CONGRESSION~L RECORD-HOUSE. 1333 

.COINAGE OF SILVER DOJ:.LARS. 

The Senate, as in COmmittee of the. Whole, resumed the consideration 

of the bill {H. R. 4976) for the retirement and recoinage_of the tradedollar. · 

~The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The pending question. is on the 

amendment proposed bytheSenatorfromKansas lMr. I:!!<mALLs], striking out the fifth section of the amendment reported from the Committee on Finance. · 

Mr. MORRILL. I move that the Senate proceed to the considera .. tion of executive business. · The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business. After sixteen minutes 'Spent in. execu- tive session the doors were reopened, and (at 5 o'clock and 6 minutes 

p.m.) the Senate adjourne~. 

HOUSE OF RE~RESENT~TIVES. 

FRIDAY, Feb'ruary _6, 1.885. 

The House met at 12 o'clock m. {Mr. BLACKBURN in the chair as Speaker pro tempore). PrayeLby the Chaplain, Rev. JOHNS. LINDSAY, D. D. . 

T~e J ou.rnarl of the pr~eedings of yesterday was read and approved. 

INSPECTOR of PUBLIC BUILDL~GS. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. If there be no objection the Ohair will 

lay before the House at this time some executive coiQ.munications. 

There was no oojection; and it was ordered acoordingly. 

The SPEAKER pro_ tempore laid before the Hou8e a letter fro:rp. the 

Secretary of the Treasury, asking an appropriation to pay thesalary.of 

inspector of public buildings; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. 

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS. 

The SPEAKER pr·o tempon also laid before the House a· letter from 

the Secretary'of the Treasury, tmnsmitting estimate for salaries and ex- penses of the Bureau of Labor _Statj.stics for the next fiscal year; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be 

printed. 

CIVIL OFFICERS, ALASKA. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore also laid ·before the House a letter from .thh Secreta.ry of the Treasury, inclosing a letter from the commissioner 

for Alaska, asking appropriation to pay the expenses of civil officers; 

which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered 

to be printed. 

making ·the correction he desires; my point of order is inade entirely in 

the interest of the public business. 

1\fr. ROGERS, of Arkansas. I hope the gentleman will withdraw 

_his objection, as the letter I send up to the Clerk's desk to be read will 

make the proper correction. 

:Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana. It is not a correction of the REOORD, 

but a correction of the gentleman's own .statement. 

Mr. ROGERS, of Arkansas. I did not hear the gentleman's last re- mark. · . 

·Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana. I say that it is not. a correction of the 

R.ECOR~ but a ~rrection of some previous statement which the gentleman nas had put upon the RECORD. . Now I make this objection in the very best of faith, because I desire 

to save the time of the House and to get on with the public business now before uS. I have uniformly interposed these objections, and cer- tainly with no ill-feeling toward any gentleman here upon the floor. 

Mr. ROGERS, of Arkansas. Let me make ·two suggestioPS to the 

gentleman froll1 Indiana: First, as a member of this House, if I have 

inadvertently made a ·statement which I ha~e found afterward to be 

not correct, it occurs to me that I should, under the rules of the House, 

have a right to make the correction. 

The SPEAKER pro temp01·e. The Chair must interpose and sustain 

the point of order of the gentleman from Indiana. 'tlie Chair does not 

think that the gentleman from Arkansas has stated a proposition which 

embodies a question of personal privilege. His proposition, as the 

Chair understands it, is simply to' correct a statement of his own which 

appears-in the RECORD, and the correctness of the RECORD in xegard 

to the statement is not questioned. It is only a correction of what the 

ge~tleman ltas himself placed in the RECORD, and in the opinion of the 

Chair does not constitute a question of privilege. 

Mr. ROGERS, _of Arkansas. Then I wi)l ask the gentleman from 

Indiana to with~:w the point of order and allow this letter to be 

printed in the RECORD for the information of the House. 

Mr. BROWNEi of Indiana.. I have no objection to that. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 

gentleman from·Arkausas? 

There was rio objection. 

The let~er referred to by ~Ir. RoGERS, of Arkansas~ is as follows: 

' OFFICE OF U!>'ITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 

Fo1·t &ni~h. Ark., February I, 1885. 

DEAR .JUDGE: Your favor of the 28th ultimo, relating to the Payne eases, is duly received. Payne was not convicted under a· criminal statu1:e1 but at the time of 

his death there·was a criminal suit pending against him for mtroducing spirit- uous liquor into the Indian country. There was also at that time a civil prose- cution pending against him for the enforcement of a penal statute against intruders in the -Indian country (R. S., sees. 2147 and 2148). Prior to this time two 

other civil suits fo·r the enforcement of this penal statute had already gone to 

judgment., one at the term preceding Payne's death and the other some two 

PUBLIC BUILDING, LOUISVILLE. or three years before.· The first of these. suits was hotly contested, prominent ·· laWYers from Saint Louis being sent here to argue it. · · The SPEAKER pro tempore also laid before the House a letter from The way the criminal proceeding came to be instituted was because at the _th& Secretary of the Treasury, inclosing a letter from the Supervising time of Payne'e last arrest be pointed out to the officers some whisky which he 

Architect of the Treas lat'v· to ' · · th li 't f th said he had introduced and that he defied the Government to proceed against ·-4 ury, re 1 e an mcrease ln 6 ml 0 e him for that; -that-in such a proceeding the question would be directly raised as ·cost of the public building at Louisville, Ky.; which ·was referred to to whether the country he and his followers were settling was in the Indian 

the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered _to be printed. count;ry. When he wag hrought here, and I was informed oflhis matter, I conQUESTIO.Y OF PRIVILEGE. 

Mr. ROGERS, of Arkansas. I rise to a_ question of personal privilege. On the·lst of .January last, while the gentleman from Kentucky was occupying the floor, by his permission I inten~pted him . to give something o~ the history of the prosecution against the late 

Mr. Payne, of Oklahoma notoriety. After my remarks were made a gentleman on the Committee on Appropriations called and asked me to show him the remarks to which I called his attention. On reflection I came to the oonclusion that one statementof fact in my remarks, 

found on page 904 of the CoNGRESSIO~AL RECORD, .was an error. I 

therefor'( addressed a letter to the district attorney of the United States 

for the western ~strict of Arkansas asking _the precise status of the 

litigation then pending, ~s well as that which had been. disposed of in 

court, .and in ord~r to correcb this statement now and to lay before the 

people of the country at this time interested in legislation touching 

the Oklahoma territOry I send the remarks I then made to the Clerk's 

desk to be read, and then will lay before the House the answer of the 

district attorney to my letter, which will furnish the country, and more particularly those States surrounding the Indian Territory, with the 

exact status of.that Oklahoma territory at this time as determined by 

the cou.rt.s. 

Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana. I am compelled to make the point of 

order, :Mr. Speaker. 

. The SPEAKER pro tempore. And the Chair is bound to sustain the 

point o:( order, because the gentleman from Arkansas does not state 

anything in the nature of a question of personal privilege. 

Mr.' ROGERS, of Arkansas. I desire simply to correct .an error in my remArks made in the House at that time. 

'f!J.e SPEAKER pro tMnJ1ore. If the gentleman desires to correct the 

RECORD, he will proceed, and the correction will be made accordingly, 

asJthat is a privileged question. But the gentleman proposes to cor- rect·an error of his own and not an error of the RECORD. · . Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana. I have no objection to the gentleman 

cluded to accommodate him, and filed the information charging him with the 

introduction. He then made an appUcation to the court for a continuance oT the case on the ground of an· absent witness by whom he alleged he could p1·ove that he did not bring the whisky in, but that it was brought in by another. I 

had announced myself ready for trial, and was perfectly willing to try the issue 

in that way. The case was continued on his motion. 

This suit, together wit·h the third and last civil action, abated at.hisdeath . At the tim.e the last civil suit was brought against Payne, there were suits of 

the same character brought against each of some twelve or fourteen of' his followers. These have all gone to judgment within the last few days. Very respectfully, Wl\1. H. H. CLAYTON. 

Hon . .J. H. RoGERS, Washington, D. C. 

ORD:ER OF BUSINESS. 

The SPEAKER pro -upnpore. Under the rule the Chair will now en~rtain ,motions to take up bills and resolutions for.. consideration, the 

hour beginning at twenty-five minutes past 1_2 o'clock. 

I\f.r. WHITE, of Kentucky. I rise to a questio:Q of order. 

The SPEAKER pro 'tempore. The gentleman will stat.e it. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. I desire to know whether under the 

rule recently adopted the Chair will hold · that the first blisiness in o1·der 

to-day is not the consideration of the Private Calendar; whether, in 

other words, the special rule of the House will supersede the order of 

business on Friday13? · 

K~THERINE n. C. MERRILL. 

The SPEAKER pro tempo1·e. The Ghair thinks that the rule of the 

House is imperqtive, and that the .first business in order is the unfinished business coming over from yesterday morning under this special 

rule, the bill called up by the gentleman from Louisiana, which the 

Clerk will report. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Be it enacted, &c., That the claim of Katherine C. B. Merrili, executrix of the 

last will and testament of ·Ayers P. Merrill, deceased, and late of the State of 

Mississippi, for quartermaster and commissary stores and supplies alleged to 

haVe been taken and used by the United States A!'my, during the rebellion, from the plantations of said Merrill, in the vicinity of Natchez, Miss., be re- ferred to the Quartermaster-General, who shall investigate the justice and legal-
1334 CONGRESSIONAL RECO~D-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 6, 

ity of said claim, and report the amount and va.lne of said stores and supplies taken and used by the Army of the Unit.ed States, and also what amount has been paid on the same ; and that he report all the facts and evidence for the 

consideration of Con!Fress. 

The SPEAKER pro temp01·e. The Clerk had begun the reading of 

the report accompanyin6 this bill on yesterday when the hour expired. 

The reading of the report will now be concluded. 

The report (by Mr. GEORGE) is as follows: 

That in 1863 the United States forces at and near Natchez, Miss., took from 

plantations of Ayres P. Merrill, deceased, the testator of claimants, a. large amount of commissary and quartermaster supplies. The proof has been made 

by the affidavit of a large number of colored witnesses, who were the slaves of 

said Merrill. Some of these plantations were situated in Mi$sissippi apd some in Louisiana, all being near the city of Natchez. The proof is not of a. very sat- isfactory character as to the amount. It is also singUlar that no vouchers were given, as AyresP.l\Ierrill was a. man of known loyalty, possessing the confidence 

of General Grant, General Gresham, General Smith, General Crocker, General 

Ransom, and Commodore ·Greer, as shown by letters of all these to him, written 

about the time the supplies were taken. It seems certain, however, that a. con- siderable amount of supplies was received and used by the United States Army. Ayres P. Merrill died several years ago. He was a very old and infirm man for several years prior to his death, paying little attention to business. 

It 'fs possible that some, if not all, these supplies have been paid for, but if so, the vouchers will be found in. the proper Department. · Under all the circumstances the committee deem it proper to recommend the 

passage of a bill referring th'e claim to the Quartermaster-General, with instructious to inquire into and ascertain the full amount of supplies so taken a.pd used 

by the United States Army, and to ascertain whatamonnt, if any, has been paid on ~e same, and report ~he facts to Congres~. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, nve minutes remain 

for debate·in opposition to the bill. · . Mr. REED, of Maine. I understand from the last portion of the bill 

that. this propos6S' only to have the facts stated to another Congress. 

Mr. KING. That is all. , . The SPEAKER pro tempore. Unless some gentlemen . desire to debate the bill the Chair will .put the question. · · :Mr. STEELE. I. wQuld like to have this bill again read. 

The bill was again reported. ~ 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the present con- sideration of the bill? · . There ~eing no objection, the bill was truren from the Speaker's table, 

read a first and second time, ordered to a third reading, read the third 

time, and passed, . .Mr. KING moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. · The latter motion was agreed to. 

CHARLES MURPHY. 

1\Ir. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, I ask consent to t.ake up Honse bill 6531, 

for the relief of Charles Murphy, withdraw it from the files, and substitute in lieu thereof a. new bill, changing the nature of the recom- mendation of" the eommittee from an appropriation simply to the privilege of .going into the Court of Claims to have the_ case considered. I 

apprehend that there is no necessity .for an argument in support of that 

proposition. I desire to say in a word simply--

.M:r. KEIFER. The bill has not been read yet. 

1\Ir. PRICE. Suppose I state what it is first. 

Severall'lfEMBEBS. _Let the bill ~read. - The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill will be read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Substitute for House bill 6531-

Mr. KEIFER (interruptmg the reading). Is this a bill from one of 

the Calendars? 

Mi. PRICE . . 'fhe bill is on the Calenclara.nd was reported by a com-. 

mittee, and I am seeking now by authority of the entire committee to 

have this modification made. 

Mr. KEIFER. I underst..'\nd then thn.t it is a bill reported by a com- mittee and on the Calendar? 

Mr. PRICE. Yes, sir. 

The SPEAKER p1·o temp01·e. The Chair will state that the bill H. 

R. 6531, tQ which the gentleman refers, is upon the Calendar, and 

under the rule can· be ~ed up;-but the bill sent to the desk by the 

gentleman from Wisconsin is not upon the Calendar, and in the j udgment of the Chair is not covered by the rule. · l\1r. PRICE. If the gentleman·from Ohio ha·d permitted me to proceed, as I was' in·order proceeding, there ·would have been no objection 

interposed to the proposition I was about to make. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the ru1e the bill must be reported 

by the Clerk before the debate can be },lad. , Mr. KEIFER. I only insisted upon the bill being read. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The ·chair will infol'IJl the gentleman 

from Wisconsin, however, that the bill sent to the desk is not, in the 

judgment of the Chair, covered by this rule. 

1t1r. RANDALL. The only way to get it before the Honse as a substitute bill is to call uptheoriginal billandamend itbythesubstitute. 

l\1r.-WHITE, o( Kentucky. I rise to a question of order. . The SPEAKER pro tempm·e. The Chair ~ll recognize gentlemen as soon as order is restored so that the Chair may hear them. The House 

will be in order. The gentleman from Kentucky rises to a question of 

ordeJ!. The gentleman will state it. · · 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 

PRICE], as I understand, has been recognized under the rule. Under a misapprehension that he could present a substitute for a bill on the 

Calendar he has sent up a bill for the consideration of the- House which 

has been 11J].ed out very properly by the Speaker. I raise this question 

of order,wliether if the gentlemen were to call up for consideration the 

bill on the Calendar it would then be '"Proper for him to move to amend 

it as he suggests ? . The SPEAKER p; o tempore. The ~ answers that it would.. 

Mr. McMILLIN. That is what the gentleman from Wisconsin indicates his desire to do. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlemen from Wisconsin has not 

lost his right.in any way. 

Mr. PRICE. I am infinitely obliged to gentlemen who take care of 

my interests. But they will permit me to state that I think I can do so myself. . My desire was that the original bill should be read, and then 

that this should be offered as a substitute. · Ur. KEIFER. We must proceed under the rule. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the bill as it appears on the Calendar. 

The Clerk read~ follows: 

A bill (H. R. 6531) for the relief of Charles Murphy. 

Be it enacted, cl:e., That there is hereby appropriated, out ora.ny money in the 

Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of$42,834 to Cha.rl~ Murphy, n.s balance due said Charles Murphy for work done and damages sustained by him 

growing out of or arising from his contract with the United States Government; to excavate a dry-dock at Mare Island, in the State of California. 

Mr. PRICE. I now desire to offer a substitute. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill is not yet before the House for 

consideration. It will be in order to offer the substitute if the bill 

shall not be objected to by the number of members required under the 

rule. The gentleman is entitled to be heard for nve minutes. 

Mr. PRICE. I desire to state the substance of the bill. Last April 

the Committee on Claims, aft~r months of close investigation, reported a bill back to this Honse with the recommendation that Charles Murphy be paid 42,000 for certain work done for the Government in 1873 

at Mare Islatnd, C3lifornia. A minority of ,the committee disagreed, 

and said the amount should be $92,000. Now that bill is on the Calendar, and the committee have instructed me, in accordance with the 

wishes of !lr. Murphy and his friends, to report a substitute, not giving him a cent, but simply waiving the stn,tute of limitations and under 

certain conditions sending the claim ftgain to the Court of Claims to be 

adjudicated upon. That is the substance of the bill which I.ask this 

House now to pass. 

Mr. WASHBURN. You want it sent to the Court of Claims? .Mr. PRICE. Yes, sir. The new bill simply provides the case shall 

go to the Court of Claims to be adjudicated on its merits under certain 

conditions named in" the bill. On the part of the entire committee I 

submit this bill and ask its passage as a substitute for_ the original bill. 

A gentleman near me suggests that i~ be read as a part of my remarks; 

and in that connection I desire to submit also the report in favor of the 

bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has but two minutes 

of his time remaining. The substitute which he proposes will be read as a part of~ remarks. · The Clerk read as follows: · 

Be it enacted, &e. , TBa t the claim of Charles ~rurphy be remanded to the Court 

of Claims for a further hearing upon the testimony and .Papers formerly heard 

in said court, and upon such further testimony relative to his acceptance of the 

award under protest, including the claimant's evidence, as either party may file, pursuant to the rule of the court; and said court, in addition to the a.u- tliority conferred upon it by existing laws, shall have equitaHle jurisdiction of 

all matters presented by the claimant in his new petition, to be filed within sixty days from the approval of this act; and said court is authorized and directed 

speedily to render judgment for such amount as right and justice may demand, 

without reference to any statutes of limitation, and with legal interest from the 

Hme his cause of action accrued; a.nd furthermore, an appeal shall lie from such 

judgment to the Supreme Court of the United States, by either party, upon the 

entire record C<lnsidered in the «;:x>urt of Clailr!s. · 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Unless some g~tleman desires: to oc- cupy the time allowed for opposition the Chair will now call for objections. · · Mr. COSGROVE. I wish to ask the gentleman from Wisconsin a question. Has not this claim been already before the Court of Claims? 

:Mr. PRICE. The bill itself says so. It was once superficially tried 

before .the Court of Claims. Additional evidence since obtained shows 

it was not tried on its merits; and we desire to send it back to the Court 

of Claims for a further hearing. . Mr. COSGROVE. What was the result when the case was formerly 

tried before tlie Court of Claims? 

Mr. PRICE. It was adverse to the claimant. 

Mr. RANDALL. Was there an appeal to 'the Supreme Court of the 

United States? . Mr. PRICE. There was an appeal totheSupremeCourtofthe United 

States on the record made, but no part of the testimony introduced went 

to the Supreme Court. · Mr. RANDALL. Did the Supreme Court affirm the. judgment of the 

Court of Claims? · 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.:_.HQUSE. 1335 

Mr. PRICE. The absence of the evidence was fatal, all the evidence 

• not having been before the Court of Claims: 

Mr. COSGROVE. Was the question of the statutes of limitation 

raised? 

Mr. PRICE. No, sir. . . Mr. COSGROVE. On what point of fact or of law' was the decision 

based? 

1\Ir. PRICE. It is ~llright. Noonecan bewronginsupportingthis 

bill. The court had no evidence before them at all; absolutely none. A 1\!EMBER. Whose fault was that? Was it the fault of the Government? 

1\Ir. PRICE. I do .not say it was the Government's fault, but it 

would be the fault of the Government now if it did not give this claimant an opportunity to be heard. 

Mr. COSGROVE. I" understand :from the gentleman from Wisconsin 

that this case has been before the Court of Claims, and he states the evidence in the possession of the claimant was not all adduced before the 

court when the case was tried. And upon that .the Court of Claims decided against the claimant, and after that an appeal was taken from the 

judgment of the Court'ofClaims to the Supreme Court of the Un~ted 

States, and in the Supreme Court the judgment of the Court of Claims 

was affirmed. . · Mr. PRICE. Will the gentleman permft me to answer him? 

Mr. COSOOOVE. Yes, I will permit the gentleman -to answer. 

Mr. PRICE. The gentleman irom·New YorkfMr. VAN ALSTYNE] 

understands the case and he will answer the gentleman. 

1\Ir. VAN ALSTYNE. 1\Ir, Speaker, as I unde~tand the history of 

this case, it is after this wise-- . · ' 

Mr. RANDALL. The time for advoca-cy of the bill has expired. 

The SPEAKER pro tempo're. The timenow being consumed is that 

in opposition to the bill. Does the gentleman from Missouri [1\Ir. 

COSGROVE] yield to the_gentleman from New York [Mr. VAN.ALSTYNE]? 

Mr. COSGROVE. I yield one minute. . 

Mr. VAN ALSTYNE. The case was this: There was a legitimate 

subsisting claim in behalf of Murphy against the Government by reason 

of the interference of the Government in the performance of;' -the work 

which he had agreed to do: He applied for payment, and part payment was made. He protested against accepting the sum in satisfaction of 

his legitimate c1aim. He was forced togotothe Court of Claims toget 

redress. 'there the fact that he had received this money was. put in 

proof by the Government, and when he offered to show that beJla.P. 

accepted it under protest, and had refused to take it in full satisfaction 

of his claim, -that evidence was objected to by the Government and 

excluded by the Court of Claims. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman bas expired. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. COSGROVE] has two minutes left. 

1\Ir . . COSGROVE. I will give the gentleman from New York [1\Ir, 

VAN ALsTYNE] another half a minute of my time. 

Mr. VAN ALSTYNE. The claimant excepted. The finding of the 

court was against Murphy. He took an appeal. The error-book did 

not show that he had ever offered any proof whatever that "he had ac- cepted under protest the amount which he had received in part payment, and in the absence of that proof the judgment of the Court of 

Claiins was affirmed. · . The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

1\.fr. O'NEILL, of Uissouri (to Mr. VAN ALsTYNE). It is atl right, 

is it not? 

Mr. VAN ALSTYNE. It is all right. . Mr. COSGROVE. Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if this 

gentleman received this moneyunder protest he should not have given a receipt for it, unless he gave one specifying that the money was ac- cepted under protest. If I understand correctly the statement of the 

gentleman from New York, this gentleman ~·eceipted for this money 

without making any protest in writing, although he may have had a 

mental reservation on the subject which I do not understand to be a protest Gr equivalent to a protest. 

1\lr. VAN ALSTYNE. liy recollection is t~t the protest was in 

writ.ing, but not in the same paper in which he had receipted for the 

money, and he proved by two witnesses who were at the time in the 

Service of the Government that he he had acCepted the money under 

protest and that it was so understood. - !Ir. COSGROVE. If that fact was before the court the evidence of 

it was there, as a matter of course. 

Mr. VAN ALSTYNE. The voucher did not show it. 

Mr. COSGROVE. The gentleman states that the voucher was given 

in evidence before the Court of Claims, and I understand hi.Ib. to claim 

now, as matter of fact, that that -voucher did show that this man had 

received the money under protest. If that evidence was before the 

Court of Claims how could it ha-ve happened that it was .not considered? . . 

!Ir. PRICE. I will state to the gentleman that it was not considered. 

Mr. COSGROVE. Well, the voucher ought to show the fact, if it was a fact. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time for debate on both sides is 

exhausted. Is there obj~ction to the consideration of this bill? 

Mr. RANDALL. There is objection. 

Mr. WELLER. I object to the considemtion of the bill. 

·The requisite number of members objected to the consideration of .the 

bill, and it was laid aside. · 

Mr. PRICE. !Ir. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the report 

in -relation to this case may be printed in the RECORD with the bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair hears no objection to granting the t·equest of the ~entleman from Iowa [Mr. PRICE], and it is so ordered. . 

The.report (by Mr. PRICE) is as follows: 

On January 7, 1884, Charles Murphy presented to the House his petition for 

relief. Heaskedto bepaidforexcavatingthepitofthedry-dock at Mare Island. 

California, and for damages tba.t he sustained while performing that work, owing to a failure by agents of the Government to carry out its contract with him in 

good faith, whereby" he was forced into insolvency, l)nd lost all his property at sheriff's sale, valued at $-19,200. Your committee had printed, in report No. 483, the testimony in his.case, and on April 11, 1884, it submitted a unanimous report, No. 1242, recommending the 

payment to Charles Murphy of$42,834forwork done upon said excavation, and 

bill H. R. 6-'531 accompanied that report. 

.A minority (offour) of your committee found that 1\Iurphy is entitled to $49,732 

damages, and ~;ecommended that much additional payment to him, or a total 

payment of $92,566. . But the Senate Committee on Claims· reporfed adversely upon Murphy's petition (report No. 997). It took the ground that having had an adv~rse decision 

UP.Qn hlS case in the Court of Claims and :in the ~upreme Court of the United States, Murphy is not entitled to any reHef. It therefore becomes inexpedient to consider further the bill (H. R. 6531) which provides for the appropriation of 

i42,834. 

Since the adverse action of the Senate committee Charles l\Iurphy had introduced into both Houses of Congress, on the same day (bills H. R. 8112 and S. 

2583), t\ measure to allow hlm to go before the Court of Claims for a new triaL 

On Febi'Uary 4, 1885, the Senate committee agreed to report adversely upon sa<id measure. But your committee, notwithstanding, recommends that Charles 

Murphy be granted a new trial in theCourtofClaimsforthe following reasons: First. 'l'he Court of Claims rendered an adverse judgment to' 1\lurphy (14 

Court or Claims Reports, page 508); conformably to an award made by a single arbitrator, appointed solely by the Secretary of the Navy, without the consent or agreement of Murphy. 

Second. The Court of Claims held tb&t ::Unrphy aceepted the award without 

objection, and solely upon that ground the Supreme Court affirmed the judg- ment of the Court of Claims. (14. Otto, page 4.64..) 

Upon a motion for a new trial in the Court of Claims evidence of two wit- nes es waa'taken, which shows that Murphy strongly protested against accepting the award in satisfaction of his claim. The Court, in its decision refusing a new trial, recited in substance the evidence of the witnesses. (15 Court or Claims Reports, page 217.) But this decision and evidence were w~thheld from 

the Supreme Court,-as appears fcom a statement made to your committee by Hon. WILLIAMS. RosECRANS, a member of this House. Besi~, this decision 

does not form a part of the transcript Qf the record which went before the Su- preme Court. (Bound Transcripts, 1881, page 13i76.) For this reason alone your committee recommend tb&t Murphy be accorded a new trial, inasmuch as- Murphy was unfairly beaten in the Supreme Court. 

Thi!'d. The Court of Claims has abandoned its doctrine as to receipts in full in cases of prote t as pronounced in Murphy's case, and has held, irr the case of 

the Cape .Ann Granite Company, decided this present year, that when a party 

protests against giving receipt in full, the receipt will go for only so much money paid on account. . . Fourth. Congress bas heretofore gi>en just and ample relief in fa<J.eof ttdverse 

decisions by the courts~ · 

PRECEDE~TS, MCRPHY'S CASE, AMESDJIIENT A. 

1. Samuel J. Hensly: Adverse decision in Cow:t of Claims; paid $96,375 by act of June 9,1860. (12 Stakttes,847.) 

2. David C. l\Iyer: .Adver e report Court of Claims; pa.id 830,000 by act of June 16,1860. (12 Statutes, 861.) 

3. Heirs Stephen Johnston: Court commanded to try the case again; to allow 

value of his land, tuilh intere&t, from February 2, 1841; act February 9, 1863. (12 

Statutes, 915.) 

4. Alex . Cross: Court of Claims commanded to bear ca~e again, py -act .July 

2, 1864,13 Statutes, 591; it gave him judgment for $4.3,607.63. (1 C. C. Reports, 347.) . 

5. Samuel Norris: case sent back to Court of Claims for examination and arzow. ance; act June 22, 1866. (14 Statutes, 608.) · 6. Rich'd W. Meade: Court was instructed to hear case over by act .July 25, 

1866. (14 Statutes, 611.) · 7. Arthur Edwards et al.: ~ill passed for further relief in court; vetoed by 

President Buchanan ·April17, 1860. (Senate .Journal, first session Thirty-sixth 

Congress, page 4.06.) 

8. Battle and EvruJs: Court of Claims directed to hear case a seconq time; act of .April5, 1872. (L7 Statutes, &"1.) 

9. Theodore Adams: Supreme Court decided against him (7 Wallace, 463); paid $112,740.76, by act January 20, 1873 (17 Statutes, 713), and Con~ress was so delicate 

about reversing the T:Tnited States Supreme Court that it baa no report made on the bill either by !). Senate or House committee. 

10. Lydia R. Shre,·e : .Ad verse j ndgment in Court of Claims; paid 550,000, act January 13, 1881. (21 Statutes, 602.) . 11. Heirs of the brig General .Armstrong: Adverse judgment in Court of Claims; 

paid by Secretary of State under act :J\.Iay I, 1882, $70,739. (22 Sta-tutes, 697.) 

12. A. Grant: Adverse decision in OourtofClaims; -Congress ordered the court to try it over; act January 5, 1883 (22 Statutes, 750); judgment for Sl4,016.29. For these reasons your committee earnestly recommend the passage of the 

accompanying bill in justice. to the claimant, who has a most meritorious claim. ~d its former report, N o.l242, is appended hereunto, in order that the evidence 

in this C3;Se may be available to the House. 

WEHRLE, WERK & SON. 

Mr. HURD. I call up the bill (H. R. 7496) for the relief of Wehrle, 

Werk&Son. . 

The bill was read1 as follows: . 

Be it enact-ed, &c., That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized' and 

directed to abate inte'tnal-revenue taxes to the amount of 3461.87 illegally as- sessed against Welule, Werke & Son, in the year 1876, .for spirits distilled in the 

year1875. · 

Mr. HURD. I ask for the reading of the report . 

• 
1336 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--HOUSE. FEBRU.AEY 6, 

The Clerk read the report {by Mr. HERBERT), as follows: 

In 1875 Wehrle, Werk &Son were engaged in the business offruit distillers at 1\Iiddlebar's Island, Ottawa County, Ohio, and in the tenth internal-revenue district of said State. On the 22d of June, 1876, said firm was assessed an internal- revenue tax of $583.37 upon a deficiency in the production of distilled spirits for 

the month of June, 1875, which they allege was erroneous and unjust. In the survey of the fruit distillery of said firm, made on January 2, 1875, the 

brandy-producing capacity thereof from sour wine in twenty-four hours was placed at 373.55 proof gallons, and the number of gallons of sour wine required to uroduce one gallon of proof brandy was stated to be 5.35. Saidsur,rey also stated 

the number of tioilings capable of being made in twenty-four hours to be nine. 

This was the survey under which the distillery was run at the time the deficiency occurred, upon which the tax soug~t ~o be abated was placed. . This survey was erroneous. The CommlSslOner of Internal Revenue, m a let- ter of February 4, 1879, to Hon. Cha rle Foster, says: · "It would be more in h a rmony with the sm"\eys in other districts if the num- ber of boiling were reduced t o seven, and the quantity of sour wine required for a gallon of s pirits increased to seven gallons. If the survey had I?een so made the 'daily producing capacity for sour wine would be 219.97 gallons, mstead. of 373.53 gallons." 

The Commissioner recommenus relief for petitioners from $461.87 of said tax. Your committee find that petitioners had never distilled brandy from wine 

before the survey was made, and had no means of knowing that the survey was erroneous until a ctual experiment. They ran the still for fifty-one hours only, and as soon as the error was discovered reported the product to the proper offi- cers and paid the tax as assessed. · . . The committee find that there was no neglect on the part of the petitioners in this connect.ion , and recommend the passage of the accompanying bill. 

· .Mr. HURD. Ur. Speaker, I have notlring to add to the report ex- cept to say that these parties were ignorant ~f this business until the 

survey had been made by the Government officer. The mistake was- made in making the capacity of the still one hundred and fifty gallons more a day tha~ it could possibly produce. After trying the capacity 

of the still for fifty-one hours· they discovered the error. and made a claim for abatement. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue at the 

time recommended the abatement, and four Committees of,Yays and 

?lfeans· have reported in favor of the bill. 

Mr. HOL?t1A.N. As I undertand t.h~ gentleman from Ohio [1\Ir. 

HuRD] this-abatement has been 1·ecommend~d by the Secretary of the 

Treasury. 

Mr. HURD. By the Commt· ioner of Internal Revenue. · Mr. WIDTE, of Kentucky. I would like to ask the gentleman from 

Ohio [Mr .. HURD], who is a member. of ~he Commit~ on ~ays and 

Means, how manv cases similar to th1s are before thatcomDllttee, and 

whether the passage of this bill will not be a precedent for many large 

claims on the ground that the distilleries were not accurately surveyed 

at some time remote in the past. · I remember that the gentleman from 

. Indiana [:Ur. hoL~AN] urged the ·passage of a bill something like 

this. . . . 

. Mr. HOLMA...~. And it was passed. 

Mr. WHITE1 of Kentucky. Yes it was passed-very impro2erly, 

I think. 

· Mr. HURD. · The Committee on''\"\; ays and .Means has had a number 

Of cases before it, lmt this is about the only onE! recommended, because 

these parties discoTered the error within .a few hours after commencing 

to work the distillery, and they quit work. 'fhe case is exceptional in 

that regard. · 

. The SPEAKER pro Umpore. Is there objection to the present consideration of this l>ill? The Chair hears none, and the bill is before 

the House. The question is on ordering the bill to be engrossed and 

read the third time. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, have objections been asked for? 

The SPEAKER p ro tempoTc. The Chair nsked for objections, and none were made. 

Ur. PRICE. · I have been listening very intently and patiently to 

. hear the invitation for objections, because I wan tea to enter my protest 

against this bill. 

The SPEA}rER pro tempor.e. The Chair asked for objections, and 

after waiting, announced that none were heard·. · . 

The bill W;!S ordered to be engro~sed and rea.da third time; and being 

engrosse<}, it was accordingly read the third time, and pas~ed. 

Mr. HURD moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was pa...o:sed; 

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

Tl1e latter motion was agreed to._ 

ERNEST H. WARDWELL. 

Mr. McCOMAS. I ask that the Committee of the Whole House on 

tho Private Calendar be discharged from the f1,1rther consideration of 

the bill (H. R. 3236) for the relief of Ernest H. :Wardwell, and that 

the· House now p1·oceed to consider the bill. 

The bill was read, as follows; . 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby ·is, directed to pay to Ernest H. 'Vardwell, of Garrett County, Marylan'd, late a. <'aptain and assistant quartermaster of United States volunteers, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the pay and allowances of a captain and assistant quartermaster in the United States Army from the 11th day 

of l\Iarch to the 18th day of May, 1865; and also the three months' additional pay 

propc1· as first lieute naqt and regimental qnarterm!l.ster of the Second Regiment Nort-h Carolina Union Volunteers (white), the same as allowed to o.ll volunteer 

officers under the act of Congress approved March 3,1865. 

Mr. McCOMAS. The report in this case, whi&h is by the distinguished gentleman from 1\:lassachusetts [Mr. LYl\IAN], is so clear and 

explicit, that if members of the Honse will only listen to it, I think 

there cnn not be ingenuity enough to find ground of objection to this 

bill. 

• 

Mr. HOLMAN. I ask that the report be read. 

The report (by :Mr. LYMAN) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on 1\lilitary Affairs, to whom was referred bill ll. R. 3236, beg leave to submit the following report : Ernest H. Wardwell, in 1\Iay, 1861, enlisted in the Sixth Massachusetts Volunteers, and served for more than three months'wlthout pay. On September 7 of 

the same :year he enlisted a.~ a. private ia the Twenty-sixth Massachusetts Vol- unteers. November 8, 1852, he W$8 commissioned ~econd lieutenant Sec~nd 

Louisiana (Union) Volunteers. April 4,1863, he res1gned on account of sick- ness. February 5, 1864., lie was commissioned first lieutenant and quartermaster Second North Carolina (Union) Volunteers. Februar~23, 1865, he was mustered out to accept a. commissiOn which had been promised him as captain and as- sistant quartermaster, in which grade be was confirmed by the Se~ate 1\Ia.rch 

11, 186.3. His commission, t~d April 15, 18&5, wa'3 (orwarded to h~m May 11, 

and was accepted May 18. He was honorably mustered out of serviCe July 28, 1855. 

From t.his record it appears that Captain Wardwell had an honorable though not continuous service of over three. years. . He claim." that he should recei\'e pay fl'om l\Iarch 11,1865, to l\lay 18; 1865, and 

also three months' extra pay under the act of March 3, 1865. 

There was a certain delay between March 11, 1865, when Captain 'Va.t·dwell was confirmed by the Senate, and 1\Iay 11, when his commi sion was sent to him. 

For this period of delaY: he thinks he ought to receive t.he. pay of his. ~ank, !Je- cause he resigned Ius hentenantcy to accept the comm1ss1on of captam which 

bad been promised him, and was present and ready to receive his commission at the date of his confirmation. It appears, however, that in addition to the time 

usually required for the making out and signature of the commissioni there was afurtlierdelaycau ed by the assassinati?n of President Lini}Oln, April 4 .. By law 

and regulation an officer·does not begm to draw pay until he has received and 

accepted his commi sf on and taken the oa~h. Unfortunate circumstances caused a delay of some week!j to Captain Ward "Yell in the Feceip.t ofh~ comm~!on, 

and it seems not unreasonable to allow htm pay dunng th1s per1od of wa1tmg, because he resigned his lieutenantcy on the positive information that he had 

been appointed a captain, and he was present and ready tQ assume his new duties. . The act of larch 3,1 6.3, grants thr~e months' extra pay to officers then in 

commission and who should continue in servi<'e to the close or the war. Cap- in Wardwell was mustered out. F ebruary 23,1865, and. was not confirmed by the Senate as captain till March ll,nnd only accept~d his commission Oil the 

18th pf 1\lay ,so that he was not in service on the 3d of March,l865, and-could not legally draw the three months' extra pay. 

