1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5045 

judiciary act of 1789 to courts created by act of Congress in the District of Columbia. 

An amendment. was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary to 

strike ont in line 4 of section 1 the word "concurrent" before the 

word "jurisdiction," and after the word "jurisdiction," in t.he same liue, to strike out the words '' with the police court of said District," 

and. at the end of the section to insert "not lawfully triable in any 

otht..r conrt, and which are required by law to be prosecuted by indictment or information;" so as to make the section read: 

That the criminal court of the District of ColLimbia. shall have jurisdiction of all crimes and misdemeanors committed in said district not lawfully triable in any other coru1;, and which are required by law to be prosecuted by indicbnent or in· 

formation. .-

The amendment was agreed to. 

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

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a. third time. The bill was read the third time, and pMsed . . 

HUDSON BAY COMPANY. 

Mr. HA ILIN. Before we go into executive session, I want the 

time of the Senate for one minute. To-morrow morning in the morn- ing hour, I shall ask the indulgence of the Senate to take up House 

bill No. 3351 which is in my charge in the absence of the chairman 

of the Committee on Foreign Relations. It relates to carrying out 

the recent treaty of 'Va.shington and settling the rights of certain 

settlers under the Hudson Bay Company growing out of provisions 

in the Washington treaty, and it imposes obligations upon the Government which we cannot fail to carry out and deal justly. 

CONGRESSMEN FROM ALABA.l."lA.. 

:Mr. SPENCER. I ask the Senate to proceed to the consideration of 

t he bill (H. R. No. 886) to provide for the election of Congressmen 

at large for the State of Alabama. 

There being no objection, the bill was couside1·ed as in Committee 

of the Whole. It provides that the two additional Representatives 

to Congress allowed to the State of Alabama, according to the apportionment under the ninth census, may be elected by the Stat.e at lar~e, 

and the other Representatives to which the State is entitled by tne 

districts as now prescribed by law in that State, unless the General 

Assembly of Alabama shall otherwise provide before the time fixed by 

law for the election for Rep1·esentatives to Congress from said State. The bill was reported to the Senate, ordered to a third reading, r ead the third time, and passed. 

DISTRICT GOVE.R..."'i'ENT. 

.?,1r. SARGENT. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration ofexecntive business . .Mr. ALLISON. I desire to give notice that after this post-office 

appropriation bill is completed, I will a.'!k the Senate to take up and consider the bill reported by the Joint Committee of Investigation 

into the Affairs of the District of Columbia. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of 

the enator from California. 

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to the con- sideration of executive business. After ten minutes spent in execu- tive session the doors were reopened, and (at five o'clock and forty 

minutes p. m.) the Senate adjourned. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

T UESDAY, June 16, 1874. 

The House met at eleven o'clock a. m·. Prayer by the Chaplain, 

Rev. J.G.BuTLER,D.D. 

The J o.urnal of yesterday was read and approved. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

The SPEAKER. A motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill 

to aitl in the construction of a fire-alarm teles-raph in the District of 

Columbia comes over from yesterday as unfi.mshed business. 

1\lr. DAWES. · I would sugO'est tha,t we go to +,he Speaker's table 

and dispose of the matters ttereon, _under what is called the fiveminute ruJe-a five-minute speech being allowed on each bill on each 

side. I would except from this the civil-rights bill. I ask that the 

order be made thart the Honse shall proceed under this arrangement, 

at twelve o'clock, to consider business on the Speaker's table. . 1\lr. SMITH, of Now York. I must object, unless the Committee on Elections can have half an hour to dispose of two or three cases. Mr. COBURN. Is the proposition of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. DAWES] that the bills on the Speaker's table shall be taken 

up and d.is1Josed o£'1 · 

The SPEAKE~. It is that they be dispo. ed of either by being re- fen·ed or by bemg passed. The Chair would suggest that if. the 

gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. DAWES] will make the time for 

going to the business on the Speaker's table half an hour later the 

gentleman from New York, [Mr. SMITH,] the chairman of the Comm:i.t"t::!e. on Elections, can have the time he desires before that is done. 

Mr. DAWES. I am willing to say one o'clock. 

1\lr. MOREY. I desire to make a parliamentary inquiry. When we rea-ch a bill on the Speaker's table under the proposed arrangement may we pass it., refer it, or leave it on the Speake~s table 'f 

The SPEAKER. Yes; by a majority vote it can be passed, re- ferred, or left on the table. Mr. COTTON. I must object to this arrangement unless an opportunity is given to the Committee on the District of Columbia to make some reports. Mr. ·wiLSON, of Iowa. If we haYe a morning hour it is in the 

power of a majority of the House at the expiration of the morning 

hour to go to business on the Speaker's table. This being the case, I 

must object to the motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts. 

The SPEAKER. The business on the Speaker's table cannot possibly be reached under the rules in the way suggestecl by the gentleman 

from Iowa during the last days of the session. Mr. DAWES. I move to suspend the rules for the purpose of making the order I have indicated; that at one o'clock the House proceed 

to dispose of business on the Speaker's table, a five-minute debate 

being allowed on each side, so that by a majority vote bills may be 

passed, referred, or left on the table, excepting from the order the 

civil-rights bill. Mr. BURROWS. Why should the civil-rights bill be ~xcepted Y 

The SPEAKER. 'rhe Chair will explain the effect of the motion of 

the gentlemanfromMas achusetts, if agreed to. ExceJ?tlng the civilrights bill all other busine.s on the Speaker's ta.ble Will be taken up 

sei·iati1n, to be disposed of by a majority vote after a five-minute 

speech on either side in one of three ways; that is, a bill-may be re- ferred t.o a committee, may be pa&>ed, or may be left on the table. Mr. WILLARD,ofVermont. Willitrequireatwo-thirdsvotetopass 

a billY 

The SPEAKER. A majority vote will be sufficient. Mr. BURROWS. Will the gentleman allow me to inquire why he 

excepts the civil-rights bill f 

.?,lr. DAWES. It does not prejudice the civil-rights bill, and I suppose that if I should include that bill in this particular motion I 

could not get at the other business on the Speaker's table. 

Mr. GARFIELD. Suppose you try it. . Mr. DAWES. The gentleman from Michigan knows that I would 

omit no motion that would advance the civil-rights bill, and if the 

gentleman is apprehensive that I have any purpose hostile to the 

civil-rights bill he mistakes my motives. 

Mr. BURROWS. I do not suppose so. Mr. DAWES. I make the motion in this way simply because I know 

that it is the only way in which we can get at the other business on the Speaker's table. I am willing, if any gentleman {lesires it, ~o include the civil-rights bill; but I know what the effect of that will be . Mr. HOLl\IA.N. I hope the gentleman will also exclude from his 

motion the Saint Croix land-grant bill. ~Ir. DAWES. A majority cau dispose of this whole matter, and 

therefore I make the motion without any exception. Mr. LAWRENCE. I hope the Committee on War Claims will b~ 

allowed to report the bill relating to the commissioners of claims, and 

for other pnrposes, which I am instructed by that committee to offer. Mr. DAWES. If I make any exce-ption my motives would be misconstrued, and therefore I make the motion without exception, and a majority of the Honse can dispose of it. 

The SPEAKER. If the gentleman makes his motion in that form 

the whole question will turn on the vote on the civil-rights bill, and 

that bill might as well be taken out and voted upon separately, so as to disembarrass the other business. 

Mr. DAWES. Some other gentleman can make the motion.; I do 

not propose to stand here under the imputation of hindering the passage of the civil-rights bill. · The SPEAKER. It would make the ~tire motion turn upon that 

one bill. 

Mr. HAWLEY, of Tilinois. No one has made any imputation on the gentleman from Massachn.setts. We have tried several times to 

take up the civil-rights bill by a two-thirds vote, and it has been 

demonstrated that it cannot be done. The SPEAKER. The Chair was only stating the obvious parliamentary effect of the motion. 

Mr. GARFIELD. In order to test the question I move to suspend the 

rules and take the civil-rights bill from the Speaker's table and pa.ss it. Mr. DAWES. If the genlleman will withdraw that motion I wfl.l 

adhere to my motion to go to the Speaker's table and take up all busi- ness thereon. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will first dispose of the unfinished 

business which wM reported last evening on a motion for a suspension 

of the rules, and comes over on that motion. 

FIRE-ALARM TELEGRAPH IN THE DISTRICT OF COLID1BIA. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill, as follows: 

A bill (H. R. No. 353'2) to aid in the construction of a fire-alarm 

telegraph in the District of Columbia. 

The bill was read. Mr. WILLARD, of Vermont. How does that bill come before the 

Housef 

The SPEAKER. Last evening the gentleman from New York [Mr. 

SESSIONS] brought it up on a motion to suspend the rules. 
5046 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE lG, 

Mr. "WILLARD, of Vermont. I unclerstood that la.st evening was given to the Committee on Public Buildings and GrolllJ.ds, and I suppose that whatever business f·rom that committee was not completed 

last evening must faJl. . The SPEAKER. The Chair was lJ>bsent la t evening, but he understood from the Clerk that it was entertained yesterday afternoon 

before the recess. 1\fr. WILLARD, of Vermont. 0 , no; it was last evening. 

The SPEAKER. Then the bill is not properly before the House. 

The Chair will recognize the gentleman from New York to make the 

motion to suspend the rules later on during the day, but the bill is 

not unfinished business. 

TAX ON SAVINGS INSTITUTIONS. 

Mr. E . R. HOAR. I move to suspend the rules and pass a bill for 

the relief of savings institutions having no capital stock and doing 

business for the benefit of depositors. I will state to the House that 

it is a bill which must be passed now if ever. It has the unanimous 

approval of the Committee on Banking and Currency, and is for the 

relief of depositors in savings banks, and it must be passed before 

the close of this session or it can never do any good. The tax has once been paid by depositors, and now it is proposed to assess it on the institutions who have no funds to meet it with. 

The Clerk read the bill. It provides that no futme collection of 

internal-revenue taxes shall be made ou the earnings of savings-banks or institutions for :wings, having no capital stock and doing no other 

business than receiving deposits, to be loaned or invested for the sole 

benefit of the parties making such deposits without profit or com- pensation to the assoch11tion or company, whether the earnings of the same have been or may hereafter be divided aunually,semi-annually, or at other periods. 

The motion to suspend the rules wa-s seconded; and (two-thirds 

voting in favor thereof) the rule were suspended, and the bill (H. R. 

No. 3678) was pa sed. 

ME AGE FRO~:I THE SENATE. 

A message from the enate, by l\ir. SYMPSON, one of their clerks, 

informed the House that the Senate had passed with amendments, in 

which the concnrrenc~ of the House was requested, a bill o£ the following title : 

A bill (H. R. No. 3511) regulating the removal of causes from State 

courts to the circuit courts of the United States. 

The message further announcetl that the Senate had pas ed and 

requested the concurrence of the House in a bill of the following 

title : 

A bill (S. No. 321) reorganizing the everal staff corps of the Army. 

QUALIFICATIONS OF TER~TORIAL DELEGATES. 

Mr. SMITH, of New York. I am instructed by the Committee on Elections to report and move the passage, under a suspension of the 

rules, of a bill detining the qualifications of territorial Delegates in 

the Hon e of Representatives. . The bill provicles that no person shall be a Delegate in the House 

of Repre entatives from any of the Territories of the United Stat.es who shall not have attained the age of twenty-five years, have been seven years a citizen of the United Stat.es, a.nd who shall not when 

elected be an inhabitant of the Territory in which he shall be chosen; 

ancl no such person who is guilty {'ither of bigamy or polygamy shall 

be eligible to a seat as uch Delegate. 

lr. COX. Does that affect the present Delegate from Utah! 

11r. SMITH, of New York. The legal operation of the bill is en- tirely prospective. 

Mr. COX. Then the word "hereafter" should be inserted. 

Mr. SMITH, of New York. That does not affect the legal construction of the bill ; I have no objection to the amendment. 

The motion to suspend the rules was seconded and (two-thirds votin.~ in favor thereof) the- rules were suspended, and the bill as modified (H. R. No. 3679) wa.s passed. . 

ELECTION CO~TEST-GU.N'tl:R V8. WILSHIRE. 

Mr. S-;\fiTH, of New York. I now ask that Mr. Gunter, of Arkansas, may be seated as a member of this House. He has been 

waiting here since last Deoember. :My colleague upon the committee 

from Ohio [Mr. ROBINSON] is instructed by the .committee to report 

in this oa.'3e. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of Ohio. I am instructed unanimously Ly the 

Committee on Elections to submit a report, accompanied by resolutions, in the contested-election case of Thomas M. Gunter vs. W. W. 

Wilshire, from the third congressional district of the State of Arka,usas. 

The resolutions :tccompanying the report were read, as follows: 

Resolved, That W. W. WiL~hire was not elected and is not entitled to a. seat a a Representative in the Forty-third Congress from the third district of the State 

of Arkansas. 

Resolved, That Thomas M. Gunter was ected, and is entitled to a seat as a Representative in the Forty-third Congress from the third district of Arka.nsas. 

l.ir. HURLBUT. There is a p1:eliminary question which I wish to 

raise before the Hou e. .Mr. ROBINSON, of Ohio. I will yield five minutes to the gentleman, and then I will call the previous qu~stion. 

Mr. HURLBUT. In order to raise the question to which I refer I move to recommit this report. 

1\lr. SMITH, of New York. I understand that this report. is made 

under a su pension of the rules; if so I mnst object to debate. 

Mr. HURLBUT. I understand that this i a. privileged report from 

the Committee on Elections. 

The SPEAKER. It is a privilegecl report, and the gentleman making it can yield. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois for five minutes. 

Mr. HURLBUT. I desire in this case to enter a motion to roc.om- mit this report to the committee with instructions to pas upou :t 

preliminary qnestion. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of Ohio. I do not ;vielcl for a motion. .Mr. HURLBUT. I think I have aright to make amotion to recom- mit with instructions. 

Tho SPEAKER. Not unless the gentleman yielding a portion of 

his time consents to the motion. 

Mr. ROBIN ON, of Ohio. I do not consent. 

Mr. HURLBUT. Then I will state my point to tho Hou ·e :tncl they can do as they like. nder the law of 1851 th re is an x:pre s provision that the contestant must file his claim and notice of cont·P t 

within thirt.y days from the time when f.he Clinvass wa maue. Tho canvass in this ca e was made on the 14th of December, 1 7~, and the 

contestant did not tile the notice of contest for more than ninety clays afterward. I desire the committee to pas· upon the question whet.ucr the limitation pre cribed Ly law is to have any etfect or not. Tllat 

is the simple question I desire to raise, and if the Hon e shall not , cc- ond the previous question I will move to recommit th report to tho 

Committee on Elections to determine that que tiou po,·itively aud di~tinctly. 

Mr. DAWES. The law of 1 51 declares that the contestant· sba ll serve npon the sitting member notice of contest, &c. This o-entle- man wa not made a sitting member except by a vote of thi Hou e, 

thus making this a special case to be pre ·cribcd for by the Committee on Election themselves. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of Ohio. I ca.ll for the previon IJUO tion. 

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; 

and under the operation thereof the re~olutions reported from the 

Committee on Elections were adopted. 

Mr. TIOOPER moved to reconsider the vote by which there olntions were adopte(l; and also moved that the motion to reconsider 

be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

Mr. GUNTER then app~ared and qualifietl by taking the moLli:fietl 

oath of July 11, 186 . 

ARKANSAS ELECTION CONTEST-BRADLEY t'8. BYNJ•;S. 

Mr. PIKE, from the Committee on Elections, reported the follo,Ying resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: 

Resolved, That the Committee on Elections be di charged from the further con-

~!r}i~~:eob!~ t:s:t!o~ ~k.!~~~ey against Williain J . Hyn s, a member of 

M.r. PIKE moved to reconsider the vote hy which the resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

INDIAN APPROPRIATIO~ BILL. 

Mr. LOUGHRIDGE. I move that the rules Le suspended o that 

the Honse may take up and con ider the amendment of the Senate 

to the bill (H. R. No. 234::J) making appropriation for the current 

and contingent expen es of the Inclian Department, and for fulfillin..., 

treaty stipulations with various Indian tribe,, for the year ending 

June 30, 1 75, and for other purpo es. The motion was agreed to. 

The amendment,<; of the Senate were read, and, except in the ca es noted below, were, without debate, respectively concmT d in or non- concurred in according to the recommendations of the Committee on Appropriations. 

The forty-second amendment was read, as follow : . 

Insert in lines 149 and 150 t~e following words: "thirty-six interpreters, at 500 

each ; and $600 for temporary mterpreters." 

The Committee on Appropriations recommended non-concurrence. Mr. BECK. I hope the gentleman from Iowa [1\fr. LoUGHRIDGE] 

who is managing this bill will givo as an explanation of this ameudment. Does the Senate add thirty-six additional interpreter Y 

Mr. LOUGHRIDGE. The statme fixe · the pay of these interpreters, I believe, at ~"100 each in certain Territorie ·. That is the reason the Senate made the change. 

Mr. DECK. Is that what swells this appropriation from $29,000 

up to 35,000! 

Mr. LOUGHRIDGE. We recommend non-concurrence in the amendment for the purpose of satisfying ourselve whether th amendment 

is right. 

The amendment was non-concurred in. 

The seventy-ninth amendment was read, as fo1lows: 

In the appropt·iation for the Sacs and Foxes of J':lfississippi add after the wor(ls 

"phy ician for the agency," in line 1197, so as to make the paragraph read a.s follows: 

For interest on $800,000, at 5 per cent., per second article treaty of October 11 

1842, ~0 0!'0, of which snm . 1,500. s_hall be pait;l for~. physician for the agency, wh~ 

&hall furnish the necessary medicmes: P'rovtded, That so much of the appropria-
---- ------------------------------~----~----~=-------------------------------------------~ 

1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5047 

tion herein ma.de for the Sacs ann Foxes on the MisRissippi as shall be deemed necessary by the Sec_reta;':"y of the Interior, not exceedin_g 50 per ?e~~ th_ereof, may be used, nnder his directiOn, for the purposes of education and mvilization. 

The Committee on Appropriations recommended concurrence. Mr. PARKER, of Missomi. I wish to offer an amendment to thia 

amendment. I am satisfied the Committee on Appropriations will 

have no objection to it. I did not think of it when the committee 

had these amendments under consideration. This amendmentof the 

Senate proposes a diversion of the Indian fund; and I desire to proicl4j that it shall not Le done without the consent of the India.ns, so tha,t they may not hereafter come to Congress and set up a claim for 

fnuds that have been diverted. I move to amend the amendment by 

auding "provided further, that the Indians shall consent thereto." 

The amendment of Mr. PARKER, of :Missouri, was agreed to; and 

the amendment of the Senate, as amenrled, was concurred in. 

The eightieth amendment was read, as follows: 

In the appropriations for the Sacs and :Foxes of Missouri a.dd a protis? to the 

appropriaLion of 200 for the suppm:t of a. school; so that the paragraph w1ll read 

as follows: . • For the support of said school ~or the fkcal year ending .J nne 30, 18~5, !J.S per s~d 

a.rticl~ of the treaty, 200: Provided, That so much of the ap].Jropnation herem 

matle for the Sacs aud Foxes of tho Missouri as l'lhall be deemeJ necessary by the 

Secretary of the Interior, not exceeding 50 per cent. thereof, may ue used under his 

tlirectiou for the purposes of education and civilization. 

The Committ,ee on Appropriations recommended concniTence. 

Mr. PARKER, of :Missomi. I move to amend this amendment by 

adding t.he wonls, "provided further, that the Indians shall consent 

thereto." 

The amendment of Mr. PARKER, of Missouri, was agreed to, a.nd 

the ::tmendment of the Senate, as thus amended, was concurred in. 

The ninety-fu·st amendment was read, as follows: 

Insert the following: }'or thi~ amount, or so much thereof a-s may be nf'cessary, to purchase from tho 

0111aha Indians in r ebraska such quantity of land, not exceeding twenty sections, as may be required for the use of the Winnebago Indians in Wisconsin and for 

improvements on their reservation, to be appropriated from the residue of the 

.,.1,100,000 provided to be set. apart. for the Winneba:?oes by the fourth article of the 

treaty with those Indians, Novembe1· 1, 1837: Provided, That such amount as may be paid to tile Omahas for thH lanrls required shall be applied for their use, under 

tho direction of the Secretary of the Interior, for general purposes of civilization, 

$82,000. 

TLe Committee on Appropriations recommended concurrence. Mr. LO GHRJDGE. In this amendment the Committee on Appropriations at first agreed to recommend non-concmrence; and that 

is the recommendation in the printed report; but on subsequent ex- amination they have decided to ask conctrrrence. 

Mr. GARFIELD. The Committee on Indian Affairs came before us aft.er our recommendatjon was agreed on, and showed that this amendment was a mere transfer of funds; that it did not change at all the 

aruount expended. The Committee on Indian Affairs were unanimous 

in their recommendation, and they satisfied us that they were right. 

Mr. PARKER, of Missouri. I move to amend this amendment of 

the Senate u,v adding the words, "provided that said Winnebagoes 

shall consent to aid purchase." 

The amendment of Mr. PARKER, of !fissonri, was agreed to ; an_d 

the amendment of the Senate, as thus amended, was concurretl in. 

The ninety-seventh amendment was read, as follows: 

Strike out 3,000 in line 1792 and insert $2,000; so that the paragraph will rea.d as follows: 

Washington Territory: For the general incidental expenses of the Indian service in Washington Tenitor_y. including transportation of annnity goods and presents, (where no special provision is made therefor IJy tr-eaties,) a.nll for defraymg the expenses of removal 

and subsistence of Indians, and for pay of necessary employes, $251000; $2.000 of 

-whiuh shall be for the support of schools on the Colville and Chehalis agencies. 

The committee recommended concurrence. Mr. SHANKS. I ask that this amendment be non-concurred in. I 

have been among those people~ and they certainly need from this appropriation the amount of $3,000 for school purposes. 

Tile amendment was non-concurred in. 

The one hundred and thirteenth amendment was read, as follows: 

Insert before the words "necessary traveling expenses" the words "actual and;" so that the paragraph will rea,d as follows: 

1!'or this amount, or so much the1·eof as may be necessary to defray the actual 

and necessary traveling expenses of five lndil).ll inspectors provided for by section 6 of the act making appropriations for the current and contingent expenses of the 

Indian Department for the fiscal year 1874, $7,500. 

The Committee on Appropriations recommendeu non-concurrence. Mr. BECK. I ask that this amendment be concurred in. The 

Senate has amended so that the phrase will read "actual and nec.es- sa.ry traveling expenses." Why should the words ''a-ctual and" be 

struck ouU 

Mr. GARFIELD. If the word "actnal" be retained, then a man may go to the Fifth Avenue Hotel and remain there on business for 

five or six weeks and charge his actual bills to the Government, 

whereas under a provision for "necessary" expenses the conStruction 

given under the law is that no more than a certain amount per day 

shall bE! allowed by the Department . . To insert the word "actual" 

will repeal the present order of things and make it possible to charge 

far beyond the rates at present allowed. 

1\h. BECK. I do not think so, !Jecause the word "actual" does not 

limit the word "necessary." The expenses aJlowed must be both 

"actual and necessary." But if we strike out the words "actual 

and," an inspector may claim anything that he says wa-s "necessary." 

That is the fear I have. · Mr. GARFIELD. I have a telegraphic dispatch in my pocket from · 

one of the officers of the Department saying precisely the same danger bas been incurred in one of our bills now in conference, and req nesting me to get the word "actual" out for that very reason. Mr. BECK. I withdraw my objection. 

The amendmendment was non-concurred in. 

Amendment 121 of the Senate: 

Strike out after the word "while" the words " any portion of ; " so that it will 

read: 

That none of the appropriations herein mane shall be paid to any band of Indians 

while snch band iR a.twar with t.he United States or with the white citizens of any of the States and Territories. 

:Mr. CONGER. It seems to me to be an unjust provision and ought 

to be ~:~triken out. 

Mr. GARFIELD. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence in that amendment and agree to strike out those words, 

deeming it unjust to leave the provision as it is. The amendment was concurred in. 

Amendment 122 of the Senate: Insert the worrls : Provided, That her!'after all bidders under any advertisement published by the 

Commissioner of Indian Affairs for proposalf! for goods, supplies, transportation, 

&c., for and on account of the Indian service, whenever the value of the goods, 

supplies, &c., to be furuisbe<l, or the transportation to be performed, shall exceed 

the stun of $5.000, shall accompany their bids with a certified check or draft pay. able to tbe order of tho · Commissioner of Indian Affairs, upon some United States 

<lepository or solvent national bank, which check or draft shall be 5 percent. on the amount of the goods, sopplies, transportation, &c., as aforesaid; and in case an;v such bidrler, on neing awar<led a contract, shall fail to execute the same with good 

and sufficient sureties according to t.be terms on which such bid was made and ac- cepted, such bidder shall forfeit the amount so deposited to the United States, and t-he same shall forthwith IJepaid into the Treasury of the United States; but if such contract shall be duly executed, as aforesaitl, such draft or check so deposited shall 

be returned to the bidder. 

Mr. GARFIELD. This is to prevent straw bids in the Indian' Department, and the committee recommend concurrence . The amendment was concurred in. 

Mr. LOUGHRIDGE. I now move that a req nest be sent to the Sen- ate for a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses. 

The motion was agreed to . . 

GENEVA AWARD. 

:h!r. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I move to comply with the re- quest of the Senate for a conference on the disagreeing votes of the 

two Houses on the l)ill (S. No.7) for the creation of a court for the 

adjudication and uisposition of certain moneys received into the 

Treasury under an award made by the tribunal of arbitration constituted by virtue of the first article of the treaty concluded at ·washington the 8th of May, A. D. 1871, between the United Stat.es of 

America and the Queen of Great Britain. 

The motion was agreed to. 

TELEGRAPHIC COl\fMUNICATION. 

Mr. COX, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on Foreign Afi'air~:~, reported back the bill (H. R. No. 3535) relating to telegraphic 

communication between the United States and foreign conn tries, with 

the recommendation that it do pass. · 

The bill was read. 

The first section provjdes that all communication established, or that may hereafter be established, between the United States and any 

foreign country by means of telegraphic or magnetic lines or cable~> 

laid in any part thereof, in and over the waters, reefs, islands, shores, 

and lands within the jurisdiction of the United States, shall be subject to the following conditions, stipuJations, and reservations, to wit: 

First, the Government of the United States shall be entitled to exer- cise and enjoy the same or similar privileges with regard to the con- trol and use of any such line or cable that may by law, agreement, or otherwise, be exercised and enjoyed by any foreign government 

whatever; secondly, citizens ot the United States shall enjoy the same privileges as to the payment of rates for the transmission of messages as are enjoyed by the citizens of the most favored nations; thirdly, 

the transmission of diapatches shall be made in the following order : First, dispatches of state, under such regulations a-s may be agreed 

upon by the governments interested; secondly, dispatches on telegraphic service; and thirdly, private dispatches; fourthly, the lines 

of any such cables shall be kept open to the public for the daily trans- mission of market and commercial reports and intelligence, and all 

messages, dispatches, and communications shall be forwarded in the 

order in which they are 1·eceived, except as hereinbefore provideu; 

fifthly, before extenclin~ and establishing any such line or cable in or over any waters, reefs, Islan<li!, shores, and lands within the jurisdiction of the United States, a written acceptance of the terms and con- ditions imposed by the act shall be filed in the office of the Secretary 

of State by the company, corporation, or party proposing to establish 

telegraphic communication. 

The second section provides that subject to the foregoing conditions, 

stipulations, and reservations, and subject to such grants as have 

heretofore been made by Congress, to lay and maintain telegraphic 

cables from the shores of the United States, the consent of Congress is given to the laying and maintaining of telegraphic or magnetic lines or cables between the United States and foreign COllJltrie 
504~ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE 16, 

in and over the waters, reefs, islands, shores, and lands within the 

jurisdiction of the United States. 

The third section provides that any person connected with any 

company engaged in the transmission of news to foreign countries w~o shall, cont.rary to his rluty, disclose or in any way make known or rntercept the contents of any me sage, or any part thereof, and 

aey per on who shall injure or de troy auy cable or other property of 

the company, or interfere with the workin~, repair, or u e of any cable or line connected with such cabll', shall, upon conviction thereof, 

in any district court of the United State , or in any district court of 

the district in whi ·h such cable is lan,led, be subject to a fine not 

exceeding 5,000, or to impri onmeut for a term not exceedin~ three 

y ars, or both, at the discretion of the court; and the party rnjnred 

thereby shall have a right of act.ion for damage . It shall be the 

duty of the Attorney-General to pro ecute all persons offending ~$a;inst any of the provisions of the act in any district court of the 

umted Stn.te . Mr. QOX. I only wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that this same bill 

passed in this House during the last Congre s. It is the unanimon 

report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs after a careful maturing 

of the matter. It interferes with no rights now xi ting, bnt only 

gives power to all companies generally, which Congre s ha the indisputable right to give. It is a general bill. The committee have al o authorized me to report all private bills for charters adveTsely, which 

I will do when I <Yet through with this bill. 

Mr. CONGER. I do not wish to antagonize the bill. I wish to ask 

the gentleman from New York, however, wh ther under the provi - ions of this bill the telegraph comp::mies may not extentl their lines 

indefinitely upon the Government land 'f 

~Ir. COX. No, sir; the bill was not intended to do, nything of the 

kind. 'fhat was carefully guarde-d again t. This is for ocean telegraphs only. 

The bill wa ord red to be engro ed and read a third time ; and 

being engro sed, it was accordingly read the third time, and pas ed. 

1\lr. COX moved to recon ider the vote by which the bill was passed; 

and also movetl that the motion to recon ider be laid on the table. 

The latt-er motion wa agreed to. 

ADVERSE REPORTS. 

Mr. COX also, l)y unanimous consent;from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, reported back, with the recommendation that they do not 

pa s, bills of tihe following titles; and the same were severally laid on the table: 

The bill (H. R. No. 1249) to incorporate the ubmarine Cable Printing Telegraph Company, and t.o promote and encourage telegraphic 

communication between American and foreign couutri ; 

The bill (B. R. No. 3383) to encourage and promote telegraphic com- munication between America and A ia ; and 

The bill (H. R. No. 330 ) to secure anti-monopoly ocean-cable com- munication between Europe, America, and Asia by W. Cornell Jewett 

and his associates. 

1\fr. COX moved to reconsi(Jer thA votes by which the bills were sev- erally laid on the table; and allio moved that the motion to recousider 

be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

Mr. E . R. HOAR, by unauimou consent, from the Committee on Foreign Affair , reported adversely on the r olution referred to that 

committe reque ting th Secretary of State to lay before the House 

the corr-espondence between the commander of the United States 

teamer Richmond, Captain Thomas Patterson, and the governor of 

Santiago de Cuba, in 1873, in reference to three American citizens who were on trial before a military court-martial at that place; and moved 

that the committee be di charged from the further consideration of 

the same, and that it be laid upon the table. 

The motion was agreed to. 

COMMIS 10 fERS OF CLAL'\IS. 

~1r. LA WRE CE. I move tha~ the rules be suspended to enable me to report, and the Hou e to pass, a sub titute (H. R. No. 3680) for 

tb bill (H. R. No. 1565) heretofore reported by the Committee on War Claims 1·elating to the commis ioners of claims. 

The substitut-e wa read, as follows: 

Be it ena.cled, &c., That the time within which petition for the allowance of 

claims mnry b pre en ted to the commi sioners of claims I.Je, and hereby is, extended to the 4th d:ty-of .Tnly, 1 75; and that all claims within the jurisdiction of the 

commis ioners of claims which shall not be filed in their office on or before the 4th 

~~o~~fe~a~e ~k:Jl a~e~nd hereby aro, forover barred, and the commissioners 

EC. 2. That v-ery p >tition or memorial for theallowanceof a claim shall contain a statement bv iteu1s of the sev ral amount claimed on account of the matters set forth in uch "petition or memorial, and the aggregate amount o claimed shall not thereafter be increa d for any ca.uae. Every ucn petition or memorial shall al o contain an explicit tawm n of any payments already made by or in behalf of the 

nited Rtate on account of property taken, furnU heJ, or used by the forces of the 

United ta.tes during t-be late rei.Jellion, and a declaration that tho said petition or memorial embra.cea every just item and cause of claim against the Umt.ed States 

for property so taken, furnished, or used. . EC. a. That in li u of the three agent.s now provided by law tbe said commis· sio~ers ~hall be a~tborizetl to employ five agents to. i_nvesti~ate and report upon clatms; and the satd agent shall have power to adJllllllster oaths and take deposi· tions; and, in addition to the clerksJiow authorized by law, the said commissioners 

may employ, eaol:t, one clerk, at a salary not exr.eedina 1,800 per annum. SEe. 4. That whenever the commi sioners are sati fied that a claim is fraudulent 

in whole or in part, or that the claimant is con'Uptly attempting to procure, by 

fraurl, fal e evidence, or collusion, the allowance of a claim, in whole or in part it 

shall be their duty to disallow tbe entire claim. ' 

SEc. 5. That every person who knowingly ancl willfully swears fnJ.sely in any oat-h o~· affidavit which is or :~!lay bo. authorized b_y law, or in any oath 'tal\ en or 

affidaVIt made, to be used aa ov-Itlence many cOllrt, ' or before either Hou e of Congress, or any committee or officer thereof, 1

' or before any officer or person actin,.,. 

under the authority of the Constitution or law, shall be f1eem0ll guilty of p~>ljm·v 

and shall be puni. hed byfinenotmore than .. ~,OOO, or imprisonment atl:iarJ laborn;,t more tban five years, or both, in the di cretion of the court. nd in cvc1·v case where such oath or affitlavit is sub cribed by the person maldna tl:te ame ·proof of such fact shall be sufficient evidence of the official authority of the person b~ fore whom the same purports to be madA or taken to alhninist.e.r anrl c rtifv Rai 1 oath or affitlavit. All offens heretofore committed may be prot< utetl oi· pun- ished in the same manner as if this act had not pa ed. ~c. 6. That every per on who procures, or endeavors t.o procnr , or counsel ot· MV1Ses an?ther to commi_tp~Ijury, shall be punishable~ if guil~.V" of pPrjury. SEC. 7. 'I hat the comnus 10ners of clmms shall receive, xamme, and consill ·r the justice and valiility of such clai:ms, growing out of the late war of tbe rebelliou, as may be refenecl to t-h m by either Honse of Congr s . anti aid commi · ·ionM 

shal! n;take report of _their procceilin""s ~mel of ea~h ciaim con, iuered by them, wilh t-he eVIuence m relation theret-oanrl fue1r couclus10ns of law and fact thcr on a tho commencement of each. es ion of ongress, to the peaker of the Hou e of Repre- sentatives, who shalllav the same before ail! House. SE~. 8. Th:1t the Pres1c~ent of the "9"nited States be, and is hereby, authorized to nu~n;tate, and, by and ~~h the adVIce. and consent of tho nate, to appoint, in 

adc.lttion to .the comm1 10ners of cla1m now authoriz d, two commi. sinners of 

claims, :vho shall continue in offic unt.il the 10Lh day March, 1 17, with like powet· autl untie. a~tl comp~nsation as the commi sio?er of clairus now in ollice. ny twocomm1 1oner . With the approval of the pr tdentof the boartl of commission r><, shall bflcompetent to make a report. ancl the president of the board shall aasi<rn to thfl commissioners the claims to b by th m examined, con. ider rl, anc.l reportCtl ou. SEC. 9. That the provi ions of an act to prevent and punish franc.l npon the Gov . ernment of the United States, approved .March 2, 1863, are extent! tl ancl ma!le 

applicable t.o a time of peace and to persons who shall makE\ or anse to lJ mad or presented, to t.be c01nmis ioner of claims, or to either IIou. e of Con!!"ress any 

clalDl upon or again t th~ Gove1:nment of the United Sta.tC'.<l, or any Depa,'rhuent ot· offioor thereof, or any eVIdence m upport thereof; anlltf any p r ·onlihall fmmlnlentlywithd.ra.w or ab tract from the til of said commi ionors, or from t.h• files of 

either House of Congre. s, or of any committee thereof. any document or evid ·ncl' 

very person so offending shall suffer the penalties and be liable to punishment a ' 

in said act provided. 

SEC. 10. That every p tition pre f'nted to either Hou e of Congre s for tl1e pay- ment of claims may be verified by oath or affidavit. 

Mr. KELLOGG. I ask the chairman of the committee to yield for a motion to strike out -the eighth ection, originally numbered ec- tion 10. The Committee on War Claims w re not unaniruou in 

regard to that section, and the gentleman from North Carolina fMr. 

Conn] had a substitute for it prepared. 

l\1r. LAWRENCE. I do not yield for any amenclmcut. Tl1e bill is 

the report of the committee. . The SPEAKER. The Chair understands that there"is a di pute as to whether this bill is the report of the committe . Tl.Je gentleman 

from Connecticut [~1r. KELLOGG] st-ates that it is not. That is a di - pute which should never be on the floor. 

Mr. KELLOGG. I stated that the committee were not unanimou 

in regard to the eighth section. 

The SPEAKER. The unanimity of committee i a subject the 

House has nothing to do with. The report of a majority of the com- mittee is the report of the committee. 

1\lr. KILLINGER. I ask that tlle eighth sect'on be a.gain read. 

'l'he eighth section was again read. 

The question being taken on the motion to suspend the rule aud 

pass the bill, there were aye 85, uoe not countetl. 

So the motion t.o suspend the rules was second d. 

The question was on suspending the rules and pa ing the bill. 

Mr. KELLOGG. I again a k the chainnan of the committee to 

yield to me for a motion to strike out the eighth ection. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I hope that will not be done. I i important for 

the interests of the Treasury that the e claim ue examined. Unless 

this provision is made we shall lose $5,000,000. 

Mr. ELLIS H. ROBERTS. The policy of the bill is to increase the 

demands on the Trea ury. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Tenne ee. If it was all for New York there 

would be no objection to it. 

Mr. CROOKE. I call for the yeas and nay on the qu tion of sus- pending the rule and pru ing the bill. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will fir t order a division by tellers· 

and appoints the gentleman from Ohio, ~Ir. LAWRENCE, and th~ gentleman from New York, Mr. CROOKE. 

The Honse divided; and the tellers reported-aye 1~0, noes 22. 

1\Ir. MERRIAM. I call for the yeas and nay . On the question of ordering the yeas and nay there were ayes 12; 

not a sufficient number. 

So the rules were suspended, (two-thirds having voted in the affirmative,) and the bill was pas ed. 

l\IARTh"'E HOSPITAL AT CLEVEL.A....~D . 

Mr. PARSONS. I move that the rule be u pend d and that a bill 

authorizing the lea e of the marine ho pital and grountl at Cle'' - land; Ohio, to the city of Cleveland _be pas· tl. Thi is ~e bill (H. 

R. ·o. 1~27) reported by the Comnnttee on Commer e, With amendment suggested by the Secretary of Trea ury. I a k that the bill b 

first reatl as reported by the committee antl that then the ame~Jtlruent · of the Secretary of the Treasury be read, and al o letters fiom the 

late Secretary of the Treasury and the present ecretary in relation to it. 

Mr. FIELD. Is debate in orderf 

The SPEAKER. It is not. The Clerk will report the bill. 

