1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4431 

On motion of :M:r. ALDRICH, the title was amended so as ro read 

"A bill to e.'3tablish a bureau of labor." 

POLYGAMY IN UTAH. 

:M:r. HOAR. I ask the Chair what is the l'egular order? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The regular order, which is the 

Utah bill, will be laid before the Senate. . . The Senate as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the 

bill (S. 1283) 'ro amend an act entitled "An act to amend section 5352 

of the Revised Statutes of the United States in reference ro bigamy, 

and for other purposes, n approved :M:arch 22, 1882. 

Mr. HOAR. I desire ro have the bill now read~ and I desire to make 

some remarks upon the bill, which will be very brief; but I should 

like to make them this afternoon, as I shall be absent next week. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read the bill. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendments of the Committee 

on the Judiciary will be reported. 

The CHIEF CLERK. The first amendment of the committee is ro 

strike out section 18 and insert in lieu thereof--

:M:r. HOAR. This bill is reported from the committee, and the 

amendments which come from the same committee constitute their 

scheme and I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered as' incorporated in the original bill, subject in all respects ro parliamentary amendment, as the original bill wo_uld be, S? that ~e faet 

of their having been adopted shall make no difference m the nght ro amend. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts asks 

unanimous consent-

:M:r. BROWN. As I understand the Sena.ror from Massachusetts, 

that will not interfere with any right of amendment. 

Mr. HORR. I reserved that expressly. 

· The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from :M:assachnsetts~s 

unanimous consent that the amendments reported from theComm1ttee 

on the Judiciary, all of which are additions except changing the phraseology of section 18 of the bill, be considered as a part of the bill as 

originally reported, and subject to amendment. Is there objection? 

The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. The bill is now before the 

Senate as in Committee of the Whole and open to amendment. 

Mr. HOAR. I suppose the amendments should be read. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendments will be read. · 

The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed ro strike out section 18 and insert in lieu thereof the following: 

SEc. 18. That the provisions of section 9 of said act, approved March 22, 1882, 

in regard to registration and election offices, and the registration of voters, and 

the conduct of elections, and the powers and duties of the board therein men- tioned, shall continue and remain operative until the provision and laws therein 

referred to, to be made and enacted by the Legislative Assembly of said Territory 

of Utah, shall have been made and enacted by said Assembly and shall have been 

approved by Congress. • 

And to add as additional sections: 

SEC. 19. That whoever commits adultery shall be punished by impriSOIJment 

in the penitentiary not exceeding three years; and when the act is committed 

between a married woman and a man who is unmarried, both parties to such act shall be deemed guilty of adultery; and when such act is committed between a married man and a woman who is unmarried, the man shall be deemed guilty of adultery. 

· SEc. 20. That if an unmarried man or woman commits fornication, each of 

them shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or by fine not exceeding $100. · 

SEc. 21. That commissioners appointed by the supreme court and district courts in the Territory of Utah shall possess and may exercise all the powers and jurisdiction that are or may be possessed or exercised by justices of the peace in said Territory under the laws thereof, and the same powers conferred 

by law on commissioners appointed by circuit courts of the United States. . SEC. 22. That the marshal of said Territory of Utah, and his deputies, shall po ess and may exercise all the powers in executing the laws of the United 

States pos essed and exercised by sheriffs and their deputies as peace officers, 

and they shall cause all offenders against the law, in his view, to enter into re- cognizance to keep the peace and to appear at the next term of the court having jurisdiction of the case, and to commit to jail in case of failure to give such 

recognizance. They shall quell and suppress assaults and batteries, riots, routs, 

affrays, and insurrections, and shall apprehend and commit to jail all felons. 

SEc. 23. That the office of Territorial superintendent of district schools created 

by the laws of Utah is hereby declared vacant; and it shall be the duty of the supreme court of said Territory to appoint a. Territorial superintendent of district schools, who shall possess and exercise all the powers and duties imposed by the laws of said Territory upon the Territorial superintendent of district 

schools, and who shall receive the same salary and compensation, which shall 

be paid out of the treasury of said Territory; and the laws of the Territory of 

Utah providing for the method or election and appointment of such Territorial 

superintendent of district schools are hereby suspended until the further action 

of Congress shall be had in respect thereto. The said superintendent shall have power to prohibit the use in any district school of any book of a sectarian char- acter or otherwise unsuitable. Said superintendent shall collect and classify 

statistics and other information respecting the district schools in said Territory, showing their progress, the wllole number of children of school age, the num- ber who attend school in each year in the respective counties and average len~th of time of their attendance, the number of teachers and the compensa.- tion paid to the same, the number of teachers who are Mormons, the number 

who are so-called gentiles, the number of children of Mormon parents and the 

number of children of so-called gentile parents, and their respective average at- tendance at school. All of which Statistics and information shall be annually 

reported to Congress, through the governor of said Territory and the Depart- me,nt of th~ Interior. 

Mr. HOAR. There is either a misprint or a mistake in the drafting 

of the bill on the tenth line of the twelfth section, to which my attention 

has been call~. I desire that that may be corrected by the Clerk. The 

words "by and" should be insetted before the word "with." 

The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. The amendment will be reported. 

The CHIEF CLERK. In section 12,line 10, after the words "United 

States," insert "by and;" so as to read: 

The President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the 

Senate. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. HOAR. In section 22 of the amendment reported, in line 4, I 

desire that the language shall stand: "And each of them shall cause 

all offenders against the law," instead of "they." It is a mere verbal 

change. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. In section 22, line 4, strike out '' they '' and 

insert '' each of them,'' 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. HOAR. Mr. PresidentMr. SHER:M:AN. It is now rather late and the Senate ~ thin. If 

the Senator will give way I move that the Senate proceed to the con- sideration of executive business. 

The motion was agreed ro; and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business. After one hour and forty minutes spent in 

executive session the doors were reopened, and (at 5 o'clock and 52 

mihutes p. m.) the Senate adjourned. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

FRIDAY, May 23,1884. 

The Honse met at 11 o'clock a.m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. 

JOHNS. LINDSAY, D. D. 

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

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 

A message from the Senate, by Mr. SYMPSON, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate had passed bills of the following titles; in 

which the concurrence of the Honse of Representatives was requested: 

A bill (S. 733) donating the military reservation at Plattsburg, N. 

Y., ro the village of Plattsburg for a public park; 

A bill (S. 1347) for the relief of sufferers by loss of the Government 

steamer J. Don Cameron; and · 

A bill (S. 2243) to authorize foot and carriage or railroa~ bridges 

across the Mississippi River at Saint Pa\ll, in the State of :Minnesota. 

PERSONAL EXPLANATION. 

:M:r. WELLER. :M:r. Speaker, I rise ro a question of personal privilege. I send ro the Clerk'~ desk and ~k ro haver~ extracts from a morning newspaper (Washmgton National Republican, May 23, 1884) 

which I have marked. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Between the first and second votes Messrs. LAWRENCE and LANHAM paired. Mr. WELLER, wbo had voted with the Republicans on the moti.on to lay on the 

table, this time refrained from voting, and Mr. WARNER,. of Oh~o, and 1\Ir: PAT- TON, Gf Pennsylvania, who had not before. voted, on this mot10n voted m the 

affirmative. This accounts for the change m the result. . . The House by a vote of yeas 124., nays 134, refused to recommit the resolution. 

Mr. HoRR, ~fMichigan, rising to a question of pr~vilege, said: "No ~x-m~~­ ber of Congress has a right to the floor if he takes It and t~en abuses Its privi- leges by attempting to influence legislation here. I now rise to say that It has 

been brought to my notice by a Democratic member o.f .this H?use .that an ex- member of Congress, who is the father of one of the litigants m th1s case, ~as 

been on the floor of the House soliciting members, sending for t·hem, taking 

them int-o consultation and attempting to influence them in their votes on this case. If that be true, i't is such a violation of the dignity and integrity of this House that it ought not to go unnoticed." "I desire to say," replied Mr. RANDALL,.of Pennsylvania, "tha~the fat~er ?f 

the contestant would be unnatural if he did not take the deepest mterest m his 

son's contest. · [Applause on the Democratic and laughter on the Republi.can - side.] And I stand here a witness to the fact that that gentleman hasexermsed 

the most careful propriety in connection therewith." LApplause on the Demo- cratic side.] 

l\1r. HoRR said that he had made the statement, not for the purpose of a~y 

political claptrap, but because he found that the dignity of the Ho_use and 1ts 

honor were being violated, and he felt it his duty to. call. the at~nt10n of the House to the fact. The gentleman from Pennsylvama sa1d that 1t was. nat.ural 

for a father to feel for his son. So it was, but it was also natural fo.r him, if he 

had the sense of honor he should have, to do it in a seemly and becoming man-

~~ . "And so he has," exclaimed Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Cox. I would rather have a man come here undertaking t? present the 

claims of his son honorably to the House than your mean, sneaking mercena- ries that come here to grab and raid the public TreasurJ:. . . Mr. BAYNE offered a resolution instructing theCommitteeon·Rules to mquue and report to the House whether or notHon. William H. English, an ex-I?ember of tills House, has violated the privileges thereof in the contested-elect10n case of English vs. Peelle. . The Speaker said that while the resolution. undoub~~Y presented a 9-uestion 

of privilege he did not think it was of a higherjrivilege than the r1ght of a member to hls seat and except by consent it coul not be offered. Mr. BAYNE reotf~red his resolution as a question of privilege. 

Mr. DuNN suggested t-hat it be amended by directing a? inquiry as to. whet~?-er 

Green B. Raum, late a member of this House, had lobbted for the whlSky bill. Mr THOMPSON hoped that no such amendment would be pressed. :M:r: BAYNE said that he made his proposition in good faith for the pu~pos.e of 

preserving the integrity and dignity of the House. He cared not w!J.om It might hit. He offered it because he ha.d information that a mep1ber of this House ha.d 

yoted in the ~rly part of the proceedings; that he ha.d been asked to leave his 

' 
4432 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 23, 

seat; that he had left his seat; that he had gone into consultatio~ with Mr. 

English, and that he had thereafter disappeared from the floor of the House without having been paired. Having that information he felt it to be right and 

just that an inquiry should be made by a competent committee. [The member to whom Mr. BAYNE makes reference is Mr. WELLER, of Iowa , who voted on the first r9ll-call y esterday aod did not do so thereafter.] Whenever an ex- member came on the floor and attempted to influence any legislative action he 

should be h eld up to public contempt and hatred, and should be exposed, in order 

that the d eliberations of thie body should be kept clear of any such interference. 

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I had thrust upon my attention this 

morning a paper published in Washington, D. C., dated .May 23, 1884, 

a Republican newspaper, containing that which the Clerk has just read. 

I wish to say, 1\fr. Speaker, in reference to this article, that save with 

one exception it is wholly void of the truth insomuch as it relates to 

me in any particular. And I doubt if it is by authority or grant of the 

author of the resolution to investigate [Mr. BAYNE]. I doubt that he 

authorized anyone to mention my name in the connection in which it 

is found in this report. 

I was not asked to leave my seat by any one on yesterday. I did not 

leave my seat at the solicitation of any member on this floor, or any 

ex-member. I did leave my seat in obedience to, or rather at tb.e instance of, a telegram that I received from my daughter, who, in company with my wife, was nearing the city of Washington on an incoming 

train. I received that telegram while on the floor yesterday morning, 

it stating in substance that they would soon be in Washington. 

This was after I had voted that the motion to reconsider be laid on 

the table. I immediately repaired to my rooms to complete arrangements for their reception; put on my '' Sunday store-clothes,'' '' boiled 

shirt,'' and brushed up generally, and. made auch proper arrangements 

as I could for an agreeable and pleasant reception to my family; then I 

went to the station, greeted and received them, and escorted them to my 

rooms, and aJmost immediately thereafter returned to my duties on 

the floor of this House. The one true statement in said paper was that 

I did not get a pair before I left the floor. The truth is, I was then intent on ail early greeting of the better half of a pair that had not seen 

each other for many long months. The better half having come nearly 

1,500 mile to see me, I felt warranted in making haste, that all things, 

myself included, be in order and on hand to greet her pleasantly. In 

all these months of this session I have scarcely been an hour, before this 

occasion, from my place while the House was in session, and to this 

statement I defy contradiction. 

I wish to say further, Mr. Speaker, that ex-Representative English 

did not make any statement to me on the floor of this House yesterday 

or elsewhere or at any other time or place that he desired my assistance 

in behalf of his son's claim to a seat or otherwise. He did not solicit 

me to go into any cloak-room or any other room or pla~ connected with 

this House or anywhere else to consult with him about anything what-

. ever; did not offer me any reward of any kind, not a dollar1 a penny, 

or any other sum; he never offered to pay me any reward or benefit of 

any kind, or intimate to me that I should have any reward or benefit 

in the future. I did not onyesterdayhaveawordofconversationwith 

ex-Representative English in regard to his son's welfare, or on any subject connected with this contest . • Yea, more, I did not on yesterday, 

day before yesterday, or any day this week speak to ex-Representative 

English about his son's contest for a seat or anything or ma.tter connected therewith, nor during that or any other time did he speak to 

me in any wise relating to said matter. 

I have seen Mr. English occasionally for several days past on the floor 

of this Chamber, but never saw him do anything improper or make any 

improper remarks, unless his mere presence during his son's contest be 

or have been improper. 

I moreover, Mr. Speaker, in view of the charge that has appeared in 

this Republican newspaper connecting my name with a matter that 

would be disreputable, criminally disreputable, iftrue, I feel called upon 

to state that on yesterday I did receive importunities from the Republican side of this House to join my influence and my vote with the fortunes of the contestee in this case [applause on the Democratic side], 

and one member of the Republican party who is now present and is 

listening to my present statement said to me if I would thus do I would or coU'ld cover myse~f all over with glory. [Laughter.] 

J\1r. BROWNE, of Indiana (in his seat). And nobody needs it worse. 

[Laughter. J 

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have had 

occasion to discredit the judgment of the gentleman [Mr. BROWNE, of 

Indiana] in the matter of his views and opinions. [Laughter and applause.] I stated to tbememberwho particularly importuned me and 

assured me of the glory I could win that his appeal came too late, for 

I had already voted. [Laughter.] 

I would most certainly myse~ Mr. Speaker, when this matter came 

up for consideration on yesterday have spoken and voted for an investigation by a committee of all improper acts on the part of any one on this floor in the premises of aquestionofthe high importance of a rightful 

seat as a member of this House. Had I then been present. and but for 

meeting my wife and daughter at the rail way station, as I have stated, 

I should most cert..1>inly have been present and voted my honest convictions fearless of results. 

I am informed by reading the record of yesterday's procee~gs that 

a committee for the investigation of this whole matter has been appointed. I am glad that this has been done, and I trust that it will 

do its work immediately and perform its duty in this matter most 

thoroughly. I am not slow to perceive· that there may be a deep underl~g purpose in the bringin~ of my na~e into this business. My 

contmuous presence here on thlS floor durmg the hours of session of 

this House, and my persistentobjections to measures that were repeatedly presented for consideration, bas doubtless rendered me very objectionable and obnoxious to certain members, and to others who are 

not members. I am because of these my opinions exceedingly desirous 

that this investigation, at least so far as my name and myself may be 

connected with it, shall be immediately pushed to a conclusion and 

report. 

I have an interest i? this question, for I am aware, Mr. Speaker, of 

the efforts that are bemg put forth by Republican sheets of the character of the one which I hold in my hand to bring me into contempt 

with and to alienate from me the good opinion of the Independent 

Republican voters of my district; and in my judgment, whether the 

connection ofmynamein this Republican paper was intentional or not 

to that end, this movement is calculated to have such a result and 

will be speedily used by other Republican sheets to that end, in ~...,ery particular where it may or possibly can be. No effort will be spared to 

bring me into disrepute and public obloquy. 

As I have said, I desire that this matter shall be immediately investigated, and the result of that investigation brought to the attention 

of this House as a body and also of the whole country, and ifitisfound 

that I have done aught in thepremisesofthis electioncontestfromfust 

to last that should properly and justly bring me into contempt of the 

good opinion or honorable estimation of any gentleman on this floor or 

elsewhere, then let such results follow as would be proper. 

I desire immediate action. : That is all for the present. 

Mr. HART. What train did your family come on, and on what 

road? 

Mr. WELLER. The gentleman will have an opportunity to play 

the part of a cross-examiner when the matter is brought before the 

committee. I hope he will be present. 

Mr. HART. Do you decline to tell? 

Mr. WELLER. Iwillallowyou toread the telegram that I received. 

Mr. HART. That does not answer my question. 

Mr. WELLER. I will send it to the Clerk's desk now to be read 

and it does answer your question. . . ' 

Mr. HART. Do you not know the road they came on? 

·Mr. WELLER. .I do. I ask the Clerk to read the telegram. 

The Clerk read as follows: . 

BALTIMORE AND OHIO TELEGRAPH COMPANY. 

. • • * * * * 

No.5 U; sent by A; received byO; time, 10.48; check 6, paid 25. 

To L. H. WELLER, H. of R.: Dated CUMBERLAND, !liD., 22. 

Will arrive in Wash'n two thirtyp. m. (2.30). MAMIE WELLER. 

Mr. HART. Two hours after the vote. 

Mr. WELLER. As I have stated, soon after receiving that telegram 

I w~nt to my !ooms and made some arrangements to nicely and properly 

receive my wife and daughter, and soon thereafter I went to the station 

and awaited the incoming of the train. ' 

This telegram was dated atCumber1and, Md., at 10.48a. m. on yesterday. 

I bad no more time than was reasonably necessary, and was absent 

from the floor of this House but a little over two hours in all, and by 

no means two hours after the final vote. 

Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana (in his seat). Time is up. 

Mr. WELLER. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. BROWNE] has 

just suggested that the time is up. Doubtless his mind runs out to the 

results ofthe election in the coming fall ·of '84 in the matter of the existence of the party ofwhich he is a member. [Applause.] 

Mr. HART. Another question. Were you solicited by any of Mr. 

English's friends on this floor to meet your family? 

1\Ir. WELLER. No, sir. [Applause.] Have you any other questions in that line? I shall be most happy to make answer to your complete satisfaction. [Laughter. J 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

111r. KING. I call for the regular order. 

Mr. KELLOGG. I rise to a question of personal privilege. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. KELLOGG] 

will state the matter of privilege to which he rises. 

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. 

Mr. KELLOGG. Some three weeks since, learning that evidence had 

been taken by the committee appointed by this House to inve.stigate 

the expenditures in the Department of Justice reflecting upon me I 

sent my attorneys to the committee and requested that if any more e-rldence was taken refle~g upon me the whole matter be investigated 

thoroughly and completely. I also applied personally to the chairman 

of that committee asking that be lay the matter before his committee 

and requesting that a thorough investigation be made. A few days 

after I received a letter from the chairman of the committee stating 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4433 

that the committee doubted their authority under the resolution of the 

House creating the committee to investigate a matter of this kind. A 

few days since, for the :first time, I had an opportunity to examine the 

record of the evidence taken before that committe~, and I find that a 

• special agent of the Post-Office Department, testifying befqre that committee, detailed what purported to be evidence given before a. grand 

jury against me. I find evidence given by another gentleman formerly 

connected with the Department of Justice to the same effect, and by 

Mr. Bliss, one of the special counsel of the Government, also to the same 

effect. Day before yesterday I stated to the chairman of the committee 

that I proposed--

Mr. TOWNSHEND. I desire to suggest to the gentleman from Louisiana tha,t my colleague [Mr. SPRINGER], the chairman of the Committee on Expenditures intheDepartmentof Justice, isnotpresent. I 

suggest to him the propriety of postponing his explanation until that 

geutleman shall be in his seat. . 

Mr. KELLOGG. I will say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 

TOWNSHEND] that I presume there will be no question as to my statement on the part of Mr. SPRINGER. Day before yesterday, as I was 

about to state, I communicated with the chairman of the committee, 

and informed him that I proposed to address him a letter already partly 

-prepared setting forth these facts and ask that the committee proceed 

·as I had originally requested them to do through the chairman and investigate the whole subject-matter of these charges against me. The 

-chairman expressed a doubt for hi.$ committee, not for himself, for he 

expressly stated he thought he had authority; he doubted whether the 

committee, a majority of the committee, would consent to it, .upon the 

ground that they had no specific authority under the resolution creating 

them to investigate the matter. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am about to ask the Honse to adopt a. resolution which I have prepared specifically directing the Committee on 

Expenditures in the Department of Justice to investigate this whole 

matter. I had proposed in my letter just referred to to state to the 

.committee that I desired to be heard and that I desired to bring myself 

copies of letters and telegrams that it is claimed I had written inculpating me in this matter, and copies of drafts that I have procured from 

"banks said to have been used against me, and lay the whole matter before 

them. And I assert here and now that this whole proceeding had its 

.()rigin in malice on the one hand and selfish motives on the other, and 

I most emphatically deny and assert as false every charge thus made 

:against me or in any wise inculpating me. 

Sir, an impression has gone forth to the country. that I was indicted 

for some kind of bribery. This is not so. The indictment was found 

under a statute of the United States which provides that no member of 

Congress shall receive compensation for services rendered in a case where 

the United States is a party, a statute a quarter of a century old and 

-n.eYer before invoked. I risk nothing in saying that it has been violated a thousand times. If a member appears before a claims commission as an attorney he violates this law. It was a war measure. I re-

·peat, there never was an action instituted under that statute before, 

-that I am aw~re of. · 

But, sir, I do not urge that that is any palliation or excuse in my 

~e-by no means. I affirm before this House and I will prove that I 

Tendered no service, and secondly that I received no compensation for 

any service rendered before any Department of the Government in any 

-case where the United States was interested. I never received a dollar 

that did not legitimately belong to me. I never violated this statute. 

Oh, no, Mr. Speaker, I did not go through all my struggles in Louisiana, handling millions of dollars of public money, funding almost the 

·entire debt of the State as now recognized, paying the interest on the 

-entire debt of the State until I went out of the office of governor-and 

no man can or will accuse me of improper oondnct in matters of State 

:finance, or in any of my official dealings, however much he may find 

fault with me politically. I did not leave such a record behind me as 

J~overnor of Louisiana that with the closest scrutiny by investigating 

-committees, hostile to me, anything could be found upon which to sustain any charge against my management of the :finances of the State to -come here and for a few hundred paltry dollars place myself in -such a 

position that a criminal prosecution could be justly maintained against 

me. I again assert that such a charge is false in the general and detail, 

.-and I brand the authors and fomenters of these charges a-s conspirators 

.and pe:tjurers. 

In the summer of 1882 certain gentlemen hostile to me, one of them 

formerly connected with one of the Departments of the Government, 

.set this thing on foot and went before a. grand jury of which John T. 

Mitchell, a prominent business manofthiscity,wasforeman, andsonght. 

in vain to have me indicted. In July, the following month, amotion was 

-made in court at their instigation asking that the court convene the ,grand jury, which had been adjourned until October, in extraordinary 

-session for the purpose of considering these charges against me. The 

. -court reluctantly convened the grand jury, and upon the motion made 

• i:n open court by the attorneys for the prosecution, that if the grand 

jury was not convened and were not permitted to take cognizance of 

-these charges within the next eight or ten days the offense would be 

l>arred by the statute of limitations. 

That grand jury was reconvened, and such men as Henry Willard, 

XV-278 

:Mr. Semken, the. jeweler on the Avenue, J. Ross Stewart, one of the 

most prominent gentlemen in this city, and opposed to me politically, 

as I believe sixteen out of the twenty-three were. The :first business 

men-in the city formed that extraordinary grand jury, because by 

reason of the court having adjourned the grand jury until October 

eight or ten had left the city for the summer, and the court directed 

the marshal to go out and summon talesmen, and the first business men 

of the city were summoned. After nearing the evidence produced before them for two days, after careful consideration of certain letters, all 

of a private nature, one or two of which are believed to be forged, and 

which the principal prosecuting witness against me saw :fit to produce 

for certain reasons which will be disclosed if an investigation is orderedafterhearinghimfor two days, until in answer to thequestion, "Have 

yon an:y1ihing more to say, or any more evidence, documentary or otherwise, to produce?" he replied emphatically in the negative, then :Mr. 

Bliss stated what they hoped to prove by another witness, then absent, 

a Mr. Price, these two being the only witnesses claimed against me. 

The grand jury asked Bliss if he had any other witness than a man who 

admitted that he was inculpated in these practices, if there was anything improper in them, a man indicted for this very offense, and Mr. 

Bliss stated that he had not. 

Mr. MORRISON, I submit that this discussion is going rather too 

far; the matters being discussed do not constitute a question of privilege. • 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. KELLOGG] 

stated when he arose that he rose to a question of privilege. 

Mr. KELLOGG. Yes, sir. 

The SPEAKER. As far as the gentleman has proceeded he has not 

disclosed the fact that any charge has been made against him or reflection made upon him in his representative capacity. The Chair will 

direct the rule to be read. 

Mr. KASSON. Before that is done let me call attention to the fact 

that the gentleman from Louisiana has stated that a committee of this 

Honse has taken evidence inculpating him and in his absence. Certainly such evidence inculpating his character does constitute a matter 

of privilege, especially when taken before a committee of this Honse ! 

The SPEAKER. But the suggestion made by the Chair was that it 

did not inculpate the gentleman as a Representative on the floor of the 

Honse. I~ seems to have been in regard to some pa..<Jt transaction, something that occurred in 1881 or 1882, the Chair does not know exactly 

when. 

Mr. KELLOGG. In 1879. 

Mr. KASSON. It also appears that this evidence was taken before 

a committee of this Honse. I suggest to my friend from Illinois [Mr. 

MORRISON] that there is no case which I remember in which, even in 

the case of declarations in a newspaper, any member of this House has 

objected to another member speaking of thew hole transaction involved. 

Mr. MORRISON. I do not ebject to his speaking of the transaction 

before the committee of this Honse, but I object to his discussing a 

matter with which we have nothing to do. 

Mr. KASSON. Unfortunately the committee of this Honse did"not 

think so. - Mr. CALKINS. I ask the gentleman from Louisiana to send up his 

resolution, and then the matter will be properly before the House. 

Mr. MORRISON. I have no objection to his speaking to the reso- lution. 

Mr. KELLOGG. I send up the resolution, which I ask the Clerk to 

read. 

The Clerk read aB follows: 

Whereas in the investigation a.s to the prosecution of the "star-route " cases before the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Justice evidence 

ha.s been given which reflects upon the character of WILLIAM PITT KELLOGG, a member of this House : .Therefore, 

Resolved, That said committee be directed to investigate the subject of said 

KELLOGG's alleged connection with the "star-route" service, and whether he 

received money for services rendered in a matter pending before one of the De- partments of the Government, or whether he paid money to any officer of the 

Government on account of or in connection with said service; and that said 

committee be authorized t{) send for persons and papers, to administer oaths, 

and to print the testimony taken for the use of the committee. 

Resolvedf'UA'ther, That the said committee make due report to the Ho~e. 

Mr. KELLOGG. Ithoughti hadstateddjstinctly, and it had reached 

the ear of the Speaker, that it was regarding certain testimony taken 

recently by a committee that I specified--

The SPEAKER. The Chair did not understand the gentleman from 

Illinois to object to any statement the gentleman from Louisiana n1 ight 

see proper to make on that subject; but the objection was made to 

what the gentleman from Illinoi'3 considered a discussion of other matters outside of what had transpired in a committee of the Honse. 

Mr. KASSON. It all relates to that. 

~fr. BLANCHARD. I desire to be heard a moment. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from LOuisiana [Mr. KELLOGG J 

has the floor. 

:Mr. KELLOGG. If the Chair will pardon me, the testimony before 

the committee that I referred to does em brace these very matters that 

I am speaking of, because the foremen of these two grand jurie.c:; have 

been before the committee and testified somewhat in reference to these 

matters. 
4434 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 23, 

. I was a. bout to say-and I will trouble the House but a little longerthat after this grand jury had unanimously ignored the bill, and after 

the statute of limitations had confessedly applied-which, by the way, 

I never pleaded-three months elapsed; a new grand jury had been 

convened an~ continued in ession for three months; and members of 

that grand jury were, I believe, approached to know whether under the 

circumstances they would entertain a proposition to indict me, and at 

least one or two, I believe I may say, gave their questioners emphatically to understand that they would not believe under oath the testimony which had been brought against me before the two previous grand 

juries. 

Three months elapsed, and March of 1883 came; a new grand jury 

had been convened. I will say nothing more of that grand jury; it 

speaks for itself; compare it with the others. The time niay come when the foreman will tell some surprising things of the way the case 

was conducted. Although both the witnesses relied upon had been in 

the city during a part of the three months of the session of the preceding grand jury and had not been taken before them, they were now 

taken before this March grand jury, and it was stated, I am reliably 

told, to the foreman that it was absolutely necessary to indict me; that 

the prosecution demanded that it be done; and it was said (so I have 

been told, at least, by one of the officers of the court) that one of the 

counsel for the prosecution told him that the salvation of the then pending case depended in a great measure upon my being indicted. I twill 

be recollected that an indictment had shortly before been found against 

Dickson, foreman of the first petit jury, evidently for effect. 

When t·he presentment was made I went to one of the counsel myself, 

as did some of my friends, and we urged the attorneys for the prosecution to recite in the indictment the facts of the case. The indictment was not filed for nearly a month after the presentment was made. They were all that time between the presentment and the filing of the indictment incubating and preparing the indictment. And just what was 

feared would occur did occur. They framed anindictment, leavingout 

all the material facts that they claimed to be able to prove; put false 

dates in the indictment, and arranged it so that it would not be obnoxious to a demurrer; and they did it with full notice from several prominent public men who urged that no unnecessary advantage betaken, and 

that I be not su~jected to the expense and annoyance of a trial when a case clearly could not be made upon their own statement made"in court in 

July, 1882, when they asked that the grand jury be convened in extra 

session as the statute of limitations was about to begin to run. 

When the case finally came before the court for trial the court ar- rested the proceedings and said" the statuteoflimitationsinterposes in 

this case, and it comes under the head of the general issue or a plea of 

not guilty, and the court will not permitthecase to continue." Upon an intimation from the court my counsel urged the expense which 

would be unnecessarily incurred and the time unnecessarily consumed 

would notjustityus in going on, the court said to the prosecution: "If 

this is your case you have no case, for it is clearly barred by the statute.'' And they knew it was. Then one of the counsel stated in 

court that he put the dates in the indictment as he did because one of 

my friends had requested him to do so, when as a matter of fact we desired the correct dates put in the indictment so that we could avoid 

at the outset the long worry of a fruitless trial attended with neees- sarily great expeuse. Well, it cost the Government for this indictment 

and trial probably over $30,000. 

Mr. BLAND. I rise to a question of order. I do not understand 

why a case which has got out of court as appears by operation of the 

statute of limitations should be brought before this House to be tried. 

I understand the gentleman is addressing himself to an indictment in a case which was at one time pending in court. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair so understands the gentleman. The 

Chair has intimated heretofore that this House has no right to punish a member for any offense alleged to have been committed previous to the 

time when he was elected as a member of the House. That has been so frequently decided in the House that it is no longer a matter of dispute. The resolution which the ge~tJeman sends up directs the com- mittee to investigate certain charges made against the member from 

Louisiana, but does not state the time when the alleged offenses were 

committed, if at all, so that the resolution may be entirely in order, 

but the gentleman from Louisiana is discussing matters which he admits occurred several years ago and before his election. He can not 

proceed to discuss such matters without unanimous consent, as was decided in the Forty-sixth Congress, in the case of Mr. Chalmers, of Mississippi, which is perhaps well remembered by many of the present 

members. 

Mt. BLANCHARD. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. KELLOGG. I will not detain the House but a few moments 

longer. 

Mr. BLANCHARD. I will give way then. 

Mr. KASSON. Go ahead. 

Mr. COBB. The gentleman from Louisiana I know will permit me to ask one question. I wish f.o submit for his benefit as well as my 

'own a matter of inquiry. I understood the·gentleman from Louisiana 

said a moment ago that he did not put in the plea of the statute of 

limitations in t he case to which I referred. .Now the newspapers so far as I have heard said that was the fact. If the gentlemanis right in hi& 

statement as I understand him it is right and proper that fact should 

go to the country that he did not put in the plea of the statute o£ limitations; that he did not rest his case on that ple.'ll. I ask for informa- · 

tion so the matter may be presented to the country as it ought ·to be .. 

Mr. KELLOGG. That is right. I will state again the indictment 

addressed itself to a certain state of facts. When one of the two wit--

nesses was sworn, a man who testified to.acertainstateof facts alleged to· have occurred, it was developed that the transaction commenced according to his testimony and ended in July, 1879. The court at once intimated to my counsel that the statute of limitations would apply; that 

it applied underthepleaof not guilty, and need not be specially pleaded .. 

I said to my counsel most earnestly, I prefer, as I have twelve or fourteen witnesses, six or seven of whom came from a distance of 1,500 or more miles, who have been waiting a week to testify-! prefer to end 

this matter once and for all, and let all the testimony be heard at least. 

and go to the public. 

Mr. COBB. But the gentleman does not answer. 

Mr. KASSON. Let him answer. He is coming to it. 

Mr. KELLOGG. My counsel held consultation on this intimation, a& 

they assured me, from the court, and they called openly the attention. 

of the court to the facts in the case aligned with the indictment, and 

the court held that I would in any contingency be entitled to a verdict, 

for the statute oflimitation applied, and no jury could have cognizanceof any offense in such case--

Mr. HAMMOND . . Was any proposition made to waive the statuteof limitations? 

Mr. KELLOGG. No, sir; not specifically, nor would it have madeany difference, I presume--

M:r. HAl\OIOND. Did you set it up in your answer? 

Mr. KELLOGG. There was no answer. Mr. BE.ACH. You did not plead it, nor did your counsel? 

Mr. KELLOGG. It was considered, and in this way: My counsel 

made a motion on the ground and upon the intimation of the court that 

it would be impossible for a verdict to be rendered against me, and thecourt held accordingly--

Mr. BUDD. Did not tke case go off on this proposition: The allegation of the indictment was, you received compensation in lawful 

money of the United States. The proof disclosed that you received a. draft, and then your counsel raised the point there was a variance between the proof and the allegation, and on that point the court sus- tained it and threw it out of court? 

Mr. KELLOGG. No, sir. 

Mr. BUDD. Is not that the point? 

Mr. KELLOGG. No, sir; as the gentleman will learn if he will 

listen to me. Mr. BUDD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KELLOGG. If the gentleman· will listen to me I think he will 

admit I am correct. That point of variance in the allegations of the indictment as to lawful money and other points of variance were considered, and the court passed on the point as to lawful money in his de- · 

cision; but it passed mainly and primarily, as the gentleman wiJI see if he will go to the record on this question, that the state of facts admitted by the prosecution clearly showed the jury could not render a verdict because it was barred by the statute. · 

Now, l\lr. Speaker, mark you, in order to find that indictment against me and arraign me before the· court immunity was given to a large contractor, confessedly one of the largest in the United States, who was particeps criminis by his own testimony in this very matter of prosecution, and himself already indicted for conspiracy, and clearly within 

the statute of limitations-immunity was given to a eontractor, one of 

the largest in the country, who in an affidavit reciting the facts bearing on my case as alleged also recited other facts showing that he had 

laid money in an envelope upon the table of an officer. of this Government. This affidavit was given by him on a promise of immunity, orr as Mr. Bliss says, "We took a twist on him and made him testify." 

The mail-contractor, as I have said, was indicted clearly within this 

statute. His was a ca..<>e whom one, the attorney for the prosecution, 

has said in my hearing and that of others, and they will not dispute it, 

that they had a clear case against him, and he was given immunity in 

order to get him to testify against me in a ease that they knew was barred by the statute, for they said so over and over again, and it will 

not, I think, be denied. 

There is a gentleman sitting now upon this floor, within the sound 

of my voice, a member of this House, who heard one of the prosecuting 

attorneys say that they did not believe they could possibly convict me, 

because there was a missing link, as he said, in the evidence. Let me 

add that after the indictment was filed and for nearly a year I was constantly pressing for trial. The chief witness against me was for 

months eluding process, and finally, after months of delay, was induced to come here by what he openly says were material concessions 

made by the Government to his demands. Of the two witnesses upon 

whom the prosecution solely relied in theu •case against me one was- an indicted contractor, who avowedly testified to secure immunity, 

and the other was liable to indictment, and was allowed, as an induce-
. 

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4435 

ment to ~tify the remission of some $25,000 fines paid him illegally 

out of the The~ury, and of whom the Attorney-General said, in a letter over his siunatnre, written while they were using him against me, 

"He is an a~oit, unscrupulous man, without shame." 

Mr. CRISP rose. . Mr. BRUMM. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? 

Did the gentleman set up any plea as to- - Mr. CRISP. I wish to ask the gentleman from Louisiana to allow 

me to make a statement in relation to the action of the committee he 

criticises. .. 

Mr. BRUMM. I hope the gentleman from Georgia will permit me 

to submit my question first. 

Me CRISP. Certainly, if the gentleman from Louisiana does not 

yield to me at this time. 

Mr. KELLOGG. I will yiAlrl t.o the gentleman in a moment. 

Mr. BRUMM. I wish to ask the gentleman from Louisiap whether 

he made any plea except that of general issue? 

Mr. KELLOGG. No, sir; none whatever. 1 

Mr. BRUMM. That means simply a plea of not guilty? 

Mr. KELLOGG. That is all. 

Mr. HAMMOND. But the court held that under that plea the 

statute of limitation would .afford a bar to the prosecution. 

Mr. KELLOGG. That was the effect of the ruling of the court. 

1tfr. CRISP. Now will the gentleman from Louisiana allow me to 

make a statemenli in reference to the a-ction of this committee? 

Mr. KELLOGG. Certainly. M:r. CRISP. The gentleman from Louisiana, I wish to state, Mr. 

Speaker, has misapprehended the action of the Committee on Expenditures in the Departm~nt of Justice in connection with this subject. 

He has misapprehended the application that was madeto the committee by his own counsel There was no application whatever made to 

the committee to have a thorough investigation of the charges against 

the gentleman from Louisiana. No such application was made to the 

committee. The counsel of the gentleman from Louisiana appeared 

before that committee with the request that if the investigation was to 

proceed further in relation to that gentleman they might be permitted 

to be present to cross-examine the witnesses. 

But the statement was distinctly made in that connection that if there 

was to be no further investigation on the part of that committee-if 

no other evidence than that already in was to be taken in regard to the 

gentleman from Louisiana-then the gentleman from Louisiana had no 

request to make of them. Therefore when the gentleman states on the 

floor of this House that he made an application to that committee for 

a full investigation of these charges and that such application was refused by the committee, he misapprehends what occurred. 

And I will state further, Mr. Speaker, that it has been the uniform 

practice or rule of that committee-and I have no reason to suppose 

that it would be varied in a case in which the gentleman from Louisiana was interested-that where any individual, no matter who he 

might be, conceived that the evidence before that committee reflected 

upon him, he had the right to come before them without any resolution and justify himself if he could. But, sir, the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Justice did not conceive that they 

were specially charged with the investigation of an offense-if it were 

an offense-that was committed by the gentleman. from Louisiana before he was elected a Representative on this floor. 

That case was tried in the courts of this District. That case resulted 

in a verdict of not guilty upon the motion of the counsel of the gentleman from Louisiana to rule out the evidence in support of it, because 

it appeared that on the evidence no verdict of guilty could be had for the 

reason that the offense testified of was barred by the statute of limitations. T~e, it was not technically pleading the statute of limitations, 

but, Mr. Speaker, in criminal cases a defendant may avail himself of 

the benefit of such statute without specially pleading it. It wa.s technically a demurrer to the evidence; it was an allegation upon the part 

of his counsel that the proof submitted by the Government, admitting 

it to be true, would not authorize a conviction. And why? Not because the evidence was false or insufficient to establish facts which would 

show the guilt of the gentleman from Louisiana, but because, admitting it to be true, the statute of limitations would prevent a verdict of 

guilty. That was the case, and no matter how strong it might have 

been or was, in fact, as to the acts of the defenclant, no verdict of guilty 

could be had. The verdict resulted from the technical ruling that the 

offense was committed two years prior to the finding of the indictment. 

Mr. KELLOG-p-. Three years. 

Mr. CRISP. More than three years prior to the finding of the jndictment. But, lli. Speaker, I rose to correct the gentleman from 

Louisiana as to the action of the Committee on Expenditures in the 

Department of Justice in justification of that committee; I was a 

member of that committee and had some voiee· in · arriving at the determination which was reached that we would not undertake the investigation of that matter. I want to say in the presence of gentlemen 

on the other side of the House and in the presence of the gentleman 

from Louisiana that the committee never refused to hear him; my colleague on the ~epublican side of this committee will bear me out in 

this statement. If, Mr. Speaker, there is to be any investigation of 

the charges to which the gentleman from Louisiana refe~, so far as I am concerned I hope it will not be referred to the Comm1ttee on Expenditures in 7

the Department of Justice, for they hav~ their h~ds full 

already. but I hope it will be referred to some spec1al C?mm1ttee ~ppointed. for that purpose. I sW!;ll be conwnt; hQwever, mth the action, 

of the House in the premises, whatever it ma.y be, , . T 

Mr. MILLIKEN. Inasmuch as my friend ftom tieorgia rMr. CRtst>) 

refers to me, I beg to say that I understood the matter in this way:: 

That the counsel fur lli. KELLOGG claimed that if the evidence ofPriOO' 

and Lodge were put in before the committee then they should have aw 

opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and also to put in evidenceim 

rebuttal; but that the committee decided that it had nothing to do lri\h 

the case of Mr. KELLOGG; that it had been tried in the court; that. he was not an officer of the Government with the investigation of :whos~ 

conduct the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Justice 

had anything to do; that the committee was not a court of Teview and 

it was not proper for us to go into that matter at all unless a resolution 

passed the House authorizing us to do so. 

. Mr. KELLOGG. In speaking without notes or preparation I may 

have inadvertently omitted to state what I had intended to state. And 

ifthe gentleman from Georgia [lli. CRISP] will give me his'earforone 

moment, it is to him I desire to say that I stated or intended to state 

that I addressed myself to the chairman of the committee and req nested 

that he lay the matter before the committee, and that I be permitted 

to testi(y. I may be mistaken, but I think your minutes, the record 

of the proceedings before your committee, will show-so the papers 

stated at the time I recollect-that the chairman stated to the committee that lli. KELLOGG had applied to him and Tequested the com- mittee to investigate the matter. 

Then I proceeded to state what I did state in regard to a letter I had 

in course of preparation, and I addressed myself personally to the chairman- of the committee the day before yesterday, and stated I intended 

to send it, which I understood him to advise me to do. 

· Now, theobjectofthis resolution is this: Ifthecommitteethink they 

have no authority under the resolution creating them to investigate 

this matter-inasmuch as before this committee-and I appeal to the 

candor now of the House, I appeal to that fairness and magnanimity of 

the other side that I have never failed to find respond to my appeal in 

darker days when I have been in much more active political hostility 

with them-inasmuch as there is evidence already taken by this committee, page after page, documentary and parole, bearing directly or 

indirectly on this matter, also the report of a special agent and the testimony of what purports to be the facts brought to the attention of the 

grandjury-I appeal to the chairman of the committeeifiam not correct. Now, inasmuch as the records of the committee contain all this, 

I submit that this committee should be permitted to go on even if they 

have not, strictly speaking, jurisdiction, and hear what I have to say 

and what other witnesses have to say in denial and rebuttal of this evidence so reflecting upon me. 

It is to give to them that authority, if there is any doubt about their 

possessing it, that I offer this resolution. I do not suppose the House 

has jurisdiction, strictly speaking, over an offense alleged to have been 

committedalongtimebeforeiwaselected; notonlythat, but, asamatter 

of fact, two of the grand juries that investigated this matter investigated 

it at a time anterior to my election, and my district was flooded with 

documents setting forth the testimony before the grand jury for weeks 

and months before :that election. And, notwithstanding that, I was 

elected, as my friend from New Orleans whom I have in my eye well 

knows, over a bolting Republican and the Democratic nominee by several thousand majority, receiving a large proportion of the white Democratic votes in my district; a district embracing the largest proportion 

for the same aTea of country~ of the wealth, culture, and intelligence, 

not only of Louisiana but of any State ofthe Southwest. 

Now, sir, I move the previous question on this resolution, and I would 

like the sense of the House upon it. 

lli. BLANCHARD. I hope my friend will not insist just now on 

the call for the previous question. 

~fr. KELLOGG. I withdraw the call for the previous question. 

Mr. BLANCHARD. I wish to say in reference to this matter that on or about the 18th of April, 1883, after the election of members to 

this House, the indictment against the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 

KELLOGG], charging him with improper conduct in .relation to star~ route 

mail contracts, was found in the criminal court of the District of Columbia. About three weeks ago, on technical plea.s urged by his counsel, the prosecution against the gent1eman was dismissed. From that 

time to this I have been waiting, hoping that my colleague would rise 

in his place on this floor and ask that a committee of this House be authorized to investigate these charges affecting his standing as a member of this House. I came to the conclusion at length that such a resolution would not be introduced by him. Accordingly I informed my 

colleague on yesterday that unle...~ he did introduce such a resolution 

I myself would rise in my place as a Representative from Louisiana 

and do it. · ,. I held, Mr. Speaker, then as l hold now, that this is a question of 

privilege; it is one affecting the dignity of this House; and not only 

that, but these charges against a Representative from Louisiana affect 
4436 OONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. MAY 23, 

the honor and the dignity of that sovereign State. Holding as I do a 

commission from that State on this floor, I ani not willing that one of 

the delegation should rest quietly under the aspersions cast upon him 

by reason of these charges and this indictment. It seemed to me, sir, 

that a jealous care for the honor of our State required of every member 

of her delegation to insist that grave charges of moral turpitude publicly 

made against one of its members should be promptly and_fully investigated. 

In taking the course I did I was not animated by any spirit of malice 

or ill-will against the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. KELLOGG]. 

N~ither was I actuated by party ~pirit to strike at a political opp?- n ent. I waf! prompted to the action only by a stern sense of public 

duty to preserve untarnished the fair name of the State. · 

When I informed my colleague on yesterday that a resolution to investigate these charges against him must be introduced and that I intended to do it, he said it were better for him to do so and that he 

intended to do it, and at his request I gave way in order that he might 

introduce it. · 

I hope the resolution will be adopted. It is not such a resolution as 

I had myself prepared. I had prepared one which I read to my colleague, but he objected w some of its provisions, and I then told him 

to prepare one himself and submit it to me, and if.it was full enough 

and broad enough in scope, I would give him the opportunity to introduce it in the House and give way to him for that purpose. When he 

}Presented to me the resolution he had prepared, I amended it in some 

IJ.)articulars. I objected, too, to the preamble which he had drawn up; 

fuut let that go. I would prefer that the investigation be made by a 

:apecial committee. I do not see wherein it is the peculiar province of 

'the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Justice to enter 

upon an investigation of this kind. Bnt at the request of my colleague, 

:and inasmuch as there has been some testimony taken by that committtee regarding the prosecution of the star-route cases, I have agreed with 

Ihlm that instead of asking for a special committee the Committee on 

Expenditures in the Department of Justice be given authority to make 

this investigation. · 

Whether the investigation be made by the Committee on Expenditures in the Pepartmentof Justiceorwhethertheresolution be amended 

so as to provide that the investigation shall be made by a special committee, I care not. But I do want these charges, affecting the character 

of a Representative from my State, to be investigated. If that member 

be guilty, I desire that the punishment usual in such cases to be meted 

out be visited upon him. On the · other hand, if he be innocent I want 

his character vindicated from these asperSions. I therefore hope that 

no gentleman on this side of the House will interpose any objection to 

the adoption of this resolution. 

Mr. OATES. May I ask the gentleman a question? 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. KELLOGG] 

demands the previous question on the resolution. 

Mr. HAMMOND. I hope that will be voted down. 

The question was taken upon ordering the previous question, and 

upon a division there were--ayes 64, noes-83. 

So (no further count being called for) the previous question was not 

ordered.\ 

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. Speaker, I am loath at any time to refuse to 

any gentleman the opportunity to reply to any attack made upon him, 

whether the attack be just or unjust . . But this body is controlled by 

law and has no time to waste. 

As I understand, should a committee of this House investigate the 

conduct of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. KELLOGG] and find that 

all that was charged against him in the bill of indictment in the courts 

of this District orin anyotherplace was true, still that committee would 

be obliged to report to this House that they could not do anything with 

him because of the statute of limitations. The same lapse of time 

which prevented a jury from passing upon his guilt or his innocence 

would prevent this House from passing upon the question whether he 

is or is not a disgraced and dishonored man, for he shows that the matters all occurred before his"election as a Representative. 

Even if that were not true, yet as at present ad vised I believe that we ought to have no investigation of this matter, because the House is 

perhaps not in the position to investigate the facts in this case as they 

should be investigated. The gentleman's own statement here indicates 

that persons in charge of papers, persons possessing evidence, would 

perhaps not be subject to the order of the House. His testimony is in 

his own hands and at his own command. When the testimony of the 

Government was in the hands of men who could have used it and at 

the command of a court which could compel its production, it was at 

the instance of his own counsel that it was not produced before the 

country and acted upon. I know there was no plea of the statute of 

limitations. 

Mr. CRISP. There could not be in a criminal case. Mr. HAMMOND. As my colleague [Mr. CRISP] says, there could 

have been no such plea in a criminal case. But every gentleman 

knows t.hat the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. KELLOGG] could have 

waived 'the que8tion of time; could then have stood up before the country and aid: ":My hGnor is at stake, and I spurn such a defense." 

Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. · Does the gentleman from Georgia say that 

in a criminal.case· a party can admit himself to be guilty when the 

facts show him not to be? · • 

Mr. HAMMOND. No; and "the gentleman from Georgia" said no such thing. 

Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. Can he waive the statute of llip.itations? 

Mr. HAMMOND. He can. 

Mr. KASSON. Under a plea on the general issue? 

Mr. HAMMOND. He could have tried it; and I have seen it done. 

Mr. KELLOGG. !protested to mycouilsel-againsttheinterposition . 

of any plea of that kind, and they will bear witness to tha.t effect. 

Mr. HAMMOND. I desire to say further, that if this investigation 

is to be had of a transaction that occurred years ago, where is it to end? 

Where will it end, when we lay down the rule that one may charge 

another with something_ done long before he was a member of this 

House, and that the member can thereupon demand an investigation? 

The gentleman himself said, I thought as a sort of excusatory argument, that· he was the only man of a thousand who had violated this 

law who had ever been charged with any wrong on that account. 

:Ur. KELLOGG. I stated expressly that I did not make that statement in palliation; I only mentioned the fact to show how I had been 

persecuted. · 

Mr. HAMMOND. I know he said it not in palliation; but it was one 

of the things that forced itself upon my mind before he made the disclaimer. 

Mr. KELLOGG. I mentioned it as an evidence ·of the fact that I 

had been singled out by malice on the one hand and, as I said, by selfish 

motives on the other. 

Mr. HAMMOND. I say for the honor of the American people that 

never before did I hear that any member of Congress had ever violated 

that statute. If there be a man anywhere in this country' who has 

violated it, and the gentleman from Louisiana knows it, then it is his 

duty as a good citizen to disclose the fact, allow him to be indicted, 

and if he is found guilty let him be punished according to law. 

It is a humiliating confession to be made by a member of Congress 

that he knows that in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases·men representing here the people, in spite ·of a law that makes it a felony to 

charge them for services before the Departments, have been guilty of 

violating that law, and yet the gentleman has never mentioned it until 

it became necessary to screen himself. 

Mr. KELLOGG. A member appearing as counsel before the Court 

of Claims violates the statute. 

Mr. HAMMOND. I take the liberty of doubting whether the gentleman knows any such thing. I believe his remark is one of those 

exaggerated suggestions of possibly imaginary facts forced sometimes 

upon a mind of one not exactly careful about what he is uttering. 

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I regret to oppose the motion of the gentleman 

from Louisiana, if he has been wronged. I regret to oppose the motion 

of the other gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. BLANCHARD] if he thinks 

his State is wronged by a defeat of this investigation. But inasmuch 

as it seems to be a conceded proposition that if the House should find 

the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. KELLOGG] to be guilty, it can not 

punish him, I think the investigatj.on should go no further; and I move 

to lay the whole matter on the table. ' 

Mr. KASSON. I ask the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. H.llntiOND] 

to withdraw that motion for a moment. He has spoken at length, as 

he had a right to do. I ask him simply for five minutes. 

Mr. HAMMOND. I yield five minutes to the gentleman. 

Mr. KASSON. Mr. Speaker, by the operation of voting down the 

previous questi4i>n, the management of this proposition for investigation 

has passed to the other side of the House, or to that part of the other 

side opposed to it. I do not rise for· the purpose of attempting in any 

way to take the matter out of their ha:nds. But I do rise to call attention to the fact that the position take!\ by the gentleman from Geor~a 

has re-enforced the demand ~de by the gentleman from Louisiana fo~ 

aa investigation by this House; for it shows that he like myself has 

been prejudiced against the member from Louisiana by the reports in 

the newspapers on that subject. I confess that I have been so prejudiced. Further, sir, he would deny to the member from Louisiana. the 

opportunity even to meet before a committee of the House the evidence 

that is already on its files implicating his honor and his reputation. 

If this Representative from Louisiana has been guilty of bribery, as 

it bas been sought to induce the public mind to believe, I do not want 

to sit with him on the floor of this House. If, on the other hand, the 

imputation upon him arises as he charges from malice" and falsehood, 

and is untrue in fact, then I say that to deny him this investigation is 

to Yiolate the fundamental principle of justice. 

What position does the gentleman from Georgia take in his argument? He argues that probably that gentleman is guilty, because of 

the interposition under the direction of the judicial court of the plea. 

that there was a variance in the indictment and the facts, and what- ever the evidence might be the indictment could not stand and judgment could not be rendered upon it. I say that for the gentleman 

from Georgia to take this position and endeavor to re-enforce the popular opinion to the prejudice of the member from Louisiana, ~nd then 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4437 

to deny the right of investigation, which that member demands here 

on this floor, surpasses in injustice any position that I have ever known 

to be taken on this floor touching the personal rights of members. 

I appeal to gentlemen on the other side whether I am not right in 

saying that before they re-enforce the arguments tending to show that 

probably this memberwasguiltytheyshould say, ''Give him the right 

to furnish proof in contradiction of that upon which the prejudice of 

members and of the public rests.'' 

I deem it my duty to say so much, sir, because of the influence that 

these newspaper reports have had upon me; and I waive the question 

of the jurisdiction of the House to punish, because I recognize the 

right of an :i,ndividual member to justification whenever he claims such 

justification can be had, upon all matters touching his public reputation. 

Mr. HAJ.IMOND. I yield two minutes to the gentleman from N ebra.ska [Mr. LAIRD]. 

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Speaker, this is an extraordinary spectacle. A 

member asks that he may be heard upon a question vital to his honor 

and to the honor of the entire body of the representatives of the people, 

and that req nest is met by a concession of members of the committee 

to whom he appeals that it is true as charged by him that testimony 

tending to establish his guilt has been heard before the committee, yet 

the majority of this House propose to refuse to the member thus attacked the right of defense. That is, you go to the country upon the 

proposition that yourcommitteehasjurisdictiontofind guilty, but not 

to acquit. It is lawful for the committee in question to hear the evidence against a Representative, but not for him; a position which, if 

insisted on, will be without parallel this side of the French Revolution. 

The gentleman [Mr. HAMMOND] calls attention to the plea of Mr. 

KELLOGG, and seems to think that if the statute of limitations was a 

good bar in court, it is a good bar here, and condemns that gentleman 

for his course in court. I neither know nor care whether he pleaded the 

statute or not, for as we understand the law, when the time presented 

by the statute of limitations has run the crime is dead, and the court 

must take judicial notice of that fact. 

I am bolJnd in frankness to 8ay that I have never looked with kindness upon the political career of the gentleman from Louisiana, and I 

stand here in no wise as his defender, but to ask that he have the 

right to defend himself, and that he be allowed the use of the same 

appliances that have been used as he claims to defame him. 

Mr. HAMMOND. I yield three minutes to the gentleman from 

Louisiana [Mr. HUNT]. 

Mr. HUNT. When I heard the constitutional doctrine just ~ounced 

by the Speak~r, that the power and jurisdiction of the House·do not 

extend to an examination of the conduct of the member from Louisiana 

now in question owing to the time of the commission of the offense 

charged, that being anterior to theelectionofthe member, I had grave 

doubts as to the correctness of that opinion. But, sir, the great respect 

I have for you, for your abilities and learning, led me to weigh as carefully 

as I could your view before venturing to express any dissent from it. 

I must how observe, however, that I do not understand the Constitution to place any such limitation upon the authority of the Houses of 

Congress, and I sent to the Librarian, when I heard, Mr. Speaker, your 

expression of opinion, for Story on the Constitution, and I find that he 

says: 

In July, 1797, William Blount was expelled from the Senate for "a high misdemeanor, entirely inconsistent with his public trust a.nd duty as a Senator." The offense charged against him was an attempt to seduce an Ameri~n agent among the Indians from his duty, and to alienate the affections and confidence 

of the Indians from the public authorities of the United States, and a negotiation 

for services in behalf of the British Government among the Indians. It was not a. statutable offense, nor was it committed in his official character, nor was it 

committed during the session of Congress, nor at the seat of Government. Yet by an almost unanimous vote he was expelled from that body and he was afterward impeached (as has been already stated) for this among other charges. It ·seems, therefore, to be settled by the Senate, upon full deliberation, that expulsion may be for any misdemeanor which, though not punishable by any statute, 

is inconsistent with the trust and duty of a Senator. In the case of John Smith 

(a Senator), in April,l808, the charge against him was for participation in the 

supposed treasonable conspiracy of Colonel Burr. But the motion to expel him wns lost by a want of the constitutional majority of two-thirds of the members 

of the Senate. · The precise ground of the failure of the motion does not appear; but it may be gathered from the arguments of his counsel that it did not turn upon any doubt that the power of the Senate extended to cases of misdemeanor not done 

in the presence or view of the body; but most probabJy it was decided upon some doubt as to the facts. It may be thought difficult to draw a. clear line of 

distinction between the right to inflict the punishment of expulsion and any other punishment upon a member, founded on the time, place, or nature of the 

offense. The power to expel a member is not, in the British House of Com- mons, confined to offenses committed by the party as a member, or during the se ion of Parliament; but it extends to a.ll cases where the offense is such as, in the judgment of the house, unfits him for parliamentary duties. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is no controlling authority to the contrary, I submit that every consideration of public dignity and public 

order and fair dealing requires the investigation sought by Mr. KELLOGG should go on. It concerns the dignity of a great State. It con-

• cerns a representative place of great trust. It concerns the character, 

the integrity, and the honor of this body. 

Mr. BLAND. Was the alleged offense in the case in Story com- mitted before the term of the Senator commenced, as in the c;i.Se of 

KELLOGG? 

Mr. HUNT~ I am unable to go any further into the fads than as 

they are given by Judge Story. 

:Mr. BLAND. Was the offense committed before he was elected to 

Congress'! · 

Mr. HUNT. I can say, moreover, upon other authority that there is 

no limitation in the Constitution. Here is the learned gentleman from 

Vermont, my frie~d ex-Chief-Justice POLAND, who comes to my rescue 

in time of need. In the Credit Mobilier investigation he tells me he 

examined the question now under discussion, and he found the position taken by me to be correct, and actually applied it in that case. 

Matters were investigated and reported on the instance of the Credit 

l'tfobilier which had occurred as many as five years before. I quote accordingly from the Credit Mobilier report the following extract: 

In the report made to the Senate by John Quincy Adams in December, 1807, upon the case of John Smith, of Ohio, the following language is used: "The powe-r of expelling a member for misconduct results on the principles of com- mon sense. from the interests of the nation that the high trust of legislation shall 

be invested in pure hands. When the trURt is elective~ it is not to be presumed 

that the constituent body will commit the deposit to tne keeping of worthless 

characters. But when a man whom his fellow-citi~ns have honored with their 

confidence on a pledge of a spotless reputation has degraded himself by the com- mission of infamous crimes, which becomesuddenlyand unexpectedly revealed to the world, defective indeed would be that institution which should be impo- tent to discard from its bosom the contagion of such a member; which should 

have no remedy of amputation to apply until the poison had reached the heart." 

