparative safety, all the yea1· round, from the month nt Rigolet.'s to Pool's Blurt, a distance of 76 miles; from Pool's Bluff to Columbia, 81 miles, on a 6--foot rise, and from Co- lumbia to Jackson, 158 miles, only on a 7-foot rise. The work has not only rendered navigation safer, thus reduclng insurance i·ates, but U has eftected very material reductions in freight rates. Before im- provement :i. large proportion oft.he cotton was hauled from Columbus to the nearest railroad station and shipped by r&il to New Orleans, nt a cost of $4.80 o. bale. The river freight is now $1 a bale. The tonnage employed on the river below Jackson has increased t'rom 617 in 1885 to 27,700 in 1889, and the value of the annual commerce has increased in the same short time from S632,000 to Sl,!il6,774. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I wish simply to add to the statement made by 

the Senator from :Maine the amount of t.onnage at the ports of Lake 

Erie. The sum appropriated in this bill for those ports I can not state, 

but from one t.o two hundred thousand dollars. I find that the tonnage at Ashtabula is 1,955,530 tons of iron ore alone; at Cleveland, 

1,390,283, and at Fairport, which was spoken of a few moments a~o, 

where we appropriated $21,000, the tonnage was 829,121 tons. This 

list, which I will ask the Reporter to insert, is very brief, and will give 

the t.onnage of the Lake Erie ports . 

Number of 1ressels, and tlteir tonnage, entering and clearin[J at the sei·erol 

Lake Erie po1·fs fo1· tlte season of 1889. 

Buffalo .............................................. .. Cleveland ........................................... . Sandusky .......................................... . Toledo .............................................. .. Ashtabula. .......................................... . Erie ................................................... .. Fairport .............................................. . 

.. , 

Entrie.s. Tonnage. ~~~~~ Tonnage. 

4,517 

3,189 

2,463 

1,586 

1,298 

1,242 

Mi 

3,'61,089 

2,021,310 

823, 177 

567,565 

1,600,250 

1,177,001 

570,680 

4.~ 

3,089 

2,442 

2,700 

1,829 

1,246 

469 

3,445,160 

l, 916,417 

319,860 

576,1518 

1,343,632 

1, 173,(i84 

500,398 
-. . .. . . ... -.. 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-- SENATE. 8689 

Shipments of bituminous coal from Lake Erie ports, 1S89. 

Cleve.land................................. .............. ...... ..... .. .. ...................... ......... 65i, 674 

~l~~~~~\~~·:···::t:·i;::~;;tt·:~:::::_:I,(~~~·::.:~:·J.:~;.:::.~~:·:~:;;::f :·:;:·t\:\~~ i Fa::r~~~-~~~~·~~ ··· -~~-··;;~~~~:~:·~;~~~~~-~~~~~~·~~~~·~as ~~ose of my friend from Maine, and very _likely my reas_ons are not so ~ood 

as his; but the population of the Umted States has mcrea:sed, I beheve, 

many millions within a good many less years than the _time he has re- ferred to in commerce. I do not know but that the nver and harbor 

bills have been the cause of this increased population; but I considerably doubt it in some instances at least. I do not think it follows at 

all that becau'se Ashtabula or Burlington, Vt., which I know something 

about has increased in the operations of its commerce very largely, 

it has been in consequence of the public money that has been spent there. 

Undoubtedly where the money bas been wisely spent the facilities of commerce have been increased and greater commerce would flow from 

it, but to impute to these appropriations _that we have made the increase 

in the commerce of tons of coal and m the tonnage, etc., at places 

where we spent the money, as a consequence, I think is hardly sustainable as a matter of reas'ln, and I suppose everybody knows it. . But I did not rise to say anything about that.. I only rose to say, m regard to what is said to be the recomtLendation of the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of War, th~t I do no~ read the report of the 

local engineers, the report of the Chief of Engme~rs, the repor~ of the 

Secretary of War at all w~th the sense that my fne~d from Mame. ha~ 

imputed to it. They saym a great number of these lllStances, I thmk, 

in a very large majority of them, that, for the purpose that Congress has 

indicated in a previous bill or in a previous inquiry that it has ordered, we can in a given twelve months spend profitabl~so m~ch mo~ey, that 

is, witboat overcrowding our workmen or hurrymg things, with economy, etc. 

Now yon get all those reports of the local engineers and the Chief of 

Engin~ers together and I have no doubt my frie1:1d fro~ M~ine is ri~ht i_n 

saying tb11t instead of being $26,000,000 which. this. bill cont.ams it 

would be $40, 000, 000 in round numbers; but that is qmte another question from what it is wise for Congress to do in respect of an appropriation 

at a particular time or for a particular period uf time. Instead of being 

the recommendation of money that we need for this given year as a ne- cessity for the purpose of commerce, it is a statement of the amount of 

money which they can spend under their administration for the objects 

named in an economical way. That is one thing. Whether the people ~f the United _st::ites have (l:Ot _the .money to expend, or w~ether ~t is w1se to spend it m that year m view of all other expenditures, is 

quite another question. That is all I have to say. . The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment proposed by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. BATE]. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

l\fr. CARLISLE. Mr. President, yesterday I presented and had 

read for the intormation of the Senate an amendment to section 4, which 

I desire now to offer. I ask that it be read. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will read the amendment proposed by the Senator from Kentucky. 

The SECRET.ARY. Amend section 4, on page 75, by striking out the 

first five lines of said page and inserting:· 

If at the end of sech time the alteration has not been made, the Secretary of War shall forthwith notify the United States dietrict attorney for the district in whi ch such bridge is situated, who shall immediately apply to the circuit court for the said circuit for a rule requiring the party to whom the notice aforesaid shall have been given to ehow cause why the changes specified in said notice shall not be made. $uch motion shall be docketed and heard as other motions submitted to said court, and the respondenteball be permitted to introduce testi- mony and be beard in person or by counsel. The courtuponsuch bearing shall enter such order as in the premises it may deem just and proper and shall have powar to modify the terms of said notice. If, however, ibe court shall be of opinion that the alttiration should be made. then it shall by its order direct the respondent to make the same, c.ud if such changes shall not be made within the time prescribed by the court, the court shall enter an order imposing the penal- ties prescribed in the next succeeding section. 

The PRERIDEN'T pro tem1Jore. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment proposed by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CARLISLE]. 

Mr. CARLISLE. Mr. President, I will occupy only a few moments 

of the time of the Senate in stating the effect of this amendment and 

the reason why it is offered. 

As the bill now stands, since the Senate has adopted the amendment 

proposed yesterday by the Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS], 

there are two distinct provisions in relation to obstructions to the navXXJ-544 

-

igation of these streams. The first provision is that which is reported 

from the Committee on Commerce authorizing the Secretary of Wai", 

when he has good reason to believe that any bridge constitutes an obstruction to the navigation of a stream, to give the person or corporation 

owning the bridge a notice requiring its removal or alteration, and providing thatin case the removai or alteration is not made within the time 

prescribed by the Secretary of War the person or corporation upon con- viction shall be liable to a fine of $5,000 for each and every month the 

bridge fa maintained. 

Under this provision as it stands in the bill there can be no judicial 

inquiry whatever as to whether or not the bridge is an obstruction to 

the navigation of the stream. Whenever the Secretary of War has good 

reason to believe that it constitutes an obstruction it becomes his duty to 

notify the parties and require them to make the alteration or removal 

within a specified time. If it is not done within that time, then it is 

only neCt:SSary 1or the court to find the fact that the Secretary of War 

has giveu the notice, specifying the character of obstruction, and that 

his notice and order had not been complied with, and it must then impose a fine not exceeding $5, 000. • 

Under the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont yesterday and adopted by the Senate the whole proceeding i:n. relatio~ !o obstruction will take place in the coarte, and that provlSion apphes not 

only to bridges which are supposed to obstruct the navij!;ation on these 

stniams, but to all obstructions of every kind whatsoever. The person 

after having been convicted of maintaining an obstruction under that 

provision can be fined $1,000 only. 