Mr. SPEER. The House has already refused once this session to 

suspend the rules and pa s the bill. 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5049 

1\Ir. PARSONS. The House did so under a misapprehension._ 

The bill was read, as follows : 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au. thorized and directed to enter into a written contract, on behalf of the United 

States, with the mayor and common council of the city of Cleveland, in the State of Ohio, providing for a lease of the G1Jvemment marine hospital and grounds at Cleveland to the city of Cleveland, aforesaid, at and for the period of ninety-nine years, at the nomb1al rent of one dollar per year, to be paid to the United States by said city· and said lease shall proville that sa.id marine hospital and grounds shatl be used during said lease as a general hospital and only for hospital pmposes. All sick and disabled seamen and sailors shall be admitted into said hospital in the same manner as is now or may be provitled by law for admission into the marine hot~pitals of the Unitell States; and for the care, board, and medical tre11.tment of said sailors and seamen the United St.!l>tes shall pay the city of Cleveland at the rate of fifty cents per day each, payable q_uarterly at the oftice of the district col- lector of the city of Cleveland. The city of Clevefitnd hall bind itself to kee.(l said building and grounds in good repair and condition during the continuance of said lease; and at any time, on the failure of the city of Clevela.nd to perform any of the covenants of said lease or to provide properly, in accordanee with law, for the care and attendance of such sailors and seamen as aforesaid, then the Secretary of the Treasury shall make oompla.int of the same to the United States district jmlge of Northam Ohio, who shall hear and examine said complaint, and if the same be found true in law and fact, he shall cancel said lease on the part of the Government of the United States, and order the said marine hospital and grounds to be placed, 'vithont 

delay, in the custody and control of the United State~. And the city of Cleveland is hereby authorized to extend Summit street across and through the northerly line of the lands owned by the United States and used for marine-hospital purposes 

as aforesaid. 

The amendments were also read, as follows: 

In line 6, after the word " Ohio," insert the following : If said officers are legally competent as parties to such contract . .Alter the word "purposes,,. in line 13, insert these words : And in any changes in the construction or arrangement of said building and J!rOunds, or in the event of the erection of a new buildinfrr or buildings for hospital pnrpo es on said grounds dU!i~ the continuance of saic lea.se, the plans for such changes and new building snau be submitted' to and shall be made in accordance with the approval of the supervisin* surgeon of the marine-hospital service. 

Transpose and amend the phrase • in accordance with law," in line 25, so as that it shall come in after the word "aforesaid," in line 26, and read as follows: In accordance with the law or laws, rules and regulations governing the marine- hosplt~ service of the United States. 

Mr. FIELD. I make the point of order on this bill. 

The SPEAKER. The point of order cannot be entertained. The 

motion is to suspend the rules. l\lr. PARSONS. I now a-sk that the letter from the Secretary of the 

Treasury be read. 

1\Ir. FIELD. I object to debate. 

Mr. PARSONS. I movo that the rules be suspencled in order that 

the letter may be read. 

The motion to suspend the rules was seconded and the rules were suspended, (two-thirds voting in favor thereof.) 

The Clerk read the following letter : 

TREASURY DEP.ARULENT, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, 

Washington, D. a., April6, 1874. 

Sm: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communic.ation of the 4th instant, concerning the proposed lease to the city of Cleveland of the marine hoApital and grounds at that place. I have exa,mined the bill and the report of your committee on. the snuject, and believin"" this action to be in accordance with the views expressed in my annual report, r'beg to recommend the passage of the bill as calculated to sn bserve the best interests of the invalid sailor at that port, as well as of t.he G1J...-ernment in relation to the property. , If the condition of the bill is such as to admit of amendment I shoulcllike to sua- gest the propriety of adding the sentence interlined in the copy herewith returne"'d with the object of securing, in any chanooe of the present buildina or in the con- struction of a new one, the snpervision o'i the proper officer of the"tiepartment, as was done in the act for a new hospital at New Orleans, (17 Statutes, 511.} 

. I am sir, yoru· obedient servant, 

Ron. R. C. P .ARSONS, M. C., 

Forty-third aongress. 

WM. A. RICHARDSON, Secr~>tary of t.he P.reasuT'I.J. 

Mr. PARSONS. There is a letter from the present Secretary of the 

Treasury supplementary to that, which I should also like to have 

read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, 

1Vashington, D. a., June 9. 1874. 

Sm: In acknowledging the receipt of your communication of this date. askina my concurrence with the action of my predecessor concerning t-he proposed'lease ~ the city of Cleveland, Ohio, of the United States marine hospital and grounds at that place1 I beg to suggest the propriety of the following amendments to the bill you subllllt: 1. The introduction of such phrase in connection with the lessees as will avoid 

making it compulsory upon the Secretary to enter into contraet with parties who may or may not have proper authority. 2. A chan~ ?f the copulative co~uncf:ion "and," in_lin_e ~5, to the disjunctive or. 'l. The addition of a clause whwh will prevent dit!crurunation aaa.iust marine patif'.nts in the treatment in said hospital. "' ·with these changes, in addition ~ tha~ already proposed, and, as I understand, 

at?Cepted by :yon, memoranda o~ wh10h ~ill be found nponthe copy of the bill here- With returned, I take pleasure m reneWIDg the former recommemlation of its pas- sage. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

Ron. R. C. PARSONS, M. C., 

Forty-third Oongress. 

B. H. BRISTOW, 

Secretary of the 'l'reasttry. 

1\I.r. PARSONS. I wish to say that this comes unanimously from 

the Committee on Commerce. · Mr. FIELD. This bill proposes to give half a million dollars' worth 

?f pro·pe~yfor a dollar a year for ninety-nine years, and I look upon 

It as a sw1nclle. 

• 

1\Ir. PARSONS. Now I want a moment to reply to the gentleman 

from Michigan. My constituents--

Loud cries of "Object!". and " Order !" 

The SPEAKER. When debate is objected to gentlemen must not 

insist on proceeding. 

:Mr. CONGER. I wanttosaythatthestatement ofmycolleague--

Loud cries of "Order!" ':Onler!" • :Mr. C<?NGER. I rise to a point of order. The Chair has permitted ~n. unfrur statement to be ma~e by my colleague from Michigan, aml 

1t IS proper that an answer to It should be made here or that it should 

be stricken from the RECORD. 

The SPEAKER. If all words spoken out of order were stricken 

from the RECORD it would be materially reduced in bulk. Mr. PARSONS. Well, I a..sk unanimous consent to say a sinrrle 

word in regard to this matter. 0 

Loud cries of "Object!" · The motion to suspend the rules was seconded. 

The question wa-s taken on suspending the rules; and on a division 

there were-ayes 80, noes 46; no quorum voting. 

Tellers wore ordered; and Mr. PAP.SONS and Mr. FIELD were appointed. 

The Ron e divided ; and the tellers reported-ayes gB, noes 64. - So (two-thircls uot voting in favor thereof) the rules were not sus- pended. 

THE DELEGATE FROM: UTAH. 

1\Ir. BURROWS. I move that the rules be suspended and that the 

following preamble and resolution be adopted: 

Whereas on the 12th day of May last a resolution was passed by this House instructing the Committee on Elections to investigate certain charges again t the sitting Del ga~ fro~ tl;te TeiTi~ry of Utah, GEORGE Q. CANNON, and report the result of such mvestigation to th1s House: Therefore, . Resolved, That said committee be, and is hereby, directed to report t{) this ffonRe the ~esult of such investi~ation on Saturday of this week. immediately after the 

~!~~R:J ~~~~~':'~~·~e.that the uunority report of such committee, if any, be 

1\Ir. SPEER. That is a very extraordinary proposition. 

1\Ir. GARFIELD. I object, if it will interfere with appropdatiun 

bills. 

On seconding the motion to suspend the rules tellers were ordered · and Mr. BuRROWS and Mr. SPEER were appointed. ' · The House divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 71, noes 77. 

So the motion was not seconded. 

1\lr. HAWLEY, of Illinois. I desire to amend the resolution so that 

the committee shall report on Friday. 

The SPEAKER. The resolution is not before the House. 

PUBLIC BUILDING AT BROOKLYN, NEW YORK. 

Mr. SCHUMAKER, of New York. I move that the rules be sus- pended and a bill passed directing the Secretary of the Treasury to 

report upon the necessity for a public building at Brooklyn, New 

York. 

The bill was read. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to re- port to Congress, at the beginning of the next session, whether the 

present neeilll of the Government require the erection of a public 

building at Brooklyn, New York, and the estimated cost of the same includin~ the site. ' ~Ir. SqHU~AKER, of New York. I_will say that the object of 

this b.J.~ IS f:<> l!laugnrate a ~ov~ment w1th a_ view t? the erection of a public building m the thud City of the Uruon, a City that has paid 

40,000,000 of taxes during the last ten years, and which paid over $4,000,000 last year. ~e m_er~ly 'Yant the Secretary of the Treasury 

to say whether a public buildmg 1s necessary at that place or not. 

On seconding the motion to suspend the rules tellers were ordered; 

and 1\I.r. SCIIUMAKER, of New York, and Mr. HAZELTON, of Wisconsin, were appointed.· The House divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 72, noes 51. 

So the motion to suspend the rules was seconded. 

The question was then put upon smpending the rules; and on a division there were-ayes 72, noes 71. 

So (two-thirds not voting in favor thereof) the rules were not sus- pended. . 

EVENll'iG SESSION FOR COMMITTEE ON Th'Y ALID PE~SIONS, ETC. 

1\-Ir. RUSK. I ask unanimous consent that there be a session tills. even_ing,_ commencing at half pa-st s_even o'clock, for the P1ll'POSe o.f 

cons1dermg reports from the coiDm.lttee on Invalid Pensions to be 

then made, and also such bills from that committee as may now be 

upon the Private Calendar. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I ask also that reports from the Committee on War Claims may be considered this evening. 

:Mr. RUSK. I must object, unless such reports are submitted after 

the Committee on Invalid Pensions have completed the work which 

they have. , Mr. HAWLEY, of illinois. I desire to say one word. Of course I 

h_ave n~ objection to the Commi_ttee on Invalid Pensions having the 

time which they ask. But I had rntended to a..sk the House some time 

before the close of this session to allow the various committees to be 

called for reports of a private nature, to be referred to the Committee 

of .the V?fiole on the Private Calendar. I th~ the gentleman from 

WISconsm [Mr. RusK] should name such a time when that may be 

done . 
5050 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE 16, 

fr. RUSK. After the Committee on Invaliu Pensions are through 

with their business I have uo objection to any other committee occu- pying the time of the House. 

.Mr. HAWLEY, of lllinois. Then I will a k that after the Committee on Invalid Pensions shall have concluded their :reports this 

eve.uing it may be in order to call the committees for reports of a private nature for reference to the Committee of the Whole on the 

I rivate Calendar. Mr. GARFIELD. No action whatever to be taken upon them f 

The SPEAKER. The Chair understands the proposition of the · guutleman to mean for reference only to the Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar. Mr. UA. WLEY, of Illinois. That is wLat I mean. No objection v.as made, and it was so ordered. 

WE TERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS. 

1\IT. BUTLER, of fa, achusetts, from the Committee on ~he Judiciary, by unanimous cou ent, submitteu a report npou sundry memo- rials antl charges in relation to alleged irregularities in the conduct 

of the United States officers connected ·with the western jutlieial district of Arkansas, and moved that the committee be discharge<l from 

t lJe furtlJer consideration of the subject, and that tho report be laid 

upon the table and ordered to be printed. 

No objection was mado, aml it was so ordered. 

SUGG FORT. 

l\Ir. BUTLER, of Teune.·see, moved that the rule ·bo su penueu ancl a joint re olution pa sell providing that the Commi 8ary-General shall 

hav ancl exercise jtuisdiction over the claim of Sugg Fort, of tL 

State of Tenne ee, for commis ary stores furni heel and u eu by tbe 

Fed ra.l Army; t-hat said Commi sa1-y-General hall examine aid 

claim, and award suclJ amount as he may deem just and right in tbe 

premise , and th~ amount, if any, that J10 shall find due to saiu .Fort 

shall be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated; and that tho aiel Commissn.ry-General shall -rec ive an papers and proofs now on file with Raid claim, and give them such 

weight as he shall d em a.nrl believe they ar entitled to as vidence 

iu theca e. 1\Ir. WILLARD, of Vermont. Is that tlJe report of any committee 1 

If not, it eems to me we .·honlu uot pa · it. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Tennes ee. \Vhy uot 1 

1\fr. GARFIELD. \Vhy f That is the Cluestion. 

1\fr. BUTLER, of Tenne see. This claimant merely a.sks that the 

Commi ·sary-General s!Jall have juriscliction over his claim. 

Mr. BECK. I ri e to a, parliamentary inquiry. It is, whether this 

is reported fi·om any committee 

The SPEAKER. The Chair is not informed. 

Mr. GARFIELD. It is not the report of a committee. 

Mr. BECK. Then I must object to private claims being put through 

in thi way. · The motion t.o suspend tlJe rules was not seconded upon a division-ayes 23, noes not counted. 

DRS l\IOL'\ES RIVER. LAND GUAl T1 IOWA. 

l\Ir. ORR. I ruov t.o suspend the rules and pass the following reso- lution : 

Resolned, That the Hon!Se resolve itself info Committ.eeof the Wholo for the rnr- pos of consitlerin~; tb Honst) bill o. 1142, entitled "A bill to authorize 'tlte 'ec· r tary of the Interwr to indemnify the holders of pre-emption and bomeKtea~l cer- titicates and certificates of ntry ancl patents upon lands in Iowa within the so- called Des .Moines River grant on ac.connt of failu.re of t.itlcs, and to procure a reli.nqui hment of the paramount titles to the United States. 

1\Ir. BECK. Is that the report oL• committee 7 

lr. ORR. The Commi ~tee 011 the Public Lantls have uuanimously 

reported this bill, which is now in Committee of the Whole, and t.he 

report accompanying the uill is printed and has been upon the tables 

of m muers for two months. 1\fr. BECK. Is the gentleman authorized by the committee to ask 

for the pa age of this re ·olution 

Mr. ORR. I am. \Ve have for a lon;; time endeavored to got this 

q_uestion np for consideration. I am willing to limit the uebate to 

two hotus. 

Mr. KASSON. Or to on6 hom. Mr. ORR. It is necessa,ry, of course, to make some statement in re- gard to ~he bill. 

Mr. BECK. I am only endeavoring to a. certain whether committees are to be allowed to report, or the time of the House taken up by 

propo itions fi·om individual members. · The question was taken upon seconding the motion to suspend the 

rules; anu upon a division there were-ayes 67, noes 32; no quorum 

votinO', 

Tellers were ordered; and Mr. ORR ~ncll\Ir . HOLUAN were a.ppoint d. The House again di viued; and the tellers reporteu that there were ayes 101, noes not counted. 

·So the motion wa econded, and (two-thinlsvot.ing iu favor thereof) the rule· were suspended and there ·olution adopted. The Hou. e accordi ugly resolved itself into Committee of the 'Vhole, 

(Ur. ELLIS H . ROBERT in the chair.) 

The CHAIRMAN. Tho committee by order of the House will now proceed to Cflnsiclerthe bill (H. R. No. ll42) to authorize the Secretary 

of the Iutt> n or to iuuo:uniiy the holders of pro-emption and lJorue-

• 

stea-d certificates and certificates of enti·y and patents upon lands in 

Iowa within the so-called Des Moine River grant on account of 

failure of titles, and to procure a relinq_nishment of the paramount 

titles to the United States . The bill was read. 

The first section provides that tue sum of $404,~28, or so much 

thereof as may be necessru-y, Le, antl the same is tlJureiJy, appropriated, out of any money iu the Trea ury not otherwi ·e appropriatou, 

to be used by the ecretary of the Interior for tho purpo e of secru·in,:; a relinquishment of the title to the lands lying north of tlJe Rac- coon Fork of the Des l\Ioine River, in the State of Iowa, which may 

be held by the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company, orp r- sons claiming title under it adver ely to persons holding said lu.nd ', 

either by entry or under the pre-emption or home t.eau laws of t.he 

United States, iu accordance with the report of the commi ionen~ 

appointed by the President of the United States, under the act of 

March 3, 1873, entitled "An act to authorize the Presiuent to at:~certain the valu of certain lands in the State of Iowa, north of the Racooo11 Fm·k of the De Moin s Hivor, held by settlers under the pr •- emption and home ·tead laws of the nited States. Tho second ction provide that the ocretru-y of the Iuterior shall 

require tlJe person· who e names are emuraceu in the report of saitl 

commissioners, or the person who may be found by examination to 

be entitled to the benefits of the .act by reason of the failure of title 

to the several parcels of land embraced in said report, to furnish 

proof of tho character of the claim or title to each of aid parcels of 

land; and when such proof how to the atisfaction of the Sec1·etary 

that the party malill1g tho same La comp)ied, o far as it wa in his or her power to do, with t.he law and rc.gurations for the acquisition of 

la,ntls of the public domain, and under which the ·aiu parties woultl 

in the ab e11ce of any conflicting ola.-im be entitled to receive an ahsolute title thereto, he shall cause to be paid a sum not to exceed in 

amount the appraised valne thereof, to the owners in ca es where a relinquishment to the Uuited States of their title can be procured for 

that amom1t, but otherwi'e the same a,monnt hall be paid to tbe 

persons ent.itling themselves to the same by making the proofs as aforesaid, taking the receipt of the said parties for the same, proviclecl, tlta.t a patent duly i ued in the reguJar form by the Pre ident 

of the Unitetl tates sh<.ll be conclru i ve evidence of a. compliance 

with the provisioll of the sec Lion relating to proof; and provided 

further, that in making payments unuer the provision of the a t, 

in all ca o · where the Governmellt price has not ueen paid by tlJe 

pm·chas r~ at the time of or subsequent to the entry of tbe ·ame, that 

amount shall be tleducted from tho amount at which uch land is ,appraisell by H~licl commi sioner , and payment, when matle nnder tlle 

provisions of tbe act shall be only of tlJe amount of such difi'erenc . Mr. ORR. I ha\e no ili position, Mr. Chairman, to occupy uuneces- sarily the time of the committee. I know the .pres ure which there 

is for the con itleration of cliftereut measures now before the Hous , but it is neces ary for me to make a short statement of the principle 

involveu in this Lill. · Making tha,t statement as shol't as I po · ·ibly 

can, I will then submit the question to a vote. 

This bill is for the relief of about three hundred and fifty settlers 

in Iowa, who have purcha ·ed lanus from the Government of the 

United States, orne of them having occupied them for twenty years 

and some for les time, the term of occupancy vru·ying from five to 

twenty years. More than fifty of these settlers have patents for their 

lands, others h<. ve pre-emption certificates, and still oth rs have homestead claims ; all of which have been declared by the upreme Cotut 

of the United States invalid, the court holding that the homes upon 

which these ettlers reside are the property of what is C<tlled the Des 

Moines River Navigation Company. · One of the earliest grants of land made by Congress for purpo es of internal improvement by the act approved August , 1846, entitled 

"Au act granting certain lands to the Territory of Iowa to aiel in the 

improvement of the navigation of the Des Moines River in saicl 

Territory." (Statutes at Large, volt~me 9, page 77.) 

This act was pa ed osten ibly in the interest of improvement, 

and was urged as a meastue having for its object the development of a new and uu ·ettled country. It contained nothing sugge ting a.u inference of a purpo ·e foreign to the plain provisions contained in it, 

and to all appearances it wa.s properly guardetl and ample to a - complish what it authors claimed, the making of the De Moines 

River navigable from its mouth to the point where the Raccoon 

River emptie into it. The uouation wa.'i a large one and of sufficient value, but was made upon insufficient information as to the 

practicability of the propo ed improvement, aud was exhausted in 

demonstrating the fa.ot that tlJe object of the legislation ·onltl not be 

attained, and that any attempt t.o make that river a navigable water- course was fruitless aud chimericaL 

The bill appropriated for that purpose a tract of land in alterna.te 

sections in a strip five miles wide ou each side of the 1·iver, whi ·h runs through the heart of tlJe Territory, and erubr&eing an extent of 

lands unsurpass ·d in beauty anrl fertility, moRtly covered with for- e ts of valuable timber, and underlaid with rich depo ·it of coal. 

Iowa was at that time an obscure and comparativety uulrnown Territory, and Congress in making this donation evicl ntly did not appreciate the importance of its action nor the great value of the gift. 

bestowed, nor the fact that this strip of land thus given away with so little ceremony would soon Lecomo tlJe homes of a vast population 

• 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5051 

And as if to avoid further tro-uble and stop any vexatious dispute 

about tills seemingly valuele s donation, a provision was inserted 

in the bill "that when the Territory should become.a State the land 

granted should become the property of the State for the purposes con- templated in the act, and no other." 

The bill was in four sections ; the three last, being only directory, are unimportant. The first section states the designs and objects of 

the bill and mn,kes the grant, and it is from the calamities which are the offspring of the ambiguities and obscure phraseology of this sec- tion that the people who have settled upon and bought the lands con- tained within this grant now seek through the penuing bill to be delivered. To make the history of this case as well as the remarks I intend to 

make more clearly understood, I quote from the act making the grant so much of the provision as contains the ambiguous language, the con- flicting interpretations upon which resulted in a serious train of evils. 

The act reads : 

That there be, and h<'r by is, granted to said Territory of Iowa., for the purpose of 

aiding sai<l Territory to improve the navirrat:ion of the D Moines Rive.r .from its 

1nouth to the Raccoon Fork(so-callcd) in sai'ilTerritory, oneeqnalmoietyin alternate 

sections of the public lands, &c., in a strip five mi)es in width on each side of said 

river, to be selected within said Terr-itory. 

The object of the bill is clearly defined to be to secure the improvement of the river from its mouth to a. definite point, which is situated 

not more than half-way up the river from it mouth to the northern 

line of the State; and there can be no doubt that it was the intention 

of Congress to make the grant coextensive with the improvement to 

be made by it. But the wording of the law, ofar as it relates to the 

selection of the lands, is left somewhat ob cure. That Congre s intended only to grant lands aa far up the river as the improvement was contemplated I think i evident from the 

fact that when the bill making the original grant was made the 

opinion of the Commissioner of the General Land Office was a ked 

upon the efl'ect of the proposed legislation, and he returned for his 

reply that it would grant lands only coextensive with the improvement, and made a statement of the number of acres it would take t.o satisfy the terms of the law, and this letter it i understood was quite 

influential in pa ing the bill. The Land Department maintained this con truction after the law was passed, and in it.s instructions to the 

local land officers permitted no lands to be s lecteu in satisfaction of 

said grant north of that point. But as the vils growing out of this 

grant have mainly b en the result of legi lation subsequent to the 

original act, it is only necessary to glance at the con tructions placed 

upon the first act in order to obtain a correct idea of the complicated 

history of this singul:tr case. The grant wa made while Iowa. was a Territory, but later in the same year she was admitted into the Union as a State, and soon after 

her Legislatme formally accepted the ti·ust and appointeu agents to 

select the lands, who, in the performance of their duties, followed th 

instructions of the department, and selecteu no lands above the limit 

of the proposed improvement. This construction formed the basis of action hoth by the State and 

the Uuited States for several yea-r , and wa nnd.oubteclly tl;te t 

one. 'l'hero being now no dispute about the extent of the grant, ooth 

the Rtate and the Government having acquiesced in this construction, 

the lands above the admitted northern limit of the grant were thrown 

open to settlement, and on the 19th day of June, 1 4B, the Pre ident 

i ned a. proclamation ordering them into market, appointing the sale 

to take place on the 16th of the following October. 

The fact that pre-emptions made upon these lands prior to the day 

of sale would hold them excluded from the operation of the sale, and 

the fact that these ]a.nds were among the best in the State, or in the 

entire West, being a belt of timber and coal lands, and of unsurpassed 

fertility, attracted to them a vast flood of settlers in search of homes, 

and they were rapidly filled up. 

The settler who went upon an odd-numbered section felt as secure as the one who went upon an even section, and both were alike recognized by the Land Office and accorded and believed to be entitleu to 

the same rights and in the enjoyment of the same departmental protection, and both in the same ignorance of the nt.t.er desolation in 

store for that section of country on account of the subsequent fatal 

change of construction and the congre ional acts by which the grant was afterward spread over them, covering them with its blight. 

Certificates of location were issued alike to claimants of the odd 

a.nd the even sections, and they were allowed without distinction, 

pending the proclamation for the sale, to prove np and pay for their 

pre-emptions. 

The Commissioner must, however, have entertained views inconsistent with his action in authorizing these lands to be proclaimed for 

sale, for it appears that previous to the proclamation and a-s earlv as the 23d of February, 1 48, he had written to the secretary of uthe 

board of public works which had been organized by the State, revers- ing the former deci..~ion of his office and expressing his opinion that 

the grant extended to the northern line of the State, extending it 

thereby some two hundred miles above the point to which t-he former 

decision bad ~d it. 

At once the board of public works, desirous of enlarging the grant 

to the utmost limit, sought a confirmation of this la.st decision and 

protested against the sale of any of the odd sections within the grant as thu e4ten<le<l.;utd enlarged beyond it-s former supposed limits. 

This prote t, hacked up and seconded at Washington by such influence as could be brought to bear, had t.he effect to procure a withdrawal of all the odd sections from the sale which had been alreauy 

proclaimed, and also a decision from the Secretary of the Treasmy, 

Ron. Robert J. Walker, confirming the construction last placed upon 

the law by the Commissioner, and sustaining the views of the protest 

made by the board of public works. 

Commissioner Shields had at the time the grant was made estimated the number of acres granted at two hundred and sixty-one 

thou and, but nuder this more liberal construction the grant, a.s shown 

by the repOI't of the Commissioner of the General Land Office to Con- ~re s made on \he 11th day of January, 1849, whlch was two months m advance of the announcement by Secretary Walker of his decision, was estimat.ed as nine hundred thousand acres. Notwithstanding this change of decision announced by the Commis ioner a-s early as February, 184 , no orderwasmadewithdrawin" 

the lands from sale until June 1, 1849, more than a year after tbi~ change hall been determined upon, during which time these laud::; were rapiilly filling up with ettlers. This construction of the law was adhered to until the organization 

of t.he Interior Department, with Mr. Ewing a-s Secretary, and the 

tran fer of the Land Bureau to that Department, and this question 

b ing submitteu to him he I'evei. ed the decision of :Mr. Walker, and 

the grant was again limited to the Raccoon Fork and made to con- form to he limits of the improvement. 

From this deci ion the beneficiaries of the grant appealed to the 

Pre ident, who referred it to the Attorney-General, Hon. Reverdy 

John on, who gave an opinion diife:ring from that of Mr. Ewing; but 

before its publication the death of General Taylor can ed the dis o- lution of the Cabinet and the retirement from office both of Mr. Ewin cr 

and Mr. Johnson, who e place were filled in the formation of a. ne; one by Mr. Stuart a Secretary of the Interior and Mr. Crittenden as Attorney-General. 

This question was submitted to :Mr. Crittenden, and he, taking an oppo ite view to that of Mr. Johnson, decided that the grant only 

extendeu to the Raccoon Fork, but was overruled by the Pre ident anu Cabinet, to whom the ma,tter bad been referred, which rendered a decision in favor of the claim of the State and rever ing that made 

by Mr. ·Ewing. Following this action the Interior Department proceeded to certify the lands above the disputed point for the benefit of 

the improvement. 

During all this time the State, through its board of public works, wa endeavoring to pro ecute this improvement, and did so until the 

year 1~4, when she made a contraot with the corporation called the 

De Moines Navigation and Railroad Company, but in that country more familiarly known as the River Company, as for convenience I 

shall hereafter designate it. To this company the State was to convey the lands of this grant, 

and in retmn therefor it was to complete the improvement, estimated 

to cost $1,300,000. 

. The State ceased to have any interest in the grant except a-s trn•-

tee for the company and her natural desire to obtain the improvement intended, and the company became interested in the enlargement of the grant to the greatest possible extent and in performing 

the work for the least po sible amount of money or in being exon- eraLed from doing it at all, provided it could be still allowed to retain the consideration. 

To the accomplishment of the e several oujects the energies of the 

company were thenceforth a iduously directed, and with abundant succe s, as the sequel wil1 show. 

Mr. Johnson, the late Attorney-General, who had expre sed such 

liberal opinions as to the extent of the grant while in office, became 

the attorney of the company, and under his adroit management it 

affairs seem to have been conduct.ed to the attainment of results 

which must have been highly gratifying to its stockholders. Having obtained pos ession of the grant, the fulfillment of the con- ditions imposed occasioned the company but little concern, for it re- quired le~s effort and expense to get relieved of the performance of 

th m by congressional action than to perform them. 

Of the fifty-two dams contemplated in this improvement ouly two were ever completed, ana.they in such a manner that they became an obstruction mther than a help to the navigation of the river ; and 

when in 1856 Mr. McClelland, who had become Secretary of the Interior, ;refused to certify ~ny more lands, the C?mpany declined to pro- ceed With the work and effected a settlement With the State, con:firmin rr 

to it all the lands thus far certified, and establishing the baAis upo~ 

which any legislation which might be obtained favorable to the State 

should inure to the benefit of the company. In this settle~ent is foreshadowed the tactic~ of the company, which were to secure title to the lands, so far as certified, and obtain all t-he 

inter st of the State resulting from any subsequent leO'islation anu transfer to other shouluers the buruen of the improvement. ' 

A railroad company had been organized to construct a road alon•,. 

thi iUenticalst.rip of land, which was willing to t ake there idue of 

tJ:e .grant not alrea~y ce~tified and deeded to ~he River Company, to 

a1drn the construction ohts road, a.nd·'hence this settlement provided : 

