1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. '1623 

ing the streets south of the United States arsenal grounds in Indianapolis; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations. 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. 

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted as follows: 

To Mr. CARLISLE, for one week, on account of important business; 

and · To Mr. SWA.L.'m, for Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, of next 

week. 

Mr. HARTZELL. I move that the House do now adjourn. 

The motion was agreed to; and accordingly (at four o'clock and 

thirty-five minutes p.m.) the House adjourned. 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

The following petitions, &c., were presented at the Clerk's desk, 

ander the rule, and referred as stated : · By Mr. BALLOU: The petition of a committee of type-founders 

from Philadelphia and New York, that the duty on foreign type may 

remain specific and not be changed to ad valorem-to the Committee 

of Ways and Means. 

By Mr. BICKNELL: The petition of the publisher of the New 

Albany (Indiana) Deutsche Zeitung, for the abolition of the duty on type-to the same committee. 

By Mr. CHITTENDEN: The petition of type-founders of New York 

and other cities of the United States, that the tariff on type remain 

unchanged-to the same committee. 

Also, the petition of William M. Thoma.s and others, of Brooklyn, 

New York, against reviving the income tax-to the same committ.ee. 

By Mr. DANFORD: The petition of D. G. Green and 51 other citi- zens of Noble Cou'nty, Ohio, that the tariff on wool and woolen goods 

remain unchanged-to the same committee. 

By Mr. DEERING : The petition of citizens of Iowa, for a commission of inquiry concerning the alcoholic liquor traffic-to the same committee. 

Also, the petition of type-founders of the United States, that the 

duty on type remain unchanged-to the sa.me committee. 

By Mr. DICKEY: A paper relating to the establishment of a postroute from Dunbarton to Cherry Fork, Ohio-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. DUNNELL: Memorial of the Legislature of Minnesota, asking that the Fort Ripley military reservation be opened to settlement-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

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

against discriminations in railroad freights on interstate roads-to 

the Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. EVINS, of South Carolina: A paper relating to the establishment of a post-route between Jackson Hill and New Prospect, 

.South Carolina-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. FRYE : The petition of Reuben Boynton and other citizens 

of Westborough, Massachusetts, for a commission of inquiry concern- ing the alcoholic liquor traffic-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. HARDEN BERGH: The petition of type-founders of New 

York and other cities of the United States, t.hat the tariff on type re- main unchanged-to the Committee of Ways and Means. 

By Mr. HARMER: The petition of the type-founders of the United 

States, that in order to prevent fraud iR the introduction of foreign 

type into the United States the duty may remain a specific one, as in the bill now before·Congress, and not be changed to an ad valorem 

duty-to the same committee. 

Also, the petition of citizens of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, against 

reviving the income tax-to the same committee. 

By 1\fr. H.A.RTRIDGE : Memorial of a committee of delegates from 

the municipalities of Norfolk, Charleston, Port Royal, Savannah, 

Darien, Brunswick, Saint Mary's, Fernandina, Jacksonville, Saint 

Augustine, Cedar Keys, and Pensacola, in reference to quarantine regulations-to the Commit tee on Commerce. 

By Mr. HAYES: The petition of the type-founders of the United 

States, that the duty on type remain unchanged-to the Committee 

of Ways and Means. 

By Mr. HUMPHREY: Memorial of the Legislature of Wisconsin,for 

the extension of time to the Northern Pacific Railroad-to the Committee on Public Lands. Also, memorial of the Legislature of Wisconsin, asking the completion, of the breakwater and entrance to the harbor of refuge at Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin-to the Committee on Commerce. 

Also, memorial· of the Legislature of Wisconsin, for the establishment of a post-route and tri-weekly mail between White Hall and 

Eau Claire, Wisconsin-to the Committee on the Post-Office and PostRoads. 

By Mr. HUNGEr..FORD : The petition of citizens of Hornellsville, 

New York, for the 1epeal of thewartax.es imposed on national, State, 

and savings banks-to the Committee of Ways :1nd Means. 

By Mr. JAMES: The petition of the puMisher of the Times, Gouverneur, New York, for abolition of the duty on type-to the same com-· mittee. 

By l!r. KEIGHTLEY: The petition of Mr. 0. A. Williams and 105 

others, that the tn.ri:ff on wool remain unchanged-to the same com- mittee. 

By Mr. LUTTRELL: The petitition of the publisher of the Golden 

Era, San Francisco, California, for the abolition of the duty on typeto the same committee. 

By Mr. McMAHON: The petition of J. K. Mcintyre, McKee, Weakly 

& Co., George Kneesley, and other wholesale and retail grocers, for a uniform duty on sugars-to the same committee. · By Mr. O'NEILL: Resolutions of the General Assembly of :Pennsylvania, in relation t.o the passage of an act to provide for equity in the 

rates of freight upon certain property carried by railroads and by 

other means of transportation-to the Committee on Railways and 

Canals. 

By Mr. PEDDIE: Resolutions of the Legislature of New Jersey, 

relating to American shippin8-to the Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. PUGH: The petition of Elizabeth A. Van Pelt, for com- pensation for property taken and used by the United States authorities-to the Committee on War Claims. · By Mr. RICE, of Ohio: The petition of the publisb_er of the Allen 

County (Ohio) Democrat, for the abolition of the duty on type-to 

the Committee of Ways and Means. 

By Mr. RIDDLE: Memorial of the Chamber of Commerce of Memphis, Tennessee, in favor of a subsidy for a line of steamers from 

New Orleans to Rio Janeiro, Brazil-to the Committee on Commerce. 

Also, the petitions of the publishers of the Gallatin (Tennessee) 

Examiner and Tennessean and of the Springfield (Tennessee) Reeord, 

for the abolition of the duty on type-to the Committee of Ways and 

Means. 

By Mr. RO~BINS: The petition of 46 citizens of Ashe County, 

North Carolina, against aholishin~ the western judicial district of 

said State-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. ROBERTS: The petition of Samuel Bentz, for the emen- ' 

sion of a pa.tent-to the Committee on Patents. 

By Mr. ROSS: The petition of type-founders of the United States, 

against a reduction of the tariff on type-to the Committee of Ways 

and Means. 

By Mr. SAYLER : The petition of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, favoring the adoption of the metric system of _weights 

and measures-to the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Meas- ures. 

By Mr. SMITH, of Georgia: The petition of the publisher of the 

Albany (Georgia) News, for tho abolition !of the duty on type-to the 

Committee of Ways ancl Means. 

By Mr. SPRING.ER: The petition of citizens of Christian County, 

Illinois, for the establishment of· a post-route from Bdinburgh, liy way 

of Bolivia, to Mechanics burgh, Dlinois-to the Committee on the PostOffice and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. STEW ART: P..esolutions of the Legislature of Minnesota, 

favoring the opening of the Fort Ripley reservation to entry under 

the homestead laws-to the Committee on Public Lands. 

By Mr. TOWNSEND, of Ohio : The petition of 3,000 workingmen of 

Cleveland, Ohio, for the passage of Mr. Wright's bill granting aid to 

settlers on homesteads furnished by the Government-to tho same committee. .' 

By Mr. TOWNSEND, of New York: The petition of soldiers of tlie war of 1861 of Argyle, New York, that soldiers discharged for disease 

may have the same bounty as those discharged for wound&-to the 

Committee on War Claims. . By Mr. WILLIS, of Kentucky: The petition of Wooten & Oo. and 

other grocers, of Louisville, Kentucky, that the tariff on sugar be 

fixed at so much per pound, without regard to color or quaUty-to 

the Committee of Ways and Means. 

IN SENATE. 

:1\fOND.A.Y, March 11, 1878. 

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. BYRON SUNDERLAND, D. D. 

The Journal of the proceedings of Thursday last was read and ap- proved. · · EXECUTIVE COliMUNICATIONS. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication 

from tho Secretary of the Interior, in response to n. resolution of the 

28th ultimo, concerning securities taken by the Union Pacific Railroad Company for aid afforded to the Colorado C~ntra l and other 

railroads, &c. ; which was ordered to lie on the table and be printed. 

He also laid before the Senate \!1 communication from the Secretary .of War, transmitting, in compliance with a resolution of the ·Sepate 

of the 18th ultimo, a copy of a report of Major C. R. Suter, Corps of 

Engineers, on the condition of the works for removing a bar'iu the 

Arkansas River near Fort Smith, Arkansas; which was referred to 

the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed. · He also laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary 

of the Treasury, transmitting, in compliance with a resolution of the 

Senate of the 4th instant, a:n estimate of the amount of money neces- sary to be appropriated to enable the Government to coin both gold and silver at the United St~tes mint in the city of Denver, Colorado; 

which was refeLTed to the Committee on Public Buildings and GroundB, 

and ordered to be printed. 
-1624 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. MARCH 11, _ .. :-

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT presented the petition of Edward Perry, 

late of Company A, Sixth Regiment of Connecticut Volunteers, praying for -att increase of pension and for arrears of pension ; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

Mr. ANTHONY presented the petition of the Methodist Episcopal 

church of Saxonville, Massachusetts, signed by the pastor, praying 

for the appointment of a commission of inquiry concerning the alcoholic liquor traffic ; which was ordered to lie on the table. 

He also presented a memorial of William C. Cornwell and others, 

remonstrating against the proposed transfer of the life-saving serv- ice from the Treasury to the Navy Department; which was ordered 

to lie on the table. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin, presented the petition of the Baptist 

church of Clinton, Wisconsin, signed by the pastor, praying for the 

appointment. of ~ commission of in(].nirY concerning the alcoholic 

liqnM' traffic ; which was ordered to lie on the table. 

MJ:, ·McMILLAN presented a resolution of the Legislature of Minnesota, in favor "of the passage of an act by Congress authorizing the 

landsof.the For5 Ripley reservation t<fbe entered under the pre-emption and homestead laws; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands. 

Mr. FERRY presented a memorial of Jame'3 A. Venn and 50 others 

citizens of L~and, Michigan, remonstrating against the proposed 

transfer of the life-saving service from the Treasury to the Navy 

Department; which was ordered to lie on the table. 

Mr. WINDOM presented a resolution of the Minne~:~ota State Horticultural Society, in favor of t,he pa.ssage of an act to provide for ·send- · ing a commissioner to examine the for~sts of Europe; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture. 

Mr. MORRILL presented the petition of Reuben Boynton and other 

citrnens of West borough, Massachusetts, and the petition of the First 

Congregationa! • nitarian church of East Bridgewater, Massachusetts, 

signed by the pastor, praying for the appointment of a commission of 

inquiry concerning the alcoholic liquor traffic; which were ordered 

to lie on the table. 

Mr. DAWES presented the petition of S. F. Root & Company, citi- zens of Berkshire, Massachusetts, and the petition of Samuel Baxter 

Taylor, of Franklin County, Massachusetts, praying for an amendment to the fifteenth section of the "act to revise, consolidate and 

amend the laws.relating to pensions," approved March 3, 1873, extending the time of limitation for obtaining arrears of pension until the 

4th day of July, 1880; which were referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

He all:lo presented the petition of the Congregational church of 

Bernardston, Massachusetts, signed by the pastor, praying for the appointment of a commission of inquiry concerning the alcoholic liquor 

tratlic) which was ordered to lie on the table. 

Mr. DORSEY presented a memorial of the mayor and city council 

of Fort Smith, Arkansas, in favor of an appropriation for the removal 

of the s:md bar in the Arkansas River opposite that city; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

Mr. PADDOCK. I present the petition of J. E. Boyd, Ezra Millard, W. W. Lowe, Thomas L. Kimball, and C. W. Hamilton, a com- mittee of the citizens of Omaha, Nebraska, praying for the establish· · meB.t of a branch mint in that city. In this memorial there appear 

certain statistics in relation to the amount of business done at the 

Omaha works for smelting gold and silver ore, which are the largest 

and best appointed works in the United States. I should like to call 

attention to a few figures in reference to it. The base bullion shipped over the Union Pacific Railroad during the year 1875 amounted in 

value to 50,379.071. Of this amount, $26,304,605 were shipped to 

Omaha ; nothing was shipped to Chicago; 4,450,835 were shipped to 

Saint Louis; 3,194,910 to Mansfield, Ohio; something over 100,000 

to Boston and 3,000,000 and something over to New York; $12,394,736 

to Newark, New Jersey; 211,420 to Baltimore. 

Thus it will be seen that in the shipments of ha-se bullion the total 

going to Omaha was more than to all other points combined, being over 52 per cent. of the total shipments of bullion. The shipments to 

and.thronghOmahain 1866 amounted to $56,733,702,and in 18i7, out of a total production of 98,000,000 in the whole country, Omaha alone 

handled over $60,000,000. A very large proportion of this enormous shipment to Omaha was stopped there for smelting. Had it been 

shipned to Kansas City, or Saint Louis, or Chicago, or Indianapolis, 

the additional cost of traniiportation for this amount which stopped at 

Chicago. ann which was put in a condition to be coined, would have 

been about 100,000, and if shipped to Philadelphia the additional 

cost would have been $200,000. I state these points for the present 

information of the Senate, and to call the attention of the committee 

to them particularly, with the hope that they may be considered care- fully when this subject is before them. If the element of economy· is 

to weigh with the Government in purchaaing and coining gold and 

silver, a mint will be established at Omaha. I shall have more to say on this subject hereafter. I now move the reference of the memorial 

to the Committee on Finance. 

The motion wa-s agreed to. 

Mr. SARGENT. I present the memorial of grape-growers and cultivators, residents of California, who represent that the grape indti.stry is one of the most important in th State of California; that in 

the county of Los Angeles, in that State, there are large tracts of valuable land planted in vines, which have attained to a great age; that 

the older the vines are the more prolific they become and the better 

the quality of the grape; that the tax on grape brandy is excessive, 

amounting to a prohibition of the profitable culture of the same; that 

many of tne vineyardists have been compelled to sell their crops of 

grapes during the present and past years at the rate of a quarter of a .cent per pound. or $5 p~ ton; that notwithstanding the enormous YJ.eld of an old vmeyard m Los Angeles County the money realized 

at such a price has not paid the cost of the cultivation and the vintage ; that the only profitable use to which a great portion of their 

product can be put is in the production of br:mdy, otherwise it be- comes a dead loss; that if the tax at present imposed upon the man- ufacture of brandy from their grapes were repealed or so reduced as to afford them a chance to compete with the foreign manufacturers 

they could build np an industry which would conduce to the general 

good of the whole country. They state that the California grape is 

producigg a brandy fully equal to the best French brandy ; that many 

of the oldest and best vineyards have been grubbed up by their own- ers, it being a matter of the utmost impossibility for them to carry on the industry. They further show in this memorial that the manufact- ure of grape brandy bears an--entirely different relation to grape ..::nlture as an industry from what the manufacture of whisky does to the · culture of and production of grain and sugar-cane as an industry ; 

that the culture of the grape depends entirely upon the ability of the 

producer to turn it into brandy, whereas the culture of grain doe not 

depend upon its being turned into whisky. It is a fact that California with its soil, climate, and magnificent yield of grapes is capable 

of building up an industry that will take the place of that of France, 

not only in this country but in the 'civilized world, in case this exces- sive taxation, now and heretofore imposed upon it, does not crush it 

out. It is having that effect, and it will be well for Congress to con- sider whether it is not worth w bile to lighten the burdens of taxation 

upon this particular industry and give a chance for this immense development of the grape interest. I mo\e the reference of the memo- rial to the Committee on Finance. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. SARGENT. I also present a memorial signed by a large num- ber of vintners and dealers in native wines, referring to the propo ed 

revision of the tariff now under consideration in the National Legislature, the restoration of the ad valorem duty on imported wines, and 

the reduction of the duty on the inferior wines of Europe from forty 

to twenty-five cents per gallon; and they earnestly protest against 

any such change of the tariff, and show that the ad valorem duty of 

25 per cent. per gallon on wines valued at forty cents or less per gallon at the point of shipment admits under that tax nine-tenths of all 

the foreign wines imported into the United States; that the lowpriced foreign wines admitted at twenty-five cents per gallon are those which most strongly tend to displace pure native wines in our market; that the ad valorem system baa in times past been productive of fraud, perjury, and mercantile and· commercial demoralization. 

Two years ago they say the honest and reputable importers united 

with them in petitioning Congress to abolish the ad valorem tax and 

to substitute a specific tax of forty cents per gallon on all classes of 

foreign-still wines; that the substitution of the specific for the ad 

valorem tax has been of great advantage to the revenue, to native 

wine-growers, to wine-consumers, and to mercantile and official mo- rality. Th~y also speak of the great growth of this wine interest on the Pacific coast, which promises to be a leading industry, and they 

pray that there may be a continuation of the present protection of 

that industry as will enable it to be properly developed. I move the 

reference of this memorial to the Committee on Finance. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. HAMLIN presented a memorial of the Universal Peace Union, 

of the city of Philadelphia, protesting against the transfer of the 

management of the Indians to the War Department; which wM re- ferred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. 

He also presented the memorial of A. J. Gibson and others, legal 

voters of the town of Cutler, Maine, remonstrating against the proposed transfer of the life-saving service from the Treasury to the 

Navy Department; which was ordered to lie on the table. 

Mr. EATON presented the memorial of M. G. Elliott and others, 

citizens of New Haven, Connecticut, remonstrating against the passage of any law imposing a tax on incomes; which was referred to 

the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. CHAFFEE presented the petition of Carleton Spaids, of Chicago, illinois, praying compensation for loss sustained by him on 

account of the annulling of his contract for carrying United States 

mails; which was referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and PostRoads. 

Mr. CONKLING. I present the proceedings of the Chamber of 

Commerce of the State of New York, bein~ a preamble and resolutions 

touching the automati~ signal-buoy whiCh has been so thoroughly 

tested at the entrance of New York Harbor. The ret~olutions set forth 

the reasons of the chamber for believing it a very important matter 

that this buoy shall be more generally introduced, and they beg attention to it, and ask appropriations by Congress to_ the end that it may 

be planted in other harbors. I move the reference of the resolutions 

to the Committee on Commerce. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. CONKLING. I present the petition of a number of citizens of 
1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. ·1625 

"Plattsburgh, Clinton County, New York, and of Mooers, Clinton 

'County,New York, touching their wish and judgment that the bounty 

laws should be so amended as to give bounties to those who suffered 

in tbe service of the United States. I move the reference of these 

:petitions to the Committee on Military Affairs. · The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. CONKLING presented the memorial of Mackellar, Smiths & 

..Jordan, of Philadelphia; James Conner's Sons, and Farmer, Little & 

·Co., of New York, a committee representing the type-founders of the 

United States, in favor of a tariff on imported type; which was -referred to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. CONKLING. I present also the memorial of a number of citi- .zens of New York, remonstrating against the passage of either of the 

House bills referred to in the paper or any other bill to revive the 

income tax. This memorial is cogent in the reasons it states, and is -si~ned by great weight of names. I move its reference to the Comllllttee on Finance. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. CONKLING. I also present the memorial of a number of citi- zens of Buffalo, New York, remonstrating against the passage of the 

proposed bill transferring the life-saving service from the Treasury ·to the Navy Department, giving their reasons therefor; and a similar 

memorial from citizens of Northport, Long Island, making the same representations. 'l'he Senator from California [Mr. SARGENT] inquires -of me if these memorials are printed. I answer him that they are in 

-print; but unless they be exceptions to the rule, one of the notice-

..able things about petitions on this subject which bas struck me is 

-that the petitioners, in almost all cases, lla ve prepared their own petitiona, setting forth in varying phraseology their reasons for remon- -strating against this change. But the Senator from California calls 

my attention to the fact that the petitions now presented are printed. 

I call his attention to the fact that they are not copies of eapb other. 

Most of the memorials which have passed through my bands relating 

to this topic are written specially, and not printed, nor resembling 

-each other in the form or mode in which they present their statement. 

Mr. SARGENT. A question which I intended to ask privately of 

the Senator from New York he answered audibly in the Senate. I 

-wish merely to remark that my object in asking the question whether 

these petitions were printed was that I understand that petitions for 

this purpose have been printed at the Treasury Department and sent 

broadcast over the country. That method of petitioning we have seen once on the proposition to abolish the franking privilege. It is a very expeditious and effective way of getting at the public sentiment. That was my only object in asking the question. 

.Mr. CONKLING. I quite sympathize with the spirit of the remark 

of the Senator from California. We have seen that way of getting 

up petitions; but I can assure him and aasure the Senate that having 

scrutinized the memorials on this subject very carefully, I have never known an instance in which there was a more total absence of appearance of all organized effort than there is among the officers of the 

boards of trade, the ship-owners, the ship-sailors, and the many different classes of people who have united so numerously in protesting 

against this proposed change. 

Mr. SARGENT. I would merely like to remark that I think we have not heard from them all yet. We may hear from others. The 

subject will bear the fullest light, and let us have it. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The memorials will lie upon the table. 

Mr. CONKLING presented the petition of Captain Egbert Thomp-

-son, United States Navy, on the retired list, praying to be restored to 

the active list of the Navy; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. 

Mr. MATTHEWS. I present four memorials remonstrating against 

the passage of any a t of Congress reviving the income tax. They are printed and are alike, but they are numerously signed by very 

intelligent persons, of whom I know a very large number. I am quite 

satisfied that notwithstanding the fact that the memorials are in print 

and are copies of each other the signers knew exactly what they were doing when they signed them, and therefore the fact that they are in 

the form in w bich they are presented ought not to detract from their 

weight. I move their reference to the Committee on Finance. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. KERNAN. I present the memorial of 723 citizens residing on the south coast of Long Island, remonstrating against the passage of 

the pending bill in relation to the life-saving service on the coast. I 

will say that the memorialists state in the paper the reasons why in 

their opinion the present service should not be changed. I ask that 

-the memorial lie upon the table. 