But as Captain 'Vardwell, after being in the Army nearly three years, resigned for the sole purpose of receiving his new commission, and was present and ready to be mustered in under it, he may not improperly be considered as construct- ively in the service on the 3d of Iar~h, 1865, and therefore entitled to three 

months' extra pay. · · The committee, therefore;report that the bill should pas . 

Ur. BEACH. I wish to inquire of the gentleman from Ma.ryland- [Ur. McCOMAS] w_hether the general act passed in the last Cong-ress 

does not cover this case? 

Mr. ~I CO~IAS. No, sir; it does not. • Mr. DEACH. One additional inquiry: How much money will this 

bill'take out of the Treasury? . Mr. 1\IcCOM:A.S. The extra pay of this officer for three months. 

1\Ir. BEACH. What will that amount to? 

M:r. McCO~IAS. A few hundred dollars; I have forgotten the exact, 

amount. llut unrler the bill this officer will simply receive the three 

months' pay which every other officer received. This officer was promoted, and while waiting to receive his commission, which was accidentally delayed, he was mustered out, and in this way deprived by a. technical rule of the extra pay which all other officers received. He 

was promoted, and his promotion was confirmed by -the Senate, but his 

commission went by mistake to Oakland, Cal., instead of Oakland,, ?lid. 

There being no objeGtion, the House proceeded to the consideration 

of the bill; which was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; 

and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

l'IIr. McCO~iAS moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; .and also moved that the motion to reconsider Qe laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion wns agreed to . 

'ALFRED G. HATFIELD. 

?tir. WALLACE. I desire to call up from the Speaker's table for 

present 'COnsideration the l;)ill (S. 295) for the relief of Alfred G. Hatfield. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, d';c., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to pay Alfred G. Hatfield, the legal representative of John 

Hatfield, deceased, late veterinary surgeon of the Thirteenth Pennsylvania Cavalry, the sum of $675.1. in full for ervices as veterinary surgeon for said-regiment for nine mo'nths, at ~75 P.er month. 

lfir. RANDALL. Is there a report accOmpanying this bill? 

:Mr. WALLACE. I ask the Clerk to read the report of the Committee on War Claims upon a House bill similax to this bill of the Senate. 

The report (by Mr. GEDDES) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on War Claims, tQ whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1368) for 

the relief of Alfred G. Hatfield, having considered the same and accompanying 

papers, submit the following report : The committee find the facts to be as stated in, House report No. 1682, Forty- seventh Congress, first session, which said report is hereto annexed and made a part of tills report, and is a.s follows: 

"The Committee on War Claims, to whom was referred the petition or Alfred 

G. Hatfield , with accompanying documents, respectfully report: 

"The petitioner is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the District 

of Columbia. He claims r elief as the son and only heir at law of John Hatfield, who died in the city of Washington in the year 1874. " It appears from the papers referred with the bill that on or about the 1st day of June, 1862, John Hatfield was employed by James A. Gallagher, then colonel 

commanding the '£hirteenth Pennsylvania Cavalry Volunteers, in the military service of the Government of the United States, to act as veterinary surgeon for 

said regiment. At the time of the employment of John Hatfield by Colonel 

Gallagher veterinary surgeons were not alloweu by law; but from affidavits of 

officers of the regiment and others it appears that the necessity existed for the 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~HOUSE. 1337 

employment of one. There were eight or nine hundred horses in the regiment, 

and many of them were affected with distemper and other diseases, and re- ·quired the care and skill of a competent veterinary surgeon. John Hatfield, as such, had charge of all the horses of said regiment, under instructions from and 

the authoritv of Colonel Gallagher, from the date of his employment as aforesaid 

until the 3d day of March, 1863, a period of nine months, and he was paid nothing for his services rendered during that time, although the promise of pay was often repeated by Colonel Gallagher. "From papers on file in the War Department it appears that John Hatfield, in 

December, 1863, presented his claim for recognition and pay as veterinary sur- geon for nine months; that he had acied a such under the authority of Oolonel 

Gallagher. There was then no law authorizing the employment of veterinary surgeons, and his claim was properly rejected ; but on a review of the facts a warrant as veterinary surgeon was issued in his favor January 2, 1864. to date 

l\Iarch 3,1863, the date veterinary surgeons were authorized by law. From the 

3d of 1\larch, 1863, until be was discharged he receh·ed $75 per month, that being 

the compensation for veterinary surgeons provided by the act of Congress ap- proved on the said 3d day Of March,1862, known as the 'enrollment act.' But it being clear that he rendered valuable and efficient services during the nine 

months he acted under the authority of Colonel Gallagher, saving the Govern- ment fmm great loss1 and that the necessity existed for his employment, your committee are of opmion that he should be paid a reasonable compensation 

therefor, and we are further of opinion that ·375 per month is fair and rea onable. ·~The committee therefor report-the accompanying bill, appropriating the sum of $675, and recommend its passage:'' · The committee therefore adopt said House report as the report of this com- mittee, and report the accompanying bill (H. R.1008) for his relief, with recom- mendation that Upass. 

Mr. McMILLIN. I desire to ask the gentleJpan in charge of the bill 

when·the application in tlri~ case was :first made. - ·Mr. WALLACH. I do not know when it was first made. This bill 

has been passed by the Senate: 

Mr. McMILLIN. During this Congress? 

Mr. WALLACE. Yes, sir; at the last session. In this House n. bill 

precisely similar has been referred to the Committee on War Claims and 

reported unanimously. · · Mr. McMILLIN. I would like to know how it ha,pperied that the 

man who actually did this service lived nine or ten years after the war closed without making application to Cougress for relief. But ten years 

after his death his legal representative comes and n.sks relief. 

Mr. W .ALL ACE. I ask that the gentleman from Oh~o [Mr. G EDD:&S] 

make a statement about that matter. , Mr. McMILLIN. The gentleman from Ohio says that he does not 

remember. Now that is a material inquiry. 

Mr. WALLACE. The bill has been here for some time. . ?tir. MoUILLIN. Is there any proof that this claim was presented 

in the lifetime of the dece..'lsed? 

Mr. W ,ALLACE. I am unable to inform the gentleman. 

Mr. McMILLIN. I do not see anything in the report to that effect, nor is there. any indication that it ever was presented in the lifetime of 

the deceased. The colonel commanding the regiment of course could 

not have supposed he had any authority under the law to ·employ such ve~rinary surgeon, and, of course, this man could not have served 

there for nine months without seeing other men receiving pay when 

he received none and he must have known there was· no authority of 

law for his employment. . · Mr~ WALL ACE. In answer to the gentleman from Tennes ee I 

will say this: The gentleman was employed by the colonel commanding 

the Thirteenth Pennsylvania Cavalry Volunteers in the military service 

of the Government of the United States to act as veterinary surgeon 

for such regiment after the regiment was organized and before the law ·was passed under which he could be paid. He was employed for nine 

months before an act of Congress was passed providing for his payment. 

That act authorized the payment to him of $75 per month for the -previous nine months when he served faithfhlly and efficiently as a veterinary surgeon, and when he received no pay. This bill has been introduced in order to make provision for his payment. 

Mr. McMILLIN. But the point I make is, there was no law to pay 

him, no autliorityoflawfor his appointment, and there was no reason why the colonel commanding every cavalry regiment in the service could 

not have made a similar appointment and given rise to a similar claim. 

Mr. WALLACE. According to the proof, this man rendered very 

efficient service as a veterU,.ary surgeon. The claim was Teferred t{) the 

Committee on War Claims, and that committee reported in its favor. 

Mr. McMILLIN. The point I make is that i~ is against public policy 

to allow a.ny such claims where appointments have been made without 

authority of law. The man who remains in service when he knows 

there is no authority of law for his employment has no right to bring 

in any claim here against the Government, and especially so long as the 

service is rendered. · 

l\Ir. WALLACE. The papers were presented to the War Dep:u-tmen t in 1863. 

l\Ir. McMILLIN. I see that in the report. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time allowed for debate has ex- pired. Is there objection to the consideration of the bill? 

Mr. Mcl\IILLIN. I object. • 

The SPEAKER p1·o tempore. Those who object to the consideration 

of the bill will rise. [.After a pause.] l\Iore than a sufficient number 

have arisen, and the bill therefore is not before the ~ouse. 

. REGULATION OF STEAM"7BOILERS. 

~lr. DAVIS, of illinois. I call up for consideration the bill (S. 1793) 

to amend section 4434 of title 52 of the Revised Statutes of the United 

States concerning commerce and navigation and the regulation of steamvessels; with an amendment reported from the Committee on Commerce 

of this ._House. 

The bill was read, ·as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That section 4434 of the Revised Statutes of the United 

States Be amended by adding thereto a proviso, so that the section will rend as follows: 

''SEc. 4434. No boiler to which the neat is applied to the outsid~ of the shell 

thereof shall be constructed of iron or steel plates of more thap twenty-six one- hundredths of an inch in thickness, the ends or heads of the boilers only ex- cepwd; and every such boiler employed on steam vessels navigating rivers 

ftowing into the Gulf of Mexico, or their tributaries, shall have not less than 

three inches space between and around its internal ftues : Provided, That boilers to which the heat is applied to "the outside of the shell thereof may, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, be authorized and used on steam ves- sels navigating the Atlantic or Pacific Oc.ea.ns, or salt-water bays or sounds, or the great lakes, or any of them, or waters flowing to and'from the same, or any of them: when constructed of iron or steel plates not exceeding-fifty one-hundredths of an inch in thickne s." · 

The amendment was read, as follows: 

In line 17, page 2, after the word "sounds," insert the words "or the great 

lakes, or any of them, and waters flowing to and from the same, or any of them." 

Mr. DAVIS, of Illinois. :Mr. Speaker, the law at the present time 

provides that no boilertowhichthe heat isappliedtotheoutsideofthe 

shell thereof shall be constructed of iron ·Ol' steel plates of more than 

twenty -six one-hundredths of an inch in thickness. This bill amends the 

present law by providing that boilers to which the heat is applied to the 

outside of the shell thereof may, in the dis~retion of the Secretary of 

the Treasury, b~ authorized and used in steam -vessels navigating the 

Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, or salt-water bays or ~ounds, or the great 

lakes, or any of them, or the waters flowing to and from the same, when 

constructed of iron or steel plates not exceeding fifty one-hundredths of 

an inch in thickness. 1 

It has passed the Senate; has come to' the Hou5e; has been reported 

back from the , Committee on Commerc~ unanimously to the House; 

has the approval of the board of supervising inspectors of steam-boilers; is recommended by the Secretary of the Treasury, and is required 

for the purpose of passing some of the boilers used on the larger vessels 

of the country. _ . I reserve the remainder of my five minutes n,ntil I can hear from the 

other ·side. 

Mr. \VELLER. Let the report be read. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The repo.rt can. be read, but it will 

come out of the time ~llowed for debate in opposition. 

:Mr. BAYXE. Why is this amendment required? 

Mr. DAVIS of illinois. The amendment is r~q.uired to pass the inspection of boilers for the waters of the great lakes which were left out of the Senate bill. enator CONGER, of Michigan, qalled the attention 

of the committee of. the House to the fact that the amendment ought 

to be included in any legislati~n to ta:tre pJace1 as the waters of the lakeS are clean in every respect.· . , . Ur: \\''"ELI,.ER. I ask for the reading of the report. · 

- Tl:le report of the committee ~as read, as follows: 

The Commit tee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1793) to amend 

section4434.of title 52 of the Revised Statutes of the United State3, concerning commerce and navigation and the r~aulationof steam vessels, which bill passed 

the Senate of the United States December 18, 1884, having considered the same, respectfully report : · · That the Senate bill do pass \Yith the following am~ndment: 

In line 17, page 2, after the word" sounds," insert the words" or the great 

lakes, m: any of ..them; and waters flowing to and from the same, or any of t.hem ;" s~ that the !?aid bill shall read, when amended, as follows: 

"An act to amend section 4434 of title· 52 of the Revised Statutes of the United 

States, concerning commerce and navigation and the- regulation of steam -vessels. · 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and Hottse of Representatives of the Unitefl States of 

America in Congress assembled, That section 4434 of the Revised Statutes of the 

United States be amended by adding thereto a pro vi o, so that the section will ~~~~; ~ I 

"SECTION 4434. ~o boiler to which the heat is applied. to the outside of the 

shell thereof shall be constructed of iron or steel plates of more than twenty-six one-hundredths of an inch in thickness, the ends or heads of the boilers only 

excepted; and every such boiler employed on steam vessels navigating rivers 

flowing into the Gulf of Mexico, or their tributaries, shall have not less than 

three inches space between and around its internal flues: Provided, That boilers to which the heat is applied to the outside of the shell thereof lllli'Y, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, be authorized and used on steam ves- sels navigating the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, or salt-water bays or sounds, or the great lakes, or any of them, or the waters flowing to or from the same, or any of them, when constructed of iron or steel plates not exceeding fifty one- hundredths o( an inoh in thickness.' " · 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from illinois desire to be heard for the remainder of the time ? 

Mr. DA VIS4 of Illinois. I do not, sir. 

The SPEAKER pro ternpm·e. Is there objection to the present con- sideration of the bill ? · There being no objection, the bill was taken ·from the Speaker's 

table, read a first and second time, the amendment agreed to, and the 

bill as amended ordered to be read the third time; and being read the 

third time, was pa~ed. 

Mr. D.A VIS, of illinois, moved to reconsider the vote by which the 

bill was passed; a.nd also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to 
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE. FEBRUARY 6, . 

CHRISTIAN BROTHERS' COLLEGE, SAINT LOUIS, MO. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. . 'Mr. Speaker, !desire to call up House 

ibill6881, on the Private Calendar, for the relief of the trustees of the 

tChristian Brothers' CoUege, of Saint Louis, ·Mo., and put it upon its 

passage. . The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill will be read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Beil enact~d, .!:c.: That there be paid to the trustees of the Christian Brothers' 

College of Saint Louis, in the State of Missouri, out of any money in the Tre.as- ury not'otherwise appropriated, the sum of $35,000, in full compensation for the use and occupation of the buildings and lands of said college during the late war ,by the United States troops, and for injury to and destruction of property belong· ·mg to said trustees by said troops. 

Th~ committee recommend, in line 6, to strlke out "thirty-five" and 

insert" twenty." 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. I ask to have the report read. 

The Clerk proceeded to read the report. 

Mr. MORSE (interrupting the reading). I move to dispense with 

the further .reading of the report. ~ 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. I ask unanimous consent that its fur.. 

ther reading be 'dispensed with. · · · The SPEAKER pro tempore. Unless some gentleml!on desires to debate the bill the Charr will c:ill. for objections. 

:Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama, and :Mr. BENNETT. Let the report be 

read. . The Clerk resumed the reading of the report. · Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania (aJ:l,er the reading had proceeded for some time). I think the House is satisfied so far as the report is concerned, and I ask that its further reading be dispensed with. 

The SPEAKER pro te11tp0re. The gentleman from Alabama and the 

gentleman from North Carolina demanded the reading of the report. 

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. I withdraw the demand. 

Mr. BENNETT. I ask that it be read. . The Clerk resumed and concluded the reading of the report (submitted by Mr. STOIDI). It is as follows: 

Prior to the recent rebellion the College of the Christian Brothers of So.int' 

Louis 1\lo., was a large, well-appointed, and flourishing institution, being 200 feet lo'ng by 60 feet in width, with a wing attached 130 feet by 40 feet, and four •stories high, and devoted to the education of youth in a.ll the practical depart- ments of knowledge. Its pupils, drawn from all sections of the United States, 

numbered about five hundred on an average. From this large patronage the 

college derived its revenue, and upon this it depended for the maintenance of 

its corps of instructors and the procurement of all its needed educational facilities. That soon after the commencement of hostilities McDowell's College, im- ·mediately adjoining the College of the Christian Brothers, was<XlCupied by the 

Union forces ss a militAry prison; that t.he oooupancy of the former building for 

tb.e purpose of a military prison made it necessary and convenient for Union 

forces to <XlCupy a portion of the latter building, wUh all the grounds belonging thereto. This occupation, commencing in 1861, continued for four years. J The e:ffectof such occupancy upon the school was, as tnight have been expected, fataL The preservation of discipline among the students was impossible; the 

noise and distractions of the camp put an end to st;udy and scholastic exercises, 

and the voice of collegiate -authority was silenced amid the din of arms. The .well-worn legal maxim can be easily changed to meet the result in this case: ·:rnter anna silent musa!. Within one year t·he attendance diminished t<> onehunldred pupils, and at the close of the war but a small fraction of this number re- mained. 

t· The common use by the soldiers of the balls and rooms for so long a period ·of time was attende4 by great damage t<> the furniture, walls, 1looring, and 

plastering. For the purpose or giving the sentinels and guards a better .com- mand of the military prison, the partittons and outer walls were cut through and greatly damaged. T4e repairs ma.de necessary by the aforesaid occupation 

required a large expenditure of money. t For this occupancy, and for the injury done to the college, the memorialists 

think. they ought to have 810,000 or ~,000 per annum for rent, and ~2,000 for 

repairs, making in all from f(02,000 to $60,000. Of the amount of repairs, as itemked in the testimony of Henry N oetb, the committee do not think more .than . $7,000 is properly chargeable to the occupancy by the Union forces, and that, 

judged by its effects upon{he school, such occupancy cost the college a.ll of$12,000 

per annum, yet the committee have thought it best to reduce that claim. 

t The oooupancy of the college in questi9n is testified. to by the officers then in 

command, and among them Col. Henry F. Harrington; now the president of 

the board of public schools of the aity of Saint Louis. · t The amount of damages, &c., is shown by various witnesses and from the 

books of th~ college, where the expense of repairs was· kept. Institutions of 

religion, learning, and charity are respected by all civilized nations, and by the 

well-established law·ofnations are exempted from the usual operations of war. The Society of Christian Brothers has peculia.r claims l!POn the Government 

and man kind at large. They are not a religious or priestly order; they do not, 

and under t~ laws of the society can not, own any property as individuals. In this respect they very much resemble the primitive Christians. They live ~;md 

·labor for all mankind-their ch~rit7 is extended to all. . t Had this building been a machine-shop or a factory, occupied as the college was, its owner would be entitled to a fair and just compensation. We can not do otherwise with·this institution. 

-k The committee allow the sum of t20,000 for the use and occupation of the college, and recommend the passage of the said House bill No. 6881, with the following amendment: Stl'ike out the· words "thirty-five," in line 6 of the bill, 

and insert" twenty_." 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will announce that the hour 

has expired. 

EJ..""ROLLED JOTh"T RESOLUTION SIGNED. 

:Mr. PETERS, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that ,they had examined and found duly enrolled a joint resolution of the 

following title; when. the Speaker signed the same: Joint resolution (S. 104) providiRg for the printing and distribution 

of the Descriptive Catalogue of-Government Publications. 

H. H. ALEXANDER. 

Mr. McADOO. I ask unanimous consent to submit a resolntionfor 

reference. : 

The resolution was read, as follows: 

Re.wlt!ed by the House of Representatives, That H. H. Al~xander be paid the sum of 162 for services as stenographer to the subcommittee of the Committee on Accounts from J~nuary 21, 1884, to January 31, 1884, inclusive. 

The.iesolution was referred to the Committee on Accounts. 

DISTRIBUTIOY OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I ask unanimous consent to submit a resolution 

for reference. 

The SPEAKER pro te~np'or . The resolution will be read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Resolved, That all documents and books ordered to be published by the present Congress, and which are actually printed prior to the first Monday of December 

next, together with documents and books heretofore ordered to be printed which have not beenactuallyprinted, towhichmembersofthepresentCongress are or would have been entitled if published prior to the 4th of March next, and 

which are actually printed prior to the first Monday of next December, shall be allotted, as heretofore, to members of the present Congress, and transmitted to their residences as fast as printed, unless otherwise ordered by the members 

themselvelil. 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on Pdnting. 

GIRARD AND 1\IOBILE RAILROAD COMPANY. 

Mr. PAYSON, by unanimous consent, froni the Committ~e on the Public Lands, reported, as a substitute for Ii. ~: 179, a bill (H, R. 8180) to 

declare forfeited a grant of land in aid of the Girard and :Mobile Railroad, in Al:;lbama; which was read a first and second time, and, with the 

accompanying report, referred to the House Calendar, and ordered to 

be printed; and the bill (H. R. 179) was ordered tn be laid on the 

table. 

MARTHA C. BREESE.• 

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama, by unanimous consent, from the Com· 

mittee on Pensions, reported back the bill (a R. 4280) to increase the 

pension of Martha C. Breese; which was referred to the Committee of 

the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. . · 

.,ADVERSE REPORT. 

:Mr. THO.M:.AS, by unanimous.consent, from the Committee on Naval 

Affairs, reported back with an adverse recommendation the joint reso- lution (H. Res. 311) tendering the thanks of Congress to Commander 

Winfield Scott Schley, Commander G. W. Coffin, and Lieut. William 

H. Emory, jr., of the United States Navy, and to the-officers and men under their command, for the rescue of Lieut. A. W. Greely and his 

surviving comrades, of the Lady Franklin Bay expedition; whicll was ordered to be laid on the table, and the acCompanying report printed. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

l'tlr. WHITE, of Kentucky. I demand the r~aula.r order. 

Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Speaker, I suppose now would be as good a time as any to inquire of the gentleman from KentucJ..--y as to the bill 

under consideration in the Committee of the Whole. I am instructed 

by the unanimous voice of the Committee on .Appropriations to make an inquiry as to when the gentleman in charge.of the bill expects to reach a :final vote on its passage? 

Mr. WILLIS. I can only reply to the inquiry of the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania by stating, what he knows and what every other member 

of the House knows, that the Committee on Rivers and Harbors have 

prosecuted the consideration of the bill as fast as these abominable rules 

will permit us to do, and we propose to continue that effort and reach a determination of all the issues involved ·at the earliest possible mo- ment. We are ready to go on now. We are ready to prO<'.eed to-morrow, and will go on to-night if the House will permit us to do so. We are as anxious to dispose of this bill as the gentleman can possibly be 

for us to get it out of the way; and it is with this view that I have submitted the motions which I have made to expedite its passage. 

I will state a fact that is well known, that the committee in the Senate which has charge of the river and harbor appropriation bill, has no business before ft and is awaiting the passage of this bill, while the Committee on Appropriations, which will have charge of all of the appropriation bi}ls, has already a half a dozen bills before them and are busy 

with their consideration, while the committee to which I have referred 

have nothing to do. And for that purpose my airu and the aim of the 

Committee on Rivers and Harbors, with the help of the membei:S on the 

floor, is to get it out of the way as quickly as possible that the committoo of the Senate may consider and aet upon it. . 

]')fr. RANDALL. This bill, if its consideration is continued to-day 

and to-morrow, will have occupied the entire week. The Committee 

on Appropriations consider that this House will not be free from public criticism if the appropriation bills are nQt all sent to the Se~te by 

the 22d to the 25th of this month. To accomplish that the committee are of opinion that they sho_uld have the right of way after Saturday 

night, and that on Monday a serious effort should be made on their 

part-and in this effort they are united as one man-to claim next 

week for the Post-Office appropriation bill and the legislative appro-
1'885~ CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD~HOUSE.· 1339 

I' . 

t 

priation bill, and for the sundry civil bill, which is likely to be reported 

early enough to take up any of the days unoccupied toward the end of 

next week. And I have thought and the committee thought it was due to the gentlemen who advocate and have special charge oflhe pending bill t~thisintimation should be given. • • Mr. HISCOCK. Will t.he gentleman from Pennsylvania allow a suggestion from this side of the House? The Commerce Committee of the 

Senate will have but one appropriation bill to consider. I mean this 

bill. I suppose in the Senate it goes to the Com.fn.ittee on Commerce. 

The Appropriations Committee of the Senate has to consider all the appropriation bills. Now it seeiDB to me, if we are not to have an extra 

session of Congress, the general appropriation bills should now have.the 

right of way, and should go over as soon as possible to be referred to 

the Appropriations Committee of the Senate. • Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. I rise to a question of order. Rule 

XXVI provides as follows: · 

Friday in every week shall be set apart for the consideration of private busi- ness unless otherwise determined by a two-thirds vote of the members present and voting. 

Now, we have on the Calendar twenty-four pages of private bills,· aggregating about--

Mr. TOWNSHEND.· Is this in order? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman f~om Kentucky rose to 

make a point of or<}er. He will state it. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucl..7. The point of order is that the regular 

order to-day i8 the consideration of private bills. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore._ The Chair does not see that the gentleman presents any point of order. 

!1r. WHITE; of Kentucky. I call for the regular order. 

The SPEAKER pro tempoYe. The regular order is the call ofcommittees for reports of private bills. The gentleman from Kentucky 

"[Mr. Wn..Lis] moves to dispense with the consideration of private bills 

for to-day. The question is upon that motion. 

The motion was agreed to (two-thirds voting in favor thereof) . . Mr. WILLIS. I move that the House resolve itself into Committee 

oftbe Whole Ho'use on the state ofthe Union. 

M;r. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. I desire to make an inquiry of the 

Chair. Will the order just made, dispensing with the consideration of 

private business, take away the night session for the consideration of 

pension bills? · 

t The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not ~hink that the order 

has that effect. · !lr. O'NEILL, of PeBDsylvariia. I supposed not. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does· not understand that 

the motion .embraced dispensing wifu the regular Friday night session on pension bills. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. WILLIS] moves that the House do now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. 

Mr. WILLIS. Pending that I move that the order for a. recess at 5 

o'cloek shall be extended. so that the recess shall commence at 6 o'clock. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. .That motion requireS .unanimous con- sent. · 

lli. WILLIS, I ask unanimous consent. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky asks 

unanimous consent that the order for a recess this evening at 5 o'clock 

shall be extended so that the recess shall commence at 6 o'clock. · M:r. WHITE, of Kentucky. I object. 

The SPEAKER pro tf3mpore. The question is on the motion that the 

House do now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole Honse on the 

state of the Union. 

The motion was agreed to. 

. RIVER x._~ HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL. 

The House aceordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union (Mr. HAMMOND in the cba,ir), and resumed 

consideration of the bpi (H. R. 8130) making appropriations for the 

construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on riveiS r and harbors, and· for other purposesr • -

The CHAIRMAN. Before the pending question is. stated, the Chair 

will submit the request of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. McCoMAs] that he be permitted to extend his remarks, as .they will.be 

printed in the RECORD. The Chair hears no objection, and the request 

is granted. . . The pending question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Maryland [Mr. McCoMAs]. .. 

The amendment was not agreed to. 

The Clerk read the following paragraph: 

Improving har~r at Norwalk, Conn. : Continuing improvement, $3,000. 

l\1r. WAlT. I offer the amendment which I send to the desk. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Improvement of the river ~nd harbor at Niantic, in Connecticut, so:ooo. 

Mr. WAIT. This river and harbor have been twice exainined by the 

surveyors and engineers of the United States, and twice they have re- ported in favor of an appropriation for the improvement of that river 

and harbor. The report of the Engineer did not reach the Committee on RiveiS and Harbors in sufficient time to have an appropriation voted 

for by the committee and put in their bill I therefore offer this amendment, after having conferred with the chairman of the committee. 

The engineer who made the last examination, and that was within 

the past year, recommended an appropriation of $8,000 for the improvement of this river and harbor. They are virtually one thing. The harbor is an indentation into the coast and the river is an extension really.of 

the harbor, butaboutamile or a, mile and a. half inland from the south. 

The object of this improvement is to permit the raw material and the 

coal required for the mills to be brought there, which they can not now bring there except at vety high tides. It is impossible at any other. time on a-ccount of the bar in the harbor; nor can they go up the river 

with it on account of the bar at the· mouth of the river. There is a constant desire on the part of the owners to bring coal and to bring 

material to use in these mills by water, and to stop the expensive transportation by land from New London, which is five or six miles distant 

from the mills. 

In addition to that the State of Connecticut has purchased thirtyeight acres of land there and established a State camp; and for a week or ten days each year there is a constant necessity for the running there 

of steamers of all kinds, not only for the transport:;ttion of troops from 

other parts of the State to this camp, but for bringing the materials 

neces....'lary for the use of the camp. · 

A very large and bright and beautiful village is built up there. The 

Baptista have their annual gatherings there, and it is the same with 

the Spiritualists. Material has to be brought for the erection of houses 

and churches, but there exists this embarrassment :resulting from the 

bar in the river. I offer this amendment, and I hardly think that the 

chairman of the Comin.ittee on Rivers and Harbors, after thecon"Versation I have had with him and with other members of the committee, 

will object to it. I believe that public convenience and p~bllc necessity 

require this improvement to be made; that the demands of commerce require it; that the· necessities of the State require it. The petition 

that has been sent to me, and which I have shown to the gentlemen, is 

beaded by ex-Governor Waller and by every leading military man in 

the State; and it asks that this improvement ·be made as a matter of 

public convenience and public nece....~ity. I do not wish to occupy more tinle upon the subject. I have stated the case, and every gentleman 

who is familiarwith the facts knows that I have stated them correctly. 

I ask only for an appropriation of $5,000, and the e~ginee.r has recom- mended an appropriation for this work of $8,000. . 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentuck-y. Air. Chairman, will-the gentleman from 

Connecticut state the page of the report on which this ite~ appears? 

Mr. WAIT. It iS not in the report. It was not r.eceived in time to 

go into the printed report. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. Has there ever been an appropriation 

for this harbor heretofore? 

Mr. WAIT. No. There have been two surveys, and each time a recommendation of an appropriation. The first time it was not brought 

to·the attention of the committee so as to enable them to pass upon it, 

and on the second occasion the engineer did not send in the report in 

time to go into the printed volume.· If it had come in time it would 

have appeared in the print¢ volume. . Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I call for the reading of 

the report. · . The CHAIRMAN (Mr. CRISP). The Chair is not aware that there 

is any such report here. If the gentleman from Kentucky wants to 

read anything in his own time he can do so; or .if he desires to have 

the Clerk read it, he can send it up. 

Mr. WAlT. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the reading of 

the report. I have it here. 

lli. WHITE, of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the 

gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. WAIT] has the report, and I desire 

to have it read in my time. · The Clerk read the rep(l.rt, as foll~ws: 

. E _-GTh"'EER OFFICE, UNIT.ED STATES ARMY, 

. New Haven, Con .~ October 28, 1884. 

GENERAL: I have the honor to submit the following report upon the prelim· inary examination of the river and harbor at Niantic, Conn., made'Wlder act of 

Congress approved July 5, 1884: . . Niantic Harbm: is an indentation of the Connecticut shore-line, about five 

miles west of New London, and eight miles east of the Connecticut River. 

What is known as the river is but an extension of the harbor inland for three or four .miles, the two being separated by the bridge of the shore-line division 

of the New York, New Haven and Hartford, Railroad. . Upon inquiring of Hon. J. C. WAIT, :I'lL C., in whose Congressional district 

Niantic Harbor is situated, as to the object of the survey ordered, I was refeued 

by him for the necessary information to Mr. C. P. Sturtevant, of East Lyme, the town in which Niantic is situated, and to Mr. Beckwith, the postmaster at Niantic. 

Through these gentlemen I learned that the commerce of the river and harbor is restricted wholly to the impo1tation of coal and to the occasional exporta- tion of railroad-ties and wood, and 'that formerly a quarry on·the river, employ- ing from twenty-five to one hundred. men, was operated, but that the dffficulty of navigating the harbor and river wa.s so great that it prevented the establish· ment of other industries Qn their shores and compelled the hauling from New 

London of large amounts of freight required by the neighboring community 

whiQh otherwise would be delivered more cheaply by water. There are two coal-yards now in use here~ne at the bridge, the other at the 

head of the river aboutthreemilesabovethebridge. Theamountofcoal which 

they handle is between 2,500 and 3,000 tons annually. The number of vessels 

that enter this harbor is less than one a mouth. There is no cnsto~-house oftl- cer stationed her.e. The chief di.fliculty.experienced in the outer harbor is within 
1340 OONGRESSIONAL·. RECORD~HOUSE. FEBRUARY 6, 

I 

a quarter of a mile of the bridge. The channel here has a depth o! only four or five feet at lQw water, while the mean rise of the tide is about two and a J;lalt 

feet; vessels carrying freight can enter only at high tide,. and when this occurs,- eiiher before daylight in the morning or after it in the eveniog1 the harbor is .practically closed against them,__ and they are compelled to remam out~ide sub- Ject to the danger of being caught by bad weather in a. shallow and exposed ·harbor. , . ,;, Tbere is better W!)ter up the river, but. the channel there is very crooked in 

places, and navigation is troublesome, as vessels are in constant danger of getting aground. . .These obstacles lJl.Rke it difficult and expensi'\"e to ecure charters for the Cargoes of coalthat'have to be brought here. · .• From the statements made to me-it appears that the present channel below the bridge bas altered very little, ifany,since it assumed its present course after the building of the railroad bridge, and it is probable therefore that if it were improved the improvemel}t would be of a permanent character . . To deepen this channel to nine feet at low water for a. width of one hnndred feet would require the removal of about 20,000 cubic yards of material, which at 20 cents per cubic yard would cost $!,000. . ' The improvement ofthe river above the bridge does not appear to be of so much importance at present, as but one mill would be affect-ed by it and the cost of .making an unobjectionable channel would beoutofproportion to the benefit which it would confer. But its navigation mi:;ht be very much·Jmproved by 

cutting off some projecting points and widening and deepening it in several 

places. Theremoval of 20,000 cubic yards of material would make this a ser.v- lceable channel, costing, at.20 cents per cubic yard, $!,000. ' Total estimated cost of both improvements, 40,000 cubic yards of dl·edging, at 20 cents per cubic yard, $8,000. The present demands of the commerce of the place I have already indicated, and .these demands will increase with the growth of the town. The State of Connecticut has recently establi hed its permanent military camp on the west bank of the NianticRiver,justnorthoftherailroadbridge, and hns expended a good deal of money in the erection of permanent building there; 

and I am informed that the village is growing rapidly. In view of the fact herein presented, the little cost of making the contemplated improvement, and the desirability of giving to the community a. means of Ul).-

pl'y which will act as a check upori extravagant railroad charges, it is my opinlOD that this harbor is worthy of improvement. . The survey, made w1der the direction ofGeneral Warren in 1872, is so much in detail that no further examination or survey is needed here. · Very respectfully, your obedient servant, . WALTER 1\IcF.A.RLAXD, 

Brig. Gen. JoHN NEWTO~, 

· Chief of Engirue~·s. 

· .LUutenant-Colonel of Engineers. 

During the re.o'tding of the report the following proceedings took 

place: · · 

The CHAIR!tfAN (Mr. CRISP). The time of the gentleman from 

Kentucky has expired. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 

of the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. WAIT]. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. I move to amend the amendment of 

the gentleman (rom Connecticut [Mr. WAIT] by striking out the last 

word, and I ask that-the Clerk shall continue the reading of the rep·ort. 

It is v.ery interesting. There is a great deal of commerce on t~is stream. . Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman, I raise the question whether the gentleman from Kentucky [:Mr. WHITE] is entitled to bold the floor in 

this way. The rule that we have becomes a complete farce if a gentle- man can continue to oc npy the time of the Honse by merely moving 

to strike out the last word, or some other word, of every amendment. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I object to this coming 

out· of my time. - · 

· The CHAIRMAN (:Mr. CRISP). The Chair understands that under 

the rule the gentl~manfrom Kentucky [.M:r. WRITE] is in order in his 

motion to strike out the last word. The Clerk will proceed with the 

reading of the report. · The Clerk then continued and completed the reading of.the report as above quoted. . Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, in the four minutes re- maining I desire to call the attention of the committee to the fact that ·notwithstanding this is a very small harbor,·it is of quite as much importance to the people living in its neighborhood as greater harbors are to the people of larger communities. I am not one of those that believe 

in appropriating money merely for the Mississippi and the other ''great 

waterways" (according totbe Democraticplatfonn), but I am in favor 

of appropriating money for the imp1·ovement of every navigable river 

and every navigable harbor. Within the United States. 

Now, sir, it 'ig true that this is a very small harbor. It is comparatively insignificant; but the engineer reports that there is some com- merce thet"e, and the engineer reports. furthermore that if this harbor 

is improved it will tend to cheapen transportation, which the railroads now. mo~opolize. In that sentence is the gist of all our appropriations 

for rivers and harbors. It is to have 'commerce flow unrestricted, ·it is 

to. have some way of checking the extravagant charges of railroad cor- porations ~bat we make these appropriations. This is a small harbor, 

but it is not so small a8 Hingham; neither is Hingham so large as Plymouth. We luwe appropriated $6,000 for the small harbor of Hingham, which has some commerce, very little commerce, and we have 

appropriated a smaller amount for the larger harbor of Plymouth. 

Now, sir, the recommendation for ~n appropriation for this little 

harbor has come too late for the committee to consider it-I mean the 

committee'with closed doors; but it is in ample·time for this commit- ~. It goes alongside of Hingham Harbor, which, upon the representations oftbe gentleman from Massachusetts [1\fr .. LONG], has been appropriated for in this bill, not on the recommendation of the com- mittee that sits with closed doors, but by a majority of this honorable 

Committee of the Whole Honse . . I ask, therefore, that the amendment of the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. WAIT] .be adopted. 

.Mr. WAlT. Mr. Chairman, is my time entirely exhausted? 

The CHAIRMAN. It is. 

1\Ir. WILLIS. I hope we shaJl have a vote. 

