.· 

2370 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 

By Mr. NUTTING: PetitionofH. P. Knowles &Co. and lOOothers, 

citizens ofWayne County, New Yor~ againstputtingwoolon the ireelist-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

Also,petitionofLocalAssemblyNo. 2629,KnightsofLabor,ofAubu:rn, 

N.Y., in favor of the tonnage bill-to the Committee on ]\ferchant 

l'lfarine and Fisheries. . By Mr. RICHARDSON: Petition of widow of Solomon Hopkins, and 

ofW·. L. Collins, heir of Ann D. Lipscomb, of Franklin County, Tennessee, for 1·eference of their claims to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. STONE, of Kentucky: Petition of A. G. Thompkins, of Kenton County, and of George Leonh:ut, of Campbell County, Kentucky, 

for reference of their claims to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. SYMES: Petition of Local Assembly No. 3667, Knights of 

L31bor, of Lar...mer County, Colorado, in favorofthetonnagebill-to the 

Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. TAULBEE: Petition of Brice Shepherd, of M:agoffin County; 

of estate of George S. Ball, of Bell County, and of Permelia. Hamilton, 

of George W. Tinsley, of H. B. Jones, and of .Mary Jones, ofKnox County, 

Kentucky, for reference of their claims to the Court of Claims-to the 

Committee on War Claims. 

By :Mr. T.L. THOMPSON: Petitionofcitizensof Mendocino County, 

California, against reduction of the tariff-to the Committee on Ways 

and Means. · Also, petition of the Anti-Debris Association of the Sacramento Valley, California, against House bill 1216-to the Committee on Mines 

and Mining. 

By Mr. \V ALKER: Petition of John W. Baker, of Dunklin County, 

Missouri, for reference of his claim to the Court of Claims-to the Committee ou War Claims. 

By Mr. WARNER: Petition of William M. McConnell, of Jackson 

County, Missouri, for reference of his claim to the Court of Claims-to 

the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. WASHINGTON: Petition of Morgan 1\I. Lee, of Stewart 

County, Tennessee, for reference of his claim to the Court of Claims-to 

the Committee on War Claims. 

The following petitions, indorsing the per diem rated service-pension 

bill, based on the principle of paying all soldiers, sailors, and marines of 

the late war a monthly pension of 1 cent a day for each day they were 

in the service, were sevemlly referred to the Committee on Invalid 

Pensions: 

By Mr. BELDEN: Of John Belknap and 27 others, citizens, Union 

soldiers and sailors ofNavarino, N. Y. 

By Mr. CUTCHEON: Of citizens of Antrim County, Michigan. 

By Mr. NUTTING: Of Charles H. Vorce and 23 others, citizens of 

Oswego County, Ohio. 

By Mr. STEELE: Of Henry Ganson and 30 other soldiers of Trask, 

Ind. 

By Mr. E. B. TAY]-OR: Of ex-soldiers of Trumbull County, Ohio. 

The following petition for an increase of compensation of fourth-:!lass 

postmasters was referred to the Committee on the Post-Office and: PostRoads: 

By Mr. HOGG: Of Jacob Short and 37 others, of West Virginin. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVEB. 

SATURDAY, March 24, 1888. 

The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by Rev. J. H. CUTHBERT, 

D. D., of Washington, D. C. 

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

EXPENDITURES OF THE FISH COMMISSION. 

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Commissioner 

of Fish and Fisheries, transmitting, in compliance with a resolution of 

thb House, a report relative to the property and expenditures of the 

Fish Commission; which was referred to the Committee on Merchant 

M.arine and Fisheries. 

FINDINGS OF FACT BY COURT OF CL.A.Il\IS. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House communications from the 

assistant clerk of the Court of Claims, transmitting copies of findings 

of fact by that conTt in the following cases against the United States; 

which were severally referred to the Committee on War Claims, namely: 

S. B. West, administrator; 

William F. Ricks; and 

Levi W. Brooks. REFERENCE OF BILLS. 

The SPEAKER laid before the House the amendments of the Senate 

to the joint resolution (H. Res. 81) to authorize the purchase of the 

lands necessary to the construction of locks and dams on the Cumberland River; which were referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harb()":S. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House Senate amendments to the 

bill (H. R. 1387) for the relief of volunteerS' of the Fourth Regiment 

Iowa Infantry. 

Mr. CONGER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House disagree to the 

amendments of the Senate and ask a conference thereon. 

The SPEAKER. The amendments will be read. 

The amendments of the Senate were read. 

:M:r. CULBERSON. I demand the regular order. 

Ur. BHECKINRIDGE, of Arkansas. I think this bad better go to 

the committee for consider::ttion. 

M:r. CONGER. Is not the motion in order? 

The SPEAKER. It is not. Under the rules of the House the bill 

and amendments will be referred to the proper committee. 

l\1r. SPRINGER. To what committee? 

The SPEAKER. To the Committee on Military Affairs. 

JAMES :M:. WILLBUR. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House the bill (S. 1044) authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to state and settle the account of 

James 1\I. Willbur with the United States and to pay said Willbursuch sum of money as may be found due him thereon. 

Mr. TI~IOTHY J. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 

consent--

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Texas has demanded the regular order, which cuts off all demands for unanimous consent. 

1\Ir. TIMOTHY J. CAMPBELL. Then I ask that this bill be allowed to remain upon the table for the present. 

There was no objection, and it was so ordered. 

REFERENCE OF BILLS. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House bills of the Senate of the 

following titles; which were severally read twice, and referred as follows, namely: 

The bill (S. 1669) authorizing the Mississippi and Louisiana Bridge 

and Railroad Company of Natchez, Miss., to construct a bridge over the Mississippi at or near Natchez-tothe Committee on Commerce. 

The bill (S. 78S) lio provide for holding terms of the United States 

courts at Mississippi City-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

The bill (S. 671) to provide for the sale of the site of Fort Omaha, 

Nebr., the sale or removal of the improvements thereof, and for a new site and the construction of suitable buildings thereon-to the Committee on 1\lilitary Affairs. 

The bill (S. 38) granting to the Washington and Idaho Railroad Company the right of way through the Coour d'Alene Indian reservation- to the Committee on Indian Affairs. · 

The bill (S. 64) authorizing the juries of the United States circuit and 

district courts to1 be used interchangeably, and to provide for drawing 

talesmen-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

The bill (S. 171) granting a pension to Jennie H. Cog hill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

The bill (S. 192) toprovidethatjudges of the United States circuit and 

district courts shall reduce their instructions to writing in all States 

wherein by the laws thereof State judges are required so to do-to the 

Committee on the Judiciary. 

The bill (S. 212) for the relief of Patrick H. Winston, jr.-to the Committee on Claims. 

The bill (S. 250) for the repair of Fort l'l!arion, at St. Augustine, Fla.-

to the Committee on Military Affairs. _ 

The bill (S. 258) for the relief of 1\:laj. Daniel N. Bash, paymaster1 

United States Army-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

The bill (S. 379) to allow soldiers and sailors in the United States serv- ice who have lost both hands an increased pension-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

The hill (S. 535) providing for an inspection of meats for exporta.tion, 

prohibiting the importation of adulterated articles of iood and drink, 

and authorizing the President to make proclamation in certain cases, 

and for other purposes-to the Committee on Commerce. 

The bill (S. 539) amending section 3749 of the Revised Statutes of the 

United States relatingtothedispositionofpropertyofthe United States, 

and repealingthefirstparagraphofsection3208oftheRevisedStatutesto the Committee on the Judiciary. 

The bill (S. 667) authorizing the construction of a bridge across the 

Red River of the North-to the Committee on Commerce. 

The bill (S. 850) granting certain lands in the Territory of Wyoming 

for public purposes-to the Committee on the Public Lands. 

The bill ( S. 879) for the relief of the administratrix of the estate ot 

George W. Lawrence-to the Committee on War Claims. 

The bill (S. 903) for the relief of Laban Heath & Co., of Boston, 

Mass.-to the Committee on Claims. 

The bill (S. 998) to restore pensions in certain cases-to the Committee on Pensions. 

The bill (8.1129) granting to the Newport and King's Valley Railroad 

Company the right of way through the Siletz Indian reservation-to 

the Committee on Indian Affairs. 

The bill (S. 1163) for the relief of Ed ward Rice--to the Committee on 

Claims. 
• 

1888. CONGRESSIONAL ,_ RECORD-HOUSE. 2371 

The bill (S. 1376) for the relief of John W. Blake-to the Committee on War Claims. ,. The bill (S. 1378) directingthe prosecution of inquiries by the Commissionel' ofFish and Fisheries in respect to the destruction of oysters 

in the natural oyster-beds lying within the waters and jurisdiction of 

the United States by star-fish, etc., and making an appropriation for 

such purposes-to the Committee on .Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 

The bill (S. 1499) for the relief of Mary A. Lewis, widow of Joseph N. 

Lewis-to the Committee on Claims. 

The bill ( S. 1817) to grant to the State of Oregon certain lands in that 1 State for a public park-to the Committee on the Public Lands. 

The bill ( S. 1852) to modify and amend the provisions of the dedication to public use of the tract of land known as Dearborn Park, in the 

city of Chicago, State of illinois-to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 7315) to divide the Great Sioux: reservation into 

separate smaller reservations, and for other purposes. 

Mr. PEEL. I ask unanimous consent to consider the amendments 

of the Senat;e now. 1\Ir. CULBERSON. I must insist upon the demand for the regular 

order. 

The SPEAKER. That demand, of course, cuts off all recognition 

for unanimous consent. The bill will be referred to the Committee on 

Indian Affairs. 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. 

By unanimous consent, leave of absence wa.s granted as follows: 

To Mr. HoPKINS, of Virginia, for four days. 

To :Mr. M:cCLAMMY, indefinitely, on account of sickness in his family. 

To Mr. Pru.TINGTON, for four days, on account of important business. 

To. Mr. FISHER, indefinitely, on acconnt of important business. 

REPRI.NT OF BILL. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. HEMPHILL], chairman of the Committee on the Dis~rict of Columbia, asks 

that Senate bill No. 931 be reprinted. If there be no objection, the order 

will be made and the usual number will be printed. 

There was no objection. 

FUNERAL OF LATE CHIEF-JUSTICE WAITE. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair announces as the select committee to 

act with a committee of the Senate in any necessary action relating to 

the funeral of the late Chief-Justice Waite, Mr. KELLEY, of Pennsylvania, Mr. SENEY, of Ohio, Mr. GROSVENOR, of Ohio, Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, ofKentncky, Mr. CANNON, of Illinois, Mr. CARLTON, ofGeorgia, 

Mr. STEW ART, of Vermont, Mr. ANDERSON, of Iowa, and Mr. RUSSELL, 

of Connecticut. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. CULBERSON. By direction of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

mycolleagueon thecommitteefromNorthCarolina [Mr. HENDERSON] 

will make a report from that committee. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Before the regular order is proceeded with will 

the gentleman from Texas allow me to make a report? 

Mr. CULBERSON. I have refused other gentlemen. 

TERMS OF COURT AT VI~URG, MISS. 

Mr. HENDERSON, of North Carolina,,from the Committee on the 

Judiciary, reported as a substitute for the bill H. R. 1592 a bill (H. R. 

8808) to amend an act entitled ''An act to provide for holding terms of 

United States courts at Vicksburg, Miss.; which was read a first and 

second time. 

The SPEAKER. The bill will be referred to the House Calendar. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I de8ire that the bill shall be "taken up for con- sideration now. The SPEAKER. The bill goes t>O the Honse Calendar, but that does 

not prevent its being taken up. .,. The bill H. R. 1592 was laid on the table. 

Mr. HENDERSON, of North Carolina. I ask for the reading of the 

substitute. 

The bill (II. R. 8808) wa.s read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, etc., That an act approved February 28, 1887, entitled "An act to provide for holding terms of United States courts at Vicksburg, Miss.," be, and 

the same is hereby, amended by inserting before the word" Washingt-on," in 

the first section thereof, the words" Bolivar and Sunflower." 

SEO. 2. That all crimes and offenses heretofore committed within the counties 

of Bolivar and Sunflower shall be prosecuted, tried, and determined in the same manner and with the same effect as if this act had not been passed. 

Mr. HENDERSON, of North Carolina. This is a local bill. There 

is no objection to it on the part of any of the Representatives from Mississippi. I ask that it be put upon its passage. 

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

engrossed, it wa.s accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

Mr. HENDEP..SON, of North Carolina, moved to reconsider the vote 

by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to recon- sider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

PUBLIC TlllffiER LANDS. 

Mr. WASHINGTON. I desire to make a privileged report from the 

Committee on the Public Lands. The Clerk read the following resolution, referred to the Committee on the Public Lands, which the committee recommended should be 

adopted: 

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Interior be directed to send to this House a report by special agent Bowers to the Secretary, containing in outline the desirable features of legislation for the public timber lands, together with the needful augmentation of its provisions, and referred to in the report of the lato Sect·etary of the Interior. 

The resolution was adopted. • Mr. WASHINGTON moved to reconsider the vote by which the res- olution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be 

laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

CALIFORNIA REDWOOD COMPANY. 

:Mr. STONE, of Missouri. I desire to make a privileged report. I - am instructed bytheCommitteeon thePublicLandstoreportback with a favorable recommendation the resolution which I send to the desk. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

P.,esolved, That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, requested to transmit to this House all information in his possession, as far as is in his judg- ment compatible with the public interest, relating to the allP.ged fmuds upon the Government by the California Red wood Company, and also information as to what suits, if any, have been caused by him to be instituted for the 1·ecovery 

of the lands held by said company, and what additional legislation, if any, in his judgment is needed to secu,re the rights of the Go"\""ernm.ent in said matter. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I suggest that the words "so far as is in his judgment compatible with the public interests" should be omitted. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana. moves to amend the 

resolution by striking out the words he has indicated. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The resolution as amended was adopted. 

Mr. STO~"'E, of Missouri, moved to reconsider the vote by which the 

resolation was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider 

be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I~ up for consideration the bill (H. R. 8190) 

to define and regulate the jurisdiction of the courts of the United 

States. 

The SPEAKER. This bill is in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. 

Mr. ROGERS. I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole. Honse on the state of the Union to consider the 

bill just ca1led up. 

Mr. STEELE. Will the gentleman allow me to make a. report from 

the Committee on lllilitary Affairs? 

Mr. ROGERS. I dislike to yield, because other gentlemen desire 

the same privilege. I shall not, however, refuse the request of the 

gentleman from Indiana, but hope no other gentleman will follow suit. 

PROMOTION OF ARMY OFFICERS. 

Mr. STEELE, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported, as a substitute for snndry bills, a bill (H. R. 8809) to provide for the promotion of office:rs of the Army after continuous service in one gra-de; 

which was read a first and seeond time, referred t<> the Committee of 

the Whole Honse on the state of the Union, and, with the accompa- nying report, ordered to be printed. The bills H. R. 1882, H. R. 3273, H. R. 5008, and H. R. 644~, were laid on the table. 

JURISDICTION OF UNITED STATES COURTS. 

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion of the gentleman 

froJU Arkansas [Mr. ROGERS] that the Honse resolve itself into the 

Committee of the Whole Honse on the state of the Union to consider 

the bill H. R. 8190. The motion was agreed to. 

The House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the 

Whole Honse on the state of the Union, 1\Ir. HATCH in the chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. The House is in Committee of the Whole for the 

purpose of considering the bill the title of which has been read. 

Jl,lr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 

reading of the bill be dispensed with unless some gentleman desires to 

hear it read in full. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. I object. This is a very important bill, and it 

should be re..1.d at length. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, etc., That the district courts of the United States shall hereafter 

have and exercise, exclusive of the circuit courts of the United Sta-tes, in addition to the jurisdiction conferred upon them by existing law, all the original 

jurisdiction now vested by law in the circuit courts of the UniLed States, and 

that the circuit courts of the United States shall have and exercise such juris- diction, by writ of error and appeal, as they have and exercise under existing 

laws, except as herein modified, and such other jurisdiction, appellate or otherwise, as is conferred by this act. SEc. 2. That there shall be appointed for each circuit, by the President of the 

United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, one additional 

circuit judge, who shall have the same qualifications and be entitled t-o the same comptmsation as the circuit judge appointed under existing laws. The circuU 
2372 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MARCH 24, 

court in each circuit shall consist of the justice of the Supreme Court assigned to the circuit and of the circuit judges thereof, any two of whom shall constitute a. quorum. Such justice of the Supreme Court, or, in his absence, the circuit 

judge present wl10 is senior in office, shall preside. In the absence of a quorum, the justice or judge present may adjourn the court from day to day, or without 

day, but the nlllnber necessary to make a quorum, at any term at which the 

justice of the Supreme Court or the requisite number of circuit judges are unable to attend, may be supplied for the time being by a district judge of the circuit, 

designated for that purpose by the justice of the Supreme Court or the circuit 

judge senior in office, so that, however, there shall always be present a circuit 

justice or circuit judge, who shall preside therein: Provided, That no district 

judge before whom a cause or question may have been tried or heard in the 

district court shall sit on the trial or hearing of sucp cause or question in the 

circuit court. SEC. 3. That a writ of error in casesprq.per for such writ, and in all other cases an appeal may be taken to the circuit court from any final judgment or decree 

of any district court within the circuit in a civil cause, either at law or in equity, 

and in causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction as now provided by law. No such appeal shall be taken or writ of·error sued out except within six months 

after the entry of the order, decree, or judgment sought to be re>iewed. Where, upon a hearing in equity in a district court, an injunction shall be granted or continued by an interlocutory order or decree in a. cause in which an appeal 

from a final decree could be taken under the provisions of this act to the circuit 

court, an appeal may be taken from such interlocutory order or decree granting or continuing such injunction to the circuit court, provided the nppeal is taken 

within thirty days from the entry of such order or decree; and the proceedings in other resnects in the district court shall not be stayed during the pendency of 

such appeal: All existing provisions of law regulating the mode of taking and 

perfecting appeals and of issuing writs of error, and the effect thereof, and in 

reference to. citations, writs of error, appeal bonds, or other process or papers in cases of appeals and writs of error to review the decrees and judgments of 

dish·ict courts in cil·cuit courts, shall conlinue and apply to simi liar proceedings under this act. Upon such writ of error or appeal the circuit court shall review 

such order, judgment, or decree, and may affirm, modify, or reverse the same, or may make such order or may render such judgment or such decree as the district court should have made or rendered, or-may order a new trial ot· other proceedings therein. The circuit court shall have power to issue writs of error, manda- mus, prohibition, scire facias, habea.'3 corpus. and all other writs which may be necessary or proper to the exerci e of its jurisdiction and agreeable to the principles and usages of law; and said court shall have original jurisdiction in cases of habeas corpus, mandamus, and prohibition. 'l'he circuit court may also es- tablish such rules, not inconsistent with law or the rules established by the Su- preme Court, as it may deem necessary for the regulation of the practice of said court. Each of the circuitjudgesshall have authority to act at chambers, to be 

exercised as may be prescribed by the rules of the court; and as to rna tters pending in the district court, or relating thereto, when the district judge is disqualified or for any cause is unable to act, with the powers of a district judge. A circuit judge may also hold the district court, in place or in aid of the district judge, as the occasion may require. 

SEC. 4. That the circuit court shall have the jurisdiction in criminal causes which is now provided by Jaw, by writ of error to the district court, which writ may be issued out of the circuit court, on the allowance of one of the judges thereof, for cause shown of probable error, within sixty days after the entry of 

final judgment, during which time the judgment of the court shall not be exe- cuted, bnt remain in abeyance; and the circuit court shall also have appellate 

jurisdiction in such cases, by appeal from the final judgments of the district 

courts, and an appeal in such cases shall be a matter of right, and the practice, 

mode, and forms of procedure in the district court shall conform, as near as may be, to the practice, mode, and forms !)f procedure existing at the time in like 

criminal causes in the courts of record of the State within which said district courts are hP.ld, any rule oft he court to the contrary notwithstanding. In the trial 

of indictments for crimes the punishment whereof is capital, one circuit judge of 

the circuit, to be designated by the circuit justice, shall sit with the district judge 

in the district court. The judgments of the district court in such cases shall be 

subject to be reviewed by writ of error, issued out of the Supreme Court, on the 

allowance of one of the justices thereof, for co.usc shown of probable error, within ninety days after t.l:.e entry of saeh judgment, or on appeal thereto from 

the district to the Supreme Court in the mode and manner hereinbefore pre- scribed for appeals from the district to the circuit court in other criminal cases. All writs of error or appeals in criminal cases provided for by this act shall op- erate as a stay of all proceedings in such cases until their final determination ; and a refusal to allow the writ by one judge or justice shall preclude its allow- ance by another. 

SEc. 5. That civil causes, at law and in equity, removable from a State court into the circuit court of the United States under existing provisions of law may be removed into the district court of the district in the territorial jurisdiction of 

which they were commenced. · SEc. 6. That the circuit courts shall have the same appellate jurisdiction, by 

writ of error or appeal, to review the judgments, orders, and decrees of the su- preme courts of the several Territories as by this act they may have to review 

the judgments, orders, and decrees of the district courts; and for that purpose the several Territ-ories shall, by orders of the Supreme Court, to be made from 

time to time, be assigned to particular circuits. SEC. 7. That the decision of the circuit court upon questions of fact shall in 

all equity cases be final and conclusive, except as otherwise provided in this 

section, the fucts to be specially found if requested by either party; and the rulings of the court, occurring during the trial or hearing, upon the admission or rejection of evidence, or upon its legal effect, may be brought into the record 

by a bill of exceptions duly allowed and signed, according t-o the practice in cases at law, and a re>iew upon all questions of law, upon the record, may be 

had, upon writ of error or appeal in the manner now provided by law, in the' 

Supreme Court of the United States, of every final judgment or decree of the 

circuit court where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or -value of 810,000 

exclusive of costs, or where the adjudication involves a. question upon the con- struction of the Constitution, or the construction or validity of a treaty or a law 

of the United States, or where the circuit court shall certify that the adjudica,.. 

tion involves a legal question of sufficient importance to require that the final 

decision thereof should be made by the Supreme Court; but in the last-mentioned two cases the circuit court shall state the question arising upon the con- struction of the Constitution or the construction or the validity of such treaty or law, or the question that the adjudication involves, with the facts upon which 

the same arises, and such questions only shall be certified to and finally decided 

by the Supreme Court; and its decisions thereon shall be enforced in like man- net· as is now provided by law in cases where a question is certified to the Su- preme Court upon which the judges of a circuit court are divided in opinion. Bm. in patent and copyright cases in equity a review by the Supreme Court may be had, without regard to the sum or value in dispute, upon the questions, both 

of Jaw and fact, affecting the validity or the infringement ofthepatentorcopy- right. Such writ of error or appeal shall be sued out or taken within one year after the entry of the judgment or the decree sought to be reviewed. The Su- preme Court may affirm, modify, or reverse the judgment or the decree brought 

before it for review, or may direct a judgment or a decree to be rendered or such further proceedings to be had as the justice of the case may require. The 

judgment or the decree shall be remitted to the proper circuit or district court, t.o be cuforoed according to law. If, within the year after the entry of the judg-

• 

, ment or decree sought to be reversed, any party shall die, the personal xepre- sentative or heir as the case may require, may, within one year next after 

the proof of the will or appointment of the administrator, or within one year next after the death of the ancestor in the case of an heir, sue out or be made a party to a writ of error, or take an appeal or be made a party thereto, without 

reviving the judgment or decree in the court in which the same wns entered. But appeals taken to and writs of error from to the Supreme Court under existing laws before this act takes effect shall not be affected by this act. SEc. 8. That no writ of error from or appeal to the Supreme Court of the United 

States shall lie in any cause, at law or in equity, determined by the supreme court of the District of Columbia, except in cases where the United States, or some officer thereof, acting under its authority, is a party, or when the adjudi- ~tion involves a question upon the construction of the Constitution or the con- struction or validity of a treaty or a law of the United States, in which descript\_pn of cases the questions for determination shall be certified by the supreme court of the District of Columbia, in the manner provided in the last preceding 

section as to writs of error and appeal in similar cases adjudged in the circuit 

COUTts. 