The case of Smith was of a Senator who, after his election, but not during a session of the Senate, had been involved in the treasonable conspira-cy of Aaron Burr. Yet the reasoning is general, and was to antagonize some positions 

which had been taken in the case of Marshall, a Senator from Kentucky, the 

Senate in that case having, among other reasons, declined to take jurisdiction 

of the charge for the reason that the alleged offense had been committed prior to the Senator's election, a.nd was matter cognizable by the criminal courts of 

Kentucky. None of the commentators upon the Constitution or upon parliamentary law assign any such limitations as to the time of the commission of 

the offense, or the nature of it, which shall control and limit the power of ex- pulsion. On the contrary, they all assert that the .power in its very nature is a. discretionary one, to be exercised, of course, with grave circumspection at all 

times and only for good cause. Story, Kent, and Sergeant all seem to accept 

a.nd rely upon the exposition of Mr. Adams in the Smith case as sound. May, 

in his Parliamentary Practice, page 59, enumerates the causes for expulsion from 

Parliament, but he nowhere intimates that the offense must have been com- mi~d subsequent to the election. 

I ask no~ why shall we not order this investigation? Will not the 

gentleman LMr. KELLOGG] be discharged from the accusation made 

against him if he is innocent? Does it not touch our conscience and 

our sense of honor that he should be pronounced innocent if the charge 

be not true? If he is supposed guilty (I express no opinion at all on 

that subject, for it would be manifestly wrong and I think improper 

for me to do so), will not the House act in the premises ·as becomes the 

dignity and charaeter of the popular branch of the American Congress? 

I hope, Mr. Speaker, the resolution offered by the gentleman [Mr. 

KELLOGG] will pass. I think his own request for investigation ought 

in the circumstances to control the House. Other considerations of 

public good and general policy I submit re-enforce on the present occasion the demand. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman's time has expired. 

Mr. HAMMOND. How much time have I left? 

The SPEAKER. Thirty minutes. 

Mr. HAMMOND. I yield now for :five ·minutes to the gentleman 

from Louisiana [Mr. KING]. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, a member from the State of"Louisiana 

rises under these auspices with great embarrassment. The charge of 

grave misconduct upon a member from that State is certainly sufficient to bring the deepest humiliation to the Representatives from that 

State UJ?On this floor. Rumors and reports of this charge (the charge of 

bribery) have been heard from time to time, and have been commonin 

conversations on this floor for some time past. Several weeks have 

elapsed since they became current. Under these humiliating circumstances the members from that State appreciate the fact that the member charged is of the opposite p~, anQ. there having been great acrimony in that State between the contending political parties prevailing 

there renders it a matter of still greater delicacy for any member from 

that State to rise and demand an explanation or investigation of the 

member charged. I was told that the member himself desired an investigation. Upon that statement I rested for several weeks, and during the course of that time prepared resolutions similar to these which I 

hold in my hand, referred to by the gentleman representing the fourth ·district, my colleague, Mr .. BLANCHABD. 

But I was assured that the member himself who is charged with these 

glaring irregularities had prepared resolutions which would be offered 

by himself at a suitable time. Upon that statement I have therefore 

waited for him to present them. He has now risen in his place on this 

floor and presented those resolutions. Their terms have been made 

known to this House and to the countty ; and I am glad that he has 

offered them. I think thatjustice to. his State, justice to this Honse, 

and justice to him demands .that they be adopted, and I hope that 

there will be no dissenting voice on thjs side of the House. If wrong 

has been done by the member accused let it be demonstrated and the 

wrong-doer be brought to punishment ; and if he is innocent give him 

the opportunity of vindicating himself from asper8ions which have been 

cast upon him. I hope, therefore, that members on this side of the 

House will vote in favor oftheadoption of the resolution. 
' 

4438 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 23, 

:Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. Speaker, as a justification for the position I 

took as to the law on this subject, I send to the desk and ask to have 

read a. report made in the Forty-fourth Congress with reference to the 

China mail service. · The Clerk read as follows: Mr. Lynde, from the Committee on the Judiciary, subrni.tted the following 

re!£~r: Committee on the Judiciary, to whom were referred the papers and tes- timony taken by the Committee on ·ways and Means of the Forty-third Co~­

gress with instructions to inquire what action should be taken by the Housem ref r~nce to the persons now members of this House charged with comp~i<:ity in the alleged corrupt use of money to procure the pas age of an act prov1dmg for an addiLional subsidy in the China mail service during the Forty-second 

Congress, and with giving false testimony i~ relation thereto befor~ the Com- mittee on Ways and 1\Ieans of the Forty-thud Congress, have cons1dered the 

same and report: . That the Committee on Ways and Means of the Forty-third Congress, after a thorough investigation of the charge that a large sum of money was used to se- cure the passage through Congress of an increased annual appropriatioq to the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, in the nature of a subsidy, report among other 

th,~~~~ results of the evidence are, that about$900,000 was disbursed upon the al- legation that it was used in aid of the passage of the act now under investiga- tion. That about $565,000 appears to have been paid to the exclusive use of per- sons having no official connection wit;h such legislation; and that the disposi- tion of the remaining $335,000 rell\l).ins in doubt upon the evidence presented, but without any testimony showing that it was a reward paid to any person at that time a. member of either House of. Congress ; and that the uncertainty at- tending the disposition of this latter sum is owing to the refusal of William S. King to testify the truth, and to the failure or refusal of John G. Schumaker to present all the facts which the committee believe it was in his power to give. 11 The committee report. the following resolutions: " Resolved, That a. copy of the testimony taken before the Committee on Ways and Means, upon the question of a corrupt use of mone;v ~o secure the paasage of an act oroviding for an additional subsidy for the Chma. mail service, be de- livered to-the Clerk of the House of Representatives, to be by him laid before the House at the first session of the Forty-fourth Congress, to the end that they may make further inquiry and take due action upon the questions affecting WilliamS. King and John G. Schumaker, a.nd further proceed therein as they shall deem just. 11 Resolved, That the Clerk of this House transmit to the United States district attorney a copy of the evidence taken before the Committee on Ways and Means upon the question of a corrupt use of money to procure the passage of an act providing for an additional subsidy for the China mail service, with direc- tions to lay so much of the same as relates to the truth of the testimony give n by William S. King and John G. Schumaker before the grand jury of said District, for such action as th'e law seems to require." The above resolutions were adopted by the House, and a copy of the evidence taken before the Committee on Ways and Means upon the question of a corrupt use of money to procure the passage of an act providing for an additional sub- sidy for the China mail service has been transmitted to the United States district attorney for the District of Columbia, by the Olerk of the House, in accordance with said resolution. • The whole subject is properly before the court; the offenses charg~d are crimes by statute, and the Constitution provides: - "No person shall be held to answer for an infamous crime unless on a pre- sentment or indictment of a grand jury." Your committee are of opinion that the House of Representatives has no au- thority to take jurisdiction of violations of law or offenses committed against a previous Congress. This is purely a legislative body, and entirely unsuited for the trial of crimes. The fifth section of the first article of the Constitution authorizes 11 each House to determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, ex- pel a member." This power is evident-ly given to enable each House to exer- cise its constitutional function of legislation unobstructed. It can not vest in Congress a jurisdiction to try a member for an ofl'ense committed before his election; for such offense a member, like any other citizen, is amenable to the courts alone. Within four years after the adoption of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, Humphrey Marshall, a Senator of the United States from Kentucky, was charged by the Legislature of his State with the crime of per- jury, and the memorial was transmitted by the governor to the Senate for its action. The committee to whom it was referred reported against the jurisdic- tion of the Senate, and say- " That in a case of this kind no person can be held to answer for an infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury and that in all such prosecutions the accused ought to be tried by an impartiaijuryofthe State or district wherein the crime shall have been committed. Until he is legally convicted, the principles of the Constitution and of the common law concur in presuming that he is innocent. And they are also of opinion that as the Consti- tution does not give jurisdiction to the Senate, the consent of the party can not give it, and that therefore the said memorial ought to be dismissed." This report was adopted by a vote ofl6 to 7. '!'his is the construction given to said section in the first case presented to either House after its adoption by the statesmen who framed the Constitution, and we think it an authority which should control the case before the committee. We know of no public interest which will be promoted by further investigation. . Your committee therefore recommend that the House leave these charges where they now are, in court, to be finally adjudicated and disposed of without any interposition or further action of the House. 

Mr. BLANCHARD. I ask the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. HA.MMO:YD] to cause to be read also the views of the minority. ' 

Mr. HAMMOND. They may be printed with the report of the ma- ·jority. 

Mr. BLANCHARD. I should prefer to have them read. 

Mr. HAMMOND. I do not know how much time it would take. I 

have but ten minutes remaining. 

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Georgia yield to the request to have the views of the minority printed? 

.Mr. HAMMOND. I have no objection to that. 

Mr. BLANCHARD. Very well; let them be printed in the RECORD. 

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection, the views of the minority will be printed. 

There was no objection. They are as follows: 

VIEWS OF THE JIUNORITY. 

The undersigned members of the Judiciary Committee, to whom was referred the resolution of the 24th of January last, set forth in the report of the majority, respectfully report: · . That the only question now presented to the House is the question of jurisdiction, which question arises under the last clause of section 5 of article 1 of the Constitution : "Each House may determine the rules of ite proceedings; punish it mem- bers for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member." 

It will be seen that there are ·no words of limitation on the power to expel, which seems to have been left to the good sense and discretion of each House; in other words, does not the Con titution refer rather to the 1itness of the mem- ber to hold the office, resting on considerations of public justice and policy, than to the time of his election? Yet the undersigned do not deny but that there are limitations on the power of this House arising from the circumstances of partic- nlar cases and the relations of this House to the constituency of a.n accused member; therefore, as will be seen, the undersigned need not go further in this case than to assert jurisdiction, because the oft'en es complained of were not known to the constituents of the members in question until after their election. Without asserting the guilt of the accused, it is sufficient to say that the grava- men of the charges made against them is that one of them (Mr. Schumaker) re- ceived the sum of $275,000, and the other (Mr. King) while an officer of t.he House, $75,000, for the purpose of purchasing the votes of members of the Con- gress for a subsidy to the Pacific Mail Steamship Company; and it is conceded that the alleged reception of such money by them was not known to their con- stituents until after their election. It is also alleged that one of the members (Mr. King) testified falsely concern- ing the moneys received by him before his election to the present House, and that the other (Mr. Schumaker) so testified after his election to the present 

House, before a committee of the Forty-third Congress. The fact that the questions involved as to the guilt of the accused members h3.ve heen referred to the courts of the District of Columbia does not and can not affect the question of jurisdiction, nor in any manner release the House from its duty in the premises, as has been held in the cases of Kilbourn and Belknap. The case of Humphrey Marshall, referred to in the report of the majority, is not a case in point. He was accused of the crime of perjury, committed before a State court in Kentucky; a majority of the Senate concluded that he was en- titled to a trial before a jury. If the members in the cases before the Congress were accused of the crime of perjury committed in a State court, in dealing with the question entirely different considerations might be presented. . The committee of the Senate, in the case of Marshall, says : 11 That in a. case of this kind no person can be held to answer for an infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury." This decision, however, only relates to trials in court in the adminstration of criminal justice, and not to protective justice by proceedings on impeachment or expulsion from either House of Congress. Without now discussing or deciding the question to what depths of infamy a member must have sunk, if condoned by his constituents, before the House should exercise the power to expel him, or without deciding that there is any depth of infamy which, if so condoned, would authorize such expulsion, it is sufficient to say that in the cases before the House the offenses, as alleged, related directly to the attempted corruption of members of the Congress of the United States, which crime or crimes, wherever originated, were consummated, as alleged, in the District of Columbia. or within the Halls of the Ca~itol. 

In the State of New York, in the case of George G. Barnard, one of the justices of its supreme court, he was held liable to impeachment for offenses committed by him before he was elected to the term of office which he then held. The senate of that State has asserted the same principle. The Senate of the United States has recently held jurisdiction in a case in which the alleged limitation, if any, forbidding it is found in the words of the Constitution. The undersigned therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolu- tion: · Resolved, That the House of Representatives has jurisdiction in the cases of William S. King and John G. Schumaker, and that it be referred to the Com· mittee on Civil Service Reform to ascertain and report the facts. 

SCOTT LORD. WM. LAWRENCE. GEO. F. HOAR. B. G. CAULFIELD. 

I am of the opinion that the House ought not to assume jurisdiction of a case where a member is charged with having sworn falsely at a time prior to his election, especially if such member has been indicted therefor before the proper judicia l tribunal, and pending his trial. But where the charge is that a mem- ber of the House has received money to be used by him to corrupt legislation in Congress, for which offense no indictment has been found, I think the House may properly take jurisdiction though the offenses charged were committed prior to his election. I am desirous that an inquiry be made to ascertain whether this latter offense has been committed by either or both of the accused mem- bers; and for that purpose, and to that extent, I concur in the report of the mi- nority of the committee. 

GEO. W. McCRARY. 

Mr. HAMMOND. I withdrew my motion to table this whole matter because it was said, though after the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 

KELLOGG] had twice called the previous question and endeavored to 

cut off debate thereby, that it was unfair for me after a short reply to 

his speech to cut off debate by such a motion. I therefore yielded to the ·several gentlemen who asked me to permit them to express their views. 

The whole thing now resolves itself into a mere matter of doubt as to the law. ThegentlemanfromLouisiana [Mr. HUNT] hadfurnished 

to him by Judge POLAND the report in the Credit-Mobilier case. I 

grant that the report in that case was as broad as he said it was. I 

state, however, that there was one jurisdictional fact in that case which 

perhaps had some control; and that was that the offenses were committed during the terms of the offenders as Congressmen, though not while 

members of that House. But whether that makes a ufficient answer to it or not, I desire to say personally that I differ with the conclusions 

of the committee in the Credit Mobilier case. I think that that report was carried by the enormity of the. wrong, and that had it been a case 

in which there had been more caution and deliberation the rule which 

i invoked to-day would have prevailed. That l'eport went this far: 

~' If two-thirds of the House shall see :fit to expel a man because they 

do not like his political or religious principles, or without any reason at all, they have the power, and there is no remedy except by appeal to 

the people." I admit that Congress has the power to do wrong. The 

question is as to the right. I admit that Congress has the power to 

refuse to pass any law. But· can we act upon the idea that it will do 

such a thing? Congress has the power to block the wheels of the Government by declining to appropriate money. But ought it to do it? 

Can we act upon the idea that it may do so? 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSEo 4439 

But, Mr. Speaker, I would not have any inj nstice done any man upon 

my mere declaration ofwhat the law is, for I maybe wholly mistaken. 

I therefore, instead of making the motion which I intended to make, 

.and which I did make and withdrew to allow others to speak, move 

that the resolution be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary with 

leave to report the same back at any time for consideration. And if 

the committee shall report that under the circumstances of this case it 

is one where the House can legally investigate and can legally punish, 

I think that I will withdraw my opposition to investigation. For I now 

<put it upon that ground only, that the gentleman's [Mr. KELLOGG's] 

:apeech disclosed the fact that there was a time when he could have bad 

.an investigation, but the statute of limitations prevented it, and I think 

that he is now appealing to this House for an investigation where the 

.same principle of the statute of limitations in my opinion must again prevent it, because the wrong, if any, was before his election to this House. 

I ask for the reading of my resolution, and on that I demand the pre-

-vious question. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. HAMl\IOND] 

:SUbmits a resolution, which the Clerk will read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Resolved, That the resolution be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

-with leave to report the same back at any time for consideration. 

The SPEAKER. And upon that the gentleman from Georgia de-

.mands the previous question. 

The previotis question was ordered. 

The SPEAKER. The question is on the adoption of the resolution 

.of the gentleman from Georgia, w,lrich is to refer the pending resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

The question being taken, there were-ayes 82, noes 49. 

So (further count not being called for) the resolution of Mr. HAM-

::MOND was agreed to, and the pending resolution was referred to the 

·Committee on the Judiciary. 

NAVY DEPARTMENT. 

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a letter 

from the acting chief clerk of theN avy Department, transmitting copies 

.()f papers inadvertently omitted from the communication of the Secre-

·taryof the Navy of dateMay20, 1884; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

CLAIM OF CREEK NATION. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the Honse a letter from the Sec~etary .of the Interior, transmitting a communication from the Commissioner 

.on Indian Affairs in relation to the claim of the Creek Nation on account of the cession to the United States of surplus lands, inclosing 

.a memorial of the Creek Nation, with the report of the Commissioner 

thereon and decision of the Department, asking for an appropriation 

ctherefor of $86,313. 04, to be inserted in the sundry civil appropriation 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations. 

INTERNAL-REVENUE OFFICERS. 

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

..of the Interior, transmitting a letter from the Commissioner of Internal 

Revenue in relation to an additional appropriation of $150,000 required 

-to complete the service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1884, on ac-

-count of salaries and expenses of agents and subordinate officers of internal revenue; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations. 

DISCRIMINATIONS AGAINST UNITED STATES EXPORTS. 

. The SPEAKER. In accordance :with the statute the Chair also lays 

before the Honse the following Senate concurrent resolution for refer-

·ence to the Committee on Printing. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Resolved by the Senate of the United States (the House of Representatives concurring), 

That 6,000 additional copies of the report; of the Senate Committee on Foreign 

Relations upon the second branch of the resolution of the Senate, adopted Jan- uary 22, 1884, in relation to discriminations made by foreign governments .1l.gainst exports from the United States, &c., together with the accompanying documents, be printed, of which 2,000 copies shall be for the use of the Senate, 

.3,000 copies for the use of the House of Representatives, 500 copies for the use of 

the State Department, and 500 copies for the use of the Treasury Department. 

The concurrent resolution was referred to the Committee on ·Printing. 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. 

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to Mr. DUNCAN, 

:-for ten days, on account of important business. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. HERBERT. I ask unanimous consent to introduce a bill for 

Jl'eference. 

The SPEAKER. Is the demand for the regular order withdrawn? 

Several MEMBERS. '' Regular order.'' 

The SPEAKER. The regular order is insisted upon, which is the 

call of commi.ttees for reports of a private nature. 

Mr. McMILLIN. I move to dispense with the morning hour for the 

.ca'n of committees. 

The SPEAKER. That requires a two-thirds vote. 

The question was taken; and (two-thirds voting in favor thereof) the 

:morning hour was dispensed with. 

Mr. McMILLiN. I now move that the House resolve itself into 

Committee of the Whole for the consideration of business on the Private Calendar . Mr. STEELE. I desire to submit three reports from the Committee 

on Pensions. 

Mr. McMILLIN. I will yield for that purpose. 

DAVID C. PALLUS. 

Mr. STEELE, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on Pensions, reported back with a favorable recommendation the bill (H. R. 

1912) for the relief of David C. Pallus; which was referred to t4eCommittee of the Whole Honse on the Private CaJendar, and the accompanying report ordered to be printed. 

ELIZABETH CONNOR. 

1\Ir. STEELE, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on Pensions, also reported back with a favorable recommendation the bill (H. 

R. 411) granting a pension to Elizaheth Connor; which was referred to 

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

accompanying report ordered to he printed. 

EMl\IA DE LONG. 

Mr. STEELE, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on Pensions, also reported back with a~ a.mendment the bill (H. R. 3065) 

granting a pension t.o Emma De Long; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole Honse on the Private Calendar, and, with the 

accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

PUBLIC BUILDINGS AT WEST POINT. 

1\Ir. STOCKSLAGER. I desire to ask unanimous consent to have 

the reference of a bill changed. The bill (H. R. 6702) to provide for 

the erection of necessary buildings upon the Government reservation 

at West Point, N. Y., was referred to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. That committee think that the Committee on 

Military Affairs are better able to judge of the necessity of such build-

.ings, and therefore have instructed me to move that the committee be 

discharged from its further consideration and that the same be referred . 

to the Committee on ~itary Affairs. 

There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly. 

HOT SPRINGS RESERVATION, NEW MEXICO. 

Mr. COBB, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on the Public 

Lands, reported back with a favorable recommendation the bill (li. R. 

5647) to withdraw from sale the lands known as the Ojo Caliente or 

Hot Springs reservation, in the Territory of New Mexico, and to reserve 

the same for a town site; which was placed on the House Calendar, and 

the accompanying report ordered to be printed. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. McMILLIN. I now renew the motion to go into Committee of 

the Whole for the purpose of considering business on the Private Calendar. 

Mr. ROWELL. Pending that motion, I ask unanimous consent that 

tbe first bill to be considered in Committee of the Whole to-day be the 

bill (H. R. 5377) for the allowance of certain claims reported by the 

accounting officers of the United States Treasmy Department. 

Mr. M:c~ITLLIN. I have already agreed to this, and hope it will be 

done. This· is the bill for the payment of the claims reported from 

the Quartermaster-General's Office, and should pass. The claims have 

all been reported favorably after full examination by the proper officers. 

The Government got the property from many citizens in my own and 

other States, owes the money, and should pay it. It will take bnt a 

short time to consider the bill. Let us pass--

The SPEAKER. The House has heard the ·request of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. RoWELL]. Is there objection. 

There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly. 

The SPEAKER. The question recurs upon the motion of the gentleman from Tennessee that the House now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole for the purpose of consiclering business on the Private 

Calendar. 

Mr. STOCKSLAGER. I desire to say that if the Honse shall vote 

down the motion to go into Committee of the Whole for the consideration . of business on the Private Calendar, I will then move that the 

Honse go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for the 

consideration of public-building bills. 

Mr. McMILLIN. I trust the House will not vote it down. 

The motion of Mr.· McMILLIN was then agreed to. 

The House accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, 

Mr. Cox, of New York, in the chair. 

CLAIMS ALLOWED UNDER ACT OF JULY 4, 1864. 

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

for the consideration of business on the Private Calendar. By order of 

the House the first bill to be considered at this time is the bill (H. R. 

5377) for the allowance of certain claims reported by the accounting· 

officers of the United States Treasury Department. 

Mr. McMILLIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 

schedule of claims be dispensed with. They have an been examined 

I 
4440 CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD- HOUSE. MAY 23, 

very carefully, and for the purpose of saving time I suppose there will 

be no objection to omitting their reading. 

Mr. ROWELL. They are simply the reports of the aecounting officers, and there are no amendments to be offered to the bill except some 

to correct the spelling of names, &c. . The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection the reading of the schedule of claims will be omitted, and they will be printed in the RECORD. 

There was no objection, and it Wal? ordered accordingly. 

The CHAIRMAN. There are certain amendments reported from the 

Committee on War Claims for the purpose of correcting names improperly spelled. If there be no objection the question will be taken 

on those amendments in gross. 

There was no objection, and the amendments were agreed to. 

Mr. ROWELL. I have also some amendments here for the correction of nam~, which I will send to the Clerk's desk and ask to have 

printed in the RECORD. 

The amendments were agreed to. 

The bill as amended was laid aside to be reported favorably to the 

House. 

The am,ended bill was as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Tre~sury be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and required to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the several persons in this act named, the several sums men- tiOned herein, the same being in full for.l and the receipt of the same to be taken and accepted in each case as a full and nnal discharge of, the several claims ex- amined and allowed by the proper accounting officers under the provisions of the act of July 4,1864, since January 6, 1883, namely: 

TENNESSEE. 

To Washington Aly, of Je1ferson County; $150. To Josh'Ua T. Ashburn, of Marion County, $83.75. To William Armstrong, of Bedford County: $1.25. To William F. M. Aikman, of Meigs County, $100. To Joseph T . .Allen, of Shelby County, $375. To Richard Averitt, of Sumner County, $741. ToW. H. McMahon, administrator of Elizabeth .Allen, deceased, of William- son County, $45. ~ 

ToW. K . .Ault, of Knox County, US. To .Alexander Anderson, of Marion County, US. To David .Angus and William Evans, adl!l..inistrators of Gustavus Angus, de- cea-sed, of Giles County, $366.8:>. To Frank Akin (or Eakin), (colored), of Davidson County, $940. To John D . .Agee, of Crockett County, ~:70. 

To John F. Anderson, of Franklin County, $5,(35. To Josiah Anderson, of Marion County, $102. ToW. N. Bryant, of Bedford County, $37.50. To·James M. Brownlow, of Giles County, $175. To Adison Bowman, of Union County, $52.50. To J. H. Brooks, of Maury County, $100. To Mary .A. Hagan, administratrix of Hartwell J. Bumpass, deceased, of Law- rence County, $1.00. To Gale Berry, ofHawkins County, $110. To W. 1\I. Robinson, administrator of StephenS. Blackwell, deceased, of Gib- son County, $125. To .J. L. Ball, administrator of Daniel M. Ball, deceased, of Lawrence County, 

$135. To Daniel Bowman, ofClaiborne.County,$14..40. To Walton Bradley, of De Kalb County, $450. 

To George B. Bear, of Sullivan County, $235. 

To James H. Bryson, of Cannon County, $115. To Mary T. Ballentine, administratrix of .A.M. Ballentine, deceased, of Giles County, $333. · 

To James Brown, of Campbell County, $13. 

To Samuel F. Bell, of Blount County, $39. ' ToT. H. Bowman, of Claiborne County, $4.25. To W. G. Crowley, administ-rator of John L. Boyd, deceased, of Wilson County, $135. To Eli Brown, of Campbell County, $93.84. To W. V. Lee, administrator of Ned Bradford, deceased, of Smith County, $125. To Henry J. Binkley, of Dickson County, $98. To J. W. Buis (or Bries), administrator of Abraham Buis (or Bries), deceased, of Claiborne County, li579.37. To Nathan J. Bass, administrator of Gilbert W. Bass, deceased, 9f Giles County, $80. . To Squire D. Bray of Giles County, $275. To J. E. Ca.mpbeli, administrator of John Burrows, deceased, of Grundy 

County, $105.92. To Lunsford P. Black, of Rutherford County, $600. To D. F. Beeler, administrator of .Adam Beeler, deceased, of Claiborne County, $155.50. . To C. H. Botsford, of Fayette County, $465.50. ToW. L. Bodkin, administrator of Meek Bodkin, deceased, of Gibson County; $140. To Thomas Bell, of Carroll County, $1,231.75. To Wilson B. Brown, of Greene County, $225. 

To Robert B. Barger, of Rhea County, $60. To James N. Bradshaw, administrator of William G. Bradshaw, deceased, of Maury County, $199.20. To J . .A. Brown, administrator of Neill Brown, deceased, of Hickman County, 1150. To .Allen Brown, of Warren County, $75. To A. P. Brumley, administrator of Nathaniel Brumley, deceased, of Greene Count.y, $130. To John A. Fite, executor of William H. Beasley,deceased, of· Smith County, $120. . 

To Martha R. Romines, special administratrix of Michael Byerley, deceased, of Rhea County,$33.30. To Isaac J . Barber, of Giles County,$317.10. To Alfred N. Balch, of-8umner County, $81. 

To Nancy Barnett, of Hancock CountyA~!OO. 

To Robert Brown, of Madison County, :tll<SU. 

To William A. Boyd, of Williamson County, $600. To David H. Branch, of Shelby County, $463.50. To G. "\V. Bright (colored), of Lincoln County, $135. 

To A. J. Bankston, of Rhea County, $225. 

To R. IV. Boyd, of Roane County, $60. , • 

To Thomas F. Scott, administrator of Rowlett F. Bragg, deceased, of Tipton\. County. _so. 

To J. W. and J. B. Boyd, administrators of Thomas Boyd, deceased, of Knox County, 3108.35. To Josiah Boyett, ofl\Iarshall County, $75. To Marv Blain of Sumner County, $1,737. To Henrietta B. Chambers (nee Bolton), administratrix of Isaac L. Bolt-on, 

deceased, of Shelby County, $4il0. To William Bullin, of Grainger County, $100. · To John R. Bledsoe, of Gibson County, $120. 

ToW. H. Bradford, of Davidson County, $335. 

To Harry Baker (colored), of Sumner County, $18. To Mary F. Beeler, of Giles County, $215. To John McBrooks, administrator of Cannon L. Brooks, deceased, of Shelby 

County, $140. To Mrs. Elouisa Berry, of Carroll County, $100. To J.D. Jones, administrator of S. Burrus, deceased, of Obion County, $330. To J. 1\f. Bramlett, administrator of Garlington Bramlett, deceased, of Rhea County, $120. 

To the estate of Margaret Birkhead, deceased, of Hardeman County, $110. To Mary Bell, of Rhea County, 823.20. To K. C. Barlow, of Rutherford County $100. To Martha and James W. Blackman, a~nistrators of William Blackman, de- ceased, of Madison County, $315.50. To M. H. Brown, administrator of .Allen Betts, deceased, of Gibson County~ 

~~ . . To Hugh F. Crawford, of Knox County, $86.50. To John Cox, of Anderson County, $64. 

To R. B. Cowan, of Franklin County, $364. 

To Samuel D. Caughron, of Monroe County, $85. To William M. Cowant.<_?fFranklin County,$390. To Robert Cantrell, of marion County, $24. 

To R. P. Cochran, widow of James Cochran, deceased, of Blount County, $43.50r To David Chandler, of Blount County, $125. • 

To Winston Carter, of Sevier County, $32. 

To Nancy .A. Cox, of Hardeman County,$125. To Joseph T. Chadwell, of Williamson County,$125. To Samuel West, sr,, executor of Reuben L. Cates, deceased, of Grainger County,~. 

To B. F. Carter, executor of Dr. Benjamin Carter, deceased, of Giles Coun~y ~ 

$340. To Jesse Comer, of Lawrence County,$214. To John Cinclair,ofSevier County,$75. To Richard N. Conner, of Knox County,$ll.25. ToR. F. Roberts, administrator of John H. Crockett,deceased,ofWilliamson. 

County, $75.21. To J. A. Cartwright, administrator of R. H. Cartwrig1lt, deceased, of David· son County, $41. 

· To Thomas Chapman, of Campbell County, $23.66. To Sarah A. Cawthon, administratrix of Hugh R. Cawthon, deoea.sed, of Can- non County, $135. • To G. T. Campbell, of Giles County,$257. To Samuel M. Corson, of Lauderdale County; $125. To David. l\1. Corbett, of Jefferson County, $100. To James A. Cole, administrator of Wesley Cole, deceased, of Shelby County,. $530. ToR. W. Casey, of Coffee County, $197. To Stephen P.Cope,executor of James Cope,de<ieased, of Warren County,. $150. . 

To :Marth& J. Carter (formerly Martha J. Paine), of Giles County,Sl44. To Moses Cox of Carroll County, $260. · To Moses H. CliftandJ. P. Kefauver, administrators of R. F. Cook, deceased, of Monroe County, $(50. 

ToW. J. Craig, of Giles County,$190. To Tucker Carrithers (or Caruthers), (colored), of 1\laury County, 8450. To James S. Callaway, administrator of Thomas H. Callaway, deceased, of Bra-dley County, $1,020.50. To Nancy Cook, widow of Pleasant Cook, deceased, of Claiborne County,$30, To Moses Caten,'of Warren County, $130. To Cullen F. Cribbs, of Carroll COunty, 140. To Henry Counce, of Wayne County, $219. 

To W. H. Campbell, of Perry County, $125. To Annie E. Cheney, of Davidson County, $39.75. To Alexander Cowan, of Bedford County,$353.85. To Nathaniel Holman, administrator of John M. Cook, deceased, of :Maury 

County, $134.40. To G. T. Chaffin, of Maury County, $448.45. To E. A. Collins, administrator of William P. Collins, deceased, of Gibson County, $128.61. 

To William Campbell, administrator of .Alfred Campbell, deceased, of Bedford County, 150. To William B. Clark, of Lincoln County, $125. To Samuel B. Collet, of Roane County, $60. To George W. Crow, of Roane County, $32. 

To John Colem.an, of Lincoln County, $220. To Polly Cooper (formerly Polly Bynum), of Maury County, $105. To Jefferson Chambers, of Giles County, $135. To G. W. Chipman, administrator Of James Crews, deceased, of Sumner- County, $200. To David Chandler, of Blount County, $189.25. To John D. Coble, administrator of Neely Coble, deceased, of Bedford County,.. 

~~ A. F. Whitman, administrator of Margaret Castieman, deceased, of David- son County, $1,526.75. To Obedrah Chissem (or Chisholm), of Robertson County, $17.40. To John B. Cochran, of Marshall County,$350. . To the estate of W. H. Campbell, deceased, of Obion County, $140. To G. W. Dodson; C. C. Dodson, and W . .A. Dodson, executors of Nimrod Dod- son, deceased, of 1\icl\Iinn County, $100. To John Davis, of Grainger County, $35. To Sophia A. Dean, of Smith County, $125. 

To.Armsted Dew, of .Anderson County,$70. ' To Edmund Gray, admitristrator of Benjamin Dagley, deceased, of Scott 

County, $12. To Alexander T.Dobbins, of Giles Connty,$350. To John W. Dyer, of Fayette County, $563.80. To Isaac Dockery (colored), of Sevier County, $100. To David F. D'.A.rmond, of Knox County, $1.25. To Calvin Y. Douthit, of Lincoln County, $100. . To James Dodds (in his own right), and R. M. Cook, administrator of Sarah Dodds, deceased, of Claiborne County, $100. . To John R. Draper, of Knox County, $39.60. To .Aly Dowis, of Knox County, Kentucky, $15. To Rachel Dixon, widow of William J. Dixon, deceased, of Davidson County,. $56. To Charles Neely, administrator of Andrew Davis, deceased, of Claiborne- County, $20. 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL REQORD-HOUSE. 4441 

To Robert Davis, of Marshal County, $270. · To H. P. Hobson, administrator of Robert Dean, de~ of Fayette County, $265. . 

To F. W. Doss, administrator of Eleanor Doss, deceased, of Robertson County, $161. To John Pates, executor of Michael Dearstone, deceased, of Greene County, $30. • 

To James G. Davis, of Gibson County, $115. To James H . Delp, of Hancock County, $275. . To Hugh De Bow, of Obion f".ounty $120. 

ToW. P. and T. C. Darwin and J.l\r. Caldwell, administrators of James A. 

Darwin, deceased, of Rhea County, $246. To D. R. Corlett, administrator of James Edwards, deceased, of Williamson 

County, $130. . To A. 1. Ezell, administrator of Lavinia C. Ezell, deceased, of Giles County, $270. To J. J. West, administrator of George Ewing (colored}, deceased, of Mont- gomery County, 1!115. • To War ham Easley, jr., of Loudon County, $316.20. To Pinkney H. Ezell, execut~r of :Margaret Ezell, deceased, of Giles County, 

$385. To Stephen M. Emmons, of Lincoln County, $248. To John England, of Claiborne County, $80. 

To Eliza England, of'White County, $100. To Wesley English, of Giles County, 125. 

To Reuben H. Epperson, of Madison County, $51.90. To Nancy B. and John W. Elrod, executors of James C. Elrod,de0088ed, of 

Rutherford County, $4.05. ToW. A. Walker, executor of John Eagleton, deceased, of Blount County, 

$24. 

To WilliamS. Evans, of Lincoln County, $780. To William R. Evans, of Lincoln County, $235. To S.M. Elrod, of Cannon County, $130. ToT. F. Eslick, administrator of Sarah Eslick, deceased, of Lincoln County, $70. . To C. Zimmerman, administrator of Thomas Evans, deceased, of McMinn 

County, $7,366.25. To l\I. J. and John W. Fry, executOrs of William Fry, deceased, of Giles 

County, $285. To Daniel M. Foster, of Lawrence County, $50. To John Foster, of Giles County, $150. · To Martha A. Fisher (formerly Martha A. Gattis), of Madison County, $7M. To Francis M. Fultz, of Claiborne County, $37.50. To Calaway Farmer, of Blount County, $160. To Thoma..~ Ferguson, of Sevier County, $110. To Nancy Fugate, of Claiborne County, $10. ToW. T. Falls, of Hardin County, $300. To Mrs. Nancy B. Fowler, of Marshall County, $300. To Amanda M . Fly, administratrix of C. C. Fly, deceased, of Gibson County, $110. To Sarah L. Fogg, administra.trlxofWilliamFoge,deceased, of Giles County, 8375. . 

To J. N. Fryar and E. D. G. Burnett, administrators of James Fryar, deceased, of Cumberland County $90. To Samuel B. Ferguson, of Rhea County, $30.150. ToW. H. Foster, executor of James L. Foster, deceased, of Lincoln County, $100. 

To S. R. Hailey, administrator of Bailey P. Goodwin, deceased, of Marshall 

County, $150. To Hiram Gilbert, of Claiborne County, $10. To Jesse Gann, administrator of Ira Gann, deceased of Hamilton County, $225. To J. J. Greer, of Blount County, $30. To F. M. Gass, of Jefferson County, $397. To J. C. Eggleston, administrator of Lucy Giles, deceased, of Williamson 

County, $625. . To Silas Gaither, of Cannon County, $130. To William J. Gossett, of De Kalb County, $137. To William C. Grimmitt,of Maury County, $42. 

To William H. Goad, of Lawrence County, $125. To Berry Griggs, of Lauderdale County, $140. To Madison W. Gouger, of Warren County, 130. To Richard G. Jenkins, administrator of David Gilliland, deceased, of Lauderdale County, $250. " To William Gollahorn, of Hancock County, $100. To Reuben Goad, of Smith County, $100. ToT. M. Hurst, administrator of B. G. Gregory, deceased of Hardin County, ~. 

To T. J. Dorsett, administrator of Mrs. J. H. Y. Greenfield, deceased, of Maury County, $10.50. . To H. P. Gault, ofKnoxCounty, $60. . ToP. C. Smithson, administra.t~r of Richmond Gilbert, deceased, of Marshall 

County, 150. To Uriae Springer, guardian of W. R. Gulledge (or Gullage), insane, of Carroll 

Couqty, $125. 

To Gion Gregory, of Smith County, SUO. To Mary B. Gallaher, administratrix of Benjamin H. Ga.llaher, deceased, of Roane County, $269.81. · To Wayne Gideon, of Knox County, $50. ToM. J. Camden, administrator of John C. Gillespie, deceased, of Gibson 

County, $110. To JohnS. Gaither, of Lawrence County, S330. To John P. Gourley, administrator of.John Giles, deceased, of Sumner County, 8300. . To Samuel Gilliam, of Lawrence County, $478. 

'l'o Mary J. Garrett (formerly l\lary J. Winn), of Bedford County, $130. To C. G. Galloway, of Shelby County, $455. .., 

To Alfred A. Hanks, of McMinn County, $178. To Mary Henderson of Madison County, 297. 

To B. F. C. Smith, administrator of G. W. House, deceased, of Smith County, $125. To Mary E. Hutsell, of Blount County, $1.40. . To Samuel Henry, of Blount County, $180. 

To Charles Hill, of McMinn County, $43.70. To Henry C. Hunter, of Hamilton County, $125. "To David Hargrove, of Maury County, Sl25. To Thomas Hodges, of Claiborne County, $375. 

To John \V. Hunter, of Hamilton County, $100. To J. M. Higgins, of Giles County, $440. To 1ary Ann Haynes (formerly Atkins), of Union County, $25. 

To A. 1. Hale, admimstrator of Jurene Hale, deceased, of Gibson County, $452.50. To John W. Harvey, sr., of Williamson County, $75. To James -M. Hays, administrator of Miles C. Hays, deceased, of Madison 

County, $145. 

To S. N. Williams, administrator of John Hilliard, deceased, of Carroll County .. 175. 

To R. Z. Taylor, administrator of John 0. Henderson, deceased, of Gibson 

County,$115. 1 To William L. Hamilton, of Union County, $60. To J. M. Hammer, of Sevier County, $32.50. To Henry J. Hartman, of Greene County, 125. To John M. Hughes, of Hamilton County, $75. To J. H. Gregory, administrator of Christopher Harris, deceased, of Maury 

County, $385. To Patrick Hodge, of Jefferson County, $53.33. To D. W. Howard, of Sevier County, $294. To David Haste, of Gibson County, $6. 

To John W. Howard, of Jefferson County, $26.66. To Stephen Hopkins, of Hancock County, $135. To J. A. Hamilton, of McMinn County. $100. To John Hunt, of McMinn County, 125. 

To John H. Hatfield, of Sequatchie County, $85.50. To Robert S. Harris, of Giles County, $135. ' To Martha Hurley, administratrix of N. B. Hurley, deceased, of Hancock 

County, $125. To J. T. Hampton, administrator of James M. Hampton, deceased, of Lincoln 

County, 83,722.50. To Thomas Holland (colored}, of Shelby County, $465. To G. N. and J. M. Howard, administrators of Nehemiah Howard, deceased,. 

of Giles County, $90. To John A. Hannah, of Blount County, $5.50. To James R. Harmon, of Greene County, $10. To G. B. Cloud, administrator of James Hodges, deceased, of Claiborne County,. $51.60. To John H. Hickman, of Rutherford County, $100. ToW. R. Henry, of Rhea County, $405. To H. R. Hallum, special administrator of William Van Renselaer Hallum~ 

deceased, of Smith County,$)()(). To John Herriford, of Davidson County, $112.25. To James H. McConnell and Josiah N. Henry, executors of James M. Henry~ 

deceased, of Blount County, $92.1(}. To John Hendrix, of Marshall County, $250. To E. L. Hinson, administrator of Jordon Hinson, deceased, of Perry County,. $135. . 

To ~rtin F. Hampton, of Lincoln County, $285. To John P. Henry, of Gibson County1 $147.50. To C. W. Hudson, executor of William R. Hudson, deceased, of Madison 

County, $425.20. To J. T. Brown, administrator of Joseph Hogan, deceased, of Obion County,. 

831.50. To Nathaniel Irvin1 of Campbell County, $15. To Mary J. Igon, ot Hamilton County, $215.80. To C. D. Russell and Lafayette Isley, administrators of John Isley, deceased,. 

of Campbell County, 83.50. · ToT. C. Des, administrator of William R. lles, deceased, of Loudon County, $125. 

To D.P. McCorkle, executor of Daniel Jackson, deceased, of Obion County,. $270. . . To Andrew W. Jackson, of Obion County, $250. To Mrs. E. J. Johnson (formerly E. J. Bridgwater), of Smith County, $120. To Wilson Jackson, of Claiborne County, ~. 

To J. B. Johnson, of Carroll County, $85. 

To Isaac James, of Gibson County, $125. 

To G. B. Johnson and Samuel Johnson, executors of Susanah Johnson, deceased, of Roane County, $414.16. To Mary A. Johnson, administratrix of William B. Johnson, deceased, of Knox County, $125. To Caroline Johnson, administratrix of Benjamin Johnson, deceased, of Da- vidson County, $218.20. To Andrew M.Johnson,administrator of James Johnson,deceased,ofGrain- ger County, $l35. . To John B. Jopling, administrator of John S. Jopling, deceased, of McNairy 

County,Sll. 

To S. H. Cearley, administrator of J. B. Justice, deceased, of Hardeman County,. 

$280. To E. H. Jones, of Rutherford County, $125. To John Jones, of Blount County1 $90. To William Johnson, of Sequatchie County,$66. To G. W.Jones,of Lincoln Oounty,Sl25. To J. L. Fare, administrator of G. F. Jones, deceased, of Davidson County,. $44.90. To T. A. Reams, administrator of Amanda E. Jackson, deceased, of Davidson 

County, $100. To James G.Jones,ofRuthe'rford County,$100. To John Johnson, administrator of Hiram Johnson, deceased, of SequatchieCounty, 831. To William Kearley, of Smith County, 8377.70. To Samuel W. Knox, of Cannon County, $145. To S. R. Kittrell, of Maury County, 1,385. To John G. Kelly, of Marion County, $32.50. To John H. Keaton. of Carroll County, $324. To Samantha L. Kelly, of Madison County, $110. To L. D. Kenney, administrator of George Kenney, deceased, of GreeneCounty, $150. To William Keen, of Sumner County, $150. To Jefferson Kidd of Blount County, $27.50. To Melinda. H. Kidd, widow of Edmund Kidd, deceased, of Blount County,. $19. To C. W. Mosby, administrator of Sarah Leake, deceased; of Shelby County, 

$265. To Gertrude A. Leftwich, administratrix of Dr. J. W. Leftwich, deceased, or Shelby County, $135. . To James H. I.ockridge, of Maury County, $370. To Wesley Lowe, of Rutherford County, $136. To Edward Legg, of Knox County, $358. To David Lowry, of Monroe County, $135 . To WamanClarkand James Scott,administt:a.torsofMark Lowrey, deceased. 

of White County, $150. To John B. Lewis, of Jefferson County, $84. To T. G. and John Logue, executon1 of Carnes Logue, deceased, of Wilson 

County, $620. To Tapley G. Logue, of Wilson County, $360. · To John W. Lyle, .of Jefferson County, $82. To Charle!S Lones, of Knox County, 176. To George W. Lorance, of Rutherford County, $510. To Newton J. Lebow, administrat~r of Rial Lebow, deceased, of Claiborn~ 

County, $67.50. • To Eugenia Lee, of Rutherford County, $100. To Isaac Lewis, of Hamilton County, $37.50. 
4442 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 23, 

ToR. D. LansdeQ, administrator of Mary La.nsden, deceased, of Carroll County, $77.50. 

Tolsa.a.c Lewis, ofHa.milton County, 20. To Jordan F. Longmire, of Claiborne County, $100. To Alexander Lyon, admin trator of Henrietta Lyon, deceased, of Rutherford County, $130. To Hugh L. Lamb and William Walker, administrators of Cornelius C. Lamb, 

deceased, of Bledsoe County, $561. To Robert Lewis, of Marion County, $3.37. To James l\1. Lane, of Blount County, $25. To Israel Long, of Cannon County, $250. To Margaret and W. L. Lancaster, widow and son of C. A. Lancaster, deceased, 

of Obion County,$70. To James P. Lea of Bradley County, Sl38.30; to George J. Lea, of Bradley 

County, $138.30; to Elizabeth B. J. Boyd (nee Lea), of Bradley County, 138.30; in all, $414.90. To Franklin B. Lester, of Giles County, $389.58. To Henry H. Long, of Perry County, $27.50. To Burton B. Leatherwood, of Lincoln County, 34()(). 

To Joseph N. Lannom, of Gibson County, $584. To James Long, of Marion County, 100. To Joshua B. Little, of Campbell County, $27. To William McGill, of Cannon County, $150. To John A. McMillan, of Robertson County, $125. To John Melton, of Cannon County, $225. To J. B. Morell, of Giles County, $420. To Samuel Montgomery, of Blount County, 5317. To Manlove D. McCurry, of Greene County, SUO. To S. H. McWhirter, of 1\IcM.inn County, 175. To John N.Myers, of Warren County, $12. To John Frazier, administrator of Thomas McKnight, deceased, of Jefferson 

County $36. To Adam E. Moore, of Lincoln County, $75. To J. C. C. Morton, of William.son County, $80. To William Mason, of White County, $90. To Jeptha H. Moore, of Robertson County, $115. To Alfred 1cGahey, of Marshall County, $130. To James M.l\liller, of Hardeman County, $25. To J. A. McCulley, of Blount County, $110. 

'.ro James McGuire, of Monroe County, $235. To James Mitchell, of Carroll County, 103.50. To Allen 1oore, of Maury County, $56. _ ToR. S. 1ontgomery, of Giles County, 100. To J. N . .1\Ioore, administratorofWilliam Moore, deceased, of Hawkins County, $19. 

To ,V. H. Mitchell, of J efl'erson County, $12.50. To Nathaniell\IcDaniel, of Hancock County, $21.37. ToW. A. Myers, administrator of Enoch Mobley ,deceased, of Grainger County, $26.62. To Robert E. Moody, of Sullivan County, 115. To William A. McClellan, of De Kalb County, $120. To J. C. McCoy, of Blount County, $35. To G. 1\I. C. Mallory, of Williamson County, $120. To Thomas Maxwell, of Blount County, $22. To Thomas S. Hawkins, administrator of Thomas B. McGahey, deceased, of 

Williamson County, $123. To Mrs. JohnS. McNairy, of Davidson County, $115. ToW. T. McDaniel, executor of Charles B. McDaniel, deceased, of Lincoln 

County, $>36.20. To Curtis Mills, of Sevier County, $330. To Isaac Denton, administrator of Morgan Miller, deceased, of .1\IcMinn 

County, $100. To John J. McBride, of Van Buren County, $100. To James Miller, of Cumberland County, 100. To Robert l\Iorrow, of Fayette County, 740. To Thomas M. Morrison, of Tipton County,$120. To Sarah J. McCormac, widow of John D. McCormac, deceased, of White 

County, $80. To J.P. McCown and J. H. Hamilton, executors of Thomas McDill, deceased, 

of Lincoln County, $85. To B. Martin, of Hardeman County, $350. To Goodson McDaniel, of Marion County, $187.50. To Jordan Miller, of Campbell County, $48. To Alfred H. Mitchell, of Knox County, $8. To John Mullins of Rutherford County, $305. To Joseph P. McDowell, of Willianrson County, $45. To James l\1olloy, of Van Buren County, $70. To Nancy J. Moore, of Hamilton Count.y, $248.64. To John M. Tullock, executor of Adrian Martin, deceased, of Blount County, $320. To John Mullendore, of Sevier County, $180. To James Anderson, administrator of John McGavock, deceased, of Davidson 

County, $1,500. To Francis S. Massey, of Shelby County, $250. To David Nelson, administrator of S. H. McClanahan, deceased, of Knox County, $156. To Margaret M. McKay, administratrix of William A. McKay, deceased, of 

Williamson County, $39.37. To David Miller, of Blount County, $20. To William Maynard, of De Kalb County, $270. To John Mitchell, of Warren County, $40. To D. S. Alsbrook, administrator of George Murphy, deceased, of Robertson 

County, $375. To James A. Mentlow, administrator of D. W. Mentlow, deceased, of Sumner 

County, $115. To Pleasant Morgan, of Wayne County, $75. To F. l\1 . Woodall, administrator of S. V. Mullen, deceased, of Davidson 

County, $200. . To Gus .A.. McLane, of Marshall County, $125. ToW. B. Matthews, of Williamson County, $974.40. To WilliamS. M.adry, of Giles County, $150. To William J. Mosley, administrator of James H. Mosley, deceased, of Wilson 

County,$160.40. - To E. J. W. Armstrong, administrator of Henry McGee, deceased, of Gibson 

County, 130. To Henry Menees, administrator of Henry C. Menees, deceased, of Davidson 

County, $188.50. · To Dav:\d l\!. McKnight, of Gibson County, $281. To William B. Martin, of De Kalb County, 125. To Maria J. Malone, of Rutherford County, $2,537. To A. H. Rhodes, special administrator of William Murphy, deceased, of Fay- ette County, 1,445. To Andy Maclin (colored), of Giles County, $140. To J. S. Maxwell, of De Kalb County, $150. To Samuel H. McAdams, administrator of Dorcas McAdams, deceased, of 

Marshall County, $125. . 

To J. M. 1\fartin, of Marshall County, $135. To Alfred McGahey, executor of David McGahey, deceased, of 1\1arshall County~ 8125. . To William Noblin, of Marshall County $125. To Madison Neese, of Marshall County,$125. To John W. Naylor, of Rutherford County, $185. 

81~~ T. W. Kearns, administrator of John Norwood, decease~, of Knox County, 

To Sarah F. Nichols, of Sevier County, $52. To Ralph Neal, of Rutherford County, 115. To Lew ella Wood, administratrix of John N ewman,deceased,ofWhite County, $16.66. To Floyd Nichols, of Knox County, $45.64. To Mary O'Donnell, administratrix of Connell O'Donnell, deceased, of David- son County, $446. To Charles Orten, of Monroe County, $70. To Thomas H. Oden, administrator of Hezekiah Oden, deceased, of William- son County, $'710. To Holland Osborn, of Knox County, $60. To D. S. Long, administrator of John Oliver, deceased, of Franklin County, $240. To Elijah Oliver, of Blount County, 3125. To Jame!! O'Neal, of Marion County, $'70. To Andrew Pebly, of Campbell County $54. 

To Mariah Parkes, administratrix of Andrew Jackson Parkes, deceased, of 

Giles County, $325. To James Pollard, of Sevier County, $148. To Samuel Paschal, of Smith County, $110. To Samuel Pittillo, of Knox County, $10.08. To William Pettit, of Greene County, $50. ToM. G. Perry, of Weakley County,$125. To Albert Pierce, of Jefferson County, $18. To Daniel G. Perdue, of Sumner County, $132.50. To James H. Pass, of Rhea County,$135. To Jacob T. Page, administrator of Charity Page, deceased, of Williamson 

County, $100. To George W. Petree, of Campbell County, $15. To John R. Pearson; of Fayette County, $208. To Mary Pankey, ox Bledsoe County, $22.50. To John G. Peace, of Monroe County, $65.50 To Henry L. Penick, of Sequatchie County, $107.50. To Joseph Philpott, of Lincoln County, $540. ToM. M. Powell, administrator of J . M. Powell, deceased, of Lawrence County, 

$450. To Cinthia .A.. Pamplin, of Lincoln County, $125. To Andrew J. Powell, of Smith County, 125. To James M. Peebles, of Williamson County, $410. To John O.Pope, of Warren County,$125. To James and Eliza N. Marshall, administrators of Sallie M. Parrish, deceased, 

of Shelby County, $380. To Henry T. Prater, of Rutherford County, $175. To Jesse Parker, of Weakley County, $100. To Willis Perry, of Maury County, $150. To l\1. S. Smith, special administrator of Mrs. M. 0. Perkins, deceased, of 

Fayette County, SUO. To Elizabeth Pond, widow of Richard Pond, deceased, of Sumner County, $98.21. To JohnS. Parker, of 'Veakley County, &30. To James S. Ewing, administrator of James Patterson, deceased, of Marshall 

County, $625. To David H. Parker, of Madison County, $455.50. To Lucinda Pierce, of Sumner County, $117. To Jeremiah 1\I. Parker, of Giles County, $150. To W. H. McBride, administrator of Isham W. Parham, deceased, of Davidson 

County, $172. To Haggard and McKinley, holders and owners of a voucher of Paul Pruett, 

of Sumner County,$100. · To the estate of Henry Pigg,of Wayne County,$125. To Anderson C. Quillin, of Hancock County, $140. To Caswell Queener, of Campbell County,$160.50. To Richard C. Quarles, of Marion County1 $57.50. To J. M. Rambo, of Sevier County, $192. To James Ross, of GreeneCounty,$145. To Eliza. J. Richardson, widow of John Richardson, deceased, of Claiborne 

County, $75. To Isatw Roberson, of Bledsoe County, $100. To J. S. Richardson, administrator of Murray Richardson, deceased, of David- son County,$24. . To Luke Reed, administrator of Peter-Reed, deceased, of Rutherford County, $150. To Peter Ryan, of Knox County, $25. To Jordan Ridge, of Marion County, $4.5. To Margaret Reneau, administratrix of John Reneau, deceased, of Jefferson 

County, $20. To Rufus B. Roberson, of Bledsoe County, $666. To Mrs. Jane Roberts, of Weakley County, $100. To Caleb Rule, of Sevier County,$70. . To Thomas J. Ridley, administrator of George W. Ridley, deceased, of Williamson County, $90. To Hugh Reece, of Johnson County, $2.5. To Aaron A. Runyan,ofSevier County, 125. To David Ridge, of ~rion County, $36.20. . To Moody Reynolds (colored), of Giles County, $300. To George W. Runnions,ofClaiborne County, $257.50. To French H. Rogers, of Claiborne County, 253.75. To Samuel A. Rule, of Sevier County, $60. To Levi Reed, a-dministrator of Robert Reed, deceased, of Giles County, $420. To William B. Roberts, of Giles County $340. To S. A. Rule, administrator of John R~e, deceased, of Sevier County, $60.70. To J. N. Rogers, of l\'lcMinn County, $4.1. To Alfred and William W.Ross,surviving partners of the firm of Felix G., 

William W . & Alfred Ross, of Rutherford County, $2,125; and to William W. Ross, administrator of Felix G. Ross, deceased, of Rutherford County,$60; in 

all, $2,185. 

To James Roney, of Sumner County $150. To John Robnett, of Wayne County, 16.25. To D. T. R.eynolds, administrator of Allison Reynolds, deceased, of Giles 

County,$600. 

To James L. Reed, of Marshall County, $135. To George W. Rose, of Claiborne County, $833.25. To Samuel A. Rodgers, of Loudon County, $11.25. To J. W. Rutherford, of Sumner County, $140. To Williain B. Raiford, of Shelby County, $674.68. To John A. Renfro, of Grainger County, $84. To John W. Rice, admini trator of Ebenezer Rice, deceased, of Scott County, Indiana, $135. 
1884 . . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. .4443 

To H. G. Redman, of Scott County, $7. To Sarah Ross, widow of John Ross, deceased, of Blount County, $32. ToR. E. Reynolds, of Robertson County, $192. To James Seals, of Bledsoe Connty, $278. To Elizabeth A. Stegall, administratrix of R. A. Stegall, deceased, of Roane County, $600. To Ellender Shoulders, executrix of Thomas Shoulders, deceased, of Smith 

County, $235. To Lewis C. Shell, of ltnox County, $36.50. ToN. H. Stone, of Snmner County,- 120. To David Shultz, of Cocke County, $13::>. To Jacob Smith, of Greene County, $110. To John Squibb, surviving executor of William Stanfield, deceased, of Greene 

County, $117.75. To William W. Hutzell, administrator of John Stewart, deceased, of Meigs 

County, $1,770.50. To Nancy J. Morrison, administratrix of Alfred Saunders, deceased, of Sequatchie County,$90. To William H. Strickland, of Wilson County, $18.25. To Hayley Shaw, of Madison County,$175. To Mrs.l\1inecy Sharp, of.Union County, $87. To James J. Sherrod, of Knox County, $559.25. 

To Nancy Shipe, of Knox Cuunty, 23. To Theodrick Scruggs, of Williamson County, $260. To William G. Sullivan, of Rutherford County, $125. To Alfred J. Saunders, of Monroe County, $300. To Sterling Skaggs, of Union County, $208.75. To John Sane (or Sayne), of Knox County,$33. ToW. D. L. Scott, administratorofM. T. Scott,deceased.,ofKnoxCounty,$36. To Isaac Sharpe, of Grainger County, $55.80. To Richard H. Spann, of Rutherford County, $90. To Oliver Shields (freedman), of Grainger County, $2. To A. G. Spangler, of Campbell County, $135. To James Steed, of Monroe County, $750. To John J. Sellars, of Maury County, $473. To George W. Lewis, administrator of Renben Smith, deceased, of Marion 

County, $36.80. • To Claiborne Self, of Greene County, $30. To T. G. Sullivan, administrator of John R. Sullivan, deceased, of Cannon 

County, $125. 

To William A. Kelly, administrator of David Singleton, deceased, of Rhea 

County, $30. To William Sanders, of Bradley County, $26.90. To Samuel Senter, of Grainger County, $40. To John Loague, administrator of James Smith, deceased, of Shelby County, $155. To Sa muel W. Stone, of Claiborne County, $100. To Martha Simmons, of Claiborne County, $37.50. To M. D. Irvin and H. M. Steele, administrators of Moses Steele, deceased, of 

Williamson County, $440. To Miss S. S. Smith, administratrix of J. Gray Smith, deceased, of Blount 

Qounty, $130.40. To John W. Simmons, of Perry County, $27.50. To Mrs. Amanda J. Sims, of White County, $!00. To Willis Sanford, of Rutherford County, $287. 

