1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. SENATE. 5469 

PETITION , ETC. 

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

under the rule, and referred as follows: 

By Mr. ELDREDGE: Petition of 'Voodbury Post, No. 45, Department of Michigan, asking a pension for all Union soldiers of the la~ 

war who served sixty days or more-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

. By Mr. GLASCOCK: Memorial of W. W. and Emma R. Wirt, sole 

survivors of John L. Wirt., who was wounded in the official discharge 

of his duties on the floor of the Hou e of Representatives-to the Committee on Accounts. 

By ~lr. HARMER: Petitition of W. F. Potts relative to the extension of certain letters patent-to the Committee on Patents. 

By l\1r. H. H. HATCH: Resolution ofLockwood Post, No. 139, Grand 

Army of the Republic, Department of Michigan, relative to pension,s, 

&c.-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. . By 1\Ir. LOWRY: Memorial relating to the claim of James McCabeto the Committee on Claims. 

By Mr. S. H. 1\ITLLER: Petitions of citizens of Titusville, of Brookville, of Brownsville, of Connellsville, of Corry, of Franklin, of New 

Castle, of Warren, of Uniontown, of Union City: of Sharon, of Renovo, 

of Mercer, of Meadville, of Kittanning, of Greenville, and of Pittsburgh, Pa., and of citizens of Fredonia, N. Y., remonstrating against 

Government control of the telegraph- everally to the Committee on 

. the Po t-Office and Post-Roads. 

By l\fr. MORGAN: Memorial of the Saint Louis Academy of Science 

against the bill for the discontinuance of the Coast Survey-to the 

Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. RANDALL: Three petitions of members of the Grand Army 

of the Republic, praying for the establishment of a national cemetery 

near Philadelphiar-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

:By Mr. YOUNG: Petition of E. M. Massey for a pension-to the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, petitions relating to the claims of 1\Irs. Caroline H. Renney, ex- ecutrix, &c., of William W. Goodwin, administrator, &c., of Merirt 

Harris-severally to the Committee on War Claims. 

SENATE. 

MONDAY, June 23, 1884. 

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

The Journal of the proceedings of Saturday was read and approved. 

ELIZA W. PATTERSON. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the following 

message from the President of the United States; which was read, 

1·eferred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed: 

To the Senate: 

I have permitted House bill No. 4689, entitled "An act for the relief of Eliza. 

W. Patterson," to become a law by withholding action upon itfor ten da.ys after it was presented to me. The affairs and interests of the District of Columbia. are committed to Con- gress as its Legislature. I do not quest.ion the constitutional right of Congress to pass a law relieving the family of an officer, in view of the services he had 

rendered his country, from the burdens of taxation, but I submit to Congress 

that this just gift of the nation to the family of such faithful officer should come from the national Treasury rather tha.n from tha.t of this District, and I therefore recommend that a.n appropriation be made to reimburse the District for 

the amount of taxes which would ha.ve been due to it had this act not become a law. 

CHESTER A. ARTHUR. EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 21, 188!. 

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. 

1\Ir. SHERMAN. I am requested to present the petition of George 

S. Coe, president of the American Exchange Bank, Arthur B. Graves, 

president of the St. Nicholas Bank, William Dowd, president of the 

Bank of North America, and other bankers, merchants, and capitalists 

of New York, praying that this Forty-eighth Congress authorize the 

Secretary of War to contract with Charles Stoughton and his associates 

for the entire work of improving the Harlem River, New York, for a sum not exceeding $1,295,000, including the furnishing the right of 

way free of cost to t.he United States, the work to be completed by 

July 4, 1886. I mo>e the reference of the petition to the Committee on Commerce. 

The motion was agreed to. 

J)fr. SHERMAN. I also present a memorial signed by a large number 

of business men, lawyers, and others, of the city of Toledo, Ohio, re- mon trating against the passage of the bill nowpending before the Judiciary Committee relative to jurisdiction of United States courts in 

certain cases. I move that it be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. PENDLETON presented the memorial of 1\Iarsh and Harwood 

Company and E. Grasselli & Sons, of Cincinnati, Ohio, remonstrating 

against the passage of the bill for the construction of certain bridges across Staten Island Sound; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

Mr. PLATT presented additional papers to accompany the bill (S. 

2334) for the relief of Sigmund Bauer; which were referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

Mr. CONGER presented resolutions adopted by Lockwood Post 

Grand Army of the Republic, Alpena, 1\Iich., in favor of legislation as recommended by the general pension committee of the Grand Army of 

the Republic; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

Mr. HAWLEY presented the memorial of Franklin Rives, of Washington D. C., for himself and for the heirs of Jefferson Rives, offering 

to the' Government an additional building for the areommodation of 

the Government Printing Office; which was referred to tp.e Committee 

on Public Buildings and Grounds. 

REPORTS OF COl\fMITTEES. 

Mr. INGALLS from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom wa 

referred the bill (H. R. 7034) to increase the salary of the clerk of the 

Court of Alabama Claims, reported adversely thereon. 

Mr. HALE. I ask that the bill be placed on the Calendru:. 

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

Mr. GARLAND, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. 715) to compensate physicians for services rendered 

under an order of the United States court of the northern district of 

Alabama, reported it without amendment. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (H . R. 4411) to amend section 101 of the Revised Statutes of the United 

States so as to allow the chairman of a subcommittee of a committee 

of either House of Congress to administer oaths, reported it with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

Mr. BLAIR, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom were referred 

the following bills, reported them without amendment, and submitted 

reports thereon: 

A bill (H. R. 3307) granting a pension to Harriet P. Dame; 

A bill (H. R. 6542) granting a pension to Harriett S. Brisbine; and 

A bill (H. R. 1751) for the reliefofWilliam R. Browne. 

BILLS INTRODUCED. 

~fr. BECK introduced a bill (S. 2335) to amend section 3330 of the 

Revised Statutes, relative to the export of distilled spirits; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. LAPHAl\1 introduced a bill (S. 2336) to fadlitate the bridging 

of Raritan Bay, Arthur Kull, and Kill von Kull; which was read twice 

by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

He also introduced a bill (S. 2337) for the relief of Thomas Farthing 

and Matilda Farthing as executrix of George Farthing, deceased; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Claims. 1\Ir. PLATT (by request) introduced a bill (S. 2338) granting an increase of pension to l\Irs. Mary Mcintosh, widow of First Lieut. Donald 

Mcintosh, Seventh Cavalry, United States Army; which was read twice 

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

1\Ir. FRYE introduced a bill (S. 2339) to authorize the appointment 

of a commission of naval architects and marine engineers to examine 

and report upon new designs for steamships; which was read twice by 

its title, and referred to tbe Committee on Commerce. 

DEP ARTM.ENTAL INVESTIGATION. 

Mr. HALE. I offer the following resolution, and ask for its present 

consideration: 

Resolved, That the Committee on Public Expenditures be, and is hereby, directed to investigate the recent defalcations of disbursing officers in some of the 

Departments in Washington and the alleged frauds upon the Government by means of false vouchers in theN a.vy Department, and to inquire into the system 

adopted by such Departments for making disbursements a.nd purchases of sup- plies, with a. view to determine whether it embraces sufficient safeguards against 

defalcations and frauds; a.nd said committee is authorized to sit during the va- cation of Congress, and shall ha.ve power to send for persons and papers in the course of its investigation. 

The PRESIDENT pro tentpo-re. The Senator from 1\Iaine asks that 

the resolution be now considered. 

Mr. MORGAN. The Senator mentions in his resolution, as! understand it, making investigation into some of the Departments without 

naming them. 

The PRESIDENT. pro tempore. Is there objection to the present con- sideration ofthe resolution? 

l\Ir. COCKRELL. Let it be read. 

Mr. HALE. Let it be read. I think the Senator froin Alabama will 

not object when he hears it read. 

The resolution wa-s read. 

l\Ir. HALE. What is the title ofthe committee as given in the res- olution? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the present 

consideration of the resolution? The Chair hears none, and it is before the Senate. 

Mr. HALE. Let the Chief Clerk read the title of the committee. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

JUsoZved, Tha.t the Committee on Public ExpendituresYr. HALE. That should be changed so as to read, "the Committee on Expenaitures of Public Money." That is the committee which for 
I· 

1.1 

. -

5470 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. JUNE 3~ 

the first time in the history of the Senate exists for the purpose of conducting such examinations. I will say to the Senator from Alabama 

that I used the language '' defalcations of disbursing officers in some of 

the Departments in Washington'' without naming them specifically 

because lately there have been defalcations in some of the Departments, 

and I did not wi h to particularize or to limit the committee. 

The PRESIDE...~T pro tempore. The resolution of the Senator from 

1\Iaine will be modified as he has suggested in respect of the title of the 

committee referred to in it, and the question is on agreeing to the resolution as modified. 

1\Ir. MORGAN. I hope that the Senator from Maine will include the 

Post-Office Department in his resolution so that the in>estigation may 

extend to that as well as to the Navy Department. 

Mr. HALE. I have used the hmguage applying to defalcations in 

some of the Departments so as to cover the Po t-Office Department, the 

State Department, and one of the other Departments, and then I mention also in terms the all<:Jged false vouchers in the Navy Department, 

covering the matters that have been lately in the press and are in the 

public mind. I intend that the resolution shall be. all-embracing, so 

that the committee can cover anything. I had the Post-Office Department in mind. 

1\Ir. MORGAJ.~. If that is the intention of course I have no objection to it. That was my purpo e. 

Mr. McPHERSON. I should like to inquire of the Senator from 

Maine if it would not be wise to make the resolution sufficiently broad 

to cover the methods of keeping the accounts in all the Depar~ents? 

If there is an error in method in one Department that enables defalcations to take place, possibly the same error exists in the method of keeping a<XlOunts in other Departments. While the committeeareatwork 

·upon that subject would it not be well to make it broad enough to 

cover every matter of investigation as to methods everywhere? 

l\1r. HALE. I niay have been unhappy in the selection of my language: but my object in drawing the resolution was to cover precisely 

that, and have the committee not only report upon the alleged frauds 

and defalcations and false vouchers, but also to report whether there 

are sufficient safeguards now with reference to the accounts and with 

1 r eference to the manner of purchasing to protect the Treasury. In fact, 

I think from my experience on some of these committees before that 

the chief work of the committee will be in elaborating and preparing 

and reporting to the Senate a system under which the Government and 

the Treasury may be protected with reference to the purchases here in 

Washington. They are small in amount compared with the great expenditures of the Treasury, but they need to be looked after with a 

ern tinizing and jealous eye. 

Some new plan ought to be adopted in all the Departments in reference to the purchases here in Washington. I became convinced of 

that in an investigation that I took part in two years ago. The time 

has come when .the evil ought to be corrected, and I seek to c0rrect it 

in this resolution. 

J\Ir. mGALLS. I should like to hear the resolution read again. 

Mr. WILSON. I ask that the resolution be reported. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolutien vrill be again reported. 

The Chief Clerk read the resolution. 

Mr. McPHERSO~. I find from the reading of the rasolution that 

it is limited to "such Departments" after enumerating the Departments. It seems to me as though it would coniine the investigation of 

the committee to the Departments named in the resolution. I move 

to strike out the words "such Departments," and insert 'all the Departments.'' 

Mr. HALE. I have no objection to that amendment. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be reported 

for the information of the Senate. 

The CHIEF CLERK . . It is proposed to amend the resolution so as 

to read: 

.And to inquire into the system adopted by all the Departments of the Gov- ernment for making disbursements and purchases of supplieii. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Ur. WILSON. I iugge t that if the committee is to pursue the investigation during the recess, the resolution should give to the committee 

authority to employ a clerk or stenographer, as the clerk of the committee is only under pay during the session of the Senate. 

Mr. HALE. • Then, after the words ' shall have power to send for 

persons and papers in the course of its investigation,'' I move to add the 

words: 

And to employ a clerk and stenographer when needed; and .the expenses of 

the same !Shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate. 

The .PRESIDENT pro tempo're. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment of the Senator from Maine. 

Mr. PLATT. I should like to inquire whether, a,s theresolution now reads, it would require the committee to be in session as a full committee or whether the committee would be authorized to sit by a subcommittee? There are members of the committee who would certainly, I 

think, be unable to devote a great deal of time to this business during 

the recess, and I suppose a subcommittee could discharge the duty 

which is assigned to the committee, perhaps just M well as the full 

committee. 

:Mr. HALE. I did not intend to go into" all of the detail of the conduct of the investigation. I presumed that after it should be seton foot, 

if the committee :find that its work should be conducted in whole or m 

part by a su committee as they developed a need of that, at any time 

during the session the committee itself can come in and will have nodifficulty in getting the leave of the Senate; but I did ·not propose in 

starting the investigation to go into all of these details. I have no o bjection to their being gone into, but that was not my purpo e. The- . 

committee can regulate that afterward by leave of the Senate, if they 

find the need of it. 

1\Ir. PLATT. · In view of that suggestion, I shall not suggest any 

change at the present time. 

Ur. INGALLS. There must be some radical defect in the system oi 

keeping departmental accounts which permits a series of peculationsand misappropriations of public funds to go undetected for years. If 

the resolution is not broad enough in terms to direct the.Committee on 

Expenditures of Public M:oneyto make their examination minute and 

thorough, I hope it will be so amended as to enable t hem to make themost comprehensive and searching inquiry. I am satisfied that the 

Senator from Uaine would so desire; and it was with some regret that 

I heard him say that this subject was one that was to be determined 

upon in its scope and general outline hereafter by the action of thecommittee. 

I trust, ir, that the Senate will see the importance of directing an 

examination to be made which will be compreh ensive and minute t<>-

the la t particular, and that it shall 'not be confined merely to those instances in which defalcations or irregularities have already been discovered, but hall be so far-reaching as to relieve the apprehension in 

the public mind that there may be still greater irregularities yet undetected. If the resolution offered by the Senator from Maine does not 

include that, then I shall ask that it may be so amended that thedirecti<Dn will be absolute to the committee. 

Mr. HALE. · Jf I said what I intended to say it was this: that I 

thought the great work of the committee, its most important functionsunder the investigation, would be to go thoroughly into the whole 

system of purchases under which the fraudulent vouchers have bee 

made and passed heretofore, and report fully and exhaustively upon 

such errors, irregularities, and frauds as are discovered, and to report a method of correcting it. I think that is the largest work the com- mittee will have to do. 

Ur. INGALLS. If the Senator will pardon me fora moment I will 

suggest to him that the greatest irregularities which have been discovered have not been in connection with the purchase of supplies in theDistrict. Take the defalcation in the Post-Office Department. Thedifficulty there arose from the system which is pursued in regard to the 

deposit of the appropriation for the payment of the monthly expenditures 

of that Department in the hands of the disbursing clerk. There wasno connection whatever with the purchase of supplies in that particular, except that subsequently it did appear that certain moneys derived 

from sale of unused and waste p:ooperty in the Department had failed 

to be accounted for. 

Mr. HALE. All of that is embraced. The defalcations in any of 

the Departments of the Government are to be looked into, and I should 

have no doubt that the committee in reporting upon safeguards, upon 

guarantees, upon checks to be put in the way of the business of theDepartments, will cover all these things. I certainly intended that; 

and I am very glad that the debate ha<; arisen, because the committeeunder it, I think, will take notice that they shall make a thorough examination and report so that defalcations, deficits, false vouchers, substitution of false vouchers, shall all be considered, and their recurrenceprevented o far as we can prevent it by statute enactment. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to theamendment proposed by the Senator from Maine [Mr. HALE]. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The resolution as amended was agreed to. 

REPORT 0~ ALLEGED ELECTIO~ OUTRAGES IN VIRGINIA. 

Mr. LAPHAM. I offer the following resolution and ask for itspresent consideration: 

Ordered, That there be printed for the use of the Senate, at a cost not to -exceed 

$500, the majority report, together with the views of the minority, of the Senate- Committee on Privileges and Elections in regard to the alleged election outrages- at Danville , in the State of Virginia.. 

The PRESIDEXT pro tempore. The Senator from New York asksfur the pr ent consideration of the resolution. 

Ur. COCKRELL. Has it been referred to a committee? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It has not: 

Ur. COCKRELL. Does it not ha>e to go to the Committee on Print-- ing under the rule? . The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is in doubt. It providesfor a print, and does not speak of extra copies. It limits the expenseto $500, and o does not require a concurrent resolution. On the face 

of it, it is not a resolution which, the Chair is under the impression, requires a reference, as it does not purport to be a resolution for extra. 

copie . Mr. COCKRELL. Let the resolution be read. 

The Chief Clerk read the resolution. 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 5471 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the present con- sideration of the resolution? 

Mr. JONAS. I notice that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. 

"VANCE] who prepared the minority report is not in his seat, and I 

· therefore object to the present consideration of the resolution. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolution is objected to, and 

goes over until to-morrow. 

Mr. LAPHA.U. I will state to the Senator from Louisiana that the 

Senator from North Carolina concurs with me in the proposal of the 

resolution. 

Mr. JONAS. · If that is the case I withdraw the objection. 

The PRESIDENT JYro tempore. The objection of the Senator from 

Louisiana is withdrawn. 

Mr. SHERMAJ.'T. I will state also, if the Chair will allow me, that 

these reports having been ordered separately, at different times, they are not brought together. The resolution proposes only to print five 

hundred ds>llars' worth of the two reports, not the evidence but the 

two reports together. · The PRESIDENT p ro tempore. Is there objection to the present 

con ideration of the resolution? 

Mr. HAWLEY. I ask whether any portion of the matter has been 

put in type? 

Mr. SHERMA T. It is all in type. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Then the usual1,950 copies have been printed? 

Mr. LAPHill. They were printed separately. 

Mr. HAWLEY. You ~h to have five hundred dollars' worth of 

the joint report printed? 

Mr. LAP~!. Yes, sir. 

The PRESID&'TT pro tempore. Is there objection to the pre ent con- sideration of the resolution? The Chair hears none. The question is 

on agreeing to it. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

REPORT 0.~: ALLEGED ELECTIO~ OUTRAGES IN 1\IISSISSIPPI. 

·Mr. HOAR submitted the following resolution; which was considered 

by unanimous consent, and agreed to: 

Resolved, That there be printed for the ase of the Senate, at a cost not to exceed S500, the majority report, together with the views of the minority, by the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections in regard to certain recent alleged oc- currences in Copiah County, Mississippi. 

ADMINISTRATION OF CO~GRESSION AL OATHS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no further " concurrent 

or other resolutions'' that order is clo ed. The Chair lays before the 

Senate the Calendar under Rule VIII. 

Mr. GARLAND. At the suggestion of two or three Senators I ask 

the Senate. to take up the bill I reported from the Judiciary Committee 

in reference to the administering of oaths by the committees of the Senate 

and House. It will not take, I am satisfied, exceeding ten or twelve 

minutes. Several Sea.ators have requested me to call it up and have it 

acted upon now, inasmuch as it is a House bill. 

The PRESIDE:NT pro tempore. The bill has gone into the Secretary's 

office and will be returned in a moment. The Senator from Arkansas 

asks unanimous consent that the Senate now consider the bill relating 

to the administering of oaths in the two Houses, before their committees, 

reported to-day. Is there objection? 

Mr. MAXEY. I hope there will be none. A very important resolution was passed at the instance of the chairman of the Committ~e on Indian Affairs [:Mr. DAWES] regarding an investigation in the Indian 

Territory, and thai will probably have to be done by a subcommittee. 

I am very anxious that it should be a thorough investigation, and I 

think the bill would give full power to a subcommittee's chairman to 

administer oaths, fl.lld it ought to be passed. 

By unanimous consent, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceed~d to consider the bill (H. R. 4411) to amend section 101 of the 

Revised Statutes of the United States, o as to allow a chairman of a subcommittee of a committee of either House of Congress to administer 

oaths, which had been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary 

with an amendment, to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: 

That any member of either House of Congress may administer oaths to wit- nesses in any matter depending in either House of Congress of which he is a member, or any committee thereof. ·. 

The amendment was a~reed to. 

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

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

The bill was read the third time, and passed. 

The title was amended so.,as to read: "A bill to provide for the administration of oaths to witnesses in matters depending in either House 

of Congress. 

OFFICERS AND CREW OF THE DEXTER. 

Mr. HOAR. I ask unanimous consent at this time to propose a question to the chairman of th.e Committee on Commerce. 

There are a good many persons in the State of Massachusetts interested in a resolution of thanks, which has passed the House, to the 

officers and crew of the revenue steamer Dexter, and other persons, for 

gallant services at the time of the disaster to the steamer Columbus, 

and I desire to ask that Senator to state the condition of that resolution in his committee. 

:Mr. McUILLA...'T. In answer to the Senator from :uassacbusetts I 

will say that the joint resolution has been before the committee, and 

has been referred to a subcommittee for consideration. The subcommittee will report to the committee very soon. Mr. HOAR. Does the Senator expect a report on it before the. close 

of the present session of Congress? 

Mr . .McMILLAN. When the report is received from the subcommittee it will be acted upon, I presume, by the committee at once. I 

can not state, however, positively what the action of the subcommittee 

will be. 

Mr. HOAR. If the Senator is not able to say that the resolution will 

be reported at the present session I might like to ask some action of the 

Senate. I understand there are quite a number of precedents of similar resolutions. Perhaps some persons should be included that are not 

included by the House, especially the Gay Head Indians. I hope the 

Committee on Commerce will be able to deal with it at this session. 

The thanks will be deprived of their value, partially at least, if not 

quickly made. E~ROLLED BILLS SIG~ED. 

A message from the House of Represetatives, by Mr. CLARK, its 

Clerk, announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the following enrolled bills; and they were thereupon signed by the Preside•t 

pro tempore: 

A bill (H. R. 2677) granting a pension to Uiss Mary P. .MacBlair; 

and 

A bill (H. R. 6526) Jna,king an appropriaj;ion for the completion of 

the sewerage system of the District of Columbia. 

· RAILROAD IN INDIAN Til:RRITORY. 

1\Ir. PLUMB. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration 

of the bill (H. R. 4680) to grant a right of way through the Indian 

Territory to the Southern Kansas Railwa.y Company, and for other 

purposes. 

· Mr. MITCHELL. When the Senate adjourned Saturday it was understood that the Mexican pension bill was to be taken up this 

morning. Mr. PLUMB. At 2 o'clock. 

111r. MITCHELL. There was no hour fixed. 

Ur. PLUMB. It was expressly stated, if the Senator will observe 

the RECORD, that the pensiou bill should be taken up at 2 o'clock. 

111r. MITCHELL. 1\Iy understanding was that the bill should be 

taken up immediately after the morning business. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion is not open to debate. 

The Chair on looking at the RECORD does not find that there is anything which authorizes the Chair to lay any matter before the Senate. 

A discussion was going on upon the subject, the Chair finds, when the 

Senate adjourned, on a motion made by the Senator from Colorado [111r. 

HILL] to proceed to the consideration of the postal telegraph bill. The 

Chair therefore feels bound to put the motion made by the Senator 

from Kansas. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Ur. PresidentThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion is not open to debate. 

The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Kansas 

that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of the bill indicated 

by him. 

The question being put, there were on a division-ayes 32., noes 12. 

Mr. HOAR. · I call for the yeas and nays. · 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Ur. HOAR. I desire to make a parliamentary inquiry. Ifthe pending motion prevails does that displace the Mexican pension bill? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It does not displace anything, as 

nothing is before tbe Senate, e:x:cept the Calendar under Rule VIII, 

until 2 o'clock. The Secretary will call the roll on the motion of the 

Senator from Kansas. 

The roll was called. 

Mr. :hflLLER, of New York. I am paired with the Senator from 

North Carolina [Mi. RANSO)f]. 

Mr. PUGH. I wish to state that the Senator from North Carolina 

[Mr. VA -cE] is paired with the Senator from Illinois [Mr. CuLLOMl. 

The result was announced-yeas 39, na.ys 14; as follows: . YEAB-39. 

Allison, Colquitt, Ingalls, Pendleton, 

Bayard, Dolph, Jack on, Plumb, 

Beck, Fair, Jonas, Pugh, 

Bowen, Farley, Jones of Florida, Sawyer, 

Brown, Frye, Kenna, Sewell, 

Call, Garland, Lamar, Slater, 

Cameron of Pa., Gorman, Lapham, Vet, 

Cameron of Wis., Hale, .. McPherson, Walker, 

Cockrell, . Hampton, 1\faxey, Wilson. 

Coke, Harrll!, 1\Iorgan, 

NAY8-14. 

Blair, Groome, Mit.chell, Platt, 

Conger, Harrison, Morrill, Sherm.a.n. 

Dawes, Hoar1 Palmer, 

Edmunds, :Mcl\fillan, Pike, 

,I# 

I 
'.' ~- . 

5472 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. JUNE 23, 

.ABSENT-23. 

Aldrich, Gibson, Manderson, 

Anthony, Hawley, Miller of Cal., 

Butler, Hill, Miller of N.Y., 

Camden, .Jones of Nevada, Ransom, Cullom, Logan, Riddleberger, 

George, Mahone, Sabin, 

Saulsbury, 

Vance, 

VanWyck, 

Voorhees, 

Williams. 

So the motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the 

Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. 4680) to grant a right of 

wa.y through the Indian Territory to the Southern Kansas Railway 

J Compltny, and for other purpo es. Mr. PLUUB. I ask unanimous consent that the pending bill be read 

for amendment. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas asks unanimous consent that the pending bill have its reading in Committee of 

the Whole by sections for amendment. Is there objection? The Chair 

hear none. The first section of the bill will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read section 1. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mi. HAWLEY in the chair). Are 

there amendments to be proposed to the first section? 

Mr. HARRISON. Mr. President, the votes which were taken on 

Saturday in the consideration of another bill granting a right of way to 

a railway through the Indian Territory and the vote which has been 

taken this morning, showing very decidedly the determination of the 

Senate to pass these _ bills, will deter me from spending much time in 

the di cussion of this bill; but I shall feel it to be my duty to offer the 

same amendments which I moved to the bill under consideration on 

Saturday. · I think the Senate ought to know that this is infact an authority for 

two railroads through the Indian Territory. We passed one on Saturday, and this bill, while but a single railway corporation is named in 

the title of it and in the body of it, provides for the construction of 

two entirely independent lines, .one running southacross the Territory 

and the other in a southwesterly direction. They do not enter the 

Territory at the same point; they do not branch within the limits of 

the Territory, but they are two entirely independent roads. They may 

be under the contrc;>l of one company; it may be in the interest of a 

single syndicate that these roads are to be built; but I think the Senate ougl;tt to know that there are two independent roads proposed to be 

constructed by this bill. · I call the attention of the Senate also to the fact that as to the road 

that is called a branch road, the one running in a southwesterly direction, the first line described, is "westerly along or near the northern 

line of said Territory, to a point at or near where 1\Iedicine Lodge Creek 

crosses the northern line of said Territory." 