SEc. 9. That the amount or value of the matter in contro>ersy necessary to confer appellate jurisdiction in any case upon a court of the United States shall 

be measured by the pecuniary value of the interest therein of the plaintiff in error or appellant, and regarding as one party for such purpose all who are united in the record in a common or like interest in the prosecuLion or llefense 

of the suit or the application or distribution of a common fund; but where it 

shall be made to appear to the appellate court that although the amount or value 

of the matter in controversy in the particular suit or action is less than that necessary to confer the jurisdiction by writ of error or appeal, but that the judg- ment sought to be reviewed directly concludes, by way of estoppel or by agree· men t of parties, an amount in value equal to or in excess of the required amount, 

thcjnrisdiction shall be exercised. 

S1-;c. 10. '.rhat nothing in this act cnntainedshall affect the laws now in force in 

relation to :1ppeaJs in cases of prize from the district court, or to appeals in cases of admiralt-y nnd mariLime jurL'ldiction from the circuit court to the Supreme 

Conrt of the (TnitedStates; and all laws now in force in relation to writs of error aml nppellls from the dislri<:tcourt to the circuit court, and from the circuit court to the ~upreme Court, so far as applicable. shall continue and remain in force for 

the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this act. SEc. 11. That this act shnll not afl"ect cases now pending: Provided, howe-ver, That all undetermined suits, actions, and proceedings pending in the circuit courts as original suits, or of which they may have jurisdiction by removal from a State court. at the time this act takes effect·, of which the district court would 

h::we original jurisdiction according to the provisions hereof, shall be trans- ferred from the circuit courts to the proper district court, together with all writs, process, papers, and transcript of previous orders and proceedings; and all further proceedings therein shall be had in the district court. And this act shall 

take effect. immediately after its approval as to the appointmentof judges herein 

provided for, and in all other respects six months after the approval thereof. flEe. 12. That all existing provisions of law relating to the designation, ap- pointment, and compensl\tion of a district judge to hold a district court in place or in aid of any. other district judge within the same circuit are continued in 

force, such designation and appointment to be made by the senior circuit judge. 

:Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to announce to the House that, 

in view of the importance of this measure and in view of the numerous 

calls for the bill and the report, I took occasion to have a limited num- ber of reports printed for my own use. I have them now at my desk, 

and any gentleman who has been unable to procure a copy in the document-room can get one here by sending for it. 

Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I desire to ask the gentleman in 

charge of this bill how much time is to be allowed to the opposition to 

this bill or for general debate? 

:M"r. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no disposition at this time to 

indicate any limit to the debate. The Committee on the Judiciary a.re perfectly willing that this measure shall have ample and thorough consideration. On that subject I may be permitted to state that this bill 

has gone through three different prints in the Judiciary Committee at 

the present session, and that the committee have gone through the bill 

section by section and line by line on each occasion, endeavoring in 

e\ery conceivable way to produce a measure that would be thoroughly 

clear, thoroughly comprehensive, and yet as brief in its verbiage as it 

could possibly be made, so as to meet, as far as possible, every exigency 

that can arise with reference to the necessities of the country touching 

the Federal judiciary. Without going at this time into any extensive 

observations, I now yield the floor to the gentleman from Texas, the 

chairman of the committee [Mr. CULBERSON], who will explain to tha 

House the provisions of this bill. Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as this bill will be 

read and discussed by sections, I deem it proper at this time only to call 

the attention of the House to some of the changes proposed in·the ex- isting law. The bill proposes radical and importantchtmges in the judiciary system of the United States, and I desire briefly-very briefly 

at that-to call the attention of the House now to some of the more important of those changes, in order that members may have before 

them the entire intent and scope of the measure. By. the provisions of the first section of the bill, all the original jurisdictionnow vested in and exercised by the circuit courts of the United 

States, save original jurisdiction in habeas corpus, mandamus, and prohibition, is vested in the district court of the United States; so that, if 

this bm becomes law, the district courts of the United States will be 

vested with all the original jurisdiction, with the exceptions named, now vested by law in the district courts and in the circuit courts of 

the United States. 

The second section of the bill provides that the circuit courts of the 

United States shall be reconstructed in this way: .Aiter this bill goes 

into effect the circuit cou.rts of the United States will be composed of a 

circuit justice of the United States and two circuit judges; two constituting a quorum. If, for any cause, a quorum of these judges should 

not attend it is provided that tbe presiding justice shall designate a district judge to occupy the bench in pla-ce of the absentjud_!:!:e. It is 

also provided that the circuit judges shall have the powers of a district 
• 

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~HOUSE. 2373 

judge and shall exercise the powers of the district court when ever 

may become necessary by Teason of the absence, sickness, or dis9-ualification of the district judge. In order to construct a.t;td orgamze ~he 

circuit court in this way, the bill provides for the appomtment of llllle 

additional circuit judges. Section 3 provides that the circuit court so constructed shall have 

jurisdiction to hear and revise upon writ of error all cases P!uper for 

such writ, and in all other cases an appeal may be taken 1rom any 

final judgment or decree of the district co.urt; a~d the court is. ~l o 

given jurisdiction to review all judgments I.t;t adr~nralty and ~ant1me 

jurisdiction, as now provided hy law. So It :'Vll~ be perceived that 

every final judgment or decree rendeTed by a d1stnct .c?urt may. be .re- viewed in the circuit court as established by the proVISions of thiS btl!. 

It is provided fhrther, by this section, as a matter of detail, that a writ 

of error shall not be sued out after six months. Another important provision, changing the existing law: is in line 10 

of the third section. An appeal is there given from au interloc_utory judgment or decree of a district court in matters of equity._ While 

the bill gives this right of appeal to the circuit court from an mterlocutory judgment or decree of a district court,_ it does not suspend proceedings in the main cause. Gentlemen w_lll remember. that und~r 

the law as it now exists an appeal from an mtedocntory JUdgment m an equity cause does not lie. 

The sixth section of the bill provides that all civil cases at law and 

equity removable now from a State court to a Federal c~mrt, or in~o t?e 

circuit court of the United States, shall be removable mto the d1stnct 

court ofihe United States instead of the circuit court. 

Under the law as it now exists an appeal lies from a final judgment 

or decree of the supreme court of any of the Territories to the United 

States Supreme Court. · The sixth section of this bill provides that there may be an appeal or a writ of error from final judgments of the supreme court of any Ter- ritory to the circuit court of the United States, or from the district to 

the circuit courts, as contemplated by this measure; and in order to ac- commodate that provision judges of the circuit court are required to 

attach each of the Territories of the United States to some one of the 

circuits in which these appeals and writs of error may be beard. · Section 7 provides that the judgments of the circuit court sha be 

final except where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $1~,-

000, in which case an appeal or writ of error, as the case may be, lies 

to the Supreme Court-Qf the United St..1>tes. Further, where the adjudication involves a provision of the Constitut,ion or laws of the United 

States or a treaty made in pursuance oftbe laws of tbe United States, 

the judgment· in such case may be reviewed in the Supreme Court o.t 

the United States without reference to the amount involved; and a similar right of review will exist wherever the circuit court shall certify 

that the question invoh·ed in the suit is of sufficient importance to demand a revision by the Supreme Court. . Under the law as it now exists an appeal lies directly from the su- preme court of the District of Columbia to the Supreme Court of the 

United States in any controversy which involves $2,500 or more. By 

the provisions of this act it is proposed to limit that right of 1·evision 

to cases which in>olve a question upon the construction of the Constitution of the United States or the construction or validity of any treaty or law of the United States. Thus it will be perceived thah the supreme 

court of the District of Columbia in this matter will be placed, with 

reference to appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States on Fed- eral Questions, upon the exact footing of a State court. 

Mi: WARNER. Tne gentleman will pardon me for asking, before he 

leaves this point, upon what questions does the supreme court of the DistrictofColumbiahavetopassexceptquestionsarisingnndertheConstitu-

,tion and laws of the United States,- as the District is governed entirely 

~ · by acts of Congress. In this view, might not the promion to which 

the gentleman refers enlarge the right of appeal from the supreme court 

of the District of Columbia to the SupTeme Court of the United States? 

I ask this question merely for information; I have not considered the 

bill carefully. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I understand the gentleman's proposition. It 

will be noticed that I omitted to state one class of cases which may be 

reviewed in the Supreme Court of the United States upon writs of error to the supreme court of the District of Columbia; that is, cases where 

the United States or some officer acting undertheauthorityoftbe United 

States is a party. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. WARNER] asks me whether this provision with refei·ence to the supreme court of the 

District of Columbia might not enlarge the number of cases which 

would go from that court to the Supreme Court of the United States. 

I think not. Unless the question depends upon a proper construction 

of the Constitution or some law or treaty of the United States it would 

not fall within the provision of this section. A case decided by the application of the general principles of law does not involve, of course, 

any Federal question. 

Section 10 provides- That nothing in this act contained shall affect the laws now in force in rela- tion to a ppea ls in eases of prize from the district court1 o1· to appeals in cases ot admira lty and maritime jurisdiction from the circu1t court, to the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Section 11 preserves the present status of pending lit.igation in the 

courts. 

Section 12 is a matter of mere detail. 

Now, 111r. Chairman, there are, so far as I am concerned, two great 

leading obj ects in view in advoc..'tcy of the passage of this bill. I desire first and above all things, to destroy the judicial despotism now exerci ed by the district courts of the United States. Secondly, I de:sira 

to relieve the overburdened docket of the Supreme Court of the Umted 

States. In this connection I will ask the Clerk to read an extract from an address recently delivered by :Ur. Justice Harlan, which will show 

the condition of that docket. 

Before the Clerk proceeds to read the extract I llaYe marked from 

the speech of Associate Justice Harlan of the Supreme Court, I wish 

to call attention to the fourLh section of the bill, which providesThat the circuit court sba11 have the jurisdiction i n crimina l cases w hich is now provided by law by writ of error to the district court. 

It will be reillembered that under existing la,w the writ of error lies 

from the circuit court to the district court in criminal cases where the 

punishment does not exceed a fine of $300 or imprisonment. The 

provision made by this bill retains that appellate jurisdiction of the 

circuit court. It also provides: 

In the trial of indictments for crimes, the punishment whereof is ca.pital, one circuit judg e of the circuit, to b e designated by the circuit justice, shall sit with the district judge in the district court. 

Mr. MORROW. I see it is provided in the trial of indictments for 

crimes the punishment whereof is capital, one circuit judge is to be 

de3iO'nated by the circuit justice to sit with thedistTictjudge in the dis- trict court. It is providedalsoinsection3 that a circuit judge may also 

hold the district court in place of or in aid of the district judge as the 

occasion may require. If the opinion of the district judge and the cir- cuit judge should be opposed on any matter or any ruling upon evi- dence or instruction to the jury, is there any provision which opinion 

should prevail? 

Mr. CULBERSON. There should be such a provision that the opin- ion of the senior judge should prevail in such a case. Mr. MORROW. Is it proposed to amend the bill in that particu- lar? 

Mr. CULBERSON. There should be such an amendment. .As I do not desU:e to trespass upon the attention of the House at this time, I 

will concludrby asking the members of the Honse to listen to the extract which the Clerk will read from a speech made by Associate Justice Harlan, to show the present condition of the Supreme Court docket. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Occasionally I have seen it stated in the public prints that the Supreme Court ouaht to clear its entire docket during each term. Those who thus complilin ar; without accurate information as to the amount of its business-. They have no conception of the extent to which that business has increased since the or- ganization of the Government, especially within t.he past thirty years. Think of it; in 1803 the whole number of cases on the docket of the Supreme Court was 5l. In 1819, when the court d e termined the g-reat cases of Sturges vs. Crownin- shield, McCulloch vs. State of Maryland. and Dartmouth College vs. 'Voodward,' there were 1;n cases, of which 53 were disposed of during the term. But in 1860 the number on its docket had increased to 310, of which 91 were determined during the term. In 1870 the docket contained 636 cases, of which 280 v;·ere de- cided during the term. In 1880 the whole number was 1,202, of which 365 were dispos ed of durin.g th~ term. ~n 1886 the docket.h~d increa~ed to 1,396 ca.ses, of wl1ich 451 were d1sposed of durmg the term. Is It Just to litigants that thiS· con• clition of things continue? The remedy is not with the Supreme Court. After service of ten years as a member of that court, I am able to say that it moves with all the rapidity that is physically possible. Its members can do no moro than they are doing. With rare exceptions, the court decides each term, and before its members start for their respective circuits, every ease reached and s ubmitted during that term. If fhe com-t bad twice the number of justices it now has, no more business could be done by it than has been done, unless the com·t were divided into sections, a scheme which, it is to be hoped, will n ever be adopted. The Constitution makes provision for one Supreme Court. With- out expressing any opinion as to whether its division into sections would be admissible under the, Constitution, I may say that it would be unfortunate for tile country if that court should ever be so enlarged in the number of its mem- bers as practically to convert it into a town-meeting upon questions of constitu- tional or general law. 

Mr. CULBER.SON. I now yield to the gentleman from Arkansas. 

Ur. WEAVER. The bill also curtails appeals, or looks in that direction, from the Supreme Court. It enlarges the amount necessary for an appeal from the cU:cuit to the Supreme Court. Has the committee 

made any calculation as to the amount of curtailment in the business 

of the Supreme Court which will be made by this provision? 

Mr. CULBERSON. I do not know whether the committee has made 

any such investigation on that point or not, but some members have done 

so, and we are told that will have the effect to diminish the business of 

the Supreme Court one-third. 

:Mr. WEA. VER. I understand the adoption oft his provision will then 

diminish the business of the Supreme Court one-third. 

Mr. ROGERS. How much time have I remaining? 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has thirty-five minutes of his 

time remaining. 

l\1r. ROGERS. There has been no indication on the part of the 

House or on the part of any gentleman to speak at this time. 

Mr. STONE, of Missouri. If the gentleman is not disposad to proceed with his remarks, I will take the floor, if there be no objection, 

and ask to be recogniz~d. 
2374 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MARon 24, 

Mr. ·ROGERS. I will reserve my time and yield the floor to the 

gentleman from :Missouri. 

:Mr. HOOKER. 1\fr. Chairman, this is a very important question 

and should have the most deliberate consideration on the part of the 

Honse. 1\Ir. ROGERS. Nor have I the remotest desire to adopt any other course. In the openingicalledattention to the importance of the subject-matter now pending, and proposed it should ha\e full and ample 

consideration. 

Mr. STONE, of Missouri, Mr. Chairman, I shall be very glad if I can have the attention of the House. I have not consumed much of the 

time of the Horn e in talking and I have no disposition to waste it now or at any time. But as I have now an opportunity to address myself to a proposition which to my mind is superior in importance to any othe1· 

question which will present itself to the House, I must crave permission to be heard. I would not appeal to the House now to give me its 

attention except for the fact I propose to address myself to a proposition of thls character and one of peculiar interest to my own people. So far as the provisions in detail of this reorganization bill are con- cerned I must pass them by for the present. I want now to speak of one feature of the bill especially. I will read a few lines from the third 

section of the pending bill: 

The circuit eourtshall have power to issue writs of error, mandamus, prohibi- tion, scire facias. habeas corpus, and a.ll other writs which may be nece sary or proner to the exercise of 1ts jurisdiction and a greeable to the principles and usages of law; and said court shall have original jurisdiction in cases of habeas corpus, mandamus, and prohibition. 

At the beginning of tlie last Congress I introduced a bill t{) limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts. That is the bill which above all others 

I feel most interest in. I have introduced it again this Congress. I 

I am something like an old hen with one chicken so far as that bill is 

concerned. I have clucked every time it has come in sight and I propose to clnckwhenever Iha\e an opportunity until I can get the proposition embodied into law. As part of my remarks I ask the Clerk to 

read that bill of mine, which at the proper time I will offer as an amendment to the pending bill, in the form I now propose, to follow imme- diately after the lines I have just read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Provided, The jurisdiction of the district and circuit courts of the United States shall not be deemed to extend to any judicial or other officer elected or appointed 

under the laws of any State to compel by mandamus or other ~it the perform- ance by such officer of any official act arising under 01· autbori~ to be done by 

the laws of such State. 

Mr. STONE, of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I propose now to have read a memorial from the judges of one of the county courts of my futrict 

and it mil explain in part why I am especially anxious to have some such provision as that suggested by my amendment incorporated into 

the statutes of this country. I ask the House to listen to the reading of 

this memorial. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

To the Congress of the United Stales: 

The undersigned, citizens of the United States and the State of Missouri, re- spectfully represent that they are the judges of the county court of St. Clair 

County, Missouri, a court of record, upon which court the statutes of that State 

impose the duty of levying taxes on all property in said county for public pur- poses. That the power of sa.id court to levy taxes for any and all county pur- poses is limited by the constitution and statutes of the State to one-half of 1 per cent., based on the last assessment for State and county purposes; and the said court is forbidden and proh1bited by the laws of the State from levying, or at- tempting to levy, any tax for county purposes in excess of said limitation until 

first ordered so to do by the (State) circuit court, or judge thereof in vacation, 

having jurisdiction in said county, according to certain forms and methods pre- scribed by the statutes of the State; and any violation of said statutes by any county judge, or other county officer, is made a. crime punishable by a fine of not less than $>00 and forfeiture of his office. Your memorialists further represent that notwithstanding the premises the 

circuit court of the United States for the western district of Missouri, on April 

23, 1887, issued its writ of mandamus to the undersigued,comma.ndiog them as judges of said county court to levy a tax on all propert.y in said St.. Clair County, 

largely in excess of the limitation aforementioned, for the purpose of raising n. county fund sufficient to satisfy a certain judgment theretofore rendered in said 

United States circuit court against said county, to which writ your memorial- ists, as respondents, made return to the effect that they could not obey the writ 

without violating the laws of the State which they had been elected, commis- sioned, and sworn to execute, and subjecting themselves to criminal prosecu- tion and punishment. Thereupon the sa.id circuit court quashed the return and 

a.ttachedyourmemorialistsforcontempt,and on the 23Q day of November,l387, made an order committing them to the common ja.il in Cole County, Missouri, 

there to remain until they acknowledge themselves ready and willing to levy a. tax according to the mandate of said court, or until the further order of said 

court; and accordingly your memorialists were committed to, and have been 

since confined in, said jail. 

Protesting against this deprivation of liberty as a gross personal wrong. and, 

wha.t is of stilJ greater consequence, as a dangerous subversion of the rights of 

the State in imprisoning her judicial officers for refusing to violate he1·laws; 

and yet being without remedy, your memorialists humbly pray that Congress 

will investigate the legality of their imprisonment and take such action as may seem proper for their relief and for the protection of State officers from such 

violence and injury in future. 

JOHN F. TA.UDY, 

Presiding Judge. ALBERT HOYT, S.C. PEDE...'I, Associates. 

Mr. STONE, of UJssouri. I desire to make that memorial the basis 

of what I purpose to &~y. These judges are the judges of a court of 

record of the State of 1tfissonri. They represent a part of the judicial 

machinery of that State. They have jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus and injunction, and have jGrisdiction over a multitude of 

important matters. They aQ.dit all accounts against the county, draw 

all warrants on the treasury, distribute and control the public-school 

funds, reYise the assessments of property for taxation, and, in short, are the most important of all our officers in the administration of county 

affairs, and among the most important in the administration of State 

affairs. 

These judges are now in jail, literally behind the bars of a jail, and 

have been there for four months, or since about the last of November, 

1887. They are, I repeat, absolutely and litemlly in a cell, confined as prisoners, on the order of a Federal judge. The memorial which 

the Clerk bas just read in part explains the occasion for this imprisonment; but I desire to elaborate that statement somewhat, and I think 

gentlemen who hear me will sympathize with my auxiety to secure the legislation I am proposing, and I hope to win to my assistance votes 

enough to ingraft it on the pending bill. 

At the close of the war and for some years afterwards :Missouri, or that part of the State in which St. Clair County is situated, was in a condition of great disorder and confusion. A la1·ge percentage of the 

most intelligent people were deprived of the right of suffrage and the 

right to hold office. In many instances the bad elements were in.j:he 

a.."icendant, and irresponsible county officers-de facto county judgesassuming to act tmder the laws as they then existed, issued, or pretended 

to issue, bonds of the counties almost without limit and for almost every 

conceivable purpose, and to dispose of them upon the best terms they 

could. and often for their personal advantlge. 

St. Clair County was the victim of one of these outrages. De facto 

county judges fraudulently assumed to and did issue the bonds of 

that county, aggTegating in amount several hundred thousand dollars, 

in aid o'f an imaginary railroad upon which, practiec'llly, not a lick ol 

work bas ever been struck, or ever will be. 

These bonds were dispo eel of. Subsequently the question as to the 

legality of their issue, and the binding character of the bonds as oblip;ations of the county, came before the State judiciary, and the State 

court held that the bonds were fraudulently issued, and issued without compliance with the substantial requirements of the law, and 

therefore were not binding upon the county. The bondholders sought 

relief in the Federal courts, and tho e courts, ignoring the adjudications of the State courts, held to the contrary, and adjudged that the 

bonds having been issued by men who were ostensibly agents of the 

municipality, and being (as they decided) n~gotiable paper in the 

hands of innocent purchasers, weTe valid and binding obligations. 

A contest, quite animated and vigorous, has been going on ever since 

between the people of the county and the holders of these bonds-one seeking to enforce and the other to resist their collection. So far 3.'3 

this discussion is concerned, the legality or illegality of the bonds, 

whether they were honestly or dishonestly issued, is, to a great extent, a question of indifference. In a large measure that is a question foreign to the proposition I have before me, and affects it only in an incidental and collateral way. The Federal courts, in contravention of the 

State courts, held the bonds to be valid obligations and as I have sairl, 

a contest has been going on ever since, in the courts and out of the courts, between the people of the county and the bondholders. Judgments were obtained from time to time against the county for large 

amounts in the circuit court of the United States sitting at Jefferson 

City. J\1andamuses were issued to the judges of the county court re- quiringthem to levy and collect a tax with which to satisfy those judgments. Out of those writs of mandamus this imprisonment has grown. 

