1886. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 541' 

By 1\Ir. SPRIGGS: Petition to equalize the pay of enlisted men-to 

the same committee. 

Bylli. STRAIT: Petition ofP. Cadmere, L. Lowell, and 200 others, 

citizens of Rice County, Minnesota, praying for the equalization of 

bounties, and that the limitation of term in which back pension is allowed shall be removed-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. TOWNSHEND: Papers in relation to the bill for the relief 

ofSamuell\1. Nalley-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By 1\Ir. VOORHEES: Memorial of the Columbia water-way conven- tion, praying Congress for sufficient appropriations for the improvement 

ofthe Columbia River-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. 

By 1\Ir. WAIT: Petition of Rudolph Kort, late lieutenant Company 

H, Sixth Regiment Connecticut Volunteers, for relief-to the Committee on ?lfilitary .Affairs. 

By Mr. J. B. WEAVER: Petition of J. H. Crane and 118 others, 

praying Congress to establish a pos~l telegraph-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By Ur. MILO WillTE: Petition for increase of pension of Mrs . .Arlang 

0. Stogo-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

.Also, petition for a pension to Mrs . .Abigail Weymouth-to the same committee. 

.Also, petition for increase of pension of Edward Pendergast-to the same committee. 

.Also, resolutions of the Minneapolis (Minn.) Board of Trade, favoring 

the improvement of the Mississippi River to the Falls of Saint .Anthony-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. 

By Mr. WILSON: Petition and papers relat.ing to the case of William Lloyd, of Jefferson County, West Virginia-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. 1\'IN.ANS: Petitions of Charles .A. Wheeler and 50 others, 

and of J. J. Robbins and 10 others, asking that a pensipn be granted 

Eliza .A. Weeks-to the Committee on Pensions. 

Also, petition ofElias Shafer, of Lansing, Mich., for increase ofpensiou-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. · 

·.Also, petition of B. T. 0. C1ark, James M. Logan, and 110 others, cit- . izens of Livingston County, Michigan, praying that Lenford Rose be 

granted a pension-to the same committee. 

The following petitions, praying Congress to place the coinage of silver 

upon an equality with gold; that there be issued coin certificates of one, 

two, and :five dollars, the same being made a legal tender; that one and 

two dollar legal-tender notes be issued, and that the public debt be paid as rapidly as possible, by applying for this purpose the idle surplus now in the Treasury, were presented and severally referred to the Committee on Coinage, \Yeights, and Measures: 

By Mr. BRAGG: Of A. A. Cole and others, citizens of Wisconsin. 

By Ur. CASWELL: Of A. H. Menly and others, of Wisconsin. 

By Mr. FISHER: Of J. B. Lucier and 83 others; of J. L. Malmey 

and 48 others; of John Carter and 84 others; of J. L. Lindsay and 73 

others; and of Daniel Mosser and 135 others, citizens of .Michigan. 

By 1\fr. FUNSTON: Of citizens of Media, Kans. 

. By Mr. LOVERING: Of William H. Miller and 45 others, of Readrug, Mass. 

By Mr. NEECE: OfE. H. Stuartand110 others, citizens of Hamilton, 

Hancock County, Illinois. 

By Mr. SNYDER: Of citizens ofMonroe County, West Virginia. 

By Mr. J. B. WEAVER: Of George W. Hill and 18 others, of Pennsylvania. 

SENATE. 

FRIDA.Y, ~anuary 8, 1886. 

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

The .T ournal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved. 

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. The Chair presents a letter in the 

nature of a memorial from the New York Produce Exchano-e which 

will be read. . "' ' 

The paper was read, and referred to the Committee on Military A.ffairs, as follows: 

NEW Yonx: PB.onuCE ExCHANGE, 

New York, January 7, 1886, 

Srn: At a me~ting of the board of managers of the New York Produce Exchange, held this _day, the following resolution was unanimously ·adopted: 

R esolved, That m view of the increasing interest in the United States Signal Service a~d the value of an intelligent forecast of the weather to all who watch 

the _growmg cr.ops, n.s well as those who direct the movement of ships, it is most desirable a~d rm~ortant that Congress make liberal provision for the mainte- nance of said serviCe and an enlargement of its facilities for information. 

Very respectfully, yours, · 

RICHARD C. VEIT, 

Secretary, lloo. JOHN SHE.RliAN, 

Pre~ dent United Stales Senate, Washington, D. 0. 

Mr. IIO.AR. I rise to present a document somewhat in the nature of a petition. I have received a copy of a memorial signed by the governor and chief-justice of Washington Territory, the mayor and the 

prominent citizens of Seattle, in that Territory, representing the unde· 

tended condition of that Territory in case of war, especially with Great 

Britain, and stating how completely they are in the power of any foreign 

force, and inclosing a copy of a letter written by General Nelson A. 

Miles to the .Adj utant-GeneraJ. of the .Army on the same subject. These 

are accompanied by a letter from the chief-justice of Washington Ter· 

ritory, asking me to bring the matter to the attention of Congress. This 

is not in the form of a petition, and therefore I ask leave to present these 

papers and have them printed and referred to the Committee on Naval 

.Affairs. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The papers will be received, if there 

be no objection, and printed as a document, and referred to the Com· 

mittee on Naval .Affairs. 

:Mr. INGALLS. I present the petition of A. H. von Leuttwitz, 

:first lieutenant, United States .Army (retired), in support of the bill for 

his relief which is now pending before the Committee on .Military .Af. 

fairs, to which committee I move that the petition be referred. 

The motion was agreed to . 

Mr. MANDERSON presented a petition of first lieutenants in the line 

of the Army, prayingforthepassageofa lawpermittingvoluntaryretire· 

ments after twenty years' or longer continuous service as lieutenants; 

which was referred to the Committee on Military .Affairs . Mr. TELLER. I present the petition of John French, D. J. Ball, 

Henry Dingon, and a large number of other citizens of Colqrado, pray· 

ing for the free and unlimited coinage of silver. I move that the petition be referred to the Com1nittee on Finance. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon, presented a memorial of citizens of 

Oregon, remonstrating against the suspension of silver coinage; which was referred to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. MAXEY. IpresentapetitionofameetingofthebarofWheeler 

County, Texas, held at Mobeetie, praying for additional Federal court 

facilities. The facts upon which the relief is asked are set forth very 

fully in the petition and papers. I will state briefly that there are north of the Red River, in the section known as the Pan-handle, twentyseven counties, of 900 square miles each, aggregating in round numbers 

25,000 square miles, with a population of 4,000people, rapidly increas· 

ing, with immense cattle interests, largely owned by foreign holders. 

Hence the necessity of a court. The nearest courts are at Fort Graham, 

Tex., about 300 miles, and Wichita, Kans., about350 miles. This state· 

ment, coupled with the inconvenience necessarily resulting from their 

situation, without railroads, entitles them, in my judgment, to relief. 

I move that the petition he referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

The motion was agreed to. 

.. ?t!r. LOGAN presented the petition of Thomas S. Hopkins, ofW ashing· 

ton, D. C., praying for certain amendments of the pension law so·as to 

equalize the pensions of soldiers; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also presented a petition of citizens of Decatur, Ill., praying that 

a pension be granted to Bridget Hack,ett, widow of :Michael Hackett, 

who was in the naval service of the United States during the late war; 

which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also presented a petition of ex-Union soldiers, praying for the en· 

actment of certain pension laws; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also presented a resolution adopted by George H. Thomas Post, 

No. 6, Grand .Army of the Republic, Louisville, Ky., fa.voring the purchase by the Government of the picture of General George H. Thomas 

painted by General T. W. Price; which was referrE:d to the Committee on the Library. 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 

Mr: INGALLS, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, to 

whom was referred the bill (S. 374) relating to police regulations in the 

District of Columbia, and for other purposes, reported it with an amendmentin thenatureofasubstitute; which was ordered to be printed, and, 

on his own motion recommitted to the Committee on the Distl:ict of 

Columbia. 

Mr. JACKSON, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was re- ferred the bill tS. 377) granting a pension to Matthias Leckner, reported 

it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

Mr . .JACKSON. I am directed by the Committee on Pensions, to 

whom was referred the bill (S. 56) granting a pension to Chauncey Read, 

to ask that the committee be discharged from its further consideration, 

for the reason that the case is still pending in the Pension Office and 

has not yet been acted on there. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The committee will be discharged 

from the further consideration of the bill, and it will be indefinitely 

postponed, if there be no objection. 

1\Ir. WILSO:N, of Iowa, from the Committee on Post-Offices and Post. 

Roads, to whom was referred the bill (S. 260j to prohibit the mailing 

of newspapers and other publications containing lottery advertisements 

and prescribing a penalty for the violation of the same, reported it with an amendment, and submitted a report thereon, 

Mr. MITCHELL, of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on Pensions, 

to whom was referred the bill {S. 819) for the relief of Rachael J. Floyd, 
542 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. JANUARY 8, · 

asked to be discharged from its further consideration and that it be re- ferred to the Committee on Claims; which was agreed to. 

CHANGE OF NAME OF UNIONTOWN'. 

Mr. BLACKBURN. I am instructed by the Committee on the District of Columbia, by its unanimous action, to report without amendment the bill (S. 633) to change the name of Uniontown to Anaro.i!tia, 

and I desire to ask the consent of the Senate that it be acted on now. . It is simply a bill to change the name of the town of Uniontown, in the 

District of Columbia, to that of A.nacostia, in accordance with the wishes 

of the citizens of thtl place. This report is the unanimous action of the 

Committee on the District of Columbia, and I ask the consent of the 

Senate to have the bill acted on now. By unanimous consent the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, 

proceeded to consider the bill. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to 

be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

REPORT ON EUROPEAN SEA-COAST DEFENSES. 

Mr. DOLPH. From the Committee on Coast Defenses I make a report on the letter of the Secretary of War, transmitting, in response to a Senate resolution, the report of Capt. W. H. Bixby on the sea-coast defenses 

of Enrope. The committee's report is brief, and, as announced when the 

reference of the report of Captain Bixby on the accompanying papers was made to the Committee on Coast Defenses, the committee recom- mend, upon submitting this report, that the papers be now committed 

to the Committee on Printing, and I ask that the repoJi; of the Committee on Coast Defenses, which is brief, may be read and appear in the REcORD, and not printed in the usual manner. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon asks that 

the report made by him be now read and prin~d in the RECORD. 

Mr. INGALLS. What is it about? 

Mr. DOLPH. It is a report from the Committee on Coast Defenses 

in regard to the impoTtance of a report of Captain Bixby upon the sea- coast defenses of Europe, transmitted with a letter of the ·secretary of 

War. It is proposed nowthatCaptain Bixby's report and thecom:mnnication of the Secretary of War go to the Committee on Printing, and 

I ask that the brief report made by the Committee on Coast Defenses 

be read for infonnation. I do not ask that the report be printed in the 

usual manner, desiring it to appear in the RECORD only. 

Mr. INGALLS. Why not let it appear without bei,ng read? 

Mr. DOLPH. I have no objection to that. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. If there be no objection the report 

will beread. 

Mr. PLUbiB. Isuggestthatitbeprinted without being read. That 

will answer all the purposes of the Senator who presented it. 

1\fr. DOLPH. Thereisnoobjectiontothatcourse. Letitbeprinted 

without a reading. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. If there is no objection that order 

will be made. 

Mr. DOLPH. Let the lettetof theSecretaryofWarand theaccom- panying papers, which are very;voluminous and ate in the Secretary's 

office, be referred to the Committee on Printing. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That orde:r is made. 

1\fr. ALLISON. Would it not suit the purpose of the Senator from 

Oregon to have this report printed as a. regular document? It will be 

printed as a separate report anyway. 

Mr. DOLPH. I asked that it be not pxinted as a separate report. 

Mr. ALLISON. It will be printed as a separate report unless there 

is some order that it shall not be so printed. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The rules of the Senate require all 

reports to be printed, and unless that rule is suspended or changed in 

this instance the report will be printed in the oTdinary document form. 

Mr. ALLISON. So that it will be doubly printed if it goes into the 

REcoRD. 

Mr. DOLPH. I ask unanimous consent that the rule be suspended, 

and that the report be not printed as a document if it appears in the 

RECORD. . 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon asks the 

consent of the Senate to dispense with the printing of the report as a document according to the rule. 

Mr. INGALLS. What is the object of that? I wish the Senator 

would explain why we should depart from the usual custom and sus- pend the printing of the report and print it in the RECORD to lumber 

up that alreadyinordinate, buJ.Jry, and unwieldy publication. If there 

is any good reason of course I shall be glad to yield my -consent, but 

until an explanation is made I shall prefer to withhold it. 

Mr. DOLPH. I have not been in the habit of lumbering up the 

REcoRD. I think it will be found that the REcORD is· lumbered up 

quite as often by discussion over trivial matters as by reports. This 

report is very brief. It could have been read long since. It is a mere temporary matter, a recommendation of the Committee on Coast Defenses as to the importance of Captain Bixby's report and about its 

printing. I did not think it of sufficient importance to require that it 

should be printed in the ordinary manner. The papers are now to go 

to the Committee on Printing, and the report of the Committee on Coast 

Defense is intended for the information of that committee. The report . will be of no value after the Committee on Printing have acted upon 

the subject, and it was thought by the Committee on Coast Defenses 

that the proper c8mss would be, in order to bring the matter to the 

immediate attention of the Senate, that the Committee on Printing 

should have this, report (which I say is brief and will not lumber up 

the RECORD) printed in the RECORD, and I ask that it be not printed 

in the usual manner . 

Mr. INGALLS. If the report is not of importance enough U> be 

printed in the ordinary way, why is it of importance enough to be 

printed in the RECORD, to give it a permanent place among the final 

records o! the Senate? 

Mr. DOLPH. We want the public to read it, we want Senators to 

read it, and we want it to be printed for the convenience of the Committee on Printing. A.s soon as the papers are referred to the Committee on Printing and the report of that committee is made this report 

of the Co~ttee on Coast Defenses will ha>e performed its office, and we hope that the Committee onPrintingwill have acted before it could 

be printed in the usual course . . I could have read the report or stated 

the substance of it and it would have appeared in the RECORD and no one would have questioned it. If it ha.d been a lengthy report I would 

not have asked that such a course be taken: but, as I say, the report is 

couched in the briefest and tersest possible terms, being a statement of 

the contents and value of the report of Captain Bixby for the information of the Committee on Printing. 

I will state further that the Committee on Coast Defenses are willing to abide by the opinion of the Committee on Printing as to the 

propriety of printing the report of CaJ?tain Bixby and the manner of the 

work. It was not an unusual request to ask that this brief report be 

spread upon the RECORD, and that it should not be printed in the 

usual manner. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The order to print in the RECORD 

has already been made by unanimous consent. The question is now whethe1· the Senate will dispense with the printing of the report as an ordinary document. . Mr. INGALLS. I should like to hear the report and see whether it 

is worth while to print it. Let us hear it read. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, Shall the report be 

read? 

Mr. DOLPH. I withdraw the request that the report shall not be 

printed in the usual manner. I have no objection to it'3 being printed. 

Let it be printed both wa-ys. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no question then before the 

Senate. · 

The rep?rt is as follows: 

[To accompany letter from the Secretary of 'Va-r transmitting, in response to Senate resolution of December 10, 1885, report of Capt. W. H. Bixby on the sea- coast fortifications in Europe.] 

The Committee on Coast Defenses, to which was referred the letter from the 

Secretary of War of December 14, 1885, tra.nsmitting, in response to Senate reso- lution of December 10, 1885, report of Capt. ,V, H. Bixby on the seacoast fortifications in Europe, having had the same under consideration, make the following 

report: 

Capfi. W. H. Bixby, United States Engineers, was directed by the Secretary of 

War, by an order dated August 20,1881, to visit Belgium, Holland, Germany, 

lta.ly, and England, or such of these countries as he should find necessary, fur 

the purpose of securing certain information in relation to turrets, armor-plates, and the mounting and maneuvering of guns of la.rge caliber, &c., under special instructionl!l to be given by the Chief of Engineers; and having performed that 

duty in July, 1884 (see appendix part 3, annual report of the Chief of Engineers 

for 1885), forwarded to the Engineer Department, United States Army, a full re- port on seacoast fortifications in Europe, as follows: 

No.1. Turrets: 442 pages and 43 plates. 

No. 2. New ordnance material: 83 pages and 23 plates. 

No.3. Armor material: 145 pages and 22 plates. ' 

No.4. SeacoastfortificationsofEngland,Belgium andHolland: 18lpages and 

33 plates. · This report, making in all&""! pages and 121 plates, is a thorough and exhaustive 

report, especially as regards information not heretofore printed in English, being principally the record of personal examinations and investigations made 

by the writer during nine months in Europe. Part I, on turrets, describes the rise and progress of turrets, their fest both in 

actual warfare at sea a.nd under experiments on land, their construction, their armor, and their service, and adds a full bibliography on the subject. General 

descriptions are given of over 300 turrets in actual existence, either on ship- board or on land, and minutely deto.iled descriptio11s are given of more than a dozen of the most important of the e. For the 1·eader's benefit, these turrets are further classified according to their inventor, the nation or government to which they belong, the type of turret, their weight, their caliber, the material 

oftheirarmor, a.nd themethodofservingtheir guns. Part II describes the most important new features of heavy ordnance, and 

contains a brief referenc.e to the bibliography of many features really old but 

supposed to be new. Part III gives a brief description of the armor material a.nd a detailed descrip- tion of chilled cast-iron armor and its manufacture, an armor and a manufacture so far almost unknown in the United States, although officially adopted by Germany since 1874. Part IV describes in full, with details, the defenses of each harbor of England 

and of Belgium, of the principal haxbors of Holland, and includes the ironarmored forts of Germany and Austria. This report describes the rise and prog· ress of coast defenses in England during the last twenty-five years, and com- pares the estimated cost, armament, and ganison which was desired by the 

army in 1860 with that actually obtained in 1880. · These descriptions ha.ve never as yet been made available to the American public. The report has not been published because of the restrictions contained in the 

sundry civil bill of July7, 188L It is a valWI.ble contribution to the general fund 

of information upon the subject of coast defenses, and in ~iew of the present in· 

vestigations of th.e suQject should be published without delay. 
1886. CONGRESS! ON AL RECORD"--SEN ATE. 543 

BILLS INTRODUCED. 

Mr. PLUMB introduced a bill (S. 943) to pay the Delaware Indians 

_the value of certain lands in Kansas in compliance with treaty stipulations; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee 

on Indian Affairs. 

Mr. HALE introduced a bill (S. 944) to prohibit the letting of Government work to contractors employing convict labor; which was read 

twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. 

Mr. HOAR introduced a bill (S. 945) granting a pension to Hattie L. 

Goss; which was read twice byits title, and referred to the Committee on Pensions. - .-- · 

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, introduced a bill (8.946) to establish a postaltelegraph system; wliich was read twice by its title, and referred to 

the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads. 

Mr. MILLER, of New York, introduced a bill (S. 947) for the relief 

of the American Grocer Association of the city of New York; which 

was read twice by its-title, and referred to the Committee on Post-Offices 

and Pos~Roads. · 

Mr. COCKRELL introduced a bill (S. 948) granting a pension to 

JosephS. Moody; which wasreadtwicebyits title, andreferred to the 

Committee on Pensions. 

He also introduced a bill (S. 949) for the relief of Joseph W. Carmack; which was read twice by itstitle, andreferredtothe Committee 

on Military Affairs. . Mr. BLACKBURN introduced a bill (S. 950) to authorize suits to be 

brought in the Court of Claims for money paid and expenses incurred 

on account of Tice meters; which was read ~e by its title, andre--

ferred to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon, introduced a biU (S. 951) providing an 

appropriation for the continuance of improvements at the mouth of the 

Columbia Riv-er; which was read twice by its title. 

.1\fr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. I ask that the bill be referred to the 

Committee on Transportation Routes to the Seaboard. 

Mr. :M:c~IILLAN. I think the Senator is mistaken as to the reference, and that the bill should be referred to the Committee on Commerce. That committee has charge of appropriations for river and 

harbor improvements, not the Committee on Transportation Route& to 

the Seaboard. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon moves that 

the bill be .referred to the Committee on Transportation Routes to the 

Seaboard. · 

Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. If the Senator from 1-Hnnesota will 

allow me, I will state that a resolution was offered and adopted a, few 

days ago directjng the Committee on Transportation Routes to the Sea.-

bowd to investigate the generalsuhjectof transportati<m on the Columbia River. Of course if this bill should be reported making appropriations for the improvement of the Columbia River, it would properly then 

go to the Committee on Commerce before :final action; but I suggest that 

as this general subject is under consideration by the Committee on Trans· 

port:ation Routes to the Seaboard this bill should properly go to that 

committee. I have several other bills relating to riv-er improvements 

in Oregon that- I shall ask to have referred. to the Committee on Commerce. 

Mr. 1-fcMILLAN. The Columbia River is not different in its character from any other river in this country; and all bills proposing appropriations for the improvement of rivers and harbors in the country 

are referred to the Committee on Commerce and embraced in its- general bill for river and harbor improvements. The Columbia River 

should not be excepted or withdrawn from the jurisdiction of that 

committee. I can see no reason why, although some memorial may 

have been referred to the Committee on Tmnsportation Routes to the 

Seaboard, this bill should be referred to that committee. 

Mr. Jt.llTCHELL, of Oregon. It was not a memorial, but a Senate 

resolution adopted unanimously by the Senme instructing that committee to investigate and report. As a matter of course the final reference of all these bills must be to the Committee on Commerce. I 

suggest a reference to the Committee on Transportation Routes to the 

Seaboard with that understanding fully. The object is simply to enable the Committee on Transportation Routes to the Seaboard to investigate the geneml subject of transportation on the Columbia River. 

Mr. McMILLAN. . I suppose the subject of transportation on the 

Columbia River would not be at all different from transportation on the other rivers of the country. Perhaps the original resolu.tion should 

have been referred to the Committee on Commerce. I was not in, I 

think, w~en th~ r~~lution. was offered by the Senator from Oregon, 

bu.t my rmpresstOn IS that It should have gone to the Committee on 

Commerce. The Committee on Transportation Routes to the Seaboard 

having charge of that resolution, if tliey see proper to take charge of it 

and not report it back and refer it to the Committee on Commerce 

that is. within their discretion; but the subject of an appropriation fo~ the improvement of a ri.-er or any part-of it is clearly, within the rule 

referable to the Committee on Commerce. · ' 

. Mr: _MITCHELL, of Oregon. I would state tha-t my only pmpose 

rn asking the reference of the bill to the Committee on Tra-nsportation 

Routes to the Seaboard is with a view of having it subsequently referred to the Committee on Commerce. I will inquire of my honorable friend from Minnesota for what purpose the Committee on Transportation Routes to the Seaboard has been created if not for the purpose of considering as great a. subject as that of transportation on one 

of the largest rive-rs of the country? 

:M:r. CONGER.. Let the title of the bill be again read. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The title of the bill will be again 

read. The question is upon referring the bill to the Committee on 

Transportation Routes to the Seaboard. 

The Chief Clerk read the bill by its title. 

Mr. :MITCHELL, of Oregon. I simply desire to suggest again to the 

honorable chairman of the Committee on Commerce that the. Committee orr Transportation Routes to the Seaboard has been instructed by a 

unanimous vote of the Senate to investigate the geneml subject of transportation on the Columbia River, and to report their views by bill or 

otherwise. I will state, however, that my purpose was simply to obtain the views of that committee with a view of a, sub equent reference 

to the Committee on Commerce. I do not, of course, desire to interfere 

with the business of the Commerce Committee. I concede that appropriations for the pmpose must :finally be reported from that committee. 

But this is a su.bject of no ordinary import, and all I ask is that the 

Committee on Transportation Routes to the Seaboard may have an opportunity of looking into the subject and maKing such report as they 

may think proper in the premises_ I hope the honorable chairman of 

the Committee on Commerce will permit this bill to go there ancl be subsequently referred to the Committee on Commerce. If my appeal is not 

listened to I shall give way of course and let it go to the Committee .on 

Commerce_ I presentthe question in the shape of an appeal. 

.Mr: CONGER. If the precedent is establishedofreferringaquestion 

of river appropriations to any other committee than the Committee on 

Commerce, which under the rules has the entire control of appropriations for rivers and harbors, there will be no end to it. 

- The resolution which was introduced and passed gives the Committee on Transportation Routes to the Seaboard the entire power to investigate and report their views to the Senate and for the information and 

guidance of the Committee on Commerce in regard to appropriations 

without any such bill being referred. 

The Committee on Commercehavehad charge of the appropriations for 

the improvements at the mouth of the Columbia. They have devoted a 

great deal of time to the investigation. of that subject; appropriations 

hav_e been made in the regular river and harbor bill. I suggest to the 

Senator from Oregon tliat in my judgment it will not further any desire he may hn.ve for the improvement of that important river to ha\e 

the apJrropriations for it considered by a separate committee~ and I 

further suggest that it might not be well to antagonize the general comse 

of the legislation for the improvement of rivers and harbors by dividing the jurisdiction. 

Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. I do not wish to antagonize anything, 

of course, and I shall give way and move myself now that the bill be 

referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

The PRESIDENT 1n·o tempore. It is mo-ved that the oill be referred 

to the Committee on Commerce. That order will be made if there be 

no objection. 

Mr. llllTCHELL, of Oregon. I present a memorial adopted by the 

Colu.mbia water-way conv-ention. recently held at The Dalles, Ore~ .• 

praying Congress for appropriations ~o improve the nayjgation of the 

Columbia River. Inasmuch as a similar memorial was referred to the 

Committee on Commerce yesterday, I ask the chairman ~the Committee on Commerce to permit this memorial to go the Committee on 

Transportation Routes to the Seaboard. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is moved that the memorial presented by the Senator from Oregon be referred to the Committee on 

Transportation Routes to the Seaboard. If there be no objection that 

order will be made. 

Mr. BECK introdu.ced a bill (S. 952) to authorize the increase of the 

capital stock. of the Citizens' National Bank of Louisville, Ky.; ·which 

was read twice by its titre, and referred to the Committee on Finance. 

lli. CALL (by request) introduced a.. bill (S. 953) for the relief of 

Arthm L. Fish; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the 

Committee on. Claims. 

1\fr. ALDRICH introduced a bill (S. 954) for the erection of a pu.blic.. 

building in the city of Pawtucket, R. I.; which was read twice by its- title, and referred to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. 

He also introduced a bill (S. 955) for the relief of Samuel ·w. FranciS; 

which was read twice by its title, and, with accompanying paper, referred to the Committee on Patents. 

Mr. LOGAN introduced a bill (S. 956) for the relief of Thomas C. 

Killie; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee 

on Finance. He also introduced a. bill (S. 957) granting a pension to Mother Bychedyche; which was rC::ad twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also-(byrequest) introduced a bill (S. 958) to increase the pension 

of ex-Union soldiers who ha-ve lost-the sight of one eye; which was read 

twice· by its title, and referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also .introduced a bill (S. 959) for the relief of John Moore, of 

Edgar County, Illinois, late a privat-e of Company A, Tenth RCr,aiment 
544 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JANUARY 8, 

Indiana Volunteers; which was read twice by its title, and, with the 

accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also (by request) introduced a bill (S. 960) to set apart a certain 

tractofland situate on the headwaters of the Pecos River, in New Mexico, as a public park; which was read twice by its title, and referred to 

the Committee on PubHc Lands. 

:Mr. MORGAN introduced a bill (S. 961) for the reHef of Claude H. 

Mastin, surviving partner of LeVert & l\1astin, of Mobile, Ala.; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Claims. 

1\Ir. MORGAN. I~ say that another bill in favor of the same party 

for the same purpose is before the committee, but by mistake I put the sum claimed at a smaller amount. This bill is a substitute for that. 

Mr. PIKE (by request) introduced a bill (S. 962) touching the grade 

of corrrmander in the Navy and to correct an error in relation to an appointment therein; which was read twice by its-title, and referred to 

the Committee on Naval Affairs. · Mr. LOGAN introduced a bill (S. 963) granting a pension to Harriet 

1\1. Rider; which was read twice by its title, and, with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also (by request) introduced a bill (S. 964) authorizing the Secretary of War to remove,the charge of desertion from the record of private Albert Olson; whicn was read twice by its title, and, with the ac- companying papers, referred w the Committee on Military Affairs . . Mr. GEORGE introduced a bill (S. 965) for the relief of Washington 

Ford; which was read twice by its title, and referred totheCommittee 

onClaims. · 

Mr. DAWES introduced a bill (S. 966) to establish a postal-telegraph 

system; which was read twice by its title~ and referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads. 

PAPERS WITHDRAWN AND REFERRED. 

On motion of Mr. COCKRELL, it was 

Ordered, That the papers in the matter of the claims of Joseph C. Irwin & Co. nnd C. A. Perry & Co. be taken from the files and referred to the Committee on Claims. 

On motion of 1\Ir. HOAR, it was 

Ordered, That the papers on the Senate files relating to the pension claim of H at lie L. Goss be withdrawn and referrea to the Committee on Pensions. 

On motion of 1\.Ir. HALE, it was 

Ordered, That the papers in the case of Frances \V. Dyer be taken from the 

files a nd referred to the Committee on Claims, there being no adverse report. 

On motion of Mr. HARRIS, it was· 

Ordered, That the papers in respect to the claim of H. B. Wilson, administrator 

of the estate of William Tinder, deceased, be withdrawn from the files andreferred to the Committee on Claims. 

On motion of Mr. COCKRELL, it was 

Orderecl, That the papers in the claim of .James Badger, &c., be taken from the 

files and referred to the Committee on Claims. · . 

On motion of 1\Ir. WILSON, of 1\Iaryland, it was 

Ordered, Thnt the claimants in the case of Senate bill 438, first session of Forty- e ighth Congress, being a bill "for the relief of the heirs and Jegal representatives of Capt. Lambert Wiekes," have leave to withdraw all papers connected 

wit h said case from the files of the Senate, there having been no adverse report 

thereon. 

PAYMENT OF BONDS. IN SILVER. 

Ir. EUSTIS. I submit a concurrent resolution, which I ask may be 

rea<l. 

The resolution was rea.d, as follows: 

\Vhercas the act of February~. 1878, required the coinage of silv-er dollars 

which were declared to be a legal tender for all debts and dues, public and pri-

~Sl~ereas by the act of March 18, 1869, the faith of the United . Rtates was sol- emnly pledged to the payment in coin, or its equivalent, of all the obligations <Jf the United Stntes not bearing interest,&c.; 

\Vbereas by the act of July 14,1870, to authorize t.he refunding of the national 

d ebt, the principal and interest of United States bonds were made redeemable 

in the coin of the standard va;lue; 

\Vhereas since the above-mentioned laws were enacted it-has been the invarinble ·practice, up to this date, of the Secretary of the Treasury1 under existing 

legislation, to pay in gold coin the bonds redeemed and the mterest on out- sta nding bonds; and 

\ V hereas the Secreta ry of the Treasury has issued a call for $10,00:>,000 of bonds payable on the 1st of February, 1886: · B e 1't t·esolved by the Senate t:,f the United States (the House of Represent-atives con- curring), Tha t in the opinion of Congress said bonds of $10,000,000, payable on the 1st of February, 1886, should be paid in silver dollars, such p ayment being 

in strict compliance with existing law and in aid of the financial policy estabJi b ed by the legisla tion of Congress .. 

·ur. EUSTIS. Mr. President, I move that that resolution be referred 

to the Committee on Finance, and I simply desire to express the hope 

that that c_ommittee will find it convenient to make an early report upon 

the resolution, in order that ~t may be determined by a vote whether the 

practice of paying United States bonds and the interest on those bonds 

exclusiv~ly in gold coin is approved or disapproved by the Congress of 

the United States. I move the reference of the resolution to the Committee on Finance. 

1\fr. 1\IORRILL. I would remind the Senator from Louisiana that 

the Senator from Georgia [Mr. BROWN] gave notice that he would address the Senate on Tuesday next upon the resolution. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. This is a new resolution, submitted 

this morning. 

Mr. MORRILL. Ah! 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the reference? 

Mr. MORRILL and others. No objection. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair hears none. The resolution is referred to the Committee on Finance, and will be printed. 

ADJOURNME~T TO MONDAY. 

On motion of 1\Ir. INGALLS, it was 

Ordered, That wh~n the Senate adjourn to-day it be to meet on Monday next. 

