1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. • 901 

ernment property by the wrecking of the steamer San Francisco in 

December, 1653, to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. ROSS, of New Jersey: The petition of Grange No. 1, Patrons of Husbandry of New Brunswick, New Jersey, for an amendment of the postal laws relating to third-class mail matter, to tJ:Ie 

Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. . By Mr. TERRY: A paper relating to a post-route from New Castle 

to the forks of John's Creek, in Craig County, Virginia, to the same 

committee. 

By Mr. WARREN: The petition of Mary Sullivan, for a pension, 

to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. A. S. WIL~IAMS: Twelve peti~ons of citizens ?f J:?etroit, 

Michigan, for authonty to construct a bndg~ across Detrmt R1 ver, to 

the Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. WILLIS: The petition of A. Sheldon & Co. and 500 other 

merchants and business men of Detroit, Michigan, for the repeal of 

the bankrupt law, to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. WOODWORTH: The. petition of Jonah 'Yoodward, th~t 

his name be restored to the pensiOn-rolls, to the Committee on Invalid 

Pensions. 

IN SENATE. 

MONDAY, February 7, 1876. 

Pmyer by the Chaplain, Rev. BYRON SUNDERLAND, D. D. 

The J omnal of the proceedings of Friday last was read and ap-

.. and commend it to the tender care of the proper committee-the Committee on Appropriations. · The PRESIDENT pro tmnpore. That reference will be ma:le. 

Mr. ALLISON presented a memorial and joint resolution of the 

Legislature of the State of Iowa, in reference to the improvement of 

the navigation of the Upper Mississippi River; whi?h we!e referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be prmted m the REcORD as follows: 

Whereas the Mississippi River and its tributaries afford to the people who 

dwell in their valleys the most available means toescapetheexactingand oppcess- ve tariffs on the trarul1Jortation of their products to the markets of the world; and 

whereas in order to make this great national highway answer the full measure of its usefulness in affording greater faci.lities and safer passage for vessels of 

larger tonnaae, it is of the utmost importance that the work on the rapids of the 

Upper and Cower Mississippi should be speedily completed : Therefore, Be it resolved, That our Senators in Congress be instructed. and our Representatives be requested to advocate and vote for in Congress such measures as will most speedily and successfully secure this result. 

Resolved That the secretary of state be directed to forward copies of this pre- amble and' resolution to the President of the Senat~ of the United States and to the 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, with a. request that they may be laid before each House of Congress, and that copies be sent to each Senator and member 

of Congress from this State. 

JOHN H. GEAR, 

Speaker o.f the House. J. G. NEWBOLD, 

President of the Sena~. 

Approved January 25, 1876. 

SAMUEL J. KIRKWOOD. 

proved. EXECUTIVE COl\IMUNICATIONS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tentpore presented a memorial and joint reso- lution of the Legislature of the State of Iowa, instructing the Senators and Representatives in Congress from that State to vote for and 

advocate legislation in favor of the improvement of the rapids of the • Upper Mississippi and the completion of the work ; which were referred 

to the Committee on Commerce. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o t&nnm·e laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, in response to a resolution of 

the Senate of January ~6, 1876, requesting the Secretary of the Treasury to submit copies of any propositions by the Pacific railroads for 

the creation of a sinking fund for the redemption of the Government 

mortgages, together with a statement of the action of the Government thereon and the reasons therefor. 

Mr. WEST. I desire to make a motion that the communication be 

printed and lie on the table; and I give notice to t.he Senate that at an early da.y I will call it up for reference and submit some remarks 

with re~ard to the pecuniary and other relations existing between 

the Pacific railroad companies and the Government of the United 

States. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempm·e. The communication will lie on the 

table and be printed, if there be no objection. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I have no objection to the course proposed by the 

Senator from Louisiana, but I wish to enter a motion to refer the 

communication to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. WEST. I also wish to give notice that I shall move the refer- ence of the communication to the Committee on Railroads. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempm·e. The Senator from Ohio gives notice 

tl1at he will move to take the communication from the table for refer- ence to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. WEST. I had already given notice of an intention to move the 

reference of the communication. Probably the Senator from Ohio did 

not hear me. 

He also presented tha petition of W. E. Robbins and 200 others of 

Sullivan and Tioga Counties, Pennsylvania, praying Congress to pass an act allowing .the people to elect the President by a direct vote of 

the people; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

He also presented a memorial of the Board of Trade of New York, 

demonstrating the inexpediency of attempting resumption before the 

requisite conditions are ripe for it; which wa.s referred to the Qommittee on Finance. 

Mr. INGALLS presented the petition of JohnS. Friend, praying 

remuneration for property taken from him by the Comanche Indians 

in Texas in 1867 and 1868; which was referred to the Committee on 

Claims. 

He also presented a petition of Robert Manville, of Indiana, praying 

that he may be allowed a pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

Mr. WINDOM presented a joint resolution of the Legislature of the 

State of Minnesota in favor of the establishment of a mail-route from 

Freeborn, in Freeborn County, by way of the village of Alden and the 

town of Mansfield, in that county, to Lake Mills, in Winnebago County, 

Iowa, with semi-weekly service thereon; which was referred to the 

Committee on Post-Offices and Post Roads. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I wish to enter a motion to refer. 

the table for the present. 

He also presented a joint resolution of the Legislature of the State 

of Minnesota, in favor of the establishment of a mail-route from 

Dover Centre, Olmstead Count;r-z to Chatfield, Fillmore County, Minnesota, with daily mail service thereon; and also for an increase of 

service to tri-weekly on route from Preston to Greenleafton, in Fillmore 

It will lie on County; which was referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and 

l\Ir. WEST. Let i.t lie on the t.able,and when it comes up the mo- tions for reference can be considered. 

The PRESIDENT pro ternpo1'e. The communication will lie on the 

table and be printed. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempo1•e laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of War, stating that Major William P. 

Craighill, of the Corps of Engineers, will be detailed to make an ex- amination of, and report upon, the present condition as respects 

safety and permanency of the Aqueduct bridge across the Potomac 

River at Georgetown, District of Columbia, under the resolution of 

the Senate of February 3; which was ordered to lie on the table and 

b'e printed. 

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. 

Mr. McCREERY. I present the petition of Martinette Hardin McKee, 

who asks for an appropriation sufficient to transport the remains of 

h er late husband from the Panama cemetery to that at the city of 

Frankfort, Kentucky. Alexander R. McKee wa-s born at Lancaster, 

Kentucky, where he filled several positions of trust with fidelity. He was married at Jacksonville, Illinois, to the daughter of Martin D. 

Hardin, once a. member of this body. There he became the warm personal and political friend of Abraham Lincoln, who appointed and 

re-appointed him consul to Panama, where he died in the discharge 

of his duty. On the face of the paper I find statements from the governor,secretaryofstate,andthe auditorof Kentucky. Piety,inallages, 

has sought to consecrate the last resting-place of. the dead. Every 

country is willing to accord at least an honored grave to those who 

have fallen in its service; but it is from the shrine of domestic affection that the purest incense rises to the memory of the loved and the 

lost; and it is in deference to that sentiment that I offer tho petition, 

Post-Roads. 

Mr. WEST presented a joint resolution of the Legislature of the 

State of Louisiana, in favor of an appropriation by Congress for the 

construction of levees on the Mississippi River in Louisiana, and for 

the General Government to assume control of all the levees in Louisiana; which was referred to the Select Committee on the Levees of 

the Mississippi River. 

:Mr. BOOTH presented a concurrent resolution of the Legislature 

of the State of Caljfornia, in favor of a modification of the treaty 

with Chlna; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. 

He also presented a concurrent resolution of the Legislature of the 

State of California, in favor of the passage of an act granting pensions 

to the soldiers, sailors, and marines of the Mex:can war of 1846, 1847, 

and 1848; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

Mr. SARGENT. I present the petition of leading merchants in San 

Francisco, the signatures of whom I recognize as being men eminent 

in their business, in which they pray for the passage of Senate bill 

No. 209, introduced by myself some time since, to amend and supplemental to an act creating the court of commissioners of Alabama 

claims and for the disposition of certain moneys, approved June 23, 

1874. I move that the petition be referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. CRAGIN presented a joint resolution of the Legislature of New 

Hampshire, in favor of the resumption of specie payments; which was referred to the Committee on Finance, and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. SHERMAN presented the petition of citizens of Missouri, praying for the repeal of the two-cent stamp tax on bank-checks; which wa-s referred to the Committee on Finance. 
902 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. FEBRUARY 7, 

• 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN presented the pefition of Henry Lull, praying an extension of his patent for ash utter-hinge ; which was referred 

to the C8mmittee on Patents. 

He also presented the petition of ci~izens of Vin:eland, New Jersey, 

praying for the repeal of the resumptiOn act ; which was I'eferred to 

the Committee on Finance. • Mr. CONKLING presented a report and resolutions of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, reviewing the hi~tory and 

creation of the J :tpanese indemnity f~d, and recolll!llendin.g that, 

with its accumu1ations, after expenses bemg deducted, It be prud back 

to the government of Japan; which were referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. · . He also presented the petition of J. J. Waller and others, praymg 

the repeal of the two-cent stamp tax on checks; which was .referred 

to the Committee on Finance. . Mr. W A.LLACE presented a petition of citizens of Philadelp¥a, 

Pennsylvania, engaged in the business of local expressmen, praym.g 

for the refunding of an internal-revenue t.ax of 3 per cent. on their 

gross receipts, levied under section 103, act:' of June 30,,1864, and July 

13 1866 · which was referred to the Committee on Clmms. Mr. JOHNSTON presented the memorial of A. D. Reyno!~' of Patrick County Virginia, setting forth that the United States IS rndebted 

to him in the sum of 6,2!:r.2.6e for cotton seized by United. States 

officials during the late war; which was referred to the Committee on Claims. 

Mr. LOG AN presented the petition of citizens ?f William~on Coun~y, 

lllinois prayinu for the passage of a law grantmg a pensiOn to Ehza Mandr~l, of Attila, Williamson County, widow of G~or~e W. Mandrel, 

deceased, late private One Hun~red and Ten~h Illinois Volunteenq 

which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also presented tb~petition of 9arter Wilkey, of H~milto~ County, 

Illinois, praying a penswn for serVIces rend:ered as a pnv:ate m the war of 1!:!12 • which was referred to the Committee on PensiOns. 

Mr. HOWE presented a resolution of the Legislature of Wisconsin, 

in favor of the erection of a custom-bouse, post-office, and other public buildinus at Green Bay, Wisconsin; which was reierred to the 

Committee"' on Public Buildings and Grounds, and orde1·ed to be 

printed. 

Mr. PADDOCK presente~ the fetition of several citi~ens of the . counties of Otoe and Cass, m the State. of Nebraska, praym[. t?e es- tablishment of a mail-route from Unadilla_., on the Nebra-ska H.ailway, 

to the South Bend Railroad, via Elmwood; which was referred to the 

Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads. 

Mr. ENGLiSH presente~ tb~ petition of 91arke & Given, co~l mer- chants of Washington, DlStnct .of Columbta, and accompanymg papers p~ayin~ compensation for fuel furnished the city schools of the Dist~ict durmg the winters of 1873 and 1874; which was referred to 

the Committee on the District of Columbia. 

Mr. Mc~llLLAN presented a joint resolution of the Legislature of 

the State of Minnesota, in favor of the establishment of a post-route 

and mail service thereon from Hastings, in Dakota County, Minnesota, to Cannon Falls, in Goodhue County, via Bellwood and Douglas; which was referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and PostRoads. · 

He also presented a petitio~ signed. by a large n~mbe~ of merchants 

of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, praymg for a modification of the provisions of sections 2ro0, 2991, and 2997 of the Revised Statutes of the 

United States relative to the entry and transportation of foreign 

goods to ports of final destination without appraise! at ports of 

first arrival so that the privileges accorded to certain enumerated 

ports by virlue of section ~ as aforesl.!'id be extended to ~be port 

of Saint Paul, Minnesota; which was referred to the Comnuttee on Commerce. 

He also presented a me~orial ~igned by a large n~ber of .citizens 

of · Minnesota, remonstratmg agamst the ~assage of a bill makmg provision for the erection of a ponton bndge across the Mississippi 

River by the Green Bay and Minnesota Railroad Company at Winona; which was referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and PostRoads. BRIDGE AT WINONA. 

Mr. HOWE. I thought I heard the Senator from Minnesota offer a remonstrance to the hill providing for the construction of a ·bridge 

at Winona. There is a bill for that purpose, authorizing the Green 

Bay and Minnesota Railroad to construct a bridge. To settle the con- troversy,! now. move that t~e committee be d~scbar~ed fro~ the further consideration of that bill and that the bill be mdefinitely postponed. • The. PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will observe that the · Senator who introduced the bill is not in his seat, the colleague [Mr. 

WINDOM] of the Senator from Minnesota who presented the remon- strance- -

Mr. McMILLAN. I think the Senator from Wisconsin introduced 

the bill. 

Mr. HOWE. I think I offered the bill myself, but I am not certain 

about it. 

The PRESIDENT p1"o ternpm·e. The Senator from Wisconsin moves tha.t the Committee on Post-Offices and Po t-Roads be discharged 

from the further consideration of the bill (S. No. 64) to authorize the 

construction of a ponton bridge across the Mississippi River from 

some feasible point io Buffalo County, in tho State of Wisconsin, to some feasible point in Winona County, in the StatA of Minnesota. The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT pro ternpore. The Senator from Wisconsin moves that the bill be postponed indefinit-ely. 

The motion was agreed to. 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 

Mr. HAMILTON, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom were referred five petitions of citizens of New York, late soldiers of New 

Yo~k regiments in the late war, P!aying the a!llendme~t o~ the pension laws so as to extend the time for makrng appbcatwn for ar- rears of pensions to July 4, 187?, reported a~verse~y ther6?u, and 

asked to be discharged from theu further consideratwn; which was agreed to. · Mr. HAl\llLTON. I am also instructed by the Committee on Pensions to whom was referred the petition of Charles G. Bennett, late 

serge'ant Company D, Fiftiet~ New York E~gineers, praying for an additional allowance of penswn, to report 1t back adversely. The 

committee find from the papers that there is no claim pending before 

the Commissioner of Pensions, and therefore ask that the committee 

be discharged from the further consideration of the petition. 

The report was a.greed to. 

Mr. HAMILTON, from the same committee, to whom was referred 

the bill (S. No. 2'.23) granting a pension to Ira Foster, a private iu the war of 1812 submitted an adverse report thereon; which was ordered 

io be print~d, and the bill was postponed indefinitely. 

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

(S. No. 35) equalizing pensions of certain officers, reporteu it with an amendment. 

Mr. MERRIMON. The Committee on ·the District of Columbia, to w hom was referred the bill (S. No.lOl) explanatory of the act passed 

June 20 1874 have directed me to report it adversely, and instruct me to s~y th~t in respect to the points emoraced in the bill the act is 

clear and the proper construction has been placed npon it by the com- missi~ners. The committee, therefore, deem it unwise to chan~e the 

act and they ask to be discharged from the further consideratiOn of 

the7bill. The bill was postponed indefinitely. 

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

to whom was referr~d the petition of Clarke & Given, coal merchants 

in the city of Washington, praying compensation for fuel furnished 

the schoois of the District during the winters of 1873 and 1874, submitted an adverse report thereon; which was ordered to be printed, 

and the committee was discharged from the further consideration of 

the petition. 