To D. E. Shield, special administrator of Milton Shields, deceased, of Grain- ger County, $172. To Andrew H. Stribling, of Lawrence Connty, $125. ToN. N. Smithson, administrator of Tandy (or Taney, or Tany) S. Smithson, 

deceased, of Williamson County, $200. To Charles R. Holmes, administrator of George W. Sanford, deceased, of 

Rutherford County, $2,110. · To John G. Scheuber, of Hardin County, $50. To W. K. Smartt, administrator of Samnel G. Smartt, deceased, of Warren County, $340. To F. M. Stephens, of Fentress County, $45. To Elizabeth D. Smith, administratrix of William, C. Smith, deceased, of 

Grundy County, $97.50. To E. T. Sea.y, of Trousdale County, $125. To l;>avid Sweet, of Williamson County, $270. To James 0. Stilwell, of 1\Iarshall County, 390. To James O.Stilwell, of Marshall Connty,$125. To 1\Irs. S. E. Shankland, administratrix of Alexander B. Shankland, deceased, 

of Davidson County,$74. · To Benjamin Seward~ of Gibson County, $250. To G. W. Simmons, or Williamson County, $240. To Richard Smith, of Lincoln County, 135. To W.J.Smith (in his own right), of Shelby County,$1,020.50; and to W.J. Smith, administrator of James E. Merriman, deceased, of Shelby County, $1,020.50; in all, 52,041. To Laura M.Sa.wyer,administratrix of Felix J.Sa.wyer,deceased,of Shelby County, $490. To James N. Scribner, ofl\Iaury County, $265 ' To George Snider, of Blount County, $90. To Isaac J. Sharp, of Claiborne County, $90. To B. B. Shore, administrator of Robert B. Shore, deceased, of Shelby County, $125. To Martha E . Fulkerson, administratrix of W. R. Fulkerson, deceased, late 

heir at law of Moses Scruggs, deceased, of Blount County, $67.50; to Frederick D. Fulkerson, heir at law of Moses Scruggs, deceased, of Blount County, $67.50; to Margaret E. Fulkerson, heir at law of Moses Scruggs, deceased, of Blount 

County, $67.50; and to N~tncy M. Conner, heir at law of Moses Scruggs, deceased, 

of Blount County, $67.50; in all, $270. To John 1\1. Leonard. administrator of Margaret Simmons, deceased, of Mar- sha ll County, $100. To Allen Taylor (colored), of Cann<yt County, $75. To Mathew Tidwell, of Campbell County, $20.25. To James Taylor, of Blount County, $72.40. To John Frazier, administrator of Mary Thornton, deceased, of Jefferson 

County, $60.75. To J. H. Tindall, administrator of Mary Tindall, deceased, of Williamson 

County, $230. To H a nnah Tedford, of Blount County, $20. To Samuel Tulloch, executor of James Townsley, deceased, of Blount County, $130.50. . To U. S. Tomlinson, administrator of Lucy Tomlinson, deceased, of Stewart 

County, $125. To A. P. W. Thurmond, of Maury County, $130. To John J. Taylor, of Williamson County, $120. To Sa rah Teague, widow of William Teague, deceased, of Claiborne Connty, S}.O. • 

To George B. Guild and John Reid, executors of George Thompson, deceased, of Sumner County, $150. To Ausbin (or Ausburn) Thomas, of Claiborne County, $26.2-5. To Edmond, Taylor, of Shelby County, S235. 

To Arthur Towles, of Davidson County, $94.. To J. W. Jarrett, administrator of Samuel A. Thompson, deceased, of Lauder· 

dale County, $125. To Phebe A. Thompson, of Claiborne County, $8.25. To George W. Thompson, of Bedford County, $80. To Mils F. Travers, of Rutherford County, $60. To B. C. Arthur, administrator of H. B. M. Tomlinson, deceased, of Marshall 

Connty, $125. To Phebe M. Tedford, of Blount County, $37.50. ToT. K . Griggs, administrator of William B. Thompson, deceased,. of David- son County, $41.50. To Andrew J. Trigg, of Giles County, $135. ToW. R. Trewhitt, of Bradley County, $2. To S. F. Bell, administrator of John N. Tedford, deceased, of Blount County, $26.50. To Lewis A. Upshaw, administrator of Priscilla. M. Upshaw, deceased, of Giles 

County,$610. 

To I. N . Underwood, special administrator of Enoch Underwood, deceased, of 

Sevier County, $75. To Daniel G. Ussery, of Giles County, $40. · To John R. Vaughan (or Vaughn), of Weakley County,$21. To William Van Huss,of Greene County,$135. To William R. Victry, of Davidson County, $125. To E. D. Hicks, executor of Sarah Vaughn, deceased, of Lincoln Connty, $475. To James Winton,jr.,of Coffee County,$200. To James Williamson, of Blount County,$60. To Amanda J. Walker, administratrix of Lovel Walker, deceased, of H;a.mblen 

County,$158.10. 

To James Ward, of Giles County, $270. To Johnson Wood, of Williamson County, $175. To John D. Walkup, of Cannon County, $75. To Hugh L. Wheeler, ofl\Iacon County, $100. sls~ R . M. W a.rd, administrator of Mary W a.rd, deceased, Qf Rutherford County, 

To Lovey L. Walker, widow of C. C. C. Walker, deceased, of Hamilton County, $43.50. To Johnson Wood, of Williamson County, $230. To James E. Ward, of Wilson County, $120. To H. A. Warren, of McNairy County, $52.50. To Dorcas Wear, executrix of J. S. Wear, deceased, of Blount County, $300. To J. N. Wyatt, administrator of Joseph Wyatt, deceased, of Gibson County, $1,110. • To John J. Woody, of Wayne County, $80. To Miles Woods, of Marshall County, $125. To John W. Winn, of Humphreys County, $90. To Willis W. Whitworth, of Shelby County, $130. To Solomon Wilson, ofMc~Iinn County, $1,025.40. To GeorgeS. Worsham, of Giles County,$265. To Jane R. 'Yhite, of Giles County, $200. To Harrison Wood, of Campbell County, $31.50. To G. W. Humble, administrator of Jacob H. Whitehorn, deceased, of Carroll 

County, $125. To Robert F . White, ofSe·derCounty,$10. To Sampson Wright, of Rhea County,$75. To Isaac Whitt, of Giles County, $135. To Jane C. Wilson, of Lincoln County, $250. To N. L. Brown, a.dminietrator of William Whitlock, deceased, of Warren County, $80. To James Worthington, of Bledsoe County1 $1,ll7. To Richard G. Jenkins, administrator of W1lliam A. Wood , deceased, ofLa.u- derdale County, $125. 

To 1\Irs. Eliza. J. Witherspoon, ~ministratrix of 'thomas Witherspoon, deceased, ofl\Iaury County, $660. To William B. Wilson, of Maury County, $600.25. To William R. Land, administrator of Josiah Wilburn, deceased, of Perry County, $150. To Jeremiah Walker and W. C. Hixon, executors of William Walker, deceased, 

of Bledsoe County, 112.50. To Cyrns Webster (colored) of Manry County, $20. To Hick (or Hickman) Weakley, of Rutherford County $42. To Edwin and Jesse Everett and Alice Alexander (nee Everett), heirs at law 

of James Wilcox, deceased, of Davidson County, $52. To William H. Wyrick, of Rhea County, $125. To Joseph D. Wilson, administrator of Joseph Wilson, deceased, of William- son County, $460. · · To James M. Walker, of W a.yne County, $150. • To 0. H. Wade, jr., executor of 0. H. Wade, deceased, of Rutherford County, $370. To Jesse Whetzell, of Blount County, $280.25. To Reuben Wallace, ofStewart County, $275. ToT. J. Waller, of Fayette County, $300. To W.H. Douglass, administrator ofMrs.Harriet Wynne, deceased, of Shelby County, $420. To John W. Wilkerson, of Giles County,$235. To Isaac G. Wilson, administrator of John Wilson, deceased, of Monroe County, $HO. 

ToT. W. Wall, administrator of Theophilns Wall, deceased, of Marshall 

County, $125. To Clayt-on H. Witt, of Giles County, $135. To R. J. Williams, of Sumner County, $292. To George Whitaker, of Lincoln County, $230. To Maria Camp, administratrix of Mary Watson, deceased, of Davidson 

County 112. To John W. West, of Giles County,$135. To Erasmns C. Ward, of Lincoln County, $225. To J.H. Wells, of Obion County, $2,670.75. To J . R.l\1. Yates, administrator of John Yates, deceased, of Coffee County, $90. 

KEXTUCKY. 

To John B. Auxier, of Johnson County, $106.50. To Gilbert Adams, of l\fagoffin County, $12.22. To H . B. Ashby, of Hopkins County, &100. To Hardin Brandenburgh and Simpson Brandenburg, of Owsley County, $80. To 1\ia.ry A. Bodkin, of Shelby County, 110. . . To William Bell, of Logan County, $100. To John l\1. Montgomery, administrator of Elizabeth Bryan, deceased, of 

Shelby County, $135. .To Decatur Beatty, of Lee County, $70. To Thomas P. Burton, of Pulaski County, $30. To Mrs. Pattie H. Bedinger, administratrix of William Holloway, deceased, 

of Fayette County,$3,130. Sl~~ C. H. Moses, administrator of George P. Brown, deceased, of Laurel County, 

To James P . Burton, of Pulaski County, $5. 
4444 · CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 23, 

To .James Buchanan, of Pulaski County, $100. To Minerva Bow, widow of .JesseR. Bow, deceased, of Cumberland County, $75, I 

To .James M. Bryant, of .Jefferson County, $1,060. To .James Boon, of Nelson County,$150. To .James E. Blackburn, administrator of Lewis Blackburn, deceased, of Caldwell County, $115. To .James M. Bricken, administrator of Thomas .J. Brick en, deceased, of Russell 

County $90. To .Jo'hi; Boyle, of :McLean County,$73.64. To Aaron F. Crigler, of Boone County, $230. · To R. G. Cole; of Cumberland County, $30. To Thomas P. Cardwell, of Owsley Comity, $100. . To William Cooper, of Marion County,$502.50. To Catharine Cronin, administratrix of .Michael Cronin, deceased, of .Jefferson 

County, $'52.50. • To .James .J. Clark, of Spencer County, $90. To Martin H. Coyl, of Boyle County, $80. 

To William Caskey, of Morgan County,$36. To Richard Hamilton and L. A. Hamilton, administrators of George S. Con- ner, deceased, of Washington County, $'5.25. To .J. H. Carpenter, of Bourbon CountyJ. $130. To .James D. Cook, of Fayette County, ~16. 

To Wiley .J.Coffee,ofMagoftin County,$100. To Valentine Cravens, of Russell County,$23. To Edmon B. Chapman, of Russell County, SllO. To Russell G. Cole, of Cumberland County, $91.41). To E. D. Covington, administrator of Isaac C. Covington, deceased, of Warren 

County,$520. To .James T. Chism, of :Monroe County, $163.50. To Willis and .James E. Downing, executors of William Downing, deceased, 

of Fayette County, $12. To .J. A. Dowell, of Allen County, $150. To .James Doughty, of Laurel County,$10. To .J.D. Elliott, administrator of Cassandra. Doom, deceased, of Nelson County, 1250. . To Benjamin F. Dunn, of Boyle County, $125. To John Ewing, of Marion County, $16. To H. L. Eads, trustee for the Society of Shakers, of Logan County, $103.20. To Elijah Ewing, of Marion County, $192. To Joseph Ely, of Harlan County, $250. To .James H. Eades, administratorofNathaniel Eades, deceased, of Muhlenburgh County, 5135. To Robert Finn, of Simpson County, $120. To Thomas Miller, administrator of Elizabeth Foreman, deceased, of Spencer 

County1 $415. To Olin .J. Farnsworth, of Hopkins County, $140. To Elijah Foley, of Russell County, $(9. To R. B. Ward, executor of Richard P. Gresham, deceased, of Rock Castle 

County, $753.28. To Ruth S. Garrison, Mark T. Garvis, and William H. Garrison, administratrix 

and administrators of Thomas Garrison, deceased, of Montgomery County, 877.12. To Elizabeth Hornback, of La Rue County, $73.28. To Pleasant M. Honaker, of Butler County, $55 • . ToT. F. Hieronymus, of Owsley County, $100. To Lewis A. Howard, of Knox County,$'560. To CampbeU R. Holbrook, of Owsley County, Sl15. To P.M. Honaker, of Butler County,$100. To William T. Hutton, of Anderson County,Sl15. To A. 0. Horn, of Grayson Cotmty, 125. To Howard W. Hinds, Estill County,$120. To William Herron, of Laurel County, $50. 

To George (or George W.) Hounchell, of Clay County, $100. • · To John Hood, of Elliott County, $74. , 

To L. W. Elmore, administrator of L. Hartfield, deceased, of G!een Count/,· $1.00. To Bennett Hinton, of Allen County, $300. To David Henry, of Morgan County,$9.85. To James Marcum, administrator of Levi Hensley, deceased, of Clay County, 

$46.50. To .Jesse W. Heath, of Pulaski County,$94.20. To Woodson V . .Johnson, of Allen County,$150. To Allen Jones, of Pulaski County;..Sl4.75. To Thomas .Johnston, of Bourbon vounty, $250. To Isaac L . .Janes (or .James) of Washington County,$9. 

ToR. S. Knowles, of Warren County,$2.11; and to the estate of J. B. Carter, 

of Warren County, $2.11; in all $!.22. To Mary C. Bragg, administratrix of William H. Kirtley, deceased, of Rock 

Castle County, $181.56. To Simeon B. Lewis, of Jefferson County, $120. To Edmund Lucas, of Warren County, 150 To Brittain Lee, of Bell County, $120. To William Laws, of Knox County, $40. To .John Lewis, of Pulaski County, $54.55. To Henry Lambath, of Simpson County, $110. To .John L. Lapsley, of Russell County, $7.50. To Robert L. Langston, administrator of Robert Langston, deceo.sed, of Bour- bon County,$.?()(). · To Elias Mears (or Meers) of La Rue County, $110. To Charles .J. Murphy, of Cumberland County, $100. To Carlisle R. Myers, of Montgomery County, $47. To .James L. May, ofMagoffin County, $100. To Catherine A. McPherson, administratrix of William McPherson, deceased, 

of Logan County, $140. . To William T. Williamson, administrator of Spencer Morgan, deceased, of 

Christian County, $150. To Mary Moore, of Bell County, $120. To Ray Moss, of Jessamine County, $340. To .Jonathan McNeil, administrator of George W. Miller, deceased, of Laurel 

County, $235.50. To .John H. Montgomery, of Green County, 169.25. To Henry Noland, of Owsley County, $100. To Elizabeth Newcomb, ofl\Iarion County, $24.37. To E. E. McKay, administrator of .James M. Nicholls, deceased, of Nelson 

County, $805. To James B. Otter, of Warren County, $1.10. To Mary O'Hair (or O'Hir), of Wolfe County,$80. To Smith Overby (or Overly), of Laurel County, $100. To John Pitman, of Laurel County, $622.27. To Shelton Pointer, of Rock Castle County, $100. To .John M. Park, of Estill County, $120. To Ben Hardaway; administrator of Enos Peahna.n, deceased, of Hardin 

County, $110. · To Catharine P~U"sley, widow of Alexander Parsley, deceased, of Laurel 

County, $17.50. 

To John W. Pash, jr., administrator of John W. Pash, deceased, of Nelson. 

County, $48. To Willia.m Ritchie, of Nelson County, $31.41. To Otha A. Reynolds, of Fayette County, $420. To Webber H. Reed, of Lee County, $37.50. To Albion H. Robinson, of Russell County, $24. To 4lfred Redd (colored), of Rock Castle County, ,Sl.O; and to Henry Redel 

{colored), of Rock Castle County, 10; in all,$20. To James A. Rouse, of Spencer County, $50; and to William T. Rouse, .of Spen- cer County, S50; in all $100. To John A. Rexroat, of Russell County,$&>. To .James M. Smith, of Cumberland County, SllO. To Gilbert Saylor, administrator of Levi Saylor, deceased, of Harlan County,. 

$230. To Wilson B. Saylor, of Harlan County, $100. To Mrs. P. J. Smith, administratrix of Thomas .J. Smith, deceased., of Rock 

Castle County, $125. 

ToJaneSha.dowen, widowofWilliamShadowen,deceased,ofPulaskiCounty,. 820. To Mary L. Steele (formerly Mary L. Pilkington), of Franklin County, $60. To George Simpson, of Spencer County, $'50. To .John L.and Sidney C. Spears, executors of George C. Spears, deceased, of' 

Boyle County, $102.06. To A. A. Strange, of Cumberland County $60. · 

To A. B. Sparks. Mrs. N. I. Shackelford, ~. M. E. Shackelford, Susan A. 

Right, W. F. 8parks, S. A. Higerson, and M. T. Sparks, only children and heir& at law of Wilham Sparks, deceased, of Calloway County, $'50. To Jack C. Turner, of Knox County, $240. 

ToW. L. Townsend, of Logan County, $120. To J. H. Campbell, administrator of Mrs. Philadelphia Taylor, deceased, o£ 

Logan County, $269. To Ann E. Turner, administratrix of .James A. Turner, deceased, of Mont- gomery County, $200. 

ToM. L. Totty~-.of Hickman County, Tenn., $125. To Stephen H. Tate, of Pulaski County, $32. 

To Alexander R. Victor, executor, and Maria C. Victor, executrix, of Warder 

Victor, deceased, of Bourbon County, $130. 

ToW. W. Wright, of Warren County, 887.50. 

To John A. Wilson, administrator of Benjamin D. Wilson, deceased, of Simp- son County, 120. To John Walsh, of Morgan County, Sl4. To W.G. Wade, of Simpson County,$30.18. To Charles E. Wilson, of Nelson County, $1.5. To Henry T. Motley, administrator of Aaron A. Willoughby, deceased, of Allen County, $24. To .James Witt, of Allen County, $25. To Madison Keeton, administrator of Joshua. Wilson, deceased, of Magoftln. County $93.50 . 

To Jobn B. Walton, of Simpson County, $1.50. To Vitus Wellington, of Nelson Count-y $28. 

ToN. J. Wellington, of Nelson County, S13.80. To J. W. Wallis, of Fayette County,$201.60. 

WEST VIRGINIA, 

To William Baker, surviving partner of Nicholas & William Baker, of Hardy County, $24.5. To .Ja,mes Brooks, of Hardy County, $100. To John A. Boggs, of Greenbrier County, $1.25. To .James A. Crowder, of Kanawha County, 125. To Charles Crouch, of Randolph County, S77.50. To Lewis A. Cook, of Wyoming County, $135. To Daniel Crites, of Hardy County, $316. To William Canterbury, of Wyoming County, $141.25. To Joseph M. Craig, of Kanawha County,$80. To Reuben Custer, of Jefferson County, $330. To .James Dodrill, of Nicholas County,$20. To Ann M. Duke, widow of Robert N. Duke, deceased, of Jefferson County,. $19. 

To .John H. Kunst, administrator of David Elliott, deceased, of Taylor County, $168. 

To Susan P. Farnsworth, widow of Nathaniel Farnsworth, deceased, of Up- shur County,$&>. To George W. Fox. of Nicholas County, $358. To .J.l\1. Fisher,ofGilmer County, $10. To Thomas J. Grove, of Grant County, $840. To .John l\:1. Greer, of Ja-ckson County, 336. To Peter Gross, of Morgan County, $100. To Anderson F. Godbey, of Raleigh County, $75. To George W. Hines, administrator of Bald\vin Goings, deceased, of Grant 

County, $300. To Thomas W. Gordon, of Berkeley County, $60. To Thomas 1\Iay, administrator of .James Gardner, deceased, of Greenbrier 

County, $375. To J. Gregg Gibson, of .Jefferson County, $130. To Noah Harbert, of Harrison County $50. To John C. Harold, of Lewis County, 100. To Alfred Hutton, of Randolph County, $300.35. To Holley Hunt, of Kanawha. County, $54.10. To George W. Hoylman, of Greenbrier County,$283. To Henry Hutsenpiller, ofGreenbrier County, $50. To George Harmon, of Putnam County, $22.50. To Samuel Jarrel, of Wayne County, $64. To Rebecca. .Jordan, of Cabell County,$100. To Elijah Judy, of Pendleton County, 100. To Eveline .Jarrett, of Greenbrier County, $251.25. To Sarah A • .Jackson, heir at law of Archibald Ja-ckson, deceased, of .Jefferson 

County, $33.60. To ThomasA. Keller, of Hampshire County,$155. To George W. Kile, of Pendleton County, $230. To .James Kincaid, of Fayette County, $136.25. To .Joseph Layton, of Hardy County, $125. To J. B. Lambert, of Harrison County, $135. To George M. Lamon, of Berkeley County, $98.68. To Jacob Light, of Berkeley County, $335. To .John W. Lamon, of Berkeley County, $455. To Thomas McNicholas, of Wood County, $60. To James H. Miller, of Fayette County, $45.75. To Madison Collison, administrator of William Miller, deceased, of Greenbrier Co~ty, $175. To James·H. Small, administrator of Samuel Matheys, deceased, ofBerkeley County, $230. . To Calvary McCallister, of Putnam County, $10. To .James Moore, of Pocahontas County, $80. To .John McClung, of Nicholas County, $100. To Franklin D. Moorel of Pocahontas County •. $36. To Elizabeth Myles, ot Fayette County, $t22.40. 

' 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4445 

To Henry M. Mathews and Samuel K. McClung, administrators of Samuel 

McClung, deceased, of Greenbrier County, $135. To H. T. Peery, of McDowell County,Sl25. To George Pfeiffer, of Kanawha County, $80. To Anna Paulis (or Paulus}, administratrix of Frank Paulis (or Pa.ulus),deeea.sed, of Mineral County, $50. To Thomas Pearell, of Berkeley County, $24. To James Knight, administrator of John Piercy, deceased, of Greenbrier 

County, 8925. . To Lucinda. RUD.e,ofBra.xton County,S50. To George W. Rollins, of Jackson County, $100. To David B. Reger, of Upshur County, $27. To Caroline M. Sinsel, administratrix of Elijah Sinsel, deccued, of Taylor 

County, Sl35. To Ma.rshaJl Schoonover, of Randolph County, SlO. To Benjamin H. Sterrett, of Putnam County, $752.50. To Caroline E. Shobe, of Grant County, $875. To Isaac Snutrer, of Raleigh County, $100. To A. J. Smith and George T. Nickell, administrators of William W. Smith, 

deceased, of Monroe County, ua:>. To S. H. Smith and Isaac D. Smith, executors of Jacob Smith, deceased, of , Grant County, $200. To Richard Sammons, of Greenbrier County, $260. To Randolph See, of Upshur County, $8. To Baliard Shatrer, o!Barbour County, $10. To John Sharp, of Pocahontas County, $22.50. To Daniel Schaffer, of Berkeley County, ~72.50. 

To Hester l\1. Sommerville, administratrix of John Sommenille, deceased·, of 

Lewis County, $669.69. To Leonard Turner, of Cabell County, $250. To William Toler, of Wyoming County, $280. To John W. Thompson, of Greenbrier County, $150. To John H. Bryan, administr&tor of Jesse Templeton, deceased, of Oabell 

County, $125. To Benjamin Vernon, of Wirt County, $6.25. To George W. Vance, of Webster County, $100. To John W. White, of Barbour County, $100. To Taliaferro Wallace of Cabell County, $75. To Joshua Wood, of Hampshire County, $160. To Joseph H. Zeigler, of Berkeley County, $255. 

INDIANA. 

To George W. Adams, of Jennings County, $130. To Samuel J. Wright, administrator of Daniel Arnold, decea.sed, of Harrison 

County, $80. To Maria. Neeley Alexander, of Harrison County, $60. To Clark C. Babcock, of Ripley County, $120. To Socrates J. Bence, of Harrison County, $130. To Elijah Brown, of Ripley County, $125. To Thomas Boone, of Jennings County, $100. _ To Samuel J. Wright, administrator of Pleasant D. Bean, deceased, of Harri- son County, $75. To Stephen T. Bruce, ofDearborp County, $250. To David M. Brumblay, of Dearborn County, $125. To Isaac N. Blasdel (in his own right), of Ripley County, $135; and to Hiram 

L. Walker, administrator of Reuben Blasdel, deceased, of Ripley County, $135; 

in all, 5270. To William W. Borden, of Clark County, $6.20. To Jacob Bourquin (or Burquoin), of Dearborn County, 8110. To Mary J. Bybee, widow of James Bybee, deceased, of Harrison County,$75. To William CraveQ.s, administrator of William Cravens, deceased, of Scott 

County $125. To John N. Cravens, of Scott County, $100. To Mary J. Couchman, administratrix of William D. Couchman, of Jennings 

County, $80. To John P. Strouse, administrator of Isaac Comer, deceased, of Scott County, 

$130. To Thomas C. Coker,ofWashin~n County,$130. To Martha J. Cunningham, admmistratrix of Wirt F. Cunningham, deceased, 

of Jackson County, $125. To Sarah Davis, of Washington County,$130. To Harrison Davis, of Jennings County, $100. To William Dolman, of Jefferson County, $125. To Samuel J. Wright, administrator of Thomas K. Enlow, deceased, of Harri- son County $250. To Thaddeus Elliott, of Jennings County, $75. To William S. Frakes, of Harrison County, $346.50. To Samuel J. Wright, administrator of Jacob M. Fellmy, deceased, of Harrison 

County, $125. To Nicholas Foltz, administrator of Beaedict Foltz, deceased, of Ripley 

County, $330. . To E. P. Hicks, of Jennings County, $130. To Edgar A. Walker, administrator of John Henning, deceased, of Scott 

County, $110. To Joseph Hemingway,of Jennings County,$85. To James B. Dickerson, administrator of Fielding Hyatt, deceased, of Ripley 

County, $56.25. To Frederick J. Hilcher (or Hilka.r), of Harrison County, $125. To William D. Hutchings, of Jefferson County, $135. To Thomas Harper, of Ripley County, $120. To Martha Higbee, administratrix of Nathaniel Higbee, deceased, of Ripley Count.y, $110. To Mathew Clegg, administrator of John M. Hornaday, deceased, of Jackson 

County, 8345. To Lewis H. Hill, executor of Jonathan Hill, deceased, of Ripley County, $125. To Perry Hurst, of Washington County, $120. To Edmund Hostetter, of Crawford County, $125. To Samuel J. Wright, administrator of George W. Jamison, deoea.sed, of Har- rison County, $120. To Samuel Knowlton, administrator of Frances J. Knowlton, deceased, of Ripley County, $100. To Samuel J. Wright, a.dminist.rator of John Lopp, deceased, of Harrison 

County, $100. To Marg-aret Jane Leitch, executrix of William Leitch, deceased, of Je1ferson 

County, $250. To Tarkington Lindsey, of Harrison County, $00. To Frederick Luhring, of Ripley County, $260. To Daniel F. Lemmon, of Harrison County, $130. , To Mason, Beckman & Co., namely: To Robert Mason, of Dearborn County, $38.63; to Alexander Beckman, of Dearborn County, 838.63; and to Charles C. Mason of Dearborn County, $38.64; in all,$115.90. To Cbristine Mehrhoff, administratrix of William Mehrhoff, deceased, of Dear- born County, $75. To Philip F. Seelinger, administrator of Samuel N. Marsh, deceased, of Ripley County, $100. To Henry Naden, of Jennings County, $60. 

To Warren Tebbs, administrator of Christian Poose, deceased, of Dearborn 

County, $125. 

Tol\1rs. Ruth Parr, ofWashington County, $115; and to Enoch Parr, of Washington County, $130; in all, $245. To Elijah H . Richard, of Harrison C.ounty, $100 . . To Thomas Ross and Patrick Shea {trading as Shea & Ross), of Scott County, $10. To Lindley Ruddick, of Jackson County, $125. To George S. Rust, of Tipton County, $110. . To Eliza. A. Reynolds, widow of Daniel Reynolds, deceased, of Scott County, 

~- . To Daniel Stonecypher, of Harrison County, $100. To John M. Scott, of Ripley County, $135. To James K. P. Sonner, of Harrison County $125. To George R. Spurgin, of Jetrerson County, $200. To Charles T. Smith, of Harrison County, $270. To Druza A. Shepherd, widow of Joshua H. Shepherd, deceased, of Jennings County, 815. To Aqullla T. Standeford, .of Harrison County, $125. To John Stott, of Jennings County, $200. To William P. Spurgin, of Jetrereon County, $110. To Milton Turrell, administrator of Salmon Turrell, deceased, of Dearborn 

County, $120. · To Julia A. Webster, of Ripley County, $110. To Matilda. Willoughby, of Je1ferson County, $125. To Andrew P. Da.ughte.rs, administrator of James Willi!, deceaeed, of Dear- born County, $125. To George W. Nichols, administratorofBenjamin Wildman, deceased, of Jefferson County, $125. To Nancy Walker, widow of Samuel Walker, deceased, of Hrown County, $14. 

PENNSYLVANIA. 

To Samuel Arentz, of Adams County, $18. To Rowland Austin, of Fulton County, $31.74. To William A. Speer, administrator of Catharine Alexander, deceased, of Ful- ton County, $36.87. To Jacob Albright, of Cumberland County, $55.50. To SimonS. Bishop, of Adams County, $48. To G. F. and F. J. Beard, administrators of Samuel Beard, deceased, of Adams 

County, $30. > 

To Henry Ba.er, of Franklin County, $56.80. To Daniel H. Baker, of Franklin County 810. · To Albert F. Barker, administrator· of Joseph Barker, deceased, of A.dams 

County $135. To Jobn Bender, of Adams County, $50. To Christian Burkholder (in his own right), of Franklin County, $104; and to Benjamin and W. L. Chambers, executors of George Chambers, deceased, of 

Franklin County, $104; in all, $208. · To Solomon Cassatt, of Adams County, $27. To James H. Collins, of Adams County, $25.50. To George and John Cole, of Adams County, $77.50. To WilliamS. Cart, of Adams County $140. To Samuel Coble, of Franklin County, $60. To I. N. Durboraw, administra-tor of Samuel Durbora.w, deceased, of Adams 

County 1 $53. To Willia.mDuttera., of Adams County, $«.80. To Hanson J. Diehl and Benjamin Kittenger,execntors of Jacob Diehl, deceased, of Adams County, $282.32. To Emanuel Feeser, of Adams County, $44. To William Furney, of Adams County, $6. To Pious P. Fink, of Adams County, S56. To Fedde Fixsen, of Fulton County, $65. 

ToJa.mesD.andWilliamM.Gillan,a.dministratorsofCha.rlesGillan,decea.sed, 

of Franklin County, 85.87. To C. B. Hanes, of A.dams County, $2.81. To John Baker, administrator of Jacob Hoover, deceased, of Ada.m.l County ,$16 1 -. To Michael Helsel (or Heltzel), of Adams County, $130. ·To Newton M. Horner, administrator of Eli Horner, deceased, or Ada.ms 

County, 838.40. To Jacob Hershey, of Franklin County,$6.50. To Abraham Horst, of Franklin County $62. To Salome Horst, of Franklin County, 8i69.80. To J. Alexander Harper, of Adams County, $9.85. To Jacob B. Hege, of Franklin County, $7.50. To Jacob 8 . Haldema n , of Cumberland County,$73.50. To Elizabeth Jacobs, of Adams County,$64. To Jacob Krise, of Adams County,$140. To Jacob Keefauver, of Adams County, $19.50. To L. C. Kepne r, of Franklin County..t S21.92. To Henry Keffer, of Adams County, ~135. 

To Samuel Kunkel, of Cumberland County, $8. To Daniel H. Klingel; of Adams County, $2. To Martin Kreger, ot Cumberland County, S23. To Abraham Lehman, of Franklin County, $135. To Henry Lenherr, of Franklin County, $22. To Johh Lantz, of Franklin County, $18.24. To Jacob Lefever of Adams County, $10.64. To David M. Leisher, of Franklin County, 8105.90. To George Lindemood, of Cumberland County, $42.30. To Jacob Lightfoot of Franklin County, $17.64. To Simon Lecron {or Leckron), administrator of John Lecron, deceased, o( 

Franklin County,$142.80. To Daniel Line, of Cumberland County, $27.65. To Ephraim Myers, of Adams County,$149.50. To Levi D. Mans, of Ada.ms County, $23. To Jacob Myers, of Adams County, 858. To Henry Myers, of Adams County, 8209.60. To William McSherry, of Adams County,$256.16. To Robert C. McKinney, of Adams County,$47. _ , To Newton M. Horner, administrator of Andrew McKinney, deceased, of Ad- ams County,~. 

To Jacob McDonald, of-Fulton County,$34. To A.N.Micha.el,of York County,Sl17.50. To AndrewS. l\1ann (or Monn), of Franklin County, $25. To John Miller, of J., guardian of Susannah Young and John P. Young, and 

Eliza Young, widow of John Young, deceased, of Franklin County, $17.50. To William Moner (or Mower), of Cumberland County, $9. To Peter Noel, of York County, 854.37. To Samuel Naugle, of Cumberland County, $87.50. To Henry Oaks, of Franklin County, $23.50. To Susannah and Rebecca Ocker, executors or "Wlllia.m Ocker, deceased, of 

Cumberland Oounty $135. To Bernard O'Neai, of Bedford County, $10. To J. W. Porter, of Fulton County, $60. To David Rhodes, jr., administrator of David Rhodes, deceased, of Adams 

County,$20. 
4446 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 23, 

To John Raby, of Fulton County, $325. To Charles W. Rhodes. of Franklin County,~. 

To Andrew Rudisell (or Rudisill), of York County, $18. To Emanuel Rudisell, of Adams County, 16. To William Reichert, of Cumberland County,$1.6.80. To Daniel Sheets, of Adams County, $74. To John Spa ngler,jr., of Adams County, $88. To Isaac Sell, of Adams County, $45. - To Catharine Scholl, widow of Jacob Sholl, deceased, of Cumberla.nd County, 

t66.80. - To John Krumrine, executor of Jacob Sterner, deceased, of Adams County ,$33. To George Smith, of Fra nklin County, $36. To William C. and Washington W. Scott, of Adams County, 838. To Charles N. Spangler, of Adams County,$80. To Frederick Trimmer, of Adams County, $125. To Joseph B. Topper and Joseph J. Smith, administrators of Jesse P. Topper, 

deceased, of Adams County, $230.90. To J. Henry and Samuel Wiest, executors of John Wiest, deceased, of Adams 

County, $48.75. To W.B. Wolf, of Adam"! County, $155. To Adam Wert, of Adu.ms County, $84. To Joseph Walker, of Adams County, $20. To James s. Wilson, of Adams County, $337.60. To John George Wolf, of Adams County, $15. To William Wherry, of Cumberland County, $100. To Sarah Ellen Wood ward, C. R. Wood ward, and J. H. Hargis, executors of R. C. Woodward, deceased, of Cumberland County, $141.25. To John B. Witmer, of Franklin County; $96.04. To Anna 1\lary Wolf, administratrix of Henry Wolf, deceased, of Adams 

County, S32.25. To Samuel Wolff, of Adams County, $130. To Charles Young, surviving partner of the firm of Stine & Young, of Adams 

County, $260. To "William B. and Charles M. Young, executors of William Young, deceased, 

877.50. To Henry Zimmerman, of Cumberland County, $130. 

OHIO. 

To Joseph Aten, of Jackson County, $115. To Thornton Baxter, of Gallia County, $100. To David Burgoon, of Morgan County, 95. To Buchanan and Adam , of Hamilton County, $405. To Samuel Clemens, of Harrison County, $135. To James Connell, administrator of Alexander Connell, deceased, of Jefferson 

County,$270. 

To Martin Cameron, of Hamilton County, $130. To John Cissna, of Pike County, $50. · TO Lewis Pierson, administrator of William Clark, deceased, of Hamilton 

County, 135. To Anselm T. Halcomb, a-dministrator of Thomas Damron, deceased, of Law- rence County, $270. To William H. Davis, of Muskingum County, $110. To George G. Eagleston (or Eagleson), of Harrison County, $135. To Thomas Egan, of Meigs County · $59. To John Gardner, administratorod). M.Gardner, deceased, of Adams County, 

$100. To James Glenn, of Gallia County, $100. To Francis A. Gibbons, of Hocking County, $125. To Emily C. House, administratrix of Asbury House, deceased, of Pike 

County, $l35. To William Humphrey, of Hamilton County, $125. To John W. Hill, ofHarrison County, $135. · To Robert Hastings, of Guernsey County, $80. To Samuel H. Ford, administrator of Samuel Hall, deceased, of Jefferson 

County, $110. To WilliaHl Jones, of Jackson County, $12.50. To Maggie L. Jones, administratrix of Enoch .Tones, deceased, of Hamilton 

County, $90. To Hiram Kilton of Meigs County, $220. To H. C. Kennedy, administrator of James Kennedy, deceased, of Adams 

County, $125. To George Lehnbeuter, of Hamilton County, $135. To .Tames W. McMaster, of Washington County, $40. To William McGrew, of Harrison County, $125. To Leonard McGarvey, of Clermont County, $75. To Rosanna Mehaffey, widow of Cornelius Mehaffey, deceased, of Jackson 

County, $75. • To Margaret McCall, executrix of Hugh McCall, deceased, of Scioto County, 863. To William 11-Iayer, ofHamilton·County, $200. To David Davis, administrator of Moses C. McCarley, deceased, of Jackson 

County, $75. _ To Sarah A. McElhinney, widow of Robert McElhinney, deceased, of Meigs County, $90. To Thomas O'Brien, of Hamilton County, $150. To Augustus Oskamp, of Clermont County, $1,265. To Michael Overly, of .Jackson C'.ounty, $100. To Andrew Rhea., of Ada.msCounty,$30. To John M. Rankin, of Harrison County, $15. · To Moses D. Scott,ofMeigs County,$75. To Thomas .T. Sweeney, executor of John M. Sweeney,deceased,of Clermont 

County $130. To Wesley H. Smith, of Hamilton County, $135. ToR. J. Shields, of Adams County, $135. To Andrew Sperber, of Hamilton County,$80. To William Simonson, of Hamilton County, $100. To Jackson Stanley, of Meigs County, $80. ToP. L. Shepler, of Lu<'as County, $68.25. To .John Theobald, of Pike County, $112. To Malinda Tolbert (formerly Malinda Hammond), of Jackson County, $90. To Nicholas Todd, otHamilton County, $125. ToM. W. and G. W. Thomp on, of Scioto County, $47.82. To John Wood, ofClermontCounty, 135. To Thomas Wilson (or Willsen), of Harrison County, $110. 

MARYLAND. 

To Owen Bissett, of Washington County, $660. To Zedoc T. Crown, of Montgomery County, Sl-52. 

~~ ?h~~D.sl~~ad::S~is~~~:r~7E?~~n;: ii~ ifci!i~·. deceased, of Charles 

County, $995. · 

To Isaiah Hammond and George Eakle, administrators of William Ham- mond. deceased, of Washington County, $701.70. To Henry Hurley, of Montgomery County, $755.50. 

To Sarah .Tones, widow of Thomas L. Jones, deceased, of Montgomery County, 830. To Thomas R . .Johnson, of Frederick County, $106.40. . To Thomas E. Lynch, administratorofThomasJ. Lync}l, deceased,ofWashmgton County, 140. To Wi1liam L. Lancaster, of Wa hington County, $750. To John T. Meredith, of Frederick County, $150. To Catharine Nyman, widow of Lewis B. Nyman, deceased, of Washington County, 11.30. To Henrietta Norris, of Frederick County, $750. To John Peters, jr., of Frederick County, 120. To Benjamin Posey and Thomas E. Bowie, administrators of George R. Posey, 

deceased, ·of Charles County, $250. To Mrs.l\1. A. Rice, widow of David Rice, deceased, of Montgomery County, $81. 

To William Smith, of Washington County, $129. 

ToJohn Shifler,of Wa-shington County, $59.13. To Devolt Stotlemeyer, of 'Vashington County, $240. To William V. Bouie, administrator of .John W. Spa-tes, deceased, of Mont- gomery County, Sl!l5. 70. To Daniel Smit-h, of Frederick County, $140. To Samuel Clagett, administrator of Eliza. H. West, deceased, of Frederick 

County, $853.64. To Elizabeth White, of Montgomery County, $42. 

To Richard L. Waters, ofBalt.imore County, $589.50. To Patrick M. West, ofFrederickCounty,,$125. 

MISSOURI. 

To Lewis N. Ayres, of Pemiscot County, 125. To Lewis Adams, of Bates County, $420. To .Tames Alexander, of Greene County, $RO. To James M. Appling, of Laclede County, $10. To Charles Becken bach, of Moniteau County, &45. To Isaac Chowning, of Howell County,$35. To Franklin Choice, of Saint Clair County,$35. To Andreas Dehn (or Dehu), administrator of William Dehn (or Dehu}, deceased, of Franklin County, 337.50. To Sarah E. Foster and Margaret J. Courtney, heirs of G. C. and Martha A. 

Foster, deceased, of Dade County, $87.50. To Sarah Phillips, formerly widow of J. W. Frisbee, deceased, of Texas County, $40. - To George D. Hoover, of Cass County, $14AO. To James L. La Force, of Jasper County, $95. To Joseph McMoore, administrator of Martha J. Moore, deceased, ofMorga.n 

County, $64.30. To David W. Malcolm, administrator of Andrew Malcolm, deceased, of Phelps 

County, SIOO. To A. H. Mowrey (or Maury), of Bollinger County, $40. To John C. Proctor, of La Fayette County, $144.64. To Alfred Ragsdale, of Greene County, $173. To James Spencer, of Benton County, $261.20. To Henry C. Schroder, of Franklin County, $15. To Albert Smithpeter, administrator of Alfred Smithpeter, deceased, of La- clede County, $100. To GeorgeS. Tetrick, of Douglas County, $12. · To James Wise, of Lawrence County, 107.50. To George Woolsey, of Phelps County, $40. To Drury Wilkerson, jr., administrator of Drury Wilkerson, deceased, of 

Ba-rry County, $120. To A. A. Young, of Christian County, $31. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

To Louisa- 8. Brown and Jesse Brown, executors of Marshall Brown, deceased, 

ofWashington city,$854.96. · To Caroline R. Dulaney, of Georgetown, $288. 

To A. R. Fowler, ofWa-shington County, $200. To William Heine, of Washington County, $83.12. To Matilda Osborn, of Washington County, $158.98. To Pierce Shoemaker. of Washington County, $2,685.37. To J. Fenwick Young, of Washington County, $1,305.75. 

COLORADO. 

To Sylvester J. Plumb, of Boulder County, $300. To Caroline Suttles, widow of Thomas Suttles, deceased, of Pueblo County, $2.92. ILLINOIS. 

To .John Barlow, of Richland Cvunty, $100. To Lindsay Ridgway, of Sangamon County, $1,229. 

INDIAN TERRITORY. 

To Akey Duck, of Cherokee Nation, $114..50. To Samuel Ward, of Cherokee Nation, $80. 

IOWA. 

To Hubbard Holder, of Pottawattamie County, $79.92. 

KANSAS. 

To Barton Needham, of Franklin County, $33.15. To David Redfield, of Bourbon County, $130. 

HENRY JOHNSON AND OTHERS. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 1477) 

to pay Hiram Johnson and other persons herein named the several sums 

of money herein specified, being the surplus of a military assessment 

paid by them and accounted for to the United States in excess of the 

amount required for the indemnity for which it was levied and collected. · Mr. McMILLIN. I ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed over informally, as a similar bill ha-s been acted on in Committee of 

the Whole. 

The CHAIRMAN. If there be rio objection that action will be taken. 

The Chair hears none. . ALONZO GESNER. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 1299) 

for the relief of Alonzo Gesner. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior he1 and he is hereby, au- thorized to approve f or payment, if on examination he finds the surveys were made in accordance with the report and approval of the surveyor-general of the 
.' 

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4447 

State of Oregon of date December 1, 1877, certain surveys of the public lands made by Deputy Surveyor Alonzo Gesner, namely: Townships 161 17, 18, 19, and 20 south, range 16 east o( Willamette meridian, making fifty-four miles and three andninehundredthscha.insoftownshiplines,andthreehundredmilesandsixtyone and ninety-two hundredths chains of section lines, at the rate of·$7 per mile for township and $6 per mile for section lines, amounting, in all, to $2,182.91. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will advise the House that the report 

in this case has heretofore been read. 

Mr. GEORGE. I desire to offer an amendment to this bill. I move 

to amend by adding the following: 

Which said sum, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appro- priated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for said 

purpose. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. GEORGE. I move that the bill as amended be laid aside to be 

reported favorably to the House. 

The motion was agreed to. 

J. T. PICKETT. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 3181) 

for the relief of J. T. Pickett. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to J. T. Pickett, formerly con- sul at Vera Cruz, Mexico, out of any unappropriated money in the United Stat-es Treasury, the sum of $1,375, or so much thereof as may be necessary, being the amount advanced and disbursed by him ~bile acting as such consul for the r!7 lief of destitute American citizens not seamen : Provided, That such proof be made of the said expenditures as shall be satisfactory to the Secretary of State." 

Mr. TILLMAN. In the absence of the chairman of the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs [Mr. CURTIN], who had this bill in charge, I have 

been asked to speak in support of it. It so happens that a similar bill was referred to the Committee on Claims, and I had the honor to report it back to the House with the unanimous approval of that com- mittee. This is a meritorious bill; and, unless some gentleman desires 

further information, I move that it be laid aside to be reported favorably to the House. · 

The motion was agreed to. 

COL. HENRY J. HUNT. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 78) 

to provide for the retirement of Col. Henry J. Hunt as a major-general 

of the United States Army. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Beitenacled, &c., That the President be, and he is hereby, authorized to place Col. and Bvt. Maj. Gen. Henry J. Hunt on the retired-list of major-generals wit.h the rank, pay, and emoluments of a. major-general of the United State~ Army on the retired-list, to date from September 14, 1883. 

Mr. LY?tfAN. I ask for the reading of the report of the Committee 

on Military Affuirs on this bill. 

The ~eport (by Mr. LY IAN) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 78) to provide for the retirement of Col. Henry J. Hunt as a major-general of the United States Army, beg leave to report: . Colonel Hunt's active service with troops, as shown by the official record hereto appended (Appendix A), has extended over a period of more than forty- four years. He has held the rank of major-general by two brevets, one in the vol- unteer and one in the regular service. He performed thedutiesofmajor-general for nearly eight years, ofwhichfourwer~ during the late war. Forthreeyearshe was chief of artillery of the Army of the Potomac, and successfully conducted this important and difficult service. It never has been questioned that his conduct met the approbation of the successive commanders of that ArmyandofGeneral Grant. His brevet of major-general of volunteers, "for gallantry and distin- guished conduct at the battle of Gettysburg and for faithful and highly merito- rious services from the Rapidan to Petersburg," antedated all brevets of the same grade conferred at the close of that campaign, and Major-General Meade subsequently recommended his promotion to a full maJor-general. Although his command was equal in extent to that of an army corps, he is, so far as known the only permanent corps commander who did not receive the rank of full major: 

general. This rose from the fact that in his arm of the sePvice (the artillery) there was no such promotion as in the other arms. . The Adjutant-General, in the first year of the war, held that a battery was a company, and as the law authorized not more than one brigadier-general for every four regiments* (forty companies), the largest army could have no more than one brigadier of artillery. . On the other hand, the General-in-Chief, in the second year of the war held that each battery was a regiment commanded by a. captain and thatconsequ~ntly field officers were unnecessary, and orders were issued 'to exclude them from the service. (General Orders No.126,1862.) For the remainder of the war both theories were acted on. The artillery was deprived of generals because a battery was a company, and of field officers be- cause a battery was a regiment. The result was the imm~diate stoppage of promotion in the artillery. Conse- quentl~. a.s .soon as an artillery offi:cer de':'eloped high ability he was offered the pro~o~wn mother arms tbatw~ tmposs1ble in his own. In this way the other . surv1vmg commanders of battenes 1n the Mexican war, George H. Thomas, John F .. Reynolds, and T. W. Sherman, were in 1861 appointed brigadier gen- erals ofmfa.ntry, and rose to great distinction. General Hunt was repeatedly offered such commands, but because his skill and experience as an artillerist · were~ntial to tb~ success?~his arm, the ~vernment would not permit him to leave~~- Thus hiS very abthty ~revented h1s advancement by confining him to the_ art1lle~y1 where there was little or no promotion. While rece1vmg_ the pay of a. colonel, or at most o~ a brigadier-general, Colo- nel Hunt was subJected to all the expenses of a maJor-general commanding a. CC?rps. His <!?~and be!ng scattered over~ great extent of ground, many of h1s officers, ndmg long d1stances to confer With him, had to be kept over night 

and entertained. Moreover, .many forei~n officers and other guests at the head- quarters of the Army were billeted on htm. As no extra allowance was given him for these unusual expenses, he was obliged to pay them himself and in this way expended more than $2,000 a year beyond his pay. In othe~ words, he 

*Act of July 22, 1861, ~ 3. 

served his country in a position of the grea test responsibility and peril and paid 

$2,000 a year for the privilege, so that he had in this way, at the end of the war, exhausted his slender private resources. . As has been said, Colonel Runt's commR.nd was fully equal to that of a corps. At the battle of Gettysburg, for example, his artillery consisted of sixty-five bat- teries (three hundred and sixty-four guns), with over 8,000 men, 7,000 horses, and large trains of ammunition and stores, the whole divided into fourteen brigades. At the investment of Petersburg his command was even more extensive, for he there had sole control of the siege ope rations south of the Appomattox, which embraced the entire Army of the Potomac and one corps of the Army of the James. And it is to be borne in mind that his duties, unlike those of a general of infantry, were double, being, first, those of a commander of troops on the field of battle, and, secondly, those of an administrative officer having charge of am- munition trains and supplies. And yet no major-general of artillery was ad- missible, although there were issued during the w a r one hund.red and fifty-six commissions of major-general. Had promotion to the highest grades in the Army been by seniority, as it i8 

in the Navy t Colonel Hunt would have been for years a. major-general, and, when retire<l, the senior of that grade. As a retired officer he is now properly eligible to the rank whose duties he performed during the war, and was performing at the date of his retirement. Precedents for such promotions are numerous. Besides the cases of Colonels Robinson and Sickles, and Lieutenant-Colonel Carroll and Major Ricketts, who were retired as major-generals under the general acts of August31 1861, and July 

28, 1866, there is the case of Brigadier-General Ord, retired on his orevet rank of major-general by special act, January 28,1881, and of Col. S. P. Heintzelman as major-general, by joint resolution April 10, 1869; Colonel Crawford, as brigadier-general, by special act March 3,1875; and Colonel Emory, as brigadier gen- . eral, by a special a<!t June 26,1876. To illustrate the saving by the Government in consequence of restricting the chief of artillery to the grade and the staff of a brigadier-general, instead of those of a. major· general commanding a corps, the following tables are given: 

Pay of a major-general during the war, per annum .............. $5,368 50 Staff, five lieutenant-colonels ............................................... 11,272 50 Three aids ......... ................................................... ,................. 5, 445 00 ---- $22,086 00 Average pay of General Huntas colonel and brigadier-gen-

~[f~Ef.~~~;~~~~:.:::·::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::_::::::::::::: ~5 ~ 10,235 50 

Saving per annum ................................................................................. 11,850 50 Saving for the four years of wal' ........................................................ - 47,402 00 

The esteem in which Colonel Hunt is held by his companions in arms is shown by the accompanying request in aid of this bill, signed by all the chiefs of the military bureaus of the War Department (Appendix B). • Your committee therefore recommend that the bill be amended by inserting in line 3, after the word " authorized," the following words : "to nominate, and, 

by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint, and; " and in line 5, to strike out the words "of major-generals," and to insert the words" as a 

major-general; " and that the bill pass as thus amended. 

APPENDIX A. 

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, AD.TUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE, 

Washington, .January 16, 1884. 

Statement of the military services of Htnry J. Hunt, of t'M United States Army, compiled from the records of this office. 

He was graduated at the United States Military Academy and appointed sec- ond lieutenant Second Artillery July 1, 1839 ; promoted first lieutenant June 18, 

1846; captain, September 28, 1852; major Fifth Art.illery, May 14,1861 ; lieutenant- colonel Third Artillsry, August 1,1863; colonel Fifth Artillery, Apri14, 1869; col- onel and additional aide-de-camp, September 28, 1861; and brigadier-general of volunteers, September 15, 1862, "for meritorious services." He received the brevets of captain United Stat-es Army, August 20, 1847, "for gallant and meritorious conduct in the battles of Contreras and Ohurubusco ;" 

major, United States Army, September 13,1847, "for gallant and meritorious conduct in the battle of Chapultepec;" colonel, United States Army, J nly 3,1863, "for gallant and meritorious services in the battle of Gettysburg, Pa.;" briga--

dier-general United States Army, March 13, 1865, "for gallant and meritorious services during the siege of Petersburg, Va.. , and in the campaign terminating with the surrender of the insurgent army under General R. E. Lee;" major-gen- eral United States Army, March 13, 1865, "for gallant and meritorious services in the field duringthewa.t· ;" and major-general of volunteers, July 6,1864, "for gallant and distinguished conduct in the battle of Gettysburg, and for faithful and highly meritorious services in the campaign from the Rapidan to Peters- burg, Va." He served with his company at Detroit, Mich., from August 30, 1839, to October 15, 1839; at Buffalo, N.Y., to September 21,1840; at Madison Barracks, 

N.Y., to August 13, 1841; at Fort Adams, R. 1., to August 29, 1843; a t Fort Ham- ilton. N.Y., to October 3, 1844, and at Fort Columbus, N.Y., to August 15,1845; 

conducting recruits to October 19, 18-15; with compai\Y at Fort Adams, R. I ., to June 1,1846; with Light Batt-ery en route to, and in, Texas, and in thewarwith Mexico (commanding battery from November 18, 1847, to June 24, 1849), to July 

14, 1848; en route to, and at, Fort Columbus, N.Y., to October ll, 1848; and at Fort McHenry, ?tid., to July 1, 1849; on leave to December 15, 1849; with com- panyatFortl\1onroe, Va.,'to December,5,1852, and atFortMonltrie, S.C., to June 15, 1853 ~ommanding Light Battery at Fort Smith, Ark., to August16, 1853, and at Fort washita, Ark., to November 24, 1853; on leave to March 30, 1854; com- manding battery at Fort Washita, Ark., to November 14,1856; member of'board revising the system of light artillery tactics to September 30, 1857: command- ing battery at Fort Leavenworth, Kans., to May 28, 1858; in the field on the expedition to Salt Lake, Utah, for the relief of Col. A. Sidney Johnston, to August 3, 1858, and at Fort Leavenworth, Kans., to August 31, 1858; member of board revising the system of light artillery ta<!tics to 1\:Iarch 22, 18601 command- ing battery en route to and at Fort Brown, Tex., to December 13, 18SO; on leave to January 2,1861; commanding troops at Harper's Ferry, Va., to April2, 1861; 

commanding battery at Fort Hamilton, N. Y., to April 6, 1is61; en route to and at Fort Pickens, Fla. to June 27, 1861; en route to Washington. D. C., and in the field, Virginia, to J~y 26, 1861; chief of artillery, defenses ofWashine:ton south of the Potomac, to Sep_tember 16, 1861; commanding artillery reserv~, Army of the Potomac, at Washmgton, D. C., to 1\farch 10, 1862, and in the field Vitginia 

(peninsular campaign), to August 21,1862, being also employed as me~ber of a board to fix number and caliber of guns at permanent fortifications and field batteries, from November 26, 1861, to some time in March, 1862, and president of the board to report upon the various kind of rifled cannon and ammunition therefor, and to examine projecti\es to replace those in· use in the Army of the Potomac from November 1,1861, to some time in January, 1862; forwarding- batteries from Aquia. Creek to General Pope's army in Virginia from Auo-ust22 1862, to sometime in September,1862; chief of artillery, Army of the Po.,.tomac: from September 5, 1862, to June 27, 1865 {assigned and on duty according to his breve~ rank .of majc;>r:g:eneral from De~ember 2_9, 1864, to April 30, 1866); com- mandm~~:: arttllerv diVlSIOn, Department of 'Vashtngton, to some time in August, 
4448 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 23, 

1865, and the District of the Frontier at Fort Smith, Ark., from September 13, 

1865, to March 24, 1866. He was honorably mustered out as brigadier-general oi volunteers, .April 30, 

1866. - He was appointed president of the permanent artillery board, in reference to the interest and efficiency of the artillery arm, in session from April 21 1866, to August 29, 1866; on permission to delay to .January 18, 1867; member of ooard ;to determine the caliber and proportion of rifled guns for the armament of fortifications to February 27,1867; commanding Fort Independence, Massachusetts, to AP,ril 29,1867; Fort Sullivan, Maine, to February 5, 1869; Fort .Jefferson, 

Florida., to April 5, 1869; regiment and post of Fort .Adams, Rhode Island, from 

May 20,1869 to .July 28 1870, being also in command of the Canadian frontier 

from Lake Ontario to ~ke Champlain, with headquarters at Malone, N. Y., 

during the Fenian disturbances April and May, 1870; commanding the district 

.of North Carolina, .July 28 to September 13,1870, and Fort Adams, Rhode Island, to .J u1y 4, 1871; member of board preparing a. system of general regulations for 

lthe administration of the atl'airs of the .Army to May 23,1872; commanding post 

.of Fort Adams, Rhode Island, to March 2,1873 ; on leave to .April 23, 1873; com- manding Fort .Adams, Rhode Island, to AuJlust 24, 1874; on court-martial duty 

At Fort Sanders, Wyo., toSeptember26, 1874; commanding Fort Adams, Rhode 

Island, to November 30,1875,and at Charleston, S.C., to November 12,1876; un- der orders of the Secretary of War to February 21, lff77; commanding post of 

Charleston, S. C., to .A.prill2, 1877; on leave to .June 20, 1877; commanding post 

of Charleston, S.C., to .April 21, 1879, and .Atlanta, Ga., to September 19, 1879; on .court-martial duty in Kansas to December 3,1879; commanding post of Atlanta, 

Ga., to December 21,1880; on duty in Washington, D.C., to .January 6,1881,a.nd 

commanding the Department of the South at Newport Barracks, Kentucky, 

according to his brevet rank of brigadier-general, to March 3, 1883, and as colonel to September 14, 1883, when he was retired trom active service by opera- tion of law under the provisions of section 1 of the act of Congre8S approved .June 30,1882. In the war with Mexico he was atta-ched to Duncan's battery, and was en- gaged in the siege of Vera. Cruz, the battles of Cerro Gordo, Churubusco, Molino 

del Rey, storming of Chapultepec, assault on the Garita San Cosme, and capture 

of the city of Mexico. In this campaign he was twice wounded. He com- manded his battery at the battle of Bull Run, Va., .July21,1861; commanded the ~rtillery reserve in the peninsular campaign of1862. At thesiegeofYorktown, the battles of Gaine's Mill, Garnett's Farm, White Oak Swamp, Glendale, Tur· key Bend, and Malvern Hill. As chief of artillery he commanded the artillery of 

the Army of the Potomac in the !>ubsequent campaigns of that army, being en- gaged in the battles of South Mountain, Antietam, and Fredericksburg, in 1862; 

Chanoellorsville, Gettysburg, Rappahannock Station, 1863; Wilderness, Spott-

-sylva.nia Court House, North Anna, Totopotomoy, Cold Harbor, assaults of 

Petersburg, .June15-18, 1864; siege of that plaoe and its capture, and was present 

At the capitulation of the Army of Northern Virginia, at Appomatt{)x, April 9, 

1865. All the siege operations at Petersburg were placed under his general di· 

.-ection by the following orders: 

[Special Orders, No. 43.] 

HEADQUARTERS, A.Rli:IES OF THE UNITED STATES, 

Oity Point, Va., June 27, 1864. 

In all siege o~rations about Petersburg, south o~ the Appomattox, Brig. Gen. 

H . .J. Hunt, chief of artillery of the .Army of the Potomac will have general 

charge, and be obeyed and respected accordingly. Col. H. i. Abbott, in charge 

of the siege trains, will report to General Hunt for orders. 

