1470 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA'I'E. FEBRUARY 8, 

By :Mr. J. S. HENDERSON: Paper of Jeremiah P. Robinson and 

others, of New York, urging the pa.ssage of the Hewitt bill (H. R. 8730) 

to modify existing laws relative to warehouses and the collection of 

revenue-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

Also, paper of Herbert Myrick, of Springfield, Mass., favoring the 

agricultural experiment bill-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

Also_.. resolutions of the United States Jl,lenhaden Oil and Guano Association, favoring tariff duties of 2 eents per pound on degras and $10 

per ton on nitrate of soda-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. J. S. HENDERSON: Papers relating to the claim of Frank 

P. Haywood and of Frank P. Haywood, in behalf of his minor children, of Franklin County, North Carolina-to the Committee on War 

Claims. 

Uy Mr. T. J. HENDERSON: Petition of George J. Rice and others, 

citizens of Bureau County, illinois, praying for the passage of a bill to 

relieve Jesse Rood, late a private in Company B, Thirteenth Regiment 

Illinois Volunteers, from the charge of desertion-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. HITT: Petition of Peter Homer, of Lanack, ill., for the 

passage of House bill9733-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. LAFFOON: Petition of citizens of Owensborough, Ky., relative to a Federal court at that place-to the Committee on the Judiciag·ur. LINDSLEY: Petition in behalfofBridget Freilewek, offfister County, New York-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. McCOMAS: Petition of. the heirs of John Young, of Frederick County, Maryland, asking reference of claim to Court of Claimsto the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. McCREARY: Petition of Lydia Posey, of Kentucky, for re- lief-to the same committee. 

By Mr. JI,IlLLS: Petiiilon of J. J. Paget, of McGregor, Tex., praying 

for relief-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. . By Mr. MORRIT.L: Concurrent resolution of the Legislature of Kansas, for the passage of the bill opening Oklahoma to settlement-to the 

Committee on the Territories. 

By Mr. NELSON: Memorial from fishermen of Lake Superior, relative to duty on imported fish-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. OSBORNE: Resolutions of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, 

in favor of the passage of the Miller pleuro-pneumonia bill-to the 

Committee on Agriculture. 

Also, resolutions of the same, in favor of the agricultural experimentstation bill-to the same committee. · lly l!fr. PARKER: Petition of the J. K. Barnes Post, No. 360, 

Grand .Army of the Republic, in favor of the Edmunds-Tucker billBy :Mr. SWINBURNE: Petition of N. G. Lyon Post, No. 43, of M. .H. Brackley Post, No. 198, and of Patrick Kane Post, No. 312, Grand 

Army ofthe Republic, of New York, in favor of the Edmunds-Tucker 

bill-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By :Mr. W .A.DE: Petition of C. B. Holland, of Green County, Missouri, asking reference of his claim to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. WADSWORTH: Petition for increase of pension for Mrs. 

Rhoda Front-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. WARD : Petition of the Cattle-Growers' Association of the 

United States, and of the Holstein-Friesian Association of America, in 

favoroftheMiller bill-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

By Mr. A. J. WEAVER: Petition of John Beichley, for a specialact pem~ion-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. MILO WHITE: Petition of citizens of Minnesota, for in- crease of pension of Alvin Crissey, war of 1812-'14-to the Committee on Pensions. 

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

illiteracy, were severally referred to the Committee on Education: 

By Mr. BAYNE: Of 99 citizens of Emsworth, Pa. 

By Mr. BOUTELLE: Of Rev. Daniel Green and 58 others, citizens 

of Ma-chias, Me. 

By. Mr. BURNES: Of Rev. G. W. Litts and 35 others, citizens of 

Balckow, Mo. 

By Mr. CARLETON: Of86 citizens ofPort Huron, Mich. 

Also, of the Women's Christian Temperance Union of Michigan. 

By Mr. CUTCHEON: Of 139 citizens of Big Rapids, Mich. 

By Mr. D.A. VIS: OfT. J. Lothrop and 118 others, citizens of Bristol 

County, Massachusetts. 

By Mr. GUENTHER: Of108 citizens of Eureka and Rushford., Wis. 

By Mr. HOLJI,-!ES: Of78 citizens of Clarion, Iowa. 

By Mr. HUDD: Of21 citizens of Green Bay, Wis. 

By Mr. McCREARY: Of21 citizens ofLiviJ?.gston, Ky. 

By Mr. PARKER: Of199 citizens of Lyme and Adams, N. Y. 

By Mr. PRICE: Of citizens of New Richmond, Wis. 

By Mr. ROMEIS: Of 55 citizens of Sandusky, Ohio. 

By Mr. SEYMOUR: Of 34 citizens of Woodbury, Conn. 

By Mr. SPOONER: Of 83 citizens of Burrillville, and of citizens of 

East Providence, R. I. 

By Mr. W .A.IT: Of 55 citizens of Pomfret, Conn. 

to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Also, remonstrance of the Owen Roe Club, and of the Garry Owen Club SEN ATE. 

of New York city, against the so-called extradition with the British TUESDAY. Februat·y 8, 1887. 

Government-to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. J 

Also, resolutions of the Legislature of New York, urging measures to Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. J. G. BUTLER, D. D. 

extirpate pleuro-pneumonia-to the Committee on Agriculture. The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and appro\ed. 

By Mr. PAYNE: PetitionofsundrycitizensofFairbury, lli., for re- WASHINGTON CABLE RAILROAD COMPANY. 

lief of E. D. Baker, postmaster, for loss by fire-to the Committee on the The PRESIDENT pro tem1)ore laid before the Senate a resolution • Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. PINDAR: Petition of the Owen Roe Club ofNew York city from the House of Representatives; which was read, as follows: 

against the extradition treaty with England-to the Committee on IN THE HouSE oF REPRESE:r.--r.ATIVES, Februar'IJ 7, 1887. 

Foreign Affairs. .Resolved, That the Senate be requested to return to the House of RepresentnBy Mr. REED: :Memorial of Bosworth Post, Grand Army of theRe- ~~;~~~~~~b~~~-o8f~ ~U:~~rporate the Washington Cable Railway Compublic, in favor ofthe Edmunds anti-Mormon bill-to the Committte The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The request of the Honse of Repre- on the Judiciary. if h b' · Th Ch · h By Mr. RIGGS: Papers relating to the pension bill of John Laub- sentatives will be granted t ere be no o ~ection. • e atr ears scher-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. none, and the bill will be returned to that body. 

By l!fr. RUSK: Petition of· E. Walters & Co., and others, of Balti- PETmONS A:to.TD MEMORIALS. 

more, in favor of House bill 9733-to the Committee on Ways and :Mr. BLAIR presented a petition of the executive committee of the 

Means. Grand Lodge of the Independent Order of Good Templars, State of InBy Mr. SENEY: Petition of James D. Evans and others, :for the re- diana, in behalf of a membership of 1, 800, praying for the passa.ge of the 

peal of the tobacco tax-to the same committee. bill {8.1579) granting to the people of the District of Columbia the 

AJso, petition of Albert J. N eifer and others, of Wood County, Ohio, right to determine by ballot whether intoxicating liquors may hereafter 

for the passage of Senate billl636-to the Committee on the Post-Of- be legally manufactured and sold in that District; which was referred 

fice and Post-Roa-ds. tO the Committee on the District of Columbia. · . Also, joint resolution of the General Assembly of Ohio,"requesting He also presented a petition of citizens of Texas, praying for the enthe passage of Senate bill1976-to the Committee on Military Affairs. actment of the educational bill; which was ordered to lie on the table. 

By Mr. SNYDER: Petition of Robert F. Reynolds, of Malden, W. Mr. WILLIAMS presented a joint resolution of the Legislature ot 

V a., for reference of his war claim to the Court of Claims-to the California; w hieh was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and orCommittee on War Claims. dered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: 

By Mr. ST..A.HLNECKER: Petition of a committee of business men .Assembly joint resolution No.3, relating to the construction of a breakwater at 

of New York city, favoring the passage of the Hewitt bill to modify Port Harford, in the Bay of San Luis Obispo. 

existing laws in regard to warehousing and the collection of revenue- Whereas the Government of the United States has caused to be made a sur- to the Committee on Ways and Means. vey of a proposed breakwater ·at Port Harford, in the Bay of San Luis Obispo; 

Also, petition of the Chamber of Commerce of. New York State, fa- an~ereas the construction of said breakwater is of great importance to the 

voting coast defenses-to the Committee on Appropriations. . . _ 4commerce of this State, both as a harbor of refuge and for the accommodation 

By Mr. STEELE: Petition of J. A. Bonham and 40 others, of Hart- 'ofvesselsengagedinthecoastingtradeonthesoutherncoastofthisState: Thereford Ci.ty, Ind., and of Amos Bogue and 50 others, o!" Fairmount, Ind., for;; it resolved1Yy the assembly of the State of California (the senate eo·ncuTTing), That 

in favor of the Miller pleuro-pneumonia bill-to the Committee on our Senators and Representatives in Congress are requested to vote for an apAgriculture. propriation for the construction of said breakwater, and Lo use ev-ery effort to 

S M ·al f Mathias Ki dt, · d f G W Fry procure said appropriation to be made. By Mr. TORM: emon o n an 0 eorge · ' Resolved, That the governor be requested to transmit to each of our Senators 

for pensions-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. · . and Representatives in Congress a copy of these resolutions. 
1887. CONG-RESSIONAL RECORD--SENATE. 1471 

Mr. PLUMBpresentedapetition of B. F. Larned Post, No.8, Department of Kansas, Grand Army of the Republic, praying for the passage 

oflegislation with reference to the Mormon Church; which was ordered 

to lie on the table. 

Mr. PLUMB. I present the petition of a large number of settlers 

located in Sherman County, Kansas, one of the frontier counties of that 

State, praying that some provision may be made to furnish them mth 

seeds. I move the reference of the petition to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. MITCHELL, of Pennsylvania. I present sundry petitions of 

citizens of Washington, D. C. , in favor of the Washington Cable Railway Company. I suppose as the bill on that subject is before the Committee on the District of Columbia these petitions should be referred to 

that committee. 

Mr. INGALLS. The bill having been withdrawn by the House of 

Representatives the petitions might as well lie on the table. 

Mr. MITCHELL, of Pennsylvania. Very well. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection the petitions 

will lie on the table. 

Mr. MILLER presented a petition of Alonzo Smith Post, Grand Army 

of the Republic, of Johnsville, N. Y., praying for the passage of the antiMormon bill; which was ordered to lie on the table. 

Mr. INGALLS presented resolutions adopted at a meeting.of the 

George Graham Post, No. 92, Grand Army of the Republic, State of 

Kansas, recommending legislation on the Mormon question; which were ordered to lie on the table. 

He also presented a petition of citizens of New Lexington, Ohio, praying for the initiation of negotiations for the acquisition of the Dominion 

of Canada; w hlch was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. 

He also presented a concurrent resolution of the Legislature of the 

State of Kansas, instructing their Senators to support legislation providing for the organization of the Territory of Oklahoma; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands. 

Mr. PALMER presented a petition of 128 citizens of Washington, 

D. C., residents of S street north west; a petition of 81 citizens of Washington, D. C., residents ofT street-northwest; and a petition of 80 citi- zens of Washington, D. C., residents of K street northwest, praying for 

the passage of the bill to incorporate the Washington Cable Rail way 

Company; which were ordered to lie on the table. 

Mr. CONGER presented a joint resolution of the Legislature of the 

State of Michigan; which was ordered to lie on the table, and to be 

printed in the RECORD, as follows: 

Joint resolution requesting Congress of the United States to remove the arrears- of-pension limit, and to pension survivors of rebel prisons, and soldiers and sailors who are disabled and dependent or who nre sixty-two years of age. 

Whereas the arrears-of-pension act passed by the Congress of the UI}ited States in the year 1879 provides that all p ensions granted on application filed on or after July 1,1880, shall commt'nce from the date of filing such application; and 

Whereas many brave and disabled soldiers were denied arrears under this act, and without any cause for this exclusion; and Whereas pensions granted should be commensumt~ wit h the period of disa- bility, without regard to the time of filing such application: Therefore, B e it 1·esolved by the senate an d house of r ept·esentatives of the State of Michigan, That the Congress of the Unit-ed States be requested to repeal so much of the pension Jaws of 1879 as relates to the arrears limit, and that the act be so amended as to remove the limit altogether; and further, that the laws be so amended as to grant pensions to survivors of rebel prisons, without asking proof that disa- bility was due to imprisonment, and to pension all honorably-discharged sol- diers and sailors now disabled and self-dependent, or who are sixty-two years of age, or who may hereafter become d isabled and self-dependent or arrive at the age of sixty-two years. ..4. nd be it further resolved, That we indorse the recommendations of the national pension committee of the Grand Army of the Republic. 

Resolved, Tha t the governor be requested to forward copies of this resolution to our Representatives in the Congress of the United Stat.es. This joint resolution is ordered to take immediate effect. • CHAS. J. 1\IONROE, 

Approved February 4, 1887. 

President pro tempore of the Senate. DANIEL P. HARKEY, 

Speaker of the House. 

C. G. LUCE, Governor. 

Mr. DAWES presented the petition of A. G. Willard and 18 women of Marlboro', Mass.; the petition of Anthony Doherty and 19 citizens 

of Fall River, Mass.; the petition of Patrick Quonn and 19 citizens of 

Cambridgeport, :Mass. ; and the petition of H. A. Raymond and 20 citizens of Somerville, Mass., representing that they are consumers of 

oleomargarine in their own homes, and stating that the license tax on oleomargarine is from five to fifty times higher than the license tax on whisky, beer, and tobacco, and praying for a reduction of the same; 

which were referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. 

Jtlr. COCKRELL. I present a petition to the Senators and Representatives from Missouri, but intended for Congress, signed by 110 members 

out of the 140 members of the lower house of the General Assembly 

of :Missouri, and 19 senators out of the 34 senators composing the sen- ate of the General Assembly of Missouri, petitioning for the passage 

of what is known as the Miller bill, or some other law upon the subject of pleuro-pneumonia, and also praying for legislation for the prevention of the Texas cattle fever. I move that the petition be referred 

to the Committee on.Agriculture and Forestry. 

The motion was agreed to. • 

Mr. HARRIS presen~d the petition of John T. RQbeson, late United 

States consul at Beirut, praying for refund of money eXJ>endedfor clerkhire; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations. 

REPORTS OF CO!\IMITTEES. 

Mr. SAWYER, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was re· ferred the bill (H. R. 10795) granting a pension to Elenor C. Ransom, 

reported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

He also, from the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 6312) for the relief of James M. Grigsby, 

reported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

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

the bill (H. R. 6952) granting a pension to Charles Riddle, reported H 

without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (H. 

R. 6027) granting a pension to William McFadden, reported it without 

amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

He also, from _thesame committee, towhom was referred the bill (H. 

R. 10473) granting a pension to William Reddick, reported it without 

amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S. 

1347) granting a pension to William H. Reddick, moved its indefinite 

postponement; which was agreed to. 

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

to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2998) granting a pension to Henry 

Mericle, reported it without amendment, and submitted a report 

theron. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(H. R. 8485) granting a pension to Isaac Askie, reported it without 

amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

He also, ·from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(H. R. 5345) for the relief of :Mary J. Gilbert, reported it without 

amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

Mr. CAMERON, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 7996) for the relief of William J. Mulvey, 

reported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(H. R. 1173) to correct the record of Captain Edmond G. Fechet, re- ported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(H. R. 9446) for the relief Qf Robert W. Spang, reported it without 

amendment, and submitted a rep<)rt th-ereon. 

Mr. CAMERON. I am directed by a majority of the Committee on Military .Affairs, to whom were referred the bill (H. R. 506) for therelief of Eleanor T. Brookbanks and others; the bill (H. R. 527) for the 

relief of William Pike; the bill (H. R. 528) for the relief of Silas 

Quackenbush; and the bill (H. R. 529) for the relief of George W. 

Baldwin, Charles L. Baldwin, and Dora Thompson, to reportthemadversely. I do not agree with the majority reports, and therefore beg 

leave to submit the views of the minority. I ask that the bills be 

placed on the Calendar. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bills will be placed on the Calendar, and the views of the minority will be printed. 

1\Ir. MORRILL, from the Committee on Finance, to whom was re- ferred the bill (S. 2500) to amend section 3622 of the Revised Statutes 

of. the United States, reported it without amendment. 

Mr. MILLER, from the Committee on Finance, to whom was referred 

the bill (H. R. 1628) for the relief of the Continental Fire Insurance 

Company, the Eagle Fire Insurance Company, the City Fire Insurance 

Company, and the Commercial Mutual Insurance Company, all of New 

York city; the Western National Bank, the Merchants' National Bank, 

and the Maryland Fire Insurance Company, of Baltimore, Md., reported 

it without amendment. 

Mr. ALDRICH. I desire to say tha.t a minority of the COmmittee on Finance dissent from the views expressed in the report. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be pla{!ed on the Calendar. • Mr. HAMPTON, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 7209) to authorize the construction of a graveled road to the Richmond National Cemetery, near Richmond, 

Va., reported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

Mr. SEWELL, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 8030) to authorize the Secretary ofWarto 

credit the Territory of Dakota with certain sums for ordnance and ord- nance stores issued to said Territory, and for other purposes, reported 

it withont amendment. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(H. R. 2075) to provide for the location and erection of a branch home 

for disabled volunteer soldiers west of the Rocky Mountains, reported 

it without amendment. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(H. R. 2208) authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to. deliver to 

the rightful owners the contents of certain boxes deposited in the 

Treasury Department by the Secretary of War, reported it without 

amendment. 

He also, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the 
1472 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 8, 

bill (H. R. 9119) granting a pension to Robert Potts, reported it without amendment, and.submitted a report thereon. 

Mr. VAN WYCK, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2835) granting a pension to Miss Juliet G. Howe, 

reported it with amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

Mr. PAYNE, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred a. communication from the Secretary of State transmitting a letter from the Secretary of the Navy in relation to the acceptance 

by Rear-Admiral Ralph Chandler of a vase tendered him by the Emperor of Austria in acknowledgment of services rendered to His Majesty's corvette Donan1 reported adversely thereon; and the committee were discharged from the further consideration of the subject. 

Mr. BECK. The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. VANCE] was instructed by the Committee on Finance, to whom was referred the 

bill (H. R. 2517) for the relief of the estate of Edwin T. Pilkenton, 

deceased, to report it without amendment, with a written report; and 

the committee have requested me to offer it during the temporary ab· sence of the Senator from North Carolina. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be placed on the Cal· 

en dar. 

Mr. BECK. The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. VANCE] was also instructed by the Committee on Finance, to whom was referred 

the bill (S. 415) for the relief of M. B. Pilkinton, executrix of Edward 

T. Pilkinton, deceased, for internal·revenue stamps lost on tobMco 

burned in his factory, to report it adversely and move its indefinite 

postponement. The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. The bill will be indefinitely postponed. 

Mr. GORMAN, from the Committee on Commerce, who were instructed to inquire what legislation by Congress is necessary to provide the means for keeping open the navigation of the Potomac River 

when obstructed by ice and to report by bill or otherwise, reported an amendment to the District of Columbia appropriation bill, and moved 

its reference to the Committee on Appropriations and that it be printed; 

which was agreed to. · Mr. WALTHALL, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 5289) affirming the action of the President 

of the United States in annulling and revoking an order dismissing 

Martin H. McChesney from service in the armies of the United States, 

and honorably discharging said McChesney from said service, reported it 

without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(S. 3170) to authorize-the Secretary of War to exchange gunsw.ith the 

R. E. Lee Volunteer Battery, of Petersburg, Va., reported it with 

amendments, and submitted a report thereon. 

Mr. DOLPH, from the Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred 

the bill (S. 2140) authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a subport of entry and a port of eall at Port Angeles, Washington Territory, moved its indefinite postponement, which was agreed to; and he 

reported a bill (S. 3274) to create a port of entry at Port Angeles, in 

the district of Poget Sound, Washington Territory; which was read 

twice by its title. · Mr. HAWLEY, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 228) for the relief of James Roach, re· ported it without amendment, and submitted_a report thereon. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(H. R. 9339) granting the right of way to the Prescott and Arizona 

Central Railway Company across the Whipple Barracks Military Res· 

ervatwn, in Arizona, reported it without amendment, and submitted 

a report thereon. 

Mr. COKE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was re· ferred the bill (H. R. 3160) to amend section 533 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, reported it with an amendment. 

Mr. PLUMB, from the Committee on Agriculture and. Forestry, re- ported an amendment intended to be proposed to the agricultural appropriation bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropria--

tions. 

Mr. GEORGE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was :referred the bill (H. R. 6764) to provide for holding terms ofthe United 

States courts at Vicksburg, Miss., reported it with amendments. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (H. 

R. 10658) to change the lines between the eastern and western judicial districts of North Carolina, reported it with an amendment. 

1\fr. EVARTS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1684) to authorize terms of the circuit court of 

the United States for the easternjudicialdistrict of North Carolina at 

the city of Wilmington, in said district, reportetlit without amendment. 

GOVERNMENT GROUND IN NEWPORT, R. I. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I report from the Committee on Military Affairs 

the bill (S. 1154) to authorize the city of Newport, R. I., to use the 

site of Fort Greene as a public park, which came from the House of 

Representatives with an amendment, in which the committ~e recom- menrls concurrence. I ask unanimous consent to have that concurrence adopted by the Senate now. Thero being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the amend· 

ments of the House of Representatives, which were, in line 6, after the 

word "park." to strike out "during the pleasure of Congress;" and at 

the end of the bill to insert: 

Provided, That such use of said property shall cease and be terminated when· ever the Secretary of War shall elect and give notice of such election to the pub· 

lie authorities of said city; and upon such termination the United States way enter and reoccupy the same as upon a lease terminated; but no right or claim to damage by reason of such termination and reoccupation, nor for any cause growing out of any imprQvement made or other thing done by the said cUy 

under the right conferred by this act, shall accrue to said city or to any person against the United States, or any agent or officer thereof; 

So as to make the bill read: 

Be it tmacted, &c., That the Secretary of War isherebyMtthorized to allow tbe 

city of Newport, State of Rhode Island, to use the land belonging to the United 

States upon which is situated Fort Greene, in said city, as a public park, and 

under such conditions as the Secretary of War may prescribe: Provided, That 

such use of said property shall cease and be terminated whenever the Secretary 

of War shall elect and give notice of such election to the public authorities. of 

said city; and upon such termination the United States may enter and reoccupy the Rameas upon a lease terminated; butno rightorclaim to damage by reason of such termination and reoccupation, nor for any cause growingoutofanyim· 

provement made or other thing done by the said city under the right conferred 

by this act, shall accrue to said city or to any pe1·son against the United States, or any agent or officer thereof. 

Mr. HAWLEY. The amendments are eminently proper and I ask 

that the Senate concur in them. 

The amendments were concurred in. 

BILLS INTRODUCED. 

Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon, introduced ·a b\ll (S.3275) to increase 

the pension of James Woody; whichwas read twice by its title, andre· 

ferred to the Committee on Pensions. 

Mr. BOWEN introduced a bill (S. 3276) granting an increase of pension to George W. Blake; which was read twice by its title, and referred 

to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also introduced a bill (S. 3277) for the relief of James Pace; 

which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also introduced a bill (S. 3278) granting an increase of pension to 

George W. McAtee; which was read twice by its title, and referred to 

the Committee on Pensions. 

Mr. WILSON, of Maryland, introduced a bill (S. 3279) for the relief 

of James S. Crawford; which was read twice by its title, and, with the 

accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Claims. 

Mr. VEST introduced a bill (S. 3280) to authorize the construction 

of a bridge over the Missouri River at or near the city of Lexington, .Mo.; 

which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce. · 

Mr. PLUMB introduced a joint resolution (S. R. 103) to authorize 

the Commissioner of the General Land Office to cause 7,500 copies of 

the tnap of the United States and Territories to be printed; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Printing. 

He also introduced a joint resolution (S. R. 104) for the relief of A. 

W. Hicks, messenger to House Military Committee, Forty.fifth Congress; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee 

to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate. 

Mr. MORRILL introduced a joint resolution (S. R.105)forthe pres· 

ervation of the official correspondence, documents, and other historical 

material on file in the various legations and consulates of the United 

States; which was read the first time by its title. 

Mr. MORRILL. I ask that the joint resolution be read at length. 

It is very brief. 

The joint resolution was read the second time at length, as follows: 

Resolved by the Senate and Home of .Representatives of the United States in Con· gress assembled, That any and all diplomatic and consular correspondence and 

accompanying documents, which shall have remained on file in the leg-ations or consulates of any of the diplomatic or consular representa\ives of the United 

States, upon any subject which sh~ll hR.ve been finally determined and settled 

for the period of one year, shall be forwarded by the head. of any such legation or consulate to the State Department at Washington, D. C., for file and preser- vation. 

SEC. 2. That the Secretary of State is hereby instructed to take the necessary steps to carry this resolution into effect. 

Mr. MORRILL. I should like to have the joint resolution lie on the table, and I shall call it up for consideration to· morrow. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That order will be taken. 

Mr. GIBSON introduced a joint resolution (S. R. 106) authorizing 

the Joint Committee on the Library to purchase a picture of Andrew 

Jackson on trial beforeJudgeHall at New Orleans, La., in 1815; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the Library. 

AMENDl\IENTS TO BILLS. 

Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon, submitted an amendment intended to 

be proposed by him to the general deficiency appropriation bill; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be 

printed. SURVEY OF RAILROAD LANDS IN MONTANA. 

Mr. VAN WYCK submitted the following resolution; which was read: 

Resolved, That the Committee on Appropriations be requested to present and 

have read in the Senate any communication received from the Commissioner of 

the General Land Office showing the disposition of moneys appropriated here-
1887. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1473 

oofore for survey of public lands bearing upon the survey of r ailroad lands and 

of lands in the State of Nevada referred·to in the debates in the Senate reported 

in the RECORD of February 2 and 3. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the present 

consideration of the resolution? 

Mr. ALLISON. I have none whatever. I have a letter from the 

Commissioner of the General Land Office; I suppose that is what the 

Senator refers to. Does the Senator desire to have it read? 

Mr. VAN WYCK. In the discussion of the question referred to in 

the resolution, as recorded in the RECORD of the 2d and 3d of February, appeared a statement which I at the time thought was strange, 

and I so expressed.myself, because I thought the sympathies of the 

Commissioner of the General Land Office were in the direction of sur- veys such as we were seeking to have made. Therefore, upon desiring 

to know from the Commissioner of the General Land Office his attitude 

in that matter, I was informed that a letter bad been written to the 

Committee on Appropriations fully explaining his position and what 

he had done in the matter; and I thought the easiest way to get tb:lt 

information before the country was to have the letter produced so that 

it might be read in the Senate and then go into the REcoRD, as the 

charges had gone out, which were specific charges, that he had neglected his duty in using the money for certain surveys, and it was due 

to him and due to the public that a statement or explanation of the 

fact should be made known and appear in the RECORD. 

:Mr. ALLISON. I was not aware that any charges or statements 

had been made derogatory to t.be administration of the Land Office in 

that particular. I received a letter from the Commissioner of the General Land Office, addressed to me as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and if any Senator desires I will very gladly bring it 

in to-morrow morning and have it spread on the record. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 

resolution. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. I will not press a vote on the resolution after 

the statement of the chairman of the committee. The resolution can 

go over until to-morrow, when the letter can be read. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The resolution will go over. Mr. VEST. I want to say a word before the subject is dismissed. 

I was very much surprised to receive a letter day before yesterday 

referring to an amendment which I had offered to the sundry civil bill 

appropriating $25,000 for the survey of railroad lands in Montana. The 

writer of the letter seemed to think that the amendment had been 

offered in the interest of the railroads. Instead of being in the interest of the railroads, it was just exactly what the railroads did not want 

and what they had been seeking to prevent. Those railroad lands now inside of the railroad grantsarenotsubjecttotaxation bytheTerritory 

of M:ont.ana. The amendment was prepared by the Delegate from Montana, and I offered it at his request in order to subject the lands tot&.~­

ation. 

I wish to say further that I was not in the Senate at the time. The 

Senator from Iowa [Mr. ALLISON], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, raised the point of order on the amendment and it went 

out. · Afterward the Senator from Nebraska (I happened to be absent on committee service) offer.ed the amendment ·again, and I see from 

the RECORD it was adopted in a nebulous sort of fashion. I mean by that 

that it was not specified that $25,000 additional was to be appropriated 

for the survey of the railroad lands in Montana. It is not specified that 

the money shall be applied to that purpose, but Hie Senator from Nebraska said that the intention was that this additional appropriation 

should go to that purpose, and the chairman of the committee said that 

he so understood it. 

