1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 321 

but return from executive session to consider the report, I have no The Clerk read as follows: 

objection. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine moves that 

the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. 

LmRARY OF CONGRESS, 

Washington, D. 0., December 19, 1876. 

The motion was agreed to ; and the Senate proceeded to the con- sideration of executive business. After fifteen minutes spent in ex- ecutive session, the doors were re-opened, and (at four o'clock and 

twenty minutes p.m.) the Senate adjourned. 

DEAR Sm: My attention has just-been called to a highly scurrilous assault upon 

you in this morning's National Republican of this citv. My purpose in writing this note ia to pronounce the assertion prefixed to that article, that one of the Li- brary attendants told the writer that the pamphlet referred to had been " stolen 

from the Library," a falsehood in every particular. Mr. Morris, the assistant who 

informed the Republican reporter of the absence of the pamphlet, informs me that 

the interview as printed is a base and willful fabrication. Its author, I unders~dJ 

is one A. M. Soteldo, lately of the New York.Free Lance, a journal devo00<1 

chiefly to libels. 

Very respectfnlly, A. R. SPOFFORD, 

H?n. FRRNANDO W oon Librarian of Ooogrus. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. I repeat that every charge, of every nature or char!J.Cter, which the 

WEDNESDAY, December 20, 1876. paper referred to has made is, like the one referred to by Mr. Spofford, equally without foundation. 

The House met at twelve o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. I thank the House for granting me this indulgence. I promise not 

I. L. TOWNSEND. to trouble it again about any matter so purely personal. 

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. CONGRATULATION FROM mELAND. I SENECA INDIANS. 

Mr. SEELYE, byunanimous consent, from theCommitteeon Indian The SPEAKER. The Chair desires to state to the House that he 

Affairs, reported a. substitute (H. R. No. 4257) for the bill (H. R. No. has information that there is in this city a gentleman who bears to 

2158) to amend an act entitled "An a{}t to authorize the Seneca Nation the people of this country from the Irish nation congratulations to 

of New York Indians to lease lands within the Cattaraugus and Aile- our people on this centennial year. 

gany reservations, and to confirm existing leases," approved Febru- Mr. HOLMAN. For the purpose of preparing for consideration of 

ary 19, 1875, and moved that the same be recommitted to the com- the House such expression as may be deemed appropriate in recognimittee and ordered to be printed, not to be brought back on a motion tion Of this friendly act of the people of Ireland, I submit the followto reconsider. ing preamble and resolution: 

The motion was agreed to. Whereas it has been announced to this House by the Speaker that Mr. John 

REFORM: SCHOOL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.. O'Conner Power, M. P., has been deputed to present to the people of the United 

States congratulations of the Irish nation on the centenary of American IndependMr. STEVENSON. I ask unanimous consent to report back from ence: Therefore, the Committee for the District of Columbia joint resolution (H. R. Be it resolved, That the subject of his mission be referred for consideration to the 

No. 169) authorizing the Secretary of War to supply blankets to the Committee on Foreign .Affairs, with instructions to report what action should in 

Reform School of the District of Columbia. their opinion be taken in the premises. 

The joint resolution was read. Mr. SWAN!:{. I rise for the purpose of seconding the proposition of 

It authorizes and directs the Secretary of War to deliver, for the the gentleman from Indiana, and I will state for the information of use of the Reform ..School of the District of Columbia, two hundred the House that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has already had this 

Army blankets from an yin his custody belonging to the United States. subject under consideration and will report upon it as soon as possiMr. WILSON, of Iowa. Is there a report accompanyiog that joint ble, in accordance with the instructions contained in the resolution. 

resolution f We have and will accord him all the courtesies in the power of the 

The SPEAKER. There is none at the desk. committee of which I am chairman. 

No objection was made to the consideration of the joint resolution, Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. I would like to ask the gentleman 

and it was ordered to be engrossed and read a t bird time ; and being from Indiana. if it would not be better to say the " Irish people" 

engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. rather than "nation f" 

Mr. STEVENSON moved to reconsider the vote by which the joint Mr. HOLMAN. Inasmuch as the term" nation" used in its general 

resolution was adopted; and also moved that the. motion to reconsider sense is not inappropriate in this connection, I think it may very propbe laid on the table. erly be retained. 

The latter motion was agreed to. Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. I am in favor of the resolution in 

any shape. 

CLERK TO A COIDIITIEE. Mr. HOLMAN. There is a sense in which the term "nation" is 

Mr. HARTZELL, by unanimous consent, submitted the following very properly applied to the "Irish people." . resolution; which was read, and referred to the Committee of Ac- I ask the previous question upon adopting the preamble and reso- counts: lution . .Resolved, That the CommittE'.e on Expenditures in the Treasury Department be The previous question was seconded. 

allowed a special clerk for the remainder of the session, to be appointed by the Mr. HOAR. What is the national authority deputed to this gen- ~~~~n thereof, lpld to receive the same· compensation as clerks of regular com- tleman y 

RICHARD H. FOUTS. Mr. HOLMAN. It comes from that portion of the Irish people who 

Mr. WOODWORTH. At the close of last session, when I was absent now reside within the limits of Ireland. He is their representative, • 1. 1 f th H th bill (H R N 280 f h 1. R" h deputed by them py general expression as a people; uy eave 0 e onse, e · • 0 • 7) ort ere Ief of IC - Mr. HOAR. In what mode is the deputation made or authent_i- ard H. Fouts was rAported npon adversely from the Committee on cated f 

Military Affairs and laid upon the table. I ask unanimous consent Mr. HOLMAN. By general popular expression, as we are informed. that it now be placed npon the Private Calendar. Mr. BANNING. I object. That is one of the subjects which will properly b~ considered by the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs. It is the expression of a people, not of 

PERSONAL EXPLANATION. organized government, as the country is informed. 

Mr. WOOD, of New York. I rise to a question of privilege. Mr. HOAR. The gentleman from Indiana. by this resolution makes 

No objection was made. the House allege aa a fact that this gentlemen has been deputed by 

Mr. WOOD, ot New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask the indulgence of the the Irish nation. Now it is proper, if the House is to assert that fact, 

House for a few moments on a matter personal to myself. that it should know it. The gentleman from Indiana., [Mr. HoLMAN,] 

It is the first time that I have obtruded anything upon its attention who offered the resolution, I understand does not know that fact. My 

of a merely personal character. question to him is, What is the national authority! And suppose 

A newspaper of this city has been made the vehicle for circulating the Irish nation should 13ay next week that they did not depute this 

false and calumnious charges against me. Most of these refer to busi- gentleman. ness transactions which took place over thirty years ago, and which Mr. HOLMAN. The technical point raised by the gentleman from were then refuted, and retracted by their authors. Those which pur- 1t!assachusetts [Mr. HoAR] is clear enough. 

port to have occurred since that time have been proven equally with- Mr. BANNING. Is debate in order t 

out foundation. · The SPEAKER. The demand for the previous question has been 

These facts are known or should have been known to the parties seconded. The question is upon ordering the main question. 

who are now reviving them, doubtless for the purpose of deterring Mr. HOAR. I would say to the gentleman that perhaps it would me from the performance of my public duties at this juncture. I have be 'T>etter to use the words ''alleged to be deputed." . risen, therefore, to say that each and every allegation affecting my per- Mr. HOLMAN.- There seems to be no ·question of the fact. The 

sonal integrity in these publications are void of foundation, that they term "nation" used in this preamble is manifestly a£! used synony- were originally created for purposes of blaek-mail, that ther were mons with the term "people." 

promptly met by me then, and completely refuted, without ytelding Mr. HOAR. Why not say so f 

to the money demands which had been made on me, and have been Mr. HOLMAN. I trust the resolution will be adopted in its present 

revived since by political and personal enemies for objects obvious to . form. There is no iinpropriety or ambiguity in the terms used. The 

every one. whole subject will go before the Committee on Foreign Affairs for 

I ask the Clerk to read a letter sent to me this morning, without so- consideration. 

licitation, from Mr. Spofford, the highly esteemed Li-brarian of Congress, The-main question was then ordered ; and under the operation thereof 

which properlycharacterizesthenatnreoftheseassaults,and the source the preamble and resolution were adopted. 

from which ~hey now emanate. Mr. HOLMAN moved to reconsider the vote by which the preamblo 

V-21 
322 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-ROUSEr DEOE!\fBER 20, 

and resolution were adopted; and also moved that the motion to re- consider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

FORT CAMERON MILITARY RESERVATION. 

The SPEAKER. The morning hour no'w begins at twenty-one 

minut.es before one o'clock, and the Honse will resnme the consideration of the unfinished business at the expiration of the morning hour 

of yesterday. 

The unfinished business was the bill (H. R. No. 4258) reported from 

the Committee on Military Affairs as a substitute for Honso bill No. 

2248 to provide for the payment for certain improvements on lands now embraced in the military reservation of Fort Cameron, in the 

Territory of Utah. 

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I can for the reading of the report accom- panying the bill. 

Mr. TERRY. There is no report accompanying the bill. A point 

of order was made on this bill yesterday, but I understand that the 

gentleman who made the point of order is willing to withdraw it. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair agreed with the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. CONGER,] who ·ma.de the point of order, that in case be was not in his sen.t this morning the point of order should be regarded as pending against the bill. 

Mr. TERRY. The gentleman was in his seat a moment ago. 

Mr. CANNON, of Utah. The gentleman intimated to me, after I 

had given him an explanation of the cbaracter of the bill, that he 

would withdraw the point of order. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Co"NGER] is now present, and the Chair would call his atrention to the fact that on yesterday he made a point of order against the bill pending at the 

ox1)iration of the morning hour. 

Mr. CONGER. I wit hdraw my point of order. 

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I would like to hear some explanation 

from the gentleman from Virginia [.Mr. TERRY] who reported this 

hill before I give up the right to make a point of order against it. I 

will reserve my ight to object until I hear the explanation . . 1\Ir. BURCHARD, of Illinois. Let the title of the hill be read, so that we may understand what it is. 

The SPEAKER. The Cbair will direct the Clerk to read the bill. 

The Clerk read the bill, which authorizes the Secretary of War to 

appoint a commission, composed of three Army officer~:~, whose duty it shall be to investigate the claim of ,V, J. Allred and Alonzo A. Noon 

for improvements made upon lands now embraced in the military res- ervation at Fort Cameron, in the Territory of Utah, and to estimate 

:mel report upon the value of said improvements. In making such 

estimate of value of improvements, the hoard of officers may take into 

consideration the proceedings of a board of officers who as em bled at 

l''ort Cameron February 15, 1875, and such other evidence as may be 

brought before them, and report also upon the title of the claimants 

to the land embraced in the reservation. 

Mr. TERRY. Prior to the location of this reservation, these claim- ~mts allege that they were bona fide settlers upon this land and had 

made improvements upon it. After the reservation was located there, 

the post commander appointed B. commission to estimate the value of 

these improvements in order that the claimants might come before 

Congress and obtain payment for the same. It is conceded that the 

post commander bad no right to appoint a commission for this pur- • po e. The original bill provideclfor paying these claimants for these 

iwprovements, b~t the Committee on Military Affairs have deemed.it 

right to report, not a bill in favor of paying these claimants, but a bill 

authorizing the Secretary of War to appoint a commission of Army 

officers to go upon the reservation and a,scertain first whether these 

claimants had any title, and, if so, what compensation should be paid 

to them for their improvement . .Mr. HOLMAN. I desiretomakea single suggestion upon the point 

of order which I understand is still pending. 

The SPEAKER. It is held in abeyance. 

Mr. HOL.MA..N. I desii·e to call attention to the fact that it has 

been uniformly held that even the reference of a claim to the Court 

of Claims comes within the rule. Although that claim may not again come before the Hou e for actiob, it might result in making an appropriation or requiring one to be made. So in the case of cre~ting 

an office; the bill creating or establishing the office makes no appropriation for it, but it probably would involve an appropriation of 

money, and on that account it has been held that bills of that class 

are subject to the point of order. I would call attention to Rule 112, on page 191 of the rules of the Honse, which is as follows: 

All proceedings touching appropriations of money, and all bills making appropri- ations of money or property, or reqniring such appropriations to be made, or au- thorizing payments out of appropriations already made, shall be first discussea in a Comnuttee of the Whole Rouse. 

The term made use of in this rule bas resulted in the class of decisions to which I refer. This is a proceeding touching the appropriation of money; that is to say, it may involve such an appropriation and probably will; and when a measure so nearly involves an appropriation of money as woulll the reference of a. bill to the Court 

of Claims or the creation of an office, then of course the subject must 

be referred under the rule to the Committee of the Whole. 

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. But, Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman 

from Indiana will see that when this report is made by this board and 

a bill based on tbe report is brought into the Honse, the point may 

then be made against the bill; but I do not think it necessary to insist on the point of order now. 

The SPEAKER. .As the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. WILSON] who 

made the point of order does not insist upon it, the Chair understands 

that tbe bill is before the House free from the operation of the point 

of order. ~ 

Mr. KASSON. Is it in order, then, to offer an amendment! 

The SPEAKER. It is. 

Mr. KASSON. I SUti<Test, then, to the gentleman having charge of 

the bill that after the clan e providing for the reception by the board 

of such evidence as may !Je brought before them, the words "or may 

be obtained by them" sbonld he a<ldecl. As I understood the bill 

from the reading, it provides for the consideration of two items' of 

evidence. First, the report of the former commission; secondly, the 

evidence that may be brought before them. I think the board ought 

also to have the power to obtain evidence, which seems to be excluded 

by the present language of the bill. 

Mr. TERRY. I have no objection to adding any language which 

will make the bill more effective. 

Mr. KASSON. I move then to insert after the words "such other 

evidence as may be brought before them" the words "or may be obtained by them. 

Mr. TERRY. There is no objection to that amet;tdment. 

The SPEAKER. Iu the absence of objection, the Chair will regard 

the amendment as part of the text of the bill. The question is on ordering the bill to he engrossed and read the third time. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I hope the bill will be read as amended. As I un- derstand, there is no allegation that these parties had any right to 

settle on these lands. ·I do not understand that tbey were pre-empt- ora or homesteaders. 

'The bill, as amended, was read. 

Mr. CANNON, of Utah. Mr. Speaker, at the time this fort or re er- vation was located at Beaver these parties were settlers on this land1 

cultivating it. They had taken the steps necessary to secure a Government t.itle to it. They had been occupying the land for orne time. 

Colonel Sheridan, underthe directions of Lieutenant-General Sheridan, 

went down and located l!..,ort Cameron at Beaver, in Utah Territory. 