So we have, as I have said, two distinct propositions upon this subject. Under the one the military department of the Government in a summary and peremptory proceedingreqnires the person orcorporation owning the bridge to remove it or alter it, and a failure to com- ulv with that order will subject the party at once to a fine of $5,000, 

whereas under the other provision incorporated in the amendment 

offered by the Senator from Vermont, even after a court of justice has 

ascertained that there is an unlawful obstruction, the party is to be fined 

$1,000. 

Of course if these two provisions remain in the bill, in a large ma- jority of cases at lea.'!lt, and perha~ in all, there will be no resort to the 

judicial tribunals of the country; the persons who complain will simply 

go to the Secretary of War and get his order to remove the bridge or so 

change it as to prevent it from constituting any longer an obstruction 

to the navigation of the stream. 

It is agreed by us all, I believe, that until Congress has taken jurisdiction of the subject the several States in which these navigable streams are located have aright to authorize the construction of bridges over them, 

and in a great number ot cases this bas been done and many of the very 

bridges which the Secretary of War will be authorized, under this bill, 

io have altered or torn down iq. this summary way were constructed 

under statutes pa.ssed by the States in the exercise of their undoubted 

constitutional authority. 

What my amendment proposes, then, is to make these two provisions 

harmonize to some extent, at least, by providing that when the Secretary of War has notified the owners of tile bridge that it is an obstrac:. 

tion to navigation and has specified a time within which it shall be re- moved or changed and the owners fail to comply, be shall then notify 

the district attorney of the United States, who shall apply to the circuit court and have a rule issued against the owners so that they may 

be heard in a judicial tribunal, and it may be ascertained after a full 

and fair presentation of both sides whether or not there is an actual 

obstruction, and if the court finds that there is an obstruction it may 

make an order prescribing the time within which it shall be removed, 

and in case of failure to comply with that order, the penalty prescribed 

by this bill shall be imposer! upon the parties. 

Now, I can not see the justice or the necessity in a time of profound 

peace of authorizing the military department of the Government to 

proceed in this harsh way against the individuals and corporations own- ing these bridges. The courts of justice are all open, and if the Senate intends to allow the court to determine this question in one class 

of cases, why not allow it in all? In fact the amendment offered by 

the Senator from Vermont does apply to all cases if the party sees proper to apply to the court; bat as I said, in a large majority of cases the parties complaining will prefer to resort to this more summary 

method of obtaining relief, and will make their applications to the Secretary of War. - It was stated by some Senator yesterday, perhaps the Senator from 

:Missouri, that the court could not make this inquiry. Why, Mr. 

President, the court will have access to every particle of evidence the 

Secretary of War can have access to. The conrt, upon the trial of 

the application for the rule, will have the benefi~ of all the test~mony 

that can be furnished by the War Department and its CorpsofEngrneers. 

All the plans, all the information in the possession of that Department 

will be as accessible to the court as to the Secretary himself, and there 

is no reason, it seems to me, why the court should.not settle this question of private right in these cases as well as in ca.ses affecting the property rights of citizens generally. Surely we ought not to maintain the 

two distinct, separate, and altogether different provisions now con- tained in this bill. 

-· 

.. ... ·. 

...... 

. : . 

.... .. 

: 

.· 

., . 
.. 

-· 

' ... .' 

,· 

. ·' 

' .. . . < .... , ,. _. -., ... 

8690 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 'AUGUST 16, 

If the Senate intends to retain the amendment offered by the Sena- I Railroad Company, the owners of the bridge, for damages and for retor from Vermont and adopted as in Committee of the Whole yester- imbnrsement of the expenses of making the improvement, and the Snday, then either adopt the amendment offered by me, so as to make preme Court decided that the question of what interfered with the 

the provisions contorm to eacp other ina measure, or strike on tall that navigation of t.lie Ohio River was a question to be decided by the ex- has been reported by the Committee on Commerce and send everybody ecati ve authority. In a learned opinion rendering judgment the court 

to the court, and not allow some to go to the con rt, where a fine of only said that, that matter having been determined by the engineers, the 

$1,000 can be imposed aft.er conviction, and others to go to the Secretary Pennsylvania Railroad Company bad no right of action, and dismissed 

of War, where a fine not exceeding $5,000 must be imposed for a mere the case. It was a case that involved this large sum of money be· 

failure to comply with his order, without any trial as to whether that tween parties who were perfectly able to contest, and that was the 

order was right or wrong. decision of the Supreme Court, that the question of what was an obI shall not consume the time of the Senate further, Mr. President. strnction was an engineering ' question, to be left to the executive 

Mr. FRYE. Mr. President, owing to the time, I do not wish to dis- officers, and not to a judicial forum. 

cuss this amendment, but I do not like it. .Mr. VEST. Certainly. As I said before, we put these questions 

Mr. VEST. Mr. President, I do not think that I Said yesterday that under the control of the War Department, which acts through the Bureau 

the judge of a civil tribunal could not determine this question. of Engineers. 

Mr. CARLISLE. I think it was the Senator from Delaware [Mr. As I said yesterday, all the feeling that I could possibly have in reG.&A Y] perhaps. I was not present in the Chamber and only saw it gard to this question, all the teachings of my life, are in behalf of the 

in the RECORD. doctrine that every citizen, corporation, or private person should have 

Mr. VEST. I did say this, and I repeat it to-day deliberately, that their day in court; but we are driven by absolute exigencies to this 

in my judgment by far the fairest tribunal and the most appropriate sort of legislation. It is mockery to talk about a suit between these 

tribunal to determine a question between the Government and one of corporations and the Government of the United States, and in the mean these corporations that has constructed a. bridge is the Secretary of time the citizen stands by and sees the navigation of a great river obWar. Of course the Bureau of Enginee~ wonld determine the qnes- strncted by a bridge that on~ht never to have been put there. What 

tion practically. The argument of the Senator from Kentucky against is to become of the navigation of the conn try whilst this litigation is 

the use of the War Department as to these public improvements goes protracted from one tribunal to another, from one term of court to an- to the entire system as adopted by the Government. other? This is the only remedy; and I sincerely hope that the amendWe have placed the control of these bridges under the War Depart- ment of the Senator from Kentucky will be voted down. 

ment, which acts through the Bureau of Engineers. They are experts The PRESIDENT pro temp<n"e. The question is on agreeing to the 

upon this question. All the navigable waters of the United Btates amendment proposed by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CARLISLE]. 

have been divided in to districts, and each one of them is under the con- The amendment was rejected. 

trol or supervision of a subordinate engineer, an officer of the Bureau Mr. CARLISLE. I offer an amendment to come in on page 84, in 

of Engineers, who reports to his chief, and who in tarn reports to the the clause relating to departmental surveys. 

Secretary of War. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be reported . Mr. CARLISLE.. Will the Senator allow me a moment? The SECRETARY. Add to line 6 on page 84: 

Mr. VEST. Certainly. Green River, Kentucky, above the mouth of the Big Barren River, complet- Mr. CARLI8LE. The Senator misapprehends the tendency of my ing survey with a view of extending slack-water navigation on Green River. 

remark entirely, it seems to me. I have said there is nothing contained The amendment was agreed to. 

in the amendment offered by me inconsistent with the policy that has Mr. CARLISLE. I offer another amendment whioh I send to the 

heretofore been adopted and w bich we a.re still pursuing, of anthoriz- desk. 

ing the Secretary of War through the Corps of En~ineers to superintend The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will be reported. 

the construction of theso bridges across navigable streams. But this The SECRETARY. Insert after the amendme_nt just adopted: 

bill goes Jar beyond that, and proposes to authorize the Secretary of War Big Barren River, Kentucky, above Bowling Green, with a. view of extendto en use the removal or alteration of bridges heretofore lawfully con- iag slack-water navigation by additional locks and dams. structed under statute.a passed by the State Legislatures~ which they 

had a right to pass. 

Mr. VEST. Mr. President, there bas not been a bridge bill passed 

since I ba-ve served in the Senate that did not contain the provisio::i 

that the Secretary of War might cause any bridge, either in process of 

coustruction or after it bad been finished, to be changed as to any of 

it& parts, if the War DepaThnent saw proper to demand it, and the 

provision is nsually found in these bills that if, after notice, the corporation refuses to make the changes, then the Department can go on and 

have the changes made and recover by action the amount of the ex- penses from the corporation, and that is identically the principle upon 

which we propose to proceed now. It is true that we do proceed 

against these parties criminally, and we have the right to do it. They 

are permitted to erect these bridJ!:e.", but as a matter of coarse their 

interest is subsidiary entirely to that of the entire people of the United 

States in regard to commerce among the States. 

