306 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. DECEMBEU 20, 

Now England society; and, in his long and useful life, did more than 

perhap!.i any other to direct and strengthen its growth. 

Nothing, therefore, could be more fitting, than for Massachusetts 

to place in our Memorial Hall the sta,tue of the first of the Puritans, 

representing him at the moment when he was stepping on shore from 

the ship tthat brought him from England, and bearing with him the 

charter of that first political society which laid the foundations of our country; and that near him should stand that Puritan embodiment of 

the logic of the Revolution, SamuolAtlams. I am glad to see this decisive, though tardy, acknowledgment of his great and signal serv- ices to America. I doubt if any man eqna,led Samuel Adams in 

formulating and uttering the fierce, clear, and inexorable logic of the 

Revolution. \Vith our present habits of thought, we can ha.rdly re- ali7.e· how great were the obstacles to overcome. Not the least was the religions belief of the fathers-that allegiance to rulers was obedience to God. The thirteenth chapter of Romans was to many minds a barrier against revolution stronger than the battalions of George 

III: 

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power bnt of 

God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the 

power, resisteth the ordinance of God. 

And it was not until the people of that religious age were led to see that they might obey God and still establish liberty, in spite of 

kingly despotism, that they were willing to engage in war against one who called himself" king by the grace of God." The men who 

pointed out the pathway to freedom by the light of religion as well as of law, were the foremost promoters of American Independence. 

And of these, Adams was unquestionably chief. 

It must not be forgotten that while Samuel Adams was writing the 

great argument of liberty in Boston, almost at the sarue time, Patrick 

Henry was formulating the same doctrines in Virginia. It is one of 

the grandest facta of that grand time that the Colonies were thus 

trought, by an almost universal consent, to tread the same pathway, 

and reach the same great conclusions. 

But most remarkable of all is the fact that, throughout all that 

period, filled as it was with the revolutionary spirit, the great men who guided the storm, exhibited the most wonderful power of self-restraint. If I were to-day to state the single quality that appears to me most admirable am on~ the fathersof the Revolution, I should say it was this: that amidst all the passions of war, waged against a perfidious 

enemy from beyond the sea, aided by a savage enemy on our own shores, onr fathers exhibited so wonderful a restraint, so great a care to observe the forms of law, to protect the rights of the minority, to 

preserve all those great rights that had come down to them from the common law, so that when they had achieved their independence they were still a law-abiding people. 

In that fiery meeting in the old South church, after the Boston 

massacre, when, as the gentleman from Massachusetts has said, 

three tb.ousand voices almost lifted the roof from the church in demanding the removal of the regiments, it is noted by the historian 

that tbere wag one, solitary, sturdy "nay" m the vast assemblage; and 

Samuel Adams scrupulously recorded the fa,ct that there was one dissentient. It would have been a mortal offense against his notions of 

justice and good order, if that one dissentient had not had hls place 

in the record. And, after the regiments had been removed, and after 

the demand had been acceded to that the soldiers who had fired upon 

citizens should be delivered over to the civil authorities to be dealt 

with according to law, Adams was the first to insist and demand 

that the best legal talent in the Colony should be put forward to defend those murderers; andJ ohn Adams andJ osiah Quincy were detailed 

for the purpose of defending them. Men were detailed whose hearts 

and souls were on fire with the love of the popular cause; but the men of Massachusetts would have despised the two advocatE>s, if 

they bad not given their whole strength to the defense of the soldiers. 

Mr. Speaker, this great lesson of self-restraint is taught in the whole 

history of the Revolution; and it is this lesson that to-day, more perhaps, than any other we have seen, we ought to take most to heart. 

Let us seek liberty and peace, under the law; and, following the pathway of our fathers, preserve the great legacy they have committed 

to our keeping. 

The question being taken, the resolutions of the Senate were unanimously concurred in. 

And then, on motion of :Mr. REAGAN, (at four o'clock and thirtyfive minutes p.m.,) the House adjourned. 

The following petitions, &c., were presented at the Clerk's desk 

under the rule, and refeiTed as stated: 

By Mr. BAKER, of Indiana: The petition of Mary Barr, widow of 

Martin Barr, late a private in the One hundred and forty-second 

Regiment Indiana Volunteers, for a pension, to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. BRADFORD: The petition of citizens of Clay County, Alar 

bama, for the establishment of a post-route from Delta, by way of ·Flint Hill to Union, Clay County, Alabama, to the Committee on the 

Post-Office antl Post-Roads. 

By ::\Ir. CALDWELL, of Alabama: The petition of citizens of Jack- son County, Alabama, for tho extension of route No. 17115, Alabama 

service, from- Paint Rock Station to Princeton in said county, so ~ to 

connect with route 17 from La,rkinsville to Hunt's Station, in the State 

of Tennessee, to the same committee. 

By Mr. CHITTENDEN : The petition of Baldwin Cann, late first 

lieutenant Fourth New York Volunteer Cavalry, for a pension, to the 

Committee on Im-alid Pensions. 

By .Mr. FELTON: The petition of Isaac Sewell, of Cobb County, 

Georgia, who remained loyal to the Government of the United States 

during the late war, for a rehearing of his claim for $1,380 for property taken and used by the Unite<l States Army, rejected by the 

southern claims commission, to the Committee on War Claims. 

Also, the petition of Charles J. Shepard, of Cobb County, Georgia, 

who remained loyal to the Government of the United States during 

the late war, for a rehearing of his claim for $1,695.50 for property 

taken and used by the United States Army, rejected by the southern 

claims commission, to the same committee. 

By Mr. GARFIELD: The petition of Sarah Howells, widow of 

Thomas Howells, dec~ased, late a private in Company C, Nineteenth 

Regiment Ohio Infantry Volunteers, to the Committee on Invalid 

Pensions. . By Mr. GLOVER: The petition of John M. Butler, of Washington, 

District of Columbia, for compensation for work done for the Committee on Jay Cooke Indebtedness and Real-Estate Pool during the recess of Congress, to the Committee of Accounts. 

By Mr. HOAR: The petition ofT. L. Nelson, president of the board 

of directors of the Free Public Library of ·worcester, Massachusetts, 

and of the officers of other libraries in various sections of the Union, 

for the purchase by Congress of the papers of the General Count do 

Rochambeau, the commander of the French forces sent to aid Washington in our revolutionary struggle for national independence, to the 

Joint Committee on the Library. 

By Mr. HOLMAN: The petition of H. M. Beadle, of Indiana, for the 

printing by the order of the House of the reports on the Louisiana. 

troubles made to the Forty-third Congress, to the Committee on Printing. 

IN SENATE. 

WEDNESD..A.Y, December 20, 1876. 

Prayer by the Chaplain; Rev. BYRON SUNDERLAND, D. D. 

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

EXECUTIVE COmiUNICATION. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a letter from 

the Secretary of War, transmitting, in compliance with the provisions 

of paragraph 10, of the fourth section of the river and harbor bill 

of March 3, 1875, the fifth report on the improvement of the South 

Pass of the Mississippi River, showing the condition of the works on November 18, 1876, by C. B. Comstock, major of engineers; which was ordered to lie on the table and be printed. 

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED. 

The following bills and joint resolutions from the House of Representatives were severally read twice by their titles, and referred to 

the Committee on Military Affairs: 

A bill (H. R. No. 2606) for the relief of Catharine Harris; 

A bill (H. R. No. 4248) for the relief of Emanuel Klauser, late cor· poral of Company H, Fifty-fourth Regiment Illinois Volunteers; 

A joint resolution (H. R. No. 174) authorizing the issue of clothing 

to PrivatePatrickNoonan,Comp::myG,Fifth United States Infantry; 

A joint resolution (H. R. No. 175) authorizing the issue of clothing 

to Company A, Second Regiment United States Cavalry; 

.A. joint resolution (H. R. No. 176) authorizing the i s11e of clothing 

to Private F~ancis Hegner, Company F, Seventh Cavalry, and Private 

John C. Collins, Company G, Seventh Cavalry; and 

A joint resolution (H. R. No. 177) authorizing the issue of clothing 

to Sergeant Herman Theune, Company I, Twenty-third United States 

Infant:ry. · The bill (H. R. No. 4188) making appropriations for fortifications 

and for other works of defense, and for the armam·eut thereof, for the 

fiscal year endingJuue 30, 1878, and for other purposes, was read twice 

by its title, and referred to the Committee on Appropriations. 

The bill (H. R. No. 4246) to provide for the holtling of terms of the 

district and circuit courts of the United States at Bay City, Michi~an, 

was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the'" Judiciary. . REPORT ON MINING STATISTICS. 

The PRESIDENT pto tempore laid before the Senate the following 

concurrent resolution from the House of Representatives; which was referred to the Committee on Printing: 

Resolved by the House o.f Representatives, (the Senate concurring,) That there be 

printed of the report of R. W. lla,YIDond on mining statiRtics for 1875, with the a.c- companyio_g engravings, 2,500 cop1es for the use of the Honse of Representatives, 

1,000 for the Senate, and 500 for the Secretary of the Treasury and commissioners. 

PETITIOYS AND MJDIORIALS. 

Mr.lliTCHELL. I present a joint memorial of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon, in which it is represented that "several years sin~e the lJnited States authorized and directed a. geological survey of the then Territory of Oregon, an~ made a. limited ap-
. 

I 

1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 307 

propriation therefor, but, owing to an extensive field proposed to be 

examined and the limited allowance made for the same, but little 

work of importance was accomplished." It is fttrther represented 

"that the geology of Oregon is of the most interesting character; 

that there are indications of vast beds of coal and iron, the most 

valuable lodes of silver and gold and other precious metals; that no nncleveloped region of the United States offers better prospects for 

the investment of capital in mining than the State of Oregon." It 

respectfully prays therefore "that Congress will make an appropriation in the interest of science and general commerce to defray the ex- penses of a scientific and thorough geological survey of this part of 

tho public domain." I move that the memorial be referred to the 

Committee on Mines and Mining. 

The motion was agreed to. · Mr. WITHERS presented additional papers in relation to the claim 

of John Y. Wort-hington for compensation for wood furnished the 

United States troops during the late war; which were referred to the 

Committee on Claims. 

Mr. BOGY presented the petition of John S. Marmaduke, of Missouri, praying the removal of his political disabilities; which was re- ferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, 

Mr. WRIGHT, from the Committee on Claims, to whom was re- ferred the bill (S. No. 47) for the relief of John Cummins, late collector 

and disbursing agent of the United States internal-revenue clistrict 

of Idaho, submitted an adverse report thereon; which was ordered to 

be printed, and the bill was indefinitely postponed. 

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

(S. No. 219) for the relief of Robert Johnston, late collector of internal revenue for the third district of Alabama, reported adversely 

thereon, and moved that the bill be indefinitely postponed; which was agreed to. 

He also, _from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of David J. Browne, an alien resident of Mississippi, praying for 

indemnity for eight hundred and fifty-six bales of cotton destroyed 

by United States forces durin~ the war of the rebellion, reported adversely thereon, and moved tnat the claim be rejected; which was agreed to. 

.l\ft'. WRIGHT. The same committee, to whom was recommitted 

the bill (H. R. No. 3503) for the relief of Philip Rohr, of Virginia, for 

tobacco seized for use of the .Army, in connection with additional 

papers or proofs, again recommend that the bill be indefinitely postponed and that the claim be rejected. 

Mr. JOHNSTON. I move that the bill be placed on the Calendar. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I have no objection. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be placed on the 

Calendar with the adverse report of the committee. . Mr. WRIGHT. The same committee, to whom was referred the petition of H. H. Lemmon, late a member of the Capitol police, praying 

compensation for damages sustained by falling through a trap-door 

at the Capitol in the uischarge of Ilis duties, ask to be discharged from 

its further consideration. In that connection we also desire to state 

that if this person has anything that can approach a claim upon the 

Government it is a matter that appeals alone to the clemency or grace 

of Congress, and as such resolutions usuaJly come as a voluntary matter from tho Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds we ask to 

be discharged, as far as we are concerned, and that the claim as a claim be rejected. 

The report was agreed to. 

Mr. WRIGHT. The same committee, to whom was referred the bm 

(S. No. 165) for the !'elief of Michael W. Brook; late a private in Company D, Tenth Tetmessee Volunteers, have had the same under con- sideration and :find this to be the state of the case: This bill was passed at the last Congress, went to the President and was vetoed by 

him; and it was returned with the President's message setting fort.h 

the grounds on which he was unable to approve the bill. The matter has been again referred to the War Department, and from the 

evidence now received from that Department we are satisfied that 

the bill should not have passed originally; and we now recommend, 

therefore, that the bill be indefinitely postponed and the claim re- jected. 

Mr. DAVIS. What bill is that 7 

Mr. WRIGHT. The bill for the relief of Michael W. Brock. 

Mr. CONKLING. For what f 

Mr. WRIGHT. He was a volunteer in a regiment of Tennessee 

cavalry and claimed $2"25 for some property that was charged to him, 

that he said was improperly cha,ged. 

The report was agreed .to. 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD ACTS. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I desire, before I take my seat, to give notice that 

I shall on Friday morning, if able to obtain t.he floor, ask the Senate 

to proceed, immediately after the expiration of the morning hour, to 

the consideration of the bill (S. No. 60) declaring the true intent and 

meaning of the Union Pacific Railroad acts approved July 1, 1862, 

Jnly 2, 1864, and July 3, 1866, and for other purposes. In giving this 

notice at this time, I desire to say that there is a rep.ort from the Committee on the Judiciary which sets forth th~ entire faats very fully. 

I do not propose to discuss the bill myself, but I think it will be my 

duty to call it up at that time, and, if I can, to obtain the action of 

the Senate upon it. 

Mr. CONKLING. Is that the Central Branch bill so called f 

Mr. WRIGHT. It is. 

BILLS INTRODUCED. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave 

to introduce a bill (S. No. 1094) supplemental to an act entitled" An 

act for the apportionment of Representatives to Congress among the 

several States according to the ninth census;" which was read twice 

by its tit.le, referred to the Committee 'on Privileges and Elections, 

and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. HARVEY asked, and by nnanimona consent obtained, leave to 

introduce a bill (S. No. 1095) for the relief of George .A. Schreiner; 

which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Claims, 

and ordered to be printed. 

LAW OF DOWER IN THE DISTRICT. 

Mr. WRIGHT. If there be no resolutions this morning, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideratio~ of the bm (H. R. No. 2043) 

to improve the law in relation to dower in the District of Columbia, 

reportedfrom the Committee on theJudiciaryon the25thof July last. 

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

Whole, proceeded to consider the bill. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on the Judiciary with an amendment to strike out all after the enactmg clause, and to insert 

in lieu thereof the following: 

That one-third in value of all the equitable estat-e in real property owned and held 

by the husband within the District of Columbia at any time during the marriage, 

to which the wife bas made no relinquishment of her right, shall be set apart to said 

wife as her dower-right in such property. Said dower may be assigned specifically by metes and bounds or as of a third part of the net annual value of the rents, issues, 

and profita of the lands and tenements or interest therein, in which the dower-right exists. 

The amendment was agreed t.o. 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. 

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read 

the third time. 

The bill was read the third time, and passed. Its title was amend eel so as to read: "An act in relation to dower in the District of Columbia." 

PROPOSED TERRITORY OF PEMBINA. 

Several Senators addressed the Chair. 

Mr. HAMLIN. I think the SenatorfromNebraska [Mr. HITCHCOCK] 

may have risen for the same purpose as myself, and, if so, I yield to 

him. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (S. No. 606) to establish the Territory of Pembina, 

and to provide a temporary government therefor . The PRESIDENT p1·o tempm·e. The motion pending is a motion to 

reconsider the vote by which tile bill was passed, offered by the Senator from .Missouri, (Mr. BOGY.] 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I desire to say that there are some reasons why 

the motion should prevail, and I hope it will prevail, not for tile reason for which the Senator from Missouri seeks a reconsideration, 

but for another and a different reason, which, if the Senate takes up 

the bill, will be indicated. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair hears no objection, and 

the question is on the motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill 

wa.-, passed. - The motion to reconsider was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The vote is reconsidered and the 

bill is before the Senate. 

l'r!r. HITCHCOCK. The Senator from Maine [Mr. IlAM:LIN] has some amendments which he will offer. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. Then it will be necessary to recon- sider the vote by which tlie bill was ordered to its third reading. 

lli. HAMLIN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the billhad 

its third reading. 

The motion to reconsider was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT pro tentp01·e. The bill is now open to amendment. 

Mr. HAMLIN. I propose t.o amend the bill by adding after the 

word " provisions" in line 4 of section 2 the words " respecting other 

Territories," and by inserting in the same line after the word "one" 

the words " and also in sections 1907, 1909, 1910, 1912, 1923, and 1935 ;" so as to read : 

That the said Territ{)ry of Pembina, and the several officen thereof, shall be in· 

vested with all the rights, powers, and .privileges, and shall be subject to all the 

regulations, restrictions, and provisions respecting other Territories, contain~ in 

chapter 1, and also in sections 1907, 1909, 1910, 1912, 1923, and 1935, of title 23, of 

the Revised Statutes of the United States, except as is herein otherwise provided. 

This amendment is proposed simply for the purpose of making the 

reference iu the statute to the existing provisions of law more clear 

ru1d distinct as applicable to this Territory. I have Qonferred with 

the chairman of the committee and he is himself satisfied that without such an amendment the provisions which are named in those 

sections will not apply to the Terdtory of Pembina. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I have examined the matter to which the 

Senator from Maine alludes, and I believe that the amendment is 

necessary and proper, and I hope it will be adopted. 'The amendment was agreed to. 
308 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE. DEOEMBER 20, 

l\ir. HAMLIN. I now offer another amendment as an additional 

section to the bill. Let it be read and I think it will speak pretty 

clearly jnst what it means . . The PRESIDENT p1·o tempon~. The amendment will be reported. 