By order of Lieutenant-General Grant: 

T. S. BOWERS, .Assistant .A<ijutant-GeneraL. 

One army corps of the .Aimy of the .James co-operated with the .Army of the 

Potomac, south of the Appomattox;· also the siege trains under Colonel Abbott were used for the operations of both armies. R. C. DRUM, .Adjutan~General. 

APPENDIX B. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington Oity, Jantmry 15, 1884. 

Sm: I have the honor to transmit to you a testimonial of all the chiefs of the 

military bureaus in this Department, showing the high estimation in which 

they hold the public services of General Henry .J. Hunt, in relation to whom a bill has lately been introduced in the House of Representatives. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

ROBERT T. LINCOLN, 

Secretary of War. General W. S. RosEORANS, 

Chairman Committee on MiJ:itary .Ajfailrs, House of .Representatives. 

WASHINGTON, D. C., Jantmryll,1884. 

The undersigned desire to express their gratification that a bill has been introduced into the House of Representatives placing Bvt. Maj. Gen. Henry .J. Hunt on the retired-list with the rank of major-general. General Huntwasd_istinguished in thel\Iexican war, and in the late war his reputation as a gallant, 

efficient, and thorough soldier rose with his services, which were distinguished in the highest degree in almost every battle fought east of the Alleghanies. 

Forty-four years of such service richly and justly deserve recognition by Con· 

gr~e undersigned heartily concur in this proposed action by Congress, and 

Btrongly recommend that this bill become a law. -...+.. 

S. V. BE.Njj;T, 

Brigadier-General., Chief of Ordnance. D. B. SACKET, 

Brigadier and Inspecror General, U. S . .4.. WM. B. ROCHESTER, 

Paymaster-Genera-l, U. 8 . .4.. 

R. MACFEELY, 

Commissary-General of Subsmenee, U. S . .4.. 

S. B. HOLABIRD, 

Quartermaster-General, U. B . .4.. 

R. MURRAY, 

Su-rgeon-General, U. B • .4.. H. G. ·WRIGHT, 

C'Mef of Emgineers, Brigadier and Brevet MaJor General. W. B. HAZEN, 

Ohi4 Bignal Ojftcer. 

D. G. SWAIM, 

Judge-Advocate--General. R. C. DRUM, - AdQutant-General. 

• Mr. LYMAN. I now move, under instructions of the Committee on Military Affairs, to perfect the bill by the amendments which are rec- ()mmended on pa.ge 3 of the report. They are merely verbal amendments dffiigned to put the bill in the usual formThe amendments recommended by the Committee on Military Affairs were read, as follows: 

After the word "authorized," in line 3, insert "to nominate and, by and with 

the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint, and." In line 5 strike out the words "of major-generals" and insert the words " as a major-general." 

The amendments were agreed to. 

~lr. PRICE. IfthegentlemanfromMassachUBettsisthroughwithhis 

amendments, I dffiire to offer the amendment which I send to the desk. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Amend by adding the following: 

"And all honorably discharged soldiers who served three months or more in 

the Union .Army during the rebellion shall also be placed on the retired-list and 

paid at the rate of 88 per month during their life, and then to the widows until 

their death, and then to their minor children under 16 years of age." 

Mr. LYMAN. I make the point of order that this amendment is not 

germane. I hope the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. PRICE] will not 

press it. 

Mr. PRICE. I will do so if I can. If the amendment is in order, 

no amount of persua.sion will induce me to withdraw it. If it is out 

of order, of course I can not offer it. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair mUBt hold that the amendment is out 

of order, as it. is in the nature of a public bill while this is a private 

bill. 

Mr. L YM.AN. Mr. Chairman, if the committee will give me its attention for a few moments, .I will make a brief explanation. I wish 

to impress upon the committee that this bill for the promotion to the 

retired-list of Col. Henry J. Hunt stands on its own merits and js in 

no way similar to the bills already discUS8ed for the relief of Generals 

Pleaoonton and Averill. It was urged against those bills that the two 

officers named had long ago resigned from the regular Army and that 

it was not a good precedent to rffitore them to the service and to place 

them on the retired-list. 

But General Hunt has never been out of the service. On the contrary, 

after a. continuous and unblemished record of forty-four years he was 

placed on the retired-list as colonel by operation of law, having attained 

the a.ge of 64. Now, his retirement as colonel was a hardship which 

this bill seeks to set right by giving him a rank which in the natural 

course of ev_ents he would have had except for unfortunate accidents. 

These accidents arose from the unjust position into which officers of 

artillery were thrust during the late war. By a decision of the Adjutant-General a battery was held to be a company. By a subsequent decision of the General-in-Chief a battery was held to be a regiment. Both 

these decisions were subsequently acted on during the wa.r. What was 

the consequence? First, because a. battery was a company and it took 

eighty companiffi to constitute a major-general's command; and as no 

army had as many as eighty batteriffi it followed that there could be no 

such position as a major-general of artillery. As a fact, out of the one 

hundred and fifty-six commissions of major-general issued during the 

war not one was given to the artillery. Secondly, because a battery 

was a regiment and was commanded by a captain it followed that no 

field-officers of artillery were required, the captains being all-sufficient 

for command. • Nearly all promotion was thus stopped in that arm of the service, 

an~ the artillery officers naturally made haste to seek higher rank in 

the volunteer infantry or cavalry. General Hunt was repea~y offered these coveted promotions. . Had he been an ordinary officer he 

would have been allowed to accept them, but precisely because he was 

the aclrnow ledged head of his profession his services were considered 

too valuable to be spared, and he was tied down, first as a colonel and 

afterward as a brigadier, while hesa.whisjuniorspromoted to be majorgenerals. But this was not the worst. His command as chief of artillery of the Army of the Potomac was quite equal to that of a corps, 

consisting at the battle of Gettysburg of sixty-five batteriffi, with over 

8,000men, 7,000horses, and greattrainsofamnlunitionandstores. At 

the invffitment of Petersburg his command was even more extensive. 

What was the consequence? With the pay of a. brigadier he had all the 

expensffi of a major-general _commanding a corps; he was constantly 

obliged to feed and house his officers who came from distant points in 

the line to report to him. Foreign military men who visited the Army 

were billeted on him for weeks at a time. r have myself seen three 

foreign officers at once entertained by him .for many days. There was uo .way of avoiding these expensffi. The consequence was' that even with the most rigid economy he was obliged to spend about $2,000 a · 

year over and above his pay and allowances, and at the end of the war he 

found that his own slender fortune and that of his wife had been consumed. 

?rlr. SPRINGER. r:would like to ask the gentleman, what is the 

amount of pay that this officer now gets under the law? 

Mr. LYMAN. He now receivffi under the law, as colonel, $3,375 a year. 

Mr. SPRlNGER. No other allowances? 

Mr. LYMAN. No other allowances; that is the whole pay. 

Mr. SPRI.NGER. Howmuchwillhegetifheisplacedontheretiredlist as a m.aj or· general? 

Mr. LYMAN. Five thousand six hundred and twenty-five dollars. 

. 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4449 

Mr. SPRINGER. Then this is a bill to give him $5,625 a year instead of $3,375? 

:Mr. LYMAN. That is it exa.ctly in the matter of pay, without saying anything as to the matter of honor or rank. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Would it not be satisfactory to the gentleman if 

we should amend this bill so as to give the officer the rank which he 

claims and let the pay remain as it is? 

Mr. LYMAN. It would not be. If the gentleman will be patient 

a moment I will touch on that point. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, as I was saying--

:Mr. WOLFORD. Let me ask the gentleman whether the additional 

pay which General Hunt will get under this bill would be anything 

like equal to the amount that he lost by not being allowed to a-ccept 

the promotion which was offered him in the Army. 

Mr. LYMAN. If Colonel Hunt lives as long as the mortality tables 

allow him, he being now about 66 years old, the additioRal pay would 

not compensate him for his aduallosses while in the Army. 

Mr. PETERS. What is the difference between the pay of a colonel 

on the retired-list and one on the adive-list? 

Mr. LYMAN. One-quarter difference. That is, a colonel on theretired-list gets 75 per cent. of the pay of a colonel on the active-list. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I was about to say when the gentleman from 

illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] interrupted me (and I am glad to be interrupted) that the injustice did not cease here, for at the end of the war. 

these officers of artillery who had been the juniors of General Hunt 

were, because of the high rank they had obtained in volunteer commands, given extra rank in the regnlar Army over the head of General 

Hunt, and when theArmywasreduced theywereretransferredfrom the 

infantry and cavalry to the artillery again over the head of General 

Hunt. So that his juniors were puj; over his head by the combined 

action of these conditions. Had it not been for that General Hunt 

would have been the ranking officer of artillery of the Army and would 

have been retired as major-general. 

After the war, Mr. Chairman, his disadvantages did not cease, for he 

was put in command of a military division which belonged to a majorgeneral and required the expenses of a major-general, and yet he served 

in those commands for seven years with the pay a part· of the time of 

colonel and a p:trt of the time of brigadier-general. 

To sum up, this bill designs giving to General Hunt the rank he was 

entitled to by regular promotion had it not been for the accidents to 

which I have referred. It contemplates giving him the power of saving in his declining years a little to rebuild the fortune which he has 

spent in the service of his country, and which he needs for the support 

ofhis family. . At the other end of the Capitol, Mr. Chairman, as you ascend the 

steps oft~e Senate gallery, there is a picture-and I wishitwerea. better picture~f a great deed of arms, the storming of Chapultiepec. On 

the left of that picture is an officer with a red sash standing by a piece 

of artillery. That officer is General Hunt, then Lieutenant Hunt, a 

very young man. From that day to this he has served his country 

with an unblemished record. He has shed his blood in its service. 

Now in his old age he comes before this House to ask not a favor but 

simple justice. 

1\Ir. SPRINGER. I ask the gentleman to answer a question. 

Mr. LYMAN. Certainly. 

l\Ir. SPRINGER. How many persons are there now upon there!.. 

tired-list of the Army who are receiving pay as major-generals? 

:Mr. LYMAN. There are Generals Ricketts, Sickles, Robinson, Carroll, McDowell-! remember those, but there may be more. 

A MEMBER. General Ord. 

Mr. LYM.A....ll{. General Ord was on the retired-listuptothe time of 

his death. General Ricketts was put upon the retired-list as lieutenant-colonel, General Sickles with the rank of colonel, General Robinson as colonel, and General Carroll as lieutenant-colonel. 

Mr. SPRINGER. And promoted afterward. 

Mr. LYMAN. Yes; all promoted by bills similar to this, or by the 

action of law similar to this now proposed. 

Mr. SPRINGER. There is no one now on the retired-li2t as majorgeneral who was retired as such. 

Mr. LYMAN. Yes; General McDowell. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Only one. Mr. LYMAN. Only one, so far as I can remember. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Is it not true that every regular officer of the Army 

of the rank of colonel was placed in command of a large number of 

troops, and acted as brigadier or major general in many instances during the war? · . 

Mr. LYMAN. A great many, but they had the pay of brigadiergeneral or major-general during the time they held such commands, 

which General Hunt never did. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Could it not satisfy the gentleman from Massachusetts to retire him with the rank of major-general, and let the pay 

remain as it is? 

Mr. LYMAN. It would not, because I wish to give him a chance 

to make up the fortune he has spent in the war. Mr. SPRINGER. I would be glad to reimburse this officer-for I 

have no doubt the statement made by the gentleman from MM.sachuXV....,....-279 

setts is perfectly true-for whatever expenditure he was c.ompelled to 

make while in the service, but I dislike to establish a precedent of promoting officers on the retired-list., to be promoted merely for the purpose of getting higher pay. 

Mr. LYMAN. That is only incidental. 

Mr. SPRINGER. The pay is incidental, or the rank? 

Mr. LY)\IAN. The pay is incidental to the promotion. 

Mr. SPRINGER. But the pay is .the object of the promotion. If 

the promotion is all that is required, and that is made without carrying 

pay with it, there would be no objection. 

:Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. If the rank is all that is desired, let him 

be appoin\ed and retain his present pa.y. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Yes; I have no objection to that. 

1\fr. HEWITT, of Alabama. That would answer the purpose the 

gentlemen have in view, if that is all they desire, simply the rank. 

Mr. LYMAN. I have already explained, however, that that is not 

all that is desired. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Will the gentleman yield to me a few moments? 

Mr. LYMAN. I will yield to the gentleman for three minutes. 

The CH.A.ffi:M:AN. The Chair must request the committee to be in 

order. The Chair cannot hear what is going on. 

Mr. SPRINGER. The gentleman from Massachusetts has yielded 

three minutes to me. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from illinois will proceed when 

members are seated. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I dislike exceedingly to oppose a 

measure of this kind. I concede everything to be true that the honorable gentleman has said in reference to this distinguished officer, and I 

would be glad if this Government could do justice to every such officer 

who served his country through the last war oratanyother time. But 

there are certain considerations involved in this case that demand attention. This gentleman is now on the retired-list by virtue of the law as 

to age, and is receiving about $3,300 a year. If this bill is passed his 

pay will be increased to $5,625 a year, more than the pay of a member 

of this House or a Senator of the United States. In his present position 

of retirement from public life he can take up a quiet abode in any city 

in this Union and be entirely free from the expenses to which men in 

the public service are continually subjected; and it seems to me that the 

pay·this officer is at present receiving is more to him than the pay of a 

Senator or a Representative in the position that they are compelled to 

hold before the public. 

But, sir, .Jam opposed to this bill for another reason. In my judgment Congress is going too fast in the matter of these numerous promotions for the sake of increasing pensions. We have now a bill upon 

the Speaker's table which has been passed by the S~nate at this s~on 

of Congress placing General Grant on the retired-list, or rather, I should 

say, placing him upon the rolls of the Army as a general and then retiring him with that rank, to enable him to draw a pension for the rest 

of his life of some $20,000 a year, or perhaps not so much. I will ask 

some member of the Committee on Military Affairs what the exact pay 

would be? 

Mr . .1\IORGAN. It would only be about $11,000. · 

Mr. CURTIN. I think $11,500. 

Mr. EATON. I am not positive, but it seems to me $17,500 would 

be the pay. 

Mr. CURTIN. Oh, no; not that much. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Well, one gentleman tells me $11,500, another 

says 17,000-

Mr. MORGAN. It will be exactly $10,125. 

Mr. WELLER. Well, either would be too much. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Is there any other allowance·beyond that amount? 

Mr. MORGAN. No, sir. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Then $10,125 would be the annual pension if that 

bill passed? 

Mr. 1\IORGAN. It would. 

Mr. SPRINGER. That i"' more han the judges of tha Supreme 

Court or any other officer of this Government receives except the General of the Army and the President of the United States. It is alleged 

in behalf of that bill that General Grant has been the subject of some 

:financial misfortunes recently which commend him particularly at this 

time to the consideration of· Congress, and that therefore because of this 

fact the bill for his relief should be passed at once by this House. Mr. 

Chairman, .while I would be glad to do honor to General Grant, because 

of his achievements for this country, under any ordinary circumstances 

yet in my judgment this is not the time nor are these the circumstan~ under which the Congress of the United States should come to his relief. He has associated himself in Wall street with speculators who have 

ruined his own fortune and the reputations of his partners by the most 

disreputable practices that have ever been exposed in financial transactions in this country, and which are only paralleled in other countries 

by the South Sea bubble and John Law's Mississippi scheme. It is 

true as is alleged that he was entirely unaware of the transactions of his 

partners, who have succeeded in running up liabilities to the extent as stated, of some $15,000,000 with p.o available assets that have b~n found. 

Now, this matter of placing gentlemen upon the retired-list, some-
4450 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 23, 

times taking them from the walks of private life and at other times 

from the retired-list and giving them a higher promotion with higher 

pay, ought to be stopped at some time. I believe in doing perfect justice to the disting\}ished officers of the Government, but until the men 

in the ranks, and their widows and their orphans, have received what 

is justly their due at the hands of the Government, I think we may 

well stop -increasing the pe:qsions or retired pay of those who are now 

receiving as much as $3,300 a year. 

Mr. LYMAN. Mr. Chairman, as the time of the House is precious, 

and I have no desire to occupy it any further unless some gentleman 

desires to make further inquiry, I shall movethatthe bill belaidaside 

to be reported to the House with a favorable recommendation. 

Mr. PETERS. · I would like to be heard for about five minutes. 

Mr. LYMAN. I accord five minutes to my friend with pleasure. 

~1r. PRICE. Allow me to suggest to the gentleman from Massachusetts that I should desire about :five minutes on this question myself. 

l\fr. LYMAN. I have no desire to choke off debate, and am. willing 

to yield to the gentleman the time he suggests. . 

Mr. PETERS. I concede, Mr. Chairman, that the recommendations 

in favor of Colonel Hunt present a very strong case to this House and 

to this committee to make an exception in his favor. But I am opposed to the practice involved in the bill.. There is no use to disguise 

the object of the bill. It is in substance and in fact a. promQtion of 

Colonel Hunt to the rank of major-general by a special act of Congress. 

Now, we have laws providing for the promotion of persons in the 

regular Army by regular gradations, but this seeks to evade that law 

and promote Colonel Hunt without reference to that law at all. · 

I am no great lover or admirer of officers in the regular Army; and 

I do not believe that the principle of promotions in the military service 

by special acts of Congress is a correct principle. If Colonel Hunt is 

promoted by this measure, then every colonel who commands a regiment to-day in the regular Army has the right when he arrives at the 

proper age to come to this House and ask that he be retired, or, in 

other words, promoted to the rank of major-general. There is no other 

way to get out of it. That is the ultimatum of all legislation of this 

kind; and you might at once pass a general law that whenever a colonel in the regular Army reaches the age of 60 years he is thereby, by 

virtue of that fact, promoted to the rank of major-general and placed on 

the retired -list. 

- I do not desire to say anything more upon this questio~ t~ simply 

to express my dissent to the principle involved in this bill and to express my disapproval of all measures of this kind. · 

Mr. CURTIN rose. 

Mr. LYMAN. How much time does the gentleman from Pennsylvania desire ? 

Mr. CURTIN. Only two minutes. 

Mr. LYMA.N. I yield the gentleman from P~nnsylva.nia two minutes. 

Mr. CURTIN. I am in favor or this bill and in favor of the principle announced in it. If the House can not discriminate when efforts 

are made to reward faithful public servants or men who were eminently 

distinguished in the war, then we are unfit to perform part of our duty. 

If all the colonels of the Army should come and ask this Congress to 

promote them in order that they may get increased pay it would be 

the duty of this House to discriminate between those who deserved the 

increase of pay and those who did not. 

A government like ours, indeed any government on the face of the 

earth that expects to be perpetuated, must dQ justi!!e and offer rewards 

to merit when reward is deserved. And if there be any men living today in this country who performed faithful, meritorious, and constant 

service to their country, General Hunt is one of those men. And I am 

for the promotion provided in this bill and for the passage of the bill 

with this principle in it, because it does increase General Hunt's pay, 

which he richly deserves, and would have llad but for the reason assigned by the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, that having 

commanded artillery he did not et the promotion that his colleagues 

did who were in the same rank with him in the artillery. 

Mr. LYMAN. I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Kansas 

[1\fr. ANDERSON]. 

l\fr. ANDERSON. I think there are two or three questions raised 

here which might as well come up on any other bill as on this-namely, 

the principle involved, the precedent that might be established, and 

similar matters of that kind. It seems to me that ea<!h <!ase should be 

determined upon its own merits, and that the question now before the 

committee is simply this particular case presented by. Colonel Hunt's 

service. That is all. 

Did he render the service that would entitle him to what you might 

call an exceptional act. He did. And this simply seeks to execute 

what in one sense might be termed the intention of the law to ful:fill 

its true spirit. Thftt is all. 

I really do not think that my friend from illinois [Mr. SPRINGER], 

if he willlook'to the lapse of the years which have gone and then to. 

the reputation which men will have in the future, if he will look to the 

necessities of the present and the financial condition of this gallant o.tficer and then look to his reputation in the future, would care either to 

cut off the $2,300 during the few years which our good Father may 

spare this noble old gentleman, or that honor which this increased rank 

may give him. 

' There are many things in which I agree with my friend from Illinois, 

but I do not agree with him here; and to be frank with the committee, 

I really do not think he himself strongly believes what he says as to this 

particular case. When one looks ahead a half century, when one looks 

to the heritage which men who have rendered such services a& General 

Hunt did render, and such services as hundreds and thousands have rendered, both in the ranks and in the higher service; and when one looks 

to that heritage which men like to leave to their children and which 

shall be bright a half century hence, I at least feel, as a member of this 

House, that I would be morethan willing to givetohisposterity and to 

him whatever glory, as well as emolum~nt, there may be by this action; 

simply because I believe that men a half century hence, looking to a. period. twenty years back from this date, will see General Hunt as having made such a record of heroic and self-sacrificing service as to justify 

this House in passing this bill. I earnestly hope that this slight recognition by a grateful nation may be given to one whose gallantry has 

added a brighter tint to its own glory. 

Mr. LYl\I.AN. I yield five minutes to my friend from Kentucky 

(Mr. WOLFORD). . 

Mr. WOLFORD. Mr. Chairman, I did not expect to say anything 

in relation to this bill, although upon the Committee on Military Affairs I gave it a very thorough investigation. But the suggestion of 

my distinguished friend from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] that the money 

ought not to be allowed-he is willing to give the honor but not to 

pay him the money-has induced me to talk a little upon the money 

question. So far as honor is concerned, the honor imperishable, the 

everlasting honor of General Hunt never can fade while there is an 

American that reads American history. His honor stands upon the 

highest eminence, and will stand as long as time shall last. 

Among the artillery officers in the great struggle which has just 

closed between the conflicting sections of our country General Hunt 

stood pre-eminent. He will go down to history as the one man who 

commanded more respect and more confidence and covered himself 

with more honor and more glory than any other artillery officer ever 

in the service of the United States, and I except none. That is his 

record. And it was his very honor, his very glory, his imperishable 

reputation as an artillery officer which brought him to poverty, because he o<:Cupied a position which no other man could fill. When 

seeking promotion for his gallantry it was said to him, "No, General 

Hunt, you can not be promoted because there is a law against your 

promotion as an artillery officer to this rank, and your country demands 

that you shall remain in the artillery service, and occupy an inferior 

rankforyourcountry'sgood." Withapatriotism scarcelyeverequaled, 

and never ·surpassed, General Hunt, although he could have been a 

major-general in another arm of the service, and perhaps could have 

commanded all the forces of the Uriited States. and with honor to himself and glory to his country-General Hunt said: "For my country's 

good I will continue in the artillery service and be content with this 

inferior rank.'' 

He was a noble and gallant man, thinking not of self, but thinking 

of the eternal good of the American nation_ The fame of General Hunt 

spread throughout the world and was known everywhere. Foreigners 

came here to witness the grand massing of artillery by him, and to 

talk with a man who conferred such honor on our nation. His pay 

was not sufficient to enable him to entertain them properly; and out 

of his own private means, out of~ own fortune and the fortune of 

his wife, he spent the last dollar for his country's honor, for you and 

for me, for your children and for mine, for the honor and glory and hospitality of this great nation. He spent it in as noble a cause as money 

was ever spent in. 

Having so spent his means he is now poor and asks-no, he does not 

ask it, but we ask it for him; we appeal to this Congress, for the honor 

of our country, to give him such a salai-y as will enable him to live in 

comfort. [Applause.] 

Mr. LYMAN. If no other gentleman desires to speak on this bill I 

will move that it be laid aside to be reported favorably to the House. 

Mr. PRICE. I desire to say a few words. 

Mr. LYMAN. Then I will reserve the remainder of my time. 

Mr. PRICE. I have no expectation that anything I may say will 

change the vote of any gentleman in this House on the passage of this 

bill. I rise merely for the purpose of entering my protest against this 

sort of legislation. It is unwise, inexpedient, unjust, and vicious. 

The arguments which have been made by gentlemen in favor of this 

bill, as I have heard them, imperfectly no doubt, are, first, that General Hunt was a distinguished officer and rendered important service to 

the Americ..'ln cause. I grant all that is claimed for him in that respect, and would not pluck one leaf from the laurel that crowns his 

brow. But is that sufficient to justify us in passing a bill which will 

make a distinction in favor of this officer and against all the other men in that grand army who were equally daring, unselfish, and patriotic? 

The next argument is that he is needy and that we have done 'this 

same thing before. I know that we have done it before, to our eternal 

disgrace. We have pensioned Presidents, ex-Presidents, and theirwido~s, and major-generals, and brigadier-generals ad infinitum, until we 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECQRD-HOUSE. 4451 

have nearly forgotten the private soldier, except in perhaps one case out 

of every thousand which has been taken up by the Pension~ Committee 

of this House, who have reported a niggardly allowance for those few 

cases. I have no objection to pensioning every Union soldier, whether he 

rode on horseback or went on foot. 'But I do object to picking out for 

our favors those whose position gives them a significance and power and 

influence which enable them to press their claims on Congress to the 

utter forgetfulness of that other class who trudged on foot in mud and 

sand, carrying knapsacks on their backs, and in many instances stood 

between generals and danger. I object to taking up isolated cases 

until we pass a broad, general, generous, and comprehensive bill to 

make comfortable the last days of the few surviving soldiers of our 

country, those of the rank and file, many of whom are now dying in our poor-houses-those without whose aid, even with all your majorgenerals, you would to-day have no flag, no revenue, no Treasury to 

put it in, and nobody to give it to. 

They are the men to whom we to-day owe the fact that that flag 

still floats over our heads; not your major-generals, who were as thick as blackberries all over the country, and Washington city on many an 

occasion showed more of them than did any of our battlefields. I do 

not want to say anything against major-generals or brigadier-generals, 

against any man who endured har~hips and the perils of battle ~hat 

we might have not only a country, but a free country. 

Mr. WOLFORD. I wish to ask the gentleman whether he does not 

know that there have been reported from the Committee on Military 

Affairs several bills to make soldiers' homescomfortablefor all the soldiers of the Army, and that there have been reported from our Pension 

Committee several bills to increase pensions, and particularly to grant arrears of pension; and that these bills are especially for the benefit of 

the private soldiers? . Mr. PRICE. There have been reported here certain bills of a meek 

and mild character, which may reach out and assuage some of the distresses which are to-day at the doors of the gallant defenders of our country. But we have not passed thE(m, and I do not believe we shall. 

I shall vote for no bill of this character until you bring up the whole 

subject and take all these soldiers in as one grand army, as they went 

in as one army in defense of the country. 

Mr. WOLFORD. Will the gentleman vote for those bills reported 

for the benefit of the private soldiers? 

Mr. PRICE. Ihavethusfar. Iwanttovoteinfavorofmen who have 

carried the musket, not in favor of a man who is getting $3,300 a year, 

who risked no limb more precious, shed no blood more sacred, endured no greater pain or hardship than the man who was serving in the Army 

for $13 a month, and who did not get even that, because he was paid 

in a depreciated currency. 

Mr. LYMAN. The gentleman will allow me to ask (because I have 

forgotten) what regiment he served in during the war? 

Mr. PRICE. What regiment did I serve in? Oh ! Do you suppose there can be no love of that flag, no attachment to our country's 

institutions except on the part of men who went into the .Army? I staid 

at home and made money, and now I want to divide with the men who 

stood on the battlefield and defended· me while I was at home prospering. And I have no respect for a man who will not do that. [Applause.] 

Mr. WOLFORD. Does not the gentleman know that in voting to do 

this act of justice to a gallant officer he would reflect the sentiment of 

every private soldjer in the country? 

Mr. PRICE. No, sir, I do not. 

Mr. WOLFORD. I do. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, if the gentleman knows that, it may properly 

guide his vote. I neither know it nor believe it. . Sir, there is and there ought to be a deep-seated, widespread hostility 

to a class of legislation which has dot.ted our statute-books all over, to 

their ineffable disgrace. I have grown tired and disgusted with meas- ures looking to the special benefit of men in high places, men who are .already receiving liberal pay. Gentlemen say we should make this 

officer comfortable in his old age. I would make him comfortable. ·· I would take him as the nation's ward, and if $3,300 a year is not 

enough to maintain him in ease and comfort I would add to his allowance; but I never would do it while all over our country there are men--

A MEMBER. Let them go to the soldiers' homes. 

Mr. PRICE. I would not send any of them to the soldiers' homes; I 

would make them comfortable at their own firesides. X would lay my 

hand on the wealth of the nation, which they made possible to exist: 

and would compel it to do the same duty toward these men that they 

did so gallantly and generously for us. 

.A. gentleman has asked what regiment I belonged to. I venture to 

say, if that gentleman desires to come dowp. to the question of attachment to the soldiers and the soldiers' cause, attachment to our flag or 

our common country, or to the matter of physical courage, I will meet 

him anywhere. 

Mr. W .A.RNER, of Ohio. 1\Ir. Chairman, with a retired-list which 

already calls' for an annual appropriation of nearly $1,000,000, I think we should be considerate at any rate in passing bills of this kind giving 

promotion by act of Congress. Colonel Hunt was a very gallant officeran officer who performed, I know, very important service during the 

war. But he attained to the highest rank belonging to that arm of the 

service of which be was a member. He rose to the highest position in 

that arm of the service, received the highest pay pertaining to that, and 

he has gone upon the retired-list with the rank and pay belonging to 

that grade. Now, ifbyanact of Congress we give him promotion--

Mr. MAGINNIS. What does the gentleman mean by saying that 

General Hunt rose to the highest grade in the service? 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. He became chief of the artillery service. 

Mr . . MAGINNIS. Is there no higher rank in any other arm of the 

service than he attained? 

Mr. W .A.RNER, of Ohio. Certainly there is a higher rank than 

colonel. 

Mr. MAGINNIS. Was he not as much entitled to become a general as any one else? 

Mr. W .A.RNER, of Ohio. If the law provides for it. The law does 

provide for the rank of brigadier or major general--

Mr. ROSECRANS. But not in this arm of the service. 

Mr. MAGINNIS. Allow me a single moment. There were men 

like General Hunt who rendered distinguished service in the Army, 

but who when the war was over took rank only as colonel, although 

they stood at the head of their lists, and their services had been such 

that they should not have been skipped over; but young officers, like 

General Hazen and General Miles, were put ahead of them, because it 

appeared at that time no one could receive promotion unless he came from the State of Ohio. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. I hope the gentleman will not impose on me the duty of defending that administration. [Laughter.] 

I was saying, Mr. Chairman, if by act of Congress now we give to 

GeiLeral Hunt the rank of~ajor-general~ which does not ·pertain to the arm of the service in which he served, it will be expected that when 

the next chief of artillery is retired he will also be entitled to promotion 

after retirement to rank which does not pertain to the service. 

Mr. ROSECRANS. Will the gentleman indulge me in one question? 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. Yes. 

Mr. ROSECRANS. Ifthenextchiefofartillerywhoisretired comes and asks it, after having made as manysaerifices as General Hunt and 

done as great service to the country, would you not be willing to give 

him like promotion? · ' 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. I admit, Mr. Chairman, the distinguished 

gentleman from California [Mr. RosECRANS] and the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LYMAN] have made a strong case in 

favor of Colonel Hunt in this, that he did not accept promotion during 

the war in other branches of the service which probably would have - given rank of brigadier-general or major-general. If I were satisfied on ' 

that point, and I have no reason to question anything which has been 

said, that Colonel Hunt remained in that service at the request of the: Government as chief of artillery because it could not spare him from that. 

service to accept promotion during the war, then he presents an exceptional case and a strong one. · I admit that. But I do think the practice of selecting here and there anofficer and bestowing upon themrank 

which they did not become entitled to in the order of their service is a 

bad one. Congress has already in my judgment set many bad precedents of this kind. I think that an officer should be satisfied when he 

has reached the highest -:vosition attainable in the arm of the service 

in which he served and from that goes on the retired-list, and stop at 

that. I do not, Mr. Chairman, take any stock in the claim that Colonel 

Hunt expended his own fortune or that of his wife. ·If he did I do not 

understand he did it for the Government. 

Mr. ROSECRANS. He said it. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. He did it to maintain himself. 

Mr. ROSECRANS. He was chief of artillery and had to receive as guests and entertain distinguished visitors from· abroad. He was the 

scientific officer to whom they were sent . 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. That is a practice which ought not to be 

encouraged. .A. colonel in the Army should be able to live on his salary 

as a member of Congress should be able to live on his salary. I do 

not thjnk there is any claim upon that grol:rnd whatever. Ifhechose 

to resort to liis prjvate fortune in order to maintain this style of entertainment, which other officers less fortunate could not afford, that was 

a matter for the exercise of his own judgment, and he has no cla,im 

upon Congress for reimbursement. -

But upon the only point that at the request of his Government he 

remained in the artillery service during the war, and thereby gave up 

all opportunity for promotion which he-would otherwise have had, if 

I were satisfied entirely upon that point, I should certainly make no 

opposition to this bill, because that is a claim which I think we would 

be bound to consider. 

· Mr. UcMILLIN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from 

Wisconsin, Mr. PRICE; the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. SPRINGER~ 

and the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. WARNER, that this is not a case that 

should enlist our active exertions in behalf of the promotion of this 

officer. It is not claimed by any one, so far as I have heard, that the 

salary he is _now getting, with no duties to perform-$3,375 a year-is 
. 

4452 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 23, 

not sufficient to support him comfortably and well. But it' is proposed Mr. McMILLIN. I suggest that that can be done by unanim'ous now by legislative action to take him up and"make an exception inhis consent. 

case, still leaving the many officers who held the same rank with him Mr. LYMAN. I ask unanimous consent that debate be now closed. 

iust where they are, and put him upon the retired-list, giving him ad- Mr. GUENTHER. I object. 

ditionul rank, and extra pay for the remainder of his life, more than 11fr. LYMAN. What time does the gentleman from Wisconsin de-

$5,000 !J> year. ' sire? 

It is claimed that this is done for the purpose of compensating him Mr. GUENTHER. About five minutes. 

for expenditures and losses necessarily sustained during the war. It ~1r. LYMAN. I yield five minutes to the gentleman. 

is not claimed, as I understand from the remarks of the gentleman Mr. GUENTHER. I have heard in this debate that everythinr: has 

from California, that these expenditures or losses were sustained in the been done for the relief of the ex-privates of the late war. It ma.f be 

line of duty, for the purpose of advancing the interests of t he Army; my ignorance that prevents me from seeing it in that light. ;But I 

but, as I learn from his last declaration, it was an expenditure in the happen to have before me a letter of a recent date written by a worthy 

nature of entertainments. As remarked by the gentleman from Ohio, lady in my own city, who is noted for her charitable and unselfish disthat was a ma,tter that he could have left off or taken on as he liked. position, addressing me in behalf of an ex-soldier, a poor Irishman, who 

Mr. ROSECRANS. Will the gentleman from Tennessee permit me is now in the poor-house~ I happen to know the old man and am 

to correct him with reference to what I have said? fi:J:mly of the belief that he was incapacitated from performing manual 

Mr. McMILLIN. Certainly. labor through his services in the war. In any event I know he is toMr. ROSECRANS. What I meant to say was that the chief of ar- day totally disabled from earning his living. And I wish to know 

tillery ofthe Army of the .Potomac, being a distinguished officer hold- . from the gentleman who said that everything had been done for these 

ing a responsible po ition, whenever guests of a scientific character were men why it is that after many exertions on his part and on mine that 

accredited to the commanders of the Army, as was often the case during poor man bas never been able to receive a solitary cent from the Govthe war, he was expected to receive and entertain them just as corps ernment and is now obliged to become a public charge in a country for 

commanders did, and to do it decently, and he ought to have done it. whi.ch he for three years risked his life and in whose behalf he lost 

It was neither a matter of fancy, taste, nor option with him. It was his health and ability to provide for himself. This, Mr. Chairman, is 

simply a question of 1)ropriety and decent behavior on his part, and that only one of the many instances I could cite in my own district, and I 

was the cause of these expenditures. mention it because I happen to have the letter with me. I do not wish 

Now, if the gentleman will permit me, the statement sh0uld be made to prolong this debate, but as a part of my remarks I ask the Clerk to 

in this way so that my friend from Tennessee aml all other gentlemen read this letter, which is very short. 

would exactly understand the condition of affairs: It will be found The Clerk read as follows: 

in our Army that provision is made for expenses incurred in this direction by officers commanding separate posts, departments, &c. It is 

provided for in all civilized countries in the same way that we do, because there is justice in it. In this instance, however, this officer who 

occupied the position of chief of artillery, and not being a corps commander, :no provision was made for this expense which that position 

involved. He was at the head of the great scientific corps of the Army, 

and was compelled in consequence of the' position he occupied to entertain to a greater or less extent those persons who were out as visitors 

or guests of the Army. That involved the expenditure of his private 

fortune. ~fr. McMILLIN. It seems from the statement the gentleman from 

California now makes, as I understand him, that this was a matter of 

"taste and behavior" on the part of this officer. If this Government 

owes him anything on any account, if it owes lUm $1 or $100,000, and 

t he claim is presented here, I for one will vote to pa,y it, and not only 

that, but I am willing to stop other business in order to pay it. If the 

Government owes this officer anything this is not the way to pay it. 

It ~ust be seen th~t we may do him a great injustice by undertaking 

to pay a claim in thismanner, and why? Supposeweowehim$50,000, 

and. undertake to pay it in the manner proposed by increasing his salary as a retired officer, and he should die next year, 4 ,000 of it will 

never be paid. It is not the way to do him justice if injustice has 

been done. · 

In an attempt to do justice to one man we should not do injustice 

to a large number of others who held the same rank with him. His 

salary is large enough. It is much larger than that of the people who 

have to pay it. Is it proposed to promote tpe other colonels on theretired-li8t to major-generals and pay them accordingly? Is it your purpose to keep on promoting captains to majors, majors to colonels, and 

colonels to generals long after they have quit the service? I trust no 

such prodigal and senseless policy will prevail. . 

~. ROSECRANS. I know my friend from Tennessee has been very 

busy lately and perhap has not had an opportunity of examining this 

subject as thoroughly as he ordinarily examines such questions. If 

he will pardon me I would like to call hts attention to the third page 

of this report, to wit, that had General Hunt had the rank due to the 

size of his command it would have cost the Government of the United 

States, under the ordinary allowances made to chiefs of corps, $47,402 

in the four years. Mr. McMILLIN. The gentleman from California will not deny that 

he had the rank that was due him, and that he knew what was attached to it when he accepted the office. He held this position with a full knowledge of the pay and emoluments a.ttaehed to it. If that were 

a good reason for increasing the mnk after an officer is on the retiredlist, it would operate in behalf of almost every officer who was in the 

regular Army of the United States and served during the late wru: who 

is now on the retired-list; for we know as a fact that they nearly all held 

a brevet rank that they did not hold in the volunteer service. 

Now, this is a salary more than three-fourths of the governors of the 

States get. It is net, because the office entails no expense. And I think 

the plan, as the gentleman from Wisconsin [1\Ir. PRICE] has stated, of 

picking out the general officers and bestowing magnanimous and magnificent salaries upon them to the exclusion of those who stood, as he 

happily said, between them and danger in many instances is not right. 

Mr. LYMAN. I move that the committee rise for the purpose of 

closing debate. 

0SHKO H, May 5, 1884. 

DEAR SIR: At the eame t solicitation of William P. Haley, I take the liberty to write you a few lines. You doubtless J;emember him as one of the many for whom you kindly interested yourself previous to your own removal to Wash- ington. The poor old man is now an inmate of our county-house. He came to me this morning begging me to write asking you for a personal considet·a- · tion of his prospects in view of his getting his pension. H e has been very sick and sorely needs it, if it is his due, and it seems to me (private opinion, if worth nothing, costs nothing) his serving three years in that terribl~ war, and having an honorable discharge ought to entitle him to one. He claims his chronic ailments are the direct resultsofthatservice. Not know- ing him before the war, I can not say as regards that. Your well-known kindness to all that need help in any way emboldens him, 

through me, to again ask your aid in this matter. I suppose this letter is only one of thousands you are called upon to notice, but please answer at your earliest convenience, for the old man is very anxious. Plea e address William P. Haley, through, 

Yours, respectfully, MRS. A . CONSO, Oshkosh, ,Wis. His number is 197313, Company L, Second illinois Light Artillery. 

Hon. RICH.ARD GUENTHER. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, is it not about time that we should pass a law 

which will prevent such distress to old soldiers in the future? Before 

I will vote to consider claims of men who already are on the retire'dlist on an annual salary of thousands of dollars I must insist tha.t the 

poor, penniless soldiers receive prior consideration. 

I desire, before my time expires, to have read another letter which 

I send to the desk, which has just been received by my colleague from 

Wi cousin [Mr. DEUSTER], and which he just handed to me. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

SAINT ROSE'S ORPHAN AiiYLUM, Milwaukee, May 20,1844. 

EsTEE)!El) FRIEND: You will, I am sure, be a little surprised on seeing my signature. I received a te legram this morning from 1\lr. John Frawley, of Company C, Fourth Regiment United States Artillery, of the late war. The poor man is lying very low and may die any moment; he wished to speak to me concerning his two children, K atie and Maggie, who have been in the asy- lum for the last five years, since the death of their mother. The poor man seemed much troubled lest his just claim for his pension may not be. obtained for the s upport of his poor, helpless little girls. You would pity him. I tried to cheer him up, but he could hardly be consoled, only with the hope that on this very d ay he may obtain his claim for the sake of his poor, motherless children leaving them without a dollar. While speaking be drew from his vest pocket a document, handed it to me; I opened it and there I saw your own very name. The letter to 1\Ir. Frawley, dated April 7, by "0. P. G. Clarke," 

AcLing Commissioner, in reply to the personal inquiry of Hon. P.V. DEUSTER . . 

Upon seeing the honorable name of the friend of the dear orphans I told M.r. Frawley I would write this very day to our kind friend; that I knew if he could further the obtaining of the pension he would only be too glad to do so. And now, our kind friend, you see the object of my taking the liberty of addressing you. 

Very respectfully, 

Hon. P. V. DEUSTER. 

SISTER CA.l\IILLA, In Charge of the Orphans. 

lr. LYMAN. I now ask unanimous consent that all debate on the · 

bill be limited to five minutes. 

Mr. EATON. Before consent is given to close debate I desireto say 

a word. I am not quite ready to vote to increase the rank of this distinguished officer. I have heard no good reason why this increase of 

$2,000 or $3,000 a year should be made to his pay. It is only a few 

days since I tried to assist "my friend here in placing a most gallant 

officer on the'ljst-I allude to General Averill. If I understand aright, 

he is cut dovm to a captaincy-he, one of the most gallant men in the 

Army, covered all over with wounds. 

Now, why should we increase the pay of this gallant soldier? Gallant soldier he was unquestionably and there are a great many others. 
. 

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4453 

The calling of a man general or colonel, unless he possesses ability to 

warrant the title, does not make a man any better. All of us who have 

read the history of the French Revolution and the war8 of Napoleon 

will recollect-you in particular, Mr. Chairman [Mr. Cox, of New York, 

in the chair]-thatwhen the Grenadier Guardsofthe Emperor paraded 

there was always called first the name of Latour d' Auvergne, a ser- geant who died on the field of battle-the first grenadier of France, one who refused a commission and served in the ranks as a matter of choice. 

Everytime the roll was called the first name called was Latourd'Auvergne, and his comrades answered, '' Died on the field of battle.'' 

And that name will be remembered as long as Frenchmen live. 

Now, I beg to ask this House why we should increaae the salary of 

this gentlman? Is he needy? No. 

111r. LYMAN. Yes, he is; I beg your pardon. 

Mr. EATON. Needy, and has $3,300 a year! 

Mr. LYMAN. He has a large family. 

Mr. EATON. Three thousand three hundred dollars a year and a large family; a great many men without legs and with large families 

do not get $20 a month. 

Mr. LYMAN. They are still more needy. 

Mr. EATON. This man is not needy. In my view of the term he 

is not needy. He has his $3,300 from the Government to-day. In my 

judgment it is enough. I am ready to do all that ought to be done; 

but there must be a halt somewhere, or not much of the one hundred 

millions that my friend from Colorado [Mr. BELFORD] talks about will 

be left in the public Treasury. If a man is needy, suffering, increase 

his pay, put him on the pension-list. 

Mr. ROSECRANS. That is what we want to d~increase his pay. 

Mr. EATON. You want to increasethepayofamanwhohas$3,300 a year. I do not see the necessity of that increase of pay. I think we should do all that justice demands, and no more. Be just before you are generous. Take care -of the other half million of people before you are generous with this one individual. I shall vote ~aainst the bilL 

Mr. LYMAN. IyieldthegentlemanfromMontana [Mr. MAGINNIS] 

five minutes. 

Mr. MAGINNIS. Mr. Chairman, if the armies of France were suc- cessful and the achievements of Napoleon startled and astonished the 

world, it was from the fa.ct that ability and heroism were distinguished; 

because all who wore the name of soldier were not placed on a common level, but that those who had the skill and the brains to plan and the 

courage to dare stepped from the very ranks into the sunlight of glory 

and gained every reward which distinction could win. It will be well 

for this Republic if it follows in the same path, and holds forth its 

prizes to those who have the intelligence to conceive great enterprises 

and the courage to carry them out. How does such a policy compare 

with that laid down here to-day by the gentleman from. Wisconsin 

[Mr. PRICE]? He inveighs against major-generals as iftheywere an- imals, and against shoulder-straps as if they were a disgrace. Why, 

sir, the boys who enlisted as privates in the late war and came down 

to serve their country and seek fame and fortune in the dangerous but 

alluring fields of glory that opened before them, and who, in the fierce 

and terrible competitive examination of battle, by superior intelligence 

and conspicuous valor, wore first the straps of a lieutenant, who were again advanced to captain, then to a colonel, and perhaps won the 

coveted and shining stars of a general officer, believed that these promotions were an honor. They thought in those days that it was a distinction to be recompensed for their bravery and a glory to win the 

rank and uniform which were evidences of their valor and their skill. 

It was thought in those days that one of the proudest privileges of a private soldier of the volunteers was that every honor and every rank 

could be achieved by his intelligence or won by his valor. And now we are told by men like the gentleman from Wisconsin, who it seems did not get. warm enough during the war to test either his courage or devotion, and who has just got to a white-heat now, that it was a disgrace to advance beyond the rank of a private soldier, that there is to 

be no distinction made for skill or courage or competency, and that the 

deserving and the undeserving all should stand upon a common level, • forgetful of the days when the brains and courage and genius of one 

man was worth the force of thousands to the country, when there was a difference between the soldier and thec6:ffee-cooler, the hero and the 

shirk. 

I have been thought _in this House to advocate the claims of too many 

to be put on the retired-list, but I ask the Honse if I ever advocated 

putting any one there but a hero. What did the House do the other 

day? I confess that the adion of gentlemen in regard t-o this list does 

astonish me. I can not comprehend their inconsistencies. 

Now, what did this House do the other day when it had the Army 

appropriation bill under consideration? It provided in that bill that 

any paymaster in the Army (any ;mere cashier, any disburser of money) 

who had served for twenty years should go upon the retired-list; that 

anon-combatant should be placed on that listaftertwentyyears' service 

where you will not allow a combatant and a soldier to go unless he has 

served in the front line of battle for forty years. Yet you who are tall.'ing to me about the retired-list and the extravagance of the Government voted for such a distinction in favor of the non-combatant. 

Mr. EATON. I have said nothin2: about that. 

Mr. MAGINNIS. Tell me upon what principle you make this distinction? You give to a paymaster, a clerk, the right to go upon the 

retired-list after twenty years which you deny to soldiers who have 

been in a{ltive service. Did the soldiers of Napoleon win distinction 

and honor upon any such principle as that? Was it the practice of 

that great commander and organizer that clerks and paymasters and 

non-combatants should receive pensions and honors which were denied to soldiers and heroes? · 

Mr. EATON. I have not heard anybody.claim that. 

Mr. MAGINNIS. No; but you will recognize the fact that on last 

Saturday-perhaps it was Friday, when I was out at the races, or it 

would not have been done without my protest [laughter]-last Friday that very thing was done by the House of Representatives on the 

Army appropriation bill. And the addition of these paymasters to the 

retired-list was made by the votes of the very men who can see no rea- son why one who rendered the distinguished services of Geueral Hunt 

should have his proper place upon that roll of honor, at least on what 

should be a roll of honor. 

The claim that the friends of General Hunt make is this: that the 

war found him a particularly skillful and competent officer; that he 

organized largely the artillery branch of the Army, which requires more science and skill than other arms; that in order to do this he remained 

in a corps in which promotion was slow, whe11 he might have claimed a place where promotion was rapid; that he held high rank and ren- dered distinguished and necessaryservicein the volunteer organization, 

which placed his claims above those of ordinary colonels; that after the war he was one of the senior colonels of the Army, and that in the due 

and proper order of time and promotion he was entitled to the grade of 

brigadier or major general in the regular Army, and should have obtained that grade and been retired upon it; that he was jumped by 

younger officers through political influence and favoritism. His friends 

think that it would now be but an act of justice to him, after having 

rendered such distinguished services to the country, and after having 

held this high place and rank in the volunteer service, to give him an additional grade, and so place him beside others no worthier than he. 

That is all t.here is in this bill. I~ is to remedy -an injustice, and to 

place this officer in the rank that he won by his b.ravery, intelligence, 

and skill in the war. 

Mr. LYMAN. The debate upon this bill has been very full, and 

continued at great length. I now move that the bill be laid aside to 

be reported favorably to. the House. 

The question was taken; and upon a. division there were-ayes 80, noes 57. ' 

So (.no further count being called for) the bill was -laid aside to be 

reported favorably to the House. 

MARY A •. LEE. 

The next business on the Private Calendar .was the bill (H. R. 807) 

for the relief of Mary A. Lee. 

The-bill was read, as folJows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and is hereby, au- thorized and directed to pay t-o Mary A . Lee, mother and only heir at law of Walter J. Lee, late a second lieutenant in the Twenty-eighth Regiment Michigan 

Infantry Volunteers, the amount of pay and allowances of a second lieutenant of infantry from September 22, 1864 to the lOth of April, 1865, and the pay and allowances of a first lieutenant of i;;/a.ntry from April10,1865, to August 10, 1865; such payment to be made out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise ap- propriat-ed, and deducting therefrom the amount of f\ny pay, if any, made him for such service. . 

Mr. LACEY. I ask that the report accompanying this bill be now read. 

The report (by Mr. CUTCHEON) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 807) for the relief of Mary A. Lee, would report that they have examined the same, and that the identical bill was favorably reported by the committee of the Forty- seventh Congress and passed the House February 28,1883, but failed to be reached in the Senate. The committee adopt the report of their predecessors., being Report No.l91, 

Forty-seventh_ Congress, as follows: "Mr. Spaulding, from the Committ-ee on Milita.ry Affairs, submitted the follow- in~ report, to accompany bill H. R. 3335: 'The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 3335) for_ the relief of Mary A. Lee, submit the following repm:t: ''It appe!l.rs that 1\-Irs. Iary A. Lee is the widowed mother and sole heir at law of Walter J. Lee, deceased, late a second lieutenant in the Twenty-eighth Regi- ment of Michigan Volunteers; that Lieutenant Lee was promoted from the ranks to be a second lieutenant in this regiment, was duly commissioned, and entered upon duty as such on the 22d day of September, 1864, and so continued till the 2d day of larch, 1865, when he was placed in arrest for alleged disobedi- ence of orders; that he was tried by court-martial on -the 3d day of April, 1865, found guilty, and sentenced to be cashiered and to forfeit all pay and allow- ances due and to become due·him; that said sentence was approved in a gen- eral order from headquarters, Department of North Carolina, bearing date July 

14,1865; that Lieutenant Lee was oommissioned a first lieutenant in the said regiment to date from AprillO, 1865, but was not mustered; that he was released from. arrest Mayl8, 1865, and performed duty as first lieutenant in said regiment until the said lOth day of August; that on the said lOth day of August the gen- eral commanding the.department issued a general order remitting so much of his sentence as forfeited his pay and allowances, but it being held that the sen- tence had been executed by virtue of the order of July 14, the order of August 10 was inoperative. As Lieutenant Lee actually performed serrice up to the lOth day of August, and as it is to be presumed the commanding general had good reason for remitting this part of the sentence, it is the opinion of your committee that his pay and allowances to that date were at least equitably due him, and that they should now be paid to his mother and heir at law, and the passage of the bill is therefore reconimended. 
4454 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 23~ 

:Mr. LACEY. This bill has been reported unanimouslybythe Committee on ;Military Affairs of this House in three different Congresses, 

and it was passed by the House in the Forty-first, Forty-second, and 

Forty-seventh Congresses. I have no disposition to take up the time 

of the committee in discussing it, and unless some gentleman desires 

to ask a question in reference to it I will move that it be laid aside to 

be reported favorably to the House. 

Mr. SPRINGER. How much is involved in this bill? 

Mr. LACEY. There is involved in it the pay of a second lieutenant 

from September 22, 1864, to April10; 1865, and the pay of a first lieutenant from April10, 1865, tO August 10, 1865. 

Mr. SPRINGER. A very sma.Il amount. 

Mr. LACEY. Yes; a verysmallamount, anditistogotoawidowed" 

mother. 

There being no objection: the bill was laid aside to be reported favorably to the House. JOSEPH F. WILSON. 

The next business on the Private Calender was the bill (H. R. 275) 

for the relief of Joseph F. Wilson. 

l\1r. HALSELL. I ask unanimous consent. that the Senate bill for 

the same purpose be taken up in pla~e of the House bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is the Senate bill in Committee of the Whole? 

1\Ir. SPRINGER. It is on the Speaker's table. 

The CHAIRMAN. Then it can not be considered in Committee of 

the Whole at this time. . Mr. SPRINGER. This bill can be laid &Side to be reported favoraoly to the House, with a recommendation that the Senate bill ~passed 

by the House in its place. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. I would be glad to hear the report read. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I can explain the bill in a few words, but thereport is not long and can be read. 

The CHAIRMAN. The bill and the report will be read. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Commissioner of the General Land Office, under the db-ection of the Secretary of the Interior, be, and he is hereby, authorized and required to issue to Joseph F. Wilson, of Peoria, Ill., or his legal representatives or assigns, a number of warrants equal to eighty acres, in tracts not less than the subdivisions provided for in the United States land laws, to be located by the said Wilson,orhislegal representativesorassigns,onanyoft.heunoccupiedand 

unappropriated public lands of the United States subject to pre-emption or home- stead entry, in lieu of the west half of the northeast quarter of section 19, in town- ship 35 north, of range 5 west, situate in Porter County ,Indiana, which said tract of land was entered by and patented to Josiah Smith, of Macon County Iissouri,un- der and by virtue of the provisions of the acts of Congress approved June 8, 1872, 

and.l\Iarch3,1873,relatingtoadditionalhomesteads, and bythesaidJosiahSmith, after his said entry, sold and conveyed to the said Wilson, and ofthetitleto and possession of which the said Wilson was divested and dispossessed by the judg- ment and decree of the circuit court of the United States for the district of In- diana, at the November term, A. D.l880, thereof, by reason of a prior disposal' • of, or a prior equitable title in and to, said tract of land, as the said court held and decided, to or in p e rsons other than the said Josiah Smith; and the said Wilson, or his legal representatives or assigns, after the location of the said warrants on such lands as he or they may select, shall be allowed patents for the lands so located. · And the lands taken, selected, and1ocated as authorized and provided for by this act shall be in full sal.isfaction of any claim, right, or benefit which the -said Jo- siah Smith may have, or may have had, under and by virtue of the provisions of the said acts of Congress, as well as in full satisfaction of any claim which the said Wilson, as assignee or grantee of the said Josiah Smith, may have, or may have had, against the United States touching said described tract of land. 

The report (by 1\1r. HALSELL) was read, as follows: . 

The Committee on Private Land Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 

275) for the relief of Joseph F. Wilson, have considered the same, and report it back with an amendment. The committee, upon investigation, ascertained that, pursuant to the home- stead laws, Josiah Smith, on March 22,1875, entered the west half of the north- east quarter of section 19, in township 35 north, of range 5 west, situate in Porter Oounty, Indiana, and that a patent was issued to him for the same May 15, 1875, and was duly recorded in the office of the recorder of deeds of said Porter County, Indiana. This tract of land was subsequently sold and conveyed by said pat- entee to said Wilson, and the deed of conveyance therefor recorded in there- corder's office of said Porter County, Indiana. Soon after said patent and deed were so recorded, the heirs of one Ruel Starr commenced suit against said Wil- son, claiming to be the owners of said land, and alleging that said St.a.rr had ac- quired title thereto by purchase from one Peter Wimmer. The bill, petition, and other papers in this case were referred by the Committee on Private Land Claims of the Forty-seventh Congress to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, who, in his letter of February 24, 1882, to the Secretary of the Interior, 

inclosing said papers, says: "The records of this office show that Peter Wimmer made cash entry 1829 of the land in question at the La Porte land office, Indiana, June 5, 1835 which entry was canceled by this office October 17,1836. It does not appear that the purchase-money was ever refunded, and the tract remained vacant until March 22,1875, when Josiah Smith entered the same under section 2036 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, as an additional homestead, and said entry was patented May 15,1875. "It seems from the papers submitted to Congress by Mr. Wilson in his peti- tion for relief, and which were filed in this office January27, 1882, by Hon. Nicho- las Ford, chairman of subcommittee Private Land Claims, House of Representatives, that the title to the land in quest-ion ha.s been judicially determined in the litigation between Joseph F. Wilson, claiming by deed from the patentee, Josiah Smith, and the equitable owners, claiming, by descent, under Ruel Starr, who claimed, as assignee of the duplicate certificate of entry 1829, from Peter Wimmer. 

"From the certified record of the case, herewith, it appears that thecourton the 23d December, 1880, adjudged that the equitable title to said land was for many years in Ruel Starr, who, at the time of his death, was entitled t-o have the legal title conveyed to him by patent from the United States, and that at t-he death of Starr, intestate, in April, 1875, all of his right, title, and interest in the land vested in the equitable claimant$ under him, and the patent issued to Smith, from whom Wilson claims by deed, conveyed only the naked legal title, and-Smith and those claiming under him were chargeable with the superior equitable title of Starr 

and those claiming under him, and Mr. Wilson was held to be a. trustee for claimants under Starr, and it was decreed that the claimants under Starr were entitled t-o have the legal title conveyed to them by Mr. Wilson wtthin thirty 

days, and in case of default a special commissioner, Willard 0. Nichols was ap· pointed to make the necessary deed of conveyance ; and it was furthe~ ordered and decreed that Wilson and all persons claiming under him were forever en- joined from setting up any claim to the land in question. As Mr. Wilson has been judicially deprived of the title to the land derived by him under Smith's entry, and as the favorable action of Congress in the case has heretofore been recommended by my predecessor, I deem it proper to concur in that recom- mendation." • 

The Secre~ary of the Interior, in his ~etter to the committee of February 28, 

1882, transiruttmg a copy of the foregomg letter, says that he concurs in the views of the Commissioner. In view of the foregoing facts, and of the fUI·ther fact that said Wilson having in good faith, for a valuable consideration pur- chased said land from said patentee, relying upon the title so granted by the Government, and he being without notice of equitable title existing in others the committee are of opinion that it is proper and just that he should receiv~ 

other land belonging to the Government m lieu of that to which his title has failed. 

The committee recommend that the .bill be lld:Dended by striking out. the word "entry," in line 12 of said bill, and inserting the word "settlement," and that as thus amended the bill do pass. 

The amendment reported from theConimitteeonPrivateLand Claims was agreed to. 

The bill as amended was then laid asiae to be reported favorably t-o 

the House. 