Now, the important point is to know whether the Commissioner of 

the General Land Office will apply the money to that purpose or not. 

All that is obligatory upon him in the matter is :what was said here in 

debate, and of course that is not mandatory, and he can follow it or 

not, as he chooses. 

If anything that I can say will have any effect in making that money 

available for that purpose I want to say it; but I regret very much 

that the appropriation was not put in such terms that the money would 

be appropriated for that particular purpose specifically. 

Mr. ALLISON. I will say in response to the Senator from Missouri 

that it is perfectly competent for the Commissioner of the General 

Land Office or the Secretary of the Interior to assign any money that we may appropriate for the survey of public lands to the survey of 

these particular lands, and it is a matter of administration. My objection to the amendment, as I stated at the time, was-- The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Tne Chair must remind the Senator 

from Iowa that there is nothing before the Senate. 

Mr. ALLISON. So I understand. I ask unanimous consent just to 

finish the sentence. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The Senat.or from Iowa will proceerl, 

there being no objection. 

Mr. ALLISON. I was aware that I was not quite in order, but the 

Senator from Missouri raised the question, and I desired to respond. . The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will not raise the question of order. 

XVITI-93 

1\fr. ALLISON. If we undertake to make special appropriations for 

particular land surveys we shall be constantly making these special ap· 

propriations. I think it is wiser to make general appropriations and 

let the Land Office under a wise administration of its duties survey the 

lands which ought to be surveyed. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. I think I was misunderstood by the Chair. I 

do not desire to withdraw the resolution, but only ask that it may go 

over until to-morrow. 

The PRESIDENT pro tem.pore. The .resolution goes over until tomorrow. 

FORT BROOKE 1\IILIT.A.RY RESERVATION. 

Mr. CALL. If there is no further routine business I will move that 

the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill 2814, Order of 

Business 1665. I desire to ask the indulgence of the Senate that the 

bill may be considered if it shall provoke no argument or discussion. 

I wish to state that it relates to the donation of a small piece of land 

immediately adjacent to the town of Tampa, in Florida, for educational 

purposes, and that it is veryimportant tbattheland should be disposed 

of in some way so that access may be had to it by the people there, 

and that it may be available for purposes of settlement. 

Mr. INGALLS. Is it part of the Fort Brooke Military Reservation? 

Mr. CALL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. INGALLS. Will not the Senator be good enough to state the 

facts in connection with it? 

Mr. CALL. The only facts that I know of in connection with it are that the town has petitioned for this donation for educational purposes 

and that there is a scrip location upon it which it has been proposed 

to settle by some arrangement if it should be approved by the Interior 

Department. The bill provides for the laud being taken up, and an amendment which I propose to offer also provides that the town, with 

the approval of the Secretary of t1le Interior, may sell a portion of the 

reservation and apply it to the compromise settlement of any homestead or other claims which may be alleged to be against it. 

Mr. INGALLS. Is the bill before the Senate? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida rose to 

move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill. 

Mr. INGALLS. Could we have the bill read for information first? 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The business nowin order is House 

bills under the rule adopted on motion of the Senator from Tennessee 

[Mr. HARRIS], pending which the Senator from Florida moves that the 

Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (S. 2814)to donate to the 

town of Tampa, Fla., the Fort Brooke Military Reservation for the ben· 

efit of free schools, and for other purposes. 

Mr. VOORHEES. I desire to call up--

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The motion is not debatable nor amendable. The question is on the motion to proceed to the consideration of the bill. [Putting the question.] The noes appear to have it. 

Mr. CALL. I ask for a division. · 

Mr. HARRIS. I hope the Senator from Florida will not insist on wasting time. 

Mr. CALL. I have--

Mr. INGALLS. Is there not a pending order for the consideration 

of House bills? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is a pending order, but the 

pending order may be set aside, on motion, by the Senate. 

Mr. CALL. I shall not press the motion at this time in view of the 

circumstances. 

LEGISLATIVE ASSE.li.BLY OF SHI~GTON TERRITORY. 

Mr. VOORHEES. I do not pretend to know enough about the rules 

to know exactly where my resolution is, wbich I offered on Saturday. 

ItwentovertoMonday, and yesterday it went over until to-day, audit is ou the Calendar. 1 t is a resolution to discharge the Committee on Territories from the further consideration of the bill (H. R. 6966) to change 

the time of the meeting of the Legislative Assembly of Washington Territory. If it is in order, I ask that the resolution may be taken up and considered at this time. 

Mr. HARRISON. I wish to say to my colleague with reference to 

the resolution, that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT] who is 

not in his seat this morning, was the chairman of the subcommittee of 

the Committee on Territories having that matter in charge, and be de- , 

sired to be present when the resolution was consideretl. I understand 

that he is detained at home by reason of the sickness of his wiTe. 

Mr. BUTLER. I was on the subcommittee with the Senator from 

Connecticut [Mr. PLATT]. Of course I do not want anything done in 

his absence if he will be hack ~ reasonable time. Will the Senator 

from Indiana _indicate when the Senator from Connecticut will be likely 

to be in his seat? 

Mr. HARRISON. He was in the Senate yesterday and expected the 

resolution to come up. lle said to me tben that his wife was ill. He 

did not know whether he would be in the Senate to-day. His colleague can probably answer for him . 1\fr. HAWLEY. Two afternoons after the morning business was over he has gone home because of the illness of his wife, and I do not know 

/ 
1474 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA'fE. FEBRUARY ·s, 

whether he is going to be here this afternoon. I have no doubt his 

absence is due to the same cause. 

Mr. BUTLER. As I am a member of the Committee on Territories, 

and a member of the subcommittee with the Senator from Connecticut, 

I should like very much indeed to have the matter disposed of. Therefore, if the Senator from Indiana will permit me, I give notice that the 

resolution will be called up to-morrow morning if possible. I am very 

anxious to get rid of it, as far as I_ am concerned. 

1\IESSAGE FRO:.\! THE HOUSE. 

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

Clerk, announced that the House had passed the following bills; in which 

it requested the concurrence of the Senate: 

A bill (H. R. 2929) to amend the act dividing the State of Missouri 

into two judicial districts and to divide the eastern and western districts thereof into divisions, establish district and circuit courts of the 

United States therein, and provide for times and places for holding such 

courts, ·and for other purposes; · 

A bill (H. R. 7775) to increase the appropriation for the erection of 

a public building at Troy, N. Y.; and 

A bill (H. R. 8594) to grant the right of way through the Indian 

Territory to the Chicago, Kansas and Nebraska Hail way, and for ·other 

purposes. 

The message further announced that the House had passed the following bills: 

A bill (S. 1071) for the relief of Frances W. Dyer; and 

A bill (S. 2428) to grant certain seal-rocks to the city and county of 

San Francisco, State of California, in trust for the people of the United 

States. 

The message also announced that the House had passed the following 

bills, with amendments; in which it requested the concurrence of the 

Senate: 

A bill (S. 1131) to amend an act to provide for the purchase of a site 

and the erection of a public building thereon at Detroit, ]l,fich., approved 

1\Iarch 2, 1885; and 

A bill (S. 712) for the erection of a public building at Augusta, Ga. 

1\I.A..J. G. W. CANDEE. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The first House bill in order under 

the special order will be stated. 

The bill (H. R. 633) for the relief of Maj. G. W. Candee was an- nounced as first in order. 

Mr. INGALLS. Was there not a Honse bill reported from the District Committee passed over yesterday to await the arrival of the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. VANCE]? If so, I ask that it may now be 

taken up. 

The PRESIDENT pro temp01·e. There was a bill passed over yesterday, whir.:h will be now considered if it is called for. 

Mr. INGALLS. The Senator from North Carolina I see is in his seat. 

ST. MARK'S PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of. the bill (H. R. 1993) for the relief of St. Mark's Protestant 

Episcopal church. -

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The bill was read yesterday, and 

also the report of the Committee on the District of Columbia. 

Mr. HARRIS. The trouble yesterday grew out of the fact that the 

printed report showed apparently the necessity of an amendment in 

the description of a certain lot, and the bill contained no such amendment. The report did not give the information which enabled any 

member of the committee to supply it. I therefore asked that it go 

over until the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. VANCE] who reported 

the bill should be present. 

:Mr. VANCE. I have not seen the bill since it was reported. I do 

not know what the objection was. 

lli. HARRIS. I suggest that the bill be informally passed over until the Senator from North Carolina can look at the report. 

JI,Ir. VANCE. I have just sent for the papers. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be passed over for the 

present. 

1\I.A.J. G. W. CANDEE. 

The bill {H. R. 633) for the relief of Maj. G. W. Candee was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It provides for the payment to 

Maj. G. W. Candee, paymaster United States Army, of $2,650, being 

the amount stolen from him at Fort Arbuckle, Indian Territory, in the 

fall of 1869, and restored by him out of private funds; but the Court of 

Claims is to first find the loss of the funds to have been without fault 

or negligence on the part of the officer. 

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

a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

PRYOR N. LEA. 

The bill (H. R. 79) for the relief of Pryor N. Lea was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It provides for the payment to Pryor N. 

Lea of $1,919, in full discharge of his claim against the Government of 

the United States for rescuing three United States soldiers from a sandbaron the Mississippi River on the 1st of January, 1864, and for board, 

medical aid, and nursing given them while unable to return to their 

command, and also for board furnished other United States soldiers 

while guarding these sick soldiers. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

NATIONAL CEMETERY NEAR DANVILLE, VA. 

The bill (H. R. 9918) to provide for grading and paving the approaches to the national cemetery near Danville, V a., was considered 

as in Committee of the Whole. It makes an appropriation of $10,000 

for the purpose of grading and paving Lee street, Danville, Va., along 

the entire front ofthe national cemetery, toitsinte~ection withJefferson street, and Jeffersonstreettoits intersection with Paxton street, and 

Paxton street to its intersection with Holbrook street. Before any of 

the money shall be expended the city council of Danville is to pass and 

enter of record an ordinance pledging the city to keep in good condition 

and repair the approaches to the national cemetery thus improved by 

the Government. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

DONATION OF CONDEMNED GUN-C.A.RRI.A.GES. 

The bill (H. R. 1143) authorizing the Secretary of War to deliver to 

the Somerville Grand Army of the Republic, of Somerville, Mass., four 

condemned gun· carriages, to be used for monumental purposes, was considered as in Committee of the Whole. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

.J. R. MARTIN. 

The bill (H. R. 707) for the relief of J. R. 1\Iartin was considered as 

in Committee of the Whole. It proposes to direct the PostmasterGeneral to credit the account of J. R. Martin, late postmaster at Perry, 

Kans., with the sum of $125.62, on account of moneys received from 

the sale of postage-stamps and the rent of boxes, and the furth~r sum of $278.35, on account of moneys received from the sale of moneyorders; these amounts having been stolen from the safe in the- postoffice at Perry on the night of December 22, 1883. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment. 

Mr. SAULSBURY. I desire to inquire if there is a. provision there 

to refund money lost which had been received for the sale of postagestamps. 

The PRESIDENT pro temp01·e. The bill will be again read. 

The Chief Clerk read the bill. 

Mr. SAULSBURY. It has not been customaryin the Committeeon 

Post-Offices and Post-Roads to make any allowance for losses of money 

arising from the sale of postage-stamps. That is a subject over which 

the Postmaster-General himself has complete control, and this bill 

proposes to reverse the practice of Congress in that regard for a number 

of years. When postage-stamps have been sold the receipts become 

the money of the postmaster, and he can deposit it in bank if he sees fit. 

It is different from postal-order money, because the postmaster is com- pelled to keep the postal-order money on hand to meet the postal orders 

that come to his office; but if the postmaster fails to take proper precautions to take care of the money arising from sa.le·s of postage-stamps, 

that is his own loss. To that provision of the bill I am opposed. I 

move to strike oup that provision which applies to money from postagestamps. • Mr. SAWYER. I hopethatwill not be done. The committee have 

examined the case very carefully. Frequently they have not reported 

bills where postal money was lost, but within the last few months they 

thought they were too severe in that respect, and hence adopted a different rule from that heretofore prevailing. I hope the bill will not 

be amended. 

Mr. SAULSBURY. I have no doubt that the loss has been sus- tained as represented by the postmaster, but for the twelve years that 

I have been connected with the Committee on Post-Offices and PostRoads we have invariably refused to pass bills in that committee to re- store the money lost which had been received for postage-stamps for 

two reasons. First, it removes the precaution from the postmasters to 

guard well their funds, and if you pass this bill then all the claims 

that we have rejected in the last ten, fifteen, or twenty years will come up, having as much equity and claim on Congress as this. It will 

open up all the back cases which have been disposed of, and they will 

be coming back to Congress for the same relief that is given in this case. I therefOre· move to strike out that provision relative to postagestamps. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be stated. 

The CHIEF CLERK. In line 5, after the word ''sum,'' it is proposed 

to strike out "of $125.62, on account of moneys receivedfrom the sale 

of postage-stamps and the rent of boxes and the further sum;" so zs to 

make the bill read: 

Be it enacted, &:c., That the Postmaster-General of the United States is hereby authorized and directed to credit the account of .J. R. Martin. late postmaster at Perry, Kans., with the sum of $Z78.35, on account of moneys received from the 

sale of money-orders; the above amount having been stolen from the safe in 

the post-office at Perry, Kans., on the night of December 22, 1883. 

Mr. SAWYER. Before that is voted on I should like to have the 
1887. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1475 

reporb of the committee read. [" Oh, no!"] I withdraw the request. 

We hnve reported no bills from that committee where the PostmasterGeneral did not say that the loss occurred without any fault or negligence on the part of the postmaster. Of course, it is immaterial to me; 

but I obeyed the instructions of the committee in reporting the bill. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment 

proposed by the Senator from Delaware. [Putting the question.] The 

nays appear to have it. 

Mr. SAUU3BURY. This is a precedent now which, if set, will 

come up hereafter to plague us. Innumerable claims of this character 

have been passed by. The general policy of the Post-Office Department is not to allo~ them, and the general law provides that it shall not 

allow them. This is an alteration of the general law on that subject. 

We have now for the last twelve years to my knowledge, in the Po~tOffice Committee, refused to depart from the general provisions of i · J 

law in that regard. This is to become a precedent not only to bri.ug 

back all the cases we have passed over where there has been a disallow- ance for.loss of money arising from the sale of postage stamps, but it 

we pass this bill of one hundred and odd dollars it will cost the Government thousands upon thousands of dollars. Besides, it will tend to remove that precautionfrom the postmasters which they ought to exer- cise over their funds. 

In reference to postal money-order funds, they are compelled to keep 

those by them in order to meet the money-orders that come to their 

offices, but they are not compelled to keep over the money which they 

have derived from the sale of postage stamps. They can put it in the 

vaults of a bank. That becomes their own money. It is a very small 

matter, but it will be a precedent that will cost this Government a large amount of.money, not only for the losses that may occur in the 

future, but in bringing back all the cases which have been heretofore 

disposed of and refunding losses of this character. I hope, therefore, 

the bill will not pass. 

The PRESIDENT pro tt'mJJore. Does the Senator object to the con- sideration of this bill? 

M:r. SA.UU3BURY. I object to it. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection being made, the next case will be reported. . Mr. SAWYER. I move to proceed with the consideration of the bill 

notwithstanding the objection. 

Mr. HARRIS. That is legitimate under the rule. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion is in order. The Senator from Wisconsin moves that the Senate proceed with the consideration of this bill, the objection to the contrary notwithstanding. 

The motion was agreed to, and the Senate resumed the consideration 

of the bilL 

Mr. WILSON, ofiowa. 1\fr. President, this case is not without merit. 

The committee considered it carefully, and in view of the possible opposition that might be assumed in the Senate that it would be establishing a dangerous precedent, among other documents submitted to the 

committee was a. letter from the assistant attorney-general for the PostOffice Department, and that letter, which briefly condenses the preceding 

subjeet-matter that is embraced in the committee's report, is as follows: 

PoST-OFFICE DEPART111ENT, 

OFFICE OF AsSISTANT ATTORNEY-GE!.'"ERA.L, 

Washington, D. a., March2, 1886. 

Sm: In compliance with your verbal request of this morning, I have the 

honor to transmit herewith a copy of the report made February 28, 1884., by John M. Crowell. post-office inspector, concerning the burglary of the post-office ·at Perry, Kans., December 22-23, 1883. 

It appears from the records of this office that Joseph R. Martin, who was postmaster at said office at the time of the burglary, made claim for credits of 

f-.123 .51, on account of money-order funds, and of S!J6.93 on account of postagestamps lost by the said burglary. The amount claimed for stamps was allowed by Postmaster-General Gresham, 

March 28,188-1, and $145.16 was allowed for the money-order funds. From the 

memoranda in the case, it appears that the remainder of the amount claimed on account of money-order funds was disallowed, for the reason thatMr.l\Iartin 

had failed to remit the same to his depository, as required by section 1081, Postal 

Laws and Regulations of 1879, the failure to so remit being so regarded as having contributed to the loss. It appears from the records of the Auditor's Office that Mr. Martin had made a remittance December 20, 1883 (two days previous to the burglary), and it is 

alleged, as a reason for not making remittances on the 21st and 22d of Decem- ber, that he was ill, which statement seems to be supported by the statement of 

the inspector. The disallowance of $298.33 of the amount claimed appears to have been the 

;result of a very strict application of the regulation referred to, and not because 

of an y willful delay or negligence on the part of Mr. Martin. 

Very respectfully, 

EDWIN E. BRYANT, 

.Assistant .AttoT'Iley-General, Post-Office Department. 

Ron. WILLIAM WARNE:&, 

House of Rep resentati ves. 

I submit, Mr. President, that that letter of the Assistant AttorneyGeneral presents a fair_ case, under the fa-cts of which we may very properly extend the relief proposed by this bill to that postmaster. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will put the question 

again on the amendment proposed by the Senator from Delaware [Mr. 

SAULSBURY]. 

The amendment was rejected. 

The bill was ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and 

passed. 

RE-ARRANGE.l\I.ENT OF ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT. 

!Ir. SEWELL. I ask to take from the table the bill in relation to 

the Adjutant-General's Office, for the purpose of reference. 

The PRESIDENT pra tempore. The Chair will lay before the Renate 

the bill referred to by the Senator from New Jersey, being the bill (H. 

R. 10804) to effect a rearrangement of grades of office in theAdjutant· 

General's Department of the Army. 

Mr. SEWELL. That bill has been lying on the table. I move that 

it be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. • The motion was agreed to. 

1\Ir. SEWELL. I now report the bill favorably from the Committee on Military Affairs, a. Senate bill on the same subject in the same terms 

having been previously reported by the committee. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The bill will be placed on the Calendar. FRANCIS M. BELL. 

The bill (H. R. 2086) for the relief of Francis :M. Bell was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It provides for the payment of what- ever claim may be found due and audited by the Auditor of the Treasury for the Post-Office Department in favor of Franc~ M. Bell, postmaster at Tyrone, Pa., for clerk-hire from April30, 1877, to June 30, 

1878, not exceeding $525.41. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

JA!IIES W. GOODRICH. 

The bill (H. R. 5652) for the relief of James W. Goodrich was con- sidered as in Committee of the Whole. It proposes to pay to James 

W. Goodrich $403.97, to indemnify him for loss of postal funds sus- tained by him and caused by the robbery of the post-office in Ha>erhill, Mass., in February, 1884. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I should like to ask the Senator from Wisconsin 

[Mr. SAWYER], who reported this bill, or the Senator from Iowa [Mr. 

WILSON], why not put in a clause giving the Postmaster-General au- thority to pass upon and adjudicate claims for losses of this character, 

the same as for the other kind of losses in the general bill which we passed some years ago ? That would relieve Congress of the labor of 

considering all these individual cases. 1\Ir. WILSON, of Iowa. I would say in reply to the Senator from 

Missouri that it may be very well to pass some general bill of that 

kind, but such a proposition as an amendment to a private bill of this 

characterwould hardly be in place. Itisasubject, however, that may 

veri well be considered in the committee, and it is possible that it may 

conclude to report some general bill under which the Postmaster-General may act. 

1\Ir. COCKRELL. It is perfecUy in order upon this bill. Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Yes, but it would be >ery much out of 

place. 

Mr. COCKRELL. It would secure the enactment of it at this ses- sion and relieve Congress hereafter. 

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. A general proposition of this kind on a. private bill would be hardly germane to it. 

1\fr. COCKRELL. It has often been done here. 

Mr. SAWYER. The committee are considering that subject, and I 

think they will perhaps report such a bill at this session, and I am decidedly in favor of it, so as to reach these cases. _ Mr. COCKRELL. The easiest way is to just put an amendment on one of these bills which has been passed. by the House, and then after a conference the matter may be settled. 

Mr. SAWYER. I hav.e no objection if the Senator has an amendment prepared. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I have sent for a copy of that law, but the page 

has not got back yet with it. 

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I think it would be a dangerous proceeding to put an amendment of that kind prepared on the spur of the mo- ment upon a bill of this character, in>olving as it would such great interests of the Government. 

Mr. COCKRELL. It would simply extend the provisions of the ex- isting law to losses of this kind. The other law has beenguardedand 

has been passed upon and acted on for years; and now to simply extend 

the provisions of that law to this class of cases could, it seems to 

me, do no possible harm. It would not be enacting a new law, but 

would be simply making the existing law applicable to this class of 

cases. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a. third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

DAVID W. LOW. 

The bill (H. R. 5651) for the relief of David W. Low was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It provides for paying to David 

W. Low $603.90, to indemnify him for loss of postal funds sustained by 

him and caused by robbery of the post-office in October, 1883. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Is them a report in that case? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is. The report will be read 
. 

1476 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 8, 

The Chief Clerk read the following report submitted by Mr. SAwYER January 12, 1887: 

The Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads, to whom was referreu the bill 

(H. R. 5651) for the relief of David W. Low, have examined the same, and report: 

That the committee have examined the proofs in this case and are satisfied 

that the report of the House committee is correct. It is adopted, and is as follows: 

"On the night of October1, 1883, tbeofficeofDavid W. Low, postmaster at Gloucester, Mass., was entered by burglars, who broke into the safe and took and 

carried away the following property, namely: 

Postage-stamps ........................... ......... ........................... ......... .................. $584 42 l'l!oney-order funds.............................. ........................... ........................... 659 93 Postal funds.................. .............................. ............................................... 727 36 

"The postmaster appears to have used due care in the protection of the property, and the loss was through no fault of his. 

"The Postmaster-General, on proof of the fact-s, has credited the postmaster at Gloucester with the loss of stamps and money-order funds, and certifies that. he 

has not allowed the item for postal funds simply because he has no authority in 

law to make such allowance. 

"In view of the premises, the committee are of opinion that this item should 

be allowed, and report back the bill with a favorable recommendation." 

The bill is herewith reported t{) the Senate with the recommendation that it 

do pass. 

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

a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

LYSANDER H. CARROLL. 

The bill (H. R. 1455) for the relief of Lysander H. Carroll, was con- sidered as in Committee of the Whole. It appropriates $194.24 to 

reimburse Lysander H. Carroll, late postmaster at Concord, Merrimack 

County, New Hampshire, for money received forstampsstolen by bur~ 

lars from the post-office at that place on the night of September 5, 1883. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Let the report in that case be read. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The report will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read the following report, submitted by Mr. SAwYER January 12, 1887: 

The Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads, to whom was referred the bill 

(H. R. 1455) for the relief of Lysander H. Carroll, ha>e examined the same, and 

report: 

'£hat an examination of this case satisfies the committee that the House report 

is correct. It is adopted, and is as follows : The Committee on Claims, to whom House bill1455was referred, having con- sidered the same, respectfully report the oame back with a recommendation 

that it do pass. The accompanying documents are made a part of the report: 

PosT-OFFICE DEPARTMENT, 

OFFICE OF AsSISTANT ATTORNEY-GENERAL, 

Washington, D. a. I January 29, 1884. 

SIR: In reply to your inquiries concerning the burglm-y of the post-office at Concord, N. H., I have the honor to stat~: 

(I) That this Department has absolutely no means of ascertaining the amount of "postal" funds in the possession of a postmaster a.t a given date. 

(2) From the evidence filed in the case, it appeared that the loss occurred 

through no fault or negligence of the postmaster; and be was therefore allowed a. credit of 886.18 for money-order funds, and $534.11 for postage-stamps lost by 

the burglary referred to. (3) There has been no evidence filed to show that the postmast~r was guilty of any violation of law or re~ulation touQhing the custody of such funds. 

(4) All papers filed in the case were transmitted on the 12th instant to Hon. ELI SAu:r.<muRY, of the Senate Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads, for 

consideration in connection with a bill similar to the one inclosed. 

Very respectfully, · .A. A. FREEMAN, Ass~ta tAttorn y-General, PosfrOffiee Department. Hon. OSSIAN RAY, 

House of Representatives. 

CONCORD, N.H., Jantlary 25,1886. 

Sm: I wish to present, tlll'ough you, to the House Committee on Claims, a statement relative t{) my loss by burglars, which occurred September 5,1883. 

The Concord post-office is a depository office. A hundred and eighty or more fourth-class postmasters deposit at this office the balance due the Govern- ment from them quarterly. The money so received, and when received, is 

placed in the safe with other postal funds, and deposited in the bank as frequently as the amount is sufficiently large for a deposit. I usually kept my cash 

deposited up very closely. The safe in the office was purchased and put there 

by the Post-Office Department, and was placed in the most exposed position, being near the sidewalk, and a gas-jet kept burning during the night within 6 feet of the safe-door. This office is also a paying office of railway postal clerks, 

who register at this office. 

On the last day of August, 1883, I drew my check and took money from the 

bank sufficient to meet the demands of my monthly pay-roll. Previous to the 

burglary I had paid all who were on the pay-roll except John E. Skinner, a postal clerk running on the route from Richford, Vt., to Concord, N. H. It being his week off duty, he had not received his pay as usual. The amount, 

being $75.82, was placed in an envelope and put with the pay-roll, and locked 

in an iron vault in the safe. This amount, $75.82, was a. J?art of the $194.24 in cash 

which the burglars took from the safe. Of course it is unpossible for me to tell 

whether the money so stolen was a part of it, postal funds, or money that had 

been received on deposit from other offices, a-s my practice was to keep but one package before depositing in the safe-vault. As the 375.82 had been once deposited in the bank and drawn therefrom, it could not possibly be the same money received by me as postal funds. 

Hon. J. H. GALLINGER, 

Washington, D. 0. STATE OF NEW HAMPsHIRE, Merrimack, ss: 

L. H. CARROLL. 

JANUARY 25,1886. 

Personally appeared the above-named L. H . Carroll, and made oath that the 

above statement by him .subscribed is true. Before me, ROBT • .A. RAY, Just-ice ojtlte Peace. 

The bill is herewith reported to the Senate with a recommendation that it do 

pass. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

•-

FRANK SHUTT. . 

The bill (H. R. 8297) for the relief of Frank Shutt was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It proposes to pay to Frank Shutt; 

postmaster at Litchfield, Ill., $193.40, to reimburse him for postc'll fundB 

stolen out of his safe on the lOth of November, 1885. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I would now suggest to Senators on the PostOffice Committee that a new section be added to this bill which shall 

authorize the Postmaster-General to adjust claim~:~ of this character 

under the law approved March 17, 1882, giving him the same authority 

in regard to claims of this class that he has over claims of the class 

specified in that act. That law was well guarded; it has been in operation now nearly five years, and this would simply extend an existing 

law without any new provisions or new machinery. 

Mr. CULLOl\f. This bill covers a very small sum of money, and I 

know all about the merits of the case. It is a House bill, and I hope 

it will not be amended so as to interfere with its passage. 

Mr. COCKRELL. The amendment I suggest does not affect the 

passage of the bill at all. A. conference committee will be appointed, 

and the matter will of course be adjusted at this session, and two or three days can make no difference. Here are five or six cases now that we have had, and we probably shall have every session of Congress increasing numbers of these cases until the committees will be overburdened with them. We passed, in 1882, a general law covering certain 

claims for losses. Now why not extend it? It does not interfere with 

the passage of the bill. 

Mr. HALE. If you put on this amendment why not have a com- mittee of conference appointed at once? 

Mr. COCKRELL. That is what I say. As soon as the amendment 

is agreed to there can be a committee of conference, and the matter can be adjusted. . Mr. CULLOM. I do not know that I have any objection-certainly 

not to a general provision of law on the subject-but it occurs to me that that general provision ought to he outside of a private bill like 

this. 

Mr. COCKRELL. It can not make any difference. Some of the 

most important legislation in the annals of this country has been on bills of that kind. 

The PRESIDENT pto tempore. The Senator from Missouri will send 

up his amendment. 