Mr. SARGENT. Is it printed 7 

Mr. KERNAN. It is a printed document, so that any man can read 

it easily. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The memorial will lie upon the table. 

Mr. KERNAN presented the petition of A. G. H. Wood and others, 

citi.zens of New York, praying for an amendment of the pension laws 

-extending the limitation of the time for obtaining arrears of pension 

-to July 4, 1880; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

Mr. GARLAND presented the petition of G. W. Lawrence and 

-others, citizens of Hot Springs, Arkansas, praying to have refunded 

rents paid by them to the receiver appointed by the Court of Claims, 

that the same may be applied to the relief of the sufferers by the late 

fire at that place ; which was referred to the Committee on Finance. 

He also presented papers relating to the application of George 

E. Petly and others, citizens of ArkansaB, for the establishment of a post-route from Osceola to Chickasawba, in that State; which were referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads. 

Mr. WALLACE presented the memorial of H. S. Donnell and 

others, citizens of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the memorial of 

S.M. Felton and others, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, remonstrating against the passage of any law imposing a tax on incomes; which were referred to the Committee on Finance. 

He also presented a memorial of the Legislat•re of Pennsylvania, 

in favor of the passage of a law granting pensions to the soldiers 

of the Mexican war; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also presented a memorial of the Legislature of Pennsylvania 

infavorofthepassageof a statutetopreventdiscriminationin freights 

upon interstate commerce; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

He also presented the memorial of William Downey and 500 others, 

citizens of Erie, Pennsylvania, and the memorial of John Carter and 

others, citizens of Erie, Pennsylvania, and the memorial of C. W.Lord 

and others, citizens of Erie, Pennsylvania, remonstrating against the 

proposed transfer of the life-saving service from the Treasury to the 

Navy Department; which were ordered to lie on the table. 

He also presented additional papers in the case of Lieutenant John 

Gotshall, Tenth Infantry, praying to be reappointed to the rank of 

second lieutenant, which be held in the Army of the United States 

up to the 18th of October, 1873; which were referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

Mt·. BAILEY presented the petition of Portman Swaffer, of Calhoun, 

Tennessee, praying to be allowecl a pension; which was referred to 

the Committee on Pensions. 

Mr. EUSTIS presented a resolution of the Legislature of Louisiana, 

against any reduction in the present rate of duty on imported rice ; 

which was referred to the Committee on Finance. 

He also presented a memorial of the Legislature of Louisiana, in 

favor of such legislation as will enable the Barataria Ship-Canal 

Company of that State to construct a ship-canal from the Mississippi 

River, opposite New Orleans, to Fort Livingston, on the Gulf of Mexico; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

Mr. DAVIS, of Illinois. Mr. President, the United States com- menced the building of a breakwater at the lake entrance to the Sturgeon Bay Ship-CanaL The canal is likely soon to be completed; but 

this breakwater haij not been finished, and the Board of Trade of the 

City of Chicago prays the Congress of the United States to grant an appropriation at the present session to complete the work already 

commenced. I present their petition for this purpose, and move its 

reference to the Committee on Commerce. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. DAVIS, of Illinois. I also present a memorial of members of 

the Board of Trade of Chicago, owners of vessels, commanders of ves- sels, and seafaring men generally of that city, which is numerously 

signed, protesting against the transfer of the life-saving service from 

the Treasury Department to the Navy Department, anc1 giving their reasons for the request. I move that it lie upon the table. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. BOOTH presented a resolution of the Legislature of California. 

in favor of the passage of a law donating to that State the proceeds 

of the sales of public lands hereafter to be made iu that State for the 

purposes of irrigation and the protection of agricultural lauds from 

the effects of mining debris j which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands. 

Mr. GORDON. I present a memorial from the municipalities of 

Norfolk, Charleston, Port Royal, Jacksonville, Saint Augustine, Pensacola, and other ports along the southern coast, respectfully representing to tbe United States Congress the importance of a general 

law upon the subject of the quarantine of foreign vessels. With this 

memorial I shall introduce a bill for reference to the Committee on Commerce. I move that the memorial be printed and referred to the 

Committee on Commerce, as the matter is of very great importance 

to the whole sea-coast. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. BECK presented the petition of James Metcalf, of Campbell 

County, Kentucky, and the petition of Mrs. Mary L. Hawthorn, of 

Campbell County, Kentucky, praying compensation for property 

taken by the United States during the late war, and that the papers 

in relation to their claims on file in the Quartermaster-General's Office 

be called for and made a part of their petitions; which were referred 

to the Committee on Claims. 

He also presented the petition of Frederick Reinhart, of Covington, 

Kentucky; the petition of William Rambler, of Covington, Kentucky; 

the petition of John H. Perkins, of Covington, Kentucky; the petitij)n of Joseph Havlin, of Covington, Kentucky; and the petition of 

Jbhn Davies, of Covington, Kentucky, each praying compensation for 

property taken by the United States during the late war, and that 

the papers on file in the office of the Third Auditor of the Treasury in relation to their claims be called for and made a part of their peti- tions; which were referred to the Committee on Claims. 

Mr. COCKRELL presented papers pertaining to the application of 

Francis Valle, junior, J. Baptiste Valle, and Francis Valle! senior, for 

the passage of a law confirming to them the titles to certain lands in the 
1626 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. MARCH 11, 

State of Missonri; which were referred to the Committee on Private 

Land Claims. 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 

Mr. HARRIS, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, to 

whom was referred the bill (S. No. 318) to incorporate the Citizens' 

Mutual Fire-Insurance Company of Washington, District of Col urn bia, 

reported adversely thereon, and the bill was postponed indefinitely. 

Mr. CONKLING. I am instructed by the Committee on the Judiciary to report favorably without amendment the bill (H. R. No. 912) 

to make persons chirged with crimes and offenses competent witnesses 

in the United States and territorial courts. In making this report I 

wish to say that I shall ask at an early moment, if I can find one con- venient to the Senate, that this bill be taken up for action. 

Mr. INGALLS, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was re- ferred the bill (S. No. 561) granting a pension to William H. Nims, 

submitted an adverse report thereon; which was ordered to be printed, 

and the bill was postponed indefinitely. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom wa.s referred the petition of Mary Wilkes, widow of the late Admiral Charles Wilkes, 

United States Navy, praying to bo allowed a pension, reported a bill 

(S. No. 869) granting a pension to Mrs. Mary Wilkes; which was read 

twice by its title. 

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

(S. No. 535) granting an increase of pension to Theodore Gardner, re- ported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon, which was ordered to be printed. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Rebecca Miller and Augusta Miller, asking for a pension on account of the services of their father, Brigadier-General James Miller, in the war of 1812, reported a bill (S. No. 870) granting a pension 

to Rebecca and Augusta Miller, daughters of Brigadier-General James 

Miller, war of 1812; which was read twice by its title. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of William Emerson, late a private in Company A, First Regiment Massachusetts Volunteers, praying to be allowed a pension, 

submitted a report thereon, accompanied by a bill (S. No. 871) granting a pension to William Emerson. 

The bill was read twice by its title, and the report was ordered to 

be printed. 

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

(H. R. No. 3104) granting a pension to Kate Louise Roy, widow of J. 

P. Roy, late lieutenant-colonel United States Army, reported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon; which was ordered 

to be printed. 

He also, from the same committee, reported a bill (S. No. 872) granting a pension to Mrs. Ann W. Steele; which was read twice by its title. 

Mr. ROLLINS. The Committee on the District of Columbia, to 

whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 2371) to amend an act entitled 

"An act for the support of the government for the District of Columbia 

for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1878, and for other purposes," have 

instructed me to report it without amendment. I wish to give notice 

that it is desirable that action be taken at a very early day. I should 

like to call up the bill to-morrow, if there be no objection. Its con- sideration will take but a few moments. 

Mr. WINDOM, from the Committee on Appropriations, to whom was referred the joint resolution (S. R~ No. 17) supplemental to a joint 

resolution in relation to the international industrial exposition to be 

held in Paris in 1878, reported adversely thereon. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The joint resolution will be postponed 

indefinitely, if there be no objection. 

Mr. SAUNDERS. If the Chair will allow me, I do not wish the 

joint resolution to be indefinitely postponed. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. It will be placed on the Calendar if the 

Senator desires. 

Mr. WINDOM. Let it go to the Calendar. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The joint resolution will be placed on the Calendar with the adverse report of the committee. 

Mr. WINDOM. I am instructed by the Committee on Appropriations, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 2507) making appropriations for the support of the Military Academy for the fiscal year 

ending June 30, 1879, and for other purposes, to report it with various 

amendments. I give notice that I shall endeavor to call up this appropriation bill to-morrow, if it suits the convenience of the Senate. 

Mr. MATTHEWS, from the Committee on Railroads, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 512) in relation to the Pacific Railroads, re- ported it with an amendment, and submitted a report thereon, which was ordered to be printed. He submitted a motion to print 500 extra 

copies of the report; which was referred to the Committee on Printing. 

Mr. MERRIMON, from the Committee on the District of Colombia, 

to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 1716) authorizing the com- missioners of the District of Columbia to prosecute cases and take 

appeals without giving bond, reported adversely thereon, and the 

bill was postponed indefinitely. 

Mr. DORSEY, from the Committee on the District of Colombia, to 

whom was referred the petition of citizens of Georgetown, District 

of Columbia, praying on behalf of Joseph Whitmore, late a member 

of the Metropolitan police force of the District of Columbia, that be 

may be reappointed on said force, reported adversely thereon, and 

the committee were discharged from the further consideration of tbe 

petition. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Joseph Whitmore and Cllarles E. Cameron, late members of 

the Metropolitan police force of the District of Colombia, praying for a reconsideration of the statements made upon which they were dismissed from the said force, reported adversely thereon, an·d the com- mittee were discharged from the further consideration of the petition. 

Mr. BAILEY, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was re- ferred the bill (H. R. No. 7-12) granting a pension to Reuben J. Chowning, reported adversely thereon, and the bill was postponed indefinitely. · He also, from the same comcittee, to whom was referred the petition of Hannah Streets, widow of John W. Streets, late of Company 

B, One hundred and seventeenth United States Colored Troops, praying to be allowed a pension, submitted a. report thereon, accompanied 

by a bill (S. No. 873) granting a pension to Hannah Streets. Tho bill was read twice by its title, and the report was ordered to 

be printed. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Alfred Richardson, late of Company A, Twelfth Indiana Volunteers, praying for a pension, submitted a report thereon, accom- panied by a bill (S. No. 874)granting a pension to Alfred Richardson. 

The bill was read twice by its title, and the report was ordered to 

be printed. 

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

(H. R. No. 2584) granting a pension to MarO'aret R. Colony, widow of 

the late Major Josiah B. Colony, First l\Iaryland Infantry Volunteers, 

reported it without amendment. . Mr. MORRILL, from the Committee on Public Buildings and 

Grounds, to whom the. subject was referred, reported a bill (S. No. 

875) to provide a fire-proof building for the use of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the mechanical branches of the Treasury 

and other Departments; which was read twice by its title. 

Mr. CONKLING. I am authorized hy the Committee on Commerce 

to report a bill in aid of a Polar expedition designed by James Gordon 

Bennett, of New York. I ask that the bill be read a first and second 

time and pl'inted, and I will seek an early opportunity to invite the 

attention of the ~enate to it. 

The bill (S. No. 876) in aid of a Polar expedition designed by James 

GorG.on Bennett, was read twice by its title. 

BILLS INTRODUCED. 

Mr. KffiKWOOD asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave 

to introduce a bill (S. No. 877) providing the times and places of 

holding the circuit court of the United States in tbe district of Iowa, 

and the appointment of an additional judge in said district; which was read twice by its ·title, and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary. 

Mr. DORSEY asked, and by unanimous consent obtainedt leave to 

introduce a bill (S. No. 878) to disapprove and annul an act of the Le~islativeAssembly of the Territory of New Mexico, passed on the 

18tn of January, 1878, by a two-thirds vote of both Houses over the 

veto of the governor of said Territory; which was read twice by its 

title, and referred t.o the CommittAe on Territories. 

Mr. DORSEY. I present a certified copy of the act which this bill 

proposes to repeal, together with the veto message and the opinion 

of the attorney-general of the Territory. I move that these papers 

be referred to the Committee on Territories and printed. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. DAWES (by request) a.sked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 879) for the relief of Luther 

Hall; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Patents. 

Mr. WINDOM asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to 

introduce a bill (S. No. 880) for the relief of :E'rederick Driscoll; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Claims. 

He also asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 881) to authorize the restoration of E. F. Winckebach to the rank of captain; which was read twice by its title, and 

referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

Mr. HARRIS asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave t() 

introduce a bill (S. No. 882) to authorize the proper accounting officer 

of the Treasury to audit and pay the claim of the State of Tennes ee for keeping United States military prisoners; which was read twice 

by its title, and, with the accompanying letter from the Second Auditor of the Treasury, referred to the Committee on Claims. 

Mr. EATON (by request) asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 883) granting a pension to 

Emma N. Haines; which was read twice by its title and, with the 

accompa,nying papers, referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

He also (by request) asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, 

leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 884) for the relief of William H. Varney; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. 

Mr. MITCHELL asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave 

to introduce a bHl (S. No. 885) to amend the act approved September 

Z7, 1850, creating the office of surveyor-general of Oregon, proviuing for the survey and making donations to settlers of the public lands 

in Oregon ; and also the act amendatory thereof approved February 

14, A. D. 1853; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the 

Committee on Public Lands. 
1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1627 

He also asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 886) authorizing the construction of a bridge across the Willamette River, at Portland, Oregon; which was read twice by 

its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce. H~ also asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 887) making an appropriation for the improvement 

o£ the Coquille River, in the State of Oregon; which was read twice 

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

He also asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to intro- ·duce a bill (S. No. 888) making appropriations for the survey and 

buoying of Coos Bay Harbor, in the State of Oregon, and the bar at 

the entrance thereof; which was read twice by its title, and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce. 

Mr. McMILLAN asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave 

to introduce a bill (S. No. 889) granting a pension to John Etzell; 

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

Mr. WALLACE aaked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave 

to introduce a bill (S. No. 890) for the relief of John Gotshall; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Military 

Affairs. 

Mr. CONOVER asked, and by unanimous consent ob!4ined, leave 

to introduce a bill (S. No. 891) to amend section 3963 of the Revised 

Statutes, relating to the postal service; which was read twice by its 

title, and referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads. 

He also asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 892) to amend section 3955 of the Revised Statutes, 

relating to tbe postal service; which was read twice by its title, and 

referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads. 

Mr. COCKRELL asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave 

to introduce a bill (S. No. 893) to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to examine the evidence of payments made by the State of Missouri since April17, 18661 to the officers and privates of the militia 

forces of said State for military services actually performed in the 

suppression of the rebellion in full concert and co-operation with the 

authorities of the United States and subject to their orders, and to 

make report thereof to Congress; which was read twice by its title, 

and referred to the Committee on Claims. 

Mr. COCKRELL. 1 am requested by a reputable attorney of the 

city of W a.shington, Ex-Governor Lowe, to introduce two bills for the 

relief of constituents of mine for whom he is attorney. I know nothing about the merits of the bills. 

By unanimous consent, leave was granted to introduce a bill (S. No. 

894) to confirm certain land claims in the State of Missouri; which was rea-d twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Private 

Land Claims. 

By unanimous consent, leave was granted to introduce a bill (S. No. 

895) to confirm certain land claims in the State of Missouri in favor 

of Jacques Clamorgan and Peter Provenchese; which was read twice 

by its title, and referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims. 

Mr. BOOTH (by request) asked, and byunanimous consent obtained, 

leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 896) for the relief of Gilbert Jessup; 

which was read twice by its title, and, with the accompanying papers, 

referred to the Committee on Patents. 

He also asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 897) to establish a court of patents, and for other 

purposes; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Patents. 

Mr. GORDON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to 

introduce a bill (S. No. 898) to prevent the introduction of contagious or infectious diseases into the United States; which was read twice 

by its title. 

Mr. GORDON. I should be glad, if the morning hour permitted, to 

make some remarks in advance upon the importance of this question. 

However, I will reserve what I have to say until the bill is reported 

from the Committee on Commerce, to which I move that it be re- ferred. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. IDLL asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, lea.ve to introduce a bill (S. No. 899) to aid the Great Southern Railway Company (consolidated) to construct a line of railway in the States of 

Georgia and Florida; which was read twice by its title. 

Mr. HILL. I wish to say that I know nothing about the bill and 

do not commit myself to its merits one way or another. I was re- quested to introduce it. I move its reference to the Committee on Railroads. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. CONKLING (by request) asked, and by unanimous consent ob- tained~ leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 900) for the relief of Egbert 

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

Committee on Naval Affairs. 

REGENT OF SlfiTHSO~i'IAN INSTITUTIO~. 

Mr. HAMLIN asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to 

introduce a joint resolution (8. R. No. 21) filling an existing vacancy 

in the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. 

Mr. HAMLIN. I ask the consideration by the Senate of the joint resolution at this time. 

Byunanimousconsent, the joint resolution was read three times, and 

passed. It provides that the existing va-cancy in the Board of Rogents of the Smithsonian Institution of the class other than members 

of Congress, shall be filled by the appointment of William T. Sherman, 

in place of George Bancroft, resigned. 

CLASSIFICATION OF MAIL MATTER. 

Mr. FERRY. I offer the following order: 

Ordered, That the arguments before the Committee on Post-offices and Post-roads on the bill (8. No. 539) providing for the classifica-tion of mail matter and rates of 

postage thereon, be printed for the use of the committee. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The order will be referred to the Committee on Printing. 

Mr. FERRY. An extra number is not asked to be printed. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The usual number t 

Mr. FERRY. The usual number. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. To this the Chair hears no objection, and 

the order is agreed to. 

THE FISHERIES COIDIISSION. 

Mr. BLAINE. I desire to call up the resolution of inquiry which 

I offered some days since, and I wish to make a few remarks upon it. 

I may possibly exceed by two or three minutes the morning hour, if 

the Senator who is entitled to the floor at tha.t time will indulge mE}. 

["Agreed."] 

The Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution, submitted by Mr. BLAINE on the 26th of February: 

Resolved, That the President of the United States be respectfully requested to 

communicate to the Senate at the earliest practicable <lay, if not in his judgment incompatible with the public interest, copies of all correspondence between our Government and tho government of Her Britannic Majesty in regard to the selection of M. Maurice Delfosse, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary from Belgium, as the thlrd commissioner under the twenty-thlrd article of the 

treaty of Washlngton on the question of the fisheries. 

Mr. BLAINE. This resolution of inquiry, which I offered a fortni~ht 

since, having been obje_cted to and laid over, I will briefly explain my reasons for desiring its adoption. For some time past there have been rumors of an unpleasant character touching the mode in which M. 

Delfos8e, the Belgian minister accredited to this country, was urged 

by the British government as the third commissioner under the treaty 

of Washington on the question of the fisheries. These rumors come in a form that enforces attention, and w bile I do not pretend to vouch 

for their entire accuracy, I think they are sufficiently grave to call 

for authentication or denial. , It appears by these reports that during the conference of the Joint 

High Commission in April, 1871, Lord Ripon, speaking for the English 

government, eaid in relation to the several proposed arbitrations that were under discussion, that it would not be a proper thing for England to offer Belgium or Portugal as arbitrators; and he especially 

spoke of Belgium as being incapacitated for the function by reason of her peculiar relations with England. This declaration was promptly 

and emphatically assented to by the American commissioners. With 

the understanding thus volunteered by Lord Ripon, the Halifax com- mission of three arbitrators on the fisheries was agreed to; our Government to name one, the British government to name one, and the 

two governments conjointly to name the third. And it was stipulated that if the two governments could not agree on the third com- missioner within three months, that then the Austrian embassador 

at London should name him. As soon as the fishery clause of the treaty 

went into effect in July, 1873, Mr. Fish urged the British minister, Sir 

Edward Thornton, to confAr with him as to the third commissioner, 

but he found him without instructions from his government, and 

after delaying for some days Mr. Fish took the initiative and submitted quite a number of names for Sir Edward's consideration. 

Among these, scattered over a large field, were Mr. Mariscal, of Mexico; Offen berg, minister from Russia; Borges, from Brazil; Polo, 

from Spain; the Count de Noailles, from France; Westenberg, from 

Holland, and . others. 

Mr. Fish did not include M. Delfosse among these, as he considered 

that his name had been fairly excluded by the understanding of the 

Joint High Commission. 

Sir Edward Thornton made no response for several weeks and then 

answered Mr. Fish, declining to accept any of the names submitted 

by him and proposed in turn the single na.me of M. Delfosse. It was understood, I believe, that Sir Edward was acting under the direct 

instructions of Lord Granville, British secretary of foreign affairs. 

Mr. Fish promptly and peremptorily declined to accept M. Delfosse 

and quoted Lord Ripon's remark in regard to Belgium, and he again 

urged Sir Edward to accept one of the names proposed by him or else 

to propose some names himself. In answer to this Sir Ed ward stated 

that Lord Dufferin, the Governor-general of the Dominion of Canada, 

speaking for the Canadians, objected to any one accredited to our Government being taken as the third commissioner. And immediately after this declaration Sir Edward appeared at the State Department with fresh instructions from Lord Granville to insist on M. 