After the location of the fort at this point a board of officers was em- powered to sit and value the improvements that bad been malle by 

the original settlers, who bad been dispo sessed of the occupancy of 

the land for the purpose of a military reservation. That hoard of 

officers did sit and value the land; they received testimony, and the proceedings were submitted to the War Department. 

When these parties called at the War Department to have their 

claims settled, they were told that there were no funds with which to 

settle the claims; and they were referred to Congre s. A bill wa introduced in this House early last session to furnish the funds nece sary 

to pay these claimants ; but, upon examination of the case by the 

Committee on Military Affairs, it wa..s found that there was a defect in 

this proceeding; that the board of officers had sat without authority 

from the commander of the Department of the Platte. Therefore the 

Committee on .Military Affairs deemed it proper to pre eut thi b;ll, authorizing the Secretary of War to appoint a new board, who shall 

sit and take into consideration the evidence that was pre en te-d to the 

previous board. . Mr. HOLMAN. The principal question here is as to the nature of 

the claim of these partie to this land, whether they occupied it under 

the homestead or pre-emption laws, or by some other mode. If they were mere squatters on this land, without any authority, the Government of course would not be responsible for the value of any improvements which they may have made. Now, if they had taken up 

this land under the homestead or pre-emption law, how could their 

claim be divested by the action of the military authorities Y 

Mr. CANNON, of Utah. It is well known that for twenty-five years 

settlers in Utah Territory bad no title to their lands except that of 

squatters. I am not informed whether this land bad been surveyed or not. But if they bad no title to the land if they were without 

title and did not ent.er the land when they had opportunity, that 

matter can of course be taken into consideration by t.lris board. My 

impression, however, is that these two persons ha-d taken every step 

that they could take under the circumstances to secure themselves a title to the land. 

Mr. TERRY. To meet the very difficulty which the gentleman 

from Indiana [Mr. HoL IAN] suggests, this substitute provides that 

this board of officers shall inquire into the title of these claimants. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I had supposed that this information could be obtained very readily from the General Land Office, thus avoiding perhaps the expenditure of a very large sum of money. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

Mr. TERRY moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was pa.ssed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. , The latter motion was agreed to. 

ROBERT H. FLAVELL. 

11-Ir. TERRY, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported back, 

with an amendment, the bill (H. R. No.1688) for the relief of Robert 

ll. Flavell, sergeant Company F, Seventh Missouri. 
' 

1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 323 

The bill, which was read, directs the Secretary of the Treasury to 

pay to Robert H. Flavell, late sergeant Company F, of the Seventh 

Regiment of Missouri Volunteers, the sum of $99.80 for extra pay for 

services from April 5, 1863, to May 71 1863, and commutation for loss 

of clothing and personal effects by sinking of steamer Tigress while 

running the blockades of Vicksburgh, Warrenton, and Grand Gulf, 

the latter amounting to $82.80; such payment to be in full satisfa.ction of all demands by said Flavell for said matters and to be made 

out of moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 

The amendment of the committee was read, as follows: 

In line 6 strike out '' $98.80," and in lieu thereof insert "$40.30." 

The amendment 'wa-s .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. TERRY moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill, as amended, was pa.ased; and also moved that the motion to reconsider 

be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

I .ADVERSE REPORTS. 

Mr. TERRY also, from the same committee, moved that the com- mittee be dischar~ed from the further consideration of the following 

joint resolution, bills, petitions, and memorials, and that the same be 

)aid on the table; which motion was agreed to: 

A bill (H. R. No. 2788) for the relief of certain settlers on the Camp 

Lowell military reservation, Territory of Arizona; 

A bill (H. R. No. 2554) to extend the time within which the Court 

of Claims may hear and determine the claims of the officers and soldiers of the late war, growing out of services therein; 

A bill (H. R. No. 52) to pay certain persons therein specified for 

horses illegally taken from them by officers of the United States; 

A bill (H. R. No. 2605) for the relief of Thomas B. Doe, of Virginia; 

A bill (H. R. No. 3082) for the relief of Richard T. Jacob, jr., lieutenant Sixth United States Infantry; 

A bill (H. R. No. 2789) for the relief of Charles A. Luke; 

A joint resolution (H. R. No. 67) authorizing the Secretary of War 

to detail and assign to duty Army officers in connection with the cen- tennial exposition; 

A bill (H. R. No. 3724) for the relief of First Lieutenant J.A. Yeckley, Twentieth United States Infantry; 

A bill (H. R. No. 227) to equalize the credits of officers of the Army in computing longevity allowance of,pay; 

A bill (H. R. No. 1293) for the relief of Albert G. Peabody, jr. ; 

A bill (H. R. No. 1004) to provide for the removal of the Walla 

Walla, Cayuse, and Umatilla Indians from the Umatilla reservation 

in Oregon, and for the sale of their lands ; 

A bill (H. R. No. 2497) granting an honorable discharge to Benjamin F. Trine, Company A, Second Battalion, Fifteenth United States 

Infantry; 

A bill (H. R. No. 2891) for the relief of ElizaJ. Font, widow of Jeremiah Keeton, late of Company D, Second Virginia Cavalry; 

A bill (If. R. No. 3155) for the relief of James Richardson, late a private in Company E, Thirteenth Indiana Volunteer Cavalry; 

A bill (H. R. No. 2350) for the relief of Lieutenant Mason Carter, 

United States Army; 

A bill (H. R. No. 4099) for the relief of Lieutenant Thomas Nugent, 

Company H, Twenty-seventh Indiana Volunteers; 

A bill (H. R. No. 3806) for the relief of Edward Corselius, Colby 

Short, James W. Jubb, Sylvanus Avery, J. J. Hosmer, George Hopkins, 

W. M. Wright, W. E. Clark, G. W. Cramton, M. McDermott, E. Allen, 

late ~embers Michigan Veteran Volunteer Cavalry; 

A bill (H. R. No. 2917) to restore C. T. Speer, of Colorado Territory, 

to his rank and position as second lieutenant in the Eleventh United 

States Infantry; 

The petition of First Lieutenant James M. Bell, Seventh Cavalry, 

United States Army, for pay for loss and damage to property in transit 

while changing stations from Fort Lincoln, Dakota Territory, to 

Shreveport, Louisiana; 

The memorial of the disabled volunteer officers late of the Union 

volunteer Army, now·at the National Home of Disabled Volunteer Soldiers at Dayton, Ohio, relative to the inequality in the pay of retired 

officers and pensioned officers of corresponding rank and disability; • The petition of William Mosely, late a hospital steward, United 

States Army, requesting that the cause of his discharge from the serv- ice (before expiration of term of service) may be investigated; and 

Petition of William Geisel, lat-e second lieutenant Company C, Sixth 

Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 

TRADL~G ESTULlSHMENTS AT :MILITARY POSTS. 

Mr. BANNING, from the same committee, moved that that committee 

be discharged from the further consideration of a bill (H. R. No. 2564) 

to prevent monopoly and exorbitant charges in trade establishments 

at military posts and to secure good order at the same, and. that the same be laid on the table; which motion was agreed to. 

ARMY PROPERTY AND MO:NEY DEPARTMENTS. 

Mr. BANNING also, from the same-committee, moved that that com- mittee be discharged from the further consideration of a bill (H. R. No. 

2530) to re-organize the property and money departments of the Army, 

and for purposes connected therewith, and that the same be laid on the table; which motion was agreed to. 

SERVICES OF MONTANA VOLUNTEERS. 

Mr. BANNING also, from the same committee, reported back, with an ad verse recommendation, the bill (H. R. No. 3995) to authorize the 

President of the United States to accept the services of Montana Volunteers for the suppression of Indian hostilities ; and moved that the 

committee be discharged from the further consideration of the same, 

and that it be laid on the table. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state to the gentleman from Ohio 

and to the House that in case of adverse action by a committee on any matter referred to them it is the rule that there should be a re- port. That is the only way in which Congress is protected against 

acting favorably at some future time on a bill which had previously 

been reported upon adversely. 

The motion of Mr. BANNING was agreed .to. 

CAPTAIN EDWARDS. MEYER. 

1\Ir. BANNING. I am also instructed bytheCommitteeon l\Iilitary 

Affairs to report that the committee have had under consideratien the 

message from the President of the United States assigning reasons for 

not approving the bill (H. R. No. 36) to restore Captain Edward S. 

Meyer to the active list of the Army. This bill passed the House, 

passed the Senate, went to the President, and was vetoed. The com- mittee concnr in the veto message of the President, and instruct me to report back the bill with the recommendation that it lie upon the 

table. 

The message of the President was as follows : 

To the H01.1.8e of Representatives: 

For the reasons stated in the accompanying communications submitted to me by 

the Secre~ of War, I have the honor to return herewith, without my approva[. 

House bill No. 36, entitled "An act to restore tho name of CaptainEd wardS. Meyer to the active list of the Army." 

U.S. GRANT. 

EXECUTIVE MA.."l"SION, August 14, 1876. 

[H. R. 36.-44th Congress, 1st session. I 

In the Senate of the United States, July 14, 1876.-Read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Military Affairs. 

An act to restore the name of Captain Edward S. Meyer to the active list of the · Army. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 

America in Congress assembled, That the President be, and he hereby is, authorized to restore to the active list of the Army the name of Captain Edward S. Meyer, of 

the Ninth Reaimentof Cavalry, who was retired on the 24th day of August, 1872, for reason of phYsical disability, resulting from wounds received at the battle of Chanoollorsville, from which he has since sufficiently recovered to return to aotive duty, 

and to assign him to any vacancy in his grade now existing, or which may hereafter occur, in anv of tho ca~a.lry regtments of the Army : Provided, That the time that 

he has been· on the retired 'list not be counted in his service in giving promotion. 

MILTON SAYLER, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives pro tempore. 

T.W.FERRY, 

President of the Senate pro tempore. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, 

1 Washington Oit'lj, August 4, 1876. 

SIR: I have the honor to return House bill 36, "to restore the name of Captain EdwardS. Meyer to the active list of the Army," and beg to invite yonr attention to the inclosed report of the Adjut.'Ult-Genoral of this date, stating objections to the approval of the bill. 

Very respectfully, yonr obedient servant, 

The PRESIDF.NT. 

J.D. CAMERON, 

Secretary of War. 

ADJUTA..lli"T·GENERAL'S OFFICE, 

August 4, 1876. 

Respectfully returned to the Secreta.ry of War.-

Edward S. Meyer served as a private in the Fourth Ohio Volunteers (three 

months) from May 4, 1861, to August 18, 1861. He again enlisted as private Nineteenth Ohio Volunteers, September 10, 1861, was promoted first lieutenant Novem· 

ber 1, 1861, and resi~ed September 27, 1862. He was commissioned captain One 

hundred and sevenm Ohio Volunteers November 11, 1862; was wounded at Chan· 

cellorsville, Virginia, May 2, 1863, and discharged for physical disability January 1, 1865. He was again mu tered into service February 8, 1865, as major Fifth United 

States Veteran Volunteers, (Hancock's Corps,) and mustered out March 20, 1866. 

Was brevetted lieutenant-colonel, colonel, and brigadier-general of volunteers 

March 13, 1865. 

He was a:ppointed captain Thirty-fifth United States Infantry July 28, 1866; became unass1gned Augnst 12, 1869 ; assigned to Nineteenth Infantry August 5, 1870; 

and transferred to Ninth Cavalry January 1, 1871. Retired Augnst 24, 1872. 

July 8, 1869, Captain Meyer applied for retirement on account of wounds received at Chanoellorsville May 2, 1863, by which he wa.s incapacitated for active servicfl. 

No action was then had on the request, pending action by Congress reducing the 

Army. 

October 6, 1869, he asked to be placed on waiting orders, being unfit for duty, and no possibility of improvement without going North. He was accordingly relieved 

from dutv and ordered home to await orders. 

December 18, 1869, he called on the Secretary of War and asked to be assigned to 

dJti;.uary 4, 1870, he again applied to be assigned to dntv with some regiment on the frontier, stating that his wound had healed, &c., ancf asking to withdraw his 

previous request for retirement; this was accompanied by a similar request from 

his father, Mr. S. Meyer, of Ohio. 

July 29, 1870, he applied the third time to withdraw application for retirement 

and to be assigned to duty. On January 1, 1871, iu accordance with his repeated 

requests to be assigned to duty, he was assigned to the Ninth Cava.lrr, serving in 

Texas. He joined the regiment, and on March 4, 1872, he renewed his former re- quest to be ordered before a retiring board, stating that he found his injuries would not allow him to remain on do~ on the frontier; that his disability was consta.ntlv 

increasing, &c. The medical director of the department approved the request, ann added that Captain Meyer's wounds certainly unfitted him for service ou the front· 

ier. 

April13, 1872, Senator SHERMAN joined in requesting retirement of Captain Mever. 

He was ordered before the retiring board, and on Augnst 20, 1872 was examined. The 

b<>ard found Captain Meyer incapacitated for active service, and that said incapacity 
:324 CONGRESSIONAL- RECORD-HOUSE. DECEMBER 20, 

resn1ts from a gun-shot wound received in his lower jaw at the battle of Cbancellorsville, Virjtinia, May 3, 1863, when captain in One hundred and seventh Ohio 

Volunteers. He wM retired in accordance with th0 finding. · March 21 and December 6, 1873, Captain Meyer asked restoration to active serv- ice and re-appointment as a captain of cavalry, which application was disapproved 

by the General of the Army. Pending the action on the bill before Congress, no reports were called for, as to the official facts of record in the War Department, and no evidence has been filed 

in this office showing that be bas sufficiently recovered. 

The absence of such evidence, and the fact that after one as ignment to ootive 

duty he bas failed to be sufficiently recovered, are submitted as objections why the 

ill should not be approved. 

' 

· E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant-General. 

Mr. BANNING. The recommendation of the committee is that the 

bill and message do lie on the table. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair is of opinion that under the Constitution the yeaa and nays must be called. The language of the Constitution is very clear on this point. It says: 

' Every bill which shall have pa ed the House of Representatives and the Senate, 

shall, before it become a L'1w, be presented to the President of the United 8tates; 

if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it with his o~iections to that House in which it sliall have originated, who shall enter the objectionR at U\r~e 

on their Journal, and ]Jroceed to recon ider it. If after such reconsideration two- thirds of that House shall a,aree to pru s the bill, it shall be ent, togethenrith the 

objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be recon idered, antl if 

approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall become a law. Bot in all ca..~e.s the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the 

persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House 

respectively. 

· Under that provision of the Constitution the Chair rules that in all cases of action by the Honse upon a veto message the yeas and nays 

must be taken. 

