1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 4495 

try on eaeh side of the river. I was a civilian. Possibly I might have 

been mistaken, but I thought I would have fought that battle from our 

side somewhat differently from the manner in which . it was fought. 

Men differ in judgment. 

I say you have your schools of snobs and aristocrats, and no one can get in that one at Annapolis unless he is the son of a naval officer. 

That institution down there is as close a corporation as ever existed in 

this country. I say we have appropriated for it all that we ought to. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

l\Ir. THOMAS. I now yield to my colleague [Mr. CANNON]. 

Mr. CANNON. It is Saturday evening and about the time for adjournment. I am quite sure the consideration of this ~ill can no~ be 

eompleted to-njght, and I therefore move that the comnnttee now nse, 

and gjve notice that if that motion shall prevail I will then move that 

the House adjourn. Mr. TALBOTT. I move to amend, so that the committee shall now 

rise for the purpose of closing debate on the peniling bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. The motion of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 

CANNON] is in order. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The committee accordingly rose; and Mr. SPRINGER having resumed 

the chair as Speaker pro tempore, Mr. TOWNSHEND reported that the 

Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union had had under 

consideration the bill (H. R.1408) limiting a portion of an act entitled 

''An act making appropriations for the naval service for the fiscal year 

ending June 30, 1883, and for other purposes,'' and had come to no resolution thereon. . l\Ir. TALBOTT. I move that the House again resolve itself into 

Committee of tihe Whole on the state of the Union for the purpose of 

further considering House bill No. 1408. And pending that motion I move that all debate upon the bill and amendments-be limited to onehalf hour. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is in order now only to move to limit 

general debate. 

Mr. TALBOTT. Then I move that general debate be limited to one 

minute. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I move that the House now adjourn. 

Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana. Before the question is put on the motion to adjourn, is it in order to move to amend the motion tQ limit 

debate? _ 

Mr. NICHOLLS. I move that the House now adjourn. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That motion is already pending, made 

by the gentleman's colleague [Mr. BLOUNT]. 

The question was taken upon the motion of Mr. BLOUNT; and upon 

a ill vision there were-ayes 80,. noes 62. 

Mr. TALBOTT. Before the vote on the motion to adjourn is an- nounced, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the 

answer of the cadets to the letter of the Secretary of the Navy. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from 1\Iaryland asks 

unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a cel"tain paper. 

:M.r. THOMAS. What is it? 

Several MEMBERS. Regular order ! 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The regular order is the announcement 

of the vote on.the motion to adjourn. 

The result of the vote was then announced as above stated; and 

accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 35 minutes p. m.) the House adjourned. 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

The following petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk, 

under the rule, and referred as follows: 

By Mr. BLOUNT: Petition of citizens of Pike County, Georgia, and of 

citizens of Bibb County, Georgia, in favor of the passage of the Senate 

bill to aid the States in popular education-severally to the Committee 

on Education. 

By Mr. CHACE: Two petitions in regard to bills of lading-to the 

Committee on the Juiliciary; 

Also, a petition for the reduction of internal-revenue taxes-to the 

Committee on Ways and Means. 

By 1\Ir. OONVERSE: Petition of the president and faculty of the 

Ohio State University, for an appropriation for Inman schools-to the 

Committee on Education. 

By Mr. ERMENTROUT: Memorial ofthe employes of the Reading 

(Pa.) post-office, for classification, &c. -to the Committee on the PostOffice and Post-Roads. 

By :.Ur. GUENTHER: Memorial of the Milwaukee Association of 

ex-Prisoners of War, asking for the passage of H. R. 1189 and S. 44-

to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. PAIGE: Petition of the Ohio ex-Prisoners of War Association, relative to pensions-to the same committee. . 

By Mr. PERKINS: Resolutions of the Board of Trade of the city 

of Lawrence, Kans., and resolutions of the citizens of Chanute, Kans., 

asking that the rjght of way be granted to the Southern Kansas Railway Company through the Indian Territory-severally to the Committee on Indian Affairs. 

Also, resolutions adopted by the Oklahoma Colony Company looking 

to the opening. of the Oklahoma lands-to the same committee. 

Also, resolutions adopted by the Grand Army of the Republic, Department of New York, relative to pensions-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. PRICE: :Memorial of General H. C. Hobert and others, pray- ing for the passage of H. R. 1189 or S. 44-to the same committee. 

Also, petition of Benjamin Allen Post, No. 127, Grand Army of the 

Republic, in favor of the recommendatio~ of the Grand Army of the 

Republic of the United States-to the same committee. 

By :Mr. REESE: Petition of citizens of Georgia, in favor ofthepassage of the Senate educational bill-to the Committee on Education. 

Also, petition of the gmndjury of Jefferson County, Georgja, on the same subject-to the same committee. 

By Mr. ROWELL: Petition of Post No. 251, Grand Army of the 

Republic, Department of Illinois, and ofR..'tthbnrn Post, No. 359, Grand 

Army of the RepubJic, Department of Illinois, for amendment to pension laws, &c.-severally to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. WAIT: Petition of Hon. Lorenzo Blackstone and others, 

citizens of Norwich, Conn., remonstrating against the establishment of a Government telegraph-to the Committee on the Post-Office and 

Post-Roads. · 

By Mr. WEMPLE: Petition of citizens of Saratoga Springs, N.Y., 

against the postal telegraph bill-to the same committee. · By Mr. WILLIS: Resolution of the common council of Louisville, 

Ky., requesting an appropriation for the Falls of the Ohio-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. 

SENATE. 

MOND.A.Y, May 26, 1884. 

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. D. HUNTLEY, D. D. 

The J onrnal of the proceedings of Friday last was read and approvedr 

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore presented the petition of Daniel Rittenhouse and 26 others, of Washington, D. C., praying that the charter 

of the Metropolitan Passenger Railroad Company may be so amended as to require the company to remove its stables to one end or the other· 

of its road; which was referred to the Committee on the District of 

Columbia. 

Mr. JACKSON. I present the petition of S. L. Terry and other em;.. 

ployes of the post-office at Nashville, Tenn., praying Congress to make 

a classification of the clerks in the distributing department of all firstclass post-offices, suggesting the proper classification, and praying that 

salaries be so adjusted that all clerks doing the same kind of work be 

placed in the same class and receive like salaries. ·This petition is addressed to me in person, but was evidently intended for presentation to. 

the Senate. I move that it be referred to the Committee on Post-Offices 

and Post-Roads. 

The motion was agreed to. 

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

Jersey; which was read, and referred to the Committee on Commercer as follows: 

[Joint resolution No.8.] 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 

Joint resolution requesting Congress to pass a. bill to promote the efficiency or the revenue-marine service. 

Whereas the eminent services rendered by the brave men of the revenue m• rine entitles them to the highest commendation ; and 

Whereas no provision exists in the present laws for the retiring of the meri- torious, aged, or disabled in that service: Therefore, 

1. Be it resolved by the senate and general assembly of the State of New Jersey, 

That the Senators and Representatives from this State are earnestly requested to use their inftuence for the passage of the bill pending in Congress, H. R. No. 4483, "to promote the efficiency of the revenue-marine service," whereby theofficers of the revenue marine who have grown old or who have been seriously 

injured in the performance of their duty, may be retired., in accordance with · provisions similar to those now in force in relation to the naval officers of the 

United States. 

2 . .And be it further resolved, That copies of these resolutions be forwarded to the Senators and Representatives in Congress from New Jersey, by the secre- tary of state. .Approved May 9, 1884. 

Mr. WILS.ON. I present the memorial of G. A. Madison and 22 

other residents of Ottumwa, Iowa, and a memorial of citizens of Keota., 

Rose Hill, and Delta, Iowa, remonstrating against the enactment of 

any measure relating to the telegraph which shall increase the numberof public officials, or establish a governmental monopoly of the telegraph business, or which shall employ the functions of the Government 

to destroy the property ofinilividuals who have embarked in legjtimate 

enterprise to provide ample facilities for the public accommodation. 

As the subject has been reported upon, I move that the mP-morials lieon the table. 

The motion wa~ agreed to. 

Mr. WILSON presented the petition of G. B. Keffer, of Des Moines;, Iowa; praying for certain appropriations for the benefit of State agri- cultural and horticultural associations; which was referred to the Com- mittee on Agriculture and Forestry. 

Mr. PLATT presented two petitions of manufacturers, inventors, andothers, citizens of Rockford, ill., praying for the pas&l.ge of .Senate bill 
-4496 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. MAY 26, 

"1924, organizing the Patent Office into a separate and independent de- ;partuient; which were referred to the Committee on Patents. 

Mr. CONGER presented a petition of meml:>ers of C. A. Whitney Post, 

Grand Army of the Republic, of Hadley, Mich., and a petition of mem- bers of Waddell Post, Grand Army of the Republic, of Howell, Mich., 

-praying for legislation in accordance with the recommendations of ~he 

:general pension committee of the Grand Army of the Republic; which were referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

Mr. SAWYER presented a memorial of William P. Lynde and 39 •other citizens of Milwaukee, Wis., remonstrating against the purchase ·by the Government of the telegraph lines; which was ordered to lie on 

·the table. 

Mr. GORMAN presented the petition of Martha A. F. Terrett, widow -of Colville Terrett, late a lieutenant United States Navy, praying for an increase of pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pen-

:Sions. Mr. PENDLETON presented resolutions adopted bytheChamber of ·CommerceofCincinnati, Ohio, respectfully requesting the Senators and 

Representatives from that State to oppose House bill No. 6562, or any .other bill authorizing the construction of a bridge across the Ohio at 

Cincinnati without a pivot-draw span, or less height than the suspension bridge at Cincinnati, urging the amending of the laws so that the 

channel span will not be less than six hundred feet; which were re- ferred to the Committee on Commerce. 

Mr. PIKE presented a memorial of E. H. Woodman and 65 other ·Citizens of Concord, N. H . ; a memorial of Charles A. Zuft.s and 55 other •citizens of Dover, N.H., andamemorial ofW. B. Morrill and 48 other 

.eitizens of Exeter, N. H., remonstrating against the enactment of any 

law to establish a governmental monopoly of the telegraph business; 

'Which were ordered to lie on the table. 

Mr. MILLER, of New York, presented a petition of manufacturers 

·of New York, Philadelphia, and other cities, praying for the repeal of 

:the law of 1883 whereby macaroni, vermicelli, and similar products 

were placed upon the free-list; which were referred to the Committee -on Finance. 

He also presented a memorial of citizens of Monticello, N. Y.; a me- morial of citizens of Nyack, N. Y.; a memorial of citizens of A von, N. 

Y.; a memorial of citizens of Auburn, N. Y.; a memorial of citizens of 

·Oswego, N. Y.; and a memorial of citizens Of Cochecton, N. Y., remon- ,strating against the establishment of a governmental telegraph system; 

which were ordered to lie on the table. 

:Mr. BLAIR. I have been requested to present to the Senate the 

. action taken by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 

-church now in session in Philadelphia, approving the educational bill 

recently passed by the Senate, and urging that it become a law. The ·resolutions are accompanied by a letter, which I will read, as it is very 'brief: 

GENER,AL CoNFERENCE RooM, METHODIST EPISCOPAL CntrRcH, 

Philadelphia, Pa., May 23,1884. 

MY DEAR Sm: The inclosed action of the General Conference of the Metho-

-dist Episcopal Church I send to you for transmission to the United States Senate 

:and House of Representatives. 

This action represents a communion of nearly 2,000,000 of people a.nd a con- ,stituency of nearly 10,000,000, who since the war have expended in church a.nd ·education in the South fully $5,000,000. The conference, on the same day this 

action was taken, made an appeal to the church for $500,000 as a special centen- nial gift for 1884 for Christian education in the South, in addition to the regular 

.:annual contribution of fully 250,000 for benevolent church and educational 

work in the same territory. 

Yours, faithfully, 

J. C. HARTZELL. 

Ron. H. W. BLAIR, 

United States Senator. 

The preamble and resolution are brief, and I ask that they may be 

-printed in the RECORD. 

The resolution was ordered to lie on the table and be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

Whereas by the last census of the United States it appears that 6,000,000 of our -population over 10 years of age a.re unable to write< and 

Whereas an ignorant suffrage is a. constant peril and mena<Je to the peace a.nd 

-welfare of society a.nd the safety of the Republic; and . Whereas we as a church are deeply interested in the education and happiness 

oo0f the toiling masses of the American people of a.ll classes a.nd in every part of 

-the nation: Therefore, 

Resolved, That the bill now pending before Congress known as the Blair education bill; providing national aid for the common schools of the several States -on the basis of the illiteracy in the States respectively as shown by the census, ·.meets our hearty approval as being eminently wise a.nd patriotic, and we do 'therefore most respectfully urge its speedy enactment. 

EDWARD G. ANDREWS, Presicknt. 

J . N. FITZGERALD, Assistant Secretary. 

Mr. SHERl\UN. I present twenty-seven memorials remonstrating 

against the enactment of any measure relating to the telegraph which . shall increase the number of Government officials and establish a gov- -ernmental monopoly of the telegraph business. Accompanying some ,of these memorials is a very creditable statement of the grounds on · which the memorialists place theiropposition to anyaetion by the Gov- -ernment on the subject of telegraph companies. I will file that with 

the other papers, and move that all these memorials be referred to the 

.Committee on Po t-Offices and Post-Roads. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (l\fr. HARRIS in the chair). The memorials will be received, if there be no objection, and, as the bill has 

been reported, will lie on the table. 

Mr. CULLOM presented a memorial of citizens of Monmouth, ill., 

remonstrating against governmental control of the telegraph business; 

which was ordered to lie on the table. 

Mr. BROWN presented memorials of citizens of Atlanta, Rome, Jtfarietta, Newnan, Troup County, Griffen, and Cartersville, Ga., remon- strating against the enactment of any measure relating to the telegraph 

which shall increase the number of public officials or establish a governmental monopoly of the telegraph business, or which shall employ 

the functions of Government to destroy the property of individuals who 

have embarked in legitimate enterprise to provide ample facilities for 

the public accommodation; which were ordered to lie on the table. 

Mr. DAWES. I present the memorial of E. W. Bond and other intelligent citizens of Springfield, Mass., who desire, in order that the 

people may not be exposed to .the dangers of monopoly, that the telegraph business may remain just as it is. I move that the memorial lie on the table. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. DAWES. I present also a petition adopted at a large meeting 

of the citizens of Cleveland, Ohio, signed by the chairman of the meeting, who represents to me that the meeting consisted of 4,000 of the 

best citizens of the city of Cleveland, Ohio, praying that justice may 

be done to the little band of Nez Perce Indians who are now down in 

the Indian Territory. As provision has been made for them in the Indian appropriation bill, I move that this petition lie on the table. 

The motion was agreed to. 

1\fr. BECK presented the memorial of John A. Bell, James E. Cantwell, and other citizens of Scott, County, Kentucky, and the memorial 

of Hon. J. Proctor Knott, Col. I. Stoddard Johnson, and other citizens 

of Frankfort, Ky., remonstrating :tgainst the establishment of a governmental telegraph; which were ordered to lie on the table. 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 

Mr. INGALLS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the joint resolution (S. R. 74) proposing an amendment tothe 

Constitution of the United States changing the terms of office of President and Vice-President ofthe United States, reported it wit"4 amendments. 

Mr. :M:cMILLAJ\, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1682) providing for two additional associate justices of the supreme court of the Te¢tory of Dakota, reported it 

with amendments . 

]')lr. GARLAND. I desire to say that the report on House bill1682 

is not-a unanimous reportfrom the Committee on the Judiciary. For one I object to it, and when the bill comes up for consideration I shall 

give my reasons for the objection. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin, from the Committee on Public Build.: 

ings and Grounds, to whom was referred the bill (S. 194) to authorize 

the Secretary of the Treasury to convey land in Providence, R. I., for 

highway purposes, reported it without amendment. 

Mr. VEST, from the CommitteeonTerritories, to whom wasreferred 

the bill (H. R. 6074) to change the eastern and northern judicial districts of the State of Texas, and to attach a part of the Indian Terri tory 

to said districts, and for other purposes, submitted an adverse report 

thereon; and moved its indefinite postponement . 

Mr. MAXEY. I ~k that the bill with the adverse report be placed 

upon the Calendar. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo're. The bill will be placed on the Calendar with the adverse report of the committee. 

Mr. VEST, from the Committee on Territories, to whom was referred 

the bill (H. R. 1565) to authorize the appointment of a commission by 

the President of the United States to run and mark the boundary lines 

between a portion of the Indian Territory and the State·of Texas, in 

connection with a similar commission to be appointed by the State of 

Texas, reported it with an amendment, and submitted a report-thereon. 

Mr. PLUMB, from the Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2232) to forfeit the unearned lands granted to the 

Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company "to aid in the construction of 

a railroad and telegraph line from the States of Missouri and Arkansas 

to the Pacific coa-st," and to restore the same for settlement, and for 

other purposes, reported it with an amendment. · 

Mr. LOGAN, from the Committee on Appropriations, to whom were referred certain papers relating to an appro~riation for the improvement of Calumet River, asked to be discharged from their further con- sideration and that they be referred to the Committee on Commerce; 

which was agreed to. 

MESSAGE FROl! THE HOUSE . 

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr~ CLARK, its 

Clerk, announced that the Honse had passed the following bills: 

A bill(S. 394) restoringtothepension-roll thenameofMajorD. Will- iams · 

A bill iS. 494) for the relief of Nancy Miller; 

A bill S. 626) to increase the pension of Francis Scotl!; 

A bill S. 1299) to increase the pension of Alonzo B. Chatfield; and 

Joint resolution (S. R. 26) granting permission to Ensign L. K. 
• 

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 4497 

Reynolds, United States Navy, to a~ept the decoration of the o~al 

and Imperial Order of Francis Joseph from the Government of Austria. 

The message also announced that the House had concurred in the 

report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 

two Houses on the bill (H. R. 3967) for the establishment of a bureau 

of animal industry, to prevent the exportation of diseased cattle, and 

to provide means for the suppression and extil:pation of pleuro-pneumonia and other contagious diseases among domestic animals. 

The message further announced that the House had passed the bill 

(S. 783) to increase the pension of John Algo, with an amendment, in 

which it requested the concurrence of the Senate. 

The messaO'e also announced that the House had non-concurred in the 

amendments ~f the Senate to the bill (H. R. 5261) making an appropriartion for the Agricultural Department for the :fiscal year ending J nne 30, 

1885, and for other purposes. 

The message further announced that the House had passed the following bills and joint resolution; in which it requested the concurrence 

of the Senate: 

A bill H. R. 585 granting a pension to William Reinhardt; 

A bill [H. R. 389l granting a pension to John Boyle; 

A bill H. R. 732 granting a pension to William W edding:field; 

A bill (H. R. 796 to increase the pension of Peter Lennon; 

A bill (H. R. 891) granting a pension to Reuben J. Ebberman; 

A bill (H. R. 1436) granting a pension to William T. McCoy; 

A bill (H. R. 1449) granting a pension to Dennis McGinnis; 

A bill (H. R. 1569) granting a pension to Mrs. Mary M. Ord, widow 

of Maj. Gen. E. 0. C. Ord; 

A bill (H. R. 1862) for the increase of the pension of James Buchanan· 

A bill ~H. R. 1866) granting a pension to Calvin L. Knick; 

A bill H. R. 2282l granting a pension to Adolph Weach; 

A bill H. R. 2358 granting a pension to James Hawkins; 

A bill H. R. 2378 restoring to the pension-roll the name of John 

Allee· 

A bill (H. R. 2623) granting a pension to Arthur I. McConnell; 

A bill (H. R. 2627) granting a pension to Noah Caton; 

A bill (H. R. 3160) granting a pension to Elizabeth J. Colbert; 

A bill (H. R. 3332) granting a pension to GeorgeS. Riggs; 

A bill (H. R. 3403) for the relief of Jacob J. Morningstar; 

A bill (H. R. 3613) granting a pension to Ira McNair; 

A bill (H. R. 4061) for the relief of William C. H. Bowman; 

A bill !H. R. 4247) granting a pension to Anna Maria Ressler; 

A bill H. R. 4248) granting a pension to William Harbeson; 

A bill H. R. 4254) granting a pension to James Aaron; 

A bill H. R. 4297) for the relief of Henrietta M. Sands; · A bill (H. R. 4379) for the relief of Maj. W. W. Frybarger; 

A bill (H. R. 4526) granting a pension to Mrs. Ann Corbin; 

A bill (H. R. 4663) granting a pension to Barbara A. Smith; 

A bill (H. R. 4846) granting a pension to Mary E. Seymour, widow 

of Charles J. Seymour, a deceased soldier; 

A bill (H. R. 5148 granting a pension to Jacob Lafferty; 

A bill (H. R. 5082l granting a pension to Jane Hilton; 

A bill (H. R. 5485 granting a pension to Mrs. Samantha Harriman; 

A bill ~H. R. 5595 granting a pension to Eugene L. Townsend; 

A bill H. R. 5728) granting a pension to Anna Beck; 

A bill H. R. 5776) granting a pension to Louis D. Petty; . A bill H. R. 5889) granting a pension to Alonzo Cooper; 

A bill (H. R. 5894) granting a pension to Mrs. Mary Morris Husband· . 

A bill (H. R. 5960! granting a pension to George Ziefle; 

A bill (H. R. 5976 for the relief of Catherine Meis; 

A bill (H. R. 5999 granting additional pension to George H. Fluke; 

A bill (H. R. 1348) for the relief of Julius A. Kaiser; 

A bill (H. R. 1401) to amend section 1556 of the Revised Statutes 

giving longevity pay to certain officers of the Navy; 

A bill (H. R. 2265) to equalize the rank of graduates of the Naval 

Academy upon their as8ignment to the various corps; 

A bill (H. R. 2552) for the relief of Alfred Hopkins; 

A bill (H. ~- 5377) for the allowance of certain claims reported by 

the accounting officers of the United States Treasury Department; 

and 

Joint resolution (H. Res. 17) authorizing the appointment and re- tirement of Samuel Kramer as a chaplain in the Navy of the United 

States. 

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED. 

The message also announced that the Speaker of the House had 

signed the following enrolled bills and joint resolutions; and they were thereupon signed by the President pro tempore. 

A bill (H. R. 4994) to vacate an alley in square 234, in the city of 

Washington; . 

A bill (H. R. 5443) for the relief of N. C. Ridenour; 

A bill (H. R. 7076) to declare the cantalever bridge constructed_ by 

the Niagara River Bridge Company across the Niagara River a post-route; 

and 

Joint resolution (H. Res. 245) authorizing the loan of certain flags 

to the Portland Soldiers and Sailors' Monument Association. 

XV-282 

·, 

COlill!IISSIONERS OF .A.LABA1\1A CLAll!IS. 

·Mr. LOGAN. I am directed by the Committee on the Judiciary, to 

whom was referred the amendment of the House of Representatives 

to the bill (S. 247) to extend the duration of the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims, and for other purposes, to report it back 

with a recommendation that the Senate non-concur in the amendment 

of the House. . The PRESIDENT pro tempo-·re. The report will be placed on the 

Calendar. 

1\fr. HOAR. I desire to have it.taken up now. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts asks 

unanimous consent that the report made by the Senator frOIJl Illinois 

from the Committee on the Judiciary be now considered. Is thereobjection '2 The Chair hears no objection, and the bill and the amendment 

of the House of Representatives will be reported. 

The Chief Clerk read the bill and the amendment of the House of 

Representatives, which was, in section 1, line 7, to strike out ''eightyfour" and insert "eighty-five;" so as to read: 

That the existence of the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims, re-es- tablished by the act entitled "An act re-establishing the Court of Commissioners of Alabama. Claims, and for the disrtribution of the unappropriated 

moneys of the Geneva award,'' approved June 5,1882, be, and the same is hereby, continued and extended to the 31st day of December, in the year 1885, &c. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 

recommendation of the committee that the Senate non-concur in the 

amendment of the House of Representatives. 

Mr. HOAR. Is it in order to move that the Senate concur? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair thinks that motion is entitled to precedence. 

Mr. HOAR. I make that motion. 

The PRESIDENT pro temp<Yre. The question is on agreeing to the 

motion of the Senator from Massachusetts that 'the Senate concur in the 

House amendment. ' 

1\Ir. HOAR. I suppose there is no impropriety in saying, as I have 

the honor to be a member of that committee, that the committee are not unanimous in favor of this report at present. The case is a very simple one indeed. There was, as everybody knows, a very earnest discussion in regard to the principle upon which the money awarded by the 

tribunal at Geneva to the United St&tes should be distributed. The 

Judiciary Committee as it was constituted some years ago, composed 

of very able men, took the view that this money ought to be given to 

the insurance companies that paid for vessels which had been destroyed. 

That matter wa-s very fully discussed in the Senate and in the other 

House and throughout the country, and the numberofpersonswho adhered to that view diminished, almost disappeared, with the exception 

of three or four eminent gentlemen upon the Judiciary Committee, who 

retained their original opinion. 

This is a very important matter indeed, 3.I\d it is a matter which can be stated very briefly in two or three sentences only. The act of 1882 

constituted a court which has been in existence between a year and a half and two years. All the expenses of that court are to be paid by 

the claimants among whom the fund is to be distributed. There have 

been 5,721 claims .filed in that period of time. Of these 1,666 have 

been argued before the court and1,562 :finally decided, l~ving 4,055 cases to be tried and 4,159 cases to be decided. The bill without the 

amendment· extends the time of the court only six months from the 1st 

of July next; that is, the <'.On.rl having taken a year and a half to determine 1,666 cases, it is proposed to leave only eight months to determine the remaining 4, 055 cases. It is very clear that the business of the court can not possibly be 

disposed of in a less time than a year from next December. All the 

court- are of that opinion. All the persons practicing in that court, including the counsel of the United States, are of that opinion. I 

think I hazard nothing in sa-ying that all the claimants a.re of that 

opinion. The expense of the court is wholly paid from the fund. So 

every person knowing anything about the matter and every person 

interested in having the business of the court done promptly ~d expeditiously is agreed in the opinion that this extension as proposed by 

the House ought to be made. 

However gentlemen may think as to the propriety of the original 

judgment of Congress, that is a settled matter, and we are bound to 

give to those persons whose claim to this fund has been vested, so far as the act of Congress could invest them with property in a claim, 

reasonable justice as in other cases. 

I hope, therefore, the Senate will concur with the opinion of the 

House. 

Mr. ALLISON. May I ask the Senator, is that the only m~tter of 

difference? 

1\Ir. HOAR. That is the only matter of difference. The Senate 

provided that the court should be continued until next December. It 

will expire on the 1st of July next, in about six weeks, and at that time 

the act provided that the President might by prpclamation continue it a year further. Some persons-it is not proper for me to say whether 

they are or are not members of the House-but some quite eminent 

lawyers and experienced statesmen are o,f the opinion that that provision is unconstitutional on the ground that it invests the Presi<;lentwith 
• 

4498 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. MAY 26, 

a legislative power, and that opinion would undoubtedly be a great 

embarrassment in ever getting the Senate's proposition made into a law. 