Mr. President, I ha;e a single remark further to make. I ha-ve bad 

considerable correspondence with the attorneys of these railroads in 

The amendment was a~reed to. 

Mr. PASCO. I have one or two amendments to offer to the bill that 

will not increase the amount of the appropriation which I desire to 

offer now. On page 81, after line 22, I move to insert: 

St. John'sRivt!r. from Jacksonville to Sanford, to obtain an estimate of the cost of deepening the channel so as to secure navigation for ocean steamers amt 

to repor; separately the cost of ope11ing the channel of tbe rfru in the vicinity of Orange l\Iills. 

Tbat amendment was a!lreed to be made in the other House, bat was 

omitted by a clerical mistake. 

The amendment was a~reed to. 

Mr. PASCO. I offer an amendment to farther complete the survey. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be reported. 

The SECRETARY. On page 81, after the amendment just agreed to, 

insert: 

The upper part of St. John's River from I.ake Monroe southward or in n. southerly direction through the river a.nd connecting lakes to the head of 

steam-boat navigation. 

regard to this clause of the bill. It seems to have ~xcitedgreat opposi- The amendment was agreed t-0. 

tion from them. Their contention hitherto ha..~ always been that they Mr. PASCO. On page 431 line 19, after the word "works," I move objected specifically to this provision, which did not require the Sec- to insert: 

retary of War to specify the changes that were demanded by the Government. We have rectified that by an amendment. Another thing 

to wnich they objected was that they could not'be heard by the Secretary of War unless he saw proper to hear them. We have inserted a provh::ion here making it mandatory upon the Secretary of War to hear 

the representatives of these corporati-0ns in regard to their rights and 

interests. 

Mr. PUGH. Mr. President, will the Senator from Missouri allow me to make an inquiry in the line of his judgment in reference to this 

matter? 

Mr. VEST. Certa.inl_v. 

Mr. PUGH. Is not the question of obstruction of navigation more 

a question t-0 be settlen by the ~ngineers than it is ai judicial question 

to be settled by the courts? 

Mr. VEST. It is, unquestionably. 

Mr. PUGH. It seems to strike me that it is a question to be decided by the engineers, and not by a judicial adjudication. 

Mr. VEST. Tbat is unquestionable. 

Mr. SHERMAN. If the Senator from Missouri will allow me, I • will give him a case that has been decided by the Supreme Conrt where a bill was framed here requiring a bridge at Cincinnati to be raised, at 

a cost of $6001000. The snit was commenced by the Pennsylvania 

Including Lee's Slough. 

This will not increase the amount of the appropriation and only 

changes the mode of expenditure. 

Mr. DOLPH. I ask the Senator if there is any estim3.te for that 

work. 

l\Ir. PASCO. 

1\1r. DOLPH. 

War? 

l\Ir. PASCO. 

Mr. FRYE. 

Mr. PASCO. 

be found. 

There has been an estimate. 

Has the work been approved by the Secretary of 

It was approved. 

It was all.right; I looked it up. 

On page 176 of the report I think the estimate will 

Mr. FRYE. It is all right. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. PASCO. I have oue other amendment which does increase the 

appropriation. On page 13, in lines 8 and 9, I move to strike out the 

words "one hundred and twelve thousand five hundred 71 and insert 

in lieu thereof the words '' one hundred and fifty thousand. 11 Will the 

Senator from Maine a~ree to that also? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo1·e. The clause will be read as prcposed 

to be amended. 

.· 

" . 
- \ 

·, 

·. '. ' . 

. ' . ... : ., . ,' 

1890. : CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8691 "' 

The Secretary read as follows: . I Mr. EDMUNDS. I will state to the Senator that the amendment 

Improving Cumberland Sound, Georgia and Florida.: Continuing improve.. as it was prepared and given to him is, in my opinion, for the public 

ment, 8150,000. interest in this town totally inadmissible. That something ought to 

Mr. DOLPH. That increases the appropriation $37,500. . be done there is undoubtedly true, but upon the report of the engineer, 

Mr. FRYE. The estimate of the Chief of Engineers was $500,000 Mr. Hains, it is something that has got to be done comprehensively, 

for that river. or, if done locally and for the time being, under the most careful safeMr. EDMUNDS. For this year? guard as regards its not being a permanent grant, etc. 

Mr. FRYE. Yes, sir. To have an amendment, therefore, would require a careful and re- The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Th~. question is on agreeing to the stricted preparation of the thing, but, as it now stands, if the railroad 

amendment proposed by the Senator from Florida. were allowed to do that thing the wagon-road would be just as near The amendment was agreed to. their tracks as it was before, only we should have given them land 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended. · enough to make it a permanent road alongside of the track. So, with 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It there be no objection, the question all my good wishes to tha.troad, and itisa v.ery valuable road, I should 

upon concurring in amendments made as in Committee of the Whole not be willing to pass the amendment in any such form as is stated on will be taken in gross in the Senate. an original bill or anywhere else. 

Mr. DANIEL. I should like to have reserved the amendment on .Mr. FRYE. I am aware, Mr. President, that the amendment is subpage 37, as to the Nansemond River, Virginia, and have the vote on ject to a point of order. concnrrin~ in that taken separately. The PRESIDENT pro tern.pore. Shall the bill pass? 

The PRESIDENT pro te pore. The Clerk will note the reservation. Mr. VEST. Mr. President, I have no disposition to delay the final 

Are there other reservations? If there are none, shall the amendments, determination of this bill. I supposed the Senator from Illinois inwith the exception noted, be concurred in in the Senate? tended to address the Senate in regard to a particular feature of it upon 

The amendments were concurred in. which I have a very distinct and emphatic opinion. I refer to the apThe PRESIDENTprotempore. TheSecretarywillreporttheamend- propriation her~forwhatis known as the Hennepin Canal. I wantthe 

ment reserved by the Senator from Virginia. Senate to understand the effect of their action, if this bill is passed, in 

The SECRETARY. On page 37, line 10, the Senate,-as in Committee regard to that improvement. It involves the expenditure of $6,524,-

of the Whole, struck out" $10,000" and inserted '' $7,500;" so as to 052.61 and commits the Government to that enterprise according to tbe 

read: estimate of the engineers, which I have before me. I have resisted 

For improving Nansemond River, Vlrginia: Continuing improvement, t7,- that appropriation in every river and harbor bill, if I may be permitted 500. to say so, in committee and in the Senate. I am aware of the fact that 

Mr. DA.NIEL. Mr. President, I ha•e just a few words to say in op- my opposition will be entirely unavailing, and I will content myself 

position to striking out the sum of $10,000. It seems to me it would with stating here publicly that I am as much opposed now to this en- be a poor piece of economy, as in the report which we have before us terprise and to this appropriation as I was when it first came before us on rivers and harbors it is said the sum of $15, 000 might be profitably and my attention was first called to it. 

expended in the fiscal year in this improvement. It is one very much Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, I do not care to take up the time of 

desired by the people of that section. There is a considerable lumber the Senate in response to the Senator. I only desire to say that no trade on this river; it is a very active community; there is a railroad amendment bas been offered to the bill, and I have supposed that there 

building, and great development. The improvement being a very de- would not be, upon the subject or paragraph reierred to by the Senasirable one and the appropriation of $10, 000 falling already below what tor. I think if it were necessary I could show very conclusively the 

it is said might be profitably expended there, I hope that the Senate importance of this great.work. I regard it as one of the most imporwill not in~ist on the amendment. tant provisions of the bill. I regard it as entirely within the purview 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on concurring in the of the Constitution. I regard it as one of the great enterprises in which 

amendment made as in Committee of the Whole. this Government Rhould embark in opening up a water way from the · The amendment was non-concurred in. far Northwest to the Atlantic Ocean, which this little link between the 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill is open to amendment in Mississippi River and the Lake would do. 

the Senate. If there be no farther amendments, shall the amendments As I said, I had expected to address the Senate somewhat at length 

be engrossed and the bill be read a third time? upon that subject, as well as upon the general importance of the great 

The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read works that the bill proposes the Government shall em bark in, but I a third time. shall not do it because !think the Senate is now anxious to vote upon 

The bill was read the third time. the final passage of the measure. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo1·e. Having been read three times, shall The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Having been read three times, Shall 

the bill pass ? the bill pass? 

Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, I had expected to make something The bill was passed. 

of an address or speech upon this bill showing the importance of it to Mr. FRYE. I move that the Senate insist upon Hs amendments to 

the country, somewhat by items, and to supply many statistics upon the bill and request a conference with the House of Representati•es 

the subject. Lam impressed myselt with the fact that there is no meas- thereon. ure this Congress will enact that will be of more value to the country The motion was agreed to. 

than the river and harbor bill which I trust is now about to pass. But By unanimous consent, the President pro tempore was authorized to 

in •iew of the fact that the members of the Senate have been here from appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate; and Mr. FRYE, l\Ir. 

10 o'clock in the morning until 6 in the evening every day this week, DOLPH, and Mr. RANSOM were appointed. 

and last week also, I believe, and the great desire that I know exists on the part of every member to get out of the Senate after this bill 

passes, for the rest ot the week, I shall forego the privilege tor the purpose of securing the passage of the bill and allow the Senate to adjourn, so that Senators may get out and get a little air. 

I think that this bill bas been more carefully considered and involves more interest to the public than any appropriation bill that has 

been before this Congres.s. It is not like an ordinary appropriation 

bill, the money from which is consumed in the ordinary administration of affairs. It is a bill which carries with it benefi~ to the public, 

to the great masses of the people all over the country; and I hope the 

bill will pass without any vote against it. 

l'!Ir. FRYE. I offered an amendmentauthorizingtheBaltimoreand 

Potomac Railroad Company to build a new wagon-road at the entrance 

of Long Bridge. A point of order was made by the Senator from Vermont and it would have been ruled ontuuderthepointoforder. I asked 

that it mi~ht be delayed so that the Senator from Vermont might have 

time to investigate the matter, and I simply desire to ask him now 

whether, if the amendment is repeated, he still feels that it is necessary 

for him to raise the point of order. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. The bill has passed the stage of amendment, Mr. 

President. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill having been ordered to a third reading, and read the third time, can be amended only by unani- mous consent . . Mr. FRYE. I should like to have the Senator suggest the reason why he will not allow the amendment to be made. 

.. , - . · 

MESSAGE FRUM THE HOUSE. 

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. McPHERSON, 

its Clerk, announced that the House had passed the bill (S. 1502J granting a pension to Mary Ellen Fitzgerald, with an amendment in which 

it requested the concurrence of the Senate.· The message also announced that the Honse had agreed to the report 

of the committee of conference on the disagreeing vote~ of the two 

Houses on the amendments of the Sern~t.e to the bill (H. R. 6454) to 

establish a national military park at the battle-field of Chickamauga. 

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED. 

The message further announced that the Speaker of the House had 

signed the enrolled bill (H. R. 5107) for the relief of David L. Truex; 

and it was thereupon signed by the President pro tempore. 

FORT DOUGLAS lllILITARY RESEBV .ATION. 

Mr. HA. WLEY. I wish to correct an error. I wish to take from 

the Calendar the bill (S. 4300) granting a right of way on Fort Douglas military reservation in Territory of Utah, and I will explain the 

reason why. There were two bills before the Senate Military Committee upon the subject of a street railroad through the Fort Douglas 

reservation in Utah. I wa.'I not aware that there were two, and I 

knew only of one, and I reported that when I should have reported 

the other. I ask leave to ('.hange Senate bill 4300 for Senate bill 4229, - a slightly different title, granting a right of way through certain lands 

of the United States in the Territory of Utah • 

,' 

.- ""'· 

·. \ 

Ill I 

·. 

·-

.-

_ .. , 

... ~ ' . 

.. 

•/ 
~-

~ 

.· 

. , ... 

., 

•. 

! ~ . - r.• " 

.. . -

8692 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. · AUGUST 16, 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator desire that the 

bill on the Calendar shall be indefinitely postponed? 

Mr. HAWLEY. I will withdraw the report if I may be allowed t.o 

do that. I withdraw the report. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That will be done by unanimous 

consent and the bill will be recommitted to the Committee on Military 

Afrairs, if there be no objection. It is so ordered. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I now report with an amendment from the Committee on Military Affairs the bill (S. 4~29) granting a right of way 

throuo-h certain lands of the United States in the Territory of Utah. 

Tb: PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be placed on the Calendar. 

ORDER OF BUSI:NE S. 

· Ur. BLACKBURN. I move that the Senate proceed to the consid· 

eration of the bill (H. R. 6944) to transfor the revenue-cutter service 

from the Treasury Department to the naval establishment. 

Ur. EDMUNDS. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. 

:Mr. TELLER. I appeal to the Senator--

The P1'ESIDE~T pro fempore. The Senator from Vermont moves 

tbat the Senate procned to the consideration of executive busines:;. 

The question being put, there were on a division-ayes 8, noes 28; 

no quorum voting;. 

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

the Senate. 

Mr. SHERM \.N. I move that the Senate adjourn. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio moves that 

the Senate do now adjourn. 

The motion was not agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The roll will be called to ascertain 

the pre.c:;ence of a quorum. 

Tbe Secretary called the roll, and the following Senators answered 

to their names: 

Aldrich, 

Allen, 

Alli~on, 

Bate, 

Berry, 

Blackburn, 

('arlisle, 

Un ey, Cockrell, 

t'oke, 

'olqu!tt, 

('ullom, 

J>aniel, 

Dans, 

Dixon, 

Dolph, 

Edmunds, 

Eustis, 

Evarts, 

Frye, 

Gibson, 

Gorman, 

Hampton, 

Hawley, 

Hearst, 

Hoar, 

Ingalls, Reagan, Jones of Arkansas, Sanders, Jones of Nevada, Sawyer, 

1\landerson, Sherman, 

Mitchell, Spooner, 

Moody, Stockbridge, 

Morgan, Teller, 

Pasco, Vest, 

Platt, Walthall, 

Power, Washburn, 

Pugh, 'Vilson oflowa. 

Quay, 

Ransom, 

The PRESIDENT p1'o tempo.-e. Fifty Senators have answered to 

their names. A quorum is present. 

PRESIDENTIAL .APPROVALS. 

A me sage from the President of the United States, by Mr. 0. L. 

PRUDEN", one of his secretaries, announced that the President bad on 

the 15th instant approved and signed the followin~ acts: 

An act (8. 1741) granting an increase of pension·to James H. Showalter ; and 

An act (S. 2285) granting a pension to Hannah Leo. 

HOITSE BILLS REFERRED. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate 

hills from the House of Representatives; which will he twice read, and 

referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

The following bills were severally read twice by their titles, and re· 

ferred to the Committee on Military Aftairs: 

A bill (H. :n. 2968) for the relief of Thomas W. Houts; 

A bill (H. R. 3-229) for the relief of Samuel Burrell; 

A bill (EI. R. 5472) to remove the charge of desertion from T. J. 

:Xicflleson; 

A bill (H. R. 6179) to remove the charge of desertion from record of 

James Blythe; 

A bill (H. R. 9030) to remove the charge of desertion from the record of James M. Thompson; 

A bill (H. R. 9212) to relieve John .;r. Murphy from the charge of desertion; 

A bill (H. R. 2526) authorizing the President of the United States 

to grant an bonorabJe discharge to William L. Lfmau; 

A bill (H. R. 5065) for the relief of John R. Brown; 

A bill (H. R. 5860) for the relief of Andrew J. Blackstone; 

A bill (EI. R.. 5861) for the relief of George Farwalt; 

A bill (H. R. 6129) to relieve Luther Green from the charge of desertion; 

A bill (H. R. 6170) directin~ the issuance of an honorable discharge 

to David L. Lockerby, late of Company .A, Ninety-sixth New York 

Volunteers; 

A bill (H. R. 7252) for the relief of Thomas A. McLaughlin; 

A bill ( H. R. 8570) for the relief of Maj. John 1\1. Laing; 

A bill (H. R. 9252) for the relief of Frank Schader; and 

A bill (H. R.10526) to remove the charge of desertion from the record of Ezra Abbott, late of Company I, Twenty-first Michigan Volunteer Infantry. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The following private pension bills 

from the House of Representatives will he referred to the Committee 

on Pensions. The bills will be announced by number only, if there be 

no objectfon. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Is that a usual way of proceeding? 