That if Congress shall permit a. diversion of the lands of said De.<! Moines PJ.ver grant, or the ti~e ther~t~ shall become vested in tJ1e State so as to become snbject 

~~~:.~~allb~~er~:d~£~~00~~ ~~~ti:eM~f!e~~t~~~~!~~~ ~~~~ <..:ompa.ny, to aid in the construction of a. railroad np and along the Des Moines River . 

• 
5052 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE 16, 

This part of the agree.ment wa upon the condition that Congr 

RhonlU as ent to it, but it is not difficult to ee what such assent 

would imply, or how the R.iver Company should gajn by it. It implied an abandonment of the improvement of the river, but gave the omp~n:v all the lands thu far certified, amounting to over six huntlreu thousand acres, for the small amount of work it had done on it. 

It gave the company any possible intere t the State might have in 

any future legislation of Congress touching tbis grant, and the power 

to use the name of the State to secure enactment for its own ben fit. 

And thus unloaded of all liability imposed by the grant, it woultl 

lJ left free to enhance its own interest by ~my means its agent or a ttorneys might uggest, and to that end th y for everal years va - cillated between Congr s aud the Legislature of the State, and 

finally s cured the a ent of Congre to this arrangement by an a.ct 

pas ed J nly 12, 1 62. In the mean time, however, a. new complication ent.ered into this 

que tion, for on the 15th day of May, 1856, Con~re granted lands to 

aid in the construction of four railroads through the State running 

from east to west, three of which pa · s through the riv-er grant cutting it at right n.ugles, since its g neral direction was from north to 

south. 

The river grant was ten miles in width while the raih·oad grant 

were each fift.een miles in width, o that at the crossing of each a quantity of lands embraced within a. rectangle ten by fifteen miles 

in extent was covered by both grant . At the time of the passage of 

this grant to the railroad companies tho e land were all held by the 

D partment to belong to the River Company, and it title was gon r- ally acquiesced in; bnt to remove all tloubts a provision was ins rted 

in the grants to the railroads, intended to ex pre ly exclude them from 

the beuefil; of any claim to lands on their liue within the river grant, 

which reads: 

That any and all lands heretofore re erved to th United, tates by any aet of Congr s or in any other manner by competent authority, for the purpos~ of aiding in 

auy object of internal improvement, or for any other pnrp e whatsoever, be, and 

th same is hereby, res rved to the United :States from the op ·ration of this act. 

Thi provision wa suppo eel to ueacomplete and ample protection 

to the title of the River Company, which hade ·tablished an office and was ellin~ and conveying these lands a fa t as it coultl find ptu·-

chasers ana the Department had certified them. 

The railroad companies, notwithstandingth provision auove CJ.UOted, re ·ol ved to conte t with the River Company tho ownership of these 

land o far a they fell within their rc peotive grants, and a ca e was taken to th Supreme Conrt by thoDuhuque and Sioux Cit.yRailroad Company in an action in which Etlwin C. Litchfielll, a grante 

of the River Company was mad a-party, and the court decided that 

Litchfield had no title becau ethegrantto th River Company, under 

which h e claimed, difl not extend above the Raccoon Fork. 

This wa the first judicial con trnotion of the extent of this grant, 

and rever ed the ruling of tho Departm nt under which these land 

had b en certifietl. 

This would have been a finality of thi qu tion so far as the 

River Company is concern<'d, and a happ consummation so far as the s ttlers were interestetl, ha.<l the matter r ted here and no subsequent 

1 gi lation been ought or obtained in the ma.tt r. The River Company, in obetlience to this deci ion, ceased to pay 

taxe upon the ·e lands or exercise any acts of owner hip over them. 

And although the conrt did not pa upon the title of the railroad 

companies, yet it deci ·iou was so accepted and the land were beli ved to have pa etl to them, and the Interior Department und r thi belief certified them t.o the railroatls notwithstanuing it had 

formerlv certified them to the River Company. Office~ for the sale of these lands were established by the railroafl 

companie , and many parties who had once bought their lands of the 

River Company now bought the same laml again of the railroad companies. The fifteen-mile limit of th railroad grants diu not cover the en- tire number of ect.ions in the river grant, and there remained within 

it about seventy thou and acre which w re not. reached by the last 

grant. This land had been certifiecl to the River Company and wa not 

contested by t he railroads, for it :was ontsirl.e of their limits, but the 

Supreme Court had decided that as it w~ not in the river grant it 

was improperly certified under it. 

The first effort of this corporation was directed to the acCJ.uisition 

of this land and the attainment of u h congre. ional action as would validate the e certificates, so far as they did not conflict with 

. tho e made to the railroaa companie ·. With this suppo eel intention and mode tly disavowing any design 

beyond that, the company ecmed the pa a(l'e by Congre in 1861 

of a :r;esolution entitled u.A. joint re olntio.::t to quit-title to lands in 

the State of Iowa," intended by Congre to have the scope and effect 

above indicated, aud the action wa thou,....ht to be fair and equitable, 

inasmuch as it would, a · far as Congr had the power, correct an error of the Department and enlarge the grant only by the addition of 

lands to which no other claim oould attach. Jt.s passage was urged on the ground that the State, in the belief that she had the right to 

<"lo o, had sold the e lands to actualsettlel·s, who were supposed to nave occupied them as purchasers of the State and whose failure of 

title would he cured by this action of confirmation to the State, and 

in order to r emove a.ny doubts as t.o its effect the resolution was worded so as to apply to lands held by "bona fide pnrchase1's under tke 

• 

State of Iowa/ and the e words were in erted, as the discussion on the 

pas age of this resolution bows, for the prote tion of actual ettler . But Congre s acted upon insufficient as w ll as erroneous infor- mation, and the language inserted as a afeguard had an operation 

exactly the reverse of what wa· intended. The tate had not old any of these lands to aetna 1 s >ttl r ·, bnt 

harl. convoyed the ntire grant. so far a certified-and hen e as far as this resolution :would apply-to the River Company. If any ettler 

occupi d any part of thi land he had bonrrht it of the Ri,or om- pany or of the Goverument prior to it withfuawal from pre-emption 

entry, and if he had bought of the Government and his pr -emp· tion wa conte ted by the company thi re olution ditl not prote<:t 

him, bnt ilid protect bonafide purchaser from the tate, of which th re wa but one, and that was the River Company. 

But this re olution had a much witler scope or pnrpo ·e than to · mue the fragment of land falling outside of the railroad grant". It had a de ign far beyond the penetration of the Congre which 

pa edit ; and while it seemed applicable only to the sev nty thouand acr s not in conflict, yet it actually r linqui bed to the tat , for the use of it grantee , the ntire grant, and cured the erron on action of the Department in certifying them to the River Company. 

It made it title ab olute to the lauds not in conte t, and as to the 

remaiml r dependent only upon such jmlicial decision or congr - ional action a might be ecured to invalidate the claim of the railroa(l company to them. It onferred upon the tate all interest the 

nited States retained in thi' grant; autl although based upon th 

uppo ition that the great majority of it had pa · ed to the railroad 

ompanie, the application of th common-law rule, that an afteracquired title inures to the b ne:fit of the (l'rante , would at once iuv t the River Company with an ab olute titl to all of it the mo- m ut that of the rail,road company should be declar d invalid. 

In thi suppo ed ettlement of thi CJ.Ue tion all parties appeared to 

acqui ce. The River Company c a d to as rt any ownership over auy of the e lantls inside of the railroad limi · but, ielded to tb 

laim of the adverse owner , ccascu to pay taxe , or protect the timber or coal upon them. The railroad compaui umed thi ·own rship, ·old and conveyed the lands, and located towns upon them, and 

cut and u ed the timber upon them in the con truction of their roads 

with that freedom which would very naturally result from a b lief 

in an ab olnte and unquestioned owner hlp of them. 

In the next year, 1 62, this River Company again invoked Con(J're · for more legislation on this qu tion, but for what purpose or what rea ous were 1uge l for it doe not appear, for the ::wt was pa ed without debate. It object was made appar nt when afterwarll, in 1 '64, 

the Snprome Court pa ed upon its pro\-rision . It extend d the grant 

of 1846 o a to cover the entire belt of land up to the northern line 

of the tate, and, except as to the right of the oro s-:railroad companie ,recognized the larg st laimeverur~ed bytheRlver Company ll · valid, and gav it tho land of which it nad b en depriv (l b the 

upreme Court in the "Litchfield ca e." It gave the a ent of Congre to the diversion of the uncertifi.eu portion of the grant to the 

Keokuk, Fort Des Moines and :Minne ota Railroad Company, which ~ en prepared for and foreshadowed in the joint re olution of the 

Stare Le(l'islatnre of 1t358, before referred to. It gave the company 

2D7,GOO acres of l..:'md as indemnity for that amount certified to tb 

railroad companies, but which would have otherwi e inured to it by 

virtue of this enlargement of it original grant. And it provid dindemnity for any po ible reduction of the amount of its full claim by 

any cause whatsoever. 

' ith the pas age of this act the final preparation of the company 

for testing its rights and tho e of its adversaries was consummated, 

and re-enforced by this supplementallegi ln.tion it again went to the 

Supreme Court of the United.Sbates ina cause which brought directly 

in is ue the validity of the title of the several railroad companies to 

land certified a inuring under their everal grants within the en- larg d limits of the river grant whore it wa cro ed by them. 

A tract.of land thus situated within the river grant was conveyecl 

by the River Company to Samuel G. \Valcott. The same tract wa also 

within the grant to the Dubuque and Sioux City Railroad and claimed 

by that company, and si11ce the decision in th Litchfielfl. case th 

latter claim had been by the Government recognized as valid, and n thattheoryWalcottbronght ultagain ttheRiverCompanyforbr ach 

of covenant and alleged failure of title. Tho court decided that there wa..s no failure of title ; that the several railroad companies took no title by virtue of the grant to them in 1 56 to any lands vvithin the 

limits of the De Moines River grant . In it review of the laws bearing 011 this CJ.Ue tion the court in thi cas di po es of the clajm of the raili·oads upon the land in a few 

·entence , and decides that the provi o in the act of 1856, to which I 

have heretofore alluded, op rated to expre ly exempt the e lantls 

from the provision of tha.t act, and fru·ther ay : 

That in reacting it in connootion with the act of 1846 we think it cli.fficnlt tor Ri:;t 

the onclusion that Con•rre · in the passage of this pronso had sp cia.lly in tbcir 

minds this previous grant. 

For this decision the River Company had fully provided, as we have bown, by the joint resolution of 11361 and th.,._act of 1 t.i~ . By 

the terms of the latter act the gmnt had been extenaed to the north- ern line of the State, and the construction upon the orlRinal grant of 

1 46 by the Supreme Court, limiting it to the Raccoon } ork, avoided. U uder the joint resolution of 18()1 the lands thus addetl to tho original 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5053 

grant were confirmed to the State for the benefit of its bona fule purchasers, and the River Company alone occupied that relation. 

The decision of the coul't in the Walcott ca ·e and the construction 

given by it to the several acts of Congress affecting this grant would ltO doubt have been final and would have 11een acquiesced in by the 

Department in the dispo ition of these lands had any question been 

raised dmingthis whole controversy involving therights of pre-emption or homestead claimants of any of them, or the right of any settler claiming tmder the Government; but no such case had yet been 

adjudicated, and in all thi legislation the rights of settlers bad been left sinooularly unprotected. It would seem after this decision that 

the duty of the Deps.rtmen.t would be phtin in its further disposition 

of these lands, aud so I concede it would, had not a new complication 

entered into it. 

The State, grown tired of this vexatious di_spute, which was ha,ra s- ing and likely to ruin many of its citizens, and the River Company, 

annoyed by the uncertain tenme by which it held its claim upon 

them and desirous to avoid the disposition to lawle,sness manife ted 

toward it by many settlers on the lands, concluded to bring the whole 

matter to a final arbitration and adjustment with the Government; 

and accordingly the State, prior to the decision in the Walcott c::tBe, 

had appointed an agent and given him power to proceed to Wa bington and make a final settlement with the Secretary of the Interior of 

thi whole ma-tter. He performed that duty and made with the Secretary of the Interior such a settlement, binding the State and through 

it the River Company, to take in full satisfaction of its claim under 

all the acts of Congre s relating to this grant a stipulated amount of 

land amotmting to 558,004 acres, of which the lands claimed by the 

railroad companjes did not constitute any portion. 

This land the settlement conceded to the railroad companies, ant.l 

the Government gave, and the River Company accepted in. lieu of it, an equal quantity in another part of the State. 

This is the contingency for which the act of 1862 heretofore referred 

to bad so shrewdly provided. 

This settlement was ratified by the Government through the Sec- retary of the Interior, by the Legislature of the State, and agreed to 

by the company. 

Each party having taken every step nece sary to make the contract 

binding and by it the River Company having solemnly relinquished 

its claim to all the land involved in this controver y, the whole con- test was considered at an end. This settlement wru:~ made in May, 

1 66, and the Walcott decision was ma.de at the Decem!Jer term of 

the same year. Upon the announcement of this decision by the Supreme Court it 

became incumbent upon the Secretary of the Interior to again decide 

upon tbe status of the lands held by the railroad companies, whose 

titles under the deci ion had failed. 

It was evident that the effect of the decision wonJd have been to 

restore them back to the River Company's grant; but it, through the 

State, ha,djust conoluded a settlement by which it had agreed to a satisfaction of it entire claim by taking other lands for them, and 

hence in the opinion of the Secretary it was barred from making any 

claim it might have under the resolution of 1861 or the act of 1 62; 

and he decided that they became a part of the public domain and subject to homestead and pre-emption settlement. 

Persons holding pre-emptions upon some of these lancls desiring to 

prove up and obtain patents for them presented themselve at the 

local land office and were allowed to do so, and on appeal to the 

Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Browning, the pre-emptions were held 

good and the tract ordered patented. Following this the Secretary 

of the Interior ordered the local land officers to admit pre-emption 

and homeste-ad applications upon these land , and upon being soon after notified that the River Company had enjoined them from carrying out the order of the Secretary, he ordered them to disregard the 

injunction and continue to receive the applications. The Secretary, 

confident of the correctness of his position, adhered firmly to his 

order allowing the e lands to be taken up by settlers, and it was in 

obedience to the instructions at this time issued that the majority of 

the claims were made which afterward proved invalid, and for the 

failure of which relief is sought by the pending bill. These entries were all taken in the usual way and allowed by the authorized officers 

of the Government who acted under the mandatory order of the Secretary of the Interior, and t he pmchasers of them complied with 

every requirement the law imposed to perfect their entrie . Althou~h the Supreme Court had made two decisions upon questions arismg out of this grant, in neither of them hacl the validity of a title to a settler derivetl under a pre-emption entry or a direct purchase from the Government been involved. In the case of Hannah Riley vs. William B. Welles, which was tried 

at the December term, 1869, the court held the title of the company 

good a~ainst the plaintiff, who had derived her title by a pre-emption 

which had been proved up and patented to her by the department. 

In this ca e the court ru regarded the settlement made between the 

Government and the State and gave the company the lands in place, 

although it had previously taken other lai).ds as indemnity for them. 

It held the title of the company absolute again t all classes of claimants, and in the several cases which followed this one the same positions were maintained and reiterated. Under this ruling all entries 

in conflict with the grant to the River Company _have been vacated 

~nd the lands pa eel to that company. The patents which had been 1 sued to settlers have been canceled. 

These lands are all occupied by settlers who have spent years iu 

their improvement and the erection of comfortable houses a homes for their families. Actnated by the belief that they were ecme in 

theil' occupancy and their titles were perfect, they have devoted themsalves more to their permanent improvement than to cultivation for 

imme<liate profit. Deer e have been render_ed again tali of them, 

and notices served informing them that writ will soon i ne for their 

forcible ejectment from them. This decision h::tB been followed in the 

several ca e upon which the Supreme Court ha ince passed, but it was not until the last term of the comt that all hope of getting it 

reversed was entirely abandoned by the settlers; bnt this same question having now been so often aecided, it wonJd seem usele s to expect 

relief through that means. It is in my opinion usele to expect that an opinion so often reiterated by the comt will ever be changed; but 

these unfortnnate settlers must submit to be driven from their homes or pnrchase them of the River Company, which, for want of means, a majority of them aTe utterly unable to do. 

The e persons, as shown by Executive Document No. 2.5, of this ses- sion, are all actual residents upon the lands they claim, who have 

made theil' entries in good faith, and strictly in compliance with the 

regulations and deci ions of the Interior Department. They hold the 

patents or certificate of the Government containing it promise to 

give to each of them a title to the land be claims. That promise the 

Government has now no power to fulfill for the reason that the Supreme Court says that the lands which she sold to the ettiers she had 

already granted away to another. 

The question now pre en ted by this bill is whether the Government 

will in some measure protect the persons who hold her violated promises and upon which they have so long relied. The errors of which . these people were the victim were not theirs, for they have made no claim not _sanctioned by the Land Department, but were those of 

Congres or the officers who e duty it was to execute its laws. 

Had the act of 18(31 never been passed the lands under the decision 

in the Litchfield ca e could never have gone to the River Company, 

and had not the act of 1 G2 been pas·ed the grant would have been 

forever limited by that de ision o as not to include these lands. 

And whether Secretary Browning did or did not err in giving validity 

to the settlement to which the company ha-d agreed is not a question now necessa1·y to discus , for he was overruled by the tribunal of L<t t 

resort, which seems to have given no consideration to it, but in violation of it gave the company the lands they had relinquished. 

llad the errors committed by Congress ended here the Government 

might still have retained out of this grant enough to remunerate 

the e settlers for the homes they had lost, for this grant was not yet all beyond 1·each. It will be remembered that the compa.ny had taken under the settlement indemnity for the lands it had relinquished to the contesting 

railroad companies, and afterward nndert.he ·walcott decision it obtained the lands in place, and it became apparent that it could not 

hold both without additional legislation. The attorneys of the com- pany proved equal to the emergency and secured the desil'ed con- gres ional action, the effect of which was to give the company tl1e 

last acre of the land, including the indemnity, and leave the settlers 

nothing out of which any protection might be derived for them. 

At the clo. e of the Forty-first Congrel!ls a bill prepared by them was passed which no doubt owed its passage to its deceptive title. It has been aid that we use language for the purpose of concealing our ideas, but I am of the opinion, derived from a study of the e~is

lation in this case, that it can be with the same propriety said tnat 

titles are given to bills for the purpose of concealing their objects or intentions. It was entitled "An act confirming the title to certain 

lands." 

I do not believe a single member of the House understood the im-. port of that bill, but all understood that it wa merely to correct an error of the Department. It eftect was to give the company the two 

hundred and ninety- even thousand acres of land certified to it as indemnity for that much land it had relinquished after the relinquished land had been given to it by the decision of the court, or in other words it gave the company the lands in place and the inclentnity also. It gave the company six hundred thousand acres of Janel, 

and at the same time rati.lied its agreement to take ill full satisfaction half that amount. The Supreme Court was soon afterward 

called upon to put a construction upon this act, in a cause decided 

at the December term, 1 >72, known as the Homest ad case, in which 

Justice Davis says : 

Although the ratification of the a.Ujnstment and the grant to the Valley road 

would seem to be inconsistent acts, yet Congress with full knowledge on the subject, on the 3d of March, 1871, confirmed the title to the State and its gran~. 

Continues Mr. Davis: 

Congress therefore, with full information that the State of Iowa was not entitlt>d to these indell1Ill~ lands by rea. on of any previons legislation, thought proper nevertheless to g~ve them to the State. 

With this act ends a long series of legislative acts and departmental 

and judicial decisions, which combined have operated to give away over one million acres of the best lands in Iowa, receiving w bat proved 

in the end to be· no con ideration whatever, and to include among 

them those lands which the Government has sold and patented or cer-
5054 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE 16, 

tified to actual settlers, and in all the e many tran actlons this cia 

of persons seems to have been overlooked and forgotten. 

To secure justice to these settlers is the object of this bill. They 

have occupied these lands umler the solemn sanction of the General 

Land Office, from which many of them have received pateut iu due 

form. Upon th e patents and certificate they ha e relied for ear , 

and believing them elves protecteu by them they hav invc t d all 

their means and spent all their la.bo1: in improving them. In these 

homes these })eople have their entire wealth, and as their titl s have 

failed through no fault of theii it i the solemn duty of the ov- mment to see that they shall not ue driven from them. l\ir. PARKER, of Missouri. Will the gentleman yi ](l to. me for an inquiry! 

Mr. ORR. Yes, siT. !t!r. PARKER, of Missouri. I simply wish to get a ri~ht UJ1dersianding of this ca e in order to support it if I can and if 1t is l10wn 

to me that it is just. I want the gentleman to expl::tin to the House 

how we can, a a deliberative bouy, alter refusing yesterday to pay 

for land for which we have refu eu to pay for fOity-four year 'vot.e 

consistently to pay for tho e lanu in reference to which there i not 

any more hone t claim than in the other case. If the gentleman can explain that I hope he \\ill. 

.Mr. ORR. I do not wish to cliscuss the Choctaw claims in connec- tion with this matter. I uo not know but the Hou e have <lone many 

t.hings which it ought not to have done. ~!r. LA. WRENCE. The two ml!Ltter have no connection with one another. 

Mr. HARRIS, of l\ia sachusetts. Will the gentleman yielU to me for a question 

1!r. ORR. I have no objection to i 1ding for a question, uut I 

de ire to occupy as little as po sible of the time of the committe in 

pr senting this case. l\ir. HARRIS, of Massachusetts. I wish to ask the g ntleman 

whether the bill contemplates the payment of a gr ater sum to the e sett.lers than they have paid to the Go ernment 1 

!.h. ORR. It does. I will come to that by and by, and exp ct to 

explain it. Now, I believe I have tateu how the e })artie got i.uto 

po ssion of th lanus. They are on the e lanus with the authority 

of th Government. The accredited officer of the Government have 

allowed them to make these settlements. They have r lied npon 

ihem for year ; and not only that, but they relied upon them nn<ler ti.J ueci ion of officers who were uppo ed to know wllaL tlt y were deciiling. I a ·k the committee if the different ecretaries of the Iut rior and the judge of the Snpreme Court w re to di.fi' r, a they 

have differ 'd in I'egrtru to whether this was Government lanu, or whetller it beiongeu to the grant- I will a k how a settler, who never Looks beyond hi c rtificate, never look beyond the office iu which 

L .·ecures hi title, is to know whether the land is Governm nt lanu or not T It i enough to ay that the decision of ecretary .Browning was ovenuled by the upreme Court. Mr. CONGER. Why uo you not bring in a bill determining the 

right of the ttlers a against this navigation·company f 

lr. ORR. B cause the Supreme Court has uecideu that the title wa ab olute, anu we cannot set aside a decision of the Supreme 

'ourt. The property belongs to the company, and it has been so de-

·ided by the uprerne Court. That de ision I do not under tand that 

thi House ha any authorit.; to set aside. This Hou e ha authority 

to grant relief to these parties. An l the e parties having r Jj ·d on 1he promise of the Government for fifteen years, it e ms to me it 

would be unworthy of the Government of the United State , wh n the e partie come and pre ent their patents and t k their hom , to 

make to them the reply of hylock, and ay that it is not o nominated 

in the bond. ow let m say a word as to the que tion propounded to me in regard 

to the amount of consideration. A a legal propo ition I aumit that 

the e parties have not the kind of claim which would enable them to 

collect in a court of the United States what thi bill gives them. As a legal question the man who entered his land at 1.25 per acre fifteen 

years ago could enforce the repayment to lrim of that '1.25. But what 

relief is that to a man who went in the prime of life on his land 

twenty year ago, paid his 1.25 per acr , improved it, and at t'h end 

of twenty years finds his patent void \Vhat adva..utag is it to him 

that under such circumstances he houlu be allowed to go to the 

Treasury of the United States to draw hi 200 for his quarter- ction 

.At the last session of Congre s a bill wa pa ed and became a law 

providing for the appointment by the President of a commission com- posed of three men. for the purpo e of a certaining the value, exclu- ive of improvements, of such tracts of land within thi gr"a.nt as had 

been sold to actual ettler whose title had failed. 

This•commis ion was appointed in pur uance of this ad, and have 

ili ·charged the duty as ~ned them, and their report has 1.1 en presented to the House, and IS Executive Document No. 25. 

They have faithfully performed the trust and scrnpulouilly protected the interests of the Government, by placing upon tll6 lands a moderate estimate a to its va.Iue as well a by excluding from th ir 

list all cases which were not of undoubted merit. The valne they 

have in all cases placed below that :lt which they can be obtained 

from the owners. lilr. WOODFORD. Does this propose to pay for the improvements as well as for the lands f 

Mr. ORR. This does not include any payment for improv ment . The commis ioners were required to apprai e the Janel exclu ive of 

improvem uts. Of course if the parties weredispo. R etl they would 

have a right mlCler the occupying cbimants law of Iowa to recov r for their improvements "from the River Compa.ny; but we all know 

how it i . H~re i a weal1h~co~poration, with attorneys mployed by 

the ear, w bile each ettler IS smgle-handecl and alone, n eel all his 

earnings for the improvement of his lanu, and a loug litiga.tiou would mean ruin and bankruptcy to him. 

Mr. BARBER. Will the gentl man allow me to a k him a qu tion f 

lli. ORR. Certaiiily. 

Mr. B.AJl.BER. uppo e a homesteader ba gone on there nncler a mi take of the land office and ha acqnir cl a home tead. on the e lands 

and ha never paid the Government one dollar anu has be n onsted; 

is it right thD.t th Government should now turn round and pay him 

the appraised value of that land, when they have ne r r ceived oue dollar from him f 

Mr. ORR. Of course it is rigbt. It i not a mere con. illeration of 

money. It makes very little diff renee whether a man paid 200 ten 

yeai ago or not. He is ou ted from his home and he ha r lied on his homestead certificate, when he had that certificate from the reo·i - ter and receiver indorsed by the Commis:sioner of Public Lands j~st a~ much as though he had paid 200 for his land. ' 

Mr. KASSON. It is the Gov rnment perfecting a title, just as in 

the Mi i ippi ca es. 

Mr. G. F. liOAR. Before the gentleman passes from that point I 

desire to ask him a question, anu it is this; Doe not thi bill invol e the establi hment of the principle in our legislation that when th 

Government sells land to settler for a nominal price, till it i calleu 

upon to make crood the title to that land at any future time wh n that land may have increa. ed in value or to pay the actual value of 

the land, and do the gentleman consider that a }WOper principle to 

establish T uppo e the Govemment sells land for $1.25 an acre, or the mere expense of surveying all the public lands throughout the entire 

unoccupied region of country; are we to accompany that ale, which 

is a substantial gift to the settlor, with the principl that it i a war- rantee de d, o hat whenever in the future the title fail , although 

the value of the land ha risen one hundred or a thou and fold we are to paythewholevalueat t.hetimethemanisoustedf ' 

Mr. ORR. In reply to the gentleman from ~fa ·achus tts [Mr. G. F. HoAR] I have this to say, tlh'tt thi is a peculiar a . I have no uoubt that m t ca e of conflict of title are . ttled by the D partrnent Bnr an . Bnt this i a ca e involving the claim of about thr e hnndr d and fifty settler, who claim their titles all in 1.ho same way. 

Their hardships have been brouCYht upon them by a uUstake, not by a clerical mi take of the Department, lmt a m~stak of law. Th 

ecret:1ries of the Interior and the Commi ioners of the General Land 

Office hav differed in their con tructions of the law, and the ettler 

having acted nuder the direction of the Commis ioner of the General Land Offi e in one ca e, and that action having b en rever ed 

by other ommi · i.oner , an<l finally by the Supreme onrt of th 

United tate , I have no h itation in aying that in ncb ca e it 

wonlll be right toe tabli~:~h the prec dent that the e p ople should b 

pail! as thi bill propo es. 

In the year 1 02 Georgia ceded her territory ·itnateu in what is now the tate of Mi is ippi to the niteu States. · This ce · ion included 

land which the Legislature of G orgia had solu to evera.l land com- panie for what appear to be a mall con id ration. The e land 

compaui old the land to ot.h r parties. The State of Georgia afterward repealed the act bywhlch the ale to thee land companieswa 

made, aud it i aiel the more effi ctually to remove th vidence of it 

from the power of use, the record of the tran action w re de troyed 

by fire drawn from heaven by means of a sun-glass. The United Stat shaving ace pted from the State of OeorCYia this 

territory, proceeded to dispo e of it to tho e who uesh d to purchase 

thee lands. 

The upreme Conrt in theca e of Fletcher vs. P eck (7 Cranch, 16G) 

held the ~rant by the State of Georgia to the land companie · goo4l, 

and that 1ts repeal by the L gi -lature did not de troy the rights of 

innocent purcha rs from th m; and ben e the title of tho e to whom 

tbe Uniteu tate sold these lan<ls failerl, ancl Congre., maue an appropriation of :3,000,000 to procure a relinquishment of th title of 

claimant unller the land companie . Thi r lief wa based upon equitable and not npon pnre1y legal 

grounds, as the report in that cas will show. Another preceuent is furnished from Ohio, circumstances of which are the e: \Vhen Virginia ceded to the United State her we t m territory she di<l ·o under the belief that 1he military warrant she 

had previou ly issn cl could all be locate(l on the outh iue of th 

Ohio Ri er, but provided that if the e lands hould prov insufficient 

to ab orb all the e warrant the re idne of them sbo.ulu b · locaterl 

on lanll between the Miami aud cioto Riv rs in Ohio, which wns set apart a a re ervation for that pu.rpo e, and to u termi.ue the 

extent of this r ervation a line, known as Ludlow's lin , wa run from the source of the l\iiami to the nearest point on the ioto Tiiver. 

Subsequently a new boundary lin of the reservation was e tablished, 

known as Roberts's line, which ran from the source of one river to the source of the other, and included about fifty-five thousand acres more .land than the· former survey, a large portion of which tho 

Unlted States had sold to settlers. 

·- '' '! 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5055 

The Supreme Court held in the case of Dod.ridge's Lessees vs. Thomp- son & Wright (9 Wheaton, 469) that the latter was the true bound-

:uy; that the ettlers to whom the Government ha<l old the e lands 

hatl no title. Congre s made an appropriation May 26, 1 30, which wa u e<l to puroha e the superior title and procure a relinqni hment 

to the United States of the same in fa.vor of the settlers to whom he 

ha<l soltl them. ' 

In this case tbe legn,l rule which only require<l the return of the 

purchase-money was not applied, bnt the value of the land exclusive 

of improvements was ascertained by a commission,· and the assess- ment put by them upon the several tracts of land was pn,id, regardless of its originn,l co t, in order that the covenants of the Government should remain unbroken with it own purchasers. 

.Mr. SU.ALL. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a que tion' 

Mr. ORR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SMALL. It is whether these settlers, for whom this relief is 

asked were upon tllese ln,n<ls at the time tills grant wa made in 

1846' 

Mr. ORR. No; there were no settlers on the lands then. 

Every consideration of equity, justice, and right dictates the passu,go of this bill. To do so is to make good the sacred promises of the 

Government now violate<l, an<l secure to over three llun<lred families 

the homes they have long thought their own. To refuse it is ruin 

u,nd bankruptcy to them, and a lasting disgrace to the national 

honor. 

During the examination of tllis bill by the committee the opinion 

of the late Commis ioner of Pnblic Lauds was askeu upon it, an<l I 

will close my remarks by semling to the Clerk's desk to be read a portion of his reply touching the propriety of the pa sage of this bill, a part of which I now ask tlle Clerk to rea<l. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

A copy of the decision of lli. ccretary Browning, uated May~. 1 68, in the ca e of Herbert Battin, wasfnrnishetl IIuu. Mr. OR!i on t.helOth iustant, which will more fully explain the vi w entertained. 

In 1 ()9 the Supr me Court declared the patent issned to Hannah Riley, October 15. 1 63, voiu, thus <lispo. ing of alleged pre-eruption rights prior to the act of 1862; her settlement having commencod in 1855. 

In 1871, l\larcb 3, Uongre s legalized the selection of indemnity taken by the State a r eco"rnized in the Harvey adju. tm nt. Umlor thl act the Supreme Court, at the December term, 1372, bas deciued that the entire interest relating to Rll t,he lands has pn ~ed to the State. Thus the settler are without remPdy to save their homes, whlch they have been practieally invited lJy officers of the Government. acting in their otficiaJ capacity, to rear ur.on those lands. 

It won 11 require long time and labor for me to follow the reconls, page by page, to a.scert:tin the particulars of ea b inilividnal case, with tlate of settlement., value of improvements, &c., as reque;stod by you. Cong-res!1 has a<~sig-nerl to a proper commission power to make the inquiry upon tl1e ground, and then report has befln vrosented. From a hasty ex::tmination, lam satistied the work ha.~ been faithfully performed. The commissioners say: "The porsous whose names we have listed eitbt'r bold patents or the n ual receipts from tho local lanu offices at Fort Dorlgo and Des Moines, showing that they bad fil1-1d their declaratory statements, and that the regu- lar fees for the &~.me hall been paid to and accept~tl by the Go\'ei1ll!lent." The bill before me provides for a still further examination into tile merits of each case that shall be pre entetl if it becomes a law. No probable opportunity for fraud seems to be afforded. In my opinion, some compensation is due tbese settlers for the material injury inflicted upon them by the agents of the Governmeut. What shall be the mea: ure of this reparation is for Congress to determine. As you will see from the foregoing, this is a case upon which the most p1-ofound jurists of the country bav diifered in jud~ent. These settlers took the law from the Government officer after appeal to the highest departmental authority, and hall a Tight to repo e confidence in the.ir(lecisions. Yet we have seen the courts steaililv denying tho e concln ions, anrl in the tinal result the poor, unlearned settler is ~till 

further impoverished, and hi labor is swallowed up by an enriched C{)rpora.tion. Considel'in~ the fact that thc11e ettlers have acted in good fuitb, relying upon the decisions of tn Govcrnm nt officers, who were supposed to know the law, 1 think they are entitled to relief; and although under ordinary circumstances and in cru e involving 11' extrem aml peculiar hardship, I would not be willing t{) recom- mend compensation in money for losses sustained by settlers upon lands wbicl! Con- gres granted away, I think in this instance, as tho GoverDID(lnt cannot perfect the titles which it undertook to confer upon these settlers without an appropriation of money, and as the s ettlers in going upon the lands had a ri~bt to believe that their titles would be p rfected in the ordinary mauner, anol ruwe invested their labor and means in improvements whlch they cannotalJa.ndou without ruinous loss, an excep- tion to general rule and practice sbonldlJe made in their fa.,or, and therefore I ap- prove and recommend tbe passage of the bill undor consideration as the only prac- ticable measure of relief tmder the circumstances and at this lato day. In t.be act of March 31, 1814, a precedent for reimbursement in money for failure of title to public lanll was estalJli. be,l. To what extent it bas been followed in subsequent legi;slation I have not had f.ime to a.<>certain by examination of succeed- ing statutes, that being a. matter not neceRs::trily connected with the administra- tion of thi office. Very respectfully, WILLIS DRUMMOND, Com?nisb'ioner. 

Mr. ORR. I have nothing to a del in relation to this bill except that 

it has received the entire approvaJ of tbe Committee on the Puulic 

Lands of the House and the Commissioner of Public Lands. 

1Ir. WILLARD, of Vermont. 1\lr. Chairman; I think it is worth our careful attention to determine whether we are est,ablishing in 

this case a ~orrect mea ure of damages. From some examination 

which I have given to this case I am not able to see bnt that the flaw 

in the title as claime<lhere ha beenestablishe<l by the Supreme Court. 

The United t.ates, in other word , has undertaken t.o give title to certain settler to lan(ls which were at the time supposed to be public 

lands, and that title ha failed by rea on of a grant which Congress 

itself had made prior to the time when the e settlers supposed they were getting a title from the United States. The decision of the 

Supreme Court in unraveli11g this title, ha established as a matter 

of law that certain settlers, who went upon lands which they had 

goo<l rea on to suppose were lands of the UnHed States (because the 

officer. of the United tates, including the Department here at Wa.shington o treated them) have no title to the lands they have occu- pied; that the DP. Moines River Navigation Company really OWllS 

the land. · 

At the same time there is much in the history of this case which is 

worth con ·idering. In the first place, this grant of land has been a very large one. The State of Iowa has r ceived from the United 

States a large grant in addition to what it had deeded away to the 

Des Moines Navigation Company. .And perhaps it is worth while to 

remember (although it is altogether too late to shed teu,rs over the 

fact) that the grant of land did Congre s no good so far as the navigation of the Des Moines River is concerned, notwithstanding some- thin~ like five or six hundred thousand acres have been granted by 

the uovemment in connection with this improvement. 

Bot the title to these lands having failed, and the Government being, as 1 thlnk jt is, fairly in fault in the matter, what should be the mea - ure of damages f In other wor<ls, what, if anything, should the Government return to the settlers who have gone upon tho e lands and are now liable at any time to ue di ·posses eel I understand that the 

bill provides for n,Uowing to them about ten dol La.r an acre; a little more po sibly. 'I he commission which was sent out to appraise these 

lands found thu,t their present value was a little more than an average 

of ten dollars an acre, and this, as I understand, was irrespective of -any buililings or improvements of thn.t sort upon the lands. 

Mr. ORR. The gentleman will permit me to make at this point a , ingle statement, lest the House might be led into a miRunderstanding. The commi sion reported the owners' price--tho price at whlch 

the land coul<l be bought from the owners-as . '14.25 a.n acre. Mr. WILLARD, of Vermont. But I un<lerstand that the commission 

reported about ten dollars an acre as in their judgment the pre nt 

value of the lan<l, though the settlers in most case a k considerablJ' 

mOl'e. 

Now, as I was about to remark, I do not understand that it has 

been the practice of the Government-certainly it has not been the 

uniform practice-to pay back to settlers under the e or imilar cir- cum tances anything except the amount which the Government ac- tually received from them. In this ca e it is propo ed to pay to the, 

settler t.he present value of their lands-ten dollars an acre. In determining this question it should be taken into consideration 

that the De Moiues River Navigation Company has now, I uppo e, 

absolute title to these lancls and can eject any of the e settlers b 

bringing snit; so that while this money will go to the Des l\foine. 

River Navigation Company, it is really for the benefit of the settlersfor bnyiug these lands over again from the Des Moines River Navigation Company. The appropriation in the bill, as I understand, is to pu.y 

this money to that company, provided it will release all claims to these 

lan(ls and give them up to the settlers. 

Now, sir, I de ire to call the attention of the gentleman from Iowa, 

[l\Ir. Orm,] who I presume will speak upon thi case still further, to 

this siugle point-the question of damages-how far the United States 

shoul<l go, in ca e of a failure of title like this, in reimbursing the 

settler, in indemnifying him or paying him damages Y We bold in 

otller ca es that a person having a claim agu,inst the United State , tb.ongh that claim is thirty years old, shall be paid no intere t upon 

it. 'Ve only allow him what we adjudge to have been due to him at :1 certain time; and we strike out ruthles ly all intere t. I snppo. e., 

therefore, that we hould strike out all damage that may he claimed 

by reason of lap e of time, because interest is damage by rea on of lap e of time. Tl~ese settlers have llad the use of this property for ten years, 

prubauly more. Settling upon the e farms they have paid nor nt · many of them have paid nothing at. all except the mere entry fee , as I tmdersta.n<l ; they have not paid the 1.25 per acre as home tea<l 

settler . Tiley h ave had the use and occupation of the land from that 

time till the pre ·ent; n,nd now, when they are liable to be ousted, they 

ask that we pay them what the commissioners have appraised as tbe 

pre ent value of the land. 

'fllis i a case uot only important enough to be properly sett]e(l on 

its merits as involviug a large amount of money, but al o important 

because, whichever way we settle it, it will undoubtedly be clrawn 

into a precedent. If we agree to pay these settlers ten dollars an acre for their lands, it will be taken as a precedent that heren,fter in any case where the title granted by the United States has failed the Government shall hold itself liable to pay the pre ent value of the land. 

If, on the other hand, we in this case, as in mo t other ca ·es, pay to 

the parties merely what they have themselves pn,id into the Treasmy, 

I snppo e it will e tablish 110 new precedent. I am not prepared to 

say how I shall vote on that question if fairly presented. I wish only now to ca-ll attention to it. Mr. KASSON. Doe the gentlemn,n say he considers this as an originu,l precedent f . Mr. \VILLARD, of Vermont. I have not had my attention called 

to precisely a similar ca e. 

:Mr. KA SON. Thi follows the precedent where 5,000,000 were a ppropriated. But I will take an opportunity to explain in reference to 

this matter, a my own constituents are intere tecl. 

Mr. WILLARD, of Vermont .. My object only is to call attention 

to this point, so that all the facts may be fully brought out. Mr. McCRARY. Mr. Chairman, I shall detain the committee bnt a short time. It would be too tedious for me to enter into a dis-
5056 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE 16, 

cussion of all the history of these lands, or to undertake to state the 

various conflicting decisions made in regard to the extent of the land 

grant of 1846. It is sufficient for the purposes of the bill to say that 

here are a number of settlers who have been upon these lauds for 

live, ten, fifteen, and some of them for twenty years, and who all 

went upon these lands upon the faith of the decision of the proper 

Department of the Government that they were public lands and that 

they could acquire a right to them by entry or by pre-emption or homesteading. They went upon them in good faith ; they went upon 

them upon decisions of the proper authorities of the Government. 

They have lived there for a long. period of time; they have raised 

the.ir families there; they made their homes there; they have cultivated their farms, built their school-houses and churches; many of 

them have buried their children there. 

After all this; :M:r. Chairman, the decision of the Supreme Court of 

the United States declared that they havb no title to these lands, 

which they supposed they held by virtue of a valid patent from 

the Government of the United States in many cases, and in other 'lses by an equally valid certificate of homestead or pre-emption. 

That decision declared these lands to be the property of a corporation, holding under grant made by Congre s. Now it is said, and I 

snppo e it will not be questioned, that the Government owes to these 

people indemnity; that it is neither fair nor just nor equitable, the 

Government of the United States having allowed these people to go 

upon the. e lands, having issued patents and other e,vidences of title to 

1 hem, having given them assurance that their ti tJes were perfect, after 

having remained on these lands for this long series of years-! say 

it will be conceded that it is neither fair nor just nor equitable that 

the Government of the United States shall permit them t.o be ejected 

and driven from their homes without anything in the way of indemnity. 

My friend from Vermont, [:Mr. WILLARD,] I have no doubt, ha~ 

given this case· a careful consideration. It is not questioned by him 

tha.t it is the duty of the Government to respond to the e people in 

damages. The only question he raises is one as to the mea ure of 

damages, how much shall be paid by the Government of the United 

States to indemnify these settlers. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, 

the amount to be paid ought to be whatever is fair and reasonable as _the actual damages these people ·have sustained. It will uot do to 

ay, sir, because they gave 1.25 per acre when they enter d upon 

the. e lands, they should be turned out now on the repayment of ~1.25 

per acre oven if you add G per cent. interest. That is no indemnity 

at all. We are bound to consider the fact that the e people are living there in their homes and are by the fault o£ the Unitec.l States 

:1bont to be ejected. 'l'he courts of the country have is ned writs 