Mr. COCKRELL. There is another bill that I can put it on. Mr. CULLOM. I hope this bill may be passed. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the thir<i time, and passed. 

TERRITORY SOUTH OF KANSAS. 

The bill (H. R. 679) to extend the laws of the United States over certain unorganized territory south of the State of Kansas was con- sidered in Committee of the Whole. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Public Lands with an amendment to strike out all after the enacting clause a'od in lieu 

thereof to insert: 

That the laws of the United States, except those providing for pre-emption, 

timber-culture, and desert-land entries of the public lands, are hereby extended over the unorganized territory south of the States of Kansas and Colorado, and 

between the Indian Territory and the Territory of New Mexico, and north of 

Texas, known as the public-land strip; f\.nd that for the purpose of the execu- tion of said laws said public-land strip ill hereby created a. land district, and is 

attached to the judicial district of Kansas; and the subdivisional lines of town- ships in said public-land strip may be surveyed under current appropriations 

for the surveying service, the work to be done under the direction and super- vision of the Secretary of the Interior. Until the establishment of civil govern- ment in said territory, lands therein may be entered for town-site purposes, for 

the several use and benefit of the occupants of such town-sites, by such trustee or trustees as maybe named by the Secretary of the Interior for that purpose, such 

entries to be made under the provisions of section 2387 of the Revised Statutes, as near as may be; and when such entl'ies shall have been made, the Secretary of 

the Interior shall provide by regulation for the proper execution of the trust in 

favor of the inhabitants oftbe town site, including the survey of the land into 

lots, according to the spirit and intent of said section 2387 of the Revised Statutes, whereby the same result would be reached as though the entry had been 

made by a county judge, and the disposal of the lots in such town-site, and the 

proceeds of the sale thereof, had been prescribed by the legislative authority of a. State or Territory: Provided, That no more than 320 acres shall be em braced 

in one town-site entry. 

Mr. COCKRELL. The Senator from Kansas [Mr. PLUMB] whoreported the bill was here just a moment ago, and I called his attention 

to it, and he said he was awaiting a report from the Interior Department 

and desired that the bill should keep its place on the Calendar and not 

be considered this morning. I therefore make that request. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection the bill will 

be passed over without prejudice. 

CONNECTICUT PORTS OF EN~RY. 

The bill (H. R. 9859) to amend sections 2533 and 2534 of the Revised 

Statutes, and making Hartford, in the State of Connecticut, a port of 

entry instead of Middletown, was announced as next in order. 

Mr. PLATT. The Senator from Maine [Mr. FRYE] who reported the 

bill from the Committee on Commerce may as well state the reason why 

that bill can not be acted on this morning. 

Mr. FRYE. The Senator from Connecticut has requested that there 

be some delay in the consideration of this bill on account of a hearing 

' 
1887. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1477 

which is to be had before the Committee on Commerce by vote of the 

committee touching this bill. Therefore I ask that it may be passed over without objection. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That order will be made if there be no objection. ' 

MOBILE AND OHIO RAILROAD CO:YP ANY ACCOUNTS. 

The joint resolution (H. Res. 72) to provide for the settlement of accounts with the Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company was announced as next in order. 

Mr. CAMERON. I think that bill had better 'go over in the absence 

of the Senator from Georgia [Mr. BROWN]. 

Mr. W ..A.LTHALL. I appeal to the Senator from Pennsylvania to 

withdraw his objection. The joint resolution has gone through the 

Senate once; it has been reported upon twice favorably in the Senate 

and three times in the House of Representatives. 

Mr. CAMERON. I withdraw my objection. 

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the 

joint resolution. 

The preamble recites that by act of Congress approved February 27, 

1875, entitled "An act to provide for settlement with certain railway 

companies," the Secretary of War and the Attorney-General were authorized to make such abatements in the accounts of the companies 

named in the act as they might :find just; that the Secretary of War 

and the Attorney-General having determined and agreed upon a basis 

for such abatements and settlements, it was found that the Mobile and 

Ohio Railroad Company had so far paid its accounts that. the abatements determined upon would not only extinguish the balance claimed 

against the company, but would also require the return of a portion of 

the money already paid by it; and that the act not making any appropriation or provision for the return of any money, no settlement was 

made with the Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company as contemplated by 

the act, and its accounts still remain unadjusted and unsettled. 

The resolution therefore authorizes the Secretary of War and the 

Attorney-General jointly to adjust and :finally settle the accounts of 

the United States with the Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company for property received from the United States in the years 1865 and 1866, as -provided for in the act of Congress approved February 27, 1875. 

The joint resolution was reported to the Senate without amendment, 

ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

The preamble was agreed to. 

SURETIES OF JOHN HOW. 

The bill (H. R. 7648) for the relief of the estate of the late John 

How, Indian agent, and his sureties, was considered as in Committee 

of the Whole. It proposes to release Samuel T. Glover, James 0. 

Broadhead, and Gerard B. Allen, sureties of the late John How, formerly Indian agent at the Western Shoshone agency, Nevada, on the 

official bond of How, from any and all liabilities of every kind and nature 

on or growing out of the bond. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

ESTATE OF JOEL C. FRAZIER. 

The bill (H. R. 898) for the relief of the estate of Joel C. Frazier, 

deceased, was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It provides 

for the payment of $1,908 to Caleb W. West, administrator de bonis non of the estate of Joel C. Frazier, deceased, late of Harrison County, Kentucky, for quartermaster's stores, consisting of horses, wood, &c., taken 

from Frazier by the military forces of the United States. · 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

YOUNG WOMAN'S CHRISTIAN HOME. 

The bill (H. R. 7083) to incorporate the trustees of the Young 

Woman's Christian Home in Washington, District of Columbia, was considered as in Committee of the Whole. 

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

a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

E. :B. DAWSON. 

The bill (H. R. 5326) for the relief of E. B. Dawson was considered as in Committee of the "\\"'hole. It proposes to appropriate to E. B. 

Dawson $66.52, as relief for damages sustained by him through the 

breaking open of his safe and stealing therefrom the Government 

money, in April, 1883, while Dawson was postmaster at Boonton, N. J. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read .the third time, and passed. 

BRIDGE ACROSS EASTERN BRANCH OF POTOMAC. 

The bill (H. R. 4806) to authorize the construction of a bridge across 

the Eastern Branch of the Potomac River at the foot of ·Pennsylvania 

avenue east, was considered as in Committee of the Whole. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and p~ed. · 

GEORGE W. COUSINS. 

Mr. HARRIS. Yesterday Order of Business 1717, being the bill (H. 

R. 4839) for the relief of E. P. McNeal, was informally laid aside be- cause of the absence of a Senator. I now ask that the Senate proceed 

with its consideration. 

Mr. CAMERON. Will not the Senator give way until we take up 

the next bill on the Calendar? 

Mr. HARRIS. If the Senator desires it I will postpone my request 

until that has been disposed of. . · The bill (H. R. 2173) for the relief of George W. Cousins was con· sidered as in Committee of the Whole. It is a direction to the SecretaryofWar to cause the records to be so amended as to remove the charge 

of desertion from the record of George W. Cousins, late a private in Company K, One hundred and fourth Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteers, 

and to grant an honorable discharge to him, with all the pay and 

emoluments due him at date of expiration of his term of service. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

E._P. M'NEAL. 

Mr. HARRIS. I move now to proceed to the consideration of Order 

of Business 1717, passed over informally yesterday. 

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

Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. 4839) for the relief of E. 

P. McNeal. 

Mr. HARRIS. The claimant in this case has died within a month or two. I therefore propose, in line 4, after the word ''to,'' where it occurs the second time, to insert " the personal representatives of," and after 

the word •• McNeal," in the same line, to insert ''deceased, late of;" so as to make the bill read: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to pay to the personal representatives of E. P. McNeal, 

deceased, late of Ha.rdeman County, •.rennessee, the sum of $12,781.81, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the same to be in full compensation for all property taken from the said McNeal by the United States Army during the war. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

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

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

The bill was read the third time, and passed. 

The title was amended so as to read ''A bill for the relief of the personal representatives of E. P. McNeal.'' 

Mr. HARRIS. I move that the Senate insist on its amendments 

and ask for a conference thereon. 

The motion· was agreed to. 

By unanimous consent the President pro tempore was authorized to 

appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate; and Mr. DOLPH, Mr. 

SPOONER, and :h{r, HARRIS were appointed. 

TRANSFER OF .APPROPRB.TION~. 

1\Ir. HALE. I ask now to take up a bill which was passed over informally in my absence yesterday, Order of Business 1866. 

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the 

bill (H. R. 4083) to empower the Commissioner of Agriculture to transfer certain appropriations. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Appropriations with an amendment, _after the word "eighty-five," in line 8, to insert: 

And the accounting officers of the Treasury are authorized and directed to allow the suspended account of George B. Loring, late Commissioner of Agriculture, the several sums which were expended by him in the purchase of sor- ghum seed and beet seed, and for labor in the distribution of the same, from October 1,1884, to September 30, 18&5, inclusive, which expenditures were made from the laboratory fund, so called, and which the First Comptroller of the, Treasury has decided not to be properly chargeable to said fund, said allowance not to exceed the sum of $20,807.80. 

So as to make the bill read: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Commissioner of .Agriculture be, and is hereby, au- thorized to transfer from the unexpended balance of the appropriation for a. laboratory, Department of Agriculture, 1885, a. sum not to exceed $1,800, to the appropriation for purchase and distribution of valuable seeds, 1885; and the accounting officers of the Treasury are authorized and directed to allow the sus- pended account of George B. Loring, late Commissioner of Agriculture, the several sums which were expended by him in the purchase of sorghum seed and beet seed, and for labor in the distribution of the same, from October 1, 

1884, to September 30, 1SS.3, inclusive, which expenditures were made from the laboratory fund, so called, and which the FirstComptrollerofthe Treasury has decided not to be properly chargeable to said fund, said allowance not to exceed the sum of $20.807.80. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

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

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

The bill was read the third time, and passed. 

Mr. HALE. I move that the Senate insist on its a,mendments and 

ask for a, conference. 

The motion was agreed to. 

By unanimous consent the President PJ"O tempore was authorized to 

appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate; and .1\ir. HALE, Mr. 

DAWES, and Mr. GORMAN were appointed. 
1478 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 8, 

HENRY A. PAUS. 

The next House bill on the Calendar was announced to be the bill 

(H. R. 1261) for the relief of Henry A. Pans. 

ltfr. WILSON, of Iowa. I ask that Order of Business 1975, being the 

bill (S. 1049) for the relief of Clement A. Lounsberry, be taken up. It 

is a small bill, but it is important to the claimant. It is the next in 

order on the Calendar. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That can only be done by unani- mous consent. The Senator from Iowa moves to proceed to the con- sideration of the Senate bill named by him. 

1\Ir. 1\IANDERSON. lbope the Senator from Iowa will let the bill 

be considered that has been stated by the Secretary. It is now regularly in order. 

l\1r. HARRIS. I ask the Senator from Iowa if there is a House bill 

he wants to consider similar to the Senate bill he proposes to take up? 

1\Ir. WILflON, of Iowa. I withdraw the motion until after the pending bill is disposed of. 

1\Ir. CONGER. I was rising to inquire about Order of Business 1975. 

Is it passed? 

Mr. WILSON, of Io~. That is the bill I just moved to proceed to 

the consideration of. 

1\Ir. HARRIS. That is a Senate bill. 

The bill (H. R. 1261) for the relief of Henry A. Pans was. considered as in Committee of the Whole. It is a direction to the Secretary of 

War to removethecharge of desertion resting upon the militaryrecord 

of Henry A. Pans, late a private in Company K, Nineteenth Regiment 

illinois Volunteers, and to issue to Pans an honor~ble discharge from 

that organization as of the 20th day of April, 1862. 

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

a third re.<tding, read the third time, and passed. 

ST. MARK'S PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 

Mr. VANCE. Order of Business 1696, being House bill 1993, was passed over informally on account of my absence from the Chamber. I 

ask now that it be taken up and passed. 

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 1993) for the relief of St. Mark's Protestant 

Episcopal church in the District of Columbia. 

Mr. VANCE. I wish to say that the statement in the report that 

there was an runendment needed is a mistake. The bill was reported, as the RECORD shows, without amendment, as it came from the other 

House; and it was stopped on· its passage before in order to make an inquiry as to the discrepancy between the report and the bill in that 

respect. I have investigated it, and that is the case. It was not 

amended in the Committee on the District of Columbia. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill has already been read at 

length. 

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

a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

INDIA.N NEGOTIATIONS. 

Mr. DAWES. I move to take up Order of Business 1637, being the 

bill (S. 2789) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to negotiate with 

the Shoshone and Bannock tribes of Indians for the relinquishment of 

their title to so much of the lands of the Fort Hall reservation, in Idaho 

Territory, as is required for the uses and purposes of the Utah and North- ern Railway Company and the Oregon Short-Line Railway Company, 

either separately or conjointly. It will involve no debate, I presume. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo-re. The Senate is acting under aspe(lial 

order which limits consideration to House bills. 

1\fr. HARRIS. I think we can get through with them to-day. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The next House bill will be stated. 

FARA..L~ & l\17LEAN. 

The bill (H. R. 1776) for the relief of Faran & McLean was announced as next in order. 

1\Ir. MILLER. Let us have the report read. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The report will be read. 

The Chief Clerk proceeded to read the report submitted from the Committee on Claims by Mr. SPOONER, Jan nary 19, 1887, but before con- cluding was interrupted byMr. MILLER. I object to the ·consideration of the bill. It is unne~sary to continue the reading, 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be passed over. 1\fr. MORRILL. The last case that has been ·considered I should like 

to make an objection to for the present. I want to look at it. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It has been objected to. · 

RACHAEL J. FLUYD. 

The bill (H. R. 2053) for the relief of Rachael J. Floyd was considered as in Committee of the Whole. 

The preamble recites that Frank B. Floyd entered the United States 

naval service as a machinist December 6, 1873; served on the Intrepid 

and Alarm; was discharged February 21, 1876; imm.ediatelyre-enlisted 

as a machinist; served until ~e was discharged, May 5, 1879; immediately re-enlisted and served until he died, April 25, 1882; and that the 

deceased at the time of his death had but one month and fourteen days' 

additional service to perform in order to complete the term of his lnst 

enlistment, and in order to entitle him to the gratuity provided under 

the act approved J nne 16, 1880, entitled ''An act relating to machinists 

in the Navy." Therefore the bill provides for the payment to Rachael 

J. Floyd, widow of the deceased, 510, being the proportion earned 

during the time served of the gratuity for continuous services of the deceased as a machinist in the Navy provided for under the act of June 

16, 1880. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a tbird reading, read the third time, and passed. 

The preamble was agreed to. 

CONVICT LABOR. 

The bill (H. R. 1622) to prohibit any officer, agent, or servant of. the 

Government of the United States of America to hire or contract out the 

labor of prisoners incarcerated for violating the laws of the Government 

of the United States of America, was considered as in Committee of 

the Whole. It declares that it shall not be lawfulfor any officer, agent, or servant of the Government of the United States to contract with any 

person or corporation, or permit any warden, agent, or official of any 

State prison, penitentiary, jail, or house of correction where criminals 

of the United States may be incarcerated, to hire or contract out the 

labor of said criminals, or any part of them, who may hereafter be con- lined in any prison, jail, or othe~; place of incarceration for violation of 

any laws of the Government of the United States of America,. 1\Ir. COCKRELL. Let the report be read. 

The PR~IDENT p1·o te-mpore. The report will be read. 

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

January 19, 1887: 

The Committee on Education and Labor, to whom was referred House bill1622, 

prohibiting the hiring or cont;racting of convict labor to prh·ateindividuals, hav- ing considered the same, report it favorably, and recommend its passage. This bill is designed to relieve the law-abiding laborers and producers of this country from the burden of competition with the production now t-hrown upon the market by combination between private capital, assisted by the State, and cheap labor, made so by its involuntary servitude for crime. It is not aimed at production which may be placed upon the market by virtue of the employment on behalf of the State of criminals whose support would otherwise be wholly 

charged upon the honest industry of the country. 

It is not meant to relieve criminals from hard labor, but to substitute employ- ment by the State itself, with its common interest for all and its responsibility for the humane and reformatory policy toward the criminal classes for the abuses which are invited, and which too often arise from the contract system of which there is such general complaint. This bill has passed the House of Representatives three times, and the com- mittee feel that public sentiment requires early action by the Senate. The report of the House committee is appended as a part of the report of your committee. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and pa.ssed. 

l\1r. BLAIR. I ask unanimous consent that the House report be 

printed in connection with tlfe Senate committee's report, which has 

been read, and it makes the House report a part of it, but that has not 

been read. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection it will be so done. 

The report of the Committee on Labor of the House of Representatives is as follows: 

[House Report No. 217, Forty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

The Committee on Labor, to whom was referred House bill 1622, respectfully 

report: 

That the bill is identical with the amended billns it came from the Committee on Labor of the Forty-eighth Congress; that it was accompanied with a carefully drawn report (Report No. 1064, Forty-eighth Congress, first session), and was placed on the Calendar, but failed to be reached. The same reasons which then called for the enactment of such a law still exist Your committee therefore unanimously recommend its passage. The Committee on Labor, to whom was referred House bill 995, respectfully 

report that the object sought to be accomplished by said bill is the abolition of what is known as the contract convict-labor system., so far as the prisoners of the United States are concerned. The United States Government does not own or maintain jails and peniten- tiaries for its criminals, except as noted below, but its prisoners are sent t-o the jails, penitentiaries, State prisons, or houses of correction belonging to the sev- eral States, under different arrangements as to cost of maintenance to the Gov- ernment. · The exceptions spoken of are as follows: The Government owns o. peniten- tiary in each of the following Territ-ories: Idaho,l\Iontana, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and a jail in 'Vestern Arkansas and in the District of Columbia. The number of prisoners of the United States confined in the penal in titutions of the several States, according to the Department of Justice, is about as fol- lows: 

California. ... .................................................................................................. . 

~~~~.i.~~~::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::·.::::::.::::::::::::::::::·:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Indiana ...................................................................................................... .. . 

-~~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Kentucky ..................................................................................................... . 1\Iaine ............................................................................................... ........... . 1\Iinnesota .................................................................................................... . 1\Iassach usetts .............................................................................................. . 

~~~~~f.·::::.::·:::.:::·:.:·.:·.::·::::.:·:::::::.:·:::::.:::·:.::::·::.::::::·:::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Nebraska .......................................................................................... ........... . New Hampshire .............................................................................. ........... . New Jersey .................................................................................................. . New York ................................................................................................... . Ohio ............................................................................................................. . Oregon ........................................................................................................ .. 

25 

11 

138 

45 

15 

10 

1 

5 

19 

4 250 

16 

2 

19 

13 

319 

10 

11 
1887. .CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 147'9 

Pennsylvania ............................................................................................... . Rhode Island .......................................... ............... ,. .............. , ................... .. Tennessee ......... ~ ......................................................................................... . Texas ...................... - ....................................... ............................................ . 50 or house of correction where criminals of the United States may be incarce- 3 rated." In line 6 strike out the word "prisoner" and insert the words " said 5 -criminals;" and in the same line, after the word" who," strike out the words 10 "arenowor.'' 

~~!~1~~~~-:-~:.~: .. ~:.:::.: .. ~:.:_~:-~:_:.~:::::.:.:.:: .. :.-:::.~:_:.~.:~::.::.::.:·:·::::.:_::.~:.:.:.:::.::.:.:.:.:~:.:.::.:.::::::: :::::::::~:::: 4 JOHN R. HARRINGTON. 28 

L8 The bill (H. R. 4594) for the relief of John R. Harrington was an-

'r:otal. ........................................................................... ~ ....................... 1, 021 

The system of contracting out the labor of the criminals obtains in most of these States. The State of California, under a provision of its new constitution, 

prohibits the employment of convict labor under the contract system, and re- quires the employment of such labor after January 1,1882, on behalf of the State. The State of Michigan also has the State account system. The State of :1\Iaine and the penitentiary in Eastern Pennsylvania. have non-contract systems. In the penal institutions of these non-contract States thel'e are about three hun- dred of the criminals of the United States Government, In the Sta.te of New York, at the last annual election the question of the abo- lition of the contract system was submitted to the popular vote. The result was as follows: A total of 673,534 votes were cast, with a majority for the abolition of the system of 138,856. This wasthelargestvote evcrcast in the State of New York upon any proposition submitted to the people by nearly 50,000. Duriug the present session of the Legislatw·e of that State the following law has been enacted: 

"The superintendent of State prisons, or any other authority of 'this State, shall not renew or extend any existing or pending contract, or make any new contract for the employment of any convicts in any of the prisons, penitentiarries, or reformatories of this State." In the penal institutions of the State of New York, as ha-s been stated, are over three hundred of the criminals of the United States Government. Add this number to those now in the prisons of non-contract States, and we have over six hundred, or three-fifths of the United States' prisoners, now serving sentences in the various penal institutions of the country. At a convention of the National Prison Reform Association, held inN ew York on February 26, Z7, and 28, this year, various schemes of reform were advocated, and the contract system was generally denounced. Mr. Eugene R. Smith, of the New York Prison Association, said that it would be cheaper for the State of New York t-o board all of its prisoners at the Fifth Avenue Hotel, if it could insure their reformation, than to maintain the present 

system. 

The advocates of the contract system were unable to refute the statements of those who maintained that under the contract system the reformatory character of the prisons has wholly disappeared, and that by it the tendency is that the convicts are confirmed in their evil ways. Hon. Charles F . Peck, commL'lsioner of the bureau of labor statistics of the State of New York, in his report- of January 10,1884, says: "N otwithstanding_the fact that this order was made by the Attorney-General of the United States"- · The order sending to the several penal institutions of the State its convicts- " under a law of Congress, I was unable to reconcile t-he idea. that there was not some more potent reason behind all, and pursued the line of inquiry till I discovered the disgraceful fact that both the officials of our State prisons and tlie county penitentiaries had openly bid for the privilege of maintaining United States convicts free of all expense to the National Government." And further: "As the result of the contract between the El·ie County penitentiary officials and the Department of Justice at Washington, the State of New York is to-day ' supporting United States criminals free of all expense to the National Govern- ment, and in their inhuman greed to make their penitentiary pay in dollars and cents two convicts are crowded into one cell, and the rights of honest, free labor- ers outraged." 

The evils of the contract system are many, but your committee deem it nec- essary to only mention the following: 1. The contract system is wholly adverse to reform, and therefore should be abrogated. e The prisoners ·are treated as if they were so many dumb beastD, be- ing driven to their daily tasks by men whose aim is to get a certain amount of work out of them each day. Dr. Wines says: "It places for the entire working day all the prisoners contracted for, to a great extent, under the control of men with no official responsibility; men who see in the convict only so much machinery for making money; men whose only, or, at any rate, whose chief recommendation to the positions they hold in the prison is that they are the highest bidders for the human beings hired by them. It introduces into the prisons agents of the contractors, who, for the most part, have not only no interest in aiding reform of the convicts, but are too ready to oppose it, by offering mischievous indulgences to the convicts as an induce- ment to further industrial efforts." Dr. Wines says further, to show that no reform is .possible under this system: " In former times, especially conspicuous in New York, was the fact of the es- tablishment in the prisons of a power behind the throne greater than the throne; a power well-nigh omnipotent within its sphere; a power that coerces, bribes, and threatens in pursuit of its selfish ends ; a power that makes and unmakes officers, imposes and remits punishment through agents whom it has been able . to bend to it.s will, and even stoops to mean devices to get the poor prisoner who has incurred its wrath into str&i.ts and difficulties, that its revenge may be grat- ified by the sight of his punishment." 2. The contract system works great injury to honest labor in many branches ofindnstry. Investigations by committees of State Legislatures have shown this fact repeatedly. The special committee of the sixty-third General Assembly of Ohio on prison labor in their report sar: "The testimony shows conclusively that the contract system carried on in our penal institutions is directly Iesponsible for a large percentage of the reduc- tions which have taken place in the wages of thousands of mechanics during the past four years. Nearly every manufacturer who testifi.ed before your com- mittee attributed a large percentage of the reduction in wages to the system which enabled manufacturers who have prison contracts and who have large forces of convicts at cheap rates to go into the market and undersell them. There is little or no room for doubt as to the evil effect of this system upon the interests of free labor. It not only tends to pauperize honest labor, but it is, in a great measure, responsible for the overcrowded condition of many of our pe- nal institutions." 

The result of the investigations by the commissioner of the bureau of labor . statistics of the State of New York is: "The contract system of prison labor is directly responsible, to a great extent, for the reduction of wages and loss of employment suffered by mechanics en- gaged in the same branches of industry which are carried on under the contract system in the prisons." 

In the testimony recently published by the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, taken by said committee last summer, are the statements of men representing various trades and trade organizations, which are unanimously in favor of the abolition of the contract system. Your committee therefore recommend the passage of the bill (H. R. 095), with amendments as follows: · 

Insert in section 1, line 5, after the word "corporation," the following words: "Or permit any warden, agent, or official of any State prison, penitentiary,jail, 

nounced as next in order. - Mr . .COCKRELL. That is adversely reported. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. An adverse report is in the nature 

of an objection. The bill will be passed over. 

IMPORTED MERCHANDISE. 

The bill (H. R. 9653) to amend section 3058 of the Revised Statutes, 

was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It proposes to amend 

section 3058 of the Revised Statutes so as to read as follows: 

SEc. 3058. All merchandise imported into the United States shall, for the pur- pose of this title, be deemed and held to be the property of the person to whom the merchandise may be consigned; but the holder of any bill of lading con- signed to order and properly indorsed shall be deemed the consignee thereof; and in case of the abandonment of any merchandise to the underwriters, the latter may be recognized as the consignee; and, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, merchandise saved from a vessel wrecked or abandoned at sea, or on or along the coasts of the United States, and promptly brought into a port of the United States by or in possession of the sal- VOl'S of the same, can, for the purpose of its title, be regarded as the property of such salvors, and the valuation thereof and payment of duties thereon can be made accordingly, and with due reference to the conditionofthesaid merchan- dise as thus saved and the necessities of the case: Provided, howet:er, That such bringing in by salvors shall be in good faith and withontintentto evade the just 

payment of duty: Andprovidedjurlhe1·, That nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prejudice in any other respects the right of property, or of or through abandonment or allowance of the owner, or any other person inter- ested in said merchandise. 

The bill was reported to the Senate, ordered to a third reading, read 

the third time, and passed. · 

DUIEDIATE TRANSPORTATION OF DUTIABLE GOODS. 

The bill (H. R..7860) to amend an act entitled "An ad to amend 

the stn.tutes in relation to the immediate transport-ation of dutiable 

goods, and for other purposes,'' approved June 10, 1880, was considered as in Committee of the Whole. 

It pro-poses to amend the provisions of the act entitled "An act to amen<.:. the statutes in relation to the immediate transportation of dutiable goods, and for other purposes,'' approved June 10, 1880, so as to allow merchandise liable to specific rates of duty only to be en- tered for immediate transportation wHhout appraisement to any of the 

ports mentioned in the seventh section of that act, although the same may not appear by the invoice, bill of lading, or manifest of the importing vessel to be consigned to or destined for either of these ports, 

when the consignee at the port of first arrival shall make written application therefor to the collector, .giving the name of tnc person at the 

port of destination tow hom he desires the merchandise to be consigned; 

and whenever such application and entry shall be made, the original 

invoice presented by the consignee at the port of first arrival shall be 

forwarded, with a copy of the transportation entry, to the collector at 

the port of destination; and a copy of such invoice shall be retained on file at the port of :first arrival. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to ~ third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

ALLEY IN WASHINGTON. 

The bill (H. R. 8893) directing the commissioners of the District of 

Columbia. to execute a deed of quitclaim and release to a certain alley 

in Washington to Cornelia. P. Randolph and others was considered as in Committee of the Whole. 

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

a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

LUKE HOROBIN. 

The bill (H. R. 8949) granting a pension to Luke Horobin was an- nounced as next in order. 

The PRESIDENT pro te1npore. The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. 

SAWYER] was understood to wish this bill to go over. He is not 

present. 

J\1r. HARRIS. Let it go over without prejudice. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That will be the order. 

DEP ARTl\IE....'iT OF AGRICULTURE AND LABOR. 

The bill (H. R. 5190) to enlarge the powers and duties of the Department of Agriculture, and to create an executive department to 

be known as the.Department of Agriculture and Labor, was announced as next in order. 

Mr. MILLER. 

place·. Let that go over without prejudice, not losing its 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will go over, retaining its 

place on the Calendar. 

JAMES :1\1. l\I1KAMEY. 