Mr. WAlT. The report of the engineer--

Mr. WILLIS. I object to further debate. Every word that bas been 

uttered has been in favor of this proposition. The Committee on Rivers 

and Harbors were unanimous in rejecting this appropriation. This case was not like that of Hingham Harbor, which was not before the com- mittee. Tp.is case was before the committee, and the proposed appropriation was unanimom~ly rejected upon the ground that there was no public nece ity.for it, that no commercial interests demanded this ex- penditure. I trust we shall have a vote. 

Mr. WAlT. I move to amend the amendment by striking out- the 

lust word, b)canse I feel bound in duty to my constituents to respond 

to what has .1 ust fallen from the ~bairman of the Committee on Rivers 

and Harbors. If the committee examined the facts in this case before 

rejecting the proposition,· they did not examine all the facts. The improvement which this amendment proposes would afford facilities for 

the carrying of raw material to a very large woolen mill np tbjs river, as well as an oil factory. It would also enable our beautiful granite to 

be tra~ported to market. We desire such an improvement made as will give steamers access to this river. · 

',fbere was a timer .a.s the report states, before the river 'became obtructed, when. a large number of persons were employed in quarrying 

granite for transportation to various points, to b~ used for building 

purposes and to be wrought into monuments. It is true,_ as stated by 

the engineer, that ifthi river were made properly acce..c;;sible it would 

be of great advantage to the manufacturing interests of that locality, 

which are now compelled to pay for railroad .tran portation five or six 

miles to New London or eight miles·to the Connecticut River. 

I withdraw the pro forma amendment to strike out the last word. 

The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. WAIT, it was not• 

agt·eed to-there being, ayes 43, noes 53. 

The Olerk read as follows: 

Improving har~r at Buffalo, N.Y. : Continuing improvell?~nt, $75,000. 

..Mr. ROGERS, of Xew York. I offer the amendment which I send 

to the de~k. 

The Clerk rea.d as follows: 

In line 55, trike out "75" and insert" 100,'' 6 as to make. the appropria.tion for continuing improvement of harbor at Buft'alo, N.Y., $100,000. 

..M1'. ROGERS, of New York. Mr. Chairman, .! have the honor to 

represent in this Honse the district in which this improvement is being 

carried on; and I know something of the needs of this work. Here is 

an improvement of which the estimated cosp is over $1,200,000. The 

Committee on Rivers and Harbors propo e to grant an appropriation..of 

$75,000. This improvement has been going on for the last -ten years, 

and on account of the small appropriation little more th~W half the 

work is no~ completed. At this rate it will take ten years more to fin-

~sh the imp.rovement. I think I am very modest in the amendment I, now propose, and hope that the committee will accede to .it. 

Mr. HISCOCK. I wish that my colleague would have rea:d the re- port of the engineer _on this subject. 

.Ur. ROGERS, of New York. The Chief of Engineers recommends 

for this improvement an appropriation of $300,000. · l'l1r. HISCOCK. I wish my colleague would have the recommendation read. 

l'llr. ROGERS, of ~ew York . . It is found on page 321, and I ask the 

Clerk to read it. · The Clerk :read as follows: 

Buffalo Harbor, llew Yo1·lc.-Tbe original project for the improvement of this harbor was adopted in 1326, the date o( the first appropriation, and as modified at various times provided for the construction of a no:rth and so lith pier at the mouth of Buffalo Creek, n. masonry sea-wn.llrunning south from the inner end of the south pier and a. breakwater less than half a mile in front of the Buffalo light..:house, its long arm extending nearly parallel with the shore. The present project was adopted in 1874, and provides for the construction of a breakwater of crib-work, 7,6:>0 feet long, running parallel to the shore and a shore arm of pile and crib-work, 4,10J feet long, running out toward the sout·h- ern'end of the main or detached breakwater, leaving nn opening about 150 feet wide between them. The total amount appropriated for this harbor up to the close of the fiscal year wa S1,661,8S0.4l, of which $1,487,352.41 have been e'xpended, re ulting in the construction of the north and south piers, t-be sea-wall, 4, 9llinear feet of de- tached breakwater, and 870 linear feet of pile pier. The main breakwater is now being extended 800 feet, and will be finished early in the coming fiscal year. The south pier, the pile pier, and the northern porlionofthemain breakwater are very much in need of repairs. · • 

l'lfr. HISCOCK. I ask my colleague to state the comtnerce of Buffalo. 

l'IIr. ROGERS, of New York. The tonnage of Buffalo last year was 

about 4,000,000 tons and the custom-house receipts about S850,000. 

. Our shippers there are now very much embarrassed fot: want of harbor 

facilities. These facilities will be largely increased when this improvement is completed., not before. I trust the committee will see the pro- priety of acceding to this amendment . . Mr. BLANCHARD. The Committee on Rivers and Harbors found 

that on July 1, 1883, there was to the credit of the Buffa,lo Haroor improvement 121,395; from July 1, 1883, to July 1, 1884, there was ex- pended only $37,382; so that on the 1st day .of July, 1884, there was 
. 1885. OONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOlTSE . 1341 

available for this improvement more than $84,000. Now, by t~e last 

river and harbor bill, approved July 5, 1884, we appropriated for this 

improvement $100,000. Th'QS there is avaUable for the fiscal year· ending July 30, 1885-:the present year-$184,000. Now, we propose in 

this bill an appropriation of $75,000, making more than 250,000 availnble for the improvement of Buffalo Harbor. for the remainder of the 

present fiscal yeat and for the fiscal year endrngJnne 30, 1886. . 

Now, as only $37,000 was spent on this work during the fiscal year 

ending June 30, 1884--

Ur. ROGERS, of New York. I will explain why more was not expended. .· 

·.Mr. BLANCHARD. Row is .it that my friend expects the engineers 

to spend upon this work $250,000 from now till the end of the coming 

fiscal year? That is why the committee did not give any Illore than 

$75,000. . We thought it was as much as they could expend in one year, 

judging by the expenditures of .the past year. . 

Mr. STEVENS. Has the gentleman from Louisiana any advice as 

to how much money has been _expended pr will be expended on the 30th 

of J nne, 1885? He refers to a certain amount applicable on hand during the fiscal year ending J nne 30, 1885. Is he in possession of any information from the War Department that will enable us to tell how 

much has been -expended during the past year? 

Mr. BLANCHARD. We have no information other than that furnished to us in these printed reports, but we did see by these printed 

reports they did not expend but $37,000 in the year prece<lin!J the last 

year, and last year we gave $100,000, leaving $84,000 to the credit of 

that harbor, while in addition we have ·given in this bill $75,000, 

which increases the amount to $230,900. 

l't'Ir. STEVENS. For two years. 

:Mr. BLANCHARD. For the balance of this year and for the next 

fisc..'ll year. . · :Mr. ROGERS, of New York. I can explain to the ·gentleman from 

Louisiana why only $37,000 was expended during that year. Contracts wei:e invited by the engineers, but when opened they were found 

to be excessive-so much so they refused to entertain them at all; and 

consequently they had to make return to Wa.s~ington, so that the con- tracts were thrown over to the succeeding year. 1\ly friend from Louisi- ana will understand, under existing ·contmcts the bulk.of the appropriation now made will be used during the prese~t year. This is an ··important wQrk; and Congress would do well to appropriate twice th~ 

nmount to complete this work.:· fCries of "Vote!"] 

Ur. BLANCHARD. I desire· to say the committee recognize the 

great iniportanc&of Bnff~lo Harbor, and since they have $244,000 on hand less the amount they have expended during the last six months, 

and inasmuch as Buffalo gets· the same proportion as other harbors all 

over the country,· I submit the amendment of my friend from New York 

should not be adopted. 

Mr. HISCOCK. I move to strike out the last word, and will sa.y a. single word in reference to this matter. The harbor of Buffalo receives 

the commerce of the lakes. It is an important harbor-important not 

only to New York and to the farther East, but to the shippers of the 

West. Wha.tare the facts about it? Proposals-were submitted to the 

War Department to do the work for which appropriation was made, but 

the bids received were excessive and were rejected.. New advertisements were necessary, and the result was the work was delayed. The 

money· on hand is covered by contracts substantially in existence. 

Therefore th~re are no such funds in the Treasury as the gentleman 

from Louisiana has indicated. What money is there is pledged to the 

execution of existing coJ;J.tracts. 

It does seem to me, l't'Ir. Chairman, the amount asked bymycolleagoe 

is little enough, and I hope it will be granted. 

The committee divided; and there. were-ayes 66, noes 41. 

So the amendment was agreed to. . J.1r. WILLIS. I reserve the right to ask a vote on this amendment 

in the House. . · Th~ Clerk read as follows: 

Improving Buttermilk Channel, New York: Contin~ng improvement, $10,000. 

Ur. BELFORP. I move to strike out "$10,000" and insert "one 

million." [Great laughter.] I hope I will have the attention of iny 

distinguished, genial, and lovable friend from the State of New York 

[1\Ir. Cox], the gentleman whose countenance is invari~bly lighted by · the sunbeams of the .Arctic frozen ocean, the sunbeams of the Orient, 

the sunbeams of the West, and the sunbeams of the East; whose heart 

is as mellow as that of a child, and whose voice is as sweet as that of a lute. [Laughter.] 

Several MEMBERS. Give us his name ! . A J.Im.mER. There is no such man in this House. That man must 

be a woman. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BELFORD. He comes in here with a proposition to improve 

the channel of buttermilk, and asks the House to appropriate the sum of $10,000 for that magntiicent project! [Laughter.] 

Buttermilk ! We have constructed great railroads across the plains 

where we have expended millions of dollars in their achievement and ac- complishment. [Criesof"Vote!" "Vote!"] Oh,holdon! [Laughter.] And now, when we are coming to open up in the vory heart of 

this continent a ch~el to furnish us all with a glass of buttermilk, our distinguished friend from New York has limited it to $10,000. My 

propositionistovote$1,000,000forthisamendment. [Criesof"Vote!,':' 

"Vote!"] Oh! well, yon will vote when I get ready foi you to vote. 

[Laughter.] . · 

One million of dollars, I think, should be appropriated, which will 

give full value.for the money invested in this country. That will provide every voter in the country one glass of buttermilk, at least! 

[Laughter.]. Now, if we consume buttern:Jlk on electipn day, you can 

readily appreciate the ·fact that we will have a de<;ent and orderly election. We all commenced in early life with a fondness for milk:. [Laughter.] [Cries of" Vote!" "Vote!"] Oh! you will vote when 

I get tb_rough with this floor. I say we began with a fondness for milkf 

but that wns sweet milk. [Laughter.] Then when we got to college 

our sweet, gentle, and kindly mothers brought us a glass of buttermilk· 

to cure our sores and overcome our pains; and here is the great repre~ 

sentativeconncil of this nation, in view of a subject of such pre-eminent 

and magnificent importance, proposing to vote the little trifling sum of 

$1()-,000 to construct a channel in this country through which we ean 

pour buttermilk ! [Renewed 11.nghter.] 

But I want to look at some other things in this billar little while. I 

am. opposed to a good many of them, but I propose to support the bill!' 

[Criesof"Vote!" "Vote!-"] Don'tbeinahurry. [Laughter.] I . propose to. vote on the principle on which the young robin takes 'its 

food-shut my eyes, open my mouth, and swallow whatever is. put int4 

this bill-bugs, lizards, whatever it may be. [Laughter.] I wjll take• 

it all ii;l.a lump. Now I alluded to this buttermilk questipn because I 

wanted my distinguished and eloquent friend from ~ew York [Mr!: Cox] to makeaspeech. I have beard him make m~o-niticent speeches on the river and-harbor .bill; but he has be~n silent up to this present 

time on the pending bill. I want him to _make such a grand speecli as he made on the census bill, as a eulogy on buttermilk. Commence~ 

my friend, from your earliest reaollections, if you .cau go back that far...:.:. 

sweet milk-and then make the buttermilk sweet by the geniaJ. -smile 

of your face and .the eloquence of your tongue. [Laughter.] 

I withdraw the amendment. · 

Mr. COX, of New York. I move to strike out the last word for the 

purpo e ·or saying a word in response to my genial friend from Colorado: 

I do tlot propose to discuss a~y kind of drink, nor. do I propose to say 

anything about rivera and harbors except that I bad no relation what.: ever to thiS · matter of tlie appropriation of $10,000 for the improve:. 

ment of Buttermilk Channel . . This cha,nnel is in the upper part of the bay of New York, between 

Governor's Island and the •mainland, and provision is made for j.t in 

this bill in pursuance of ·proper estim,a tes and recommendations by the 

board of engineers. It does not, however, touch the niain matter that ·will be presented hereaftet as to the iniprovement of. the harbor of New .York. It is only one of those indispensable things which necessarily 

go into the preparation of a bill of this cham~r, and which demand: attention ~ forming parts of the general scope of the improvement of 

the whole harbor of New York. 

I will say simply, to give my gentle friend from Colorado a little bit 

of facetire, so that he can have an opportunity of pondering and sleeping on it to-night, that this was called'' Buttermilk" Channel oecause in 

the early days, owing to the shoaling at times, the waters of the chan:. 

nel were churned up so as to resemble very much in appearance butter; 

milk; bot latterly, owing to change.s in the tide and improvements iJ:i 

the channel, 'the shoaling has ceased to a great extent, and we have now almost twelve feet of navigable water in this channel. Time has ob! 

scured the original meaning of the term.as applied to this channel, which 

term has no meaning now except that my friend from Colorado has given 

it the glorious glow of his Western eloquence. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. I desire to ask the gentleman from New 

York _a question. 

l\1r. COX, of New York. Certainly. . 1\Ir. WHITE, of Kentucky. I wish to ill?~ the gentleman if he knows 

how much the officer in charge of the work at that point gets as an an- nilal salary and how much the plant is worth with which the operations are carried o.n. 1\Ir. COX, of New York. I have no 1·elation whatever to this appropriation, but no doubt tlie Committee on Rivers and Harbors will answer the question of the gentleman satisfactorily. 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. I move to strike out the last word--

Mr. WILLIS. I only desire to say in regard to Buttermilk Channel-- · 

~1r. WHITE, of Kentucky. Who has the floor? 

The CHAIRl\IAN. The Chair. has recognized the gentleman from 

Kentucky -who now addresses the Chair. 

1\lr. WHITE, of Kentucky. With a view· of presenting this matter 

before tlle committee in proper shape I shall move vow to-strike out 

$10,000 and make the ~ppropriation for this point $20,000, as recom- mended by the engineers. 

I make the ·motion for this··reason, that if tpe gentlemen of this committee-not the committee with closed doors, but this Co~ttee of 

the Whole-will go through this bill carefully and study the estimates of 

the Chief of Engineers they will see that bythe appropriation of a little 
1342 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY I 6~ 

more money they can close up scores of these works. If the engineer 

reports can be relied upon this-import;;mt work, which began with nine 

and a half feet, I believe, and now has twenty-six feet of water, a harbor that admits all sizes of vessels and is of importance to commerce, not 

only toN ew t ork but to this whole country, can be completed for $20,-

000, which the Chief of ,Engineers Sa.ys will be s~cient for the work. 

Why, then, give $10,000? Why continue theexpensethroughthenext 

year: and the next year, with ail additional expe~ of the officers in 

charge, with the plant and equipage and maehinery, everything necessary to continue the work, instead of completing it now by this small 

additional appropriation? · 

What I am . saying in regard to the Buttermilk Channel wiU apply 

to nearly all the' small gppropriationg. in this. bill. 

Now I desire to call the attention of the committee to the fact 

[cries of "Vote!" ''Vote! "]-I hope this will not be taken out of 

my time. I ·do not desire to speak to those members who are yelling 

; ' Vote! '' ''Vote! '' I am talking, as I think, to the question under 

consideration in the light of the information given us by the Engineer 

Department and the facts that are pertinent to this case. .And if gen- ~lemen have no more respect for me than!to halloo "Vote! " when I 

address the committee, they should have regard for their own oaths 

under the Constitution and for the rules of the House unde.r which I 

speak. · • ' I desire to call the attention of the committee to the fact that in•the 

bill which was vetoed by the President there •Were only eleven small 

harbors. at $5,000, only one at $4,500, only one at $4,000, only six ail 

$3,000, only three at $2,000. But the bill passed by your party last 

year and signed py the President had fifteen at $5)000, one at $4,000, 

two at $3,000; foll.f at $2,000, and one at $1,000, making a difference 

in favor of the bill of the Forty-seventh Congress and in favor of the 

Republicans that passed that bill. . . . ~ I desire to call your attention to the fact that in that bill we attempted 

to complete some works; we·attempted to appropriate enough money,. not only for the officers in charge, not only for the maintenance of the 

plant, but to finish the :work. ,And if you are afraid to complete anything, if you simply want to keep the. wo.rks going, with the machinery 

and the officers that are there, until your party comes into power, your 

party which has been benefited by the civil-service law, I ask you 

how this applies to your civil-servise law? . The chairman oftheCom.-

mittee on Rivers and Harbors was the very gentleman whose praises were sounded in connection with the civil-setvice bill. Yet he and his 

committee, sitting with closed doors, propose ·to keep these little works 

going on. I say it is more like statesmanship to appropriate $20,000. 

and close it than to appropriate $10,000 for the officers there to keep 

the machinery barely in. motion and not complete the work. i The CHAIRMAN. The question is on t~e amendment of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. WHITE]. 

The amendment was not agreed to. 

The Clerk ead the following paragraph: 

That if any person shall knowingly and willfully, by any process or in any manner, deposit or cause tO be deposited, or authorize, instigate, or aid in depositing, any refuse, dirt, materials, ashes'- cinders, or any substance other than 

that flowing from street sewers and carriea therefrom in a liquid state, into tidal waters within the navigable waters of the harbor of New York, or its adjacent and tributary waters, whereby a deposit shall or may be created and the depth of water lessened, such person, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than one year, or by fine not more than $2!500, or by both 

such fine and imp.risonment; and that the sum of $>,000 be, and is nereby, appro- priated to carry out the provisions of this section; and the Secretary of the 

Treasury is hereby authorized to.pay that sum from any moneys in t.he Treasury not otherwise appropriated. The court having jurisdiction of all violations of 

this &tlt shall be the United States court of the southern district of the State of 

NewYork. -

:Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. I resetve all points of order on the paragraph. , Mr. PERKINS. I desire to call the attention of the committee to 

the language found in line 104, and also in line 84, where '' this section'' 

is spoken of. That was ·undoubtedly the language of the original b~ 

but when incorporated in this bill the phraseology should be changed and should read in each case, ''provisions of this act.'' 

Mr. BLANCHARD. We have no objection to that. 

The CHAIRMAN. · The amendment suggested by the gentleman 

from Kansas [.Mr. PERKINS], so far as it relates t.o line 84, can now only 

be made by unanimous consent of the commi~e, the paragraph in which, that line occurs having been passed from and the next paragraph read. 

Without objection the word "section,"~ line 84, will be changed to 

''act." · · There was no objection. 

The CHAIRMAN . . 'l;he question is now on the amendment to substitute the word "act" for the word "section" in line 104. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. COX, of~ew York. I desire to suggest another verbal amend-

:p1ent at line 108, to insert the word "district " before "court." As 

the language is now it is very indefinite. 

The CHAIRMAN. TP.e Chair will remark to the gentleman from 

New York that that amendment is in order. The other was not, be-, cause the committee had passed from the paragraph. · Mr. THOMAS. That is all right. 

The Clerk read the amendment proposed.by :ur. Cox, afNewYork, 

as follows: 

In line 108, after the word" States," insert the word" di trict;" sothatitwin 

read, 11 United States district court." · 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The Clerkread the next paragraph, lines.110 and 111, as follows: 

Improving harbor at Ca.narsie Bay, New York: Continuing improvement, $>,000. . 

. Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. I make the point of order on the paragraph ending with line 109 that it is new legislation. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair holds that the point of order is made 

too late. The ·Clerk has read the next paragraph. 

~Ir. WHITE, qf Kentucky. When the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 

PERKINS] took the floor I rose and stated I reserved points of order. ·Mr. COX, of New York. Two amendments tq the pa1'3oooraph have 

been voted on since and adopted by the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. WHITE] 

stated he would re11erve points of order. Two amendments were then 

voted on, and the next paragraph was read withoutanyobjection being 

made. . Mr. WHITE, of-Kentucky. I beg pardon of the Chair. I was doing my best to make the point of order . . The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks.the point is too late, 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. I must appeal from the decision of the 

Chair. I ap~l w the record to show whether when the gentleman 

from Kansas offered his correction I did not · then give notice that I 

woulc;l raise the po~t of order. 

The CHAffiM.A.N. The gentleman. from Kentucky does not seem to 

nnderst.:wd the Chair. He did give notice, but he ma~e no p<)int of 

order until after amendments were voted on and the. next paragraph was read. 

Mr. WHITE, ofKentuckjr. Thatwasnotmy fault. Idesiredrecognition but could· not get it. 

The CHA.ffiUAN. The ,gentleman from Kentucky did not ask for 

recognition. ·. · 

Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. I do not lmowwhatisrequired tomake a demand for recognition if it did not constitute such a.·demand that I . rose in my pi~ :md stated that l reserved points of order on the para- graph. . 

· The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentuckyappealsfrom the 

decision of the Chair. The question is: Shall the decision of the Chair 

stand as the judgment ofthe committee? · 

The questio~ being taken, it was decided in the affirmative. 

The Clerk read the following paragraph: · 

Improving harbor at Charlotte, N.Y.: Continuing improvement, $80,000. 

Mr. STEVENS. I offer an amendment which I send to the Clerk's 

desk to be read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

On page 6, at the end of the line 113, insert as follows: 

"Improving Oak Orchard Harbor, New York: Continuing the improvement, $10,000." .... 

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, I regret exceedingly the neCQSSity 

that has compelled me to occupy the time of the com~ttee in oifering 

this amendment; but, in common with the other members of this 

House who are not members of the Committee on Rivers. and Harbors, 

I have had no opportunity to present the cla~s of this harbor before 

that committee. I only desire to say now that it has already had ex- pended upon it $173,500, and that the engineers of the War Department report that the amount required to complete the improvements 

is $92,000 . . They recommended last year $40,000, and ·they again re- ported that amount~ one which could be prQperly and economically ex- pended there this year. The harbor is not only necessary for the wants 

of commerce, but it is quite an important harbor. The reveri.ue collected 

there during the·Iast year for United States customs was $1,951. The 

engineer reports that this harbor is important to the wants of the com- merce on I..ake Ontario as a harbor of refuge, and it appears that during the year preceding his last report fifty vessels in stress of weather 

s<>ught it aa a harbor of refuge. . . · It is an importa..t harbor. It has had appropriations heretofore, but 

during the last Congress it had only 50,000. It is stated to be actually a harbor of necessity, and it is certainly one of great importance. to the commerce of Lake Ontario. I have offered this amendment in 

good faith, believing that the' people of tllat section with the interests· o( commerce require the appropriation, and I do trust that, notwithstanding the Committee on Rivers and Harbors have refused to mo.ke 

any appropriation for this purpose, the good sense of this Committee 

of the Whole House will see the propriety of adopting this amend- • ment. 

The question was taken on the amendment; and there were-ayes 

86,. noeil 28. 

Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman, without waiting _now to ask a vote 

by tellers I will-reserve a vote upon this amendment in the House. 

The CHAIRMAN • . The Clerk will report the next paragraph. The Clerk read as follows: 

Improving harbor at Dunkirk, N. Y. : The sum heretofore appropriated is to be used one-half for the repair of the beacon and the remainder for dredging. 
1885. -CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. 1343 

Mr. BREWER, of New York. I offer an amendment as a substitute 

which I ask to have read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

For improving the harbor at Dunkirk, N.Y. : Five thousand dollars in addition to the-SlO,OOO heretofore appropriated; $5,000 for repairing $he beacon and 

the remainder for dredging out the channel. 

Mr. BREWER, of New York. Mt. Chairman, I ask for this additional $5,000 for the .harbor of Dunkirk for the reasons which I shall 

explain. I probably might have obtained the insertion of thi<~ appropriation in the bill if I could have had au opportunity to e-xplain the 

matter to the Commi~tee on Rivers and Harbors. Two years ago the 

ice carried out the large day beacon which indicated the entrance to the 

channel, and it has not been r~tored. The channel there is cut out of 

solid rock, and as a. result of the disappearance of the beacon the debris 

from the harbor and from the city has been permitted to fill up, so that 

it will r~uire somewhat more than the amount appropriated· in the bill 

to clear it out. For that reason I ask the substitution of this amendment instead of the provision in the bill. 

M:r. WILLIS.- Mr. Chairman, I desire to say at this point that the 

Committee on Rivers and Harbors is placed under considerable embar-. 'rassment by the fac~ that if we take time to present and discuss the reasons upon which we ·ha\e acted in individual cases, we thus place 

,ourselves in the power of those gentlemen who are endeavoring to kill 

this bill by-a waste of the public time; whileJ on the other hand, ifwe ,make no reply to the statements and arguments pr~ent~ on the other 

side, of course they stand as good. . Now, with reference to this harbor, the committee did.consider the qu~tion. It considered it last year at length, and also this year. It 

'considered it three distinct times, and in considering it the committee 

had in possession all the facts which the gentleman from New York 

[Mr. BREWER] has pr~ nted. But there are certain other facts which 

the gentleman uoes not pr~ent here; but whi'!h arc presented by the 

engineers. I have before me the report of the engineer, in which it is 

stated that- · 

Unfortunately for the improvement of this harbor, it can not be made to· ac- commodate the larger vessels except at an enormous expense, since any depth 'more than twelve and five-tenths feet-throughout the entire inclosed area of 1 the harbor must be gained by excavating its solid rock bed. Indeed, I may add ·that persons who were most sanguine for $he Ja.ke.commerce of Dunkirk a few 

years ago are now compelled to very much modify, if not to abandon, their ex- pectations. 

He go~ on to say that. there were only twenty v~ls that "entered 

that harbor during the past year. So that the harbor is of no considerable commercial importance, while the only improvement that wonlQ. 

benefit it, t.he engineer sta~, would post the Government more than 

the commercial interestS of the harbor demand. 

I refer to this, -Mr. Chairman, as only one of many instances where 

the Committee on Rivers and Harbors felt that they had ample reason 

for their action, and if they do not occupy the tim~ of this Committee· of the Whole in presenting those reasons in every instance, it is because 

of the fact, which I have already stated, that they are anxious to press 

this bill through to a conclusion-willing and anxious to hear allleg!timate arguments, but very desirous of speedily reaching some conclusiOn 

upon the whole bill. I a k for a vote. 

Mr. BREWER, ofNewYork. Am I notentitled to some additional 

time? 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is entitled to three minutes. 

l\Ir. BREWER, of New York: I do no~ object to what the gentle- man hM said about the improvement of the harbor; but he does not 

state the matter with entire accuracy. I do not ask for any money to 

do new work; the object sought by this appropriation is to repla.ce a beacon which has been carried away by the storms, and which indicate<). 

the entrance of the harbor, .and also to dredge out the channel, whlch 

is cut out of solid rock, and has filled up. · Mr. THOMAS. Was not the provision as it.now appears in the bill 

put in at the gentleman's instance and request? 

Mr. BREWER, of New York. I d~ired an appropriation of$5,000 more to complete the work. 

Mr. THOMAS. It was either the gentleD}an himself or some Representative from his State who induced the com·mittee to insert this 

provision as it stands, and upon the representation that the appropriation would be satisfactory. · · . Mr. BREWER, ofNew York. It was not I, becausetheamountproposed in the bill is not enough to carry out the work properly. Thequ~tion being taken on the amendment of Mr. BREWER, of New 

York, it was not ~o-reed to; there being-ayes 40, noes 54. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Improving harbol' at Flushing Bay, New York: Continuing improvementp 

810,000. . 

1\Ir. COX, of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move an amendment to 

come-in after the pafaoaraph just read. 

Mr. YOUNG. I d~ired to get the attention of the Chair to offer an 

amendment to come in after the preceding paragraph. · 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair did not understand that the gentle- man from Tenn~ee [Mr. YoUNG] was seekingthe floor. I had promised to recognize the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox]. 

Mr. COX, of New York. I will yield to the gentleman with pleasure. 

Mr. YOUNG. I will offer my amendment afterward. 

The CHAffiM:AN. The Chair understands the gentleman from Ten- n~ee do~ not d~ire to take the floor now. The amendment sent to thed~k by the gentleman from New York [1\fr. Cox] will be read. 

The Clerk ·read as follows: . 

Add to line 118 the following: ~ 

"That the United. States harbor board herein pro'vided for shall report a _plan and estimate for obtaining a permanent cha~el, sufficient .for. the wants of commerce, over the Sandy Hook Bar entrance mto ~ew York Harbor." 

Mr. COX, of New York. Mr. Chairman, it wijl be seen by turning 

toi>age 43 of this bill that the Comm.ittee ·on Rivers and Harbors has 

very wisely reported a provision for a board to investigate all rivers and 

harbors to be improved by Fedeml money. 

As to New York Harbor, allow me to thank this committee for its 

favoraMe consent to my me.<lSure. · 

It inyolveslittlemoney. It does one thing which is quite valuable to 

that harbor. It welds the jurisdiction of New Jersey and New York, in 

regard to this harbor, into one. . . It is a part of our pitiable situation as the great commercial citY of 

the continent that we have a divided jurisdiction. The pilot commissionersofNewJerseyand New York, while they have not divided with 

any acrimony, .still have divided as to the proper mode of saving our 

channels and water ways from spoliation by reason of a selfish greed 

of the contracting mind. The New York State line runs below Governor's Island. New Jersey ·embraces the Raritan Rher and Prinee's 

Bay and the waters south of St-aten Island. The Federal Government 

comprehends all the wa~rs of the Lower Bay and Sandy Hook. 

The committee will perceive that there is a great l.ikelihood of a collision, not only between New Jersey and New York, hut between the 

Federal, State, and municipal jurisdictions. Themeai:ring and intent of 

the sections that have j nst passed the House is that th~ varied j ~isdicfions, whichsimplyhamperand impede, shall be united into one; which 

shall give a rellledy for one of our troubles. · 

The New Jersey Legislature ha.S demanded this unity of jurisdiction. 

The Chamber of Commerce of New York and other commercial bodies 

have done the same. The North Atlantic conference appealed toCon- gr~s to give the Fedeml Government control of this wonderful harbor 

evoked by nature out of many of her remarkable catastrophes or crises. 

Inasmuch as there ax;e pilot commissioners of New York and New ·Jersey, and inas"mnch as there can be no hl.}rniony of action between 

them, the merch~tmeJ! and corporate bodi&> who have trade at stake come to Congress for relief. 

I thank the co~mittee for making the provisions of the bill, which I 

trust will pass the S~nate and become a law; but may I be permitted 

to say in justification of our vote that the garbage, "twen in some of the 

14-foot channels three miles inside of the pr~cribed dumping limit, has 

been so excessive as to call for remonstrance? 

The secretary 9f the New York pilot board, Captain Nash, did not believe that the State of New York could stop the illegal dumping. New 

Jersey stood in the way. New Jersey had another jurisdiction. Others 

lmve said that the comm~rcial world depended upon some·action of this 

kind; the danger to the harbor was imminent; that ~me united and 

energetic movement was necessary. 

Is it said that "some one should care for tlrls garbage and use it for 

other and wiser purposes? I answer: True. Even Brooklyn and JerfreY City utilize this peculiar material. .Agriculture, horticulture, and 

chemistry have their modes of utilizing such garbage . . But as long as the contrt~.ctors and the city government of New York remain as they are there will be no care where the sweepings go, nor what the resnlt is 

to health or city, provide9. only the contractors make their large percentage. 

The r~ult of this wild license about gar bag~ to our great metropolitan city is that its ~ pper and lower bay are shoaling their waters. There 

has been a. deposit of 1)200,000 pounds of this garbage. If this accre- tion goes on, the harbor will. be closed to the larger steamers. Adopt 

this amendment, and you give some police systenf of a FederalDAture. 

Thus this great mischief may be remedied. · Is it said that the State government should do this duty_:_should 

stop this dumping? The answer is that all the penalties provided by 

State laws lmvefailed. Nobodycan findoutwherethe dumping ta.k~ 

place or who does it. The dredging-scows return from their work sus- piciously very soon. There is nobody to control or watch the harbor. 

In further justification of the vote which has been given by the House, ·may I not say that the gradual .:filling ap of the harbor by the deposit of 

garbage and with the diminution of the tide area is a matter which con- oeerns the Federal Government? Local jurisdiction has failed to give it 

the proper care and protection! · The trouble with mere local legislation ~nd law is that it only imposed a pecuniary fine. Such a fine was useless against people like the scow anu the steamboat men. We could not convict them. It was impossf:. 

ble to get evidence l'he appropriation of money from the State was 

very meager. The State inspector was watched. The. dumping was 

done in plac~ where no one could follow or see it. Men of character, old 

shipmastetS and others, have said that the captains of tugbo::.tt:8 were the chief offenders. They could not. be reached by a temporary revoca- tion of their licenses. They could not be reached by increasing the 
: ·q,·· ·-, 0 

··.-. .a 

• o' 

d .• 

.t·CB-

~ 0 ~ ! • • 

' /?b 

i" 

a j 

1 

1 

<). 0 

it' 

0 0 ~ 

._.-

.... _--•;.; 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. 1345 

' I 

c .:o .:N ~ i.~~~~i 

XVI-85 · 
I· 

1346 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 6, 

penalty for their offenses. There was a lack of legal pOwer. There waa a la-ck of money. The law ofthe.State was evaded. 

of New York,Brooklyn, Jersey City, and Hoboken, and to obtain a depth of 

thirty-two feet on same, 315,000,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary: Provided, That none of said sum shall be expended except for surveys of said 

channels until the proper method of improving same shall have been determined by a commission of seven engineers, familiar with the science of river 

and tidal currents, to be appointed by the President on or after April!, 1885, 

who shall proceed forthwith with the execution of its duties." _ 

The truth is, sir, the harbor in the upper and_ .lower bay~ Federal, 

national, international, and continental. No local expedients could or can· save it. It needs not only the abstract regis, but the vigilant po-. lice, of the Federal ~vemment. That it will now ha.ve, if this bill be- comes a law. Mr. KING. Now, I know there is no possibility under the rules of 

It is. the general judgment that the Federal Government should tak~ this body to get that amendment inserted in this bill. 

charge of this harbor. It is dedicated to all mankind and not to New Mr. WILLIS. Then -let us go on with the bill. 

York only. · _Mt. KING. But I know equally well there is a necessity for the 

But a larger and better thing remains to be done for New York Har- measure. From the boards of trade of the city of New York, and from 

bor. The larger vessels now coming into that harbor frequently touch what we can gather from the public prints of that city also; from re- bottom, because our channel at Sandy Hook is not more than twenty- ports made by the great line8 of merchantmen passing between that city · oneortwenty-twofeetatlowwater. Itisstillshoaling. Itissa.idtobe and Europe, constituting almost daily ferries across the ocean, so no more than it was a century ago; but recently it has been shoaling. clearly st&~ed by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] a moment 

It has shoaled since 1881 two or three feet. We desire for that harbor · ago, in that great port no ship can enter drawing O>~r twenty-six feet 

at least twenty-eight to thirty feet of water. We desire this in order of water. These firat-class merch~tmen that carry so vast a portion of 

that the largest steamer may come in at mean low tide. , our commerce are detained on that bar orin 'front ofit, on an averaue, 

Why, sir, Canada has spent$!i000,000todeepen the Saint Lawrence one-half day in tho course of their voyage. That m~st amount to ~n River. Canadahas spent$40,0uu,OOO formakingshipandothercanals. ex:penditur~ of something oetween $500 and 1,000 on each occasion. 

These have diverted our trade from the great West away from New York _ I do not wish to cast any repr~ach uporr the gentlemen on this floor 

and other ports :upon the Atlantic. Is it not time that New York-is it ·representing the great city of New York. I only want to call the atnot time that the country which is represented by NewYorkin a com- tention of the country to the fact that uotwithstanding what we may 

mercia! way--should heed theuegassity of protecting this great harbor? do now this necessity of our commerce stares us in the fa-ce; and I beThe only expenditure, Mr. Chairman, ever made in a Fede~l way for lfeve we shall have to meet this expenditure in the near future. 

this harbor, outside of Hell Gate, has been only $11?,000 for the removal Immediately after the close of the "franco-Prussian war, Mr . . Chairof a wreck. I ~ll not institute comparisons as to what other and less man, France, ci:ippleda.ildcrushed as he was, appropriated $172,000 000 

meritorious harbors have received. for her rivers and harbors. And right here I wish to call the attention N~w York has at least one-half of all the exports of this country. of the country to the fact that though this river and harbor bill has 

She has two-thirds of all the imports. She stands as the entrepot of been much ·maligned and charged with unnecessary expenditure of 

on: ~d and outland ~d coastwise trade. She has besides gr.eat pu?lic money, there is no measure which can br~g to the people greater 

railway li.nes. · rehef on the pa,rt of. the Go>ernme'ht. Tkere IS no country so-vast as 

The state of New York, sir, ·has freely given to the "West, to the na.- this that expends so small an amountonriversandharbors, nor is there 

tion, the Erie Canal. She built it with her own resources. She built one with such vast transportation lines on rivers and lakes for cheap 

it for purposes of transportation. Sbe made no ignoble, no unprosper- freights. I shall cheerfully co-operate in the future with all who will 

ous oonnection with the lakes and with the great and teeming West. .endeavor to -have a proVision }llade to carry out the intent of this amend;-

New York built her Erie Canal within her own. borders. Since such ment. This work may require fifty millions in time, and!feelitwould 

questions are mooted here on bills of this kind, it becomes this Con- be judicious to spend even that amount to get the relief required. 

gress, representing the .whole people, to consider whether New York Tqe CHAIRMAN. The gentleman' time has expired. 

should be ostl:acised. There is no part of too country which can afford Mr. HISCOCK. I simply take this occasion, 11-fr. Chairman, to acto say to New York, "We have no ~eed of you." Her splendid bar- .knowledge the receipt of orne articles in the press of. the city of New 

bor should have the care, protection, and advice of the· board to .be Orleans which I have read, and which I have been receiving for some 

established under this bill. The city itself, tile select home of benev- days, alleging I was to make an assault or do something else in referolence and charity, should be honored by those who come to her for all ence to the jetties a't the mouth of the l\IissiE ippiRiver. Some reftecsorts oflargesses. By aiding to aggrandize h~r natural greatness gen- .tions have been cast on me in consequence of that allegation. Now, I 

tlemen honor and aid their own communities. have never intended to make any such assault-never imagined such 

I believe, sir, that if this board be created, it will make a full exam- an undertaking, and have no sympathy with any such 'Scheme. 

ination :ip regard to our harbors, and we may have a good report as to 11-fr. KING. I rise to a question of personal privilege in regard to 

this harbor. We may get rid of this shoaling which now interferes the remarks of the gentleman from New York. 

withoureommerce. Wemaylessen thecost oftransportation, because The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his question of priviby increasing the depth of our channel we may enable the largest ves- lege. . . 

sel to~ one-third more freight. We would thus diminish the ex- Mr. KING. - The allusion of the gentleman from New York is dipense of transportation. · ·- . rected agall:!st myself. 