The PRE8IDENT pro tnnpnre. Ith~ been done. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I do not recall an instance. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Many times, by the order of the 

present occupant of the chaU: :with the consent of the Senate. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Read the titles, then, to save any question. 

The PRE~IDENT pro tempore. The titles will be read, if there be 

no objection. 

The Chief Clerk proceeded to read the bills by title, and was interrupted by-

.Mr. HAWLEY. I appeal to Senators who objected to Jet these bills 

be read by numbers. There is an opportunity now to do a little use-. 

fol business before adjourninp;. It is the first time we have bad a spare 

honr for a long time. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo1'e. Any Senator bas a right to demand 

that the first. reading of a bill shall be at length. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I was aware of that., but the Chair suggested 

waiving the reading of the tit]~. 

Tbe PRESIDENT pro tempore. An objection was made, and the 

Senater from Vermont asked that the titles might be read. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Because the Senator trom Missouri thought they 

ou~ht to be read, and I think be is right about it. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I did not bear the Senator from Missouri iushiting 

upon it. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I do now. And as the Senator is so particn1ar 

about it, I ask that the titles be read and le all the time necessary to 

read them be taken . 

Mr. HAWLEY. I wa~ never milder and more supplicatory in my life. 

The Chief Clerk resumed the reading of the bills by title. 

Mr. HOAR. I suggest that the Clerk omit the numbers and anything but the names. They are~ pension bill~. 

The PRE8IDENT p1·0 tempnre. The numbers must he read in order 

to enable the clerks to identify them on theJournaJ, as they are entered 

on tbe Journal by numbers. 

Mr. CULLOM. If we let the Clerk go on I think we shall have the 

w boJe tbinj!; disposed of in a very little w bile. 

.Mr. HOAR. I have no further suggestions to make. 

The bills were read twice by their titles, and referred to the Committee on Pensions, as follows: 

A bill (H. R. llBG) granting a pension to John 0. Mathis; 

A bill ( H. R. 1284) granting a pension to Theodora M. Piatt; 

A bill (H. R.1338) granting a pension to Mary A. Green; 

A bill (H. R. 1433) ~ranting a pension to Caroline Hayes; 

A bill (II. R.1568) granting a pension to Mrs. Delphina P. Walker: 

A bill (H. R. 1738) grantin11, a pension to Philip H. Emmert; 

A bill (II. R. 2420) granting a pension to Julia W. Freeman; 

A bill (H. R. 2518) granting a pension to Ozro IIarriogton; 

A bill (H. R. 2550) granting a pension to William C. Ebert; 

A bill (H. R. 3070) granting a pension to Clara Fowler; 

A bill (H. R. 3143) increasing the pension ofM~. RochieBrien Buell . 

A bill (H. R. 3503) for the relief of Delila Roe; 

A bill (H. R. 3528) to grant a pension to Jame.".! Knetsar; 

A bill (H. H. 3587) to pension Stacey Keener, widow of Tillman B. 

Keener, who served in the Indian war; 

A bill (H. R. 3611) for the relief of John F. Mahler; 

A bill (H. R. 3796) granting a pension to Abraham Zimmerman; 

A bill (H. R. 3952) for the relief of Henry A. King; 

A hill (H. R. 4013) granting an increase of pension to Alfred ·A. 

Jerome; 

A hill (H. R. 4369) to increase the pension of Milton Barnes; 

A bill (H. R. 4825) granting a pension to Arthur Connery; 

A bill (H. R. 4888) granting a pension to N. E. Palmer; 

A bill (H. R. 5106) granting an increase of pension to Squire West; 

A bill (H. R. 5265) granting a pension to Emma Chapman; 

A bill (H. R. 5654) to pension Elizabeth R. Lockett; 

A bill (H. R. 5712) granting a pension to J. G. Fetherstone; 

A bill (H. R. 6070) granting an increase of pension to Agnes M. Bradley; 

A bill (H. R. 6084) for the reliefofThomas Nelson; 

A bill (H. R. 6148) granting a pen!'ion to Mrs. Mary J. Sanders, the 

widow of Thomas A. Sanders, who was a scout in the service of the 

United States Army in the war of the rebellion; 

A bill (H. R. 6195) granting a pem~ion to Clarrissa Barker; 

A bill H. R. 6338) granting a pension to Eben Muse; 

A bill (H. R. 6676) grantin~ a pension to John J. Tully; 

A bili (H R. 7375) granting a pension to Mrs. Snsan A. Dean; 

A bill (H. R. 7676) for the relief of Alexander Sturgeon; 

A bill (H. R. 7718) granting a pension to Thomas Egan; 

A bill (H. R. 7917) granting an increase of pension to Eliza Efner, a pensioner of the war of 1812; 

A bill (H. R. 7937) granting an increase of pe~sion to Mrs. Harriet 

E. Martin; 
- .. -.... ·'! 

•'. 

- -. . ' -- , .. .. .. ' ; 

1890 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8693 

.A. bill (H. R. 8016) increasing the pension of John B. Reed, late lieutenant-colonel of the One hundred and thirtieth Regiment Illinois 

Volunteers; 

A bill (H. R. 8059) granting-a pension to Mrs. Emma A. Stafford; 

A bill (H. R. 8234) granting a pension to Catharine S. Lawrence; 

A bill (H. R. 8561) granting a pension to Martha Torrence; 

A bill (H. R. 8700) granting a pension to Mira Baldwin; 

A bill (H. R. 8ts90) granting an increase of pension to Lewis Solomon, a private in Company A, First Indiana Infantry, Mexican war 

service; 

A bill (H. R. 8923) increasing the pension of James ?lL Monroe; 

A hill (H. R. 9054) granting a pension to Sarah McCormick; 

A bill (H. R. 9138) granting a pension to Elizabeth Gushwa; 

A bill (H. R. 9163) grantinj.! a pension to Mrs. Mary Hogan; 

A bill (H. R. 9371) for the relief of Fanny A. Putney; 

A bill (H. R. 958~) to grant an increMeof pension to Simon J. Fought; 

A bill (H. R. 9590) granting a pension to Matilda Evans; 

A bill (H. R. 9666) granting an increase of pension to Ransom E. Braman; 

A bill (H. R. 9692) granting a a pen~ion to John A. Johnson; 

A bill (H. R. 9763) granting a pension to Tunis S. Danford; 

A bill (H. R. 9897) granting an increase of pension to William B. McCreery; 

A bill (H. R.10083) for the relief of George Murray; 

A bill (H. R.10101) granting a pension to Elizabeth Phillips, widow 

of Reuben Phillips, who was killed in engagement while member of 

.Arkansas State .M:flitia; 

A bill (H. R.10127) granting a pension to Celia. Eichele; 

A bill (H. R.10154) to increase the pension of John N. Harris; 

A Pill (H. R. 10202) granting a pension to O. E. Hukill; 

A bill (H. R.10208) granting an increase of pension to Moses Graham· 

A bill (H. R.10224) granting a pension to William A. Osborn; 

A bill (H. R. 10234) restoring Rebecca Young to the pension-rolls; 

A bill (H. R.10246) granting a pension to Thomas Thomp!!on; 

A bill (H. R. 10263) granting a pension to Robert A. England; 

A bill (H. R. 103'20) granting increase of pension t-0 Nancy Cato; 

A bill (H. R. 10334) granting a pension to Wiatt Parish; 

A bill (H. R. 10427) granting a pension to Ruth Collier, of Tennessee; 

A bill (H. R. 10465) granting a pension to Margaret Durand, hospital nurse; 

A bill {Il. R.10491) granting a pension toHalemL. Cook, of Franklin, Ky.; 

A bill (H. R.10602) granting a pension to Charles T. Sloat; 

A bill (H. R.10651) granting a pension to J. W. Robertson; 

A bill (H. R.10679) granting a pension to Clara Reed; 

A bill (H. R.10682) granting a pension to Jerushu P. Harding; 