I do not know-perhaps the Senator from Kansas can tell me-what 

length that line would be from the starting-point, crossing at Medicine 

Lodge Creek. 

Mr. PLUMB. I sho~d say it would be in the neighborhood of fifteen miles. 

Mr. HARRISON. I should judge a much longer distance by looking at the map; but the Senator may be right. It will be noticed that 

there is here a right of way granted along or parallel to the northern 

line of the Indian Territory ior whatever distance it may be, fifteen or 

twenty miles, when there can be no sort of reason for entering the Territory at all at that point, unless it be that it is found cheaper for the 

company to get their right of way in the Territory rather than in the 

State of Kansas. Here is the northern line, and they are allowed by 

this to run along or near that line just inside the Territory rather than 

extend the line in the State of Kansas itself to the point where they 

should leave the State to take a southwesterly direction across the 

Territory. 

lli. PL U~ffi. The question of the cost of the right of way would 

be a very inconsiderable inducement to the railroad company. This is 

a question, I fancy, from what I know about the country there, more about the practicability of the route than anything else, because the 

railroad would not build ten or fifteen miles away from its natural point, 

where by so doing it would go through a country where there was no 

local traffic. The line through the State of Kansas would give a little 

more business to the road than it would in the Indian Territory; but 

there are certain topographical objections there which I think have 

controlled the determination of the route of the road. 

I beg the Senator to observe that the strictures which he made on 

Saturday on the bill then under consideration in regard to the indefinitene of the line do not apply here, because this is fixed with such a 

reasonable degree of certainty as I think will suit almost any one. 

:Mr. HARRISON. It seems, t.hen, that this railroad company desires 

to get this strip of land immediately along the line of the Indian Territory. They will then be quite accessible to the State of Kansas, as 

their right of way may extend to the line, and·probably would as it is 

described here. They would have all the advantages of local traffic in 

Kansas and at the same time take the right of way from the Indians 

for the meager compensation that is provided in this bill. 

But I did not intend to discuss the bill generally. That probably 

would be a waste of time. 'J'he bill we have before us has never been 

before a committee of the Senate. It may be or may not be-l have 

not had time to compare it-identical in language with a bill reported 

by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs; but certain it is that we 

are proceeding now to the consideration of a bill that ha never had the 

consideration of any Senate committee. 

I move, in line 24, to strike out the word "extension. " It is singular how inapt the framers of these bills are in using terms. I had occasion on Saturday to call attention to the fuct that in the bill we were 

then considering the word ''branches" was put in, and yet it was said that it had reference simply to tracks to be built on the right of 

way; and yet I take it no man in railroad nomenclature ever called a 

track built upon a company's right of way a branch track. 

Mr. PLUMB. So far as I have power to give any consent to the 

amendment, I am entirely willing the section shall be amended ru the 

Sen,ator has suggested. Further than that, I may say now, once for 

all, that I am entirely willing, and I believe every one el e is who is a 

friend of this bill, that it shall be amended as the bill that passed the 

Senate on Saturday was amended. I will go further, and say that any 

other amendment which does not essentially cripple the railroad company in the building of this railroad will be entirely acceptable to me 

at least. 

Mr. HARRISON. I am much obliged to the Senator from Kan as that he is willing to accept any amendment that does not cripple the 

railroad company. I think there is another interest to be considered 

here, and that is the interest of the Indians, and another still not to be 

overlooked, namely, our treaty relations to these tribes. 

I want to say that it has never been a practice of this Government to 

allow a railroad company to cross an Indian reservation, even where it 

was established only by an executive order, without requiring the company to negotiate with the tribe. I recollect well a few years ago when 

I was in Montana that theagentsofthe NorthernPaci.fi.cRailroad Company were holding a council with, the Crows to agree upon the terms on 

which they might cross the Crow reservation, that negotiation being 

under the supervision of the Indian Bureau. But here we are passing 

bills one after another, one Saturday for onernilroad, two railroads embodied in this to-day, without ever going to these civilized tribes at all 

and asking their consent, without entering into any negotiation with 

them as to the terms on which thee grants should be given. 

llir. VEST. Does not the Senator from Indiana know--if he does not 

know I will inform him now of the fact-that the right of way through 

the Crow reservation and the Flathead reservation was condemned and 

commissioners appointed without eonsulting the Indians in regard 

to it? 

Mr. HARRISON. I do not know what the ultimate course taken 

may have been, but I do know that there was a council called, and that 

the agents of that railroad entered upon negotiation with them on the 

subject. 

llfr. VEST. The facts are that the commissioners were appointed 

and the right of way condemned; there was no commissioner appointed 

at the instance of the Indians at all; and I called the attention of Congress to it by offering a resolution to pay the money which was assessed 

for the right of way through the Flathead reservation at this session 

of the Senate. · 

Mr. HARRISON. That may be true. 

111r. DAWES. I think the Senator from Missouri is mistaken. Since 

I have had something to do with the Committee on Indian Affairs every 

railroad that has crossed an Indian reservation has been in pursuance 

of an agreement entered into in the Interior Department with the Indians themselves at a fixed price, ratified here by a bill reported from 

the Committee on Indian Affairs in ratification of the agreement. I do 

not know of a single exception. 

Mr. VEST. I still assert the fad, and the record will show that 

the right of way was condemned through the Flathead reservation by 

commissioners, and afterward we passed a bill here, and the Senator 

knows that I offered a resolution, which was referred to the Committee 

on Indian Affairs, who sent it to the Appropriations Committee. 

111r. DAWES. The pay came to the Flathead Indians in the way 

the Senator indicates. 

Mr. VEST. But the point I indicated wasthattheright of waywas 

condemned by commissioners. 

Mr. DAWES. Not since I have had anything to do with the Committee on Indian Affairs has there been a railroad authorized to cross 

an Indian reservation in any other way, except in the Indian Territory, 

and that w&> done through the Railroad Committee without the advice 

of or without any recommendation from the Committee on Indian Affairs. ' 

Mr. VEST. As a matter of course the Committee on Indian Affairs 

have nothing to do with condemning the right of way. All they have 

to do is to consider the payment after the condemnation is made. But 

I say there was no agreement between t:Qe Indians and the railroad 

company as to the price of that land. 

1\ir. DAWES. I think the Senator is mistaken. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana is entitled 

to the floor. 

Mr. DAWES. The Senator undoubtedly intends to communicate it 

as he understands it; but the record, I am quite sure, will bear out 

the statement which I make in reference to every Indian reservation; 

and the first time within my knowledge in eith er House of Congress 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-_ SENATE. 5473 

that an attempt was made to put a railroad across an Indian reservation without the consent of the Indians was at the last session of Congress when the idea was forthe first time broached that, in spite of our 

agreement not to, we would assert our power. 

.Mr. SEWELL. I simply want to reply to the Senator from :M:assachusetts. The bill reported at the last Congress from the Rlillroad 

Committee granting a charter for a railroad company in the Indian 

Territory provided not for so much per acre or per mile for the right of 

way two hundred feet, but provided that the railroad company should 

get the consent of the legislatures of the two nations and the headmen 

of the tribes before they went through. 

Mr. HARRISON. I think the Senator is right that in the case of 

the Saint Louis and San Francisco road that was expressly provided, 

and I call the attention of the Senate to the fact that all the safeguards 

which were thrown around that charter are utterly disregarded in the 

charters which we are now passing. 

Ur. President, can anything more arbitrary be thought of than that 

_ the Congress of the United States should undertake to say how much 

per mile this railroad company shall pay for the occupancy of these 

lnnds in the Indian Territory? The Senator from :Missouri says that in 

the other case commissioners were appointed and the damagE>.s or the 

compensation to be paid for the right of way was assessed. How is it 

here? It is stipulated in this bill, without any negotiation with these 

tribes at all, that the compensation is to be $50 per mile for the right 

of way through these Inman lands and $15 a mile to be paid annually 

thereafter for the benefit of the tribes; and then we have the stipulation that if within four or five months after that time the councils of 

these tribes shall dissent then some machinery shall be put in fotce by 

which we shall have an assessment of the right of way. I say that it 

is arbitrary and inexorable and unreasonable. 

Mr. COKE. Will the Senator from Indiana permit me to ask him a 

question? 

.Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COKE. · I ask the Senator from Indiana if when lands are condemned in Indiana and in any other State in the Union, exactly the 

smt of process is not resorted to that is prescribed in this bill, except 

that there is no offer made of a certain amount in the first instance as 

is made in this bill to the Indians? 

Mr. HARRISON. ·By no manner of means, Mr. President; and the 

Senator from Texas is too good a lawyer not to know that there is no 

relation between the case he suggests and this case. We are dealing 

here with a people upon whom we have conferred local sovereignty 

over this question. We have given them political rights there as well 

as rights in the land as owner. 

Mr. COKE. I undertake to say that in no State of the Union are 

thewhitepeopledealtwithhalfso liberally when theirlandsaresought 

to be condemned for railroads as the Indians are in this bill. This bill 

simply says to the Inilians: "Here is a certain amount that you can 

take if you think it is sufficient; if you believe it is not sufficient, the 

courts are open to you where you can by judicial proceedings have 

the full value of your land determined." There is nothing in any State 

law which says more to any white men in anyStateoft:Q.e Union than this. 

Ur. HARRISON. I yielded to the Senator for a question. He has 

asked it. The Senator thinks the provisions here are humane toward 

these Indiaru, and he speaks of the jurisdiction which is given to the 

courts to which they may go and have these matters-settled. Why, 

Mr. President, the claims that these individual occupants ofland may 

have either for damages done to their lands or to their buildings or improvements by the crossing of this railroad company they had better a 

hundred times concede or donate to the railroad company than to seek 

the remedies that are provided in the bill. 

Does the Senator know of any State in the Union where a farmer 

whose little tract of land is crossed by a railroad company is required 

to go one to two hundred miles into another jurisdiction to assert his 

.claim? The forums there are local, they are accessive, they are in-

.expensi ve, and I undertake to say that in nine cases out of ten the 

Indian whose home or property is c;lamaged by tllis road in. crossing 

.had better give .it to the railroad company than to seek his remedy in 

the courts. 

Mr. COKE. The Inman goes to the Indian court just as the white man goes to my friend's court. 

1\Ir. HARRISON. But you take him away from his own court that 

you have expressly given him by treaty, where this question should be 

settled; and I call attention again to the fact that whereas the Senate 

has required the assent of t~i bes in ad vance of the building of the roads, 

as the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. SEWELL] has said, we are going 

on so far here now that we do not ask their consent, and I find in the 

bill a stipulation that the general council of either of these nations may 

within four months after thefiling of a map and definite location dissent from the allowances provided in this section. No previous consent 

is asked. I say that no lawyer will take these two bills, the one the 

San Francisco and S;:tint Louis bill, which the Senate passed at the last 

Congress, and lay it alongside of this, who will not see that almost every 

valuable right which was reserved to the Indians there bas been taken 

awa-y by this bill, leaving the way open to dealing with that whole 

question, irrespective ofthe rights of the Indians. 

XV-343 '· 

However, the votes which have been taken on this question discourage much discussion. My motion is to strike out the word "extensions,'' in line 24, of section 1. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would suggest to the Senator that he ought to strike ont also the word "and," which precedes 

it, and insert the word ''and" before the worq "sidings," in line 23. 

Mr. HARRISON. Yes·, sir. 

Mr. BROWN. How would it then read? 

The PRESIDL.~G OFFICER. The Secretary Will read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. In line 23, before the word '' sidiH.gs,'' it is 

moved to insert the word ''and,'' and after the word ''sidings'' to strike 

out "and extelisions;" so as to read: 

Wit.h the right to construct, use, and maintain such tracks, turnouts, and sidings as said company may deem it to their interest to construct along and upon the right of_way and depot grounds hereby granted. 

Mr. CONGER. I agree, Mr. President1 with all the Senator from 

Indiana has said in regard to this bill and the encroachments upon the 

rights of the Indians in the Indian Territory in this and, as I have opposed them, in other bills. 

The Committee on Commerce, of which I was a member, necessarily 

sat on Saturday at the time the former of the two bills in question was 

passed. I had intended then, as I propose to do now, to present to the 

Senate and have spread upon the RECORD the protest of the delegation of 

the Cherokee Nation in attendance near this seat of government to 

watch over and have care of the rights of these Indians in the Indian 

Territory. 

I do not know that I have ever read a protest from the representatives of any people that set forth in so plain a manner the wrongs and 

the encroachments of a great government upon. a poor people as is contained in this circular addressed to myself and to other Senators here, 

and which the members of the Cherokee delegation, Mr. Bell and lli. 

Schrimsher, desired to have presented to the Senate and to the Amencan people. I ask that it be rea-d and go into the RECORD. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The paper sent up by the Senator 

from Michigan will be read. 

The Chief Clerk rea-d as follows: WASHINGTON, D. C., June16,1884. 

Sm: Two bills granting the right of way to private corporations each for a railroad througfi our county were passed the House of Representatives on May 

30, and are now before the Senate ; they are an act to grant to the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway Company a right of way through the Indian Ter- ritory, and for other purposes, H. R. 3961, nnd H. R. 4680, granting a. similar 

right to the Southern Kansas Railway Company. These bills have been re- ferred to no Senate committee, and if passed will revolutionize the Indian Ter- ritory under the pretext of granting a right of way.· . 

:M:r. CONGER. • Let me interfere pere. I desire to make that. protest part of my remarks. I do not know whether that assertion that 

these House bills' have been referred to no committee of the Senat~ is 

true or not, but I had looked and inquired if there was any report 

from any committee in favor of these bills before the Senate, and I am informed that there is no report. 

Mr. INGALLS. It is perhaps just that the Senator from Michigan 

should be advised that bills identical with these which passed the House 

were reported from committees of the Senate and are now on the Calendn-. 

1\fr. HARRISON. Will the Senator allow me to correct him? That 

is true a.s to one single bill that went to the Committee on Inilian Affairs, and was reported by the Senator. The bill that went to our Committee on Railroads (S. 50) in xelation to the Gulf Railroad Company 

was a totally different bill from the House bill, though I am bound to 

say that the House bill was much moie friendly to the Indians than 

the Senate bill. 

~1r. INGALLS. Then substantially my statement is correct that 

both subjects had been under consiqeration by the committees of this 

body and reports had been made, so that the Senator from Michigan is 

technic·ally correct, but at the same time the matters have received attention from Senate committees . 

Mr. CONGER. Oh! they have been considered by the Committee on Territories, although the bills were not referred to the Committee 

on Territories. But these bills and thesubject-matteroftheencroachment upon Inman rights were considered by the qommittee on Terri- tor~es. I am free to say it vras not believed it was possible that such 

a bill as one of these is, as this bill before the Senate is, could be re- ported favorably without great alteration!!~ and amendments. Now, on 

these bills there is no report whatever, none on this special bill or its 

provisions, and these representatives of the Cherokee Nation come before the American people in their protest and say that the Senate is 

passing a bill here without having the report of a committee upon it. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator desire to have the 

reading completed? · 

Ur. CONGER. Yes, sir; but as that was part of my remarks, I 

thought I would interpolate now an~ then to emphasize what the delegation say. 

The Chief Clerk resumed and concluded the reading of the paper as as follows: 

Besides the main lines this bill gives them the right to construct branches 

without liini.t in our country. They in the first place proceed to take our prop- erty w~thout in any way consulting us, and are full of new, dangerous, and in-
5474 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. JUNE 23, 

jurious propo itions, never before heard of in any railroad charter in any State or Territory, and which would not be tolerated there. Such a proposition as that a railroad company could settle its employes on the right of way, thus to acquire vested rights, eYen if employed for a month, may well indeed be called bills to open the Indian Territory to settlement. Section 7 of both bills opens to settlement all along the line the lands granted 

by it in the second section. Besides the right of wa,y. stations may be created in the discretion of the comp&ny when an additional grant of 200 feet wide and 3,000 feet long is given them-enough to build a village on every seven miles. They may also take additional amounts wherever they want for ·• cuts and fills," and on all of these settlements may be made. Provision is thus made for straggling towns and settlements all along the line. Permits are not to be re- quired of such settlers. Any one can be introduced by the company under the plea that they are employes, and obtain vested rights in improvements there,on from which it would be difficult or impossible to remove or dispossess them. \Vhatrailway company in the United States is permitted to allow its laborers or employes to settle on and build houses and make gardens and acquire indi- vidual rights on the right of way? In the Indian-Territory it would be an open d<>Or to create drinking saloons and trading establishments all along the line. To show that it was designed for this purpose, and entirely unnecessary for the operation of the road, we refer to the clause under which two roads have been successfully operated for more than two years. That ought to be followed. \Ve granted the right of way to two railroad companies in the treaty of 1866, the eleventh section containing (volume 14, pages 801 and 802, Stats.): "Said company or corporation, and their employes and laborers, while con- structing and repairing the same, &nd in operating sa,id road or roads, includ- ing a.U necessary agents on the line, at stations, switches, water-tanks, and all others necessary to the successful operation of a railroad, shall be protected in the discharge of their duties, and at all times subject to the Indian intercourse laws, now or which may hereafter be enacted and be in force in the Cherokee Nation." 

\Ve would further call attention to the totally inadequate compensation for this-valuable franchise, which interferes wit.h the cultivation and successfulgraz· 

ing and other interests of our people. For one hundred miles of such a fran- chise they propose in this bill to pay us $.'>,000. No one could pretend that this was the value of such a franchise. For the Choctaw right of way $2,000 a year was paid. The price at which it is thus arbitrarily proposed to dispose of our property is not one-tenth of what it is worth. The Umted States sold us and patented to us our property for a full consideration, and it thus proposes to take it without consulting us. In your treaties you guaranteed to us that our legis- ture and courts should have exclusive jurisdiction of all questions touching the persons and property of our people. In those bills you propose to violate our treaties and insert, a provision for compensation that is altogether unfair and thus take our property for the benefit of a private corporation withoutjudlcial determination. 

The provisions of these bills for paying damages to individuals through whose farms and houses it may run are altogether unjust and inRdeq uate. Instead of allowing the individual affected to select one appraiser and the company &n- other, and they, if necessary, to select a third, the commission thus created is packed to begin with, by allowing the third man to be selected by the Indian Bureau. We know by experience what that amounts to. In the former case the United States agent &nd the railroad agent fixed the damages. The United States agent traveled free on the road, and was· otherwise under the influence of the railroad company the moment he was designated. In one C!V!e the com- mission allowed 15 damages to a settler for going through his fenced and cul- tivated farm diagonally for nearly a mile, and the owner never even conde- scended to take this flagrant assessment of damages. . The bill further provides for an appeal to courts which have by their ogani- zation no civil jurisdiction in our country, and even if they had, the machinery is far t<>O expensive and cumbrous, and the distance to be traveled too great to be of any avail. In every case the expense to the claimant would be more than he rould po ibly recover, In the larger interest of the nation no appeal is given to the l:)upreme Court, and we are left to the jurisdiction of hostile courts. '£he civil jurisdiction is now vested in our. courts. They have their regular ses- sions. We venture to say that their proceedings are as honorable and fair as those of auy court in any State or Territory. The Atlantic and Pacific Railwa y, by volutary agreement, agreed to refer everycaseinvolving civil jurisdiction to the local courts. This was done two years ago, and they have never desired to chn.nge it. \Vhy seek now to violate our treaties and overthrow the jurisdiction 

of our courts? There is another provision to which we would call your attention. To escape taxation, to which they would be subject in any State, it is adroitly provided that Congress may tax these railroads. You are well aware that Congress is not in the habit of laying taxes on property in States and Territories. It would be a new and unprecedented if not unconstitutional thing. It is intended to prohibit &ny local taxations and will be the basis of a claim by the company that they can never be locally taxed or taxed at all. Some half dozen companies are now clamoring for rights of way through our country, more roads than are at present needed. They wish to get valuable franchises from our property to sell. They will file maps for roads and branches all over our country and forbid our people from using all these portions of our property on pain of confiscation, lf any further roads are needed we would suggest that authority be given to the Secretary of the Interior to enter into negotiations for such right of way and necessary privileges with the authorities of the nation to whom the property belongs. In this way all roads that really need to be built can be constructed on terms fair and honorable to all parties. Until this has been tried we respectfully protest against these dangerous inno- vations and wholesale confiscations of our rights1 and we appeal to the Ameri- can Congress not thus unjustly to violate its trea.t1es with us. We are, very respectfully, 

Ron. OMAR D. CoNGER, United Statu Benak · 

L. B. BELL, I 

J. G. SCHRIMSHER, 

Cherokee Delegation. 

Mr. CONGER. Whether that has been listened to by Senators or 

not, or whether they have read it otherwise, I desire that that protest, 

carefully drawn, r.espectfully worded, made by the Cherokee delegation near this seat of government, allowed to be here as agents for that 

government, watching the intereSts of their people, shall be heard, and 

I desire that it shall go into the RECORD that the people of the United 

States may see that our treatment of the Indians in the Indian Territory at the command of these railroad corporations is infamously worse 

than any private citizens in any other part of the United States are treated by any corporations that are permitted to exist. 

Sir, there is a picture of violated treaties, of assumption of power, 

of direct wrong to the Indian.S as a whole, and a direct refusal of rights 

to the Indians in particular, such as I think can never be found in any 

other law or any other provisions of law that Congress in these days 

luis ever passed. 

I am free to say that when I read that humble petition and appeal 

to the Congress of the United States from the representatives of a nation which has emerged from its savage state to a high condition of 

civilization, from a people to whom we pledged a separate Territory 

and a separate government and separate courts, and the defense of 

their rights in th~ir own way, I felt an indignn,tion which I do not desire to express here to-day. 

Now, sir, this bill should go to a cOmmittee, that the first prin~iples 

of justice and of right, that the prime obligations of our treaties with 

these Indian tribes may be enacted in the bill, that rights may be protected by it, and that great wrongs may be avoided. 

Sir, what is the use of ha"ing a separate Indian Territory for these 

nations that are becoming civilized and Christianized if, as they ay, 

you may scatter along the whole line of interior communication the 

grog-shop and the theater, if you may plant right in their midst the 

worst seeds of evil and, of crime and they have no voice in regard to it, 

for, as these delegates say, under the provisions of this act the company may build all along the line through the Indian Territory under 

the pretense of building houses aud accommodations for the employes 

of the road, and they may scatj;er all through not only the residences 

of the employes, but the dram-shops to corrupt both employes and Indians. 

I do not know that the Senate will adopt such amendments as ought 

to be made to make this bill conform to other bills such as are passed, 

even to go through the States and the Territories where there is the 

protection of general laws; but if not I hope before it is disposed of it 

will be committed to the committee, that they may incorporate into 

it some of the plain practical principles of justice and of right and of 

protection, not only. to the property of the Indians but to their morals. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is on the amendment of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HARRISON]. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any other amendment to the 

first section? If not, the second section will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read section 2. 

Mr. DAWES. I offer to this bill the same amendment that W38 

adopted on my motion to the other bill, to strike out lines 14, 15, a.M 

16 of section 2, and insert what I send to the d~k, from the RECORD of 

yesterday. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be reported. 

The CHIEF CLERK. In section 2, beginning at line 14, it is proposed 

to strike out: 

That no part of the lands intended to be occupied for right of way or depot purposes shall be used except in such manner as may be necessary for the con- struction and convenient operation of said railroad, telegraph, and telephone. 

And to insert in lieu thereof: 

That no part of the lands herein granted shall be used except in such manner and for such purposes only as shall be necessary for the construction and con- venient operation of said railcoad, telegraph, and telephone lines; and when any portion thereof shall cease to be so used, such portion shall revert to the nation or tribe of Indians from which the same shall have been taken. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further amendment to 

the second section? If not, the third section will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read section 3. 

Mr. DAWES. In line 26 of section 3 I mo'\'"e to strike out the words: 

One to be named by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, one by the principal chief of the nation or tribe in which the land to be appropriated is situated, and one by said company. 

And insert in place thereof: 

To be appointed by the President. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of 

the Senator from Massachusetts. 

The amendment,was agreed to. 

Ur. DAWES. That involves the necessity of another amendment in 

the fifth section, but perhaps I had better wait until that is reached. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further amendment to 

section 3 the fourth section will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read section 4. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there amendments to this sec- tion ? If not, the fifth section will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read section 5. 

.i\!r. D.A. WES. In line 32 of section 5, after the word "lands," I 

move to strike out: 

Except that one of said referees shall be appointed by the council of the dis- senting nation or tribe, instead of by its principal chief. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of 

the Senator from Massachusetts. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

lflr. HARRISON. I move to strike out the word "four," in line 25~ 

and insert 11 twelve.'' 

The section gives the council of the dissenting tribe four months after 

the :filing of the maps of definite location. I do not know what their 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. 5475 

laws may be, or how often their councils assemble; but as we are undertaking to fix their compensation here without consulting them, it seems 

to me that twelve months is not an unreasonable time to allow them 

to act on the question. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question isontheamendmentof 

the Senator from Indiana. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Tlie PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there other amendments to section 5? If none, section 6 will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read section 6. 

Mr. HARRISON. In line 2 of that section I move to strike out the 

word "general." · It seems to be indicated by this that a map oflocation shall be filed, and that when filed it shall excludetheright of any 

person to settle upon that land. If that is to operate with any fairness 

at aJI, this location ought not to be the general route; it ought to be 

the specific and located route described in such a way that persons who 

might desire to settle on the land should be able to know by examining the profile whether they were within or without the right of way 

of this tailway. 

Mr. PLUMB. There is no objection to that amendment. Itisvery 

proper. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

proposed by the Senator from Indiana. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

1\lr. HA.RRISON. At the end of the same section I move to insert 

the words: 

And said location shall be !J>pproved by the Secretary of the Interior before 

work is begun. 

Mr. PLUUB. That is all right. It is a similar a.rrf{mdment to one 

adopted on Saturday. 