In this way, sir, we help not merely shippers in New York and Mr. HISCOCK. I beg the gentleman's pardon. 

Buffalo, but the great West and South, and wewill bemoreorlessben- Mr. KING. There is no means of covering it up. 

efited by the action of.such a board. • 11-fr. HISCOCK. I say unqualifiedly they were not directed against 

Mr. Chainnair, my colleague [Mr. HEWITT, of New York] has had the-gentleman. . special charge of matters connected with Sandy Hook and l{ew Xork 11-fr. KING. And I say unqualifiedly I understood the gentleman to 

Harbor. .I am his lieutenant; but I wish to say before we pass from this state in a.. private conve~tion with me it was his purpose to state on matter that this Congress should hear him. He stands as the expo- this floor that the jetties at the mouth of the Mississippi had been of 

nent of' the whole country, because he so fitly represents New York no con1mercial value to ~hat city. Whereupon, taking him to be in 

city and State. · . earnest, I immediately telegraphed to the various chambers of commerce J\.fr. Chairman, I shail.inclnde in my remarks, with· the consent of in that city as to the benefit to the commerce of the 1\fississippi Valley 

the Honse, the two diagrams referred t<> by my honorable colleague. by the jetty system at the mouth of the river, and I hold in my hand 

[Pages 1344 and 1345.] They explain the character and extent of their answers, mid I request 'that they be printed in.the RECORD or read 

this work-and the relatiOI\ tothe harborofNewYorkand its surround- from the desk, 

ingsofthe amendmentwhich I propose, and will also illustrate what I Mr. HEWITT, of New York. . Mr. Chairman-- • have stated here in these hurried five minutes of desultory .talk. Mr. HISCOCK. I hope my colleague wlll yield to me a little while. 

Mr. WILLIS. I see no objection to the amendment offered by the The 9HAIRM:AN. The Chair does not think that the gentleman 

gentleman, and I hope the Committee of the Whole will accept. · · has presented a matter of personal privilege¥ 

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. HISCOCK. I ask t<> be recognized for a moment. I move to 

Mr. KING rose. strike out the last word. · , . 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair desires to state that the Clerk read The C;HAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman from New 

the ~a.st section not knowing _any gentleman desired to amend the sec- York if his colleague will yield the floor, but his colleague has been 

tion in advance, and in that way the gentleman from Tennesseel[M:r. recognized. . . YoUNG] was not recognized by the Chtill, because the Chair had prom- Ur. HISCOCK. I hope my colleague will yield to me. ised to recognize the gentleman~ from New York [Mr. Cox] on this :Mr. HEWITT, of New York. I want to occupy at least five minFlushing matter. If the gentlemanfrom Tennessee desires to move an· utes. 

amendment, by unanimous consent he will be recognized for that pur- Mr. -HISCOCK. I will take the ftoor and yield to you if yon will 

pose. _ aHow me to ·proceed now. 

Mr. YOUNG. I know there was no intention on the part of the M:r. HEWITT, of New York. Very well. 

Chair no~ to recognize me, and as the gentleman from Louisiana has Mr. HISCOCK. All I desire to say in reference to it is this:· That 

the floor, I will wait. ~ • just so far as I can go and keep myself within the rule of parliam~ntary 

11-fr. KING. I move, after line 118, to insert. language, just to that extent I desire to go in contradicting the stateThe Clerk read as follows: _ ment that I ever advertised that I had any such purpose. · 

After linens insert: Mr. KING. That you ever advertised it ; but the gentleman will 

"For the_ jmprovement of Sandy Hook Channel at the entrance ofthe harbors not say that in a private conversation he did not make that statement? 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1347 

1\Ir. HIS90CK. · I ha.ve nothing more to say, except that just so far as I can go within the rules of the House I desire to go, and do go, in 

saying that I have never--

Mr. KING. What? 

?tf.r. HISCOCK. Well, that I have never said that I intended to do 

any such thing. · Mr. KING. .And I state just within the rules of the House that that 

statement is false. 

The C.S:AIRM.A.N. The committee will be in order. The gentle- man from New York [Mr. HEWITT] is entitled to the floor. 

Mr. LOWRY. If the gentleman from New York will yield to me one moment I desire to make a statement. · Mr. HEWITT, of New York. ·Ifit does not come out of my time I 

have no obj~tion. · · Mr. LOW.RY. At the request of the chairman of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors I desire to repeat a. communication which I have 

given to .him from the c~irman of the Committee on Invalid Pe~ions; 

to the effect that he does not expect to be here to-night himself and is 

willing that the Committee on Rivers and Harbors shall have the time 

devoted to the consideration of pension matters for the further consideration of this bill. 

Several MEMBERS. That is a matter for the Honse. 

Mr. HEWITT, ofNew York. Mr. Chairman; the amendment oifered 

by my colleague [?!f.r. Cox, of New York] requires the board cre.ated 

by this act tG consider the improvements necessary in the harbor of 

New York in order that it may respond to the demands upon it flS to 

the foreign and internal commerce ofthe country. The gentleman from 

Louisiana [Mr. KING] supplements that with the proposition to expend 

a very large amount of money in improving the harbor of that city. 

By the bill of last year 200, 000 was appropriated for deepening Gedney's Channel. The use of that money has developed a i'act probably 

known for the first time, to the general public certainly, that theTe has 

been no shoaling of the deep channel into the port of New York since 

the· memory of man. The fact is apparent that on a comparison of the 

present depth of water in the main channel with the depth prior to the 

Revolution, the channel, instead of being shoaled, ts mther deeper now than it was a hundred years ago. But the deposits of refuse matter, 

which I trust hereafter will be regu!ated and controlled by the provisions of this bill, have shifted the bottom of the harbor of New York, 

nntil now the surveys which we ha"\Te, and a copy of which I have here 

before me, turn out to be ~ntirely incorrect, and there are to-day no correct surveys of the harbor of New York. · · I asked the chairman of the Committee·on Rivers and Harbors here 

why provision was not made in this bill for a shrvey ~of the harbor of 

New York; in order that we might know how to spend the money before 

it was appropriated. He replied that he was informed by the Chief of 

Engineers that he had all the necessary information for that purpose. 

Thereupon I wrote to the Chief• of Engineers upon that point, -being 

fully satisfied that the chairman of the committee was mistaken, and 

that they had not the information, and in reply to my inquiry I beg 

leave to submit the following letter: 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES AR11IY, 

Washington, D. C., Janttary 31, 1..88-3. 

DEAR SIR : I am in receipt of your communication of the 29th instant in re- gard to a complete survey of New York Harbor, and inquiring whether the statement that the appropriation for the survey would have been reported by the River and Harbor Committee but for my statement that it was unnecessary, &c. . I beg to inclose for your information a copy of my communication t() the Secretary of War, dated June 21,1884, upon Senate hill 2176, from which it will appear that, referring to the improvement of the channel through Sandy Hook 

bar, the following language was used : "Without such resurvey recommended by the board it is impossible to dis- cuss intelligently the question of improvement, the various sche~es for which 

object are presented from ·day to day. ''It is necessary, likewise, to. establish the facts with regard to the state- ments made concerning the changes and deterioration of this harbor, which are not, however, entitled to the confidence which an accurate survey alone can give." 

A survey was accordingly made of the bar, with the view to improvement, under the appropriation of July 5,1884. The board of engineers recommended ·a resurvey of the harbor of New York, from the Battery t<> a line drawn from 

Navesink to Rockaway beach, as indispensable to study the changes which 

have taken pla.ee. . Veqr respectfully, y~ur.obedient servant, 

Bon. ABRA.lii S. HEwiTl', 

JOHN NEWTON, 

Chief of Enginee1·s, Brig. and Bvt. Maj. Gen. 

House of Representatives, WashingtO?~, D. fl. 

Now, then, before the hoard contemplated by the resolution m my 

colleague can act there must be a resurvey of the harbor of New York. 

Fortunately, it is not an expensive operation. I am· informed by the 

Coast Survey t4a,t the sum of $30,000 will probably enable them· to get 

all of the facts necessary to determine how -to carry on the work for 

the purpose of securing the depth Of water that ~ necessary for the 

commeTce of the port of New York, namely, thirty feet. 

Prepararory ro that survey, however, the commercial bodies of New 

York have had a preliminary survey made, showing the present con- dition of the channel, which survey I hold in my hand, and copies of 

which are at the service· of gentlemen who desire to examine it. By it 

it is shown that the present channel from the point of departure known 

as. the main chanflel, through Gedney's Channel, is eleYen miles long 

and is exceedingly crooked; that the Swash Channel is eight miles in 

length, and that the East Channel will be six miles. 

It turns out on this survey that to get the depth of thirty feet in the 

presentchannelormainchannel wouldrequireanexcavationof6,000,000 

cubic yards, whereas to get the same in the east channel would require· anexcavationofonly 4,600,000; and the distance would be five miles. 

Hapl_)ily for New York and happily for thll} country it. turns out the 

thi.rig wanted to be accomplished, and the best thing to accomplish, is 

the cheapest thing to do. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I move 1o strike out the last word, and yield my time 

to the gentleman from~ New York [Mr. liEwm]. I wish, however, 

to ask him what is the difficulty about the Coast Survey using the fund 

a])propriated annually for theni to make surveys instead of putting it in 

this bill. · 

Mr. HEWITT, of New York. I will answer the gentleman froni 

Georgia with pleasure. I do not propose -to put it in this bill. I do 

not propose any amendment of that sort. I supposed the appropriation 

fot that purpose would be inserted in the sundry civil bill, in accordance 

with the estimate of the Department. . !l!r. BLOUNT. I did not understand the gentleman to make that 

statement. 

· Mr. HEWITT, of New York. ·We have arrived inthehistoryoftbe commerce of this. country at a point of departure. We have got to a point where the commerce is so -great that the ships required ro carry;" 

it on cheaply are too big for the harbor of New York; and there is nd 

harbor in the country, except the harbor of New York, which can ever be made available to do. this business. 1\ian did not make the harbor 

of New York. . H is the work of• that same Almighty Power which so' 

ordered the arrangements of nature that wa.ter could be made to flow 

from the great lakes to NewYork, and which made the harbor of NeW:: York to coYer various channels and bays, so that there are at least three 

independent currents striving with ea-ch other to keep that hatbor open' 

for the commerce of the world. But the ize of the ships ro-day ex-"' 

ceeds the capacity of the channel, so that they leave the port of New 

York with incomple~e loads. 

I have in my hand a letter, or I had it in my hand a moment agoI will state the contents of it-a letter from the agent of the Cunard 

Company, saying they are compelled by the shallowness of the channel 

to haul off their large ships, and if the channel could be made to carry 

thirty feet of water they could take from fifty to sixty thousand bushels 

of g~:ain more in a cargo, and thus cheapen the cost of transportation 

one-third, and that ~ncerns .the great West, the grain-growers of the 

country. It is for them we want this harbor deepened. It is for them 

this improvement must be made. · ~ 

But. before: one dollar can be wisely expended there shoUld be a 

resurvey at this small cost, and wh~n the sundTy civil appropriation 

bill comes in containing that item I should hope the House will then 

enable the engineers charged with this work to arrive at the inform.a.; 

tion necessary to make a wise expenditure of money which my friend 

from Louisiana would generously give to us. 

Mr. WILLIS. .I ask for a vote. . Mr. WHITE, of Kentucky. The State of New York, more than any 

other State of this Union, raised a howl in 1882 against the river and 

harbor bill which appropriated eighteen millions of money. The rail.:' 

road kings -that live in thecityofNewYorkmade opposition to it, and' 

the President, under the influence of those railroad kings, vetoed that' 

river and harbor bill. That veto was founded on the idea that in the' 

bill were appropriations for small streams; insignificant hArbors, and_ creeks and rivers upon which there was no commerce~ · ~ 

Now, sir, the gentleman from New•York [Mr. HEWITT] comes iti 

here and tells us that the Cunard line have built their ships so-large 

that in the winter months they can not enter the harborofNewYork/ 

and they ask this Congress for a resurvey of that harbor with a view 

to excavating it, not only digging out the rubbish that that city has 

been filling it up with, but exca.vating it deeper than nature left it, so as ro admit not only the Cunard st~mers, but the other larger steamers 

which are yet to be constructed. 

Let it not be forgotten that in the past, before the We.qt and the· :::louth. asked for any appropriation for these small cat-fish streams and 

brooks, the State of New York had received millions of dollars, and 

to-day stands at the .liead of the list with $10,000,000 for its harbors 

to be improved for the snips of commerce as they are now, not counting your Cunard steamers which have to be hauled up in the winter~ 

lt. is a new line of departure. I take this occasion to say again we 

should meet this issue squarely. There is but one manlywayto do it;1 

and that is to appropriate for all navigable rivers, great and sm.all,· amounts large or small according only as there is money in the Treas~ 

ury. To-day we have $150,000,000 there. The rai.lroad.kings _ofthis' 

country sitting in New York not only influence the President into ai 

veto, but they influence Congress; they influencethecommerceofthis 

country, and our rivers and harbors go unimproved. Why? Because.' 

the railroad kings have got commerce by the throat. _ This is a new departure. The Cunard steamers can not enter New 

York Harbor in the winterj therefore . Congress· must make appropria-

• 
1348 CDNGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 6, 

tionsto dig<mtlheseharbors and deepen themforthelrCunardsteamers Mr. DUNN obtained the:floor and said: I yield my time to thegen- as they are now and aa they are proposing to make them larger. tleman from Tennessee [Mr. YOUNG].· · 

The question was taken on theamendmentoffered by Mr. KING, and Mr. YOUNG. I do not wish to be disrespectful to anyofthesegenit was disagreed to . . · · · tlemen. I do not intend to be offensive. I haye the greatest respect 

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the next paragrapli. for all the members of this c<immittee. The chairinan has received 

The Clerk read as follows: many courtesies at my hands, and I was glad to extend them,· for perImpro·ving harbor at Great Sodu13 Bay, New York: Continuing improvement, sonally I have great respeet for him. But I say it is an outrage upon 

SIO,OOO. any member of this House, anyRepresentative~n this floor, when vital . Mr. YOUNG. 1\lr. Chairman, I p.ave an amendment which I desire interests of his constituents are at stake to give him no opportunity to 

to ·offer at t-his point, and which I send to the Clerk's desk to· be read. be heard upon the floor of this House. 

The Clerk read as follows: · No Representative in this body should be driven to the necessity of 

.After line 120, insert: . applying to the Senate in order to secure that which it is his right to " For improving the harbor at :Memphis, Tenn., $75,000." have in this House. I am told by these gentlemen that I can get my 

:Mr. YOUNG. 1tlr .. Chairman, I. regret thab I am driven by the press- amendment on in the Sen at~. I am not a member of the Senate-per- me of circumsfances to resort to a most unpleasant expedient. For . haps I ought to be, but I am not. [Laughter.] I am a member of this 

sixty da,yslknockedatthe door of the ''star chamber''where the Com- . Hou...<:e, and I intend to insist upon the rights of my constitllents here 

mittee on Rivers and Harbors were preparing tllis bill, but I received and not to appeal to the Senate except ru:~ a dmzier t·essort. 

no response. When the bill was reported to the House and I discov- I have heard no explanation from any of these gentlemen as to the 

ered that important improvements, upon which hundreds of thousands reason it was found necessary to make an appl'opriationfor Cairo, which 

of dollars had been-heretofore expended by the Government, had been wa-s ne>er asked and for which I believe no ~ate was made, and 

altogether left out, I was astonished. Every harpor between Cairo and leave out all the harbors from Cairo toN ew Orleans. I have failed to 

New Orleans waa left out altogether, and I confess that when I saw the hear any explanation from any member of the committee as to the rea.- bill I was amazed. son ~hy New Orleans was so generously provided for, after passing over In view Of the ability, charaej,er, and standing of the gentlemen who a stretch of t:Qat river.of more than six hundred miles, where millions 

have charge of this bill, it was a matter of great surprise and astonish- of dollars' worth of property was liable to be destroyed if this approprimentt.o me, and I therefore sought, !believe, every_ solitary member of ation was not promptly made and wisely applied. 

that committee to.rernonstrate against their extraordinary action, and At my own town, if my memory serves me correctly, 474,000 have 

1; found but one single member that did notdisayow all connecti.on with already been expended in the prosecution of this class of work. The 

it. The chairman: of the committee was the only me~ber I was able enginee.fs, in their report anJ estimates of the present year, ask that 

to find that was willing· to assume the responsibility of leaving to abso- this work shall be continuEd with an appropriation of $75,000. From 

lute and certain destructio:p millions of dollars' worth of property ·for my know ledge of the work, of ~he topography of th~ river and the land 

the want of a trifling appropriation. at that point, I am enablecl to assert that if this work be abandoned 

Mr. WILLIS. 1\Ir. Chairman, Idesiretosayth tthest.-'l.tementwhi~ now, as these gentlemen of the committee pTopose, the whole of it will 

the gentleman makes is not true. be swept away at the next rise in the 1\fississippi River. The customMr. YOUNG. Very well, we will see about that. How do you know hou e, a struct_ure that cost the Government nearly $600,000, is liable 

it not to be trne? to be swept away, unle~ the river front, which is rapidly caving into 

Jlr1r. WILLIS. Becan e the committee acted upon all those harbors, the bosom of the stream, shall be protected. T;he case is the same with 

including the harbor of Memphis. Greenville and· Natchez, and perhltps other towns on the Lower MissisMr. YOUNG. I did not say that they did not. . sippi. · Mr. WILLIS. Well, you undertook to place upon me before this I submit to the House whether it is wise statesmanship or sound 

House the sole responsi~ility fer the action of the committee upon economy to lea'Vc unprotected work that has cost $474,000, when the 

those appropriations, and I state that that is not true. . engineers estimate that only $75,000 is necessary to preserve it from : Jlr!r. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, 1vl:iat I have stated is literilly j;rue. destruction. I have not heard from any member of the committee in 

I applied to every member of this committee, and they .all said th.ey all their discussion any explanation of the necessity of pursuing this were in favor of this appropriation except the chairman. . course, and I have heard the most objectionable feature in this bill de1\Ir. BRECKINRIDGE. Thegentlemanfrom Tennessee [1\Ir. YoUNG] nounced by but one member of the committee. I refer to the extraor- · is certainly very much mistaken. . dinary proposition to turn over our whole .work of internal improveMr. YOUNG: · And you [:l\Ir. 1;3RECKIN.RIDGEJ.were one of them. ments, to revolutionize it entirely, and give it over to the control and 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. I certainly was, and I urged the appropri- dictation of a single indindual. 

ation very warmly before the committee; but when my proposition ~Ir. Chairman, I desire that the House shaH understand this propowas put to a vote it was voted down. sition and the necessity for this appropriation. In the brief time alMl'. YOUNG. That does not affect what I have tated. I state lowed under the five-minute rule I cannot present it as much in detail 

her~ that every member-of the committee that I spoke to, except the and as strongl.y·as I would desire. I sJillJ.l seek opportunity during 

chairman, told me that he was in fuvor of it. the further progress of the debate to pursue this investigation and subMr. WILLIS and Mr. BRECKINRIDGE rose. mit additional remarks. I believe my time has now expired. 

Mr. YOUNG. Wait until I get through. Wben I get through, if I 1\Ir. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman ifthelangu~aeofthegentlemanfrom 

ha.ve made any incorrect statement you gentlemen expose it if yon can. Tennessee [:Mi. YouxG], uttered in the presence of this committee a 1tlr. WILLIS. Well, so far as I am conce11fed, I expose it now. few minutes ago, meant anything it meant that the chairman of the 

Mr. YOUNG. No, you do not. .I stated that I spoke to every mem- Committee on Rivers and Harbors, and he alone, was responsible for 

bcr of that committee, and all the members oftlie committee disavowed the failure to make an appropriation for Memphis Harbor; and he supany responsibility for this action, and staied that they were opposed to plemented that statement with another, which he now withdraws, that 

it. That is true of every member of the committee that I spoke to, and he had applied to all the other members of this committee and that • I spoke to a· number ofthem, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. BRECK- I was the only one whom he found opposed to this proposition. 

INRIDGE] among the number; .and I now-repeat, in reply to 'bhe dis- Now what is the historyofthis Memphis appropriation? Last year 

courteous and offensive language o.£ the gentleman from Kentucky, that the Committee on Rivers and Harbors ga>e him-gave every gentleman 

he was the only one that ~ talked with that assumed the responsibility. ·and every delegation-all the time that they asked. As the result of 

Does he deny that? · · that the committee concluded nop to make a special appropriation for 

Jlrir. BRECKINRIDGE. That is a very different statement from the the ·city of Memphis, or any otheT city on the M.is$ssippi River. But one the gentleman made before. . · the gentleman and his friends went tv the other end of the Capitol and 

Mr: WILLIS. He said that I was the only one in the committee under a statement that there 'was a public building endan~ered by the 

that was responsible for its action.in this matter. rise of the Mississippi River they succeeded in getting what no other 

Ur. YOUNG. I did not say anything of the sort. city, no oth~r harbor of the :Mississippi River secured, and that is an Now, Jlrlr._ Chairman, proceeding with what I was saying, I sought appropriation of $200,000.· an opportunity by humbly supplicating nearly every member-I will In our committee we believed that appropriation was largely intended 

not say every one, but a great number of the members of this com- to protect private property in M:ernphis, ancl under the solemnity of our mittee-to be allowed :five minutes, or four minutes, or two minutes, or oath, representing the whole people, we saw. no warrant of law to give 

one minute to say a few words with reference to these features of the 'hundreds of thousands of dollars for the protection of private property 

bill to which I object. I was met with the answer-except from the of a city. But when the question was presented there and was stated 

chairman who did not give me an answer at ali-I was met with the that the custom-bouse was involved, the committee of conference answer by every gentleman whom I applied to except one, ''I have but yielded to that suggestion and put it in the bill. an hour and I-.wish I had two hours.'' The gentleman from ,Alabama . In the present bill the estimate comes forward for $75,000 additional. 

[Mr. JoNES] was _kind enough to offer to divide his time with me; but The committee took it under consideration. They found an estimate so much time hadl>een occupied by the other meJ,nbers of the committee for half a dozen harbors of $2,000,000. Three of these harbors were in 

that he had none left. Therefore it is that I am driven now und~ , my own State, that at Paducah, that at Columbus, and that at Hickthis five-minute rule to speak in sections. man. The committee having given to the improvement of the Missis-

[Here the :hammer fell.] sippi the sum of $2,800,000, having given to the Mississippi River 
1885. CONGR~SSION.l\L RECORD- · HOUSE. 1349 

nearly one-third of all the appropriations in this bill, and having a commission to whom they intrusted the expendi~re of this money, 

took the position that that commission was either competent or it was incompetent. - ·If it were incompetent, it ought to be disbanded and its 

life endoo at once. If it were competent, it·could take into consideration the harbors at Memphis or at Vicksburg or anywhere else. And 

in so far as the improvement of these harbors was necessary to the navigation of that river, they have the right under the law to appropriate 

all this sum of nearly $3,000,000. · · 

If the gentl~man aesired this committee to go beyond that; then he 

desired that which we in our judgment believed we bad no right to do. 

We gave this appropriation for the navigation of the _Mississippi River, 

and I say to him, whether he be a friend of the Mississippi River or not, 

and that I doubt-but I say to him, assuming he is a friend of the present method of improving the Mississippi River, that if yo}! want to handicap it, if you want to destroy it on this floor, then have your appropriations for · harbors at Hickman,· and Columbus, and Vicksburg, an4 

Memphis, and all alo:og.the line made so each will have an appropriation offifty or one hundred thousand dollars, and the people's.representatives will end the whole business. . I say to him now _that in that committee, if I am permitted to disclose a committee's secret, there was not one-fifth, or more than one- fifth, that did not agree with me. I could have been silent, as the gentleman suggests. I, as chairman, was the only one of the· committee 

who did not as a matter of fact vote, but had I voted I should have lm-· 

questionably indorsed the ju-dgment of three-fourths of our committee, 

and that was that this appropriation for Memphis should not be made 

specific, but should be left to the judgment or·discretionofthese engi- . neers who have charge of the '\ybole river. I reply aiain that his statement undertaking to fix upon me the entire responsibility is untrue, 

unjust, and lingenerous in the extreme. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. 

Mr. YOUNG. I move to strike out the last word. 

The CHAIRMAN. Discussion on the present amendment is ex- . h_auSted:· The C:Qair will reco¢ze the gentleman from Tennessee directly, but he ~ compelled to keep his promise made to the gentleman 

from West.Viiginja LMr. GmsoN]. . Mr. YOUNG.- But I wish to ~y a word right here, and I appeal t9 

the gentleman from West Virginia to yield to me for that purpose. 

The CHAIRMAN . . Does the gentleman from West" Virginia .yield 

the floor? _ 

·Mr. GIBSON. I do when the gentleman makes a personal appeal to me. . 

Mr. YOUNG. Now, I do not think the gentleman from Kentucky 

inte:sds·to applytometheo~ensiveepithet he has used. I should like 

to ·know if that is his pu.rpOse; whether he intends to assert before· the 

House ! .have deliberately asserted a falsehood. 

Mr. WILLIS. I say if the gentleman undertakes to put upon me the respOnsibility ·of. refusing this appropriation he does state that which 

is untrue. 

111r. YOUNG. I have e~plained already tliat I was told by_ other 

gentlemen tl:)ey were in favor of the proposition, and you were the only 

one I think who was opposed to it. . I made that statement. 

Mr. GWSON. But you do not state that on your own knowledge. 

Mr. YOUNG. He knew very well I did not make that .statement o~ my own know ledge; but I do not wish any question about this matter. I do not want any member of the House to stand on tlle floor and 

declare that I have delibemtely stated a falsehood. I never would do 

it my~lf. It is not the place to do it. I am able to take care of myself here, and I do not care about any such thing going out in the way 

of imputation against me. Now I wish to ask tlle gentleman from 

Kentucky to state whether that is so. Mr. WILLIS. The gentleman understands exactly what~ intended. 

Ur. YOUNG. I do not. . . Mr. WILLIS. I will state again, and if the gentleman has not understood me I think the House will understand, that if the gentleman 

undertook to say that I was the only member of the Committee ~n Rivers 

and Harbors that opposed this proposition, and that upon me reste_d the 

entire responsibility for its rejection, while I am perfectly willing to assume the responsibility of it, he states what is not true. 

Mr. YOUNG. Then I havetosayinreplythatupon his assumption 

he undertakes to brand me as uttering a falsehood upon this floor. 

Mr. WILLIS. No; I did not intend to go to that point. 

Mr. YOUNG. Then you had better state clearly what you mean. Mr. WILLIS. That if ·you stated what I said, then I st.and by what 

I said. · 

Mr. YOUNG. Then the gentleman assumes a hypothetical case. Mr. WILLIS. I think 1; have been very clear in my statement. 

Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman asserts a hypothetical case, that "if" 

I said a thing, and upon that hypothetical assumption he assumes to 

brand falsehood ~pon me. 

Mr. WlLLIS. If the gentleman has not made such a statement then 

mxlanguage does not apply. 

Mr. YOUNG. You know that I never made it. . Mr. WILLIS. Then "of course the language does not apply. 

Mr. YOUNG. Now if the gentleman can listen courteously, and I · 

~ de~ean myself courteously to him and the House, I desire to say a few words in reply to the argument of the gentleman directed to this 

feature of the bill. · 

I understand him to say that it was his belief, and it is a matter of no consequence what he c~ces to believe personally about it, that 

this appropriation of $200,000 which the Senate gave last year was obtained for the protection and improvement of private property. 

As reput;i.ble gentlemen as the gentle~n from Kentucky or any. · other gentleman upon this floor, representing the public sentiment of 

my: city, representing the City government, representing its great steamboat a.nd commercial interests, were here in the city of W ashington1 and 

sta_ted to that gentleman in my presence the absolute necessity for the 

making of this app_ropriation in order to protect the banks of the Mississippi River at that point, where further caving would ultimately involve a loss ofmore tban$2,000,000 unless checked. 

In vindication of that people and of·those gentlemen who appeared 

before the committee I have to .say to the House now that I do not believe the:r~ is a single individual in Memphis, and I am certain I do 

not represent the -wishes of any such, who entertains such an opinion, 

who desires that .an appropriation shall be-included in this bill for his 

personal · benefit or for the protection of private property any f~ther 

than such property may be necessarily protected in the efforts to protect the public property. 

This is the most important harbor on the Mississippi River between Saint Louis and New-Orleans. It is the commercia! emporium 

of the Lower Mississippi Valley . . More than 600,000 bales of cotton .are shipped annually from that point. ·Seventeen hundred ~ter craft 

land at its wharves. _Nearly 40,000 sea:men and steamboat-men :mn,n these crafts and earn their living by it. . . Heretofore one and a half· millions of dollars' worth of property has 

been destroyed in Memphis by reason of the-current of the river being 

diverted from the Arkansas shore to the Tennessee shore before Congress made any appropriation whateve~ to arrest the evil. Someyears 

ago upon estimate!fof the engincersan appropriation was made, which. 

has been kept up continuously ever since, and a large amount of-property, which before now would in all human probab~ty have gone into 

the bosom of the river and been swept out to the Gulf, has been protected. The engineers estimate that $75,0QO is neceSsary to complete 

the work. 

[Here the hammer fell. J · :Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, I t<¥>k occasion upon the introduction 

of this bill into the House to declare that I was riot only not responsible 

for any of these radical features, but that I intended to oppose them 

here in the committee. I i{hotlght then that they were calculated to 

shock the common sense of the country and q,rouse its indignation against 

the report. ·Unfortunately for this bill, and u,nfortunately for the great· objects_in view, it did succeed in arousing the sentiment of this .House 

against it. But now I want to appeal to the member3 of ·this body; 

who have at heart the interests of the rivers and harbors or the development of our internal commerce, to know; after t,he comin1ttee has receded from every single one of these objectionable features, why a discussion should gQ on that is based simply upon these propositions? . _ ~ads is entirely out of the bill. Sandy Bay has been eliniinated from 

it. We are progressing as rapidly wi~h the consideration of the hill as the Committee of the Whole will allow us under the rules.of the House 

to proceed. · . 

The statement bas been repeatedly made here that the committee was not willing and did not hear memb~rs of the House in the preparati<?n of this bill. I want to say here now, and put it upon the record 

of this House, that there is not a member of the House who has been 

denied the privilege of being heard by the present Committee on Rivers 

and Harbors. During this present term of Congress every member of 

this House who applied to be heard h:ts been ·heard. At the former 

session of this Congress there was not one who wished to be heard and was not heard; · 

For five long months this committee sat almost day and night listening to the complaints of everybo_dy :,tnd to the applications of everybody; and then w he~J the short ~ession came on, and it was determined 

that this committee could not in justice to itself undertake to go into new enterprises, we then said; having beard the members of this House once upon their projects, haVing heard all the delegations fully at the 

long session, we would hot be discharging our duty to the House if we would undertake to delay the consideration of this bill. Many mem- be~ talked to me privately as they did to other members of the com- mittee. I explained the matter to them; -and I challenge one single 

member of this House to get up and say th~t he at that time protested 

against it as a wrong or outrage against him. On the contrary, it was . universally acknowledged and conceded that it wa-s the only course we could ptirsue. · . Now, one word further in relation to the amendm~nt of the gentleman from Tennes...~e [Mr. YouNG]. I prQtest here against the appropriation. of a solitary dollar to any landing on the Mississippi River. 

Those Iandings are not harbors in any sense of the word. They are not. 

harbors such as any Government can·or ought to improve. They are mere priv~te landings established for inland commerce, and they do 

not come within the purview of a river _and harbor bill. If this House 

• 
• 

1350 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. 

were to undertak.e ro establishlandingsand.improve landings upon the fiscal year ending June 30, 1886? It :is an insult to the intelligence of 

inland streams, upon the Ohio River, the lUssissippi River, and the . this Congress· for thetp. to continually try ro defeat these amendments 

Missouri River, there would not be money enough lefl; in the Treasury that are offered in good faith upon any such fl.i.rnsy pretext as that. 

of the United States, after the pockets of over 50,000,000 of people had Mr. Chairman, the engineer further reports that about :fi.Ye hundred 

been drained, ro carry out such improvements. It would be a wrong linear feet of th~ east and four hnndred linear feet of the west pier 

and an -outrage upon the people. It would destroy the whole object of superstructure is badly decayed, and will require to be rebuilt within 

the system of internal improvements; ~nd as I said before about these the next two years at an estimated co&t of $12,000. Also, that the 

other propositions, it would shock the common sense of the <;ountry and east breakwater Will require some repairs. An~ these repairs are rearohse its just indignation against us. _ . quired withiil :two years of the time when this report was made. The 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gen- time will be nearly up when the :fi cal year for which we are now aptleman from Tennessee [:rtfr. YoUNG]. -. propriating expires; and yet this committee do not propo e to provide 

1tfr. YOUNG.. I withdraw the amendment. a dollar of this $12,000 that is necessary to protect the work .nlready 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. PAYNE] done. 

desired to offer an amendment to the paragraph. He was proposing to I uppose they intend to wait until, by the action of the winds and 

offer it when the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. YOUNG] rose. The waves, the work is swept away, unless some immediate occasion for doChair will now entertain that-amendment. . · ingsomethlng should a-rise, and then, instead of appropriating $12,0CO, 

The Clerk read Mr. PAYNE's proposed amendment, as follows: we sha].l have to appropriate $25,000, $40,000, or perhaps 550,000 to 

In line 120, strike out" $10,000" and insert " $20,000;" so that it w-ijl read: rep:llr the breaks. I suppose that is the idea of the committee. · "Improving harbor a~ Great Sodus Bay : Continuing imp1;0v~ent, $20,000." [Here the hammer fell. ] -

:Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amend.ni.ent in good faith, Mr. P AY~TE. I wish I could have two or three minutes more. 

and I desire the attention of the committee for the first :five minutes 1\fr. WHITE, of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, 1 move to strike out lhe 

that I have trenched upon theirtilp.e to hear a little something about last three words, n.n.d I yield my time to the gentleman from New this harbor at Great Sodus. There can be no doubt about its com- York; but I wish that the gentleman would first answer 'a question. I 

mercia! importance. It is at the terminus of the Northern Railroad of understood him to say u, while ago that he liad got the door of the comPennsylvania, their li.De running from Great Sodus through ~he States mittee-room open far enough to get this amount increased fmm $5,000 

of New York and Penrisylvania by the way Williamsport and Harris- to $10,000. He is the first member of this Ho\lsewho appears to have 

burg to EaJ.timore and Washington. It is a great coal-carrying road, succeeded in getting before that exclusive committee, and I wish he 

and this railroad company intends ro make the port at Great Sodus the would tell us how be did it. [Laughter] 

principal point for the shipment of coal both for Canada and the great Mr. P .A. YNE. .Well, Mr. Chairn:i.an, peThaps a word of e.xpl:mation 

lakes in the West. Eytheway, I want ro call the attention of the com- is due to the membersoftheCommitteeo11Rivers and Harbot'S. Wha.t 

mittee again to the fact that the poor little Dominion of Canada is I meant to sa.v was that I went around and saw the members of the 

spending millions of dollars ro provide a canal around the Niagara committee individua.My and told them my story. I . had also permisFalbrin order to draw a~ay a. portion' of the commerce that naturally· sion to see for abont five minutes, in the committee-room, the engibelongs to the United States, and take it down tv Udhtreal and Quebec. neer'-s report; and fr~m the recolle_ction of that which I could carry away 

I say the little Dominion of Canada has lately expended· millions of I wrote out and presented ro a member of the committee a statement 

dollars to increase the depth of the Weiland. Canal so that boats draw- which I suppose went before the full committee, though I am not ining fourteen feet of water can pass aronnd it. That nece$Sitates .the formed on that subject. But the report itself-I could not get hold of 

improvement of the principal harbors on tthe shore of Lake Ontario. to :find out what the engineers h::td -recommended until the bill wM 

But the committee seem to have overlooked the fact that this board ·Of report-ed to the ·House. 

engineers recommend that such harbors as Charlotte, Great Sodus, Now one thing further: The engineers say. that tbe extension of the 

Little Sodus, and Ogd~nsburg sbonld immediately have their capaci- east breakwater so as to close up the gap where sand is drifting and 

ties increased s<fthat vessels coming through this canal can enter the.Se where a good deal of dredging is required to be done will cost about 

harbors. . . $2,000~ This, added to the $12,000, makes.$14,000 that is impemThe. committee in the :first iristance determined to appropriate for the tively ne~sary to protect the work that has already been done. Still, 

impt;ovement of the,Great Sodus Harbor the munificent sum of.$5, 000. the committe~ makes no provision for the great commerce coming to 

Well, I got the door open far enough to :find out on what theory they this port from the lakes and from the Weiland Canal. Why, Mr: Chair-

(]Jd it; and I was .told that the commerce of this harbor would not war- man, it seems to me that there ou~ht to be no doubt or· hesitation about 

rant any larger expenditure. And it seeined to be a new revelation to ingrafting on this bill this important amendment. It seems to me that 

the committee when they turned to the collector's report and found we· can all vote for it with a clear conscicmc~ becatise we believe that 

there was a<;tually collected during the last year at this port the sum this is a. measure in the interest of rivers and harbors, in the interest of 

of $19,400 m customs. They concluded that it was a harbor impor- inte.rJ?"al improvements, in the interest of providing waterways that shall 

tantenough to increase the sumfrom$5,000to '10,000. They told me furnish some protection against what gentlemen are pleased to call the 

as I presume they will tell this committee, that they were only allow~ "railroad kings" and the "great monopolies."'' 

ing 25 per cent. of the engineer's e_stimate; -and yet they have allowed 1\Ir. WILLIS. I ask for·a vote. 