Mr. CLAYTON, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 15:1) to grant the right of way for railroad purpose~ through th~ U~ted States arsenal grounds near Benicia, 

California, reported 1t With an amendment. 1\ir. COCKRELL, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the petition of Nathan Kunkle praying for the removal of 

the charge of desertion against him and for back pay and bounty, submitted an adverse report thereon; which was ordered to be printed, 

and the committee was discharged from further consideration of the 

petition. 

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

of Simon'Wagenhauser, late private Company D, Fifty-ninth Regiment New York State Volunteers, praying to be allowed a bounty, 

submitted an adverse report thereon; which was ordered to be printed, 

and the committee was discharged from the further consideration of 

the petition. 

Mr. LOGAN, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the petition of James V. Bou~hnar, of West Virginia, praying the confirmation of title to certain J.ands and the issue of ·a patent 

therefor, asked to be discharged from its further consideration and 

that it be referred to the Committee on Public Lands; which was agreed to. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred a resolution of the Le!!islatme of West Virginia in favor of an appropriation 

of 200 000 fo~ the reconstruction and repair of the turnpike road 

leading from Fairmount, Marion Coun~y, to Gapley Bridge, in :F_'ay: 

ette County; in that State, taken possessiOn of and used by.tbe Umted 

States authorities during the late war, for the tr::msportat10n of supplies thereon to the Army, reported ad vcrsely thereon and asked to be 

discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to. 

He also from the same committee, to whom was referred a resolution of th~ Legislature of West Virginia in ~avor _of an approp~iation for the erection of a monument near the Junction of the Ohio anrl 

Kanawha Rivers, in commemoration of the battle of Point Pleasant., 

fought October 10, 1774, reported adversely thereon a.nd asked to be 

discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to. 

JUDG1\D1NTS OF ALABA.l\IA. CLAIMS COMMISSION. 

Mr. CONKLING. The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H R. No. 1053) providing for the payment of j udgments rendered nnd,er section 11 of chapter 459 of the lawa of the 

Forty-third Congress, direct me to report the same back favorably 

with two verb:ll amendments. I incline to think, although I do not 

feel called upon to ma.ke the request in regard to it, that if the Senate 
1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 903 

wouM hear t-his bill read, it might be the pleasure of the Senate to con- siuer it now. I will adu to that remark one other, by leave of the 

Chair. The Senate will remember that under the act of Congress as it stood on the 22d of January, now passed, an eml would have come to the existence and proceedings of the Alabama claims commission. 

Upon the arrival of that date, those in whose favor awards bad been 

m::ttle, or judgments, a,s I will call tb.em for convenience, would have 

had them certified to the State Department, and the Department 

would have taken action which would have enabled them to receive 

the money. When we assembled at this session it turned out that 

there remained for that commission labors which could not well be 

concluded by the 22d of January, and therefore upon the report of 

the Jndiciary Committee a bill was passed prolonging the duration 

of the commission, making no change whatever, leaving ev~rytbin<T 

in statu quo. The effect of that legislation was to defer until the 22d 

of July next that proceeding which otherwise would have occurred on the 22d of January. . The whole pmpose of this bill is to provide that, notwithstanding 

that postponement, the claimants whose cl::tims have been adjudicated 

may receive them aa they would have done had this prolongation of 

the commission not occurred. That, I believe, is the whole scope of 

the bill; and unless there be some objection to it, I suggest that it 

be considered now. There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, 

proceeded to consider the bill. 

It is a direction to the court of commissioners of Alabama claims, aB soon after the 2-2d of January, 1876, as may be practicable, toreport to the Secretary of State the several judgments which, before or on that day, shall be rendered by the court pursuant to section 11 of 

chapter 459 of the laws of the Forty-third Con(J'ress; and also a'fter 

the 2-2d of July, 1876, in like manner, report to the Secretary of State 

the several judgments it shall render from the 22d of January to and 

including the 22d day of July. 

When a report shall be made, the Secretary of State is to transmit 

the same, or a copy thereof, to the Secretary of the Treasury, who is 

without unnecessary delay to proceed, pursuant to the chapter cited, 

to pay the judgments specified therein, with interest on the principal 

at the rate of 4 p~r cent. per annum from the date of loss, as cer- tified, until the Secretary of the Treasury shall give notice for payment. 

The bill was reported from t.he Committee on the ~udiciary with 

amendments. 

The first amendment of the committee was in section 1 line 7; to 

strike out the word "be" andinsertthe words "have been·" so aoto 

read: · · ' 

The several judgments which, before or on that day, shall have been rendered by tho said court, &c. , 

Mr. CONKLING. That is merely because the day is pa.st already. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. CONKLING. There is no other amendment except tl)e title. 

The bill was reported to the Senate as. amended. 

Mr. SARGENT. Has the bill passed the stage for amendment f 

The PRESIDENT pro tentpore. It has not. The bill is now in the 

Senate, and the question is on concurring in the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole. 

Mr. SARGENT. I would liket.o make a suggestion to the committee, whether the interest of 4 per cent. ought not to be 6 per cent. 

That was the amount which was allowed by the Geneva. tribunal, and 

the only object., I understand, in making the rate 4 per cent. in our original act was that there probably was not enough money to go 

around, or there was a fear there might not be. Consequently the 

original legislation provided that the judgments should be paid p1·o t·ata in case there was not sufficient to pay them all. It now seems, 

after these claims have passed into judgment, that one-half the fund 

at lea-st, or a very large proportion of it, will be left unabsorbed and 

open to the claims of other claimants. It seems to me only justice 

that the low rate of 6 per cent. should be allowed. I do not know 

whether this matter was c<msidered by the committee or not; but I 

desire to submit a motion to strike out'' 4'' and insert "6" per cent. 

I make that motion. 

. Mr. CONKLL.~G. Before the Senator submits his motion, I beg 

h1m to hear me a moment. I have no doubt he favors the object of 

the bill, and therefore I· venture to suggest to him that he is interposing a matter forei~n here, which can be considered otherwise and 

which will lead to difficulties a-s well as to delay. The 4 per ce-dt. of 

which the Senator from California speaks, wa-s designed originaily 

not ouly to cover such a difficulty as he has suggested, but also to pay 

t.hc expenses, or contribute to the expenses of this tribunal. It ·so stands in the law. It wa-s deemed by the two Houses of Congress 

adequate at the time. The whole purpose of this bill is to correct the 

postponement of the realization of the claims which occurred from 

the act to which reference has been made; and the Senator from California will see that if he introduces the amendment he now proposes 

he openR a pretty large question, which extends to the whole of thi~ fund, which revives tJ;te ori~inal considerations that were disposed of 

by Co~gress, a.nd W:hiCh Will no~ only defer, but I sugg:est to him 

very likely defeat e1ther the ultrmate passage of this bill or more especially its passage at the particular time when it' will be' most valuable. And aa bearing upon the last suggestion, let me state to the 

Senator t:om California and to the Senate this fact: 'l'hese claimants 

expected, had a right to expect, that on the 22d of January they would 

realize this money; they had a right to rely upon it as a certainty; 

they did; they made their calculations a-ccordingly. Unexpectedly 

to them, and suddenly, the postponement which I have twice stated 

occurred. Their wish is simply to be permitted to avail themselves 

of this act. They do not ask, as I understand, by petition or otherwise, anything on the interest question; they want to be put back 

where they were but for this postponement. 

In that view I suggest to my friend, that as otl~r bills touching 

this fund will almost certainly be before the Senate . )resently, he will 

have an opportunity, on an occasion which would put at less peril 

rights and merits of claimants, to present his question; and therefore 

in the interest of the bill, (and I know he shares in my interest in 

that regard,) I suggest to him not to offer this amendment now, but to 

let this House bill go, and consider tha.t hereafter. 

Mr. SARGENT. I am not half convinced by the Senator's statement. I see n9 reason why 6 per cent. interest should not be allowed 

and why it should be contes.tecl upon the principle that we restricted 

it to 4 per cent. I know inany of these claimants of small claims desire interest to be paid. I know it by applications made by many to 

myself. Some other bill may come up relating to some other matter, 

for example, the question relating to the insurance companies absorb- ing this fund, and to suggest that we go back and consider the interest 

question then would be met by the argument that it was foreign on such a bill a-s that. Here is a proposition to pay them and to settle 

up with them entirely; and why not pay them 6 per cent. instead of 

4 per centf As I say, there are a number of small claims where the 

expenses which we have required these parties to be at in taking .and 

printing testimony under the rules of the court are equal to and, in some cases called to my attention, exceed the amount which they can get from this tribunal, and I think we ought to allow to these parties 

the reasonable expense of taking and printing their testimony; I do 

not say their counsel fees or anything of the kind. 

I do not wish to take up the time of the Senate by discussing the 

proposition. I would like, however, to have a vote upon my amendment that this interest be increased to 6 per cent: 

The PRESIDENT pi'~ tentpm·e. The question is on concurri..ilg in 

the Senate in the verbal amendment made in Committee of the Whole. 

The amendment waa concurred in. 

The PRESIDENT p~·o tempore. The question now is on the motion 

of the Senator from California, in section 3 line 6 to strike out "4 " 

and insert '' 6 ;" so a-s to read : 

With interest on the principal at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not think that ought to be done. One theory upon which the ori~inal bill was passed providing 4 per cent. was that this money being paid over to the United States would lie in the 

Treasury without any interest at all, in its normal condition; bnt in 

order to have it carry some interest and do good to these people we proposed to pay interest, as much as the United States could afford to 

pay as a depositor-rather more-because we only paid 3 per cent in 

old times upon mere deposits. Now, the 4 per cent. the United States 

pays out of the Trea-sury because we have not done with the fund yet 

and we do not know what will become of it. As it now stands, the 

4 ·per cent. the United States pays is really the amount me are paying to this fund for the use of the money by the Treasury, which has 

been put into a bond; so that I submit to my friend from California 

the case does not stand on the principle that the money is worth 6 

per cent.; it stands upon the principle, so far as that part of it is con- cerned, that 4 per cent. is as much percentage a-s the United States can afford to pay for a short loan of this kind, and it has been put into a bond accordingly. That is the point; and therefore I do not think we ought to distmb it, certainly until we. see by and by where we are going to la,nd a bout the whole business. Mr. WRIGHT. Before the vote is taken I wish to say one thing 

upon the question itself and also with reference to the bill. At the 

time we passed the original bill, as the provisions within it show, it was contemplated that this money should be paid out after. all the 

claims were adjudicated. Whether we held this money strictly in 

trust or whatever om relations to the fund, at all events it was re- garded that we had so much money to be paid out to the persons who were entitled to it. Now, whether there would be enough to pay all or only to pay them pro rata we did not know; and hence the original 

bill provided that the entire amount due should be ascertained, and 

when a-scertained and the commission had concluded their work then 

they should certify to the Secretary of State the amonnt, and the 

amount should be paid; and if the fund waa not sufficient to pay all, 

the respective claimants should be paid pro mta. 

By the ori(J'inal bill it was contemplated that the commission should 

close its work on the 22d of January. It seems it was not able to do 

that, and we extended the time to the 22d of July, in no manner however changing the provisions of the former statute with reference 

to paying to claimants p1·o mta if we had not sufficient to pay all. It 

may be a.s the law stands now that we shall have sufficient and more than sufficient to pay all claims that may be allowed. But there are claimants knocking at the door of Con~ress, whether as insurers or those who claim that they should be let mto an allowance; and what 

will be our legialation between this and the 22d of July, no one.can tell. If it shall occur that, under the law as it stands now and the 
904 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. FEBRUARY 7, 

law aB we shall change it, a larger amount shall be allowed, then the 

fund at our disposal, if we pass this bill now and provide that the 

claimants shall be paid who have been allowed, and a larger amount 

shall be allowed between this and the 22d day of July than we have 

of the fund remaining to pay, then they must either be paidp1·o mta 

or we must take from t.he Treasury of tho United States sufficient to 

pay them in fu1l, as we propose to pay those in full that have been 

allowed up to this time; and therefore I have been in favor and am in favor yet of leaving this matter until the 22d of July or until the 

work is concluded before we provide for tho payment of any of them. 

In other words, the law as we originally passed it went upon the 

theory that the 4 per cent. allowed was sufficient to these persons for 

the delay occurring. We said that was the interest they ought to be 

paid. I do not believe in increasing that interest now if they are to be 

paid. We considered that matter c'al'efully, and after due deliberation determined that 4 per cent. was what they should be paid. It 

wa,a known then as well as it is now that these persons would be put 

to expense in obtaining the allowance of their claims; and to in- crease this to 6 per cent. now I think would be in the face of the statute and in the face of the deliberate action of the Senate when the 

law was paased. 

But, to return, I say that 4 per cent. waa what we agreed was a fair 

interest to be paid these persons for the delay incident upon the allowance of their claims. If they shall be delayed until next July, it 

will only be a delay of a few months, and I think it is better that this 

whole fund should be held until the commission conclude their work 

and we know what we have to pay in the a:ggregate, instead of paying it out by piece-meal and running the hazard, as we shall, that 

the allowances between now and the time when the fund shall be all 

disposed of will more than absorb or t.ake it up, and we have to pay 

the balance out of the Treasmy. I think the true theory is that these 

persons, if there is not sufficient to pay all, should be paid pro rata. 

At present, if we pass this bill and pay these persons we may be com- pelled to pay those who come in afterward pro 1·ata or pay them from 

the Treasury instead of from the fund itself. 

For these reasons I am opposeq. to thi~ bill. I am opposed to the 

increase of interest because it is in the face of the deliberate action 

of Congress heretofore. I think 4 per cent. was the amount that we v.greed upon as the fair interest, and I see no reason for changing it. 

Mr. BOUTWELL. I shonld like to know from the committee 

whether there are not two elements in the question of interest; 

whether it is not true, probably, from the report of the proceedings at 

Geneva that the tribunal there gave at lea-st 6 per cent. interest upon 

the losses from the time the losses were incurred until the award was made at Geneva. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not so understand it. 

Mr. BOUTWELL. It has been some time since I examined the proceedings, but I certainly came to the conclusion that the tribunal at 

Geneva allowed interest. Whether they were governed by the rate 

of interest in England or in this country, it is clear that they must 

have allowed more than 4 per cent. Therefore, while I admit that 

from the time of the award at Geneva until the time when the claimants are paid 4 per cent. would be a reasonable sum, I think that 

if we can ascertain what rate of interest was allowed by the tribunal 

at Geneva, that rate ought to be allowed to claimants whose claims 

have been ratified by the commission from the time when the losses were incurred until the award was rendered at Geneva. Whether 

this is the proper time or not for such a provision, as the case now stands, !shall feel inclined to sustain the motion made by the Senator 

from California. 

Mr ~STEVENSON. I understand that the Geneva tribunal did allow 

6 per cent. I understand that the 4 per cent. perhaps was allowed in 

the law because the Government ha~ incurred some expense in rega.rd 

to this matter; but whether this fund is amply sufficient to pay all 

the claims will clepend upon the future a-ction of the Senate as to whn.t 

claims not yet adjudicated upon will be admitted for consideration. 

There are n. great many litigated questions yet to come up. 