Under the laws of the State of l\Ii<;souri, the judges of the county 

comts have absolutely no original power to levy such a tax. The law 

of the State authorizes the county courts to levy taxes to a limited x- tent; in counties of the class of St; Clair, to the extent of one-half of 

1 per cent .• or 50 cents on the hundred dollars of valuation. But 

that tax is expressly declared to be for the purpose of meeting the cur- rent county expenses, and for that only. The constitut.ion of the State 

and the statutes of the State, affil'med and interpreted by the dedsions 

of the supreme court, confer jurisdiction upon the county courts to 

levy this limited tax for specific purposes; and the same laws specify 

the uses to which these revenues shall be appropriated. That is to say, 

for purely cotmty purpo es-for the support of the poor and insane,Jor 

roads and bridges, for the payment of salaries of county officials, for 

witness and jury fees, election expenses, and the like. The laws of the 

State provide that the county court ball have no original jurisdiction 

to levy any other tax; and if a necessity exists for an additional tax to 

pay an existing debt, or tllere is any occasion for an extraordinary tax, 

anot.her course of proceedings is required. No original jurisdiction is 

conferred upon the county courts to levy a tax to meet any such extraordinary demands; but on the contrary, such jurisdiction is expressly 

withheld. 

1\Ir. PETERS. I would like to interrupt the gentleman from Jlrfissouri to ask if that defense was set up by these county court officials? 

Mr. STONE of Missouri. It was, I will state tothegentleman; but 

I am coming to that in a moment. . I want the House to understand the exact status of this question. To 

my mind it is one of the most profound interest, and if gentlemen will 

be patient and hear me through, I will endeavor to explain the facts aa 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2375 

fully as I can in my awkward way. I can not speak eloquently, but! 

do speak with feeling. I move with a leaden step and stumble as I go, 

and ~hough I may tax your patience I ask you to hear me, for my heart 

is full of my subject. 

I said, Mr. Chairman, that the county court had no original jurisdic· 

tion to levy the. tax it was commanded to levy, a tax to pay judgments 

rendered on bonds ofthe county. 

Where the necessity for such a tax exists the law requires that the 

county court shall cause the county attorney, who is an officer of that 

court, to prepare and present a petition to the State circuit court, which 

is a court of common law jurisdiction, or t.o the judge in vacation, setting forth the necessity and the reason for the tax, and all the facts 

connected with it; and the circuit judge, or court, shall examine the 

petjtion, and, after understanding the facts, if he shall hold tha.t the 

debt is a valid one, and the tax a proper one to be levied, he can issue 

his order authorizing and empowering the county court to levy the tax; 

which order may be a continuing one, from year to year, as long as the 

necessity fo:r the tax exists, or until it is revoked by the order of the 

court which made it. ' 

The county court, I say, is devoid of jurisdiction and power to levy 

the tax in the first instance. The power to make the levy does not exist until the circuit court confe1-s it in the manner provided by law. I 

have a brief here 1·eferring to several cases decided by our suprane 

court supporting what I say. I hold in my hand one of the very last 

reports issued containing the opinions of the court. It is volume 91 of 

the Missouri Reports, and the case I refer to is directly in point. A 

judgment was recovered in the Federal circuit court against the county 

of Cape Girardeau upon bonds similar to those involved in the St. Clair 

County controversy; a mandamus issued from the Federal court to the 

county judges requiring them to levy a tax to pay the judgment. The 

county attorney of that county went into the State circuit court with a 

petjtion for an injunction to restrain the county judges from levying the 

tax. The injunction was granted; an appeal was taken, and in that 

way the question was presented to the supreme court of the State. That 

court held that the county judges could not lawfully levy the tax. Let 

me read from the opinion: 

The circuit cow·t granted a temporary injunction restraining the judges oi 

the county court of Cape Girardeau County, and others, from collecting a cer- tain special tn.x of 2 per cent. ordered to be levied on all real and personal prop- erty in Cape Girardeau Township for the purpose of paying certain judgments 

rendered in the United States circuit court for the eastern district of Missouri, 

which judgmen ts were based on coupons attached to bonds issued under the 

provisions of the act of March 23, 1868, commonly known as the township-aid act. On final hearing the t-emporary injunction was made perpetual, and this 

ruling was based on the express ground that the steps required by section 6799 

had not been complied with prior to extending the tax on the ta.x·books and 

levying the same. 

That section 6799 is the section of the statutes which provides that 

the county courts shall have no power to levy such taxes until jurisdiction and authority is conferred by the circuit court. But I read 

fmther: 

It bas been ruled-by this court that taxes of the nature now in question can only be levied and collected in the manner provided in said section, and that 

unless the methods prescl'ibed are pursued, the failure t9 pw-sue them, when, as here, they are the conditions essential to the exercise of the power, will ren- der the tax invalid. (State e:JJ rel.vs. Railroad, 871\Io., 236.} Here those methods, 

those conditions precedent, were not followed; andhencethecountycourt, having no inherent power to levy a tax and deriving its only authority from the 

State, must of necessity pursue the course in this regard marked out by the sov- ereign authority by its laws. (Stnte ex reL. vs. Railroad, supra.) Nor do I see that the matter being discussed is at all affected because the ac- tion of the county court was produced by the mandate of the Federal court. I.f, 

as already seen, the cotmty court was powerless to act, except when acting in 

conformity to express statutory conditions, it was still the duty of the judges to comply with those conditions, while yielding obedience to the mandate 

aforesaid; for outside of those statutory conditions they were utterly power- less to act. Indeed, under section 6800, they were punishable for a misde- meanor in failing to comply with the provisions of section 6799 before levying the tax. It does not stand to reason that their act could be valid and still at the same time punishable as a crime. (State e:1: reL. w. Guoutte, 67 Mo. loc. cit., ~~ . I have read that to put beyond controversy the c9rrectness of my 

statement, that the county judges now in jail have no power to levy the 

tax which the Federal conrt ordered them to levy until the State circuit 

court shall first confer jurisdiction and authority. 

I am informed that since the mandamus was served upon the county 

judges they filed their petition with the State circuit court setting 

forth the fact that the mandamus had been served upon them, and asking that authority might be given to them to levy the tax in obedience 

to the mandate of the court. But the State circuit court, having long 

before held the bonds to be invalid, and as that court first obtained 

jurisdiction and was the first to decide that question, and as it is a 

court of concurrent and co-ordinate jurisdiction with the Federal court 

as to such matters, it did not feel disposed to yield, and refused to yield, 

to the later decisions of the Federal court, which had trec1.ted the prior 

judgment of the State court with contempt, and so refused to authorize 

the levy of the tax. I understand that to be the situation. I may not 

be accurate in all the details, but, according to my information, I state 

the case substantially as it is. The county judges then are wholly devoid of power to make the levy required, and any attempt to · do so would sul>ject them to a criminal prosecution and heavy penalties under 

the statutes of the State. 

They made return of these facts to the Federal circuit court, setting 

forth that they were without authority to levy the tax commanded, 

and that any attempt to levy it woold subject them not only to suits 

for damages at the instance of tax-payers whose property might be 

seized, bnt to a criminal prosecution under the law of the State, which 

declares that any officer who shall levy, or attempt to levy, or collect 

any tax, except in strict accordance with the provisions of the statute, 

shall forfeit his office and be liable to a fine of not less than $500. 

In the face of all that the Feclernl court held that the return was 

bad and quashed it, and issued a warrant committing the judges for 

contempt, and they have been under duress ever since. 

Mr. PETERS. Could not they take an appeal to the United States 

Supreme Court? 

Mr. STONE, of Missouri. They did not. 

Mr. PETERS. Why? 

1lfr. STONE, of Kentucky. Because, as the gentleman fron! Missouri says, they have been in jail. Is not that so? 

Mr. OATES. No appeal lies for contempt. 

Mr. PETERS. I think we ought to remedy that by legislation. 

A MEMBER. Why don't they appeal to the Supreme Court? Would 

not that court set it right? 

Mr. STONE, of Missouri. I will come to that in moment. Mr. 

Chairman, some gentleman has asked about an appeal, and what the 

Supreme Comt would do. I do not know. I see in the Western newspapers that only a few days since an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus was made to the Federal circuit court and refused, and I am informed that papers are now being prepared with a view to presenting 

the question to the Supreme Court of the United States. What the 

Supreme Court may decide I do not know. I am glad to obserte a 

growing disposition on the part of the Supreme Court to get back on 

safe ground once more, to respect the limitations of the Constitution, 

and the reserved rights of the States. The case of Ex pa1-te Rowland, reported in 104 United States Reports, which was a habeas corpus proceeding brought by the commissioners of a county in Alabama, the Supreme 

Conrt retreated somewhat from the advances it had made in the wrong 

direction. And the more recent Virginia habeas corpus cases indicate 

that the Supreme Court justices, or most of them, have been baptized 

anew in the waters of the Constitution. Still the departure of that 

court from the earlier doctrines has in many respects been so radical 

that no mortal man can tell what it may decide when the case of these 

imprisonedjudgesis presented. I believe, as the tendency now is, they 

woold be discharged; but that is altogether a matter of conjecture when 

we take in view the decisions of that court in corresponding cases. I 

beg the House to follow me while I examine briefly some of the more 

important cases, illustrating the disposition and views of the Supreme 

Court, and explaining why I say the law is now in a state of uncertainty, and demonstrating the necessity for legislative interference. 

Mr. Chairman, during the first eighty years of our history, that iB, 

prior to December, 1860, the right of the Federal Government to COJ;ltrol State officers in the administration of State laws had not been asserted. More than that, prior to December, 1863, the Supreme Court 

of the United States, by a long and unbroken chain of decisions, had 

established the doctrine and observed the rule of following the latest decisions of the supreme courtofaState in the interpretation of its own 

constitution and In.ws. In the case of Tne United Statesvs. Morrison, 

reported in 4 Peters, 124, Chief-Justice Marshall, while presiding over 

the circuit court for the district of Virginia, decided that a judgment in 

that State was, under the circumstances of that case, a lien on the real 

estate of the judgment debtor. The case was appealed to the Supreme 

Court of the United States, and soon thereafter the court of appeals of 

Virginia, in another case, held the contrary. When the case appealed 

to the Supreme Court came up Chief-Justic~ Marshall s.:'lid he would 

follow the recent decision of the court of appeals without examination, 

although it required the reversal of a judgment in the circuit court 

rendered before that decision was made. 

In the case of Green vs. Neal, 4 Peters, 291, the Supreme Court, in 

the language of Justice Miller, in the case I hold hereoverruled two former decisions of its own, based upon former decisions of the 

State court of Tennessee, in order to follow a later decision of the State court, 

after the law had been supposed to be settled for many years. 

And that doctrine was followed and emphasized by a great many decisions for three-quarters of a century. . 

In 1860 the tide turned. It is well, as we go along, to notice the 

character and the subject-matter of the litigation. Aspinwall and 

others were the owners of certain coupon-bonds of Knox County, Indiana, 

upon which judgment was obtained before the circuit court of the 

United States for that district. Failing to realize by· execution, a mandamus was issued to the commissioners of Knox County, commanding 

them to levy a tax, under the laws of the Stn.te, to pay the judgment, 

Seven years afterwards Judge Miller, in combating it as a doctrine 

dangerous and subversive, referred to it as- . 

the first instance in which a. Federal court ever issued a writ of oandamus to a State officer in the history of this Government. 

Mr. OATES. If it will not interrupt the gentleman's line of remark, 

I wish to ask him whether he is not aware that the Supreme Court of 

the United States have held in th~ case of Rowland, and in other cases, 

that the remedy is by habeas corpus, no appeal lying; and that when· 
2376 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MARCH 24, 

ever the law of the State does not authorize the judge or officer impris_ 

oned to do the act his imprisonment is unla.wfn1? 

Mr. STONE, of Missouri. I aru aware of that case, and I have re- ferred to H already, though I think my friend states it rather broadly. 

Mr. OATES. Does not the gentleman think that the amendment 

proposed by the Committee on the Judiciary to section 725 of theRevised Statutes covers the case he has in mind? 

MT. STO E, of Missouri. I do not. I think that is simply a declaration of the law as it exists. 

}.'fr. OATES. I admit that it is declaratory; but will it not be sufficient to meet the case? 

Mr. STONE, of Missouri. It is sufficient to declare the law as it is 

already understood. 

1-Ir .. OATES. It puts, in substance, on the statute-book what the 

court has decided. 

Mr. STONE, of Mi&ouri. Possibly. But I think it furnishes no substantialremedy for the evil I am compbining of. 

Mr. OATES. The Supreme Court of the United States has decided 

it in several cases. Mr. ~?TONE, of Missouri. In the Alabama case referred to by my 

friend LMr. OATES], the commissioners of the county bad been ordered 

by mandamus to lev:y and collect a tax, and they did levy the tax, and 

the books were put rnto the hands of the collector. Under the laws of 

Alabama the collector was required to execute an ordinary bond for 

the collection of ordinary taxes, but before be was authorized to collect that special and extraordinary tax, he was required to execute an addit.ional or special bond: That be was not able to do, and--

N!r. OATES. And Judge Rowland, under the law, had no power 

to collect the tax. • Mr. STONE, of Missouri. He had no power to collect the tax, and on that account the Supreme Court held that his imprisonment was contrary to law, and he was released. I have referred to that case. Mr. OATES. The Supreme Court bas uniformly held, wherever the 

question has been brought before it, that if there is no law authorizing 

the State officer to do that which the Federal court requires him to 

do, his imprisonment is unlawful. 

Mr. STONE, of Missouri. I have just stated that there was absolutely no law under which these county judges could levy this tax. I 

speak with reference to the conditions as they existed. I go further, 

and say that the circuit judge of that circuit bas recently dismissed a.n application for a habeas corpus--

Mr. OATES. How does it come to the Supreme Court? # Mr. STONE, of Missouri. The case, I understand, is coming to the 

Supre~e Court. What the Supremo Court may do is altogether problematical. I understand the Federal courts below hold that if the State 

circuit court refuses to confer authority on the county court to levy the 

tax, that the order of the Federal court will take the place and supersede the necessity of a jurisdictional order by the State court. But let 

me proceed. 

In 1863 the next step was taken. Then the old doctrine that the 

Stlpreme Court would follow the latest decisions of the State courts in 

the construction of their own laws was wrecked and thrown aside. I 

refer to the case of Gelpcke vs. The city of Dubuque, 1 Wallace, 175. 

The action was founded on municipal bonds issued in aid of a railroad. 

The supreme court of Iowa, by a divided bench, two affirming and one 

denying, at first held the law under which the bonds were issued to be 

constitutional. 

Some time afterward the same court, by· a unanimous decision, over- ruled the former decision rendered by a divided court, and held the 

law unconstitutional. Between the dates or the two decisions the 

bonds in litigation were issued. The conflict in the courts of Iowa was 

a stubborn and passionate one; and when, finally, the bondholders were routed in the court& of the State they fled to the Federal courts, 

and those courts, overturning an old established doctrine, complacently 

held that they were not bound by and would not follow the latest decision of the State court, interpreting its own constitution, but would 

be governed by the former divided opinion. The justice who rendered 

the opinion took occasion to make this complimentary allusion to the 

supreme court of Iowa: 

The late case in Iowa and two other C3.Ses of a kindred character in tmother 

State, also overruling earlier adjudications, stand out, as far as we are advised 

in unenviable solitude and notoriety. We shall never immolate truth, justice: 

and the law because a State tribunal has erected the altar and decreed the sac- ri.fice. 

A State tribunal, indeed! A tribnnal which has given to the country 

some of the most eminent jurists of this century is hardly a tribunal to 

be discredited in so flippant a way. It is a tribunal in whose bands 

any mortal man who bas a just right under the laws of the State is 

perfectly safe. And Justice Miller, who rendered an unanswerable 

dissenting opinion, very justly resented the slight put upon the State 

court, and wisely asked what special charge did Feder::tl courts have o>er contracts beyond other courts, except to declare judicially whether 

the stature of a State impairs their obligation, a question which did 

not arise in that case, as the construction of the very statute under 

which the plaintiff claimed was the subject of discussion. 

But the decision involved sometb~g of far more importance than the 

question of ethics. It was the first announcement of tl:le doctrine that 

the Federal courts would follow the decision of the State courts in interpreting their own laws only when it suited them to do so. Let me read a part of Judge Miller's dissenting opinion: 

. The co~rt bas, ~n thi~ case, taken a step i~ a:dva.nce ?f a~ything heretofore de- Cide~ by 1t o~ thiS snb]ect. That advance ISm the directiOn of a usurpation of 

the r1~ht whtch belong~ to ~he State courts, to decide as a finality upon the con- struction of State const1tutwns and State statutes. This invasion is made in a 

~a. e w~ere the1·e is no pretense t~at the constitution, as thus construed, is any mfract10n of the laws or Constitution of the United States. 

The next import.ant step in what Justice Miller denominates this 

march of judicial usurp:1tion was taken ~ 1867, in the case of Riggs vs. Johnson County, 6 Wallace, 166. ThiS was the greatest stride of 

all up to that date. J obnson County, Iowa, had issued bonds in aid 

of a milroad. The supreme court of the State held the Jaw under 

which the bonds were issued to be unconstitutional. The Federal 

courts held otherwise. Mr. Riggs, a bolder of Johnson County bonds 

obtained judgment against the county in the Federal circuit court: 

After this, various tax-payers of the county filed a bill in chancery in one of the State courts against the county commissioners, n.llegina that 

the bonds were void from the beginning, and had been repeatedly held so by the supreme court of Iowa, and praying a perpetual injunction ~ th~ commissioners against levying any tax to pay them, which inJunction the State court granted. Afterwards ])fr. Riggs applied to the 

Federal circuit court for a w1·it of mandamus to the commissioners to ~om pel them to levy .a tax not only to pay the bonds merged in the 

Judgment, but to contmue the tax from year to year until all the bonds were paid, whether embraced in the judgment or not. The commissioners answered, setting up the injunction previously laid on them by 

the State court. The circuit court sustained the commissioners, held 

the return good, and refused a peremptory writ. M:r. Riggs appealed. 

The Supreme Court reversed the decision and directed the mandamus 

to issue. Again Justice Miller delivered an able and exhaustive dissenting opinion, in which he was sustained by Chief-Justice Chase and 

Justice Grier. I wish I had time to read the entire opinion; but I have 

not. I can only read some extracts from it. 

I read as follows: 

In the case of Gel peke t:s. Dubuque I felt called upon to point out the evil con- sequences likely to flow from the doctrine there asserted for the first time-that 

the construction given by the State courts to their own constitutions and statutes could be disregarded and overruled by the Federal courts sitting in the same States and deciding the same controversies, These consequences are now ap- parent in the judgment just rendered, whereby the State officers are commanded to disobey an injunction of a State court rendered in regular judicial proceedings to which they were proper parlies, in a matter of which that court had un- doubted jurisdiction, concerning the levy of a tax: under State laws. lt may _not be inappropria~ t{) rev!ew the steJ?S by which this court has grad- ually arnved at the concluswn that 1t can do tbis, Jor the purpose of enforcing 

the p:tyment of bonds issued without authority of law, out of the property of 

those who never consented to their issue or agreed to pay them. In a_lmost all the cases where municipal corporations have any authority at all to Issue such bonds the statutes which gi\·c the authority require that there 

Rhall first be a. vote of the majority of the people of the municipality approving 

tho purpose for which they are issued and authorizing their i~sue, Of course the law fixes the manner of taking this vote, and I believe that until this court decided to the cont1·ary no court had ever held that such bonds were valid wit-h- out a substantial compliance with the statutes on that subject. . But in the case ofTheCo':ll~issioners of Knox: County1s. Aspinwall, 21 How., It was held that the commissioners, whose duty it was to issue these bonds in 

tho event that a majority voted them, were to be the exclusive and .final judrres 

of_ their own authority. It was said that because it became their duty to deter- rome whether the bonds had been leg-ally \oted or not, before they issued them 

therefore the fact that they had issued them was conclusive of the vote and of 

their own auth.or~ty, and precluded all inquiry into that question. 

These commtsstoners were merely the agents of the people of the municipality. Their authority depended on no private instructions, but on the public statutes of the State, which every person who dealt with them could examine 

The proceedings for a vote were all of record, as well as the return of the oi-

.ficers taking the vote. Yet in the face of all this, when these agents transcend their authority and 

attempt to bind upon the people of the county a load of debt which may absorb 

all their property and heavily burden them for years, we are told that the agents were ~he final and e:x:clush:e judge3 of their own authority. When the highest court m the land renders a Judgment o1· decree, any other court before which the matter may come has a right to inquire into its authority to pass such judament· 

but these me~e agent.s of the I?eople, whose powe~ are limited by law, ~ay, by merely assertmg their authority, pass a decree which no court can examine be- cause none can dispute their jurisdiction. ' After this decision, no matter how illegal, fraudulent or unauthorized were corporation bonds, no defeuse could be made to them in the Federal courts and 

of course, they were all sued upon in those courts. ' ' But when judgments were obtained, it was found that the ordinary execu- tions di~ not always produce the money, and some new device was to be resorted to for thiS pnrpose. Accordingly, we find 1\Ir. Aspinwall applying for a writ of mand~~us to compel t~e board of com.missioners to levy the tax necessary to pay lns Judgment. ThiS court held, in 24 Howard, that he was entitled to the 

writ. This was decided only seTen years ago, and is the fil' t instance in which a Federal court ever issued a writ of mandamus to a State officer in the history 

of this Govcrnmen~. 

I shall examine into its authority to do so hereafter, but merely note it in 

passing as among the new doctrines which this court has found it necessary to establish to enforce payment of county bonds. 

The next step was the decision, already mentioned, of Gel peke n. Dubuque, 

in which the court held that the later decision of a State court on the construc- tion of its own constitution, although unanimous, would be disregarded in this court in county bond cases in favor of the earlier decisions made by a divided court. 

In the present case we arc required to take another step in the same direction, 

and one stillmore serious. We at·e asked by a mandamus to compel these mu- nicipal officers to disobey an injunction of the State court duly served on them, 

and made perpetual by a decree to which they were party, and which if they 

disobey they will be imprisoned for such disobedience. 

The learned justice then proceeds at length to discuss and combat 

I 
1888. OONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2377 

anew the right of the Federal courts to exercise such powers. In concluding he says this: 

But if I am mistaken in all I have thus far been saying1 there is another proposition, supported by a uniform current of authorities, which would preclude the 

issuing the writ of mandamus in this cage; that is, that the writ is never issued to a party whom it would expose to imprisonment or other serious damage for 

obeying it. 

)( * * * 

With all the respect which I have for this court and for my brethren who differ 

with me, I take the liberty of saying it h~s no right to set aside all prec~dent 

and disregard established rules in the belief, however confidently entertamed, 

that it is done in the cause of jllSt ice. 

There was a case where the State court, having jurisdiction of the 

parties and the subjecli-matter, enjoined the collection of taxes, and 

the Supreme Court of the United States directed a mandamus to the 

sa:me officials commanding them, in defiance of the injunction of the 

State court to levy the tax. They are subjected to fine and imprisonment if th~y do, and E.ubjected to fine and imprisonment if they do 

not. 

There is a case to which I invite the attention of the gentleman from 

Alabama directly in point, where these officers of the State are put 

between the fires of the State courts on the one side and the fires of the 

Federal courts on the other. 