The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to add as section 7 to the bill 

the following: · 

That all laws ('nacted by the legislative authority of the Territory of Dakota in 

force in that part of said Territory which by the provisions of this act is contained 

in tho Territory of Pembina shall continue in full force therein, so far as applica· 

blo thereto and consistent with the laws of the United State&, subject to be 

amended and repealed by the legislative authority of said Territory of Pembina; 

and, tmtil otherwise provided by such legislative authority, all persons holding office or places of trust under said law shall continue w hold and exercise the same dnring the terms for which they may respectively haYe been elected or appointed; and all actions returnable to or pending in district courts of the Territory of Dakota held in counties contained by the provisions of this act in the Territory of 

Pembina may be entered, heard, and determined in the district courts of the Territory of Pemhina to be held at the same times and places now fixed by law for the 

holdin'g of district courts therein until such times and places shall be changed by 

the ~overnor or legislative authority of said Territory. The district courts of said 

Terr1tory of Pembina may issue exec.utions on unpaid judgments heretofore re- covered in counties contained in said Territory, and may do and perform therein 

all acts which the diatrict courts of the Territory of .Dakota conld do or perform 

if said Territory of Pembina had not been established; and the necessary records 

for the perlorniance of such acts, or copies of such records, shall be transferred to or deposited with said courts of the Territory of Pembina. • 

Mr. HAMLIN. !think the amendment will suggest itself as proper 

to every Senator who has listened t.oit. It is, first, to prevent an interregnum between the time when this Territory shall becomesucl!and 

when its governmental machinery shall be at work, and it provides 

that the officers there by virtue of the law of Dakota now shall re- main until that takes place, and it is designed to preserve also the 

rights of all existing suits. I think that is about all there is in it; 

and it is eminently proper, I think, that the amendment should be 

made. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. BOGY. Mr. President, I desire to change the name of this proposed new Territory from Pembina to some Indian name. I would 

prefer myself the name of Algonquin, because it is the name of a nu- merous tribe of Indians that may be called a. nation of Indians, be- cause from that large nationality, to~sethatword, have sprung many 

tribes. But the name is objected to bymanypersons because it does 

not sound very well and is rather long, and my friends around me here suggest the name of Huron as being a very proper name. As it 

is a. short name, sounds well, and is sonorous and beautiful I suggest 

that the name be changed to Huron. I am rather anxious to retain some of these Indian names as a part of the history of our country. I 

think it is well oo retain these little links of history and also to retain names that are handsome. Now, Pembinaisnotahandsomename; it 

is not a historic name; it is not an Indian name. Mr. SHERMAN. I will ask my friend, if he wants to take one of 

the names of the old tribes, why not take that surviving longest, the name of Wyandotte t It is one of the old Indian tribes that has sur- . vived longest. · :Mr. BOGY. I have no objection. I have no choice. I prefer the name of Algonquin myself because it is a generic name. The Wyandottes were AJgonquins; the Hurons were A.lgonquins. The Algonquin tribe was the most numerous tribe on the shores of the Atlantic, 

and extended from the bay of Chesapeake away up into the State of 

M.aine, and occupied all this vast country. Pocahontas w-as an AJgonquin; and the Hurons, the Wyandottes, the Delawares, the Senecas, and many other tribes of Indians were Algonquins. I have no particular choice. My object is only to retain an appropriate name and a historic name, peculiar to our country, and at the same time one that will sound well. - As I was saying a while ago, the name of Pembina is not an Indian 

name; it is a corrnption of two French words. Pem is a corruption 

of the French word that means "bread" and bi.na is a corruption of 

the old Mni, "holy," or holy bread; that is the origin of the term. I am familiar with it, and have traced it up. It is even pronounced 

very awkwardly. It is called Pernbinato, when, in point of fact, it is 

Pembi'na. · 

Mr. MORTON. What is there out there that it is called from t 

Mr. BOGY. That region of country is called the Pembina region. 

There is a large river flowing from the boundary line of the United 

States, I think., into Hudson's Bay, called Pembina ; but these are all new names of modern growth. 'l'he name of Pewbina waa given to a plant that was found th_ere, an acid plant. I suggest a. change of 

name; whether it be called Huron or Wyandotte I have no particular 

choice. I will, however, suggest the name of Huron; but, if any gentleman prefers another Indian name, I have no objection. 

Mr. SPENCER. Mr. President, if I am correctly informed, that sec- tion of country is occupiecl by the Sioux tribe of Indians. There are four powerful nations among the Sioux-the Yank tons, the Brftles, the 

SLsetons, and the O~a.Ualeas. I should think the name of Ogallalea 

would be a very gooa name. Mr. BOGY. The Ogallaleas are not in that locality. 

Mr. SPENCER. I think they are. Mr. BOGY. No; they are not within the Territory. 

Mr. SPENCER. I thought they. were. Mr. BOGY. The Yanktons are not in that region of country. They are away west. They are Sioux Indians_, but they are not in that 

portion of the country. The Sissetons are there, but not the Yanktons or the Ogallaleas. 

Mr. IDTCHCOCK. Mr. President, I do not know that it is a matter of very great importance what name shall be given to this Territory. 

I am opposed, however, and I know the people now there are opposed 

to the name of Algonquin which has been formerly suggested by the 

Senator from Missouri. The Senator claims that A.lgouquin is a proper name because it is the generic name of the Indian tribes which formerly inhabited the country from the Potomac to Maine. It might, 

therefore, be applied to a 'l'erritory within that geographical limit; 

but I do not see the hlstoric application of that name to a Territory 

thousands of miles away from that locality. . So far as the name Huron is concerned, which the Senator now suggests, and as I understand proposes as an amendm~nt in lieu of the name which is now given to the Territory by the bill, I do not know 

that there is any particular and specifie objection among the inhabitants there t.o that particular name. I have none; but I do not see that it is particularly either a. more musical or a prettier name tbau 

Pembina. I have a letter here from the Delegate w bo now represents 

the Territory, which is very short, and with the permission of the 

Senate I will read it. This letter is addressed to me and is dated 

December 8, 1876. It is as follows : 

Knowing that. a. motion is pending in the Senate to change the name of tbe hill 

to organize the Territory of Pembina to Algonquin, I desire to state to you that during the last two months I have tra>ele<l over a large portion of the Territory that is now contemplated to be or{!:anized, and have made inquiry of many of the residents 

therein of various nationalities, and I failed to find one person who desired to have 

the name changed, but all with whom I conversed on the subject are suited and 

prefer the name of Pembin.a to any other name. Very respectfully, J. P. KIDDER. 

That is all I care to say on the amendment of the Senator from Missouri. 

. The PRESIDENT to tempore. Does the Senator from Missouri move an amendment 

Mr. BOGY. ·I move an amendment that the name be changed from 

"Pembina" to "Huron." 

:Mr. HAMLIN. I think the Senator had better include in his mo- tion to strike out also wherever the word" Pembina." occurs in the 

bill and insert "Huron." 

Mr. BOGY. Certainly, to make the correction in the whole bill, 

wherever the name occurs. The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The ame1;1dment will be understood as covering tqe name wherever it occurs in the bill. The question is on the amendment. 

'l'he amendmer;tt was agreed to. ~lr. SHERMAN. I think we have not selectP.d the best name. There are several names that might be taken, and I think we should 

take one of the names of the old tribes formerly in New York. I 

think we bad better take the name of Wyandotte or Seneca, or some of the names from the old New York Indians. "Huron" I do not 

think is an Indian name, though I am not prepared to go exactly into 

the derivation of it; it is certainly not so harmonious to my ear as some other names. The names of the New York Indians are very 

beautiful, Wyandotte, Seneca, Miami; and besides, the Wyandotte are altogether the most powerful of all these Indian tribes, now merged 

and all of them citizens of the United States. They became very 

wealthy while occupying for a long time a reservation in Ohio, and 

gradually moved to Kansas and there became Christianized a.ncl civilized and have been ingrafted on our population. 'l'he Hurons I think 

disappeared long ago as a tribe and never were anything like ns important as either of the other tribes named. They were also in Ohio. 

At the same time in choosing a name wa ought to take a euphonious 

name, and if we take an Indian name we ought to take one representing a powerful and strong Indian tribe. If it is in order, therefore, 

I will move to insert Wyandotte. 

Mr. BOGY. The Hnrons are one of tbe remnants of the Six Nations~ 

1\lr. SHERMAN. I kn~:>w that~ but they disappeared long ago. 

Mr: HITCHCOCK and others. Let it go. 

:Mr. SHERMAN. I do' not care much about it. I will not press my 

amendment. · The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reacling; and was read the third time, and passed. The title was amended by striking 

out "Pembina" ~nd inserting "Huron." 

SAMUEL T. ANDERSON. 

Mr. WHYTE. I move to take up the bill (S. No. 986) for the relief 

of the administrator of Samuel 'f . .Anderson. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. The bill will be read for information. 

The Secretary read the bill, which refers the claim of Daniel G. 

Wright, as administrator of the estate of Samuel T. Anderson, late 

na,valstorekeeper United States Navy, for compensation on account 

of extra services rendered by Anderson as actin~ purser :md t!Uperintendent of transportation dming the war of 1812, to the CoUI·t of 

Claims, with authority to adjust the same on principles of equity and 

justice. 

Mr. INGALLS. Is there a report in the case f 

'fhe PRESIDENT pr~ tempm·e. Thero is. 

Mr. INGALLS. I should like to hear it read. 
1876. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. 309 

The Secretacy read the following report submitted by Mr. WIIYTE, claim is to be sent to the Court of Claims it should be sent there to 

from the Committee on Naval Affairs, on the 13th of July,. 1876: be adjudicated npon by the law as it was when this service was perThe Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the petition of Daniel formed. On "principles of justice and equity" very likely the claimGirard Wright., administrator of the estate of Samuel T. Anderson, have had the ant will get a commission for whatever money may have passed same under consideration, and submip the following report: through his hands, wbich, instead of being .a thousaml dollars, may When the war of 1812 broke out, Samuel T • .Anderson was naval t~torekooper at be ten or twenty thousand dollars with the accumulation of interest. 

theNewYorknavy-yard,andwastakenbyCommodoreChaunceytothelakesas B t h th th 1" h u1.:a b t 11 •t• 1" h" 1. his con1i£1ential clerk, with the rank of chaplain. Hi~ duty, as assigned him, was u w e · er e c alm s o u e grea or sma ' l LS a c arm w ICu 

to 13uperintend the transportation of ordnance, provisioM, &.c., from Baltimore, the Government ought not to entertain for a moment unless they inPhiladelphia, New York, and elsewhere, to the lakes. He was also charged with tend to open the door to thousands of othe1'8 equally good with this. 

the duties of acting purser, all of which he faithfully performed. Within my own experience a.s the head of a Department, I should say . He remained in the service until Auj:tllst, 1813, and while on duty contracted a th t 1 h d h h 1 · f thi t disease, resultin~in totaldeafness, therebyrenderingitimpossiblefor him(byrea- ere were a east at onsan persons w o avec atms o s sor son of said diaaoility) to do any bMiness, and this appears to be very clear from upon whom, while serving the Government, duties not required by · the papers before us. the law were imposed which they performed. It also appears that during his service he was a moat valuable public servant, Mr. WHYTE. Mr. Pr~sident, the report shows that this gentleman 

and his efforts in behalf of the Government have been hi~rhly commended by all the waa merely a confidential clerk of Commodore Chauncey, and had the officers connected with him in the discharge of his official dnties. 

After many years of struggle against continued misfortunes and privations, the rank of chaplain. I presume the Senator from Massachusetts knows 

sequence of his disability, he applied for a pension, and the Secretary of the Navy, that at that time a chaplain received no pay from the Government of on the lOth of March, 1846, ordered his name to be plooed upon the pension-roll at the United States. Consequently according to the papers he waa not 

the mte of 120 per month, to datefromJuly, 1844· He claimed dnringhislife-time in the actual service of the United States, was a me .. e secretary to that the Government should pay him for the extra services performed as acting .., purser and superintendent of transportation, and his administrat.or now asks that Commodore Chauncey, and he rendered these valuable services, all of 

the Court of Claims Be empowered to adjust this whole matter on principles of which have boon certified to by the officers at that time. He was not 

eq~~ a!~~~c:~ndered were highly meritorious, and the committee are of the paid for them; bqt thirty years after the service was rendered he 

opinion that his legal representative should receive additional compensation for was placed upon the pension-roll and for a few years he drew a small 

them, the amount to be left to the sound discretion of the court, when the foots sus- pension. It is a case which has been before Congress for years and 

ceptible of proof shall have been placed before them. They report the accompany- years and it is quite hard that now its ~ntiqnity should be set up as ing bill and recommend its paSBage. an objection to it. Although he has been at the doors of Congress 

Mr. INGALLS. Mr. PresicJent, I dislike to object to the considera.- asking according to the papers for more than thirty years that his 

tion of a claim so venerable as that. Its age certainly ought to en- claim may be disposed of in some way, I hardly think its age under 

title it to respect. It might be said to be one of that elMS of claims such circumstances ought to operate against its justice. 

whose hoary top is bald with dry antiquity. Something over sixty I have no objection, if there is any danger of the case being swelled 

years have elapsed, according to the report, since these services were by enormous charges of interest, to the insertion of the words "withrendered, and unless there is some stronger reason than appears in out mterest," so that his heirs will get only pay for services actually 

the report for a re-opening of the case and re-inv.estigating it, it ap- rendered, although it comee at this late day. 

pears to me the bill ought not to pass. . _ The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion to 

Mr. WHYTE. Mr. President, the cause of the case l!eing one of long take up the bill for present consideration. 

antiquity has been owing to the fact that the bill has passed one or The question being pot, there were on a division-ayesl7, noes 11; 

other of the Houses of Congress constantly; but, by reason of neglect ' no quorum voting. on the part of some person who had the bill in charge, it has failed in The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator insist on the roo- obtaining the sanction of the other Honse at the same Congress. It tion T 

has been passing backward and forward, allowance having been made Mr. WHYTE. No, sir. 

in some of the bills for thirtv vears. · The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator does not insist on his 

.Mr. INGALLS. What is the amount involved f · motion, and the bill is not taken up. 

Mr. WHYTE. But a very few hundred dollars, probably not over a thoDBand dollars, or two thoOBand dollars at the outside. The family are in very indigent circumstances, and the case has been passed upon, as I say, by the Committee on Naval Affairs over and over again favorably. This is merely to submit the question to the Court of Claims, 

and, if the proof iR snfficient to jDBtify an allowance, that the administrator of the deceased may have an opportunity of collecting the 

small amount that may be found doe. 

1\!r. WRIGHT. I wish to say just one word in reference to this 

matter. As I understand from· the .report, these services were ren- dered some sixty-odd years ago. The Senator from Maryland makes 

explanation for the delay in the fact that the claim has been passing 

between the two Houses and there has never boon concurrence. I 

think, in the first place, the very antiquity of this claim should be an all-sufficient reason why there should be no allowance. I think, in 

the next place, the provision here that the court make such allowance as equity and justice may admit, opens the door to this : that the 

Court of Claims may feel compelled not only to allow this claim bot 

interest for the entire time, following the decision that they have 

made in a very similar case. I think t.his bill on~ht at least to be so framed as that there should be no allowance of mterest back of the 

time that the demand was made. As it is now, should the claim be, 

say, $400 or 500, it will be seen at once that the amount of interest 

would so accumulate that it would be a very large claim against the 

Government. I shall vote against the claim upon the ground that I see no reason why it should not have been prosecuted long since, anrl 

why Congress should not have acted upon it. Not only so, bot if the 

party had a claim he could have gone to the Court of Claims long ago. 

He has not gone there and now he asks Congress to allow him to go there and have such ahowance as justice and equity may admit. Under that rule, the Government will be compQlled to pay upon this old, 

stale cla\pl five or ten times what they were originally liable for, if 

there ever was any liability in the case. Mr. BOUTWELL. I ask for the reading of the first part of the 

report. If I understood the report correctly, it stat68 that thisl\Ir. 

Anderson wa-s holding an office in the service of the Government, for 

which I suppose he was paid, and this claim is for compensation for 

performing services not required by: the office which he held; but it 

still remains true that he was receiving pay from the Government 

during this period of time. 

1\Ir. WRIGHT. And he received a pension also. 

Mr. BOUTWELL. It would be safe to assert that there are thousands of persons living now who have, while holding office for which 

they were receiving compensation, performed other and different duties for which they have received no special recompense from the 

Government, and this case does not differ from hundreds of ca-ses that 

arise every year in every Department of the Government. 

In the next place, I agree with the Senator from Iowa. that if this 

THOMAS VAN DUZEN. 

Mr. BOGY. I move to take up Honse bill No. 1026. 

The motion was agreed to; and the bill (H. R. No. 1026) for therelief of Thomas Van Dozen and his assigns for lands waa considered as in Committee of the Whole. 

The preamble recites that by thp organic act of Washington Territory, approved March 2, 1853, sectwns16 and 36 of the public lands 

in each township were reserved for school purposes; that the Legisla.-

tnre of Wa-shington Territory, by an act passed Jan nary 23, 1863, did 

authorize the board of county commissioners of any county to sell:J,t 

private sale such portions of the sixteenth and ihirty-sixth sections as were by prior settlement in the bona fide possession of any person ~t the 

time of the approval of the org-anic act; that the county commissioners 

of Jefferson County, in that Territory, did; at a regular term thereof, 

held at the county seat on th~3d of February, 1864, under and by virtue 

of the power given in the act of January 23, 1863, sell and convey to 

Thomas Van'. Duzen, for $1.50, gold coin, per acre, the northeast' quarter of section 36, township 29, range 1 )Vest, he being a bona fid~ settler on that land prior to the pa.ssage of the organic act ;_and that the 

sa.le and conveyance were made in good faith, and with the belief that 

the county commissioners had power to make it, and the money has 

gone into the common-school fund of the Territory, and that Thomas 

Van Duzen and his assigns have made valuable improvements on the 

land, and are without remedy. Therefore the bill confirms the title 

to the tract named onto Thomas Van Dozen, his heirs and assigns, in 

fee-simple. 

Mr. BOGY. This is a bill reported from the Committee on Private 

Land Claims. If it is desired by the Senate; I can explain it. It is 

altogether very proper. If there is any objection; I will explain the 

bill, although it is so worded that it explains itself. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I hope the bill will pass. I think it is very meritorious. 