of ejectment, and those writs on the 1st of August next will be exe- cuted by turning all the e t1uee hundred families out of doors unless 

this matter is ac.ljusted by some such legislation a.s this in the meantime. 

The Government of the United States can afford to tablish a precedent by doing what is right anc.l just and equitable in a case like this, 

aml that is to pay these people a fair valuation for their lands at this 

time. 

The commissioners appmised these lands at their "'\talne, exclusive of 

improvements, fOI' agricultmal purposes only. Any gentleman who 

will examine the report will see these lands are actually and intrinsically worth a great deal more than the commissioners have 

a.llowed. Some are situated near large and flourishing towns aucl 

citie , and the valillttion placed on them is only what they are worth 

for agricultural purpo es; that is about ten dollars an acre. I apprehend every a<Jre of these land is worth at least tha-t sum for that purpo e. As a matter of justice and equity I say the fair amount to be 

paid to these people is wh:1t is necessary to indemnify them, to pay 

them for the lo s and damage nstained by reason of the failure of 

the Government of the United States . .Mr. McKEE. Is the gentleman willing that there shall be meted 

out to the Indians who have been ejected from their lauds the s:1me mea,sure of justice T 

Mr. McCRARY. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." 

When the Indian question is up then will be the time to tlisCLlSS it. 

Ir. McKEE. What is the difference between this case and the 

Choctaw case which was before the House yesterday T • 1\fr. McCRARY. I do not consic.ler that there is any parallel between the two ca~s. But however that may be, we are eli ussing 

thi bill and not the Choctaw bill. 

I say that this is a matter of equity. Congress bas alre::uly taken 

pains to ascertain what is the reasonable amount to be paid.. And 

beyond that my colleague has shown that the precedent are all in 

favor of the payment of the reasonable fair value at the time of the ejectment of the settlers in cases of this kind; and there have been a. rimnber of such cases. I hope the bill will pa s as reported .. 

Mr. ELDREDGE. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from 

Iowa [Mr. McCRARY] whether any of these parties have beeu ejected 

from their homes T 

Mr. McCRARY. Several of them have been ejected. One, I believe, has been imprisoned for resisting, as be surpo ed. in his ignor- ance he had a right to do, the officer who was turning him and his 

family out of their home. . · 

Mr. ELDREDGE. Have not the mass of the settlers on those 

lands been able to compromise with the navigation company and 

remain on their lands Y · 

1\.(r.l\fcCRARY. Not at all. AU effort at compromise have f:l.ilecl. 

Mr. ELDREDGE. Is it expected that all those parties will ha,ve 

to leave their lauds T 

Mr. McCRARY. They will have to leave their lands on the 1st of 

August. The writs are all issued, and they are notified to leave at 

that time. 

The committee rose informally to receive a. 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 

A message from the Senate, by Mr. SYMPSON, one of their cle-rks, 

announced that the Senate insisted on its di agreement to the amendments of the House to the bill (S. No.7) for the creation of a court 

for the adjudication and disposition of certain moneys received into 

the Treasmy under an award made by the tribunal of arbitration 

constituted by virtue of the first article of the treaty concluded. at 

Washington the 8th of May, A. D. 1871, between the United States 

of America and the Queen of Great Britain, a~ked a committee of 

conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and 

had appointed Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN1 Mr . . WRIGHT, and Mr. SHERl\IAl 

conferees on the part of the Senate. -

The me age further announced that the enate had passed the bill 

(H. R. No. 3354) to legalize entries of public lanc.ls 1mder the homestead laws in certain cases, with amendments in which he was directed to ask the concurrence of the House. 

The message further announced that the Senate had passed without amendment bills of the Honse of the following titles: 

A bill (H. R. No. 1691) for the relief of Thomas Ridgway; 

A bill (H. R. No. 2539) relinquishing the rights of the United States 

in certain lands in the State of Michigan; 

A bill (H. R. No. 2653) to authorize the Secretary of the Trea ury 

to snspend work upon the public buildings; 

A bill (H. R. No. 3573) making additions to the fifteenth section of 

the act approved July 2, 1 64, entitled "An act to amend an act en- titled 'An act to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph 

line from the Mis ouri River to the Pacific Ocean, and to secure to the 

Government the u e of the same for po ·tal, military, anc.l other purpose ,' approved July 1, 1 62;" 

A bill (II. R. No. 3090) to authorize the i sue of duplicate arrriculturalland scrip where the original has been lost or destroyed; and 

A bill (H. R. No. 3672) authorizing the board of commissioners of 

the Sol<.Uers' Home to sell the property belonging to the Soldiers' 

Home, situated at Harrodsburgb., Kentucky, antl known as llarrodsbmgh Spring property. 

DES :fOINES RIVER LAND GRANT. 

The Committe-e of the Whole \Jn the state of the Union then re- sumetl it ession. 

Mr. ORR. I yield now to my colleague on the committee, the gentleman from Texas, [Ur. HERNDON.] 

Mr. HERNDON. This is a very complicated case, an<l it is impossible to do more in tlte brief time I have than to make a simple statement of its condition. I was one of the nb-committee that made an investigation of the point at is ue now presented in the bill. And I 

will say to the committee that I struggled very hartl and more tbau once tu f1x the onus upon the State of Iowa to indemnify these settlers. B11t after a full and complete inve tigation of the whole subject in connection with the entire history of thi case, which is very 

lengthy, I reached the conclusion t.bat the State of Iowa is not bound 

t.o indemnify these set1lers, nor can she be held respon ible, but the onus is on the national Government to afford ither the relief which 

they ask or some other relief which will be adequate to their los es. 

This grant was made to the Des Moines Naviga,tion Company on the 8th August, 1 46, to aid in internal improvements: that is, it was made to the State of Iowa for this company. There 'never was an question in regard to t.he grant from the month of the river t.o th 

Raccoon Fork. But there bas always been a. conflict since 1848 in 

regard to the grant above Raccoonl•,ork and the Des Moines River. · The State of Iowa always maintained that the grant extended to the source of the river, while the United States through its ao-ents, throno-h 

its officers in the Trea.'ury Department which then had' charge of the 

public lands, and through the Attorneys-Genel'al, from time to time 

decided both ways. There has been the greate,st po ible conflict of 

opinion on the part of these heads of Departments in rega.rcl to this 

graut. One Secretary of the Treasury would hotel that it exteudetl 

only to Raccoon Fork, and would then open the land to market within 

this grant above the Fork; and at the e periods while it was thns 

opened for public entry the settlers would make entry upon the l:mtls. 

The next 'ecretary that would come in perbap wonld holrl the very 

reverse, and withdraw these lands from public entry. This same question was referred by two or three ecreta.rie of the Treasury to 

the Attorneys-C:nmeral; and Attorney-General Crittenclep, Att.orue~·­

General Cushin~, and Attorne.v-Geneml Johnson, all c.lecided this 

que tion and he1d various opinions. Now am;d all this conflict of 

opinion on the part of the General Government thi land was d.ispo ed 

of to these actual bona fide settlers. They entered upon it when it wa~ in open market, when it was not withdrawn. The Government 

agent received -their money for it and pla-ced t-hem in possession of it; 

and they have gone forward improving the lands and enhancing their 

value from that <.lay to this. 

It will be observed, then, that these parties went upon these lands 

l 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5057 

in the most perfect good faith. It was not their fault that they came to be ousted from their lands afterward; it was the fault of the Government. The Government was responsible for the acts of its agents 

in this regard, for it actually received the money of the ettlers. In 1856 a grant was made by Congress to aid three railroad companies that paBsed acros this grant, and then, for tbe fir t. time, the 

question was raised and brought to the Supreme Court of the United 

States to determine to whom this grant above Raccoon Fork ilid belon~. And in 1859 the Supreme Court held that the grant never ex:ten<ted above the Raccoon Fork, and that the h-.nd was open for 

settlement accordingly, as it had boen placed in the market from 184 . During this period the State of Iowa and the General Government 

had made disposition of certain parts of this land, and in 1861 appli- cation was made to Congress, and a joint resolution was pas ed in 

order to quiet the titles to the e lands about which the difficulty had 

arisen; and the whole debate upon the passage of that resolution will 

show that it was the clear intention of Congress then to award the 

title to these lands to the bona fide purchasers. The grant, be it 

remembered, was made to the State. 

But prior to that time the State of Iowa had made a deed to the 

Des Moines Navigation Company of all their interest and title to this 

land, and under a statutewhichexist inlowathe bonafidepurchaser was considered by the courts to mean the Des Moines Navigation 

Company instead of the actual bona fide settlers on those lands, and 

therefore whatever title was conferred by that resolution went first 

to the State of Iowa, and then, by virtue of the deed which she had 

previously made, went to the Des Moines Navigation Company. 

The a-ct of 1862 was a piece of legislation of the same sort, with some additional extension, but it totally failecl for like reasons. In 

1871 another act was passed by this Congress, and notwithstanding 

that all these decisions were before the country, notwithstanding 

the previous legislation upon the subject, yet Congress, with all this 

fully understood, or supposed to be understood at the time, actually 

confirmed this grant to this company completely and fully, and made no provision whatever for the protection of these settlers. Thus what 

legislation had failed to do before1 and what the conflicting opinions 

of the various departments of the Government had left an open question, was settled by virtue of that act, and the Supreme Court in 1872 so held, and by virtue of the previous deed made by the State of Iowa 

to the Des Moines Navigation Company, and by virtue of this legislation, wh<ise aim seemed to be to quiet the title to the citizens who 

had gone upon the lands in good faith, but owj.ng to its loo ene sand 

uncertainty failed to a-ccomplish that end, the Government of the 

United States actually took away the rights of these citizens and con- ferred them upon the State of Iowa for the benefit of this navigation 

company. 

The State of Iowa, mark you, was not responsible fo1· this; she was not a party to it; she did not ask for it, but the United States by its own act confirmed all these lands to this company with all these fact-s 

before them. They thus shifted the onus from the State of Iowa and 

took the onus upon the General Government itself, and the responsihility of leaving these citizens without protection. 

Now, Mr. Charrman, after all this legislation and the e opinions w bat 

is the condition of these people¥ They have paid their money to the 

Government and went into po e ion of the e lands; in some instances 

they have received their patents for the lands and the Supreme Court 

after reviewing all this legislation has passed upon their titles and 

decided that they have no titles whatever, and they are about now to 

be ejected under the decisions that have been made and to be tumed 

out without a single dollar either for their lands or their improvement . They are not entitled under the decision of the commissioners to any 

pay for their improvements and cannot recover it. These people were placed in this condition by the Government, and unless the Gov- ernment now comes to their relief they will be turned out unproteeted 

and left to the mercy of the companies that now own the land. In 

this condition of things Congre s appointed a commission to go upon 

the ground and to examine all of these lands, and to ascertain and 

report to Congre s the value of the lands without the improvements. ·I have here the report of the commission. It sh.ows that the total 

number of acres occupied by these persons is 39,549, and the average 

value which they have fixed upon the land outside of the improvements is 10.22 per acre, which amounts in all to 404,228.49. But 

you will observe that there is a marked difference between the aver- age value fixed upon these lands by the commission and the amount 

which the citizens themselves claim the land to be worth. Some of 

these lands are estimated by the citizens to be worth as high as sixtyfour dollars an acre, and the total value fixed upon these lands by the 

citizens themselves is $563,416.93; or an average of ·14.25 per acre; 

making a difference against the citizens of 15~,238.44. Thus if this 

report be adopted the citizens will lose 159,000 upon the land for 

which they have paid. · Now is it just or right to refuse them compensation for this loss¥ 

It has been asked upon this :fioQr what will be done with the money; 

whether it will be paid directly to the citizens or will the Des Moines 

Navigation Company or any of these railroad companies get it. That 

certamly has nothing to do with the decision of the case, but I would 

say for the benefit of the committee that I understand it to be a fact 

that a majority, and in fact all but two of these citizens have already 

made an arrangement with the companies who own tbe lands, that 

if this amount 1s granted to them as compensationfortheirlosses the 

317 

companies will accept it, although it is less than the value of the 

lands by $159,000, and quiet the titles to them. 

Thus the settler , if this amount is granted to them, would be en- abled to quiet their titles and still remain upon their lands which are worth, as shown by this report of the ·commissioners, 159,000 more than the value assessed by the commissioners. The railroad com- pany and the Des ·Moines Navigation Company will lose by this a.r- rangemen t $159,000 and the settlers will gain that amount. It would 

be very unjust to pay these settlers only the amount of money which 

they originally pai<l to the Government for these lands, because when 

tbey went into that country in 184tl it was a wild country, without 

inhabitants, and they haye lived lhere almost a generation improv- ing and enhancing the value of this land. It would be no compen- sation now to give them 1.25 an acre for this land. Mr. PARKER, of New Hampshire. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. 

:Mr. HERNDON. Certainly. 

Mr. PARKER, of New Hampshire. rwould ask the gentleman if 

the committee have investigated this matter and found as a matter 

of law that this company, which I understand bas the superior and 

better title, can oust these settlers now living there under color of 

tUle without paying them damages V If so, then I would Jike to 

know where the law came from. 

Mr. HERNDON. In answer to that I would refer the gentleman 

to the decisions of 'the Supreme Court in the Litchfield case, and the case of the Iowa Homestead Company agalli t the Des Moines Navigation Company. My understanding is that the court cleci<led that 

the settlers had no title whatever; that they did not have even the 

color of title. While the que tion was not made as to whether they 

would be entitled to pay for their improvements, yet under that 

decision I would ask the House how they could get any compensation 

for their improvements. l\Ir. ELDREDGE. Does not the Iowa law provide that in cases of 

recovery all the valuable improvements shall be assessed, and the 

parties wrongfully in possession shall be entitled to the value of those 

improvements 7 

Mr. COTTON. That applies only to the Iowa State courts; and 

the Des Moines River Company always bring their suits in the Federal courts. 

1\fr. ELDREDGE. If I am not mistaken very much we have 

already passed a law of Congress providing that the same law shall 

apply to all these cases. We have provided the same thing which 

the Iowa statute provides, and under the law as it now stands I 

think these settlers must recover whatever improvements they have 

ma-de. 

Mr. HERNDON. I think I can answer thQ gentleman in two ways. 

I am not acquainted with the statute of Iowa in regard to giving com- pensation for improvements. I apprehend, however, that that applies 

only to lands owned by the State of Iowa. Under the inuring statutes 

of Iowa, and the joint resolutions of Congress in 11:361 and 1862, it was decided by the Supreme Court that this grant was placed in exactly 

the same condition as if it had been made absolute in 1848. And if that 

grant in 1848 had been absolute, giving this entire quantity of land 

to the State of Iowa for the Des Moines Company, then any settler 

upon it could take no right whatever, and therefore would have no right to compen ation for his improvements. 

Mr. ELDREDGE. I think if the gentleman will reflect a moment 

he will see that these settlers were in possession J>rior to the act to 

which he refers, and that the question is of prior entry in possession. 

No act of the Legislature can destroy or take away from them the 

right of claim tmder a prior entry made in good faith. If I am not 

very much mistaken it was urged in this House that the law of 

Congress applying the law of Iowa to cases of recovery and ejectment 

should be passed because there was a large quantity of land in the 

State of Iowa in this situation. I supposed it relat.ed to this very 

Des Moines land, that it was for the purpose of providing that where 

recovery was had by this company against these individual settlers 

they should have assessed in their favor the value of the improve- ments and betterments they had made. It seems to me there is no doubt aboat the power of the State to pass a law that in case of 1·ecovery and ejectment a pa1·ty hall have asse sed the value of the 

improvements he has made, whether they are on United States lands or not. Now that we have made the law of Congress the same as the 

law of Iowa, there cau be no doubt that these parties are entitled to 

the value of their betterments. 

.Mr. HERNDON. The original grant was make under the law of 

1846; the last grant was made in 1871. The decision of the court is 

that by virtue of this statute of Iowa the grantee of the State wa-s 

placed in eactly tho same condition as if the grant had orignalJy been 

made to extend above Raccoon Fork. These settlers have all settled 

upon this la~d since the original grant was ma~e. Under the act by 

vutue of which the grant above RacCO"on Fork rnured to the State of 

Iowa no provision was made for these settlers. It was perfectl r 

within the power of Congress when extending this grant to make 

provision for the settlers; but they failed to do it. And by rea-son of that failure the settlers are entirely without any 1·emedy. 

I will say that after a full and thorough examination of the whole 

subject I believe it is the solemn duty of this Government to com- pensate these settlers for the loss which they have sustained by virtue 

of these decisions of the court. The General Government must as-
5058 CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD. JuNE 16, 

sume the responsibility from beginning to end. They sold the land 

to them, they put the parties in po session, and a-fterward granted 

the land away from them and left them without any remedy, unless we now give it to them. Mr. McKEE. How much money did the United States receive for 

these thirty thousand acres f 

.Mr. HERNDON. I cannot say how much; but it wa about $1.25 

per acre. 

}tfr. McKEE. About 10,000. Now for that we are a&ked to pay ~400,000. Is that the legal measure of damages 

l\Ir. HERNDON. In reply to the gentleman I cannot say that this 

is the exact measure of· legal damages according to the decisions of 

the courts; but the gentleman will observe that the Government has 

placed these citizens in this condition, and that it is the policy of the 

Government not to despoil or ruin its citizens by its own act. 

Mr. McKEE. Suppose you had done the same, what would be the measure of damages Y 

Mr. HERNDON. If I had conveyed land, giving a warrantee of 

title, and the title had failed, I would have been helclliable for the 

purchase-money with interest. 

l\Ir. SPEER. Ai3 I understand, the legal measure of damages ill 

such a case is the return of the purchase-money with interest; but 

this case is put upon the ground of equity. It is claimed that the 

Government of the United States is equitably bound to pay to these 

settlers the present value of the lands. Now, if that position is true as a matter of equity, should not the settler according to the principles of equity be charged with the profits realized by him during 

all this time from the occupancy of the land T 

Mr. HERNDON. As a.n offset to that, the amount proposed to be 

awarded here does not include any improvements whatever upon the 

lands. These citizens have made very extensive improvements and 

have greatly enhanced the value of the lands. But this compensation is only for the actual value of the land itself, exclnsive of any 

improvements whatever. 

I yield for a few moments to the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. 

KAssoN.] 

Mr. KASSON. I do not intend to detain the committee more than a very few minutes. I will state at the beginning that the Raccoon 

Fork is·in my district and at my home. A few ancl a very few of the 

claimants reside in my district. I have for sixteen years been more or less acquainted with the most embarra~sing and intricate State 

and national legislation touching the e lands. I have known the 

combinations that these settlers have been obliged to make in order 

to defend themselves against the most persevering and constant 

attacks upon their claims, which they believed to be just ; and if you were to appropriate to-clay merely the amount of money that these men have earned by the sweat of their brows and paid to resist the 

assaults made upon their claims during these ten or fifteen years, it 

would go far toward relievinO' ·their distresses. 

I wish it to be understood, ltlr. Chairman, that we do not ask one dollar under this bill unless it is jnst that it should be paid; and I 

desire to state in a few words the grounds which we believe show the 

justice of the payment here proposed. 

First, the question has been put to me by members, "Is there anybody speculating ba-ck of this bill¥" I wish to answer publicly, as I 

have answered privately, that I neither know nor have ever heard of a solitary man in Iowa or out of it who has a dollar's interest in this 

bill, except the men residing on these farms. So much for the question of there being ::t "job" in this bill. 

Secondly, let me say the bill itself provides that the arrangements, 

the payments, the receipts are to be betwe.en the Government on the one hand and the settlers on the other; there is to be no intervening 

party. 

It ~ a-sked, "Are we not establishing a wrong precedent by this 

bill T Are we not indemnifying these settlers more than it is just to 

indemnify them Y" First, as to the question of .;precedent. In Mississippi the Government bought up at a cost of :jji5,000,000 all the ad- verse titles in order to perfect the title to the honest settler. In 

Ohio certain lands were reserved between two rivers, one of which was longer than the other. In surveying the reserve the line was run straight from the head of the shorter river into the current of the 

longer. The courts afterward decided that the line should have been run from the sources of the two rivers. Thns there was a triangle 

which the Government of the United States prior to that cleci ion 

thought it had the right to sell and <lid sell to settlers. When, 

upon the rendering of that decision, it was found that t.he settlers had no right to those lands, the Government appointed a commission, just as it haa been done in this case, to ascertain the value of the lands; 

and it perfected the title to the settlers who had bonght from the 

United States under a mistake on the part of the Government. Those 

two cases are sufficient to show that this case is not outside of the 

precedents. 

Now, ou(J'ht we to make this indemnity upon the basis of the appraised v;Jue of the landT I answer that we cannot properly apply the common-law rule bet\veen a warrantor in a. deed and the war- rantee. In reference to a case of that kind the common-law rule 

has been fixed. But the Government of the United States never professes to sell its lands for what they are worth. It gives them to 

promote settlement; it sells them at a low price to induce cnlti vation; 

and when the lands have been cultivated and improved, the parties 

who have suffered the trials and hru:dships and miseries of a frontier 

life have paid infinitely more for their land than theoriginal price of 

$1.25 per acre. You have sought to encoura(J'e settlement on every acre of the public lauds; and settling upon lands under that policy 

these men in early times have had to go twenty miles to a mill; they 

have been far away from sehools, and churche , and physicians; they 

have in early times seen their chilclren die for want of medical attention. But you now propose to make to them the mere reimbursement 

'that a warrantor 1mder a deed would make to the warrantee; yon 

propose to pay them only $1.25 au acre with perhaps 6 per cent. interest. 

I stty this rule is positively inequitable and unjust. You do not 

hold your lands nor bestow them in that way. You did right in tho 

Ohio case and you did right in the ~lis issippi case, becau e you recognized these early settlers had wrought a good work for the natiou ; 

had done more than pay the price per acre; that they were entitled 

to occupy their homes, and it was the duty of the United States to let 

them have them. 

Hence I say, Mr. Chairman, that it is just, that it is equitable to 

pay them the a-ctual value; not what it would cost them to buy from the other parties, but what the appraised value is. What will be the result ¥ I beg gentlemen to ob erve for a moment that if the corporation to whom the courts have awarded the title say they will take 

the appraised value, the title may be perfected in that way. If they 

refuse to say that, then you allow the parties themselves to have the 

benefit of it as far as it goes; and if they can raise the sums from the 

earnings of their farms to get the title they will do it. 

Yon will find, sir, that this has been carefully guarded. Every 

man's claim is before the House. Every forty, every eighty, every one hundred and sixty acre claim is before you. The manner Of entry 

and purchase is put down, the date of it is put down, the apprai eel 

value is put down, and what the holders of the opposing titles claim 

should be paid is put down. There is no chance for snspicion, but iu 

every case with one or two exceptions, as I hastily look over it, I find 

the appraised value is considerably less than what the other party 

claim. 

Your object is not to indemnify them in money, but to enable them 

to occupy their homes. I beg gentlemen who ever were upon the 

frontier to remember what home means to those early settler , who, 

without money, had nothin~ but their muscle to get their homes. It 

means more than your green !Jacks and more than your gold. It mean the only place they have on God's footstool to live. If you take that 

away from them they cannot buy as good a home in that region. The 

land is too high. If they go West, they will have to travel night and 

day and month after month before they can get a home that is one- half the value this is to them, even for the same money. 

I believe in homesteads. I have fought for them before in Congress. I will fight for them while I have breath. I wish to ask 

every man in this House who appreciates the home tead law to look 

well at this question of indemnity and the central fact which is to 

preserve to these men their homes and not to pay money to them to 

buy another. But I do not wish to debate the question further. 

lli. LAWRENCE. The gentleman has presented a good reason why 

in my judgment the common-Jaw rule of damages should not apply 

here. It has been said, as I understand, on the floor that these parties are a-sking the Government of the United States not merely for the 

value of the land exclusive of improvements, but the value of the 

land including the improvements. 

lli. KASSON. Let me answer, so every one ma.y understand it. 

Under the act of March 3, 1873, creating a commission to ascertain 

the value of the lands provided, (I quote the words,) it was to ascer- tain the number of acres and by appraisement or otherwise the value 

thereof, excluding improvements. In the second place, let me answer still further by turning to the report of that commission. I find they 

make the declara.tion: "In making our appraisements we have only 

had reference to the value of such lands for purely agricultural purposes." . lli. LAWRENCE. It should be said these occupants are entitled 

to pay for improvements by this improvement company before they can be turned out under the occupying claimant law. Hence it is 

proper an appraisement should be made of the value of the lancl, 

exclusive of the improvements. 

Mr. KASSON. I wish to say the great help given to these settlers 

in this way is to enable them to make up a purse with which they can pay. They have fought the company and well for years, but 

everybody knows this fight for improvements is an embarra sing one, 

and by this bill these settlers can make terms with this company. 

:Mr. HOLMAN. :Mr. Secretary Browning, in his communication of 

the 9th of May, 186B, which is incorporated in the report of the Committee on the Public Lands, made this statement. Accordin~ to the 

adjustments made between the General Land Office and the ;:;tate of 

Iowa these lands granted to the State were transferred afterward to 

the Des Moines Navigation Company. Secretary Browning says this: 

This adjustment was accepted by Josiah A. Harvey, "reg_ister of the State land 

office and commissioner on behalf of the State of Iowa," ana approved by Mr. Secretary Harlan May 29, 1866. The 1,317.32 aeres were subsequently selected and 

approved to the State. The State, by the deliberate and recorded adinission of her 

authorized agents, has thus received all the lands to which she was entitled ou ac- count of the rmprovement of said river. The adjustment is conclusive unu fina.l. 

As the State r eceived indemnity for this identical tract, her claim on behalf of 

the Des Moines Company must be rejec~eq without regard, to a.dverse claims. 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5059 

Now the question I desire to ask the gentleman from Iowa is this: 

If this statement is true that the State of Iowa in 1866 entered into 

thls arrangement by which she received nearly two and a half million acres of land, and received those lands as an indemnity for 

these very lands that are the subject of this trouble-if such is the 

faet, the State receiving the indemnity lands for the lands which 

have been granted by the Government to these various parties, is it 

not very clear that while justice ought to be done to these parties 

and they ought to be fully indemnified for expenditures they have 

made on account of the purchase of the lands, ought not these ex- penditures to be incurred by the State of Iowa herself¥ 

That is my first question. :My second question is this: Does not all 

this trouble result from the legislation of 1862 and 1H71 T And did 

not all these acts by which this fraud was perpetrated through the a~ency of the Des :Moines Navigation Company result from the action 

of the State of Iowa herself f Did she not bring the matter into 

Congress, and were not these acts passed at her instance T And now should the State of Iowa throw upon the General Government the 

results of those frauds against which she made no protest at t.he time¥ 

Mr. KASSON. The questions of the gentleman from Indiana are , .. ery lengthy. I will endeavor to answer the last one first. This Des 

Moines Navigation Company was not in existence when the grant was originally made to the State of Iowa, which was then a Territory. It was a New York company,. and we have been fighting that 

company from a period two or three years after the commencement 

of its operations down to the present time. I have myself drawn up 

two or three acts in successive General Assemblies of the State in 

endeavoring to get a settlement between the company and the State. 

lt was a New York company organized for speculative purposes, and 

at its head was a leadin~ democratic gentleman whose name would 

be familiar to the gentleman from Indiana were I to mention it. 

There is not an Iowa man in it. 

:Mr. ORR. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. SHANKs.] 

1t1r. HOLMAN. I would like to knowhowitcameaboutthatwhen 

tllis grant was made to Iowa she made over the land to these landsh~L . l\Ir. KASSON. I suppose it was all part of the same scheme; only 

they were not Iowa lan<l-sharks, but foreign land-sharks. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [l\Ir. SHA1\""XS] is 

entitled to the floor. · Mr. SHANKS. I believe that a measure for the protection of these 

people enumerated in this bill ought to be passed. I tis the brightest 

page in the history of any nation on which it can be written with 

truth that equal and exact justice has been done to all its people. 

Now, here is a case in which the Government has by its acts and also 

through the deci ions of its Supreme Court induced a portion of its 

people to settle on the e lands. And then by a subsequent decision 

of the same Supreme Comt they have been driven off these lands and lost 

their home . These citizens of the United States now come to the 

United States Government, which by its policy has wronged them, 

which at least by its act has brought them into danger of losing their 

labor and their property, and they ask the Government to give them 

redres in that in which its act ha wronged them. For that I think that 

every American citizen and every Representative on this floor ought 

to stand and with one accord do justice to the people to whom our action has done injustice; so that either their money or their lands 

shall be given to these people. 

I now wish to draw a comparison. I find on this floor to-day all the 

Representatives from the State of Iowa ably and efficiently doing 

their whole duty in the protection of these people who have in their 

State been wronged. I honor them for standing by their people and 

demanding that justice which has not been done to them. But I desire, as I said, to make a comparison. I will here remind the House 

that on yesterday, when the Choctaw claim was before the House, gentlemen who are full of anxiety for those whom they represent, and 

who have been wronged, did not remember that there was a time some years ago when the national Government took from a people (the 

Choctaws) who have no representatives on this floor or elsewhere in 

this Government over fourtoon million acres of land, for which we have not paid them yet. And on yesterday, in the struggle upon this 

floor, they turned them away again a.s they had done so often and so heartlessly before, where they must stand nncared for and unprotected 

for God Almighty knows how long, as God Almighty and the records 

of this country only know bow long such has been· the ca e heretofore. I pity these poor Choctaw people, and I deplore the carelessness 

and coldness that work their wrongs. 

Now, sir, 1 am in favor of the Government doing justice to every 

man, woman, and child in this country. And I hope, six, that this 

may be a lesson to the delegation that advocates the claims of these 

white people of Iowa, when they find that other men, friends of a poor down-trodden r d people, stand with them for these wronged 

white people; that while caring for those who are living, active 

American citizens, they will also stand by those who have no friends on this floor except in so far as they can make a draught upon a·common 

humanity unknown to the law, only so far as they can appeal to that 

which. comes from God into the hearts of men, not directed by statutes and only governed by just feeling. May the spirit of justice 

enter fully into the hearts of the whole people toward the Indian, so that in the administration of justice it may be equally open to all 

irrespective of con~itiou. 

I hope, sir, that this may be a lesson, and that tho e who to-day ask 

the favor of the Government and the protection for their people will 

not forget those who have none to speak for them on tills floor. I 

am in favor of this measure because it is a matter of justice, and I am also in favor of a measure that will do justice to those Choctaws 

and other Indians who cannot demand it here as can and do these 

citizens of Iowa, by the many mouths that speak for their whole 

State on this floor as these ~entlemen have spoken to-day. Mr. ORR. I presume this matter has now been sufficiently discussed, and I move that the committee rise and report the bill favorably to the House. 

ltfr. HOLMAN. Before that motion is put, I desire to submit tho 

following proposition : 

Resolved, That the pending bill be reported t.o the House with the recommeD£1ation that the same be recommitted to the Committee on the Publio Lands, 'l'ith 

instructions to report a. bill to repeal allla.ws and parts of laws granting the lands 

in question to the Des Moines Navigation Coml?any, or affirming any grant thereof to said oompany, and oonfirming the titles in sru.d l.·mds to the persons to whom the same ha.ve been sold by the United States. 

I desire to say a word in support of that proposition. 

1t1r. KASSON. Let me say to the gentleman that it would utterly 

destroy the chances of the settlers for relief. 

}.fr. HOLMAN. I shall be met with the statement that we are bound 

to carry this grant into effect and that the settlers have got to be deprived of these lands, and that the Government of the United States or the State of Iowa must pay a large sum of money for the benefit of 

the settlers growing out of this transaction. But, sir, I hold in the 

first place that there is rio contract impaired and no act done, by the 

repeal of this legislation subsequent to 184G, that is not entirely 

within the control and power of Congress. It is admitted that in the 

absence of the acts of 1856, 1861, 1862, and 1871, that independent of 

those various acts and joint resolutions, the title which the Government granted to these settlers would be a perfect and complete title, 

and that whatever right the Des Moines Navigation Company derives 

from the State of Iowa to those lands is the result of the fraudulent 

legislation subsequent to 1846. For one I am not willing by any vote 

of mine to deprive these settlers of any of their rights. On the con- trary, I would make their title to these lands perfect, if it was in my 

power, and my proposition looks to that re ult. I know that under 

the land-grant J?_Olicy there has been nothing but fraud an<l injustice 

from the beginrung to the settlers, and that this has been the case to a great extent in the State of Iowa. An act was passed at the last 

session of Congress, under the pretense of quieting certain titles, 

which enabled the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company to commit great injustice upon the settler , and an appeal is 

made to Congre s to indemnify the unhappy settlers against the 

frauds of the railroad corporations sanctioned by the action of Congress. I do not know that it is fair to charge the State of Iowa with 

bein~ responsible for the legislation of 1856, 1861, 1862, and 1 71, by 

which thesefraudulentlandspeculators in the State of NewYorkseize<l 

upon these lands without consideration and appropriated them to their own use. I do not know that the State can ·be held responsible for 

it; but I do hold to this proposition, and I call the attention of the 

gentlemen from Iowa to it, that if Secretary Browning was correct, 

and this settlement was made in 186G between the Federal Government and the State of Iowa by which the State received 1,346,000 

acres of land or thereabouts as an indemnity in lieu of these very lands now the subject of tills trouble, then the State should not in addition 

to that call upon us, after having received those lands, having received 

patents for them and appropriated them for her own use, and insist 

while she retains those lands that we shall indemnify the unfortunate 

settlers for the corrupt legislation which has been enacted since 1846. 

Mr. McCRARY. I would inform my friend from Indiana of a fact 

he does not seem to be aware of. The State of Iowa does not retain an acre of those lands. The Supreme Court decided that the indemnity lands passed like the others into the hands of the Des Moines . Navigation Company. 

Mr. HOLl\IAN. But by the act of the State of Iowa. 

l\Ir. KASSON. A previous act. 1t1r. McCRARY. No; by an act of Congress, not by the State of 

Iowa. 

Mr. HOL1\IAN. The grant, however, was made to the State of Iowa. 

Congress did not grant an acre of land to any corporation. ltfr. ORR. I would ask the gentleman from Indiana if the legislation of Congress of 1871 did not grant this indemnity land directly 

to the company, without any reference to the State of Iowa 

l\fr. HOLMAN. Unfortunately, I am compelled to answer that 

question in the affirmative. But how did that act pa s; was there a 

sin$le voice from Iowa raised against it here 1 Did either the State 

of 1owa or any of the citizens of Iowa object to it' Sir, when a mea - urelike that, which waspurelylocal, came up here, if any member on the floor had interfered with the manner in which Iowa should dispose of the indemnity lands it would have been said that. it was an impertinent interference with the local affairs of that State. 

Mr. :McCRARY. The act did not saythat theywereiulieuof the e 

very lands. 

:Mr:HOLl\IAN. I say that if Secretary Browning was correct these 

lancls were granted as compensation and indemnity for the lands in 

question in this bill. . Mr. ORR. Allow me to suggest to the gentleman from lndiann. that 
5060 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE 16, 

that bas very little·to do with the question of indemnifying these 

settler . :Mr. HOL~IAN. I desire to confine myself to the propositions I have 

submitted. I de ire to see these ettlers vindicatetl. I know that 

tho remeuyproposecl by the pending bill i very partial. I feel a snred 

that the remedy I propose, to enact a law repealing the acts pas cd 

since 1846 and. affirming this act, will relieve tile very trouble which 

the ue i ions of tile Supreme Court present. They tlecided upon tho 

authority of tho legi lation of 1 Z>G: 11331, and 1tl62. The Supreme 

Court was compelled to decide under tho e acts, which they believed 

to be the law, and nnuer those deci ions certain rights were secm·ed 

to the Des Moines Navigation Company thron~h the State of Iowa. 

With those laws repealed-:ctn<l who wHl questwn tile power of Congre s to repeal them . -and with all til is fraud unraveled, I a&>ert 

that the rights of those settlers will be ecured. Now, I cannot be met by tho statement that such legislation woultl 

be a violation of contracts. It is the performance of the highest 

obligation resting upon this Congress. We have been informed of 

tile usual outcropping of these grants. They have been t.ainted with 

fraud. in every step from beginning to end.; and the moral obligation 

resting upon Congres is to repeal these laws and con:fil'm the title 

to these lands to these settlel" . And when the qu stion shall reach 

the upreme Comt, as it is very proper it shonlu, it will not be as to 

the pow r of Congre s to pa s such au act as I have inilicatetl, for the 

power of Congress over the subject-matter i clear ~md mauifest. I 

know that if the original legi lation was right there wonld be a moral obligation upon CongTe s to allow it to stand., :md let the 

ultimate resnlts be reached, whoever might r ap any benefit from 

that legislation. But when legislation i tainted. with fraud from 

L ginning to end, its repeal is demanded by the moral obligation re ting upon Congre s. fr. HERNDON. Have the courts of the country any authority or power to inquire into the fraud which the gentleman state was uom- mittod by the legislation of Congre s referred to f 

Mr. HOLUA.J..\1'. No; I think not; I think that is a question for Congress alo11e. I know that neither the Supreme Court nor any other 

judicial tribunal could inquire w:Q.other the a{}tS of 1' 61 and 1862 

wore properly pau ed or not. Nor is it a judicial question for tho 

Federal courts to decide whether Congress po esseu the power to 

legi late on this subject or not, for that power is cqnceded. But I 

cannot be met with the statement that this would be an imp:riring 

of contracts, for happily no such restraint rests upon the Fetleral 

Legis1atme to prevent its undoing mont:~trous wrongs. 

Ur. HERl\TDON. If patents have been issued for these lands under 

the act of 1871, could we now, by repealing that act, take aw~ty or cancel those patents ' 

Mr. HOLMAN. I think we could, unquestionably; there is no limitation upon the power of Congre s over the subject. If my 

friend could quote any provision of the Constitution whieh could 

po ib]y be construed to prevent any such exerci~ of power by Congre , I would like to bear it. I remember lmt one instance in which, 

not the Supreme Court, but a, judge of the Supreme Court, has indulged in any question as to the con titutional power of Congress over such a. subject. That was in regard to the legal-tender decision, 

when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court intimated that there were moral considerations by which the Federal Legi lature should. be 

influenced by the provisions of the Constitution relating to the Legis- latures of the Sta.tes. But I know of no rnle by which Congress, 

upon :finding that fraud had been perpetrated under its laws, could 

not repeal those laws. I make this appeal to repeal this law, not 

simply in behalf of these unfortunate settler , but also in behalf of 

the whole people of this country, and to vindicate our legislation 

again t the taint of dishonest and fraudulent proceedincrs. 

Mr. ORR. I hope the gentleman from Indiana [~fr. HOLl\IAN] 

will not insist upon his amenument. He has said many things with 

which I agree; I agree with ll('arly all be ba said. I have nothing 

to say in extenuation or palliation of the ilifferent acts of Congress 

which have brought these settlers int.o this difficulty. But the House 

will see that llis amendment proposes to set asitie a decision of the 

Supreme Court uy congressionallegisbtion, and I suppose the House 

will aon~e with me that th:.tt cannot be done. 

Mr. HOL~fAN. Not to repeal a deci ion of the com-t, but to repeal 

the law under which t hose decisions were made. 

Mr. POTTER. I want to say a ingle word, not so much with ref- erence to the bill under uiscussion as with reference to the amend- ment and remarks of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. HOLMAN.] 

Iti undoubtedly true th:tt fraud vitiate all contract. and invalidates 

all ri6htS acquireu through it. And whenever any legislation has bee:J;l 

ecurcd by fraud I will be found quite reauy to join in pas!1ing efficient laws for the aetermination before orne proper tribunal of the 

fact ancl the annulling of any rights claimed to arise by virtue of such 

fraudulent legislation. 

But I beg for myself to say that nothing in the world seems to me to ue AO tlangerous as for Congress to declare now or at any time that 

it i not absolutely bound to regard vested rights, or that it can pro- ceed of its own Yolition or discretion to say that notwithstanding 

tho e rights have ve ted under its own legislation it will repeal that 

logisl:.ttion. I do not myself believe that the provision in the Constitution of the United States which declaTes that no law shall ue pa ed 

by any State impairing the obligations of contracts, was intended to 

express a principle applicable to States only. . I beJieve the arne principles apply to the action of the General Government al o, aml 

that the limitation was imposed upon the State only Lecause they were claimed to po sess all sovereign powers not yielded to the Federal Government ; and that it was not imposed in terms on the 

Federal <;overnment, because Leing a government of delegated pow- ers and. no such general power having been granted to it., except in 

respect of th pa ·sage of general bankrupt laws, no such r e traint was neces ary to protect tlw citizen. Why, a Hamilton said, was it neco · ary to expres in the Constitution any limitation upon powers 

which bad not baeu granted f 

In the first le~~l-tenclcr ueci ion the Supreme Court of the United 

States declru:-ed ui tinctly in terms that Congress had no other power 

to impair the ouligation of contract . In tile second deci ion upon 

thnt subj ect, the court has declared the reverse, but they limited that 

declarat_ion to the su bj cct-matter of Treasury notes under consideration. 

No Federal judge or court has declared, though I know the contrary is 

somet.imes erroneously said of Judge 'Vashington, that Congress was generally at liberty to disregard or override the obligation of con- tract . For myself, I believe·iu the doctrine as to the general limits of lecri httive power in this country which the Supreme Court of the 

United tate announced forty years ago in the Rhode Island ca e of 

Wilkin on v . Leland, that vested rights wel'e (except in the matter 

of hankrnptcies) ueyond the ·reach of any legislation; that it was against the fundamental principles of republican government where 