I am opposed to this bill because I think we ought not to allow any 

judgments to be paid until the whole fund has been adjudicated on so far as the payments go, and those who are postponed will draw 

their 4 per cent. It is simply an innovation on the cu11tom in the adjudicatiOn of claims by mixed boards or commissions to allow payment in parcels. The usual practice is always to let all the claims be 

adjudicated upon before paying any. Those claims thn.t have already 

been adjudicated upon, and which will be paid on the 22d day of January, will draw their 4 per cent. Let that 4 per cent. go on, and let 

this board. finish its adjudications, and let us see how the fund will 

be distributed, who will obtain indemnity and who will not; and so it seems to me to be the safer way to defer all pay'ments until the 

full adjudication has been had. • 

If yon allow this bill to pass, and a portion of these claimants obtain payment of their judgments, it may hereafter turn out that the 

whole Geneva fund will not be sufficient to pay claims which will be 

hereafter adjudicated upon; and if such should be the case, those who are enti1,led to valid claims will come upon the Government to make 

good their deficit. I hope the bill will not pass. 

Mr. CONKLING. In reply to the Senator from Kentucky, I beg to 

suggest that every cln.im which can be paid under the proposed bill is a claim to which nobody has ever objected. In all the conjectures and 

alternatives which hwve occurred touching the disposition of this fund, 

no man in Congress or not in Congress has ever argued that these 

claimants did not stand in the fore-front, because their losses occurred 

in such wise that within the most restricted limits the award pointed 

to them. So much as to the general objection of the Senator from 

Kentucky about paying. In any event their claims are to be undisputed. 

The Senator from Massachusetts says, if this is a proper time or the 

proper time to consider the question of interest, then he will be inclined 

to favor the amendment. In reply to that, I beg the Senator's attention to this truth: Every provision in this a-ct is the law now, every 

one, with all its limitations and all its opportunities to consider the 

question of interest; and the whole effect of this act is to make the 

22d of January last, in lieu of the 22d of July next, the day as of 

which claimants may cnll for their money. If there will be after 

the pa"8sage of this act a,ny uifficnlty in reviving the interest question, 

that difficulty exists now, not in this proposed bill, but in the statute 

tantamount in all regards to this, except, as I say, that this bill proposes to allow these people to enjoy their money in place of being 

deferred to a day which, although not long future, is far future to 

those who are in need, and who certainly relied upon being able to com- mand this money when the 22d of January should come as much as they 

relied upon being able to draw their checks upon a bank balance if 

they had a balance in bank. To them it is a grievous matter and an important matter; and all the bill proposes to do, I repeat, is simply 

to name one day in lien of another day, which has grown out of our own interposition, as the day on which they may realize their money. 

Now the Senator from 1\f.aasachusetts must see that no stumblingblock v;ill be put in the way of reviving the question of interest by 

passing this bill. The Senator from California will see the same thing. 

They encounter now every objection they can encounter after this oot 

is passed. If that be true, and if these Senators concede the justice of 

allowing these parties to reap the fruits of their adjudication, what 

is the occasion of interposing the question of interest here 7 Why not 

allow them to take their money; and, if they or anybody else choose 

hereafter to raise the question of the rate of interest, that question, I 

repeat, cannot be disparaged at all by the passage of this bill or aided 

at all by the defeat of the bill, should the lapse of the morning hour or anything else prevent its passage. 

Mr. BOUTWELL. I am inclined to agree with the Senator from 

New York that it is more in the interest of the claimants to take what 

this bill allows and trust to some future occasion for the additional 

interest. ' 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Lest there shonld be a general impression that 

the Geneva tribunal allowed 6 per cent. as some Senator has stated 

he understands it to have done, I wish to sn.y that at the session when 

this principal aet :was passed, from the most careful examination I 

could make of the published records and from certain private information that I had, I had the best reason for believing that the tribunal did not allow 6 per cent. or anything like it, but a very much less 

rate. In point of real fact, I believe that, in the sense of computing 

interest, the tribunal did not allow any interest at all aa such. They 

took into consideration the circumstance that there had been a long 

delay, but the general average of their opinions as to what the principal gross amount of the injury was, settled down to a sum which, making a reasonable allowance, without its being exactly computed, made 

up the sum total of the fifteen and a half millions. Therefore, Mr. 

President, r do not think we ought to proceed, now at any rate, upon 

the idea that the tribunal at Geneva allowed 6 per cent. or any other 

considerable sum as interest. Certainly whatever might have been 

attributable to the delay was much less than 6 per cent. 

Mr. SARGENT. I am inclined, after this discussion, to agree with 

the Senator from Massachusetts, that perhaps it is better for these 

claimants that they have allowed this amount under this bill ; but I 

wish to say that individually, at some favorable time hereafter, 

when legislation is pending which shall give the opportunity, I shall 

again present this question and contend that it is just that 6 per cent. 

be allowed to these claimants. I withdraw the amendment. 

1-.l,r. WRIGHT. I wish to say just oue word. In reference to the 

matter of interest I believe it to be true that this board in allowing 

the claim of ea-ch claimant included the interest, so that at the time 

the judgment was rendered in favor of each one they allowed so much 

for the original claim with interest atlded. 

Mr. CONKLING. That we can ascertain in future. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I wish to say one thing more in reference to the 

merits of the bill. It is suggested by t.he Senator from New York 

that the claims proposed to be paid by thi!i bill belong to a class aB to 

which there has been no controversy, that all persons inside aud outside everywhere agree that these persons ought to be paid. Now, Mr. 

President, if it shall occur by om legislation hereafter tbat another 

class of persons are to be paid, then, whether all persons shall agree 

to it or not, we shall have to pay them ; .and therefore it is a matter of 

entire unimportance whether all persons are agreed to this or not, or whether all persons shall be agreed to the claims that shall hereafter come in or not. When we say they shall they will, and we shall have 

to pay them. 

My objection to this legislation is that it proposes to pay these per- sons in a~ vance, when I think that according to the theory of this 

award, the theory of our legislation, and the principle on which it 

stands, they should be paid pm 1·ata if we have not sufficient to pay 

them alJ.; and we cannot tell whether we have enough to pay them all 
1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 905 

until we get the entire a war'!-. I do not _believe in doing ~t ~n pi0cemeal. I believe in ascertainmg the entiTe amount, and It IS better 

that we thus wait, even if there shall be wrong or injury~ individual 

cases, than to interfere with this general rule and thereby mcrease. the 

chances of being compelled t-o pay out of the Treasury of the Umted 

States a sum of money the ~ount of which no one can ascertain now. M:r. FRELINGRUYSEN. I simply wish t o say, Mr. President, that 

I hope this bill will pass. Both H~ms~ of Congress have agreed th~t 

this class of claimants shall be prud m advance. That was the bill 

that passed both Houses. • Mr. INGALLS. Can the Senator inform us what amount of this 

class of claims has been awarded already by the commission t 

Mr. CONKLING. A little more than $2,000,000, I understand. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I think it is considerably more than tha~; 

but it leaves a very large surplus. Judg_ment has been ren.dered I? 

favor of these claimants, and they certainly ought to be paid. It IS 

only to correct the .effect which our alteration of the law had upon 

their claims. They expect.ed these claims to be paid. I do not think 

the bill ought t,o be amended as to the interest. 

The amendment was ordered t-o be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time. · The bill was read tbe third time, and pa~sed. 

The title was amended so as to read: "A bill providing for the payment of judgments ~endered under sec~ion 11 of ch~pter 459 of the 

laws of the first sessiOn of the Forty-third Congress. ' 

BILLS INTRODUCED. 

Mr. CRAGIN usked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to 

introduce a bill (S. No. 401) to incorporate The Citizens' Building 

Company of Washlligton; which was read twice by its title, re- ferred to the Committee on the District of Columbia, and ordered to 

be printed. 

Mr. DAVIS asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a llill (S. No. 402) for the relief of the Methodist Episcopal 

church South at Charleston, Kanawha County, West Virginia; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Claims, and 

ordered to be printed. • He also a~ked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 403) to re-imburse the .State of West Virginia for 

the destruction of public property by the Union forces during the war · which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Clahns, and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. CLAYTON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to 

introduce a bill (S. No. 404) extending the jurisdicti~n of the district 

court for the western district of Arkansas; which was read twice by 

its title, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to 

be printed. 

Mr. WALLACE a~ked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave 

to introduce a bill (S. No. 405) for the relief of William S. Morris, 

William S. Mann, Charles A. Oakman, George W. Hillman, the Union 

Transfer Company, and John R. Graham; which was read twice by 

its title, referred to the Committee on Claims, and ordered to beprin~d. 

Mr. JOHNSTON (by request) asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 406) for the relief of Harden 

W. Reynolds; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Claims, and ordered to be printed. . Mr. SPENCER (by request) asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 407) to authorize the restoration of George A. Armes to the rank of captain; which was read twice 

by its title, referred to the Committee on Military Affair~, and ordered 

to be printed. 

Mr. LOGAN usked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to 

introduce a bill (S. No. 408) for the relief of Assistant Sur~eon Thomas 

F. Azpell, United States Army; which was read twice by Its title, and, 

together with accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

He also (by request) asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, 

leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 409) to equalize promotions in the 

Army; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. HOWE asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 410) for the relief of First Lieutenant George 

W. Wright, Seventh United States Infantry; which was read twice 

by its title, referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered 

to be printed. :Mr. OGLESBY asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave t-o 

introduce a bill (S. No. 411) for the relief of J. W. Parish & Company, 

of Illinois; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Claims, and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. GOLDTHWAITE asked, and hy unanimous consent obtained, 

leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 412) to extend the time for presenting claims to the Court of ClainiS and to the southern claims com- mission; which was 1·ead twice by its title, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. CAPERTON asked, and by una.nimous consent obtained, leave 

to introduce a joint resolution (S. R. No.8) restoring Albert W.Pres- ton to his rank of colonel on the retired list of the Unit ed Stat es Army; which-was read twice by its title, referred to tho Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

PAPERS WITHDRAWN AND REFERRED. 

On motion of Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, it was 

Ordftred, That the ·petition and papers in the C?Se of Ha~ey Lull be taken from 

the files of the Senate and referred to the CoiDID.Ittee on Clainis. 

On motion of Mr. INGALLS, it was 

Ordered That the petition and papers of John Z. Friend be taken from the files 

of the Se~te and referred to the Committee on Claims. 

On motion of Mr. McDONALD, it was 

Ordered, That the petition and papers of Joseph Duncan be taken from the files 

of the Senate and referred to the Committee on Claims. 

CENTENNIAL EXPOSITIO~. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I give notice that to-morrow at one o'clock I will ask the Senate to proceed to the consideration of the 

centennial bill, so called, makiug an appropriation of $1,500,000 for 

the centennial exposition. I hope that whatever they propose to do on that subject the Senate will do to-morrow. · 

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

A message from the House of Representatives, by M:r. G. M. ADAMs, 

its Clerk announced that the House had concurred in the amendment 

of the S~nate to the joint resolution (H. R. No. 11) authorizing G. 

Harris Heap, United States consul at Tunis, to accept the trust of 

commissioner of the Bey of Tunis. The messaae also .aruiounced that the Honse had passed the bill (S. 

No. 62) to authorize George P. Marsh to accept a certain present from 

the government of Switzerland and a certain present from the government of Italy. 

The messaae further announced that the House had passed a bill 

(S. No. 53) fumg the time of holding the circuit court of the United 

States in the districts of California, Oregon, and Nevada, with an amendment; in which the concurrence of the Senate was requested. 

The message also announced that the House had passed the following bills; in which the concurrence of the Senate was requested: 

A bill (H. 3. No. 556) granting a pension to Alexander St. Bernard, 

of Saint Clair County, Michigan; 

A bill (H. R. No. 231) for the relief of Robert Erwin; 

A bill (H. R. No. 247) for the relief of James M. Coffin berry, of Cleveland Ohio; 

A bill (H. R. No. 1347) granting a pension to Hattie D. McKain; 

A bill (H. R. No. 31) granting a pension to Patrick Glackin; 

A' bill (H. R. No: 995) granting a pension to G. W. La Pointe; _A bill (H. R. No. 43) granting a pension to El_izabeth A .. Neibling; 

A bill (H.R. No.83) for the relief of James A. Hile, of LeWIS County, 

Missouri; 

A bill (H. R. No. 1595) for the relief of John T. Burchell, of Knox- ville, Tennessee, for services rendered the Government in a small-pox 

hospital; 

A bill (H. R. No. 1596) granting a pension to Ruth Ellen Greelaud; 

A bill (H. R. No. 933) granting a pension to William D. Cobaugh; 

A bill (H. R. No. 1600) granting a pension to Jane A. Harris; 

A bill (H. R. No. 1601) granting a pension to Otis B. Anderson; 

A bi11 (H. R. No. 104) granting a "pension to Edward C. Wheelock; 

A bill (H. R. No. 1602) granting a pension to MargaretE. Cogburn; 

A bill (H. R. No. 318) granting a pension to Annie Farley; 

A bill (H. R. No. 1599) granting a pension to Frances C. Elliott; 

A bill (H. R. No. 193) for the relief of Ezra B. Barnett, postmaster 

at Norwich, New York; - A bill (H. R. No. 215) granting a pension to John G. Parr, of Kittnnning, Pennsylvania; · . · A bill (H. R. No. 1044) granting a pension to Margaret E. West; 

A bill (H. R. No. 1598) grantin~ a pension to William R. Duncan; 

A bill (H. R. No. 1803) to proVIde for the appointm~nt of commissioners to take affidavits, &c., for the courts of the Umted States; 

A bill (H. R. No. 1802) making an appropriation to pay fourteen 

crippled and disabled Union soldiers from the 6th day of December, 

1875, to the 30th day of June, 1876; and 

A bill (H. R. No. 934) regulatin~ the practice of Uni~d Sta~es e:ircuit and district courts as to the time and manner of mstrnctmg JUries and arguing the cause. 

PUBLIC LAJ\'DS IN SOUTHERN STATES. 

Mr. CLAYTON. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (S. No. 2) to repeal section 2303 of the Revised Statutes 

of the United States niaking restrictions in the disposition of the 

public lands in the States of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Florida. · 1\Ir. EDMUNDS. The unfinished business will be up in two minutes. It is scarcely worth while to take up that bill now. Mr. CLAYTON. I am inclined to think that I can get the consent 

of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. MORTON] to allow this bill to proceed after the morning hour. If I do not get it, of course that will 

end it. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. We cannot do anything with the bill in two 

minutes. 

The PRESIDE1"'T 11'1'0 tempm·e. The question is on the motion of the 

Senator from Arkansas. 

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

Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. No. 2) to repeal sec- tion 2303 of the Revised Statutes of the United States making re-
l 

906 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. FEBRUARY 7, 

strictions in the disposition of the public lands in the States of Alabama, Mississippi, Loriisirum, Arkansas, and Florida, the· pending 

question being on the amendment of Mr. SARGENT to the amendment 

of 1\1r. THulUIAN. 

Mr. THUJU'IAN's amendment was to insert at the end of the-section 

the following proviso : 

Provided, That the repeal of said section shall not have the effect to_impair the 

right, complete or inchoate, of any homestead settler; an~ no land occupied by s~1ch 

settler at the time this act shall take effect shall be subJect t-o entry, pre-emption, 

or sale. 

Mr. SARGENT's amendment was to add to the amendment of Mr. 

THURl\IAN the following: 

P~Tovided, That nothing herein contained ~hall be construed in any manner to revive the law commonly called the graduation act. 

