' 

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1113 

Also, petition of the faculty of Rutgers College, New Brunswick, N. 

J., for an international copyright-to the Committee on Patents. 

By Mr. LA FOLLETTE: Petition gf J. A. Johnson, of Madison, Wis., 

tn abolish all import duties on agricultural machinery-to the Commitke on Ways and :Means. 

By Mr. LYMAN: Resolution of the Iowa State Agricultural Society, 

for the extermination of :pleuto·pneumonia-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

By :Ur. McADOO: Petition of the mayor and aldermen of Paterson, 

N. J., for a survey of proposed bridge across the Hudson River at New 

York City-to the Committee on Commerce. 

Also, petition of the New Jersey workingmen engaged in the manufacture of woolen goods for readjustment of the tariff schedule so as to 

prevent excessive importations of such goods-to the Committee oh 

Ways and Means. 

By Mr. McRAE: Petition of 50 citizens of Arkansas, against the proposition to tax cotton-seed oil-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

By Mr. UASON: Petition of delegates.representing the l\Ierchant 

Tailors' National Exchange of the United States, for relief-to the 

Committee on Ways and l\Ieans. • 

By l\1r. MATSON: Petition and indorsements accompanying bill 

for the relief of Ferdinand Hercher-to the Committee on Military 

Affairs. 

By Mr. CHARLES O'NEILL: l\Iemorial of manufacturers of sewerpipe, that sewer-pipe be classified in the tariff a.c:; clay sewer-pipe at a 

duty of $5 per ton, or an ad valorem duty of at least 55 per cent.-to 

the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By l\1r. J. J. O'NEILL: Resolutions of the Cigar-Makers' Interna- . 

tional Union of America, and of Union 281 Cigar-Makers, againstabolition of internal-revenue tax on cigars and tobacco-to the Committee on 

Ways and 1\'Ieans. . . • By Mr. RAYNER {by request): Petition of William E. Baitzell and 

others, citizens of Baltimore, for relief-to the Committee on Ways and 

Means. 

By Mr. RICE: Circular letter of the United American Clay TobaccoPipe Employers apd Employes' A...~ociation, for a revision of the tariff 

laws in regard to the importation of clay pipes manufactured in Europeto the Committee on Ways and Means. 

Also, circular letter of the committee representing the marble sawmills in the United States, for a revision of the tariff laws relating to the 

importation of marble-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

lly Mr. ROGERS: Petition of Mary A. England, widow of William 

T. England; of Sarah Ann Tobin (formerly Powell), and of H . C. Haymon, of Crawford County, Arkansas, for reference of their claims to 

the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. ROWLAND: Petition of citizens of Beaver Dam, Monteith, 

Mecklenburgh County, North Carolina, for increase of pay of certain 

postmasters-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. RUSK: Petition for restoration of Mexican pension to Sarah 

A. Roose-to the Committee on Pensions. 

By Mr. SAWYER: Petition of Margaret Graves, for a pension- to the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, petition against the admission of Utah as a State-to the Committee on the Territories. • 

By Mr. SCULL: Petition of soldiers of the late war residing in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, for a service-pension law-to the Committee ou Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. SIMMONS: Petitionofthe Cotton and Grain Exchange, ofthe 

Board of Trade, and of the board of city council of New Berne, N. C., 

for an appropriation to erect a public building at New Berne, N. C.-

to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. 

Also, petition of 152 citizens, of the Board of Trade, of the board of 

city council, and of the Cotton and Grain Exchange, of New Berne, N. 

C., for an appropriation to construct a public road from New Berne, 

N. C., to the national cemetery near that city-to the Com mittee on 

Military Affairs. 

Also, petition of 217 citizens of New Berne, N.C., for an appropriation to erect a public building at New Berne, N. C.-to toe Committee 

on Public Buildings and Grounds. 

By Mr. SNYDER: Petition of miners and others of Gay mont, Sunnyside, Elmo, Fire Creek, Central, W.Va., and of Joseph Flicker, P. 1\I. 

Hayes, and others, of Caperton, W.Va.., protesting against putting soft; 

coal on the free-list-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. SPOONER: Petition of 190 woolen and worsted mills of the 

United States, and 110 merchants in New York City, for thepa~ age of 

the resolution introduced by Mr. C. R. BRECKINRIDGE, classifying 

worsted cloth as woolen cloth-to the Committee on Ways and :Means. 

By Mr. STEELE: Petition of the Grant County (Ind.) Medical Society, byits president, Dr. Barns, that all medical supplies and surgical 

instruments be placed on the·free-list-to the Committee on Ways and 

Means. 

By Mr. WHEELER: Petition of Nelson Kyle, of Jackson County, 

Alabama, for reference of his claim to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. WILLIAMS: Petition for r.elief from charge of desertion 

ag1rinst E. R. Watrous-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

'· 

Also, petition of Rebecca E. Shoemaker, for a pen-sion-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

The following petitions for an increase of compensation of fourth-class 

postmasters were severally referred to the Committee on the Post-Office 

and Post-Roads: 

By Mr. ATKINSON: Of citizens of Emma ville, and of Morrell, Pa. 

By Mr. J. R. BROWN: Of C. E. Miller and others, citizens of 1\It. 

Airy, Pittsylvania County, Virginia. 

By Mr. •.r. H. B. BROWNE: Of S. G. Fauntleroy and others, of 

King and Queen County, Virginia. 

By Mr. GLASS: Of citizens of Reelfoot1 Tenn. 

By Mr. HARE: Of citizens of Atoka, Ind. T. 

By 1\fr. HATCH: Of citizens of Putnam County, Missouri. 

By l'llr. J. S. HENDERSON: Of J. R. Parks and others, of Randolph 

County; of' H. F. Benton and others, ofYadkin County; ofM. J. Rush 

and others, of Montgomery County, and of J. W. Bradly and others, of 

Iredell County, North Carolina. 

By Mr. HERMANN: Petition of citizens of Clackamas County, and 

of Lane County, Oregon. 

By Mr. HOGG: Of A.. E. Coffman and 43 others, of Pleasants Countys 

West Virginia. 

Byl\lr. A. C. THOMPSON: Of citizens ofVancetown, Gallia County; 

of Kelly's Mills, LawrenceConnty; of Jaybird, Adams County; of Comstock, Scioto County, Ohio. 

By Mr. WHEELER: Of D. A. Hampton and 58 others, of Lawrence 

County, Alabama. 

Also, of J. M. Cochran and 49 others, and of J. W. Rather, of Alabama. 

The following petitions, praying for the enactment of a law providing tempora1-y aid for common schools, to be disbursed on the basis of 

illiteracy, were severally referred to the Committee on Education: 

By l\lr. FELTON: Of W. T. King and others, citizens of Santa Clam 

County, California. 

By Mr. FRENCH {by request): Of E. E. Marsh andothers, citizens 

of New Haven County, Connecticut. 

By 1\'Ir. GALLING"ER: Of William P. Chamberlain and others, citi- z.ens of Cheshire County, New Hampshire. 

By l\Ir. HALL: Of W. J. Snodgrass and others, citizens of Mercer 

County, Pennsylvania. 

By Ur. O'DONNELL: Petition of 429 citizens of Eaton County, 

Michigan. 

By l\1r. PENINGTON: Of John Brown and others, citizens of New 

Castle County, Delaware. 

Byl\Ir. ROMEIS: Of G. C. Wagonlandenandothers, citizensofLucas 

County, Ohio. 

By Mr. SHAW (by request): Of C. S. Abrahams and others, citizens 

of Cecil County, Maryland. 

By Mr. VANCE: Of J. 0 . Banows and others, citizens of Hartford 

County, Connecticut. · 1 

The following petitions, asking for the passage of the bill prohibiting 

the manufacture, sale, and importation of all alcoholic beverages in the 

District of Columbia, were severally referred to the Select Committee 

on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic: 

By 1\Ir. J . E. CAMPBELL: Of 180 citizens of the District of Co- ' 

lumbia. 

By Mr. O'DONNELL: Of 120 citizens of Coldwater and Middleville, 

Mich. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

FRIDAY, February 10, 1888. 

The House met at 12 o'clock m. 

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

REPORT ON UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. 

The SPEAKER laid before the Honse a letter from the Secre'tary of 

the Interior, transmitting the report of the Board of Government 

Directors of the Union Pacific Railway Company; which was referred 

to the Committee on Pacific Railroads, and ordereq to be printed. 

SEN ATE BILLS REFERRED. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House bills of the Sen ale of the fol· 

lowing titles; which were read twice, and referred to the committees 

indicated: 

The bill (S. 158) authorizing the Secretary of War to transfer to the 

trustees of the Porter Academy certain property in the city of Charleston, S. C.-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

The bill (S. 281) for the erection of a public building at Kansas City, 

U<Y.-to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. The bill (S. 423) to enable the State of Colorado to select indemnity 

school lands-to the Committee on the Public Lands. 

The bill (S. 968) for the relief of Leslie Bassett-to the Committee on Claims. 
1114 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE .. FEBRUARY 10, 

The bill (S. 1564) for the relief of impoTters of animals for breeding 

purposes in certain cases-to t.fle Committee on the Judiciary. 

CHOCTAW COAL ANTI RAILWAY COl\IPANY. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a bill.(S. 13-'16) to authorize the Choctaw Coal and Railway Comp'any to construct and operate a railway through the Indian Territory, and for other purposes; which was Tead a first and second time. 

Ur. ALLE , of Mississippi. I\ir. Spen.~e~, ~at js a S~nate b~. A 

similar bill was referred to the House CommTttee on Indian Affaus and 

unanimously reJ>orted by that com'mittee with one slight change, in 

1·eference to the limitation of the time within which the road should 

be built. I ask unanimous consent to consider the bill now. 

'rhe SPEAKER. The gentleman from I\Iississippi a ks unanilllons 

consent to have this bill considered ~t this time. 'l he bill will be rc.H.l, after wl:rich the Chair will ask for objections. 

The bill was reaQ;, as foJlo-w~: ~ . ' \ . Be it enacled, etc., That the Choctaw Coal and Tiailway.Company, a cm·por nt' n created under and by ,·irtue of the laws of the State of :M innesota, be, and t IJc same is he~·eby invested sna empowe1·ed with the r]ght of locating, constna ,- ing, owning, equipping, operating, using,_and ma~ntairring_a r!lilway am~ t• ·- graph and telephone line through th~ lnd1an Territo_ry, begwnmg at a pm_ut ~n 

Red Rivel' (the southern boundai·ylme) at the bluff known as Rocky Chff, m the Indian 'l'erritory, and running thence by the most feasible and practicable route through the aid Indian 'l'e:rritoryto a PC!int on the east bo_undary li_ne, 

immediately contiguous to the west boundary hne of Polk or Sener Count1es, Ju the State of Arkansas; also, a branch line of railway to.be constructed from 

the most suitable point on said main line for obtaining a feasible and _practicable -route in• a northwesterly direction to the leased coal veins of said Choctaw Coal 

and Rail way Company in Tobucksey County, Choctaw Nation, with the rigbt to construct- use and maintain such tracks, tm·nouts, branches, and sidings anti ex- tensions~ ~i.d compauy may deem it in their interest to construct along and upon the right of way and depot grounds herein provided for. 

SEc. 2. That said corporation is aut}.wrized to taL-c and use for all purposes of 

1=llilway, and for no other purpose,. ~: ~h~ ohm · ]t)() feet in width throughsa~d 

Indian 'l'erritory for-said main !' · ,• xm.t1m 1.u.1 of ihc Choctaw Coal and full- way Company; and to take n· . e a-~r; '> n .. J.md ~ J feet in width, with a lenglh.of 3,000 feet, in addition t, rit~ht ofw .-. f : l:;.tk:Jn". for every 10ruiles of 

1·on.d with U1erio-ht to u e su<:u~< ,ltiona grv-.:Jl•l" .1cre t.l.c car heavy cuts or fills~ may be n';;ecssary for t he c,nstructlon m.d mair.te -~•· ·• <•f tile Yoad-bed, not exceeding 100 feet in width on each i<lc of s ill rh.:! f•: w·:1;:·, t!lr as mu<!h 

thereof: as mR' b ··".eluded in id cut or fj]! : l'rol'ided, 'l'IL l 1; n..~rc than sa1d 

addition of1 ·mtl -· 1 be taken for any one station : r,-,, i·l..t_,'r:::i~fT , 'l'hat no parL.· ofthC' l. Jtth 'tC' 'nauthorized to bet~kensllalll.J cl as cl or E·->iu hy the oom- pany, nnd t tnyf:!l.:U~ u.ot be used except m_ such mnunor n:-tl for sud~purpos~s 

only as shall l -e nccc~-";r yfor the construction anll convenient : -ui un •·f sa1d 

railroutl, tdc miJJ a nt telephone lines; and when nuy p vrt' . t 1cro: shall eease to be s · u t:u' such portion shall rev-crt to the na1ion or • · :··c of lm1ians 

from which th<' e. me shall be taken . . SEC. 3. Th..'\t udoro said railway shall be constructed throu.;-11 . ny lands held 

by individual occupants according to the laws, customs, and usages of any of 

the Indian nations or tribes through-which it may be constructed, full compen- sation shall be made to snch occllJ>ants for all property to be taken or damage 

done by reason of the construction of such railway. In .case of failure to ~ake 

amicable settlement with any occupant, such CQIUpensahon shall be determmed 

by the appraisement of three disi~terested referees, t~ be appoint~d, one (w_ho 

shall act as chairman) by the Pres1dent, one by the chief of the nation to wh1ch 

aaid occupant clonged, and one by said -railway company, who, befoTe ent~ring upon the duties of their appointment, shall take and subscribe before a dlStrictjudge, clerk of a district court, or United States commissioner, an oath that 

they will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties.of their appointment, 

which oath, duly certified, shall be returned with their award to, and _tiled with, 

the Secretary of the Interior within sixty days from the completion thereof; 

and a. majority of said referees shall be competent to act in case of the absence 

of o. meJAber,.after due notice. An.d upon the failure of either party to m.ak~ 

such appointment within thirty days after the appointment made by the Prest- dent,"the va{)ancy shall be filled by the district judge of the court held at Fort Smith, Ark., or by the districtjudge-oft:J;le northern_district of Texas, u~on the 

application of the other par.ty. T~e. ~ha.uman ?f sa1d bo!ird s~all appomt the 

time and pln.ce.for all hearmgs w1thin the nation to which smd occupant belono-s. Each oisaid referees shall receive for his services the sum of~ pm:day 

for ~ach day they are engaged in the trial of any case submitted t? them under 

this act with mileage at 5 cents per mile. Witnesses shall rece1ve the usual 

fees all~ wed by the courts of said nations. Costs, including compensation of 

the referees, shall be made a part of the award, and be paid by such railroad company. In ca..se the refe1·~es can not a~ree, ~hen _any tw? of them a~e authorized to make the award. E1ther partybemg d1ssat1sfied With the findrng of the 

referees shall have the right, within ninety days after the making of the award 

and notice of the same to appeal by original petition to the district court held at Fort Smith, Ark., o~ the district court for the northern district of Texas, 

which court shall have jurisdiction to hear and detel·mine the subjec~matter of 

said petition according to the laws of the State in which t~e same shall J:>e beard provided for determining the damage when property lS taken for railroad purpo es. If upon the hearing of said appeal1:he judgment of ~he court shall be for a larger sum than the award of the referees, the costs of sa1d appeal 

shall b e adj udged against the railway company. If the judgment of the court shall be for the same sum as the award of the referees, then the costs shall be 

adjudged aga1nst the appellant. If the judgment of the court shall be for a smaller sum than .the award of the referees, then the costs shall be adjudged 

against the party claiming damages. When proceedings have been comme~ced 

in court the railway company shall pay double the amount of the award mto court to abide the judgment thereof, and then have the right to enter upon the 

property sought to be condemned and proceed with the construction of the 

raih·oad. 

SEc 4. Tbat said railway company shall not charge the inhabitants of said 

Territory a greater rate of freight than the rate authorized by tile laws of the 

States of .Arkansas and Texas for services and transportation of the .same kind: Pro,;ided, That passen~er rates on said railway shall not exceed 3 cents _per mile. Congre s hereby resen·es the right to regulate the charges for freight and passengers on said railway and messages on said ~el~gl'aJ?h anc;l telep~o101e 

lines until a State governmentorgovernm.entsshn.lleXIstntsaid Terttoryw1th1n the limits of which said railway, or a pad thereof, shall be located; and then 

such State government or governments shall be authorized to fix and regulate 

the cost of transportation of persons and freights within their respective limits 

by said l'ailway · but Congress expressly reserves the right to fix and regulate at nit times the cost of such transportation by said railway or said company when- ever such transportation shall extend from one State into another or shall ex- tend in to more than one State: Prodded, h01cever, That the rate of such transportation ofp~sengers, local or interstate, shall not exceed the rate above expressed: 

And prO'I>iclut furllter, That said raU·~·my com pan~ shall carr~ the mail at sucn prices as Congress may by law prov1de; and until such rate IS fixed by law the 

Postmaster-General may fix the rate of compensation. . REc. 5. That said railway company shall pay to the Secretary of the InterJ<?r 

for the benefit of the particular nations ?r trib<;s. through whose l~nds the ~aid 

1·ailway may be located, the sum of S50, m add1t10n to _coT?~ensat10n pronded for in this act, for property taken and dama~es don~ to mdtvid~o.l occupants by 

the construction of the railway, for eaCh m1le of rmlrou.d that 1t may consn·uct in said Territory, said payments to be made in in tallments ?f $5~ as eacb 10 

miles of road is graded: PrO'Viderl, That _if th~ general council of e1ther o~ t~e 

nations or tribes through who e lands smd rail way n;tay be located s)lall, w~lhm 

four months after the filing of' maps of d efinite locatwn a. set forth m section 6 of this act dissent from the allowance hereinbefore proVIde4Jor, and shall cer- tify the sa~e to the Secretary of the Interior, the'? ~ll compe~ation to be paid to such dissenting nation or tribe tmder the pronsw_us of tlus act shall ~e determined as provided in section 3 for the detenni_natwn o~ the compensation to be paid to tho individual occupant-s of lands, Wl_th the r1ght to ..appeal ~ the courts upon the same terms, conditions, and requuements as the rem prov1ded: 1'. ?vided further That the amount awarded or aujudged to be paid by said rail- ' . " company f~r said dissenting nation or tribe s hall b~ in lieu of the comp_en- a._ ;m that said nation or tribe would be entiUed to rece1ve under the foregomg 1 r !sion. Said company shall also Pl}Y. so long as said Territory is owued.and o ~ 'ed by the Indians, to the Sec1·etary of t1_1 e I nteri_or, t be _s um of $15 per nn- 'lllllnloreach mile of railway it shall constructm thesa1d Tent tory. The money I' id to the Secretary of the Interior. under the provisions. of this ~ct shall lJe 

apportioned by him in accordance w1th the law and treaties now 1n force be- tween the United St~tes and said nations and tl'ibes, according to the number of 

miles of railway that may be con tructed by said 'r~ilway company ~hrough 

their l!tllds: Provided, That Oong~ess shall ha the I:Jght, so long as sal(~ ~ands 

are occupied and posses ed by said nations and tribes, to impo e . uch additional taxes upon said railroad as it may deem just a.1~d pr<?per f<?r th~tr benefit: and any '.rerritory or State hereafter formed, througu wh1ch sa1d rml w~y shall have 

been tablished, may exercise the like power as to such part of s~ud raHway as may lie within its limits. Said railway company shall ha':e tl}e ngh.t to survey anil l oec'\te its railway immediately after the pnssag~ of this act. . SEC. 6. That said company shall cause maps showmg the route of 1ts located 

lines through said Territory to be filed in the_o~ e of l;he Secretary of the; In- teriOI' and also to be filed in the officeofthe pr1nc1pal chief of each of ihenatwns or tribes through whose lands said' railway may be loc~ted; and after the filing 

of said maps no claim for a subsequent settlement and Improvement upon the 

rio-ht of wav shown by said maps shall be valid as against sa.W company : Pro- ·t:ided, That when a map showing an~ portion of said mil way company ~ locat~d line is filed as herein provided for, sa1d company shall commence grad1~g smd 

located line within six months thereafter, or such location shall be v01d; and 

said location shall be approved by the Secretary of the Interior in sections of 25 

miles before construction of any such section shall be begun. 

SEc. 7. That the officers, servants, and employes of said companyne~essary_to 

the construction and m.anagement of said road shoJI be allowed to reside, while so engaged, upon such right of way, but subj_ect to the provisions ?f the Indian 

intercourse laws and such rules and regulations as may be established by the 

Secretary of the Interior ih accordance with said intercourse laws. 

'Ec. 8. That the United States circuit and district courts for the western district of Arkansas and the norUlern district of Texas, and uch other courts as may be authorized by Congress, shall have, without reference to the amount in conn·oversy, concurrent juri lliclion o>er all contJ.:oversics a:rising between said 

hoctaw Coal and Railwav Company andthenat10nsandtr1besthrough whose 

territory said railway shall be constructed. Said courts shall have like jut:isdiction without reference to the amount in controvery, over all controversieS 

arising'between the inhabitants of said nations or tribes and said raihya~ com- pany; and the ciyil juris~iction ~f said e_ou.rts .is hereby ~~tende.d w1thm ~he 

limits of said Indian Terntory, w1thout d1stinctwn as to Clt1zensh1p of parties, so far as may be necessary to carry out the pr~visions of this ~ct . . . SEc. 9. 'l'hat said railway company sball bu1ld at lea UOO milesof1ts railway 

in said Territory within three years after the passage of this act, and complete 

the main line of the same within said Territory within one year thereafter, or the rights herein granted shall be forfeited as to that portion not built; that 

said railroad company shall construct and maintain continually all r~ad and 

highway crossings and necessary bridges ove1· said rafl~y wher~>er said roads 

and highways do now or may hereafter Cl'oss sa1d nul-.;vay's nght of way, or may be by the proper authorities laid out across the same. SEC. 10. That the said Choctaw Coal and 'Railway Company shall accept this 

rin-ht of way upon the exp1 ess condition, binding upon itself, its successors or as';ilnls that they will neither aid, advise, nor assist in .any effort looking to- wards the chan:;ing or extinguishing the present _letlure_of the Indians in their 

land, and willuot attempt to sec~re fro!? the Indmn l?atwns any; further gmnt of land or its occupancy, than IS herembefore prov1ded: Prot:zded, That. any violati~n of the condition mentioned in this section shall operate as a. forfe1turc 

of all the rights and privileges of said railwa:y c01;npany under this act .. SEC. 11. 'l'hat all mortgages executed by sa1d rail way company conv~ym~ any portion of its railroad, with its frn~chises, that may be constructe~ m sa1d In- dian Territory shall be recorded In the Department of the Interior, and the 

record thereof ~hall be evidence and notice oftbeil· execution, and shall convey all rights and property of said compa~y as theyein expressed. . SEc. 12 Thall Congress may at any tune amend, add to, alter, or repeal th~ s act. SEC. 13. That the right of way herein and hereby granted. shall not be assJ_gned or transferred in any form whatever prior to the construction and completion of 

the road, except as to mortgages or other liens that may be given or secured 

thereon to aid in the construction thereof. 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of 

this bill? 

