800 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. FEBRUARY 1, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

TUESDAY, February 1, 1876. 

The House met at twelve o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. 

I. L. TOWNSIW."'D, D. D. 

READ~G OF THE JOURNAL. 

The Clerk began the reading of the Journ l; but before concludinfir. HURLBUT said: I desire to inquire if the Clerk is reading the 

Journal as actually made up' I notice that in reading he merely 

gives the name of the member introducing the bill and the number 

of the bill, but neither the title nor the committee to which it is re- ferred. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will inform the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HURLBu.;r] that the Clerk is not reading the Journal as actually made up, but is abbreviating the respective entries by giving 

the numbers of the bills and the names of the members introducing 

them. That is a custom which has been very often followed by previous Clerks of this House. Does the gentleman object to the present 

Clerk continuing the practice f It is often very desirable when the 

Journal is very long, as it is this mornjng. 

:Mr. HURLBUT. I do not, providetl the record is made up so as to 

show the actual proceedings of the House. 

Tlle SPEAKER. The Chair will direct that the Journal be read in 

full, if the gentl eman asks that it be done. 

Mr. HURLBUT. I do not ask that the Journal be read in full. I 

only desire to ascertain whether, as actually made up, it is a full rec- ord. I do not de ire to have the time of the House taken up by 

having it read in full. 

The SPEAKER. The Journal is very full; in the usual form. 

The Clerk concluded the reading of the Journal, and it was then 

approved as correct. 

TROUBLE ON TEXAS BORDER. 

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting, in response to a letter 

of inquiry from the Select Committee on the Texan Frontier Troubles, 

correspondence in relation to troubles on the Rio Grantle border; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Texan Frontier Troubles. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AFFAIRS. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter ;from the com- missioners of the District of Columbia, transmitting, in complianco 

with House resolution of -the 6th instant, the information therein 

asked for; which was referred to the Committee for the District of 

Columbia. 

CLAIMS FOR L."'DIA.N DEPREDATIONS. 

The SPEAKER also laid. before the Honse letters from the Secretary of the Interior, trausmittiug claims of certaiu persons for Indian 

depredations; which were referred to the Committee of Claims. 

TO~'XA W .A. INDIANS. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, transmit ting, in response to House resolution of the 20th 

instant, papers touching the number and condition of the Tonkawa. 

Indians at Fort Griffin, Texas; which was refered to the Committee on Indian Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

QUA.RTEfu"\I.A.STER-G-E~"ERA.L l\1. C. MEIGS. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting, in response to House resolution of the 25th 

instant, copies of the orders amd instructions under which Quartermaster-General M. C. Meigs is traveling abroad; which were referred 

to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

1\Ullfl INDIANS OF K.A.NS.A.S. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, upon the subject of tlte consolidation of the 

Mia,mi Inilians of Kansas wit.h t.he confederated bands of Peoria., 

Piankesha.w, Kaskaskia, and Wea Indians in the Indian Territory; 

which was referred to the Committee on Indi:1.n Affairs, and ordered 

to be printed. 

PATENT OFFICE REPORT. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Commissioner of Patents, transmitting the annual report of the Patent 

Office; which was referred to the Committee on Patents, and ordered 

to be printed. 

WINNEBAGO .AND POTT.A. W A.TO~:UE INDIANS IN WISCONSIN. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting, in response to a resolution of the 

House of the 6th instant, an accmmt of the disbursements from the 

appropriations for the care of stray bands of Winnebao-o and Pott awa.tomie Indians in Wisconsin, prior to the year 1871 ;""which wa.s r eferred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be 

printed. 

SAN JACINTO RIVER AND GALVESTON SHIP-CANAL. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting a report of the Chief of Engineers on the 

ship-canal between the mouth of San Jacinto River and Bolivar channel, Galveston Harbor; which was referred tb the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed. 

DEPOSITS OF l\10NEY WITH ARl\IY PAYMASTERS. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting the petition of Colonel Andrews and other officers of the Army, relative to legislation providing for making deposits of money with paymasters; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

STEAM-VESSELS OF WAR. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, transmitting, in response to a Hou e resolution of 

the 5th instant, a communication from the Chief of the Bureau of 

Construction, relative to the cost of constructing eight steam-vessels 

of war; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, and 

ordered to be printed. 

PRESIDIO l\nLITARY RESERVATION. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, reporting, for the information of the Committee on Military Affairs, that no obj ection ('Xists to the passage of the bill (H. R. 

No. 322) providing for relinquishing to the city and county of San 

Francisco a portion of the Presidio military reservat ion; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be 

printed. 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 

A message from the Senate, by Mr. SYMPSO~, one of its clerks, an- nounced that the Senate batl passed a bill of the following title; in 

which he concurrence of t he House was requested: 

An act (S. No. 34) to confirm pre-emption and homestead entries of 

public lands within the limits of railroad gra.nts in cases where such 

entries have been made under the regulations of the land district. 

The message also announced that the Senate had passed without 

amendment a bill of the following title : · Ail a.ct (H. R. No. 785) to extend the time for stamping unstamped 

instruments. 

DEPOSITS OF ~IO~TEY WITH ARMY PAYMASTERS. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting a petition of Blair D. Taylor and others, for 

legislation to enable Army officers to make deposits of money with 

paymasters; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, 

and ordered to be printed. 

FORT BUTLER MILITARY RESERVATION. 

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

of War, in response to an inquiry of the Committee on Military Affairs 

dated the 21st instant, r elative to the ]<'ort Butler military re erva- tion ; which was referred to the Committee on Military .A:ffuirs, and 

ordered to be printed. 

FUli.L>S TO BE CO.VERED INTO THE TREASURY. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a copy of a communication from the 

Indian commissioners, inclosing draught of a bill providing for covering 

into the Treasury certain funds therein named; which was referred 

to the Committee on Appropriations, and·ordered to be printed. 

ENLISTED MEN EMPLOYED IN W A.SHINGTON. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the Honse a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting, in compliance with House resolution of the 

19th ultimo, a statement of the enlisted men employed in Washingto.n, 

in the District of Columbia; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

JURISDICTION OVER L."'lDI.ANS. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, presentiug the draught of a bill in relation to 

jurisdiction over Indians in certain States named therein; which was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

RED CLOUD AGENCY. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, on the subject of supplies required at the Red 

Cloud agency; which wa-s referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

SALE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY AT HARPER'S FERRY. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter fi·om the Secretary of War, transmitting a statement of the sale of United States 

property at Harper's Ferry, in the State of West Virginia, in November and December of the year 1869; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed. • 

PIKE VILLE ARSENAL. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting the draught of a bill for the sale of Pikesville arsenal, in the Sta1.e of Maryland; which was referred to the 

Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

FREEDMAN'S SAVINGS AND TRUST COl:lP.Al\ry, 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the Treasmy, responding to resolution of the House of Janu-

-

. 
. 

1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 8{)1 

ary 24,1876, asking for information relative to_the transactions of the 

Freedman's Savings and Trust Company; whwh was referred ~o the 

Select Committee on the Freedmen's Banks, and ordered to be prmted. 

SJ~AL VS. LYNCH. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the Honst} papers ftt• the• contestedelection ca e of Seal vs. Lynch, sixth cQngressional district State of 

Missi ippi; which was referred to the Committee of Elections. 

TONKAWA. INDIANS, TEXAS. 

Th{) SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secreta.ry of the Interior, transmitting information in relation to the Tonlmwa. Indians in Texas! called for by House resolution of January20, 

1H7G; which was referred to the Committee on Indian .A.ffairs. 

HOMESTEAD ENTRIES WITHIN RAILROAD GRANTS. 

1\lr. CROUNSE. Mr. Speaker, I move by unanimous consent to 

ta.ke from the Speaker's table Senate bill No. 34 to confirm pre-emption antl homestead entries of public lands within the limits of railroad grants in cases where such entries have been made under the 

regulations of the Land Depa1'tment for reference to the Committee on Public Lands. 

There was no objection, and the bill was taken from the Speaker's 

tabJe, 1·ead a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Public La.nds, and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. RANDALL moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was r ferred ; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The l:.l.tter motion was agreed to. 

GEORGE S. HAWKINS. 

Mr. COX. I move by unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's 

table a bill (S. No. 204) to remove the political disabilities of George 

S. Tiaw:kins, of Florida, in order that it may be put on its passage at 

thi time. I filed his petition asking for the removal of his political 

disabilities with the Committee on the Judiciary, and this bill has 

.aJ.r ady pa eel the Senate. 

There was no objection, and the bill was taken from the Speaker's 

table and read a first and second time. 

Tbe bill, which was read, provides(two-thirdsof eachHouseconcurriog therein) that all political di abilities imposed by the fourteenth 

amendment of the Constitut.ion of the United States by reason of participation in the rebellion be removed from George S. Hawkins, of 

the State of Florida. 

The bill was ordered to a third reading; and being read the third 

time, it was passed, (two-thirds of the House concurrin~ therein.) 

1\lr. COX moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passetl; 

and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

MORNING HOUR. 

The SPEAKER. The morning hour begins at ten minutes before one o'clock. and committees will be called for reports of a public natlll'e. 

Mr. HAMILTON, of New Jersey. I ask unanimous consent to take 

up a enate bill for reference. 

cveral MEMBERS objected, and called for the regular order of 

uusiness. ADVERSE REPORT. 

Mr. TUCKER, from the Committee of Ways and Means, ·reported 

back adver ely a bill (H. R. No. 61:!7) to amend chapter 7 of title 34 

of the Revised United States Statutes; and the same was laid upon the 

table. CHANGES OF REFERENCE. 

Mr. BRIGHT. 'rhe Committee on Claims have examined the bill 

(H. R. No. 979) for the relief of Ella P. Murphy, widow of" Patrick 

Murphy, deceased, and have directed me to report it back to the 

House as having been improperly referred, and to move that it be 

referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs, at the request of the 

claimant. 

The motion was agreed to, and the bill was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. 

1\fr. BRIGHT. The Committee on Claims have also directed me to r port back the following bills and memorials a improperly re- ferred, and to move that the committee be discharged from the further consideration of the same, and that they be referred to the Committee on War Claims : The bill (H. R. No. 68) for the relief of Louis Pelham; 

The bill (H. R. No. 1391) for the relief of James Glover, of Pennsylvania; 

The petition of Joslah Cunningham, for relief; 

The petition of Pryor N. Lea, of Washington County, Arkansas, for 

relief; 

The petition of G. Alfred Hall, for relief; 

The memorial of .JohnS. Harper and others, claim for prize-money on cotton captured at sea during the rebellion; 

Tbe memorial of Lieutenant Julius M. Carrington, claim for ~:;ervices as lieutenant United States Army in 1863-'64; and 

Thfl memorial of James and William Vance, for rent of baiTacksin 

San Aut.ooio, io 1 65. Tb.e motion was agreed to, ::md the bills and memorials were referred 

to ti.Je Committee on War Claims. 

IV--51 

HEmS OF JAMES B. A.R:\lSTRO~G. 

1\fr. PHILIPS, of Missouri, from the Committee of Claims, re- ported back, with the recommendation tb.at it do pa s, the uill (H. R. No. 101) amendatory of the act entitled" Au act for the relief of the 

heh"S and next of kin of James B. Armstrong, deceased," approvetl 

March 3, 1873; and the same was referred to the Committee of the 

Whole on the Private Calendar, and the accompanying report ordered 

to be printed. WILLIAM H. NESSLE. 

Mr. BRADLEY, from the Committee of Claims, reported back, with 

the recommendation that the same do pass with an amendment, the 

bill (H. R. No. 37) for the relief of William II. Nessle; and the same was referred 'to the Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar, 

and the accompanying report ordered to be printed. 

HA. W AllAN BARK ARCTIC. 

Mr. PIERCE, from the Coinmittee on Commerce, reported a uill 

(H. R. No. 1796) to grant an American register to the Hawaiian bark 

Arctic; which was read a first and second time. ·The question was on ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. 

The bill, which wa.s rea-d, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Treasury to issue an American register to the Hawaiian bark 

Arctic, owed by Charles Brewe.r & Co., of Boston, Massachusetts. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and 

being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time. 

The question was on the passage of the bill.. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I ask that the bill may be again reported. 

The bill was again read. 

Mr. HOLMAN. ' I take it for granted that this bill is reported with a view to ascertaining the sense of the House in reference to granting 

American registers to foreign -built vessels. This vessel, I presume, was built at a foreign port, and the only gronnd on which it is sought 

to grant it an American registry is that it is now owned by citizens 

of the United States. Will the gent.leman who reports the bill inform me on that point; whether that is the state of facts in this ca e t 

Mr. PIERCE. I request that t he report of the committee accom- panying the bill be read for tlie information of the House. 

The report was road, as follows : 

On the petition of Charles Brewer & Co., of Boston, that an American register be 

granted to the Hawaiia.n bark Arctic, owned by saia firm, the following report is 

submitted: 

It appears that the bark was built at Roch ester, Massachusetts, in 1850; was purchased uy Messrs. Brewer & Co. in 1861, and was nsell by them in carrying, from 

New Bedford and Boston to Honolulu, supplies for the American whalin~ fleet in 

the North Pacific. This was a highly important service, and any interruption of it 

would have caused a serious injury to American inter sts. In 18G3 it was found 

necessary, in order to prevent the ca13ture and destruction of the ve el by rebel 

cruisers which then infested the Pacific Ocean, tQ pla.ce her under the Hawaiian 

flag ; and that W!\i accordingly done, although the service and the ownership con- tinued unchanged. It is evident from what took place immediately after tho trans- fer to a forei$n flag that the >ossel would have ueen captured if the transfer hall not been maue1 thereby depri.vin;I the whalers of supplies necessary to tho continued pursuit or their vocation. The ve sel continuetl in this business until 12G9, 

when she was fitted at New Bedford as a. whale-ship, anu from that time to the 

present has been engaged in the whale-fishery, refitting fTom time to time at Hono- lulu and shipping her catch of oil and bone to New Bedford: Being uuuer a foreign flag, althougll owned and corumanded uy American citizen::~, her oil is subject to a duty of 20 pe1· cent. ad valo1'1m~o, and she cannot outer an American port with- out being subject to tonnage-dues. The owners, therefore, labor under a. serious 

disadvantage in catrying on their business; and, considering tho circumstances 

which forced them to seek protection under another flag, they feel justified in a king the Government to cure the disability under which they labor by the grant of an American register. · This briefly stat-ed, is the ca-se presented by the petitioners. 

We will now r efer to the law bearing upon the subject, and the action of the Gov- ernment in similar cases. In 1866 an act was passed (United States Statutes, volume 14, page 3) provid- ing that no ship or vessel which had been recorded or registered as an American 

vessel pursuant to law, and which should ha.vo been licensed or otherwi!lo author· 

izOO to sail under a foreip:n flag, and to have the protection of any foreign .,.ovorn- ment during the existence of the rebellion, should be deemed or regi tere'a as an American vessel, or should ha.vo tho right and privileges of American ves els ex- cept under the proYisions of an act of Congress authorizing such registry. 

The substance of this provision was inco11Wrated into tho Revisea Statutes, sec- tion 4135. It appears, then, that the matter J.S specially confided to the discretion 

of Congress to determine each case, as presented, upon its own merits, ju t the same as the changin~ of tho name of a vessel. In the first session of the Forty-third Congress, an act was pa sed (chapter 145) 

authorizing an American r egister to be issued to the uark .Azor, an American-built 

vessel employed a.s a packet between the island of Fa.yal aml tho United States. which had been transferred to a. British subject in l86:J, and after the war rotrans- feiTed to the heirs of Charles W. Dabney, late consul of the United States at Fa.ya.l. It appears from the facts set forth in the petition in that case that the circumstances 

under which the tran'!fer was made were almost the same as tho. e under which the 

Arctic was transferred. The .Azor was at that time the only ves::~el ailin.!; re~nlarly between the United Sta.t.es and the island of Faya.l, antl affortlou the only means of communication between these places. Tho liability ro capture by rebel 

cruisers was so great that the premium of insurance demanded amounted to a. substantial prohibition. On this statement of facts thore aupoa.rs tQ have been no hesitation on tho part of the Committee on Commerce in rebom.mending, or on the 

part of Congress rn affording, the r elief applieu for. 

There have been several cases in which r egisters have been granted to ship" 

transferred during the rebellion , and in which there appear to h:we been no special claims for consideration. 

By resolution No. 70, (second session, Forty-second Congres ,) .American registers were granted to the British bark Live Oak, owned by citizens of r ew Bedford, and 

the .Agra, owned by '£homas B. Wale::~ & Co. , of Boston. These vessels had been 

placed under tho British fla.g during tho rebellion. In the first session, Forty-third Congress, the Canadian schooner George Warren 

(Chapter 56) and the British ship Alhambra (Chapter 40 ) were granted American 

registers. The .Alha.mbra. was built in Boston in 1859, surrendered her register at 

. 
802 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. FEBRUARY 1, 

New York in 1863, and was placed under a. foreign flag for safety. It does not appear that she was engaged in any service of special va.lue to the Government or to American interests. 

In reply to a request addressed to the Treasury Department for information upon the subject, tho Secretary states, in a communication of the 17th January, tha.tap· plications for American re~ters in cases similar to these had not been numerons, and that the policy of the .lJepartment had been against the return of such vessels to the flag of the United States. 

The Secretary of the Treasury who held office in Ul70, having been asked by the 

chairman of the Committee on Commerce of that year as to the expediency of grant- ing an American register to the Alhambra, advised against it; but Congres~ never- theless granted the register. Considering the specia.l claims which Mesal'S. Brewer & Co. have for favorable 

action in their case, the precedents already established, antl the fact that the la.pse of time since the rebellion precludes many applications of a similar charac.ter, it is recommended that the prayer of petitioners be granted, and that the accompanying bill be passed. 