The bill (H. R. 5775) for the relief of James M. McKamey was considered as in Committee of the Whole. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Military Affairs with 

amendments, in line 8, after the words " and to," to insert "grant 
1480 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN.AfrE. FEBRUARY 8, 

him an honorable;" in line 9, after the word "discharge," to strike 

out "him; " in the same line, after the word "therefrom," to strike 

out ''as of the day before the date of his muster as a first lieutenant 

and recruiting officer for the Eleventh Regiment Tennessee Cavalry, and 

also to muster him as a lieutenant as aforesaid from the 1st day of October, 1862, and to discharge him from this last service as on the 1st day of 

November, 1864, that his record may be made consistent with the facts 

proven;" so as to make the bill read: 

Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of War be, and is hereby, authorized 

and directed to remove the charge of desertion from the record of James M. 

McKamey, late of Company E, 'l'hird Regiment Tennessee Infantry Volunteers, 

who is reported to have deserted from his command, captured by the enemy at the battle of Richmond, Ky., and to grant him an honorable discharge therefrom. · 

The amendments were agreed to. 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments 

were concurred in. 

The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read 

a third time. 

The bill was read the third time, and passed. 

Mr. HARRIS. I move that the Senate insist on its amendments and 

ask a conference thereon with the House of Representatives. 

The motion was agreed to. 

By unanimous consent, the President pro tempore was authorized to 

appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate, and Mr. MANDERSON, 

Mr. HAWLEY, and Mr. HAMPTON were appointed. 

STEAM-ENGINEERING IN THE DISTRICT. 

The bill (H. R. 4308) to regulate steam-engineering in the District 

of Columbia was considered as in Committee of the Whole. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on the District of Columbia, with amendments. 

The first amendment was, in section 2, line 4, after the word '' pra-ctical," to strike out "machinists" and insert "engip.eers ;" and in line 

8, after the word "all," to strike out "steam-boiler " and insert 

"steam-boilers and;" so as to make the section read: 

SEc. 2. That all persons applying for such license shall be examined by a board of examiners composed as follows: The boiler-inspector for the District 

of Columbia and two practical engineers to be appointed by the District com- missioners. Said examination shall be conducted in all respects under s~ch 

rules and regulations as the commissioners of the District of Columbia shall 

from time to time provide; and all steam-boilersandengines shall be subjected to such tests as the said commissioners may prescribe. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was, in section 4, line 2, before the word ''dollars," to strikeout "five'' and leave a. blank, so as to make the section 

read: 

SEC. 4. That the fee for a license ~ steam-engineer shall be -dollars. 

Mr. INGALLS. I move to insert "three" in place of "five," reducing the fee for license from $5 to $3. 

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. 

The amendment as amended was agreed to. 

The next amendment of the Committee ou the District of Columbia 

was, in section 6, line 8, after the word ''Columbia," to insert: 

Pro'Vided, That boilers used for steam-heating, where the wat.er returns to the 

boiler without the use of a. pump and injector or inspirator, and which are worked automatically, shall be exempt from the provisions of this section. · 

So as to make the section read: 

SEc. 6. 'I·hat any owner or lessee of steam boiler or engine, or the secretary of 

any corporation, who shall knowingly employ a steam-engineer as such who 

has not been reguln.rly licensed to aetas such, shall, on conviction thereof by the 

police court of the District of Columbia, be fined $50, and in default of payment of such tine shall be confined for a period of one month in the workhouse of the 

District of Columbia: Provided, That boilers used tor steam-heating, where the water runs to the boiler without the use of a pump and injector or inspirator, and which are worked automatically, shall be exempt from the provisions of 

this section. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was to strike out section 7, in the following 

words: 

SEc. 7. That none other than steam-engineers licensed by said commissioners. or under the laws of the States fmm which they come, shall be employed in the 

Executive Departments of the United States in the District of Columbia. 

And in lieu thereof to insert: 

SEc. 7. That the foregoing section shall not apply to en gineers who have been 

licensed by the United States Government or the laws of any State. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments 

were concurred in. 

The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read 

a third time. 

The bill wa& read the third time, and passed. _ 

Mr. INGALLS. I move that the Senate insist on its amendments, 

and ask for a conference with the House of Representatives thereon. 

The motion was agreed to. 

By unanimous consent, the President pro tempore was authorized to 

appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate, and Mr. CHENEY, Mr. 

INGALLS, and Mr. VANCE were appointed. 

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

· A mes..~ge from the House of Representatives by Mr. CLARK, its 

Clerk, announced that the House had agreed to the report of the com- mittee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Ho~ on the 

amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 7218) to amend an act en- titled "An act for the erection of a. public building at Chattanooga, 

Tenn.," approved February 25, 1885. · The message also announced that the House had passed the following bills, each with an amendment, in which it requested the concur- rence of the Senate: 

A bill (S. 93) authorizing the construction of a public building for 

a post-office in the city of Houston~ Tex.; and 

A bill (S. 305) for the erection of a public building at Huntsville, 

Ala. 

The message also announced that the House had passed a bill (H. R. 

10305) to increase the appropriation for the public building at Brooklyn, N. Y.; in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate. 

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED. 

The message furt-her announced that the Speaker of the House had 

signed the following enrolled bilis, and they were thereupon signed by 

the President pro tempore: 

A bill (S. 785) gmnting a pension to George Ham; 

A bill (S. 859) granting a pension to Charlotte O'Neal; 

A bill (S. 1384) granting a pension to Ma.thlas Wondrak; 

A bill (S. 1626) granting a pension to.John Reed, sr.; 

A bill (S. 2286) for the relief of Albert C. Kelley; 

A bill (8. 2353) granting a pension to WilliaJD Barden; 

A bill (S. 2363) granting a pension to Marcel Gagnon; 

A bill (S. 2391) granting a pension to John G. Warren; 

A bill (S. 2452) granting a pension to Rachel Ann Pierpont; 

A bill (S. 1627) granting a pension to Mrs. M. C. Miles; 

A bill (S. 1768) granting a pension to John D. Fincher; 

A bill (S. 2111) granting a pension to Jacob Smith; 

A bill (S. 2203) granting a pension t{) Mrs. Emily M. Swift, of Dexter, Mich.; 

A bill (S. 2218) for the relief of Lucy .A. Washburn; 

A bill (S. 2252) granting a pension to Susan A. Duncan; 

A bill (S. 2454) granting a pension to James S. Furniss; 

A bill (S. 2660) granting a pension to Annie E. Gardiner; and 

A bill (S. 2884) granting a pension to Mrs. Anna Etheridge Hooks. 

THE MACKEREL FISHERY. 

1\Ir. PALMER. I move that the Senate ~roceed to the consideration 

of Order of Business 1833, being the bill (H. R. 5538) relating to the 

importing and landing of ma-ckerel caught during the spawning season, 

which was passed over informally yesterday. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. INGALLS in the chair]. The hour 

of 2 o'clock having arrived, it is the duty of the Chair to lay before the 

Senate the unfinished business of yesterday, which is the hill (S. 22R8) 

to incorporate the A.tlantic and Pacific Ship-Railway Compdby, and for 

other purpo~es. 

Mr. HARRIS. I ask the Senator from Missouri [M:r. VEST] in charge 

of the unfinished business to allow the Senate to proceed with the ex- ecution of the order for the consideration of House bills. I am satisfied 

that within an hour or two that order can be fully executed, and I shall 

be obliged to the Senator and to the Senate if they will allow us to proceed under the rule. 

Ur. VEST. I am >ery anxious to go on with the unfinished business, but I am notified by several Senators on both sides of the Chamber 

that they desire to speak on it and are not prepared to-day to do so. To-morrow, as we all know, will be devoted to obitnary addresses on 

the death of General Logan. Therefore if this bill is laid aside now it will not come up until the day after to-morrow. In consideration of 

these facts I shall make no objection to the unfinished business being 

laid aside with the understanding thatwhE!n it is taken up again, which 

I hope will be the day after to-morrow, I shall ask the Senate to remain 

in session until it is disposed of, as I think we ought to get through 

with the bill this week. 

Mr. ALLISON. The day after to-morrow the Senator from Kansas 

[Mr. PLUMB], who is in charge of the Post-Office appropriation bill, 

desires to call that up. 

Ur. VEST. How long will it take? 

1\Ir. ALLISON. I do not think it will takeo.longwhile; it may take 

an hour or two. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. 

HARRIS] asks unanimous consent that the pending order may be informally laid aside for the purpose of completing the order of the Senate 

touching the consideration of House bills. Is there objection? 

Ur. PALMER. I object for this reason, and the Senator from Tennessee will see the propriety of it: .Yesterday, when the bill that I have 

moved be taken up was reached on the Calendar, being a House bill, it was suggested that it be passed over informally because it was on the 

list of special orders. To-day I understand that the Senator from .Missouri [Mr. VEST] is willing to give way, and in that case it will come up among the special orders. I do not care bow it comes np if it only comes up; but it is getting late in the session, and time is important. 

Mr. HARRIS. The Senator from Michigan will allow me to suggest 

- ... 
1887. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1481 

to him that if the request I have made, and which the Senator from 

:Missouri consents to, is agreed to by the Senate, the bill to which he 

refers is the next thing in order and will come up upon the request that 

the Senator has already made, and come up immediately. 

Mr. PALMER. I was aware of that, but I wished to have it impressed upon the Senate that I so regarded it; and with that understanding I make no objection, but insist upon the motion that I made, 

that we now proceed to take u-p Order of Business 1833, being the bill 

{H. R. 5538) relating to the importing and landing of mackerel caught 

during the spawning season. 

:Mr. HARRIS. Will the Senator from Michigan allow me to suggest to him that the unfinished business is the order now, and unless we consent that that may he informally laid aside it will be proceeded 

with unless displaced by motion. He may displace it by a motion if 

the majority agree with him. . Mr. PALMER. With the understanding that this bill comes up I 

shall consent to whatever is proposed. 

Mr. MORRILL. There is one bill more that is a public bill, Order 

of Business 2062, a House bill that I should like to have acted on by 

the Senate at the present time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business before the Senate is the request of the Senator from Tennessee [:Mr. HARRIS] that 

the unfinished business be informally laid aside for the purpose of exe- cuting the order of the Senate touching House bills. Does the Senator 

from Vermont object to that? 

Mr. MORRILL. I do not, but I ask the SeJlf).te to consider this bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the suggestion 

of the Senator from Tennessee? 

Mr. MILLER. I desire to ask for information. If that request is 

granted do we not go on with the Calendar regularly' instead of going 

back to the special orders? The bill referred to by the Senator from 

Michigan is a special order, and it is not, therefore, under the ordjilary 

Calendar rule. 

Mr. PALMER. Then I ask that my rights be regarded which were observed yesterday by passing over the House bill informally, and I 

move that that now be taken up. Either horn of the dilemma will snit me if it snits the Senator from New York. 

Mr. MILLER. Almost anything will snit the Senator from New 

York that will defeat the consideration of this bill or that will defeat 

it after it comes up, if the Senator from Michigan succeeds in getting 

it up. I am not particular how it is done. 

Mr. HARRIS. The House bill mentioned by the Senator from 

Michigan, though a special order, is within the order under which we are acting, and if the Senate will consent to informally lay aside the 

unfinished business upon the request of the Senator from Michigan 

and go back without a motion, there is no question whatever that the 

Senate proceeds at once to the consideration of his bill. 

Mr. PALMER. I withdraw my objection. 

Mr. HARRIS. If the Senate will proceed with the execution of that 

order, it will not be three hours, I do not think it will be one hour, 

until we have completed the call of every bill on the Calendar. 

Mr. PALMER. As I said before, under these circmnstances--

Mr. PLATT. :Mr. President, I rise to inquire whether the order 

under which we consider House bills is not a continuing order from 

day to day before 2 o'clock? I so understand it. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair so understands. 

Mr. PLATT. Then we have twenty-three or twenty~four days of the 

session remaining, during which I am sure we can act upon the few 

House bills which remain. I will therefore take the liberty of objecting to the consent to extend the time this morning. • 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chairwilllaybefore the Senate 

the unfinished business, being the bill (S. 2288) to incorporate the Atlantic and Pacific Ship-Railway Company, and for other purposes. 

Mr. FRYE. I move that that be laid aside. 

:Mr. PALMER. I understand that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. 

VEST] will give waytothe consideration of the bill which I have moved 

should be taken up, and which, if he withdraws, has the right of the 

way as a special order. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A motion to take up another bill, if 

adopted by the Senate, would displace the unfinished business and throw 

the bill to the Calendar. 

Mr. PALMER. Then I insist on my rights under the special order. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unfinished business has priority 

of the special order, and is now before the Senate. 

Mr. VEST. I do not want this bill to lose its place. According to 

the rules of courtesy that preTail in the Senate I am perfectly willing 

to let it belaid aside. I am prepared to go on; but five Senators have 

notified me that they wish to deliver speeches on this question and are 

not ready to go on to-day. All my brother Senators will see the si tuation in which I am placed in regard to it. I am willing to let it be 

laid asi~ informally so as not to lose its pla-ce. 

:Mr. HALE. I ask that that be done. Under the conditions which 

have been stated by the Senator from Missouri no ohe would wish to 

drive him to complete the bill now. 1\Ir. VEST. I am ready to go on; but I ask unanimous consent that 

the bill be laid aside informally without losing its place. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from ~fichig~ [Mr. 

PALMER] objected to that. 

:Mr. PALMER. I withdraw my objection. 

The PRESIDING OFFCER. The Senator from Missouri asks that 

the unfinished business may be informally laid aside. 

Mr. ALLISON. For what purpose? 

Mr. HALE. Let the Senator from Michigan make hi3 motion afterward. 

Mr. VEST. The Senate may do as it pleases so that my. bill does 

not lose its place. I am acting simply under a sense of courtesy to 

brother Senators. I am ready to go on. 

:Mr. SEWELL. I move to amend the motion for the purpose of con- sidering the bill (H. R. 2075) to provide for the location and erection of 

a branch home for disabled volunteer soldiers west of the Rocky Mountains. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no motion pending. The 

question is whether unanimous consent shall be given to lay aside the 

unfinished business. 

Mr. HALE. I may state what my object is. The Senator from 

Michigan has been already recognized to make a motion and withdraws 

it temporarily. I have no doubt under these conditions, if this consent is given to lay aside informally the measure under the charge of . the Senator from Missouri, the Chair will recognize the Senator from 

Michigan, who has already been recognized, as the next moving Senator to bring his bill before the Senate if the Senate chooses to take it 

up. I do not couple it with any condition that the Senate shall take 

that bill up, but leave it to the Senator from Michigan, who can make 

his motion. In that way every right of the Senator from Missouri is 

preserved. • 

Mr. VEST. Now, in order to settle the matter, after the statement 

I have made, I repeat I want to go on with this bill myself; I am ready 

to do it and anxious to do it, but I ask now unanimous consent to lay 

aside the pending business informally so as to bring it up to-morrow at 

2 o'clock. Let the bill be laid aside informally, not losing its place, 

and then the Senate can go on with what business it pleases for the 

rest of the day. I have discharged my duty to Senators who have 

asked me to lay it aside. If that is refused, I shall ask to go on today. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If unanimous consent should be given 

to lay aside informally the bill which is the unfinished business, the 

Senator from Missouri would have the right to call it up at any time; 

but unanimous consent is undoubtedly in order that it may be laid 

aside until Thursday at 2 o'clock, ifthe...-Senator so desires. 

Mr. HARRIS. And be the unfinished business at that time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Andbetheunfinishedbusinessatthat 

hour. The Chair will submit any proposition that may be offered to 

the Senate. The Chair did not understand the Senator from Missouri 

to ask that the bill might be laid aside informally subject to his call 

or until an hour at some day in the future. 

:Mr. VEST. I ask unanimous consent to lay it aside informally until 

2 o'clock on Thursday. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. To be the unfinished business at that 

time? 

Mr. VEST. Yes, sir. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to that request? 

The Chair hears none.. The unfinished business is informally laid aside, 

its consideration to be resumed on Thursday at 2 o'clock. 

Mr. PALMER. I now renew my motion that we take up Order of 

Business 1833, being the bill (H. R. 5538) relating to the importing 

and landing of mackerel caught during the spawning season. 

VESSEL FISHERIES OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Mr. FRYE. Order of Business 2053, the bill (S. 2287) for securing 

statistics of the extent and value of the vessel fisheries of the United 

States, is one of very great importance, and it is very necessary that it 

should be passed at once so as to secure action in the other House. 

The Fish Commission here have sent in the bill. The statistics heretofore have been very defective, and collectors have refused to keep 

them. In view of the fact that there are sixty-seven vessels which 

have been interfered with on the Canadian coast line beyo-nd the forty 

already reported by the Secretary of State to the Senate, and of the 

pending legislation before Congress likely to become a law, it is still more necessary that this bill providing for statistics:~ shall be passed. 

It will create no discussion, and I ask unanimous consent that it may 

be taken up and put on its passage. 

?tlr. PALMER. · I ask if it will lead to any discussion? 

Mr. FRYE. It will not. 

Mr. PALMER. I then shall not object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine asks unanimous consent for the present consideration of the bill. 

There being no objection the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, 

proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2287) for securing statistics of the ex· tent and value of the vessel fisheries of the United States. . The bill wa-s reported to the Senate without amc;:ndment, orde1·ed to 

be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 
14~2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE, FEBRUARY 8, 

FISHING RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

1\fr. ED!IfUNDS. Referring to the :fisheries reports of unjustifiable 

treatment, &c., I have just received from the Commissioner of Fisheries a 

communication in answer to an application I made to him some time 

ago for such information as the Fisheries Bureau had received from the 

owners of vessels on the coast that had not been reported to the State 

Department as harassed and where probably the owners felt that the 

amount of damage that an international tribunal would award them 

would be small; but still they have reported them all, which adds some sixty-seven or more to the list of the State Department. I ask 

that the letter of the Commissioner of Fisheries, together with the re- port made to him by one of his officials, and this list, be printed for the use of the Senate and laid on the table. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempote. If there be no objection the order 

to print will be made. 

THE MACKEREL FISHERY. 

Mr. PALMER. I renew my motion. 

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

Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 5538) relating to 

the importing and landing of mackerel caught during the spawning 

season, which had been reported from the Committee on Fisheries with 

an amendment, in section 1, line 10, after the word "from," to strike 

out the words "open row-boats of less than 20 feet keel" and insert 

the word ''boats"; so as to make the proviso ·read: 

Provided, however, Thn.t nothing in this act shall be held to apply to mackerel caught off-shore with hook and line from boats and landed in said b.oa.ts. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

1\fr. MILLER. The Senator reporting the bill proposes to offer some other amendments, I understand. If so, I should be glad to have them 

offered now. 

Mr. PALMER. I was about to do that when the Senator from New 

York arose. In section 1, line 4, I move to strike out the word ''March'' 

and insert "July;" so as to read: 

That for the period of five years from and after the 1st day of July, 1887, no mackerel, other than what is known as Spanish mackerel, caught between the 1st day of March and the 1st day of .June, inclusive, of each year, shall be im- ported into the United States or landed upon its shores. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment proposed by the Senator from Michigan. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. PALMER. In section 1, line 10, after the word "caught," I 

move to strike out the word "off-shore;" so as to read: 

That nothing in this act shn.ll be held to apply to mackerel caught with hook amlline from boats and landed in said boats. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. PALMER. At the end of section 1, I move to add: 

Or in traps and weirs connected with the shore. 

So as to make the proviso read: 

Provided, however, That nothing in this act shall be held to apply to mackerel caught with hook and line from boats and landed in said boats, or in traps and weirs connected with the shore. 

• The amendment was agreed to. Mr. HOAR. Before the Senator passes from the :first section, in re- gard to the matter of da.te, I should like to move to strike out, in line 

4, .'' 1887 '' andinsert '' 1888,'' so as to leave the period of this year and 

the next open to the fisheries. There are a great many persons who have 

large contracts for vessels, and have crews and so on, extending over one year in some cases. I move that amendment. 

Mr. FRYE. That has already been done by the amendment which 

the Senator from Michigan offered. Mr. HOAR. No; that amendment extended the time to the :first of 

July, 1887. I propose to extend it to the :first of July, 1888. l\1r. FRYE. The amendment adopted on motion of the Senator from 

1\fichigan takes care of this season. Mr. HOAR. I know that it takes care of this season, but it does not 

take ~'\re of contracts which may have been made extending into next 

year. -

The PRESIDING OFFICER (1\Ir. INGALLS in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the amendment proposed by the Senator from 

Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR]. 

l\1r. PALMER. I hope that amendment will not be-agreed to. The 

committee made this concession becausetheythoughtthatowingtothe 

late passage of the bill some hardship would be worked upon those 

who had made preparation to do fishing this year. But that will not 

apply to those who are notified and who will not make any preparation, if the bill passes, for fishing next year between March and June. 

1\fr. MILLER. I should like to ask the Senator from Michigan if 

he does not think it would be doing a little justice to the large number 

of fishermen who are engaged in mackerel fishing to give the men who 

haYe their capital invested, owning the boats, a little more than three 

months' notice before you destroy their property and their business? 

That is what the bill proposes t.o destroy o.nyhow, and what it will do 

eventually if it passes. It will give them a day of grace if we put it 

off a year or two yen.rs. Five years would be still better. 

l\1r. HOAR. I should like to ask the Senator from 1\Iichigan to state, 

when he answers the question, at what time--

1\fr. PALMER. Let me answer the Senator from New York. 

1\Ir. HOAR. I want to know at what time in the season, according 

to the information ofthe Senator, the right of .catching the fish termi· 

nates the season. l\1r. PALMER. Of the whole season? 

Mr. HOAR. Yes. 

l\1r. PALMER. About the 1st of December. l\1r. HOAR. No; I refer to the catching of mackerel. 

Mr. P .ALMER. I mean the catching of mackerel. Does the Sen· a tor refer to the spring catch? 

Mr. HOAR. I refer to the spring catch. 

Mr. FRYE. I suggest to the Senator from Michigan that there is n() 

difference between the amendment offered by the Senator from Massa· 

chusetts and the amendment already adopted. One extends the time 

to July 1, which extends it over the season to which he refers. 

Mr. ])fiLLER. There is just the difference of a year; that is all. ~1r. HOAR. The Senator from Maine does not understand it. 

l\1r. PALMER. The Senator from Maine will see that it makes a difference of one year. If it is extended to the month of March, 1888; 

then it is equivalent to the same thing as extending it to July without 

changing the year, but if you change it to July, 1888, it extends the 

time another year. 

1\Ir. FRYE. The bill a.s amended extends the time to July, 1887; 

but I understood the Senator from Massachusetts to move to change 

the date to 1888 instead ofl887. 

Mr. HOAR. Exactly. 

Mr. FRYE. The Senator from 1\fichigan has already stricken out 

March and made it July. 

1\fr. HOAR. That is true. 

1\If. FRYE. That covers all the Senator from Massachusetts de· sires, which is this entire season. 1\'Ir. PALMER. No; the Senator from Massachusetts wants to ex· tend it another year. 

Mr. HOAR. No one knows it as well as I do myself, if the Senator 

will pardon me and will wait a moment. The bill has already been 

amended by striking out "March" and inserting "July." I propose 

to amend it further by striking out "1887" and inserting "1888." 

Mr. FRYE. That is giving two years. ])fr. HOAR. So there will be practically two years before the bill 

takes effect. 

Mr. FRYE. I am decidedly opposed to that. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment proposed by the Senator from Massa<!husetts [Mr. HoAR]. 

Mr. PALMER. I hope the amendment will not be agreed to for this reason: The committee have made the concession which has been 

offered and accepted because they thought otherwise a hardship would 

be inflicted upon those who had made preparation for this year. 

In answer to the Senator from New York as to whether. I think it 

proper that these men should have notice so that their property can be 

protected, I will say that the bill was drawn and is being urged by all 

the mackerel fleet, as far as the Committee on Fisheries know, engaged 

in the spring catch of mackerel. Their vessels and their equipments 

have run down in valuation from twenty-five to :fifty cents on the dol· 

lar, and it is to save them from commercial destruction, and also to see if the fisheries can not be regulated so that the mackerel will not be 

driven entirely from our coast and our people deprived of the chief 

food on which they rely, and upon which they lay very greo.t stress, 

that this bill "is being pushed. · Mr. 1\IcPHERSON. Will the Senator from Michig::m--

1\Ir. PALMER. If the Senator from New Jersey will permit me I 

will say that I think it would be well to have the report of the Com· 

mittee on Fisheries read, which was unanimous. 

Mr. MILLER. That will only take up time. 

Mr. P .ALMER. Did the Senator from New Jersey wish to ask me a question? 

Mr. McPHERSON. If the Senator from Michigan will permit me, 

I wish to ask him a question. I see the bill proposes that during a cer~ 

tain season of the year, which I presume is the spawning season, there 

shall be no catch of mackerel, and this restriction is to continue for a pe1'iod of five years. Let me ask the Senator if the testimony before the 

committee, of which I understand him to be chairman, was not to the 

effect that it was impossible under any condition of circumstances to de· plete the sea fisheries? Certain years you ho.ve a run of fish of a cer· tain kind and character. For instance, a.long the Atlantic coast one 

year we have a great run of blue fish. Again, for a year or two there 

will be scarcely any blue fish. In certain years we have o. great run of 

the menhaden; and then for a year or two we 8hall see very many less 

of them. In my opinion, and my opinion is very largely sustained by 

experts in fishery matters, there is n'? amount of catch of :fish~hich can be taken from the water by any process, whether it be by seines orotherwjse, that can in any sense or .torm affect the supply of fish. I think 

that is a reasonable view to take of the question. 

I wish to knowwhyin certain seasons of the year when there are in some years extraordinary runs of mackerel at the particular season to 
1887. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1483 

which the bill relates it is necessary to prevent the people of the country from having cheap fish food, as they now have in the absence of any 

law governing and controling the matter, when it does not and can not 

in the least particular affect the supply of fish? 

1\fr. PALMER. Is the Senator through with his question? ~fr. McPHERSON. I suppose it is very well established that not one in a hundred of the germs ever becomes a living fish. 

!fr. PALMER. Excuse me. Is the Senator asking me a question or making au argument? 

1\fr. 1\fcPHERSON. I am asking a question, and when I am through 

with my question I shall be very glad to have the Senator answer me. Mr. PALMER. I shall try. 

Mr. McPHERSON. Will the Senator answer the quest-inn I have 

asked him, and inform me whether it was not stated before the committee that it was impossible to deplete the sea fisheries? If he will answer that question I think he will simply state what ought to be the 

fate of the bill. Therefore, I will await the Senator's answer. !fr. PALMER. We know that the first question scientifically, so far as the fish supply is concerned, is not thoroughly understood, and 

unless scientists are perfectly sure and can demonstrate a fact so that 

it can not be disproved they are not going to assent to a proposition. 

The whole theory of the impossibility of the spoliation of the sea has 

arisen from Professor Huxley's report on the herring fisheries of Great 

Britain. He spent five years in his investigations, but he did not make 

a report that is applicable here. He said that nothing that man could 

do would tend to deplete these..'\ of fish; but that is not the question 

here. 

We do not contend that there will not be just as many mackerel without this proposed legislation, but we contend that the mackerel will 

be reduced in quality, that they will be driven off to other feeding- ~unk · 

It is a well-known fact that the anadromous fishes, those fishes that ~o into the mouths of rivers to spawn, are protected by State laws. The 

large schools of fish that come upon our coast every year and feed upon 

the food that they get near the shore are not protected. The result is 

that the old and the wise fish that are subjected from year to year to 

this persecution, which commences at Hatteras and which extends clear 

to the Bay of Fundy, become wiser, and they are deflected from the or- dinary route; they go outside; and the fishermen are catching an unprofitable fish, a fish that is not anything like the mackerel that was caught fifty years ago. 

Right here I should like to refer to a table which was prepared by 

the Boston fish bureau, and which more than anything else it seems to me establishes the fact that the fish are being degraded by the persecution to which they are subjected upon the coast before they reach 

Nova Scotia. I shall show that it is fairly deducible from the facts I am about to state. According to the report of the Boston fish bureau, 

in 1819 the catch with the hook andlinewas19percent. ofNo.1mackerel; in 1829 it was 25 per cent. of No. 1 mackerel. 

Mr. MILLER. On what page is the table to which the Senator re- fers? 

Mr. PALMER. It is found on page 59 of the statement matle before 

the Committee on Fisheries. In 1839 it was 30 per cent. In 1859 it was 61 per cent. In 1869 it was 31 per cent. In 1879 it was 6 per cent. 