A bill (H. R. ~0710) granting an increase of pension to James H. Vosburgh; 

A bill (H. R.10810) granting a pension to Samuel S. Humphreys; 

A bill (H. R.10811) granting a pension to Asa Joiner; 

A bill (H. R.10951) e;ranting a pension to Lucinda Rawlingson; 

A bill (H. R. 11547) granting a pension'to Lucinda Chapin; 

A bill (H. R. 1466) ~ranting a pension to Mrs. Mary Ewald; 

A bill (H. R. 2279) granting a pension to Abraham W. Jackson; 

A bill (H. R. 2414) increasing the pension of Nelson Rich; 

A bill (H. R. 2415) granting a pension to Nancy Carey; 

A bill (H. R. 2427) granting a pension to Fletcher Galloway; 

A bill (H. R. 3734) granting a pension to John Mann; 

A \\ill (H. R. 4396) granting a pension to John Grant; 

A bill (H. R. 4688) granting a pension to Rev. Thomas James; 

A bill (H. R. 6239) granting a pension to Mrs. Mary Hyde; 

A bill (H. R. 5736) granting a pension to John L. Lindel; 

A bill (H. R. 6686) for the relief of Coplin McKelvey; 

A bill (H. R. 6853) for the relief of Allen Morris; 

A bill (H. R. 7124) granting a pension to Mrs. Adelia Near, widow 

of Sylvester Near, of Company H, One hundred and twentieth Regiment New York Volunteers; 

A bill (H. R. 8210) granting an increase of pension to Maria L. 

Caraher; 

A bill (H. R. 8997) granting a pension to Charlotte B. Nutting; 

A bill {H. R. 9084) granting a pension to David Stockwell; 

A bill (H. R. 9270) granting an increase of pension to Charles E. Osborn; 

A bill (H. R. 9316) granting an increase of pension to Thomas G. 

Boss· 

A bill (H. R. 9504) granting a pension to Gottlieb Hunziker; 

A bill (H. R. 9529) grant n~ a pension to Emma G. Clark; 

A bill (H. R. 10033) grantinl?' a pension to Isaac Riseden; 

A bill (H. R. 10231) to increase the pension of Sanford Kirkpatrick; 

A bill (H. R.10245) to place the name of Hettie McConnell on the 

pension-roll; 

A bill (H. R.10350) granting a pension to Elizabeth Patten; 

A bill (H. R.10557) for the relief of W. G. Triece; 

A bill (H. R.11122) granting a pension to Sarah Anderson; 

/ 

-\ 

A bill (H. R.11169) granting a pension to Isadora Ritter, formerly 

Isadora De Wolf Dimmick; 

A bill (H. R. 11309) granting a pension to Maria Hassendeubel and 

Apollonia Hassendeuhel; 

A bill (H. R 11:~45) to increase the pension of Thomas Beaumont· 

A bill (H. R.11417) to increase the peneion of Cecilia I. Woode;' 

A bill (H. R.11530) granting a pension to Thomas J. Wilkins· and 

A bill (H. R.11543) granting a pension to James H. Means, doctor 

of medicine. 

CLAIM OF NA V A.L OFFICERS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate a 

communication from the....-Acting Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, in response to a resolution of the Senate of the 13th instant, a list of the claims of naval officers which were allowed and certified by 

the accounting officers in acordance with the decisions of the Supreme 

Court, but were refused payment u11der the provieionsof the deficiency 

appropriation act ot March 3, 1889. 

The re -olution to which thie communication is a respon!!e was offered 

by the Senator from Indiana [Mr. TURPIE] for his colleague, who is now present [Mr. VOORHEES]. What di!!position shall be made of the 

communication? 

Mr. COCKRELL. Let the report be read, so that we can see what 

it is. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The letter of the Acting Secretary 

of the Treasur.v will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read the letter of transmittal. 

Mr. VOORHEES. I was temporarily abl'!ent on account of ill-health, 

and my colleague offered the resolution tor me. I ask that the com- munication may lie over until Tuesday and be printed. 

Mr. ALLISON. Would it not be better to have it referred. to the 

Committee on Appropriations?. 

Mr. VOORHEES. Let it be referred to the Committee on Appropriations and printed, if that be the proper direction. I am much 

obliged to the Senator from Iowa. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The communication, with the ae- companying papers, will be referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered printed. 

Mr. VOORHEES. That is right. 

CHIUKAM.AUGA. BATTLE-FIELD PABK. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The-question recurs on the motion 

of the Senator from Vermont (Mr. EDMUNDS] on which no quorum 

vot.ed when before sobmitt.ed, that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive busine88. 

Mr. HAWLEY. There is a conference report on the t.able that I 

should be very glad to call op. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I will withdraw my motion for that purp0se. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I call up the conference report on House bill 6454. 

There are but few amendments. The committee i8 entirely unani- mous. 

The PRESIDENT pro temp<we. The Chair lays before the Senate 

the report of the committee of conference; which will be read. . The report was read, as follows : 

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 

amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 6454) to establish a national military 

park at the battle-field of Chickamauga, having met, aft.er full and free con- ference have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: 

That the House recede from its disa.greemen~ to the amendments of the Sen- - ate and agree to the same with amendmenU! as follows: 

Page 3 line 4l, strike out" road" and insert" roads." 

Page a'.' line 43, strike out "Summerville" and insert "Summertown." 

Page 3, line 44,after the word "mountain," insert" and thence by the route of General Jm1eph Hooker'!! troops to Rossville, Ga." Page 4, 1 i ne 20, after "Mills," insert " thence along the south side of the lastnamed road to Lee and Gordon's Mill." 

Page 5, section 5, line 5, strike out "any" and insert "one." P~ge 6, line 15,strike out" any" and insert" one." 

Pa.ge 7, line 7,strike out" line" and insert" lines." 

Pnge 7, line 10,omit rbr11ckets]. 

Page 9, line 4,after •roads," msert "maps andsurvey,;i.'' 

.JOS. R. HAWLEY, F. M. COCKRgLL, 

E. 0. WALTHALL, 

Managers on the part of the Benaler -

O. H. GROSVENOR, SAM. G. SNIDER, 

JOS. WHEELER, 

Managers on ti~ part of the House. 

The PRESIDENT pro tem.pore. The question is on concurring in 

the report. 

The report was concurred in. 

EDWARD HEALY. 

Mr. TELLER. Mr. President--

Mr. EDMUNDS. I withdmw my motion for an executive session. 

My friend from Colorado-and it is the only instance I think in which 

I can possibly yield-appeals to me. 

The PREHIDENT pro tetnpore. The Chair supposes the Senat.or I withdraws the motion, he having withdr~wn it. 

.. '• 

. ' ' 

·.-

· ... 

I • 

.• 

... '· 

. -... - : 

. , 

, .'' ' 

: , 
· ...... ":' .... 

.... ..... 

.. -

1l 

... 

.. -· 

8694 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. AUGUST 16, 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I certainly do, and ha.ving withdrawn it, I may 

explain, with the permission of the Chair, that I withdraw it in order 

that my friend from Colorado may call up a pension bill which he assures me there is great urgency to pass. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair did not suppose the Senat.or from Vermont to withdraw the motion for any purpose except to 

withdraw it. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is exactly what the Senator from Vermont 

has done, bat he has addressed the Senate upon the subject. 

Mr. TELLER. I ask permission to call up House bill 8584. It is 

a pension case, and I am informed by those who know the man to 

whom the pension is proposed to be granted that he is in a very precarious condition financially and physically. 

There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, 

'(>roceeded to consider the bill (H. R. 8584) to increase the pension of 

Edward Healy. It proposes to pay Edward Healy, late of the Sixth 

United States Infantry, a pension of $72 per month, in lieu of the pension he is now receiving. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to 

a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION. 

Mr. BLACKBURN. Mr. President-

:Mr. QUAY. Will the Senator yield to me for one moment? 

Mr. BLACKBURN. Certainly. 

Mr. QUAY. I desire to give notice of my intention to present cer- tain amendments to the standing rules and orders of the Senate, and I 

· send it to the desk to be read. 