:Mr. WOOD, of New York. There is a principle of some magni- tude, in my judgment, involved in this proposition, and if the House 

will bear with me arfew minutes I think I maybe able to state what 

the case is as presented by the report, which I had not heard before 

it was reau just now from the desk. 

It will be recollected that during our late civil war an effort was made by a grea.t many ship-owners in the country to avoid the dangers of the ocean to their vessels and cargoes by denationalizing 

themselves. And I have often thought, sir, that one of the· great reasons why the United States has lost its navigation, its carrying 

trade, that we had in a superior degree to any other maritime nation 

in the world before the war- - Mr. KASSON. Except Great Britain. 

:Mr. WOOD, of New York. Was because pur ship-owners endeav- ored to avoid the dangers of the ocean by changing the flag and sailing unuer the p:::otection of foreign governments. Thus our tonnage 

fell down in less than three years to a minimum of only 20 per cent. 

of what it hau stoou at previous to the rebellion. 

Now the question presented in the bill under consideration is this: 

whether, after the passage of a law by Congress that in every case where a vessel had changed its flag, had placed itself under the protection of a foreign government, and had endeavored to avoid the 

consequences of a condition of revolution in this country by escaping 

from tlw responsihilities anti liabilities and consequences of the re- bellion, it should be restored, as it could have been under the law as it stood previous to the rebellion. 

In this case presented by my honorable friend from Boston it ap- pears that this vessel, owned in Boston, had heen a whaler and was, 

in the course of business, necessarily in the Pacific Ocean, which we know was infested with rebel cruisers and privateers. To escape from 

liability to cai?ture she comes under the Hawaiian government flag. 

She saiJs 1mder that flag. She is under the protection of that flag. 

In short, ·she denationalizes herself. As if, sir, you or I should go to 

Europe to escape a calamity of any kind in our own country, and 

should absolve ourselves from all alle~ance to the Co.nstitution and 

Government of the United States ana seek the protection of a foreign government, virtually becoming~., not an American, but a foreign 

citizen. How far we can, in the first place, absolve ourselves from our own natural allegiance, and how far we may ~e entitled to the protection of a foreign government afterward, is a question which has been 

discussed here very often, and is not yet adequately settled between 

the governments of Europe and that of the United States. But in 

this case, the question now presented is whether, having no longer 

any danger from capture, the owners in Boston shall be allowed to resume the protection of our Government and get rid of the duties 

imposed on their cargoes in consequence of sailing Ullder a foreign 

flag; whether a vessel shall be returned again to an American regis- ter and become in fact entirely an American vessel. Being owned at 

Boston and sailed by Americans under the Hawaiian flag, the question 

is whether we shall grant this vessel what is sought in the bill before 

the Honse. 

So far as the mere question now before the House is concerned, I 

have no particular concern or interest; but I do insist upon it that 

those upon the ocean, as well as upon the land, shall take their just 

responsibility of that terrible condition of things so disastrous to life 

and property and public and private liberty in the United States, as was the case in the civil war; and I can only say th::~.t, if Boston, 

loyal Boston, endeavors to escape from her just proportion of that 

calamity, it is an example set to other portions of the Union that 

probably did not claim to be so loyal as Boston claimed to be. 

Mr. PIERCE. I desire to say to my friend from New York that the 

general question whether vessels which were placed under foreign 

flags during the rebellion shaH be returned t-o our flag is not involved 

in this bill, and was not considered by the committee. This is a special case, and there are special reasons why the request of the petitioners should be granted. The whaling business is a peculiar business; it is concentrated at the port of New Bedford to the exclusion 

of all other ports in the world. That is the only place in this country 

where any whaling business is carried on to any extent. Now, sir, 

this vessel was employed from 1861 during the rebellion in carrying supplies to our whalers in the Northern Pacific. The supplies which 

those vessels require are peculiar and special. They can only be obtained at New Bedford. They cannot be obtained at any other port or city of this country. It was essential to the prosperity and success of the whaling fleet that these supplies should be regularly furnished 

to them, and they could be furnished only from New Bedford. This vessel was employed in carrying those supplies and in no other way. She wa-s not engaged in the whaling business at that time. She had to 

pass directly across the track of the rebel cruisers. The result shows 

t.hat if she had not been put under the Hawaiian flag she would have 

been destrq.yed, and these supplies could not have been carried to the 

whaling fleet, and the fleet would have been seriously restricted in its 

operations. - The general question, I say to my friend from New York, is not involved at all, and wa-s not considered. 

Congress has once before granted a similar request under precisely 

the same circumstances. There was a vessel, the bark Azor, plyiug 

between Boston and Fayal, directly in the track of the rebel crui er , and it wa,s deemed important that that communication should be kept 

open. The risk had become so great that the insurance companies 

would not insure except at enormous rates, which amounted to pr;J.ctical prohibition, and therefore the vessel had to be placed nuder a foreign flag. Congress for that special reason, believing that the vessel 

had done a valuable service to the country and that under the circum . stances it was right that she should be transferred to a foreign fl::tg, 

subsequently granted the request of the ownerB to return to our flag. Precisely the same necessity existed in this case. Mr. HEREFORD. I must confess, M.r. Speaker, that I was a lj ttle 

surprised at the position taken by my friend from New York, f~ir. 

WooD.] I had thought that this side of the House-even putting it as broadly as the gentlema.n from New York has pla~ed it-that; this 

side of the House was in favor o~ general amnesty. I do not put this case exactly upon those terms, as the report will not justify it, but 

I put it on the broadest terms that the owners of vessels did who did 

desire to shield themselves from this responsibility to confederate 

cruisers. Supposing even that they were confederate, yet if they come back here now at this time and a.sk amnesty for the past, I aw equally willing to grant amuesty to a vessel from tho city of Boston, as I am audhave always been in favor of grantinguniversalamnesty 

to every man throughout the length and breadth of the land; so that 

I do not see that this is a proper objection, especially in this centennial year. Mr. WOOD, of New York. I submit to the gentleman's argument, 

and will withdraw all objection. 

Mr. HEREFORD. I do not think that in this centennial year wo should be punishing vessels or the owners of vessels for their participation in the late unpleasantness. There is one additional remark that I desire to make. I shall not 

take up the time of the Honse to discm:;s this question at any length. 

I simply throw out one idea, and no one is responsible for my views 

but myself. 

So far as I am concerned, I see no good rea..son why, if we desire to 

increase the carrying trade of the United States, to improve our com- merce and to bring our tonnage back to where it was before the war- I see no goodreason why any person may not be allowed to hoy a vessel 

anywhere in any country and bring it here, and if it belongs to an American citizen, if it is owned by an American citizen, then 1et it be 

registered as an American vessel. So far 'loS I am concerned, I wonlu 

that all the vessels which changed their registration from that of the 

United States t.o that of foreign countries, by which, as my friend 

from New York l Mr. WOOD] says, we lost the carrying trade, should 

all come back. If we lost ·the- carrying trade in t hat way, ancl if it 

should come back under American registration, then as a matter of course it will to that extent bring back the carrying trade to the 

United States again. I can see no good reason why this bill should 

not pass, even upon the broa-dest grounds that the gentleman has indicated. As a matter of fact, however, the report says that this is an exceptional case, and the vessel should be allowed to come ba-ck ao-ain 

under American registration. o 

Mr. CONGER. I desire, Mr. Speaker-- . Mr. KASSON. I believe the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 

PIERCE] yields to me. · Mr. CONGER. I understood the Chair to recognize me. Mr. PIERCE. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. KAssoN-.] 

Mr. CONGER. I understood that the chairman of the Committee on Commerce [Mr. HEREFORD] had taken the floor in his own ri<Yht. 

The SPEAKER. That was the understanding of the Cha.ir. o 

Mr. HEREFORD. ThegentlemanfromMassachusetts[Mr.PmRcE] had the floor, having reported the bill. Mr. PIERCE. I will ti.rst yield to the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. 

KAssoN,] and then to the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. CONGER.] 

Mr. KASSON. I desire to hold the floor but a few minutes. I rec ollect very well the circurnBtances under which the bill passed which 

is affected by this exceptiona-l proposition. I remember, too, that. I was one of those who opposed the entire policy of that bill. I should 

be glad to remind the gentleman from New York [Mr. WOOD] of 

the purpose avowed at the time that bill was passed, and the mistaken theory npon which it was adopted. It was thought that the 

effect would be to exclude these vessels from the American carrying trade, and produce a revival of ship-building in certain ship-yanls ir 

the United States. The bill entirely failed in this purpose, and in mv judgment was itself one of the most significant causes of that failure . I was then shocke<.l by the proposition, hecause it preventeu our own cit-izens from engaging American uottoms in the carrying trade 

of the Uniteu States, and put them upon the samo footin(J' as the own ~rs of foreign uottoms. I had supposed that when a pro0

position was 
1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 803 

made to this House to repeal that bill entirely from the statuto-book, 

it would not find more than one-fourth, if that number, of the mem- bers to oppose it. Om tollDage i.s to-day diminished by t'housands 

and hundreds of thousands of tons because that law has stood as long as it has. My only complaint of the Committee of Commerce-and I am glad to hear the chairman of that committee [Mr. HEREFORD] say 

that he concurs with me in opinion-is that they have not long since 

reported a bill to repeal that section of the Revised Statutes. 

Look for a moment a11 the cause of the exclusion imposed by that 

law. We had not the Navy to protect our ships on the seas. We 

could not send a convoy for any one or any ten ships we had afloat. 

The gentleman from New York [Mr. WooD] remembers well the 

paucity of our Navy at the time these changes occnrred and the impossibility of sending a convoy for our trading vessels. Yet when our people sought to save to themselves, and in doing so to save to the coun- try-the wealth that was invested in their vessels and which was in 

danger of being sent to the bottom of the sea by rebel cruisers, it was proposed to punish them for having thus saved from destruction by 

the national enemy this wealth of the country . . Do gentlemen on that side or on this side of the House contend to-day that the punishment shall be continued; that when thoy propose to restore this wealth 

to the United States we shall prohibit them from doing sof 

Sir, I do not understand the ground of opposition to this bill. Did 

these men commit a wrong to the United States when they protected 

their own property in the only way possible to them, in the only way 

that was open to them f If these vessels had remained under our flag 

and had been sent to the bottom of the sea by hostile cruisers, as so many other ves els were, of what advantage would it have been to 

the United States Y I repeat, it is impossible to understand the justification of the opposition to such legislation as this. If we ever ex- pect to revive our commerce, to restore the prosperity of our flag, and 

to regain the profits that come from the carrying trade of this coun- try, we must liberalize our legislation far beyond the proposition involved in this bill, and even beyond the proposition to repeal wholly 

this exclusive law. · I hope to see the day when any American citizen may buy ships 

wherever he can get them cheapest, and be allowed to register and 

sail them under our flag. Let this right of purchase exist for at least a limited time, say two or three yea-rs, so as to restore our men to the 

habits of the sea and our merchants to a knowledge of the commerce of the worldt. and then, if you please, you may restore the protective 

principle and. require all future registereu bottoms to be built in this 

country. But when our ship-yards have been silent for years, when 

the sound of the hammer is scarcely heard in them, do members on this :floor still contend that it is necessary to protect the interests of 

American ship-building that we should positively prohibit these ves- sels which were built in America from coming under the Americ:m 

flag againT Certainly the gentleman from New York [Mr. WOOD] doe~ not propose to build up our commerce on that theory in the face 

of historical fact. 

So far as this single proposition is concerned, I support it only be-. cause it is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Committee on Commerce will do for all ship-owners in the same situation what 

this bill proposes to do for one. Mr. PIERCE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. CONGER.] 

Mr. CONGER. Mr. Speaker, this is one of several hundred cases of 

like character which have been presented to Congress within. the last 

eight or ten years, and with the exception of the three cases men- tioned in the report no one of all the hundreds of applications made 

for the granting of American registry to vessels tbat had sought the 

protection of other governments during the war has received the 

favorable action of Congress. 

It is with no little regret that I find the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, [Mr. HEREFORD,] to whose especial care the navigation interests, th~ ship-building interests, the commerce of the 

United States are given in charge, should be so influenced by any con- sideration connected with amnesty or the Centennial or any other general measure of that kind as to declare himself in favor of a restoration to American registry of all that class of old ships that went out 

from our nationality during the war and have sought at this later 

day to regain the privileges of American ships. 

Here, Mr. Speaker, let me remind the House of the character of the 

thr e cases referred to in the report, and the only three cru;es within 

my knowledge in which an American registry has been ~ranted, while 

the records of the Committee on Commerce will show 1t has been re- fused within the last six years in hundreds of other cases. The first 

is the case of the Azor, the only vessel, as the report states, that had 

communication at the time between the isla.nd of Fayal and the 

United States; the only vessel that could bear the orders of our Government to the American officers stationed there. That Yessel did 

seek the protection of another :fla~, and was afterward restored to an American registry, but not until1t was shown to the Committee on Commerce that the vessel was the special object of the vengeance of a confederate vessel; that it was pursued upon the high seas, one object being to secure dispatches sent upon it; that it was in the interest of the United States as well as the owners of the vessel, and 

by the consent of the American authorities, that it did seek a foreign flag. For that reason, a.nd that reason alone, a favorable report was made in the case of the Azor. 

Another case was that of the Geo. Warren, a little coasting 

schooner for pleasure parties among the Thousand Islands of the 

Saint Lawrence, and for carrying provisions and furnituTe to cifuens 

enjoying their summers on the different islands there. It was owned 

by an American, used by Americans and for American purposes. It 

was a little craft, o diminnti ve that it was of no consequence whether the registry was given or not, and for mere convenience an American 

registry was granted. 

The other case was that of the Alhambra. If I remember aright, 

that vessel was rebuilt by an American owner to the extent of more than three-fourths its value, for it had been partially shipwrecked on the Pacific. The circumstances were such that if it had met with its 

injuries on the American coast, an .American registry: after the re- building, could have been given by the Secretary of the Treasu.ry 

without any application to Cons-ress at all. Having r ceived its in- jmies on the high sea , and havmg been rebuilt, as the law contemplates, to the extent of three-fourths of its value by American work- men, an American regiHtry was granted in that case. This, if I re- member rightly, completes the entire list. 

In the case now before the House the vessel is eighteen or nineteen years old-an old craft. To-day, :Mr. Speaker, the ship-yardsof America, both of our Atlantic coast and on the great lakes, are silent as the grave. The thonsand!i of men who have learned by long years of 

labor and practice to build American ships have been driven from our ship-yards, and are now securing other employment, because olu crafts 

that have been sailing under foreign :fla~s are doing the work that 

should be done by American vessels. Old. crafts are sought to be re- stored to carry on that work upon the seas. I do not wonder "'ihat my friend from the prairie region of Illinois, 

where they sv.il in large wagons, is a free-trader. The worlu knows 

that my friend is a free-trailer. He never has been guilty, so far as I 

remember, of casting his vote in any manner for the protection of any 

American industry, but is for free trade in lumber, in salt, in ship , and in all products that can be brought from othor countries. He 

may well commend himself to my democratic brethren on the other 

side of the House who are free traders. I should also expect my 

other friend from Illinois to be in favor of free ships. That was part 

of the theory of some gentlem~I\. in this House in former days, and 

may be now .. But that the Committee on Commerce, who have in 

charge especially t-he protection of ship-building and our navigation 

interests and our general commerce, should favor a policy which will 

allow these old worn-out ships to take the place of good new ships 

which our workmen are standin~ ready to build, anxious for the opportunity to labor, is a matter ot surprise to me. Now, Mr. Speaker, the theory of having fTee ships is not involved 

in this bill. The question is as to the propriety of allowing any man from Boston or from t.he Carolinas or elsewhere to use his ship in 

safety during the war under another flag, and that the flag of a little 

obscure island in the Pa-cific, anu then come to Congress to have the 

old carcass restored to American registry. That such a ·proposition 

should meet with favor here sm·prises me. l:lr. PIERCE. I now yield for a few moments to the gentleman 

from New York, [Mr. WooD.] 

Mr. WOOD, of New York. :Mr. Speaker, I wish to say but a word 

in reply to the gentleman [Mr. CO:NGER] who has last spoken and who 

has seen proper to introduce the question of tariff in connection wit.h 

the simple proposition to change the nationality of a vessel. Sir, th(\ 

ship-yards of this country are without employment because it has 

suited that gentleman's political friends tolay such a protective tariff 

upon everything entering into the construction of ves els that it is 

impossible to build them and place them on the ocean under the Amer- ican flag without the loss of money. 

If we could construct vessels as we do houses without paying ·au bsidies 4;o certain manufacturers in this conn try, then, sir, I believe the 

American :Bag would once more :float upon the ocean, and American 

trade would be carried in American bottoms. But so long a every 

element entering into the construction and fitting out of vessels, cop- per, iron, bolts, sheathing; and every other article as well as furniture, is made to pay bounty to individuals in our country, just so long 

will our ship-yards be empty, silent, and without occupation. 

In reply to the gentleman from Iowa [l\fr. KAs o .... ] I de 'ire to say 

that I am an advocate of free ships. I always have been in favor of 

free trade, for I believe the industrie of this country can stand up 

successfully in competition with the industrie of any other country. For one I will not admit that American enterprise, American energy) 

American industry, American capital can anywhere be surpassed by 

that of any other land. I am glad, therefore, to hear that gentlcm:w 

say he is in favor of the admission of ships wherever comtructed 

into the ports of the United States free. But this is not the question 

here at this time. It is whether we will permit aves el to be dena.- tionalized at the convenience of its owner for his safety auu prolit 

purely. I do not rise to oppose this bill, for so far as this individual case is concerned I make no opposition to it. My remarks were directed to the general question and not this particular case. 