rights ball become ve··ted, to recall them by changes in legislation. 

Mr. PARKER, of New Hampshire. You Tefer to the Dartmouth 

College case f 

Mr. POTTER. No, sir; not now to the Dartmouth College case, but 

to the Rhode Island case, the case of Wilkinson, where it was claimed 

that becanse the royal charter of Rhode Island. bad never been folJowed 

by any constitution and there was therefore no express limitation 

upon theLegi latureof that State, it was at liberty totakeawayvested 

rights as it plea ed, except where prohibited by the Constitution of 

the Unitell Stat-es. 

MT. G. F. HOAR. 'l'he gentleman will allow me to call his attention to the sixth al"ticle of the amendmente of the Constitution, 

which provides that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." That is a restraint upon the 

power of Congress. 

Mr. POTTER. I so regard it, and I have indeed so argued in the 

lcga.I-temler ca es, and further claimed there, as I was endeavoring 

to say, that it wa , as the Supreme Court had held in the ca e of 

Wilkinson, against the spirit of republican government that any 

Legislatnre should posses power to take away the vested rights of its 

citizens at plea ure. But in addition to that I also maintained that 

there was in the a.r·ticle of amendments to which the gentleman from 

Ma achusetts [Mr. G. F. HOAR] has just called attention an express 

restriction, intended for no other pmpose, (else why should it be 

there 1) than to protect the vested rights of the citizen against the 

powers of Congress in respect of life, liberty, and private property; 

very broad terms, which may and should include, it seems to me, 

every right of the citizen. 

For myself I say again that when Congress baa been entrapped 

into legi lation by fraud., there should be given to some proper tribunal the determination of the rights claimed under such legislation. 

Hut for the Congre s to assume to take back legislation under which 

right have ve ·ted because such legi lation may have been in its belief unwise or fr:mdulent, is to my mind the a ertion of a power in 

the la t degree dangerous to the rights of individuals and which 

would lead to the mo t clangerous misgovernment and abuse. 

"Liberty," said Mr. Webster with great force once, "consists in the 

limitations of government." No government which, is ab olute, 

who e powers vest in the discretion of the law-making power, which 

leaves the law-making power at liberty to do what it may cleem best 

from time to time, can be a, free government. And such an absolute 

government is never so dangerous aa when it is a, popular government. Government of the people is the best of all government when, 

and only when it is limited so as to protect the inalienable rights of 

persons aud when, it is localized so as to be government by the peopleself government. I protest on all occasions against any unnecessary 

centralization of the powers of government, against dep1iving the people in the localities of the power to decide local affairs. Popular rn le to be wi ·o should be home rule. But equally do I protest against 

the as umption that this Federal Congress is a, government of unlimited power, or that it is at liberty to disregard \ested rights and destroy the obligation of contracts. The fathers who framed this Government forbade the power to the States, because they squght to 

preserve the right of individuals. But the prohibition would have 

b en wor e than idle if by the same instrument they had conferred 

this dangerous power in the larger federal government they were creating. No such grant (except a to bankruptcies) can be found in 

the Constitution, and i t would be foreign to their whole scheme of 

government to imply it.* 

*NOTE BY .MR. PoTTER.-Wilkinson vs. Leland involved the validity of an act of 

the Le.l:{islature in the Stat~ of Rhode Islann. It was claimed on the argument 

(1fr. Whipple and Mr. Wirt for the plaintiffu in <:>rror, Mr. Hubbard and Mf. Web- ster for the defendants in eiTor) that the State of Rhode Island, having adopted no written constitution, its Legislaturewaswithout any limits ~xceptthoseprescribed 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5061 

Ur. ORR. I move that the committee me. Mr. HOLMAN. I desire to say a word. 

The CHAIRMAN. The motion that the committee rise is not debatable. 

Mr. PARKER, of Missouri. I want to offer an amendment. 

The CHAIR~. The gentleman from Iowa has moved that the 

committee rise. 

Mr. PARKER, of .Missouri. But nobody voted for that motion so far as I heanl-at least on this s1ue of the House. 

The CHAIRMAN. The motion had not boon put. The Chair is 

about to put tho motion. 

Mr. P .ARKER, of Missouri. I understand that I have a right to 

propose an amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Not while the motion that the committee rise is 

pending. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The committee accordingly rose ; and, the Speaker having resumed 

the chair, Mr. ELLIS H. RoBERT reported that the Committee of the 

Whole had had under consideration the bill (H. R. No. 1142) to 

authorize the Secretary of the Interior to indemnify the holders of 

pre-emption and home tead certificate and certificates of entry and 

patents upon lands in Iowa within the so-called Des Moines River grant on account of failure of titles, and to procure a relinquishment 

of the paramount titles to the United States; and had directed him 

to report that the committee had come to no resolution thereon. Mr. ORR. I now move to suspend the rules so that the bill just 

reported from the Committee of the Whole may be taken up and 

pa. ed. 

Mr. P .ARKER, of :Mi sonri. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. I 

want t.o know whether this is a trick to prevent any amendments to 

thi bill~ 

Mr. ORR. No; it is not. 

Mr. PARKER, of Missouri. I desire, then, to ask the Speaker--

The SPEAKER. It is a trick which only two-thirds of the Hou e can perform. · Mr. PARKER, of Mis onri. I rose before the bill was reported from 

the Committee of the Whole to offer an amendment. 

Mr. ORR. The gentleman rp.ay offer his amendment. I have no objection to taking a vote upon it. I do not want to cut off the gentleman. 

Mr. PARKER, of Missouri. Is it in orderformeto offer an amendment at this time J 

The SPEAKER. If the gentleman [Mr. ORR] who moves to sus- Ilend the rule should include the amendment in his motion the amendment would be in orde~. 

Mr. ORR. I cannot do that. 

The SPEAKER. It is not i u order to amend the motion to suspend 

the rules. • Mr. PARKER, of Missouri. Then I hope the House will vote down 

thiR proposition, as the gentleman will not allow an amendment to a bill appropriating so lar~e au amount of money. 

Mr. G. F. HOAR. I wish to make a parliamentary inquiry. Would 

it not be in ordor for the gentleman from Iowa, if he sees fit, to move so to suspend the rule that a vote bo taken on the amendment of the 

gentleman from Mi souri and then on the bill f · The SPEAKER. It would. · Mr. G. F. HOAR. That wonld bring the Honse to a vote on the 

amendment f 

Mr. ORR. I have no objection to that. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Iowa modifies his motion and moves that the rulos be so suspended that the amendment of the gentleman from Mie ouri. may be voted on and that then the bill be put on its passage. This will give the gentleman from Missouri the adva,ntage of submitting the adoption of the amendment to a majority vote, 

while a two-thirds vote will be req ufred for the passage of the bill. 

Mr. ORR. Then I would not like to assent to the proposition. I 

have not heard t he gentleman' amendment. Mr. P .ARKER, of Missouri. I will read it: 

Whereas this claim appears to be just; but there being a doubt in the minds of 

by the Constitution of the United St-ate , and that the peO}lle of Rhode Island hacl 

tiie power to authorize tho Legislature to appoint a man a judge in his own cause or pass laws contrary to natural justice, so Ion~ as none of the prohibitions of that 

Constitution wore -..-iolated. But Judge Story, rn deli\-ering tho unanin1ous opinion of tl..te court·, declared that " in a government professing to regard the great ri)!hts 

of porsonallibert.v and of yropert.v, and which is r equiretl to legislate in subordina· 

tiou to the general, laws o England it would not lightly be pre umed that the great 

principles of Magna Charta were to be disregarded, or that the estates of its su~jects 

wore liable to be taken away without trial, without notice, and without oftense. Evon if such authority conl.l be cleemed to have been confided b:y the charter to the 

General Assemllly of Rhode Island as an exercise of transcendental soverei!!llty b efore tl..te Revolution, it can scarcely be imagined that that great event could ilave 

left the people of that State subjected to its uncontrolled and arbitrary exercisl'J. That government can sca.1·cely be deemed to be free where the rights of p1·operty are left 

solely dependent upon the will of a legislatire body without any restraint. The funda- mental maxims of a free government seem to require that the rights of per onal 

liberty and private property should be held sacred. At lea t no court of justice in 

this country woulll be warranted in assuming that the power to violat~ and dill- r egard them, a power so repuf}1lant to the com,mon principles of justice and civil liberty, lttrked uncler any general ,qTlt.nt of legislative author-it:'! or ought w be implied {J'OIIt any general ex,.P_ressions of the will of the people. The people OW]ht not w be 

pre.s-mned w pm·t wtth 1'ights so vital to their security and weU being without very 

stT~~;!~otf~e~o~1fsr~=~ f!'e ~~h~~ !-~tfl:d':r too well remembered. 

some members whether the whole amount of money proposed to be appropriated will "0 to the settler:i: Therefore, Be it resolved, That tlte 'ecretary of the Interior be r eque ted to report to the House at. its next se~~ion thfl actual cash value of these lanll~:~, so that an act can then be passel! pronlling for the funding of tlle amount of such cash value that it 

may be held by the &>cr tary of the Treasury for the benefit of said settlers. 

Mr. ORR. A commi ion has already clone that very thing. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Iowa declines to a.Umit the 

amendment. The que tion is on seconding the motion of the gentle- man from Iowa to uspenu the rnles and pass the bill; on which mo- tion the Chair appoints as tellers the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. 

PARKER, a,nu the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. ORR. 

The House divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 99, noes 47. 

So the motion to u pend the rnles was seconded. 

The question recurrrd on suspending the rules and pa sing the bill. 

Mr. SPEER demanded the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The question was taken; and it was tlecided in the affirmative- yeas 151, nays 71, not voting 67 ; as follows: 

YEAS-Messrs. Archer, Averill, Banrung, Bass, Beck, Beaole, Berry, Bradley, 

Bromberg, Buckner, Bunuy, Burleigh, Burrows, Roderick R. Butler, Caldwell, 

Cannon, Cason, Ceslina, John B. Clark, jr., Clements, Clymer, Clinton L. Cobb, Stephen A. Cobb, Coburn, Corwin, Cotton, Crooko, Crounse, Crutchfield, Danford, 

Darrall, Davis, Dawes, Dobbins, Donnan, Dunnl'lll, Field, Fort., Fo. ter, Frye, Gooch, 

Hagans, Harmer Hathorn, Havens, JvhuB. Hawley JoscphR. Hawley Hays, Gerry 

W. Hazelton, Job; W. Hazelton, Hendee H ereford, H erndon, E.·Rock;ood Hoar, 

Hodges!.....Hooper, Hou~hton, llowe, Hub boil, Hurlbut, Hyde, Hynes, Jewet~, Kasson, 

Kelley, Ji.cllogg, Kenuall, Rn11pp, Lamar, Lamport, Lawrence, teach, Lew1s, Loughridge, Lowe, Lowndes, Lvnch, Martin, McCrary, Alexander S. McDill, James \V. 

McDill, MacDougall, McNulta, .Merriam, Moore, Morey, Nealey, Niblack, Nunn, 

O'Xeill, Orr, Orth, Packard, Page, Isaac C. Parker, Parsons, P'elham, P erry, Pierce, Pik ~ James H. Platt,jr., Thomas C. Platt\ Pratt, Rainey, Rapier, Ray, Rice, Rich- mona, Robbins, Ellis H. Roberts, James C. Robinson, Jame W. Robinson, Rusk. 

Sawyer, Henry. B. Sayler, ·John G. Schumaker, Ses ions, Shanks, heats, Sloan, 

Smart, Gi>orcre L. Smith, H. Boardman Smith, Snyder, Stanard, towell, Strait, 

Sypher Cha:ies R. Thomas, Townseml, Tyner, Vance, Waldron, Wallace. Walls, Jasper D. Ward, Wells, \Vheeler, White, Whiteley, Wilber, George Willard, Charles 

G. \Villiams, John M.S. William , William Williams, William B. Willul,ms,James 

Wilson, Jeremiah M. Wilson, Wolfe, Woodforll, and \Voodworth-151. 

NAYS-:llessrs. Alber~ Albri_ght, Arthur, Ashe, Atkins, Barber, Bell, Biery, Blount, Bowen, Bright, .tlrown, 13uflinton, Burchard, Amos Clark, jr., Comingo, Con~er, Cook, Cox, Creamol). Crittenden, Crossland, Durham, Eame , Eldred~re, 

Garfield, Gidllings, Glover u-unckel, Hamilton. Hancock, Benjamin W. Harris, H enry R. Harris, John T. ~s, Harrison, Hatcher, Holman, Hoskins, Hunton, 

Killinger, Lawson, Magee, McJunkin, McLean, Milliken, Monroe, Neal, O'Brien, 

Packer, Hosea W. Parker, Pendleton, Potter, Read, Scofield, Small, A. Herr Smith, 

John Q. Smith, Southard, Speer, Sprague, Starkweather, Stone, Storm, Strawbridge, 

Christopher Y. Thomas, Thornburgh, Todd, Whitthorne, Charles W. Willard, 

Ephraim K. Wilson, and John D. Young-71. • NOT VOTING-Messrs. Adams, Barnum, Barrere, Barry, Bland, Benjamin F. 

Butler, Cain, Freeman Clarke, Clayton, Crocker, Curtis, DeWitt, Duell, Eden, 

Elliott, Farwell, Freeman, Gunter, Eugene Hale, RobertS. Hale, Hersey, George F. 

Hoar, llunter, Lamison, Lansing, Lofland, Luttrell, Marshall, Ma.yna.rd, McKee, 

Mills, Mitchell, Morri<son, Myers, Nesmith, Niles, Phelps, Phillips, Poland, Purmau, 

Randall, Ransier, William R. Roberts, Ross, Milton &'tyler, Henry J. Scudder, Isaac W. cmlder, Sener, Sheluon, Sherwood, Lazarus D. Shoemaker, Slo , J. Ambler 

Smith, Wi.lliamA. Smith, Standiford, Stephens, St. John, Swann, Taylor, Tremain, 

Waduell, Marcus L. '\Vard, Whitehead, Whitehouse, Willie, Wood, and Pierce M. 

B. Young-67. 

So (two-thirds voting in favor thereof) the rnles were suspended 

and the bill was pa ed. 

During the roll-call, 

Mr. SAYLER, of· Indiana, stat.ed that his colleague, Mr. HUNTER, was absent from the city on the business of the House. 

The vote ~vas then announced as above recorded. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.. 

Mr. WILSON, of Indiana. I am directed by the select committee 

appointed to investigate the affairs of the District of Columbia to 

report a bill (H. R. No. 3681) for the government .of the District of 

Columbia, and for other purposes, and to move that it be prih.ted and 

I'ecommitted. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. WILSON, of Indiana. I also submit from the same committee a report which I move be laid upon the table and ordered to be 

printed. 

The motion wa agreed to. 

l\Ir. WILSON, of Indiana. I now give notice that I will call up 

for consideration the bill which I have just reported at two o'clock 

to-morrow. · :Mr. SPEER. I hope the report of the select committee of their investigation into the affairs of th~ District of Columbia will be printed 

in the RECORD. 

The SPEAKER. It will take np a whole REcoRD. 

Mr. SPEER. I withdraw my motion. 

L.lli'DS SOLD FOR DIRECT TAXES. 

Mr. BECK. I move to suspend the rules for the purpose of taking 

up and passing at this time a bill (H. R. No. 3628) for the relief of owners and pnrcha ers of lands sold for direct taxes in insurrection- ary States, and for other purposes. · The bill was read. 

The first section provides that the Secretary of the Treasury be, 

and he is thereby, empowered and directed, out of any money not 

otherwi e appropriated by law, to pay_ to whomsoever shall be satisfactorily shown to him to be the owner or owners, his or their heirs or assigns or legal representatives, of any land sold for direct taxes 

under the provisions of the act entitled "An act for the collection of 

direct taxes in the insurrectionary districts within the United Stat~s, 
5062 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE 16, 

and for other purposes," approved J nne 7, 1862, and of the acts 

amendatory thereof, without interest, the amount of the proceeds 

of sale of any such land for direct taxes due to the United States 

under such act, except lands sold in South Carolina, at Army and Navy 

sale , on which only partial payments have been ma.de, le s all taxe , co ts, and legal charges accrued by rea on of the sale thereof by the 

tax-commissioners of the United States under the said acts; provided 

that such owner or owners, their heirs or assigns or legal repre entati ves, as the case may be, shall, before such payment, duly execute 

and deliver a full and complete quit-claim conveyance of aid property, and release of all mesne rents and profits thereof to the purchaser or purchasers thereof at said tax sale, their heirs, a signs, or legal representatives, as the Secretary may require. 

The second section provides that in case the ownership of said 

property prior to such tax sale is in dispute, or when there are cou- tiicting interests in such owner hip, or when such interests are so involved a to render it proper for a court of equity to adjust the ev- eral interests of parties in the said land, the Secretary of the Trea ury 

shall pay, out of any money not otherwise appropriated by law, to a receiverJ who may be appointed by a court havin~ jurisdiction to 

determine and adjust the aid interests of parties cla1ming an interest 

iu said land, and who may be appointed by said court for such purpo e, who shall give security for the performance of his duties as the 

court may require, the amount of the proceeds of said sale, without 

interest, less all taxes, costs, expenses, and charges, as afore aid, to 

be distributed, according to the order of said court, upon principles 

of equity, among the parties interested in said land according to their 

respective interests; provided that an order or decree be made by 

such court, all parties in interest consenting thereto, that said sum of 

money hall be accepted in lieu of the land, and that a commi ioner or other officer be appointed thereby, who shall execute a complete 

quitclaim conveyance of said property, and a release of all me ne 1·ents and profit tl1ereof, to the purchaser or purchasers thereof at 

aid tax sale, their heir , assigns, or legal representatives; which 

conveyance shall, upon the receipt of such money by such receiver, 

operate a a complete extin~uishment of all claim, right, title, and 

interest of the parties to such suit who may have been the owner or owners of said land at and before such sale, or have derived title or interest therein from such owner or owners as heirs, assigns, or otherwi e. 

The third section provides that in ca e the owner or owners of the 

land at and prior to such tax sale, or partie having a valid lien or interest upon or in the arne, or any one or more of such persons or partie , are incapacitated, by rea on of infancy, in anity, or other 

legal disability, from complying with the provi ions of the :fir t two 

sections of this act, so as to give to the aid purchaser or purchasers a conveyance of their interests in the said land, or in case such 

former owners or parties, or any one of them, shall refuse to avail 

themselves or him elf of the privilege conferred by the said first two 

sections, and such facts shall be sati factorily shown to the Secretary of the Treasury, and in ca. e it shall also be shown to his satisfaction that the tax comroi ioners under the act, in executing the 

provision of said act, ma<le it their inva1iable role and practice not 

to receive the taxe after the forfeiture impo ed by the act and before the sale, unless the same were tendered by the owner of aid land 

jn properperson,the SecretaryoftheTrea ury hall,ontofanymoney 

not otherwise appropriated by law, pay, un their application and 

urrender of tax-sale certificat~, to the purcha er or purchasers at said 

tax sale, his or their heirs or assigns, or legal representatives, a he may 

determine, the amount of the proceeds of said tax sale less all taxe , co t , and charges under the •said act; provided .that said purchaser or purchasers, their heirs, a signs, or legal representatives, as the case may be, shall first execute and (leliver to the former owner or owners, and their heirs or a siiYns, a quit-claim conveyance of said 

property; which conveyance sh;Ji take effect and give to the former owner or owners, their heirs or assi~ns, an immediate right of po ses- sion to said property upon the receipt of the said money by said purchaser or purcha ers, or their heir , assi~ns, or legal repre entative . The fourth section provides that the time limited for the redemp- tion of direct-tax lands by the act entitled ''An act to provide for 

the redemption and sale of lands held by the United State under the 

several acts levying direct taxes, and for other purposes," approved 

June 8, 1872, be, and the same is thereby, extended for the period of one year from June 8,1874, at the expiration of which time the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall proceed to sell the lands as provided by section 4 of said act. 

The fifth section provides that the purchasers, their heirs or assigns, 

of lands in South Carolina, sold at what is known as "Army and Navy" 

sales, and which lands have reverted' to the United States for non- payment of the full amount of purchase-money, may be permitted to 

redeem the same, as provided in ection 5 of aid act, on payment into 

the Treasury of the remainder of purcha e-money, with interest, at 

the legal rate in South Carolina, from the date when said remainder 

of purchase-money became due, to the date of payment into the 

Treasury, deducting rents received by the United States from such 

lands, but rents in no case to. offset principal. And such Army and 

Navy purchasers shall make said payment, with interest as aforesaid, 

into the Treasury of the United States within six months from the 

passage of this act, at which time their right to the redemption of 

said land hall cease. 

The sixth section provides that section 7 of said act shall not hereafter be held or con truecl to exclude from redemption lands in the 

State of South Carolina set apart and known as "school farms," re- maining in the pos e ion of the United States; nor lands reserved for 

war, military, naval, revenue, and police purposes under the instruction of the Pre ident of the United States dated September 16, 1 63, 

unless actually et a1>art for such purposes prior to the date of the 

pa age of the act. 

The seventh section provides that where the United States have 

not been in possession of the lands, a release thereof in conformity to 

the provisions of the act of J nne 8, 1872, shall also operate a a 1·elease of all rents that may have accrued thereon· since the United 

States acquired title thereto. 

U.-. BECK. I only want to say to the Hou e that the material 

portion of this bill was reported favorably by the Committee on Revision of the Laws, and the bill as reported has been approved ah;o 

by the Committee on Ways and Means. It will be seen by the 

RECORD of June 11 that it has been drawn in part and approvedfully 

by the Internal Revenue Department; indeed -the original draught was prepared by the Commis.c;ioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner approves every word of it and indorses it. I sent it to 

him a day or two ago for re-examination and approval and received 

his unqualified indorsement. It is only carrying out the princip~es 

of the law of 1872. I move to suspend the rules for the pnrpo e of 

passing the bill. I a.m willing, however, to answer any questions any 

gentleman may choo e to a k. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Has this bill been considered by the Committee on Ways and l\feans f · 

Mr. BECK. It bas, and is approved by it; it was drawn by the Department or under its direction. 

1\fr. LAWRENCE. What does the original act provide f 

Mr. BECK. It provide for giving back all the lands the United 

State now hold upon the payment of the taxes and co ts. 

1\fr. WILLARD, of Vermont. Why should the time be extended 

1\fr. BECK. Becan e the law expired on the 8th of Jtme, 1874, 

and in South Carolina, at Beaufort and elsewhere, the court-houses 

have been burned and many of the original titles were destroyed. 

Mr. GARFIELD. What amount will be taken out of the Trea ury 

by this bill f 

:M:r. BECK. The committee thinks that ultimately it may take 

about 600,000. 

:Mr. GARFIELD. The gentleman says" ultimately;" in what time f 

:Mr. BECK. In perhap two or three year . I cannot say exactly. 

After deducting all taxes, cost , and commis ions, of course the sur- plus belongs to the original owner of the property, when the pmcha er is quieted in his title. 

1\fr. GARFIELD. Does this bill include expenses of litigation 

There have been a large amount of cases liti~?>ted in the comt . 1\fr. BECK. Wherever there has been any litigation the costs have 

been paid by the private parties, not by the Government in the ca es provided for here, as I under tand it. · ~fr. GARPIELD. Does this bill interfere with the forfeit me clau e of the direct tax-law! 

lli. BECK. I think not in the slightest degr e. 1\fr. GARFIELD. If the gentleman will allow me, I will say in 

this connection that there was a ca s decided in the Supreme Court orne three years ago, in which it was decided that the object of the 

law was to collect tax and not to inflict penalties. 

Mr. BECK. This bill merely continues and extends the law of 

1872 where the property ha been sold and is now held by the purchasers; it i to 1·eturn the purchase-money and secure rights which are clearly equitable. 

Mr. GARFIELD. How much money will go out of the Treasury 

under this law i 

Mr. llECK. The committee thinks there ma.y be . 600,000 taken 

out of the Trea-sury. 

The motion to uspeod the roles was seconded, and (two-thirds 

voting in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill pa eel. 

GE.XEVA AWARD. 

The SPEAKER announced the appointment of ~lr. BUTLER of 

Ma sachusett , Mr. FRYE of Maine, and Mr: PoTrER of New York, as the conferees on the part of the House upon the diagreeing vote 

of the two Hou es upon the amendments of the House of Repre entatives to the bill (S. No.7) for the creation of a court for the adjudication and dispo ition of certain moneys received into the '.l'reasmy 

under an award made by the tribunal of arbitration constituted by 

virtue of the :first article of the treaty concluded at Washington the 

8th of May, A. D. 1871, between the United States of America aml 

the Queen of Great Britain. 

BANKRUPT LAW. 

~lr. TREM..A.IN submitted the following report from the committee 

of conference: 

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on tl1e 

amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 792) t.o r epeal the act entitled ".An act to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States," ap- proved March 2, 1 67, and all laws and parts of laws amendatory thereto, having 

met, after full and free conference have agreed to recomm.end1 and do recommend. to their respective Houses a follows: ' That the House r ecede from it disagreement to the amendments of the Senate 

and agree to the same with the following amendments thereto: 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5063 

Section 1, line 5, after the word "thereof," insert "under the direction of the court.' ' 

Section 1, insert at the end of the section: 

Provided, That such order shall not be made until the court shall be satisfied that 

it is approved by a majority in value of the creditors. 

Section 4, line 5, before t1ie word "sales" inRert " public." _ Section 4, line 6, after the word " published " insert "once a week for three con- secutive weeks." 

Section 4, line 10, after the word " sales" insert "including the power to set aside 

the same, and to order a resale." 

Section 4, line 13, strike out the words "in hand." 

Se tion 4, line 13, strike out the words "in three equal " and insert in lieu thereof 

"within eighteen months in such." 

Section 4, lin~ 14, after the word "installments" insert "as the court may direct." 

Section 4, lines 15 a~d 16, strike out the words "and payable at intervals of not more than sh:: months between any t;wo payments." Section 4, line 23, strike out "one" and insert in lieu thereof "ten.'' 

Section 4, line 39, stri-ke out the word " or." 

Section 4, line 41, strike out the words "think fit" and insert in lieu thereof "so 

order." 

Section 4, lines 45 and 46, strike out the words "or deposit of any of the funds coming to his hands as such a.s ignee," and insert in lieu thereof " disposal, or pro- ceeds of the bankrupt's estate." 

Section 4, line 56, strike out the word "three" and insert in lieu thereof "five." 

Section 5, lines 1 and 21 strike out the words "adding after the word 'specifies' 

in line 35 the words, " and insert in lieu thereof the woras "striking out the words 

'as the warrant specifies' where they first occur, and insertin a the words 'as the 

marshal shall select, not exceeding two,' ' and inserting after fue word 'specifies,' 

where it last occurs, the word ." 

::iection 9, line 11, strike out the word "three." 

Section 9, line 14, after the word "of" insert "at least one-fourth of." 

Section 9, line 15, before the word "value " insert "one-third in." 

Section 9, lines 13 and 14, strike out the words "as prescribed by existing law." 

Section 11. insert at the end of the section the words "And nothing in said sec- tion 35 shall be construed to invalitla.te any loan of actual value, or the security therefor, made in good faith, upon a secunty taken in good faith on the occasion 

of the making of such loan." 

Section 12, Hne 15, after the word" court" insert" of the United States or." 

Section 12, line 20, after the word "law" in ert "of the United States or." 

Section 12, line 32, after the words "being a" insert ''bank." 

ection 12, line 36, strike out " or." 

Se-etion 12, line 37, after the word " such" insert" or who, being a. bank or banker, shall fail for forty days to pay any depositor upon demand of payment lawfully made." 

Section 12, line 59, after the word "court" insert ("if satisfied that the admission was macle in good faith. ") 

Insert as an additional section, after section 15 of the amendments, the following : Section -. That section 49 of said act be amended by striking out after the word 

"the," in line 5, the words "supreme courts," and inserting in lieu thereof "district courts;" and in line 6, after the word "States," inserting the words "subject to the general superintendence and jurisdiction conferi'ed npon circuit courts by section 2 of said act." And that the numbering of the sections be changed so as to correspond with the 

forgoing amendment . .And the Senate agree to the same. L YM.AN TREMAIN, 

:BENJ. F. :BUTLER, CHAS. A. ELDREDGE, 

Managers on the part of the House. 

GEO. F. EDMUNDS, 

GEO. G. WRIGHT, .A. G. THURMAN,.. Managers on the part of th<3 Senate. 

trhe question wa upon agreeing to the report. 

1\fr. TRE}.fAIN. Several gentlemen have a ked me to explain these 

amendments, and I will do so in a few moments if the House will 

give me its attention. The basis upon which we have proceeded in 

making up this report are the amendments of the Senate which have 

not been cons.idered in the House, and therefore I will very briefly 

state the effect of this conference report. 

The principal point of difference between the two Houses was as to the repeal or amendment of the bankrupt law. Instructed by the 

House, the managers on the part of the House endeavored to procure 

the repeal of the law. .They failed utterly in this, and became satisfied tha.t there was no chance whatever to procure the consent of the 

committee on the part of ·the Senate oro£ the Senate to such a repeal. 

Therefore they have proceeded, under the assurance on the part of 

the managers on behalf of the Senate that they would yield as far as po sible to the desire of the House, to do away with the odious features of the bankrupt law. The first amendment i in regard to what constitutes an act of 

bankruptcy. The old bankrupt law passed in ltlOO did not make the 

omission to pay a debt an act of bankruptcy. The present law, the 

law of 1867, declares that the omission to pay a debt for fourteen days wa-s an act of bankruptcy. But the conference report amends that 

law so as to allow a period of forty days to elapse before a merchant or trader who neglects to pay his commercial paper is liable to be 

thrown into bankruptcy. Your committee regard that as a very 

material alleviation of the severity of the present law. 

The next important amendment is in regard to the power of any one creditor to throw a merchant or a trader into the bankrupt court. 

The present law gives that right to any one creditor or to any number 

of creditors who have debts amounting to the sum of 2f>O. This is 

the origin of a great portion of the complaints made against the law, 

for if !J5 per cent. in number and in value of the creditors were un- willing to have the party thrown into bal;lkruptcy a single merciless or 

malicious creditor would have that right. This is amended under the 

report of the conference committee on the amendments of the Senate so as to require an assent of one-fourth in number and one-third in 

value of the creditors before any man is liable to be thrown into bankruptcy. Bnt in order to meet the cases which may have arisen since 

the 1st December last, when we first agitated the subject of the repeal or amendment of the bankrupt law, this section requiring one- fourth in number and one-third in value a a condition of throwing 

into bankruptcy, has been made to relate back to the commencement 

of the session of Congress on the 1st day of December last. The object 

of this is to pre~ent any overreaching credi~or who intended to get 

ahead of Congress from taking anything by his motion. 

And then there was no provi ion made in the present law for discontinuing the proceedings in bankruptcy~ though the bankrupt may 

bave paid the debts on which he was thrown into bankruptcy, and 

although a..majority of the creditors may have de ired the proceedings 

to be discontinued. In this respect we have amended the bill so as to provide that proceeding shall be discontinued whenever the bankrupt pays those secured debts which were the ground of throwing 

him into bankruptcy, or whenever, with the ~onsent of the court, he 

and a majority of the creditor shall ask for a discontinuance of the 

proceedings. Then we have changed the time within which contracts and transactions had with a bankrupt in ma1."in~ a transfer of property or liens 

upon it may be set aside in case he snail afterward be thrown into 

bankruptcy by chaugin~ the time from four to two months in one case, and from six montns to three in another case. To meet that large cla of ca es where a person may take an as- signment of property or make an advance of money in good faith, or where a judgment may have been obtained or a lien acquired by 

the seizure of his property, in order to obviate the evils resulting from 

conflicting decisions we have adopted amendments declaring that in 

order to set aside any such hypothecated pledges or liens on the bankrupt's estate it must appear that the party dealing with the bankrupt 

1.'"llew that he intended to perpetrate a fraud upon the bankrupt law 

and that he intended to go into bankruptcy. It is no~ enough that 

the party had reason to suppose that the bankrupt was msolvent, but 

he must also know that he was contemplating .bankruptcy. If he was really strnggling to retrieve his condition, and hoped and ex- pected to go through, the transaction would not be invalidated by 

the bankrupt law. 

And then we have incorporated an affirmative provision in our re- port, that whenever a bankrupt obtains a loan from a. friend in good 

faith, even where insolvent, where the loan is made and the security 

is taken in good faith, with the intention of aiding and carrying him 

through successfully, such a loan shall be considered as having actual 

value and the security taken upon it shall not be invalidated by the 

proceedings in the bankrupt court. 

Then we have also changed the law in regard to the conditions on which a discharge may be procured. Under the present law, as you 

will remember, a voluntary bankrupt may pay either 50 per cent. or obtain the consent of a majority of his creditors. The Senate report 

originally made -this distinction between a voluntary and an involuntary bankrupt. An involuntary bankrupt thrown into bankruptcy 

and free from all fraud was entitled to his discharge without regard to 

the a-ssent of his creditors, or the amount his estate paid; while they 

proposed that the voluntary bankrupt should pay either 33 per cent. of 

hisdebtsorobtain the con entof amajorityofhiscreditors. \Veclaimed 

that there was no good reason for such a distinction between the two 

classes, and that the discrimination ought not to be made against the 

voluntary bankrupt, who surreqilered all his property in good faith 

and asked to have the benefits of the law. The Senate manager , however, claimed that there ought to be a distinction, for the reason that where .the requisite number of creditors insisted on throwing 

him into bankruptcy, they treated him as civilly dead and should not 

be permitted to avail them elve of his subsequent earnings in payment of the debts. But they yielded so far to the views of the J:Iou:'le 

committee as to say that a voluntary bankrupt should have his clischarge if the estat.e paid 30 per cent. instead of 50 per cent., as under 

the existing law, or provided he obtained the -same number of his 

creditors as is neces acy to throw him into bankruptcy; that is, one- fourth in number and one-third in value. Now in regard to an involuntary bankrupt he can get his discharge if his conduct is free from 

all fraud and he is innocent of any violation or infringement of the 

provi ions of the bankrupt act. 

In this connection I may state that I have seen a memorial sent on from New York which has an entirely erroneous idea aa to the right of an involuntary bankrupt in re~ard to his discharge. T?e me~oria~­

ists seem to assume that an mvoluntary bankrupt will obtam his 

discharge although guilty of violations of the existing law; wh~reas 

it is provided that before he can get his discharge he must be entitled 

to it under existing law. 

The thirty-ninth section of the existing law declares that no di - charge shall be granted, or if granted shall be valid, if the b~­

rupt is guilty of any one of the sixteen acts enumerated, covenng 

almost every conceivable case, and winds up by saying that he shall 

not be entitled to it if he be guilty of any fraud of any kind in 

violation of the provisions of the bankrupt law. This shows that 

they have labored under an entire misconception of the effect of the 

Senate amendment. 

Mr. HARRIS, of Virginia. Will the gentleman from New York 

allow me to ask him a question f 

:Mr. TREMAIN. Certainly; with pleaame. Mr. HARRIS, of Virginia. Under the law as it existeu before ~69 

in a case of voluntary bankruptcy the 50 per cent. had to be paid only on debts created since 1870. 
506J CONGl~ESSION.AL RECORD. JuNE 16, 

Mr. TREl\WN. That was the law of 1867 • was it not f 

Mr. HARRIS, of Virginia. The law of 1869 when the amendment wa-s made. Previous to that time no percentage was required to be 

paid on old debts. 

Mr. TRE1\1A.IN. There is now no distinction made. 

:Mr. HARRIS, of Virginia. Then this applies to old debts as well 8B to new ones. I desire to know whether the 30 per cent. dates back 

since a given time or applies indefinitely to old as well as to new debts. 

Mr. TRE1\1A.IN. I will say in reply to the gentleman from Virginia 

that the attention of the Senate managers was called to that provision of the law on our part and we desired to have that provision re- tained, but it was supposed that the debts of this class were small 

and inconsiderable in number and it was thought best that there 

should be a uniform rule1 and that the rule provided for by this bill 

ought to apply to old del>ts as well as to new ones. We have also provided that the as ignee, as W8B disclosed in recent 

proceedings in New Orleans where large profits were made by dividmg the fees of auctioneers and in other ways, should not be permitted 

to avail himself of such profit . We ha.ve also provided to meet a case under the old law where if a creditor had attempted to obtain a lieu on the property of the bankrupt, that is held to be fraudulent 

and he forfeits all right to prove his debt and be a,llowed for any part 

of it out of the bankrupt's estate. We have modified this so as to say 

that he shall only .forfeit a moiety of his debt. 

We have also made further provision for composition by creditors 

wjth the assent of the debtor, providing that the composition may be 

made by a majority of the creditors where approved by the court for 

the release and discharge of the debtor. . We have reduced the fees and expenses of bankruptcy one-half, 

until the judge<:J of the Supreme Court shall meet in convention and es~ablish a permanent system of reduction of fees and a simplification 

of the proceedings in cases of bankruptcy so a to render them less 

expensive to the bankrupt, and to expedite proceedings. 

We have also provided for the utmost publicity as to all the acts 

of persons connected with the execution of the law, by requiring full 

and minute· reports to be made and published from the clerk, from 

the a..<lSignee, from the marshal, and from the register. We were anxious to get several other amendments to the law in which we failed, 

and in particular we de ired that mortgages should be taken out of the 

operation of the law, and that a foreclosure of a mortgage should not 

be enjoined by a bankrupt court. But the managers on the part of 

the Senate .claimed that the la.w now is that no bankrupt comi; shall 

restrain fqreclo nre of a mortgage, except in especial and extreme cases where the interest of an estate require it, and that that power 

is subject to the supervisory control of the circuit judge. They also 

assured ns that at the next se ~ion of Congre , or at some time hereafter, they would be ready to co-operate with us in amending the law so as to remedy any evils that time and experience may develop. 

We have also, at the suggestion of several of the Delegates from 

the Territories, made an amendment by which original jurisdicrion 

is conferred on the courts in the Territorie , ~object to the appellate 

jurisdiction of the supreme court of the Territory, in bankrupt ca.ses, 

whereas it hM been decided that it did not exist heretofore. 

This statement covers substantially the leading points in which we amend the present law, and I will only say in conclusion that the 

question presented to us, and the question now presented to the 

House., is not whether a bankrupt law hould pa s·. We were reminded 

by the managers on the part of the Senate, and we were painfully 

conscious of the fact, that the law as it stands cannot be changed 

except by the assent of both Houses of Congre s, and that we must 

either accept the situation and make such a.menclments a~ we could 

obtain to the existing law, or allow it to remain in force with all its 

acknowledged evils. We have done the best we could to secure amenclments, and it is for the House to determine, not whether a bankrupt law ought to be pa ed, not whether the pre ent law should 

be repealed, but whether it shall b amended and ameliorated. 

Mr. L.A. WRENCE. I desire to ask the gentleman whether this bill 

will operate as a discontinuance or authorize a di continuance of any 

bankrupt proceeding now pending which has been commenced by 

creditors less in number or value thau is pre cribecl by this bill f . 

Mr. TRE.MAIN. That is a que tion of con truction upon which I am not inclined to expre an opinion. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. But it is a very important question. 

Mr. TREMAIN. No such question baa been discu sed or raised in 

the committee of conference. This bill amends the original bankrupt 

law by providing that it shall read a follow -givin~ the act in its 

amended form. Now it might be claimed with great mgennity that 

this, as an amendment of the original law, woulu apply to prior cases 

as well as those ari ing after the pa age of the amendato1·y act. But 

on t.hat question I do not undertake to expre an opinion. The general rule of construction donbtle is that tatntes are only to be con- strued prospectively unle where the contrary intention is expre ed. 

As to one section of this bill, a I have already tated, the statute is 

made to retroact back to the 1st of December last. Now, as to th~ 

rule which ~:>hall obtain in reference to a discharge, the law which 

exists at the time of grantin..., a dischar(l'e would probably apply. 

For example, in this ca e the o1.d Jaw l'eguYating the conditions upon 

which a discharge may be granted will be r pealed, and the only law 

regulating the terms of such clischarge willl.Je t.be new rule which, 8B 

I have already observed, in cases of voluntary bankruptcy changes 

the percentage of payment from 50 to 30 per cent. and reduces the 

requisite number of assenting creditors from a majority to one-fourth 

in number and one-third in value. 

:Mr. LAWRENCE. Is it not better that we should settle that 

question now than leave it open to controver y hereafter f 

1\Ir. WARD, of Illinois. I wish to make a suggestion. 

1\Ir. TREMAIN. I propose to yield to my colleague on the com- mittee of conference, the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. ELDREDGE.] 

Mr. WARD, of Illinoi . We ought not to pass on this bill until 

it has been printed. I desire to make a. motion that it be printed 

and made a special oruer for the day after to-monow, immediately 

after the readin<T of the Journal. 

Mr. TREM:Ai.N. I do not yield for that motion. I yield to the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania [1\Ir. MYERS] for a que tion. 

Mr. :MYERS. I 'vish to put an inquiry in rega1·d to the sixteenth 

section of the bill, relating to composition 'vith creditors. In the 

bill as it came to us from the Senate ·it was provided that are olntion of composition, to be operative, must be pa ed by a. majority in 

number and three-fourth in value of the creditor , confirmed afterward by the signatures of the debtor and two-thirds in number and 

one-half in value of the creditors. This resolution, with a statement 

of the debtor as to his a ets and debts, was to be pre ented to the 

court; and the court, upon being satisfied on proper notice and bearing, that the resolution had been duly pas ed and that the same is 

for the best interests of all ({Oncerned, should cause it to be recorded 

and the statement filed. A.s the Senate bill read, such resolution was to be of no validity until such record and filing. Now I ask the 

gentleman whether the committee of conference have left in the bill 

that provision, o that no matter how large a. number of creditors 

may have complied with the law and passed a re olntion for composition the court, if it think such re olution not for the best interest of 

all concerned, may declare it of no validity f 

1\Ir. TREMAIN. The managers on the part of the Hou e endeavored to procure a modification of that provision so as to declare that 

where a majority of the creditors agreed with the debtor as to com- position it should not be subject to the supervi ory control of the 

court. We were, however, unable to procure such a provision; and 

inasmuch as the entire provision with regard to compo ition is an advance upon the pre ent law, we yielded. The argument on the 

part of the Senate committee was that inasmuch as we are taking 

from the minority of creditors the right they would otherwise have 

under the composition, such composition, in order to bo constitutional, ought to be subject to the supervisory control of the court. 

We did all we could to meet the views of my friend from Pennsylvania, but we have fa.iled. 

Mr. MYERS. I am very sorry that you have. 

1\ir. TREl\1A.IN. I now yield to my colleague on the conference 

committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin1 [Mr. ELDREDGE.] 

1\fr. ELDREDGE. I do not wish to make any extended remarks. 

It is well known to the House that I have been opposed to any bankrupt 

law. I was opposed to the original bill and voted against it; I voted 

for its repeal at the last se ion, and also at the pre ent se sion. I was in hopes that the law might be repealed, I have signed this re- port because I felt compelled to do so; not ~ause the law in the 

form proposed to be amended is Ratisfactory to me; not because the 

amenclments are so extensive as I would wish to see adopted, but be- cause we had to take these amendments or nothing. We were obliged 

either to accept these amendments or let the law stand as it is now. The Senate committee at once took the po ition that they had the 

power to keep the law as it now stands; that these ion of Congress was far gone, and that unles we agreed to some amendments the old Jaw 

with all its obnoxious provisions would continue upon the statute book. 

Under these circumstances we deemed it our duty to go to work and 

pull as many rotten teeth out of the old law as we. could. That was our endeavor; and I think the e amendments will improve the law 

very much indeed in many respects. The gentleman from New York 

[1\Ir. TREM.A..rn] has stated the effect of the several amendments, and 

it must I think be apparent to the House that they are very great 

improvements upon the existing law. If there were no other change 

than the limitation as to the fees which the officials of the court may 

charge in bankrupt proceedings, that of itself would be an object 

worthy of attainment. A. gentleman near me inquires whether we leave ·the involuntary feature ill the bill. We do. The amendments we recommend will prevent any such exorbitant charges being made as the investigation of proceedings in cases in Louisiana, Alabama, 

and some other States shows to have been made ther . It being apparent that we must either continu .the old law with 

all its defects and deformities or else amend it, I deemed it my duty 

to get the best measure I could, and therefore I signed the report. 

The conferees on the part of the House endeavored to get, and did 