$12,000,000 in this bill upon $32,000,000 of estimates of the engineers, · Theqi.A.IRM.AN. DoesthegentlemanfromKentucky(Mr.WHITE] 

and at the same time they tell this committee they have stricken out withdraw. his amendment to strike out the last three words? 

one hnndred and forty harbors that t1ie engineers have made recom- 1\fr. WRITE, of Kentucky. I withdraw it. · mendn.tions for. • · · ~he question being· taken on the amendment of Mr. PAYNE, there 

Now why not exercise a little common sense in rCo<Yard to this bill? were-ayes 78, Jloes. 72. 

Why not pick out the important harbors that are nearing completion Ur. WILLIS. I ask fo1· tellers. andappropriatethemoney~ecessarytocompletethem, andtrytokeep Tellers were ordered; and Mr. WILLIS and 1\Ir. PAYNE were appace with the Dominion of Canada in our internal improvements? pointed. _ Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman, in bebalfofthe Committee on Rivers The committee again divided; and the tellertl reported ayes 78, 

and Harbors, I can only repeat that we have allowed to this harborthe noes 92. . - · same proportion that was allowed to four-fifths of the harbors of the So the amendment was not agreed ro. country. The esti.mateoftheengineer is for $40,000. The committee The Clerk read a follows: 

has allowedone-fou:rth of that amount, which is $10,000. They have Improving harbor at Gowanus Buy, Ne"wYox:k: Continuing improvement, 

on hand the sum of $14,308, which,~with the ·$10, 000, would give them $5,000. · 

about $'25,000. The committee in the las£ Congress, on a bill much 1\Ir. STEVENS. I move to ~end by adding after the paragraph 

larger than the present one, reported for this improvement the sum of ·just read the clause which I send to the desk. 

$10,000, the same ~monnt that is given in this bill. It may not be all The Clerk read as follows: 

that they could .use, but it is all that could be given consistently with Improving Olcott Harbor, New York : Continuing imp~oyement, $5,000. 

the demands of other poinis of equal if not of greater importance. I 1\Ir. WHITE, of Kentucky. I desire to know whether the offering 

ask for a vote on the amendment. of·this amendment to come in afier.the lines just read will cut·o:lf de1\'Ir. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word bate on those lines? I have a substantial. ·amendment which I desire 

and I yield my time to the gentleman from New York [1\:Ir. PAYNE]: to offer to those lines. 

1\Ir. PAYNE. Mi'. Chairman, it is true that there is .available for The CHAIRMAN. The bill is being considered not by lines, but 

the :fis~l year ending Jun~ 30, 1885, the sum of 14,308.85; but I ask by paragraphs. This is an amendment to. the paragraph. ·When it is 

the charrman of the coiDIDittee and the members of this Committee of disposed of a. further amendment to the paragraph will be in order. 

th~ Whole what that has to do with. the amonn.t that is to be ·appro- 1\Ir. ROBI.l~SON, of New YOTk. When lilY friend from New York 

pnated. for the fiscal y~r commencmg on the 1st day of July, 1885? [1tfr. STEVENS) interposed I was seeking to offer an am~ndment to the 

Why, srr, that $14,000 1S .already contra-cted for, and the work will be appropriation for improving Gowanus Bay. ~do not wish to lose my 

~o~e and tb~ money.expended.beforethe30th of June, 1885; and why right. . . 1S 1t that thiS CoiDIDlttee o~ ~1ve1'S ~.nd Harbors will continually harp The CHAIRMAN. The Chair suggests tha,t the gentleman ·from 

upon the amounts that are still available for the fiscal year ending on New York (1\fr. STEVENS] allow his colleague [1\fr. RoBINSON] to 

the 30th day of June next when we are making appropriations for the offer his amendment now. 
1885 . . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1351 ~- <1-'i- . ... I • ·.-1 

1.1r. STEVENS. Certainly. My amendment is an independent one. 

I will offer it hereafter at the proper time. I only desire ·not to lose 

my right. . . 

:Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. I reserve a point of orderaga~t the amendment just read. 

The CHAIR:UAN. That is not pending. rt. has bee~ withdrawn 

for the time being. 

lli. ROBINSON, of New York. I move to amend by making the 

appropriation for continuing the improvement of the harbor at Gowauns Bay $20,000. 

We have ~een trying for a ronsiderable period to get improvements 

at that plaee, and have been from time to time delayed or denied. All 

that part of the bay of New York, which Il'OOds large improvements, 

bas been kept down to very small sums, hardly worth aecepting, so 

small indeed that-we would rather no appropriations had been made. 

I might mention Canarsie Bay and others for which the amounts appropriated have been very meager. 

Gowanns Bay is a very important· part of the harbor of New York, 

and there is an immense commerce upon Gowanus Creek, extending a 

considerable distance above Hamilt-on avenue bridge. We. believe 

there ought to be an appropriation to dredge that canal above the 

bridge, because the immense amount of United States business above 

that point should be provided for by the Government, and the cost 

should not be put upon the city of Brooklyn." We are not now in a 

position, howe'Ver, to urge any appropriation for the canal or creek. 

But for Gowanns Bay the committee here propose to give us $5,000. 

. The origi.Ilal pro~--ition was "to dredge a charinel from the 18-foot 

contour outside the bay to the drawbridge' at Hamilton avenue" at 

an estimated cost of $182,850. The report of the engineer states: 

The· amount expended at the close of the year ending JIUle 30,1883, was $40,-

124.31, and a channel dredged 1,826 feet long, 100 feet wide, and 18 feet deep at mean low water. The amount expended during the year ending June 30,18-84, was 819,001.82. 

These expenditures, amounting to about $60,000, leave $120,000 of 

the original estimate unappropriated. The Engineer-in-Chief states in 

this report that the amount which can be profitably expended during 

the :fiscal year ending June 30, 1886, is $50,000. Yet this committee 

-proposes to give us the sma.ll sum of $5, OOo" for this vast improvement. 

;why, sir, we ask nothing for t~e canal above the bridge, upon which 

the Engineer-in-Chief states there is a very large amount of tonnage. 

That canal, although we ask nothing for it, has more commerce than 

one-half the rivers and harbors mentioned in this bill .. 

I .do not believe there ~e ten rivers on the whole bill of as much importance as Gowan us Creek above the bridge, for which we do not ask 

anything. · . 

I ask to make an amendment-and I hope the ch~irman will allow 

ine to make it-that is, $20,000 for the improvem~nt of Gowan us Harbor. I hope he will allow some increase and not keep u-s down; allow 

us some decent sum, so we can go on and make some improY.eiilents, instead of giving driblets of appropriations in this way. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

Mr~ WHITE, of Kentucky. :Mr. Chairman, it was my intention to 

offer an amendment in line 22, and . to call attention to the fact the 

committee had evidently made a mistake in putting in $5,000 for Gowanu Bay when the engineers recommended $50,000. I will be charitable and suppose the committ~e intended the word '':five'' for '':fifty,'' 

because the engineers' report from which the distinguished gentleman 

from New York[Mr. RoBINSON] hasjustreadstatesthat$50,000can be 

properly expended for this important harbor. I had intended to oon-

_.trast this harbor for which $5,000 is recommended in this bill with Hing-

.bam Harbor, for which $6,000, by the action of yesterday, was appropriated. I bad intended to call the attention of this committee to the 

fact that with a small sum of money a depth of water varying from six 

:to eight feet bad been deepened to eighteen feet, and a channel of one 

hundred, feet wide had been made at Gowan us Bay, whereas at Hingham 

they have to-day in that channel more than eight feet of water, while 

the wo:rk they propose to do there is to carry that channel to the immense length of nine miles, which seems to be entirely for the benefit 

of that one steam boat_tbere to which I have akeady referred. . 

Now let me call the attention of this committee to the report of the 

engineer, where he says on page 4 of this special report: · · 

. The proposed improvement consists in restoring to the upper portion of the 

channel the width obtained by dredging in 1815, and · giving it a depth of ten feet at mean low wat~r, which is an increase of two feet on the depth formerly obtained. It is also proposed to remove tlie ledge lying about midway in the 

lower channel between Chandler's and Ragged Islands. . 

Further on the assistant en~eer in charge of the work say~: . 

The least width of the channel excavated in 18'i6 was one hundred feet; it 

therefore has diminished in width more than half. Above the wharf of the 

steamboat company no channel of eight feet depth exists now; the average 

depth in the original 50-foot wide channel does not exceed now three and a half 

feet. · 

And a little further on suggests: 

During spring tides tbe wat~r frequently falls 1.5 f~et, and at i.imes nearly three feet below mean low water, so that but five and one-half feet, and ooca~ 

sionlly not .much over four feet depth of water can be oount~d on. 

He says on page 6: 

Total estimated cost of improvements, $18,750. . 1 

The ·above estimate appears high, but is :pot so considering the rather unfa--

vorable circumstances rmder·which the work has to be done, among which the' 

great distance to which the excavated material will have to be carried, partly. through crooked and narrow channels, out to sea about nine miles or more, iiJ 

the most prominent. ·, 

We have appropriated only a third of that amount by the action of 

yesterday. We havegiven$6,000 on tbemotionofthegentlemanfrom 

Massachusetts [Mr. LoNG] for that harbor at Hingham where only 

$18,000 is recommend·ed, and where there is but little.commerce. ·, 

Now, sir, I am in favor of improving harbors ~here there is little com.: 

merce. Do not understand me to say we ought not to have done that; 

but I am .astonished how unjnst and bow unfair the discrimination is 

in this bill. Where. it is said by the Engineer Department$50,000 could 

beexpendedprofitablythisyeartbecommitteeputinthebillonly$5,000, 

scarcely enough to pay for the running expenses of the machinery. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

The CHAIR?r1AN. The q-uestion recurs on the amendment .of the 

gentleman from New York [Mr. RoBINSON]. 

The committee divid~d; and there were-aye~ 11, noes 62. 

lli. ROBINSON, of New York. I do not wish to detain this committee, but I think we onght to have the vote on that by_tellers, as I 

under8tand ·there is no quorum, but I ask for tellers not for the purpose of delaying the committee, ,but this is a meritorious case and de:- serves a vote. . 

The CHAIRMAN appointed l't'It. RomNSON, of New York, and l\fr . WILLIS as tellers. · 

l\Ir. ROBINSON, of New York. After what has been said tome by 

the chairman of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, I withdraw the 

point of no quorum. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

l\fr . . STEv-ENS. I move the following amendment. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

In line 122 insert: . $.3:~}?rovelllent of Olcott ~arbor, New York: Continuing improvement, 

· Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, again, in the diScharge of what 

I .believe to be my duty as a Representative upon this floor, I have 

.been compelled to ask the indulgence of the committee while I shall 

explain to it the objects and purposes of this amen<fment. The harbor' 

foy which this appropriation is asked has bad already expended upon it' 

by the General Government the sum of$118,009. The amount needed 

to complete it, according to the reportofthe engineers, is $30,000. That 

amount was asked for last year, but the Committee on Rivers -and Har.: 

bors in their judgment decided to make no appropriation whatever, and 

consequently it had ·nothing to depend upon except the small nnex~ 

pended balance coming over from preYio.us years. The engineer in 

charge of this work says: · 

There will be no operations at this harbor during the present season, sine~ the funds are practically exhausted. . ~ 

The engineer also goes on to say that the appropriation of 30,000 

asked for is to b~ applied to the eAtension and maintenance of the piers, and the deepening of the channel oetween the piers. . 

It is true, sir, that the commerce at this harbor is not very large. I 

believe there was something over 100,000 packages of merchaJ!djs~ 

handled there last year. The only amount I ask in this amendment,' 

as will be seen, is not the $30,000 recommended by the engmeers, nor one-fourth of it, which I understand the Committee on Rivers and Har~ 

bors seem inclined to recommend in accordanee with the report of tb~ engineers, but I only ask one-sixth of the sum, in order that the recom.: 

men dation of the engineer, to wit, that the improvements· already madti 

may be preserved, shall be carried out. . 

I do not ask this, sir, in any spirit of criticism upon the action of the 

Committee on Rivers and Harbors; nor do I desire to be called an ob-~ 

structio$1; because, having been denied an opportunity of presenting 

the claims of this harbor in any other way than before the Committee 

of the Whole House, I think it is a right not only that I have_, but that' 

every member of the committee has, to present the claims of their re_. 

spective constituents and the .claims of harbors in their districts in Com~ 

mittee of the Whole. In that spirit alone have I offered this amendment, and I hope it will -be accepted. r 

Mr. WILLIS. 1\fr. Chairman, in one word I desire· to say that this 

harbor had a full hearing in the last CongreSs as well as in this. The 

gentleman himself appeared before the committee then. 

Mr. STEVENS. Not this year. 

1\lr. WILLIS. Not this year; I refer to the last session of Congress. 

It:was rejected in the last session, and was rejected also in this, sim7 ply for the reason that its commercial statistics were so small. There 

were only 19,000 packages of merchandise and some 91,000 pounds of 

provisions as the whole of the expor~ from that point. The. whole 

revenue derived was $8:.l.90, while the whole imports reached $.118. ' 

Now we were compelled to make sot;ne discrimination as to the na-. 

tionality and importance of these harbors, and simply for the reason 

that it did not come up to the measure of what was required as ana-: 

tional improvement we felt compelled to rej~t the application to 
1352 CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 6, 

make an appropriation for this point;. and I may say it was excluded 

reluctantly from this bill. 

The CHAffiJ.IAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 

of the gentleman from New York. · The amendment was not agreed to. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Improving harbor at Little Sodus Bay, New York: Continui~g improve- _ ment, $10,000. 

Mr. PAYNE. I move to strike out " ten," in line 128, and insert 

".fifteen;" so that i.t will read: 

Contil\uing improvement, $15,000. 

This harbor is in a situation v-ery similar to the Big Sodus Harbor, of 

which I spoke a few mqments ago. H is at the terminus of the Lehigh 

Valley Railroad, a road running across the States of New York and 

Pennsylvania to Philadelphia., and is the outlet on the lakes of the 

great Lehigh Valley coal mines. It has a larger commerce than Big 

Sodus. The collections from_import duties· were $23,589 for the last 

.fiscal year. But otherwise the cases are almost exactly parallel. There 

is about the same 11um leftover, which it is necessary to use to pay for 

contracts already exiSting before the 30th day of Jun~ next. In every 

other respect I think it is exactly, similar. 

Now, I have suggested the sum of $15,000 in -this amendment not 

because of the impression that seems to prevail in the minds of the com- mittee thatifweadd fiveor ten thousand dollars to this bill in theway 

of an amendment the whole thing is 130 :weak that that small sum might 

make it topple over and that consequently we must stand by th~ com- mittee and support the hill and must not increase it by any small amount 

which may be absolutely necessary for fear that the bill could not carry 

it, but because I believe that unless this hill is amended in these particulars, and unless some objectionable features are stricken-from the 

bill which are already there, so that the aggregate will pe below the 

12,000,000, it will not furnish a bill that has a chance to pass this Con~ 

gress. We have already ~tricken out $100,000 for Sandy Day. Now, 

I want to put in a little for these harbors about the country which are ofnational importance and which have a commerce and which are harbors that need improvement, and let every member not only of the Committee of the Whole but every member of the Conimittee on :Rivers and 

Harbof!? vote his honest convictions, and not feel compe1led to stand by a report of the committee when it must be seen that that report is made 

without receiving all the light upon the subject which is obtainable and · when . this body can see that the committee was wrong and that the 

amendment offered is right. . . . The question being taken on M~. PAYNE'S amendment, it was not 

agreed to; there being-ayes 56, noes G7. . 

J.Ir. STEVENS. I offer the amendment which I send to the desk. 

The Clerk read as follow~: 

After Jine 128 insert the following: "Improving Wilson Harbor, New York: Continuing improvement, $5,000." 

Mr. STEVENS. This is another of the same class ~f harbors for 

which I have offered the two previous amendments. I only desire to 

state in connection with this matter ·that the .a,mount of money already expended here is $49,866 . • The amount r~qtilied according to 

the estimate of the engineer to complete it is $50,000. The amount 

he recommends to be.appropriated this year, or which he sbtes can be 

economically e:xpencled during this year, is 30,000. · I have offered this amendment in orde:c to preserve the work. All I 

ask for in the amendment is $5,0001 simply to preserve in repair the 

work already done. · . · In answer to the chairman of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, 

I will state that the revenue received at that port by the United States 

collector is $932. And in fmiher answer to the objection the gentleman offered to making an appropriation for Olcott Harbor, I will say 

that I find by reference to the bill which "the committee have presented 

that for the harbor olFairport, Ohio, where the magnificent sum of 

$87.85 was collected during the last twelve months, the·committee recommend an appropriation of $5,000. At Black Lake, J.lich., there was a revenue in one year of $212.57, and the committee recommend an appropriation by their bill of $6,000. 

And so I could go through the bill, taking up item after item. But 

I do not desire to do it, merely calling the attention of the committee 

to the fact that the objection offered by the honorable chairman of the 

committee in regard to Olcott Harbor does not prevail against this, and 

that it does obtain against quite a number of harbors for which he has 

reported in the bill presented quite liberal appropriations. · J.'lr. WILLIS. In one word, I desire to say this was folly considered 

a-t the last session. The -gentleman had a hearing, and by a vote of 

the committee, on which his own State was represented, it was excluded. The reason given is here stated: 

The question is of growing importance whether the United States is to een·e improvements made by the Government originnlly but now lying inside 

the shore line and in use or subject to use by riparian owners for docks, &c., or whether such original Government work is to be preserved by the local autbT~!i~~~:tf:~V:~~~~!~fhlt:he::bor is to be impr~ved for private use by pub- lic money; o.nd the committee did not believe it ought to be. 

Mr. STEVENS. I desire to say in answer to the gentleman from Kentucky [1tJ::. ~ILLrsJ that that is the "!ery: pruiciple that I would like 

to see decided by this House; and thatJSwhetheraftertheGovernment 

of the United States shall have during a long series of ;years been making 

these appropriations, and shall have made very comfortable harbors in 

most instances for the use not merely of the riparian owners bnt for 

the use of all the people, especially of those who may happen to have 

ships and vessels of various kinds doing business on the waters and rivers 

where these improvements have been made-whether Congress shall now discontinue those works. This is the very question which the people 

want to have understood and settled-whether by this Congress there 

is to b~ an abandonment of all the precedents of past Congresses, and 

whe\her this burden is to be thrown on the individuals who happen to 

be living contiguous to these improvements whj.ch have been made in 

years past. We want to ·know ~hat the sentiment of this Congress is, 

and whether the rights of the people which have been protected in years 

past by Congress are in future to be ignored. 

The question being taken on the amendment offered by Mr. ·STEVEN , 

it was not agreed to . The Clerk read the following paragraph : 

Improving harbor at Oswego, N. Y. : Continuing improvement, $50,000. 

Mr. NUTTING: I offer the ar;nendment which I send to the desk. 

The Clerk read as follows : · 

In line 134 strike out " $50,000" and insert " $95,000;" so that the clause will 

read: . · "lq1proving harbor at Oswego, :N. Y.: Continuing improvement, ~,000." 

Ur. NUTTING. I offer this amendment with the belief that it ought 

to .be allowed. The harb~r of Oswego holds from the seventh to the 

tenth place· among the harbors of the United· States as regards the collection of duties . . It is the principal harbor of Lake Ontario, and nearly 

at the foot of lake navigation. . 

The repox:t of the engineers for the last year asks Congress to appropriate $70,000 for repairs and continuation of work on this harbor. 

The Committee on Rivers and Harbors has thought fit to give us $50,000. 

But, Mr. Chairman, allo:w me to say that since the report of the en- gineers was made a storm came upon the works of that harbor and two 

hundred and fifty feet of the pier were swept away; ·the entire pier of 

this harbor is, if I recoll~ct correctly, about three-fourths of a "mile in· length, and shuts in the water of the lake to the extent of one hundred acres. 

This is not all, By t"Qis break in the piers of the harbor of Oswego, 

."which occurred in December last, not only the Go'lernment works themselves, which hav-e cost the Government about$1,500,000, are in danger; 

but the immense JX'Operty on the water front of the city, to the extent 

of a. million dollars and probably more, is in danger of destruction. I 

formulated a resolution to be passed through the Senate that a survey 

be made of these damaa:,ooes, and a survey was made under instructions 

of the Senate. • This damage which I have described to the House is said by the En- . gineer, in answertotheSenateresolution, to amount to $45,000; and in 

speaking of the necessity of this appropriation in a letter to the mayor 

he says substantially that it is absolutely necessary for the prE:Wervation of the public works .at the harbor of the city ot Oswego. 

Now, Ur. Chairman, if the members of this eommittee will look at 

this matter for a few r¢nutes as business men, I am sure there will not 

be a single dissenting vote against the amendment that I have offered. 

The customs districtof Oswego has within the last twenty years collected nearly or qU:ite$20,000000, for the Treasury of the United States". 

We have received there for all our public works less than the interest 

upon the money which we hav.e cqllected and put into the Treasury. 

Yet now, when the United States engineers, under their official oaths, 

have said that it is necessary for the preservation of all this work, 

when they have said that it is absolutely necessary in order that the 

harbor of Oswego may be kept open, that $45,000 shall be added to the 

original e~timation, the Committee on Rivers and &rbors simply sit 

down and in substance say that this harbor shall not have the money. 

Mr. Chairman, I warn this House and the country that if that appropriation be not made, damage to the amount of more than a million 

dollars will be done within the next six months within the harbor. of 

Oswego by the storms. • Dq gentlemen realize the importance of this harbor? The tonnage 

of Oswego last year was over 350;000; the amount of lumber shipped 

into that harbor from Canada over 187,000,000-feet in the year 1883. 

The amount of coal which is shipped from that harbm: to other ports 

and other countries was about a quarter of a million tons in the s:1me 

year. The grain of all kinds which came to that port in 1888 wa~ 

nearly four and a. ha]f million bushels, and the amount of customs collected that yeardir~t-sayingnothing about bonded goods-was nearly 

$700,000. The value of imports was nearly six million and a half of 

dollars, and the value of exports about ~,000,000 . . Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman, I do not dispute, and I am sure that no member of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors will dispute, the 

commercial importance of the harbor of Oswego, and the committee 

have endeavored to be strictly just to its claims. The estimate of the 

engineer of the amount that could be profitably expended was $70,000. 

In the cases of fully four-fifths of the harbors of the country the com-
1885. CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD- · HOUSE. 1353 

mittee has allowed one-fourth of the estimated amount, but in this. ·permission granted Maj. William Ludlow by the act of February 28, 

case, instead of ~owing one-fourth of the estimate, which would have 1883, ro ~ecept a civil position. 

been something over $16,000, the oommittee have allowed $50,000. - ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. NUTTING. Does the gentleman mean that of the $50,000 ~45,()90 is to be appropriated for the mending of the piers? l\Ir. WILLIS. ¥r. Chairman, I have no desire to trespass upon the 

Mr. WILLIS. I was about to oome 00 the point. In the last Con- business of the Pension Committees; but I will ask unanimous consent 

gress this House appropriated for the harbor of Oswego $40, OOO, and 'the that at the close of to-night's session the House take a recess until10 ~ o'clock to-morrow morning. • Senate added $40,000, making .,.,80,000; so that, if the appropriation in A MIDIBER. Let us hear the request. 

this bill be.allowed, that harbor will have on hand $100,o"OO. In the The SPEAKER. pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 

year preceding they were able to expend only $54,000. So .that, even W:tLLIS] asks unanimous cons_ent that at t4e close of the session toallowing for these improvements, they will not be able, gentlemen of . the oommittee, to expend more than the amount of $140,000 in the next night the House take a recess until10 o'clock to-morrow mornmg. Is 

there objection? two fiscal years- 70,000 per year. I ask for a vote. Mr. VAL$NTINE and others ·objected: 

·:Mr. NUT:riNG. lli. Chairman, I move to strike out the l:l$t word Mr. CONVERSE. I move that the House now take a recess until10 

of the pending amendment in order .that I may have an opportunity o'clock to-morrow morning. · 

to answer briefly the statement of the chairman of .the Committee on M,:r. WHITE, of Kentucky·. I ask that the order under whicl;l the 

Rivers and Harbors. 

I was as unfortunate as other members of the House in my efforts to House meets on Friday night be read. 

get into the room of that committee so as to lay before them my views The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pending that, tb,e Chair will ask con- as ro the necessity for this appropriatio~ for the harbor of Oswego1 

but sent to present several executive communications. 

I did placein thehandsofsome of the members of the committee \WhO . GOVERNMENT RECEIPTS .AND EXPEN·DITURES. 

were generous enough to listen to what I had to say and to receive the The SPEAKER pro .tempore, by unanimous consent, laid before the 

papers I had to present) evidence to show that this money, which the House a letter from the Secretary of the Treas~, transmitting a dechairman of the committee ·says is now on hand, has been aJ.rea.dy ex- tailed account of receipts and expenditures of the United States for the 

pended under cOntracts, and that before the end of this fiscal year it fiscal year ending June 30, 1880; which was laid on the table, and or- will be entirely expended, and there will not be a dollar on hand with dered to be printed. 

which to carry on work from June, 1885, to June, 1886. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, if there is any legislative body in the world that . SKIPTON c~~EK, · ::uARYLAND. · 

ought to be governed by-business principles in its legislation it is the ~e SPEAKER pro tempore, by un:i.nimous consent, also laid before 

Congress of the United States. Where would .you have got the money the House a letter from the Secretary of War, inclosing repqrt of the . you are now appropriating if it had not been for such harbors as that of Chief of Engineers of an examination of Skipton Creek, Maryland; 

Oswego, which have been continually bringing into the Treasury of the which was·-referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, and or- United States the money upon which we are now drawing for the im- dered to be printed. 

provement of the harbors and the commerce of the country? And yet, ·LEAVE OF ABSENCE. 

when the time come8 that we need some of this money to maintain and By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted in the following keep in existence the harbor of Oswego, and ~hen we come here with cases: . 

the sworn report of the Government engineers that it is necessary ·-to To 1\Ir. HART, for the remainder of the day, on ~ccount of important ha.ve $45,000 more in order to mend the piers in that harbor so that business. 

the property there and the harbor itself may not be exposed to damage To Mr. STEVENS, for to-morrow, on account of important business. 

and ruin, this committee refuses to make the appropriation. To l\fr. BAGLEY, until Monday next, on ace9unt of business. 

Any business man owning these piers and this harbor, if he found To Mr. FIEDLER, until Tuesday next, on account of sickness. 

this break in the piers, would at once expend every dollar necessary To Mr. WE:\IPLE, until :Monday next, on account of important busi· 

to repair them. Yet this Congress, when the whole matter is laid be- ne~ : · · · 

· fore it time after. time, refuses to -make the appropriations which it To Mr. BRU.l:IM, until Tuesday :Q.ext, on account of sicknesS. 

should make as legislators for the nation. I ask the members of this 

House to vote this amendment of $45,000 which the engineers say is .Eli."'R.OLLED BILLS SIGNED. 

necessary to carry on the work at this point, and especially to preserve Mr. NEECE, from the Committee on Enrolled Bille;, reported that the 

the work already placed there by the Government. committee had ex~mined and found truly enrolled bills of the followMr. THOMAS. Does not this bill provide more than the '$45, 000 re- ing titles; when the Speaker pro tempm·e signed the same: quired to repair the damage? . A bill (S. 67 4) to authorize the purchase of additional gromids for the 

Mr. NUTTING. It provides $o,OOO more; and I suppose the gen- United States court-house and post-office building at Springfield, ·m.; 

tleman would have us credit that $5,000 upon the $70,000 additional, and · which the engineers have stated in their annual z:eport to be necessary A bill (S. 21S8) for the relief of the executrix of Ayres P. Merrill. 

for the preservation and continuation of the works there. The -SPEAKER pro tempore. The hour of 5 o'clock having arrived, 

The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. NUTTING, there the House, in pursuanceofitsstandingorder, takesarecesstill1;3o'clock 

were-ayes 73, noes 84. p. m.; the session of to-night, at which the gentleman from New York, 

Mr. NUTTING. I make the point that no quorum has voted and Mr. BAGLEY, will preside, being-for the consideration of pension busicall for tellers. ness. Tellerswereordered; and 1\Ir. NtJTTINGand:J\Ir. BRECKI:NRIDGEwere EVENING SESSION. 

appointed. . The recess bn.ving expired, the House reassembled at 8 o'cloek p.m., The committee again divided; and the tellers reported---ayes 84, 1\Ir: BAGLEY in the chair as Speaker pro tempo-re. noes 80. 

So the amendment of Mr. NUTTING was adopted. BUSINESS BY .UN.ANDIOUS CONSENT. 

1\Ir. BRECKINRIDGE. I reserve the right to have a vote in ·the Mr. RAY, of New Ha~pshire, I was no~ present when the com- House on this amendment. mitteeswere called, the only time they were called since the last meetThe CHAIRMAN. That is not necessary. ing of the Committee Qn Invalid Pensions, and therefore I ask unaniThe Clerk read as follows: mons consent that I may make two reports, which I wn.s instructe4 by 

JmproYin~ harbor at Saugerties, N.Y.: Continuing improvement, $5,000. the Cemmittee on Invalid Pensions ·to submit . 

. Mr. WILLIS. I move that the committee now rise. lli. HEWITT~ of Alabama. I do not object, but I would like to 

The motion was agreed to. know whether this can be done under the order of this evening session. 

The committee accordingly rose; and 1\Ir. BLACKBURN having re- 1\Ir. RAY, of New Hampshire. ~ It has been done _before in two or t"4ree instances, I think. . . sumed the chair as Speaker pro tempm·e, :Mr. HA3IMO:ND reported that 1\fr. HEWITT, of Alabama. Then if it has been done before I shall 

the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union had, ac- not object.• · : · cording to order, had under-consideration the bill (R. R. 8130) making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain The SPEAKER pro tempore. Anything can _be done by unanimous 

consent. public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes, and had There was no obiection. come to no resolution thereon. · " 

MESSAGE FR011I ·THE SENATE. BENJ.A.."UIN P. LOWELL . . 

A message from the Senate, by Mr. McCooK, its Seeretary, informed Mr. RAY, of New HampshiJe, from the Committee on Invalid Penthe House that the Senate had agreed to the amendment of the House sions, reported baek favorably the bill (H. R. 6310) granting a pension 

( ) t~ Benjamin ;P. Lowell; which was refe~d to the Committee of the 

of Representatives to the bill S. 1793 to amend section 4434 of title Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying re- 52 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, concerning commerce · port, ordered to be p. rinted. · and nayjgation· and the regulation of steam-vessels. 

The message further informed the House that the Senn.te had passed CYNTHIA MARTIN AND CATHERINE STOVER. 

without amendment the joint resolution (H. Res. 309) extending the Mr. RAY, of New Hampshire, from the Comn'littee on Invalid Pen· 
1354 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 6, 

I 

sions, also reported back with amendment the bill (H. R. 2804) for the 

relief of Cynthia Martin and Catherine Stover; which was referred to 

the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, with 

the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

PBIVATE CALE.I..~AB. 

Mr. :MORRILL. I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole Holl.ie on ·the Private Calendar for the consideration of pension cases. · · The motion was agreed to; and the-House accordingly resolved itself 

into the Committee of the'.Whole House on the Private Calwdar, Jltfr. 

HATCH, of 1\Iissouri, in the chair. 

ORDER OF BJJSINESS. 

:Mr. BREWER, of N:ew York. I ask byunanin;tous consent to take 

up from the Calendar the bill (H. R. 7938) granting a pension to Amanda 

Allen. · The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will suggest that some order of procedure be adopted. 

1\Ir. HEWITT, of Alabama. I askby.unanimo'usconsent thatmembers may be allowed to call up such cases asjhey may see proper. 

The CHAIRMAN. Alternating from one side to the other according 

to the practice of the last two sessions of the Committee of the Whole 

Honse. . · There was no objection, and it· was ordered accordingly. 

A~IANDA ALLEN. 

Mr. BREWER, of New York. · I ca,ll up the bill (H. R. 7938) granting a pension to Amanda ~en. 

T;he bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and hereby is, authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Amanda Allen, mother of Charles 

F. Allen, late of Company B, One hundred and forty-fourth Regiment New York 

Volunteers. 

The report (by Mr. BAGLEY) was read, as follows: 

The petitioner is the mother of Charles F. Allen, who enlisted August, 1862, as a private in Company B, One hundred and fifty-fourth New York Volunteers, 

and who died October 5,1864, at Savannah. Ga.., while a prisoner of Will:. The 

mother's application for pension was filed October 9~.,1879, and rejected on the 

ground that the soldier at the dat-e of death left a wiaow surviving, who would 

have prior right to pension if allowed. · The claimant, in be1; affidavit, alleges that the soldier was never married nor left a widow or child or children. She also states in another affidavit that her son was married prior to his enlistment, but did not liveamicably,and the wife 

remarried prior to·soldier'sdeath; that he lived with his wife scarcely a month, 

and that she was ~woman of bad morals. It is shown also that t)le wife remar- ried or lived with another man prior to soldier's death. A. witness says that in 

1862, while in the service, at Chattanooga, he wrote a will for said Allen, by the terms of which he gave to his inother all his property of every kind, inclucing 

all claims for back pay and demands of every nature. This affiant says he 

knew the wife of soldier and when he married her. After their marriage 1\Irs. 

A.llen acquired a bad reputation, and it was so understood by many people. Allen t~ld this affiant this also, and that he intended t~ not live with her again, and that he should get a divorce on his return home. • The husband of claimant was, for a long time prior to his death, seriously disabled, so that he could perform little, if any, manual labor. 

The petitioner t-estifies that prior to his enlistment the soldier, her son, was her principal support, and that she was dependent upon him for her mainte- nance, and that he gave her fr~m time to time while in the said service all he 

received as bounty or wages while,in the service. Th~ mother is an old woman, andis vexypoor, and she is represented as being an honest, reputable woman, and has the respect of the community in which 

she lives. . As the widow of this man ,seems to have sought the society of another, in the 

capacity of a wife, and that, too, prior to the death of the soldier, and as the 

mother was dependent upon the soldier, and by his death lost her support, and 

is now in need of aid, the committee think it proper she should be pensioned, and recommend the passage of the bill. · 

There being no objection, the bill was laid aside to be reported. to the 

House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

.JUDSON BOSTWICK. 

Mr. STEVENS. I call up the bill (H. ·R 7334) grantiDg a pension 

to Judson Bostwick. 

The .bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &:c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of .Judson Bostwick, o£ Arcade, N.Y., 

late of Company F, Fifth Regiment New York Cavalry Volunteers. 

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. I hope the gentleman· from New York 

will make a short explanation of this case. . 

~· STE~S. I will say, 1\Ir. Chairm.ilJl, that Jltir. Bo~twick, the 

clarmant, enlistedSeptember 11, 1861, and was discharged July2, 1862. 

On December 18, 1879, he filed a declaration for a pension, which was rejected February 16, 1883, on the ground that there was no record of 

alleged disability in the War Department. Tbereisab1lndanceofmedical evidence of prior soundness and of disability at the time of discharge. 

He had contracted a severe cold by reason of exposure near Annapolis, 

Md., which resulted in disease of the kidneys and lungs, a disease that 

still continues. The examining surgeon finds him one-half disabled, 

which I suppose will be the measure of the pension that would be 

granted. -

There was no objection, and the bill was laid aside to be reported to 

the House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

THOMAS D. FITCH. 

Jlt1r. DAVIS,· of Illinois . . I call up the bill (H; It 7696) granting a pension to Thomas D. Fitch. 

The bill was read, · as follows: 

Re it enacted, cf:c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he hereby is, au- thorized and direct-ed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions aud 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Thomas D. Fitch, late surgeon of 

the Forty-second Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. 

Ur. HEWITT, of Alabama. ·I _hppe.the gentlemail'will Il}.ake a short 

explanation. 