PRIVATE LAND CLAIM IN NEW IEXICO. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 130) 

to confirm a certain land claim in the Territory of New Mexico. The bill was read, as follows: · 

Beitenacted, &c., That the private land claim in the Territory of New Mexico known a.s the San Clemente grant, numbered 67 in the report of the surveyor- general of ~ew Mexico, dated November 18,1871, recommending the same for confirmation, and transmitted to Congress by the Acting Secretary of the Inte- rior January 24, 1873, be, and the same is hereby, confirmed to the heirs and legal representatives of .Ana de Sandoval y Manzanares, named in the juridical possession of said grant executed on the 23d day of July, 1716. SEc. 2. That this confirmation shall only be construed as a relinquishment on the pat t of the United States, and shall not affect valid adverse rights of any per- son or persons, except that it shall not confer any right or title to the precious 

metals, but all such metals shall remain the property of the United States. SEC. 3. That the Commissioner of the General Land Office be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to issue a patent for the said claim upon the presenta- tion to him of a survey thereof, if found correct and in all respects in conformity with the confirmation made by the preceding section. 

Mr. HEPBURN. I desire to hear the report in this case. 

The report (by Mr. HALSELL) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on Private Land Olaims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 130) to confirm a certain private la.nd claim in the Territory of New Mexico, hav- ing considered the same and accompanying papersl submit the following report: That the committee find the facts to be as statea in House Report No. 1500 Forty-seventh Congress, first session, which said report is hereto annexed and made· part of this report, and is as follows: 

[House ReportNo.1500, Forty-seventh Congress, first session.] 

The Committee on Private Land Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 5692) to confirm a certain private land claim in the Territory of New Mexico · (San Clemente), have duly considered the same and accompanying papers, and recommend that it pass. • The facts upon which this recommendation is based are so fully set forth in the letter of the Secretary of the Interior and the report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office that your committee ask to make them a part of their re- port, and append extracts from House Executive Document No. 128, Forty- second Congress, third session, and other papers that are pertinent. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Wa$hington, .April22, 1882. 

SIR: House bill5692, "to confirm a certain private land claim in the Territory of New Mexico" (San Clemente), was received by reference of Hon. George C. Hazelton, of your committee, and referred to the Commissioner of the General Land Office. I have the honor to transmit herewith copy of his report on the 

~il~~ect, under date of the 19th instant, which is favora~le to the passage of the 

Very respectfully, 

Hon. R. PACHECO, H. M. TELLER, Secretary. 

Chairman Committee on Private Land Claims, House of Representatives. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, 

Washington, D. C., April19, 1882. 

SIR: The letter of Hon. George C. Hazelton, of subcommittee of Committee on Private Land Claims of the House of Representatives, dated Aprill5, 1882, addressed to your predecessor, and transmitting H.R.5692,entitled "A bill to confirm a certain private land claim in the Territory of New Mexico," for are- port, is before me by reference from your office. Th~ history of this claim is so clearly and succinctly given in Surveyor-Gen- eral Proudfit's decision in the case that I feel that it would be an act of super- erogation to do more than call attention to it. He speaks categorically as to the authenticity of the instrument of title upon which the claim is based, charac- terizing it as an original muniment. A.ft.er careful examination of the tran- script of this document I can see no reason to doubt the accuracy of this conclu- sion. . I fully concur with the surveyor-general in his opinion that the grant was made by competent authority, and was absolute and complete. 

I think the confirmation as proposed in the bill will accomplish the desired result. 

The said letter and bill are herewith returned. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

Hon. HENRY M. TELLER, 

Secretary of the Interior. 

N.C. McFA.RLAl\TD, 

Commissioner. 

The committee therefore adopt said House report as the report of this com- mittee, and report the accompanying bill, with recommenda•ion that it pass. 

Mr. HEPBURN. Has the Clerk read the entire report? 

The CHAIRMAN. There is an appendix embracing some documents. 

. MI< HEPBURN. I understood there was an argument of the com-
1884. . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4455 

mittee-and if so I desire to hear itr--referring to the action of the sur- veyor-general of New Mexico, who had examined this title and given 

his views as to the evidences on which it rests. 

The CHAIRMAN. It would take an hour to read the report with 

all the documents appended The Chair suggests that the gentleman 

indicate the portion which he wishes to have read. :Mr. SPRINGER. While the gentle~an from Iowa [Mr. HEPBURN_] 

is looking up that matter I desire to ask the gentleman who made this 

report to state how many acres of land are involved in this bill ? Does 

anybody know? The bill"proposes to confirm the San Clemente grant 

numbered 67 in the report of the surveyor-general of New Mexico, dated 

November 18, 1872. Now this grant may embrace a million acres or a hundred th.ousand acres, or one acre. Mr. HEPBURN. I understand it embraces 90,000 acres. Mr. HALSELL. · I will ask that this case be laid over until next 

'Friday without prejudice. I have not been able to get the report. 

There seems to be some confusion in regard to it. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. HALSELL] 

asks unanimous consent that this bill be passed over informally, retaining its place on the Calendar. Is there objection? 

Mr. HEPBURN. I object. Mr. SPRINGER. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill? 

Mr. HEPBURN. Yes, sir; in my judgment it is a "steal" and 

ought to be killed now. · Mr. SPRINGER. It appears that the gentleman from Iowa is opposed to the bill and desires to make opposition to it now. For my 

part I have no objection to its being passed over until next week. But 

I wish to state that there is now pending on the Calendar a bill, report~d, I believe, by ~he honor-able ~entleman from Mississippi fr?m 

the Committee on Pnvate Land Claims, for the purpose of ascertaming by a judicial proceeding all such titles as this. In view of ~he 

probability of the passage of that bill or some sinillar measure I think 

all cases of this kind should be allowed to remain in our committees or on our Calendar until we can pass a general law for ascertaining in 

a judicial way titles ofthis character. . . . I am informed that there are 90,000 acres of land mvolved m thiS 

claim. 

Mr. PARKER. I understand that there are considerably more. 

This is my understanding, not from documentary evidence, but from 

the statements of gentlemen familiar with the Territory. If the gentleman will permit me I ·will state such information as I have. 

Mr. HALSELL. I will state to the gentleman who objected to passing this bill over until next Friday that I have been tryirig to get the 

report, and have failed to obtain a copy. The supply seems to be ex- hausted. I think the gentleman will now consent to withdraw "his 

o~jection to allowing the bill to be passed over. · . . MI·. HEPBURN. As the gentleman seems not prepared at thiS time 

to state his views, I am of course willing for his accommodation that 

the case shall go over. · Mr. HALSELL. I am not prepared for the reason that I have not 

been able to get a copy of the .report. · The CHAIR MAl~. If there be no objection the bill will be passed 

over informally, retaining its place on the Calendar. 

There was no objection; and it was ordered accordingly. 

WILLIAM J. LEE. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 1073) 

granting a pension to William J. Lee. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted &c., That" the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll the name of William J. Lee, 

late confidential scout and guide, headquarters Army of the Potomac, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, as though he had been regu- larly mustered into the United States Army. 

Mr. SPRINGER. This appears to be a pension bill, and should, I 

suppose, be considered at a Friday-night session. 

Mr. BAGLEY. The bill has alreadybeen considered once on a Friday evening, and, objection being made, it was passed over to be con- sidered at a regular session of the House. I would like to have the case considered now. The report (by Mr. BAGLEY) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill H. R. 1073, ask leave to submit the following report: · . The petitioner, William J. Lee, was a scout in the late war, and rendered valuable and perilous service. The case is well stated in the affidavit of Deputy 

Provost-Marshal-General George H. Sharpe, Army of the Potomac, who says; ''I am well acquainted with William J. Lee, and have known him many years. About March, 1864, I was deputy provost-marshal-general, Army of the 

Potomac; t-hat said Lee was under my immediate command, and was on duty 

under my orders to ascertain the movements of the enemy; that at the time 

stated above said Lee might have contracted, and probably did contract, rheumatism or the.permanent disability to which he refers, as he was constantly exposed 

while on said duty as scout in crossing and recrossing the Rappahannock and 

Rapidan Rivers in Virginia; that his duties were hazardous; that he was frequently compelled to wa:de and swim the rivers referred to at all stages of the , winter in order to ascertain the movements of the enemy." Dr. Talia.fero's affidavit says: "Lee was a healthy man and free from rheumatism before service in the Army." John Langdon, chief of scouts, testifies that the.claimant contracted rheumatism in 1\Iarch, 1864, whHe acting as scout. C. Christian, druggist, says that Lee has bought; medicines for rheumatism at various times during the last ten years of him, and the claimant says he is still 

suffering and under .troo.tmentfor the disease. Lee, not being an officer or enlisted man, had no title to pension1 and hence the rejection by the Pension Office. 

The committee are of opmion that it is a meritorious case, and recommend 

the passage of bill H. R. 1073. 

Mr. BAGLEY. I move that this bill be laid aside to be reported 

favorably to the House. 

The CHAIRMAN (having put the question) declared that in his 

opinion the motion was agreed to. 

Mr. CRISP. I call for a divll.ion. The object in passing over this 

bill when it was considered at a night session was that a quorum might 

vote upon it. This man was never mustered into the service at all. 

Mr. BAGLEY. 'It is true, as the gentleman says, that this man was 

not mustered into the service. In this respect his case is like those of 

many other persons, though perhaps they were not all scouts. This case is·evidentlv a very meritorious one. The man is commended by 

General Grant; General Sharpe, and other prominent generals of the 

Union Army, whose letters I have in my hand and will ask to have 

read if it becomes necessary. The case was considered at a Fridaynight session six weeks ago, when some gentleman objected to the bill, 

being seriously opposed to granting a pension in any case of this class 

where the man was simply a scout. The point of no quorum was made, 

and the case went over with the understanding it should retain its place on the Calendar. I have examined the case and it is oneofreal merit. 

There is no doubt this man received serious injury. His services were perilous and hazardous. If any man ever was entitled to a pension 

I think this man is. 

Two cases like this have been passed by the House during this month. 

Last Friday 'two week ago I tried to get this case up, but the po~t of no quorum was made and the case went over with the understanding 

it should retain its place on the Calendar.. · . I ask for the reading of the letter of General Grant commending this 

man. Mr. CRISP. I have no objection if I may be permitted to say some. 

thing in reply. 

The CHAIRMAN. The matter is open for debate, and the Chair . recognizes the gentleman from Georgia after the gentleman from New 

York. · . Mr. BAGLEY. I ask for the reading of General Grant's letter. 

The Clerk read as follows: WASHINGTON, D. C., D l(cember16, 1880. 

DEAR SIR: I would be glad to aid you in any way in my power to procure a pension for your well-deserving services during the rebellion. I can not specify your serv ices a.s well as General Meade could if alive, or as General George H. Sharpe--who is living-can, but! know they were hazardous 

a.nd attended with much exposure to health as well as personal da.nger. I hope you may yet get your p ension. 

Very truly, yours, U.S. GRANT. ' WM. J. LEE. 

Mr. BAGLEY. I do not think General Grant would write a letter 

of that kind if he did not think this man was entitled to this pension. 

The evidence is conclusive that this man performed perilous service 

and that his disability was occasioned by exposure in the line of duty. 

I now ask for the reading of the letter of General Sharpe. 

The Clerk read as follows: · KINGSTON, N. Y., NotJember 18,1881. 

To any post commander ofthe Grand Army ofthe Repul>lic: 

I certify that William J. Lee, ofVirginia, now on duty in the office of the Chief 

of Engineers, United States Army, served with me at headquarters Armyofthe Potomac as scout and guide during a long period while I was in charge of the Bureau of Military Information, and was paid on the rolls of the Provost-MarshalGeneral's department. •His service was meritorious and often attended with danger, and he was reckoned among the most effective and faithful men serving under my command 

in that capacity. 

GEORGE H. SHARPE, Late Assistant Provost-Marsha.L-Ge:nercil 

Armies operating against Richmond. 

Mr. CRISP. 1\Ir. Chairman, I do not desire to make a.ny protracted 

argument. I made objection to the passage of this bill because it is to 

pension a man who has not been mustered into the military service of 

the Government. As I understand, pensions are only granted for faithful service and to those who have been mustered into the United States 

service. 

This bill is put upon the ground that this man rendered faithful serv- ice. I submit, Mr. Chairman, there are thousands of people throughout 

the country who may have rendered, and doubtless did render, essential 

and valuable service to the Government, and yet who are not entitled to p~nsions. There must be some point at which this system must stop. 

I understand that Congress has always been liberal in the matter of 

the proof requisite to establish the right to a pension. To that liberality I make no demur; but I do insist when it comes to a question of a class ofpeople who should receive pension then it should be effected 

by a general law. That is the distinction I draw. When it com~ to 

an equitable case where a man by the reason of the death of his comrade, 

by reason of the lapse of time, is unable to show clearlyand distinctly 

the injuries resulted from the service, where under the strict rules of 

the Pension Office his claim would be rejected, then I understand Congress in dealing with that class of "claims is liberal :torthe man who 

served his country, and does not require, and has not been in the habit 

of requiring, strict proof that he incurred the disability in the line of 

.. 
4456 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE. MAY 23, 

duty. But when it comes to fasreningon the pension-roll a n~w class, 

I do not understand any such rule exists. 

If it is p1·oper men who were not musrered into the military service 

should receive pensions, why not provide for it by a generallaw? Why 

bring in a particular bill for one of a class when there are not one only, 

but hundreds and thousands of the same class? Why single out one 

of a class not now entitled to a pension and say he shall be pensioned. 

That is the question I present to the · House. The gentleman from 

New York [Mr. BAGLEY] says such bills have been passed heretofore. 

I do not question that; but, Mr. Chairman, are we to be always told 

when we seek to oppose a measure that ought not to pass that some 

time in the past a like bill has gone through the Honse? Is that an 

argument against it? How often do we hear on the floor special appeal in a case and disclaimers of it being a precedent, and yet no matrer 

what the circumstances may be in any other case it is always quoted a 

precedent. 

' I might criticise the evidence snbmitred by this commitree as to the 

disability having been incurred in the Army. I do not feel much inclined to do that. You heard the report and yon saw what the evidence is. The officer says he might have contracted and probably did 

contract rheumatism during the war. Is that evidence? I might say 

there are men who served in the army on one side or the other who 

did not contract it and others who did, and that of those who did not one case was traceable to service in the Army. 

Now, I ask the gentleman from New York what evidence he presents 

to this committee to connect the rheumatism in this case with the service 

performed in the Army? 

Mr. BAGLEY. When the gentleman gets through I will offer anotherdocument in relation to it from the Surgeon-General of the Unired 

States Army. 

Mr. CRISP. The evidence submitted in the report is what? That 

this gentleman suffered hardships; that this gentleman had waded 

streams; that he had exposed himself as the soldiers exposed themselves. Why, we all know, Mr. Chairman, that any man who served 

in the army on either side suffered all of that characrer of exposure. 

Is it legitimate, is it proper to draw the inference, twenty years after 

the war has ended, that a man who has the rheumatism now contracted 

it in the service in the Army without positive proof upon that point? 

I say, though, that I am not specially inclined to criticis~ this case 

upon matrers of proof of that sort. My criticism goes to this: that we 

are putting upon the pension-rolls a new cla.sS, and we are doing that 

by special legislation. If it is proper that-scouts who incurred injury 

in the service of their country should be pensioned, why not say so by 

a general law, just as yon did with reference to the soldiers in the 

Army? But the general law excludes these, and the presumption is 

that ther-e is some reason why it excludes them; still we are asked to 

make a special exception to the general law, and we are given no reason 

why we should make it. There can not be, I submit, a single argument in favor of placing this scout upon the pension-roll that can not 

be made in favor of any scout who suffered like injuries. 

Mr. BAGLEY. The gentleman, I suppose, is not speaking in my 

time, as I have promised to yield the time to other gentlemen. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is speaking in his own time, and 

is entitled to an hour if he chooses to occupy it. 

Mr. CRISP. There can be no reason given in this case, I respectfully submit, and I repeat it, to authorize the committee to place-this 

gentleman upon the pension~rolls that can not be given in every other 

case where a scout served in the war. Now, Mr. Chairman, is it right; 

is it proper that we should do by indirection, that we should do for this 

individual what we can not do and have not undertaken to do for the 

great class of scoutS? I go further than that; in my judgment there 

exists a reason why a scout should not be put on the pension-roll. 

I grant you that their services are valuable. I grant you that they 

were necessary. But is it any argument to say that because a man's 

services were valuable and necessary therefore he shall go upon the 

pension-rolls? Could not you make as legitimaw an argument in 

favor of any gentleman who served his country as faithfully in this House 

until old age and disease overtakes him? He serves his country faithfnlly; whatisthe distinction? Asiun.derstnndit, pensions are granted 

for military services by military men who are regularly mustered into 

the service, and are granted exclusively for such services. 

Mr. BAG LEY. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question? 

Is he not aware of the fact that many persons are receiving pensions 

under special acts of Congress who were never mustered into the service? If he is not. aware of the fact I will cite him to the cases of the 

Missouri militia, among others, whowerenotmnsrered into the Unired 

States service, but who receive pension under special acts. 

.Mr. CRISP. If I understand those cases, and I am not certain that 

I do, they were put upon an entirely different ground. Many of them are put upon the ground that they would have been mustered in, but 

for want of a mustering officer they could not be mustered in. Some 

gentlemen dissent from that. If it is not put upon that ground, if put 

solely on the ground of the militia of a State who served during the 

war being put upon the pension-rolls asamatrerofright, then I dissent 

from that and say that there is no authority except as yon make it under a special act of Congress to ~o such a thing. 

A.t every session of this Congress hundreds and thousands of cases are 

brought before it for pensions. I'" do not criticise that. Most of them, 

I take it, are that class of cases to which I have before referred, cases 

where by the strict rules of the Pension Office and a technical construction of the pension laws the applicants, though entitled to relief, 

are unable to make the proofs required by the law. It does not, however, affect the class, but "t affects ·only the character of proof submitted 

by each individual applicant. That class of cases come here at every 

session of Congress. As I have said, no criticism is made upon them. 

But nowwe propose to burden the Calendars of this Congress with a 

class, not of men who are excluded by reason of a failure of evidence, • 

but men who are not entitled by reason of failure of law. If it is necessary and right and proper in the judgment of the majority of this House 

that that class should be pensioned, then you will be doing a service to 

the other class who are entitled under the· law but can not make the 

strict proof by making a general law to get off the Calendar this class 

of cases. But unless some reason can be given more vnlid than I have 

yet heard for putting persons upon thepension-rollswhowerenotmnstered into the service of the United States and not recognized as a part 

of the Army in that sense tha1; they are mustered in, then I sha.U oppose it, and I shall request that when such a law is passed, being a.n exception to the general law, it shall be passed at least by a quorum of the 

House. 

1\fr. BAGLEY. I yield ten minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. WOLFORD]. 

l\lr. WOLFORD. This is indeed, as has been so very forcibly stated 

by the gentleman who has just taken his seat [M:r. CRISP], an exception to the general rule. I desire to present to the committee a few 

reasons why it is made an exception. A scout was a very deserving 

character in the war. He was one that required to have sense, character, judgment, and discretion. Scouts were used by all the commanders that ever commanded a corps or a division on either side. They 

were used successfully, and they saved by the information that they 

brought to these commanders many lives, much money, and much 

property to the Government. 

Before this civil war, the war among neighbors and friends and brothers, one forever to be regretted-before that time the rule in war among 

foreign nations was to employ spies. The difference between a spy and 

a scout is very obvious, as the gentleman from Georgia will see if he 

takes a little pains. A spy may be an officer or he may be a private. 

If he is caught he forfeits his life; no power on earth can save him. 

We all recollect the affecting scene in the Revolutionary war where 

Major Andre was execured, Gene:r:aJ. Washington signing his death-warrant. ,He, a noble, gallant Bri~h officer, an officer of character and 

renown, was executed for the good of our country. Because he was a 

spy there was no possibility of saving him. But in this waJ:", in which 

neighborhoods were fighting against each other, in which brothers were 

fighting against each other-in this war it was thought advisable not to 

employ many spies. I employed a few spies in my division. They all 

got through safe. One of them was caught, but through the magnarnimity of a confederare officer he was saved. Many other officers know 

how dangerous was that service. 

But such men as General Grant and General Sharpe,and on theother 

side General Lee and General Stonewall Jackson, saw fit to employ another class of men. They were scouts. They could not be mustered 

into any service. For if tooy were they would be kno·wn and would 

forfeit their lives. They were citizens that knew the localities occupied by the armies; they could go in citizens' garb. · They had to be 

men of character; no general would trust them unless they were. 

They had to be men of sense; no general would trust them unless they 

were; and they had to be brave men. Theyhad to undergo hardships 

such as soldiers never exceeded . . But they could not have a roll to 

designare them as scouts. That wouldhave brought them under the 

denomination of spies. In the very nature of the case they had no 

roll. A soldier has a muster-roll that he can appeal to. An officer has a commission and a muster-roll too that he can appeal to when he asks 

for a pension. But here is the poor scout without any roll, without 

any evidence to recognize him except the memory of the officer wh9 

employed him. 

He goes forth with his life in his hands to wade the streams, to meet 

the cold, to meet the heat, to encounrer every haJ:"dship. He goes alone. 

Alone he takes his life in his hands and goes out tQ find the informartion upon which such men as General Grant act and sucli men as General Lee act; and they are honorable men. He goes forth meeting all 

the hardships, troubles, and trials, and everything a soldier endures. 

But he has no roll. The officer can not keep a roll of the scouts, for that 

would bring them into the denomination of spies. Therefore the scout 

has no record, no muster-roll to appeal to. 

The gentleman from Georgia talks about passing a general law. 

Where, in Heaven's name, in passing a general. law, would you start 

from? Where is the roll? You have no roll. Every case must come, as an individual case. It can come in no other way. Does the gentleman say in the largeness of his heart and his love of soldiers that 

those who did such signaf service for their country shall not be recognized? Does the gentleman say the proof must be in the roll? As I 

have said, there can be no roll. The proof must be in the memory of 
' ·C I 

.. 

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4457 

the officer who employed the scout; and upon that memory up comes General Grant and says: "I remember you as a scout; doubtless you 

lost your health in doing the arduous duty of a scout; I know you did." 

And here comes General Sharpe and says: "I know you were a scout 

and you lost your health while serving in that ((3-pacity." 

Now, shall this man have no pension? Shall this Government, which 

has acted so magnanimously to its soldiers, give this man nothing? I 

appea1. to the gentlemen who talk so much about making provision 

for the private soldier to come and help this individual by an individual and particular law. For you can make no general law that 

will cover all the cases. You must rely on the memory of the officer 

who employed the scout. I appeal to you to come and help one of the 

most deserving cases that ever was brought before Congress for a pension. 

I ask you to do in this case that justice which you do to the soldier. 

A soldier comes that has lost his health by exposure on the field, by 

wading through streams, meeting vicissitudes of cold and beat, and 

suffering in a variety of ways for his country, and without hesitation 

you say, your heart makes you say, "You have served your country 

well; we will give you a pension." 

I ask these gentlemen who talk so much about the private soldier 

to give a favorable consideration to these cases. Here is a man occupying a rank a little inferior to that of a private soldier, a man in the 

service of the Government whose position is not recognized by a mus- ter-roll. We ask you to recognize that man and to give him what is 

his right at the hands of the Government. Will you say to this man: ''You were employed to go and find out how many soldiers • Stonewall' 

Jackson had and where he was marching, and yon communicated that 

information to General Pope or General Grant or General Burnside or whoever it may be; they were enabled by your information to know 

exactly where the enemy was and to defeat his intentions; in that serv- ice yon have lost your health; your manhood has been destroyed by 

the sufferings yon were exposed to, and yet we will not grant you a pension because you have no roll to which you can appeal; poor fellow, 

you are cut off; the policy of the Government cuts you off." But 

honor, decency, and justice should not cut him off. The proof is clear. 

Do you believe General Grant? Do you believe General Sharpe? If 

you do you have all the proof you require. You have all the proof 

here that you can have in any case; and having that proof you should 

give him the same pension as you give to the private soldier. · The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman bas expired. 

Mr. WILLIS. I desire, with the permission of the gentleman in 

charge of the bill, to make a suggestion. There are forty-six committees of this House, all of which have reported private bills which are now on the Private Calendar. The House has very properly set apart one night of each week for the exclusive consideration of pension bills. 

This is a pension bill, and the only reason why it is brought up to-day 

is because of the want of a quorum at the time it was considered at one of the night sessions for pension bills. 

Now it is very evident that there is no quorum here at present and 

I understand that point will be made, not by me, but by other gentlemen, if the consideration of this bill is pressed. In the interest of 

economy of time, and in the interest of other committees of the House 

that have bills upon the Calendar, I suggest to the gentleman in charge 

of this bill to let it pass over until there is a quorum present, and in 

the mean time let some of the others of the forty-six committees have an opportunity to have their bills considered. 

Mr. BAGLEY. I would very gladly accede to the wishes of the 

gentleman but for the fact that this case bas been upon the Calendar 

long enough, I think, to be now CODBidered and determined by the 

Committee of the Whole in some way. I yield to my colleague from 

New York [Mr. PARKER). 

Mr. PARKER. Before saying anything upon the bill I would like 

to suggest to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. WILLIS], in response 

to his suggestion, whether we might not now agree to report this bill 

to the House with a favorable recommendation, with the undersilanding that there shall be an ay-and~no vote upon it ill. the House. 

Mr. WILLIS. So far as I am personally concerned I have no objection to that course being followed, and I suppose it will be a practical solution of the difficulty. 

Mr. PARKER. It seems to me that in that way we can reach a vote in this case. 

Mr. CRISP. I have no objection to that, with that understanding. 

Mr. BAGLEY. I desire to test the sense of the House upon this 

bill. If any gentleman desires to make the point that there is no quorum present I want to let him take the responsibility. 

Mr. CRISP. If the gentleman puts it upon the ground of responsibility, I will say to him that I am willing to take it. I had no objection, however, to agree to a proposition which I thought would accommodate the gentleman. . 

Mr. BAGLEY. Perhaps I misunderstood the proposition. 

Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. The proposition was to allow this 

bill to be reported favorably to the House with the understanding that 

there should be a. year-and-nay vote upon it in the House. 

Mr. BAGLEY. I have no objection to that, and very gladly aecept the proposition. 

There being no objection, the bill was laid aside to be reported to the 

House with the understanding that the vote upon its passage should 

be taken by yeas and nays. 

A. H. HERR. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 4380) 

for the relief of A. H. Herr. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, tl&c., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to pay to A. H. Herr, of the District of Columbia, the sum of $15,000, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the use and occupation of the island of Virginius, known as Herr's Island, during the late war by the Army of the United States. . 

Mr. ROWELL. I move that the bill be laid aside to be reported 

favorably to the House. 

Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania, and Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama, called 

for the reading of the report. 

The report (by Mr. RoWELL) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on War Claims, to 'whom was referred the petition of A. H. Herr, have had the same under consideration, and submit the following re- port: 

This claim is for the use and occupation of He:rr's Island, near Harper's Ferry, W . Va., by Federal troops from February, 1862, to February, 1866 The property in question "was a very extensive and v aluable estate, em- bracing twelve acres of land, thirty-two dwelling houses, a large four-story 

cotton-factory building, a large iron foundery, saw-mill, and many outbuildings," and was all occupied a t various times during the period named, a nd under con- trol of ac~ing quartermasters in the United States Army. Mr. Herr, the owner of the property, was a loyal citizen, who for his loyalty suffered ii:nprisonment at the h ands of the rebels, and many other v exations- besides great destruction of property. · February 28, 1866, Maj. Gen. W. S. Hancock m ade an order convening a board of officers to examine and report upon the condition of property in the depart- ment lately u sed by the Government, under the direction of the Quartermaster's Department, w ith a view of determining wha t would be required to put it in the same condition as when first occupied by the Government. In accordance with such order, the board convened and proceeded to exam- ine the various property covered by the order, a nd on July 3,1866, entered upon a critical examination of t he property involved in this case, and of the evidence of its occupation, and its rental value; and reported in detail each building 

occupied, the time of its occupancy, and the rental v alue. The result of this examination was a report of a total rent of 17,288.53. This report was not approved by the Quartermaster-General, but the cla im was by him referred to Genera l Blunt, chief quartermaster Department of the Potomac, who, on December '1:7, 1i65, made return of his conclusions, in which htf stated that he had made personal examination of the premises, accompanied 

by his agent, and was satisfied that the buildings were occupied for military 

purposesfor the whole of the time alleged in the claim. He expresses the opin- IOn that the occupation tended to preserve the buildings from be ing destroyed 

by the rebels, and also says that the works not being in operation would pre- vent the owner from deriving any material benefit from it. Yet he says the Gov- ernment derived materia l benefit from its use, and he carefully readjusts the estimates of the board of officers and recommends the allowance of $15,294.58. Upon receipt of this report Acting Quartermater-General Rucker disallowed $8,408.33 of the claim, and recommended the payment of~,886.25. 

This reduction was made upon the statement in the report of General Blunt, that the occupancy of the property by the Army ha-d the effect to protect it from destruction by the rebels, and the assumption that the works were not in opera- tion, and therefore were of little use to their owner. This finding was approved by Quartermaster-General Meigs, but the claimant refused t<> accept the amount. Subsequently, the whole matter was referred to Deputy Quartermaster-General Ekin, who, on June 7,1869, made an elaborate report upon the findings of the board of officers, the report of General Blunt, and the action of the Quarter- master-General on the same. He also considered additional evidence, which showed that the supposed faets in regard to the operation of this property by the owner, as reported by General Blunt, did not in reality exist, and that the condition of the property, with reference to its use by the owner, had been mis- understood. 

The report also comba.ts the idea that its occupancy by the Union troops tended to preserve it from destruction. ' After reviewing the history of the case, and reciting the evidence upon which his findings were based, the report concludes with a recommendation of an al- lowance of $15,000. This report is returned by the Quartermaster-General to General Ekin, with a suggestion that it is like another case cited. Whereupon General Ekin maket1 response as follows: "The rulin~ in the Murfreesborough decision could be made applicable in this case, but in v1ew of the f&ct that it has been the custom of this Department to pay rent for property at Harper's Ferry, which was occupied by the United States during the war, and in the absence of any law or order prohibiting its payment, I can not perceive any just reason why Mr. Herr should not be paid such rent as may be found to be due him." March 16,1874, the claim was taken before the Secretary of War for review, 

who, upon examination of all the papers in the case, approved the finding of the board of officers convened by General Hancock, but on reference to the ac- counting officers t.he Third Auditor reported adversely, and the claim was dis- allowed by the Comptroller April7, 1874- .. On the ground that the prohibitory act of February 19, 1867, was not repealed 

by the joint resolution of July 28,1868, extending the benefit of the act of July 

4,1864, to the counties of Jefferson and Berkeley, West Virginia." On reargument this decision was reaffirmed May 26, 1874. The case was finally reviewed by the Comptroller July 23,1875. In that review he says: "There is but one question now to be determined in the case. The claimant's loyalty and ownership, the occupancy of the property by the Federal forces, the proper administrative action in the War Department, and perhaps the amount of compensation to be allowed, are all su.fficien tly shown." After reciting the various acts of Congress bearing upon the right to adjust 

and pay this claim, the report says: "It [the act bf 1867] expressly prohibi~ the .settlement of ce-':"tain claims originating in a State, or part of a State, descnbed m the proclamatiOn of July 1, 1868. * * * Jefferson County, Virginia, is among the counties described in that proclamation, and the prohibition, it seems to me, is as positive as if the act ha.d repeated the words of the proclamation." And so this claim was rejected-not because it ought not to be paid, but be- cause the Department before which it was pending was expressly prohibited by act of Congress from settling claims of this character. The committee are of opinion that the allowance of this claim is an act of 
. ' 

. .. -

4458 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. MAY 23, 

justice which ought not longer to be delayed for want of a tribunal in which to enforce it. .. Claimant's property was occupied by United States troops without any express 

agreement as to the amount of compensation. Its use was of great value to the 

Government, and effected a. saving of much more than the amount claimed. Its . occupancy was a. necessity at the time. The officers taking pos ession and thE'I 

claimant bothsupposed that reasonablerentwa-sto be paid. Large damage was done to the property, for which no claim is made. 

We are further of the opinion that the amount of $15,000, recommended by General Ekin, being one-half of the rental value of the property previous to the commencement of hostilities in 1861, is a reasonable amount to be paid. We 

therefore return the petition with the accompanying bill, a.nd recommend that 

the bill be passed. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I would ask my colleague why this amount has 

not been paid before ? · 

Mr. ROWELL: If my colleague [Mr. SPRINGER] had listened to 

the reading of the report he would have understood the reason. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I did listen to it. 

Mr. ROWELL. This claim was originally presented to a commission appointed by General Hancock which approved the payment .of 

the sum of $17,000. The aecount went through the hands of various 

quartermasters and was finally approved by the Secretary of War and 

referred to the auditing officers of the Treasury Department. 

When it was there examined it was discovered that the county in 

which this property is situated was included within the terms of the 

law ofl867, forbidding officers ofthe Government to adjust and allow 

any rent claim in any section of the- country covered by the original 

proclamation of the President in reference to insurrections. For that 

reason they rejected the account, not because it was such an account as 

would not have been paid had there been no such law. Finding that 

the county in which Harper's Ferry was situated was one of the countieS originally proclaimed to be in insurrection, the auditing officers of 

the Treasury refused to audit the claim. 

The amount recommended by this bill is only about half of the rental 

value of this property previous to hostilities for the time it was aetually 

occupied by the Government. It was one of the largest properties 

there, and was occupjed as stated in the report. 

Mr. SPRINGER. What is the value of the property itself? 

Mr. ROWELL. That I can not tell. The original estimate of its 

rental value, $17,000, was made upon the basis of6 per cent. of the as- sessed valueoftheproperty,'which was abouthalfthe real value. There 

are upon it thirty-two brick and stone dwelling-houses, a large cottonfactory, and twelve acres of land which was used by the Government 

as a corral. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Were those buildings and the cotton factory used 

by the Government for Government purposes? · 

Mr. ROWELL. Yes, .sir; all of the buildings were used either for 

officers' quarters or for hospital purposes or for barracks for the soldiers. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Isanypartoftheclaim fordamagetotheproperty? 

Mr. ROWELL. No; all claim for damage was rejected. 

Mr. SPRINGER. It is all forrent? 

Mr. J.{OWELL. It is wholly for rent, although the property was 

damaged more than the whole amoont of the claim. It is wholly for 

rent and is less than one-half of the rental value of the prope.rty previous to hostilities. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Was there any contraclfixingtheamountofrent 

to be paid? 

Mr. ROWELL. No, sir. The circumstances were these: Mr. Herr 

also owned a large flouring-mill there. After the commencement of 

hostilities Mr. Herr, with the assistance of the Union forces, got the 

flour and wheat out ofthe mill and turned the mill over to the Union 

authorities. Shortly afterward Harper's Ferry was captured by the 

confederate forces, the mill was burned by way ofretaliq.tion, and Mr. 

Herr was taken a prisoner and carried to Richmond, where he was kept 

for some time. When our troops oceupied this property no contract 

was made; they simply took possession of the island, but it was the 

•pderstanding that rent should be paid. 

Mr. STOCKSLAGER. As I understand, my friend states that this 

claim was paid because the a{!Counting officers discovered that by the 

original proclam..'l.tion the officers of the Government were prohibited 

from paying rent for any property within that county. 

1\Ir. ROWELL. The gentleman misunderstood me. In 1867 Congress passed a law forbidding the accounting officers of the Government 

to a{} just or allow any claims for rent in any section of the country covered by the original proclamation. Under this law the accounting of- ·ficers held (although the correctness of their holding may be ·doubted), 

that Harper's Ferry was within the territory included in the proclamation, which covered all sections of the country in insurrection. Harper's 

Ferry being in West Virginia, and not excepted, the accounting officers 

held that it was covered by the proclamation and the law, and therefore they would not adjust or allow any rent claims from that portion 

of the country. 

Mr. STOCKSLAGER. Would not the passage of this bill make a precedent under which other claims frqm the same territory might come in? ' . Mr. ROWELL. For years, ever since 1867, we have been passing 

these claims for rent. 

Mr. STOCKSLAGER. Within that territory? 

Mr. ROWELL. Within that territory- in Kentucky, Tennessee, and 

in all the sections covered by that proclamation. The accounting officers of the Government can not settle any claim· for rent coming from 

anywhere in the South, though it may have arisen a year after the war 

actually closed, except under a special. act or a general repeal of the law 

ofl867. 

Mr. STOCKSLAGER. The gentleman says, as I understand, that we have been passing bills to pay these rent claims. 

Mr. ROWELL. Oh, yes, sir; claims from Mobile, Memphis, Vicksburg, New Orleans, and other places in the South. These claims, many 

of them, originated in 1865, after the war was actually closed, but before 

it had been officially declared terminated, and therefore the claims can not be settled without authority from Congress. 

1\fr. HEWITT, of Alabama. I would like to know for wliat purpose these buildings were occupied. 

Mr. ROWELL. I stated a little while ago that they were occupied 

for barracks, for hospitals, for officers' quarters, and the island, embracing twelve acres, for a corral. 

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. Had these buildings which were occupied by the United States forces been erected by Mr. Herr for the occupancy of the operatives in his cotton factory? 

Mr. ROWELL. Herr's Island had upon it a large flour-mill, a cotton factory, and a number of dwellings erected, I presume, to be occupied by his .employes. They were two-story brick and stone dwellinghouses. At the time this property was taken possession of by the Union 

forces his mill had been burned up and his cotton factory was being 

converted into a mill. 

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. If the Government had not occupied 

these buildings, could Mr. Herr have rented them at that time? 

1\fr. ROWELL. For a large part of the time he would have been 

able to rent them, and I think for a higher price than before the war. At other times he would not have been able to rent them. This bill 

provides for paying only 50 per cent. of the rental value, taking each 

month that the property was occupied. The commission under General Hancock found the exact number of months each building was occupied. N othingisallowed for the time the buildings were not occupied 

by the Government. Sometimes some of them were vacant. The use 

of this property by the Government extended from 1862 to 1866-portions of that time. This bill proposes to allow rent only for the time 

each building was actually occupied, and at one-half the rental value. 

· Mr. WOLFORD. As I understand the statement of the gentleman 

from illinois, this man was a Union :man, and because of that fact was 

taken from his home and placed in a confederate prison, and while he 

was thus confined our Government used his property; and now, because he happened to be inside the jurisdiction of the confederacy, 

there is a law which prevents him from being paid for the use of his 

property. 

1\f:r. ROWELL. The reason a special act is necessary is that in 1867 

Congress forbade the Departments to settle any of these claims for rent. 

Mr. WOLFORD. But it is the fact that he was a Union man-- 1\Ir. ROWELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WOLFORD. Undoubtedly? 

Mr. ROWELL. Undoubtedly. 

Mr. WOLFORD. And was in a. confederate prison while our forces 

occupied his property? 

Mr. ROWELL. A part of the time. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to oppose 

this bill, but to call attention to the fact that in passing special bills of 

this character we overlook one very important matter. There are 

hundreds of claims fully as just as this, but because the amount is not 

large, or because the parties are not able to come to Washington to push 

their claims,. their claims are neglected. It seems to me if we want to 

do tJle right thing we ought to pass a law creating a court with full 

power to examine into the mirits of all the claims now before Congress, 

and to classify them so that we shall know the honest and just from the 

fraudulent and doubtful ones. Then with that information Congress 

can appropriate money to pay the parties whose private property was taken for public use. 

I do not oppose this bill, but I say we are doing wrong to take up 

isolated cases and pass them when we know there are hundreds as just 

which are being neg] ected. 

I plant myself on this clause of article 5 of the amendments to the 

Constitution: 

Nor shall private property be taken for publicusewithoutjustcompensation. 

You may say this is a claim for rents, andthatthe Constitution does 

not cover the case. Now, sir, I claim the rent of property is as much 

a part of the property as the realty itself; and if it can be proven, as has 

been done in this case, that the property was taken and used by the 

FederalArmy, we owe it to the persons losing the use of their property 

to give them just compensation, unless the proof is clear that the owner was giving aid and comfort to the enemy of the United States. What we ought to do is, instead of bringing in bills for. private claims like 

this, to pass a general law creating a court to consider all of this class 

of cases, so that the poorest man in the United States who has lost a 

horse or property in any other shape may come and receive just com- pensation for his property taken for public use 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4459 

Mr. ROWELL moved that the bill be laid aside to be reported to 

the House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

The motion was agreed to. 

SAMUEL MAY. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 625) 

for the relief of Samuel May; reported adversely by Mr. ROWE;LL, 

from the Committee on War Claims. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed,.out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise ap- propriated, to pay to Samuel May, of Floyd County, Kentucky, the sum of 53,000, in settlement for quartermaster and commissary stores taken from him 

during the late war. 

Mr. ROWELL. I move the enacting clause of that bill be stricken 

out. 

Mr. WHITE, ofKentucky. I askthe gentleman to give the reasons 

for the motion he has made. 

Mr. MORSE. It is an adverse report, and that is sufficient. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. Yes, there is an· adverse report; but 

there is not a member of that committee who will say he is not con- vinced the property of the gentleman was taken and used by the Federal forces. 

Mr. MORSE. This question is not debatable. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is not. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. I should like the gentleman to explain 

what course of argument led to the adverse report. 

l\11:. MORSE. We will explain by our votes. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. We oughtto know so we may vote intelligently. Was it not simply because the Department could not certify it was convinced of his loyalty? But is there any proof that the 

claimant took up arms against the Government of the United States? 

And I am sure that no one will deny that Kentucky was a loyal State 

during the entire war. The committee divided; and there were-ayes 100, noes 4. 

So Mr. RoWELL's motion was agreed to. 

The CHAIRMAN. The bill will be laid aside to be reported to the 

House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 

ont. 

::MARCOS RADICH. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 4381) 

for the relief of Marcos Radich. 

1\Ir. STORM. The House has passed the Senate bill in that case and 

I move this bill be laid aside to be reported to the House with the rec- o:rp.mendation that it be laid upon the table. · The motion was agreed to. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. GEDDES. I move that the bill (H. R. 4382) for "the relief of 

William H. Davis be passed over until the next meeting. 

Mr. McMILLIN. I also move the next case, which is an adverse 

report on the petition of Jane M. Goodale, be also passed over. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair hears no objection, and it is so ordered. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky, addressed the Chair. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I suggest that the two private land claims bills 

fo'llowing be passed over informally also. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. I have risen to a question of order. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. I desire to know what effect that would 

have on the claim of Mr. May, of which bill the enacting clause was stricken out? 

The CHAIRMAN. That will be reported to the House with the rec- ommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out. •WlJat action 

the House may see proper to take upon it is not for the Chair to determine. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. Do I understand that this is a motion or proposition to pass over informally all .of the other claims on the 

C&lenda.r? 

The CHAIRMAN. The proposition is l<> pass over informally cer- tain of these claims, allowing them to retain their places on the Calendar without prejudice. The Clerk will report the title of the next 

bill. 

PRIVATE LAND GRANTS, ARIZONA. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 1680) 

to confirm titles to certain private land grants in Arizona Territory. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I suggest, if there be no objection, that as the private land claims bill preceding this has been passed over informally, 

that the same course be taken in connection with this one, and also the one following. 

The CHAIRMAN. That has not yet been reported for the action of 

the committee. It has not been reached. 

Mr. MULDROW~ I have no objection to that provided it retains its 

place on the Calendar, as I do not see the gentleman who reporte<l it 

in his seat. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I suggestthatthatcourse betaken with reference 

to this bill, and the next one on the Calendar, which is also a private land bill. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. I ask that the claim of Mr. May, which 

we have voted on, be passed over informally, not to lose its place on the Calendar. 

The CHAIRMAN. That bill, by the order of the committee, is 

directed to be reported to the House with the recommendation that its 

enacting clause be stricken out. If that recommendation is concurred 

in the bill will have no pla.ce on the Calendar. 

Mr. WHITE1 of Kentucky. Then we had better clear the Calendar, 

and I object to passing over this bill informally. 

Mr. SPRINGER. The gentleman will not object when he understands that the gentleman who reported the bill and who has it in 

charge is not present. _ 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. I will say to the gentleman, who is familiar with the rules of the House, that if the gentleman were present 

he could not make a speech on the bill, as I found out by•experience 

when a motion was made to strike out the enacting clause on a bill a short time ago. . · 

Mr. SPRINGER. But the motion is not made to strike out the en- acting clause of this bill, but only that it be passed over informally, so that the committee may proceed to the consideration of other business 

upon the Calendar, leaving this bill in its present condition: 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentle- man from illinois? 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. I think we had better clear the Calendar. I call for the regular order. 

The CHAIRMAN. If there be no objection, the regular order will 

be the unanimous consent of the committee to the request of the gentleman from Illinois. 

Mi.". WHITE, of Kentucky. But I object, and that is the regular 

order. 

Mr. PERKINS. Is a motion in order to lay that bill aside infor· 

mally? • The CHAIRMAN. That would be in order. 

Mr. PERKINS. Then I move that the bill be passed over informally, 

not to lose its place on the Calendar. 

The motion was agreed to. 

LAND CLAIM, NEW MEXICO. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the .bill (H. R. 128) 

to confirm a certain land claim in the Territory of New Mexico. 

Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, as this is a bill which I reported fi:om 

the Committeeon Private Land Claims, al!ld as I have no desire that it 

shall take precedence over other bills of a similar character from the same committee, and as I should be well satisfied to have the Senate 

bill reported to this House, and which will take precedence of all of these 

bills, considered before any of them, I ask unanimous consent that t~ 

bill be laid aside informaJ.ly, not to lose its place upon the Calendar. 

There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly. 

FRANCIS · B. VAN HAESEN. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 847) 

for the relief of Francis B. Van Haesen. 

Mr. STORM. My colleague, Mr. MUTCHLER, whoreported this bill, 

is absent, and at his request Iaskthatthis bill belaidasideinformally, 

not to lose its place upon the Calendar. 

Mr. NELSON. I think I must object to that. This bill has been 

reported from the committee and we had better dispose of it. 

Mr. STORM. Then I must make the motion that it be laid aside 

informally, not to lose its place upon the Calendar. 

The motion was agreed to. 

PRIVATE LAND CLAIM, NEW MEXICO. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 129) 

to confirm a certain land claim in the Territory of New Mexico. 

Mr. STORM. I ask that that bill be also laid aside for the same reason-that the gentleman who reported it is not present. " · 

Mr. MULDROW. There is no objection, as I understand it, to this 

request. 

The bill, by unanimous consent, was passed over informally, not to 

lose its place on the Calendar. 

BRANN IN, SUMMERS & CO. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 652) 

for the relief of Brannin, Summers & Co. 

The bill is as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., Tha.t the Secretary of the Treasury be authorized and di- rected to pay Brann in, Summers & Co., of Louisville, Ky., the sum of $9,588.62, in full for duties paid by tbem in certain proceedings in rem, brought by the United States against certain sugars, in the United States-- court for the district of Kentucky~ alleged to have been fraudulently imported through the custom-house a.t New Orleans. 

Mr. JONES, of Arkansas. This bill I will state has been reported 

from the Ways and Means Committee by every Congress since the 

Forty-third. It was the unanimous report of the Committeeon Ways 

and Means of the Forty-third Congress and also in the Forty-fourth 

Congress, at which time it was unanimously passed by this House. 

The Committee of Ways and Means of the Forty-fifth, Forty-sixth, 

and Forty-seventh Congresses each reported the bill, and it is nowunani 

mously reported by the present Committee on Ways and Means. I do 
4460 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. ·MAY 23, 

not think there can be any objection to the bill. But if any gentleman wants any explanation I am willing to make it. If there be _no 

objection, I move that it be laid aside to be reported to the Honse With 

a favorable recommendation. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. One word before that is done. There was 

but one question that I could see in looking over this report which 

tended to convey any doubt tO my mind as to the propriety of the bill, 

and if tlre evidence is clear on that point, in my judgment the case 

is a good one. The evidence is clear that the claimants here had no 

knowledge of the fraud committed by the importers and were not in 

collusion with them. If that be true I have no hesitancy in saying 

that the claim should be passed. 

1\'Ir. JONES, of Arkansas. That is as perfectly clear as anything 

could be. ltiy attention was specially called to that. The papers were 

voluminous. The testimony brought in, and the evidence on oath of 

the parties themselves, and everything connected with it clearly showed 

that to be the fact, and that the circumstances of the case were such 

as to authorize the party in Louisville to believe the sugars were shipped 

in the most perfect good faith. There was not a circumstance connected 

with the transaction calculated to put a man on his guard. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. It was a matter then between the Government and the officials, to which these claimants were not parties? 

Mr. JONES, of Arkansas. I am satisfied they had not the remotest 

idea of it. 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House wi~h the recommendation that it do pass. 

FRANCIS B. VAN HAESEN. 

Mr. STRAIT. I believe the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 

STORl\I], who asked that the bill (H. R. 847) for the relief of Francis 

B. Van Haesen be passed over, is now willing that it should be considered at this time. - Mr. STORM. I learn that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. NELsoN]"had an arrangement with my colleague [Mr. MUTCHLER] which 

I did not know of. I hope in justice to him the bill will be taken up. 

- The CHAIRMAN. That may be done by unanimous consent. The 

gentleman from Minnesota asks unanimous consent to return to the 

bill H. R. 847. 

There was no objection. 

The bill was read, as fbllows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Commi!isioner of the General Larru Office is hereby authorized, on behalf of the United States, to accept a relinquishment by the 

governor of the State of Minnesota, executed under the authority of an act of the 

Legislature of said State approved February 24, A . D.1881, of the title derived by 

said State through an internal-improvement selection certified by the Commissioner of the General Land Office on MayB,A. D. 1869, forthesoutheast quarter of section 3, township 128, range 40 west, in the district of lands subject to sale at Alexandria, Minn. ; and that the location of said tract by Francis B. Van Haesen, 

with military bounty land-warrant numbered 106976, for one hundred and sixty acre~ issued under the act of March 3, A. D. 1855, and which was patented by the united States to said Francis B. Van Ha.esen on the 15th day of October, A. 

D. 1870, be, and the same ne.reby isl ~onfirmed ; and the State of Minnesota shall 

be allowed to select other lands in lieu of the tract relinquished as aforesaid. 

Mr. NELSON. If no gentleman desires an explanation, I move that 

the bill be laid aside te be reported to the Honse with a favorable recommendation. 

The motion was agreed to. 

L. S. ENSEL. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 191) 

for the relief of L. S. Ensel, reported with an amendment. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to pay L. S. Ensel, of Springfield, Ill., the sum of Sl,075 out of any money in the 

Treasury not otherwise appropriated ; the same being the amount paid by the 

said Ensel and covered into the Treasury of the United States as security on the 

recognizance of Michael Heilbron and Bernard Weil, who were indicted and 

tried in the United States district court for the northern district oflllinois, under 

clause 9 of section 5132 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. 

!!'he bill was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary with the 

following amendment: 

In line 5 strike out "$1,075" and insert "$1,054.22." 

Mr. SPRINGER. I can explain this bill in one moment, or if gentlemen prefer it they can have the report read. This gentleman was 

security on an official bond. The principals made their escape. J ndgment was entered against him and he paid the amount of the bond. 

Subsequently the defendants returned and moved to quash the indictment. The court quashed it on the ground that the Supreme Court of 

the United States had decided in a similar case involving the same statute that the statute was void and that it was not an indictable offense at 

all. This money bad been paid to the district attorneys and was covered into the Treasury. This bill passed the last Congress and has been 

twice reported favorably by the Committee on the Judiciary. The 

amount involved is only a thousand dollars. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. Is there a report in the case ? 

Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir; thereisaunanimonsr~portbytheCommittee on the Judiciary of tbis Congress, as there was also in the la.st 

Congress. 

The amendment reported by the committee was agreed to. 

The bill as amended was laid aside to be reported to the Honse with 

the recommendation that it do pass . 

. 

MRS. S. A. WRIGHT AND MRS. C. FAHNESTOCK. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (S. 297) for 

the relief of Mrs. S. A. Wright and Mrs. C. Fahnestock; reported by 

Mr. MOREY, from the Committee on Patents. 

The bill was read. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. Is this bill reported by the Committee on 

Patents? 

Mr. VANCE. It is. A similar bill was acted upon by the Committee on Patents of the Honse, and was agreed to. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. I call for the reading of the report. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. McMILLIN. As the report in this case seems to be lengthy and 

we have as much business as we can attend to in the Honse before the 

recess, I shall be constrained to move that the committee rise. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The committee accordingly rose; and the Speaker having resumed 

the chair, Mr. Cox, of New York, reported that the Committee of the 

Whole Honse, having had the Private Calendar under consideration, 

had directed him to report back sundry bills favorably, some with and 

some without amendment. He further reported that the Committee 

of the Whole had directed him to report back the bill (H. R. 625) for 

the relief of Samuel May with the recommendation that the enacting 

clause be stricken out. 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 

A message from the Senate, by Mr. SYMPSON, one of its clerks, annorinced that the Senate had passed with amendments, in which the 

concurrence of the Honse was requested, bills of the following titles: 

A bill (H. R. 6094) making appropriations for the payment of invalid 

ar-td other pensions of the United States for the:fi.scal year ending June 

30, 1885, and for other purposes; and 

A bill (H. R. 355) to provide for the.muster and pay of certain officers 

and enlisted men of the volunteer forces. 

PENSION APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. FOLLETT. I move that the bill (H. R. 6094) making appropriations for the payment of invalid and other pensions of the United 

Sta tes for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1885, and for other purposes, 

returnedfromtheSenatewith amendments, betaken from theSpeaker's 

table, and that the bill and amendments be referred to the Committee 

on Appropriations and printed. 

The motion was agreed to. 

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED. 

Mr. HOLMES, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that 

the committee had examined and found truly enrolled a bill of the 

following title; when the Speaker signed the same: 

A bill (H. R. 450) to amendanactentitled ''An act to authorize the 

construction of a ponton wagon-bridge across the Mississippi River at 

or near the city of Dn,buque, in the State of Iowa." 

Mr. NEECE, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that 

the committee had examined and found truly enrolled 'a joint resolution and bills of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the same: 

Joint resolution (H. Res. 245) authorizing the loan of certain 1lags to 

the Portland Soldiers and Sailors' Monument Association; 

A bill (H. R. 5443) for the relief Of N. C. Ridenour; · 

A bill (H. R. 4994) to vacate an alley in square 234, in the city of 

Washington; and _ 

A bill (H. R. 7076) to declare the cantalever bridge, constructed by 

the Niagara River Bridge Company across the Niagara River, a postroute. • 

CLAIMS ALLOWED. 

Mr. McMILLIN. I ask unanimous consent that in the consideration 

of bills reported from the CoiJUnittee of the Whole the bill (H. R. 5377) 

for the allowance of certain claims reported by the accounting Qfficers 

of the United States of the Treasury Department be first taken up. 

The SPEAKER. That is the first bill reported to-day. 

Mr. MULDROW. There are some bills reported onaformerFriday 

from the Committee of the Whole Honse. Are they not first in order 

for the action of the Honse -to-day ? 

The SPEAKER. They are first in order. But the gentleman from 

Tennessee asks unanimous consent to dispose of the bill he has indicated. 

Mr. McMILLIN. It is very lengthy and will take sometime to en-. 

gross it. I think the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. MULDROW] will 

not object. There was no objection to it in the committee at all. 

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection the bill indicated will first 

be considered. 

There was no objection. 

The amendments reported by the Committee of the Whole were agreed to. 

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

time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and 

passed. 

Mr. McMILLIN moved to reconsider the ':ote by which the bill was 
1884. CONGRESSIO~AL RECORD-HOUSE. 4461 

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

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

REMOVAL OF CHARGES OF DESERTION. 

The SPEAKER. The House will now proceed to the consideration 

of the first bill in order heretofore reported from the Committee of the 

Whole on the Private Calendar. 

The bill (H. R. 3935) to relieve certain soldiers of the late war from 

the charge of desertion was then taken up. · Mr. SPRINGER. I ask unanimous consent that all the bills re- ported to-day and heretofore from the Committee of the Whole on the 

Private Calendar to which there is no objection and upon which no yeaand-nay vote will be called be first considered, and after that those 

bills shall be taken up upon which the yeas and nays are desired. 

Mr. DUNHAM. I object. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. I think we had better follow the regular order of business. 

Mr. PERKINS. This bill ha-s been pending now for some weeks 

and should be disposed of. 

The SPEAKER. Objection is made to the proposition of the gentleman from illinois [Mr. SPRINGER]. The pending question is upon 

the motion of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. STEELE] to refer the 

bill the title of which has been read to the Committee on Military 

Affairs. Upon that question tellers were ordered by the House, and 

when the vote was taken no quorum appeared. 

1\Ir. STEELE. If there is no objection I will withdraw the demand 

for tellers: Mr. CRISP. I made the point before that no quorum had voted, 

and I renew the demand for tellers. _ The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP] insists 

upon the point that no quorum had voted on the motion to refer. The 

Chai.J.· will appoint the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. BROWNE] and the 

gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP] to act as tellers. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I ask unanimous consent that this bill be laid 

aside, · not to lose its pla-ce in the order of business, to be taken up the 

next time this class of business is reached. · Mr. MILLER, of Pennsylvania. Letitbetaken upto-morrowmorning. 

Mr. JONES, of Wisconsin. I object. 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the proposition of the gentle- man from illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] ? 

l\ir. DUNHAM. I object. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. The Democratic party ought to keep a quorum here for other business than the unseating of members on this 

side. 

The SPEAKER. The tellers will take their pla{!es. 

The tellers proceeded to take the count; and reported that there 

were-ayes 42, noes 103. 

l\ir. CRISP (one of the tellers). I make the point that no quorum 

has voted. 

Mr. NICHOLLS. I move that the Honse now adjourn. 

l\Ir. DEUSTER (to Mr. NICHOLLS). Move to take a recess until8 

o'clock this evening for pension bills. 

l\Ir. NICHOLLS. I modifY my motion so that the House take a re- cess until 8 o'clock this evening. . The SPEAKER. That can only be done by unanimous consent at · this time, as it requires a quorum to take a recess. 

Mr. CRISP. Then I will withdraw the motion for a recess. Mr. McMILLIN. I ask the indulgenceoftheHousetomakea suggestion. There are several bills which have been reported from the 

Committee of the Whole to. which there was no objection in committee, 

and I think they can be passed now. They relate to matters in which 

I am not personally interested; none of the persons affected by them are of my constituents, and I believe none of the bills have been reported from the committee I am on. When a bill is reached upon 

which there is any controversy, it can be passed over. Mr. DINGLEY. I hope the suggestion of the gentleman from Tennessee [l\ir. McMILLIN] will be adopted. There·are some bills which 

have been reported from the Committee of the Whole to which there 

is apparently no objection. 

Mr. DUNHAM. I object. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. This is an important bill and should 

be acted upon. There is nothing in the way of its consideration at 

this tin1e except the faot that there is no quorum here. Let us have a quorum, if any business is to be done. . Mr. McMILLIN. I trust the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 

WHITE] in his anxiety . to do business will not stand in the way of 

doing business. 

The SPEAKER. This is not debatable. 

:M:r. McMILLIN. I only made the suggestion. 

The SPEAKER. Objection is made to the request of the gentleman 

from Tennessee. 

Mr. SPRINGER. It is impossible to do any business at this time, 

unlesswetakeupthat to which there is no objection. !again ask unanil,DOUS consent that the Clerk be directed to read over the titles of the bills 

reported from the Committee of the Whole, and that those to which no objection is made be considered and passed. 

The SPEAKER. That is just what the gentleman from Kentucky 

[Mr. WHITE] objects to, as the Chair understands. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. I call for the regula.r order. 'The SPEAKER. The regular order is the motion of the gentleman 

from Indiana [Mr. STEELE] to refer the pending bill to the Committee on Military Affairs, upon which no quorum voted. 

l\fr. BROWNE, of Indiana. If in order, I move that the House now adjourn. 

Mr. KING. I hope the gentleman will change his motion and move a recess. 

Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana. I will move that the House now tah;ea. recess until 8 o'clock this evening for pension bills. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. BROWNE] moves that the House now take a recess until' 8 o'clock this evening, 

for the transaction of business under the prior order of the House. . 