I will state right here in parenthesis that the use of the purse-seines 

commenced in 1873, and from 1875 down to the present time the degradation of the quality of the mackerel on the coast has been so marked 

as to call for legislative action. From 17 per cent. in 1877 it has gone 

down to 9 per cent. one year, to 6 per cent. the next year, then to 8 per 

cent., then to 6 per cent., to 15 per cent., to 14 per cent., to 8 per cent., 

and to 7 per cent. in 1885, showing a remarkable decrease in a very few 

years. 

I think it is fairly deducible from this table that from some cause or other the larger fish are driven from the coast, and unless some remedy 

is found the fish eventually will not be worth the catching for anything 

except for fertilizers; they will be nothing but spikes, as they are called 

in the market. 

There is no doubt in my mind that these fish by the way they are 

harassed (and I will bring evidence to bear on that point) are being 

driven off from the coast. The men who have come and asked for this 

legislation are unanimous upon the subject with the exception of one man. They ask protection from each other. They ask the enactment 

of a law that shall prevent one from getting thestartoftheothers. It 

they were perfectly sure of each other's good faith they would all stay 

at home; but if nine-tenths of the fleet remain at home one-tenth may 

go South and get in a very large mackerel catch and carry it into New 

York and get an advrultage over their brethren. 

There is no restriction to be placed on the catching of mackerel by 

hook and line. No one is to be damaged at all except the very men who ask for this legislation. They are the men who supply our navies 

with our sailors. We are now agitated" in an attempt to protect them 

in their rights; and it seems to .me that their voice should be heeded 

in legislation which tends to their prosperity and the prosperity of the 

fisheries. Unless something of this kind is done, I am perfectly certain 

that there will be no mackerel fisheries with purse-seines-possibly 

that would be a blessing-in less than ten years.• 

I should like to read from some of the testimony presented to the 

committee. These letters are from men who have pursued fishing or have been connected with it in one way or another all their lives. Here_ is a note from W. A. Wilcox, manager of the American Fish .Bm-eau. 

I read an extract from his letter of June 15, 1886: 

From personal conversation with a number of the most reliable ma.~te:rs of 

vessels engaged, I find they estimate the aggregate amount thrown away by all 

vessels engaged at from 75,000 to 100,000 barrels. 

That is, from 75,000 to 100,000 barre~ a year. It shows how the 

catch has deteriorated. The fish could not be marketed. They are 

thrown over at sea, the most of them, and that is another crying evil. 

Mr. MILLER. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question? 

Mr. PALMER. Yes, sl.r. 

Mr. MILLER. How does this bill prevent the catching of mackerel 

by purse-seines? How does it en.'tble the fishermen to catch only the 

good fish and to leave out the poor ones? 

Mr. PLATT. It is in order to prevent the glutting of the market. 

Mr. PALMER. If the Senator from New York can tell me why 

they should catch fish when they can not sell them, then I can tell him 

how it would prevent it. The bill proposes to enact ''That for the period 

of five years from and after the 1st day of July, 1887, no mackerel 

other than what is known as Spanish mackerel, caught between the 

1st day of March and the 1st day of June, inclusive, of each year, shall 

be imported into the United States or landed upon its shores--" 

Mr. MILLER. But if the bill said that no mackerel cau~ht in purse- seines or in any other way except by hook and line should be imported 

into the United States, I could then understand how the bill would 

enable the fishermen, or would compel them, to bring in full-sized 

fish; but it does not undertake to regulate the methods of fishing 

at all. , ~1r. PALMER. If the Senator from New York had allowed me to 

read a little further he would not have made that remark. 

Mr. MILLER. Certainly I should have made the remark. 

1l:Ir. PALMER. "Provided, however, That nothing in this act shall 

be held to apply to mackerel caught with hook and line, from boats, 

and landed in said boats, or in traps and weirs connected with the 

shore.'' 

Mr. MILLER. We understand what that means. That means fish- ing within the limit of three miles from the shore. 

lli. PALMER. I think the Senatorismistaken; it is not off-shore, 

it is outside ofthe three-mile limit. But it does not refer to anything 

in particular that the committee or the persons who are urging the bill 

desired to accomplish; they are perfectly willing to let them fish off- shore, in-shore, up the creeks, anywhere they please, as long as they 

fish with hook and line. 

Mr. MILLER. So long as they do not catch any fish before the 1st 

day of June. After the 1st day of June they can fish anywhere, with 

purse-nets, and take any sized fish, as they have been doing for years. Is it not true that that can be done under the bill? 

Mr. PALMER. If the Senator will allow me, I will explain why 

the limit was put at the 1st day of June. There were many who 

wished to have it put at the 1st of .July, but they said they were fearful they could not get it through if that limitation was made, and 

therefore it was fixed at the 1st of June; but practically it amounts to 

the same thing, for when the mackerel spawn, between the 1st of June 

and the 1st of July, they sink out of sight, they do not appear at all; so that practically it is a close season for the females and their progeny 

up to the 1st of July. 

Mr. !fiLLER. I am very gL'l.d to have the Senator make that ad- mission. Then, this proposition is that there shall be no fishing for 

mackerel except during the spawning season, and you may then catch 

all you like. That is a new way of regulating fishing. In the internal 

waters of the United States, by the laws of nearly all the States, fish- ing for the various kinds of fish like trout, bass, and others is prevented during the spawning season. Now, the Senator tells us the 

spawning season for mackerel is between the lstof June and the 1st of 

July, and that is the time persons are to be allowed to catch them, 

under the bill. • lli. PALMER. The Senator is a little too technical. I shall have 

to go into the history of the mackerel from the· time he comes on to 

our shore at CapeHatteras, and follow him up through New Jersey up 

by Block Island until you land him in the Bay of Fundy: When the 

mackerel comes on to our shores from the Gulf . Stream, or from the 

open sea, or wherever he may come from, which is not already estab- lished, he is poor; both the male and female are poor. The.reproductive process has commenced and they are poor up to the first of July, 

when the spawn has been distributed and when they commence to feed 

upon the red food along the coast in Massachusetts and Maine. Then 

they soon become fat and a goQd marketable article. I do not see that 

the inference which the Senator from New York draws can be .fairly 

.deduced from anything in the bill. 

Mr. MILLER. If the spawning season begins on the 1st of June 

and extends until the 1st of July or August, in order to make it safe, 

why does not the committee provide in the bill that there shall be no fish 

landed upon our shores from the 1st day of August of each year up to 

and including certain other months, December or January? 
1484 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 8;. 

Mr. PALMER. The committee did not provide for it because it was not asked for. 

Mr. MILLER. The committee certainly ought to provide for what 

is just and right without any regard to what the salt-mackerel men 

may ask. 

Mr. McPHERSON. If-the Senator will yield to me a moment, he 

has described the habits of the mackerel--

Mr. PALMER. Not critically. 

Mr. McPHERSON. He has described the mackerel striking the 

coast on the south about Cape Hatteras. The Senator well knows that 

from Cape Hatteras to the northern coast of Maine on almost every 

rod of territory there are constructed, as a sort of permanent investment by the fishermen, weirs and ponds and places of that kind for 

the convenience and the profit of the fishermen. 

Mr. PALMER. If the ~enator will permit me, that is provided for 

in the amendment. 

Mr. McPHERSON. At certain seasons of the year there is a run of 

mackerel, at certain seasons there is a run of bass, at a certain other 

period there is a run of bluefish, and so on. The operation of the 

bill will be to destroy absolutely the occupation of the fishermen during 

the months of the year in which the bill provides that no mackerel 

shall be cauj:!;ht. 

Mr. PALMER. If the Secretary will read the amendment which 

relates to traps and weirs the Senator from New Jersey will see that it 

will cure the evil of which he speaks. The weirs and nets are specially 

exempted from the operations of the bill. All the men along the coast 

of New Jersey, Delaware, and Massachusetts who have weirs or nets 

connected with the shore are particularly exempted from its operations 

and will derive increased benefits from this legislation. 

Mr. McPHERSON. Do I understand that the bill has been amended 

in that particular? 

Mr. PALMER. Yes; thatisoneoftheamendmentswhich have been 

adopted. 

Mr. McPHERSON. I should like to have the amendment read. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will read the amendment which has been agreed to. 

The CHIEF CLERK. At the end of the first section, add: 

Or in traps and weirs connected with the shore. 

So as to read: 

PrO'IJided, however, That nothing in this act shall be held to apply to mackerel 

caught with hook and line from boats, and landed inside of boats, or in traps and 

weirs connected with the shore. 

M:r. McPHERSON. In thatrespectthebillisbettered by the amendment. There is one other question which I should like to suggest. I 

have somewhere read a statement made by a certain professor in Scotland who has made quite a study of the fish question, and particularly 

of the question of the herring upon the coast of Scotland. It is well 

known that there is not to be found el<;ewhere on the face of the earth 

in any water anywhere such a · great fishery enterprise as the herring 

fishery on the coast of Scotland. Some years there is a. less run of herring than others. This professor goes on to say that as to the amount 

of herring caught from the water by all the processes which fishermen 

can employ, whether it be by 'nets, by seines, by weirs, by hook and 

line, or what not (and we knowsomethingofthequantitycaught), the 

amount of fish taken on the coast of Scotland was as one to a million 

compared with the amount of herring consumed by other fishes. 

I should like to ask the Senator from Michigan what is the necessity 

of preventing cheap food-fish being obtained for the people, even durin~ the period proposed in the bill, if it be true that for every fish taken 

from the water at any season (and it is well known that the herring 

fishery is prosecuted with more vigor and with more profit during the 

spawning season than any other) a. million are consumed by other vora- cious fishes? We know that one class offish lives upon another. Then 

why, upon the seacoast, with an ocean 3,000 miles wide, is it necessary 

by any sort of system whatever to prevent the free occupation of the 

fisherman during any months of the year? 

Look at the menhaden fishery. Within a year or two we find that 

the menhaden have very greatly reduced in numbers, so that in some years it is almost impossible for the men employed in the industry of 

catching the fish for the oil and the fat, which I understand is made into 

fertilizers, to find enough menhaden to profitably occupy them. In 

other years again the menhaden come in immense quantities. I think 

it safe to say that althoug_h legislation has been attempted here and 

elsewhere to prevent fishing for the menhaden along the coast, for every 

fish taken from the water by the menhaden industries there are a. million of them consumed by other fish. If it be best to prevent fishing 

near the shore in order that the fish may go ba-ck into deeper water and 

be caught there by bigger fish, then there is some justification for this 

legislation; if not, there is no justification for it. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will report the pend· 

ing amendment proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 

HoAR]. 

The CHIEF CLERK. In section 1, line 4, it i.s proposed to strike out 

"1887" and insert "1888," so as to read: 

That for the period of five years from and after the 1st day of July, 1888, no mackerel other than what is known as Spanish mackerel, caught between the 

1st day of March and the 1st day of June, inclUBive, of each year, .shall be imported into the United States or landed upon its shOi"es. 

Mr. FRYE. I ask the Senator from Michigan in charge of the bill to move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was amended by striking 

out the word "March" and inserting the word "July," in line 4, and 

then to accept the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts. 

Mr. HOAR. That will cover the same thing. 

Mr. PALMER. In deference to the wishes of the Senator from Maine, 

who has a greater interest in this bill possibly than I ~ave, I will move that the vote by which the amendment was agreed to changing ''March'' 

to '

1 July," in line 4, be reconsidered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That can be done by unanimous con- sent. There being no objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. PALMER. Now, I withdraw the amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the amend· 

ment proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HoAR]; which 

will be read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. In section 1, line 4, strike out the words ''1887" 

and insert "1888," so as to read: 

That for the period of five years from and after the first day of March, 1888, no mackerel other than what is known as Spanish mackerel, &c. 

Mr. SAULSBURY. Mr. PresidentMr. HOAR. Will the Senator from Delaware allow the amendment 

to be adopted before he proceeds, as the committee agree to it? 

Mr. SAULSBURY. I am not certain that I am in favor of the 

amendment. I am not certain that this proposed legislation is right. 

Mr. MILLER. Are you not certain that it is wrong? 

Mr. SAULSBURY. During the examination ofthe fishery question 

last fall we took considerable testimony before a committee, of which I was a. member, on this very subject. I found that the men who own the boats, as a general rule, were in favor of a close time, as they call 

it, but they stated that their men employed in doing the fishing gen· 

erally urged that they should send out their boats to the spring fishing. 

Not willing to lose the time, they urged the owners of vessels to send 

their vessels down the southern coast in order that they might have 

employment. 

My understanding is that there is a very considerable amount of fresh 

mackerel consumed in the Eastern cities caught between the months of 

March and July, which furnish cheap food to a class of people who are not very well able t-o buy the higher-priced fish. If the bill proposes 

to restrict that it seems to me that it is wrong. As to whether it 

affects the mackerel fishery subsequently, the faH fishing for mackerel, 

I am unable to say. 

There are different theories in reference to the mackerel. Some fish- ermen whose testimony was taken by the committee had an idea that 

these fish come up from the Gulf along the shore, striking in about 

Hatteras and going all the way up. There were other persons who had 

the idea-and I think Professor Baird has that idea-that they come di· 

rectly into the shore from the sea. If the latter-theory is true, then all the 

argument in reference to diverting the fish is erroneous. If, on the 

other hand, it is true that the schools of fish come up from toward the 

Gulf and hug the shore clear up our coast and to Canada, then perhaps 

the spring fishing does divert to a certain extent the fish from our coast. 

Which of these theories is correct I am not able to say, but at any 

rate, if the poor people of the cities are to be deprived of a cheap article of food it seems to me that this proposed legislation is not wise. 

As to its effect upon the ultimate catch of the fish I am at a. loss to 

determine, because that depends also upon the theories which are entertained in reference to the habits of these fish. If they make into shore 

from the sea, striking at Hatt~ras, striking along the Jersey coast, striking along the coast of Massachusetts and Maine from the sea, then there 

is no diverting the fish, if that theory be tnie, simply by fishing down 

about Hatteras in the spring of th~ year. · 

My information is that there are about a hundred vessels that go 

down from Gloucester and from other points on the New England coast 

and engage in southern fishing; and that they do not go because the owners of the boats desire that they shall go, but because the men en- gaged in fishing, the hands who do the catchmg, do not wish to be lying 

around Gloucester all the spring waiting for the fall catch, but they 

desire to be employed. The bill operates to the prejudice of that class 

of men who are dependent upon their labor in this industry. If it is 

their wish to go down and fish, and if the poor people of the cities are to be deprived of a cheap food, the bill is contrary in my judgment to 

what is right. The poor we shall always have with us, and we ought 

not to legislate a~ainst their interests. 

I had a. good deal of doubt about the jnsbice of this proposed legislation when on the committee last fall, after hearing the testimony of 

the owners of the boats, for it was the testimony of the owners of boats 

that we took as a ~eneral rule, and not of the men engaged in actual 

catching, except the captains of the boats. I do not now remember 

that I beard any expr~ion of opinion from the captains of boats on this sullject, but we did hear some opinions adverse to the spring catch 

by the owners of the boats, and I think very generally the owners of 

the boats were opposed to that kind of fishing; but I understood dis· 

tinctly from the owners themselves that they were compelled to engage 
1887. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1485" 

in spring fishing because their fisbennen were not willing to wait, and 

they bad to send them out to gratify the men actually engdged in the 

fishing. . If the statement of the Senator from N e:w Jersey (Mr. McPHERSON] 

is correct, that it is utterly impossible to diminish by any catch the 

fish, then all the argument in favor of a close time comes to naught. 

We have an abundance of fish during certain soasons, it is true, of 

certain kinds of fish, and at certain other seasons there is not so much. 

I know that in Delaware Bay, along which I live, in some seasons of 

the year we have the sea trout, which comes in there in great abundance, and perhaps the next year there will be but few of them, so that 

it alternates, sometimes a full season of fishing and sometimes a scar- city. It is so I believe with shad, and it is so with herring, and I suppose with every other class of fish. 

On the whole, I think I shall vote against the bill. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, this is a very ingenious bill. It 

could have had its birth nowhere except in the fertile mind of a downeast Yankee, and if it is passed into a law it will undoubtedlysucceecl 

in accomplishing what it was intended to accomplish, for it is very 

neatly drawn for that purpose. 

The object of the bill is to reduce the catch of mackerel from one- third to one-half of all the mackerel that shall be brought into our American ports during each year. The fishing season begins late in 

March or early in April and continues uninterruptedly up to the 1st of 

June, and through June, July, August, September, October, and November, even to December, as the Senator from Michigan says; but 

during the month of June and a portion of July the fish disappear and 

the catch is small. Heretofore the principal ca.tch of ma.ckerel has 

been made off our coast during the months of March, April, and May. 

Mackerel fishing has been a very important industry. It has given 

employment to a very large number of hardy sea.men. There are en- gaged in the business, I think, nearly two hundred vessels, owned largely 

in Massachusetts and New York, some inN ew Jersey, and other States. 

The bill takes off three months of the annual fishing, and three months 

of the best fishing. · The chairman of the committee, who has made a scientific study of 

this matter, tells us that the fish first appear off our coast, off the capes, 

Cape Hatteras, or even further south, opposite Georgia and South Carolina, late in March or early in April, and that from that time on up to the 

1st of June they are found going further north, until finally in June 

they are off Massachusetts and Maine; in other words, that this is a bill 

to prevent fishing for mackerel save off the coast of Massachusetts and 

Maine, chiefly off the coast of Maine, for after the first of July the fish are as far north as Uaine, and many of them have gone still farther 

north. 

Whether the chairman of the committee took kindly to this measure or not I do not know. It may be that there is some New England 

blood in his veins, and therefore he took kindly to this proposition of 

his fatherland. As the State of Michigan does not border upon the 

Atlantic be has no mackerel fishing off his shores, and he may have 

been kindly disposed toward New England and been willing to rule 

out of the .fishing business all the Southern States and the States of 

New Jersey and New York. I will not say as to that, but certainly I was greatly surprised to find that the Senator from Michigan, who 

usually takes so liberal a view of all these questions, and who desires 

to legislate in the interests of the people of this country, should have 

given his sanction to a bill which is simply for the purpose of creating a monopoly in the mackerel fishing off our shores. 

This bill is simply in the interest of the men in Massachusetts and 

Maine who are engaged in the salting of mackerel, and is intended to 

cut short the fishing which takes place along our shores, and which 

produces during the months I have spoken of one of' the principal foodfishes of this country, being brought into all our ports in enormous quantities, and now by our railroad system distributed all along our coast, even as far west as the Mississippi Valley. 

What reason can be given for this bill I do not know. I have waited 

anxiously for the Senator from Michigan to give us some reason for the 

bill. He seems to defer those reasons until the opposition to the bill 

shall be put in, and then I suppose some overpowering and conclusive 

argument may be produced here which will convince us that we have 

all been wrong. Certainly, if such reasons are produced by the members 

of the committee or by any other Senator, and my judgment is con- vinced, I shall gladly acknowledge my fault and support the bill. 

It has been intimated that the fish were not good during the months 

included in the bill, but the Senator tells us that the spawning season does not begin until June, and he proposes to curtail and stop absolutely the fishing for mackerel until the spawning season begins. I 

submit to him as an old fisherman and one skilled in the art, and as one knowing the science of the fishes, that it is certainly a very curi- ous provision that he should bring in a bill here regulating fishing 

which should prevent fish from being caught atany otherseasonofthe 

year save during the spawning season. I shall leave him to explain 

why he has done this. · 

Mr. President, this legislation is certainly anomalous. As I said a moment ago, it is in the interest of monopoly. It tends directly to 

create a monopoly. It proposes to put a fence around the Atlantic 

Ocean for three months in the year, and say to the poor and hardy fish- ermen of our coast, "You shall not go out in your boats to catch any 

mackerel, or if you do catch them you shall not be permitted to land 

them upon our shores. 1

' 

Evidently the amendment which the Senator has proposed this morn- ing in allowing these fish to be taken in weirs, nets, and ponds along 

the shore has been intended to catch the support of the Senators from 

New Jersey, off which coast much of that kind of fishing is carried on. But if the fishing is injurious, if as he tells us the mackerel are harassed and troubled by the fisherman until at last they are driven 

away from our coast and we have only the small mackerel of which 

he complains left, how does he better it by allowing fishing off the 

shore in weirs and ponds and nets? Will not all the fish be taken, 

of whatever size they may be? Certainly everything that comes to 

the net will be taken in, it matters not whether the net is on the shore or off the shore or whether out in the deep sea. We have allowed American citizens to go out upon o'nr great plains 

and to fence in the public domain and to drive off and keep off citizens 

of the United States from settling upon it. We have allowed great 

corporations to seize upon the public domain, and to-day there remains 

but httle of the public domain which is desirable for settlement and 

which can be taken under the laws of our Government. We are rapidly making a monopoly of whatever of public land there is left in this 

country; and now these few men in the States of Maine and Massachusetts who desire to control absolutely the mackerel market of this coun- try and to raise the price of mackerel in our market from 50 to 100 or 200 per cent., as this bill will do if it passes, come here and ask us to put a fence around the Atlantic Ocean and to say to our people, ''You shall 

not fish during March, April, and May." 

It seems to me that it ought only to be necessary to read the bill and 

to call the attention of the Senate to it in order to have it unanimously 

rejected, for I can not believe that the Senators from any State representing their constituents can for a moment consent to stand here and 

indorse and advocate a measure which is to make not only mackerel 

dear in our markets, but which is to make all salt-water fish dear also; 

for you will find if you go to the great fish markets in New York and 

other seaports that the price of bluefish, the price of sea-bass, and in 

fact the prices of nearly all salt-water fish are largely controlled by the 

amount of fresh · mackerel brought into our ports. Mackerel is the 

principal fish, and if it comes in in greater abundance the price goes 

down, and that carries with it, of course, the price of all other saltwater fish. If the number that is brought in is decreased necessarily 

the price of mackerel advances and the price of other salt-water fish 

advances. 

It so happened that about two years ago, I think, a great catch of 

mackerel was made off our coast. .Mr. Blackford, who is one of the 

fish commissioners of New York, a man who knows as much about the 

c'tlmmerce in fish as perhaps any man in the United States, for he has 

been engaged in it for many years, tells us something about the results 

which happened upon the price of fish when the great catch was made 

only a short time ago. Let me read from his testimony which wa8 

taken by this committee. Ur. Blackford said: 

As I said whep I was before your committee formerly, last year was an ex- ceptional year, there being an enormous catch. The mackerel made their ap- pearance about the 1st of April, and in the sixty days between the 1st of 

April and the 1st day of June there were some 60,000 barrels landed and distributed, not in New York city alone, but all over the country; that is, within 

forty-eight hours of New York city by express. 

Mr. President, if you will look at the statistics of the mackerel catch . of this country you will find that the 60,000 barre.ls were one-quarter 

of all the mackerel taken in that entire year. If this bill had been a law those 60,000 barrels of mackerel would not have been taken atall, 

and they would have been lost to the people,. and the result would have 

been a largely increased price for fish. 

Mr. Blackford goes on .to Ray: 

They were sent in large numbers to Chicago, to Cleveland, Saint Louis, and as far south as into Virginia and North Carolina, and I do not know but that a larger quantity were shipped to the State of Massachusetts than any other 

State; the demllnd for fresh ma-ckerel there is greater. '£hose 60,000 barrels do not represent all that were taken in the earlier part of the f:eason. The whole 

fleet of one hundred and seventy vessels happened to strike the mackerel all at the same time, and New York was the great market. The whole fleet came to New York, with the exception probably of half a dozen vessels that went into 

Philadelphia or other ports. It glutted all the usual avenues or-distribution. 

They came in such enormous numbers there that they could not be distributed 

through the usual channels in time to avail ourselves of them before they 

spoiled. The fad is probably familiar to you that men, women, o.nd children 

flocked to the docks with their baskets, and it was not a question of price. If 

they bad 5 cents they could fill a basket. If a peddler came here with a wa.goa he could get his wagon loaded for 25 cents, and in the distribution by rail and express the dealers simply barreled them up and marked the names of reliable 

dealers in this city and that, and shipped them off for the dealer to take and pay whatever be saw fit. I speakoftliisin order to show you that during these two months mackerel form a very important factor as a cheap food supply of good 

quality. 

'Dhe Senator from Michigan tells us that this is destroying the catch 

of No. 1 mackerel. Perhaps that may be true, but 90 per cent of the 

people of this country do not eat No. 1 mackerel; they do not ask for 

it in the grocery stores; they can not afford to pay the price for it; the 

people of this country want cheap food, and under the present system 

of fishing they are getting it, not only all along our Atlantic coast, but, as I have shown, as far into the interior as the Mississippi Valley itself. 
1486 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE. FEBRUARY 8, 

How does this large catch of fish affect the price even of No. 1 mackerel? I might go on and read a long time to show how it reduced the 

price of a barrel of salt mackerel at that time nearly 50 per cent. 

It is not necessary that I should say here that the price of mackerel 

like the price of other commodities depends upon the supply and demand. The bill proposes to cut off on~half the supply and thereby 

raise the price of the other half to at least double the present price. 

While the catch of mackerel has decreased since _purse-seining has 

been introd.uced, it does not follow that it should be given up, nor does the bill provide that it shall be given up. If the bill had pro-

-vided that at no time should any mackerel be landed upon our shores save those taken by hook -and line, we could then have understood 

that the committee and the Senator from Michigan had brought the 

bill here fot the purpose of preserving the species of mackerel and pro-

-viding that only the large fish should be taken and that the small 

fish should be left. But it does not do anything of the kind. 

Mr. P ALl\IER. Will the Senator from New York permit me to interrupt him? 

1\Ir. MILLER. Certainly. 

1\Ir. PALMER. Is not that essentially the effect of the bill? The 

Senator seems to be confused on that point. 

lli. MILLER. I do not think I am confused on that point at all, 

but if I am I am willing to be enlightened. 

Mr. PALMER. If the Senator will read the proviso at the end of 

the first section I think he will be enlightened. 

lli. MILLER. I have read it two or three times, and we all understand it. That permits :fishing with hook and line during the three 

months specified, but after that time is up, for the other nine months 

in the year, purse fishing goes on uninterruptedly off the coast of Massachusetts and Maine; but it can not take place off the coast of any other 

of the United States of America, because the fish are not there except 

during those three months. That is the meat in this little bill. 

I say if the committee had come in here with a bill providing that no mackerel should be landed upon our coast at all save mackerel taken 

by hook and line, it does seem to me the Senator might have stood 

upon some scientific ground, upon some just ground, and said to the 

Senate that he was afraid the entire species of mackerel would be blotted 

out and withdra.wn from the sea, and he was doing this to preserve the 

species. But that is not the case at all. Mackerel can be taken by 

purse-seine any time after the 1st of J nne, any time after the fish year 

given, as high up as Massachusetts or 1\Iaine, but not before. 

The catch of fish is not.falling off at all. The Senator says there 

have not been as many No. 1 mackerel taken recently as heretofore. 

Quite likely that is true, but as I have said the masses of our people 

are not buying No.1 mackerel; they want cheap mackerel and cheap 

food of all kinds. I do not know that the entire catch of mackerel is 

given here. I suppose not, but it is the amount inspected in Ma-ssa.-

chusetts only that is stated in the report. In 1875 it was 225,00"0 

barrels. The next year it fell to 105,000 barrels. Evidently that was a bad year for mackerel. The next year it went up to 144,000 barrels; and the next year to 155,000 barrels. In 1880 it got up again to 

243,000 barrels. The next year it was 256,000 barrels. The next 

year, another bad year, in 1883, it was 154,000 barrels . • The next year 

it went up to almost its largest point; in 1884 it was 283,000 barrels; 

and the next year it fell to 215,000 barrels. - There is not anything to show in the statistics of the country (for 

there are no such statistics) that we are depleting the seas, or that we can in any way destroy or perceptibly affect the supply of food-fish in 

the sea. What ar~ caught by all the human race constitute a mere nothing in comparison to the vast multitudes that inhabit the sea. 

Here is a food snit.'lble to all our people, which costs no man anythingtocultivateorraise. Itroamsatitswill through thesea. It costs us nothing and never has cost us anything. We have been appropriating a few thousand dollars from year to year to enable our scientific men to study the habits of sea fish and to see if they can do anything 

to bring them closer to our shores and to make our fisheries more effective. In the increase of our food-fish in our interior waters they 

have undoubtediy been -very successful, and are doing much to resupply 

the streams and lakes which were giving out. But thus far they have 

produced no results whatever upon sea fish. They have been enabled 

to make some studies which are useful and which I hope will lea-d to 

beneficial results, but in regard to mackerel they have not been able even to arrive at any conclusion about their habits. They do not know 

where they go to nor where they come from. They simply know that 

during certain months they are off a certain portion of our coast, and 

that we can then catch them, and that is all they know about them. 

Let me read from a letter written by Professor Baird on this subject: 

UNITED STATES COlDUSSION OF FisH AND FISHERIES, 

Washington, D. 0., February 15, 1886. 