Mr: CLAYTON. I have no objection to either one of those amendments, but I suggest that the amendment to tf!e amendment be wit!:tdrawn for the simple rea-son that the graduatiOn law was repealed m 1862 and is not in force at all. If the Senator from California were here, I think he would withdraw that amendment. He became satisfied the other day that the act was not in force, and tillat the amendment wa-s unnecessary. So far as the amendment of the Senator from 

Ohio is concerned, I take it that it is entirely useless because if we pass this bill it cannot interfere with any rights any person may have 

under the homestead law. It leaves th~ homestead law in force and 

cannot possibly interfere with it: but I shall not object to its being 

placed in the bill if Senators think it necessary. 

The PRESIDENT pro temp01·e. The question is on the amendment 

to the amendment, p1·oposed by the Senator from California.. · The amendment to the amendment was rejected. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question recurs on the amendment proposed by the Senator from Ohio. 

The amendment wa-s agreed to. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I move the following amendment, to come in at 

the end of the bill as a. distinct clause: 

And provided, That the public lands affected by this act shall not be open to pri· vate entry until the same shall be offered at public aa.le after the passage of this act. 

Mr. CLAYTON. I hope this amendment will not be adopted for the 

!'limple reason that it will destroy almost the entire effect of this bill. 

The lands that this bill refers to have been offered lands. As I hefore 

stated, they have been in the market for upwards of :fifty years; they 

have l.leen offered at a dollar and a quarter an acre; they have been 

offered at twelve and a half cents an acre, nearly all of them; they are lands which are unfit for agriculture, as I before stated; and the 

object.of this bill-! do not disguise it and have not-is that these 

offered lands w liich have failed to receive a. purchaser for the last :fifty 

years, which could not receive a purchaser at twelve and a half cents an a-cre, shall now be put in the market. All lands that have not 

been offered, of course will not . be in the market. The provisions of 

the homestead law will apply to an these lands. 

To illustrate the matter, suppose a homestead settler has located a farm of one hundred and sixty acres, say in a valley surrounded on every side by hills. He has picked out a.little spot in that valley that 

is capable of agriculture. Now, suppose he wants to add eighty a-cres or one hundred and sixty acres to his little farm of timbered land 

which is unfit for agriculture. If this bill passes, he can go to the 

land-office and locate that land by paying a dollar and a. quarter an acre for it, the same a-s a man under similar circumstances can in Missouri now and can in other .States not affected by these restrictions. 

I think it is right that he should be allowed to do so. If a citizen in one of these States wants to establish a. saw-mill upon Government 

land and desires to purchase it for that purpose, with this bill enacted 

into a. law he can go to the land-office, and, if the lands have been 

offered for sale before, as most of them have, he can purcha-se a tract 

and establish a saw-mill upon it. The object of this bill is that those 

lands which are uu:fit for agriculture shall come into the market. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. The ground upon which this bill was supported 

the other day chiefly was, that here was a variety of timbered land, 

the timber upon which was valuable, valuable enough to lead enterprising citizens to engage in the business of lumbering, to work the 

timber into lumber and then to sell it; and that this bill ought to 

pass so that they could do it. 

The timber on those lands is at present the property o:f the United 

s: ates, and I think the Treasury needs all the money that can be hon- es ~ly got for them, and that the enterprising citizen who wishes to 

go into the ~umber business on these lands ought to have the chance 

in preference to the other if he will give more than the other citizen 

will for a given section or quarter section, or whatever the subdivision 

is. It must be, if this timber is worth enough to encourage enterprise to go into the lumber busine there, that it is worth more than a dollar and a quarter an a-cre. It is true, as the Senator has said, 

that the largest proportion of these lands probably, certainly great 

quantities of them, have already been offered at public sale, so that 

if we pass the bill as it is there will be no opportunity for competition a ': all by purcha-sers; and anybody who is quick enough and can form 

his combinations, or without any combinations, can go in and take up the lands at the minimum price of a dollar and a quarter an acre and 

exclude somebody who would be very glad to give 10 an acre for some of the sections at any rat.e, or even twenty or thirty dollars, depending on location, nearness to water-courses, the chara-cter and 

ammmt of the timber, and all those things which I need not name which enter into the question of the value of timber lands. 

Now, my proposition is not to allow these lands to ~o at private 

entry until in the altered condition of the country, With free labor 

everyW-here and increasing populations in those States, all the incentives to the increase of wealtll ~o-wing~ut of the increase of the 

value of these lands should be wetghed,; and therefore that they shall 

again be offered at public sale, those that have not been, so that open 

bidders may compete with each other to buy these lands at the price 

that the person who is willing t.o give the most for them shall pay. 

I am surprised that the Senator from Arkansas objects to that. If 

I did not know him so well and those whose intere ~ he is supporting so well, I should rather suppose that away _back behind this bill 

somewhere was a scheme to get possession of these valuable lands, or those of them that are valuable, at a mere nominal price. I know 

that the Senator does not mean that ; of course I have no idea that 

any person with whom he is in communication ·does mean it; but I 

know that it is our duty to protect the Treasury and get for these 

lands the largest price that we can get, and il:lstead of saying that we '\"\ill sell them at a horizontal price of a dollar and a quarter an acre we will now sell them, under the altered condition of the country, to 

the party that will give the most for them. 

Mr. CLAYTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont ~eems 

to think that if he did not know me so well as he does he would sus- pect that there might be away ba-ck of this somewhere a scheme. Well, 

with the shrewdness of that Senator, I should suppose he would be 

able to di'icover that· scheme. I know it is a. very common thing now- adays when gentlemen .hailing from tho portion of the country I come from and from some portions of the "\Vest bring mea-sures here, forcertain other gentlemen who possess all the virtue and honesty of the 

country to suspect when they cannot discover schemes in what they 

bring here. I am not surprised at all that some one ha-s supposed that 

there might be away back here somewhere a scheme. Now, I think 

ihe best thing for them to do is to discover that scheme and point it 

out to the Senate before they make such suppositions. There is no scheme in thi~ bill except to put these :five States upon an equality 

with other States of this Union. If that is a scheme, then there is a scheme in it-t.o put the citizens of these :five States upon an equality 

with the citizens of other States of this Union, nothing more. So far as the Senator's amendment is concerned, it would apply with 

equal force to all the other States of this Union in which public lands are located that are now subject to private entry. Why not 1·e-offer 

them for sale again, lands that ·are manifestly fertile a.nd valuable, 

instead of picking ·out these barren lands to put through a long proc- ess of being offered in the market again f The objection I have to 

the amendment is that it will consume a great deal of time. It will consume money. It will require a large outlay of money to put these 

lands into the market again and go through the process of ofiering 

them for sale. My word for it, you will find if you undertake this 

thing that the Government will. be out of money instead of the maker 

by it. 

The condition of those lands is well known by Senators here. Men 

who have been in these States, who know the condition of these lands, 

have attested over and over again their condition. Gentlemen who are unfamiliar wit.h them insist that they are of a different character from what the gentlemen who are familiar with them say they are. It is a well known fact that the Land Department has reported 

to the Senate that these lands are barren and unfit for a!!Ticulture. 

The Land Department ha-s recommeRded this legislation. Every per- son who is familiar with the lands recommends it. Every Senator 

upon the :floor from those States recommends i~very one, so far as I know. Last Friday this question was put aside for the purpose of 

allowing the Senator from .Mississippi [Mr. BRUCE] to speak upon 

the subject. If I am correctly informed-and the Sena.torfrom Mississippi will correct me if I am not-he has carefully gone over this subject, and he is satisfied that the bill ought to pa-ss. The idea was given out here at :first that it might interfere with the rights of the 

colored man. That was the first objection brought forward in order 

to defeat this bill. Now we :find that the gentleman who represents 

that particular constituency, after having had his attention called to 

it, after having carefully examined it, has withdrawn any objection 

he may have had, and he declares himself ready to vote for the bill. 

But now at the eleventh hour this question presented by the amendment of the Senator from Vermont is raised, which only can defeat it 

for a certain length of time by putting off the thing for two or three 

years longer. That is all it will amount to. You will go through the 

circumlocution of having plats of these lands sent out to the local 

land offices, having them advertised, having them put in the market 

by the auctioneer, and you will :find that nobody will pay more than a dollar and a quarter an acre for them ; and after all that is gone 

throu~h with, then you will allow your citizen who is waiting all 

this time to come in and obtain the same rights which are accorded 

to other citizens of the United States. 

I hope the amendment will not prevail. 

M.r. EDMUNDS. I call for the re:,rnlar order. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The regular order is called for; the 

morning hour has expired. 

Mr. CLAYTON. I move to suspend temporarily the regular order. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. You cannot make a motion of that kind. 
1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. .90.7 

Mr. MORTON. I ask the Senator from Arkansas how long he thinks 

this matter will take 'f Will it take more than a few minutes 'f 

:Mr. CLAYTON. I do not think it wilL I have said about all I care to say. 

Mr. :MORTON. Let it go on informally a little while, but not long, 

subject to a call for the regular order. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I think we are all interested, as the Senator from 

Indiana said the other day, in disposing of this question of the highest privilege, which has been, as he stated, postponed too long. It 

will take just so much time to dispose of this question of privile~e 

and it will be delayed by just the amount of time that this bill will 

occupy. There are a good many things to be said yet about this bill 

by some gentlemen who have not spoken at all, and there are other 

amendments to be offered. Therefore I think we ought to proceed to 

act on the unfinished business and determine it once for all in some way before we take up anything else. 

Mr. CLAYTON. I hope not. I hope thiB bill will be continued. 

The .Senator from Indiana makes no objection, I understand, and I 

hope we shall be allowed to go on with it. 

.Mr. EDMUNDS. It happens that there are two sides to the question that the Senator from Indiana has in charge. One side of it is an amendment offered by myself. If the Senator from Indiana were not ready with the Pinchback question, of course that would be one thing; but we know he is; and he has stated it to be important. Therefore I repeat what I ~aid before, .that I think we _ought to dispose <?f 

the Pinchback question before we take up anythmg else, and have 1t 

determined one way or the other. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The unfinished business bein~ before the Senate, the Sen.ator from Arkansas moves that it be postponed for the purpose of continuing the bill which has been under 

discussion during the morning. . The question beinfcr put, a diyision was called for. 

Mr. CLAYTON. withdraw the motion. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. The unfinished business is before 

the Senate. · PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL. 

A message from the President of the United States, by :Mr. U. S. 

GRANT, jr., his Secretary, announced that the President had this day 

approved and signed the act (S. No 204) to remove the political disab'llities of GeorgeS. Hawkins, of Florida. · 

SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA. 

The Senate resumed the consideration of the following resolution, 

offered by Mr. MoRTON on the 5th of March, 1875: 

RuolvP.d, That P. B.S. Pinchback be admitted as a. Senator from the State of 

Louisiana for the term of six years beginning the 4th day of March, 1873. 

The pending question being on the amendment of :Mr. EDMUNDS to 

insert the word "not" before the word " admitted." 

Mr. MORTON. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. '!'HURMAN. :Mr. President, I know that it will be irksome to 

the Senate to listen to further discussion of the question before it; 

and, certainly, no task could be more disagreeable to me than that 

of repeating what I have more than once said upon it. But the 

chairman of the cpmmittee [Mr. MORTOX] who reported the resolution under consideration, for the admission of Pinchba-ck to a seat in 

this body-although at previous sessio~s he had frequently and fully 

discussed the subject-deemed it important, last Fdday, to recall to 

the memories of Senators the grounds upon which he advocates the 

resolution; and if it was proper for him to do that, as no one I suppose will deny, it is equally proper, Senators, to refresh your memo- ries by a reference to the arguments upon the other side. This I shall 

attempt to do, not by a full, much less an exhaustive, argument, but 

by a brief and condensed summary of the case. And I shall stick to 

the case. I shall not suffer any provocation to make me wander from 

it for a moment. I shall not, therefore, reply to the party appeals of 

the Senator from Indiana. ·I shall make no such appeals myself. And, 

cet'tainly, I shall not leave the State of Louisiana to discuss the elections of the State of Georgia and attempt to season my remarks by a rehearsal of the reported sayings, whether well or ill-founded, of Mr. 

Robert Toombs. I am not accustomed to argue a legal question in that 

mode. I am not accustomed to make the right of any man depend 

upon the utterances of some other man, a stranger to the record and 

the case. The question before us is, in its nature, judicial, and should 

be judicially considered. It is a simple question of legal right; as much so as a question of legal ri~_ht to land in an action of ejectment. 

There is no room for party or political considerations in its decision. 

If Pinchback has a legal right to the seat he claims, he ought to be 

seated, whatever ma.y be the party or political e.fl'ect of seating him. 

If, on the other hand, he has no such legal right, no party or political 

considerations can jnstify us in seating him. In other words, he is 

neither to gain or to lose a seat in the Senate by considerations that 

have no relevancy to the legality of his claim. If we allow such mo- tives to influence our votes, we usurp the powers of a State Legislature 

and elect a Senator, instead of exercising our constitutional, judicial 

function of determining who has been elected, or whether there has 

been an election at all. 

The first point made by the Senator from Indiana is, thatjPinchback has a p •rima facie ca.se because he Llolds a certificate of election signeu 

by William Pitt Kellogg as governor of Louisiana, and that, therefore, he should be seat-ed at once; aml if any valid objection to his 

election exists, that i.s to be subsequently inquired into. If '!ihis proposition be true, the Senate has done the grossest injustice to Pinchback and a flagrant Wl'ong to the State he claims to represent. Ever 

since the resignation of her Senator, Kellogg, a period of more than 

three years, Louisiana has had but one Senator on this floor. Claimants enough, and more than enough, for the vacant seat have appeared. 

Not to speak of others, let me remind you that in January, 1873, came John Ray, with the certificate of William Pitt Kellogg as governor 

that he ha<l been duly elected to fill Kellogg's unexpired term. And 

afterward came P. B.S. Pinchback, with a similar certificate that he 

had been duly elected for the full term of six years; and that both 

Ray and Pinchback were elected by the same body of men claiming 

to be the Legislature of their State. If, then, Pinch back has a prima 

facie case, so had Ray; and if Pinch back has a p1"ima facie case now, 

he has ha-d precisely the same case ever since March 4, 1873. '\Vhy, 

then, was not Ray seated on his p1-i11Ul facie case; and why have 

nearly three years been suffered to elapse without seating Pinchback on his pt•ima facie ca-se f And why, at our very la.st ses.~ion-after a period of two years of such flagrant wrong and injustice, if the proposition of the Senator from Indiana is sound-was the decision of 

Pinch back's claim postponed 'for nine months more, on the motion of one of his supporters, the Senator from his State T And why did the Senator from Indiana vote for the postponement f Have Senators been so obtuse that for three years they have been unable to comprehend a plain, valid, p1·inUl facie case, even when fully and often explained 

by t.he able Senator from Indiana 7 Is that the caliber of the fortyodd lawyers who hold or have held seats in the Senate since this question arose 'f Why, :Mr President, if such be the case, the sooner the e lawyers resign their seats and go to some good law-school the better 

it will be. for them and for the country. And mark it, Senators, the 

failure to seat Ray and Pinchback cannot be attributed to the opposition of a hostile party majority, for they have all the time belonged 

and yet belong to the dominant party on this floor. Why, then, I 

repeat, was Ray kept out, notwithstanding his p1'ima facie case f And 

why has Pinchback been suffered to wander through these Halls and 

corridors for three long years, like a rejected ghost on the banks of 

the Styx, and found no majority to do him justice 7 There is but one answer to give to this question, but one answer tliat is consistefit with 

the character, the dignity, and the sense of justice of the Senate; and 

that is, that Senators, without respect to party affiliations, have not 

been able to see that he has either a prim-a facie or _an actual right to 

the seat he claims. And should he be seat-ed now by the votes of Senators whose votes have heretofore kept him out, the strangest spectacle wi.ll have been presented, of a change of legal opinions with 

changing circumstances, of a decision afiected by matters subsequent 

and alien to the controversy, that has ever yet been seen in the history of the Senate. Nine months ago the friends of Pinch back were unwilling that the decisive vote should be taken. Why unwillingf 

But one answer can be given: they knew, or at least they thought, 

that he would be rejected. Had he been rejected then, no one can tell 

whether a republican or a democrat would have been elected in his 

stead. But now t-hat the result of the so-called Wheeler compromise 

has been to give the democratic party a majority on joint ballot in 

the Legislature of Louisiana, who have proceeded to elect J. B. Eustis, 

the Senator from Indiana haste us to warn his party friends that they 

have to choose betweenPinchback, the republican, andEustis, thedemocrat i as if you, republican Senators, who only nine months ago were consmentiously opposed to Pinch back's claim, are now hound to suppress your convictions, smother your consciences, and humbly vote to 

a-dmit him in order to prevent the admission of a democrat. Alas, 

Mr. President, we have fallen to a low estate indeed, if a claim to a seat in this body, sometimes called august, is to be decided by such a consideration I · · 

:Mr. HOWE. Will it interrupt the Senator if I ask him one ques- tionf ' 

Mr. THURMAN. Yes, sir, it will. As I am making an argument, I 

prefer not to be interrupted. I will with pleasure answer any question the Senator asks when I am done. 