Mr. NICHOLLS. I thought the Chair said a moment ago that that 

motion was not in order. · 

The SPEAKER. It is not if any one objects to it. . Mr. NICHOLLS. I move to amend, so as to make it half past 7 

o'clock. 

l\ir. KING. I ask unanimous consent that the House now take a recess. 

The SPEAKER. The motion for a recess is now pending, to which no objection has been made. The gentleman from Georgia LMr. NICHOLLS] moves to amend so as to take .a recess until half past 7 o'clock. 

The first ques¢on is upon the amendment. 

The question was taken upon the amendment; and it was agreed to. 

Mr. McMILLIN. Allow me to suggest that last Friday it was or- dered that hereafter the hour of meeting for Friday night sessions should 

be 8 o'clock. 

The SPEAKER. It is too late now to make that point. The House 

hai already agreed to the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia 

to meet at half past 7 o'clock this' evening. 

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. I move to reconsiderthevotebywhich 

the amendment was agreed to. 

The motion to reconsider was agreed to. 

The SPEAKER. The question now recUI'S' upon the amendment of 

the gentleman from Georgia. 

Mr. NICHOLLS. I withdraw the amendment. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. If. we now take this recess, will the business to-night be pension bills, in ·accordance with the standing order? 

The SPEAKER. That is the motion. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. Then this proposition is simply to lose 

thirty minutes because the other side has no quorum here. 

The question being taken on the motion of Mr. BROWNE, of Indian3J, for a recess, it was agreed to; and accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 

40 minutes p.m.) the House took a recess until8 o'clock p.m. 

EVENING . SESSION. 

The recess having expired, the House reassembled at 8 o'clock p. m., 

and was called to order by Mr. McMILLIN as Speaker pro tempore, who 

directed the Clerk to read the following order: 

Hon. J. B. CLARK, 

SPEAKER'S ROOM, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washim.gton, D. 0., May 23, 1884. 

Olerk of House of Representatives : 

Hon. BENTON McMILLIN, of Tennessee, will preside as Speaker pro tempore at the session this evening. 

J. G. CARLISLE, Spealcer. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will read the order of busi· ness for this evening's session. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

That until the further order of this House, on each Friday the House will take a recess at 5 o'clock until8 p.m., at which evening sessions bills on Lhe Private 

CaJendar reported from the Committee on Pensions and the Committee on Invalid Pensions shall be considered. 

Mr. MATSON. I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House . on the Private Calendar in pursuance 'of the 

order just read. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The House accordingly resolved itself into. Committee of the Whole 

(Mr. HATCH, of Missouri, in the chair) and proceeded to the consideration of pension bills on the Private Calendar. 

Mr. MATSON. I ask unanimolli! consent that all the pension bills 

prior to that for the relief of Nancy Miller, on page 38 of the Calendar, 

be passed over'informally, and t.JJ.at the Committee of the Whole take 

up the bills on the Calendar at that point. 

There being no objection, it was ordered accordingly. 

NANCY MILLER. 

The bill (S. 494) for the relief of Naacy Miller was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll,.. subject to the provis!ons n.nd 
4462 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 23, 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Nancy Miller, widow of Thomas Miller, late a private in Company M, Eighth Regiment Tennessee Cavalry Vol- unteers. 

The report (by Mr. HouK) is as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, tO whom waa referred bill S. 494, submit the following report: , This case passed the Senate at its present session. We adopt the report of the Senate Committee on Pensions, which is as follows: "The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (S. 494) for the relief of Nancy Miller, having considered the same, make the following report: "That the application for a pension made by Nancy Miller, widowofThomas Miller said to have been a member of Company 1\I, Eighth Tennessee Cavalry, was rejected by the Commissioner of Pensions on the ground that no proof that said Miller was in the mi,litary service, as alleged, was found in the records of the Adjutant-General of the United States Army, the adjutant-general of Ten- nessee, the Paymaster-General of the United States Army, or the honorable Second Auditor of the Treasury Department. On all other points the Commis- sioner reports the case as complete. "That in proof of said Miller's service claimant submitted the affidavit of ~elson 1\fc~aughlin , who was captain of Company M, Eighth Tennessee Cav- alry, and who testified that he recruited Thomas 1\Iiller, August 27, 1863, in Wasnington County, Tennessee, into said company and regiment; that Miller drew rations and sened and did duty as a private in said company and regi- ment from the date of his enlistment until October 19, 1863, when 'he was granted leave of absence on furlough to go to Ya.J?-cey County, North Carolina, and on his return back to his command he was atta{)ked by the rebels, or enemy, and by them killed on the 6th of November,1863.' •' That Frederick Ledford and James R. Anderson, citizens of Yancey County, 

North Carolina, certified, under date of December 2; 1867, that they knew the said Miller,' late a private in Company M, Thirteenth (Eighth) Regiment Ten- nessee Cavalry;' that they saw him a corpse a few minutes after he had been shot; that the rebel soldiers present said they had killed him; and that said Ledford and Anderson assisted in making Miller's coffin, and in burying him the next day. , • • That since the rejection of this claim by the Commissioner a statement has been submitted, which was sworn to August 18,1882, by Samuel Miller, Peter Peterson, John Miller, and J. G. Cooper, residents of Hollow Poplar, N. C., 

which furnishes an explanation for the failure to find l\liller's name on the mus- ter-rolls, and for the fact that Capta.i n McLaughlin should have sworn that be enlisted 1\liller before the company was organized, according to the records, and should have failed to give in Miller's name. "From thi!l statement it appears that in November, 1863, while the Eighth Tennessee Cavalry was being formed, it was assigned to guard duty at Mossy 

Creek, Tennessee; that Colonel Patton gave the recruits ten days' furlough, by 

general order, for the purpose of visiting their homes and procuring necessary clothing, with orders to report at Jonesborough for duty; that about this time General Burnside's command fell back to Knoxville, to which place Longstreet laid siege; that the Eighth Tennessee, not having been organized, and being 

engaged in recruiting, did not go to Knoxville, bu·t during the siege marched, under orders, to Camp Nelson, Kentucky, where the regiment was organized, and then marched to Nashville; that said Miller, with many others who en- listed about the same time, was cut off from his company, and was notable to reach Jonesborough, where the recruits had been ordered to report, because of the occupation of the country by the enemy; that during the said siege the Union men of that locality were exposed to great danger from the enemy, and on this account no regular muster-rolls of enlisted recruits were kept by the enlisting officers, but affiants ~affirm of their own knowledge that Miller per- formed the services claimed in his widow's application, and that prior thereto he was enlisted as all other men were enlisted throughout that section at that time; that Miller was enlisted August '1!7, 1863, and went into camp at once; that in a few days the company went to Mossy Creek, Tennessee, and remained on guard duty until Novembel' 19, 1863, when the recruits were furloughed by 

general order by Colonel Patton, and that 1\ijller was killed while on the way to rejoin his command, about November 25,1863. 

"'l'herefore, believing that the fact of said Miller's service has been suffi- ciently well -established, and that this claim is one that calls for the favorable action of Congress, the committee recommend that the bill do pass." Your committee concur in the statements and conclusions of the foregoing 

report,, and therefore report back the accompanying bill of the Senate and re- commend that it do pass. 

The bill was laid aside, to be reported favorably to the House. 

GEORGE H. FLUKE. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 5999) 

granting additional pension to George H. Fluk~. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Bei.t enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and is hereby, author- ized and directed to place on the pension-roll the name of George H. Fluke, lat-e a private in Company K~ineteenth Ohio Volunteer Infantry, and to direct the pa~ ment to sa!d _George H. Fluke the sum of $54 per month, instead of the sum he IS now recetvrng. 

The report (by 1tfr. MATSON) is as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 5999} granting additional pension t.o George H. Fluke, submit the following re- port: 

The evidence shows that George H. Fluke is a rep\ltable, respected citizen of Zanesville, Ohio. That be enlisted as a private of Company K, Nineteenth Ohio 

Volunteer Infantry, on 8th September, A. D.186l. That while in the line of duty in the ba ttle of Shiloh (Pittsburgh Landing) he was dangerously wounded in manner as follows, namely, by a ball and buckshot striking him in the right side of the thigh, close up to the hip, passing through, shattering and splintering the bone, and lodging. The ball was cut out; from the incision many pieces of bone were extracted, no less than eleven. The evidence further shows tha t one buckshot was buried in the right testicle, another buckshot passing entirely through the left testicle. This shot followed 

along the water passage and came out in front of the anus. The water passage was badly lacerated, cut, ·and mangled; from the result of this torn condition of the water passage there is a leakage of urine back of the scrotum, which com- pels the sufferer to wear a cloth or sponge. The evidence shows the left testicle and scrotum to have grown together, causing enlargement of the veins of the scrotum, which becomes very painful in walking or standing, so much so that it is almost impossible for him to do either. The wound back of the scrotum bas grown together in such a manner as to shorten the step of the right leg1h·e or six inches. This wound breaks out into a running sore three to five times yearly, causing him to be confined to his bed severa.l weeks a~ a time-the parts at these periods being one mass of raw flesh. . The proof ftfrther shows that in warm weather '~lking causes loss of the sem- Inal fluid; this pa.rt of the proof might be further extended and particularized, but your committee feel that the results of this terrible wreck will be demon-

• 

strated to your· minds by explaining that it has caused extreme nervousne!IS, mental as· well as physical anguish, the ever-attendin~ confusion of ideas, great 

bodily suffering, pains in the ba{)k and kidneys,chokmg sensations when in a lying posture, together with all the attendant nervousness. • The applicant was and is married, but by reason of this horrible wound is made sterile and wholly barren. He is thirty-six years of age, and is now borne on the pension-rolls at $12 per month, the utmost limit allowed under the pension 

laws. The symptoms and wound are growing worse every day. In view of all these facts, and in view of the many indorsements, certificates, and testimonials from prominent and high-minded citizens of the community 

wherein he lives, we most earnestly recommend the passage of the bill, when 

amended, as follows: 

Strike out the words" fifty-four," in line 7, and insert in lieu thereof the word 

"forty." 

The amendment reported by the Committee on Invalid Pensions to 

strike out "$54 " and insert "$40" was agreed to. 

The bill as amended was laid aside to be reported favorably to the 

House. 

JANE HILTON. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. ·R. 5082) 

granting a pension to Jane Hilton. • . The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enact~d, &c., That ti'1e Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au thor- ized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and lim- itations of the pension Jaws, the name of Jane Hilton, widow o( Ellis ·Hilton, 

deceased, late a private in Company E, Seventy-fourth Illinois Volunteers, and Company B, Eleventh Veteran Reserve Corps. 

The report {by Mr. MORRILL) was as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pen ions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 5082) granting 11. pension to Jane Hilton, submit the following report: Ellis Hilton, husband of this claimant, enlisted September, 1862. In July, 1863, he was transferred to the Invalid Reserve Corps on a{)Count of permanent dis- ablility, caused by chronic diarrhea. On the 13th of October, 1863, while in the service, he died from the effects of a fracture of the skull. The officer in charge of the hospital says, "My impression is he was killed by the falling of a crow-

~~i~~ i~~~i~le~~nt-General's report is that he fell and fractured his skull _ 

The evidence is so meager that your committee are unable to determine whether this man's death was the result of, his own negligence or not. It is certainly not clearly shown that this soldier's death wRs the result of his own vicious habits. He lost his health and his life in the service, leaving a destitute family. The benefit of the doubt ought to be given to the 'Widow. Your committee recommend the passage of the bill. 

The bill was laid aside to he reported fa"!orably to the House. 

WILLIAM REINHARDT. 

The next busin~ on the Private Calendar was the bill {H. R: 585) 

granting a pension to William Reinhardt. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and be is hereby, au• thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of William Reinhardt, late a private in Company K, First Regiment Kansas Volunteer Infantry. 

Mr. McMILLIN. I ask that the report in this case be read. 

While I am willing that the reading of reports be waived in special 

cases, I think it proper that as a general rule these reports should be 

read, because we have no other means of getting information concern- ing these bills. 

The report {by Mr. MORRILL) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid PensionsJ to whom was referred the hill (H. R. 585) granting a pension to William Reinnardt, submit the following report: This soldier enlisted May 31, 1861, in Company K, First Regiment of Kansas yolunteers. ~e was discharged May 20,1862, for disability; cause for which , in general hospital, not stated. On the '1!7th of February, 1880, he m ad e applica- tion for a pension, which was rejected on the ground that claimant was unable to furnish medical evidence of treatment in service or for fifteen years there- after. He furnishes the affidavits of four persons that he was sound and healthy 

when he enHsted and free from rheumatism. Dr. J. L. Wever, an eminent phy- sician of Leavenworth, and one who is very cautious and guarded in his state- ments, testifies, July 17, 1882, that-- "I have this day examined claimant, and find from personal interview and facts, which he states, that he was in hospital at Leavenworth in May, 1862, and that I treated him for rheumatism and lung trouble, and signed the surgeon's certificate of disability on which he was discharged." 

Claimant makes affidavit that he was also treated by Regimental Surgeons Buddington and Smith, but that both'died many years a.go; that Dr. Grimes, a well-known and highly respected physician of Atchison, Kans., treated him from 1862 until1877, at which time Dr. Grimes died. 

Major Ketner testifies that he was commanding Company K, to which Rein- hardt belonged, from August 10, 1861, to June,1863; that ·• in January, 1862; the cla imant, with his company, marched from Tipton to Lexington, Mo., a distance of one hundred and twenty-five miles, through and in very cold, snowy weather, and at night slept on the ground without covering, and without sufficient under him to guard him from the extreme cold and damp ground, by rea on of which, as affiant remembers, he comJ'lained considerably, and was sent to the hospital, from which he was finally discharged from the service on account of such dis- ease-rheumatism. That said claimant was at the battle of Wilson's Creek, and was a good soldier, and at that time a stout, able-bodied man. * * * The above facts are stated from a personal knowledge as captain of said soldier's company." 

Peter Young and Frederick Stephan, members of Company K, who knew Reinhardt intimat-ely in the service, and ever since his discharge, te tify fully to his exposure on the march referred to, his sleeping on the snow aud his being sent to hospital. They also say that he has been affiicted with rheum~ 

tism ever since his discharge. Frederick Treffy testifies that he has been intimate with claimant ever since his discharge, and that he has been all the time disabled with rheumatism. The postmaster certifies that the last three witnesses are credible persons, and their statements can be relied upon. John Dougherty, for twenty-three years a respected citizen of Atchison, says, under oath, that he has known claimant intimately ever since his discharge, seeing him every week, and sometimes every day for a considerable time; that he was disabled when he returned from the Army, and that he has gradually grown worse ever since. Dr. Lenneker testifies that he treated him in Novem-
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD·- HOUSE. 4463 

berh1878 and has continued to treat him ; that he then found him suffering wit chr~nic rheumatism, and that it has continued ever since. August 29, 1881, Dr. A. P. Tenney, exa.~ning surgeon, certifies that he care- fully examined him and found .that "~ walking l~ft le~ moves forwar_d slower than right ; left arm hangs to s1de and lS moved \Vlth difficulty and pam; mus- cles of left shoulder are one-third less than on opposite side; muscles of left hip are also atrophied, only less in extent tlian about shoulder; left arm is of little use to him." In any ordinary court of justice evidence as strong and clear as this would send a person charged with crime to the penitentiary; it ought to be s~cient 

to entitle a poor, disabled soldier, who bravely fought at the battle of 'Vilson's Creek, to a pension. Your committee recommend the passa.ge of the bill. 

The bill was laid aside to be reported favorably to the House. 

WILLIAM C. H. BOWMAN. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 4061) 

for the relief of William C. H. Bowman. · 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name ~r William C. H. Bowman, late a. pri- . vate in Company D, Second Regiment Missouri Cavalry. 

The report (by Mr . .MORRILL) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4061} far the relief of William C. H. Bowman, submit the following report: This soldier enlisted August 12, 1861, in Company D, Second Regiment Mis- souri Cavalry. On the 12th day of August,1864, while on a march, he received a severe sunstroke; two of his' comrades testify that they were near him when he fell and assisted in taking him to the hospital. The reports of the Adjutant- General show that these men were present with the command on that day. The evidence shows that he was no• again fit. for duty, and that on the 15th day of September, 1864, he was discharged. He was examined August 16,1882, by Dr. A. P. Tenney, an examining surgeon, who bears an enviable. reputation· as a. physician of great skill and a gentleman of high integrity, who reports that he is three-fourths disabled from the effects of a sunstroke, and that it is his belief that it originated in the service. 'The case was rejected in the Pension Office for want of evidence of medical treatment in the service and subsequent to dis- charge. In view of the fact that the claimant served 'his country faithfully for three years and one month, and that the evidence shows conclusively that he received a serious sunstroke while in the line of duty, and that he is now suf- fering from the effects of it, the committee recommend the passage of the bill. 

This bill was laid aside to be reported favorably to the House. 

MRS. ANN CORBIN. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 4526) 

granting a pension to Mrs. Ann Corbin. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Ann Corbin, widow of Ebenezer Corbin, formerly of Company B, Tenth Regiment New Hampshire Heavy Ar- tillery. 

The report (by Mr. RAY, of New Hampshire) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4526) granting a. pension to Ann Corbin, having duly considered the same, re- spectfully report as follows: - .Ann Corbin is the widow of Ebenezer F. Corbin, late private of Company B, First liegiment New Hampshire Heavy Artillery, who died March 18, 1880. The deceased drew a pension of $4 per month from May 17, 1865, to February 

16, 1878, and $12 per month from the last-mentioned date till the time of his death. He enlisted August 11, 1863, .and was discharged for disability incurred in the line of his duty while in the service 1\Iay 16, 1865. Dr. Samuel G. Jarvis, a pension surgeon, who made an examination of said Corbin's physical condition February 15, 1871, certified that- "Sa id Corbin is one of that class of men who have been continua lly running down ever since he le ft t.he service. His present condition is as follows: The left lung is diseased, with a constant cough and expectoration, which will sooner or later prove fatal. No treatment can be of any permanent service to him." He was also examined in 1872 and in 1873 by the same surgeon, and by Dr. 0. B. Way, of Claremont, N.H., a most excellent surgeon and physician, in 1875, -1877, and February 16, 1878. Dr. Way, at the last-named examination, reports Corbin's condition as follows: • "This to my mind is a clear ca se of chronic malarial poisoning. The abdomen is very tende r and somewhat enlarged, the pulse rapid and weak, the tongue coated, the expression sickly, the body weak and emaciated. The man states that he has diarrhea most of the time; that frequently there are six or eight movements daily; that he has chills and fever usually every other day;· that his appetite is poor and his weakness extreme. He is in fact a physical wreck. The disability has increased since I last examined hjm, in September (1877)." 

Indeed, the following letter frop:1 Dr. Hood, of the Pension Office, so fully and clearly states the condition of the case that we adopt it as part of our report: 

Judge WALKER: (263784. E. F. CO,&BIN.) 

This man wa.s .a wreck from malarial poisoning. He died of pneumonia, which speedily proved fatal, no doubt on account of his debilitated condition. Yet, so far as I ca n see, the pneumonia bore no relation to the disease for which he was pensioned. So long as the. office adheres to decision 31, such a case as this must be rejected. 

NOVEMBER 5, 1881. . T. B. HOOD, Medical Referee. 

Mrs. Corbin is extremely poor, and your committee, not being bound to adhere to the decision referred to, feel not only justified but gratified that they are able to recommend the passage of the bill. 

The bill .was l~d aside to be reported favorably to the House. 

IRA M'NAIR. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 3613) 

granting a pension to Ira MeN air. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Ira McNair, late a private ~n Company D, 

Eighteenth Regiment Iowa Voluntee.rs. 

The report (by Mr. HOLMES) was read, as follows: 

Ira 1\fcNair enlisted as a. private in Company D, Eighteenth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and was discharged from the service on the 20th day of July,l865. In November or December, 1864, claimant was detailed to work in a bakery, where he baked bread for the hospital; in March, 1865,claimant avers that his eyes began to trouble him, and so continued to do as long as he re- mained in the service. The evidence shows that the bakery was a hot, dusty place. · At the pressnt time the claimant is nearly or quite blind, and there is no ques- tion that his eyes are in a very bad condition. His application before the Pen- sion Office was rejected on t.he ground that the disease of the eyes was contracted before he entered the service. This is the only question in the case. The evi- dence in regard to his freedom from any di:fficult.y with his eyes prior to entering the service is conflicting. More than a dozen witnesses testify that his eyesight was unimpaired and always good prior to his enlistment in the service. Two special examiners were sent out by the Government to look up the evidence in thecase. · Nearly or quite an equal number of affida'\"its of his former acquaintances, 

too, show that he had sore eyes fre..,uently before he enlisted, and some evi- dence showing that he was addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors to excess, al5o before enlistment; the evidence shows that since his discharge from the service, however, he has not used intoxicating liquors to excess. He is now almost totally blind, and in indigent circumstances. Granting that he may have been troubled to some extent with sore eyes prior to enlistment, yet his three years' service in the Army would, to say the least, aggravate such a disability, and a hot, dusty bakery would not be a good place to recover from a disability of this kind incipiently developed. Claimant has been steadily growing worse1 and is quite sure to be totally blind. He is reported by surgeon as disablea two-thirds on third grade. He is now unable to perform manual labor, and in view of the principle declared by this committee heretofore in regard to the rule of soundness on entering the service, we think that the Government, hav- ing accepted him and availed itself of his services for three years, should, under his present condition, and the evidence in relation theretO, grant him a pension 

subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension law, on account of disa.- bility: incurred in the service. 

There being no objection, the bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

JAMES BUCHANAN. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was a bill (H. R. 1862) 

for the increase of the pension of James Buchanan. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it en-acted1 .&c., That the Secretary of the Ihterior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and airected to increase the pension of James Buchanan, formerly of Company I, Thirty-first Regiment Ohio State Volunteers, to $24 per month, from and after the date of the passage of tb.is act. 

The report (by Mr. CULLEN) was read, as follows: 

It appears the petitioner enlisted February 21, 1865, and served as a. private in Company I, Thirty-first Ohio Volunteers, and was taken sick from exhaustion and overexertion during the march of his regiment from Goldsborough, N.C., to Petersburg, Va., on April 20,1865. He was honorably discharged July 2-0, 

1865; applied for pension August 17, 1869, on the ground that ever since the time he was taken sick in the .Army he ha.s been incapacitated for manual labor on account of inflammation of the bones of the right leg. His claim was barred under section 4717 Revised Statutes, limiting the time for completing the proof in applications for pensions to five years from date of the same. The soldier's services were proved by comrades and a commissioned officer. The proofs fur- nished by applicant show that he was under treatment by the regimental sur- geon. . Claimant was pensioned 1\'Ia.rch 6,1880, from March 1,1879, at $2 per month, for disease of bones and right leg (special act, approved March 1, 1879). Increase application filed April 4,1883, asking increase for disease of legs and results; re- jected .June!, 1883. WefindclaimanthasbeenexaminedthreedifferenttimessinceSeptember, 1879: First. By the examining board at Springfield, Ill., September 4, 1879 (Drs. Hen- ning, Lord, and Buck); t.bey certified to the disability as total; $8 per month. Second. By same board January 7,1880; disability same. Third. By the exam- ining board at Bloomington, Dl., May 2,1883 (Drs. Elder, Cole, and Luce); they found the disability to entitle claimant to a total rating. We recommend the passage of t.be bill, after amending by striking out the word" twenty-four," in line 6, and inserting the word" eight." 

The amenament was read, as follows: 

Strike out "twenty-four," and insert "eight." 

The amendment was agreed to; and the bill as amended was laid 

aside to be. reported to the House with the recommendation that it do 

pass. CAL YIN L. KNICK. 

The next business on the Prlvate Calendar was the bill (H. R. 1866) 

granting a pension to Calvin L. Knick. The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Calvin L. Knick, late a private in Company E, One htmdred and forty-fifth Regiment Illinois Volunteers. 

The report (by Mr. CULLEN) was read, as follows: 

Claimant enlisted May 26,1864, and was mustered into service as a private in, Company E, One hundred and forty-fifth Illinois Volunteers, June 9,1864; dis- charged September 23, 1864. It appears that he enlisted for and was in the service one hundred days, 

fifty-two of which were spent in hospital. He filed his declaration July 30,1875, 

alleging lung disease contracted on the ma.rch from Springfield to Rolla, M?·• in July, 1864. Rejected April 29,1878, upon the ground of no record and m - ability to furnish satisfactory evidence connecting alleged disability with the service. · Capt. Silas W. West (of claimant's company) testifies to claimant's having contracted disease of the lungs while on the march from Springfield to Rolla, 

1\fo., June 20,1864 (as claimant alleges). Affidavit filed August 15,1876. Captain · West further testifies in substance as above set forth. .Affidavit filed February 

4,1878. SINCE SRRVI~. 

Ed. D. Davis and J. L. Boucher, residents of Mackinaw, Til., well known to be reputable and entitled to credit, state, January 19, 1878, that they have been well and intimat-ely acquainted with claimant ever since he returned from the 
4464 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. MAY 23, 

Army; 1i ved near him, and know from personal knowledge that he came home 

from the Army with lung disease, and that he has been a. sufferer therefrom ever since. Dr. James E. Pa-rker, who has been a practicing physician for over thirty years, states August 11, 1879, residence Danvers Township, lllinois, commenced treatment for lung disea se October 6,1870, and continued ever since; also, claim- ant was treated by another physician before that time. Dr. G. D. Elder, residence same, states August 25, 1880, treated claimant for 

disease of I ungs February, 1880, and since, but not regularly. Dr. F. J. Parkhurst states, February 26,1881, that claimant has lung disease; no treatment. · Dr. Harvey Parkhurst, a resident of Danvers, Ill., states, October 27,1882, treatment for lung disease frequently from discharge to date. D. B. Sm ith, a resident of Danvers, Dl.:.t states, January 8, 1883, claimant came home Septembe1· 21,1864; lived with amant for one year after, and had lung 

trouble,. Claimant, when he arrived home, went immediately to the doctorsaying his lungs were affected. 

William Booth, comrade, a resident of Clinton, Ill., corroborates claimant's statement as t<> origin; also since discharge only able to work a. small pa.rtofthe 

time. · - William F. Hodge, Danvers, Dl., testifies to lung disea.ae ever since discharge. · Affidavit October 25, 1883. Dr. Selden M. Payne , a resident of Lexington, Ill., states, August 28,1883, that 

while claimant was on a visit to his father's (claimant's) in•August, 1864, he (affi- ant) was called professionally to treat claima.ntand found lung disease. Treated 

him about six weeks. Dr. W. E. Schenck, United States examining surgeon at Pekin, Ill., examined 

claimant September 6,1875, and reported his disability, lung disease, as entitling 

him to total pension, or $8 per month. Drs. W . B. Cole and H. C. Luce, examining board at Bloomington, Dl., exam- ined claimant- July 19, 1882, and reported his disability, lung disease, as entitling 

him to total pension, or $8 per month. We have had access to all the evidence and believe this case one of great 

merit, and therefore report in favor of the bill and recommend its passage, and 

ask to be discharged from the further consideration thereof. 

There being no objection, the bill was laid aside to be reported to 

the House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

ELIZABETH J. OOLBERT. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 3160) 

granting a pension to Elizabeth J . Colbert. · 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Elizabeth J. Colbert, widow of 

Joseph C. Colbert, late a private in Company K, One hundred and twenty-third 

Illinois Infantry Volunteers, said pension to take effect from the date of the 

death of her said late husband, Joseph C. Colbert. 

The report (by :Mr. CULLEN) ~as read, as follows: 

Petitioner is the widow of Joseph C. Colbert, late private of Company K, One 

hundred ann twenty-third Illinois Volunteers, who enlisted August 13, 1862, and was discharged December 18, 1862. His application for pension was fil~d Feb- ruary 9,1863, and he was pensioned from date of discharge,. at $:4 per month. Pension increased to $8 per month from December 21, 1869, tlll hiS death, September 26, 1874. 

Widow filed her application July 28, 1875. Claim rejected July 13, 1876, on the 

ground that the cause of death-paralysis-was not the result of the wound for 

which he was pensioned. The Adjutant-General's report shows the soldier to have been wounded in 

battle at Perryville, October 18, 1862. The certificate of disability upon which 

the soldier was discharged shows him to be unfit for duty on account of gun- shot wound of the lower !-aird of the right arm, fracturing the radius, produ.cing paralysis of the hand. Your com mittee find that the examining surgeon who last exa.mined the soldier found his arm to be paralyzed. The testimony of Dr. Thomas L. 1\Icl\Iorris, a resident of Cumberland, Dl. 

(whose reputation for truth and veracity is excellent), the attending physician at the time the soldier died, gives the Cl\use of death as pa.ralysis of the right side and says that "said paralysis was immediately developed by reason of a fall 'but that it would have developed itself sooner or later, independent of said 

fall' and as a result of the wound received in the service at Perryville, Ky., being a o-t':mshot wound, the large bone of the right arm, from the elbow down, h aving 

b:'en completely crushed, compelling its extraction. He was also severely 

wounded in the upper half of the same arm, so that the muscularJ>ortions thereof were mangled and partially torn away: that sa.id wounds left a constant numb- ness and deadness in the said right arru, side, and leg, which previous to said 

full was gradually developing into paralysis, and that said fall merely precipitated the final catastrophe; that such paralysis, superinduced as aforesaid, pro- duced the soldier's death; that the fall of itself need not have produced any such a serious result, and the soldier would have (undoubtedly) recovered had 

it not been for the pre-existing tendency to paralysis." 

This affiant was the soldier's physician previous to pis enlistment, as well as during his last illness. Your committee are of the opinion that the death cause was paralysis of the 

right arm, caused by th.e gunshot. w:ound. We therefore recommend the passa~e 

of the bill, after amendmg by stnkmg out all after the word "Volunteers," In line 8. 

The amendment was read, as follows: 

Strike out the words "said pension to take effect from the date of the death 

of her said late husband, Joseph C. Colbert." 

The amendment was agreed to; and the bill as amended was laid 

aside to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it do 

pass. LOUIS D. PETTY. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 5776) 

granting a pension to Louis D. Petty. 

The bill was read, a.'3 follows: 

. Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Inte:t:ior be, and he is her~by, ap- thorized and directed to place the name of Loms D. Petty, late a pnvate 1n Company-, Eighth Missouri Volunteer Cavalry, on the pension-roll, sul:)ject to tbe provisions and limitations of the pension laws. 

The report (by Mr. FYAN) was read, as follows: 

That Louis D. Petty enlisted in Company E, Eighth Missouri Volunteer Cav- alry, on the 12th day of July, 186~, at Webster County, Missouri, lJ,nd was are- markably stout, healthy, able-bod1ed man. 

That on or about the 1st of September, 1863, in Arkansas, while in line of 

duty, he was shot by the enemy and wounded in two places-one wouad below 

left hip, the other just under left shoulder· blade. These fact.s, and also the fact 

that he was carried to and remained in hospital under treatment for several 

weeks, are sworn to by two of his comrades, the second lie utenant of his com- pany, the lieutenant-colonel commanding the regiment, the surgeon ofthe regiment, and others; all of whom testify they know the same of their own per- sonal knowledge. Petty afterwards remained in service, but was always put on light duty, being unfit for any other kind. 

When discharged he went back to his home in Webster County, Missouri, and 

his neighbors, whose reliability is established beyond question, swear they saw him two or three times a week, and that frequently his wounds rise a nd brealilf 

and sometimes come near killing him, and that he is unable to make a living 

bywork. ' Dr. N.H. Hampton, an old an experienced physician and surgeon of more than thirty years' experience, swears that he examined said Petty ; that the 

wound under left shoulder-blade is serious, and in moving left hand produces a grating sound; that there is a. defect in left hip from ball entering upper part 

of glutreus maximus muscle and lodging near head of femur, rendering him 

unable to perform more than half manual labor. E. B. Brown, examining surgeon at Ozark, .1\Io., in 1880, and I. H. Fulbright, 

examining surgeon at same pla.ce in 1881, describe the wounds in a similar man- ner. 

This man made his original application for pension September 17, 1874, and it was rejected in February, 1884. He has struggled along trying to keep a large 

family of small children together, but is now prostrate on a bed ofsicknessand 

without money or property. Your committee recommend that the bill be amended by inserting the letter "E" after the word "Company," in the fifth line, and that the bill so amended 

do pass. 

The amendment wa.s read, as follows: 

Insert" E" after word" Company." 

The amendment was agreed to, and the bill as ~mended was laid . 

aside to be reported to the House with the recommendation it do pass. 

. JA..MES HAWKINS. 

· The next business on. the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 2358) 

granting a pension to James Hawkins. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized a.nd directed t-o plaee the name of James Hawkins on the pension-roll, 

subject to the limitations and provisions of the pension laws. 

The report (by Mr. FYA.N) was read, as follows: 

James Hawkins was a servant of the colonel of the Third Regiment United 

States Reserve Corps1l\1issouri Volunteers. On or about the 16th day of July, 1861, a portion of said regrment became engaged with the enemy at or near the town of Fulton, Callaway County, Missouri. The confederates largely outnumbering the Federal forces, the colonel of said Third Regiment ordered that all men, "whether' soldiers or not, be made available, and to that end ordered sa.id James Hawkins to be supplied with arms, ammunition, and accouterments, and to be 

put in the line with the skirmishers, wh0 were then thrown forward to feel the enemy; and while so engaged said Hawkins received two wounds, one of them being a wound in t he thigh of one of his legs, described as being" at forepa rt of upper third of right thigh," the second wound, in the pit. of the stoma-ch, ap- pan:ntly penetrating the a bdominal cavity, causing severe pains a.nd inflamma - tory symptons. · These facts are sworn to by the colonel of the regiment; also .by W. A. Ha- quemborg, captain of Company E in said regiment, and whose company was immediately behind the skirmish line, and who saw Hawkins when he fell, and 

shortly after ex amined the wounds. Dr. Philip T. Weigel, who was captain of Company F, Third Regiment Re- i!erve Corps,l\Iissouri Volunteers, and a n eminent surgeon, swears he was pres- ent and dressed the wounds on the ground and afterward treated him in hospital. 

The colonel a nd two captains mentioned testify Hawkins behaved most gallantly. One of the balls is still in the body of Hawkins, and his wounds are of 

such a chara.cter as to render him totally unable for hard manual labor a nd fre- quen tly from any kind of work. He is now old and has nothing, but is maintained by his old colonel, who will not permit him to suffer. • Your committee find that this brave man can get no pension under the laws as they exist, and therefore recommend that the bill pa-ss. 

There being no objection, the bill was laid aside to be reported to the 

House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

GEORGE ZIEFLE. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 5960) 

granting a pension to George Zie.fle. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, 

authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions 

and limitations of the pension laws, the name of George Ziefle, of Livingston 

County, State of Missouri. • 

The report (by Mr. FYAN) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, having had under oonsideration House bill No. 5960, make the following report: 

George Ziefle, a citizen of Livingst.Qn CountyhMissouri, before and since the war, enlisted in a company of mounted men t at were organized by General 

Fisk, of the Unite d States Army, whose headqua1·ters was at Saint Joseph, in 

said State. Said company was commanded by A. J. Stewart; said company was armed and fed , while on duty, by the United States Government. . ·on the 28th d ay of July, 1864, the company of which he was a member was ordered to march and attack a c,ompany ofrcebel bushwhackers in Carroll County, 

Missouri. They left Chillicothe, the county seat of Livingston County, at 2 o'clock p.m., haltingtbatnighton the north line of Carroll County and cam red, 

leaning their guns against a board fence. About 2 or 3 o ' clock next morning 

the compa ny, by the said commander, was ordered to move on the enemy. When Zietl.e took hold of his gun, his horse being fractious, pulled back, and 

the hammer of his gun caught on a board of the fence, and the gun was discharged, the entire contents, nine la,rge buckshot, going into his left shoulder 

and armpit. These facts are sworn to by Ziefle himself, and Elkannah M. Hereford, a com- rade who was by his side when the discharge took place, and who was detailed to take Ziefle back to Chillicothe, which he did in an ambulance. Dr. Thomas W . McAuthor, who treated Zietl.e, certifies to the character of the wound, and 

that he extracted two of the buckshot, some clothing, and several pieces of bone. 

Judge Clark, formerly judge of the seventeenth circuit of Missouri; James Wright, cler k of t.he circuit court; J ohn R. Middleton, clerk of the county cou rt; 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4465 

the county col1ector, probate judge, and the editor of the Chillicothe Tribune, 

and other citizens, all of Livingston County~ Missouri, certify to substantially 

the same facts, and also that Ziefle spent all nis means in trying to be relieved 

by surgical and medical treatment in Saint Lonis, California, and other places; 

that, by reason of said wound, he is totally unable to work; and, to add to his 

misfortunes, his wife, while attending him while confined with said wound. in 

arranging the window blinds of his sick chamber, fell out ofthe window, a dis- tance of some ten feet, and thereby so injured her leg that it had to be amputated. 

Ziet!.e has always borne a good character, and has always had the reputation 

of a good citizen, and sober, industrious man. His aisabilities grew out of his 

efforts to preserve the Union, and while in the line of duty as a soldier. As he was not regularly in the United States service the pension law makes no pro- visions for his case, but is as meritorious and deserving as if he had· been regu- larly mustered into the United States service. Your committee therefore recommend the bill do pass. 

There being no objection, the bill was laid aside to be reported to the 

H<'use with the recommendation tha~ it do pass. 

JOHN ALLEE. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 2378) 

restoring to the pension-roll the name of John Allee. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to restore to the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of John Allee, formerly of Company 

K, Twenty-second Regiment Indiana Volunteers. 

The report (by Mr. FYAN) was read, as follows: 

That John Allee enlisted in Company K, Twenty-second Regiment Indiana 

Volunteers, on 14th of July, 1861, and at that time was a strong, robust lna.n. 

That on the lOth day of August, 1861, he had a severe attack of measles, which 

.settled in his hip, resulting in an abscess. 

After suffering in hospital for two months he returned to regiment, but was unfit for duty. In a word, he contracted hip disease, which totally rendered him 

unfit for duty as a soldier and left the hip stiff, lame, and painful, and him 

almost unable to walk. He was discharged from the United States service on the 26th day of Decem- ber, 1862. 

The evidence is voluminous that from that time up. to the present date 

Allee has been incapacitated for labor. As late as the 14th day of March, 1884, Dr. W. M .. Cox and Dr. J. G. Wright, physicians and surgeons of the highest 

,standing and of many years' experience in their profession, swear they have 

known him, Allee, for twelve years; that he is incapacitated for manual labor 

.by reason of a disease of the hi):rjoint, resulting from an abscess; that he has 

been continuously lame all the time and frequently confined to his bed for days. 

Being without means and unable to work, and having been reduced to this 

condition bydiseasecontractedintheservice of his Government, your commit- tee recommend the bill do pass. 

There being no objection, the bill was laid asideto be reported to the 

House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

MARY MOltRIS HUSBAND. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 5894) 

-granting a pension to Mrs. Mary Morris Husband. 

The bill is as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and is hereby, authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll the name of Mary !\'!orris Husband, :a. volunteer nurse in the late war, giving her the sum of $25 a month from and .aft~r the passage of this act. 

Mr. MATSON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading 

<1f the report in that case since it is quite lengthy, and embodies anum-

:t>er of letters of recommendation and indorsement from various distinguished persons. The evidence is clearly set forth in the report 

that she rendered valuable services as a nurse in the h~itals, and her :application for a pension is indorsed by a large number of persons, . among them the president of the United States Sanitary Commission, 

Rev. Alonzo Potter, bishop of Pennsylvania, ex-Governor Hartranft, of 

Pennsylvania, Governor Curtin, and others. It will be seen from an .examination of the report that some :fifteen or twenty persons unite in 

Teoommending her pension. I hope, therefore, that the · reading may 

be dispensed with byunanimous consent, and the reportprinted in the .RECORD. 

There wa.s no objection. The report is as follows: 

1t1r. MATSON, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, submitted the following report: 

That at the commencement of the late war Mrs. Mary Morris Husband was a lady of good education and family, in the possession of ample means, and a resident of Philadelphia, Pa., who, when the Government was taxed to its utmost .capacity to relieve the wants of the sick and wounded Federal soldiers, gave up ;the comforts of home and devoted her whole time and means to the relief of the 

sick and wounded soldiers in the hospitals, in camp, and on the battlefields; 

'in fact, going wherever suffering was to be relieved, regardless of danger to her 

health or person. About one year of service was given to the Philadelphia. hos- p~t~l ;lilld three years~ the field, either on hospital transports, or as matron of 

-diviSion or corps hospitals. 

JohnS. Jamieson, M. D., of Hornellsville, N.Y., February 11. 1884, says: "I was surgeon of the Eighty-sixth Reigment New York Volunteers and was chief surgeon of the Third Division, Third Army Corps, and well reme:Uber 

Mary l'tL Husband, and know that she was hospital nurse of said division from 

-the fore part of December,1863, until about A.pril15, 1864, near Brandy Station." H. B. Fowler, M.D., of Bristol, N.H., says, January 17,1884: "I am 9:cquainted with Mary M. Husband, who was a nurse in the Union ~my durmg the wa~; that ~he was with the Third Army Corps, of which I was In .charge of the hosp1tal d urmg the battle of Chancellors ville, May 3, 1863; that 

.sa14 Mary M. J;Iusband rendered valuable services and was untiring in her devotion to the sick and wounded; that I saw her ofiEln after the battle and while 

..she was in charge of the sick and wounded of said Third Division, Third Army 

.C?rps; ~hat I sa:w her sev~ral times afterward, and in 1864, while she was at .C1ty Pomt Hosp1ta.l, at whtch place she was on duty sometimes." 

XW--280 

R. V. K. Montfort, M.D., of Newburg, N.Y., February 12, 1884, says: "~was in the service of the United States as .a surge~mfrom Sept-ember 5,1262, 

until the close of the war, and was well acq uamted w1th Mrs. Mary Morris Hus- ba~d; that I first formed her acquaintance at the field hospital of Third Division, 

Third Corps, Army of the Potomac, near Falmouth, Vv.., where she served as hospital matron for seveml weeks in the spring and summer of 1863, after the 

battle of Chancellors ville. The services there were of great yalue to the wounded men. Also knew her to be connected with the field hospital of Third Division, 

Sixth Army Corps, Army of the Potomac, at or near Brandy Station, Va., in the 

winter of 1863-'64., and frequently saw her while on duty at that place. Also 

knew her to be employed at the depot for sick and wounded at City Point., Va., 

during the operations before Petersburg, in 1864-'65, and frequently saw her 

there; knew her to be faithful and untiring in the discharge of her duties, and 

believes her to have been one of the most efficient of ·all the volunteer lady nurses, and that her services were such as to entitle her to a favorable consideration of her claim." · 

John A.. Douglass, M. D.hof Amesbury, Mass., says, March 11,1884: "I was surgeon Elevent Regiment Massachusetts Volunteers, and was well 

acquainted with Mrs. Mary Morris Husband, a nurse' at the front' in the late 

civil war; ·at Gettysburg, Pa., during the month of July,1863, while she was on duty nunJing the confederate wounded, who were cared for by the Third Corps aft~r the battle at that place; t·hat I was put in charge of the same station, and 

thus had ample opportunity to know of Mrs. Husband's work as nurse; that 

she was kind, faithful, and skillful in her management of the wounded, unre- mittin~ in her labors, sparing herself neither night nor day wheneYer there was anything she could do to relieve the sufferings of the wounded and sick; that I saw her subsequently1 and know she was thoroughly devoted to her work of 

caring for and relievmg suffering soldiers wherever found and of whatever 

color, whether 'blue' or 'gray;' that no one can undergo the watching, anxiety, 

labor, and deprivations through which Mrs. Husband passed, simply to aid her 

country and relieve the suffering soldiers, without effects being left on her sys- tem that would impair her health and strength in after years." 

Frederick N. Knapp, of Plymouth, Mass., says, March 20,1884: ''In the winter of 1862, as officer in charge of the special relief work of the 

United State~ Sanitary Commission, I appointed l'tlrs. l'tlary Morris Husband to serve as relief agent of the commission at Camp Parole, and in this capacity she 

performed arduous and valuable service with the same devotion of .spirit and rare executive .ability which gave such efficiency to her work for the soldiers 

during the long years of the war." · 

The following extract from Frank Moore's Women of the War, published 

in 1866, page 314, shows the self-sacrificing devotion of Mrs. Mary Morris Hus- band to the cause of the Union : ''In the summer of 1862 our national affairs assumed a darker phase than ever before, and the demands of a bleeding and endangered country were brought 

home as earnestly to the self-sacrificing spirit of women aM to the courage and 

patriotism of men. About the 1st of .July Dr. Hexon was sent on a hospital 

transport from Philadelphia to bring away a load of ·the sick from Harrison's 

Landing, and Mrs. Husband w~nt with him. From this time till the close of the war and the disbanding of the regiments in .June, 1865, a period of three years, Mrs. Husband was constantly in service, and for a larger portion of the time 

laboriously occu.v.ied in a great number of different hospitals. She made three 

trips to Harrison s Landing and labored in the manner elsewhere fully described 

in an account of the hospital-transport service. In the latter part of August she 

took temporary charge of the National Hospital at Baltimore, while the matron, 

who was sick, was recovering, and saw it!! wards filled and overt!.owing with 

the groaning and mutilated results of the second battle of Bull Run and the 

tights of Chantilly and South Mountain. "Aft~r two or three weeks thus spent in scenes of horror and agony, striving 

by constant labors to assuage a part of such immense suffering, and to rob the 

amputation-room of some of its terrors, the matron, whose place she was tilling, resumed her former dutieS, and Mrs. Husband proceeded at once to Smoketown 

hospital0here some of the sufferers from the great field of Antietam were collected. Hero she remained two months and labored, not in any position of 

command or superiority, but doing the '\"ery things that others had left undone 

and given over to some utt~rly unselfish and truly noble character like Mrs. Husband . "Numerous letters from all parts of the country, from soldiers who were the 

recipients of her care and attention in the hospitals and on the battle-fields of 

the Army of the Potomac, attest in feeling terms the devotion of this heroic woman to the relief of the suffering soldiery." 

The evidence before this committee of the long and valuable service of l\hs. 

Mary Morris Husband is shown by letters from H. '\V. Bellows, D. D., president 

United States Sanitary Commission; Alonzo Potter, bishop of Pennsylvania; 

George H. Stuart, president Christian Commission; J. F. Hartranft, ex-governor of Pennsylvania; E. R. Biles, colonel Ninety-ninth Pennsylvania Volunteers 

and brigadier-general in the volunteer service; General I. T. Owens; Surg. L . W.. Hixon, in charge of John Brooks hospital transport; Surg. P. Vanderkeift, 

in charge of- Antietam hospital; Surg. E. G. Marshall, in charge of Third Division, Third Corps, hospital; Surg. A.. B. Hassur, in charge of Camden street hospital, Baltimore ; Chaplain C. I. Bowen, in charge of Camden street hospital, 

Baltimore; Chaplain I. 0. Sloan, in charge of Antietam hospital; L. H. St-iner, 

chief inspector United States Sanitary Commission; Hon. A. G. Curtin, ex-gov- ernor of Pennsylvania and a member of the present House of Representatives, 

and numerous orders for transportation and passes . 1\hs. Mary Morris Husband is a granddaughter of Robert l\Iorris, one of the 

signers of the Declaration of Independence, whose financial abilitycontribnted 

much to the achievement of our national independence in the R~volutionary 

war, and is a lady of high character. She received no compensation for her 

service, and was frequently called upon to pay the cost of her transportation 

and subsistence, besides constantly contrtbuting of her own means for therelief of sick and wounded soldiers, in this way expending at least $2,000 during her service to the Government. Since the war she has lost by misfortune her 

property, her husband, and by a fall upon the ice has broken h~r hip, and is now 1n advancing age thrown entirely upon her own resources for a livelihood, and 

is a confirmed cripple. The Forty-seventh Congress, first session, passed a special act placing the name of l\'1rs. Elizabeth Leebrich, a nurse, on the pension-roll. (See 22 United 

States Statutes a.t Large, page 730.) At the second session of the same Congress, 

by act approved March 2, 1883, the name of Miss Amanda Slopes, a nurse, was placed on the pension-roll. (See 22 United States Statutes at Large, page 803.) Your committee is advised that a number of other cases have been passed by previous sessions of Congress since the war. In view of the distinguished service of this lady, and the value of her serv- ic~s to the Government, and the precedents established by Congress, your com- mittee unhesitatingly recommend the passage of the accompanying bill. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. What is the amount of pension recom-

.mended? 

Mr. MATSON. Twenty-five dollars per month . 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recom- mendation that it do pass . 

") 

J- , 
4466 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 23,. 

MAJ. W. W. FRYBARGER. 

The next business on the Privare Calendar was the bill (H. R. 4379) 

for the relief of Maj. W. W. Frybarger. .... 

The bill is as follows: · Be it enad.ed, &e., Tha:t the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is. hereby, au- thorized and directed to put Maj. W. W. Frybo.rger, of Connersville, Ind., on the pension-roll at the rate of $50 per month; said pension to begin at the date of the approval of this act, a.nd to be in lieu of a.ll other pensions granted the 

said Frybarger. 

The report (by Mr. MATSoN) is as follows: 

The Committee on In valid Pensions, to whom wa.s referred the bill (H. R. 4379} granting a. pension toW. W. Frybarger, submit the following report: 

That William W. Frybarger was mustered into the military service of tb.e United States August 2<1, 1861, a.s captain Third Battery Indiana. Light Artillery, 

being the first battery that left the State of India no. for the seat of war in the. . South. November 30,1861, he was commissioned a.s major of the First Indiana. Artillery, and was commissioned colonel First Indiana Artillery April25, 1863, and honorably discharged from the military service of the United States March 

29;£~· on or about the 16th of May, 1862, during the advance on Corinth, Miss., and while inspecting the Indiana artillery, under the special order of Maj. Gen. George H. Thomas, passing along the line of divisions in performance of his duties his horse became frightened and unmanageable, and he was violently throwh to the ground, causing severe injury of the epine and double rupture. William J'. Pepper, M.D., of Connersville1 Ind.,. testifies that he has been the family physician of,Villiam W. Frybarger smce1859, and that he was free from hernia. and spinal disease prior to his enlistment in the military service of the United States. On his arrival home from the Army a.ftiant was called upon to treat him professionally for hernia. and spinal affection. Elisha. Prichard, Charles E. Mayer, and Amos Kinder testify that they were members of the Fourteenth Indiana. Battery, and are acquainted with William w. Frybarger, who was major of the First Indiana. Light Artillery, and that on or about the 18th day of May, 1862, while near Corinth, Miss., they saw William w. Frybarger riding rapidly from the direction of Major-General Halleck's head- quarters toward the front, where the Indiana batteries were at the time, and while in view of the affiant was violently thrown to the ground from his horse while passing an lllinois regiment. , L. R. Johnson testifies that he was assistant surgeon Forty-first Indiana Vol- unteere, and that in Mayh1862, he met William W. Frybarger in company with Governor Morton at the ea.dquarters o Colonel McCook, and knew him to be in the service. A fortnight afterward, while on his way home, affiant met William W. Fryba.rger on board a. steamboat on the Tennessee River, suffering from injuries received in the military aervice, at'l aftlant believes; he was suffer- ing with pain in the be.ck, and WM greatly prostrated, the result evidently of injury to the spine. Has eeen him at short intervals since that time, and has no doubt his present disability is the result of injuries received while in the eervice. H. F. Barnes, M. D.t ~ys that be was one of the additional surgeons at the siege of Corinth, during wnich:period Willia.m W. Frybarger was so seriously injured in the spinal region by bemg thrown from his horse; that his injuries were of a. permanent character, and might eventually terminate in paralysis ofthe lower 

~xtremities. 

D. D. Hall, M.D., of Connersville, Ind., says. July 7, 1862: "Maj. W. W. Frybarger of the First Artillery Indiana Volunteers, having ap- plied for a. certificate on which to ground an application for leave of absence, I do hereby certify tba.t I ba.ve carefully examined this officer and find that he is entirely unfit for duty in consequence of an injury received at Corinth, about the 24th day of April, 1862, from a. fall from his horse, which produced an injury of the spine which still renders him unable for duty; and I further declare my belief tba.t he will not be able to resume his duties in a. less period tba.n thirty 

days. Said officer at this time is not able to travel without seriously endangering his life." • At the expiration of the leave of absence Major Frybarger reported at In- dianapolis, Ind., and was advised by Dr. Bobbs, then chief surgeon on duty at tba.t place to resi~n, on the ground that he was totally unfit for service in the field. But at the msta.nce of Governor Morton he remained in the service, being, by a. special order from the War Department, directed to ~port to Gov- ernor Morton, by whom he was, on the 18th of August, 1862, assigned to staff duty as a.n instructor of artillery and superintendent of the recruiting for tba.t arm of the military service in Indiana. On the 24th of March, 1876, the name of Major Frybarger was placed on the pension-roll at the rate of. 18.75 per- month, on account of scrotal hernia. and dis- ease of spine, which was subsequently increased to $25 per month. S. W. Vance, 1\1. D., of Connersville, Ind., United States pension examining sur- geon who examined Major Fryb&rger pending his application for pension, re- ports' him laboring under double reducible or veutro-inguinal hernia, the hernia. forming two tumors about the size of large hen-eggs, and a. soreness along the spinal column, especially over the lumbar vertebra. May 10, 1877, Major Fryb&rger was examined by Rufus Hammond, M.D., United States examining surgeon, for an increase of pension, who reports double scrotal hernia. and injury of the spine from a. fall of his horse, tbrowin~ him Qver his head, upon his back, near Corinth, Miss. There is constant pain m the base of the skull, with tenderness of the spine, and partial paralysis of the right 

leg, so that he walks with some difficulty. On the 18th of May, 1880, William W. Fryb&rger was again examined by S. W. Vance, M.D., of Connersville, Ind., pension examining surgeon, wb.o says: "This applicant is laboring under a double reducible inguinal hernia.. The tumor of the left side is double the size of a small goose-egg, while tba.t of the right side is abou~ the size of a hen's egg. He wears a. truss upon the right or lesser tumor, which he states gives him the roost trouble." On the 8th of February, 1882, Major Frybarger was examined by Drs. J. S. Beck, J. M. Wessner, and Dunlap, constituting the board ofUniteQ. States pen- sion examining surgeons, at Dayton, Ohio, who report: "Double hernia. (inguinal) complete. Complains of acute pain over almost entire course of dorsal vertebra. No curvature. Enlargement of joints of fin- gers, both hands; tongue t:ed and somewhat fissured; abdome~ enlarged and tympantic over lower portiOn. Alleges to have frequent and VIolent attacks. Seems to be entirely broken down and used up, although able to go about and 

wait upon himself." · On the 3d of ~lay, 1882, the application for additional increase wa.s rejected by the Pension Office on the ground that claimant was receiving the full amount of 

pension to which he is entitled under the law. Your committee find, from the voluminous evidence in tbie case, that Major 

Frybarger .is totally disabled; and in view of the long service rendered, and the long and painful suffering experienced n.s a resul~ of the ioj uries recei~e~ in the line of his duty, therefore recommend that the b1ll be amended by striking out tho word "fifty," in line 5, and inserting "forty," and when so amended that the bill do pass. 

The amendment recommended by the committee was agreed to. 

The bill as amended was laid aside to be :reported to the House with 

the recommendation that it do pass. 

MRS. SAMANTHA. HARRIMAN. 

The next business on the Privare Calendar was the bill (H. R. 5485)' 

granting a. pension to Ml-s. Samantha Harriman. 

The bill is as follows: 

Be it enacted, &e., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll the name of Mrs. Samantha- Harriman, widow of Maj. Isaac M. Mar, late of the Nineteenth Regiment of In- diana. Volunteers, subject to the provistons and limitations of the pension laws. SEc. 2. That this act shall take effect from and after its passage. 

The report (by Mr. MATSON) is as follows: 

Tba.t Isaac M. May entered the service as a captain in the Nineteenth Indiana. Regiment Infantry Volunteers, on the 29th day of July 1861., and that be was promoted to the rank of major February 5, 1862, and kill;d a.t the battle of Gaines- ville, Va.., August 28, 1862, leaving as his widow Samantha. May, also one child (Isaac E. May) ; that said widow made application for a pension, which was. granted her, and which she continued to receive until the year 1865, when she intermarried with one Milton N. Harriman, at which time her name was dropped from the pension-roll. The said Harriman died in the year 1872, leaving the said Samantha his widow and also leaving to her care the said Isaac E. May, offspring of her first husband (said Isaac M . 1\Ia.y), and two children by her seoond husband (said Milton N. Harriman}, and that she by her own industry provi~ for, educated, and reared said children, although in very limited circumstances, her entire worldly 

possessions being only three or four hundred dollars, and that she is an upright and worthy woman in every respect. 

Also, that Albert G. Porter, governor of the State of Indiana., ex-Senator Joseph E. McDonald, all the State officers of Indiana., and a large number of the very best citizens ba.ve joined in a petition praying for the passage of this net. Tbar, there a.re a. number of precedents establishing and justifying legislation of this chara.cter. In view of all the facts in the case, your committee respectfully recommend the passage of the bill. 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recom- mendation that it Q.o pass. 

"ROBERT J. EBBERMAN. 

Mr. HATCH, of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 

to take up the bill (H. R. 891) granting a. pension to Robert J. Ebber- man out of its order, which I send to the desk. I will stare to thecommitree that this. bill was delayed in the Committee on Invalid Pensions because of the difficulty of getting the papers at the Pension 

Office. It is a very meritorious case, and I ask the courtesy of thecommitree to take it up now and consirler it. 

There was no objection. 

The bill is as follows: 

Be it enad.ed, &e., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and: limitations of the pension laws, the name of Robert J. Ebberman, of Macon, 

Mo., late colonel of the Sixty-second Missouri Regiment Volunteers. .Amend the titie so as to read: "A billgrantinga. pension to Reuben J. Ebber- - man." 

Mr. HATCH, of Missouri. I ask unanimous consent to dispensewith the reading of the report and that it be prinred in the RECORD, alB· 

it is quire lengthy. I will state in a moment its substance. Thiscase was pending before the Commissioner of Pensions, and it was rejected 

solely upon the ground that the applicant, although he bad been in the- service for three years or more, had not been regularly mustered into 

the service of the United States. He was kept in command of some State organization all duringthewar, occupying such positions aschiei 

ordnance officer, provost-marshal, and positions oi that character, under 

the Federal authorities, however, all the time, but he was not regularly 

musrered into the United States service. 

It is a verj meritorious case, and the Commissioner of Pensions would 

have granted it except tor the reason that he was not mustered in, and'. 

technically under the law the pension could not be granred by theoffice. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. He was not musrered in, as I understand? 

Mr. HATCH, of Missouri. No, sir; but there is no question of the, incurrence of the disability. The Pension Office is to fix therati.Dg. 

Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. The disability occurred, as I understand, 

while in the Stare service? 

Mr. HATCH, of Missouri. Not only in the Stare service, but he, ·served under the United States authorities. I ask that the report be 

printed in the RECORD. 