DEAR Sm: I have received your letter asking for an opinion as to whether 

"the preventing of mackerel fishing during the spring months is necessary for 

the maintenan ce of an abundant supply of that fish upon our shores." I have never been conviuced that the abundance of mackerel has been in any way affected through the agency of man. 

Here comes this committee and it proposes to say that for three 

months in the year no mackerel whatever shall be landed-upon our coast. There can be no possible excuse or demand for such legislation 

'· 

unless it be upon the ground that it is necessary to preserve the fish 

and to prevent them from being obliterated. _ 

1\Ir. PALUER. Will the Senator permit me to make a statement? 

Ur. MILLER. Certainly. 

Mr. PALMER. The Senator seems to have gotten up a fog-bank, 

and thinks it is a positive clay-bank, and he is pelting that. There is no charge that there has been a diminution in the quantity of mackerel. That is not the charge, although I believe that will follow the 

purse-seine fishing if· kept up for many years, but the charge is in the 

degradation of the quality. 

Mr. MILLER. May I ask the Senator what is the reason fur this 

bill? Why is it brought in here? 

Mr. PALMER. In answer I will state that it was brought here at 

the instance of men who are engaged in the mackerel fishery, who represent 400 vessels and 5, 000 seamen, who say that by reason of purseseine fishing, as they believe, the mackerel fishery has become unprofitable, and that they will sell out at from 25 to 50 cents on the dollar 

their vessels and all their equipments. They say it is a mn.tter of -vital 

interest to them, and that without some legislation the mackerel fishery 

of the Northeast will be destroyed entirely, and they will have to go 

back to the old hook-and-line methods. 

The Senator says that what he wants is cheap food for the people. 

He will have high food for the people without some such enactment, 

because this matter of purse-seine fishing will cure itself sooner or later. The best thing for him to do is to accept the. ine-vitable. Let 

these poor and miserable and cheap, and I would say, if I ever used 

the word, nasty fishes of the spring go, and rely upon the hook and 

line to supply his constituents, and in the fall get fish that are worthy 

to eat at a cheaper price than he can get them if the present system is 

permitted to go on. :rtfr.l\fiLLER. The Senator has answered my question as I expected 

he would. It turns out that this bill is in the interest of the owners of a few fishing -vessels, not in the interest of the seamen who go upon 

them, as the Senator from Delaware [Mr. SAULSBURY] told us was disclosed in the investigation which was had before a committee of which 

he was a member. 

I undertake to say, and I do not think it can be gainsaid or disproved, 

that this bill is desired simply by a few men who stay upon the land 

in various towns in Maine and Massachusetts and salt down mackerel. 

They are men of capital, men of means. It is not asked for by the poor 

fisherman himself. He does not desire to be deprived of three months 

of his work in each year. It is not asked for by the ten million or the 

fifty million people who consume this food. 

As to the quality of the fish, I do not care to go into that, but I think 

when every Senator here can get a good fresh mackerel between the 

1st of April and the lstof June he does not hesitatetoeat it. I know 

I do not. I have no doubt but that the Senator from Michigan, although I know he is very partieular in regard to his food, eats fine 

mackerel between the 1st of April and the 1st of June. 

But, as I said a moment ago, even if the object of this bill be what 

the Senator says it is, it effects that object only for three months. It 

does not stop purse-seining during nine months in the year. Why not? 

If it were true or if there were any fair probability that by the con- tinuation of purse-seining all the mackerel would be driven off our coast 

and this whole fishery disappear and our people leave this food fishery 

entirely, it might be wise for us to pass a, ln.w providing that no mackerel 

should be landed upon our coast at any time save those taken by hook 

and line; but this bill does not provide anything of the kind. The 

Senator from Michigan wants to preserve, to take care of the little fish, 

the weak fish, and the poor fish during three months in the year, and 

then he turns them loose to the mercy of those men whom he is' representing here, the fishermen of Main~ and Massachusetts, and allows 

them to go out with their purse-seines and surround thewhole sea and 

bring them in, and they bring in large and small then just as much in 

the months of June and July as they do in the months of April and 

May, do they not? I ask the chairman of the committee if that is not 

true? There can be no question about it. This bill, then, is not con- sistent with itself. It does not undertake to accomplish what the Senator says it is intended for. 

:rtlr. PALMER. The Senator asked me a question. I shall be very 

glad to answer it. • They do not bring the fish in in the same shape in July and August; 

they are not brought in salted. It is a fact that the fish caught in July 

are not fit for &alting. 

1\Ir. DAWES. I should like to ask the Senator from New York if 

he has not overlooked the fact that the fish when they first come upon our shores in March, April, and May are poor, small fish; that they become larger and fatter after that time and more fit for the market; and 

th.."'.t the object is to preserve the fish until they become fit for the market and not bring them in as he has described, 60,000 barrels at one time, 

and allow them to be dumped into the docks and thrown away, more than half of them, because it was impossible to consume them at any 

price or give them away before they were destroyed. Is not that the 

object of this bill? 

Mr. MILLER. I am trying to get at the object of the bill, and we shall be able to fish it out after awhile, even if we have to do it with 
~. . .. 

1887. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEw 1487 

a hook and line. I have been throwing out a purse-seine and got notliing. The reasons were so small that they slipped through the mesh. 

Mr. DAWES. I suppose that a man who recognized the fitness of 

the game law in his own State and in every other State of the Union 

that prohibits the taking of game during certain months in the year in 

order to preserve the game, so that it may be fit for market in other 

months of the year, would be able to guess, without the benefit of a 

hook and line, what was the purpose of this bill. 

Mr. MILLER. If there was anything of that kind in this bill I 

might perhaps have guessed at it; but there iS not. There is nothing 

in the bill that will accomplish anything which the Senator from Massachusetts has just st.ated to be the object of the bill. It will not ac- complish it at all. · 

Mr. DAWES. The Senator will allow metointerrupt him again. 

I stated to him that during those months the fish were young and 

poor fish, that they came up better fish in the after months; and the 

Senator's attempt to show that this is for the benefit of the men who own shipping craft in Maine and Massachusetts shows that he understands that part of it just as litt~e as he does the game laws of his own State. It does not make a particle of difference with the men in Maine 

a.nd Massachusetts whether they fish down in New Jersey and offHatteras, or fish in Massachusetts or Maine. They do not go home at nights; 

they are out on the oce.o1.n; and it does not make one particle of differ- ence where they go for the fish. The effect is upon the fish and the 

fish market in the long run, not upon a man whose business it .is to get 

60,000 barrels at one haul, and make a lot of money by dumping them 

around in the different express officesofthecountry. That is the differ- ence between the Senator and this bill. 

Mr. MILLER. If I did not answer all the questions and all the objections of the Senator from Massachusetts, it was because the questions were so long that I forgot most of them before he finished. 

I do not suppose the Senator from Massachusetts or the chairman of 

the Committee on Fisheries will undertake to say that the mackerel 

grow from a little fish to a big fish between the first day of April and 

the first day of June. That is absurd. It t.akes several years to grow 

a No. 1 mackerel, the kind that the Senator from Michigan n&es upon 

his table. They are not grown in ninety days. · Undoubtedly it is true that the mackerel in the months of April and 

May are not quite as fat, not quite as oily as they are in September and 

October, but it is also true that the mackerel during the three months 

I have mentioned, March, April and May, are perfectly good food, and are eaten by the greatest epicures in this country, with all due deference to the chairman of this committee and to the Senator from 1\fa.ssa-.. 

chusetts. 

If by purse-seining they get too many of the small fish, this bill 

does not prevent it except for three months in the year; as I have said 

before, it leaves the other nine months unrestricted. Now, if these fish are unfit for food during March, April, and May, why, I ask in the interest of the health of our people, does the Senator from Michigan come in 

here and permit you to eat those which are taken by the hook and line, or are taken in a pound net, or in a weir off the coast of New Jersey 

during these three months? Are those fish which come a little closer ·to shore any better in March, April, and May than the fish taken out 

in the open sea? I think not. The fact remains simply that the fish 

in those three months are not as good as they are during the rest of the 

year, but they are perfectly good food and are eaten by all our people 

who can·get them at a reasonable price. 

The Senator from Massachusetts referred to the game laws of my 

State and of other States. Sir, we do not have any game law in the 

State of New York which forbids fishing for trout and bass except during the spawning months. We have not got any such law as that, and 

that is what this bill is. This bill says you shall not begin fishing for 

mackerel in the high seas until the spawning season begins, and then 

you may fish all you like. Who ever heard of such a game-preserving 

law as that is? It is absurd on the face of it; and I say when a law is 

made with that absurd provision you must go and look at the selfish 

interests of the men who brought the bill here and who have advocated it before the committee and who have appeared there and made 

their arguments. The thousands of poor fishermen who go out in 

these months and partake in this industry have not been here asking 

for thepassageofthis bill, butonlythecapitalists; and tbeyhavefound 

that we are catching so many fish under .the present system, that we are so reducing the price even of No.1 mackerel, that they with their 

capital may no longer find it profitable; but I have no fears in regard 

to that. This great industry will not be allowed to die and pass away 

because of its enormous proportions. It does not cost us, as I said a moment ago, anything to grow these fish. Providence takes care of 

them, or they do themselves, and all we have to do is to catch them and 

distribute them among our people. 

One other point mentioned by the Senator from Massachusetts I desire to refer to, and that is the enormous catch that took place two years 

ago of 60,000 thousand barrels taken by a fleet of 170 vessels, nearly the 

whole of which· was brought into the port of New York, and from there 

distributed,, as I have shown, all ove the country east of the Mississippi River. The Senator dealt, I think, in a little exaggeration, not 

intentionally, in stating that one-half of them were dumped off the 

wharves and allowed to go to waste. 

Mr. DAWES. I did not say they were dumped off the wharves. 

They were takeri to express offices. 

Mr. MILLER. I said one-half. I did not say the whole. 

Mr. DAWES. I say the Senator was mistaken when he said I stated 

that one-half had been dumped off the wharves. I said one-half of 

them were disposed of in some way; that is, dumped off the wharves, 

sent to express offices, and thence away off at a distance in such large 

quantities that they became useless and could not be eaten at all. ~fr. MILLER. The statement of Mr. Blackford does not bear out 

that statement of the Senator. 

Mr. DAWES. The whole statement in the book the gentleman has 

before him on that subject bears out what I said. 

1\fr. MILLER. Perhaps it may; I will not undertake to say in re- gard to that; but I say the statement of Mr. Blackford, who bas more information about it than any other man in this country, does not bear 

out the statement of the Senator; and even ifit did it would be noar· gument at all in favor of this bill, for there is nothing in this bill that 

will prevent the one hundred and seventy or the four hundred vessels, 

as.I think the Senator from Maine said, engaged in this business from 

catching, after the 1st day of June, all the mackerel that go to their 

seines, it may be one hundred and twenty barrels in one haul. There 

is not anything in the bill to prevent that. 

It so happened that two years ago this fishing fleet went south and 

off our coast it struck the mackerel as they were coming into our shores, 

and like wise fishermen they filled their nets and filled their ships, and 

brought them into port, and they brought in 60,000 barrels and they 

were distributed over the country, and the estimate of Mr. Blackford 

is that perhaps 6, 000 barrels out of them all were wasted because they were spoiled before they could be properly distributed, but that is a thing that never happened before and may never happen again, and 

there is nothing in this bill to prevent its happening every year. 

I was attempting to show that it was impossible for man, in any way, 

to control the fishes of the sea and their supply, or that we bad any 

exact intormation regarding them, and therefore that it was worse than 

folly, that it was criminal on our part to attempt to curtail the supply 

of food to our people by fencing in the Atlantic Ocean for three inonths 

and preventing our fishermen from fishing. I was reading a letter from 

Professor Baird when I was interrupted. I will go back in the l~tter. 

I ha\"'e never been convinced that the abundance of mackerel has been in any 

way affected through the agency of man. The catch in 1~ and 1885 was far 

above the average for the past fifty years. 

The Senator from Michigan told us that purse-seine fishing began in 

1873. Twelve years after it the catch was the largest that had been 

made within :fifty years. Certainly this purse-seine fishing has not diminished the supply of mackerel very much in the high seas during 

the thirteen or fourteen years it has been in operation. But that does not 

prove anything positively. The Senator may be right in his prophecy 

that if purse-seine fishing goes on uninterruptedly for a term of years 

it will entirely destroy mackerel fishing. My only answer to that is 

that if it is true he should have brought in another kind of bill, a bill 

forbidding purse-seine fishing at all. That he has not done. Professor 

Baird says further: 

It is not impossible, however, that the continuance of the use of the great purse-seines may in time have an appreciable effect in decreasing their num- bers. The statistics of the next few years will doubtless enable us to form a. definite opinion upon this question. 

Would it not be wise to postpone the operations of this bill, not for one year, but for five or ten years, in order that we may get some statistics to show whether it is decreasing it or not? Only three years ago, 

perhaps four years ago-the Senator from New Jersey will know-the 

persons engaged in menhaden fishing, a fish which is taken only for oil 

and fertilizing purposes, came here and demanded an investigation by 

this body, and asked that we pass laws curtailing menhaden fishing, 

if not to entirely suspend it for a term of years, upon the ground that 

the menhaden were entirely disappearing from our coast, and that a 

great industry was being destroyed. While that investigation was going on., while this body was considering the proposition as to whether 

it would limit menhaden fishing or not, the menhaden fishing fleet, 

which was out looking after its freight, was struck by the greatest 

school of menhaden that had ever been known off our coast, made the 

largest catch it had ever made, and made the largest profits it had ever made. And then what? Those wise men who had been demanding 

of Congress that it should stop that kind of fishing came here and humbly prayed us that we would quit our investigation, and not pass any 

legislation. That is what resulted-that year. 

Here I show you that in 1885 the largest catch of mackerel was made 

that had been made in fifty years, and still gentlemen come here demanding that we shall yard up the Atlantic Ocean and prevent mackerel fishing for three months of the year. 

1\fr. President, I might go on and read the rest of Professor Baird's 

letter, but I will not encumber the RECORD with it nor detain the 

Senate by taking the time to read it. I simply wanted to call attention to that one sentence in which Professor Baird says that he is sa tis-
1488 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 8, 

fied the abundance of mackerel has neve~· in any way been affected by because of the great diminution of the quantity of mackerel. I fail to man. I infer that it never can be, and I do not believe that it ever find any such proof in the testimony submitted by the committee. On 

will be. . the contrary I have read here from Professor Baird a statement showNow, Mr. President, as to the wisdom of Congress undertaking to ing that the catch of 1885 was the largest of any year for :fifty years 

control this matter by legislation, undertaking to say that our people back. 

shall not go out into the high seas and bring in the treasures of the Mr. GRAY. The evidence taken by this committee and before ua deep for the use of our citizens, it certainly is a very peculiar kind of to-day shows, if it shows anything, that notwithstanding the improved 

legislation. Whether or not it is an infringement of the old doctrine of methods by which fish are taken, notwithstanding the use of purseState rights, I do not know. Whether we can say to thepeople in the seines by which whole schools 9f fish are taken at one time by a fleet, 

Carolinas that during March, April, and May they shall not go off their the catch of fish has not increased in anything like the proportion in 

shores to catch any fish, or if they do, they must eat them on the high which the means of catching them have been improved, but on the 

seas, they shall not land them in any port, Ileaveforthe constitutional contrary there is--

lawyers from that portion of the country to decide. They can say Mr. MILLER. I ask for a reference to the statement showing that 

whether that is an infringement of State rights or not. But, as I said the number of fish or the amount of fish caught bas decreased. 

at the beginning, it is an anomalous bill. I have been attempting to Mr. GRAY. If the Senator will read the report and if other Senafind out from the chairman of the committee and fl'Om other gentle- tors will read the report-I have not time to refer to it now-he will men who are behind this bill, what are the bottom reasons that moved find and they will find that the proportion of the fish caught is in no it and that have brought it here. We have had all sorts of reasons wise equal to the improved method of catching them. That is what 

given, in my judgment, save the true reason. I mean to say. I do not mean to say that there is an enormous disparMr. PALMER. I think I gave the reason. I have given it two or ity between the actual catch now and the actual catch somo · twenty 

three times. This bill is being pushed at the instance of the fisher- or twenty-five years ago; but there has been an enormous improve- men ofthe northeast coast of the United Stateswhofi.ndmackerelfish- ment in the method of catching these fish by which instead of the old 

ing unprofitable, and find that their vessels and all their equipments book-and-line methods they take in a whole school of fish at once, 

have run down to twenty-five cents on the dollar. That is a sufficient and the degradation in the quality of the fish is established beyond all 

reason. peradventure, so that the quantity of No. 1 mackerel taken by these 

Mr. MILLER. That may be sufficient for the Senator from Michi- fleets ran down from 20, 30, and as high as 35 per cent. to 7 per cent., 8 

gan, but that is not sufficient for me. It is no sufficient reason why I per cent., and 9 per cent. in the last three or four years. 

should support this bill. It is a pretty plain reason, and I think we are But, Mr. President, is it not worth while, even if this be a doubtful 

getting to it very closely now. question, even if there is a difference of opinion-and I admit that there 

Mr. PALMER. It is a much better reason than wehad for pushing is such a difference among those who are experts in this matter offishthe oleomargarine bill. ing as to whether anything that man can do can diminish the supply 

Mr. MILLER. .All I can say about that is that the Senator from of fish in the Atlantic Ocean-in the face of this difference of opinion 

Michigan was my chief lieutenant in that fight, and made the second is it not worth while to make the experiment for five years as to 

speech upon it; and be came into this Chamber, getting up off a sick -whether a close season during the period of spawning and up to the 

bed to do it, because his people demanded it and because he believed time in the summer when the fish drop their spawn will not improve 

it was right. Has he anything to retract from his action on that bill? the quality and conserve for the great consuming masses of this country 

Mr. PALMER. Nothing at all. I merely want to ask the Senator this most import-ant food product of our Atlantic coast?~ For after all, 

from New York to regard and observe my consistency and go and do as I said before, that is the object which this committee have had in 

likewise. view all along in their investigation of this subject and in their apMr. MILLER. I am going and doing likewise, but I am not here proval of this House bill. 

to legislate, as I said a moment ago. to put a wall around the Atlantic I said there was nothing anomalous in this sort of legislation. We 

Ocean and to prevent American citizens from going out into the briny are constantly upon the land endea:voring to conserve and protect from 

deep and fishing and bringing to our shores their 'fish and selling them destruction the great food supply of the forests and the streams. Our 

to us at any price they can get. If fish are scarce, the price is high. State statute-books are full of enadments that tend to restrict the 

If sixty thousand barrels come in, the price goes down to almost natural liberty of man in the taking of fish and in the killing of game, 

nothing, and our people are benefited by it. in order that the supply may not be recklessly and wantonly destroyed; 

No, Mr. President, I think the chairman has finally, perhaps, given and it is upon that principle that I am in favor of this bill; and it is us the chief reason why this bill is brought here. A few men en- upon that principle, as I understand, that this committee have reported 

gaged in the packing of salt mackerel in Ma.s&Whusetts and Maine are this bill favorably that they may in the interests of all endeavor, by 

.finding that the catch is so enormous that the prices are going down, the restriction of a few, to preserve a great food supply for the ma-sses not only upon mackerel but upon all other sea fish, and it will not do; of our countrymen. 

their profits will disappear, the people will get cheap food and tnese men We heard very fully the constituents of the Senator from New York, 

will not get so rich. If that is a good reason for passing the bill, let who represents a very small portion of this country of ours after all. 

those who be1ieve.in it vote for it. We heard very fully those gentlemen describe how their j.nterests would 

Mr. GRAY. Mr. President, I do not discover anything in this bill be affected by this restriction-! mean the fishmongers of the city of 

that is, in the language of the Senator from New York, at all anom- New York. If there is any private interest being advocated upon this 

alous; nor do I believe that the committee that reported the bill, of floor, as the Senator from New York seems to insinuate, it appears to 

which I happen to be one, have laid themselves open at all in their in- me it is the interest of those fish merchants in the city of New York and 

vestigation of the subject and in their presentation of this bill with the other large cities of the Atlantic coast that were being advocated by 

their approval to the strictures of the Senator from New York that him when he opposed this bill. 

they have presented in its support "every reason excepttbetrueone;" Now, sir, special interests must give way. The honest industry of or that by advocating this bill they are in favor of monopoly, or are these fish-mongers must be subordinated, I submit, to the interests of 

advocating this bill in the interest of any particular class of the citi- the great consuming masses of this country. And if this experiment zens of this country. should turn out to be a failure, I do not think that the price we have 

They may be mistaken, of course, as to the grounds upon which they had to pay for it will be a very costly one. It is only for five years. 

urge the bill. They may have not got at exactly the truth in regard I believe that the experiment will result advantageously. I believe 

to the mysterious ways and habits of the fish that swarm the Atlantic that it will vindicate itself and that the restriction of fishing on the 

Ocean. There was a great deal of testimony on that suQject taken be- Atlantic coast will have the same effect that restrictions upon fishing 

fore the committee and very patiently listened to, and digested in this in our streams in the States by the State Legislatures have had in 

report; but whatever the results arrived at by the committee, I am very improving the quality and the quantity of the fish supply to the sure that the object aimed at was an honest one, and that object was country at large. It is for this reason that I am willing to vote for 

to preserve. not for any particular class, not in the interests of any this bill, and believe that it ought to pass. 

monopoly, but for the great mass of the people of this country, a cheap Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, as I have shown conclusively from 

food product. Certainly it is worthy of the experiment that we should the evidence taken before this committee, the amount of mackerel in 

endeavor in the light of the testimony that is presented in this report barrels, the catch bas never been so great as it has been since _pmseof the committee to seek some way, some mode by which the diminu- seine fishing began, and as Professor Baird says in his letter the catch 

tion of the quantity and the degradation of the quality of this most im- in 1885 was greater than that for any one of the fifty years previous. 

portant food product may be stopped. Quite likely the quantity of No. 1 mackerel taken may be less proporIt is with that view, and that view alone, notwithstanding the insin- tionately, because by purse-seining all the fish are taken, large and 

nation of the Senator from New York, that this bill is reported back small; but when these enormous percentages were given by the Senator 

from the committee with a recommendation that it pass with the from Massachusetts showing that 50 or 60 per cent. of the catch was amendments proposed. No. 1, you will find if you go over the tables that in those days when 

Mr. MILLER. Will the Senator permit me a word? there was no fishing except with hook and line the number of barrels 

Mr. GRAY. Certainly. taken was a mere bagatelle in _comparison to the number taken at 

Mr. MILLER. The Senator states that this bill is brought in here present. · 
1887. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1489 

· In 1809 there were only 8, 000 barrels taken. In 1814, when we were not permitted to go upon the high seas because a foreign power kept us off: we took 1,300 barrels; in 1819 only 4,300; in 1839 only 74,000 

barrels; and so on down. But as I have shown, i.n the year 1884 we 

took 283,000 barrels, or rnther that amount was inspected in 11Iassachusetts alone, and last year the amount was 215,000. 

The Senator from Delaware [Mr. GRAY] has been kind enough to 

suggest that I am opposing this bill in the interest of the fishmongers 

of New York city and other Atlantic coast cities. Well, Mr. President, I accept that designation. The Senator in his tone of voice and 

his manner undertakes to imply that fishmongering or selling fish to 

the people of this country to eat is not a very reputable business. I 

do not hesitate to stand here and represent those men, and represent 

all their customers, which means all the people of this country who 

eat fish and who~u not afford to buy No. 1 mackerel. That is what I 

stand here for. 

Then the Senator asks us to make an experiment for five years; to 

stop this fishing for three months in the year, for five years, for fe.'l.r that 

something may happen. Why, the last day may come before that time, 

and this whole earth maybe rolled away, for ought I know. Many of us have no interest in who shall eat fish five years from now. I undertake to say that in this testimony and in the testimony of the 

highest scientific authorities in the world there is not a scintilla of 

proof to show that man by all his appliances in modern fishing has done 

anything whatever to diminish the supply of fish ill the sea. Why, 

then, shut our people out from the seas? Here is this food free to us all. Thousands, four, five, six, or ten thousand men are engaged in 

this industry, and they are bringing food to our people and supplying 

their wants. Because we find that the interest paid upon the investment in the ships and the interest paid to the fish-houses in Massachusetts and Maine in packing salt mackerel was larger when the catch 

was only fifty thousand barrels than it is when the catch is two hundred and eighty thousand barrels per year, are we to say to our people, 

"You shall not have two hundred and eighty thousand barrels of 

mackerel; you shan· only have fifty thousand barrels, and you shall 

not eat anything but No. 1 mackerel?" Are we here to legislate in 

that way? 

Ur. President, there is no similarity between this proposed law and 

the game laws which we pass in our several States to control the taking of fish in our inland waters. _We all know that in our interior small 

lakes and rivers it is possible for our large population, if not controlled 

by law, to take out all the fish that may be found in a certain stream, 

or pond, or lake; but here we have the testimony, as I said before, of 

the best scientific authority in the world, saying that up to the present 

time man has done nothing to diminish the number of fish in the sea. But the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Delaware, who are doubtless very fond of good fish upon their tables, have a fear that 

if we do not stop this purse-seine fishing for three months in the year 

all the good fish will disappear. Without any testimony, without any 

proof from any reputable source whatever that that will be the effect, we are asked to shut up the Atlantic Ocean, to say to our people that 

they shall not catch fish there, or if they do catch fish there, that they 

shall not bring them to our shores. 

Mr. President, I thank the Lord that I am not a constitutional lawyer. 

I am not disposed to go into the constitutional question and to consider 

whether we have the power to do this thing or not. I am surprised to 

find that any of our free-trade friends on the other side of the Chamber are willing to go beyond the men on this side in shutting up our ports to 

anything. You can catch all the mackerel yon choose to catch off shore 

with a hook and line; that is a home industry; but if yon go outside 

the shore, if yon go out into the open sea and fu.ke fish during three 

months in the year, you shall not land them here at all! Would not 

Senators be satisfied with a duty of 50 or 100 per cent. on fish caught 

beyond the shore line during those three months? Would they go so far as to make protection absolute by making it prohibition? 

Mr. PALMER. Does the Senator mean to convey the idea that fish 

caught with a hook and line outside of the three-mile limit can not, 

under this bill, be brought into the country? 

Mr. MILLER. Well, I will let the Senator tell what the bill means in regard to that. 

Mr. PALMER. The Senator seems to be confused on that. I wish 

he would read the bill over in the next interval he has. 

Mr. MILLER. I have read it so many times that I really do not 

want to do it again and take up the time of the Senate, but if that is 

what the Senator from Michigan means, if this is for the protection of a home industry against a foreign article, if he puts it on that basis, 

perhaps I might support the bill. I am trying to find some proper 

ground on which we can support the measure. I am surprised that 

the Senator from Delaware should support a measure which will absolutely close our ports to one of the chief products of the world in the 

way of food. 

Ur. GRA.Y. I am in favor of cheap food, whether it be fish from the 

sea or other food product, and I think I have made my position clear 

enough perhaps, if my position is of any importance at all, that my 

advocacy of this bill and my reason for voting for it is that a cheap food 

XVIII--94 

product may be conserved for all the people of this country. I may be 

mistaken in the mode which I believe now will be efficient to that end, 

and the committee may be mistaken; but the committee has presented 

to the Senate this House bill with the evidence which has been taken 

in support of it, and asked the Senate to read that evidence and to take 

that bill, and for a period of five years to make the experiment whether we can not, in the interest of the mass of the people of this country, preserve for them a food product which we have reason to think is rapidly 

diminishing in quantity and being degraded in quality. 

Mr. GEORGE. May I ask the Senator a question? 

Mr. GRAY. Certainly. 

Mr. GEORGE. Has there been any proof in the case that the1·e is a · sensible decline in the supply of mackerel? 

Mr. GRAY. I think so. I think the evidence taken before the 

committee tended to show most unmistakably that there was a very 

serious decline in the quantity of mackerel taken when you consider 

the improved appliances now U£ed for catching the fish and, what was 

more important, and has already been insisted on by the chairman of 

the committee I think with great force, that the degradation in quality 

has been more serious still, and though the number of fish taken may 

not be so very much less now than it was some years ago, yet if yon 

take them pound for pound instead of per capita the diminution in 

quantity will prove very great. 

I do not wish to occupy the attention of the Senate again, except to 

say what perhaps is plain enough, that, so far as the fisb.mongers of 

New York or of any other part of the country are concerned, I think 

their employment is quite as respectable a-s that of the Senator from 

New York or of myself. Anything that I said had nothing to do with 

the respectability of that camng. I merely contrasted the smallness 

of their interest in this question with the magnitude of the interest of 

the great consuming masses of the country, and that was all that I intended to say, and all that I think I did say. 