get, jn t as much cone ion as they could from the Senate. But as the Senate had the power either to merely amend the law or to con- tinue the present law in force, they had ns pr tty much at their mercy. 

I think that tho e who are in favor of the repeal of the ban.k:rnpt law 

will find that the existing law is very mncll impro ed by the amendments recommended in our report. . MT. TREMAIN. I yield to my colleague, [Mr. POTTER.] 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I would like to be heard on this 

question. 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5065 

Mr. POTTER. If the ~entleman from Massa~husetts [Mr. BUTLER] 

wishes to speak first I w1ll give way. 

Mr. DUTLER, o_f Massaclmsetts. I wa.s about to take the floor, 

Mr. Speaker; as one of the members of the committee of conference 

to say t.o the House that if any gentleman finds that the bill with 

tho present amendment is not what he would like to have he has only 

to ask himself, "Is this bill with the amendments better than the old 

law¥" Because if it is, then you had better vote for it, for it is either aM we have amended it or to let the law taml as it is now. There are two or three things where I think this is a great deal better. In the firstplace, undertheoldlaw,if aman1

spaperwenttoprotest for fourteen days, one of his creditoi , to the amount of t.wo dol- lars, could put hiln int-o bankruptcy. The law as amended stands 

that his paper must lie over forty days, and then one-fourth of all 

his creditors in number and one-third in value must agree together before he can be put into bankruptcy. · 

The other great provision, which I think is an important one, is that 

it shortens the time in which conveyances may be set asille. Now 

the time is four and six months, and a matter must Lo ix months old 

in some cases which may be inquired into. Now those times are reduced to two months and three months. 

Again, it requires knowledge within the meanuig of the law of the 

fraudulent condition of the bankrupt on the part of the man who 

deals with him to set aside a conveyance. The pre ent law all of you 

know and know how much litigation has grown up under it. 

Again, abont thequestionputby the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LAWRENCE] I have no doubt; that is, that all cases which are now pending must be wound up under the law as it will be wllen the President 

signs it with our amendment. 

Mr. CONGER. What cases J 

Mr. BUTLER, of Ma achusetts. All kinds of ca es under it-under 

the law as it will be amended, because the amendments are amendments to the law as it is. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Bnt my question was-- 1\Ir. DUTLER, of Massachusetts. I am comin(J' to yom question. 

The question was, whether it will alter the condition of any one of 

these cases so far a-s to ~et a man into bankrn~tcy is concerned; that 

is, if a man went into rnvoluntary bankruptcy on the petition of a single creditor, will this law take him out. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. That is it. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Clearly not, because the law will 

not be retroactive in matters now in conflict. It will not alter the 

condition of fraud committed before he went in. It wHl not alter 

anything which has been done, because this, more than any other 

law, ought not and cannot be retroactive under the language of the 

Constitution. 

. Mr. LAWRENCE. It is t he general rule that every law is prospective unless mMle expre ly retroactive. l\fr. BUTLER, of Ma ·sachusetts. We have only made it retto- . active ill one or two instances where nece~ary, not to leave a hiatus. 

Mr. PARSON.'. In case of any suit now pending in bankruptcy 

commenced prior to the pa.s ·age of this act will the bankrupt be com- pelled to pay anything more than the amount provided for in the 

present law f 

~Ir. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. He will be relieved by the provisions of the Ia.w as they stand at the moment he makes application 

to the comt for his discharge. 

Mr. GARFIELD. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question 7 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Certainly. 

Mr. GARFIELD. Will the bill as it stands specifically make this 

retroactive back to any given point f 

Mr. BUTLER, of Ma-ssachusetts. Only in one or two instances, 

which are of minor importance. 

Mr. GARFIELD. I understand the gentleman to claim, if we amend 

the law by adding certain words to it so they are to be injected into 

the body of t.he old law, the words thus put ill will take effect under 

the old law as of the date of the old law. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. They will take effect in the old 

law of the date when they become tho law. 

Mr. GARFIELD. Of the date when they were put in f 

Mr. BUTLER, of Ma achu etts. Let me give an in tance, and that 

will illustrate it. Suppose the law sh.onld be if A struck B he should 

be hanged, and then we shonld put in the word " not," " should not 

be hanged," I take it A would not be hanged for striking B, under the 

old law. 

I yield to the gentleman from lllinois, [Mr. WARD,] who proposes 

to move that the conference report be printed. 

Mr. CONGER. I desu·e to ask the gentleman from Massachusetts a question. Whether this changes the mode of manageme-nt in the 

sett.lement of estates in bankruptcy T 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. It only allows creditors to come in and wind up the estates under certain rule , which are included in 

the amendments. It does not affect the mode of settlement beyond 

this. It affects the number and value of creditors who may consent 

to the discharge. • 

I wish to say one thing more, and then I will yield to the gentleman 

from Dlinois, who desires to make a motion to have the amendments 

printed--

Several MEMBERS. That is right. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Mas achusetts. I hope, however, that the gentleman will not succeed in that motion. 

Another great benefit that will result from these amendments is 

this: The unh·ersal cry from one end of this country to the o her was and is that estates in bankruptcy a.re eaten up in fees and costs. Now we have gone to work and cut down those costs one-half on the face 

of them. And that was not the worst of it. The worst of it wa-s that 

there was no supervision of the costs. A great many judges did not 

make it their business to look into the costs. We have arranged it so th:tt there must be a publication of all the fees and expenses in 

bankruptcy, so that every man in the community can revise the fees 

in every case. The clifficnlty was that there were clerks who made no reports and charged enormous fees. There were registers who 

overcharged, and there were a iguees who ran away with millions of 

estates and never divided anything. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN. I desire to ask the gentleman a question. 

Where a man goes into bankruptc. under. this law, is he required to 

pay 30 per cent. before he gets his discharge; or is he referred back to 

the old law ·J 

Mr. B TLER, of Mas achusetts. He is required to pay the 30 per 

cent. or get tho a, ent of a certain portion of his creditors, one-fourth 

in number and one-third in value, instead of a majority as hcrctofOI'e. 

Mr. CRITTEl\TDEN. In the case where a man is made a bankrupt 

by his creditors is he di charged under this law, by the operation of 

the law, or is bo required to pay a certain percentage of his clehtsand 

to obtain a certain proportion of his creditors 'f 

Mr. BUTLBH, of Massachusetts. He gets his discharge if there 

has been no fraud. I now yield to the gentleman from Dlinois, [Mr. 

WARD.] 

Mr. TREMAIN. I hope the adoption of the report will not be 

thrown over till to-morrow on the motion to print. 

l\Ir. WARD, of Illinois. IJ tllere is general oppo ition to the motion 

I 'vill not pre it. · Mr. TRE:\LUN. I now yield to my colleague, [Mr. PoTTER.] 

l\Ir. HARRIS, of Vhginia. Before the gentleman from New York 

[Mr. POTTER] proceeds, I desire to ask the gentleman from New York 

[Mr. TREMAI~] of the committee of conference, this question: l n 1 6!) an amendment was made to the bankrupt law providing t.hat 

the homestea<llaw in the several States, not exceeding $2,000, should 

be set apart for the bankrnpt, and in addition, that the bankrupt 

should have the benefit of the homestead law a against ju<lgment 

decrees and onlers of the court existing prior to that time. In my 

State Judge Bond decided that as to the liens prior to the pa sage of 

the act it was unconstitutional and void. The npreme court of the 

State confirmed that decision, thus r endering the homestead provision 

in my State a nullity. I desire to ask whether the conference ~om

mittee have taken that que tion into considemtion and have tried to 

introduce a uniform system so as to avoid the construction put upon 

it by that decision Mr. TREl\'lAIN. The question the gentleman has referred to was brought up in this form: The managers on the part of the House 

encleavoretl to get an amendment of the bankrupt law so as to provide that the supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the circuit court 

in bankrnptcy shall itself be subject to appeal to the Supreme Con.rt 

of the United States, so that the very cla.ss of cases the gentleman has 

referrrecl to might be brought to the Supreme Court. The Senate 

refused to adopt that amendment on two grounds: first, because 

the Supreme Court was already overwhelmed with business; and 

second, because it might interfere with the summary flispo ition of 

the bankrupt's estate, which it was the object of the bankrupt law 

to bring about. Our attention was not called to any evil in the law 

it elf. The law itself, as the gentleman has correctly stated, provides for an exemption, and we did not change that. 

I give notice that after my colleague [Mr. POTTER] has addressed 

the House for five mumtes I will call the previous question. 

l\Ir. POTTER. Mr. Speaker, I am very reluctant to detain the 

Ron e on this qnestion, when it is so desirous of coming to a vote. 

At the same time I should have preferred that the motion of the gentleman from lllinoi [Mr. WARD] had prevailed, so that the amendments embraced i.u the conference report might be printed, and that 

the House might take some other time for its consideration; b cam;e, 

late as theses ion i , this subJ ect is of sufficient import.anco to yet 

further deserve our careful deliberation. 

There is nncloubtedly presented here, as. the gentleman from Mn - sachnsetts [l\Ir. DUTLER] has said, a choice of evils between the existing law and the propo. eel law. But none the less ought it t-o be con idered whetherit would not be the wise tpolicy to submit until 

another se sion to the existing law rather than, by adopting such a partial and imperfect amelioration of the existing law as is proposed by this roport, weaken the chance for absolute repeal which we might otherwise have. l\fy colleague has stated to tlle House that 

tho only protest from the creditors of the countr, which has reached 

the· Honse ince the Senate amendments were printed is the memorial from Me rs. E. S. Jaffray & Co., anQ. other merchant of New 

York, which I hold in my hand, prot.esting again t the Senate amendments, and which I now pre ent to the Hone, but which, not to detain the Honse with now reading it in full, I will print in the RECORD as part of my remarks. 

I trust, l\fr. Speaker, that, as my colleague says, these memoriali ts 

have misconstrued the effect of the Senate amendments, and that 
5066 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE IG, 

thev are not so obnoxious to their objections as they think. Nevertheiess, I am myself satisfied that the modifications recommended in 

the law by the report of the committee of conference will remedy 

the evils of the law at best to but a small extent. I am afraid 

that in some respects even the relief they intend .to give will be 

found to be wanting. For instance, the existing law bas been so construed as to wholly invalidate bona fide liens and chattel mortgages, not recorded a required by the locallaws, although such ecn- rities wonld have been perfectly good by the law of the State where 

made as between the bankrupt and the lien-holding creditor. No 

uch effect was I believe ever given to any previous bankrupt law in 

this country or in Englancl. The committee have sought to get rid 

of this construction by the proviso they have added to section 11 of the 

enate amendment . But I fear that by limiting that proviso to the 

thirty-fifth section of the bill when it shonlcl have applied to the 

whole law, they have failed to secure the -relief they intended, 

thonrrh I under tand they regard the language used in the conference repo~t a broad enough. And generally, sir, I am satisfied that we are going to get, from adopting this report, but imperfect relief from 

the hardships of this law, against which the creditors of the country 

have been so generally prote tiug. 

For myself, I come from the creditor section of the country, and it is 

claimed that this law is to be retained for the benefit of creditors, and yet, sir, I have received no communication except from a single 

:firm, during this entire session, in favor of it retention on the statutebook. It has answered its general purpose so far as the debtor of 

the conn try are concerned. .A. bout once in a generation a bankrupt 

law on their account seems to have been called for-and they being 

1·elieved this law is sought to be retained in the interest of the creditor- and yet, I repeat, the entire creditor section of the country is 

against it; and I am one of tho e who believe t]ley are more competent to judge what is for their own interest than even Con~ress is to 

judge for them. We have, however, to take the report ot the com- mittee of conference as a whole. Perhaps if adopted it may result in 

making the law b tter on the whole than it was, but of that I am 

doubtful. 

[The memorial referred to by Mr. POTTER is as follows: 

To the honorable the Senate and Honse of Representatives of the United States of America in. Oongress assembled : 

The memorial and remonstrance of the undersigned, merchants·and business men of the city of New York, respectfully shows: 

That they have been surprised by the announcement in the newspapers that the enate amendments to the bankrupt act have been substantially agreed to by the 

conference committee on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the subject of 

that act. That from all the information given to the public, your memorialist were led to believe that those amendments would not be concurred in by the honorable 

the House of Representatives. And your memoralists further represent that they deem many of the proposed 

nmenchllents unwise and unjust, and therefore such as ought not to be adopted. That 

among the e are the following : First. The provision of section 9 of the proposed amendments, declarin$ that in ca es of compulsory or involuntary bankruptcy the existing provisions or the law 

requiring the payment of any proportion of the debts of the bankrupt, or thea ent of any portion of his creditors, as a condition of his discharge from his debts shall not apply. 

The statute makes it an act of bankrnptc:y upon which a petition in involuntary bankruptcy may be brought for a person owl.ng debts to depart from the State, district, or Territory of which he is an inhabitant, with intent, to defr-a.ud his creditors, or being absent to remain ab ent with such intent, or to cou~l himself to avoid the service of legal process. in an action for the recovery: of a debt provable 

under the act, or to conceal or remove any of his property to avoul its being attached. 

taken, or sequestered on legal proce . None of the e acts will prevent the discharge of the bankrupt under the statute. Why a man who has been guilty of any of these off~nses, and in consequence has been forced into bankruptcy, should be 

entitled unconditionally to a discharge, while the honest debtor who has not ab 

sconded, or skulked, or concealed himself or his property, but voluntarily surren tlers his property and asks for a discharge from hlS debts, should, as a condition of 

such discharge, be oblio-ed to pay 33 per cent. of his debts, or procure the assent of 

one-half in number and' value of his creditors, your memorialists find it difficult to tmdersta.ud. Your memorialists suppose that it is not the intention of Congress to enact such a distinction iu favor of fraud and knavery, and against honesty and 

fair dealing. Your memorialists submit, however, that the limitation of an unconditional discharge to cases of compulsory or involuntary bankruptcy will be found to be pra{}-

tically superfluous and nuuatory. Every case will be compulsory or involuntary. There will hardly be an instance in which a man hone tly a creditor cannot, from one con idera.tion or another, be procmed to file afrienclly petition in involuntary bankruptcy against a debtor aiming to obtain a discharge from his (lebts. And where 

such an instance shall occur there will be little trouble in manufacturing an indebted- DOSS so as to create a creditor who will answer the purpose. In such a case, if the 

nmendments of the Senate to the thirty-ninth section of the act shall be considered :1.'1 requiring that the petition in involuntary bankruptcy shall alle~e that one-fourth 

in number and one-third in amount of the creditors of the debtor nave joined in the 

petition, the debtor~ whether such l,lroportion in number and amount shall join in the 

petition or not, will oeswifton the filing of the :petition to admit in writing, as further 

provided by the amendment that the requisite number and amount of creditors 

have petitioned. The court will, as directed by the amendment, thereupon so ad- jml~e, which judgment is final, and the debtor as an involuntary bankrupt becomes 

entitled under the act to a di charge from his debts without paying anything to his 

creditors, and in defiance of therr opposition. Snch is the result as appears, to your 

memorialists, fairly to be apprehended from the proposed amendment. Legislation 

whicll by its very terms allows and is a temptation to artifice like this, will not, 

yonr memoria.lli>ts are persuaded, be knowingly adopted by the Congress of the 

United States. • Second. The provision of section 12 of the proposed amemlmeuts amending sec- tion 39 of the law so as to require in order to bring a petition in involuntary I>ankruptcy against a debtor that one-fourth in number of his creditors "the aggregate of whose debts" amounts to at least one-third of his debts shall join in the petition. The statute, be it remembered, makes it an a.ot of bankruptcy for a person owing debts to abscond with intent to defraud his creditors, or toremainabsentwithsuch 

intent, or to conceal himself with intent to avoid service of civil process, or to con- ceal or remove his property, to avoid its being seized on lea-al proce s, and more- over to make an assignment or tra.n~fer o~ his p~operty with intent to delay, dP.-

fraud. or hinder his crecli tors. A.ntl yet by thi<; a:ucnllmE.'nt for the commission of 

any of the e fraudulent a.ct this law will pro,itle no rl'm dy unle s th cretlitor 

first obtains or is certain of obtaining tho cou urrcnc in his proceeding of atle:l.'lt 

one-fourth in number and one-tbirtl in amount of th creditors of this fraudulent 

debtor. The Congrl'ss of the Unitetl States, yonr memor-ialists belie>o, does not propo e to offer a premium for fraud. '1'11 y ar fearful iliat such will be the effect 

of the adoption of this amenclment. · Third. The pro>isions for "composition with creditors" contained in section 16 of the amendments. 

By this amendment, in all ca e of bankruptcy, wl1ether an adjudication in bankruptcy shall have been had or not, the cre<litor of the allej!ecl bankrupt may, at a meeting called a prescribed by the amendment, "i'esolv that a compo ition pro- posed by the debtor ball be accepted in n.tisfaction of the debts due to them from 

the debtor." Yo11r memorialists respectfully submit that tile provisions of this 

propo ed amendment offer unfair opportunitic and ad>antao-es to the debtor, and 

lea>e the rights and intere ts of creditors without adequate protection. 

Yonr memoriali ts, in the uddenness with which they are called upon and the 

brief period afforded them to remonstrate a~ainst the adoption of the. a amentlmentsJ can only call your atu>ntion to some or their roo t objectionable proti. ions. 

They oelie>e that if they shall be enacted into a law they \Till tend to demoralize 

the busine s transactions and pro>e of s rions injury to the credit . y tern of the 

country. 

Your memoriali ts, therefore, re pectfullyremonstratc against the passage of the 

said amenclment . . And your petitioners, as in cluty bound, will ever pray, &c. KEW YORK, 13th June, 1874.] 

1\lr. TREMAIN. l\Iy colleague on the committee from lllinoi [Mr. WARD] de ires to ubmit a motion to print the report and the bill, :m<l as a matter of courte y I will allow him to make that motion; but I 

hope the House will not agree to it, because it will throw this matter over until to-morrow. 

1\IT. W .A.RD, of lllinoi . I de ire, 1\il·. Speaker, to preface the mo- tion I am about to make by saying that I do not antagonize this re- port. It is in the intere t of legislation looking to repeal; but I desire 

it printed, so that all gentlemen may know what they are voting for. 

I will therefor move that the report be printed, and that it be made 

the special onler for to-morrow immediately after the reading of the 

Journal. 

1\Ir. E . R. HOAR. Pendin~ that motion I move that the Hou e now take a rece s until half past even o'clock. 

~IIDRAWAL OF PAPER • 

1\IT. HUNTON a ked and obtained leave to have withdrawn from 

the files of the Hou ·e the papers accompanying the bill for the relief 

of J :\mes l\1. Downev. · 

1\lr. CANNON, of illinoi ·, a ked and obtained leave to have withdrawn from the files of the House the papers in the case of N. R. 

Grnell, of Arcola, Illinois. · Mr. FOSTER asked and obtained leave to have withdrawn from the 

files of the Hou e the papers in the case of William E. Childs. Mr. ALBERT asked and obtained leave to have withdrawn from 

the files of the House the papers in the case of W. J . Chibs. 1\fr. KNAPP asked leave to have withdrawn from the file of the 

Hou e the papers in the case of Robert Tillson. 1\Ir. L.A. WRENCE. I object to the withdrawal of the Till on papers. LEA YE TO PRI~"'T. 

1\fr. STANDIFORD a ked and obtained leave to have printed in 

the RECORD, a a part of the proceedings of the House, some remark 

in relation to the· Freedman' Savings and Trust Company. ( ee Appendix.) 

Mr. DARRALL a ked and obtained leave to have printed in the 

RECORD, a a part of the proceedings of the House, some remarks on the civil-rights bill. (S e Appendix.) 

SUSA~ B. ANTHO~Y. 

Mr. TREM.AIN. I a k unanimous consent to submit a report from 

the Committee on the Judiciary on the memorial of Susan B. Anthony, 

and move that it be printed and recommitted to the committee, not 

to be brouO'ht back by a motion to reconsider. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Mas achusetts. It is a minority report. 1\Ir. TREMAIN. I do not know whether it is a minority report or not ; that remains to be seen. By unanimous consent the report wa received, and 1\lr. TnE~IAIN's 

motion was agreed to. . THE BANKRUPT ACT. 

The question rectu-recl upon the motion of Mr. E. R. HOAR that the 

House take a recess. Mr. E. R. HOAR. I withdraw that motion. 

1\IT. W .A.RD, of Illinois. I now ask for a vote on my motion that 

the report be printed and made the special order for to-morrow im· 

mediately after the reading of the Journal. 

The SPEAKER. If the report is to be printed, it had better be 

recommitted to the committee of conference, a it can then be brought 

before the House at any time as a matter of the highest privilege. 

1\Ir. POLAND. The report is all printed in the RECORD of to-day. 

Mr. WARD, of Illinois. The bill is not printed. 

Mr. ELDREDGE. Can this report be committed to a committee of 

conference ! 

The SPEAKER. Why not T 

Mr. ELDREDGE. The committee of conference have made their 

report, and it has been agreed to by the Senate. The SPEAKER. It can be recommitted. The question was taken upon the motion to recommit; and it wa.s not agreed to. 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5067 

The que tion was taken upon adopting the report of the committee 

of conference; and upon a, division there were-ayes 128, noes 34. 

Before the result of this vote was announced, 

Mr. SENER called for the yeas and nay . The yeas and nays were not ordered, there being 11 in the affirmative, not one-fifth of the last vote. 

So the report of the committee of conference wa.s adopted. 

Mr. TREMAIN moved to reconsider the vote by which the report was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid 

upon the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I ask that the bill as amended 

by the report of the committee of conference be printed. 

No objection wa made, and it was so oruered. 

PRESERVATIO~ OF BALLOTS, ETC. 

Mr. TREl\lAIN. I now move to suspend the rule and pas the bill 

(II. R. No. 1979) to preserve the ballots cast at and all papers con- nected with electiollS for Representatives or Delegates to Congress, 

:tnd for other purposes. 

1\lr. COX. I hope my colleague [Mr. TRE~~] will not try to put 

that bill through without debate. 

Mr. RUSK. I move that the Honse now take a recess until half 

past seven o'clock. 

Mr. TREMAIN. If a recess is now taken when will my motion 

again come up¥ 

The ·sPEAKER. It will be the :fir t thing in order to-morrow 

morning after the reading of the Journal. 

Mr. TREMAIN. Then I will not object to it going over. 

CELEBRATIO:N OF BOSTON TEA PARTY. 

Mr. POTTER. I a k consent to submit the following resolution, to 

which I think there will be no objection: 

Resolved, (the Senate concur-ring,) That the woman's centennial executive com- ruittee of the city of Washin!!Wn have leave to occupy the Rotunda. of the Capi- tol, under the supervision of the Commissioner of Public Buildings and Grounds, 

upon the afternoon and eveninrr of the 16th of December next, for the purpose of c lebrating the destruction of the tea in the harbor of Boston on the night of the 

16th of December, 1773. 

The question wa.g taken upon adop.ng the resolution; and upon a clivi ion there were-ayes 52, noes 41; no quorum voting. 

Mr. G. F. HOAR. I call for tellers. 

Tellers were ordered; and Mr. POTTER and Mr. G. F. HoAR were appointed. 

Mr. SENER. I call for the regular order. There isamotionpending to take a 1·ece . The motion for the rece s wa agreed to; and accordingly (at five 

o'clock ancl five minutes p. m.) the House took a rece s until half pa.st seven o'clock p. m. 

EVENING SE SION. 

The rece having expirecl, the House rea em bled at half past seven o'clock p.m. Mr. CESSNA in the chair as Speaker pro tempm·e. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. By order of the House the session of 

this ev'ening is for the consideration of reports, made and to be made, 

from the Committee on Invalid Pensions. After that order ihall have 

been ooncluded, if it shall be concluded, the remainder of the session 

of this evening will be devoted to the call of the standing committees 

of the Hon e for reports of a private nature to be referred to the Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar. 

WILLIAM 1\L DRAKE. 

Mr. RUSK, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported a bill 

(H. R. No. 3181) granting a pension to William l\L Drake; which wa.s read a :first and second time. 

The que tion was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension-rolls, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension · l:iws, the name of Will.iam M. Drake, late a private of Company D, 

Eighty-second Re~iment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and pay him a pension from anct after the passage of the act. 

The bill wa.s ordered to be engrossed and read a third time ; and 

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

l\fr. RuSK moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was pas ed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

THERON W. H.A..l'."XS. 

l\fr. RUSK, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. No. 

31 2) granting a pension to Theron W. Hanks, a private of the Third 

Minnesota Battery; which was read a first and second time. 

The que tion was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. · 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension 

laws, the na.meof Theron W. Hanks, a private oftheThirdMinnesota 

Battery, and pay him a pension from and aft-er the passage of the 

act. 

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

being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. :Mr. R K moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was pa ed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latrer motion was agreed to. 

JOH...~ W. DARBY. 

Mr. RUSK, from the same committee, reported back favorably a bill (H. R. No. 2769) granting a pension to John W. Darby. 

The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. · 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, 

the name of John W. Darby, late a private ·in Company M, Thirtysecond Regiment Massachusetts Volunteers, and pay him a pension 

from and after the passage of the act. 

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

being engro sed, it was accordingly_read the third time, and passed. 

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

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

MELISSA R~KIN. 

Mr. RUSK also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. No. 

3683) granting a pension to Melissa Rankin, of Indiana; which was read a first and second time. 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension law , the name of Melissa Rankin, mother of Oliver S. Rankin, lieutenant 

in the Eleventh Regiment Indiana Volunteers, and pay her a pension 

at the rate of eight dollars a month from and after the passage of 

the act. 

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

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

l\1r. RUSK moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was prssed; a d also moved that the motion to reconsider be lai(l on the 

table. 

The latter motion wa8 agreed to. 

L"iCREASE OF PENSIOXS. 

· 1\fr. RUSK also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. 

No. 3684) to increase pensions in certain cases; which was read a :fir t and second time. 

The bill provides that from and after June 4,1874, all persons who 

while in the military or naval service of the United State and in 

the line of duty shall have lost one hand and one foot, or been totally 

and permanently disabled in the same, shall be entitled to a pension for each of such disabilities and at such a rate as is provided 

for by the provisions of the existing laws for each disability; but 

the act is not to be so construed as to increase pensions in any case. Mr. RUSK. I ask for the 1·eading of the report of the committee 

with the accompanying letter of the Commissioner of Pensions. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom wa."> referred a bill (H. R. No. 3661) 

granting a pension to George W. Trneheat·t, having considered the same, submit 

the following report: • The applicant desires an increase of pension, as he bas lost an arm and a leg and 

is in a very bad condition. But the number of pensioners that are similarly disabled is exceedingly small, there being only sixteen in all, and· in considering this 

caRe we have concluded that there should be a. general law reaching the whole cla Sa 

and we therefore report ba-ck the accompanying bill as asubstitnteandrecommen its pa sage. 

The following letter of the Commissioner of Pensions fully sets forth the facts: 

DEPARTMENT OF TRE ll\TKRIOB, PENSIOY OFFICE, 

TVashingwn, D. 0., June 10, 1874. 

Sm: Congress having recently passed a bill increasing among other pensions the 

pen ions of those persons who have lost both hands or both feet to fifty dollars per month, I desire to call yom· attention to the fact that the law now in force provides a. pension of twenty.fonr dollars per month for those persons who havo lo t a hantl 

and a foot in the military or naval service and line of duty, and that·nnle s ome increase of pension is provided for this class a great disproportion will exist b - tween the pensions of persons whose <Usabilities are nearly equivalent. An examination of the rolls of pensioners shows that there are now sixteen per· sons receiving pension on account of the loss of an arm and a leg or a hand and a foot. I have the honor to recommend that the pension of this class of persons be 

incrt'ase<l to the sum of the pensions provided by law for the disabilities rated sepa- rately. This increase, in the opinion of the office, would establish a just ,J?l'Opor tion between the pensioners of the classes of persons referred to and their d1sabil ities. 

Very respectfully, 

Hon. J. M. RusK, 

Ohairman of the Committee on Pen$1-ons, 

House of llepre~tenwtives. 

J.H.BAKER, 

Oommias-ioner. 

1\Ir. STORM. I wish to inquire of the chairman of the committee 

[Mr. RusK] the amount of pension which the persons provided for in 

this bill will receive f 

l\1r. RUSK. Under this bill if a man has lo t his arm above the 

elbow and his leg above the knee, he will get forty-eight dollar ; if 

he has lo t his leg below the knee he will get forty-two dollars; if he 

has lost his arm below the elbow he will get thirty-sbr:.dollars. 

Mr. STORM. I understand, then, that the effect of the hill is to 

give him the pension now allowed for each disability r 

Mr. RUSK. Yes, sir. lf a man has lost hoth a leg and an arm he 
5068 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE 16, 

gets the pension which would be allowed separately for each disability. 

The bill was ordered to be enO'rossed and read a third time; and 

being e~~ro sed, it was according~y read the third time, and passed. 

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

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

GEORGE A. SCHREINER. 

Mr. RUSK also1 from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. No. 

3685) for the relief of George A. Schreiner; which was read a first 

and second time. 

The bill provides that inasmuch a-s doubts have been suggested 

whether George A. Schreener, of Wyandotte County, Kansas, is en- titled to a pension of eighteen dollars a month under the acts of Congre s relative to pensions, and the act approved June 8, 1872, entitled 

"An a-ct increasing the rates of pensions of certain persons therein 

de cribed," be having lost his right arm in the military service of the 

United States as a volunteer, which pension ha-s heretofore been paid 

to him under a construction placed on the last-named act, the pension 

of eighteen dollars a month is confirmed to him, and the Secretary of 

the Interior is directed to place his name upon the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws. ~fi·. STORM. How can there be any doubt in this case' 

1\Ir. RUSK. I have adopted for my report in this cruse the Commissioner's letter. If necessary it can be read. 

Mr. MOREY. I would sug~est that the preamble be stricken out 

of the bill. I make that motion. 

Mr. R K. I do not yield for that purpose. 

The bill wa ordered to be enO'ros ed and read a thircl time; and 

being engro ed, it wa according~y read the third time, a.nd pa ed. 

Mr. RU K moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill wa-s pa ed ; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion waa agreed to. 

EYROLLED BILLS SIGNED. 

1\Ir. HARRIS, of Georgia, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, 

reported that the committee bad examined and found truly enrolled 

bills of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the same: An a.ct (H. R. No. 1691) for the relief of Thomas Ridgway; 

An act (H. R. No. 2347) authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury 

to deliver to the Connecticut Historical Society certain papers on file as vouchers for the discharged claims of the h eirs of Silas Deane; 

Au act (H. R. No. 2359) to authorize and dirt'.ct the Secretary of 

War to reserve from ale ten thousand nits of old and disused Army 

uniform clothing, uow in tile Quarterma-ster's Department of the 

.Army, and to transfer the arne to the National Home for Disabled 

Volunteer Soldiers; 

An act (H. R. No. 2653) to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury 

to suspend work upon the public buildings; 

An ad (H. R. No. 3090) to authorize the issue of duplicate agricultural land scrip where the original ha-s been lost or destroyed; 

An act (H. R. No. 3265) amending the charter of the Freedman's 

Savings and Trust Company, and for other purposes; . An act (H. R. No. 3573) making additions to the fifteenth section 

of the act approved July 2, 1864, entitled "An act to amend an act 

entitled 'An act to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean, and to se- cur to the Government the use of the same for postal, military, and 

other purpo es,' approved July 1, 1862 ;" and _ An act (H. R. No. 3672) authorizing the board of commissioners of 

the Soldiers' Home to soli the property belonging to the Soldiers' 

Home, sit.nated at Harrodsburgh, Kentucky, and known as Harrodsburgh Springs property. 

Ali."'DREW J. LASLEY. 

Mr. RUSK also, from th Committee on Invalid Pensions, r ported 

back a bill (S. No. 767) granting a pension to Andrew J. La ley, with 

the recommendation that it do pass. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary .of 

the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions an_d 

limitations of the pen ion laws, the name of Andrew J. La-sley, late a private in Company K, Second United St.ates Infantry, to take effect 

from and after the pa.Ssage of this act. 

The bill was ordered to a third reacting; and it was accordingly read 

the third time, and pa ed. · Mr. RUSK moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was pa sed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

EBENEZER W. BRADY. 

Mr. RUSK also, from the same committee, reported back a bill (S. 

No. 814) grantin~ a pension to Ebenezer W. Brady: with the recom- mendation that 1.t do pass. The bill: which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions aud 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Ebenezer W. Brady, late 

a chaplain of the One hundred and sixt enth Regiment Ohio Volunteers, from and after the pa age of this act. 

The bill was ordered to a third reading; and it was accordingly read 

the third time, and pa ed. l\Ir. RUSK moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill wa-s pas ed ; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. The la.tter motion was agreed to. 

JOH...~ W. TRUEITT. 

Mr. RUSK also, from the same committee, reported back a bill (S. 

No. 877) granting a pension to John W. Trueitt, with the recommen- dation that it do pass. 

The bill, which was rea-d, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the p~nsion-roU, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of John ,V. Trueitt, late of 

Company E, One hunclred and forty-second ReO'iment Indiana Volunteers, to take effect from and after the passage of this act . . 

The bill :was .ordered to a thir<l reading ; and it was accordingly 

read the t.hird time, and pas eel. 

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

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

THQ:\IAS SIDTII. 

Mr. RUSK al o, from the arne committee, reported back a bill (S. 

No. 690) granting a pension to Thomas Smith, with the recommendation that it do pass. 

The biU, which was read, authorize and directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Thomas Smith, late a private in Company C, Fir t Regiment Michigan Light Artillery. 

The biU was ordered to a third reacting; and it was accordingly 

read the third time, anu pa ed. 

Mr. RUSK moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to recon ider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

JOH S. LONG. 

Mr. RUSK al o, from the same committee, reported back a bill (S. 

No. 768) granting a pen ion to John S. Long, with the recommendation 

that it do pass. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary o.f 

the Interior to place on the pensiou-roll, subject to the provi ions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of JohnS. Long, late of 

Company D, First Battalion Twelfth United State Infantry, to take 

effect from and after the pas age of this act . The bill was ordered to a third reading ; and it was accordingly 

read the third time, and pa sed. 

.Mr. RUSK moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider he laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

1\IARGARET E. ALEXANDER. 

Mr. RUSK al o, from the a.me committee, reported back a bill (S. 

No. 41) granting a pensiou to Margaret E. Alexander, widow of Edwin A. Alexander, decea ed, late a private in Company K, Eighth 

Regiment of Indiana Cavalry Volunteers, known as the Thirty-ninth 

Indiana Regiment, with the recommendation that it do pass. _ The bill, which wa-s read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place upon the pen ion-roll, subject to the provisions anu limitations of the pen ion laws, the name of largaret E. Alexander, widow of Edwin A. Alexander, decea eel, who was a private 

in Company K, Eighth Regiment Indiana, Cavalry Volunteer , known as the Thirty-ninth Indiana Regiment. And also to the following persons, tha minor children of said Edwin A. Alexander, to 

wit, Laura Jane, who will be sixteen years of age January 1 , 1~5; 

Mary Alice, who will be sixteen years of age Augu t , 1876; John 

Henry, who will be sixteen years of age December 15, 187 ; Sarah 

Elizabeth, who will be sixteen years of age August 22, 1&30; to take 

effect fTom and after the passage ol the act. 

The bill was ordered to a third reading; and it was accordingly 

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

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

SUSAN R. 1\IOORE. 

Mr. RUSK also, from the same committee, reported back a bill 

(S. No. 503) for the relief of Su an R. Moore, the relative and leQatce of Phmbe Sofield, a pensioner, with the recommendation that 1t do 

pass. •' 

The bill, which was read, provides that the benefits of the act ap- proved March 3, 1873, entitled "An act to amend an act granting a pension to Phmbe Sofield, widow of Lewis Sofield," be, and the same hereby are, extended to Susan R. Moore, the relative and legatee of 

the said Phmbe Sofield, who died previous to the pa sage of sajd act, 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5069 

so that the said Susan R. foore shall be entitled to receive the pension which would have accrued to the said Phoobe Sofield had she 

been alive when said act passed; provided, however, that the said 

pension shall only be calculated to the day of the death of the said 

Phoobe Sofield. 

The bill was ordered to a third reading ; and it was accordingly 

read the thiru time, and passed. ~Ir. RUSK moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was pa ed ; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. 

The latter motion wa-s agreed to. 

NANCY CURRY. 

Mr. W ALL.ACE, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. No. 

3G 6) granting a pen ion to Nancy Cmry; which was read a first and 

secoou time. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of the 

I nterior to enter on the pension-roll the name of Nancy Curry, the 

widow of V. P. Cnrry, who was a member of Company L, Thirteenth Re~iment Kentucky Cavalry, in the war of 1 61, to take effect from ana after the passage of the act. 

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

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

Mr. W .AL.LACE moved to reconsider the vote by which tlle bill was pas ed ; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

VICTORIA L. BREWSTER. 

Mr. W .ALLACE also, from the same committee, reported a bill 

(H. R. No. 3637) granting a pension to Victoria L. Brewster; which 

was read a first and second time. The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on t.he pension-roll, subject ~o the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Victoria L. Brewster, 

widow of B. S. Brew ter, late an engineer on the United States transport Lemuel Hill, and pay her a pension from and after the passage 

of the act. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time ; and 

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

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

the table. · The latter motion was agreed to. 

WILLIAM 0. MADISON. 

Mr. W AL.LACE also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. 

R. No. 3688) granting a pensi_2P to ~illiam 0. Madison; which wa.s read a first and second time. 

The bill, wllich was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of W. 0. Madison, late a priva,te in Company C, Fomth Iowa Infantry, with the right to a pension at the rate of eight dollars a month from and after the 

pas age of the act. • The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and 

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

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

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

BERNARD SAILER. 

l\Ir. W .ALLACE also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. 

R. No. 3689) granting a pension to Bernard Sailer; which was reau a first and second time. The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Bernard Sailer, dependent father of Philip Sailer, late a private in the Ninety-eighth New 

York Volunteers, who was killed in battle September, 1864, and pay 

him a pension from anu after the passage of the act. The bill was oruered to be engrossed and read a third time; and 

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

l\fr. W .ALLA.CE moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill wa passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

ta.ble. · 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

WILLIAM WHITE. 

Mr. WALLACE also, from the same committee, reported ba{lk, with 

the recommendation that it do pass, the bill (H. R. No. 2400) grantin(J' a pension to William White. 0 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of William White, late a 

llrivate in: Company I, Fifth Regiment of Michigan Cavalry Volunteers, to take effect from the passage of the act. 

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

being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and pa sed. ~fr. W .ALLACE moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill 

was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on 

-the table. 

The latter motion was agreed tO. 

PETER CAMPBELL. 

Mr. W .ALLACE also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. 

R. No. 3G90) granting a pension to Peter Campbell, late a private in 

Company G, Sixth Regiment of Maine Volunteers; which was read a 

ti.rst and second time. 

The bill, which wa read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pen ion law , the name of Peter Campbell, late a private of Company G, Sixth Regiment of Maine Volunteers, and pay 

him a pension from and after the passage of the act. 

The bill was ordered to be engros e<l and read a third time ; and 

being engro eu, it was accorilingly read the third time, and passed. 

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

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

LAVINNA lliGR.AHAM. 

Mr. WALLACE, from the same committee, reported back, with the 

recommendation that it do pass, the bill (S. No. 536) granting a pension to Lavinna Ingraham. The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions 

and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Lavinna Ingraham, 

mother of DoJ,1glass Ingraham, late private Company F, Thiru Regiment Nevada Infantry Volunteers, and to pay her a pension from and 

after the pas age of the act. 

The bill was ordered to a third reading ; and it was accordingly 

read the third time, and passed. :Mr. W .ALLACE moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was pas ed ; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on 

the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

CHARLES MACARTY. 

1\fr. W .ALLACE, from the same committee, reported ba{lk the bill (H. 

R. No. 2095) ~anting a pension t.o Charles:Macarty, with an amendment of the ::senate thereto, and "rith the recommendation that the 

amemlment of the Senate be concurred in. 

The amendment of the Senate was read and concmred in, as follows : 

Add at the end of the bill the words "at eight dollars per month." 

Mr. W .ALLACE moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendment of the Senate was concurred in; and also moved that the motion 

t.o reconsider be laid on the table. · The latter motion was agreed to. 

JAMES BURRIS. 

Mr. McJUNKIN, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R . . No. 3691) granting a pension to James Burris, late a private in the 

Thirty-second Regiment United States Colored Troops, which was read a first and second time. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pen ion laws, the name of James Burris, late a private in the Thirty-second Re~ment United States Colored Troops, 

and pay him a pension from ana after the passage of the act. 

The bill was ordered to be eno-rossed and read a third time; and 

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

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

The latter motion was agreed to. 

HARRIET W. WILKINSON. 

Mr. McJUNKIN also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. 

R. No. 3692) grantino- a pension to Harriet W. Wi.lkiuson, widow of 

Charles Wilkinson, 1.ate lieutenant Company K, One hundred and 

second Regiment Penn ylvania Volunteers; which was read a first 

and second time. 

The bill, which wa-s read, authorizes a.nd directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Harriet W. Wilkinson, 

widow of Charles \Vilkinson, late lieutenant Company K, One hunclred and second Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteers, and pay her a pension from and after the passage of the act. 

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

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

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