Mr. HOWE. Certainly I will notaskaquestionif it will interrupt 

the Senator. 

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, in view of the fa-cts to which I 

have referred, I maintain that whether Pinchback has a prima facie case or not is no longer an open question. It has been decided by the 

refusal of the Senate for nearly three years to seat him and by its re- fusal to seat hiB predecessor, Ray. To say now, after these refusals, 

that h6 has a prima facie case is in effect to attribute to the Senate 

the grossest stupidity or the grossest injustice; and neither imputation is admissible. No, sir; the Senate knew what it was a bunt when 

it refused, or neglected, which is equivalent to a refusal, to seat Ray or to seat Pinch back upon a supposed pri:ma facie case. It knew that 

the Senate, by its proper committee, had investigated the merits of 

the case, and that all the facts of the ca-se had peen report.ed by that 

committee and were before the Senate. And it knew that when a 

court has gone into the merits of a case there is no longer room to talk 

of p1·ima facies. A p1·irna facie case is good only when the actual case if'J not before the court. The moment the actual case appears the 

prima facie case vanishes. Here we have the actual case before us. We ordered our committee to ascertain it; it did ascertain it and re- ported it to us; the report stands uncontradicted by further testi-
908 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. FEBRUARY 7, 

mony; the facts have become a part of the authentic and official history of the country, and we are as much bound to take notice of them as we are bound to take notice of any fact in the history of the Republic. In view of these facts thus brought before us, and w.hich we are thus bound to recognize, there is no longer a prima facie case upon 

which we have to decide. Our decision must be upon the merits, for 

it would be the height of absurdity to admit Pinch back upon a prima 

fo.cie ca.se, and then upon the testimony already before us turn around 

and the next day unseat him. 

Before leaving. this point I ought perhaps to notice the fact that, 

at a previous session, the Senator from Indiana quoted some remarks 

of mine in the Goldthwaite case to support his proposition that the 

certificate of the governor constitutes a prima fac}.,e case. But every 

lawyer knows that the language of a court is to be restricted to the 

cast3 in hand, and the same rule applies to the language of a Senator 

in reference to a judicial question. Thus restricted, my remarks, quoted 

by the Senator, were, so far as my investigations had gone and as I believed, perfectly correct; although I have since been informed by 

the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. MERJUMON] that a more thorough search into the precedents discloses the fact that I had over- looked some of them and that my statement wa-s too broad ; and I think 

that, at the last session, he refen-ed to some cases in which it was held that the governor's commission did not constitute a p1·ima facie case. But I repeat that what I said in the Goldthwaite case was cor- rect when applied to the facts of that case; but they have no application to a case like the present. The body that elected Goldthwaite was confessedly the Legislature of Alabama, the governor who com- missioned him was confessedly the governor of the State, and no investigation by the Senate, or any committee thereof, had taken place; 

and so there was not one particle of testimony before the Senate to 

invalidate his election. And the memorial presented against him did 

not question the existence of a lawful Legislature or the title of the 

governor. It simply questioned the right of c.ertain membei'S of the 

Legislature to their seats-a question of which we could have no cognizance, and even had their seats been vacated there would have re- mained far more than a quorum of lawfully-elected members, and 

consequently a lawful Legislature. Of course, in a case like that, I was correct in saying that the governor's certificate made a prima 

facie case. But what has that to do with the case in hand, in which 

there were two bodies, each claiming to be the Legislature of Louisiana, and two persons each claiming to be the governor of the State, 

and our committee had reported that neither body wa-s a lawful Legislature and that neither person ought to be recognized as governor¥ 

To apply my remarks to a ca-se like this is Him ply to ignore the broadest and most fundamental distinctions between the cases, . and to 

wholly misapply them. Besides, on a subsequent day, I stated the 

rule with greater fullness and accuracy, as follows; I read theremarks I made on that subsequent occasion: 

Mr. THURMAN. The Committee on Privileges and Elootions, in accordance with 

the universal practice of this body from the foundation of the Government to this 

day, a. practice that has not a sin~le exception, reported that the credentials of this 

gentleman being correct, and he Mving been elected by a body competent to elect, he was prima facie entitled to his seat and to be sworn in, and that any ground of con- test would be heard a.fterward.-Oongressional Globe, second session, Forty-second 

Congress, part 1, page 320. 

Here you see, Mr. President, that the rule, as I stated it, requires 

that the claimant shall have" been elect.ed by a body competent to elect;" ·but the very fact upon which Pinchback's case turns is, "Was he 

elected by such a body 'I" If he was, no one denies his right to a seat; if he was not, a thousand governor's commissions could not con- fer that right. And this brings me to the meritR of the case. In con- sidering them I :finditunnecessarytoinquirewhowasthelawful,orthe 

defacto governor of Louisiana, McEnery or Kellogg. For, a-s I have 

said, if Pinchback was elected by a lawful Legislature, he is entitled 

to be seated, he could not be deprived of his seat by a refusal .of either 

Kellogg or McEnery to give the proper certificate. On the other hand, 

if the body of men who elected him was not the Legislature, then he 

would have no title even had McEnery and Kellogg both certified that 

he was elected. Now what are the facts Y I shall state them as found 

by your committee, for to give them in detail, from the thousand 

pages of testimony, would occupy too much time and be too great a dra.ught upon your patience. For you have heard that testimony discussed time and again, and its general features are all that need be 

recalled to your memories. 

On November 4, 1872, a general election was held in Louisiana for 

a, governor and other State officers, members of Congress, one-half of 

the State senate, and all the members of the house of representatives of the State. There were two parties who had tickets•in the 

fiela, the republican party, whose candidate for governor was William Pitt Kellogg, and the fusion party, so called, whose gubernatorial candidate was John McEnery. And each of these parties had its 

candidates for the other State offices and for members of the General 

Assembly. The official returns of the election showed majorities 

ranging from nine to fifteen thousand for the fusion candidates on the 

State ticket and the election of a large majority of fusion candidates 

to the Legislature. Upon these returns the senate, including the 

senators wno held over, stood 22 fusionists and 11 republicans and 

the house stood 71 fusionists and 39 republicans. These facts were" 

abundantly proved before your Committee on Privileges and Elections, 

and I am not aware that they are disputed by any one. (See report of 

committee, Carpenter's, page 81, et seq.) And yet the body of men assuming to be the legislature of the State, who pretended to elect 

Pinchback United States Senator, contained a majority of republi- cans. How was this strange result brought about 1 You have only 

to look at the report of your committee and the accompanying testimony to see. The whole history is there given in great fullness and 

detail. I have no time to repeat it, and therefore let it sutlice for me to say that, under a law of Louisiana, which your committee fonnd 

to be unconstitutional, all election returns were to be canvassed by 

:five men, called a returning board; that three men, to wit, John 

Lynch, James Longstreet, and George E. Bovee, unlawfully assuming 

and usurping the functions of this board, pretended to canvass the 

election without a single official return before them, and, by rejecting about thirty-one fusionists, who, according to the official returns, were elected, and substituting for them thirty-one defeated republicans, constituted a sham legislature containing a republican majority; that, to carry this conspiracy into effect, E. H. Durell, district 

judge of the United States, "out of court, late at night, December 5, 

and without application by any party," made an order that the mar- shal of the United States should ''forthwith take possession of the 

building known as the Mechanics' Institut-e, and occupied as the State 

Honse for the assembling of the Legislature therein, in the city of 

New Orleans, and hold the same subject to the further order of this 

court, and meanwhile to prevent a11 unlawful assemblage therein un- der the guise or pretext of authority claimed by virtue of pretended canvass and returns of said returning officers," (that is to say, the De 

Feriet. board, who had canvassed the actual official returns and whose canvass had been proclaimed by the governor pursuant to law;) that, 

in compliance with this order of the judge, the marshal, S. B. Packard, taking to his aid a body of Federal troops, seized the State House 

the same night and held armed possession thereof with aid troops 

for about six weeks; that, two days after the making of said order, 

to wit, on December 7, the same judge, in a suit brought by C. C. Antoine, enjoined every senator and member elected to the Legislature 

who had not been returned by the so-called Lynch board from participating in any manner in the organization of the assembly; that 

this order was enforced by Marshal Packard, aided by his Federal 

troops2 by excluding all such members from the State House at the 

time n.xed for the assembling of the Legislature, to wit,'Dccember 

9; that consequently no one who was not returned by said Lynch 

board wa-s· permitted to take part in such organization, and the republican portion of those thus returned, containing less than a quorum 

of the lawfully-elected members, assumed to be the legislature of the 

State and made a pretended organization as such; and that this wa-s the body of men-thirty-one of whom had no color of title to seats in 

the assembly-thus constituted l>y the void orders of a Federal judge 

and sustained in their usurpation by the bayonets of the Federal 

Army, who, on t.he following 15th of January, and while the State 

House was still in possession of Marshal Pa~kard and the military, 

assumed to elect P. B.S. Pinchback a Senator of the United States. 

:A.ud now, Mr. President, what said your committee in reference to 

these proceedings T 

First, in respect to the Lynch board, which is made the foundation for this so-called legislature, the committee said : 

The following are some of the objections ro the validity of their proceeedings: 1. The board had been abolished by the ad of November 2Q. 

So that even if the board had ever had a legal existence, its legal 

existence was gone by that act. 

2. The board was under valid and existing injunctions restraining it from acting at all, and an injunction in the.Armstead case restraining it from making any can- vass not based upon the offic.ial returns of the election. 

3. Conceding the board was in existence, and had full authority ro canvass the 

returns, it had no returns to canvass. The returns from the parishes had been made, under the law of 1870, ro the gov- ernor, and not one of them was before the Lynch board. . It was testified before your committee by ':Mr. Bovee himselfHe was one of this Lynch boardwho participated in this canvass by the Lynch board, that they were determined to 

have a republican leJtislature, and made their canvass to that end. The testimony abundantly establisfies the fraudulent character of their canva s. In some cases they had what were supposed to be copies of the original returns, in other cases they had nothing but newspaper statements, ancl in othrr cases, where tb.ey had 

nothing whatever to act upon, they made an estimate based upon their knowledge of tbe political complexion of the parish, of what the vote ought to have been. They also counted.~ large number of affidavits purporting to be sworn to by voters who 

had been wrongfully denied registration or the right to vot~. many of which affidavits they must have known to be forgeries. It was testified by ono witne s that 

he forg;ed over a thousand affidavits, ana delivered them to the Lynch board while 

it was m session. It is quite unnecessary to waste time in considering this part of 

the case; for no person can examine the testimony ever so cursorily Without seeing that this pretended canvass ha.d no semblance of mtegrity. 

Yet upon that pretended canvass, made by three men without a shadow of right to act aa a returning board, having not a single official return before them, and who, according to the oath of Bovee, canvassed with a determination to make a republican legislature, this 

Federal judge made hi.s order, and Federal troops were employed to 

keep out of that State-house and out of that assembly every man that this fraudulent and pretended board did not return. · Well, sir, let us go on further. Secondly, what said your committee in respect to Durell's midnight order-that order for the seizure 

of the State-house and tho exclusion from it of the members who were certified to be elected by the De Feriet board, the only board 

your committee say that hacl the semblance or color of legal right, 

and a board which I say, after carefully looking into thiR report, was 
• 

/ 

. 1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD . 909 

the lawful returning board; and what Senator Trumbull said in favor 

of its legality is fully sustained by the facts-what did your committee say in reference to this midnight order of Durell to exclude the 

)awful members from the Legislature, aml put that State-house under 

the control of Federal bayonets t Your committee said: 

It is impossible to conceive of a. more irregular, illegal, and in evecy way inexcusable act on the part of a judge. Conceding the power of t.he court to make such an orde.¥-

That was only a concession for the purpose of the argument, not in 

factConceding the power of the court to make such an order, the judge, out of court had no more authority to make it than had the marshal. It has not even the form 

of judicial process. lt was not sealed. nor was it signed by the clerk, and had no more legal effect than an order issued by any private citizen. 

There had been no amendment of the bill of complaint. The law of November 

20 had been promulgated. The De Feriet board had been appointed in pretended 

:pursuance thereof. Whether, under the constitution, the governor had the power, m the vacation of the Legislature, to appoint that board, upon the ground that the act of November 20 create.d offices, and therefore vacancies m office, your committee 

do not inquire. :But it is understood that the constitution bas been so construed in 

that State, and that Judge Dibble was appointed by the governor under similar cir- cumstances. Tbe·De Feriet board, therefore, bad color of official existence. Their canvass was completed, and the result.,promulgated under color of the State la.w, and it is 

clear that this gave the Federal court no more right to seize the State-house than to seize this CapitoL · The marshal, on receiving ibis pretended order, called for a. detachment of United 

States troops to act as a posse comitatus, seized the State-house at two a.m. of Decem- ber 6, and held it for weeks. 

That is what your committee·said in respect to that order of Durell. 

Again, speaking of it in a subsequent part of the report, they say: 

In the opinion of your committee there can be no doubt-conceding the validity 

of the act of November 20-tha.t it transferred the duty of canvassing the returns of the last election to the board to be elected un<ler the provisions of the act. The act provided for snch election by the senate, and. taking effect in the vacation of 

the Legislature, created offices to be filled thereafter by the senate. This is what 

is sty loo in that State an original vacancy, which, happening in the vacation of the 

Legislature, the governor is authorized to fill by appointment; and it is said that 

the courts of that State have repeatedly recognized the right of the governor to make such appointments. 

That showed that the De Feriet board was a lawful board. And, 

speaking of DureJ.l's orders, the committee say: 

Viewed in any light in which your committee can consider them, the orders and 

injunctions made and granted by J ndge DUrell in this cause are most reprehensible, erroneous in point of law, and are wholly void for want of jurisdiction; and your 

committee must express their sorrow and humiliation that a. judge of the United 

States should have I?roceeded in such flagrant disregard of his duty and have so far 

overstepped the limits of Federal j urlsd1ction. . 