I wish to say one other thing, because it interests the people of my own State, and I think interests the people of the States from Carolina 

up to the southern line of Massachusetts. The interests or prejudices, 

or whatever you may choose to call them, of the Senators from those 

States have been appealed to because the close season that is proposed 

by this bill is about the time that the fish are found upon the coast from 

Carolina npto the southern IineofMassachusetts. Thatisabout true, 

but it should be recollected that the boats and the men who take those 

fish are, after all, the same ''Yankee fishermen'' that 'the Senator from 

New York speaks about. Those great fleets from Gloucester and from 

Maine sail down the coast in the beginning of the spring to meet these 

fish off the coast of North Carolina, and follow them all the way up to 

Massaehusetts. So that the fishermen who are principally interested 

are these same ''Yankee fishermen,'' and it is they whom this bill will 

principally restrain, because there is an amendment in this bill as brought from the committee which provides that its restrictions shall 

not apply to mackerel taken by hook and line in boats of any size in 

the old-fashioned way. 

Mr. GEORGE. I desiretoask the Senatoranotherquestion. Is the 

Senator to be understood as admitting that this practically prohibits 

fishing at any time in any waters for mackerel? 

Mr. GRAY. I am not able to say in answer to the question of the 

Senator from Mississippi whether it entirely prohibits it or not or whether at any other time in the year those fish are on that coast. I am inclined to think that is true I'IO far as mackerel are concerned. 

But what I do mean to say is that the mackerel catch is made in those 

months when they are on these southern coasts bytheverysame fisher- men that make them in the other seasons of the year. I mean fishermen from Maine and Massachusetts. 

So, Mr. President, the people and the fishermen who are pa.rticularly 

affected by this bill are those who live in New England and not those 

who live upon what we may call our southern coast, for they are fairly 

protected, as I said, by the amendment of the committee which allows 

the catching of mackerel by hook and line in boats of any size. 

I therefore think that all appeals made by the Senator from New 

York to the interests, the supposed selfish interests, of the States of 

North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey fall to 

the ground as utterly without foundation. 

Mr. MILLER. I have made no appeal to the selfish interests of the 

people of Virginia or the Carolinas. There is nothing in my remarks 

that warrants the Senator from Delaware in.making any such statement here. I do. not propose to let that statement go unchallenged. 

Mr. HALE. Mr. President, I can see that when a .bill of this kind 

is presented, which apparently interferes with what has been a recognized liberty for years, fishing in the broad Atlantic, Senators may hesitate in giving it their support unless clear and indisputable reasons 

are submitted for the passage of the bill. 

It is not right that it should be presented to the Senate as a bill in the 

interest of a monopoly and that the opposition to the bill is in the in· 

terest of the great public. Precisely the reverse is true. This bill 

seeks to perpetuate for the people ofthe United States a great food supply, not for two or three months but for the entire year. For years 

the supply of mackerel to the people of the United States, consumed 
1490 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 8, 

upon their tables throughout the land, has been a considerable part of 

the every-day consumption of the people. It does not rest with the 

consumption in March and April and May, but it is a product that is 

found upon the tables of the people all through the year, and the 

greater part of the product and the desirable part is the great catch late 

in the year. 

The Senator from NewYorksaysthat this is aNewEnglandmeasure; 

that it is simply to help a few Yankee :fishermen. Why, sir, the bill was reported in the other House from the Committee on Ways and 

Means that has but a single member from New Engln.nd upon it. It was championed there and explained by a member from the State of 

Arkansas, a member of the illustrious Breckinridge family of Kentucky, who went over:the whole provisions of the bill, showing clearly 

that it was a measure so much in the interest of the people that the 

Honse passed it overwhelmingly. It is reported here in this body from a committee that has but one member from New England upon it, the 

chain:rum living in Michigan, having no interest whatever in thesefi.sheries. 

And, Mr. President, this bill is not oppo.sed by, and the Senator from 

New York in his opposition does not represent, a fisherman in the 

United States. There is not a fisherman on the coast of North Carolina, or New Jersey, or Virginia, or :Maryland, or New York, or Dela- ware who opposes this bill. The bill has scrupulously guarded the 

interests of every :fisherman everywhere. There is not a man who goes 

out from the coasts of the Southern States fishing for these fish, as he 

has done for years, in his boats, or with traps, or with seines that is not 

allowed to go on and do as he has done in the past. There is not a man along the coast of the Middle States that is touched; but his rights are on the contrary p1·eserved; nor is there a man in New York or anywhere else affected. The only men-and that has not appeared in the 

discussion yet except as alluded to by the Senator from Delaware-the 

only men who are restricted in this case are the New England :fisher- men that go from Massachusetts and 1\Iaine. 

Why, sir, every one of these fish that are caught in the months of 

March, April, and early May and landed, dumped in quantities that can not be consum.ed into the markets ofNew York, is caught bythese same New England :fishermen. The same vessels that are engaged and 

the same men that catch these fish, taken when they are good to supply 

the great markets of the country, are the vessels and the men that catch 

these fish in 1\farch and April and May and ln.nd them in New York. 

It is only a restriction upon these men that this bill imposes, and that 

restriction is imposed upon them because it has been found that their manner of fishing in these months destroys the greatgoodofthe mackerel fishery, which is in August, September, October, and November. 

Scientific men (as Huxley has discovered, as Professor Baird has discovered, as Professor Collins, who Professor Baird says is the most ex- pert man in all these subjects, has discovered) may discuss as to what 

the habits of the mackerel may be and their migration, and what effect 

the coming upon them in spawning time may have, and they may disagree; but one patent fact is that with the immense demand for mackera}, ten times as great as it was fifteen years ago, with the appliances for 

catching by purse-seines, so that they can catch a thousand where they 

formerly caught ten, still there is not an increase commensurate with 

these facilities and with this demand; and all we have been able to do 

is to barely keep up the supply, or in some abnormal year pe:iliaps 

increase it. But one fact is plain, and that is, where you take these 

schools of fish at a time just before the spawning season and you let 

this fleet of New England fishermen drive into them, as they do, with 

their purse-seines, landing them by thousands and tens of thousands, 

whether you diminish the quantity perceptibly or not you do disturb 

the migration of the fish; you drive them into the outer waters; you 

drive them, as Professor Collins (who is indorsed by Professor Baird as the most expert man on all these subjects) says, undoubtedly into other 

feeding-grounds, and the result is that when you come to the good part 

of the mackerel fishery in which the people of the United States are interested, not the Maine and Massachusetts fishermen aJone1 then you 

have got no snch prod11ct from the fishery as you had years ago, and 

therefore the fishermen themselves onght to be restricted. 

Mr. President, there is only one interest that is opposing this bill. 

I say again that not a fisherman opposes it, not one upon any coast; 

they are all c..·ued for. But in :March and in A_pril, when this great 

fleet drives into the schools of fish and lands 60,000 barrels in New 

York which C..'\nnot cake C..'lore of 30,000 it may be, a part of which are consumed, then the fishmonger, who is at the bottom of the opposition 

to this bill, comes in and buys. I have statistics here, which if nec- essary I will put in before the debate closes. He buys the fish at a cent 

and a half per pound. The men who are engaged in :fishing, who work on these vessels that catch them, do not average $6 a month for their 

pay; but the fishmongers in New York-three or four there hold control of the market-buy these fish at a nominal rate and retail them 

out, poor as they are, at 8, 10, 12, and 15 cents per pound, and make 

that enormous profit, and they form the whole opposiWm to this bill. 

I lmow how it was before the committee. The whole voice that was ex- pressed against it there was expressed by the .fishmongers and the men they sent down from New York. It is an attempt to stand in the way 

of legislation which Qongress has adopted for years, which every State 

has adopted, of having a close time in order to protect the food products. 

There never was a time when you attempted in a. State to fence round, as the Senator from ]:if ew York says (using that phrase to prejudice this 

bill), there never was a time in a State when it was attempted to fence 

round a lake, or the water of a river, or any water under the jurisdiction of a State, that it was not said it was interfering with the liberty 

of the citizen, and undoubtedly that raises prejudice; and unless it be 

shown that it is for the good of the people afterwards in protecting the 

supply of food, the citizen ought not to be restrained in his liberty. 

If anything has been shown that has been shown here. 

I repeat that the opposition here comes right from the center ofNew 

York city, where these fishmongers are. Let anybody examine the 

document that the Committee on Fisheries ha.s presented to this body, 

which the chairman holds in his hand, and which every member can get, and he will find that the inspiration of the opposition comes from 

there and there alone. I for onewill not sit here and allow this wise measure to be prejudiced by being placed before the Senate in a wrong manner. 

More than one Senator has asked me, "Does not this prohibit the 

catching of all these fish until they get up to the shore of Maino?' 1 

No, sir; not in the least. That is not the theory of it. The Maine 

fishermen, as I have said, catch these fish at all times, whether good or not, and every fisherman that comes out from the coast below New 

England is jealously guarded in the provisions of this bill. Ha will 

go out and fish and he will catch the larger fish, because in fishing by 

boat and seine he will get those fish and they will be brought into the 

market, and Philadelphia and Baltimore and Wilmington and New 

York and Hartford and the cities along the Sound will get them under 

these provisions. · 

Mr. MILLER. Will the Senator permit me to ask a question? 

Mr. HALE. Yes. 

Mr. MILLER. The Senator has said that this bill does not prohibit 

the catching of fish until they reach the coast of Maine or Massachusetts. What does the bill do? I would like to have the Senator tell us. 

Mr. HALE. The bill leaves all the fishing that the local coasts are engaged in unmolested and protected and guarded. It then provides 

that at this period when the :fish are poor, approaching the spawning 

season, then outside of our waters (not raising the question of what can be done in the State waters, but dealihg with goods imported into the 

United States as we may deal with any imported product), for the 

month£ when the fish are in that condition they shall not be caught. 

The reasons for this I do not need to repeat, because by so catching 

them yon destroy the great portion of the mackerel fishery, which is 

the portion that comes later in the year and in which the people of the 

Unit-ed States are interested everywhere. The people of New York 

city and the little neighborhoods around there are interested in the 

fresh fish that are brought in in those months in great quantities, but 

the people of the United States are interested, Kansas is interested, 

Nebraska is interested, Michigan is interested, Iowa is interested in 

this great food product that is caught later, that is salted, and then 

finds its way to the table of everybody, and it is the interest of everybody that that should be kept up. 

The Senator from New York says it is not everybody that eats No.1 

mackereL No, sir; but when you destroy the catch of fish that are now produced and that make the supply of No.1 mackerel small, you 

bring back the old price at which No. 1 mackerel was put on the table 

of the inhabitant of Michigan years ago; you apply that same price to 

No. 1 mackerel which is now paid for No. 3 by the people of the cen- ter, the interior of tills country, who are eating fish as they always 

will when they can as a relief to their internal products. They are paying the prices they ought to pay for No. 1 mac\terel, under that wellguarded system of fish preservation, for No. 2 and No. 3. 

The fish that are brought into New York that the Senator says so much about are a cheap product; they are a poor fish. I know how 

poor they are, and everybody who has had any comparison knows how 

poor the fish that is put on your table at the Brunswick or the Fifth 

A venue Hotel, or any other hotel there in the months of March and April 

is, not fit to be eaten compared with tbefish that is caught at another 

time after the spawning season has passed, and when it has become fat. 

No man who has partaken of the one will buy the other notwithstand- . ing the enormous mtes and notwithstanding the enormous profit that 

the New York fishmonger gets. 

I didnotmean, for one, that the debate shouldclosewithoutthe true 

attitude of this matter being presented to the Senate. It is a thing in 

which e\erybody is interested, Mr. President. It is a restriction upon 

New England :fishermen. It cuts o:ff the work of Massachusetts and 

Maine fishermen, and is a restriction upon them to which they submit 

because, as I have said, great gain will come in the increased value of 

the fish product later in the year. 

Mr. SEWELL. Mr. President, to remove the impression created by 

the chairman of the committee as to this being a unanimous report of 

the committee, I beg to say that as a member of the committee I dissented from this report entirely. 

Mr. PALl\fER. I will say in explanation that all the members who 
• 

1887. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1491 

were present agreed to it, and I supposed that we had a full meeting. 

The gentleman did not put in an appearance, I think, at the time of 

the investigation. 

Mr. SEWELL. Perhaps not; but I find my name mentioned in the repor~ of the committee on almost every page as having questioned the 

witnesses. 

ld::r. PALMER. That must have been the fault of the stenographer, 

and not of the chairman. 

Mr. SEWELL. Here is a question of my own: 

Senator SEWELL. This early fishing, is it entirely for sale of the mackerel as fresh fish, or do they salt them? Mr. BESJAMIN.-

Who was a prominent witness in regard to this bill--

Mr. HALE., What is Mr. Benjamin's business, may I ask the Senator~ 

Mr. SEWELL. That I do not know. 

Mr. HALE. He is the greatest ofthefishmongers ofNewYorkcity. 

Mr. SEWELL. He says: . 

They do· not salt any when they can find a market for it fresh. There are probably seventy-five vessels engaged in the Southern mackerel fishing. Out 

of these there are probably from fifteen to twenty that salt the fish. 

I tried for several years to stop what is occurring to-day, the destruction of food-fishes within the three-mile limits on the shores oftheAtlantic by what is known as menhaden fishing. I was met in the com- mittee and by the gentlemen engaged in this fishing-who have their 

capital invested with over one hundred steamers that occupy the entire 

coast lineofNew Jersey during the summer time-with the statement, 

backed up by the evidence of Professor Baird and Professor Huxley, 

that man has never been able, up to this time, to doorease the product 

of fish on the broad seas. The menhaden come along our coast the same as the ma-ckerel do, 

only closer in shore, and they are taken, converted into oil and fertilizers, and they damage the food-fishes in that sense that dragging a purse-net so close in to shore, almost at the mouth of our inlets where 

the ordinary bluefish go to spawn, destroys the beds for the feeding of 

the bluefish. But the majority of the committ-ee became satisfied that 

nothing that man could do would decrease the product of fish, and no action was taken. 

The mackerel strike Hatteras about the time that the menhaden do, 

and they follow the shores to the northward, arriving at the northern 

part of Massachusetts and Maine about the 15th of May or the 1st of 

June. 

The object of this bill is to give time for the mackerel to fatten. 

The great fishing fleets owned in Massachusetts and in Maine have 

found it unprofitable to carry on what they have been doing for years 

since the invention of the purse-seine and its substitution for the hook 

and line, going to the southward and meeting the mackerel off Hatteras; and the whole intent, or if not the intent the absolute result, of 

the bill if passed will be to fatten up all the mackerel of the Atlantic 

Ocean, following the line from Hatteras northward until it arrives at 

the coast of ~Iaine, where the 1\Iaine fleet will be ready to take advantage and catch them all. It is legislating for a monopoly of the very 

worst kind to the exclusion of the na~ural rights of the people of the 

Carolinas, Virginia, M:aryland, New Jersey, and New York, prohibiting us from taking advantage of the passage of that school offish during 

three months of the year. 

Mr. HALE. Let me ask the Senator if he knows of a single craft of 

the State of New Jersey or of either of the Carolinas or Maryland that 

is equipped for catching this early catch of fish with modern appli- ances. Mr. SEWELL. I merely state from the testimony in the report of 

the committee that there were seventy-five vessels engaged in bringing ·mackerel during the three months in which you endeavor to prohibit 

it, into the port of New York. It is not a question with me 'where 

they come from. 

1\Ir. HALE. Does the Senator know of a single vessel in his own State that is engaged in it? 

Mr. SEWELL. I do not. 

1\Ir. HALE. Does he not know of hundreds and thousands of coast 

fishermen who catch these fish in boats and take them into a market, 

who are beneficially affected by this bill, and who will catch the big 

fish that ought to be taken into market beeause they catch with seines 

and get the big fish? 

1\Ir. SEWELL. It is a time of the year when fish are scarce practically, when fish command a good price. It is a time of the year when 

people ought not to be prohibited from their natural right simply be- cause you want to gobble the whole catch. 

Mr. President, as I said, the result will be that our friends in Massachusetts and Maine, with their usual foresight, will be enabled to take 

the fish in the best condition, I grant, but will take all of them to the 

exclu,sion of the inhabitants of the United States south of that line. 

It is a monopoly and a monopoly of the worst kind, one that legislation of the United States has never gone into up to this time to exclude 

any part of its citizens from the natural right to fish on the high seas. 1\Ir. P A.LUER. There seem to be some very queer and diverse 

views ente1·tained in regard to this bill. One gets up and claims that 

it is a monopoly. The fact is that the men who are claimed to be seeking possession of a monopoly have it now! and I should call it a bill as much for the protection of the fishermen of New Jersey and Delaware as for the protection of the fishermen of the New England coast. Thi.3 

whole mackerel fleet that uses purse-seines is owned upon the New 

England coast. The bill is a guarantee that each member of their 

fraternity will observe the obligation that they all profess to be willing 

to enter into-to not destroy the fish by harassing the schools as they come onto this coast. 

We have not claimed in the pushing of this bill that the catch of 

mackerel was decreasing; but taking this table from the mackerel chart, 

showing the Masaa-chusetts catch for the past seventy-five years, you 

will find that it has positively decreased notwithstanding the immens~ 

advantages by the purse-seine and the immensely increased demand - by the methods of distribution through the railroads and steamboat! 

and the refrigerator cars throughout the country. 

M.r. MILLER. Will the Senator permit me now? 

1\fr. PALMER. Any time. 

Mr. 1\nLLER. I know the Senator does not wish to convey a false 

impression in regard to this matter. He is altogether too fair to do 

that. The table he is reading from says this is the "tot.al number ol 

barrels of each quality of pickled mackerel inspected in Massachusetts 

from 1809 to 1885 and the total value of each year's inspection from 

1830 to 1885.'' 

Those gentlemen who are telling the Senate that notwithstanding 

the wonderfully improved methods of fishing the catch has not increased, certainly are making a misleading statement, because this table 

has nothing whatever to do with the mackerel that is brought into the 

port of New York or into :my ot the Atlantic ports which are con- sumed as fresh fish. In fact nearly the entire catch of the three 

months of March, April, and May are thus consumed. They are not 

salted. Some of the testimony given here in this book undertakes to 

show that the catch in these three months is not salted at all, that it 

is all distributed over the country as fresh fish. Certainly the Senator 

will not undertake to base his statement upon that table, because it 

leaves out all the catch of the three months which is distributed over the country M fresh fish. For instance, in the year 1885, when 60,00& 

barrels were brought into New York in one day, that table shows nothing of it at all! 

1\-fr. PALMER. If the Senator will permit me, I will state that the 

only means we have of coming to a conclusion as to the relative catch 

of mackerel is by this table prepared by the Boston fish bureau, and 

there it is shown that in 1831 with the hook and line 383,000 barrels 

of fish were caught, but at no time since then has any such quantity 

been caught by the fishermen of Massachusetts. 

1\fr. :MILLER. That does not answer my question at all. . 1\fr. PALMER. I was going to qualify my remark. As a matter of course this does not take into account the amount that has been mar- keted in New York fresh, nor does it take into account the 100,000 barrels that are thrown overboard to infect the waters and to frighten the 

schools of mackerel as they come along the shore. And right here I 

should like to show what is said on that point. Here is a letter from 

Capt. Joseph Smith, of the schooner Lizzie M. Center. He says: · 

For the first four or five years the number of vessels engaged early was small. 

That is, engaged in purse-seine fishing. 

They did not appear to make much impression on the school, as they were very numerous and large, and the vessels did not start before 1\lay, but the l!I.St eight or nine years the fleet has increased so very much, and starting, say in March, 

meeting the mackerel off the coast of Virginia, and at times farther south, while 

they are moving north toward their spa w uing-grounds, harass and annoy thoro 

by their seines and by sailing through the schools frighten the fish, breaking 

them up and turn the fish off shore in deep wat-er, on the very edge of soundings, and the result, they shun our bays and small banks, where they formerly 

resorted to deposit their spawn, and pass along to the south of George's Banks, 

and striking the southern coast of Nova Scotia, deposit their spawn amongst 1ts 

numerous islands and bays where they have not been molested to any exte11t 

in the early part of the season. 

I could go on and read much more of that, but I will not take the 

time of the Senate. · Now from the same letter: 

Also, to give you an idea how sensitive large mackerel are and how easily 

frightened and driven from their grounds, have often seen large bodies of mackerel, when first coming upon them, anywhere from one to fifty schools at one time mA.y be seen from the mast-head, the fleet would in a few hours break up and drive from sjght the whole body of fish. They would not be seen on that 

ground for days after, and probably not again during the season. Again, ves- sels sailing along leave a narrow strip of boiling and foaming water after them 

for many minutes. We sailors call it the wake. 

He claims that wake in itself being made through the schools of 

mackerel frightens them off. 

This is from 1\Ir. H. S. Fisher, of New York: 

The mackerel caught south early in the season are the poorest fish known to the trade, as you and all other dealers know. They are sold fresh, mostly i~ 

this market., and controlled by three or four fresh-fish dealers. When the mar- ket is overstocked, if the fish are sound they are split and salted. The largest 

receipts of fresh mackerel ever known here was in the month of April, 1885, and a large part of them were in very poor condition. The good-that is, the sound 

ones-brought fair prices, but the poor-soft and broken-were sold for any price they could get, even as low as 25 cents a cart-load. 

They are called cheap food for the people. I think all such food 

should be condemned. They lay there by millions on the docks and 
• 

1492 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 8, 

were carried away in that promiscuous manner. Here is a letter from 

J. C. Young, agent of Commercial Wharf Company, Wellfleet, Mass.: 

But now, since the vessels go out so early, "say the middle of March," they 

:find the mackerel, break up the schools, drive them from their old spawning grounds, and when caught, put on the market a poor and sickly quality of fish 

&hat is ruinous both to the consumer and producer, and is ruining the whole 

business," a.s you well know." 

l\Ir. MILLER. Will the Senator permit me again? I know he will. 

Mr. PALMER. Always. 

l\Ir. MILLER. This wonderful witness seems to have found mackerel on the spawning ground. 

b1r. PALMER. I have been reading four or fiveUr. MILLER. This particular one seems to have found them on the spawning ground in the middle of March. What becomes of the 

theory that they go up the coast of Maine, and perhaps to the Bay of 

Fundy, and do not spawn till June or July? The witness and the 

committee disagree on this question. Here the man finds the spawning ground away down South in the middle of March, and says they are frightened away. 

Mr. PALMER. I do not know bow many explanations I shall have . 

to make to the Senator from New York to give him a clear insight into this 

mackerel migration. I will say now, and I hope it will be for the last 

time, that they appear in March off Cape Hatteras; they keep up along 

the shore harassed and annoyed by those sail vessels till the 1st of July, 

when they commence to deposit their spawn. The gentleman seems to 

be a little confused as to what the spawning season is. He thinks it is 

the last climax of that effort of nature. It is the whole gesta.tive period from the 1st of 1\Iarch to the 1st or last of July, and if he will take 

into consideration that that time includes about four months, it will 

save me or other gentlemen a great deal of confusion hereafter in 

answering ny objection. 

Mr. MILLER. The Senator could have saved himself and myself a greatdealoftrouble if he had drawn this bill so as to cover that period 

of four or five months. 

Mr. PALMER. Is that clear? 

Mr. MILLER. Not yet. Thefirstquestion I asked·was, iftbis won- derful witness found these fish on the spawning-beds, as he tells us, on the 1st of March, and if the Senator tens us they do not spawn until 

July, must they carry the spawning-bed with them? I think so. Mr. P AL.ME.R. I think I have made it clear that the spawning sea- son is from the 1st of March to the last of July. What was the other 

question the Senator asked? 

Mr. MILLER. I hope the Reporter will get this scientific discussion carefully down, because if the spawning period of mackerel is extended from the 1st of March to the midd~e of July the scientific world 

will be surprised, and they will want to have this discussion very care- fully reported. 

Mr. PALMER. It is getting late and I hope the gentleman will not 

interrupt any further except as to some [lOint that l!e has not been informed on. We have here !my number of letters and any amount of 

testimony in regard to the numbers of maekerel throw-n away every 

year. None make it less than 75,000 barrels. 

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. McPHERSON] spoke of some professor on the coast of Scotland who had given his time and efforts to 

the herring fishery to determine whether anything man could do could 

deplete the ocean. I will say that Professor Huxley, if he is the gentle- man to whom the Senator refers, does say that nothing man can do in 

the way of the spoliation of the sea of fish will amount to anything, 

but Professor Huxley had never seen a purse-seine. 

In the testimony before the committee I asked Mr. Blackford, a very 

intelligent gentleman, the fish commissioner of New York, if the 

methods were as destructive in the herring .:fishery, and he said he 

thought they were. I as:Ked if they bad purse-seines. He said be 

thought not. I do not believe that the purse-seine is used on the 

British coast; l;;mt I think it is fairly deducible from the tables and 

from the percentages, as shown by the Boston fish bureau, that the 

tendency of the use of these purse-seines is to break up the schools, 

frighten the older and wiser fish, the No. 1 mackerel, outside of their 

ordinary routes, and drive them off onto the banks of Nova Scotia. It 

is fair to infer thatfish have intelligence. The SenatorfromNewYork 

[Mr. MILLER] is too good a sportsman to contend that they have not. 

They have sufficient, enough to protect themselves, of that instinct of 

self-preservation. 

.And right here, it appears in the evidence that codfish on the Banks 

will go off at the fall of a single barrel on the deck, will some times 

disappear and be gone for a whole day, that the fishermen on the Banks 

take the offal 40 or 50 miles out to sea and throw it overboard, rather 

than to throw it overboard amid the schools of fish. Here are a hundred tho11sand barrels of dead fish thrown over to frighten these schools 

away from their ordinary route. 

Now these men come to Congress and ask for this act. I think that 

they are entitled to consideration. It has always been the policy of the 

Government to lend a willing ear to any of the complaints of the men who have manned om· Navy, of the menwhofoughtwith Perry on Lake 

Erie, with McDonough on Lake Champlain, and with old Commodore 

Hull on the Constitution and on the United States, and :\n all those 

naval battles that have given our country its prestige upon the ocean. 

I ask that this bill with the amendments made by the committee may 

pass and that this trial may be made. Its operation is being deferred a year or two. If it is going to work any hardship it can be repealed 

after there may be a further expression upon the subject. 

Mr. FRYE. Mr. President, there is one thing which bus been stated 

here that I wish the Senate to distinctly understand, and that is that there 

is not one single mackerel fishing vessel with a seine west and south 

of Massachusetts-not one. There is not one in New Jersey, or New 

York, or Pennsylvania, and there is not a :fisherman outside of Massachusetts and Maine that has the slightest earthly interest in this bill 

except as it is intended to preserve the fish. That is a queer monopoly 

that the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from New York 

talk about. Here is a fleet of two hundred vessels, every one of them 

belonging to Massachusetts and Maine, every one of them proposing to 

make money in the spring fishing, every one of them fitting out to go 

down to the fishery off Hatteras and go to .fishing, and yet, amazing to 

say, they unite to a man in asking you to pass a bill which shall abso1 u tely prevent them from going down on the coast to fish. Why do they 

do that? To create a monopoly in their interest; or is it in the interest 

of the people of the country? Talk about monopoly! There has 

not been one single man before the Committee on Fisheries, there was 

not a man before our Committee on Foreign Relations-and we investigated this to a certain extent-who said one single word against the 

close time of mackerel, except one or two fish-marketmen; and the 

fish-marketmen of New York have bad one :fish-marketman here nearly 

this whole session of Congress, busy to fill the minds of Senators with 

the idea that this was a monopoly in the interest of Maine and Massachusetts, the Yankees, as the distinguished Senator from New York 

with good taste said. 

Mr. President, what is the fact? The fact is that these mackerel 

when they come to the coast are as poor as they can be. The fact . is that with the mackerel it is just the same as it is with salmon and 

trout, and every known fish with known habits, that they eat very little 

indeed while they are bearing spawn. I hope the Senator from New 

York bas finally got it through his head that spawning time is not the 

time when they deposit their spawn. These mackerel are bearing spawn 

from the time they approach the coast in the middle of March up to 

June, and through June when they deposit their spawn no man can 

take them with a purse-seine because they are out of sight, they are deep down in the water, and the purse-seine only takes them when 

they are coming up in shoals on top. 