The President might possibly be of that opinion himself. But it is clear 

beyond any possibility of doubt that the duty of hearing and settling 

these claims which have been .filed pursuant to law can not be discharged by the court before the 31st of December, 1885. The court is 

an able and very laborious tribunal; there has been no suggestion of 

want of industry on their part. .As I said before, they have been able to 

dispose of 1,562 cases in a year and a half, and the provision of the 

House gives them a year and a half more to dispose of 4,055. 

Mr. GARLAND. On the 5th of June, 1882, Congress reorganized 

the Court of Alabama Claims, as it is called, and fixed the time in 

which tliey should conclude their labors at July, 1884. The measure 

excited a debate somewhat lengthy and somewhat minu..te as to the real 

authority of disposing of this money and the relative rights of parties 

under the award. At the time that the law was passed it was asserted 

with a great deal of confidence by the friends of the measure that the 

two years given would be ample to wind up this estate, so to call it. 

We gave two years and nearly a month under that act. 

Now we are asked again to extend this time another year, or two 

years as the case may be. With these applications before the Senate 

the Senate did pass a bill extending the time to the 31st day of December in the year 1884. The House has amended that, and strikes out 

the figure '' 4 '' and inserts '' 5,'' making the time one year longer under 

the House provision than is given in the Senate bill. 

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary, regardless of their views as to the rights of this fund in behalf of anybody, thought that extending 

it to the 31st day of December, 1884, based upon the declaration that 

was made wheR the act of June 5, 1882, was passed, would be certainly 

sufficient time in which to adjudicate thege matters and dispose of all 

the cases. But failing in that, or being wrong in that, the committee were of the opinion that it was best to make it sqme early time so as to 

expedite this business, to hurry it up, to give it proper speed, and to 

have the time expire when Congress will be in session, and Congress 

then would be the proper judge after the returil. of that work to determine whether any further extension should be given. But now the 

House extends the time one year beyond that named in the Senate bill, 

and I am not yet for one impressed with the necessity of such an extension. 

It was urged here that the time given in the act of J nne 5, 1882, was ·too long. It was replied, · " Oh, no; that will be just about the right 

time, and this business will be closed up, the whole matter will be 

settled, all the claims propounded will be adjudicated in that time." 

Now we are met with another request to extend the time until December, 1885. 

I submit to the Senate that it is right and proper under the circumstances to adhere to its original bill and say that by the 31st of December, 1884, this matter must be wound up; if not we shall then be in 

session and we can deterntine upon the showing that is then made on the propriety of granting a further extension of time. This matter is 

being extended from time to time until it is getting to be, if I may be 

pardoned the expression, a nuisance. It does seem that by December 

next, with proper care and proper attention and proper exertion, this 

business can be disposed of. 

I speak not with reference to the vi~ws that I entertained then and 

entertain now that these moneys are going to the improper persons. 

That is out of the question with me; I waive that; I dispose of it; but 

for the proper expedition ofthe business and the disposing ofthismatter to some persons under some ad of Congress, it seems to me we are delaying too much and extending the time beyond all reasonable length. 

This is a subject that the committee has examined a long time, and 

closely and diligently, and I hope the Senate will insist on its bill and 

will not agree to the amendment of the House. 

Mr. B.A YARD. I hav.e no doubt that the longer this time is extended 

the greater the number of the claims will be found to be, and that as 

long as there is one dollar of the fund left there will be the claim for an extension in order to found some demand to get it from the Treasury. 

I have always believed, and I believe now, that the money is being 

paid to persons not entitled to it,.and that the money is being withheld from other classes who clearly are entitled to it. I expect with 

great confidence that the day will come when the Government of the 

United States will have to pay this money over again to those who are entjtled to it under treaty stipulation and under the award of the Ge- neva tribunal. That has been my belief always in respect of this class 

ofclaims. · 

I have not consented, therefore, either to the original act to pay the 

money to those who are clearly excluded by the arbitration to which 

the whole question was submitted, or to extending the time in which 

more claims can be gotten up for the purpose of absorbing the fund. 

I hope the Senate will insist upon its action and non-concur in the 

amendment. 

1\Ir. BECK. How much of it will be expended in salaries and fees 

in another year's extension? 

Mr. BAYARD. I do not know how much they will spend in sala--

ries and fees, but I have observed in debates in other places not to be 

named here.that the increase of fees and salaries was allowed because 

the money did not come out of the Umted States Treasury. Ultimately 

it must be paid by the people ofthe United States to those to whom it 

truly is due. It is a trust fund, and if the Government in executing 

that trust shall not administer it, they must answer. Therefore aU 

this generosity in the way of fees and salaries and the like may be 

very well to-day to be said to come out of this fund, but it will come out of the pockets of the tax-payers, the people of this country. 

Mr. LOGAN. Mr. President, I do not wish to enter into a discussion as to the merits of the proposition so far as the bill is concerned. 

That certainly has nothing to do with the question now before the Senate. The question now before the Senate is whether or not we shall 

agree lo the proposition that the time be extended to December 31, 

1885, instead of December 31, 1884. The original bill as introduced 

in the Senate provided for the extension to December, 1885. In the 

Committee on the Judiciary that date was stricken outand December, 

1884:, inserted and that was agreed to by the Senate. It went to the 

other end of the Capitol and there they reported the bill with the original proposition in it extending the time to December, 1885, as the bill 

originally was before the Senate. · 

In the time that the commission has already had it has passed upon 

about 1,600 claims. There are about 4,500 claims now before the 

commission. I do not believe the time is too long, and so far as the mere matter of expense is concerned it certainly has nothing to do with 

this question. The Senator from Delaware says the Government will 

ultimately have to pay this expense. If we insist that the Government owns this money, that it belongs to the Government of the United 

States, then the suggestion of the Senator from Delaware would be cor- rect; but the fact is that according to the agreement between the Government of Great Britain and this Government this money was paid fsr a certain purpose. We have decided how the money shall be disposed 

of; in other words, how itshall be distributed. Out ofthatmoneythe 

expenses of the commission are taken. It is immaterial, I suppose, on the idea of the Senator from Delaware, whether those expenses come ou.t 

of the fund that is in the Treasury for this purpose or whether the Government pays them out of some other fund. I do not desire to discuss 

that proposition, but I certainly differ· with the Senator in reference 

thereto. 

The Senator from Arkansas says that the Congress of the United States" 

will be in session in December, 1884--that is true-and therefore the 

time can be extendedifthenecessity shall arise for so doing. But taking 

the number of cases already disposed of and the number before the com- mission now, we certainly .can come to the conclusion Vf~ry readily that 

the time will not be extended too far if we agree to the proposition of 

the House; and I favor the proposition of the House as much for the reason that it will dispose of the bill and get it out of the way as for 

any other. The House disagrees with the Senate only in reference to 

the time; not in reference to the mode of distribution, nor in reference 

to the manner in which the money shall be paid, whether to the firstclass or the second-class claims, nor when it shall be paid; but solely in 

reference to the extension of the time. I think that is a very small 

thing for the two Houses to be differing seriously about. For that reason I hope the Senate will concur in the House amendment, and instead of 

Congress at the next•session passing another bill to extend the time we will complete thew hole thing by this action and let it be done now. The PRESIDINGOFFICER(Mr. HARRIS in the chair). The question is, Will the Senate concur in the House amendment to the bill? 

The question being put, a division was called for, and the ayes were 29 .. 

Mr. BAYARD. Let us have the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Secretary proceeded to call 

the roll. · l\Ir. SHERMAN (when Mr. EDMUNDS's uame was called). I am paired with the Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS] on this qnestion. H;e would vote, as I understand, in the negative, and I should 

vote in the affirmative. 

The roll-call was concluded. 

Mr. BROWN (after having voted in the negative). As Iseethevote on this question has taken somewhat of a political turn, I withdraw 

my vote and announce that I am paired with the Senator from Maine 

(Mr. FRYE]. 

Mr. HOAR. Iamexceedinglyanxiousto have this measureadopted, 

but I do not think there is any politics in it. I do not think the Senator from Georgia is bound to withhold his vote on that account. The 

Senator from Maine [Mr. FRYE] is in favor of concurrence, but there is no politics in it. 

Mr. BROWN. I voted "nay." 

Mr. HOAR. I understand, but I think the Senator is at liberty to 

vote if he chooses to do so. 

Mr. BROWN. I withdraw my vote. 

The result was ann.ounced-yeas 29, nays 19; as follows: 

Aldrich, 

Allison, 

Blair, 

Bowen, 

Cameron of Wis., 

Conger, 

Cullom, 

Dawes, 

Dolph, 

Harrison, 

Hawley, 

Hill, 

Hoa.r, 

Ingalls, 

Jona.s, 

La.pha.m, 

YEAS-29. 

Logan, Plumb, 

Manderson, Sawyer, Maxey, Sewell, 

Miller of N. Y., Williams, 

Mitchell, Wilson. 

Morrill, 

Pike, 

Platt, 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE~ 4499 

Bayard, 

Beck, 

Camden, 

Coke, 

Fair, 

Farley, 

Garland, 

Gorman, 

Harris, 

Jackson, 

NAYS-19. 

McMillan, 

Morgan, 

Pendleton, · Pugh, 

Ransom, 

ABSENT-28. 

Hampton_, Colquitt, Jones of Florida, 

Anthony, Edmunds, Jones of Nevada, 

Brown, Frye, Kenna, 

Butler, George, Lamar, 

Call, Gibson, McPherson, 

Cameron of Pa., Groome, Mahone, 

Cockrell, Hale, Miller of Cal., 

So the amendment was concurred in. 

CHARLES L. JONES. 

Slater, 

Vance, 

Vest, 

Walker. 

Palmer, 

Riddle berger, 

Sabin, 

Saulsbury, 

Sherman, 

VanWyck, 

Voorhees. 

Mr. PLATT. I am instructed by the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, to whom was referred the 

joint resolution (S. R. 73) authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury t<j1 pay 

toCharles L. Jones the sumof$705.50, for services asmessengerunder 

the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate from the 5th day of July, 1879, to 

thelstday of January, 1880, inclusive, to report itbackfavorablywith 

amendments. I ask for its present consideration. 

By unanimous consent, the Senate, aa in Committee of the Whole, 

proceeded to consider the joint resolution. 

The amendments of the committee were, in line 6, after the words 

"sum of" to strike out ''$705.50" and insert " $465.65;" in line 9 to 

strike ou't "January" and insert" November;" and in line 10 to strike 

out" 1880" and insert" 1879;" so as tomakethejointresolutionread:. 

Resolved &:c. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby is, auth~­

izedand directed to pay, out of any moneys in the Treasury. not otherwise ap- propriated, to Charles L. Jones the sum of $465.65, for semces as mei'!Beng~r 

under the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate from the 5th day of July, 1879, until 

the 1st day of November, 1879, inclusive. 

The amendments were agreed to. 

The joint resolution was reported to the Senate as amended, and th~ 

amendments were concurred m. The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, 

read the third time, and passed. 

The title was amended so rurto read: "A jointresolutiou anthorizing 

the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to Charles L. Jones the sum of 

$465.65 for services as messenger under the Sergeant-at-Arms of the 

Senate from the 5th day of July, 1879, to the 1st day of November, 

1879, inclusive." 

NbRTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD. • 

Mr. BOWEN. I move at this time to take up Order of Business 

541, being the bill (S. 2019) to provide for the est..1oblishing of terms of 

court in the district of Colorado. 

Mr. GARLAND. I suggest that we go through with the morning 

business. The call for reports of committees has not been concluded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Reports of committees are in order. 

lfr. GARLAND. The Committee on the Judiciary have instructed 

me to report baclt with an amendment and recommend its poasage as amended the resolution which was submitted on the 20th instant by 

the Senator from Oregon [Mr. SLATER] and referred to the committee, 

in regard to the appointment of commissioners for theN orthern Pacific 

Railroad. 

The amendment of the Committee on the J udicia.ry wns to make the 

resolution read: 

Resolved, That the President be, and he is hereby,requested to communicate · to the Senate any information possessed by him or in the possession of any of 

the Executive Departments concerning the appointment of commissioners since 

July 4 1877, in respect of examining sections of the Northern Pacific Railroad • and the acceptance of any of such sections, together with the dates of the a.o- ceptanceofsuchsectionsrespectively; and whether patents for lands have been 

issued to said company in respect of any part of said road completed since July 

4.1877, and, if so, to what extent, and whetheranypubliclandsarenowreserved from sale or other disposal by reason of the building of said road or any part of 

the same, and, if so, to what extent. 

MEXICAN BOUNDARY. 

Mr. ALLISON. The Committee on Appropriations instruct me to 

ask the Senate to have printed a document relating to our boundary 

with :Mexico, being a preliminary survey with reference to the re-establishment of that boundary under a treaty made in March, 1883. I 

ask that the document may be printed as a miscellimeous executive 

document. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no objection, that order 

will be made. It js so ordered. 

BILLS INTRODUCED. 

:Mr. GORMAN in roduced a bill (S. 2253) granting an increase of 

pension to Martha A. F. Terrett; which was read twice by its title, 

and referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also introduced a bill (S. 2254) granting an increase of pension 

to Norman Kaufman; which was read twice by its title, and referred 

to the Committee on Pensions. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin, introduced a bill (S. 2255) for the 

relief of Harriet L. Stevens; which Wl;IB read twice by its title, andreferred to the Committee on Pensions. 

Mr. MITCHELL introduced a bill (S. 2256) for the relief of A. H. 

Herr; which was read twice by its title, and, with the accompanying 

papers, referred to the Committee on Claims. 

Jtfr. BECK introduced a. bill (S. 2257) to authorize the Secretary of 

War to improve and enlarge the barracks at Newport, Ky.; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Military 

Affairs. 

Mr. PENDLETON (by request) introduced a bill (S. 2258) granting a pension to Martha Bates; which was read twice by its title, and re- ferred to the Committee on Pensions. 

Mr. CONGER introduced a bill (S. 2259) for the relief of Lewellyn 

E. Wordin, late UnitedStatesindian agentfortheOtoeindians; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Indian 

Affairs. 

AMENDMENT TO A BILL. 

Mr. GARLAND submitted an amendment intended to be proposed 

by him to the sundry civil appropriation bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. 

PUYALLUP BRANCH OF NORTHERN PACIFIC. 

Mr. CONGER. I find there is on the Calendar a resolution submitted bytheSenatorfromNebraska [Mr. VAN WYCK.]onthe8thof1tlay. 

It is morning business and is pending on my motion to refer it to the 

Committee on the Judiciary. Why it is plaeed on the Calendar I do 

not know. I move to take up that resolution. 

Mr. GARLAND. Let it be reported for information. I do not know 

what it is. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will report the reso- lution referred to by the Senator from Michigan, by title. 

Mr. CONGER. It is Order of Business 583. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state to the Senator 

from Michigan that if it be a resolution proper to come up in the morning business, that order of business has not yet been reaehed. 

Mr. CONGER. It may not be reached by the intervention of other 

businef;Js, and I suppose a motion is in order to take it up. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is. 

1\Ir. CONGER. I move to take it up now. Mr. INGALLS. Can that be done before the morning business is 

completed, except by unanimous consent? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thinks it is in order to 

rila.ke the motion. 

Mr. INGALLS. I reserve the right to object under the rnle. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. May I ask if we have concluded the morning business't 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The morning business has not yet 

been concluded. The resolution called for by the Senator from Michigan will be read by title. · 

The CHIEF CLERK. "A. resolution directing the Secretary of the Interior to withhold certain land patents claimed by the Northern Pacific 

Railway Company." . 

Mr. CONGER. I believe that stands on a motion to refer it to the 

Committee on the Judiciary. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question upon the reso- lution is on the motion to refer the resolution to the Committee on the 

Judiciary. 

Mr. CONGER. I suppose there will be no further discussion about 

that. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Michigan move to proceed to its consideration at this time? 

Mr. CONGER. Yes, sir. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from :Michigan moves to 

proceed to the consideration of the resolution just reported. 

Mr. CONGER. Simply for reference. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is a very important matter, which is likely 

to lead to discussion, and the Senate will recollect that on last Friday 

there was an agreement that the Senate would take up House bill5667, 

known aa the Mexican pension bill, immediately after the morning busi- ness to-day. · 

Mr. CONGER. I suppose the motion is not debatable. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is not debatable. The 

questio:a is on the motion of the Senator from Michigan. 

Mr. INGALLS. I call attention to the second clause of Rule VII, 

which reads: 

2. Until the morning business shall have been concluded, and so announced 

from the Chair, or until the hour of 1 o'clock has arrived, no motion to pro- ceed to the conaderation of any bill, resolution, report of a committee, or oth~ 

subject upon the Calendar shall be entertained by the presiding officer, unless 

by unanimous consent. 

ThePRESIDINGOFFICER. TheSenatorfromKansasisquiteright, 

and the Chair was in error in ruling that the motion was in order at 

the time it was entertained. 

Mr. CONGER. The hour of 1 o'clock has arrived. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. But the honrof2 o'clock has not. 

Mr. CONGER. But the rule says 1; it does not say 2. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will hold the rule to mean at least to cover the ordinary morning business, and he holds that the 

motion of the Senator from Michigan at this time is not ill order. 

Mr. CONGER. I wa'a of the impression that either when the morn-
' 

4500 ·CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. MAY 26, 

ing business was finished or at any time after 1 o'clock the motion wa-s in order. I thlnk it somewhat important that the ruling of the 

Chair should be the same in all these cases. It has been held here before that after 1 o'clock had arrived the right to make such a motion 

attached. I have no choice about it. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will recognize the Senator on the conclusion of the morning business. 

Mr. CONGER. Very well. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The introduction of bills is still in 

order. 

WILLIAM R. BROWNE. 

Mr. SLATER. · I ask that Order of Business 606, being the bill (H. R. 1751) for the relief of William R. Browne, which was reported adversely by me on the 15th instant, be recommitted to the Committee on Pensions for further consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of 

the Senator from Oregon? 

Mr. CONGER. Is not that doing just what I proposed? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proposition is to recommit a bilL 

Is there objection? The Chairs hears none, and the bill is recommitted. 

PUY A.LLUP BRANCH OF NORTHERN PACIFIC. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no "concurrent or other 

resolutions," the morning business is closed. 

Mr. CONGER. Now I renew the motion I made. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. ·The Senator from Michigan moves that the Senate proceed to the consideration of a resolution which will 

be read by title. 

The CHIEF CLERK. "A resolution directing the Secretary of the Interior to withhold certain land-patents claimed by the Northern Pacific 

Railway Company." . Mr. WILLI.A.lliS. I object. There was an agreement on Friday on the part of the Senate that we would take up Honse bill 5667, known a-s the bill to pension the soldiers of the Mexican war, at this very mo- ment, and I shall insist upon that. I move that we now take it up. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion of the Senator from 

Michigan is in order, and it is a q11-estion for the Senate to determine. 

The question is not debatable except by unanimous consent. 

Mr. CONGER. Before the Senate disposes of this proposition, I ask 

tha,t the pending motion on the resolution, the motion for reference to 

the Committee on the Judiciary, be stated. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question upon the resolution is 

to refer it to the Committee on the Judiciary. The question now is 

on the motion to take up the res9lution for consideration. 

The question being put, there were on a division-ayes 23, noes 6; no quorum voting. 

Mr. INGALLS. I ca.ll for the yeas and nays. 

lli. COCKRELL. Let us have the question put again. 

Mr. INGALLS. Very well. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there benoobjection the Chair will 

put the question again, the Chair being confident that a quorum is 

present. 

1\Ir. FARLEY. I should like to hear the resolution read. . The PRESIDING_OFFICER. Theresolution will beread at length. 

The Chief Clerk read the resolution, as follows: 

ResoLved, That the Secretary of the Interior be requested to withhold granting 

patents to, or recognizing any claim made by, the NorthernPacificRailroadad- joining and on account of what is known as the Puyallup branch, built many years ago, until this Congress shall take action on the question of the forfeiture of lands granted to said road. 

Mr. CONGER. Now let the Chief Clerk read the motion. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chief Clerk will read the motion, 

which is the pending question. 

The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to add the following words: 

With instructions to reportrMr. CONGER. Not that. 

The PRES!DING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to refer 

the resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions 

which the Chief Clerk was in the act of reading. He will proceed·to 

read the instructions. 

lli. INGALLS. How can a motion to refer be made until the reso- lution bas first been taken up by a vote of the Senate? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. , It can not; but the Senator from California desired to know what the resolution was before voting on the 

question of taking it up. The proposed instructions will be read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to add the following: 

With instructions to report to the Senate at a.n early day its opinion whether or not it is competent for the Senate to direct or request an executive officer to 

suspend the execution of a law. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senate proceed to consider 

at this time the resolution that has just been stated? 

The motion was .agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution is before the Senate. 

The question is, Will the Senate refer it to the Committee on the Judiciary with the instructions just reported? 

Mr. CONGER. Themotion whichimadewastorefertheresolution 

to the Committee on the Judiciary. That was the pending motion, that was proposed to be amended by the Senator from Massachusetts, I think. 

Mr. WILSON. I believe I moved the instructions. 

Mr. CONGER. Yes, it was the Senator from Iowa who moved torefer it with these instructions. The original motion was to refer to the 

Committee on the Judiciary, and that was proposed to be amended by 

the instructions. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first question is on the amendment proposed by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. WILSON]. 

Mr. CONGER. I accept the amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment being accepted by 

the Senator from Michigan, the question is on the motion to refe:r with 

instructions. 

Ur. VAN WYCK. I ask to have the original resolution read. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will again report the 

original resolution. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

.Resolved, That the Secretary of the Interior be directed to withhold granting 

patents to or recognizing any claim made by the Northern Pacific Railroad ad- joining and on account of what is known as the Puyallup branch, built many years ago, until this Congress shall take action on the question of the forfeiture of lands granted to said road. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. Mr. P,resident, I desire to modify the original 

resolution. 

Mr. CONGER. I make the point of order that while this question 

is pending the resolution can not be modified. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. What was the suggestion of the Senator from Nebraska ? 

Mr. VAN WYCK. I proposed to modify the resolution by making 

part of the resolution--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state to the Senator 

from Nebraska that it is not in order at this time to modify or amend 

the resolution. The motion to refe:r takes precedence of all propositions 

to amend. The question is on referring with the instructions. · J'lllr. VAN WYCK. Then I desire to state wherein I proposed to 

amend the resolution out of deference to the suggestions of some gentlemen on that point by preceding the resolution--

Mr. HOAR. I ask for the reading of the second clause of Rule 

XXI. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The rule referred to by the Senator 

from Massachusetts will be read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. The second clause of Rule XXI reads: 

Any motion or resolution may be withdrawn or modified by the mover at anyHme before a decision, amendment, or ordering of the yeas and nays, ex- cept a :motion to reconsider, which shall not be withdrawn without leave. 

Mr. HOAR. I submit that the mover has a right to modifY his res- olution, because that may change the.purposeofthe Senate as to referring the resolution, unless there has been an ordering of the yeas and 

nays on the original resolution or an amendment actually made. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under Rule XXIT, fixing the precedence of motions, the motion to commit has precedence of a motion to 

amend, and a modification is certainly a change of a resolution equivalent to a~ amendment. 

Mr. HOAR. I respectfully ask leave to point out to the Chair that 

this is not a question of the order of putting questions. I make a mo- tion. Somebody moves to CO}llmit it to a committee, perhaps by reason of some informality in it. I have the right reserved to me by the rules 

before that motion is put to modify my original proposition, which 

might save the necessity of a commitment. That right is expressly affirmed in Rule XXI. It has nothing to do with the order of motions. 

Rule XXI says it may be withqrawn or modified at any time before a decision, that is a decision whether on the final passage or on commitment, amendments, or ordering of the yeas and nays. 

Mr. CONGER. That would permit a new motion, a newresolution, 

all kinds of modification, when the subject-matter was to be referred to a committee which should report to the House upon the very question. 

Of course we never could reach the decision of any proposition of this 

kind; we never could refer it to a committee if new resolutions or new amendments or modifications could be introduced just as the Senate were proposing to refer the very subject-matter to a committee to report 

upon. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, being by no means free 

from doubt as to the question suggested by the Senator from Massachusetts, will adhere to the original decision. The question is on commitment. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. I was proceeding to state that in deference to the 

suggestions of some Senators I had concluded to \nod.llY the resolution 

by making it read: 

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Interior be directed to furnish to the Sen- ate any information he may possess on the subject of the right of the Northern Pacific Railroad to the lands claimed on account of the construction of the Pu- yallup branch by the Northern Pacific Railroad; and in the mean time he to be requested- · 

To do what ia required in the original resolution. The purport of 

the modification is to not seem so harsh as I understood some Senators 

considered the original resolution to be on the part of the Senate, at 

least not in an offensive way to assume to give directions to the Secre-
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 4501 

tary in the discharge of his duty. To relieve it from any difficulty of 

that kind it was thought best to call upon the Secretary in the first 

place for any information upon the subject, and in the mean time that 

be should suspend action. 

To meet the ruling of the Chair and to aecomplish the purpose I hadbecause I should like to make this resolution as little obnoxious as possible to Senators and make it as palatable to all as ordinary language 

may do and a~omplish the purpose sought-I desire to modify it in 

this respect. I have now indicated to the Senator from Michigan my 

object and I have read the language of the proposed amendment, and 

I would ask now if he has any objection to the modification. I ask now for unanimous consent to modify the resolution in the manner and 

by the phraseology indicated. 

Mr. CONGER. I have not heard it fully. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. I propose to make it read: 

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Interior be directed to furnish to the Sen- ate any information he may possess on the subject of the right of the Northern 

Pacific Railroad to lands claimed on account oftheconstrnction of the Puyallup 

branch of the Northern Pacific Railroad. 

And in the mean time that he be requested to suspend the issuing of 

patents. I would ask unanimous consent to so amend. 

Ur. CONGER. So far as I am concerned I have no objection to the 

resolution being modified in that way if it goes to the Committee on 

the Judiciary. I have no objection to the modification. Mr. VANWYCK. TheSenatorfromMichiganconsentstothemodi-

:fication of the resolution, and I submit it. 

Mr. ALLISON. Let it be reported from the desk as modified. · Mr. CONGER. Let the resolution be read as proposed to be modified. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolution as modified will be 

read. . The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Interior be directed to furnish to the 

Senate any information he may possess on the subject of the right of the 

Northern Pacific Railroad to lands claimed on account of the construction of 

the Puyallup branch of the Northern Pa-cific Ra.ilroa~and in the mean time 

that he be requested to withhold granting patents to or recognizing any claim 

made by the Northern Pacific Railroad adjoining and on account of what is 

known as the Puyallup branch built many years ago, until this Congress shall 

take action on the question of the forfeiture of lands granted to said road. 

Mr. CONGER. I have no objection to that proposition going to the 

committee. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. All the resolution now asks is to call for information from the Secretary of the Interior as to one point, information as to the right or claim of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company to land 

on account of the construction of the Puyallup branch, and in the mean time tha.t action shall be suspended by him, so that on that basis there 

will be no necessity of a re!erence of this resolution to the Judiciary 

Committee. 

Mr. CONGER. Ah, the gentleman proposes to modify his resolution and then use that as an argument against the reference. 

l\Ir. VAN WYCK. Certainly. 

Mr. CONGER. The gentleman is too smart for me entirely. 