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

AARO~ B. HUGHES. 

}.rr. McJUNKIN, also from ~he same committee, reported a bill (H. 

R. No. 3693) granting a pen ion to Aaron B. Hughes, late a musician, 

Company E, One hundred and third Pennsylvania Volunteers, which was read a first and second time. 
5070 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE 16, 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the' name of_ Aaron B. Hug~es, late a musician, Company E, One hundred and third Pennsylvama Volunteers, and pay him a pension from and after the passag~ of t_he act. 

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

being enO'ro ed, it wa accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

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

table. 

The latter motion WM agreed to. 

REBECCA W. TAYLOR. 

Mr. McJUNKIN also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. 

R. No. 3694) granting a pension to Rebecca W. Taylor; which was read· a :first and second time. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to ·place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Rebecca W. Taylor, 

mother of Charle~ Frederick Taylor, late colonel of the Forty-second 

Pennsylvania Volunteers, known as the "Bucktail" or First Pennsylvania Rifle Regiment, and pay her a pension from and after the 

passage of the act. . . The bill was ordered to be engrossed and reacl a thud tune ; and 

beinrr engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. ],k McJUNKIN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

HENRY KOR~. 

1\fr. McJUNKIN also, from the same committee, reported back, with 

the recommendation that it do pass, the bill (H. R. No. 2235) grantinO' a pension to Henry Korn, which was read a :firstand second time. 

The bill, which wa read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the :r.terior to plac on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pen ion laws, the name of Henry Korn, late a private in Company H, One hundred and eighty-eighth Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer , and: pay him a pension from and after the passage of the act. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time ; and 

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

Mr. McJUNKIN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill 

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

The latter motion was agreed to. 

ELIZA A. FLAl\DIA...~. 

Mr. McJUNKIN also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. 

R. No. 3695) granting a pension to Eliza .A. Flammant; which was read a :first and second time. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to .the provisions 

and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Eliza A. Flammant, 

wido'v of Charles F. Flammant, late sergeant of Company H, Eleventh 

Regiment New York Infantry, and pay her a pension from and after 

the passage of the a{}t. 

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

being engros ed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. Mr. McJUNKIN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

MARY A. HOUGH. 

Mr. McJUNKIN, from the same committee, reported a bill, (H. R. 

No. 3696) grantin~ a pension to .Mary A. Hough; which was read a first and second trme. ·· The bill, which was read, aut.horizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Mary .A. Hough, widow 

of Jo eph Hough, late sergeant Company B, Sixty-first Regiment 

Pennsylvania Volunteers, and. pay her a pension from and after the 

passage of this act. · The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and, 

being engr~~zJ.~t was accordingly read the third time, and passed. Mr. Mc.J U.N.Jil.N moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

BELINDA CRAIG. 

Mr. McJUNKIN, from the same committee, also reported a bill (H. 

R. No. 3697) ~anting a pension to Belinda Craig; which was read a first 

and second time. 

The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the 

pension laws, the name of BeHnda Craig, widow of William G. Craig, late a private in the Ninetieth Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteers, and 

pa.y her a pension from and after the passage of the act. 

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

being engrossed: it was accordinO'ly read the third time, and. pru cd.. 

Mr. McJUNKIN moved to reconsider thevote by which the bill wa passed; and also moved that the motion to recon id.cr be laid on the 

table. The latter motion was agreed to. 

~I C. DAVIS. 

Mr. McJUNKIN, from the same committee, al o reported a bill (H. 

R. No. 379 ) granting a. pension to William C. Davis, a private in 

Company B, Eleventh Regiment Tenne ee Cavalry Volunteers; 

which was read a :fir t and cond time. 

The question was upon ordering the bill to be engro ed and read a third time. 

The bill clirects the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to tho provisions and limitations of the pension 

law , the name of William C. Davis, a private in Company B, Eleventh 

Regiment Tenne ee Cavalry Volunteer , and that he be paid a pen- sion !rom the passage of the act. 

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

b ing engros ed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

Mr. McJUNKIN moved to reconsider the vote by whi4lh the bill was pas ed ; and also moved that the motion to reconsider bo laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

LYDIA SDIPSO~. 

Mr. McJUNKIN from the same committee, also reported. bill (H. 

R. No. 3799) granting a pension to Lyilia Simpson; which was reati a :first and second time. 

The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the l)tmsion-roll, subject io the provisions and limitations of the pension law ·, the name of Lydia Simpson, mother of Nathan ,J. impson and Georcre 

W. Simp on, late privates in Company D, One hundred and :first ReO'iment New York Volunteers, and pay her a pen ion from and after tho 

pM age of the act. 

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

being engro ed, it was a-ccordingly read the third time, and pa ed. 

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

table. The latter motion was agreed to. . 

TETER. WOLFYOUNG. 

Mr. McJUNKIN, from the same committee, ~o reported a bill 

(H. R. No. 3700) granting a pension to Teter Wolfyoung; which was read a first and second time. 

The question was u11on ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension-rolls, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension 

laws, the name of Teter \Volfyoung, late a private iu Company E, 

Second Battalion Eighteenth Regiment United States Infantry, at the 

rate of eight-dollars a month from and after the pa age of the a-ct. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a thir9. time ; aml 

being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. 1\Ir. McJUNKIN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was pa ed ; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be la.id on the 

table. The latter motion was agreed to. 

MARIA D. C. BACHE. 

l\Ir. 1\IcJUNKIN, from the same committee, also reported a bill (H. 

R. No. 3701) granting a pension to l\1rs. Maria D. C. Bache, widow of 

General Hartman Bache, of the United States Army; which wa read a :first and second time. The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension-rolls the name of l\!ari.a D. C. Bache, widow of General Hart- man Bache, deceased, and allow and pay her a pension at the rate of 

thirty dollars per month, to commence from the passage of the act, 

and to continue durincr her widowhood. 

The bill was ordered to be ngro ed for a third reading; and being 

engro ed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. :l,Ir. McJUNKIN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill wa passed ; and also movecl that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion wa agreed to. 

ALICE ROPER. 

Mr. MARTIN, from the same committ~e, reported a bill (H. R. No. 

3702) granting a pen ion to .Alice Roper; which was read a :first antl 

second time. 

The question was upon ordering the bill to be engros ed and read a third time. The bill directs t.he Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension- roll, subject to the provi ions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of .Alice Roper, widow of Samuel Roper, late a captain of Company K, Fifty-sixth illinois Infantry Volunteers, and pay her a peu~ 

sion from and after the pa sage of the act. 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5071 

The bill was orderetl to be engro ed and read a third time; and 

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

b-Ir. MARTIN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved tha.t the motion to reconsiuer be laid on the 

table. The latter motion was agreed to. 

CATHERL'E LEE. 

Mr. M.ARTIN1 from the same committee, also r eported a bill (H. R. 

No. 3703) grantrng a pen ion to Catherine Lee, widow of Jesse M.. Lee, 

privat-e Company B, Second Regiment Ohio Volunteers; which was read a first and second time. 

The question wa,s upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, 

the name of Catherine Lee, widow of J es e 1\I. Lee, pri •mte Company 

B, Seconu Regiment Ohio V elunteers; fi·om and after the passage of 

the act. 

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

being engro ed, it was accordingly read the third time, and pa ed. 

lli. MARTIN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill wa pa ed; and also moved that the motion to recon ider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

MARY E. STEW ART. 

1\Ir. MARTIN also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. 

No. 3704) granting a pension to Mary E. Stewart; which was read a first and second time. 

'fhe bill direct!:! the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pensionroll, subject to tho provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the 

11ame of llis. fury E. Stewart, widow of Andrew J. Stewart, late 

lieutenant of Capta,in Benight's Company, Dent County, Mis ouri, 

Home Guards, and pay her a pension as the widow of a second lieu- tenant and for her children under sixteen years of age from and after 

the passage of the act. · The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading; and being 

ongTo sed, it was accordingly read the thlrd time, and pas etl. 

M.r. MARTIN movetl to 1·econsider the vote by which the bill was pa eel; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

ARTHUR M. LEE. 

Mr. MARTIN also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. 

No. 3705) IYrantin~ a pension to Arthur M. Lee, late first lieutenant 

Eighteenth lllino1s Infantry; which wa read a first and second time. 

The bill direct!:! the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension 

laws, the name of Arthur 1\f. Lee, late fir t lieutenant Eighteenth 

Illinois Infantry, and pay him a pension from and after the passage 

of the act. 

The bill was ordered to be engrosseu for a third reading; and being 

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

J.\Ir. MARTIN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was pas ed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

1\IARTHA WOLD. 

Mr. MARTIN also, from the same committee, reported back, with a favorable recommendation, the bill (H. R. No. 1722) granting a pension to Martha Wold. 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place upon the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, 

the name of .Martha Wold, mother of Engeburt Wold, late ~ private 

in Company A, Thirty-sixth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, 

ueceaseu, and pay her a pension from the uate of the passage of the 

act. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading: and being 

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

Mr. MARTIN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved to lay the motion to recon ider on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed t<n 

MARGARET H. PITTENGER. 

Mr. MARTIN also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. 

No. 3706) granting a pension to Margaret H~ Pittenger; which was road a first and second time.· .; .. -, . 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Illterior to place ori the pensionroll, subject to the pxovisions and limitations of the pension laws, 

the name of Mrs. Margaret H. Pittenger, mother of James D. Pittenger; late a private in Company I, Sixty-fifth Regiment New York 

Volunteers, and pay her a pension from and after the passage of the 

act. 

The bill was ordered to be engros ed for a third rea~ing; and 

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

Mr. MARTIN moved to reconsider the vot~ by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to rec<msider be laid on the 

table. ' 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

LOUISA TIIO:llA • · 

Mr. MARTIN also, fi·om the same committee, reported a bill (H. 

R. No. 3707) granting a pension to Louisa Thomas; which was read a first and second time. 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the 'pension 

laws, the name of Louisa Thqmas, widow of Cyrus Thomas, late a private in Company E, One hundred and ·eventy-sixth Regiment 

Ohio Infantry Volunteers, and pay her a pension from and after the 

pa sage of the a~t. · 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed aml rea(l a third time; an<l 

being engro sed, it wa accordin~ly read the third time, and pas ·etl. 

lli. MARTIN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latt~r motion was agreed to. 

EUNICE WILSON. 

Mr. MARTIN also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. 

R. No. 370 ) gra,nting a pension to Eunice Wilson, mother of John C. 

Wilson, late a private of Company D, Forty-ninth Regiment Illinois 

Volunteers; which was read a first and second time. 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension 

laws, the name of Eunice ·\Vilson, mother of John C. \Vilson, late a private in Company D, Forty-ninth Regiment IlHnois Volunteers, and 

pay her a pension from the date of the death of her said son. T}le bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time ; antl 

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

1\lx. l\1ARTI1~ moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was pa. sed; and ·also moved that the motion to recon iller be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

PENSION CASES REPORTED ADVERSELY. 

Mr. 1\f.ARTIN also, from the same committee, reported back the following bill and petitions; which were laid on the table, and the 

accompanying reports ordered to be printed: 

A bill (H. R. No. 2709) ~mntin~ a pension to arah l\f. Bradley; 

The petition of Benjamrn R. Cnst, of \Varren County, Ohio, asking for a special act granting him a pension ; and 

The petition of Isaac Harris, late of Company K, Missouri Infantry 

Volunteers, asking a special act granting him a pension, and that the 

evidence in his rejected claim be examined. 

WILLIAM H. H. BUCH. 

1\Ir. S~fALL, from the same committee, reporwd a bill (II. R. No. 

3709) granting a pension to William H. H. Buch; which was read a first and second time. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of William H. H. Buch, 

First Regiment Vermont Cavalry, and pay him a pension of six dollars a month. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a thiru time ; an(l 

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

:Mr. SMAL.L moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was pas ed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

HEl\TRY C. MILLS. 

1\Ir. SMALL also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. 

No. 3710) granting a pension to Henry C. Mills; which was read a first 

and second time. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes a.nd directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to place upon the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Henry C. 1\fills, late a private Company M, First Regiment Vermont Volunteers. 

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

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

1\Ir. S}fALL moved to reconsiuer the vote by which the bill was passed ; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laicl on the 

table. • The latter motion wa.s agreed to. 

MARTIN D. CHANDLER. 

Mr. S~IALL also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. 

No. 3711) granting a pension to Martin D. Chandler; which was read a first and second time. 

The bill, which was rea-,4, authorizes and directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to place on .the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Martin D. Chandler, 

late a private Company A, First Vermont Cavalry, Eleventh Regiment Vermont Volunteers. 

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

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

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

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 
5072 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE 16, 

· HANNAH E. CURRill. 

:Mr. SMALL also, from the same committee, reported back a bill ·(H. R. No. 1G44) granting a. pension to Hannah E. Currie, with the 

recommendation that it do pass. The bill, which was read, authorizes and dh·ects the Secretary of the 

Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions a~u 

limitations of the pension-laws, t he na.rne of Hannah E. Cun·1e, 

mother of Samuel A. Cmrie, late of the Thirty-thircl Regiment of Ohio 

Volunteer Infantry, based on the eviuence on file in the office of the 

Commissioner of Pensions as case num bereu 1GU652. The bill was ordered to be engrossecl ancl reau a thiru time; and 

being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and pa eel. JHr. SMALL moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsiuer be laid on the 

table. · The latter motion was agreed to. 

STILLl\IAN C. SPAULDING. 

Mr. SMALL also, from the s:tme committee, reported a bill (H. R. 

No. 3712) granting a. pension to Stillma.n C. Spauliling; which 'Nas 

read a first and second time. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and uirects the Secretary of the 

Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pen ion laws, tho name of Stillman C. Spaulding, 

Company K, Thirty- econd Regiment Ma ac.husetts Volunteer Infantry, and pay him a pension from and after the pa.ssago of the act. 

The bill was oruerell. to be engro ed and I'Md a thiru time; and 

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

Mr. SMALL mov cl to reconsider the vote by which the bilf was passed; and also moved tha.t the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

CA.THA.RThTE A. .• WINSLOW. 

Mr. SJ\£ALL also, from the same committee, reported back a. bill 

(H. R. No. 3031) granting a pension to Catharine A. Winslow, widow 

of the late Rear-Admiral John A. Winslow, with the recommendation it do pa s. The hill, which was read, aut];wrizes and directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pen~:~ion laws, the name of Mr '.Catharine A. Winslow, '\'iri.dow of John A. Winslow, late rear-admiral United States 

Navy, and pay her a pension at the I'ate of :fifty dollars a month from 

and after the passage of the act. 

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

being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third t.ime, anu passed. 

Mr. S).1ALL moved to reconsider the vote by whioh the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be la.icl on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

M:A.RGA.RET A. HOFFl\TER. 

Mr. SMALL also, from the same committee, reported ba-ck the bill (S. 

No. 609) granting a pension to Margaret A. Hoffner, with the recommen- dation that it do pa s. The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of iargaret A. Hoffner, 

widow of Richard J. Hoffner, whowasanacting master in the United 

States Navy. • The bill was ordered to a third reading; and it was accordingly read 

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

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

1\ffiSSA.GE FROM THE SENA.TE. 

A. message from the Senate, by Mr. SYMPSON, one of their clerks, informed the House that the Senate had passed without amendment 

bills of t.he House of tile following titles : The bill (H. R. No. 8"6) to provide for the election of Congressman 

at large for the State of Michigan; and 

The bill (H. R. No. 350 ) conferring jurisdiction upon the criminal 

court of tile District of Columbia., anu for other purposes. The message further informed the House that the Senate had passed, 

with amendments in which the concurrence of · the House was re- quested, the bill (H. R. No. 3652) providing for publication of the 

revised statutes of the United States. 

The mea age further announced that the Senate insisted upon its 

amendments to the bill (H. R. No. 2343) making appropriations for 

the cmrent a.nd contingent expenses of the Indian Department, and 

for fulfHling treaty stipulations with various Indian tribes, for the 

year ending June 30, 1875, and for other purposes, disagreed to by 

the House of Representatives, disagreed to the a.mendments of the 

House of Representatives to other amendments of the Senate, acrreed 

to the conference asked by the House of Representatives o~ the 

disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and h:td appointed Mr. 

WINDOM, Mr. SARGENT, and Mr. BOGY to be the conferees on the part 

of the Senate. 

ELIZA. A. MAXHAM. 

Mr. S~IALL, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported 

back the bill (H. R. No. 1227) rrmnting a pension to Eliza. A. Maxham, with an amendment by the Senate, with the recommendation 

that the amendment of the Senat.e be concurred in. 

The amendment was read, as follows: 

In line 5 strike out all after tho word "month" and insert ''from and after the 

pa ago of this act." · 

The amendment of the Sena.te was concu.r.fed in. 

M.r. SMALL moved to reconsider the vote by which the Senate 

amendment was concnn·ed in; and also moved that the motion to 

reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

1\IA.RY J. BLOOD. 

Mr. S~IALL also, from the same committee, reported b:wk the bill 

(H. R. No. 1948) granting a. pension to Mary J. Blood, with an amendment by the Senate, with the recommendation that the Senate amendment be concurred in. 

The amendment wa.s read, as folld\vs: 

Strike out all after tho word "month," in line 6, to tho end of tho bilL namely, these words: "commencing at the death of Samuel A. Blood, lath November, 1866." 

The bill, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 

time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, 

and passed. · :Mr. Sl\IALL moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendment 

of the Senate was concurred in; and also moved that the motion to 

reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

SARAH S. COOPER. 

Mr. YOUNG, of Kentucky, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. No. 3713) grantin~ a pension to Sarah S. Cooper; which was read a first and second time. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to pla{}e on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Sarah S. Cooper, widow 

of Major Wycliffe Cooper, Seventh United States Cavalry, and pay 

her a. pension from and after the pa-ssage of the act. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading; and being 

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

:Mr. YOUNG, of Kentucky, moved to reconsider the vote by which 

the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be 

laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

MINOR CHILDREN OF STANLEY B. Sl\ITTH. 

Mr. YOUNG, of Kentucky, also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. No. 3714) granting a. pension to Moses B. Hardin, guardian of the minor children of Stanley B. Smith; which was read a first and second time. 

The hill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitation of the pension laws, the name of Moses B. Hardin, guardian of the minor children of Stanley B. Smith, late of Company D, 

Twenty-seventh regiment Kentucky Infantry Volunteers, and pay 

hitn a pension as guardian of said minor or minors from and after the 

passage of the act. 

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

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

1\fr. YOUNG, of Kentucky, moved to reconsider the vote by which 

the bill was passed ; and also moved that the motion to reconsider 

be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

SA.RAH BACON. 

?tfr. CRITI'ENDEN, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. 

R. No. 3715) granting a pension to Sarah Bacon, of Frankfort, Kentucky; which was read a first and second time. 

The bill, which wM read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions 

aud limitations of the pension laws, the name of Sarah Bacon, of 

Frankfort, Kentucky, and pay her a pension from and after the passage of the act. . The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time ; and 

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

Mr. CRITTENDEN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was pa-ssed ; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to. 

NA.THAN A. WINTERS. 

Mr. CRITI'ENDEN also, from the same committee, reported back, 

with the recommendation that it do pass, the bill (H. R. No. 2156) 

gran tin~ a pension to Nathan A. Winters. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and dh·ects the Secretary of 

the Interior to place the name of Nathan A. Winters, late captain 

Company K, Fourth Mis onri Volunteers, on the pension-roll, anu pay 

him such a pension as his rank and degree of disability would entitle 

him to receive according to the provisions and limitations of the 

pension laws. 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5073 

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

being engrossed, it wa.s a{}cordingly read the third time, and passed. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill 

was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on 

the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

ELIZAllETH B. DYER. 

1\Ir. CRITTENDEN also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. 

R. No. 3716) granting a pension to Elizabeth B. Dyer, widow of General Alexander B. Dyer, deceased; which was read a first and second 

time. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Elizabeth B. Dyer, widow 

of General Alexander B. Dyer, late brigadier-general and Chief of Ordnance, United States Army, ancl pay her a pension at the rate of fifty 

dollars per month from and after the passage of the act. 

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

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

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

the table. The latter motion was agreed to. 

SARAH M' ADAJ.~S. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. 

R. No. 3il7) granting a pension to Sarah McAda-ms; which was read ·a first and second time. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of the 

Inter:lor to place on the pension-roll, subject to tho limitations and 

provisions of the pension laws, the name of Sarah McAdams, widow 

of Samuel G. McAdams, late captain One hundred and thirty-fifth 

Regiment Illinois Volunteers, and pay her a pension from and after 

the pas age of the act. 

The bill wa.s ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and 

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

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

the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

CORNELIA M. ARTHUR. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. 

R. No. 3781) granting a pension to Cornelia M. Arthur; which was 

read a first and second time. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes aud directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the pension-ro11, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Cornelia M. Arthur, 

widow of Benjamin H. Arthur, late captain First Regiment United 

States Infantry, and pay to her the additional sum of :five dollars per 

month from the date o:f its deduction by the Pension-Office, and to 

pay her a pension of thirty dollars a month from and after the passage of the act. 

'l'he bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time ; and 

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

Mr. CRITTENDEN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid 

on the table. ·The latter motion was agreed to. 

MATHEW B. WIIITACRE. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. 

R. No. 3719) granting a pension to Mathew B. Whitacre; which wa.s read a first and second time. . The bill, which was read, authorizes and direct& the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Mathew B. Whitacr-e, 

late a private in Company E, Seventeenth Regiment Ohio Volunteer 

Militia, and pay him a. pension from and after the pa sage of the act. 

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

being engro ed, it wa accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

l\fr. CRITTENDEN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed ; and allio moved that the motion to reconsicler be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to. 

CHARLES C. HAIGHT. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. 

R. No. 3720) granting a pension to Charles C. Haight; which was read a first and second time. 

The b~, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

tho IJ?-t~nor: to pla{}e on th~ pension-roll, subject to the provisions 

and limitations of the pensiOn laws, the name of Charles C. Haight 

late serge!l'nt Comp_any G, Sixth Regiment West Virginia Volunteers; 

and pay. hun a penswn from and after the pa sage of the act. 

':fhe b1ll w~ o~dered to be engrossed and read a third time ; and 

berng engrossed, 1t was accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

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

The latter motion was agreed to. 

318 

EZRA C. OWE~. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN, from the same committee, also reported a bill 

(H. R. No. 3721) granting a pension to Ezra C. Owen, private of Company L, seventh Iowa Calvary; which wa.sreadafirst andsecond time. 

The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a 

third time. 

The bill directs the Secretary o~ the Interior to place on the pensionroll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Ezra C. Owen, private of Company L, Seventh Iowa Calvary, 

to date from the pa sage of the act. 

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

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

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

the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

JAMES R. BORL.U..'D. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN also, from the same committee, reported favorably upon the bill (H. R. No. 2949) granting a pension to JamesR. Bor- ~~ . 

The question was upon orde.Iing the bill to be engrossed and read 

a third time. 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pen- sion-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, 

the name of James R. Borland, of Bureau County, Illinois, at the rate 

of eight dollars a month, to commence from the aate of his discharge 

from the United States service. 

'fhe bill w~ ordered to be engrossed and rean a third time ; and 

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

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

the table. 

The latter motion wa.s agreed to. 

JEFFERSO~ A. FRENCH. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN also, from the same committee, reported back 

favorably Senate bill No. 613, granting a pension to Jefferson A. 

French. 

The question was upon oruering the bill to be read a third time. 

The bill directs the Secr~tary of the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, 

the name of J e:fferson .A.. French, late volunteer lieutenant and .first- class pilot in the United States naval service, Mississippi squadron, for 

total disability, at the rate of $31.25 a month. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and 

it was accordingly read the third time, and pa sed. 

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

the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

ADVERSE REPORTS. • 

Mr. CRITTENDEN, from the same committee, reported adversely 

upon the following bill and petitions; which were laid upon the 

table, and the accompanying reports ordered to be printed: 

A bill (H. R. No. 918) granting a pension to Calvin Hess; 

The petition of E. Jacobs, for a pension; and 

The petition of Savissa Cole, for back pension. 

JOHN FTh'X. 

Mr. O'BRIEN, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. No. 

3722) granting a pension to John Fink; which was read a first and 

second time. 

'l'he question wa~ upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read 

a third time. 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension 

laws, the name of John Fink, late private in Company G, First Regiment Potomac Home Brigade Maryland Volunteers, and pay him a pension from and after the passage of the act. 

The bill wa.s ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and 

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

Mr. O'BRIEN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to recensider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion wa.s agreed to. 

MARY LOGSDEJ..~. 

:Mr. O'BRIEN, from the same committee, also reported a bill (H. 

R. No. 3723) granting a. pension to Mary Logsden; which was read a first and second time. 

The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension 

laws1 the name of .Mrs . .Mary Logsden, widow of Joseph Logsden, la.te a. pnvate of Company K, Second Regiment .Maryland Volunteers, 

and pay her a pension from and after the passage of the act. 

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

being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and pa~ed. 
5074 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JuNE 16, 

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

table. 

The latter motion "'.Vas agreed to. 

llllCHAEL QUARRY. 

Mr. O'BRIEN also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. 

No. 3724) granting- a pen ion to Michael Quarry; which was read a first and second trme. 

The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the limitations and provisions of the pension laws, 

the name of Michael Quarry, father of Michael Quarry and Albert 

Quarry, late privates in Company A, One hundred and ninety-first 

Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteers, and pay him a pension from and 

after the passage of the act. · The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading; and being 

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

Mr. O'BRIEN moved to reconsider the vote by which ·the bill was passed; and also moveil that the motion to reconsider be laiil on the 

table. 

The l:1tter motion was agreed to. 

MARY A.J.."'ffi" EATON. 

Mr. O'BRIEN also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. 

No. 3725) granting a pension to Mary Ann Eaton; which was read a first and second time. 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pensionroll, subject to the· provisions and limitations of the pension l~ws, the name of Mary Ann Eaton, mother of William H. Eaton, late a private 

in the United States Marine Corps, and pay her a pension from and 

after the pas age of the act. . The bill was ordered t.o be engros eil for a third reading; and being 

engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and pa ed. 

Mr. O'BRIEN moved to reconsider the vote by which the blll was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

CATHARL.'IE H. GALLAGHER. 

Mr. O'BRIEN also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. 

R. No. 3726) granting a pension to Catharine H. Gallagher; which was read a :first and second time. 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension-laws, 

the name of Catharine H. Gallagher, widow of John Gallagher, deceased, late a captain in the United States Navy, and pay her a pension from and after the pa sage of the act, at the rate of fifty dollars 

per month. 

Mr. ARCHER. I move to amend this bill by striking out all after 

the words "pay her a pension," and insertin[_in lieu thereof the 

words" from January 1, 1871, at the rate of fi.uy dollars per month, 

provided that the amo~nt of pension received by her from January 

1, 1871, shall be deducted therefrom." · · Mr. O'BRIEN. As this amendment follows the precedents which 

have been established by the House in other cases, I am authorized 

to say that the committ-ee are willing that it should be adopted. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The bill, a amended, was ordered to be engro sed for a third rea-ding ; and being engrossed, it wa accordingly read the third time, and 

passed. 

Mr. O'BRIEN moved. to reconsider the vote by which the bill was pa sed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was :1greed to. 

JOHN M. ALLEN. 

Mr. SMART, ~om the same coffimittee, reported a bill (H. R. No. 3727) granting a pension to John l\f. Allen; which was read a first 

and second time. 

The bill directs the Secretary oftheinteriorto place on the pensionroll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of John l\f. Allen, late a private in Company G, One hundred 

and seventy-sixth Regiment New York Volunteer, and pay him a. pension from a,nd after the pa sage of the act. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third rea-ding ; and being 

engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and pas ed. 

Mr. SMART moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also mo>ed that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

ta,ble. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

REVISION OF THE STATUTES. 

Mr. POLAND. I a k unanimous consent to make a statement. 

Several days ago we pas ed a hill (H. R. No. 3652) providing for 

publication of the revised statutes of the United States. The bill was also pa sed by the Senate ; but subsequently that body asked its r etnm, and then pas eel it with some amendments. The Secretary 

of State thinks it necessary that these amendments should be con- curred in and the bill become a law to-day, in order to prevent the 

necessity of publishing the entire revision of the statutes in the newspapers. The amendments made by the Senate do not differ ma,terially 

from the bill passed by the House except that they provide for the 

abrogation of the contract made several years ago with Little, Brown 

& Co., of Boston, for the publication of the laws. The contract provided that Congress might at any time put an end to it; and the 

difficulty with the Senate committee was that they thought we hall no right to provide for the publication of the revised statutes at the 

Congressional Printing Office unless we entirely abro~ated -the con- tract with Little, Brown & Co. Hence the Senate nas inserted a provision abrogating that contract, and providing that the laws hereafter shall be published at the Congressional Printing Office. I desire 

to have the House concur in these amendments of the Senate. 

Mr. COTTON. Is this matter in order to-night! 

Mr. POLAND. I think it is, if nobody objects. 

There being no objection, the amendments of the Senate were con- curred in. 

Mr. POLAND moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendments were concurred in; and also moved that the motion to recon- sitler be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

GEORGE CHORPID\~~G. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts, by unanimous consent, reported 

back from the Committee on the Judiciary the bill (H. R. No. 3534) 

to remit the claims of George Chorpenning all"ainst the Uniteil States 

to the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims; whlch was referred to the 

Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar. 

STEPHEN WE.ATHERLOW. 

Mr.SMART,from theCommittee on Invalid Pen ions,reportecl.back, 

with a favorable recommendation, the bill (H. R. No. 1606) granting an increase of pension to Stephen Weatherlow. 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the p en- sion-roll, subject to·.the provisions and limitations of the pension 

laws, the name of Stephen Weathcrlow, and to pay him a pension at 

the rate of twenty-four dollars per month from the date of the act; 

the pension to be in lieu of that now drawn by him. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a, third reading ; and being en~ossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and pa.ssed. 

Mr. ;:;MART moved to reconsider the vote by which t.he bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreeu to. 

JOSEPH V. CARTWRIGHT. 

Mr. S:\-lART also, from the arne committee, reported back, with a favorable recommendation, the bill (H. R. No. 1241) restoring to 

the pension-roll the name of. Joseph V. Cartwright. 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to restore to the pension-roll the name of Joseph V. Cartwright, an imbecile son of Joseph 

Cartwright, deceased, a. private in Company F, One hundred and 

twenty-third Regiment New .York State Volunteers, and to pay him a pension at the rate of ---ilollars p~r month, elating back from 

the time his name was dropped from the pen ion-roll. 

The bill was ordered to l.Je engrossed and read a third time ; and 

being e~fr~sed, it was accordingly read the third time, and pas ed. 

Mr. S T moved .to reconsider the vote by which the bill wa pas ed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. The latter motion was a,greed to. 

ADBY A. DIKE. 

Mr. SMART also, from the same committee, reported a. bill (H. R. 

No. 3728) granting a pension to Abby A. Dike; which was read a :fixst 

and second time. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Mrs. Abby A. Dike, widow 

of John H. Dike, late captain Company I, Sixth Massachusetts State 

troops, and pay her a pension from and after the pacSSage of the act. 

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

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

!rfr. SMART moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

ANN ELIZA BROWN. 

Mr. SMART also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. 

No. 3729) granting a pension to Ann Eliza Brown; which was read a first and second time. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to place on the -pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Ann Eliza Brown, widow 

of Colonel Harvey A. Brown, brevet major-general United States 

Army, at the rate of thirty dollars a month from and after the passage 

of the a-ct. 

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

being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, anrl pas ed. 

1t1r. SMART moved to recon ider the vote hy wllieh the bill was 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD. 5075 

passed ; and als_o moved that the motion to recon ider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

ADVERSE REPORTs. 

l\1r. SMART also, from the same committee, reported back a,dversely the following cases; which were laid on the table : A bill (H. R. No. 2222) granting a pension to Elizabeth Coon; 

The petition of Buford Webb; and 

The petition of James S. Cut bush. 

HENRY B. BURGAR. 

Mr. BARRY, fiom the same committee, reported ba-ck a bill (H. R. 

No. 2504) granting a pension to Henry B. Burgar, with the recommendation that it do pass. 

The bill, which was read, aut~orizes and. directs the Se?r.etary of 

the Interior to place on the penswn-roll, subJect to the proVIsions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Henry B. Burgar, late a private in Company K, Fourth Regiment Minnesota V ~lunt~ers. 

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

beinu engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. ~ BARRY moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed ; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed io. 

WASHINGTON A. HOLLOWAY. 

Mr. BARRY also, from the same com..mlttee, reported a bill (II. R. 

No. 3730) granting an increase of .pension to Washington A. Holloway; which was read a first and second time. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions 

and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Washington A. Holloway, late a soldier in Company -, Second Regiment Wisconsin 

Cavalry, and pay him eight dollars instead of four dollars a month now paid him. 

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

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

Mr. BARRY moved t.o reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. The latter motion was agreed to. 

BRIDGET COLLL~S. 

l\1r. BARRY also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. 

No. 3731) granting a pension to Bridget Collins; which was read a first 

and second time. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Bridget Collins, widow 

of John Collins, late a private Company I, Seventeenth Regiment 

United States Infantry, and pay her a pension from and after the passage of the act. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a thb:d reading ; and being 

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

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

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

O. G. VANDUSEN. 

Mr. BARRY also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. 

No. 3732) granting a pension -to 0. G. Van Dusen, guardian of the 

minor child of Reuben l\I. Pratt; which was read a first and second 

time. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of 0. G. VanDusen, guardian 

of the minor child of Reuben 1\I. Pratt, late of Company H, Sixth 

Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Reserve Corps Infantry, and pay 

him a pension at the rate of fifteen dollars a month from and after 

the passaue of the act. 

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

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

Ml·.BARRY moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laill on the 

table. 

The latter motion wa-s agreed to. 

PRL"TING OF REPORTS. 

Mr. RUSK. I move that the several reports accompanying the pension bills disposed of by the House this evening be printed. 

The motion was agreed to. 

NATIO~AL Mll.ITARY liOliES. 

Mr. RUSK, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported 

Dack, with the recommendation that the committee be discharged 

from the further consideration of the same, and that it be laid on the 

table, the resolution referred to the committee on the 4th of April, 

187 4, instructing the committee to inquire whether the system adopted 

by the board of managers for the National Military Homes for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers of deducting any fines and forfeitures iml)Osedonanyof the beneficiarie of theinstitntions for a.Ueged b.reaches 

of discipline are in accordance with the spirit and meaning of the pensionlaws, and whether any such fines can legally be deduct.ed from 

the monthly pay of the said pensioners. 

Mr. RUSK. I move that the committee be discharged from the 

further consideration of the resolution, that it be laid on the table, 

and that tl1e accompanying report be printed. 

l\lr. O'BRIEN. -I understand that the report is very short, and I 

ask that it may be printed in the RECORD. 

Mr. RUSK. That is not necessary. 

The motion of 1\Ir. RusK was agreed to. 

l\Ir. RUSK moved to reconsider the vote just taken; and also moved 

that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

PEXSION BILLS ON PRIVATE CALENDAR. 

Mr. RUSK. I ask that by unanimous consent the House _proceed to 

the consideration of pension bills on the Private Calendar. I move that the Committee of the Whole be discharged from the further 

consideration of -the bills reported by the Committee on Invalid Pensions which are on the Private Calendar, and that they be now brou~~t 

before the House for consideration. The resolution under which this 

session of the House is held covers that point. 

Mr. HAWLEY, of lllinois. I ask the gentleman before making 

that motion to allow the committees to be called for reports of a private nature. . Mr. RUSK. Tl:tere are only a few pension bills on the Private Calendar and it will take but a short time to dispose of them. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution for the session tlus 

evening provides for the consideration of reports made and to be 

made by the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

There being no objection, the motion of l\lr. RusK was arrreed to; 

and the pension bills on the Private Calendar were brought before 

the House for consideration. _ 

ELIZABETH l\11CLUNEY. 

The first pension bill on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 

No. 2119) for the relief of Elizabeth 1\IcCluney. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to place on the pension-roll, pursuant to the provisions of 

law in force prior to the act of: July 14, 1862, and at the pension rate 

of fifty dollars per month, the name of Elizabeth McCluney, widow 

of Coinmodore William J. McCluney, late of the United States Navy. 

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

being engrossed, it was acconlin~ly read the third time, and passed. 

Mr. O'BRIEN movell to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed ; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

MRS. MARY G. IIA..lfius. 

The next pension bill on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 

No. 2677) granting a pension -to Mrs. Mary G. Harris, widow of John 

Harris, late commandant of the United States :Marine Corps. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and direct-s the Secretary of the 

Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Mrs. Mary G. Harris, 

widow of John Harris, late commandant of the United States Marine 

Corps, and pay her a pension at the rate of fifty dollars a month from 

and after the passage of the act. 

The bill was ordere(l to be engrossed and read a third time ; and 

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

Mr. O'BRIEN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved thn.t the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was a,greed to. 

· IIARRIET LEONARD. 

The next pension bill on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 

No. 3190) granting a pension to Harriet Leonar1. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions an(l 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Harriet Leonard, widow 