Mr. DAVIS, of Illinois. I will state that ~ir. Fitch was a surgeon, 

in 1862, of the Forty-second. Illinois Volunteers, and was mustered on the 12th. of January. He had previously been appointed as assistant 

surgeon in November; had served during Novemper, December, and a portion of January with his regiment in Missouri He had little knowledge of military matters, and supposed he was regularly appointed, but 

it turned out that he was not regularly appointed and did not receive a commission as assistant surgeon. He did receive a commission as sur- geon, and was mustered, as I have already stated, on the 12th of January, 1862. 

He is reported on the rolls of the Department as having been present 

during the month of November as assistant surgeon, borne on the rolls as a member of the staff,. and participated in the duties of an officer- was so regarded and so obeyed. The disability under which he asks 

this pension was caused by an attack of typhoid fever at the tim~. he was acting assistant surgeon. The technical ruling of the Department 

is probably correct, that he was notactnally in the service atthattime. 

He recovered frQm that attack and served for two years or more, doing 

good in the Army as surgeon. The Adjutant-General referred the 

matter to Congress so that the record might be corrected. 

Thel"e being no objection, the bill was laid aside to be reported to the . House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

HABRY H. G. KISLINGBURY AND OTHERS·. 

1\fr. :UAYBURY. I call up H~use bill7618, granting ·a pension to 

Harry H. G. Kislingbqry, Walter F. Kislingbury, Wheeler S. Kislingbury~ and Douglas E. L. Kislingbury~ children of tb~ late. Frederick F. Kislingbury, a lieutenant in the Eleventh Regiment United 

States Infantry, reported from the committee with an amendment. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, de., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he i hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll the names of Harry H. G. Kis· 

lingbury, Walter Frederick Kislingbury, Wheeler Schofield Kislingbury, and 

Douglas E. L. Kislingbury, all minor children of the late Lieutenant Frederick F. KJslingbury, Eleventh United States Infantry, and to pay to each of said 

children a pension at the rate of ~25 per month, commencing .June 1,1884, and 

until said children severally attain the age of 21 years. SEc. 2. That this act shall take immediate effect. 

The amendment of the committee was read, as follows; 

Strike out in line 9 "twenty-five" and insert "ten;" and strike out the words 

"commencing June 1, 1884." 

Mr. MAYBURY. I need not state the facts of the death of Lieutenant Kisling bury, one of the heroes of the Greely expedition, as It is a matter of' history. So far as his orphan children are concerned they are now residents of my State, and the guardian appointed for them by 

the probate court of the connty reports to me that the estate consists 

only of a :few personal effects of their late father and that they are in 

destitute circumstances. I ask for the reading of the report, which is 

.short. 

The report (by 111r. ROBINSON, of New York) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 7618) granting a pension to Harry H. G. Kislingbury, Walter F. Kislingbury, Wheeler S. 

Kislingbury, and Douglas E. L. Kislingbury, children of the late Frederick F. Kislingbury, a. lieutenant in the Eleventh Regiment United States Infantry, 

having had the same under consideration. beg leave to report as follows: 

Lieutenant Kislin~bury, after long suffering, met his death while in service 

of the Unit-ed States m the Lady Franklin Bay expedition, leaving fou1· minor 

children, herein named, as wards of the nation. His se1·vices the most hazard- ous and death the most heroic are matters of history too familiar to need re- hearsing. 

The committee beg leave to r eport the following letter from Lieutenant 

Greely: · "DEAR Sm: I trust that the bill in your charge which provides a pension for 

Lieutenant Kislingbury's children during minority will ~ favorably reported. It' seems to me that the matter is in a nutshell. Lieutenant Kislingbury met his death after extreme privation and terrible suffering, while in service and on duty with the Lady Franklin Bay expedition, the circumstances attending 

which are everywhere known. After twenty years' honorable and faithful serv- ice, during which he served in all grades, from a Pl'ivate in the volunteer army during the late war to lieutenant in the regular A.t·my, he leaves four children 

dependent and without support. I know thnt ·his last thoughts were of those 

children, and that he 'hoped and trusted that the Government would not see them suffer. It seems to me that the Government can expect the most devoted 

and faithful duty to death from all its servants, but in return they at least hope 

that through their labor iind at the price of their lives reward may come to those they leave dependent. 

"Respectfully, yours, "A.. W. GREELY. 

"Hon. W. E. ROBINSON, lU. 0. 11 • 

Your committee recommend the passage of the bill with an amendment grant- . ~ifi. each of the cl!lldren 10 a month inst-ead of 25 a month, as provided by the 

Mr. WOLFORD. I move to amend by making it $15. 

Jltfr. :MAYBURY. The committee ha_ve considered the matter, and 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1355 ------,~--------------------------------------~~~~----------------------------------------~-------

I think it had better remain as reported by them. I believe the 

amount is small. . Mr. CUTCHEON: This continues the pension until21 years of age. 

Is that the usual.custom? 

:Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. The general law is until they are sixteen. :M:r. WOLFORD. These are orpb~n children; with no means of support. 

Mr. WoLFORD's amendment was disagreed to. 

The amendments of the committee were agreed to; and the bill was 

laid aside to be reported to the Honse with the recommendation that 

it do pass. · DANIEL B. RANDALL. 

. l'lfr. M:QRRILL. Mr. Chairman, I call up from the Calendar the bill 

(H. R. 7903) granting a pension to Daniel B. ~andall, and ask to put 

it upon its passage. 

The bill w~ read, a.S follows: 

Be it enacted, kc., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Daniel B. Randall, late a private in Compan:y A, O?e hundred and second Illinois Volunteer Infantry: 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

MORRIS GELD. 

"M.r. WOLFORD. Mr. Chairman, I ask the consideration of the bill 

(H. R. 4869) for the relief of .l1:orris Geld. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &:c., That Morris Geld, late of the general mounted service, United States Army, be, and he hereby is, placed on the pension-roll of the United States, subject to the limitations and provis.ions of the pension laws, with rate proportioned to his disability, and to take effect from date of discharge, 

September 30,1882. ' · 

l\Ir. HEWITT, of Alabama. That bill seems to be rather peculiar 

in its form. I suppose it was not reported by the committee in that 

shape. 

:M:r. WOLFORD. Yes. 

l\Ir. HEWITT, of Alab~ma. I ask tha~ the report be read. 

The report (by Mr. WOLFORD) is as follows: 

Morris Geld entered Company B, Tenth Re~iment New York Volunteer Cav- alry, December 19,1862, and was honorably d1sebarged on July 17, 1865,'having made a good soldier. He enlisted in the United States :Army October 6, 1865, in the Seqond Cavalry, for three years, and was honorably discharged October 6, 1868. In his discharge his character is given as "excellent in every respect, so- ber, and attentive to duties." Enlisted again the same day in the regiment for five years, and was honorably 

discharged September 25,1870, in consequence of General Order No. 9'2. This discllarge says, "Uharacter excellent, and temperate in his habits." October 13, 1870, he re-enlisted again in the Fourth United States Cavalry for five years, and wns honorably discharged October 13, 1875. This discharge says, "Character excellent." . He enlisted as ser~ea.nt on October 22, 1875, and was honorably discharged October 21, 1880. '.rh1s dischar;;;-e says," Chamcter very good." He enlisted again February 11, 1882, for five years, and was discharged Sep- tember 13; 1882, on a surgeon's certificate of disability. Character still good. His disability occurred while in the line of his duty in this way : A street-car ran over his hand and mashed the bones of'it so badly that his left. hand had to be taken off at the wrist-joint. He was on recrUiting service at Philadelphil\. 

Being sick one morning, his sergeant sent him out to take a short ride, believing it would do him good; he returned in a very short time, and' when within twen!y feet of his quarters (the recruiting office) he fell and was run over by thE) car, with the result as before stated. His sergeant, who was in command, swears he was within twenty feet of him when he fell, and that he was perfectly sober. The Pension Office rejected his claim because he was out of his quarters with leave for a few minute . Your committtee 1·eport the bill without amendment with the recommendation that it do pass. 

Mr. WOLFORD. I am instructed by the Committee on Pensions to 

move an amendment that this pension shall take effect from and after 

the paSsage of the act. I offer that amendment by the instmction of 

the committee, and while I do this at their instance I think at the 

same time that this gallant soldier who served his country faithfully, 

intelligently, and soberly should be entitled to this pension to date 

back from the date of the injury. I am for the private soldie1· now a 

little, and I think that after twenty years of gallant service, intellectual, honorable &ervice to his country, he ought to be entitled to 

the pension and would have been entitled to it but for some quibble 

in the Department. There is no question but that he was injured in 

the line of duty. He was obeying the instructions of his sunerior officer; and in my judgment there can be no doubt that the man who has 

been sent out by his superior officer for a specific purpose, and who is 

injured while absent or on his return to his command, if he is crippled 

for life, that it entitles him to a pension as much as if he had been shot 

down in battle. 

I say now, sir, that I have offered this amendment by the instruction 

of the committee, and having dane my duty in that respect I opwse 

the amendment, and hope every gentleiiJ.an in this House will vote for 

t~ gallant private soldier .to give him a pension from the time he was 

disabled in the line of his duty. 

Mr. WALLACE. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question? 

Mr. WOLFORD. Certainly. 

l'lfr. W A.LLACE. Was this application .rejected by the J>ension Department? 

Mr. WOLFORD. Yes, sir .. 

Mr. W:ALLACE. On what ground? 

l\Ir. WOLFORD. There was a misunderstan~ of the law, and it 

was rejected :npon the ground that he was not in tlie line of duty while 

doing what his superior officer commanded. 

:Mr. WALLACE. Was there any appeal taken from the decision of 

the Commissioner of Pensions to the Secretary of the Interior? 

l'lfr. WOLFORD. I do. not know. He is here before Congress now 

and 'asks to be· righted, and this Congress has the right to do it. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment proposed 

by the gentlem;tn from Kentucky. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

That this act shall take effect from and after its passage. 

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. I think it would be better to amend the 

bill in the usual way; that is, thatheshall be placed upon thepensionroll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension !aws. 

Mr. WOLFORD. That provision is already incorporated in the bill. 

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. Let the bill•e read as proposed to be 

amended. 

The bill as propo ed to be modified was again .reported. 

Mr. ~WITT, of Alabama. I move to amend by striking out all 

after the words "subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws." 

Mr. WOLFORD. I hope that will not be adopted. He has been 

waiti,ng for his pension a long time, and is disabled aoo penniless. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the words proposed to be 

stricken out by the gentleman from Alabama. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

With rate proportioned to his disability, and to take effect from date of dis- charge, September 30, 1882. 

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. If this is adopted, under the law he 

will be rated according to his disability. 

Mr. CUTCHEON. If I heard the reading of this report it gives ar- rears back to 1862. 

MI. BOUTELLE. · No; to 1882. 

Mr. WOLFORD. Iftbeamendmentpropo'sed by the gentleman from 

Alabama is adopted, it strikes out the rating proportioned .to his disa-

}.:>ility. ~ 

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. It is not necessary to incoipO.rate these 

words. He will be rated subject to the provisions of the pension laws. 

Mr. WOLFORD. This man has been entirely helpless ever since 

his hand was mashed. He served his country faithfully and supported 

out of hi$ army pay a poor helpless mother. He has been exceedingly 

temperate and a good soldier, and was left penniless with. nothing to 

support his aged mother. I do insist that Congress in equity has the 

right to give him pay all that time that he had to depend upon public 

charity for the support of himseJ,f and mother. · 

Mr, BAGLEY. I wish to saysimplythatthis question involves the 

payment of arrears. If this bill prevails as originally reported, we 

break down a rule which has -been adopted by the Committee on Invalid Pensions and by the House without exception.· I believe that no 

bill should be passed involving arrears, and I de8ireto enter my protest 

against the passage of such .a bill now. 

Mr. CUTCHEO~. !desire to call the attentionofthe committee to 

the fact that in a case somewhat similar to this recently appealed to the 

Secretary of the Interior, as I understand, it has been held that the 

soldier while on leave of absence, while en route to his command toresume hisduty is held to be in the lineofduty. Ido notknowwhether 

that will affect the point made by the gentleman from Kentucky or not .. 

It seems to. me that if he was in the line-of duty the rating would be 

fixed by the Pension Office, and also that there would be no necessity 

for passing a special act here. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question iS on agreeing to the amendment 

of the gentleman from Alapama. · 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The bill as amended was laid aside to be reported to the House with 

the recommendation that it do pass. 

CATHEBINE SCHOOLS. 

1\Ir. HOUK. I ask unanimous consent to call up the bill (S. 750) 

granting a pension to Catherine Schools. 

The bill was read, as foil s: · 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Catharine Schools, widow of Thomas Schools. deceased, late a private in Company C, First Regiment of Delaware Infantry Volunteers. · · 

..l\1r. HOUK. The report is very ~hort. I ask that.it be read. 

The report (by l\Ir. HouK) was rea-d, as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (S. 700) 

granting a. pension to Catherine Schools, submit the following report: This is a Senate bill, passed by that body, and comes here for the action of the House. · · .Clain?Ant is the widow of Thomas Schools, who had successfully prosecuted his claun and was a pensioner at the time of his death. His disability was clearly shown. It was contracted in the service in the line of duty, ilo!ld he was 
1356 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 6, 

.. discharged on s~eon's certificate thereof. ms disease was" consumption, and 

continued up to his death. The proof shows that be was in. that condition from. 

this disease that he was expected to die at any moment. t However, he died when alone, somewhere about his premises, and it seems the Pension Office inferred that the)mmediate cause of his death was unknown; 

but all the circumstances, the origm and progre~ of the disease, his lingering and frail condition, ~ing, ns the witnesses state, "at deatb's door" for some time previous-these facts clearly lead to the conclusion that he died fro m the 

disability incurred in the service. Such was the view of the Senate, and such 

this committee believe to be the fad, and therefore 1·ecommend that the bill do 

pass. 

Mr. HOUK. I desire to say a word. Tl;le Pension Office rejected 

this claim, but how and why they oould possibly arrive at such a con- clusion from the testimony on file I can not understand. It was shown 

that this soldier rontracted his disease in the service. Thew hole case was made out satisfactorily. To use the language of the witnesses in 

the case, he was ''at death's door'' for some time previous to his death. 

But because somebody did not stand by and see him die the Pension 

Office decided the cause of his death was unknown. The fact is he was a walking corpse until he wa~ ·found dead. 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recom- mendation that it do pass. 

H.ARRI~ON • :MITC~ELL. 

Mr. WOOD. I Call up the bill (H. R. 1901) for the relief of Rani- son :Mitchell, ofCompanyK, Forty-eighth Indiana Volunteers, reported 

by the Committee on Invalid Pensions with an amendment. 

The bill was read, as follows: · . · 

Be i-t enacted, &:c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he hereby is, au- thorized and directed to place the name of Harrison Mitchell, late of Company K,Forty-eighth Indiana Volunteers, on. the pension-roll at the rate of~ per mo~~ · 

The amendment recomm~nded by the col!l.illi ttee was read, as follows: 

In line 6, strike out the words" at the rate of$8 per month" and insert •' sub~ 

ject to the provisions an4 limitations of the pension Jaws." . 

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. I should.like to have some explanation 

of this bill. 

1\Ir. WOOD. The report explains the facts. Let it be Fead. 

The Clerk read the report in part. . ~Ir. HEWITT, of Alabama (interrupting the r~ading). I do not care to hear the report read further. · · 

The report (by Mr. M~~ON), in full, is as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions1 to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 

1901) granting a. pension to Ilarrison 1\IJtchell, having duly considered the evidence in the case, report: . That claimant enlisted in the military sen' ice of the United States as a. private 

in Company K, Forty--eighth Reg-iment Indiana Voluntee1·s, August 10, 186~, 

and was honorably discharged :;.\Iay 29,1865 . • January 6,1870, he filed a. declaration fm; pension, alleging that "a.t M~darysville, Ind., February 13, 18&!, while returning home on a furlough, in get'ting off 

the cars, at said place, in the night-time, he fractured his right leg at the knee," 

which was rejected June 24, 18i8, on the ground that the soldier was not in the 

line of duty .at the time of receiving the disability. r The evidence in the case discloses the fact that claimantwasarecruit,assigned to the Forty-eighth Regiment Indiana. Volunteers; that the 1·egiment re-entered 

the service, and returned hoine on veteraxl"furlough; that at the time of muster- ing said regiment as a veteran organization claimant had not served a sufficient 

length of time to enable him to re-enlist as a veteran; but that he came to In- dianapolis with his regiment, where he was also given a furlough for thirty days by the officers ofhis.company and regiment along with the balance of the regi- ment. He received his furlQugh at Indiapapolis February 12, 1864., and started 

for his home where be afrived on the morning of February 13, 1864, just before 

daylight, and in getting oif the train fell among railroad cross-ties, breaking his 

right thigh above the knee. 

' The incurrence of the injury in manner and at the time claimed is shown by the witnesses present at the time, who aided fhe soldier in getting to his house 

aft-er the accident. · , The testimony of. the commissioned officers of claimant's company show that 

the soldier did not seek the ful!lough, but that it was given him solely on the 

ground that the rest of the company was being granted a. veteran furlough, and' 

they could do nothing with the soldier but send him home also. . It is also shown that the soldier was p.ot under the influence of intoxicants in 

any degree at the time of being disabled. 

The amendment was· adopted. 

"The bill as amended was l;;l.id aside to be reported to the House with 

the recommendation that it do pass. 

EB~EZER K. MARDEN. 

Mr. HAYNES. I call up the bill (S. 1823) granting a pension to Eb- .enezer K. Marden. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &:c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to plaee on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Ebenezer K. Marden, late a pri- vate in Company C, Sixth Regiment New Hampihire Volm1teers. · 

The report (by 1\lr. RAY, of New Hampshire) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to wbom was referred the bill (S.1823) 

granting a: pension to Ebenezer K.l\Iarden, have examined the same, and report 

favorably. . ' The soldier rendered service, contracted the disease, and has ever since been 

disabled. It is abundantly proved that be was sound and well before enlist- ment. We see no reason why t-he bill should not pass, nor, in fact, why it should not have been allowed in the Pension Office. ~The cause of rejection in Pension Office June 14, 1882, was because the disability for which a. pension was claimed, namely, "chronic inflammation of the 

bowels/' existed prior to enlistment. November 13, 1882, claimant prayed to nave h!S case reopened, which was done, and furnished the affidavits of seven or more reputable pel'sons tbathewas well and sound prior to enlistment., and that 

he had no such disabilit-y at the time of his enlistment: January 25, 1883, the 

J>ellSion Office again 1·ejected the claim on the same ground as above stated, noti-

• 

fying the clai.m.ant that the "evidence filed by you November 13 1882, is insufficient to controvert the record, and t-his office declines to reopen the claim." Your committee think it is too late, after having accepted the soldier's services 

in the field, to reject his claim for a pension on the ground that some record or memorandum. in the War Department indicates prior unsoundness, especially when, as in the present case, there is a. large preponderance of evidence the 

o.tber way. 

We recommend the passage of the bill. 

The bill .was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recom- mendation tha.t it do pass. · · 

MRS. JU~IA HARTLEY. 

:M:r. WOLFORD. I call up the bill (H. R. 7952) granting a pension 

to ~frs. Julia Hartley. · The bill was readr as follows.: 

Be it enacled, d:c., That the l3ecretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll~ subject to the limitations and 

pi"Ovisions of the pension law, the name of ?!Irs. Julia· Hartley, widow of Capt. John Hartley, late of the Twenty-second United-States Infantry. 

Tb.~ report (by Mr. WoLFORD) was read, as follows: . 

The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 7952) grant- ing a pension to !\Irs. Julia Hartley, widow of Capt. John Hartley, beg leave to report: 

That the military record of Capt. John Hartley is most honorable. He was in the Army-twe.nty years in continuous service of his country. He enlisted in the 

Eighth Minnesota Volunteer Infantry in the war of the seceding States on the 

14th of August, 1862, ns n. private; was ill severiil engagements, and was at different times three times severely wounded-twice in his leg and once in his 

right eye; and for his gallant conduct was made sergeant-major and captain commissary, and brevet-ted major in the line, and w~ honor~~jbly discharged at the close of the war. He was commissioned captain on the 28th of July, 1866, in 

the United States Army, and placed in command of Comp11.ny B, Twenty-sec.ond 

Infantry.. He participated in all the .Indian fights wider General Stanley, and 

General Stanley writes n. letter stating that Captain Hartley served under his 

command a long time, and iu the field agullant-officer, brave and efficient at the 

station, a. good duty officer, meritorious and faithful. · . Colonel Otis writes a letter stating that Capt-ain Hartley was a very intelligent, brave, efficient, and faithful officer; quick to undet·stand and prompt to obey any orders; that h~ served under his command a long time, and very ha1·d 

and dangerous service in the field, and very useful at the station. General 

Terry writes a letter that Captain Hartleysen'ed in his department, and he was one of the best-officers in his command; intelligent, bmve, and faithful ; an up- right gentleman, of superior qualities in every t·espect. General Hancock writes 

that he knew Captain Hartley well; bhat he served under his command; that 

he was an excellent officer, and gave entire satisfaction. Captain Hartley had a severe wound in his right eye, received in t.he line of his duty, which always produced paii1 in his head, and as his arduous duties increased the pain increased until it affected his bra.in, and caused him in a fit of insanity to resign, 

The committee is satisfied that the cause of his unhappy death was the result 

of wounds received in the service of his country and in the lineofhisduty. He was }pnd and generous to his friends and devoted to his wife. His widow is 

very poor; her late husband left her penniless. Wherefore the committee report back the bill to the House with the, opinion that it ought to pass. 

, The bill was laid. aside to be reported to the Hou...Q6 with the recom- mendation thn.t it do pass. 

CYNTHIA :MARTIN AND CATHARINE STOVER. 

Mr. RAY, of New Hampshire. I call up the bill (H. R. 2804) for the 

relief of Cynthia Uartin and Catharine Stover. 

The bill was read·, as follows: 

Be it ~nacted, &c., That the Secretary of War be, and is hereby, directed and 

authorized to so correct the records of Joseph W. Stover and Robert H. 1\Iart.in, 

late of Company H, Fifth Kentucky Cavalry, as to remove the charges of desertion or absence without leave from their commands at the time they were killed, being on or about the oth day of March, 1862, standing against their names; that the Secretary of the Interior be, nnd is hereby, authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of 

the pension laws, the names of Cynthia Mart.in, widow of said Robert H. Mar- tin, and _Catharine Stover, widow of said Joseph W. Stover, to be paid pensions from the date ·of the deaths of their said husbands, to i.p.clude the amounts pro- vided by law to be paid the minor children of said soldiers; and that said wid- ows and children be paid all bounty, back-pay, and allowances provided by law, any charge of desertion or absence without leave to the contrary notwithstanding. 

The bill was reported with the following amendments: 

Amend by striking out in line 15 all aft-er the word "date;" · all of line 16, and 

ip line 17 the words" of said soldiers," an<). il).se1·t in lieu thereof the WOl'ds" of 

the passage of this act." Also,. strike out in line 17 the words "and children.:• 

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. I would like to hear. the bill read as proposed-to be amended. 

The bill was read as proposed to be amended. . ~Ir. HEWITT, of Alabama. Is that bill reported by the Committee on Invalid Pensions? 

Mr. RAY, of New Hampshire. Y~, sir. I call for the reading of 

the report. . 

The report (by 1\Ir. RAY, of New Hampshire) was read, as follows: 

The evidence in this case establishes the fact that Joseph W. Stover and Robert 

H. Martin were soldiers in the late war, enlisted in the .Army of the United 

States in Company H,of the Fifth Kentucky Cavalry, commanded byCol.D.R. Haggard; that they left Overton County, Tennessee, which was within the con- federate lines, and went to Kentucky for the purpose of enlisting in the. United 

States service; that Cynthia Martin is the widow of Robert H. Mat1in; that 

Catharine St~ver is the widow of Joseph W. Stover; that in March, 1862, the com- pany returned to Clinton County, Kentucky, which is adjaoont to Overton 

CountyhTennessee, and near their home; that while there these soldiers, together with ot er members of the company from the same neighborhood, returned to their home for the purpose of seeing their families, and the further purpose on the part of one to get a horse belonging to him which he feared would fall into 

the ha-nds of the confederates. They remained but a short time and started 

ba.ck to their command, before reaching which they were overtaken by Champ Ferguson and his men and killed. 

Various witnesses testified to these facts, and it is abundantly shown tilll.t they were on their way back to the Army and only a few miles from the place where 
1885. CONGRESSIONXL-RECORD-HOUSE. 1357 

~he company was stationed when so killed. It is sho~ by one witness that 

they stated they had authority Croni their collllJlander to leave. There can be no question a.s t-o their returning. Their widows petition Congress for theremoval of the charge 'of desertion and for the granting of a. pension, &c., to which 

they were entitled but for the charge. ' Your committee are satisfied that there was no desertion, nor any intention 

to desert; that they had in good faith gone to see their families, from whom they were not only separated by the ordinary restrictions '!lpon the soldier's life, out 

they were likely to be deprived of the privilege of seeing them l'rom the further 

fact that their families lived within the lines of the enemy. The widows are proved t-o be very destitute and deserving. Your committee are of opinion the 

prayers should b.e granted, and therefore recommend that the accompanying bill be passed with amendments as follows: · Strike out in line 15 all after the word "date;" all of line 16, and in line 17 

the words •• of said soldiers," and insert in lieu thereof the words "()f the passage of this act;" also strike out in line 17 the words" and children." 

1.1r. RAY, of New Hampshire .• This bill was introduced by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. McMILLIN] in this Congress and·referred 

to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. It was llnanimously ordered 

to be reported by our committee at its last meeting. The gentleman 

from Tennessee informed me to-day that he would probably oe unable 

to be present this evening and desired me to give a word of explanation, 

if any were deemed necessary. · The bill was introduce& into the Forty-seventh Congress and referred 

to the Committee on Invalid Pensions and a favora"'ble report was· made, 

and I think the bill or bills passed ~he House. As I remember the case, our committee thought we would not grant any pension to the c~ildren 

because they must be old enough now to take care of themselves and 

that we would not grant any arrears. But the bill provides that the 

widows may have any baek pay or bounty that was due the soldiers at 

the time when they were killed. We thought it proper enough to include that in the bill because the husbands of these two widows were killed under the circumstances mentioned in the report, and the only reason why the Pension Bureau denied pensions to them was on aecount 

of the reCord showing their deSertion, when the truth ia the meri were killed by the Guerrilla Ferguson on their way back to their command. 

They had no intentj.on of deserting. Their offense, if anything, was 

merely technical-not substantial. 

The facts are, as set forth in the report, that these men went home 

to see their familes, were absent but a short time, and were returning 

and had got nearly back to their ca1pp when they were killed. They. understood, as·I aJl!. informed by the gentleman from Tennessee [M:r.• McMILLIN], who has examined the matter Vel'S carefully-they un- derstood, as I have no doubt, that they had a right to go home and to 

be absent from their command for a short time, but, being killed, could 

not return; hence the record of their desertion. It was only a techn_irol desertion at best, not a voluntary desertion in any sense. . Therefore, under the circumstances, the effect of the bil). being merely to 

give these poor widows just wha.t the soldiers had earned before _they were killed and to put their names upon the pension-roll· from and 

after the passage of the act, the Committee on Invalid Pensions thought 

would be no more .than just. 

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, this bill is in some _re- spects an extraordinary one, for it contains three propositions, over which, severally, three different co~ittees of this House have jurisdiction. In the first place, the -removal of the disability of desertion 

belongs to the Committee on Military Affairs, not to ~he Committee on Pensions. Second, the question of the pay h~t may have been due 

these soldiers for their service and back pay belongs either to the Committee on War Claims or to the Committee on the Payment of Pensions, Bounty, and Back Pay. Thirdly, so far as this bill seeks to put 

these widows upon the pension-roll, that part of it belongs to the Committee on Invalid P~sions. Therefore I say the bill is an extra{)rdinary one, in the fact that it contains these three distinct propositions, over which three different committees of this House have, severally, 

jurisdiction. 

Mr. RAY, of New Hampshire. Will the gentleman yield to me f01: 

a moment? · 1.1r. HEWITT, of Alabama. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RAY, of New Hampshire . • I only wish to ask if tl:ie bill will 

be satisfactory if amended so as to simply place these two widows upon 

the pension-roll with nothing more? 

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I was going on to say 

that if a bill had been introduced and reported here containing simply 

the first proposition in .this bill, namely, to. remove the disability of 

desertion, there would have been ample jurisdicti,on in th~ Department to give· all the relief that is necessary; because the very mo- ment the disability of desertion is removed from the records of these 

soldiers, then, if they were killed in the line of duty, their widows are entitled to pension from the Bureau :of Pensions. Not only that, but 

the administrators of these soldiers would be entitled to whatever pay 

might have been due them, and could obtain. it through the Depart-

·ment without any aet of Congress, unless the claim is barred by some 

statute, and I do not think it is. . 

Now, I am very much opposed to allowing on'e committee of this 

House to usurp the powers of any other committee. It would have 

been much better that. the one necessary proposition in this bill should 

have gone to the Committee on Military A:ff?lrs. If that committee 

bad acted upon it and brought in a bill to remove the disability of desertion, then there would have been no necessity for any further legiS-

"lation in the matter. 

But, Mr. Chairman, the evidence, upon the very statement of the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. RAY], is notclearthatthesesoldiers 

were not absent without leave. They had left their command without 

permission ·to return to their homes. That seems to be admitted, and 

if they did that it is not a case of mere technical desertion; it is 

straight-out desertion. It is a ease of absence without leave, no matter what the excuse may have been, because every soldier that left the 

service and went back to his.home to see his family had that excuse 

for his action, and it is a very strong one too-the desire of a poor soldier, away from his home and his children, to return, it may be but for 

a few days, to see the loved ones he has left behind. But if such a thing is encouraged it will tend to increase insubordination, and if such 

conduct is to be encouraged by voting pensions to such sol diets or their 

widows, I fear that it will result in great harm to the service. · 

:Mr. BAGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend by striking. out 

the clause i~ that'bill1n relation to bounty and back pa..y. . 

Mr. WOLFORD. ~1r. Chairman, I rise· to oppose that motion, and 

I want to be heard a few minutes in reply to my friend from Alabama 

[.Ur. HEWITT]. I think: that my friend (whose heart is always right) 

misunderstands this whole case. He made one remark in which he 

surely does not expect this House to agree with him-putting these men on the list of criminals and asserting that it will tend to the violation 

of good discipline to pension them. Pension whom? Pension the 

widows of these soldiers, those innocent, harmless women.J. who lost 

their husbands in the Army in defense of their country. .Hut again, 

sir, the rule of law is altogether different from the way my distinguish¢ friend from Alabama [Mr. HEWITT] states it in this.case. If these parties were on trial in a· court, or even in a court-martial, 

they would have the benefit of every reasonable doubt. My friend wants 

to reverse that rule. He says the evidence is not clear in their favor. 

Sir, the evidence ought to be clear a~inst them before you deprive poor, 

innocent ladies of what is reason~ble and right. Before this House 

would do that the evidence ought to be clear that these men were in 

fact deserters. Are you going in this Congress-the highest bOdy upon 

earth, with more rigbts_and more equities and more great privileges of 

doing right-to the citizen than· any other legislative bodyin the world- are you going w revel'Se e>cry principle of law and every principle of 

equity, and d·eclare that you can not pass a law to pension a poor widow 

withoutdestroyingthediscipline ofyour Army? . Does any man in this House believe that if you pass this law giving 

pensions to these poor ladies any soldier will ever rem~mber that action as a reason or an excuse for deserting his duty? ·These men were going back to their camp, and that fact alone is evidence of the most con- vincing character that they were not deserters in a criminal sense. But 

it is said that they had gone away from their command. Admit that 

they had gone a few miles farther than they had permission to go, influenced byalonging desire to seethe wives and children whom they loved; 

admit they did that, and there is nothing in it that does not indicate 

all the good impulses of human nature o~ all the· higher feelings of the 

great soldiers that:carried our fiagtriumphantlythrough the. war; admit 

all that, and is) t a reason for saying that these good feelings are an en- . dence of a depraved heart; that the man showing tbcsefeelings·shou,ld 

bear forever the stain of desertion, should be forever put down as a criminal, and that his wife and children should starve by reason of this 

stain, because a great Government with plenty of money refuses to over- look these infirmities of human nature? In Heaven's name, will the 

gentleman from Alabama say that he hasJlo charity for human infirmities? I had no wife during the war [laughter], but I do.not know how 

it would have been PQSSible for me, if I had been within a few miles of 

my children while that conflict was pending, not to have gone to see them. I do not know how. the gentleman from Alabama feels; I do 

not know how close his wife and children are to him; but I can not believe that during the war, and while he was in the military service, he 

would not have gone to see them if he had been within a few miles Of 

them. 

Why, sir, a chancellor-and this is a higher tribunal than a court of 

chancety-a chancellor having taken jurisdiction of a case as to one branch of it goes through the whole of it. That is the .rule, as my 

friend from Alabama very well knows. Now why should we noti go 

through this whole case instead of splitting it up and making this 

Congress a little technical, driveling concern? When the rights of the 

widows of soldiers of this nation aFe undet consideration why should 

this Congress say: "We have the case before us; we have heard all the 

facts; we know you ought to have the relief you ask; but we will divide 

your case." 

My friend -from Alabama would say these ladieS ought not to have a pension because the stain of desertion_ has not been removed. Now who 

takes offthe stain of-desertion? Do you tell me thatthisCongresshas 

not the power in the same bill which grants a pension to remove from 

the record of these soldiers the charge of desertion? 

Why should we carve up this ease? Why should there be several 

different tribunals-one to remove the charge of desertion, one to grant a pension, and one to consider the application for back pay? Why 
1358 CONGRESSIONAL-RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 6, 

should we thus split up this case when it is all before us? We have Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania.· l make the point that this discus· 

all the faet.s here. There is not a gentleman in this House, my friend sionisoutof order. Theamendmentha.s been adopted and thereisnothfrom .Alabama not excepted, who does not believe these poor women ing before the House to ·disco . 

ought to have the pay which these United States can well afford to The CHAIRMAN. The question before the House is whether the 

grant them. Everybody, I think, must concede that this stain of bill as amended shall. be reported to the House with the recommenda- dese~on ought to be wiped off, and that the pensions asked in these tion·that it do pa.ss, and the Chair overrules the point of order. cases should be granted. Everybody, I think, believes this;' and I do Mr.·BRlJMli. I do not wish to discuss the merits of this bill, as I 

hope every member here will come right up and do an act of simple know nothing of them beyond what has transpired in relation to them 

justice by voting for this bill. during the course of t.his discussion, but I rise for the purpose of sayThe CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the amendment proposed ing a word or two on the legal point involved . by the gentleman from New York [Mr. BAGLEY]; I think the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HEWITT] is mistaken in 

The Clerk read a8 follows: in ~is legal proposition in his answer given to the gentleman from NeStrike out a.t the end of tb'e bill these words: braska [:Mr. WEAVER]. · It is true, as a matter of law, that where 

"And that. said widows and children be paid all bounty, ba<lk pay, and allow· there is a vested right no subsequent legislation can deprive the owner ances provided by law, any charge of desertion or absence without leave to tlle. of that v~ right.. Subsequent legislation which may add an addicontrary notwithstanding." tional right to the vested right may waive the later legislation and 

Mr. RAY, of New Ha.mpshii-e. If I understand the scope of the take advantage of the former. . amendment, its effect is that these widows shall receive a pension from In .this case there was a vested right to this pension, and no legislaand afler th~ passage of the act. tion of ours could deprive these widows of that vested right. The 

Mr. BAGLEY. That is the intention. The idea 'is to strike out all law giving pensions grants those pensions to persons who have ~ved 

provision for. the payment of these arrearages. . their term of enlistment, and it distinctly deprives those who have deThe CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York propose to serted from receiving any pensions. In this case, therefore, there is 

strike out that portion of the bill which removes the charge of deser- no vested right and there is no law they can go back to and take adtion? vantage of. 

Mr. BAGLEY. No, sir. . . Mr. DAVIS, of Illinois. If a man renders good service a.n.d is 

The CHAIRMAN (having put the question on the amendment); In wounded during that service, but subsequently desert:B, I would like the 

the opinion of the Chair the amendment is adopted. gentleman to show me the law which bars him. from. a pension. 

Mr. WOLFORD. I call for a division. Mr. BRUMM. One o:Cthe first elements, the very gist and marrow The CHAIRMAN (having again put the question). On this ques- ·of a pension, is an honorable discharge, and nQ deserter can procure that 

tion the ayes are 23, the noes 15. The ayes have it, and the. amend- discharge. The Tecord must show an honorable discharge. In this 

ment is adopted. cage these people or their heirs can show no honorable discharge, and 

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. Just one remark, Mr. Chairman, in hence there is no vested right. The clause in this bill which says that 

reply to my sympathetic friend from Kentucky [Mr. WoLFORD] in re- the pension shall date from the date of the passage of this act keeps 

lation to the law of thiR matter. Now, it is Yery trite that if you make them down to it, and they can not go back, because there is no right a charge of desertion ag;1.inst a per.son the presumption -of innocence back of this bill. But suppose there was, and I will go a little futther 

arises, and the burden is upon the party making the charge to show the as a legal proposition-if there was a vested right prior to the passage 

fact of desertion. But in this case the recoJ,"d which is kept by authority of this bill this law says we will remove the charge of desertion, but 

of law and by sworn officers shows that these two deceased soldiers I ..YOU can only get your pension frem the date of this act; ~nd, there- were -deserters. There is record evidence standiz?.g-- fore, there being no v~ted right whatever, there being no act in violaMr. RAY, of New Hampshire. Will my friend from Alapama allow tion of any contract, the latter act, wherever inconsistent with the for- me to interrupt him a moment? mer, repeals that formet act. 