The report (by Mr. FY AN) is as follows: 

That Reuben J. Ebberma.n was commissioned colonel Sixty-second Regiment . Enrolled Missouri Militia August 4, 1863, to rank from September 3, 1862, and was honorably discharged March 12, 1865. June 4,1880, be filed a declaration for pension, alleging "that while colonel oi the organization aforesaid in the service, and in the line of his duty, and while with a portion of his regiment stationed at Brookfield, Linn County, Missouri, on or about the month of October1

18&.l, he contracted rheumatism in his limbs. and body, which became chronic,' which was rejected December 22,1882, on the ground that he was not mustered into the military service of the United States, and the claim not having been filed prior t.o July 4,1874. That at the commencement of the late war Colonel Ebberma.n was a. practicing lawyer at Macon City, Mo., a.nd when it became known that the conflict oi arms was to be fought out, Colonel Ebberman espoused the Union cause in Mis- souri, and from the 1st day of August, 1861, up to the date of his commission as colonel of the Sixty-second Regiment Enrolled Missouri Militil\, be devoted his entire time to the recruiting of troops for the Federal Army, and by his personal popularity where he was known contributed greatly to the augmenting of the Unjon forces, and the loyal sons of:rJUssourirecruited byhim were represented in the ranks of nearly all the regiments of that State and upon the field of almost every battle of the Southwest during the war. The men thus recruited by him were sent to Benton Barracks, at Saint Louis, for the Federal service o.nd for- different regiment.'3 of t.he State service, under orders from Governor Go.mble. While in command of the Federal force guarding the bridges and building:-
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4467 

block-houses on the line of the Hannibal and Saint Joseph Railroad, and scout- ing in the counties of Macon, Shelby, Randolph, and Linn, he performed in- valuable service to the cause of the Union. In November, 1862, he was appointed assistant provos~marshal for Macon County by F . .A.. Dick, United States provost-marshal-general, and performed the difficult duties of that position until May 13, 1863, as will be seen by the fol- lowing order relieving him from that position : 

[Special Order No. 74.] 

HEADQ.UARTEBS ~ARTMENT OF THE MissoURI, 0Fli'ICE PROVOST-1r!ARSHAL-GENERAL, 

Baint Louis, Mo., May 13, 1863. 

Col. R. J. Ebberman, E. M . M., is hereby relieved from duty as assistant pro- vost-marshal for Macon County, Missouri, and wjll turu over to his successor, Thomas Craupton, Second Cavalry, Missouri State Militia, all public property, recordst books, papers, and other matters of his office, take receipt therefor, and 

forwaru one to thiS office. 

• • • • • • • 

By command of Major-General Curtis. F. A. DICK, 

Lieutena.nt-Oolonel and Proro&t-Marshal-General. 

Colonel EBBERHAN, 

Macon Oily, Mo. 

· Immediately on being relieved from the duties of assistant provost--marshal he entered upon the duties of ordnance officer for the eighth military district, to which he had been assigned by the following order: 

II:EADQ.UARTERS STATE OF MISSOURI, 

Al>.JuTANT-GENERAL'S OF'FICE, 

Baint Louis, May 7,1863. 

CoLONEL: .As ordnance officer, acting under special order from Brigadier-Gen- eral Barthalow, you are charged with the custody of all the arms that may be ordered to the two points, namely, Macon City and Hannibal, in compliance 

with my instructions from the commander-in-chief. You will cause all the arms to be overhauled immediately upon their arrival at these two points, causing careful accounts to be kept of the kind and condi- tion of them, and to this end you will employ two careful and competent men, one at ea,ch point, to attend to the duty under your supervision. You will make a weekly report to me, at these headquarters, of the number of arms on hand and received during the preceding week, their condition, &c., and await instructions as to their disposition from these headquo.rters. 

.Any further instructions will be furnished you on application at State head- quarters, Saint Louis. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, WILLI.A.M D. WOOD, 

ColoneL and .A. D. a., Ohuf 04-ualry and Itl8pecting Ojficer. 

Colonel EBBERHAN, · Ordnance Ojfteer. 

Colonel Ebbermo.n held this resP<>nsible position until July, 1864, when he was relieved, and assigned to the recruiting service again by the governor of the State, and had organized a number of companies for the Forty-second Regiment, 

when he was ordered into active service in the field with his regiment to repel the last raid of General Price into Missouri. James M. Holman, Macon City, Mo., testifies, June 'l/1, 1881: "That he wasa.djntantofthe Sixty-second Regiment Enrolled Missouri Mili- tia; that be was well acquainted with Colonel Ebberman in the Army; was with a part of his regiment at Brookfield, Mo., in October, 1864, at which place be remembers that claimant was sick and unable to attend to his duties, and at his request made out the pay-rolls for himl while he was con!:ined to his bed t 

they were then in active service of the Umted States, and the sanitary condi- tions of Brookfield are very bad." 

Jeptha D. Banta, Da.rksville, Randolph County, Missouri, testifies, April 25, 1881: . - "He was captain Company B, Sixty-second Regiment Enrolled Missouri Mili- tia, and was personally well acquainted with claimant in the service j knew him to be a man of good, sound, physical health until the fall of 1864, wnen he oon- tracted rheumatism ; remembers very distinctly seeing him on crutches as late as the spring ofl865." 

Lewis Heeyl, New Cambria., Mo., testifies June 17,1881: " That he was first lieutenant Company B, Sixty-second Regiment Enrolled Missouri Militia; was stationed with said company at Callas, Mercer County1 Missouri, in October, 1864; was on the platform at the depot at said place, ana saw claimant returning from Brookfield, Mo., who informed him that he had contracted rbeumatism1 and was thereby unable to perform his duties; saw him frequently after this during the following year,and know that he was so badly disabled as to use crutches in consequence of said rheumatism." Dr. John Clarke, Seneca, Newton County,l\lissouri, testifies, June 17,1881: "That he was surgeon of Colonel Ebberman's regiment. In the year 1864 he was with a part of the regiment at Macon City, 1\!o. The colonel with his com- mand was at Brookfield, Mo. Assistant Surgeon Dr. Scroggin was with him. Claimant returned to Macon City, Mo., sick, in the fall of 1864; remembers see- ing him on crutches after he was 'able to come out.' " Dr. John C. Scrogf?in, Bevier, Macon County, Milssouri, testifies, July 17,1881: '' That he is a. phystclan, and has been in the practice of medicine for the past 

thirty years. In the war of1861-'65 he was appointed assistant surgeon of the Sixty-second Regiment Enrolled Missouri Mihtia, by Colonel Ebberman, of said regiment, but did not receive his commission. In the fall of the year 1864 he was ordered by claimant to go to Brookfield to attend the sick soldiers of said regiment. C!a.imantwas in command of the post at that place. On or about the 5th day of October, 18&!, claimant contracted rheumatism, caused, be be- lieves, by sleeping on the damp ground without proper camp_ equipage; affiant treated him for said disability. He frequently saw him that fall, and knows of his personal knowledge that he was unable to perform any kind of labor." The reputation of the above witness certified to be good. In a. subsequent 

affidavit Dr. Scroggin says: "He knows that claimant has been greatly aftiicted with rheumatism ever since he contracted the same; saw him frequently every year since." N. B. Warner, Ten Miles, ?..lacon County, :rtfissouri, whose reputation is certi-. tied by the postmaster to be the best of any man in the township where he lives, testifies, May 14,1881: "That he was captain of Company L, Sixty-second Regiment Enrolled Mis- souri Militia, and personally well acquainted with claimant, and knows that he was severely a.fii.icted with rheumatism many months after he first con- tracted said disease." Dr. Edward C. Still, Macon City, Mo., who is certified bytheclerkof the Macon County court to be a reputable witness, and a physician of long practice, testi- fies, June 17,1881: "That he has been claimant's family physician ever since he returned to Ma- con City from Brookfield; that claimant has been confined to his bed a number of times, and has been affiicted more or less all the time ever since he first con- tracted said rheumatism; the disease has long since become chronic, and has greatly disabled him. Have treated claimant more or less all the time for said disease since he first contracted it, and he has been disabled for the performance of manual labor thereby ever since." 

That he was a sound man and in perfect health prior to and at the commence- ment of his military service is clearly shown by the voluminous testimony of those who knew him intimately before said service, both medical and lay. The United States medical examining board of Macon County, Missouri, cer- tify, July 19,1882: " We find the joints enlarged and tender; synovial membranes and ligaments 

thickened; muscles of limbs contracted and atrophied; hands and feet edema- tous; heart's action abnormally strong; pulse correspondingly weak; disability, 

total." 

The connection of Colonel Ebberman with the military service in behalf of the Union, from the commencement to the close of the war, is shown by numerous orders and telegrams from the military authorities in Misso,pri. The high esteem in which the service rendered the Union by ColonelEbberman is attested by the · interest manifested by the ex-Union soldiers in the success of his application for pension, as is shown by the following memorial: 

l!EADQ.UARTEBS F. A. JONES POST, 

DEPARTMENT OF MissoURI, GRAND ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC, \ 

· Macon, Mo., January 8, 1883. 

We, the undersigned, officers of the post .ofthe Grand Army of the Republic, at Macon City, Mo., would state that they Jw.ve personally and intimately known 

Col. R. J. Ebberman for many years, an,d know him to be a worthy and deserving citizen, and believe his claim for invalid pe.nsion a meritorious one and worthy of due consideration. 

N. S. RICHARDSON, 

Post Commander. 

S.G.BROCK, 

&niur Vice-Commander. THOS. A. H. SMITH, 

Junior Vice-Commander. R. W. CASWELL, 

.Adjutant Post. B.A. MOORE, 

Quartermaster. 

GEO. YUNCKER, 

Chaplain. 

We have carefully examiped this case and find from the evidence that this soldier contracted the disease from which he is now suffering in the military serv· ice of the United States, though never mustered, and for this reason his appli· cation was rejected by the Pension Office. Your committee deem this a very. strong case, as disclosed by the evidence, and therefore recommend that the bill be amended by striking out the word" Robert," in the title and in line 8 of said bill, and inserting in lieu thereof in each instance the word" Reuben,'• and when so amended that the bill do pass. 

The amendments recommended by the committee were agreed to; and 

the bill as amended was laid aside to be reported to the House with 

the recommendation that it do pass. 

JOHN BOYLE. 

The next business on the Private Calendar waa the bill (H. R. 389) 

granting a pension to John Boyle. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it en.acUd, ~c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au· thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll the name of John Boyle, late a private in the Tenth Battery Indiana State Volunteers, subject to the provis- ions and limitations of the pension laws. This act to take effect from and after its passage. 

The report {by Mr. MATSON) is as follows: 

That said Boyle was mustered into the service as a private in the Tenth In· diana Battery, January 3,1862, and remained with his command about eighteen 

months, during which time he partici~ated in the campaign against Murfrees-- borough, Tenn., being en~ed with hiS battery in the battle of Stone River and all the hard fighting durmg that memorable campa.ii[D, being exposed to the extreme bad weather, day and nightt without shelter. In his application for a pension claimant alleges that it was auring this time that he contracted his dis- ease, and support.~ his declaration by affidavits of his commanding officer and many of his comrades; that hewaseentto a convalescent camp near :r.Iurfreesborough, and thence to Louisville, K;y., where he was transferred to the Ve.teran Reserve Corps, July 5, 1863, he not bemg examined by any surgeon at the time of such transfer. The evidence further shows that be was treated in hospital at various times for general debility, and that he remained in the service until discharged for disability, January 7,1865. His application for pension is on a,ccount of disease of spine, hernia of left side, and general debility. . The examining board of surgeons at La Fayette, Ind., before whom applicant was ordered for examination, certify that applicant hasobliqueinguinal hernia of the left side, and the pain in his back is the result of hernia, and not a spinal 

affection, and that in their opinion the disease did originate while he was in the service; that he is incavacitated for obtaining his subsistence by manual labor, and that the disability is permanent. The affidavit of C. H. Jenks, a person of undoubted respectability, residing at La Fayette, Ind., shows that he was well acquainted with claimant, having been engaged in bW!iness with l;l.im before the war, and knows of his own personal 

knowledge that the claimant was a sound, healthy man at the time of his en- listment, and that afterward, in 1865, when Boyle returned from the .A.rmyi5he was a broken-down man and notable to earn his living'by manual labor. r. F. D. Leary makes affidavit November21,1870, that he had been acquainted with 

Boyle for ten years last past, and that his disability has not been aggravated or prolonged by intemperance or other bad habits or practices. The claimant says that at the time he applied for a pension he could not get the affidavit of any of his commissioned officers, for the reason that be did not• know where they resided. but that shortly after the rejection of his claim he learned that Jerome B. Cox, his former captain, was residing in San Francisco, 

Cal., and that he immediately procured his affidavit., which is now on file in the Pension Office, and which is to this effect: He, the said Jerome B. Cox, was cap- tain of the Tenth Indiana Battery; that he was well acquaint~d with the claim· ant, and that he knew him to be a sound, healthy man at the time of enlist- ment; he further states that the claimant became so badly broken down during the Murfreesboro ugh campaign that he was entirely unfitted for further service in the field. There are numerous affidavit,s on file, all to the same effect, namely, that appli- cant was o. strong, vigorous man at enlistment, and broken down by hard service and exposure in the Army in line of duty. The claim for pension was rejected on the ground that there is no satisfactory 

evidence that the disease originated in the service and in line of duty. This is accounted for in the following way: When claimant was first taken sick he was sent to a convalescent camp, and from that to the Veteran Reserve Corps, with- out an;y medical examination, and in point of fact he did not know the nature of the mjury that caused his disability until after he was discharged, and at the timehewas examined by a board of medical examiners, when they discovered 
4468 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 23, 

that he bad been ruptured, and it was from this injury that he was suffering and not spinal trouble. 

The claimant is now 67 years old, and feeble in health, and asks that in his 

declining years the Government that he helped to preserve will grant this small 

remuneration to assist him in his distress. • In view of the above facts the committee report favorably, and recommend 

the passage of the accompanying bill. 

The bill was laid aside t.o be reported to the House with the recom- mendation that it do pass. . . 

HENRIETTA M. SANDS. 

The next busine:s on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 4297) 

granting a pension to Henrietta M. Sands. . The bill is as follows: 

Be it enaded, &:c., That from and afler the passage of this act there be paid out of _the naval pension fund to Henrietta M. Sands, widow of the late Rear-Admiral Benjamin F. Sands, United States Navy, the sum ofS50 permonth during her widowhood, the same to be in lieu of her present pension. 

Mr. MATSON. I ask unanimoJs consent to dispense also in this case with the reading of the report, and that it be printed in the RECORD. 

This is the widow of Rear-Admiral Sands, who had served forty-five 

years in active service and some fifty-five years altogether. It is a bill 

similar to those which have been passed to pension the widows of rear- admirals in other cases. The CHAIRMAN. The report will be printed in the RECORD. 

The report (by Mr. CULLEN) is as follows: 

The petitioner, Henrietta M. Sands, is the widow of Rear-Admiral Benjamin Franklin Sands, who died in the city of Washington June 30,1883. She is now receiving a pension of sao a month, that being the maximum amount allowed 

the widows of officers under the general law. 

Rear-Admiral Benjamin F. Sands entered the naval service Apri118, 1828, and 

rendered faithful and efficient service to his country throughout his long career. Prior to 1861 he was constantly employed on duty of great benefit to the coun- try, and on the United States Coast Survey he won for himself an enviable repu- tation as an energetic and capable officer. In applying to have him ordered to special duty on the Pacific coast, the Superintendent Qf the Coast Survey, Pro- fessor A. D. Bache, under date of May 21, 1861, says of Commander Sands: 

"This excellent officer bas been attached heretofore to the Coast Survey, and was distinguished for the judgment, zeal, and capacity which are so essential 

in that distant command, where only general instructions can be given, and 

that from time to time.' • During the late war he was always a.ssigned to duty of grea.t responsibility, which he ever discharged with ability and fidelity. For three years he was division commander in immediate charge of the fleet blockading the port of Wilmington, N. C., and participated in both attacks on Fort Fisher, and was rec- ommended for promotion by Admiral Porter for his gallant services. 

Aller the capture of Fort Fisher, Captain Sands was assigned to duty in com- mand of the second division of the West Gulf Squadron, and discharged that 

duty well, being relieved from duty afler the surrender of Galveston, in June, 

1865, when he returned North. In 1867, as commodore, he was placed in charge of the United States Naval Observatory.,~ and under his superintendency that institution attained to its high- est standara. His administration of its affairs was marked by zeal, industry and good judgment in seeking, and so successfully, to advance its interests and 

add to its reputation at home and abroad. It is established that to the devotion to duty which was shown by Admiral 

Sands when engaged in the arduous work of the blockade was owing the origin 

of the disease which terminated the life of this distinguished officer. His entire 

service, as shown by the record, was sea service twenty years and three months, 

and shore duty twenty-two years and two months, making a total service of 

forty-two years and five months. In view of the foregoing facts, and in accordance with the numerous prece- dents heretofore established, your committee would report favorably, and recom- mend that the bill do pass. . 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recom- mendation that it do pass. 

MRS. MARY M. ORD. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 1569) 

granting a pension to Mrs. Mary M. Ord, widow of Maj. Gen. E. 0. C. 

Ord. . The bill was read, as follows: ~ 

Be it enacted, &c., That a pension of 11.00 per month, payable monthly during the term of her life, be, and is hereby, ordered to be paid to Mrs. Mary M. Ord, 

widow of Maj. Gen. E. 0. C. Ord, late of the Army of the United States. 

The bill was reported by the Committee on Invalid Pensions with 

amendments, as follows: 

In line 3, strike out "$1.00" and insert "S50:" and afler the word "month" 

strike out the words "P,ayable monthly during the term of her life." 

Mr. MATSON. I offer for this bill the substitute which I send to 

the desk. The bill, I discover, is not in the usual form ; and for the 

sake of uniformity I offer the substitute. 

The Clerk read the proposed substitute, as follows: 

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and di- ~cted to place on the pension-roll the name of Mary M . Ord, widow of Maj. Gen. E. 0. C. Ord, late of the Uruted States Army,and pay her a pension ofS50 a month from and after the passage of this act. 

Mr. MATSON. The report in this ease simply recounts the services 

of 11Iajor-General Ord, which are well known not only to every mem- ber of this House but to the whole country. He served a great length 

of time and rendered verydistinguished services. I ask that the reading of the report be dispensed with. 

There was no objection. 

The report (by Mr. CULLEN) is as follows: 

. General Ord entered the Military Academy as a cadet September 3, 1835,. and 

graduated June, 1839. He was assigned to the Third Artillery as a second lieu- tenant July 1, 1839. From that time until his retirement from the active servicel 

December 6, 1880, he was continuously in the military service of the Unitea 

States, a period of more than forty-five years, counting from the date of his entrance into the aeademy as a cadet. 

General Ord was retired from active service December 6,1880, by the President, by virtue of the following section of the Revised Statutes: 

"SEC. 1244. When any officer has sen·ed forty-five years as a commissioned 

officer, or is 62 years old, he may be retired from active service, at the discretion 

of the President." 

General Ord was retired on the ground of age, having reached the age of 62, as your committee is advised, on the 19th of October, 1880. . The official history of General Ord is given in the following order, furnished 

by the Adjutant-General at the time of the announcement of General Ord's deuth: 

[General Orders No. 54.] 

!IEA.DQ.UARTJIBS OF THE ARMY, ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE, 

. Wasl•ington, Juty 24, 1883. 

With profound sorrow the General of the Army announces the death at Ha- vana, Cuba, at7 o'clock on the evening of the 22d instant, ofMnj. Gen. Edward 

0. C. Ord, retired, and lately brigadier-general and brevet major-general on the 

active-list. 

General Ord was graduated at the .Military .Academy and appointed second 

lieutenant in the Third Artillery July 1, 1839. Having passed through the sev- eral grades to include that of lieutenant-colonel in the artillery arm, be re- ceived his appointment as brigadier-general of the permanent establishment on the 26th of July1 1866. He had, on the 14th of September, 1861, for service in war, been appomted brigadier-general of volunteers, and on the 2d of May, 1862, major-general of volunteers. He was mustered out of the volunteer serv- ice September 1, 1866. For gallant services in action at Drancsville, Va.; Iuka, Miss.; Big Hatchie, 

Mississippi, and at the assault of Fort Harrison, Virginia, he received, success- ively, the brevets of lieutenant-colonel, colonel, brigadier-general, and majorgeneral, United States Army. He served in the Florida. war against the Seminole Indians, on the Pacific coast in the war against l\1exico, and in Indian cam- paigns on the same coast. In the Army of the Potomac he was a brigade and division commander; in 

the Army of the Tennessee he commanded the left win~; from August to September, 1862; and subsequently he commanded, successively, the Thirteenth, 

Eighth, Eighteenth, and Twenty-fourth Corps,and the Army of the James. He was severely wounded in the battle of Big Hatchie.Mississippi, and was wounded 

in the assault and capture of Fort Harrison, Virginia. Since the late war he has at different times commanded the Departments of 

Virginia, the Ohio, Arkansas, California, the Platte, Texas, and the Fourth Military District. He was retired on the 6th day of December, 1880 and by act of Congress approved January 28, 1881, he became a. major-~enerai on the retired-list. Retire- ment did not close his a"'ltive life, for immediately thereafter he engaged in civil 

pursuits, and continued therein until death suddenly came upon him. Distinguished among his country's defenders, General Ord was a. soldier of 

national repute. Through his long military service, reaching toward half a century, his career has been marked by faithful, devoted, and intelligent discharge of duty, by personal gallantry, by honest administration, and by a firmness which was not weakened by his great kindness of heart. As his inti- mate associate since boyhood, the general here bears testimony of him that a more unselfish, me.nly, and patriotic person never lived. 

By command of General Sherman. 

GEO. D. RUGGLES, 

.Ar).ing .Aqjutan.t-General. 

General Ord died at Havana., Cuba, July 22, 1883, of yellow-fever, contracted at Vera Cruz on shipboard. Under the law the widow can not receive a pension because the direct cause of death was not due to the military service. It is true, 

however, that General Ord was worn out by his Ion~ military service, which 

made him susceptible to any epidemic disease to whi.ch he might be exposed, and not having strength of constitution or vitality to throw it oft', became an easy 

victim. 

In view of the long and distinguished services of General Ord, and the ac- knowledged poverty of the widow, who had but the small sum of $600left by her 

husband and no real property whatever, your committee report favorably on the 

bill and recommend that it do pass, amended, however, a.s follows: 

Strike out, in line 3, the words "one hundred" and insert" fifty:" and, in said 

line 3 and line 4, strike out the following: " payable monthly during the term of her life." 

The substitute proposed by Mr. MATSON was agreed to. 

The bill as amended by the adoption of the substitute was laid aside 

to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

ALONZO B. CHATFIELD. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 3112) 

for the relief of Alonzo B. Chatfield. 

The bill wa-s read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the pension of Alonzo B. Chatfield, late of Company B, Thirty-third Regiment illinois Volunteer Infantry, be rerated and included as equal disability with that class of pensioners who have lost an arm at or above 

the elbow, under an act of Congress entitled "An act to amend the pension laws 

by increasing the pensions of soldiers and sailors who have lost an arm or leg in the service, and for other purposes," approved March 3, 1883. 

The bill was reported by the Committee on Invalid Pensions with an amendment, as follows: 

Add at the end of the bill the following: "to take effect from and after the 

pa.ssa.ge of this act." 

The report (by Mr. CULLEN) was read, as follows: 

They have carefully examined the Pension Office papers in this case and find 

that the facts are clearly stated in the report of the Senate Committee on Pen- sions in the present Congress, which report they adopt as their own, as follows : 

"[Senate Report No. 371, Forty-eighth Congress, first session.] 

"The evidence shows that the claimant, Chatfield, was a private soldier in 

Company B, Thirty-third Regiment illinois Volunteers; that he enlisted August 20, 1861, and was discharged September .26, 1863; that be was discharged on ac- count of a gunshot wound, which resulted in the loss of his right forearm, in 

action at Black River, Mississippi. "He afterwards applied for a pension, and on April ao, 1864, received the. au- thorized pension for the loss of his arm below the elbow. His pension was subsequently increased from time to time as the law gave an increase. He is now receiving the lawful pension for the loss of his arm below the elbow. He asks 

for an increase to $30 per month. He insists that his disability is the same as though he had lost his arm at or above the elbow. There is no doubt about the 

fact. The fact is that his arm was amputated just below the elbow, and so close to it that the remaining portion is of no use or advantage whatever. 

"The committee are of opinion that he should receive a pension equivalent 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4469 

to that given under the law to persons having lost an arm at or above the elbow, and they therefore recommend the passage of the bill." The committee recommend that the blli be amended by adding the following: "To take effect from and after the passage of this act," and, as amended, that it do pass. 

Mr. CULLEN. Would it be in order now to ask ~animous consent 

to substitute the Senate bill in this case for the House bill? 

The CHAIRMAN. Is the Senate bill on the Calendar? 

Mr. CULLEN. It is. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman can ask unanimous consent to 

call up the Senate bill. 

Mr. CULLEN. I make that request. 

There was no objection. 

The bill (S. 1299) to i..ncrease the pension of Alonzo B. Chatfield was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the pension of .Alonzo B. Chatfield, late of Company B , Thirty-third Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, be rerated and included as ·equal disability with that cla.iS of pensioners who have lost an arm at or above the elbow, under an act of Congress entitled "An act to amend the pension laws by increasing the pensions of soldiers and sa.liorswho have lost an arm or leg in the service, and for other purposes," approved March 3, 1883, such in- crease to date from and after the passage of this act. 

The bill (S. 1299) was laid aside to be reported to the House with 

the recommendation that it do pass. 

The bill (H. R. 3112) was laid aside to be reported to the House 

with the recommendation that it do lie on the table. 

.ANNA BECK. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 5728) 

granting a pension to Anna Bedc. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, di- rected to place the name of Anna Beck, widow of August Beck, late of Company 

F, Seventh New York Volunteers, on the pension-roll, and pay her a pension at the rate of 58 per month, from and after the passage of this act. 

The bill was reported by the Committee on Invalid Pensions with the 

following amendment: 

In line 6, after the word "roll," strike out the words "and pay her a pension at the rate ofSS per month," and insert in lieu thereof" subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws." 

The Clerk commenced to read the report. 

Mr. WOLFORD. Enough has been read to satisfy every one that 

the pension should be granted in this case. I ask that the further 

reading of the report be dispensed with. 

There was no objection. . The report (by Mr. CuLLEN) is as follows: 

That Anna. Beck is the widow of August Beck, who enlisted in the military service of the United States as a private in Company F,SeventhR.egimentNew ~~Volunteers, April 20, 1861,and was honorably discharged February 17, 

May 10,1865, the name of August Beck was placed on the pension-roll at the rate of $'>per monthl on account of valvular disease and hypertrophy of the heart, contracted in tne line of his duty in the military service of the United States. It is clearly shown by overwhelming testimony submitted to your com- mittee that the disability of August Beck continued up to the 9th day of Octo- ber, 1871, when he was burned t.o death in the great Chicago fire. June 7,1873, Anna Beck, as the widow of the deceased soldier, filed her appli- cation for pension on a-ccount of the death of her husband from disability in- curred in the military service of the United States, which was rejected on the ground that the deceased soldier's death was not due to his military service. Anna Beck (claimant) testifies that on :M:onday, October 9,187l,she was resid- ing with her husband, August Beck, in the house numbered 93, on Hurlbut street north division, in the city of Chicago, Dl., a nd that at sa id time the fire knowrl as the "great Chicago fire" was raging in that vicinity. That she and her hus- band occu:pied rooms OJ? a.~ upper floor of the house, while the lower portion was occupied by one FriP.olme Myer, who was the owner of the premises. That on that. day, and for sixty days prior thereto, her husband was sick in bed by heart disease, and was unable to get up and down without assistance, and was almost daily attended by his physician, one Christ. Fessel, who was an old man and is now dead. At the time abovementioned affiant was lame from a diseased leg, and was only able to move about with the aid of a crut{)h or cane, and con- tinued so lame for several years until she had said leg amputated. As the fire spread and increased it became necessary for herself and hnsband to remove fro~ the ho~sein order to save themselves from bein.gburnedto death. By her assiStance her husband was dressed and succeeded m getting downstairs, and proceeded but a. few steps when her husband sank down upon the sidewalk ~vercome. In a few moments the flames swept over that locality, and, she be~ lieves, burned the body of her husband, who had fallen dead from the excite- ment attending the fire. Fridoline l\Iyer, the owner of the bnilding occupied by claimant and her hus- band at the .time of t_he Cl?lcago f?.re, October 1~1, testifies that August Beck, known to h1m as an Invalld pensioner of the Umted States, and his wife Anna. Be?k, the claim an~, resided in his house at No. 93 Hurlbut street, north di~sion, Chicago, Ill., prev1ous to the fire of October 9,187l,and up to that date· that August Beck was unable to leave his bed without assistance at the time of said fire, that the. house he occupied and ~any adjoining houses were totally de- stroyed by said fire; tha.t affiant occup1ed a part of the house at the same time of claimant and up to and at the time of the fire. The utt-erly helpless condition of the deceased soldier at the time of the fire from heart disease, and the destruction of the house in which he lived along with the other buildings in that vicinity, are fully shown by a number ~f wit- nesses wh? resided in that vicinity, and while no one testifies to seeing him on that occa.swn, all agree that he has not been seen or heard of since that great 

calamity swept over Chicago. 

We therefore think that we are justified by the evidence in the case in the con-

?lusion that.the excitemen~ occasioned by the s~ of flames at that hour sweep- . mg over Chicago caused h1s death from heart disease which he had contracted in the II!ilitary.service of tb~ United States, for which reason he was discharged from said service, and penswned by the Government, and that his body was burned, and that be may well be classed among the victims of that fire. His wi~ow has never remarried and is in indigent circumstances, and is a. con- firmed crtpple, having lost a leg by amputation, and therefore disqualified from earning a subsistence by her own labor. 

Your committee therefore recommend the passage of the accompanying bill. amended as follows : Strike out all after "pension-roll," in line 6, and insert the following: "Sub- ject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, from and after the pas- sage of this act." 

The amendment reported by the Committee on Invalid Pensions was adopted. 

· The bill as amended was laid aside to be reported to the House with 

the recommendation that it do pass. 

JACOB LAFFERTY. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 5148) 

granting a pension to Jacob Lafferty. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

~if!:!o!!~~rt1~sr:!~:.laws, the name of Jacob Lafferty, a private soldier in 

Tpe report (by Mr. PATTON) was read, as follows: 

The Adjutant-General's report shows that Jacob Lafferty was drafted Sep- tember 21, 18M, and discharged December 21, 186t. The declaration filed by Jacob Lafferty states that during the latter part of October,1864,whileatCampR~ynolds,Pennsylvania,hecontract.edlungdisease. 

The Adjutant-General's report.states that Ja-cob Lafferty, a private unassigned, draft Pennsylvania, was enrolled 21st day of September, 1864 at .Allegheny, Pa., and reported present. Pittsburgh draft rendezvous, September 301 18M, answer- ing to Pennsylvania draft men, and discharged on surgeon's certificate of disa,-

bility December 22, 18M. S. F. Redic, M. D., says: "I ~came a.cq ua.in~d with :Jacob lafferty in the year 1858, and was his family physicla.n from that time until after he was drafted. I have no recollection of pre.scribing for him personally during the period referred to, and I feel certain that had he labored under any constitutional malady I would have known it. In 1864, in the early part of November, he came home, and on furlough of ten days, suffering, as he saidl from a very bad cold. I was called to see him, and found him prostrated witn vascular bronchitis, complicated with pneumonia· I told him he would not be able to return at the end of his furlough without s~ rio us detriment and great risk to himself. He then requested me to write and secure, if possible, an extension of his furlough. I did a-s he requested. The answer received was a peremptory order to report at the end of his furlough about five or six days from the time I first visited him. He did as directed, as i 

thought at the risk of his life. Shortly afterward I learned from the family that he was in a. hospital. He was discharged in December and returned to his fam- ily with apparently broken-down constitution. I, leaving that locality after his 

h~llh.P,ome, have had no opportunity personally of knowing anything of h~ 

Dr. James L. Crawford testifies that he has been an attending physician in the family of said claimant, Jacob Latrerty, at different times, for eight years; that he has prescribed for said claimant, and knows at different times within the pa&,t 

eight years he, the said claimant1 has been totally unable to work for severa1. weeks at a. time, and that never smce he has known said claimant has he been in good health, general constitutional disability being manifest a.t all times, lat- terly showing a tendency to serous effusion, markedly in the scrotal sa{)k · is weak, and suffering from shortness of breath upon exertion showing imp~ir­ ing of lungs, resulting, as I think, from adhesion of the pleura, 'a sequel of pleuropneumonia.. Affiant has had frequent opportunities to examine said claimant since he has been acquainted with him, and does not consider that at any time he has been fit to perform manual labor except of the li<>'htest kind. Affiant was not acquainted with claimant prior to enlistment. (Sworn to October 22, 

1879.) Dr. Thomas Carson testifies on the 22d of October, 1879, that he has known Jacob Lafferty for the past four years, and that since he has known him he the applicant, has not been able to perform manual labor. IDs trouble is ge~eral debility, resulting from the effects of chronic disability of liver and stomach also ltmgs. "Am treating him at present for hydrocele; and claimant is not able to perform manual labor, and has not been since I knew him; and I advised him as his physician not to perform any heavy manual labor." Ou December 9, 1882, John Clawson and J. M. Ringer testify: ' ' W e have known Jacob Lafferty, the claimant for pension, for thirty years R?d upward; have lived near neighbors; we never heard him complain of lung disease before he went to the Army, and he was able to work till after he came back from the Army. The following year we know he could not do any work and for years after and up to the present time he has not been an able-bodied man, and complains of lung disease." Also, affidavits of Henry Dunmire and H. F. Steer: "We have known Jacob Laffertythirtyyears and upward; we know that before he went to the Army he appeared to be a stout, hearty man ; we saw him work and worked with him; we never heard him complain of any disease of the lungs or any other disease, and since he came back from the Army he does not appear to be able to do anything, and is not the same strong man he was before he went to the Army; this we know from personal observation being 

neighbors of Jacob Lafferty." ' Atfida.vit of L. T. Shaffer: "I,L. T. Shaffer,apriva.te, CompanyF, FiftiethRegimentPennsylvaniaVolnn- tee~s, ';io'B'YI~Iu that J ~ob Lafferty 1 a private ~nassigned, draft of the war of 1861, wh1le m military serVIce of the Umted States m the line of his duty and without fa_ult or improper conduct of. his own, on or about the 1st ofNov~mber,1~,at Rmggold Camp,Pennsylva.ma. Ja-cob Lafferty went with me to Camp Ringgold. I never knew Jacob Lafferty being sick before he went to Camp Ring- gold. He built a house for our family during the summer of 1864 · he was ap- parently a healthy man at that time, and since I came home from' the Army I know he has been sick a greater part of the time, and has continued so more or less ever since, and is not able to work to any extent." Israel Smatzer, private Company F, Fiftieth Regiment Pennsylvania Volun- teers, testifies: "I went with Jacob Lafferty to Camp Ringgold when he was drafted, and I left 

~~!ni~'mp; he was well when he went and well when he was drafted, and I 

The committee, in view of all these facts, report the bill ba{)k with a recom- mendation that it do pass. . 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recom- mendation that it do pass. 

JACOB J. MORNINGSTAR. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 3403} 

for the relief of Jacob J. Morningstar. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, 
4470 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 23, 

directed to increase the rate of pension now paid .Jacob .J. Morningstar, late a private in Company D, Seventy-sixth Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteers, ~rom 

~4 per month to $30, as provided by the act of March 3, 1883, and pay ntm a pension of $30 a month from and at\er the passage of this act. 

The report {by Mr. PATTON) is as follows: 

The claimant presents to the committee {which we beg leave to accompany this report) petitions and affidavits. The petition of applicant sets forth the 

fact (which IS corroborated by papers on file in the Pension Office) that while 

in the service of the United States he received a wound in the letllegwhich 

caused it to be amputated, for which he is now receiving $24 per month, and by reason of his immense weight and the nature and character of his injuries 

received through the military service, he is thereby disabled and incapable of 

performing any manual labor and does not receive any pension on account cf his disn.bility. The Commissioner of Pensons rejected his claim presented to him on account of said disability, and he now comes to Congress praying 

that a special act be passed granting an increase of pension, and in support of 

said request the petition of neighbors as well as affidavits of Dr. O'Neal A . .J. Snively, M.D., F.A.H.Roch,M.D., O.T.Everha.rt,M.D., .J. H. Bittinger, M.D., 

George L. Rice, M.D., and also affidavits of neighbors and members of the same company and regiment, Franklin M. Roberts Henry E. Miller, who all corrobo- rate the petitioner, .Jacob .J. 1\Iorningstar, in his staments of his total disability t<> perform manual labor. Your committee, in view of the fact of the petitioner having so well established the assertion of his inability to perform manual labor by the . petitions 

and affidavits of his neighbors, and also affidavits of so large a number of emi- nent physicians, report the bill (H. R. 3403) back, with the recommendation that 

it do pass. 

To the honorable &nate and Home of Representatives 

of the United States of America in Congress assembled: 

Thepetitionofthesubscriber,acitizenoftheCommonwealthofPennsylvania, 

respectfully represents: 

That he has been a resident of the borough of Hanover, in the county of York, 

State of Pennsylvania, all his lifetime; that in the year 1862 your petitioner en- tered the Federal service as a private in Company D, Seventy-sixth Regiment 

Pennsylvania Volunteers, for the term of three years or during the war· that on the 11th day .July, A . D.l863, while in the dischargeofhisduties as a soidier, 

he was severely wounded at Fort Wagner, S. 0., in the left leg, which was ehortly thereat\er amputated close to the knee; that your l?etitioner is a very corpulent old man, over 63 years of age, and by reason of hts immense weight and the nature and character of his injuries received through the military serv- ice he is totally disabled and incapable of performing any manual labor; that 

he receives no United States pension on account of his disability, the Commissioner of Pensions rejecting his claim presented to him two years since for 

pension on account of disability; and your petitioner has no other redress for 

relief than to your honorable body. He therefore prays for a special act of Congress in his behalf, authorizing the 

Commissioner of Pensions to pay your petitioner at least $30 per month on ac- count of his total disability to perform manual labor. And he will ever pray, &e. 

.JACOB .J. MORNINGSTAR. NOVEMBER 17, 1883. 

To the honorable the Senate and House of .Representatives of the 

United States of America in Congress assembled : 

The undersigned, citizens of the borough of Hanover, county of York, State 

of Pennsylvania, most heartily join in the petition of .Jacob J. Morningstar, a disabled soldier of the Union Army, to grant him a special act of Congress for 

pension on account of his total disability to perform l:lny manual labor. And 

they will ever pray, &c. 

Signed byEmanuel Wolford, .Jacob Gundrum, .J. P., .Joseph Utz, George W. Thomas, 

.Jeremiah Kohler, .Jacob Becker, David F. Forney, L. F. 1\Ielsheimer, H. 0. 

Slagle, L.H.P. Weaver-all of Hanover, York County, Pennsylvania. 

Certijlcate of Dr. 0' Neat. 

Having made a personal examination of the injuries of .Jacob .J. Morningstar, I do hereby certify that his letllegwas amputated so close to the knee-joint that 

the artificial support must be rested and swung from the hip-joint, the assistance 

from the knee-joint amounting to nothing. The stump is contracted and weak, 

the bones roughened, at times experiencing or suffering great pain, both in the 

hip-joint and stump. By reason of his inability to take active exercise his weight 

has increased, amounting now to two hundred and forty-five pounds, making it 

slow and painful to move around on an artificial leg. By reason of the left leg being disabled, the great tax on the right leg has rendered it weak and painful, 

while moving, and at times there is swelling and hardness of the right leg be- tween the knee and the ankle. He is only able to move around by the aid of two canes. In addition to the above disabilities he has contracted {he alleges while in the 

United States Army) and is still suffering from a chronic skin disease, resembling eczema. He is incapacitated from doing all kinds of manual labor and requires 

frequent medical and personal attention. · The above I do hereby certify to. WALTER H. O'NEAL, M. D. (Graduate of the University of Maryland the year 1871, Baltimore City.) 

STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

County of Adams, ss: 

On the 20th day of November, A.. D. 1883, before me, the subscriber, a justice of the peace in and for the county and State aforesaid., personally appeared 

Walter H. O'Neal, M.D., who is personally known to me and who is entitled to full faith and credit, and who, being·duly sworn according to law, doth depose 

and say that the facts set forth in the foregoing affidavit are true to the best of 

his knowledge and belief. · WALTER H. O'NEAL, M. D. 

Sworn and subscribed before me the day and year aforesaid. EDW. J. COX, J. P., Gettysburg, Pa. 

STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Adams County, ss: 

I, F. M. Timmins, clerk of the court of quarter sessions in and for said county, 

do certify that E . .J. Cox, esquire, before whom the foregoing affidavit was made, 

and whose genuine signature appears thereto, was at the date thereof, and now is, an acting justice of the peace in and for the said county, duly commissioned 

and qualified, and authorized by the laws of this State to take the acknowJedg- men t of deeds and other instruments; to all of whose official acts full faith and 

credit are due. 

Witness my hand and the seal of said court, at Gettysburg, the 20th day of 

November, A. D. 1883. 

[sEAL.] · F. M. Tll\IMINS, Clerk. 

HANOVER, PA., November 14, 1883. 

Certiji.cate of the physicians of the borough of Hanover, county of York, State of Pennsylvania, respectfuUy presented to the honorable the &mate and House of .Representatives. In the matter of the petition of .J . .J. Morningstar. 

We, the undersigned, physicians, practicing in Hanover county and State aforesaid, having made~ personal examination of the injuries of .Jacob .J.l\Iorningstar, do hereby certify that his left leg was amputated so close to the knee-joint 

that his artificial leg must be swung from the hip-joint alone, receiving no as- sistance from the knee-joint whatever; tha.t the stump, which is contracted and 

weak, is equivalent to an amputation above the knee-joint; that by reason of 

the amputation his weight (245 pounds) and weakness of his right leg, he can walk only by the aid of two canes; that in addition to the above, said .Jacob .J. Morningstar has contracted a skin disease in the military service (as he alleges) 

which seems to be incurable ; that in consequence of the above iuj uries and dis- ease he is incapacitated from doing any Ihanual labor, and requires frequent 

personal and medical attendance; all of which we herewith certify. 

HORACE ALLEMAN, M. D. .A. • .J. SNIVELY, M. D. 

YoRK CoUNTY, 

F. A.. H. KOCH, M. D. 0. T. EVERHART, M. D. 

State of Pennsyl1mnia, ss: 

Personally came before me, the subscriber, a notary public of Hanover Borough, in and for said county, the· within-named physicians, personally 

known to me, Horace Alleman, A . .J. Snively, F. A. H. Koch, and 0. T. Ever- hart, all being duly sworn according to law, did depose and say that the within 

oortifioote is true, to the best of their knowledge and skill. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal this 4th day of December, 1883. 

(SEAL.) A.. N. MICHAEL, Notary Public. 

Ce~:tiji.cate of Dr. J. H. Bittinger, a physician of Penn Township, York County, Pennsylvania, respectfuUy submitted to the honorable the Senate and Home of .Representatives of the United States. 

In the matter of the petition of .Jacob .J. Morningstar. 

I, J. H. Bittinger, a practicing physician and a graduate of .Jefferson Medical 

College, at Philadelphia, Pa., have examined .Jacob J. Morningstar, of Hanover, 

Pa.,aged 43 years, a carpenter by occupation, and during the late war of therebellion a member of Company D, Seventy-sixth Regiment Pennsylvania Vol- unteers. He states that he was wounded in his left leg on .July 11, 1863, while 

engaged in the United States service. 

The leg was subsequently amputated immediately below the knee-joint, leaving a stump that is not long enough to have an artificial socket leg adjusted to it, and is therefore deprived of the use of the knee-joiut. 

The comparative measurements of the legs are: Circumference of left. leg at knee-joint, 14 inches; circumference of right leg at knee-joint, 19 inches; circumference ofleft. leg, at middle third of femur, 15 inches; circumference of right 

leg, middle third of femur, 21t inches. Externally, on the posterior surface of 

the stump, is a small subcutaneous tumor, which, upon pressure, gives intense 

pain, and corresponds to the termination of the external popliteal or peroneal nerve. The applicant claims to have constant pain atthisjomt, and at times is so intense as to make him miserable, He also is afflicted with a chronic skin affection of a very annoying character, 

which be clainls to have contracted in the service. He can not walk without the aid of two canes, and is unable to work at his 

trade. 

STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

County of York, ss: 

.J. H. BITTINGER, 1\I. D. 

Personally appeared before me, a notary public in and for said State and 

county, Dr . .J. H. Bittinger, who, being sworn according to law says the facts set forth in the above certificate are just and true to the best of his knowledge 

and belief . .J. H. BITTINGER, M.D. 

Sworn and subscribed to this 19th of November, A. D. 1883. (SEAL.] A.. N. l\llCHAEL, 

· Notary Public. 

This is to certify that I George L. Rice, a practicing physician, residing in 

McSherrystown, Adams Cc;unty, Pennsylvama, have examined Jacob J. Morn- ingstar, late a private in Company D, Seventy-sixth Pennsylvania Volunteer 

Infantry, and find that his letlleg has been amputated below the knee-joint. 

The amputation is so close to the knee-joint that the artificial leg which he wears. must be swung from the hip-joint alone, receiving no assistance from the kneejoint whatever. The stump, which is weak and con~racted, is equal to an am- putation above the knee (it would be far better were it so). , By reason of his 

weight, two hundred and forty-five pounds, and the weakness of his right leg, 

locomotion is impossible without the aid of two canes. In addition t<> the above 

he has a skin disease, which he says he contracted while in the service of the 

United States, which seems to be incurable. In consequence of the injury above 

narrated he can not perform any manual labor, and frequently has to be assisted 

by friends, &c. Especia1ly is this the case when the ground is frozen and cov- ered with snow and jce, when he can not be about at all. 

GEO. L. RIOE, M. D., McSh~rrystown, Adams County, Pennsylvania. YORK CoUNTY, 

State of Pennsylvania, ss: 

Per!!onally came before me, a notary public of Hanover Borough, in and for 

said county, George L. Rice, practicing physician, personally known to me, who 

being duly sworn according to law did depose and say that the above statement is true to the best of his knowledge and skill. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal 

this 21st day of November, A. D. 1883. 

(SEAL.) A. N. MICHAEL, Notary Public. 

In the matter of the petition of .J . .J. Morningstar. 

STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

County of York, ss: 

Personally appeared before me, a notary public in and for said State and 

county, Henry Miller, of Hanover Borough, county and State aforesaid; also, 

Franklin M. Roberts, of same borough, county, and State aforesaid, who, being 

severally sworn, do depose and say that we knew Jacob .J. Morningstar 

before the war; that he was drafted in the United States service, and shortly 

~=~~a::~:s~H!~n1:v~~~~~~r t£~~v:~ ~i~rtt~~t~~:~:~t~t1~~~ ~:~; 2?....5 pounds; that we were members of the same company, same regiment; that 

he contracted a skin disease in the military service, of which said Morningstar has never been cured; that on account of his weight and the weak right leg he 

is compelled to walk with two canes, and is unable to do any manual labor, and 

requires personal though not regular attendance, and that he is entirely de-
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4471 

!Pendent for his living on his United States pension ; that we are not personally anterested, either directly or indirectly, in the prosecution of this application before your honorable Congress. FRANKLIN M. ROBERTS. HENRY L. MILLER. 

Sworn and subscribed to before me this 24th day of November, A. D. 1883. [SEAL.] A. N. MICHAEL, l•totary Public. 

:STATE OF PE:NN8YL VANIA, 

County of York, ss: 

Personally appeared, also, Capt . .Jeremiah Kohler, who, being duly sworn, 58.YS that he was .Present when said .Jacob .J.l\Iorningstar was weighed, and that he was weighed ml862, beforethedraft,an!lthatsaid Morningstar then weighed .215 poundS~; that said Morningstar must walk with two canes, and can not do .any labor at this time from his injuries. .JEREMIAH KOHLER. 

Sworn and subscribed to before me this 27th day of November, A. D. 1883. [sEAL.) A. N. MICHAEL, Notary Public. 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recommen-

-dation that it do pass. · EUGENE L. TOWNSEND. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 5595) 

_granting a pension to Eugene L. Townsend. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, 

.authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll the name of Eugene L. Townsend late ofCompany H,Seventy-first New York Volunteers, and Ninth 

Regiment Veteran Reserves, subject to the provisions andliihitations of the pen-

:Sion laws. 

The report (by Mr. PATTON) was read, as follows: 

That Eugene L. Townsend enlisted in the milit;s.ryserviceofthe United States .as a second lieutenant in Company H, Seventy-first Regiment New York Vol- unteer Infantry, August 27,1862, and was honorably discharged September 1, 1863. April28, 1864, he was commissioned first lieutenant Ninth Regiment Vet- -eran Reserve Corps, and was honorably discharged therefrom December 1, 1865, .as brevet captain. December 3, 1879, he filed in the Pension Office his application for pension, on the ground that at Falmouth, near Fredericksburg, Va.., March 1, 1863, he was 1hrown from his horse while on duty as field officer of outposts of the Third ..Corps1 causing lefli inguinal hernia. The application received careful consider- .ation m the Pension Office, a. number of special examiners being detailed to take testimony in the case. After examining the testimony thus taken the Commis-

.sioner of Pensions forwarded the papers in the case to the committee with the following letter of recommendation : 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, PENSION OFFICE, 

· Washington, D. C., March 1,1884. 

Sm: Under the provisions of the joint resolution of Congress, approved May 

:29, 1830, I have the honor to forward herewith the papers in the case of Eugene L. Townsend, late second lieutenant Company H, Seventy-first New York Volunteers, application No. 326690, to consider the propriety of placing the. appli- -cant's name upon the pension-roll by special act of Congress, subject to the provisions and limitations of the general pension laws, for the reason that his .claim o.ppears to be deserving, but the evidence is not deemed sufficient to war- rant favorable action under the general law. 

Applicant alleges that he was thrown from his horse at Falmouth, near Fred- -ericksburg, Va., about March 1, 1863, and incurred left inguinal hernia, and in a Bubscquent lett-er he avers that two previous accidents bad in all probability 

;predisposed him to this herrua; that the first occurred in October, 1862, and, as near as he can remember, about the middle of the month; that he was ordered to accompany General Sickles upon a reconnaissance up the railroad from 1\>Ia- .nassa.s .Junction, and that on the return to headquarters at Manassas, while 

riding very fast through the woods, it being very dark, his horse stumbled, 

throwing him violently against the pommel of the saddle, painfully injuring his left groin and testicles, and that he wasnnableto mount his horsefor some time :afterwards; that a similar accident occurred on the night of December 13, 1862, 

.during the progress of the battle of Fredericksburg, when, in pursuance to orders .from the adjutant-general of the division, he had proceeded to the outpost to as- <(lertain the cause of the continued chopping of wood heard in the front, and on his return to headquarters, in crossing a sunken road, his horse fell, and the ·pommel of the saddle struck him in a similar manner as before; that when the . accident mentioned in his application occurred, his brother, George D. Town- send, assistant surgeon of the Seventy-second .Regiment, upon examination, stated that he had received a rupture or hernia, and would require a truss, which 

.he subsequent-ly obtained for him. The claim is still pending, having come to a standstill because applicant ap- pears to be wholly unable to furnish testimony showing that he incurred the :alleged disability in the line of duty, or in lieu thereof positive and substantial --evidence of prior soundness at the date of eBtering the service. It appears from the records of the War Department that applicant's fellow- -officers of the field are dead, hence he is unable to procure evidence to corrob- -orate his allegations. The only testimony to show prior soundness is that ofhis mother, sister, and brother, the assistant surgeon aforesaid, who was younger .and not an associate, and one .John G.Kearsing, who 'roomed with him in Paris, Fra~ce, during the spring of 1862, about six months before his entering the :aerVlce. You1· attention is invited to the report,g of the va.rioussp(lcial examiners, who 

have made strenuous efforts to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on the ques- tion of applicant's prior soundness, also to the report of the War Department 

.and the medical certificate embodied therein, in which the applicant stated to ·the surgeon of the hospital the origin of his disa.bility, which statement does not materially differ from his present one. Inasmuch, therefore, as there is record evidence of the existence of hernia. 

during service, and there is nothing presented adverse to applicant's charac- -ter as a soldier and credible man, and he is now helpless, sufl:'ering from loco- motor ataxia, I deem it proper to submit the papers to your consideration with my recommendation that he be pensioned by special act of Congress. ' · Very respectfully, 

Hon. C. C. M.ATSON, 

W. W. DUDLEY, 

Commissioner. 

Chairman Committee on Invalid Pensions, House of .Representati'Ves. 

Your committee have carefully examined the voluminous testimony in this ..case, and find the recommendations of the Commissioner of Pensions are fully 

:Sustained by the evidence, and therefore recommend the passage of the accom- panying bill. 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it do pass. ' 

DENNIS M1GINNIS. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 1449) 

granting a pension to Dennis McGinnis. 

The bill was read} as follows: 

. Be it tnae!ed, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and is hereby, author- ~e~ an.d dll'ected to P!ace on the pens10n-roll, subject to the provisions and hmt~twns of the penswn laws, the name of Dennis McGinnis, formerly a priV~~~~~~pany D,ofthe One hundred and seventieth Regiment of New York 

Mr. RROWN, of Pennsylvania. This is a bill which has passed the 

House in two Congresses before this. I ask that reading of the report 

be dispensed with . 

There was no objection. 

The report (by Mr. PATTON) is as follows: 

The committee, after considering the evidence, see no reason to alter the re- port presented to the second session of the Forty· fifth Congress and adopted in the second session of the Forty-sixth CongresS, and therefore ~opt the same ns follows : ' 

"[House Report No. 141, Forty-sixth Congress, second session.] 

"That Dennis McGinnis Wl\8 o. private in Company D, One hundred and sev- entieth New York Volunteers; enlisted September 2, 1862, to serve three years in the war for the Union, and was hon?ra.l;>ly discharged .July 15, 1865, after the close of the war; that he filed an apphcatwn for a pen.sion October 30 1874 for disability, which he alleges arose as follows: ' ' "•:rhatwhi.le in the service aforesaid, and in the line of his duty, near Patrick Statton, Va., m December, 1864, or .January, 1865, while building a corduroy road, be w~ t~rown_from a wago_n .onto a stump by the sudden starting of a team, and his rtghtbtpwas badly IDJm·ed by the fall, byreasont ofwhichhe was laid up for several days, and was treated in his t'i)nt by Surgeon Olmstead of said regiment; that his hip has troubled him ever since, and is much wasted in size, and at times very painful, and he is greatly disabled by it; and the same fall injured his back.' . ''At the time of this injury he was detailed and acting as teamster, and none of hiS own officers were present; that the surgeon who treated him fo~;.the injury is dead; that he has advertised ~nd tried at considerable expense to.find the offi- cer who had charg~ of t_he detail, but can not; that he was not sent to hospital, a?d no record of his IDJUTY or treatment can be found; that his family physiCian, who knew him intimately before and at the time of his enlistment as well as since his discharge, states that he (McGinnis) was healthy and sound at the time of his enlistment and has been in broken health ever since his d~scharge · that before his enlistment he considered your petitioner ' as healthy and sound a man as he ever knew,' and that, from his 'personal knowledge of the man he believes he contracted the diseases and disability from which he is no~ suff~ring w bile in the service as aforesaid;' that another ·family physician of O.J?phcant, who has known him and treated him professionally ever since his discharge, states that be first treated him on his return from the service • for an injury to the back and hips, which finally resulted in sciatica of a severe character and a general derangement of the system, and lo.tely {May 31,1877) 

hasafl'ectedtbeheart; thatsaid McGinnishasfrequentlybeen laid up for weeks confined to his house; that he has been and is unable to labor, and that his dis: 

ability increases rather than diminishes; and that from his personal knowledge of the man he has every reason to believe that he contracted the diseases from which he is suffeling while in the service of the United States or that they resulted from injuries received in said service.' •• That a petition signed by an ex-member of Congress who resided in the same county with the applicant, by the president and additional law judges of the district, and by most of t~e public and pr<?fessional men of the county, lVaS pro- duced before your committee, together wttb a large number of affidavits of the neighbors of the applicant, which satisfy your committee that this claim is worthy of most respectful consideration, notwithstanding the fact that a letter yvas ~resent_ed to your committee which alleg~s that ~he application for pension m th1s case IS fraudulent; and from all the evtdence m the case your committee belie~·e the a;pplicant entitled to a pension for disability which originated as alleged by h1Dl, and therefore report the bill with recommendation that it be passed." 

Tl;le bill was laid aside to be reported t.o the House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

BARBARA A. SMITH • 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 4663) 

granting a pension to Barbara A. Smith. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &o., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Barbara A. Smith, widow of 'Villiam A. Smith, deceased, late a private in Company B, Fifty-fifth Regiment 

Pennsylvania Volunteers. 

The report (by Mr. PATTON) is as follows: 

The soldier, William A. Smith, was admitted to the post hospital at Camp Cur- tin, Harrisburg, Pa., on the 16th of March, 1884, and died the same day. There is no evidence that he was treated for any disease, but the assistant acting sur- geon in charge reported to the Surgeon-General that he died of delirium tre- mens, and so the record stands. The widow's claim was rejected on this ground 

by the Pension Office. The testimony of six reputable citizens, who swear that they were well ac- quainted with the soldier, establishes the fact conclusively that he was a man of temperate habits and not addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors. The testimony of six other reputable witnesses prove the same fact, and in addition that they were oomrades; that at Beaufort, S. C., in September, 186l. the soldier was attacked with epilepsy, and that he had a similar attack at about the period of his death. In addition . .J. P.l\lartin, assistant adjutant-general, under date of :1\Iarch 10, 1874, certifies that the record in the Adjutant-General's office shows that he died of intermittent fever. He was a good soldier, served several years, and was detailed as a recruiting officer part of the time. 

Under these circumstances the committee feel justified in recommending that the bill do pass. 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recommenda~ion that it do pass. 

FRANCIS SCOTT. 

:Mr. PRICE. I ask unanimous consent of the Committee of the 

Whole to take up out of its order Senate bill No. 626, on page 51 of the 
.4472 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. MAY 23, 

Calendar. I wish to state in this connection that the man in whose 

favor this bill is reported stands at the door here and wants to return 

home. 

Mr. ERMENTROUT. I demand the regular order: 

The CHAIRMAN. The call for the regular order is equivalent to 

an objection. 

Some time subsequently, 

Mr. PRICE said: I understand that the objection that was made a 

short time ago to considering Senate bill No. 626 out of its order is not 

now insisted upon. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to considering out of its order 

the bill indicated by the gentleman frum Wisconsin [Mr. PRICE]? 

[After a pause.] The Chair hears none. 

The bill (S. 626) to increase the pension of Francis Scott, and to 

rate him in the second grade of pensioners, was taken up and read, as 

follows: 

Be it enacted, &:e., That Francis Scott, late a. private in Company B, Twentythird Regiment of Wisconsin Infantry Volunteers, now on the pension-roll at the rate of $24 per month, shall, from and after the passage of this act be en- titled to receive the same pension as a soldier now receives or which shall be 

allowed hereafter by law to one who has lost one arm at or above the elbow or one leg at or above the knee. 

There being no objection, the bill was laid aside to be reported favorably to the House. 

WILLIAM HARBESON. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 4248) 

granting a pension to William Harbeson. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &:c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of William Harbeson, of Reading, Pa., 

late a private in Company G, Sixth Pennsylvania Cavalry. • 

The report {by Mr. PATrON) is as follows: 

William Harbeson enlisted August 8,1861, as a. private in Company G, Sixth 

Regiment Pennsylvania Cavalry. About November,l863, while in the line of 

duty going into camp at Mitchell's Station, his horse reared up and fell backward, throwing Mr. Harbeson under him, hurting him so badly that he had. to be led into camp, a doctor was called in, and Harbeson was unfit for duty for some time. The above is tesWied to by a. comrade, though there is no record of 

such medical attendance and disability. The testimony also shows that he was a sound man before entering the Army. After the accident he served out his 

time; but the testimony shows that from date of accident he always complained 

of his injuries, though they did not reach the point where medical aid was sum- moned till in 1872. The injury culminated in a chronic inflammation of the 

spinal cord and partial paralysis of the limbs. 

The committee therefore recommend that the bill do pass. 

There being no objection, the bill was laid aside to be reported favorably to the House. 

ANNA MARIA RESSLER. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 4247) 

granting a pension to Anna Maria Ressler. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &:c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Anna l't!aria Ressler, of R~ding, 

Pa., widow of Lawrence Res ler, deceased, late a private in Company Sixty-four, 

Second Baltimore Veteran Reserve Corps, and of Company D, Pennsylvania. Reserve Col"ps. 