of William P. Leonard, late first lieutenant in Company E, Sl.xtyeighth Regiment of Pennsylvania Volunteers and afterward lieuten- . ant of Sixty-ei~hth Company, Second Battalion Veteran · Reserve 

Corps, and pay her a pension from the passage of the act. 

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

being engrossed, it was acc01·dingly 1·ead the third time, and passed. 

Mr. McJUNKIN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill 

wa,s passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

ELIZABETH BRAl\"'NIX. 

The next pension bill on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 

No. 3191) granting a pension to Elizabeth Brannix. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions 

and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Elizabeth Brannix, 

widow of George H. Brannix, late captain Company M, Third Regiment Pennsylvania Cavalry, and pay her a pension from and after tho 

passage of the act. 
5076 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. ,JUNE 16 

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

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

Mr. McJUNKIN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was 

passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. · The latter motion was agreed to. 

l't:liNOR CID~RE~ OF J, A. BREWER. 

The next pension bill on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 

No. 3192) granting a pension to t-he minor children of J. A. Brewer. 

The bill, which was rea-d, authorizes and directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the names of Ada M. Brewer, Charles 

F. Brewer, and James M. Brewer, minor children of J. A. Brewer, late a private in Company A, Seventieth Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infan try, and pay them a pension from and after the passage of the act. 

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

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

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

The latter motion was agreed to. 

WILLIAM H. BLAIR. 

The next pension bill on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 

No. 3193) repealing the act granting a pension to William H. Blair, 

approved July 27, 1868. · The bill, which was rea.d, repeals the act granting a pension to 

William H. Blair, late a private in Company G, Twelfili Regiment 

Maine Volunteers, approved July 27,1868. 

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

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

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

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

ELIZABETH TIPTON. 

The next pension bill on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 

No. 619) granting a pension to Elizabeth Tipton, of Tennessee. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Elizabeth Tipton, of 

Washington County, Tennessee, widow of St-ephen Tipton, deceased, 

late a private of Company M, Eighth Teill'lessee Cavalry. 

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

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

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

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

RACHAEL W. PHILLIPS. 

The next pension bill on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 

No. 3273) granting a pension to Rachael W. Phillips, widow of Gilbert Phillips. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitationR of the pension-laws, the name of Rachael Phillips, widow 

of Gilbert Phillips, lat-e a private in Compan~ D, Thirty-eighth Regiment Wisconsin Volunteers, transferred- to Company A, Twentieth 

Regiment Veteran Reserve Corps, and pay her a pen ion from and 

after the passage of the act. 

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

being engrossed, it was a-ccordingly read the third time, and passed. 

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

table. · 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

JOHN S. CORLETT. 

The next pension bill on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 

No. 3274) granting a pension to JohnS. Corlett. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of John S. Corlett, late a teamster in the service of the United States, and to pay him the pension of a private from and after the passage of the act. 

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

being el!.~o sed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

:Mr. RuSK moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was pas ed; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. 

The latter motion was ag1·eed to. 

ELI PERSONS. 

The next pension bill on the Private Calendar was the hill (H. R. 

No. 327a) granting a pension to Eli Persons. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place pn the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of Eli Persons, late a private in Company K, Seventy-third Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry, and pay him a pension from and after the passage of the act. 

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

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

Mr. RUSK moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was pa sed; and also mov~d that the motion to reconsider be laid on tho 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

DA VE~ORT DOWNS. 

The next pension bill on the Private Calendar was the bill (II. R. 

No. 3276) granting a pension to Davenport Downs. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations ot the pension lawsz....the name of Davenport Downs, late a private in Company C, Fifth .H.egiment Iowa Volunteers, and to pay 

to him a pension from and after the passage of the act. 

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

being en~ossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

Mr. RuSK moved •to reconsider the vote by which the hill was pa-ssed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

?>IRS. MARTHA R. P..OB~SON. 

The next pension bill on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 

No. 1183) granting a pension to Mrs. Martha R. Robinson. 

The bill, which was read, authorizes and directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to pla-ce on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions 

and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Martha R. Robinson, 

widow of Major Joshua V. Robinson, late of the Thirty-third Recriment Ohio Volunteer Infantry. o 

The bill was ordered t.o be eil!:!TOs ed and read a third time; and 

being engrossed, it was a-ccordingly read the third time, and passed. 

Mr. RUSK moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was pa sed; and also mov~d that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion wa~ agreed to. 

EMILY PBILLIPS. 

The next pension bill on the Private Calendar wa the bill (H. R. No. 

1438) granting a pension to Emily Phillips, widow of Martin Phillips. 

The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place upon the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of tho pension laws, 

the name of Emily Phillips, widow of Martin Phillips, late a corporal of Company H, Fifty-sixth Ohio Volunteer Infantry, upon evidence already furnished the Commissioner of Pensions in her claim, 

No. 196,451. 

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

being el!.~ossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

lli. RuSK moved to reconsider the vote by which the hill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

ROBERT D. JO~S. 

The next pension bill upon the Private Calendar waa the bill (H. R. 

No. 3277) granting a pension to Robert D. Jones. 

The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to plaee on the pen- sion-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension 

laws, the name of Robert D. Jones, late a private in Company B, 

Third Regiment of Pennsylvania Reserves, and pay him a pension 

from and after the passage of the act. 

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

being engrossed, it was accordin~ly read the third time, and passed. 

Mr. RUSK moved to reconsi<1er the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

MARGARET BEELER. 

The next pension bill upon the Priva.te Calendar was the bill 

(H. R. No. 3278) granting a pension to Margaret Beeler. 

The question was upon ordering the hill to be engros ed and read a third time. 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension 

laws, the name of :Margaret Beeler, widow of Peter Beeler, late a private in Company A, Twelfth Regiment Tennessee Cavalry, and pay 

her a pension from and after the pa sage of the act. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; 3-nd 

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

}!r. RUSK moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was pas edl· and also moved to lay the motion t.o reconsider on the table. 

The atter motion was agreed to. 

_ SALEM P. ROSE. 

The next pension bill upon the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5077 

No. 78) granting a pension to Salem P. Rose, of North Adams, Massachusetts. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Invalid Pensions with :111 amendment. 

The bill, as amended, directs the Secretary of the Interior to place 

upon the pension-roll the name of Salem P. Rose, of North Adams, 

Massachusetts, late a private in Company F, Twenty-seventh Regiment Massachusetts Volunteers, and pay him a pension from and 

after the passage of the act. 

The amendment was agreed to; and tho bill, as amended, was ordered 

to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordin~ly read the third time, and passed. 

1\lr. RUSK moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to recon ider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

E~Y L. SLAUGHTER. 

The next pension bill upon the Private Calendar was the hill (II. R. 

No. 2354) granting a pension to Mrs. Emily L. Slaughter. 

The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension 

laws, the name of Mrs. Emily L. Slaughter, widow of Albert G. 

Slaughter, commander United States Navy, and pay her a pension 

from and after the passage of the act. . The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and 

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

blr. RUSK moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

MARY W. SHIRK. 

The next pension bill upon the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 

No. 3427) granting an increase of pension to Mary W. Shirk, widow 

of James W. Shirk, deceased, late commander in the United States 

Navy. 

The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. 

The bill provides that the pension of thirty-six dollars a mouth now allowed to Mary W. Shirk and her children, the widow and children of James W. Shirk, deceased, late commander in the United 

States Navy, be increased in the sum of fourteen dollars a month, 

makino- the pension at the rate of :fifty dollars a month, to be paid 

from the interest on the Navy-pension fund, and to take effect from 

and after the passage of the act. 

The bill was ordered to bo engrossed and r au a third time ; and 

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

l\Ir. BARRY moved to reconsider the vote by "\\bich t.he bill was pa ed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

tablo. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

MINOR HEIRS OF JO~ H. EV A...i.""S. 

The last pension bill upon the Private Calendar was a bill (H. R. 

No.2254) granting a pension to the minorchildren of John H. Evans. 

The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. 

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, 

the names of the minor heirs of John H. Evans, deceased, late a pri: 

v:tte in company A., Third Regiment of Tennessee Cavalry. 

The bill was orde1·ed to be engrossed and read a third time; and 

being enJ~ros ed, it was accordingly mad the third time, and passecl. 

Mr. RuSK moved to recon iuer the vote by which the bill was pa sed; and also movou that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

COIDIEXCEMENT OF PE.."'\SIO~S. 

Mr. RUSK. I now ask that the Committee of the Whole be discharged from the further con ideratiou of House bill No. 674 for the 

purpose of being consiuered in the House. It is a bill to proviue 

that all pensions on account of death, wounds received, or diBease con- tracted in the service of the United States since 1\la.rch 4, 1861, which 

have been granted, or which shall hereafter be granted, on application filed previous to January 1, 1875, shall commence from the date 

of death or discha1·ge, and for the payment of the arrears of pensions. 

Mr. STORM. Do I understand that this bill is on the Private Calendart 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is not. 

Mr. STORM. Then I object. Under the order with reference to 

the business this evening I submit that we have no right to consider 

this bill. 

Mr. RUSK. I ask for the re:acling of the bill. 

. ~ho bill was rea.d. It provides in the first section that all pensions 

wbwh have ueen, or may hereafter be, granted in consequence of 

death occurring from a can ·e which originated in the service of the 

United Sta.t.es since the 4th day of March, 1861, or in consequence of 

wounds or injuries received or disease contracted since said (late, 

shall commence from the dat.e of the death or discharge from the 

United States service of the person on whose account the claim has 

been, or shall hereafter be, ~ranted, or from the termination of the 

right of the party having pnor title such pension; provided that the 

application for such pension has been, or shall hereafter be, filed with 

the Commissioner of Pensions on or before the 1st day of January, 

1H75; otherwise the pension shall commence from the date of filing 

the last evidence nece sary to establish the same. The limitation 

herein prescribed is not to apply to claims by or in behalf of insane 

per ons or minor children of deceased soldiers. 

The second section provides that immediately upon the passage of 

the act the Commi ioner of Pen ions shall cause a copy of the same to be furnished each pension agent, whose duty it shall be to 

notify each pensioner upon his roll who shall be entitled to arrears of 

pension under the act, and it shall be the further duty of the Commissioner of Pensions to pay, or caused to be paid, to such pensioners, 

or, if the pensioner shall have died, to the person or persons entitled 

to the same, all such arrears of pensions as the pensioner may be en- titled to, or if dead would have IJeen entitled to under the provisions 

of the first section of the act had he or she survived. 

Mr. RICE. I move that this bill be laid on the table. 

Mr. RUSK. I do not yield. Mr. Speaker, it is harcUy worth while 

to explain thi bill. I presume it is understood by the members of 

the House. 

Mr. STOR~f. Yes, sir; we all understand it. 

:Mr. RUSK. If the Honse will agree to order the previous question to-ni~ht, I will allow the vote to be taken in the morning without 

any debate. Severall\IE~IBERS. 0, no. Mr. HAYS. I would like to ask a question. 

Mr. RUSK. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is ordered tonight, will not this bill be pending in the morning Y · The SPEAKER pro tempore. This e-vening was set apart specially 

for the consideration of reports from the Committee on Invalid Pensions. In the opinion of the Chair it will require a motion to suspend 

the rules to consider this bill at any time hereafter. 

Mr. HOLMAl'l. I hope that the gentleman from Wisconsin [lli. 

RusK) will insist on havin~ the bill acted upon to-night. It is clear 

that if it goes over it will not come up to-morrow as unfinished 

business. 

Mr. BECK. I wish to make a parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. HA ·wLEY, of illinois. I wish to make a suggestion to the 

gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. RusK.) This evening was set apart 

not only for reports of his committee, but for reports of other com- mittees; and--

Mr. BECK. I insist on my point of order. I submit that this bill 

is not a priva.te pension bill, and does not properly come within the 

business for which the session of to-night was ordered. 

The SPEAKER p1·o tempore. The Chair will examine the resolution - under which these sion of this evening was ordered. 

Mr. HOLMAN. It was for reports generally from the Committee on Invalicl Pensions. 

The SPEAKER p1·o tempm·e. The Chair is informed by the gentle- man who wrote the order that under it reports from this committee · are in order without regard to whether they are private or public. 

This bill is therefore in order. 

Mr. KILLINGER. Let the order for this evening's session be rea-d. 

Mr. PARKER, of New Hampshire. This bill will take 10,000,000 out 

of the TreMury. 

Mr. RUSK. What difference if it takes $50,000,000 out of the Treasury 'f If our crippled solili~rs are entitled to this money, why should we refuse to pay it to them Y 

Mr. BECK. I move that the Honse adjourn. 

1\fr. RUSK. Perhaps gentlemen do not understand what this bill 

is. It is to pay our crippledsoldiers whatwe owe tbem. That is all. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. On ordering the bill to be engrossed 

and read a third time, the gentleman from Wi consin [Mr. RusK] has 

called for the previous question, pending which the gentleman from 

Kentucky [Mr. BECK] moves that the House adjourn. 

Mr. HAWLEY, of Illinois. I ask the gentleman from Wisconsin to 

withdraw this bill until the other committees have reported. 

The question being taken on the motion of :Mr. BECK, that the House 

adjourn, there were-ayes 45, noes 88. 

:Mr. BECK called for the yea-s and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Tbe question w:as taken; and upon a division there were-yeas 46, 

nays 106, not votmg 137; as follows : 

YEAS-Messrs. Archer, Ashe, Atkins, Beck, Bell, Berry, Blount, Bromberg, 

Brown, Burleigh~ Caldwell, John B. Clark, jr., Clymer, Comin~, Cook, Creamer, 

Crooke, Crosslana, Giddings, Glover, Gunter, Hamilton, Hancoc Henry R. Harris, 

.Tosepb R. Hawleyl..~ellofig, Killinger, Lamar, Lawson, Lofian Ma_gee, McKee, 

Merriam, Milliken, .L'I eal, 0 Brien, Hosea W. Parker, Phillips. Thomas v. Platt, Rollbins, James C. Robinson. H. Boardman Smith, Storm, Whitthorne, Charles W.Willard, and Ephraim K. Wilson-46. 

NA YS-M~srs. Albert, Albright, Bannin:r, Barrera, Barry, niery, Bradley, 

Bright, Buckner, Buffin ton, Bundy, Burchard lkrrows, Roderick R. Butler, Cain, 

Cannon, Cason, Cessna, Amos Clark, jr., Clements, Clinton L. Cobb, Stephen A . Cobb, Conger, Corwin, Cotton, Crounse, Danford, Darrall, Dobbins, Donnan, Dun- · nell, Eames, Field, Fort, Frye, Gunckel, Hagans, John T .lia.ITi.s, Hru.rison, Ha.tcher, 

John B. Hawley, Hays, Hendee, Hereford, E. Rockwood Hoar, HodJ!:es, Holman, 

Howe, Hubbell; Hunton, Hyde, Knapp, Lawrence, Lowe, Lowndes,-:M:irtin, Mc- Crary, Alexander S. McDill, MacDougall. McJunkin, Morrison, Myers, Niblack, 
5078 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 

Niles Nunn, O'Neill, Orr, Packard, Pa(lker, Page, Isaac C. Parker, Rapier, R.'ty, 

Rice '.JamflS W. Robinson, Ross, Rusk, Sawyer, Henry B. Sa.vler, Milton Sayler, 

Scofi'eld, Isaac W. Scudder.~ Sheats, Sheldon, Sh~rwoocl, Slo~n, Sloss, Small, A. Herr Smith. Sprague, Sttmdifora, Starkweather~ St.rru.t, Strawbndge, ThornburjZb, Waldron, 'ValL'lce .Jasper D. Ward, Wbiteheaa. George Willard, Charles G. Williams. 

JohnM. S. Wi.ruruns, William Williru.us, Williru.n B. Williams, James. Wilson, and 

John D. Young-106. NOT VOTING-Messrs. Adams, Arthur, Averill, Barber, Barnum, Bass, :Be~ole, 

Bland Bowen, :Benjamin F. Butler, Freeman Ularke, Clayton, Coburn, Cox, vrit- rende~ Crocker, Crutchfield, Cm·tis, Davis, Da.wes, DeWitt, Duell, Durham, Eden, 

Eldredge, Elliott, Farwell, Foster, Freeman, Garfield, Goocn, Eugene Hale, Robert •. H9le, Hanner, Benjamin W. Harris, Ha-tJtOrn, Havens, GerryW. Hn.zelton, John 

w. Ha.zelton, Herndon, Hersey, George F. Hoar, Hooper, Hoskins, Houghton, Hunter Hurlbut Hynes, Jewett, Ka: on. Kelleyi_Kendall, Lamison, Lamport, Lv.nsina, Leach, Le~. Loughridae, Luttrell, Lvucu, Marshall, Maynard, J9.mes W. 

McDill. McLean, McNult.'t, MillS, Mitchell, Monroe, Moore1 Morey, Ne~ey, Nesmith Orth Parsons, Pelham, P endleton, Perry, Phelps, Pierce, Pike, tJames H. 

Platt jr. Poland, Potter, Pratt, Punnan, P..ainey, RD.ndall, Ransier, Read, Richmond,EllisH.lwberts,William R Robert, .JohnG.Schnmaker,He~yJ. Scudder, ner Ses. ion Sh:mks, Lazarus D. Shoemaker, Smart, George L. Snuth, .J.Ambler mith, John Q: Smith, William A. Smith, Snyder, Southard, Speer, Stanard S~ 11hens St.John Stone, St.owell, Swann, Sypher, Taylor, Charles R Thomas, ChriS- tophe~ Y. Tbo~as, Todd, Townsend, Tremain, Tyner, Vance, Wwdell, W2Jls, Marcus L. War~ Wells, Wl.Jeclcr, White, Whitehouse,_ Whiteley, W~ber, Willie, J eremiah M. Wflson, Wolfe, Wood, Woodford, Woouwor!;h, and Pterce M. B. 

Yonng-137. 

o the House refused to ndjourn. 

Durin(J' the roll-call, :Mr. WIDTEHE.AD stated that hi c'-llleague, Mr. BowEN, was detained at home by illne s. Mr. NEAL stated this his colleague, Mr. SouTHARD, was detained 

at home by illness. 

Mr. COl\fiNGO ·tated that his colleague, Mr. WELLs, wa indi - po ed, and Ulli1bla to be pre ent this evening. 

The vot.e was then announced as above recorded. 

l\lr. STORM. I move that the bill be laid on the table. 

Mr. BECK. I move that when the llou e ::u.ljoums to-night it adjourn to meet on Thursday next. 

Mr. RUSK. I hope that motion will not be insisted on. Mr. BECK. I will move instead of adjourning t.hat the Honse now take arecesstmtil ten o clock to-morrowmorning,aud on that motion I 

demand the yeas anW. nays. · MT. FORT. I hope gentlemen can be accommodated in reference 

to this bill so that it may go over until to-morrow morning. 

Mr. BECK. It wa not the understanding that anything but private bills shoultl be reported this evening. There are nearly one htmdred member absent, and it is not fair to call up this uill this even- in(J', · Mr. RUSK. If gentlemen will con. ent that a vote ·ball b taken 

in tbe morning,·! will withdraw the "bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempo1·e. Gentlemen object to debate. 

Mr. RUSK. I a motion to suspend the rule and pass the bill now 

in ordert 

']'he SPEAKER pro tcmpo1·c.. It is not, pending a motion to take a 

recess. Mr. HOLMAN. I a. k unanimous con ent to make an explanation. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. I object. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry, whether the gentleman from Wisconsin can- not withdraw his bill and to-morrow move to suspend the rrues and pass it t 

Mr. BECK. I have no objection to that. 

1\Ir. STORM. That is fair, and we can th n have a vot-e on the bill 

in a full House. 

The SPEAKER. pro tempm·e. If the gentleman will "ithdraw his 

bill with that Understanding the Honse can proceed to receive re- ports of a private natme from the stan<ling committees of the House 

under the order made this morning. 

Mr. RUSK. I am willing to accommodate the Honse about this 

matter. If the opponents of this bill will Uf:f~ee to give us a fair, 

and square vote on it to-morrow morning, I will withdraw it. 

The SPEAKER p1·o tempore . . The ChaiT hears no objection to that 

arrangement, that the gentleman from Wi cousin may be permitted 

to-morrow to suspend the rules and pa s the bill. 

1\fr. BECK. He can do that any how. 

RUSK. I give notice that I mean to bring it before the Ron e even-handed. We can snspend the rules by a two-thirds vote and 

pass the bill, and we do not ru;k our enemies consent to do that. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman withdraw his bill T 

Mr. RUSK. No; I do not withdraw it. 

The SPEAKER p1·o tmnp01·e. Then the pendinJt._que tion is on the 

motion of the gentleman from Kentucky that the House take a recess until to-morrow morning at ten o'clock. · :Mr. BECK. I withdraw that a.nd move the Hou e do now adjourn. 

Mr. RUSK. If we take a recess until ten o'clock to-morrow morn- inr,_ will this come up as unfinished business f 

The SPEAKER pro telnpt:Yre. It will not. 

:\Ir. RUSK. Will it at eleven o'clock 'f 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It will not. 

The House divided on the motion to a~jouru; and there were- ayes 60, noes 50. 

lfr. RUSK demanded the yeas and na.y . The yea..s and nays were ordered. . 1\Ir. RUSK. I will withdraw the bill n.nd give notice that I will move to suspend the rules and pass it to-morrow morning. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Reports of a private nature are in order 

from the standing committees of the Hou e. Mr. CLEMENTS. How do we lose the yeas and nays on the motion 

to adjourn 'f 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair supposed, the bill being 

withdrawn, the gentleman from Kentucky withdrew his motion to 

ad,jonrn. 

l\fr. BECK. I do withdraw the motion to adjourn. 

Mr. CLYl\fER. I renew it. 

The House divided; and there were-ayes 30, noes 73. 

1\fr. CL YM:ER demanded the yeas and nays. 

'l.'be yeas and nays were not ordered. 

So the House refused to adjourn. 

REPORTS FROM Cm.L'\ll'l'TEES. 

The SPEAKER pro tmnpm·e. Reports of a private nature are now in order from the standing committees of the House under the order made this morning. Repor~s are fir t in order from the Committee on Elections. E: ll"'D J. KOCH. 

Mr. SHELDON, from the Committee on 'Vays and :Means rcportetl 

back, with the recommendation that it do pass, the bill (S. No. 552) 

to refund to E. and J. Koch certain cnstoms duties ; and the same wa referred to the Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar, and 

the accompanying report ordered to be printed. 

REPORTS FRO~! COIDIITTEE O:N CLAIMS. 

Mr. H.A WLEY, of illinois, from the Committee on Claims, reported 

back the bill (H. R. No. 3301) for the payment of 800 to Milton Kennedy, for services on the steamboat Piketon, and moved that the 

committee be discharged from the further consideration of the same, 

and that it be referred to the Committee on War Claims. 

Mr. WILLARD, of Vermont. I do -not desire to be overcaptiou , but I understood that committees were to ue called merely for refer- ence to bills of the Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendal'. 

The SPEAKER p1·o tempore. That was the order of the Honse, and 

reports fol' other purposes can only ue received by una.nimous con- sent. 

Mr. \VILLARD, of Vermont. I do not insi ·t on my objection. 

The Committee on Claims was discharged from further considera- tion of the bill, and it was referred to the Committee on War Claims. Mr. HA. WLEY, of illinois, also, from the Committee on Claim , reported back the following memorials and bills; and the committ.ee was dischar~ed from the further consideration of the same, and they were severally referred to the Committee on W a.r Claims, and the accompanyin~;t I'eports ordered to be printed: 

The memortal of William H. Curran ; 

The bill (H. R. No. 3364) for the relief of Rachael Turrentine, Charity 

W. Tuuentine,etal.; 

The bill (H. R. No. 2467) to reimbmse the Judson Female College, 

in Henderson County, North. Carolina, for damages sustained from 

United States troops, after the close of the war between the State ; 

The petition of Charlotte .A. Van Corte; 

The bill (H. R. No. 3647) for the relief of 1\!rs. Maria Waits, of New 

Orleans, Louisiana; 

The pill (H. R. No. 3649) for the relief of J. B. Prean; 

.A bill to reimburse Robert Clarke; and 

The memorial of William Mason, of Taunton, Massachusetts. 

1\fr. HA. WLEY, of illinois, also, from the same committee, repol'ted a bill (H. R. No. 3733) for the relief of Sarah Morrison, adm.inistratl'i.x 

of the estate of Clrristian D. Morrison, deceased; which was read a first and second time. 

Mr. HAWLEY, of Illinois. I ask that the bill may be referred to 

the Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar. 

Mr. STORM. I call for the reading of that bill. 

l\Ir. HOLMAN. I rise to a question of order. The order of the 

Ron e was that the several committees should be called for reports on private bills to be referred without action by the House to the Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar. I submit that under 

that order it is not in order to call for the reading of these bills. 

Mr. HAWLEY, of illinois. I wish al o to suggest that each one of 

the e bills is accompanied by a report which will be printed. The 

bills are not reported for action at the present time but simply for 

reference, and I submit that there is no necessity for their being l'ead. 

The SPEAKER pro temp01·e. The Chair is obliged to overrule the 

point of order. What the gentleman from Indiana and the gentle- man from lllinois have stated may be a good argument why the bills 

should not be read, but the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Srorur] 

has his right and is entitled to call for the reading. · The bill was read at length, and was referred to the Committee of 

the Whole on the Private Calendar. . Ml'. HAWLEY, of lllinois, also, from the same committee, reported a. ujll (H. R. No. 3734) for the relief of William. R. Hervey, of Louisville. Kentucky; which was read a first and second time, referred to 

the Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar, and, with the 

accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

He also, from the same committee, reported back, with the recoD:J,-

mendation that it do pass, the bill (S. No. 688) refeiTing the claim of 

the owners of the. chooner Ada .A. Andrews to the Court of Claims; 
1874. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 5079 

and the same wa.s referred to ·the Committee of the Whole on the 

Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be 

printed. · 

Mr. DUNNELL: from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. 

No. 3735) for the relief of .Anna W. Osborne; which was read a :first 

and second time, referred to the Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying 'report, ordered to be 

printed. 

He also, from t.he same committee, reportecl back, with the recom- mendation that it do pass, the bill (H. R. No. 2700) amendatory of the 

act entitled "An act for the relief of the heirs and next of kin of 

J.1mes B. Armstrong, decea ed," approvE:d April3, 1873; and the same was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar, 

and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

He also, from the same committee, reported back, with the recom- mendation that it do pass, the bill (H. R. No. 1628) for the relief of 

:Montraville Patton, of Buncombe County, North Carolina; and the same was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the Private 

Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

He also, from the same committee, reported back, with the recom- mendation that it do pass, the bill (H. R. No. 1515) for the relief of 

Gustavus F. Jocknick; and the same was referred to the Committee 

of the Whole on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying 

report, ordered to be printed. 

He also, from the same committee, 1·eported back, with the recom- mendation that it do pass, the bill (S. No. 597) for the relief of William A. Griffin; and the same was referred to the Committee of the 

Whole on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, 

ordered to be priniled. 

He also, from the same committee, reported adversely on the me- morial of Joseph San Roman, of Cameron County, Texas; n.nd the same was laid on the table, and, with the a-<Jcompanying report, 

ordered to be printed. . l\fr. SMITH, of Ohio, from the same commi~tee, reported back, with 

the recommendation that it do pass, the bill (S. No. 595) for the relief 

of Benjamin Cooley and James W. Boswell; and the same was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar, 

and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

He also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. No. 3739) 

for the relief of Thomas Lynch and others, of the City of Chicago ; 

which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee 

of the Whole on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying 

report, ordered to be printed. 

He also, from the same committee, reported back, with the recom- mendation that it do pass, the bill (H. R. No. 2"260) for the relief of 

James G. Harrison, a citizen of Indiana; which was referred to the 

Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar, and, with the 

accompanying report, ordered to be printed. . He also, from the same committee, reported back, with the recom- mendation that it do pass, the bill (H. R. No. 2195) for the relief of 

workmen employed in the construction of Poverty Island light-house, 

Lake Michigan; which WaB referred to the Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered 

to be printed. 

Mr. SMITH, of Ohio. I desire to make an adverse report fToin the 

same committee. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Tennessee. I rise to a point of order. Can an adverse report be entertained under the resolution under which the 

House :ill actin 0' Y 

The SPEAKER pro tenp01·e. The Chair is of opinion that it can. Mr. BUTLER, of Tennessee. From any other committee except the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions Y 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The order in relation to the Committee on Invalid Pensions has been executed, and the second branch of 

the order is now being carried out. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Tennessee. What is that f 

The SPEAKER, pro tempo1·e. That after that order was executed 

all the standing committe-es should be called for private bills for refer- ence to the Private Calendar. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Tennessee. :2ut this is not for reference to the 

Private Calendar. The gentleman proposes to make an adverse report. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee himself not long since made objection to a bill reported adversaly being 

laid upon the table, and the Chair ruled that that objecti~n sent the 

bill to the Private Calendar. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Tennessee. I am very well aware of that; but I 

do not make objection in this case. 

Mr. STORM. Suppose objection is not made f 

The SPEAKER pro tentpore. Very well; then the report would be 

laid upon the table. 

Mr. HOWE also, from the same committee, reported back, with the 

the recommendation that it do pass, the bill (H. R. No. 2750) for the 

relief of Peter P. Marrion; which was read a first and second time, 

referred to the Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar, and, 

with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

He also, from the same committee, reported back, with the recom- mendation that it do pass, the bill (H. R. No. 2304) for the relief of 

Andrew J. Barrett; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar, ancl, with the accompanying report, ordered 

to be printed. 

He also, from the same committee, reported back, with the rec- ommendation that it do pass, the bill (H. R. No. 2503) for the payment 

of certain Indian war bonds of the State of California; which was read a first and second time, re.fened to the Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered 

to be printed. 

He also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. No. 3737) 

for the relief of N. H. Ryan; which was read a first and second time, 

referred to the Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar, and, 

with the accompanying report,. ordered to be printed. · Mr. HAMILTON, from the same committee, reported back, with the 

recommendation that it do not pas, the bill (H. R. No. 1901) for the 

relief of F. B. Stewart; and the same was laid upon the table, and, 

with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

:Mr. HAMILTON, from the same committee, reported back, with the 

recommendation that it do pass, the bill (H. R. No. 3208) for the relief of 

John Henderson; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered 

to be printed. 

He also, from the same committee~ reported a bill (H. R. No. 3738) for 

the relief of Simon M. Preston, late collector of internal revenue for 

the· first collection district of Missi ippi; which was read a first and 

second time, referred to the Committee of the Whole on the Private 

Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordereu to be printed. 

REPORTS FROM THE COM~llTTEE 0~ WAR CLAIMS. 

1\Ir. LA \VRENCE, from the Committee on War Claims, made an adverse report on the petition of Francis A. Gibbons; and the same was laid on the table, and, with the accompanying report, oruered 

to be printed. 

Mr. ATKINS. I move that the House do now adjourn. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. 0, no; let us get these reports in. 

Mr. ATKINS. There is not a quorum present .. Mr. LA \VRENCE. The reports are only for reference. 

:Mr. ATKINS. Very well; I withdraw the motion. 

Mr. LAWRENCE also, from the same committee, reported back, wit.h 

the recommendation that it do not pass, the bill (H. R. No. 2638) askin&'. compensation for wood taken for public u e of troops of the Unite<! 

States near Fort Craig, New Mexico; which was laid upon the table, 

and, with the accompanying report, orderecl to be printed. 

lli. LAWRENCE also, from the same committee, reported adversely 

upon the following; and they were laid upon the table, a.nd the ac- companying reports were ordered to be printed: 

The claim of R. F. Graves; and 

The claim of Gideon J. Pillow. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Tennessee. Is a motion to anjourn now in order t 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Tennessee. Then I make that pwtion. 

. The question was taken upon the motion to adjourn; and upon a division there were-ayes 44, noes 34. 

Mr. LOUGHRIDGE. I call for tellers. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Tennessee. If gentlemen will withhold their 

adverse reports I will withdraw the motion to adjourn. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I do not make any such agreement. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Tennessee. Then we will adjourn. 

Tellers were ordered; and Mr. BUTLER, of Tennessee, and Mr. LAwRENCE were appointed. 

The House again divided; and the tellers reported that there were- ayes 30, noes 33. · Before the result of this vote was annotmced, 

Mr. LAMAR called for the yeas and nays on the motion to adjourn. 

The yeas a.nd nays were ordered, there being thirty in the affirmative, more than one-fifth of the la t vote. 

The SPEAKER p1·o tempore. The question was upon the motion 

to adjourn, upon which t.he yeas a.nd nays have been ordered. 

Mr. HOLMAN. It is very manifest that there is no quorum present, 

and of course there is no necessity for our consuming time by calling 

the yea.s and nays. I move to reconsiuer the vote by which the yeas 

and nays were called, for the purpose of having the vote again 

taken upon the motion to acljourn. I think we had better adjourn 

now. 

The vote ordering the yeas and nays was then reconsidered. 

The question was again taken upon the motion to adjourn, and it wa.s agreed to; and accordingly (at ten o'clock and thirty-five mm- utes, p.m.) the House adjourned. 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

The following memorials, petitions, and other papers were presented 

at the Clerk's desk, under the rule, and referred as stated : By M1·. BUCKNER : The memorial of the board of president and 

directors of the Saint Louis public schools, remonstrating against 

the passage of any law which shall enforce the establishment of 

schools common to both the white and colored races, to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. CLYMER: The remonstrance of bankers and business men of Reading and Berks County, Pennsylvania, against the passage of 

the twenty-ninth section of the tariff bill, which imposes a tax on sales of stocks, bonds, bullion, coin, and other securities, to the Committee on Ways and Means. 
5080 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JUNE 17, 

By Mr. HARRIS, of Virginia: The petition of Z. W. Pickerill, of 

Petersbnrgh, Virginia, to be comi>ensated for tobacco taken by United 

States troops to the Committee on 'Var Claims. 

By Mr. RICHMOND: The petition of Nathaniel Carey, for an appropriation to test his invention for producing rain by a,rtificial 

means, to the Committee on Appropriations. 

By Mr. SENER: The petition of owners of steamers and sailingvessels plying Chesape~e Ba,y, for the erection of a light-house on the 

eastern terminus of Dammeron's Marsh, in said bay, to the Committee 

on Commerce. 

Also, the petition of Mrs. Triffy Evans, of Accomac County, Virgi!:ia, for compensation for sloop Georgeanna and schooner Sea 

Flower, seized by the naval forces of the United States in 1862, to 

the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. SESSIONS: The petition of W. T. Duvall, for relief on con- tract with the Supervising Architect of the Treasury, to the Committee 

on Public Buildings and Grounds. 

By Mr. SHANKS: The petition of citizens of Montpelier, Blackford 

County, Indiana, for the passage of the bill to aid in the construction 

of the Continental Freight Railway, to the Committee on Railways 

and Canals. 

By Mr. VANCE: The p3titio!l of G. W. Hayes and 44 other citizens 

of Cherokee County, North Carolina, asking aid in building the West- ern North Carolina Railroad from Old Fort, North Carolina, to Ducktown, Tennessee, to the Committee on Rail ways and Canals. 

By Mr. WHITTHORNE: The petition of George N. Stine and 76 

others, of Dickson County, Tennessee, for the restoration of the 10 

per cent. reduction of duties on iron and steel, and for free banking, 

to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. WOODWORTH: The petition of the Girard Iron Company 

and 154 other persons and business firms, for the pa sage of the bill 

to aid in the coustruction of the Continental Freight Ra.il way, to the 

Committee on R~ilways and Ca.nals. 

IN SENATE. 

WEDNESDAY, Ju'Jle 17, 1874. 

The Senate met at eleven o'clock a.m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. BYROX SUNDERLAND, D. D. 

The J onrnal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approvocl. 

HUDSON'S BAY C01\1PA.l.'IY. 

Mr. HAMLIN. I ask permission of the Senate to allow me to call 

up Honse bill No. 3351. It will take but a very few minutes, and it 

fulfills an obligation which is imposed on this body that I am snre no Senator will disregard. 

There being no objection, the bill (H. R. No. 3351) to ascertain the 

possessory tights of the Huclson's Bay Company and other British subjects within the limits which were the subject of the award of His 

Majesty the Emperor of Gen:nany under the treaty of Washington of 

May 8, 1871, and for other purposes, was considered as in Committee 

of the 'Vhole. 

The preamble mcites that it was stipulated · by article 1 of the 

treaty concluded at Washin~n on the 15th of June, 1846, between 

the United States and Great Britain, that the line of boundary between the territories of the United States and Her Britannic Majesty, 

from the point on the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, up to 

which it had already been ascertained, should be. continued westward along that parallel of north latitude ''to the middle of the 

channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island, and 

thence southerly through the middle of said channel and of Fuca 

Straits to the Pacific Oc-ean;" and that by article 3 of that treaty i t 

was stipulated that "in the future appropriation of the territory 

south of the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, as provided in the 

first article of this treaty, the possessory rights of the Hudson's Bay 

Company, and of all British subjects who may be in the occupation 

of land or other property lawfully acquired within the said Territory, 

shall be r especteu;" and that by article 34 of the treaty concluded 

at Washington on the 8th of May, 1871, the question of where "the 

boundary which runs southerly through the middle of the channel 

aforesaid" should be located was submitted to His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, whose decision was to be final and without appea:J.j and that by the award of His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, 

of October 21, 1872, the boundary was established, and it now devol ves upon the United States to discharge its treaty obligations. 

Therefore the bill provides for the appointment of a commissioner by 

the President of the United States to make and report to the Secreta-ry of the Interior a list of all British subjects who, on the 15t,h day 

of June, 1846, were in the occupation of laud, lawfully acquired, 

withjn the limits which were the subject of the award of His Majesty 

the Emperor of Germany, together with a description of the laud 

actuaUy occupied by each at that date. The commissioner shall proceed to the vicinity of the land in question, and there receive proof 

of the occupancy of such land ancl of the mode by which such occu- pancy was acquired, after first giving reaaonable notice as to the 

matters to be reported by him. Snch proof shall consist of oral te - timony, under oath, and such documentary proofs as the occupants 

may present. The testimony of all witnesses shall be reduced to 

writing, and all documentary proof offered by the parties and r - ceived by the commissioner shall be attached to the deposition of the 

party ofiering such proofs, which testimony and proofs s.hall be submitt.ed by the commissioner with his report, and such report sh.all be 

subject to r eview by the Secretary of the Interior, whose action 

thereon shall be fin at. 

The commissioner is to receive for his services ten dollars per diem, 

together with traveling expenses at the rate of ten cents per mile for 

the distance actually traveled in the execution of his commission; 

and the sum of $1,000 is appropriated to defray such expenses. 

All British subjects whose claims shall be approved by the Secretn.ry are to be allowed to pnrchase from tho United States the land so designated at any time within one year from such approval, at the 

ordinary minimum price per acre where the lands are situated outside railroad limits, and at double minimum price where the lands are within railroad limits. Such entries are to be according to legal 

subdivisions, so as to include the improvements of the occupants; 

and where two or more parties shall have improvements on the same smallest legal subdivision, they may make a joint entry thereof. In case entry and payment be not made within one year from the date 

of such approval by the Secretary of the Interior, all possessory rights 

named in article 3 of the treaty of June 15, 1846, shall be considered 

forfeited, and the lands shall thereafter be deemed and treated as a 

part of the public domain, to be disposed of as other lands. 

Mr. THURMAN. This may be right, but I should like to ask the 

Senator from Maine a question about it. By tho treaty commonly 

called the Oregon treaty of 1 4ti it wa provided th~ 

In the future appropriation of the territory south of the forty-ninth parallel of 

north latitude, aa provided in the first. article of this treaty, thepossos. ory rights of 

the Hudson's Bay Company, and of all British subjects who may be already in the 

occupation of land or other property lawfully acquired within the said territory, shall be respected. 

After the execution of that treaty the Government of the Unitetl 

States settled with the Hudson's Bay Company and obtained are- lease; and the question that I wish to have answereu is whether that 

release covers this island which we always claimed after the execu- tion of that treaty, but which was not finally determined to bE\ onrs until the Emperor of Germany made his award, or whether the 

release of the Hudson's Bay Company for which we paid a pretty 

ronndsum, and a great deal more in my humble jndgment than that 

company was entitled to, was limited to that territory which was not 

disputed between us and Great Britain f If these islands which were in dispute were excepted from that release, then it seems but right 

and in fact we are bound by the treaty to respect those rights or to 

make some compensation or in some other way to extinguish them. 

But if they are embraced by the release which was executed to us by 

the Hudson's Bay Company, then that company can have no further 

claim. 

Mr. HAMLIN. In reply to the inquiry or suggestion made by the 

Senator from Ohio I will say that I understand onr Government and 

I understand the British government do not regard the lands lying 

outsifle of the line named in the treaty of Washington, so called, a included in the relea e. In other words, this bill does not cover any 

of the lands named by the Senator for which compensation has been 

made. It understood by onr Government. It is so understood by the 

British government. This bill is only to carry out the provisions of 

the .treaty of Wa hington as understood by the respective parties. 

None of tho land covered by this bill was at all affected in the settlement which was formally made, and therefore the bill is eminently 

ju t. I will add that the bill was carefully drawn at the State Department where all the facts were known; it underwent a careful 

in pection by the Committee on Foreign Relations and received their 

unanimous approval. 

The bill was reported to the Senate, ordered to a third reading, 

read the third time, and passed. 

ADDITIO:NAL L~~D DISTIUCTS ~ KA.t~SAS. 

.Mr. HARVEY. The Committee on Public Lancls, to whom was re- ferred the bill (H. R. No. 203) to create two additional land districts 

in the State of Kansas, have had the same under consideration and 

have instructed me to report it back without amendment ; and I ask 

for its present consideration. 

By unanimous consent, the bill was considered as in Committee of 

the Whole. 

The bill was reported to the Senate, ordered to a third reading, 

read the third time, an(J. pas ed. 

NAlm OF A YACHT. 

Mr. WASHBURN. There are two little bills on the Ca.lendar that 

will take but a moment which I should like to ha.ve considered. Tho 

first is House bill No. 2384. 

By unanimous consent, the bill (H. R. No. 2384) to change the name of the pleasure-yacht Planchette to that of Laxen, was consiuered as in Committee of the Whole. 

The bill was report-ed to the Senate, ordered to a third reading, 

read the third time, and pas ed. 

MARY S. HOWE. 

1\Ir. WASHBURN. I ask for the consideration of House bill No. 26i0.