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. Yes, sir. . · Mr. WOLFORD. Will the gentleman allow a question? 

Mr. RAY, of New Hampshire. My own impression is that these Mr. BRUMM. Yes, sir. men were killed within a few .miles of their ow:ri camp and command, l!fr. WOLFORD. Does the gentleman suppose that a pension is a and that the adjutant, or whoever kept the record, ·entered the charge vested right in anybody except where there is law? 

of desertion against them in ignorance of the fact that they had already Mr. BR.UUM. It is p.ot a natural right, of course. been killed. That is my judgment astothefactsofthiscase. Nobody l!fr. WOLFORD. How is it a vested right? .I always thought it can tell the precise date when they were killed; I do not know that was a bounty of the Government. · any one has taken the trouble to cipher that out exactly; but my jndg- Mr. BRUMM:. It is a vested right under the law. 

mentis that the men would have been back in·season, and that there :Mr. WOLFORD. Yes; butthisismakingthelaw. Weare the lawwould have been no ~harge of desertion in this case if they had not making power of this Government. 

been overtaken by Champ Fergusson and both killed: · Mr. BRUMM. The law says that certain persons under cert.ain con- Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. Admit. the statement made by the gen- ditions are entitled to pensions, and therefore that right is vested the · tleman from New Hampshire and it does not affect the argument I am moment the pension law passes. But the person who is entitled to that 

making on the question against my friend from Kentucky. vested right must first prove that he comes within the conditions of the 

Mr. WEAVER. Let me ask a question. law which vests the right. Hence gentlemen need not have any fear 

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. I yield with pleasure. . when they come to vote upon the passage of this bill that this amendMr. WEAVER. The l\mendment having prevailed to relieve the mentwillenablethesepeopletogettheirpensionsbeforethedateofthe 

party of desertion, I as.lr as a legal proposition whether it is not true passage of this bill. There is no question about that. (Cries of 

should this bill pass that th~ party could refuse to accept under the ''Vote I '' . "Vote ! ~ '] • • 

bill and receive arrears at the Pension Office? Mr. :McMILLIN. Mr. Chairman, Ihadoccasioninthe Forty-seventh 

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. ·If these widoWS have filed in the Pen- Congress to investigate the facts connected with this case. It may not, 

sion Office an application prior to J.880 they would be entitled to their therefore, beinappropriatethatishouldmakea sta.tementconcerningit. 

back pay, and they ~uld waive this ad and proceed under that. Prefatory to that statement I. will say that no man on this floor is more l!fr. WEAVER. And. that would be the status of this case if this ·anxious to keep up the distinction between faithful and unfaithful serv- bill would pass? ice on the part of .the soldier than I am. I would not vote for a penMr. HEWITT, of Alabama. Yes; provided we pass this bill now. sian for any man whodidnot serveTaithfully. 

The argument I make here is against the legal position taken by the I concur in what the gentleman from Alabama has said as to the progentleman from Kentucky [1\Ir. WoLFORD]. I say where there is a priety ofkeeping up that distinction; but it is a distinction that can not 

record kept according to law and by officers sworn to perform their hurt in the present case. ·The faets were these: These parties had lefl; 

duty, the presumption of law is that record is correct. The records. of their homes and gone north of their homes for the purpose of enlistment 

courts can not be assailed at all. They are presumed to be absolutely and going into the Federal service. 

correct, and can not be questioned collaterally anywhere. A record of Mr. SL..'{GLETON. By what authority or what order did they go? 

this kind may be; the burden of proof is on the party who denies the Mr. :McMILLIN. They were citizens when they left, and went of 

correctness of that record. It is the duty of those who come here and their own volition to enlist in the service ·of the country. The com- allege that record was properly kept or that it is false to show that mand in which t~ey enlisted, atrer it was organized, returned to the fa~t by clear evidence. neighborhood, that is to say, to the adjacent county in Kentucky in 

One other word. I will never consent that there shall be no differ- which these parties lived. They went home during the stay of the comence made in this country between soldiers who served faithfully and mand ·there to see their families, and were not away, if I remember corthose who did not. Every man ~ tJ:ris country feels, 38 I do, an interest rectly, seventy-two hours. As they returned to their command, statin keeping up a nice distinction between the faithful and unfaithful ing at the time they. were absent that they had been permitted to leave 

soldiers of this country. For one I shall never consent that no dis- their command for the p~e of seeing their families, they were capttinction should be made between those who stood by their colors dur~ ured and killed, or killed in ihe process of capture. Those are the facts 

ing the war and those who deserted them and went home. in the case. Mr. Bnul\IM rose. There can be no foundation for a charge of desertion aga~t t}lem. 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1359 

They were not deserters; they. were not absent from thei,r commands ?tir. WOLFORD. There was a. law saying that whoever enlisted 

for one week, and the evidence all along the line shows.that having . should receive a bounty and that law was passed before the soldiers did 

been absent no longer, if my ·memory is not incorrect, than a period of enlist. Was that a. ·bounty or not? 

seventy-two hours, they were returning to their command when they Mr. HEWITr, of Alabama. You may call it what you please, you were killed. They had leave to go, I repeat, as they stated at the time. may ca.ll it a bounty if you want to. But if there was such a law and 

Mr. KING. Will the gentleman from Tennessee permit me to ask the law promised a man $300 if he enlisted, was not the Government 

him a question? Had they any authority for their absence from their bound to pay it? It was not a bounty at all in the eyes of the law. 

post? Mr. WOLFORD. Every pension is a bounty. 

Mr. McMILLIN. Their statement a~ the time was that they had; l\1r. BRUIDt:I rose. and I will say to the · gentleman from Louisiana further, that it is . The CHAffiMAN. The Chair will state that gentlemen must obhighly probable, when we consider. the circu.m.stances, that their state- serve the rules. The gentleman from Alabama is on the floor, entitled . ment was a. correct one. As I have said, the command was in the neigh- to be heard, and gentlemen 'Call not interrupt him without addressing 

borhood in which they lived before they enlisted, a. fact that was not the Chair or without his consent. 

likely to occur again within three years1 for we all know how persons .Mr. WOLFORD. I beg pardon of the Chair. 

who enlisted in Kentucky and in the border Sta~ generally were The CHAIRMAN. The present-occupant of the chair is determined 

likely to be separated from their families for the whole war. They had this rule shall be observed while he occupies it. 

gone away to enlist. . Mr. BRUMM. Will the gentleman from Alabama yield to me for 

The command in which they had enlisted had returned to that neigh- a question? . borhood, and my colleague from Tennessee, who was on the border The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama yield? 

during the war, will bear testimony that when that occurred general Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. Yes, sir. ~ 

leave was given to all parties to go and see their families. All soldiers Mr. BRUMM. The gentleman states that the widow of a person 

who served during the war from the ·border States will bear witness to killed.in the service is entitled to a pension. To entitle ~ widow or that. · his heirs to a pension is it not necessary that he should be killed in. the 

Mr. HOUK. Will my colleague allow me a moment? line of duty? 

Mr. McMILLIN. Certainly. Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. Of course. lli. HOUK. · I presume that every man here on either side who Mr. BRUMM. One more question. If the soldier was killed while 

served in the border States in the war knows that it was a custom, by playing a game of ball we shall say, if he was killed while in camp ac- orders from headquarters, to give leaves of absence freely in such cases; cidentally while doing something that was not within his tnilitary duthat the colonels, captains, and officers of all ranks went hom,e, and ties, would his heirs be entitled to a pension? 

that the custom was universal. Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. Not his heirs. . Mr. Mc?tllLLIN. It is a state of facts that io; generally understood Mr. BRUMM. This party was on his way to his home from the.regi· 

to have existed among all soldiers who lived in the. border States and ment and ·not in the line of duty. Then, would the mere removal of 

served in the Fed&a'l A1my during the war. the charge of desf;rtion, he being killed not in the line of duty, entitle 

Mr. KING. Is there any testimony to show that these were good his heirs to a pension by virtue of the killing alone? 

soldiem when they were in the service? Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. I woul~ like to ask the gentleman from 

Mr. McMILLIN: The:re is not .a. charge against "their efficiency as Pennsylvania a question. I will play the Yankee with him and answer soldjers from the hour of their enlistment until the time of their death. his·question by asking another. Of course I do not use the word in an There is not a single suspicion that they did not serve faithfully during o:ffensi ve sense. · the whole time . . I have read every affidavit in the ca:se and every paper Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania. We are all proud of that na.me, anyfiled with it and studied them closely, for I desired to arrive at a just how. · conclusion in the case·; and I came to the conclusion on a thororigh ex- 1\fr. HEWITT,· of Alabama. • I ask the gentleman if he believes a solamination of the subject that they were fuirly entitled to a pension. dier who has leave of absence for seventy-two hours and is on his way 

So thinking and believing, my impression now is that when the ques- back to.the service-does he not believe that soldier is in the line of 

tion was up before I so stated; but whatever my statement then was, duty? 

the bill passed the House during the last Congress, but failed in the Mr .. BRUMM. If he is on his way back to the service. under leaye 

Senate for want of time.· of absence, lie is. 

The CHAIRUAN. The question is, Shall the bill as amended· be Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. In the line of duty? 

laid aside to be reported to the House with the recommendation that Mr. BRillUlf. Yes, sir; but this is not that case. it do pass? · Mr .. HEWITT, of Alabama. That is all I want the gentleliUU1 to 

1rir. HEWITT, of Alabama. I am not willing that this bill shall answer. · pass ~ithout first .answering the arguments Vihlch were made by the Now, Mr. Chairman, why is it that the. widows in these two cases gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BRmuM] on the question of the are not entitled to a pension? It is because the record stands there 

law of this case. · with their husbands marked en it as deserters, and on aooount of their 

An invalid pension, or the pension which these widows would be en- Ming marked as deserters they are precluded from getting a. pension 

titled to under the law provided their husbandl? had not deserted or at the Pension Bureau. 

had not been marked as deserters on the record, is a pension which But now what does this bill. propo e to do? This bill proposes to 

they can demand as a -right, and it is in no sense, as the gentleman take those records and to strike from the records those marks of deserfrom Kentucky said, a bounty. tion. against these parties. Then the record will stand clear of any 

When the soldiers of the late war, and in fact of all of our wars, charge of desertion against these two soldiers whose widows are claimvolunteered and went out' to serve the country, the law says to them, ing a pension under this bill. • "If yon are killed in the line of your duty your widow shall have a Now, if you remove from the record this stain upon the character of 

pension;" but that pension which goes to the widow is aS much her the husbandS, if you blot it out entirely, what is to hinder the widows 

right under the law as the monthly wages of the soldier who performs under the law from going on and prosecuting the claims which they 

the service. An invalid pension is in no sense a bounty. But it is a have now in the Pension Bureau, and which were ~ejected only on the 

contract which the Government made with the soldiers when they vol- · ground that the record showed that the husbands had de5erted? 

untoored to serve their country that if they served their country faith- If you remove that stain, if you remove that record, the coast is clear. 

fully and were wounded or contracted disease in the service and were 1\Ir. CUTCHEON. They can get arrears then. · honorably discharged they should have a pension; or if they should :Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. They can get arrears beyond all quesbe killed in the service in the line of duty their widows should have a tion. But, Mr. Chairman, all I want to do is to show this House that 

pension. if you pass a bill removing this stain .Of P,esertion which now stands 

Mr. BRUMM:. That is not a condition of enlistment. against the record of these parties-and I do not pretend to say you 

?tlr. HEWITT, of Alabama. It is a condition of enlistment in the ought not to do it if what the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. McMIL- case of every·soldier. LIN] has stated is correct-no further legislation is required. All I de-- · ?tlr. BRUIDL· I beg your pardon; I think it is not. sire is that the House shaH vote upon this matter knowing what they 

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. The gentleman from Pennsylvania must are doing. . . · go and reread the statute. What did your law say to your soldiers Mr. CUTCHEON. May I ask the gentleman one question? . when they volunteered? It said to every soldier wh~n. h~ volunteered, Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. ·Not just now. I will yield to·the gen· 

"If you shall be killed in the service, your widow shall have a pen- tleman in a few minutes. . . sion." That act was passed before the soldier volmlteered. It is a 1\Ir. Chaii-man, there has been a decision upon this subject. Conpart of the contract which the soldier made with the Government and gress-I believe the Forty-fourth Congress-passed a special act grantit is aright the widow can demand, not a bounty that the Government ingGeneralBurnett, ofNewYork,apensionof 50 a month. Afterward 

bestows. · he became totally blind, his blindness resulting from l;tis service, and 

Mr. WOLFORD. Will the gentleman from Alabama answer me a he applied to the Pension Bureau, and that bureau granted him a penquestion? sion of $72 a month, and for a time he drew both pensions. ~h. HEWITT, of Alabama. Yes, sir. • 1\lr. BRUMM. The cases are not parallel at all. 
1360 ·CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 6, 

Mr. HEWITI', of Alabama. But after the passage of the act whicl,l Mr. SINGLETON. The gentleman .from Kentucky is taking for 

prohibited a man from drawing two pensions the Supreme Court held granted what has not been proved here, as I understand. ·If these men that he, General Burnett, had the right either to take his pension un- were not deserters, they or their friends had it within their power to 

der the special act of $50 a~onth or under the general law at $72 a have the erroneous record corrected. How should this have been done? 

month; that he was at liberty, m his discretion, to take the one or the Should we be asked to declare by a bill pensioning tlieii- wido~s that 

other, but that he could not take both. these men were not deserters? No, sir, the parties interested shoUld 

So in this case, if you pass this bill these widows will be at liberty have gone before the M:ilitary Committee, where both sides could have 

to take pensions either under this law or under the general act, but been heard; and if .the men were not deserters that committe~ could 

they can not take under both. have reported a bill to correct their record; and then, as remarked by 

Mr. SINGLETON. Mr. Chairman, I have no disposition to protract the gentleman from Alahama, there would have been no necessity for ·this debate, but I shall be ~ned upon pl'esently to,vote upon the pas- applying to this House for a pension. · sage of_ this bill, and there are several points connected with it about Why is this case here atallifthe8e men were notdeserters? If they 

which I am not satisfied. In the :first place, I understand that there is were not deserters their widows are entitled to pensions under the law. no evidence here, no competent evidence I mean, to _show that these If they were deserters, the only proper and legitimate way' for removing 

parties had leave of absence from the Army. All that gentlemen pre- the charge of desE}rtion was not upon mere one-sided affidavits, but 

tend to state on that point is that these men w~re permitted to leave; · through t,he action of the Uilitary Committee, who could have invesbut I suppose that no soldier ever left. his duty and went home to see his tigated the whole matter and determined whether these men were in 

f.1>mily who did not make the same excuse. · fact deserters. · Now, sir, if these men had no privilege granted them ofleaving the It is-said that they were on their way to their commands. What 

Army, then, being absent without such privilege, t;hey were deserters. proofhave we ofthat? 

Who will deny that proposition? · . :Mr. McMILLIN. We have the t-estimony of every witness in the 

Mr. Mc11ULLIN. Will the gentleman yield -for a question? . case who testifies on that point, and there are a number ofthem. 

llr. SINGLETON. Yes. Mr. SINGLETON. Well,whatdotheysayaboutit? Iwouldlike 

Mr. McMILLIN. These men either were or were not deserters. If to know. · they were deserters, upQn what theory does the gentleman account for Mr. McMILLIN. They say absolutely that these men were on their 

tlie fact that, according to the testimony of every-witness in the case, xeturn to their commands. That is directly and p.ositively sworn by 

they were returning to tlieir command within less than a week after the witnesses. 

they had left it. · Mr. SINGLETON. How far were they from their homes? 

Mr. SINGLETON. Mr. Chairp:1an, it does not make any difference Mr. McltiiLLIN. I do not recollect whether the evidence states 

whether the time was one day, -or one week, or one year; a soldier ab- that fact. . sent from duty without the pel'Dlli?sion of his commanding officer is a Ml·. SINGLETON. Now, as the men were found somewhere in the 

deserter. _ · · _neighborhood of the army, and perhaps not far from their homes, it is 

ltlr.-DAVIS, of Illinois. Will the gentleman yiel(l to 'me for a mo- very easy to assume that they intended to return. • But no mortal man 

ment? can tell what a person intended to do in a case of this sort. 

ltlr. SINGLETON. I yield to the gentleman. . Mr. McMILLIN. FortheinformationofmyfriendfromMississippi 

Mr. DAVIS, of Illinois. I simply wiSh to call attention to the fact [Mr. SINGLETON} I will say that I am acquainted with the geography 

that there is a great d:ifferenee bet:ween "absent withou~ leave" and of that parl of the county where this command w:as stationed. The 

''desertion.'' I do not believe there is acasejn thewholearmyrecord command was near Albany, Clinton County, Kentucky and the homes 

where a man is put down as a deserter who was not absent more than of these men were only a few miles -across the line in ~he State of Ten- a week unless he deserted to the enemy. · nessee, not twenty miles distant. 

llr. SINGLETON. Oh, the gentleman is altogether mistaken about Mr. SINGLETON. How far were they from the army when they, that. were killed.and by whom were they killed? 

Mr. DAVIS, of Illinois. No, sir; I am not. - ltlr. McMILLIN. As I have just stated, the command to which 

Mr. SINGLETON. The ~entleman is mistaken. Now, Mr. Chair- they belonged' was stationed in Clinton County, Kentucky, and their 

man, if the charge o~ desertion is made against these parties the pre- homes were in Temiessee, just across the line, the two points being not 

sumption is that the officers who made that charge and that record twenty miles apart. 

lmewmoreabout.thefactsthan we can possibly know. Thepresumptio~ Mr. SINGLETON. How far were they from the army when they 

is that they did not act hastily; and when we now undertake to reverse were killed and how were they killed? 

their action upon partial affidavits-affidavits upon one side-and when Mr. McMILLIN. They were shot. 

the matter has not been properly investigated, I say that we do injus- ·· Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania. They were killed by the common tice to the officers who ;made up that record. enemy. 

lrlr. WOLFORD. Will the gentleman_ yield for a question? - :Mr. WOLFORD. By Champ Ferguson. 

Mr. SINGLETON. Yes. . Mr. SINGLETON. Were they :fighting by themselves against the M.r: WOLFORD. The charge of desertion was made against these .army of the confederacy, or had they joined the Federal Army? men long after they were dead. Mr. McMILLIN! They were not marauders; they belonged toaregMr. SINGLETON. What evidence .have you of that? -ulru: command of the Federal soldiery, and, as stated by th~ gentleman 

Mr. WOLFORD. · That is the statement that is made here. from Kentucky, and as the affidavits show, they were killed by FerguMr. SINGLETON. Ah, but I wan~ the law and the testimony now. son's men. Mr. WOLFORD. Well, I will give'you the la~and the testimony. Mr. WOLFORD. And Ferguson was hims~lf a marauder, a nry 

This charge of desertion was made after they were dead. Now, does. dangerous one. · · ·the gentleman from Mississippi-- Mr. SINGLETON. Is that the evidence in the case? 

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. HATCH). The Cha~ did not understand the Mr. WOLFORD. Yes; and he was hanged for it afterward. 

gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. SINGLETON] to yield to· the gentle- !1r. McMILLIN. I know nothing of this case except ~I gather man from Kentucky [Mr. WoLFORD] except for a question. Does the facts from the evidence. I do not know a single one of the parties. 

the gentleman yield further? But I have read every affidavit in the case, and I am acquainted with 

Mr. SINGLETON. If the gentleman from· Kelltucky [111r. WoL- the region of country in which these matters are said to have oc FORD] wishes to ask me a question, of course I will yield to him. curred. 

Mr. WOLFORD. It has been explained that all -the men of these Ur. SINGLETON. One moment and I am done. 

di.fferentcolll.mandshad general authority when they were cioseto their Now, 1\.t;r. Chairman, I think it proper, as remarked by the gentlehomes to go home. That was not desertion. These men were killed man from Alabama [l\Ir. HEwr-rr], we should keep up a nice distinc- as.they came ba~k, and in that way this charge of desertion in their tion between those who served faithfully during the war on one side or case arose. · the other and those who did not and neglected their duty-who deMr. SINGLETON. Now Iwanttoknowfromthegentlemanwhether · serted and were put down as deserters . . there was not ~ways a record kept by the officers when leave of a.b- The gentlemail fro~ Kentucky [Mr. WOLFORD] made a IQ.ost sym- sence was gntnted? . pathetic speech here in favor of these ladies. I do not tbink there is · 

Mr. WOLFORD.· Never that I know of. [Laughter.] Let me ex- any man living who regards women more highly than I do, and I would 

plain. I tbink I was very intimate with the manner in which things go as far as he who goes furthest to do them a service. But, sir, these 

were done. There was always a record made when men were gone any ladies claim these pensions through their husbands-not because they are 

length of time and failed to return. In that case the officer put down women, for there are a thousand women in the land doubtless as goodthe charge of desertion against them; but never till that occurred. So and if we pension them simply because they are women, I could bring_ far as I was concerned I always sent my meno.ff when I thought they .scorestotakepensions on that ground; buttheyclaim throughtheirhus- ought to go. I commanded a. division, and was intimate with com- bands ·and if their husbands were guilty of desertion I do not think it 

manders of divisions in our-Army; and I never knew of the charge of _becon{es us in a bill ofthis"sort to pension them. 

desertion having been made where a man went off and staid just_ a The bill as amended was laid aside to b~ reported to the House with 

little while. · the recommendp.tion that it do _pass. 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1361 

SYLVESTER GREEYOUGH. 

Mr. HOLMES. I call up the bill (H. R. 7434) granting a pension to 

Sylvester Greenough. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, d!c., Tliat the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll the name of Soy Ivester Green- ough, a .soldier of the 1\Iexican war, Black Hawk war, anC\Florida war, and late priva.te in Company E, Thirty-seventh Regiment Iowa. Volunteer Infantry 

(Gray-Beard ;Regiment), at the rate of~12 per month. · 

Th~ report (by 1\Ir. HOLl\IES) was read, as follows: 

Sylvester Greenougli, the claimant, enlisted as a. private in Company E, Thirty- seventh Iowa. Volunteer Jnfantry, on September 6,1862, and was discharged on Mo.y 24,18611. He is an old man of about 75 years of age, and alleges his disability to be "old age, and general debility ca.used by hardship in the service, and chrome diarrhea, which he contracted in the war of the rebellion, near AltOn, 

lll.,in the line of duty." The t:ecord also shows prior service oft he claimant in 

Company K ,'Fourth United States Infantry, in Florido. war, and also in Company 

H, Fourth United States Infantry, in the Mexican war, making nltogether.over fourteen years' service forbis country. He alleges that hardships in the service have broken him down, and that he is entirely diSabled for the performance of any manual labor, which fact is fully sustained by the certificate of the examin- ing surgeons~ , The testimony of comrades and neighbors is to the effect that the claimant was stout and hearty for years before entering the service in the war of the re- bellion, and fully corroborates the claimant's allegation of sickness from diar- rhea in the service at the time and place alleged, and that he has been incapac- itated for manual labor since his discharge by reason thereOf. · Your committee think that the record of long and honorable service ·which the claimant has performed for his country, t<~gether ·with his age and broken- down condition, caused without doubt by the hardship he has sustained, and especially the disease which he is proven to have contracted in the service and from which he is still suffering, and the absolute necessity for speedy reliet:z if.lt is to be given at all, present a strong case for the favorable consideration ot the Government which he has so faithfully served , and therefore recommend that the bill do pass. 

There being no obje((tion, the bill was laid aside to be reported to the 

House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

ELIZABETli W. CREIGHTON. 

:l!Ir. WALLACE. I call up the bill (H. R. 5086) for the relief of Elizabeth W. Creighton. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, d!c., That the Secreta1·y of the Interior be,and he is hereby, au- thorized and d[rected to place the name of Elizabeth ,V. Creig}lton, widow of J. Blakely Creighton, late a. rear-admiral, on the pension-roll, and to allow her a pension at the rate of ~per moutli from and after the Jlassage of this ad. 

The report (by 1\Ir. BAGLEY) was read, as follows: 

Tha.t the applicant, Mrs. Elizabeth W. Creighto·n, is the widow of J. Blakely 

Creighton, late a rear-admiral in the service of the United States; that she is now receiving a pension of$30 per month, in accordance with law. and she asks that her pension be increased to 850, the sum gh·en by special act, in many cases, to widows of general ofticers. As the committee have recommended an increase in other cases of l·his char- acter, they feil justified in recommending the passage. of the accompanying bill. 1\Irs. Creighton is in straitened ch·cumstances, and has to depend in part upon the charity of friends for support. 

There being no objection, the bill was Jaid aside to be reported to the 

House with the 1·ecommendation that it do pass. 

HENRY N. HUGGINS. 

Mr. P A.RKER. I cnll up the bill (H. R. 7735) for the relief ofHen:y 

U. Huggins. 

The bill was read, .as follows: 

Be it enacted, &e., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and be is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place the name of Henry N. Huggins. dependent father of .Andrew P. Huggins, deceased, late a private in Company K, Twenty-fourth 

Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry, on the pension-roll, subject to the conditions and limitations of the pension laws. 

The report (by Mr. BAGLEY) was read, as follows: 

The petitioner applied for a. pension August 11, 1879, alleging that his son died from disease of the lungs, contracted in the service of the United States, and that before and at the time of death he was dependent upon him for support, and that he did at sundry time's contribute money for that purpose. Of the son's receiving wounds and incurring disease in the Army there is no doubt, as it was pr0;en to the satisfaction of the Pension Office, he being a "I lowed and paid a. pension of $8 per month from May 30,1863, to the time of bis death, July 

13,1877. 

1 It is in evidence that the soldier received a canister-shot through the right 

thigh at Bull Run, Virginia, .August 30,~862, and that prior to that he bad been sick with measles with many othel's in the regiment, and that, on account of the hospital being overrun with sick, he was obliged to remain in company quar- ters, and in consequence took cold and had •• falling back or the measles," from which he nev~ recovered, but that his lungs became affe<>ted; that he had a constant cough, which continued and.increased until he dieo fmm hemorrhage of the lm1gs. · · · . • This is the substance of several affida·dts, both medical and lay, waich makes the fact of soldier's death plainly nnd positively attributable to disease incurred in the service. · Soldier was married, but his wife is dead, and there are no children. l\Iothcr is also dead, and the father has a. clear title. · As to the question of dependence,_ the claimant shows that the soldier en- listed nt 18 years of age; that after ne was old enongh to· work he received his wages· that soldier sent from the Army $10, and afterward $100 or more; that after his return home gave him $100 more; that after his enlistment gave claimant $300 town bounty; that he purchased dothing for his mother to tbe nmount of $35 or ~0, and bought affiant a. suit of clothes. Claimant says that during. the last five years (statement dated August 25, 1881) his whole earnings, with a. little his wife had, has been insufficfent for his support. Dr. Jacobs testifies that at the time of soldier's death claimant had chronic (lysentery and hyperremia of the brain, with irritable condition at base of skull. Occupation was tha.t of clerk in a store, and could do about one-third the labor of. an able-bodied man. Doctor says ~~t date of affidavit that claimant is in same disabled condition. Postmaster at :\l:::.nnsville, N. Y. ,says claimant is a.man of integrity, and that he considers him poor; that he is now more than GO years old, and incapable of 

XVI-86 

doing much labor. There is much evidence showing the dependence of the father; tha.t he earns but 1ittle and is incapable of earning much. The committee are of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to be placed upon the pension-roll, and recommend the passage of the bill. Claim was re- jected by the Pension Office on the ground that claimant was not dependent upon the soldier or assisted by the soldier at the time his wife died. While this may be true it is a mere technical objection, and does not aftect·the merits of the case. 

There being no objection, the bill was laid aside to be reported to the Ho~e with the recommendation that it do pass. 

FREDERICK RUTTEN. 

Ur. ENGLISH. I call up the bill (H. R. 7170) for the relief of Freel: 

erick Rutten. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

B~it enacted., &c., That the S~retary of t.he Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thm·ized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitat ions of the pension la ws, t he name of Frederick Hutten, formerly of Company K, Thirteenth Regiment Indiana State Volunteers. 

The report (by Mr. M:ATSON) was Tead, as follows: 

That Frederick Hut ten was drafted in the military service of the United States 1\Iarch 7,1865,and assigned to Company K, Thirteenth Indiana Volunteers, and honorably discharged on surgeon's certificate of disabilit.y July 20, 1805 ~ July 

17,1869, he filed a declaration for pension, alleging rupture of the right side, in- curred June 1,1865, while in line of duty, ·which was rejected on the ground that the disability existed at the time of entering the service of the United States. Dr. 'P. N. Payne testitie~, January 4, 1880, that he was the family physician of claimant prior to his enlistQ,J.ent into the military service of the United States; that he was then a. sound aiDe-bodied man, free from any disease or disability; that he treated claimant during an attack of fever in 1864, from which he recov- ered, and continued to enjoy good liealth up to the the time of his enlistment. The testimony of neighbors ai!a intimate acquaintances of the soldier cor- roborate the evidence of Dr. Payne as to the good health of claimant at the time of the enlistment . . Adolphus 0. 1\Iitchell, of Richmond, Wayne County, Indiana, testifies Novem- ber 11, 1882, that he was captain of claimant's company in the Army, and that about June 1, 1865, at R~leigh, in the State of North Carolina, the soldier re- ceived a rupture of the right side, caused from falling upon the ground while returning from drill at "double-time;" that he knows these facts from dupli- cate papers in his possession and from seeing him in that condition. John W. Nicholson, of Dubois County,.Indiana, a comrade of the soldier, cor- roborates the evidence of Captain Uitchell. It is shown by the records of the Adjutant-General's Office that the soldier was examined at the time of his enlistment by T. B. ~rvey, surgeon of the bQard of enrollment of the sixth district of the State of Indiana. . The continuance of the claimant's disability is shown by the evidence. Your committee find from the evidence in this case that the claimaptwas dis- abled in the Inilitru·y service of the United States and in the line of duty, and that he is entitled to a pension, and therefore recommend the passage of the ac- comn,anying bill. 

· JEREMIAH !ll'CARTY. 

.Ur. SPOONER. .I call up a bill (H. R. 6029)·for the relief of Jeremiah McCarty. 

The bi'-. was read, as follows: Be it e-nacted, &c., That the Secretary of U1e Interior be, and he is hereby, au4 

thorized and dil·ected to place the name of Jeremiah McCarty, of Newport, R.I., on the roll of pensioners, and to pay him a pension of $25 per month, commenc- ing with the 1st day of September, 1875. 

The report (by .Ur. STRuDLE) was read as follows: 

The Committee oq Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (li. R 60!!9) for the relief of Jeremiah 1\IcCarty, respectfully report: . That said Jeremiah :McCarty was a civil employe at the torpedo station on Goat Island, Newpori Harbor, Rlt.ode Island, and that while so employed he was seriously rutd permanently injm·ed and disfigured in·the ma.n'ner and under the circumstances herein:tfter set-forth. · · On August 31, 1875, said McCarty was directed by Lieut. George A. Converse, United States Na vy, the first assistant inspector and executive officer at· said tor- pedo station, to submerge a. torpedo, for experimental purposes, about one hun- dred feet from tbe shore. 'Vhile so engaged, under the direction of Lieutenant Con_verse,. and while holding the torpedo in his hands-Lieutenant Converse re- maining on the shore and having charge of the electric wires, by which the torpedo was to be tired-the torpedo was exploded by the extremely careless and premature connecting of the wires with the battery, shattering the boat in ~hich McCarty was, destroying his right eye, disfiguring his face, body, and limbs, and permanently disabling him from the perform:mceof ordinary labor. As the immediate result of said injuries, said McCarty was confined to his room for some two months, endured great suft'ering, and was compelled to submit to the entire removal of his right eye by a. surgical operation. He then reported to the torpedo station for duty and a.ttempted to resume labor there as formerly, but suffered a relapse, which forced him to again forego all labor, and he has never since been able to perform any except light and irregular labor. McCarty is a veteran soldier of the late war, and prior to said accident was a vigorous, able-bodied man, capable or e,aJ"Ding a good support for himself and his family. • · In addition to the permanent injurieS' above mentioned, said 1\IcCarty alleges 

in1pairment of the sight of his remaining eye, partial loss of hearing, shortness of breath, pains in tbe head nnd body, and general weakness and disability. The facts, as found by your committee, are corroborated by the medical and other testimony submitted , by the official report of said accident made by Capt. R.K. Breese, United States Navy, then iu charge of said torpedo station, to the Bureau of Ordnance of the Navy Dcpru·tment, and by the certificate of said Cap- tain Breese. Said certificate, affording a concise and officicl account of said accident and of the injuries incurred by said McCarty, is here given in full , namely: 

UNITED STATES ToRPEDO STATIO!il', 

Newport, R. L, No1Jember 13, 1875. 

I certify that Jetemiah McCarty was employed on the civil roll of the station on the 31st August, and ·was directed by one of the officers of the station, Lieut. G. A .· Converse, to place a torpedo containing about fifteen pounds of powder. 'Vhilst so engaged the torpedo was exploded, through no fault of his, and a very serious injury was the result. At this time the apparent permanept 

injury is loss of right eye, face disfigured by powder, and legs badly marked by same. Complaint is made a.t times of inability to work as of old, at which I am not surprised-; the great wonder to me being that the man lived after su()h an accident. 

A foil report of the accident was made to the bureau on September 8. K. R. BREESE, 

Captain, United Stat-es Navy, and Ins-pecto1· of Ordnance, in charge of statiot._ 

-
1362 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 6, 

, In view of the fads and circumstances, your committee recommend that said bill be amended by striking out the word "1Ure," in the sixth line, and all of lines 7 and 8,. and by inserting at- the end of line 6 the words "from and aft.er the passage of this act;'' and that, as so ame"nded", the bill be paaeed. 

The amendments of the committee were read, as follows: · 

Strike out "25" and insert "20 ;" and strike out "commencing with the 1st 

day of September, 1875, '.' and insert ''from and after the passage or this act." 

The amendments were agreed to. . · . The bill as amended was laid aside to be reported to the House with 

t;he recommendation that it do pass. 

JACOB WIENER. 

M.r. BAGLEY. I call up a bill (H. R. 7292) to grant a pension to 

Jacob Wiener. 

The bill was· read, as follows: 

Be it enacled, de., That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll the name of Jacob Wiener, late a. private 

in Company I, Forty-first Regime.nt of New York Volunteers. 

The report (by Mr. BAGLEY) was read, as follpws: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill {H. R. 

'1292) gtanting a pension to Jacob Wiener; having oonsidered the same, report as follows: · · The petitioner enlisted in the Army of the United States as a private in Com- pany H, Forty-first New York Volunteers, on November 1,1861, and was dis- cha.~ed November 7,1864. Declaration for pension was filed November 8,1878, 

a.llegmgthat at Hunter's Chavel, Va.,January,l861,he froze both.¥et so that they burst open and disabled him for tho pel"f()rmance of duty t!'nd was attacked with rheumat~ in both feet and legs while on guard duty. The PeQsion Office 

a.llowed $4 per mop.th for frost-bite, but rejected the claim for rheumatism on the ground that it did not originate in the service" and line of duty. In the consideration of the case it seems somewhat strange that the soldier should remain in the service for two years aftertbe ineurrenceofthedisability, but it is explained bythe affidavit$ of Henry Sweitzer and Ernest Weber, who say that at the time of the injury the claimant was treated in regimental hos- pital for a severe cold and frosted feet, which resulted iri chronic rhenmatistn; tbat in the spring of 1863 they saw biro in Washington, D. C., where he was on detached duty, J:>eing unfit for active duty or service by reason of rheumatism, from which he was then suffering; that they saw bim after his .discharge and be wa.S still suffering, and they swear thls knowledge is from personal observat-ion. There is no record testimony or medical evidence of treatment, and claimant has not been able to supply tbe de1iciency, but offers tbe affidavit of the captain of his company, Julius Stommel, who says that heknewofclaimant'sfeet being 

frozen, and that he received medical treatlDent in the regimental hospital at Hunter's Chapel, Va.., and that he suffered from broken-open feet several times subsequently. The fact of the claimant's feet being frozen is undoubted, as it is testified to by several witnesses, as also. that the rheumatism has been continu- ous and increasing. Claim&nt states that the frozen feet and chronic rheumatism are the direct re- sults of his military service, in consequence-of which he has been totally inca- pacitated from performing manual labor; that without the aid of an assistant he can neither dress, eat, nor perform the functions of nature, and that he is to tally and utterly helpless. This statement is corroborated by acquaintances, and particularly by the attending physician, Dr. R. G. lllauss, who testifies that claimant has steadily run down m health and ability t{) take care of himself; that his feet, hands, and body swell .enormously, entirely incapacitating him from feeding and dressing himself for weeks at a time; that the paralysis of his extremities is steadily increasing, and that his case is a. most deplorable one, as he is without means of alleviating his sufferings by reason of his ex- treme poverty. That as he requires assbtance in dressing and feeding himself, and is entirely incapacitated for even the slightest manual labor, he certainly should have his pension increased. Thinks his condition is due entirely to his Army service. - . Surgeon-General Barnes; in an affidavit filed January 11, 1882 says claimant has been suffering for-the past sixteen years, and is unable to take care of him- self. Three examining surgeons have rated disabili~ for frozen feet at S-i per · month, witbout reference to rheumatism. One surgeon rates ''iirst disability, $i ;" second, "total second grade, $24." · Special Examiner George W. Frost, ~ft-er taking evidence in the case under date of February 1.5, 1883, concludes his report to the Commissioner by saying "that for ten years at least claimant has been wholly incapacitated for manual labor, and that for five years has. required assist·ance, and recommends that the claim for increase be admitted." . General W. S. Rosecrans, in a letter to the Commissioner, says_: "Do what you can for this old soldier ; I know his condition is distressing." • Your committee are of the opinion tbe pension should be increased, and recom- mend the--passage of the bill, amended as follows : Strike out of line 4 the follow• 

words "place on the pension-roll the name" and insert" increase the pension;" and add aft.er the word "volunteer," in line 6, "to $40 per month." Amend tiUe so as to read, "to increase .the p~nsion of Jacob Wiener." 