1r. HOLI\IAN. Mr. Spen,ker, I hope there will be some explanation of the bill, especially as to it<;·object. -The bill provides for a.scertainincr the T:1lue of the property taken aud occupied, and it allows an 

appeal"' to the district. court; but, if I understa~d it co~ectly, it provides also that the railroad company shall pay $<>0 per nnle for the land 

actually taken but not occupied. Now, whether t~at is a correct basis 

of valuation or not I am not prepared to say, but 1t seems to me that 

the land, in this strip 100 feet wide, and also in tb~ str!J> 200 feet wide 

and 300 feet long for the stations, should be appra1Sedm such .manner 

as to secme to the Indians its fnll value. I suggest, thel'efor~, to my 

friend ha\ing charge of the bill whether it would not be fairer that, as fo the land taken and not occupied, $50 per mile should be made the 

minimum price, leaTing the appraisers to appraise the actual Yalne of 

the land. taken, at a price, however, not less than $50 per acre. Another point to which I wish to call attention is this: The bill seems to be desjgnea not for a public, but for a private object. It appears to 

be simply a bill to enable this company to build a branch road to_reach a coal mine. I hope my friend will explain that. I simply ciesue to 
1888. OON.GRESSION.AL RE00RD__::HOUSE~ ~ 1115 

understand the object of the bill, and I make these suggestions, resel'Ving the right to object. The main point' that I wish to r.aise is in reference to this branch road, called the Choctaw Coal and Railway Company. 

..AJ3 to the through line, that stands Up6n a different footing, because it 

has ~lready become the 'Settled· policy of the Governmentnottopermit 

the Indian Territory to inte-rfere with through trn.vel from-one section 

of the Uni<>n to another. This·branch ·road, ho-wever, appears to be a 

private enterprise, and it seems to me that it is a measure that ought 

not to be authoTized by-Co1Jgress exCBpt with· the consent of the Chocta,w' Nation; and .inasmuch -::rsi"he ehoctaws and Chickasaws own ·this 

land in common I believe, the consent of both ought to be required. 

Mr. ALLEN,-of Missi8sip:IJL··· 1ifr.' Spc:tkcr; this bill is bne that' has 

been perfected by the t'oncunent action of the Interiur Dep:lTtment and 

the House and Senate colli-mittees, and the effort has been to guard~ as 

well mrpossible the rights of the Indians, and to prevent certain fraudulent schemes and franchises that h~ve been heretofore put through 

and sold by parties obtaining -rights ·of way through the Indian Te-rritory. The policy of the -committee has·been to ·encoutage the butlding 

of railroads through that Territory, because we think it will tencl to 

the civilization of the Indians, and we believe that that Territory 

should not be allowed -to·stand ·as ·an obstruction 'to the general progress. So far as the pi-i'ce;$50a mile, is concerned, I l;>elieve thrrt is what 

has been generally'agreed npon as a:fah va.lrration-ofthe lands in that 

Terri tory that hmre been taken by railToa.d companies wbere- they have 

taken a strip 100 feet wide, as provided for in this case. I do not 1.Llow 

of any special reason fo-r it; bttt I think that has·been generally agreed 

upon, because it was supposed to be a fuir-valuatiorr, and I know: tha.t 

it haS-met the-a:pproval oft he Indian Dffice in the interior Department. 

So far as-this brancli -road·to the coal-fields is concerned, I do· not exactly see-the force of the objection tt:r.o-rantingtheTight of·'·lvay. 

If it is not practicable to· build the iliain line to the coal-fields, J do 

not see why the 'PUblic should he cut off from~ access to that ~oal. It 

seems.to me that it is just as· Ifrnch within 'the -power of 0ongress'io 

gr:mt tbis-Tight "of way as-to grant any other right <Jfway through the 

T.ertitOl'y, and 'SO far as theconserlt of the tribes is concerned, -these co:ilfield.s belong to·-the Indians and can-not be used-wtthouti:heir .consent. 

Mr. WEA. VER. Will the ·gentleman permit a qnestian? 

~fr. ALLEN, of Miss~ppi. Yes, sir. ' · 

Ir. W.EA VER. I understand that these coal-fields are in the Choctaw Nation'? 

:Mr. ALLEN, of Mississippi. · 'Y.es, sir. Mr. WEAVER. ·-And-that· they are really. leased 'by this Tailroad 

company? · -·· 

Mr. ALLEN, of Mississippi. --yes, sir. 

l\I.r. WEAVER. And that this is a. proposition to condemn this right 

9f way for this spur-line 18 miles long. ....rh~refore, it is-u. proposition 

to ·condemn land forthe 'benefitof ::t corporation and not for the benefit 

of the public, because it is a J>rlvate corporation that oWTIS those coallands. ·r am· nut ·malmrg objection t<> the bill; b11t I suggest to·the . 

gentleman the question whether we have the constitutional power -to 

do that. 

Mr. ALLEN, of Mississippi. I do not see any trouble about the 

constitutional power if we have-the Tight to-condemn Iand·for· railroad 

purposes. This branch is to be a public road ann is to be under the 

same limitatiollS'as-to- the rights of the pnblic as the main line. There 

is no distinction on that point.- This branch will be just as much a 

public hjghway,· and-the public-will have a right to- transport 'their 

property·over itlm.d to·travel over it the .aame as over·the mairrtine. 

· Mr. McRAE. · Is 'not' the obtaining of this coal necessary to the running of the main line? . 

Mr. ALLEN, of Mississippi. The obtaining of the coal from --these 

coal-fields ma.y be a matter of great importance to the public, and 

great benefits may accrue from it to the public. Coal has· been very 

scarce this season in some portions of the country, .and it may be a matter of public interest and concern to grant facilities for getting at this 

coal. I can see no objection either in the Constitution or in policy to 

granting to these people a right to build a railroad to this coal-mine. 

If the limita.tions upon the powers of the corporation in the use of this 

branch line were not the same as those which govern their use of the 

main line, the objection would be good, bnt the limitations in both cases are the same. 

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. Will the gentleman permit a question? -

Mr. ALLEN, of!llississippi. Yes, sir; two of them. 

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. I will be content with one at this 

time. Is there any one petitioning for the passage of this bill except 

the railroad company? - - -

:Mr. ALLEN, of Mississippi. Yes, sir, a number of persons. 

lli. HOLMAN. The point of my objection was as to the principle 

upon which the value of this strip of land is to be ascertained. I think 

myself that about $50, or some such sum, should be the minimum 

price, and that an apptaisement should be made to ascertain whether 

there is any value in the strip of land beyond that amount. · That is one point of objection which I had, but I shall be compelled 

to waivethat, inasmuch as it is the fact that we have passed billsheretofore containing similar provisions. 

The other point is that this spur road, 18 miles long, which runs 

into the lands owned jointly by the Choctaw.;; and Chickasa;ws, is really 

in the natuTe of a primte enterprise; ·m:t cl this bill proposes to confer 

upon . .this corporation po'iVcrs crf eminent -domain, 'SO to speak, -to appropriate the property of these Ind4ans, subject to certain conditions, 

for the benefit of a purely pri'\"ate enterprise. This is the matter to 

which I wished particularly to.-call.t.h.e attention of the gentleman. from 

Mississippi. 

:Mr. LA.NHA~L Mr. Speaker, has the House entered regularly upon 

the consideration of this bill? 

The SPEAKER. ';rhe Honse has no-t entered upon its co:nsideration. · -

1\fr. LA.NH.AU. If there be any purpose to object to its consideration, I hope, that will be :p1ade known at once in order to sav.e time. I am not opjecting to ihe.bill myself. . , . , 

Mr . . MORGAN. I wish to·ask the gentleman from Mississippi [1\Ir. 

ALLE;: ] whether the rights of the Indians are fully and thoroughly 

protected. 

Mr. ALLEN~ .of Mississippi. As well as they can be after years of 

consideration by both Rouses of Congress ·aud by thelnterior DeJlart- m~ L • 

"There being no objection, the House proceeded to the consideration 

of the bill. · · 

The question being on ordering the bill to a third reading, -

Mr. l.IcRAE said: I call for tld.l :·.cvious question. 

The r, ' . J ': <' K- 'i •• ·.:. .. i ~ ·c u( l l; -and und~r the opemtien thereof 

th<! 11·1t 1 : < • '1 db n t.n rtl H'~luii··~, was accordingly read the third 

tj p·f", :' 1\ft lt.i"~('(l . 

i·'. .\1 ii!c~~~. of•Hi•·;-..:::),;, hr:IV(d to recon.,idertheYotebywhich 

ill" lriH v,L passrll; : nd a ··:.tul·,·;((.l. tilat the motion to _reconsider be 

L ;;! on the b.l·lc. · 

'l'hc latter motion wus:tgre.ui to. i: .,... 

WITHDRAWAL OF P .A.PERS. 

Mr. HITT, by unanimous consent, obtained leave to withdraw from 

tbe files. of the Honse, without leaving copies~ a~s in_ the-case of Pat- rick Plynn. 

S:.\IITH · MENSHON. 

. Mr. McCREARY. I ask UIJanimons consent to discharge the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar from the further 

consideration of the · bill (H. H. 360) for the relief of Smith R. Menshon, and to put the bill now on its passage. · 

The bill was read, as follows:· 

Be it enacted, etc., That the ""Secretary o( the-Treasury be, and he is hereby, au· thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 

appropriated, to Smith ,H. hlenshon the sum of $308, fo1· services rendered as custodian <Of a distillery warehou'sc in Linco!n·County;· Kentucky, seized by a United States re>enue officer, nnd held for seTenty:seven-days by said Smith R. Menshon nr:der the orders o( s.aid United StatesTevenue officer. • 

The amendment reported by the Committee on Claims was read, as folfows: · 

InJines 5 and 9 strike out ":r.Ienshon" and insert «1\Ie'rshon." 

Mr. SOWDEN. r·call for the reading of the report. 

The r~p?I-t of the Committee on Cl~ims (by Mr. LANH.Al\I) was read, as follows: ' 

On the 2d day of September, 1878, Captain Tayio-r, deputy United States mar~ shal tmder Hon. Robert Crittenden, United .States mm-sbn.1 for the. district of 

Kentucky, a'l"rested ·William .1\L Ball for violating the internal-revenue law. 

On the .same day, to wit, the 2d day of Septetnber, 187 ', William Wilmore, deputy United States collector for the seventh Kentnch.rycollection district, who 

.claimed to be acting under direction of CoL S . .A.. Whi!field., United States reve- nue agent, seized the distillery wru·ebouse of William 1\f. Ball, in Lincoln Conn ty ,. Kentucky, and placed Smith R . Mershon in charge thereof, and he continued in 

charge thereof and exercised daily care therefor until the 29th of November 

1878, a. period of seventy-seven days, when be was relieved from duty, Willia~ M. Ball having given bond. 

The claimant gave his entire time to the care of said distillery warehouse and was compelled to and did hire a horse on which to .go back and forth fro~ his 

home to the said warehouse. 

The evidence of W. J. Wilmore, d.epnty collector for the district in which 

the warehouse was situated, shows that, by direction of Revenue AgentS. A. 

"Whitfield, be seized the distillery of William 1\I. Ball, in Lincoln County, Ken- tucky, and by direction of said revenue agent turned said warehouse over to the claimant, Smith R. Mershon, for safe-keeping. 

When claimant was relieved from duty he presented his account for $308, which 

is $4 per Clay for seventy-seven days .he was engaged, being the am.ount usually 

allowed a revenue store-keeper, to the collector of the seventh district, and this 

claim was approved both by the collector of the seventh district and by Hon.- W. J. Landram, collector of the eighth district, in which Lincoln County, the 

county of his residence, was soon thereafter placed. 

There is no fund in the revenue department out of which this claim can be 

paid, but as the sero;rices were efficiently rendered in good faith by claimant, 

und er the orders of a United States revenue officer, your committee believe 

that Smith R.Mershon should be paid $308, and therefore recommend the pas- sage of the bil\ with the following amendment: 

Wherever the word "Menshon" appears in the printed bill let it be struck out and "Mershon " inserted. 

There being no objection, the House proceeded to the consideration 

of the bill. 

The amendment reported by the committee was agreed to. 

The bill as amended was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 

time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, 

and passed. 

Mr. McCREARY moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill -
1116 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 10, 

was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

Mr. McCREARY. I mo'e to amend the title so as to conform to 

H1e amendment alre::u1y made in the body of the bill, by striking out 

'' Menshon '' and inserting ''Mershon.'' 

The SPEAKER. In the absence of objection that amendment will 

be made. 

MRS. ESTHER B. HA YF OTID. 

Mr. DINGLEY. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Private 

Calendar, for immediate consideration, the bill (H. R. 369) granting a . pension to Mrs. Esther B. Hayford. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and hereby is, author- ized and direct.ed to place on the lleusion-roll, subject to the pension laws, the name of 1\Irs. Esther B. Hayford, widow of Orlando H.'\.yford , deceased, late a private in Company G, First Regiment of Maine Cavalry Volunteers. 

Mr. DINGLEY. 111r. Speaker, the report in this case is somewhat 

lengthy, and unless there is a call for the reading of it, I will state the 

substance ofthis bill, which has been reported unanimously by the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

The soldier whose widow the bill proposes to pension was severely 

wounded dnring the war, and subsequently died. When the widow 

applied for a pension under the pension laws a question arose between 

the medical experts as to whether the soldier had died in consequence 

of the wounds received in the service or from some other cause. The 

attending physician testified that in his judgment t~e soldier's death 

had been in consequence of those wounds. The mediCal experts nt the 

Pension Office, following unquestionably the mere technicalities of the 

matter, decided that there was doubt respecting this point, aud therefore the claim was rejected. But the Committee on Invalid Pensions, 

upon examining fully the whole evidence, decided that the probabilities point clearly to the conclusion that death resulted from the sol- dier's wounds, and therefore the committee unanimously reported the 

bill. 

There being no objection, the House proceeded to the consideration 

of the bill, which was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; 

and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

Mr. DINGLEY moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was 

passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion. was agreed to. 

INEFFICIENT POSTAL SERVICE. 

Mr. LANHAM. I call for the regular,order. 

Mr. ANDERSON, of illinois. I rise to make a privileged report from 

the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. · Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. I rise to a pa.rliamentary inquiry. 

The SPEAKER. There is a. privileged matter before the House. 

Mr. ANDERSON, of Illinois. I ask the Clerk to read the report 

which I send to the desk. 

The following resolution, illtroduced January 23, 1888, by Mr. PERKINS, was read: 

Resol~:ed, That the Postmaster-General be directed to in9uire into an?- inform the House of Representatives of the cause o.nd foundatiOn of the gnevances complained of in the subjoined editorial taken from the Capital, a daily news- paper published at '£opeka, Kans., under ~ate of Januar~ 11, 1888, .a!ld ~~;Iso to inform the House whether the almost umversal complamt prevaihng m the West against the present unsatisfactory mail service re~ults from the BJ?point- rnent of inexperienced and incapable employes or from madequate and msuffi- cient appropriations to meet the wants of the Post-Office Department and the needs of the people, or whether it results from other causes, and if so, what. 

[From the Capital, official State paper.] 

THE MAIL SERVICE OF KANSAS. 

Never at any time in the history of Kansas has there been in the United States mail service such an utter·disregard of the rights of tile people a!l_ at this time. Notwithstanding the great increase in population, the stupid attempt on the ~art 

of the Administration to make a record for economy has cut down the clencal force necessary to properly distribute the mails at large offices and in .the mail trains and it is consequently too small to do the work. Tons of mail matter pass through Kansas on the trains westward that can not be disposed of by the force allowed bv the Post-Office Department. Tlle result is that it is carried past the towns whe"rc it belongs, and brought back after two o~· three days' ab- sence in Colorado or New l\Ie:xico. It is not the fault of the rn.il way clerks, be- cause t.lle Department asks of them a task that it is not possible for them to per- form. The people ofKansa.s h a \·e been patient, and the press lm~ b ('c n leni';'nt over this Democratic folly. 1\la ils going west ax·e so heavy tha t men workmg to the extent of their strength, doing more than double duty, can not handle them. 

Appeals to the Department at 'Vashington for ad~quate h":lP to al~ c care of this important public service are unheeded. The ratlway mail serncc through Kansas has become Climinally neglected, and it is time this attempt of the Democratic party to make capital by a show of false economy should be brought to lhe attention of Congress. In reply to continued appeals for tlte·Dcpartment to send a man to examine t.he rail way mail service in Kansas, a man came, and overlooking the tons of .mail that could not be distributed in time to be thrown off at the towns where it belongs, he su<'ce cded in having two or three clE;r~s 

fined for not having the regulation gold-ln.ce band on their caps, and thus Cl~Ilservice reform was indorsed and the record the party for economy mam- tain~. • 

The accompanying report of the committee was read, us follows : 

. The Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads, having had under consid- eration the accompanying resolution, report the same back favorably, with tne following amendment: • Add to the end of the resolution the words "and also that the PostmasterGeneral be directed to further inquire and inform the House of Representatives 

what, if any, improvements or extensions have been made in the mail service of the West during the last three years." Your committee in reporting back this resolution, do not wish to be under- stood as indorsing' the statement of the resolution that there is an "almost uni- versal complaint prevailing in the_W~stagainst the present unsat~sfac~ry I!lail service," deeming that a matter w1thin the scop.e of the proposed mvesttgat10n. 

Mr. ANDERSON, of lllinms. I yield two minutes to the gentleman 

from Kansas [Mr. PERKINS]. . Mr. PERKINS. Mr. ~peaker, I have no ~bj~tion to the amendment 

proposetl by the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads, though 

I think it unnecessary, because I believe that the resolution as offered 

by myself contemplates the obtaining of the information suggested by 

the amendment. In other words, as the author of this resolution, I 

desire that the House shall be put in possession of all the facts pertaining to this railway mail service. If the inefficiency of that service is 

the fault of the Administration, we desire to know it; or if it is the 

fault of Congress in consequence of inadequate appropriations we still 

desire to know it. Whatever the facts may be, we desire to have them 

established. 

This resolution was offered on the 23d of last month, and under the 

rules of the House it should have been reported back within one week 

from that time. I merely suggest that in this matter the committee 

has been almost as unsatisfactory as the-mail service. But I hope that 

when we get the facts we shall be enabled to act intelligently. 

This resolution was not offered as a. political resolution; and when 

the information which is asked for is furnished to the House in an- swer to the resolution, when it is adopted, I will attempt to show that 

the complaints are not political in their character, but are wi~es~read 

and real. I know that in my section of the country both Repubhcans 

and Democrats unite in their complaints of the inefficiency of the 

postal service, and they want to kno~ the reason for it. 

Mr. DOCKERY. I ask the gentleman to yield to me. Mr. ANDERSON, of Illinois. Certainly. 

Mr. DOCKERY. Mr. Speaker, it is not my ,purpose at this time to 

discuss the merits of the proposition offered by the gentleman from 

Kansas. I simply desire to say that the Post-Office Department, as well as·the Post-Office Committee and 'this side of the House, agree in desiring the fullest and freest investigation of any complaints which may 

be made in reference to this matter, and I believe that the1·esult of the 

investigation will show that the mail service is now as efficient and 

satisfactorv as at any prior time in its history. · M-r. HOLMAN. I trust the gentleman from illinois will pe-rmit me to move an amendment'before the resolution is adopted. 

Mr. A~RSON, of lllinois. I will yield to the gentleman from 

Indiana for that purpose. . · · · 

Mr. HOLMAN. It is stated in this resolution as a matter of fact 

that there is universal complaint of the mismanagement of the postal 

system throughout the West. That is asserted in this resolution as a matter of fact. I do not think gentlemen should be called upon to vote on any such proposition. · • 

Mr. ANDERSON, of Illinois. If you will notice the repor~ of the 

committeeMr. HOLMAN. I did notice the report of the committee: but we are not voting on the report of the committee .. We are voting on the 

adoption of the resolution, and I am not willing to say, so far as my 

action is concerned, that there is any such universal complaint of the 

mismanagement of the postal system. In the section of the West 

which I have the honor in part to represent the postal system is admirably conducted and the postal facilities are equal if not superior to 

what they have been in former years. This is the experience of gentlemen in the country from which I come, and I believe throughout the 

country the postal system was never better conducted than i~ ~as been 

in recent years. I underatand the Post-Office Department 1s m favor 

of the widest inquir~; and in order that mem hers may not be compelled 

to vote on the adoption of the resolution that the system is not well 

conducted in the West, I move to insert the· word " alleged," because 

this is an allegation on the part of gentlemen on this floor, and the reso- lution should provide "whereas it is alleged that there is dissatisfaction," etc. 

1\!r. ANDERSON, of Illinois. I do not object to that amendment. 

The SPEAKER. The amendment is not in order until the amend· 

ment of the committee has been disposed of. 

Mr. ROGERS. Let the resolution be again read. 