11rr. VANWYCK. Ifthe Senator did not understand it, I givehim 

consent to withdraw his agreement to the modification. I supposed he 

understood the object as I did. 

ltlr. CONGER. I consider it equally desirable to have the opinion 

of the Committee on the Judiciary on the proposition with the amendment as without it. 

Mr. VAN vVYCK. If the Senator from Michigan was led into withdrawing his objection by what he supposed would be the action of myself or the Senate, I desire that he should be placed back in the same position. 

Mr. CONGER. I accepted it so that the Senate might act upon it 

.and refer it, if they saw :fit, without further discussion. 

ltlr. VAN WYCK. Then I call attention to the fact that the resolution having been modified in that particular, calling on the Secretary 

of the Interior for information as to this point, I think it must be con- ceded by all that it is eminently proper for the Secretary to send the 

whole information, and until that information be furnished or until Congress shall act he withhold action. I care not which phraseology is ~~. . 

Mr. HOAR. It seems to me that the resolution as it now stands 

presents a very grave question both of propriety and of constitutional 

power to this body, upon which we may well have the instruction 

of a committee. In the absence of this Tequest these parties have or may have-I have not investigated the factg to know-absolute legal 

rights to..have this officer act, as much as a person having a claim against 

the Government which had passed through all the stages would have a right to a warrant from the Treasury. Now, it seems to me that it is 

questionable at least within what limits the Senate may, even with propriety, request an executive officer to abstain from action necessary to 

enforce legal rights. It may be that th~re is a case where such are- quest would be eminently proper; but I think it ought to go to a com- mittee as it stands. 

Mr. INGALLS. I hope we 111ay have the resolution read with the 

modification proposed by the Senator from Nebraska, so that we may 

vote intelligently on the subject. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolution will :first be read as originally offered by the Senator from Nebraska. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

.Resolved, That the Secretary of the Interior be directed to withhold granting 

patents to or recognizing any claim made by the Northern Pacific Railroad adjoining and on account of what is known as the Puyallup branch, built many years ago, until this Congress shall take a-ction on the question of the forfeiture 

of lands granted to said road. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The modification proposed by the 

Senator from Nebraska will now be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows : 

.Resolved, That the Secretary of the Interior be directed to furnish to the Sen- ate any information he may possess on the subject of the right of the Northern 

Pacific Railroad to land claimed on account of the construction of the Puyallup 

branch of the Northern Pacific Railroad, and in the mean time he be requested, 

&c. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment proposed on a former occasion by the Senator from Iowa will now be read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. The proposed amendment was to add: 

With instructions to report to the Senate at an early day its opinion whether or not it is competent for the Senate to direct or request an executive officer to suspend the execution of a. law. 

Mr. C<:>NGER. That was an amendment to my motion to commit, 

not an amendment to the resolution. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Michigan 

a-ccept that as an amendment to his motion? 

!llr. CONGER. That has been accepted as part of the motion to 

commit; it is not a part of the resolution. . 

Mr. VAN WYCK. !l!r. President, the Senator from 1t1assachusetts, I understand, concedes that in some cases it may be eminently 

proper to call upon an executive officer to withhold what might be 

called the execution of the law or the discharge of some duty imposed 

upon him. Then he says in some cases it may not be. To illustrate 

that it may not be, he says in the case of a warrant drawn on the 

Treasury of the United States that it would not be competent for us 

under any circumstances to ask the Secretary of the Treasury to withhold action upon the payment of that warrant. Was that the proposition? ~Ir. HOAR. I can withdraw the proposition or modifY it. 

Mr. VANWYCK. DidlunderstandtheSenatorcorrectly? Because 

if the ~gument is good I want to get rid of that point. I understood 

that to be the Senator's position, and I think the Senator admits it 

from the fact that he proposes to withdraw it. I have no objection to 

his withdrawing after I get through with it. 

I can see how it would be proper to ask the Secretary of the Treasury 

to withhold payment in some cases. I can very readily see how it 

might. If a warrant drawn on the Treasury of the United States to 

be indorsed thus and so, and a forged indorsement put on the back 

thereof, which might or not be known to the Secretary-those facts 

might appear in such way that Congress should take some action in 

order to protect the United States. Will the Senator pretend to say 

that it would not be competent for the Senate or for either branch, 

when they discovered or thought they discovered some question which 

had arisen as to the legality of that warrant, and that if it was paid by 

the executive officer it would be a claim against the Government which 

should not have been paid, to interpose to prevent its payment? It seems to be a strange proposition. Now, my friend says he is willing to 

withdraw from that position, and I ask him what application he proposes 

of the homestead to which he has referred? 

I do not understand the force of the suggestion the Senator had in 

his mind when he spoke about the homestead law. I think I have 

demonstrated that it would be perfectly competent under ce:rtain. circumstances to ask the Secretary of the Treasury to withhold the payment of money when it was believed that it would be improperly paid . 

Take this case as it is. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. WILSON] proposes an amendment. He says he wants the Judiciary Committee to 

find out-what? When they have finished they will not tell him anything more than he knows. To ascertain what? When they ascertain 

what he proposes it will be impossiblefor this committee or this body 

to have any one general rule which shall possibly apply to every case. If you ask whether an officer of this Government can always, without 

regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case, be asked to withhold 

the execution of the law, that is one thing; but if you expect the com- mittee to say to us whether under certain circumstances, of which cir-: 

cumstances the Senate is to be the judge when they occur, there can be 

any possibility which will justify the Senate or the House in a king a suspension of action, that is another thing. I presume the Senator 

from Iowa will admit that there can be such circumstances where it 

would be pe1·fectlycompetent thatwe should asJr an executive officer 

to withhold action. I suppose the Senator from Iowa will admit t.hat. 

Mr. WILSON. I will aqroit that there is one wa.y in which we may 

participate in a request to an executive officer to suspend action-under an existing law, and that is by passing another law. I do not understand that bythepassage of a resolution directing or requesting, bythe 

Senate or by the House, or a concurrent resolution by the two Houses, 

anything that falls short of a law, it is competent for us to request or direct an exective officer to suspend the operation of a law. e 

-
• 

4502 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. MAY 26, 

Mr. VANWYCK. Take cases before Congress to-day; take the one here now. The Northern Pacific Railroad have constructed to Wallulah; they have constructed many miles of road since 1879, have been 

continuously building from 1879 to the present time. One branch of 

Comzress by its· committee have reported a forfeiture of lands dating fro~ the 4th of July, 1879, the day it is claimed the forfeiture attached. 

There is a proposition that the forfeiture of the Northern Pacific Railroad lands attached on the 4th day of July, 1879. From that arise 

great legal complications which it is competent for Congress to determine. One branch of Congress by its committee says that that forfeit- ure should attach from that date, since which they have constructed 

hundreds of miles, and are claiming the lands adjoining the road they 

have constructed since the 4th day of July, 1879. A co-ordinate branch 

of Congress through its committee declared that that forfeiture should 

take place on the 4th of July, 1879. 'Now, I ask my friend, suppose 

the Northern Pacific Railroad Company should go to the Department 

of the Interior-and I know they will not :find a willing tool, as they 

found there in years g~ne by, I am glad to say-but suppose there was 

such an officer there to-day and the Northern Pacific entered his office 

and asked him to give them certificates of land or patents for land that 

they claimed they had earned from the 4th of July, 1879, to the present 

time; I ask my friend from Iowa, if there was a Secretary oi the Interior who was willing before the sun set to-night to give them a patent 

for millions of acres of land which were disputed in Congress, would he 

then rise in his place and say it was not competent for the Senate or the Honse to request him to suspend action on that matter until the 

question could be determined? Would he rise then and say, ''Oh, 

wait until this or another Congress repeals the law" befoce he would 

ask for any interposition to protect the <fflvernment? 

Mr. WILSON. Why, Mr. President, J think that I have the same right as acitizen of the United States to step into the office oftbe Secretary ofthe Interior and give him information concerning some duty 

that he is about to perform which may induce him to withhold the 

performance for a time that I have to convey the information to him 

by my vote as a Senator. I do not think there is any difference, and 

in either case the Secretary of the Interior simply takes the risk that 

attends all performance or non-perforiDaJ;lce of executive duties. Suppo e that the Senate should pass s resolution touching this or any other 

subject directingorrequesting the Secretary of the Interior to suspend 

executive action, and he should obey the request of the Senate, and 

the Honse should happen to be of a different opinion and it should present articles of impeachment against the Secretary of the Interior for 

the reason that he did what the Senate had requested him to do, that 

in following the request or. the direction of the Senate be committed an offense against the law, what position would the Senate of the United 

States be in when that officer was presented here for trial on those articles of impeachment, having given the direction under which the act was done on which the articJesofimpeachmentwere based? The Secretary of the Interior may act upon such information as he has from 

private sources or from public sources, and take the risk that is involved in doing or not doing an executive duty, but we have no con~ 

stitutional power to direct or request him to do or not to do a duty 

which is imposed on him by law passed by the two Houses and approved by the President under the constitutional method of making 

laws. 

1\Ir. Y AN WYCK. There is more risk in this matter than any personal risk which an officer of this <fflvernment assumes. The Secretary 

of the Interior would not be able to indemnify this Government for the 

millions of acres of lapd he might improperly give away. His risk 

would amount to nothing. It is the risk of the Republic; itistbemk 

oftbe people in this matter; anditisthepeople who speak to this body 

and to the other, as they speak also to theexecutivedepartmentofthis 

Government. 

1\Ir. WILSON. All I can say in response to that is, that whatever 

risk is therein involved springs from the fact that Congress has not acted 

differently from what it has in the matter of making or unmaking law. 

Mr. Y AN WYCK. The question in a case like this is not the making or the unmaking of a law. Congress made a law in which it decJared 

that those lands shall be forfeited at a certain time. The law is made. 

The only question is whether the executive department of this <fflvernment shall do as they have done in time past, usurp power, because no President of the United States and no Secretary of the Interior, 

after there wa a forfeiture which Congress provided, recognized the 

right of the company, gave away .the public domain, otherwise than in 

defiance of the law. It was an assumption of power which belonged not 

to them. The question is whether they shall obey the law, or whether 

they shall continue to disobey it, as bas been done in this Department 

of the Interior, and sometimes by the head, the President of the United 

States. 

Mr. WILSON. If the Senator will allow me again? 

Mr. ltA.N WYCK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WILSON. I will say this in that connection: if a forfeiture is 

provided in existing law and the Secretary of the Interior issues patents 

in violation of that law thus working the forfeiture, he conveys no title 

from the United States to the company receiving those patents. His 

act is simply a void act for the want of power. 

Mr. Y AN WYCK. Well, then, we see the Secretary of the Interior -asked to do a void act which Secretaries of the Interior have done in 

the past, and will the Senator from Iowa rise in his place and say that 

it is not competent for this body or the Honse to interpose and tell him 

to halt, to stop, to obey. the law, and sUSJ.)end action until this body or the other can investigate it? I say to my friend that it is not a case of 

the executiop. of a law; it has passed beyond that point. When the 

Congress of the United States made a law it made it to be obeyed. My 

friend says we can not direct or request an executive officer of our own creation or the creation of the people not to execute the law. It is not 

that case. We step in and ask him to obey the law. Where did your 

President or your Secretary of the Interior ever obtain the power to 

recognize the right of a railroad company to lands after the time of forfeiture had passed. designated by Congress itself? Will the Senatortell 

me? Tell me, will you, when the President of the United States or when the Secretary of the Interior ever obtained any right for the as- sumption of power to step in and protect the pretended right of a railroad to lands which had been forfeited by the very terms of the grant? 

Mr. WILSON. Neither the President nor the Secretary of the Interior nor anybody else except Congress and the President, through the 

methods by which they enact laws, can confer any right or title to land 

under such circumstances upon any railroad company. If by virtue 

of the terms of the law a forfeiture exists in such a case as the Senator 

put, the forfeiture is by operation of law, and no act of the President or Secretary of tlie Interior can change its legal effect. 

Mr. SLATER.. Will the Senator from Nebraska allow me a mo- ment? 

Mr. Y AN WYCK. Certainly. 

Mr. SLATER. Mr. President,_tbe question is not one of forfeiture. 

The question is whether or not every mile of this road received since 

1879 has not been received in defiance of law; whether there was au- thority to receive a mile of road after the time in which the statute 

said it should be completed, which was 1879, the most extended time. 

I desire to read from the section which conferred the authority o:a the President to appoint commissioners to receive this road, and I un- dertake to say if the statute is strictly construed according to its ex- pressed terms every commission that has been appointed since 1879 to 

receive a section ofthe Northern Pa<:ific road has been appointed without authority of law, and every certification by a commission from that 

date to the present time ha.s certified facts that were not true. Section 

4 of the Northern Pacific Railroad act is in these terms: 

SEO. 4. And be it further enacted, That whenever said "Northern Pacific Railroad Company" shall have twenty-five consecutive miles of any portion of said 

railroad and telegraph line ready for the service contemplated, the President 

of the United States shall appoint three commissioners to examine the same and if it shall appear that twenty-five consecutive miles of said road and tele: 

graph line have been completed in a good, substantial, and workmanlike man- ner, as in all other respects required by this act, the commissioners shall so re- port to the President of tha United States, and patents of lands, as aforesaid 

shall be issued to said company, confirming to satd company the right and title to said lands, situated opposite to, and coterminous with A eaid completed section 

of said road; and from time to time, whenever twenty-nve additional consecu- tive miles shall have been constructed, completed, and in readiness as aforesaid, 

and Yerified by said commissioners to the President of the United States, then 

patents shall be issued to said company con\eying the additional sections of 

land as aforesaid, and so on as fast as every twenty-five miles of said road is 

completed as aforesaid. 

The provision is tha't the road should be commenced within a certain 

specified time and be completed in a certain other specified time, to 

wit, July 4, 1876, and by a subsequent statute it was extended so as practically to extend to the 4th of July, 1879. The power of the President to appoint a commission was limited to the time within which the 

road was to be completed, and the certification of each division or sec- tion of the Northern Pacific Railroad subsequent to 1879 was without 

authority. The commissioners were required to certify that the road was completed, and one of the purposes of the law was that it should 

be certified within the time within which the road was required to be 

built. It seems to me that these propositions are so plain that they can not well be denied. 

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES AMONG DOMESTIC ANIMALS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will lay before the Senate 

bills from the House of Repre<5entatives. First a bill (H. R. 3967) 

for the establishment of a bureau of animal ind~try, to prevent the 

exportation of diseased cattle, and to provide means for the suppression 

and extirpation of pleuro-pneumonia and other contagious diseases 

among domestic animals. 

This bill passed the Senate with sundry amendments which were non-concurred in by the Honse, and a committee of conference was appointed. The message from the Honse of Representatives will now be 

read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

lN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, May 24, 1884. 

Resolved, That the House· concur in the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 3667) for the establishment of a bureau of animal industry, to prevent the exportation of diseased cattle, and to provide means for the sup- pression A.nd extirpation of pleuro-pneumonia and other contagious diseases 

among domestic animals. 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. I present the conference report on that b~ . 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 4503 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The report of the conference com- mittee will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

The committee of conference on the diasgreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Sena~ to the bill (H. R. 3007) for the establishment of a bureau of anima.l industry, to prevent the exportation of diseased cattle, and to provide means for the suppression and extirpation of pleuro-pneumonia. and 

other contagious diseases among domestic animals, having met, after full and 

free conference have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respect.. 

ive Houses as follows: 

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate 

numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 91 and 10, and agree to the same. WARNER MILLER, 

P. B. PLUl\fB, 

.JNO. S. WILLIAMS, 

Managers on the part of the Senate. 

W.H. HATCH, 

G. G. DIBRELL, 

.JAMES WILSON, 

Managers on the part of the House. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair thinks that as the House 

appears to have concurred in the report of the committee of conference, 

withdrawing its disagreement and agreeing to all the amendments of 

the Senate, no action of the Senate is necessary to complete the bill; 

but it is the duty of the Chair to call the attention of the Senate to the 

fact that it appears in the message from the House that the bill the 

amendments to which the House has concurred in is No. 3667 instead 

of 3967 which is in the report of the Senate conferees, although the rest 

of the title of the bill is the same in both. 

ltlr. MILLER, of New York. It must be a clerical error if there is a discrepancy in the numbers. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. As the papers are here the identity 

of the bill the Chair thinks can be preserved by the Senate concurring 

in the report of its committee, and sending a messo.ge to the House of 

that character, which will probn,bly overcome the error. The Chair 

will put the question on agreeing to the report of the conference com- mittee. • 

The report was concurred in. 

PUYALLUP BRANCH OF NORTHERN PAOIFIC. 

1\Ir. SLATER. I ask unanimous consentThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair has yet some bills to lay 

before the Senate. 

1\Ir. CONGER. I suppose the pending resolution goes over at 2 

o'clock? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes; the resolution of the Senator 

from Nebraska was suspended for the purpose of laying before the Senate these communications from the House of Representatives. 

Mr. CONGER. I saw the hour of2'o'clock had come, and I was inquiring whether at that time, or whenever 2 o'clock was announced, 

the resolution would go over. The PRESIDENT pro tempore . . At that time the resolution of the 

Senato:x: from Nebraska passes from the present consideration of the 

Senate and resumes its place on the Calendar, and the unfinished business comes up. 

1\Ir. CONGER. I simply desire before that time ~mes to give notice 

that to-morrow morning at the close of the motning business I shall again move to consider the resolution. 

AGRICULTURAL .APPROPRIATION BILL. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid beforethe Senatetheactionofthe 

House of Representatives disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate 

to the bill (H. R. 5261) making an appropriation for the Agricultural 

Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1885, and for other 

purposes. 

On motion of 1\Ir. COCKRELL, it was 

Resolved, That the Senate insist on its amendments to the said bill disagreed to by the House of Representatives and ask a conference with the House on on the <lisagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon. 

By unanimous consent, it was 

Ordered, That the conferees on the part of the Senate be appointed by the 

President pro tempore. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore appointed Mr. HALE, 1\Ir. PLUMB, 

and Mr. CALL. JOHN ALGOE. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the amendment of the Honse of Representatives to the bill (S. 783) to increase 

the pension of John Algoe, which was, in line 4, to strike out the word 

''fifty" and insert ''forty-five.'' 

1\Ir. SHERMAN. I do not see any member of the Committee on Pensions present, and I therefore move that the bill, with the amendment, be referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

The motion was agreed to. 

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED. 

The following bills and joint resolution were severally read twice by 

their titles, and referred to the Committee on Naval .Affairs: 

A bill (H. R. 1348) for the relief of Julius A. Kaiser; 

A bill (H. R.l401) to amend section 1556 of the RevisedStatntes, giving longevity pay to certain officers of the Navy; 

A bill (H. R. 2265) to equalize the rank of graduates of the Naval 

Academy upon their assignment to the various corps; 

A bill (H. R. 2552) for the relief of Alfred Hopkins; and 

Joint resolution (H. Res. 17) authorizing the appointment and re- tirement of Samuel Kramer as a chaplain in the Navy of the United 

States. 

· The bill (H. R. 5377) for the allowance of certain claims reported by 

the accounting officers of the United States Treasury Department was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Claims. 

The following bills were severally read twice by their titles, and re- ferred to the Committee on Pensions: 

A bill (H. R. 389) granting a pension to John Boyle; 

A bill (H. R. 5851 granting a pension to William Reinhardt; 

A bill ~H. R. 732 granting a pension to William Weddingfi.eld; A bill H. R. 796 to increase the pension of.Peter Lennon; 

A bill H. R. 891 granting a pension to Reuben J. Ebberman; 

A bill H. R. 1436) granting a pension to William T. McCoy; 

A bill H. R. 1569) granting a pension to Mrs. Mary'M. 01;d, widow 

ofMaj. Gen. E. 0. C. Ord; 

A bill (H. R. 1449) granting a pension to Dennis McGinnis; 

A bill (H. R. 1862) for the increase of the pension of James Buch- anan· 

A bill !H. R. 1866) granting a pension to Calvin L. Knick; 

A bill H. R. 2282) granting a pension to Adolph Weach; 

A bill H. R. 2358) granting a pension to James Hawkins; 

A bill H. R. 2378) restoring to the pension-roll the name of John 

Allee; 

A bill H. R. 2623l granting a pension to Arthur L McConnell; 

A bill H. R. 2627 granting a pension to Noah Caton; 

A bill H. R. 3160 granting a pension to Elizabeth J. Colbert; 

A bill H. R. 3332 granting a pension to George S. Riggs; 

A bill H. R. 3403) for the relief of Jacob J. Morningstar; 

A bill H. R. 3613) granting a pension to Ira McNair; 

A bill H. R. 4061) for the relief of C. H. Bowman; 

A bill H. R. 4247) granting a pension to Anna Maria Ressler; 

A bill H. R. 4248) granting a pension to William Harbeson; 

A bill H. R. 4254 granting a pension to James Aaron; 

A bill H. R. 4297 for the reliefofHenrietta M. Sands; 

A bill H. R. 4379 for the relief of Major W. W. Frybarger; 

A bill H. R. 4526 granting a pension to Mrs. Ann Corbin; 

A bill (H. R. 4663 granting a pension to Barbara A. Smith; 

A bill (H. R. 4846 granting a pension to Mary E. Seymour, widow 

of Charles J. Seymour, a decea-sed soldier; 

A bill H. R. 5082 granting a pension to Jane Hilton; 

A bill H. R. 5148 granting a pension to Jacob Lafferty; 

A bill H. R. 5485 granting a pension to Mrs. Samantha Harriman; 

A bill H. R. 5595 granting a pension to Eugene L. Townsend; 

A bill H. R. 5728 granting a pension to Anna Beck; 

A bill H. R. 5776 granting a pension to Louis D. Petty; 

A bill H. R. 5889 granting a pension to Alonzo Cooper; 

A bill H. R. 5894 granting a pension to Mrs. Mary Morris Husband· 

A bill ~H. R. 5960) granting a pension to George Ziefle; 

A bill H. R. 5976) for the relief of Catharine l\1eis; and 

A bill H. R. 5999) granting additional pension to George H. Fluke. 

POLYGAMY IN UTAH. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate 

the unfinished business of the last sitting, being the bill (S. 1283) to 

amend an act entitled "An act to amend section 5352 of the Revised 

Statutes of the United States, in reference to bigamy, and for other purposes," approved March 22, 1882. The bill is now before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole, and has been read, and is open to amendment. 

1\Ir. WILLIAMS. Mr. President--

Mr. HOAR. I rise to a question of order. I am entitled to the floor 

under the precedents of the Senate, having taken the floor to address 

the Senate upon this bill and the Senate having adjourned when I was upon the floor. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair h9dforgotten thecircumstance. The Senator from Massachusetts is correct. The Senator from 

Massachusetts is entitled to the floor. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I wish to suggest that by an agreement between 

the Senator from Massachusetts and some of us he consents to an informal waiver of the bill now under consideration so that we may take 

np the Mexican pension bill this morning or for a limited time. 

Mr. HOAR. When the Utah bill was first reached I consented, to 

accommodate several Senators,· to its postponement for three or four 

days, a.nd I am now appealed to to make a further concession, that it 

shall be laid aside informally in order that the Mexican pension bill 

may be taken up. The Senators who have that bill in charge assure 

me that if the Senate assents to this arrangement, which requires unan- imous consent, if the Mexican pension bill is not disposed of in two hours, 

there shall be no further request to lay nside the Utah bill after that 

time, that the pension bill will take its fate in the morning hour, at 

any rate tbat it shall not conflict with the Utah bill. Upon thatnn-
4504 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. MAY 26, 

derstanding I give my assent to laying aside the Utah bill informally his Maker. That belief was as free from the interpo ition of human 

until such time as the l\Iexican pension bill is disposed of, not exceed- law as the belief of any person upon this floor in regard to his relation 

ing two hours. to his Maker, but when he undertook to carry it out, by his action, he 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky asks was arrested, tried, ·and held amenable to the course of the law of the 

unanimous consent that the pending order be laid aside informally and Commonwealth. 

that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (H. R. 5667) Mr. President, the· American State rests upon the fundamental docgranting pensions to the soldiers and sailors of the Mexican war, and trine that the family, which is the result of the pure and chaste. union 

for other purpo es. Is there objection? of .one man to one woman, constitutes the unity of citizenship; that 

1\fr. ALLISON. I do not intend to object at this particular moment, the protection of the purity of these families is the great object of human 

but the Utah bill has been the regular order now for several days and legislation; that without it no state, no Christian state, certainly no it has been set aside from time to time for special measures. There 'is republican or democratic state, can long exist. a measure which the Senator from Kansas gav~ notice some days ago Now, what do we find the condition of things? We :fuid in the very 

that he intended to call up soon, this week. If the Senator from Mas- heart of our continent a community established which lays down as its 

sachusetts will give way from day to day it prevents the opportunity fundamental principle the denial of this right, which proposes to estabof other Senators to call up important measures, and I desire to admon- lish by law, to surround with the sanctions of religion, households 

ish him that I think the Utah bill ought either to be passed or to be which are made up of one man and many women living with him as laid aside at some convenient time. his wives. To the establishment of that community upon that prin1\Ir. HOAR. I am much obliged to the Senator for the admonition. ciple every social force, every religious influence, every practical power 

I deserve it. of that State now for more than a generation hllS been bent. Great 

1\Jr. ALLISON. The Senator certainly does deserve it. I shall not funds have been raised and set apart which are expended in ransacking 

o"Qject at this moment; neither shall I object to laying aside the Utah all Europe for converts among the ignorant and poorer classes largely, 

bill informally for the Mexican pension bill, provided the latter can be but not wholly, to that doctrine. The lands are held by the men who 

finished in two hours, but I desire only that the docket may be cleared believe in it, and by them only. The juries, the legislatures, the 

in some sense, and that I may call up a measur~ which affects a grea~ magistracies, so far as they do not derive their authority immediately 

many people in my own State. and directly from the United States, are in hands by which their forces 

:Mr. HOAR. The Senator from Kentucl..ry-stated tomeinprivatethe are bent wholly to the propagation of this doctrine and to the estab- reasons for his earnest desire for this accommodation, and they were lishment of the community upon this doctrine. reasons which it seemed to me I couldnotincourtesyresist unlesssome The influence of the church, the forces oi the state, the power of 

substantial reason connected with the public business stood in the way. missions, the influence of the ownership of land, sometimes disclosed 

I therefore make no objection. Has the Chair announced the consent butmoreoften undisclosed-these influences, as I say, are all exhibited, .of the Senate to the arrangement? aJllent to the establishment of the one object, and it is quite time that 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. · The Chair was asking for unanimous the American Congress, clothed with its. vast responsibility, directed 

consent. Is there objection to laying aside the pending order inform- its attention to that object. • ally and the Senate proceeding to the consideration of what is called We have the right until a community is admitted as a State to ex- the Mexican pension bill? The Chair hears no objection. The bill will ermse the legislative forces which shall influence its destiny and · affect 

be read. its character. We have the right to p~t against the forces which I 

1\Ir. HOAR. Before consiaering that bill formally, I desire to address have described the superior force, the greatest force known upon this 

the Senate for a few minutes only, if the Senator from Kentucky will continent, the power of the whole American people; and it is for that 

pardon me. purpose this bill has been framed. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Certainly. The bill attacks, and attacks only, the powers of the state or of the 

Mr. HOAR. I wish to say a few words in reference to the Utah bill, community which have been used and are now used as far as possible 

and it will be more convenient to .do so at this time than after the wholly for the accomplishment of this one end. We find juries imMexican pension bill has been considered. · paneled and selected in order that when tnere is a question between a 

There are a great many public questions in regard to which the de- Mormon and .a person not enterlainin.g that belief it shall no longer be 

bate upon the general principle takes placeatatime quite remote from the inquiry, ''What is the law or the fact?'' it shall be the inq · 

the legislative vote. Sometimes the debate takes place at a place quite ''What verdict is in favor of the Mormon?'' We find schools established 

distant from the legislative chamber. I conceive that the mind of the where the textrbooks ru:e selected wholly to instruct the youth of that 

.American people whom we represent has been, on full discussion, after community in a doctrine inconsistent, as we believe, not only with 

the most patient forbearance, after the most careful reflection on the Christianity but with civilization itself. We find the great trust fund 

relation of these questions to the great principles of constitutional lib- of education and charity established and .administered for that one end; 

erty and public order,made up. We do not mean to have in the heart and we claim that it is not only the right but the duty of the .American 

of our continent a nation grow up under the Constitution of the United Congress to so far by law affect and control these instrumentalities, 

States upon the territory belonging to the United States, upon terri- not as to make them instrumentalities for the promotion of any opinion 

tory over which it is the constitutional duty of Congress to exercise ex- which a majority of this body may entertain, either political or religclusive legislation until the settlers there shall be admitted to the Union ious, but solely to prevent their being used any longer as instrum entali-

'as an American State, founded upon the denial of the purity and in- ties for the building up of a state founded upon the doctrine to which 

tegrity of the family relation. I have adverted. 