But here, :M:r. Chairman, they have made another advance, and in 

this instance my own constituents are immediately interested. This 

time the Federal courts command the State officers to do an act which 

they have no lawful authority to do, and which an attemptto dowould 

be in open violation of the law, result in a forfeiture of office, and lay 

them liable to a criminal prosecution. 

There is the point we have now reached, following one step after another from the first disastrous mistake made in asserting the right to 

i83ue the writ of mandamus in such cases. First came the startling 

assertion of the right to issue the writ; then the overthrow of th~ doctrine that the Federal courts would conform to the State courts m the 

construction of State constitutions and statutes; then an order to Stn.te 

officers to disregard an injunction of their own State courts, issued and 

served in the regular course of judicial proceedings; and now comes an 

order requiring State officers to perform acts in excess of their lawful 

powers, thereby violating the laws of the St.ate ~nd committing a crime. 

And when those officers make respectful return of these facts they are 

told the defense is insufficient, and they are ordered to jail and ru:e put 

behind the bars in sight of the very dome of the capitol within whose 

walls the laws were enacted which they were sworn to execute, by 

Tirtne of which their offices exist, and which they refuse to violate. 

Such a condition is intolerable. It is monstrous. If such a doctrine 

is to stand, State governments can not stand. It puts the offi~ers of 

the State between the devil and the deep sea; they are damned If they 

do and damned if they do not. 

Possibly we might come here and obtain release under the writ of 

habeas corpus, as suggested by the gentleman from Alabama. That 

doubtless will be tried. It has been tried before the circuit judge, and 

faileu. I do not know what the Supreme Court may do. I do not 

know what a court which required the State officers of Iowa to levy a 

tax in disobedience of an injunction of the State judiciary, and at the 

same time declaring its ability and purpose to protect them from the 

consequences of such disobedience, may decide when the. que:stion is 

one, not of disobedience of the order of a comt, but the v1olatwn of a 

public statute. 

I think this matter ought p.ot to be left where it is. We should not 

leave it to judicial settlement. The representa~ives of the peopl~ should 

take it in hand and strike at the root of the evil. We must relieve the 

St.ates of this judicial despotism. We must entirely separate the machinery of the State and Federal Governments. That is the only safe 

and complete remedy. That is thepurposeofmyamend,ment, a.nd that 

will be its effect if enacted into law. 

Bnt it is said if this is done the bondholders will be practically without remedv. That is the only objection I have heard urged. If yon 

withdraw vfrom the Federal courts the power to lay their hands upon 

the officers of the State, officers existing solely by virtue of State laws, 

for the purpose of executing State laws, aml sworn to obey them, ":e 

are told yon will endanger the precious interests of the bondholder. 

Are such interests of higher consequence than the preservation of our 

local governments and the liberties of the people? Shall we put the 

bondholder before the State? 

The division-line between Federal and State powers ought not to be 

obscure. It is reasonably clear. Upon this head I wish to read one or 

two lines from an opinion delivered in 1870 by the Supreme Court, 

which will be ioundinll Wallace, 124. The case is Collector vs. Day. 

The General Government and the State, although within the same territorial 

limits are separate and distinct sovereigrtties, acting separately and independently ~f each other within their respective spheres. The fvrmer in its appropri- ate sphere is supreme; but the States within the limits of their powers not g ranted, or in the language of the Tenth Amendment "reserved," are as independent of the· F ederal Government as that Government, in its sphere, is independent of the Sta tes. 

I say it is monstrous that officers who are elected or appointed un- der State laws to execute State laws, who are sworn to execute those 

laws, and are put under bonds to do so, should be put in a. position 

where the Federal courts can command them to do one thing, while 

the State courts and the State laws may command them to do another. 

Here is a great evil bristling with danger. We should supply a 

remedy sharp clear and decisive, and be prompt about it. L-et us separa~ the F~deral'courts and the State governments. Let the line 

be drawn broadly. Something in the nature of my proposition, and 

nothing short of it, will answer the purpose. or ~eet the demand. 

Would you be willing to enact a statute subordmatmg your State governments tothe Federal judiciary? Would you byexpress enactment 

be willing to authorize that judieiary to do what it has arbitrarily done 

without any enactment at all? If not, then come to the rescue of your 

home governments. If in trot~ the bondh.older s~onl~ ge~ hnrt, all 

the worse for him. But there IS no truth m nor JUStificatiOn for the 

statement that public creditors will be denied or endan~ered in any 

just right they may have. Why should they, ~n~ why Will they be? 

They will be upon an equality with all other c1tlzens, and I know of 

no reason why they should be given special consideration. The comts 

of the State will be open to them, if they desire to invoke the power 

of the State and use its machinery. If they have no respect for or confidence in the State courts, the Federal courts will still, I say, remain 

open. They can sue there and recover their judgments. The only 

thing I propose is that when they go into the Federal courts they must 

depend upon the machinery of those courts to enforce their decrees. 

I simply propose to take the hands of mammon and of power fr~m 

the fair throat of the State. The Federal courts, doubtless, can devJ..Se 

methods and processes for the execution of their judgments. If the 

courts can not do so, let Congress do it for them. That is another phase 

of this question, but an entirely independent one. I am seeking now -

to correct an evil and escape danger. When we have done that I am 

ready and quite willing to di~cnss and argue upon just and adequate 

remedial processes. 

What I am seeking to do is to protect the State governments-to. protect our local officers in executing the laws under which they exist and 

which they a1·e sworn to execute, free from outside interference. 

What I am seeking to do is to check this judicial usurpation, to render its repetition impossible, and to preserve the remaining remnants 

of our State governments from utter overthrow and disintegration. .And 

I do not propose .to stop and ask what effect it may have on the ability 

of speculators in,fraudulent securities to enforce the.ir payment. I do 

not think the sovereignty of a State should be subordmated to such uses 

or the liberties of a great people bartered at such a price. . 

My time has expired. I thank the House for its courteous attentwn. 

[Great applause.] 

FUNERAL EXPENSES OF THE CHIEF-JUSTICE. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [?rlr. GROSVENOR] 

asks that the committee mayinformally rise in order that he maysuh· 

mit a resolution at this timewhichisdeemed to benecessaryinorderto 

carry out the resolution of the House in respect to the funeral of Chief· 

Justice Waite. 

Mr. ROGERS. I trust that will be done by unanimous consent. 

There was no objection. 

The committee accordingly informally rose; and ~fr. HoLMAN took 

the chair as Speaker p1·o tempore. 

Mr. GROSVENOR. By request of Judge KELLEY, chairman of the 

committee on behalf of the House in the matter of the funeral of the 

late Chief-J nstice, I ask for the reading of the resolution I send to the 

desk. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Resolved, That the necessary expenses incident to carrying out t.he resolution 

of the House of the 23d instant, relating to the funeral of Chief-Justice Waite, 

be paid out of the contingent fund of the House. 

Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House be a uthorized and directed to take such steps as maybe necessa ry to carry out the provisions oftilis resolution, and that. the Clerk of the House be directed to advance to the Sergeant-at- Arms the necessary funds therefor. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 

A message from the Senate, by Mr. PLATT, ono of its clerks, an- nounced that the Senate had passed wHh amendments, in which the 

concurrence of the House was requested, bills of the following titles: 

A bill (H. R. 3508) for the relief of William G. Galloway, late captain, fifteenth United States Army; and 

A bill(H. R. '1327) regulating the construction of bridges o>er the 

Muskingnm River, in Ohio. 

·The message also announced that the Senate had passed without 

amendment bills of the following titles: 

A bill (H. R. 1528) to reward the Esquimaux natives of the Asiatic 

coast of the Arctic Ocean for acts of humanity to shipwrecked seamen; 

A bill (H. R.1589) to provide for holding terms of the United States 

courts at Mississippi City; 

A bill (H. R. 5373) to change the location of a certain alley in the 

city of Washington; and 

A bill (H. R. 5723) to amend section 461 of the Revised Statutes, 

regulating fees for exemplifications of land patents, and for other pur· 

poses. - -- - - ·- · · 
2378 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MARCH 24, 

The message also announced that the Senate had passed bills of the 

following titles; in which the concurrence of the House was requested: 

A bill (S. 17) for the relief of Thomas Guinean; 

A bill (S. 27) to prevent the obstruction of navigable waters and to 

protect public works against trespass or injury; . A bill (S. 249) to prevent the manufacture or &'lleof adulterated food 

or drugs in the District of Columbia; 

A bill (S. 316} for the relief of Edward Fitzgerald; 

A bill (S. 372) to provide for a commission on the subject of the alcoholic liquor traffic; 

A bill {S. 525) for the relief of Samuel A. B. Woodford; 

A bill (S. 622) to amend section 2805 of the Revised Statutes of the 

United States so as to allow oaths to be administered by notaries public; 

A bill (S. 899} for the relief of Mary :M:. Briggs; 

A bill (S. 901} for the relief of Sophia W. Wright; 

A bill (S. 1007) granting a pension to JohnS. Coleman; 

A bill (S. 1102) to aid the State of Colorado to support a school of 

mines· 

A bill (S. 1128) to create ports of entry at Ta~ma and Seattle, in 

Washington Territory; 

A bill (S. 1248) to effect a 1·eanangement of the grades of office in 

the Subsistence Department of the Army; 

A bill (S. 1405) to authorize the construction of a bridge across the 

Mississippi River at or near the city of Oquawka, in the State of illinois, and to establish it as a post-road; 

A bill (S. 1428) to authorize the appointment of a hydrographer and 

assistant hydrographer of the Navy; 

A bill (S. 1484) to fix the status in the Navy of certain cadet engineers; 

A bill (S. 1498) granting to the city ofGrnnd Forks, Dak., theright 

to build two free bridges at said city across the Red River; 

A bill ( . 1524) to authorize the construction of a bridge over the Ten- nessee Ri er, between Bridgeport and Sheffield, Ala.; 

A bill (S. 152~) to authorize the construction of a bridge over the 

Cumberland River, between Burnside, Ky., and Carthage, Tenn., or 

the south f6rk of said river, between Burnside and Tateville, Ky.; 

A bill (S. 1526} to authorize the construction of a bridge over the 

Caney Fork River, between Rock Island and Carthage. m Tennessee; 

A bill (S. 1663) authorizing the Little Rock and Alexandria Railway 

Company to build certain bridges in the State of .Arkansas; 

A bill (S. 1701) authorizing the construction of a high wagon-bridge 

across the Missouri River at or near Sioux City, Iowa; 

A bill (S. 1939) providing in certain cases for the forfeiture of wagonroad grants in the State of Oregon; 

A bill (S. 2001} for the relief of George F. Roberts, administrator of 

the estate of William B. Thayer, deceased, surviving partner o.f Thayer 

Brothers, and others; . A bill (S. 2220) to correct an error in and to further amend ".An act 

to authorize the Georgia Paeific Railroad Company to construct bridges 

across the Sunflower, Yazoo, and Tombigbee Rivers, in Mississippi,'' 

approved March 3, 1887; and 

A bill (S. 2405) for the reduction of postage on seeds, cuttings, bulbs, 

scions, and so forth. 

The mes~age also requested that the House of Representatives return 

to the Senate bills of the following titles: 

A bill (S. 788) to provide for polding terms of the United States 

courts at Mississippi City; and 

A bill (S. 192) to provide that judges of the United States circuit 

and district courts shall reduce their instructions to juries to writing in 

:ill States wherein by the laws thereofStatejudges are required so to do. 

The mess:1ge also announced that the Senat~ had passed a resolution 

(in which the concurrence of the House waR requested) for printing the 

report of the Senate select committee appointed under resolution of 

March 3, 1887, to inquire into the methods of doing business, etc., in 

the Executive Departments. 

.JURISDICTION OF UNITED STATES COURTS. 

The-Committee of the Whole resumed its session. 

MI. ROGERS. I now yield tenminutestothegentlemanfrom Iowa 

[Mr. WEAVER]. 

MI·. WEA. VER. Mr. Chairman, I shall detain the House but a. very 

few moments in reference to this bill. I wish to say that I am in hearty 

accord with most of its provisions, but with one, however, I am not. I 

do not believe that there is any necessity for the appointment of nine 

or any number of additional circuit judges. The lrill itself makes it 

unnecessary in my judgment. 

It is conceded by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that the 

three features of the bill, sending appeal cases from the district courts 

to the circuit courts, increasing the amount to $10,000 in cases where 

appeals are taken from circuit courts to the Supreme Court, and the 

provision looking to the curtailment of appeal in the District of Columbia, will reduce the amount of business in the Supreme Court at 

least one-third. With that reduction I do not believe there ia any necessity for increasing the number of circuit judges. That~ unloadto use n. trite phrase-the Supreme Court._and enable the piesent force 

of that court to transact its business within a reasonab~e length of time. 

Now, if one other feature is added to the bill the court will be further relieved; and I propose, at the proper time, to offer the amend~ 

ment I send to the desk, and ask now to have it read and to be con- sidered as pending, to be offered when we reach the section to which it 

appropriately belongs, under the five-minute rule. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Pro1;ided, 'Ph at in all actions hereafter commenced in the courts of the several States, whe1:ein a. citizen of the State and a. corporation engaged in the regular transaction of business in said State are parties, the right to remove such cause of action from the State court into the courts of the United Slates shall not be allowed. 

Mr. WEAVER. Now, Mr. Chairman, that would further relieve the 

Supreme Court of an immense amount of business that regularly flows 

into the court caused ,by the removal of causes from the State to the 

Federal courts. Why is not that a proper amendment? Where the 

corporation erects its plant within a State and expects to remain there 

for all time, and to be engaged constantly in the transaction of business 

with the people of the State, why should it not be permitted and held 

to be a citizen of the State? Why should it not be placed upon the same footing with the citizens of the State with which it daily transacts 

its business? 

I would like some gentleman to give a good reason why the corporation, in such ca..._c:es, should be privileged above all the citizens as to the 

forum in which to litigate its action. It seems to me that a mere statement of the proposition ia sufficient to secure its adoption in the form 

of the amendment I have submitted. With that and the three provisions to which I have already alluded I think tbe Supreme Court will 

be sufficiently relieved of the constantly in.flowing business which has 

so much overcrowded its docket of late years. 

I would rather, if there is to be any increase of judges, increase the 

number of district judges than the number of circuit judges. I can see a greater reason for it. 

1\ir. McADOO. Will the gentleman yield to me for a question? 

Mr. WEAVER. Yes, sir. 

Air. McADOO. Is it not a fact that these corporations avail themselves of every pretext to get into the Federal courts from the State 

courts? 

Mr. WEAVER. Certainly; and the law seems to have been framed, 

wittingly or unwittingly, to give them that pretext. They feel secure when they reach the Federal court It is remote from the home of the 

citizen, who is taken away from the court and jury of his vicinity and 

taken to a. court far from his residence, where marshals, not elected by 

the vote of the people, but appointed by the President of the United 

States, summon the juries, where e>erytbing is strange to him. It has 

the effect of denying justice to the people or discouraging them from 

litigating their causes a.:,aainst the corporations of the country. I would, 

rather than increase the number of Federal judges, look to some legislation curtailing the jurisdiction of Federal courts and turning the busi· ness of the country into the local courts, where the people are upon an 

equal footing with one another, and where the officers, ministerial and 

judicial, are responsible to the people for the manner in which they 

discbar~e their duties . .M:r. CULBERSON. If the gentleman from Iowa will permit me, I 

will state to him that there is a bill on the Calendar, reported favorably from the Committee on the'Judiciary, which covers that exactly. 

Mr. WEAVER. The gentleman &<tys there is a bill on the Calendar 

which contains the very doctrine embraced in my amendment. Very 

well; I am very glad to know it. I was not aware of that. 

:Mr. HOLMAN. Let it go into this bill. 

l\Ir. WEAVER. Yes; let it go into this bill and lot it be enacted 

here. This bill may succeed and the other mn.y fail. Let it go on both 

bills. We can not have it too often i and if the other bill finally secures passage through the Senate of the United State. and through this House 

it cau be stricken out of one of them. The other bill will not, in all 

probability, get through as a separate measure; I mean a. bill providing against the removal into the Federal courts of causes such a are named in my amendment. Such a bill, perhap , can not be passed at 

this session of Congress, and may not secure passage at alL But I believe that the proposition placed on this may be stronger than when 

standing alone and on its own merits. 

l\Ir. ROGERS rose. Mr. JOHNSTON, of North Carolina. I ask the gentleman from .Arkan as to yield to me to permit me to offer an amendment. 

Mr. ROGERS. This ia not the time for offering amendments. When 

the bill is being considered under the five-minute rule, then all amendments can be offered. 

I yield ten minutes, or fifteen if necessa.ry, to the gentleman from 

Iowa [Mr. ANDERSON). 

Mr. ANDERSON, of Iowa. 1\lr. Chairman, I regard the pending 

measure as one of very great importance to the country in its general 

provisions. But I am opposed to several of the ma.in features of this 

bill for the reason that I do not believe it tends in the direction of the 

curtailment of the business of the Federal courts of the country. 

I am opposed to the section which provides for the increase of the 

Federal judiciary to the extent of nine cireuit judges. If there is anything in this country that the people a1·e interested in having brought , 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2379 . 

to their immediate homes and redu_ced in cost to theveryminimum it 

is the administration of the public justice of the country. 

In the se~tion of the country and in the State which I in part have 

the honor to represent I undertake to say that there is more irritation 

among the people growing out of the matter of their being dragged 

from their homes to distant courts, at great expense, than out of any 

other one source that I can think of. 

We are beginning to realize in the frequency of the interference of 

Federal authority through the administration of the courts of the coun- try something of what our old forefathers complained of when they alleged that they were being dragged beyond seas to answer to charges. 

We all know how expensive these courts are. In truth and in fact that ·provision of the Constitution whichdeclaresthatallmenmay have their 

day in court and that a man's property shall not be taken without due 

process of law is well-nigh denied to any man who has in controversy more than $500, or even $2,000 for that matter, if he must be dragged 

into a United States court and fall within the tender mercies of United 

States marshals and United States officers. 

In the Forty-ninth Congress there was passed what is termed the re- moval act; and it seems that in that act there was an intention to in- crease the jurisdictional sum as between citizens of differentState.s from 

$500, where it has stood for a hundred years almost, to the sum of$2, 000. · And yet that statute is left in such a condition that I havenotfouncl a man, no matter how learned he might be in the law, who was able 

to tell whether the jurisdictional sum was changed or not. In fact, I 

heard one distin_guisbed judg·e in my own State say, when the matter was brought to his attention on. a petition for a removal of a c..<tuse from 

the St.'tte to the Federal court, that an examination of the second sec- tion of that act forced him to the conclusion that there had been either 

bungling or criminal conduct in connection with its enactment, and, in 

harmony with the too prevalent mercenary spirit of the age, he said he 

presumed it was more charitable to the distinguished men who framed 

that second section to &'ly that they had been guilty of criminal con- duct than that they had btmgled in its enactment. 

I send to the Clerk's desk and ask to have read an amendment which 

I wish to have regarded as pending, and which I propo.se to offer at the 

proper time as an addition to section 5 of the pending bill. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Provided, That in all suits at law and equity between citizens or residents of different States in which the matter in dispute exceeds the sum of $2,000, re- moval of said suits to the United States district courts shall not be allowed. 

:M:r. ANDERSON, of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I am told that there is 

legislation now pending and maturing that will be constru_ctive of the 

law as it was attempted to be declared by the Forty-ninth Congress, 

and which will meet the purposes for which I submit this amendment. Even if that be true, as was said by the gentleman who preceded me [Mr. WEAVER], we can not do a good thing too often, and I submit 

that this amendment can do no harm, as it will simply be declaratory 

of the law as it now stands. Then, in the enactment of this measure which seems to be general in its nature, if it does become a law, there 

will be a declaration that as to citizens or residents of different States 

where the snm in controversy does not exceed $2,000 removal shall not 

be bad in the district courts as provided in this bill. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Why allow it at all? 

Mr. ANDERSON, of Iowa. I would not allow it at all if I thought 

such a provision would pass this House. I am ready to vote for a bill 

to take away all jurisdiction frw these courU! between the citizens of 

different States, and I am amazeu to find gentlemen on this side of the 

House, our good old Democratic friends, who in the past have clung 

with such tenacity to the doctrines of state rights; many of them now touched, I was going to say by the spirit of mammon, insisting upon 

the Federal courts being extended and widened and broadened in their 

jurisdiction until they come at last to take charge of the entire busi- ness of this country. I am State-rights man enough to be in favor of 

the home_eonrts in my State; and I am opposed to any law that in the 

remotest degree bas a tendency to increase the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. We can see, .Mr. Chairman, from what has been read from 

the Clerk's desk with reference to what one of the justices of the Supreme Court has said, that the business in the Federal courts of this 

country is growing to such an extent that it is absolutely impossible 

for the judges of those courts to discharge satisfactorily the dutie.s of 

their high office. If this amendment shall prevail prohibiting removal 

in cases involving sums not in excess of $2,000, it will be a step in the 

direction of lessening the business of the Federal courts, and it will be a long step in the direction of bringing peace to men who, in cases involving amounts less than that, are now annoyed and irritated by being 

taken into the Federal courts, and thus, in fact, deprived of their right 

to be beard and to have due process of law where their property is in 

jeopardy. [Here the hammer fell.] 

Mr. ROGERS. How much time have I left, Mr. Cha,irman? 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has fifteen minutes left. The 

gentleman from !own. [Mr. ANDERSON] bas occupied but ten of the 

fifteen minutes allowed to him. 

Mr. ROGERS. I should like very much to come to an agreement now as to the time that is to be allo~ed for general debate. I ask unan 

imous consent that genera.l debate close in twenty minutes from this 

time. · 

Mr. DARLINGTON. I object. 

Mr. ROGERS. Will the gentleman indicate what time he desires? 

Mr. DARLINGTON. Oh, it will take probably a week bdore some of these amendments can be disposed of. 

Mr. WILSON, of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer an amendment to this bill. 

Mr. ROGERS. The bill can not be amended until we rome to con- sider it under the five-minute rule. 

The CHAIRMAN. ThegentlemanfromArkansas [Mr. RoGERS] asks 

unanimous consent that general debate upon this bill close in twenty 

minutes. · Mr. HOLMAN. I suggest thirty minutes. 

J'llr. ROGERS. I accept that. I will remind the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania [Mr. DABLINGTON] that the five-minute rule does not 

cut off debate. The bill is in committee as long as they desire to keep 

it there. 

Mt. DARLINGTON. Well, I withdraw my objection. 

The request of Mr. ROGERS that general debate be limited to thirty 

minutes was agreed to. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the remainder of my time, 

and I will now yield the floor to any gentleman who desires to control 

the remaining time. I believe I have fifteen minutes left. I yield to 

the gentleman from Minnesota [~Ir. WILSON]. Mr. WILSON, of J'lfinnesota. Mr. Chairman, I have thought some- what of the subst.'tnce of the amendment which has been presented by 

the two gentlemen of Iowa [Mr. WEAVER and Mr. ANDERSON]. At an early period in this session I presented a bill which is a great deal, 

more radical than eitberofthoseamendments, a bill which accomplishes 

what those gentlemen propose, but which their amendments would not 

accomplish. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, when we reach section 5 I will 

propose an amendment in the words of the bill which I send to the 

desk. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Prorided, That no corporation shall in any suit or action to which it may be a party be held to be a citizen of any State other than that in which such suit or action is brought because it was created by or organized under the laws of such other State; nor shall any corporation be authorized to bring a s.ui.tor action in any court of the United States, or to remove any suit or action from any .State court into any court of the United States, because it was created by or organized under the laws of any State other than that in which such suit or action is brought. And in such cases the circuit and district courts of the United States shall not have jurisdiction other than such as they would have if such corpo- ration had been_organized by or under the laws of the State in which such suit may be brought. 