Delfosse, though at that very moment ::M. Delfosse was accredited to our Government. The only alternative presented by Sir Ed ward was 

that his government would accept some " Dutch gentleman" that 

might be chosen a.t the Hague by the American and British ministers. 

The three montlli; within which the two governments wore to act con- jointly having been thus exhausted, apparently by the design of the 

British government, the matter was by the treaty remanded to the 

Austrian embassador at London. A delay of some ye~ then ensued 
1628 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. MARcH 11, 

in consequence of the negotiations for a reciprocity treaty, and the 

correspondence was not renewed until1876. 

The result of the whole was that in February, 1877, the Austrian 

embassador at London named M. Delfosse as the thiJ.·d commis~ioner. 

It is now reported on the authority of an interview recently published 

in the New York Herald that Mr. }'ish finally assented to the appointment of M. Delfosse by the Austrian embassador. This may or may 

not be so, but it is not material to the issue; for the matter had lapsed 

absolutely into the hands of the embassador, and as he was resident 

in London, in easy communication with the British ministry, they had means of influencing the decision that were not within our power. 

And Mr. Fish may well have thoughtthata.a the appointment of Delfosse was inevitable and unavoidable it was prudent and expedient 

to submit to it gracefully and in such a way as not to incur the personal ill-will of the third commissioner. I can well see how a wisP 

Secretary, like Mr. Fish, might in the end have been thus influenced 

after having exhausted every effort as he so ably, energetically, and 

fearlessly did, to keep M. Delfosse off the commission. 

I do not intend in any remarks I am making to cast reflections on M. Delfosse, who is known as an honorable representative of his 

government. I only mean to imply and to assert that, if Lord Ripon 

is to be credited, M. Delfosse wal5 not in a position to be an impartial 

arbitrator; and that in my judgment Great Britain never should have 

proposed him and Mr. Fish was justified in resisting his appointment .so long as resistance promised to be effectual. Nor do I mean to impute any conduct that was not strictly honorable to Sir Edward 

Thornton, the highly esteemed representative of the British government at this capital, who in all he did was simply following the instructions of Lord Granville. But I do mean to say that, if I am cor- rectly informed, the correspondence for which my resolution calls will 

disclose a designed and persistent effort on the part of the British 

government to secure an advantage in the selection of the third 

commissioner on the question of the fisheries. I have never heard 

that Lord Dufferin had any agency in bringing about the appointment of M. Delfosse, and I specially mention this lest a previous re- mark might seem to reflect on an honored official, not less esteemed 

by Americans than by Canadians. At the same time it is but just to 

remark that the Dominion of Canada had no more right to interpose 

in the matter than had the States of Massachusetts and Maine ; and 

that the governors of those States had the same right to speak for 

their peeple in regard to selecting a third commissioner as had Lord 

Dnfferin to speak for the people of the Dominion. The negotiation was between two great nations, and subordinate States and provinces 

had no right to dictate, or even to suggest. unless called upon. 

It may be somewhat premature to speak of the award made by the 

Halifax commission, but as it is already discussed in the press of 

both countries, a brief reference to it here and now may not be out 

of place. The extraordinary nature of that award can only be appreciated when the surrounding facts are understood. In the original 

discussion of the fishery question by the Joint High Commission in 

1871, the American commissioners could be induced to offer only 

1,000,000 for all the fishing privileges subsequently embodied in the 

treaty. The British commissioners declined this offer, and would 

enter into no negotiation that did not include the admission of the 

products of the Canadian fisheries into the American market free of 

all duty. This concession, highly advantageous to Canada and disastrous to our country, was finally inserted in the treaty, and it was further agreed to submit to arbitration what amount of additional 

compensation shoulcl be paid Great Britain for our right to use the 

inshore fisheries of Nova Scotia for twelve years. And the Halifax 

commission took the subject into consideration, and two commissioners (both in effect selected by Great Britain) determined that we should pay her five and a half millions of dollars in gold coin, or at 

the rate of nearly half a million dollars per annum. The duties on the products of Canadian fisheries imported into this country (all 

remitted by the treaty) would be almost another half million dollars 

per annum; so that under this award we should be actually paying nearly a million of dollars per annum in gold coin for the privilege 

of inshore fishing on the coast of Nova Scotia, where the total catch 

by American fishermen, beyond what we hacl the right to take without this treaty, would not amount to much over $300,000 per annum. In other words, we are paying to Great Britain a million of dollars 

per annum for the privilege of catching less than four hundred thousand dollars' worth of fish. Such is a mere outline of the facts of the 

case, and the injustice of the award is so palpable that it is difficult 

to treat it with the respect due to all subjects involving international 

relations. 

The question as to the binding force of the award is naturally and 

necessarily one of the gravest interest, not only on account of the 

large amount involved but on account of the very peculiar circumstances under which the decision against us was reached. Whether we should pay it is a very important question in all its bearings and one that should be most carefully considered and determined. The 

award was signed only by Sir Alexander Galt, the British commissioner, and by M. Delfosse. The American commissioner, Mr. Kellogg, refused to sign it, and affirmed his uissent in writing; declaring it to be his deliberate opinion that "the advantages accruing to 

Great Britain under the treaty were greater than those conferred on the United States;" and he further declared that he deemed it his 

duty to state that ''it is questionable whether it is competent for the 

board to make an award under the treaty except with the unani- mous consent of all the arbitrators." Mr. Dwight Foster, the agent 

of our Government, stated that he had no instructions as to what he 

should do under the circumstances, but he could not keep silent, and 

give ground for the inference that our Government would consider 

the award a valid one. I mention these facts to show that objections to the validity of the award were not the result of afterthought, 

but were incorporated: as part of the proceedings before the arbitrators. 

The ground on which Mr. Kellogg questioned the competency of 

two of the arbitrators to make an award is that found in all the legal 

authorities on arbitration. The articles in the treaty of ·washington 

creating the Halifax award of arbitration gave no authority to a majority of the board to make an award, nor was the third commissioner empowered to act as umpire. Both in the tribunal at Geneva 

and in the Claims commission atWashington, it was expressly stipulated that a majority of the arbitrators should decide. In the Halifax commission no such stipulation was made, and the inference 

therefore is strong, if not irresistible, that their award should b& 

made according to the general law of arbitration. What that law 

is, upon English authority, may be briefly stated. 

Redman on "Arbitration and Awards," considered one of the highest 

authorities in England, says: 

On a reference to several arbitrators with no provision that le!a than all shall 

make au award, each must act; and all must act together; and every stage of the 

proceedings must be in the presence of all; and the award must be signed by all at the same time. 

Francis Russell, another English authority of eminence, says : 

On a reference to several arbitrators together, when there is no clause providing 

for an award made by less than all being valid, each of them must act personally 

in performance of the duties of his office as if he were sole arbitrator; for as the 

office is joint, if one refuse or omit to act~ the others can make no valid award. 

And Stewart Kyd, an earlier but not less authoritative writer, en- forces the same doctrine. After alluding to the Roman law and to 

its permission for the majority of arbitrators to decide, Mr. Kyd makes 

the following statement : 

In this respect the law of England is somewhat different; for unless it be ex. pressly provided in the submission that a less number than all the arbitrators named 

may make the award, the concurrence of all is necessary. 

If these eminent English authors are to be accepted, it is quito apparent that the Halifax award has no binding effect in In.w what- ever. As to the equity of the case, I have already given the undeniable facts that govern it. 

I am not now discussing, much less presuming to define, tho ac- tion which our Government should ultimately take in regard to the 

award. If we should follow what I believe would be the inevitable course of Great Britain under similar circumstances we should utterly 

refuse to pay a single penny, and ground our refusal both on the law 

and the equity of the case. The treaty as it stands is a mockery of 

justice, and will work the certain destruction of a great American interest. It is in fact nothing else than asking us to pay a million of 

dollars per annum to Great Britain for destroyinsr the entire fishing 

interest of America and still further crippling and weakening us as a commercial power. For the utter abrogation of the treaty I should be 

willing to pay the annual indemnity for the years we have used the inshore fisheries, during which years the Canadians have had free access to the markets of forty-five millions of people ; or I should be willing 

to pay double tbe award to be rid of the treaty. We might by this course anticipate by a period of seven years a return to that policy 

which alone can insure the prosperity or even save the life of a great 

and important· trade, indissolubly associated with our commercial 

development and absolutely essential to our Rnccess and prestige as a naval power. And paying thus even an unfair price for the.inshore 

fisheries as long as we shall have used them, we remove all possible 

ground for imputation, even by the ignorant and the hostile, upon 

the honor of our Government and the good faith and fair dealing of our people. 

When we were poor and weak as a nation, we so highly esteemed 

the value of the fisheries that we encouraged their development by 

rewards and bounties. These were abandoned some years ago, but 

still we preserved to our fishermen a preference in our own markets. 

Even that is given away by the provisions of this treaty. And now by the Halifax award, if we accept it, and continue the treaty, we pay to Great Britain one million of dollars per annum for destroying a school of commerce, which, properly nurtured, will be her great 

rival in the future. Against such a policy I enter my emphatio protest, if I stand alone. I believe that the products of American industry, on land and sea, should have the first and best cha,nce in the 

American markets. I believe the American fisherman should be pre- ferred by us to the Canadian ·fisherman. And if we cannot pay him 

a bounty to encourage and sustain him, let us at lea t not pay a bounty to Great Britain to destroy him. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. Will the Senate agree to the resolution f 

Mr. PLUMB. Before that question is ta,ken I desire to submit a letter addressed to myself which I have received from one of the 

most intelligent and reliable dea,lers in fishon tbewholecoas~, a man whose opinion on this subject is entitled to as much consideration as that of any other person. It covers pretty much tho sa.mo ground as the Senator from Maine has covered in his speech, and I ask that it 

be read. 
1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1629 .. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The paper will be read, in the absence 

of objection. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows : 

GLOUCESTER, MAss., January 24, 1878. 

Hon. P. B. PLmm, 

United States Senate : 

DEAR Sm: The Boston J onrnal yesterday had the following dispatch : 

[Special dispatch to the Boston Journal.] 

THE FISIDmY AWARD. 

WASHINGTON, January 23, 1878. 

It is understood that the President will inform Congress that the Halifax com- mission has awarded 65,000,000 under the treaty of Washington to Great Britain, 

and will recommend its payment from the Geneva award. PERLEY. 

Yon will likely be cal1ed upon to vote for or against this proposition. This 

amount, $5,500.000, was agreed upon by a majority of the commission sitting at Halifax as being due from this country to the Dominion Government for the privilege granted to our American fisherman of fishing in their waters without being 

restricted to any limit from the shore, and for the use of their unoccupied shores on which to dry our fish so taken or our nets so used. 

And this over and above the privile.,.e granted the British fishermen and pro- ducers of the free use of our shores and our market for all of their products. 

This award is absurd and ridiculous. Why Y The interest on this amount for one year (not at Kansas ra.te either) will more than pay for all the fish caught in 

these waters b:y the American fishermen for the past ten years, as yon will see by 

the evidence which will probably be placed before you. Whatever it seems to you tQ be your duty in the matter of voting this amount you will, of course, do, having the honor and good faith of the Government in view. 

That is all right! But do not for one moment su-ppose that in voting for it you. are doing anything toward developing or strengthening the American fisheries, or for any vafue to them, either past, present, or prospective. The fishing interest 

of New England will protest against its being patd to be charged either directly or indirectly to them. We believe the free use of our markets is of more value to the 

British fishing interest than the free use of their shores can ever be to us. One 

thing sure, uniler this arrangement, without this extraordinary compensation their 

fisheries have increased and prospered, while ours have been less profitable and our people more than ever before discoura_ged. 

We believe that the New England fishmg interest to-day would prefer having 

the old duty on fish brought into onr market by British vessels restored, and take 

the chanc&! of fishing where the fish are to be found, right or no right, rather than 

to see another dollar eXP.endeJ to pay for a privilege which is already more than 

paid for. We were terribly outwitted in this whole matt.ar. We were very unfor- tunate in our commissioner. No doubt about that. We made the case by the weight 

of our testimony before the court, but lost it in the ante-room by lack of comprehension of that evidence. But the award is made-that is, if a majority of the 

board are competent to decide it-and we must accept or reject it. We have the same interest mit pecuniarily as that of the same number of citizens of any other 

part of the country. No more. If you think we are in honor bound to pay it, absurd or not, let us pay it; but do not vote to pay it with any idea that yon are paying for 

value received or to foster and encourage one of the gl'eat industries of the country, 

for you are not. 1f you vote for it shut your eyes to all the blunders we have made, 

and bury it out of sight as soon as possible. 

Mr. SARGENT. I should like to ask the Senator from Maine what 

bearing upon this matter the recent conduct at Halifax, Nova Scotia, 

has. By the public press I think I have observed that persons have 

aBsaulted our fishermen, driven them off, prevented the use of unoc- cupied lands, &c. I should liko to inquire if in his judgment these 

things are true and what bearing they have on the subject. . Mr. BLAINE. I have no information other t.han that in the news- papers about the matter inquired of by the Senator from California. 

Of course it was a case in which fishermen from New England were attempting to exercise the privileges granted them by the treaty and 

there were some mob demonstrations, of which there are very different accounts it is proper to say: but the most authentic that I have 

been able to get is that considerable damage was inflicted on that fishing fleet. But I do uot pretend to speak of that by authority. 

Mr. SARGENT. In violation of the terms of the treaty f 

Mt'. BLAINE. Of course, as far as it went. How great the extent 

of it was, I do not 1.-now. 

Mr. DAWES. The matter to which the Senator from Maine alludes 

may be accounted for by the decision of the commission that no compensation could be recovered by the British government nuder 

this arbitration for the privilege of our fishermen going to the shore 

and purchasing bait and fishing-tackle and utensils and other matters. There was a very large claim set up before the commission on the part of Great Britain, that they were entitled to compensation for 

the privilege our fishermen had in trading with the Canadians in matters required for fitting out their vessels. By a unanimous opinion of 

the commission that was entirely excluded, I think, though I have 

not very accurate information, and the trouble which has since grown 

up is from an attempt on the part of the Canadians to put a stop to 

that trade, and not from an attempt to interfere with the fishing 

within the three-mile line. I agree with the Senator from Maine in 

reference to that ; and I desire to add in behalf of Massachusetts to 

the letter which has been read, at the request of the Senator from 

Kansas, that the fishermen of Massachusetts as well as of Maine, while 

they <lo not express an opinion or desiie to iniluence the action of Congress upon the propriety of paying this award, wish to have it un- derstood that from their knowledge of the matters submitted to the. 

commission no part of this money should be paid under the appre- hension that they have gained by this treaty and by this money so 

paid any advantage whatever. 

I agree with the Senator f~;om Maine that the advantage obtained 

by the British provinces far exceeds in any respect, by any test whatever, anything that our fishermen gain in the privil~y: ~f going within 

the three-mile line for fish. As the Senator from · e says, all the 

fish caught there when brought into the market, adding to the value 

of the fish in the water the expense of taking the fish and bringing 

them to the market, do not begin to compare with the amount of 

money that we are required under this award to pay; and I think 

nobody in Massachusetts has any doubt about it, that every penny we may pay under this award is paid without any equivalent or con- sideration whatever. It may be best that we shall meet this award 

promptly and pay it; but if we do it, do not let it be set down as any 

money paid for advantages gained by the fishermen of this country 

under that treaty. 

:Mr. HAMLIN. Mr. President, I interpose no objection to the passage 

of this resolution, while on the other band I think it wise and well 

that we shall have all the facts in relation to this matter.before us. It is, I suppose, certain that at the appropriate time the results of that 

commission will be communicated to us and our Government will be 

asked to pay the award made. I agree entirely with my colleague, 

with the Senator from Massachusetts, and with the gentleman whose 

letter has been read at the table by the Clerk, that we get no compensation for that award in any equivalent granted by the inshore fisheries along the coast of Nova Scotia. On the other hand, having 

given this subject a very considerable attention for some twenty years 

of my life, and having made it somewhat of a study from its early 

days to the presenttime,Ihaveno hesitation in declaring that an equivalent in the receipt of the fish caught in the provinces in onr market 

is far beyond anything which we receive in return under that treaty. 

There can be no doubt about it. And yet we are living to-day under a treaty negotiated here in this city; and while it is the law of the 

land and a contract existing between the two high contracting parties, 

the honor of this Government demands that we maintain all the obligations that are imposed upon us, and I have risen only to ask that 

there shall be no prejudgment of what shall be our duty when the 

question comes before us in relation to responding to that award. We 

must gnard that honor above technicalities. If it be true that we were overreached or that in the selection of the arbitrator an improper 

person was taken we must remember that he was finally taken by the 

assent of this Government; and when we come to the consideration 

of the subject it will be one which involves the honor of our Government and one which I need not undertake to say will demand of us that we meet promptly and fully what shall be required. 

Mr. BLAThTE. I quite agree with my colleague upon that, and I 

think our merit will be all the greater if we step forward and pay an award of five and a half millions when we have proved to the world 

that we did not get a.nything for it. Paying one's debt for full value 

received is considered a proper and upright course for upright men; 

but paying a large sum for which we get nothing ought to be ac- counted to us for a considerable deal more of righteousness. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

ORDER OF BUSL."ffiSS. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. There comes over as unfinished business 

of the Senate from the session of Thursday the bill (S. No. 346) referring the claim of Benjamin Holladay to the Court of Claims . Mr. MORRILL. I ask the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. CAMERON] 

to givo way long enough for me to call up the bill in relation to a commission on the alcoholic liquor traffic. I had given notice that I 

would call this bill up on Wednesday last; but on that day, for the 

first time in twenty-odd years, I was unable to be present and render 

service in the Senate or Honse, and therefore this bill was not called 

np. It is a bill that has received the unanimous support of the Committee on Finance, and it will not cause the consumption of time 

beyond five or ten minutes. I desire to get rid of the papers on the 

subject, and I ask to have it taken up at the present time. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. The Senator from Vermont who 

bas charge of this important matter is of opinion that it will not lead 

to any extended debate. With that understanding I give way forth& 

purpose of allowing the matter to be brought np; but I want to re- serve to myself the right of calling for the unfinished business if it 

appears necessary, notwithstanding the hope of tho Senator from 

Vermont. 

Th"' VICE-PRESIDENT. The Chair understands that the Senator 

from Wisconsin reserves the right to call for the unfinished business 

at any time. 

Mr. SPENCER. I believe to-day was set for a special order. The 

Senator from Rhode Island, [Mr. BURNSIDE,] from the Committee on Military Affairs, gave notice that he would call up a particular bill 

to-day. 

Mr. MORRILL. This will take but a few minutes. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. A. special order would not displace 

the unfinished business. 

The VICE-PRESIDEN'r. There was no special order made for 

to-day. . Mr. BURNSIDE. I desire to have an order made for the consideration of the bill to which I referred, on Thursday next at one o'clock. 

It is the bill (S. No. 178) to remove all restrictions now existing in 

regard to enlistments of the colored citizen in any arm of the United 

States Army. I understood an order was made for its consideration 

to-day, but if such is not the fact I desire to have it entered for 

Thursday at oue o'clock. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. Is there objection to the suggestion of 

the Senator from Rhode Island that on Thursday next the bill i;Q 

which be refers shall be the special order f 
1630 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. MARon 11, 

Mr. MORRILL. I think be had better give notice that he will call 

it up at that time, rather than make it a special order. 

Mr. BURNSIDE. I think it weuld be better to make it a special 

order, for I think like the bill of the Senator from Vermont it will 

not cause much discussion. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. Is there objection to the proposed order! 

Mr. SPENCER. I desire to ask the chairman of the Committee on .Claims to give way to the Hammond bill as soon as the bill of the 

-Senator from Vermont is finished. The bill was neuly finished the -other day. 

Mr. BURNSIDE. Do I understand that the order is made which I 

ask fori 

The· VICE-PRESIDENT. The Chair hears no objection, and that 

.order will be entered. 

Mr. MITCHELL. What order 7 . The VICE-PRESIDENT. The order in relation to the consideration of the bill as to colored troops. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I have no objection. 

Mr. SPENCER. I give notice that I shall call up the Hammond 

bill immediately after the bill for the relief of Benjamin Holladay is 

finished. 

MESSAGE FROl\I THE HOUSE. 

A message from the House of Representatives, by 1\Ir. GEORGE M. 

ADAMs, its Clerk, announced that the House bad passed the following 

bills; in which it requested the concurrence of tho Senate: 

A bill (H. R. No. 3102) authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury 

to employ temporary clerks, and making an appropriation for the 

samo; also making appropriations for detecting trespass on public 

lands and for bringing into market public lands in certain States, 

.and for other purposes; and 

A bill (H. R. No. 2132) to pay for clerical services and extraordinary expenses under the seventh section of the act of August 18, 1856, 

in the Pawnee land district in Kansas. 

The message also announced that the House had concurred in the 

amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 1474) further to sus- pend the operations of section 5574 of the Revised Statutes of the 

United States, title 72, in relation to the guano islands. 

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED. 

The message further announced that the Speaker of the House bad 

signed the following enrolled bills; and they were thereupon signed 

by the Vice-President: 

A bill (H. R. No.1947) granting a. pension to Dwight A. Barrett, late 

private Company E, Forty-sixth Regiment :Massachusetts Volunteer 

Infantry; and 

A bill (H. R. No. 1474) further to suspend the operations of section 

5574 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, title 72, in relation 

to the guano islands. 

LIQUOR TRAFFIC COMMISSION. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The bill referred to by the Senator from 

Vermont will be reported at length. 

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to the consid- ~ration of the bill (S. No. 453) to provide for a commission on the subject of the alcoholic liquor traffic. 