DISTRICT METROPOLITAN RAILWAY COMPANY. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The :first bill on the Calendar is now in order. 

1\.Ir. PLUMB. There is upon the Calendar of Resolutions a resolution 

offered on a previous day. I understood that the resolution under con- sideration yesterday would come up to-day in its order. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. According to the rule it requires a motion to take up the resolution. The · Chair will lay it before the 

Senate for its action, if desired. The resolution, as modified, will now be read. 

The Chief Clerk read the resolution submitted by 1\Ir. VAN WYCK 

January 6, 1886, as amended yesterday, as follows: 

Resolved, That the Committee on the District of Columbia be directed to obtain 

from the proper officers of the l\letropolitan Railway and all other street rail- ways in the Dishict of Columbia a. sworn statement of the amount of their cap- ital stock, the amount of their bonded and floa.ting indebtedness, the amount of 

their gross and net earnings, the amount of their operating expenses, and the amount of dividends paid annually since June 3011878; also, why said railway 

companies havenotmadethe annual reportsreqmred by the laws incorporating 

said companies; and bavell'>ower to send for persons and pnpe:rs and administer 

oaths. · 

Mr. PLUMB. I offer the following as a substitute for that resolution: 

Resolved, That the Committee on the District of Columbia be directed to obtain 

from the proper officers of the Metropolitan Street Railway the informatioQ 

which by section 2'3 of the charter of said company is required to be annually 

transmitted to Congress, and similar information from all other street railway 

companies in the District of Columbia, and also why said railway companies 

have not made the annual reports reEJ.uired by the laws incorporating said com- panies. Said committee shall also inquire whether the rails laid and used by 

said companies are of the most approved pattern, and whether the u e of said rails has been duly approved by the Secretary of the Interior, and if said rails are not of the tnost approved pattern what measure may be necessary to secure their earlyrepla-cement by those which are· of such approved pattern. And said 

committee shall have power to send for persons and papers and administer 

oaths. 

I desire to say simply that I found in my mail this morning a copy of 

the charter of the Metropolitan Railway Company, and I find that sec- tion 22 of that charter requires them to annuallyTransmit to Congress a full report of the affair , business, and condition of the 

said company for the year terminating December 31 preceding such report, and 

such report shall be signed and sworn to by the president and treasurer of the company, or by a majority of the directors. 

Thelawspecifiesthirty-onedifferentsubjectsofwhich that report shall 

make specific mention and upon which it shall give specific inform&-

tion to Congress, including the items mentioned in the original resolution, and others that may be just as necessary to the determination of 

the matters in issue as heretofore specified. 

I therefore offer my substitute calling on the committee t-0 ascerta~ 

all the facts required by section 22 of the charter to be furnished by 

the company in addition to that which is specified in the latte.~; part of 

my resolution about rails. On that subject I find in section 3 of this 

charter the requirement that the railroad shall be constructed ''in the 

most approved manner adapted for st1:eet rail ways, with rails of the 

most approved pattern, to be determined by the Secretary of the In· 

terior,laid upon an even surface with the pavementofthe streets." I 

am ad vised, as I stated to the Senate yesterday, that there is a better 

pattern of rails than those now in use, and one which could be used in 

such a way as not to obstruct the streets at all, and that the rails now in use on at least one of these railroads in the-District of Columbia were laid down without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. -I think this is a subject which ought to be gone into by the committee at some length, inasmuch as it has come up, and my resolution will 

cover the ground more fully than the one which was before the Senate 

yesterday. 

Ir. VAN WYCK. I am in favor of any proposition which will go 

to the furthest extent in examining the derelictions of these railroads 

and the wrongs they have done to the people of this District and are are continuing to ·do, and therefore it is that I very cheerfully accept 

the substitute. 

M:r. VEST. The other day, in conversation with a very eminent citi- zen of this city on this subject, I obtained some information which was new to me, but I have no doubtofits correctness. This gentleman stated 

that by application to the different carriage manufactories and repair 

shops in this city it was ascertained that they had approximated the 

amount of damage don& to vehicles in this city by the rails that are now in use to be in the neighborhood of$100, 000. These rails would not 

be tolerated in any European city. They are a nuisance, and they have 

absolutely obstruct~ some of the most important thoroughfares1 as every gentleman here knows from experience, in the capital of the na- tion. The street on which one railway runs from Pennsylvania avenue to New York avenue, Fifteenth street, is a nuisance. The street rail• 
. 1886. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 545 

railway companies have been permitted to lay their tracks there and 

put down T rails, so as to be an obstruction to vehicles, and for myself 

I prefer to drive around t;hat square rather than go up that street at· 

anytime. · 

.Any Senator, by calling at the National :Metropolitan Bank, as I happened to do the other day, can see the model there of a street rail used now in some of the principal cities in Europe, ·in Paris I believe and 

in Belfast as I happen to recollect, and in others, where the rail is'perfectly level with the pavement, constituting no obstruction, and where 

there is no possi}?ility of damage to any vehicle in driving. There is no 

excuse, no palliation, no apology for the sort of rail that is now in use in this city. · Even in the Far West, in the citywhereireside;Kansas 

-City, we are getting rid of these things as fast a.s possible. We have now introduced in that city and have in operation some three and a half miles of cable railway and a charter with tlie stock subscribed for 

another cable railway of 5 miles; a:nd it is only a question of a very 

few years when horse-car railroads will go out of use entirely in that 

city. I am very glad this resolution has been offered on this occasion. 

Mr. INGALLS . . Mr. President, I did not listen to the reading of 

the resolution, or rather was unable to hear it in consequence of the 

-confusion, and am therefore unable to say whether it refers to the subject of motive power as well as- to approved rails. If it.does not, it 

should do so, because there is no city in this country, if there is in the 

world, where the modern.methods of car propulsion either by the cable 

system or by electricity would be more applicable than here. The 

condition of the streets, the condition of the pavements, the slight 

grades, an render the application of these modern systems peculiarly 

appropriate here, and I should be glad to have this resolution of instruction broad enough to cover the question whether it is not time for the · abrogation of these antiquated methods of propulsion and the substitution of the cable or electric system. I suggest to my colleague, who 

offered this resolution, that it be made comprehensive enough to cover ·the point I have suggested. · Mr. PLUMB. That is entirely satisfactory to ,me. 'I think that 

would be a very proper subject of inquiry. While this question is up, 

undoubtedly we ought to discuss the relation of the street railways to 

the convenience of the District as things now are in all its aspects. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Kansas propose an amendment? 

Mr. PLUMB. I simply suggest that my colleague prepare it. I 

think he could perhaps prepare in better shape the formofit. 

The · PRESIDENT pro tem:IJ.,re. The Chair is of the opinion that 

there is no reference in the tesolution as it now stands to motive power or electric powe:r. [A pause.] :At the suggestion of the Senator from 

Kansas the Chair will proceed with the business on the Calendar, let~ 

ting this resolution lie over informally. 

ALLOWANCE OF PENSION CLAIMS. 

Mr. HARRISON. Before we proceed to the Calendar of Bills I should 

like to dispose of the resolution with reference to the pension fund. 

The PRESIDENT pro {empore. Does the Senator move to proceed 

to its consideration? 

Mr. HARRISON. I ask that it be taken up and disposed of. It is 

important that it should be out of the way. 

The PRESID~NT pro tempore. Under the rule it requires a motion 

to that effect. 

1t1r. HARRISON. I make that motion. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana moves to 

proceed to the consideration of the resolution named by him. 

Mr. INGALLS. As amatteraffectingthecnrrent business of the Senate, before that motion is put I should like to inquire why .these reso- lutions do not appear on the- Calendar and have their regular place in 

the f!rder of business? I understood when that resolution went over yesterday that it would come up in the order of business to-day when 

the consideration of resolutions was called for; but I find that in some mysterious way it ha.s di...~ppeared from the consideration of the Senate. 

If there is no method by which the resolutions of the previous day can appea,r on the Calendar of daily business and have their place for consideration, I shall ask that the Committee on Rules may have some cliredion to consider that subject for the purpose of reaching that end. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansa.s is misinformed. The resolution referred to by the Senator from Indiana. is on the Calendar and would in due time be reached in its order. It is on the Calendar, Order of Business No. 14. The Senator from Indiana now moves that the Senate procee(l to the consideration of the resolution, 

which is No. 14 in the order of business, which is a resolution submitted 

by the Senator from Indiana [Ur. HARRISON] December 21, 1885, relative to certain statements made in the last annual report of the Commissioner of Pensions. The Chair hears no objection. 

Mr. HARRISON. It is hardly worth while that it be read, and i 

would say to the Senate and call the attention of my colleague that· I 

have, ii;t order tomakethis exactly accurate, cut from the report of the 

Commissioner of Pensions certain paragraphs and have pasted them here as printed in his annual report. The amendment which wa,s proposed 

by my colleague I do not think :irin a form that ought to be adopted, 

XVII--35 

because it imputes. certain intentions. For instance, I read the first 

line: · · 

A~ one time the Pension Bu,reau was all ~ut avowedly apolitical machine. 

This is a quotation. Then it is said: 

Intending thereby that the said Pension Bureau was methodically employed 

for partisan purposes. 

I do not think the Senate can assume to impute an intention of that 

kind to Commissioner Blaek. It is enough for us to adopt his own 

words, taking the statements as he made them, and direct inquiry to be 

made into them. So I have here extracted all that part, cutting it 

right out of the body of the report itself, and have instructed the com- mittee to inquire into all these facts. I think that will meet the approbation of my colleague. I send it to the desk. 

Mr. VOORHEES. Pass it over to me and let me see what it is. 

DISTRICT METROPOLITAN RAILWAY. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore, The Secretary will report the modified amendment of the Senator from Kansa.s [Mr. PLUMB] to the reso- lution with respect to street railways. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

Resolved, That the C<>mmittee on the District of Columbia be directed to obtain from the proper officers of the Metropolitan Street Railway the information 

which by section 22 of the charter of sa.id. railway is required to be annually 

transmitted to Congress, and similar information from all other street railways 

in the District of Columbia; and also why said railway companies have not mode the annual reports required by the laws incorporating sa.id companies. Sa.i~ committee sha.U also inquire whether the rails laid and used by such com- pames are of the most approved pattern, and whether the use of sa.id rails has 

been duly approved by the Secretary of the Iaterior; and ifsa.id rails are not of 

the most approved pattern, what measures may be necessary to secure their 

eat:lY replacement ~r those which a~e of .such approved pattern ;, and also in- qwre as to the propnety of the substitution of steam or other mot1ve power in 

the pl:ace of hor.Se-power upon said railroads. And sa.id committee shall have power to send for persons and papers and administer oaths. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment prop~ed by the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PLUMB]; 

The amendment wa.s agreed to. · The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is on the resolution as amended. 

The resolution as amended was agreed to. 

.ALLOWANCE OF PENSION CLAIMS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana [?!Ir. VooRHEES] has the floor. 

Mr. VOORHEES. My colleague and I agree that the matter presented 

by him shall be printed and go over under the rules nntil Monday, and 

I have no doubt we shall concur upon the matter then when it comes up. I suppose the paper presented by my colleague might be designated as an amendment to the substitute proposed by me. I 3Jll certainly 

willing that it shall be printed so that we can read it carefully, and I 

have no doubt on Monday that we can come to an understanding as to 

the line on which the investigation shall be conducted. - Mr. HARRISON. I will say in that connection, as I do not see the 

Senator from Illinois [Mr. LoGAN] here, thatiincorporatedhisamendment, modifying it so as instead of extending it into a general inquiry 

into the administration of the office to confine it to the direction of the 

matter he suggested, namely, the matter of appointments and removals 

and not the general question. That is also to be printed as a part of 

my proposition; · · 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Indiana offer 

the amendment now? 

!J.r. HARRISON. Yes, sir. I offer it now and ask that it may be 

prrnted, and <>n the request of my colleague I consent that it may go over until Monday. · 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator desire that it be 

read now? 

Mr. HARRISON. It is not ilpportant to read it, I think. l 

. The PRESIDENT pro· tempore. The amendment, which is in the 

second degree, will be printed,· an,d fue whole matter will lie over until 

Monday. 

The amendment proposed by Mr. HARRISO:N is to make the resolu· 

tion read: 

Whereas the Commissioner of Pensions in his annual report dated Novem- ber 18, 1885, bas stated that- · ''At one time the Pension Bureau was all but avowedly a. political ma.chine 

filled from border to border with the uncompromising adherents of a. single or! 

ga.nization, who had for the claimant other tests than those of the law and wlio 

required, in addition to service in the field, submission to and support ~fa party 

before pensions were gra~ted. _ Not always, but often was this true; not openly, but surely w.ere the tests applied; and the vast macllinery of a professed gov• 

ernmental office became a party power. The enormous array of the Ifted.ical 

boards established in every quarter was almost solidly partisan ; made so not open I~ but sur~ly. :feople of one faith filled every one of the great agencies. Exammers, tramed m unscrupulous schools, trave.tSed the land as recruiting sergeants for a. party. 

Chiefs of divisions, assistants, clerks, messengers, messenger boys, watchmen, 

and laborers were all-but entirely from the one school. Veteran service could not secure continuan~e in office, and at the behest a nd demand of partisans beyond. the office old employes were cut adrift and zealous rufilers placed in their 

stea4; leaves of absence ;were granted that ~he active men of the party might 

dommate over ~be electiOns. Wholesale discharges were made for partisan 

ends and a careful study of the table!J 2L and 2lA of this report will show how 
546 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JANUARY 8, 

a tide of men and money was poured by this office into the sections where po- litical struggie was progressing: Therefore, . Beitresolced, That the Committee on Expenditures of Public Money is hereby directed to inquire into the truth of said allegation and to report the facts and te timony presented before them to the Senate. S:lld committee is authorized to send for persons and papers and to employ a stenographer. The expenses. in- cident upon such investigation shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate . Resol·ved.furthe·,., That said committee be also directed to inquire into the man- ner iJ1 which the Pen ion Office has been conducted and administered by the present Commissioner of Pensions in the matter of appointments to or removals from qffice, and to report the facts to the Senate. 

E:.u:ERSON ETHERIDGE .LU.'"D WILI!'IA.M 13. STOKES. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The first bill on the Calendar will 

now be stated. 

The bill ( . 506) for the relief of Emerson Etheridge and William B. 

Stokes was announced as first in order, and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to its consideration. 

Mr. MORRILL. Let the report be read. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The report will be read. 

The Secretary read the following report, submitted by Mr. JACKSON 

January 6, 18 6: 

The C~mmitteeon Claims. to whom was referred the bill (S. 506} for the relief of Emerson Etheridge and William B. Stokes, having examined the same, re- spectfully report: · That on the 13th of June, 1880, the aid Emerson E theridge and Willirun B. Stoke became the sureties of James P. T. Cart-e1·, on his official bond as secre- tary of the Territory of .Arizona., said bond be:11g in the penal sum of 20,000, and conditioned tha_t if t._he said Carter should W.i tl• •ll y and diligently perform, ex- ecute. lllld di l'lmrge, and should continue fai ... fully and diligently to perform, execute,:and discharg , all and singular the duties of s:lld office according to 1 w, then the ob-ligation to be void and ofno efl'ect. It contained a further stip- ulation for annual cttlements by the s:: id Carter w-hile in office as such secre- tary , whleh po ition he held at the plea ure of the President. Carter entered upon hi~dutie , and continued to act as cretary of the 'l'enitory till his death, in , eptcmber, Jtro9. He submittcd;in compliance ' ith the stipulation of W bone~ annual settlements of his accounts with the p1·oper offict!rs of the Treasury 

dm:ing his I ife, nnd sub equently his wife filed With the Department his vouchers co\·Pring hL<> expenditures from the date of his las: settlement up to the day of h is d eath. arter left property of considerable value, which his family appro- priated and have since consumed. At the date of his death \Villiam B. Stokes, one of the sureties, was posse ed of considerable property, but has since be- come insol'\"ent. The other surety, Etheridge, is now in moderate circumst-ances, being possessed of real and personal estate to the value of about $10,000, though at tbe lime of arter's death he was a man of considerable fortune. In ol'erhauling and restating Carter's accounts shortly after his death the ofl1ciars of the Treasury Department disallowed several items of expenditure which Carter had made as secretary of the Territory, on the ground that they were not authorized by law; and as a result of this restatement a balance of .S9,4G9.09 was shown a,o-a.inst him. This apparent defalcation was known to the Government officials as early as 1871, but was never communicated or brought to the notice or knowledge of Carter's sureties till 1885, when suit was insti- tuted by the Government against them in the United States district court of W t Tennessee to recover said balance, with intere t. That suit is now pending in said court, and stands for trial at the spring term thereof. The present bill proposes to release and discharge said suretie from all Uability on account of id bond and any alleged breach thereof. The bill has been referred to the Treasury Department for any and all Stich infonnat.ion. as its records could fur- n · h as to the facts of the case, and nuder date of December 23, 1885, the Comp- troller of the Treasury reports as follows: "I find on examination that the balance found against James P. T. Cartel", late secretary of Arizona, to wit, $9,469.09, is made up almost entirely of disallow- ances. He seems to have paid theEaidamountiorprinting,clerk-hire,&c., in ex- ce of what it was thought should have beenpaid and the amonnthe ha.d been authorized to pay. So far as this office is apprised, a.ll or nearly all the money he recei'\"ed from the Government was expended, but to the extent of the above- stated disallowances in excess of what this office thought proper. These are all the facts_ This ojfice has no recommendation to make," &c. 1\lr. CaYter was a gentleman of the highest character and standing, strictly tern- • perate in his habits, and exceedingly economical in his manner of life. The pub- He moneys with which he was intrusted as secretary of the Territory were all paid out in what he considered legitimate and proper expenditures in and for the public ser'\"ice and interests committed to his official care: It would be unjust to his fair name andhighcharactertotrea.torconsider him in any sense a defaulter. The sureties were allowed to remain in ignorance of any balance found against him by the disallowance of credits for which vouchers were presented until Apr.il, 1885, when their own condition and circumstances· were materially changed. Etheridge is now the only one from whom this ba.lance can be col- lected. Its enforcement against him will take his entire estate, and leave him, in his declining years, after an honorable life as a private citizen and public 

servant, without even the means of support. · Under snch circumstances, and aft-er such a lapse· of time in making known and enforcing a legal demand of such a teclmical character, the Government, in theopinionofyour committee, shouldreleaseitsclaimagainstthesurety. This is in accordance with the spirit of our law in other cases. By section 3838 ofthe Revised Statutes it is pro·vided that "if, on the settlement of the account of any postmaster, it shall appear that he is indebted to the United States, and suit there- for sball not be instituted within three years after the close of such account, the sureties on his bond shall not be liable for such indebtedne s." In the present case fifteen yea.rs and six months elapsed b etween the death of Carter and the commencementofsnitagainstthesureties. For fourteen years the Government ha ·been in po ession of all the facts. During that period the principal's estate ha.s beeu consumed by hi family, one of thesur{'ties has become insolvent, and the other urety will be ruined in the- enforcement of the demand for money which wasactnallyand" bonafide" expended for the Go\"e!"Tlment. This would be o. great hardship, to say the least of it, toward t:he solvent surety. and a great Gover~ment should not inflict it. At the first session of the Forty-eighth Congress your committee reported 

favorably a. bill for the relief of Eugene B. Rail and other sureties of David L. 

Greg:g,recei\'er of pnbUcmoneys at Carson City,Nev. Gregg was appointed in 1\Iarch, 1865, and died in 1868. On the settlement.ofhisaccountin December, 1858, there appeared a deficiency of 510,141.89. No notice of a defalcation was given to his sureti until snit was commenced against them in 1881, twelve years after the defalcation was known to the Government. At the commencement of the suit all the sureties were dead except two; one of these was bankrupt, and the other, Eugene B. Rail.~ solvent. 'l'he committee reco=ended that he should be released. The Senate approved of this recommendation. The present case ls a. stronger one for relief in all its fztcts and circumstances, and your committee recommend the passage of the bill by the Senate. 

Mr. MORRILL. I should be very glad if I could find any uffi.cient 

reason for voting in uvor of th' bill, for I hacla erypleas::mtacquaintance wjth Mr. Etheridge in_ the other House,. but I do not see how we 

can enforce the collection of any bontl in any similar case unless this 

be enforced. There is no rea on that would apply nn~ess it be the 

fact that theGo>ernmentdidnot instantlydismi this officer and commence some legal proceedings for the collection of the bonds gi>en in 

this tase. 

It hardly seems to me that thi.s is a case where we can afford to give 

relief. I think. the passage of this bill would set a precedent that 

would justify us in setting aside the collection of the bond of .ny collector who maybe a defaulter or anycollectorwho may haxe unsettled 

accounts in the Treasury epa~ment. I do not ee a sufficient reason that would justify us in foregoing our rights in this case. 

Mr. DOLPH. I call far the reading of the views of the minority. 

·The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The views of the minority will be 

read. 

The Secretary read the views so bn::.ittetl by Mr. DOLPII, as the views 

of the minority of the Committee on Claims, as follows: I a.m unable to agree with the Dl!ljority of the committee. Thi e is one of undoubted bn.rdship, buL there are a grea~ many imilar cases, and suits upon official bond. involvingequal hardship to ureties are probably pending in Lhe Federal cow· in e'\rery State of the Union. The delay of the Govel!:nment in the e~llement ~ tl;Je accounts of the !at cr tary of .Ari- zona Terntory. a shown 111 the lllRJOrJty report, has not b een greater tba.n in other case. . If U1ere have been improper disa.llowances in the etLlement of the accountsinthisca eb tlleoilicersoflheTr ~uryD pnrtment,theitemsofacfri~n~f rh~:~o:ed. will be credited to the ureties on the oflicial bond upon the 

To grant; relief by o. private act in thi wonla b invite other sureties n pon official bond , under similar circum 1unces, to apply to CongTCS. for relief. If, in the opinion of Congre , a. statute of LiJ.Uit tious in such cases is desirable. or if more prompt settlement of offici::~.l acconnts by the Treasury Department should be made, the e objects hould be reached by gCJlerallaws. It is impracticable for Congress to legisJute for each individual cas of'sup- posed hardship in the administration of the vast and complicated machinery of the Government, and by attempting to do so in the crowded condition of the busin of Congress at every se ion would re ult in securing relief in an occa- sional c e only, while. the great number of qually de erving c es would fail to receive con ideration. lf there · a. precedent for granting relief in such en es it is a bad one and should not be followed. 

1\Ir. SAULSBURY. I have no doubt that thls is a case of very great 

. hardship on the l)ondsman. It appea..-s from the report that Mr. Carter died in 1869. His accounts were then in the Treasury Department 

and all the facts connected with his defalcation, if it mn.y be called a 

defalcation,· were known to the Treasury Department in 18n. They 

slept upon that knowledge, and lli. Etheridge, who is represented at 

that time to have been :in fair circumstances and who was associated 

with other securities who might have paid a pa.rt of this money, has been 

damnified by the laches of the Government itself.. 

l\Ir. HOAR. The principal himself was perfectly good and was living when the disallowance was made. 

l\Ir. SAULSBURY. The principal himself at tfu'\t time, I understand, 

was perfectly good . It seems to me to be a matter of very great hardship toUr. Etheridge, the Go>ernment sleeping on its knowledge until 

1885, that the Governmentnowshouldexactcompliancewith the bon.d. 

I think there has been dereliction on thepartoftheTreasuryofficials 

heretofore. .AJ5 soon as they ascertained the liability of Mr. Carter on 

his bond to the Government they ought to ha.ve put it in process of collection. Then, if the information I have is correct that.lli. Carter himself was responsible and that the other securities on the bond were 

solvent, it would not have been so great a hardship as itisnow. I admit with the Senator from :Vermont that it is a precedent to relieve 

securities from the obligations which they have entered into with the 

Government. It may become a precedent that will result in loss to 

the Treasury, but I can not find it in my heart to hold Mr. Etheridge 

in this case to strict compliance with his <>bligation when the facts in 

the case disclose that the Government itself has been guilty of laches 

in the enforcement of the bond of this principal. I shall there!ore vote 

for this bill, notwithstanding I believe it to be as a. general rule a bad 

precedent to release men from the obligations which they have entered 

into to the Government. 

1\Ir. DOLPH. In submitting the minority report in thl case I hardly 

expected to be able to defeat .the passage of this bill, although there was a bare quorum of the Committee on Claims present when thereport was ordered to be ma.de. I make the minority report for two reasons: First, b ecause I can not conscientiously concur in the majority 

report; and, secondly, because I desire an opportunity of briefly calling 

the attention of the Senate to the present condition of Congress in regard to bills of relief anp. the present condition of business in the Committee on Claims~ I desire Congress to face the situation squarely and 

to understand that private bills for relief are increasing from year to 

ye:1r with great regnla_pty, and that the number of meritorious bills 

which pass Congress is decreasing from yea.rtoyearwith like regularity, 

because the whole busin s of Congress is obstructed by the great number of bills for private relief which are introduced. Still we go on from 

session to session of Congress, opening new doors, inviting new classes 

of claimants to come and present, their claims upon the assurance of precedents which we have established. 

In some rema.rks.made by Spe.c'tker CARLISLE just before declaring 

the House of Representatives adjourned sine die at the clo3e of the 
1886. CO-NGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 547 

Forty-eighth Congress he stated that the number of bills and joint 

resolutions, as shown by the records of the House of Representatives, 

introduced in the Honse during the first fifty years after the establishment of the Government was 8, 777 and that the number of bills which 

bad been introduced in the Honse during the Forty-eighth Congress 

was 8,630, only 147 bills less than were introduced during the first 

fifty years. During the Forty-seventh Congress the number of bills 

and joint resolutions introduced in the Senate was 2,652. During the 

]'orty-ejgbth Congress the number of bills and joint resolutions introduced in the Senate was 2,806, being an increase of 154. During the 

Forty~sixth Congress the number of bills and petitions .referred to the 

Committee on Claims was 478. During the Forty-seventh Congress 

the number of bills and petitions referred to that committee was 531, 

the number of reports made 156, no action on 375 bills. During the 

Forty-eighth Congress there were referred to the Committee on Claims 

640 bills and petitions, upon whlch written reports were made on 247, 

no action on 393. · 

During the present Congress, up to Wednesday last, there have been 

referred to the Committee on Claims 237 bills and petitions for relief. 

The reports made by the Committee on Claims during the Forty-eighth 

Congress are contained in two very respectable volumes. I have been 

told by a person familiar with the btt.siness of Congress during the Thirty: 

eighth CongTessthat; thenumberofbillsintroducedin the Senate during 

the first ses ·ion did not exceed 400 and the number introduced during 

the entire Congress did not exceed 600. 

So the Senate·will observe that there has been a constant increase of 

the number of bills introduced int<1both branches of Congress, a constant increase inthenumber referred to the Committee on Cia~, and 

a constant increase of reports from the Committee on Claims; but as I 

asse1·t, without being able to give the figures to show it, the number of 

bills passed for private relief has not been greatly increased. 

Now, wb,at is the result of all thls? Business of importance, gene:ml 

legishtion demanded by the country, fails to receive consideration, or 

if consid~ed in one House fails to be taken up for consideration in the 

other. Even the appropriation hills, which by common consent have 

precedence, are often not duJy considered by the committees to whlch 

they are referred and are frequently passed without any considerable 

consideration by the majority of Senators or Members of the House. 

The time of a very large number of Senators is occupied with examining 

and reporting on private claims, and they ar-e unable to give attention 

to matters of general legislation and perform the dnties that are expected of them by the country. 

That is not all, sir. This labor is generally fruitless of beneficial 

result, because while there are a great number of reports, as. I said 

before, but \ery few bills are passed. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's five minutes have expired. Does he desire unanimous consent to proceed? 

Mr ED.l\IUNDS. I hope he will be allowed to proceed. 

The PRE IDENT pro tempore. It is the duty of the Chair to call 

the Senator's attention to the fact that his time has expired. If there 

be no objection the Senator from Oregon will proceed. 

Mr. DOLPH. I shall be as brief as possible. I think this is a 

proper time to present thls matter, and I shall· come to the pending 

bill directlv. · 

I aid a moment ago the proportion of favorable reports. from the Committee on Claims that is acted upon is very small, and there are meritorious cases pending now in both branches of Congress, cases in which 

there is no dispute about the liability of the Government, and which 

have been presented ses ion after session for the last ten, twenty, 

thirty, and e\en forty years. The original-claimants have grown sick 

at heart of the long delay and have died, but the ~laims live and are 

presented from session to session by their heirs or representatives. 

Whenev-er we open a door and make a precedent for the payment of 

any new claim, we simply invite person~ having claims of a similar 

character all over the land to present them . . Now what is proposed 

here? It is proposed to relieve the sureties upon. the official bond of 

the la,te secretary of the Territory of Arizona. Why? Because the 

Government has delayed the settlement of the accounts of t~e principal on the bond and delayed to call upon the sureties to respond for 

the deficiency in moneys received by him and because in the mean time 

one of the sureties has become ·insolvent, the estate ()f the principal 

has been settled and used up, and the solvent surety will be called 

upon to pay the whole amount. 

I have had some experience in prosecuting suits of this kind and in 

defending sui_ts of thls kind, and I do not now recollect a single case 

in which the delay of the Government has not caused similaJ: hardshlps, 

not always to the same extent, but the difference is a difference of degree only. I do not now recall having been connected with a single case 

in whlch there were several bondsmen on an official bond where some 

had not become insolvent apd where the solvent bondsmen were not 

called upon to make up the portion of the deficiency whlch should have 

been borne by the insolvent sureties. 

I do not now reme~ber a case where if there had been a prompt ac· 

tion by the Government the principal hlmselfmight not have contrib· 

nted some portion of the amount due the Government. The difference 

between this case and a thousand cases now pending in the courts, or 

now being examined in the Departments and ready to be brought, is one 

of degree only. 

I understand this report to put this case substantially upon the ground 

that the Government has been tardy in its action, that one of the sureties 

hasbecomeinsolvent,thatthesuretywhoissolventisworthbut:S10,000, 

and that to ask hlm to respond to the penalty of this bond will impoverish him. Sir, men are impoverished everydaybycomplyingwith their 

contracts and paying surety debts to individuals and to the Government, 

and if this door is to be opened, if this precedent is to be established and 

our action in this case advertised to thecountry,weshallhaveonehundred bills of this kind before this CongresS adjourns and five hundred at 

the next Congress. 

I do not ·understand the majority of the committee to report in favor 

of this bill because the money was expended, although without authority, by the secretary for the benefit of the United States, and that is not 

the report of.theSecretaryof the Treasury. He reports, it is true, that 

it as mostly expended for printing and cle1·k-hire, but it eems to have 

been improperly expended; it seems to have been illegally expended. I 

take it for granted, without being entirely familiar with the manner in 

which these appropriations are made and the manner in which these expenditures are ettled, that either Congress in the first place appropriate.~ 

a certain sum for such purposes and that the expenditure in this ca e must 

have been beyond the appropriation, or Congress in making appropriations leaves it with the Secretary of the Treasury or of the Interior, as 

the case maybe, todeterminehowitshall be expended-and theexpendi· 

turein.this case was unauthorized-or that Congress gives the secretaries 

of the Territories power to determine in what manner the expenditure 

shall be made. 

If the secretary of the TerritorY- had power to determine the necess:lty 

for and the manner of expending the appropriation in the present case, 

then the court upon the trial will allow the sureties whatever he had 

authority to expend, notwithstanding it was disallowed by the Treasury 

Department. If he violated the orders of his superior, if he made expenditures where there was no appropriation, or used money put in his 

hands for one purpose for other purposes not authorized by law, he 

ought to be held liable for such misappropriation and his bondsmen 

ought to respond for him. Othei"wise, instead of Congress being the judge 

as to what ampunt of money shall be appropriated for the Territories 

the secretaries of the Territories will become the judges of the necessity 

for expenditures, and Congress will be only asked to make appropiations . 

to supply the deficiency. · 

If the recommendation in this report had been put upon the ground 

alone that the Government received the benefit of the most of the expenditures whlch caused thls deficiency, I might have been content to 

allow the bill to pass without objection; but, as I say, that does not appear to be the reason given in the majority report. I hold in my hand 

a report made by the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER] from 

the Committee on Territories in regard to the claim of :Messrs. McElroy 

and Prosch for the sum of $1,946.64 due for printing for the Legislative 

Assembly of Washington Territory. These gentlemen were employed 

in 1871 by the then secretary of Washingtori Territory to d?> certain 

printing. They printed certain official reports at the rates established 

by Government, but there had been some circulars sent out by the Treasury Department whlch had never been received by the secretary of the 

Territory forbidding the printing of such official reports. The amount 

was disallowed. I introduced a bill for their relief. It went to the 

Committee on Territories, and th~t committee· report~ unanimously 

against the allowance of the claim. . . 