Mr. WILSON, of Minnesota. hfr. Chairman, iflawyers of this House 

have given att:mtion to this amendment., they must see that it cuts up, 

root and branch, the theory that a corporation ~egate shall be held, 

for the purposes of jurisdiction, a citizen of the ::3tate creating it. 

Mr. "\VEA VER. The gentleman will allow me to call his attention 

to the fact that the Supreme Court has twice decided, in two fundamental cases, that corporations are citizens within the meaning of the 

Constitution of the United States. 

Mr. WILSON, of Minnesota. Ithas never been decided, I think, by 

the Supreme Court of the United States that they are citizens. 

Mr. WEAVER. I refer the gentleman to 20 Wallace. · 

Mr. WILSON, of 1\finnesota. If permitted to bring au.thoritieshere, 

I will demonstrate the fact that that has not been decided. Wha.t has 

been decided, when we come down to it! is this: The cou.rli &'lys, after 

considemble vascillation, "If you allege that a. corporation aggregate 

is a cit.izeu of the State by virtue of whose laws it exists, we, under 

the laws now on the statute-book, will not permit that fact to be traversed." That is what the court in effect says. 

Mr. WEAVER. That is another case. 

Mr. WILSON, of Minnesota. No person who bas examined the matter has ever denied, I think, that Congress has the right to say that a 

~orporntion aggregate shall not, even for the purpose of jurisdiction, be 

considered a citizen.-

.Mr. WEAVER. I have examined the iaw, and I would like to ask 

the gentleman this question: Wherein does the gentleman's amendment differ from mine ? 

Mr. WILSON, of Minnesota. My amendment provides that in no case wherein a eorporation is a party to a suit, either us plaintiff or defendant, shall it be permitted to claim that because it was created hytbe 

laws of another State it is to be considered a citizen of that State, or 

permitted either to bring its liti6::ttion in or remove it into the Federal 

courts on account of such alleged citizenship. 

Mr. WEAVER. My amendment says the corporation shall not remove the suit, wbic.h V; practically the same thing. 

Mr. WILSON, of :Minnesota. The gentleman's amendment is still more limited than I have said. It only refers to suits pending in a 

State in which the corporation is doing ~usiness and to a case in which 

the corporation is defendant. My amendment refers to all cases. Mr. Chairman, this is averyimportantquestion. Undertbestatutes now in force, and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United 

States, corporations created by the laws of any State other than thatin 

which a suit is brought are allowed, in their discretion, to sue in the 
2380 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD~HOUSE. MAROH 24, 

Federal courts, or to remove snits against them from the State courts 

into the Federal courts when the amount involved is over $2,000 and 

the adverse party is a citizen of the State in which suit is brought. 

Inasmuch as the powers of the General Governmentareonly those that 

are granted, the cases in which the Federal courts can properly entertain jurisdiction can only be such as fall under some enumerated class. 

The question which first arises is, therefore, one of interpretation, or 

construction, of that clause of the Constitution which provides that the 

j odicial power of the Federal Government shall ''extend to controversies 

between citizens of different States," for it is under that clause that 

corporations claim the right, as such, to litigate in the Federal courts. 

Every member of the legal profession knows that of late it is assumed 

for the purpose of jurisdiction that a· corporation is a citizen of the 

State by virtue of whose laws it exists; and that a suit between such a 

corpomtion and a citizen of any other State is assumed to be a suit between citizens of different States. This position is manift:stly untenable. Carried to its logical consequences, it is alarming. If we admit 

that a corporation aggregate is a citizen of the State of its creation, within 

the purview of section 2, Article III, of the Constitution, it is impossible to resist the conclusion that under section 2, Article IV, which 

declares that ''the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the 

privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States," the term 

"citizen " should have an equally comprehensive signific..1.tion. But 

to hold that a corporation aggregate is a citizen entitled to all the rights 

and immunities of citizens of the several States is farther than any 

court has gone, or than any intelligent lawyer would assert there is any 

warrant in the Constitution for going. 

For about half a century after the adoption of the Constitution it was 

uniformly held that a corporation, as such, had no right to sue in or toremove a suit into a Federal court. At that time it was considered almost 

treason to disregard or.evade the mandates of the Constitution; but the 

influence of wealth and corporate power soon began to be felt, and the 

tendency of courts always being to absorb questionable jurisdiction, by 

a divided court, in a case in which this question did not necessarily 

arise, this new doctrine was approved, and, not without protest at first, 

that decision has since been followed. This is an illustration of the 

tendency of courts;' on any excuse or pretext, to expand their jurisdiction, and of the never-ceasing, ever-increasing influence of corporations 

and concentrated capital i and, I may add; of the tendency of late towards unwarranted and unconstitutional centralization. 

But that Congress has a right to regulate and limit this jurisdiction 

is not open to doubt, even if it were admitted that a corporation aggregate is within the purview of the Constitution a citizen. The Constitution does not confer jurisdiction on the Federal courts in every c..'tSe 

between citizens of different States. It merely declares the limit of 

the possible jurisdiction in such ca-ses. The question is~ therefore, we 

having the power, what is our duty in the premises? Shall we take 

any, or limit this illegitimate exercise of jurisdiction, or tacitly give 

~ur sanction to it? 

It is provided in the constitutions of most of the States that every 

person is entitled to a speedy remedy in the law for all injuries or 

wrongs he may suffer. This should be the birthright of every Ameri-

~ can citizen, even in the absence of any constitutional provision. But 

the modern doctrine of the Federal courts takes away this right and 

delivers the masses of the people bound hand and foot to the tender 

mercies of corporations and concentrated and organized capital. Every 

lawyer of extensive practice has frequently seen this. 

Let me illustrate: A has insured his property in a foreign corporation, and the property being destroyed by fire the insurance com- pany refuses payment. The assured is compelled at great expense to 

bring suit in the Federal court. Ordinarily the expense of such litigation at such a distance from his home is a great burden and hardship-in some cases nearly a deniaJofjustice. Bu~ this is only the beginning of his calamity. An appeal may be taken by the insurance 

company, if a decision is adverse to it, to the Supreme Court of the 

United States. This delays the final decision about four years longer. 

Unless the assured is wealthy, if he relies, as is ordinarily the case, on· 

the amount recovered from the insurance company to replace his buildings or his stock, the delay is simply ruin. He is therefore compelled 

to accept such terms of compromise as the corporation sees fit to offer. 

I might instance, too, the case of life insurance, of claims for personal 

injuries against railroad companies, of claims on contracts, or ior torts 

against foreign corporations generally. In any and aU such c.ases the 

claimants, when the case is removed into the Federal courts, and the 

amount is sufficient to give a right of appeal, are, if not wealthy, 

simply at the mercy of the corporation and compelled to accept such 

terms of adjustment as may be offered. We should here take care 

that the rule of the Constitution be restored and the rule established 

by the Federal courts abrogated, and that the rights of the people be 

regarded instead of the interest of capital. 

Tbis modern rule is one of the most objectionable pha-ses of centraliz..<ttion. 

:Mr. WEAVER. The gentleman is right about that. 

Mr. WilSON, of Minnesota. It tends and is intended to magnify 

the officer at the expense of the people, the central Government at the 

expense of the State, the stronp: at the expense of the weak, and the 

rich at the expense of the poor. The States can not give the needed 

relief; no power but Congress can give it. 

1\Ir. HOLMAN obtained the floor. 

Mr. WEA. VER. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HoLM.AN] will 

yield to me to read a sentence from a decision of the Supremo Court. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Just a moment. 

Mr. WEAVER. I call the attention of the gentleman from Minne· 

sota [Mr. WILSON] to a decision in 20 Wallace, page 553, where the 

court gives us this language: 

It has also been held many times that a corporation is a citizen of the State 

by which it ia created and in which its principal place of business is situated, so fnr that it can sue and be sued in the Federal courts. 

1\Ir. WILSON, of Minnesota. Exactly; but--

Mr. WE A. VER. Wait a moment. Then the court goes on and holds 

that by virtue of this citzenship the corporation has the right to .remove 

a cause to the Federal courts. 

Mr. WILSON, of Minnesota. I admit that the courts have held that 

it will, under thelaws inexistence, beassumedforthepurposes of juris· 

diction that the corporation is a citizen of the-State of its creation. 

But Mr. Chie:-Justice Taney and Ur. Justice Curtis, in different cases, 

emphatically decided that it could not be held that such a corporation 

is a citizen within the meaning of the Constitution. 

Mr. WEAVER. I agree w1th the gentleman from .hlinnesota, that 

this system should be cut up by the roots; but the court, I say, has 

held they are citizens. 

:Ur. HOLMAN. Mr. Chairman, there are two modes by which the 

large accumulation of commercial business in the Supreme Court of the 

United States, which is the occasion for the proposed legislation, can be reduced. One is by reducing the jurisdiction of the Federal courts 

and thus reduce the number of cause8 in the Federal courts, and the 

other is by creating an intermediate appellate tribunal between the 

Supreme Court oft he United States and the trial courts, nisi prius courts, 

of the Federal system. Which of these two shall be taken? If you 

adopt the latter, that of intermediate appellate tribunals, such as are 

proposed here-intermediate appellate courts, the plan proposed by this 

bill-you accomplish what I trust this Rouse does not propose to do, 

an unexampled increase in the number of judges in the Federal judicial 

system. Unexampled, I say, and I think I use that term ad vi eJly. 

I call attention to the fact that if you confer on these district courts, 

in addition to the jurisdiction they now possess, the jurisdiction now 

possessed by the circuit courts, you will substantially double the business of those courts. · 

I predict, if you pass this bill, inside of five years, as an inevitable 

result, you will have to double the number of your district courts and 

double the number of your district judges. That is inevitable and 

patent. I am astonished that a fact so apparent and manifest bas not 

been met by this committee by an increase not only of circuit, but also 

of the district judges. Why does not the committee provide for a 

large increase of the number of district judges at once, as the business 

thrown on these courts is enormously increased by this bill? Taking 

my own State, and judging from the business before the district and 

circuit courts at the present time, and from the additional business that 

will be thrown on the district courts by this bill, I am confident before the adjournment of the present Congress the Representati \"es from 

that State will find it necessary to consider the propriety of didding 

the State into two districts. It will be found to be the same in the _ 

other States of the Union. Unless t:!;i&Honse is prepared to go to the 

extent of enlarging the Federal systeM and the number of its judges 

beyond anything contemplated in our past history, gentlemen will 

hesitate to pass this bill. 

You propose to diminish the business of t.be Supreme Court of the 

United States. That is undoubtedly proper and ought to be done. It 

is readily done when you establish the proper relations between the 

Federal and State courts. You thereby prevent those conflicts w bich 

have been occurring from time to time during the last twenty years, 

and certain to increase in the' future under the present state of affairs, 

where the Federal authorities are brought in conflict with State authorities and citizens forced into inevitable peril of serious loss and imprisonment. 

The jurisdiction of the Federal courts in all questions arising under 

the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, of course must 

be maintained and to the extent prescribed by the Constitution, and there 

it ought to end. Beyond that it is a proper subject for the consideration of Congress Generally in all the States throughout the Union the 

judicial systems are well organized, society is well crystallized, and the 

relation between the various States of the Union and the citizens of aU 

the States is such as to render it certain that justice will be secured in 

the courts of all the States. 

The opinion is generally entertained that in the administration of 

justice where a citizen is to be sued the suit should be brought in the 

county where he resides and where be will suffer the least inconvenience. In the States the citizen i'! not to be taken beyond the tribunal 

of the county in which he lives. 

To enlarge the Federal judicial system on one side diminiRh es the 

importance of your State courts and restricts them, and in a corresponding degree augments the importance of the Federal judiciary, and at. tba 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2381 

same time oppresses your peopi.e. I think this is a departure from what was con tern plated by our fathers in providing for the organization of the 

Federal judiciary. · . 

Mr. CUTCHEON. In speaking of the matter of the expected increase 

of business in the Federal courts, I presume if this bill passes the jurisdiction of the Federal courts will not be extended where they do not now have it. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Certainly. It imposes dou,ble the business on the 

district courts, anu wil1 compel a large increase in the number of district judges. 

Mr. CUTCHEON. In your opinion it \Vill enlarge the district court 

business? 

Mr. HOLMAN. I think it will more than double the business in 

my State, and in thn,t way require a larger number of districts. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

Mr. ROGERS. I yield now such time to the ~eman from Texas 

[Mr. CULBERSON] as he may desire. _ Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I have but a word to add to 

what has been already stated in reference to the amendment proposed 

by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. WILSON] and the gentleman 

from Iowa [Mr. ANDERSON]. 

I have to say this: I do not doubt that Congress has power to enact. such legislation ag they propose; and I have no doubt of another fact, 

that the Supreme Court of the United States have virtually, time and 

time again, held that for all judicial purposes the corporation created 

and organized under the laws of the State was a citizen of that State. 

They have constantly held that thejudicialpowerofthe United States, 

which provides that the courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction over controversies between the citizens of different States, that 

in such cases a corporation is a citizen within the meaning of that term 

in the Constitution; and the jurisdiction of these courts has been upheld from time to time upon that construction. 

I confess that in the earlier days of the Supreme Court of the United 

States they held quite a different doctrine, and for many years such was no doubt the ruling of the court. But for years past the other 

has been the accepted construction, and is to this day. 

Recognizing that fact, I did in the Forty-eighth Congress, and also 

in the Forty-ninth Congress, ingraft; a provision into the law, which 

passed during -the last Congress, to take away from these courts, the 

United States courts, original jurisdiction over controversies between 

corporations doing business in a State and the citizens of that State. 

That provision passed the Honse of Representatives twice, one~ in the 

Forty-eighth and again in the Forty-ninth Congress. It was stricken 

from the bill at the other end of the Capitol, and the balance was passed on the 3d day of March, 1887. 

I beg to say that while we think-someofus do at least-that this is 

proper legislation, and upon a proper occasion ought to be insisted upon, 

yet in dealing with this bill, which we regard n.s very important, we believed that we should leave the jurisdiction of these courts just exactly where we found it, and not attempt, in a bill of this character, 

to diminish or increase that jurisdiction, but to organize these courts 

with reference to existing jurisdiction solely. And I do hope that t.his 

bill, having had the mature consideration of the committee in that view, 

will not be loaded down with these amendments in respect to the in- crease or diminution of existing jurisdiction. 

Now, a word further. I understood the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 

ANDERSON], who was on the :floor awhile ago, to recite a conversation 

with some judge, up in Iowa, I believe, or some other State, in which 

that judge had declared that the member of Congress who had contributed the second section of the act of March, 1887, had been guilty 

either of "bungling or criminal neglect," or something of that character. 

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I had somewhat of responsibility 

in connection with the construction of that act of Congress. Indeed, 

I represented it upon the :floor in the last four Congresses·and had the 

gratification to see the act passed by this Honse in three Congresses. 

It went over to the Senate in the last Congre.3S, and went into the 

hands of a conference committee in the very last hours of the session. 

It has certainly not escaped the attention of the gentleman from Iowa 

that a bill is now pending in this House, and is also pending in the 

Senate, to correct the enrollment of that bill. It was enrolled under 

circumstances that made it an utter physical impossibility for the clerk 

to reach, it seemed to me, a correct and accurate representation of the 

bill as it passed both Houses of Congress in time for the signature of 

the President. It has been ascertained that from fifteen to twenty errors exist in that bill in the enrollment, consisting of punctuation, 

spelling, and the transposition of some sentences out of their proper 

places. 

This bill has n~ver been under judicial re·view, I think, except in two 

instances, since its adoption. While these errors have been complained 

of by the judges, none of them (and it has passed in review before one of the judges of the Supreme Court sitting at circuit and other circuit 

judges)-none of them have complained of any criminal negligence or blundering in connection with the bill, and no one ever heard before 

that any man could fail to see that the minimum jurisdiction of these 

court.<l had been raised from $500 to $2,000. No one has ever heard of 

such a complaint; and it I had time to read the act as it passed, and as it is placed in parallel columns with the act of 1875 in the one hundred 

and twentieth volume of the United. States Reports, every gentleman 

could see exactly the change in the original law. 

Mr. WILSON, of Minnesota. Nobody ever doubted that it was good law. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Not th~ I ever heard of, except some gentle- man in Iowa. 

Now, I do not care to detain the House further. 

Mr. ROGERS. I yield now one minute to the gentleman from Iowa 

[Mr. ANDERSON]. 

Mr. ANDERSON, of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, as to the statement made 

by the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as to the 

number and variety of the errors made and otherwise contained in that 

removal act, he can raise no controversy with me. Mr. CULBERSON. Not the removal act; the whole act taken together. 

Mr. ANDERSON, of. Iowa. And particularly as to the second sec-· tion--

Mr. CULBERSON. I beg the gentleman to allow me to say that I 

did not have reference to the removal act solely. The removal clause 

is only one section of the act out of a good many. 

Mr. ANDERSON, of Iowa. I simply referred, by way of argument, 

to what a distinguished judge in my State had said when the con- struction of that section came legitimately before him. We had there 

not only the law, but the history of the enactment of the statute as it 

took place in both branches of Congre.c;s; and I am glad and cheerful 

to say that I exonerate the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and 

any other member of this House, and that the bungling or criminal 

conduct, whatever it may have been, was not in that court or by me intended to be imputed to this House or any member of it. 

Mr. ROGERS. I have only occupied one or two moments, and one or two gentlemen still desire more time than I have. I think I shall 

occupy the other five minutes I have remaining. Before doing so I ask 

that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SENEY], who is detained from the 

Honse by sickness in his family, be permitted to have remarks on this 

bill printed in the RECORD. 

There was no objection. 

Mr. ROGERS. I am gratified that the debate and criticism of this 

bi.ll have resulted complimentarily to the Committee on the Judiciary 

in this respect: that tbe conciseness and perspicuity of the bill have 

been beyond criticism. The only criticism whatever that has been 

made upon the bill is upon the policy of reorganizing the judicial system of the country, and upon the additional fact that the bill does 

not contain other provisions curtailing the jurisdiction of the Federal 

courts. 

It was the earnest desire, and I think I may say the unanimous view, 

of the Judiciary Committee that in presenting this bill to the House 

this year, a bill, I think, which has twice received in the form now presented substantially the assent of the Judiciary Committee of the 

Senate and of the Senate, it should not be encumbered with anything, 

certainly with no aggressive or affirmative legislation of any description 

that did not rdate to the simple reorganization of the judicial system 

of the Government, and I express the hope and urge upon the friends 

of this measure who would like to see this system reorganized, that they 

do not encumber it with any legislation at all except to perfect, if it 

has any defects in it, the system itself. 

It is conceded that this bill in no wise increases the jurisdiction of 

the Federal courts. It is urged, upon the other hand, that the tendency 

of it is to increase the litigation of those courts. My heart, Mr. 

Chairman, was enlisted in this measure first by an incident which took 

place in Great Britain. I allude to the trial of O'Donnell, !believe, as a suspect, and in which he was convicted in one of the courts of Great 

Britain over which there was no appellate jurisdiction. It was at least a political crime of which he bad been convicted; and the whole country seemed shocked at the idea that an American citizen could be tried 

in one of the nisi prius courts of Great Britain and the judgment of 

the court remain final. 

There were most severe and harsh criticisms on any system which tolerated the idea that the life and liberty of a citizen should be put in 

peril in that way. 

And yet when we reflected on the fact that our own Federal system is 

organized on the same principle, we were estopped from complaining of 

the system of Great Britain; for it is true for the first hundred years 

of the Republic there has been no appellate jurisdiction from the nisi 

prius courts in criminal cases. It is true that where a question of jurisdiction of the lower courts may be involved the Supreme Court upon a 

writ of habeas corpus will review the rulings of the court below; and if 

it shall determine that jurisdiction did not exist it may discharge the 

prisoner. But there is no appellate jurisdiction. .A.nd the leaqing principle which is involved in this bill is the principle of humanity. It is 

the principle that runs in favor of human life and human liberty. 

But there is another feature ofthis bill whichis wortbyofthe eam· est consideration of the American Congress. It is the destruction, the 

wiping out, so to speak, of that almost undefined and indefinable line of 

jurisdiction between the district and the circuit courts of the United 
2382 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MARon 24, 

Sta~, and the simplification of the jurisdiction as well as the great 

simplification and expedition in the procedure of the courts. 

Then there is still another feature in the bill, Mr. Chairman. It is 

said, and I am not willing to permit that to go unnoticed, that the 

tendency of this legislation is to increase the jurisdiction of the Federal 

courts. It is _due the Judiciary Committee of the House, at least since 

I have had the honor to be a member of it, that I should say that with 

the single exception of the extension of jurisdiction in the cases of polygamy, and perhaps with another exception, with reference to the 

recovery of the public domain, every step we have attempted thus far 

to take has been in the direction of curtailing the jurisdiction of the 

Federal courts. 

[Here the hammer fell.] . rrhe C~IAN. The time of the gentleman from Arkansas has 

expired. By order of the committee, made by unanimous consent, all 

general debate is now closed; and the Clerk will proceed to read the 

bill by sectwns f3r amendment. 

· The Clerk, readjng tho bill by sections, read as follows: 

Be it e11acted, etc., That the district courts of the United .:3tates shall hereafter 

have and exercise, exclusi\•e of the circuit courts of the United States, in addition to the jurisdiction conferred upon them by existing la.w, all the original 

jurisdiction now vested by law in the circuit courts of the United States, and 

that the circuit courts of the United States shall have and exercise such jurisdic- tion, by writ of error and appeal, as they have and exercise under existing laws, 

except :~.s herein modified, nnd such other jurisdiction, appellate or othet·wise, as is conferred by this act .. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word, in 

order that I may conclude the observations tha I desire to make in 

connection with former remarks. I repeat, sir, that, with the exception noted, every step taken during the last fonr years by the Judiciary 

Committee of the House has been in the direction of curtailing the jurisdiction of the Fedeml courts. It is said in this connection that if we 

pass this bill we shall be compelled in five years to double the number 

/ of district judges of the United States. The investigation of the question of mising judicial salaries has led the members of the Committee 

on the Judiciary to investigate to a considerable extent the amount of 

business now pending in the Federal courts throughout the country, and 

the conclusion reached by at least a large number of the members of 

the committee is that in many of the district courts the dockets are 

compamti,ely small. 

It is also true, Mr. Chairman, that the district courts do, to a very 

large extent, circuit-court business, and an article which I had the 

ple.:1snre of reading this morning, said to have been written by one of 

the most accomplished and distinguished lawyers that I have the honor 

to know, alluding to the bill, sn.ys in substance the same thing, namely, 

"that the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, as they are now constituted, is transferred to the district courts, vohich have at present but 

litlle business upon their dockets." 