Mr. HARRISON. I do not know whether it comes in in the same 

relation to other matters in the bill, but I think it will do to put it in 

there. · 

The amendment was agreed to. . 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further amendment to 

section 6? If not, section 7 will be read. 

Mr. CONGER. I move, in line 12ofsection 6, a.ftertheword "thereafter," to insert: 

And shall complete said railroad within two years thereafter. 

1\lr. PLUMB. I call attention to the fact that in section 9 there is 

a limitation on the time of construction. 

Mr. CONGER. This refers to grading the line. It does not take more than one man and a shovel to commence grading. 

Shall commence grading said located line within six months thereafter. 

There should be a limit to the time when it shall be completed. 

Mr. PL MB. All right. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from :Michigan will be read. , 

The CHIEF CLERK. In section 6, line 12, after the word "thereafter," it is proposed to insert: 

And shall complete said railroad: within two years thereafter. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further amendment to 

ection6? 

:Mr. CONGER. I move to strike out the last part of section 6. It 

reads: 

Or such location shall be void a.s to any occupant thereof. 

I move to strike out the words "as to any occupant thereof," in lines 

12 and 13, so as to read : 

"Shall commence grading said located line within six months thereafter, and 

shall complete said railroad within two years thereafter, or such location shall 

be void." 

It ought to be void as to the tribe and everybody if it be void a.t all. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

proposed by the Senator from Michigan. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further amendment to 

section 6? 

Mr. CONGER. I have an amendment to the section, which I have 

not prepared now. I will prepare it hereafter. 

. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Section 7 will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read section 7. 

:Ur. HARRISON. That is very clearly and palpably in violation of 

the treaties with these tribes, as I undertook to show the Senate on 

Saturday by reading from the treaties. I move to insert this from the 

tenth section of the Saint Louis and San Francisco charter1 striking out 

section 7 and inserting this in lieu of it: 

The. officers, servants, and employes of said company necessary to the con- tructwn and management of said road shall be allowed to reside, while so en- gage41, upon such right of way, but subject to the provisions of the Indian inter- course laws n.nd such rules and reguln.tions as may be established by the Secretary of the Interior. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. CONGER. If I may be allowed now to go back to section6, instead of taking it up at some other ti.J,ne, I will offer my amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no objection the amendment ofthe Senator from Michigan to section 6 will be received. 

Mr. CONGER. I move to strike out, in line 6, after the word "located:'' down to and including the word "company" at the end of 

line 8. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from 1\lichigan moves an 

amendment to strike out of section 6 the words which will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read the words proposed to be stricken out, as follows: 

And after the filing of~idmaps no claim for asubsequentsettlementandimprovement upon the right of way shown by said maps shall be valid a.s against 

said company. 

Mr. CONGER. We have-made provision that if the located line is 

not graded within a certain time and is not :finished within two years 

the whole grant shall be void, but this provides that no Indian shall 

make any claim after the line is located. 

~fr. PLUMB. I will say to the Senator from Michigan that there 

is no objection to the amendment at all. I have no doubt it will be 

adopted. 

lli. CONGER. These things that · are so palpably wrong that the 

mere suggestion of them is sufficient to have them stricken out may 

affect very many 1-ights. I think they call for a ""very critical examination of this bill and a little allusion to it once in a while. I will 

not. make any further remarks on this amendment. My remarks are 

offensive somewhat, I think, to tho e who prepared the bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

of the Senator from :M:ichigan. 

Mr. HARRISO~. If the hour of2o'clockhas arrived, I rise to move 

to proceed to the consideration ofthepension bill; but I will notmake 

the motion until this question is taken. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thequestionis on the amendment of 

the Senator from Michigan. · 

Mr. CONGER. I call for the regular order. My amendment can 

come up at the proper time. 

1\Ir. PLUMB. Imoveto continue the consideration of the bill under 

consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is business under 

Rule IX. 

Mr. PLUMB. I move that the regular order be laid aside and that 

the Senate proceed witli House bill 4680. 

Mr. CONGER. The regular order must be laid before the Senate. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is informed that there is 

no regular order other than to proceed under Rule IX. 

Mr. HARRISON. I call the attention of the Chair to the fact that 

the occupant of the chair on Saturday said, as the Chair will :find by 

referring to the RECORD, that under the unanimous consent given to 

proceed to the consideration of the Mexican pension bill he would deem 

it his duty to lay that bill before the Senate at 2 o'clock to-day. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair was not aware of that. 

Mr. HARRISON. The statement in the RECORD is as follows: 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By what the Chair understood to be the unanimous consent of the Senate before proceeding to the consideration of the bills which 

have been considered, it wa.s agreed that the :Mexican pension bill should be 

proceeded with on Monday, in view of which fact the Chair regards it as his 

duty to lay that bill before the Senate before the adjournment to-day. 

So that I think it is the unfinished business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will lay before the Senate 

the unfinished business. 

Mr. PLill1B. Now I ask unanimous consent that the unfinished 

business may be laid aside informally--

~Ir. CONGER. Let it be laid before the Senate. 

Mr. PLUMB. Until House bill4680 may be disposed of. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair did not distinctly hear the 

motion. • 

:lJir. PLUMB. I ask unanimous consent that the unfinished business may be ·laid aside informally in order that the Senate continue the 

consideration of House bill 4680. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Treating the Mexican pension bill as the unfinished business--

1\lr. PLUMB. I understood the Chair decided that it was the unfinished business, and laid it before the Senate. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair so understood. 

Mr. CONGER. It has not been laid befor!3 the Senate yet. Let it 

be laid before the Senate. 

Mr. HARRISON. I ask the Senator from Kansas whether he had 

not better let this lie over until to-morrow morning? 

Mr. PLUMB. If I had any encouragement to believe the bill would 

be taken up at any other time and considered with a disposition to accept the judgement of the Senate, I would not care; but if it goes over 

until to-morrow, I am-sure it will occupy a great deal mQre time than 

if it is acted on now. 

Mr. HARRISON. There are many of us who have no disposition to 

prevent the Senator from Kansas getting a vote on this bill but who 

still would be un"'illing to vote to take up this railroad bill and postpone the :Mexican pension bill. 

Mr. PLUMB. \Ve could pass it in less time th:m we are talking 

about it. 

The PRESIDIXG OFFICER. The Chair is informed that as a matter of fact the presiding officer of the Senate at the adjournment on 
5476 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. · JUNE ~3, 

Saturday did not lay the Mexican pension bill before the Senate as the 

unfinished business. 

Mr. CONGER. But said it would conie up at 2 o'clock to-day. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The presiding officer so stated. · The PRESIDING OFFICER. He said he would lay it before the 

Senate, but the Chair is informed that he did not do so. l\Ir. CONGER. But it was th'e agreement that at 2 o'clock to-day 

the Mexican pension bill should be the order of business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. For the purpo es of the Senator from 

Kansas it is quite immaterial whether the regular order be the Mexi- can pension bill or the Calendar under Rule IX. The Senator from 

Kansas moves to lay aside the pending business and proceed with the 

consideration of House bill 4680. 

Mr. CONGER. The difference as I understand it is that in one case it requires a two-thirds vote to lay aside the regular order, and I think 

that is a very important consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thinks that a majority con- trols in this case. The question is on the motion of the Senator from 

Kansas to lay aside the pending business and proceed with the consideration of House bill 46 0. 

Mr. CONGER. I move to amend that by striking out--

Mr. CAMEI:WN, of Wisconsin. It is not amendable. 

Mr. CONGER. By inserting in place of this bill the Mexican pension bill. 

Mr. CA111ERON, of Wisconsin. I rise to a question of order that 

the motion made by the Senator from Michigan is not in order. This 

motion of the Senator from Kansas is not an amendable motion. 

Mr. FRYE. Nor debatable? 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. Nor debatable either. 

Mr.' CONGER. That is before 2 o'clock. We are laboring now under the rule after 2 o'clock. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. It does not make a particle of difference whether the motion was made before or after 2 o'clock. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thinks the Senator from 

Wisconsin is correct in the point of order. The motion is not amendable or debatable. 

Mr. McMILLIN. I desire to ask the Chair what the pending busi- ness is. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, so far as the present occu- pn.nt is informed, thinks the regular order of business at 2 o'clock is 

proceeding with the Calendar under the ninth rule. Something was said on Saturday about treating the Mexican pension bill as unfinished 

business, but at the close of the session on Saturday the Chair did not 

lay it before the Senate as unfinished business, and the time of the Senate at that moment was occupied in a motion of the Senator from Colorado [Mr. HILL] concerning the postal telegraph bill) and the Senate 

adjourned with th.:'l.t motion pending. 

Mr . .hHTCHELL. The Chair is mistn.ken in that. It was by unanimous consent. I read from the RECORD: 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By what the Chair understood to be the unanimous consent of the Senate before proceeding to the consideration of the bills which 

have been considered, it was agreed that the 1\Iex.icn.n pension bill should be proceeded with on Monday, in view of which fact the Chair regards it as his duty t<;> lay that bill before the Senate before the adjournment to-day. 

Later on the Chair said: 

The Chair will state that under an order of the Senate, if the Senate makes no , order in conflict with that view of it, the Chair will lay before the Senate the 1\Iexican pension bill before adjournment to-day, so as to leave it the unfinished busi11ess. 

I understand in fact thn.t it was not so laid before the Senate, but 

it was by unanimous consent mad~ the special order for Lhis time and 

:so stated by the Chair. It appears to me that it is now in order. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Here is the understanding stated by the presiding offil.\er. I my elf suggested that we had better let the Senator · from Kans..'lS [Mr. PLUMB] proceed with the Army appropriation bill, 

and after some colloquy, in which that understanding seemed to be 

arrived at, the presiding officer said: 

Is there objection to the suggestion made by the Senators from Ohio and llli- nois, that the pension bill shall go over to-day with the understanding that it is to be proceeded with on 1\Ionday; that the unfinished business continue-to be informally laid asids: and that the appropriation bill be now taken up? Is 

there objection? ["None!"] 1.'he Chair hears none. 

Thereupon the Army bill was proceeded with, but it was with the 

distinct understanding that the pension bill was to come up at 2 o'clock 

to-day. 

Mr. CA IERO:N, of Wisconsin. But in point of fad it was not laid 

before the Senate before the adjournment. 

Mr. SHERMAN. That does not affect it. 

1\fr. CAl\1ERON, of Wisconsin. Consequently no matter what the 

understanding was it lost its position as the special order. 

Mr. SHERl\I.A.N. We have always regarded the unanimous consent 

of the Senate as the law of the Iedes and Persians, never to be 

changed. 

The PRESIDil~G OFFICER. The present occupant of the chair did 

not bear of these proceedings on Saturday, and, therefore, is dependent 

on the suggestions of Senators .• If it was the unanimous agreement 

of the Senate on Saturday that at 2 o'clock on Monday the Mexican 

pension bill should be laid before the Senate as unfinished business, 

the Chair thinks that agreement must be carried out. 

Mr. HARRIS. 1\Ir. President, I chance to have occupied the chair 

at the time that these proceedings were had. The question was distinctly put upon the suggestion of the Senator from Ohio [1\fr. SHERMAN] to lay aside the .Mexican pension bill informally with the distinct understanding that at 2 o'clock on Monday it was to be taken up 

and proceeded with. The Chair announeed that there wa no objection, and that the Senate had unanimously consented to take the bill 

up at this time. 

Late on Saturday evening there was a motion on the part of the Senatorfrom Colorado [.Mr. HILL] to proceed to the consideration of another 

bill, he announcing the object to make it the unfinished business. The 

Chn.ir then announced that if by vote of the Senare that bill was taken 

up and not disposed of it would be the unfinished business, but, unless 

it was, the Chair understood by the unanimous consent of the Senate 

at 2 o'clock to-day the Mexican pension bill was to be taken up and 

proceeded with. I was occupying the chair at the adjournment, and 

thoughtlessly neglected to lay the l\fexican pensicn bill, a I should 

have done, before the Senate; and having thoughtlessly fuiled to do so, 

the Senator from Wisconsin is right, technically; it is not the unfinished 

business; but according to the unanimous agreement of the Senate it 

ought to be proceeded with, and the Senate will have to violate what ·was a unanimous agreement on Saturday if it does not proceed with 

the Mexican pension bill at this hour to-day. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair suggests that the Mexican 

pension bill be laid before the Senate, and then the Senator from Kan- sas can move to lay it aside for the present and proceed with House 

bill 4680. Is there objection to that course of proceeding? The Chair 

hears none, and lays before the Senate as the unfinished business the 

bill (H. R. 5667) granting pensions to soldiers and sailors of the Mexican war, and for other purposes. 

Mr. PLUMB. I move now that that be laid aside. . Mr. HARRIS. Unanimous consent is the only con ent by which it 

can be laid a ide. 

l\Ir. PLUMB. I ask unanimous consent that it be informally laid 

aside. and that the Senate proceed with the consideration of House bill 

4680." 

Mr. CO:NGER. I object to that. 

lVIr. PLUMB. Then I move to postpone the consideration- of the un- finished bru;iness until 4 o clock to-day, in order that the Senate may 

proceed with the consideration of House bill 46 0. 

:Mr. HARRIS. If the enator from Kansas can not obtain unanimous con ent, I shall not object to his proceeding with the bill, but I 

hope we shall not consume time in taking votes, and I should be bound, 

however willing I am to see the Senator's bill taken up and proceeded 

with to a conclusion, to vote against the motion to postpone. · Mr. HOAR. I do not know that there is any such motion known to 

our rules. 

l\Ir. HARRIS. Let the Senator take his chances to get the bill up 

to-morrow and I will >ery cheerfully assist him to-morrow. 

Ir. HOA.R. I desire to raise the point that there is no such motion as to postpone a bill to a particuln.r hour on the same day. That is an 

indefinite postponement. 

Mr. PLU IB. I will then vn.ry the request I have to make of the 

Senate, which is that by unanimous consent the bm which i now almost finished may be taken up immediarelyafterthe conclusion ofthe 

morning business to-morrow morning. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair did not understand the 

motion. 

Mr. PLUMB. I was about to ask unanimous consent that the bill 

which has been under consideration during the morning hour, House 

bill 4680, may be taken up to-morrow morning at the close of morning 

business. 

1\lr. SHERMA....~. You can move it yourself then. 

Mr. PLUMB. I know I can, but I ask for an understanding now. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas a ks unan- imous consent that the bill (H. R. 46 0) to grant a right of way through 

the Indian Territory to the Southern Kansa Railway Company, and 

for other purposes, shall be taken up immediately after the morning 

business to-morrow. Is there objection? 

Mr. CONGER. The Senate on two or three occasions have by unan- imous consent decided to take up during the morning hour, before 2 

o'clock, the pension bills on our Calendar, and it was considering them 

when the railroad bills and bills of that class intervened and took away 

the consideration of pension bills to our soldiers. I have endeavored 

from day to day to bring up those pension bills, and as soon as there 

has been an opportunity to commence them, with one unfinished standing in the way of the others, these railroad bills drove a way the pension 

bills in the only time they can be considered, the morning hour. For 

that reason· I object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from 1\fichigan objects 

to the proposition of the Senator from-Kansas. · Mr. PLU IB. I give notice that to-morrow rooming at the conclusion of the morning business, or, if it is not through by 1 o'clock, at 1 

o'clock, I shall move to take up the bill which has been under consid-
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. 5477 

emtion this morning with a view to concluding it; and I now wish to 

say to the Senator who bas charge of the Mexican pension bill, if any 

Senator has charge of it, that if its consideration is not concluded before 

to-morrow at 2 o'clock, I shall feel constrained under my obligation of 

duty to move to antagonize it with one or more of the bills reported 

from the Committee on Public Lands for the forfeiture of unearned 

land grants, and I do that for this purpose: If the Senate adjourns wiihin 

a reasonable length of time, it must ettle these bills some time and I 

shall have to discharge what I believe to be my duty at all events by 

calling the attention of.the Senate to the matter, and to-monow I shall 

move to take up the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad forfeiture bill. 

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

A mes..<;age from the House of Representatives, by 1\lr. CLARK, it 

Clerk, announced that the House had non-concurred in the amendments 

of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 6 61) making appropriations for the 

support of the Army for the fi cal year ending J nne 30, 1 5, and for 

other purposes. 

EXROLLED BILL SIGXED. 

The message also announced that the Speaker of the Ho.nse had 

signed the enrolled bill (H. R. 2228) to remove certain burdens on the 

American merchant marine and encourage the American foreign carrying trade, and for other purposes; and it was thereupon signed by the 

President pro ternpore. 

EXECUTIVE CO}!MUNICATIONS. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HAWLEY in thechair) laid before 

the Senate a communication from the Secretary of State, giving notice 

of the forwarding of a box of publications of the Spanish enate to the 

United States Senate, and inclosing a copy of a letter from the Spanish 

minister stating that an interchange of such documents is hereafter desfred by his government; which, with the accompanying papers, was 

referred to the Committee on the Library, and ordered to be printed. 

He also laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary 

ofWar, transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engineers submitting a 

report from Major Amos Stickney, of the Corps of Engineers, upon the 

Natalbany River, Louisiana, with a view to its improvement, made to 

comply with the requirements of the river and harbor act of August2, 

1882; which, with the accompanying papers, was referred to the Cominittee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed. 

He also laid bef•re the Senate a communication from the AttorneyGeneral, recommending certain additions to the appropriation for deficiencies for the current and previous years; which, with the accompanying papers, was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and 

ordered to be printed. 

He also laid before the Senate a communication from the AttorneyGeneral, recommending that the ad of July 15, 1882, be amended so as 

to require the petition of the claimant for land taken for the improvement of the water supply of the city of Washington to be filed withii::t 

one year and six months from the publication of notice; which was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia, and ordered to be 

printed. 

He also laid before the Senate a communication from the AttorneyGeneral, recommending certain amendments to House bill No. 7235, 

making appropriations to supply deficiencies for 1884 and prior years; 

which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered 

to be printed. · 

He also laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary 

of the Treasury, transmitting recommendation of the Light-House Board 

for the removal of Croatan light from its present location to Eight-Foot 

Knoll, North Carolina. 

Mr. CONGER. The communicationjustreadasksmerely for an appropriation. The Light-House Board has made the recommendation. 

;::)ending it to the Committee on Commetce would only be to have it reported back with approval or disapproval of the recommendation of 

the Light-House Board and would not further the object of the commu-

'D.ication. I suggest that it be referred to the Committee on Appropriations. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no objection, the communication will be referred to the Committee on Appropriations. 

WARING UNDERGROUND SYSTEM. 

Mr. FRYE submitted the following resolution; which.was considered 

by unanimous consent, and agreed to: 

&sobved, That the Secretary of War be directed to communicate to the Sen- ate o.ll information in his possession relating to the underground system, known as the Waring system, of telegraph and telephone conductors connecting the Capitol and the several Executive Departments. 

JOSEPH MONTGOMERY. 

Mr. FRYE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the 

Senate: 

&solved, That the Secretary of the Senate be, and he is hereby, authorized· and directed to pay from the contingent ftmd of the Senate to Joseph Mont- gomery the sum of $89.95, the amount due him for service as laborer in the Senate from July 17 to August 31., 1879. 

Ai\IENDMEXTS TO RIVER. ..A.~D HARBOR BILL. 

1\lr. PENDLETON, Ir. CALL, Ur. BROWN, and 1\Ir. JONES of 

Florida submitted amendments intended to be proposed by them 

respectively to the li>er and harbor appropriation bill; which were 

referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed. 

AME...~DMENTS TO GENERAL DEFICIE...~CY BILL. 

lli. RIDDLEBERGER, 1\Ir. LAMAR, and M:r. !ILLER of California submitted amendments intended to be propo ed by them respectively to the general deficiency appropriation bfll; which were referred · 

to the Committee on Appropriation , and ordered to be printed. 

.A.]fENDMENTS TO SUNDRY CIVIL BILL. 

Mr. BAYARD and Mr. BLAIR submitted amendments intended to 

be proposed by them respectively to the sundry civil appropriation bill; 

which were referred to the Committee an Appropriations, and ordered 

to be printed. 

A..lUIY APPROPRIATION BILL. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will take the opportunity 

to lay before the Senate the bill (H. R. 6861) making appropriations 

for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1885, 

and for other purposes, with the action of the House of Representatives 

thereon. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

L-. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, June 23, 1884. 

Resolved, That the House non-concur in the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 6861) making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1885, and for other purposes. 

Mr. PLUMB. I move that the Senate insists on its amendment to 

the bill, and ask for a conference on the diagreeing votes of the two 

Houses. 

The motion was agreed to. · · 

By unanimous consent, the Presiding Officer was authorized to appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate; and Mr. LOGAN, 1\ir. 

PLUMB, and Mr. R.A.NSOl\1 were appointed. 

MEXICAN WAR PENSIONS. 

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the cqnsideration of the bill (H. R. 5667) granting pensions to soldiers and sailors 

of the Mexican war, and for other purposes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is on the amend· 

ment propo ed by the Senator from Kansas [Mr. INGALLS], on which 

the enator from Ohio [Mr. SHEIDI.A.N] is entitled to the floor. 

Ur. SHERMAN. I ask that the amendment be read. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be read. 

The SECRET.A..RY. The proposed .amendment is to add as an addi- tional section the following: 

SEc;:. 3. That se~ti?n 2 of the act of March 3, 1879, chapter 187, entitled "An act making appropnat10ns for the payment of the arrears of pensions granted by act of Congress approved January 25,1879, and for other purposes," be, and the same hereby is, amended so as to read as follows: "SEC. 2. That all pensions which have been or which may hereafter be granted in consequence of death occurring from a cause which originated in the service since the 4th-day of March, 1861, or in consequence of wounds or injuries received or di ea e contracted since that date in the service and in the line of duty, shall commence from the death or discharge of the person on whose account the claim has been or is hereafter granted, if the disability occurred prior to discharge and if such disability occurred after the discharge, then from the date of actuai disability, or from the termination of the right of the party having prior· title to such pension: Provided, That the application for such pension has been or is hereafter filed w!th the Com~issioner of Pensions prior to the 1st day of Octo- be.r, 1~, otherwise ~h~ p~ns10ns s.hall com?lence from the date of filing the ap- plication; b~t the hmitattOn here.m prescnbed shall not apply to claims by or m behalf of msane persons and children under 16 years of age: Pj·ovided. further That hereafter in the adjudication of claims involving arrears, in determining the amount of arrears due prior to the filing of the application, no distinction of rank shall be made and officers of all grades of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, their widows, children,anddependent relatives, shall be rated as tosnch arrears as enlisted men, their widows, children, and dependent relatives are now rated under existing laws." 

1\fr. SHERMAN. Mr. President, I regret very much to oppose any 

proposition that is favored by the Union soldiers of the American Army; 

and I perhaps should feel some hesitation in doing it only that I know 

very well that the soldiers themselves, like all other citizens, are divided. in opinion as to this measure. 

This proposition repeals all restriction as to time upon applications 

to be made for arrears of pensions and extends all pensions back to 

the war or date of discharge or disability not only of those who have 

heretofore applied, but of tho e who may hereafter apply. It removes 

absolutely all restrictions upon the applications for arrears of pensions. 

And if this only involved ten or even twenty million dollars, I might 

still hesitate, because I have always since the close of the war voted 

for every measure t.hat has been offered in good faith for the benefit of 

the Union soldiers. My heart, my feelings, are all with them. I appreciate the value of their services, the enormous benefits they have 

conferred upon the people of America for generations yet unborn, and 

I hesitate therefore to oppose any wish that they may exp·ress through 

their organs. 

But this proposition now affects the interest of all the people of the 

United Sta~, not only soldiers, but citizens, those who have been born 

and become citizens since the right to a pension a"GCflled; and therefore 

I am bound to considerthecommongoodofall thepeopleofthe United 
5478 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JUNE 23, 

States as against the claims or demands of a portion· of our soldiers, however meritorious they may be. 

This measure involves an immense sum of money. That alone would 

not be conclusive. But here is a. motion made by a Senator, without 

the report or sanct.ion of any committee of this body, to put upon the 

people of the Unj.ted States a great demand, ranging anywhere from 

$10,000,000 up to $246,000,000, apropositionso indefinite in character 

that the Commissioner of Pensions is utterly unable to give us any approximate estimate, but gives his guess as near as he can. He says 

that this proposition will involve the expenditure of $246,000,000. I 

believe that he has overestimated the amount that will be demanded, 

and I feel bound to say so. When the arrears-of-pension bill of 1879 

was passed it was greatly underestimated in the Senate and by t-he 

Commissioner of Pensions. Now I think this is an overestimate. Still 

this claim for arrears of pension involves an enormow sum. There 

have been 138,000 pension claims filed since the limitation of July 1, 

1880, for arrears of pension, and each of these 138, 000 claimants can claim 

under this proposition arrears of pension from the da~ of the war or 

from the date of their discharge; and besides all persons filing their 

claims hereafter and prlor to the 1st of October, 1884, can also .file 

claims for arrears of pension. 

But that is not all. We know just as well as we know the sun rolls 

around in its course that if we now remove the restriction imposed by the 

act of 1879, in the next Congress the restriction which we now endeavor 

to put upon the law will be removed, and it seems to me that it would 

be just that it should be removed. If Congress yeats ago, after a restriction had been in existence for several years, 1·emoved that restriction, as 

a matter of course we shall be called upon to remove our restriction; 

and if you once now again establish the precedent that there shall be 

no limitation at all to arrears of pension, then the limitation you now put 

upon this law will be mere waster paper; it will not prevent the filing 

of future applications o;r the future removal of this limitation. 

Now, Mr. President, it must be remembered that this proposition 

comes to us not with the sanction of any committee. The Committee 

on Pensions of this body has not dared to take the responsibility of 

proposing this removal of that restriction. Although they are no doubt 

friendly to the pensioners, although the subject has been brought before them on bills pending before them, they have not taken the responsibility of doing it. The House of Representatives, which has this 

year considered pension bills a great deal and sent to us three or four 

very important bills enormously increasing the pension-list, did not 

dare to remove this limitation, although they were considering the subject in the most liberal way. 

Ancl now upon the motion of a single Senator we are to do this upon 

a very doubtful estimate from the Department, with no recommendation 

fi·oru the Department. The Commissioner of Pensions does notinviteit; 

the Secretary of the Interior does not invite it; no executive officer of 

the country advises it; our own committees do not advise it; the House 

of Representatives do not ask it. We are required upon a vote at the 

heel of the session to pass upon this important pro osition on the motion 

of a single Senator, no doubt warmly supported as it is by the natural 

feelings of every man in this body, and especially of every man who was 

.on the Union side in the recent war. 