It is another fact which I know myself-for I am something of a :fish-

.,1·man-that twenty years ago, before the purse-seines were invented, 

you could start down on the coast of North Carolina and you could 

follow these fish away up to the coast of Maine, and there would be 

dozens and dozens of little boats of 10, 15, 20, and 25 feet keel catching mackerel for market with hook and line. It is a fact to-day that 

these things are unknown, that these boats have stopped undertaking to 

fish with hook and line. It is a fact that twenty years ago I have taken 

mackerel by the score and score right from the wharf with a hook and 

line, and the whole bay fnll of them, and now the ma-ckerel in those 

bays are almost absolutely unknown. It is fact that all along the bays on this coast used to be full of mackerel and that to-day it is an exceptional thing to take a dozen mackerel in a day's fishing with a boat.· 

Whathasdoneit? There is where you were hurting the poor men who 

want to fish. What has done it? The purse-seine. 

Mr. MILLER. Will the Senator yield to me? 

Mr. FRYE. No; I will not yield to the Senator from New York. 

He has occupied the floor now about half the time of this discussion, 

and he is going to reply to me. Mr. MILLER. I am very much obliged to the Senator. 

Mr. FRYE. You are entirely welcome. 

I say it is a fact, Mr. President, that these poormenaredeprived today of tha rights which used to exist, and w by? Because two or three 

hundred Maine and Massachusetts fishermen in vessels from 75 to 150 

tons each, armed with two great purse-seines that can gather in half an acre of mackerel seen on the top of the water, go down in the middle 

of March off Cape Hatteras; they put a man at the masthead, and day 

and mght, without any cessation, they pursue these schools of mackerel from the time they come to the shore until they go down into the 

deep water and drop their spawn. 

The mackerel is the most timid fish that swims in the sea, mOl'e timid 

than the trout even, or the salmon, and this process of taking these :fish 

with the great purse-seines by a hundred or two hundred fishermen has 

not depleted them. Nobody on earth knows whether they are depleted. 

Professor Baird does not undertake to say whether they are depleted or 

not. He does not undertake to say whether man can deplete them or 

not; but they are driven away from the shores and from the fishermen 

accustomed to fish in boats on the shores. So the evidence before our committee was that the large majority oftbe mackerel taken were taken 

from 15 to 20 miles from the shore, where the small boats could not vent- ure and do not venture. 

The men interested in the mackerel business believe that if you will 

put a close time on mackerel, run it up to the :first of June when they 

begin to spawn and go to the bottom and out of the way of the purseseines, your catch of mackerel will come back to its usual haunU!, and 
1887. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. ,1493 

that the people from North Ca.rolina up to the State of :Maine can go 

back to the old way of :fishing, where they can go out in their little 

boats and catch from one hundred to five hundred mackerel in a day 

and take them ashore and get their pay and have them in the market 

all up and down. 

What is the operation now? These great fleets of vessels go down 

into the southern waters. They have an immense draught of :fish, and 

they hie away as quickly as they can to the port of New York in order 

to land them before they spoil. Then they are landed in the great city 

ofNewYork by millions, and, as the Senator from New York said, they are sold to the :fish dealers for 1 cent apiece or 10 cents for twenty-five, 

and in one single year 35,000 barrels were thrown overboard into the sea as spoiled . 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President--

The PRESIDENT 1n·o tempore. Does the Senator from 1\'Iaine yield 

to the Senator from New York? 

Mr. MILLER. The Senator puts words into my mouth that I did 

not use; and therefore I do not ask his courtesy to correct it at this 

time. 

Mr. FRYE. I will put it into somebody's mouth. Somebody said 

it. It is the fact, notwithstanding, that the :fishermen were compelled 

to sell their :fish for a cent apiece to the :fishmongers of New York city 

or twenty-five for 10 cents. Who was it said that they were sold at 

10 cents for twenty-five? The Senator from New York I think said it. 

Mr. PALMER. No; I said it. 

Mr. HAWLEY. A witness said it. 

Mr. MILLER. If the Senator will permit me, what I read was the 

testimony of what the Senator sees fit to call a :fishmonger, Hon. Eugene 

Blackford, of New York, a distinguished citizen of the State of New 

York, one of our Fish Commissioners, as he bas been for years. 

Mr. FRYE. He sells :fish, does he not? 

Mr. HALE. I understand him to be the principal fish dealer in 

Fulton Market. 

Mr. MILLER. In his own testimony before your committee, which 

I read here, he said the price at which they were sold was the price at 

which they were sold by the dealers, not by the :fishermen themselves. 

They were handled by the dealers, the whole of them. 

Mr. FRYE. And that same year 30,000 barrels of them were thrown 

away as absolutely useless. Every year, when suddewiuck comes to 

these :fishermen, and they are obliged to hasten to port to get rid of 

their draughts of mackerel, half of them sometimes are thrown away 

and wasted. 

The trouble is that our fishermen are frightening the mackerel away 

from their haunts, and that the fishermen on the shores can not get the 

chance to take one a day with hook and line. 

Mr. GRAY. Their rights are saved in the bill by an amendment 

which has been adopted. 

Mr. FRYE. The Senator from Delaware calls my attention , to the 

fact that all the old-fashioned fishing is saved by an amendment to the 

bill. 

There is another thing to which I wish to call attention. The Senator from New York says this is a very strange bill; that if the scientists 

and learned men in fish want to protect the mackerel why do they 

a11ow nets and seines on the shore? It ought to be obvious to a man who knows anything about fishing what it is allowed for. The bill 

absolutely permits the landing of mackerel during the specified length 

of time all up and down this coast from seines and nets attached to the 

shore. What 1br? To take mackerel? Not at all. They are not 

placed there to take mackerel. They are placed there to take the other 

spring fish which come upon the shore, but there will be mackerel that 

will get into the nets and into the weirs, and we do not wish to com- pel those :fishermen with nets and weirs to throw away mackerel and 

waste them and make them useless. We were protecting the rights of 

those poor men on ~:~bore, so that if a few mackerel did get into their 

nets and weirs they could sell them and not be compelled to destroy 

them. There can be no objection to that. That was suggested by Professor Baid himself, the greatest scientist _in fishing there is in this 

country. 

Mr. President, it is an experiment worth trying, to see whether, if 

you will prevent these fishermen from Maine and Massachusetts from 

pursuing these methods, the mackerel will not come back to our shores once more and enable the poor men up and down the coast to reap the 

harvest they used to reap years ago, before seine-fishing was invented. 

It is an experiment, I admit, but we nevershalllearnanythingorgain 

anything if we do not make experiments. There is one thing to be 

observed. Every owner of a fishing vessel who testified in relation to 

this matter testified that in his opinion the experiment ought to be 

tried. Every one so testified; there was not an exception. 

The Senator from New York says that the poor fishermen will be 

themselves deprived of work. It is not so. They will not be deprived ofwork. So careful has the committee been to protect in the 

bill the rights of the poor men that there is a provision in it which 

protects the fishermen. What is that? It is a provision extending 

the time when the bill shall ~ke effect up to 1888, as proposed by the 

Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HoAR]. That provision protects the 

fishermen. I will admit that if the bill went into force to-day it 

would do harm to :fishermen. I admit that all those craft tJo..day are ready for the ocean and for Hatteras. I admit that their captains and 

cooks and crews are engaged for a three months' trip to take mackerei, 

and if the bill took effect to-day they could not change from a mack· 

erel to a cod fisherman in a month's time. :Mr. :MILLER. Can they change by next year? 

lli. FRYE. Next year every one of them will have been changed 

into a cod-fisherman duri.ng that time. They will then pursue thQ 

cod-fishing occupation. 

Mr. MILLER. The codfish will all be destroyed. 

Mr. FRYE. I will risk the codfish. I have here a bundle of letters from New York, from Boston, and from Maine touching the matter of close time on mackerel, and there is not a man from New York 

or anywhere else who says in his letter that you ought not to tty the 

experiment, and every one of them, they being men who have fitted 

out their vessels for the South, simply asks Congress that it will so . 

amend the bill as to have it take effect next year and no~ this. That 

is all they ask. What for? That is in order to give the fishermen time 

to transfer their vessels from mackerel fishermen to cod and halibut 

fishermen, and to give them time to fit them for that business. It 

requires a good deal of time. They want to have time to fit their craft 

for that business, and then these same :fishermen will be pursuing 

that occupation, instead of murdering the mackerel as they are now doing on t~e coast from Hatteras up: Mr. MILLER. Notwithstanding the kind reminder of the Senator 

from Maine that I had occupied nearly all the time of the Senate on this bill, I have not cl_one it to the exclusion of any Senator who desires 

to speak, and therefore I will venture even at this late moment to say a few words more regarding to it, unless the Senate want to adjourn. 

The Senator from Maine [Mr. HALE] thought it very important to 

put the bill in a proper light before the Senate. He stated that it was 

necessary that he should put the bill in a proper light before the Senate in order that there might be no misapprehension of the objects of 

the bill and the persons it was intended to benefit. He stated that the 

bill was desired by all the people engaged in the industry of mackerel 

fishing, and that it was only opposed by the :fishmongers of the city of 

New York. I am entirely willing to take the bill upon that basis. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Will my friend from New York yield to me to move an adjournment? 

Mr. HALE. I hope the Senator from Vermont will not make that 

motion. To-morrow is to be given up to eulogies, and I think we can get through with this bill in half an hour. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. It is not possible for us to get through with it this 

evening. I will move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of 

executive business. 

~1r. HALE. I wish the Senator would not make that motion. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. It is perfectly useless to try to finish the bill now. Yon can not get it through this evening. 

Mr. HA~,E. Then before the motion is put let us lutve an understanding. I hope the Senator from Michigan in charge of the bill will 

try to get it up the first thing on Thursday morning before the time comes when the Senator from Missouri [Mr. VEST] will occupy the 

attention of the Senate with his bill. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. To that I agree. 

Mr. MILLER. You can not make any agreement certainly; you can make the effort. 

Mr. PALMER. I shall certainly make the effort, and I give notice 

to that effect. 

Mr. HALE. Directly after the routine morning business. 

Mr. PALMER. Directly after the routine morning business. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Pending the motion of the Senator 

from Vermont, the Chair will lay before the Senate sundry bills from 

the House of Representatives for reference. 

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED. 

The following bills from the House of Representatives were severally 

read twice by their titles, and referred to the Committee on Public 

Buildings and Grounds: 

A bill (H. R. 7775) to increase the appropriation for the erection of a public building at Troy, N. Y.; and 

A bill (H. R. 10305) to increase the appropriation for the public 

building at Brooklyn, N. Y. 

The bill (H. R. 2929) to amend the act dividing the State of Missouri 

into two judicial districts, and to divide the eastern and western dis· 

tricts thereof into divisions, establish district and circuit courts of the 

United States therein, and provide for the times and places for holding 

such courts, and for other purposes, was read twice by its title, andreferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

The bill (H. R. 8594) to grant the right of way through the Indian 

Territory to the Chicago, Kansas, and Nebraska Railway, and for other 

purposes, was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on 

Indian Affairs. 

l\IESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

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

Clerk, announced that the House had passed the bill (S. 3044) to provide for the execution of the provisions of article 2 of the treaty con-
1494 .CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 8, 

eluded between the United States of America and the Emperor of China on the 17th day of November, 1880, and proclaimed by the Prr rtident 

of the United States on the 5th day of October, 1881. 

The message also announced that the Honse had p~ t11e bill (S. 

2225) to idemnify certain subjects of the Uhin~se ~pire for lo~es sus- tained by the violence of a mob at Rock Sprrngs, rn ~he T~rn~ry of 

Wyoming, in September, 1885, with an amendment, ill which 1t requested the concurrence of the Senate. 

The message further announced that t?-e House insiste~ on its a~endment to the bill (S. 2519) granting an illcrease of pensiOn . to Rtehard 

B. Rians, disagreed to by the Senate, agreed to the conference asked 

by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and 

had appointed Mr. SWOPE, :Mr. LoVERING, and :Mr. CONGER man- agers at the conference on the part of the House. 

ENROLLED BILLS SIGll.TED. 

The message also announced that the Speaker of the. Honse had 

signed the following enrolled bills; whereupon they were S1gned by the 

P1·esident p1·o tempore. 

A bill (H. R. 325) granting a pension to Catharine Waters; 

A bill (H. R. 3167) to restore the name of Lifurs Roberson to the 

pension roll; 

A bill (H. · R. 4028) granting a pension· to Samuel Sawyer; 

A bill (H. R. 4097) for the relief of William .J. Owings; 

A bill (H.· R. 5091) to restore the name of Harvey Coburn to the 

pension roll; . A bill (H. R. 5398) granting a p~on to Mr~. Mar~ret Ca;shm; 

A bill (H. R. 5506) granting a pensron to Emily Lorusa Spicer; 

A bill (H. R. 6026) granting a pens~on to .John Selby;. 

A bill (H. R. 6069) granting a pensron to Owen P. Wilson; 

A bill (H. R. 6523) granting a pension to Henry Roscoe; 

A bill (H. R. 7327) granting a pension to Anthony McRobertson; 

A bill (H. R. 7335) granting a pension to Michael Todd; 

A bill (H. R. 7352) granting a pension to Mrs. Sarah Randles; 

A bill (H. R. 7390) granting a pension to David B. Caldwell; 

A bill (H. R. 7547) granting a pension to Livingston Clark;_ 

A bill (H. R. 7689) granting a pension to Caroline C. McNarr; 

A bill (H. R. 7699) granting a pension to E. A. McFadden; 

A bill (H. R. 7716) granting a pension to Lizzie Brown; 

A bill (H. R. 7732) for the relief of Franz Rossrucker; 

A bill (H. R. 7748) granting a pens~on to .To~ H. Stnckm:; 

A bill (H. R. 7911) granting a peDSion to Darnel Schnlth~IS; 

A bill (H. R. 7983) granting a pension to Mrs. Anna Schi~r; 

A bill (H. R. 8002) to increase the pension of Loren Burntt; 

A bill (H. R. 8151) granting a pension to John P. McDonald; 

A bill (H. R. 8227) granting a pens~on to Set~ .w eldy; . A bill (H. R. 8258) granting a pens1on to Wrut1e F. Hams; 

A bill (H. R. 8424) granting a pension to .James H. Young; 

A bill (H. R. 8463) gran~g a pen~on to Elizabeth M . .J. Meagher; 

A bill. ~H. R. 8601) grantmg a pension to James H. Butler; 

A bill H. R. 8632) for the relief of Emily Luther; 

A bill H. R. 8791) granting a pension to Sally W. Rice; 

A bill (H. R. 8847) for the relief of Phila Clark; . A bill (H. R. 9004) for the relief of Caroline P. Bolton; 

A bill (H. R. 9009) granting a pension to Mrs .. susan .E. B!lrry; 

A bill (H. R. 9025) for the relief of Mrs. Sophia Spram, Wldow, and 

two minor children of Louis F. Sprain; 

A bill (H. R. 9026) granting a pension to Nirins Cissell; 

A bill (H. R. 9130) granting a pension to Sarah O'Brien; 

A bill (H. R. 9157) granting a pension to Grant E. Q. Lathermon; 

A bill (H. R. 9169) to place on the pension-roll the name of Charles 

T. Wornom; . . A bill (H. R. 9247) granting a pensiOn to J.iary Grrme.s; 

A bill (H. R. 9250) for the relief of William B. Barnes; 

A bill (H. R. 9426) granting a pension to Be!Sy Cooney; . A bill (H. R. 9443) granting a pension to Elizabeth M: King; 

A bill (H. R. 9444) granting a pension to Frederick Rich~ond; 

A bill (H. R. 9672) granting a pension to Clara M. Tannehill; 

A bill (H. R. 9862) granting a pension to Mary Jan~ Magool?-; 

A bill (H. R. 10025) grnnting a pension to- Clementine Harlrnger; 

A bill (H. R. 10082) to increase the pension of .Margaret R . .Jones, 

A bill (H. R. 10103) granting a pension to Jl.fine~va Abbey; 

A bill (H. R. 10104) granting a pension to Carohne L. Shedd; 

A bill (H. R. 10152) granting a pension to Ellen. M. Sturt~vant; and 

A bill (H. R. 10412) to authorize the constructiOn of a high wa~on 

and foot passenger bridge over the ~~ippi River! between the cr~y 

of East Dubuque in the Sta.te of lllinoiS, and the city of Dubuque m 

the State of Iowa. 

.AMEND~"T TO .A BILL. 

Mr. CALL submitted an amendment intended to be propose~ by 

him to the river and harbor bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed. 

EXECUTIVE SESSION. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont [1rir. 

EDMUNDS] moves that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. . 

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate. proceeded t~ the cons~deration of executive business. After six mmutes spent m executive 

session the doors were reopened, and (at 5 o'clock and 21 minutes p. 

m.) the Senate adjourned until to-morrow, Wednesday, February 9, at 

12 o' cl9ck m. 

NOMINATIONS. 

Ea::ecuti·ve nominations received by the Senate tlte 8th day of Feb1·uary, 1887. 

POSTMASTERS. 

William H. Foreman, to be postmaster at Benecia, in the county of 

Solano and State of California, in the piace of Archibald McDonell, 

deceased. 

William B. Brotherton, to be postmaster at Milford, in the county of 

New Haven and State of Connecticut, in the place of .Joseph R. Clark, 

whose commission expire<t February 5, 1887. · 

Theodore F. Rose to be postmaster at Ivoryton, in the county of 

J..fiddlesex and Sta~ of Connecticutt the appoint~ent of a ~ostmaster for the said office having, by law, become vested m the PreSldent from 

and after J nly 1, 1886. 

David Tucker, to be postmaster at Seymour, in the county of New 

Haven and State of Connecticut, in the place of Samuel H. Canfield, 

whose commission expired February 5, 1887. 

Sylvenns S. Chapman, to be postmaster at Chenoa, in the county of 

McLean and State of Illinois, in the place of Orville D. Sanborn, whose 

commission expires February 15, 1887. 

Berkley G. Barratt, to be postmaster at Earlville, in the county of 

La Salle and State of Illinois, in the place of Samuel Lynn, whose com- mission expired February 5, 1887. 

Sanford G. Givan, to be postmaster at Aurora, in ~he county of De~rborn and State of Indiana, in the place of Harry FJBk, whose commiSsion expired February 7, 1887. 

Frank A. Uillett to be postmaster a.t Mechanic's Falls, in the county 

of Androscoggin a~d State of Maine, in the place of F. EdwinDwinal, 

whose commission expires March 2, 1887. 

.James F. Lynch, to be postmaster at Watertown, in the county of 

Middlesex and State of Massachusetts, in the place of Samuel S. Glea- son whose commission expired February 5, 1887. E. Clifford Nash, to be postmaster at Abington, in the county of Plymouth and State of Massachusetts, in the place of .John W. Sproul, 

whose commission expired January 16, 1887. 

HenryS. Noble, to be postmaster at Monroe, in ~he county of Mon- roe and State of Michigan, in the place of Otis A. Cntchett, whose com- mis..~ion expires March 1, 1887. 

.Jacob N. Rogers, to be postmaster at Plainwell, iJ;t the county of ~egan and State of 11-!ichigan, in the place of John Cnspe, whose commiSsion expired January 29, 1887. 

Eben Akin, jr .• to be postmaster at Fair Haven, in the county of Bris·.' 

tol and State of Massachusetts, in the place of Charles H. Morton, whose 

commission expired February 5, 1887. . . Frederick A. Currier, to be postmaster at Fitchburg, ill the county 

of Worcester and State of Massachusetts, in the place of John W. Kimball, whose commi"!Sion expired February 7, 1887. 

William Hilton to be postmaster at Bradford, in the county of Essex 

and State of M~chnsetts, the appointment of a. postmaster for the 

said office having, by law, become vested in the President from and 

after July+, 1885, and Edward P: Kelley, who was confirmed August 

2 1886 having declined the apporntment. 'Na~el .J. Edgerly, to be postmaster at Laconia, in the county of 

Belknap and StateofNew Hampshire, in place of Perley Putnam, whose 

commission expired February 5, 1887. 

Chauncey A. Fellows, to be postmaster at Plymouth, in the county 

of Grafton and State of New Hampshire, in the place of Walter D. 

Blaisdell whose commission expired February 5, 1887. Adam 'L. Brown, to be postmaster at Bloomfield, in the county of 

Essex and State of New Jersey, in the place of Horace Dodd, whose 

commission expired February 5, 1887. 

Edward A. Quayle, to be postmaster at Morristown, in the county of 

Morris and State of New J e.rsey, in the place of John R. Runyon, whose 

commission expires Febmary 19, 1887. 

Peter N. Cottrell, to be postmaster at Fort Howard, in the. county of 

Brown and State of Wisconsin, in the place of George RlChardson, 

whose commission expired .January 29, 1887. . . Ezra A. Glover,jr., to bepostma.steratNewRichmond, m the county 

of Saint Croix and State of Wisconsin, in the place of George C. Hough, 

whose commission expires February 12, 1887 . Leollie Simmons, to be postmaster at Buffalo, in the county o~ John- son and Territory of Wyoming, in the place of .James F. Carwile, re- signed. 

Patrick Talent, to be postmaster at Butte City, in the county of ~ilver Bow and Territory of Montana, in the place of W. Egbert Sllllth, 

whose commission expires February 12, 1887. 
-

1887. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1495 

CONFIRMATIONS. 

Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate February 3, 1887. 

TERRITORIAL GOVERNOR. 

Louis K. Church, to be governor of Dakota Territory. 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS. 

Gustavus Van Hoorebeke! of illinois, to be attorney of the United 

States for the southern district of lllinois. 

William A. Walker, of Wisconsin, to be attorney of the United States 

for the eastern district of Wisconrin. 

PENSION AGENT. 

W. H. D. Cochrane, of Nashua, N.H., to be pension agent at Concord, N. II. 

UNITED STATES CONSUL. 

David T. Bunker, of Auburndale, Mass., to be consul of the United 

States at Demerara. INDIAN AGENTS. 

.James MeN amara, of Freeport, ill., to be agent for the Indians of the 

Colorado River agency in Arizona. 

Charles H. Yates, of Ukiah, Cal., to be agent for the Indians of the 

Round Valley agency in California-. Hugh D. Gallagher, of Greensburg, Ind., to be agent for the Indians 

of the Pine Ridge agency in Dakota. 

William 1\1. Neal, of Franklin, Ind., to be agent for the Indians of 

the Lemhi agency in Idaho. 

Charles H. Grover, of Leavenworth, Kans., to be agent for the Indians of the Pottawatomie and Great Nemaha agency in Kansas. 

Dale 0. Cowen, of Batavia, Ohio, to be agent for the Indians of the 

Fort Peck agency in Montana. · .Jesse F. Warner, of Homer, Nebr., to be agent for the Indians ofthe 

Omaha and Winnebago agency in Nebraska. 

Bartholomew Coffee, of Salem, Oreg., to be agent for the Indians of 

the Umatilla agency in Oregon . .Jason Wheeler, of Alb:my, Oreg., to be agent fox the Indians of the 

Warm Springs agency in Oregon . .John B. McClane, ofSalem, Oreg., to be agent for the Indians of the 

Grande Ronde agency in Oregon. 

Thomas Priestley, of Mineral Point, Wis., to be agent for the Indians 

of the Yakima agency in Washington Territory. 

For _promotion in the Revenue Service. 

Third Lieut. Howard M. Broadbent, of Pennsylvania, to be a second 

lieutenant in the Revenue Service, vice Graham, deceased. 

Postmaste-rs. 

William F. Wolfe, to be postmaster at Friend, Saline County, Nebraska. 

Frank B. Brown, to be postmaster at Corning, Steuben County, New 

York. 

William H. Greenhow, to be postmaster at Hornellsville, Steuben 

County, New York. 

Charles E. Rose, to be postmaster at Patchogue, Suffolk County, New 

York. 

Michael Tierney, to be postmaster at Salem, Washington County, 

New York. - Francis B. Willard, to be postmaster at Boonville, Oneida County, 

New York. 

George B. A ten, to be postmaster at Wellsville, Columbiana County, 

Ohio. 

Egbert Green, to be postmaster at Medina, Medina County, Ohio. 

Guilford B. Keppel, to be postmaster at Tiffin, Seneca County, Ohio. 

Basil Meek, to be postmaster at Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio. 

.JohnR.Meloy,to bepostmasteratNewLexington,PerryCounty,Ohio. 

William M. Breslin, to be postmaster at Lebanon, Lebanon County, 

Pennsylvania. 

James W. Verlander, to be postmaster at Huntington, Cabell County, 

West Virginia . .James M. Holton, to be· postmaster at Brighton, Monroe County, 

New York. · Caleb T. Smith, to be postmaster at Islip, Suffolk County, New York. 

Cl)arles S. Ware, to be postmaster at Mount Kisco, Westchester 

County, New York. 

Martin L. Willard, to be postmaster at Antwerp, .Jefferson County, 

New York. 

Hiram E. Field, to be postmaster at Columbus Grove, Putnam County, 

Ohio. 

Micajah Hutt, to be postmaster at Haverly, Pike County, Ohio. 

George Lower, to be postmaster at Columbiana, Columbiana County, ®h J 

.Josephine Doty, to be postmaster at South Oil City, Venango County, 

Pennsylvania. 

.John C. Forsyth, to be postmaster at Northumberland, Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. - Ignatius Garner, to be postmaster at Saint :Mary's, Elk County, Pennsylvania. 

Otis- G. Kelts, to be postmaster at Kane, McKean County, Pennsylvania. 

Israel P. Loveks, to be postmaster at Tarantum, Allegheny County, 

Pennsy 1 vania. 

Edward H. Mosher, to be postmaster at Blossburgh, Tioga County, 

Pennsylvania. 

John A. Pyle, to be postmaster at Westchester, Chester County, 

Pennsy I vania. 

Arthur_ B. Rowley, to be postmaster at Eldred, McKean County, 

Pennsylvania. 

Andrew II. Simpson, to be postmaster at North Clarendon, Warren 

County, Pennsylvania. 

.Joseph R. Naylor, to be postmaster at Wellsburgh, Brooke County, 

West Virginia. 

.James B. Ryan, to be postmaster at Saint Clairsville, Belmont 

County, Ohio. . Rufus Thompson, to be postmaster at Albany, Linn County, Oregon. 

Alexander H. Brown, to be postmaster at Weston, Lewis County, 

West Virginia . .John H. Mills, to be postmaster at Canton, Saint Lawrence County, 

New York. 

Charles P. Van Zandt, to be postmaster at Walden, Orange County, 

New York. 

Tryon Bailey, to be postmaster at Chagrin Falls, Cuyahoga County, 

Ohio. 

George W. Carey, to be postmaster at North Yakima, Yakima County, 

Territory of Washington. 

Fostex M. Kinter, to be postmaster at La Moure, La Moure County, 

Terri tory of Dakota. 

Oscar A. Trovatten, to be postmaster at Park River, Walsh County, 

Territory of Dakota . William H. LeCount, to be postmaster at New Rochelle, Westchester 

County, New York. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

TUESDAY, February 8, 1887. 

The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. W. 

H. MILBURN, b. D. 

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

EXPENDITURES, SOJ~DIERS' HOMES. 

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of 

the Treasury, transmitting a statement of expenditures for the several 

branches of the National Home fox Disabled Volunteer Soldiers; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be 

printed. 

CUSTOM-HOUSE, TOLEDO, OHIO. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary 

of the Treasury, transmitting an estimate from the Supervising Architect for completing the approaches and painting the walls and ceiling 

of the custom-house at Toledo, Ohio; which was referred to the Com· 

mittee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. 

INDIAN APPROPRIATION BILL. 

The SPEAKER also laid before the House the Senate amendments 

to the bill (H. R. 10394) making appropriations for the current and 

contingent exp&ses of the Indian Department, and for fulfilling treaty 

stipulations with various Indian tribes for the fiscal year ending June 

30, 1888, and for other purposes; which was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

SEN ATE BILLS REFERRED • 

The SPEAKER also, in accordance with the rule, laid before the 

House Senate bills; which were referred as follows: 

The bill (S. 2578) to prohibit members of Congress from acting as attorneys and employes of railroad companies in certain cases-to the 

Committee on the .Judiciary. 

The bill (S. 1321) granting arrears of pension to Richard H. McWhor· 

ter-to the Committee on Invalid Pensious. 

The bill (8.1986) granting pensions to William Knight, .Jacob Parrot, William Reddick, and John W. Lallam-to the CommHtee on Invalid Pensions. 

The bill (S. 2374) granting a pension to Mrs. Arabella Coddingtonto the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

The bill (S. 2421) granting a pension to 1\Irs. Maria C. McPhersonto the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

The bill (S. 2629) granting a. pension to .Jane Brown Dunn-to the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

The bill (S. 2670) granting an increase of pension to James H; 

Thomas-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

The bill (S. 2834) granting a pensidn to Mrs. Hettie K. Painter-to 

the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

The bill (S. 2935) granting a pension to Robert Ba.xter-to the Com· 

mittee on Invalid Pensions. · 

'