Mr. PIERCE. I now yield for five minutes to the gentleman from 

Texas, [Mr. REAGAN.] 

· Mr. REAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I concur in opinion with the chair- man of the Committee on Commerce [ fr. HEREFORD] v.nd tlle gen .. man from Iowa, [Mr. KAssoN,] that the policy of excludiug t.heso 

ships from the resumption of America.u register is not a wise oue. I 

do not rise, however, :ior the purpose of enforcing that view of the 
804 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. FEBRUARY 1, 

matter, but merely to state that the committeo in favoring this meas- ure was influenced by the exceptional circumstances surrounding the 

surrender of the Am rican register in this case. The gentleman from 

Michigan [Mr. CONGER] has called attention to two cases in which 

American registers were restored to vessels on account of like exceptional circumstances attending their surrender. The rep(lrt of the 

committee in this case states facts showing exceptional circumstances. 

Let us see what they are. · 

The New Bedford Whale Fishing Company had a :fleet of vessels in 

the waters of the North Pacific Ocean. It was necessary for them to 

communicate with that fleet, and to furnish it with requisite supplies. 

AB the gentleman from Mas achusetts has already told the Hou e, it was the only whaling :fleet then doing business of that kind in those 

waters. In order to reach a station upon the Pacific from which to 

supply this whaling :fleet this vessel had twice to cross the equator 

and undergo the dangers then incident to American shipping because 

of the existing war. Liability to capture, under the circumstances, was very considerable, if the vessel retained its American register. 

Indeed, under the circumstances, its capture was almost inevitable, 

and if captured, that whaling fleet in the North Pacific would be cut 

off from the supplies essential to its success. It was not a vessel simply trading in any general business or in any regular line of com- merce, but a vessel carrying out supplles to an American :fleet engaged 

in thewhalefisheryin the waters of the North Pacific Ocean. Therefore it was in the interest of that fleet that this vessel's American 

register was surrendered. It was for the purpose of taking out absolutely necessary supplies to this large fleet that her American register was surrenuered. This makes the case ali exceptional one, justifying a departure from the principle established, if the principle it elf bo a couect one, and such was the view taken by the Committee on Com- merce. It was not the intention of the Committee on Commerce, as the report shows, to raise the question as to tho policy of allowing all ve els tore ume American registers when they have once been sur- rendered. It is allowed to be done in this case upon the ground, as I 

have said, of exceptional circumstances and equities created by the 

necessity of supplies being furnished to those in whose service she was employed. I will only say in addition that I do not know how we are to promote American shipping and ship-building interests by 

refusing to allow vessels in this condition to resume their American 

registers. I do not propose, however, to go into that general que.'3tion 

at this' time. 

Mr. PIERCE. I now demand the previous question on the pa.ssage 

of the bill. 

The previous question was seconded a,nd the main question ordered; 

and under the operation thereof the bill was pa&Jed. 

Mr. PIERCE moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was pa ed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. · 

The latter motion was ngreed to. 

SALE OF INDIAN LANDS IN KANSAS. 

Mr. GOODIN from the Committee on Public Lands, reported back 

the bill (H. R. No. 163) providing for the sale of the Kansas Indian 

lands, in Kansas, to actual settlers, and for the disposition of the pro- ce ds of the sale, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and a recommendation that the bill, ns amended, be passed. 

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection, the substitute alone will 

be read. 

There was no objection. 

The substitute (H. R. No. 17gj') was read, as follows: . 

A bill providing for the sale of the Kansas Indian lands, in K:ms!le, to actual set- tlers, and for the disposition of the proceeds of the sale. 

Wheroos the Secretary of the Interior~ in pursuance of an act ap.£~:~ May 8~ 1872, baa caused to be appraised the lana.s heretofore owned by the tribe or Indians, in the State of Kansas, which, by the terms of the treaty made by the 

United States and said Indians, and procla.im.ed November 17, 1860, were to be sold 

for the benefit of said Indians; which appraisement also includes all improvements on the same a.nd the value of said improvements, distinguishing lJetween improve- ments made by members of said Indian tribe, the United States, and white settlers; 

and whereas the appraisement thus made wa.s so high that neither settlers nor pur- cha.sers were able to 11aytbe same, n.nd the said la.nd hiLs rem'l.ined unsold from the 

passage of the act : Therefore, 

Be it enacted by the Senate and HO'US6 of .Representatives of tll.e United States of 

A 'TMri.ca in Oonpress assemlJled, That ea.ch bona fide settler on any of the trust lands 

embraced in s:nd act, heretofore reported as such by the colllJD.l8sioners appointed to make said appraisement, and the rejected claimants a.s btma fide settlera, who were·recommended as such by Andrew C. Williams, acting under instructions to Superintendent Hoag, from the Indian Office, dated October 24, 1872, be permitted to make payment of the aJ>praised value of their l:mds to the local land office 'l.t 

Topeka, Kansas, under such rules as the Commissioner of the General L:md Office 

may adopt, in six equal annual installments, the first installment payable on the 1st 

of Jan nary, 1877, and the remaining installments payable annually from that time, 

and drawing interest at 6 per cent. per annum until paid: Pr011ided, That, where 

there is timber on any of the lands to be sold under the provisions of this a~t, the 

Secretary of the Interior shall require the purchaser to enter into bond, with approved security, th:tt he shall commit no waste on the timber or otherwise on srud 

land until the'iast payment is ma.de, and f!ve his notes with a lien on the land to 

sesn~ ~~~t~~~t:~e~~~~~~ ~~:r:ust~~ct!o;~~~1 the unrlis sed ortion 

of the diminished reserve shall be subject to entry at the local L'\nd o~ at /opeka., 

Kansas, in tracts not exceeding one hundred and s~ n.cres, unless a. legal subdivision of a. section shall be fractional and found to contain a greater number of acres by actual settlers, under such fi!.les and re.gulations as the Commissioner of 

the General Land Office ma.v prescribe. .And the parties making such entries sbaU 

be required to make payment of the appraised value of the land entered and occu- pied by each in the following manner: One-sixth at the time that the entry is made 

and the remainder in five equal annual payments, drawing interest at 6 per cent. pe11 

annum, which payments shall be secured by notes payabl to the United States and 

by mortgage on the premises, and the Secretary of the Interior shall withhold title 

until the last payment is made; and the Secretary of the Interior, wh re th re is 

timber on the l.'Ulds, shall in addition compel the purcha er to ent-er into bond, with 

approved security, to commit no waste uy the destruction of timber or otb' rwise on the premises until final payment has been made; and tbe S creta.ry of tb In- terior shall cause patents in fee simple to be issued to all parties who shall complete purcha es under the provisious of this act: Provided, That if any per on or per- sons applying to purchase land under the provision.B of this act shall fail to make 

payment or tojerform any other conditions required by the provisions of this act or by rnles an regulations that may be pre cribed in the execution hereof, within 

ninety days after such payment shall become due or performance be r~uir d bv 

the terms hereof or by the rules and regulalious which may b pr scribed Ill the ex- ecution hereof, such person or persons shall fmfeit allright.s under the provi ious 

of this act and all claim or right to re-imbursemen t or compensation for previou 

action or payment by said person or per ons under the provisions hereof; and the 

bnd proposed to be :purchased by such person or persons shall again be subject to sale as though no action ha.d been bad in regard to the same. SEC. 3. That the Secretary of the Interior shall inquire into the correctne s of 

the appraisement of these lands, and if he be satisfied that they have been appraised at more than their present cash value be may appoint a new commis ion of 

three persons to re-appraise the same, the per diem ancl expenses of which, at the rates heretofore paid to sncb commissioners, shall b e deducted from the proceeds of 

said lands. - SEc. 4. That in preparing or giving their testimony all settlers or purcba crs of 

land uncler the provisions of this act may ha.ve such te timony taken, after due and 

legal notice to the opposing party in interest, before any notary public or person qualified to administer an oath, and may forward sqch testimony with their appli- cation to the land offices or parties authorized to dispose of said lands, which testimony shall be received as if t.'lken before the officers of such land office. 

SEC. 5. That the net proceeds arising from such sales, after defraying the ex- penses of appraisement and s:tle which b:tve heretofore or may her after lJe incurred, and also the outstanding indebtedness, :principal and interest, of said Kan- sas tribe of Indians, which b:ta heretofore been mcruTed under trea.t:y stipulation , shall belong to said tribe in common, and may be used by the Conums ion r of In- dian Affairs, under direction of the President of tho United States, in providing 

and improving for them new homes iu tho Indian Tenitory and in subsisting them 

until they become sclf-sust.'l.ining; and the residue not o required shall b placed t~ their credit on the books of the Treasury :md bear interest at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum, and be held as a fund for their civilization, the inter t of whlcll, 

and the grincipal when deemed necessary by the President of the United States, 

may be used for such purpose. 

Mr. KASSON. I c:ill for the regula.r order. 

TERM OF PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE. 

The SPEAKER. The morning hour having expired, the business 

before the House is the COJJ.Sideration of the joint resolution (H. R. 

No. 41) proposing an amendment to the Constitution, reported uy the 

Committee on the Judiciary, and made a special order for to-day 

after the morning hour. The Clerk will read the joint re olution re- ported by the committee and the amendment submitteu by the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. FRYE,] as the views of tho minority of the 

committee. 

·The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows: 

Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Oongress asse·mbled, (two-thirds of each House concurring therein,) 'l'hat the 

following be proposed to the Legisla-tures of the several States as an amendment t~ 

the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said 

Legislatures, shall be valid as a part of said Coustitution : 

ARTICLE XVI. 

No person who hR.S held, or m~~oy heren.fter bold, the office of President shall ever again be eligible to said office. 

·The Clerk also ~ead the amendment offered by .Mr. FR~, as follows: 

Strike out these words: 

No person who has held, or may here'lofter hold, the office of President shall eyer 

again be eligible to said office. . .And insert in lieu thereof the following: 

From._ and after the 4th day of March, in the year 1885, the term of office of Pres- ident and Vice-President of the United States shall be six years; and any person having been elected to and held the office of Pre ident, or who for two years has 

held such office, sbaJ.l be ineligible to a re-elecf.;ion. 

The SPEAKER pro tmnpm·e, ·(Mr. HoL UN.) The question isou the 

amendment submitted by the gentleman :D:om Maine, JI,Ir. FRYE, on behalf of the minority of the committee. The gentlomn.n from Kentucky, [.Mr. KNoTT,] the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

is entitled to the :floor. 

?tir. KNOTT. I do not propose at this time to enter into a discussion of the reasons which influenced the Committee on the Judiciary 

in reporting this proposed amendment to the Constitution. I desire 

merely to state as succinctly as possible the conclusions at which they 

arrived. The committee appreciated the unanimity of opinion everywhere that there should be some limit to eligibility to the office ·of 

President. The only question upon which there wa-s n.nycontrariety 

of judgment, as is apparent from the report of the committee and the 

views of the minority, was as to the len~th of the term. AB the House knows, there were a variety of propositions submitted to the committee: one to extend the term to six years and rencler the incumbent 

forever after ineligible to the office of President; another extending 

the term to six years and rendering the incumb nt ineli~ble for the 

six succeeding years ; another extemling the term to scr year and 

ma.king the President a Senator for life for the United Stutes at l:lrg , n.fterthe expiration of his term of office; another limiting the term 

to four years. After considering these various propositions the committee con- cluded that they could give to the people of this country no good rea- lOon why the presidential term should be extended beyond i~ pres nt 

limits. An ::1mendment to the Constitution in thi direction is evidently in the interests of the people themselves, jealous at all times as they should be of executive power. The committee, therefore, 
1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECOR,D. 805 

were of opinion that no amendment extending the term beyond its 

present limits would meet the approbation of the people of this coun- try, and that snch a proposition would be entirely nugatory. · Neither could the committee appreciate the propriet.y or the importance of rendering the President eligible after the lapse of a given 

period of time. It occurred to them, I have no doubt, as it did to myself, that men make their calculations as though they expected to live 

always, and that a President in office, :with an expectation of being 

elected again aft-er the lapse of four or six years, would, if inclined 

to use his influence at all for the promotion of his own ambition, be 

under the same temptation as if he were immediatly re-elected. . The committee therefore submit to the House the proposition, simple and unadorned, that no person who has held or who may hereafter hold the office shall ever again be eligible for that office, believing that there never will be a time w-hen suitable candidates cannot 

be found who will be more than willing to take the office upon those 

conditions. Whether 1 shall add anything more upon this question 

will depend upon what may be said by other gentlemen during the 

discussion. I now yield to the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. NEW.] 

111r. NEW. I call for the reading of the joint resolution, introduced 

by myself, for information. 

The resolution was read as follows: 

Resolved by _the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of A. merictJ, 

· in Oangress assembled, (two-thirds of each Hause concurring therein.) That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendutentfuthe Constitution~~£ the United States, wh'cb, w!1en ratified by three-fourths 

<>f said Legislatures, sbau be valid M apart of the Constitution, namely: 

. ARTICLE XVI. 

From and after the next election for the President of the United States the President shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together witl1 the VicePresident chosen for the s:tn:e term. be el~cted in the m~er now provided by law; or as may hereafter be provided. But neither the President, the Vice-Prl'Bident, nor any other person in the office of President, as devolved upon him by law shall 

be eligible to the office of President a. third time. ; ' 

Mr. NEW. Mr. Speaker, it will be observed that the joint resolution just read leaves the-matter of the presidential term where it is 

except that a third term by the same President is prohibited. 

I shall not occupy niuch time. I cannot hope to present anything 

new, or which would not upon reflection occur to the minds of other 

members. The reasons whicn I shall assign in opposition to a one- term limitation, and in favor of eligibility to a second term with ineligibility to a third, will perhaps be familiar to all the members of thi~ body. For the most part my arguments will be such as I have 

gleaned from reading the past history of this question and the his- tory of the country. 

We cannot overestim~te the importance of the subject. · We ca.nnot 

fail to appreciate the disagreeable attitude in which we place our- selves, as also the possible serious consequences to the future orthe 

country if our action here should lead to a change in the Constitution 

and that change should turn out to be a mistake. For one, sir I ad-

~it now at ·the very ~hreshold of n;tY remarks tha~ I a!ll not fnliy COJ?.-

vmced that the public safety reqmres any alteratiOn m the Constitution relating to the executive term. But if any step is to be taken 

in that direction, then, sir, in my judgment the modification proposed 

in my proposition is the one and only one that should be made. 

In the convention which framed the Constitution there was a marked difference of opinion among the delegates as to what should 

be the length of the President's term of office, as also the manner of 

his election and the powers with which he should be invested. 

Luther Martin, attorney-general of Maryland, and one of the delegates in the Federal Convention, in an· address delivered ·by him to 

the house of delegates of Maryland when that body was considering 

whether Maryland should ratify the Constitution, said: 

Many of the members were desirous that the President should be elected for seven years and no_t to_ b~ eligible a second time. Others proposed that be should not be absolutely rneligible, but that he should not be capable of beina chosen a second time un~ ~he expiration of a .certnin number of years. The supporters of 

t:tie.above proposition went 1?-POn the Ide~ that ~e best security for liberty was a limited duration and a rotation of office m the chief executive department. 

The!e wa~ a party wb.o ~tte~pted to ~ave the President appointed during good behaVIor, Without any limitation as to time, and not being able to succeed in that 

attemp_t they then endeav:ored to bav~ him re-eli~ble ~thout any restraint. It was obJected that the cbmce of a President to continue rn oifice during good behavi?r would at once bo r~~erin~ our system :m elective monarchy, and that if the 

President was to be re-elig1ble Without any rnterval of disqualification it would amount nearly to the same thing, since, frOm the powers that the President is to 

enjoy and the inperest ~d influences with t~ey will be attended, he will be almost 

absolutely cert.'UD. of berng re-elected from trme to time :t~ long as he lives. 

I find, Mr. Speaker, by reference to the debates on the Constitution 

t?.at .o~ the 29~h of May, 1787, E~und Randolph, a delegate fro~ vrrgnna, subillltted to the conventiOn certain resolutions or propositions as a dr:;mght or plan of national government. Charles Pinckney 

and others dtd the same. Mr. Randolph's proposition us to t he exec- utive was as follows: . 

That a. national executive be instituted, to be chosen by the nation~ legislature 

f?r t~e term of -.-- years, to _recei:e pun?tually at stat-ed times a fixed compensatiOn for the serVIces rendered, m which no mcrease or diminution shall be made so ~s fA? !!'ffect the ma,~tra~y existmg at the time of the increase or diminution· to be 

meligible a. seconif time, &c. ' 

Mr. Pinckney's article was as follows: 

The executive power of the United States shall be vestell in a President of the 

United States of A.meric'l>, which shall be his style; and his title shall be Ilis Excellency. Ile shall be eltcted for --years, and shall oe re-eligible, &o. 

Alexander Hamilton proposed that the supreme executive authority of the United States should be vested in a governor, to be elected 

to serve during good behavior. William Pattison, of New Jersey, 

thought the federal executive should consist of more than one person, to. be elected by Congress, and be re-eligible. 

Afterward, on the 19th of June, 1787J it wa-s resolved that the ex- ecutive should consist of a single person; to be chosed by the national 

legislature for the term of seven years, to be ineligible a second time. This proposition waa soon afterward, together with others relating to 

the entire system of government, referred to a special committee of 

five, (Messrs. Rutledge, Randolph, Gorham, Ellsworth, and Wilson,) 

for the purpose of reporting a constitution. This committee, on the 

6th of August, 1787, reported a draught of a. constitution, section 1 

of article 10 providing as follows : 

The executive power of the United States shall be vested in a single ~erson. His style to be "The President of the United States of America;" and his title shall 

be "His Excellency. " He shall be elected by ballot by the le<rislature. He 

shall holP,his office during a. term of seven years, but shall not be eYected a seconu time. • 

It would seem, Mr. Speaker, that the most democratic days of th<' 

Republic were not its earliest days. Subsequently a committee of re- vision was appointed, which, on the 12th of September, 1787, reported 

the Constitution in the form in which it waa finally adopted. 