I merely mention these things to show you that this is a proposition 

.of vital importance, that demands and must receive the considerate at-

-tention of the Senate. I do not like to stand in the way of this meas-

.ure. I know that other Senators amund me do not like to do it. We 

;are compelled to vote upon a proposition against our hearts and feel~ 

ings and solely on account of public reasons affecting the whole people 

.of the li nited States. 

I ask Senators whether this is a time at which we should make this 

normous enlargement upon the immediate demands on the Treasury 

.of the United States? When the Senate, in January, 1879, proposed 

to remove the then existing limitations upon arrears of pension it was .at a time of great plenty; it was at a time when the resumption of 

.-.specie payments had fully accomplished its work, and when the receipts .of the Treasury were increasing enormously at the rate of fifty or one hundred million dollars a year. · 

Then, in 1879, Congress removed the limitations which had previously existed on pension. But it was a time very different from now. 

Then it was a, time of plenty; there was an overflowing Treasury; but 

now we are in the ·times of pinch. Our revenues are already falling off. 

We know that Lhe shrinkage in >alues in this country within the last 

year has been enormous, and is going on day by day~ so that properties 

which were considered very valuable are now considered comparatively 

worthless and are scarcely the basis of credit. It is a time of uncertainty, which no man can doubt, the severity of which no man can doubt. We a-re called upon to assume a liability which an executive . officer tells us .J.l involve this year, or next year, or within the reach 

of the operation of this law, this enormous sum of money. I say, for 

one, much as I regret to oppose the proposition, I am compelled to do so. 

The mere amount would not deter me if there was a legal demand 

and promise to pay. If there was a contraet existing between the 

United States of America and these soldiers that we would pay them 

from the date of their dischllage to this time, I would throw to the 

winds all considerations of severity upon the people of the United 

States; I would say we will ful.filJ our contracts and do by these soldiers what we would do by our bondholders or any other creditors, 

but I deny in toto that there is any obligation in law or in morals or in 

good faith to our soldiers to remove the restrictions of existing law as 

to the time and effect of filing their ~plications. 

My honorable friend from l\laine LMr. FRYE], no doubt caught by 

the captivating argument of the Senator from Kansas [Mr. INGALLS], 

yielded his ohedience to that argument and said he would vote for this 

sum of money. The very same authorities that were read in my presence, the very same laws that were read that convinced my friend from 

Maine, only strengthened me in the opinion that the time had come 

when we should not remove this limitation if we had any regard for 

the good of the people of this country. 

Let us look at these laws-and I intend to refer to them as the Senator 

from Kansas did. I have looked at all these laws and I say here 

that from the close of the civil war until the passage of the act of 1879 

there was always a restriction upon an application for arrears of pension. The law wa-s imperative and very clear. · Without reading all 

the laws read by the Senator from Kansas-and if I misquote the effect 

of them I will read them, because I have them all here to refer to-let 

me refer to the act of 1862, which was the first he read, which was 

the contract, if any was made. If there was any contract between the 

soldier and the United States, it was the acts of 1862 and 1864. 

In the law of 1862 there was an express provi"!ion that if the application for a pension was not made within one year after the disability 

had accrued the pension should only take effect from the time of the 

application. Only one year was allowed, because at that time it was 

seen that if pensions were allowed to accrue and pile up on each other 

year after year there might be created a demand upon the Government 

which it would be most difficult and perhaps at times impossible to 

meet. Therefore when these services were being rendered in 1862, in 

the first act on this subject there was a limitation that the application 

should be made within one year after the disability, or else the pension 

should only commence from the date of the application. So in the act 

of 1864, the war still going on, the limitation was extended to three 

years, so that if a soldier entitled to a pension failed to apply for it 

within three years after the disability he could only receive his pension 

from the date of the application. 

· These were the contracts, if there was anything in the form of a con~ 

tract, if a statute could make a contract. I deny tl:ta.t a statute of this 

kind is in the nature of a contract; it is a mere provision fixing the 

bounty or gift to be made by the Government of the United States. 

These soldiers were then fighting in our cause. If a contract was made 

it was made then, and by these two laws there was an express limitation as against arrears of pensions, in one case one year, and in the 

other case three years, so that if application was not made within this 

limited period of time the pension commenced from the date of the application. 

That is the principle upon which Congress has uniformly acted. In 

all the bills that are now reported to us the pension uniformly takes 

effect in the deserving cases acted on in special bills from the date of 

the passage of the aet. That is even more restrict';'d than I should be 

willing to go, because I think we ought to go back to the date of the 

application in the Pension Office. 

But in all our laws from beginning to end on this subject there have 

been limitations. So there are limitations as to a.ll other claims upon 

the Government of the United States. There can be no limitation on 

Congress, because Congress can exoccise full plenary powers and make 

appropriations that every executive officer must obey; but whenever we · 

have regulated the adion of an executive officer or of a court we have 

always limited that demand by some reasonable rule of limitation. 

We have established courts for the trial of cotton claims; we have established courts for the trial of claims of all kinds, and in every case we have made a limitation requiring that the demands should only bear 

interest or should commence from the date of the application or from some other fixed time, and that they should be made within five years 

or within three years; and executive officers are bound to observe the 

limitation. 

Let us go a little further. In 1866 the war was over. Congress was 

generous to the soldiers, more generous in this country than in any other 

country of the civilized world; and rightly so, because the men they were dealing with were our own flesh and blood; they were men who 

volunteered to render important services to the country. Even after 

the war was over this same limitation was extended somewhat, but still 

applied, and a limitation of five years was fixed by the act of 1866, and 

if the claim was not .filed within five years then no arrears were granted 

beyond the time of the date of the application. . Again, at a later period, I think in 1873 (the law was quoted by the 

Senator from Kansas ·correctly), it says expressly in the part of the 

statute he read and also in the clause which he did not read, that if 

application was not made within five years from the d~te of disability 

-the arrears of pension should only be counted from the date of the filing 

of the last paper in the Pension Office. That was still more restrictive. 

They did not even go back to the date of the application, but to the 

date when the soldier had furnished all the evidence required by the 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. fj479 

law to secure him a pension, and his pension only commenced from 

the date when he filed his last paper, if the application was for a pension that occurred before the five years commenced. 

So the Jaw continued until the Senator from Kansas offered his bill 

in 1879 under the favorable circumstances that I have mentioned. That 

act broke down all the old limitations, barriers, and restrictions that up 

to that time had been contained in every pension law that had been 

passed by the Government of the United States. They all provided that 

after a certain time if the application extended beyond a period of years 

the applicant should have arrears of pension only from the date of application or from the ti.Iqe the proof was made complete.. So these 

limitations continued in all our laws. 

It was in 1879, under the circumstances I have mentioned, that the 

act for granting arrears of pension without limit as to time was passed. 

The first law that was passed excited surprise and reina:('k. It was a 

loosely worded law; because it expressly provided that when arrears of 

pension were granted under the law of 1879 the same rate of pension 

that was granted then should extend ba{)k and apply to all the time 

that occurred after the death or disability. Although the soldier might 

have been slightly sick and partially well, or with a slight debility, 

yet by the particular features of that law the pension was granted at 

the full rate according to the condition of the pensioner at the time of 

his application. 

But at the same session of the Congress which passed the law of 1879, 

by an amendment to an appropriation bill, seeing how dangerous were 

the provisions as they stood in the law of 1879, Congress limited the 

application and stated that in no case should the amount of pension 

extend beyond the character of disability at the time; so that all persons applying for arrears of pension under the a{)t of 1879 as amended 

in the appropriation act of that session were compelled to show year 

~ by year the state of health, the condition of !lisaoility; and the amount 

of pension was limited by the condition from time to time. 

In that same appropriation act there was ·a limit to applications for 

arrears of pensions to the 1st of July, 1880. It was a limitation made 

on sober second thought, made by the same Congress that granted the 

broad and general application for arrearS'. Under that law we have 

paid out, or there is now accruing, probably $100,000,000. I take the 

figures as they were given to me by the chairman of the Committee on 

Pensions. 

Now, we are a<Jked to extend the limitation, although Congress definitely fixed it so clearly that every soldier in this broad land of ours 

knew that from and after the 1st day of J"Qly, 1880, Congress had declared that all applications for arrears should cease. I believe that this 

law has been substantially acquiesced in.. A few hard cases probably 

that appeal strongly to our sensibilities can be very well provided for 

by special acts. No application could be made for arrears of pension 

after July 1, 1880. Whenever any applications have been made to 

Congress in private bills, setting up special cases of hardships, they 

have been granted by Congress only from the passage of the act. If 

there are any such I should be glad to be informed by any member of 

the Committee on Pensions. Congress has uniformly act-ed upon this 

idea, and they have never had a case yet presented to them furnishing 

so strong a case in equity that they would extend a pension back and 

before the period of the passage of the act. 

It was believed by the people of the United States that there was a 

limit to the arrears of pensions; that whatever we might see proper to 

give from time to time by our pension bills to the soldiers of the Union 

Army, to the soldiers of the Mexican war, or to the soldiers of our various wars, at least arrears of pension were not to be allowed by the 

express provision of the law. The business men of this country, the 

people Of this country, the soldiers of the country, officers and men, 

knowing the law, have acquiesced in the justice of the principle. 

It may be said if this money is justly due to the soldier that his mere 

neglect to apply for it for twenty years after his di._qability does not lessen 

the liability of the 'Government. He may have thought he would get 

well or something of that kind. I have had many touching letters of 

that character. Why, it is said, should he becutoffbyastatuteoflimitations from claiming a pension back for his sufferings during all the 

twenty years? The answer to that is that no government in the world 

could live and endure and pay its obligations if it should undertake to 

cover all the equities past and all the arrearages that might be con- jured up by the misfortunes of the future. 

It may be that the Government of the United States would not be 

able at some time or other to pay the enormous sum that would be 

thus presented under the arrears of pensions. No government could 

act upon such a principle. "' 

It is not right for the soldier to apply for the arrears. He knew the 

existence of the law, and why should he be allowed now to come in 

and make a demalld for $4,000, $5,000, or $6,000 for the twenty years 

last past, thus throwing upon the Government an enormous demand 

which he refused for t~enty years even to present to the Government? 

He does not stann in the light of one who had a right to make an appeal to us. Why did he not present the claim for pen ion before? 

Perhaps because he did not desire it, or because he was too proud to 

receive a pension from the Government. Perhaps he thought his disability would pass away. But be waived the demand. In every case 

he must have waived the demand. Three times he has had an oppor- L 

tnnityunder theexisting law to present a claim for arrears of pension. 

The broadest latitude was given to him under the act of 1879. If, • 

then, he did forego the opportunity to present his claim at a time 

when the law tendered him the IJ,l.Oney, he has no right now to embarrass the Governmentwith his old claim, barred by the law and waived 

by his own neglect. 

When these claims are pre§ented now they are decided upon ex parte 

testimony. Time has obliterated many of the evidences which existed 

in the way of presenting any defense to these claim . They are founded 

upon ex parte testimony, now given under a strong bias of feeling. I 

know many neighborhoods where an application made for arrears of 

pension, or any application by a soldier of the Union Army, I do not 

care what it is, meets with the war:rp. and generous feeling of every 

man. 'fhe resnJt is that these claims are sometimes presented upon 

testimony ex parte in its nature which the Government is not at all prepared to resist. 

I put my action upon the broad ground that no soldier who for a long 

period of time has waived his right to demand a pension has now a. 

moral right or a moral equity to embarrass us with his old back claim 

for a pension which he has refused to assert for twenty years. Sir, 

twenty years would give absolute title to the posseSsion of land in 

almost everyState in the Union. Twentyyearsobliterates all theevidence bywhich these claims can be resisted. Twenty years wouldcut 

off the payment of a·bond or a note, or even of a judgment. By the 

laws of all the States even ajudgmentis presumed to be paid afterthe 

lapse of fifteen years. Every debt yields to time, and time must cut 

off the claims of the soldier. The soldierwho did not assert his claim 

within the time fixed by the law loses not only his legal obligation but 

he loses his moral obligation to demand it after that time. 

I believe the assertion of this enormous claim at this time against the 

Government of the United tates will be embarrassing even to the people of the United States. It would break down all restrictions upon 

claims hereafter. There would be no limit hereafter put upon them. 

You might as well strike down the proposition tolimititto some time 

this year. 

For these reasons, without wasting any more ·time of the Senate, I 

shall feel reluctantly bound to vote against the pending proposition. 

I wish to see the bill amended with ample provisions to provide for such 

cases ofhardship as have occurred in thelapseof time; but I would limit 

the application and all the relief we grant from and afte:.;_ the time the 

application is made. 

With some knowledge of the feeling of t.he soldiers I do not believe 

they desire that large sums of money should now be given to soldiers 

who have lain idly by, who have refused to receive their pensions, I 

do not believe there is any general feeling uf that kind. It is unjust 

to those who made their application in due time, and who have already 

received the money without embarrassment to the Treasury. 

Executive officers of the Government can estimate and provide ample 

revenues to meet existing laws, but no sagacity would enable Congress 

to provide for claims not presented when payable, and asserted only at a period of hardship, to the amount of $246,000,000. There is no equity 

in it. 

But there are classes of cases which do appeal to our sympathy, and 

which will coiilllUIDd my vote to the fullest extent. There are many 

thousands, perhaps a hundred thousand soldiers, whoma.ynot be able 

by the formal proof required by the Department under the existing law, 

to establish their claim. They maybedisabled, sick, poor, needy, and 

dependent, but they may not be able to trace the cause of their disease 

back to the war. Nothing is more difficult, so the medical authorities 

say, than to state the origin and cause of disease. 

I am therefore willing in this bill to give relief to every Union soldier who now labors under a disability which prevents him from laboring for himself and supporting his family. I am in favor of giving him 

relief with reasonable modifications, the restrictions contained in one 

of the,pending amendments. If it appears his disability was caused 

by his own faults or his own vices I would not allow him anything except where the disability may be fairly or inferentially traced back to 

the war and be is dependent now upon his own labor-not the depend- ence of the rich farmer, with his bountifnJ crops, and cattle, and horses 

upon a thou..~nd bills, but upon any man who is really needy and dependent upon others for support or upon his own labor, when he is 

llllable to perform labor, I am willing to give him a pension even if be 

can not trace the disability back to the war, because after a service of 

two, three, or four years under the terrible strain that rested upon our 

Union .soldiers in the war the fair inference is that if he js now disabled by certain classes of disease it may be. reasonably inferred that 

he is disabled as a consequence of the war. I am willing to resolve all 

those doubts in his favor and give him now, whatever it may cost, a 

pension to the amount necessary to support him in the few years of his ~eclining life if he is able to say that he is disabled from and dependent upon his labor, and that from the nature of the disability he probably was indebted to the war for that disability. · I am willing to go further than that. I am willing to relieve him 

from all unreasonable rules of testimony. The rule of the law and the 

rnle of the Department which requires him to prove that when b.e en-
5480 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. JUNE 23, 

tered the service he was a sound and able-bodied man was :m unreasonable rule, because the Government _only accepted sound and able men as 

reported by physicians competent ancl skilled in their art. I am willing to relieve him from all proof of that kind and assume that in every 

case where he was received as a soldier and ser>ed as a soldier he was 

a sound man when he entered the war. 

I am also anxious aml desirous of relieving those soldierS who left 

the Army at the close of the war, when the war was really over, after 

Grant and Sherman h ad marched their forces here in the presence of 

all the officers of the Government, when every hostile gun was laid 

down in submission in the South, when every rebel army was broken 

up. I am willing to give such a person the benefit of a full and honorable discharge, as having served through the war faithfully and truly, 

if his record so proves it. I believe there have been no cases of hardship so great, none so distressing, as those where good men, brave men, 

good soldie:rs, left. the ranks after the war was over when they were 

sent off to :fight Indians or sent into Texas to :fight Mexico or held in 

durance vile, as they thought, more than a year after the war. Those 

persons ought to be 1 lieved from the charge which has been made untruthfully, falsely, U}- n the records of the War Department against 

them. 

I admire the manhood of the men. I have a letter before me stating 

the case of a man who, when he was ordered ont to Utah three months 

after the war was over, told his officer that when he arrived at his 

home and they passed by it he intended to leave, giving him fair notice, 

and that whenever they demanded his service or wished to try him in 

any way his address was well known; that he had served out his. time; 

that now his duty was to his wife and his children, having performed his 

full duty to the country, and he left the Army after the war was over 

in full complia:p.ce with the terms of his enlistment. To say that a Secretary of War or some officer of the Goverrunent could extend the period 

of that enlistment to some other war or some other trouble was an outrage and a shame, and I would relieve all persons who asserted their 

rights under the law and dared the authorities to arrest them and try 

them as deserters, who wanted a chance even to appeal to civil courts _ to pass upon the question of the duration of" their term of service. I 

admire the spirit of those men, and I want now to relieve them and 

place them on the same footing as those who did go on and :fight the 

Indians or who lay in Texas for months afterward, and who were :finally disbanded when their services were no longer required anywhere on the face of the world. -

Any reasonable demand made by Union soldiers I shall respond to as 

heartily as any one, but when their dema.nd involves dangers to the 

people of this country or are unreasonable, I have the courage, I truj3t, 

to vote according to my convictions, even though it may be misunderstood by those for whom I have sincere respect. This is all I have to 

say. 

~Ir. CONGER. Mr. President, in the act of1879 the removal of the 

limitation was extended one year and :five months from the time the 

law was passed until July, 1880. The laws were not printed for weeks 

after that so as to be aecessible to anybody. They were not circu-

. lated for months after the passage of that law. Those soldiers who 

knew the law and could present their claims presented them. There 

were thousands and tens of thousands of soldiers just as much entitled 

to arrearages of pensions who had no opportunity to present their claims 

and bring themselves within the law. There were hundreds and 

thousands of soldiers who placed in the hands of pension attorneys their 

claims that were not presented so to bring them witpin the law until 

after the time had passed, though no fault of those seeking pensions. 

There is no re:lSon in law or in equity why that restriction of time 

should be applied to soldiers scattered through all the States of the 

Union, living in obscurity, living upon their own daily efforts for their. 

bread, unacquainted with law, not knowing what beneficial law had 

been passed. Ther is no more reason why if they are entitled to arrearages of pension under that law they should not have them than 

that those who had them should not have them. 

Sir, the time when the Government ·requires an application to be 

made is merely an intimation, a hint to those who may desire to claim the 

benefits of a pension to bring forward their claims as fast and as rapidly 

as they could and present them. It does not question the legality, it 

does not question the principle of the law. It is a mere notice to those 

who may claim it to come in as soon as they can. They failed to do 

that. Some of the cases most demanding pensions and most demanding 

arrears of pension within the knowledge of us all are those who failed 

in that year and :five months, or you might almost say in the :five months 

when you might reasonably suppose notice to have been spread through 

the different parts of the country where they could ha.ve been known, 

from availing themselves of the law. 

So it is the opinion of the great body of the soldiers who survived, 

whether they have a right to pensions themselves or not, that th~t limitation ought to be removed. The great body of the defenders of this 

nation come solemnly before Congress in long array, by the resolutions 

of their Army posts, in all the ways in which they can express their 

views to Congress, and sa1 ' 'it is but just and right that our comrades 

who are entitled to pensions should receive them, although from motives of patriotism, or from believing that they could subsist without 

calling upon their Government, they neglected within that yen.r and 

:five months to present their claims.' ' 

But, sir, there is another consideration to which I wish to cn.ll the 

attention of the Senate. Arrearages of pensions do not carry any given 

amount of pension il.own through the years that have paased. Arrearages of pension, if I understand it aright, only calculate arrears according to the character and n ato.re of disability from year to year. Admitting that, soldiers might not have been able to show such disability 

for the :first :five years or the first ten years-since the war as to entitle 

them to a pension at all. They would be enti tied to no arrears of pension. If they were entitled to $2 a month pension, as their proofs mu_st 

show, their arrearages will only cover that, if I am right in my supposition. So if one of these pensioners is entitled to-day to 8 a month, 

and :five years ago he was not entitled to a pension at all, and two years 

ago was only entitled to $4 a month, the arrearages are graded through 

all those years-some years no pension and no arreamges; some years 

a small pension and the corresponding amount of arrearages. 

But I can not refuse to vote for this proposition with any feeling or 

consciousness that I am doing justice to men who have the same right 

to a pension with others who have received them, and who have the 

same right to arrearages of pension during the years that have passed 

·that they would have had to a pension if their claims had been allowed. 

It is just; it is equitable. 

In my judgment, the amount which would be demanded to meet 

these arrearages, running down through the grades of the past years, 

will not be and can not be in their very nature as great as has been 

suggested here. But if they are as great, when this session of Congres..<~ 

started the cry was given to the country that the Treasury was so full 

that from the sources of revenue known as customs duties the money 

was flowing into the Treasury in so great a quantity that it was absolutely necessary for morals and for good government to restrain that 

inward flow and prevent the accumulation which would be demoralizing to the country if it was permitted to go on. 

Ah, sir, how much does it demoralize the country if that flow of 

money comes into the Treasury from one direction and flows out to sustain life and breath in the poor, crippled soldiers who made the country 

and saved the country which could have a treasury, and made it so 

profitable and so great and so growing that its ordinary accumulations 

filled the Treasury, to pay the little pittance to those who gave their 

power to have a treasury at all. 

Every day, every week, every month of this session the pages of the 

RECORD are full of propositions from all kinds and classes and conditions 

of men in the House and in the Senate to find some way to stop the 

overflowing of our Treasury, even up until within the last two days; 

and yet we are met with the proposition that an overflowing Treasury 

is demoralizing the country, on the one hand, and, on the other, that 

we can not hold out the cup of cold water or the crust of bread to the 

saviors of the country. 

If there be vitality enough left in the poor, sickly, worn-out soldiers 

who as yet have received no bounties from t"be Government, no pension 

to aid them in their sufferings and in their hunger-I say if there was 

life enough to warrant the exertion there must come a sardonic smile , 

over the faces of these dying pensioners at the absurdity of the propositions laid before this Congress, the Senate and the House; and although 

their smile might he a ghastly smile, it would be one of derision for the 

men wno refuse them the pittance they are entitled to receive and fear 

the demoralization of the country because there is already too much 

money in the Treasury and no way to dispose of it. 

1\Ir. INGALLS. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio [Ur. SHERMAN] is one of the mot eminent and illustrious of the living representatives of that great political organization at whose birth he assisted. He has been long in the public service. He promoted very 

largely the legislation by which the war for the Union was successfully 

waged to its close. He has been a Representative and Senator in Congress. He has been a distinguished finance minister. He has had re- spectable pretensions to the chief executive office of the nation. It will 

be gratifying to the country to understand that he deliberately announces the doctrine that pensions to the surviving soldiers of the war 

for the Union are nota contract, but that they are a charity ora gratuity 

which the nation can give or withhold as it pleases; that, in other words, 

the nation regards those who assumed those obligations which might, 

and in nearly half a million cases did, demand the sacrifice of life on the 

part o(the enlisted men, in all those cases with regard to the survivors 

of those who ~W"ere slain, with regard to those who were disabled and 

mutilated in the service, it rests with the Government to do precisely 

as it pleases, to give or. to withhold a pension; that we are authorized" 

under the contract of enlistment to treat the mutilated and disabled 

soldier as a hospitable and charitable citizen treats the vagrant and 

the tramp who applies at his area-door for a mouthful of food to keep 

him from starvation. I do not think the Senator from Ohio would have 

obtained many responses to the appeals which I have no doubt he made 

for the filling up of the gallant and courageous regiments that served 

from the State of Ohio if he had announced in that perilous period from 

1861 to 1865 that there was no contract by which the surviving disabled soldier or the survivors of the families of those who perished should 

receive a pension. . 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL REOOR,D-SENATE. 5481 

The Senator states that he is not deterred inhisvoteagainsttheproposed amendment by any con iderations of the enormous sum of money 

that will be required to make this legislation effectual, if it should be 

adopted as the law. He alludes to the condition of the Treasury in 

1879. He refers to the tact that then the Treasury as he says, was in 

an O\er.flowing condition, and intimates that one great reason why this 

amendment should not be adopted and why what he calls these unjust and stale and oppressive claims, npon which these soldiers have 

slept for twenty years should not be allowed, is because we are in a 

condition of poverty and apprehension of danger in the future. If I 

have been able to r~d correctly the reports of the different officers of 

the Trea ury as to the financial condition of the United States at this 

time, it is one of plethora and not of penury. The great difficulty that 

wehave to contend with is howtoget ridofoursurplusinsomere pectable way. There is more money coming into the Treasury from the 

ordinary resources and ordinary revenue than we can possibly appropriate; and yet the Senator from Ohio gravely assures us that with regard to an amendment which will provide for an appropriation to be 

extep.ded over a period of four, five, or six years he is going to vote 

againt it becau.,e it will result in danger and disaster to the country. 

It seems to me that that consideration is hardly worthy of refutation. 

When we reflect upon the appropriations that have been made, the appropriations that are pending, the demands that have been supported 

by the Senator himself upon repeated occasions during this session, I 

do not think he really wants the country to understand that there is 

such a diminution of the revenues as threatens us with serious danger 

with regard to the necessary expenditures ofthe country, both for the 

interest on the public debt and tor the support of all the departments 

of the Government. I do not believe the Senator from Ohio is absolutely sincere in that declaration, or if be is sincere I doubt whether 

be bas sufficiently examined the question to be able to pronounce an 

authoritative opinion, because! believe that the estimate ofthosemost 

competent to judge is that after all demands this year have been satisified there will be a surplusrevenueoffrom 60,000,000 to$100,000,000. 

I do not p:ropose to rehearse the statement that I made when I was 

last upon the floor with regard to tb~ action that bas been taken by 

Congress upon the subject of the time when pensions, if allowed, are to 

commence to run, but I will ask the Senator from Ohio if he does not 

know that in the case of every pensioner who filed his application prior 

to July 1, 1880, when the pensions were allowed · he has been paid 

from the date ofhis disability? I will ask him further with regard to 

all those cases filed before that day in which the application is pending 

but not yet allowed, in•case the allowance is made, if he is not also 

equally informed that the pension when allowed will date from the discharge or disability? 