'rhe amendments of the committee w-ere read, as .follows: 

Strike out "place on the. pension-roll the name" and insert "increase the pension; " and at the end of the bill insert " to MD per month." Amend the title so as to read : " .A. bill to increase the pension to Jacob Wiener." . · • 

The amendments were agreed to; and the bill as amended was laid 

aside to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it do 

pass. CAROLINE HIGGERSON". 

Mr. CULLEN. I ask consent to call up the bill (H. R. 1856) granting n. pension to Caroline Higgerson: · The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary or the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, tbe name of Caroline Higgerson, dependent mother of RobertS. Barber, late a private in Company H, Twenty-second Regi- ment lllinois Volunteers. 

· The bill was laid aside to be .reported to the House with the recom- mendation that it do pass. . . 

:r.ms. MARTHA C. BREESE. 

Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama. I ask consent to call up the bill (H. 

R. 4280) granting an increase of pension to Mrs.!Iartha C. Breese and 

put it upon its passage. 

The bill is as follows: 

Be it enacted, <fc., That the pension now granted to Mrs. Martha C. Breese, 

widow of Kidder Randolph Breese, late a captain in the United States Na'\-y, 

be, and the same is hereby, increased to S50 per month. 

Mr. CUTCHEON. Let the report in that case be read. 

The report 'by Mr .. HEWITT, of Alabama) is as follows: 

The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4280) to in· crease the pension of Mrs. Martha. C. Breese, submit the following report: • Mrs. Breese is the widow of Kidder Randolph Breese, lAte & captain United States Navy, of whom Admiral Porter has well said: "There was no officer dur· ing the war who performed more valuable service than he did." And referring to Mrs. Breese's application to Congress for an increase of her pension\ Admiral Porter says: "I hope sincerely that she will not be disappointed in th1s matter, for if ever the widow of an officer deserved to be taken care of by the Govern· ment it is the widow of Captain Breese." Captain Breese served all through the campaign of the Mississippi, through the siege of Vicksburg, and the opening up of the river to the sea.~nd a.lwa.ys 

with the 1nost distinguished bmvery and self-sa.crificing conduct. .u.e was fteet cap~in of Admiral Porter's :fleet at the storming of Fort Fisher, and the heroism with which he led tlie forlorn hope of naval officers and sailors that llSSaulted the works by land is a bright page in the history of the civil war, and is the common heritage of American citizens. "But," says Admiral Porter, referring to Captain Breese's part in the campaign of the Mississippi, "he no doubt laid the first seeds of disease on t.hose rivers1 for he was never well after he left there." Captain)Breese died while on s1ck leave, September 13, 188l,leaving no estate and nothing for his family to live upon. 1 

The widow of this hero is now dependent upon her small pension of $30 a month and the trifling amount of $2 a.llo\ved each of her four little children, she ha-ving absolutely no other source of income. Can Congress refuse to grant her an increase of$20, all she a ks? · . The committee believe not. Certainly her case appeals strongly to the Gov- e~e~t, and the committee recommend the passage of the bill for her relief. 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recom- mendation that it do pass. 

BENJAMIN P. LOWELL. 

1\Ir. BROWN, of Pennsylvania. 1\Ir .. Chairman, I call up the bill 

(H. R. 6310) granting a pension to Benjamin P. Lowell; and as the 

report in this case is somewhat lengthy, afrer the bill is read I will ask 

consent to J:Illl.kc a brief statement, which I think will .be satisfactory. 

The bill is as follows: 

Be it enacted, &:c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and hereby is, author- ized to place on the pensio~-roll; subject to the pension laws, the name of Ben- jamin P. Lowell, late of Company I, First Regiment Maine Cavalry Volunteers. 

Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania. I will sta.te briefly that the difficulty at the· Pension Office in this case was that the soldier was unable 

to prove by persons who saw him at the time of receiving the injury 

what the extent ofthe injury was; nor was he able to show that he was cared for by the surgeon of the regiment. , The facts are, that he had been detailed for a certain service at that 

time, and was on a foraging expedition when thEi injury.(hernia) was received, and he was taken in charge by the surgeon of another regiment and was not able to give the evidence of his comrades. That was the oilly reason the pension was not allowed at the office. 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recom- mendation that it do pass. · 

HENRY BIEDERBICK. 

Mr. VAN ALSTYNE. I ask unanimous consent to call up the ~ill 

(H. R. 1933) granting a pension to Henry Biederbick. 

The bill is as follows: · 

Be it enacted1_dc., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and airected to place on the pension-roll, subject to the limitations and provisions of the pension laws, the name of Henry Biederbick, late a hospital 

steward in the l]nited States Army, and one of the survivors of the late Greely 

expedition to Lady Franklin Bay, a.t the rate of- dollars per month. · 

The committee recommend the following amendment: 

Strike out in the eighth. and ninth lines t\l,e words "at the rate of - dollars per month." 

Mr. VAN ALSTYNE. Mr. Chairman, the report in connection with 

this case is of some considerable length, and I will not ask tbe attention of the committee to read it, but will make a brief statement of 

what it discloses as to the personal history of the applicant in this case, 

which I am satiSfied will commend him most strongly to the favor of 

this committee, as well as to the admi.ra.tion of all men. His patriotism induced him to enlist as a common soldier in 1879. 

By reason of hls characteristics he was assi,aned to duty with the Lady 

Franklin Bay expedition, which sailed in June, 1881. In this service 

he devoted himself most assiduously tO the duties assigned to him, that 

of hospital steward, and to such an extent· that Lieutenant Greely himsely says that he was so faithful and so overtaxed himself in the discharge of his duties that on frequent occasions he had to make specific 

orders to restrain him. The report shows that by reason of his expos- ure and arduous duties he has been deprived partially of his eyesight, 

his mental faculties have been impaired, and one of his arms is entirely 

useless, the hand being drawn ba;ck by rheup1atism; also that he is 

suffering from heart disease, one of the definitions being asthenopia. 

Not being a medical man, I have looked into the dictionary to find 

the meaning of the word, and find that it means feebleness of the functions of the heart and incapacity on the part_ of that organ t-o send the 

blood through the circulation of the system. I believe that if there is a case that ever was presented to the committee which demands a recog- . nition this is the case, and if there is no objection I move tbat this bill 
• 

1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. ·1363 

be laid aside to be repo-ct:.ed to the House with the recommendation 

that it do pass. 

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the committee-will first be 

voted upou. 

The amendment was agreed to. · The bill as aiP.ended was laid aside to be reported to the House with 

the recommendation that it do pass. 

:r.IARY E. FILLEBROWN. 

:Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. I call up -the bill (H: R. 7997) to 

increase the pension of ?tlary E. Fillebrown. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it ena~ted, &c., That the Secreta,ry of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to increase the pension of Mary E. Fillebrown, widow of the late Commodore Thomas Scott Fillebrown, from $30 to $50 per month, said Increase to take effect from and after the passage of. this act. 

The report (by Mr. BAGLEY) is as foll~ws: The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 7997) to increase the pension of 1\Ia.ry E. Fillebro.wn, having carefully examined the same, submit the following report: . The applicant is the widow of the late Commodore Thomas Scott Fillebrown, United States Navy, who died at the New York navy-yard on the 27th of September, 1884. Commodore Fillebrown, at the time of his death, had served the Government faithfully for along period of years, having entered ~e Navy October 19,184L He served with distinction during the late civil war, and during the time that he was in the Navy he saw about twenty-four years of active sea-service. During his entire naval career he was noted for his unflinching integrity in the discharge of his duties. He died leaving little or no property, and his wife is without means of supp<>rt, and is unable to maintain herself, being in delicate health. It has been customary in similar cases to allow special pensions, and fbe long and efficient services of Commodore Fillebrown, and the necessity of this pension for the support of his widow, make it right and just that the cus- tom should be followed in this case. We rep<>rt the following bill and recommend its passage. 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House-with the recommendation that it do pa..."S. 

SEBERT TONEY. 

!.-Ir."WELLER. I call up the bill (H. R. 7447) granting a pension to . Sebert Toney. 

The bill was read; as follows: 

Be it enacted, d:c., That the Secretary of the· Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subje_ct t<> the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Sebert Toney, late a private in Company B, Thirty-seventh Iowa Volunteers. 

The report (by Jt!r. HoLliES) is as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, ~ whom was referred the bill (H. R. 

7447) granting a pension to Sebert 'l'oney, having considered the same, report as follows: · Sebert Toney, the claimant, enlisted as a private· in Company B, Thirty-sev- enth Iowa Volunteers, and was discharged on May 24,1865. He filed his appli- cation for a pension on November 20-, 1880, alleging disability by reason of "chronic diarrhea and disease of the bladder contracted in the line of duty at Gallipolis, Ohio, in March, 1865." The .claim was rejected by the Pension Of- . fice on the ground of" inability to furnish any medical evidence of condition in service, or any evidence of condition at discharge and thence up to 1869. The evidence in this case shct\vspositively, by the testimony of the capt-ain of claimant's company, that claimant was suffering, as he alleges, at Gallipolis, Ohio, with diarrhea and disease of the bladder at said time, ~nd that he went on sick furlough for about a month, and that he was still suffering from said dis- ease, to his positive knowledge, at the time· of his discharge. The claimant states in an affidavit that he was first taken with the disease at or near Memphis, Tenn., 

in July, 1864, and that the second attack, which was much more violent, occurred· in March, 1865. The testimony of unimpeachable witnesses shows claimant to have been a perfectly sound man when he entered the Army, and the proof is positive and direct of the continuance of said diseases from t.he time of his dis- charge to the present, but to an increased extent. The claimant appears by the evidence to be totally incapacitated for the performance of manual labor by rea- son of incontinence of urine and diarrhea to such an extent as to ·make life mis- erable to him. The witnesses in this ease are of the hi~hest character, aud the claimant bears the highest reputation for morality and mtegrity. - Your committee have no hesitation; upon the evidence in this ease, in rep<>rting the bill back with recommendation that it do pass. 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recom- mendation that it do pass. 

El\IILY. AGNEL. 

:Mr. REED, of Maine. I call up the bill (S. 475) granting arrears of 

pension to Emily Agnel. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

"Whereas Emily Agnel, widow of Lieutenant-Colonel and Professor Hyacinthe Robert Agnel, of the United States Army, was placed on the pension-roll oil tbe 16th day of December, 1880, and from which date payment of said pension was made: Therefore, - Be ifenactedt.&:c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thprized and airected to adjudicate the pension claim of Emily Agnel, wido_w of Hyacinthe Robert Agne], as if her application had been fLied in the office of the Commissioner of Pensions prior to the 1st day of July, 1880, and to pay, or cause to -be paid, to the aforesaid Emily Agnel, a pension at the rate prescribed by law from the date of death of the said Hyacinthe Robert Agnel: Provided, 

~~cf::S p:evions1y paid on account of pension to the said Emily Agnel 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the HoUse with the recom- mendation that it do pass. 

l\IARY F. BLAKE. 

Mr. WINANS, {)f I\Iichigan. I call up the bill (H. R. 7538) granting an increase of pension to Mary F. Blake. . . The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, ftc., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to increase the pension of Mary F. Blake, widow of the 

.At 

late Commodore Homer Crane Blake, from $30 to $50 per month, satd increase to take effect from and after the passage of this act. 

The report (by Mr. BAGLEY) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 7538) granting an increase of pension to Mary F. Blake, having considered the same, report as follows: · The petitioner is the widow of Commodore Homer Cnme Blake, and is now receiving a pension of $30 per month. She asks an increase to 850. It has been the rul~ of this committee t<> rep<>rt favorably bills of this character when the • applicant will testify th~t the inc_reas~ is necessary for her support. In her affi- . davit she says: · "My present income is wholly inadequate and insUfficient, and an Increase of iny pension as the widow of the late Commodore Blake is absolutely neces- sary and requisite for my supp<>rt and maintenance." · The committee recommend the passage of the bill. 

The bill was laid aside to be reported to_ the House with the re.::om- mendation that it do pass. 

CHARLES W. GREEN. 

Mr. MATSON. I call up the bill (H. R. 6177) f~rthe relief ofCharles 

W. Green. . . 

- The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he -is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject t<> the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Charles W. Green, formerly or Company B, Cass County Home Guard, lissouri State V9lunteers. 

Mr. ~TCHEON. I call for the reading of the report. 

The report wa." read in part. In full it is as follows: · 

The petitioner enlisted as a priva~e in Company B, Cw County,l\Iissourl, H. G. Cavalry, June ?:7, 1861, and was d1scharged January 11,1862. Declaration for. pension was filed November 12,1878, in which it is alleged that while on a march from Paola; Kans., to West Point, 1\lo., about November 28,1861, he took a severe cold wh!le in romp, at night, which settled in his head and affecting his eyes! The clalm was· rE-jected on the ground of no record of alleged disability, and claimant has declared his inability to f1,1rnish the necessary evidence t<> connect it with the service. · Claimant, in an affidavit, says he is unable t<> get the affidavit of h_is regl~ mental surgeon, for the reason that be ean not find out where he hves or whe-ther yet alive or not·, and that the best evidence }le can get of being treated in the service for his eyes iS the o.ffidavit of Lieutenant Rogers. Claimant fur- ther says that he was mustered out with his regiment February 28, 1862, and that he was then broken down in health and has not been able to do a steady 

day's work since, and that prior to enl)stment he was a strong, healthy man; never requiring the services of a physiCian, and never employed one up to that time; that he had no trouble with his eyes until after entering the service. ·. The Adjutant-General's report states that .the muster-rolls of Company B or the regiment show that claimant was discharged for disability. , Surgeon-General makes same rep<>rt. Lieutenant Rogers, on whose affidavit claimant relieS" to show incurrence of disability in service, says, that while regi- ment was stationed at West Point, Bates County, :Missouri. during December• 1861, and January, 1862, owing to the destruction of the railroads and freezing up of the river, it was impossible to get supplies, such as clothing, &c., and hence the regiment did service the greater part of the winter without heavy clothing; and o. great many of the men had disease fastened-on them from taking se\·ere 

colds;· among the number was claimant, who, being exposed to the severe cold weather while on duty, contracted sore eyes, und for a time during the winter was nearly or quite blind, a.nd when the regiment had been mustered out he was still suff~riug from sore eyes. States that he Sa.w claimant about fiye or six: years after he w a s mustered out of service, and he was then nearly blind. ·\ Charles and Fillzabeth Baker, who have known claimant since 1869, testify that since that time he has not .been able to do a day's work on account of poor health and defective sigh_t , and that he is dependent upon the charity of friends for hi!! living and clothing. • Doct'Crs l<'rl!.llk Abbott; Lewis, and Wright, who are 011 the medical staff of the Buffalo Homeopathic Ho pital, testify that claimant is in a weak, debilitated, 

physical condition, and that the sight of both eyes is se1·ionsly impaired; that claimant was treated at the hospital os a free patient. 1 Elizabeth Baker, in a sec·ond affidavit, says that when Green came to her house in 1869 he was so blind he bad to be led around, and that he has ever since been broken down in health and helpless. This affidavit is dated May 31, 1881. · 

Three examining su;geons, in. a certillcate dated February 5, 18791 say that the disability is equal to loss of both eyes, total first grade, $31.25 per month. The committee are of the opinion that the claimant incurred his disability in the service, that he is a great sufferer thereby, and that lie is entitled to a pen- sion. It is .recommended that the bill pass. 

Mr. CUTCHEON (interrupting the reading). I do not insist on the 

further reading of the report; but I wonld like the indulgence of the 

Chair for a moment while I make a remark or two. I take the occasion 

of .the reading of this report, because it is another illustration of the ·many cases we have had before us where the case is in the nature of ~n appeal from the Pension Office to Congress. · ~ 

I desire in this connection to say ~ few words perhaps of a personal 

nature. I was informed by a gentleman now on the floor, a member 

of t-he Honse, that some remarks I made a few evenings since in regard 

to examiners in the Pen.'3iou Office have been given a much broader 

construction and applic..'1tion than I had any intention of their receiv! 

ing. The gentleman I refer to informed me some official connected 

with the Pension Depn.rtment had taken exception to the remarks I 

made. I desire to say I had no intention whatever of casting any re- flection on the pension examiners as a class. 

I believe as a. class there are no more faithful, industrious, ana l:r 

borious ·men in the public service. Neither did I intend my remark 

should be applied to any considerable part of them either at this time or at any other tinle. The rejected cases to which I applied it a.re not 

recently rejected cases, but are cases which were rejected under a former- administration of the Pension Office, when, I think,· a much stricter rule 

than is now applied governed the office; when a different system prevailed; when cases rejected by the pension examiner did not go to a court of review; when, therefore, the report of the examiner must be 

made on the cases not rejected, and therefore when a difficult case was reached it was for his interest to lay it aside. 
1364 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 6, .. Now, I do not know.that that pr-actice has ever prevailed to any conl!iderable extent, but other gentlemen besides Il).yself haye remarked . that at some time in' the Pension Office a much less impartial system 

prevailed than prevails at present. For the gentleman now at the head. 

of the Pension Office I have the greatest respect, and I believe the soldiers of this country have no better.friend anywhere than the present 

Commissioner of Pensions. And, as I said before, I believe there is no more faithful, honest body of public sen·ants than the pension examiners, taken as a whole. · There being no objection, the bill was laid aside to be reported to the 

House with a recommendation that it do pass. 

Mr. MATSON. I mo\e that the committee now rise. The motion was agreed to. · 

The committee accordingly rose; and Mr. BAGLEY having taken the 

chair as S.peaker pro tempore, ~_J"r . .HATCH, of 1\Iissomi, reported that the 

Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar had had under 

consideration, pursuant to order, sundry bills on tl;le Private Calendar 

reported by the Committee on P.ensions and the Committee on Invalid 

Pensions, and had directed him to report the same back to the House 

with various recommendations. 

DAVID l\I1KINNEY. 

Mr. STRUBLE, from the Committee on Pensions, by unanimous 

consent reported with a favorable recommendation the ~ (H. R. 

7573) granting a pension to David 1\IcKinney; which wasprdered to be 

printed and placed on the Private Calendar. · 

ORDER OF BUSI~E S. 

Mr. STRUBLE. Ur. Speaker, I dislike to make the request at this 

time, but I feel impelled to ask the House to go into Committee of the 

Whole on the Private Calender fbr the purpose of consideririg the bill 

just reported. • The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman make the motion 

that the House now tesolve itself into Committee of the Whole House 

1m the Private Calendar? 

Mr. STRUBLE. I do. 

The motion was agreed tO. 

The House accort?ngly resolved itseJ_f into Committee of the Whole 

House on the Private ~alendar {Mr. HATCH in the chnir), and resumed 

the consideration of bills upon the Private Calendar. 

Mr. PETERS. Mr. CQ.airman, I call up for present consideration 

the bill (H. R. 7573) which has just been reported from the Committee on Pensions. · 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Intt'rior is he1·eby authorized to place on the pension-ron the name of David McKinney, late a private in Capt. 

Nathan Boone's company,serving under General Dodge in the BJackHn.wk war, nnd grant .him a pension, subject to t.he pens,ion laws, from the date of the pas- sage of tbts act. • 

There being no objection, the bill was laid aside to be reported to the 

House with a ·rec9mmendation that it do pass. . Mr. liA.TSON. 1\Ir. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The committee accordingly rose; and 1\Ir. BAGLEY having taken tb.e 

chair as Speaker pro tempore, Mr. HATCH, of ~1issouri, reported that the 

Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar }lad had under 

consideration a bill (H. R. 7573), and .had directed him to report the same back to the House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

BILLS PASSED. . 

Bills of the following titles were severally ordered to be eng1·ossed and 

read a third time; and being engrossed, they were accordingly read the 

third time, and passed: 

A' bill (H. R 79381 granting a pension to Amanda Allen; 

A bill (H. R. 7334 granting a pension to Judson Bost\vick; 

A bill (H. R. 7696 granting a pension to Thomas D. Fitch; 

A bill (H. R. 7903 granting a pension to Daniel B. Randall; 

A bill !H. R. 7952 granting a pension to Mrs. Julia Hartley; 

A bill H. R. 7434) granting a pension. to Sylve ter Greenougb i 

A bill H. R. 5086) 1or the reliefofElizabeth W. Creighton; 

A -bill H. R. 7735) for the relief of Henry N. Hu&:,oins; 

.A bill H. R. 7170) for the relief of Frederick Rutten; 

A bill H , R. :1856) granting a pension to Caroline Higgerson; 

A bill H. R. 4280) to increase the pension of Mrs. l\Iartha C. Breese; 

A bill H. R. 6310) granting a pension to Benjamin P. Lowell; 

A bill ll. R. 7997) to increase the pension of l\Iary E. Fillebrown; 

A bill H. R. 7447) granting a pension to Sebert Toney; 

A bill (H. R. 7538) granting an increase of pension to Mary F. Blake; 

A bill (H. R. 6177) for tberelief of Chv.rles W. Green; and 

A bill (H. R. 7573) granting a. pension to David McKenney. 

Amendments to bills of the following titles were severally agreed to, 

and the bills as amended were ordered to be engrossed and read a third 

time; and being engrossed, they were accordingly read the third time, 

and passed: 

A bill (H. R. 7618) granting a pension to Hel'lry H. G. Kislingbury 

and· others; · · -

.A bill (H. R. 4869) .for the relief of Morris Geld; 

A bill (H. R. 1901) for the relief of Harrison Mitchell; and 

A bill (H. R. 2804) for the relief of Cynthia Ma.rtin and Catharine 

Stover . 

A bill {H. R. 6029) for the relief of Jeremiah McCarty; 

A bill (H. R. 7933) granting a pension to Henry Biederbick; and 

A bill (H. R. 7292) to grant a pension to Jacob Wiener [title amended so as to read, "A bill to increase the pension of Jaeob Wiener"]. 

Senate bills with the following titles were severally ordered to a third 

reading; and they were accordingly read the third time, and pa...~ed: 

A bill (S. 475) grantiilg arrears of pension to Emily Agnel; . A bill (S. 1823) granting a pension~ Ebenezer K. Marden; and 

A bill (S. 750) granting a pension to Catherine Schools. 

Mr. liA.TSON moved to reconsider the several '\"Otes by which the 

bills reported from the Committee of the. Whole House on the Private 

Calendar were passed; and also moved to lay that motion on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. • 

LEAVE TO PRINT. 

Ur. L'{GLISH, by unanimous consent, was granted leave to print 

additional remarks upon the bill (H. R. 3947) granting. a pension to 

Joseph Raible. 

.And then; on motion of Mr. MATSO~ (at 10 o'clock and 30 minutes 

p.m.), the House adjoumed . . 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

The following petitions and papers were laid on the Cle1·k s desk, 

under the rule, and referred as .tollows: ... 

Ey Ur. BA.GLEY: Petition of citizens of Catskill, N. ·Y., in refei- ence to the Mormon question-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Ur. BEACH: Petition of citizens of Chester, Orang~ County, 

New York, on the Mormon question-to the same committee. 

By Mr. FIEDLER: Petition of Robert J. Beach, Amzi Dodd, Israel 

Jacobus, d about 200 others1 citizens of New Jersey, requesting 

proper legislation on the Mormon question-to the same committee. ' 

By 1\lr. FOLL~TT: Petition of citizens .of Cincinnati, Ohio, prny4lg 

for the p:13sageof laws to suppress Mormomsm-to the same committee. 

By \lr. FORAN: Memor~aland petitionofthe Brush Electric Light 

Company, the Wh.ite Sewing Machine Company, and citizens of Cleveland, Ohio, in relation to the want of adequate clerical force and ex- aminers in the Pa.tent Office-to the Committee on Patents. 

By 1\Ir. GEORGE: Petiiion ~f.the Portland (Oreg.) Board of Trade, 

favoring the Nicaraguan treaty-to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

By .Mr. D. W. JONES: Joint resolution of the Legislature of Wisconsin, requesting purchase of the Portage Lake and Lake Superior 

Ship Canal-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. 

By Mr. NELSON: Concurrent resolution of the Legislature of Minnesota,, mging tl1at the Unite<l ~tatesacquire title to the Portage Lake 

and Lake Superior Ship Canals, and make the samefreeoftolls-to the same committee. • 

By Mr. TALBOTT: Petition of John W. McCullough a.m1200others, 

citizens of Cecil Connty, Maryland, asking Congress to enact laws to 

suppress Mormonism-to the Committee on the Judiciary. . 

By Mr. THOMPSON:. Petition of L. W. Cooke; of A. M. Fuller, 

first lieutenant Second United States Cavalry; of A. S. Greenhow, late 

paymasters clerk, United States Army; of ,V. J. 1\Ioberly; and of A. 

E. Frank, a citizen of Deadwood, Dak.-to the Committee on Military 

Affairs. 

By 1\II· .. WEMPLE: Petition of citizens of Galway, Saratoga County, 

and of Amsterdam,.N. Y., urging action by Congress upon the bills for 

the suppression of Mormonism-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Ur. JAMES WILSON: Petition of cWzens of 1\Iarion, Linn 

County, Iowa, asking for an increase of widows' pensions--to the Committee on Pensions. · · 

The following petitions for the passage of the 1\Ie.xican war pension 

bill with Senate. amendments were p~es£>nted and severally referred 

to the Committee on Pensions: 

By kir. BOUTELLE: Of Melville JI.I. Folsom and others, of Oldtown, 1\Ie. 

By Mr. W. W. CULBERT30N: Of 163 Yoters of 1\IcGlone, Carter 

County, Kentucky. . 

By Ur. GEDDES: Of S. H. Mowers and 96 others, of Lucas, and of 

W. S. Chamberlin and 123 others of Adario, Richland County, Ohio. 

By l\Ir. KLEINER; Of ex -.soldiers of Velpen, Pike County, Indiana. 

B.Y 11Ir. LA.CEY: Of Stephen P. Russell and 85 others, of Banfield, Wili . 

By Mr. LOWRY: Of 64 citizens of Hudson, Steuben County, Indi- ana. 

By 1\Ir. l\IURPHY: Of 56 citizens of Tipton, of 63 citizens of Da.fenport, and of 40 citizens of Stanwood, Iowa. . 

By Mr. PERKINS: Of Thomas Hawkins and 123 others, of Elk 

County, and of Charles Fye and 61 others, of Elk County, Kansas. 

By Mr. POLAND: Of AI. T. Fenno and 200 others, of Saint J-ohnsbury, and of S. H. Foster and 100 others, of Calais, Vt. 

By ;1\Ir. T. B. REED: OfT. F. Hodgdon and others, of Milo; of W . 

H. Learey and others, of Bridgton; of Eli hn; B. Lovejoy and others, 
'1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~SENATE. J365 

of North Turner; of Charles E. Bramy and others, of Bingham, and of 

E. W. Tobey and others, of South Norridgewock, :Me. . By Mr. RICE: Of George W. Clifford and others, ofWorcesterCounty; 

ofGoorge W. Danforth and others, of Spencer; and of E. L. Peck and 

othen~, of Westfield, Hampden County, :Massachusetts. 

By 1\Ir. ·ROCKWELL: Of E. S. Elsbreeand 62 others, veterans; of 

Chicopee, Mass. . By l\Ir. RYAN: Of361 citizens ofKansas. 

By!Ir. H. Y. SMITH: Of5~citizensofMacksburg, Madison County, 

Iowa. 

By 1\Ir. STEVENS: Of 110 citizens of Youngstown, Niagara County, 

New York. · . By Mr. STOCKSLAGER: Of E. _W. Coward and-169 others, citizens 

of Charlestown; of James H. Bennett and 62 others, citizens of New 

Amsterdam; and ofJ. H. Hughes and 29 others, citizens.ofCharlestown, 

Ind. . By Mr. E. B. TAYLOR: OfR. A. Gamble and 41 others, citizens of 

Trumbull County; of63citizensofGreensburg; of 58 citizepsofWindson, Ashtabula County; of 70 citizens of Warren, and of Garrettsville, 

Ohio. · By M:r. THOMAS: Of 53 citizens of Union County, _of 63 citizens of 

Massac County, of 49 citizens of Johnson County, of 62 citizens of Pulaski County, and of 25 citizens of Union County, illinois. 

By ~Ir. MILO WHITE: Of citizens of Dover Center, Olmsted County; 

of Dresback, Winona County; of Canton, Fillmore County; of Spring 

Valley, Fillmore COunty; and of Plainview, Wabasha County, Minnesota. 

By l\Ir. JAMES WILSON: Of citizens of Benton County, of Linn 

County, of Johnson County, and of 434 names from T. Z. Cook Post, 

Grand Army of the Repn blic~ Cedar Rapids, Iowa. · · By Mr. E . . B. WINANS: Of Charles K West and 40 others, citizens 

of Williamston, Ingham County; of E. F. Lamb and 33 others, citizens 

of Mount Morris, ·Genesee County; of 63 citizens of Holly, and of 116 

citizens of Oakland County, Michigan. 

By Mr. WORTHINGTON: Of William H. Little and others, citizens 

of Stark County,. illinois. 

SENATE. 

·SATURDAY, February 7, 1885. 

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. D. HUNTLEY, D. D. 

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

CREDENTIALS. 

. The PRESIDENT pro tempore presented the credentials of William 

M. Evarts, chosen by the Legislature of New York a Senator from that 

State for the term commencing March 4, 1885; which were read and 

ordered to be filed. • . PETITIONS Al\"'D MEMORIALS. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin, presented a joint resolution of the 

Legislature ofWisconsil:l; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: 

Joint resolution requesting our Senators andRepresentati~esin Congress to aid 

in procuring the purchase or the Portage Lake and Lake Superior Ship-Canal 

and the Portage Lake and River Improvement Company Canal by the General 

Government. 

Whereas the Senate of t·he United States has passed certain resolutions dated 

Apri122, A. D.l88!, directing the Secretary of 'Var to procure information as to cost, condition, and value of the Portage Lake and Lake Superior Ship-Canal 

and the Portage Lake and River Improvement Company Canal;with a. view t{) a purchase of the same by the Government; • Whereas the holll)l"able Secretary of War selected Col. 0.1\I. Poe, of the United 

States Army, to make an examination under said resolution, and ad vise as to the 

desirability of purchasing said canals; 

Whereas the Secretary has reported under this resolution, on the date of Jan- uary 5, A. D.l885, recommending that the Government should make said pur- chase and make those two ship-canals free. water ways to the commerce of the 

lakes; . . · 'Vhereas the tolls collected by these two canal companies are burdensome to the people of a large district who at·e supplied through these canals, and equally 

burdensome to the vessel interest and the commerce of the Northwest using t·hem; · · 

Whereas these canals form important channels that should be made free to the 

great commerce of theN orth Pacific country, as well as the local country doing busin~s w;ith tho~ growing Lake Superio! industries, and lessens the danger of nav1gat10n to thiS great .com.J?1erce passmg through Lake Superior, making at the enterance of the mam ship-canal a harbor of refuge that is needed just where the greatest danger tonavigation exists on this great lake: Therefore 

Resolved ~Y Ute senate (the assembly concu?T~ng), Thut our Senators and Repre- sentatives m Congress be urged t.o nse theJI infiuence to procure such legislation by Congress as will effect the purchase of these-ctlnals and make them free water ways to the people of the region supplied by them and the whole commerce of 

Lake Superior and the Northwest. 

.Resolved, That the governor be requested to forward one copy to each of our Represenl.a.tives and Senators in Congress, and one copy to the honorable the 

Secretary of 'Var. 

STATE OF 'VLSCOYSU<, 

Department of State, ss: 

To all to 1vhonl these presents sha!l come : 

SAM. S. FIFIELD, . . 

President of fhe Senate. 

IDRA:!\I 0. FAIRCHILD, 

Speaker of the Asse-mbly. 

. I, Ernst T. Timm~, secretary of state of the State of Wisconsin, do heJ·eby cer- tify that the foregomg has been compared by me with the original in this office, 

and that the same is a true and correct copy thereof, and of the whole of such 

original. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and.affi.xed my official 1>eal at the·capitol, in the city of 1\Iadison, this 3d day of February, in the year of our Lord 1885. · [sEAL.] ERNST G. TIMME, · Secretary of State. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin, also presented a memorial of ·the 

Legislature 'Of Wisconsin; which was referred _ to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows.: 

Memorial to Congress relating to Sturgeon Bay and Lake Michigan Shjp-Canal 

To t.he honorable the Senate and House of Representati'Ves . of the United States in Congress assembled: 

-The memorial of the Legislature of the State of Wisconsin respectfully repre- sents: · That the shipping and commercial interests tributary to our great chain of 

lakes, and more especially the interests in Wisconsin, 1\iichigan, and Illinois, as well as the Fox and Wisconsin Rivers and their tributaries, require the proper maintenance of the Sturgeon Bay and Lake 1\lichiga.n Ship-Canal ; that it seems t.o us most desirable that the United States Government have full control of all 

:~!t1~~ei~~r~~~o~~t: ~~~=:~ltt~~::~~~~~~~~m~lrt~~u~~~~ States demand that said caual be kept free for all navigation; that the said 

canal, together with the harbor improvements now maintained and projected 

by the General Government, forms a very necessary harbor- of refuge for the commerce of Lake Michigan : · Therefore, your memorialists would respectfully ask that the Uriited States 

Government take said Sturgeon Bay .and Lake Michigan Ship-Canal on the terms already agreed upon between the General Government and the owners of said 

canal, thereby causing it to be-made a free water way. We request his excellency the gove.rnor of the.Sta.te to transmit a copy of the 

foregoing memorial to each of our Representatives in Congress, also one copy each to the governors of the States of illinois and l\Iichigan. SAM. S. FIFIELD, 

STATE OF WISCONSIN, 

Department of Stale, ss: 

To all to whom these presents shall, come: 

President of the Senate. 

HIRAl\I 0. FAIRCIDLJ), 

Speaker of tlle Assembly. 

I, Ernst G. Ti_mme, secretary of state of the State of 'Visconsin, do hereby cer- tify that the foregoing has beeri compared by me with the original in this office, 

and that the same is a true and correct copy thereof, and of the whole of such ~gind . . Iu testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official 

seal, at the capitol, in the city of 1\Iadison, this 4th day of February • in the year or our Lord 1885. [SEAL.) ERNST G. Til\li'IE, · &creta111 of State. 

1\Ir. CAMERON, of Pennsylvania . . I present eighteen petitions, 

signed by_l,049 citizens of Allegheny Cityand other places in Pennsylvanhi. bordering on the Allegheny River, praying for an appropriation 

fo:r the improvement of that stream. I move that the petitions be re- ferred to the Committre on Commerce. 

The motion was agreed to . Mr. CALL.· I present a preamble and resolution of the Board of 

Trade of the city of Jacksonville, Fla., in the following language: 

.,Vhereas the Board of Trade or Jacksonville, Fla., knowing the benefits of theUnited States Signal Service reports an«! records to business men, and especially 

those interested in shipping matters and the culture of fruits and vegetables, and 

knowing the appropriations made by Congress for the Signal Service during some previous years have not been sufficient for the proper main\enance of that now indispensable service : Therefore, 

Be it resolved, That _we most earnestly call on the members of Congress fx:om 

the State of Florida. to use their. votes and iufluence for adequate app_ropriatrons 

for t.he Signal Service, in order that it may. be conducted in a manner for the 

greatest possible benefit to the .agricultural, commercial, an_d public interests. 

I move that the r~solution be referred to the Committee on Appropriations. · 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. MILLER, ofNew.York, presented a petitionofbusiness r::en of 

Oswego, N.Y., praying that the United Stares may acquire possession 

of the Portage Lake canals in the State of Michigan; which was re- ferred to the Committee on Commerce. 

Mr. SABIN presented a petition of the Duluth (Minn.) Board of 

Trade, praying that the Government purchase the Lake Superior ShipCanal, and the Portage Lake Improvement Canal, in the State of Michigan; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

REPORTS OF"COMMITTEES. 

Mr. PLATT, from the Committee on Patents, to whom was referred 

the bill (S. 2585)"for the relief of James Albert Bonsack, of the State 

of Virginia, reported it withcmt amendment, and submitted a report 

thereon. · · Mr. MILLER, of California. The Committee on Foreign Relations 

instruct me to report back the bill (H. R. 737) for the relief of Juliet 

Leef, widow, and the heirs of Henry Leef, deceased, owner of the bark 

!riary Teresa, illegally seized by Alexander H. Tyler, consul of the 

United Stares at Bahia, Brazil, and to ask to b~ discharged from its further consideration, and that it be referred to the Committee on Claims, 

it having been improperly referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. · 

. Mr. HOAR. That matter was considered by the Committee on Claims 

during the last Congress. It presents a very iuiportant and interesting 

public question. I do not think the Committee on Claims will have 

time to consider it during the present session, and it is utterly hopeless 

to expect it to be considered by the Senate, much less by the two Houses 

and the President. I, therefore, instead of having the bill referred to