Mr. INGALLS. What is the reason that the title was not confirmed 

to :Mr. Van Dozen f 

1\Ir. :J30GY. I will state. Under the· organic law organizing the 

Territory of W Mhington it was provided that the sixteenth and thirtysixth sections should be set apart for school purposes, providing at 

the same time that if any portion of those sect.ions were occupied by 

pre-emptors tbe pre-emptors' rights should be respected, and that the 

Territory should have the right to locate elsewhere the same quantity 

of land. This man was a pre-emptor, and the Territory of W a.shiugton sold the land, believing they had the ri·ght to sell it. And the 

money has been appropriated to school purposes. By the ruling of 

the Land Commissioner it is now decided that that land was occupied 

at the time of the pa.ssage of the act, and it was not optional with the 

Territory of Washington to take that land, but it was compelled to 

locate elsewhere the same quantity of land. The courts of Washing-
310 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. DECEMBER 20, 

ton Territory had decided differently. Nevertheless, there is a shadow sion appropriation bill. If it is adopted it requires the House to act 

of title in the United States. By the passage of this bill the Govern- upon it and still further delays the passage of the bill. · The informament does not lose one acre of land; it only makes this man's title tion that the Senator desires to obtain can be very readily secured by 

good. It is recommended by our COJ?mittee and by. th? Land Depart- addressing a resolution, which the Senate will pass undoubtedly, to 

ment; it has passed the Honse, and It only makes his title good to the the Commissioner of Pensions to provide for the incorporation of that one hundred and sixty acres of land within the thirty-sixth section. information in his report next year. I should think it ought not to 

Mr. INGALLS. Was Mr. Van Duzen the pre-emptor of the land to go on the bill. 

whom it was 'SOld by the local authorities f Mr. WINDOM. Before the Senator from West Virginia proceeds, 

Mr. BOGY. He was the pre-emptor of the land, and as a pre-emptor I was going to sug~est that the only objection I see to his amendment 

the property was sold to him and he paid $1.50 an acre, which was is that it is legislation on an appropriation bill, and might as well be 

the minimum price, and the money has ~one into the school fund. provided for elsewhere. I see no objection to it in itself; but perNow, under the ~g of the Land. CommiSsioner it is made the. duty haps we had better ~ot encDJ?ber an li:P~ropriati~n hip. with it. . of the Territory m a case of that kmd to take land elsewhere and to Mr. DAVIS. It Will be notiCed that It IS not legislat10n, but askmg 

respect this pre-emptor's right. Now he hiD18eli comes here to us to ·in the next annual report of the Commissioner of Pensions additional 

make his title good, he havin~ made valuable improvements, and he information. The Pension Bureau now gives the total reduction made 

wants the Government to relinquish what title there may be in the yearly as well as the addition to the number of pensioners, but fails to '"" 

United States to him. state the amount which the reductions make or the additions make in 

Mr. INGALLS. Is there an adverse claim f the sum paid. The Commissioneris required now to give an account 

Mr. BOGY. There is no adverse claim. The bill went to the Com- of the incidental expenses of the office, which, by the approval of the 

mittee on Private Land Claims and met the approbation of my friend Secretary, are provided for by him. My amendment adds but one from Vermont, [Mr. EDMUNDS,] and I think that is pretty good evi- thin~; and that is, that in his next annualreportwherehestates the 

dence that it is ri<Tht. numner of pensioners and the number of the reductions on the penMr. MITCHELL. If he had not acted on the faith of the Territory sion-roll and the additions to it, he shall also state the amounts that 

of Washington, he woul~ have been entitled to his land e~ewhere, th~ roll is ~ffected ~h~reby. S~ch a proyision I do not think is legisbut he did act in good fa1th on the course taken by the Territory. lation. It 1s true 1t IS amending the bill; but there can be no obMr. BOGY. The Government is not affected to the extent of an jection to it; it goes with the bill. The object is certainly desirable. acre of land. It only makes this man's location good in that place. Take the Pension Commissioners report and you will find that he 

That is all. tells you on page 7 that the whole number of pensioners on the roll re- The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered quired the payment of $25,526,324.69. On the same page you will 

to a third readina. read the third time, and passed. find that he says there was paid on account of pensions last year o . MESSAGE FROl\1 THE HOUSE. $28,354,569.69; which is a difference of between $2,000,000 and $3,-

A message from the Honse of Representatives, by Mr. GEORGE M. 00~t~ill be recollected that last year when this same bill was before 

ADAMS, its Clerk, announced that the House had concurred in the reso- us there waa a question as to the amount necess¥Y to be approlotion of the Senate accepting the statues of John Winthrop and priated. An amendment was offered then calling for an explanation 

Samuel Adams in the name of the United States, and extending the in the next annual report of the difference between what the roll 

thanks of Congress to the State of Massachusetts for these memorials amounts to and what is said to be actually paid. It will of course be 

of two of her eminent citizens. kept in mind by all Senators that in the legislative appropriation bill 

BILL RECOMMITTED. provision is made for the expenses for clerk hire, officers, &c., and 

Mr. MORTON. The bill (H. R. No. 256) for the relief of Herman there is a special provision in the present bill, as there has been in 

Bulman, of Terre Haute, Indiana, was reported back adversely in other bills, for all other incidental expenses of the Pension Bureau. 

July last and indefinitely postponed. I think there was a misunder- Hence it is a mystery to me, and to others who have examined this 

standing about it, and I desire to have the bill recommitted. I make subject, what becomes of the difference between the amount of the 

that motion. annual roll and the amount said to have been paid. The difference, 

The motion was agreed to. as I have stated, is between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000. There ought 

to be some explanation. Th~ Committee on Appropriations called 

PENSION APPROPRIATION BILL. for an explanation and one was given. I looked at it as carefully as Mr. WINDOM. I move that the Senate proceed to the considera- I knew how and, while it gives some reasons and explains some por~ 

tion of House bill No. 4120, known as the pension appropriation bill. tion of this $2,000,000 or $3,000,000, yet it just says in wholesale that 

It will occupy only five or ten minutes. a large proportion of it comes from the additions to the roll. We 

The motion was agreed to; and the bill (H. R. No. 4120) making ap- know that the roll is decreasing. Last year, according to the Commispropriations for the payment of invalid and other pensions of the sioner's report, the roll decreased twenty-six hundred and eightyUnited States for the year ending June 30, 18i8, was considered as in four names. That was the total reduction afterhavinggiventheadCommittee of the Whole. · ditions made during the year. Now, instead of the amount paid being 1\Ir. WINDOM. The Committee on Appropriations recommend the more than the roll called for, it occurs to me it ought to have been 

passage of this bill as it came from the House. The House bill con- less. Whyt Because the number of pensioners is decreasing. The 

forms exactly to the estimates of the Department. The bill is $1,000,500 year commenc~s with July, for instance. · On the next day, probably, 

less than last year's appropriation bill for the same purpose. Unless some one dies or some child becomes of age, some widow remarries, some gentleman desires some further statement about it I shall not thus reduoing the roll. It is t.rne there are new cases added by legsay anything further. The decrease is due to the falling off in the islation of Congress and some by examination at the Pension Office, 

number of pensioners. but that number is much less than the decrease; so that the two or Mr. DAVIS. The bill was discussed at considerable length in the three million I spoke of is unaccounted for in the report of the PenCommittee on Appropriations and information asked of the Commis- sion Bureau. 

siooerof Pensions. The information given on certain questions was Mr. President, it will be remembered that when this bill wasunder 

not satisfactory to myself and I have endeavored in a personal inter- discussion at the last session the chairman of the Committee on Penview at the Pension Office to get an explanation of the large amount sions--

that is reported to have been paid over the amount needed to pay the Mr. MITCHELL. Will the Senator yield to me f I do not wish 

pension-roll, which is between 2,000,000 and $3,000,000; I will give this bill to displace the regular order, but I do not object to Hs going 

the exact figures hereafter. So aa to get the information for another on for a few minutes. If there is going to be a long discll88ion over year as to what that two or three millions is for, I offer an amend- this bill, I shall call for the regular order, because I am anxious to 

ment which I hopo will be acceptable to the chairman. It does not have it .disposed of to-day. 

limit the amount at all, but will cause additional information in the Mr. DAVIS. So far as I am concerned, unless there is some addinext annual report. The wording of the amendment I am not partie- tional cause to what I now know, there will not be a long discussion. 

ular about, so that the substance is secured. I ask the chairman to Perhaps ten minutes will suffice for me to say all that I desife to say. 

listen to the amendment, and if he approves it to agree to it, or if he Calling for the regular order is a matter with the Senator himself. 

suggests any change to carry out the object I shall make no objection. This is au appropriation bill, which is generally given precedence. 

In line 13, after the word "interior," I move to insert: :Mr. WINDOM. I appeal to the Senator from Ore~on to pass by 

Which shall be stated in the annual report of theCommi.ssionerof Pensions; and informally the regular order for a few moments. I think we can con- hereafter he shall report the total annual amounts paid on additions, also reductions elude this bill very soon. 

in the pension-roll. Mr. MITCHELL. I have no objection to that. 

Mr. WINDOM. The Senator from West Virginia was kind enough The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. ANTHoNY in the chair.) The 

to submit that proposition to me a few moments since. I am not regular order will be laid aside informally, subject to be called up by authorized by the committee to accept it, but I see no objection to it. any Senator. 

It will give a little additional information in the next report. Mr. DAVIS. I was about saying that the able and accurate chairMr. I> AWES. Is not the information already given f man of the Committee on Pensions, [Mr. INGALLS,] in discDMing this 

Mr. WINDOM. He states the number of pensioners and the amount billlaat year, stated in substance that in his opinion one-sixth of the 

paid them; but he does not give the amount as it is affected by the amount appropriated was improperly applied. Agaili, in the same reductions and the additions to the roll. statement, if I recollect aright thM Senator's remark, he said that he 

Mr. INGALLS. It appears to me that that provision, while it is believed that $5,000,000 per annum was in some way improperly paid 

just and meritorious, ought not to be placed as a burden on the pen- out upon pensions; of course intimating that it was done fraudulently 
1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 311 

by fraudulent claims and by persons continuing on the roll when their 

pensions ought to have ceased. But there is, in my judgment, a large 

amount on the pension-roll that ought to be carefully looked into, and 

I harclly think we can have too much information. It will need very 

little work to furnish what I desire, and: I hope the chairman of the 

Committee on Appropriations will not object to what belongs to the 

bill going upon it. The amendment asks additional information only as to the number of pensioners. The increases and decreases are given 

already, and now we ask the amount that is thereby added to or taken 

from the roll per annum. I hope the chairman will accept the amendment. If it is not in proper shape, I am perfectly willing that it should 

be put in any shape that the chairman or any other member may desire, so that it brings the information. 

I have stated as plainly as I could that the roll, as given by the Commissioner of Pensions, amounts to twenty-five and a half million dollars, while there is said to have been paicl out $28,354,000. There is cer- tainly room for inquiry between these two amounts. Taking into 

consideration the fact that the expenses of the office in this city are put upon the legislative bill, and when you consider the further fact 

that the bill now before us appropriates specific sums for the different objects, such as pension agents, examining surgeons, and all other 

expenses belonging to the Department, and makes a separate appropriation for Navy and other pensions, and whan you also remember 

that the amount paid for ptmsions is growing less each year, (which 

is very gratifying to the country, and so far as that is concerned it is 

gratifying not only to the country but to myself and to others who 

lookjnto this matter,) the propriety of the amendment is apparent. 

There should also be borne in mind the statement of the chairman of 

the Committee on Pensions, that he believed there were 5,000,000 

per annum improperly paid out; and certainly in view of all these 

facts an amendment ought not to be objected to which will secure some explanation of the difference between the amount on the roll 

and the amount actually paid. 

Mr. WINDOM.. I can more briefly answer the honorable Senator 

from West Virginia by asking the Secretary to read a letter from the Co~missioner of Pensions. Before doing so, however, I wish to refer 

to hts matter of congratulation to the country that the pension list is 

decreaainO', I doubt whether it is a matter entirely gratifying in all 

respects that the old pensioners are dying off so rapidly. But there is 

another reason why the pension list is decreasing. We refused last ses- sion to appropriate money enou~h to the Surgeon-General's and to the Adj.utant-Gener~l's Offices t? brmg up the arrears of pensions, and in 

therr reports this year they mform us that they are two years behind 

and that it would require.tifty additional clerks to bring up the pension applications to-day. So that there are two rea-sons why the pension-list is rapidly decreasing; one is that the old pensioners are dying off and the other is that we refused to appropriate money enough 

at the last session of Congress to bring up the present applications, 

and they are lying back two years behind. I ask the Secretary to reacl 

the letter of the Commissioner of Pensions in explanation of this discrepancy to which the Senator has referred. 

Mr. DAVIS. One word before that is read. The cha.irma.n of the 

Committee on Appropriations is undoubtedly right as to the appropriation for limbs, &c.; but he will bear in mind that this bill does not, nor clid the billlaBt year, cover that item. It is another and entirely 

different appropriation. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The letter will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

DEPARTMENT OF THE L"iTERIOR, P~SION OFFI<m, 

Washington, D. 0., Duember 18, Hl76. 

Sm: In response to inquiries made in behalf of the Committee on Appropriations by Mr. Cleaves, its clerk, on tho 14th instant, to witFirst. Explanation of the difference in the amounts under the following headings 

of :rablo II o~ my ann!lal report fo~ the year ending Juno 30, 1876: "Total amount paid for pen mons durmg tho year,' $28,351,599.69, and "whole number of pension- ers and the yearly value of their pensions," ,25,596,324.69-

I haye the honor to inform you that the last-named sum represents one year's pension only to each of tho 232,137 pensioners whose names were on the rolls on the 

30th day of June last, while the first. named snm represents the amount of money 

paid out to pensioners, and includes about $2,500,000 allowed as arrears upon newl:v 

adjudicated cases, besides a considerable sum which accrued in cases adjudicate<l 

in former years, and ~ot previously paid, because of its beino- unclaimed, or because 

payments of the pens1ons was suspended for some cause. (~ailure to demand pay- m~nt and suspension~ happen in many cases each yea;r.) It also includes _the sal- artes and fees of penston agents, as well as the fees pru.d for medical examinations. 

Second . .Also an explanation of the apparent discrepancy between the amount stated by the Secretru-y of the Treasury as paid on account of penswns for the fiscal 

year 1875, $1!9 ,456,216.2-2, and the amount stated by the Commissioner of Pensions as paid during the same fiscal year, 29,683,116.63. 

!tis to be re_memberell that tho Commis~ionerof Pensions is not an auditing 

officer of pension !1-ccounts, ~ut made np t~s statement as approximately correct, 

from the data furnl8hed to h1m by the pensiOn aents. I am not informed how the ~em-etary of th~ Treasury ~e np his figures, and cannot, therefore, make any re- liable t>.xplanation of the difference, but beg to call your attention to a table in the 

Third Auditor's report for the same year, accompanying that of the Secretary of the 

Treasury, found on pages 376 and 377. This shows the payments to the Army pensioners to have been $0..9,171, 179.55, and a table in the Fourth Auditor's report, also ac- companyin~ ~he report of the Secretary of t~e Treasury, founll on page 386, shows 

that an additional sum of $521,829.60 was paid for Navy pensions, which too-ether 

with the Third Auditor's figures for payments on account of Armv pensio'ns ~akes a round sum paid for pensions in 1875 of 29,693,009.15, being $9,89-2.52 in e~cess of 

the statement made by the Commis.sioner of Pensions. Without knowino- it to be 

the. fact, yeti pres.ume this ~erence upon examination will be found tl, consist 

mamly of changes m or corrections of the pension agents' &tatements made by this 

office after their receipt by it. 

3. The Pension Office re9nires no appropriation for artificial limbs, &c. Under a law passed at the last .sessiOn of Congress, the expenditure of moneys for that purpose was turned ~~r to the Surgeon:Geneml, and I presume he has an estimate for 

such an appropnatlon. 

In ~personal interview with Senator DAVIS, of the Committee on Appropriations on Fr1day last, he requested me to inform tho committee in this letter what annual 

compensation each J?Cnsion agent received, and in compliance therewith I annex hereto a sheet.ahowmg the salary and fees of each agent for the year ending June 

30, 1876. ~ections 4781 and 4782 of the Revised Statutes make provision for this 

compensatiOn. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

Hon. WILLIAM WINDOM, 

J. A. BENTLEY, 

Oomm-issicner. 

Ohairman Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate. 

Mr. J?A VIS. The~ sheet referred to there gives the amount of com- pensation of each one of the fifty-eight agencies in the Unit-ed States· 

and though the law, as I construe it, and as I believe the Commis~ sioner of Pensions construes it, says that no salary or compensation 

of the agents shall exceed $4,000 per annum, :yet we find from this 

statement that some of them get as high a-s $14,000, nearly $15,000 one of them, and several of them between 11,000 and ·14,000. The 

explanation of that, in p:nt, as I understand, is that there are expenses 

attending the office. But the expenses attending the office of many of 

these agents are, in my judgment, far in excess of what they ought to be. 

There ought to be some reduction in many of these oftices. At one agency, for instance, where a certain amount of money is distributed, 

the expenses of the office are a thousand or fifteen hundred dollars 

while the expenses of another agent, under the same circumstances' 

disbursing the same amount, are five or six thousand dollars. That i~ certainly a point that ought to be looked into and properly cared for. 

But that belongs to the Department, as I understand, and, I take, it it 

will be looked into. 

Mr. President, it will be noticed that the Commissioner does not 

explain the large difference between the pension-roll and the amount 

actually paid. The object of the amendment offered by myself is that 

in the next annual report there shall be some explanation. I presume 

there is an explanation, but I think the Senate ought to have it in 

the annual report. 

Another important point the Commissioner speaks of is that be can- not tell exactly why the differences in some cases are so very large 

between the amount reported paid by himself and that reported by 

the Secretary of the Treasury. If yon take the year 1865, for instance, 

you find that the Secretary of the Treasury says there were $16,347,-

621.34 paid for pensions, while the Commissioner of Pensions says 

there were $8,542,885.27 paid the sa.me year-a. difference of over seven million dollars. Take the next year, 1866, and the difference is ... 2,354,-

000. The year following, 1867, it is two million and a quarter. Certainly the accounts of the Commissioner of Pensions and those of the 

Treasury as to the amounts paid for a particular year ought to agree more closely, if not exactly, than $7,000,000 or $2,000,000, as the case may be. I have a list in my hand since 1860 of ea-ch year, and in no single year, I believe, do the amounts exactly agree between what is 

reported as having been paid by the Commissioner of Pensions and 

what the Secretary of the Treasury reports to Congress as having been 

paid. There is certainly something wrong bet~een these two offices 

in some form or other. Almost uniformly the amount is incren.sed at. 

the Treasury Department. For instance, take from 1860 to 18i0 inclusive, and the difference is over thirteen million dollars. The Commissioner reports that he paid for pensions $13,000,000, or over, less 

than appears in the reports of the Treasury Department. There ought 

to be au explanation of wl'iy this immense difference between these 

two Departments in keeping accounts occurs. . The amendment I have offered I think will in some degree be a step 

in the right direction. Of course it cannot cover all t)lat I think 

ought to be properly explained; but I hope, without going further 

into the discussion, that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations will admit in some language, in his own language if he does 

not like mine, some amendment on this bill so that in the next annual 

report of the Commissioner we shall get more definite information as to the large difference between the annual roll and the amount purporting to have been paid for pensions. 

Mr. WINDOM. I suggest to the Senator from West Virginia. that a resolution of inquiry extending back over the years he has named 

would give us full information on the subject. The letter which I 

caused to be read from the Commissioner of Pensions I think satisfactorily explains those differences during the last two years. The 

Senator refers to years prior to those, about which there is no explanation before us, and I have no doubt it would be as satisfa-ctory as any of those that we have already read. I would prefer a resolution 

asking for information ; but, if 'the Senator ·insists upon it and the 

Senate in its discretion thinks it best to insert this amendment, which 

is somewhat legislative in its character, I see no objection to it except 

that I see no great advantage that will be derived from it. A resolution of inquiry I think would be better. 