The Senator from Ohio says there can be no contract; tha,t there can 

be no possible obligation resting upon the Government in consequence 

of our preceding legislation. Does the Senator gravely argue here1 that 

five consecutive acts of Congress, adopted after de bate, approved by the 

President of the United States, acted upon year by year, form no binding and obligatoryprecedentupon which thesemenhadarighttorely? 

It appears to me, with all deference to the great experience and to the 

vast servi~ and to the eminent standing of the Senator from Ohio, 

that unless be can base his objection to this amendment upon more 

sub tantial grounds than he has yet presented, they are not such as to 

entitle them to be considered by a majority of his party associates. 

If I remember correctly-and I do not think my memory is treacherous upon this subject--a Republican State convention in Ohio within 

two years adopted as one of the principles of its platform a distinctive 

declaration that the limitation in the arrears act of 1879 ought to be 

removed. I know that a Republican State convention in the State of 

Iowa did the same thing, and I am equally confident, because I read it 

in the hearing of the Senate the other day, that the national convention 

of the party to which the Senator belongs, assembled during the current 

month, deliberately adopted and avowed as one of its declarations aresolution to the effect that the limitation in the act of January 25, 1879. 

ought to be repealed. Yet before the ink with which thatdechration 

was drawn is dry, whileitis yet moist upon the paper on which it was written, the Senator from Ohio deliberately disavows it, and declares 

that itis not binding upon the conscience nor upon the political action 

of a.ny of tho e who may be called upon to vote on the proposition when 

it is presented. 

I a.m not the custodian of any man's conscience. I do not assume 

to suggest that in any manner whatever the widest possible liberty of 

individual judgment should be infringed or abridged. I assert and 

ntaintain that .right for myself and I concede it to others; but I say 

if that declaration is to be disregarded, if it is to be declared by tho e 

who are most competent to speak as in no sense whatever obligatory as 

as a declaration of party faith or party action, then it will be entirely 

legitimate for any opponent of the Republican party to say that all 

declarations may be equally disregarded. If that is to be understood 

to be the rule upon which declarations· of party faith are made and by 

which they are to be regarded, then no political organization can satisfactorily establish a claim to public confidence. It would be well in 

my judgment for party managers, like the controllers of successful railroad corporations, to put in full notice, for the observation of ,all mankind, a declaration that passengers are not allowed to stand on the 

platform. 

The Senator from Ohio has seen fit to characterize the legislation 

that has been had upon this ubject hitherto as ill-advised and improvident; to say that it was sentimental and emotional; that it did not 

arise out of any contract; that it did not spring from an obligation. 

which bad been recognized by repeated a-cts of legislation; but it was 

an ebullition of beneficence and charity that Congress saw fit to enact 

in 1879 and in preceding years. He intimates that no soldier who 

served his country in her time of need and of peril has any right after 

the expiration of the period of time that has elapsed since the war 

closed to come in and harass and annoy and embarrass the Government by setting up a pretension to claims whose validity he bas waived 

by his failure to apply for their recognition. 

In the face of the intimation of the Senator from Ohio with regard 

to the effects pf the act of 1879, I beg leave t.o say that, in my judgment, 

it was one of the most beneficent statutes that any Congress ever enacted. I wish the Senator from Ohio, or those who are opposed to the 

pending amendment to the bill, would be good enough in their specifications to declare what interest of the Government ever suffered inconsequenceof the demands made upon the Treasury by that statute. The 

interest upon the public debt bas always been paid. Every department of the Government, the Army, the Navy, and the Interior, has 

been amply supported. The public credit bas been sustained. If any 

interest of this Government has suffered I have certainly yet failed to 

hear of it. The money that was appropriated under that statute did 

not go abroad, nor was it retained at home to swell the coffers of the 

opulent. It went into the hands of those who needed it. Jtserved to 

support those who were in many cases suffering for the necessaries of 

life. It paid off debts upon the farm and the homestead; it sufficed 

to educate children; it enabled many a suffering·wife and mother to obtain relief from demands that would otherwise have been fatal to her · 

health and to her happiness. I contend that in every way in which it 

can be regarded, so far from having been astatutethatwasdetrimental 

or injurious or pernicious, it was beneficent in every aspect of the case, 

and if there is any reason that has been offered, any that can be presented, why this amendment should not be adopted I have yet to hear it. 

The Senator from Ohio in his allusion to the. statutes .which I read 

the other day, failed to quote all to which I called the attention of the 

Senate. He read partially from three enactments, but there were five 

in all; andineach one of those enactments the prinoiplewas distinctly 

recognized that whenever the right to a pension was established satisfactorily to· the Department t.hen the payment was to begin from the 

date of the discharge of the pensioner or from the time when the disability was incurred. The Senator did not refute, and he can not refute, 

the other controlling and conclusive fa-ct that with regard to all those 

pensioners who made their ~pplication prior to July 1, 1880, this principle has been recognized, and it is not true, as the Senator from Ohio 

would eem to argue, that here was a donation or a gift of any specific 

amount of money to a pensioner to which be was not entitled under his 

contract. It was simply the declaration that when he was found to be 

pensionable the rate of pension should run from the time when the disability was proven to have existed. 

Mr. SHER.MAN. Mr. President, a few words only in reply to the 

Sebator from Kansas. He says that under all the laws rea.d by him 

the pension commences from the date of disability. I assert with equal 

confidence that all the pensions under laws prior to 1879 commenced 

from the date of disability if they were applied for within the period 

of limitation prescribed by the act, and that in all the laws he read 

from every one of them contained a period of limitation commencing 

with one year, then during the war three years, then after the war five 

years, and it was so continued. 

I admit that all arrears of pensions were paid under the act of 1879, 

but that was the law which authorized all pensions, without respect 

to limitation, to commence from the date of disability. I believe I am 

correct in that. 

Mr. INGALLS. The Senator is entirely incorrect. In one of the 

statutes that I read there is an express declaration that the Commissioner of Pensions shall immediately adjust the arrears that are found 

to be due under the extension and pay them to the parties. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I have the statutes all here marked, and I can 

take occasion to put them in. 

I again assert that the law in every case says that if the claim is filed 

within a period of .five years, or three years, or one year, then in such 

case the pension shall commence with the date of disability; but if it 

is filed after the period of one year, or three years, or five years, as the case may be, it shall commence in some cases from the date of application and in other cases from the time the last paper was filed; so that 

great masses of applicants were excluded from all arrears of pension 

in every case where they filed the claim after the period of limitation 

applied. 

Mr. INGALLS. The act of 1879 did exactly the same thing. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Under the act of 1879 all these cases were opened 

and arrears of pension were paid, even the claims that had been previously settled under the pre-existing law. 

Mr. INGALLS. I know the Senator does not wish to misrepresent 
. 5482 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE . JUNE 23, 

the facts, because the Senator would not claim that under the act of 

• 1879 applicants reeeiv~ double arrearages. 

Mr. SHERMAN. No, not double arrearages. 

Mr. INGALLS. Exactly; but the impl:'ession the Senator makes is 

that they received double arrearages. · 

. Mr. SHERMAN. The limitations are all in the same language, except a difference as to time: 

And in cases in which the application is not filed during the said year, pen- sions granted to persons employed as aforesaid shall commence with the date of the filing of the' application. 

In the great mass of the pensions granted on claims made between 

1866 and 1873, the claimants got pensions only from the date of their 

applications, because their applications were filed after the three years 

or after the five years fixed by law; but the act of 1 79 gav~ all the 

persons who had received their pensions back pensions for all the time 

before that. That is perfectly manifest, and it is shown by the public 

documents. 

The Senator says that I commented severely upon the act of 1879. 

I say that act was confessedly defective, because Congress at the same 

session by another law changed very materially its mo!)t important features. For instance, the act of January, 1879, expressly provided that 

the rate of pension fixed at the time of the granting of t he application 

should extend back to the date of disability> and under that ruling and 

the construction of the plain language of the law, large sums of money 

were paid for a time when there was no disability. The rate fixed at 

the time the application was acted upon ran clear ba{;k to 1862, or 

whatever time the discharge occurred. Congress hastily in the same 

session cor.rected that by declaring that the disability should only be 

:fixed from time to time and from year to year. 

Again, the act of January, 1879, omit ted all period of limitation, 

while Congress at the same session changed that and fixed the limitation on the 1st of July, 1880, falling back upon a period of limit6Ltion. 

I say, whatever may be thought of the principle of the act of 1879, 

it was defective in these important particulars, the correction of which 

vitally changed the character of it, and very largely saved the Government from unreasonable applications for pensions. 

But that is not ali. Uy friend from Kansas now, I think for the first 

time in the Senate (I ha>e never known it before), introduces a party 

platform as a guide for us in onr legislative duties here as sworn Senators representing States. If that has ever been done before I do not 

remember it. He not only quotes the national platform, bQt be quotes 

the platforms of State conventions as our guide. When I remember 

how those platforms are framed, and I have partidpated in framing 

some of them; when I remember how even the national platform of our 

great party was framed recently at Chicago by some forty-two men meeting in sweltering heat for three or four hours, men some of whom 

had never seen each other before, who were suddenly called upon to 

frame a platform embracing every object of public policy, every desire 

of the Republican party, and put it in set phrase in four hours, to be 

reported on the spur of: the moment--to call that the guide of Senators 

and to influence Senators in deliberate action on their public duty 

here, I think is extraordinary. 

Sir, I have as much respect for the opinions of my associates and my 

party as anybody else, or as anybody ought to have; but I assume that 

it is the Congress of the United St.ates, chosen according to the Consti tution, which mustprescribethe laws of this country, and whiletheparty 

platforms may indicate the general tendency and policy of a party, I 

believe this is the first time in the American Senate when party creeds 

have been read to us to influence our a{;tion. Our Democratic friends 

would be in a sorry predicament if I should read the va.riouspartyplatforms that have been made for them in the last twenty years for their 

guide on the tariff question. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. They are in a sorry predicament anyway. 

Mr. SHERMAN. They are in a sorry predicament any way, my 

friend suggests. So they are; ·bnt I take it that in the Congressofthe 

United States each Senatorfor himself in the performance of his sworn duty must do what he thinks is right, and certainly must have some better guide than a mere party platform hastily reported in the manner 

in which I have stated. 

The very fact that in the act of 1879 there was a limitation made by 

the Republicans, made by the Senator himself, shows that there is 

wisdom in these limitations; and now his effort to abrogate the limitation without the report of any committee of this body, merely founded 

upon the earnest desire we all have to do what is right to be done for 

the soldiers of our country, is the best exposition of this movement, if 

it should succeed, that I could possibly give. Even in this measure 

we have fixed a period of limitatiun of only four months. 

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. CoNGER] comp~ains that the soldiers had only a year and a half to know·of the limitation under the 

law of 1879, and that some of them did not see it. Sir, that is a com- mentary upon the intelligence of our brave soldiers that I diq not ex- pecf! to hear from any ·one. Every man who served in, the Union 

Army knew not only of the grant of arrears of pensions, but knew the 

limitation ofthat grant, and every man who desired to benefit himself 

by that law knew enough to make his application within due time. 

To assert the contrary is to assume an ignorance on the part of the brave 

soldiers that I would not impute to them. So now you propose to put 

as a limit the 1st of October next, and you give them four months to 

know this law for their benefit. You say that seventeen or eighteen 

months was not enough four years ago, and now you give them four 

months. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. They are entitled to it for all time if they are entitled at all. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I said so. If they are entitled to it at all they are 

entitled to it for all time. 

Mr. INGALLS. So they are. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Every claim that is asserted against the Government of the United States from the foundation of this Government has 

been subject to limitation. In every government in the world limitations are a part of the fundamental law. Under the law which allowed 

the holders of the bonds of the Revolutionary war t.o fund them into 

the various securities provided by the First Congress there was a short 

period of limitation, and all the bonds that were not funded in that 

way under that law were entirely cut off and have never been paid. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. So with the legal-tender demand notes. 

1\ir. SHERl\fAN. Yes, in the case of the legal-tenderdemandnotes 

of the Revolutionary war the holders were allowed five or six years to 

present them for redemption at the rate of one dollar on a thousand, I 

believe it was, or whatever was the rate fixed by the law, and every 

dollar that was not presented under the limitation of that law has never 

been paid. I have seen myself the continental money by the hundreds 

and thousands of dollars that no one .ever thought of presenting to the 

Government of the United States, because the law expressly allowed a 

reasonable time to present and fund those securities, and those that 

were not then presented have never been paicl. There is a law upon 

the statute-book which limits e>eryrigbt a man can possess, every claim 

that can be asserted against the Government, and no one has power to 

disregard that law except that the Congress of the United States may 

from time to time in special cases, as they see fit, pay any debt, however old or antiquated. But there are limitations always imposed upon 

executive officers and upon judicial officers as well. The idea of passing a claim of any kind whatever without some limitation as to the 

time of presenting it, even in· a court of justice, would not be tolerated 

in any tribunal. Twenty years bar tberighttoproperty; fifteen years 

bar a suit upon a note; six years u~der the laws of this District bar a 

claim made, however honest, between private citizens. Can not a Government protect itself by the same laws? Is it right to declare them 

unjust? Is it not, on the other hand, unjust to accumulate these cla.ims, 

allow them to roll over and over, because the party did not need the 

money or was too proud to assert a rig at to the claim, and then demand 

it in gross at the end of twenty years when the Government is totally 

unprepared to defend against his claim? 

I think the Senator from Kansas misrepresented my position. I 

know he did not intend to do it, but he is a little too apt to do that. 

He stated it too strongly. I did not say that these pensions were 

merely charitable gifts to the soldiers. I did not use the word "charity " 

in regard to them. I said these pensions were granted fox; d.i..~bilities 

fixed by law, within limits defined by law, and those limits were just 

as much a part of the law granting the-pensions as the amount of pension itself. While the war was going on we fixed the period of limitation at one,year, extending it toward the close of the war to three 

years, during which the claim should be presented. After the war wa~ · 

over we allowed five years in which to present it, and now the Senator 

thinks it is hard that we should cut it off at the end of nineteen years. 

The wisest part of the arrears-of-pension act was that provision, which 

was contained in the appropriation bill, which required the claims to 

be presented within a reasonable time, at a time when their payment 

could easily be made and met; and now to open the door again is to 

embarrass the Government of the United States by claims which have 

never. been pres!3nted, which have never been asserted, and which it is 

nowunjustto assert. I say a soldierwho, knowingthathewasentitled 

to a pension, waived that right because be .desired to be free from that 

obligation waived it forev.er, just as everyman waives a rightwhofa.ils 

to assert it according to the provisions of the law; and it is not right, 

after he has lai.n quiet for twenty years, for him to assert the claim at 

a time when the very accumulation of these clairus makes a burden 

upon the public Trea nry. The Government certainly ought to have 

the right to protect itself by rf'..asonable restrictions and limitations as 

to the time and manner' of presenting the claim. 

The Senator says that l represent the Treasury as being in a ·state of 

penury. I did not say anything of the kind. I said that the times 

were bard upon the people of the United States; that securities were 

losing their value; that the price of wheat and all kinds of production 

had faHen off; that iron and all the productions of manufactures had 

fallen. Times are harder; our revenues are decreasing. It is true they 

have been bountiful in the last three or four years, and we ha>e this 

year been able to pay$100,000,000ofthe publicdebt; bQ.tweall know 

very well how rapid and sudden changes take place in our condition. I knew one time, in 1857, when Congress reduced the tariff largely and 

reduced the income of the Government, it adjourned with twenty-odd 

millions of money in the Treasury, and when we met in December that 

same year we had to issue Treasury notes in order to pay the ordinary 

expenses of the Government. The same thing occurred to a less extent 

in 1873, when the revenues rapidly fell oft' from an overflowing Trea.s-
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 5483 

ury until our revenues disappeared and we were unable at that time to 

pay the sinking fund, and for years we were not able to meet the demands of the sinking fund. 

We are coming now upon a time, not of penury, because the people 

of this country are just as ricli as before, but we are at a time of reduced prices, of reduced income~ when people will be compelled all 

over the country to resort again to habits of economy ~d look well to 

investments and speculations. I have no doubt it will be a more 

healthy time. I believe in such a time people are better off than they 

are in a time of ov~r.flowing abundance, when wild speculation runs 

rampant; but at the same time prudent men must be cautious and not 

saddle the Government with the vast weight of obligation that might 

come upon us in four or five years by the adoption of this amendment. 

One hundred and thirty-six thousand pension claims have been filed 

since July, 1880, .,every one of which will be entitled to arrears if 

, this measure is passed as soon as the clerks can make up the aecounts. 

There ought to be no delay, as there was under the former law. If 

these claims are allowed they must be passed, and passed promptly. 

There are 136,000 claims filed which are entitled to the benefit of this 

measure; and if they draw from the Treasury anything like the amount 

that is estimated by the Commissi<fner of Pensions it will make a burden upon the peopleoftbe United States. A burden for what? Fora 

debt which eaeh individual has allowed to lie for nineteen years, ignoring and refusing to present the claim. 

I say there is no justice and no equity in it. I should not be afraid 

to go before a crowd of 'any of the Union soldiers of the United States, 

most of whom have received their pensions who are entitled to them, 

-and to present the arguments that I have made to-day. I believe I 

would receive their verdict that under the circumstances there ought 

to be an end to these claims for pensions of twenty years ago. Pensions now applied for should be given liberally according to the necessities of the time, but the back pensions of those who would not apply 

for them when the Government presented them to their consideration 

ought to be waived forever. I believe that would be the judgment of 

prudent, sensible, candid, and fair soldiers. I believe a provision such 

as I have mentioned, giving to those who are in need on account of 

th~ir disability if it aro e probably from the war, or arose under cir-

.cumstances that probably originated in the war, would give bounteous 

Telief. It would go just where the shoe pinches to relieve the men 

who are needy and not to relieve those who have lain. for twenty years 

.on their rights. It would bring food to the poor; it would give homes 

to the homeless. It would bring relief to men who are sore in need, 

.and not give $2,000, 3,000, $4,000, even $6,000 to those who for 

twenty years refused to even ask for what the law gave them. 

Ur. INGALLS. I understand the Senator from Ohio to insist that 

no pen ion should be allowed in any case where application has not 

been hitherto made. 

~1r. SHERMAN. Oh, no; I never said that. 

Ur. INGALLS. The Senator said that no man who had slept on 

his claim for twenty years ought now to be heard. 

M:r. SHERMAN. For back pension. 

Mr. INGALLS. That he should not make a demand on the Gov-

-ernment. 

Mr. SHERMAN. No, sir; for back pension. The Senator may not 

.catch me in that way. 

~Ir. INGALLS. I had no design to catch the Senator; but I wish 

to present this view of the case to him: Ifhe admits that a man who 

was a soldi~r bas the right to apply now for a pension on account of 

.disability incurred in the military service during the war and to have 

that adjudicated at this time, why has he not just as good a right to 

.demand that, if aUowed, his pension shall be granted from the date 

when his disability was incurred if satisfactorily proven, as the man 

who filed his claim prior to July, 1880? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I believe that every soldier in the Union Army 

who can bring himself within the terms of the laws, has a right to ap~ _ply for a pension under those laws as they now stand to-day, made by 

the Senator himself with the limitations and restrictions imposed by the 

J>ension acts. I do not want to impair in the slightest degree the right 

of any soldier to apply for a pension under existing law. On the contrary I wish to extend those laws so as to grant pensions to those who can not under existing law receive them, by giving to those who are 

.needy, for disabilities aetually incurred and wboare now suflering but 

I do not want them to lay claim for pensions that have been barr~d by 

the law of the Senator's own framing, nor do I want to extend that law 

.so as to open up the door to the presentation of old, stale claims. I dci 

not wish to limit or diminish in any respect the right which any pen- .sioner has under the existing law as it stands to-day to get any money 

which the law allows him, but it is propo ed to go clear beyond that 

and to extend pensions in every case under the pending amendment. 

I think :1 man has no right, moral or legal or equitable, to make the as- :serti.on of a claim now running clear back to the war when be refused 

time and time again for eighteen years to present his claim under the -existing law. 

Mr. INGALLS. The &nator from Ohio bas more than once alluded 

to the limitation in the act of 1879 as having been placed there by me. Mr. SHERMAN. Did you not vote for it? 

Mr. INGALLS. The limitation as a limitation in the act of 1879 

was absolutely removed. There was no limitation placed in the act of 

1879; it was absolutely abrogated, and that was my conviction at the 

time, and that has been my conviction ever since. As I snid in the 

debate the other day, the limitation that was placed there was a compromise. It never was agreed to by me. And so far from the act 

having been amended in consequence of the action of the Committee 

on Pensions, it was amended by the Appropriations Committee and not 

by the Committee on Pensions in consequence of certain views that 

they had, as I believe unjustly, and enforced upon the Senate. The 

limitation that was imposed in the act of 1879 was imposed by the 

Appropriations Committee. It was placed there on the 3d of March, 

and it was not in the act of January of that year. I never consented 

to it. It was not reported from the committee of which I was a member, and I have always opposed it. I have always believed that the 

limitation was illogical and unjust, and therefore when the Senator 

refers to my action as having voluntarily placed a limitation upon this 

principle, he does me injustice, unintentionally of course. 

Mr. SHERMAN. When I referred to the act of 1879 I referred both 

to the act of January 25, 1879, and the act of March 3, 1879, regarding 

them as parts of the same law. , Mr. ll'fGALLS. The act of January 25 was reported fr-om the Pensions·Committee and the act of March 3 was reported from the Appropriations Committee. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I do not wish to put the Senator in a wrong position. He says that he reported the act of January, 1879, and he iB 

responsible for that, but he says he did not vote for the other.· 

:Ur. INGALLS. No; I did not say that I did not vote for it. I did 

vote for it. I sa.id it was against my judgment, that I was in favor of 

passing the law of arrears, the act of removing the limitation on arrears generally, without any further limitation on it, and I am notresponsible for the act of March 3, 1879. 

lli. SHERMAN. Here are two laws passed by the same Congress 

at the same session within forty days of each other, the one limiting 

and relating to ~he other. I spoke of the pension act of 1879 granting 

these two laws as a matter of course. The act expressly does provide: 

Pr~Wided, The application for such pension has been or is hereafter filed with the Commissioner of Pensions prior to the 1st day of July,1880, otherwise the pension shall commence from the date of filing the application . 

1\ir. INGALLS. What is the date of that law? 

1\Ir. SHERMAN. That is 1\iarch 3, 1879. 

Mr. INGALLS. Yes . Mr. SHERMAN. Forty days after the other. I propose to stand 

upon this law. That was the judgment of Congress, the deliberate 

judgment of Congress. The first act was defective in the measure I 

pointed o1;1t, and that evidently attracted the attention of Congress, and 

Congress, whether the Senator approved it or not, did put ·this limitation upon it; and these two laws together are what are commonly 

called the arrears-of-pension act of1879, one following only forty days 

after the other. That is the law now, and I am willing to stand by it. 

The same ~ngress that gave these enormous arrears of pension fixed 

the limitation, and I wish to stand upon t.hat limitation, and not play 

hide and go seek any further on this subject, but to stand on a limitation that was made after full consideration by a friendly Congress, which 

wisely limited it, the wisest part of thew bole legislation being the limitation put upon the arrears . The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is on the amendment of t}le Senator from Kansas [Mr. INGALLS] upon which the yeas 

and nays have been ordered. 

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll . Mr. CAMERON, ofPennsylvania(whenhisnamewascalled). I am 

paired with the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER]. As I do 

not know how he would vote on this question, I withhold my vote. 

M:r. PLATT (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Senatorfromlndiana [Mr. VooRHEES]. Ifhewereherehe would vote 

"yea" and I should vote "nay." 

The roll-call was concluded. 

Mr. HILL. I am paired on this question with the Senator from 

Louisiana [l\1r. GIBSON}. 

Mr. McMILLAN. My colleague [Mr. SABIN] is absent and is paired 

with the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. CAMDEN]. If my colleague 

were here he would vote '' yea.'' 

The result was announced-yeas 26, nays 39; as follows: 

YEAB-26. 

Allison, Dolph, McMillan, Pike, 

Blair, Frye, 1\lahone, Plumb, 

Bowen, Hale, Manderson, Sawyer, 

Cameron of Wis., Harrison, l\1iller of Cal., VanWyck., 

Conger, Ingalls, Miller ofN. Y., Wilson. 

Cullom, Lapham, l'tlitchell, 

Dawes, Logan: Palmer, 

NAYS-39. 

Aldrich, Farley, Jones of Florida, Ridd.leberger, 

Bayard, Garland, Kenna, Saulsbncy, 

Beck, George, Lamar, Sewell, 

Brown, Gorman, 1cPherson, Sherman, 

Call, Groome, :1\Iaxe y, Slater, 

Cockrell, Hampton,. Morgan, Vance, ' 

Coke, Harris, Morrill, Vest, 

Colquitt, Hawley, Pendleton, Wa.lker, 

Edmunds, Jackson, Pugh, Willi.a.ms. 

Fair, Jonas, RansoiD, 
~ 

I.! 

I f [1 

I! 

-

5484 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JUNE 23, 

ABSENT-ll. 

Anthony, CameronofPa., Hoar, Sabin, Butle r, Gibson, Jones of Nevada., Voorhees. 

Camden, Hill, Platt, 

So the amendment was rejected. 

Mr. HARRISON. I desire to move an amendment to the first section of this Mexican pension bill, and part of tl\e amendment is to 

strike out the words in lines 11 and 12 of.section 1, "actually served 

with the Army or Navy of the United ~ta~ in Mexico ~ said war." 

I mention this fact in order that I may rnqmre of the Chair yvhether, a 

vote having been taken on striking out those words, it would be. in 

order now in connection with an amendment to the rest of the section 

to move to strike them out again. I will take that. course unless there 

i objection, because it enables me to g~t a~ the amendme:q.t wh~ch I 

desire to move. Unless some Senator IS disposed to make a pomt of 

order I can get at it more readily in that viay. · The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator state the words he 

desires to strike out? 

Mr. HARRJSON. The words are: "actually served with the Army or Navy of the United States in Mexico in said war," in lines 11 and 

12. I believe there was a motion fu strike those words out the other 

day and that it was voted down. What ~ want to get at is to pu~ this 

descriptive part of the bill as to the soldiers who are to be pellSloned 

upon the basis of some actual service or presence in Mexico. I can reach the matter.---

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will say to the Senator 

from Indiana that it is his impression that a motion like this has been 

already tried and lost. If so, the Senator can only renew it when the 

bill shall be reported to the Sena,te. 