That proposition is one which it seems to me is passed beyond the de- It is therefore in no spirit of religious intolerance, it is with no debatable stage. The dominant party in this assembly has many times sire 1i9 interfere by the least tittle with the conscientious belief, howaffirmed that proposition as a part of its political creed, and I am yet ever erroneous we may deem it, of any man, lformon or otherwise; but 

to learn that anywhere except in Utah itself from the lips of any great it is simply that the responsible law-making power for that Territory, 

leader of any other party has there come a declamtion in conflict with as for all Territories, shall see that the great influences of government 

this proposition. and of legisl,ation are no longer used for this illegal and unchristian 

I only take the .floor at this time to say that in framing this bill, se- purpose that the bill is drawn. 

vere and stringent as some of its provisions may be conceived to be, it MEXICAN w .A.B. PENSIONS. 

has not been the purpose of the committee whom I represent to infringe 

in the least upon the great American fundamental doctrine oftheentire 

liberty of conscience. We do not propose to inquire into, still le...c::s to 

affect by any legislative process whatever, the opinion in regard to the 

relation of the sou.l to its Creator of any American citizen or any dweller 

upon American soil. The American citizen is at liberty to a~ept or deny the great fundamental doctrines of Christianity so long as that 

acceptance or denial does not find expression in a course of conduct 

which is in violation of the fundamental principles upon which our Constitution rests. 

The Mussulman, the fire-worshiper, the Mormon, the atheist have 

the tribunal of their own breast, the realm of thei? own creed, the 

liberty of their own conscience saered from the profane interposition of 

any human authority whatever. But when those beliefs,· whether 

genuine or pretended, find expression in ads, find expression in con- duct toward other men, they must then be brought to the test of the 

law which the law-making power deems for the safety of the State. · There was a man in my own Commonwealth a few years ago, intelligent, well educated, venerable for age, who came to the belief that 

the same divine command had been laid upon him which had been la-id 

upon Abraham of old, to sacriftce his own son for the glory and honor of 

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the 

bill (H. R. 5667) granting pensions to the soldiers and sailors of the 

Mexican war, and for other purposes. . The bill was reported from the Committee on Pensions with amendments. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The first amendment recommended 

by the committee will be read. 

The CmEF CLERK. In section 1, line 17, after the word ''as,'' it is 

proposed to strike out the words: · 

Were married to such officers or soldiers or sailors prior to the discharge of 

such officers and enlisted men: Provided, That such widows have not remar- ried: And provided further, That this act shall not apply to any person not a citizen of the United States. 

And to insert: 

Have not remarried: Provided, That no such officer, elllisted man, or widow shall be entitled to the beneiit.s of this act unless dependent, in whole or in part, 

upon his 01 her own labor or assistance from others for support. 

So as to rea<l: 

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and d.irected to place on the pension-roll the names of the suTviving officers and en- listed men, including marines, militia, and volunteers, of the military and naval 

services of the United States who served sixty days in the war of1846 and 1847 -'48 

. 
1884. CON.GRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 4505 

with Mexico, or who, being enlisted as aforesaid, actually served with the Army or Navy of the United States in Mexico in said war, or were actually engaged 

in a battle in said war, and were honorably discharged, and to such other offi- cers and soldiers and sailors a~ may h~ve ~en personally named in a_ny resolution of Congress for any speCific serVIce m said wars, although their term of 

service may have been less than sixty days, and the surviving widows of such 

officers and enlisted men as have not remarried: P.roVcided, That no such officer, &c. 

l\Ir. LOGAN. I desire to have the bill amended so that the amendments of the committee striking out lines 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 shall be 

agreed to, and that the part proposed to be inserted shall be stricken 

out except the words" have not remarried;" so as to read: 

And the surviving widows of sucli officers and enlisted men as have notremarried. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from illinois can move to amend the amendment as an entirety by substituting for it an amendment to strike out and insert whatever he chooses. 

1t1r. LOGAN. I move to strike out all after the word "as" in line 

17 down to line 25, at the end of the paragraph, and to insert after the 

word '' as,'' in line 17, the words ''have not remarried.'' 

Mr. W ILLI.A.MS. The first lines that the Senator proposes to strike 

out are to be stricken out by the repoTt of the committee. 

Mr. LOGAN. Certainly. 

Mr. HARRIS. I suggest to the Senator from Illinois that his precise object, as it seems to me, will be accomplished by striking out in 

line 22 the word " provided " down to and including the word "support '' in line 25. The committee reports to strike out a part of the text 

of the House bill, that part which the Senator desires to strike out, and 

the Senator agrees with the committee's amendment to the word ':provided.'' Hence, the motion of the Senator should be, as it seems to me, 

to strike out the proviso. 

:rt1r. LOGAN. That accomplishes the same thing and leaves it ex- actly as I propose. It is immaterial to me how the motion is put so 

that it a-ccompliShes the same object. 

Mr. INGALLS. The words "have not remarried" can not be 

stricken out, because they are not yet inserted. 

Mr. VOORHEES. Let the proposed amendment be read. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo're. The amendment of the Senator from 

illinois to the amendment of the committee will be read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. It is moved to strike out all that is proposed to 

be stricken out by the committee and to insert "have not remarried;" 

so as to read: 

And the surviving widows of said officers and enlisted men as have notremarried. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The questior: is on agreeing to t.he 

amendment to the amendment. 

Mr. BLAIR. Do I understand that this vote, if in the affirmative, 

will strike out all after and including the word "provided" in the 

amendment of the committee? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will substitute for the amendment 

of the committee the words "have not remarried/' so that it will begin 

after the word" as," in line 17, and then read' have not remarried;" 

but it will require a second vote, if the amendment to the amendment 

be agreed to, to reach the ultimate point. This is an amendment to an amendment. 

1t1r. BLAIR. If the matter is one worth discussing, it may as well 

be discussed now as at any time. I suppose this is the proper time. 

The bill is in charge of the chairman of the Committee on Pensions 

[Mr. 1t1ITCHELL], who is in the Capitol, and I have sent for him. I 

suppose he will be here very soon. Does the Senator from illinois propose to go on now? 

Mr. LOGA.L~. I have no speech to make. 

Mr. BLAIR. I ask that a statement from the Commissioner of Pensions, which is furnished in reply to a letter from the chairmanofthe 

committee calling for information as to the scope and expenditure that 

will fall upon the country in consequence of the enactment of this bill 

into a law, be now read. It was the design of the chairman of the com- mittee to have it read, and I presume before the reading is concluded 

he may come into the Hall. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (lli. GARLAND in the chair). The 

communication will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, PENSION' OFFICE, 

Washington, D. 0., .April 8, 1884. 

DEAR Sm: In answer to your inquiry of March 25, 1884, for an estimate of the 

probable increase in annual expenditure of pensions, as well as the aggregate cost if House bill5569 should become a law, I have the honor to submit the following statement in reply thereto for your consideration. The general featUI·es 

of the bill referred to, so far as these statements are applicable, are as follows: 

First. To place on the pension-roll the surviving soldiers and sailors who 

served sixty days in the war with 1\Iexico in 1846, 1847, and 1848, or actually 

served in Mexico. 

Second. Such soldiers and sailors as may have been personally named in any resolution of Con~ress for any specific service in said war without regard to length of service; also to the widows of such as ha\·e been so mentioned, pro- vided they were married before the discharge of the soldier or sailor, and have not since remarried. 

Third. That the beneficiaries named shall have been honorably discharged. Fourth. That the pension allowed shall be at the rate of S8 per month. As several reports have heretofore been made by this office upon bills before 

Congress for pensioning the soldiers and sailors of. the l\Iexican war, varying in 

essential features from that under consideration, I shall take-the liberty of refer· 

ring to the same, that confusion may be avoided in comparison of results as well as to explain away certain criticisms made on the former. ' It is and always will be impossible to give exact figures when so muoh that enters into such calculations IS of a conjectural character. In Executive Docu- ment No. 24, first session Thirty-first Congress, dated December 3, 1849, the Adjutant-General of the Army makes a report relative to the forces engaged in the . war with Mexico, as well as other forces in the service, who did not participate 

in that war. From this document! present the following details and conclusions : The aggregate strength of the regular Army in May, 1846, was7,244, composing 

what was known as the old establishment. These were augmented by 35,000 re- cruits during the war period,ll,186 of whom were organized in to new regiments; 

this includes 548 marines, giving the aggregate of the regular Army as 42,253. 

Of the old establishment 3,554 were reported as on the frontier of Mexico in l\1ay, 

1846, and eight old regiments with their recruits, making an aggregate force of 

15,736 men; and 11,186 men of the new regiments, together with 548 marines 

"joined the several divisions of 1\Iexico." This would give 19,&'38 men of old 

regiments (including 548 marines) and 11,186 men of new regiments who were in 

Mexico. 

The estimated number of re-enlistments which would be from the old organ- ization out of the aggregate of 7,244 was 524. 

There were 12,229 soldiers of the regular Army, therefore, who did not reach 

Mexico. 

The volunteers raised during the war period were as follows: 34,112 enlist- ments for the war, which includes 516 belonging to Tremont Battalion, and 39,-

664 who were enlisted for 12, 6, and 3 months. It is known that2,770 of the war volunteers were not in Mexico, besides 235 recruits who did not reach the seat of war, leaving the number who served in Mexico as 31,107 (of war volunteers), from 

which there were no re-enlistments. 

Of the 39,664 who enlisted for 12, 6, and 3 months, 990 are reported as discharged within a period of 60 days, not having been forwarded to Mexico. This would 

leave 38,674. From these10,565 were killed, d~erted,discharged for disability, 

&c., so that out of the total39,664 enlistments, less the casualties in service (10,565) must come all re-enlistments. Estimating these at one-third, which is high 

enough, there would be 9,699 re-enlistments, leaving 28,975 as the actual number 

who served in Mexico. I am unable to give exact figures of those who served in the Navy and reve nue marine, but the official estimate in 1849was at5,000, and these do not include 

that portion of the Navy, Marine Corps, and the revenue marine who did not participate in the war. The following table will show the aggregate force of the Army, regular and 

volunteers, the number who were and those who were not in Mexico, and the 

numbers of each who survived at the close of the war: 

. ~ ai '8~ f! '"' II) ., ... ~ $ -s:l ai MOl'< 

~~ s:l ·lil_ SJ .::l rc..- 0 s:l::S ~ 1~§ 3 .. ell 

rc '"' !]o 8 ~ .... ~ 0 

E-4 ---

Total Army May 1, 1846................................ ...... 7,244 ............ ............ 7,244 Increase by enlistments...................................... 35,009 34,112 39, 664 108, 7~ 

Aggregate force of Army.......................... ~ 42, 253 34, 1l2 39, 664 116, 029 

Deduct as follows: 

Number not serving in Mexico ...........•.............. 11,2:Ml 3,005 990 15,224 

Number of re-enlistments................................. 524 ...... ...... 9, 699 10,223 

Total who served in Mexico ...... ...... ... ...... 30, 500 31, 107 28, 975 

Deduct losses in Mexico...................................... 13,450 12, 122 10, 565 ------1- Number of survivors at close of war ........ 17,050 18, 9~ 18,410 

Add Nary (estimated) ........................................ . 

------1- Total ......... : ................................................................................... . 

90,582 

36,137 

54,445 

5,000 

59,445 

In the enlistments of the regular Army are included 548 marines, and in the war volunteers 516 men of the Tremont Battalion. 

Thus it is shown that 54,445 of the Army and 5,000 of the Navy, in all,59,445, 

survived at the close of the war in 1848. . . For the purposes of reference I add herewith the details of the 36,137 losses 

while in the service: · 

Deaths, from all causes in service, as follows: 3,599 regulars, including 

45 marines; 2,264 from new regulars, 4,572 of the war volunteers, and 2,443 of the twelve., six, and three months' volunteers.......................... 12,878 

Discharged for disability, and resignations, as follows: 3,753 old regulars, 

985 of new regulars, 3,732 of the war volunteers, and 5,437 of the twelve, 

six, and three months' volunteers.................. ....................................... 13,907 

Desertion, 2,247 old regulars, 602 of new Fegulars, 2,730of war volunteers, 

and 1,146 of the twelve, six, and three months' volunteers.................. 6, 725 Not accounted for at discharge of company because of defective roll and 

reports, 1,088 war volunteers and 1,5.:."9 of the twelve, six, and three 

months' volunteers................................................................................. 2, 627. 

Total loss in service ....... ..:................................................................. 36,137 

The apparent differences when these results are compared with former ones made by this office are, first, in the aggregate strength of the Army; but as the 

basis of computation was upon a sixty-days' service, and in this estimate it is 

confined to same length of service, also that the same should have been per formed in Mexico, the apparent difference does not affect the results. Second 

in former calculations the mortality tables were those known as the "Carlisle,' 

and the computation made on the average age of 65years. In this statement the 

"American longevity" and "Carlisle" tables are both used, with the average age of survivors (at present) at 62 years. The a.ggregate force of the Army is shown as 121,029, excluding that portion of 

the Navy and revenuemarinewhodid not participate in that war. It is claimed 

by many that these figures are excessive. , An examination of the bounty-land files of this office shows that warrants have been issued for more than 104,000 individual services. Assuming that every soldier who was in service or his heirs received a land-warrant according to the 

provisions of existing laws, and deducting the following persons, who would not be entitled: 

Deserters................................................................................................... 6, 725 

Those not accounted for..................................................................... ...... 2, 627 

Re-enlistments........................... ...... ......................................................... 10, 223 

TotaL........ ................................................................................ ......... 19,575 
4506 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. MAY 26~ 

Providing there were no errors in ~he issuance of more than one warrant to .an individual, upon false and fraudulent representations, these results would 

show a n aggregate force of upward of 123,000 during the Mexican war period. 

Whatever these discrepancies may be and however explained, you will bear in 

mind that the actual force engaged in Mexico and as herein reported are not predicated on the aggregate force, but gleaned from official documents, which 

report very generally the details I have given on that point. I have made no estimates of probable desertions from the regular Army after the close of the w a r, or those in that Army who may have died after the close of the war with 

Mexico and before their term of enlistment expired. As the number of survivors is shown to be 59,445, the mortality, aooord.ing to the American longenty tables, to the present time (average age, 6.2 years) would 

be 38.5 per cent., leaving at present surviving to be affected by the proposed bill , ~6, 550, and at the rate of $8 per month one year's pension would be $3,508, 800. The average duration of life of the whole number would be 12.9 years, making the aggregate cost $45,263,520; or, according to the Ca.rlisle tables, 41.8 per cent. would die, leaving at present surviving 34,597. One year's pension at $8 per 

month would be $3,321,312, and the average duration of same would be thirteen 

years, making the aggregate $!3,177,056. 

It wa stated in the report of the House committee that the percentage of deaths 

shown by the mortality tables was much too small when applied to those who 

served in the Mexican war. Please to remember that the Carlisle table, upon its 

basis of computation, included the average run of lives in a community. The 

American longevity tables are based upon selected lives. I think that surviving soldiers of any war will show an expectation of life greater than any stand- ~ard mortality tables, even though based on selected lives. Any class of soldiery is a "selected" class compared with those of a CQmmunity. The rough 

usage of campaign life quickly eliminates the weaker, and the survivors have a physical endurance which has been severely tested, though severely strained. You will bear in mind that all. the losses in the service have been eliminated 

from these calculations as though they had all died. That these criticisms may be sustained by such facts as history has recorded, I will invite your attention to the following: The test of physical endurance afforded by the experience of 

the late war (1861-'65) is certainly as great as any afforded by the history of this 

country. Since 1861 and up to June 30 last there have been 245,210 claims for 

pension allowed to soldiers on account of disability incurred. The number of 

pensioners of this class on the rolls of June 30 last was 201,111, showing a net loss during the entire period of twenty-two years, of 44,099 from all causes, i. e.J ~eaths, dropped by reason of failure to claim pension for three years, ana ~ropped by reason of recovery from disability or because it was shown they were not entitled to a pension. This aggregate loss is 17 per cent. of the whole 

number pensioned. The percentage of mortality of the Carlisle tables shows 

that out of the same number 22 per cent. would die. This is more remarkable 

when the actual number of deaths among the pensioners is approximat-ely .ascertained. · During the past few years this office has kept a'(Jlassified record of the causes for which pensions terminated, and in the cases of 20,258, about one-half of the net loss in twenty-two years, these reports show: 

!!l~~Et~~s~~~~~:·:·:·:·:·~·.:::·:·:::·:·:·: :·:·.:: .. :: .. ::::::·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:.·:·:·::·: :·.·::·~::.::::·:·:: .. ::.:.::::::::::::: 1::5 

Total loss.......................................................................................... 20, 258 

The highest possible number of deaths mn:lt be in the two first named, in the 

.aggregate 15,691, or 13 per cent. in the twenty-two years. Included in these are 4,000 pensioners who were on the rolls in 1861 for disabilities incurred in former wars, principally the Mexican war, orthatoutofadisabledclassnotmorethan 13 per cent. have actually died, compared with 22 per cent. who would be expected to die according to the Carl~le tables. As the computation heretofore used was applied to surviving soldier!! presumed not to have been disabled, it will hardly 

be asserted t.hat the percentage of probable deaths was excessive when from 

disabled soldiers the death-rate is but little more than one-half as great as reported for the surviving soldiers. In making these estimates I h a ve been governed very largely by what I sup- posed to be the intent of the bill. That. is, that none should be regarded as beneficiaries who were not in Mexico; also, that it was not the intention to provide for the widows. The language of the bill is open to a construction that the 

widows should be included, and in my or.inion should be modified somewhat. In section 1, line 7, strike out the words • sixty days;" and, in line 9, strike out the word "with," and insert the word "in" before " :Mexico; " otherwise an .alternative is presented, and all who were in service during a period of sixty 

days, though not in Mexico, might be held as entitled. . I would also strike out all in the first section after the word "1\Iexico," in line 9 , except the words " and were honorably discharged," in line 12, as the .terms -of the bill provide that one day's service itl.l\Iexico entitles to its provisions; 

therefore the "battle service" and special mention of resolutionR of Congress would be otherwise provided for. 

It will be important for a proper administration of the law that these changes be made, or that the intent be more clearly defined. Unless these or similar 

changes are made, the estimates herein stated should be increased at least 25 per cent. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, 

Hon. JoHN I. MITCHELL, 

W. W. DUDLEY, 

Commissioner of Pensimts. 

Chairman Committee on Pensions, United States Senate. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, perhaps I ought to say a word or two in explanation of the bill, although the subject has been before 

the country for many years, and I suppose is generally understood by 

Senators and others. 

The bill proposes to pension the soldiers of the war with Mexico 

purely on the ground of service. It provides for the following classes: 

First, those who served sixty days in that war; second, those who 

served in Mexico with the Army for one day; third, those who were engaged in any hattie; and fourth, those who were complimented by 

resolution of Congress. It also containsa provision for pensioning the 

widows of all these cla.sses of soldiers who have not remarried. The 

coinmittee thought proper al..c;o to add the proviso at the end of the :first 

section which I understand the Senator from illinois wishes t.o have 

Stricken out. That proviso reads as follows: 

Provided, That no such officer, enlisted man, or widow shall be entitled to the 

benefits of this act unless dependent in whole or in part upon his or her own labor or assistance from others for support. 

! can state, I think, the reasons which led the committee to adopt 

this amendment. We are unable to see, if, as proposed in this bill, we pension every soldier who served a single day in the war with Mexico, 

a.nd every soldier who chanced to be borne on the roll of the Army 

during that war for sixty days without regard to any service in that 

war, why we shall not at once provide a pension at least for all of the 

soldiers in the late war for the Union who fought for the Government 

from three to four years, that is all that class known as veterans in the 

late war for the Union. 

We are not disposed to take the responsibility now of saying that we are ready to adopt or recommend the adoption of this policy by the 

Government at this time. 

The second section of the bill speaks for itself, and the whole bill is 

clear on this subject and needs no further explanation, I think, except a reference to section 6, which contains a proposition to repeal section 

4716 of the Revised Statutes. That section reads as follows: 

SEC. 4716. No money on account of pension shall be paid to any person or to the widow, children, or heirs of any deceased person, who in any mann~r voluntarily engaged in, or aided or abetted, the late rebellion against the authority of the United States. 

The proposition as it came from the House was to repeal this section 

"so far as it relates to this act or to the pensioners under this· act." 

To the mind of the committee it appeared that if the section were to 

be repealed so far as it should be affected by this proposed legislation, it 

ought to be abrogated entirely. To my own mind that is a proposition 

clear of all doubt. The inequalities that would arise under a partial 

repeal of the law would be very apparent on a moment's reflection. If 

we are to remove from the statute-book this provision of the existing 

law, it ought to be taken away entirely, so that those who served in other wars than the Mexican war and who engaged in the rebellion may have 

the benefit of the pension laws. Not only that, but those who have cer- tain specific disabilities, and who would come under the general pension 

laws of the United States, if section 4716 were repealed, would be en- titled to a higher rate of pension than that provided by this bill, and 

ought, if any are to berelievedfrom that disability, to comein for such 

pension as the general law would give them. I do not know that it is 

necessary for me now to say anything more in explanation of the action 

of the committee. · 

Mr. VOORHEES. I wish to ask the chairman of the Committee on Pensions a single question. 

Ur. MITCHELL. I am willing to listen to the Senator now or a little later if he will allow me to make a further explanation as to probable cost of the legislation proposed. 

Mr. VOORHEES. I thought the Senator was through. I will wait, 

of course. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The communication from the Commissioner of 

Pensions to the committee, which has been read, is simply an estimate 

of the probable cost of this bill as it came from the House, and I have 

taken from it the principal figures, which I think will make its mean- ing clear. It ought to have been printed so that Senators might have 

it before them. I regret that it has not been, but it was thought that 

the subject was so generally understood that this was not necessary. 

It will be found by reference to that communication that it is estimated that there were altogether upon the rolls of the Army in the 

Mexican war, regulars and ·volunteers, 116,029. The Commissioner in 

his estimate deducts from this number 15,224 who were borne upon the 

rolls but who never entered Mexico; and he estimates the re-enlistments included on the Army rolls at 10,223, making a total of25,447 

to be taken from the whole number of men who served in that war or were borne on the rolls, leaving a total who served, in Mexico of 90,582. 

It will be observed that the purpose of the bill is to provide for one 

class of those who served in Mexico with the Army, and it is for that reason that the Commissioner makes this division in his estimate of 

90,582 who served in the war in Mexico. He does not appear to have 

construed the bill to cover those who did not reach Mexico. The 

losses in Mexico were 36,137. There were 5,000 enlisted in the naval 

and marine service, and adding these the number of soldiers, sailors, 

and marinessurviving at the closeofthewar, accordingtohisestimate, was 59,445. By the longevity life-tables he estimates that 38.5 per 

cent. ofthese have died since the war, amounting to 22,895, leaving now surviving 36,550. At the rate of$8 a month proposed by this bill the 

annual increase of the pension-roll on account of invalid claimants will 

be $3,508,800, and making a calculation also as to the probable prospect of life of all these survivors, the aggregate cost of this bill, according to his estimate, not including any provision for widows, would be 

$45,263,520, according to the American longevity tables. By the Carlisle tables it would be a little less, 43,177,056. This aggregate would 

prQbably extend over a period of about thirteen years a-s the Commissioner calculated the average prospective life of this class. From these 

amounts should be deducted the sum which the pensions of this class 

now on the rolls would amount to at the rate proposed by this bill. 

The number of these does not appear. 

The estimate of the Commissioner does not include the widows, but 

they are included in the bill, and the committee could see no reason why they ought not to be. , Mr.· ALLISON. Will it disturb the Senator if I ask him what he 

estimates the number of widows to be? 

Mr. MITCHELL. There is here no estimate of the number of widows, but it is easy to see from these figures that their number must be 

very large, and that the expenditure on that account must approxi-

. 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. 4507 

mate that required for the surviving soldiers. I have myself from these 

figures made a statement which I will present to the Senate as the best 

I am able to give. The estimate made bytheCommissioner is$3,508,-

800. He states in his calculation that if the widows are to b~ included 

there should be at least 25 per cent. added. If that be ;added the an- nual expenditure would be$4,386,000; but itwill be observed that the 

bill as he construes it does not include 15,224 who did not reach Mexico, and I have added an estimate from these figures as follows: According to the statement made by the Commissioner there died in Mexico 

36,137, and since that war, according to the estimate, 22,895, and of 

the class of sixty-day men not included in the Commissioner's estimate, 

but, as I think, included in the bill, amounting to 15,224. Adopting the 

estimate he makes in regard to the probable deaths of 38.5 per cent. as · applied to this number, there would be on that account 5,861 more, 

showing that there are now probably deceased of the soldiers who 

served in that war 64,893. 

Senators may judge for themselves as well as I can the proportion of 

widows who would be surviving, and the number of those who may 

have been the wives of these soldiers at the close of the war, or who may 

have married such soldiers since, and who would therefore be covered 

by this bill. I have made an estimate on a basis of one-half which I 

think a low one, and upon that basis there would be 32,000 widows to 

be provided for, being one-half of the number of the 64,000 soldiers 

who died in :Mexico, or must be presumed to hav:e died since, and at 

the rate of $8 a month for them the allowance for widow~ will amount 

to $3,072,000 a year. Adding that for the inTalids, and including 9, 363 

survivors of the sixty-day class, making the annual increase for invalids 

$4,407,648, we should have $7,479,648 total annual increase, and the 

aggregate cost of this legislation would probably be about $96,000,000. 

Mr. HOAR. May I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania a question 

at that point? 

:Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HOAR. Applying. the policy of this legislation to all pensioners, how much would it cost the Government? 