Mr. BANNING. I was about to suggest to the Chair, but the suggestion I suppose is too late now, that this has not been the practice. I 

call the Speaker's attention to Barclay's Digest, page 2'26, which says: 

A veto message and bill may be referred, or the message alone and the bill may 

be laid on the table. 

In addition to this, I find in the Journal of this House of August 

10, 1841, page 1256, the House having under consideration a veto 

messageA motion was made by Mr. James Cooper that the bill do lie on the table. 

Mr. William Cost Johnson objected to this motion as not in order, 

for that, according to the Constitution, the Honse must proceed to 

the reconsideration of said bill. The Speaker decided the motion to 

lay on the table was in order. From this decision Mr. William Cost 

Johnson appealed to the House, which appeal was, on motion of Mr. 

Fillmore, ordered to lie on the table, and the opinion of the Spea.ker 

stands. The question was then put that the bill do lie on the table, 

and passed in the affirmative-yeas 97, nays 73. 

Mr. HOAR. I desire, Mr. Speaker, to suggest whether, as the yeas 

and nays must be clearly called upon the question under the n1ling 

of the Chair, it is not better to put the question, ''Shall the bill paas 

notwithstanding the objections of the President f" 

It is true that the motion to lay on the table is nuder our usages a method of final disposition of such a measure. Still, it is not 

strictly and technically a disposition of the measure. It is technically the laying of a measure on the table from which it might be 

again taken. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair is clearly of the opinion that the proper 

way to proceed is that suggested by the gentleman from Massachusetts. There is only one instance, or perhaps two, in which it has 

been varied from--

Mr. HOAR. If the Chair will pardon me, as this is a very important pointThe SPEAKER. The Chair will hear the gentleman aa far aa he 

wishes to proceed. 

Mr. HOAR. I desire simply to suggest as a reason for the ruli-ng 

of the Chair that the yeaa and nays must be taken, that the object 

of this provision of the Constitution waa the protection of the people against the possible encroachment of the executive power. Therefore Congress having once passed a bill, if the President returned it, 

in order that the House or Senate might not change their minds as to 

what the good of the people require in consequence of any undue 

pressure from the executive department, it was ordainedfor the protection of the people that the names of the persons voting should be on the Journal, in order that they might doitundertheresponsibility 

of the public knowledge of .the vote. That, of course, applies to 

every mode in which the bill is disposed of. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair concludes from the statement and suggestion of the gentleman from Massachusetts that he coincides with 

the Chair in his ruling ' 

Mr. HOAR. Entirely. 

The SPEAKER. The q nestion would first be on the reconsideration 

of the vote by which the bill was passed. Is thellousereadyforthe question f 

Mr. HOAR. Is not the true question, "Shall the bill pass netwithstanding the ()bjection of the President Y" 

Mr. BURCHARD, of Illinois. This is the statement in the Digest~ 

The main question in the consideration of a vetoed bill is, "Will the House on reconsideration agree to pass the bill ~" 

The SPEAKER. The practice as recorded in theDigestTbe main question in the consideration of a vetoed bill is, " Will the House on reconsideration agree to pMs the bill"- . 

would seem to make necessaryth question which t.he Chair haapresented to the House, " Will the Hot\00 l'econ ider the vote by which 

the bill was passed f" 

Mr. KASSON. If the Chair will allow me, I would suggest that it 

is the first reconsideration brought about by returning the bill to the 

House that that refers to. The President returned the bill here; it 

is reconsidered by the House; and the question that is then arrived 

at is, " Will the House agree to pass the bill T" - The SPEAKER. That has not been the practice, but it clearly saves a motion. . ' 

Mr. GARFIELD. It seems to me that the veto power of the PresIdent is misnamed when it is called a veto powe1:. The only power 

the President has is to move a reconsideration. He moves a reconsideration of the bill; and when he sends it ba-ck here it is reconsidered 

and the motion is, " Shall the bill now pass, notwithstanding the objections of the President f" We do not need ourselves to vote tore- con ider. The President ha.s the power to put the bill in the attitude 

of one under reconsideration. 

The SPEAKER. The words prescribed in the Manual are these : " Will the Honse on I'econsideration agree to pass the bill." , . Mr. GARFIELD. That is the reconsideration now pending. ~. 

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. lthinktpereisalittle difference between 

the word "reconsideration" used in the Constitution and the word 

"reconsideration" aa used in our practice. I think in the Constitution it will bear the construction Wi1l the House after further con- sidemtion a~ree to pa.~s the bilf f and I think the proper question 

would be, Will the House after reconsideration agree to pass tbe 

billf 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will put the motion: Will the Hmoo 

agree to pass the bill notwithstanding the veto of the President f 

Mr. GARFIELD. That is it. 

The SPEAKER. Upon this mot ion the yeas and nays must be taken. 

Mr. BANNING. I merely wish to understand how the question 

stands. The instructions of the committee waa that I should make 

the motion which I have made, to lay the bill upon the table. That 

motion was ma-de in accordance with the Manual, and I understand 

that it is ruled out by the Chair. 

'l'he SPEAKER. The Chair rules it out. 

Mr. BANNING. Then I aak for a vote upon tho question Shall 

the l)ill pass notwithstanding the veto of the President f so that the 

matter may be disposed of. 

Mr. HOLMAN. What is the motion f 

The SPEAK~R. The Chair desires to state that the report from 

the committee waa substantially that the bill should not pass, or, in 

other words, that the veto of tbe President should be sustained. 

The question will now be taken, Shall the bill pass notwithstanding 

the veto of the President f 

The question was taken; and there were-yea 1, nays 197, not 

voting 91 ; as follows: 

YEA-Mr. Terry-1. 

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Ainsworth, Amlerson-.~.,. Ashe, Atkins, George A. Ba~~ey, 

John H. Bagley, jr., John ll. Baker, William tl. Baker, Ballou, Banning, J:Sefi, 

Blair, Bland, Bliss, Blount, Boone, Bradford, Bradley, Bright, 'Villlil.m R. Brown, 

Horatio C. Burchard, Samuel D. Burchard, Cabell, William P. Caldwell, Campbell, 

Candler, Cannon, Carr, Cason, Cate, Caulfield, Chittenden, John B. Clarke of Kentucky, Clymer, Collins, Conger, Cook, Cowan, Crounse, CulbPrson, Cutler, Davis, 

Davy, Dibrell, Dobbins, Douglas, Durand, Durham, Eames, Ellis, Evans, Faulkner, 

Felton, Finley, Forney, Foster, Franklin, Freeman, Fr.ve, Fuller, Garfield, G-ause, 

Gibson, Glover, Goode, Goodin, Gunter, Andrew H. Hamilton, Robert Hamilton, 

Hancock, Haralson, Hardenbergh, Benjamin W. Harris, Henry_R. Han-is, John T. 

Ranis, Hartridge, Hartzell, Hatcher, Hathorn, Haymond, Hendee Render on, Hereford, Abram S. Hewitt, Goldsmith W. Hewitt, Hill, Hoar, Holman, Hoskins. 

Humphreys, Hunter, Hunton, Hurd, Kasson, Kehr, Knott, Lamar, George M. Landers, Lane, Leavenworth, Levy, Lewis, LuttrellM~hkch, Mackey, Magoon, Maish, 

McCrary, McDill, McFarland, Metcalfe, Miller, · · en, Money, Monroe, Morgan, 

Mutchler, Neal, Norton, O'Brien, Oliver, O'Neill, Packer, Page, Payne, William. A. 

Phillips, Pierce, Piper, Plaisted, Platt, Poppleton, Potter, Powell, Pratt, Purruan, 

Rainey, Rea, Reagan, James B. Reilly, Riddle, John Robbins, William M. Robbins, 

Rusk, Sampson, Scales, Schleicher, Seelye, Singleton, Sinnickson, Slemons, A. Herr 

Smith, William E. Smith. Southard, Sparks, Spencer, Springer, StantOn, Strait, 

Stenger, Stevenson, Stone, Swann, Tarbox, Thoma..<!, Thornburgh, Martin L Townsend, Tucker, Tufts, Van Vorhes, John L. Vance, Robert B. Vance, Wait, Gilbert 

C. Walker, Alexander S. Wallace, John W. Wallace, Warner, Watterson, Erastus 

Wells, White, Whitehouse, Whitinl!, Whitthorne, Willard, Andrew Williams, Alpheus S. Williams, Charles G. Williams, James Williams, Jeremiah N. Williams, 

William B. Williams, Willis, Benjamin Wilson, James Wilson, A..lan Wood,jr., Fernando Wood. Yeates, and Young-197. 

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Abb?tt, Bagby, Banks, ~ass. Beebe, Blackburn, John 

Young Brown, Buckner, Burleigh, John H. Caldwell, Caswell, Chapin, John B. 

Clark, j_r., of Missouri, Cochrane, Cox, Crapo, Danford, Darrall, De Bolt, Denison, 

Dunnell, Eden, Egbert, Flye, Fort, Hale, Harrison, Hays, Henkle, Hoge, Hooker, 

Hopkins, House, Hubbell, Hurlbut, Hyman, Jenks, Frank Jones, Thomas L. Jones, 

Joyce, Kelley, Kimball, King, Frallkiin Landers, Lapham. Lawrence Le Moyna, Lord, Lynde, MacDougall, McMahon, Meade, Mills, Morrison, Nash, New, Oneil, 

Phelps, John F. Philips, John Reilly, Rice, Roberts, Robinson, Miles Ross, Sobie ki 

Ross, Savage, Sayler, Schumaker, Sbeakley, Smalls, Stepha~ Stowell, Tease, 

Thompson, Throckmorton, Washington Townsend, .Turney, waddell, Waldron, 

Charles C. B. Walker, Walling, Walsh, Ward, Warren, G. Wiley Wells, Wheeler, 

Wigginton, Wike, Wilshire, Woodburn, and Woodworth-91. _ ._\·: 

So (two-thirds not voting in favor thereof) the biii w~not passed. 

The S~EAKER. The morning hour has expired. 

' INVESTIGATING-C0l\IMITTEES1 TELEGRAMS. 

Mr. LYNDE. I rise to a question of privilege. I am instructed by 

the Committee on the Judiciary to submit a report with accompanying resolution, which I send to the Clerk's desk, and upon which I 

ask the previous question. · 
1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 325 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Report of Cotnmittee on the Judiciary on House resolution of the 16th of December insta.nt. 

Your committee have bad under consideration the communication presented to the House by the Speaker, from Ron. WIL,LIAM R. MonrusoN, chairman of the 

seleot committee appointed to investigate certain matters relating to the late election in Louisiana, and respectfully report that the communication fails to inforlll 

the House of the names of the person or persons who refuse to produce papers and 

telegrams, or the circnmsta.nces under which the refusal was made. The House 

has the power to compel the production of books, papers, and telegrams mentioned 

in the investigation before the committee, and any witnes.s who shall refuse to produce such papers or telegrams when required should be brought to the bar of 

the House to answer a violation of the privilege of the House. 

The committee report the following re olutions and recommend their adoption: Jluolved, Tha~ w~enever any witness duly subprenaed to appear before an.v com- wttee of investigation of the House refuses to appear before such committee, or refuses to produce any books, papers, or telegrams in his possession or umler his 

control, when required, t.he committee shall report the name of such witness and 

the facts and circumstances relating to such refusal, for the aetion of the House. 

.Rtsolved, That whenever a witness has been duly subprenaed to appear before a committee of this House, any person who shall tamper with such witness in regard 

to the evidence to be given by him before the committee, or who shall interfere with or :{lrevent the attendance of such witness befm'e the committee to give testimony, or mterfere with or prevent or endeavor to intimidate or prevent such witness 

from producing any books, papers, or telegrams required by.the committee, on the 

facts being reported to the House such person shall be brought to the bar of the 

House to answer for a breach of the privileges of the House. 

1 Mr. McCRARY. I understand that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 

HuRD] desires to offer an amendment on behalf of the minority of 

the committee. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair recognized the gentlem:m from vVisconsin [Mr. LYNDE] as having the floor, and he has demanded the previous question. 

Mr. McCRARY. I think the Chair misunderstood the gentleman 

from Wisconsin. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair is certain that he did not misunderstand 

the gentleman; he heard him call the previous question. . Mr. LYNDE. I will yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. HunD] 

to present his amendment. , Mr. HURD. In behalf of the minority of the Committee on the 

Judiciary, I desire to offer a resolution in addition to those reported 

by the majority. 

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. LYNDE] 

admit this amendment for information or for action f 

:Mr. LYNDE. For action. . Mr. KNOTT. Permit me to make a parliamentary inquiry. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state itp . Mr. KNOTT. Should the amendment offered by the gentleman from 

Ohio [Mr. HuRD] be agreed to, will it be then in order for me to offer a report for the substitute as amendment T 

The SPEAKER. Should the call for the previous question be sus- tained, that would cot off any further amendment. 

Mr. LYNDE. I understand that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. HURD] is in the form of an additional reso- lution. 

Mr. HURD. That is all. 

The SPEAKER. The amendment will be read. 

The amendment was read, as follows: 

Resolved, That the subprenas issued by House committees commanding telegrams, books, papers, and other documents to be produced should describe them 

with such convenient particularity as may be, in order that they may be made ca- pable of identification; and in cases wht~re telegrams are ordered to be produced 

they should be described by reference to the names of the parties sending and re- ceiving the same, the general subjeot-matter of their contents, and the date as near as may be of their transmission; but the committees charged with the inquiry shall not be required to make such ~ascription when, after having determined that they have reasonable ground to behave that telegrams are mat~rial to such inquiry they 

shall be ignorant of the parties to such telegrams, of their contents and dates'· but 

any_ d_escrlption which will enable such telegrams to be identified shall be deemed 

suffiCient. . 

' Mr. LYNDE. I now call the previous question on the resolutions 

reported from the committee and the additional resolution submitted 

by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. HuRD.] 

i Mr. KNOTT. Would it be inordertomoveasobstituteforthe origi- nal resolutions and amendment 7 t The SPI!:AKER. If the previous question is sustained it will cut 

off further amendment. · 

Mr. ATKINS. Let the substitute of the ge1;1tleman from Kentucky 

[Mr. KNoTT] be read. 

Mr. LYNDE. I will yield to allow the substitute to be read for information. 