Mr. DAVIS. I was unfortunate enough not to make myself properly 

understood. My object waa not so much to go back (though I statelt 

what did occur in previous years) as to secure a remedy for the future. 

My object is in the next annual report of the Commissione1· to get some definite information. 

Nowt as to a resolution asking for information as to what has taken 

place, 1 think, with all respect to the chairman of the committee of 

which I am a member, we have that information here. It is con- tained in the reports of the two Department~, that of the Interior and 

., 
312 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. DECEMBER 20, 

that of the Trea-sury. As the chairman has no objection to the amendment, I hope no one else will object to it, and that it will be adopted. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question iB on the amendment 

proposed by the Senator from West Virginia. 

The amendment was. agreed to. 

The bill was repo~ed to the Senate as amended, a~ the amendment was concurred m. The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be 

read a third time. 

The bill was read the third time, and passed. 

ELECTORAL VOTE OF OREGON. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate resumes the consideration of the unfinished business, which is the resolution directing an inquiry-as to the eligibility of J. W. Watts as an elector for the State 

of Oregon and the circumstances attending the appointment of elect- ors in that State, on which the Senator from Missouri [Mr. BoGY] has 

the floor. 

Mr. BOUTWELL. Will the Senator from Missouri allow me a mo- ment to give a notice to the Senate! I desire to say to the Senate that 

after the disposition of the resolution now pending I shall ask the 

Senate to consider the House bill for perfecting the revision of the 

laws. It is an important meMnre, not likely to be an exciting subject 

of debate. · Mr. DAVIS. For fear that some Senator may have been absent 

when I gave notice that I should present resolutions relative to the 

eulogies of my late colleague, Mr. Caperton, I will repeat that the 

time fixed is soon after the morning hour to-morrow. 

Mr. BOUTWELL. By this notice I _did not intend to interfere with 

that. · Mr. DAVIS. I know that, but I thought 1t as well to notify the 

Senate of the fact again. 

Mr. BOGY. Mr. President, had I not peen arrested yesterday by a motion to adjourn, it was my i.Qtention to terminate my remarks 

very speedily. It is not my desire this morning to detain the Senate 

beyond a very few moments. 

The question before UB has assumed very great importance, and is 

presented, it seems to me, at an unfortunate time. Nevertheless it is 

before us and has been forced upon this body, and, of course, the question has to be met. I will briefly restate the argument which I intended to present yesterday. In obedience to the law providing for 

the election of electors of President and Vice-President on the same day throughout the United States, an election for these officers was held in the State of Oregon. That State is entitled under the law of 

apportionment to three electors. One of the candidates for elector was by the Constitution of the United States ineligible, because at 

the time that he was voted for he was holding an office of profit and 

trust under the Government of the United States. This gentleman, 

whose name is Watts, received, with his two colleagues on the republican ticket, an undoubted majority of the voters of Oregon. I believe the majority was 1,049 votes. The votes being retnmed to the 

office of the secretary of state and counted by that officer, the next 

step which has to be taken necessarily is a certificate of election to 

be given by the governor of the State. At this period of the proceedings a protest by the citizens of Oregon is filed and presented to the 

governor of that State, making known to him the fact that this Mr. 

Watts, who had received a majority of thevotesofthatState, was not 

eligible for the reason that he held at the. time an office of profit and 

trust under the Government of the United States. We are informed 

that t~e governor then took the snbj ect under consideration. We are furthermore informed that he considered the subject with great care and for a long time; that he called to his aid the best legal. advice of 

that State, and that he also sent at a distance, so as to avoid any 

local inftuence, to obtain the legal advice of a gentleman of great distinction residing in the city of Cincinnati. This legal advice was given to him bythis gentleman; and I repeat what I said yesterday, 

that this man, Judge Hoadly, is a" man of great legal ability, of high standing, and the peer of any man in the valley of the Mississippi. 

His opinion was read here; and although it was severely criticised by 

the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. MORTON,] nevertheless, I say I believe 

it is correct. I believe the law laid down by him is correct. I believe 

that the action of the governor of Oregon was a necessity. When the 

fact was made known to him that Mr. Watts held an office, it was not 

in his power, acting under the law of his State, the law of the United 

States, and the Constitution of the United States, to give him a cer- tificate of election; bec~usethe law provided that a man in that condition could not be elected. 

Then the next question which necessarily comes up is who is to be 

certified as elected, if anybody f He decided it to be his duty to give 

the certificate to the person receiving the next highest number of 

votes after Mr. Watts. I believe that decision to be correct. I believe it to be good law, sustained by the authorities. Gentlemen may 

quote authorities as much as they please; I believe that to be the 

correct conclusion, that the person receiving the next highest num- ber of votes under the condition ·of the case of Oregon should re- ceive the certificate of election. 

In addition to this, Governor Grover must have · elt it his duty a-s the chief magistrate of that State to see that it did not lose an electoral vote in the college of electors. But· the Senator from Oregon 

says that the I.a;w Of Oregon waa ample tO provid& a remedy ~ as to 

avoid tha.t contingency:· I sa.id yesterday and I repeat to-da.y that 

according to my construction of that law it does not provide for filling a vacancy of that kind; tha.t it only provides for filling a vacancy of an elector who being an elector, having been appointed an elector, 

is unable to attend the meeting of the electors when assembled as a college of electors, or unwillin~ or prevented by any cause, whether 

it be by death, by resignation, oy sickness, by high water, or by anything else that may possibly happen. If he is not present.at the 

rueetmg of the college of electors, in that case it becomes the duty of 

the electors who are there assembled to fill that vacancy. Governor 

Grover believed, as I believe, that under the law of Oregon this could 

not be done. I say again that a similar case arose in Vermont and 

there the Legislature war:u:,alled together to supply what was necessary 

to be done. A similar occurrence took place in the State of Rhode 

Island. There the subject was referred to the supreme court of the 

State, and I read yesterday an extract from the decision of that court. 

The Legislature was called to supply what bad to be dorie. - Mr. MITCHELL. Has the Senator from Missouri the law as amended 

by the Lemslature of the State of Vermont ! 

Mr. BOGY. I have not. I have been trying to get it and have not 

been able to obtain it. My impression is that the law of Vermont, the 

law of Rhode Island, the law of Oregon, the law of Missouri, and the 

law of every other State on that subject are very similar. I do not mean to say that in all the laws the same words are used, but substantially t.hey are alike. 

Hence, in conclusion of this branch of my argument, I cannot see how the governor of Oregon could have done anything else but what 

he did do. It was not in his power as an honest man and a fai hfnl 

public officer to have done anything else. He was bound to recognize the fact that one of the men voted for at the election was not 

eligible. 

Mr. President, I have been at a loss, and I am at a loss now1 to know 

how this question has been forced on this body for discussion at the 

present time. It is upon a resolution introduced by jibe Senator from 

Oregon [Mr. MITCHELL] to refer the subject for investigation to the 

Committee on Privileges and Elections; and before we get a report 

from that committee, before the subject has been investigated by 

that or any other committee, it is discussed and mtually and prematurely decided by the Senate. My understanding has always bee'b. 

that the duty of a committ.ee is very much like that of a court. A 

subject being referred to a committee is to be investigated, the facts are to be ascertained in the best way within the reach of the com- mittee, and the law to be applied to those facts, and whatever con~ 

elusion may be the result of a just application of the law to the facts 

must be the conclusion which the committee will arri,ve at, regardless of what that may be. But here we are discussing the subject 

in advance of its reference to the committee, and I may say that we know in adva.nce what will be the action of the chairman of that 

committee. A subject is to be referred to him and his collea~ues on that committee to be investigated by them that they may gtve the 

Senate the result of their calm, cool, impartial deliberation ; and yet 

before the subject reaches the committee we have the opinion of the 

chairman expressed, not once, but frequently and with great ability 

and great vim in the Senate here. What will be his action as a mem· ber of that committee f Sir, it presents a very singular condition of 

things; and it is a singular thing also to what great importance in 

modern times this Coinmittee on Privileges and Elections has got. 

It is the most important committee of the Senate to-day. No man elected by any of the States to a seat in the Senate can set his 

foot in this Chamber until he has passed through the ordeal of that 

committee, and many men thus elected have never successfully gone 

through it. They have failed there and have never reached this body 

though elected to it. Othars ha\e come here that some persons 

thought ought not to have been admitted; but they went through, 

fortunately for them. We have to-day a committee called the Com~ 

miteee on Privileges and Elections that assumes all power over the 

elections of all the States, a power which is enormous; and I will say 

more, that the power in the hand of the Senator from Indiana is really a great power, for he is himself a man of power; and being at the 

head of that committee he stands at the head of the Senate and con- trols it. No man can be a Senator, no matter whether he be elected 

by his Legislature by a unanimous voice or not, unless he is also 

elected by the Senator from Indiana; and some men who have been 

elected by Legislatures, by not receiving his vote, have never been able 

to set their feet in this Chamber. It reminds me of what we call in 

modern times a returning board. The Committee on Privileges and 

Elections has got to be the great returning board of the Senate, re- gardless of the election, unless the person elected also receives the 

approbation and the vote of that committee, like the persons voted 

for in some of the Southern States, who have to go through their re- turning boards or they do not appear to have been electe<l. 

We have made great improvements in modern times. This country has acquired a ,high position among the nations of the world as one of grea,t enlightenment, progress in the arts and the sciences, progress 

in religion, and particularly progress in politics. We had placed our- selves at the front rank of the civilized nations as the teachers of the new doctrine of advanced political civilization, and perhaps this new step of returning boards became a neceSsity. The nations of Europe are following us very closely. Liberty and free institutions are spreading over all Europe. In England we know the progress there; we 
1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 313 

know the struggles in Italy; we know the struggles in Spain; we wecliscusstheOregoncasehere. Wegobehindthereturns,weexamine 

know that France to-day has a republic. Aa they are coming up on everything, and we are to decide, as far as we are concerned, whether 

the same platform that we have been occupying for a hundred years, the vote of Oregon will be a good vote. We aretodecide, asfaras we as the leaders of the world in the great science of politics we had to are able, whether the action of the returning board in Louisiana iB 

take another step, and the invention of returning boa~ds iB the great- proper or not. We are also to 'decide for South Carolina; and also 

est step in the way of political improvement that has ever been made for Florida; and all this has been brought about, in the lan~nage of 

in the history of the human race! There is nothing like a returning my friend from Oregon, by the returnin~ board of Oregon that bas 

board. . changed the purpose of forty-five millions of people. It is a most ~t bas been stated very often that the majority of the popular vote fortunate thing, and we are to thank God for it, for it has prevented 

for Mr. Tilden in the United States was about three hundred thou- us from doing a thing that would have been a blot upon the histOry 

sand. While Mr. Tilden ha.s a majority of three hundred thousand, of this country forever. It has opened this question as it ought to 

Mr. Hayes has three returningboards~and the three returning boards have opened it, and instead of aJwimafacie case being conclusive, no are a.s powerful if not more powerful than the three hundred thousand matter bow obtained, through fraud and intimidation and the use of the 

voters, so that, ciphering the thing down, a returning board is just .Army and executive power and the perversion of judicial authority, the 

about equal to a majority of a hundred thousand voters in the United questjouis now open forinvestigation by the Congress of the United 

States; and with the growth of the returning board it promises in States, an.d undertheeyeof the nation. That has been the result of this 

time, when it becomes a national institution, and w~ shall have a thing in Oregon, and if that vote bad not been returned my friend 

great national returning board, ahead of the Committee ou Privileges from Oregon and my friend from Indiana would yet bo talking about 

and Elections, in the hands of able men it will be equal to all the a prima facie case, and the power would be, as far as they could make 

voters of the United States. it, in the hands of the President of the Senate to count the vote. It 

.Mr. MITCHELL. Will the Senator allow me to make a suggestion T was supposed at one time that the now President of the Senat.e perMr. BOGY. 'Vith a great deal of pleasure. . · haps might have some delicacy as to counting those votes. So the 

:Mr. MITCHELL. I suggest to the Senator that if the returning papers said. ·I am not certain of that, and cannot say whether the 

board in Oregon could carry out biB purpose it would be equal to forty- statement is exactly correct, but I have some reason to believe it. Ct 

five millions of people. wassupposedthat the President of the Senate perhaps might not IJe 

Mr. BOGY. That is a very good suggestion. I a.m. very much willing to do that, and hence another gentleman who is not now in 

oblifl'ed for it; and I will in a few moments, if I do not forget it, his seat, the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. SHER~1AN, 1 who had committed 

(and I hope the Senator will not permit me to forget it,) give him a himself in writing over his name in a. letter addressed to myself and 

full answer. The institution of returning boards is one of the most others in New Orleans on this subject of a prima facie case, and the 

wonderful improvements of modern times, and it is to be regretted right of the President of the Senate to open and count, it was supthat it was not known many years ago. What a useful thing are- posed would be selected to become the successor of his illustrious preturning board would have been in England during the days that decessor. But that perhaps has been changed, and in changing that 

Wilkes annoyed the ministry so much. Suppose they had had a re- the Senator from Ohio may have lost that position, which is a misforturning board in the British Parliament, they might have permitted tune for him. But these are rumors perhaps not well founded. I state 

the people to anluse themselves as much as they pleased in the county them as mmors. 'Ve who are not inthesecretwere rather inclined to 

of Middlesex, and they mi~ht have elected Mr. Wilkes every day if believe that they a.re true. The .Senator from Indiana can tell whether 

they chose, but the returmng board would have said," No, sir, you they are true or not. He knows. 

did not get the majority and therefore you cannot take a seat here." Now all this is changed. Suchathingasap1imajacie caseisatbing 

What a good thing it would be for the ministry of England if they of the pa-st, so much so that we C.o not even wait for the meeting wo ld adopt it. A returning board in the hands of the ministry of of the two Houses in their joint session, appointed under the ConEngland would be making a ministry in perpetuity. .An efficient re- stitution to count the votes. We open the ballots in advance; we turning board with efficient aid, such as the returning board got in discuss the question in advance; we are discussing it now; we are New Orleans, could keep :.1. ministry in power forever. It ie much to passing upon it long before the time, far in advance. This cqange in 

be regretted that it was not known in France in the days of the revo- the relation of things baa been brought about by the action of the 

lution. What a beautiful institution that would have been in the governor of Oregon. That baa been the result, and I think it is 

bands of a man like Robespierre. He was driven to a most cruel mode fortunate for tbe country and for free institutions. Otherwise this 

of keeping himself in the majority of the convention. For that pur- ·idea of a returning board having the power to return whom they 

pose was invented a machine called the guillotine. in France. It wa-s please as electors and the inability of Congress to go behind that re- a bloody instrument, and ~as used to cut off the heads of refractory turn would soon have established returning boards throughout the 

patriots. Wben such men were returned to the convention in the days United States, and in a very short time the return of the returning 

of Rouespierro, they were guillotined so that be might maintain his boards would have elected a President of the United States, even m~jority in the convention. If he had had a returning board, he would though not elected by a majority of the people. 

have been spared this cruelty which has thrown a shade, a black spot, As I said a while ago, the idea of returning boards is Out' of the over his fame; and which was also a very cruel thing for the fellows most wonderful inventions not only of modern times bnt of all time. 

who were guillotined. It would have been a beautiful institution, and There is nothing like it in political science; its power is omnipotent. 

it is to be regretted that it was not known at that day. In New Orleans it is backed by the courts of Louisiana, and my friends 

.A returning board in. Oregon, the Senator from Oregon reminds me, sa.y you cannot go behind that; you cannot appeal to the courts there 

has nullified the votes of forty-five millions of people. There are not because the· supreme court in Louisiana has said there was no appeal so many people in Oregon, are there T [Laughter.] What ha-s taken from the returning board, it is an omnipotent institution. Very well, 

place in Oregon bas been a sort of providential thing; it bas changed the that is the law in Louisiana. In South Carolina, where the judiciary 

status of the question in this country; it h.as changed the position of happens to be a little different, t~ court say, "We have aright to look 

my distinguished friend from Indiana. He and others believed that a into the doings of the returning board ; " and they have reversed the 

prima facie case was all that was necessary; and whenever a prima facie action of the returning board; but then there stand the .Army under case was presented that was the end of the question. To make that the President and that says, "You, Mr. J udicia.ry, have no 1jght to inefficient it was generally understood that the President of the Senate terfere in this thing; we stand by tl).e returninl> board;" and it makes 

shonld have the ri~ht, as he has under the Constitution, to open the that returning board efficient . . '£here the JUdiciary is discarded. 

returns, and in adaition the right to count the votes. A prima facie So it is in Florida to-day. The 1udiciary. iB yet pounding away at case in the hands of the President of the Senate, who has the right to the question, but the returning ooard, backed by the .Army in Floropen the votes, and if to that is also added the right to count, would ida has already pru;sed upon the question and the return of the re- make a returning board the m st complete system of political rna- turning board bas been sent to the city of Washington. ·Wben you 

cbinery on the face of the earth. There would be no thin~ like it any- come to look at this condition, in one State the returning board is 

where. The fact that this thing occmTed in Oregon I thmk is provi- sustained by the action of the judiciary; in another State it is sns- dential, and I am glad that there bappened·to be a man of integrity tained by executive power through tho .Army, and in one way or an- governor of that State; a man of will, who dared to face what he knew other the returning board is one of the most wonderful institutions 

to be the malignity and tbe malice of his political opponents. I am of modern times. There is no end to its power. I have no doubt if 

glad that there was an honest man of will and of purpose in that adopted in Europe that the monarchs of Europe would be able to con- State, and he met the question as a true man ought to have met it. cede to their subjects that which the natio118 of the world have for 

That fact returns to us here a prinuifacie case of one vote for lli. Til- ages been panting for-universal suffrage. Wby, sir, Russia could 

den, making the magic number of 185, which leaves Mr. Hayes, 184. afford to give universal suffrage to aJl the Russians with a. returning 

According to the p1ima facie law that we were taught but a few weeks board backed by the army of Russia. Let the people vote as they 

ago, that woultl have been the end of the whole contest; and this dis- please in Russia, if the Emperor bad a returning board and the votes 

cnssion would not have taken place here to day, and I should not now be were returned to the great n3tional returning board, what could the 

inflictin"' a speech upon the Senate. Bu.t when that return was made, Russian people doT They could do as much as in this country; they as it ought to have been made, the idea of a prima facie case passed · would have the gratification of voting, that is all; but they could 

aw:ty and you have never heard from that day to this the words pri1na not accomplish anything unless they could in some way or other wipe 

facie in connection with tbe question of the presidential election. out that retm:ning board. 