The resolution was again read. · · Mr. REED. Is the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana admissible? - · · 

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks so, as i~ relates;. o the postal 

service in the West. 

The amendment of the committee was agreed to. 

fifr. HOLMAN. I Ifow move to strike out the words ''almost universally" and insert the word "alleged." 

Mr. ~McMILLIN. That covers the amendment I wish to make. I 

do not think the resolution should be argumentati\·e. 11Ir. ANDERSON, of Illinois. I yield to the gentlema'n from Missouri (Mr. DOCKERY]. . · Mr. DOCKERY. I understand the amendment of the gentleman 

from Indiana is entirely satisfactory to the mover of the resolution. 

• 
;. 't ,. 

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1117 

Mr. PERKINS. I think the amendment should only strike out the 

word "almost," as, in my jndgmen~, it is a universal complaint that 

the postal system is mismanaged and inefficient. If the gentleman will 

modi(y his amendment in that way, I will accept it. 

Ur. ANDERSON, of illinois. I now demand the previous question. 

The previous question was ordered. 

Mr. HoLMAN's amendment was agreed to; and the resolution as amended was adopted. 

Mr. ANDERSON, of Illinois, moved to reconsider the vote by which 

the resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to recon- sider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

PROHIBITION. 

1\Ir. CAUPBELL, cf Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a privileged 

motion. I send to the Clerk's desk four bills the titles of which I ask 

to be read, and which have been referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia. '.rhe petitions in support of those bills have been 

referred indiscriminately to the Committee on the District of Columbia 

and to the special Committee on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic. Both 

committees ba.ve instructed me to ascertain from the Chair where these 

bills belong, and for that purpose I move that they be referred to the 

special Committee on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic. 

The SPEAKER. The titles of the bills will be read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

A bill (H. R. 14.93) to prohibit the manufacture and sale of spirituous and intoxicating liquors m the District of Columbia; A bill (H. R. 1748) to prevent the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors 

in the District of Columbia; A bill (H. R. 3385) to provide for _the prohibition of the manufacture and sale 

of intoxicating liquors as a beverage in the District of Columbia; and A bill (H. R. 4959) t-o prohibit the manufacture and sale of spirituous and intoxicating liquors in the District of Columbia. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio moves to discharge the 

Committee on the District of Columbia from the further consideration 

of these bills, and refer them to the Select Committee on Alcoholic 

Liquor Traffic. 

1\Ir. TAULBEE. Will the gentleman from Ohio yield for a question? 

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. I will. 

Mr. TAULBEE. I wish to ask if it is the desire of the Committee on the District of Columbia that this change of reference shall be 

made? 

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. It is the opinion of that committee that 

the reference ought to be made under the rules. 

Mr. TAULBEE. Has the gentleman any authority from that com- mittee to say that such is the desire of the committee? 

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. I am instructed by the Committee on the District of Columbia to ask the Speaker if these bills ought not to 

be referred to the special Committee on Alcoholic Liquor Traffic; and 

I am anthorized.by that committee to say that it is the prevailing sentiment ofthe committee they should be so referred. 

Mr. REED. The House has already made the reference, and it cer- tainly is a proper one under the rules. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair was about to state that when a reference 

has been made of a subject to a committee, and it is desired to change 

it, if there be objection the Chair could not discharge the committee 

and change the reference. That can only be done by the House itself. 

It is, of course, frequently done by the Speaker, with the consent of the 

Honse, but that is the a-ction of the House. If objection is made, of course it is a matter which the Honse i~elf must determine. In this case there 

is a question as to the proper committee, and the gentleman from Ohio moves a change of reference. 

Mr. DINGLEY. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. DINGLEY. I wish to ask ifun<Urr the rnlesallproposed legislation that relates exclusively to the District of Columbia does not go 

to that committee? 

The SPEAKER. The Chair prefers not to make a decision upon the 

question until there is one before the House. The Chair willstatethat 

the rule to which the gentleman refers provides that all proposed legislation relating to the DistrictofColumbia shall be referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia, and the resolutions which created 

the Select Committee on the Alcoholic Liquor Trafficprovided that all 

proposed legislation relating to the alcoholic liquor traffic should be 

referred to that committee, so that the legislation referred to here might, 

in the opinion of the Chair, be properly referred to either committee. 

1\Ir. REED. But it has been already referred. 

The SP·EAKER. It bas. 

111r. REED. If it has been referred by the House to the proper com- mittee, who has the right to reke it away from that committee? 

The SPEAKER. It has been already several times decided that when a member rises on the floor and alleges that there has been an improper 

reference of a bill, and moves to correct it, such motion presents a priv- il~ed question for the determination of the Honse. This was settled 

in the Forty-fifth or Forty-sixth Congress, when a bill was referred imprcperly to the Committee on the Revision of the Laws, and the qnestion was submitted to the House whether it did or did not present a 

question of privilege. It was submitted to the House by the Chair, the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. RANDALL] being Speaker at the 

time, and it was then decided by the House that a question of privilege 

was presented. 

Mr. LONG. But the Chair holds that there has been no improper 

reference in the present instance. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair does not. The Chair bas stated that in 

its opinion it might be referred properly to either committee, but the 

Chair can not decide the question when it is raised in this form. After 

the House has referred a subject to a committee the Chair can not, 

without the consent of the House, discharge the committee from its con- sideration and refer it to another committee. Such a correction can 

only be made by the House itself. 

Mr. LONG. But I understand ther~ is nothing to correct here. 'l'be SPEAKER. The House must determine that. If there is anything to be corrected it is the action of the House, hot of the Chair; 

and the Chair can not undertake to correct the action of the Honse. 

Mr. LONG. But in this ca~e, as I understand it, there is not.hlng to 

be corrected. 

Mr. DINGLEY. I wish to make a further parliamentary inquiry. While it is true that legislation relating to alcoholic liquor traffic goes 

to that committee, yet is it not also true that specific legislation relating to the District of Columbia goes to the Committee on the District 

of Columbia? 

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks that this is a matter for the 

House to determine under the present circumstances. The motion is 

based upon the supposition that there is an erroneous reference of the 

bills, which presents a question for the determination of the Honse. 

Mr. HEMPHILL. I think it is proper to say-- M:r. LONG. I wish to submit a parliamentary inquiry. 

The l;)PEAKER. The gentleman will state it. 

M1·. LONG. Is there any motion pending before the Honse? 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio has submitted a mo- tion. 

Mr. LONG. Will the Chair be kind enough to state it? 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio senttotheClerk's desk 

several bills the titles of which have been read, and moved that the 

Committee on the District of Columbia be discharged from their further 

consideration, and that they be referred to t.be Select Committee on the 

Alcoholic Liquor Traffic. 

Mr. HEMPHILL. I desire to state, as members of the House, or probably a majority of them, know, that there are a great many petitions coming from all parts of the United States, asking legislation upon 

the subject of alcoholic liquor traffic in the District or Columbia. Under 

the rules, many of these have been sent to the Committee on Alcoholic 

Liquor Traffic and many others to the Committee on the District of 

Columbia. A great many bills relating to the subject have also been 

introduced, some of which have been referred to the Committee on the ' 

District of Columbia and others to the Committee on Alcoholic Liquor 

Traffic. 

It is a matter of some consequence to let one committee have charge 

of this business, in order that all the material that coi:nes here for or against the proposition may go to that committee and be considered by it. 

Now, there is no question that the subject of the alcoholic liquor 

traffic generally belongs to the select committee upon that subject. It 

is possible that the matter, so far as it relates to the District of Columbia, should go properly to that committee. But there is this consideration about it, that the Committee o.n the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic bas 

this one subject for its consideration. It is raised for that special purpose, and they are now hearing argument from a number of people interested in the subject, and areconsidering thatquestion in all its bear-. ings. 

The Committee on the District of Columbia have a. great many bi.l.lB 

before them, probably several hundred-I do not know bow many-and 

as is known by this House we do not have an opportunity to present 

our bills here and have them discussed, from day to day, like other 

committees. We have only one day, or possibly two days, in the month, 

and at the end of a particular day our business comes to an end, and 

must stand over. This is a question of considerable importance to the people of this 

District. It is one about which there is a great difference of sentiment 

in this country. If it has to be dealt with by the District Committee 

the chances are that it will be the means of preventing a great deal of 

District legislation which it is of great importance to the people of the 

District should be considered. 

Therefore,_ when the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic Committee undertook 

to take charge of this whole subject, as I think they properly can, the 

District Commitee moved by these considerations instructed the chairman of the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic Committee, who is also a member 

of the District Committee, to state to the Honse that it was the prevailing sentiment of the District Committee that this subject should go 

to the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic Committee in its entirety. 

Mr. CANNON. I have listened carefully to the remarks of the 

chairman of the District Committee, and what he bas said has convinced 

me that the District Committee ought to have this matter in charge, 

i . 
1118 CONGRESSIONAL RECOR.D-· HOUSE. FEBRUARY 10, 

because it has, or it is understood will have, one-fifteenth of all the I that this ·bill relates to raising revenue is correct, but if it does not rctime of the Honse from now to the adjournment-two days in each late also directly to the alcoholic liquor traffic I am unable to conceive 

month. I think the subject is more apt to be acted on by a committee of any bill that would relate to that subject. I wonJd have no objechaving so much time than by any other. tion to its reference to the Committee on Ways and Ueans but for the 

:Mr. HEUPHILL. 'Ihe gentleman from illinois is easily convinced; fact that that committee is well known to be pre seCi with work so that 

but I think his persuasion is on the wrong side of the question. He probably it would be unable to report this bill. I believe the blll will 

munt ba\e had his mind made u-p in advance. commend itself to any committee, and the reason I incline to :insist on 

Mr. DINGLEY. Will the .gentleman from South Carolina, permit its remaining with the Committee on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic is the 

me a question? fact that th~t committee is not presumed to be so crowded with busiMr. HEMPHILL. Certainly. ness as to be unable to find time to consider a bill of this character. I 

Mr. DINGLEY. Uy question is whether all the bills relating to am extremely anxious that we shall have a report on the bill, anu for 

the liquor- traffic were not referred in the ,Forty-eighth and Forty-ninth that reason I would like to insist that it shall remain with the ComCongresses to the Committee on the District of Columbia~ and whether mittee on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic. 

that committee did not report a bill to this Honse relating to the liquor Mr. PERKINS. That committee bas not got it. Move that it be 

traffic in this District? referred to the committee. 

Mr. HEl\IPHILL. I was not on the District Committee in the Mr. L.A.NHAJU. Mr. Speaker, I wish to object to any further disForty-eighth Congress, and if my recollection sen·es me we did not in cussion of this proposition unless it is in order. 

the Forty-ninth Congress report any snch bill. The ~PEAK.,EH. I is not in orrler. The question is on discharg-

::Mr. ROWELL. We reported a license bill. ing the Committee on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic from the fruther con-

~Ir. HE~IPHILL. We may have reported a license bill, but not a sideration of this bill and referring it to the Committee on Ways and 

prohibition bilL . 1\Ie:-tns. 

M.r. Dil~GLEY. A license bill relates to the same subject. Ur. MILLS. On that I ask a division. This bill should go to the 

Mr. HE fPHILL. I am not sure that we did report the license bill. Committee on Ways and M~ans. 

lli. ROWELL. I think we did. At any rate we agreed to do it. The Honse divided; and there were-ayes 95, noes 46. 

Mr. HEMPHILL. I have no feeling about this ma.tter at all, and I So (no further count being demanded) the motion was agreed to. 

do not know what action the-Committee on the · Alcoholic Liquor 

Traffic is likely to take. But I ha•e no doubti there will be action 

taken by that committee. I believe they are not afraid to .go on one 

side or the other. 

Mr. DINGLEY. I am very glad to hea.r that. 

Mr. HEMPHILL. The gentleman comes from a prohibition State, 

and can aflord to be verybrave, because his folks are all one way. But 

I want it to be distinctly understood, so far as the District Committee 

is concerned, if the bills on tllis subject are left in their charge they 

will gi>e them a chance like all other bills. We think the subject 

properly goes to the other committee, but we are ready to abide by 

the judgment ofthe House. 

. Ur. BLAND. If this bill does _not go to the Committee on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic I would like to inquire what does go there? 

For in this matter Congress has no jurisdiction o.-er the people outside of the District. This committee having been appointed, I suppose 

was appointc(l for a 'purpose, and that purpose onJy relates to Ute territory over which Congress has jmisd:iction. Congress c..'l.n legislate in 

this matter for the District, but has no jurisdiction with regard to it 

_ ll.A fLRO.A.D BRIDGE AT lUOUNT CARMEL, ILL. 

Ur. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I desire to present a privileged report 

from the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. 

The report was read, as follows: 

br THE HO"LSE OI• RErRESE ITA.TIYES, Februnry 6,1888. 

Resolt•ed, That the Secretary of 'Vur be, and he hereby is, requested to furnish the House with information touchin~ an alleged ob truction of the 'Vabash River at a point opposite to the city of Mount Carmel, TIL, by the construction and maintenance, without authority of law, by the Loujsville, E>uusville and St ... Louis Railroad Company, of a railroad bridge. The Committee on Ri>ers and Harbors, to whom wns referred the foregoing resolution. have considered the same, and report it b>lck to the House, recom- mendin;; its passage . 

The resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. JONES moved to reconsider the .-ote by which the resolution 

was agreed to; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on 

the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

in the States. Hence, if these bills are not to go to the Committee on 'Ihe SPEAKER. The regular m·der is the call of the standing ancl 

the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic, I think it is manifest the committee ought select committees for reports upon bills of a private nature. 

to be abolished. 

:Mr. LONG. I rise to a question of order. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it 

Mr. ·LONG. Is this question debatable? 

The SPEAKER. It is not strictly so under the rule. No proposition 

to refer is debatable except as to bills and resolutions which have been 

reported from a committee, and this motion is not a report. 

Mr. LONG. I call for the regular order. 

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

from Ohio [.Mr. CAl\IPnELL]. 

The House divided; and there were-ayes 117, noes 20. 

So (no further count being ealled for) the motion was agreed to. 

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I moYe that the Committee on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic be discharged from the further consideration of the bill H. R. 1472, and that the bill be referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means. · 

The SPEAKER. That bill relates to special tuxes upon liquor dealers under the internal-revenue laws; and if there be no objection it will 

be referred to the Committee on Ways and l\Ieans. 

Mr. TAULBEE. I object to that reference, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. The bill will be read. 

The bill wa.s read, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That subdi ruions 4 and 5 of section 3244 of the Revised Stat- u tes of 1878 are hereby amended by adding to the end of each the following words: "PrO'I:ided, That no person or persons shall be granted a special-tax stamp or anlliority to deal in intoxicating· liquors by retail, until such person or persons shall have first procured a. license from the local authorities of the town, village, or city in which the said person or persons propose to carry on the said bnsine of retailing, and until such person or persons slu11l ha;ve also procured a license from the county and State aulliorities lul"ing l egal jm:isdiction thereof; and that the collectors of internal revenue shall require, :is a condition-precedent to the granting of a special-tax stamp or authority to retail dealers in liquors, such dealer to file in tbe office of such collector a proper license from such town, vil- lage, or city, and n. proper license from the county and State in ·which said l"Ctn.il dealer in liquors proposes to carry on said busiP.es!',.wherc s11ch town, vil- lage, city, State, or county requires such business to be carricd.on under license; and where the ln.ws of the State, county, town, village, or city in which said re· tail dealer proposes to carry on his 10aid business prohibit the retail of spirituous 

liquors, then the said collecl;ors of internal revenue shall not issue suchsl)ecinl- tax stamp or authority. But nothing herein shaH be const.rued as afl'ecting manufacturers or any Territory or District under exclusive legislative control of the Congress of the United States.'' 

-Mr. TAULBEE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to make this observation 

with reference to that bill. I concede that the suggestion of the Chair 

ARBITRATIO~ BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AKD TEXAS. 

:Mr. CULBERSON, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on 

the Judiciary, reported back with a f:worable recommendation the 

bill (H. R 4375) to create a board,of arbitration to settle and determine 

the controversy between the United States and the State of Texas re- 1 a ti ng to certain terri tory by them respecti Yely claimed; which wa:; referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 

and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

PORT OF DELIVERY, GRAYD RAPIDS, MICH. 

Mr. WILSON, of Minnesota, by unanimous consent., from the Committee on Commerce, reported back with a favorable 'recommendation 

the bill (II. R, 1540) to establish a port of delivery at Grand Rapids, 

:Mich.; which was referred to the House Calendar, nnd, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

ADVERSE REPORT. 

Mr. SPOONER, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported 

back adversely a bill (H. R. 4510) granting a pension to Thomas Fagan; which was laid on the table, and the accompanying report ordered to be printed. 

!IIESSAGE FROM THE Slli~ATE. 

'A message from the Senate, by ~Ir. McCooK, its Secretary, informcu 

the House that the Senate had passed 'vithout amendment a bill (H. 

R. 2974) for the relief of John Snoddy. 

The message farther announced that the Senate had passed bills and 

joint resolutions of the following titles; in which the concurrence of 

the House ·was requested : 

Joint resolation (S. R. 4) providing for the di position of the Rebellion Records and other public documents; 

Joint resolution (S. R. 50) appointing Andrew D. White a member 

oJ the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution; 

A bill (S. 140) for the erection of a statue of Spencer F. Baird, late 

Secretary of the Smith onian Institution; 

A bill (S. 832) to proviUe an additional mode of taking depositions 

of witnesses in causes pending in the courts of the United States; and 

A. bill (S. 1723) to p.rovide for the eompletion of the publk: building in the city of Pensacola, Fla., as originally designed. 

The message also an~ounced that the Senate had passed a. bill (H. 
, , 

"1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE .. 1119 

R. 5514) to n.mend section 4883 of the R~vised Statuies, with an amend- A.t.·'mREw D. W.HIT.E. 

mentin whieh the concnrrence of the House was requested. -- Mr. COX. With the permission ofthe gentleman from Texas I.Ur. 

LA.NH.A.J.\I] I ask by unanimous consent to call up from the Speaker's "M.A..RTHA F. WOODRUM. table joint resolutionS. R. 50, appointing Andrew D. White a. member 

Mr. THOMPSON, of California, from the Committee on Invalid .Pen- ·ofthe Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, and to put it 

siom, reported 'back with ame11dm~nt the bill (H. R. "2805) gra-qting a upon its passage. 

pension to Martha F. W oodmm, :mdow of James Woodrum, deceas~; There was no objection, nnd the joi.rrt resolution was read a :first and 

which was referred to the Cc:nm1ttee of the Whole House -on the Pri- second time. 

vate Calendar, and the accompanying report ordered to be -printed. The joint resolution was read, ns follows: 

HEIRS {)F lUAURICE GRIVOT. .Resohed, etc.., That the existing-vacancy in the Board ofRegenl.softhe Smith- . sonianin.stituti<;an ofthe(}]ass "othertJ;urnmembers of Congress" s~befilled 

1\Ir. WILKINSON from the Committee on W.ar Claims, reported .a by the appointment of Andrew D. Wh1te, of the State of New York, m pla{)C of 

bill (H. R. G992) for the relief of the heirs of l.L.<turice Grivot; whicll was Asa G:cay, deceased. 

read. a first and second time, referred to the Committee of the Whole The joint Tesoluti.on was ordered to n, third reading; and it was ac- House on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, cordingly read the third time, and passed. 

orden~d to be p1inted. _ Mr. COX mo1ed to reconsider the Yote by which the joint resolution 

J.ms. E. G. CARTER. was passed; and .also moved thatthemotion to reconsider be laid upon 

J,Ir: WILKINSON also, from the Committee on War Claims, reported the table. 

back adversely the bill (H. R. 2923) for the relief of Mrs. E. G. U!,rter; The latter moii.on was agreed to. 

which was laid on the table, an9- the accompanying report ordered to 

be printed. WILLI..A.M THOMPSON. 

Mr. THOMAS1 of Wisconsin, from the Committee o"!l War ~ai_ms, 

reported back f vorably the bill (H. n. 166) foT the relief -of William 

Thomp on; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House 

on the Private Calendar, and the accompanying report ordered to be 

printed. CHARLES L. BRADWELL. 

)ir. STONE, ofKentucky, from the Committee on Wai' Clarims, reported b~ fa"Yorably the bill (H. R. 509"2) for the relief -of Charles L. , 

Bradwell· which was referred to the Committee -of the Whole Honse 

on the Prlvate Calendar, and the areompanying report ordered to be 

printed. .ROBKRT D. SALMOKS. 

]lr. STONE, of KentuckyJ also, from the Committee on WurCJaims, 

reported back with amendment the bill (H. R. 6247) for the relief of 

Robert D. &lmons; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the Private Calendar, and the accompanying Teport ordeTed 

to be printed. FRANCIS KILBUJU~. 

Mr. STONE., of Kentucky, a~, from the Committee on Wru: Claims, 

reported a bill (H. R. 6D93) for the Telief of Francis Kilburn; which 

was .read a first and second time, referred to the Committee of the 

Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, with. the accompanying 

report, ordered to be pTinted. 

EDMUND D. TA YJ,OR. 

Mr. LAWLER, from the Committee on War Claims, reported back 

adverselythebill (H.~- 725) forthetrelief .of Edmund D. Taylor; which 

was laid on the table, and the.accompa.n:ying report ordered to be printed. 

RIGHT REVEREI>.TD F . J.AXSSEXS. 

Mr. STOCKDA.'LE, from the Committee on "War Claims, r.eported 

back with amendment the bill (H. E. 4638) for the relief of Right Rev- · 

erend F . Janssens, .Bishop uf N atcbez-; which was referred to the ·Com- 1 

mittee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and. with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

The call of committees ha-ving been concluded, 

The SPEAKER pro tempm·e (Mr. SPRINGER) said: If tbere be no objection, the Chair will now recognize, for the presentation of .reports, . 

gentlemen who we:renotin their seats when theircomm.itteeswerecalled. 