If that be true, Mr. Chairman, and if this nnnece...~y division of 

duties between the district and circuit courts be wiped out, and all of 

this business given to the district courts, so that they can arrange it 

and dispose of it in an ordeTly way and let it go up gradually by appe..'tl to the higher courts, then we shall have these district courts organized substantially as the circuit courts of the several States are now 

organized. In other words, they will bec.ome the great reservoir, so 

to speak, of oTiginal juri~jction, controllipg, in the exercise of their 

executive ability, the management and dispatch of their business. 

Now, what will be theothereffectofthis bill? Why, litigants who come 

into the district court will be enabled, as soon as the circuit courts may 

be organized, to secure a speedy trial before a tribunal of atleast equal 

ilignity with the supreme court of any State in this Union. In addition to that, these circuit courts will stop all cases below $10,000. Those 

above that, or, as has been said bymycolleague, thoseinvolvingtreaty 

or constitutional questions, may proceed to the Supreme Court. The 

effect of this will be to curtail the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, 

unload its docket, and in this way we accomplish good at both ends of 

the line. 

But there is one other aspect of the matter which is of the very highest 

importance. Thatisthefactthat under the organization here presented, 

n.s rapidly as the Territories may be developed into States, this system 

enlarges and takes them in without req niring any additional legislation 

whatever, and they become at once homogeneous parts of the system; 

so that there can arise no necessity for a change or modification of a 

system which will adapt itself as the country grows and develops, so as 

to meet every exigency that may arise. 

We have, therefore, the two great {lrinciples combined or concurrent, 

namely: no questions of jurisdiction or thorough perspicuity as to every 

question of that sort that can arise, and, at the same time, the utmost 

simp}.icity of practice familiar to every member of the bar, because the 

procedure, so far as it is altered at allJ is made to conform to that of the 

aeveraJ. S,tates throughout the Union. I withdraw the formal amend- ment. 

Mr. HOOKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out 14,e last two 

words. 

I had no opportunity to say a word on this bill in the general debate, 

and therefore I shall have to avail myself of the occasion of speaking 

under the five-minute rule. 

ft is very well known, sir, that in the formation of the Government 

and in the adoption of the existing Constitution and the creation of the 

Federal judiciary long debates arose about the power which was being 

conferred upon the judiciary of the Federal Government and the power 

which was reserved totheStates, anditwasthenargu~d that the boundary line between the jurisdiction of the Federal courts and the jurisdiction of the State courts was imperfectly defined, and that conflicts 

between the two jurisdictions would not be of infrequent occurrence 

in the progress of the country; a prediction which we have seen fully 

illustrated in later times. A.s was well said by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. STONE], in the v_ery able and compactl brief which he presented this morning, for many years after the adoption of the Constitution of the United Stat-es the principle was laid down and followed 

by the Supreme Court of the United States that in adjudicating Ullon 

the law of a State it would follow the construction of the supreme court 

of that State as to its own constitution and laws. That rnle remained 

unbroken until we begin in the Aspinwall case and the Riggs case, to 

which the gentleman from Uissouri [Mr. STONE] has referred, when 

another and a. different construction was plaeed upon their duty by the 

Supreme Court of the United States as to following the adjudication of 

the court of bst resort in the State from which the case came. 

And :M:r. Justice Miller raised a note of warning which ought to be 

heard throughout the length and breadth of this land when he delivered the >ery able dissenting opinions in both those cases and invoked 

his judicial brethren to return to the original doctrine upon the subject-that it was the duty of the Supreme Court of the United States 

to follow the adjuilications of the highest tribunal of the State in the 

construction of the State constitution and laws. And in a.n opinion 

delivered in 11 Wallace, page 12:5, by that able jurist, the late Judge 

Nelson, speaking for the Supreme Court of the United States-the same opinion re!erred to by the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 

STONE]; an opinion delivered in 1870-we :find this language: 

It is a fruniliar rule of construction of the Constitution of the Union, that the 

sovereign powers yested in the State governments by their respective constitutions 1·emained unaltffi'ed and unimpaired, except so far as they were granted to the Government of the United States. That the intention of the framers of 

the Constitution in thisrespeetmight not be misunderstood, this rule of interpretation is ex-pt·essly declared in the tenth article of the amendment!!, namely : "The powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the Sta.tes re- specti •ely, or t-o the people." The Government of the United States, therefore, can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the Constitution, and the powers actually granted must be such as are expressly given, or given by nec- essary implication. The General Go\·ernment IUld the Slates, Blthough both exist within the same territorial limit-s, are separate and distinct sovereignties, acting separately and 

independently of each othet·, within their respective spheres. The former in 

its appropriate sphere is supreme, but the States within the limits of their pow- ers not gra.nted, or in the language of the tenth amendment, "reserved," arc as independent of the General Government as that Government within its 

sphere is independent of the States. 

The relations existing between the two governments are well stated by the r.resent Chief-Justice in the case of Lane County 't'S. Oregon (7 Wallace, 76). 

'Both the States and the United States," be observed, "existed before the Constitution. The people, through that instrument, established a more perfect 

union by substituting n. National Government, aeting with ample powers directly upon the citizens, instead of the confederate government, which acted, 

with powers greatly restricted, only upon the States. But in many of the articles of the Constitution the necessary existence of the States, and, within their proper spheres, the independent au,thority of the States, are distinctly recog- nized. To them nearly the whole charge of interior regulation is committed or left; to them, and to the people, all powers not expressly delegated to the 

National Government are reserved." Upon looking into the Constitution it 

will be found that but a few of the articles in that instrument could be carried 

into practical etrect without the existence of the States. Two of the great departments of the Government, the executive and legislative, depend upon the exercise of the powers. or upon the people, of the States. 

The Constitution guaranties to the States a republican form of government, and 

protects each against invasion ot· domestic violence. Such being the separate 

and independent condition of the States in our complex system, as recognized 

by the Constitution, and the existence of which is so indispensable that with- out them the General Government itself would disappear from the family of na- tions, it would seem to follow as a reasonable, if not a necessary consequence, that the means and instrumentalities employed for carrying on the operations of their governments, for preserving their existence, and fulfilling the high and 

responsible duties assigned to them in the Constitution, should be lefl; free and 

unimpaired, should not be liable to be crippled much less defeated by the taxing power of n.nother government, which power a..cknowledges no limits but the 

will of the legislative body imposing the tax; and, more especially, those means and instrumentalities which are the creation of their sovereign and reserved 

rights, one of which is the establishment of the judicial department and the ap- pointment of officers to administer their laws. Without this power and the 

exercise of it, we risk nothing in saying that no one of the States under the form 

of Government guarantied by the Uonstitution could longpreserve its existence. A despotic government Illight. We have said that one of the resen-ed powers was that to establish a judicial department; it would have been more accumte, 

and in accordance with the existing state of things at the time, to have said the power to maintain a judicial department. All of the thirteen St tes were in the 

possession of this power and had exercised it at the adoption of the Constitution; and it is not P.retended that any grant of it to the General Government is 

founu in that instrument. It is, therefore, one of the sove1-eign powers vested 

in the States by their constitutions, which remained unaltered and unimpaired, 

and in respect to which the State is as independent of the General Government as C1at Government is independent of the States. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

Mr. DUNN obtained the floor and said: I yie1d my time to the gentleman from Mississippi [1\lr. HooKER]. 

Ur. HOOKER. It will be seen, Mr. Chairman, on examining this 

bill that it proposes in the first section to give additional jurisdiction 

to the district courts of the United States, diminishing correspondingly 

that of the circuit courts. I agree with my friend from Texas [Mr. 

/ 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2383 

CuLBERSON], to whose clear knowledge of the law I generally bow, in 

his construction of the act which was passed in the first session of the 

Forty-ninth Congress, restricting the jurisdiction of the district courts 

by a limit.:'l.tion of $2,000 and relegating to the State courts the adjudication of questions which by construction had been taken from t;hose 

courts and given to Federal tribunals. I do not know what may have 

been in other States than my own the operation of the policy of authorizing unduly the removal of suits from the State courts to the Federal courts, but I know that iu Mississippi H operated to stl'ike down . the State comts and transfer to the Federal tribunals sitting frequently 

at points remote from the residence of the parties the determination of 

their controversies. In this way the jurisdiction of the courts of our 

State was in a very large degree absorbed by Federal tribunals. .I agree 

with the gentleman from Minnesota [M:r. WILSON] in desiring to see 

this portion of the law swept away, so that justice shall no longer be 

defcaterl. by transferring to the Federal courts actions begun in the tribunals of the State. · W bat will be the effect of this bill? As has been well said by my distinguished friend from Indiana [Ur. HouiAN J, jt will tend to enlarge the 

jurisdiction of the district courts and diminish that-of the circuit courts. 

What will result? In a little while each State of the Union, instead 

of ba ving, as Mississippi now has, a single Federal judge, will have two 

or three. A clamor will come up for the creation of Federal judgeships in addition to the nine new circuit judges that this bill proposes 

to authorize-a provision which constitutes, to my mind, the grand objection to the bill. I would not create by my vote another Federal 

judicial officer except in a case of absolute necessity, and if I made 

such increase I would begin at the bottom round of the ladder. I 

would not vote to authorize these nine additional circuit judges, because 

I believe that the Federal judiciary has under the present system sufficient power. '.fo add to it by multiplying Federal judges and increasing the jurisdiction of the district courts would, in my judgment, be 

unwise policy. I• has been said that the line of demarkation between 

Federal and State jurisdiction is a very murky and indistinct one. On a memora})le occasion I heard Justice Story, whose lessons of wisdom I had the honor of listening to in my younger days-when the 

great commercial lawyer of Boston, J'l.Ir. Choate, was arguing a question 

before him of conflict of authority, Judge Story, with that amiable 

manner which always characterized him, interrupted the argument of 

the case and said to M:r. Choate, '' The coufiicting authorities on this 

subj ect fade into each other as undistinguishably as the colors of the 

rainbow;" whereupon M:r. Choate stepped backward in that peculiar 

way which belonged to him in jury trials, and passing his long, slender 

:fingers through his ra>en-black hair, said: "Yes, may it please your 

honor, or may it not rather be said to be like that peculiar period of 

time called twilight, when no man knows whether it be day or whetbeJ 

it be night?" [Applause.] 

So it is we have seen this conflict of authority between State courts 

and Federal courts. ·we have witnessed these questions in the history 

of the country, and I fear this bill, instead of limiting the evils foreseen 

in the adoption of the Constitution, will increase them by the increase 

of the Federal judges, and drawing to the Federal judiciary more and 

more the authority, power, and jurisdiction which it was designed aud 

intended should be lodged in the judicial tribunals of the respective 

States. 

[Here the hammer fell J 

.Mr. BUCKALEW. M:y colleague [Mr. LYNCH] has prepared an 

amendment to this first section of the bill, and I will yield to him for 

. the purpose of having it offered at this time. 

l\1r. LYNCH. I offer the following amendment. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

That on the trial of the civil and criminal cases in the district courts of the 

United States a stenographer, to be appointed by the judges, shall be employed at a compensation not to exceed $10 per day, to be paid by the Uuited States, 

whose duty it shall be to report all proceedings of the trial, including the in· 

strlletions to the jury given by the judge. It shall be the duty of said stenogra· pher to extend the said Jilroceedings taken by him in short-hand in long-hand, or by type-writer when 1lirected to do so by the court or a judge, and that the 

instructions of the judge to the jury shall be filed as a part of the record in the case. 

Mr. ROGERS. I raise the point of order against that amendment. 

~he CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point. 

1\fr. ROGERS. That it is not germane to the bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. Germane to the bill or the first section? 

1\1r. ROGERS. The first section. 

Mr. BUCKALEW rose. 

The CH.A.IRlti!.N. Does the gentleman wish to discuss the point of 

order or the amendment? 

1\Ir. BUCKALEW. I wish to discuss both. In the first place the 

first section of the bill devolves upon the district courts of the United 

States a large amount of original jurisdiction, including the trial of civil 

and criminal cases, which will double the amount of business; that is, 

the amount of trials in those courts. The amendment proposed is to 

enable the judges of those courts to perform their duties within reasonable limit of time and prevent accumulation of business upon their 

dockets. I am opposed to increase of the jurisdiction of these courts in 

suclt manner that the business will accumulate and the judges will not 

be able to perform the duties we impose upon them. I am also opposed to the prospective increase of judicial districts and judicial judges 

which may possibly arise from the adoption of the fir.;t section. Therefore the appointment of stenographers by which the transaction of business in these courts is facilitated is indispensable, in my judgment, to 

the operation of the first section of the bill. But I do not propose to 

proceed until the Chair has determined whether, in his judgment, the 

amendment is or is not germane to the section. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Cbairwill hearthegentlemanfromArkansas 

on the point of order, if he wishes to speak. 

Mr. ROGERS. The first section of the bill contains nothing in the 

world except the transfer of the jurisdiction of the present circuit courts 

to the district courts. It has nothing to do with procedure or anything else, but merely the transfer of jurisdiction of the circuit courts 

to the district courts. I do not think it is germane. 

Mr. STONE, of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I now desire to offer the 

amendment which I bad read some time ago. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that there is now a point of 

order pending. 

Mr. STONE, of :Missouri. I am aware of that. 

Mr. BLAND. I understand this amendment is simply to perfect the 

iuri dictional features of the bill, ancl hence must properly come in before the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, which simply goes to the practice under the bill. I understand my colleague 

wants to perfect this part of the bill first. 

Mr. STONE, of Missouri. That is the point. I wish to offer it as a 

proviso to the first section. Mr. PETERS. I suppo3e there should first be a ruling on the point 

of order. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. is germane, and overrules the point of order. 

Mr. BLAND. Iwish to make aparliamentaryinqniry-whetheror 

not an amendment which proposes to amend the text, or limits thesection~or gives jurisdiction to the courts, is not :first to be Q.etermined before action is taken rq;>on an amendment that simply goes to the practice before the courts? The amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, as I understand it, relates to the practice, while that of my 

colleague affects the question of jurisdiction. 

The CHAIR~1AN. The Chair can not undertake to determine the 

order in which gentlemen upon the floor shall offer amendments. If 

the gentleman from Pennsylvania, whose amendment is pending, shall 

see proper to withdraw it temporarily the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Missouri to offer his. Otherwise, the amendment can not 

now be received. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is entitled to the 

floor on the pending amendment. 

1\Ir. BUCKALEW. Mr. Chairman, there is no difficulty in having 

two r.mendments pending at the same time-the second one to the text 

of the bill, which would be voted npon first, and the other afterwards. 

That is the ordinary practice. 

I will proceed now to speak to the amendment of my colleague. I 

hope, sir, if we are to charge the district courts of the United States 

with this large amount of nisi prius business-the trial of civil and 

criminal causes-we will make the necessary and, to my mind, indispensable provision for transacting promptly and efficiently the business 

thus imposed upon them. My colleague has drawn his amendment, I 

believe, very much from the provision of a similar character now existing in the laws of our own State, under which the practice of our 

courts has been most satisfactory, and the transaction of business has 

been much more prompt, whileatthesametimealargeamountofpublic expense and the former delays of trials have been obviated. That 

I conceive to be the purpose and will be the effect of this amendment. 

If the transaction of the business of these courts in ihe trial of causes 

submitted to them is accompanied by the employment of reporters, there 

will not be the delay and expense attending them which otherwise is 

inevitable, ab.d, as I said before, the disposal of business will be prompt 

and satisfactory. 

I support the a~endment, therefore, as an indispensable adjunct or 

condition to this first section of the bill. 

I will only add, sir, that I agreed to the report of this bill from the 

Committee on the Judiciary, reserving to myself complete freedom of 

action upon it; and if in the course oftheconsideration of the bill any 

amendment is presented which I regard as reasonable, judicious, and 

proper to limit the jurisdiction of our Federal courts, and to facilit...'tte 

the transaction of the business of the courts, I shall support such amendment and vote for it cheerfully. 

I only desire now to mention one practical consideration in this connection. We are told that this bill ought not to be burdened with 

any proposition of that description, that it might embarrass the passage 

of the bill. We are also told that an independent proposition limiting 

Federal jurisdiction will be proposed, or has been proposed, by the J udici· 

aryCommittee to this House, and thattbat can receiveindependentcon· 

sideration. Let me say to gentlemen that when you send this bill to 

lawyers in another place for consideration, if you want any amendment, if you want any prOitOSition like that referred to, limiting the 

jurisdiction of the courts, you must send it with this bill or you will 
2384 CONGRESSIONAL-RECORD-HOUSEJ MAROH' 24, 

get nothing. I suppose it is true that this general measure has been 

considered in the Senate. It is very likely that it will receive the 

assent of that body if sent there. Therefore those who desire the adoption of the amendment to which I refer had better have it put upon 

the bill before it leaves the House, and insist upon its remaining there, 

for in my judgment that is the only manner in which it can be secured. 

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of order. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. BLAND. I want to know whether the amendment of my .colleague to the text of the bill, and also the amendment of the gentleman 

from Pennsylvania, can both be pending at the same time to be voted 

upon? 

The CHAIRMAN. Two amendments can be pending at the same time to be voted upon in their proper order-that is, an amendment 

and an amendment to the amendment. The Chair can not, as it has 

already said, undertake to designate the manner in w hicb amendments are to be offered. 

Mr. ~LAND. Can my colleague now offer his amendment? 

The CHAIRMAN. He can at this time, as an amendment to the 

pending amendment. · 

Mr. STONE, of Missouri. Then I offer the amendment which I sent 

up to the desk some time ago and had read, to come in as a proviso at the 

end of the first section. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that there is an amendment 

pending, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, to come in at tbe 

end of the section, which will now have precedence, unless, as stated 

bythe Chair, thegentlemanfromPennsylvaniashallsee propertowitbdraw his amendment for the purpose of allowing the gentleman from 

Missouri to offer his. · Mr. STONE, of Missouri. But the amendment of my friend from 

Pennsylvania, as he will obsen-e by examining the text oJ the bill, 

would properly come in after mine. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state the question. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Permit me to ask if the pending amendment is that 

offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania? ~ 

The CHAIRMAN. That is the pending question. The Clerk will 

again report t-he amendment. 

The amendment of Mr. LYNCH was again read. 

Mr. HOLMAN rose. Mr. BLAND. I wish to suggest to the gentleman from Pennsy Ivania [Mr. LYNCH] to temporarily withdraw his amendment, with a view 

to the symmetry of the bill, as my colleague [Mr. STONE, of l\Iissonri] 

desires to offer an amendment which goes to thA text of it. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania afterwards if he desires to withhold his amendment a.t 

this time. · Mr. LYNCH. I prefer to have it voted on now. :M:r. HOLMAN. I offer as an amendment to the amendment of the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania what I send to the desk. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Strike out "United States" and insert "by the party against whom the costs are adjudged." 

_ Mr. HOLMAN. My amendment is to strike out ''United States" 

where it occurs and insert the words I have sent up. 

I wish to say to my friend from Pennsylvania that this amendment 

would completely harmonize with what is the practice, I presume, in 

most of the States. These, so far as I am aware, say a stenographer 

shall be employed, but the expense shall be paid by the party against 

whom the costs are adjudged. A stenographer is employed in at least 

those Federal courts with which I am familiar, but the costs are paid to 

him by the parties. It is merely a matter of cost. When you furnish 

the judicial system with proper officers for the administration of justice you ha>e gone far enough. 

Here would be an item of some $234,000 a year to be added to your 

budget for the administration of justice. In its main aspects the em- ployment of a stenographer is a mere matter incident to the trial which 

ought to enter into the costs of the case. I do not feel myself very much inclined to adopt the views expressed _by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania about increasing the 

motives of going into the tJ:ibunals. 

A MEliBER. How about criminal casE's? 

Mr. HOLMAN. In criminal cases that could not occur. It would 

be confined to civil snits. But I take it as a matter of cost there is no reason why this expense should be taken out of the national Treasury. 

We are enlarging in every respect this system of going to the national 

Treasury and diminishing the degree of State jurisdiction. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. I understand the gentleman from Pennsylvania 

[.Mr. LYNCH] offered an amendment requiring the attendance in courts 

of a stenographer. I understand also that an amendment to that amendment has been offered by the gentleman from Indiana [1tlr. HOLMAN], 

requiring that that stenographer shall be paid by the party losing the cause. I say that amendment is in direct conflict with all the fair and 

honorable principles on which the theory of this Government is based, 

to the effect that we shall have justice made not only as expeditious but 

aa cheap to the people as possible. 

But I call the attention of the gentleman from Indiana to the fact 

that his amendment does not go far enough. Upon the same principle 

it should provide that the party losing should pay the salary of the 

iudge; that be should pay the rent of the court; that he should pay for 

gas, fuel, and all that sort of thing. To have his amendment perfectly 

consistent, I suggest to hi.Jll to include those and similar items and 

make justice as dear as po3sible instead of as cheap as possible. 

Mr. CASWELL. I do not want to oppose the appointment of a stenogra pher• in the trial of these cases in the proper way and at the proper 

time. But this amendment would permit the attendance of a stenographer at $10 a day from the beginning of the session to its conclusion, 

whether there was anything for him todoornot.. Nor would it correct 

the difficulty if we adopted the plan suggested by the gentleman from 

Indiana, because it very often occurs that there is no case on trial for 

three or four days that requires the assistance of a stenographer. Another objection is that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant might be 

responsible and that neither could be compelled to pay the stenographer. 

Consequently the remedy would be inadequate. 

Now, I appeal to this House to second the suggestion made by the 

gentleman from Arkansas that we do not depart from the objects of 

this bill. We only undertake by it to reorganize the judiciary system 

of the United States, and we do not wish to have this bill loaded by 

propositions to extend or curtail the jurisdiction of these courts as they now exist. Instead of providing for the machineq of the courts by 

authorizing the appointment of stenographers or other officers, we should 

leave the bill to stand upon its own merits in so far as it deals with 

the reorganization "or the judiciary system. Se>eral amendments have 

been proposed to the bill as it now stands, which I do not wish to 

antagonize; nor does the Judiciary Committee, if I understand the 

disposition of its mem hers, desire to antagonize those propositions. 

But in almost every instance we have already reported a bill to the 

House, and it is now on the Calendar, to provide for those very matters. 

And I urge this House now when we are trying to ~~n·fect this system 

by improvements which have been long needed to confine itself at this 

time to proceeding with the one subject of reorganiz· g the judiciary as presented in this measure. 

While it is true that this measure will enlarge the duties of the trial 

court, it is also true that the district courts almost everywhere through 

the United States are now holding the circuit courts and are discharging in the main the duties of those courts. And it is, in my judgment, a wise thing to do, to bring the trial of these cases nearer the people 

and confine them to one court, the district court. 