.M:r. HARRISON. I will then modify my amendment so as to avoid 

that point of order. I move to strike out all afte~the ~or~ "who," in 

line 7, down to and including the word "aforesaid, " rn line 9, and to 

insert in lieu thereof: 

'Vho, being duly enlisted, actually served fourt~n days with the Army of the United States in Mexico or on the coast or frontier thereof, or en route thereto in .the war with that nation, or." 

I call the attention Qf the Secretary to the fact that I have copied in 

the words [ send to the desk some of the words of the text of the bill 

simply to show the connection. I do not mean to duplicate the words 

of the text. 

My object in moving this amendment-and I do notwantto discu.ss 

it-is simply to limit this pension to those who served fourteen days rn 

Mexico or on the coast or frontier thereof, or en 1·oute thereto. Certainly that is broad enough and liberal enough: It excludes that large 

number of soldiers and sailors who had no relation to the Mexican war 

at all; an<i I appeal to the Senator from Kentucky~ know whether 

there is any reason why the commander at the Washrngton navy-;ya:rd or the officer commanding at Fort ~rady up at the Sault Ste. Mane or the officer commanding in New York harbor or in Boston harbor during the war with Mexico should be pensioned on acconn;.of that war? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. The Senator from Kentucky will respond right 

there, if allowed, to the Senator from Indiana by saying that there is no such possibility by the provisions of this hill. This provision, as I 

understand, was put in here in order to embrace some soldiers who 

served in Texas and Resaca and Palo Alto under General Taylor and were called into service only for sixty days; and certainly men who 

served in those battles, if any of them survive, ought to be entitled to a pension. 

The clause was put in for that purpose. There was no navy or 

army there then. The Navy had not been called down there, but the 

call was for troops for sixty days, for ninety days, and afterward for 

twelve months, and then for the war: Many of the troops who erved 

at Resaca, and Palo Alto, and Brow~ville were sudd~nly summoned 

into the service the moment they arnved, and fought rn two or thr:ee 

of the most splendid battles during the war. This provision, I understand, was put in by the House in order to cover the case of those few 

men, and I am oppo ed to the amendment because it will require the 

bill to go back to the Honse, and everybody knows that if it goes back 

there it will fail to become .a law at this session. 

Mr. HARRISON. The Senator from Kentucky has not answered 

my question, or at least has not given any reason for the opinion which 

he expresses. Look at the terms of this bill: 

The Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll the names of the survivin~ officers and enlistee! men, inc) a ding marines, militia., and volunteers, of the military and na.va.l serviCes of the United States who served sixty days in the war of 1846 and 1847 and 1848 with :Mexico. 

I undertake to say that if there was a state of war, as there was be-· tween these nations, every sailor, on every ship of the United States, 

and every soldier at any post or garrison of the United States, made a part of that army and navy described there. 

.Mr. WILLIAMS. By no means. ML HARRISON. It does not require that he should be in Mexico. 

It does not require that he should take any part in the military operations against Mexico. It only requires that be should be enlisted in 

the Army or Navy of the United States, and serving with that Army 

or Navy in tbe war with Mexico he was liable to go there. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I would ask the Senator a question right there. 

Does he say that in the Navy of the United States the quadron in the 

Mediterranean would come in? 

.Mr. HARRISON. I think so. Mr. WILLIAMS. Of course not. Only those who were ordered to 

Mexico to engage in that service would come in under this, and the 

propo ition of the Senator himself is to make the minimum fourteen day . Every Senator knows that no man could serve a single day in 

any battle in Mexico or near Mexico who had not been more than fourteen days in the service to get there and get back. 

Mr. HARRISON. I am not pfoposing to affect that clause of the bill 

which pensions every man who was engaged in a battle. I let that 

stand. I am simply trying to limit this to those who really went to Mexico or who were 0n the coast thereof, and I have even included those 

who spent fourteen days .in trying to get there and never got there; 

but I do desire to exclude that part of the Army of the United States 

and that part of the Navy of the United States who had no connection 

with the war with Mexico, who were discharging the ordinary duties 

of soldiers or of naval officers and of sailors in time of peace, not put to 

any peril, not put to the endurance of any hardship at all; and if I am not much mistaken this bill as described here would pension every 

such soldier and sailor. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. It will not pension a single one of them. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I call for the reading of the bill as it will be with 

the proposed amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will report the pending 

amendment. 

The CHIEF CLEic.K. In line 7, after the word "States," it is proposed to strike out: . 

Who served sixty days in the war of eighteen hundred and forty-six and eighteen hundred and forty-seven and forty-eight with Me ico, and who, being enlisted as aforesaid. 

And insert in lieu thereof: 

Who being duly enlisted, actually served fourteen days with the Army or Navy ~f the United States in Mexico, or on the coast or frontier thereof, or en roule thereto in the war with that nation, or. 

So as to read: 

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pla ce on the pension-roll the names of the survivi'ng officers and enlisted men, including marines, militia, and volunteers of the military and naval services of the United States, who, being duly enlisted, aduallyserved fourteen days with the Army or Navy of the United States in Mexico, or on the coast or frontier thereof or en route thereto·. in the war with that nationt or actually served with the Ar~y or Navy of the United States in Mexico in sa1d war. 

~1r. HARRISON. No; that latter part of it is not correct. Strike 

out down to '' or were actually engaged in a battle.'' 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Including all to the word "battle?" 

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir; strike out also "that were actually en- gaged in battle_" That is left as it stood. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator then would strike out 

after the words "United States," in line 7, down to and including the 

word ''battle,'' at the end of line 11. 

Mr. HARRISON. No, sir. The amendment is to strike out all 

after the word" who," in line7, down to and including the word ' 'aforesaid, " in line 11; and to in ert after the word "who" "being duly en- listed·" so that it will then read "who being duly enlisted actually 

served fourteen days with the..A.rmy or Navy of the United States in · 

l\Iexico in the war with that nation, or on the coast thereof," where 

that part comes in. 

Mr. HARRIS. Does not the Senator.mean line9 insteadofline 11? 

There is no "aforesaid" in line 11. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair was about to call atten· 

tion to that. 

l\fr. HARRISON. Perhaps I have a di:fferent print. That must be 

the difficulty. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will send to the Senator a copy of the bill as the Secretary has it. 

Jl.1r. HARRISON. It should be, afterthe word "who," in line7, to 

strike out all down to and including the word "Mexico," in line 9; so 

as to read: 

The surviving officers and enlisted ~?len, includin~ marines, militia, !lnd .. vol' unteers of the military and naval serviCes of the Uruted States, and bemg duly 

enlisted. 

Then at the beginning of line 10, after the word " served, " insert 

"fourteen days;" so as to read: 

Actually served fourteen days with the Army or Navy of the United States in 

Mexico. 

I had a, misprint of the bill. 

1\Ir. WILLIAMS. I move to lay the amendm'3nt of tile Senatorfrom Indiana on. the table. :Mr. HARRISON. On that I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky moves. to lay the amendment upon the table, upon which the Senator from 

Indiana asks for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

l\1r. MITCHELL. Before the vote is taken I should like to have the 

bill read as it would stand if amended. 

. 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. 5485 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a misapprehension "as to the 

nature of the amendment. The Chief Clerk will endeavor to have it 

correct in a moment. The proposed amendment will be read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. In line 7, after the word "States," it is proposed to strike out: 

Who served sixty days in the war of eighteen hundred and forty-six and eighteen hundred and forty-seven and forty-eight with Mexico, or who, being enllsted as aforesaid. • 

And to insert in lieu thereof: 

Who, being duly enllsted, actually served fourteen days with the Army or Navy of the Onited States in Mexico, or on the coast or frontier thereof, or en roUte thereto in the Wd.r with that nation. 

So as to read: 

. That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and di- rected to place on the pension-roll the names of the surviving officers and en- listed men, including marines, militia, and volunteers of the military and naval 

services of the United States, who, being duly enlisted, actually served fourteen days with the Army or Navy of the United States in Iexico, or on the coast or frontier thereof, or en route thereto in the war with that nation, actually served 

with the Army or Navy of the United States in Mexico. 

Mr. HARRISON. No; you do not want to repeat that. That takes 

down to the word ''or,'' in line 11, ''or were actually engaged in battle. '' The mistak~ grew out of the fad that I had copied in the amendment some part of the text of the bill simply to show how it reads. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment as corrected by ~he 

Senator will be reported. ' 

The CHIEF CLERK. After the word ''States,'' in line 7, it is proposed. to strike out-

'Vho served sixty days in the war of eighteen hundred and forty-six and eight- een hundred and forty-sevenandforty-eightwithMexico, or who, being enlisted as aforesaid, actually served with the Army or Navy of the United States in 1\Iex- ico in said war. 

And insert in lieu thereofWho, being duly enlisted, actually served fourteen days with the Army or Navy of the United States in Mexico, or on the coast or frontier thereof or en. 

route thereto in the war with that nation. 

So as to read: 

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll the names of the surviving officers and enlisted men, including marines, militia, and voluteers, of the military and naval services of the United States, who, being duly enllsted, actually served fourteen days with the Army or Navy of the United States in Mexico, or on the coast or frontier thereof, or en route thereto, in the W!lr with that nation, or were actually en- gaged in a battle in said war, and were honorably discharged, &c. 

Mr. PLUMB. I should like to ask the Senator from Indiana what 

is the particular magic or mystery about '' fourteen? '' 

Mr. HARRISON. Nothing in the world. · It was simply the term 

that was fixed in the act for the soldiers of the war of 1812. The 

amendment is broader now than I would frame it if I were framing it 

to express my own views, but I had supposed that the temper of the 

Senate was such that they would hardly let it stand sixty days in 

1\Ie:xico, and, therefore, I made it fourteen days in that country. 

Mr. PLUMB. I understand that is an innovation on the principle 

established by the bill, because I think it requires sixty days' service 

to entitle to a pension, and it seems to me it would be better to adopt 

that rule and have it uniform rather than to adopt a new one in regard 

to a particular class of cases. 

.Mr. HARRISON. If the Senator moves to change the" fourteen" 

to ''sixty," I will accept the amendment. . 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not think this motion to lay on the table is 

debatable. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending motion is one to lay on 

the table. These inquiries are made by unanimous consent pendmgthat 

motion. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Kentucky 

that the amendment lie on the table, upon which the yeas and nays 

have been ordered. 

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. GARLAND (when his name was called). I am paired with 

the Senato1· from Vermont [l\Ir. EDMUNDs]. 

Mr. HARRIS (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from 1\lassachusetts [.l\Ir. HoAR] upon all questions except 

some amendments in regard to which I reserved the right to vote, but 

this is not one of them. I therefore withhold my vote. Otherwise, I 

should vote '' yea.'' 

The roll-call was concluded. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. The senior Senator "from Rhode 

Island [Mr. ANTHONY] is paired with the Senator from West Virginia 

(Mr. CAMDEN]. 

The result was announced-yeas 25, nays 35; as follows: 

Bayard, 

Beck, 

Brown, 

Call, 

Cockrell, 

Coke, 

Colquitt, 

YEA8-25. 

Fair, 

Farley, 

George, 

Hampton, 

Jonas, 

Jones of Florida, 

Kenna, 

:McPherson, 

1\laxey, 

Morgan, 

Pugh, 

Ransom, 

Riddleberger, 

Slater, 

Vanee, 

Vest, 

Walker, 

Williams. 

Aldrich, 

Allison, 

Blair, 

Cameron of Pa., Cameron of Wis., 

Conger, 

Cullom, 

Dawes, 

Frye, 

Anthony, 

Bowen, 

Butler, 

Camden, 

NAYS-35. 

Gorman, 

Groome, 

Hale, 

Harrison, 

Hawley, 

Ingalls, 

Jackson, 

Jones of Nevada, 

Lapham, 

:McMillan. 

Manderson, 

1\Iiller of Cal., 

l\:liller of N.Y., 

Mitchell, 

Morrill, 

Palmer, 

Pendleton, 

Pike, 

ABSENT-16. 

Dolph, 

Edmunds, 

Garland, 

Gibson, 

Harris, 

Hill 

Ho~r, 

Lamar, 

So the motion was not agreed to . 

Platt, 

Plumb, 

Saulsbury, 

Sawyer, 

Sewell, 

Sherman, 

VanWyck, 

Wilson. 

Logan, 

Mahone, 

Sabin, 

Voorhees. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

offered by the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HARRISON]. 

Mr. WILLIAMS and 1\Ir. HARRISON called for the yeas and nays, 

and they were ordered. · 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Just one word; I do not want to make a speech. 

This amendment is perfectly harmless in itself; it is rather to the advantage of the Mexican-war soldiers than otherwise, because it makes 

the limit of fourteen days the minimum service entitling them to a 

pension instead of sixty days as the bill itself provides. My only objection to it in God's world is that it requires that the bill shall go back 

to the House. At this stage of the session you can see how the bill will . 

be affected by t.hat. That is the only objection on earth I have to the 

amendment. 

Mr. HARRISON. The Senator from Kentucky is very much mist.aken in his statement. The bill as it stands pensions every man who 

was one day in the Mexican war, or a half a day if he actually landed 

in Mexico. It pensions him if he never started for Mexico; pensions 

him if he was in a camp or rendezvous; pensions him if he was commander of a fort in New York Harbor. l.Iy amendment is sufficiently 

liber-cll, but it is not quite so liberal as the bill. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. It is perfectly apparent that no man could have 

been a single day in the service in Mexico, or in a battle in Mexico, 

who had not been in the service more than fourteen days. It was a 

thousand miles from their home; it took a month to get there. Then 

the moment the soldier arrived at Resaca or Palo Alto, Vera Cruz or el ewhere, he went right into battle. 

As I said before, this clause was putin the House bill simply to cover 

the cases of a few men who were with General Taylor at Resaca de la 

Palma andPalo.A.lto and BrownsvilleandMonterey. The effect of the 

Senator's amendment will not be to damage the soldiers of the Mexican 

war at all; it is rather to their advantage than otherwise, because nobody was in any battle or wa in the service a single day in Mexico who 

had noli been in the service of the country more than fourteen days. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered 

on the amendment of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HARRISON]. 

The Secretary will call the roll. 

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. • 

Mr. CAMERON, of Pennsylvania (when his name was called). I 

am paired with the Senator from South.CarGlina [Mr. BUTLER]. 

Mr. GARLAND (whenhis name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS]. 

Mr. McMILLAN (when Mr. SABIN'Snamewascalled). My colleague 

[Mr. S.ABIN] is paired on this question with the Senator from West 

Virginia [Mr. CAMDEN] and on all sub equent votes on this bill. · The roll-call was concluded. 

Mr. HARRIS. I should vote '' na.y '' but for the fact that I am paired with the SenatorfromMassachusetta [Mr. HOAR]. I therefore 

decline to vote. 

Mr. KENNA. I desire to announce that my colleague [Mr. CAMDEN] 

is paired on all questions wit.h the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. S.ABIN.] 

The result was announ~ed-yeas 35, nays 24; as follows: 

Aldrich, 

Allison, 

Blair, 

Cameron of Wis., 

Conger, 

Cullom, 

Dawes, 

Dolph, 

Frye, 

Beck, 

Browu, 

Call, 

Cockrell, 

Coke 

Colqttitt, 

Gorman, 

Groome, 

Hale, · Harrison, 

Hawley, 

Ingalls, 

Jackson, 

YEA.S--35. 

McMillan, 

Manderson, 

Miller of Cal., Miller of N. Y., 

Mitchell, 

Morrill, 

Jones of Nevada, 

Lapham, 

Palmer, 

Pike, 

Platt, 

NAY8-24. 

Fair, Kenna, 

Farley, Lamar, 

George, Maxey, 

Hampt-on, Morgan, 

Jonas, Pendleton, Jones ofFlorida, Pugh, 

ABSENT-17. 

Anthony, Cameron ofPa., Hill, 

Bayard, Edmunds, Hoar, Bowen. Garland, Logan, Butler, Gibson, l'l!cPherson, 

Camden, Harris, Mahone, 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

Plumb 

Riddleberger, 

Saulsbury, 

Sawyer, 

Sewell, 

Sherman, 

VanWyck. 

Wilson. 

Ransom, 

Slater, 

Vance, 

Vest, 

Walker, 

Williams. 

Sabin, 

Voorhees. 
5486 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JUNE 23, 

Mr. MAXEY. 

tion 1: 

I offer the following amendment to be added to sec_- Mr. GEORGE. Is it in order to offer an·amendmentas a substitute 

for the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa? 

Provided, That the provisions of this act shall not extend oo or embrace any • . ';£'he PRESIDING OFFICER. An amendment in the second degree Senator or Representative of the Forty-eigth Congress. lS ill order. 

I offer the amendment because I believe that tho~ who are making Mr. GEORG~. I oJfer the following as a substitute for that amendthe law ought not to profit by the law, and I hope the friends of the ment: 

Mexican pension bill will vote for the amendment. PrOfJided, -r:hat this act shall not apply to any such surviving officer, enllstetl 

Mr. INGALLS. The Senator from Texas, I know, will appreciate ~~f_or manne who has the means of support without• resorting to manual 

my motive and feel that I have entire and absolute respect and goodwill for him when I move to lay that on the table. 

Mr. MAXEY. If the Senator will pardon me for one momentMr. INGALLS. I withdraw the motion to allow the Senator to 

speak. 

. Mr. MAXEY. I offerthe amendment in good faith, because I desire 

It adopted. From the first time the Mexican pension bill was brought 

before the Sena~ I placed on record time and again an expression that 

personally I desrred no ·benefit from it. I served in Mexico longer than 

• any oth~r member of ~is body. I w~ there nearly two years without havmg seen the Umted States durmg that time. I do not believe 

that those who vote for this lawshould profit by it. I think that I am 

sustained in the view that I take in this matter by every gentleman 

who served in the Mexican war. I feel perfectly sure tha.t the Senator 

from Kentucky [Mr. WILLIAMS], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. CoLQUITT],_th~ Senator from M~issippi [Mr. GEORGE], and the Senator 

from IllinolS [Mr. LoGAN], like my~elf, do not propose to profit by this; 

~nd yet a mere statement of thatkind ,on record would not deprive us if hereafter we saw proper to change our minds. I thank God that I am under no necessity of applying for it. 

Mr. INGALLS. I renew the motion to lay the amendment on the 

table. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas moves to 

lay the proposed amendment on 1!he table. 

. The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. WILSON. I offer the following amendment to come in at the 

end of section 1 : ' 

Provided, That every such offi~r, enlisted man, or widow, who is or ma.y be- come 62 years o~ age, or who IS or may ~me subject to any disability or dependency eq~uvalent to some ca~se prescnbed or recognized by the pension laws of the_Umted States as suffiCient reason for the allowance of a pension shall be entitled to the benefits of this act; but it shall not be held to includ~ · any person n?t within the r!-lle ?~ age o! ~sability or dependency herein de- ~~. ?r who mc~red such dtsabtl}.ty while many manner voluntarily engaged m atdmg or abettmg the late rebellion against the authority of the United States. 

Mr. President, I do not intend to occupy much time of the Senate 

concerning this amendment, and will content myself with a mere statement of its purpose and effect. · 

The first purpose of this amendment is to prevent the establishmen 

by the ~ssage of tJ:tis bill of the principle of mere service pension, but 

to requrre the pensiOn to rest upon some basis of disability. I have selec~ the age_ of 62 years because that is the period at which the laws 

requrre the retirement of officers of the Navy and consequently implie£ disability to a certain extent. ' ' 

The second is to require a disability of some kind, whether contracted 

in the service or since, that shall be equivalent in its effects to some 

cause rec«?gnized by the pension laws as sufficient to support the grant 

of a pens10n. 

The third is a degree of dependence that shall be equivalent to that 

of dependent father or mother for which we grant pensions now. That is the extent of the proviso so far as the granting of pensions is. co~c;e~ed, bot in order to save from the operation of the act such disabiliti~ as ma-y hav~ been incurr~ in military service opposed to the 

authonty of the Umted States dunng the rebellion this expressly provides that for a ~bility of that kind the pe~ion shall not be granted. 

In other words, 1t IS proposed to grant a pension to every soldier within 

the terms of this· act having a disability on account of the age of 62 

years or ~ny physical disabilitJ:' or any pecuniary dependency, but saving our pens10n laws from granting pensions to those who incurred diaability in opposition to the authority of the United States. 

~or one, sir, I think it right io confine our pension system to some- thing more than mere presence in the service, and believing that to be 

~ight and ha~g ~aped t~s amendment to that purpose~ I am also 

m favor o~ ~Vll!-~ It fro~ gol?g to the extent of granting pensions on aecount of diSability received ill the so-called confederate service. That 

sir, is the purpose and extent of this amendment. ' 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

offered by the Senator from. Iowa [Mr. WILSON]. 

Mr. VANCE. I desire to have the amendment read. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to add to section 1 the following 

proviso: 

P·rovided, That every such officer, enlisted man or widow who is or may be- come 62 years _of age, or who is or may become s~bject to a~y disability or de- pendency eqm~alent to some cause. prescribed and recognized by the pension laws of the :tJmted States as a suffiCient reason for the allowance of a pension shall be eut•t!ed. to the benefit-s of this a_ct, b_u_t· it shall not be held to include any person ':lot wtthm the r~le o_f _age o~ d~abtlity or dependency herein defined, o~ ~ho mcurre_d such dtsabthty while m any ma.nner voluntarily engaged in atdmg or abettmg the late rebellion against the authority of the United States. 

Mr. W:ILSON. There is one thing further I may state by way of exp~nat10n ~~my amendment, and that is this: So far as the ·disability of age lS concerned it does not take into account anything that. 

~ay have transpired; but any person within the terDlS of the act who ~ now 62 years of age, or who may become 62 years of age will be en- tit~~ to ·the bene~t of the act. Pensions will not be giv~n for a disability contracted ill the so-called confederate service. 

. Mr. HARRISON. IwishtoinquireoftheSenatorfromiowawhether · his amendment does not also recognize some disability by way of dependence? However, I believe this is offered as a substitute. 

Mr. INGALLS. Rising to a parliamentary inquiry, I confess that 

I am unable to ~e~ h?w,, under the rules, the proposition offered by the 

Sena!-<>r ~om M18S1SS1ppi can be. regarded as a substitute. There is 

nothing ill our rules that recognizes a motion that one phrase or one paragraph shall be a substitute for another. The Senator from Mississippi can offer his amendment as an amendment to that proposed by 

the Senator from Iowa. . It will then be only in the second degree, and 

of course can be entertamed under the rules but there is no method 

known to parliamentary law, so far as my ob~eivation goes by which 

it ean be moved as a substitute. ' 

. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi had a 

nght to offer an amendment to the pending amendment of the Senator 

from Iowa. 

Mr. INGALLS. Unquestionably . 

. The. PR~IDING OFFICER. Is ther-e any limitation which forbids his offenng an amendment which strikes out all the words? 

Mr. INGALLS. But there is no such thing as a substitute. He can move to strike out and insert, or he can move to amend by addina thhl 

to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Iowa. 0 

The PRESID~G OFFICER. Striking out and inserting is in the 

nature of a substitute. It amounts to the same thing. . 

Mr. GEORGE. I inquired of the Chair whether it was in order or not to offer it as a substitute. It is thesame thing precisely as moving 

to strike out all of the amendment of the Senator from Iowa and inserting ~his.in lieu thereof. I see no difficulty about it. I will modify my 

motion ill that way. 

Th~ PRESIDTh~ OFFICER. Th.e S~tor from Mississippi moves to stnke out and Insert. The question lS on the amendment of the 

Senator from Mississippi [Mr. GEORGE] to the amendment of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. WILSoN]. · · 

Mr. INGALLS. Now the question I suppose can be divided. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chairdoes notperceivethatthere are two propositions in th.e ame?-dment of the Senator from Mississippi. 

111r. CAMERON, ofW1SConsill. Under our rules a motion to strike 

out and insert is not divisible. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would so hold. 

Mr. INGALLS. But the part to be stricken out and the part to be 

inserted may both be amended. 

Th~ P~ESIDING OFFICER. The Chair so understands. The 

question lS on the amendment proposed by the Senator from Mississippi 

to the amendment of the Senator from Iowa. 

111r. :MORGAN. I wish to inquire ofthe Chair whether amotion to 

postpone the further consideration of this bill until the Tuesday after 

the first Monday in December would be in order? 

The PRESIDING {)FFICER. Certainly the motion would be in 

order. 

1\Ir. MORGAN. Iwillmakethatmotion. Thebillhasalreadybeen 

amended in the Senate. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama moves to 

postpone the further consideration of the bill until the Tuesday after 

the first Monday in December next. 

Mr. MORGAN. The pending bill has been amended in the Senate 

un~ I suppose it is ho~less to expect to have any measure on this subJ~t become a l~w dunng the present session of Congress. Other 

questions also, which have no necessary connection with this bill have• been brought in at this late hour in the session, doubtless because Sena- i?rs have supposed, first, that it was their duty to present those questions whenever and wherever they had an opportunity to do it· and 

secondly, that it might produce some possible effect on the pollticai 

campaign which is now pending in the country. . Th;e soldiers o! the Mexican. war. belong to both parties and they re- side ill both se<>.tions of the Umon, if there are still any sections in this 

Union. Upon .the floor of the Senate there are some. of the most gallant of the soldiers of that war, some who earned great reputation there 

who are Republicans, and some who are Democrats. Your honored candi~ date for Vice-President, though a boy at the time, won his spurs in the 

battles of the !tfexican war, and I am sure that the people of the United 
' 1884. CONGRES~IONAL RECORD-SENATE. 5487 

States will take as much satisfaction in complimenting him with their 

' votes on that ground as upon almost any other ground that could be 

stated. The honorable Senatorwhosits on my right [lt!r. WILLI.A.'"I!S] 

and who retires from this body after the 4th of March, and has now no longer interest, I suppose, in me ely trying to make a record of a political or personal character, won his earliest, if not his brightest, laurels 

upon those fields. It has always seemed to me that it was not a fair 

way to treat the question connected with the Uexican war service to 

connect it here with the present prevailing party heats and animosities. I have felt all the time since we have been debating the question 

here that the Mexican war soldiers did not have a fair chance upon 

this floor at this time. 