.ALE:X.A.}..J)ER .FR.AK:C:ESOOd 

:Mr. CUTCHEON, from the Committee -on ]}!llitary Affairs, reported 

back favorablythe bill (H. R. "315) giving a military record to .Alexander 

Francesco, de<;eased; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole ' 

House on the Private Calendar, and the accompanying report ordered 

to be printed. 

GEORGE Sl\ITTH. 

1\ir. CUTCHEON also, from the Commjttee on .1\Iilitary Affairs, re- ported back adversely tbe bill (H. R. 1005) to remove tbe charge of 

desertion from George Smith; which was laid on the ta,ble, and the ac- companying report ordered to be printed. 

GEORGE COOK. 

Mr. CUTCHEON aJso, from the Committee on Military .Affairs, reported back adversely the bill (H. R. 5523) fur the relief of Gecn·ge Oook· 

which was laid on the table, and the accompanying report -ordered to 

be printed. 

EDW ABD G. "PENDLETON. 

Mr. FORD, from the Committee on l\Iilitary Affairs, reported back 

with amendme11tthe bill (H. R. 4()-28) to muster Edward G. Pendleton, 

captain of infantry, into the service of the United States and pay him 

for his services f.rom August '31, 1861, to .July 10, 1864; which was re- ferred to the Committe~ of tbe Whole House on the Private Calendar, 

and the accompanying report ordered to be printed~ 

OI:.DER .OF :BUSINESS. 

Mr. LANHAM. I move that the House resolve itself into the ·Committee of the Whole House. on thePri vate Calendar. .And pending that 

motion, Mr. Speaker, I move that the committee shall pass over for this 

day the bills which are found upon page 10 of the Calendar. They are 

the Court of CJ:aims .reports made in the FoTty-ninth Congress which 

have been. brought forward . That will enable us to proceed to the consideration of the bills reported .at this Congress. 'Vehavealready ·consumoo two hours of the pTivate-bill day. I think my motion is l'eally 

in the interest of the dispatch of business. 

!.1r. McCOUA.S. On· the last private-bill day these Court of Claims 

reports made in the Forty-ninth Congress, and which.Jmve been brought 

forvrard at this session, were passed over, and now we propose that they 

shall be passed <OveT again. The Speaker of the House has decided that 

they·are "first to be considered, ancl I think, under the circumstances, instead of pass1ng them over, the remainder of t.1ris day should be dev-oted 

to their consideration. 

Mr. L.A.l'{HAM. I will say that there are now pending before the 

Committee on Rules two distinct propositions in relation to the Court 

of Claims reports brought over from the Forty-ninth Congr~s-one 

involving their proper reference and the other giving them -priority. I 

am advised that these resolutions have not been considered by the Committee on Rules, and that it is probable they will be by next :privatebill day, and some action will be recommended. 

The SPE.A.KER. .A. member of the Committee on Rules has been 

called away from .the -city, or otherwise there would have been a meeting of the Committee on Rules. _ 

1\Ir. ~IcCOMA.S. These Court of Claims reports are entitled to priority of considemtion, as the Speaker has already decided, -and I do not 

think they should be -poEtponed eve-cy private-bill day! brrt as the gentleman .from ·Texas thinks some resolution of pl'Ocedure will be adopted 

by next priva.te-billdayfwillnotmsi.stupon their consideration to-day. 

Mr. LANHA I. I am not :.authorized to :spea'k fur the Comm:jttee on 

Rules, bnt simply state that the propositions .[ indicate .are perrding 

before that committee and it is-likely .adi:ion will be taken upon them 

before next private-bill d.ay~ 

:u.r. Mc001\fA.B. I w:i.tbUr.aw my objection. 

The SPEAKER. Is there Objection to therequest.ofTibe gentleman ~ 

from Texas tbat the'C<mrt of'Cl:rims cases be passed over foT to-day fil 

Th-ere was no objection, and it w:as ordered .a.coordingly. 

1\Ir. LANHA~f. I mom tha.ttbe H~se resol~eitselfi.nt.o the Com· 

mittee of the Whole Ho11Se on the Private Ca1eUV.ar. 

The motion w.as :a1,rreed to. . 

T.he Houseaceonlingly resolved itself into the Committee oftfhe Whole 

Ho11Be on the Pl:ivato Calendar, Mr . .H.A.TCH in the chaiL 

C. 1\f. llRIGGS. 

The first bill on the Calendar wa the bill (H. R. 4909) for the relief 

of the estate af C. 3L Briggs, deee.ased.. 

The bill was rea9, as follows: 

Be it.enae/ef1, ele~ Thnt U:e Oourt of Claims is he~eby given, £object to the pro- viso hereiTmfter Inentioned, 1ikc jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim of the 1egal representatives of '0. J'.1. Briggs, deceased, for the Jm)Ceeds 'Of 455 bales of<Jotton, now in <the T.rea-srr·ry of the United Sta.tes, alleged te ha-.e been owned, in whole or in part, by .E'aid Briggs, us is gi<ven to said court by the acts ofl\Inrch 12,1 G3, and July 2.1b64, upon petition to be filed insaidcour.tatany time within two ycarsiromthepassnge of :t.bisact.,;tny statute~ limitations to the contrary notwithstanding: Provided, 7wwever, That unless the said court sh-all, on a preliminary inquil-y, find that said Briggs wa-s m fact loyal to the "United ' St..\l.tesGovernment, and that. the assignment to him hereinafter mentioned "Was b011afide, thecour.tshn.lla1.0tJlavl1j~tion oftbe<l!tSe andtbes=es1lall, with- outf -ther prooeediugs., be dislllissed: .And tpTodded.fu,·thcr, 'l'lmt -if the oeom·t shall find that the all~ed ass.ignmen.tftom one Mo.reheaclto said .Briggs, of date Aprill8,18G2, under which sa.i<.l Briggs clairnecl snid cotton, was iutendetl only as security to said Bri.g.."'S fur indebtedness,a,nd a,a:ainst contin~ent liabilities assumed by him for said Morehe d, ju.dgmeat shall b.e rendered for such portion of the proceeds of said cotton as will satisfy the debts and claims o.f said Br.loo-gs, to secure which said assignment was given. 

Mr. ROLMA..N. I call for the reading of the report. 

Tbe report (by ~1r. STO-XE, ofKentucky) wn.s r-ead, .as follows: 

The Oommi ttee. on War Claims, to whom was referred the .Peti.Li.o.n .of .the!eg&l 

• 

.· 
• 

1120 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 10, 

representatives of the estate of C. !II. Briggs, deceased, have ha.d the same under consideration, and respectfully report: The facts out of which this claim for relief arises will be found stated in Sen- ate report of the Committee on Claims (No. 1356), first session Forty-nint.h Con- gress, a copy of which is hereto appended. . Your committee adopt said report as their own, and report herewith a bill and recommend its passage. 

[Senate Report No. 1356, Forty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 3828} for the relief of the estate of C. M. Briggs, deceased, have b a d the same under consid- eration, and respectfully report: That in April, 1862, Charles S. Morehead, ex-governor of Kentucky, resided at Louisville, in that State, and that C. M. Briggs, the decea-sep claimant, also r11sidedat JA>uisville. Morehead and Brig gs had been partners in the practice of the law, and the lat- ter was, in August, 1862, largely the creditor of the former for money loaned, in- dorsements paid, partnership moneys used by said Morehead beyond his share, moneys advanced in paying indorsements made for Morehead, and the said Briggs was, moreover, contingently liable on indorsements then existing. The amount of the indebtedness is not shown, although it is stated in the af- fidavits before the committee to have been" many thousands of dollars." Morehead owned in 1862, apd had owned for some time prior thereto two pll:tntations in the connty of Washington, near Egg's Point, :Miss., on which, in 1862, was a crop ot co tton. In t-his con Clition of aff'airs Mvrehead e x ecuted and delivered, on April18,1862, to C. M. Briggs the following instrument: 

"For and in consideration of money loaned and advanced heret-ofore by C. M. Briggs, a11d further valuable considerations, by way of suretysh ip for me by said Briggs, I hereby sell and transfer to saiq C.l\1. Briggs all of the cotton on my two plantations in Mississippi, near Egg's Point and Greenville. Said cot- ton so sold embraces all that I may have, baled and unbaled,gathered and no- gathered. This is intended to cover all cotton that I have now, or may have this year, on said two plantations, supposed to be about two thousand bales. "C. S. MOREHEAD." 

This paper itself, and the affidavits before the committee. may perhaps be fairly said to leave it an open question whether it was intended as au absolute sale to Brig·gs of the colton, free of all equity of redemption in Morehead, or was intended to be a security for advances theretofore made and liabilities there- tofore incurred by said Briggs by his indorsements lbr t-he benefit of said More- head, and then existing, out of which the sa.id Briggs was to reimburse himself, r endering, that done, the surplus to 1\Ir. Morehead. The quantity of cotton, the utter indefiniteness as to the amount due from Morehead to Briggs, together with the fact that part of it was only by way of contingept liability, tend very strongly to show that the transfer was for purposes of s ecurity; but whether an absolute sale or as security only, is quite immaterial in the view taken by the committee as to the justice of the claim of Briggs upon the cotton and its pro- ceeds, to the e:x:tenW:I.t least of the advances made at the date of the instrument, and thereafter paid by Briggs for Morehead. Ex-Governor Morehead (who died about 186!>), the committee is satisfied, so far as it has any information upon the subject, Wf\5 a disloyal man at the time this instrument was executed, and afterwards. He was arrested by the Gov- ernment and confined in one of the prisons; but loyal or disloyal, the commit- tee know of no reason why he was not competent in lawtoown the cotton, and t<> make a vn.lid assignment of it to Briggs, either absolutely in payment of a debt, or by way of security. The staunch loyalty of Briggs to the Government from the beginning of the war is abundantly vouched by men distinguished for service to the Union. General Rousseau, ex-Attorney-General James Speed, ,V, D. Gallagher, and Jo- seph H. Humes, late paymaster United States Army, vouch for his loya.U.y, and among the papers is found a letter of date of Februa ry 20, 1863, to Hon. Salmon P . Chase, Secretary of the Treasury, from George D. Prentice, in which it is stated: 

·• Mr. Briggs is perfectly reliable, and you may be asRured that no trust con- fided to him will be abused or transcended. He is and always bas been a de- vot-ed Union man. If any reference be necessary I would suggest that Hon. J. 

J. Crittenden and Hon. Henry Grider have known him since boyhood." The said Briggs made repeated attempts to obtain the cotton, but was pre- v ented by military orders and the then condition of affairs. On the 7th day of~1arch, 1863, under orders from General Grant, Captain Os- band, of the Fourth Illinois, with three steamers, proceeded t-o 'Vorthington's L anding, directed to capture cotton and forage for the use of the Army; and :-.t such landing he seized 2,180 bales of cotton, the property of divers people, loaded it upon the steamer Empress, and carried it to Memphis, Tenn., where it was by proper authority turned over to Capt. G. L. Fort, assistant. quarter- master of the United States, and by him sold, and the net proceeds paid into the public Treasury under the act of March 12, 1863, to be held by the Government in trust for the owners. In t-he cotton seized and sold were 455 bales of the cott-on grown on the More- head plantations, and embraced in the bill of sale to Briggs. · Other owners of the cotton taken at t.he time who have presented their claims have been paid. 

If Briggs had known the fact, and could have established his ownership of the cotton under the acts of Congress of 1863 and 186i, he could have, of course, re- covered the proceeds, or such part thereof as the court found him entitled to. Lapse of time has not, except technically, made any change in the title to the proeeeds. If the bill should become a law, and the legal representatives of Briggs shall be able to establish his loyalty and his absolute ownership of the 455 bales of cotton, of course they will be entitled to recover the entire proceeds of that cotton. If, on the other hand, it should turn out that the transfer to l3riggs was colorable, and a make-shift to enable n. disloyal man to sn.ve to him- self, through the use of the name of a loyal friend, his property, that ends the case, and the money remains in the Treasury. If it should be found by the court that Briggs was loyal, that Morehead was indebted to him, and that the assignment of the cotton was as security only, then the judgment should be in favor of the P.state of Briggs for so much of the proceeds of the cotton o.s will pay the debt for which it was security, and the surplus, if any there shall be, will remain in t·he Treasury. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I offer the following amendment: 

The Clerk read as follows: 

At the end of the bill add: "P1·ovided, Thatsuchjudgmentshallnotbepaidoutoftbegeneralfund in the '.l'reasury arising from the sale of captured and abandoned property, but shall be paid out of the special fund charged to and accounted for by Capt. G. L. Fort, assistant quartermaster at :Memphis, arising from the sale of 2,209 bales of cot- ton received by him with which claimant's cotton was intermingled, said claim- n.nt to receive only the proportion his cotton bears to the net proceeds accounted for by said Fort." 

Mr. CULBERSON. I desire, Mr. yhairman, to explain the reasons for offering that amendment to this bill. 

When the bill of which this is a copy was before the House in the 

Forty-ninth Congress, I opposed its passage upon the ground, as I then 

understood it, that the proposition was to pay this applicant the amount 

of money claimed in the bill out of the trust funds in the Treasury, 

which represent the proceeds of the sale of captured and abandoned property. 

I was misled on that occasion by the report of the Committee on War 

Claims, and I wish to state that the Committee on War Claims of this 

Congress have incorporated the sa. me mistake in their report w bich was embodied in the report accompanying a similar bill in the Forty-ninth 

Congress. 

I send to the desk and ask the Clerk to read the paragraph I have 

marked in this report. 1 

The Clerk read as follows: On the 7th day of March, 1863, under the orders of General Grant, Captain 

Osband, of the Fourth Illinois, with three steamers, proceeded to Worthington's Landing, dil·ected to captw·e cotton and forage fot·use of the Army; and at said l a nding he seized 2.180 ba les of cotton, the property o f divers people, loaded i~ upon the steamer Empress, and carried it to 'lemphis, Tenn., where it was by proper authority turned over to Co. pt. G. L. Fort, assist a nt quartermaster of the United States, and by him sold and the net proceeds paid into the public Treas- u r y, under the net of 1\Iarch 12, 1863, to be held by the Government in trust for the owners. 

I n the cotton seized and sold were 455 bales of the cotton grown on the l\Iore- head p lantations, and embraced in the bill of sale to Briggs. 

1\Ir. CULBERSON. Now it will be seen, from the statement therein 

contained, that this bill proceeds npon the idea that the proceeds of the 

cotton were huned into the Treasury and credited to this trust fnnd. 

'l'he facts of the cc.1.se are, as I have found on investigation, that this lot 

of cotton, consisting of 2, 1 0 bales, was seized by order of General 

Grant on the 7th day of ~Iarch, 1863, five days prior to the pa-ssage of 

the act of March 12, 1863, which authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to appoint agents of the Treasury to receive and sell captured and 

abandoned property and tnrn the proceeds into the Treasury to the 

credit of whomsoever the property belonged. • Now, this lot of cotton, or the proceeds of the cotton claimed in this 

bill, 455 bales, belonged to this lot of 2,180 bales seized by order. of General Grant. That cotton was sent to 1\fempbis, Tenn., and turned over to Captain Fort, the quartermaster of the United States Army, and he 

carried upon his accounts the amount of the proceeds of the sale of that 

cotton as of Memphis. 

The cotton never was in the hands of the Treasury agent, never was 

sold by him, and the proceeds of the sale never went into the Treasury 

to the credit of this fund. 

These facts were jndiciaUy ascertained by the Court of Claims in 

Donglas vs. The United States, Douglas having claimed a portion of 

the proceeds of the sale of this lot of cotton; and I ask the Clerk to read 

the statement of facts found by the court in the fourteenth volume of 

the Reports of the Court of Claims. Dougla.s I understand to be one of the heirs of Jndge Douglas, who claimed that the cotton was seized 

upon his plantation. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

The claimant's cotton was intermingled with other cotton at the place of capt- ure and its identity lost. The mass of intermingled cotton, amounting to 2,209 bale s, was brought out on the steamer Empress and turned o-.;·er to Capt. G. L. Fort, assistant quartermaster, at Memphis, about the 1st of April, 1863. By Tosses arising from the damaged condition of the cotton and the rebaling of a portion of it the mass wa!! reduced to 2,111 bales, and was sold by Captain Fort in April,1863, for $429,663.39. This money was expended by Captain Fortin the o rdinat·y expenses of the Quartermast-er Department, and was subsequently charged to him by the accounting officers of the 'l'rer.sury as money which had been receiveg_by him under appropriations of Congress for the nse and pur- poses of the Quat·termaster Department, and was accounted for by him as such. Subsequently the mass of cott.on before referred to was charged by officers of the Treasury Department with the expenses of its transportation, so that the gross proceeds of $429,663.39 received by Captain Fort are to be reduced to $421,- 063.39, which the court, on an investigation and adjustment of the accounts, finds as the amount of the net proceeds of the mass of 2,209 bales: 

1\fr. CULBERSON. That is sufficient. 

I concede the fact that the proceeds of the sale of this lot of cotton 

constructively were placed in the Trea.sury, but that these proceeds were not placed to the credit of the captnred and abandoned property 

fund. .It is proper for me to state, perhaps, in this connection, that 

there are some half a dozen or more millions of dollars'in the United 

States Treasury now, whic:h the Supreme Court have declared to be 

trnst funds, and that the Government of the United States holds that 

fund for the benefit of the owners of property which was sold and the 

proceeds placed in the Treasury. Over $20,000,000 since the act of 

1863 was passed have been so placed in the Treasury, and of that amount 

over a half dozen millions of dollars remain. 

Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana. Will the gentleman be kind enough to 

state again the amount remaining? 

Mr. CULBEHSON. Something over $6,000,000. 

In order to emphasize my position on this question, I desire to say 

that !·believe nearly the entire amount now remaining in the Trea.sury 

a.s a credit to this fund, and belonging to this trust.fnnd, belongs to 

that unfortunate class of people at the South who were disloyal; and 

since the Supreme Court of the United States have decided that this 

money belongs to that unfortunate class, notwithstanding that they 

participated in the rebellion, and the President's proclamation of 1868 

restored them to all of their rights of property, and the Government of 

the United States not having confiscated this money, but having placed 

it in the Treasury to the credit of the owner of the property, whomso- ever he might be, I have struggled for years to open the door of the 
.: 

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1121 

statute of limitaticms and let these poor and unfortunate people have 

their money. 

Now, I objected to tbis bill in the Forty-ninth Congress, because, as 

will be seen from the report in the case, it proposed to take this 

sacred fund, this fund that belongs to the unfortunate people at the 

South, to pay this claim, when in point of facL the proceeds of the cotton belonging to Morehead or to Briggs, as the case may be, never went 

into the Treasury at all. It did go into the hands of a quartermaster 

of the Army, and was expended by him in some way for the use of the 

Army; and I have no objection, so far as I am individually concerned, 

that Congress shall direct this money to be paid to him or that the 

Court of Claims may :find, if they see proper, that the Government is re- sponsible for the claim. But for one I desire to say I do not think that 

however Congress may feel upon that subject as to turning this money 

out of the Treasury, this trust money, this money that the Supreme 

Court declares belongs to the people of the South, and which they 

could get-any day if Congress would open the bar of the statute of limitations, and let us sue under the act of 1863-however they may 

feel in that respect, I protest for one against the fund being dwarfed 

and reduced by appropriations made for claims which did not fall within 

the law of 1863. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. As I understand, the gentleman from 

Kentucky [Mr. CARUTHj, who introduced the bill, is perfectly willing 

to accept this amendment, and so informed the gentleman from Texas 

[Mr. CULBERSON] before it was offered; so that the speech just made 

by the gentleman from Texas was not so much to advocate his amendment as to express his position on the captured and abandoned property 

fund. 

Now, I want to say to this committee that !have introduced a bill, 

and the Committee on War Claims have instructed me unanimously to 

report that bill to the House, asking Congress to remove the bar and 

allow people who have any claim to this captured and abandoned property fund to go to the Court of Claims and make proof of their right to 

it. All the statements of the gentleman from Texas as to how this 

fund arose are true and are all set forth in the renortand the decision in 

the case of the heirs of Douglas against the United States. . Part of the 

property belonged to 1\Ir. Douglas and his heirs recovered it. Other 

parties who had cotton in the same lot have recovered the money for 

their cotton. 

Two years ago a bill was introduced and was passed by the House 

allowing Briggs to go to the Court of Claims. It was sent to the Senate; in the Senate it was amended, and it came back to the House too 

late to be reaehed for concurrence in the amendment. This bill is introduced in this session in exact accordance ·with the amended bill 

which passed the Senate. The report which we make to the House is 

exactly the report which was made to the Senate. So that all the objections, it seems to me, which could have been brought against this 

claim have been removed. The fact that this money is due to some- body certainly exists, because the Supreme Court of the United States 

have decided cases where money was paid to parties who made claims · exactly like this. - In this bill the question of Morehead's loyalty is entirely removed 

from consideration. It provides if any sort of attempt was made to cover up anything that Mr. Briggs shall not recover. It provides that 

the transaction shall be shown to have been straight anQ. correct, and 

that the transfer of this property from l\1r. Briggs to Mr. Morehead was 

made in good faith to pay the debt Morehead owed to Briggs. So that 

every one of the objections presented up to this time has been removed, 

and I hope the committee will recommend to the House the passage of 

the bill. 

Mr. PERKINS. Will the gentleman from Kentucky allow me a 

question? 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. Certainly. . . Mr. PERKINS. When was the property taken ? I did not understand that from the report of the committee. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. On the 7th of l\Iarcb, 1863. 

Mr. PERKINS. The assignment to Briggs seems to have been made 

in 1862? 

Mr. STO:J\TE, of Kentucky. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PERKINS. Was this the crop of 1862 that was taken? 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. Yes, as I understand it. I can not say 

whether it was all of the crop of 1862. . Mr. ROWELL. I desire to offer the following amendment: . 

In line 15, after the word "Briggs," insert" and .UharlE;s S. Morehead, the alJeged original owner of said cotton," and change" was !' into" were." 