The report {by Mr. PATrON) is as follows: 

Lawrence Ressler was enlisted May 26, 1861, as a. private in Company I, 

Seventh Pennsylvania Volunteers. The captain of said company, Joseph G, 

Holmes, testifies from personal knowledge that while in the line of his dutytbe applicant, during the seven days' fight on the Peninsula, contracted a heavy 

cold, which settled on his chest. .A.fter service he was admitted to the general 

hospital parol, Camp Chase, Columbus, Ohio, November 12, 1862, with rheumatism; was returned to his regiment, and was then under treatment for lumbago till Aprilll, 1863; was treated August, 1863, for orchitis; September 21 to October 4, 1863, was treated for gastritis. 

Records of July 10, 1863, of a. list of officers and men unfit for duty, excepting 

invalid corps, shows him.. to have been at Alexandria, Va..; to have been disabled eight months from chronic rheumatism and epididymitis, on account of 

which disea e he was transferred to Sixty-fourth (?) Company (?) B, Company 

H, Twentieth Regiment Veteran Reserve Corps, October 7,1863. He appears again, October 14,1863, at post hospital, Cliffburn Barracks, Washington, D. C., with intermittent fever; mustered out in 1864; December 29,1868, 

entered hospital at Saint Louis, Mo., with acute diarrhea.; left January, 1869; 

entered again March 16, 1869, and died, according to record of hospital, of acute bronchitisApril311869. Pension was claimed by widow on ground that soldier 

died of consumptiOn contracted in service. 

The tesHmony of reputable persons who knew the soldier long and well, including Captain Holmes, is overwhelming that prior to enlistment he was a sound man,andthatfrom the time of service in the Peninsula his health began to fail, and so continued to fail to the time of his death. He was in humble circumstances, and because of this and a belief that medical attendance could avail 

nothing, resorted to home remedies exclusively for his ailments. The widow was therefore unable to supply any medical testimony as to his condition, and 

for this reason her claim Wf\S rejected. 1 

There can be no doubt that the soldier's heroic fidelityto duty while suffering 

under a. long catalogue of complicated diseases was ultimately the cause of his 

death. The committee therefore recommend that the bill do pass. 

There being no objection, the bill was laid aside to be reported favorably to the House. 

NOAH CATON. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 2627) 

granting a pension to Noah Caton. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be 1"t enacted, &:c., That the Secretary of the Interior be directed to place on the pension-roll the name of Noah Caton, late of Company H, Eighty-fifth Regiment Pennsylvania. Volunteers, subJect to the provisions and limitations of the 

pension laws. · 

The report (by Mr. PATrON) was as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2627) 

granting a pension to Noah Caton, have bad the same under consideration. 

and ask leave to submit the following report: 

This bill was before the Committee on Invalid Pen ions of the Forty-sixth 

and Forty-seventh Congresses and was favorably considered by both commit- tees. 

Upon a. re-examination of the claim your committee have reached the same favomble conclusion, and as the facts and conclusions are fully set forth in 

former reports, it is again adopted as· the report of your committee, herewith 

appended, and recommend the passage of the same. 

· [House Report No. 509, Forty-seventh Congress, first session.] 

This bill was before the Committee on Invalid Pensions of the Forty-sixth 

Congress, to whom the subject was referred, and favorably considered, which rer.ort we now append and adopt as our own : 'The claimant, Noah Oaton, enlisted on the 27th of September, 1861, in Com- pany H, Eighty-fifth Regiment of Pennsylvania. Volunteers, and was honorably 

discharged on the 25th of September, 1862, by surgeon's certificate of disability 

(partial paralysis). He filed an application for a pension, alleging that in line 

of duty at Yorktown, Va.., in May, 1862, he received a shell injury~ resultin~.n 

a large tumor in the right side, which disables him f1·om ma.nua.1labor. 1::Lis 

application was rejected on the 24th of October, 1879, because 'no record of alleged injury or result, and the claimant states be. is unable to furnish medical 

testimony to show that the disability existed in service.' 

"The commissioned officers in the company of which the applicant was a. private are all dead, and the whereabouts of the surgeon the applicant is unable to find, although he has made diligent search to ascertain his residence. 

"The applicant produces Aaron Wicklow a.nd John W. Dial, who testified, on 

the 8th of April,l879, that • they were privates in Company H, Eighty-fifth Regi- ment of Pennsylvania. Volunteers, and that Noah Caton was of the same com- pany and regiment, and that while the company was at the battle of Yorktown, 

Va., on the 15th day of May 1862, he was hit with a piece of shell in his right 

side, and, from the effects, there formed a gathering and originated a large tu- mor.' 

"Other evid ence in this claim fully sustains this statement, and shows the 

claimant's disability. 

"Examinini:' Surgeon Dr. S. S. Good, who on the 1st day of February, 1879, 

examined the cla.ima.ntt reports 'that in his opinion the disability did originate in the service, and that ne finds a large fatty tumor in the claimant's right side; mea-sures 8 inches in length and half as much in width·' and also says, 'the 

claimant feels partial paralysis of the entire right side./ He further says, 'I 

recommend one-half, $4 per month.' " In view of the evidence, the committee are of the opinion that the claimant is 

entitled to a. pension, and therefore recommend the passage of the accompany- ing bill. 

There being no objection, the bill was laid aside to be reported favorably to the House. 

WILLIAM WEDDINGFIELD. 

The next bllbiness on the Private Calendar wa.s the bill {H. R. 732} 

granting a pension to William W eddingfield. ' 

'l'he bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &:c., Tha.t the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of William Weddingfield, late a. pri- vate in Company E, First Regiment Potomac Home Brigade Cavalry, Mary- land Volunteers, and that the said William Weddingfield be allowed a pen- sion at the rate of Sl7 per month, commencing July 10, 1864. 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions recommend that the bill beamended by striking out all after the words "Maryland Volunteers." 

The report (by Mr. PATTON) was read, as follows: 

William Weddingfield alleges that on or about June,l864, while on detached 

duty to drive train, the mule he was on fell and he was thrown on croup o:r saddle, striking him in left groin, causing rupture. 

The affidavit of John T. Hickman, second lieutenant Company E, First Regi- ment Potomac Home Brigade Cavalry, 1\Iaryland Volunteers, and of which 

William Weddingfield, the claimant, was a. member, states that in the begin- ning of the month of July,l864,he had occasion to detn.il the said William Weddi ngfield to drive ammunition or baggage wagon, as the regular teamster thereof" 

had deserted, and upon coming to Maryland Heights the said William Weddingfield reported to this affiant that w bile in the discharge of his duty as team- ster he was thrown upon the croup of his saddle, injuring him in the groin. He was never thereafter able to do duty on account of said injury~ which seemed to be an internal hurt. He was never sent to hospital. Althougn frequently re- quested to go there, he would not consent. This affiant was, in the followingmonth (August), sent to hospital, suffering with a. wound which he received, 

and oonsequently can testify no further. 

Walter R. Way, M. D., testifies that he treated William Weddingfield in July, 

1864, for an :tnjury in the left side of the abdomen, a. few inches above the left. 

inguinal ring, understood to have been received by the claimant while in the 

discharge of his duty, getting off wagon train from Martinsburg1 W. Va., and 

while defending the same from capture by the enemy, and that ne exempted. the claimant from any other like duty, awaiting developments in the case, and 

that he shortly after resigned his position as regimental surgeon to accept a po- sition in the staff corps of surgeons, United States Veteran Volunteers, and therefore can not complete history of the case, but in his opinion claimant has a per- manent rupture in the left side, resulting, a.s he believes, from said injury, as· above stated. 

The affidl).vit of Herman Heneman states : "I have known William Weddingfield since 1853; have seen him at short intervals ever since his discharge from the Army in 1865, and from frequent and constant intercourse with him from tha~ time to the present day know that he 

is affected and troubled with hernia or rupture from the time of his discharge 

from the Army up to the present time. Immediately after his return from the 

service heard him, the said Weddingfield, complain frequently of having been 

injured in the groin, from which he continually suffered, and complained of his 

injury for some time until the hernia or rupture commenced developing or coming down, until it beeame so large as to be clearly vi ible whenever he 

walked or sat down, without removing or opening his clothing; and said Weddingfield is, and has been for several years, totally disabled from doing work." 

The testimony of Fred. 1athica, M. D., states that he has been a~quainted 

with William Weddingfield since the year 1869, and has given him medical treat- ment since that time, and that Weddingfield was unable to perform any labor 

duqng these years. The affidavit of H. Eigenbrott states: "Knew William W eddingfield previous to the year 1854 before we came to- this country, and belonged to the same lodge, and knew he was a. sound and 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4473 

healthy man and free from rupture of groin, otherwise he wonld not belong, as members of said lodge are required to be able-bodied; and knows from per- sonal intimacy that he, Weddingfield, returned from the United States ~rmy 

with a rupture upon his person, which now exists." 

The affidavit of Francis Waldner states that he has been intill;lately acquainted 

with William 'Veddingfield since the year 1859, at which time we worked in the 

malt-bouse, and continued to work there up to about the time he enlisted. He would have been unable to work there had be been a ruptured man, as the work was very bard; was also a member of lodge before he went in the Army, and 

knows, therefore, that he was not a ruptured men, as no men with any bodily 

defects upon them are admitted as members; and be also knows that said rupt- ure exist.ed when be, Weddingfield, returned from the Army, and that it now exists. 

The affidavit of John Mass states that he was a private in Company E, First 

Regiment Potomac Home Brigade, Maryland Cavalry, and well knew William 

Weddingfield, of said company and regiment; that he was a good and faithful soldier, a.nd that on one occasion was detailed by Lieutenant Hickman to drive some wagons, and when he reached Maryland Heights he reported as having injured himself in the groin, as it was generally understood and 

known by them that said W eddingfield was injured. Deponent further declares 

that he has re!::lided in close proximity to the said W eddingfield ever since their 

discharge, and recollects that after his discharge he constantly complained of 

said injury received in the Army, which affiant understood to be a ru~ture. 

Said rupture gradually commenced developing and coming down, nntil 1t be- came so large as to be plainly perceptible without the removal or opening the 

clothing, rendering the said Weddingfield totally disabled, and unable, for the 

past five years1 to do any work whatever. He has been a constant and con- tinued sufferer from said rupture from the time of his discharge to the present 

time. 

The committee, in view of all these fact<ll, report the bill ba.ck, with the recom- mendation that it do pass as amended. In line 8 strike out all in bill H. R. 732 after the word" volunteers." 

The motion was agreed to; and the bill as amended was laid aside to 

be reported favorably to the House. 

MAJOR D. WILLIAMS. 

Mr. LAffiD. I ask unanimous consent to take up out of its order 

for consideration at this time Senate bill 394, restoring to the pensionroll the name of Major D. Williams. 

There was no objection. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enac«ld, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to restore to the pension-roll the name of Major D. Williams, late captain of Company C, Twelfth Regiment Indiana Volunteers, and 

grade his pension at $20 per month from the 13th day of September, 1869, the 

date his name was dropped from the roll. 

The report (by Mr. MORRILL) is as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (S. 394) re- storing to the pension-roll the name of Major D. Williams, submit the following 

report: 

Your committee find that a similar bill to this (H. R. 1738) was rerorted favorably from this committee by a unanimous vote. (See Report 1196. Your com- mittee therefore report the bill back with the recommendation that it pass. 

There being no objection, the bill was laid aside to be reported favorably to the House. 

WILLIAM T. M'COY. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R.l436) 

granting a pension to William T. 1\IcCoy, reported from the Committee on Invalid Pensions with amendmenta. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &e., That tlie Secretary of the Int.erior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll the name of William T. Mc- Coy, late of Company B, One hundred and tenth Regiment of Pennsylvania Vol- unteer Infantry, and that the said William T. McCoy be allowed a pension at the rate of $4 per month, commencing from the date of his honorable discharge, to wit, October 24, 1864, from the Army of the United States, on account of injuries 

and disease incurred and contracted by him while in the service and line of duty 

during the late war of the rebellion. 

The amendmenta reported from the committee were, to insert, after 

the words "place on the pension-roll," the words "subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws;" also strike out at the end 

of the bill all after the words "Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry." 

The report (by 1\Ir. PATTON) is as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was refen-ed the bill (H. R. 1436) granting a pension to William T. McCoy, have had the same under consideration, and ask leave to submit the following report: .A. bill passed the House of R.epresentatives in the Forty-sixth and Fortyseventh Congresses, and report in the Forty-seventh Congress says it was not acted on in the Senate of the Forty-sixth Congress for want of time. 

The committee are compelled to append the report of the committees of the 

Forty-sixth and Forty-seventh Congresses upon the subject, and adopt the same as their own, because the contmittee find the evidence of Examining Surgeons Dr. William C. Findley and Dr. G. W. Smith, and evidence both medical and 

that of persons who knew the claimant, sustaining the report has been lost or does not appear with the papers on file in the Pension Department. 

The committee, in view of all the facts, after careful consideration, are of the 

opinion that the claimant is entitled to a pension, and therefore recommend the passage of the accompanying substitute report herewith appended, and recom- mend that it do pass ns amended. 

Add in line 4, after the word "pension-roll," "subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the. pension laws," and strike out all of the bill after the word 

"infantry," in line 6. 

[House Report No. 618, Forty-seventh Congress, firstsession.] 

This bill was before the Committee on Invalid Pensions of the Forty-sixth 

Congress, to whom the subject was refen-ed, and favorably considered, and 

passed the House of Representatives, bnt was not acted on in the Senate for want of time. We append the report of the committee of the Forty-sixth Con- gress upon the subject, and adopt the same as our own: "The claimant enlisted in the military serviceofthe United States on the lstday 

ofSeptell.lber, 1861, in Company B, One hundred and tenth Regiment of Penn- sylvania Volunteers, and was honorably discharged on the 24th day of October, 

1864. He filed an application for pension, setting forth in it that while in action at the battle of Fredericksburg, Va., on the 13th of December, 1862, he received 

a. gunshot wound on the top of his head, and also, while on the march to Chancellorsville, Va., about 1\Iay, 1863, he sustained an injury t<1 his left side, causing palpitation of the heart, &c. His application was rejected because "no disability since discharge." 

"There is no dispute about the gunshot wound and iqjnry being received by 

the claimant while in the Army and line of duty. · "Examining Surgeon Dr. William C. Findley says in his report of the ex- amination of the claimant on the 27th of November, 1878, that by reason of alleged disability, resulting from gunshot· wound on the top of head and injury to left side, causing heart disease, the claimant is one-half incapacitated for 

obtaining his subsistence by manual labor. .a "Examining Surgeon Dr. G. W. Smith says, in his report of the examination of 

the claimant, made July 16, 1879: 'By reason of the gunshot wound ' of the 

head the applicant is not incapacitated for obtaining his subsistence by manuaf 

labor.' 

"All other evidence, both medical and that of persons who know the claimant, 

sustains the report of Examining Surgeon Findley; and it will be seen that Ex- amining Surgeon Smith only examined the claimant for the gunshot wound. 

entirely overlooking the injury that caused heart disease. 

"After reviewing and considering all the evidence, the committee are of the 

ouinion that the claimant is entitled to a pension, and therefore recommend the- passage ofthe accompanying substitute bill." 

The amendments reported from the committee were agreed to; and 

the bill as amended was laid aside to be reported favorably to the 

House. 

JAMES .A..A.RQN. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 4254} 

granting a pension to James Aaron. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &e., That the Secretary of the Interior he, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll the name of James Aaron, lateof Company F, Ninety-first Regiment -of Pennsylvania Volunteers, at the rate of$9 per month, commencing on the 29th of June, 1865, that being the date of 

his discharge from the Army ofthe UnitedStatesonaccountofinjuriesreceived · and disease contnwted while in said military service and in line of duty. 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions recommend that the bill be 

amended by inserting, after the words "place on the pension-roll," the 

words "subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws,' r 

and to strike out at the end of the bill all after the words ~' Pennsylva.n.ia Volunteers.'' 

The report (by Mr. PATTON) was as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4254) granting a. pension to James Aaron, respectfully submit the following re- pod: • Your committee beg leave to adopt the report made to the Forty-sixth Con- gress in this case as representing its views and recommendations, and report the 

bill (H. R. 4.254) back to the House and ask that it do pass as amended, namely: In line 4, after the word "pension-roll, " add " subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws." In line 6 strike out all in the bill after the 

word" volunteers." 

[House Report No. 67, Forty-sixth Congress, first session.] 

James Aaron, the claimant, enlisted on the 21st day of September, 1864, in. 

Company F, Ninety-first Regiment of Pennsylvania Volunteers, and was honorably discharged on the 29th of June, 1865. He filed an application for pen- sion, alleging that while in the Army of the United States he was disabled in, 

consequence of severe exposure and hardship of the service, by contracting lung fever and varicose ulcerations of the right leg. His claim was rejected on the 17th of February, 1879, on the supposition that the varicose veins existed 

prior to enlistment. 

The committee have carefully reviewed all the sworn testimony filed in sup- port of this claim, and they are of the opinion that the rejection is erroneous ;. that there is not a syllable of evidence to show that the claimant suffered from 

varicose ulceration of the right leg before he enlisted in the Army. 

John G. Leasure and Joseph Bennett, members of Company F, Ninety-first 

Regiment of Pennsylvania Volunteers, and comrades of the claimant, swear "that at the time of the enlistment they were well acquainted wJh him, and 

that he was an able-bodied man, and was examined by a physician appointed 

for that purpose. That on or about the 26th of November, 1864, at or near Hatcher's Run, Virginia, said James .Aaron was disabled in the line of his duty, by reason of an aggravated disease (by camp life) of the right leg, as reported by 

the hospital steward of that place, and was sent away from the regiment unfit 

for duty, and never returned, he being unfit for excessive fatigue or duty." 

Zachariah Shaffer, a private in the same company, swears that the claimant. 

"was an able-bodied man at the time of his enlistment, and that at or near Petersburg he was attacked by some slow fever, which appeared to create a severe sore or running ulcer on his right leg, and still (August811878) remains a running ulcer." This witness also says he was "acquainted Wlth the claimantr James .d.aron, at the time of his enlistment, while in the Army, and since his return to the present." Other witnesses sustain this testimony. 

On the lith of September, 1871, Dr. D. Helm Rite swears "that I have examined James Aaron, formerly of Company F, Ninety-first Regiment of Pennsylvania. 

Volunteers, and find his afiliction to be a chconic ulcer of the right leg, extending almost from the knee to the ankle-joint, on the inner and anterior aspects of the limb." 

On the22ddayofFebruary11877,Dr. John G. Hughes swears that he graduated at Jefferson Medical College m l\1arch, 1853, and that he has been well acquainted 

with James .Aaron for eighteen years, and had been his family physician prior to his enlistment, and says: "I never knew him (prior to his enlistment) to suffer from any pulmonary disease or give any evidence or indication of pul- monary weakness. I saw him at hishomesoonafter hisreturnfrom the service. I was called upon to visit him professionally and give him treatment. I found 

him at that time very much debilitated and broken down in general health, but. 

suffering ~articularly from diseased lungs." He furthers swears that he was then the ' unfortunate bearer of varicose ulcers of the lower limb, from which. 

he suffers greatly much of the time. Indeed, they never heal up entirely, but are open and discharging, more or less, all the time. As they seem to be the re- sult of the enlarged and varicose condition of the veins of the legs, they renderwalking about often almost an impossbility. In closing my statement of this case I would add that I do consider the applicant, James Aaron, a most worthy 

claimant; that he isaconfirmedsutfererfromailmentcontracted in the service.,,. 

On the 16th of August, 1878, 0. P. G. Clark, Acting Commissioner of Pensions, 

addressed a letter to Philip Knee, a resident of Chaneysville, Pa., where theclaimant resides, asking him, "Will you please inform this office of any knowledge yon may have, either personal or from information, 1-.elative to this man's 

(James Aaron's) physical condition before enlistment in 1864 and since his fi.nal 

discharge in 1865? " · 
• 

4474 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 23, 

Mr. Knee an.swered as follows: 

CHANEY»VILLE, BEDFORD CoUNTY, PENNSYLV.ll<"'IA, 

A u(ltUlt 28, 1878. 

Sm: I have known James Aaron for twelve years, and have seen him more or less every day during this time. He has had a bad leg ever since he has been 

discharged out of the Army; know that his physical condition was good before 

he went in the Army, and that he ought to be entitled to pension above others 

that are getting pensions. 

Respectfully, PHILIP KNEE. 

Hon. COMMISSIONER OF PENSIONS. 

The examining surgeon, Jacob A. Baird, in 1878, fixes the disability at one-half 

loss of foot, or $9 per month, and says: "Judging from his (the applicant's) pres- ent condition, and from the evidence before him, the said disability did origi- nate in the service in the line of duty." In the opinion of the committee this is a. meritorious claim, and report the bill 

back to the House and recommend its passage. 

The amendments reported from the committee were agreed to, and 

the bill as amended was laid aside to be reported favorably to the 

House. 

ARTHUR I. M' CONNELL. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 2623) 

granting a pension to Arthur I. McConnell. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &:c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll the name of Arthur I. McConnell, late of Company M, One hundred and second Regiment Pennsylva~ia 

Volunteers, at the rate of $6 per month, from the 28th of June, 1865, that bemg 

. . 

Lennon is suffering from a ifUDShot wound in the head, which is serious and incurable, entirely disabling bun from manual labor. 

James C. Wilson, 1\I. D., of Flint, 1\Iicb., testifies that :be bas known Peter 

Lennon since his return from the war, and was called in consultation to see him 

when he suffered a severe acute attack of congestion of the brain. 

Under date of December 21,1882, he also says: 

"To-day I find him with a pulse of 102 and a t-emperature about the same, with a furred and fissured tongue. I know Lennon bas been sick a great deal during the last ten years. His case is much worse t.ban if he had lost a leg, for he is 

constantly in ill-health and compelled to employ a. physician." 

The circumstances in this case make it one of unusual hardship, and appeals strongly to our feelings of sympathy as well as justice. In years be is·still on the sunny side of life, with warm friends and family ties binding him strongly with the desire to live, and but for this wound in his head he would be in the 

very prime and heyday of existence. Instead of a bright and happy future 

there is Tor him only suffering, without hope of recovery, till the end comes with release and rest in the grave. Totally incapacitated from labor or busi- ness, he asks from Congress a sum sufficient for his care and reasonable support. Your committee think an increase should be granted, but as it does not appear that he requires the constant aid and attendance of another person, we therefore amend the bill by striking out the word "fifty," in line 5, and inserting the words "forty-five," and recommend that the bill pass. 

The amendment reported from the committee was agreed to; and the 

bill as amended was laid aside to be reported favorably to the House. 

ADOLPH WEACH. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 2282) 

granting a pension to Adolph W each. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

the date o_f his discharge fr<?~ the Ar~y of 'the ~nited States in the l~te .war ?f Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and is hereby,author- the rebelhon on account of mJury received and disease contracted while In sa1d ized and directed to place on the pension-roll subject to the provisions and limmilitary service and in line of duty. itations of the pension laws, the name of Adolph Wesch, late of Company I, 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions report an amendment, to strike · Eleventh Regiment Michigan Volunteer Infantry. 

outallafterthewords "Pennsylvania Volunteers" andinsertinlieu the\ The report (by Mr. WINANS of Michigan) is as follows: 

words "subiect to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws.'' ' J The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. The report (by .Mr. PATTON) is as follows: 2282) granting a pension to Adolph Wea.ch, report: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, t.o whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2623) That said Adolph W each enlisted in the Eleventh Michigan Infantry August granting a pension to Arthur I. McConnell, report as follows: 24., 1861, and having served his full term faithfully, making a. good military rea- Your committee beg leave to adopt the report made t.o the Forty-sixth Con- ord; he was honorably discharged September 30, 1864. He filed his declaration 

gress in this case as representing its views and recommendations, and report the for an invalid pension April28, 1876, claiming disability from chronic rheumabill (H. R. 2623) ba-ck to the House and ask that it do pass as amended, namely, tism contracted in the service while in line of duty, which claim was rejected by adding after the word" volunteer,"~ line 6, "subje~t to the provisions and on the ground of"no record of alleged disability." limitations of the pension laws," and strike out all of llne~ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12, and Claimant states that he contracted said disease from exposure and hardships 

the word "at," in line 6. ~~~l;nc~f'~hfc:r~~~df::bl~~ Kentucky, and that it settled in his left hip, by 

[House Report No. 52, Forty-sixth Congress, second session.] Capt. Nelson Chamberlain, of the Eleventh Michigan Infantry, testifies that 

Arthur McConnell made appli~tion for pension on the 8th of June, 1876, alleg- claimant while in pursuit of Morgan contracted rheumatism, which settled in 

ing "that while in line of duty at Burkeville, Va., he contracted chronic diar- his left hip. 

rhea and asthma." His application was not favorably considered by the Com- The reg1mental surgeon, William N. Elliott, testifies that claimant was sound 

missioner of Pensions, because the applicant was unable to furnish the medical and healthy at enlistment, and that in June,l862,at Columbia1Ky., he treated 

evidence required by the Department. him for rheumatism, which settled in his left hip; and he furtner says in a. letThomas J. K1:ise, a private and comrade in the same company with the appli- ter of date January 26,1878, that the regimental records are very imperfect. 

cant, and who went !rom the same neighborhood to the Army, testifies ''that The claimant further states that from date of discharge he used liniments 

while at Burkeville, Va., on or about the lOth day of l\1ay,1865, the claimant con- and home remedies to alleviate his sufferings, and employed no physician till 

tra.cted from exposure while lying on the damp ground, chronic diarrhea and 1870, when he was compelled to call in Dr. Gregg, by whom be was treated till 

asthma'; that at the time of his enlistment into the military service of tne United urn, which is established by the affidavit of said John M. Gregg, M.D., and is 

States he was in the enjoyment of sound bodily health and perfectly free from corroborated by ample testimony of neighbors who have known the claimant 

the aforesaid diseases, from which he bas been suffering from the date of his dis- intimately since his discharge to the present time, who testify that he has not -charge." · · been free from chronic rheumatism during said period. Michael Shortencercher, another comra.de, corroborates this testimony as to Examining Surgeon W. F. Breakey certifies that his disability from chronic 

the contracting of chronic diarrhea and asthma at Burkeville, Va. rheumatism is total and probably permanent. Elias B. Barnicle and W. A. Adams, two reputable citizens of the town in From the foregoing facts your committeea.reoftheopinion that the imperfect which the applicant lives, swear "that they are personally well acquainted with regimental records should not prevent a. worthy and .deserving soldier from re- the claimant; knew him before and at the time of his enlistment into the mili- cei ving what is clearly and justly his due. We therefore recommend the passage tary service of the United States, when he was in the enjoyment of sound bodily of the bill. 

health and perfectly free from chronic diarrhea and asthma; that since his dis- <lharge from the service he has suffered from these diseases, which have con- tinuously existed to the present time." 

Dr. Alexander Tate, who treated the claimant for chronic diarrhea and asthma a part of th-.me since his return from the Army, says the claimant, because of 

said diseases, is unable to do manual labor. 

Examining Surgeon Dr. D. )V. Evans says the claimant's disability is likely to be permanent, and, from the evidence before him, the disability originated in 

the service, and in the line of duty, and rates the disability at three-fotlrths, or $6 per month. 

The committee are of opinion, after considering all the facts in the case, that 

the claimant is entitled to a. pension, and they therefore recommend the passage ()[ the accompanying bill. 

The amendment reported from the committee was agreed to, and the 

bill as amended laid aside to be reported favorably to the House. 

PETER LENNON. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 796) 

to increase the pension of Peter Lennon. 

The bill was read, as follows: . 

Be it enacted, &:c., That the pension of Peter Lennon, late second lieutenant of 

Company B, Flfth Regiment l\Iichigan Volunteers, be increased to $50 per month. 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions report an amendment, to strike 

out "$50" and insert "$45., 

The report (by Mr. WINANS, of Michigan) is as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 796) 

to increase the pension of Peter Lennon, report: 

That Peter Lennon, late second lieutenant of Company B, Fifth Regiment 

Michigan Volunteers, i now on the pension-list, rated at 830 per month, for 

wounds received in service. He was four times wounded. A severe wound in 

the head is the one on which he bases his claim for increase, for the reason that 

it bas totally disabled him from labor or business for the past eight years. He 

is subject to constant recurring periods of illness, in which be suffers extreme pam, and is necessitated to have constant medical attendance during those 

attacks, by reason of which his expenses are large and have exhausted his re- sources, requiring much more than he receives from his pension to pay doctors' 

bills, which in one year cost him $600, and every year several hundred dollnrs 

for medical attendance. 

R. N : Murray, a reputable physician of Flint, Mich., testifies that he is the fa.milt physician of said Peter Lennon, and has been for the past ten years; that 

Mr. WINANS, of Michigan. The reason this claim was rejected by 

the Pension Office was that there was no record in the case of the alleged disability. The captain and the <;olonel of the regiment testify 

that the record was not kept correctly. The case is a good one, and 

should be allowed. 

There being no objection, the bill was laid aside to be reported favorably to the House. 

JOHN ALGOE. 

Mr. WINANS, of Michigan. I ask unanimous consent to take up 

out of its order Senate bill 783 to ·increase the pension of John Algoe. 

It is a very meritmjous case. 

The CHAIRMAN. If there be no objection the bill indicated by 

the gentleman will be taken up. 

There was no objection. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to increase the pension of John Algoe, formerly of Company A, Tenth Regiment Michigan Infantry State Volunteers, to S50 per month 

from the date of this act. · 

The amendment reported by the Committee on Inva.lid Pensions, to 

strike out "$50 per month " and insert "$45 per month," was read 

and agreed to. 

The bill as amended was laid aside to be reported favorably to the 

House. 

c ·ATHERINE WEISS. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 5976) 

for the relief of Catherine Weiss. 

The bill was read, as _follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, auf~f~~i~~~c~!~~~s~~f;}:;s~lb~h~f~~s~fC!~~~r~~jw!~~~d~~~Wuu= Weis , !ate a. private in Company E, Ninth New Jersey Infantry Volunteers. 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4475 

The amendments recommended by the Committee on Invalid Pensions were read, as follows: 

Strike out, in line 6, the word" Weiss.'' where it twice occurs, and insert "Meis." 

Amend the title of the bill by striking out "Weiss " and inserting "Meis." 

The report (by Mr. BAGLEY) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 5966) for the reliefofCatharineMeis, having considered the same, make the fol- lowing report: It is abundantly shown that William Meis received a gunshot wound of the right leg in the battle of the Wilderness, on the 6th day of May, 1864, which neces! sitated amputation of the thigh, lower third, and that after receiving treatment in the general hospital, Philadelphia, he was discharged Deoember 7, 1864, by reason of the disability and expiration of term of service, the records of both the ;\djutant-General and Surgeon-General establishing these facts. At the time of receiving the wound be was a private in Company E, Ninth Regiment New Jersey Volunteers, having been regularly mustered into the service on the 13th September, 1861. Death transpired May 15, 1875. At the time of death be was receiving a pension, amount not stated, but it was paid to time of death. The ·widow filed her application on the 16th of August following, alleging that her husband died of" gastric ulcer," the result of wounds. It was rejected" on the grounds that the gastric ulcer which caused the soldier's death did not orig- inate in the service aud was in no way the result of the loss of h.is leg or of the service." The testimony is voluminous and the affidavits numerous, all tend- ing to the conclusion that the debilitated condition of the soldier superinduced the disease of which he died. Three or four of these affidavits, relieved of their verbiage, the committee think will be sufficient to convince that the widow's declaration is true. Lewis Helmen says that he· knew l\Ieis more t.han ten years prior to his death; that he died at Newark, N.J., on or about May 15,1875; that prior to en- listment be was a strong, healthy,and able-bodied man; that after the amputa- tion be declined in health; that his wounds gave him great pain, with constant discharges; that pieces of bone came out; that he kept growing worse until death ensued, and, affiant believes, solely from the gunshot wound; and that from the time of discharge the soldier was constantly under the care of doctors. Lewis H. Smith, who was a private in Company G, One hundred and twenty- first Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteers, and who knew l\Ieis for ten years prior to d eath, and cognizant of the amputation, testifies to the suffering of the soldier and the constant discharges from the wound, and gives as his opinion that dea-th was the result of said wound. Ferdinand Stoll, who was captain of Company D, Second Regiment New Jersey Volunteers, and who bad known 1\Ieis for twenty years, says that he knows of his personal knowledge that the wound never healed, but when par- tially closed would again break out and discharge pus and pieces of bone, and that be believes death was caused by his sufferings and continuous loss of strength. He also testifies to the temperate habits of soldier. 'l'bese affiants are all spoken of as persons of respectability and entirely trust- worthy. 

Hillmar J. Gallubu, M.D., treated the soldier professionally at intervals, for at le ast five years prior to his death, for general debility and weakness, result- ing from a nd due to amputation of one of his legs, and be says be considered the soldier's condition due wholly to the amputation, and that his death was due to the weakness and debility and impoverishment of blood resulting from the loss of leg. Dr. Herman W. Gedicke says that Meis was totally disabled, very weak, and wholly debilitated from the anremiccondition of his blood; wascoufined to his bed and part of the time delirious. Dr. L. Bu.rkheiser says the soldier died from exhaustion, weakness, and gen- eral debility, resulting from the constant discharge from the stump. 

Layman and physicians agree in their conclusion that death was due to the amputated limb: and although the technical term "gastric ulcer" does not seem to be used in the affidavits quoted, the committee think there can be no doubt that death resulted from the wounds received by the soldier in the serv- ice and in the line of duty, and therefore recommend that the bill be passed with the following amendments: Strike out the word "Weiss," wherever it occurs in the bill, and insert "Meis," and amend the title so .!lS to read "Cath- erine Meis" instead of "Catherine Weiss." 

The amendments reported by the Committee on Invalid Pensions · were agreed to. 

The bill as amended was laid aside to be reported favorably to the 

House. ALONZO COOPER. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 5889) 

granting a pension to Alonzo Cooper. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized and directed to place the name of Alonzo Cooper, late first lieutenant of Company 

F, Twelfth New York Cavalry, war·of the rebellion, on the penaion-roll, at the rate of $25 per month. SEc. 2. That this act shall take effect immediately. 

The amendments reported by the Committee on Invalid Pensions were read, as follows: 

Strike out at the end of section 1 the words " at the rate of $25 per month" and insert "subject to the provisions and limitations of the present laws." 

Strike out the second section. 

The report (by Mr. BAGLEY) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H . R. 5889) granting a pension to Alonzo Cooper, having considered the same, make the following report: The petitioner enlisted in the United States service as second lieutenant in Company I, Twelfth New York Cavalry, August 27,1862, and was discharged 

July 19, 1865. The basis of claim for pension, as stated in his declaration filed October 2, 1879, is that one rib was fractured and injury t-o back received while on horseba ck, by the horse jumping through an open stable-door and the frame of the door striking him in the stomach. This occurred at Plymouth, N.C., November 11, 1863. The claim was rejected by the Pension Office because claim- ant was not in line of duty when the injuries were received. R. Scott, M. D., and Chancey W. Brown testify to their acquaintance with claimant for twenty or thirty years, and know that be was a sound, able-bodied man prior to enlistment. R . B. Hock testifies that be was captain of Company 

F, Twelfth New York Cavalry, and knew claimant as first I ieutenant of Company 

I, and knew him to have receh·ed a severe injury to his back while on horse- back1 the horse jumping through an open stable-door and claimant's stomach strikmg the door-frame; knows the above from being in claimant's quarters soon after his injury. 

William Well.s, sergeant of Company I; Simson Church captain Company B; and Ernest B. Colby, sergea.ntCompanyi, all ofthe Twelfth New York Cavalry, corroborate the averments of Captain Hock, making substantially the same statement. 

Hannah A. Borli.s, Chancey Brown, and Byron De Witt, M. D., certify to the claimant's disability and its character and to the fact of his inability to perform manual labor Hince h.is discharge from the Army. The fact of the injury is clearly proved, but the question to be determined is, whether or not it was received in the line of duty. On this point the claimant offers the testimony of James W. Savage, late colouel of '.rwelftb Regiment New York Cavalry, who says: "Cooper, while in the military service of the United States, and in the line of his duty,and without fault or improper conduct of his own, on or about the lith day of November, 1863, at Plymouth, N.C., was injured by a vicious horse which he was trying to subdue. I know these facts from hearsay only, as! did not join the regiment until the month following, but I recollect hearing of the accident soon after it occurred. I remember Cooper as an expert rider and good trainer of horses, and regarded his injury as having occurred in the line of duty." 

Capt. John S. Ellison's (of Company I) testimony is more valuable, as showing that Cooper was acting under orders. He says : "Cooper was injured by a vicious horse which he was trying to conquer, sa.id horse having acquired a habit of refusing to leave the stable when mounted; and while said Cooper was endeavoring to ride him from the stable he suddenly turned and attempted to re-enter the door, striking Cooper's breast against the door-frame, breaking one of his ribs and severely injuring his back. Cooper was at that time acting under my general instructions for efficiency of the troop and in the line of duty." The committee think that this clearly shows that the petitioner was in the line of duty when the accident occurred. A. S. Coe examining surgeon, says: "Cooper had a fracture of seventh rib at the junction of the cartilage of the left side. The fractured ends are imperfectly adjusted and override, forming a prominent tumor. There was no union of parts. Stooping causes a slipping of one end over the other ; alleges that at the time of receivini: the fracture of the rib be suffered a severe stra.in of back in the lumbar region. Overwork and ex- citementca.use severe pain in the back1 and any labor that requires him t-o stoop disables him for manual labor. Disability one-fourth total." The committee are of the opinion that the soldier was disabled while in the line of duty, and recommend that the bill do pass with the following amend- ment: Strike out all after the words" pension-roll," in line 6, and insert the words "subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws." 

.. The amendments reported by the Committee on Invalid Pensions were agreed to. 

The bill was ordered to be laid aside to be reported favorably to the 

House. ~IARY E. SEYMOUR. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 4846) 

granting a pension to Mary E. Seymour, widow of Charles J. Seymour, a deceased soldier. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the limitations and conditions of the pension laws, the name of Mary E. Seymour, widow of Charles J. Seymour, a deceased soldier, and pay her at the rate of$- per month. 

The report (by Mr. BAGLEY) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4846) granting a pension to Mary E. Seymour, widow of Charles J. Seymour, a deceased soldier, having had the same under consideration, report as follows: Charles J. Seymour, the husband of Mary E. Seymour, entered into the em- ployment and service of the United States Government as a contract surgeon on the 25th day of June, 1862, and be was duly mustered into pensionable rank on the same day. His contracts with the Government ended on the 23d day of September, 1863, but he remained in the actual service of the United States as sur- geon in charge of one of its hospitals at Nashville, Tenn., until the close of the war. He was a capable, honest, and faithful surgeon. Until he took charge of the hospital at Nashville he accompanied the armies on their long marches, and did good service, except that for a short time he was in hospital at Bowling 

Green, Ky., suffering from diarrhea. It is conclusively proved by the evidence of two disinterested and credible witnesses (Dr. J. H. Chittenden and George R. Seymour, one of them a surgeon in the Army with him) that in January, May, and April, 1864, he was suffering from chronic diarrhea; that he was weak and emaciated, largely reduced in flesh, .and able to do but little duty, He suffered more or less from .the same disease until the close of the war, and from that time on until the day of his death the evidence is abundant and conclusive that he was suffering from chronic diarrhea.- (Evidence of Dr. Chittenden, Dr. Andrews, and Dr. Bates; also George R. and John B. Seymour.) He died of that disease at Santa Barbara, Cal., December 29, 1873. (Evidence of Dr. Bates.) He left his widow, and children under the age of 14 years. The application of the widow for a pension was rejected on the ground "that there was no evi- dence to show that the disease of which the soldier died originated in the serv- ice." The evidence presented on that subject is as follows: At the time be entered the service he was a healthy man and free from diarrhea and had never suffered from that disease. (Evidence of Dr. Chittenden.) About the middle of January, 1864, he was in feeble health, suffering from chronic diarrhea to such an extent that he was weak, feeble, largely reduced-in flesh, and able to do but little duty. In April, 1864, from the same disease, he was reduced and able to do but little duty, and.on that account sought and ob- tained a short leave of absence. He soon returned to duty, but remained in feeble health. In May, 1864, he was very weak from the same disease. (Evi- dence of Dr. Chittenden, George R. Seymour, and letters.) From his letters, written September 2, 18, and '27, 1862, and April 30,1863, it ap- pears conclusively that be was then suffering from diarrhea, and that to an ex- tent that impaired his health and broke him down so that he was left in hospital at Bowling Green for a short time. These letters were written and sent by him at a time when be bad no possi- ble inducement to misrepresent the facts, and as be was a physician and sur- geon, he of course well knew his disease. When under treatment immediately after leaving the service, and before death or a pension was thought of, he stat.ed 

that the disease arose in 1862. As it is clearly proved that be was free from this disease at the time he entered the service of the Government in 1862, and that he was suffering from the disease in January, 1864, which bad then become chronic, and as his letters written in 1862 and 1863 show that be was then suf- fering from diarrhea, and as it is well known that it takes time for diarrhea to become chronic, we think it a fair and logical inference that be contracted the disease of which he died while in the actual employment of the Government and in the line of his duty. 
4476 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- HOUSE. ~fAY 23, 

We also think that, even if the disease was not contracted nntil after Septem- ber 23, 1863, at which time his contract expired by its terms1 inasmuch as It was contracted while in the actual service of the Unit-ed States, m the field, the pension should be granted. The evidence is that he did duty with the Army in its hard marches and on many fields. It is well known that chronic diarrhea is a disease that accrues by slow degrees from hard work, exposure, &c. The "particular circumstances" under which the disease was induced or the particular circumstances 

that caused the disea-se may be, and often are, beyond the ability of man to as- certain. 

We therefore report the bill favorably, and recommend that it do pass, with 

the following amendment: Strike out all after the name" Charles J. Seymour," in line 6, and insert in lieu thereof the words "surgeon in the United States 

Army." 

The amendment reported by the Committee on Invalid Pensions to 

strike out, at the end of the bill, all after "Charles J. Seymour" and 

insert "a surgeon in the United States Army," was read and agreed to. 

The bill as amended was laid aside to be reported favorably to the 

House. GEORGE S. RIGGS. 

The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 3332) 

granting a pension to Goorge S. Riggs. 

1 The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &:c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of GeorgeS. Riggs, lat-e a. private in 

Company E, Eighty-third New York Volunteers, on account of disease con- tracted in the line of duty and in the military service of the United States in the war of the rebellion ; said pension to date from the discharge of said soldier, 

November 26, 1862. 

The report (by Mr. BAGLEY) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 

3332) granting a pension to GeorgeS. Riggs, having considered the same, make 

the following report: The petitioner, in his declaration for a pension, alleges under oath that in the 

year 1862, whil~ in the service of the United States, he contracted chronic dysentery and het!'IOrrhage of the lnngs, and is wholly unable to attend to any kind 

of business by which he can make a living. In a subsequent affidavit, on the 

loth of .August, lff77, he says that he was enlisted at New York city1 in April, 

1861,asa. private in CompanyE, Eighty-third New York Volunteers (Nmth New 

York Militia), and was discharged November 26, 1862, from branch of Trinity hospital, Washington, D. C., on account of chronic diarrhea. That while in the 

service aforesaid, and in the line of duty as a. soldier, he wa-s disabled by the 

disease before mentioned, in the fall of 1861, in the State of Maryland. He was treated in tent hospital, at Darnestown, Md., for about two weeks in August, 1861, then had a sick furlough,_ and was home about twenty-eight days, when he 

rejoined his regiment at Muddy Branch, Md. 

Some time in September, after the battle of South Mountain, 1862, on the 

march, he was severely attacked by the disease of which he now complains, and went to Trinity hospital, as before stated, and remained until discharged. It seems the petitioner has made three declarations for pension, the last of which 

is dated August 30, 1877, and rejected, as follows: "Disability not referable to service." 

F. Mills Fisher,M.D.,swears that in the month of May,1861, he was surgeon of the Ninth Regiment New York Militia, known as the Eighty-third Regiment United States Volunteers of the State of New York, and tha t in the latter part, of May he examined George S. Riggs, of Company E, and that then Riggs was physically sound and robust, and every way qualified for service according to the Government requirements, and as such passed Riggs, and he was sworn in to the service of the Government. 

Cornelius F. Fuller and Joseph Price,· of Brooklyn, affiants, say that they have known Riggs for over twenty-five years, and have h ad intimate acquaint- ance with him; that prior to his enlistment he was a sound, well man; that they have known him since his discharge, and that since then Riggs has been more or less aftlicted with the disease of which he complains. 

Henry C. Smit.h, captain of company to which Riggs belonged, says that he was well acquainted with Riggs and that while in the performance of his duty in the field, from exposure or otherwise, contracted chronic diarrhea or other 

disability, and that the disease was contracted in the month of August, 1861, in 

and around the city of Darnestown, Md. 

Isaa.c N. Comings,M. D., practicing in the city ofNewYork,saysthat George 

S. Riggs came under his treatment in December, 1862, for chronic diarrhea, immediately after his discharge from the Army, and was under his care for about one year. The treatment was of some benefit, but I consider him incurable. He say~ further, that he examined the ~oldier August 17, 1877, and found him 

still sunering from the disease named and its effects. 

The case seems to be quite clear that Riggs went into the service a sonnd and 

healthy man; that he suffered from exposure and fatigue to that extent that 

the weakness and disease complained of were produced. We think the continu- ance of the disease is clearly proved by the physician's testimony; and, more- overJ.. the acting Commissioner of Pensions, in a letter sent to the chairman of 

the uommittee on Invalid Pesions, nnder date of May Zl, 1880, containing a schedule of the papers sent in the case, concludes by saying, "Upon a review of 

the medical evidence in the case, it is believed that claimant IS disabled in a pensionable degree from the disease alleged." The committee are satisfied to recommend the passage of the bill with the following amendment: Strike out all after the word" volunteers," in line 7. 

The amendment reported by the Committee on Invalid Pensions, to 

strike out at the end of the bill all after the word "volunteers," was read and agreed to. 

The bill as amended was laid aside to be reported favorably to the 

House. 

Mr. MATSON. I move that the committee now rise. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The committee accordingly rose; and the Speaker pro tempore having taken the chair, Mr. HATCH, of Missouri, reported that the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, having had under 

consideration various pension bills, had directed him to report the same to the House with sundry recommendations. 

BILLS P .ASSED. 

House bills of the following titles, reported from the Committee of 

the Whole House on the Private Calendar without amendment, were 

---

severally considered, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading; and 

being engrossed, were read the third time, and passed: 

A bill !H. R. 5082) granting a pension to Jane Hilton; 

A bill H. R. 585) granting a pension to William Reinhardt; 

A bill H. R. 40611 for the relief of William C. H. Bowman; 

A bill (H. R. 4526 granting a pension to Mrs. Ann Corbin; 

A bill !H. R. 3613 granting a pension to Irn l\IcN air; 

A bill H. R. 1866 granting a pension to Calvin L. Knick; 

A bill H. R. 2358 granting a pension to James Hawkins; 

A bill H. R. 5960 granting a pension to George Ziefle; 

A bill H. R. 2378j restoring to the pension-roll the name of John 

Allee; 

A bill (H. R. 5894) granting a pension to Mrs. Mary Morris Husband; 

A bill (H. R. 5485) granting a pension to Mrs. Samantha Harriman; 

A bill (H. R. 389) granting a pension to John Boyle; 

A bill ~H. R. 4297l for the relief of Henrietta. M. Sands; A bill H. R. 5148 granting a pension to Jacob Lafferty; 

A bill H. R. 3403 for the :relief of Jacob J. Morningstar; 

A bill H. R. 5595) granting a pension to Eugene L. Townsend; 

A bill H. R. 1449) granting a pension to Dennis McGinnis; 

A bill (H. R. 4663) granting a pension to Barbara A. Smith; 

A bill (H. R. 4248) granting a pension to William Harbeson; 

A bill (H.- R. 4247) granting a pension to .Anna Maria. Ressler; 

A bill (H. R. 2627) granting a pension to Noah Caton; and 

A bill (H. R. 2282) granting a pension to Adolph W each. 

Honse bills of the following titles, reported from the Committee of 

the Whole House on the Private Calendar with amendments, were sev- erally considered, the amendments agreed to, and the bills as amended 

ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, 

they were accordingly read the third time, and passed: 

A bill (H. R. 5999) granting additional pension to George H. Fluke; 

A bill (H. R. 1862) for the increase of the pension of James Buchanan; 

A bill (H. R. 3160) granting a pension to Elizabeth J. Colbert; 

A bill (H. R. 5776) granting a pension to Lonis D. Petty; 

A bill (H. R. 4379} for the relief of Maj. W. W. Frybarger; 

A bill (S. 1569) granting a pension to Mrs. Mary M. Ord, widow of 

Maj. Gen. E. 0. C. Ord; 

A bill!H. R. 5728) granting a pension to .Anna Beck; 

A bill H. R. 732) granting a pension to William Wedding:field; 

A bill H. R. 1436) granting a pension to William T. McCoy; 

A bill (H. R. 4254) granting a pension to James Aaron; · 

A bill ~H. R. 2623) granting a pension to Arthur I. McConnell; 

A bill H. R. 796) to increase the pension of Peter Lennon; 

A bill H. R. 5889) granting a pension to Alonzo Cooper; 

A bill (H. R. 4846) granting a pension to Mary E. Seymour, widow 

of Charles J. Seymour, a deceased soldier; 

A bill (H. R. 3332) granting a pension to GeorgeS. Riggs; 

A bill (H. R. 891) granting a pension to Robert J. Ebberman; and 

A bill (H. R. 5976) forthe relief of Catherine Weiss. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the titles of the 

two bills last passed will be changed to conform to the action of the 

Committee of the Whole. 

There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly. 

Senate bills of the following titles, reported from the Committee of 

the Whole House on the Private Calendar without amendment, were severally ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed: 

A bill (S. 394) restoring to the pension-roll the name of Major D. Williams; -

A bill (S. 626) to increase the pension of Francis Scott; 

A bill (S. 1299) to increase the pension of Alonzo B. Chatfield; and 

A bill (S. 494) for the relief of Nancy Miller. 

Senate bill of the following title was considered, the amendment re- ported from the Committee of the.Whole House on the Private Calendar agreed to, the bill as amended ordered to a third reading, read 

the third time, and passed: 

A bill (S. 783) to increase the pension of John Algoe. 

The bill (H. R. 3112) for the relief of Alonzo B. Chatfield was laid on the table, in accordance with the recommendationoftheCommittee 

of the Whole. 

Mr. MATSON moved to .reconsider the several votes just taken; and 

also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

Mr. MATSON. I move that the House do now adjourn. 

The motion was agreed to; and accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 3 minutes.p. m.) the House adjourned. 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

The following petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk~s desk, 

under the rule, and referred as follows: 

By Mr. G. R. DAVIS: Petition of A. W. Irwin and others, citizens of 

Chicago, lll., in support of H. R. 5280-to the Committee on Claims. 

By Mr. DOCKERY: Memorial of Joe Hooker Post, No. 17, Grand 

Army of the Republic, Department of Missouri, relative to pensions, 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4477 

bounties, &c.-to the Select Committee on the Payment of Pensions, 

Bounty, and Back Pay. 

By Mr. HAMMOND: Papers relating to the claim of Stephen G. 

Dorsey-to the Committee on War Claims. 

Also, petition of Stephen G. Dorsey, to have his claim referred to the 

Court of Claims-to the same committee. 

By Mr. HANCOCK: Memorial of Concho County Wool-Growers' Ai3-

sociation-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. IDTT: Remonstrance of G. A. Sarford and 16 others, bank- ers and business men of Rockford, ill., against Government monopoly 

of telegraph-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. HOPKINS: Petition of 500 citizens, in favor of a law to prohibit the importation of labor under contract-to the Committee on 

Labor. 

Also, two petitions from mechanics and builders of the Dis~ct of 

Columbia, in .favor of an amendment to the mechanics' lien law-to the 

Committee on the District of Columbia. 

By Mr. KEIFER: Petition of Charles H. Parker and 21 others, citi- zens of Beloit, Wis., praying for the passage of a. bill to organize the 

Patent Office into a separate and independent Department-to the Committee on Patents. 

By Mr. KELLEY: Petition of citizens of Pulaski, Pa., in favor of 

extending the privilege of voting irrespective of sex-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. LACEY: Petition of Post No. 125, Grand Army of the Republic, Hastings, Mich., infavorofthepassageofH. R. 6463, giving a pension 

to each Union soldier and sailor who served sixty days in the war of 

there hellion-to the Select Committee on Payment of Pensions, Bounty, 

and Back Pay. 

By Mr. LOVERING: Memorial of Persis M. Thompson, of Chelsea, 

Mass., charging the United States district attorney and United States 

commissioner for the district of New Hampshire with misconduct in 

the suppression of evidence, &c., and praying for an investigation-to 

the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Justice. 

By Mr. McCOMAS: Petitionofthepresidentandfacultyofthe Ohio 

State University, for an.appropriation for Indian schools-to the Committee on Appropriations. 

By Mr. MORSE: Petition of Thomas Drew, jr., and 28 others, em- ployes, and ofT. A. Lewis and 28 others, employes, of the Boston postoffice, praying for a readjustment of the salaries and classification of 

clerks in all the first-class post-offices-to the Committee on the PostOffice and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. NICHOLLS: Memorial of William Cantwell and others, em- ployes of the post-office at Savannah, Ga., asking for an equalization 

of salaries-to the same committee. 

By Mr. PETERS: Resolutions of Pollock Post, Grand Army of the 

Republic, No. 42, Department of Kansas, favoring the granting of a pension to B. F. Brocket-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. W. E. ROBINSON: Petition of New York Stationers' Board 

of Trade, in favor of the penny postage bill-to the Committee on the 

Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. W. F. ROGERS: Petitions of citizens of Buffalo, N. Y., for 

increasing the appropriations for the education of Indian children-to 

the Committee on Appropriations. 

By Mr. STOCKSLAGER: Petition of citizens of Jeffersonville and 

New Albany, Ind., for the improvement of the roadway between the 

New Albany National Cemetery and the turnpike from the Jeffersonville 

depot of the Quartermaster's Department-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

SATURDAY, May 24, 1884. 

The House met at 11 o'clock a. m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. 

JOHNS. LINDSAY, D. D. 

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

BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. 

Mr. HATCH, of Missouri. I rise to make a privileged report. I 

send up to the Clerk's desk the report of a committee of conference. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 3967) for the establishment of a bure~u of animal industry, to prevent the exportation of diseased cattle and to provtde mea!ls for ~he suppression and extirpation of pleuro-pneumo~ia and 

other contagtous diseases among domestic animals, having met, after full and 

r~~e &~~~e~~ot~~s~greed to recommend and do recommend to their respectThat the House recede from its disagreement t{) the amendments of the Sen- ate numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, :>, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, and agree to the same. . 

W. H. HATCH, 

G. G. DIBRELL, 

JAMES WILSON, 

Managers on the part of the House. 

WARNER MILLER, P. B. PLUMB, JNO. S. WILLI.AltfS, 

Managers on the pa·rt of the Senare. 

Mr. HATCH, of Missouri. I ask for the reading of the statement 

under the rules. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

To the House of Repre8entati:r;es: 

The conferees appointed by the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate t{) the bill of the House (H. R. 3967) 

entitled "An act for the establishment of a bureau of animal industry, to pre- vent the exportation of diseased cattle, and to provide means for the suppres- sion and extirpation of pleuro-pneumonia and other contagious diseases among domestic animals," respectfully submit the following report: 

The conferees on the part of the House are unanimous in recommending con- currence in the Senate amendments. 

.Amendment No.1, which is to strike out" number, value, and," in line 7 of 

section 1, will not, in the opinion of your confereest impair the efficiency or value 

of the work contemplated by this section, as reliable statistical information upon these subjects from various sources are now collected, tabulated, and published 

by another bureau of the Department of Agriculture, and will be contmued. 

Amendments numbered 2 and 3 to section 2 are simply explanatory and intensive in their character, and are unobjectionable. 

Amendments numbered 4,5, 6J 7, and 8 are to be coll.Sidered together, as they relate to one subject-matter of tne bill. 

The amendments limit the jurisdiction of the Commiesioner of Agriculture to such "investigations and to such disinfection and quarantine measures as may be necessary to prevent th~ spread of dangerous, contagious, infectious, 

and communicable diseases from one State or Territory into another;" and 

prohibit him from applying any portion of the money appropriated by this act toward paying any part of the value of animals it is deemed necessary to slaughter to extirpate the diseuse, leaving this responsibility to the States re- spectively, or to the individual owners, and confining the efforts of the Federal 

authority solely to preventing the spread of such diseases from one State or Territory into another. 

Section 3, a.s it passed the House, provided "that one-half the expense of the 

valuation of the animals it is deemed necessary to slaughter, and one-half the cost of disinfection and necessary police regulations in the quarantine and care of infected herds of cattle, should be borne by the authorities of the State or Territory in which the disease existed, and the expenditure was made. 

The section as amended defines the jurisdiction of the States and the Federal 

Government respectively, leavin~ each to provide for the payment of such ex- penses as may be incurred by thet.r respective officials in dealing with such diseases. Your conferees, after mature consideration of these amendments, recommend concurrence therein, believing that they will not seriously, if at all, impair the 

efficiency and completeness of the work contemplated by the organization of a national bureau of animal industry, and the labor of assisting tbe States in 

extirpating the diseases described. Experience will enable Congress, from time to time, to enact such addition&! legislation as may be deemed beneficial and necessary. 

Section 6 of the act as it passed the House prohibited the transportation by any mode of animals affected with contagious, infectious, or communicable 

diseases, and provided penalties for its violation. The Senate amended this 

section so as to provide that splenetic or Texas fever shall not be considered a contagious, infectious, or communicable disease within the meaning of this act, as to cattle being transported by rail to market for slaughter, when the same are unloaded only to be fed and watered in lots on the way thereto. 

This proviso is not considered by your conferees as inimical to the original 

intent of the act, but in harmony with the interpretation put upon this section 

by the members of the Committee on Agriculture, who reported and supported 

the bill in the House, and, as we believe, so understood by the House. Amendment numbered 10, to section 10, reduces the appropriation from $250,000, 

to $150; 000. In-v1ew of the amendments to section 3, which have been fully explained, your conferees promptly agreed to and recommend concurrence in this amend- ment. 

Respectfully submitted. 

W.H.HATCH, 

G. G. DffiRELL, 

JAMES WILSON, Conferee~~ on the part of the House. 

:Mr. HATCH, of Missouri. I demand the previous question. 

The" previous question was ordered; and under the operation thereof 

the conference report was adopted. 

Mr. HATCH, of Missouri, moved to reconsider the vote by which the 

conference report was adopted; and also moved that the motion to .re- consider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. 

Mr. TALBOTT, by unanimous consent, was granted leave of absence 

from to-morrow until June 3. 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 

A message from the Senate, by Mr. SYMPSON, one of its clerks, an- nounced the passage of a bill (H. R. 1340) to establish and maintain a 

bureau of labor statistics with amendments, in which concurrence was 

requested. 

NAVAL BUSINESS. 

M:r. COX, of New York. This day has been set apart for the con- sideration ofthe businessofthe Naval Committee. Once beforeitwas 

postponed for the John Marshall ceremonies. I move to dispense with 

the morning hour. 

The SPEAKER. That requires a vote of two-thirds. 

Mr. COX, of New York. I wish to get to the business of the Committee on NaTal Affairs. 

Mr. COBB. I wish to get to the unfinished business, which is lhe 

Oregon Central bill. 

Mr. STOCKSLAGER. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. 

The SPEAKER. State it. 

Mr. STOCKSLAGER. Would it be in order to move that the Houge 

resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 

the Union for the consideration of bills for the erection of public buildings under the special order?