And then we assign to the inte.rvening court, the circuit court, au- thority to review these cases on proper appeals or writs of error, for the 

purpose of correcting error if it has intervened in the trial court be! ow. ln that way we relie>e the calendar of the Supreme Court.. It is well 

known that in the present condition of that calendar a case if appealed can not be reached in less than three years, which amounts pra~tically 

to a denial of justice in many cases, because it often happens that if the 

parties undertook to go through another three years of litigation they 

would be utterly ruined, and the1·efore they abandon the case. Now, 

the great object of this reorganization is torelievetheSupreme Court from 

its present crowded condition, and to that end we have propoEed this 

system, which is not altogether new, as it bus been often under con- sideration in the other end of the Capitol, and has twice passed that body 

in substantially its present form. I appeal to the committee again to 

let us proceed with this bill and ta.ke this step which is demanded by 

the people of the whole country. 

Mr. McMILLIN. I move to strike out the last word. I trust, Mr. 

Chairman, that the gentleman from Indiana will amend the proposition so as to provide that these stenographers shall be employed not in all 

civil causes, but only in causes in which it maybe deemed by the court 

necessary to employ them, so as not to burden litigants with the cost of a stenographer in every case, which would in many instances amount 

to a great hardship. 

Mr. MASON. I m::.derstand that the gentltJtnan from Tennessee 

[Mr. McMILLIN] is the author of the original amendment providing 

tor the employment of stenographers. 

Mr. McMILLIN. No, sir; I am not, nor do I favor it. . Mr. :M.ASON. At the proper time I want to ask a question of jibe 

gentleman who introduced the amendment. 

Mr. McMILLIN. 1\fr. Chairman, if this bill is to pass at all, its 

passage will not be facilitated nor made certain by the adoption of the 

amendment proposed by the gentleman from Penn~lvania, even as amended by the gentleman from Indiana, and I agree· with my friend 

who bas just addressed the committee that in considering this bill we 

ought to leave it unhampered by other questions. I sympathize with 

the disposition that has been manifested here to-day to lessen the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. They are expensive, they are far from 

the people, and they are tribunals in which the parties are as little 

likely to get satisfactory justice speedily as in any tribunals known to our system. 

Mr. BUCKALEW. . Will the gentleman allow me to call his nttention to one consideratilln as to the cost of the employment of these stenographers? There are sixty districts, I understand from my colleague 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2385 

on the Judiciary Committee, and if a reporter bad to attend the courts 

one-half of the year, and was paid the highest price provided in this 

amendment, the cost would amount to only $90,000. 

Mr. HOL111AN. If you authorize the employment of stenographers 

by every judge in every court, including the circuit judges, the cost 

would amount to $234,000 a year. 

Mr. :McMILLIN. Unquestionably that would be the result :finally. 

I do not understand that any judge is to be precluded from the privilege of appointing a stenographer, who is to receive $10 a day. 

A MEJ.\-rnER. Not to exceed $10. · 

1lfr. McMILLIN. Well, when you :fix the maximum figure you may 

be sure the cost will never fall below that. I do not think this amendment should form any part of this bill. If the policy of employing 

stenographers is to be adopted let it come up as an independent proposition, and not as a barnacle on this or any other bill. In characterizing it in that way I do not, of course, mean any disrespect to my friend 

from Pennsylvania, because I know that he is simply seeking to ac- complish an end which he thinks ibis proper to accomplish. · But, Ur. 

Chairman, the way to reach a remedy for our Federal evils is not by 

increasing the Federal judicial power; not by providing more judges. The surest and best remedy is to take away some of the jurisdiction 

of the Federal courts, which by construction they have :filched from 

the States. They began with the beginning of this Government to steal 

out over the fields of jurisdiction, and what they did not have by con- stitutional right or by statute they have taken to themselves by the 

force of construction. There is not a more irresponsible judicial tribunal known among men in this or any other country than oar Federal courts. 1\fr. J e:fferson very truly said that the only remedy against 

them was impeachment, and that to them impeachment was not a scare- crow. Whoever will turn back and look at Mr. Jefferson's predictions on this subject will see that if he had been a prophet ordained by God 

he could not have foretold more truly than he did the encroachments that these Federal courts would make. 

Do members stop to think what we have given into the hands of 

those courts? First, they began by construing that they had a right to 

allow corporations to be considered persons in contemplation of law and 

to bring their causes in the Federal courts. Afterwards they held that 

notonlythedefendantmightcarrythecausetotheFederalcourt,buttlmt 

the plaintiff in an action, after bringing his cause in a State court, tampering with its jurisdiction and wearing out his antagonist, might take it to the Federal court. The way to put a stop to these evils is to ta.ke 

away their jurisdiction. Why, sir, they have at last, by the process of 

Congressional mal-legislation, put their rapacious hands upon the ballot-box. They send deputy marshals to the polls and supervisors to the 

polls to beat down the freeman or seize him and carry him from the 

voting places. I warn men here and now that if our liberties are to be 

perpetuated we had better begin to cut the locks of this judicial Sam- son. 

111r. MASON. I wish to suggest to the author of the amendment 

proposing the employment of stenographers that it is uot sufficiently 

explicit, and that if such an amendment is to be adopted it ought to be 

perfected in some way. The proposition is to pay a per diem not exceeding $10; butno provision is madefor copyingtheshort-hand. notes. Now, an ordinary stenographer will take in an hour notes which will 

require four hours for transcription either with pen or with type-writer. 

As I understand, a stenographer is usually paid $10 a day for attendance and note-taking; butthisamendmentwouldrequirehim, without additional compensation, to sit up through the night making his transcript. 

If the amendment is to be adopted it should be put in such a form that 

good stenographers can afford to take these appointments. No competent stenographer can afford for a per diem of $10 to take notes all day 

and then sit up all night making his transcript. On these terms shorthand writers competent for this class of work can not be secured. 

Mr. PETERS. I wish to call attention to what seems to me to be a very peculiar phase of this bill. It is stated by members of the Committee on the Judiciary, as_well as by other membe1s of the House, 

that the United States circuit courts are overburdened with business, 

while the United States district courts are deficient in business. It is 

proposed by this bill to take business from the United States circuit 

courts and transfer it to the United States district courts. In other 

words, there being one judicial hopper that is full to overflowing, while 

the other is empty, or nearly so, this bill proposes to em_nty the hopper 

that is full into the hopper that is now empty; that is, to transfer the _business of on~. class of courts to the ot4er. 

It would naturally be expected, if business is thus to be transferred 

to the district courts, that any assistance to be given to the judicial 

force would be given to these courts. But, remarkal)leas it may seem, 

the additional assistance is to be given by this bill to the circuit courts. 

This seems to me a strange proceeding; and there appears to be. some motive or object at the bottom of this transfer. If this bill proposed 

to increase the number of United States district judges, it would be in 

keeping with the ostensible object of the measure. But there is to be no increase of the district judges, while the cir«;:';lit judges presiding m·er courts from which business is to be tak-,~ .: are to be enlarged in 

number. I submit this as a criticism which it seems to me is worthy 

of consideration. 

XIX-150 

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Mc- :M"JLLIN] withdraw his p ro forma amendment? 

:M:r. McMILLIN. I do. 

Ur. ROGERS. I renew the amendment. A response to the observations of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. PETERS] would probably 

be made more appropriately by some member of the Judiciary Committee ou the other side of the House. It is my pleasure to state I do 

not know of any mothe except that which has been stated openly on the floor, namely, to relieve the Supreme Court of its overwork, to 

simpli(y to procedure, and, in short, to do jnst exactly what the bill says on its face. 

The trouble in all these questions in the past has been we get into 

some partisan discussion. I bad hoped, M:r. Chairman, there would not 

be anything of that sort here. This is a unanimous report from the 

Judiciary-Committee, as I understand it. Having said that much, I 

bns e no other observation to make on that point. 

The observation my friend make.'3 about the ''hoppers'' is pe1fectly ea ily explained. The Federal judge, to illustrate, of our circuit is 

running from Colorado to Arkansas. He is much of the time on the 

road. He is much of the time getting ready to work, and when he 

gels to a place he is much of the time getting ready to go away again. 

Half the tim~ some of the district judges are idle, when they might be engaged in carrying on the business of the courts if they bad the entire 

jurisdiction which this bill gives. 

The argument the gentleman makes is the strongest argument in 

favor of the proposition. By transferring civil and criminal cases the 

court can dispose of more business than both C.'tD now do together. It 

is my belief the judge can do it easily. On the other hand, the circuit 

court becomes an nppellate court, so to speak, with three judges. I suggest to my friend if the new judge to be appointed be a Democrat 

he will be in the minority, as the other two will be on the other side 

of the question. 

Mr. PETERS. Does the gentleman from Arkansas accuse me of 

making a political speech? I made no political remarks while I was on the floor at all. 

Mr. ROGERS. Then I withdraw the remark. I can not imagine 

what the gentleman means by any other motive than what appears on the thee of the bill. I disclaim for one there is any other motiYe about 

it. 

As I said before, this circuit court becomes correspondingly more efficient-! mean it becomes as much more efficient-and the district court 

becomes more efficient by having that jurisdiction placed in that way, 

instead of having the judge running about all o>er the country from 

Colorado to Arkansas, going backwards and forwards. All the responsiuility will fall also upon this circuit court for the dispatch of its busi- ness. That court will be strengthened as to time as well as in num- bers, and become a stronger court because I believe it will satisfY in 

most cases persons seeking this jurisdiction. I hope we may be able 

to have a vote ou this. 

Mr. BACON. I should like to know from the gentleman from Arkansas the relative number of judges of the district and circuit courts? 

1\Ir. ROGERS. Fifty-seven and nine. 

)lr. BACON. Then the hoppers which are to be filled are far in excess of the hoppers which are to be emptied. 

Mr. PETER '. I wish to state, Mr. Chairman, that I did not catch the 

force of the political allusion in the gentleman's speech until towards 

the latter part of it. The pointlmadewas simply this: Here you take 

the business before a United States circuit judge to the courts presided 

over by the United States district judges. If that be true, and it is 

the purpose and object of the bill, then the bill in order to be consistent should increase the number of United States district judges and 

not of United States circuit judges. The motive referred to might be 

in the fact that the United States circuit judges receive $5,000 per an- - num and the district judges receive $3,500, or .c·om that to $4,000 per annum. 

1\fr. ROGERS. I am sorry I misapprehended my friend. As I have 

stated to the gentleman from New York, there are :fifty-seven district 

judges and nine circuit judges. · · 

Mr. LIND. :More circuit business will be transacted by district 

judges than by the cir~uit judge himself. 

Mr. ROGERS. That is true in a portion of the ca,ses. The circuit 

court judge does not sit in many cases; I do not know how many. I 

know a large majority of the circuit judges' business is transacted by 

district judges, so that the increase of business before the district judges 

will be, relatively speaking, small. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I move to modify the amendment and ask the Clerk 

to read the proposition I send up. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Strike out the words in the amendment "That on the trial of all civil and 

criminal causes in the district courts of the United States" and insert "That on the trial of all civil causes in the district courts of the United States where, in tbe opinion of the judge, it shall be necessary." Also, strike out in the 

amendment the words "United States" and insert "party against whom causes are adjudged." 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the modified amendment to 

the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. That contains two propositions, and I call for a 
2386 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MARCH 24, 

division, one as to the appointment of a stenographer, in the discretion 

of the judge, and the other compelling the losing party to pay this expense. 

The CHAIRMAN. The vote will he taken first upon the proposition embodied in the first part of the amendment. · 

The committee divided; and there were-ayes 32, noes 54. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I believe there is no quorum voting--

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman make the point of order? 

Mr. HOLMAN. I believe I will not press the point. The other 

amendment will be unimportant, as this is voted down. 

I still move to strike out the word ''criminal'' where it occurs, and 

leave the other amendment standing, namely, that the expense shall 

be paid as a. part of the costs of the losing party. However, I will not 

pTess the amendment at this time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question then recurs on the amendment 

offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, which has been read. 

The question was taken; and on a division there were-ayes 49, noes 

55. 

Mr. LYNCH. No quorum has voted. 

Mr. ROGERS. I beg the gentleman from Pennsylvania to withhold 

the point until I can make a statement to the House. 

Ur. LYNCH. Very well. 

.Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, it is getting late riow, and being an inclement day several gentlemen have indicated to me a desire that the 

committee shall rise, and that we do not remain longer in session this 

evening, Saturday. It is manifest that we will not be able to get through 

with the bill this evening unless we sit all night or cer~ainJy a greater 

portion of it. We have pending upon the Calendar what is known as the Utah constitutional amendment, and I am exceedingly anxious that 

the House shall consider that measure, and also complete the consideration of the pending bilL I think I may speak for the committee also 

in saying that they are desirous that both of these measures shaH be 

promptly considered. I shall therefDl'e ask unanimous consent of the 

House that the Committee on the Judiciary may be given another day 

for these measures, a.nd would suggest Tuesday, the 3d day of April. 

.Mr. BLOUNT. That can not be done in committee. 

Mr. ROGERS. I had forgotten for the moment. I move that the 

committee rise. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will first state the condition that 

this bill will be left in if the committee rises. The House has just 

taken a vote upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and pending a division upon that vote the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania ha-s made the point of order that no quorum has voted. 

The question on that amendment will recur the first thing when the 

House again resolves itself into committee for the consideration of this 

bill. 

The gentleman from Arkansas moves that the committee do now rise. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The committee accordingly rose; and :Mr. SPRINGER having taken the 

chair as Speaker pTo tempm·e, Mr. HATCH reported that the Committee 

of the Whole House, having had under consideration the bill H. R. 

8190, under the special order of the House, had come to no resolution 

thereon. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, ~he House heard the request I made a few moments ago. Some gentlemen have suggested that I fix a later 

date. I will accordingly modify my request; and now ask unanimous 

consent that the provisions of the pending order in relation to business 

from the Committee on the .Judiciary be extended to one more day, 

namely, the lOth da.y of April, for the purpose of considering the two 

measures to which I have referred. 

Mr. BLOUNT. Will that interfere with revenue bills? 

Mr. ROGERS. The order will be the same as that heretofore made 

Mr. BUCHANAN. !understood thegentlemanfromATkansas, w-hen 

he first made his request, to name as one of the bills to be considered 

the U tab bill. 

1\ir. ROGERS. I am not authorized to state that the committee have so decided; but I think I may state withou.t hesitation that the committee will be unanimous in that report. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. To bring up the Utah bill? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir. 

M.t. BUCHANAN. Regular order. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey demands the regular order. 

.Mr. BUCHANAN. Unless it is distinctlyunderstood that the Utah 

bill will not be brought up, I demand the regular order. 

Mr. ROGERS. Then, l\1r. Speaker, I cail not speak for the Judiciary 

Committee, but ask that the day be granted under this order for the 

purpose of considering this bill only. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I will have to object to that. 

Mr. PARKER. I ask unanimous consent, changing the gentleman's 

request to the lOth day of April to dispose of this bill. 

1\fr. DINGLEY. Has objection been made? 

The SPEAKER p1·o tempore. The Chair understood the gentleman 

from Indiana as objecting, but will again submit the gentleman's request. 

1\fr. HOLMAN. 'l'here are many propositions pendin~ before the 

Committee on Rules covering future time for committees; and I think 

it not only important but fair and pToper that this request should go 

to the same committee. 

1\Ir. ROGERS. LE-t me address an inquiry to my friend from New 

Jersey-whether he thought I alluded to the measure providing for the 

admission of Utah as a State? 

1\llr. BUCHANAN. I did. 

.Mr. ROGERS. I did not mean that. I meant the constitutional 

amendment prohibiting polygamy in the United States. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Oh, I am in favor of that all the time. 

The SPEAKER pro tern pore. The Chair will again state the req nest of 

the gentleman from ATkansas. It is that the order setting a:parta.cer- tain time for the business of the Judiciary Committee be extended so as to include Tuesday, April10, with the understanding that the measures the gentleman has indicated will be taken up then. 

:M:r. DINGLEY. Is it requested thattheJudiciaryCommittee shall 

have that day after the hour for the consideration of bills? 

Mr. ROGERS. The present order gives us the whole day immediately aft~r the reading of the J ourn.al. 

Mr. DINGLEY. I will object to that arrangement, but I will not 

object to the committee being given the day named after the consideration hour . 1\fr. ROGERS. I will modi(v my request to meet the gentleman's 

objection. 

The SPEAKER pro tempot·e. Is there objection to the requ.est as 

now modified? " 

1\fr. HOLMAN. As I said before, !think that as a matter of fairness 

all such propositions should go before the Committee on Rules. 

The ~PEAKER pro temp01·e. Objection is made. 

BRIDGE .ACROSS :MISSISSIPPI RIVEit. 

Mr. DUNHAM, by unanimous consent, reported back from the Committee on Commerce with amendments the bill (H. R. 3524) to au- thorize the construction of a. bridge across the Mississippi River at or near the city of Oquawka, in the State of Illinois, and to establish it as a post-road; which was referred to the House Calendar, and, with the 

amendments and accom panyirig report, ordered to be printed. 

INDIAN APPROPRIATION BILL. 

.Mr. PEEL. I give notice that on Thursday next I will ask the House 

to t-ake up for consideration the Indian appropriation bill. 

SECTION 4009, REVISED STATUTES. 

Mr. BLOUNT, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. 8830) 

to amend section 4009 of the Revised Statutes of the United States; 

which' was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on the 

Post-Office and Post-Roads, and ordered to be printed. 

SALARIES OF JUDGES OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS. 

Mr. CASWELL. I desire to report from the Committee on the Judiciary, as a substitute for the bill H. R. 1928, a bill fixing the salaries of the several judges of the United States district courts. 

Mr. McMILLIN. I object to that. 

RETURN OF BILLS TO SEN ATE. 

The SPEAKER pro tempO'I·e laid before the House a request fiom the 

Senate to return the bill (S. 192) to provide that judges of United States 

circuit and district courts shall red nee . their instructions to juries to 

writing in all Stares where by the laws thereof they are required so to 

do; and the bill (S. 788) to provide for holding term.'.! of the United 

States courts at Mississippi City. 

The request of the Senate was agreed to; and the Committee on the 

Judiciary having been discharged from the consideration of the two 

bills named, they were ordered to be returned to the Senate. 

REPORT OF SENATE INVESTIGATING COl\11\:UTTEE. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore also laid before the House a Senate con- current resolution for printing the report of the Senate select committee appointed under the resolution of March 3, 1887, to inquire into 

the methods of business, etc., in the Executive Departments; which was referred-to the Committee on Printing. 

UNITED STATES COURTS IN FLORIDA. 

Mr. ADAMS, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on the 

Judiciary, reported back with amendments the.. bill (H. R. 8025) to 

amend an act entitled "An act to extend the jurisdiction of the district and circuit courts of the United States for the southern district 

of Florida," approved February 3, 1879; which was referred to the 

House Calendar, and, with the amendments and accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS. . 

1.Ir. DIBBLE, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, reported a bill (H. R. 8831) relating to the 

supe1·intendence of public buildings; which was read a first and second 

time, referred to the Honse Calendar, and, with the accompanying re- port, ordered to be printed. 

CHANGE OF REFERENCE~ 

1\ir. BARNES. I ask unanimous consent to report back from the 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 2387 

Committee on the Territories a bill which they think was improperly 

referred to them. ' 

There was no objection, and the Committee on the Territories was discharged from the fnrther consideration of the bill (H. R. 7050) to create 

and establish United States district, Territorial, supreme, and other 

courts in the Indian Territory; and it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Mr. ROGERS. I move that the House do now adjonrn. 

The motion was agreed to; and accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 35 min· 

utes p. m. _) the House adjonrned. 

PRIVATE BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS INTRODUCED AND REFERRED. 

Under the rule private bills and joint resolutions of the following 

titles were introduced and referred, as indicated below: 

By Mr. C. L. ANDERSON: A bill (H. R. 8810) forthe relief of John 

H. Kelly-to the Committee on Claims. 

By Mr. W. C. P. BRECKINRIDGE: A bill (H. R. 8811) for the re- lief of Dr. William Kenney-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. BURNETT: A bill (H. R. 8812) for the relief of Charles S. 

Wilder-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. BURROWS: A bill (H. R. 8813) granting a pension to Joseph 

McGuckian-to the Committee on .Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill {H. R. 8814) for the relief of William M. Hitchcockto the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. COGSWELL: A bill (H. R. 8815) granting a pension to Lucy 

A. George-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By M1:. DUNHAU: A bill (H. R. 8816) granting a pension to Edward Miller- to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. FORAN: A bill (H. R. 8817) granting a pension to John R. 

Clark-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill {H. R. 8818) to remove the mark of desertion from the 

naval record of James Haley-to the Committee on Naval Affairs. 

By Mr. GAINES: A bill (H. R. 8819) for the relief of the legal heirs 

of Dr. Theoderick Bland-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By fr. GEAR: A bill (H. R. 8820) to pay John May-to the Committee on Claims. 

By Mr. LAWLER: A bill (H. R. 8821) granting a pension to Jacob 

E. Goody-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. McCOMAS: A bill (H. R. 8822) to remove the charge of desertion from the military record of Malcolm Sinclair-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. MILLIKEN: A bill (H. R. 8823) for the relief of Wilhelm 

Ba.nch-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. ROGERS: A bill (H. R. 8824) granting the right of way over Whi te fountain, in the Hot Springs reservation, in the State of Arkansas, to the \Vest Mountain Inclined Railway and Improvement Company-to the Committee on the Public Lands. 

By Mr. STONE, of Kentucky: A bill (H. R. 8825) for the relief of 

Wiliiam Robinson-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By .Mr. SYMES: A bill (H. R. 8826) granting a pension to Edgar N. 

Ordway-to tue Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. WHEELER: A bill (H. R. 8827) for the relief of the legal 

heirs of J. H. Ware, deceased-to the Committee on Claims. 

By 1\fr. WHITTHOlU,TE: A bill (H. R. 88~8) for the relief of Mrs. 

l\1ary E. Walker-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. WICKHAM: A bill (H. R. 8 29) granting a pension to Charlott e \V. Boult and minor children-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

The following petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk, 

under the n1le, and referred as follows: 

By l\1r. C. L. ANDERSON: Petition of William Fry, administrator 

of Fiester Fay, for reference of his claim to the Conrt of Claims-to the 

Cdmmittee on War Claims. 

By tl1r. ATKL~ ON: Petition of Mount Union Grange, No. 368, of 

Penn y I vania., for the retention of the Bureau of Animal Industry in the 

Department of Agriculture-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

Also, petition of same, for the prohibition of th~ manufacture and 

sale of adulterated lard and other·adulterated food products-to the 

Committee on Agriculture. 

By Mr. J EHU BAKER: PetitionofLoc,·U.Assembly,No. 2807,Knights 

of Labor, of St. Clair County, Illinois, favoring the tonnage bill-to 

the Committee ou .Merchant Uariue and Fisheries. 

By fr. BELDEN: Petition of J. J. Home and 20 others, citizens of 

Pompey, Onondaga County, New York, fa>oring the passage of the bill 

creatin,. a department of agriculture. 

Also, resolutions of Assembly No. 3172, Knights of Labor, of Cortland, N. Y., for the passage of the tonnage bill-to the Committee on :Mercbaut Marine and F isheries. 