Thirdly. What said the committee in respect to the last order of 

Durell, to which I have referred; that order by which he enjoined 

every senator and member of the house of representatives of the Legislature, who was not on the return of the Lynch board, from taking 

any part whatsoever in the organization of the Assembly, in conse-: quence of which they were wholly excluded from that State-house 

and the conspirators were enabled to proceed with their so-called or- ganization ¥ I read again from the report, pages 43 and 44. After 

showing that the judge could by no possibility have had any jurisdiction to make that order; that it was made directly in the face of 

the act of Congress which provides that the jurisdiction of the judge 

shall not extend to the election of members of a State Legislature; 

after· showing that this order which undertook to determine who were the members-elect of that Legislature was not only a flagrant 

usurpation of the judge, but was directly in the very teeth of the act 

of Congress under which he' pretended to act, the committee con- clude as follows: 

Indeed, it is impossible not to see that this bill was filed, and the restraining or- der thereon was issued, for the sole purpose of accomplishing what no Federal court has the jurisdiction to do, the organization of a State Legislature. 

.And y:our committee cannot refrain from expressing t.heir astonishment that any 

judge of the United States should thus unwarrantably have interfered with a State 

government, and know no language too strong to express their condemnation of 

such a. proceeding. It is the op!Irlon of your committee that, but for the unjustifiable interference of 

Judge• Durell, whose orders were executed by United .States troops, the canvass made by the De Feriet board and promulgated by the governor, declaring McEnery to have been elect.ed governor, &c., and also declaring who had been elected to the 

Legislature, would have been acquiesced in by the people and that government woitld have entered quietly upon the exercise of the sovereign power or the Sta.te. 

:But t.he proceedings of Judge Durell and the support given to him by United States 

troops resulted in establishing the authority de facto of Kelloag and his associates 

in State offices and of the persons declared by the Lyp.ch boar~ to he elected to the 

Legisbture. We have already seen that the proceedings of that board cannot be 

sustained without disregarding all the princiJ.lles of law applicable to the subject and ignoring the distinction between .e;ood froth and fraud. 

What said the chairman of the committee, the Senator from India.na T 

[Mr. MORTON.] I read from his minority report, page 76 : 

The conduct of Judge Durell, sitting in the circuit court of the Unj.ted States, cannot be justified or defended. He grossly exceeded his ~urisdiction and assumed 

the exercise of powers to which he could lay no claim. The only authority be had 

in the matter g1·ew out of the act of Congress of 1870 to enforce the fifteenth amendment, and the act amendatory of that, passed in 1871, which ~ave to the courts of 

the United States jurisdiction in all cases in law and equity arismg under tho former act. Under the first act two classes of cases might arise: first, actions to enforce 

t.he rights of those who had been illegally denietl the right to vot.e upon the grl)Und 

of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. and, second, actions to enforce 

the rights of those who had been deprived of office by reason of the denial to per- sons of the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; and suits in equity, ancillary or in aid of these rights of action, would come within the jurisdiction o£ the circrut court of the United States, among which would 

be a suit to perpetuate testimony. But the pretense that in a suit to perpetuate 

testimony the court could go beyond the natural and reasonable jurisdiction, to 

decide who constituted the legal returning board under the laws of Louisiana., and to enforce the rights of such as it might det-ermine to be members of that board and to enjoin others who were not, is without any foundation in law or logic. In the Antoine case, Judge Durell not only assumed to determine who constituted 

the legal eturnin~ board, but to prescribe who should be permitted to take part in 

the organization of the Legis~lture and to enjoin all persons from taking part in such 

organizationwhowerenotreturnedbytheLyncbboardaselected; andthisassump- tion of jurisdiction was made in the face of the express provision in the actof1870 

that its benefits should not extend to candidates for electors, for Congress, or for the 

State Legislature. His order issued in the Kellogg case to the United Sta-tes marshal to take possession of the State-house for the purpose of preventing unlawful assem- bla~es. under which the marshal called to his aid a portion of the Army of the 

U mted States as a. po88e comitatus, can only be characterized as a gross unsurpation. 

Those were the opirnons of the Senator from Indiana when that 

report was made, and there never were truet words spoken by ·man; 

and they are conclusive ¢.this case, unless, indeed, the Senate is prepared to say that a so-called legislature, established by the void orders 

of a judge and the unlawful use of the military power, a sham legislature, in which there never was a day, up to the time and for some time after the election of Pinchback, when there was a quorum in it 

of the lawfully-elected members of that body, is to be recognized; 

unless the Senate is prepared to sanctify the most flagrant usurpation 

known in t.he history of a State, and give one of the chief conspirators 

the reward for his crime. 

But further, sir, what were the conclusions of the committee after 

reviewing the whole casef They are found on pages 44 and 50. Ou 

page 44 the committee say: 

Your committee are therefore led to the conclusion that, if the election held in 

November, 1872, be not absolutely void for frauds committed therein, McEnery and 

his associates in Stat.e offices, and the persons certified as members of the Legisla- ture by the DeFeriet board, ought to be recognized as the legal government of the 

State. Considering all the fact-s established before your committee, there seems no escape from the alternative that the McEnery government must be recognized by 

Congress, or Congress mnst provide for a re-election. . 

Let us pause for one moment to consider the full scope of this statement. They report that if there is any legal government at all, it is 

the McEnery government; if there is any legal governor at all, McEnery is the man; if there is any legal Legislature, it is the McEnery 

legislature ; and they declare, in the most positive and decisive terms, 

that this so-called Pinchback legislature waB no Legislature at all. 

They afterward ·go furt.her. Having demolished Pinchback and his 

legislature and Kellogg and his governorship, they proceed to demolish, upon rumor and suspicion and the like-no, some testimony, 

too, for I want to be perfectly fair-McEnery and his legislature, as they suppose. Then what conclusion does that bring them tot First, 

having found upon irrefragable testimony that the so-called Pinchback legislature had no legal validity at all, and then after having 

found upon what they admit to be very loose kind of testimony that 

the McEnery government also had no legal existence, they come to 

this conclusion at the close of their report, which they embrace in two 

resolutions : · · 

Therefore your committee recommend the adoption of the following resolutions: 

1. Resolved, That there is no State government at present existing in the State of 

Louisiana. 

If there waB no State government existing at all, then the so-called 

legislature which elected Pinchback had no legal valiclity. They 

report that there was no legal government then in Louisiana; and 

that disposes of the so-called legislature which eJected Pinchback 

and the McEnery legislature that elected :McMillen. Then they re- port a sec•,md resolution : 

2. Resolved, That neither John Ra:y nor W. L. McMillen is entitled to a. seat in the 

Senate, neither having been elected by the Legislature of th~ State of Louisiana. 

Ah! neither John Ra~ nor McMillen whose credentials were before 

them had been elected by the Legislature of Louisiana: But it was precisely that so-called legislature which elected Ray that elected 

Pinchback, and, if I recollect aright, on the very self-same day; and 

it waB precisely that so-called McEnery legislature that elected McMillen and that at the same time, so that t,hey report in their resolution that this body called a legislature, by which Ray and Pinch back were elected, was not a Legislature of the State of Louisiana. · Now, whoslgnedthatreport T It wassigneclbyMatt. H. Carpenter, 

JoHN A.LOGAN,J.L.ALcoRN,and H. B. ANTHONY. ~.Trumbull 

made a separate report for himself concurring in· the condemnation 

of the Pinchback legislature and holding it to be no Legislature at 

all, but disagreeing in respect to whether McEnery had been elected 

governor, and also disagreeing in reference to a remedy that had been 

proposed. He, therefore, is to be added to those who condemned this 

sham legislature by which Pinchback wa-s elected. 

Who next! Next comes the Senator from Georgia, [Mr. Hill.] He 

also condemned the Pinchback legislature, held that it had no le~al 

existence, and he only dissented from the majority of :the committee as to the mode of redress. So here are six members of this committ.ee 

concurring in every word that I have said to-day. 

Then comes the seventh, the chairman of the committee, the Seni\.- tor from Indiana, and does he dispute ,a.uy one of t.hese facts that I 

have related to-day T I think not. If he does, I have overlooked it. 

But he bases his dissent from the views of the committee, if I understand his report and have not overlooked anything in it, solely, or, if 

not solely, mainly, upon certain decisions of the supreme court of 

Louisiana, which he says recognized the Lynch board and the PinchbacklegislatJl.re; ro1d, becominganadvocateof State-right.sallat once, 

he maintains that we are bound by these decisions of the supreme 

court of Louisiana. 
'910 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. FEBRUARY 7, 

Now, !\(r. President, I have this sinficrle remark to make to my friends 

who signed this report : If .they ·wi stand to-day by their solemnly 

recorded convictions; if they will give the vote this day which their 

report requires them to give, by a logic which is perfectly inexorable; 

if they will say to-day, as they sa.id when they made this careful re- port to us, that the body that elect-ed Ray, being the same body that 

elected Pinch back, was not the Legisla tore of the State of Louisianarif they will say that, I think there will be an end of the question. 

That is not all, Mr. President. Mr. Carpenter afterward introduced a. bill in consonance with these resolutions, providing for a new election in the State of Louisiana, ::>:nd that bill was founded entirely upon 

this report. The only basis for the bill was that there was no lawful 

government within \he S~ate of Louisiana. The only basis for the 

bill was what is declared in this first resol iop.: 

Tbat there is no State government at present existing in tbe State of Louisiana. 

That bill after a long debate came to a vote in this Senate. I had 

the vote before me a little while ago. Sufficeittosaythatitreceived 

the votes of 18 for and there were 20 against, and of the eighteen who 

vot-ed for it seventeen were republicans, and eight of those republicans are on this floor to-day; and, if they will stand by the logic which 

brought them to give their vot-es then, this question will be decided, 

and decided according to the very right of the case. They cannot 

justify, they cannot pretend to justify, themselves for one moment in 

their vote in favor of that bill, except upon the ground reported by 

this committee, that there was then no State government in exist- ence in Louisiana. That is the only justification they can have for 

the vote they gave for that bill, and, therefore, if what they thought 

then .was true, they are bound to give effect to that fact and to say 

that Pinchback, elected by a body called a legislature but which was no Legislature at all, has no right to a seat on this floor. 

And here I wish to say-and I wish to say it with all proper respect 

to these gentlemen, for I am not assuming to lecture them as to their 

duty; I am not accustomed to lecture Senators as to their duty-but 

I beg leave in the most respectful maiiuer to call to their att-ention 

the fact that, although subsequent events might make it wise or even justifiable for them to recognize Kellogg as now the governor of the 

State, that is no justification for their voting to seat Mr. Pinch back. 

Subsequent events-the acquiescence of the people of Louisiana, the 

long time he has held the office, the short time that remains of his 

term-might justify Senators in recognizing him a.s the governor, at 

least de facto, out of political considerations; but when it comes to 

voting upon the question whether Mr. Pinch back is entitled to a seat in 

this body you cannot get rid of the question, Was the body that elected 

hint til;~ Legi~lature of that State' And no subsequent events can make 

it the Legislature if it was not so at the time that election took place. 

If it was not the Legislature then, there is no process of ratification 

that, going. back to the beginning, makes it a Legislature ab initio. 

There is no such thing as that known to the law of a. case like this. 

It is therefore perfectly plain that if those Senators who voted for 

that lJill-the Senator from Rhode Island, [Mr. ANTHONY,] the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. CRAGIN,] the Seuatot· from Michigan, 

[Mr. FERRY,] the Senator from New Jersey, [:Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN,] 

the Senator from Maine, [Mr. HAMLIN,] the Senator from Wisconsin, 

[Mr. HoWE,] the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. LOGAN,] and the Senator from Ohio, [.M:r. SHERMAN]-will vote to-day, as they voted on Mr. 

Carpenter's bill, for a new election in Louisiana, I say once more that this question will be decided, and decided correctly and right. 

Now, Mr. President, the whole matter of this case is in a nut-shell. 

There is one thing upon which the question turns, and that is, Was 

that body of men who assumed to elect Pinch_back the lawful Legislature of the State of Louisiana t If they were, then this fact en- titles him to the se~tt; if they were not, then he is not entitled to the 

seat, and by no possibility can anything cnre the defect in his title. 

Jn respect to the decisions of the supreme court of Louisiana upon 

which the Senator from Indiana places such great reliance, if there ever was anything demonstrated by legal argument it is demonstrated 

by the report of the committee that those were decisions made without jurisdiction of the questions they professed to decide; that what 

the court said in reference to the Lynch board and the Pinch back legislature was mere obiter dictun~, and that no respect whatever is due to 

those decisions under the circumstances of the case. I shall not ~o 

into that page of judicial history, .the most painful and the most disgraceful page of judicial history ever written in the annals of this 

Republic; a. page of history in which no~ only error but corruption 

stares you in the face at every step you take ; a page of judicial history whlch shows men rewarded for the part they took in this con- spiracy by being elevated to the bench by Pinchbackwhen a~ting as governor, and by Kellogg a.fterward; a page of history which shows 

the relatives of judges receiving high and lucrative positions, and the 

decision ofthejudge in precise accordance with the wishesofthosewho 

granted the office. I say I will not go into that in detail. It is a scene too disgustin~ for any man to wish willingly to look upon. I pass it 

by, for there. 18 one conclusive answer to all that has been said about 

the decisions of the supreme court of Louisiana; and that is, that the 

question before us is to be decided by this Senate and by this Senate 

alone, and that the decision of no court, not even if it were the Supreme Court of the United ~tates, has even the force of a precedent on a. question like this. The Constitution m:tkes the Senate the sole 

judge of the ele~ions, returns, and ualificat.ion of its members. It 

cannot, therefore, be bonnd lly the decision of any other tribunal or 

any ohter body of men. If it could be, it would cease to be the sole 

jndge. If it could be, its power would be limited and hampered from 

day to day, as the courts of the country might render their decisions. 

No, sir; this power of decision is vested in us, and inns alone. We 

cannot abdicate that power; we cannot cast aside the duty to exer- cise it. We are bound to decide for ourselves, irrespective of anybody's decision; whether that so-callecl Legislature that elected Pinch- ba~k was the real Legislature, the lawful General Assembly of tho 

State of Louisiana. In thn,t inquiry no human power can control our own judgment; no human authority is authorized to interfere 

with the exercise of our own judgment. We must decide it, for the 

Constitution compels us to -do so by making ns the sole jnd"e of that 

question. Therefore, it is all useless to talk about these decisions, even if they were decisions of courts that stood with their ermine unspotted, their learning undoubted, their firmness and courage undaunted; 

for even then we would have to say, "While we respect your opinion 

and appreciate your characters, we must decide for ourselves." But 

when they come from such a court as that which pronounced them, it 

is useless to talk about their having even the persuasive force that even the opinion of a good man, though unlettered, would have upon a judge in deciding a cause. Mr. President, in conclusion I have ouly·once more to repe.a.t that 

there is but one question in this case; and that is, Was the body that 

electedPinchback the lawful Legislature of LouisianaT If it was not, no matter subsequent can make it the lawful Legislature. If it was not, no ratification can go back and make it ab initio lawful. So that we are narrowed down to that one single question. 