The uncertainty and confusion which existed in the minds of the 

very foremost men of the convention aa to what number of years 

should constitute a presidential term, as also whether he should be 

limited to one or more terms, and as to the manner of his eJection, is- strikingly apparent to the student who carefully looks into the proceedings of that convention. 

Mr. Madison, in a letter to Robert Lee of date February 22, 1830, said : 

The question of r e-eligibility in the case of a President of the UniLeu States ail- · mits of rival vieJVs, and is the more delicate because it cannot bo decideu with 

equal light-s from actual experiment. In general it may be observed that the evils most compbined of are less connected with that particular que tion than with the 

process of electing the Chief Magistrate and the powers vested in him. . 

It will be observed that this letter was written more than forty 

years after· Washington's first election, ancl after Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe had each served two terms and Jackson was serving his :first with an absolute certainty of a second. . At the date of Mr. Madison's letter there had been four double t erms, so to speak, and but two single terms, thos~ of John Adams aml .John 

Quincy Ada.ms. It will be seen, therefore, that as to a service of two 

terms in succession by the same President more light had been re- ceived than as to single terms up to the time when that letter wa::; 

written. No Government was ever more 1mited, more prosperous and more respected at home and abroad than waa this durin(l' the se~oud terms, as weU as the first, of Washington, Jefferson, ifadi~on, Monroe, 

and J ackson; and no Chief Magistrate ever retired from officia.l place 

with personal and official honor more unsullied than did the Presidents just named. There is every reason to believe that, if the two 

Adams's had each been re-elected, their second terms would have 

been without stain or dishonor. 

Mr. Lincoln was elected a second time in the midst of civil war. After entering upon his second term the conflict terminated with the 

Unio~ _Preserve~. The great issue .mvolved in that unparalleled 

fratnc1dal conflict of arms was decided as he would have it. l\1ay we not hope and believe that it ha.s been settled and unalterably adjl!dicated forever t. The best blood of t~e fairest spot of God's crea- tion- the land anomted-has been shed m atonement of our national 

sins. Before God, I declare it to be my honest belief that the Fed- eral Union is to-day stronger at home and more respectecl abroad than ever before. 

And at this point I cannot forbear saying that, while the healed 

wounds of our late struggle are not altogether free from sensitiveness ·and soreness and while those wounds in my judgment have been un- necessarily irritated and almost re-opened in this House yet it will 

not b.e denied that there ~s now a better feeling among the members 

of this body and a more smcere purpose to move forward in the work 

of legislationJ with oblivion for the past, for the future good of the 

whole country, than existed here for many years before our civil war. We have every reason for believing and declarin(l' that we are now starting anew in the great race of national ill~ with fewer 

weights and entanglements to impede and fetter our steps than ever before. 

It h~ been. said by a distinguished American patriot that there is no nation whic:J:l baa not at s~me period ~r other in its history felt an absolute necessity of the serviCes of part1cular men in particular stations aa vital even to the preservation of its political existence. Thus we have Madison entering upon his·second term while the war of 1812 was.in progress. Ja-ckson had been voted for and electeii the second 

time when, in Dece!fiber 1 1832, it became necessary to promptly rebuke 

and put down nulllficatwn. The salutary effect will not soon be for- gotten of the proclamation which he issued at that time containin(l' 

an exposition of the principles and powers of the General Government 

and expressing a determination to maintain the laws. 

Gene1:al Gra~t is ;now serv~g his second term. It fs probably too soon to rmpart1ally JUdge of h1s first, while, as for the second it is not y~t conclude:d: Som~ of !1-s, do~btles.s in some degree aEected7

by party b1.as and political preJUdiCe, trunk h1s executive services to the coun- try not of extraordinary merit, but whether it would have been better 
~06 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. FEBRUARY 1' 

or worse for the people if some other aspirant had secured the prize we c::w never know. The fair thing probably in this regard would be to 

gi ,-call aspirants who failed to obtain the place the benefit of the doubt. I maintain that no argument unfavorable to the second election of 

the same President can fairly be drawn from the past histOry of the 

country taken as a whole. Would it be wise to limit the Executive to a single term in the future 'f I answer that it would not. If confined to one term, he would 

in my opinion be more inclined t,o overlook and disregard the public 

good where his own personal interest or ambition was in the way. If 

eligible to re-election there would be greater disposition and induce- ment to keep within the lines marked out for him by the Constitution./ 

a.nd to make his administration efficient and just, for to do this woula. 

be to give himself character with :Qis countrymen and thus prepare 

the way for re-election. He would be more attentive to learn the 

will and the wants of the people. He would give less heed to the 

counsels of bad men and court the advice and good-will of those in 

whom the people have CQnfidence and who by their public services 

and high character give tone to public opinion. Again, sir, great meatrores, especia.lly of practical reform, cannot 

a1 ways be undertaken and accomplished in one term, and therefore a President ineligible to a second election would be less disposed and 

his friends less apt to prompt him to undertake such measures; or, if 

undertaken, he, together with his cabinet and party, woulcl feel less 

responsibility, and would be held to less accountability by the conn- try, if for want of 'time the work could not be brought to a success- ful conclusion. And this argument applies with eqnal force to any 

plan where there is an intervening term of ineligibilit.y prior to a. second term, as in the minority report. 

In this connection I wish to read from St.ory on the Constitution. 

He says: · 

.Another ill effect of the exclusion would be deprivin~ the community of the a.d· 

vantage of the experience gained by an able chief magistrate in the exerci.'!e of 

office. Experience is the parent of wisdom. And it would seem almost absurd to say that it ought systematically to be excluded from the executive office. It would 

be equivalent to banishing merit from the public councils, because it had been tried. What could be more strange than to declare, at the moment when wisdom was ac- quired, that the po sessor of it should no longer be enabled to use it for the very 

purposes for which it was acquired 1 . 

Again he says: 

In short, the exclusion, whether perpetual or temporary, would have nearly the same effects, and tho e effects would be generall:y pernicious rather than salutary. Re-eligibility naturally connects itself to a certam extent with durat;ion of office. The latter is necessary to give the officer himself the inclination and the resolution to act his part well, and the community time and leisure to observe the tendency 

of his measures, and thence to form an experimental estimate of his merits. The 

former is necessary to enable the people, when they see reason to approve of his 

conduct, to continue him in the station in order to prolong the utility of his virtnei! 

and talents and to secure to the Government the advantage of permanence in a wise system of administration. 

Mr. Speaker, it is too obvious to admit of any doubt that the tendency of ineligibility to a second term is to beget and continue uncer- tainty and instability-conditions of government all tbewhile racking 

and straining its entire machinery. This is a homely thought, but tile 

truth involved cannot be successfully controverted. Chancellor Kent has said that the election of a supreme executive 

magistrate for a whole nation affects so many interests, addresses itself so ~trongly to popular passions, and holds out such powerful 

temptations to ambition that it necessarily becomes a. strong trial 

to public virtue, and even hazardous to the public tranquillity. 

But, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that a second election of the same President as his own immediate successor is less c:1lcnlated to beget a dangerous political convulsion or revolution than where each election must furnish a new President, before untried. 

I have heard it asserted that Jefferson w:1s in fa.vor of a single term 

with ineligibility forever thereafter. I have t:1ken some pains to 

ascertain his opinions, and find th:1t his declarations upon that subject, 

taken as a whole, are exactly the opposite of that proposition. 

It may not be uninteresting to hea.r what Mr. Jefferson has said in 

this regard. I now read an extract from a letter written by him to 

Colonel Humphreys, March 18, 1789. He says: 

It has not, however, authorized us to consider as a real defect what I thought and still think one, the perpetual re-eligibility of the President. But threo States out of the eleven having declared against this, we must suppose we are wrong, ac- cording to the fundamental law of every society, the ex majoris pnrtis, to which we. are bound to submit. .And should the majority change their opinion, and llecome 

sensible that this trait in their Constitution is wrong, I would wish it to remain un- corrected as long as we can avail ourselves of tho services of our great leader, whose 

talents and whose weight of cha,racter I consider as peculiarly necessary to get t.he 

Government so under way as that it may afterward be earned on by subordinate 

characters. 

It will Le observed that the point which he makes in this letter is 

against the "perpetual re-eligibility of the President." 

Just the objectionable feature which is met by my joint resolution. I read again from a letter written by him to James Martin, September 20, 1813. He says: · 

I am for responsibilities at short periods, seeing neither reason nor safety in making public functionaries independent of the nation for life or even for a long term of years. On this p1i.nciple I prefer the presidential term of four years to that of seven years, which I myself had at. first tmggestcd, annexing to it, however, ineligibility forever thereafter ; and I wish it "'ere now annexed to the second quad- renillal election of President. 

It thus clearly appears to have been the opinion of Jefferson that 

four years should constitute a presidential term, and that he should 

be permitted to serve a second term, but not a third. This letter was written twenty-five years after Washington's first election, and after 

Mr. Jefferson had witnessed the operations and progress of the Government under two terms of Washington, one of John Adams, two of 

his own, and one of Madison. He did not die until J nly 4, 1826. He 

left no modification of this belief that I have been able to find. 

Those who advocate a single term, as a.lso those who are willing to 

consent to re-election a second time with an intervening term of inel- i~ibility, urge with much ardor and some plausibility that when eligible to an immediate second term the President may make use of his 

vast patronage to assure a second election. 

There is not much force in this argument when carefully examined 

and when considered in the light of the past history of the country. 

It is not an unnatural or dishonorable ambition to desire a second 

term, and it is safe to assume that every President has had tha.t aspiration and in some degree has arranged for that result during his first 

term. We have already had :fi:ft£en Presidents, not counting Harrison 

and Taylor, both of whom died soon after their inaugration. Eight 

of these, John Adams, John Q. Adams, :Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, 

Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, and Andrew 

Johnson, were never re· elect,ed, and I believe none of the eight, except 

John Adams and Martin Van Buren, secured a renomination, much 

less a second election. 

The vast multitude of Federal office-holders it may be are reafly to 

do the bidding of the official head that gives them official being. llut 

it must be remembered that this cla.ss will work with no less zeal for 

the candidate of their political faith, whoever he may be, knowing 

that defeat will result in their displacement. Indeed, I am of the 

opinion that they will labor with even greater effect where the can- didate is a new man of their party, hoping thereby that they will Le 

continued in place as a reward of merit. It might as well be said that members of this body, or of the Senate, 

should not be re-eligible for the like reason. It cannot be denied that S~mators and Representatives will in the bestowment of favors prefer, as other people do, their friends, and thus indirectly at least benefit themselves in the future. This needs no denial or apology, for it 

is not un-dignified or dishonorable to do so when the favors are bestowed upon worthy friends. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, those who 

retain their seats here the longest are generally, to the credit of our form of government be it said, the wisest and best men of both parties, and I suspect that those of ns who are here for the :first time 

would cut a sorry fi!mre without them. 

If we were lim1ted here to a single term, I doubt if we would be 

quite so careful in the discharge of our duties. In the very nature of 

things this is true. If an account of stewardship is not required, the 

tempta.tion to subordinate the general welfare to private gain is grea.tly 

increased. The corrupt legislator would care little for investigation 

after he had passed beyond the penalty. Indeed, the incentive and 

effort to expose fraud would lose much, if not all, their momentum and 

value if after the exposure the unworthy public servant was pra-ctically free from responsibility. 

I cannot see why these considerations do not apply with much 

greater force to the Executive; for his opportunities for dishonest 

ga.in are immeasurably superior to those of any other public officer or class of officers. 

If it be said that my argument against a limitation to a. single term 

applies to a second term with ineligibility thereafter, I answer that 

the President who discharges or tries to discharge his whole duty for 

the first four years, from whatever motive, is more apt to continue in 

well-doing than he who ha.s made no such record. Moreover, as a. general rule our Presidents are taken from the lists of those who by long 

public service are well known to the people and the past lives of whom 

give assurance of adequate ability and moral fitness. The American 

people are not slow in separating the drifting, floating dross from the 

pure metal. . 

The fear of the selection of unworthy men was the canso of much 

distrust in the early days of the Republic. Mr. :Mailison, in a letter 

written in May, 1830, said : 

In the mean time I cannot feel all the alarm yon express at the prospect for the 

future as reflected from the mirror of the past. It will be a rare case that tho 

presidential contest will not is he in a choice that will not discreilit the station and not be acquiesced in by the unsuccessful party, foreseeinJ!, as it mnst do, the ap- peal to be again made at no very distant day to the will of the nation. 

Mr. Speaker, it may at wide intervals i,n the history of the country 

in times of great excitement, when the minds of the people are fi.x.od more upon startling passing events than upon the true merit of men, 

happen that an incompetent Executive will be chosen. Such periods 

will be rare with us. If the people make a mistake fonr years will 

give them ample time to take the second sober thought; and if they 

do not and will not prevent its recurrence I know of no remedy 

afforded by our political system. 

When the people become so indifferent and dead t,o the preservation 

and enjoyment of their own liberties that with full knowledge of the 

unfitness of a candidate for President they will nevertheless elect. 

him, what power will control them T 

Whenever t.hey reach that degree of mor::J.l and civil stolidity and 

unfitness for self-government, they will not hesitate to trample under 

their feet every constitutional limitation and restraint createcl for 

their benefit and protection. 

It cannot be said with much plausibility that our elections are too 
1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 

frequent. The difference between four years and six years (as recom- mended by the minority report) is hardly appreciable. So long as our people are possessed of the intelligence and education peculiarly 

essential to the stability :md perpetuity of our form of Government 

there cannot be in the future, as there has not been in the past, any 

real danger to their liberties in holding a presidential elect.ion every 

four years. Whenever the people fall below the required educational 

sta.ndard, then it matters little how frequent or how seldom our elections are held, for our liberties will not survive long thereafter. An 

ignorant minority will not long respect the will of an ignorant majority. 

Mr. Speaker, it is a most significant and instructive fact, that, determined a-s an overwhelming majority of the people are against all 

third-term schemes and ambitions, they have had little to say against n. second term. And, sir, I believe it must be the deliberate sense of 

this body that if we a,4opt the majority report or take any action looking to one term only, or if we adopt the minority report, ourconstituen ts 

will be either opposed to or indifferent to such a resnlt; because they 

have not been expecting it, do not a-sk it, and will decide, in my opinion, after all the arguments are heard and pondered, that such action was visionary and experimental, not suggested or demanded by anything in the past history of the Union, and not the product of clearheaded and non-partisan statesmanship. 

It will be observed that the strongest arguments which can be adduced in favor of the majority report, or the minority report, are predicated upon dangers to public safety and liberty anticipated, and not 

upon dangers realized in the past. That n lmmlred years have olnpsed 

without a single crisis attributr~ble to tho constitutional provision declaratory of the term of office of t·he President is an argument more potent and more convincing than any rea oning that can be produced 

favoring a change on the p·onndof event.s which may never transpire. 

Mr. Speaker, I assert that even if it could be shown that all the 

fathers had in the most unmista,kable language declared in favor of a single term, an argument resting upon that concurrent opinion would 

weigh only as the merest atom against the incontrovertible fa-ct that 

from the election of the first President to the present time the constitutional provision upon tlra.t subject has been an unqualified success. 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 

A message from the Senate, by Mr. SYMPSON, one of Us clerks, informed the House that the Senate bad passell bills of the following 

titles; in which the concurrence of the House wa-s requested: 

A bill (S. No. 279) to establish a land office in the southern part of 

Utah Territory, to be known as Beaver district, and for other ~urposes; and 

A bill (S. No. 360) to establish certain post-routes in the State of 

Texas. 

TERM OF PRESIDE~"'TIA.L OFFICE. 

The House resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H. R. 

No. 41) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States, reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. 

.Mr. KNOTT. Before this debate proceeds further, I desire to say 

that there are a number of gentlemen who wish to be heard, but who 

cannot under the existing order of' the House be heard, unless that 

order is modified. I propose, therefore, to ask the unanimous consent 

of the House that debate shall continue during the session of to-da.y, 

and that I may have the.floor assigned to me immediately after the 

morning hour to-morrow, to move the previous question and 9lose the 

debate. I suppose there will be no objection to that arrangement. 

There was no objection, and it was so ordered. 

Mr. FRYE. I desire to call the attention o£ the House in as few 

words as-I can to certain suggestions, which seem to me practical, in 

relation to this proposed constitutional amendment. I would like 

the Clerk to report the amendment which iB now pending aa a substitute for the majority report. 

The Clerk again read Mr. FRYE's proposed amendment. 

Mr. FRYE. Now, sir, the majority resolution is that no person who 

ha-s held or may here:1fter hold the office of President of the United 

Stat<es shall ever again be eligible to the office. There are no party 

politics, as I understand it., involved at all in the question before the 

House, and, a.s I understand further, this is a serious propo ·ition, 

made, I suppoEte, in answer to demands from some sonrce, from some- where, that the Constitution shall be a.mended. Therefore, whatever 

action we take looking thitherward, of course we have got to con- sider primarily the question whether or not the proposition we offer 

shall be approved by three-fomths of the States, which are requfred 

for its adoption, else our work is all useless. 

Now there seem to me, Mr. Speaker, two or three well-founded objections to the majority resolution. And :first, the term of office is too 

short. Why, sir, there are no men in the country who understanll 

butter than members of Congress of how great importance expori- cuce is in this matter of office for the better performance of its c1 nties. 