'fhe proposetlsubstitute was read, as follows: 

.Resolved, That there is noth.ing in the law renderin~ a communication transmitted by telegraph any more prirue~ed thana commumcation made orally or in any 

other manner whatever; that this Honse bas the power through its subprena. under 

the hand and seal of its Speaker, to require any person to appear before any com- mittee to which it has given authority to examine witnesses and send 'for persons and papers, and bring with him such books or papers, whether the papers be telegraphic messages or others, for the inspection of such committee, as such commit. tee may deem nooessa,ry to the investigation with which such committee may have 

been cba.rged ; and that such committees may order and direct any witness who 

may be brought before it to produce to tho committee any book or paper, whether 

such paper be a telegraphic dispatch or other, which may appear to be in his pos- session or under his control, which said committee may deem necessary to the in· 

vestigation with which it may have been charged; and th~t any person upon whom 

such subprena shall have been served, who shall disobey tho same, or having ap- peared as a witness shall disobey the order of such ~ committee to produce any book or paper which he shall havo been ordered by such committee to produce, 

should be brought to the bar of the Hou e upon a report of the facia by the com- mittee to answer for a contempt of the authority of the House, and dealt with as the J..o.w under the facts may require. Resolved, That any person who snall prevent, or attempt to prevent, any person 

who shall have been subprenood to appear before any committee of this Honse 

from so appearing or from testifying before said committee, or from producing any 

book or paper wliich such. witness may have been required to produce, or prevent or attempt to prevent any such witness from speaking the truth before such com- mittee, should, upon a report by the committeeof all the facts, be brought to the 

bar of the House to answer for a contempt, and dealt with as the law under the 

facts may require. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will inform the House in reference to 

the manner of voting upon these questions. The gentleman from 

Wisconsin, [Mr. LYNDE,] as the Chair understands, has demanded the 

previous question upon the original resolutions reported from the 

Committee on the Judiciary and upon the amendment submitted by 

the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. HuRD.] If the previous question shall 

be sustained it will prevent a vote upon the proposed substitute by 

the gentleman from Keutucky, [Mr. KNorr.] 

Mr. CONGER. I desire to inquire of the Chair whether it is in or- der to demand a separate vote upon the two resolutions reported by 

the majority of tho Committee on the Judiciary. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair would so decide. 

1t1r. CONGER. Then I will ask for the vote upon those resolutions 

to be taken separately. 

:Mr. LYNDE. If it is in order I will ask that a vote may be taken 

upon the substitute offered by the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. 

KNOTT.] 

The SPEAKER. If the demand for the previous question is voted 

down by the Hoose, then the gentleman from Kentucky will be rec. ognized by the Chair to offer his substitute. 

Mr. KNOTT. But suppo e the previous question is withdrawn 7 

Mr. GARFIELD. I would suggest to the gentleman from Wiscon. 

sin [Mr. LYNDE] not to insist upon the previous question at present, 

but to allow some debate within reasonable limits . Mr. KNOTT. The question I ask is this: If my fritmd from Wis· 

consin should withdraw the demand for the previous question in order 

to allow me to submit a substitute for the resolutions of the report 

and the resolution of the gentleman from Ohio, would it be in order 

for me to do so ¥ 

The SPEAKER. The Chair would entertain such a motion of course, 

1t1r. KNOTT. Then I ask the gentleman to yield to me to o:fler roy 

substitute. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair understands the gentleman from Wis • cousin to yield first to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. HURD] for his 

amendment, and then to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. KNon] 

for his substitute; and then he demands the previous question. 

Mr. LYNDE. I do. 

The previous question was seconded, there being~ ayes 114, noes 62. 

Mr. KASSON. ~efore the main question is put, as several of us came in at the conclusion of the reading of these various propositions, 

I ask that they may be again read. 

There was no objection. 

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection the several propositions 

will be again read. 

Mr. O'BRIEN. Before that is done I desire to ask a parliamentary 

question. Do I understand that, showd the main question be or- dered, we shall have the right to vote upon the resolutions introduced 

by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, LMr. KNoTT 'J 

The SPEAKER. The Chair has so stated. The first question will 

be on the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. HURD.] 

Mr. O'BRIEN. And if that be defaated, then upon the substitute 

offered by the gentleman from Kentucky Y 

The SPEAKER. Whether it is defeated or not. 

Mr. O'BRIEN. That is all I want. 

The resolutions rep01ted by Mr. LYNDE were again read. 

Mr. CONGER. I desire to call the attention of the gentleman who 

reported this proposition to the fact that it is not confined to com- mittees authorized to send for persons and papers, bot refers to any 

cc:>mmittee. I suggest whether a modification in that respect is not 

necessary. 

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will now read the amendment submitted by the gentleman from Ohio. · The ame~dment offered by Mr. HURD was again read, and also the 

substitute proposed by Mr. KNoTT. 

The question was then on ordering the main question. 

Mr. CONGER. The gentleman who reports the resolutions of the 

maJority of the committee proposes to ask the consent of the House 

to modify those resolutions so aa to apply to committees authori.t:ed 

to send for persons and papers . The SPEAKER. The previous question has been seconded. 

Mr. CONGER. - Bot the gentleman may modify his own resolution. 

The SPEAKER. Only by unanimous consent. 

:Mr. LYNDE. I ask unanimous consent to modify the second reso- lution. 

The SPEAKER. This is a report from a committee, and the Chair 

does not believe that it can be modified in this way. Several MEMBERS. It can be by unanimous consent. 

The SPEAKER. It cannot be done except by unanimotts consent. 

Is there objection to the modification suggested by the gentleman from Wisconsin ! 

Several MEMBERS. What is the modification ' 
326 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. DECEMBER 20, 

Mr. LYNDE. I propose to modify by inserting after the word" com- mittees" the words "authorized by the House to send for persons 

and papers." 

Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York. I object. 

Mr. FRYE. This report having been made by the gentleman from 

Wisconsin, [ 1\fr. LYNDE,] I understand he has an hour for debate upon 

the subject. 

The SPEAKER. The previous question haa been seconded, and the 

question is now upon ordering the main que tion. If the main question should be ordered the floor will of course be under the control of 

the gentleman from Wisconsin, if he chooses to occupy it. 

The main question was ordered. 

The SPEAKER. The first question is upon the amendment of the 

gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. HuRD.] 

Mr. HOAR. A very large number of members on both sides have 

suggested that it would be agreeable to them to have these several 

propositions printed and made a special order for to-morrow morn- ing, if that can be done without delaying the matter any further, 

which nobody desires. 

The SPEAKER. That can be done by unanimous consent. 

!fr. O'BRIEN. There is objection to that. 

Mr. GARFIELD. I wish to say that these propositions involve very 

grave questions of right and of law, and it would be a great con- venience to every one to be permitted to see them in print before being required to vote upon them. For myself, upon hearing casualJy 

the reading of these papers, I scarcely feel able to decide how I ought 

to vote. I hope, therefore, that the consent now asked will be given. 

The SPEAKER. There has been objection. 

Mr. FRYE. Mr. SpeakerThe SPEAKER. Debate is not in order. 

1\fr. FRYE. I rise to a que tion of order: whether the gentleman 

:{rom Wisconsin is not now entitled to an hour for debate. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair has already answered that question. 

Mr. FRYE. I ask the gentleman from Wisconsin whether he will 

not take the hour to which he is entitled, in order that there may be some discussion of this subject. 

'l'he SPEAKER. The gentleman's question is in the nature of debate, which is not in order, as the main question has been ordered. 

Mr. CONGER. I rise to a question of order: whether it would be 

in order to move the postponement of the consideration of this subject until to-morrow morning after the morning hour, so that these 

resolutions mav meanwhile be printed. 

Mr. SPRINGER. The effect of the previousquestionis to order this 

question to be now put. 

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman rise to a point of order' 

1\fr. SPRINGER. No, sir; but I wish to suggest that the motion to 

postpone i not now in order. Rule 42 states the precedence of mo- tions to be in the following order: "to adjourn, to. lie on the table, for 

the previous question, to postpone to a day certain, to commit or amend, to postpone indefinitely." The House has already ordered-the 

main question to be now put, and but two other motions can now be 

made, namely, to adjourn or to lay the subjectunderconsideratiouon 

the table. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair rules that the motion to postpone is 

not in order, the previous q~estion having been seconded and the 

main question ordered. 

Mr. WOOD,ofNewYork. Idesiretoas theChairtostate,soitcan 

be understood by the House, the precise attitude of the three different 

propositions before the House and what will be the effect of a vote on it. 

The SPEAKER. The first question is on the adoption of the amendment, as submitted by the gentleman from Ohio, [1\fr. HuRD,] to the 

original report of the committee. 

Mr. WOOD, of New York. If that shall be adopted, what then f 

The SPEAKER. Then the question will come up on the substitute 

of the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. KNoTr.] 

Mr. LYNDE. I wi~h to explain to the House, i£ I have the floor. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman, under the rules, is entitled to the 

floor. 

Mr. LYNDE. I will first explain the effect of the amendnient of the 

gentleman from Ohio [Jtfr. HURD] to the original resolution reported 

by the committee. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 

Ohio prescribes the description which shall be used by the committee 

requiring the production of papers. It limits to some extent the au- thority of the committee in requiring the production of books or 

papers. It is truethatthelast clause of the gentleman's amendment 

provides that, where the committee do not know the name of the per- . son who has sent the paper or the date of the communication, then 

they may give a general description, and the witness shall then 

produce the books or papers on that general descriptioll'!' 

The objection which the majority of the committee had totheresolution as proposed by the gentleman from Ohio was that it left it in some measure within the discretion of the witness himself, as we thought, to determine whether the writ issued by the committee re- quired the production of a paper or not. That question we regarded as a question for the committee in the first instance to clecide and for 

the House finally to determine, and that the witness should have no ;i~ht to decide or determine whether the papers sought for came wtthin the requirements of the writ or not. To illustrate to the 

lion§~, j..p. ~~· 9!-'tol}'~ ~pm~upication to 1df. Mo~~s( n~ :Q.e t?t~t~.s in 

the first place that he is informed that employes of the telegraph 

company have been subpamaed to bring before the committee certain 

communications between certain parties during certain months, specifying the months, and that the question was whether that was a proper form of subpama and whether the committee was authorized 

to require the production of papers on so general a description. I 

think it was the opinion of a majority of the committee that it was specific enough, for it might not be within the power of the committee to designate any more specifically the papers they desire.d to have 

before them. Therefore the committee declined to adopt the resolution now presented to the House by the gentleman from Ohio. 

1\fr. KASSON. Now please state what will be the effect of the proposition of the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. KNoTT.] 

1\fr. LYNDE. The proposition of the gentleman from Kentucky 

embraces perhaps what is already contained in the proposition presented by the committe.e, perhaps in a more direct form, but it does 

not conflict, as I understand, with the resolutions of the committee. I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio. 

Mr. HURD. Mr. Speaker, the amendment reported by the minority 

of the committee relates to a subject-matter entirely different from 

that treated of by the resolutions of the majority of the committee 

and the substitute of its chairman. It relates to the form which shall 

be given o all subpamas issued by the committees of this House for 

the purpose of requiring the production of telegrams and other papers. 

It recognizes the power of the House to issue subpamas duces tecunt 

requiring the production of papers. It recognizes the power of the 

House to punish for contempt of its authority those who have refused 

to produce papers in compliance with thetermsofthewrit. It recognizes likewise the power of the House to punish for contempt those 

who may have been guilty of tampering with witnesseswhohave been 

duly subpamaed by the authority of theHouse. But it declares that no subpomas shall issue for papers or telegrams unless thoro shall be 

contained in the subpama such convenient description of the papers or telegrams sought as will enable persons upon whom the process may 

be served to identify them. It provides that incase of telegrams there 

shall be a description which shall give the names of the parties re- ceiving and sending them, the general subject-matter of their con- tents, and a.s nearly as may be the date of their transmission. But 

in cases where the parties issuing the subpamas may be ignorant of 

these facts the last provision of the resolutiondeclaresthatsuch other 

description shall be deemed sufficient which enables the telegram to 

be identified. . This resolution is introduced to prevent a practice which has 

arisen in some places of issuing subpamas which may be regarded as drag-net snbpamas, as they have been termed, which may call 

upon telegraph operators at any given point to bring before the com- mittee all telegrams which may be in their po session, thus enabling 

the committee not merely to produce the evidence which relates to 

the particular matter of investigation, but also to bring before them 

the private telegrams of many other individuals, wh-ich may be irrel-evant to the subject-matter of the inquiry. 

The rule that this resolution proposes to adopt declares that, first, 

there shall be a finding on the part of the committee that certain telegrams are thought or supposed to be material, and then that the 

subpoma shall contain the description of such telegrams to which I 

have alluded. In making this recommendation it follows the wellestablished role of courts of justice upon this subject; and while the 

gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. LYNDE] has suggested as an objection that it would leave to the witnesses themselves the power to determine the relevancy or materiality of the testimony, I will say in 

reply to the suggestion that such is t,he case in every duces tecunt that 

is issued by the courts in the administration of justice. The designation, the description, should be s11ch a.s to enable third parties to iderf.. 

tify the telegram or the instrument desired. And I will say that in 

this recommendation the minority of the committee has followed the 

precedent which was set at the last session of Congress by the Judiciary Committee, when a subpama was issued after full deliberation 

for the production of telegrams in what is known geneTally as the 

Blaine investigation. 

Under these circumstances I submit that it is proper that there 

should be this limitation. Not a telegram which this committee can properly desire for the purpose of giving them information will be 

cut off from them. It only prevents this committee and other committees from issuing subprenas for telegrams which have no connection 

With the subject-matter of the inquiry and no relevancy to it. I 

submit that, while it may be as stated in the resolution introduced 

by the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. KNoTr,] that there is nothing in the law which makes any difference between telegrams and 

other communications between individuals, yet there is in the public mind a difference between them; and justly so, because the 

telegrams that are sent all over the country by thousands of men relate 

to all possible concerns of human life, relate to all possible questions of business; and nothing would be more unfair and unreasonable 

than that, without a great interest or necessity requiring it, these 

private telegrams should be brought befo1·e committees or courts for 

inspection. 

Mr. LYNDE. As regards the clause of the resolution of the gentle- man from Ohio [Mr. HURD] which provid~s that in case the committee do not know the names of parties who have sent communications or received communica tiona, or the dates of the communications, th~u. 
1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 327 

a more general description might be a-dopted. I would ask what possible benefit this amendment would effectf Suppose the writ is issued 

under that clause by a committee; can the witness be permitted, or can any one else be permitted to question whether the committee 

did know more particularly the paper they intended to reach by the 

process f Therefore it seems to me the last clause in the resolution 

will gain all the effect the gentleman seeks to gain by the first clause 

of his resolution. 