The Committee on Finance reported an amendment in the nature 

of a substitute, to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: 

That there shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and con- sent of the Senate, a commission of five persons, who shall be selected solely with 

reference to personal fitne s and capacity !or an honest, impartial, and thorou~h 

inYestip;ation. and who shall hold otfioe until their duties shall he accomplished, but not to exceed two years. It shall be their duty to investi~ate the alcoholic 

liquor traffic, primarily in its relations to reYenue and also as to tax!ltion, and its 

general economic and scientific aspects in connection with the public health and 

general welfare of the people. ~EC. 2 That the said commi sioners, not all of whom shall be adyocates of pro- hibitory le)?"islation or of total abstinence in relation to alcoholic liquors, shall eerro without salary; that the necessary expenses incidental to said investiga- tion, not exceeding $10,000, shall be paid out of any money in tho Treasury not otherwise appropriat~. upon Touchers to be approved by the Sf:..cretary of tho 

Treasury; and for this purpose the!lum.of $10,000is hereby approp11ated. It shall 

be tho further d11ty of said commissioners to report the result of their in"\""esti~ation, and the expenses attending the same, to the Prel>ident, to be transmitted by !him to Congress. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The eubstitute will be treated as the 

-original bill. 

Mr. MORRILL. Mr. President, it will be seen that the Committee 

-On Finance propose to confine themselves within the constitutional 

limit, and propose no other legislation than what we should have a 

Iight to make for the Territories and for this District, and to confine 

this investigation primarily to the relatio~ of this traffic to reve- nue and taxation. I do not tbink it is necessary to discuss the bill at .all. The number of petitions praying for its passage that have been 

presented not only this year but in past years iB immense. It is clear 

-that a very large portion of our people desire this investigation to be 

made. I do not think there will be the slightest objection to it, and 

-therefore I will not consume any time in its discussion. 

Mr. CONKLING. Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senator 

from Vermont, sympathizing with him in hitJ view a.bout this bill, 

the propriety of one suggestion. Should there not be, for the weight .of the report, for the apparent and real impartiality of tho proceeding, ono person of these tive connected in some· way with the business 

involved in tlte inquiry f My recollection is that the Senate once 

before thought that wise. I know that a number of persons ·who 

have addressed me on the subject think it wise now; and I submit to 

the Senate, and especially to the Senator from Vermont, that it will 

disarm a species of criticism and will clothe this provision with a species of confidence if it be provided that ont of the five one per- son shall be taken from among those whose business is such that 

this inquiry relates to. 

Mr. MORRILL. I will say in reply to the Senator from New York 

that if be will read the second section be will see that it is already 

provided that not all of the commissioners shall be ad voca.tes of pro- hibitory legislation. 

Mr. CONKLING. I did not fail to see that, and I remember the 

history of that provision. It was put in another bill, and the provision I speak of was put in also, and it was done upon considerable 

debate and consideration in the Senate . :Mr. MORRILL. There would be no possible objection to the snc:r- gestion of the Senator from New York, but it was supposed that the 

appointing power would see the propriety of appointing at least one of these men of the character indicated by the Senator from New 

York7 that is to say, it was expected that three of them would be in 

favor of total abstinence and two not. 

Mr. CONKLING. Then, as I think I have virtually the assent of 

the Senator, I will venture to suggest that after the word " investigation" in line 7 of section 1 there be inserted the words'' some one of whom shall be a person engaged in the said traffic" -if "traffic" is 

the word employed before, and I believe it is. 

Mr. M 0 RRILL. I suggest to the Senator, if he proposes tba t amendment, whether it would not be more properly inserted in section 2, 

where this matter of selecting men for and against prohibitory legislation occurs; that is on line 2 of section 2 . 

Mr. CONKLING. I see no objection to tl1at except that the Senator will perceive that it disorders the sentence a little moro there 

than it does here. As I propose to insert it, it will read thus: 

A commission of five persons, who shall be selec~d solely with reference to per sonal fitness and capacity for an honest, impartial, and thorongh inYesti~tion 1 some one of whom shall be a person engaged in said traffic, and who shail. bola 

office until their duties shall be accomplis1led, but not to exceed two years. 

It comes in more smoothly there than it would in the other place. 

Mr. MORRILL. I am not authorized to accept it on the part of the 

committee, bnt I will not object to the amendment. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment of 

the Senator from New York. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

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

The VICE-PRESIDENT. Shall the bill be engrossed for a third 

reading 'I 

Mr. BECK. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator from 

Vermont what special authority these five persons are to have in tho 

different States of this Union relative to this traffic? I had supposed 

that was a matter for the States themselves to determine and regulate. I do not see what Conb'Tess has to do with it. 

Mr. MORRILL. The Senator will see that by the provisions of the 

bill it should be their duty to in"\"estigate this traffic in its primary 

relations to revenue and taxation. 

Mr. BECK. So I see. We have a Committee of Ways and Means 

of the Honse of Representatives, composed of very able men, generally the ablest men that can be found in that body. We have an extremely able Committee on Finance in this body, whose duty it is 

to look into this matter with reference to revenue and taxation. And 

I cloubt whether the President can get fivo philanthropic gentlemen 

who will serve for nothing with $10,000 margin for expenditures, 

which I see is provided, who will in that regard come anything like as near reaching what is the true policy of the Go"OOrnment in regard 

to revenue and taxation as the distinguished committees of the Honse 

and Senate whose duty it is especially to look into that subject can do; and not seeing very clearly why we should be appropriating $10,000 for a roving commission of men who seem to be required to 

work purely for benevolence or some other purpose, for they are to serve without salary. How it can be expected that they will accom- plish what the committees of these Houses and the wisdom of Congress may fail to accomplish, in that regard I am opposed to the bill. 

I believe that everything outside of revenue and taxation pertains 

to the duties of t1H~ States, and I do not see either the value or legality of the bill. Therefore I shall exercise my privilege of voting 

against it for these reasons, and shall ask the yeas and nays on tho 

bill approp1iating $10,000 for tbis purpose, believing it to be unneces- sary and improper, bein~ simply-an officious meddling with things we have nothing to do witn. Many other vices might with equal propriety be inquired into, but Congress baa nothing to do with them. 

Mr. MORHILL. The bill certainly can do no harm. If these men are able to gather together and communicate any facts that will be 

of service to this or the other House, it will be a!l advantage. Certainly some of the best people of our country, and in large numbers, 

believe there will be great advanta~es a<!cruing from this investiga- tion. The number of petitions, as .1 have already indicated, that are annually presented is perhaps larger than upon any other subject, 

embracing probably millions of signatures. 1 have no t>ort of objection to the yeas and nays, but I do not desire to discuss the question. 
1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1631 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Kentucky desire 

the yeas and nays on the engrossment or on the passage of the billY 

Mr. BECK. On the final passage of the bill; and I only desire to 

say that while there are large numbers of petitions for the bill very 

numerously signed, and very respectably signed, "one of the things 

that I think the Senate onght to guard against is the Federal Government and the Congress of the United States legislating in regard 

to matters that do not concern them, but belong to the States; and 

when these people petition us to exercise authority which we have 

not got, I think we ought to disreganl them, however respectable, and 

tell them to attend to their own business, and let other people alone 

unless thev can obtain State action. 

The bill~ was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. On the passage of the bill the Senator 

from Kentucky calls for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered; and, being taken, resulted-yeas 

29, nays 19, as follows : YEAS--29. 

.Allison, 

..Anthony, 

"'Blaine, 

Burnside, 

Cameron of Wis., Christiancy, 

Conkling, 

Davis of lllinois, 

Dawes, 

Dorsey, 

Ferry, 

Hamlin, 

Ingalls, 

Jones of Nevada, Kernan, 

Kirkwood, 

McMillan, 

Matthews, 

Mitchell, 

Morrill, 

Paddock, 

Patterson, 

Plumb, 

Rollins, 

NAYS--19. 

Bailey, 

Bayard, 

Beck, 

Coke, 

Davis of W.Va., 

Eaton, 

Eustis, 

Garland, 

Gordon, 

Grover, 

Armstrong, Cockrell, Barnum, Conover, Booth, Dennis, Bruce, Edmunds, Butler, Harris, Cameron of Pa., Hi.lL 

Chaffee, Hoar, 

So the bill was passed. 

Hereford, 

Johnston. 

,r ones of Florida, I'JcCreery, 

r\IcDonn.ld, 

AllSE1 T-2rl. 

Tiowe, 

Kellogg, 

Lamar, 

McPherson, 

Morgan, 

Og-lesby, 

Randolph, 

PRESIDENTIAL APPROVALS. 

Sargent, 

Saunders, 

Spencer, 

Teller, 

Windom. 

Maxey, 

Morrimon, 

Voorhees, 

Withers. 

Ransom. 

Saulsbury, 

Sharon, 

Thurman, 

Wadleigh, 

Wallaoo, 

Whyte. 

A message from the President of the United States, by Mr. 0. L. 

PRUDEN, one of his secretaries, announced that the President had on the 9th instant approved and signed the following acts: 

An act (S. No. 17) amending the laws granting pensions to the soldiers and sailors of the war of 1812 and to their widows, and for other 

purposes; and 

An act (S. No. 541) to amend an act entitled ''An act to provide for 

the preparation and publication of a new edition of the Revised Statutes of the United States," approve-d March 2, 1877. 

The message further announced that the President had on this day 

approved and signed the act (S. No. 145) for the relief of Edwin A. 

Clifford. 

BENJAMIN HOLLADAY. 

1\fr. SPENCER. I now ask the chairman of the Committee on Claims to yield baH an hour, that we may pass the Hammond bill. 

The bill will not occasion much dobate. 

l\fr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. I must insist on the regular order. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The regular order is the bill (S. No. 346) 

referring the claim of Benjamin Holladay to the Court of Claims, for 

the consuleration of which the Senate remains as in Committee of the 

'Vhole. The pending question is on the amendment of the Senator 

from Michigan, [l\Ir. CHRISTIANCY,] upon which the yeas and nays 

have been ordered. The amendment will be reported. 

The CHIEF CLERK. The proposed amendment is to strike out in 

lines 12 and 1:3 of section 1 the words "the affidavits and orders now before Congress," and after the word "such," in line 13, to strike out 

"additional" and insert "competent ;" so as to read: 

The same is hereby referred to the Court of Claims for adjustment upon such 

competent testimony as either party may present. 

Mr. CAMERON, of 'Visconsin. On Thursday. last when this bill was under consideration by the Senate, I stated that the claim of Mr. 

Holladay was considered in the Committee on Claims of the Senate 

during the last Congress and that the Senator from Michigan [Mr. 

CHRISTIANCY] was at that time a member of the committee, and I 

think I stated that he assented to a bill whlch was reported by the 

committee at that time. Since then I have examined the records of 

the Committee on Claims, and I find that the bill was considered by 

tlJ3.t committee during the last session of the Forty-fourth Congress, 

and that the Senator from Michigan was not a member of the committee during that session. He was a member of the committee during the first session of the Forty-fourth Congress, and I in that way was led into the error. Mr. CHRISTIANCY. Mr. President, that relieves me from a personal explanation which I intended to make. By the very confident 

judgment of the Senator from Wisconsin, in whose memory I had 

great confidence, backed up as it seemed to be by the Senator from 

Oregon, [Mr. MITCHELL,] I was really made to assent to the fact that 

this case must have been before the committee while I was a mem- ber of it, not that I had ever heard of it, because I stated that I recollected nothing of that kind. I went on Saturday and examined the 

entire record and found that my recollection was correct and that 

the very confident statements and reiterated statement to the con- trary by the Senator from Wisconsin was entirely a mistake, an honest mistake I have no doubt. But the explanation which he has 

made renders any further explanation on my part unnecessary, and 

therefore I will not take up time. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Tho remarks of the Senator from Michigan have 

rendered a statement from me necessary. The Senator from Michigan in referring to this matter stated that after the very positive 

statement of the Senator from ·wisconsin backed up by the Senator 

from Oregon, or something to that effect, he was rather inclined to 

believe that he had been on the committee. ·I think he will :find by 

reference to the RECORD that the Senator from Oregon did not say one solitary word on the subject. 

Mr. CHRISTIANCY. If the Senator from Oregon mil allow me to 

call his attention to the facts, I will show him that he did. This is 

what occurred : 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. If the Senator will allow me a. moment, as he seems disposed to give a. great deal of weight to the report of the committee, I 

desire to state that this bill was before the Committee on Claims during the last 

session of Congress anti that the Senator from Michigan [Mr. CHRISl'IAl'\CY] was a member of that committee at that time. 

I then rose and said : 

Not the last session;-

That is, I was not a member of the committee at the last session, 

butthe last Congress. 

Then the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MITCHELL] said: 

Two years ago. 

Evidently backing up the statement that I had been a member at 

the time, two years ago, when this was considered. At least I so un- derstood it. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I simply referred to the fact that this bill was considered, as I understood, two years ago ; but I did not say a solitary word on the subject of whether the Senator from Michigan was present or not. 

Mr. CHRISTIA.NCY. In that the Senator turns out to be mistaken. ·. Mr. MITCHELL. I may have been mistaken in that ; but all I 

desire to say now and all I did say was that I made no reference what- ever to the allusion of the Senator from Wisconsin that the Senator 

from Michigan had passed upon the question. 

Mr. PLUMB. Mr. President, I objected to the passage of this bill 

when it was under consideration some days since, because, as I 

thought, it committed the Government to the payment of a large 

amount of claims which I conceived were of a similar character, and 

because this did not in fact differ in principle from a vast amount of 

claims which have been filed in the various Departments of this Government for the last twenty-five years growing out of Indian depredations. Some member of the committee, in response to the question 

of the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. MATTHEWS,] said that the committee 

had determined affirmatively that the Government was liable upon 

the principles of natural justice for the payment of something to Mr. 

Holladay upon the case as presented to the committee. Upon reading this report, I can only arrive at the conclusion that that was one of the questions decided by supposing that the committee had con- sidered the precedents which they quote as having established upon 

the part of the Government that mbility heretofore. I have exam- ined the cases to which the comrdttee refer with the exception of 

one, which I do not find, that of Livingston, Kinkead & Co., and I 

perceive that one of them does support, if a single case may be called a support, the idea that the Government is respensible to persons 

who have lost or suffered damages by reason of depredations of the 

kind herein stated. But I further find that since the time when the 

Government compensated any person for such damages, it has distinctly refused to recop;nize itself as being bound. On the 6th of 

April, 1860, the House Committee on Indian Affairs had before it the 

claim of Jacob Hall, a mail contractor, for damages precisely similar 

to this claim by Mr. Holladay. The statement of the case is con- tained in the report of the committee, which was afterward adopted 

by the House, and is as follows: 

Mr. Hall was a. contractor for carryiDg the mail between Independence, in Missouri, and Santa F6, in New Mexico, a distance of about eight hundred and fifty miles, five hundred of which is through Indian country. The contract with the 

Post-Office Department was entered into April24, 1858: and by it he undertook to 

carry the mail in six-mule coaches once a week, from July 1, 1858, to June 30, 1BG2, for $39,999 per annum, payable quarterly. 

It will be observed that the time covers a portion of the period covered by Mr.Hollarlay's contract. The contract contained the usual stipulations of promptness and fidelity on the part of the contractor, &c. 

In Sept-ember, 1859, in Kansas Territory, near Pawnee Fork the employ6d of the 

memorialist, tben engcl ged in the transportation of the mail under the contract, were attacked by Indians, two of the men killed and a third wounded, seven mules 

and one horc1e carried away, and one mule so mnch injured that it was killeu as an act of mercy, and oiher property conneeted with the train of various kinds destroyed or utterly lost to tue owner. The-facts of tbe destruction and loss of the property aforel'aid and its approxi- mate value may be regarded as established, although resting upon affid.r.vits taken oo: parte. . Three witnesses-one of whom waa present and wounded, and the other two had 

know ledge of the property and that it was in nse that at time and place-te.~tify to 
1632 OONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. MARCH 11, 

the loss and to the value in their judgment, estimating it in detail and making a total of 2,608. 

From this testimony the committee would feel justified and enabled to make up an award in favor of the memorialist, thou~h for, perhaps, a somewhat reduced 

amount, if they could regard the Government as liable to indemnify him, which, 

however, they do not, but are of the opinion that he has no claim, legal or equitable, for indemnity directly from the public Treasmy. They are not aware of any obli· 

gation on the part of the Government to insure citizens against loss from injuries perpetrated on their persons or property by Indians, any more than against loss for 

1njuries to either by the wrongful acts of other citizens; and if it were otherwise, 

it would be questionable w heiher, in this case, compensation had not been made in 

advance for the hazard out of which the injury ~ustained by the memorialist has 

arisen. 

The Government invites proposals for a certain service entire and complete, ac- companied by a. statement of the price for which it shall be done; the Government 

to furnish nothin~ and stipuln;ting nothing, except to pay as it shall contract to do as the service shall be performed. In such case it is the opinion of the committee that it is to be presumed that the 

party proposing, in determining upon the amount of compensation he will claim, 

will take into account the dangers as well as the difficulties and the requirementa which the service will involve. It would most certainly be so in transactions be- tween individuals, and the committee cannot regard it as likely to be different in 

those between the Government and its citizens. How far the amount of comJlensation in this case sustains this view, it is hardly necessary to inquire. Certain it is 

that in the contract with Mr. Hall there is no covenant on the part of the Govern- ment to protect him in the service, or to indemnify him for any losses he may sus- tain in its performance. 

That, so far as I have been able to observe, is the last authoritative 

declaration or declaration of any kind by the legislative branch of 

the Government on this question ; and if we are to be governed by 

precedent, the latest precedent, it seems to me, is the one that should 

apply. Whatever the Government may have done heretofore by way 

of gratuity or otherwise, however, is not binding. But here the com- mittee, supported by the action of the Honse of Representatives afterward, sa.y that the Government is not bound ·in such a case; that 

it is not dissimilar from the other classes of claims growing out of 

depredations by Indians, and t,hat the Government is not bound to 

pay the party any portion of the damages he may have sustained; 

that the fact of his being a mail contractor made no difference whatever; and I take it that is the true rule. 

Now, in the case before us Mr.Holladaymade a contract in 1860. He was to receive and did receive from t.he Government a thousand dollars a dayforcarryingthatmail, $365,000 a year. Undoubtedly, in putting in his bid for that service and accepting the contract which was awarded him by the Government, be took into consideration the fact 

that Indian depredations then existed, as Indian depredations have 

always existed on that line. There has not been a period of twelve 

months since there was communication between the Atlantic and Pacific that Indian depredations have not been committed on that route. 

Mr. Holladay suffered no more than hundreds and thousands of other 

citizens have suffered who have attempted to carry on their legitimate 

business by transporting passengers, by transporting mails, bv transporting goods, and by going themselves across that hazardous coun- try, and they have not yet been awarded a hearing even before com- mittees of this Congress or of any other Congress and have not received a single dollar of pay. And yet Congress bas not been without official 

information upon this subject. ln 1875, on the 9th day of January 

of that year, the Secretary of the Interior, in response to a resolution 

of the House of Representatives, transmitted to that bodv a list of 

the claims which had been filed for Indian depredations in his office, 

calling attention especially to them, stating what had·been done with 

them, very many of which it seems by this 1·eport bad been before 

that time transmitted to Congress, some of them back as far as 1866. 

Congress, therefore, bas had before it for the last twelve years offic,ial 

information as to depredations COJilllitted by Indians upon its citizens, bas been advised of their claims at its hands for damages, and 

yet never bas_ acted upon one of them. 

Now, Mr. President, if we shall pass this bill we shall put ourselves 

simply in. the attitu9,e of yielding to the importunity of one man out 

of the thousands who have suffered damages of this kind, and we shall 

deny, so to speak, the claims of thousands of others who have not 

made personal application to Congress for relief. Something of the history of that service and of the dangers attending it, I have been personally cognizant of. That entire line form any years before 1\Ir. Holladay 

took his contract had been visited by hostile Indians, the ranches had 

been burned, and all property upon the line for hundreds of miles bad 

been destroyed. During the time these losses occurred to Mr. Holladay, others incurred more losses, five to one, than he could possibly 

have sustained. From the Little Blue in Kansas, by way of Fort 

Kearney to Julesburgh, and from Julesburgh to Den>er, and from 

Denver to Salt Lake, by both routes, by way of Fort Laramie and by 

way of Fort Halleck, there has not been a single mile of the road 

which has not been the witness of murder and the destruction of a large amount of property. But in view of all this destruction, in 

view of the fact that it has been published to the world and thoroughly known that such destruction has occurred, it bas never been 

attempted to get relief from Congress, nor has Congress considered 

the idea of appropriating one single dollar for the payment of damages. 

I object, therefore, Mr. President, to the passage of this bill unless 

there shall be incorporated into it a distinct and substantive provision that all claims of a similar character shall go before the same court for determination in the same way. Mr. Holladay himself presents in no aspect of this case a single claim for equitable or legal 

consideration that is not presented by every one of the thousands of 

persons of whom I have spoken who have suffered damages of a similar character. More than that: this claim embraces a class of property which does not necessarily come within the terms of his contract. 

He has charged the Government in the affidavits which were placed 

before the Committee on Claims, and which form the basis of this 

claim, for damages on account of the destrUction of his houses. The 

houses that Mr. Holladay built upon that line of road, every houset 

and every stable, and every corral were just as much his property fur 

other purposes as for the purposes connected with the mail-route. 