The effect of this will be that the question of loyalty to be determined before the Court of Claims shall apply as well to the owner as to the assignee. The purpose of offering this amendment is tbis-·- The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky yield any 

time to the gentleman from Dlinoi'3? 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. No, -sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Then does the gentleman from Kentucky yield 

the floor? 

}fr. STONE, of Kentucky. I yield the floor for the present. lfr. ROWELL. The proposition of this amendment, as I was about 

saying a moment ago, is to put the owner and ~-ssignee on the same 

XIX-71 

level as to their status. This assignment was made in 1862 of cotton 

within the lines of the so-called Confederate States. It was a transaetion with reference to property that might then be used for the protection and support of the armies engaged in opposing the authority of the 

United States. It was, during the continuance of the war and before its 

close, seized by the armies of the Unitea States in the country of the 

enemy, appropriated by the army, and the proceeds used to support it; 

and it re.'3ts, as I think, upon an entirely different foundation from the 

cotton thereafter seized under a law of Congress, sold, and the fund cov- ered into the Treasury, both with reference to the st.atus of the owner 

and with reference to the law. 

It seems to me that this House of Representatives ought not to give 

its sanction to the propositon that a disloyal man whose property was 

subject to confiscation, property, too, of a kind that was especially the 

subject of confiscation, could transfer his rights to a loyal man so that 

the loyal man could reco>er against the United States when the as- signor could, not recover . . Mr. OATES. Will the gentleman permit a question? 

Mr. ROWELL. Yes, sir. 

1\fr. OATES. Suppose the bar of the statute was not complete and 

the case was pending in court, would it make any difference at all to 

the court whether the assignor was a loyal man or not? 

Ur. ROWELL. I think it wouldmakeaverygreat differencetothe 

court. 

Mr. OATES. As a matter of law? 

Mr. ROWELL. · As a matter of law. 

Mr. OATES. I do not agree with the gentleman. 

Mr. ROWELL. The question of public policy is always a question 

for adjudication in the courts, and it could not have been possible for 

any court in the United States sitting at that time to hold that a man could deal with property within the lines of the Confederate States,. so 

called, could transfer it, and could thereby transfer any right to anybody to enforce a contract made with reference to that kind of property. 

The contract would be against public policy; it would be a contract in 

aid of the public enemy. 

So far as anything disclosed hereisconcerned, I donotknowwhether 

Mr. Morehead, when be made this assignment, was within or without 

the jurisdiction of the authm·ities of the United States so far as they were able to enforce that jurisdiction. For aU that appears, he may 

have been within the Con1ederate lines. For all that appears, be may 

ha•e been actively participating with the enemy in leading its armies, 

and under this bill, without this amendment, it may appear in court 

that at the time of this assignment )le was in 1he camp of the enemy 

participating wit.h them, and it may even appear that be sent this as- signment through the lines from the camp of the enemy. 

l\Ir. HOUK. What is your amendment? 

Mr. ROWELL. My amendment is to maketbeloyalty ofl\forebead 

and Briggs stand upon precisely the same footing, and to require proof 

of the loyalty of both as a condition-precedent to the jurisdiction of the 

court. 

Mr. HOUK. Then they may as well abandon the case. 

Mr. · ROWELL. Let it be abandoned, then. 

Mr. BOCH.A.NAN. I understand that by t.bis means Briggs sec_ured 

payment of the indebtedness which Mr. Morehead owed him. Would 

the gentleman from illinois [Mr. HOWELL] discourage a loyal man from 

trying to get his money out of a disloyal mn.n? 

Mr. ROWELL. No; but I would discourage a loyal man from trying to get that which v.-as the property of the United States under the 

laws of war. This property was at that time subject to confiscation, -

provided we could get the enemy out of the way. The only difficulty 

was that there was a line of armed men between us and the property. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. That is to say, it was the Government's if the 

Government could get it. 

Mr. HOWELL. ItwasnotsubjecttotbepaymentofMr. Morehead's 

debts, superior to the right of the United States. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Youdonotwantto punish amanforbeingloyal? 

Mr. FELTON. Does the gentleman mean to say that because a man was-loyal at that time in the South be had no right to collect his debts, 

provided the payment came from a disloyal man-that he should be 

doubly punished for being loyal? 

.Mr. ROWELL. The result of my amendment would be that if Mr. 

Morehead was disloyal he could transfer no right even to a loyal man, 

and I am not sure that it was an indication of very great loyalty for a man to trade with another who was within the Confederate lines, and 

possibly in its armies. 

Mr. HOUK. I will ask the gentleman whether we have not had 

since the war an almost unbroken line of decisions to the effect that the 

rebels in the South bad a right to transfer their property at any time 

they saw fit to do so before it was seized? Has not that been adjudicated 

time and time again? 

Mr. ROWELL. To persons trading across t.he lines? 

Mr. HOUK. Trading anywhere. 

Ur. ROWELL. Well, Mr. Chairman, lam probably not as well ac- quainted with the universal proceedings of the courts and of Congress as my friend from Tennessee [Mr. HoUK], but I had supposed that it was everywhere recogniz~d as a violation of public policy for a man in-

.-
• I 

1122 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBR.UARY 10, 

side of the Union lines to trade with anybody on the other side. I 

supposed that that was both good law and good policy. 

~1r. HOUK. But have not the courts decided that where the trading has taken place and been perfected, they will leave it where they 

find it? 

~1r. ROWELL. I do not know what they have decided with regard 

to lands and such things, but I do know that the Committees on War 

Claims have usnally reported against any bill which transferred title 

from a man within the Confederate lines to one on this side of the line. 

~Ir. THOMAS, of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman permit a question? 

Mr. ROWELL. Certainlv. 

Mr. THOMAS, of Wisconsin. If it should appear to be the fact (and 

that question is submitted to the court by the bill) that Mr. Briggs had 

a just, val_id, honest claim against Governor .Morehead, and that the 

transaction was a bona fide one, not intended to cover up anything, 

does the gentleman see anything wrong aboub it simply because the 

property was within the rebel lines? 

Mr. ROWELL. The case which the gentleman supposes would not 

make a bit of change in the public policy. The good public policy 

which is violated is that policy which declines to permit a man to trade across the lines. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. But at the time this trade was made both parties were within the Union lines, as I am informed by the chairman of 

the committee. 

l\fr. ROWELL. That I don't know anything about. I do know, 

however, that about that time ~Ir. Morehead got on the other side of 

the line, and possibly he made this assignment in contemplation of 

going over to the other side. ·.My objection is not that Mr. Briggs was 

loyal, because I like to see loyal men get their pay, and disloyal men 

also :tre sometimes in a position where they ought to be paid, especially 

if it is a matter of contract, but I do not belie-re it is a good thing for 

the House t,o overturn the w-eat public policy which prohibits a man 

on one side of an army line to trade across the lines with a man on the 

other side. That is all I desire to say. 

'.rhe CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman reserve the balance of his 

time? 

Mr. ROWELL. No; I yield the floor. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. .Mr. Chairman, in answer to what the 

gentleman from Illinois [Mr. ROWELL] has said in favorofhisamend-

' ment, I want to suggest to him what he seems to have forgotten, that 

he finds himself in the situation of offering an amendment to defeat, 

if possible, the allowance of this claim, because of the fact that the 

party lives in Kentucky instead of Illinois. 

Mr. ROWELL. I hope the gentleman will not misrepresent me in 

that way. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentuck-y. Now, in the case of Itlr. Douglas, who 

lived in the State of Illinois, who was paid his money by the judgment 

of the court, we find that he was in partnership with Mr. UcHatten, 

who lived in Louisiana, and during the continuance of the war .Mr. 

:McHatten took his part of the partnership property and went still 

farther south, where he could take care of it, leaving Mr. Douglas's 

part, which was taken charge of by another man, named Dodds, a disloyal man, who held on to the property until the war was over. The 

heirs of Mr. Douglas-his sons-obtained their righta by a judgment 

of the court; but Mr. Morehead and Mr. Briggs happened to live in 

Kentucky, not upon the sacred soil of Illinois; and therefore because 

:Mr. Morehead was disloyal-a fact which nobody denies-ltfr. Briggs, 

who was a loyal man, must be deprived of his rights. 

The two cases are exactly similar, and if there is any reason why 1t1r. 

Douglas, or his heirs, should not have been deprived of their rights, the 

same reasons apply in favor of Mr. Briggs. I hope the Committee of 

the Whole will not adopt the amendment offered by the gentleman 

from illinois. 

.Mr. Chairman, I now yield to my colleague [lli. CARUTH]. 

Mr. CARUTH. Mr. Chairman, I sincerely trust that the bill as reported by the committee will be passed with the amendment which has 

been offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. CULBERSON]; butthat 

the amendment introduced by our friend fromlllinois [Mr. ROWELL], 

the purpose of which can only be the defeat of this bill, will be voted 

dowa -

I have been delighted to see manifested during this session of Congre , all over this House and particularly upon the other side, a disposition to pay the fuir, just, and honest claims of the citizens of this 

Go-rernment. I believe that when a citizen of Kentucky who can bring 

in evidence of his loyalty the testimony of General Lovell H. Rousseau, a 

gallant Union general, who was among the first to uplift the flag of his 

country upon the soil of that State in the hour of the nation's extreme 

peril; I believe that when a citizen of Kentucky can support his loya1ty not only by the testimony of that great Union general but by that 

of such a man as John J. Crittenden, the great son of Kentucky who on the floor of this Honse lifted his voice in behalf of peace and unity 

and conciliation; nay, more, I believe thatwhen a sonofKentuckycan 

bring in prqof of his loyalty in the hour of the nation's peril the_ testimony of that gifted son of New England who made his home in Kentucky, George D. Prentice-when the loyalty of a citizen of Kentucky 

can be thus supported, I think his claim deserves consideration at the 

hands of the American Congress. 

.Mr. Chairman, I believe that the spirit which has been manifested 

npon the other side of the House since the commencement of this Congress will, by the passage of this bill, recognize the rights of loyal citizens. It is admitted in this report that Governor Morehead was not a loyal citizen; but because a loyal man, who during' an extensive law 

practice in which be and Governor Morehead had been associated in 

the city of Louisville, had becom~ the creditor of Governor Morehead, 

was endeavoring in time of war to secure his righteous claim-because 

he made this effort to secure this assignment, does it follow that the 

value of the cotton which was covered by the assignment should not 

be pa-id to that loyal citizen, particularly when the money lies idle in 

yonder overflowing Tre.c~ury to the credit of claimants of this char-

~er? - Now, the gentleman from Illinois said that he did not believe there 

should be acts of trade, contract, and barter between loyal citizens and 

disloyal persons; but he forgeta that a higher authority than himselfthe Supreme Court of the United States-has decided that such contracts made during the course of the war are :righteous contracts and 

can be enforced. And this decision was made, not twenty-five years 

after the declaration of peace, but almost before the sound of warfara 

had ceased in this great land. It was decided by the Supreme Court 

in December, 1869 (I refer to the case of United States 'I:S. Anderson, 

reported in 9 Wallace), that a contract of this kind must be sustained. 

Says the court: 

This condition of things Congress was aware ofThat is, the fact that nearly everybody in the South was disloyal, 

and that any trade made by a loyal man must almost necessarily have 

been made with a disloyal man as the other partyThls condition of things Congress was aware of, and if it had been its pur- pose to limit the privilege in controversy to the loyal citizen who happened to acquire his property from another person equally loyal, they would ho.ve 

said so. But Congress had no such nan·ow policy in view. 

I ask my friend from Illinois to mark the language: 

No such narrow policy in view. Its policy in the matter was broad and 

comprehensive-

! commend this language to the gentleman's considerationand embraced within its range all persons who had adhered to the Union. It treated all alike, and did not discriminate in favor of the person who could trace his title through a loyal source and against him who was not so fortunate. It did not consider the loyal planter who raised his own cotton and rice as en- titled to any more protection than the dwelle r in the cities and towns who 

lived by traffic and bought where he could buy the cheapest. 

I can see, Mr. Chall:man, in the consideration of this bill, no objection which could be maintained against it. I find it provided in 

this measure that tho loyalty of Mr. Briggs shall be first ascertained. 

I find it provided that this assignment should be fir tfound to be a bona 

fide transaction; that it was not made for the purpose of defrauding 

Morehead's creditors; that it was not made for the purpose of keeping 

this property away from confiscation; but that it was a bona fide transaction on the part of Briggs-and his transactions with Go-rernoa Morehead, I happen to k"Dow personally, had extended for many years; that 

Briggs had acted squarely and honorably; and as the whole matter is 

left under the discretion of the Court of Claims, to that tribunal this 

Congress can afford to leave it; and I trust, ~~r. Chairman, the bill will 

pass. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. I will now yield to the gentleman from 

Wisconsin [Mr. THO?tfAS] for ten minutes. 

Mr. THOMAS, of Wisconsin. ~Ir. Cl: lirman, I think when the merits of this bill are understood there will be no objection in relation to it. 

Under the act of the 3d of March, 1863, the military authorities of 

the United States seized 2,180 bales of cotton. This cotton was, under 

that act of Congress, sold, and the proceeds carried into the Treasury, 

and there held by the Government, in the language of the act, in trust 

for the owners. 1 

Now, Ur. Chairman, by the amendment of the gentleman from Texas 

[Mr. CULBERSON] which has been accepted, as I understand, by the 

gentleman in charge of the bill, the proceeds of these 2,180 bales of 

cotton are to be divided among the owners and reaches no other fund. 

Some of the owners of this identical cotton proceeded, under this 

act, within the time allowed by the law, and received their portion of 

the proceeds. In some cases they were identical with these cases. 

Mr. Briggs, it is .said, was a loyal man, and Governor Morehead, it is 

said, was a disloyal man. The bill provides that the question as to the 

transferring of this cotton shall be inquired into by the courts, and if 

they find it was a cover so as to permit Morehead to enjoy the proceeds 

or anybody else, they are to discharge the claim. If they find there is 

any question about the loyalty of Bdggs, the claim is to be defeated. 

But the fact that Briggs was a loyal man and Morehead a di loyal 

man, it is claimed, should defeat this bill. Why should this rule be for 

the first time adopted in this case when other cases presenting the same feature were presented to the court and it was decided that fact made no difference as to the right ofthe claimant, whether he was loyal or .not? The Supreme Court has decided this transaction was not rendered nugatory because the party of whom the cotton was bought was 

at the time disloyal. I say that the money that went into the Treas-
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1123 

ury in trust for Bri~c:rs and his heirs, ifhe is lawfully entitled to it, if ants would be left withoutsufficient funds from which togettheirpayhe was loyal, if the transaction was honest-I say there is no reason in ment. justice or in equity why the Government of the United States should Mr. CULBERSON. I beg to suggest to the gentleman that I think 

keep this money when they are not entitled to it and when it was put he is referring to the captured and aba.ndoned property fund. 

there in trust for the benefit of the owners. Mr. MORGAN. Is not this a portion of that? 

Mr. HOLl\I.A.N. Let the amendment of the gentleman from Texas ~Ir. CARUTH. No; this has reference to the fund arising from the 

be again reported. saJe of the two thousand and odd bales of cotton referred to here. 

Mr. ROWELL. I offered my amendment .in order to submit some Mr. CULBERSON. It is not a portion of the captured and aba.nremarks, and to call the attention• of the House to my views about this do ned property fund. I am trying to protect that fund. 

case; and, as I have accomplished that purpose, I will now withdraw Mr. MORGAN. The reason I ask is that quite a number of my con- the amendment. stituents have just claims against that fund, and if they can be heard 

The CHAIRMAN. The question, then, is on the amendment of the I am sure they will be a hie to sustain them. 

gentleman from Texas. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. That amendment was accepted. The amendment was.agreed to. 

The amendment was again read. The bill as amended was laid aside to be reported to the House with 

Mr. HOLMAN. .A.s a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I think there the recommendation that it do pass. 

is no such special fund, as the gentleman from Kentucky will find, for NATHANIEL M'KAY AND OTHERS. 

the simple reason that, prior to the passage of the act of the 3d day of The next business on the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 2477) 

March, 1863-known as the captured and abandoned property act-the for the relief of Nathaniel 1\fcKay and the executors of Donald McKay. 

property was disposed of, and the proceeds paid into the Treasury were The bill was read, as follows: 

applied to the use of the Army. If that is understood, and this is to · f h 1 f d f th T •t d bt Be it enacted, etc., That the claims of Nathaniel McKa.y and the executors of be pa1d out o t e genera un O e reasury, 1 expresses, un ou - Donald McKay for further compensation for the construction of the iron-clad 

edly, what will be the effect of the amendment. If the committee acts =onitors Squando and Nauset and the side-wheel socamer Ashuelot may be on the theory they are reaching some particular fund, I apprehend submitted by said claimants within six months after the passage of this act to · d · k th · h · 1 fu d Th the Court of Claims, under and in compliance with the rules and regulations of they are labormg un era IlllSta ~e, as ere lS no snc speCia- n · e said cou r: , and said court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine and 

gentleman from Texas was guarded in his statement, as he spoke of it render ju<.lgment upon the same : Provided, however, That the investigation of as a constructive fund. The money was taken for the use of the Army, said claim shall be made upon the following basis: The said court shall ascer· 

b h h · ts d tt f ~ t tain the additional cost which was nece.."Sarily incurred by the contractQr for taken up Y t e quartermasters on t e1r repor ' an as a ma er 0 .1ac building the light-draught monitors Squando and Nauset and the side-wheel never went into the Treasury. steamer Ashuelot, in the completion of the sarne, by reason of any changes or Ur. BROWNE, of Indiana. \Yould there be any funds out of which alterations in the plans and specifications required and delays in the prosecu- this claim could be paid if the amendment of the gentleman should pre- tion of the work which were not provided for in the original contract; but no allowance for any advance in the price of labor or material shall be considered 

vail? unlesssuchadvanceoccurredduring the prolonged term forcompletingtbework Mr. HOLMAN. There is no fund except: possibly, by construing rendered necessary by the delay 1·csulting from the action of the Government 

the amendment to mean this: that it should be paid out· of the money aforesaid, n.nd then only when such advance could not have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary prudence and diligence on the part of the contracU>r: 

received by the quartermaster and applied to the use of the Army, im- And providedju1·ther, That the compensation fixed by the contract between the 

plying that the money is in the Treasury of the United St.ates, and is contractor and the Government for specific alterations shall be conclusive as to 

b t d · t" "th th d t the compensation to be made therefor: And providedjurt.her, That all moneys to e so cons rue In connec lOll WI e amen men · paid to said contractor by the Government over and above the original contract 

Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana. I understood the gentleman to say, or price for building said vessel shall be deducted from any amounts allowed by 

to have read a decision by the Co.urt of Claims, to the effect that the said court by reason of the matters hereinbefore stated: And provided further, 

d · d fr th t th d d dd b les f tt h d That if any such changes caused less work and expenses to the contractor than 

money enve om ese WO ousan an 0 a 0 co on a the 01-iginal plan and specifications, a corresponding deduction shall be made 

been appropriated by the quartermaster and expended for the 'llSe of from the contract price and the amount thereof be deducted from any allowance 

the Army, and that it did not go into the Treasury of the United States to be made by said court to said claimant. · 

at all, as a part of this fund, unless constructively. Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. I yield the time to the gentleman from 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is correct. Massachusetts [Mr. HAYDEN], if he desires to be heard. 

Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana. Then I suggest to the'gentleman, and Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. Chairman, the purpose and objects of this bill 

I intend to support the bill, whether the effect of the amendment might are set forth in the bill itself. The intention is to reimburse Nathaniel 

not be to defeat the collection of this claim altogether? McKay and the heirs of Donald McKay for the action of the Govern-

~Ir. CULBERSON. I will state that the facts have been judicially ment during the years 1863 and 1864 in connection with the contract 

ascertained in the case of Douglas vs. The United States, to which I held by them. If the report should be read by the members of the 

have referred, that the proceeds of the sale of these two thousand and Honse, it will be clearly understood why these parties come here. at 

odd bales were paid over to G. L. Fort, a quartermaster in the United this time and ask to have the question of their claim sent for adjudicaStates Army, at Memphis, Tenn.; and that the quartermaster charged tion to the Court of Claims. 

himself npon his accounts with that sum of money, the proceeds of the I do not care to go into the details of the case unless it be necessary. 

sale of the cotton. He was charged a.t the T1·easury with that amount. It has been presented to the House and the Senate many times, and 

The money never went into the Treasury, but was expended by Fort was before the Home and -passed it on four different occasions, passed 

as qua,rtermaster of the Army, and under the direction of General the Senate six times, and at one time went to the President, but was 

Grant. vetoed for the reason that there was not sufficient protection to the Gov- Now, the court say, in the case of Douglas, that this fund, the pro- ernment inconsequence of the omission of a proviso which seemed necceeds of this lot of cotton, is constructively in the Treasury; and in essary and proper. Hence it was very properly vetoed. 

that case, as I understand it, judgment was rendered in favor of Doug- Now it comes, we think, with sufficient safeguards to protect the GovIas, not against the captured and abandoned property fund, but against ernment, and also to give. these people the right to go to the Court of 

the fund which was in the Treasury, by construction, of the proceeds Claims and present their case, and if the Government has done them 

of this property sold and turned over to the Treasury on the quarter- harm or owes them money, that it shall reimburse them and pay their 

-master's accounts. claim. That is the whole case; and unlesssomegentlemanonthe floor 

I have no disposition whatever to defeat or hamper in any way the desires further information upon the subject, I do not care to detain the 

passage of this bill; and if my amendment would accomplish that, I committee by going into the details of the matter. 

should not insist upon it; nor would I in any manner do anything to Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana. How much is probably involved in the 

prevent this claimant from obtaining his money. Bnt, as I stated in claim? 1 

my remarks when this question was :first presented, I want to save the Dlr. HAYDEN. It is· very difficult to say how much is involved. 

rights of the persons to whom this fund belongs. . There are three vessels. In 1863 these vessels were contracted for . 