These men are citizens of Washington Territory, printers, who paid 

out their money and did work for the Government. The Government 

had the benefit<>f it; but it was done contrary to the instructions of the 

Secretary of the Treasury to the secretary of the Territory, whlch were 

never received, and the Committee on Territories unanimously reported 

against the allowance of the claim. Now, sir, equality is equity; and 

if we ar~ going to grant relief in one case I want relief granted in another like case. If two committees of this body are to disagree on such 

propositions, if one may report against a bill of this kind and kill it, 

and another Dl:ay report in 1avor of it and the bill pass and the relief be 

granted, I shal.J, try to resurrect this claim in some way and endeavor to 

secure payment of it by referring it, not to the Committee on Territories, but to the Committee on Claims, whe1·e, under the precedent now 

proposed to be established, it. must receive favorable consideration. 1\Ir. HARRIS. Mr. President, this report discloses the fact that some sixteen or more years ago the secretary of the Terri.tory of Arizona ap· 

plied certain moneys to Territorial purposes which the Treasury Department has decided were not technically legal expenditures, and 

therefore the secretary of the Territory has been reported as a. Q.efaulter 

to the amount of such payments. It is not pretended that any part of 

these funds was appropriated to the useofthe secretary; upon the con· 

trary, the affirmativ-e fact appears that it was expended for Territorial 

purposes and no other, and purposes which the secretary believed to be 

legitimately leg~, necessary, and proper. In view ofwhlch fact I doubt 

whether in equity and strict justice the secretary could be called upon 

to refund to the Treasury the money so expended. 

But if it appeared that the money was appropriated by the secretary 

to his own use, or wasted by his negligence, this report shows a state 
548 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JANUARY 8, 

of facts upon which I should still vote to relieve the sureties from liar- policy now and of duty and of justice the United Stares should not en- bility. It appears that in 1871 the Treasury Department ascertained force a claim of this kind. 

and declared this alleg~d defalca,tion, at which time the estate of Car- ~Ir. President, we have a case here in regard to this old gentleman, ·ter, the principal in the bond, wassolventandabletorefundtlie amount, a man who, after having held important positions in public life, is at 

thus saving his sureties harmless; but the Government slmp.be.red upon the age of more than . three-score and ten left with a little pittance of 

its rights from 1871, when it declared the default, until 1885, leaving $10,000 for hi§ old age, every dollar of which the UnitedStatesisasked 

these sureties in fancied security all of this time, and within which the to swoop down upon and take off. There is not a Senator within the 

principal in the bond die<iand his estate was distributed aud passed sound of my voice who, if he stood in the relation to a private debtor 

beyond the power-of the Government to reach it, and one of the sure- which the United States stands in to this man, would not thrust his 

ties unfortunately became insolvent and wholly. unable to contribute right hand into a brazier of burning coal f!l.ther than undertake to act 

any part of this liability, thus saddling the whole burden upon the one as the Senator from Oregon desires that the representatives of the peosnrviving and solvent surety, when, but for the culpable negligence ple o!the United States should act. I understand that what is base, 

of the Government for all of these ye..'l.rs the sureties would hav.e been dishonest, and infamous for an individual becomes no less base, disrelieved from all liability by the full payment by the principal of any honest, and inlamons when it is an ad of that aggregation of individuliability which did exist, or if the demand had been made promptly als which we call a country. 

after the death and distribution of the estate of the principal, each The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is the duty of the Chair to inform 

surety could have contributed his due proportion pf the amount, 1Jut the Senator that" his five minutes have expired. 

by the laches and negligence of the Government this enilie liability is Mr. HOAR. Just a word more. I desire to say--

practically fixed upon the one solvent surety. _'!'be PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be noobjection the Senator 

This liability having descended to this surety by reason of the wrong- will proceed. 

ful negligence of the Government, it can not injustice demand its pay- Mr. HOAR. The United States, like every other nation, is a moral 

ment. I shall therefore take pleasure in voting to release the sureties Qeing. It is a being with credit, ht>nor, sense of dnty, .obligation to 

from all liability in this case, and I will say in answer to the Senator morality, public faith, and with the right and the duty and the capacity 

from Vermont [Mr . .Mo.RRIL:U] that so far as I am concerned I shall be to indulge in the sentiments of mercy and of pity in proper cases. If 

very glad to set the precedent of relieving sureties in this case and to ever such a -case arose, this is the case. · 

followtheprecedentineverycasewheretheGovernmenthasslu~bered Mr. MANDERSON. · Mr. President, I think this report shows not 

upon its rights for long years and it can be clearly shown; as in this only a. case of .hardship against t~ surety on this bond, but, as sugcase, th~t the negligence of the Government has operated to the injury gested by the Senator from Massachusetts, a case of great outrage on the 

of the sureties. part of the Government of the United States. The facts not only apMr. HOAR. Mr. President, this is not the ease of a defaulter in the pear in the report, but have been very forcibly stated by the Senator 

ordinary sense, which imputes criminality or wrongdoing to the prin- from Tennessee, and I will. not take thetimeofthe-Senate by narrating 

cipal in the bond. It is the case of the secretary of a Territory who is them . • 

authorized and bound to make .such expenditures as are reasonable for Unfortunately this case does not standalone, and, as suggest.ed by the 

the public sen:ice; it is the case of a mistake of the public officer in the Senator from· Oregon, there are many like it. Two have come within 

exercise of a dis-cretion which he is bound to exercise under his official my observation in my own State. One, the case of a snit against the 

dnty, but which is subject to revision by the· Department at Wash- sureties upon the bond of an Indian agent fifteen years after the defalington. cat_ion was discovered by the Government and ten years, or thereabouts, 

1\:lr. MORRILL. What :was the expenditure? after the death, totally insolvent, of the principal upon the bond. . The 

1\:lr. HOAR. The expenditure was an expenditure for printing and other was .a case of a receiver of public moneys, where, many years after 

. clerk-hire for the use of the Territory~ the insolvency bnt not the death of the principal, suit was instituted 

Mr. DOLPH. Is there anythiilg to show what are the_ items given and recovery had from the sureties, or those of the sureties who re- in the report? . mained solvent aftel' this lapse of many years, who were forced to pay 

Mr. HOAR. The items are not given in the report, but t.he Comp- in each case large sums of money. The effort was made in both those 

troller of the Treasury says that the balance which is claimed is made cases tq absolve the sureties from liability because of the laches of the ·up almost entirely of disallowances of such payments as I have men- Government of the United States, but the court in each case held, 

tioned .• The whole snbstanceofthe matter which we have before the and I think held rightfully; notwithstanding the suggestion ofmydisSenate is made up in that way. I do not know ~xactly what the slight tiriguished friend the Senator from Massachusetts, that in the absence 

exception may be. of a statute of limitation the sureties could not invoke this principle of 

It seems to me that upon the f~cts reported by the committee, as has laches as against the Government of the United States. 

been already observed by the honorable Senator from Tennessee, there But I rose not for the purpose of addressing myself particularly to 

would be a perfectly equitable defense if this transaction had arisen be- this case of hardship, but to suggest to the Senate that there has been 

tween private parties. If the creditor had discavered a default on the some negligence not only on the part of the exe·cutive officers of the 

part of the principal and had slumbered upon that knowledge for four- United Sta~ but on the part of the Congress of the United States, and 

teen years, fulling to avail himself of his known remedy and failing to I may suggest perhaps a little negligence on the part of the Senate and 

inform the sureties that they might avail themselves of their remedy, some of its committees with reference to the remedy for cases of this 

and in the mean time during that period the once solvent principal had character. .It was in view of the two cases I have narrated that early 

become insolvent or had died and his propeJ;ty been destroyed beyond . in the first session of the Forty-eighth Congress I introduced a bill proreach of the law, I suppose it is clear that that would be a case of laches .posing that there should be notice to all stl.reties upon official bonds of 

which both in equity and at law would discharge the surety. the United States when a defalcation appeared to any of the examining 

That being the condition of the case, the question is whether it is fit- and accounting officers of the United States, ·and that there should be a 

ting that the United States should avail itself of the principle that no statute of limitatiqns to operate for the benefit of sureties on such bonds. 

laches cail be imputed to the Government which it would be inequita- ·That bill early in the :first session of the Forty-eighth Congress was re- ble as between private parties to permit to be enforced. ferred to the Com:mittee on the Judiciary of this body, and there it slum- The honorable Senator from Oregon says that if we do that in the bered, and there it still sleeps, for notwithstanding the fact that it was 

present condition of the law the legislative body of the country will be intro~uced so early in the session no report ever came from the Combound to investigate a large number of similar cases and see what exi- mittee on the Judiciary upon it. Early in this session of Congress I 

gencies are in them; and that is true. By our own neglect or failure introduced the bill again, and it will be found to be Senate bill No.138. 

to pass a proper statute of limitation and a law justly and properly de- I propose to read its provisions for the reason that having the case at 

fining and arranging the::telations between the Government of the United point provided for by this bill and as narrated in this report of the ComStates and the sureties on official bonds we are in that condition, and mittee on Claims, and in view of the two cases that I have presented to we ought to and are bound to take upon ourselves the function to which the attention of the Senate, and others that undoubtedly will be known 

the Senator has alluded until we make a general law which covers the to otherj3enators, the Committee on the Judiciary may see·that there case. is a chance for them to present to the Senate the proper remedy proMr. DOLPH. If the Senator will permit I should like to ask him a vided for by bill No. 138. The first section reads: 

question. That hereafter whenever any deficiency shall be discovered in the accounts of 

1Yir. HOAR. Certainly. any official of the United States, or of any officer disbursing or chargeable with 

:Mr. DOLPH. Has it not been the policy of the Government for a public money, it shall be the duty of the auditing officer making such discovery 

h dred t 11 ty to · ch b to at once notify the chief of the Department having control over the affairs of un years no to a ow a sure escape m su a case ecause said officer of the nature and amount of said shortage, and it shall be the i.mmesuit was not brought within a definite time? · diate duty of said chief of Department to at once notify all sureties upon the bond 

Mr. HOAR. This is not a mere case of failure to bring suit Within or bonds of said official of the nature of said shortage and the amount thereof. 

six or ten years. It is a case of knowledge of the default and slumber- Said notification shall be deemed sufficient if mailed at the ·post-oftice in the city -of Washington, D. C., addressed to said suret\es respectively, and directed t-o the 

ing upon that know ledge, allowing the surety to suppose the Govern- post-office where said sureties may reside, if known; but a failure to give or ment was satisfied with tke accounts of the principal, and in the mean mail such notice shall not discharge such surety or sureties upon such bond. 

time the condition of the principal had changed from solvency to in- The second section provides: 

solvency. But I do not care what the policy which has comedown on That if upon the adjustment or settlement of the account of any official ofthe thiB subject from the Dark Ages may bej I say as a matter of sound United States, or of any officer disbursing or chargeable with public money, it. 
1886. OONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. 549 

shall appear that he is indebted to tbe United States, and suit therefor shall not be instituted within five years after such settlement and adjustment of said account, the sureties on -his bond shall not be liable for such indebtedness. 

This is in accord with that other section of the statutes which provides a. three-years' limitation as to the bonds of postmHSters, and it eems to me that this bill should speedily become a. law, simply that 

the Government of the United States may not be placed in the position 

described by the Senatorfrom Massaehusetts, where it becomes a. party 

to a dishonest scheme to wrong innocent persons. 

Mr. VOORHEES. :Ur. President, were it not for a ver.y peculiar 

feature in this case I would cast a. silent vot-e on the subject, but there 

is a. matter here that ought to arrest the attention of the Sertate and Congress and of the Departments of the Government. It is not pretended 

that this man Carter, whose sureties Stokes and Etheridge were, was a d efa ul ter. It seems that in the transaction of the business of his office 

in disbursing Government money he made certain payments on accounts 

that were afterward disallowed. In the answer made by the Depart- men t to the committee I find that the Comptreller of the Treasury says: 

I find on examination that the balance found against James P. T. Carter, late secretary of Arizona, to wit, 9,469.091 is made up almost entirely of disallow- ances. lie seems to have paid the sa1d amount for printinghclerk-hire, &c., in excess of what it was thought should have been paid and t e amount he had been authorized to pay. 

There consequently could have been no imputation of a default. .All 

this could be and was known in the Department and could not be 

known to these sureties. In c.asting the accounts after he went out of 

offi.ce this circums~nce became known upon the books of the Treasury, a.ud there remained known for fifteen years and six months without being communicated to these sureties. I beg Senators to mark this 

statement. '.fhis is a very extraordinary case, and this report discloses a piece of as bad ci vii service as I ever knew on the part of the Government. Passing on the accounts of this man-a mere matter Qf account 

and settlement, with no imputation on his honesty or his honor-the 

accounting officers disallowed certain of his accounts amounting to over $9,000. '.fhe accounting officers in the Department ascertained that alleged deficiency in 1871, and it was not untill885 that that fact was communicated to these sureties by suit being brought against them. 

If a grosser, more crying, unpardonable injustice could be done to men than that, I fail to know how. 

I know it is very easy to talk about dangerous precedents, and everybody who comes here for relief against the Government is met with that 

cry. I will respond to that, and say that I want less of this kind of 

dangerous precedent on the part of the Government itself. When the 

authorities found that there was this amount disallowed they should in 

all fairness and common decency have notified these sureties of that 

fact, so that they could have taken care of the case. In the mean time, 

while these :fifteen years were running-for fifteen years elapsed from 

the casting of this account and its ascertainment in the Treasury until 

suit was brought-one of the sureties became insolvent, shifting the 

entire burden onto one, which would not have been the case if the Government had done its duty; and now the Government seeks to hold 

the one man for the entire amount, when at most he would have had 

but half to pay had the Government done its duty. I know of no case in all my experience-and I have had some in regard to applications for 

relief on bonds since my service in this body-appealing f30 strongly to 

the common principles of old-fashioned honesty and fair play as this 

does. · It will afford me great pleasure to vote for this bill, but, as I say, I 

would ha.ve been content to have done so without saying a word, but I 

wanted to point out the reai ·evil which has been here committed, ahd 

that is on the part of the Government itself. 

l\Ir. DAWES. Before the Senator sits down I wish to be allowed to 

nsk him a question. It may have been stated when I was out, butthe 

Senator is familiar enough with the fact to state to the Senate what was the nature of the original default. · 111r. VOORHEES. · I will state it over again to the Senator. I will 

state the case exactlv. 

Mr. DAWES. It ·may have been stated, but I have not heard it. 

1\Ir. VOORHEES. · :M:r. Carter was secretary of the Territory of Arizona, and gave a bond in the sum of $20,000 with William-B. Stokes 

and Emerson Etheridge of Tennessee, as his sureties. .After he went 

out of office the Department, in casting his accounts, disallowed certain 

paymentsofpublicmoneywhich he had made on accotmtofthepublic 

service. 

1\'Ir. DAWES. Not because he had appropriated them to himself? 

Mr. VOORHEES. He had not appropriated a dollar. Not a dollar 

went into his pocket improperly. There is no pretense of it. The . Comptroller so reports. He says: 

The public moneys with which he was intrusted as secretary of the Territory were all paid out in wbat he considered legitimate and proper expenditures in and for the public service and interests committed to his official care. 

It is like so many cases we know of where a public officer in the disbursement ofmo~ey pays out $100 here and $100 there, which is afterward disallowed and he has to make it good. That was the case here. 

There is no imputation on his honor or hon~ty. The amount thus 

found againat him by this disallowance was known to the Department 

in 1871, and yet they~lept on that for fifteen years and six: months and 

then brought suit against the only remaining solvent surety, the other 

surety in the mean time having become insolvent; and yet gentlemen 

stand here and complain of this bill as setting a bad precedent! The 

bad precedent is in such civil service as that, and the sooner we stamp 

out that kind of practice the better it will be for all parties. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I am perfectly willing to make a precedent in this case. I am quite willing that it shall not only be a precedent on the records here, but that it shall be put into the form .of a statute, if you choose, that if the Government shall neglect for fourteen 

years, or twelve, or ten, or eight, or six, or three, to notify the sureties, it 

shall lose all claim in the case. And this gives me another opportunity 

to enforcew hat I have tried to enforce many times heretofore. '.fhis Gov- ernment has no right to enforce the letter of the law or boast of its justice so long as it practices the grossest wholesale injustice in neglecting 

to provide for claimants against the Government any suitable tribunal 

to settle their claims. 

This Government ought to be suable ~s truly and as easily as a private citizen. I do not care whether the claim is a thousand dollars or five dollars, it ought to be possible for a. citizen who has that claim to 

bring it to some tribuna,! and have a reasonably speedy and just trial. 

Of course, as the Senator from Oregon says, we 'have thousands and 

thousands of claims presented here, some of which have been yea.rly 

dinned in our ears for ten, twenty, thirty, forty years, and orne of 

these claims are exactly as honestly due as our boa.rd bills. We keep 

these citizens here in this way: It is an eternal mortification to them, 

and it ought to be to us, because we give them no other place to go to. 

We are, of course, exercising the functions of a court of equity in such 

cases, and we must do so, not only of a court but of a sovereign discharging equitable duties. We must do so because we have given n<i 

remedy in the law. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CALL in the chair). The hour 

of 2 o'clock has arrived. 

Mr. JACKSON. I ask consent of the Senator from Vermont [111r. 

EDMUNDS] to lay aside informally the regular order a few moments 

until we dispose of this bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is Senate bill No. 

10. The Senator from Tennessee asks unanimous consentthatthisbill 

be laid aside informally. . 1\fr. DOLPH. I hope the Senator from Tennessee will let the matter 

go over until :Mon.day, retaining its place. After the spasm of virtue we have had exhibited here this morning I want to call the attention 

of the Senate a little more fully to how this power has been exercised 

in the last hundred years. 

Mr. JACKSON. I hope the Senator will withdraw his objection and 

let us take a vote. The bill is fully understood in all its magnitude. 

The facts are set out in the report. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I suggest that it go over until Monday, keeping 

its place, so that it may be still considered, as it would, in fuct, unde.r 

the rules, I believe. 

Mr. HARRIS. I beg to suggest to the Senator from Oregon that our experience a-dmonishes us that if this matter goes over until Monday, 

while every fact pertaining to it now is completely understood-and I 

apprehend the Senate is ready to vote now-we shall have to go over the whole ground, and will gooverthewholeground, on Monday, and consume the same amount of time. 

Mr. ED~fUNDS. 'rhat is very likely, because I am inclineq to think 

I shall be tempted to say something myself; but the Senator from Oregon, who has a sincere opposition to this bill on the ground of its opposition to the former aetion of the Senate, as he understands it, wL'>hes the 

bill to go over in order that it maybe further considered. !think, as it 

really·involves an important principle as the law now stands, it would 

be fair to settle it as a precedent, so that all committees can con form to 

it; and if we spend an hour about it on Monday, I do not think it will 

be time lost. Therefore I ask, if that is necessary, as I think it is not, 

that the bill go over until Monday and stand then in its present order, so that it will be the first thing in order on Monday morning. 

Mr. HARRIS. That will be the effect under the rule. 

1t1r. EDMUNDS. I think so myself. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill goes over. Mr. EDMUNDS. Now I call for the regular order. 

POLYGA1\IY AND AFFAIRS ·IN UTAH. 

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration ofthe bill (S. 10) to amend an act entitled "An act to amend sec- tion 5352 of the Revised Statutes of the United States in reference to 

bigamy, and for other purposes," approved March 22, 1882. 

ThePRESIDINGOFFICER. The pendingquestion is on theamendment proposed by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. BROWN]. Tl:eSenator from New Hampshire [Mr. BLAIR] is entitled to the floor. 

M:r. EDMUNDS. Let the amendment be read. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. The proposed amendment is in the eighth line 

of the :first section to strike out the words "and may be compellea;" 

in the ninth Jine to strikeout the word "without" and insert "with;, 
550 CONG-RESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JANUARY 8, 

and in the tenth line, after the word "be, 11 to insert the words "who 

is to be examined;" so as to read: 

The laWful husband or wife of the person accu ed shn.ll be a competent wit- ness, and may be called t<> testify in such proceeding, examination, or prosecu- tion with the consent of the husband or wife, as the case may be, who is to be 

examined; but uch witness sball not be permitted to te tify as to any confidential statement or communication made by either husband or wife to each 

other during the existence of the maniage relation. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The q~estion is on agreeing to this 

amendment. 

Mr. BROWN. Let us haTe the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Now, 1\lr. Presitlent, before the question is put, 

although there are hardly any of the friends of human liberty in the Senate, I will appeal to the logical-minded and reform men here and call 

their attention to this thing. As the amendment of the Senator from 

Georgia. now stands, I submit to him and to the Senate that it diminishes the present force of the common law and requires the consent of 

the accused person, instead of the willingness of the person who is called 

to testifY; but that, of course, is not wha.t my friend from Georgia .means and it can be easily corrected if the Senate wishes to change 

what the committee have reported. Now on that point I wish to state 

again-- · 

Mr. BROWN. With great respect to the opinion of the Senator from 

Vermont, I think he is mistaken about the amendment. 

Mr. EDl\ffiNDS. It may be. 

Mr. BROWN. Itiswith theconsent ofthepartytobecxaimcd, not 

with the con ent of the other. 

l\lr. EDMUNDS. That would raise a. very difficult question, as we disagree, for any court that was called upon to decide it. Now I wish 

to state, in just a minu~e or two, to the Senate what it seems clear the 

law now is on the ordinary rules of evidence. According to the ordinary rules of evidence at the common law the wife or husband is a 

witness against the other in criminal proceedings, to which this bill 

is of course entirely confined, in all cases of violence or crime committed by one agn.inst the·other. I think I am safe in sn,ying, although 

there are some cases to the contrary, as there are on almost every proposition at the common law, that the common law now is that, being 

competent witnesses one ~crainst the other in respect of crimes committed 

by one against the other, they may be compellable to testify whether 

they consent or not, b~usewhen you come to the prosecution of crimes 

it is not a question of the redress of personal grievances, but it is a. question of the interest of the good order of society in the punishment 

of crime whether the victim of that crime wishes to haYe it punished or not. That I think is the present common law. 

Now, when we come to what is the practice of the various States, I 

wish to call attention to the laws of two or three States the Senators 

from which have spoken. Here is the law of New Hampshire; but my 

friend from New Hampshire is no tin, and I will pass that for a moment. 

Here is the law of Nebraska on the subject: 

The husband can in no case be a. witness against the wife, nor the wife 

against the husband, except in a crimina.l proceeding for a crime committed by 

the one a..,<>-ainst the other, but they may in all criminal prosecutions be witnesses 

for each other. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. Does the Senator :find anything in that statute 

which compels them to be witnesses against each other? 

l\Ir. EDMUNDS. If the Senator could be patient with me who can only say one thing at a time, different from my friend from Nebraska, 

he would have found out in a minute or two what I think about that. 

The statute of Nebraska provides that the husband and wife shall not 

be witnesses against each other except in a. criminal proceeding for a crimecommittedbyoneagainsttheother. Thenthequestioniswhether 

the offense of bigamy is a crime under the statutes ofNebraska,·I will 

say of one against the other. I do not know whether under the principles of the common law, .applied to this statute, the wife or the husband would be a competent witness against the other in a bigamy case; 

but I repeat what I said yesterday or the day before, that the committee thought on a most careful examination of this subject that this was an offense, that, whether they were technically admis...qjble or not, it was so nearly allied to what the common law considered to be a. crime of the one against the other that it would be justifiable to proride that each 

should be a witness against the other in such a case. 

As my friend from Massachusetts [Mr. Ho.A.R] sopertinently suggests, 

the crime of bigamy is an offense which warrants a dissolution of the 

marriage tie on the application of the aggrieved party. 

The principle and the policy of the Nebraska statute is that in any 

offense which affects the marital relation, and therefore involves a crime 

of one against the other, each is a competent witness. My friend from 

Nebraska. asked whether the statute says they are compellable totestify, and that brings us to the key of this whole matter on this point. 

Wherever, by the Constitution of the United States or of any State a 

limitation upon the powers of courts of justice to compel testimony ex- ists, it is simply that no person shall be compelled to give evidence in a criminal prosecution against himself, and there it stops. That constitutional provision does not touch the relation of husband and wife at all. 

That was a matter of policy adopted by the common-law courts so as not 

to interfere with the sacred and confidential condition of affairs between 

the husband and wife and their supposed technical unity into one per- son by the marriage relation. Now comes this statute of Nebraska, 

which says--

:Mr. SAULSBURY. Will the Senator allow me to make a suggestion? 

Mr. ED.l\IDNDS. With pleasure. 

Mr. SAULSBURY. If I understand tim aright, he thinks in the case stated of an offense against the wife, at the common law she might 

be a competent witness against her husband. 

.1\Ir. EDMUNDS. No; I did not say that positively: I said it was 

clear now by the common law that in all cases such as are stated in the 

Nebraska s~tute where a crime was committed by one against the 

other either might be a -witness against the other. Whether bigamy 

woulU come within that on the techninal principles of the common law 

I did not undertake to say. · 

l\Ir. SA. ULSBU RY. I had occasion once to appear in defense of a party 

charged with bigamy in my own State, the oftE~nse being alleged on the 

affidavit of the wife. I defended the accused on the ground that the 

wife was not a competent witness in a case of that kind to make an affidavit, and the court in my State discharged the prisoner because he had 

not been pToperly held. Mr. EDMUNDS. Exactly. That principle led me to state it as to 

birramyas a question which at this day would be open to doubt whether 

'vithout a. statute it would fall ''"'ithin the ordinary class of crimes com- mitted by one against the other; but the committee thought that this 

was a crime -committed by one against the other which would justify 

the Legi latme in relieving the common law of all doubt or difficulty on that point. and providing that either might be a witness to facts that 

did not relate to the communication of one to the other in t:Ceir marital 

relation. · 

Now we come to the qu tion as to whether they can be compelled· to 

testify, and I will go on with my answer to the enator from Nebraska.. 

Wherever the law makes a person a. competent witness (which is the 

language of these statutes) he becomesawitnesswhich the public prosecutor has a right to call, and being a competent witnes , unless some affirmative con tit.ution or law declares that he shall not be compelled 

tot tify, he must testify like any otherwitn , because when the law 

says a witness js competent it puts him on the footing of every other 

witness, and he is subject to every jurisdiction of the court to compel 

him to speak to the issues that are presented for trial. 

So, then, it seems to me that it is clear enough that w hereTer the h us- band and wife without an expr ne,!m>tion in a. statute, are made com- petent witnesses in any mattercriminal or civil, it does not depend upon 

the will of that witness, being competent, whether he will speak or not; 

and in some of the States, as in Georgia, I believe, as I looked at the 

statute last year, it is expre ly said that they shall not be compelled, 

but they llk'l.Y testify in certain case , the Georgia lawyers perfectly un- derstanding the proposition I have ju t now stated, that wherever the 

law makes a person a competent witness that person is not the judge of 

whether he will give the te timony that tb.e bw calls upon him to give or not, but is put on the footing of every other witness. 

.1\Ir. TELLER. I should like to ask the chairman of the committee 

if he is not aware that in mo t of the States now the defendant in all 

criminal cases is made a competent witness, and if that has not been 

universally held to be dependent upon hi will? 

Ur. EDMUNDS. It is almost univers!l.liy stated, and I rather sus- pect universallystated in the statutes that make him a competent witness, that h~ shall not be compelled to testify, and also that his not 

testifying shall not be alluded to by the C(}unsel or taken any ad vantage 

of before the jury to raise the presumption that he did not want to go 

on the stand. 

M:r. TELLER. That is undoubtedly true in some States, but it is 

not so in all. 

1\Ir. BROWN. If the Senator from Vermont will allow me an interruption for a. moment, I do not think he states the statute of Georgia 

quite fairly. The law there does permit husband or wife in certain 

cases, and especially the wife, to be called to testify where he has suffered or is liable to great injury, where the husbarul bas inflicted injury on her or threatened injury; so that it is permi ive but not compulsory. 

1\fr. EDMUNDS. Yes; the statute says so in terms tilllt she shall 

not be com]>elled to do it. 

1\Ir. BROWN. She is not compelled to testify at all. If she desires 

to testify she is competent to te tify in a limited class of cases only. 

1\!r. EDl\ffiNDS. Yes, ~d the statute says in distinct terms, if I 

remember it correctly-it is a long time since I ha>e seen it-that she 

shall not be compelled to do it, in order to get her out of the attitude of ·a merely competent witness, because being merely a competent witness 

she is like every other witn and ubject to the compulsory jurisdiction 

of the court to testify. That is clearly the law. So I think I am justified in repeating what I said the other day, that the principle inYolved 

in this section as the Judiciary Committee studied it and prepared it 

and reported it is the principle involved in the statut of these various 

States. Here is Colorado, for instance, which puts it, I believe, on substantially the same grounds: 

A husband shall not be examiDed for or again this wife without her consent, nor a wife for or against her husband ithout his consent; nor shall either, dur-
1886. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 551 

ing the marriage or afterwards, be, without the consent of the other, examined as to any communication made by one to the other during the marriage. But this exception does not apply to n. civil action or proceeding by one against the 

other, nor to a. criminal action or. proceeding for a crime committed by one against the other. 

So that it re:illy, on the principle of the thing, brings it down to the 

question, supposing we were trying to follow the spirit of the statutes 

of these various States (and I ~ave only just taken a few of them; I 

could not wait to go through with all that have any statutes on the 

subject), whether the principle reported by the committee involves the 

idea that the crime of bigamy by a married man ·is or is not not only a 

crime against society of the worst description, but a crime against his 

first, true, and lawful wife. The committee thought it was, in morals 

and inJustice, and-proposed to authorize the courts of justice to make 

that woman a competent witne~ and to authorize the courts of justice 

to examine her as to all facts that did not come into the communications which the marital relation implies. 

Mr. TELLER. I should like to ask the Senator if the committee, 

believing that that was the construction, examined for any precedent. 

There have been many decisions and rulings upon the question whether 

the wife was competent to testify aga.i.nst the husband or the husband 

against the wife in a case of bigamy. I think the committee could 

find some light on that subject. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Very likely we could find a great deal of light if 

we continued to examine. We thought we had found light enough to 

ask the Senate of the United States to make a law which should break 

up, as far as furnishing testimony would go, polygamous relations existing between certain persons, and that, underwhatever influence the 

first and irue wife JDight be, the hand of society and the hand of justice 

and the hand of good morals should require her to come forward and 

testify that she was married lawfully to the person accused. That is 

all there is of it, and it seems to me that it is a provision which everybody ought to agree is wise and right. 

:Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I cannot agre& with the Senator from 

Vermont that the rule in reference to the protection of the wife or the 

husband from giving testimony against the other in a criminal prosecution is a rule founded in public policy for the punishment of crime. 

It was a rule intended to protect the wife and the husband. It was for 

the peace and quiet and good order of the family. The rule as laid down 

by Greenleaf is as follows: 

SEc. 334. The rule, by which parties are excluded from being witne ses for 

themselves, applies to the case of husband and wife, neither of them being admissible as a. witness in a cause, civil or criminn.l, in which the other is a. party. 

This exclusion is founded partly on the identity of their legal rights and interests, and partly on principles of public policy, which lie at the basis of civil so- ciety. For it is essential to the happiness of social life that the confidence subsisting between husband and wife should be sacredly protected and cherished 

in its most unlimited extent; and to break down or impair the great principles 

which protect the sanctities of that relatipn would be to destroy the best solace 

of human existence. 