Mr. MITCHELL. There has been n~t estimate inade on that subject so far as I know. 

Mr. HOAR. It seems to me we ought to have it, because I suppose 

you do not mean to do any worse for the soldiers of the late war than 

for the soldiers of the Mexican or Indian wars. Mr. :M:ITCHELL. I think we ought not to. 

Mr. HOAR. What sum would be reqwred, according to the estimate of the Pension Committee, if we take the principle which they 

rell us is a just one in this bill and apply it to all our soldiers? Would 

rit be less than $100,000,000 a year, in the Senator's judgment? 

1\ir. MITCHELL. No, sir; it would be over $100,000,000 a year. 

I suppose there arenowfrom1,200,000to 1,500,000 soldiers, or widows 

l"epresenting soldiers of the late war, who are not provided for by the 

present pension laws, and it will be seen in a moment that it would re- -quire largely over $100,000,000 a year to pension them all. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. How many does the Senator say died in Mexico? 

1\ir. 1\IITCHELL. The Commissioner estimates that there died in 

Mexico 36,137. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. How many does he estimate are now entitled to 

pensions? 

Mr. :MITCHELL. He estimates that 36,550 are now surviving. 

The Commissioner states that so far as those who died in the war are .concerned it is a matter of record. 

Mr. President, I may perhaps say for myself that I have nevet: yet 

been able to bring judgment to the conclusion that it is wise, safe, or !Patriotic for this or any government to pension any man merely for 

:Service in its army. I believe that every citizen, especially of a coun- try like this, owes service to his country in time of her need, and I do 

not tbink it safe for any great nation to adopt that as a part of its policy, 

for I do not believe it possible that any nation, however great, can .always certainly adhere to it. I do not believe it patriotic or wise for 

.any nation to do in time of peace or to promise on its statute-book what 

it is not able to perform in time of trial. 

Saying this much I must be understood as standing opposed to this 

legislation; and if I were to consult my own judgment I would not con- sentto it. It is only. in deference to that publicopinion which appears 

to exist throughout the country and to have found expression very stron~ly _not ?nlY in this but_in former Congresses that I was willing 

to umte m thiS report. I desrre that the Senate shall consider this 

question, and if this body, joining its judgment with that of the House 

of Representatives, thinks it is wise now to adopt this as the permanent 

policy of this Government, and is willing to take the responsibility for 

it, I shall defer to the judgment of the Senate and of Congress and believe that I am mistaken and that it is a wise and patriotic policy for us to adopt and adhere to. But if we do it, we must do it with our eyes open. We must do it in the face of the factthathereisalaw proposing to pension men who served only a single day in the war with 

Mexico when we are approaching the time when we must consider the 

fact that nearly two million of men served in the late war for the pres- ervation of the nation, not for a single day, but many of them for four 

long years. It is a great question. It is a question that involves so much in point of money that it ought to be carefully deliberated and 

acted upon, and ought not be met and acted on upon the spur of public 

sentiment or upon the provocation of political occasion or anything of 

that kind. 

I know that very much can be said on account of our past history 

in snpporp of th~ policy of pensioning for service, but the times are changed and the country has changed with them, and what our fathers 

may have done under the conditions that existed which they had to 

consider might in their minds and judgment be an entirely different 

thing in the present condition of affairs. 

I know, too, that a Presidential election approaches, and I know that 

many feel that there is political significance in this action. I trust 

that the Senate will not give weight to that consideration, and if it 

does I believe that the hour will be perilous to the financial stability 

and possibly to the :financial honor and credit of this nation, for I believe that if we inaugurate this system to-day the time is not remote 

when there will be no question as to the existence of a surplus in the 

national Treasury, but the question will be how we shall by taxes 

provide for the payment of pensions and the support of the Government. 

lli. BLAIR. Mr. President, I have seldom thought the Senate waa approaching the discussion and disposition of so important a measure· as this, nor have I ever in my own mind thought the Senate approached so important a measure in such an indifferent mood as to its 

disposition as seemed to prevail when this measure was called to its 

attention to-day. I may have been laboring under a mistake, but if we were to judge of the importance of this bill simply by what it con- tains itself, simply by the number that it provides for, those who served 

in the Mexican war and their dependent relatives, the question would 

be comparatively unimportant. According to the best opinion which · I am able to form, in that case it would involve an expenditure offrom· eight to ten million dollars a year only; and while that is a large sum of 

money in and of itself, nevertheless it is not a prodigious amount in 

comparison with the revenues of this people, nor is it an extravagant 

amount in comparison with the capacity of our people to endure taxation. 

But, Mr. President, the principle involved in this bill is not a new one, and yet it is a principle which we have applied in reference to our pensions but sparingly, and in former years only in such a way as to involve the country in relatively small expense. Circumstances, however, exist now which make it entirely impossible for us to adopt it in 

this bill without contemplating its extension in the course of the next 

few years, probably within the next five years, very likely within a shorter period of time, to a . vastly greater number of equally in many cases far more deserving soldiery of the country. In the war of the 

rebellion there was a total enlistment of 2,808,000 men for the Union, 

according to some authorities. By the most recent statement that I 

have seen, there were over 2,600,000 separate and distinct enlistments. 

Some of these were duplicate enlistments, or it may have been triplicate, the same men enlisting two or more times. The number of en- listments of separate individuals is fixed at over 2,000,000, and the 

number who were on the rolls of the Army at the close of the war was over 1,000,000 men. By the lowest computations that I have seen- how reliable they may be I can not say, but I think they are underestimates rather than overestimates-the total numberofliving soldiers 

who if this bill were extended to the soldiers of the recent war would 

be entitled to claim under its provisions would be over 1,000,000. 

Call it 1,000,000, then beyond that number would be the widows and . perhaps the dependent parents. 

This bill proposes to pension purely and simply upon the ground of 

service, and if we adopt that number it will be utterly impossible to 

resist fulfilling very soon this obligation to all in the country who have 

«}one service in our armies. If we assume the total number to be added 

to the pension-roll by the adoption of this principle within the next few 

years at1,000,000, including widows as well as the soldiers themselves 

(and that must be an underestima-te), it would involve an annual ex- penditure of $96,000,000. There is little reason to doubt that the real 

expenditure would be increased to $125,000,000 or $150,000,000 annu- ally. Whether the country is able~ bear that amount of taxation is for 

the Senate and for the country itself to determine. For my own part, I 

should be inclined to face the resporu;ibility if I did not think the principle adopted here is an erroneous principle. I do believe that the Government which.is defended, protected, and perpetuated by its citizens 

risking their lives in the battlefield, taking upon themselves a risk in 

support of the commonwealth in which they have no more interest 

than those who fail to thus expose themselves to the hardships and dangers of war, I believe that the Government thus saved and perpetuated is 

under an obligation to support that soldiery whenever it is in need. 

I do not consider a contribution to the assistance of a soldier who is 

unfortunately poor, or to his relatives, those in law dependent upon 

him, who are entitled from some source to help, in any sense whatever 

disgraceful. I do not look upon poverty as disgraceful, and I utterly 

repel and repudiate and would almost offensively stigmatize the doctrine which we sometimes hear advanced in the Senate and elsewhere, 

that it is a degradation to aid the man who is honorably poor. No 

matter if he is a common citizen, without any special claim on his coun- try or on the community wherein he lives, no man ought to blush for 

honest poverty, and no Senator, no member of Congress, no citizen does 
4508 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. MAY 26, 

his nation good service, in my opinion, when he advances the idea that 

poverty is in any sense dishonorable, or that to receive assistance from 

his fellow-men when poverty is honest and is not a badge of crime, or is not the result of any wrongdoing on the part of the individual, is 

in any sense whatever a degradation, or that he should be stigmatized as a less worthy citizen than were he a millionaire. . But to the soldier I think there is a special obligation. He of all 

men, when under the necessity of receiving help, should receive help 

from that community or from that organization which he has done most 

to serve; and often the soldier's invalidism and his poverty are theresult of special service to the state, and therefore there results an honorable obligation on the part of the state to maintain him. This obligation was recognized by the republics of antiquity. The idea that 

poverty was dishonorable was not recognized by the ancients, and it has 

been reserved, so far as I am concerned, at least, to hear in the debates 

which have taken place on this floor and that of the other Hall of Congress in support of this particular bill that it was a proper cause of indignation that we should make provision for the Mexican war soldier 

only when he was in need of pecuniary help. 

I believe that it is well for the nation to give medals, to vote thanks, 

to erect monuments, to do anything whatever which is not specially 

and pecuniarily a contribution, to exhibit the gratitude of the nation 

to all. I believe that honorable service should be recognized. We are inclined to do it. But that the nation should be called upon to give dollars andcents to a man whomaybeworthhismillions, who at all events 

is not in any sen.Se whatever dependent upon his country, I think is 

dishonorable to the man who is placed in the position where he may 

claim it. Why should you invite my friend, the honorable Senator 

from Kentucky [Mr. WILLIAMS], or my other distinguished friend 

who sits before me [Mr. LoGAN], nei~her of whom probably would 

avail himself under any circumstances of the provisions of this bill and 

thus obtain a gratuity from the Government? If it is dishonorable to 

them, and if they may with some haughtiness of mani:ter refuse to re- ceive this, and in debate, as they have before this time, say that they 

do not expect to profit by it, let me ask why is it not an insult for us to offer it to them and to place upon the statute-books of the country a law which by implication says that this class of men may avail themselves of the bounty of the Government, however unnecessary it may 

be to them? No, .M:r. President, I believe that the true doctrine is 

this which I have endeavored to enunciate, that the man who really 

needs bel p, having served his country, should be assisted by that coun- try, not because poverty is dishonorable, but simply because of the obligation of the country to him for what he has done for it and some- body must assist him. He has a right to call upon the Government for 

that pecuniary aid; he has a right to be relieved from that dishonorable feeling which the community itself is too apt- to entertain toward 

the ordinary poor. . Now, Mr. President, in regard to the actual expenditure which 

would result if we incorporate in this bill the amendment which has 

been reported by the committee it is impossible to state specifically, 

for there are no data that I am aware of from which we can draw a mathematically accurate conclusion; yet I think, as a result of some inquiry, that probably not more than three-fourths of the soldiers of the 

Union and of the wars prior to that for the preservation of the Union are really in need of pecuniary aid. If we should extend the provision 

of this bill to that class, and to that class alone, the burd~s fastened 

upon the country-properly fastened upon the country, too, burdens 

which it should bear-would be certainly onerous. It is difficult to 

concede that in that case the annual expenditure immediately would 

be less, in addition to our present expenditure in the way of pensions, 

than $75,000,000 or $80,000,000 a year. This amount of money would 

of itself almost absorb the annual surplus of the Government at the 

present time, and probably would absorb the surplus remaining to the 

Government in the future, upon the supposition that there.should be no essential modification of the existing tariff and revenue laws. Whether 

the country is prepared to submit to still greater taxation in discharge 

of its just obligations I can not tell. If it were necessary in order to 

give proper mainteDfillce to the soldiers of the country, those who are in real need and who by reason of approaching age or actual disability 

have occasion for assistance from some source, to increase the national 

taxation fifty, one hundred, one hundred and fifty, or even two hundred million dollars, I have no doubt the country would submit to that 

taxation; but I do not believe it is right for us, that it is just for us, to 

pension every one, nor sh.:'tll we do it unless it be in deference to a. false sense of obligation, to a false pride, yielding to a feeling which we ought not to encourage among our people, that poverty is dishonorable when the cause of that poverty may be honorable. If we incorporate in this bill the wrong principle which I have mentioned, and 

thereby saddle fifty or seventy-five millions of taxation upon the people 

of the country for the next ten, twenty, twenty-five, or it may be fifty 

years before we shall see the end of this, though_ diminishing undoubtedly after twenty years-if we fasten that principle on the country by 

incorporating it into this bill, I do not believe that we shall be held 

entirely guiltless as to the manner in which we shall have discharged our high duties. · I am as anxious as anyman to make proper provision for thesoldiers 

of this country. I would not limit this bill to those who served in the 

.Mexican war; I would include the soldiers of the Indian wars also. I 

would include as well the soldiers of the stilllaterwar and their widows 

and their orphans and their depend~nt fathers, all who are in law or in equity dependent upon them for a livelihood, and when there is 

an inability on their part fully to contribute to that obligation I am ready to go as far as the furthest ought to go, as it seems to me; but I am unable to persuade myself that this dangerous principle should receivethe sanction of the Senate. 

I have drawn .a bill which was introduced and referred to our com- mittee, not with the expectation that it would be adopted at this or perhaps at any session of Congress, but nevertheleSs it is a bill which 

in my belief embodies the true principles upon which pensions should 

be given. It indicates a substantial and a permanent policy that I believe should be adopted, and the only true one which we can adopt and 

justify the patchwork of pension legislation in which we have hithertoindulged. In the other House-and it is proper to allude to the na.tm·e 

of pending measures-there is pending to-day a bill, strongly supported, 

too, which proposes to give to every soldier of the recent war, as I un- derstand it, and to those dependent upon such soldier, a full pension of $8 a month, regardless of disability, regardless of dependence, regardless 

of everything but service for the limited period of thirty days. That 

bill has very strong support in this country. There are 4,000 posts of 

the Grand Army in the United States at the present time. Already 

something like 1,200 of those posts have strongly memorialized Congress in support of that measure, and they come from all parts of th~ 

country. 

Mr. H.A. WLEY. I do not understand precisely the character of the measure the Senator says they have memorialized for. Pensioning every 

soldier? 

Mr. BLAIR. Every soldier. 

Mr. H.A. WLEY. Every honorably discharged soldier? 

Mr. BLAIR. Yes, sir; at 8 a month. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I do not rem.ember haying received any memorials 

from my State of that description. 

Mr. BLAIR. The statement that I make is on the authority, as I saw it in the public prints, of a member of the House, who had received 

these memorials and asked to lu!:ve printed in the RECORD the names of the posts; and at the time when I saw the statement the number was over a thousand, and others were coming in very rapidly,. as it was stated. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Was that included in the series of propositions suggested by a committee of the Grand Army? 

Mr. BLAIR. The pension committee? Oh, no. Mr. HAWLEY. I thought not. 

J\fr. BLAIR. I say there is already such a proposition in the form 

of a bill very strongly supported by the soldiery of the country. 

Mr. HAWLEY. The Senator does not propose to do that now? 

Mr. BLAIR. Oh, no; I am opposing the principle of pensioning 

simply upon the ground of service. What I assert is that where anybody is under the necessity of contributing to the support of a soldier, 

wherever a soldier is partially disabled by approaching age or from any 

other cause and is dependent upon his personal labor or the pecuniary 

assistance of others wholly or in part for his support, as he must be maintained by somebody, assisted by somebody, either the local community 

where he lives or by the Sta te or by private charity, the obligation, 

costing no more in this case than any other, should devolve on the General Government. It costs the country no more; the obligation is a. universal one; and it is better to diffuse the burden of that support co- extensively with the obligation than that it should be fastened upon 

individuals or upon poor communities who too often are unable to en- dme the taxation-an inability that very often may have resulted from 

burdens growing out of the sante war already imposed upon them. 

I mention the circumstance only as ~dicativeofthetendency ofpublic opinion and to show that if we sanction the principle which we are todo if we pass this bill as it came from the House, tbereisnoearthlystopping place until we give to the whole soldiery of the country the same benefit which it is proposed in this bill to extend to the soldiers of the 

Mexican war. There is a logic that will drive us to it. We shall be 

nuder the necessity of doing justice and we sb'all be undm: the necessity 

of holding that to be justice which we have already done. 

Sir, I was sa-ying that I bad drawn a bill which for my own part l 

would be glad to support. I would be glad that it might be adopted as a substitute for this bill. I know that it includes within its provisions legislation that very soon will be enacted, and it would place a. quietus upon the effort to obtain what will be deemed to be justice, and 

what in the general concession of the Senate, if it adopt this bill 'vithout amendment, will be conceded to be justice. Sooner or later it 

must be done, and that very soon. I ask the Secretary to read the 

bill as part of my remarks. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GARLAND in the chair). If there 

be no objection the bill will be read. Does the Senator desire the 

preamble to be read? 

Mr. BLAIR. I do; because the preamble contains the reasons for 

the bilL 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will read the bill called 

for by the Senator from New Hampshire. 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD=-SEN.ATE. 4509 

The Secretary read as follows: 

A bill (S. 1342) to provide pensions for dependent soldiers, sailors, and officers 

who have been honorably discharged after three months' service in any pre- vious war, or who shall hereafter be honorn.bly discharged from the service 

in future wars, at the expiration of twenty years after such discharge, and to their dependent relatives. 

Whereas it is unjust and unworthy the American people that their defenders tin time of war should be permitted to suffer for the necessaries of life, or to be 

-dependent for them upon the charity of individuals or upon the ordinary relief 

.and the refuges of pauperism ; and 

Whereas the public revenues are ample, and, by reason of the peculiar re- -sources from which they are derived, fall almost wholly upon the luxuries of 

life and slightly upon those classes of our people who are unable to submit to the burdens of taxation; and 

Whereas those persons who have served in the Army and Navy of the United 

!States are generally dependent upon their personal labor and the assistance of 

-others, wholly or partiall~1 for support, and thus an increase of pensions and of 

the classes of persons entiued to them will consequently place upon the nation .at large a pecuniary burden which belongs to it rather than to individuals and 

local communities; and . Whereas nothing can more generally develop the patriotism of a people than ~iberal provisions in the public and permanent laws of the land for those who tn times of common peril risk their lives for the general welfare and for the pres- -ervation of institutions in which they have no more interest than others who, 

incurring no personal danger, share fully in the benefits of the common defense; 

:and 

Whereas under the administration of existing laws great injustice and delay 

is unavoidable by reason oflossorofdifficultyinprocuringevidence,andmany 

other causes which can not here be enumerated: Therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of .America in Congress assembled, That any surviving soldier, sailor, or officer who 

shall have been honorably discharged from the Army or Navy of the United 

.States, and who shall have served ninety days in any war in which the United 

States shall have been engaged prior to the 1st day of January,1866 (including 

the wars with Mexico, with Indian tribes, and the war of 1861}, shall receive a pension of $4 per month: .Pl"ovided, That he is dependent wholly or in part upon his personal labor, or wholly or in part upon pecuniary assistance from any -other person or persons whatever for the means of comfortable support; and any such soldier, sailor, or officer shall be entitled to receive, iu addition to the 

aforesaid pension of$4 per month, any pension to which he may have right by 

.existing le.w on a~count of wounds or injuries received or disability contracted 

in the service and line of duty; but no officer who is not suffering fi·om wounds, 

injuries, or disability contracted in the service and line of duty shall receive a ,pension of more than $4 per month under the provisions of this act. Said pen- -sion of $4 per month shall be paid from the date of application, upon proof of the 

-service, discharge, and dependence aforesaid; and the granting thereof shall not interfere with the prosecution of any claim for pension on aroount of wounds -or injuries received or disability contracted in the service and line of duty, nor shall the provisions of this act reduce the pension to which any person shall be 

.entitled under existing laws; and on the expiration of twenty-five years from 

the discharge of the pensioner the pensions payable under this action shall be 

increa ed to $8 per month, and in all cases where twenty-five years have elapsed 

since such discharge the pension shall commence at the rate of $8 on the passage -of this act. SEc. 2. That the surviving widow of any soldier, sailor, or officer who shall have 

served in any such war and been honorably discharged, or the widow of any -soldier, sailor, or officer who shall have intermarried since his death and be now single, whether by reason of death or a divorce in her favor as the innocent 

party, and who shall be dependent wholly or in part upon her personal labor, .or the assistance of any other person or persons whatever for the means of com- fortable support, shall be entitled to receive a pension of $12 per month; but this 

provision shall not be construed to reduce the pension of any such widow under 

-the existing laws, and only so much of such $12 herein provided shall be paid to such widow as shall be required to insure to her the rate of $12 per month. 

SEc. 3. That the mother of any such soldier, sailor, or officer who has died in -consequence of wounds and injuries received or disability contracted in the serv- ice as provided in the first section, who shall be in like manner wholly or in part dependent for support, and in case of the decease of the mother, then the 

.father, 1f in like manner dependent, shall be entitled to receive a pension of $8 per month. 

SEc. 4. That all pensions granted under the provisions of this act shall be paid so long as such dependence upon personal labor of any kind or assistance from .any person or persons whatever for the means of comfortable support shall con- tinue; but no pensions shall be granted or continued under the provisions of 

this act when such dependence upon personal labor or assistance of another person or persons for the means of comfortable support shall have been caused <>r created by reason of the personal fault, bad practice, or habit of the applicant <>J: pensione1·, or by reason of the transfer of property of the applicant or pen- sioner without valuable consideration, or to devolve the support of the applicant -or pensioner upon any other person, the property so transferred being sufficient to provide such means of support, or for the purpose of enabling the applicant to establish a claim for pension under this act. SEc. 5. That the provisions of this act shall be applicable at the expiration of 

twenty-five years from the honorable discharge of soldiers, sailors, and officers, 

and t<> their widows and parents, in cases oflikeservice in any war subsequent to the 1st day of January, A. D. 1866, and like dependence existing at or after 

the expiration of such twenty-five yearsfrom discharge. 

SEC. 6. That any person entitled to pension under the provisions of this act may apply, by petition setting forth the fact of dependence as herein made nec- essary to the establishment of right to pension, to the judge of the district court <>f the United States wherein the applicant shall reside; and thereupon notice 

shall be given by the judge of the pendency of such petition to the district at- torney, and the proofs shall be taken, the fact found upon report by a commissioner resident near the applicant to be appointed by the court and certified by the court to the Commissioner of Pensions, and the finding of the court shall be 

placed on file by the Commissioner, and shall be final and conclusive upon the 

alleged dependence of the applicant under the provisions of this act. The testi- .nony shall be taken at the expense of the applicant and the commissioner shall 

be paid a fee in no case exceeding $5, to be allowed by the court and paid by the 

United States. 

111r. BLAIR. The principle pervading the bill is that the Government should help those and those only who need help, and help those 

to the extent of $8 per month in the case of the soldier, and in, the case 

of the widow of the soldier to the amount of $12 per month, and the 

dependent parent to the amount of $8 per month. It does not interfere 

with the pension on the ground of disability at all. It would be a pension in addition to that for disability. It does seem to me that if 

we grant pensions upon the ground of service, if we give a pension to a man of $8 upon the ground of service and then deprive the man who is 

Gisabled and is drawing pension upon the ground of disability of his 

pension on the ground of service, we do relatively a. great injustice to 

him. He did service certainly as much as the man who was not 

wounded or disabled, and upon that ground is entitled to as much con- sideration as his fellow. If in addition to the service and to the necessity which he is under of support he has also a disability, a physical or 

mental disability occasioned by his service, he should be pensioned for 

that in addition, and therefore it would be a sort of robbery to give a 

service pension and deprive the disabled soldier of that to which he is 

already entitled by contraet, as I think, with the Government. 

This proposition would give to soldiers of. the Mexican and all wars 

prior to that of the rebellion pensions at once at the rate of $8 per 

month, because more than twenty-five years have elapsed from their 

honorable discharge. It would give immediately to all soldiers dependent and in need and the relatives of the war of 1861 4 per month, 

and at the expiration of twenty-five full years from their discharge 

would give them a pension at the rate of$8permonth. It undertakes 

a little to deal with the future and proposes as a part of the permanent 

law of the land that hereafter soldiers shall enlist with the understanding that at the end of a quarter of ,p century from their honorable discharge they shall be entitled, if in need of help from any source, to 

help to the amount of $8 a month from the Government. The pension 

to which the disabled man is entitled is a part of his contract. It is 

his as part of his contract with the Government. He agrees to work 

for his $13 a month, and is to have his $13 a month all the same 

·whether he is harmed or whether he is unharmed at the expiration of 

his service. If physically disabled in addition to having rendered the 

service, if be suffers an injury in the service of the country, he is by existing law entitled as a part of his contract to such pension as the laws 

provide at the time of his enlistment for those who may be disabled in 

the service. 

In the case of the soldiers of the war of the Revolution and of the 

war of 1812, after the lapse of a great deal of time the country gave 

them pensions upon the ground of service. These two great precedents 

will undoubtedly be followed in all time to come. We are unquestionably about to follow these two precedents in the case of the soldiers of 

the MexiCan war, and the logic that we have adopted and the justice 

that we have done will of course be continued in the future. 

I think, then, in order that there may be no uncertainty in regard 

to the legislation as to what the man is to have, in order that there may 

be no discussion such as has been going on during the last eight or ten 

years, at least with reference to pensions to the 1\fexican war soldiers, 

it would be well that the la.ws of the land should give notice at the time 

of the enlistment of the soldier when he renders his service to the volilliteer Army or the regular Army, that at the end of twenty-fl. ve years, 

having served in the Army, he is to be entitled to his pension if he 

needs help from any source. Therefore that section is inserted in this 

proposition. 

A convenient method of ascertaining the fact of dependence, which 

is the great difficulty so far as the allowance of pensions based upon 

dependence is concerned, is provided in the final section of the proposition, which I may or may not move as an amendment to this bilL 

It gives the man a tribunal that may be appointed by the district court 

· within whose jurisdiction he resides, a commissioner acting under the 

authority of the court, who must live near the man in the community, 

must know personally oftentimes in regard to him, and at all events 

will be able to seek accurate information in an informal and, if necessary, in a formal way from those who possess it; and thus the fact, 

which is now established· with great difficulty, may be very easily settled. The certificate of the court based on the finding of the commissioner being filed in the office of the Commissoner of Pensions is final and 

conclusive upon the question of dependence. The rest, the discharge, 

the identification of the application, will all be matter of record or to a 

great extent so, and thus the establishment of the claim would be a 

matter of very slight difficulty. 

Mr. President, I have here what I think it may be well to have 

printed, because it has been prepared with some care by the assistant 

clerk of the Committee on Pensions, Mr. York, a reference to all the 

pension legislation down to the year 1848, giving the year when the 

law was passed and in a word the pith of the act itself. I have no 

doubt in this and in future discussions it may be a great convenience to 

members of the Senate and perhaps others interested in the subject to be 

able to find this matter. It is informally prepared, but it is sufficient 

to make reference to the statutes easy. I ask that it be printed as 

part of my remarks . 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The matter presented by the Senator 

from New Hampshire will be ordered to be printed in the RECORD unless 

objection be made. 

The statement is as follows: 

September 28, 1789. Military pensions heretofore paid by the States to be paid 

from 4th March last for one year to invalids who were wounded and disabled 

in late war. 1790. Continued for one year. 1792. Officers who had not received half-pay, soldiers, &c., disabled.in service 

shall be plaood on pension-list during life or continuance of disability, and arrears. 

1796. Pension not to exceed half-pay. 1798. Widows and orphans-extended to. 1800. Officers and seamen, disabled-pension not exceeding half-pay. 
4510 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. MAY 26, 

1803. About same~ 1792-officers half-pay, privates $5 month. 1806. From known wounds-has since become and continue!l disabled to pro- cure subsistence by manual labor. 1814. Navy widows and children under 16. 1818. Officers and privates, Army and Navy, who served till end of revolution, or nine months or longer, who is or hereafter shall be, by reason of his reduced circumstances in life, in need of assistance from his country for support, shall receive a pension-officer $20, non-commissioned $!J. 