.Mr. MORGAN. Is there not a large amount of money arising from The Government ~ontracted with the l\IcKays to build the vessels. 

this same source already covered into the 'l'reasnry? Changes were made in the plans of the vessels; they were to be comMr. CULBERSON. I am not aware of anything of that kind. pleted under the direction of the Government, and at an expense which 

Mr. CARUTH. Wbat is the gentleman's question? can be shown by eyidence to any court which will go into the par- llr. MORGAN.' I wish to know ifthere is not a la.rge fund arising ticulars. 

just as this did, out of this same cottoDt, already in the hands of the Gov- Mr. FELTON. That is the object of this bill? 

erment and covered into the Treasury? Mr. HAYDEN. Yes, sir; merely to send the claim to the Court of 

Mr. CARUTH. If the gentleman from Texas will permit me I can Claims. · 

answer by giving the exact figures. There is to the credit of that fund, 1\Ir. LYl\I.A.N. I have no desire or intention to oppose this bill in 

I mean this particular lot of cotton seized and sold at that time, $127,- any way; but I think there is one matter in which the in~rests of the 

461.11. ; Government are not sufficiently guarded. This matter was before the 

M:r. MORGAN. Thenanotherquestion. Aretherenotalargenum- War Claims Committee of the last Congress, of which I had the honor 

ber of claims against that fund? to be a member, and if I am not mistaken this bill was in my charge 

1\Ir. CULBERSON. Not that I know of. a.s chairman of a subcommittee. 

l\Ir. !\fORGAN. I understand that there are a large number of claims I There a.re several other similar cases. These vessels were built duragainst the fund; and if this claim is paid out of that fund, other claim- ing the war. and it is claimed that by the acts of the Government they 
1124 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 10, 

were compelled to cost more to the contractors than the contract price; 

amounting in this particular case to several hundreds of thousands of 

dollars. 

One of the questions in all these cases is whether certain vouchers or receipts given to the Government are not conclnsh·e. In this particular case, and in some of the others, receipts in full were given by 

the contractors. Now, it is claimed that those receipts were given 

under a sort of duress or fraud of some kind, and that they ought not 

to be binding upon the contractors. If they were given under the 

circumstances which the contractors claim, they ought not to be binding. But that is one of the questions which ought to be determined 

by th~ Court of Claims. 

I arq. willing now, as I was willing in the last Congress, that these 

claims should all go to the C~urt of Claims, to be tried there, but so tried as that the interests of the Government shall be protected when 

there. One of the difficulties which the committee experienced in the 

last Congress was so to prepare such bills as that the interests of the 

Government should be properly protected. 

I do not think this bill protects the Government sufficiently with 

reference to those vouchers or receipts. It appears to me if these claims are sent to the Court of Claims under this bill, those vouchers and re- ceipts are to be entirely ignored; and for the purpose of providing for 

that contingency I de,sire to present an amendment. 

The Clerk read"the proposed amendment, as follows: 

Add to the bill the following proviso: 

.And pl"O"I:ided jurthe1·, That the receipts or vouchers heretofore signed by the contJ:actors for the building of said vessels shall be considered by said cour~ as pr-ima facie evidence of settlement of and payment for the claims now made, but 

which vouchers and receipts may be shown by competent evidence to be pro- 't}ured by fraud or duress; and if such fraud or duress shall be established legally to the satisfaction of said court, the same may then be considered as not binding on the claimants." 

1\fr. LYMAN. I think that amendment will perfect the bill, and If 

it is adopted I will then be in favor of its passage. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. I would like to say to the gentleman 

from Iowa and the members of the committee, that there is no disposition, I believe, on the part of these claimants to take -any advantage of 

the Government; and I am sure there is no disposition on the part of 

the Committee on War Claims to do anything that would give them an advantage. But to adopt that amendment would put these claimants 

in the position of being suspected of doing a wrong. 

These receipts that they gave to the Government they were compelled 

to give. While there wa& not any particular duress about it, they were compelled to give them in order to get the amount of l!lOney they did 

get. Bn t the contract under which these vessels were constructed provides OJ! its very face that if any change should be made in the plans 

by which the work should cost less, these people are to get less; if 

changes were made by which the vessels are to cost more, they will be 

paid more. A change of plans was made and the work ran to an enormous ex- pense. The Government proceeded to settle. They said, ''We will pay 

yon the amount we agreed at first to payJ but you must sign the r~­

ceipt before you get it." - . I do not think the amendment is necessary. The gentleman from 

Iowa is favorable to the claim, and only wants to protect the Government; but I think by putting that provision into the bill you send 

these people before the court with the idea implied that they are attempting to do something that is not right, and I do not think the 

House should do that. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I call for the reading of the report. 

Mr. COX. I ask the gentleman from Indiana to waive. that for· a 

moment. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York. 

Mr. COX. I would like to ask the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. LYMAN] whether he would interpret or the court would interpret the 

word ''duress'' to mean an emergency in which a man ·needing . the 

money signed the receipt, or whether he would not limit the amendment by putting it in the language of the report, ''to treat-the receipt as prima facie evidence, but susceptibie of explanation by proofs." 

Mr. LYMAN. I am willing to accept that modification. 

Mr. COJf. Will the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. STONE] agrPe 

to that? 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. I will agree to that. 

Mr. LYMAN. Under the provisions of this bill these vouchers and 

receipts should not be considered. AU I desire is that such a provision 

shall be made as that the interest of the Government shall be protected. -

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. I suggest to the gentleman from Iowa 

[Mr. LYMAN] that be word the amendment so that it will provide 

that all sums 1·eceh·ed on these vessels shall be credited to the parties 

who built them, in payment of the cost of the ships. 

Mr. NUTTING. If this bill passes in its present form can not the 

Government introduce in evidence these receipts, just as they have 

them, and then, under the rule of evidence which now exists, the re- ceipts can be attacked by the claimants, and the rights of the Government protected, without this legislation? In other words, is not the 

gentleman asking here to have a particular rule of evidence applied in ~particular ca...~? 

Mr. ROWELL. The difficulty is that the bill itself provides what 

the Court of Claims shall consider. The interrogatory put to me by 

the gentleman from New York [Mr. NUTIING] is entirely proper, and 

if this case were going to the court for trial, as other cases are usually 

tried, there would be no difficulty about it, for this receipt would be 

presented and would be a complete defense on the part of the Government. Then under proper pleadings the receipt would be open to ex- planation on the part of the claimant; but my idea is that under this 

bill no such proceeding could be ha , because it indicates exa-ctly what 

the court shall act upon. 

Mr. NUTTING. Does the gentleman say that the bill provides that 

this receipt shall be conclusive? 

Mr. ROWELL. It does not say anything about it. 

Mr. NUTTING. Then, if it does not say anything about it, the rule 

of evidence already existing takes care of it. That is my point. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Let the report be read. 

'.fhe report (by Mr. STONE, of Kentucky) was read, as follows: 

The Committee on War Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2477) for 

the relief of Nathaniel McKay and the executors of Donald McKay, having con- sidered the same. make the following report: Your committee find that this bill has been favorably reported by sixCommit.- tees on War Claims on part of the House and eight of a like committee on part of 

the Senate within the pnst twenty years; that the bill )las passed the House four 

times, passed the Renate six times, and we adopt in the main the report.madc by 

the Senate and House Committees on War Claims in the Forty-ninth Congress 

and Senate Committee of the Fiftieth Congress, which i~ as follows : "In the winter and spring of 186.3 the Navy Department prepared plans and 

drawings for several light-draught steam iron-clad monitors, with specifications 

showing the dimensions, kind, and thickness of the plating, and submitted the same to various contractors for proposals for construction. 

"The time required in the construction was a material element in the contract, 

and none were made for a period longer than eight months. Some of the con- tracts were limited to six months." So material was the matter of time considered that in the contracts made for six months the contractors were to receive 

$395,000, while those whose contra.cts extended to eight months for complet.ion were only to receive $386,000, or at the rate of $1,500 per month less; but there was a provision in all contracts then made that if the vessels were completed in 

less time than provided in the contract the contractor was to receive an additional pay of $4,500 per month, and if the completion was d elayed beyond the 

period named the Government was to deduct from the contract price at the same rate-that is, $1,500 per montll. McKay & Aldus were contractors for the building of the light-draught monitor Squfl.ndo. to be completed in six months, the 

Department first satisfying itself of their facilities for doing the work in that 

time. 

··Donald McKay was contractor, and built the light-draught monitor Nauset, 

also the iron double-ender Ashuelot. 'I'he \Vashingt.on Iron Works, contractor for the machinery of the wooden double-ender Lenapee, is now represented by 

George M. Clapp. The Squando and Nauset wel"e identical in the original 

plans and in tlle changes and alterations thereon with the Etlah and .Shiloh, 

built in St. Louis. ·• Having accepted the undertaking to build these vessels, the several parties 

named made their 11rrane:ements accordingly, having the yards, machinery, etc., necessary therefor, and entered into contracts for the necessary materials, 

based upon the contracts with the Government, and commenced the work on the 

several vessels named. About this time Chief Engineer of the Navy Stimers, 

having returned from Charleston, where he bad been sent to make observations as to the conduct of Ericsson's monitors in battle, a con ultation was bad at the 

Navy Department, in which (quoting from Stimers's evidence)- .. 'The matter was discussed a.s to whether we had better build our vessels in 

strict accordance with the letter of the contracts which we were giving out, 

without any change whatevet·, or bad better take advantage of every such figllt 

and make improvements as we went along, although we fully appreciated that it 

would delay their completion and add to their cost. Assistan Secretary Fox made the remark that he thought following this course would probably entail an extr~co8tofa million of dollars for each battle where the monitors were engaged. "• Well, it was decided that that course should be followed. The contracts for 

thelight-draughtmonitors, of which the Etlab was one, had already been drawn, 

specifications, general drawings, etc., of the original plans, but we went immediately to work to make changes on them in accordance with what I have already explained as the policy to be pursued. You will understand, therefore, 

why it was that I should send constant instructions to Mr. McCord, directing 

him to make his vessel diffet·ent from what he had contracted to do; why I sen~ 

him dt-a.wings that differed from those specified in the contract-. You will find, 

too, that these might be very mater in I, as they certainly were. The acts, there.. 

fore. which I performed, which affected Mr. McCord and affect this case; were to direct him to make a different vessel fmm the one he contt·acted to do.' 

"Acting upon this theory, the Department commenced forwarding to the con- tractors orders for changes and drawings before even the keel was laid, and 

those changes, which in the aggregate aff'ected all parts of t·he vessel, making 

in the end almost entirely different vessels, were continued, and the drawings furnished therefor-for neal"ly a year and a half after the time specified in the contract for . their completion had elapsed, and from the 23d of June, 1864., fot• 

about the period of three months, work was suspended altogether upon these 

vessels, by the orders of the Navy Department, which had then in contemplation some general changes in their construction which required time to perfect. 

All of this time, however, the contractors were under heavy expenses for tile 

maintenance of the yards and men, whom they dared not discharge for fear of 

inability to supply their places, and not knowing on what day their services 

would be required. . "In addition to all this, the prices of labor and materials required for the work, 

and for which the contractors had made provision during tl1e time of the con- tracts, rapidly adva.nced, so that, as found by the Committee on 'Var Claims of 

the first session of the Forty-third Congress, iron, that at the date of the con- tracts was worth $65 pet· ton, advanced during the prolonged time to $220 per ton, and labor f1·om $2.50 per day to$! per day. "This committee ha,-e not, however, considered it nece <:ary to investigate the 

details as to amounts or percentage of such increase of prices, but are convinced 

that the cost of the work was greatly enhanced by reason of the delay c.'l.used by 

the course adopted by the Government· in these changes and alterations from the 

original pl11.ns. •· Chief Engineer Stimers, in his evidence in l\IcCord's case, states the cnse as understood by him and presumably by the Department, which had no authority to adjust claims for damages, as follows: 

"'Before expressiug an opinion on tbe matter as an expert., I must explain that 

the principles upon which the contractors of this, and the contractors of similar 

vessels were to be pajd were settled upon before I left the office, and I have al- ways understood that these principles were adhered to, and they were as follows: That we should pay for the contract work by making the contract pay- ments, or the payments provided for in the contract; that we should pay for 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.-HOUSE. 1125 

alterations and changes a proper sum, as might be agreed upon between the Government and the contractors at current rates. Now, that being the case, I consider that the Government is still indebted to the contractors of the Etlah, be- cause, although the original contract work has been paid for as originally agreed upon, and the extra work may have been paid for perse, the fact of calling upon the contractor to make the changes on his vessel and his compliance with those demands delayed him in the execution of the original contract work. This de. lay compelled him to pay the increased rates for labor and material which ob- tained at the time when the work was actually performed~ and although the contractor took the risk of a rise in prices when he signed nis contract, it wa.s only for a ris¥: during the period of his contract, or the period he would have required to perform the work if the Government had not delayed him by their direct interference. Now, whatever increase there was in the cost of the origi- nal work contemplated by the contract, due to the delay caused by the Govern- ment, that increase is now due, as there has been no pretense on the part of the officers of the Government to have paid it-. If you will determine the increased cost of material and labor of the original contract work during the extent of time when the contract was delayed by an interference of the Government to execute it, you will have, in my judgment, the indebtedness of the Goverument. There may be very large claims on account of extra work of which I know nothing.' 

"There seems to be no question that but for the interference of the Govern- ment these vessels would have been completed wilhin the time specified i.n the cont.ract; that these contractors had the means and the ability to do so, and that the heavy losses sustained by reason of the interference of the Government could not have been prevented by any reasonable prudcnceo1· foresight on their part, as the labor could not be anticipated, nor could t·hey pos3ibly know, from the frequent changes being made, the kind, quantity, or, in the case of the iron plating, the thickness or size of the plates to be used. The question of the duty of the Government to relieve the contractors for the building of these vessels has been repeatedly recognized by Congress. (Sloan, Report No. 17, Thirty- ninth Congress, second session; Senator Nye, Report No. 45, Thirty-ninth Con- gress, first session; Senator Drake, Report No. 163, Forty-first Congress, second session; Senator Nye, Report No. 37, Forty-second Congress, second session: A. B. Smith, Report No. 36, Forty-second Congress, third session; SenatorCra- ,:r:in, Report No. 124, Forty-third Congress, first session; Senator HoAR, Report No. 14, Forty-seventh Congress, first session.) 

"Congresses reported favorably on those bills, recommending the claimants such relief as they desired. Several of them have passed both Houses of Congress. •· In 1865 a board was appointed under 2, re30lution of the Senate, called the Selfridge hoard, which examined and reported upon numerous vessels. Their awards were not paid, but their discussion led to the passage of the act of :Ma1•ch 2, 1867, directing the Secretary of the Navy to investigate the claims of all contractors for building vessels of iron, etc., and to ascertain the additional cost incurred by them by reason of any changes and alterations therein, with the proviso : "• But no allowance for any advance in the price of labor or material shall be considered, unless such advance occurred during the prolonged time for com- pleting the work made necessary by the delay 1·esulting from the action of the Government aforesaid, and then only when such advance could not have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary prudence and diligence on the part of the contractor.' (l4 Stat., 424.) "The Secretary of the Navy delegated the matter thus submitted to a board, of which J. B. Marchand was chairman, and called the Marchand board. This board, perhaps for economic reasons, decided to confine their examination to the question of extra work, holding that the question of increased cost by reason of the delays caused by Government was one sounding in damages, and there- fore beyond the jurisdiction of the Department and not included within the act. "Claims were tiled by these contractors. but reported as' not considered within the province·of the board' (report contained in volume 10, CONGRESSIONAL REc- ORD, page 1504), nor were the claimants permitted to appear before the board on behalf of their claims. "In the Forty-first Congress, second session, a joint resolution was passed by 

Congress referring these cases to the Court of Claims, but failed to receive tile sanction of the President, on the ground that the bill as passed omitted the pro- viso contained in the act of March 2,1867, and above quoted, since which time various reports have been made and favorable action had by one branch of Con- gress or the other, but no general bill for the relief of these aed other contractors has become a law. "A majority of the contractors for the building of this class of vessels have, from time to time, received relief through Congress, b11t these claimants have thus far received no relief. Among tfiose who have been relieved are George C. Bestor, contractor of the Shiloh, by act of Congress (17 Stat., 733, 1873) appro- priating $125,000; Miles Greenwood (17 Stat., 764); S. S. 1\Iarchen, jr. (18 Stat., 

635); Donohue, Ryan & Co. (15 Stat., 353); C. W. Whitney (17 Stat., 671). Un- der act of 25th June, 1864 (13 Stat., 409), Ericsson was allowed ~1,070,438.93 for such increased cost. "These contractors also claim that they have not received full pay for the ex- tras furnished by them in the construction of the said vessels, aside from the main question of increased cost by reason of the delays. 'l'he facts concerning this branch of the case are as follows: "The frequent changes and alterations ordered by the Department on these vessels, and which, under the contracts, the Government had a right to demand by paying the extra expense caused thereby, occasioned a large amount of extra work, some of which was specifically agreed upon, and part of which was done under the orders of the Department without any agreed price. This extra work was recognized as being within the jurisdiction of the Department to pay, and the Department did pay a large portion of said extras, but did not pay all that the parties were entitled to receive. The accounts were made up in the Department without consultation with the claimants, and payments made from time to time until the last and final payment, when a voucher containing the words 'For work done which is extra to the contract, being the full and final payment on all extras, and in full for all claims and demands fo~; that work,' was presented, and which was required to be and was receipted by the claimant upon receiving the amounts specified in the vouchers. "This committee are satisfied, from the evidence before it, that the account for such extra work was not correctly adjusted; u.nd inasmuch as the said receipts are jJJ'imajaeie evidence not only of payment in· full for such extras per se, but may be construed to cover the question of the extra expense caused by the de- lays as well, therefore deem it just to all parties that the entire matter should be considered by a legal tribunal, with competent jurisdiction to hear and de- termine the question involved, and in considering such receipt to treat the same as pl·imafa<:ie evidence, _but susceptible of explanation by proofs, if any they 

have, showmg the real mdebtedness of the Government to them for such in- creased cost of such vessels beyond the contract price, and beyond the accounts ' paid by reason of such changes and alterations as evidently contemplated in th~ p:evious acts of Congress providing for. an adjustment thereof, upon the prmc1ple that when the Government has by Its acts caused its citizens perform- •ing labor for it to incur additional expense in its performance, such additional cost should be borne by the Government. · Your committee are unanimously of the opinion that the claimants should not be concluded by the voucher and final receipt in question unless it should appear in equity that they should be, and that the claimants should have their rights adjudicated upon the merits of their claim. 

Wherefo1·e your committee report the bill favorably and recommend that it do pass. 

During the reading of the report the following took place: 

Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the further reading of the' report. There is a 

great deal of conversation going on in the Hall, and the reading" of the 

Clerk interrupts it.. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. · The gentleman from Indiana [:hir. BROWNE] 

asks unanimous consent that the further reading of the report be dispensed with. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I object. [Laughter. J 

Mr. SPRINGER (at the conclusion of thereadingofthereport) Mr. 

Chairman, I called for the reading of this report, not for the purpose of 

offering any factious opposition, but to call the attention of the committee to its extraordinary character. This claim is an old one, well 

known to all who have long been members of this House. It is one of 

those oft-recurring facts that are familiar to all ge.:1tlemen who have 

paid attention to claims pending before Congress. It seems that this 

claimant will never be satisfied. Nothing will satisfy his demandsnot even a veto by the President and the failure of his claim to pass 

Congress after Congrees. Nothing seems to interfere with the steady 

pressure of this claim. From this report it seems that early after the 

war an act of Congress was passed, having in view the settlement of 

these claims. That law went into effect, and under it a board of commissioners was appointed. That board took all these facts into consid- -

eration at a time when they were comparatively fresh in the minds of 

those concerned, and when living witnesses could be had. That board 

met, deliberated, and decided. I mean the Marchand board. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Will the gentleman permit a question? 

Mr. SPRINGER. Yes. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Did not that board, or commission, sit with 

closed doors, and refuse to let the parties themselves appear before it, 

much less permit them to produce the witnesses? 

Ur. SPRINGER. I was not present at that board, nor have I any 

knowledge of what it did except that it was appointed in pursuance of 

law, that it discharged its duties, made an award in this case, and adjourned, and that the claimant received the amount that was awarded 

to him by that board and gavethereforareceiptin thefollowingwords: 

For work done which is extra to the contract, being the full final payment upon all extras and in full for all claims and demands for all work. 

That is the receipt that was given to the Government of the United 

States and accepted by the Government, and the money was paid. 

There is no explanation given why this receipt should be voided, but 

the committee report in this very general language: 

Your committee are unanimously of opinion that the claimant should not be concluded by the voucher and final receipt in question, unless it should appear that they should be, and that the claimants should have their rights adjudicated upon the merits of their claim. 

In other words, they say that these claimants are not to be preclnd~d 

by the receipt unless it shall appear in equity that they ought to be. 

Mr. LONG. Is not that-the ordinary rule of law? 

Mr. SPRINGER. I think not. I am willing that my friend from 

Pennsylvania [Mr. BucKALEW], who sits near me, should state the 

rule of law upon that subject. 

1\Ir. BOUTELLE. I would like to ask the gentleman why a claim 

is ·brought before Congres3 unless it is in order to obtain some relief 

which can not be obtained under the ordinary operation of law. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Of course, I understand that; but I want to call 

attention to this point: that there must be some time an end of all litigation between an individual and the Government; and that time in 

this instance was reached when this claim was referred to a commission 

created by authority of law, which commission deliberate~ upon the 

claim and made an award which was accepted by the claimant, a receipt in full having been given to the Government. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. The gentleman certainly did not intend to 

convey a wrong impression to the House, but he has stated that this 

bill has been rejected by Congress over and over again. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I did not say it had been "rejected "by Congress; 

I said it had failed to pass at many previous sessions. , 

Mr. 'BUTTERWORTH. I understood the gentleman to say that the 

claim had been reject~d; but the fact is the bill has been passed by the 

House five or six times, and by the Senate nearly as often. 

l\Ir. LONG. The bill has passed one House or the other fourteen 

times in all. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. And it simply was not reaehed at the last 

session of the Forty-ninth Congress. · 

l\Ir. SPRINGER. I did not say that the bill had been rejected by 

Congress; I said it had been before Congress at many previous ses.~ions. 