They have passed out of circulation, nobody talks of a prima facie case The Senator from Indiana spoke the other day of the governor of now. Oregon, I thought, in rather unkind terms. I think he has as much of 

But in advance of the discussion, and in advance of the meeting of human kindness, somewhat mixed perhaps, but as much of it in him 

the two Houses appoin~d under the Constitution to count these votes, as anybody else has. Yet he permitted his feelings, I think, to l~ad 
314 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. DECE1\1BER 20' 

him astray. He likened the offense of the governor of Oregon to that 

of a suicide; and said that in olden times men who committed suicide were buried along ide of the road or near a cross-roads, so that as the 

pas ers-hy for all time went along, they could throw a stone upon the 

grave, and so day by day a monument of infamy would rise to that 

poor unfortunate man who had committed suicide; and he commenced 

throwing stones at this governor of O:regon who is not yet dead, and 

he threw his stone, with all his power, and all his might. He thought 

that as time rolled on a monument would be erected to him in that 

way. I do not know that his history is correct. Suicides were thus 

treated in England under the common law; but I do not know that it was elsewhere so. Let that be as it may, I do not know that the men who commit suicide are so very guilty in the eye of the civil1'low; they are unfortunate men who are borne down by misfortune, by crosses too heavy to carry in the world . . Mr. MORTON. My friend is mistaken. I did not speak of that as being done in regard to suicides. 

Mr. BOGY. Then what character of felonshavea stonethrownon 

their graves f 

Mr. MORTON. I said that where a man had been executed for a high crime or was killed while in the act of committing a felony, he was buried by the roadside; anditwas thednty,of each. traveler who 

went along to thro a stone on his grave. 

Mr. BOGY. '!'hen I take that part of my speech back that had any 

relation to suicide. I misunderstood him. I thought that he stated 

that the governor of Oregon had committed political suicide. 

Mr. MORTON. Not in my friend's mind, but in my own he might. 

1\Ir. BOGY. In 'conclusion of this whole case I have no hesitation in 

saying, not as a party man but something beyond and above party, that 

the occurrence of this affair in Oregen about this vote is a most fortunate thing. It has compelled our friends on the other side to investigate all these quest:ons as they ought to be investigated. It has com- pelled them to do away with the false idea that under no condition 

of circumstances could Congress go behind what they called a jJrirna 

facie case; that although every man in the joint session might know 

that every vote sent there was the production of fraud and perjury, 

yet they would be powerless to remedy that thing becanse they could 

not go be~iud a printa facie case. The occnrrence of this fact in Oregon bas changed that view, and now we come back to examine, and 

the only thing left is whether we will come to a correct conclusion. 

I am somewhat afraid that the influence of the Senator from Indiana 

is too great for the good of the country and that he has already com- mitted himself. I am afraid he has committed himself on the case from my State also, about which there ought to be no doubt. But if 

that be not so, the fact that this has occurred in Oregon enables us to 

approach this subject as it should be approached, and ascertain in the 

best way in our power w bat has been the honest vote of any State of the 

Union, and no matter what that vote may be carry it out as the will 

of the sovereign people. Without this occurrence in Oregon the case could never have been presented in that way. A prima facie case would have been held up to us as the ~ssence of the Constitution, and 

it would have been asserted that no man could go beyond it. 

Mr. President, I am sorry that I have been compelled to detain the 

Senate this morning. I am anxious to yield because I see that my 

friend from Indiana is extremely anxious to say something, and therefore I will yield to him, because it always gives me much pleasure to 

listen to him. 

Mr. MORTON. 1\Ir. President, I always listen with pleasure to my 

distinguished friend from Missouri. However much I may differ from 

him I know that he speaks in good nature and without malice. My frien~ says that a returning board~ .a new invention. I beg leave 

to take issue with him. Returning boards are older thaR the Constitution of the United States. There is no State in this Union that has 

not a returning board. Sometimes they are called boards of canvassers, 

sometimes they have no particular name, but they consist of a person or persons who are authorized to count the votes and to certify who has 

been elected. Names go for nothillf$. In some States these returning 

boards have discretionary powers, JUdicial powers, as in the State o£ 

Louisiana and other States that might be named. Perhaps there are a dozen or more States in the Union where they have powers con- ferred upon them to cast out fraudulent or illegal votes within certain 

rules. In some States they are required simply to count the votes and 

give the certificate to the man who hasgotthe highest number of votes. 

There is a returning board in the State of Missouri, there is one in 

the State of Indiana, one in the State of Oregon, and another in Loui~:~iana. The power which these boards have depends upon the 

law of the State creating them. It may be a simple power, as in the 

State of Oregon, to certify the vote, or they may have judicial pow- ers as in the State of Louisiana. Whether there is an appeal from 

these returning boards if they make a wrong decision, depends upon 

the law of the State. Unless the law creating them gives to some court the power to supervise their decisions, there is no such power, 

their decision is final. The thing must end somewhere and must end 

just where the law provides that it shall end. If the law makes the 

action of the returning board final, there it must stop. It depends 

upon the law of the State. The difference between Louisiana and 

Oregon, of which my friend talks, is that in Oregon the returning 

board has no discretionary power, no judicial power, but is absolutely 

required by the law of its creation to certify to the man who bas the 

highest number of votes. It bas no power to cast out a fraudulent 

vote; it has no power to withhold a certificate from a man because · he is ineligible; but the law says in express terms that the certificate 

shall be given to the man who has the highest number of votes. In 

Louisiana the returning board has a broad judicial power. You mav say the law is wrong; but there it is; and I believe that was the la\V 

before the rebellion. It bas been the law of Louisiana for a good many 

years. It may be a good or a bad law; but that is the law of Louisiana, giving to its returning board, certain persons appointed for that 

purpose, the power to pass upon the character of the vote within cer- tain rules. 

What we complain of in regard to Oregon is, first, that the governor 

of Oregon is not the returning board under the law of that State. 

The secretary of state is the returning board. I read the statute yesterday. The secretary of state is to count the vote, and he is to count 

it in the presence of the governor. The governor is simply a witness, 

but is to take no part in it whatever. The secretary of state is the 

returning board in the St,ate of Oregon, and when be has m:tde out 

the count the governor shall certify-so says the l:tw-who has the 

highest number of votes; and that is all he ha.s got to do wit.h it. 

What we complain of is that the governor of Oregon assumed to be 

the returning board; that he assumed to have judicial powers when 

he had none. First, he determined that Watts was not e1igible. lle 

had no power to pass upon that question. Then he determined that 

Cronin was elected. He had no power to pass upon that question; 

and if be had the power it would have been a false decision, a decision in the face of all the authorities in this country. So far as Louisiana is concerned, the returning board had the power to do what 

it did do. It may have made a wrong decision-! will not discuss 

that now-but it bad the power to pass upon the votes that we1·e 

given and determine whether they were legal or illegal. The gov- ernor of Oregon had no such power. The returning board of Louisi- ana exercised power given to it by the law. The governor of Oregon 

exercised power not given to him, not given to anybody, so far as tb.e countin~ of the votes is concerned. 

My friend from Missouri is happy because he has found an honest man. He baa been going about with a lantern these many years and 

has at last found an honest man in Oregon, in the governor of Oregon, 

who had the boldness and the manliness and the courage to stand np 

in the face of his malignant enemies and assume to be the returning 

board of Oregon when he was not. He assumed the power to decide 

that Watts was ineligible when be had no such power, and he assumed 

the further power to decide that Cronin was elected when in point of 

fact he was not elected. The governor of Oregon had the will to do 

that in the face of his malignant enemies, and therefore he has excited 

the admiration of my distinguished friend from Missouri. 

But I simply rose for the purpose of correcting what I regard to be a misstatement on the part of my friend, that returning boards are late 

inventions. They exist in every country, and always have, where offi- cers are elected by the people. There must be somebody to count the 

votes, and whoever is commissioned to count the votes under the law 

of the State constitutes the returning board. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. SPENCER in the chair.) The 

question is on the amendment to the amendment. 

Mr. BOGY. Is that the amendment offered by the Senator from 

Delaware, [Mr. BaYARD f] 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware. 

Mr. BOGY. I should like to have it reported. 

The PRE SID lNG OFFICER. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to strike out all after the word 

"alleged" in the first line of the pending amendment, and insert: 

That the !!:Overnor of the State of Oregon has issued a certificate of election to one E. A. Cronin as one of the electors of said State instead of issuing such certifi· cate to one J. W. Watts, alleging that the said Watts was ineligible oo the said 

office of elector on November 7, 1876, the time of sairl election: 

Mr. BOGY. I ask for the yeas and nays upon the amendment to the 

amendment. 

Mr. CONKLIKG. Allow me to make a suggestion to the Chair. I 

think the vote is first on the resolution before even an amendment to 

the preamble or anything concerning the preamble is voted upon. I, 

therefore, suggest that the vote had better be taken first upon the 

resolution, and then an amendment to the preamble and a vote on the 

preamble itself will be in order. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That course will be adopted if there 

be no objection. The question then will be on agreeing to the reso- lution. 

Mr. BOGY. As I am informed there is no objection to the resolut"ion. 

Mr. CONKLING. So I supposed; that passes as a matter of course; 

and then the preamble will be in order, and the Senator can move his 

amendment to it. 

1\lr. MITCHELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on the passage of 

the resolntiou. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is usual to take the vote on the 

main question first and on the preamble afterward, and that course will be adopted if there be no objection. 

Mr. RANDOLPH. Let the resolution be read. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Clerk will report the resolution. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

Be it resolved, That the Comn;tittee on Privileges and Elections is hereby instructed to inquire into the eligibility of saidJ. W. Wn.tte, and invest.lgato the 

·. 
1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 315 

facts attending the appointment of said electors and pretended electors, and report the same to the Senate ; and for this purpose may employ a stenographer, send for 

persons and papers, administer oaths, and examine witnesses. 

Mr. ~fiTCHELL. I am not particular about the yecl8 and nays on that. There is perhaps no objection to the resolution. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from O~e~on withdraws 

his call for the yeas and nays. Does the Senator from Missouri insist 

npon the yeas and nays 7 

:Mr. BOGY. My 1·equest was with reference to the amendment of 

the Senator from Delaware, not this proposition. 

:Mr. CONKLING. And that is an amendment to the preamble, and 

not to the resolution. 

Mr. BOGY. I do not call for the yeas and nays on the adoption of 

the resolut,ion. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. This is an amendment to the oliginal resolution, an amendment, the Chair understands, of the committee. The question is npon the adoption of the amendment. 

Mr. CONKLING. Is it a-n amendment to the resolution or t.o the 

preamblef 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is an amendment of the committee 

to the resolution, not an amen9-ment to the preamble. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did the Clerk I'ead the resolution as it will read if 

amended or as int1·oduced by the Senator from Oregon f Let the Clerk 

report it again as it will read as amended . . The CmEF CLERK. The resolution as introduced by Mr. MITCHELL 

is in the following words : 

Resolved, That the Committee on Privile~es and Elections is hereby instructed to inv:estigate the facts attending the appointment of said electors and pretended electors, their action as electors and pretended electors, and the action of the gov· ernor and secretary of state in respect to them, and report the same to the Senate; 

and for this pnrpo e may employ a stenographer, send for persons and papers, ad. ~ster oaths, and examine witnesses. 

The amendment reported to tlJat resolution is to strike out all Mter 

the word "resolved" and insert : 

Tb~ the Committee on Privileaes and Elections is hereby instructed to inquire into the eligibility of said J. W. \va.tts, a.nd investigate the facts attending the ap- pointment of said electors and pretended electors and report the same to the Sen. 

ate, and for this purpose may employ a. stenographer, send for persons and papers, administer oaths, and examine witnesses. 

Mr. BOGY. There is no objection to the amendment. 

Mr. EATON. Is the question upon the amendment of the Senator 

from DelawareT 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. No; the amendment of the Senator 

from Delaware is an amendment to the preamble. The question is 

now on the amendment of the committee to the resolution. 

Mr. EATON. Mr. President, I do not care at this late hour of the 

piscUBSion to consunie very mucp. of the time of the Senate. In my 

judgment this discussion has been premature. I have no objection to 

the passage of the main resolution; I have no objection that a com- mittee of this body should take into consideration the action which 

has been had in Oregon. I regret that the chairman of that committee has prejudged the case. I regret, and I think I have a right to 

regret, any discussion at this period upon a question that is as grave as this, the result of which may or may not determine who shall fill 

the chair of the Executive of this country. The question is a grave one. Ev,ery patriotic man, every honest man in this broad land, no matter what his politics may be, will unite with me in saying that 

the question is a grave one. It ought then to be approached in a proper and a grave manner. There should be no taunt-s,· no flings. 

But my honorable friend from Oregon [Mr. MITCHELL] in discussing 

this subject the other day was betrayed into the use of language which, 

in my judgment, he will regret on cool reflection. In a vehement and 

violent, not to say insolent manner, he dared democratic Senators upon 

this floor to speak their views upon this subject. He dared a Senator 

upon this floor; he dared the democratic Senators upon this floor. Let me tell that Senator that the democratic Senators npon this floor are to be dared by nobody, by no man, by no set of men. The democratic 

Senators on this floor, like the people of this land, dare to do right ; 

they dare to do what they think is just. I belong to the democratic 

organization, and always have belonged to it. I believe in the purity 

of its principles, and always have. In that opinion and belief I know 

I am honest. Its principles may be wrong, but my convictions are honest; and I shall da.re here and elsewhere to assert those principles 

and carry them to their just conclusion. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Will the Senator allow me to ask a question T 

Mr. EA.TON. With great pleasur~. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Will the Senator from Connecticut dare, in justice to himself as a Senator, in justice to his own reputation as a lawyer, to state upon the floor to-day that in his judgment Mr. Cronin 

was elected one of the presidential electors in Oregon and that the 

governor of that State did right in issuing a certificate to him T 

Mr. EATON. Before I get through, unless I forget myself, the honorable Senator from Oregon will find that he had no need to put that 

question. I say, belonging as I do to the democratic organization, I 

dare to as ert that I am an independent member of that organization, 

that I do not belong to anybocly connected with that organization, that I would not count a vote wrong to elect the man who, in my 

jndgment, bas been triumphantly elected by the American people. 

That I dare say. Returning boards or no returning boards, governors 

of States or scoundrels elsewhere, I do not desire the advantage of 

any wrong in this canvass of votes by the Amelican Senate; there 

will be none so far as I am concerned. I ~as taught in a different 

legal school from the governor of Oregon. I do not stand here to say 

anything as a lawyer that I cannot defend as a lawyer. My teaching 

has been different from the teaching of the governor of Oregon. I 

believe the law in the United States to be as I shall state it 2 with the 

exception of a few of the States. I say, however, right here, in opposition t.o the opinion of my distinguished friend from Indiana, that 

his State has ~one on all-fours with the governor of Oregon, and so have other deCisions in the United States; but my opinion as a lawyer, 

my teaching as a lawyer has been that the man who did not get a majority of the votes the people did not want. This was Yery well 

illustrated once in my own State by achief-;iustice where two lawyers were candidates for the office of grand juror, a prosecuting office in 

my State and worth in some of the cities considerable money, three or four thousand dollars a year. Two young lawyers were candidates. 

One received a thousand votes more than the other; but it turned 

out that he wa-s not a citizen of Connecticut; he was a native of the 

State, a former resident of the town where he the-n re ided, but be 

had removed to New York, become a citizen of New York and had not 

been long enough back in the State of Connecticut to have regained 

his citizenship there; and therefore by the constitution and laws of 

Connecticut he could not be elected to the office. The chief-justice 

had some peculiarities about him. The ma.ndamus came at last and he 

said to the young gentleman who contested, whose first name was Jonathan, "Jonathan, there may be some doubt whether the goocl 

people of New Haven desire a grand juror at all;. but there is oue thing pretty clear, they did not want you; if they had, they would 

have given yon a couple of thousand more votes than they clid." He 

went further, of course, and argued the case; but he settled the law so far as Connecticut was concerned, and I believe he settled it properly with that remark. 

Now, sir, apply it to Oregon. Watts was one of the republican can- didates for elector and Watts received more pieces of paper with his name upon them than Cronin. I nse the expression understandingly. 

They were not votes; they were as blank pieces of paper. I will call 

them, for convenience as I pa-ss along, "votes," but before I get 

through I will endeavor to show that in no sense are they or were they votes. Watts received a thousand more votes than Cronin. 

Therefore, if Watts was an eligible candidate, Watts was elected; if 

be was not an eligible candidate he was not elected. The governor 

of Oregon, on what he regards as good authority and good law, has 

said that Watts was an ineligible man, an ineligible candidate, and 

that the _man having the next number of votes was elected to the 

office for which Watts was a candidate. That is the opinion of the 

governor of Oregon, in my judgment an honest man, in my judgment a truthful man, in my judgment resting his case upon what he re- gards, and has a right to regard, as good law .. I differ with him. I do 

not attack his integrity; I throw no stone upon the pile to commem- orate his infamous act, as it has been called, for I do not so regard it. 

He acted as he believed was honest. He acted upon the opinion of 

able counsel, as well as upon his own opinion. In my judgment he was wrong a~ to Cronin; but in no sense could he have certified the 

election of Watts by any law either of Oregon or of the United States. 

Watts was not elected. Watts was ineligible, and every vote cast for 

Watts was a blank. Taking that view of the case-and I have no doubt that the governor of Oregon did take that view of the ca-se- he saw his way clear to give Cronin the certificate of election because 

Cronin did have votes, acknowledged votes; lJe was an eligible can- didate; and therefore every vote thrown for him was a proper, legal 

vote thrown for a proper candidate. That there is no doubt about, 

I apprehend, in the mind of the Senator from Oregon or the Senator 

from Indiana. 

:Mr. :MORTON. Will my friend allow me to ask him a question f 

Mr. EA.TON. Certainly. 

Mr. MORTON. I want to suggest to my friend from Connecticut 

that the law of Oregon did not rM.J.nire the governor to certify that 

Watts was elected, but it required.him to certify who got the highest 

number of votes; and that was a thing he could do whether Watts was eligible or not. That was a question he was not to pass upon; but 

the law of Oregon required him to certify who had the highest num- ber of votes. 

:Mr. EATON. The law of Oregon, with all due deference to the 

opinion of my distinguished friend, required no such thing. I know 

the words;_ I have read .them and heard them read. By a strict con- struction of the Jaw of Oregon, I beg leave to say to my friend from 

Indiana the certificate of the election of Cronin is right and proper. 

The other man got no votes; he could not get any; he was inelectible, 

ineligible, and every vote thrown for him was a blank piece of paper, 

not to be counted at all. It was not a vote. A vote is the evidence 

of the will of the individual holding in his hand a paper to be cast 

for an eligible candidate for any given office. That is a vote. But, as was well said on this floor by my honorable friend from Ohio, [Mr. 