1819. Evidence of continued disability to be furnished, but does not extend to invalids of Revolution under act of 1818. (Repealed 1832.) 

l-820. No person to be pensioned unless he exhibits a schedule of estate and in- come, and Secretary of War may strike from roll persons in his opinion not in indigent circumstances. 1823. Secretary of war authorized to restore to roll if satisfied person is in such indigent circumstances as.to be unable to supp<t~ himself without~ssistan~ of his country, and has not disposed or transferred his property to obtam a pensiOn. 1824. Extending five years half-pay pensions to widows, &c., &f officers, &c., 

w)lo died in public service. 1828. Each surviving officer of Revolutionary army to receive full pay, ac- cording to rank in line, to begin 3d March, 1826, and continue during life, but no more than full pay of captain. Also, every private and non-commissioned officer, &c., who enlisted during the war and continued to end in service to receive full pay ~uring natural life, 

excepting those on pension-roll. 1828. Extending tive years pensions_.chargeable on navy and privateer pen- sion fund. 1828. Extending act of 1806 six years. 1829. Entitles representatives of deceased invalid pensioner to arrears. 1832. All who served two years during Revolution, and not entitled under act of 1828, to receive full pay tnot exceeding that of captain) from 4th March, 1831, 

during natural life. 

Also, such persons who served less than above, and Bot less than six months, to get pro rata for the time served. 1832. Extending widows (Navy) five years, and to all widows same. 1836. Five years' half-pay to widows and orphans of those who died from service since 20th April, 1818, no more than half lieutenant-colonel's pay. Any person in R-evolution under act of1832, leaving widow who was married to him before expiration of last service, such widow will receiTe while unmar- ried pension husband entitled to. 1838. Five years' pension from 1836 to widow married before expiration of last service and before 1794, same as soldier would have been entitled to under actof1832. · 1843. Extending pensions to Revolutionary widows, under acts of 1832, 1838, 

1842,for one year. 1844. Extending same four years. 1846. Volunteers wounded or disabled entitled under pension laws. 1848. Any person who seryed as in ad of 1832, and died or shall die, leaving 

widow married before 1794, such widow shall receive during natural life pen- sion husband would have been entitled to. 1848. All widows of Revolution entitled to same pension husband would 

have been entitled to if living, to begin 1848, but no widow married after 1800 is entitled. 

1848. Half-pay to widows of those who have died from wounds received or disease contra~ted in Mexican war. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President---

Mr. PLATT. Will the Senator from Kentucky allow me to ask a question of the Senator from New Hampshire? 

Mr. WILLI.lliS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PLATT. Informer billsofthis naturethesoldiers ofthe Seminole war and certain Indian wars have been included. Now, upon 

what principle are they excluded from this bill? 

Mr. BLAIR. Upon no principle. It maybethatitwas thought the 

bill would get through easier; I can conceive of no other reason; and if 

that is a principle that is the principle the Senator inquires of. 

:Mr. PLATT. Is there any reason why, if this bill should pass, an- other bill should not be framed extending the same privileges and benefits to the soldiers of those wars? 

Mr. BLAIR. There can be none. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I have spoken so oft.en heretofore on this subject that I do not feel like making an extended speech now. I differ with the chairman of the committee in regard to the policy 

as well~ the principle of the bill. I think that this bill stands upon a just principle and that it is based upon sound policy, a policy established in the first years of our Government. Ours is the only great 

government in the world that Nlies for its defense upon the patriotism 

and courage of its citizen soldiers. It commenced its very existence 

with the declaration that a large standing army was a standing menace to popular liberty, and that a well-regulated militia was the true defense of a free state. Our whole military system is based upon this idea. 

Why, sir, with more than :fifty millions of people, we have a standing 

army of only 25,0.00 men-about one soldier to every two thousand people. But behind this standing force we have a militia reserve of ten 

millions of fighting men, ready at a moment's warning to respond to the 

call of their country. This is not the policy of foreign nations. The 

European governments keep nplargestandingarmies all the time, thirty 

to forty times as great as ours, and these vast establishments are maintained more for the purpose of suppressing the people than of defending the sta-te. 

Our policy is, when war comes upon ns and we have need for troops, 

for the Government to call for volunteers, and they never fail to come. 

The Government says to them: "Ifyou are killed in battle your wife 

and children shall not become beggars; if yon are disabled in the serv- ice yourself, yon shall be taken care of, and when yon become old and , infirm your Government will see that yon do not become a charge upon ·charity." That is the American policy. No such provision is made 

there as here. Their policy is to get all the service possible out of their ·soldiers, and when they are no longer fit for use to turn them out like 

old horses on the common to die of starvation. I say therefore the 

principle and the policy are different with ns and the governments of 

Europe. 

Mr. BLAIR. Will the Senator allow me? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Certainly. 

Mr. BLAIR. The Senator said he differed from me, as I understood 

him. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. No; I referred to the chairman of the committee, 

the Senator from Pennsylvania [Air. MITCHELL]. · Mr. BLAIR. The Senator from Kentucky and I agree absolutely, 

completely, as to the principle. 

'Mr. WILLIAMS. I alluded to the Senator from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. MITCHE.LL. I think. it may be nec~ry for the Senator not 

to misapprehend me. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I was so far from the Senator that I perhaps did 

not hear his remarks correctly. His voice is not very stentorian, at all 

events. . 

Mr. MITCHELL. The billasreported by the committee, as! understand it, is precisely in accordance with the view the Senator has ex- pressed. The statement the Senator from Pennsylvania made in regard 

to the general question is one thing, and the bill is another. 

J\Ir. WILLIAMS. The Senator's views in regard to the general question were what I was alluding to; I say this. has become the settled 

policy of the country, and it is a better one than the European policy 

in my judgment. I think it is more humane as well as more economical, 

for, sir, in my judgment all the money we have ever paid out for pensions from the beginning of our pension system down to the present. 

day would not keep in the field a single year one of those vast military 

establishments of Europe. The system has worked well with ns; our people have never failed to respond to the call of the country, whether 

it required a thousand or a million troops, and we have found it cheaper 

to pension our soldiers than to keep np great standing armies. That is 

the broad distinction. 

Now, sir, as this has been the policy of the country, as the Government has discharged all its obligations to the soldiers of the Revolution 

and to those of the warof1812, why should not alike honorable recognition of the services and sufferings of the veterans of the Mexican war be made by this Government? The Legislatures of twenty-eight 

sovereign States have recommended it, and the whole people will hail 

with delight t:pis act of justice. 

Mr. President, the Mexican war. is one of the most remarkable in 

his.tory; and when we consider the smallness of the means employed 

and the vastness of the results accomplished, the nature of the country 

which was the subject of its operations and the character of the people 

that we had to combat, the obstacles in the way and the skill and valor 

required to overcome them, the war stands absolutely without a parallel. 

I said,m, thatitwaswithonta.parallel. Why, justthinkofit. Our 

little Army invaded a country of twelve millions of brave people intrenched behind those bulwarks of nature, the everlasting Cordilleras, 

every pass of which bristled with a fortress manned and defended by a warlike race of men, accustomed to scenes of carnage and bloodshed 

through generations, led by officers trained in the best military schools 

of the world, animated and united by a religions fanaticism to expel the 

Northern barbarians, as they called ns, from their country, and all led 

by Santa Anna., the most renowned captain of the age, who presented 

obstacles to the invader of n~ ordinary character. And yet, sir, in less 

than two years from the commencement of that war we were masters 

of the country, and from the landing of our troops at Matamoras and 

VeraCruz to the capture ofthehallsofthe Montezumas our troops never met with a single defeat. Whether the battle was by a. charge on the 

open plain or by an assault upon a. mountain fortress, victory always 

perched upon our banners. It was no sectional war; it was no party 

wa.r. It was a war of the whole country against a common enemy, and 

its glories, unstained by a single drop of fratricidal blood, are the com- mon inheritance of ns all. 

This war was as remarkable for the humanity of its conduct as fo:r 

the splendor of its achievements. Our Army made war only upon the 

organized forces of the enemy, Mtd not upon the people and property 

of the country. It conquered but did not desolate. 

The military men of the world had said that our volunteer system , might do very well for defensive operations, but ridiculed the idda of 

a war of invasion by vohmteer troops. But the victories of Taylor and 

Scott dispelled this illusion. and demonstrated beyond a. drJ(lbt that our volunteers were equal to all the emergencies of war. Tiley taught 

the world that freedom makes men brave, that courage ·a:takes them 

warlike, that the freest no,tions are the bravest natioM and the most 

formidable in war. 

This war assured the annexation of Texas and adcied to the public 

domain a. million of square miles of terrritory, abounding in all the 

elements of wealth-agricultural, pastoral, miner..cl, manufactural, and 

commercial. It squared the Republic out frr1m ocean to ocean and 

gave a new impulse to civilization and progress such as the world had 

not seen in five hundredyears. I will V£;.nture to assert that this is 

the only war in all history which in a buE.iness point of view has proved 

to be a. profitable investment. It cost ns $60,000,000 and its results 

amount to thousands of millions. Great Commonwealths and splendid 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. "4511 

cities have spru"ng upupon the acquired territory. Its mines have furnished gold and silver enough to pay the whole of the public debt and 

have revolutionized the commerce of the world. All this wealth, fame, 

power, and prestige are the fruits of the toil and valor of the veteran soldiers of the l\Iexican war, and whyshallnottheyberecognizedbytheir 

Government? There are not many of them now. Since then change 

and war have thinned their ranks until there is scarcely a handful of 

themlefli. 

I have seen some exaggerated statements in regard to the number 

that will be entitled to this pension when the bill passes. The very 

paper read by my friend from New Hampshire is all a mistake. From 

these exaggerated estimates made by the enemies of the bill one would 

be led to suppose that there were yet living Mexican veteran soldiers 

enough to conquer l\Iexico again after nea,rly t.he lapse of forty years. 

I remember aboutfouryears ago a mostintelligent committee of the 

House of Representatives, after a thorough and exhaustive investigation of this whole subject, reported to the House-and I believe that 

report is as near correct as it was possible to make it-that 100,780 ~nrolled men were connected with the Mexican war, of all arms; that 

5,200 of these served less than sixty days, and would not therefore be 

entitled to a pension under this bill. The :first enlistments in that war were for three, six, and twelve months, and the terms of these shortenlistment men expired during the progress of the war, and 17,224 

re-enlisted and are counted some of them three times and aJl of them 

twice upon the muster-rolls of the Army'. Sixteen thousand of our men 

found soldiers' graves in Mexico; 7,225 the record show~ deserted; and 

of those who returned, escapingthebaJls of the enemy, and the climate 

of the country, more deadly than they, 11,000 were pensioned. I do 

not believe that the report made by the Commissioner of Pensions as read-for I never saw it before it was read at the desk of the Senatementions these ll,OOOmen whowerepensioned for disease or disability 

under ,existing laws. 

All these amount to 56,649, which number is to be subtractedfrom 

the whole of the en±ollnients, 100,780, leaving 44,131 who would have 

been entitled to pensions at the end of the war if this bill had been then 

in operation; and the question now is, how many of these 44,000 men have survived for thirty-six years through aJl the vicissitudes, excitements, and rapid whirls of American life? This same committee, basing their report upon 111ll the records accessible to them, and upon principles ofthemostadvanced vitalstatistics, say that the number of sur- vivors, including widows then entitled to be pensioned, would not exceed 8,000. 

What a disparity between that and the estimates made by the ene- mies of those old soldiers. Why, sir, to illustrate the mortality, let 

me say to the Senate that during that war I commanded the first year a company of one hundred twelve-months' men, and to-day but thirteen of them survive. At the beginning of the second year I was commissioned colonel of the Fourth Kentucky Regiment, numbering 1,100 

men, enlisted for the war, ma.ny of whom re-enlisted; and of those 

1,100 men less than one hundred and sixty can answer to roll-call today. All the general officers of that war are dead, and I am told that 

but nine colonels are living. The annual amount in pensions to these 

old men will not, in my judgment, exceed $1,000,000. 

These veterans are passing rapidly away-for old men we know, like. 

leaves with advancing autumn, fall thicker and faster as they draw near threescore and ten. It will not be long, sir, before the last one of 

them will have crossed the cold, dark river and pitched his silent tent 

in a common camping-ground, where he shall sleep till the trumpet of 

the archangel shall sound reveille in the morning of the resurrection 

and summon all the living and the dead to the last grand roll-call of 

the nations. 

Mr. President, ifwe ever intend to give these old men their pension, 

let us do it while it can do them some good and not wait until they are aJl dead or grown too old to enjoy any of the blessings of life. Our 

Government has dealt generously' in the main with its soldiers, and in 

its generosity toward the soldiers of the late war it seems to have over- looked the veterans of the Mexican war. We have given generously 

pensions to the widows and orphans of dead Presidents and other distinguished public officials, and why shall we overlook this needy rem- nant of the most glorious little army th~ country ever had in the field. 

We passed through the Senate the other day a bill giving to General Grant 

fifteen or sixteen thousand dollars a year as a pension as long as he lives. 

I am not complaining of this, but I am fur justice to all, justice to the 

humble as well as to the great, justice to the common soldier as well as the general officer. And, sir, whatever we do let us do it generously 

and gracefully. Let us give these old men their pension as a badge of 

honorable distinction and not as a mark of mendicancy. Let it be an expression of the gratitude of a great nation toward a band of old he- roes and not as a cold charity dispensed to a set of.old be~aars. 

Let it be a roll of honor and not one of humiliation, for there is 

nothing in the world that our people, especially the poorer classes, hate 

so much as to be compelled to confess or prove themselves paupers. 

The most hateful words in the language to the commo:m people are "poor-house" and "pauper." Then, according to the amendment of 

my friend from Illinois, strike out this pauper clause and pass a bill 

worthy of the greatness of our country n.nd of the services of these old 

men, and they will accept their certificates of pension with as much 

pride ·as the old soldiers of Napoleon did the cross of the Legion of 

Honor. 

Mr. President, I have spoken with earnestness because I feel deeply 

interested in all tllat affects these old soldiers. They were the com- panions and comrades of my youth, and they are the friends of my old 

age. I have been pressing this bill for five long years, in season and 1 

out of season, and sometimes almost without hope, but I am glad now to feel that its passage is assured, and that the country is about to 

hbnor itself in rendering a just recognition for the services of those men who in the prime of their young manhood carried its flag in triumph through its :first and only great foreign war. ?r'Ir. INGALLS. Mr. President, I have nothing but honor and admiration for the valor of the officers and soldiers who fought in the war with Mexico. I appreciate their achievements and the great material 

results which came from that war. :Out I do not concur with the sen- timents expressed by the Senator from Kentucky as to the meaning of 

that war or its \"elation to the sentiment of the country. 

I heard the Senator say that the war with Mexico was not a party 

war, that it was a great contest waged by the American people with a foreign nation. I donot read history in that way. !think thatamore 

indefensible war of spoliation and robbery -and conquest was never waged by a great people against a defenseless and powerless neighbor. 

It was a party war waged by one of the political organizations of this 

country in defense of and for the purpose of extending the limits and 

aggrandizing the system of human slavery. 

I am not here to vote for this measure upon the ground that it -was a great war waged by the AmericAn people in defense of some great principle. This does not detract from the valor of the men who were engaged in it. I honor and appreciate that. They are entitled to all 

praise; but it is not fitting that the war with Mexico should be defended 

here upon this floor as a measure which was not in its incipiency and 

has not been from that time until the present in opposition to the moral sense and to the conscience of this nation. 

Mr. President, I am not terrified by the specter which appears to affright the souls of some of the fearful adversaries of this bill. I am not at 

all alarmed at the idea of pensioning all the sur\l'iving Union soldiers of 

the armies in the war of the rebellion. One of the reasons why I shall 

vote for this measure is because I desire to establish more firmly in the 

legislation of this country the precedent that has been recognized by 

previous statutes in favor of the idea of pensioning the surviving soldiers of the wars in which this country has been engaged, irrespective 

of t.he idea of personal disability. The Senator from Massachusetts 

inquired, I thought with something of alarm, if we adopt the principle 

established in this bill how long will it be before all the survivors of the 

pnion armies will be applying to be plar.ed on the pension-rolls? 

Mr. HOAR. Does the Senator allude to me. Mr. INGALLS. I do. 

Mr. HOAR. The Senator misconstrued my question. My question was not how long before they would all be pot on the pension-roll, but 

what would be the annual cost of carrying out the princ1ple? 

Mr. INGALLS. Those two questions are so nearly allied and so inextricably blended that I trust the Senator will excuse me from intentional misrepresentation·, because I supposed that the motive which 

a<:tuated him was the idea that if this bill was passed we should then 

be compelled to pension the surviving soldiers of the war for the Union. 

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. BLAIR] who advocates this. 

bill nominally and ostensibly by saying that he is in favor of the re- port, but hopes to offer an amendment that will be a substitute dealing 

with an entirely or different subject, also said that if we adopted this 

principle we must be prepared at no very distant day to decide whether- we would place the surviving veteransofthewarforthe Union on the pension-roll. He spoke of it as if this were an innovation, as if we were f~rthe :first time to be called upon to declare a principle with regard to 

American soldiers that perhaps would be of infinite detriment hereafter. 

The precedent that is involved in this bill is as venerable as the flag 

of this country. In 1778, less than two years after the Declaration or American Independence, and long before the close of the war of the 

Revolution, an act was passed giving half-pay for seven years from the 

conclusion of the war to aJl military officers who then were or thereafter 

might be in the service of the United States. In 1780 another act WM 

passed giving half-pay for life to those officers who remained in the 

Army until the close of the war. In 1818 Congress obliterated entirely 

the distinctio'h that had hitherto existed between the officers and the· privates in the war of the Revolution by the passage of an act granting a pension forlifetoall the officers and enlisted men who served through 

the war of the Revolution to its close, or for a term of nine months or longer at any time during the war, who, being citizens of the United 

States, in the language of the amendment of the committee to this bill, 

were then or might thereafter, by reason ~f reduced circumstances, be 

in need of assistance from the country. That act was passed thirty-- five years only after the treaty of peace with Great Britain, and that was the first precedent. It dates back to the very inception of the 

history of this country as a government. 

What was known as the pauper clause in the act of 1818 aroused the 

most profound discontent and dissatisfaction in the minds not only oi 
4512 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. MAY 26, 

the surviving officers and veterans of the war of the Revolution but in 

the country at large. An agitation was C?mmence~ for, its r~peal. .It 

went on through successive Congresses until at last, m 1832, 1t·was absolutely repealed by a_n act passed by both Horu:>es of Congress; and. I 

desire as a matter of history to read what was sa1d upon that clause m 

the debate in May, 1832, :fi.ft.y-two years ago this month, by Mr. Frelinghuysen, then a Senato.r from New Jersey, the uncle of the present 

Secretary of State. He sa1d: 

There we~e two defects in the system, even as thus liberalized. In the first place it exaeted the humiliating confession of absolute poverty. It required of the aged veteran that he should publicly, and in the presence of the sons by the side of whose fathers he had fought and suffered, expose the wretchedness of his condition; that he should produce the proof of his pauperism, and swear to it himself. I have seen these worthies in our public courts ofjust.ice exhibit the inventorv of their poverty down to the items of cups and saucers, and I have felt humbled for my country. Sir, a noble spirit would sometimes exclaim, "I will die in want first. If my country exacts such ignoble conditions let her withhold the miserable pittance." ~d who, sir, of this Senate does not honor the senti- ment? It has been honored and vindicated by the manly feeling of this ~reat 

community. Public opinion would not longer brook such terms of natiOnal honor and gratitude, and by the concurring if!.~ications of Legislatures and peo- ple we are invoked to relax these hard conditiOns. And should a few partake of a favor that do not need it, better so than that even one deserving relic of times so dearly cherished should go down to the dust neglected.and forgotten.-Congressional Debates, volume 8, part 1, page 928. 

Sir those sentiments might be repeated to-day without the change 

of a ~ord a syllable, or a letter. They did honor to the great spirit 

that utte;ed them, and they are to-day the sentiments of a great majority of the Ameri~ people on this subject. . . The act against wh1ch these remarks wer~ directed reqmred t~e applicant for pension to solemnly swe3jr or affirm that he was a res1dent 

citizen of the United States on the 18th day of March, 1818; that he 

had not since that time, by gift, sale, or in any manner whatever, disposed of his property or any part thereof, with intent thereby so to 

diminish it as to bring himself within the provisions of an act of Congress entitled "An act to provide for certain persons engaged in the 

land and naval service of the United States in the Revolutionary war,'' 

passed on the 18th day of March, 1818; that be has not, nor has any 

person in trust for him, any property or securities, contra{!ts or debts 

due to him; that be had no incomeotherthan what is contained in the 

schedule hereto annexed and by him subscribed. The law continues: 

Nor until such person shall have delivered, or caused to be delivered, to the Secretary of War a. copy of the aforesaid schedule and oath or affirmation, certi- fied by the clerk of the court to which the said schedule was delivered, together with the opinion of the said court, also certified by their clerk, of the value of the property contained in said schedule: Provided, That in every case in which the pension~r may be insa;ne, or incapable <?f taking an oath, ~he court may re- ooive the sa1d schedule, Without the aforesaid oath or affirm.atwn, from the com- mittee, or other person authorized to take care of such person. 

In view of the action that was taken by Congress in regard to the surviving ·veterans of the Revolutionary war in the discussion that then 

ensued upon what was known as the pauper clause in the act of 1818, 

which was subsequently repealed upon a direct appeal to Congress for 

the purpose, I think I may say with .confidence that the American people have established as one of the precedents upon this subject that 

they will not insist that a soldier shall be proven to be a pauper before 

he shall be entitled to the benefactions of the country. 

])fr. WILLIAMS. Will the Senator allow me to read a short letter 

just in the line of his argument? · 

Mr. INGALLS. I shall be very glad to hear it . . 

Mr. WILLIAMS. It is from a man I know.. He is very poor. 

SAINT 1\IABY, SAINT GENEVIEVE Co~--rY, l't!IssoURI, 

May 15,1884. Hon. JOHNs. WILLIAMS, Washimgton, D. a.: 

In the name of God, hum.anity, justice, and fair-dealing, do not pass the bill pensioning the Mexican veterans in such a shape t,hat we will have to swear and prove that we are paupers before we can have any of its benefits. Though in my own case it might not be hard to do, yet I protest a.,o-ainst this paternal Gov- ernment placing that stigma on the survivors of that war. We demand it be- cause it is just and right. · · Yours, respectfully, &c., GEO. 1\I.A.TTINGLY. ' 

He was one of my soldiers. 

M:r. INGALLS. With regard to the first great struggle in which this 

country was engaged, that with the mother countJ:y, the precedent has 

been clearly established that within a specified period after the close of 

the war all the surviving officers and enlisted men of the contest shall 

be placed upon the pension-rolls irrespective of disability and irrespective of the fact whether they possess the means of personal support. 

Now we come to the next.war, that of 1812. In 1858, or forty-three 

years after the close of the war with Great Britain, the House of' Representatives passed a bill pensioning all the soldiers of that war. It was defeated, however, in the Senate. The then Commissioner of Pensions, Mr. Whiting, was opposed to the measure, just as some Commissioners of Pensions have been since, and he contributed to its defeat 

by furnishing the most extravagant and unfounded estimates of the 

amount that the measure would co~t. He said that at that time, taking the longevity question, the probable duration of life, and the num- ber of soldiers engaged in the war, it could not be assumed that less 

than $30,000,000 per annum would be imposed upon the Treasury of 

the country by the adoption of that measure; and in consequence of 

his estimate, and his opposition, and the pendency of other very \mportant and interesting matters, an adverse report on the bill was adopted in the Senate. 

Immediately after that of course every Senator is familiar with what 

occurred. The great anti-slavery debate came up; the war for the 

Union began, continued four years; the measures looking to the reconstruction of the States followed; and the time and attention both of 

Congress and th~ people were engrossed and engaged in matters affecting the national life. But in 1871 Congress passed the first act pensioning the soldiers of the war of 1812. That was fifty-six years after 

the war closed. I assume it, however, to be fair to conclude, in view 

of the action of the Kouse of Representatives in 1858, that being the 

popular branch of the National L(\,oislatnre, that there was a conviction 

in the minds of the people of this country that the soldiers of that w:uought to have been pensioned at an earlier date; whether it should be 

forty or forty-three or forty-five years of course there is no definition and no designation; but following the precedents of the war of the 

Revolution, the first act that looked like a rerognition of that precedent so fur as the war of 1812 was concerned was forty-three years after 

the war closed. The act of 1871 was more liberal in its terms than the 

act which has beeJ;I passed by the House of Representatives and reported 

by the Senate Committee on Pensions pensioning the soldiers of the 

Mexican war; but in March, 1878, Congress still further liberalized the 

provisions of the pension law with regard to the soldiers of the war 

with Great Brita41, and provided that every surviving soldier who had 

served for fourteen days in that war (the period previously having been 

sixty) or who had been in any engagement, and all the surviving widows 

of those who had been in that war, should be placed upon the pensionrolls irrespective of any q.uestion of dependence upon others or of the 

possession of means for their individual support. 

Mr. BLAIR. If the Senator will permit me, for of course we all understand he does not wish to misrepresent the bill, I desire to say that 

as I understand it the bill gives a pension to all who served sixty days 

in the war, but outside of Mexico, during the time of the war, and to all 

who served in Mexico, as the chairman explained, even for a single day, 

a pension is given; and the widows ate by the amendment reported 

taken care of very liberally. The legislation with reference to the war 

of 1812 originally gave a pension only to those who had served sixty 

days. As I recollect they must have actually served sixty days; but in 

this case those who served in Mexico a day will get a pension. 

Mr. INGALLS. ButtheactofMarcb, 1878, which was supplemental 

to the act of 1871, provided that all those who had served for a period 

of fourteen days, or who had been in any engagement irrespective of the 

term of service, should be pla{!ed upon the pension-rolls, and that, as I 

said before, witbqut reference to other conditions so far as their means of support were concerned. · 

Mr. BLAIR. This bil still more liberal than even the latest legislation in relation to the soldiers of the war of 1812, gives a pension to 

any one who actually served at all in the theater of the war, not for 

fourteen days, but even for a single day. That is the form in which the 

bill comes to us from the House. The amendment reported by the committee gives a pension to the same classes, but only to those who really 

need support or need assistance. 

.Mr. INGALLS. Of course I am very glad indeed if the clause in 

lines 7 and 8 which makes the period of service sixty days in the war 

of 1846, 1847, and 1848 with Mexico does not meari anything. I sup- . 

posed it had some significance, but inasmuch as the Senator advises us 

that it does not in any way whatever limit the period of service which 

must have been gone through with by the applicant in order to entitle 

him to a pension, of course I dismiss that. 

Mr. BLAIR. The Senator will hardly dismiss it and do justice to 

the bill if he does so ~n the assumption that it does not mean anything, because it gives a pension to those not reaching the theater of 

the war, those who may have been in camps of enlistment or in the 

forts or arsenals or in military stations within the country itself, but 

not in the theater of the war, for sixty days, and therefore the clause 

has some significance. 

Mr. INGALLS. I shall not occupy the time of the Senate in any 

dispute upon that point. I have only examined the bill casually for a 

few moments, and I am not familiar with its provisions. I will take 

the suggestion of the Senator from New Hampshire as being the real 

meaning of the bill. 