Mr. HOAR. Is that in order now? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair would be glad to hear 

from the Senator from Massachusetts why it is not in order. 

l\Ir. HOAR. If this notice makes the motion to amend in order next 

Monday, I desfre to object, for I desire to speak to the order, and I do 

not know that I shall be ready at the opening on :l'.Ionday. 

Mr. QUAY. I will say in reply to the Senator from Massachusetts 

that it is not my purpose to call the resolution up for discussion until 

Tuesday. The resolution is now offered formally. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The notice will be read at the desk. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

Notice is hereby ~iven, pursuant to Rule XL, that the foregoing orders will 

be offered for adoption in the Senate. 

It is proposed to modify, for the foregoing-stated purpose, the followingrules, 

namely: Vil, VllI, IX, X, XII, XIX, XX.U. XXVII, XXVID, XXXV, andXL. 

Mr. QUAY. If there is no objection, I will at the present time also 

offer the resolutions with the understanding that they are to be taken 

up on Tuesday. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. They can be offered on Monday as well. 

Mr. GORMAN. Read the orders and let us see what they are. JH.r. EDMUNDS. They were readawhileago. Theyarethesame? 

Mr. QUAY. They are the same. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Shall they be again read? 

.Mr. SPOONER. Lei; them be read again. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Let them be printed. if they have already been 

read. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Read them, if there is no objection. 

.Mr. SPOONER. I did not hear them read before. 

Mr. VOORHEES. I ask that they may be again reported, 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolutions will be again read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

Ordered, 1, That during the present session of Congress the Senate will not take up fo1· consideration any legislative business other than the pending bill 

lH. R. 9416); conference reports; general e.ppropriation bills; pension bills; bills 

relating to the public lands, to the United States courts, to the postal service to agriculture and forestry, to public buildings; and Senate or concurrent resO: 

lutions. 

Ordered, 2, That the consideration of e.11 bills other than such as are mentioned 

in the foregoing- order is hereby postponed until the session of Congress to be 

held on the first l\Ionday of December, 1890. · Ordered, 3, That a \'"Ote shall be taken on. the bill (H. R. 9416) now under con- sideration in the enate, and upou amendments then pending, without further 

debate on the 30th day of August, 1890, the voting to commence at 2 o'clock p. m. ou said day ahd to continue on that and subsequent days to the exclusion 

of all other business until the bill and pending amendments are finally disposed of. 

The PRESJDEN'I' pro ternpore. If there be no objection, the notice 

given by the Senator from Pennsylvania and the proposed orders that 

have just been read will be printed. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. It is all as a notice, I suppose, for I object to the 

offering of the orders as orders at this time. 

The PRESlPENT lJro tempore. The Chair understands that the 

orders will be printed as part of the notice. 

THE REVENUE BILL. 

Mr. BLACKBURN. .Mr. President, I am admonished by the late- ness of the hour that it will be impossible for us to take up and dispose to-day of the bill to transfer the revenue marine from the Treasury to the Navy DepartmP.nt, and I ask permission to withdraw my 

motion to proceed to the consideration of that bill. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair hears no objection. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I ask the Sena.tor to yield to me to have the un- finished bnsine.ss laid before the Senate. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate 

the unfinished business . . The SECRETARY. A bill (H. R. 9416) to reduce the revenue and 

equalize duties on imports, and for other purposes. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate resumes the consideration of the bill a.~ in Committee of the Whole. The Senator from Vermont moves that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive 

business. 

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business. After seven minutes spent in executive 

session the doors were opened, and (at 4 o'clock and 53 minutes p. 

m.) the Senate adjourned until Monday, August 18, 1890, at 10 o'clock 

a.m. 

NmHNATIONS. 

Executire nominations received by tlie Senate tlie 16th day of .Augitst, 1890 • 

.ASSISTANT ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 

Abraham X. Parker, of New York, to be Assistant Attorney-General, as provided for by act approved July 11, 1890. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. 

John A. Williams, of Arkansas, to be United States district judge 

for the eastern district of Arkansas, 1:it:e Heni:y C. Caldwell, resigned. 

UNITED STATES MARSHAL. 

William G~mes, of Oklahoma, to be marshal of the United States 

for the Territory of Oklahoma, vice Warren S. Lurty, resigned. 

POSTMASTERS. 

Andrew Stranahan, to be postmaster at Sigourney, in the county o.t 

Keokuk and State of Iowa, in the place of James Frey, removed. 

C. Elliott Moore, t-0 be postmaster at Cherry Vale, in the county ot 

Montgomery and State of Kansas, in the place of Ephraim W. Lyon, 

removed. 

Enoch S. Eastman, to be postmaster at Swampscott, in the county of 

Essex and State of Massachusetts, the appointment of a postmaster for 

the said office having, by law, become vested in the President on and 

after July 1, 1890. · 

Samuel M. Allebaugh, to be postmaster at White Sulphur Springs, 

in the county of Meagher and State ot Montana, the appointment. of a 

postmaster for the said office having, by law, become vested in the 

President on and after Octobe1· 1, 1888; Jeremiah J. Hennessy, appointed by the President November 9, 1888, but not having been confirmed by the Senate, his term has expired by limitation of the law. 

John L. Kent, to be postmaster at Circleville, in the county of Pickaway and State of Ohio, in the place of Harry E. Lutz, resigned. 

George L. Siebrecht, to be postmaster at La Grange, in the county 

of Fayette and State of Texas, in the place of W. S. Robson, resigned. 

Michael H. Haas, to be postmaster at Fortress Monroe, in the county 

of Elizabeth City and State" of Virginia, in the place of George Booker, 

removed . UNITED STATES CONSUL. 

Niels P. A. Bornholdt, of Denmark, now consular agent at Riga, to 

be consul of the United States at that place. 

CONSUL-GENERAL. 

John F. Gowey, of Washington, to be consul-general of the United 

States at Kanagawa, vice Clarence R. GT'eathonse, recalled. 

PRO::.\IOTIOXS IN THE ARMY. 

.Adjutant-General's Department. 

Capt. John C. Gilmore, of the Twenty-fourth Infantry, to be assistant adjutant-general with the rank of major, August 14, 1890, 1:ice 

Barber, promoted. 

Quartermaster: s Department. 

First Lieut. George Ruhlen, of the · Seventeenth Infantry, to be assistant quartermaster with the rank of captain, August 14, 1890, vice 

Atwood, promoted. 

Subsistence Department. 

First Lieut. Oscaloosa l\f. Smith, of the Twenty-second Infantry, to 

be commissary of subsistence with the rank of captain, August 14, 1890, 

vice Nash, promoted. · lJledical Department. 

Col. Jedediah H. Baxter, chief medical purveyor, to be SurgeonGeneral with the rank of brigadier-general, August 16, 1890, vice Moore 

retired from active service. ' 

A,..c;;gISTANT SURGEON l\IA.RINE-HOSPITAL SERVICE. 

l\filton J. Rosenau, of Pennsylvania, to be assistant surgeon in the 

Marine-Hospital Service of the United States, to succeed Arthur L. 

Benedict, declined. 

· .. 
. - ' '. 

',, . .-· . : - ~ 

•. 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD_:HOUSE. ~ 8695 

CONFIRMATIONS. 

Executive nornination confi~ed by tlte Senate August 13, 1890. 

UNITED STATES CONSUL. 

John S. Bradford, of J>hiladelphia, Pa., to be consul of the United 

States at Antigua, West Indies. 

Executive nomination confirmed by the Senate, August 16, 1890. 

MINISTER RESIDENT AND CONSUL-GENER.AL. 

Alexander Clark, of Iowa, to be tclnister resident and consul-general 

of the United States to Liberia. 

UNITED STATES CONSULS. 

Samuel McNutt: of Iowa, to be consul of the United States at Marac.aibo. 

Adam Lieberknecht, of Illinois, to be consul of the United States at 

Tampico. 

ASS.A.YER. 

William D. Wheeler, of Montana, to be assayer in the United States 

assay office at Helena, in the State of Montana. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

S.A.TURD.A.Y, August 16, 1890. 

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

D.D. 

The J onrnal of the proceedings of yesterday was read. 

The SPEAKER. Without objection, the Journal will be approved. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I was about to ask for a division on the approval 

of the Journal, but I understand that the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 

MORRILL] desires to bring up a. proposition in relation to pensions, so 

I shall not ask for a division. 