I did say-and the statement is sustained by this report-that the bill 

was once vetoed by President Gra.nt. . . . , 

fr. BUTTERWORTH. Not m thiS shape. My fr1end certainly 

would not convey to the House the impression that this claimant has 

been spurned from the doors of Congress and the bill rejected. 

Ml·. SPRINGER. I said that the claimant had been here session 

after session, and had not received what he was claiming, but still persisted in coming--

.. 
. 

/ 

1126 CONG!\ESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 10, 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. And it is a shame that a just claim should 

be postponed Congli ss after Congress, until :fina1ly the grandchildren of 

the original claimant are compelled to com~ here asking for what was 

the just dne of their ancestor. 

l\Ir. SPRINGER. I will call the attention of the gentleman from 

Ohio [Mr. B!JTTEP..WOF.TH] to this language of the report--

Mr. DING LEY. I would like to ask the gentleman a questio~ a·bout 

a matter of fact; for I want to understand the facts in this case. I understood the gentleman from Illinois to say that this whole question 

-was submitted to the Marchand board, who bad reported the amotmt 

of compensation to be paid, and that the claimant had receipted for this 

amotmt. Now, I ask the gentleman whether it does not appear by the 

report-it certainly does as I read it-that the question of the increased 

cost of the work growing out of delays on the part of the Government 

was not considered by that board, on the ground that that was a claim 

sounaing in damages, and not within their juri diction; in other words, 

that it was wHhin the jurisdiction of Congress. 

1\Ir. SPRINGER. The case was submitted to the board; the decision 

of the board was mane upon the law and the fac~, and the patty was 

paid under that award. 

1\Ir. DINGLEY. The gentleman will allow me to -say that, as I read 

the report, the· receipt given was not for the amount awarded by that 

board. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Well, the claimant did give a receipt, else why 

does the committee state that the receipt should not be a bar to his 

claim? 

1\ir. BUTTERWORTH. The receipt was given upon an express 

stipulation, although not put. in writing, that it was not to be conclusive 

as to the full payment of the claimant's demands. 

1\fr. SPRINGER. He did given. receipt, if he received the money. 

1\fr. FELTON. Suppose he did give a receipt audit can be proved 

that he receipted erroneously, when he was in fad entitled to more, 

would not n. court allow him to show that? 

Mr. SPRINGER. And so the claimant might come back time and 

again, asking one trial after another, lJ.lltil the end--

Mr. FELTON. He ought to be allowed to urge his claim n. hundred 

times, if he has failed to get justice. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Gentlemen will pardon me a moment. I shnll 

be glad to have them discuss this case when I am through, because it 

is one which ought to be discussed. It bas been discussed in Congress 

for the last fifteen or twenty years, but a little further light on it wm 

not hurt any body. 

Mr. BOUTELLE. Let me ask the gentleman a question on that 

very point-whether he understands that this Marchand board was authorized to take into consideration at all the equities of the casewhether it was not simply a naval board organized for· the purpose of 

reporting what was due this contl:actor under the specific terms of the 

contract, .and without any power to go beyond that? 

Mr. SPRINGER. I can only give the language of the report as to 

that. It says: 

This board, perhaps for economic reasons-

! do not know what the reasons of the board were; but the committee, 

giving a surmise as to their ..nature, suggests that they were "economic 

reasons "-the very best reasons in the world; and I hope this board 

will not be reprimanded by an act of Congress if it did place its decision 

on '' economic '' grounds. 

Mr. HAYDEN. Will the gentleman allow me a moment? 

Mr. SPRINGER. I would prefer togo on; but I yield tothegentleman. Mr. HAYDEN. I wish to make but a single suggestion-and I do 

not often interrupt any gentleman. Will not the gentlPman from Hlinois please read a few words more from the same semence of the re- port--.' . 

Mr. SPRINGER. I was trying to do so, bn~ gentlemen would not 

let me. 

Mr. HAYDEN (reading): 

Holding that the question of increased cost, by reo.son of the delays caused 

by the QQ\ernment, was one sounding in damages, and therefore beyond the 

jurisdiction of the Department. 

Why not be fair about this matter, my dear friend? 

Mr. SPRINGER. I will say to my friend from 11-Iassachusetts that 

I can not state at once all there is in this report. If be will bear with 

me a moment I will read the rest of the sentence, as I was proceeding 

to do. 

This board, perhaps for economic 1·easons, decided to confine their examination to the question of extra. work, holding that the question of increased cost by reason of the delays caused by the Government, was one sounding in dam- ages, and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the Department and not included 

within thcact. 

I hold that the board had a right to make that judgment and were entitled to act upon it; and if their reasons were "economic," so much 

the better for the board; and if the o~iect of this House is to be ex- travagant and reduce the surplus in the Treasury by allowing these old 

claims, so much the worse for Congress. I hope this House, in acting 

on measures of this class, will be actuated by some of these ''economic 

reasons'' which actuated boards appointed by the Government shortly 

after the close of the war. 

1\Ir. LONG. Is the gentleman prepared .to say nothing absolutely 

is due these claimants? 

Mr. SPRINGER. I am prepured to say from the information we ·bave--

Mr. LONG. Are you prepared to say nothing is due? 

Mr. SPRINGER. I do not know. 

Mr. LO~G. Why not., then, let it go to the courts? 

Mr. SPRINGER. I know it has been to the courts. 

Mr. LONG. No, never to a court. 

1t1r. SPRINGER. They ba.>e been to a commission. 

Mr. LONG. It left out part of their claim. They come now t-o Congress and they ask Congress to pass a bill for their relief. 

Ur. FELTON. Does not the report say there was one feature of their 

claim which the law did not allow ? 

Mr. SPRINGER. I know they decided it acc01·ding to the law and 

evidence before them, and therefore it is adjudicated. [Cries of 

r-'Vote !"] One moment before the Yote is taken. I have three-. 

quarters of an hour of my time remaining. [Laughter.] 

Ur. BOUTELLE. Y.ou are not going to take it all? 

Mr. SPRINGER. The more you interrnpt me the longe1· you will 

be in getting to a vote. It does not disturb me. It does not disturb 

my equanimity. . 

Now, sir, this report sbtcs tlut in the Forty-first Congress-that 

was some time ago. This is the Fiftjeth Congress. That was about 

fifteen or sixteen years ago. This report states thatIn the Forty-first Congress, second sC3sion, a joint resolution was passed by 

Cong-ress referring these cMeS to the Court of Claims, but failed to receive the 

sanction of the President on the ground tllat th e bill as passed omitted the pro- viso contained in the a ct of l\farcll2, 1 67, and abo,·e quoted, since which time 

various reports have been made o.nd favorable action ltad by one branch of 

Congress or the other, but no general bill for the relief of these and other con- tractors has become a law. 

It appears from this report that sixteen years ago the claimants in 

this ca..r.:e-because it must have been at their instance-! assume it 

was at their instance-secured the passage of a. joint resolution similar 

to this one now before us asking Congress to authorize these claimants 

to .go to the Court of ClaiiDS. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Do you say that act was similar to this? 

Ur. SPRINGER. I do not, because that other act did not contain 

what this act contains for the purpose of avoiding the objection made 

by the President when he -.etoed the other act. 

Mr. LONG. But that proviso is now in. 

l\1r. SPRINGER. Yes, we have the J>roviso now in. You are trying to evade the President's objection. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BOUTELLE. Certainly it is our duty to do that. 

Mr. SPRINGER. You are trying to eva® the objections of General 

Grant to this bill. You are trying to make it acceptable to the President. He at that time vetoed the bill on the ground I have stated. 

He Yetoed it sixteen years ago. We have it now up again with a proviso in it so they can go into the Court of Claims and show the loss 

they sustained was by reason of the delay in completing their contract 

and the incr&'lsed cost of materials by reason of these ·mrious delays. 

In other words, it seems this case is now to be decided in this Congress 

to give these parties all they cla.im. And we will be called upon to 

fix up a bill and tin'ker with the subject in order to remove the objections of the President and get to the facts by orne hook or crook; to 

invent a means by which these claimants can get nll the money they 

claim from the Government of the United States. 

I am willing in ordina-ry cases to do what the claimn.nts ask in reference to the adJudication of their cases. But I think when a man bas 

had his day in court that should stop his incessant and everlasting 

clamor at. the doors of Congress for further relief. But if gentlemen are 

disposed to open all these questions, if they are disposed to say nothing 

bas been settled since the war, if they are going to open up the claims 

commission at St. Louis and the navy-yards of the country, settled when 

the facts were in the mind of the people-if they are going to open them 

up, then our friends on this side of the Chamber before we reach the 

tariff bill will find there is no surplus in the Treasury to be anx:ionsove:r. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. What bill do you refer to? 

Mr. REED. What tariff bill? 

Mr. COX. The gentleman from Kentucky yields the floor to me. 

Mr. SPRfNGER. llefore I sit down--

Ur. COX. The gentleman has sat down, and I ask to "sit down" on 

him. [Laughter and applause.] 

M.:r. SPRINGER. All right. 

1\fr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I have never heard, since I have been a 

member of Congress, a more disjointed, incoherent, "ramshackle" 

speech than that which has just fallen from my friend fro~ lllinoi.i. 

[Great laughter.] And yet all that he foUnd to say pas been drawn 

from the report of the committee itself, which he did not gi•e in full, 

but gave in little parcels, little driblets at a. time, and did not give to 

the House in what he did select a. fair and, I was going to say, a decent 

opportunity to pronounce judgment. [Renewed laughter.] 

Ur. SPRINGER. Why, !demanded thereadingofthereportinfnll. 

Mr. COX. You did not give it in full. 

Mr. SPRINGER. The report was read in the hearing of the House 

on my demand. 

I 
.. 

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1127 

Mr. COX. And the gentleman did not pay any attention to the re- ascertain the fa-cts and to report them back to this House. But this 

port w1ile it was being read-- is not that kind of a bill. It is to send this claim to the court with 

Mr. SPRINGER. I did. authority to enter a judgment; and I have never favored the sending 

:Mr. COX. For at that time he was decorating me with his bouquet, of th.is class of claims to the Court of Claims for that purpose. 

which I have just returned to him with thanks. [Renewed laughter As to this particular case, the gentleman says my argument was notand applause.] what was the word? 

Mr. Chairm::m, the gentleman from Tilinois first gave out the idea 1\Ir. COX. Coherent. [Laughter.] 

that the bill had gone into the courts and had been discredited; then Mr. SPRINGER. He said I thought with-what was it? 

that it had been discredited by Congress, and finally, when it passed A MEMBER. With your heels. 

here, that it had been discredited by a veto message of the President. 11r. SPRINGER. That I thought with my heels and danced with 

But he took good care not to say in the :first instance what were the my head. [Laughter.] 1 

reasons for the veto; and then, when it is suggested thatwe now avoid Mr. ALLEN, of Mississippi. You have not remembered the best 

the reasons assigned in that veto, and make it acceptable to the man, points. 

Ol' the President who vetoed it, this gentleman, nfter thinking with .Mr. SPRINGER. The gentleman makes so many points no one can his heels and dancing with his head, comes to the conclusion that the remember all of them. His points areal ways good, and I ha\e a right, 

bill ought not to pa s anyway. [Great laughter.] And so he enters as my friend beside me says, to know whether they are good when he 

his serious objection to any reasonable conclusions which may be reached makes them upon me. by the House in reference to it in any shape. The gentleman intimated I probably wa.s a lawyer. I do not know 

Now, I know these people; I have seen them here for years. whether he meant that in earnest or not.· [Laughter.] The fact is, I 

Mr. SPRINGER We have all seen them. have not practiced law for some fonrteeu· years, since I have becu in 

Mr. COX. And the gentleman from illinois ha~ created the impres- Congress, and I believe the gentleman from New York has not prac~ 

sion, or was seeking to throw discredit upon the claim, although in point ticecllaw for twenty-six years. 

of fact it has fourteen times passed the two Houses or committees favor- Mr. LANHAM. I rise to a question of order. I hope all the afterably. . noon will not be taken up with the passage of witticisms between the 

It did not happen to concur in both Houses at the same time, and two gentlemen. 

once, when it did pass, in point of fact, it was vetoed by the President. Mr. SPRINGER. I am reaching the merits of the qne'1tion. , Why, this bill is not a bill to pay these claimants. It is a bill right The CHAIRMA.!~. The Chair bas endeavored to presene qrder. 

along in the line of the best thing the gentleman from Illinois ever did, Mr. SPRINGER. I want to say to this committee serion ly that 

and I will give him credit for it,· and that was to urge upon tlte Honse- this is not a question aa to how my thoughts run or whether I think 

upon Congress-a court for the adjudication of private claims. The with my head or my heels, or whether I haYe been a pra<.:ticing lawyer 

gentleman ltas urged that again and again with persistence and with for twenty-five years. But my friend from New York it seems can 

signal ability, and with what I may call good, old-fashioned, rounda- never treat a matter of this kind in a serious way. It has been treated 

bout common sense, which does him credit. [Laughter.] ·But when very seriously for fourteen or :fifteen years, and I hope H will be so 

we bring up a bill the object of which is to carry out his own ideas, he treated by this House, and that the House will say that this claimant 

comes up here and tries to break it down by a little detailed talk drawn shall not have the relief he asks. 

from the very report of the committee which concludes so handsomely. I do not think the claimant is entitled to this relief. I think he has 

Why does it conclude so handsomely? Because it comes at last right had aline ought to have had, nnd that this measure is more in the indown to the point-the matter of this receipt. terest of the lobby than of an honest claimant. 

The gentleman from illinois knows, if he is a lawyer, and I think I Mr. STONE, of Kentucky, rose. 

have heard that he was [great laughter]-he knows what the meaning 111r. SPRINGER. I ask the gentleman from Kentucky how much 

of that conclusion is; that in a.ll equity, in all fairness, in all common is involved in this bill? 

honesty, and in a forum larger than any commission, than any court, Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. If the gentleman from Illinois will 

than any Congress, or any veto message of the President, in the forum cease his opposition to this bill and allow it to pass and go to the courts, 

of conscience itself, a receipt can always be explained by evidence; and we will answer him judicially in a very short time. 

that man would be an unconscionable scoundrel who would take ad- Mr. SPRINGER. Is that all you can state in answer to my qnes· 

vantage of a receipt improvidently given, or when given under stress or tion? 

compulsion or in an emergency. I Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. It is all I propose to state. 

What they ask is simply this, that when the receipt comes into the Mr. SPRINGER. Is there any gentleman on this :floor who can tell 

court and the case of the claimants is thereby adjudged forever, ad- me how much money is involved in this bill? 

judged by theprimajacie receipt, that these men shall have the priv- Mr. BUTTERWORTH. All tbnt is justly due. 

ilegetovindicate,inallfai.rness,inallequity,inhonor. theclaimwhether Ur. SPRINGER. Does anybody else want to answer how much is 

the Government owes them anything or not. [Applause.] And then involved? 

let the court award them what the Government rea11y owes. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has recognized the gentleman from 

I now think a vote might be taken. [Laughter and applause.] Kentucky [Mr. STOYE]. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York Mr. SPRINGER. I do not know how much is involved in the bill, 

[Mr. Cox] has been very felicitous in his remarks, and nobody enjoys and ask the question for :information, but nobody haa answered it. 

his wit and humor more than I do, even when he putB forth his ability And I will state to the Cllair that I did not yield the floor. 

in that line at my expense. [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois sat down, and the 

I would be willing to bear it on every Friday from now to the 4th of Cbai.r then recognized i.he gentleman from Kentucky. 

July n~xt, and to hear the speeches from my friend even if they were :h'Ir. STONE, of Kentucky. I yield for one moment to the gentleall devoted to me, and that he should be as severe upon me as I know manfrom Maryland [M:r. SHAw] to offer some amendments. 

he has been or tried to be to-day, and yet I should not object, in order Mr. KERR. Will the gentleman from Kentucky yield to me for a that I might have the opportunity of still hearing his melodionf! voice question? 

and getting the benefit of his incomparable joke.S. .M'r. STONE, of Kentucky. I have yielded to the gentleman from 

But, Mr. Chairman, there is a matter more serious than that before Maryland. 

this committee. There is a question of public moment, business of Mr. SHAW. I make no opposition to the reference of the claim to 

public interest connected with this question, which demands consid- the Court of Claims, but rather to the language of the bill, and I send 

eration. to the desk some amendments which I th.ink will remedy it. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky, addressed the Chair. The Clerk read as follows: 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from illinois has been recog- In lines 18 and 19 strike out the words "which were not provided in the origi- n.ized. nal contract" and insert in line 18, after the word " work," the following: 

Mr. SPRINGER. Does the aentleman from Kentucky desire the "Pro1:ided, Such additional cost in completing the same and such changes oral- n terations in the plans and specifications required and delays in the completion floor? If so, I will yield to him. of the work were occasioned by the Government of the Un!ted States." 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. No, sir; I do not wish to be heard. i~ U~:~ :~~~~~~~rt~~d,:~?ri~ ~~~~o~d~.t~~n"f~~t;;_~;le." ~Ir. SPRINGER. I will give the floor to any gentleman who wants In line 27 strike out the words" contract between" and add the lette? "s 11 to 

to speak. the word ''contractor." 

Mr. COX. I don't want to talk any t?Ore. [Great laughter.] ti~s~'i,ne 28, after the word" alterations," imert "in advance 6f such alteraMr. SPRINGER. I will yield to my cheerful friend from New York In line 29, after the word "therefor," insert "Provided, Such alterations, when a part of my time, in order that he may have an oppol'tunity of hatch- made, complied with the specifications of the same as furnished by the Goving up another joke. I want to have an opportunity of laughing. ernment aforesaid." 

Mr. COX. I want to do J"ustice. In line 37 strike out the word" t<>'' and insert, after the word" allowance," in the same line, "whlch may." 

Mr. SPRINGER. And I will tell the gentleman "why we laugh," Mr. STONE, of_Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the friends of this bill 

as he has endeavored to tell the people heretofore. are rea.dy to accept the amendments as they have been offered. They 

Why does the gentleman state that I have advocated that this class simply go to explain, and to insert some words that are deemed neces- of cases should go to the Court of Claims? I have not done so. I sary by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. SHAW] to make the bill 

have favored bills sending cases of this kind to the Court of Claims. to mo1;,e explicit. 

. I 
1128 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 10, 

1\Ir. KERR. Will the gentleman permit a question? 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KERR. 1\Iy colleague from Iowa [Mr. LYl\IAN] said that the 

bill did not make thereceiptprimafacie evidence of the payment, and 

that he desired it so amended as to make the receipt prima facie evidence of payment .by the Government. Do I understand the chairman 

of the committee to suppose that the bill as reported from the committee allows the receipt to be introduced as p1;ima facie evidence of 

payment, and requires the claimants to go behind it and explain it? 

l\1r. STONE, of Kentucky. Well, sir, we believed tbattbe bill was 

full enough on that point, because the existing law is that receipts shall 

be taken into consideration in the adjustment of a claim; but the friends 

of the bill have no objection to the amendment of the gentleman from 

Iowa [Mr. LY:n.AN], becauseitissimplyareiterationofthelaw. That 

is exactly the position we occupy. 

Mr. Chairman, I bad said all about the bill that I intended to say; 

but the gentleman from illinois [Mr. SPRL'WER] bas found it convenient to ma'ke some remarks which are very unjust to the committee 

and to gentlemen who are in favor of this bill. He closed his remarks 

- by saying that this bill was more in the interest of a lobby than of any 

special claimant. 

_, Now: I don't know how it is, but if I wanted to find a man to be influenced I would hunt up a man whowasalwayssaying that somebody 

else was influenced. I have no fear, sir, ·of having it attributed to me, 

or to our committee, that we have been influenced by the lobby, and 

if any other gentlemen upon this floor who are at the head of committees, or occupying prominent places in the House, are so afraid that 

they will not be influenced ,that- they have to impute to others that 

they are influenced, why, I have no explanation to make for them. 

This claimant has not been here with any lobby. rhave seen him 

here for two Congresses myself, and no doubt he has been here for a 

good many Congresses; but if be is to be condemned because he has 

been trying to get Congress to act in the matter of his claim, that simply seals the fate of every claimant. If the simple fact that a man 

has been here asking Congress to let him go into court to establish his 

claim condemns him, then no claimant has any chance of justice from 

this Go-vernment. 

I tell yon, gentlemen, there is no lobby in this case. I have gone 

through the case in this Congress, and I know that it was examined 

in the last Congress by the gentleman from Tennessee [Jt1r. RICHARDsoN] and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. LYl\IAN], and I know that 

those are gentlemen who can not be iDfluenced by any lobby. I t is 

an imputation that the me}:nbers of this House ought not to allow to influence them for a moment, to say that the large number of gentlemen 

here who are in fa or of this bill have been brought to favor it by 

"influence." I am for the bill, M.r. Chairman, because it is right. I 

believe the claim is just; but even if I were not strong in that faith I 

would be willing to say to Mr. McKay, as I would Eay to any other 

claimant, ''You may go into court and try to establish your claim.'' 

I now move that the bill be laid aside, 'to be reported to the House 

- with the recommendation that it do pass. 

The CHAIR.M:AN. The question is first on the amendments of the 

gentleman from Maryland, which are designed simply to perfect the 

text of the bill~ Is a separate vote demanded upon them? 

A ME~ER. Let the amendments be read. 

The amendments offered by Mr. SHAw were read. 

The CHAIRMAN. In the absence of objection, the vote will be 

taken upon these .amendments in gross. 

The amendments were agreed to. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is now on the amendment offered 

by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. LYMAN]. 

The amendment was read, as follows: 

Add to the bill the following: !'And providedf'Urther, That the receipts or vouchers heretofore signed by the contractors fvr the building of said vessels shall be considered by said court ns p rimafaeie evidence of settlement or payment for the claims now made, but which vouchers and receipts shall be susceptible of explanation by proof show- ing the nature of the indebtedness of the Government and the circumstances under which the same were given." 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The bill as amended was laid aside to be reported to th2 House with 

the recommendation that it do pass-ayes 168, noes 15. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. LANHAM. I move that the committee do now rise. 