But, Mr. Speaker, an investigation by the House in regard to the 

conduct of a public officer, or in regard to a question of great public 

interest, is entirely different in its character from a proceeding in a court of justice. The same rules of evidence do not apply to the two oases. While, if the investigation in the House relates to private interests, the rules of evidence as adopted by the courts of law prevail, 

they do not prevail in an inquisitorial investigation in regard to the 

conduct of public officers. And they should not prev~il there; for, if 

they are held to prevail, then the efficiency of these investigations is 

entirely destroyed. In a private suit a party who is litignting is supposed to know all of the incidents, all of the papers, all of the com- munications that relate to his interest which he seeks to establish. 

But a committee of investigation of the House is appointed because 

the House does not know the facts which they seek to reaoh, ancl they 

should have authority to investigate so far as the public interest re- quires, and use ~very legal means for the purpose of promoting the 

public interest in that respect. 

I would ask the attention of the House to a few orders which have 

been made in the British House of Commons. The British Honse of 

Commons on the 31st of January, 1809, entered the order which I 

shall read. Upon an investigation by the house, the committee of 

the house appointed to investigate the conduct of His Royal High- ness the Duke of York, commander-in-chief, in regard to promotions, 

exchanges, and appointments to commissions in the army and staff of 

the army, used in raising levies for the army, the following was one of the orders : 

Ordered, That a proper person from the banking-house of Messrs. Biddulph, Cooks & Riclge do attend the committee at the same time, and bring with him the 

banking-books of the said house for the month of July, 1805. 

Here was an order of the House of Commons requiring the banking 

books to be produced in this investigation as to the official conduct 

m: His Royal Highness the Duke of York, and requiring all the books 

for that month to be brought before the committee for their exam- ination for the very purpose of ascertaining what they disclosed in re- gard to the conduct of the Duke of York. 

On the lOth of February, 1809, in that same case, in that same investigation, the House of Commons entered the following order: 

Ordered., That a proper person from the banking-house of ~Messrs. Marsh, Sibbild, Straooy, l!'auntleroy & Stewart do attend the committee at the same time, and 

bring with them a list of the cheeks that affeot Mrs. Clarke's aocouut with the late 

Messrs. Birkett, silversmiths. · 

. Mrs. Clarke was the person through whom these appointments were made, in consequence of her influence with His Royal Highness the 

Duke of York ; and she was accustomed to receive money for her serv- ices with the Duke of York in bringing about these appointments. 

And it seems that Mrs. Clarke had purchased of Messrs. Birkett, sil vor- smiths, silver plate; and upon that information coming to the Honse 

of Commons they entered the general order that some person from the 

banking-house should produc~ the banking-books containing a list of 

all the checks affecting Mrs. Clarke's account with the silversmiths. 

On the 3d and 4th or February in the same year, in the same case, 

this order was entere(l: 

Ordered, That a proper officer from the offi.oe of the commander-in-chief do forth· 

with attend the committee of the whole house who are appointed to investigate 

the conduct of His Royal Highness the Duke of York, the commander-in-chief, 

with regard to promotions, exchanges, and appointments to commissions in the 

army, and bring with him the books containing any application for purchase by 

subalterns within that period in whioh Captain Malin ha« his then .commisl:!ions 

with him. 

Now these orders, as it seems to me, are far more general than the 

orders which are complained of here. I will now calf the attention of 

the House to Cushing's Parliamentary Law and Practice, section 968: 

In regard to the course of inquiry a distinction must be made corresponding to that by which the different subjects of investi~ations are distinguished, namel:y be- tween inquisitoriaJ prooeedingll and those whwh are judicial and relate to pn~ate individuals. In the former the utmost latitude both as to the form and the subject- matter of the questions proposed is allowed, the house being governed only by its own discretion-having reference to the public interest-in permitting or restraining the course of inquiry. The rule is thus stated by Mr. Wynne: "It was olear 

that the house was at liberty to exercise the fullest discretion upon every question which it was proposed to ask of any witness at their bar. In a court of justice the 

parties have the right to put any question they choose. The judge Lad only to determine whether it was a legal one, and if it was he oould not refuse to admit it. 

In that house the oase was widely different. There the questions were those of 

the whole body, though propo ed by an indi•idual member; there could be no obligation upon any one to consent, to a question being put whioh ho conceived to be 

urelevant, immaterial, or in any way inexpedient for the publio interests." In the course of the inquil:y relative to tho conuuct of the Dnke of York Mr. Whitbread sai~ that "the committee wero not fettereu by settled forms or principles of evidence as was the case in the courts last year. :if once such a. limit was imposed upon 

the investigations of the House of Commons there was an end to the inquisitorial 

power of Parl.ia.ment." And Sir Samuel Romilly said that the ob.iect was very dif. 

ferent from that of courts of justioe, and therefore the house could not be bound by the same ties. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that for this House to trammel 

its own exercise of discretion by any rule whatever except the rules 

well established by parliamentary law would be wrong. _ I aiQ. opposed, therefore, to the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. 

HURD.] I now yield five minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky, 

[Mr. KNO'IT.) ~ 

Mr. KNOT'r. Mr. Speaker, on last Saturday a communication addressed to yourself from Hon: WILLIAM: R. MoRRiso~, chairman of 

the committee of investigation at New Orleans, accompanied by a comm.tmication from the president of the Western Union Telegraph 

Company, was read and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Mr. MORRISON's communication disclosed the fact that certain persons 

had been summoned to appear before the committee of which he is 

chairman, with directions to bring certain telegraphic dispatches, and 

that the subpcena bad been disobeyed and the communication from 

Mr. Orton disclosed the fact that it was by his directions that that disobedience to the subpcena of the committee took place, and that he 

ha-d given the direction because in his opinion telegraph dispatches were in their nature privileged communications and could not be 

brought before a committee of investigation on a subpmna dtwes tecun~t, 

accompanied with the intimation, however, that he would yield his 

opinion to the judgment of the House. Referring these two commu- nications to the Committee on the Judiciary required them to pa s upon two questions, and two only. The first was, has this House the 

power to cause persons to bring papers before its investigating com- mittees at all; and, secondly, whether telegraphic communications were surrounded by that peculiar odor of sanctity that the gentle- man from Ohio and some others suppose; whether Mr. Orton or any one else had authority to prevent the custodian of such rlispatchcs 

from producing them in obedience to the mandate of the House. 

The two resolutions I have offered as a substitute for the report of 

the committee are substantially the same as that report, only stating, 

in my judgment, f.he sense of the House in plainer and more unmistakable terms. The ouly point, therefore, in dispute is as to whether 

the House ought to adopt the amendment offered by the gentleman 

from Ohio, [Mr. HURD.] I think it ought not, and for this reason: The power of the House to issue a subpmna at all is a matter of law; 

what may be inserted in that subpmna is also a matter of law. Can 

this· Honse, therefore, by a mere resolution change the law t Manifestly it cannot; and consequently the resolution, if pa-s ed, would be mere brutu·1njulnten and nothing more, so far as their legal effect would 

be concerned; but there will be and there can be no dispute beyond 

that. The gentleman offers as a reason for opposing this amendment 

that the committee commissioned by this House to make this investigation may violate the law, that it may transcend its duties. Now, 

sir, for one I will never anticipate such a malversation on the part of a committee of this Honse. How do we stand in the face of the world 

here distrusting our own committee and saying that for fear they may 

transcend a law and violate their duties, we will circumscribe those 

duties and say "Thus far shalt thou go and no farther/' no matter 

what may be the exigencies by which you are surrounded f I do not 

think the House will be guilty of such discourtesy to its committee . I believe that it will conclude, until it has evidence to the contrary, 

that the committee will conform to the law as it exists, and will not 

undertake in advance to give them direction as to their conduct. The 

passage of this resolution will not take a singLe iota from the powers 

that it possesses under the law. 

Mr. LYNDE. I now yield five minutes to the gentleman from Iowa, 

[Mr. McCRARY.) 

Mr. McCRARY. Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me that this is a favorable opportunity for settling a ru1e upon a sound basis that shall 

govern in future the conduct of committees of investigation. There seems to be no effort on either side to prevent the publication of 

the particular dispatches called for or mentioned in the commu- nication of the chairman of the investigating committee now in 

Louisiana. On the contrary, I have seen the statement that there is no objection, and I suppose it may be taken to be the fact, that neither 

of the great political committees of the country, during the recent 

canvass, have committed important secrets to the telegraph offices of 

the country. 

Therefore I say this is a favorable opportunity for settling upon a reasonable and safe basis the rule which should govern in such cases. The minority of the Committee on the Judiciary believe that there are rights of private citizens which shoulU be considered as well as 

the rights and interests of the Government aod the people. We think 

that two things at least should be required before the custodian of a private telegraphic dispatch should be required to produce it before a committee of this Hou e. Fhst, that the committee should determine in some way that there is reasonable cause to believe that there are dispatches in the possession of some person that will be material 

to the matter under inYestigation. We do not hold that it is neces- sary to establish that fact any further than this, that the committee 

shall have reason to believe that there are such dispatches. And, 

secondly, that in the snbpmna which is issued to require the custodian of these private papers to bring them before the committee the 

papers shall be designated in some manner so that the party in 

possession of the dispatches may be able to identify them. In other 

words, we do not think that the practice which has obtained to some extent, of calling for telegraphic dispatches in the gross, of calling 

for all the dispatches in a particular office, or calling for all the dispatches sent by a particular individual, without any reference to th ~ 

subject-matter of them, is a reasonable and proper practice. 

There can be no 4ifficulty growing out of t}le adoption of the ruh 
328 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. DECE~ffiER 20, 

as proposed by the minority of the Committee on the Judicia.ry and 

embodied in the resolution offered by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. 

HuRD.] It is impossible to conceive of a case where a committee of 

investigation shall have reason to believe that there are tel6oOTaphic 

dispatches in the hands of anybody which are of any value or of any 

materiality in the course of any investigation and they shall not be 

able to describe them a-s aecurately as required by the proposition of 

the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. HuRD.) If the committee know who 

have sent the dispatches and to whom they have been sent, that fact can be stated; or if they know the subject-matter of the dispatches, 

that fact can be stated. And certainly they cannot know or have rea- son to believe that any dispatch is material to the subject of investigation without knowing what the dispatch is about. 

What we object to is the manner of directing subprenas which ha-s 

boon resorted to in some cases. If I am correctly informed, there has 

been in one of the committee-rooms of this House a very large number 

of private telegraphic dispatches, I think some thousands in number, 

which were brought into the committee-room, not upon any wellfounded belief that there wa-s anything in them that the committee 

desired to know, but they were brought into the committee-room in 

order that they might look them through to ascertain whether there was anything in those dispatches that they could use in their investigation. And the evil of this very practice will te evident when I 

state that in some way from among those dispatches a very large 

number of private telegrams, not relating at all to any subject of 

inquiry before that committee, have been published in the public 

press of the country. 

I say there is no propriet.y in, there is no necessity for, carrying to 

this extent the rule in regard to this kind of evidence. There is no danger that we shall ever be deprived of the right to bring before any 

committee any paper they ought to have simply by requiring the 

committee to describe it in the manner proposed by the resolution of 

the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. HuRD.] 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Iowa. [Mr. McCRARYl has expired. 

Mr. LYNDE. I now yield to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. 

'VOOD.] 

The SPEAKER. For how long t 

:Mr. WOOD, of New York. I will want only five or ten minutes. 

Mr. LYNDE. I will yield to the gentleman for five minutes. 

1\Ir. WOOD, of New York. I shall not probably detain the House 

longer than five minutes. It appears to me that the question really 

before the House is not of that character which brin~s it within the 

consideration of the rules of evidence or the practiCe in courts of 

justice. In my judgment the investigation we have ordered goes further than any other investigation ever authorized by either House of 

Congress, from the beginning of this Government. 

We have appointed a committee, clothed with ample power to send 

for persons and papers, to ta.ke testimony, and to com pet the attend- ance of witnesses. We appointed this committee for the purpose of 

aBcertaining t.he truth on a. question that may determine who shall be 

the next President of the United States. And in order that that 

great question now agitating the people of this country shall be determined truthfully and rightfully. according to the facts of the case, we have instituted an investigation and delegated to the committee 

entire power to execute the order of the Honse. I submit that any 

attempt to restrain or curtail the power of the committee, any attempt by indirection through legal technicalities to hamper the efficiency of this investigation and prevent its full execution and enforcement, to render it at all difficult to obtain all of the facts, whether those 

facts depend upon epistolary correspondence or telegraphic commu- nications, appears to me would show that we fall far short of our duties, and we would stand before the world as failing to execute 

the power which the people have delegated to us to determine this 

great question. 

If it were an ordinary investigation, if it were an original proposi- tion as to what authority we should confer upon acommittee,Imi~ht 

myself coincide with some gentlemen who have spoken as to the Immorality of attempting to interfere with the sa-cred privacy of individual correspondence. But in a question of such magnitude, when ·we are called upon to sustain our own orgari in an investigation in a distant part of the country where this Honse itself cannot convene, wher~ such stupendous consequences, too, may depend upon the as- certamment of these very facts in regard to acts that may have been 

conducted and controlled by telegraph, I submit with all due re- spect to the opinions of other gentlemen. that, ha.ving ordered a full 

investigation, we should carry out the request of this committee and 

clothe them with the authority which they have asked of us. 

In addition to this, I am informed that the like committee of the 

Senate have sent out a similar request for the production of every- thing bearing upon this election ; in other words1 they propose to 

institute a "drag-net" investigation, as has been smd here to-day. I 

think, therefore, that we shall do wrong if we do not fully sustain 

the committee of investigation that we have sent to Louisiana. 

Hence I am in favor of the report of the Judiciary Committee as made 

by its chairman; and under no possible circumstances shall I be induced to vote for the proposition made by the gentleman from Ohio, 

[.Mr. HuRD,] the adoption of which, in my judgment, would be tantamount to defeating any investigation whatever-in that direction. 

Mr. LYNDE. I now yield.fi.ve minutes to the gentleman"fromMississippi, [Mr. HOOKER.] 

Mr. HOOKER. Mr. Speaker, I think the House should at once res- pond to the very proper distinction which bas been suggested by the 

gentleman making the report of this committee between an investigation conducted by a committee of this House and an investigation 

conducted before a legal tribunal. In the latter case, in a contest between parties litigant before a court of judicature, the private papers 

of either party are not subject to production unless the party calling 

for them makes out such a preliminary state of facts as, in the opinion of the presidin~ judge, authorizes their production, because of 

their pertinency ana relevancy to the subject-matter in litigation between the parties. But that, I take it, is not the rule in an investigation before a committee of a parliamentary body. The gentleman 

has well said that such a committee has a broader, less-restricted 

power; that it is indeed with reference to public ma,tters inquisitorial 

in its character. To maintain that such a committee, engaged in au important public investigation, should be limited by the rule which 

applies in a court of law or equity between parties litigant with ref- erence to private rights, would so hamper the power of investigation 

which this House possesses with reference to matters of public con.;. 

cernment as to render it almost entirely nugatory. 