When I came here to the Congress of the United States, for the first 

two ye:1rs I found myself a complete, ignoble, unworthy cipher, and 

in my modesty and humility again and again in the thourrhts by day 

and in the dreams by night I determined to resign tho p~sition and 

get out of a place where I was so utterly useless. I suppose that 

there is not a modest or sensitive man in the House who has not again 

and again experienced the same feelings. There a.re a dozen men of 

experience in this House, havin~ been here term n.fwr term, holding 

commanding positions and swaymg the legislation of the House hither 

and thither just as they plea8e. \Vbence comes that power 7 From 

pre-eminent ability 'f From superior intellect 'I' From excellence in 

learning 'f No, sir. From experience in the performance of the duties devolving npon members of Congress. They in everything else 

have their peers in hundreds of men on this floor who are here to-day 

for the first term. And, sir, it seems to me that the same rule holds· good in the office of President of the United States. If he is fLt to be 

elected to the position he will be :1 better man the second term than 

in the first. He will perform his duties more wisely during the sec- ond term than the first. I submit therefore to the House that when 

you limit the presidential term to four years you are forcing upon 

the country a loss of valuable experience which it might otherwise 

enjoy, in my opinion, without any prayer from the people, even against their wishes. 

I, sir, do not believe for one that they have ever asked any such 

pr01)0 ition as this. I never have seen it in any press representing 

the people and their voice . . I submit if they have desired any change 

in tho term at ill it bas been in favor of one of six years, not one limited to fonr and that no man sha}l be eligible to a second term. 

Again, sir, there is a serious objection to it. It provides that no person who has held the office of President shall be eligible to are- election. Then, sir, suppose a Vice-President who by thedeathofthe 

President has held that position for two hours' time or two days' 

time, he will be forever ineligible as President of the United States. 

Sir, it seems to me that proper consideration has not been given 

to that, for there is no reason why a Vice-President accidentally 

taking office for a few days or a few weeks shall be made ineliD"ible 

to the office of President. of the United States. In those days or those 

weeks he cannot by any possibility have gained that control of the 

patronage of the country which will endanger the liberties of the 

people or improperly securA his election. He may be the man of all 

others we desire for that high office, and yet we cannot be gratified. 

Again, sir, I submit that this amendment never can be adopted by 

three-fourths of · the States of this Union. And why' Suppose the 

democratic party-a forced hypothesis I admit-come into power 

and elect its President in the next election. It has been out of power 

for fifteen years. It went out of power when the patronage of the 

Government was comparatively small; it will come back again into 

power when the pn.tronage of that Government is immense, so im- mense thn.t to-day it has frightened the people, if they have sought 

it, into seeking n.n amendment of the Constitution so that that patron- - age shall not be used. Now, sir, I submit to my democratic friends, if 

thev elect the next President of the United States and be has that 

patronage in his hands, is there a hod-carrier in the remotest town of 

all our borders who will not be instructed by their party, then in power1 to vote at the polls against this amendment to the Constitution 1 

Yon know this will be so; it is absurd were we to ask the question. 

Will they not say, vVe are in power ; we have the patronage now and can retain power by its use and re-elect the President of the United 

States. Shall not we, as republicans, if we prevail, instruct our men to vot.e agn.inst the adoption of that amendment 7 Certainly we would 

do it, and under no such circumstances would three-fourths of the 

States be induced to adopt it, and it would thus become mere child'splay. 

The minority of the committee submit a different proposition, one for a six-year term; ftnd I have given my reasons why I prefm; that. 

It provides, somewhat curiously perhaps to those who have not re- flected upon the subject, that, if adopted, the amendment shall not 

take effect until the year 1 5. Why 1885 f Because when we propose a resolution to the House we propose it seriously, thinking that 

the people need it and that they may adopt it. Now suppose that we bad said that from ansi after the next election this amendment should 

go into effect, what would be the result f The very :first question, :1 

very serious one, presented would be this: Would it affect the term 

of office of the next President 'f If it does, then, being adopted six 

months or a year after the election of the next President, it would 

make a six-year President out.of one elected for four years. 

Now, suppose that the democrats should elect their candidate for 

President at tho next election. Is it possible that the republican 

voters of the country will vote for the adoption of an amendment to 

the Constitution which will give that democratic President two years 

longer of office than be was entitled to on the day he was elected 

0£ course not; and every republican in the country will vote against 

the adoption of such an amendment as that. 

Suppose, then, you put it offuntil1881, as has been proposed. Then 

you are in this condition : Suppose that next year we elect our candidn.to for President. The amendment as aclopted will take effect in 

1881, making the term of office six years and the President ineligible · for re-election. Having elected our President, how natural is it for us to say, Our President is a good man, and every President hitherto 

elected haa bad an opportunity for re-election; ours only of the men elected tn the office is limited to this one term of four years ; the next 

one to be elected n.nd all thereafter will have six years of office. That 

will be an invidious distinction against the Pres~dent of the party in 

power, and every member of that party will vote against the adoption 

of such an amendment, and you cannot get three-fourths of the States 

to adopt it, and the amendment will fall through. 

Now put off the operation of the amendment if n.dopted until1885, 

aml yon ·will havo removed. it from all these difficulties which otherwise 

beset it. You have made it certain that if it commends itself to the 
808 CONGRESSIONAL RECO-RD. FEBRUARY 1, 

people it will be adopted by them. No party, as such, would neces- sarily be arrayed against it. - Now, while I have reported this amendment in behalf of the minority 

of the committee, I am free to confess that I do not see any necessity 

for it. I am. free to confess that I have beard no voice from the people demanding that their rights shall be thus protected, telling us that 

their liberties were in daoger, and that their privileges were being tiDduly limited. I see no necessity whatever for any amendment to the 

Constitution in relation to this subject. Feeling, however, that an amendment wns demanded by members of this House and by the press, 

and that one was liable to be recommended to the people for adoption, 

I preferred the proposition of the minority to that of the majority of 

the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Hitherto in amending the Constitution of the United States there 

bas seemed to be an impending and inevitable necessity existing for 

such action. Just look at the several amendments to the Const~tntion which have from time to time been adopted. First is the following: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridgmg the freedom of speech, or of the press ; or the right of the people peace:tbly to aasemble, and to petition the Q-Qvernment 

for a redress of grievances. 

That was adopted from a pure spirit of religion, in order to remove religion from political strife and to keep the hand of power of the 

st:"bte from it. For that purpose it was absolutely required that such an amendment should be ingrafted upon the Constitution. The sec- ond, third, fourth, and fifth amendments are as follows : 

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a m=er to be prescribed by law. 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 

aaaJ.nst unreaaonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants s'llall i sue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things tQ be seized. 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, un- less on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the 

land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or pub- lic danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice vut in 

jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a Witness 

against himself, nor be de:grived of life, liberty, or prop rty, without due process of la.w 1 nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 

And so all the way through the amendments which have hitherto 

been adopted. The rights, the liberties, the privileges of the people are protected by them. Look at the thirteenth amendment prohibiting slavery in the United States. It had been almost the death of 

this Republic. Bytheinevitablelogic of warslaveryitself bad died. 

Waa it not a necessity, an impending, an imperative necessity to provide in the Constitution that there should be no resurrection of it 

forever and ever in this Republic 7 And that was done. _Then came the fourteenth. Four millions of people held in slavery 

ha-d been made free and left in the country where they bad been 

slaves. Did not their safety demand that they should be ma-de citi- zens Y Ah I sir, human nature is such that the people of this Republic 

dared not trust those men only aa freemen in the hands of their old 

masters. There were thousands n.nd tens of thousands of them who 

would have dealt kindly, fairly, and generously with them; but there were also thousands who would have reduced them to peonage worse than slavery, where they would have had all the unrequited toil and none of the protective influences of slavery. Therefore you amended 

the Constitution so as to make them citizens of the United States. 

Then you provided by the fifteenth amendment that these persons 

being citizens, those States where a majority might wish to legislate 

in the interest of that majority and against the interest of this poor 

minority should be prevented from taking from them the right of 

suffrage, should have no power to do so. Did not the liberties, 

rights, and privileges of the people demand this action T 

Now comes a proposition for the sixteenth. Look these articles 

through from one to sixteen, as now propo ed. I ask if you can :find 

existing to-day anywhere any such an abiding, impending, or imperative necessity aa existed when each one of the other amendments 

to the Constitution waa proposed and adopted 7 Why is it, then, that 

Congress here to-day is offering to the people this sixteenth article . for their adoption T It has been whispe1·ed in my ear why it is done. Th~ power of the press of this country is an overwhelming power; it 

is almost omnipotent. Since I have been in Congress I have learned 

that it legislates on the floor of this Hall again and again and again ; 

that its fu:fluence controls my vote and yours. 0, that it might be 

always a power for good, a po_wer for righteousness, a power for justice and humanity. But it is a power, and as such must be recognized in the land. 

Now, sir, a paper, powerful, in its resources wonderful, in the ability 

of its management marvelous-one paper of the metropolitan presssent out one day through the country, sent up a cry of " Cmsar I 

Cresar I" and up Cmsar's ghost sprang into the air, and froJD. that day 

till now that ghost will not down at any man's bidding. That raven "still is sitting" there; and no power seems to be ablo to drive him 

from the perch where that great pa-per put him. 

But, sir, did the people of the country fear the ghost of Cmsarism T 

Did they fear that a new Cromwell had sprnng up T I tell you no. (J'be press in that ~ase was ahead of the honest toiling people. They 

knew that if you look for the highest type of the purest integrity yon 

will :find it in the officers of the Army and Navy of the United States; 

and when they heard that voice of the greatest living soldier saying 

to them again and again, in the simplest language, "I have no thon~ht 

for a third term, I am not expecting a third term," they believed hun, 

they trusted him, as I do, and the third term "spook" was only a myth. When his voice came to them they required no affidavit, no solemnities of oath from the loved commander. The great scare seemed to affect our democratic friends alone. They tremble for the 

safety of the Republic and C~sarism is their terrible nightmare. 

True I have met pollticians now and then outside of the democratic 

party who quivered with fear of a "third term" and talked about this 

immense patronage. Whose patronage is it Y Why, -sir, in my city, a city of twenty-two thousand inhabitants, there is one Federal officebolder. Suppose the President .of the United States sends to him and 

tells him to secure delegates from that section of the State in ana- tional convention, what fearful result would follow f Why, he bas 

hardly the power of an ordinary citizen; his office hampers him. llis 

voice would not be heard; his touch would not be felt. Whose patronage is it t Who appomted that man to his Federal office f Why, 

sir, I did; not the Pr~sident of the United States. The President 

signs his commission; but we understand perfectly well that we the 

representatives of the people really appoint these officers. They come to ns; they look to us; and if anybody bas patronage, it is members 

of this House and of the Senate-men who are close to these offi e- bolders, whom they can t.ouch and handle and direct and control in 

their own cities and their own districts. There is the danger, if there 

is danger anywhere. 

But, sir, I learned long ago that the patronage which a member of 

Congress bas is weakness to him, not power. Why not tben weak- ness to the President of the Unit,ed States Y If this patronage is such a fearful power to put into the hands of the President, why not adopt a constitutional amendment limiting the term of office of Senators of 

the United States T I say they have a closer control over the fruits 

of patronage than the President has. If this is a power to be used 

for harm, why not adopt a constitutional amendment prohibiting us from holding more than one t-erm t 

I have heard, sir, that the members of this House use the patronage 

of their districts to secure their re-election. I have beard that they 

travel from Department to Department getting clerks int.o office; that 

they fill the custom-houses in their districts with men of their own selection; that their appointees overrun the navy-yards of the coun- try ; and that the power which they thus heap up is used by them to secure their renomination and re-election. Why not then introduce a constitutional amendment providmg that no member of Congress 

shall be re-elected t Limit Congressmen to a single term, and then 

God save the country and the legislation of the country. The folly 

of utter inexperience would be fearfully apparent. 

As I have already stated, I have submitted the m.inorit~ report 

simply because it seemed to me the House would adopt either that or that of the majority; ancl I believed, for the reasons I have given 

in this feeble, off-hand manner, without any special preparation or thought, that if any proposition on this subject was to be submitted 

to the people this waa preferable in all its parts to the other. I am free to say that if the amendment should be adopted I shall still voto 

ag::Unst the passage of the joint resolution, because I believe we shall all find after the republican party have elected their next President--a man chosen from those whom we respect and love-the man of our choice, wise, sagacious, and patrioti~your third-term goblin 

is then damned for ever and ever ; and after that damnation you may 

propose your constitutional amendment to the people, and hardly a · man, white or black, naturalized or native, would be scared enough 

to vote for it. 

Mr. McCRARY. Mr. Speaker, I have no tlesire to discuss this question at any great length. There seems to be a general agreement on both sides of the House that an amendment to the Constitution upon 

this so bject shall be submitted to the Legislatures of the several States. 

It is in no sense a party question. During the long series of years 

when the democratic party wa.s in power in this country no propo ition of this kind wa.s ever submitted. The public sentiment in favor 

of it has grown up within the last few years, and has, I think, had its 

origin in the ·vast increase of the power and patronage of the Chief 

Executive of the nation. In my opinion the public sentiment in fa- vor of such an amendment is well founded, and I doubt not that gentlemen on both sides favor it frum the highest motives. I differ from 

my friend and colleague on the committee, the gentleman from Maine, 

[Mr. FRYE,] in the position taken by him, that there is no public sen- timent in favor of a one-term amendment. It bas been and is ear- nestly advocated by many of the best and ablest men in the land of 

both parties. . · The Committee on the Judiciary are quite unanimous in the opinion t'hat an amendment on this subject shall be submitted. The only 

matter of difference in the committee was as to the form of the 

amendment. It being agreed that we shall submit an amendment 

limiting the incumbent of the presidential office to a single term, the 

first question, of course, is a.s to the length of that term. The ma- jority l1ave recommended that it be limited to four years, and in some cases, as I shall show presently, they have recommended that it be limit~d to a very much shorter period. Tho minority recommend 

that the term of the President shall be ix years. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of good in the old plan 
1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 809 

which our fathers adopted and embodied in the Constitution. What we should desire is to preserve as far as we can all the good there is 

in the oltl plan and yet secure as far a-s we may all the good that is 

propo eQ. by the new pLw.. The good of the old plan is that it gives 

to the people of the country the benefit of experience in this great 

office of President. Can we not preserve that, and at the same time 

avoid the evil which exists and the danger which threatens under 

the present Con titution growing out of the immense patrona~e of 

the executive office f I think, sir, we can, and I think we may do 1t, at. 

least in a large measure, by the adoption of the report of the minority. 

This amendment to the Constitution which we now propose is in some sen e anti-democratic in its chara~ter. It takes from the people 

of the United· States the power which they have always held under 

the Constitution, and which, whatever other gentlemen may say, I 

venture to assert they have always exercised with wisdom-the power 

to decide for them elves, after a man has served in that office for four 

years, whether they will continue him for four years more. The proposition is to take from the people the right to re-elect. Now, sir, if we do that, is it not fair and reasonable that we should give to the 

people in return the right to appropriate the experience of a man who has served in the office of President for four years f Why not 

give them the services for two years more of the experienced President under conditions that will secure the people against an abuse of 

power! 

The reason why an amendment to the Constitution is demanded, if 

it be demanded, is that the patronage of this office has, since the 

adoption of the Constitution, grown to such enormous proportion that, 

in the hands of a bad man, it would become an exceedingly danger- ous power, by the use of which he might perpetuate, or at least seek · to perpetuate, his own rule. But we may get rid of that evil by 

adopting the six-year term, and yet not. l?,e compelled in all cases to 

disp nse with the services of a President at the very t.ime when those 

services have become most valuable. The fact that so many Presidents have been re-elected shows that the people value the right of 

re-election. They value it because they know the value of experience 

in this office. . 

Experience is of great value in all places of public trust, but especially so in this place. Our vast and intricate foreign and internal concerns are of such a nature and so extensive that time and experience are absolutely essential, in order that the President may master 

them and fit himself for the proper and efficient discharge of the duties 

of his office. So I think, Mr. Speaker, that by making the term of the 

President six years, instead of four, we give to the people the ben fit 

of experience in this office, and by making the President ineligible 

to re-election we at the same time avoid the danger that exists under 

the Constitution as it now is. 

But, 1\Ir. Speaker, there is another reason why I believe the term 

of the President should be six years instead of four. In my opinion 

presidential elections are too frequent. The great excitements, the 

uphea.vals, the convulsions of the body-politic which always attend 

these presidential struggles produce an injurious effect upon all the 

interests of the people of the c:>untry. The time, the labor, the money 

that are taken from other channels and absorbed in these great political contests, if used in other directions, would be of incalculable 

value and benefit to the people. These evils incident to a great popular commotion are not, of course, to be compared with the benefits of • our sy tern of popular government, but they are real evils nevertheless, and to be mitigated as far as they may be without injury to that 

system. · 

Presidential elections are especially injurious to the business and 

financial interests of the country. They always involve the_question 

whether the policy of the Government on these subjects shall be 

changed or not, and whether the result of the election determines that 

the old policy shall be continued or that it shall be set a.side and a new one inaugurated; there is in either case a long period of uncer- tainty and suspen e. I believe if our elections, State and Federal, were not so frequent it would be better for the interests of the coun- try, because in that ca-se our people would take more interest in them. 

There are many of our best citizens who refuse to give any time or attention whatever to public or political affairs. They say one struo--

gle i scarcely over until another is begun, and that if they give their 

attention to these things they must neglect their private interests 

and busine affairs. This is the excuse which many of the best people of the country give for neglecting whatoughtto be regarded by 

eve-ry citizen as the most important and sa~red duty. With a presidential election once in four years, with annual State, county, and 

municipal elections in most States, and with biennial elections for 

Representatives in Congress, wha.t wonder is it that too many people 

have come to regard politics as a trade which only a few understand 

and follow. . 

. But, Mr. Speaker, there is another objection to the report of the 

majority to which I would like to call the attention of the House. 