The motion. was agreed to. 

The committee accordingly rose; and Mr. Cox having taken the 

chair as Speaker pro tempore, M:r. HATCH, from the Committee of 

the Whole, reported that tbey•had had under consideration bills upon 

the Private Calendar and had instructed him to report the same to the 

House with various recommendations. 

ADJOURNMENT TILL MONDAY. 

Mr. MILLS. I move that when the House adjourns to-day, it adjourn to meet on Monday next. 

The motion was agreed to. 

ESTATE OF C. 1\I. BRIGGS. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (1\Ir. Cox). The first biil now in order, 

having just been reported from the Committee of the Whole House on 

the Private Calendar, is the bill (H. R. 4909) for the relief of the estate 

of C. M. Briggs, deceased. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. On that I move the previous question. 

J1.1r. SPRINGER. I move that the House now adjourn. 

The motion to adjourn was not agreed to. 

The previous question was ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The fhst question is upon the amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole, which will be read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

At the end of the bill add the following: 

"P1·01Jidcd, That said judgment shall not be paid out of the general fund in the Treasury arising from the sale of captured and abandoned proper~ but shall be paid out of the special fund charged to and accounted for by Capt.u-. L. Fort, as- sistant quartermaster at 1\Iemphis, arising fwm the saJe of 2,209 bales of cotton r e ceived by him, with which claimant's cotton was intermingled, said claimant to receive only the proportion which his cotton bears to the net proceeds accounted for by said Fort." 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The bill as amended was ordered to be engrossed and., read a third time; 

and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time. 

The question being on the passage of the bill, 

:M:r. SPRINGER said: I call for the yeas aDd nays. 

The yeas and nays were not ordered. 

The bill was pas ed. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky, moved to reconsider the vote by which 

the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be 

laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

NATHANIEL M'KAY AND OTHERS. 

The next bill reported from the Committee of the Whole House on 

the Private Calendar was the bill (H. R. 2477) for the relief of Nathaniel 

McKay and the executors of Donald McKay. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. I move the previous question on the bill 

and amendments. 

The previous question was ordered. 

The amendments reported by the Committee of the Whole House on 

the Private Calendar were agreed to. 

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

read the third time by its title. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is now on the passage of 

the bill. · Mr. SPRrNGER. I call for the yeas and nays on that question. 

On ordering the yeas and nays there were-ayes 15. 

The SPEAKER pro tempm·e. In the· opinion of the Chair one-fifth 

have not voted in favor of the call for the yeas and nays. 

1\Ir. SPRINGER. I ask for tellers on ordering the yeas and nays. 

Tellers were not ordered, only 18 voting in favor thereof. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I demand the reading of the engrossed bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is in order; the gentleman has 

the right to make that demand. The previous question has ·been ordered. 

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, if the House should adjourn now, would 

not this bill come up as unfinished business? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It would come up on the next day 

when the same class of business is in order-that is next Friday. 

Mr. MILLS. I suggest to the friends of the measure to let the bill 

go over until next Friday, as it will take some time to engross it. It 

will come up as unfinished business next Friday, and can be paSsed the 

first thing. I move that the House adjourn. 

The motion -was agreed to; there being-ayes 128, noes 37. 

So (at 4 o'clock and 20 minutes p.m.) the House, in accordance with 

its previous order, adjourned until Monday next. 

PRIVATE BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS INTRODUCED AND RE· 

FER RED. 

Under the rule private bills and joint resolutions of the following 

titles were introduced and referred as indicated below: 

By 1\Ir. ATKINSON: A bill (H. R. 6994) for the relief of Jearum 

Atkins-to the Committee on Patents. 

By Mr. BELDEN: A bill (H. R. 6995) gran tin~ a pension to Charles 

J. Burnett--to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 6996) granting a pension to Mrs. Jane A. Lesterto the Committee on Invalid Pensions. .... 

By Mr. BIGGS: A bill (H. R. 6997) for the relief of John W. Dorsey and others-to the Select Committee on Indian Depredation Claims. 

By Mr. T. H. B. BROWNE: A bill (H. R. 6998) for the ascertainment 

of the amount due the Pottawatomie Indians of Michigan and Indiana-to the Committee on Indian Affairs. 

By Mr. J. E. CAMPBELL: A bill(H. R. 6999) for tbereliefofStubbs 

& Lackey-to the Committee on Claims. · 

Also, a bill (H. R. 7000) granting a pension to Pboabe Castntor-to 

the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1129 

• 

Also, a bill (H. R. 7001) removing the charge of desertion against 

Thomas Hightower, deceased-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 7002) granting a pension to 1\!cGervey Price-to 

the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. CARUTH: A bill (H. R. 7003) for the relief of Samuel Castleman-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. CLARDY: A bill (H. R. 7004) for the relief of B. Guytonto the Committee on Military Affairs. 

.Also, a bill (H. R. 7005) for the relief of Jacob The by-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr . . CLEMENTS: A bill (H. R. 7006) for the relief of Robert 

Dillard-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. COCKRAN: A bill (H. R. 7007) for ~he relief of Juliet H. 

Palmer, widow and administratrix: of James C. Palmer, late SurgeonGeneral United States Navy-to the Committee on Naval Affairs. 

By Mr. COMPTON: A bill (H. R. 7008) fot· the relief of the estate 

of Emily A. Trundle, deceased-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. COGSWELL: A bill (H. R. 7009) granting a pension to Mary 

E. Bix:by-to the Comririttee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. GLA.SS: A bill (H. R. 7010) for the relief of William M. 

Henry-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. S. T. HOPKINS: A bill (H. R. 7011) granting a pension to 

Phebe Furman-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. HOWARD: A bill (H. R. 7012) granting an increase ofpension to James M. Herrington-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. T. D. JOHNSTON: A bill (H. R. 7013) to place the name of Delia Newman on the pension-roll-to the Committee on Pensions. 

By Mr. LYMAN: A bil1 (H. R. 7014) for the relief of JohnDunganto the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. McCREARY: A bill (H. R. 7015) for the reliefofLarkinH. 

Penny-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. MILLIKEN: A bill (H. R. 7016) granting a pension to Sally 

Dilling-to the Committee on Pensions. 

By .Mr. CHARLES O'NEILL: A bill (H. R. 7017) for the relief of 

Charles E. Behle-to the Committee on Claims. 

By Mr. PUGSLEY: A bill (H. R. 7018) granting a pension to John 

Hurst-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 7019} granting a pension to Jacob Stamm-to the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions. · 

. By Mr. REED: A bill (H. R. 7020) for the relief of Hannah Boynton-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. . By Mr. C. A. RUSSELL: A bill (H. R. 7021) to remove the charge 

of desertion from the record of Jonathan S. Colburn-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By 1r. STONE, of Kentucky: A bill (H. R. 7022) for the relief of 

Thomas Jones-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. WADE: A bill (H. R. 7023) for the relief of Henry Bennettto the Committee on War Claims. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 7024) for the relief of William T. Bettis-to the 

Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. WALKER: A bill (H. R. 7025) granting a pension to Evalina P. Brown-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. · By Mr. COMPTON: A bill (H. R. 7026) for the relief of Rinaldo 

Johnson aud Ann E. Johnson-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By l\1r. WARNER: A bill (H. R. 7027) for the relief of the heirs of 

Thomas B. Wallace, deceased-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. J. R. WHITING: A bill (H. R. 7028) to admit to registry the 

steamer George H. Parker-to the Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. McCO:UAS: A bill (H. R. 7029) for the relief of Samuel Ceasto the Committee on. War Claims. 

Changes in the reference of bills improperly-referred were made in 

the following cases, namely: 

A bill (H. R. 3603) to increase the pension of Maxwell Carroll-from 

the Committee on Pensions to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 3708) for the relief of P. H. Bridgewater-from 

the Committee on Military Affairs to the Committee on War Claims. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 3709) for the relief of Rosa Graves-from the 

Committee on Military Affairs to the Committee on War Claims. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 3876) for the relief of Jeremiah Rumsey-from 

the Committee on Pensions to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 4489) for the relief of J. M. Hogan-from the 

Select Committee on Indian Depredation Claims to the Committee on Claims. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 6782) for the relief of James Ballard-from the 

Committee on Claims to the Committee on War Claims. 

PETITIONS ETC. 

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

under the rule, and referred as follows: 

By Mr. ADAMS: Memorial of the Northwestern University and Garrett Biblical Institute, of Evanston, ill., for an int-ernational copyright law-to the Committee on Patenta. 

Also, memorial of same, for Icelandic representation at the United 

States Centennial-to the Committee on the Library. 

Also, memorial of same, for removal of duty on foreign books-to the 

Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. C. H. ALLEN: Petition of Charles E. Adams, P. J. Hood, 

A. G. Camnock and 247 others, citizens of Lowell, Mass., in aid of a public building in Lowell, Mass.-to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. 

By Mr. A. R. ANDERSON: Papers in the case of William Galtny 

to accompany bill-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. C. L. ANDERSON: Papers in the claim of C. G. Gilmer, of _ Joseph W. Stewart, ofMrs. Mary A. Rigby, ofJ"ames H. Owen, and of 

Turner Bobbitt, ofScottCounty; ofWiley A. Pullen, ofNewtonCounty, 

and of Turner Bobbitt, of. Scott County, Mississippi-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. BIGGS: Petition of citizens of Stanislaus County, California, 

for an appropriation to close "Laird's Slough" in San Joaquin River, 

California-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. 

By Mr. BINGHAM: Petition of citizens of Beaver Falls, Pa., for reduction of letter postage to 1 cent an ounce-to the Committee on the 

Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

A.lso, petition of the Philadelphia Board of Marine Uq.derwriters, for 

the improvement of the harbor of Vineyard Haven-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. 

By Mr. BLAND: Petition of Mrs. Nancy M . Murphy, for reference 

of her claim to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. BLISS: Petition forthereliefofMrs. Annie Bagley, ofBrooklyn, N. Y.-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. BROWER: Petition of farmers of Virginia and North Carolina, for ~he repeal of the entire system of internal revenue, and for 

other purposes-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. J. R. BROWN: Petition ofR. W. Youngandothers, citizens 

of Pittsylvania County, Virginia, for the repeal of the tax on tobacco 

and fruit brandy-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

Also, preamble and resolutions of the Farmers' Convention, held at 

Danville, Va., for the entire repeal of the internal-revenue laws, etc.-

to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. CARUTH: Papers in the case ofW. L. Carey, for relief-to 

the Committee on War Claims. 

Also (by request), petition of Jolin Buntin,· of Robertson County, 

Tennessee, and of Susannah Hardy, of Washington County, Maryland, 

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

By Mr. CLARK: Petition of citizen_s of Lawrence University, of 

Appleton, Wis., for an international copyright Iftw-to the Committee on Patents. 

By Mr. CLEMENTS: Petition of John L. Allison, heir of M.P. Allison, of Walker County, Georgia, for reference of his claim to the Court 

of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. COCKRA.N: Petition of Juliet H. Palmer, widow of James 

C. Palmer, late Surgeon-General United States Navy, for relief-to the 

Committee on Naval Affairs. ' 

By Mr. COLLINS: Petition from 190 woolen mills and worsted 

mills in the United States, and of 110 merchants in New York City, 

for the passage of the resolution introduced by Mr. C. R. BRECKINRIDGE for classifying worsted as woolen cloth-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. R. H. 11!. DAVIDSON: Papers in the claim of George Sinclair, of Apalachicola, Fla.-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. DAVIS: Petition of Warren Newcomb and 46 others, citizens 

and master mariners, of Wellfleet, and vicinity, Massachusetts, in favor 

of the establishment of a life-saving station in that town-to the Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. DORSEY: Petition of the Woman's Christian Temperance 

Union, for the repea.l of the internal-revenue tax on all alcoholic 

liquors-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. DOUGHERTY: Petition of clerks in the post-office at Jacksonville, Fla., for increased pay to certain post-office clerks-to the 

Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. ERMENTROUT: Memorial of G. H. Leahy, for reduction 

of postage on seeds, bulbs, etc.-to the Committee on the Post-Office 

and Post-Roads. 

Also, memorial of laundrymen of the United States, asking for the 

passage of the Mitchell anti-Chinese bill-to the Committee on Labor. 

Also, memorial of the American Shipping and Industrial League, 

for the passage of legislation to restore American shipping-to the 

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 

By Ur. FISHER: Petition and affidavit of John R. Eggemau, for 

relief--to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. FULLER: Petition of citizens of Iowa, for the passage of 

bill increasing salary of United States judges-to the Committee on the 

Judiciary. 

Also, resolution of the Iowa State Agricultural Society, for the passage of the Miller-Carey bill to exterminate pleuro-pneumonia-to the 

Committee on Agriculture. 
I' 

1130 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 10, 

• By Mr. GALLINGER: Papers 'in pension claim of Sally Delling- Also, papers in the claim of Morgan Jones, of ltfadison County, 

to the Committee on Pensions. Texas-to the Committee on War Claims. ~o, papers in the claim of Albert D. Spalter, to accompany House By 1\Ir. 0 FERRALL: Resolution of the General Assembly of Virbill 455-to the Committee 'On War Claims. ginia, requesting the passage of the pleuro-pneumonia bill-to the ComBy Mr. GIFFORD: Petition of the faculty of the university at Grand mittee on .Agricultw·e. 

Forks, Dak., for an international copyright law-to the Committee on ' By M:r. PARKER: Petition of citizens of Jefferson County, New 

Patents. York, for improvement of the mouth of Black River and Black River 

By Mr. GLASS: Petition of Zach. Bryant, executor of Zachariah Bay, New York-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. 

Bryant, deceased, of Gibson County, Tenne$See, for reference of his By Illr. ROWLAND : Petition of the faculty of Davidson College, 

claim to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. North Carolina, for the enactment of al}. international copyright lawBy Mr. GROUT: Petition of George P: Williams, for reimbursement to the Committee on P~tents. 

of 300 paid as commutation under the draft-to the Committee on By M:r. SHERMAN: Petition of Globe Woolen Company, of Utica, 

Military Affairs. N.Y., and 23 other citizens, for the passage of resolution of Mr. C. R. 

By Mr. J. S. HENDERSON: Petition of Thomas Ryan, John K. BRECKL'\RIDGE, cla ifying worsted cloths as woolen-to the CommitOakford, William Churchill, a committee in behalf of the baili1fs in at- tee on Wa,ys and :Means. 

tend!lnce upon the courts in the southern district of New York, for an By Mr. STAHL:t\TECKER: Petition ofthenatioualconvention ofthe 

increase of compensation-to the Committee on the Judiciary. American Shipping and Industrial League, faiYoring the passage of a By 1\1r. HERMANN: Memodal of the Board of Trade of Portland, tonnage bill-to the Committee on Commerce. 

Oregon, for n. public building--to the Committee on Public Buildings Also, petition of Margaret Z. Austin, widow of Thomas Austin, for 

and Grounds. a pension-to the Committee on Pensions. 

Also, petition of citizens of Lane County, Oregon, for a life-saving Also, petition of New York State Dairymen's Association, for a law 

station at Cape Perpetua., Oregon-to the Committee on Commerce. compelling exporters of oleomargarine to brand the same-to the ComAlso, petition of citizen::; of Siuslaw Bay and Lane County, Oregon, mittee on .Agriculture. 

for survey of bar of Siuslaw River-to the Committee on Rivers and Also, petition of same against any chnnge in the oleomargarine law, 

Harbors. and a sufficient appropriation to enforce its provisions-to the CommitBy Mr. S. I. HOPKINS (by request): Memorial of members of the tee on .Agriculture. 

Society of F1·iends in confi:n:ence at Richmond, Ind., in favor of a treaty Also, petition from a public meeting at Tazewell Court House, Va., 

with Great Britain to settle differences by arbitration-to the Com- against the remuval of duty on soft coal, ores, col\:e, etc.-to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. mittee on Ways- and Means. 

By Ur. HOUK: Petition of George W. Dice, administrator of Will- ,Also, petition on the subject of lard adulteration-to the Committee 

iam Brazelton, of Jefferson County, Tennessee, for reference of his on Agriculture. 

claim to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. Also, petition of the Laundrymen's National Association, opposing 

lly Mr. T. D. JOHNSTON: Petition of Delia Newman, for a pen- Chinese labor-to the Committee on Labor. 

sion-to the Committee on Pensions. By Mr. STEELE: Petition of the Eel Miami Indians, of Indiana, for 

By M:r. KETCHAM: Petition of Isaac Davis and 15 others, soldiei·s relief-to the Committee on Indian Affairs, 

of Hudson, for the pw age of the per diem rated service-pension bill- By Mr. E. J. TURNER: Petition of George W. Shoemaker and 23 

to the Cpmmittee on Military Affairs. others; of A. B. Loughridge and 16 others; of Richard James and 13 

By J\1r. LATHAlti: Petition of the Woman's Christian Temperance others. and of C. W. Rutherford and 15 others, citizens of Kansas, for a Union, for the repeal of the internal-revenue tax on all alcoholic government telegraph system-to the Committee on the Post-Office and 

liquors-to the Committee on Ways and Means. Post-Roads. 

By Mr. LEE: Petition of Francis Lambert, M. D. of Loudoun Bv Mr. VANCE: Petition from 1!>0 woolen and worsted mills of 

County, Virginia, for relief-to the Committee on Pension . the ~United Stl.tes, and 110 merchants of New York City, for the 

Also, resolution of the Legislature of Virginia, in favor of the bill to passage of the rc olution of Mr. C. R. B&ECKINRIDGE directing that 

suppress cont.agious pleuro-pneumonia-t{) the Committee on Agricult- worsted cloth be classed as woolen cloth-to the Committee on Ways 

ure. and Means. 

Also, papers in the case of Amelia A. H. Richards-to the Commit- By 1\fr. WADE: Petition of William T. Bettis, for reference of his 

tee on War Claims. claim to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

Also, petition of Hon. Lewis McKenzie, for expen....<&eS of certain con- By lli.WASHINGTON: Petition of E. A. Fort, of Robertson County, 

test-to the Committee on Claims. and of administrator of !l!atthew Anderson, late of Davidson County, 

Also, petitionofcitiz:ensofLoudounCounty, Virginia, reJatingto post- Tennessee, for reference of their claims to the Court of Claims-to the 

age on seeds, plants, bulbs, etc.-to the Committee on the Post-Offioe Committee on War Claims. 

and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. LONG: Petition of R. S. Douglass, and 53 others, citizens of 

Plymouth, .1\Iass., fur classifying worsted as woolen cloths-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

.Also, petitio of John W. McAnarney, W . .J. Strahan, and 65others, 

citizens of Abington and adjoining towns in Massa~husetts, for Government ownership of telegraph lines-to the Committee on the Post-Office 

and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. LYMAN: Petition of citizens of Carson, lowa, for an incrense 

of the pension of John Dungan, late Company D, One hundred and 

twenty-fourth lJlinois Infantry-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. McADOO: Petition of citizens of Monmouth County, New 

.J e1·sey, for limiting the catching of menhaden in certain waters-to the 

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fishing. 

By Mr. 1\IcRAE: Papers in the claim of Jesse L. Stapp, of Sevier 

County, Arkansas-to the Committee on War Claims. 

Also, papers in the claim of .James V. Skillern, of Arkansas-to the 

Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. MAHONEY: Petition of Peter J. Meehan, Henry Hayes, and 

others; of Michael Smyth, Thomas Finegan, and others, and of Wm. 

Keenan A. H. Hone, Charles Hanley, and others, citizens of New York 

State, for a postal-telegraph system-t{) the Committee on the PostOffice and Post-Roads. 

ny lt1r. MILLS: Petition of the faculty of Yale University; of College of New York; of Harvard University; of Colby University; of 

College of Charleston, S.C.; of University of Pennsylvania; ofWashington University; of Wake Forest College; of University of North 

Carolina; of College of Surgeons and Physicians of New York; of the 

State College of Kentucky; of Columbia College; of Brown University; 

of 1\Iassachusett:s Institute of Technology; of JohnR Hopkins Uni,·er· 

sity; of Harvard Medical School, Boston; of University of Texas; of 

Cornell University, and of University of Rochester, N. Y., to place 

books printed in other modern languages than English on the freelist-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

The following petitions for an inCl'ease of compensation of fourth-class 

postmasters were severally refened to the Committee on the Post-Office 

and Post-Roads: 

By Mr. DHOWER: Of citizens of Germantown, N. C. 

By M:r. CLEMENTS: Of R. M. Jones and others, of A. J. Leet and 

others, of J. G. McMicken and others, and of Mary A.. Tarv-er and 

others, citizeus of Georgia. . By 1\1r. ER1\1ENTROOT: Of A. S. Rathman and others, of Angelina, 

Berks County, Pennsylvania. 

By Mr. HOUK: Of citizens of Caril1ger, Monroe County, Tennessee. 

By Mr. ROWLAND: .Of citizens of Plyler, Stanly County, North 

Carolina. 

By ~1r. YOST: Of citizens of Koiner's Store, Augusta County, Virginia. 

The fuJ3owing petition, prayiDg for the enactment of a law providing 

temnorary ald tor common schools, to be disbursed on the basis of illiteracy, wn.s referred to the Committee on Education: 

By J\lr. SAYERS: Of Willmnth Mash and others, citizens of Bexar 

County, Texas. 

The following petitions1 asking for the pn~age of the bill prohibiting 

the manufacture, ._nle, and importation of all alcoholic beverages in the 

District of Columbia, were referred to the Select Committee on the Alcoholic Liquor 'lraffic: 

By Mr. BLAND: Of 112 citizens of the District of Columbia. 

By .Mr. FRENCH (by request): Of 101 citizens of the S cond dis· 

trict· of Connecti.cut. 

Dy Me. HITT: Of 152 citizens of the District of Columbin. · 

By Mr. LEE (by request): Of l::lO citizen of the Di trict of Columbia. 

By Mr. SAWYER: OfcitizensoftheThirty-fustdistrictof New York.