Mr. LOGAN. If the Senator from Kansas will allow me--

Mr. INGALLS. Certai.rey-. 

Mr. LOGAN. I donotagreewith tbeSenatorfromNewHampsbire. 

Does the Senator mean, that a. company stationed in barracks here that 

belonged to the regular Army, but had not moved in the directioa of 

Mexico, would be jncluded in the bill? 

Mr. BLAIR. It depends perhaps upon a careful construction of what 

would be included in the war. The militaryforceofthe countryaetually necessary to be employed during the existence of the war may 

perhaps be properly said, the whole of it, to be in the war. Mr. LOGAN. Not at all. 

Mr. BLAIR. This is a Home bill, I would remind both Senators, 

and I can not undertake to say just how fur this should go; but my own belief is that the man who rendered military service during the 

war, whether in or out of the country, should be entitled to the benefits 
I 

1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. 4513 

of tb.e provisions of the bill, for the soldier as a rule would prefer the 

activities of the battlefield or of active hostilities to confinement in 

camp or in a fort. It certainly embraces all who eri.listed with the intent of going to Mexico or who sailed for Mexico ~t~out reaching 

there. 

Mr. LOGAN. Tbereisnoquestionaboutthat, but the term "served 

during the war" has a definite signification. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think I can explain that. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HAWLEY in the chair). The 

Senator from illinois has the :floor. 

Mr. HOAR. I shall call for the regular order on anything except 

finishing the speech of the Senator from Kansas. I saw the Senator 

was in the midst of his speech· and I did not desire to interrupt him. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I ask the Senator from Kansas to allow me-- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas did yield 

the floor to the Senator from lllinois. Does be yield to the Senator 

from Kentucky? L 

Mr. INGALLS. If the Senator from Massachusetts will not regard 

that as a violation of the understanding and agreement, I should be very 

glad to yield to the Senator from Kentucky; but of course the Senator 

pom Kentucky will understand that if I am to be taken off the :floor 

without concluding my remarks in case I yield to him, I prefer to go 

on, because I have little more to say. I do not care at this point to be 

diverted from the main proposition I started out to discuss, and that is 

that the bill is in the direct line of all the precedents that have been 

.established in this country and is no innovation. 

The only question that is before the Senate at this time is whether 

the proper period has airived at which the ~recedent shall be applied. 

There is nothing else in it. After a certain lapse of time we pensioned 

.every soldier of both the great wars in which this country had been en- gaged prior to 1846, irrespective of disability, irrespective of his capacity to support himself, for service merely. The only que..<Jtion that remains, as I said., is whether under these precedents the period bas 

.arrived at which it should be applied to the soldiers of the Mexican 

war. The soldiers of the Revolutionary war were pensioned for the 

.service thirty-five years after its close; those of the war of 1812 were pensioned first fifty-six years after the treaty of Ghent; but I contend 

that bad the country been in..a prosperous condition in 1858, as appears 

.affirmatively by the action of the House of Representatives in that 

year, the soldiers of the war of 1812 would have been then pensioned, 

which was a little more than forty-two yearsaftertbe closeofthatwar. 

The average age of the pensioners under that precedent would have 

been somewhere about sixty-five years. The war with Mexico closed in 

1848. Under the precedent established by the law of 1818 which pensioned all tbesurvivingsoldiersoftbe Revolutionary war, the Mexican 

war soldiers were entitled to pension in 1883. Under the precedent 

.established in 1871, which I contend is not strictly applicable for the 

reas()ns I have heretofore suggested, they would not become pension-

.able until1903; but under the principle that was recognized by the 

House of Representatives in 1858, they would not be pensioned until 

1890, which is about six years later than this time. But if the period 

offorty years should be adopted, which is midway between the different periods which have been recognized by the Government, then of rourse the time would not arrive until1888. 

But there are several considerations, aa I say, that cause me to vote 

for this measure now. In the :fi.n!t place there has been a distinctive 

declaration in favor of it by the Legislatures of, I think, three-fourths 

.of the States of this Union. If I am not mistaken the Legislature of 

Kansas has direoted its Senators by joint resolution to support this measure. .. 

And I vote for it because I want the way clear; I want another im-

:pregnable precedent established by which the soldiers of the war for 

the Union will be justified and entitled to come here and say, "In ac- <COrdance with what you have done for the soldiers of the war of 1812, 

-of the Revolutionary war, and of the war with Mexico, we demand that 

the names of all the survivors of that great contest shall be placed on the pension-rolls of the Republic that they saved, irrespective of disability, for service only, and without an inquisition into their means of 

.support, without requiring them to establish to the· satisfaction of a court of justice that they are paupers and mendicants, and that this _pension should be thrown to them as a man would throw a. plate of 

broken meats at a tramp in a kitchen area." 

The war of the rebellion closed in 1865. Between nineteen and twenty 

_years have elapsed since the armies of that great struggle were disbanded. Sixteen years more, which will be A. D. 1900, the period will 

have a.rri ved at which the Revolutionary precedent will apply to soldiers 

-of the Union in the war of the rehellion. My impression, however, is 

that this movement is proceeding with ~lerated force, and that it 

will not be likely that we shall wait until the year 1900 before this 

precedent is applied. Bills have already been introduced for this pur-

:pose, demands for the recognition of this principle have been sent here 

from many quarters of the Republic, and the time is not far distant 

when both political parties will emulate each other in their alacrity in 

-obeyipg the demand. . I can see therefore no reason, whether we refer to the precedents that 

.have already been established or whether we refer to the still gr~ter 

XV--283 

and more patriotic considerations that are to come hereafter, why this 

bill should not be passed, and why it should not be passed Wlthout the 

stigmatizing clause which the motion of the Senator from illinois is 

intended to remoy~. . .Mr: HOAR. I eall for the regular order. 

Mr. LOGAN. If the Senator will allow me one moment I do not 

think it will take ten minutes to dispose of the pension bill1;1nless some 

Senator desires to make a speech. 

Mr. HOAR. I think there are several Senators who wish to speak 

upon it. We can call it up in the morning hour to-morrow after the 

routine business and still get through. I must call for the regular order at this time. ~IESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. CLARK, its 

Clerk, announced that the House had passed a bill (H. R. 263) for the 

relief of George F. Bicknell, in which it requested the concurrence of 

the Senate. 

The message also announced that the House had concurred in the 

amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 355) to provide for the 

muster and pay of certain officers and enlisted men of the volunteer 

forces. 

The message further announced that the House had concurred in the 

amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 2824) to amend sections 

4, 5, and 9 of an a-ct approved February 24, 1879, entitled "An act to 

create the northern judicial district of the State of Texas, and to change 

the eastern and western judicial districts of said State, and to fix the 

time and places for holding courts in said districts,'' and to provide for 

holding terms of the court of the western judicial district of Texas at 

the city of El Paso, and for other purposes . 

POLYGAMY IN UTAH. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts calls 

up the regular order, which is the bill (S. 1283) to amend an act entitled "An act to amend section 5352 of the Revised Statutes of the United 

States, in reference to bigamy, and for other purposes," approved March 

22, 1882. 

Mr. HOAR. I give notice that to-morrow I shall ask the Senate to 

remain until the evening and to dispose of the Utah bill. 

Mr. HARRIS. I desire to give notice that at the close of the morning business to-morrow I shall ask the Senate to continue the consideration of the Merica!\, pension bill up to 2 o'clock. 

Mr. LOGAN. I wish tQ detain the Senate probably for two minutes 

and no longer to explain the amendment that I offered to the pension 

bill. There have been several speeches made about the bill, but I do 

lilot think any one of the Senators has :referred in the slightest degree 

to the amendment that I proposed, which is the proposition before the 

Senate. 

I propose to amend the bill by striking out some five lines and inserting three words, '' have not remarried.'' The bill as it stands now without that amendment proposes to exclude a widow unless she had been 

married to the soldier prior to his discharge from the service. I propose to ,make the bill provide that all widows of these soldiers shall 

receive a pension who have not remarried, and I will state my reason for it. 

Mr. BLAIR. That is the Senate committee's amendment so far as the widows are concerned. 

Mr. LOGAN. I understand that is the Senate committee's amendment with the poverty clause attached, which I propose to strike out . I can not understand why a widow who has married a soldier prior to 

his discharge should be entitled to a pension if he dies, and the widow 

who marries a soldier subsequent to his discharge should not be entitled 

to a pension. In each CMe they a.re certainly the widows of soldiers; 

and why a person who marries a soldier to-day shall be entitled to a pension if be dies to-morrow and the one who marries him to-morrow 

shall not if be dies the next day is something I can not get through 

my intellect. Therefore I propose that the widow of the soldier shall 

receive a pension irrespective of the time she married him. 

So far as the other proposition is concerned, I presume that no per- son in the Senate, not even the Senators who reported the bill, will insist on it that a soldier shall prove that he is a pauper and that be shall 

be brought out of the poor-house with a rope around his neck and hauled 

up before a justice of the peace in order to testify that be is a pauper 

and is therefore entitled to a pension. I presume nobody wants to heap an indignity of that kind upon a man who served his country. 

Mr. BLAIR. The Senator will allow me to state to him that the 

pension legislation of this country to which be bas contributed most 

honorably himself, and in the existence of which be has acquiesced ever since the war, does thus, if this is a just commentary, stigmatize the 

fathers and the mothers of the soldiers who fought in the war. I ask 

him if the mother who gave her boy to the country is to be dragged 

from the poor-house with a rope around her neck and to be called upon 

to prove t8.at she is degradingly poor. He acquiesced in that; and now 

be rises here and stigmatizes-this bill because it contains the very provisions that be thus long bas acquiesced in in the general laws of the 

land . Mr. LOGAN. I am somewhat surprised at my friend the Senator 
4514 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. MA_y 26, 

from New .,Hampshire that he should suggest to me that there is a provision of that kind in the pension laws. I think I can satisfy him that 

he Js mistaken. The mother of the son who lost his life in· the Army 

has not performed service for the country as a soldier; hence she is not 

paid for services performed, &he receives a pension because of the fact 

that he was her support. T~e Government takes it upon itself to support her inasmuch as she has lost her support, and not at all upon the 

principle that this bill goes on, that the pension is given to the soldier 

because he did service to the country. The distinction is very broad 

and very clear. 

Mr. BLAIR. Does the Senator think that the mother who bears the 

boy and gives his life to the country renders any less service than the son who sacrifices that life or becomes disabled? 

Mr. LOG AN. I shall not enter upon that field of discussion with the 

Senator about the mother or daughter or sister or anybody else. I am spealting of the principle that controls the Government in reference to 

the payment of pensions for services or paying pensions to parties who 

have lost their support. The distinction is very broad, and I should 

think the Senator would understand it. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. Will the Senator from illinois allow me to call his attention to one matter? 

Ur. HOAR. I understand that all this is debate on the Utah bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair so understands it. The 

debate proceeds by unanimous consent. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. I ask the Senator if the same rea- soning would not apply to the pensioning of the widow just as strongly as to the pensioning of dependent mothers? The mother, the Senator 

says, did not perform service as a soldier. Neither did the widow perform service. Consequently why should not the rule apply to the 

widows if it applies to dependent mothers? · 

Mr. LOGAN. Very well, let itapply--

Mr. HOAR. I rise to a question of order. . Mr. LOGAN. The Senator need not rise. I see! am disturbingthe 

equanimity of the Senate by desiring to make a few remarks on the bill. 

If it is not desired that I should be heard I will sit down and the Senator may proceed. 

Ur. HOAR. The Senator will be kind enough to permit me to say 

that I have let the Utah bill go over two or three times to accommodate Senators . • To-day when it was up three or four gentlemen, who 

seemed to have this pension bill in charge, urged me to allow two 

hours, saying that if at the expiration of two hours it was not finished 

they would make no further request to have it conflict with the Utah 

bill, but would take their luck iu the morning hour oraftertheconsiderationof the Utah bill was concluded. Now, the two hours have gone 

by half an hour since and I am faithless to the committee whom I represent if do not make these suggestions. It is not to prevent the Senator ft·om illinois proceeding. When my friend got up he said he wanted 

to talk a few minutes, but when my friend from Wisconsin and other Senators began questioning him I thought it was time for me to interpose. 

Mr. LOGAN. I have no disposition to interpose against the Utah 

bill; I am in fuvor of the Utah bill myself, and I did not intend to detain the Senate at all. I only wished to make the remarks that I did 

in reference to the amendment that I had proposed, and the reason why 

I prolonged my remarks was in response to the Senator ft·om New Hampshire, not because I had any desire to continue the discussion. I un- derstood that the Senator from Massa<:husetts desired to take up the 

Utah bill, as it is commonly called, in the morning ]}our to-morrow. 

Mr. HOAR. No; this bill is to come up in the morning hour, the 

Mexican pension bill. · 

Mr. LOGAN. Then I rillsunderstood the Senator. 

Mr. HOAR. It is to come up after the morning business. 

Mr. LOGAN. The remarks I desired to make on the bill, and they are but few, are on the general principles of the bill when we shall pass 

upon the amendments. Of course I do not desire to make them now; 

I will make them hereafter. 

Mr. HOAR. I hope the Utah bill will now be proceeded with, and 

I give notice again--

Mr. LOGAN. If the Senator will allow me to interrupt ]rim, unless 

there is further discussion on this one amendment (if there is of course I 

would not ask it) I should like to have a vote on the amendment now, 

and that would settle that part of the bill, and that is really all there is 

about it. 

Mr. INGALLS. Will the Senator from Massachusetts pardon one suggestion from me? 

Mr. HOAR. Certainly. · · Mr. INGALLS. The Senator !presume does not at this hour of the 

evening expect that if the consideration of the Utah bill should be resumed any further debate would be had upon it or any progress made 

with it. What is the object to be gained, then, by inter(eringwith the 

discussion of the :Mexican pension bill ? That could undoubtedly be 

finished to-night. 

Mr. HOAR. I supposed that the Utah bill could be proceeded with 

to-night. 

Mr. INGALLS. At 5 o'clock! 

Mr. HOAR. The Senator from Georgia [Mr. BROWN] has not told me that he is ready, but I have heard of other Senators who are ready 

to address the Senate upon the Utah bill. • 

Mr. LOGAN. If the Senatorwillyieldforthepurposeofa vote, un- less some Senator desires to address the Senate, I should like to have a vote on the amendment, and that will settle the whole question really so far as the bill is concerned. 

Mr. BROWN. The Senator from Massachusetts has referred to the 

fact that I might desire to proceed to-night with some remarks upon 

the Utah bill. I desire to introduce an amendment to the Utah bill 

this evening, and would be very glad to have the floor when we adjourn if it suits the convenience of the Senate. I do not wish to an- tagonize the other bill for the rest of the evening. I would be very 

willing to have the discussion on that proceed. 

Mr. HOAR. I am willing for one, if the Senat.e will now conclude to 

take up the Utah bill immediately after the routine business to-morrow morning and to go on with it through the day, to let the Mexican 

pension bill be proceeded with now. 

Mr. PLATT. I do not think we ought to do that. 

Mr. BROWN. If the Utah bill is now up I should be glad., for the 

purpose of having the floor, to have my amendment reported for information. 

M:r. HOAR. The Utah bill is now up. 

Mr . . PLATT. I dQ not think we ought to vote on the Mexican pen-. sion bill to-night. Very interesting information has been read here today, which we ought-to be permitted to see in print. The committee 

made no written report upon the bill. The letter of the Commissioner 

of Pensions, and other documents which have been read here for the 

first time to-day, are in the nature of a report by the committee, or in 

the nature of facts which wouldhave been embodied in a report of the 

committee; and I think at least that tho e of us who do not feel at 

present that we can vote for the bill ought to have aJl opportunity to 

examine those documents which have been submitted to-day. 

Mr. BROWN. I offer an amendment to the Utah bill and ask that it 

be read for information at this time and printed. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia offers an amendment to the Utah bill, the regular order, which will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read the proposed amendment, as follows: 

That the voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person with one of the op- posite sex not the husband or wife of such married person shall be the cause and the only cause of absolute divorce from the bond of marriage in the District of Columbia and the Territories of the United States and in other places 

subJect to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. But the courts of the 

Umted States may in proper cases, as at common law, grant divorce from bed 

and board in said District, Territories, and other places subject to the exclusive 

jurisdiction of the United States. 

. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendnient will be printed. 

Mr. BROWN. Now I take the floor. I shall not have time to make 

the remarks I desire to make on thj:} amendment this afternoon, but if 

I can be considered as retaining the floor I shall gladly yield to the Senator from Illinois for the discussion of the pension bill, and let that discussion proceed during the remainder of to-day's session. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I give notice that to-morrow morning, after we 

are through with .the morning business, I shall move to take up the 

Mexican pension bill. The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. HARRIS] has 

given notice that at 2 o'clock he will do so, I believe. 

Mr. HARRIS. No; my notice was for the morning, after the conclusion of the morning business proper. I understand the Senator from 

Massachusetts is willing to yield the residue of this evening for the 

consideration of the pension bill. · 

:Mr. LOGAN. We can finiSh it this evening as well as not. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. All right. 

Mr. HARRIS. The Senator from Massachusetts, I understand, consents to that. , :Air. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. I desire to say that I shall not con- sent that this bill may be taken up to-morrow morning immediately 

after the completion of the routine business. I shall insist at that time 

that the Senate shall proceed with the consideration of the Calendar. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator refer to the regular 

order, the Utah bill, or the Mexican pension bill? 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. The Utah bill will be the regular 

order, if not displaced, at 2 o'clock to-morrow, but not before that time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is on the 

amendment presented by the Senator from illinois [Mr. LoGAN]. 

Mr. HOAR. The Senator from Georgia [Mr. BROWN]--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is in some trouble to know 

what bill is before the Senate. [Laughter]. 

Mr. HOAR. The Utah bill, I understand, is before the Senate. The 

Senator from Illinois [Ur. LOGAN] asked that the other bill might 

proceed to have a vote, to which I made no objection, but the Senator 

from Connecticut objected, saying that he wanted to see certain documents in print. 

:Air. HARRIS. I think the Senator from Massachusetts misunderstood the Senator from Wisconsin. He simply announced that he 

would object to the consideration of the Utah bill or the pension bill 

after the cpnclusion of the morning business to-morrow and before 2 

o'clock. 

Mr. HOAR. I did not allude , 1:.9 the Senator from Wisconsin, but 

to the Senator from Connecticut. 

Mr. HARRIS. · Oh ! I was not aware of that. 

:Mr. BROWN. ,r understood that I had the floor on the Utah billt 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECOR,D-SENATE. 4515 ~ 

· but I was willing for that to go over until to-morrow at 2 o'clock, and 

in the mean time to yield to my friend the Senator from Illinois [Mr. 

LoGAN], who desired to make further remarks on the pension bill. 

Mr. HOAR. I will give notice--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will be allowed to state 

that the Chair certainly understood that the Senator from Georgia offered his amendment to the so-called Utah bill and yielded that the 

consideration of the Mexican pension bill might proceed. 

Mr. HOAR. He could not do that without unanimous consent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The suggestion was made by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. HARRIS] ' and one or two others, and no 

objection was made. 

Mr. HOAR. It was objected to by the colleague of the honorable Senator who now occupies the chair, he saying that some very interesting 

statistical matter had been read which he desired to see in print before 

voting, as I understood him. 

But I rose to say that I understand that no Senator who wishes to 

n8e the time otherwise to-night will desire to have any interference 

with the progress of the Utah bill to-morrow at 2 o'clock when it is in 

order; and that being the case, in order to accommodate the Senator 

from illinois, as far as I am concerned I will make no opwsition to 

using the time to-night as so many of the Senate seem to desire. I wish 

to say, however, that I shall insist as strenuously as is in my power to 

sitting till a late hour into the evening to-morrow to end the Utah bill 

if we can, and if we can not to make as large progress as is possible. 

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED. 

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. CLARK, ita 

Clerk, announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the following enrolled bills and joint resolution; and they were thereupon signed 

by the President pro tempore: 

A bill (S. 247) to extend the duration of the Court of Commissioners 

of Alabama Claims, and for other purposes; . 

A bill (S. 394) restoringtothepension-roll thenameofMajorD.Williams· 

A bill (S. 494) for the relief of Nancy Miller; 

A bill ~S. 626) to increase the pension of Francis Scott; 

A bill ~. 1299) to increase the pension of Alonzo B. Chatfield; 

A bill H. R. 355) to proyide for the muster and pay of certain officers and enlisted men of the volunteer forces; 

A bill (H. R. 2824) to amend sections 4, 5, and 9 of an act approved 

February 24, 1879, entitled "An ad to create the northern judicial 

. district of the State of Texas, and to change the eastern and western 

judicial districts of said State, and to :fix the time and places for holding 

courts in said districts,'' and to provide for holding terms of the court of 

the western judicial districts of Texas at the city of El Paso, and for 

other purpo es; and 

Joint resolution (S. R. 26) granting permission toEnsignL. K. Reynolds, United States Navy, to accept the decoration of the Royal and 

Imperial Order of Francis Joseph from the Government of Austria. 

MEXICAN WAR PENSIONS. 

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 5667) granting pensioll.S to the soldiers and sailors 

of the Mexican war, and for other purposes. • 

Mr. LOGAN. So far as I am concerned I am very easily satisfied. 

It is immaterial to me when this bill is taken up. I would rather see it voted on this evening. 

I can see no reason whatever for delay because, as suggested by the 

Senator from Connecticut, some very important statistics have been presented to· the Senate to-day and he would like to read them. I should 

be very glad to have him or any other Senator read them who desires 

to do so. I am almost positive that they are not correct. The letter 

to the Senate states that there are 36,000 of the :Mexican soldiers surviving. It is a statement to which I do not give any credence. I have 

evidence to the contrary. There are organizations of Mexican war veterans, and they have appealed through the newspapers and in other ways 

to get the names of all surviving veterans in the United States. 

The best evidence produced shows that there are not over 12,000 liv-. 

ing. This is the highest estimate made by any association. Some redu~it to 8,000. ~e s~tements read here to-day are not on a proper 

basiS. The calculation lS made on the same system as the vital statistics wh'ich a_re made up by life-insurance companies, which can not apply 

to men leavrng an army whose service has been in such a climate as that 

of Mexico. Soldiers are not to be judged, so far as the durationoflife 

is concerned, as people generally, for the reason that there is more mortalio/ among soldiers than among any other class of people, because of 

therr exposure. The whole history of the world in reference to armies 

shows that to be true. 

1\ir. MORGAN. The Senator from illinois will allow me to suggest 

that the climate of .Mexico was very inhospitable, and a great many 

men contracted disease there and died since their return home who 

would not have suffered from that disease but for service in that 

country. · , 

Mr. LOGAN. From the best information that we have from all over this country the statement made-by the Commissioner of Pensions as to the pumber of survivors is. not borne out. _ 

Mr. MAXEY. Will the Senator from lllinois permit me to make a 

suggestion? 

Mr. LOGAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MAXEY. The amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois 

does not touch the matter of which the Senator from Connecticut has 

spoken. It is a p~e and naked question, first as to whether the 

widows shall be allowed pensions, and second, whether or not the pauper oath shall be required. That does not affect these statistics. Therefore I see no reason why we should not take a vote this evening, and 

inasmuch as we have notice now that the Utah bill will be pressed tomorrow, and as we are, I hope, near the close of the session, I do hope 

the Senator from Illinois will insist that we shall have a vote on his 

amendment this evening. 

Mr. LOGAN. I very much desire a vot.e to be taken; but I will make 

one further remark in reference to the suggestion made by the Stmator 

from Connecticut in regard to numbers. What figure does _it cut in a 

question of this kind whether the number affected is 12,000 or 20,000? 

The question to be decided by the Senate is whether or not this is right 

at this time. It is not a question of numbers; but it is a question 

whether or not this is the right thing to do. According to the principle 

that numbers must govern, we may say we will reduce it down to one, we will wait until there is only one living and we will give him a pension. If you are going on the economy dodge and propose to give only 

the smallest amount you possibly can to these inen, you had better 

wait until they are all dead except one or two, and then you will save 

much expense to the Government. But if there is any principle involved and you propose to give the pension to these men because they 

earned it, it i~ immaterial whether they are many or few. It is a question whether it is right to give it to them at all or not. If it is, I think 

it is not a very good argument to inquire about their numbers. 

I should like to have the vote taken if the Senate is ready to take 

the vote; if not, I have nothing further to say. 

Mr. PLATT. The suggestion t1:Jat the Senator from illinois makes 

that the statistics which have been sent here are unreliable, and the 

charge which he makes at least by implication, which I hardly think he 

would feel like insisting upon, that they were sent here to defeat the 

bill, makes it the more impprtant--

Mr. LOGAN. Oh, no; theSenatordidnotunderstandmetosaythat 

the person who got them up got them up to defeat the bill. I did not 

mean any such thing as that. 

Mr. PLATT. I did not know exactly what the Senator did mean. 

Mr. LOGAN.· I meant that the use of such statistics was for the 

purpose of defeating the. bill. If I used other language, I certainly did 

not intend to impute any improper motives to the getting up of the 

statistics. My meaning was that such figures are used to defeat the 

bill, whether I made myself clear or not. I do not see any reason why 

statistics should be produced here showing a certain number of men still 

living unless the object was to show that it would be a great expense 

to the Government, and thereby defeat the bill. That is my reasoning 

about it, and I believe it. , Mr. PLATT. I do not know just what the Senator means. 

Mr. LOGAN. I have stated what I mean exactly. 

Mr. PLATT. I understand that the Committee on Pensions, of which 

I do not happen to be a member, I am very happy to say, desiring to 

give to the Senate of the United States such information as they could 

in relation to the cost of a measure which was proposed here, asked the 

Commissioner of Pensions to prepare certain statistiCs, and give his 

opinion as to what the cost would be, and that in response to that req nest of a committee of this body the Commissioner of Pensions has sent 

here a statement which has been read stating in his judgment the cost 

of the proposed measure, and giving the reasons on which he based it. 

Who intended to defeat the bill by that means, I do not know. I leave 

that for the Senator from Illinois. I do not think that any body intended 

thereby to defeat the bill. I do suppose that the <%>mmittee and the 

Commissioner desired honestly to give the best statement which they 

could to the Senate as to the expense which the Government would incur by the passage of this bill. I did not hear the amom:t which the 

Commissioner thought this bill would cost. I did not hear-very fully, 

read as the letter was in the confusion of the Chamber, the arguments 

and facta upon which he based his conclusion, and therefore it was that 

I said I thought we might at least wait until we had an opportunity 

to examine that before we came to a vote upon this measure. 

I do not know any reason why a bill of this importance should be 

taken up at 2 o'clock in the afternoon of a certain day and hurried . 

through to its passage by 5 or half past 5 of the afternoon of the 

same day. It seems to me that it is of importance enough for a careful consideration such as the Senate is in the habit of giving to meas- ures of this kind. For one' I want to say, however, that I do not believe in this principle of pensioning soldiers on .account of service at 

any period in their lives. I believe that the true principle is to pension them for disability, and not for service. I believe that the country made a mistake in its policy when it pensioned the Revolutionary 

soldiers and when it pensioned the soldiers of the war of 1812 for serv- ice merely. I believe that is the sentiment of the country, not only 

ainong those who have not been members of the Army but among those 

who have been members of the Army. I believe it to be the sentiment 
4516 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. MAY 26, 

of the country that a great mistake was made when for fourteen days' 

service in the war of 1812 a. pension of $8 a. month was at some period 

after the war granted to 'the soldiers in thatwar, and 160acres ofland. 