That report provides that- · 

No person who has held or may hereafter hold the office of President shall ever again be eligible to said office. 

That, of cour e, includes the case of a person who shall be elected 

and hold the office for four years, but it also includes the case of a Vice-President or acting Vice-President who may succeed to the office 

of President and hold it for a single day, because every man who has ever held the office of President for any period of time, however short, 

is rendered forever ineligible to be elected again. Why is this f The reason for the exclusion of a man who has held the office for four 

years does not reach the man who has held the office for a single day or a single week or a single month. 

The Vice-President may succeed to the office of President, and he 

may not exercise one of the great powers of the office. He may appoint no man to office. He may do no single executive act. And yet, 

if the -powers and duties of the office have devolved upon him for a single day, under the report of the majority, he is to be rendered for- ever ineligible. The theory upon w hioh the one-term amendment is 

defended-and the only theory upon which it can be defended-is 

that the incumbent may during '·his first term misuse the patronage 

of the office for the purpose of securing a re-election. This theory, 

however, does not apply to the Vice-President who has succeeded to 

the office and held it only for a brief period. 

The minority report, therefore, provides that whoever ha-s been 

elected to the office of President or whoever has succeeded to that 

office and held it for two years shall be forever ineligible. And in that 

respect I think the minority report is vastly superior to that of the 

majority. Mr. Speaker, I desire to say in conclusion that, unlike my 

friend from Maine, [Mr. FRYE,] I am earne tlyin favor of this proposition. I am in favor of it because I believe it to be a step, although 

perhaps bnt a short step, in the direction of a great reform. But, sir, 

I do not regard this proposition as rea~hing th.e real source of the 

evil. The great evil and the great difficulty are not that the President 

is eligible to re-elevtion. The great evil and the great difficulty come from the fact that has already been alluded to, that the power and 

the patronage of tho President of the United States have grown to 

such enormous proportions that it is more and greater than any one person in this country ought to hold in his hands. 

Sir, the remedy is not in limiting the President to a single term, 

but the remedy is in such wise and well-considered measures of con- stitutional amendment as shall take from the President a great part 

of the patronage which he now has and shall vest it in the people. 

There is no difficulty in adopting measures of this character. When· the Constitution of the United States was a-dopted there were but 

about seventy-five post-offices in the United States. To-clay the num- ber is very nearly fifty thousand. Every one of the postmasters in 

this country ought to be elected by the·people in the vicinity where 

the post-office is located. If there IS an officer under the Government 

of the United States who ought to be chosen by the people who have 

to transa~t business with him it is the postmaster. That officer deals 

daily with all classes of the people, and his dealings with them relate 

to matters which touch some of the most sacred relations in life. l1ad 

Congress authority to provide for their election, how easy it would be 

to designate by some competent authority the limits of each po t-office 

district within which residents and voters who are to choose the postmaster shall reside. The same thing is true of numerous other Federal officials whose duties are local. I hope, sir, that thi House, before dismissing this question entirely from its consideration, will propose another amendment to the Constitution which shall provide for 

the election of all such. By that means more than half of this great 

power and patronage which overwhelm the President will be taken 

from him. I care not, sir, how honest, I ca1·e not how able, how 

patriotic a President may be, it is simply impos ible that he hould 

discharge the duties which now devolve upon the presidential office 

with that understanding, with that information, with that knowledge 

concerning each and every one of his official acts which every officer 

of the Government ought to possess. No one man can appoint ninety or one hundred thousand Federal officials and act in any large proportion of the cases upon any information except that which he 

derives from others. 

It is said, sir, that this is the patronage of members of Congress. Pra~tic:illy it is so, but I submit that that does not help the matter; 

that, on +.he contrary, is one of the evils which we wish to get rid of. 

What right have I, sir, to say who shall be po tma ter at every postoffice in the district which I represent Y What right have I to determine for the people of my district who shall serve them in these 

places f The people themselves are the parties who alone are interested and who should determine that question. Besides, sir, it some- times happens, I will not say that it happens very often, but it does 

sometimes happen that members of Congress regard the appointments which are supposed to be under their control as so much capital, with which they can control so much influence and command so many votes. This may happen; it is one of the possible evils under 

the existing system, and as we are legislating to remove possible dangers it is my opinion that we ought to remove this, aa it is not only a possible but a real and a present evil. 

I say, sir, then I am in favor of the proposed amendment. I believe 

that it is demanded by a just public sentiment. I believe it is right 

and I believe it is a step in the right direction; but I am by no means ready to admit that by the adopt19n of this proposition the great evils 

of which the country complains will be cured. On the contrary; I 

think that further and more radical measures than t llis will have to 

be adopted. 

.Mr. CAULFIELD rose. 

PACIFIC RAILROADS. 

Mr. LUTI'RELL. I ask the gentleman to give \Y ay to me for a moment. I desire to rise to a Question of pri vile!!e. 
810 CONGRESSIONAL RECORDs FEURU ·\.Rt: 1, 

Mr. CAULFIELD. I yield to the gentleman. 

:Mr. LUTTRELL. I find that in the. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of yesterday there is an injustice done to me in the report of the proceed- ings. In printing the resolution which I introduced for the investigation of the several Pacific railroads, the RECORD omits the Central 

Pacific Railroad, the very first on the list. I have examined tho 

original resolution, now in the hands of the Clerk, and I find it cor- rect. I hope the correction will be made ffi, the REcoRD, and I ask 

that the resolution be reprinted. Thero was no objection, and it was so ordered. The preamble and re oln tion are as follows: 

Whereas the several railroad companies hereinafter named, to wit, the Cent.ral 

Pacific, the Kansas Paci1ic, tho Union Pacific, t.he Cent.ral Branch Union Pacific, 

the I'Tcstor·n Pacific, the Southern Pacific, the SiouxCityaJ?.dPacific, theNorthern P~tcific, I be 'l'ex:n.'3 anrl Pacific, antl all Pacific roads or branches to which bondd or olhcr snhsidies have l>ocn granted by the GoYernmcnt, have received from the 

United States, under tho act of Congress of July 1, 1862, a{)t of M::~roh 3, 1871, and 

the several acts amendatory thereof, mone.v subsidies amounting to over $64,000,000, 

land suhsidios ammmting to over 221),000,000 acres of the ~ublic domain, bond subsidies amounting to ~. and int{lrest amounting to , to aiel in the con- struction of their sevt~ral road!'!; and whereas it is but just and proper that the 

Gowrnml'nt and people hould understand the status of such r oads and the disct>ositiun mado by Ruch companirs in t ho construction of their roads of the subsidies 

gTIJnted uv tb ~ Government: Therefore, Be it resolved, That the Judiciary Committee be, ann are hereby, instructed and 

authmized to iuquil'o into and report to this House, first, whether tho several railroad companies horoinbcforo named or any or them haYe, in tho construction of 

their rail1·oall ami telo;.;raj)h lines, fully complied with the requirements of law 

granting money. bond, and land subsidies to aid such companies in the construc- tion of t.bei.J· railroa<l and telegraph lines; second, whether the several railroad 

companies or any of them ha>o formed within themselves corporate or construc- tion companies for tho J?.urpose of subletting to such corporate or coustnlCtion com- panies con t.rnctl'! for bmltlin~ and cqnipfing s:Ud roads or any portion thereof, and, 

1f so, whether the money, la.nd, and bone STJ.bsidies granted by the Government have 

been properly applied b.v ai1l companies or any of them in the construction of their 

road or roads; thlrtl, whether tho se>eral railroad companies or any of them ha.vo 

forfeited their lan1l snbsitlies by failing to const.ruct and equip their roatl or roads or any portion thereof as required by law; fourth, that "for tho purpose of mak--in~ 

a thorough investi~ation of the evoral Paci1ic railroads, or any of them, tho Jullimciary Committee snall havo fall powor to sencl for persons ancl papers, and, after 

thorou::h in>estigation shall have been made, shall report to this House such mea . uro or bill as will secure to the Go,·ernmontfall indemnity for all losses occa ionell 

by fradulcnt transactions or nogligenco on the part of such railroad companies or any of them, or on the part of any corporate or construction company, in the ex- peniliture of money. bonds, or interest. or in the llisposition of lands donated by the 

United States for the construction of such roads or any of them or any portion 

thereof, and for the non-pavment of interest lawfully duo the Government or any 

other claim or claims the United States may have against such railroad company or companies. 

TERM OF PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE. 

Mr. CAULFIELD. 1\:fr. Speaker, one of the amendments referred 

to the Judiciary Committee upon the question of a chango of the ,..Constitution in regard to the presidential torm of office was offered 

by myself. That joint resolution was vory much the samo a-s thA one which has been reported by thn.t committee and now under consideration. 

I have listened with great plea.sure to the arguments which havo 

been made upon both sides of this question and upon both sides of 

this House. I havo thought much over this question before it was argued here to-day, and the re ult of t.he argmnonts here and of my 

previous rcflect.ions only tends to confirm me in the conclusion at 

which I long ince arrive<l, that is, that the tenme of the Presi- dency of the United State should be confined to a single term and 

that term sbould be four years. I believe that the dangers arising 

from the increo ing patronage in the hands of the .President :md that 

the changes that have taken place since the Constitution was adopte<l 

render it ab olutely necessary that something should be <lone to stay 

-the evils that are festering upon our body-politic. 

The objections which my friend from Indiana [Mr. NEW] on this 

side of the Houso and which my friend from l\In.ine [Mr. FRYE] on the other side of the House urge t.o the one-term p1·inciplo seem to 

be these : first, t hat the person elected to the Presidency of tho United 

States for but a single term has scarcely learned how to discharge 

the duties of his office when he is compelled to abandon it; and, sec- ondly, that a second term should beheld out as a reward for the serv- ices of tho incumbent during his first term and as a goal toward which 

his ambition may stimulate him to a proper discharge of his duties 

during his first term. These reasons carrio<l out would bo an argument for a third or a fourth or even a term for life. For these reasons among others I am opposed to anything but a single term, be it for four or six years. Can it be that this vast country, having grown in im- pol-tance in the eye of the world until she now occupies a position 

if not first at least econd to no other nation on earth, must now begin 

to educate her Presidents by first electing them to that position, instea-d of selecting stat.esmeu of experience an<l capacity in the first 

instance, so that tho first term of tho Presi<lency is to be considered 

but an apprenticeship in which be shall be educated for aseconu term 

Let the people determine that there is but a single term for each Pre ident and they will learn to select no man for that offico who is not a statesman of experience, capable of discharging tho duties of that office 

in tho first instance with honor a,ncl profit to the country. Let the people be careful in the selection of the incumbent of this, one of the 

highest offices in the gift of any people, an<l feel that their liberties 

may be endangered by placing a.n inexperienced person in tho disohargo of such important duties, and none but the best will he se- lected. I believe if we havo but a single term this desirable end will 

l•e greatly promoted. 

Sir, we cannot liken the presidential office to the office of Congress- man as the gentlemen have done who preceded me. But one man in 

tho nation can fill that office at one time, while there are three hun- dred men in the nation who do fill the offices that we fill to-day. Tho 

inexperience of some is corrected and counteracted by the experience 

of others, and thus the evils flowing from the inexperlence of all is 

partially if not entirely prevented. It is not to be expected that a man who comes to Congress, it may be at twenty-five years of age, 

shall be a full-grown statesman. But the man selected to fill tho highest place in the gift of this people should be second in experience ancl 

statesmanship to no man in the land. Sir, this House may be tho arena in which the growing aspirant for presidential honors may 

prove himself worthy of them. We have marked and remarkable in- . stances before us already of men, not only in this House but at the 

other end of the Capitol, who are aspiring to this high position. Can it 

he said to thediscreditof these aspirants that they are seeking positions 

to which they are not equal and that they desire to serve an apprenticeship in the White House for four years in order to fit them for a second term of four years more¥ Let ns understand that wo are to 

place no man in that high position who is not fitted for it in the first 

instance; let us select none but men capable, honest, and fitted in 

every possible way for the· position the moment they take the reins 

of government in their bands; let us trust the r eins of govern mont 

to no tyro; let us put them only in the hands of experienced men, 

and then they will serve four years, not as an apprenticeship, but four 

years of great usefulness and honor to the conntry. 

But it is said that a second term should be held out as an inducement 

to the occupant of the office for a first term to discharge the duties of 

that office with honor to himself and profit to the country in order 

that he merit the premium of the second term. Is it then to be un- uei-stood that the people of the United Sta~ can place in the presi- den~l. chair a man whose ~on~r is of so slight a texture that he may 

not be rnduced to the consmcntious performance of the sacred duties 

which his oath and the people have impo ed upon him except by e.x- ten<ling to him a reward for the dischargo of hi plain duty T Sir, let ns understand t.hat there is to be but one term, and we will place in 

that po ition no man who will not discharge his duties from conscientious motives, without hope of reward, except that which may flow 

from tho hearts of a grateful and well-served peoplo. No man who 

needs a roward of a second term for the proper performance of tho 

duties of his offico is fitted in the first instance to fill it at all. Sir, 

these arguments are freighted with their own refutation. Wo must 

make the President of this Republic occupy such a position before tho 

world that no citizen of this or any other country can question either 

his ability or his integrity. 

llut, Ur. Speaker, my friend from Indiana [l\Ir. NEW] bas taken up 

the old debate in the constitutional convention which framed our pre ent Constitution, and from that he has deduced an argument in 

favor of two terms of four years each. Let me romin<.l the gentleman 

that the most of the arguments mado upon tha,t subject in that con- vention were when the proposition was under consideration that the 

President or the Governor, whatever he might be called, should bo 

elected by the Legislature; that is, by the Congress of tho United 

States. Those arguments were all made with reference to the influ- ence of the Legislature upon the Pre ident to be electe<l by them, to 

the power that they might hold over him. The discussion in the con- vention extended over a period of three or four month . Sotne proposed a term of seven years, one proposed a term of three years, others 

six years, the question of eligibility or ineligibility for a re-election en- tering into the arguments throughout. The term of four years, with the 

question of re-cligibility left to the peop1o, was agreed upon as a com- promise between the various conflicting sentiments upon that subject 

then existing in the convention. It was a compromise; there was no question whatever w hetber there should be one or more terms of office 

for the same person. That question was left to be determined by the 

experience of the people in time to come. Mr. NEW. Will the gentleman permit me to make a suggestion 

Mr. CAULFIELD. Certainly. l\lr. NEW. I would remind him in this connection that Mr. Jefforsori, twenty-five years after Washington's first election, expr od himsol£ in favor of a second term with ineligibility to a third; and further- more Mr. Jefferson had himself served a second term. ~h-. CAULFIELD. That I understand; I was speaking of tho debates in the convention. I understand that the letter the gentleman 

refers to was written long afterward. At the time the convention was held the population of this country wa-s small and the offices to 

be filled comparatively few. It was impo iblo for tho e who -wero framing that Constitution to look forward a hundred years and see what wo now behold around us. Now we haYe a population of over 40,000,000, instead of t.he 3,000,000 for which thoy were legislating at 

that time. They littlo foresaw that patronage which would fall 

under the control of the Presidents who shoUld como after them. 

They little foresaw that our large cities and our little towns were to 

be crowded with officeholders of the kind and character now to be seen. They little foresaw that those pbres would be filled by men selected alone for their capacity to elect a President for a second term 

rather than for their abilit.y to discharge properly the duties of tho 

offices to which they were assigned. That is the difficulty now pressing upon us. The President who 

has before him the possibility of a second term will be induced in 
187G. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 811 

his appointments to select men who are wire-workers in politics, men who llai\O but little moral character, who possess but slight ability 

for the positions to which they are assigned, but who are :fitted by a resort to aJ.l kinds of political devices to increase the chances of the 

then incumbent for a second term. They little foresaw that in a hundred yenxs from that time 80,000 office-llolders would have much more to do in nominating a man to occupy the seat for the next presidential term and helping to elect him to it than in the discharge of their own official duties. 

If men were elected and appointed to positions only because of t.heir 

capacity to fill them, do you suppose this nation would to-day be looking 

to- Saint Louis and Chicago for the punishment of men who had been 

placed in position more for their capacity for wire-working and political intrigue than for their integrity and ability to discharge the duties 

of the offices they have filled Y 

The Constitution provides that CongresB may propose amendments 

whenever it shall deem it necessary. Now, I admit that we are not 

to propose amendments simply from mere whim or caprice, or for the 

purpose of advancing some political and per~:~onal design of the proposer, but whenever Con~ess shall deem it necessary for the public 

good. It is our sworn <luty under the Constitution to propose no amendment unless we deem such amendment necessary and called 

for by the people. It bas been said upon the other side that tho 

people are not calling for this amendment. If I have beard the voice 

of the people aright, I say that they arc calling for an amendment 

upon this very question. Is such an amendment necessaryf If it-is 

important to stop the abuses that are now increasing in our midst, 

then it is necessary. The public mind is uneasy at the bare possibility that such a con- tingency as a third term may llappen. Much controversy has arisen 

upon this subject throughout the country. During the first and sec- ond term of the present incumbent the question of eligibility to a suc- ceeding term bas been much discussed. The evils of Government 

have been so rapidly multiplying that tho people, who are anxious to 

maintain the Government in its original simplicity and as far removed as possible from the blandishments of patronage, are seeking for a remedy against the increase of power which tho growth of our country 

and its resources are constantly augmenting in the hands of those who 

wield it. 