Now, I say once more that if changing circumstances have not 

changed legal opinions; if the assertion of the Senator from Indiana 

in his appeal to you, republican Senators, that you are called to vote 

between a republican and a democrat as if you were sitting here as electors of a Senator instead of judges to decide whether a Senator 

has been elected-if that consideration is to have no weight, if you 

will stand by your consciences of three years ago, if you will stand 

by your consciences which induced you to vote for the Carpenter 

bill, then I promise you that there will be a result consistent with 

justice, consistent with truth, consistent with the d~ity and character of the Senate, and of good import for all time to come. .Mr. CHRISTIANCY. Mr. President, I have no speech to make upon 

this occasion. When this case was up last March I e~ressed my 

views upon it, and I simply refer to that expression of opmion without here repeating a. word of it. I do not wish to take back or change one word that I then said on this question. I stand now where I 

stood then. I have been utterly unable to see that any subsequent 

events have in any respect altered the standing of the question. I 

think the question has been fairly stated by the Senator from Ohio 

who has just taken his seat. It is a question with t.he Constitution 

and laws of the L'lnd, and politics have nothing to do with the matter. If I were to allow any partisan consideration to have any influence upon my 11ction in deciding a question purely one of the Constitution and the laws, I should feel that I deserved eternal infamy. 

I shall therefore, if here at the time the vote is taken, vote against 

the admission of Mr. Pinch back, not upon any personal consideration 

whatever, bnt simply because I feel bound to do so in observance of 

the Constitution and the law. 

That is all I have to say, sir. 

Mr. HOWE. 1\Ir. President, I suspect I do myself, and what is of 

much more gravity, do the claimant, and what is of still more gravit-y, 

do the cause of public morals a wrong in attempting to say a word 

this afternoon upon this subject. I have not referred to the testimony, 

to the history upon which this debate hinges, for a year past. I have no written speech to make. And yet, with these odds against me, I 

presume that extreme thing which only the. best equipped men in the 

Senate should ever attempt to do ; and that is not merely to follow t.he 

able Senator from Ohio in a debate for which he is carefully prepared, 

but to do a more audacious thing than that, to differ with that Senator. 

Only one consideration could nerve me to take upon myself all 

these risks, and that consideration is this: I have noticed here to-day, as I have noticed here always since thia great question arose, an as- sumption on the part of those who oppose the claim of Pinchba~k to a seat here that they were representing the side of good morals, fair 

dealing, honest politics, respect to law, and, of consequence, that those 

who defend the right of Mr. Pinch back to a seat· here are misrepresenting all these concerns of eternal interest. Therefore, nnprepat·ed as I am, I want as well as I can and as briefly as possible to point out some considerations to the Senate, even to the Senator from Ohio, 

which preveat me from feeling that I am misrepresenting any one of 

these great interests. · . I admit, as distinctly as the Senator from Michigan and the Senator 

from Ohio assert, that this is a judicial question. When I assert, and 

when I vote upon the right of Mr. Pinchback, I vote because-of a con- viction, mistaken possibly, but honest I know, that there is not a man on this floor who holds his seat upon a. higher title than that which 

underlies the claimant to this vacant seat from Louisianar-not one of you all. I know it is a judicial question. I stand upon the law 

and the testimony, as I understand it. Let the Senator from Ohio be 

assured; let all +,he Senate and all the world be assured, as I know 

all the angels are assured, that I put no pet·sonal conviction of mine 

under foot to say these words or to give the vote I shall give. 

I agree with the Senator from Ohio on another point. He says, if 
I· 

1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 911 

this is a prima facie case that we have here, we have had the same p1-imafacie case for three years; that nothing has happened to change 

the case. He is entirely right. The question must be adjudicated 

upon the facts as they existed on the 4th of March, 1873. Upon those 

facts I propose to pass it myself. He says, however, that there is no mere prima facie case before the Senate; that we cannot at this late 

day vote upon the idea that we are only settling the question of a prinu:,jacie title; that however it might have been in 1t!73, we must now. pa-ss upon the question on its merits. 

No, 1\fr. President, the Senat.or is wrong there. I admit we ought 

to have the full merits of this question before us by this late day. I 

admit, if you please, that it is our fault, the fault of the Senate, that we have not the full merits before us at this late day. Three years 

would seem to be ample time in which to get all the testimony that we tried to get. It. is not the fault of any one man, not the fault" of 

any one committee, not the fault of any one party in the Senate that we have not all these merits before us. The fact is, we have no evidence before us, as we had not on the 4th of March, 1873. If we had 

but a prima facie case then, I take the words out of the mouth of the 

Senator from Ohio~ and say that we have but a prima facie case before us now. What was a prima facie case then must be a prima facie case now, the facts being unchanged. But why have we not obtained all 

the facts in the case f Why can we not see clear to the bottom of 

that strange farce which was played in Louisiana in 1872 under the name of an election f I think the explanation is very simple. You . have it here of record, on the last page of the report which I hold in 

my hand, a perfectly natural explanation. Two questions were re- ferred by the Senate to t.he Committee on Privileges ::md Elections in 

1872. One was the question whether 1\fr. John Ra.y or 1\fr. McMillen was elected to the Senate for that short term which expired on the 

4th of March, 1873. That question was referred in December. I will 

not take the time to look at the precise date. The other question re- ferred to the same committee was whether there was any lawful government in Louisiana at that time or not. There were two persons 

directly interested in the decision of the first question; that is, whether 

Ray or McMillen was Sen~tor. Ray was defending his own case; 

McMillen was defending his. There was no party before the committee to represent that other question, whether there was a lawful government in Louisiana or not ; but if you look all through the volume 

you will see that the testimony produced before the committee wa-s marshaled there by the one or the other of those two persons. They were pressing for an early decision of the question. It was only the 

title to a seat up to the 4th of Marchfollowingwhichinterested either 

of them. If they could not get a decision before the 4th of March, a decit!ion would do them no good whatever. Therefore, both those men protested against going into the evidence as to what was the 

character of the election in November preceding. They said, "No, we have not the time to investigate that ; we want you to look at 

the papers, and see who, upon the face of the papers, has a title to 

take a seat in the Senate;" and they produced such evidence on the one side and the other as they saw fit respectively to produce, and 

when they had stopped introducing testimony the case close~, and 

closed with a remark made by the chairman of the committee which 

I will read in a momemt. The last witness on the stand was John 

Ray, and he said: 

I desire to call the attention of the committee to a statementYr. STEVENSON. What page does the Senator read from f • Mr. HOWE. The last; page 1095. . 

I desire to call the attention of the committee to a statement, at a suggestion made by one member of the committee yesterday. I examined and found, and if 

the committee will aetas experts they will find, that the commissioners of elections 

in several cases in the parishes have their names forged to the affidavits. For in· 

stance, there is one from Madison Parish, [exhibiting the papers,] and so in the par- ish of Grant also, and in the parish of Point Coupee, and the parish of East Baton 

Rouge, which, if the committee will examine as experts, they will find it very evi· 

dent in some cases that they were forged. 

There was the last remark made to the committee, suggesting the 

forging of returns, of which he said they could be satisfied if they 

would examine the papers themselves as experts. The committee 

took no notice of the suggestion. Why! Because it had nothing to 

do with their jud~ment upon the question which had the p-ima facie 

case, which had tne paper title. If they were investigating the question upon its merits to detbrmine what was the true result of that 

election, thi~ suggestion was of infinite moment; but without making 

any word of reply to that suggestion the chairman says: 

We will now consider the evidence of the Louisiana investigation closed, as I am advised by both sides that they have laid all the testimony before the committee 

that they desire to present. 

When those two parties had presented such testimony as they re- spectively s:~.w fit to present, then the committee adjudged the case to be closed. Therefore they never reported to you on anything but a prima fac!-e ca.-se, and you have before you to-day only just the case that committee reported to you. 

The next proposition submitted t.o the Senate by the Senator from 

Ohio is entirely correct. He says that your Committee on Privileges 

and Elections in 1873 reported that there was no government in the 

State of Louisiana. If that committee were correct in that report, it 

follows beyond all doubt that neither 1\Ir. Pinch back can have a seat 

here nor can Mr. Mcl\lillen have a seat here, nor could Mr. Ray or Mr. McMillen have been allowed to take the seat for that term 

which expired on the 4th of Mamh, 1873. If there wa-s no government. in Louisiana, of course there could be no Senator appointed in 

any way to represent the State of Louisiana on this floor. I do not 

complain of the Senator from Ohio for making that statement. I wish, 

however, that he had dealt a little more candidly with the Senate. 

Considering that he advertised himself not exactly as the confessor 

of the Senate, but considering that he held himself up as the exponent 

of the real legal duty of the Senate, I think he ought to have been 

just at that point a little more candid with the Senate. I wish he 

would have told the Senate, for instance, whether he was prepared 

to-day to affirm what he says the committee reported in 1873. I wish 

he had given us the benefit of his opinion. Does he, and do our friends on the other side of this Chamber, who stand up always for law and 

for morals, mean to affirm the truth of that decision made by the ma- jority of the committee in 1873 f I wanted to ask the Senator when 

he was at that point in his remarks what he did mean to affirm. It 

is a little difficult to reply adequately to the argument of a gentleman 

who stands first on one foot and next on the other, who atone moment 

in his argument knocks ahead with an opinion of his own and in the 

next moment shelters himself behind the opinion of somebody else 

without telling us whether he vouche~ for it or not. I have the right 

to call the attention of the Senate to these points. I followed the lead 

of the majority of the committee. I voted in 1873 for that proposition 

of theirs. I avowed that fact a year ago. I did penance for it, as far - as a Senator can do penance for a mistaken vote. I was not entirely 

satisfied; I was very much dissatisfied at the time with the vote I gave. 

You know the question was pressed upon us in the exigencies of the 

last days of a short session. The report of the committee came to our tables but a very few days before the session closed. No man except 

the members of the committee themselves had t.ime to examine it. I 

for one went with the majority, thinking that I wa.s more likely to 

be safe in that path than in any other, and the one thing that distressed me most, ·as I have said before on this floor, was the fear that 

I ~~~t be doing not injustice to ~fr. Pinchback but injustice to Mr. 

McMillen. Listening to the debate had then as well as I could, I wa.s not quite able to see that a case was made out against the claim of 

1t1r. McMillen. I have seen that very clearly since, and I have stated 

it as well as I could to the Senate. I do not mean to repeat that stat-ement this afternoon any further than to say this: that the question 

who was governor of Louisiana, and who constituted the Legislature 

of Louisiana in 1872, is not a question decided to my satisfaction by 

Judge Durell or by any other judge of any other court whatever. 

There was only one tribunal in the world which could determine who 

should be or who should not be the Legislature or the governor of that 

State, and that was the people of Louisiana. So far as this imperfect 

evidence can guide one to a result, I have gone through the evidence. 

I have said before, and I repeat here to-day, that upon that examination of the evidence I am profoundly convinced of two things: first, that 

when the ballot-boxes were closed in Louisiana on the night of Novem· 

ber 4, 1872, a majority of the ballots resting in them were cast by re- publicans and for republican candidates. That is my conviction. One 

other opinion I have is, that during that day many thousands of re- publican voters with republican ballots in their hands were by force 

driven away from the polls and denied the poor privilege of depositing them. That is my conviction. I have stated here before the testimony upon which that conviction was based. I have never heard a reply to it, and I do not expect a reply to it here. 

Then, I say, if you are disposed to inquire what the people of Louisiana decided on the 4th of November, 1872, I believe you will find 

that they decided that Kellogg should be governor and not McEnery ; 

that a legislature repubiican in character should make the laws for 

that State, and not a legislature democratic in character. You have 

not made that inquiry yet, and until you do make that inquiry we must of course stand upon the ca-se submitted to ns in 1873 by the 

Committee on Privileges and Elections. What has resulted from that case f Briefly this: that a certain certificate, bearing the seal of Louisiana bas been laid upon your table affirming that the Legislature of 

that State chose Mr. Pinch back to be Senator for the term of six years 

from the 4th of March, 1873. Mr. Pinch back was chosen by the Legislature of Louisiana to be Senator for six years from the 4th of March, 

1873, and I understand that certificate is signed by Mr. Kellogg as gov- ernor of the State of Louisiana. Why does not that make a p1·inw. facie 

title to a seat f When the governor of Wisconsin puts his name to a certificate, sealed with the seal of that State, declaring that any one of her citizens is chosen by the Legislature to be a Senator, you do 

not ordinarily inquire any further. When the governor of Missouri 

does the like, the Senate for the time being believes the governor of 

Missouri, and takes the man so certifi.~d into the vacancy, if one exists, 

in the Senate. But is Kellogg governor of Louisiana f How d6 we know whether he is governor of Louisiana or not f I say lte is gov- ernor de jure if a majority of the people of Louisiana. voted for him in 

1872. I say he is governor de jure if you add to the number of votes 

which were given for him the number of those voters who tried to vote 

for him and were illegally denied the right to vote for him, because 

your statute says so. I believe such wa.s the fact ; but then we have 

not tried that. Was he and is he governor de jact.o of the State ot 

Louisiana f If so, do you not think it the bounden duty ofthe Senate, 

if it means to respect Iaw, to respect that de facto title of the governor and admit the man in whose favor he certifies to the seat, at least un- til we -have tried the title of the governor T Is there a man on this 

floor who is prepared to stand up here and say that Mr. Kellogg is not 
I· 

912 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. FEBRUARY 7, 

and has not been the governor of Louisiana, the acting, the de facto 

governor of Louisiana, from the time he signed that certificate in behalf of Mr. Pinch back f I have not heard that denied latterly. Early 

in this controversy it was denied, but there he has continued from 

that day to this to discharge the duties of governor; and it would seem as though in all these years, acting in the face of the world as a governor, that at least the de factorighttothe office of governor might have 

been established. 

Now, how much do we know about that particular Legislature 

which Governor Kellogg says elected Pinchback as a SenatorY We 

know that in the face of Louisiana and in the face of the world that 

Legislature has made laws from that time to this, and one would think 

that a body of men which could make laws for a State, laws respected 

through the State, and laws recognized throughout the world, ought 

to be recognized precisely as the body of men to appoint a Senator 

for the State. What difficulty is known to exist in the title of that 

Legislature f The Senator from Ohio starts two objections. He saJ s that the members of that Legislature were counted in by a board of . returns defective in two particulars. First, he says himself that-it 

consisted of but three men; and secondly, he says in the name of the 

majority of the Committee on Privileges and Elections that it was 'unconstitutional. You see here two different objections maintained 

by two different authorities. One is that it is unconstitutional on the 

authority of the Committee on Privileges· and Elections, the other is 

that it consisted of but three members, and that stands on the authority of the Senator from Ohio. The Committee on Privileges and Elections may be right in their opinion; the Senator from Ohio is unques-. 

tionably wrong in his. The board consisted of more ·than three men. Under the laws of Louisiana the board was composed of five men, and 

they acted or did not act as seemed to them good. · A quorum could 

act. How many were present at the time and every hour while this 

work was being done does not appear, is not known to the Senator 

from Ohio1 is not known to the Senate. The Committee on Privileges 

and Elections may have been and were of opinion that the particular 

board which made that canvass was unconstitutional. The courts of 

Louisiana held it was constitutional, held that it was the one board 

authorized bylaw to makethatcanw-ss. The SenatorfromOhiomeets 

that fact in the only way in which he can meet it. He says that those 

judgments do not bind us. 0, no; they do not bind the Senator from 

Ohio, I see; they do not bind Senators on the other side of this Chamber, perhaps; but if the Sen?>tor from Ohio means to establish a character with the people of the United States for respect for law, he can hardly do it by trampling on the judgments of the superior courts of a State upon a matter pertaining to their jurisdiction exclusively. 