The hooses there were just as valuable for other purposes as the house 

of the ranchman was. In addition to the houses having been nsedt as the most of them were, for purposes connected with carrying the 

mails, they were used for other purposes connected with the overland 

traveL '!'hey were partially hotels for passengers who traveled in 

the stages; they were partly stores for t be sale of goods to the ranch- men and to the persons who were engaged in the overland trade generally. A large proportion of this property was in no sense used by 

Mr. Holladay for the purposes incident to or connected with the car- rying of the mails. 

lli. :MITCHELL. Will the ::;enator allow me one moment f 

Mr. PLUMB. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I ask the Senator whether, if this bill should 

pass and the case go to the Court of Claims, the court coulu, under 

the provisions of the bil1, pay Mr. Holladay for the destruction of 

any stations, unless they were mail stations and nsed for that purpose! 

Mr. PLUMB. I bav<." not the bill before me, but the provisions of 

it are very sweeping. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The terms of the bill certainly do not, and could 

not by any possible const.ruction, include any other kind of a house or station or building that Mr. Holladay might have had on the plains 

for any other purpose. ' 

Mr. PLUMB. The bill is unfortunately (lrawn, if that alone was the idea. 

That the claim-

! quote now from the bill : 

That the claim of Eenjamin Holladay, now before Cor gress, for spoliations by hostile Indiana, on his property, while carljing the United SLates mails, during the existence of Indian hostilities on the line of said mail-route. 

It does not by its terms exclude property which he might lut>e used 

for other purposes. Whether it was so intended or not, of course I 

do not know; but certainly the language itself does not operate to 

qxclude from the consideration of the Court of Claims property other 

than that which he might have used for the purposes of his contract 

with the Government. 

Some stress is laid by the committee upon the order of Colonel 

Chivington, or rather upon the letter of Colonel Cbivington, addressed to Mr. Holladay, of the date of December 2, 1864, in which 

he says: 

I am directed to furnish your line complete protection against hostile Indians, which I can only do bv its removal from the Platte to the Cut-off route. As it now runs, I am compelled to protect two lines instead of one. You will therefore remove your stock to the Cut-off route, which will enable me to use troops retained 

for an active campaign against these disturbers of public safety. 

It is assumed from that letter that Mr. Holladay was obliged to move upon the route named by Colonel Chivin~on. The terms of 

the letter do not seem to warrant such a. conclusiOn. Colonel Chi vington only said to him in so bstance, "If you want the protection of 

the Government, in view of the position of the ~orces here you must move your line." 1\Ir. Holladay was in no wise obliged to move. It was in no sense a constraint upon him to do so, and any damage ho 

may have incurred by it, it having been an act which be did Yoluntarily and for his own purposes, he ought certainly not to be paid 

for. The Government assumed to protect all travel upon that line. 

The commanding officer of that department issued an order requiring all trains departing from Fort Kearney to organize after military 

fashion. He forbade any trains moving with less than a hundred 

wagons, and required every man of a train, in whatever capacity he 

might be, to submit himself to military orders under the command 

of a captain to be chosen under the direction of the post commander, 

and that array was directed to be kept up until after the line of the 

Indian country had been passed. 

If this letter of Colonel Chivington to Mr. Holladay promising him 

protection if he would move his route bas bound the Government to 

pay for that property, then ooght not the Government, (ln account 

of the control which it assumed over the property of every private 

citizen who traversed that route during those year , to be bound to 

pay them also~ :Mr. Holladay nndou btedly was promised protection 

by the Government. It is a part of tho history of that time that 

about the period when his route was esta.blished he got into some trouble at Atchison on account of his property being seized by legal 

process. He came here to the Postmaster-General with a letter from a prominent politician in my State, countersigned by the President 

of the United States, asking the Postmaster-General to give him as- sistance in getting that property out from under judicial process. If 

this order or letter of Colonel Chivington on the occasion of the Government urging him to go on with carrying the mail and promising 

him protection warrants the Government in paying these damages at 

this time, then by the same token, on account of the interest which 

the Postmaster-General and the President of the United States took 
1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1633· 

in that legal process, by which his property was tied up in 1861, the 

Government became bound to respond to him in any damages that he 

might have incurred by reason of his property having been so taken, or by reason of the failure of the Government of the United States, 

represented by the Post~aster-General and the President, to take it 

out from legal custody. 

Instead of being in the line of precedent established by this Government, the action here propose.d is directly in opposition to precedent. If the Committee on Claims will say that they intend by the 

bill to recommend, in substance, that all Indian depredations shall be 

compensated for, that all the damages that men under the promise 

of protection on the part of the Government have incurred by reason of their going ont on the border are to be paid, then there would be some logic and some justice in the proposed passage of the bill; but as it is there is none. We are simply yielding to the importunity of a man whobas opportunities for this purpose pressing iton Congress, 

and discriminating by that act against the men·, poor and needy, on the border who have not the time, have not the opportunity, and 

have not the means to come here and beseech Congress to do the same thing on their behalf, although they are in the sam~:} tix. 

If this obligation for protection has any foundation whatever, it means that every citizen wherever be goes under the flag carries with 

him a right to protection w bich the Government is bound to respond 

to either by having at every single spot at every moment of time all 

the troops that may be necessary for that protection or by paying 

him in damages all that coo result to him by reason of the failure to 

have the troops there at that time. Every man who has ~one on the 

frontier carrying wit.h him civilization has carried with hrm also the 

right to the protection of the flag to just as full an extent as Mr. Holladay or any other Government contractor could have done. 

The proposition contained in this bilJ, that the affidavits which 

have been filed with this claim shall go before the Court <If Claims as testimony, seems to be extraordinary. I think it will not be denied 

that the Government has a poor enough chance at all events any way, 

without extra-ordinary remedies being given in its litigation with its own citizens. I think as a general thing judgrr.ents for a larger amount on the same state of facts are rendered against the Government than 

would be rendered against a private individual. But in this case this 

proposition is not merely to give the Government the same chance an individual would have, but to take it at a disadvantage. It seems to me to be going a great way. 

I object to it further because of the contents of these affidavits themselves. I have read them. They set the value of houses on that route 

at $2,000, mere shanties that never were worth one quarter of it, and 

yet we propose here to send those to the Court of Claims under the 

sanction of this Congress as tetstimony to the full extent to which any 

declaration may be testimony, and provide no adequate means really 

of contradicting them. If Mr. Holladay is to go there at all be ought 

to go simply as any citizen goes, under the same burdens that any 

citizen goes. There are hundreds and thousands of cases occurring 

every day and being tried where ¥len fall short of recovering that 

which they ought by reason of the absence of some testimony which 

perhaps at an earlier period might have obtained; and yet the Government should not venture in any case and no government ever has 

undertaken to supply such lack, and there is no obligation on the part 

of the Government to Mr. Holladay which warrants his being taken 

out of the ordinary category and put in a position more favorable to 

himself and less favorable to the Government than individuals are themselves in their own controversies. 

But I say, Mr. President, beyond all, that this bill itself is wrong. 

It is wrong in its discrimination. It is a violation of the recognized 

rule which this Government has established by its non-action in re- gard to depredations of this kind. It would be wrong as a discrimination against poor men who have suffered for years under the losses 

which they have snstained~bich the Government should pay just as well as the losses that Mr. Holladay bas sustained. If, however, the 

bill is to be passed in any shape wbateYer it ought at least to give to 

the Government the chance to defeat t.he rendition of a judgment for 

damages which in no sense, to no purpose, grow out of this contract, 

for property destroyed which in no sense was necessary for the carrying of his mails; and it ought further to guard against payment for 

the destruct.ion of property which might have been avoided by the 

proper exercise of diJigence on his own part. If the stages bad been 

defended as t.bey might have been defended, a majority of them at 

all events I think would not have been destroyed. The Indians very 

rarely attack coaches on that line. They were the last things tlle:v 

cared to attack usually. They would waylay a train; they would 

stampede the stock on a train ; a hundred other things they would 

do before they would attack a coach ; and I have known a coach to 

go, with four men only as a guard, with five or six or eight men on 

the inside, right by two hundred or three hundred Indians, and they 

wonl.d not attack it at all. As a general thing wherever they did 

attack one where it was properly defended it never was taken. 

So I think the Government should be guarded, if thisc]aimis to go 

at alJ, as against payment for propert-y which in no sense was neces.- sary for the carrying out of this contract,andsecondagainstthepayment for property the destn1ction of which was in any sense due to 

Mr. Holladay's own 1 ack of diligence or a lack of diligence on the part 

of tbose whom be employed to take charge of it. . Mr. CAME~ON, of ~isconsin. Mr. President, this, in my opinion, lB an exceptiOnal claun. The Senator from Kansas [Mr. PLUl'tiB] 

VII-103 

classes it with the thousands of claims now on file in the departments 

of the Government for damages arising from Indian spoliations. That rnatt~r was considered by the Committee on Claims ; and if the Senator from Kansas had taken the pains to read the report of the com~ 

mittee, I think he would not have made that statement. The Committee on Claims distinctly distinguishes between this claim and the 

class of claims to which the Senator from Kansas bas referred. The 

facts in regard to this claim, out of which it arose and upon which the 

Committee on Claims saw fit to recommend its reference to the Court 

of Claims for adjustment and settlement, I will state briefiy, because 

the report made by the committee has not yet been read. 

In 1860 Mr. Holladay entered into a contract with the Government 

to carry the great overland mail. By the terms of this contract he 

agreed to carry that mail daily from Omaha, on the Missouri River, 

t.o Salt Lake City, in the Territory of Utah. He was tho lowest bidder for this contract and consequently received the contract from the 

Government. After he entered this contract he at once went to work 

making preparations for carrying it out. The distance was very 

great. The-most of it was through an uninhabited country and the 

larger portion of it over a desert country. In order to enable him to 

carry out t.he terms of his contract he purchased and stocked his line 

with nearly two thousand horses and mules, with hundreds of coaches, 

and employed about five hundred men as drivers and other necessary 

employes. 

The Senator from Kansas stated that Indian hostilities existed upon 

the line at that time, at the time the contract was entered into. If 

there were any, they were very inconsiderable. But after the con- ~act had been entered into and after Mr. Holladay had stocked the 

lme and after he commenced the carrying of the mail the great civil war broke out. It soon grew into great proportions. The Indians 

ascertained the fact that the United States required its military forces 

in another part of the country, and very soon hostilities broke out, 

and these hostilities instead of being confined to a few Indians or to a few localities were very extensive indeed. Mr. Holladay's coaches 

that took the mails were burne(l; his stations were burned; the property that he had accumulated for the sustenance of his men was to a great extent frequently either stolen or destroyed; his drivers were killed; his other employes were killed. Mr. Holladay, with that persistence and determination which up to that time had characterized 

him a.nd which since have characterized him, endeavored by making 

every exertion to carry out the terms of his contract, but the loss of 

property was so great, the Indian hostilities were so extensive that 

he came to the conclusion that it would not be possible !or him to 

continue to perform the terms of his contract. Having reached that 

conclusion, he came toW ashington, interviewed the then PostmasterGeneral, and explained to him the difficulties under which he was laboring. He was referred by that officer to President Lincoln. He 

informed President Lincoln that it would not be possible for him to 

carry out the terms of his contract unless he received military protection. The Presid~nt urged him to continue to carry the mail. He 

explained to him the importance of continuing communication between 

the Atlantic and the Pacific States, and assured him that the Government would furnish him adequate and sufficient military protection. 

Upon that a-ssurance Mr. Holladay returned to the plains. 

.Mr. PLUMB. Allow me to ask what date was that f · 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. Eighteen hundred and sixty-two, 

perhaps, or 1863; I am not positive. It is not material about the 

date for the purpose of what I am now saying. But this appears 

from the evidence on file before the Senate and which was considered 

by the Committee on Claims and which the Senator from Kansas said 

he had read. The Government did attempt to furnish military pro~ 

taction, but it was not sufficient to protect Mr. Holladay in the performance of his contract. His horses and mules were stolen or stampeded, his coaches were burned, the provisions that he had ac- cumulated were stolen or destroyed; I do not mean all of them were, ~nt very many o~ them were. Mr. Holladay again returned to Washmgton and agam. had assurances from the President that the Government would furnish him with ample military protection. 

This is one class of claims, or one class of damages, to speak more properly, for which Mr. Holladay claims that equitably he is entitled 

to compensation. Now, to show what the Government did at one time in reference to protecting this line I will call the attention of 

the Senate to an order made by the military commander in that district. I will first read an extract from the report of the committee 

and the order in connection: 

Your committee further find from the testimony that, during t.he time said Indian 

<lepredations were being carrie<l on the Government of the United States, through 

the mili.tar;v: auth~rities, undertook to give protecti.on to said memorialist and to guard h1ss::ud ma1l route and property from further mterference on the part of said 

Indians; and, in order to give such protection, said Holladay was, by milita,ry orders 

compelled to change the line of his said mail route to parallel lines far distant fro~ the first route; that on the 2d day of December, A. D. 1864, Colonel.J. M. Chivington, then in command of that military district, issued the followin,g military order: 

liEADQUARTERS DISTRICT 0~' COLORADO, 

Dtmver, December 2, 1864.. 

SIR: I am directed to furnish your line complete protection attainst hostile Indians, which I can only do by its remov-al from the Platt-e to the Cot-off route. As 

it now runs, I am compelled to protect two lines instead of one. You will therefore remove your stock to the Cut-off route, which :will enable me to use trClops retained for an active campaif(Il against these disturbers of public safety. I am, sir, with respect, your obedient servant, 

BEXJAMIN HOLLADAY, Esq., 

Propriewr Overland Stage Line. 

.J. lf. CHIVINGTON, 

Colonel Commanding District. 
·1634 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. MARCH 11, 

Pursuant to that order, Mr. Holladay did change tbfl stage route 

and, as appeared from the evidence before the committee, the change was made from the then route to a route about thirty miles north of 

the original one, and the length of that change, I think, was some· where from seventy-five to one hundred miles. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Over one hnmlred miles f 

Mr. HEREFORD. It was one hundred and forty miles. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. One hundred and forty miles, the 

Senator from West Virginia eays, which I think is what was shown 

by the testimony. The first class of claims for which Mr. Holladay 

asks compensation, claims that be is entitled to it equitably, is the 

class of claims that aroEe from damages to his property directly by 

the spoliations of hostile Indians. Be claims that upon the ground 

that the Government distinctly agreed to furnish him with adequate 

military protection and that under that assurance and under that' assurance alone be went on with the performance of his contract. 

The second class of damages for which be claims compensation is 

the damages resulting directly and immediately from the change of 

route made ne~essary by the military order w hicb I have quoted ; and 

I Bnbmit, Mr. President, t.hat be is not only equitably but legally en- titled to compensation for the direct damages resulting from that 

order. 

A third claEs of claims, to which the Senator from Kansas bas not 

alluded at all, grew out of the fact that the provisions and supplies 

which Mr. Holladay bad accumulated at the various stations aiong 

the line of the mail route were taken and appropriated by the military forces of tho UniJed States. In 1864 the Government needed its 

troops in the Southern States. It was very difficult for the Government to spare the troops necessary to guard this route. Under that 

Rtate of affairs, as I am informed, certain irregular troops from the 

State of Kansas were hastily got together and sent out upon the 

line of the over1and mail route to protect it. These irregular t.roops were what many years ago when I was a boy in the State of New 

York were called ''flood-wood." They were armed with broomsticks 

and hoe-handles and dilapidated mis~els and demoralized army guns. 

Their costume was picturesque, if not uniform. Now, I am told, and 

this is a part of the unwritten history of the border to which the Senator from Kansas bas referred, that that Senator was one of this host. 

TJ1ese troops, although they were different in almost every respect, were entirely agreed and uniform in one particular; tha~ is every one of them bad an enormous appetite. They were brave men, they were ready to charge a camp of hostile savages at any time, at any 

moment of the day or night, but they were more than ready--

Mr. PLUMB. If the gentleman will allow himself to be interrupted, 

I do not care about this narrative, but it is the most purely imaginary 

thing any person ever gave utterance to. There was not a single 

militiaman of the Stateof Kansaseveron that linednringthoseyears 

at all. The only Kansas troops on that line were volunteer regiments 

that bad then been in the service nearly the maximum time for which 

they had enlisted, and were seasoned veterans, if I may so speak. 

The picturesque, motley crowd, of which the Senator speaks, existed 

only in imagination. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. I stated that it was a part of the 

unwritten history of tbe border, and the unwritten history is some- times not entirely a~curate. But the Senator from Kansa8 referred 

to the personal knowledge which be has of this claim and of its justice; and ho omitted to state one ground upon which Mr. Holladay 

claims compensation; one class of claims for which be claims that 

legally as well as equitably be is entitled to be paid, and that is that 

his provisions and supplies were taken aml appropriated by the military forces. I would. not for anything say a word against the Kansas 

troops. I do not want the Senator from Kansas tu understand that 

I was about doing so; but I think perhaps I can truthfully say that 

the Kansas troops bavo a taking way with them when they are in 

military service, [laughter.] '!'bey are supposed to take whatever is 

necessary to th&ir sustenance and comfort, without much regard to 

who the owner of that property at the time happens to be. Now, as illustrative of this, I wil1 take the liberty of relating au incident 

which was detailed to me by an officer of a Wisconsin rE'giment who 

accompanied General Sherman on his celebrated "March to the Se:r." 

It took place while the Army was ma.rching through Georgia. 

One day this officer, who was colonel of the Twenty-fifth Wisconsin Regiment, rode up in front of a very respectable-looking house 

which stood by the roadside. A very venerable man was on the 

gallery of the bouse, and be evidently was iu deep distress about 

something. As the colonel of the Twenty-fifth Wisconsin Regiment 

rode up be was accosted by this old gent-leman who stood on the gallery of the house, who inquired of the colo,nel if be commanded those 

troops. The colonel was compelled to admit that they were a part 

of his command. "Well," said the old gentleman, ''they have utterly 

ruined me. They have taken every particle of personal property 

that I had in the world." The colonel looked around and he noticed one man who had a turkey in his band, another who bad a. chicken, 

another who had aham,anotherwbobad avery large pieceof bacon, 

and another, more enterprising, with a live pig. "'Voll," said he, 

"the boys do seem to have helped themselves rather 1ibera1Jy, but I 

c:m't do anything about it;" and, intending to perpetrate rather a grim joke, be said to this gentleman, "I advise yon to malw o-::~t your 

bill for damages and present. it for payment to the confederate con- gress at Richmond.'' "Well," said the old gentleman, "I see that 

you will not assist me in this matter at all, but, thank God, I have 

one treasure that even the Yankee soldiers cannot deprive me of." 

Tho curiosity of the colonel was a little excited, and he said to 

him, "My friend, I do not design to be too inquisitive, but I should 

really like to know what treasure you refer to." The old gentleman 

assumed a reverent attitude, and looking up to heaven said, "a 

treasure in heaven, where moth and rust do not corrupt and where 

tbieves"-givingthecolonelawitheringlook-"cannotbreakt.hrough 

and steal." ''Well, now," said the colonel, "I wonld advise you as a friend not to be too certain abont the safety of the treasure £o which 

yon refer because the Seventh Kansas is just in my rear here, and I 

rather think when they come up they will deprive you even of that." 

[Laughter.] I inquired of the colonel whether they did or did not. 

"Well," said be," I cannot really tell; I had. to move on with my 

commaml; but if those Kansas jnyhawkers did not deprive that })ions 

Georgian of the treasure which by a long life of self-denial and right- eousness be bad laid up in a better land, it was for the reason, and 

only for the reason, that not a man among them considered such a treasure of any vahte whatever." [Laughter.] 

This is a digression which the interruption of the Senator from 

Kansas bas betrayed me into. I now will come back to a discnssiun 

of this bill. This bi1l simply provides that the claim of Mr. Holladay for these three classes of damages, first spoliations by the Indians, 

second the direct damages resulting from the change of route made 

necessary by this milit:.uy order, and third the value of the supplies 

taken by the military authorities and actually used for the benefit of 

the Army, shall be referred to the Court of Claims for adjudication 

and settlement. It provides that the affidavits heretofore taken in 

support of this claim shall be referred to the Court of Claims and 

that they shall be competent evidence-not sufficient evidence, but 

simply competent evidence. 

As I remarked on Thursday last, the friends of this bill are willing 

to accept the amendment then offered by tho Senator from Ohio [Mr. 

MATTHEWS] though the bill itself providestbatthepersonswho have 

made these affida.~ts ma,y be caused to go before the Court of Claims 

and be cross-examined. The amendment proposed. by the Senator from 

Ohio provides distinctly that tl1e court shall have power in its discretion to require that they shall be bron~ht before that court. I have 

sufficient confidence in the judges consiltnting that court to believe 

that if justice and eqoity require that those witnesses shall be brought 

before it, then it in its discretion will order them to be brought before 

it. If they are not so brought, the court in its discretion may exclude 

the affidavits altogether. 

The Senator from Kansas seems to be apprehensive that the Government will labor under great disadvantage in this caso if it shall 

be submitted to the Court of Claims for adjudication. I do not ent0rtain that fear at all. Tho Government is perfectly able to protect 

itself. It has at its command the best legal talent in the United 

States, and I think it has all the money necessary, and I have no doulJt 

that tho vigilant and competent persons who will havo charge of this 

matter on the part of the Government will see that the Government 

has full justice in the trial of the case. Mr. PLU~ffi. Mr. President, the statement of the Senator from 

Wisconsin as to part of the unwritten history of that time was nn- doubtedly made with a design of l1aving some effect, whether true or not. I may as well say here first as last that I do not feel called upon 

to defend the Kansas troops. I am well aware that it was sometimes a habit among the Wisconsin troops and some other troops in the 

Army to charge to Kansas troops delinquencies they were themselves 

,guilty of, and I recognize tho story of the Senator from 'Visconsin as being precisely of that character, because the Seventh Kansas wa.a not on the Sherman raid at all I have no doubt that that same story was repeated to every poor Georgian who was plundered by the Wisconsin people or by the Iowa people or by any other class of troops 

that found themselves under tho necessity perhaps of defending their act~:~ in some extraordinary way. 