The question is, bow shall the remedy be applied f I regard the con- stitutiona-l amendment limiting the tenure of the presidential office 

to but a single term of four years as one very important step toward 

securing this end. The incumbent of so high a position should have no stimulant to any other ambition but a strict performance of his 

duty, by which he will impress an honorable name upon the history 

of his country. Let him feel that his appointments to office must be 

from that class of men whose integrity in the discharge of their duties 

will be of lasting benefit to the country and add luster to his administration, and he will keep an eye single to the appointment of none but honest and capable men to office. But let him feel that he must, 

in order to secure a second term, make his appointments from that 

class of politiciar.s whose influence is ·likely to secure him a second 

term and their own continuance in office, and the offices of the coun- try will be :filled by wire-working politicians, who stop at no means to secure a continuance of power in the hands of their patron and themsolves. I believe that if tho Presidency was confined to a single term we would see that the efforts of the President would teud in the direction of diminishing the number of office-holders and boluing them 

to a strict and economical discharge of their duties. Under the present system the number of offico-holders is so increased out of the class 

of political wire-workers that no other aid need be invoked for procming a nomination for the Presiuency than that which ·this large 

and well-spread army of presidential parasites is roady to furnish. 

The war and tlte debt thereby created have furnished for the collection of the various taxes newly imposed large re-enforcements to the 

standing army of office-holders already in the service of the Government. In adopting means for tho collection of the taxes of the 

Government no regard bas been had to the collection of these taxes 

in the simplest and cheapest manner, but the question has been, how can we adopt means to multiply the number of persons for the col- lection of the e taxes so as to secure the largest number of workers 

for tho Administration and the next term in each district and State 

in the country Y 

This, Mr. Speaker, is the evil which this amendment is intended more particularly than anything else to arrest; and if it be arrested we shall have taken a most important step toward the purification of 

the offices of the country and the diminution of the expenses of the 

Government, and there will be some chance of our return to the origi- nal simplicity and economy which our fathers intended should be a guarantee against the evils which now beset and threaten our Government. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to occupy the attention of the House at any great length in the remarks I shall make on the subject before us. I was not aware of the fact, or at least bad 

forgotten it, that this subject was to be discussed to-day until it was announced from the Chair. 

The proposition before us is one of very considerable importance, 

because it seeks to make a radical change in the fundamental law of 

the land. I am in favor of the amendment to the Constil·ution which 

is proposed by the minority of the J udicia.ry Committee, anu I am 

opposed to that which is reported by tlto maJority of the committee. 

I will give in a very few word~ some reasons which influence mo in 

arriving at the conclusions to which I have come. What is the proposition of the committee Y .Allow me to read it 

It is thatNo person who has held or sha.ll hereafter hold the office of President shall·evex 

again be eligible to said office. 

This proposition embraces two material principles or objects. The 

first of them will, in my judgment, be utterly ineffectual for any purpose whatever and the second is very objectionable in many respects. 

What is the first branch of this proposition f It is that no person who 

ha-B held the office of President shall ever again be eligible to said 

office. So far as that may be applied to any person who has heretofore held or now holds the office of President, it is wholly unnecessary, 

because neither the present Chief Magistrate nor any citizen who bas 

held that high office is now seeking a re-election to it. If it is aimed 

at President Grant it is utterly ineffectual for the reason that this 

amendment to the Constitution cannot by any possibility be adopted 

before the next presidential election. It therefore can be of no value. It is a mere bruturnfulmen, announcing a purpose which can be of no practical utility, one which cannot be carried into effect until it shall 

have been defeated by the lapse of time. So far, then, as that portion of the amendment proposed by the committee is concerned it is worse than useless, merely vox, et prreterea nihil. The amendment 

proposed by the minority would equally exclude him if it could be 

adopted before an election. 

What next f The second part of this proposed amendment leaves 

the presidential term at four years, but declares that no person who 

may hereafter hold the office of President shall ever again be eligible 

to that office. 

Sir, in my judgment, that is very objectionable for several reasons. It has been well said that this will apply to a Vice-President who suc- ceeds to the office of President and holds it for only a month or a day. It has been determined that he becomes a de jtwe President. Anti as such, though holding the office of President but for a day, he woultl, 

if this amendment be adopted, be rendered ineligible for election. The people might very much and properly desire to elect to this high 

office a worthy citizen who had been elected to the office of Vice-President, and who for but a brief period h:td succeeded to the office of 

President. No rea~.;on exists why they should not. 

Bu1t'assuming what would probably be generally the case, that this 

amendment would only apply to a person who had been elected to the 

office of President and held it for four years, I regard it still as very 

objectionable. 

There are some things essential to the success of an administration, some so manifestly so that I think there can be no doubt or dispute about them. They are, as I conceive, substantially three : first, that the President in office sha.ll h~ve Bttfficient tim,e to givo an e..ffectu.al trial to any policy which he or the party elected to 

power with him may choose to adopt; second, the advantages resulting from experience in the office; and, third, the administration of 

t.ho office without any personal or selfish motive, as for instance au effort to secure a re-election regardless of tho public welfare. These three things are essential to a successful administration of the national 

Government and to the prosperity and happiness of the people of the 

country. They are essential to the success of any business undertaking or enterprise. Let an administration come in, backed up by a majority in both branches of Congress, and let it adopt a policy on currency, finance, revenue, no matter what; if you limit the t.erm of 

its power to four years, with ineligibility to re-ulection, you have no stability inyourmeaaures of policy, but constant change all the timechange always detrimental to the public interests. Four years do not 

give t-he time necessary to establish a policy of government aod 

thoroughly test it on any great measure. People will not fully em- bark in commercial, manufacturing, and other enterprises on a syst.em of laws or policy which is likely to change in every period of four 

years. Extend it to six and its wisdom will be so firmly established 

that it cannot be changed or its folly 'vill be so fully demonstrated 

that it cannot demand a new lea e of power to further test it. The 

public peace demands a permanent government; the intere ts of a"riculture,commerce,andmanufacturesarealway interrupted bysucld~n 

or radical changes in finance, currency, or revenue laws affecting thorn. .And then, sir, it is very desirable we should have in tho office of 

President the advantage of experience. In every office within the 

gift of the people experience is desirable, and it must be especially so iu the high office of President, as well a in legislative and other offi- ces of the Government. This has alway.:; been regarded as valuable in 

this Hall. The gentleman from Maino [Mr. FRYE] has demonstrated 

t.his. The people of the South before tlte war understood it, and had 

largely the advantage of the North, because they kept their Representatives in Congress long in office. Tho pooplo of the East understand this and they, too, profit by it. The people everywhere are beginning to learn it. nut this plan of limiting tho presidential term 

to four years, with ineligibility to re-election, propos-:.:> to throw awa.y 

all of tho advant-ages which might result from the means I have indicated for giving success to the administration of a President. For 

the rea. 'ous, then, which I have stated, ann others I might mention, Ireganl the amendment proposeu by the majority of the Judiciary 

Committee as very objectionable. It W<•ula be va tl J· better to len.ve 

the Constitution as it is tllan chn.nge it as proposed. 
812 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. F~BRUARY 1, 

The experience of our country has demonstrated the wisdom of 

securing a party in power for more than four years. If during the war of the rebellion you ha,d made the President ineligible to are- eleotion, it might have been fatal to our national existence, fa,tal to 

all tho great interests of the Republic. A new administration would 

have brought a change of policy, and thls could not have failed to be 

disastrous. During the war we had a presidential election. It was nnfortl.mate it was so. The party out of power hoped to get in by a change of the policy of the administration. This encouraged those 

in arms a(J'ainst tho Government. It prolonged the war. It would 

have been better if the presidential term had been &ix years. That 

would have given time to bring the war to a close w;ithont the con- test over a pr sidential election. Then the energies of the people 

would have been directed to one great object, for the policy of theAdministmtion was settled, and its success required time uninterrupted 

by the distractions of party contests. Any policy of government in war or in peace reqlJire all this. For these and other reasons I might name I am oppo ed to tho amendment recommended by the committee. • Now what is the amendment proposed by the minority of the com- mittee as a sub titute for that of the majority f I will read it: 

From aml .after the 4th day of March, in the year 1885, the term of office of President antl Vice-Pre ic:lent of the United tates shall be six years; and any per on having been elected to and held the office of President, or who, for two years, has 

belll sucn offico, shall be ineligible to a. re-election. 

The change which is sought to be made by this amendment is in 

brief to fix the presidential term at six years with the feature of ineligibility to re-election. 

Now, sir, what are the advantages of having a President tonold his 

office for ix years V I have already stated some of them. I will not now attempt to enumerate all of them, but will state some particular in which I conceive this is an improvement upon the present term 

of office. In the first place, then, terms of six years would save the 

interruption of bnsine s, the trouble, the expense, the excitement of 

pre idential elections as frequently as we now have them. Secondly, a ix-years term would give the advantage derived from the experience 

of each succe ive year for six years absolutely, without the possibility 

of interruption as now at the end of four years. 

Thirdly, it would aid in avoiding the greatest danger our system 

of goyernment is liable to encounter. The greatest danger of our presnt sy tern lies in or may grow out of the mode of declaring -the ro- ul~ of the returns of a presidential election. This is the weak point 

in our sy tern. The vote of the electoral collegeM of the several 

States are sent up and counted by the President of the Senate and the Spe~ker of the House of Representatives, in the pre ence of the two 

Houses. It happens sometimes that there is a question as to whether 

the vote of this or that State hall be received. On one occasion it was made a que tion whether the electoral vote of Wisconsin should 

be received, l>ecau e the electors of that State, in consequence of a snow-storm, were urrable to meet and cast the electoral vote on the 

day fixed by law. Within my experience it was macle a, quostion 

whether the vote of Louisiana should be counted in the pre idential 

election. At one time the question was made as to whether the elec- toral vote of Missouri should be counted. Fortunately the re nlt 

would not have been changed, no matter what might have been the 

determination of the convention of the two Houses in the particular cases where questions arose as to whether the votes of those States 

should be received. It is not precisely clear what powor the con- vention of the two Houses has in passing on these questions, or whether 

the Houses shall act jointly or separately on them. But suppose, sir, 

your President is eligible and a candidate for re-election, and the 

joint convention of the two Houses throws out the vote of a State or refuses to receive it, and the President in office insists they did 

wrong and that he has been elected. Then, sir, being in office, be ha,a 

the Army and Navy and a host of retainers at his back, all ready to 

stand. by him in declaring, in defiance of the result a announced by 

the joint convention of the two Houses, that he is the Pre ident. 

Here is presented a great danger which ma,y result in civil war. God 

grant that it may never co ::e. That is a good reason why the President should not bo eligible to re-election, so that he should not have 

this inducement to defy the result a declared by the joint convention 

of the two Hou es. As I have already remarked, that is the weak 

point in our sy tern, and there is indeed much more necessity for an ·amendment of the Constitution to remedy that, the most dangerous 

feature of our system, than to remedy the evil which this amendment 

propo es to remedy. And I trust before thls Congre s shall adjourn 

something will be done to relieve -om system of the danger which 

threatens us from the source to which I have alluded. 

But a fourth reason for making the presidential term six yoars is that 

it will relieve the virulence of party spirit. We now hold a presidential election every four years, and this event is always attended with 

excitement; the busine s of tho country is interrupted, parties are ar- rayed asain t each other advocating different policies, and while the 

uncertamty last as to which policy shall prevail the business of the 

country is largely interrupted. The earnest and sometimes bitter 

contests over political principles, and, if you please, the scramble for 

the more than seventy thousand offices in this country, sometimes may be liable to enkindle a spirit of hatred and party rancor n,nd virulence 

not desirable even if not fearful to contemplat-e. It is desimblo that 

the people should be relieverl from all these things a,a much as po iblo. 

If we make the presidential term six years, the bitterness and strife 

engendered by a presidential conte twill die out and will rarely ever be revived, a.t least not so fully as when kept alive h~r presidential 

elections occurring every four years. Rea ori, calm, retlcct.iug ju<lgment.t rather, will take the place of mere party contest . The cotmtry 

will nnd repose, and good government and morality will come to re- ward the change. I believe in political parties organized in ma,nly, 

honorable, and intelligent contest over principles which arc r e::tlly 

deba,table among sta,tesmen aud political economists. nut when they 

go beyond this and seek success by excitement. and pa ion rather than reason, they are dangerous to good government and to civil liberty. The proposed amendment would contribute to organize the rule 

of reason rather than the reign of party spirit and pas ion. There are advantages in a term of six years which you cannot have 

in a term of four years. As I have alrendy remarked, a President in 

office, like every other officer of the Government, learns by experience. Six years will give him time to sett.le not only an internal policy for the 

country but one with all foreign nations, and in that respect the ex- tension of theopresidential term will be of great advantage. But I 

have no time fully to discuss the question as to the expediency of ex- tending the term to six years. I think I have said enough; I think I 

have presented sufficient reasons to the House for extending the presidential term to six yea.rs. 

Another feature of thls proposition of the minority of the Judiciary 

Committee is ineligibility to re-election after the term of six years. This, I conceive, will be att.ended with some oovantages, and I will 

state in brief, without going into detail fully, some of the reasons why it is in my judgment desirable that the President after holding 

office for six years should be ineligible to re-election. 

Among the advantages of ineligibility will be these : First, it will 

relieve the President of the care of a, re-elect ion, and will enable him 

to devote his time exclusively to the public interests; second, it will remove all t.emptation to use the patronage of the Government to e- cure support from those who are in office or to influence the public 

judgment in his behalf; third, it will remove the inducement to ex- tend the patronage_ by law, with a view to command additional influence to enable the President to secure a re-election; fourth, it will remove from the President the re traint whlch he otherwise would 

be under in recommending a, reduction of patronage and a reduction 

of the expenses of the Government. 

In all these respects he will be perfectly free to act upon his own unbiased judgment, with no personal motive, no object in view, but 

to secure the common good of the whole country. The anxiety for a re-election will give place to a desire to go down in hi tory as the 

benefa-ctor of his country and mankind. I conceive, ir, that tho o are sufficient reasons for this feature of ineligibility. Why, sir, we all 

know that the result of a pre identi::tl contest may depend upon tho 

vote of a single State ; and the vote of a ingle State may depeml 

upon the vote of a single city. And the administration may have 

power to throw into that city immense patronage, corrupting where 

it goes, influencin$, the public judgment, buying all cormpt enough 

to be bought, holcLing out promises to those who may seek for futuro 

office, as well as those who ~re in office. By all the e means an administr:ttion may bring the immense power and patronage of the Government to bear upon the result of a presidential election. The temptation to use it may become very great. "Lead us not into temptation" is a prayer so essential to human nature that it divine origin 

is manifest. Let us so write tho Constitution now that a Pre~dent 

in office will scarcely have need to utter it so far as the improper use of patronage is concerned. 

Sir, I have no time to discuss this subject fully, but we all know 

from our past history that the power and patrona.ge of the Government have been employed exactly for the e purposes. We know at 

lea,at as far back as the time of PresiQent Van Buren that the cor- ruptions which were festering under his administration were y tematically covered up, concealed from the people, and public official 

guilty of public robbery were shielded, lest their exposure might be 

detrimental to the presidential prospects of .Mr. Van Buren when a candidate for re_-election in 1840. Sir, I speak this in no party sons , but with the hope that all parties may take warning by this part of our history, and that we may in future shun the evils which have 

been shown to exist in the past. 

These are evils the magnitude of which could not have been for - seen by the framers of the Constitution. Our growth as a people has 

been the marvel of .history. With it offices have multiplied, until it 

has become a serious question bow far it is safe to give the power of 

appointment substantially to the control of one man. And now we are met with the question whether we should not write in the Constitution a provision which will hold out no inducement to a President 

to retain bad or incompetent men in office, but make it an object to remove them when the public good may require, with no fear as to 

the consequence . I have been a ked by a gentleman why it is proposed in this amendment that it shall only be applied from and after the 4th day of 

March in the year 1835. I will state in a very few words the reason for this. Indeed it has perhaps alroa.dy been sufficiently done, I think, 

by my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from 

Maine, [1\Ir. FRYE.] This amendment we all know cannot be adopted 

before the next pre idential election. If it hould be made applicable 

to tho President to be elected this year, extending hls term to six 

years, tho party who in the next election should be defeated would 

vote solid against adopting it in order that they might have an op-
1876. CONGRESSIONAL REC.ORD. 813 

portunity to succeed, if possible, in a new election at the end of four 

years. . _ AB it requires the assent of three-fourths of the States to adopt the 

amendment, we aJ.l know it cannot be auopteu by any one political 

party. We desire to put it in a.shape that no political party or administration shall oppose it on grounds of present or temporary expediency. We desire success as a means of securing a great reform in 

the Constitution. 

If the amendment should leave the President to be elected this 

year to hold a term of four years only, with ineligibility to a re-election, he and all his political friends would oppose it in the hope of 

seeming a re-election. This would be fatal to the amendment. These 

in brief ar~ the rea-sons why this provision is put into the amendment a-s to the time when it shall take effect. The words of this proposition h~we been carefully considered. I can speak from my personal knowledge on this subject. They have 

been written in a form to secure the desired object without encoun- tering unnecessary opposition from any source. I have given to the 

words employed no littl-e consideration in their preparation, and I 

believe they are free from all objection if the. principle they embody 

shall be found correct. 

Now, I have given some of the reasons which induce me to vote 

agginat the amendment reported by the majority of the committee 

and in favor of t,hat submitted by the minority. It seems to me they are sufficient. This is a subject worthy of the gravest and most ma- ture deliberation. Every change of the fundamental law ought to 

cornmand our most serious and thoughtful consideration. Especially 

should this be so when it relates to the highest office in the ~ift of 

the people. If the proposed amendment should be adopted, It will 

make a material, a vital change in our Constitution. I have taken 

occasion in a few hurried words to present this subject to the House, 

and I hope it will receive the consiueration which its importance 

demands and which the people we represent have a right to expect 

at our hands. 

M:r. HARRISON. I do not intend to make many remarks. The line 

of argument that I should have pursued has been so completely ex- hausted by my frienu from Iowa [Mr. McCRARY] that I feel indispo ed to say more than a few words; and I shall say those for the 

purpose of having a recommittal of the subject to the committee, that 

they may report back an amendment to the Constitution, coupling 

with it an amendment suggested by the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. 