The ·exceptions to the rule are laid down as follows by the same 

author: 

SEc. 3-13. Tothisgenera.lrule, excluding the husband and wife as witnesses, 

therearesomeexceptions,whichareallowedfrom thenecessityofthecase,pn.rtly 

for the protection of the wife in her life and liberty, and partly for the sake of 

public justice. But the necessity which calls for this exception for the wife's se- curity is described to mean not a general nece ity, as where no other witness can be had, but a particular necessity, as where, for instance, the wife would 

otherwise be exposed, without remedy, to personal injury. Thus, a. woma.n is 

a.competentwitnessagainst a. man indicted for forcible abduction nod marriage, 

if the force were continuing upon her until the marriage, of which fact she is also a. competent witness; and this, by the weight of the authorities, notwithstanding her subsequent assenta.nd votuntary cohabitation; for otherwise the 

offender would take ndvantn.ge of his wrong. So she is a competent witness 

against him on an indictment for a rape committed on her own person; or, for an assault and battery upon her; or, for maliciously shooting her. She may also exhibit articles of peace against him; in which case her n.ffi.davit shall not be allowed to be controlled and overthrown by his own. 

So that the exceptions to the rule really are all for the protection of 

the wife against personal injuries or personal violence. 

:Mr. EDMUNDS. And for public justice, as the Senator read. 

Mr. BROWN. That is not the rule generally. Public justice is one 

of the objects, but it is the public justice that applies to her, and it is 

to protect her where she could not otherwise be protected. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. If the Senator will allow me to interrupt him, I 

wish to ask him the plain and straight question whether he does not 

think that a man having one lawful wife and going and marrying an- other commits a personal injury against the lawful wife? · 

Mr. BROWN. I think he commits a crime against society. 

Mr. EDUUNDS. But that is not my question. 

Mr. BROWN. It is not simply a persmial injury against her. 

11r. EDMUNDS. Not simply, but is it not a personal injury? 

1\Ir. BROWN. It is a wrong, but it is not a wrong that the common law gives her a right to testily about. 

1\Ir. EDI'tffiNDS. Very likely, and that is why we wish to pass this 

statute. But my question is, is it not a wrong, a moral and religions 

public crime against her as well as again t society ? 

1\lr. BROWN. It is a public crime against the wife, but not one of 

the chamcter that the great authors of the law, those who gave us the 

common law, considered a proper one for her to be called as a witness. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. But the Senator onght to remember that at the common law there was not any punishment for polygamy or bigamy at 

... 

all or for adultery, and therefore the common law never had any snell 

cases to deal with. 

1\Ir. BROWN. In most of the States of the Union even up to this 

day the common law has not been enlarged to the extent that the Senator proposes to extend it. In fact, if such law has passed in any of the 

States I am not aware of it. In the multiplicity of legislation in the 

thirty-eight States there may have been some instances, bnt I am not 

aware of it and I donotthinktheSenatorhasshownit. I think there 

has been no instance where any one of the thirty-eight States has enacted a law making the wife a competent witness in a case of bigamy 

or polygamy. We are proposing, therefore, to go beyond· what any 

State or probably any other civilized state in the world has done. I 

can not speak for all ofthem, but I am not aware of any instance, and 

as the Senator's search has been thorough in this matter I presume 

there is none, because he has produced none. . 

Again, so far as the execution of the law is concerned, the Senator 

certainly does not ri.eed this additional legislation. As matters now 

stand in Utah it is only necessary to make a prima facie case, and a 

very light one at that, to convict a :Mormon. If you arraign him and 

put him on trial his conviction follows almo t as a certainty. The 

judge is nominated to the Senate and confirmed and sent there to convict in such cases, and if we notice their rulings it generally results in 

that way. The district attorney is sent there to take every adYautage 

of every technicality he can for conviction. The juror is put upon the 

stand and required to swear that he does not belie\e polygamy is 

right-not in that language, but that is the substance-before he can 

serve. 

It is said that that is necessary to his impartiality, and yet the effect 

ofit is that he swears he does not believe that it is right, showing that 

he is partial on the other side. If he were to swear th...'l.t be did not believe it was right he would be partial on that side. In other words, in· 

either case if he is an honest man he would hear the evidence and decide according to the evidence and the law as gi\ren him by the court; 

but he is bound to take an oath that he does not believe in polygamy beforehecansiton the jury. I have been informed by one whom I belie>e 

to be a reliable, truthful gentleman, who has heard some of those trials, 

that the prosecuting attorney goes one step further occa ioually and 

asks, "Are your sympathies with the prosecution?" and if the juror 

answers in the affirmative there is very little trouble about taking him. 

In other words, the courts are o•ganized there to convict. 

Hence the present lec,o-islation which bears the name of the honorable 

Senator from Vermont isampleon this question to break up polygamy. 

There is no use for enacting laws which arc in violation of the common 

law, and which are very questionable at least as to their propriety on 

principle, to suppress polygamy in ta.h. The heads of the church, 

the president of it, and the leading men of it, I am -told. are fn~ tives 

andean not be found. Thepenitentillriesand jails are being filleJ \\ith 

those convicted of polygamy. It is obliged to be suppressed ::uul especially with the maehinery that we have there now appointed for that 

purpose, and that sole purpose, for they seem to haYe \·ery little else to 

do, and they do their work well and thoroughly. Whether it, is exactly 

well in the sense of a just trial I will not say, but they aTe certainly 

carrying out the objects of the legislation. If reports be true, they n.re 

giving every doubt against the criminal instead of giving the doubt in 

his favor. They are certainly not giring him a very fair trial according to the mode of trial in mo t of the St.'ltes aurl Territories. 

Therefore I do not think, and I trust the Senate will not think, that 

it is necessary to break down long and well-established rules of law 

that pave been considered by our ancestry as necessary to the preser--

vation of peace and harmony for the purpose of making the laws more 

stringent in Utah. They are ample on this question; .there is no difficulty about that; and by the way as they are now being enforced polygamy will very soon be a thing of the past there. If it is practiced 

it~ have to be practiced in a manner that nobody knows it, and th...'l.t 

no officer of the law and no detective and no spy can find it out. So I 

do not see the necessity of breaking down a sacred rule of so long standing for the purpose of adding to the legislation which we already ha\e 

on that subject. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Th~ Senator from ~rgiab.asinmyhumble opinion-and I speak with some information-done a gross injustice to the 

judicial and executive establishment of the United States in Utah. 

Mr. BROWN. I said nothing about the executive, but the court and 

its machinerv, its officers. 

Mr. ED:UUNDS. I should be glad to"know if the district attorney 

is not a part of the execu tile establ. hment in U tab The Sen a tor spoke 

of the district .attorney by that name. 

:Mr. BROWN. He is rather an officer of the court. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I say be is an executive officer appointed by the 

President of the United States by and with the advice and consent of 

the Senate, unless I am greatly mistaken. 

Mr. BROWN. Thejndgeisappointedin the&'\meway. Isthejudge 

an executive officer or a judicial officer? 

Mr. EDMUNDS. He is a judick1.l officer, but the district attorney is an executi Ye officer. 

1tfr. BROWN. The district attorney is his assistant in executing the 

laws . 
552· CONGRESS! ON AL RECORD-SEN ATE. JANUARY 8, 

Mr. ED:\IUNDS. I leave my friend from Georgia to have that 

opinion, if he wishes it, wilhobt any further remark ·or mine; but by 

whatever name we call it, the Senator from Georgia bas done, on the 

report of a person whom he believes to have been a candid person, a gross L"'"ljustice. The establishment in Utah has not been sent there 

tor the purpose of persecuting anybody. It has been sent there as every judicial and executive establishment ought to be sent to every 

State and. Territory, so far a.s the United. States is concerned, for the 

purpose of executing law and administe1·ing justice and punishing 

crime. I hope that is what they are sent to Georgia for, if we can imagine, aild I do it with gr~1.t diffidence, that it is poS!:lible any crime 

could be comJ?1itted in the State of Georgia. 

I have read the verbatim reports of a gre.'tt many of the polygamy 

trials in Utah occurring within the Jastyear and the challenges and examinations of persons called on the juries, and I have- never seen any 

such question, or anything like it, as that which the Senator from 

Georgia states in the Senate of the United States some district attorney 

has asked. a juror whether he was in sympathy with the pro ecution; 

n.nd I do not believe, with great respect to his informant, that any sncb 

thing ever occurred. 

Bnt it may be rightly stated in thi connection that when a juror is 

caJled and is examined as to his qualifications as a juror, if there is any 

doubt either in the mind of the challenging or the other party as to bow 

that jnror really stands, and they suspect him of equivocating or hanging back, ju t as in the cross-examination of a witness, a great many 

questions are asked which go very far from the real point apparently to 

testify to the two other jurors who may be the triers, orto the court., as 

I believe it is in these instances, what the real make-up and composition of that juror's mind is about fair pln.y in the cause that he is to 

bear. However, I should be willing to offer a large reward; payable 

not out of the Tre.1.sury of the United States but out of my own some- what slender pocke~, for any instance in which a district attorney in 

Utah bas asked a juror whether he was in sympathy with the prosecution. I do not believe it. · 

Mr. BROWN. I do not care to go over the same ground again, but· I have no doubt about the correctness of the statement I have ·made, 

though I may have been mistaken. 

Mr. CULLOM:. I only desire to say a word as t.o one of the judges of 

the Territory of Uta.h. It happens to be my privilege toknowthe chiefjustice there, and I desire to say of that gentleman that he was not an applicant for and that no person was asking his _appointment to the position 

of chief-justice of that Territory, but he was simply willing to take a 

position in one of the Territories. He is an old judge, a gentleman who was on the circuit bench of the State of Illinois for some eleven years 

prior to his appointment to the office which he holds in U tab now, which 

was given to him during the last year of the las~ national administrn,-

tionr and I know that there is no question as to the purity of his character or as to his ability and impartia.lity in the administration of j nstice wherever he ma.y be. 

Mr. TELLER. Yesterday, when ·I was on the floor, the Senator 

from Illinois asked me if I thought the chief-justice of that Territory 

bad been guilty of any improper conduct. It did not occur to me at 

the time who the chief-justice wa.s. I bad made, as I said then, no accusation against the court; but it occurred to me afterward, on reflection, that be was appointed from Illinois. I had some connection 

with his appointment, not having any power, of course, to appoint him, 

but I was consulted; and I am satisfied that the statement made by 

the Senator from Illinois is entirely correct, that Judge Zane is in every 

way qualified and has gone to Utah with a very proper spirit. I do 

not believe mys_elf that be would be guilty of any improper conduct in 

his court. I am sorry I can not say that of judges who have long since 

left that bench, but I am willing to say that in defense of Judge Zane 

if anybody thought I intended to reflect upon him. As to the others, 

I do not now remember who they are. I have never heard any complaint against them. I <: . nat know who the marshal is, neither do I 

lmow who is the l.Jnited States attorney. I have never intended toreflect upon any of the gentlemen who compose the present force of that 

court. 

Mr. CULLOM. I did not understand the Senator from Colorado to 

intend any reflection upon any of the judges of the Territory who are now in office there, especially upon the judge referred to. I wish to 

say further that the present chief-justice, Judge Zane, who was appointed from Illinois, bas perhaps tried most of the casestbat the Senator from Georgia refers to, and I desire to s:ty to him and to the Senate that some of the cases which are on aH·fonrs with all the rest which 

ha>e been tried involving the question of polygamy have gone to the 

Supreme Court of the United States, and his decisionsandrnlings have 

there been snsfained by that court. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. I ask the Senate to indulge me only a moment 

in explanation of what certainly seems to be a very rem:1rkn.ble con- struction placed uponthestatuteofNebraska. bythe Senator from Vermont. I suppose it is not necess::try to offer·au apology or to ask anybody's pardon for objecting to what seems to be an obnoxious principle 

inserted in a meritorious bill. I will say to the Senator that I am willing to go as far as and further than himself in prooting the system of 

polygamy in Utah. I would very much prefer to vote for such ameasure as was suggested by the Senator from lllinoiS, to take away political power from the Territory entirely atd place it in the hands of the 

commission which we have there with nothing to do, and give them 

something to do by placing the political power of the Territory in their 

bands. I would very much prefer to do that, and I apprehend that is 

going further than the Senator from Vermont would be willing to go in 

this matter. Then I think we should reach this difficulty. As I said 

ye terday, we have been doing this for four years practically ·with no forward movement, and under the :.<-ct of 1882 and this bill we shall 

probably progress four years more with no other Tesults than ·we have 

to-day. 

The lawmakers of Nebraska supposed tha;t the statute rend. by the 

Senator from Vermont was plain, and yet my friend seems to give it a forced construction by propounding an inquiry and hiJ.Dself giving the answer. I understand the theory of the devilltion from tbe common 

law to be that it is in the interc t of society-so the Senator from Vermont says-and that in some cases in the interest of society the busband and wife arc allowed to testify one again t the other. I apprehend the S~nator gives the wrong reason for it. It is not in the interest .of society specially, because if that were so why stop? Is it not in 

the interest of society that a person should swear to the commis~ion of 

murder as much as to the fact of a marriage solemnization? If in the 

interest of society, is not the testimony in cases of robbery and arson and all other crimes known from that to murder as much to be protected? If in the interest of society the wife can disclose the matter 

of a grave crime committed by her husband against the public peace 

and society, why should it stop? 

But then I think the Senator confutes his own idea by &'liing that 

in Nebraska and other States they are allowed to testify becan:se it is 

to reach the personal injury, and. be propounded the question to the 

Senator from Georgia, Is not bigamy a personal injury? If the allowance of the testimony of the husband or wife be put upon the ground 

of the personal injury from the one to tbeother, then ce:rtainlyit is not 

upon the broad ground of public policy or the interest of society. The 

latter suggestion of the Senator from Y ermont is evidently correct, because in no instance probably where it is detailed in any statute is it 

applied except where the husband and wife can only redress themselves 

by being allowed to be witne. es in their own behalf, and that i3 borne 

out in the statute of Nebraska itself. 

So also in the statute of the State of New York, which expressly provides that"it can only be in the case of bigamy, and then the Senator 

asks, Is not bigamy a personal injury to the wife or husband? It may 

be so in the case of bigamy, but then the statute provides that only one 

f.'lct can be proven by the testimony of the accused's marriage partner, 

only the fact of marriage. So in the case of divorce on the ground of 

adultery ihe wife m:1y be a. witness or the husband may be a witness, 

but not a general witne~. The statute of the State of New York says 

such withesses can only testify to the fhct of marriage-nothing in ore- not in the interest of society, as the Senator sa.ys, because, if so, w by con- fine it there? The wife may know the fact of the bigamy, but she can 

only swear to her own marriage. Why stop there? Society is not protected if the husband or wife knows the true factwhich would convicb 

the other, and the statute says that only one fact is to be proven. 

So, too, in the case of dh~orce for adultery, the wife may know the 

fact th:1t would convict the husband of the gravamen, of tl1e main 

charge, but the statute keeps her lips ~:;ealed, and says in sn<:h a c..'\Se 

you can only prove the fac~ of marriage by her testimony, and then the 

statute provides no further. Her lips are sealed, and. yet the Senator 

says that the break is made in the interest-of society, although the witness is stopped by the Legislature right there. 

The other point is right, as my friend suggests. It is, undoubtedly, 

where the personal injury is to the husband or wife. Now m~rk: 

The husband can in no easel am reading now from the Nebraska statute to which the Senator 

referredThe husband can in no case be a. witness against the wife, nor the wife ag-ainst the husband, except in a criJ:n.inal proceeding for a crime committed by the one agninst the other. 

"In a criminal proceeding for a crime committed by the one ag;1inst 

the other;" and my friend says that bigamy is a personal injury. But 

th&t is not the statute of Nebraska. I asked tny friend if the st:l.tnte 

said '' compel,'' and then be rebuked me for my impatience by d iring 

that I sbonld wait until be could give a construction which I think the 

statute nowhere c..1.n bear .. The lips of the wife are sealed. The husband can in no C..'\Se be a witness against the wife or the wife against the husband except in a. criminal proceeding by the one against the other. I submit to the Senator if 

the language is not plain, that it is permissive and not compellable. If 

the wife comes into court to arraign her husband for assault and. u:1ttery 

upon her and. she begins the prosecution, if the proceeding is commenced 

by her, she may be allowed to follow that by her own testimony. It is 

perfectly plnin. She must be the moving instrument in the prosecution 

against him, in tbe criminal proceeding, and in such a case only can she 

be a witness. If society arraigns her husband, if the public authority 

arraigns her husband for an assault upon herself, then she can not be a 

witness even if she desires to be. It is only where she is the author, 

• 
1886. - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 553 

the mover of the criminal :proceeding against him, that she is allowed the prosecution. It gives everything whenever such persons are willing 

to be a witness. to testify. We might well suppose that if the wife felt upon thew hole 

that she was outraged and it was for her interest to testify in these 

prosecutions there would be no occasion for anything more than simply 

a statute which should permit her to do so. That the amendment of 

the Senator from Georgia proposes to gi"ve, to so far modify the common 

law as in all cases whatever to allow the parties to testify when they 

are willing .to do so. Then what is it that is desirable here? What 

is it that the Stmator from Vermont desires? Simply to compel the. 

lawfnl wife to testify when she does not want to do so There is no 

controversy about anything else. You have all the rest. 

But they may in all criminal prosecutions be witnesses for each other. 

Yet the Senator would. claim that the novel, the startling doctrine 

introduced in this bill is sustained by the statute of Nebraska, which 

:provides, as I have stated, distinctly that in all crimin!i'l prosecutions 

husba:nd and wife may be witnesses against each other. Will the Senator put that language in this bill instead of that which the committee 

has placed there? That will settle this matter. Will he take the langmtge from the statute of New York and put it in his bill instead of 

what is there? If he does that, I might be willing to vote for his proposition. Put it upon the ground that it is a new departure, and that 

the departure is justified by the exigencies of the peculiar situation of 

things in that Territory; but I prot~t here that the legislation of every 

State in this Union, the well-known and recoguized principles of the 

law in every civilized nation under the sun, shall not be stigmatized 

by a proposition coupling it with the doctrine here enunciated upon ~he 

ground that this new doctrine is only the reproduction of that which 

exists in a majorityoftbe States of this Union. · . 

l\Ir. BLAIR. I quite agree with t.be Senator from Vermont when he 

says that if the stn.tute provides simply in express terms that the husband or the wife shn.ll be a. competent witne...'IS, and there be no restriction upon the expression, the witness may be compelled to testify by the 

ordinary processes of compulsion known to the courts. I think it is due 

to the Senator from Vermont as well as to myself, n.fter all that has been 

said in regard tothestatuteofNewHampshire, that I place her _statute 

upon this subject on the record, and I may say that so far as I have had 

any opportunity of examination this is the broadest statute in the way 

of liberalizing the common law that I have found anywhere. The sections of the statute of New Hampshire which bear upon the subject are 

as follows: · 

SEO. 20 • .A husband and wife are competent witne scs for or against each other, whether joined as parties or not, in all ~'\Ses both civil and criminal. SEO. 21. The preceding section shall not be so construed as to render compe- t-ent the testimony of a husband or wife for or against each other a.s t-o nl).y statement, conversation, letter,-or other communication made by either of them to the other or t-o any other person; nor a.s to other matters when it appears to the 

court that the examination of eitller as a witness in relation thereto wouldJea.d 

to a violation of marital confidence. 

This statut-e bas been so limited in its practical application by the discretion of the courts that, as stated yesterday, although this statute has 

been one of the laws of our State since about 1866, I have never known 

an instance where in any criminal pr:oceeding the wife has been compelled to testify against the husband in any case whatever, and my colleague [Mr. PIKE], not now on the floor of the Senate, certainly a lawyer of as large practice as any one whom I have ever known at the bar 

in our State, informs me that he has known of no such instance. The 

statute has never been so construed, in any criminal proceeding at least, 

as to compel the husband or the wife to testify against his or her will; 

and, as will be seen from the exceptions mentioned in the statute itself, 

there would be but very little ground on which testimony from either 

of those sources, the husband or the wife, could be drawn for use in a 

prosecution. 

The Senator from Vermont cites this statute and says to the Senate 

that it is substantially a precedent for the language which is employed 

in the bill. The language of the bill provides thatThe lawftu husband or wife-

! emphasize the word "lawful," because in the discussion yesterday 

I found that some Senators supposed that this objection was all against 

the compulsory testifoying of those women who were not the wives, but 

the illicit associates of the Mormons. Let me remind Senators, if there 

are any who have not read the bill as yet or who do not comprehend 

what itis all about, that this is a. provisionthatthelawful wife shall be 

compelled to testify against her will. Thatisall that is being objected 

to here. I was about to read the language itself, so that it mayapp~ 

in connection with that of the statute of our State: 

Now let us see in what cases a wife is likely not to desire to testify 

in such a way as to punish the husband who has committed this great 

wrong upon her. Can we concei 'le of any instance except where she 

knows it to be for her personal interest not to punish the husband? We 

can readily conceive that in that distant Territory, among that pauperstricken population, as many of them are-for a Mormon is not ordinarily a wealthy man-the lawful wife is entirely dependent upon the 

personal exertions of the husband for her maintenance and support and 

for that of her legitimate offspring. If she is not, if she can mn.intain 

herself and feels her outrage, is she not likely, under the men.srue as 

we propose "to have it, to take the st..'"lnd voluntarily and testify against 

her husband? But, as I said before, if she is not willing to testify, can 

it be for any n~ason except that she feels that,· in addition to the wrong 

the husband has done to her by this wicked association, she herself is 

called upon to take the st..'lnd and by her testimony to become n. principal witness in maintaining the prosecution, for she is not the chief 

witness. They can maintain the prosecution otherwise without this 

proposed statute, and she is to be compelled, after the injury the husband has already perpetrated upon her, to give the very testimony 

which may turn her out of doors ~o starve. 

It is that feature alone which is before the Senate, and it is that point 

alone in the proposed statute to which I object. I do not feel called 

upon, as I think other Senators do, apparently, to disclaim that I have 

any sympn.thy with the Mormons. 1 t never occurred to me that it was 

necessary in my St..'"lte or anywhere else to guard against any supposed 

sympathy I nlight have with the Mormon Church or the Mormon principle. I want to see it destroyed; but it does seein to me, when there 

is nothing at issue so far as this section is concernP.d between the Senator from Vermont and those who object to tho first section except the 

question whether the wife in suffering a great injury shall be obliged 

by her own testimony to infiict still more, that he might concede that 

much to those who.would like to arrive at the purposes of this bill and 

yetnot be called upon thus to perpetrate an injury upon those unoffending and already long-suffering wives in the Territory of Utah. That is 

all there is about it. 

I think the Senator ought t.o be willing to modify his bill so far as 

that is concerned. · It is very palpable to everybody ihat he is entirely 

wrong in supposing there is a single legislative precedent on the face 

of the earth for what he purposes to do here. Not one at least has 

been a-dduced here. 

l\Ir. BROWN. Yesterday afternoon I called attention to sections 19 

and 20 of the bill, section 19 providing a penalty for adultery and the 

twentieth section for fornication, and I proposed an amendment in this 

language: 

This and the preceding section shall apply as well to S0-()3.lled Gentiles as to Mormons in the Territory of Utah. 

The Senator from Vermont made very light of the idea when I stated 

that it had been reported in newspapers that the judges in Utah had 

ruled that the phrase "unlawful cohabitation" in the Edmunds act was 

intended not to regulate the conduct of Gentiles or of persons other than 

those who contracted plural marriages, but for the purpose of breaking 

up :polygamy alone. The Senator said that any judge who had made 

such a ruling ought to be impeached,. and I agree with him; I think it 

wonld be a proper ground for impeachment. I only spoke then from 

newspaper statements that I had seen; I did not know whether they The lawful husband or wife of the person accused shall be a competent witness, were correct or not. 

and may be called and may be compelled to testify in such proceeding, exam- ..- · h t · littl dlr t th •ty th t " u sf and ination, or prosecution without the consent of the husband or wife, as the case -'-now WIS o g1ve a e more ec au on on a q e 10n, 

may be; but such witness shall not be permitted to testify as to any confidential I will give the name of the gentleman. I had a talk with the repre- ~tatement .or communication .made by~ither husband or wife to each other dur- sentative of Utah in the House of Representatives, Mr. CAINE, and he 

mg the enstence of the marnage relation. gave me this statement, with authority to st.ate in the Senate that it is 

How much of an exception is that? How much does this proposed . so and that he can establish it. I make the statement not as my own, 

statute lack of being one absolutely repealing the common law upon but because I think those people by their representative have a right 

this subject and making the husb:md and wife witnesses in precisely to bring any facts they choose before the Senate when we are deliberatthe same way that they would be if the marriage relation did not exist ing upon a question of this character. He states the case of a Gentile 

between them? Whatever the husband has told the wife of an offense whose name I can not now recollect, who was living in the Territory of 

of this kind she can not testify to. How much knowledge is a wife Utah, having a wife and that :wife having a sister living-with her, and 

likely to acquire from the voluntary communication o£ the husband in illicit intercourse sprang up between the husband and the sister of the 

referen.ce to a crime of this description? That is the only exception. wife; thesister-in-lawbecameamotherandshecomplainedofthewr~ng 

The statement of the communication made directly from one party to that had been done her by her brother-in-law and of the wrong which 

the other is the only exception. Everything else may be testified to. he had induced her to commit; she went before a United States comLet us see precisely what is the issue raised by the pending amend- missioner and swore out n. warrant against him, and the commissioner 

ment. The language of this section, if the amendment should be bound him over to appear at court or before the grand jury; application 

adopted, would still give the Government the control of the testimony was then made to Chief-Justice Zane for a writ of habeas corpus, and 

of the husband or the wife whenever either is willing to testify, and all the chief-justice granted the writ, and on the bearing discharged him, 

the. facts t.hat may be pertinent in the way of evidence for sustaining on the ground that the Edmunds act was not intended to regulate mat-
554 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. J.ANU.ARY 8, 

ters of that character, but applied only to polygamy or polygamous mar- riawes, or plurality of marriages, and so dismissed him on the writ of 

habeas corpus. I do not make this statement with any personal knowledge, but because I have been authorized by the representative of the 

Territory of Utah to state that such a case has occruTed there. 

Mr. ED IUNDS. I do not know anything about the instance, which 

of c.ourse should not affect our regulations of law, because as I say any 

judge who decides as has beenstn.tedought to be impeached; but knowing omething ofthecharacter and legal accomplishments of Judge Zane 

I 1eel safe in saying, without knowing anything about the case, that 

when the papers are got and we find what that case was, the Senator 

from Georgia will see that the statement of Mr. CAINE is entirely inapplicable to the case which was before that judge, and he will not find 

any such thing as'he states. 

Mr. BROWN. If I find that to be the case I shall retract the statement with very great pleasure, for I only stated it because the represenhtive of that Territory desired it to be ·so stated. 

Mr. EDl\fUNDS. The Senator ,from Georgia knows just as well as I do that where a man is brought up on a habeas corpus the sole question is whether the paper charges against him are those that al·e war- ranted by law. If, for instance, the charge against this ma~ before the 

commissioner was bastardy, of·course it would not come within the 

st...'liute of 1882. If the charge against him was fornication, it would 

not come within the statute of 1882; and, unhappily, there is no law 

in Utah which punishes that particular' crime-at least there is none so far as I have been able to find-though we ha>e got it into this bill 

that we propose to pass. Enough for that. . I wish to say a word in reply to my friend from New Hampshire [Mr. BLA m]. I think that be does not give quite weight enough to a broader 

consideration about what is meant by the term ''lawful hu.sband or lawful wife," as he ought. I will suppose the case of some of t~ose 

people out there who have ten wives, as they call them, and ten wives as tbey are commonly called in the sense of a prosecution for bigamy; 

that is, there have been ten formal and ceremonious marriages of some kind. The ninth or the tenth so-called wife is called on the stand to 

testily. She says, "I decline to testify to the fact that I have a.n es- tablishment, and this man is my husband, a:nd that he lives with me in the relation of husband and wife, because I am his wife.'' That is 

the endofit; youcannotexamineheranymore; awaysbegoes. Now, 

then, if you pass this proposed statute in this form, that the lawful 

wife shall be a competent witness except in relation to marital com- munications, then you have the whole range of the entire nine or ten, 

as the case may be, and no one can get off on the ground that she decL.·ues she is the wife of that man; so that the proposition is not sonar- row a one as the Senator from New Hampshire seemed to suppose. 

1r. BLAIR. Ca:n not the Senator obtain all he wishes to accomplish 

by saying that the lawful wife may testify as to the fact of marriage? 

Mr. EDMUNDS. No; that will not answer. . Mr. BLAIR. Give an illustration. 

Mr. EDlliTNDS. I will statetotheSenatorgladly and frankly why 

it will not answer if weare reallyin earnest aboutthis thing. I know we are growing more and more liberal about the marital relation. In one State in this Union the husband and wife may have by the law suits 

aml business relations with ea{!)l other and may be·competentwitnesses; 

in e>ery State in the Union I suppose husband and wife may have suits 

in equi.ty in regard to property and affairs which will produce just as much ill-feeling as if they were or were not witnesses in these cases, 

and whether they are ~r not will depend on the statutes of those States. 

If yon confine it solely to the fact of marriage yon have left out one important element in getting at the real truth in polygamy cases, as is 

known to anybody who is familiar with the state of society in Utah. 

The presiding elder or whoever he may ?e has thre~ wives, I will ~ay; 

I will take a moderate number. One IS located m Salt Lake C1ty, 

another is located in Ogden, and another at some other town, each with 

her house and children and a farm, and so on. It would be an important fact whichinvolves no marital confidence that ought to be considered mai~ital confidence, for the lawful wife, who I will say is the first 

and true one living at Salt Lake, in the chain of evidence in a prosecution for ~lygamy on account of the cohabitation of this man with 

thewm:ruin at Ogden, to be called to the witness stand to prove thatfor 

two weeks a:t a certain named time of the year the man was absent from 

her bouse and was out of the city of Salt Lake. That would support 

the testimony of witnesses which went to show that he was at Ogden 

and was living at that other house. That is one single illustration of 

many that might be made. I beg the Senator to believe that the Committee on the Judiciary was not sluggish or negligent or careless about 

the careful phraseology that we have used in order to get forward with 

the business that most of us wish to accomplish. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is upon the amendment 

of the Senator from Georgia (Mr. BROWN], on which the yeas andrui.ys 

have been ordered. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Let the amendment be reporred. The PRE !DING OFFICER. The amendment will be read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. In section 1, line 8, it is proposed to strike out 

the words ''and may be compelled;'' in the ninth line, to strike out the 

word "without" and insert "with," and in the tenth line, after the 

word '' be,'' to insert the words ''who is to be examined;'' so as to read: 

The lawful husband or wife of the person accused shall be a competent wit- ness, and may be called to testify in such proceeding, examination, or prosecu- tion with the consent of the husband or wife, as the case may be, who is to be examineil.; but such witness shall not be permitted to testify as to any confi- dential statement or communication made by either husband or wife to each other during the existence of the marriage relation. 

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. . Mr. BROWN (when his name was called). I am pn;ired with the 

honorable Senator from New Hampshire (l\Ir. PIKE]. I do not see him 

in the Chamber, and as I do not know how he would vote I withhold 

my vote. 

Jltfr. PLUMB (when his name was called). I ampaiTedon this question with the Sena.tor from Missouri (.Mr. VEST]. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I call the attention of the Senator from Kansas 

to the fact that my colleague [:Ur. VEST] informed me that be is paired 

with the Senator from New York [.Mr. MILLER]. 

Mr. PLUMB. My pair with him was a general one. He is paired 

specially on this question? 

.Mr. COCKRELL. So he told me a few moments ago, that he was compelled to be absent and was paired with the Senator from New 

York (1-.fr. MILLER]. If present, my colleague would vote ''yea'' on this amendment and the Senator from NewYorkwould vote ''nay." 

Jltir. PLID1B. A.t the request of the senior Senator from Delaware 

lMr. SAUI,SBURY] I announce my pair with the junior Senator from 

Delaware [Mr. GRAY]. 

The roll-call having been concluded, the result was announcedyeas 11, nays 42; as follows: 

Blackburn, 

Blair, 

Call, 

Allison, 

Beck, 

Berry, 

Cameron, 

Chace, 

Cockrell, 

Coke 

Co!q~itt, 

Conger, 

Cullom, 

Dawes, 

Eustis, 

Hampton, 

!organ, 

Dolph, 

Edmunds, 

Evarts, 

Frye, 

George, 

Gibson, 

Hale, 

Harris, 

Harrison, 

Hawley, 

Hoar, 

YEAS-11. 

Saulsbury, 

Stanford, 

Teller, 

NAYS-42. 