But coming back to this question of the destruction of property ou this overlaml route, there was not during the entire war a single 

troop from Kansas on the route until I took my own regiment out 

there in the spring of 1805, and as long as this matter has been men- tioned I may say farther that while on tho route, aQd while under 

direction to see that that mail was carried a.t all hazards, I did carry 

it on nearlytbreehundred miles of therouteofMr.Holladayfor nearly 

two months, during which time bo bad not a teamster or a mule of 

his own on that part of tho line-carried it with Government mules 

and Government horses, with Government private soldiers as drivoni. 

Now,I submit that if this man is to bd paid, the Government is entitled 

at least to a reconpment for the full amount of that service so rendered. It was a part of it which I did not care to say anything 

about. More than aU tll~t, it w:as a part of the unwritten history, 

and it was a part of the hl8tory m the mouths of all men along that 

ronte, that every time a coach was taken there were at least a. dozen 

mules counted against. the Government that bad not been taken at 

all, and that wa tbetalf{ among Mr. Holladay's employes themselves. 

I say from the knowlcdgo I bave that I believo two-thirds of this 

claim is just as l>ase a fraud as was over attempted to be imposed on the American CongresR. 

1\lr. MITCHELL. Will the Senator allow me to ask a I}Uestion f 

Mr. PLUMB. Undoubtedly. -

Mr.l\1ITCHELL. How can a claim which Congress proposes to submit to the atljndicn.tion of one of the highest courts in the land be o. fra.ucl on the GoYcrnment in so bras tho adjnd~cation of the claim is 
1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1635 

concerned f If it is a fraud, then undoubtedly the court will declare 

it a. fraud and Mr. Holladay gains nothing by the reference. If any 

part of it is a fraud, undoubtedly the court will so decide. If the 

claim is right, then is it not right that Mr. Holladay should have his 

day in court f . 

llr. PLUMB. Mr. President, I simply take the bill as I find it; I 

take the methuds that are used here in advocating it; I take the un- willingness of the-persons who propose thls bill and advocate it here 

to submit the claim of Mr. Holladay to the ordinary rules of evidence. I do not say that this is all a fraud in fact. There may be a fraud in law as well us a fraud in fact; but I say take the claim clear 

through-! am judging now by the affidavits that are on file and by 

nothing that appears on the face of the bill except what I have 

stated-and the bulk of it is not a daim which, even on the assumption of the Committee on Claims on the foundation on which they put 

it, ought ever to be considered at all; and yet I venture to say that 

the Senator from Oregon or the Senator from Wisconsin will not offer, 

if be can help it, a single amendment eliminating from it any portion 

of the claim that ought not to be allowed. · Mr. MITCHELL. Allow me Y 

Mr. PLUMB. Certainly. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The Senator from Kansas assumes considerable 

when he gets up before the Senate and speaks about the action of a committee that be is not on, and about a case that be has not investigated, and undertakes to characterize it as a fraud before this Senate-a claim which the full committee bas decided is not a fraud. 

All I desire to say is that the Senator assumes considerable when he assumes that position before the Senate. As a matter of course he 

has a perfect right to assume that position or any other position; but 

all I desire to do is to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that 

it is assuming very much to say the least. 

Mr. PADDOCK. I shoulU. like to inquire of the Senator from Kan- sas if the facts in relation to the transportation of the mails by himself and his regiment, which be has narrat-ed to the Senate, are fact-s 

which were in evidence before the committee! 

Mr. PLUMB. It is singular that this committee, which the Senator 

from Oregon has lauded so, should come to me for information a.s to 

what took place before that committee. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I have not come for information. The Senator 

from Nebraska. is not on the committee, and I do not want the Senator's information beca use I have informed myself. 

Mr. PADDOCK. From the confident statement of my friend from 

Kansas I sup_posed these were matters of general not.oriety, and that 

possibly he might know they were in possession of the committee. 

Mr. PLUMB. I do not know anythln~ about the proceedings of 

the committee except what appears in this report. 

Mr. PADDOCK. I desire to state to the Senator that I am not on the Committee on Cl:t.ims. 

Mr. PLUMB. I supposed the Senator was on the committee. 

Mr. PADDOCK. Not at all. 

Mr. PLUMB. I repeat, Mr. President, what I have said, that tbe 

bulk of this claim is a fraud, ancl I say that that statementYr. MITCllELL. The Senat01Js assertion does not make it so. Mr. PLUMB. I say that unless the Senator from Oregon is more sensitive than I am he will not take that personally to himself. I 

say that that does not in the slightest degree impugn this report. I am speakiug of the facts that are back of it, but which I think ought 

to be covered by the provisions of the bill, one of which is now pending before the Senatj\ on the motion of the Senator from Michigan. 

I have spoken further about this matter f ur the reason that the 

Senator from Wisconsin, jocularly of course, but at the same time 

with the purpose of showing that in some way there was something 

that was hidden or something that had been taken from this man that accounted for my anxiety to oppose the bill, attributed to the 

troops from Kansas the taking of the supplies which Mr. Holladay 

claims be lost on that route and which went intothehandsof United 

States troops. I say that part is entirely without any foundation. 

Upon the supposition, therefore, that that statement is just a.s true as any other statement that has been made in regard to it, on that test 

oi a part of the unwritten history of that or of some other time, I 

might be warranted in saying that it is all a fiction from beginning 

to end, because that is purely so. Now, Mr. President, I come back to the question of this order. It 

will be observed that this bill is indiscriminate in allowing Holladay 

pay for all the loss which he incurred while carrying that mail. It 

does discriminate in favor of the property which he lost which he waa using for the purpose of caryjng the mail ; :t does not limit it to the 

time after the issuance of this so-called order. Consequently the 

order cuts the smallest possible figure in this case. It is nowhere 

stated in this report, nor is it stated by a single member of the com- mittee on this floor, that Mr. Holladay did not receive ample pay in 

the $365,000 per annum which he was to receive under his contract. 

It is true that the argument of this committee all the way through 

is upon the assumption that as the Government wa-s bound to have 

that mail carried it wa.CJ bound to respond in damages t-o Mr. Holladay fm· all he lost while carrying the mail. But the obligation to 

c2.rry the mail wa.s all on the part of the Government until that con- tract was let out and then it became the obligation of Mr. Holladay, and in assuring Mr. Holladay that he should have protection in-carrying the mail Mr. Lincoln and his Postmaster-General or any other 

authority of the Government only did what it did nearly every day 

during that time with reference to the men who were pushing out 

upon the border and with referencE;) to the men who were carrying 

freight across the plains. They did it in regard to all of them. There was not a. man who had a train to take from Leavenworth or Omaha 

to Salt Lake City that did not importune the military commanders 

for help and did not receive assurances that be sbonld have prot-ection. They all stooo on precisely the same footing; and by the same token if 1tlr. Holladay is to be paid, those men whose trains were plundered, whose mules and cattle were run off by the same Incians, 

ought to have their pay also, because t.hey were under the promise of 

protection of the Government. The Government did assume and did 

try to protect Mr. Holladay. It did protect him in a larger measure than it protected anybody else engaged in business on the plains 

during those years. It intended to do it.. It did it for its own purposes. It wanted the mails to go through notwithstanding it cost more by the effort to do it than would have been required if it bad 

not had it to do; but it did it, and the fact that it assumed to do it, 

the fact that it cost thousands and htmdreds of thousands of dollars 

in order to do it, instead of constituting a claim on the part of Mr. 

Holladay against the Government, ought to be the other way. The 

Government spent money, spent lives, in protecting that ront.e, just as it spent money in protecting other private property; and yet no one is to be indemnified but he, a mail contractor, having a contract 

large enough, intended to be large enough to cover all the contingencies of that service, and it is large enough to cover them. He is 

the only man who comes in here and seeks to be repaid for his losses! 

I say that even under the theory which the committee sets out the 

bill ought to be amended so that it shaH not embrace damages other 

than those resulting directly to him in carrying the mail. I deny also 

that that itself ought to be included; but if that is the purpose, as this report seems to undertake to say, then the bill ought to be so amended as that only those claims and no others shall be allowed to 

be proven before the Court of Claims. 

When I spoke of the time during which Mr. Holladay bad no mules, 

bad no employes on the line of the routo, it was only for the purpose 

of bringing out to some extent the history of that time, and showing 

exactly what the condition of things was. During that time Mr. 

Holladay received fifty or sixty thousand dollars, or a large sum of 

money at all events, for services rendered on that route when he ren- dered none whatever. 

Mr. CHRISTIANCY. Mr. President, I do not propose to go into any 

question in this case except what is involved in the amendment which 

I presented. That amendment I still think is one which ought neces- sarily to be applied to this bill. This case, like any other case, is just 

what it may be proved to be, and not what speeches here may make 

it, either for or against it. It is to be submitted to a.le~al tribunal 

for decision. It should be, therefore, submitted upon evidence; and 

if this claimant is a fair man, and is seeking for nothing but what is 

fair, why, let me ask, is he not willing to submit his claim upon the same kind of eviclence that you or I or any other citizens would have 

to submit our claims in a. court of justice; that is, upon legal evidence, and upon legal evidence a.loner 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. If it will not interrupt the Senator--

Mr. CHRISTIANCY. If the Senator will wait until I get through, 

I shall be very glad to have him do it. 

:Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. I merely wanted to reply to that 

in terroga,tory. 

Mr. CHRISTIANCY. Very well. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. The answer will be very brief, and 

it is this: Mr. Holladay presented his claim to Congress nearly ten yea~ ago; Congress took no final action upon it; the witnesses who were present at the time it is alleged these losses occurred are dead 

and scattered . :Mr. CHRISTJANCY. All of them f 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. Very many of them ; the greater 

number of them; and the reason-and I think it is an equitable rea- son-why these affidavits should go before the Court of Claims for 

what they are worth is that it will be a denial of justice to this 

claimant if he is deprived of their testimony; and, as I stated, they are dead nod scattered and cannot now be produced. · llr. CHRISTIA.NCY. Now, since the Senator bas asked me a ques- tion, will he submit to a little catechism from me f 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. With pleasure. 

Mr. CHRISTIANCY. How many of those witnesses are dead, to 

begin with f 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. I have no personal knowledge of 

this case and cannot an1:1wer that question. 

Mr. CHRISTIANCY. The Senator cannot answer the question. 

Then bow many of the witnesses are inaccessible; how many of the 

witnesses has he evidence to show are inaccessible T Will he answer 

that question ' 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. My statement was that the principal 

part are either dead or inacoessible. 

Mr. CHRISTIANCY. Is that anything more than general information f . Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. Of course it is as I state. This 

occurred :rears a.uo on the frontier. 

Mr. CHRISTIANCY. That may be the probability in the mind of 
1636 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. MAROH- 11, 

the Senator from Wisconsin, but it is not the probability in my mind, 

Bnd I will state the reasons why. His own report shows that Mr. 

Holladay himself states his case in this way: that be bad in his 

employ there over four hundred and fifty men; and now, from 1864 

down to this time, is it at all probable, taking the chances of human 

life and other vicissitudes, that those witnesses are all dead or all so scattered as to be inaccessiblet I submit that as a question of probability to the Senator. I do not believe one word of it, whatever the 

Senator may believe. Four hundred and fifty witnesses he had then. 

Now, do you tell me that there are not men enough living to prove his 

claim t Mr. President, it is not half as hard a case as happens to individuals daily. I have known a great many excellent cases fail because 

there was no evidence to prove them. It is one of the common fatalities of men who may happen to go to law. And now I must say that 

while I know nothing of whether there is fraud in fact here or not, 

it is to me one of the strongest possible badges of fraud that this 

claimant is not willing to submit his claim to the adjudication of a court upon such evidence as is admissible in all other courts, but 

wants the privilege of ~ pa1·te affidavits to help him along. Why, 

Mr. President--

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. Mr. President--

Mr. CHRISTIANCY. If the Senator will allow me now to proceed until I ~et tbrou~h, he will much oblige me. Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. Well. 

Mr. CHRISTIANCY. Mr. President, such a proposition as that 

would strike any man with astonishment if Senators and members 

of Congress had not already become familiarized with the idea that 

the Government is a ?:OOse to be picked. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Will the Senator allow me w make a suggestion t 

Mr. CHRISTIANCY. I yield now. Mr. MITCHELL. The Senator from Micbiga.n-and I am sur- prised at the remark-says that it is one of the strongest badges of 

fraud that this claimant will not allow his case to go to the Court 

of Claims like any other man. Now, let me remind the Senator from 

Michigan that the claimant in this case bas nothing to do with this 

matter. The claimant came and asked a direct appropriation from 

Congress upon a case presented by him sustained as he supposed by ex parte affidavits, the only way that be could bo beard before Congress. The Committee on Claims, by a. unanimous conclusion, decided against the claimant's application in tLat respect, and decided 

upon another plan by which his rights should be adjudicated without 

any consultation whatever with the claimant, and decided, under 

all the circumstances of the case, many of the persons who bad 

knowledge of his claim being dead, that inasmuch as the committee would not make a direct appropriation therefor, as a matter of 

simple justice and of right, the affidavits should go to the Court of 

Claims, giving at the same time to that court the power and the ri~ht to not only call the persons making the affidavits, if they were living and could be had, but the further right of calling any other 

witnesses on the subject that the Court of Claims, backed up by all 

the power of the Government, desired to call in order to get down to 

the bed-rook of this case. Now, then, I simply say to my friend from 

Michigan that it is an injustice, of course not intended by him, but 

it is an injustice in effect, a gross injustice to this claimant, to say 

that because this bill proposes to submit the case on these affidavits 

and any other testimony t.hat the Government may desire to call 

there is some badge of fraud attaching to the claimant. It is an wrong and it is unjust, I know not so intended by my friend, but the 

effect is all the same. Mr. CHRISTIANCY. Mr. President, I have failed yet to see (it 

may be owing to my stupidity) why this case should be distinguished 

from any other in respect to the evidence by which it is to be pro.ven. The Senator from Oregon says the claimant is not interested in this 

matter. How t He says he presented his claim to the Committee on Claims and ·asked for compensation, and upon those affidavits. What 

further does he say t That the committee refused that and chose to 

send the claim to the Court of Claims. Now comes up the point, when you get it to that tribunal, upon what testimony the case shall 

be submitted to the Court of Claims. The Senator seems to think it 

ought to be submitted upon those affidavits as well a-s other testimony, because these affidavits were admissible in the committee. 

But why do we receive affidavits in committee f From necessity, and 

from necessity only. We have not, like courts, the machinery and 

the power to bring witnesses before us and subject them to cross- examination and hear counsel. Of necessity we must in committee 

act upon ~parte affidavits; but no such necessity exists in a court w hicb can call witnesses before it, can issue commissions to take their 

depositions. 

Mr. CONKLING. Mr. President, it is not often my privilege to 

listen to a debate in the Senate so gratifying to me as this. Hostility 

to Mr. Holladay, if such there were, would not gratify me, because he 

is a man of great energy who has achieved large things, and I feel a sympathy for him. During my service in Congress, however, I have 

been always, and not less so of late, somewhat solicitous touching the 

prosecution and the successful prosecution of claims before the two 

Houses; and now that I see the honorable Senator from Michigan and 

the Senator from Kansas so alert and circumspect as they are lest advantage be taken of the Treasury, I take fresh heart and enjoy the 

eternal vigilance by which hereafter I hope we shall profit. And still 

I feel inclined to vote for this bill; I feel inclined to vote against the 

amendment proposed by the Senator from Michigan aud I am moved 

for a moment to state the reasons why. 

This claimant came to Congress long ago with the claim he proffers now. His claim has been buffeted about with varying fortunes 

in different years. It has passed both Houses of Congress; it has 

received the approbation of other committees iu each House. Once 

it was wrecked by a disagreement in a conference committee some- where for some reason, and once the Post-Office Committee failed to 

agree, being as I am told all in accord upon the finding that the 

claim was meritorious, that the Government owed the claimant, hut 

being unable at that time to adjust, to weigh in golden scales so as to feel safe in stating an exact amount. Having been prosecuted for a long time upon the theory of most congressional claims, it came again in the same rise; and the Committee on Claims, a very intelligent committee may say without impropriety, a committee in 

which I think the whole Senate bas confidence by ~nanimous judgment, if I am correct.ly informed ans~ered the petition with the 

pending bill. They did so because this Government had come to be one of those choosing to subject itself to suit, choosing to allow itself 

to be made defendant in a judicial court created by itself; and finding such a trilmnal the Committee on Claims said " alt.hongh we answer negatively the petition, we refer this whole matter to that 

judicial court which the United States has created, into which it 

a11ows itself to be invited as a defendant." What else did the com- mittee do f Something special to this case, we are told. Yes, some- thing special, but something I conceive not at all objectionable, provided the Senate will adopt the amendment o:ffere:l by the Senator 

from Ohio [Mr. MATIHEWS] and of which I will say a word in a moment. 

The committee said this case, somewhat eaten as it is by the tooth 

of time, somewhat covered ovu with the dust of delay interposed by 

Congress, shall be tried not exactly as a fresh case would be tried 

between the living, not exactly as some recent transaction might be 

presented upon oral testimony; but because of the delay, because of 

the distant and scattered scene of these transactions, because of other 

special circumstances which we the committee note, it shall be tried, 

deeming as admissible in evidence certain papers. That is not unus- ual Mr. President. It was only the other day that the Senator from 

Maryland [Mr. WHYTE] who this instant comes into the Chamber, 

called up a bill tne whole purpose of which was to transmit and to 

transplant into a judicial tribunal a certain paper, specifying it by name and declaring that it should be competent testimony. The general rules of evidence which have been talked about here were not 

deemed sufficient in that case, and so it is very frequent-perhaps I 

ought not to say nothing is more common, but it is far from unusualfor an order of a court or an order of a legislative body carrying down an issue for trial to contain some special direction touching the evidence on which that issue may bo tried. So here it is provided that 

these affidavits gathered and stored on the files of the two Houses, the 

affiants in which are dead and cannot be called, may be used in evidence. The honorable Senator from Ohio, very providently and aptly as it seems to me, from hearing his amendment, proposes that the 

Senate shall say that in the case of each affiant the court shall have 

power to require the man himself to be produced and cross-examined, or in default of his production to disregard entirely his affidavit. 

Mr. President, if we aRsume that the Court of Claims is honest and 

diligent, if we assume that the tribunal is as safe aa Michigan's tribunal was when the honorable Senator before me graced the bench 

in his State, certainly we run no great risk under the peculiar circumstances here in saying that the Cour~ of Claims may peremptorily 

order the production to testify ore tenus of every man who has spoken 

by deposit.ion, and if not produced may strike out the deposition advanced in his stead. Therefore, aided by the amen<lment which will 

be reached in a moment, and which I hope will be adopted by the 

Senate, because I can see that without it there is danger, it seems to me that there is nothing hazardous or improvident in this bill. On 

the other hand, in the face of what we are told by the commit.tee, I 

think we should hardly be warranted in doing two things, and they 

would both result from adopting the amendment of the Senator from 

1r1ichlgan. We should hardly be warranted in saying, first, "We refuse 

to pa-ss upon this claim ourselves; although both Houses of Congress 

and several committees have adjudicated in its favor in past years we refuse to pass upon it; and having done that we refuse to turn 

it over to the Court of Claims on any terms save those terms of requirement as to the testimony to be produced which we see in advance you 

may not be able to comply with; and that notwithstanding we our- selves in past Congresses have interposed the delay which alone ren- ders it impossible for you safely to abide by the customary rules of 

evidence." . In other words, Mr. President, I think we are bound to make some allowance for the fact that this claim came here, I am told at least a decade ago. Did it not t 

Mr. lHTCHELL and others. It did. 

Mr. CONKLING. Senators aronnd me say as long ago as that. It came here ten years ago. Now the law favors a diligent creditor. 

This man has been diligent; he has pressed his claim; and now at 

the end of ten years I think we are hardly warranted in saying we will not pass upon this claim, unless we are ready at the same time t-o 

say, yon may submit it to a judicial tribunal, and under such circum-
1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE. 1637 

si4uces as to compensate you in part at least for the delay which Congress itself bas inflicted. If it were a delay resulting otherwise, I 

think there would be more force in what has been said, but we have no right to become executors of our own wrongs. This is delay inflicted npon a diligent claimant. Pass upon his case or put him in 

stat-u quo: that is what equity says. That is what this bill will do in 

my belief, provided the amendment to which I have referred, offered 

bv the Senator from Ohio, shall be adopted. 

'Mr. DAVIS, of Illinois. Mr. President, I dislike to oppose any views 

that may be taken by the Senator from New York upon this question, 

but I really think this bill is a very loose one, and that if it shall pass 

it will result in great harm. The claim is to be referred to a judichJ 

tribunal for adjudication. The bill says it is to be referred for "adjustment." That is an improper word. It is to be referred for adjudication. If it were referred to the Court of Claims for adjustment, 

it w'luld be a mere arbitration ; but it is to be referred for adjudication. Now, is there any judicial tribunal in this country that hears cases upon ex parte affidavits f Why, sir, you cannot tell the results 

that would follow from opening such a door. 