McCRARY,) taking from the President the patronage now belonging 

to his high office. 

I dislike exceedingly to differ from a committee, especially when 

the majority of ·that committee is from this side of the House. But, 

sir, I believe that that committee ha-s mistaken the feelings of the 

people when it comes here with a recommendation for a term of office 

for the President lasting only four years. Tbe very grave objection 

to a second election of the President will be existing still. Every 

four years since you and I can remember, sir, the business of the 

country has been jeop::trdized by the presidential election, by the intense excitement engendered by it, and the consequent demoralization. The excitement, however, is not the only ground of this demoralization. It grows also out of the uncertainty in regard to the policy 

of the incoming Presidency. Financial men, men of means, are indisposed to put their money in commercial schemes or any other 

enterprises when they do not know what the policy. of the A.dminis~ 

tration may be in the course of a few months. For, sir, you remem- ber, and all of us remember, that it is a. constant expression during 

every presidential year, "0, the good times will come when the pres- idential election is over." · Now, sir, I think that what we ought to attempt now is to answer the call of the people and get rid of this excitement and this uncer- tainty. A. term of four years will not do it. 

A.s I said, I do not intend to make any extended remarks, because 

I am simply going over the ground which tlre gentleman frorri Iowa 

[Mr. McCRARY] has so fully covered, but I wish to say to the chairm::tn of the Committee on the Juiliciary that it is impossible to pass 

his amendment making the term for four years; but he can pass a resolution fixing the term at six years. There are, however, some points in the minority report not wholly acceptable to this side ofthe 

House. What we want is an amendment acceptable to two-thirds of 

this House, and which we may hope to be accepta,ble to the people of 

the country. . · · I would therefore move to recommit the whole subject to the Committee on the Judiciary to report at an early day, hoping that they 

will report an amendment making the term six yel1l's instead of four. 

Mr. COX. I would inquire if the gentleman from Illinois has the 

floor to make that motion now'f · The SPEAKER p1·o ternpm·e, [ 1r. ELY.] The Chair understands 

that the motion of tlle gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. KNOTT] was that the session this afternoon should be confined to discussion only. 

Mr. HARRISON. I recall the motion. I did not mean to make the 

motion now. I will make it to-morrow. I merely suggested that 

that motion will be made. 

Mr. WOODWORTH. 1\fr. Speaker, I had not expected to participa.te 

in this debate until a few moments ago, and especially not at this 

hour, w he:Q. the House presents a ueggarly (1l'ray of empty benches, 

and 1 would not ask consent to occupy the floor _for a few minutes at 

thls unfortunate hour were it not for the bet that I feel that the im- portance of this 11roposition to change our fundamental law touching . 

the highest office in the nation warrants me in presenting to the 

House very briefly the reasons which will control my action, and 

which, I think, ought to c~mtrol the action of the House when the vote 

is called, and were it not for the further reason that a further reply, 

in my judgment, is demanded than wh::tt has been made by the gentleman from Maine [Mr. FRYE] to the senseless third-term ot;tcry 

which has led to the offering of this amendment. For the purpo,':'e of 

making that reply, I ask for a few moments the attention of the House. 

Mr. McCRARY. I ask the gentleman from Ohio if he would not · prefer to yield for a motion to adjourn; the usual hour for adjournment has come. Mr. WOODWORTH. · I would gladly yield but for the fact that, as I understand the order of debate to-day, by so doing I should lose en- tirely my right to the floor to-morrow. The SPEAKER. Under the order made uefore this debate wa.a com- menced this afternoon, the privilege was conceded to the gentleman 

from Kentucky [Mr. KNoTT) to take the floor to-morrow after the 

morning hour and move the previous question, and that would cut 

off the gentleman's right to be heard. 

Mr. McCRARY. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 

Ohio be allowed to proceed aft.er the morning hom·-for how long 

Mr. WOODWORTH. ].i'ifteen or twenty minutes will suffice. 

Mr. McCRARY. I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to 

proceed for twenty minutes, and if that consent be granted I will move that the House adjourn. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair inquires whether the House is now willing to give consent that the gentleman from Ohio, who has the 

floor upon this subject, shall be permitted to-morrow at the close of 

the morning hour to occupy the attention of the House in the further 

discussion a£ this measure for twenty minutes, and that then the rlght 

of the gentleman from Kentucky to move the previous question shall 

attach T 

There wa-s no objection; and it was so ordered. 

Mr. McCRARY. I move that the House a,djourn. 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. 

Pending the motion to adjourn, leave of absence was granted to Mr. 

JENKS for one week, on account of important busine s; to Mr. BLISS 

for one week, on account of important business; and to ~fr. DOBBINS 

for one week, on account of sickness. 

WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS. 

By unanimous·consent, leave was granted to Mr. VAN VoRHEs to 

withdraw from the :files of the House papers in the cases of Henry M. 

Davis and Peter M. Ward. 

By unanimous consent, leave wa.s granted to Mr. W ALLAC~, of 

Pennsylvama, to withdraw from the files of the House papers in the case of Dorathy Irons, mother of Lieuten:mt Joseph F. Irons. 

By unanimous consent, lea.ve was granted to Mr. Cox to withdraw 

from the files of the House the petition in the cru:;e of B. L. Britton. 

The question wa-s then taken on Ml.·. McCRARY's motion to adjourn, 

and it was agreed to ; and accordingly (at four o'clock and thirty minutes p. m.) the House S~Jdjourned. 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

The foil owing memorials, petitions, and other papers were presented 

at the Clerk's desk under the rule, and referred a-s stated: 

By Mr. G. A.. BAGLEY: Papers relating to the claim of John C. 

Duff. to the Comniittee on War Claims. 

By M:r. BUCKNER: The petitions of citizens of Saint Charles and 

of Louisiana, Missouri, for the repeal of the stamp tax on safety 

matches, to the Committee of Ways and Means. 

By lli. CANNON, of Illinois: The petition of Jacob Taylor, to have 

his name placed on the rolls of Company K, ·First Missouri Cavalry, 

to the Committee on Military .Affairs. 

By Mr. CASWELL : The petition of citizens of MazoManie, of Lake 

Mills, and of Watertown, Wisconsin, of similar import, to the same committee. 

By Mr. CA.TE: Remonstrance of William Graves and others, against 

the construction of a ponton bridge across the Mississippi R:i_ver at 

Winoua, to the Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. CONGER: Papers relating to the petition of the heirs of 

George W. Hunt, for an extension of his patent in paper collars, to the 

Committee on Patents. 

Also, the petition of Allen B. Wilson, for an extension of his patent on friction-feed sewing-machines, to the same committee. 

Also, the petition of S. V. Benet, for a reconsideration by the Commissioner of Patents of his rejected application for a patent for a cartridge, to the same committee. 

Also, papers relating to the petition of Horace L. Emery, for an ex- tension of his patent for improvements in cotton-ginning machines, to 

the same committee. 

By Mr. CRAPO: The petition of heirs of Samuel Mercer, for a pension, to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. CROUNSE : The petition of citizens of Lincoln and of Beatrice, Nebraska, for the repeal of the stamp tax on safety matches, to 

the Committee of Ways and Means. 

By ]')fr. CUTLER:· Thepetitionsof citizens of Cresskill, of Passaic, 

of Carlstadt, of Hackensack, and of Paterson, New Jersey, of similar 

import to the same committ.ee. By Mr. DURHAM: Papers relating the application of J. Atkins, for 
814 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. FEnnuAl~Y 2, 

nn extension of his patent on harvesting-rakes, to the Committee on Patents. 

Dy 1\lr. FARWELL: The petitions of N. T. Quarles and George 

Kerr, for property destroyed by fire in a United States hospital, to 

the Committee of Claims. 

By Mr. GAUSE : The petition of Eli T. Diamond, for a reconsideration of his claim, disallowed by the claims commission, to the Committee on War Claims. 

Dy Mr. HANCOCK: The petition of J. E. Wilson, for relief, to the 

Committee on Claims. 

Dy ~lr. HATHORN: The petition of citizens of Spraker's Ba-sin, of 

Johnstown, of Canajoharie, of Saratoga, of Schuylersville, of Mechanic ·ville, of Fort Plain, of North ville, of Broadalbin, and of Waterford, for the repe::JJ of the stamp tn.x on safety matches, to the Committee of Ways and Means. . By Mr. HOPKINS: Papers relating to the claim of Nicholas J. Bierley, for compensation for coal and steam-tug used by the United State~ to the Committee on War Claims. ' 

By 1\lr. HOUSE: Papers relating to the claims of Alfred Fly n.nd 

Duncan Marr, to the same committee. Also, pn.pers relating no the petition of Reinhart Breinn·eiss and 

others, for r elief, to the same committee. 

By Mr. HUNTON: The petition of Benjn.min Chambers, for additional compensation for executing a contract to build a screw-pile 

light-house at the entrn.nce of Hampton Ro3.ds Harbor, to the Committee of Claims. 

By Mr. LEVY: The petition of Marie Elina Metoyer and ot.hers 

for compensn.tion for property taken and used by the United State~ Army, to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. L UTTRJ?LL :. Resolutions of Cal usa Grange of the Patrons 

of Husbandry, Califorma, for the repeal of the duty· on grain sacks 

and bagging, to the Committee of Ways and Means. 

By 1\lr. MACKEY, oi South Carolinn.: The petition of citizens of 

Charleston, South Carolinn., for the repeal of the stamp tax on safety 

matches, to tbe same committee. 

By Mr. McDILL: Parers relating to the application for a pension 

l>y Nathan Johnson, to the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions. 

By l\Ir. O'BRIEN: Papers relating to the claim of James Millinger 

to the Committee on War Claims. ' 

Dy Mr. PARSO...~S: Papers relating to the claim of J. B. Fishback 

for pay for services as gnide and detective for the Unit.ed States Army 

in Kentucky ancl Ea t Tennessee, to the same committee. By Mr. PIPER: The petition of citizens of San Francisco California, for the repeal of the stamp tax on safety matches, to the Committee of Ways and Means. By Mr. PIERCE: Two petitions of citizens of Boston, Massachusetts 

of similar import, to the same committee. ' 

By Mr. ROBBINS, of Pennsylvania: The petition of citizens of 

Philadelphia, Pennsy]yania, for :tid to be extended the Southern Pacific Railroad, to the Committee on the Pacific Railroad. 

Also, the petition of Elizabeth McCluney, for a pension, to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By MT. ROSS, of New J ersey : The petitions of citizens of Freehold • and of Plainfield, New Jersey, for the repeal of the stn.mp tn.x ou safety 

mn.tches, to the Committee of Ways and Means. 

By Mr. SAVAGE: The petition of citizens of Oxford, Ohio of similn.r import, to tbo same committee. ' 

By 1\lr. SWANN: The petition of citizens of Baltimore, Maryland 

of s1miln.r import, to the s:tme committee. '. By Mr. STOWELL: Papers relating to the claim of Colonel John 

C. Lemmons, to tlle Committee on Military Affairs. ·By Mr. THORNBURGH: The petition of A. P. Rambo, for relief 

to tlle same committee. ' 

By Mr. THROCKMORTON: The petition of United States Army 

officers at Fort Griffin, Texas, and citizens of Shackelford Eastland 

and Worth Counties, Texn.s, for a post-route from Steph~nsville ~ Fort Griffin, to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

Also, tlle petitions of citizens of the United Stat.es, for the repeal of 

the stamp tax on safety matches, to the Committee of Ways and 

Means. 

By Mr. VANCE, of North Carolina: The petition of Thoma-s l\fitche11, for an extension of his patent on hair-brush handles, to the Committee on Patents. By Mr. WADDELL: The petitions of citizensofWilmincrton and of 

New Berne, for the repeal of the stamp tax on safety mat.ilies, to the 

Committee of Ways n.nd l\fen.ns. 

Also, the petitions of Shade Pate and John A. Williams, for a re- hearing of their claims rejected by the claims commission, to the Committee on War Claims. 

By 1\lr. WALLING: The petition of Robert Y. Wood, of similar import., to the same committee. 

By Mr. A. S. WILLIAMS: The petition of D. W. Brooks and Louis 

~· Gills~m, for a change o~ the law rela~ing to attorneys' fees in pen- Sion clmms, to tho Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. YOUNG: The petitions of Nancy Seawricrbt Needham 

llranch, Mathia-s A~p, Mrs. E. G. Abbott, Henry C. Dollis' James G. ~foore, :Francis MaJitor, Willin.m McKnight, Mary E. McG~egor, Z. C. 

Nolen, Thomn.s T. Somerville, Henry 0. Syke n.nd Robert Talley for a rehearing of their claims rejected by the cl~ims commission td the 

Committee on War Claims. ' 

IN SENATE. · 

WEDNESDAY, February 2, 1876. 

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. BYRON SUNDERI..A.ND, D. D. 

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

EXECUTIVE CmiM1Th'ICATION. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a letter of the 

Secretary of War, transmitting the petition of Benjamin C. Card 

praying tJ;tat the date of his commis ion as major n.nd quartermas!.e; m the Umted States Army be corrected; which was referred to tho 

Committee on Militn.ry Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

PETITIONS AND IEM:ORIALS. 

Mr. INGALLS presented a petition of the count.y commissioners and 

various other officers of Johnson County, in the State of Ka.n as praying for ~ction thn.t ~ll s~ttl~ the titles to that portion of th~ Shawnee Indian reservatiOn lym~ m that county;. which wa referreu 

to the Committee on Indian Affaus. 

He ~lso prese~ted t~e petition of citizens of Kan as, praying for the 

establishment of a mail-route from Ellis, Kan a , to Orlean Nebraska; which wa-s referred to the Committee on Post-Office a~d ;po tRoads. 

Mr. WALLACE presented the petition of Jollu S. McMilla.n of 

Pennsylvania, praying compensation for extrahn.zardous service ~nd for coufirmatiou of an award heretofore made; which was referred 

to the Committee on Claims. 

Mr. KERNAN pre ented the petition of R.N. Eu<ly, late lieutenn.nt 

of the On~ hnnd.red anu fourteenth Regiment of New York Volunteers, prayrng the pttBStlge of an act for his relief; w bich was referr d 

to the Committee on Military Affuirs. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin, pre entecl the petition of 2.')0 citizens 

of Winnebago County, Wi cousin, prayin~; for an appropriation for 

the peedy co_mpletion of the Fox River Improvement, anu also for 

the construction of a canal along the banks of the Wi cousin River fr~m1 Portage City, Wisconsiu, to the Missi ippi River~ in accordanc 

w1th the thiru plan rec~mmendetl to the Government by MnJor-General Wan·en, of the Umted States Engineer Corps; which wa-s re- ferred to the Committee on Commerce. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I present a number of petitions of residents of 

Cleveland, Ohio, praying an early repeal of so much of the act of 

Congress approved J n.nuary 14, 1 75, as provides for the pavment of 

United States legal-tender notes in coin upon the 1st day of January 

1879, and so much of the said act as n.uthorizes t.he e01·etn.ry of th~ Treasury to sell and dispose of the bonds of the United State for the 

purpose of enabling him to redeem ncb legal-tender notes· and representing t~at _in their judgment the existing law will be disa Lrous 

to the leading mt.erests of the country. While I do not acrree with 

the request of these petitioners, I know many of them to b~ of high 

character, whose views are worthy of considera-tion. I move that 

these petitions be referred to tlle Committee on J<'inance. The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. ENGLISH presented a pet.ition of H . Killam & Co., and 170 

other citizens of New Haveu, Connecticut, praying for the issue of 

fifty-year 3.65 gold-bearing bonds; which was referred to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. McMILLAN pre ented a joint resolution of the Lerrislature of 

the State of Minnesot.a, requestJug the same modifications 00f the laws 

of the United States for the ports of Saint Pn.ul and DuLuth a are now exten.ded to other ports in varioru; States; which was referred t.o 

the Comrmttee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD a-s follows: ' 

Whereas the vexa?ons delays and expenses incident to tho appraisal of foreign goods at the Atlantic ports of the United States, moro especially at the port of N~~ York, have ~reventeU tho proper development of tbelE gitimate trade apper- tainmg to the designated ports of entry and delivery of t.bo Stato of Minnesota., 

which embargo has been ouviaterl b;v sta.tut-e enactment of tho Unitecl States so far as the ports of Evansville, (lnd1ana.,) Milwaukee, (Wisconsin,) &c., are ~on­ earned: Therefore, 

Be it resolved by the L egislature of the State of Minnesota That tho Senators aml Repre entatives.in the Con~ s of the United States fro~ tbe State of Minnesota be_r~uested to nrge a mo~ca.tion of the law of tho United Stat , so that the • pnV1leges accorded to certain ·enumerated ports in the various tates by sections 2990. 2991, and 2997, Rensed Statutes of the United t.a.tes be extt~nd d tO the ports of Saint Pa.ul and Du Loth in this State. ' 

Resolvedfu.rther, That the secretary of state be requested to forward a copy of 

these resolutions to each of onr Senators and Representatives in Congr s. 

Approved January 25, A.. D. 1876. 

W. R. KINYON, 

Spt!.aker of tlte House of Representatives. 

J. B. W .A.KE.FIELD. 

President of the Se-nate. 

J . S. PILLSBURY, 

Governor. 

STATE OF M!NNE OTA, 

OFFICE OF THE S.ECRE1'ARY OF STATE. 

~ certify the foregoing to be a true and coiTOOt copy of the original on file in this 

office. 

Witness my hand and tbe great soal of the State, this 27th day of January, .A. D. 1876. J. S. IRGENS, Secretary of State. 

Mr. Mc~HLLAN. I uesire to give notice that to-morro.w, or some early <lay, I shall introdn e a bill in pursuance of tho request of tbe 

Legislatme of Minnesota.