I have been here when three votes were taken on this bill. Iremember a .very magnificent speech made by that great soldier, General 

Shields, late one afternoon upon this bill in the Senate of the United 

States. I remember it so well that the effect of it has never worn off 

from me, and this question never arises in the Senate that that man's 

presence does not seem a power again in this body and his eloquent 

tongue to begin again to speak in behalf of his comrades in that great 

war. 

I have endeavored to try to impress as well as I could upon the Senate my view of this case, th..1ot it is a case which stands apart from all 

the 'balance of the matters relating to pensions. In my technical opinion about the subject of pensioning soldiers, I find myself in harmony 

with the views stated by the Semito; from Ohio [l\Ir. SHER'MAN] today, that there is not any actual contract or engagement between the 

Government and the soldier when he enters into the service tha.t he 

shall have a pension at all. I put it upon the ground of a debt of 

gratitude, a debt due from the country to its soldiery because of their 

services in time of peril, and because of the years of the earlier parts 

of their lives that they were compelled to spend in defense of their 

country or in the assertion of its rights. Putting it upon that ground, 

I have always felt that there was some peculiar reason wbythesoldiers 

of the 1\Iexican war had a claim upon our gratitude, and I have felt 

that for years past the debt was due. I have been compelled in my 

own mind to draw a parallel between the case of the soldiers of the 

Mexican war and the seamen who'go abroad upon the high seas under 

the flag of the United States in the privateer service or in the regular 

armed service of the United States, and there make conquests of property and also fight the battles of their country. 

The law of prize-money, which has I believe never received the disapprobation, to say the least of it, of the Congressofthe United States, 

applies to this case if any law applies to it. If there is any precedent 

of law at all that applies to the case of the Mexican war service it is 

the law regulating prize. Our sailors are given prize-money because 

it stimulates individual enterprise, because when they are away from 

their own squadrons and from their own coasts, they are very much 

under their own command and they are out among foreign people and 

in foreign countries and they have not access to the advantages and 

hospitalities of home as our soldiers have had in all of the other wars 

we have fought. 

The soldiers of the 1\Iexican war have been put very much on the 

same ground. .As I observed in some former remarks I had the honor 

to submit to the Senate, these were almost entirely young men when 

~bey went into the service. They }Vent into a climate that was very 

hot, into a country that bred sickness in their ranks to a very disastrous 

extent, and the men who have come baek to a very large degree have 

brought with them the seeds of disease and an infirmity of body from 

which they have never recovered. I could in my own experience name 

quite a large number of persons who have been troubled in· this way. 

It was upon that faet that I have heretofore predicated the statement 

that I thought their age had been advanced at least ten years beyond 

that of those in the late service in the war of the rebellion or in the 

war of 1812, where the service rendered in a temperate climate and 

under circUIDBtances where the great body of the soldiery could have 

some relief from the hospitalities of their own people and the abundance of their own country. 

These soldiers, when they returned to us in honor and in glory, with a degree of honor and glory and renown to which even the great armies 

of the United States are somewhat unaccustomed, luought with them 

a country which has enriched us beyond all power of description, and 

Senators are here to-day voting upon this question from States that 

were a wilderness country belonging to a foreig~ power at the time 

these young men returned with this great domain to their native country. More than that, very many of the Senators on this floor were 

little boys about their fathers' knees at the time these soldiers were out fighting the battles of their country, which has been a good while 

ago, and there are some quite young men in this body yet. 

Now, it does seem to me.that, looking at the analogy of our own practice and our own laws, there is no just reason for our withholding from 

these men a pension in what is to t.hem a really advanced stage of life, 

and in the face of the fact that very many of them are stricken with 

poverty, when by paying one dollar out of a thousand, yes, I belieYe ·one do.l).ar out of ten thousand or it may be one hundred thousand of 

the :wtnal value of the domain that they brought to us, we could make 

them comfortable during the remainder of their lives. 

Suppose thatitshouldever occurin the history of the United Statesand such things may occur-that we shall have occasion to send our 

armies to foreign countries, say a-cross the northern border or across the 

narrow part of the gulf that divides·us from the Carribean Islands for 

the purpose of waging a warfare in that country that should last two 

or three years, and the .soldiery that we should send there should bring 

back to us an extent of territory somewhat equivalent to that we acquired by the Mexican treaties, and in point of value something eq nal 

to it, I think that the coming generations of the people of the United 

States would scarcely ever refuse to grant to those men very large bounties, and certainly not to grant them pensions when after the lapse of 

years they should become old and decrepit and infirm. 

We can not afford to put ourselves upon that ground, and whatever 

of political animosity or controversy there may be between us, let us 

select some subject away from this in which to express it. We have 

plenty of opportunity for controversy, and we need not bring every 

question that comes before this body into political contest between each 

other. Can we not look this question squru:elyin the face like men of 

reason and men of grateful hearts and appreciative minds and elevated 

sentiments, take hold of it and decide it strictly and purely upon its 

own merits? I happened to make that remark the other day casually 

in the Senate. It went over on the telegraph lines and this morning I 

received a letter from one of the old soldiers of the Mexican war in 

which he said: "Whatever else takes place in respect to the pensioning 

of Mexican soldiers, let the bill stand upon its merits. I should take a great deal more of satisfaetion in believing that my country had voted 

me $10 or $12 a month in my old age upon the merits of my service 

than if they had voted me a thousand dollars a month merely because 

I had the political influence to gain it by a majority in those bodies." 

Sir, I applaud the sentiment of that man. Such a man as that when 

he was a youth could be relied upon to protect the honor of his country 

and carry its flag in triumph in foreign lands. 

The American Army has never writtten a history like that which it 

wrote in Mexico. It is the very romance of American prowess, and 

there has never been a man connected prominently with the Mexican 

service that I have yet heard of who has net been rewarded by the gratitude of his country in his individual person whenever the people had a 

chance to express their voice. Look at old General Shields, how State 

after State took him up and placed him at the very bead of their representatives in the Senate of the United States; and Franklin Pierce, 

and Zacha.ry Taylor,· and General Grant, and General Scott. Why, sir, 

the whole list of our present notables in the United States in the military service is filled up nearly with men who in their boyhood were 

gallant soldiers in the Mexican war service, and there is not a man of 

all that host to-day who will not appeal to his service in the 1\fexican. war as being the brightest and most distinctive honor he has ever re- ceived from his country. 

Now, because we have got into an attitude on this ca e where politics must sway it one way or the other, because the Senate, now drawing rapidly to an adjournment, is not in an attitude to consider thiS 

question calmly and sedately, as I think it should, I believe it to be 

my duty as a friend of the Mexican war soldier and as one who desires 

that this case shall be tried upon its merits and upon nothing else, to 

ask the Senate to postpone the consideration of this bill until the Tuesday after the first .Monday of December, at 12 o'clock meridian. I 

therefore make that motion. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion of the 

Senator from Alabama, to postpone the further consideration of the 

bill until the Tuesday after the first Monday in December. 

Mr. CONGER and Mr. 1\IORG.AN called for the yeas and nays; and 

they were ordered. 

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. GARLAND (when his name was called); I am paired with the 

Senator from Vermont [1\fr. EDMUNDS]. I do notknowhowhewonld 

vote, but if he were here I should vote "nay." 

:P.Ir. HARRIS (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HoAR]. 

Mr. JONAS (when his name was called). I am paired with the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. VAN WYcK]. If he were here I should vote 

"nay." 

The roll-call was concluded. 

Mr. CAMERO~, of Pennsylvania. I am paired with the Senator 

from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER J. 

The result was announced; yeas 0, nays 57; as follows: 

Aldrich, 

Bayard, 

Beck 

Blair: 

Bow~n. 

Brown, 

Ca ll, C<tme ron of Wis., 

Coke, 

Colquitt, 

Conger, 

Cullom, 

Da.wes, 

Dolph, 

Farley, 

YE~. 

NAYS-57. 

Frye, 

George, 

G-orman, 

Groome, 

Hampton, Harrison, 

Hawley, 

Hill 

Jn~ls, 

Jackson, 

Jones of Florida, K enna, Lamar, La.pll:Un, 

Logan, 

l'tfc?tfillan, 

McPherson, 

?.!anderson, 

Maxey, 

Miller of Cal., MilJer ofN. Y., 

Mit.chell, 

~I organ, 

Morrill, 

Palmer, 

Pendleton, 

Pike, 

Platt, 

Plumb, 

Pugh, 

Ransom, 

Riddleberger, 

Saws bury, 

Sawyer, 

Sewell, 

Sherman, 

Slater, 

Vance, 

Ve"t 

Walker, 

Williams, 

Wils~m. 
5488 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE. JUNE 23, 

.Allison, 

Anthony, 

Butler, 

Camden, 

Cameron of Pa., 

Cockrell, 

Edmunds, 

Fair, 

Garland, Gibson, 

ABSENT-19. 

Hale, 

Harris, 

Hoar, 

Jonas, 

Jones of Nevada, 

So the motion was not agreed to. 

Mahone, 

Sabin, 

VanWyck, 

Voorhees. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER .. The question recurs on the amendment offered by the Senator frem I\fississippi [Mr. GEORGE] to the. amendment of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. WILSON]. 

The amendment to the amendment was rejected. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. WILSON]. 

1r. WILLIAllffi called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered. 

The Secretary proceed to call the roll. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Pennsylvania, (when his name was called). I am paired with the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER]. 

Mr. GARLAND (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from Vermont [ 1\Ir. EDMUNDS]. If he were here I should vote 

'' nay,'' and I su :ppose he would vote ''yea. '' • Mr. HARRIS (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HoAR]. I suppose he would vote 

"yea," and if he were here I should vote ''nay." 

M1·. HILL (when his name was called). I am paired with the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. GrnsoN]. 

Mr. JONAS (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from Nebrn.ska [Mr. V .AN WYCK]. If he were here, I should 

vote ''nay." 

The roll-call having been concluded, the result was announced-yeas 

33, nays 25; as follows: 

.Aldrich, 

A1lison, 

Blair, 

Bowen, 

Cameron of Wis., 

Conger, 

Cullom, 

Dawes, 

Dolph, 

Bayard, 

Beck, 

Brown, 

Call, 

Cockrell, 

Coke, 

Fair! 

YEAS-33. 

Frye, 

Hale, 

Harrison, 

Hawley, 

Ingalls, 

Jones of Nevada, 

Lapham, 

McMillan, 

McPherson, 

Manderson, 

Miller of Cal., 

MillerofN. Y., 

Mitchell, 

Morrill, 

Palmer, Pike, 

Platt, 

Plumb, 

NAY8-25. 

Farley, Kenna, 

George, Lamar, 

Gorman, Maxey, 

Groome, Morgan, 

Hampton, Pugh, 

Jackson, Ransom, Jones of Florida, Riddleberger, 

ABSENT-18. 

Anthon;)[, Edmunds, Hoar, 

Butler, Garland, Jonas, 

Camden, Gibson, Logan, Cameron of Pa., Harris, 1\Iahone, 

Colquitt, Hill, Pendleton, 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

Saulsbury, 

Sawyer, 

Sewell, 

Sherman, 

Slater, 

Wilson. 

Vance, 

Vest, 

Walker, 

Williams. 

Sabin, 

VanWyck, 

.Voorhees. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I move the following amendment to come in at 

the end of section 2: 

Or during the continuance of the disability for which the same shall be granted : Provided, '!'hat section 1 of this act shall not apply to any person who is receiving a pension at the rate of $8 per month or more, nor to any person receiving a pension of less than SB a month, except for the difference between the pension now received, if less than $8 per month, and $8 per month. 

That is necessary in order to prevent the granting of double pensions. 

This bill was passed very hurriedly through the Hou e of Representatives on a motion to suspend the rules and pass it through the House 

by.one vote, so that there was no opportunity whatever for amendment. 

Objection was made there on that account. 

lt is also necessary for. another reason, and that is that the amendment adopted by the Senate on motion of the Senator from Iowa 

proposes to grant a ·pension for disability, so that the limitation ex- pressed in the fore part of my proposed amendment that the pension 

continue during such disability is necessary. 

This is the same provision which was contained in similar words in 

the act of 1878, known as the law granting pensions to the soldiers of 

the war of 1812; and if it is not adopted, undoubtedly the Mexican war soldiers who served in the late war, and who are now receiving a pension, would be entitled to a pension under this bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on theamendmentof 

the Senator from Pennsylvania. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Pennsylvania. I should like to move an executive session. 

Mr. MITCHELL. We might as well go through the formal amendments. 

Mr. ALLISON. I hope the bill will be finished to-night. I shall 

feel compelled to-morrow morning to call up the legisla.tive appropriation bill. If we can finish this bill to-night I think it would forward business very much. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I move to insert in sect1on 3, line 14, after the 

word "other," the word "record," and in the same line, after the 

worQ. " of," to insert "enlistment and," and in the same line to strike 

out the word "performed;" so as to read: 

The loss of the certificate of discharge shall not deprive any person of the benefits of this act, but other record evidence of enlistment and service and of au honorable discharge may be deemed safficient. 

I think the amendment is necessary· to protect the Government. A 

similar provision is in the act of 1878. Otherwise proof by parol might 

be given. The Commissioner of Pensions thinks this is necessary as a safeguard. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on theamendmentof 

the Senator from Pennsylvania. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I offer the following amendment, to come in at 

the close of section 3: 

Provided, '!'hat when any person has been granted a land-warrant under any act of Congress for and on account of service in the said war with 1\Iexico, such warrant shall be prima facie evidence of service and honorable discharge; but such evidence shall not be conclusive and may be rebutted by evidence that such land-warrant was improperly granted. 

That is a provision known to the existing law, and it is to simplify 

the proof in this case, and will greatly aid in ma~ing out these claim 

Mr. WILLIAMS. There is no objection to that. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. MITCHELL. In section 5, line 4, I propose to strike out the 

words ''to be paid when," and insert "which shall not be demanded 

or received until;" so as to read: 

SEc. 5. That it shall be unlawful for any attorney, claim agent, br any other person to demand or receive a fee greater than $10 for services rendered in be- half of a claimant under th4> act, which shall not be demanded or received until such claim is allowed. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I also offer the following amendment, to be added 

to section 5: 

And any person violating the pr;visions of this ad shall be subject to the pro- visions of section 5485 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. 

That simply applies the existing penalty to this section. 

The amendment was agreed to. :Mr. MITCHELL. I should like to know how section 6 reads. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The section will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

SEO. 6. That section 4716 of the Revised Statutes is hereby repealed so far as the same relates to this act or to pensioners under this act. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I have an amendment to offer, but the Senator 

from Michigan desires to offer an amendment to the first section. 

Mi. CONGER. Before the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania, which is a long one, is offered, I move to strike out, in line 

20 of section 1, the words which the committee recommended to strike 

out: 

And provided further, That this act shall not apply to any person not a citizen of the United States. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. • The question is on the amendment 

of the Senator from Michigan. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Now I propose amendments as additional sections 

to the bill, which I send to the desk. 

The amendments were read, as follows: 

SEo. 8. '!'hat every person specified in the several classes enumerated in sec- tion 4693 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and the amendments thereto, who served in the military or naval service, as mentioned iu said sec- tion, for the period of three months during the wa.r of the rebellion, and has an honorable diScharge th.erefrom, and who is or shall become disabled from any cause not the result of his own gross carele sness, disreputable conduct, or vicious 

habits, and shall also be dependent upon his own labor for support shall, upon making due proof of the facts, under such regulations as may be prescribed by tl1e proper authority, be placed upon the list of pensioners of the United States, and be entitled to receive a pension during the continuance of such disability at a rate proportionate to the degree thereof; and such pension shall commence at the date of filing an application therefor. The highest rate of pension granted under this section, which shall be for total incapacity to perform any manual labor. shall be $24, which is hereby made divisible upon that basis for any less deg-ree of disability: Provided, That no person 8ntitled to or receiving an in- valid pension under exil:;ting laws, or such as may be hereafter enacted, grant- ing pensions for disabilities contracted in the military or naval ser~ice of the United States and in line of duty, greater than that provided for herein, shall receive the benefits of this act. But any uch applicant for invalid pension having an application therefor pending, or who shall hereafter file .his application for such pension, may, by declaration over his own signature, at any time, elect to prosecute his said claim under this act or under the general laws; and his pension, when allowed, if prosecuted under this act, shall commence from the date of such election. · SEc. 9. That all widows or minor children of soldiers and sailors who, as such, are now receiving, under ~xisting laws, general or special, the sum of~ per month, by reason of the death of s11ch soldiers and sailors in service or from a disability contracted in the military or navalservice of the United States, and in line of duty, since the 4th day of l!!Iarch, 1861, shall, from and after this date, be entitled to and receive the rate of $12 per month in lieu of said rate of SB; and all such widows or minor children who shall hereafter be found to be entitled to the rate of per month under existing laws shall be entitled to and receive the rate of $12 in lieu of said rate of SB. SEC. 10 . . 'I'hRtif any invalid pensioner pensioned for a disability contracted in- the military m· naval service of the Uuited States, and in the line of duty, has died or shall hereafter die, leaving a widow or minor children under 16 years of age, or both, at the date oft he death of such pensioner, such widow and minor children shall be held to be entitled, in the order of succession named, to an original pension in their own right, under existing laws, without being required to prove that the death of ~uch pensioner was due to his military or naval serv- ice of the United States, and shall receive the rate now allowed by law, except 
1884.· CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 5489 

that uch a may be found to be entitled to " per month undet; existing laws shall receive in lieu thereof $12 per month. . . SEc. 11. That pension g1-anted such widow on aooou~t of such mmor ch1ldren shall be continued witho':'t limit a ~o age,. whenever It shall appear that ~uch 

minors are of unsound mmd or physiCally nelple s, so a to render them mca- pable of earning a subsistence: Provided, That uch widow retains the care, cu tody,and control of such minors; and in the event <;>f the death or rem.ar- riage of such widow1 or abandonmen.t by her of su<:h m~ors, the.J? the p~ns10n 

and additional pensiOn shall be contmued to th~m ~n_ thetr own right, Without limit a to age, during the continuance of such d1sab1hty, payable to a.dulyconst~~:;tgu;~iai~ considering the claims of dependent parents the fact and cau e.of d eath and the fact that the soldier left no widow or minor children hav- in~ been shown as required by Jaw, it shall be nere <>ary only ~o s~ow ):>y com- petent and sufficient evidence that such dependent parent IS without other pre ent means of comfortable support than his ~r h e r own manual labor, or the contributions of others not legally bound for h!S o~ ~er support; and s~ch ~ 

may be found to be entitled to $8 a month u~der ex1 tmg laws shall rece1ve m 

lieu thereof 12 a month from the date of this act. . . . SEc.13. That in all applications un~er the general pen~wn laws, mcluding this act, where it appears by record eVIdence that the apphcan.t was r_egularl?' enli ted and mustered into the service, that fact shall be suffiCient pn?na Jac1e 

evidence of soundne at the time of his enlistment, but such presumption shall be ubject tc rebuttal by record or other competent evidence. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I have no desire whatever to detain the Senate 

with a sinule remark. These amendments are important, but I think 

they are cl~rly understood and I am quite willing myself that we have a vote without debate. ["Vote." "Vote!"] 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

of the Senator from Pennsylvania to add the ectionsjust read. 

.Mr. SLATER called for the yeas and nays. 

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

the roll. 

l\fr. CAMERON, of Pennsylvania (when his name was called). I am pa.ired with the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER]. 

.l\ir. WALKER (when Mr. GARL~TD' name wa-s called). l\Iy colleague [l\1r. GARLAND] i paired with the Senator from Vermont [Mr. 

EDMUNDS]. 1 .Mr. HARRIS (when his name was called). I should vote 'nay" 

if I were not paired with the Senator from Ma-ssachus~tts [~_Ir. HoAR]. 

l\Ir. JONAS (when his name was called). I am parred With the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. VANWYcK]. If he were here, I should vote 

"nay." . Mr. CONGER (when Mr. PAL tER'snamewascalled_). .My colleague 

[Mr. PALMER] is paired with the Senator from Georg1a [l\fr: BROWN]. 

The roll-call was concluded. 

~fr. HILL. I am paired on this question with the Senator from 

Louisiana [Mr. GIB oN]. If he were here, I should vote "yea." 

Ir. BROWN (after having voted in the negative). I voted, forgetting at the moment that I was paired with the Senator from l\Iichigan 

[Mr. PALMER]. I withdraw my vote. 

Mr. McMILLAN. l\Iy colleague [Mr. SABIN] is paired with the 

Senator from West Virginia [Mr. CAMDEN]. If my colleague were here, he would vote ''yea.'' 

Mr. COLLOM. I was instructed by the Senator from Indiana [Mr. 

VooRHEES J either to pair him on this amendment or announce that he 

would vote for the amendment if he were present. In the absence of a pair I make that announcement. 

The result was announced-yeas 31, nays 27, as follow 

Aldrich, 

Allison, 

Blair, 

Bowen, 

Cameron of Wis., Conger, 

Cullom, 

Dawes, 

Bayard, 

Beck, 

Call, Cockrell, 

Coke, 

Colquitt, 

Fair, 

Dolph, 

Frye, 

Hale, 

Harrison, 

Ingalls, 

YEAB-31. 

1\fcl\:lillan, 

Iahone, 

1\lander on, 1\liller of Cal., Miller of N.Y., Jones of Nevada, 

Lapham, Iitchell, IVIorrill, 

Logan, Pike, 

NAYS-27. 

Farley, Kenna, George, I cPher on, Gorman, 1\Iaxey, Groome, 1\Iorgau, Hampton, Pendleton, Jackson, Pugll, Jones of Florida, Ransom, 

ABSE~T-1 . 

Anthony, Edmunds, Hill, 

Brown, Garland, Hoar, 

Butler, Gibson Jonas, 

Camden, Harris, Lamar Cameron ofPa., Hawley, Palme r, 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

Platt. 

Plumb,. Riddle berger, 

Sawyer, Sewell, 

Sherman, Wilson. 

Saulsbury, 

Slater, 

Vance, 

Vest, 

Walker, Williams. 

Sabin, VanWyck, 

Voorhee ·. 

Ir. MITCHELL. One formal amendment is made necessary by the 

addption ofthis amendment. In ection 2 of the bill line 1 afterthe 

word ' under," I move to insert " ection 1 of;" o as to read: 

That pensions under ection 1 of this act shall be at the rate of $8 per month. 

Otherwise a.ll those entitled to pension under the first section would 

be entitled to$ a month, whereas they would be entitled under the 

latter to a disability pension according to the actual disability. 

The amendment was agreed to. . 

'fr. HARRIS. I move that the bill as amended, ay five hundred 

copies, be printed and if that provis~on is made I shall mo>e that the 

Senate adjourn. I want to see the b1ll a amended before I -am called 

upon to vote tor or against it.. · 

XV--344 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to receiving at this 

time the motion proposed by the Senator from Tennessee? The Chair 

hears none. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I hope an hour will be :fixed when we shall ha.Y0 

a vote without further debate, as this has been already debated. 

Ir. HARRIS. So fa.r a I am concerned, I shall not be prepared to 

vote upon the bill until I see it printed as amended, and I therefo~e 

desire that the bill shall be printed with the amendments agreed tom 

committee. 

~fr. SHERMAN. I think myself the request is a reasonable one if 

the Senator has not had an opportunity to see the amendments; but at 

the same time, as the debate i all exhausted and the amendments probably are all in that will be offered, I think we ought. to have an agreement to have a. vote on the bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is on the motion 

to print. 

1\fr. VEST. ~Ir. President, of course at this time in t.he evening in 

this atmo phere I do not propose to debate the bill. I simply want to 

say, in justice to myself and on my. own account that I shall not vote 

for it as amended. 

The State of l\Iis ouri furnished three regiments to the l\Iexican war. Two of them were mustered into the service and fought the battles of 

Bratito and Sacramento; in the latter battle General Doniphan with 

1, 0 6 men defeating 6,000 l\Iexicans, capturing their batteries with cav- alry and giving to military history an expedition which is without a rival in ancient or modern times. Tho e troops marched nine hundred 

mile ·, captured Santa Fe, Socorro, and Albuquerque; took the who~e 

ofNew l\Iexico, and while Taylor and Scott were covering the Amen- can arms with imperishable renown in one portion of l\fexico they were gaining laurels equally as great and glorious upon the soil of New 

l\Iexico. 

l\Ir. President, these men are cattered over Missouri, or the remnants of them, old, impoverished, a great many ofthem, and pressing me with olicitations to vote for this bill. I can not and will not vote 

for this bill amended a it i now. 

The amendment of the Senator from Illinois [l\Ir. CULLOM] ados 

$50,000,000 to the pension-roll as soon as the claims can be adjusted. 

Since I have been in the Senate-and I propose to speak plainly-there 

has been a pretense upon the part of certa.in Senators that they desired 

to pension the 1\Iexican war soldiers. I say deliberately a pretense, becarr e whenever this bill ha come up to the issue of a passage it has 

been not shot down in fair and open fight and honorable parliamentary 

warfare, but it has been as.-.a inated and bled to death with amendments and the rea-son of it is, in my judgment, because the Mexican war was a 'Democratic war and fought under a. Democratic administration. 

The Senator from KaDSa8 [l\Ir. INGALLS] in the opening of this debate 

tated the animus which has prompted many Senato!S upon this floor. 

in my judoment, in regard to· this whole measure when he declared 

that the l\I~xican war was waged in order to extend the area of African 

slavery, that it was a war of conquest; and he announced in the beginning of the debate that that was his opinion in regard to it. 

Mr. President, if any war was ever waged under the instincts of blood 

and natural affection and the irresistible decree of manifest destiny it was that l\Iexican war. The area of Texas had been settled up by 

American citizens, and it was just as impossible to prevent Texas from 

becoming a part of this Union as to keep out the State of l\Ii ouri or 

the State of Kansas or any other State. Our people, blood of our blood 

and bone of our bone, had fought a war with Mexico, a.nd had achieved 

their independence. There was not an American citizen, and especially 

in the Southern States, from who e loins these men sprang, that had 

not prayed for them and invoked the blessing of God·upon their heroic 

enterprise. So soon as Texas had a-chieved her independence and had 

applied to the American Union for admission, Mexico commenced a series of insults and outrages upon American citizens that could have but one result. If the American people had then folded their arms and allowed Texas to have fought out that issue by herself they would have 

covered themselves with eternal and merited ignominy and disgrace. 