Mr. Speaker, I do not see any very great distinction between the 

principles embodied in the report of the majority of the committee and the more specific amendment which has been offered by the 

gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. K...··mTI,] the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. But inasmuch as the latter proposition is a response on behalf of the committee, and in obedience to the order of the 

House, upon the specific matter referred to the committee for their 

action, and as, in my judgment, it more fully and completely asserts 

the power and authority of the Honse and of committees acting under 

its orders, the inclination of my mind is to give to the proposition of 

the gentleman from Kentucky a preference even to the report of the 

majority of the committee. 

Sir, in a case ref~rred to by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. HuRD,] 

for whose legal judgment and acumen I have profound respect, in a case occurring at the last session of this Congress, when an attempt was made to aasert the power and authority of the House in subjects 

of investigation, we saw that power and authority defied and ren- dered nugatory by a refusal to produce papers pertaining to the su - ject-matter under investigation by a commi-ttee. I refer to the wellknown case of Hallet Kilbourn. 

In the present case the examination by the committee of telegra.~ 

sent to and from the city of New Orleans is a resort to a source of information which can alone in all probability yield to the committee 

the desired fact& concerning which this Honse has instructed them 

to inquire; for it is natural to suppose that these telegrams were re- sorted to during the period of the election by both parties, and that 

the communications between distant portions of the country were conducted by these telegrams. It was not possible for the committee 

to make a more specific designation than they did in their demand for 

the production of particular telegrams to which they referred, sent 

during limited periods. I think therefore that the proposition of the 

gentleman from Kentucky conforms more fully and explicitly to the 

parliamentary rule than does the report of the committee. I eall attention to the rule as stated by Cushing. I ask the Clerk to read sec- tion 936 of Cushing's Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies. 

The Clerk read as follows : The order for the attendance of witnesses, or for the i~uing of a speaker's warrant to summon them, may aLso require the production of booi.s, pa~ers, and recOrda. 

In the former case the order ought to be as specific and to descnbe the books, papers, or recorda to be produced with as much certainty a.s the nature of the case will admit of; in the latter the order may be in aa general terms (at!, for example, for such books or writings as shall be desired) as the order for issuing he war- rant; but the warrant itself should be as specific and as certain as above men- tioned. It does not appear to be necessary, however, that the name of the particular witness who is required to produce a paper or other document should be men- tioned in the order or warrant, provided he be otherwise desi,v1ated or may be 

ascertained with sufficient certainty. Thus the order may diroot that the proper 

person or officer shall attend with t1ie books, papers, or record desired; as, for exam- ple, a proper person from a banking-house named, with their banking-books for a particular month; or the proper officer with a specified paper from one of the -public offices ; or a particular paper may be ordered to be laid before the house, w1thout 

specifying by whom it is to be done. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

Mr. LYNDE. I now yield five minutes to the gentleman from 

Ohio, [Mr. GARFIELD.] 

Mr. GARFIELD. Mr. Speaker, if we take the position suggested 

by the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. KNoTI,] that there is no dif4 

ference between telegraphic communications and oral communications so far as this pnvilegeis concerned, we needonlytakeoneother 

step to destroy the last possible protection that the American people 

enjoy againsttheinvasionof theirprivacybytheir servants, theHo~ 

of Representatives. If we now declare that the telegraph is to be 

put down on the level of mere oral communication, that one of the 

greatest corporations of the country is, turn common informer against 

all private citizens, the next and last step will be 'to declare that the 

post-office is to be put on the plane of the telegraph. 

Here is a great institution (unknown to the old law writers) which 

has grown up within the last thirty-five years, and which is probably 

to-day, next to the post-office, the custodian of more secrets in relation to public and private affairs than any other institution on earth. 

Every day hundreds of thousands of our fellow-citizens intrust their 
1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 329 

most sacredly private affairs to the telegraph companies under the 

seal of its confidence. It is now proposed that all the transactions 

conduct-ed through this great instrumentality shall be put down to 

the level of open, oral communicationa. All that public or private malice needs is to seize the tele~raph operator at any office, require him to bring in his bundle of diSpatches, and this inquisitorial body can fish out from among them whatever evidence may happen to suit 

its passion or its caprice. 

There never was an Anglo-Saxon law in any country of the AngloSaxon world that would permit so great an invasion of private rights. 

Besides destroying the telegraph as a great instrument of commerce and business intercourse, you break down iJ?. the minds of our people 

that security under the law which they have enjoyed for so many 

generations. I say to gentlemen frankly that you and I have never yet seen a congressional investigation the objects of which were sufftciently important to warrant so great a change in the laws of the 

country. It were better that evecy thief should go unwbipped of 

justice than that the oJd gua ntees of the law should be destroyed 

in order to secure his punishment. 

Now I happened in 1870 to have this question come up in the com- mittee of which I was chairman, the Committee on Banking ~d 

Currency, bef!>re which a very important investigation was going 

forward, and there are some gentlemen here who sat with me upon 

that committee. We were called to investigate the causes which led 

to 'the gold panic on what was known as Black Friday. After a large amount of testimony had been taken it was found that at a given moment the Secretary of the Treasury, under direction of the 

President, wrote a dispatch ordering the sale of gold in New York 

City; and within a few minutes thereafter the gold market bad broken 

20 or 30 per cent. (My time is up I see, but if the gentleman will 

allow me a single moment further I will conclude.) But the break came about t-en minutes before the official dispatch reached New York 

City; and it was strongly probable that some trusted officer of the 

Government had been faithless and had privately informed parties in 

New York that the order was coming. It was vitally important to 

the honor and good faith of the nation that it should be Irnown 

whether that supposition was true or not. We called the telegraph 

manager before us to inquire how far they felt at liberty to disclose 

to us what had passed over their wires between Washington and New 

York within the brief period of half an hour; and by the unanimous 

agreement of the committee, democrats and republicans alike, we framed the question narrowed down in this way: First, that within a period of about twenty minutes of time we would make our inquiry; 

second, that it should only relate to telegrams bearing upon the Government order to sell gold ; and, third, that if the telegrams disclosed 

under these conditions were any of them clearly private, they !'hould 

be returned to the telegraph company, and not one of them published. That was as far as I thought we could go, and I think it was a wise precedent. 

We shall make a most serious mistake if we break over the wellsettled rules established for the protection of the business corre- spondence of citizens. I do not know that the questions now proposed will harm any man of either party. But we oug!tt to remember 

that the safe~uards of liberty are only in danger in ames of public 

passion, and m such times it becomes all thoughtful men to take 

special heed of their steps, and make no precedents which may come back in calmer times to plague the inventors. 

Mr. LYNDE. I will now give two minutes to the gentleman from 

New York, [Mr. HEWITI.] · Mr. HEWITT, of New York. Mr. Speaker, I subscribe to the doctrine which the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] baa laid down as to the protection which the law throws around the post-office; but 

I believe that the law does not throw any such protection around 

communications by telegraph. I think, however, that the law should 

throw snch protection around communications by telegraph, and I 

should be glad to see· it done. 

Bnt, sir, I rise now for the purpose of saying to the Hoose and to 

the ~entleman from Ohio that I have good reason to think that the protection which the law secures to citizens as to communications com- ing through the post:.office is more of a delusion and a mistake than 

he sup~ it to be. I wish to say that durin~ the last month my 

attention has been called to my own letters paesmg through the New 

York post-office, and according to the best judgment I can form, and 

the best judgment of gentlemen to whom I have submitted my letters, they are apparently not infrequently opened in the postoffice, and reclosed -by the use of mucilage, but so affected that the 

steam used is shown upon the envelope, which has a puckered appearance. I have of course no means of proving this charge except 

by the appearance of the envelopes, but I am ready to submit my letters from day to day to the judgment of experts, and I think the 

gentleman ·will find the post-office protection is not such as good 

citizeDB desire, and such as comes down to us from the old AngloSaxon institutions of which he is such an admirer. 

And, moreover, I wish to say to him that if there be a protection 

or should have been. a protection for all communications by telegraph, the violation of that protection did not come from the democratic 

side of the House, but was initiated by a distinguished republican 

from the State of Ma&Sachusetts (General Butler) in the famous impeachment trial of President Johnson. And I can say further that 

proof of su~h violation has been afforded by committees of investiga.-

tion that have been sitting during the present Congress, and notably 

by the Senate committee of investigation which went into the State 

of Mississippi, issuing a drag-net snbpama for all of the telegrams 

which passed to and from Colonel George, of that State. 

So while I subscribe and will subscribe to the doctrine that the 

communications of individuals should be protected as much by telegraph as by mail, I wish to say that there is no choice for us at this 

time bnt to open them up freely on both sides. And, sir, I am glad 

to be able to state that I have during the recent political campaign 

sent no telegraphic communication which I am not willing and glad 

to have published. And I have already authorized the president of 

the Westem Union Telegraph Company to produce every telegram 

which bears my signature. [Applause.] 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. LYNDE] has 

six minutes of his time remaining. . Ur. LYNDE. I yield three minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, 

[Mr. SPRINGER.] 

Mr. GARFIELD. Will the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] · allow me to say a single wordY 

Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GARFIELD. I desire to say if the gentleman from New York 

LMr. HEWITI'] believes his ma.ils have been tampered with, I think 

it is his duty, and I will assist him, to have the matter investigated to 

the bottom. I hope he will move for a committee to investigate that 

qnestion. 

Mr. SPRINGER. There are several propositions, Mr. Speaker, 

pending before the Honse on which we are called upon to vote at 

this time. First to be voted upon is the amendment of the gentle- man from Ohio, [Mr. HuRD,] in reference to the nature of the papers 

that may be called for by these investigating committees. I think 

his proposition states the rule governing such cases more narrowly 

than is supported by the authorities, and especially than is laid down 

in Cushing's Manual and other authoritative works on parliamentary 

law. I think the rule was correctly stated by the gentleman from 

Mississippi, [Mr. HooKER.] He referred to Cushing's Manual in support of his position, and called the attention of the House to section 

936 of that work. I can see no difference between telegraphic com- munications and the accounts of a banking association. In the sec- tion cited it appears that the books of a banking-house "for a particular month" may be called for. It has been the nue of this House 

to examine the private banking accounts of various persons·· and, 

notably, the banking account of the President of the United States, 

Andrew Johnson, during or before his impeachment trial. 

The object of this inquiry, instituted by the committee in New Orle;tns, is the production of official papers of the returning board in one instance and of the telegrams forwarded by certain officials of 

this Government to the officials in New Orleans, in reference to the 

count of the votes polled in that State. It is of the utmost importance 

that all the facts bearing upon this important investigation should be 

brought to light at this time. Much depends upon this information. We desire the three committees now in the Southern States to 

get at the bottom facts in relation to the recent elections in those 

States. 

Although it has been announced by certain distinguished gentlemen 

that we, the representatives of the people, have nothing to do with 

those facts; that all that remains to be done is in the hands of the 

President pro ternpore of the Senate, who is to receive and to count the 

votes, and to declare the result as to who has been elected; that 

this House and the Senate have nothing further to do in the premises. 

Yet, I maintain that this House and the Senate and the country have a right to know all the facts necessary to a full knowledge of the subjects now being investigated by our committees in· South Carolina, 

Florida, and Louisiana. The committees of this House " are authorized to summon and compel the attendance of all persons, within the 

limits of the United States, as witnesses, and to bring with them 

papers and records, in the same manner as is practiced by courts of 

law." (Cushing, section 634.) The Honse of Representatives possesses 

all the powers of jurisdiction, in a judicial way, which are recognized 

by the common parliamentary law. It has power "to institute inquiries into all grievances of the citizen which are remediable by legis- lative enactment, and into all abuses of power by persons in office, 

with a view to their removal or impea-chment; it has power to investigate all such subjects, by the examination of witnesses or otherwi&e, 

in the same manner as is practiced by grand juries." (Cushing, sec- tion 641.) Would not a court of justice or a grandjury have the 

right to compel the production of telegraphic dispatches in the prog- ress of their investigationsf This question has already been passed 

upon by the courts, and the right to compel the production of telegraphic messages, or to prove their contents, when they cannot be 

produced, has received judicial sanction. I clesire to call the attention of the House to the following authorities upon this subject: 

In the case of Henister vs. Freedman, 2 Parsons' Select Cases, Z'/4, 

the court held : 

It must be apparent that, if we adopt this construction of the law, the telegraph 

may be nsed with the most absolute security for purposes destructive to the well· 

being of society; a state of things rendering ita absolute usefulness at least ques- tionable. The correspondence of the traitor, the murderer, the robber, and the 

swindler, by meaus of which their crimes and frauds could beth~ more readily ac- compliahed, and.their detection and puniahment avoided, would become things so sacred that they never could be accessible to the pnblio justice, however deep might be the publio interest involved in their prodnctiou, 
330 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. DECEMBER 20, 

The court in the same case further held : 

The law is jealous of extending f:be circle o~ yerSOJ?.S exm!sed or in~rdioted f~om 

giving testimony. Parents are reqmred t{) testify agamst children ; children agamst 

parents brothers &"'ainst brothers, friends a"'ainst friends. Communications by letter ~ade under the deepest obligations of friendship, affection, or honor, stifl must be produced if deemed necessary w the ascertainment of truth, and the administration of justice by the public tribunals. To this great end of social organization all secondary causes are required to give way.-A.llen's Telegraph Oases, 

page 3. 

In another case the rule bas been laid down as follows: 

Nor can tele~raphic communications be doomed any more confidential than al!y 

other commumcations. Telegraphic communications are notoo be protected to a11l 

the robber or assassin in the consummation of their felonies, or w facilitate their 

escape after the crime has been committed. No communication should be excluded, no individual should be exempt from inl).niry, when the communication, or answer to the inquiry, would be of importance .m t~e con-!iction of crime or the. ac9.nitt~ 

of innocence, except when such exclusiOn IS reqmred by some grave pnnmple of 

public policy. The honest man asks for no confidential communications, for the 

withholding the same cannot benefit him. The criminal has no Ii"'ht to demand 

exclusion of evidence because it would establish his guilt. (The S'fu:te VB. Alden 

Litchfield, 58 Maine, 267.) 