THURMAN,) would a piec~ of paper cast for Her Britannic Majesty 

Queen Victoria have been a vote, a vote to be counted Y It is perfectly absurd. The very statement of the case shows its absurdity. And yet, sir, calling these_piecesof paper votes, according to the theory of the honorable Senator from Indiana and the honorable Senator 

from Oregon, a piece of paper with the name of Queen Victoria. must 

have been counted and retw·ned, and gravely returned, by the exec-
316 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN.A.TE. DECEMBER 20, 

utive of Oregon to the Congress of the United States. Now let me read: ·• 

Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Cong-ress: but no Senator or Representa· 

live, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be 

appointed an elector. 

I read from article 2, section 1, of the Constitution of the United 

States. This man Watts was a postma~ter, holding an office of more or less trust and of more or less profit under the United States. He was ineligible. A vote for him, in. the opinion of every court that I 

know of, every supreme court of any State within this Union-a vote 

for him, in the opinion of the Queen's Bench, was void, a blank, a nullity. In other words, i~ was not a vote. It could not legally be 

counted. Reading that clause of the Constitution of the United 

States, the question with regard to the law of Oregon, if there be a law of Oregon in contradist4tction to this law of the United States, 

falls to the ground; it is not to be considered; it is worthless; it is 

void. 

If I am right in my conclusions that a pretended piece of paper ca t for an ineligible candidate· is not a vote, a legal, proper vote, 

then there is an end to this case. Mr. MITCHELL. Will the Senator allow me to ask a question f 

Mr. EATON. Certainly. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Does the Senator from Connecticut understand 

that the office of a presidential elector is a State office and one that 

would be governed, so far as eligibility is concerned, by inhibitions in 

the State constitution as well as in the Federal Constitution t· Mr. EATON. Which question is it my friend wants me to answer t 

If he will ask one at a time, I will answer. Mr. MITCHELL. I want both. 

Mr. EATON. Ask one at a time. 

Mr. MITCHELL. In the judgment of the Senator, is the office of 

presidential elector a State office t 

Mr. EATON. It is. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Very well. That being conceded, wouldaprovision in the constitution of the State to the effect that certain things 

should render a person ineligible to office under that constitution apply to the office of presidential elect.or! 

Mr. EATON. What would t I do not quite' get my friend's idea. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Would a provision in the constitution of the 

State of Oregon to the effect thliLt "no person who may hereafter he a collector or holder of public money shall be eligible to any office of 

trust or profit until he shall have accounted for and paid over, according to law, all sums for which he may be liable," apply to the office 

of presidential elector f 

Mr. EATON. I do not know that I am on the stand to answer a question that has no reference whatever to the matter now under discussion. 

Mr. MI'J;CHELL. I beg pardon of the Senator. If he will allow 

me, it has direct reference, in my judgment. 

Mr. EATON. I do not think so. I cannot be driveri. from my point 

to answer a question that in my judgment has no reference to t.he 

matter in issue. If it be said that Mr. Cronin owes a debt, has pnblic 

moneys in his hand which he has not paid over to the State of Oregon, 

then there might come a question here whether he should be a candidate for elector. 

Mr. MITCHELL. If the Sena.torwill allow menow-Ido not wish 

to disturb him-.- Mr. EATON. It does not disturb me at all except that I do not 

want to stand very long on the floor. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I do desire to get the opinion of the Senator upon 

this very point. Suppose in the case of Watts, for instance, he had 

not been a postmaster, but suppose the suggestion had been made to 

Governor Grover that he, Watts, had been a collector or holder of 

public money and that he had not accounted for and paid over all 

that money according to law, what I want to get from the Senator is 

whether Governor Grover's duty would have been to hr:.ve tried that 

question .-and passed upon his eligibility. 

Mr. EATON. Well, Mr. President, I do not choose to an~wer that 

question. My friend shakes his head and I hope it is not for the &'me reason that somebody else once shook his head. My friend shakes his 

head. I beg leave to say to him that my opinion here reHts upon the 

organiclawofthewholecountry, the Constitution of the United States, 

and not the const-itution of Oregon, and questions are not to be put to me to divert me from my line of thought. By the Constitution of the 

United States if Grover liad given a certificate in favor of this man Watts he would have violated the Constitution of the United States 

and done what he knew to be wrong, absolutely wrong,. and against the supreme law of the land. The great trouble with my friend is 

that he findt~ fault with the govemor of his State for following the 

Constitution of the United States. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Not at all. 

:Mr. EATON. He did follow it. He did not give a certificate to an ineligible candidate, to a man who could not be voted for under the 

Constitution of the United States, and therefore he did right in refusing to give a certificate to Watts. Withregard tohisgivingacertiii.- case to Cronin I do not go into that question any further than I have. 

I have expressed my opinion upon the law of that case. Therefore I 

need only say that in my judgment he ~ould have certified the election of two men and only two men as electors for Oregon. Acting 

in my place as a member of this body I could not vote, and, hu.d I the 

power to vote, as I claim that I have the power, I would not vote to 

place in the chief executive chair of the United States the candidate 

of the democr:,ttic party upon the vote of the democratic elector so called, of Oregon. That is my opinion, and unhesitatingly I ~n­ nounce my ~pinion on that subject. Perhaps hereafter I may have an opportunity to call on my friend from bregon to exerci e his judgment upon a case of far greater wrong than the case of Oregon. I 

ought to _say he~e what I believe I have a right to say, taking the very 

stancl-pomt which the honorable Senator from Oregon occupies, that 

it atrikes me his political stomach is disordered by a very small matter w~en it can stand the garli~ of Louisiana, Florida, and South . Carolma. 

I do not propose to discuss at length any other question than the one properly before the Senate, and I am sorryto be compelled tosa.y a word upon that subject, and I should not have said it except that it was proper that the people whom I in part represent on this floor 

should know exactly where I stand upon the question of Ore(J'on. 

Under no circumstances, in my judgment, will either of the Senators 

from the State of Connecticut vote to claim the election of Mr. Tilden upon the Oregon eloctor. I want no election covered over as that 

would be with wrong; in my judgment, not fraud, but wrong, erro- neousjudgment in the exe~utiveofficer of Oregon; and I shall approach 

the discussion of other questions, when we arrive at them, in the same feeling; and ask myiriends on the other side of this Chamber to staud 

with me to main~ain the purity of the elective franchise throughout 

the whole country. 

So, Mr. President, while I could vote very readily for the naked res- olution which is here, I cannot vote for the preamble which has been 

put upon that resolution. It implies wrong, not error, but ab olute 

fraud, in the executive of the State of Oregon. From all that I have 

heard of that gentleman, he is a man of high character, stainless reputation; and I have yet to learn that an error in law, if it he an error should stamp his or any other man's name with infamy. Nobody ha~ ventured to say a word against the reputation of this executive of one of the States of the Union, a man the Legislature of whose State has 

recently elected him to a seat on this floor, the peer of the honorable 

Senator from Indiana and the honorable Senator from Oregon. In 

advance, before the taking. of his seat, is he to be called a fraud in 

his own State 7 A man guilty of fraudulent acts in his own State 7 

Mr. President, no such resolution as that ought to be voted for. 

The honorable Senator from Indiana said that this was a trick-! use his own word-a trick to control theelectionof aPresident of the 

United States. If the law of Indiana, if the law of two other States 

in thisUnion,(but perhaps not to the full extent,)if thelawof JudO'e 

Hoadly of Cincinnati, if the law of the governor of Oregon, is righ~ and it is right if the reading of the statute by the honorable Senator 

from Indiana is right-wheredoest:he "trick" come in 7 Look at the 

position of the case. First, pretended ballots cast for an ineligible 

candidate are not votes; they are as blank pieces of paper, and the 

casting of them is absolutely and utterly void. Then the second position is, takWg t.he statute of Ore~on as read by the Senator from 

Oregon, that that person having the greatest number of votes must 

be certified up by the governor of Oregon. If that be so, then that 

elector is Cronin, for the other man was not a candidate and had no votes. Those cast for him were all blank pieces of paper. Taking 

that view of the case-and I am bound to suppose that the governor 

of Oregon did take that view of the law· I must suppose it-then the 

position he assumed is not only defensibie but justifiable. My friend 

from Indiana is notal ways right. His legal opinion, my le"al opinion 

is not always right. It may possibly fall out that the -governor of 

Oregon is right in this matter and the honorable Senator from Indiana 

and myself both wrong, and therefore, in my judgment, the word 

"trick" is a stigma t.hat should not be used. It leaves a mark upon 

this man which should not be made. He acted defensibly; as he believec;J, justly. If he acted justly in his own judgment, then there is no tnck. 

Mr. President, there is such an intimate connection between this 

subject and the one that was up here the other day that I desire to 

read a letter which I have before me. I am very glad that the .honorable Senator fromOhio [Mr. SHERMAN]isinhisseat. Hehasplaced 

before us his opinion in regard to certain matters in the State of 

Louisiana; now I desire to read this letter: 

DE SOTO p ARIBH, LOUISIANA, 

Hon. J. MADISON WELLS, 

President Louiria.M Returning Board. : 

December 12, 1876. 

I have learned that your honorable body has returned me as elected to the lower 

house of the Legislature from the parish of De So to. Permit me to return my thanks 

for the honor conferred, but at the same time permit mo to say that I am nnwillin..,. to accept the position. I am a. republican from the fil'l1l conVIction that the princf. 

plea <?f that party are best for the whole country. It lS also true that I was th'e regular nominee of the party in the parieh of De -Soto for _the. Legislature an_d d_id more than auy membe: of the party in tha.t parish to orgamze 1t and advanco1ts mterests; but, siT, knowmg as I do that I was fairly defeated at the polls, no intimidation or fraud having been practiced by the oppo. 

site party at any precinct in the parish, so far as I have been able to ascertain after a thorough invest.Igat.ion, my self-respect will not permit me to accept the position. I hope you will pardon me for taking a step tha.t at first glance may be thou~ht cal- culated to cast some discredit upon the party with which I have allied mysf'llf; but 

I am a. planter, not a. politician; all my mterests are here; but, sir, I cannot believe 

the ~ood of the State or of t.he national republican party can be promoted by reo turning as elected a. candidate so cloo.rly defeated as myself. 
1876. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. 317 

In foot I am convinced that very much of the disturbance that has prevailed throughout the State for 11everal years past is justly attributable to the fact that in 

many parishes men not elected by the people have been returned elected and maintained in office by the power of ~overnment. I must believe that yon and your as- sociates have been grossly deceived as to the manner in which the late ca.nvass and 

election in De Soto was conducted and as to the result. 

Very respectfully, JOHN J. LONG. 

sentatives, appreciating to its fullest extent the gravity of the situation in which Congress is placed, will go into the critical examination of the votes with the same determination which I have, to do 

what is honest, just, and fair ; and I believe ·that all will. I know 

my own feelings on that subject, and I have no right not to presume, on the contrary I am glad to believe, that my associates occupy the same plane, the same ground that I do, and that the scrutiny of votes 

Now, Mr. President, I want to say that one witness like this man which will be given by Congress on the 14th of February will be just 

weighs down a thousand affidavits. Here is a candidate of the repub- and fair and honorable and right. 

lican party in the parish of De Soto who says himself that ho was Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. President, my attention was ca1led before this 

fairly defeated; says himself that there was no intimidation or, to debate to a letter purporting to be from Mr. Long as to his election use a common expression which has recently obtained, no bull-dozing as a member of the Legislature af Louisiana. from De Soto Pamh. I 

in the parish of De Soto; and yet the honorable Senator from Ohio know nothing about the letter except that I saw it in the public comes with affidavits, as I understand, saying that there was intim- prints. I do not know whether he was a candidate, but I presume 

idation in that very parish. I desire to place this letter on the record that he was, and that he thinks he was not elected ancl surrenders all 

for what it is worth. The time will come. by and by, when we come claim to the election. I am not informed that the board returned 

to the discussion of the question regarding Louisiana, when this let- him elected. I have seen no statement of the return of the le~islative 

ter will be valuable testimony. It is testimony behind which the iicket. I think the gentleman has probably leaped before ne came republican party ought not to go. to the· stile. Probably no return has been made of his name; but 

Mr. President, let me be indulged in a. word or two more with re- whether there has been or not I do not know. I only know that r 

gard to the importance of the matters now before us, and then I shall have before me the testimony as to DeSoto Parish, which is printed 

have done with an unpleasant duty. I did not desire to say a word on pages 545 to 548 pf the volume sent to us by the President, and 

at this time on this subject. As I said in the outset the questions now here are the depositions of sundry witnesses, among the rest one who 

paneling before the Congress of the United States are of the most grave is evidently a very intelligent man, J. M. Carter, who was examined 

character. I assume that every member of this Congress, of the Sen- and cross-examined by both parties. There are also some ex parte affiate and of the House of Representatives, desires fair action. I think clavits, but there are two or three witnesses who Wire examinecl and 

I can speak for every one of my friends on this side of the Chamber: no cross-examined whose testimony shows certainly irregularities at car- unfair action is desired by us. No matter where it strikes, no matter tain polls in that parish. The nature of th~irregularities is pointed 

whether Mr. Tilden or Mr. Hayes shall be declared to be the honestly out in the testimony. The effect they had: on the returning board I 

elected President of the United States, so that itisf::tir and honest, there do not know. Whether they excluded any votes on account of them 

will be no trouble here. If Mr. Hayes is honestly elected President I do not know, nor is the Senator from Connecticut any better inof the United States, he will be inaugurated thePresidentofthe United formed than I am. It is sufficient for me to say, however, that De 

States. If not, not. There can be no intimidation in this question; Soto Parish is not one of the controverted parishes upon which the 

nobody can be intimidated in a country like ours. When every man ·testimony was taken. The whole testimony in regard to De Soto 

requires justice and justice only, the question oi intimidation cannot . Parish is confined to four or five pages and relates Only to two or come' before us. Crazy men may talk; partisan newspapers on the three wards in the parish. As to whether Mr. Long was elected or one side or the other may rave; but the representatives of the people, not, I do not know; 

who have in their hands the well-being of forty-five millions, cannot Mr. MORTON. Was the parish thrown out! 

afford to do wrong. · Mr. SHERMAN. No; there was no parish thrown out. 

The President of the United States is quoted by this man and that Mr. BOGY. There were parishes thrown out. 

man, by this paper and that paper, as saying this thing apd that thing, Mr. SHERMAN. I do not know. How does the Senator know T as that he will deliver over his offl.ce to the man who is inaugurated. Mr. BOGY. It is so. . . He ha-s nothing to do with it. The man who is elected and inaugurated )1r. SHERMAN. The Senator does not know. There is the trouble. 

takes the position of President of the United States without any ac- There is nothing in the testimony with regard to DeSoto Parish except 

tion at the hands of the present Executive. He becomes-such is our the few pages I have referred to; and I think on looking over the 

law, and God be thanked that it is so· may it always be so-he be- testimony it would justify the throwing out of certain polls, but on comes a private citizen of the United States, ancl is no more than any that question I am not prepared to pass an opinion because I do not. 

other of the citizens of the United States. It will not do to talk about know all the particulars and details. · enforcing anything. The good sense of the people of this country, This is all that it is necessary to say about DeSoto. The parish of 

operating on and passing through their representatives, will see to.it DeSoto was not one of the parishes where intimidation was alleged, 

that .Justice is done here. What right have I to suppose that my and proved as clearly as any histOric fact, in my judgment, from the 

friend the Senator from Massachusetts, or my friend the Senator from birth of Adam down io .our existence at this moment. Therefore, it 

New York, or my friend the Senator from Rhode Island has any de- is a mere .fly on the wheel and has nothing to do with this case. sire to do what is wrong because they belong to another political or- I ~an not fail to express my gratification at hearing some of the obganization than myself T God forbid that I should entertain any servations made by the Senator from Connecticut. He has told Uff 

such opinion. that. neither ne nor his colleague from Connecticut nor the candidate 

It has been said that the President of the Senate has stated that of the democratic party for Presjdent desires the election of :Mr. Til· 

he, the President of the Senate, has the entire control of the votes den by trick or fraud, or, to use his own much more proper phrase; 

and that no votes can be counted except by himself. Sir, I do not wrong. That, certainly, ought to be the feeling of all of us; and it 

believe the President of the Senate has ever said any such thing. seems to me that if the whole American people and both Houses of 

The President of the Senate has no more right to count the votes than Congress and every one who has· anything to do with this business· one of the pages. My friend from Massachusetts [Mr. D.A. WES] smiles. shall act upon that rule, the strict rule of right, we shall have no dif~ 

I say the President of the Senate has no more rigM to count the ficulty in ascertaining who has been elected President of the United 

votes for President than one of the pages. The Constitution de- States. 

volves a certain duty upon the President of the Senate, but nothing So fa.r as the Oregon case is concerned, I said the other day that it 

else. The Constitution of the United States says that " the Presi- did no~ 'rise to the dignity of a dispute, nor in my judgment does it; 

dent of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of because it is ·perfectly apparent that three living persons, citizens of 

Representatives, open all the certificates, arid the votes shall then be Oregon, reQeived a. majority of the votes at the election in Oregon. 

counted." By whom T If the convention that formed the Constitu- They were all republicans. It was alleged that one of' them was intion of the United. States had intended that the counting of the votes eligible for the office because he held a post-office yielding him the 

should be done by the President of the Senate, that convention would enormous profit of $248 in the course of a year, I believe. Is that itt 

have so stated, in my judgment. Mr. MITCHELL. Two hundred and sixty-eight dollars. 

It has been said by partiSan newspapers that the President of the Mr. SHERMAN. Two hundred and sixty-eight dollars in the 

Senate woqld be the president of. the convention of the two Houses, course of the year. Therefore he was technically ineligible. I might 

and as president of the convention would hold supreme power. Sir, I stop here and dispute with Senators as to whether this is an ''office 

desire to say another thing right here ; it might as well be said now of trust or pro:&t," which I believe is the language of the Constitution; as at any other time; and that is that the President of the Senate is whether it is within the meaning of the language o.f the Constitution 

not the president of the joint convention unless he be appointed by an office of trust or profit, and therefore whether he. was ineligible. 

that convention. Nowhere does the Constitution determine who shall But that is not material. It is certain that he resigned, that though 

be the president of the two Houses when they come together. I agree he received a majority of the votes he resigned and did not attempt 

that by usage, by precedent, the President of the Senate has always to hold the office under that election but was afterward elected to 

been the presiding officer of the two Houses. I am not about to say fill a vacancy after his 'disability had been removed, so that the will 

that I would not prefer him to any other man for the presiding officer. of the people of Oregon, honestly, fairly expressed, would entitle 

What I do say .is that the Constitution gives him no such place. He Governor Hayes to the three votes of the State of Oregon, because his 

is simply the custodian of the votes, and as the custodian opens the electors confessedly received a majority of the votes cast at the alecvotes. He is not by law or by rule or by constitution the president tion in Oregon. That ought to settle that matter. 

of tha joint convention. I desired, sir, although this my close has Mr. BOGY. How about Florida! 

nothing to do with the question of Oregon, to say just this much with . :Mr. SHERMAN. I am perfectly Willing to apply the same rule to re~a_.rd to the po'Yer belonging to the presidi~g offic~r of. this body. Florida. But ther~ is .another provision of the Constitution which is 

l trust t:b.at every Senator, ~very member of th~ House of Rapre- mau.datory, and which I am sm:prised that my friends on th.e oth.er 
318 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. DECEMBER 20, 

side of the House do not seem to give force and effect to. What is 

that i The Constitution provides that these electors shall be elected 

in the mode pointed out by the laws of the State. It is purely an election by the respective States, to be governed by their laws. I am very certain that if Governor Hayes should become satisfied, or if I 

should become satisfied, so far as my action may bear on this question-! do not know thatitwill-thatGovernorHayesdidnot receive 

the honest vote of a State or that he did not have a fair majority of 

the votes legally cast he would not desire the electora.l vote of any of 

the disputed States. If it should be clear that in South Carolina., or Florida, or Louisiana, Governor Hayes did not receive a majority of 

the legal votes cast at the election in either of those States, I would 

not have him-God forbid that he should-accept the office of President of the United States with such a conviction upon his con- science. Any man who would do it would be dishonored before men and before God. But the trouble is that in the investigation of these 

matters we must not only pursue the forms but the spirit of the law. 