I know nothing about this claim or the justice of it. I take it for 

granted that it is a just claim. If the Committ-ee on Claims of this 

body think it Qugbt to be decided upon those affidavits, then the com- mit~ ought to decide it ; but if they refer it to the Court of Claims, 

the court ought t.o decide it upon such competent testimony as either 

party may present. What is the use of referring a case to the Court 

of Claims upon the same sort of testimony that the Committee on Claims had f 

Mr. CONKLING. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question f 

Mr. DAVIS, of Illinois. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONKLING. Snppuse this claim were referred to the Court of 

Claims in what the Senator is pleased to call the ordinary way, and 

suppose it should turn out that during .these yeal's which have elapsed 

the witnesses have died, and the court, unable to receive the affidavits, 

passes them by, that state of fact should come reported to the Senate, and the Senator, the case showing that had the affidavits been 

received, or had the case been referred originally while it was fresh, 

there would have been no doubt of its meritsMr. DAVIS, of Illinois. Why, Mr. President--

Mr. CONKLING. My question is this, if my friend will pardon 

me-upon that very state of facts would be not :feel bound to vote 

relief here f 

Mr. DAVIS, of Illinois. Ab, that is another thing. 

Mr. CONKLING. That is the very thing, I subruit. 

Mr. DAVIS, of Illinois .• That is another thing. But in referring a case for adjudication to a court I would never vote in any instance 

whatever that that court should hear anything but competent testimony. The Court of Claims is appointed to adjudicate questions 

that may arise between individuals· and the Government. Their 

jurisdiction is limited. If we choose to give them jurisdiction of this .case well and good, if they have not had it before; but they ought 

to decide it upon competent testimony and award such losses, if any, as those for which the Government is justly Jiable. That is the only 

proper way that you can refer the case ton. judicial tribunal to decide. 

If these affidavits appear now let the Committee on Claims decide 

upon them; but if the case is to go to the court let the court decide 

upon competent testimony. 

Mr. HEREFORD. Will the Senator from Illinois allow me to ask 

him a question right there T 

.Mr. DAVIS, of Illinois. Yes, sir. 

:Mr. HEREFORD. How often does it happen that a court deter- mines upon the legal rights of a party before it, and refers the case to a master commissiOner in chancery to take testimony to say bow much 

is due that party f The courts every day first determine that there 

is some amount due the party and then refer the case to a commissioner to ascertain the amount. That is all that it is proposed to do by 

this bill. This body to-day undertakes to say, according to the report 

of the committee, that there is some amount due this part.y, and we leave it then to another tribunal to take testimony and to say how 

much is due. 

Then again, if the Senator will still allow me, as to these ex parte 

affidavits, is it not an every-day practice_ in all courts to perpetuate and to dissolve injunctions upon ex pavte affidavits f Nobody knows 

when the affidavits are taken except the party interested, and yet the 

courts every day perpetuate and dissolve injunctions upon such ex parte affidavits, Again, every day courts dissolve attachments upon ex parte affidavits. 

Mr. DAVIS, of Illinois. Sir, what has that to do with this case! 

Do court-s ever decide upon the merits of a case in that way! An 

injunction is issued upon ex parte affidavits, but when the merits of 

the case are heard is it upon ex parte affidavits T Do the courts decide 

whether property belongs to A B or C D1 or whether a debt is due 

from C D to E F on ex parte affidavits'f I never beard of such a thing in my life. There have been cases heretofore referred to the 

Court of Claims and kinds of evidenr.e specified which they should 

receive. I am opposed to such a practice utterly. I know nothing 

about the merits of this case. My views are not pronounced upon 

the case at all. The practice is vicious ; exceedingly so. When we refer anything to a judicial tribunal for a-djudication, let the tribunal 

be governed by the ordinary rules of evidence. If you choose to 

alter those rules, alter them by a general law, but do not refer an 

exceptional case to the Court of Claims for it to hear. Are there not 

plenty of cases ten years old and twenty years old in which affidavits 

have been presented to Congress! Suppose you should refer those cases to the Court of Claims alsof Would you not be obliged to act 

in the same way that you are doing in this case T Is it not easy to see to what result such a course of conduct would lead! 

It strikes me that there are several amendments which ought to be 

made to this bilL The word "adjustment" should be stricken ont 

and "adjudication" inserted, so as to read that the case shall be ''re- ferred to the Court of Claims for adjudication." Then the amendment 

of the Senator from Michigan should be adopted, that the case is to 

be decided upon "such competent testimony as either party may present;" and then I would add: 

To ascertain what amount, if any. of losses of property and expenses sustained 

by him as aforesaid for which the Government is justly chargeable, with the right el appeal by either party to the Supreme Court. 

Then you would have a proper bill for the Court of Claims, otherwise you have not got it. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. FERRY in the chair.) The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. CHRisTIANCY.] 

Mr. BAYARD. Let it be reported. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will report the amendment. 

The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed in lines 12 and 13 of section 1 to 

strike out the words "the affidavits and orders now before Congress 

and," and after the word "such," in line 13, to strike out "additional" and insert "competent;" so as to read: 

And the same is hereby referred to the Court of Claims for adjustment1 upon such 

competent testimony as either party may present. 

Mr. BAYARD. Mr. President, there is no doubt that special legislation is open always to criticism. There is no doubt in this case that we are but following the dictat~ of justice when a claimant shall 

present a prirna facie claim upon the Treasury of the Unite<l States, 

that he should be given his day and time to make that claim good. 

In the present case, I do hope that 1he same measure of justice will 

be meted out to the people of the United States on one side for the 1 

recovery of this alleged claim against them t.bat I would insist if they were in their turn the prosecutors against the party now claiming as a defendant. I mean by that plainly this: It is alleged that there is 

money due from the Treasury of the United States to Mr. Holladay. 

If it be true, it should be paid to him; and I propose that he shall 

have the same process, the same methods, the same tribunals, the same efficient judgment to get money from the people of the United States 

that they would have if in turn they prosecuted him for a debt. Is 

there anything unjust or unreasonable in tbatf If to-morrow this 

party were charged by the Government officials to have in his possession ten or twenty thousand dollars, or whatever might be the sum, 

would it not be the height of injustice to pursue that claim subject 

to other than the usual and regular methods of testimony f Ii time 

had elapsed, and if in that lapse of time the usual incidents had oc- curred of the death of witnesses or the difficnl ty of making proof, then 

it would have told against the Government; and if in the present case when it did lie within the power of this party claiming to make the same application for adjudication that he makes to-day, and if there 

should have been the inherent failures in human justice that ever will 

attend it, that is to say the lapse of time, the loss of memory, and the 

death of witnesses, you cannot make a special law to remedy such a case as that. I am willing to vote that this party shall have his day • in court, that he shall have process to take the depositions of wit- nesses where he may not enforce their attendance personally; but 

that the laws of evidence, that the practice of the court, that the system of hearing shall all be laid aside in order that special and partial 

rules shall be introduced in their stead, I think is neither wise nor just, nor can it command my assent. 

I confess my surprise that when a committee bring before the Senate a case which they are presumed to have examined, they state a claim of an unknown and unmeasured sum, for there is nothin~ to tell us whether this claim is for 500 or $500,000. If I am not nnstaken 

in my infounation, it will rather exceed the latter sum. If gentle- men know to the contrary of that, their information is different from 

mine. But that is not the question. It is not the question of amount. 

Whatever is due should be paid. The question is how shall you fairly 

ascertain it. 

It seems to me that this bill is making a precedent, and I submit to 

those of this body of more knowledge than myself in the examination of claims of this character, it is making a claim without precedent. Is it true that under the practice of the Congress of the United 

States, by virtue of any principle of law or of any class of laws, the 

carrier of a mail thr~mgh a disturbed region of country is guaranteed 

against disorder, disturbance, or damage in the execution of his con- tract, whether from Indians or other foes, whether from a belligerency that passes beyond the stage of Indian warfare or from Indian 

warfare itself T There are gentlemen within the sound of my voice 

who have served upon the Indian Committees, gentlemen who have 

served upon the Committ-ees on Post-Offices and Post-Roads. Is there one present who will rise and say that this is the doctrine of responsibility of the Treasury of the United States f Is there one f I do not 

think there is, becaUBe it cannot be put that when a man undertakes 

to carry a mail ove~ a given route he shall do it in contemplation of 
1638 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. MARCH 11 ' 

tho difficnltie·s, the dangers, the expenses, the doubts and aJl that sur- round the especial nndertakingto which he has committed himself, 

and that just in proportion to distance, to danger and annoyance, his 

prices for carrying the mail will necessarily be increased, because we all know that these are subjects of bidding and letting to the lowest 

bidder. 

Mr. )fiTCHELL. Will the Senator yield to me a momentf 

Mr. DAYARD. Certainly. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I simply rise in answer to the appeal made by 

the Senator from Delaware to any person who had served on any com- mittee as to what was the practice or precedent of the Government. 

In answer to that I desire to call the attention of the Senator from 

Delaware to two or three cases before me now. In the case of Magraw, who was a mail contractor from July, 1854, to August, 1856, on the route from Independence, Missouri, to Salt Lake, almost this 

identical route, "the Government gave him by special enactment 

$17,750 for losses in stock, stations, and supplies through Indian depredations during the two l'ears he was engaged in transporting the 

United States mails on said route." But not only so, as long ago as 1836 Saltmarsh, Avery & Co., who were mail contractors in the States 

of Georgia and Alabama, lost their property by the Creek Indians 

while they were transporting the mails. The Government again in 

that case by specia.l enactment paid them for 1heir losses, amounting 

to the sum of $9,779. The case will be found in the United States 

Statutes at Large, volume 6, page 882. 

Another case that is even much stronger as against the Government 

is the case of Livingston, Kinkead & Co., who were merchants at Salt 

Lake City. One of them not in Government employ but traveling on business of the firm as a passenger merely, in one of Magraw's 

coaches, had in his possession $10,000 in coin. The Indians attacked 

the coach and robbed the passengers, and among other things they 

robbed Mr. Kinkead of his $10,000. The Government in that case, 

by special act of Congress, paid t~is amount out of the Treasury of 

the United States to Mr. Kinkead to reimburse him. I will say tbat 

in this latter case against the Government, I do not cite it as a parallel caset because it is a stronger case ; but the other two cases to 

which I nave directed the attention of the Senator from Delaware 

and the Senate are parallel cases; and there are other cases to which 

I might refer. 

Mr. BAYARD. Mr. President, the honorable Senator has read me almost verbatim the brief and petition of Mr. Holladay himself. The 

authorities that he has cited are those set forth by Mr. Holladay over tis own signature in his statement of the case. Mr. MITCHELL. I cited the statutes of the United States. I am reading from the report made by the Senator from Wisconsin, (Mr. 

CAMEBON.] 

Mr. BAYARD. Yes ; the cases are transcribed in that report from 

Mr. Holladay's own memorial. 

Mr. MITCHELL. It is a matter of legislative history. 

Mr. BAYARD. Yes. I am merely stating the fact. I had those cases before me at the time I asked for information, which I now re- peat. I ask the Senate, and I ask those members of the Senate who are or have been in charge of Committees 011 Claims or Indian Affairs or Post-Offices and Post-Roads, whether the principle has ever befn 

accepted by the Government of the United States that they are bound 

to indemnify a mail contractor whose performance of his duties bas 

been impeded "y such causes 88 are alleged, Indian depredations, 

belligerency of any kind, either in excess or more restraintld than Indian depredations! The memorial sets forth, among many reasons why this party was unable to comply with his contract, a system of 

wide-spread larceny. Sometimes the capture of his property was attended by force and bloodshed ; sometimes by simple larceny. I 

88k, is there such a principle admitted upon which the Senate is prepared to act t I do not say that there is none, but I mean to say that I 

know of none. I believe there is none and I hear no one present 

willing to state that there is any. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. Mr. PresidentThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Delaware 

yield to the Senator from Wisconsin f 

Mr. BAYARD. Certainly. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. This claim in the epinion of the 

committee stands upon its own facts. The committee, without ac- ceding to the general principle laid down by the Senator from Delaware, were of the opinion that equitably this claimant was entitled 

to some compensation, because the Government of the United States 

agreed, 88 is stated in this military ·order, to furnish him with complete protection. Under that a&Snrance be went on in the perform- ance of his contract. The Government of the United States did not 

furnish him with complete protection, and these losses resulted in 

consequence of the Goverment not furnishing him with that protection which it had agreed to furnish. The committee were of the 

opinion that equitably he was entitled to some compensation for 

that. . Mr. HOWE. Did the Government make that contract for his pro- tection f 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. Here is the military order under 

which this claimant removed the line of the route. 

I am directed to furnish your line complete protection against hostile Indians, 

whlch I can only do by ita removal from the Platte to the Vnt·offronte. 

Mr. BAYARD. Will the Senator permit me to proceed f 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. Certainly. • Mr. BAYARD. With due respect to the Senator from Wisconsin, 

he bas wandered off from the point I was discnssin~. The bill re- cites a claim based upon three grounds . . The first IS that, being a. mail carrier under the United States Government, the Government is 

responsible to him for spoliation by Indians over that route. That 

is one proposition. The next is that the Government is responsible 

to him "for property taken and used by United States troops for the 

benefit of the United States." That I believe is a clear legal proposition. Private property taken for public use must be followed by 

proper compensation. That is a doctrine to which I a.m wilhng to 

subscribe, and that is the second ground of claim. The third ground 

is ''for losses of property and expenses incurred in changing his mailroute, in compJia.nce with the orders of the United States commandinrr officer.'' · i1r. President, has any such doctrine as that ever been accepted f 

Private property taken for public use has been compensated for over and over again, nnd always should be; but that a military officer 

shall change a mail-route of the UnHed States and that the United 

States shall become responsible for all t.he cost of that change, the 

damages that may follow it, I submit is a. very dangerous proposition, and one for which I know no precedent. 

Still I am perfectly willing that this pa1·ty should take his case into 

the Court of Claims, that he should be paid eyerything forwhioh the 

U:Qited States are legally and justly liable, and that he should have 

h1s full opportunity of proving his claim by testimony competent in 

law; and it surely is no hardship or injustice that the same grade of 

testimony and the same force of proof should be required to take 

money out of the Treasury as is required to pnt money into it. I 

cannot see why it is unjust or inequitable to a citizen of the United 

States to ask of him the same measure for the recovery of his property that has passed into the public Treasury as would be asked of the 

public in case the public moneys had passed into his private.hands. 

'fbat is what I mean. I do propose to deal fairly and justly by this claimant; but I can see plainly that in a bill framed as this is, there is an admission of 

liability which will be multiplied infinitely, and which I cannot con- sider is just to the Treasury and to the people of the United States. 

Let it be known what we are to pay. That is the first thing. There 

should have been· a sum reported. There should have been a bill of 

particulars rendered of this claim. Not only its amount, but t.he particulars under which it was claimed should have been made known. I 

for one will be found voting to give this claimant t.he fullest, tho 

fairest, the amplest opportunity to make his claim good against the 

public Treasury for all the losses for which, in law, that Treasury is 

fairly responsible. 'Vhat more should be asked f 

I concur in the criticism of the honorable Senator from lllinois [Mr. 

DAVIS] that the word "aclju.Stment" is not t.he word for a court. 

Courts do not adjust; they adjudicate; which means that they deciue 

according to law; and that is what the party claiming ought to ask, so much, no more and no less. I think there also should be provided 

by this bill a right to him or the United States either to appeal from 

the decision of the Court of Claims in ca-se it is unsatisfactory. 

The pending quesUon is on the amendment of the Senator from 

Michigan, whether this case shall be tried bycomp~tent testimony or by affidavits ex parte. Mr. President, there will always be hardship 

from lapse of time, but that hardship is not confined to one party i~ 

this case. It may be equally hard to prove the true value on one side 

aR on the other. My experience of claims against the Government is 

about this, that yon have an indifferent public and yon have an ex- ceedingly active claimant. 

.Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. President, any testimony that is made com- petent by law is competent testimony. Therefore, if this bill passes 

that which otherwise might not be competent will benome so, and 

t.hus we get rid of the difficulty suggested by the Senator from Dela.-

warA of trying this case on incompetent evidence. 

In discussing a question of this kind, reference must be had to the 

circumstances of the case. I admit the general troth and value of 

the proposition that a. party against whom testimony is sought to be 

used ought to have the opportunity for cross-examination. The Senate is asked whether it is w.illing to put the United States as defendant in this proposed snit in a worse position than a natural person, a private individual, would be. The fact seems to be overlooked in 

putting that interrogatory, that the claimant in this case has not had as against the United States the rights which he baa against a natural 

person. If any natural perso11 had inflicted upon Mr. Holladay the injuries and damages of which he complains, he could bav(' brought his 

snit in any court of competent jurisdiction within the territory where 

the defendant might be found and ser:ved with process, as a. matter of 

absolute and unconditional right; so that if by the lapse of time and 

ca-sualties arising in that lapse he should find himself at the time of 

trial deprived by death or other disability of the evidence which 

originally he might have produced, he could have fotmd no fault with 

anybody bot himself, for he bad a right to choose the time of bring- ing his suit and the forum, except ashe was lirllited by the necessity 

of serving the defendant with process. But it is not so against the 

United States. He had no right of action a~ainst the United States; 

he could not sue the Government of the Umted States in any forum. 

All he could do was to make his claim to the Congress of the United 

States, to appeal to the sense of justice of the Government as repre-
1878. CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD-SENATE. 1639 

sented in that body, and to make such proof before it and its organized committees as would be satisfactory that he had a just foundation for his claim. 

We propose now in this bill, after the lapse of many years of waiting on his part, to give him that privilege, and then are we to insist 

that notwithstanding that and without any allowance whatever for 

the change of circumstances, be must be held to the observance of 

those strict and technical proceedings and those strict and technical 

rules of evidence which would apply in other cases altogether unlike 

this, in which he might have sued a natural person at his option 

when his testimony was intact 7 

The circumstances of this claim are such that it is in the highest 

degree probable that it is out of the power of the claimant to produce 

for cross-examinat.ion all even of the material and important ·wit- nesses to his claim. He was engaged in the transportation of the 

mails between Omaha and Salt Lake during a time of the disbanding 

l)f the public peace. The force which be bad organized for that serv- ice was a temporary one, has been long since disbanded. The individuals composing it are scattered here and there, no one can tell 

whera, and it would be a great marvel among all the accidents which 

determine human fortunes and human action that he should be able 

aft-er this lapse of time to secure even in number a majority of the 

most important and material witnesses to his loss. 

Now it is not proposed that the evidence which he has heretofore 

secured from these witnesses shall be conclusive. He is not to be 

relieved from the necessity of procuring the attendance of any wit- nesses whose presence the court to which this controversy is to be 

submitted shall deem material and important; and they may require 

him to produce in person the bodies of witn~sses that are known not 

to be procurable, witnt>.sses abroad, witnesses inaccessible, and I think 

probably that is right, although it may work a hardship, because it 

may be that on the inspection of an affidavit, by the reading of its 

very face, the court may think that it is unreliable in its statements 

and that it ought not to come in for anything without the opportunity to the Government of cross-examining the witness. 

But Senators seem to argue about this question of evidence as if an affidavit, the ex part-e statement of a witness under oath, was absolutely worthless, as if by itself it was at once marked with suspicion 

of perjury, as if it ought to be r~jected us a matter of course. Why, 

Mr. President, that is pot in accordance with the common experience 

of mankind. Affidavits, although they may not disclose the whole 

truth, although their statements may be greatly modified upon cross- examination, yet are worth something; and an experienced judge can well determine how much weight ought to be attributed to each 

affidavit accorcling to the terms in which it is expressed, or a-s it may 

be modified by statements in other affidavits. It certainly, it seems to me, was quite pertinent to the argument in the case to suggest 

what the ordinary practice of judicial tribunals is; and that is that 

many issues of very great consequence, of very great importance to 

parties litigant, are determined~ and determined finally too, upon affidavits. The question of allowing an injunction or the question of 

dissolving an injlhlction sometimes determines the merits of a cause and either prevents or makes a decree, and yet there is nothing more common in practice t-han either to grant or to dissolve an injunction 

upon expa1·te affidavits. -So with regard to every provisional remedy, 

with regard to the issue of orders of arrest whereby the body of a defendant is taken into custody upon an allegation of fraud, the issuing of orders of attachment and their dissolution, and various questions of that kind in reference to which courts are daily in the habit 

of dealing, and they deal upon affidavits. 

So it seems to me, wit.h the amendment proposed to the second sec- t-ion, by which discretionary aut-hority is given to the court on the submission of this cause, that the United States are as fully protected as the nature of the case admits or requires, and the Government is en- abled in this way to do justice to a complaining citizen. 

Mr. President, in my judgment it is one of the reproaches to the 

jurisprudence of this country that any citizen of the United States is 

required to come to this body and to the other branch of the National 

Legislature for permission to sue the United States. There are other 

governments in other countries that have not made such pretentious 

claims as we have to enlarge the liberty of the private citizen, who 

have gone far beyond us in the generous latitude which they have 

given to the judicial decision of claims in favor of private citizens 

against public authorit-y. In some governments that approach in 

form the despotic, regular courts of jngtice, tribunals organized for 

that purpose, are free and open at all times to every citizen that 

believes himself to be aggrieved by the action of the govP.rnment. 

Here we open the door only as we see fit :md only to the extent we see fit and with such conditions as we see fit to impose, and in imposing conditions it seems to me we ought to have considerate regard to 

the circumstances of the ca.E~e as we have sought to create them, as 

we have in fact created them, counting in that delay which bas prevented the claimant from making more manifest in the usual way 

the whole justice of his case, and not make that delay itself the 

ground for denying him the substance of justice when we concede to 

him its form. 