Vance, 

VanWyck. 

rngalls, Platt, 

.Jackson, Pugh, .Jones of Arkansas, Sabin, 

Logan, Sawyer, 

1\IcMillan, Sherman, 

?.!anderson, Spooner, 

Iaxey, Walthall, 1itchell of Oreg., Wilson of Iowa, 

l\Iitchellof Pa., Wilson of Md. Iorrill 

Payne,' 

ABSEl'.~-23. 

Aldrich, Gorman, l\Ial1one, Ransom, 

Riddleberger, 

Sewell, 

Bowen, Gray, Miller ofCal., 

Bwwn, .Jones of Florida, Miller ofN. Y., 

Butler, .Jones of Nevada, Palmer, 

Camden, Kenna, Pike, 

Fair, McPherson, Plumh, 

So the amendment was rejected. 

Vest, 

Voorhees. 

Mr. MDRGAN. There is a feature in section·12 of the bill that I 

should like very much to have a better understanding of than I have 

now. I do not think I understand exactly what is the legal effeet of 

section 12 if we enact it into a law, what its scope is, or what would 

result from it. Yesterday I caUed attention to some of the provisions 

of the statute of the Territory of Utah that this measure is intended to 

affect. Read in one way, the tweU"th section re-enacts a portion of the 

statute of Utah; read in another way, however, it may not do so; it 

may have just the reverse effect. I should like very much indeed to 

have a better understanding, a more clear understanding, of what we are doing than I am able to gather from my own reading of the twelfth 

section . .. We have in the bill fourteen trustees appointed, with a tenure of offico 

of two years and without salary, for the purpose; as I understand, of 

executing so much of that Territorial law as remains unrepealed. Ai3 

-t. what other duties those trustees may have to perform I am.not advised by the bill itself except as follows: 

And the trustees of said corporation shall annually or oftener make a full report to the Secretary of the Interior, embracing all the property, business af- fairs, and operations of the said corporation. 

That is a new duty imposed, by which this church government is con- nected directly with the Government of the United States, and as I 

suppose and as I insist as the result of the bill the intention must be to 

make the GoYemment of the United States responsible for the operations 

of that corporation, the Church of the Latter-day Saints. 

Another provision, commencing in line 12 of section 12, speaking of 

the fourteen trustees of the said corporation, is that theyShall have and exercise all the powers and functions of trustees an~ a istant trustees provided for in the laws creating, amending, or continuing the said corporation. 

That means, I suppose, the laws that are now in force; but when we 

come to determine what laws of that corporation are now in force, of course we must consult the preceding statutes of the United States. I 

wish to call the attention of the Senate to the act of 1862, which has 

not yet been read, and which the Senate may have omitted to notice. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I referred to it yesterday and stated what it vms. 

Mr. :MORGAN. I said it had not been read. I do not suppose the 
.1886. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 555 

Senator from Vermont undertook to make a. very complete statement of 

all that that act contained; I am satisfied that he did not; and I want 

to understand whether we are going to repeal that. act or not. I read 

the second section of the law of July 1, 1862: 

That the following ordinance of the provisional government of the State of 

Deseret, so called, namely: "An ordinance incorporating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latte r-day Saints," passed February 8 in the year 1851, and adopted, re-enacted, and made valid by the go'\""ernor and Legislative Assembly ofthe Ter- itory of Utah by an act p assed January 19, in the year 1855, entitled "An act in 

rellition to the compilation and revision of the laws and resolutions in force in Utah Territory, their publication and distribution.," and all other acts and parts 

of a cts heretofore passed by the said Legislative Assembly oLthe Territory of 

Utah which establish, support, maintain, shield, or cotmtenance polygamy, be, 

and the same hereby are, disapproved and annulled. 

In that act of Cong1·ess two classes of legislative enactment by the 

Territorial Legislature are distinctly included. The first is eo nomine 

tb,is particular corporation which is by that act annulled. The next 

class is "all other acts and parts of acts heretofore passed by the said 

Legislative A.ssem bly of the Terri tory of Utah which establish, support, 

maintain, shield, or countenance polygamy." Both of these descriptions of laws are annulled by the act of 1862. One is annulled by 

name, and the other is annulled by a. description of the characteristics 

of the law. 

I maintain that from the time ofthe enactment of that law down to 

the present time there has been no corporation under the act of the 

Utah Legislature as the Church of JeBus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

That corporation was abolished by the terms of the act of 1862, and 

there has been no act to renew it, and there will be no act to renew it 

until we enact the twelfth section of this bill. The Senate of the 

United States is to-day engaged in the re-enactment of that law which 

was repealed in 1862 by an act of Congress. 

There is a qualification, a. proviso in this act, and let us see whether 

that proviso restored or re-established anything of the legal organization of the Mormon Church. The proviso reads as follows: 

Pl'ovided, That this act shall be so limited and construed as not to n.ffect or interfere with the right of property legally acquired under the ordinance heretofore mentioned, nor with the right" to worship God according to the dictates 

of conscience," but only to annul all acts and laws whic4 establish, maintain, 

protect, or countenancethe.practice of polygamy, evasively called spiritual mar-. riage, however dis.,ouised by legal or ecclesiastical solemnities, sacraments, cere- monies, consecrations, or other contrivances. 

The reservation in that proviso is simpl~ that this church corporation shall hold its property, that the people there shall still have the 

unabridged right to wor~hip God according to the dictates of conscience; but it was the express and reavowed purpose of the enactment, 

as stated in this proviso, "to annul all acts and laws which establish, . 

maintain, protect,. or countenance the practice of polygamy, evasively 

called spiritual marriage, however disguised by legal or ecclesiastical 

solemnities, sacraments, ceremonies, consecrations, or other contrivances." Here, then, was a law which repealed the charter of that 

church absolutely and by name. The law then reserved to that church 

corporation the right to bold whatever legal estate they might have acquired, and the right to their members and followers to worship God 

according to the dictates of conscience; but that Territorial law and all 

other laws which in any form or shape or manner gave countenance to 

or support to or protection to the practice of polygamy were annulled. 

Now,·can it be argued in the face of that statute that it was a part o.f 

the intention of Congress in its enactment that the Church of Jesus 

Christ of Latter-day Saints should be maintained in its legal organiz::ttion if that church in any respect gave countenance to polygamy by 

any device or contrivance or evasion, for the statute uses these terms 

_ to show the breadth and intensity of its meaning? 

Congress had no such intention. Congress struck a blow at that chnch 

for the purpose of breaking up the legal organization then existing nn~ 

der the laws of Utah, which did protect and did countenance and did 

maintain polygamy by some evasion, by some pretense, in some form or 

under some circumstances. · 

Why are we legislating here to-day against the Mormon Church or the 

Mormon people? It is because they, under the form of an ecclesiastic..'tl 

organization, are systematically and in an organic manner maintaining 

polygamy as a social institution among the people of Utah. What 

other motive have we for the passage of this stringent law than the 

effort to detect and to break down and punish polygamy among the Mormon people, which they insist is an ordinance of God and can be administered as a sacrament of the church? 

Here, then, is this law of Congress that abrogates that act of incorporation. It seems to me that there is not· a lawyer in Christendom 

who can read this act of Congress and after that maintain tlmt the 

church in Utah has any legal organization of any kind whatsoever. In 

the very act of 1862, which I have read to the Senate, there was this 

careful undertaking on the part of the legislators then engaged in making it to protect the conscientious rights of religions worship and to 

preserve to the corporators such acquisitions ofpropertyas they might 

have already made. That is found pervading this bill, and particularly the twelfth section of it. Let the judges of the United States 

take the law of 1862 and apply it to this corporation, and let it be established to the satisfaction of a. court that this corporation is a mere shield and protection and cover for polygamy, and there can be no doubt that by giving effect to the statute the Mormon Church is gone. 

It was the purpose and intention of that la,w to wipe it out, but to 

leave it not as a legal organization, not sustained by the act of the Territorial Legislature of Utah, but to leave it merely as a social combination or organization of men whp might, if they chose, worship God according to the dictates of their conscience, it made no difference how 

bad their consciences might be. 

Who has repealed this act of 1862? Who has amended it? Who 

has ever made the attempt to restore any part of the Territorial law 

which it annulled until the twelfth section of this act was brought forward, which reads that those lawsSo far as the same may now ha-ve legal force and -val idit_r, are hereby disapproved and annulled, so far as the same may preclude the appointment by the 

United SLates of certain trustees of said corporation as is hereinafter provided. 

It then goes on further to provide forFourteen trustees of the said corporation, who shall have and exercise all the powers and functions of trustees and assistant trustees provided for in the laws 

creating, amending, or continuing the said corporation, which trustees so ap- pointed shall hold their respective offices for the term of two years. 

Ur. President, if we underst.and the purport of this bill, if I understand it at least, I can not read it in any other way than that its effect 

is, no matter what the purpose may be, to-reinstate an act ofthe Territorial Legislature pro tanto that was repealed in 1862 in express terms. 

When we say that the laws ''incorporating the Church of Jesus Ch.rist 

of Latter-day Saints, so far as the same may now have legal force and 

validity, are hereby dis..<tpproved and annulled so far as the same may 

preclude the appointment by the United States of certain trnsteeg of 

said corporation as is hereinafter provided," do we not say those laws, 

so far as they have any force, shall continue to be the rule for the guidance of the action of the trustees and the rule that shall measure their 

rights and responsibilities to the church. as to the Government; and are 

we not·compelled totake the attitude that these Ten'itoriallaws which 

the a-ct of 1862 completely overturned remain in force to-day for the 

protection of that :Mormon Church in the legal ownership of its property, and not only that, but in the right also which they claimed at 

that time and under that aet of regulating their social affairs by the 

decrees of the church? 

Now we interpose fourteen trustees here. I asked the Senate yesterday to consider, and I have asked the Senator from Vermont, and Irepeat to him the question, whatare these trustees to do? Are they to 

be mere dummies to hold the legal title to the land and personal property that is out there? If they are nothing but naked trustees to hold 

the title, why have fourteen of them? Why could not one man with 

his successors hold the legal title to ten millions of property as well as 

fourteen men can do it under the laws of the Territory ? 

If they are not mere naked trustees, if they have some functions and 

duties to perform and some powers to execute, let us underst.:'l.nd what 

are those functions and duties and let us understand something about • 

the extent of the powers they are to execute in the name .and on behalf 

of tl}e Government of the United States in the church government. Why 

was the number fourteen selected? Would there have been any breach 

of comity, any breach of justice and equity, if we had selected one trustee in place of fourteen, had driven the others out and put all the legal 

title of this property in his possession? Now, I ask the Senators on 

this side .of the Chamber, my colleague from Alabama, if he will give 

me his attention for a. moment-lam askingthe Senators on the Judiciary Committee, my colleague [Mr. PUGH], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. JACKSON]~ the Senator from Texas [1\Ir. CoKE], who is not 

in his place-I desire some of these honorable gentlemen to explain to 

me why they provide for fourteen trustees in this bill. I want them 

to inform me what these trustees are going to do after they get into this 

church g-overnment? I want them to inform me what rules and regulations we prescribe in respect of their conduct of the affairs of the Mormon Church? I want to know why it is necessary to have fourteen men 

in there in place of one or five? 

I want to know why this bill is silent as to their salary? I want to 

know iftb.is committee expect fourteen men to go to Utah, serve two 

yeam upon the delicate and disagreeable duty of managing the .Mormon 

Church without any compensation at al1? I want to know why this 

bill does not say that they shall have $3,000 a. year or $10,000 a year, or 

why it does not say tbn.t they are entitled to some compensation for 

this extraordinary service? Sir, if we were appointing a boarq. of trustees to take in charge th.e affairs of a Baptist general association, or an Episcopal diocese, or a Methodist general conference, I dare say we should commence by prescribing the precise fee they should have for 

theservice thatwe required ofthemin the managementofone of these 

great church establishments of the country. In that case we should 

set out by calling it a church, recognizing it as such, putting our trustees there in the place of the trustees selected by the congregations of 

the church, and when we did that! suppose weshonld be able toassign 

some duties -for them. We should know what it was expected they 

should do after they got there. This bill is as silent, as dnm.b as an 

oyster about things of tha.t kind; and the Senate of the United States 

is to enact this bill upon tbe trTI.st and confidence that the furore and 

uproar against 1t1ormonism in the country will justifY JIB in any laxity 

of proceeding that may be required to get it through. 

Sir, I h-ave a right to information ob. .these points. I do.not get it 

from the bill; it is not in the bill; it is not in the law itself; it is only in 
556 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. J .ANU.ARY 8, 

the bosom of the Committee on the Judiciary, only one of whom has as yet spoken upon this question. They are able and learned lawyers and 

understand the purport and effect of this bill as well as any men in the 

world can understand it. I put my question to them and I demand an answer in the name of the people. • Mr. ED IUNDS. You shall have it. 

Mr. MORGAN. I will have it. Now, Mr. P resident, take the District of Columbia, over which we have as much legislative power, I 

suppose will be conceded, as we have over Utah, for the Constitution 

of the United States is no more in force here than it is in the Territory of 

Utah· it applies JUSt as much in the one as in the other. There have 

been instan.ces in this town where the ·public institutions have been 

used as lecture-halls on the Christian Sabbath evening for the purpose 

of encouraging and promoting the exposition of doctrines which utterly 

upturn the whole Christian system and reach back to the denial of the 

divinity of Christ, the existence even of God, the existence of-::my state 

of future rewards and punishments upon which we place all the sanc- tion of the oath we administer in our courts. Able and talented and 

splendid men ha ve opened these public halls in the city of Washington 

ort Sabbath afternoons and evenings, and they h :1ve argued against the 

whole Christian system as one pernicious and full of clecepUon and evil 

and injury. 

I am not complaining that a public clamor has not been made about 

this. But suppose we should put a bill before this body to confi cate 

any building in the city of Washington in which such performa-nces 

attacking the whole body of Christianity were allowed, "to forfeit and 

esche..1.t the property to the Government because that institution was used for the time being for the purpose of upturning, overturning, and 

destroying the ground work and basis of all social organization and all 

Christian organization in this community. We would there strike at 

an effort to destroy Christianity aimed at the whole body of the institution. The blow we are striking here is at a system which claims to 

be Christian and recognizes the divinity of Christ-, recognizes the Old 

and New Testaments as being revelatiollll from on high, recognizes the 

Ten Commandments as being the fundamental basis of all moral 1a w; 

it recognizes the prophets of old and claims the fulfillment of the 

prophecies; butitgoes a step beyond, and claims that in the New Testament there is a promise of a new revelation, and that that new revela- tion was to be made to some person in a certain form, and that that 

revelation has been made and that it has been translated; that the 

Book of Mormon is a mere addition of one mote book to the Testaments of the Scriptnres, the Old and .theN ew Testament and the Book 

of Mormon comprising, as they insist, the whole body of ecclesiastical 

law and doctrine. 

In the promulgation of that they go" back, as they say, to one of the 

ancient practices which were tolerated in the Old Testament, polygamy; • and of course there is not a preacher at the sacred desk in the United 

States who can deny that polygamy was one of the institutions of the 

Jewish family during the time of Moses and afterward. Nobody can deny it. These men practice polygamy, and they do H, as they claim, 

under the sanction of a religious authority or privilege. They practice 

it. We come to Congress and we legislate against them, havingpower 

to legislate in-the Territories, because they violate one gf the precepts 

of Christianity, admitting the force and effect of all the rest. • Suppose, ·r repeat, we should have a bill brought in here for the purpose of con.fiscating the National Theater in the city of Washington because of a Sunday eveningithasbeen employedin theserviceofaman, 

it being hired to him, who did not stop where the 1\formons do, but 

who went to the extent of upturning and decrying and ridiculing and 

trying to prove to sensible meR that there i8 no foundation in Christianity, that it is a myth and a farce, and that all of our great institutions in these great Christian countries are founded upon fables and, 

worse, upon lies. Then I suppose the honorable Senator from Vermont 

would rise in his place and say, "Mr. President, this is a corporation 

that yon are attacking here, and I am afraid we can not quite get purchase enough on it unless we should introduce some trustees into.that 

act." It being an act of Congress, or an act granted by municipal 

authority under the sanction of Congress in the District of Columbia, we have a perfect right to interpolate trustees, and we put them in 

there; we put in, as the honorable Senator from Vermont said yesterday, seven or fourteen, in order that we may have a majority in the 

board. Why do you put them in there? Do you put them in there 

to carry on the purpose of the corporation, to continue it in the use of 

a man who gets up and preaches of a Sunday evening at4eism, or do you 

put them in there for the purpose of breaking down such a use as that of 

it? Do you put them in there for the purpose of continuing to open the 

doors of the National Theater so that an assault may be made upon 

Christianity in its stronghold by the strongest ·men in the world, or do 

you put them in there for the purpose of repressing any suc)l use as that 

of it? The honorable Senator from Vermont in a case of that sort 

would say, I suppose, "We put these trustees in here and give them 

the majority in order that they may xepress it, in order that they may 

break it down." I say in reply to that, 1\lr. President, if that is so, 

if our object is to break down the proper use of the authority or power 

ofaninstitutionorahouseintheDistrictofColumbia, why dowenotsay 

&o? Why do we not legiBlate it down? We find a ship out at seaapproaching our shore looking for a safe harbor .• We admit the flag that 

tloats over it. We say that is a vessel of some nationality that we are bound to receive, but-we desire that that ship shall never enter our shores 

at all, and in order to prevent it we willputacrewon board, who, pre· 

tending to sail it into port, will sail it on a sand-bar and wreck it. 

Is that what the Senator from Vermont is trying to do with the Mormon Church? Is he trying to put fourteen men in there, unsworn and 

without salary and reward, so that they may operate under the ·charter 

of that church, and, having the majority, they may succeed at last in 

wrecking it, or does he really wish to .preserve and perpetuate the 1\Iormon Church as a legal organization. in the country, and so appoint four· 

teen trustees to be put in tliere to help the president and the apostles 

and the bishops and the deacons and others of the ecclesiastical order 

in preserving and promulgating and propagating and continuing this 

.Mormon institution? Let us have the purpose. What is the purpose? 

Is it to destroy the church, or is it to maintain and regulate it? Sir, if 

it is to maintain and regulate it, I do not understand how the Congress 

of the United States bas got any more power to intrude thee trustees 

into it to maintain and regulate and conduct it than it would have to 

put trustees or a receiver over the National Theater to prevent it from 

being used for the purpose oflectnring against the divinity of God and 

the Saviour or for any other infidel purpose. Why have we not the 

right in the one caseifwehaveitin the othe.t? Whyis it our dutyin 

the one ca.se if it is not in the other? If a church was established unde.r a char-ter from Congress in this city to-day for the purpose of-propagating 

the doctrines that have been preached on these Sabbath evenings in the 

N a tiona! Theater, that church would be considered the enemy of every 

Christian clmrch in the world, and that act of incorporation would be .considered a blight upon the civilization of this age. There is nota Senator on this floor, and there n ever has been one, who in the face of the 

present enlightened Christian civilization would rise and offer a bill for 

the purpose of establishing a church in the city of Washington based n pon the doctrines p rea.cb eel by eminent men on Sunday evenings in this 

city. Eat suppose that such a thing existed, would anybody hesitate 

to 1·epeal that charter, to get rid of that evil? I think no one would. 

· Suppose there was a church here with a board of trustees to receive 

and hold property to co•er up and carry on and promulgate the doctrines 

to which I ha,·e just adverted, would anybody hesitate to destroy it by 

repealing the charter rathe than to work into it a board of trustees for 

the purpose of conducting it to carry out its original purposes, whatever 

they may ha>e been? 

The doctrines of the Mormon Church are no worse than those I have 

been referring to. They may be more mischievous in practice, they 

may invol'"e the personal immorality of men who are connected with 

the 1\formou Church, about which I have nothing to say; but taking 

the doctrines themsehes as being anti-Christian, taking the doctrines 

themselves as being in hostility to the great foundation-work of our Christian and social system, the doctrines of the Mormon Church are no worse than those that are preached regularly on Sabbath evenings 

in the Nationa,l"Theater in Washington city, not a particle-nothing 

like so dangerous, after all. · · 

We have here a law that repeals this charter, and I maintain that if 

this bill is to be understood by anybody as being an effort in connec- tion with the Mormon Chmch, it is to be considered as a bill for the 

maintenance of that church, for its future further conduct. It is a bill 

to improve the discipline' and the administration, and· by these means 

to impro'"e possibly the doctrine and the practice of the Mormons; and 

it seems to me it is not entitled to any other·designation. 

It was said yesterday when a similar question was put to the honorable Senator from Vermont that a bill of appropriation would fix the 

salary of these men, if any salary was to be fixed. Now, let us suppose 

what the salary will naturally be. Yon have commissioners out there 

who, I believe, get $5,000 a year. They perform legal functions in opposition to the existing government of Utah to a certain extent, and 

their duties are well defined by statute and are -not very dangerous and 

not very difficult. It is fair to suppose that neither of these new trustees 

would be content to receive less than $5,000. There are fourteen trustees, then, that we may well assume would claim that they were entitled 

to $5,000 a year apiece, and yet the bill makes no provision at all for 

them, makes no hint that they are entitled to anything whatever fc:>r 

their services. I suppose, then, the question about the operative force 

of this bill and its effect is to take place in a debate on an appropriation 

bill, and not on the measure itself. We pass this bill and the President signs it, and the question arises immediately, What are you going 

to give your fourteen trustees? Your bill gives them nothing at all. 

Then you will appeal to the Committee on Appropriations for an allowancenot fixed by law, something entirely new, and! can understand from 

the generosity of the honorable chairman of that committee and the Senate that he would not think about giving them less than $5,000 a year 

each. That would be a very expensive process, Mr. President, to pay 

for the mere holding of the legul title to the property of this church. 

You would expect these new Mugwamp:Mormons-forthatis about what 

theywould be-men who are .commissioned for the purpose of c:trrying on Mormonism under the name of Christianity-you would expect these new trustees to take some active part in the management of the business of the corporation, collecting its assets, paying out its money; rcr 
1886. CONGRESSIONAL RECORP-SENATE. 557 

ceiving its tithes, conferring with the brethren as t{) the best means of 

propagating Mormonism in this country and throughout the world. 

Ima!rine yourself in one of these conclaves, thirteen . Mormons and fourte~n Gentiles, so as to give the Gentiles the majority, and .the question comes up, "What shall we do with the Fejee Islands; we have got a mission there; we can certainly improve the condition of those people even by getting them to accept Mormonism? What shall we do with 

the people of the Free State of the Congo? They are all polygamists, 

exactly in a line with Mormonism, but they are Mohammedans, not 

Christians, as far as they have any religion at all; they are either Mohammedans or they are Pagans; what shall we do with them?" Says a Mormon brother, ''I propose to send out Brother Johnson or Brother 

Smith as a missionary to the Congo, and I propose to give him a salary 

of about $5,000 a year in order that he call maintain :qimself in respectability.'' Says one of the trustees appointed by ihe President and con- firmed by the Senate as members of the Mormon Church proper, the 

legal church, "No, brother, I object; that ics too much to pay for the con version of those negroes; they a:re half-way converted now; they are all polygamists, and you have got nothing to do now but take them 

off from Mohammed and tum them over to our Saviour, and they are fall Christians. It is . t{)O much to pay for that sort of service. 

You had better g1ve a man $5,000 to go into stubborn old Scotland or into Catholic Ireland ·or Episcopal England, and there, where he has 

got to work and .suffer, pay the man for his struggles and his efforts in 

converting those people to Mormonism." Says one of these trustees 

that we send over there, "But I object to all this; we have no right 

at all, as I understand it, to appropriate the money of this church to 

the extension ofit." "No rjght! Ah, well, read the charter, read the 

act of the Uta,h Legislature! What was thataci; intended for except to 

propagate Mormonism? :What are you here for except to assist in its 

execution? You are associated with these thirteen trnstees wh() were here before; your powers are the same that theirs are. Are you here 

for the purpose of breaking up and disturbing the church whose trustee 

you are, made so by law? Is that your purpose here? If so, you are 

a disgrace to humanity. If so, you ought to be expelled from this 

board. The Senate of the United States ought never to have confirmed a man under the pretense that he was coming here to execute this law, 

and the very first thing he does is to refuse to appropriate moJ?.ey that 

belongs to the church to Christianize Scotland and England and Ireland 

and bring them into the pale of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.'' That is what we are sending these men to do, or else we are puttingwolvesinsheep's clothing in the midst of t.he brethren. We 

are either sending these men there to execute Mormon law and to propagate Uorruon institutions or we are sending them there to break down 

:Mormon law and :Mormon institutions, one of the two. As I read this 

bill, it is- to propagate, it is to continue. · But, Mr. President, the bill in this respect has its foundation in a sen- timent! will admit of generosity or of forbearance, which is not justified 

by the state of the facts, for I return to the proposition I made yesterday, that under the Constitution of the United States the Territorial 

law organizing' this church in the first instance was a law for the purpose of propagating and covering up and protecting crime under the name of Christian civilization and the Christian church. It is amena- ble to that criticism; and when some court gets hold. of it that has the 

manhood to struggle with the question as it ought to do, it will be held 

that the very foundation of that church was inimical to thew hole sentiment of Christianity, not in this country. alone, but in every other 

country, and to that sentimentofChristianitywhich embodies itself in 

every law that we enact. But, sir, suppose that is not so; we ought at 

least to leave the question open, and we ought to leave it open so that some court can construe and pronounce upon the effect of the act of1862, 

which did repeal eo nomine the charter of that church, not to reinstate 

and restore it, as we are trying to do here to-day, as it seems to me by 

indirection, not try to hold it up in some shape and form under which we can interpolate er interject men there to destroy that church while we are pretending on the face of our law to put them there for the purpose of preserving in a certain sort the legal rights its leaders claim they 

are entitled to. I do not believe they are entitled to them; I believe 

the courts will hold they are not entitled to them, and for that reason 

I would propose this amendment In line 13 I would strike out these 

words: Provided for in the laws creating, amending, or continuing said corporation. 

And insert in place thereof: 

To ho1d and manage and 'dispose of the property of said corporation according to law. · · 

So that the sentence will read: 

The President of the .United States, by_and with the advice andconsentofthe 

Senate, shall appoint fourteen trustees of the said corporation, who shall have 

and exercise all the powers and functions of trustees and assistant trustees to hold and manage and dispose of the property of said corporation according to l:~.w. 

Then let the courts decide whether the act of 1862 has repealed that 

charter. If they so decide, these trustees have nothing to do but to 

hold the title subject to the confiscation provided for in the thirteenth . section of this bill. If they decidethat that act did not repeal the charter, then the purpose of this bill will be executed by these trustees going on and conducting the 1\Iormon Church in the name and behalf of 

Congress and the United States for the. benefit of the Latter-day Saints. 

I am not willing to put these words in this bill that these trustees 

''shall have and exercise all the powers and functions of trustees and 

assistant trustees provided for in the la.ws creating, amending, or con- tinuing the said corporation;" for that clause re-enacts those laws, at leastbyrec~gnition. Iprefertosaythat theyshallexecute such powers as are vested in them by law. and shall hold and dispose of this property in accordance with the law oftheland, and letthe com.:t say what 

the lawis. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore.· Will the Senator from Alabama send 

to the desk the amendment proposed by him? 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Let it be read. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo~·e. The amendment will be read. 

The SECRETARY. After the words "assistant trustees," in lfue 13 

of section 12, it is proposed to strike out the words: 

Provided for in the laws creating, amending, or continuing the said corpo- ration. 

And to insert in lieu: 

To hold and manage and dispose of the property of said corporation according to law. 

Mr. EDl\IUNDS. Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama said yesterday that he objected -to having this section stand in the bill, and 

now he objects to certain words in the section. I should ·expect from 

what he has said that he would object to having anything stand in the 

bill at all. But looked at fu a practical·point of view, the part of this 

bill that is disliked most by the first president of that political hierarchy, not in regard to doctrine or faith, but in regard to breaking up 

the political hierarchy and seeing that the moneys and goods contributed by Mormons for the advancement of their religion irrespective of 

the matter of marriage are administered according to law, and are not 

devoted to the uses of polygamy and to the bringing in by immigration of immigra;nts from every country of the world of the most ignorant description to keep up its numbers, is the one to which the Senator 

objects. · No doubt that official regards it as the most dangerous of any 

section in this bill, and therefore I am not surpris~d-no, I do not say 

that, Mr. President, because stating it in that form would imply a re .. 

flection on my friend, which I do not mean to make; but I will say 

that I should have expected that when it came down to the critical 

point of this political hierarchy undertaking to get out of t.he bill the 

thing that was most dangerous to it as such it would have attacked this 

twelfth section. 

My friend says· in defense of the faith of.these people that it is fortified by a great many precedents; that is, the polygamists' faith. I do 

that people injustice when I say "the faith of these people." It is not 

the faith of a quarter of the people who ca11 themselves Mormons who 

live in Utah now, according t{) my information, and therefore it would 

be unjust to say that it is the faith of these people. A large number 

of that people "!J~lieve that the polygamous revelation, so called, is utterly spurious and a fraud invented by Brigham Young, together with 

his assocmtes, to cover up his disposition to imitate the patriarchs and 

have a very considerable number of wives. I wish to have read on that 

point, although it is not very germane to this business question, but it 

is well to· go into the RECORD for the information of all the other people in the United States, thiS new revelation of 1852, or whatever the 

time, which is in the paper that I send to the Chair, word for word, on the subject of polygamy, and the argument against it, the protest 

against it of one of the most eminent .of the non-polygamists themselves, a clergyman of that church and who is now a clergyman of the 

Reformed Mormon Church, who believes this polygamous revelation to 

have been utterly spnrious and a fraud. I present it in order that 

anybody who reads the RECORD, which goes everywhere, may see exactly what this new revelation is. 

I do not know perhaps that I ought to ask that the time of the Senate be taken up by having it read. If there be no objection I ask that 

it be.Jlrinted ill connection with my remarks Without reading, although 

I know that is not a very good practice, because members might wllih 

to comment on it; but if there be unanimous consent to save the time 

of the Senate I will ask that. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont ~ks 

unanimous consent of the Senate to have printed in the RECORD as part of his remarks a paper that he has sent to the desk. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and that order will be made. 

The document is as follows: 

THE POLYGAMIC REVELATION. 

Revelatwn on the Eternit1J of t.he Marriage Covenant, including Pluralit.v of Wil'es; 

presented by Brigham Young to the Chu!'ch in Utah, At~gust 29, 1852. 