Texas was admitted as a member of the nion, and so oon as he was admitted American arms occupied the bud between the Nueces and 

the Rio Grande. 

In addition to the wrongs and outrages perpetrated upon our cit izen Mexico declared war, and then there could be but one result-the 

arbitrament of arms. That was the cause of the l\Iexican war, a.nd 

whate>er might have been the opinion of patriotic Americans in regar•l 

to the cause of the war, there could ha>e been, and houhl have bee11 

but one course after that war wa declared. It is true that the grent 

Whig party, in which I was reared, seized upon the Iexican war as a pretense for declaring that it" wa waged for the Democracy to extewl 

slavery and to add another to the list of Democratic taLes. l\Ir. Clay, 

the great leader of the Whig party, whom I was taught to revere an1l 

love above any mortal man, threw down the gage of battle in the Hali::l 

of Congre · on this question, but after the war had been declared the great Whig families of Kentucky lP-aped to the front and pomed o.nt· their best blood in defense of the American flag. ·Mr. Cla.y's fa.vonte on fell fiuhtina at the bead of hi regiment a.t Buena Vista with .McKee by hi; sid; Mr. Webster's on and Ben Hardin's son were solI 
-. 

5490 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JUNE 23, 

diers in that war, and the immortal answer of the American general, 

Ta-ylor, to Santa. Anna was given to him from the lips of Thomas L. 

Crittenden, now on the retired-list of the United States Army, which was echoed in the words ofthe whole American people, "General Taylor never surrenders." Sir, the Whig party in Kentucky, in Tennessee, and in the other States of the West was true to the flag. It was 

not so everywhere. It was not so in Massa-chusetts, which furnished 

to the war one regiment, that commanded by Caleb Cushing, not :~,-ai ed 

in 1\Ia.ssachusetts, but raised principally in the city of New York. 

Massachusetts was against the war, and I do not wonder that her Senator on this floor moved amendments to this bill with the distinct and 

outspoken purpose of destroying and preventing its passage. · 1\Ir. President, we are told that this bill establishes service pensions, 

and that therefore it ought not to be passed as it came from the House. 

Were not service pensions given after fifty or forty years to the soldiers 

of the Revolution and the soldiers of the war of 1812? Was not the 

first legislation to provide for those who were disabled by wounds or by sickness in the war of the Revolution and the war of 1 12; and 

afterward were not service pensions given to those soldiers and veterans? Why not apply the sa~e principle now? Thirty-~ix years 

have elapsed since the close of the war with Mexico. The youngest 

soldier who then went in defense of his country's flag is to-day in the 

vicinity of 60 years of age, if not more. Why is it that we hear now this clamor against service pensions? 

But we are told in some quarters that we establish a precedent and 

that if we vote now to give service pensions to the Mexican war vete- rans we shall soon be called upon to give service pensions to every man who fought in the last war between the United and the Confederate 

States. Mr. President, I have never doubted that the time would 

come when every man who bore a sword or musket in that war would 

receive a pension from the country. It is the legitimate consequence 

of our legislation; it is the logical sequenceofwha.twe have done heretofore. But is there any necessity now for this class of legislation? 

Do the events surrounding us call on us to give these pensions now to 

the soldiers of the last struggle? Nineteen years only have elapsed 

since the closeof the war between the United and Confederate States. 

When seventeen yeaFS more have elapsed, and when the men who went 

to the front, their hearts full of enthusiasm and courage for their coun- try, come to the age of 60 years, as have these Mexican war veterans, 

then, if I am here in the providence of God, I pledge myself to give 

them the same bounty from this Government that I propose now to give 

the soldiers of the war with Mexico. I never doubted that that principle 

would be announced. Thirty-six years have elapsed-thirty-six years 

instead of forty-but, as the Senator from Alabama [Mr. MoRGAN] said 

to-day, in the war with Mexico our men, unacclimated: unused to the 

habits of people in a tropical climate, going from the temperate zone, 

came back with enfeebled and weakened constitutions and have dragged 

out their lives in lingering disease. 

Oh, 1\Ir. President, let us understand it. The argument is with_those 

who say that the soldiers in the war with Mexico should be penswned, 

but political prejudice is against us, and the object of the Republican 

party now in this Senate is to put Democratic Senators in such a position by amendments to this bill that if we vote Uouainst it on account 

of the amendments, in the coming canvass we shall hear that we are opposed to pensioning the soldiers of the Union. Sir, I have said on this 

floor, and I repeat it again, the country that would not pension the men who have been disabled by shot and shell and s..'tber-stroke in her defense, or who were enfeebled by disease contracted in her service, or who after years are found with the decrepitude of age-the country 

that would not pension these men ought to be blotted out from the 

map of Christendom. I say it again, and I have so voted, and I expect to. 

I am in favor of pensioning the soldiers of the Union according to the 

legislation we have established as a precedent and according to the rules 

of justice and of gratitude; but let us apply the same rule, let us not 

spend time here in a political canvass at the expense of the old, decrepit, 

and worn-out Mexican war soldiers. But, sir, I will not establish a different rule from that established heretofore by the laws of Congress. 

I will not be forced to vote for the amendments that are put upon this 

bill, and in reply to those of my constituents who come to me with 

trembling limbs and in raga, per hap , and ask my reason for this vote, 

I will point to the unjust and partisan legislation of the majority of 

this body. · 

l\1r. CO~G ER. l\Ir. President, I had indulged the hope that we should 

pass through tbediscussionofa pension bill without attempting toarou e party feeling or partisan feeling, or without reference to the kind or character of wars in which these soldiers might have been engaged. We 

bad passed a.lmo t through it until t,he Senator from Missouri charges 

upon the llepulicans of this side of the House that they make amendments here in favor of the soldiers of the war of the rebellion and discriminating to some extent against the soldiers of the Me4ican war, as he says, because that was a Democratic war and the war of the rebellion was a Republican war. l\Ir. VEST. I did not say that: .Mr. CONGER. The Senator said the opposition to one of the clauses 

of this bill in regard to Mexican war soldiers was because that was a Democratic war. 

Mr. VEST. I said that. 

1\lr. CO~GER . . I &'ly the other. 

l\Ir. VEST. Ah ! I did not sayit. 

1\Ir. CONGER. The only possible inference there can be, the only 

po ible reason for dragging in a partisan view of this question is the 

contrast between a Democratic war and a Republican war; and I take 

occasion to call attention to it, that on this pension bill the first and 

only time in which partisanship has been appealed to in any of the 

provisions of thi~ bill is that the Republicans are charged with opposing some of the provisions of the bill because it would favor men who were engaged in a Democratic war, stopping there, when we are en- deavoring to have incorporated in this bill some provisions for tho e glorious men who were engaged in carrying on a Republican war and 

there I am willing to let it stand before the country, the cbarg~ and 

the answer and the judgment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unanimous consent was given to en- tertain the motion made by the Senator from Tennessee [1\1r. HARRIS] 

that five hundred copies of the bill with the amendments be printed. 

Mr. HARRIS. I wish to say that I want the bill printed with the 

amendments agreed to in italics, so that we can distinguish all the 

amendments agreed to in Committee of the Whole from the text of the 

bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Those directions will be given if the 

motion be adopted. The question is on the motion. . 

Mr. MITCHELL. We are very anxious to get through with this 

bill to-night. The motion of the Senator from Tennessee contemplates 

laying it over until to-morrow. I hope we shall be able to come to a unanimous understanding that a vote shall be taken at a certain ·time 

to-morrow. 

1\fr. HARRIS. I have no objection myself to agreeing to take the 

vote without any further debate at any hour that may be named after 

the bill is printed with the amendments. 

Mr. HARRISON. That is best, I think. 

Mr. PLATT. There will be no difficulty about that. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion of the 

Senator from Tennessee. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. HARRIS. Now I move that the Senate adjourn. 

Mr. HARRISON. Before tha is done--

Ir. HARRIS. I withdraw the motion. 

Ur. HARRISON. I hope we shall have unanimous consent--

Mr MITCHELL. I ask unanimous consent that a vote may be 

taken upon the bill without debate to-morrow at 1 o'clock. Several SE)IATORS. Say 2. 

1\1r . .MITCHELL. Well, say 2 o'clock. 

Mr. ALLISON. Unless some Senator desires to debate the question further I hope an earlier hour will be named. I desire to call up 

the legislative appropriation bill to-morrow. 

l\Ir. HARRIS. Say 1 o'clock. 

1\Ir. MITCHELL. The understanding is without debate. It will 

only require the time to call the roll. I will say 1 o'clock. 

1\ir. PL Ul\IB. If we are to have no debate why can we not take the 

vote now? The Senate is as full as it will be to-morrow. Several SEXATORS. We want to see the bill in print. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania asks 

that the vote be taken on the bill at 1 o'clock to-morrow. Is there objection to that proposition? 

Mr. ALLISON. On the bill and am.endments? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the whole question. 

1\f.r. 'MAXEY. I object to that. 

[ r. M £TCHELL. Then I hope Senators will remain here and insist on the passage of this bill to-night. It has been stated here repeatedly . that there is a purpose on this side of the Chamber to defeat legislation 

which shall carry pensions to the Mexican war soldiers. For myself 

I rleny it; for this side of the Chamber I deny it, and I know there is no ,;;ncb purpose in the mind of any Senator on this side. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Was objection made to the understanding to have a vote at 1 o'clock to-morrow? 

l\fr. l\IAXEY. There was objection made. 

Several SE~ATORS. No objection. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was no objection in the hearing of the Chair. 

l\1r . . MAXEY. I have already stated that I object, and I do it for 

the reason that the bill as it tand now will require orne explanation 

of orne ...-otes at least. I propo e to place myself in a position to give 

any explanation I think proper. 

Mr. HARRISON. I do not think any one will object to an explanation of a "vote. 

Mr. MAXEY. I have no disposition to argue the bill and have not 

ha-d for ten days, because I have seen its fate clearly and unequivocally for ten days past; but I can not consent to have a vote taken until 

I put on record my reasons. Mr. HARRISON. I suggest then, if the vote is taken at 1 o'clock, 

the Senator will have an opportunity to make his explanation before 1 

o'clock arrive'5. I hope he willnotobjecttoau hour bein:; named, and so arranging that he will have an ~pportunity to make his explanation. 

' = · 
1884. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. 5491 

:Mr. MAXEY. I only speak for myseJ.4 I propose to do that, and 

I have no doubt there are others who would like the same privilege 

that I claim for myself. · Mr. JONAS. If we are not to have the time to state our objections 

and give our reasons, we might as well vote now as when the bill shall 

be printed. I do not care about reading the amendments if I can not 

have an opportunity of explaining my views in relation to them before 

I cast my vote. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objections have been made to the understandjng proposed. .Mr. SEW ELL. ·I suggest to the Senator from Pennsylvania that the 

bill be taken up to-morrow after the morning business, unde!' the five- minute rule, and that unanimous consent be given to take a vote at 2 

o'clock, or not later than 2 o' clock. 

The PRESIDI.L G OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Jersey 

make the proposition? 

Mr. SEWELL. I ask unanimous consent to that arrangement. 

Mr. RIDDLEBERGER. ' I object. I mean now as I have meant 

ti·om the beginning of this contest to pension the Mexican war soldiers; 

and inasmuch as polit ics•have been sandwiched into this little contest, 

I think we might as well go on with it now. I shall object to any 

proposition that comes up except that which a majority of the Senate 

can carry. 

The PRESIDll'\G OFFICER. The Senator from Vhginia objects. 

Ur. HARRIS. I move that the Senate do now adjourn. 

.\Ir. CONGER and others called for the yea-s and nays. 

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

the roll . ..\Ir. BROWN (when his name was callro). I am pahed with the 

. Senator from Michigan [.Mr. PALMER]. 

l\Ir. HARRIS (when his name was.. c~lled). I am pahed with the 

Senator from Massa{lhusetts [Mr. HoAR], and therefore decline to vote 

upon my own motion. 

}fr. JONAH (when his namewas called). I am paired with the Senator from Nebraska [Ur. VAN WYCK]. 

~Ir. PLUMB (when his name was called). I am paired on this quest ion with the Senator from Delaware [Mr. BAYARD]. If he were 

p resent, I would vote ' nay." 

.Mr. SAULSBURY (when his name was called). I am pahed with 

the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERl\IAN] on the bill. 

The roll-call was concluded. 

Mr. W .ALKER. My colleague [.Mr. GA~D] is pahed with the 

enator from Vermont [lli. EDMUNDS]. 

The result was announced-yeas 26, nays 29; as follows: 

Beck, 

Call, Cameron of Pa., 

Coke, 

Colquitt, Fair, F arley, 

Altlrich, Allison, B luir, Bowen, Cameron of Wis., Conger, Cullom, Da wes, 

YEAS-26. 

George, 

Gorman, Groome, 

H ampton, J a ckson, Jones of Florida, Kenna , 

Lamar, 

Mahone, 

.Ma xey, Morgan, Pendleton, 

Pugh, 

Ransom, 

NAYS-29. 

Dolph, 

}.'rye, 

H ale, Harrison, Hawley, Inga lls, Jones of Nevada, Lapham, 

Logan, 

1\Ic.Millan, 

Mander on, ~filler of Ca l., Miller ofN. Y., 

Mitchell, 

Morrill, 

Pike, 

An thony, Edmunds, Jonas, Bayard, Garland McPherson, Br own, Gibson, ' Palmer, B utler , Harris, Plumb, Camden, Hill, Sabin, Cockrell, Hoa r , Sa ulsbury, 

So the Senate refu ed to adjourn. 

Slater, 

Vance, 

Vest, 

Walker, 

Williams. 

Platt, Riddleberger, 

Sa wyer, Sewell, 

Wilson. 

Sherman, 

Va n 'Vyck., Voorhees. 

Ur. ALLISON. I ask Senators on both sides of the Chamber to come to some agreement respecting the vote on the bill. I think the suggestion of the Senator from Tennessee, that the bill ought to be printed with the amendments, is a very proper one; but 1f we are to finish the 

business of the session we must fadlitate the passage of all the bills 

which are .inevitably bound to pass. Of course this is one of them; it 

will pass in some form. 

Now, I a,ppeaJ to the Senate to take the suggestion of the Senator 

from New Jersey, that to-morrow morning after the usual routine businessshaJl be over the billshall be takep. up, and under the:five-minute 

rule, or if that is too short, I will say under the ten-minute rule, that 

Senators on both sides ofthe Chamber shall have an opportunity of 

debating the question until 2 o'clock, and that then voting shall begin 

upon the bill and amendments. If that can be done I am willing to 

postpone the consideration of the legislative appropriation bill for that 

purpose, as I see the importance of getting this bill out of the way. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? 

Mr. :MAXEY. I was one of those who made objection to the proposed agreement. I think the Senator from Iowa will bear me out, 

fi·om the time of my service with him, that I am not in the habit of 

boring the Senate with long speec}les about anything. I say what I 

have to say in a very few words and in strict accordance with the rules 

in discussing any question. But here is a measure which came from 

the House to the Senate for one single purpose clearly defined on the 

faee of the bill. It seemed apparent before the 3d day of this month 

that the bill was to stand or full upon its own merits. .Almost every 

speech that had been made up to that time was in that direction. Some 

of the most prominent and distinguished members of the Republican 

party said that they desired to take. up the bill and pass it as it came 

from the House, without amendment. 

To-day an amendment which was plaeed upon the bill upon the motion of the Senator from Pennsylvania, as I can catch it, for I do not 

profess to understand it thoroughly, revolutionizes the whole bill. The 

Mexican pension bill, which was the bill brought to us, becomes insignificant a compared with the amendment which has been put on. The 

effect of that amendment, if I understand it correctly, may be such 

that gentlemen who expected to vote for the bill as tt came from the 

House can not vote for the bill as it is now amended. 

I do not care to be placed in a false position. I propose to cast my 

vote fearlessly and independently, but at the same time I claim the 

right to give the reasons for the faith that is fu me. The ten-minute 

rule is proposed. I can say as much as I care to say in ten minutes, and 

I presume others can also. 

Ur. ALLISON. Then I trust--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas withdraws 

his objection . Ur. UAXEY. Yes, sir; I do, understanding that I can have ten 

minutes. 

Mr. RIDDLEBERGER. I objected to the proposition made by the 

Senator from New Jersey. 

Mr. ALLISON. I hope the Senator from Vhginia will withdraw 

his objection. 

:Mr. RIDDLEBERGER.. Not just now. I shall withdraw it in a moment possibly. I hope, 1\Ir. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Virginia re- tain the floor? 

Ur. RIDDLEBERGER. Yes, sir; I merely wish to make a statement and possibly to withdraw my objection. 

I was going tosaythatinobjectingtothe proposition made by the Senator from New Jersey I did so because! thought I saw on both sides of the 

Chamber an indisposition to vote upon the bill at any fixed hour. I 

have heard a great deal here about the service that these men rendered 

in Mexico, something about burning sands and disease and all that. It does seem to me that if there be anything in the bill it is that we p10pose to pension the Mexican war soldiers, and that we might remain here a few hours to pass a bill to give them that pension which 

they earned while they were undergoing all those hardships in Mexico. 

I am opposed to anything like politics in a matter of this sort. I 

have voted here con cientiously for such amendments as I thought ought 

to be put on the bill. I have voted against such amendments as I 

thought ought not to be put upon the bill. Now, we have it in such 

a condition that all Senators who mean to pension t he :Mexican war soldiers can in my judgment (I will be pardoned if my judgment is 

faulty) vote for it. To wait until to-morrow without an agreement is 

simply again to say that the Senator from Iowa shall have the privilege 

to call up his appropriation bill, and the Mexican pension bill shall go over as it has been going over for three or four weeks. 

Now, if the Senator from Iowa is willing to say that to-morrow we shall take this bill up and that it shall t ake precedence even of appropriation hills, I shall withdraw my objection; but I am earnestly in 

favor of passing this bill in the condition in which it is, to give pensions to the soldiers of the Mexican war. 

1\Ir. ALLISON. I will say to the Senator from Virginia that! have 

already stated (perhaps be did not hear what I said) that if we could come to some agreement now about the bill so as to get it out of the 

way to-morrow within a reasonable time I should not urge the appropriation bill until this bill was disposed of. Therefore! suggested tha we take the bill up in the morning immediately after the routine busi- ness and continue the discussion under the ten-minute rule until 2 

o'clock and then have a final vote on the bill and amendments without 

further debate. 

l\Ir. RIDDLEBERGER. If that agreement can be had I a.m certainly ready to accept it for one. 

The ftESIDINGOFFICER. TheSenate has hea,rd theproposition 

made by the Senator from Iowa. Is there objection? 

1r. MORGAN. Will the Senator state it again? I do not know 

that I understand it. 

lr. ALLISON. That immediately after the routine business tomorrow morning we shall proceed to the consideration of this bill, allowing ten minutes' debateto eachSenatorwho desires until2 o'clock, 

and that then we proceed to vote on the bill and amendments without 

further debate. 

Mr. 1\IORGAN. That is, allowing a consideration o:f amendments to 

the bill in tbe morning ? 

Mr. ALLISON. Immediately, I should say, after the routine busi- ness. 
5492 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JUNE 23, 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the proposition 

made by the Senator from Iowa? 

l\1r. MORGAN. I think that in consideration of the other public 

business that has to be performed before Congress adjourns we had better 

make that arrangement, but I do it under protest. The bill as it now stands has not been considered by any committee. The Senate has not 

had any opportunity to discuss it. I do not even understand the amendment. I heard it read at the desk, but my hearing is not quite accurate 

enough to catch everything in a bill, and I do not know all the feat- ures of this measure. It seems to be a political movement, and I suppose it is intended to be nothing else but a political movement. - 'I should be glad that the Senate would take even alonger time than 

has been proposed to consider it; but inasmuch as we must close· this 

session of Congress very soon, inasmuch as we owe that to the country, I 

believe, as a principle of duty, and ;inasmuch as the Senate have voted 

down my proposition to postpone the consideration of the bill until 

December, so as to make way for other important legislation, I sha~ 

ronsent to the proposition, the understanding being that we shall com- mence the morning to offer and debate amendments at the close of the 

routine morning business. 

Mr. ALLISON. Yes, I speak of the routine business, as presenting 

petitions, &c. 

Mr. MORGAN. I understand. 

Mr. ALLISON. And reports of committees wit.hout debate. 

Mr. MORGAN. And that we close debate on the bill and amendments at 3 o'clock. 

Mr. ALLISON. At 2 o'clock I stated. 

Mr. MORGAN. Did you say 2? 

BUSINESS FROM THE.,CO .DIITTEE OX 11ITLITARY AFFAIRS. 

Mr. ROSECRANS. By direction of the Committee on Military Affairs I ·present and ask unanimous consent for the present consideration 

of the resolution which I send to the desk. 

The SPEAKER. The resolution will be read, subject to oBjection. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Resolved, That on the evenings of the first and second days after the passage of the sundry civil bill the House shall take a recess at 5 o'clock, to reassemble at 8 o'clock for the sole purpose of considering bills from the Committee on Military Affairs and Senate bills on the Speaker's table the subjects-matter of 

which have been considered by the Committee on l'llilitary Affairs. 

11fr. HOLMAN. I trust the bills to be considered will be named. 

Mr. DUNN. What length of time js this order proposed to con- tinue? 

Mr. ROSECRANS. For two evenings only. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I object. 

Mr. RANDALL. I demand the regular order. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

The SPEAKER. The regular order is the call of States and Territories for the introduction of bills and joint resolutions. Under this 

call resolutions and memorials ofState and Territorial Legislatures are in order for reference; also resolutions of inquiry addressed to the heads 

of Departments. 

JAMES ROACH. 

Mr. SEYMOUR introduced a bill (H. R. 7381) for the relief of James 

Roach; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

BRIDGET ROACH. M:r. ALLISON. Yes. 

Mr. MORGAN. I thought the Senator said 3. 

will enlarge the time until 3 o'clock. 

I hope the Senator Mr. SEYMOUR also introduced bill (H. R. 7382) granting a pension 

to Bridget Roach; which .was read a first and second time, referred to 

Mr. ALLISON. Very well; the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. I will say 3 o'clock. I will give Senators further opportunity for debate. CAPT. PETER J. WELSCHBIELLIG. 

Mr. WARD introduced a bill (H. R. 7383) to rerate the pension of 

Capt. Peter J. Welsohbillig; which was read a first and second time, 

referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. 

GEORGE MARTIN. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa modifies the 

proposition. Is the proposition understood, that immediately after the 

routine morning business to-morrow this bill shall be taken up; that 

ten minutes be allowed to each Senator, and that at 3 o~clock the debate 

shall be closed, and that the voting shall begin on the amendments 

and the bill. Mr. WARD also introduced a bill (H. R. 7384) to increase the peJ).-

sion of George W. }riartin; which was read a first and second time, 

The referred totheCommitteeoninvalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. ALLISON. Without debate. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without debate after 3 o'clock. 

Chair hears no objection to that understanding. 

Mr. ALLISON. Now I move-that the Senate adjourn. 

The motion was agreed to; and (at 6 o'clock and 35 minutes p.m.) 

the Senate adjourned. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

1\'loNDAY, June 23, 1884. 

The House met at 11 o'clock a. m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. 

JOHNS. LINDSAY, D. D. . The J oumal of Saturday's proceedings was read and approved. 

SPANISH GOVERN~!ENT PUBLICATION . 

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of 

State, referring to publications of the senate of Spain presented to the 

Honse of Representatives; also, transmitting a note from the minister 

of His Majesty the King of Spain in relation to the exchange ofpublications of the two Governments; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Library. 

CROATAN LIGHT-HOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House letter from the Acting 

Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a letter from the Light-House 

Board concerning the removal of the Croatan light-house, North Carolina, to Eightfoot Knoll, and recommending an appropriation therefor 

at the present session; which was referred to the Uommittee on Appropriations. 

WATER SUPPLY, WASHINGTON. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the AttorneyGeneral, recommending an extension of the period in whiclaclaimants 

under the act of July 15, 1882, chapter 294, providing for an increase 

of the water supply in Washington, may sue for damages in the Court 

of Claims; which was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia. 

JAMES N. RICHARDS. 

Mr. WARD also introduced a bill (H. R. 7385) granting a pension 

to James N. Richards; which wasreadafirst and second time, referred 

to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. 

ELIZA M. BYERS. 

Mr. WARD also introduced a bill (H. R. 7386) granting a pension 

to Eliza l\L Byers; which was read a first and second time, referred to 

the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. 

JAMES AGNEW. 

Mr. STOCKSLAGER introduced a bill (.H. R. 7387) for the relief of 

James Agnew; which was read 'a first and second time, referred to the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. 

ELZA RUCKER. 

Mr. STOCKSLAGER also introduced a bill (H. R. 7388) forthe re- lief of Elza Rucker; which was read a first and second time, referred 

to the Committee on Claims, and ordered to be printed. 

N. G. ALEXANDER. 

Mr. HALSELL introduced a bill (H. R. 7389} for the benefit of N. 

G. Alexander; which was read a first and second ti.Ine, referred to the 

Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 

JOHN BURNAM. 

Mr. HALSELL also introduced a bill (H. R. 7390) for the benefit of 

John Burnam; which was read a first and second time, referred to the 

Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. 

TIMOTHY MURPHY. 

Mr. MORSE introduced a bill (H. R. 7391) granting a pension to 

Timothy Murphy; which was read a first and second time, referred to 

the Committee ou Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. 

ANN LITTLE. 

Mr. MORSE also introduced a bill (H. R. 7392) granting a pension 

to Ann Little; which was read a first and second time, referred to the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. 

GUL.F AND SHIP ISLAND RAILROAD. 

Mr. MULDROW presented a memorial of the Legislature of the 

By unanimous consent, indefinite leave of absence was granted to Mr. State of Mississippi, in favor of the extension of land grants to aid in 

NICHOLS, on account of sickness. the continuation of the Gulf and Ship Island Railroad; which was reLEAVE OF ABSENCE. 

J. R. HASKELL. ferred to the Committee on ~ailways and Canals. 

By unanimous consent, the Committee on Military Affairs was granted PAYNE AND THOl\IAS c . WOOD. 

leave to have printed the petition and papers in the case of J. R. Has- Mr. GRAVES (by Mr. ALEXANDER) introduced a bill (H. R. 7393) 

kell, for the use of the committee. for the relief of Payne and Thomas C. Wood; which was read a first