In Nova Scotia an important case on this subject bas been decided, 

in which the lord chlef-jnstice took time to consider, and afterward 

delivered the following judgment : 

In this case, after a full consideration of the general law relating to plivileged communioations, and as to the true construction of legislative enactment set forth 

in the special case, and of the decision of Lord Ellen borough in Lee VB. Barrell, 3 

Camp., 337, under circumstances so very analagous, I do not entertain a. .doubt 

that the commnnicatiOJ?.S or messages through the telegraph offices a:'-'6 ~ot. m law 

privileged communications; and that when Mr. Waddell, and others m s~r positions, are compelled to attend a judicial proceeding, they are bound to disclose the contents of such messages, and that in so doing they do not at all violate the oath 

they have taken, thatth(\ywill not "willftdlydiVulge" the contents of me sages, nor do they subject themselves to any prosecution under the enactment. At tlie same time let it not be supposed that my decision at all affects the obligation such parties are under" not to willfully diVulge the contents of roes: ages confided to them. 

(Waddell's case, 8 Jur., [N. S.,] part 2, page 181; also see Allen's Telegraph Cases, 

page497.) 

Such being the cun·ent of authorities on this subject, I shall favor 

the substitute submitted .by the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. 

KNOTT,] which is entirely in harmonywithjndicial and parliamentary 

precedents. All that is necessary in calling for tele~raphic messages or other papers is that they should be described wtth sufficient cer- tainty to enable the witness to clearly understand what messages or papers are required. And such description must of necessity be given 

in every case. It is not necessary, therefore, that the House should 

adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. HURD.] In 

all cases where om committees desire telegrams or other papers, the 

parties required to produce them will be sufficiently informed by the 

subpamas duces tecttm to enable them to comply with the summons. This is all that the law requires, and affords all the protection which a witness can rightfn.lly claim. The SPEAKER. The ~entleman from Wisconsin [Mr. LYNDE] 

has three minutes of his trme remaining. 

Mr. LYNDE. I yield that time to the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. HoAR.] 

Mr. HOAR. I only rise to express my profound regret that, in this 

most grave question of the constitutional powers of this House and 

the constitutional privileges of American citizens, the gentleman from 

New York [Mr. HEWITT] alone, on either side of the Honse, should 

have seen fit to give an excited partisan turn to the discussion, which 

I am happy to congratulate the House has not appeared in the other 

speeches on either side. If the communications of that gentleman 

through the post-office have been dealt with as he suspects, the use to be made of such a fact is not to throw it into a grave constitutional 

discUBBion with -excitement and anger. Let him rise in his place, 

under hi8 responsibility, and de maud an investigation; and no matter whether it be a democratic or mpnblican correspondence that haa 

been tampered with, if he have any proof of a char~e like that against 

any official charged with the administration of tne Post-Office Department of this country, he knows, he must know, that he will find 

abundant support on this side of the Honse in probing the matter to 

the bottom and in bringing the offenders to condign punishment. 

But the fact is utterly out of place in a discussion of the character 

t,his Honse is now engaged in. . The SPEAKER. The first question is on the amendment of the 

gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. HuRD.] 

The question being taken, there were-ayes 72, noes 111. 

Mr. McCRARY called for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The question was taken, and there were-yeas 93, ~ays 122; not 

voting 7 4 ; as follows: 

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Anderson, George A.. Bagley, John H. Baker, William 

R. Baker, Ballou, Bell, Blair, Bradley, William R. Brown, Horatio C. Burchard, Can- non, Cason, Chittenden, Con~er_~, Crounse, Davy, Dobbins, Durand, tEames, Evans, 

Foster, Freeman, Frye, Gartielu, Goodin, Hale, Andrew H. Hamilton, Hancock, 

Haralson, Benjamin W. Harris, Hathorn, Haymond, Hendee, Abram S. Hewitt, 

Hoar, Hoskins, Hunter, Hurd, Kasson, Lane, Leavenworth, Luttrell Lynch, Ma. 

goon, McCrary, McDill, Miller, Monroe, Neal, Norron, Oliver, O'Neill, Packer, 

Page, William A.. Phillips, Pierce, Plaisted, Platt, Potter, Pratt, Purman, Rairiey, 

James B. Reilly, Roberts, Rusk, Sampson, Seelye, Sinnickson, A.. Herr Smith, 

Southard, Strait, Stevenson, Soowell, Thornburgh, Martin I. Townsend, Tufts, Van 

Vorhes, Wait, Waldron, Alexander S. Wallace, John W. Wallace, White, "'White- how~e, Whiting, Amlrew Williams, Uhades G. ·williams, William B. Williams, 

Willis, Wilson, Alan Wootl, jr., WoodworLh, and Yea.tes-93. 

NAYS-Messrs. Ainsworth, Ashe, Atkins, John H. Bagley,jr., Banning, Bland, 

Bliss, Blount, Boone, Bradford,Brig~t, Buckner, Samuel D. Burchard, Cabell, Will· 

iam P. Caldwell, Campbell, Candler, Carr Cate, Caulfield, Jolm B. CL'l.rke of Kentucky, John B. Clark, jr., of Missouri, ciymer, Collins, Cook, Cowan, Culberson, 

Cutler, Davis, Dibrell, Douglas, Durham, Ellis, Faulkner, Felton, Finley, Forney, Franklin, Fuller, Gause, Gibson, Glover, Gi>ode, Gunter, Robert Hamilton, Hardenbergh, Henry R. Harris, J ohu T. Harris Harrison, Hartridge, Hartzell, Hatcher, 

Henkle, Hereford, Goldsmith W. Hewitt, Hill, Holman, Hooker, Humphreys, Hun- ron, Frank Jones, Kebr, Knott, Lamar, Franklin Landers, George M. Landers, 

Le Moyna, Levy, Lewis, Lynde, Mackey, Maish, Metcalfe, Milliken, Mills, Money, 

:Morgan, Mutchler, O'Biien, Payne, Piper, Poppleton, Powell, Rea, Reagan, Rid<lle, 

Johri Robbins, William M. Robbins, Scales, Schleicher, Sbeakley, Singleoon, Sle· mons, William E. Smith, Sparks, Spencer, Splinger, Stanoon,Stenger, Stone, Swann, 

Tarbox, Teese, Terry, Thomas, Tbrockmorron, Tucker, Turney, John L. Vance, 

lwbert B. Vance, Gilbert C. Walker, Warner, Watterson. Erastna Wells, Whitthorne, Willard, James Williams, J eremiah N. Wiliams, Wilshite, Benjamin Wil- son, Fernando Wood, and Yonn0'-122. 

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Abbott, Bagby, Banks, Bass, Beebe, Blackburn, John 

Young Brown, Burleigh, John H. Caldwell, Caswell. Chapin, Cochrane, Cox, Crapo, 

Danfotd, DarraH, De Bolt, Denison, Dunnell, Eden, Egbert, Fly~. Fort, Hays, Henderson, H~~e, Hopkins, Honse, Hubbell, Hurlbut, Hyman~..oienks, ThomasL.Jones, 

Joyce, Keuey, Kimball, King, Lapham, Lawrence, Lord, .MacDou~ McFarland, 

McMahon, Meade, Morrison, Nash, New, Odell, P4elps, John F. Philips, John 

Reilly, Rice, Robinson, Miles Ross, Sobieski Ross, Savage, Sayler, Schumaker, 

SmaUs, Stephens, Thompson, Washingrou Townsend, Waduell, Charles C. B. 

Walker, Wallin~, Walsh, Ward, Warren, G. Wiley Wells, Wheeler, Wigginoon, 

Wike, Alpheus ;:;. Williams, and Woodbnrn-74. 

So the amendment was not agreed to. 

The-question recurred upon the substitute offered by 1\fr. KNOTT 

for the resolutions reported by the committee ; and, being put, there 

were-yeas 116, noes 33. 

So the substitute was agreed to. The resolutions reported from the committee, as amended, were then 

adopted. · Mr. LYNDE moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolutions were adopted; and also moved th!l.t the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 

A message from the Senate, by Mr. SYMPSON, one of its clerks, an- nounced that the Senate had passed, without amendment, the bill 

(H. R. No. 1026) for the relief of Thomas Van Dnzen and his assignees, 

for lands. 

The messa.ge further announced that the Senate bad passed, with 

amendments in which he was directed to ask the concurrence of the 

Honse, bills of the following titles: 

A bill (H. R. No. 2043) to improve the law in relation to dower 

in the District of Columbia; and 

A bill (H. R. No. 4120) making appropriation for the payment of 

invalid and other pensions of the United States for the year ending 

June 30, 1 78. · Tl.Je message further announced that the Senate had passed a bill 

(S. No. 606) to establish the Territory of Hmon and to provide a temporary government therefor; in which he was directed to ask tbe con- currence of the Honse. 

TAl\IPERL.~G WITH THE MAILS. 

Mr. PLATT. I ask unanimous consent to offer the following reso- lution: 

Whereas ABRAH S. HEWITT, a member of this IIouse, has as erted on this floor 

in public speech that his letters, deposited in the post-office at the city of Ne'v 

York, have been illegally opened before delivery and while in charge of tho postal 

officers or employ~s of the United State : Therefore, 

Resolved, That a committee of five members of this IIouse be appointed to investigate said charge, and whether the same be true or :fulse, and by whom, if by 

any person, said criminal act or acts were committed, and report thereon to this 

House as early as practicable; and that said committee have power to send for per- sons and papers. · 

Mr. LUTTRELL. I object to this resolution. It is the duty of the 

Post-Office Department to make that investigation itself. 

PAY OF COMMITTEE CLERKS. 

Mr. KNOTT. I ask unanimous consent to offer the following reso- lution: 

Resolved, That the Judiciary Committee be instructed to inquire whether by the 

appropriation act of August 15, 1876, the twenty-one clerks to committee8 of the 

llouso therein mentioned are entitled to receive as compensation during t.he fiscal 

year ended J nne 30, 1877, the amount per diem designated in said act for their actual 

services. 

1\Ir. HOL1\1AN. I have no objectiontotheinqniry,bnti know what 

the intention was, and if there is any uncertainty as to the intention, 

the matter ought to be provided for by law; it was prospective only. 

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Kentucky ask for the 

adoption of the r solution, or simply for its reference Y 

Mr. KNOTT. I ask for its acloption. :Mr. KASSON. 'Vhat is the object of the resolution f 

The SPEAKER. It is a resolution instructing the J ndiciary Committee to make inquiry as to certain language used in an appropriation bill. 

Mr. KASSON. There can be no objection to that. 

No objection being made, the resolution was received and adopted. Mr. KNOTT moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsidor be lai.d on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

ADMll{ISTRATIOY OF TilE NAVY DEPARTMENT. 

Mr. MILLS, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (II. R. No. 

425D) to re-organize ~nd render more eff!.cte~t t~e ~b;~tion oft~~ 
1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 331 

Navy Department; which was read a :first and second time, and re- ferred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. 

ALASKA SHIP-BUILDING AND LUMBER CO.I\:IPA...'iY. 

Mr. PIPER, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 

4260) granting to the Alaska Ship-building and Lumber Company 

the right to occupy and purchase certain lands in the Territory of 

Alaska, paying the Government price therefor, and for other puposes; 

which was read a :first and second time, referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and ordered to be printed. 

SALE OF DESERT LAND. 

Mr. LANE, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on Public 

Lands, reported as a substitute for House bill No. 125 a bill (H. R. 

No. 4261) to provide for the sale of desert lands in certain States 

and Territories; which was read a :first and second time, recommitted 

to the committee, and ordered to be printed, not to be brought back on a motion to reconsider. 

PROFESSOR HAYDEN'S REPORT. 

Mr. VANCE, of North Carolina, by unanimous consent, introduced a concurrent resolution to print 4,500 copies of the Geological and 

Geographical Survey of the Territories for 1875 by Professor Hayden; 

which was referred to the Committee on Printing, and ordered to be 

printed. FU~TJ>ING LEGAL-TENDER NOTES. 

Mr. CIDTTENDEN. I ask unanimous consent to introduce and have 

referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency the preamble and 

joint resolution which I send to the Clerk's desk to be read. 

The Clerk read the preamble and joint resolution, as follows : 

Whereas the legal-tender notes of the UniWd States when first issued were by a provision of the act authorizing them fundable at the option of holders into 

bonds of the United States beAring 6 per cent. annual interest; 

And whereas but for such pr<Wiston for funding neither the Secretary of the Trea-sury or either House of Congress would have consented to their issue; 

And whereas the exi~enCies of a prolonged civil war led to the temporary withdrawal of the said fundmg provision of the eg~l-tender act; 

And whereas it is apparent in the present and prospective condition of the com- merce of the country that the amount of paper money in circulation is greatly in excess of the proper demands of trade ; And whereas the Government of the United States is solemnly and firmly bound 

by act of Congress approved Jan nary 14, 1875, to provide for the redemption in coin 

of ita legal-tender notes on and after the 1st day of January, 1879; 

And whereas it is obvious that in order to resume coin payments in the manner and at the time fixed by the aforesaid act of Congress the previous withdrawal from 

circulation of a considerable portion of said legal. tender notes is an indispensable act of preparation ; · And whereas it is now apparently practicable to fund said notes in bonds having 

forty :years to run at a rate of interest not exceeding 4 per cent. per annum, without 

colDID18sions or cost to Government; 

And whereas the United States must, like all other debtors public or private, provide for and _pay all its honest obligations to the extent of its means and resources, or be discredited and dishonored; ~herefore, 

Be it enacted, etc. First, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and is hereby, 

authorized to withdraw, as soon as the necessary preparations can be made, the 

legal-tender notes of the United States whenever presented by the holders thereof, 

and issue therefor, dollar for dolla.r of face value, coupon or registered bonds of the 

United States in the spirit of the original legal· tender act: P.rovilkd, That the bonds 

authorized by this act shall be payable in gold at the expiration of forty years from 

the 1st day of January, 1877, and bear interest at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum, payable quarterly in gold. 

Second: That the bonds authorized by this act shall be available for deposit in 

the Treasury of the United States for banking purposes under the various provi- eions of law relating to national banks. 

'l'hird. That the legal-tender notes received in exchange for bonds under thisaet 

shall be destroyed, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe. 

Fourth. That all laws inconsistent with this aet are hereby repealed. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I object to the introduction of this joint resolution. SALE OF LANDS IN KANSAS. 

Mr. PHILLIPS, of Kansa~. I a.sk unanimous consent to have taken 

from the Speaker's table House bill No. 1984, to provide for the sale 

of certain lands in Kansa.s, with the amendments of the Senate thereto, 

for the purpose of moving a non-concurrence in said amendments and 

requesting a committee of conference. Mr. HOLMAN. Let the amendments be reported. 