In the case of Lopisiana the law has been in existence, more or less 

precisely as it is now, for six years, which authorizes certain officers 

named by the senate of the State to canvass the returns. It gives 

them full and plenary powers-powers that are not given except in 

about half a dozen States of the Union. It is admitted that that board was legally organized. Although it is claimed that it failed to fill a vacancy yet I have heard no lawyer insist that that defeated the legality of the board or destroyed the power of the board. Tbis board, 

then, legally created by the laws of Louisiana, have acted on these re- turns. They have acted upon them openly in the light of day. That 

is conceded on all.hands. 

Mr. BOGY. I do u.>t adinit that they acted openly itt the light of 

day, nor do I admit as a member of this body that that board was legally organized. I think it was not legally organized. My friend 

has a right to state his views, but he must not state them as those of 

all of us. Mr. SHERMAN. My friend is the only doubting Thomas I have 

heard in the f3enate. I will speak for all that I think are right. That 

that was a legally constituted board has been disputed, it seems, by 

the Senator from Missouri. It is provided for by the law of Louisi- ana in so many words. It exercised functions under a law somewhat 

similar in character in 1872, and under precisely the same law in 187 4. 

A committee of the House of Representatives, having power to do it 

in the investigation of the election of a member of the House and 

also in the investigation of the Louisiana election generally, held 

that they made a mistake o£ law. They construed it that they had 

power to act in excluding votes when there was no formal complaint or protest made by the officers who held the election. The committee set aside the action of the board to that extent for the purpose 

of founding a compromise in Louisiana, but at the same time they 

certified to the honorable character and general good conduct of the 

board, and the only difference was in regard to a legal opinion, and 

the chairman of that committee the other day in debate in the other 

House, to which we may refer as part of the history of the times, re- peated again, and I am sorry I have not now his language before me, 

that that committee never did arraign the returning board for per 

soual misconduct or arraign its legality. They acknowledged its 

legality. It was a conceded fact. Mr. WHYTE. Will the Senator from Obio allow me to interrupt 

him for the moment! I hold in my hand a report, and he will allow me to read just that one section. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I am referring to what Mr. HoAR said in the 

House of Representatives the other day. 

Mr. WHYTE. But I understood·the Senator to refer to the report 

made by Messrs. FOSTER; Phelps, Pot.ter, and Marshall. 

Mr. SHERMAN. On the contrary, I did not. That is not thereport of the committee. Tha:t wasthereportof asubcommittee. If my 

friend will allow me to go on, I will ask the Secretary to get me th\3 

debate in the House, I think on Friday last, containing the statement 

of Mr. HoAR in regard to that report and hand it to me; I have not 

got it before me. . I repeat that the report to which the Senator from Maryland now refers is the report of a subcommittee, which was afterward recon- sidered and re-examined by the whole committee that went there and 

made a full and formal report, and that is the report; and of that 

report Mr. Ho.rn, the chairman of the committee, made his statement 

the other day, in which he showed that the legality of that board was not questioned nor the pe111onal conduct of the members of the board, 

but that the committee did hold that they had no power to exclude 

the returns in certain cases where certain formal protests had not 

been presented. 

Mr. HAMLIN. Will the Senator allow me to say that my colleague 

in the House, [Mr. FRYE,] another member of that committee, in the 

public press has made the precise statement that Mr. HoAR made in 

the Hon ef 

}.fr. SHERMAN. I know, and I want read, so that Senators may see exactly how the fact stands, the statement made by Mr. HOAR so often 

commented upon. Senators have sometimes confounded a report made 

by a subcommittee of this committee with the report made by the 

committee. That subcommittee reported back to the whole committee antl the whole committee, acting on the report of the subcommittee, proceeded, in pursuance of the previous instn1ctions of the House, 

to examine the- wl10le snbject-DJ..atter llB a full committee. It is- the 

report ma-de by the whole committee that I referred to, aud in that 

report Mr. HoAR says the legality of the board was not contested, was not called in question; it was only its construction of the ln.w; nnd 

Mr. HOAR very properly says that if everybody should be arrmgned as a rascal because he fell into an erroneous construction of bis own power, all of us perhaps, might be arraigned in the same way. 

I say, then, that the board of returning officers in Loui~iana were a. legal, validtribunaltmderthe laws of the State of Louisiana to pass on these returns, and they have done it. Now, so far a.s public opinion 

is concerned, so far as good faith is concerned, it is perfectly right and 

proper for Senators and editors and everybody else to show that this 

board acted wrongfully or acted corruptly. I do not deny that frand, 

open, palpable fra.ud would defeat any act whate\"er. Even the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States might possibly in cer- tain cases be impeached for fraud, gross, palpable fraud. But here is a board, with legal powers, legally constituted, in the exercise of a duty 

imposed by the State. Here is the Constitution of the United States 

which makes the laws of the State conclusive and gives to the State 

Legislature full authority to prescribe the mode and manner of choosing electors. Tbis board then acted on these returns. The result is 

sent to us under the certificate of the governor and secretary of sta.te 

of the State of Louisiana. 

Now I ask Senators how they can open up this case except as an appeal to public opinion, to show that the board acted wrongfully and 

corruptly T I say for one tha.t if it should appear that any of the 

boards in thedi6putedStateshave been wrongly, corruptly, abu ingand 

grossly misusing their powers even under the State authority to make a false return, I for one would not desire to see Governor Hayes or anybody else have the benefit of that return. There is no question of 

controversy about that. The real difficulty we have to deal with is 

behind that; how wo shall get at these bets; what power the Honse 

ha.s; what power the Senate has; what power Congress may have in 

enacting a la.w prescribing the mode and manner in which the count 

shall be made. These are questions that gentlemen may debate with reason and moderation, and I, for one, am prepared to consider them 

whenever they are presented by any one. When you come to the questions presented by the action of these returning boards, their powers, 

&c., as to whether they acted right in DeSoto, whether instead of 

throwing out 19 votes they ought to have thrown out 20 or only 10, 

I sa.y you are traveling beyond the record. Unless your allega.tions 

go to impeach the honesty and good faith and integrity of the board, 

its action is :final and conclusive upon us. I will now ask the SeCJretary to read what Mr. HOAR said: 

The CmEF CLERK. This is in the RECORD of December 16: 

Mr. HoAR. I do not propose of course to engage in any discussion of this general question. I should not have risen at all but for the allusion in the document just read to a report sirned by myself, the honorable gentleman from New York, [Mr. 

WIIRELEU,] and the honorable gentleman from Marne [Mr. FRYE] who sits near me. It is difficult to believe that the gentlemen whose names are si,med to that paper, some of whom I have known and respected, could have known its contents, or, if 

they knew its contents, could have known the contents of the document which they undertake to cite. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I will say that the speaker was commenting on the paper which was read here the other day, the report of Mr. Trumbull and others. 

The Chief Clerk continued the reading, as follows : 

That paper grossly perverts and misstates to the American people t.he document 

which it assumes to quote. It picks out one or two sentences, miring them up with sentences from another document coming from another quarter; and thus it is 

made to appear that that committee said somethin.g or came to some conclusion in 

derogation of the honesty or honor of the returning board of the State of Louisi- ana. Nothin.,. can be found in that report imputin~ any fault to that board, except this: We dec1a.re that the returning board, followmg the precedents set them by their democratic predecessors in the same office in 1872, erred in one particular in a construction of their legal powers, which construction was clearly necessary t.o remedy a llefect 1n the law. \Ve held that where the people of a particular parish had been set upon by armed bands, prevented from making a canva s, prevented from having discussion. prevented from going to the polls and casting their votes, 

still, unless a particular officer certified to tho e facts, although he migbt have been 

intimidated himself or might have been a part of the conspiracy, there was no law in the State of Louisiana to remove tl.tat difficulty. Mr. ELLIS. No government, the ~entleman means. Mr. HoAR. No law jn fue State of Louisiana to remove that difficulty. There 

should have been such a law. Does an.ybody deny it 1 Is it an imputation of dishonor upon the gentlemen of the returning board that, following the democratic 

precedent, they gave such a construction to the illw in that particular a<J removed 

that clear defect Y • 

Now as to the question in regard to the absence of government, we di<l not say that Governor Kellogg was not lawfully elected governor of that State. On the 

contrary, we declarea that we believed he was so elected; and this Hou e so recog- nized him on our recommendation. We said that the democratic party in 1872, con. spiring with Governor Warmoth, had destroyed the legal evidence of Governor Kello~'s election, and that therefore we were obliged to resort to the less satis. 

factory methods which we had followed for ascertaming the real will of that peo- ple. It is true that we pointed out to the American people the grave danger t4at now ex:.ist.s. We said that it was a serious thing that the truo evidence of the 

election of a State govern~nt should be destroye~ as it had been by the democrats 

of Louisiana, thus 1eavin,!! us to grope in the dark m order to arrive at the true will 

of the people. We said, furt.her, that the democratic party of the North, if they would but cause it to be understood that they would have no political affiliation 

with meu who would commit murder for political purposes, could end this whole 

trouble in a month. 

Now the question to-day is, what is the true will of the majority of tho legal voters of the State of Louisiana1 It is not a question of paper, of parchment, or of statute. Is it true, gentlemen on the other side of the House, that there a.re coun- ties and parishes in the United States where men cannot cast their votes because 

they are assailecl with murder and assassination! Let us know that. If it be not true, we shall all rejoicei....and if the ascertainment that it is not true results in the 

election of a democratio rreside11t, we snall·all rejoice that the stigma Is removed. 
1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 319 

Mr. SHERMAN. The statement of Judge HoAR has the appearance 

of judicial fairness, and no doubt is the deliberate conviction of his own mind; and I assent to every word there stat-ed. Now what does 

he show in regard to this returning board t Two years ago they fell 

into the same mistake of law, in the opinion of the committee, that 

the democratic board had done two years previous to that. 

Mr. BOGY. And this year. 

Mr. SHERMAN. No, sir; I understand not. The Senator will find 

that that is a mistake. There was no protest whatever, no complaint 

made by the legal officers of the election two years ago. TJ:!e question a.s to whether it should be done within twenty-four hours after 

the election did not come up at all. There was no complaint made, no written formal complaint made under the law of Louisiana, and 

therefore the law was not complied with. It was held four years ago 

by the democratic board that, under the last clause of section 26 of 

the election law of Louisiana, any candidate might make that com- plaint and the board might pass upon the complaint. Our House 

committee, however, held them to a more rigid construction of the 

law, but they say they did not call in question their integrity or their 

conduct, because they had simply fallen into an erroneous construction of a law followjng a democratic board that preceded them only 

two years before. 

Now, when Senators come here and admit that Governor Grover has 

participated. in what is called a wrong, because that was the statement made by the Senator from Com1ecticut, when it is conceded 

that Governor Grover and the secretary of state o~ Oregon participated 

in what is called a wrong, although, as the Senator from Connecticut 

says, without wrong intent but simply through a mistake of the law; 

when he is so kind and generous and merciful to the governor of 

Oregon and the secretary of state of Oregon, why can he not have a little kindness and meroy and generosity to the returning officers of 

Louisiana t Is there anything,in the conduct of these two classes of men that should make one rule to apply to one and another to another t 

Here is a returning board, acting under the law of Louisiana, pursuing what they regard as their plain duty, a board legally organized, 

acting for the third time under, I belie~e, the same law and having 

made their decision in plain conformity to the law of Louisiana; they are to be denounced, and the newspapers contended and still insist that 

the committee of the Honse have denounced these men in some un- measured language. I felt bound to have read to the Senat-e this 

statement of Judge HoAR that the committee of the Honse never did 

make such a denunciation, that the original charge was made by a subcommittee of the House committee, and that that report of the 

subcommittee was afterward revised and reconsidered and re-ex- amined by the whole committee and it was upon the :final action of 

t.hat committee that the people of Louisiana, through their leading 

members of both political parties, finally settled the dispute in regard 

to Kellogg and the State Legislature, the house being given by the 

decision of the committee to the democrats and Kellogg recognized as the governor of Louisiana. 

Now the gentlemen who made that decision declare that they never said one word against the integrity or conduct of the board, but simply 

pointed out an error of law into which they had fallen and corrected 

that error. That is all they did. Yet they are denounced, and the 

newspapers, notwithstanding the manifest statements that had been 

made of fairness in the conduct of their proceedings, still insist on ar- raigning this board as men guilty of some great wrong and fraud. 

There is no evidence of that kind. While my friend from Missouri 

will not yield anything or confess to anything, he must remember that 

the committee appointed by himself and other gentlemen did say that 

they were present at all these proceedings except the sessions when 

they took up the final returns and ma-de their decisions; that is, every 

paper wa.s opened in their presence, every document bearing on the 

case, every scrap of testimony was :filed in their presence and in the 

presence of others ; and so far as any one could see the proceedings of 

the board were open, honest, fair, and their rules were reasonable. It 

is a very remarkable thing, too, that the very rule that they prescribed as to the admission of persons to see this count has been 

adopted by the committees of the House and of -the Senate, by the 

committee of the Senate certainly, sent to Louisiana. They allowed 

four gentlemen on each side representing the respective parties, they allowed the representatives of the press to report their proceedings, 

and a few others besides to be present, and excluded the great mass of the crowd outside. They adopted the very rule of publicity of our . own Senate committee composed of honored members of this body of 

both political parties. That committee adopted \the very same rule 

in conducting th~ proceedings that this board, so· often arraigned, did 

in their examination of the returns of Louisiana. 

Sir, I wish to consider the acts of all these officers with charity n.nd 

kindness. When I gave my opinion the other day that the case in 

Oregon in my judgment would not in the minds of the people of the 

United States stand a.s a question of dispute, I said nothing about 

Governor Grover, nothing of the officers who performed their duties as they thought conscientiously. I would not arraign those officers~ 

but I appeal to the same charity for the returning board of Louisi- ana and for these other returning boards that you ask us to extend . to Governor Grover and the secretary of state of Oregon, who par- ticipated in what my friend from Connecticut calls a wrong. If 

gentlemen could show that these boards acted corruptly, and thus · str~ck at the foundation of their whole proceedings, they might wake 

a different case for public opinion to act upon. I say for one that, 

rather than see Governor Hayes elected by a fraudulent return, an illegal return, a return that violates honor and justice, I would see him 

anywhere else than in the office of President of the Uiiited States, 

and I know I but speak his sentiments when I say that, if you col1-

vince him that any of these boards have acted corruptly and fraudulently and dishonestly, he will make no claim to the office of President of the United States, and I know I can speak for thousands of 

friends of his who believe he is fairly and honestly elected that they 

will make no such claim. 

It is in the absence of all such prooi, in the absence of all such allegation, when we produce you the regular return of these officers of 

the State governments, that you at once attack the officers o.f the 

State governments and attack the laws of the States; and the l::Lws 

creating these returning boards are denounced. Why, sir, the Cohstitution declares that the States shall prescribe the mode and man- ner of doing this thing; arid are yon, who have always been the defenders of the rights of the States, you who insist that Congress is 

trampling down the rights of the States-are you the men to de- nounce the exercise of a plain, legal duty by the officers of a State 

government t That is the attitude in which you are placed. No, no, 

Mr. President. All these questions I believe will be decided by the 

general acquiescence of the American people. As the case now stands, 

it does seem to me that the returns from the three disputed States, 

Lollisiana among them, are on exactly the same footing and foundation of law and honor as the returns from the State of New York or· Ohio. The case of Oregon has already been sufficiently disposed of, 

and it is not necessary for me to comment upon it. There is no occa- sion in the examination of this question for any undue excitement. 

If the question of fraud in the action of a returning board should come up as a matter of public opinion, then probably it would be 

time enough to discuss the evidence; but in the case of Louisiana, 

although I would not be able to show and could not from the nature 

of the testimony be able to show that the action of the returning 

board as to a parish officer or a.s to a member of the Legislature or as to local matters was correct, I .think I can show upon this testimony; 

by every rule of evidence that I have ever read in a law book or known· to exist in morals, that judging by the evidence the vote of Louisiana 

ought fairly to be counted for Governor Hayes. 

Mr. BURNSIDE. Mr. Presidentbi have decided to vote for the 

amendment of the Senator from elaware, [Mr. BAYARD;] but in 

casting that vote I do not desire to be understood as placing myself 

in accord with the logic, the argument, or the conclusion of my hon:-

orable friend the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. BoGY.] I must confess 

that while listening to his argument I felt he had lost sight of the. 

usual fairness with which he deals with subjects on this floor. 

I am not ready to cast any vote, or to make any remark on the 

floor of this Chamber which would cause anybody to believe that I 

for one moment can estimate a man as an honest, patriotic governor 

of a State who will by an act of his allow the credentials of a whole 

electoral college to be placed in the hands of oue man, that one man being his political friend and the remainder of the members of that 

college being his political opponents. No man can convince me, upon 

the showing which this Senate has, and which the whole country has 

of this case, that Governor Grover can be regarded as an upright, 

high-toned governor, because no honest man will pursue a course of 

that kind. But I do hold that in introducing resolutions of inquiry 

in this body preambles which assert that there is guilt, when a com- mittee is charged with the duty of discovering whether there is guilt or not, are undignified, to say the lea.st, and ought not to accompany 

·such resolutions. 