1. Verily, thus'saith the Lord unto yon, my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand, to know and. understand wherein I, the Lord, 

justified my servants Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; as also Moses, Da vid and 

Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and 4octrine of their having many wives and conC'Ilbincs: 

2. Behold I and lo, I am the Lord, thy God, and will answer thee as touching 

this matter: 3 .. Therefore, prepare thy heart to receh·e and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same; 4. For behold I I reveal unto you a new and everlasting COVCD4Dt; and if ye , 
558 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. JANUARY 8, 

abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this cove- nant, and be permitted to enter int{) my glory; 5. For all who will have a blessing at my hands, shall abide the law which was·appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world: 6. And a pertaining to t.he new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fullness of my glory; and he that receiveth a (ullne s thereof, must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God. 7. And verily I say unto you that. the conditions of this law awe these: All 

covenants, contract , bond , obllgatlons, oath , vows, performances, connec- tions, a sociations, or expectations, that are not made, and entered into, and sealed, by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for · time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and command- ment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to bold this power (and I have appoillted unto my servant .Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there i never but one on the earth at a time, on whom this power and the keys of this Priesthood are conferred), are of no effi- cacy, virtue or force, in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all con- tracts that are not made unto this end, have an end when men are dead. 8. Behold! mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion. 9. \Vill I accept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name! 10. Or will I receive at your hands thn..t which I have not appointed! 11. And will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except. it be by law, even ns I and my Father ordained unto you, before the world was! 12. I am the Lord thy God, and I give unto you this .commandment, that no man sha.Jl come unto the Father but by me, o:r by my word, which is niy law, saith the Lord. 13. And everythin~ that is in the world, whether it be· ordained of men, by 

thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me, or by my word, saitb the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saitb the Lord your God; · 14. For what oever things remain, are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me.sball be shaken artd destroyed. 15. Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and be marry her not by me, nor by my word; and he covenant with her solongasbeisin the world, and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world; . 16. Therefore, when they are out of the world, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are min- istering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory; · 17. Far these angels did not abide my law, therefore they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity, and from henceforth are not Gods, but are angels of God, for- ever and ever. 18. And again, verily I say unt{) you, if a man marry a wife, and make a cov- enant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me, or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, tb.rougb him whom I have annointed and appointed unto this power-then it is not valid, neither of force when they are out of the "world, because they are not joined by me, ith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world, it can not be received there, because the angels and the Gods are ap- pointed there, by whom they can not pass; they can not, therefore, inherit my glory, for my house is a house of order saUh the Lord God. 19. And a..,"'!l.in, verily! say un~yon,ifa manmarryawifebymyword, whieh is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is annointed, unto whom I have ap- pointed this power, and the keys of this Priesthood; and it shall be said unto them, ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection ; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions all heighlsanddepths-then shall it be writ- ten in the Lamb's Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my sen-ant hath put upon them, in tlme, and through all eternity, and shall be of full force when theyareont of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the Gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in an things, as bath been sealed upon their beads, whicbgloryshall be a fullness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. 20. Then shall they be Gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject tmto them. Then shall they be Gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. 21. Verily, verily I say unt<> you, except ye abide my law, ye can not attain. to this glory ; · . 2".3. For strait is the g:U.~, and narrowthewa.ythat leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world, neither do ye know me . 23. But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall re- ceive your exaltation, that where I am., ye shall be also. 24.. This is eternalli ves, to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom be hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law. · 25. Broad is the gate, and wide the ·way that leadeth to the deaths, and many there are that go in thereat; because they receive me not, neither do they abide in my law. 26. Verily, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed ~Y theo Hoiy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and be or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and ever- lasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder, wherein they shed innocent blood-yet theysballconie forfh in the first resurrection, n.nd enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and . ball be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saitb the Lord God. · 27. '.rhe blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall no:; be forgiven in the world, nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder, wherein ye shed in- nocent blood, an4 assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and ever- lasting covenant, saitb the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law, can in no wi ·e enter into my glory; but shall be damned, saith the Lord. 28. I am. the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the lawofmyHoly Priest- hood, as w. orda ined by me, and my Father before the world was. 29. Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, sn.ith the Lord, and hath entered into his exalta- tion, and silteth upon his throne. 30. Abraham receivedpromisesconcerninghisseedandofthefruitofhisloins- from whose loins ye are n!l.Dlely, my servant .Joseph-which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the worltl they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continueasinnumerable as the stars; or, ifye were to counttbesand upon the seashore, ye could not num.ber them. 31. This promise is yours, also, bemuse ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law are the continuation. of the works of my Father, wh~rei.ll he-glorifieth himself. 

32. Go, ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law, and ye shall be saved. . 33. But if ye enter not into my law ye can not receive the promise of my Father, which be made unto Abraham. 34. God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. .A..nd why dld she do it? llecause this was the law, and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. 

35. Was Abrobam, therefore, under condemnation? Verily, I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it. 36. Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertbele s, it was writ· ten, thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unt<> him for righteousness. irt. Abraham. received concubines, n.nd they bare him children, and it was ac.. counted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law, as Isaac also, and .Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels," but are Gods. 38. David also received many wives and concubines, as also Solomon and Moses my serv-ants; as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin, save in those things which they received not of me. 39. David' wives and concubines were given unto hi.m, of me, by the band of 

Nathan, my servant, and others of the Prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none ofthese things did he !rln against me, save in th~ case of Uriall and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and recei.:ved his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world; for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord. 40. I am the Lord thy God, and I gave unt<> thee, my servant .Joseph, an ap- pointment, and restore all things; ask: what ye will, and it shall be given unto you according to my" word: 4l. And as ye have asked concerning adultery-verily, verily I say unto you, if a man recei¥etb a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unt<> her by the holy anointing, sbe bath committed adultery, and shall be destroyed. · 42. If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery. 43. And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he bath broken his vow, and hath committed adultery. 44. And if she bas not committed adultery, but is innocent, and hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal -it unto you, my servant Joseph, then hall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to take her, and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery, but bath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many· .45. For I h!\ve conferred upoa you the keys and power of the Priesthood, wherein I re tore all things, and make known unto you all things in due time. 46. And verily, verily I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth, shall be sealed in heaven; and wbat.soever you bind on earth, in my name, and by my word, saith the Lord, it hall be eternally bound in the he.·wens; and whose- soever sjns you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosesoe.ver ins you retain on ear~h, shall be retained in heaven. 47. And again, verily I say, whomsoever you bless, I will bless, and whomso- ever you curse, I will curse, saith the "Lord; for I, the Lord, am thy God. 48. And again, verily! say unto yon., my servant .Jo eph, that whatsoever you give on earlh, and .to whomsoever you give any one on earth, by my word, and according to my l!iw, it. shall be visited with bles ings, and not cursings, and with my power, saith the Lord, and shall be without condemnation on earth, and in heaven; 49. For I am the Lord thy God, and will be with thee even unto the end of the world, and through all eternity; for verily, I seal upon you your exaltn.tion, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham yom· father. 

50. Behold, I have seen your sacrifices, and will forgive all your sins; I have seen your sacrifices, in obedience to that which I have told you; go, therefore, aud I make a way for your escape, as I accepted the offering of Abraham., of his son Isaac. , 51. Verily, I say unto yon, a ·commandplent I give unto mine handmaid Emma. Smith., your wife, whom I have given unto yon, that shestayherself,andparta.ke notofthatwbich I commanded you to offer unto her: for ldidit,saith the Lord, to prove you all,asididAbrabmn; and that I might require an offering at your band, by covenant and sacrifice: 52. And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant .Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were -pure, shall be destroyed, saith the· Lord God: · · 03. l<'or I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unt<> my servant .Joseph, that he shall be made ruler ov-er many thin~~ for be bath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengmen him. 54. And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant .Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this command- ment, she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am. the Lord thy God, and will 

destroy her, if she abide not in my law; . 55. But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all thin~s for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply 

him, and g1ve unto him an hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crownS of eter- nal lives in the eternal worlds. 56. And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant .Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasseshwberein she bas tres- passed against me; and L the Lord thy God, will bless cr, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice. 57. Andagain,Isay,letnotmyservant.Josepbputbispropertyoutofbishands, lest an enemy come and destroy him; for Satan seeketh"to destroy; for I am the Lord thy God. and be is my servant; and behold l and lo, I am with him, as I was with Abraham, thy father, even unto his exaltation and glory. · 58. Now, as touching the law of the Priesthood, there are many thing per- taining thereunto. 59. Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as wns A.a.ron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that sent me: :md I have e.ndowed him with the keys oftbe power of this Priesthood, if be do anything in my name, and according to my law, and by my word, he will not commitsin, and I will justify him. 60. Let no one, therefore, set on my servant .J osepb; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands, for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God. 6L. And again, as pertaining to the law of the Priesthood: If any man espou e a. virgin, and desire toe pouse another, and the first give her consent; and if be espou e the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified: he can not commit adultery, for they are given unto him; for he can not commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to .no OWl else ; 62. And if h e have t-en virgins given unt{) him by this law, he can not4Qmlllit 

adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him, therefore is be iustified. 63. But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man; she has committed adulteryJ and shall be destroyed ; for they are given unto him to multip4:y and replenish tne earth, according to my command· 
1886. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 559 

ment, and to fulfill the promisewhlch was given by my Father before the foundation of the world ; and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified. · &!. And again;verily,verily I say uutoyouJ.ifany man have a wife who holds 

t:he keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my Priesthood, as per- taining to these things, then shall she believe, and administer unto him, or she 

shall be destroyed, sajth the Lord your God, for I will destroy her; for I will 

magnify my name upon all those who 1-eceive and abide in my law. 65. Therefore, it sha.ll be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things, whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because 

she did not administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes 

the tr nsgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according 'to the law. when I commanded Abraham to take 

Hagar to wife. . 66. And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto yon, I will 

reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Be- hold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen. 

The foregoing document needs but to be read to be condeumed; but from a true Mormon standpoint it is especially sacrilegious; also false and corrupt, as wiJl appear from the following: · The fourth paragraph totally ignores the gospel, with its faith, repentance, 

baptism, godly walk and conversation as necessary to salvation· by stating: .. "I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that coven3.1lt, tllen are ye damaed; for no one can reject this covenant, and be 

permitted to enter into my glory; * * it was instituted for thefttllness of my glory; and lie tlill.t receivet.h a fu.llness·thereof,must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, sailh the Lord God." 

Tlle ·object of this revealment is clearly stated in th.e first paragraph, showing how tlfe Lord "justified" his "servants David and Solomon,,, •• touclling the 

prin ciple and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines." That is to say: If a man be so liberally constructed that he can satisfy the amorous demand of ' 'many wives (?jand concubine-s,"he is to receive as a reward therefor a glory which pM es him "by the angels and the gods," as provided in para- graph 19; while tlie poor fellow not so" li,berally constructed" has no hope of 

reaching such an exalted position, as he is incompetent to carry out the intent 

and genius of tlle scheme, as made and provided in paragraph 62, "ten virgins" 

proving entirely too much for him. 

And now for further contrast. I quote from a revelation in the Book of Doc- trine and Covenants, received February 16, 1832: . "And again, we bear record for we.saw and heard, and this is the testim6ny 

of the gospel of Christ, concerning them who come forth in the resurrection of 

the just: they are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on · his name, and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment whlch he bas given, 

that, by keeping the commandments, they might be washed and cleansed from 

all their sins, and receive the Holy SpiJ:it by the laying on of the hands of hiill 

who is ordained and sealed unto this power; and who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all 

those who are just and true; they are tlley who are the Church of the First 

Born; they are they into whose hands the Father has given all things; they are they who are priests and kings, who have recei"redofhis fullness and of his glory, , and m·e priests of the Most High after the order of 1\Ielchizedek., which was after 

the order of Enoch, which was after the order oJ the only begotten Son; wherefore as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God; wherefore all thlngs , are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs, 

and they are Chri t's, and Christ is God's; and they shall overcome all things; 

wherefore let no man glory in man, but rather let him glory in God, who shall 

subdue all enemies under his feet; these shall dwell in the presence of God and 

his Christ forever and ever; these are they whom he shall bring With him, w ben . he shall come in the clouds of heaven, to reign on the earth over his people; these are they who shall have part in the first resurrection; these are they who shall come forth in tbe resurrection of the just; these are they who are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest 

of all;· these are they who have come to an innumerable company of angels; to the general assembly and the Church of Enoch, and of tlle First Born; these are they whose names are written· in heaYen, where God and Christ are the judge 

of all; these are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the medi&tor 

of the new covenant, who_ wrought out thi~ perfect atonementc through the shedding of his own blood; these are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is 

that of the sun, even the glory of God the highest of all; whose glory the sun of 

the firmament is written of as being typicaL" 

And again, in a. revelation given December 27, 1832, paragraphs 1, 2: •• \Vherefore I now send upon you another Comforter, even upon you, my friends, that it may abide in your hearts, even the Holy Spirit of promise. * * * 

This Comforter is the promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the 

glory of the Celestial Kingdom; which glory is that of the Church of the First 

Born, even of God, the HOLIEST OF ALL, through Jesus Christ, his Son." Mormons <:].aim to indorse these revelations as of a divine character; therefore comment upon these quotations is unnecessary, as all who read may know 

that in this case, certainly, it is impossible to serve "two masters." But in or; der to discriminate beyond the possibility of a doubt betweenl\!ormonism proper and this blasphemous sheet called a revelation, I quote from a revelation re- ceived in March, 1831, paragraphs 2, 3: 

"Wherefore I say unto you, that I have sent unto you mine Everlasting Covenant, even t.batwhich was from the beginning, and that which I have promised I have so fulfilled, and the nations of the earth shall bow to it:" to wit," Believe on the name ofthe LordJesus, whowa.s on the earthan.d is to come, the begin- ning and the end; repent and be baptized in the name 'Of Jesus Christ, according to the holy commandment, for the remission of sins, and whoso doeth this 

shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. And again, !say unto you, that whos~ forbiddeth to marry, is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man; wherefore it is lawful that he should have ONE WIFE, and they twain 

shall be one tl.esh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its ere~ 

tion; and that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his crea- tion before i-he.world was made." In this we are taught that God had then revealed his" everlasting covenant " which was simply the gospel of Christ; and a part of that covenant was to pe~­ ple the earth through marriage ordained of God, in which man receives one wife, and only one, as that is stated as being in harmony with the law of his cre- ation "before the world was made." 

Again, in a revelation given February, 1831, paragraph 7, the church was .told: 

"Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and NONE else, and be that looketh upon a woman (other than his wife) to lust after 

~h~t:~~nJu:j~ faith, a~d shall not have the spirit; and if he repents not, he 

And in paragraph 5, the church was commanded thus: 

"The Elders, Priests, a!ld Tea~hers, of this Chirrch shall teac~ the principles 

of my gospel, wh1eh are m the B1ble and the Book of Mormon, m which is the 

fullnes.'! of the gospel." Now it certainly is obvious that whatever contained a fullness was complete and to attempt to add to a fullnells would be considered supererog:tont and futile·' and 

fL!1 the Book: of Mo_rJ?l-onis said to<;ontain that -" fullness," and theoffi{!Crs by spe- Cial revelat10n eDJomed to teach 1t; therefore I quote it as law to the Mormon 

Church, for it was and is the thesis upon which the whole supen>tructure restB: and if it be disregarded, or abrogated as l{J.w, then the church as organized upon it as the new revelation, must necessarily cease to exist. At page ll6, Eu- ropean edition, please read: 

"For behold, thu saith the Lord, this people begin to wax in iniquity; they 

understand not the Scriptures; for they seek to excuse themselves in committing 

wboredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David and 

Solomon his son. Behold David and Solom.on truly had Dli\DY wi"res and con- cubines, which thing was abominable before me, sa.ith the Lord; wherefore, thus 

saith the Lord, I have led thj.s people forth out of the land of Jerusalem., by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the 

frui.i of the loins of Joseph. Wherefore, 1, the Lord God, will not suffertha.tthis 

people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my bl!ethren, bear me and 

hearken to the word of the Lord : For there shall not any man among you have save it be ONE WIFE, and concubines be shall have none; for I the Lord God delighteth in the chastity of woman." · This should forever settle the question. and fully satisfy all people that po- lygamy is no part of Mormonism; and indeed cannot be. No more so than it is a part of Methodism, or Presbyterianism, or still more properly speaking, that 

because forsooth they affirm the Bible as divine, they do not necessarily affirm 

the history which tells of the practices of David and Solomon as examples for us to imitate. 

And further; this pretended revelation claims to have been received July 12, 1843. Now whether it was, or wasnot,itisnotmyintention·bere to discuss; but to silence the tongue of every Mormon who claims for it divinity, and especially 

those who were living at that date, and thus claim it is only necessary to quote in proof the preamble and marriage contract, used and indor ed by the church as early as 1835, and republished under the regimeofBrigha.m Young, one year after Smith's death at Nauvoo, IlL, in 1845, and sent out as an indemnification 

and safegua,rd against the crime of polygamy to all who should unite with the 

church, and indeedtheonlymarriageeovenant used by that faction ofthe church 

under Brigham Young etnl. until the year 1852, which is as follow : "Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crimes e>f fornication and polygamy: we declare that we believe that one man should 

have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of deatll, when 

eit-her is at liberty to marry a.,crai:n." CoNTRACT: "You both MUTUALLY agree to be each other's compai:J.ion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is. keeping yourselves wholly for each other, an.d from all others, during your lives." · And when the parties have assented to this contract, they are pronounced 

"husband and wife." I appeal to the world in support and vindication of the claim that polygamy 

is not and can not be made a part of Mormonism proper; that they are separately 

and distinctly apart, being directly in opposition to each other. Tlle practice of 

polygamy in Utah is a blotch upon the escutcheon of human progress; and f\ 

crime under the law, both divine and human; the continuation or suppn>s.<>iou 

of that practice, and the responsibility there9f, must rest with the United States 

Government. Will they allow it to continue? If so, then in the name of ju tiee 

and humanity I ask that tlle thousands and thousands of good citizens, loyal to this Government, who at'e Mormons, but anti-polygamists, be relieved from the 

odium now cast upon them because of the evil practices of tho e who adhere to polygamy as a. part of their fa.itll and are d~nominated Mormons. Having been born and raised in the 1\Iormon'Church, and knowing whereof I speak, and being a representative of the Reorganized Church of Christ of Latter- day Saints, who are anti-polygamists, I ask: for them that the line of dem rca- tion be fully drawn, and they ful1y relieved from the curse and stench of polyg- amy, for the Book of Mormon, from which the'word Mormonism is derived, 

declares it to be an " abomination." · Z. H. GURLEY. PLEASAJ!'i"TON, lOW A, -8th Jan., 1882. * Io~nted at· the ~rue Latter-day Saints' Herald Office, Lamoni, Decatur County, 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Now, Mr. President, I wish to speak to the pOint 

of this twelfth section. My distino<YUished_ friend from Alabama says 

that it revives and continues a corporation that had been abolished by 

the act of 1862. Yesterday he spoke of this corporation as being con- tinued and existing by authority of the Legislature of Utah, u.nd he 

wished to abolish the whole corporation, and moved an amendment 

which got a much larger support than I should have expected it to get 

if SenatorS voting for it understood the situation as well as the mem- bers on the Judiciary Committee think they do. · 

Mr. MORGAN. The Senator will allow me. I did say that on the 

assumption that the Committee on the Judiciary, in the language of 

the twelfth section, as I understand it, assumed that the corporation was in existence. 

:Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes, but the Senator forgot to say that ·he did it 

on that assumption. 

Mr. MORGAN. It was not necessary to say it then. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. The Committee on the Judiciary explored this 

subject and they saw that some eminent and ingenious man might suggest that the act of 1862 had really got rid of this corporation, notwithstanding the fact that for twenty-four years since that time it has continued to exist and has been recognized, and so they carefully put into 

this twelfth section the provision: -

That the acts of the Legislative Aee1nbly of Utah incorporating, continuin"" or providing for the corporation known as the Church of J esns Christ of Lattc';: 

day Saints, and the ordinance of the so-called General Assembly of the State of Deseret incorporating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so fur as the same may now have legal force and validity, are hereby disapproved and 

annulled, so fa r as the same may preclude the appointment by the United 

States of certain trustees of said corporation as is "hereinafter provided. 

Mr. MORGAN. Now, will the honorable Senator object if I ask him 

to define what is meant by that phrase '' so far as the same may now have legal effect?'' . :Mr. EDMUNDS. I would haY"e stated that. if the Senator had waited. 

Mr. l\IORGAN. I beg pardon for interfering, then. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. It was for the purpose of obviating any criticism or 

doubt or difficulty that might exist in the minds of Senators in reg;ard 

to our putting an affirmative seal upon the present existence of that 

corporation, growing out of the possibility of an ingenious argument 

such as my frie ha.s made in support of the suggestion that the cor-
560 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JANUARY 8, 

poration had been abolished by the act of 1862. That ·is to say, Congress, in passing this section, does not admit or affirm or concede that any 

law now in force recognizes that corporation, but it takes it as it finds 

it, either a corporation existing by force of law or a. concern e::cisting de 

faeto, as it has existed for twenty-five years since that time. It deals 

with the situation as it is, and does not leave it open to the splittibg of 

hairs on the question of:whethex: the a-ct of 1862 repealed it or not. 

Mr. MORGAN. Let me interrupt the Senator, as I am asking for 

information. Is it the opinion of the distinguished chairman of he 

Committee on the .Judiciary and ofthecommittee that that church is a de jure legal establishment, or is it a de facto institution? 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not know whether the Committee on the J u- diciary has any opinion on that point or not. It took careful pains to 

provide that whatever we did now should not prejudice that question 

eitherway. . Mr. MORGAN. You put in trustees for the execution ef the laws 

creating it. . Mr. EDMUNDS. I beg your pardon. We only put in the trustees 

to execute such laws as may exist; but we put them into that concern and we gi~e them the majority control of the ·money and assets and 

property of that concern, which is t~tally separate from the church part 

of it. These trustees have nothing to do with church government or discipline; they have no control over or influence upon any t>art of the 

faith or doctrine of the church, and we do that upon the universally 

recognized principle that we would not undertake to interfere with anybody's faith or doctrine or worship. We take hold of that single sec- tion of the act of the State of Deseret, as it called itself, and the Territorial Assembly of Utah, which rela~ purely to business and temporal 

affairs. No one of these trustees and assistant trustees now under that 

law, supposing it to be in force, has the slightest control o'r influence over. any part of the operations of the church as a church as to matters 

of doctrine and discipline and worship as it is understood among men. Mr. MORGAN. How about sending money to convert the negroes? 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I shall come to that in a IQ.inute if you have patienc.e, as I trust you have. 

Mr. MORGAN. I beg pard<}n of the Senator. I thought the Senator had forgotten it. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I have not forgotten, a good deal that I have yet 

to say. I hope not to trespass on the time of the Senate. ·Mr. MORGAN. I should be much obliged to the Senator if he would, 

after all, give the Senate the benefit of his opinion whether that chUFCh 

is a legal organization there now, or is merely a de facto organization. 

Mr. EDMUNDS . . I am perfectly willing to give the Senator the benefit of my opinion, but I ·am not authorized to give the opinion of the 

Committee on the Judiciary, because we did not take any formal vote on that questidb. We thought it quite unnecessary in view of the care- ful language we inserted, which did not commit us to any conclusion on that proposition, but I am quite willing to give my opinion, and I 

shoUld be pretty safe in saying that it was the opinion of all the other 

gentlemen who then composed the committee and now compose the 

committee, as far as they have examined it, and that is, that it is perfectly plain, with great respect to my friend from Alabama1 that this 

act of 1862, like a great many other acts of Congress, set out with the 

proposition he set out with yesterday, and that was to abolish the _cor- poration entirely, and to leave the anti-polygamous Mormons destroyed 

in their cliur&h organization and in all their corporate means of carrying on their faith, doctrine, and worship, and ta.kingCa.re of. their church, as well as the polygamous Mormons. That was the outset of the proposition, and so it starts off bravely and fairly to do that; but Congress 

in one House as the other-I have not looked up the history of the leg-

:islation, but from our experience we can see how it would havehappened 

naturally-Congress on a little reflection began to see that that was violating a principlewhich it would not be safe orwise or right toviolate, 

and accordingly in one House or the other there was pnt in a proviso 

(which used to be in those days the favorite way of making a bill very 

much limited from what it was in the beginning) which decla.red that 

the only force and effect of this act should be that it should be so limited 

and "construed as not to affect or interfere with the right of property 

legally ~quired under the ordinance heretofore mentioned, nor with 

the right 'to worship God according to the dictaotes of conscience' "- quoted out of the act of incorporation "bnt only "-and here you get 

all there is in the act in point of law, in my opinion-" but only"-

the strongest possible word-:-" butonlytoannulallactsandlawswhich 

establish, maintain, protect,· or countenance the practice of polygamy" 

evasively called spiritual marriage," &c. 

Then in order to go further and to stop this political accumulation of 

property for the purpo es of this political hierarchy it adds another 

section: 

Thnt it shall not he lawful for :my corporation or o.ssociat.ion for relig-ious or charitable purposes to acquire or hold real estate in any Territory of the United 

States during the existence of the Territorial government of a greater value th~ $.)0,000 under the name or pretense of any religious corporation. 

An~ then they added a proviso that it should not interfere with the 

amount of property then acquired. 

So, then, when you take t~ proviso, which is all that there is.in the 

act, which declares that it shall only be construed as o~rating upon the 

subject of marri~, and the succeeding provision that everything above 

$50,000 shall be forfeited and escheated to the United States; but that 

it shall not touch property already acquired, but shall touch anything more that they get, it is perf~ly plain to my mind that the Congress 

of the United States did not interfere or intend to interfere with the ex- istence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a religious 

corporation for pnrposes of worship and doctrine, and that it intended 

to strike at what ~x.ists in the third section of this charter, which I will 

not take time to read over again, it has been referred to so often, which 

did provide among the powers of the church that they should have 

power to regulate and really to make laws concerning marriage, so that 

they could provide that a man musthave fifty wives or whatever other 

number they saw fit. That it did abolish, and it did not intend to do 

anything more, on this second thought, which took this act, intended in 

its first section to be so very sweeping and exterminating, and brought 

it down to what it is; that the only thing meant was to get riel of the 

right to regulate marriages in this church, and to limit the accumulation of its property to $50,000, except-what it had already got. That 

is the way it stands. 

But however that may be, the Commit ee on the Judiciary determined not to leave anybody the right to go into a critical disquisition 

and discussion over the question of whether this act of 1862 abolished 

the whole church or not, by providing that we only look at the law as it now stood, that we knew and acted upon nothing and recognized 

nothing that had not now the fore~ of law. 

Now we come to the object of p_utting these trustees in. I repeat, 

Mr. President, so that it shall nQt be misunderstood, that by the sec- ond section of the Utah act incorporating this church the trustrees are provided for. They have no powers touching the government, management, or operation of the church at all. They refer only and_have re- lation only to the temporal business of that church and its property. 

They are given no authority to do anything or to say anything con- -cerning the faith, worship, or doctrine of that church. Therefore when we interfere with that section regarding trustees, we do not int-erfere 

with anything that relates to anybody's religious belief of any kind, 

be it good or bad; but we do interfere so far as to have somebody who 

shall see that the moneys of that church are devoted to legal and lawful objects and not to illegal and unlawful objects. We do have a ma- jority in that board of trustees, who shall report to the Government 

of the United Sta~ the condition of its business affairs, report to the 

people of the United States what~uses its money is applied to, and to 

resist and prevent its applicition to the propagation of polygamy, and 

seethat it is devoted to the application that it may be rightly devoted 

to, and that is to provide for charity to the poor through the church 

and for the keeping up of their churches and places ofworship, and so on. 

Then, besides that, without these trustees to get into and get hold of 

the condition of this property, of what value would be the prpvisi.on 

forfeiting all that they have acquired contrary to law? If yeu left it 

to the evidence of the trustees in possession, with no means of getting access to their books or papers or to understand what is going on, how 

much progress would the United States make in forfeiting what is above 

the $50,000, or the property tbey·ha-d at the time of the passage of the 

a-ct of 1862? That, as I said before, is just where the rob comes. It 

is because this section, keeping entirely clear of interfering with faith or doctrine or the church as a church, takes hold of its temporal affairs, 

it.s emigration affairs, its polygamous affairs, and sees to it that the 

money is not devoted to illegal uses, and sees to it that it is devoted 

only to those that belong to the proper administration of a religous 

society, and sees to it that a true report is made to the Government of 

the United States in regard to its business operations, so that all that 

it holds in excess of law for these purposes may be devoted to other uses~ . Therefore I repeat that the section most obnoxious to that political 

hierarchy which governs and manageS and controls the administration 

of these enormous assets is this very twelfth section, not because it inteneres with faith, for it does not; not because these trustees have the 

slightest power to inftuence the action or go.vern the conduct of the 

church as a church, bnt because out of the church and in the world of 

affairs it opens it to the daylight and keeps it within the law. 

Mr. TELLER. I wish to inquire of the Senator from Vermont what 

be understands the assets or profits of this church organization to be 

used for? For what purpose do they pay out this money, liS he understands? 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I understand that they pay out part of it for the 

ordinary operations of any religious society, that they pay out another 

and a larger part of it for the encouragement of immigration, for the 

defel)Se of persons accused of polygamy, ·and so on. Mr. TELLER. I should like to ask one question more: If the Senator underst:wds they are paying any money in violation of law, in 

violation of the provisions of the charter? 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Y~; I believe t~ey are. Mr. TELLER. For what particular purpose? 

Mr .. EDMUNDS. For the purpose of promoting polygamy. and encouraging immigration for the mere object of getting polygamous subjects for the ~ust-of these vagabonds. 

Mr. TELI£R. I understand, then, that the honorable Senator takes 
1886. ·CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 561 

the position that all the money that they pay out for the emigration 

fund is illegal, and conseqnentlythatitwill be the.dutyofthetrustees, no matter what may be the provisions of the charter which specially 

provides for their business, to violate those provisions. 

1\fr. EDMUNDS. The charter does not provide for any such thing. 

It says '' welfare of the church.'' · 1\Ir. TELLER Under that they have a pretty broad discretion. 

1\fr. ED~illNDS. "Welfare of the church, " as I understand, is to 

promote virtue and not polygamy. 

Mr. MAXEY. Mr. President, I shall vote for the bill under considemtion, first, because I believe that it is constitutional in its provisions; second, because I believe it is expedient to pass it. I hold that 

the Territorial government of Utah wa.s organized under that clause of 

the Constitution which declares that "Congress shall have power to 

dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the 

territory or other property belonging to the United Sta-tes." So be· 

lieving, the Territ{)rial Legislature of Utah having been created by Congressional act, Congress has the power to repeal the act creating the 

Territorial Government if it deems it expedient so to do. It has the ·power to modify any legislation, or repeal, abrogate, and hold for 

naught any legislation of that Territorial Legislature. In short, the 

power of Congress over the question oflegislation in this District of Columbia and in the Territories under the control of the United States is as broad as the power of a State Legislature in respect to the local and 

domestic affairs within the territorial jurisdiction of the State. Hence· I have no question that if Congress believ-es that the system ofpolygamyrecognized in Utah is subversive of public morals, is injurious to the 

well-being of society there; if it is calculated to bring reproach on this 

Government which has tolerated it; if it is in violation of the universally recognized principles of society as understood by the whole people 

of the United States, whether Catholic or Protestant or infidel, that 

the exercise of polygamy is io-jurious to public health and public mor- als, Congress has a right to so declare, and enforce tha't declaration by 

appropriate legislation. 

That polygamy pollutes morals, brings reproach on this Government, 

shocks the moral sense of the people, and is injurious to the health of 

those who practice it, and transmits its evil effects to the children of 

polygamous so-called marriages, is, I think, admitted to- be true. Its corr~ction is within the scope of the inherent police powers of this 

Government coex-tensive with its jurisdiction over the Tenitories-:-precisely as by a like exercise of their police powers every State in the 

Uni9n makes bigamy a· crime within their respective jurisdictions. 

Furthermore I would say that Congress, as respects the district of 

Columbia and the Territories, would have the constitutional power to 

declare by statute and enforce by appropriate penalties the doctrine "Bni-

-versally recognized by every State in the Union that no man should 

have more than one wife or one woman more than one husband living 

at one and the &>me time. On the question of power, therefore, I ha-re no doubt. On the question of expediency there can be, I think, as little doubt. 

We brought our family institutions from our mother country) Great 

Britain, a country which recognized monogamy. As far back as I have 

looked into the history of Great Britain on this subject, as far back as tl1e days of Julius Cresar, the doctrine of polygamy has never been recognized, but it hasalwaysbeenheld that a manshould have butonewife 

living at one time. 'Ve thought so when we came here, and the mar- ital laws of every State in this Union, the doctrine of inheritance and 

distribution, are all based upon that. 

Now, I would ask if it be true that this legislation ceo. be opposed on the theory that it is a violation of the religious faith of these people? 

In my State, in your own State (Mr. SHERMAN in the chair), where 

they have laws against polygamy, as all our States have, were a man indicted·forbigamy, and were he to go into court and plead in response 

to that indictment that according to his religious faith he had a right 

to have two wives, or three, or four, or a dozen, if he wished, would that 

be any v-alid defense? How long would it take a court to overrule and 

set aside that plea? If, then, it is notMod in a State, if it is not good as a plea in one place, w·hy should it o~ in another; and have we not 

the same legislative control over the question as the States have within 

their jurisdiction? Should any portion of this country under the immediate control of Congress be allowed to have a system which is not 

toleJ1l.ted by any State of the .American Union? 

And, again, if the Territory of Utah were to apply to be admitted a.s a State-because she is now in a condition of Territorial pupilagewould anybody say that we should not have a right to.refuse to allow 

her to come in as a State ·of this Union because she reco-gnized polygamy.? .And if the just. end of Territorial pupilage is, in due time and 

proper preparation, t,o bring the inhabitants into this Union under a constitution republican in form, is it not our duty to prepare (hem 

properly for this great destiny? 

The Constitution declares that "Congress shall make no In.w re- . specting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 

thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.'' Upon the 

last two inhibitions-freedom of speech and of the press-we have had 

adjudication after adjudication by all the comts of the-country. No 

XVII-36 

law shall be passed "abridging the freedom of speech," and yet we )lave slander laws in every State of this Union declared to be -valid. 