The amendments were read, as follows : 

Page 1, line 4, after the word "aet" insert "in accordance with the provisions of 

eaid former aet, except as hereinafter stated as to price." 

Page 2, lines 2 and 3, strike out" or a delegation thereof duly authorized." 

Page 2, lines 5 and 6, strike out "or of a delegation thereof duly authorized . " 

Mr. PHILLIPS, of Kansas. I move that the amendments of the 

Senate be non-concurred in and that a committee of conference l>e 

requested. 

The 'llotion was agreed to. 

after as practicable, make report, in writing, to the House of the manner in which 

the sums thus paid to him have been expended, accompanied with wuchers in de· 

tail· which report and vouchers, when examined and approved by the Committee 

of Accounts of the House, shall be deemed a sufficient settlement of his account. ability for the money thus paid to him; an«l any unexpended balance remaining in 

the hands of the Sergeant-at-Arms after such settlement shall be :paid by him into 

the Treasury of the United States, to the credit of the fundforwhwhit was appro- priated.'' 

And the House agree to the same. Tha.t the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House to the amendment No.2 and agree to the same, with an amendment as follows: In lieu 

of "30 " insert "35," (making the appropriation $35,000;) and the House agree to 

the same. WM. S. HOLMAN, 

J.D. C. ATKINS, 

EUGENE HALE, 

Managers on the part of th.a House. 

WM. WINDOM, 

H. G. DAVIS. 

Managers on the part of the Senate. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I wish to say a word in explanation of this report. 

Gentlemen will remember that the bill as originally passed by the 

House appropriated 21,000 to meet the expenses of three special com- mittees appointed to visit the States of South Carolina, Florida, and 

Louisiana, respectively. That bill was amended by the Senate by the 

addition of a new section appropriating $50,000 to meet the expenses 

of four committees of the Senate, ~hree of them to visit the States of 

South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana, respectively, and the other 

to remain at the Capitol. 

When the bill came back to the House thus amended, the House 

increased the appropriation for its committees from $21,000 to $30,000, 

there having been appointed an additional committee of the House 

to investigate the recent election in the cities of New York, Philadelphia, Brooklyn, and Jersey City, and reduced the appropriation for 

the Senate committees from $50,000 to 30,000, making the appropriation for this purpose the same for each House. 

The House also by its amendments to the bill, after it came back 

from the Senate, provided for limiting the expenditure of the money 

thereby appropriated to the actual and necessary expenses of the 

members of the committees, making the actual and necessary ex- penses the rule of expenditure by both the committees of the House 

and the committees ofthe Senate. . Gentlemen understand that heretofore no very definite rule on this 

subject has prevailed. Sometimes the allowance has been ten cents a mile for travel and a.s high as 6 a day for hotel expenses. That 

has been perhaps as uniform a rnle as any other. Ten cents a mile 

for travel is of course greatly above the actual expenditure and $5 or 6 a day greatly above the actual expense for hotel bills. The object 

of this bill wa.s to establish, both as regards the House and the Senate, 

the principle that only actual expenses should b~ pa,id by the Sergeant-at-Arms. 

The resnlt reached by the conference committee is not altogether 

satisfactory. It is one of those inevitable compromise~:~ out of which a great deal of our legislation grows. The Honse indulged the con- fident belief that, although its committees were the larger and occu- pied a wider :field, $30,000 would still be a sufficient sum to be appropriated for them. The Senate, on the other hand, thought $50,000 as 

small a sum as would suffice for the expenses of its committees. Wit- nesses are now being subprenaed by the Senate from Oregon, from 

Mississippi, and from various other sections of the country. The 

House has adopted, as a rule of compensation for witnesses, :five cents a mile for travel (which is very ample) and $3 a day for expenses 

while in attendance. The Senate, on the other hand, allows :five cents a mile for travel (except, I believe, where the travel is from beyond 

the one hundredth parallel, in which case the rate is seven cents a mile) and $4 a day for expenses during the attendance of the witness. 

The Senate committees having charge of these investigations, as well as the conferees upon the part of the Senate, were of opinion that 

$50,000 was not too large a sum. The subject was :finally adjusted 

upon an appropriation of 35,000 for each body. In view of the fact 

that in the one ca.se the sit.ting of the committee is at the Capitol and 

in the other case at the scene of the matters investigated, it is very 

manifest that little or no difference will exist between the two bod.ies as to the actual expenditure. Therefore the appropriation on very 

fair grounds should be about the same for the two bodies. Hence the 

committee of conference :finally agreed to :fix the appropriation at 

35,000 for each branch of Congress and to provide for returning to 

the Treasury any surplus that may remain. I indulge the hope that a very considerable amount may be left unexpe~ded at the close of 

these investigations. 

Mr. CONGER. Will the gentleman from Indiana allow me to ask one question Y 

Mr. HOLMAN. Certainly. EXPENSES OF INVESTIGATING CO.MMI'ITEES. :Mr. CONGER. If the committee on the par:t of the House thought 

Mr. HOLMAN submitted the following; which was read: that $30,000 was enough for the House committees, why should they 

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the have yielded to the demands of the Senate and increased the approamendments of the Senate to the bill of the Honse No. 4124, to provide for the ex- priation to $35,000 Y 

penses of certain speoial committees, having met, after full and free conference, Mr. HOLMAN. I presume the gentleman has been on committees 

have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses a.s follows: of conference, and has found that it is somewhat difficult for either That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Honse to the amendment No.1 and agree to the same, with an amendment as follows: Honse to have absolutely its own way. Inlieuo~ "30"insert"35"(ma"!rlngtheappropriation$35,000)anda«ldattheend !\Ir. CONGER. But I understood the gentleman to say that the 

of the section amended the followmg: . Honse committee were of opinion that an appropriation of $30 000 for 

"And the Clerk of the House shall pay such parts of the sum above appropnated h Wh h h ld th h b f ~ d b as the chairmen of the said committees respectively shall in writina direot for the the House wa.s enoug . y t en s on ey ave een orce Y 

purposes aforesaid to the Sergea.nt-at-Arma of the Honse: who shall~' as soon there·- the Senate to vote $351000 Y 
332 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. DECEMBER 21, 

Mr. HOLMAN. It is very clear that, if $35,000 will be required to 

meet the current expenses of four committees on the part of the Senate, it will require at least as much to meet the expenses of the com- mittees on the part of the Hoose; for, as the gentleman is aware, the Roo~ committees are larger in number. The Honse sends to States 

of the Sooth thirty members to inveetigate concerning the recent 

elections in Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina. The Senate, on the other hand, sends but nine members. The gentleman must see that, if it was proper for the Honse to concede an appropriation of 

$35,000 for Senate committees, it waa proper that at least as large a sum should be appropriated on the part of the Honse ; for, if $35,000 

will be required for the Senate committees, it is very clear that at 

least the same amount, if not more, will be required for the Honse 

committees. · Mr. CONGER. I understood that the committee on the part of the 

Honse thought $30,000 enough for this body. 

Mr. HOLMAN. My belief still is that $30,000 is all that can be properly expended for either Hoose. The Honse conferees, contrary to 

their wishes, compromised this question. 

Mr. O'BRIEN. I desire to ask the gentleman a question almost 

equivalent to the question put by the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. 

CoNGER.] I wish to ask the gentleman how in his conscience he 

oould find any authority whatever on the part of this committee to 

raise the appropriation for the Honse from 30,000 to $35lOOO, when in 

his solemn judgment as expressed upon this floor $30,u00 was more than sufficient. . Mr. HOLMAN. I greatly admire the tender conscience of my friend. 

Mr. O'BRIEN. I call the ~entleman's attention to this consideration: what right bad he to 11eld to the judgment of the Senate in this 

matter, and wnat influence has been brought to bear upon him by 

the Senate in order to control his judgment t 

Mr. HOLMAN. I supposedmyfriend wished to ask some pertinent 

question. I yield to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. WooD.] 

Mr. O'BRIEN. .AB the gentleman cannot answer my question, I pre- sume he has no conscience in this matter. 

Mr. WOOD, of New York. I am not sure whether I correctly un- derstood this report as it was read, but if I did, the expenditures on the part of the House are to be anclited and passed upon by the Committee of Accounts upon actual vouchers. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WOOD, of New York. But I do not understand that in the con- ference report any such rnle is made applicable to expenditures on tho part of the Senate. Now I wonld like to know how this confer- ence committee on the part of the House can reconcile it to their sense of justice and propriety that the Senate shonld be permitted in 

this way to legislate as to how we shall expend the money for our own purposes when the rnle ls not made appliqable to the Senate committees. 

Mr. HOLMAN. The rnle as to the House fixed by this report is substantially the same for both bodies. The gentleman from New York 

is aware that the practice of the two bodies in referencetothedrawing and expenditure of money out of the contingent fund is different. 

Unless we provide in this way for the auditing of the expenditure of 

this money on the part of the Sergeant-at-Arms by the Committee of 

Accounts, it could not be audited at all. In the Senate the auditing 

of accounts occorsbetweentheSergeant-at-Armsand theClerk of the 

Senate, while here it occurs between the Sergeant-at-Arms and the 

Committee of Accounts of the Honse. There is by this conference 

report provision for the auditing in both bodies, here by the Committee of Accounts and in the Senate by the Clerk of the Senate. The 

gentleman from New York, therefore, wUl perceive that the rule is 

substantially the same in both bodies. 

Mr. WOOD, of New York. If that be the rnle then why put it in 

this conference report 7 

Mr. HOLMAN. I wish it to be the law. I am not aware of any 

well-established rnle in the Hoose on this subject. I hope never to see a dollar of the public money placed in the hands of any officer of 

the Honse, under any circumstances, in reference to which provision 

is not made for the auditing of its expenditure. I want all accounts 

to be audited by some recognized committee of the Honse or by some recognized officer. 

Mr. BUCKNER. Is not the expenditure confined to the actual and 

necessary expenses 7 

Mr. HOLMAN. The Committee of Accounts here determines what 

is actual and necessary, and in the Senate provision is made for auditing what are actual and necessary expenses. The result is the same, as the gentleman from New York will perceive. I now demand the 

previous question on the adoption of the report. 

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; 

and under the operation thereof the conference report was adopted. 

Mr. HOLMAN moved to reconsider the vote by which the report of 

tbe conference committee was adopted; and also moved that the 

motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. · 

ADDITIONAL LAND DISTRICT, IDAHO. 

Mr. FENN, by unanimous consent, moved to take from the Speaker's 

t.able a bill (S. No. 538) to create an additional land district in the 

Territory of Iuaho; which motion was a.!tt'eed to. 

The bill was then taken up, read a first and second ti.Qle, referred ~o the Committee on Public Lands, and ordered to be printed. 

CITADEL, CHARLESTON, SOUTII CAROLINA. 

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the Hoose a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting, in answer to a resolution 

of the Honse, the report of Lieutenant-Colonel Gillmore, of the United 

States Army, relative to the building and grounds known as the 

Citadel, Charleston, South Carolina; which was referred to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. 

TROOPS A.T FORT SILL1 ETC. 

The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a lettei' from the Secretary of War, transmitting a statement of t.he 

number of troops now at Fort Sill, Indian Territory, and Forts Griffin 

and Richardson, Texas; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

COLIDffiiA BOSPITA.L FOR WOMEN. 

The SPEAKER announced that he had appointed Mr. MACKEY as a member of the board of directors for the Columbia Hospita.l for 

Women, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of the Speaker. 

. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. 

. By unanimous consent leave of absence was granted in the followmg cases: 

To Mr. PoWELL, for one week from the 22d instant on account of 

important business. 

To Mr. MONEY, from Thursday next until January 3. 

To Mr. ODELL, until January 2 on account of important business. 

To Mr. O'NEIL, for three days from the 26th instant. • . To~- BAKER, of Indiana, from the 27th to the 30th of December, 

mclns1ve. 

To Mr. ""WILLIAMS, of Alabama, from the 26th instant to the 5th of 

January. 

To Mr. VANCE, of North Carolina, from tho 21st instant until January 2. • To Mr. STEVENSO~, for t en days from Friday next on account of 

important business. 

To Mr. OLIVER, for two weeks from Thursday next. 

To Mr. SEELYE, for ten days from the 22d instant. 

To Mr.liARRis, of Massachusetts, from Friday the 23d instant, until 

January3. 

To Mr. WILLIA?.IS, of New York, for ten days ..from the 22d instant. 

To Mr. AsHE, for ten days from the 23d instant. 

To Mr. HAmLTON, of Indiana, from the 27th instant to January 10. 

To Mr. ROBBINS, of North Carolina, from the 23d instant to January 3. 

To Mr. W ARREN1 for three days from the 26th instant. 

And then, on motion of Mr. PAGE, (at four o'clock and ten minutes· p. m.,) the Honse adjourned. 

PETITIONS. 

'l'he following petitions were presented at the Clerk's desk under 

the rule, and referred a.s stated : By Mr. DURAND: The petition of disabled soldiers of Michigan 

fo: a~ appropriation for artificial limbs, to the Committee on Appro~ pr1at10ns. 

... By Mr. HEWITT, of Alabama: Petition of citizens of Blount and 

Winston Counties, Alabama, for the passage of the bill introduced by 

Mr. G. W. HEWI'IT for the relief of settlers on lands claimed by the 

South and North Railroad, to the Committee on Public Lands. 

By Mr. WALKER, of Virginia: The petition of R. A. Brock, corre- sponding secretary and librarian of the Virginia Historical Society · ~ames McDonald1 ~tate lib:arian o! V:ir~inia; W. H. Ruffner, soper~ mtendent of public mstruction of V rrgl.Illa; J; C. Southall; P. C. Nicholas, librarian of the Virginia State Law Library; J. William Jones 

secretary Southern Historical Society, Richmond, Virginia, and of th~ officers of libraries in different sections of the country, for the purchase by Congress of the papers of the General Count de Roohambean 

the commander of the French forces sent to aid Washington in on; 

revolutionary struggle for national Independence, to the joint Committee on the Library. 

IN SENATE. 

THURSDAY, December 21, 1876. 

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. BYRON SUNDERLAND, D. D. 

The J onrnal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a Jetter from 

the Secretary of the Treaanry, transmitting a report made to that Department by Carlisle P. Patterson, Superintendent of the United 

States Coast Survey, stating the progress of that work during the year 

ending J nne 30, 1876; which was ordered to lie on the table and be 

printed. 

PETITIONS .AND MEMORIALS. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I present a memorial of the Legislative Assembly 

of the State of Oregon, in which they represent "that there are ex- tensive tracts of the public lands in Eastern Oregon which may be 

properly termed 'desert lands,' bein~ such on ~~oqnt of the l;wk of