I am g1ad to be quite in accord with my friend the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. EATON] in many of the expressions of opinion he has made 

to us to-day, and it is my earnest hope that I may perform the duty now resting on us with a conscientious regard for the law, the facts, 

and the justice of the case. But, Mr. President, in view of the information of which we are possessed, information derivedfrom,thepublic prints, from the co ):respondents of newspapers, from the statements 

of Governor Grover himself, and frnm the statements of both sets of 

electors, I do not see how any Senator can come to the conclusion 

that in any event that man Governor Grover can be an honest and 

fair man ; and if these statements of the case are shown to the American people to coincide with the facts of the case, it is my honest belief that his name will stand before tp.e country as the synonym fot: 

trickster. · · · .Mr. BOGY. I will ask myfriendfromRhode Island a question. I 

think he finds fault with the governor of Oregon becn.nse he handed, as he says, the certificate of the election of electors to Mr. Cronin. 

That is the point of the objection the Senator makes. 

Mr. BURNSIDE. That is the point I make. He banded all the 

certificates to his political friend. That political friend, by the present showing of the case, declined to hand the certificates belonging 

to the republican electors to them except upon certain conditions. 

Mr. BOGY. What 1\Ir. Cronin did I do not know; but the electors were in session, and the certificates could only be handed to one man- and they were handed to Mr. Cronin. Now, my friend from Rhode 

Island very well knows that there must have been a contest between 

those men growing out of the peculiar condition of things, whic.h 

contest the governor of Oregon had nothing to do with; and he 

could not hand these certificates to all the men at o.nce. 
320 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. DECEMBER 20, 

Mr. BURNSIDE. Then I should say that the governor of Oregon 

ought to have disclaimed the act of the man Cronin and say he was 'no party to it; that it was his distinct intention that each elector 

should have his certificate. 

Mr. BOGY. The time has not come to disclaim that fact. There 

has been no charge made, except by the Senator. 

Mr. BURNSIDE. The time has come, it seems, for him to publish a. long statement to the country to justify himself. It would not 

have taken him a half a minutetoaddjust thatonesentellce: "I disclaim the action of Mr. Cronin in this respeQt; it was my distinct 

and honest intention that the republican electors should have their 

certificates." 

Mr. BOGY. The point made is simply this, that the governor of 

Oregon gave the certificate to one man. Be could do nothing more. 'they were in session. It had to be given to one. It could not be 

given to alL Whatever sharp practice I\}ight have been perpetrated 

by "those men ·afterward is neit.her here nor there. But if I am not 

interrupting my friend from Maryland [Mr. WHYTE] I should like to 

say a few words in answer to the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. SHEit..'\J'A...~.] 

He makes pretty much the same statement to-day that was made 

the other day. He sustains the action of the returning board of Louisiana. First he says that it is not denied by a. single Senator on the 

democratic side of this Chamber that the returning board of Louisi- ana was legal and legally organized. I say that he has not heard one single democratic Senator admit that fact ; on the contrary, it h~ 

been denied, because the law provides for five members of the returning board, and these men, in violation of that law, as the Senator from 

Ohio well knows, went on and assumed to discharge their duty when 

there were but four members of the board; thus destroying all its 

legality. Powers were conferred on five men, who must be by law 

members of different political organizations. It contained but four 

men, being all republicans, and they wonld not appoint the fifth man, 

who by the law had to be a democrat; and hence that board was not 

legally organized. The Senator is mistaken when he puts into our mouths the words that we admit the legality of that board. Be is 

furthermore mistaken when he says that that board proceeded in ac- COI'danca with the law. It never did. It did now as it did in 1874, as it did in 1872; and its action in1872 is claimed aa a precedent; and 

he calls that a democratic precedent. Why, sir, there has not been a democratic organization of that kind in Louisiana for years. It was a republican organization. At the head of that board in 1872 stood 

Lynch.. Do you call Lynch a democrat f Backed by whom t By 

W ru:moth. Who ever called Warmoth a democrat t Be may for a while have confederated with the democracy-to their shame I s:ty 

it-but he never wa.s a democrat; and it is not correct to say that there was a democratic returning board in Louisiana in 1872. 

And, sir, when the Senator from Oblo says that the committee appointed by the House of Representatives did not censure the doings 

of that board, I assert that he is mistaken, and I hope that my friend 

from Maryland will, before we close the debate, read the report which 

he ha.s on his table before him. I say that .Mr. Phelps and Mr. FosTER, two republicans, did make a report, and it became the majority 

report, and is 86 printed, and that report said that these men had acted 

illegally. 

Mr. SHERMAN. What does my friend say to the statement made 

by :Mr. HoAR in the Bouse t 

Mr. BOGY. I am only sorry that Mr. HoAR could so far have forgotten what he had done himself before as to make a statement of that • kind, because it is not correct, it is not sustained by the record, it is 

not sustained by the report, which I hope my friend from Maryland 

will soon read. It is an after-thought. He does not sustain himself 

by his own history. A. report was made by Mr. FOSTER and Mr. 

Phelps characterizing this board as men not worthy, to say the least, 

and all uniteC. in saying that they had done that which the law dicl 

not authorize them to do. They claim that they were authorized 

by precedent which the Senator from Ohio calls the precedent of ademocratic board in 1872. Does not the Senator knowwell that there was no democratic board in Louisiana in 1872 t 

Mr. SHERMAN. On the contrary, I know exactly the reverse, and I 

tell the Senator that he has fallen into an error. There were two boards 

in 1872. The first board·orrranized under this very law was the democratic board. That was the board which returned McEnery. The 

other was the Lynch board, and the democratic board was the De 

Feriet board. That wa.s the first board organized under the act un- der which this very board is now acting; and my friend is piistaken, 

therefore, when he says that there was not a democratic board. In 

1872 the first returning officers under this law were a democratic board. 

The republican board or Lynch board was acting under the law of 

1870. That first democratic board established the rule in regard to 

this matter of protests that was followed by the present board two 

years afterward. 

Mr. BOGY. The DeFeriet board, which he calls the democratic 

board, was not a democratic board, although there was a 'kind of 

comllination in Louisiana which had combined with the democra-cy; 

but it was a mixed board. Let that be as it may, the precedent 

that is spoken of here is the precedent established by the Lynch 

board, which was a republican board; and what was that! They 

permitted testimony to 'be received by that board in violation of the 

law, because thelllwis positive. TheSeruttoris mistakena.gain when 

he sa.ys it was not thought t& be of any importance b~Qre that the 

return of intimidation, or fraud, or bad conduct in the different parishes should be made within twenty-four hours. It has always 

been considered a most essential thing, and the law is positive in two 

sections that, if anything of this kind transpires on the day of election or on the day of- registration, it shall be the duty of the com- missioner and of the supervisor of registration or election to make 

t.hat return within twenty-four hours; and that has always been con- sidered the law and has always been violated by the returning board of 

Louisiana, and the committee of the Bousesti~matizecHtin very mild 

terms as something illegal; it was more than 1llega.l; it was a fraud. 

That same thing was done there a short time ago when the Sen~tor was there. l!'ew, if any, returns of intimidation had beeu made from any parishes in Louisiana. Perhaps there was none at all; but if there were any, they were few indeed, and none had yet been maclewhen I was in 

New Orleans, weeks and weeks after the election, and we inquired into 

it. They were made even days after the Senator was in New Orleans. 

Made ho\V 7 Affid~vits taken in the city of New Orleans from the 

scum, and the sewers, and the sidewalks, and faubourgs of that city 

by men who could not sign their names, and, of cour e, could not 

read what was written for them; and, on the affidavi-ts of such men, a majority of 8,000 votes in the State has been overturned and an apparent majority of near 4,000 votes given on the other side. If 

that is fair, I have yet to learn what fairness is. Thus this board did 

tha.t in violation of law which had been done by the board in 1 74, 

and which the board in 1874 felt justified in doing because the board 

in 1872 had done it; but the committee of the Honse said it was wrong; and yet when that report of the committee was known to 

these men, known to the Senator from Ohio, this present board pursued 

the same course in violation of law. ' 

Now, sir, if a return of t.hat kind, made in violation oflaw, can elect a President of the United States, why should not the return of the 

governor of Oregon be as good and also able to elect a President of 

the United States f The Senator's effort has been from the beginning of this contest to sustain the action of this board, its purity, its 

character; to show that it has pursued the law;. but it has violated 

the la.w in every respect, first, in not organizing with five men, as the 

law required; second, in receiving a:ffidavit·s of intimidation and bad 

conduct on the day of election, in violation of the law. And yet the 

Senator says they have acted in Axact accordance with the law and with .great propriety; that these are immaculate men, good men, pure men, 

the peers of the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, 

whose decision is entitled to as much respect as the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States! The Senator is makinfrragraateffort 

to sustain the bull-dozing of the State of Louisiana. do not think 

he will succeed. 

I am happy to have heard him make the declaration to-day-and as I believe him to be an honorable man I thinkit will be carried out-that 

if he ever can be satisfied that the conduct of that board has not been 

fair and honest ancl legal, he will himself not sustain the acts of 

the board. If he cannot be. satisfied of that fact when the pime 

comes, then he would not be satisfied if a man should come from the 

dead or speak with the voice of an angel, because the fact will be 

made so plain that the blind can see it; no man on earth but will admit the action of the returning board of Louisiana has not bean what 

it should be. 

I am compelled to say these things, Mr. President, and it is the 

position I assumed from the beginning and the Senator is only repeating what he said when this-discussion took place in his effort to sus- tain the board. I say that the board ha.s not placed itself before 

the country in a w~y to be entitled to credit. I have no personal 

feelings of animosity to its members-none at all. I know Mr. 'Vella 

but very slightly. But the question arises above that. It is a fact that 

they are not men of standing at home. They have been held up before this country as unworthy and some of them are men of no attainment, of no character, of no reputation, none at all at home; and the 

idea of these men returning the vote of that State and being sustained 

in the plausible, gentle, insinuating way of the Senator from Ohio is 

what I cannot myself submit to. I say the board was illegally organized and no democrat has ever admittecl that the board was legally 

organized; but it proceeded illegally. A. committee compbsed of re- publicans in the Bouse heretofore sent down there say so and the 

law says so; and all their proceedings are now illegal because no cer- tificates of intimidation or protests were made within twenty-four 

hours and forwarded with the returns in compliance with the law. 

Mr. HAMLIN. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. 

Mr. WINDOM. Before the motion made by the Senator from Maine 

is put, I desire to make a. statement with reference to a conference ·report which is expected every moment from the House. I received 

information a few moments ago that the conference report on the bill 

appropria.ting money for the expenses of the committee going south 

would be sent here within ten or fifteen minutes. It is very important that it should be agreed to to-day, as the committees on both sides a~ anxious it should be. I hope the Senate will not adjourn until 

we act upon that conference report. 

Mr . .ALLISON. We are only going into executive session. 

Mr. WITHERS. Can we not proceed to the consideration of execu- tive business with the understanding that when the doors are re-opened 

the conference report shall be acted upon f 

:Mr. WINDOM. If the Se~ate -will oot adjourn in executive &eliSion 
1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 321 

but return from executive session to consider the report, I have no The Clerk read as follows: 

objection. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine moves that 

the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. 

LmRARY OF CONGRESS, 

Washington, D. 0., December 19, 1876. 

The motion was agreed to ; and the Senate proceeded to the con- sideration of executive business. After fifteen minutes spent in ex- ecutive session, the doors were re-opened, and (at four o'clock and 

twenty minutes p.m.) the Senate adjourned. 

DEAR Sm: My attention has just-been called to a highly scurrilous assault upon 

you in this morning's National Republican of this citv. My purpose in writing this note ia to pronounce the assertion prefixed to that article, that one of the Li- brary attendants told the writer that the pamphlet referred to had been " stolen 

from the Library," a falsehood in every particular. Mr. Morris, the assistant who 

informed the Republican reporter of the absence of the pamphlet, informs me that 

the interview as printed is a base and willful fabrication. Its author, I unders~dJ 

is one A. M. Soteldo, lately of the New York.Free Lance, a journal devo00<1 

chiefly to libels. 

Very respectfnlly, A. R. SPOFFORD, 

H?n. FRRNANDO W oon Librarian of Ooogrus. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. I repeat that every charge, of every nature or char!J.Cter, which the 

WEDNESDAY, December 20, 1876. paper referred to has made is, like the one referred to by Mr. Spofford, equally without foundation. 

The House met at twelve o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. I thank the House for granting me this indulgence. I promise not 

I. L. TOWNSEND. to trouble it again about any matter so purely personal. 

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. CONGRATULATION FROM mELAND. I SENECA INDIANS. 

Mr. SEELYE, byunanimous consent, from theCommitteeon Indian The SPEAKER. The Chair desires to state to the House that he 

Affairs, reported a. substitute (H. R. No. 4257) for the bill (H. R. No. has information that there is in this city a gentleman who bears to 

2158) to amend an act entitled "An a{}t to authorize the Seneca Nation the people of this country from the Irish nation congratulations to 

of New York Indians to lease lands within the Cattaraugus and Aile- our people on this centennial year. 

gany reservations, and to confirm existing leases," approved Febru- Mr. HOLMAN. For the purpose of preparing for consideration of 

ary 19, 1875, and moved that the same be recommitted to the com- the House such expression as may be deemed appropriate in recognimittee and ordered to be printed, not to be brought back on a motion tion Of this friendly act of the people of Ireland, I submit the followto reconsider. ing preamble and resolution: 

The motion was agreed to. Whereas it has been announced to this House by the Speaker that Mr. John 

REFORM: SCHOOL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.. O'Conner Power, M. P., has been deputed to present to the people of the United 

States congratulations of the Irish nation on the centenary of American IndependMr. STEVENSON. I ask unanimous consent to report back from ence: Therefore, the Committee for the District of Columbia joint resolution (H. R. Be it resolved, That the subject of his mission be referred for consideration to the 

No. 169) authorizing the Secretary of War to supply blankets to the Committee on Foreign .Affairs, with instructions to report what action should in 

Reform School of the District of Columbia. their opinion be taken in the premises. 

The joint resolution was read. Mr. SWAN!:{. I rise for the purpose of seconding the proposition of 

It authorizes and directs the Secretary of War to deliver, for the the gentleman from Indiana, and I will state for the information of use of the Reform ..School of the District of Columbia, two hundred the House that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has already had this 

Army blankets from an yin his custody belonging to the United States. subject under consideration and will report upon it as soon as possiMr. WILSON, of Iowa. Is there a report accompanyiog that joint ble, in accordance with the instructions contained in the resolution. 

resolution f We have and will accord him all the courtesies in the power of the 

The SPEAKER. There is none at the desk. committee of which I am chairman. 

No objection was made to the consideration of the joint resolution, Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. I would like to ask the gentleman 

and it was ordered to be engrossed and read a t bird time ; and being from Indiana. if it would not be better to say the " Irish people" 

engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. rather than "nation f" 

Mr. STEVENSON moved to reconsider the vote by which the joint Mr. HOLMAN. Inasmuch as the term" nation" used in its general 

resolution was adopted; and also moved that the. motion to reconsider sense is not inappropriate in this connection, I think it may very propbe laid on the table. erly be retained. 

The latter motion was agreed to. Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. I am in favor of the resolution in 

any shape. 

CLERK TO A COIDIITIEE. Mr. HOLMAN. There is a sense in which the term "nation" is 

Mr. HARTZELL, by unanimous consent, submitted the following very properly applied to the "Irish people." . resolution; which was read, and referred to the Committee of Ac- I ask the previous question upon adopting the preamble and reso- counts: lution . .Resolved, That the CommittE'.e on Expenditures in the Treasury Department be The previous question was seconded. 

allowed a special clerk for the remainder of the session, to be appointed by the Mr. HOAR. What is the national authority deputed to this gen- ~~~~n thereof, lpld to receive the same· compensation as clerks of regular com- tleman y 

RICHARD H. FOUTS. Mr. HOLMAN. It comes from that portion of the Irish people who 

Mr. WOODWORTH. At the close of last session, when I was absent now reside within the limits of Ireland. He is their representative, • 1. 1 f th H th bill (H R N 280 f h 1. R" h deputed by them py general expression as a people; uy eave 0 e onse, e · • 0 • 7) ort ere Ief of IC - Mr. HOAR. In what mode is the deputation made or authent_i- ard H. Fouts was rAported npon adversely from the Committee on cated f 

Military Affairs and laid upon the table. I ask unanimous consent Mr. HOLMAN. By general popular expression, as we are informed. that it now be placed npon the Private Calendar. Mr. BANNING. I object. That is one of the subjects which will properly b~ considered by the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs. It is the expression of a people, not of 

PERSONAL EXPLANATION. organized government, as the country is informed. 

Mr. WOOD, of New York. I rise to a question of privilege. Mr. HOAR. The gentleman from Indiana. by this resolution makes 

No objection was made. the House allege aa a fact that this gentlemen has been deputed by 

Mr. WOOD, ot New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask the indulgence of the the Irish nation. Now it is proper, if the House is to assert that fact, 

House for a few moments on a matter personal to myself. that it should know it. The gentleman from Indiana., [Mr. HoLMAN,] 

It is the first time that I have obtruded anything upon its attention who offered the resolution, I understand does not know that fact. My 

of a merely personal character. question to him is, What is the national authority! And suppose 

A newspaper of this city has been made the vehicle for circulating the Irish nation should 13ay next week that they did not depute this 

false and calumnious charges against me. Most of these refer to busi- gentleman. ness transactions which took place over thirty years ago, and which Mr. HOLMAN. The technical point raised by the gentleman from were then refuted, and retracted by their authors. Those which pur- 1t!assachusetts [Mr. HoAR] is clear enough. 

port to have occurred since that time have been proven equally with- Mr. BANNING. Is debate in order t 

out foundation. · The SPEAKER. The demand for the previous question has been 

These facts are known or should have been known to the parties seconded. The question is upon ordering the main question. 

who are now reviving them, doubtless for the purpose of deterring Mr. HOAR. I would say to the gentleman that perhaps it would me from the performance of my public duties at this juncture. I have be 'T>etter to use the words ''alleged to be deputed." . risen, therefore, to say that each and every allegation affecting my per- Mr. HOLMAN.- There seems to be no ·question of the fact. The 

sonal integrity in these publications are void of foundation, that they term "nation" used in this preamble is manifestly a£! used synony- were originally created for purposes of blaek-mail, that ther were mons with the term "people." 

promptly met by me then, and completely refuted, without ytelding Mr. HOAR. Why not say so f 

to the money demands which had been made on me, and have been Mr. HOLMAN. I trust the resolution will be adopted in its present 

revived since by political and personal enemies for objects obvious to . form. There is no iinpropriety or ambiguity in the terms used. The 

every one. whole subject will go before the Committee on Foreign Affairs for 

I ask the Clerk to read a letter sent to me this morning, without so- consideration. 

licitation, from Mr. Spofford, the highly esteemed Li-brarian of Congress, The-main question was then ordered ; and under the operation thereof 

which properlycharacterizesthenatnreoftheseassaults,and the source the preamble and resolution were adopted. 

from which ~hey now emanate. Mr. HOLMAN moved to reconsider the vote by which the preamblo 

V-21