We undoubtedly have t.he power to disregard any judgment which 

has been pronounced in a State by any tribunal there. When the 

Legislature of New York sends a man here to represent her, you can shut your doors in his face if you please; you can say that the man who certifies his credentials was not governor; you can say that the 

body which pretended to elect him was not the lawful Legislature. 

You can make any allegation you plea-se. If you close your doors 

against the man, there is no appeal for him, for there is no tribunal 

with power higher than yours upon that question; and no ·man comes here, or at least it is seldom that a man comes here, ·with the papers 

establishing ·his title which have been declared to be valid by the 

judicial authorities of the State. Ordinarily you can exclude a man from these Chambers without slapping in the face any but the execu- tive or the legislative authorities of the State; but when you turn 

Pinch back from these doors you trample upon the authority of the only man who has exerted a shadow of authority in Louisiana as a governor, upon the only body of men which has exerted the shadow of 

authority as a legislature, and you trample upon the judgment of all 

the courts in that · State; every department of the government of 

Louisiana lies in the dust under the feet of him who denies the right 

of Pinchback to a seat on this tloor. 

Mr. President, the ghost of Durell has been paraded in the Chamber 

again to-day. It is a ghost honester than Banquo ~;. It has tried to 

get down, and would if you would let it. He has resigned; he has 

done everything he could to qnityour sight. It does sometimes seem to me aw though Durell was felt to be the very last, not to say the 

very best, card the Senators on the other side ever held in their hands o: ever expected to hold. I have taken my turn once in denouncing 

Durell. I am not going to spend any more breath in that cause. I 

have not much left. I have thi to say, however, to those of stronger 

lungs and a clearer senseofright than I have: You pile your anathe- mas upon Durell high as yon please, Alps on Alps, and Ossa on Pelion, 

I will not help you, nor will I lift a finger to obstruct you. I will 

cheer you on in your way; but this I want to say, that if Durell's 

usurped action cannot confer title upon Pinchback, which I admit, 

may I not at least modestly claim that Durell's infamous usurpation 

cannot defeat Pinchback of a seatf 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Would not that depend a little on whether he 

had produced it f . Mr. HOWE. Not at all. What did poor Durell dof There were in that poor mob-ridden State of Louisiana in the fall of 1872 two 

boards which claimed the right tocountthevotesforgovernor. Only oue was lawful. Which one that was, you know to-day; every Senator on this floor knows, if-he will respect the voice of the judicial power 

of the State. Butt.herewasanotheroneclaimingthat authority. You 

know that that other one had no right to canvass the votes. So you 

have been told, not by Senators, nor by committees, but by the judicial dep~tment of the State, speaking with the authority of an ultimate 

tribunal, the court of Ia.st resort. The man who was playing governor 

of Louisiana happened to be in sympathy, not with the board which 

had the legal right to count the votes, but with that other board which 

had not the right to count the votes. That governor, in defiance of 

all the law there was in Louisiana,having some of the returns of election in his hands-for the law required those returns to be transmitted 

to him instead of submitting them to the board which of right might 

count them-gave them to that board which of right could not count 

them. There is nothing more explicit in law than is the commandment of the State of Louisianai. found in her statutes, which says that 

the board of returns, the !ega board of returns, not the illegal cme, h~ving canvassed the votes for senators and representatives, shall 

make '1 list of those they find elected and shall return that list to 

whom! To the secretary of state. What shall he do with it f He 

shall transmit those names to the secretary of the old senate and to 

the clerk of the old house, and when the time arrives for the meeting 

of the Legislature that secretary has the simple duty of calling over the names of those senators so certified to him by the secretary of 

state; and the clerk of ~he house has to perform the same duty in his 

body. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. What does the constitution of the State say upon 

the same subject! · Mr. HOWE. I havo not the constitution in my hands, but I will 

hear it read if the Senator has it. . Mr. EDMUNDS. I merely inquired for the purpose of getting an explanation. 

Mr. HOWE. I do not know but that the constitutionality of this 

law is to be impeached; but that is the statute. 

Both these boards, the one which the law authorized to count these 

returns and that which was not authorized, <lid make a count, with 

this difference: that the board which was authorized to count had 

not any lawful returns in its hand, and the board which was not au- thorized to count did have some of the returns in its hand. Both made 

lists; both transmitted them to men they called secretaries of state, 

but there was this difference: The Lynch board, by which I mean the republican board, sent the list of members which they found 

olected to the man who the courts of Louisiana have said over and over again was really the secretary of state. The other board, the 

DeFeriet board, by which I mean the democratic board, sent its list 

of members to another man, who all the courts in Louisiana say was not secretary of state. As to the conduct of those boards, the Lynch 

board has been severely denounced. I join in the denunciation. I 

I have heard less of the· DeFeriet board, but I h~ve looked into that 

volume, and I do not expect here or elsewhere to find a man who baa 

examined it as I have who will not say, if he ventures tostatethe truth, 

that of all the ra-scalities which were committed in the count, and 

they were numerous enough God knows, the De Feriet board com- mitted its full share. I do not impute the character to the returns 

made by either of those boards that they were actuated by a sense of justice or a desire to get at the truth, but those boards undoubtedly declared men to be elected who they knew in all conscience were not elected. I have not a doubt of that; but then there were those two lists made up. You may assert, and I will admit, that names contained on the list certified by the Lynch board had no business there; but such was the fact with exactly all the lists certified by the De Feriet board. Neither could call the other bl:wk. 

Neither could taunt the other with fraud. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Each could. 

Mr. HOWE. Well, I will accept the amendment 'suggested by my 

friend from Vermont, who· can always state facts more accurately than 

I ever can. Yes; I think he is right, that each could taunt the other 

with fra.ud ; and when the one stood up and said to the other, " Yon are a. knave," it was perfectly legitimate and entirely truthful for the 

other to retort, "You're another." I think on the whole it is the best 

statement of the case. · But these two lists were made up by these two boards. One of 

them was sent to the secretary of state, the other was not, but was sent to a sham and pretended secretary of state. That list which was sent to the secretary of state was transmitted to the clerk of the 

house and to the secretary of the senate; but then t~e sham and 

spurious legislature counted in by this sham and spurious De Feriet 

board, certified to by Ja-ck Wharton, that sham and spurious secretary 

of state, was mustered in New Orleans waiting for the time to arrive 

when the Legislature should convene, ba-cked up by whom T Ikuownot 

by Federal bayonets, but none the less by bayonets, backed up, I admit, not by a soldiery commanded by the officers of the United States; 

backed up by a soldiery commanded by Warmoth's militia ofllcers. 

They were preparing to meet and to make believe be the Legislature 

of Louisiana. The law told them not to meet. Why T Because they 

did not hold the certificate of the returning board. Some of them 

held it, because some of them held the certificate issued by the Lynch board. Those who held the certificate of the Lynch board were of course· authorized to meet, but only those who held the certificate of 

the Lynch board were authorized by the law of Louisiana to take a seat either in the senate or in the house of _representatives, except 

those senators who held over. Such being the condition of t4ings, two bodies holding by two 

different titles, one lawful, the other utterly unlawful, prepa~ed to 

' 
1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 913 

meet and to make believe be the Legislature of a State, in that con- dition of affairs Judge Durell seems to have thought in some lumi- nous moment that he could outflank Warmoth, and he sat down and 

wrote an order commanding that all these sham statesmen who propo ed to muster there under the license of the De Feriet board should 

keep out of the Legislature, and they were kept out of the Legisla.-

ture. That order of Durell, I understand, was absolutely enforced 

by two soldiers. I am told that they had uniforms on, both of themthe uniform prescribed by your service-and they eros ed bayonets .over the door, and not one of those fellows, not one of those felons-

! speak in the eye of Louisiana law when I call them so, because if 

they held the certificate of the Lynch board the bayonets did not 

prevent them from entering, and if they did not hold the certificate 

.of the Lynch board the law of Louisiana Mid them not to enter- was admitted to the legislative hall. That: order of Judge Durell 

usurped I admit, void unquestionably, mere paper, did prevent the 

usmpation of Warmoth, backed by Jack Wharton, backed by the 

DeFeriet board; did prevent the assembling of a Legislature which 

had no semblance of authority or legality. . From that day to this the country has rung with denunciation of 

Judge Durell. I hope somebody feels more virtuous on account of it. 

I hope our democratic friends have been improved morally by the pile 

of anathemas they have heaped upon him. If they could find a leisure 

moment at some time to pronounce one feeble anathema upon that 

infamous band of conspirators who tracked the election of 1 72 all the 

way through from the commencement of registration to the assembling of the Legislature; the men who cheated voters out of the right 

of registration by the thousand; the men who drove them from the 

ballot-boxes by the thousa.nd; the men who forged returns; the men who cushioned returns; the men like Warmoth wh6 disregarded all 

the law there was in the State over which be claimed to be executiveif they could find a leisure moment to breathe one single word of 

criticism upon this mountain of infamy, I believe it would do them 

good all the rest of their lives. Yes, :when it is known that a band of 

burglars are about to break open a house at midnight, I admit if the 

Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court should issue an order commanding them not to do it, it would be a usurpation; he would have no business to do it; but, nevertheless, if the only effect of the order was to keep the burglars out of your house, would you find fault f Undoubtedly so strict a constructionist as the Senator from Ohio would 

say, "This is a gross prostitution of the judicial ermine." We could 

not deny that; it would be a prostitution of the judicial ermine; but 

after all, I should hope to find in the Senate of tlie United States, and even on the democratic side of the Chamber, some man who would not 

only agree that the judge had no business to issue the order, but who, on reflection, would admit that it was not a great crime to keep burglars out of the house. 

That is all I have to say of Durell. He usurped authority ·which 

the law did not confer upon him, and the end of it is that not a man was kept out of the Legislature of Louisiana who had any right in 

that Legislature; and is there a lawyer on the other side of the Chamber who will dispute that statement of mine f If a man was kept out 

of that Legislature by that order of Durell, or by the soliliers who 

acted in pursuance of it, or by Packard, or any body else, is there a lawyer on that side of the Chamber who does not know that the wrong 

would have been judicially I'edressed in the courts of the land long 

before this time Y .Sir, I hold a right to enter this Chamber as a Senator from. Wisconsin. Do you think there is any judge in the District 

of Columbia' who can organize a force, military or otherwise, which can deprive me of my seat here f Do you not know that the moment 

any man,. no matter what judge tells him, no matter what uniform he 

wears, raises his hand, or authorizes another to raise his hand, to stay 

my entrance to this Chamber, that moment he must go before the judicial tribunals of the country to answer for this wrong. That would 

have been done with Durell; that would have been done with Packru:d; that would have been done with the soldiers who acted under 

their command and upon their license, only for this simple fact, that 

every lawyer in Louisiana knew that every man kept o\1 t of that Legislature was kept out not in violation of law, but in pursuance of law. 

Mr. STEVENSON. Was not Durell arraigned Y 

Mr. HOWE. Arraigned where Y 

.Mr. STEVENSON. By the only impeaching power under this Government-the House of Representatives of the United States. 

Mr. HOWE. But why waB he not arragned by the gentlemen w bose rights be trampled upon Y Impeaching a judge is one thing. I 

do not wait for the House of Representatives to redress my wrongs 

when a judge shall illegally keep me from entering that door. I see a lawyer in my eye whom I would take into my employ at once. I 

would go to the judicial tribunal before which that judge would have 

to come. I would not wait for the House of Representatives to pre- sent him here for your judgment on impeachment; he should answer to n:ie in damages. 

1\lr. President, I have lingered longer upon this case than I meant 

to do when I took the floor. I may be, after all, mistaken in some of 

these views of mine; but let no man assume for a moment that I do 

not believe I am right. I believe the most monstrous violation of the 

right of franchise ever perpetrated or ever attempted anywhere in the 

history of popular government was that perpetrated upon the people 

of Louisiana in 1!:!72, when every avenue to the ballot-box was guarded 

by the democratic party of the State of Louisiana. 

IV-58 

EXECUTIVE SESSIO~. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, I move that the Senate proceed to 

the consideration of executive business. 

The motion was agreed to, and the Senate proceeded. to the consideration of executive business. .After one hour and twenty-six minutes 

spent in executive session the doors were re-opened, and (at five 

o'clock and twenty-three minutes p.m.) the Senate adjourned. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTA'UIVES. 

MONDAY, February 7, 1876. 

The House met at twelve o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. 

I. L. TOWNSEND, D. D. 

The Journal of Friday last was read and approved. 

JAMES M. DOWNEY. 

On motion of Mr. HUNTON, by unanimous consent, the Committee on War Claims were discharged from the further consideration of the 

bill (H. R. No. 743) for the relief of James l\1. Downey, of Loudoun 

County, Virginia. 

ENROLLED JOTh'T RESOLUTION SIGNED. 

1\Ir. HARRIS, of Georgia, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, 

.reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled 

the joint resolution·(H. R. No.ll) authorizing G. Harris Heap, United 

States consul at Tunis, to accept the trnst of commissioner of the Bey 

of Tunis. CUSTOMS COLLECTIONS. 

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

the Treasury, transmitting, in response to House re olutions of December 15, 1875, and January 6, 1876, a statement showing collections 

and expenses of collections and the amount of goods examined in he 

ports of the United States for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1874. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair is not sure whether this communication 

should be sent to the Committee of Ways and Means or to the Committee on Appropriations. 

Mr. RANDALL. Let it be printed, and then we can see where it 

properly belongs. . The communication was referred to the Committee of Ways and 

Means, and ordered to be printed. 

SURVEY OF RIVERS IN ?tllClliGAN. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secreretary of War, transmitting, in compliance with the requirement of 

tbe river and harl>or act of March 3,1875, a report of Major G. Weitzel 

of the cost of surveys of the Saginaw River, Michigan, Thunder Bay, 

Clinton River, ancl Au Sable River, Michigan; which was referred to 

the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed. 

J. C. IRWIN AND WILLIAM PHILLIPS. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting, in response to a request of the Committee on Military Affairs, a report of the Acting Quarterma ter-General on the bill (II. R. No.161) for the relief of J. C. Irwin and William Phillips; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

I:J!-.'TERNAL Il\IPROVEMENTS. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting, for the information of the Committee on Commerce, a statement of the amounts appropriated for each river 

and harbor improvement from 18'24 to and including March 3, 1875; 

which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to 

be printed. · SA~ThTE PASS, TEXAS. 

The SPEAKER also laid before tho House a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting, for the information of the Committee on Commerce, an estim~te for continuing the improvements at Sabine 

Pass, Texas; which wat~ referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

SALE OF. CADET ARMS. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secre- . tary of War, on the bill (H. R. No. 683) authorizing the sale of cadet 

arms; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and 

ordered to be printed. 

UPPER MISSISSIPPI lUVER. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a memorial and joint 

resolution of the Legislature of Iowa, in reference to the improvement 

of the navigation of the Upper Mississippi River; which was referred 

to the Committee on Commerce. 

ORDER OF BUSTh"'ESS. 

The SPEAKER. The morning hour now begins at twelve o'clock 

and thirty minutes. This being Monday, the first business in order 

during the morning hour is the calling of the States and Territories, 

beginning with the State of Maine, for the introduction of bills and 

joint resolutions for reference to their appropriate committees, not to ~e brought. back into the House by motions to reconsider. Under this 

... ;.