Why? .Are they passed to abridge tlte use of the freedom of speech? 

Not a.t all. They are to strike at the abuse, and thereby to preserve the use. .And so we have libel laws punishing the abuse of the freedom 

of the press. It is not to prevent the free use of the press, but it is to 

prevent the licentious misuse of the press. If that be true of the two 

great rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, equally is 

it true of the clause saying that Congress shall riot make any law re- specting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise 

thereof. It is tht? use and not the abuse of the right that is secured. 

We must not forget that every State which he~ed to make the Constitution of the United States recognized monogamy-one husband and one wife-and, so far as I know, bigamywas a crime everywhere; and 

the Constitution of the United States was made by those States, and 

must be construed in the light of the universally recognized marital 

relation at the time of its adoption existing in all the States. 

Why, Mr. President, suppose that you should have here a so-called 

church which would make it apart ofits avowed faith and ofitspractice that female infants should be mutilated in their feet, as in China, 

would you not say that we h~J,ve power to prevent that, not to interfere "with religious faith, but because such practice would be injurious to so- ciety? It cripples uselessly a portion of the people, and the cor.rection 

of the practice is within the police powers of the Government. I put 

my support of the bill upon the ground that polygamy is a~inst public 

morals. The practice of polygamy is an abuse of religion and not a use of it. It is covering licentious practices under the pretended cloak of a u.Se of religion. The clause that Congress shall not make any law re- specting the establishment of religion or proJ:libiting the free exercise 

thereof is not in the slightest degree interfered with by this bill. I 

believ-e as much as the man did who first promulgated the doctrine of 

this great claus~ of our Constitution two hundred and fifty years ago, 

Roger Williams, that the law has no power wnatever to interfere with 

the conscience of the individual; that that is a matter between him and 

his God. That idea of his was finally incorporated in this Constitution 

of ours; but this bill does not interfere with that. It does not interfere 

with it in any way whatever. It says, "Believew hat you please, but do 

not follow practices inimical to the well-being of society.'' I will say for 

the Committee on the Judiciary that theyhavewith remarkable skill, 

in my judgment, drawn the distinction between religiotis freedom and 

the abuse of the universally recognized principles and policy of this 

country and of n:torals under the pretense of r~ligion, and have simply 

in the bill before us asked that the police powers of the Government be 

called into exercise for a wise purpose. 

Ihavethoughtproper, as I shall supportthisbill, toputwhat I think 

about it, in the broadest terms, upon the record . . Mr. CALL. Mr. President, it has been asserted very often that therQ was a difference between this legislation and a law respecting religion, 

that this bill is not amenable to objection because it legislat-es upon the 

political relations of Mormonism. Suppose we concede that this is an organization in favor of polygamy for the purp<>se of teaching it and 

defending it, how much do we advance the argument? What power is 

given to Congress over it? The Senator from Texas seems to think 

that because Utah is a Territory Congress is emancipated from all the 

limitations of the Constitution. . Mr. MAXEY. I beg the Senator's· pardon. I took no such position. I simply spoke of our power over the Territories. 

Mr. CALL. What does the Constitution say? 

Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech or of 

the press. 

The Senator from Texas cited the law of libel. Is it to be held that 

Congress may prohibit the promulgation of opinions upon the subject 

of government or religion, whether they are true or false? Did any one ever hear that thought was to I:>e abridged and the expression of 

it? Does not that mean free speech?. Does it not mean a free press? 

And if they do teach polygamy have they not their legal warrant for 

it in the guarantee of freedom of speech, and is it not the principle of our GO-vernment that we are sustained by free speech and free thought as the foundation and support of our liberties and all our civil institutions? .Are we to be told here t{)·day that this bill is right because it 

makes war upon opinion, political opinion, political teaching, the freedom of speeeh, and the freedom of the press? 'Vhy, sir, the argument 

is not advanced to any just conclusion by this proposition. 

The Mormons have a right by the very charter by which we defend 

the Christian religion which for many centuries was forbidden to be 

defended except in the orthodox way. It was heresy to differ in opinion from the established creed of the government, and we owe our foundation as a government and as a people to the freedom of speech, the 

freedom of religious and political opinion, whether it be for monarchy or whether it be to promulgate false philos·ophies in regard to society. 

We rely upon the omnipotence of free thought aud free speech and a free press jor our protection and for the success of correct ideas. 

We are departingfrom that in this bill, and theSenatorfrom Vermont 

tells us that this js right bec.ause we are dealing with a political hierarchy. Let us concede that it is a political hierarchy, that it ~chea 
562 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE.· JANUARY 8, 

false, despotic, and immoral doctrines. They have a right to teach them 

and we have a right to confut.e them by free speech and free thought. 

That is the Constitution and the fundamental principle of our Government. Nobody ever questioned this before; and the idea that because we pass laws of libel therefore we may abridge the freedom of speech, 

of thought, of expression, and · provide that men shall only think and 

talk in support of our ideas of what we proclaim to be right ca.n not be 

defended. 

Why, sir, it seems to me strange that this bill should be defended 

upon that ground. This Mormon Church or society have as much right 

to waclt their ideas as the distinguished orator who assails the Christian 

religion has to teach hi~ and he has a.s much legal right to proclaim 

his ideas and to have au association to support and disseminate them as we have a legal political right to associate for the maintepance of 

what we believe to be the divine faith of Christ, and that is the lesson 

of the Gospel and the lesson of the Christian religion. It is by moral 

power that the religion of Christ has overcome polygamy in other coun- tries and other times, and it will be by its moral power that polygamy 

in Utah will be overcome. Whether it be a political or a religious 

hierarchy does not affect the argument. The prohibitions of.the Constitution remain the same. 

I insist, sir, that this argument to take possession of this Mormon 

Church, to confiscate its property, to manage ita affairs, whether it be a political or religious institution, has no foundation. and that this Congress is expressly forbidden by the provisions of the Constitution, which 

forbid any law. that shall abridge the freedom of speech from interfering 

with them because of the doctrines which t'b.ey may teach, whatever 

they may be. And it can not be denied that this is not a bill to suppress polygamy, but it is a bill to suppress and destroy a sect which 

teaches polygamy, and the methods by which it proposes to suppress 

this sect, this teaching of polygamy, is the confiscation of its property, 

the seizure of the contributions of its folli>wers, and then arbitrary appropriation by Congress to such purposes as it thinks proper, the trial 

of its followers by partial juries on evidence forced from the Ia wful wife. 

HoweveL· grievous may be the evils of Mormonism these unlawful 

methods are not the proper means for its overthrow and can never ac- complish the purpose. · 

The PHESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the adoption of 

the amendment proposed by the Senator from Alabama. 

The amendment was rejected. 

Mr. CALL. I move to amend, in section 13, line 3, by striking out 

after the word "to" the words " forfeit and escheat to the United 

States the property of corporations obtained or held" and inserting the 

words "dissol \e the corporation existing;" so as to read: 

Tllat it shall be the duty of the Attorney-General of the United States to insti- tutli) and prosecute proceedings to dissolve the corporation existing in violation of section 3 of the act of Congress approved the 1st day of July, ~862. 

The :~?RESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment 

proposed by the Senator from Florida. 

Mr. CALL. I propose, Mr. President, to follow this motion by a mo- tion to strike out all the words on the eleventh line after the word 

"States" down to the word "worship" at the end of the seventeenth 

line and insert the following. I ~tate it in order that it may be seen what it is that I propose to do: 

A-nd all property shall be returne~ by the court, on due proof of ownership, to the person or persons or their heirs and assigns who contributed the same: Pro- 'l'ided, That all buildings on the grounds appurtenant thereto and occupied ex- clusively for the purpo e of the worship of God shall be conveyed under the or- der of the court to trustees who shall be selected by the congregation or society who constructed such church building and who use the same for the worship of God according to the dictates of their conscience. 

Mr. President, I wish to say a few wo.rds in support of the amend- ment. I said yesterday that it was impossible for any one to give any 

reason on any ground of law or any plausible ground upon which it 

could be asserted that the Congress of t.he United States had the right 

to confiscate, to forfeit the property of this corporation or any other 

corporation. This act uses· the term ''escheat.'' ·what is an escheat 

in the law? It is where there ceases to be any right of ownership, 

where an · inheritable estate · falls for want of persons designated and 

known in the L.1.w to recei ve.it, and what becomes of it? It goes back 

to the parties, under the feudal law, from whom it was originally de- rived. · 

According to the English lawSays the definitionescheat denotes a.n obstruction of the course of descent, and n. consequea~ de- tennination of the tenm·e by some unforeseen contingency; in which case -!Le land naturally 1·esults back, by a kind of reversion, to the original grantor, or lord of the fee. · 

What pretense is there for alleging in this bill that the property shall 

escheat and be forfeited to the United States? Surely, sir, there is none. No lawyer will undertake fo say that this can be a case of escheat, and 

why? Here is a corporation created by law. The Senator from Alabama says that it was not created by law, that i~ was not a religious 

corpomtion, that they had no right to create such a corporation. Well, 

sir, suppose it was not a religious corporation, suppose it was a political 

corporation, why had they not the right to create it? 'There ca.n be no question that it was created by law, that it is recognized in the act cited 

by the Senator from Vermont, none that it is performing the dn.ties and 

the objects for whicll it. was created. Now: the United States come in 

and declare that'it s~all no longer exist. Concede that they have the 

right to do so, have they the right to take the property? Can they appropriate it to their own use by calling it an escheat, when under the 

English laws the property did not go to the Crown 'f What do the lawbookssay on that subject? 

The English Parliament is omnipotent, but here pri at~ property can 

not be taken for public· use except on compensation made. Under the 

law of escheat the land went back· to the party from whom it was derived. The government in case there was no owner might appropriate it by law when there was no one of kin, no one in the order of descent; and so they may here; but can they destroy the person in Oider 

to acquire the property? That is what this bill proposes to do, and what 

the argument of the Senator from Vermont requires. 

Does itfollow because a corporation is terininated that there is nobody 

who is a cestui quetrust? And can the Government destroy the corporation by act of law and .then say there is nobody to own it? We have 

destroyed it, destroyed it in the proper term of its chartered existence, 

and do you not call that a forfeiture, a confiscation, an appropriation 

of private property? 

Let us see what was the English law. There is neither analogy nor is there any kind of precept or authority .for this bill in all the English 

law with an omnipotent parliament, capable without restraint of passing :,lny law confiscating all property, passing bills of attainder, and making blood nninheritable. Even under that constitution and that state 

of things there is no analogy to ·this legislation by which a· corporation 

is destroyed., terminated in the period of its life, and then the property 

of the corporation appropriated by the government. 

Some allusion was made by the learned Senator from Massachusetts 

to the doctrine of cy pres as an analogy to it. The history of legislation on this subject is very plain. It will be borne in mind in this investigation that we start out with a positive prohibition upon Congress from 

appropriating anybody's printte property, from taking it, and that before it can be appropriated .by the .Government of the United St..'ltes 

under any proceeding or idea analogous to escheat it shall be when 

there shall be no owner of it, no person with. a legal or equitable right 

to it--in 9ther words, when it ceases to be private property. The legislation for. charities in th~ English Government to which 

the ~octrine of cy pres applies :finally terminated in the statute ( 43 Eliz., c. 4, 1601) commonly called the statute of charitable uses. This statute 

provides, and as it has been extended by judicial decision from time to 

time defines, the causes for which a charitable corporation may be cre- ated. They are not religions; they are such as beneficial associations. 

They may be religious or they may not be. They are all included 

within the statute of Elizabeth: 

Relief of aged, impotent, and poor people; mainlenn.nce of sick and maimed seldiers and mariners; schools of learning, free schools, and scholars in univer· sities; repairs of bridges, ports, havens, causeways, churches, sea.-banks, and highways; education and preferment of o rphans; relief, stock, or maintenance for houses of correction; marriages of poor maids; supportation, aid, and help of young tradesmen, handicraftsmen, and persons decayed, &c. 

The subject has received large consideration in the courts of the 

United States. Perry on Trusts contains all the decisions on the subject and goes extensively into it. There we find laid down the following: 

If gifts were made to establish a Jewish synagogue, to teach Jndaism in op- position to Christianity, or to re-establish the supremacy of the Pope, or to edu- cate children in the Catholic faith contrary to the statutes, or to promote dissent contrary to the acts of uniformity, or to keep alive superstitious customs nnd 

practices, the charities could not, of conrse, be carried into effect as given, and the King gave effect to them as charitjes, by his royal prerogative, cypres the original purposes. * * * But whether the prerogatives of the British crown were proper or improper, or wl:rether they were wisely exercised or not in the cases named, is no question here. Nosuchpowere1..i.stsin::my Americnnmngistrates, judicial or ministerial. 

That is the decision of our courts. . It does not matter whether it be 

the promotion of Judaism or Christianity or dissent to the orthodox 

belief, be the object of the charity what it may, it has been held, by the 

Supreme Court from 4 Whea~ until to--day by the uniform course of 

decisions, by the decision of C'Mef-Justice Gray, of the State of M, n.-

chusetts, among other learned m~n cited in thiS book, that any benevolentcharitytotrusteeswhocan receive it forthe benefitofan indefinite 

number of people, no matter what it is in respecb to its religious teaching, no matter what it is in respect to its political influences, is a charity, 

and will be enforced and carried out by the courts. 

But here we have this bill, in defiance of the whole course of American dedsions and of the very words ofthe Constitution, in defiance of 

the whole course of English decisions and of' the statute of Elizabeth, 

undertaking to put forth a proposition which, with great respect tQ the 

learned men upon this committee, is utterly in~ef nsible and unreasonable, that under the doctrine of cy p1·es you can divert, you can de- stroy ilie corporation, terminate its existence during its chartered life, and appropriate its donations not as the statute of Elizabeth says, ac- cording to the will of the donor, but against the will of the donor, deprive it entirely because it teaches some here y, religious or political. 

Why, Mr. President, there surely can be no ground for such n. proposition as that.• It is a pure case of religious persecution, in express defi- ance of all the provisions of tlte Constitution of the United States. The 
1886. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 563 

Senator from Alabama said this is not religion. Suppose it is not, can 

we say what is religion or what is not? In all the course of time those 

who maintained the orthodox religions have decided 'that those who differed with them were not religious, that they were the greatest of criminal , burned them at the stake, tore out their tongues. More than a 

hundred thousand people were destroyed in one year on the very proposition of the Senator from Alabama that somebody had· the right to say 

."my religion is true and your religion is wrong; you are a political 

hierarchy or a religious hierarchy, and I am satisfied your doctrine is 

false." 

.Mr. President, I shall not detain the Senate any longer. I merely de-· 

sired to show that this proposition of escheat or forfeiture had no warrant in t!te jurisprudence of England, that it had no application, that 

the term did not apply to this ~e, and that if it bad applied under 

the English statutes the doctrine of cy pres it would have been carried 

out according to the wiU of the donor and not in the unlicensed discretion of the court. But before I sit down allow me to say one word that 

I th:nk ought to be said. 

We have been dealing with n great public evil, and one which is 

growing and has grown; and why has it grown? We hear uttered the 

discontents of labor everywhere in this country. We hear of the. hundreds of thousands of starving men, women, and children of the sixty 

million people of the United States. We see it in the organizations 

of labor everywhere. There is not such n distribution of production as disseminates comfort and abundance among the people. We see in 

these days of combination everywhere that the laboring peop~ are 

moving for the preservation of life, impelled by the pangs of hunger 

and destitution. We have found hero upon our borders, in the midst 

of a great and :flagrant heresy, an industrial success which candid and 

impartial men have testified to. We have found a community where 

the social evil is not· to be found, and if we are to rely on the Feports of 

honest and -candid men who have investigated. the subject, the habit 

of intoxication, the sale of liquor in licensed saloons, is not to be found 

there. Whatever else may be said, I am told it may be said that destitution and want are not found there. Th~ offspring are taken 

care of, educated, and established in life; shelt::r is provided for all; 

food for all, and clothing for all. 

Mr. President, that is the reason why deluded people are dragged from 

Europe from a life of almost absolute want of comfort; that is the reason why their religion is propagated. It is because of the success of 

their industrial system in anew country. It is not because the religion 

of Christ will fail to haYe its effect in its teaching there. It is because 

the contrast between the life of these poor people in the countries from 

which they are dragged, naked almost, doomed to a. life in both sexes 

of the hardest and sternest labo:r without adequate compensation, because they find in reference to the evils of Europe, in reference to the 

life of want and. degradation there, they :find comparative comfort in 

Utah. :Mormonism can not live before the ~ghtened rays of the 

Christian religion, but it does not need this bill and it does not need 

this unlawful and unconstitutional confiscation and forfeiture of property to destroy it. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempm-e. The question is on the adoption of 

the fust amendment proposed by the Senator from Florida [Mr. CALL]. 

The amendment was rejected. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is on the second 

amendment of the Senator from Florida, which will be read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. In section 13, line 12, it is proposed to strike 

out all aftertbeword "States" down to.andincludingtbeword ''God," 

in line 17, as follows: 

And all such property so forfeit~d and escheated to the United States sha.ll be disposed of by the Secretary of the Interior, and the proceeds thereof applied to 'the use and benefit of the common schools in the Territory in which such prop- erty may be: Pl'ovidecl, That no building or tha. grounds aJ>purtenant thereto shall be forfeited which is held and occupied exclusi '\'ely for purposes of the wor- ship of God. · 

And to insert in lieu thereof: 

And all property shall be returned by the court on due proof of ownership 1o the person or persons. or their heirs and assigns, who contributed to the same: Provided, That all buildings and the grounds appurtenant thereto, held and oc- cupied exclusively for the purpose of the worship of God, shall be conveyed under the order of the court to trustees who shall be selected by the ehurch or society who constructed such church building, and who use the same for the worship of God according to the dictates of their own consciences." 

l\f r. CALL. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment. 

'The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. It is simply s~cient to say in answer to that 

amendment that the thirteenth section provides for the forfeiture of any 

property thn t has been ·acquired in contravention of a. positive statute of 

the United Rtates. 

l\fr. TELLER. I do not want to prolong this debate, but I do not 

understand the ru1e to be that px:operty ·acquired by a. corporation in 

violation of the provisions of the statute escheats to the Government. I 

have never known any such ru1e, all the authorities are different, and 

we now propose to establish a rule that does not exist. I do not know 

wbether'it is possible for Congress to do that thing or not. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is left to th~ courts by the section. 

Mr. TELLER. If it is to be left to the courts, then there need not 

be fiDY provision put in about escheating, if that is the law now. I do 

not understand that to be the law, and I understand the Supreme Court 

of the United States bas held that it is not the law. We may be able 

to make such a lo.w. The honorableSena.torisnotwiHingtoleaveitto 

the law as it exists. The British Parliament, is omnipotent but it bas 

been held that it could not legislate money from .one man's pocket to 

another's. In the exercise of the power gi\en over this subject in the 

Territories it is possible the United Sta~ may legislate the money of 

individuals into its own pocket, but I do not believe it. I neither believe it is possible by law, nor do I believe it is proper and right that it 

should be done. 

Mr. CALL. I would ask the Senator from Vermont if he considers 

it the law that property acquired by a corporation in YioL:1..tion of the 

law becomes ipso facto forfeited to the Government. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. l\Ir. President, I ha\e said enough, I think, on 

this question. This language merely repeats and enforce the act of 

1862, which left that church concern with all the property that it then 

had, and said that if it acquired any sum beyond the 50,000 and what 

it tpen had, its property should be forfeited and escheatedto the United 

States; and this section merely carries it out. 

l\Ir. QALL. Is that language in the act? 

l\Ir. ED11IDNDS. It is in the act. 

l\Ir. TELLER. Then 1lhy put it in this? 

Mr. ED!i:IUNDS. Because the Attorney-General does not.propose to 

leave the moneyin court, and Congress proposes to provide what shall 

be done with it. 

Mr. CALL. I understand the Sena.tor from V e:rmont, then, to sn.y 

that he thinks it competent .for the Congress of the Urn ted States to 

forfeit the property of a-corporation which sha11 be acquired in excess 

of the amount limited by law. 

The Secretary proceeded to caJl the roll. 

·Mr. BLACKBURN (when his name was called). On this question 

I am paired uith the Senator from Pennsylvania [l\Ir. CAMEIW.l' ]. 

Otherwise I should vote '• yea,.'' 

Mr. BROWN (when his name was ca1led). On this question I run 

paired with theSenatorfromNew Hampshire [Mr. PIKE]. If he were 

present, I shou1d vote "yea." 

Mr. :MITCHELL, of Oregon (when his name was ealle<l). On this 

question I am paired with the Senator from California [1\:I:r. STANFORD]. 

The roll-call was concluded. 

l\Ir. COCKRELL. My colleague Illr. VEST], who is necess:trily absent this evening, is paired with the Senator from New Yoi'k [~lr. 

l\IILLER]. If here, my colleague "Would Yote ''yea'' and the SeD.:ltor 

from New.York wou1d vote" nay." 

The result was annonced-yeas 6, nays 39; as follows: 

Call, 

Eustis, 

Hampton, 

1\lorg::m, 

YEAB---43. 

Teller, Van:::c. 

NAYS-3~. 

Allison, 

Beck. 

Berry-, 

Chace, 

Cockrell, 

Coke 

Colqttitt, . Conger, 

Cullom, 

D.awes, 

Dolph, 

Edmunds, 

Evarts, Frye, 

George, 

Gibson., 

Hale. 

Harris 

Harri~n, Hawley, 

Hoa~, Palmer, 

l.n:ga.lls, Payne, 

Jn.ekson, Platt, Jones of Arkansas, Pugh, 

Logan; Sawyer, 

McMillan, Sherman, :Manderson, Spooner, 

Maxey, Walthall. 1\Htchell of Pa., 'Vilson of Iowa. l\1orrill, 

ABSENT-31. 

Aldrich, Fair, l\filler of Cal., 

Blackburn, Gorman, 1\filler ofN. Y., Blair, Gray, Mitchell of Oreg., 

Bowen, Jones of Florida, Pike, Brown. ;Jones of Nevada, Plumb, 

Butler, Kenna., Ransom , Camden, McPherson, Riddleberger, 

Cameron, Mahone, Sabin, 

So the amendment was rejected. 

Saulsbury, 

Sewe ll, Stanford1 

VanWyck, 

Vest, 

Voorhees, 

Wilson of ll!d. 

~Ir. BROWN. I desire to call the attention of the chairman of the 

committee to the seventh section of the act of 1882 and to one of the 

sections of the present bill: 

SEC. 7. That the issue of. bigamous or polygamous ma.niages, known as Mor- mon marriages, in cases in which such marriages have bee n solemnized accord- ing to the ceremonies of the Mormon sect, in any Territory of the United States, and such issue shall have been born before the 1st day of January, A. D.l883, a.l'e 

hereby legitimated. 

Giving a little over nine months froL... th~ pa sa~e of the act so as to 

embrace .those bo.m within the ordinary period of gestn.tion. In the 

present bill this is th.e provision: 

SEc.lO. That t-helawsenacted by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory oi Utah which provide for or recognize the capacity of illegitima te children loin- herit or be entitled to any disLribntive share in the estate of the father of .such illegitimate child are he1-eby disapp1·oved and annulled; and no illegitimate child shall hereafter be entitled to inherit from his or her father or to receive any distributive share in the estate of his or her father; Pr.qvided, That this section sluill.not apply to any illegitirnat~ child born previous to the passage of this act. 

I propose there to amend, with the consent of the committee, by 

saying ''previous to the passage of this .act, or withq:l the ordi.nary period of gestation after 'tbe passage thereof,'' so as to make the same provision which "\las made in the act of 1882 fornnbom -children who m:e in existence. 
564 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. J .ANU AR.Y 8~ 

Mr. EDMUNDS. The actof1882finished npthewholeofthat sub- shall direct its funds to be applied to missionary operations or notiect; and this act so far as it is n"eces5ary at ·au after that act (as I why do we select fourteen men to exercise these peculiar functions, and 

doubt if it is, because we merely annul that Territorial act which I in the bill say nothing about paying them, provide no salary? 

think the legal effect of the actof1882 accomplished) iB merely to put We put them under bonds. They are required to give bonded se- illegitimate children in that Territory on the same footing that illegiti- curity, I suppose payable to tbe.church. It does not say so. They are mate children are everywhere else, I believe, in every country. I do required to make reports annually or oftener to the Government; they 

not think the provision in this act was necessary as affecting the status are required to take in trust and in c~arge all the property, as I underof any illegitimate child born since 1882, or born after the passage of stand it, of every kind and character of this corporation. We are inthis act and within nine months, but the point of this provision iB to formed that that property amounts in personal estate one way and 

annul and get off the statute-book of that Territory that act which another to perhaps several million dollars and to a.-large amount in 

stands in opposition tothe1awof1882 that we passed, so that my friend's real estate. And yet the Senate of the United States, for some reason observation really does not apply. which no Senator has deigned even to allude to, has remained entirely 

Mr. BROWN. If it was proper to allow the period of gestation in silent as to what compensation, if any, these trustees or commissioners 

that statute is it not equally proper in this case? are to have. . · Mr. EDMUNDS. No, becausewewoundupthatbusinessbyanaffirm- Now, sir, I do not want to send fourteen men out there to loot the 

ative act then and there, and it is doing no injustice to the illegitimate Mormon Church and come back with a hamper fnllofmoney that they 

children in U tab any more than elsewhere, because in 1882 we made have taken from it, which they say the Mormon hierarchy are disposed an end of the ·question, and this merely annuls their old act and makes to misappropriate for the encouragement of polygamy, and then ask us 

an end of it. to divide it out and give them as much of it as we think they are entiMr. BROWN. I will not press my amendment, because of eourse it tied to for their activity and their zeal and their skill in getting this 

will share the fate of all the others, but it seems to me there is neces- money into their hands. They have the right to receive money; they 

sity for it. are not naked trustees; the money in their possession is charged with 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no further amend- certain uses to which they must apply it, unless, in their opinion, they 

ment- should come to the conclusion that the uses to which they are directed 

Mr. BLAIR. I think there is an amendment. to RJlply it may be in violation of some statute of the United States 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Tlie Senator from New Hampshire or mlfy be possibly an encouragement to and promotion of polygamy. 

submitted an amendment which. he now ·offers, the Chair understands. Being thus in possession of this large fund., having to account for it 

Mr. BLAIR. Mr. President, the Constitution, as the Senate will under a bond, the Senate of the United. States makes no provision at all, 

remember, provides that the trial of all crimes except in cases of im- hints at no provision for their compensation, but le..wes to them the 

peachment shall be by jury, and such trials shall be held in the State unfortuhate tempation of deriving from this church and this people all 

wherein the crime shall have been committed, and when not committed the money that they can, in the hope and expectation that when they 

in any State the trial shall be at such place ot places as the Congress get back from this raid upon this church Congress will be disposed to 

may by law have directed. I ask the Secretary to read the proposed compensate them liberally for their services. 

amendment. Sir, I undertake to affirm that no set of officers have ever been created 

The SECRETARY. It is prQposed to add as an additional section the with such important trusts and duties, no set of bonded officers with 

following: · a fixed tenure of office have been created by any act of Congress withSEc.-. That in all prosecutions of bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful cohabita- out some provision being made, at least, that they should be compention, or conspiracy to commit or conspiracy to aid or abet the commission of any sated. If in any act of Congress the amount of compensation has been one of said crimes, by direction of the Ohief-.Justice of the United States the · charge may be investigated by a grand jury, and indictment found, and trial, left indefinite, there has been still an express10n that these officers were jndgment, conviction, sentence, and proceedings had thereon, in the proper to receive compensation for their services. · court of the United States in such State or Territory outside the Territory of Utah In what attitude do we place ourselves before the world by sendin 

aswil1,in the judgment of the Chief-Justice, best afford the opportunity ofim- g partial proceedings and promote the ends of justice; and either party may apply forth these trustees into the body of a s9ciety which they call a church, to the Chief-Justice to fix the place for any of the steps taken in such proceed- and in which they propose to direct religious worship, religious sacra- ings. ments and ceremonies, sending them out there under bond, giving them 

:Mr. BLAIR. Ur. President, as there seems to be so much dpubtand a two years' tenure of office, and making no mention of the fact that diffi~ulty in the application-of the provisions of several of the sections they are.to· have compensation? The world will say, ''You intend to 

of this bill to the existing situation, it seems. to me that the power of put your agents into that church for the purpose of looting it; you. inthis Mormon hierarchy, which is concentrated in the hands of a very few tend to put your agents. there without instructions as to their authority 

individuals, could perhaps be best reached and destroyed without rais- or their line of conduct, without definitio:q really of their powers, for 

ing any legal uncertainties or controversies, by so contriving this bill the purpose of making schism and mischief in the body of the church, 

that it shall subject them to a criminal prosecution where a grand jury and upon thismischiefandschism arising, you, the ma;jority, 14against 

would be secured to investigate with reference to the proper finding of 13, can take the money into your own hands and bring it back tq Conindictments, and a petit jury would be likely to find a verdiGt accord- gress, and ask how we shall divide it. ' I do not want to be put in 

ing to the evidence submitted to them. that condition. 

The Constitntion provides what I have stated. Under the provisions There is no occasion for the Senate of the United States to put itself 

of my amendment it seems to me that the power of criminal prosecu- in that condition. We ought to have said these commissioners, or these . tion would be made effective, and at once effective, in destroying this trustees, shall have $1,000 a year, or $2,000 a year, or, -as in the case institution by striking down those who are at the head of it. But as of the commissioners iu Utah, that they should have 5,000 a yea.r, or I see the majority of the Senate are in favor of this bill as it is and are we ought to have said in the bill they shall have no compensation. 

quite determined upon its passage in its present form, I do iwt wish to. This is not a fair and legitimate way oflegislating with respect to any 

make myself conspicuous by any unseemly obstinacy in the matter, community whatsoever, and this curious, original, abnormal manner o and therefore I withdraw the a~ nendment if I may be permitted to legislation will bring reproach upon this body by the enactment of the 

do so. · law in that shape. The world will put to us the question: "Why is it 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments that you are afraid to speak your mind in respect to the compensation 

made as in Committee of the Whole were concurred in. that these men shall hnse, or upon the question whether they shaH have 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and read the any compensation at all? Why do you leave it to an Appropriation 

third time. . Committee hereafter to advise in advance of their appointment, or after 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The •question_is, Shall the bill pass? they have done their work, whether they shall have any compensation, 

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. President, the friends of this measure seem de- or what their compensation shall be?'' "Whoever heard of a bill creattermined to pass it in its present shape, yielding nothing to the opinions ing officers in this country of great trust and responsibility, bonded 

of others who have not had the opportunity to study it, which of course officers, in which the Congress was afraid to say whether it would pay 

they have had. I have taken occasion since the bill has been under them anything or not? 

discussion to ask some questions for information a"Qout its meaning, pur- Mr. President, there is a dangerous look in this style of legislation. 

pose, &c. Some of these questions have been answered by one member There is something that brings upon the Congress of the United States 

ofthe committee, the others not participating in the debate\ but! shall unnecessary suspicion in regard to it. Indeed, this·committee in subtake it for granted that that honorable Senator has had the right to mitting this bill to the Senate in this form have attempted to legislate 

speak the opinions of every member of the committee who has not voted to point no point. They have attempted to legislate to get a result 

to the contrary on the call of the yeas and nays. without stating the means by which the result is to be obtained. They 

One question I have asked which the Senator from Vermont said he have not ventured to expresS the opinion even wheth.er that act of the 

would answer before he too~ his seat. I addressed. that question also Territorial Legislature of Utah is still in existence. They leave their 

to my colleague, and also to the Senator from Texas who is on the Com- chairman without a.n expression on this subject to state his own indimittee on the Judiciary, and that was, what do you expect to pay these vidual opinion that there is a legal organization remaining there, in 

trustees? Why qo we send this bill out of the Senate for fourteen trust- the face of an act of Congress of 1862 which repeals it. No niem ber of ees to perform the novel and mportant duties tliat we imposed on this I the committee arises for the purpose of taking issue with the honorbody of men in the management of the Mormon Church, its property, able chairman; no member arises to indorse his opinion; and we are Hs income, and questions relating·to its missions, whether the church left here by the leading judicial committee of this body to inference, 
1886. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 565 -

to conjecture, to guessing as to what the state of the law is on this 

question. And when I offer an amendment which· shows what the state 

of the law ought to be, that this corporation no longer exists, I am met 

by t:p.e proposition, "The gentleman opposes the twelfth section of the 

bill, and the president of the church would do the same thing." That 

is the answer which is made to me. When I ask the Comniittee on the Judiciary to state what the law is the reply is,'' The Senator from 

Alabama takes the same ground on this measure that the president of 

the church would take.'' 