By ~I r. BLISS (by request) : Petition of ColonE!l Kirk Post, No. 67, 

of Dakota, for a sen-ice-pension bill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. Dy Mr. BOUTELLE: Petition of Newell Rumery and others, of 

:Maine, for increased compensation in the Life-Saving Service-to the 

Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. BREWER: Remonstrance of J. T. Daniels and 25 others, 

members of the Essex Farmers' Club of Clinton County, :Michigan, 

against reduction of duty on foreign wool-to the Committee on Ways 

and :Means. ~ 

Also, remonstrance of C. T. Casus and 200 others, citizens of Clinton 

County, Michigan, against decreasing the duty on foreign wool-to the 

Committee on Ways and Means. 

Bv :Mr. T. H. B. BROWNE: Petition of L. S. White and others, citizenS of Northampton County, Virginia, for the impro>ementofNarrawaddox River in Virginia-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. 

J3y Mr. BUCHANAN: Petition ofl6 citizens of Seaside P~rk, of15 

citizensofTrenton, N.J., and,of19 citizensofNewJersey,formcreased 

pay of persons employed in the Life-Saving Service-to the Committee on Commerce. 

By.Mr. BURNETT: Petition of the Merchants' Association of Boston, Mass., in regard to mail facilities in New England-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By Ur. BURROWS: Petition favoring a postal telegraph-to the 

Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By ~fr. BUTLER: Petition of heirs of Amelia Lynn, of Grainger 

County, Tennessee, for reference of their claims to the Court of Claimsto the Committee on War Claims. 

Also, papers in the claim ofEdmundN. M:utin, of St. Landry Parish; 

of Halcott T. Burgess, of Orleans Parish, Louisiana, and of Alfred McKinney, of Hawkins County, Tennessee-to the Committee on \Yar 

Claims. 

By Mr. J. E. CAI\IPBELL: Petition of Mrs. Rebecca Scott, for the 

passageof House bill8539-to the Committee on the District of Columbia. 

By Mr. CANNON: Petition of Local Assembly No. 3710, Knights 

of Labor, of Danville, Ill., for the enactment of the tonnage bill-to 

the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. . By Mr. CARLTON: Petition of Tugalo Grange, of Franklin County, 

Georgia., relative to certain questions of national legislation-to the 

Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. CASWELL: Petition of John Stockman and others, citizens 

of Rock County, Wisconsin, for the restoration of the wool tariff of 

1867-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

Also, petition of H. F. Warner and 26 others, citizens of Rock County, 

Wisconsin, that the work for the eradication of pleuro-pneumonia be 

continued in the Agricultural Department-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

By Mr. COGSWELL: Petition of Hon. James D. Pike and others, 

of Merrimac, Mass., for repeal of the limit of the arrears-of-pension 

act-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By 1\Ir. COOPER: Petition of M. L. Wertz and 47 others, citizens 

of Texas, for increase of the duty on wool and revision of the tariff on worsteds-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

Bv Mr. FINLEY: Petition of estate of Edward B. Smith, pfHart ' 

County; Henry Johnson, of Tn.ylor County; Eliza Jane Richardson, 

William Stephens, Uoses Singleton, Levi Hewitt, Solomon Weddle, 

Uriah Pen11ington, Wiiiiam Hayden, Samuel Smith, William Lite, of Pulaski County; Samuel T. Davis, estateof JohnShade1·, W . .A.. Williams, 

James F. Diclrinson, W. L. Pointer, of Barren County; Samuel W. Robinson, James Elkin, and \.Yilliam Wallace, of Green County, Kentucky, for reference of their claims to the Court of Claims-to the 

Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. FISHER: Petition of the Franklin Mining Company and 20 

other similar corporations of Michigan, asking that the Portage Lake 

Canal be pnrchased by the Gov~ument-to the Committee on Railways and Canals. 

Also, memori'tl of the Bay County Medical Society, that certain medical im;truments and supplies be furnished at lowest possible price, 

and that import duty be removed-to the Committee on Ways and 

Means. 

By Mr. FORAN: Petition of manufacturers and dealers of Cleveland, 

Ohio, against repeal of internal-revenue tax on cigars and cheroots-to 

the Committee on Ways and Means. 

Also, petition of 100 citizens of Dayton, Ohio, for increase of compensation for per diem employes of the United States-to the Committee on Labor. 

By ~Ir. GEAR: Petition of ~Iatthew Edmondson, for a service pension-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, petition of John Menz, for relief-to the Committee on War 

Claims. 

By Mr. HATCH: Petition of citizens of Marion County, ~lissonri, 

to continue the .Bureau of Animal IndnstryinDepartmentof Agriculture-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

Also, petition of citizens of Clark County, Missonri, against change 

of tariff on internal revenue-to the Committee on \\~ays and :Means. 

By ~1r. HEARD: Petition of Mary P. Staples, administratrix of 

George E. Staples, of 1\Iorgan County, Missonri, for reference of her 

claim to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By ~Ir. D. B. HENDERSON: Petition of Local Assembly No. 4192, 
2388 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-_ HOUSE .• MARCH 24;, 

Knights of Lahor, of Dubuque, Iowa, for the passage of the tonnage 

bill-to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 

.Also, remonstrance of 39 citizens of Franklin County, Iowa, against 

reducing the duty on flaxseed and linseed oil-to the Committee on 

Ways and Means. 

By Mr. HOLMES: Resolution of Local .Assembly No. '4493, Knight.s 

of Labor, of Boones borough, Iowa, favoring the passage ofthe tonnage 

bill-to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 

By Mr. LAIDLAW: Petition of citizens of Allegany County, New 

York, for the more effectual protection of agriculture-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

.Also, petition of citizens of Chautauqua County, ·New York, relating 

to customs duties on agricultural products-totheCommitteeon Ways 

and Means. 

Also, petition of citizens of Chautauqua County, New York, relating 

to the rate of postage on seeds, et.c.-to the Committee on the PostOffice and Post-Roads. 

AlSo, petition of citizens of Allegany Connty, New York, for the more 

effectual protection of agricultural products-to the Committee on .Agriculture. 

By Mr. McCOMAS: PetitionofBenjaminF. Ball, ofestateofRoberi 

K. Thissher, of Osborn S. Wilson, ofElizabeth Jarboe, of Charles Anderson, and of W. S. Offut, jr., for reference of their claims to the Court 

of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

.Also, petition of Tilghman Hillary, of F_'rederick County, Maryland, 

for payment of his war claim-to the Committee on War Claims. 

Also, petition of Lewis Trone, of Washington County, Maryland, for 

reference of his claim to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War 

Claims. 

By Mr. McKINLEY: Petition of the International Pottery Company; 

of the Greenwood Pottery Company; of the Willett's Manufacturing 

Company; ofClarkBrothersPottery Company; of Burcovy & Montford 

Pottery Company; of the Union Pottery Company; of Enterprise Pottery Company; of the Mercer Pottery Company; of the Otto Brewers 

Pottery Company; of the East Trenton Pottery Company; of Lacey's 

Pottery; of employes of Dale & Daval Pottery; of the Term-Cotta 

Company; of the Davis & Dowd's Pottery Company; of the Empire 

Pottery Company; of Thomas Maddock Sons Pottery Company, aud of 

the Trenton China Company, of Trenton, N.J., protesting against any 

reduction of duty on pottery-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

Also, petition of citizens of MassHlon, Ohio, protesting against the 

repeal of the internal-revenue tax on cigars and cheroots-to the Committee on Ways and Ueans. 

By Mr. MONTGOMERY: Petition of John P. McClure, of Grayson 

County; Elizabeth Landolt, Harvey Slaughter, William D. ·wood, and 

S. W. D. Stone, of Hardin County, Kentucky, for reference of their 

claims tothe Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. MORGAN: Petition of Jane Cofer, widow of Lemuel Cofer, 

of Fayette County, Mississippi, for reference of her claim to the Court of 

Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By !\-Ir. NEAL: Petition ofadministratorofThomas McCallie, ofHamilton County, Tennessee,forreferenceofhis claim to the Court ofClaimsto the Committee on "YVar Claims. 

By Mr. CHARLES O'NEILL: Petition protesting against the reduction of the duties on flax and hemp and their products as provided for 

in the Mills tariff bill-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By .Mr. PERKINS: Resolutions of the local assembly, Knights of 

Labor, of Winfield, Kans., for the passage of the tonnage bill-to the 

Committee on :Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 

By 1\'[ r. RAND ALL: l\Iemorinl of the Board of Trade of Philadelphia, 

Pa., urging the pa....c:sage of Senate bill 977, to suppre...~ undervaluation 

of goods imported into the United States-to the Committee on Ways 

and .Means. 

Also, resolutions adopted by the same, concerning the revision of the 

tariff-to the Committee on 'Vays and Means. 

By Mr. RICHARDSON: Petition of Thomas M. Emerson, of Coffee 

County, Tennessee, for p9.yment of his war claim-to the Committee 

on War Claims. 

By Mr. ST.A.TILNECKER: Petition oftheTobacco Exchange of New 

York City, referring to internal-revenue tax on tobacco-to the Committee on Wnys and Means. 

By Mr. SYMES: Petition for a pension to Edgar N. Ordway, with 

affidavits, etc.-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. TOOLE: Petition of 25 citizens of Montana, protesting 

against putting wool on the free-list-to the Committee on Ways and 

Means. 

By Mr. TOWNSHEND: Petition of 48 citizens of Marion County, 

IllinoiR, for the rei~sue of fractional paper cunency-to the Committee 

on Banking and'Cunency. 

Also, petition of the district officers of the General Land Office in 

Utah, forincreasedappropriationR forsnrveying, etc.-to the Committee 

on the Territories. 

By Mr. WEBER: Petition in favor of creating navigable waters between Lakes Erie and Ontario-to the Committee on Railways and 

Canals. 

.Also, petition of farmers of Erie County, New York, asking for protection on farm products-to the Committee on Ways and Means . 

By Mr. WEST: Petition of George McCreedy, for a pension-to the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. WHEELER: Petition of John Higgins, ofLauderdaleCounty; 

of James U. Kembraugh, of Colbert County; ofW. S. Glascock, son of 

Bazel G. Glascock, and of George I. Scruggs, administrator, Francis 

M. Fennell, of Jackson County, Alabama, for reference of their claims 

to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. · 

By Mr. WHITTHORNE: Petition of John T. Fleming, of Williamson County; and of administrator Z. H. Germon, of Williamson 

Con nty, Tennessee, for reference of their claims to the Court of Claimsto the Committee on 'Var Claims. 

Also, petition of John Schade, for a pension-to the Committee on In valid Pension . 

Also, petition of William C. A. Foster, of Maury County, Tennessee, 

for reference of his claim to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. WICKHAM: Petition of Charlotte W. Boalt, for the passage 

of bill for her relief~to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

The following petitions, indorsing the per diem rated service-pension 

bill, based on the principle of paying all soldiers, sailors, and marines of 

the late war a monthly pension of 1 cent a day for each day they were 

in the service, were severally referred to the Committee on Invalid 

Pensions: 

By Air. E. P. ALLEN: Of Truman Gee and 99 others, ex-soldiers of the 

Second district of Michigan. 

By Mr. JEHU BAKER: Of J. A. Black, William Forney, and 4 

other ex-soldiers of Illinois. 

By Mr. BELDEN: Of Curtis L. Rich and 35 others, of Marcellus; of 

C. E. Uink and others, of Syracuse; of John Miller and 30 others, of 

Syrncme, and of Frank M. Woodruff and others, of Syracuse, N. Y., 

ex-Union soldiers, sailors, and citizens. 

By Mr. BOUND: Of 41 old soldiers of Shamokin, Pa. 

By l\lr. BOUTELLE: Of George F. Whiddeu and others, of Maine. 

By Mr. BREWER: Of 400 ex-soldiers of Michigan. 

By Mr. BUNNELL: Of soldiers of Evans F alls, Wyoming County, 

Pennsylvania. 

By ~fr. COSGER: Of 47 veteran soldiers and sailors of Carlisle, War- ren County_. Iowa. · 

By .l\1r. COOPER: Of E. D. Horton and 29 other ex-soldiers of Marion 

County, Ohio. 

By Mr. CROUSE: Of .A. Gibbs and 7 other ex-soldiers of Brunswick, 

Ohio. 

By Mr. CUTCHEON: Of citizens of Charle, oix County, Michigan. 

lly Mr. DOCKERY: Of soldiers of Gentry County, Missouri. 

By 1\Ir. FISHER: Of Herbert Diggs and 22 other soldiers of Oscoda 

County, :Michjgan. 

By Mr. FORAN: Of200 Union veterans and cit izens of Cleveland, 

and of 23 citizens and soldiers of Delawm·e County, New York. 

By Mr. FORD : Of W. H. Williams ::md many other citizens of Portland, Mich. 

By Mr. HOLMA~: Of S. E. O'Neel and 38 other Union soldiers of 

Jefferson County, Indiana. 

By Mr. HOLUES: Of W. W. Watters and 31 other ex-Union soldiers 

and sailors of Calhoun County, Iowa. 

By :M:r. JACKSO ... -: Of Garrett B. Walsh and 12 other soldit!rs of 

New Castle, Pa. 

By Mr. KERR: Of soldiera of :Mount Union, Io"'"a. 

lly Mr. LANDES: Of Albert Rude and others, citizens of E l wa rds 

County, Illinois. 

By Mr. McCORUICK: Of sundry ex-soldiers of Potter County, 

Pennsylvania. 

By Mr. NUTTI -G: Of J. B. :Pickinson and 26 others aucl of DJ.Vid 

Everett and 42 others, ex-Union soldiers of Cayuga County, New York. 

By Mr. 0. B. THOU AS: Of 50 ex-soldiers of Hichland County, and 

of 75 ex-soldiers of :Uonroe County, 'Visconsin. 

By Mr. TOWNSHEND: Of 12 soldiers and of 73 soldiers of J efferson 

County; of 79 soldiers and of 67 soldiers of White and Hamilton Counties, and of 1 3 soldiers and of 31 soldiers of Frankfort, IlL 

The following petitions for an increase of compensation of fonrth-cla>s 

postmasters were severally referred to the Committee O}l the Post-Offico 

and Post-Roads: 

By :Mr. BARRY: Of J. W. Robinson a,nd others, of Choctaw County, 

Mississippi. 

By Mr. J. S. HENDERSON: Of J. S. Lipe and 30 others. of L. W. 

Miller and 55 others, of S. S. Jones and 24 others, of G. M. Fisl!er and 

34 others, of D. L. Watson and 17 others, of W. R. Tray ley and 9 others, 

of Rev. C . .A. Rose and 23 others, of R. C. Cnlp and 51 others, and of 

H. R. Plaster and 8 others, of Rowan County; of P. Jay Cotton and 

22 others, of Montgomery County; and ofT. T. Flemming and 75 others, 

of Catawba County, North Carolina. 

By .Mr. TOWNSHEND: Of 41 citizens of Braden, Ill. 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 2389 

The following petitions, praying for the enactment of a law providing temporary aid for common schools, to be disbursed on the basis of 

illiteracy, were severally referred to the Committee on Education: 

By Mr. DAVIS: Of 115 citizens of Dukes County, Massachusetts. 

By Mr. HAUGEN: Of107 citizens of Barron County, Wisconsin. 

By Mr. JACKSON: Of 318 citizens of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania. 

By Mr. KERR: Of citizens of Johnson County, Iowa. 

By Mr. McCORMICK: Of 209 citizens of McKean County, Pennsylvania. 

By Mr. PATTON: Of 464 citizens of Union County, Pennsylvania. 

By Mr. J. W. STEW ART: Of 141 citizens of Bennington County, 

and of 116 citizens of Addison County, Vermont. 

By Mr. YARDLEY: Of 174 citizens of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. 

The following petition, asking for the passage of the bill prohibiting 

the manufacture, sale, and importation of all alcoholic beverages in the 

District of Columbia, was referred to the Select Committee on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic: 

By ~1r. PAYSON: Of 148 citizens of the Ninth district of Illinois. 

SENATE. 

MONDAY, March 26, 1888. 

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. J. G. BUTLER, D. D. 

The Journal of the proceedings of Friday last was read ·and approved. 

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore presented two petitions of citizens of 

Massachusetts, praying for prohibition in the District of Columbia; 

which were referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia. 

He also presented a petition of citizens of Kansas, praying for the passage of the per diem rated service-pension bill; which was referred to- the Committee on Pensions. 

M1·. HALE presented a petition of the board of regents of the Dakota Agricultural College, praying for legislation authorizing that board 

to select and reserve f1·om any public agricultural lands now in the Territory, or which may soon become available for this purpose, the mini- mum amount, 90,000 acres, for the endowment of that college; which was referred to the Committee on Territories. 

Mr. SHERMAN presented a petition of 81 wool-growers, citizens of 

Ohio, protesting against the further reduction of the duty on wool and 

praying for the restoration of the wool duty of 1867; which was re- ferred to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. PAYNE presented twenty-three petitions of 970 ex-Union soldiers and sailors, citizens of Ohio, praying for the passage of the per 

diem rated service-pension bill; which were referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also presented the petition of 11 citizens of Cleveland, Ohio, and 

the petition of Rev. J. B. Hammond and 11 other male citizens of Saybrook, Ohio, praying for the better legal protection of women and girls 

within the Territorial, admiralty, and maritime jurisdiction of the 

United States; which were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

He also presented petitions of the Amalgamated Association of Iron 

and Steel 'Vorkers at Bridgeport, Youngstown, Mingo Junction, Ironton, Massillon, Girard, New Philadelphia, and Canal Dover, in the State 

of Ohio, in favor of a protective tariff policy; which were referred to the 

Committee on Finance. 

i\Ir. MORRILL presented a petition of citizens of Gaysville, Vt., 

praying for the passage of the per diem rated service-pension bill; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

Mr, STOCKBRIDGE presented the petition of R. R. Smith and 29 

other ex-Union soldiers, citizens of Michigan; the petition of August 

Ludwig and 19 other ex-Union soldiers, citizens of Michigan; and the 

petition of George H. Sexton and 399 other ex-Union soldiers, citizens 

of Michigan, praying for the passage of the per diem rated service-pension bill; which were referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

Mr. SABIN presented a petition of citizens of Breckenridge and 

Barnesville, in the State of Minnesota, praying for the passage of a bill 

prohibiting employment of convict labor in trades competing with free 

labor; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. 

1\Ir. CAMERON presented seven petitions of ex-Union soldiers and 

sailors, citizens of Clifford, Carbondale, White Haven, Muncy Franklin, and Rockport, in the State of Pennsylvania, praying for'the passage of the per diem rated service-pension bill; which were referred 

to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also presented a petition of the Trades Assembly ~f Western 

Pennsylvania, praying for the pasaage of a bill for classification of 

clerks in first-class post-offices; which was referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads. 

He also presented a petition of Osterburgh Grange, No. 737, Patrons 

of Husbandry, of Bedford County, Pennsylvania, praying for the passage of a law to prohibit the sale of adulterated lard and other food 

products; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture and 

Forestry. 

Mr. ALLISON presented a petition of Mills County Pomona Grange, 

No. 1, Patrons of Husbandry, of the State of Iowa, praying that agricultural products shall be equally protected with manufactured articles, etc.; which was referred to the Committee on Finance. 

He also presented a petition of Mills County Pomona Grange, No. 1, 

Patrons of Husbandry, of the State of Iowa, praying that the patent 

laws be so amended as to protect the innocent purchasers of patented 

articles; which was referred to the Committee on Patents. 

He also presented a petition of the Mills County Pomona Grange, No. 

1, Patrons of Husbandry, of the State of Iowa, praying that the Commissioner of Agriculture he made a Cabinet officer; which was referred 

to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. 

He also presented a petition of the Mills County Pomona Grange, No. 

1, Patrons of Husbandry, of the State of Iowa, praying that foreign immigration shall be restricted so ::1.'3 to keep out all paupers and criminals 

of the Old World; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. -

He also presented a petition of the Mills County Pomona Grange, No. 

1, Patrons of Husbandry, of the State of Iowa, praying that the postage on seeds, bulbs, ci.ons, etc., be reduced 50 per cent.; also, that fractional 

currency be reissued;a1so, that postal notes be abolished; also, that money 

orders for $5 or less be issued for a fee of 3 cents; which was referred to 

the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads. 

He also presented a petition of the Mills County Pomona Grange, No. 

1, Patrons of Husbandry, of the State of Iowa, praying that United 

States Senators be elected by a direct vote of the people; which was re- ferred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. 

He also presented a petition of 35 surviving soldiera and sailors of 

the Union Army and Navy, citizens of Mount Vernon, Iowa, praying 

for the passage of the per diem rated service-pension bill; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also presented a memorial of the I. M. Huston Post, No. 394, 

Grand Army of the Republic, Department of Iowa, in favor of the 

passage of a substitute for the dependent pension bill, and outlining 

the provisions thereof; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

Mr. CALL presented a memorial of merchants of Cedar Keys, Fb., 

remonstrating against the passage of a bill providing for the consolidation of the St. Uarks and Tampa custom-house districts, and praying 

that the custom-house at Cedar Keys may be retained; which was re- ferred to the Committee on Commerce. 

:Mr. COKE presented a petition of citizens of Fate, Tex., praying 

for increased compensation to fourth-class postmasters; which was re- ferred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads. 

Mr. PLATT. I present the petition of J. W. Alsop and other citi- zens of Middletown, Conn., praying for the paEsage of Senate bill283, 

relating to Yellowstone Park. As that bill has been 1·eported, and is now on the Calendfllr, I move that the petition lie on the table. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. DAVIS presented a petition of ex-Union soldiers and sailors, 

praying for the passage of the per diem rated service-pension bill; 

which W:l.'3 referred to the Committee on Pension.Q. 

He also presented a petition of citizens of Minnesota, praying for protective legislation for wool and woolen goods; which was referred to 

the Committee on Finance. 

He also presented a petition of the Agriculturnl College at Brookings, Dak., praying legislation granting them authority to select and reserve 90,000 acres as primary school lands; whiC'h was referred to the 

Committee on Territories. 

Mr. TURPIE presented a petition of Henry Ganson and otht3rs, ex- Union soldiers, citizens of Indiana, praying for the passaO'e of the per 

per diem rated service-pension bill; which was referred ""to the Committee on Pensions. 

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, pres~nted a petition of 27 surviving soldiers 

ofthe Union Army and Navy, residents of Williamsburgh, Iowa; a petition of 34 surviving soldiers and sailors of the Union Army and Navy, 

residents of l\Ioun t Vern on, Iowa.; and a petition of 98 citizens of Decatur Couuty, Iowa, praying for the passage of the per diem rated 

service-pension bill; which were referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

Mr. HARRIS presented a petition of citizens of Tennessee, praying 

that a pension be granted to Eliza Ann Woods; which was referred to 

the Committee on Pensions. 

Ur. MORGAN presented a petition of citizens of Calhoun County, 

Alabama, praying for the repeal of the internal-revenue laws; which was referred to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. FARWELL presented the petition of August G. Schoenborn and 

others, citizens of the District of Columbia, praying for the passage of 

an act authorizing the commissioners of the District of Columbia to 

widen the alley in square 686, running from B to C street, northeast; 

which was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia. 

Mr. HISCOCK presented a petition of 275 ex-Union veterans, citizens 

of the State of New York, praying for the passage of the per diem rated 

service-pension bill; which was referred to the Committee on Peneions.