I believe that is the sentiment of the conntry, and, whether it was twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years after, I do not believe that the sentiment of this country upholds that kind of legislation. 

I believe we have had two bad precedents, and we bad better stop 

now. I wish to say right here that I do not want to pass this Mexican 

pension bill until we have settled the question of what is to be the final 

policy with regard to the pensioning of the soldiers of our recent war. 

There are numerous bills before the Senate, I think it safe tQ say there 

are a hundred bills before the Senate, proposing in various wa-ys to increase the pension to the soldiers of our recent war, to pension them 

for different causes than now exist, and I believe that a very great many 

of these bills have ~erit in them, and I believe it to be the duty of the 

Senate first, before it acts on any Mexican pension bill, to establish some 

well-settled, well-defined policy resting upon justice and right as a basis 

for the pensions which are to be granted in the future to our Union soldiers. 

For myself, I believe that disability is the only correct basis of a pension. I will not insist twenty or twenty-five years after the war that 

the soldier shall be compelled to prove that that disability was incurred 

in the service. I am willing to admit that after as many years have 

passed as have now passed since the close of the war every soldierwho 

suffers present disability shall receive a pension. But when you go 

beyond that, when you propose to pension soldiers for service merely, 

then you are recognizing this principle, that a soldier fights for payhis pay during the time he is in service or the pay which is to come to 

him if he lives thirty OF forty years after the war shall have concluded. 

I do not believe that is the principle upon which the Government calls 

upon its citizens. I believe the principle is that every man owes service to his country, owes it to his country in return for the protection 

which his country affords to his life and his property. If there is any 

.contract in this matter it is a contract between the citizen and the 

Government that'when the Government is endangered the citizen will 

.fight for it in consideration of the prlltection which the Government 

.affords to the citizen in war and in peace. If you go one step beyond 

this you take away from the character of' the soldier all that is noble 

.and glorious in it. When you propose to pension a soldier for service 

merely you are proposing to pay him for glory, for courage, for patriotism, for endurance, and I undertake to say from what I know of the soldiers of this country that they do not claim or desire pay for any of those 

great qualities. 

I did not expect this afternoon to say one word upon this bill. I did 

think that perhaps to-morrow after I had read thestatisticswhichhave 

been introduced here I might have something to say upon it; but I 

have in these few words expressed my idea of the only basis upon which 

pension legislation can justly be put. 

Mr. HOAR. l\ir. President, the Senator from Connecticut and the 

Senator from Kansas, unless I have misunderstood both those Senators, 

seem to me to have misapprehended the force of our precedents upon 

this subject. The last shot was :fired in the war of the Revolution in 

the assault and capture of Yorktown on the 19thof0ctober, 1781. In 

1818 Congress granted to the soldiers who were in need, survivors of the 

Revolution, a pension. That condition was done away with, and all 

the survivors of the Revolutionary war were placed upon the pension 

roll in the year 1832, fifty-one years after the close of the war. ·That 

principle waR applied to the soldiers of the war of 1812, which ended in 

1815, in 1871. [" 1878. "] The final principle was extended to all who 

had served sixty days in 1871; that is, fifty-six years after the close of 

that war when by the inexorable law of nature every survivor of that 

war labored under the disability of old age, and the principle therefore 

was jealously and sedulously adhered to that no person should be pensioned but a disabled soldier. 

· Now we are proposing not to follow two bad precedents or one bad 

pr~cedent, but we are proposing to set for the first time a precedent which 

is that the survivors of the Mexican war, which ended in 1848, only 

thirty-six years ago, many of whom are strong men, healthy,_vigorous 

in mind and in body, shall without an exception be put upon the pension-roll merely as a reward for service. There is no principle upon 

which this legislation can be defended which will not require us hereafter to place upon our pension-roll at the close of every war at the 

discharge of the soldier from his military service the soldier as a pensioner for life. There are many of these survivors who have reached 

the period of old age, who are decrepit and poor; and for them every 

Senator without an exception would be glad to frame a pension bill 

which would relievethem, I have no doubt; but therearealargenumber of them in my own State, and in other States, in the Senate and 

in the House, men who in every respect, in vigor and ability of mind 

and of body, are among the most fortunate of the citizens of the Republic. 

Now, this precedent which we are asked to set contains within itself a. promise as the Senator from Kansas has implied in his remarks, and 

it is because of that promise that Senator from Kansas indicates his 

purpose to support it; and what is the promise? It is a promise to put 

Jipon the roll every soldier who has served, whether at the front or at 

' home, whether during a campaign or a battle or by a night's sleep in a. 1 

tent distant from the theater of war-to put upon the pension-roll every 

officer and soldier and sailor of the late war for the Union. .And unless 

the statement which the chairman of the Committee on Pensions makes 

to the Senate on his official responsibility be mistaken, that involves a 

promise of over $125,000,000 a year. That is the answer which tb,e 

honorable Senator from Pennsylvania made to my question. What is 

the foundation on which that answer rests, I am not prepared to say; 

but I do say that the Senator from Pennsylvania is the organ of the 

Committee on Pensions to whom the Senate have the right to look for 

information on that subject, and his answer is the only information we 

have received. ~ ,. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I staW over $100,000,000. 

Mr. HOAR. I thought the Senator said over $125,000,000. 

Mr. l\llTCHELL. I believe I did mention that it would be over 

$100,000,000 in addition to the existing pension-list. 

l\ir. HOAR. Let me understand the Senator. 

1\'Ir. BLAIR. ·That statement was one which I made based on other 

data which seemed to give good ground for it. 

Mr. HOAR. It is immaterial. One of two members of that committee says that the Senate is pledged by this policy to an annual expenditure of $100,000,000; the other Senator of the same committee 

thinks that is $125,000,000. 

Mr. CAUERON, of Wisconsin. That is in addition to the present 

amount. · 

Mr. HOAR. In addition to the present existing pension-list. 

Mr. INGALLS. That is when the survivors of the Union Army are 

placed on the roll. 

l\ir. HOAR. That is what I said, that taking the view which the 

honorable Senator from Kansas contended for and so clearly stated, this 

bill contains in itself a promise which if we apply its principle requires 

us now and at once forthwith--

Mr. INGALLS. Oh, no . 

l\Ir. HOAR. Oh, yes. Now and at once, forthwith to place upon 

the pension-roll the survivors of the late war for the Union . 

Mr. INGALLS. Will the Senator permit me one moment? 

Mr. HOAR. Certainly. 

Mr. INGALLS. I said with regard to the propriety of passing this 

bill the only question was whether the time had .arrived at which existing precedents should be applied. 

Mr. HOAR. I understand. 

Mr. INGALLS. I say with regard to the surviving soldiers of the 

Union Army that the question when that measure comes up will be 

the same, to ascertain whether the period has arrived when the precedent should be applied; but if the Senator understood me as saying 

that I favored now instanter placing the surviving veterans of the Union 

Army on the rolls, he misunderstood me. 

Mr. HOAR. I heard the sentence which the Senator has now repeated in his speech before, and that sentence as it seems to me is inconsistent with the argument which he addressed to the Senate, and is 

inconsistent with the body of the speech itself. 

Mr. INGALLS. I will say to the Senator that I do not retreat or 

retire from any of the consequences which he seems to put upon it. 

Mr. HOAR. I understand. The Senator's proposition to the Senate 

was this, and it is a theory on which alone in our pension legislation 

this bill rests, that the pension is given to the soldier not by reason of 

his need; it is given to the soldier not on account of his pecuniary 

want; it is given to the soldier not on account of his physical or mental 

disability; it is given to the soldier solely as his right, as a reward for 

service. If that be trne-and :it is the ground on which every person 

who has spoken at length on this bill has put it, including the Senator 

from Kansas-the right, as I just said, is perfect and complete when 

the soldier receives his discharge at the end of his military service as it 

is five, ten, fifteen, or twenty years afterward, and there is no principle 

on which you can distinguish my honorable and gallant friend from 

Texas [Mr. MAXEY], or my honorable and gallant friend from Kentucky [1\ir. WILLIAMS], or the illustrious soldier on this side of the 

Chamber who has just spoken [Mr. LoGAN], from the Union soldier 

who has just closed his military service. They stand on the same principle; they seek by the same right; and if you open this door to the 

soldier of the Mexican war you can not shut it in the face of the soldiers 

ofthe war for the Union. · 

Mr. INGALLS. I do not want to. 

Mr. HOAR. You do not want to, and therefore, as I say again, voting "yea" on this bill is a pledge of the Senatorwho casts th.atvote 

that forthwith, as soon as m.aybe,if he carries out the logic of his aetion here, there shall be added to the annnal expenditure of this country for pensions a sum not less than $100,000,000, if one Senator is 

right, and not less than $125,000,000 if another Senator is right, year 

in and year out. I think the political discussions as to the removalof 

the surplus revenue will .disappear; I do not think that there will be 

much difference in the political opinion of the friends of tariff for reve- nue only and tariff for protection hereafter when this principle of expenditure is once established. If 1~l f 

Mr. MAXEY. I have. no intention of discussing the merits of the 

bill to-night; nor has there been a call for a vote upon the bill ..... itself 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 4517 

to-night but only on the amendments suggested. Now, the first amendment tow hich the Senator from illinois referred is an amendment which 

the committee itself has agreed upon. It has therefore passed the Committee on Pensions and needs, I think, no further going into figures or statistics. That is simply that the bill shall provide for surviving 

widows of such officers and enlisted men as have not remarried. That 

is t},le proposition of the committee. We ought to be able to take a vote on that without any trouble. The committee report that; the 

friends of the bill agree to that. Why, then, shall there be any question about taking a vote on that to-night? The object we have in view 

is to strip this thing down and get the amendments made, perfect the 

text, and then let us discuss the merits of the text itself. 

Mr. HOAR. The Senator will pardon me a question. I desire to say 

to the Senator from Texas that there are sundry amendments which it 

is desired to offer. I have myself one which I desire to offer now if the 

amendment ofthe Senatorfromillinois isadopted. Wecannotamend 

that language after it has once been voted in by the Senate, and ifitis 

put on the ground that the friends of the measure desire a peculiar ex- pression in framing their language, the right ought to be reserved to 

Senators hereafter to test the sense of the Senate on amendments to that as if it were an original bill, and I should ask that we might have unan- imous consent to that course if we vote to-night. . 1\lr. BLAIR. Will the Senator from Texas permit me to explain a misapprehension which he seems to be laboring under before he proceeds? This clause with reference to the widows and also that in refer- ence to dependence are both reported by the Senate Committee on Pensions and they are together. Now the Senator from illinois moves to 

amend the amendment reported by the committee by striking out of 

that amendment. all excepting this which touches the widows. If this 

is stricken out, if the amendment of the Senator from Illinois is adopted, 

it is a striking out of what he calls the poverty clause and the whole 

discussion turns upon that, and there will be nothing left of the bill or the discussion if we vote on that to-night, and I desire ;myself to say 

something more before the vote is taken. 

Mr. PLATT. Will the Senator from Texas yield to me for a single 

inquiry that I may understand this proposed amendment? 

Mr. MAXEY. Certainly. 

Mr. PLATT. This bill, as I understand it, when it ~e from the 

House limited the pensions to widows to those who were widows at 

the time of the discharge of the soldier. 

Mr. BLAIR. To those who were married while the soldier was in 

the service. 

Mr. PLATT. To those who were married while the soldier was in 

the service. Striking that out would pension the present widow of any 

soldier who was in the Mexican war, or if such soldier married hereafter their widows would be affected when the huspand died. Is that 

it? . 

Mr. BLAIR. The proposed amendment the committee report is 

eliminating the limitation in the House bill which carries the pension 

to the widows of Mexican war soldiers who have not remarried, without 

reference to the date when t.he contract of marriage was entered into. 

Mr. PLA'IT. Suppose that ten years from now a woman marries a person who was in the Mexican war, would it give her a pension athis 

death? 

Mr. BLAIR. It would, and in addition to that, as part of the same clause, at the end of it, a continuation of that is the dependent 

clause. Striking out the dependent clause is the motion of the Senator 

from illinois to amend the amendment, and if we take the question on his motion to-night all this discussion in regard to the dependence of 

the soldier is eliminated. There is nothing left of this discussion. · Mr. MAXEY. Now I may be permitted to go on for a moment and 

conclude what I have to say. There are two propositions wholly and 

essentially distinct. The committee report, first, that the bill should 

extend to the widows of the Mexican war soldiers who have not remar- ried. That has nothing whatever to do with the question of pauperism. It is wholly and essentially distinct from the proposition which 

the Senator from Illinois moves to strike out; there is no cOnnection 

between the two. The committee come in and report that this bill 

should extend to the widows of the Mexican war soldiers who ha~e not 

remarried. We say that is all right, and somehow I must confess my 

utter inability to appreciate the position 'taken by the Senator from 

New Hampshire, for what has the question of widowhood to do with 

the question of the pauperism of the sol~J_ier? Nothing whatever. 

Hence there is one question upon which we can certainly vote, and as I suppose without anyreal division, becausethecommitteehaveagreed 

that all widows not remarried should come in under the .bill, and if 

anybody is pensioned they ought to be. The very fact that the Senator from illinois was permitted to move to strike out the latter clause 

shows that there were two distinct subjects embraced in the committee's amendment, and that the question was divisible, as every one will 

admit at once t.hat it was. 

So then the real question is, at last, shall the bill be amended by an amendment put upon it here in the Senate compelling a man who 

served his country upon the fields of Mexico to go into a court of justice and swear that he is too poor to earn his own support, and that he 

.must therefore apply for the bounty of the GQvernment? Why, sir, 

the argument which was made in 1832 in the Senate of the United 

States by Mr. Frelinghuysen, and which was read by the Senator from 

Kansas, is entirely unanswerable upon that question. 

I happen to know that there were soldiers in the Revolutionary war who were excluded by the act of 1818 because they were not willing to 

take that pauper oath and who never made application for a pension 

until after the amended act of 1832 came into force; and I say that I 

honor the manhood of a man who will make his own living, however 

poor that living may be, rather than come in and with the ashes of 

abasement on his head say to his GQvernment, "I come for your pity, 

because I am too poor to make a living.'' That is the only proposition 

which the Senator from illinois combats. He says that that should be 

stricken ou1, and let all who are entitled, if any, come in on terms of 

perfect equality. That is his proposition. 

What has that to do with numbers? What has that to do with statistics? It is a. principle, and the principle is right or wrong. If any 

are entitled, let it be all those who served; or if none are entitled, then 

they should all go together. So at last waiting to take a vote on the 

amendment till we receive statistics, to my mind, is useless. It is 

simply a principle, and a principle which is as actually under the con- trol of the intelligence of the Senate as it could possibly be after any 

nuinber of statistics that might be brought forward were presented. 

One other point. I am probably, like the Senator from Illinois, as conversant with the real statistics of the surviving officers .and soldiers 

of the Mexican war as any member of the Senate. I have had opportunities of knowing something about them, and the Senator from illinois has had opportunities of knowing, and my judgment is that when 

he fixes the number at 12,000 he is beyond the real number. The 

most intelligent and enlightened· men who served in the Mexican war, 

and who have devoted years in order to ascertain the number of survivors, come under the figure fixed by the Senator from illinois. 

But put the number at 12,000. If the figures fixed in the statistics of 

the Commissioner of Pensions were true, I would say that the soldiers 

of the Mexican WaJ.' are the most astonishing men who have lived since 

the days of l\Iethusaleh; there are np men on earth who equal them in 

point of longevity. After thirty-seven years have passed since the last 

gun was fired more than one-half of the men who entered that service are still living, according to these statistics; and that, too, when our men died from diseases which were contracted in that inhospitable climate. 

As the Senator from illinois, the Senator from Kentucky, and the 

Senator from Mississippi know, thousands of men were cut off by chronic 

diarrhea, which prevailed in every army that went out from the United 

States into Mexico, and which followed those men into this country, and~ 

many ofthemdied aflier they reaehedhome. Thentheyhavemetwith 

the ordinary casualties that befall the lot of man, and in addition to 

that a. great war has swept over the land and a large portion of them 

have fallen in that great conflict; so that upon any conceivable basis it 

would be to my mind utterly impossible for any intelligent calculation 

in this case to show that there are 33,000 of the soldiers of the Mexican war living. There are much nearer 12,000 than 33,000. 

But at last it comes to the proposition which was presented by the 

Senator from Illinois. If it be a question of equi~, if it be a question 

of fair-dealing, if it be a question of justice, in view of all the facts, in 

view of the magnificent territory which was brought into the Ameri- can Union by that war-for when we come to look at the vast country 

which came in by virtue of that war, Arizona, Colorit.do south of the 

Arkansas River, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and a portion 

of Wyoming Territory-and when we consider the great ports which 

have been added to the American GQvernment on the Pacific Slope, 

yielding their thousands and their hundreds of thousands of dollars 

into the Treasury ofthe United States, San Francisco being, I believe, now the second paying customs port in the Union-when we consider 

the vast gold and silver :fields that have been opened there, the vast 

productions of wool and wheat and other agricultural products which 

have been brought to this country, when we count in these things and 

consider that thirty-seven long years have passed by since that war 

closed, and that in the opinion of the Senate of the United States there 

is equity and right and justice in paying out to these men not a great 

fortune but the highest pension that we propose to give is $8 a month, 

$96 a year-if it be right to pay these men that amount, is it a question whether there should be a few more or a few less? That is no~ 

the question. It is a question of principle. The question which is 

now discussed is not the question of numbers; that is not the question 

before the Senate; it is the question whether any man should be re- quired to go into a court of justice, as was mentioned by Mr. Frelinghuysen fifty-two years ago~ to swear to an invoice going down even to 

his cups and saucer5 and show that he was not able to support himself. 

That is the question, and the only question, and upon that there is no 

reason, so far as I can see, why we shall not take a. vote now. 

I am notified by the Senator from Massachusetts that other amendments hereafter will come up. We are ready to meet them as they come. This is the one we now have under consideration, and in view 

of the Utah bill, which is pressed with such earnestness here, and in 

View of other business before the Senate, and in view of the fact that we have time to take a vote on this measure, I see no reason why we 
4518 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 26, 

should not have a vote to-night on the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois. 

Mr. HARRISON. I move that the Senat;e do now adjourn. 

Mr. BLAIR. I wish toaskforthe printingoftheamendmentwhich 

I suggested in my remarks. I desire to have it printed as an amendment proposed to be offered to the bill. . The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be so ordered. 

Mr. ALLISON. I ask the Senator from Indiana to yield to me that 

I may withdraw a motion entered a few days ago to reconsider a bill. 

·Mr. HARRISON.' I will do so. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana withdraws 

the motion to adjourn. 

1\IISSOURI RIVER BRIDGE. 

Mr. ALLISON. I wish to withdraw ·the motion to reconsider the 

vote by which the Senate passed the bill (H. R. 6762) to authorize the 

construction ·or a bridge across the Missouri River at a point to be se- lected between the north and south line ofthe county of Douglas, State 

of Nebraska, and to make the same a post-route. 

My friend from Tennessee [Mr. HARRIS], who is a strict parliamentarian, informs me that I should have unanimous consent to withdraw 

the motion. 

Mr. HARRIS. A motion to reconsider can not be withdrawn without unanimous consent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection to withdrawing the 

motion? No objection being made, the motion to reconsider is withdrawn. 

HOUSE BILL REFERRED. 

The bill (H. R. 263) for the relief of George F. Bicknell was read 

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

Mr. HARRISON. I renew my motion that the Senate adjourn. 

The motion was agreed. to; and (at 5 o'clock and 52 minutes p. m.) 

the Senate adjourned. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

MONDAY, May 26, 1884. 

The House met at 11 o'clock a.m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. 

JOHNS. LINDSAY, D. D. 

The Journal of Saturday's proceedings was read and approV'ed. 

NORTHERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT, STATE OF TEXAS. 

Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Speaker, I move, by unanimous consent, to take 

from the Speaker's table the bill (H. R. 2824) to amend sections 4, 5, 

and 9 of an act approved February 24, 1879, entitled "An act to create 

the northern judicial district of the State of Texas, and to change the 

eastern and western judicial districts of said State, and to fix the time 

and places for holding courts in said districts,'' and to provide for holding terms of the court of the western judicial district of Texas at the 

city of El Paso, and for other purposes, returned from the Senate with 

..amendments. 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection ? 

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

-table and the amendments of the Senate read, as follows: 

First amendment. In section 1, strike out the words: "shall hereafter read as follows," and insert in lieu thereof " is hereby amended as follows." 

Second amendment. Strike out the following: 

"The courts in the northern judicial district shall be held twice in each year at Waco !Vld Dallas, and at Graham, in Young County; and the courts in the eastern judicial district shall be held twice in each year at Galveston, T:yler, and 

.Jefferson; and." 

Third amendment. Strike out the following words: 

"At the city of Waco on the first Mondays in April and October; at the city of 

Dallas on the first Mondays in .Jurie and December; at the town of Graham, 

Young CountyJ on t-he. first l\Iondays in February and August; at the city of 

-Galveston on tne first Mondays in November and March; at the cit.y of Tyler .on the second Mondays in .January and May; at the city of .Jefferson on the sec- • ond 1\fondays in February and September." 

Fourth amendment. Strike out the following. words: 

''And the district judge of each of said districts shall have power to fix ad- ""journed terms at all of said places so as to dispose of the whole of the business ·of said courts." 

Fifth amendment. In section 2, after the word "issued," insert the words' 'at'ter 

the act shall ta.ke effect." 

Sixth amendment. In section 3 strike out the following words: "The ninth 

section of said act be so amended as to authorize the clerk and marshal of the said we t-ern judicial district, respectively, to appoint," a.nd insert in lieu thereof: 

"There shall be appointed, in the manner provided by law." 

Seventh amendment. Strike out the following words: 

"And deputy marshal, each of whom shall reside at El Paso, for said court," 

and insert in lieu thereof "who shall keep his office." 

Mr. LANHAM. I move the amendments of the Senate be concurred 

in. . The amendments of the Senate were concurred in. 

Mr. LANHAM moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendments of the Senate were concurred in; and also moved that the motion 

to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

BRIDGE ACRO S WILLA~IETTE RIVER, OREGON. 

lt{r. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, I move by unanimous consent to take 

up for a-ction at this time the bill (S. 820) to authorize the Oregon 

Pacific Railroad Company to construct one or more bridges across the 

Willamette River, in the State of Oregon, and to establish them as postroads. 

The SPEAKER. The bill will be read, subject to objection. 

The bill was read in exten.so. 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to taking up for present consideration the bill which has just been read? 

Mr. WELLER. I object. 

Mr. GEORGE. I hope the gentleman from Iowa will withdraw his 

objection. This is a local measure which has received the approval of 

the Secretary of War. It is a Senate bill. I hope the gentleman from 

Iowa will withdraw his objection. 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to taking up the bill for present 

consideration? 

Mr. WELLER. Yes; I object. 

RETffiEMENT OF NATIONAL-BANK CffiCULATION. 

Mr. WELLER. I ask unanimous consent to introduce for present 

consideration a joint resolution authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury 

to invest the lawful money deposited by national-bank associations for 

the retirement of their circulation, and for other purposes. 

The SPEAKER. The joint resolution will be read, subject to objection. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

A joint resolution authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to invest the lawful money deposited in the Treasury, in trust, by national banking associations 

for the retirement of their circulating notes, and for other purposes. 

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of A mer- ica in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and is hereby, 

authorized, out of any lawful money deposited by national banks for the pur- pose of retiring their circulation, under the provisions of section 4 of the act of 

.July 20, 1 4, and of sections 5222 and 5230 of the Revised Statute of the United 

State • and of section 6 of the act of .July 12, 1882, to purchase, at not exceeding 

the par·value thereof, under such regulations as he may prescribe not inconsist;. ent therewith, any bonds of the United States ow outstanding; the bonds so purcha ed to be held in trust and used as security for the payment of the circulating notes of the banks which have or may deposit lawful money for such re- demption and payment : Provided, however, Whenever the circulating notes of 

national banking associations, for the retirement of which lawful money has 

been deposited, are presented to the Treasury for redemption, the Secretary of 

the Treasury shall use any available moneys in the Treasury for the redemption 

thereof, and to that extent the bonds so held shall be canceled and destroyed, 

together with the interest thereon: And further provided, All of the interest ac-- cruing on said bonds or any of them shall be canceled as it matures: And fur- ther provided, That all of said bonds a.nd the intere t thereon shall by the Secretary of the Treasury be canceled and destroyed whenever itshall appear to him 

that the outstanding notes of said banking associations are destroyed or lost, 

the intent being that the Government shall redeem by lawful money payment 

all such notes so provided for and also to cancel all of said bonds and interests 

thereon accruing, as stated hereinbefore. 

The SPEAKER. Is there· objection? 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes. I think I shallbavetoobjectuntilmybridge 

bill gets through. [Laughter.] . 

Mr. WELLER. I hope the gentleman will withdraw his objection 

until- I present the reasons why this joint resolution should be considered at this time and passed. [Cries of'' Regular order!"] · The SPEAKER. Is the demand for the regular order insisted upon or withdrawn? 

Mr. BLAND. It is withdrawn. 

GEORGE F. BICKNELL. 

Mr. LONG. Mr. Speaker, I move by unanimous consent that the 

Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar be discharged 

fr6m the further consideration of the bill (H. R. 263) for the relief of 

George F. Bicknell, and that it be put on its passage at this time. 

The SPEAKER. The bill will be read subject to objection. 

The Clerk read as follo:ws: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, authorized 

and directed to remove the .charge of dismissal now standing upon the records 

of the War Department against the name of George F. Bicknell, late captain of 

Company C, Third Regiment RhodeislandVolunteerCavalry, and to grant said 

George F. Bicknell an honorable discharge from the service of the United States as of date.of .June 29,1865 . 

Mr. TOWNSHEND. We reserve the right to object. 

The SPEAKER. Certainly. 

Mr. LONG. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that this bill was unanimously 

reported by the Committee on Military Affairs in the Forty-seventh 

Congress, and has been unanimously reported by the same committee 

ofthepresent Congress. The circumstances are these: George F. Bicknell was a faithful officer and served with great gallantry from the time 

of his muster into the service in 1862 until the end of the war. He 

served in the regiment commanded by Lieut. Cpl. George R. Davis, now 

a member of' this House, who c~trtifies to his excellent record. 

.Alter the war was over the colonel of the regiment, who had been 

absent, returned and took command and Bicknell was transferred to a remote station to do police duty. ~ company was greatly diminished by detail, until at last it was so far reduced he sent in his resignation. The colonel was not familiar with his services, and he forwarded his resignation with the recommendation that it be accepted. 

It was accepted, and Bicknell was dismissed the service. LieutenantColonel Davis, of the same regiment, now a member of the House, states 

in emphatic terms the faithfulness and· efficiency of Bicknell'sservices, 

and that he would have forwarded the resignation with a tavorable rec-