Ah, Mr. President, I am not to be deterred from the expression of my 

opinion, humble as it may be, by an allusion of that character. Would 

the president of this church be less alarmed or more alarmed at a meas- ure which would take down that legal structure which upholds all of 

his authority, thau he would at a measure which inte1jects a governing 

power along with his power and the power of his trustees and the man- agement of it, upon the hypothesis that the corporation still exists and 

retains it:.s powers? Which would alarm him the more, to see the house 

tumbling about his head, absolutely demolished, as it was in 1862 by an act of. Congress, or to see it maintained by an act of Congress that we enact to-day, and merely occupied by a board of unpaid trustees in 

conjunction with his trustees? 

Thirteen l'l!ormons compose the Mormon side of that board. Fourteen Genti.les, I suppose, will compose the Gentile side of the board. 

Our men go there and they sit two years, so far as this bill gives us any 

information on the subject, without compensation. How easy would 

it be for them to :find perhaps one man unfaithful to the views of'. the 

honorable Senator from Vermont, who would accept a few thousand 

dollars to vote with the minority in that board aud conduct that busi- ness precisely as the president of that church and that hierarchymigbt 

require? You put ~n unpaid and unsalaried set of trustees on a bond 

pa.yaple to the church and not tot1s into that organization for the-purpose of conducting its temporal affairs, and with millions of money at 

their control, and without eonscience they come and slip some of their 

loot and their bribe into the pocket of one trustee, ''hich carries the 

majorityon the·other side of the question, and the church has its way. 

It is merely an opening for the purpose of getting men in there upon 

the ideathattheywill produce schisms and dissensions iri a legal body 

of that church, and yet we expose them to the temptation which the 

Mormons can bring about them, and will bring about them, to dh·ert 

them so that Mormonism will be encouraged by this act and sanctioned 

by the act of Cqngress rather than discouraged and broken down. That_ 

is the shape in which this bill is left. . 

Diditneveroccur to the honorable Senator from Vermont or any other ·member of the committee that these foqrteen unpaid trust~ that they 

put into this board might possibly accept a stipenu from the head of 

that church to ~o not in the direction th~t the honorable Senator from 

Yermont would have them go, but right to the reverse, and to make 

the instrumentality of the law which we create here the power by which 

the church will be sustained and promoted even in its effort to establish 

and propagate polygamy? 

Sir, such unwise legislation as this does not deserve the sanction of a 

Senator's vote, ·and I can not give it. I have proven on this floor my 

determination, as far as my power extends, to strike this chmch root 

and branch until afterward there shall be nothing left of it but a name 

and an unholy memory. I am met "!>Y the proposition to keep the thing 

up, to hold itupandletitwork, and put fourteen trustees in there subject to the power of money to assist the Mormons in running it. 

Now, which is the better proposition? I dare say the president of the 

churCh would select the proposition of the Senator from Vermont a thousand times before he would select mine. He would take his chances 

with his fourteen trustees, though they might be confirmed by the Senate, much in preference to taking his chances with a court upon the 

power of Congress to dissolve and anmil and dissipate that corporation. 

I shall therefore vote against this bill. ' 

Mr. CALL. Mr. President, I do not propose to make a speech. I 

merely wish to put on record and call the attention of the Senator 

from Vermont to the proposition that the bill goes only to confiscate 

properly acquired in violation of an act of Congress. I :find. in the act 

of 1862, in the proviso referred to by the Senator from Vermont, the following language: · 

· Pr01.>ided, That this act shall be so limited and construed as not to affect or in- tel·fere with the right of property legally a cquired under the ordi11ancc hereto- fore mentioned. 

That ordinance I understand to be still in force. The act of 1872, 

section 1890 of the Revised Statutes, a.Iso provides: 

That it shall not be lawful for any corporation or association for religious or charitable purposes to acquire or hold real esta.te in any 'I'enitory of the United States during the existence of the Territorial government of a greater value than 850,000. 

That is confined to real estate. This measure provides fot the con- fiscation of all property. 'The ordinance which is referred to in the 

previous act is still in 1orce. The act of 1~62 is limited to real estate 

to the amount of $50,000. Therefore it is apparent that this measure 

is not, in my judgment, as the Senator from Vermont says, limited to 

the confiseation ·of property acquired in violation of the law. But suppose it had been so, I wish to make this point before the discussion 

closes: Suppose a corporation is denied the power to hold real estate or 

property of any kind, real or personal, the power to hold it is an artificial power given to it by sta-tute. It is not a natural person. What 

becomes of property given to it when it has no power to receive it in 

the law? ·Whose is it when it has no attribute of holding the property? 

Can you confiscate it because the law has forbidden the corporation to 

take it? Whose is it if the corporation could not take it, if ~t is not 

the person's who tried to give it but could not give it? Are not the 

gift and the. assent to receive it both necessary to constitute the gift? 

If the law, upon_ the proposition of the Senator from Vermont, refused 

to allow the corporation the right to receive it and to hold it, whose is 

this property when the donation was made to a person not capable of 

receiving it? O{course it belongs to the persons who gave it. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is upon the passage of 

the bill. · 

Mr. VAN WYCK. In order to remove the difficulty stated by the 

Senator from .Alabama, I would suggest to the Senator from Vermont 

whether it would not meet the purpose of the committee as well to devolve the duty required of the fourteen trustees upon the commission 

of :five persons already there in the employ of the Government. . Therefore, I would suggest as an amendment--

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will advise the Senator 

from Nebraska that the question is now upon the passage of. the bill, 

and it is not open to amendment. The bill was ordered to be engrossed 

for a third reading and has been read the third time. 

:Mr. EDMUNDS. .Amendments are not in order. 

111r. VANWYCK. Then I ask if the Senator from Vermont would 

object to an amendment of that kind? -

Ur. EDMUNDS. He most decidedly would, J\Ir. President. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, Shall the bill pass? 

l\Ir. VANCE. I ask for the yeas and nays upon the passage of the 

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

the roll~ 

l\1r. BROWN (when his ·name was called). On this question I am 

paired with the Senator from New Hampshire '[111r. Pm::E]. If_ he were present, I understand he would vote "yea" and I should vote ''nay." .. 2\ir. HA_MPTON (when Mr. BuTLER'S na~e was called). My colleague [Ur. BUTLER] is -paired with the Senator from Pennsylvania 

[l\lr. CAl\fERON]. The junior Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BLACKBURN] begged me to announce that he is paired with the Senator from 

Maine (Mr. HALE]. 

Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon (when his name was called). On this 

question I am paired with the Senator from California [Ur. STANFORD]. If he were here, I should \ot.e ''yea '' and he would vote 

"nay." . . :Mr. TELLER (when his name was called). On the passage of the 

bill I am paired with the Senator from Arkansas ["Mr. JONES]. If he were present, he would vote :'yea" and I should vote ":pay." 

The.roll-call was concluded. · ' 

-. Mr. COCKRELL. My colle~<YUe [Mr. VEST] is paired with the Senator .from New York [Mr. MILLER]. · If present, my colleague would 

vote "nay" and the Senator from New York would vote "yea." 

The result was announced-yeas 38, nays 7; as follows: 

YEAS-38. 

Allison, Dolph, JacksQn, 

Beck; Edmunds, Logan, 

Berry, Eustis, McMillan, 

Chace, Evarts, :Manderson, 

Cockrell, :Frye, 1\la.xey, 

Coke, George, Mitchell of P;),., 

Colquitt, Harris, Morrill, 

Conger, Harrison, Palmer, 

Cullom, 1-Iawley, Payne, 

Dawes, Ingalls, Platt, 

NAYB-7. 

Blair, Gibs on, Hoar, 

Call, HRmpton, Morgan, 

ABSENT-,-31. 

All)rich, Gorman, · ::\Iahone, ·:nlnckburn . Gray, Miller of Cal., 

Rowen, Hale, lillerofN. Y., 

Brown, Jones of Arkansas, 1\[itchell of Oreg., 

Butler, Jones of Florida; P ike, 

Camden, Jones of Nevada., Plumb, 

Cmnerou, Kenna, R:~.nsom, 

Fair, :McPherson, Riddlcherger, 

So the bill was p~ed. . 

Pugh, 

Sawyer, 

Sherman, 

Spooner, 

Van·Wyck, 

Walthall, 

Wilson of Iowa, 

Wilson ofMd. 

Vance. 

Sabin, 

Saulsbury, 

Sewell, 

Stanford, 

Teller, 

Vest, 

Voorhees. 

Mr. HOAR. Let tb.e Chair put the question on the title of the bill. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, Shall the title of the 

bill staml as reported? 

Mr. HOAR. I wish to say upori that question that I voted against 

the bill solely because of the refusal of the Senate to strike out the sev- enth section, which I think wrong in principle. If my vote would have 

affected the passage of the bill, wbich in all its. other features I approve, it would have put a responsibility upon me and a majority of 

,the Senate which I do not now feel rests upon me. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The title of the. bill will stand as re- ported if there be no objection . 

• 
566 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. J.ANUARY 81 

Mr. BLAIR. If there be no objection I should like to have the bill 

printed in the RECORD as it has passed the Senate. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I have no objectiont Mr. President. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire 

asks the unanimous consent of the Senate to have the bill printed in 

the RECORD as it passed the Senate. The Chair hears no objection, and 

it is so ordered. 

The bill is as follows: 

A bill to amend an act entitled "An act to amend section 5352 of the Revised 

Statutes of the United States in reference to bigamy, and for other purposes," 

approved :March 22, 1882. 

B e it enacted by the Senate and Ho-use of Rep1·esentatives, &c., That in any pro- ceeding and examination before a. gran d jury, a. judge, a justice, or a United 

States commissioner, or a court, in any prosecution for bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation-, under any statute of the Unit~d States, the lawful husband or wife of the p erson accused shall be a. competent witness, and may be 

called and may be compelled to testify in such proceeding, examina-tion, or prosecution without the consent of the h usband or wife, as the case may be; 

but such witness shall not be permitted to testify as to aDy confidential state- ment or communication made by either husband or wife to each other during 

the existence of the marriage relation. 

SEC. 2. That in any prosecution for bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation, "under any statute of the United States, whether before a United States com- missioner, jlli!tice, judge, a grandj!ll'Y, or any cour~ e:n atta.ch.ment for aug: ~wness may be 1ssued by the court, Judge, or comrmss10ner, w1thout a preVIous 

subprena, compelling the immediate att~ndance of such witness, when it shall appear to the commissioner, justice, judge, or court, as the case may be, that 

there is reasonable g.cound to believe that such witness will unla.wfally fail t"<> 

obey a subp ren a. issued andserved in the usual course in such cases ; and in such case the usual witness-fees shall be paid to such witness so attached: Provided, 

Tha t no p erson shall be held in custody under any attachment issued as provided 

by this section for a longer time than ten days; and the person attached may at any time secure his or her discharge from custody by executing a recognizance, 

with sufficient sureties, conditioned for the appearance of such person at the proper time as a. witness in thecanseorproceedingwherein theattachmentmay 

be issued. 

"SEc. 3. That any prosecution under any statute of the United States for big- amy, polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation may be commenced at any time within 

five years next after the commission of the offense ; but this provision shall not be construed to apply to any offense already barred by any existing statute of 

limitation. 

SEC. 4. That every ceremony of marriage, or in the nature of a marriage cere- mony, of any kind, in any of the Territories of the United States, whether either or both or more of the parties to such ceremony be lawfully competent to be the 

subjects of such marriage or ceremony or not, shall be certified in writing by a certificate stating the fact and nature of such ceremony, the full names of each 

of the parties concerned, and the full name of every officer, priest, and person, by whatever style or desigaation called or known1 in any way taking part in 

the performance of such Qeremony, which certificate shall be drawrl. up and signed 

by the parties to such ceremony, and by every officer, p riest, and person taking partint.heperformaceofsnchceremony,andshallbebytheofficer,priest,orother person solemnizing such marriage or ceremony filed in the office of the probate 

court, or, if there be none, in the omce of the court having probate powers in 

the county or district in which such ceremony shall tak e place, for record, and 

shall be immediately 1·ecorded. Such certificate or the record thereof, or a duly 

certified copy of such record , shall be prima facie eviden ce of the facts required 

by this act to be stated therein, in any proceeding, civil or criminal, in which 

the matter shall be drawn in question • .Anypersonwho shallviolate any of the 

proruions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction thereof, be P.unished by a. fine of n ot more than $1,000, or by impris- onment not longer than two years, or by both. said punishments, in the discretion of the court. ~ -

SEC. 5. That e'\'ery certificate, record, and entry of any kind concerning any ceremony of marriage, or in the nature of a marriage ceremony of any kind, 

made or kept by any officer, clergyman; priest, or person performing civil or ecclesiaslical functions, whether lawful or n ot, in any Territory of the United 

States, and any record thereof in any office or place, sha.ll be subject to inspec- tion at all reasonable times· by any judge, magistrate, or officer of justice ap- pointed under the authority of the United States, and shall, on request, be pro- duced and shown tn such judge, magistrate, or officer by any person in whose 

posse!jsion or control the samem_ay be. Every person who shall violate the pro- visions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shlill, on conviction thereof,..be punished by a fine ofnotmorethan $1,000, or by imprison- ment not longer than two years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion 

of the court. And it shall be lawful for any United Stat.es commissioner, justice, 

judge, or court before whom any proceeding shall be pending in which such 

certificate, record, or entry m11-y be material by proper warrant, tQ cause such 

certificate, record, or entry,-and the book, document, or paper containing the same, to be taken and brought before him or it for the purposes of such proceeding. 

SEc. 6. Thatnothinginthisactshall beheld to preventthe proof of marriages, whether lawful or unlawful, by any evidence now legally admissible for that purpose, • SEc. 7. That it shall not be lawful for any female te vote nt any election hereafter held in the Territory of Utah for any public purpose whatever, and no such •ote shall be received or counted or gi•en effect in any manner whatever; and any and every act of the governor and Legislative .Assembly of the TerritQry of Uta h providing for or allowing the registration or voting by females is hereby" 

annulled. 

SEc. 8. That all laws of theLegislative .Assembly of the Territory of Utah which 

provide for numbering or identifying the votes oftlieelectors at any election in 

said Territory are hereby disapproved and annulled; but the foregoingprovisiou 

shall not preclude·the lawful registration of voters, or any other provisions for securing fair elections which do not involve the disclosure of the candidates for 

whom any particular elector shall have voted. SEc. 9. That the laws enacted by the Legislative .Assembly ofthe Territory of 

Utah conferring jurisdiction upon probate 'courts, or the judges thereof, or any of them, in said Territory, other than in respect of the estates of deceased per- sons and in respect of the guardianship of the persons and property of infants, and in respect of the persons and property of persons not of sound mind, are hereby disapproved and annulled; and no probate court or judge of probate 

shall exercise any jurisdiction other than in respect of the matters aforesaid; 

and every such jurisdiction so by force of this act withdrawn from the said pro- bate courts or judges shall be had and exercised by the district courts of said 

Territory, respectively. SEC. 10. That the laws enacted by the Legislative .Assembly of the Territory of 

Utah which provide for or recognize the capacity of illegitimate children to inherit or to be entitled to any distributive share in the estate of the father of such' 

illegitimate child are hereby disapproved and annulled; and no illegitimate child shall hereaft.er be entitled to inherit from his or her father or to receive any d istributive share in the estate or"his.or her father : Provided, That this section shall not apply to any illegitilnate child born previous to the passage of this act. 

SEC. ll. T hat allla.ws of the Legislative .Assembly of the Territory of Utah 

which pTovidethat prosecution for adultery can only be commenced on the com- plaint of the husband or wife are hereby disapproved and annulled; and all prosecutions for adultery may hereafter be instituted in the same way that pros- ecutions for other crimes are. 

SEc. 12. That the acts of the Legislative .Assembly of Utah incorporating, con- tinuing, or providing for the corporation known as the Church of Jesus Christ 

of Latter-day Saints, and the. ordinance of the so-called General Assembly of the 

State of Deseret incorporating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so far as the samemaynowhave legalforceand validity,areherebydisapproved 

and annulled, so far as the same may preclude the. appoiD.tment by the United 

States of certain trustees of said corporation as is hereinafter provided. The 

President of the United States, by and with the ad vice and consent of the Senate, 

shall appoint fourteen trustees of the said corporation, who shall have and exer- cise all the powers and functions of trustee and assistant trustees provided for 

in the laws creating, amending, or continuing the said corporation, which trus- tees so appointed shall hold their respective offices for the term of two years; and the trustees of said corporation shall annually or oftener make ·a full report to the Secretary of the Interior embracing all the property, bnsines affairs, and 

operations of the said corporation; and the Legislative .Assembly of the Territory 

of Utah shall not ha•e power to change the laws respecting said corporation 

without the approval of Congress. Said trustees shall each give bond, payable tQ the United States, with good and sufficient security, for the faithful discharge 

of the duties incumbent upon him as trustee, in such sum as maybe prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. 

SEC. 13. That it shall be the duty of the Attorney-General of the United States to institute and prosecute proceedings to forfeit and escheat to the United States 

the property of corporations obtained or held in violat-ion of section3 of the act of Congre approved the 1st day of July,l862, entitled "An act to punish and 

prevent the practice of polygamy in the Territories of the United Sta tes and 

other places, and disapproving and annulling certain acts of the Legi Jative .As- sembly of the Territory of Utah," or in violation of section 1890 of the Revi ed 

Statutes of the United States; and all such.property so forfeited and escheated to the United States shall be disposed of by the Secretary of the Interior, and the 

proceeds thereof applied to the use and benefit of the cotnmon schools in the 

Territory in which such property may be: Pro-vided, Tha-t no building or the 

grounds appurtenant thereto shall be forfeited which is held and occupied ex- clQsively for purposes of the worship of God .. 

SEc". 14. That in any proceeding for the enforcement of the provisions of law a~ainst corporations or associations acquiring or holding property in any Ter- ntory of the United States in excess of theamountlimitedbylaw, the court be- fore which such proceeding may be instituted shall have power in a summary way to compel the production of all books, records, papers, and documents of or belonging to any trustee or person holding or controlling or managing prop- erty in which such corporation may have any right, title, or intere t whatever. SEc. 15. That all laws of the Legislative Assembly of the Tel'ritory of Utah, or of the so-called government of the State of Deseret, creating, organizing, 

amending, or continuing the corporation or ass'ociation called the Perpetual 

Emigrating Fund Company are hereby disapproved and annulled; and it shall not be lawful for the Legislative .Assembly of the Territory of Utah to create, 

organize, or in any manner recognize any corporation or association for the 

.Purpose of or operating to accomplish the bringing of persons into the said Ter- ritory for any purpose whatsoever. • SEc. 16. That it shall be the duty of the .Attorney-General of the United States to cause such proceedings to be taken in the supreme court of the Territory of. U~ah as shall be proper to dissolve the said corporation mentioned in the pre- ceding section and pay the debts and to dispose of the property and assets there- of according t"<> law. Said p roperty and asset-s, in excess of th~ debts and the amount of any lawful claims established by the conrtagainst the same, and that 

by law shall escheat to the United States, shall be taken, invested, and dist 

posed of by the Secretary of the Interior, under the direction of the Presiden- of the United States, for the benefit of common schools in said •.rerritory. SEC. 17. That the existing election districts and apportionments of representa- tion concerning the members of the Legislative .Assembly of the TerritQry of 

Utah are hereby abolished; and it shall be the duty of the governor, Territorial 

secretary, and the United Stat~judges in said Territory forthwith to redistrict 

said Territory, and apportion representation in the same in such manner as to proviae, as nearly as may be, foran equal representation of the people (except- ing Indians not taxed), being citize.ns of the United States, a<lCOrding to num- bers, in said Legislative .Assembly, and to the number of members of the coun- cil and house of representatives, respectively, as now establish ed by law; and a record of the establishment of such new districts and the apportionment of 

representation thereto shall be made in the office of the secretary of said Terri- tory, and such establishment and representation shall continue until Congress 

shall otherwise provide; and no persons other. than citizens of the United States 

otherwise qualified shall be entitled to vote at any election in said Territory. 

SEC. 18. That the provisions of section 9 of said act, approved March 22, 1882, 

in regard to registration and election officers, and the registration of voters, and 

the conduct of elections, and the powers and duties of the board therein men- tioned, shall continue and remain operati'l'e.until the provision and laws therein 

referred to to be made and enacted by the Legislative Assembly of said Territory 

of Utah shall have been made and enact-ed by said .Assembly and shall have 

been approved by Congress. 

SEC. ~9. That whoever commits adultery shall be punished by imprisonment 

in the penit~ntiary not exceeding three years; and when the act is committed 

between a married woman and a man who is unmarried, both parties to such act shall be deemed guilty of adultery; and when such act is committed between a married man and a. woman who is unmarried, the man shall be deemed guilty 

ofadultery: · SEC. 20. If any person related to another person within and not including the 

fourth deg1·ee of consanguinity, computed according to the rules of the civil law, 

shall marry, or cohabit with, or have sexual intercourse with such other so related person, knowing her or him to be within said degree of relationship, the per on so offending shall be deemed guilty of incest, and on conviction thereof shall be 

punished by imprisonment in the penitentary not less than three years nor more than five years. SEC. 21. That if an unmarried man or woman commit fornication, each of them 

shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or by fine not ex- ceeding $100. 

SEc. 22. That commissioners appointed by the supreme court and district courts in the Territory of Utah shall po ess and may exercise all the powers and juris- diction that are or may be possessed or exercised by justices of the peaee in aid 

Territory under the laws thereof, and the same powers conferred by law on com- missioners appointw by circuit courts of the United States. 

SEC. 23. That the marshal of said Territory of Utah and his deputies slmll pos- sess and may exercise all the powers in executing the laws of the United States 

possessed and exercised by she:rilfs and their deputies as peace officers; and each 

of them shall cause all offenders aga.inst the law, in his view, to enter into recog- nizance to keep the peace and to appear at the next term of the court having jurisdiction of the case, and to commit to jail in case of 'failure to gi'l'e such rec- ognizance. They shall quell and suppress assaults and batter ies, riots, routs, 

affrays, and insurrect.ions, and shall apprehend and commit to jail all felons, 
1886. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 567 

SEc. 24. Trot the office ofTerritorial superiittendentofdistrict schools created by the laws of Utah is hereby delared vacant; and it shall be the dnty of the su- preme court of said Territory to appoint a. Territorial superintendent of distric~ 

schools, who shall pos essand exercise all the powen~andduties imposed by the laws of said Territory upon the Territorial superintendent of district schools, and who shall receive the snme salary and compensation, which sha.ll be paid out or the treasury of said Territory; and the laws of the Territory of Utah providing for the method of election and appointment of such Territorial super- intendent of district schools are hereby suspended until the further action of Congress shall be bad in respect thereto. The said superintendent shall have powe r t.o prohibit the use in any distriet school of any book of a sectarian char- acter or otherwise unsuitable. Said superintendent shall collect and clnssify statistics and other information respecting the district schools in said Terri- tory, showing their progre , the whole number of children of school age, the number who attended school in each year in the respective counties, and aver- age length of time of their attendance, the number of teachers and the compen- sation paid to the same1 the number of teachers who are l\Iormons, the number who are so-called Gentiles, the number of children of :Mormon parents and the number ot children of so-<:alled Gentile parents, and their respective average attendance at school. .All of which statistics and information shall be annually 

repm-ted to Congress, through the governor of said Territory and the Depart- m ent of the Interior. 

SEC. z;J. (a) A widow shall be endowed of the third part of all the lands whereof her husband was seized of an e tate of inheritance at any time during the mar- riage , unless she shall have lawfully released he-r right thereto. (b) The widow of any alien who at the time of his death shall be entitled by law to hold any real estate, if she be an inhabitant of the Territory at the time of such <leaLb, shall be entitled to dower of such estate in the same manner as if such alien had been n. native citizen. . (c) If a husband seized of an estate of inheritance in lands exchanged them for other lands, his widow shall not have dower of both, but shall make her elec- tion to be endowed of the lands given or of those taken in exchange; and if such election be not evinced by the commencement of proceedings to recover her dower of the lttnds given in exchange withi.Q one year after the death of her hus- band, she shall be deemed to have elected to takeherdowerofthelands received in exchange. · . (d) When a person seized of an estate of inheritance in lands shall have exe- cuted a mortgage on such estate before marriage, his widow shall nevertheless be enmled to dower out of the lands mortgaged as against every person except the mortgagee and those claiming under him. • (e) Where a husband shall purchase lands during eoverture, and shall at the same time mortgage his estate in such lands to secure the payment of the pur- chase-money, his widow shall not be entitled to dower out of such lands, as · against the mortgagee or those claiming under him, although she shall not have united in snch mortgage; but she shall be entitled to her dower as against all other persons. (f) Where in such case the mortgagee1 or those claiming under him, shall, after the death of the husband of such widow, ca,use the land mortgaged to be sold, either onder a power of sale contained in the mortgage or by virtue of the decree of a court of equity, and if any sm'plus shall remain after payment of the mo11eys due on such mortgage and the costs and charges of the sale, such widow shall nevertheless be entitled to the interest or income of the one-third part of such surplus, for her life, as her dower. (g) A widow shall not be endowed of lands conveyed to her husband by way of mortgage unless he acquire an absolute estate therein during the married pe- riod. · (h) In case of divorce dissolving the marria..o-e contract for the misconduct of he wife, she shall not be endowed. 

SALLIE J.ARRA'IT. 

Ur. HARRIS. Yesterday the Senate passed a. bill (S. 16) for the relief of Sallie Jarratt, executrix of Gregory Jarratt; deceased. I desire 

to enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed 

and the vote by which. the bill was ordered to a third reading, because 

of the fact, which I learn to-day, that Sallie Jarratt died a short time 

since, and I want to amend the bill so a.s to pass it for the relief of the 

administrator de bonis non instead of Sallie Jarratt, who is dead. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee wishes 

the motion to reconsider entered? 

Mr. HARRIS. .I wish to enter both motions, and if the Senate will 

indulge me, as it will take but a moment to reconsider the vote and 

amend, I ask that it may be done at this time. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. If the Senator willjnst enter the motion, then it 

will be a motion that can J>e taken up Monday morning in the morning hour, and we can look at it. 

Mr. HARRIS. Then I wish to enter both motions, the motion toreconsider the vote by which the bill was passed and the motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was ordered to a third reading. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motions will be entered. ~fr. EDMUNDS. I move that the Senate adjourn.. 

The motion was agreed to; and (at 5 o'clock and 45 minutes p. m.) 

the Senate adjourned. 

SENATE. 

1\fOND.A.Y, Ja1~uary 11, 1886. 

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

The J onrnal of the proceedings of Friday last was read and approved. 

PETITIONS Al\"'D l.UEMORI.A.LS. 

TP.e PRESIDENT p1·o tempo.re presented a resolution adopted by the 

American Metrological Society of New York city, favoring the suspension of the coinage of the silver dollar; which was referred to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. SAWYER presei!tedresolutions adopted by the Chamber of Co.inmerce of :Milwaukee, Wis., infavorofthe suspensionofthecompulsory 

coinage of the standard silver dollar; which were referred to the Committee on Finance. 

:bfr. 1tllTCHELL, of Oregon, presented the petition of E. H. Brodie, 

late ordnance sergeant, United States Army, of Astoria, Oreg., praying 

for the passage of· a bill awarding him a certificate of merit for distinguished bravery and good conduct at the battle of Cerro Gilrdo, Mexico; 

which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

Mr. HARRISON presented the petition ofVeite, Stockwell& Co., and 

10 other wholesale grocers at Evansville, Ind., praying for the appointment of commissionerson the part of the United States to confer with 

those of Canada for the settlement of the :fisheries question; which was 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. 

Mr. HALE. I present the petition of J. Eglin ton Montgomery, late 

United States consul at Leipsic, Germany, praying reimbursement of 

expenses incurred in obedience to orders from the United States. This 

paper is not in the form of a. petition addressed to Congress, but is addressed to the Committee on Claims, though evidently intended for 

Congress. I therefore ask leave to present it, and that it be referred to 

the Committee on CJ.a.imB. 

The PRESIDENTprotempore. Thepetitionwillbereceived, ifthere 

be no objection, and so referred. 

Mr. HALE presented the memorial of R. L Wooster a.nd others, citizens of :Maine; the memorial of Joseph Wood and others, citizens of 

Maine; the memorial of Charles F. Eaton and others, citizens of :Maine; 

t.he mem.orialofG. H. Condon and others, citizens of Maine; and the 

memorial of F. L. Hodgkins and others, citizens of Maine, remonstrating against any action by the executive department or Congress which 

w.ill fail to protect the New Engl:md fisheries; which were referred to 

the Committee on Foreign Relations. 

1\fr. WILSON, of Maryland, presented the petition of WilJia'm H. 

Haines and others, citizens of Cecil County, Maryland; the petition of 

Thomas C. Crouch and others, citizens of Cecil County, Maryland; and 

the petition of William H. Barton and others, citizens of Dorchester 

County, Maryland, praying for thesuspensionofthecoinageofthestandard silver dollar; which were referred to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. BUTLER presented the petition of E. R. Wallace, president of 

the M-erchants and Planters' National Bank, Union, S. c_; George 

Munro, casbie;r; J.D. Arthur, book-keeper; I. D. Jones, J. C. Hunter, 

A.. H. Foster, J. H. Bartles, W. D. Bewley, and 22 others, merchants 

and business men, citizens of Union, S. C.; and the petition of Charles 

0. Witte,. president of the People's National Bank of Charleston, S.C.; 

E. H~ Sparkman, cashier; Andrew Simonds, president of the First N n.- tional Bank; Andrew Simonds, vice-president; Goorge W. W"liliams, 

president of the Carolina Savings Bank; Bank of Charleston; South Carolina. Loan and Trust Company, aud 26 other mercantile firms and business men of Charleston, S. C., praying for the repeal of the law req uiring the Secretary of the Treasury to coin not less than 2, 000,000 of 

standard silver dollars per month; which were referred to the Committee on Finance. 

He also presented resolutions of the Chamber of Commerce of Char reston, S.C., in favor of an appropriation for a new revenu~-cutter to be 

stationed at that port; which were referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

He also presented the petition of Edgar 0. Murden, a. native of South 

Carolina, praying for the removal .of his political disabili~ies; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Mr. BLACKBURN presented a memorial of citizens of Kentucky, 

remonstrating against the passage of a bill to estn.blish the eastern 

judicial district of Kentucky; which was refeqed. to the Committee on 

the Judiciary. 

Mr. BLAIR. I present the petition of Stephen C. Hoops, late of Company C, One hundredth Regiment Ohio Volunteers, and 8 other ex- Union soldiers, representing the ·volunteer service in Pennsylvania, 

Ohio, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, one or two 

other States, and the regular .Army, praying for the establishment of 

national homes for indigent and maimed ex-confederate soldiers. I move that the petition be referred to the Committee on :Military Affairs. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. BLAIR presented the petition ofW. S. Wrenn and others, of Savoy, Tex., and the petition of W. S. Cole and others, of Limaburg, Ky., 

praying for the passage of a bill granting temporary aid to common schools; which were ordered to lie on the table. 

Mr. MITCHELL, of Pennsylvania., presented a petition of Hays Post, 

GrnndA.rmyoftheRepublic, Pittsburgh, Pa., praying fo.tthe passage of a bill granting public lands to the soldiers and saHors of the late war; 

which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands. 

Mr. COLQUITT pr~ented a petition of citizens of Georgia, prarymg 

for the repeal ofthe so-called silver coinage law; which was referred to 

the Committee on Finance. 

REPORTS OF 901\IMITI'EES. 

Mr. SPOONER, from theCommitteeonClaimB, towhomwasreferred 

the bill (S. 296) for the relief of .Alfred G. Hatfield, reported it with an 

amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

:Mr. DOLPH, from the Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill (S. 85) for the relief of B. Jennings, reporteditwithout 

amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

Mr. PLUMB, from the Committee on Public Lands, to whom was re- ferred the bill (S. 218) to confirm the title to certain lands in Platte