The Journal was approved. 

E:?o.TROLLED BILL SIGNED. 

Mr. TOWNSEND, of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on Enrolled 

Bills, reported that they bad examined and found truly enrolled a bill 

of tbe following title; when the Speaker signea the same: A bill (H. R. 7058) to ratify and confirm an agreement entered into 

by commissioners on the part of the 8tates of New York and Pennsylvania in relation to the boundary line between said States. 

MESS.AGE FRO:ll THE PRESIDENT. 

A message from the President of the United States, by Mr. PRUDEN, one of his secretaries, announced that the J?resident had approved and 

signed acts and joint resolutions of the following titles: 

An act (H. R. 3438) to increase the pension of John Taaffe; 

An act (H. R. 7482) increasing the pension of John P. Davis; 

An act (H. R. 8109) to pension George W. Scott, for service int.he 

Florida war; 

An act (H. R. 1452) for the relief of Christopher C. Andrews; 

An act (H. R. 11690) amendatory of the QCt entitled "An act to provide for taking the eleventh and subsequent censuses;" 

An act (H. R. 9523) authorizing the construction of a bridge over the 

Tennessee River at or near Guntersville or Deposit, Ala., and for other 

purposes; 

An act (H. R. 19) to increase the pension of Edward P. Quinn ; 

An act (H. R. 1296) to increase the pension of Mrs. Henrietta. 0. 

Whitaker; 

An act (H. R. 1992) to increase the pension of Cornelia R. Chandler· - · An act (H. R. 1994) to increase the pension of Arnold Meyer; 

An act (H. R. 2005) to increase the pension of Bennett S. Shang ; 

An act (H. R. 4935) to increase the pension of Elmore E. Ewing; 

An act (H. R. 5810) to increase the pension of John B. Davis; 

An act (H. R. 6164) to increase the pension of Thomas H. Isbell ; 

An act ( H. R. 7263) to increase the pension of Henry L. Potter ; 

An act (H. R. 8061) to increase the pension of Jennie D. Hoskins; 

An act (H. R. 8371) to increase the pension of Thomas H. Gohagan; 

An act (H. R. 9424) to increase the pension of Eben E. Smith ; 

An act (H. R. 10445) to increase the pension of Evelyn W. Miles ; 

An act (H. R. 4415) for the relief of John S. Dill; 

An act (H. R. 5099) for the relief of Mrs. Angeline Green; 

An act (H. R. 5108) for the relief of George W. Hutchison; 

An act (H. R. 6305) for the relief of Hayden Sorter; 

An act (H. R. 7675} for the relief of Stephen A. Kennedy; 

An act (H. R. 8262) for the relief of Parker Adams; 

An act (H. R. 8611) for tbe relief of Hugh S. McCormick; 

An act (H. R. 1104) to relieve Peter Moog from the charge of desertion; 

An act (H. R. 1187) granting a pension to George Obergfell; 

An act (H. R. 1598) granting a pension to Sarah A. Tryon; 

An act (H. R. 1778) granting a pension to Gast.on Winters; 

An act (H. R. 2110) granting n pension to Braddock F. Stocking; 

-....... 

An act (H. R. 2128) granting a pension to Mrs. Zelinda Hill; ·· .: An act (H. R. 2430) granting a pensiont to Ruth A. Ball; 

An act ( H. R. 3067) granting a pension to Joseph La Preaze; 

An act (H. R. 4686) granting a pension to Hannah Bedford; 

An act (H. R. 4834) granUng a pension t-0 William 8. Graw; 

An act {H. R. 4930) granting a pension to Joseph Fisher; 

An act (H. R. 5031) granting a pension to George W. White; 

An act (H. R. 5868) granting a pension to Francis Pearce; 

An act (H. R. 6071) granting a pension to 0. Herrick Le Fevre; 

An act (H. R. 6519) granting a pension to William M. Nourse, of 

Knoxville, Tenn; 

An act (H. R. 6755) granting a pension to A. B. Reeves; 

An act (H. R. 7285) granting a. pension to Norman B. Pratt; 

An act (H. H. 7514) granting a pension to Johann.a Sheld; 

An act (H. R. 7658) granting a pension to Isaac Kelley; 

An act (H. R. 7734) granting a pension to Mm. ~L M. Boyle; 

An act (H. R. 7881) granting a pension to Mrs. Martha E. Grant; 

An act (H. R. 8221) granting a pension to William White; 

An act (H. R. 8532) granting a pension to Mary Webster; 

An act (H. R. 8861) granting a pension to Jane N. Terry; 

An act (H. R. 9232) granting a pension to George E. Taylor; 

An act (H. R. 9353) granting a pension to Dwight Parker; 

An act (H. R. 9580) granting a pension to Rebecca Tussey; 

An act (H. R. 9783) granting a pension to Mary Ferguson; 

An act (H. R. 9961) granting a pension to Oran M. Collinsworth: 

An act (H. R. 10074) granting~ pension to Wilhelm Griese; 

An act (H. R.1824} granting a pension to Mrs. Christiana Frederika 

Zeutmeyer, of Fairfield, Minn.; . 

An act (H. R. 3958) granting a pension to Sarah L. Patterson and 

Jane W. Patterson; 

An act (H. R. 10122) granting 9, pension to Mary L. Radford, widow 

of William Radford, late rear-admiral, United States Navy; 

An act (H. R. 6592) to grant a pension to Rachel Lev¥; 

An act (H. R. 10902) to grant a pension to Martin BrachaU; 

An act (H. R. 8822) increasing the pension of Samuel D. Pitcher; 

An act (H. R. 3970) granting an increase of pension to William A. 

Thomas; 

A joint resolution (H. Res. 198) to permit Capt. Geo1·ge W. Davis, 

United States Army, to accept a position in the Nicaragua Canal Construction Company; and 

A joint resolution (H. Res. 211) t.o continue the provisions of existing laws providing temporarily for the expenditures of the Government. 

MESS.AGE FROM THE SEN .A.TE. 

A message from the Senate, by Mr. McCOOK, its Secretary, announced 

that the Senate had passed without amendment the bill (H. R. 5107) 

for the relief of David L. Truex. 

The message also announced that the Senate disagreed to the amendments of the House to the joint resolution (S. R. 120) appropriating 

money to the Territory of Oklahoma to relieve destitution therein, 

asked a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two 

Houses thereon, and had appointed Mr. PLUMB, Mr. HALE, and .Mr. 

COCKRELL conferees on the part of the Senate. 

The message further announced that the Senate had passed a bill (S. 

3477) for the relief of Niel Nielsson, in which the concurrence of the 

House was requested. 

NATIONAL PARK AT CHICK.A.M.A.UG.A.. 

Mr. SNIDER. Mr. Speaker, I desire to present a privileged report, 

being the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing 

votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill 

to establish a national park at the battle-field of Chickamauga. 

The report was read, as follows: 

The committee of conference on t.he disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 645-i) to establish a national military park at the battle-field of Chickamauga, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments of the Sen- ate and agree to the same with amendments as follows: Page 3, line 4,strike out" road" and insert·• roads." Page 3, line 4., strike out" Summerville" and insert "Summertown." Page S,line 4,after the word" mountain," insert "and thence .by the route of General .Joseph Hooker's troops to Rossville, Ga." 

n?r!!~ :~~~~:ti~:~~«i~~~~~!::iit:: thence along the south side of the IastPage 5, section 5, line 5, strike out" any" and insert "one." Page 6, line 15. strike out "any" and insert" one." ..... Page 7, line 7, strike out "line" and insert "lines." Page 7, line 10, omit [brackets]. 

Page 9, line 4,after "wads," insert'' maps and surveys."· 

SAM. G. S"h--iDER, 

JOS. WHEELER, 

Managers on the part of the House. 

JOS. R. HA.. WLEY, 

F.1\1. COCKRELL, 

E. C. WALTHALL, 

Managers on the pm·t of the &na~ 

- Mr. SNIDER. :Mr. Speaker, I move the adoption of the report. 

The conference report was adopted. 

-i. 

--

. .. 

,· 

.. 

- - ~ 

.... ': 

. .. : 

-·· 

• ...... 

·. 

.-

-. . .. ....... -

- . ~ 

::. 

' ..