Mr. 1NGALLS. Mr. President, I feel constrained to vote for the 

amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan, because I underst-and that it is substantially approved. by the committee. In the 

report that lies upon cmr table they adopt as their own a report that 

was made by the same committee to the Senate during the Fortyfourth Congress, on the 17th day of January, ll:m', which concludes 

in the following language : 

Your committee therefore, on both principle and precedent, feel constrained, 

under the peculiar and exceptional circumstances presented by this case, t{) recog- nize the existence of an obligation on the part of the Government to inuemuify the 

memorialist for whatever loss he sustained through no fault of his own, by reason of Indian depredations, while engaged in transporting said United States mails over said overland route between the Missouri River and Salt Lake, between the 

-day of September, A. D.l 61, and November 13, A. D. 1866. 

And I ask the special attention of the Senator from WisconsiL, who 

I believe has this bill in charge, to the language that follows, and ask 

him in the light of that language whether this bill is sincere or not: 

But your committee aro not willing that the value and amount of property taken or the loss suffered by the memorialist should be determined on e:z; parte affidavits 

alone ; but belie>'ing that it is a case wherein the J·ights of the Government can only be properly protect{ld by an exercise of the priTilege of cross-exau.ination 

and by a. thorou~b investigation in a. court of·competRnt jurisdiction. wherein tho 

Government shall be represented by counsel, and wherein not only the right of 

cross-examining the c1:nmant's witnesses, bnt also to call witnesses of its own, shall exist, your committee decline to grant the prayer of memorialist, and refuse to recommend a direct a-ppropriation ; but, for the reasons herein stared, would re- fer the claim.s of memonalist to the Court of Claims for adjustment; and for such 

purpose report back the accompanying bill and recommend its passage, with, how- ever, the distinct statement that nothing herein stated shall be regarded aa a rule or precedent fixinl! the liability of the Government to mail contractors in any case wherein the peculiar circumstances of this case as herein presenWd are absent. 

Now what I wish the Senator from Wisconsin or the Committee on Claims to meet is this proposition: whether, when they said that they 

desired that this claim should be thoroughly investigated uy a court 

of competent jurisdiction, they were sincere or not. If that was their 

desire, I ask them bow they can reconcile that statement with the 

provisions of this bill that refer this case to the Court of Claims in 

the first place upon the assumption that the claims have been estab- lished by competent evidence and in the second place that the amount 

of loss that the memorialist has sustained shall he ascertained purely 

upon ex pm·te affidavits now in possession of the committee; and 

further I wish them to explain why it is, if they regard this testimony as sufficient to establish this claim before the Court of Claims, 

that they do not decide it themselves; for certainly there can be no question that the jurisdiction and authority of tho Committee on Claims in this body need no enlargement to allow them to iak:e full 

cognizance of this matter and decide it according to any evidence 

they see fit. ... I believe that this bill is simply-wit.hout using the word in any 

offensive sense-an eva-6ion; that the committee are unwilling to take 

tho responsibility that they desire the Court of Claims to assume; 

that from some reason or other they decline to take the responsibility 

of ascertaining the amount of Mr. Holladay's damages and desire some other tribunal to decide the question. 

I have known Mr. Holladay for more than twenty years. His history is indissolubly a.ssociated with the history of that part of the 

country where I now live. His enterprise, his energy, hi_s great 

capacity is as familiar a-s a household word to every citizen of the 

West; and I have no doubt myself that he sustained very large losses 

for which he is justly entitled to compensation. But if his case is to 

be decided by the Court of Claims, I insist that it shall be decided by 

the rules of evidence. If it is to be decided by the Committee on Claims in this body, I will very cheerfully vote for any amount they 

may see fit to report. The testimony is before them. They O}lght to 

report the facts to the Senate, with the amount they believe he is 

entitled to receive, and allow the Senate to act upon it, and not, when 

they have said that they desire this claim to be thoroughly investigated by a court of competent jurisdiction, to come in here and break 

the word of promise to our hope by saying that that court shall a4-

jndge it precisely upon the evidence that is already before the com- mittee. Mr. President, that is insincere; it is disingenuous ; it is a course that the committee ought not to compel the Senate to vote 

upon. 

The bill is a very fair illustration of a flagrant injustice of which 

this Government from its very foundation has been habitually guilty 

toward a very. worthy class of citizens. Recognizing the existence 

of contracts, admitting its liability to various of its citizens, it has 

habitually refused to recognize the existence of any tribunal where 

those claims can be properly adjudicated. It denies it to the Court 

of Claims; and when they are submitted to the committees of this 

body and of the other they are on various pretenses deferred and pro. 

crastinated until they become old, and are then defeated because they are antiquated. Only the other evening I heard from the Senator 

from Indiana who usually sits at my right [Mr. VooRHEES] a statement that is a very strong illustration of this injustice. A gentleman 

named Vigo, about a hundred years ago, when the expedition of 

George Rogers Clarke reached the Mississippi River without forage or subsistence or supplies, in order to save that expedition from destruction, furnished his own personal bills to the amount of about $9,000 

to provide them with subsistence. By reason of the supplies thus 

obtained the army was saiVed and a very large proportion of our west- ern territory wa-s secured to the Government of the United States. 

Mr. Vigo made application to Congress and to the courts iu a hundred different ways for relief. A county was named in his honor in 

Indiana. He died; his children died ; his grandchildren died ; and 

still the importunities for justice continued; aD(l at last about three 

years ago, by reason of the efforts of the Senator from Indiana, some 

---
1640 OONGRESSION.A.L RECORD-SENATE. MARCH 11, 

of the collateral descendants of one of the sisters of Vigo obtained an order referring the claim to the Court of Claims, waiving the question of limitation, and they tbere obtained the tardy justice of the sum of $50,000 for that act performed nearly a century before. 

Mr. President, can that be called anything bot a crime f Is a Government that habitually performs such acts or refuses justice in this 

wa.y to its citizens entitled to consideration or respect Y And, sir, in 

this case now before us Mr. Holladay bas been asking for justice from 

Congress for the last ten years. He undoubtedly suffered great loss; 

be is entitled to compensation; the Committee on Claims have bad 

the case onder consideration; and why do they not report upon the 

!acts and allow the Senate to vote upon them f Wby do they ask us to perform this travesty upon the name -of justice by asking that the 

claim may be referred to the Court of Claims and then saying that 

that court shall decide this case upon precisely the same testimony 

that is now before them. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Is that the proposition f 

Mr. INGALLS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Precisely the same testimony f 

Mr. INGALLS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The only evidence we have before us is certain ex parte affidavits. This bill provides in specific terms that any other 

testimony the court desires to call shall be called and shall be heard; so that it is not safe to say that the proposition is to refer this case on precisely the same evidence we have here. · Mr. INGALLS. Mr. President, no one knows better than the Senator from Oregon that no other testimony is attainable. . Mr. MITCHELL. I do not know any such thing so far as I am con- cerned. The Senator may know it. 

Mr. INGALLS. Then why did not the committee get it f When . they have the amplest power, when they are not limited or trammeled by questions of jurisdiction, when by simply appealing to the 

Senate they could obtain the power to send for persons and papers, w by did they refuse to do it and ask that the case may be referred 

to the Court of Claims f - Mr. MITCHELL. Does the Senator from Kansas know of a single case in the whole history of this Government where the Committee on Claims bas sent for persons and papers in order to investigate a private claim f 

Mr. INGALLS. I do not know whether that precedent exists or not. If it does not exist, it ought to exist. If the Committee on Claims propose to attend to this business, they ought to attend to it; 

and if they do not, tb~y ought to abandon it. It is homiliatirg that 

after a matter bas been pending before a committee of this body for 

tcn .years they should come in here at this late day and report that 

all they can do is to refer the matter to the Court of Claims for adjudication, and at tho same time affix limitations as to the manner in which it shall be investiO'ated. 

I am opposed to this bill, Mr. President, for several reasons, the 

first of which I have already indicated. I am not opposed to the 

investigation of Mr. Holladay's claim. I am not opposed to paying 

him what be bas suffered in the way of loss by depredations while 

he was contractor. I think he ought to be paid. But when I am called upon to decide what action shall be taken by the Senate in 

regard to the Court of Claims, other questions come in, and the vices 

of this bill are almost as numerous as its paragraphs; its virtues, so far as I understand them, are none. In the first place it assumes as true and proved and undisputed 

the fact that this loss did occur as set forth by the memorialist in his 

claim. In tlie seconJ place it assumes to refer this matter to the 

Court of Claims, and says that they shall in considering it take into 

account such affidavits and other testimony as are now before the 

committee; but it attempts to qualify that by saying that the Government may call in such other testimony at it may see fit, when 

every one knows that all the evidence of this class of claims arising 

upon the frontier in unestablisbed and nnorganized communities in 

times of great hazard and peril, when the whole population is fugitive and transient and evanescent, is of that chara-cter and descnp- .tioo that it is so fugitive and transitory that it never can be recalled. .I do not say that this character of evidPnce is not valid, that it is 

not truthful and correct; bot I do say that when these occurrences took place among a lot of ranchmen and soldiers and militia and 

flying sufferers from Indian depredations and stage-drivers and muledrivers and passengers on coaches that were perhaps interfered with 

by difierent raids, and when the affidavits of those men with great 

labor had been gathered up and brought together, the allegation 

that at this expiration of time those witnesses can be found and 

brought in and cross-examined, is certainly absurd in the extreme. 

I do not mean to criticise the action of the committee in any offensive or unjost.ifiable way, bot it is certainly absolutely impossible to 

collect the witnesses who gave those affidavits ten years ago under 

the conditions that they were sworn to. If this bill can be so 

amended--

Mr. THURMAN. Will the Senator allow me to ask him aq estion1 

Mr. INGALJ.. .. S. Certainly. 

Mr. THURMAN. I wish to inquire-for I have been engaged in 

the Judiciary Committee room during the whole debate on this bill, 

and have heard none of it-whether t.he claim has ever been passed 

upon l)y the Committee on Claims of this body. 

Mr. INGALLS. The Senator from Oregon can answer. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I answerthe Senator from Ohio that it has been 

passed upon twice and received the unanimous approval of the com- mittee both times, once a year ago and again at the present session 

of Congress. The Committee on Claims considered it when all the 

members were present, and after a thorough investigation it received 

the unanimous support of the committee, as also did the report 

accompanying the bill. 

Mr. COCKRELL. 'Vhen was that unanimous report of the com- mittee 7 

Mr. MITCHELL. When f 

Mr. COCKRELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. lliTCIIELL. I have not the report here, but when the bill was reported, whenever that was. , Mr. COCKRELL. I do not think the records of the committee will 

show a nnanimous report of all the members of the committee. 

Mr. THURMAN. What I want to know is when did Mr. Holladay 

sustain this uamage f 

Mr. MITCHELL. Between the years1861 and le65. 

Mr. THURMAN. When was the claim first presented to Congress t 

Mr. MITCHELL. I do not know, bot about ten or twelve years ago. 

Mr. THURMAN. Was there any report on it then f 

:Mr. MITCHELL. It passed both Houses in different shapes at that 

time and fell in a conference committee, I believe. 

Mr. THURMAN. Has there ever been an adverse report about it f 

Mr. MITCHELL. There never bas been from any committee, nor has either House decided adversely. 

Mr. INGALLS. That is all the more reason why this committee 

ought to make some report in this matter. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The committee has made a report. 

Mr. INGALLS. What f 

Mr. MITCHELL. Has the Senator from Kansas not read the report 

in this case 7 

Mr. INGALLS. I have that in my hand. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Then why does he say the committee should 

make a report when they have made a report! 

Mr. INGALLS. I understood the Senator from Oregon to say that 

the Committee on Claims bad unanimously reported a bill in favor 

of Mr. Holladay. If I so understood him, I want t.o know what they 

have reported. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Well, Mr. President, I do not know that I un- derstand the Sena.tor from Kansas exactly. I perhaps might with 

the same propriety state that the opposition he is making to a claim 

which he himself has stated is just--

Mr. INGALLS. I am not opposing the claim. 

Mr. MITCHELL. And in reference to which be has said that Mr. 

Holladay unquestionably suffered la.rge damages that the Government ought to pay-I perhaps might with the same propriety say to 

him that the opposition he is evidently making to the claim is evasiv-e 

and in bad faith and untrue, or be has taken the liberty to say that 

the action of the committee bas been evasive and all that kind of 

thing; but I would not say that; I do not desire to say that in ref- erence to the Senator from Kansas-- * 

Mr. INGALLS. I am ve.ry much obliged to you. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Bot the Senator from Kansas wanted to know 

of me, as one member of the committee, w.by the Senate Committee on Claims bas not made a report in this case. I answered by stating 

that my understanding was they had made a rather voluminous re- port in the case. He still persists, What have they reported; w bat 

bill have they reported f \Veil, I presume they have reported the 

bill that has been onder discussion in the Senate for the last two 

days, which is a bill sending Mr. Holladay and his claim to the Court 

of Claims, and the reasons why the committee reported that kind of a bill they have set forth at length in the report which the Senator 

from Kansas now holds in his band. I do not know precisely what 

the information is that tho Senator wants, bot if he will specify the 

particulars, attract my attention to the precise points upon which 

he wants an explanation from the committee, then I, as one member 

of the committee, will answer, so far as I may be able to do. 

There is no mystery about this thiug ; there is no evasion; there is no deception, so far as I know. It has been a plain, open transaction 

from beginning to end. The case Mr. Holladay presented years and 

years ago to Congress. It comes up again ; it has never been finally 

acted upon; and now the committee have said to the Senate, just as the Senator from Kansas said to the Senate a few moments ago, that, 

unquestionably, beyond all doubt, Mr. Holladay bas a just claim 

against the Government for some amount-a claim, as stated by the 

Senator fr~m Kansas a few moments ago, that is just and that the 

Government ought to pay. The committee have decided that. It is 

immaterial whether it was a unanimous report or not. It is a report 

of the committee, and there is no adverse report. But they have said, 

in addition to that, that, this being a large claim, we will not pass 

upon the amount of the claim, but we will leave that matter to the 

Court of Claims to determine. 

Now, if the committee have evaded anything, if they have acted 

in bad faith with this claim, or if there is any mystery about this 

thing, I should like to know it. And I am ready to answer, so far as one member of the committee is concerned, any question that the 

Senator from Kansas will submit upon which he desires information. 

Mr. INGALLS. I wish to know the amount that the committee 

found Mr. Holladay entitled_ to. 
1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-·SEN ... t\.TE. 1641 

Mr. MITCHELL. Have I not stated over and over again that the 

committee did not pasa upon that question, and they felt that they were not at liberty to pass upon that question upon ex pm·te testimony f 

They thought that upon that question the Government should have 

the right to be heard, that the Attorney-General should have a standing in court with the right to call witnesses, with the right not only 

to call witnesses of its own, but the right to call these very men that 

made the affidavits in this case, if they are alive and can be had, and 

put them under cross-examination in order that the very truth may 

be arrived at by the Court of Claims. 

Mr. INGALLS. Mr. President, I am not going to ask any more explanations from the committee, for I am quite confident I shall not 

get them. The Senator from Ohio [.Mr. THURMAN] desired to ascer- tain whether the committee had made any report on this case. He 

undoubtedly desired to know, as I desire to know, whether the com- mittee had reported the liability of the Government to Mr. Holladay 

under his contract. The Senator from Oregon declines to answer that question, but states, what will be a novel proposition to any 

lawyer, that the committee were entirely willing to fix the question 

of liability upon ex parte testimony, but they were not willing to fix 

the amount of the claim upon ex parte testimony. That certainly is a very extraordinary legal proposition to be presented to any body 

which is composed largely of lawyers. 

Mr. MITCHELL. As the Senator is a lawyer I desire to a.sk him 

if he does not know as a lawyer that it is the most common thing in 

the world for a court to determine the liability of a party and then 

refer to a commissioner the case in order to determine the amount of 

the liability f 

Mr. INGALLS. That is not the proposition. The Senator from 

Oregon with a great deal of airy and fantastic levity escape.s from 

asssertion to assertion and calls it proof or demonstration. There is a great deal of difference between assertion and proof. I did not say 

that jt was usual or not usual for courts to fix liability and then decide the question of damages upon ex pa1·te evidence. I said it was very extraordinary for a court to determine the question of liability 

upon ex parte evidence, and then refuse to fix the measure of damages 

by the same method. I think that would certainly be inverting the 

order usually pursued in these cases. If anything is to be fixed by ex pa1·te evidence it ought to be the question of the amount of damages. The question of liability is one that depends on matters en- tirely outside of testimony: it would depend on the contract between 

Mr. Holladay and the Government and on the acts of the Government, 

to be proved by something besides affidavits. . But, sir, if Mr. Holla{}ay's claim is to be decided by a court, I propose that it shall be decided in a legal and ·competent way. I am opposed to its going to a court. The committees of Congress, after 

having dealt with this matter for over ten years, owe Mr. Holladay 

tile tardy act of reparation and of justice to decide this case on its own merits, and I hope that the amendments of the Senators from 

Ohio and Michigan will be adopted and that we shall not commit 

ourselves totheincongruity and the injustice of allowing a committee 

of our body to admit that the liability exists and refusing to state th~ 

amount of it, and then asking a court to decide the question of damages upon the same evidence that is before them. Unless the amendments that have been offered by the Senators from Michigan and Ohio . shall be ado1)ted, I shall move, when the proper time comes, to re- commit this bill to the Committee on Claims with instructions toreport to the Senate the amount of loss that Mr. Holladay bas sustained, 

and then the Senate can act upon that ma~ter in its discretion. 

:Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, as I do not know yet how to vote 

upon this claim, not having heard the arguments which have been 

made for and against it, I want to get some information, and therefore 

I ask the Senator who has the bill in charge whether the foundation of 

this claim is that the Government violated its contract with Holladay 

for carrying the mail. Is that the foundation of the claim f 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. Mr. President, the grounds upon 

which the committee put the claim are set forth in the report. 

Mr. THURl\1AN. Cannot the Senator answer the question himself 

without reading the report, whether the foundation of the claim is 

that the Government violated its contract with the contractorT 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. Not the contra.ct as originaJly 

made; but subsequent to the making of the contract, and after Mr. 

Holladay commenced the performance of it, Indian hostilities broke 

out upon the plains, and it was impossible for Mr.Holladaytocontinue 

the performance of his contract. Thereupon he appealed to the President of the United States and desired to surrender his contract and 

discontinue the service altogether. The President of the United 

States urged upon him the importance of continuing overland com- munication between the Atlantic and the Pacific States. It was during the recent civil war. The President called to the attention of Mr. 

Holladay that the communication by water between the Atlantic and 

Pa~ific States might be interrupted at any time by the confederate crmsers that were then abroad on the ocean, and Mr. Holladay was a.ssured by President Lincoln that the Government would furnish 

him ample and complete military protection. This understanding between Mr. Holladay and the President was subsequent to the execution of the contract, and therefore I cannot say that the claim is based 

upon the ground that there was a violation of that original contract. 

That is one ground. The Senator was absent and I will take the 

liberty to restate these grounds, although they have bee~ stated two 

or three times heretofore. Again, Mr. Holladay claims that equitably 

be is entitled to something for the losses that occurred from Indian 

spoliations after he had entered into this agreement with the President. Subsequently by a military order he was required to change 

the line of his route. The order is set forth in the report of the com- mittee. It is recited in that order made by Colonel Chivington that 

l:.e was ordered to direct Mr. Holladay to change the line of his route; 

that he was directed to furnish him complete military protection; 

that he could not do so unless the route wa.~ changed as be designated. 

At that time he was required to protedt two routes. The conversa- tion with President Lincoln was long before that. 

Then Mr. Holladay claims that he is entitled to compensation for 

the necessary and actual expenses that he was put to in changing 

his route under that military order. He had to change his stationtr, 

erect new stations on the line of the new route, &c. 

The third class of dama-ges for which he claims compensation is that 

the supplies of provisions, &c., that he had accumulated on the Hue 

of his route for the sustenance of his own men were taken by the military authorities of the United States, and were actually used for the 

benefit of the Army. 

Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I now understand a great deal 

better than I did before the nature of this claim; and, analyzing it, 

it is obvious that it is no claim against the Government by reason of 

any breach of contract on the part of the Government, assuming the 

facts to be just as stated by the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. Holladay agreed to carry the mails; his contract contained no exoneration fro~ carrying the mails, nor any claim upon the Government by reason ·of any act, in the language of the common law, of the king's enemy. 

He wa.a therefore bound to carry the mailA unless hostile operations 

should utterly prevent him frqm doing so, and then he could app.,al 

to the equitv of the Government to relieve him on that accollnt; but 

the Government could not compel him to carry the mails upon a route 

different from that upon which he had contracted to carry them. 

The Government then has not abrogated its contract with Mr. 

Holladay, but the military officers of the Government have directed 

him to carry the mail upon a different route, and for. good and sufficient reasons, patriotic no doubt on his part, and well advised on the 

part of 1he Government; though whether that ou-ght to have been 

done by military order instead of by a change of the contract with 

the Post-Office Department, a mere civilian might think was worthy 

of some observation. But at all events the Government did that 

thing. The military power told him " change your route and we will 

furnish you with protection upon that changed route." He did 

change his route. It is alleged that he did receive the protection; it 

is alleged that he incurred more cost by it, and that he sustained 

losses. If this be the case, this is simply an appeal to the equity of 

Congress. What has any court to do with such a question as that f 

It is a question for Congress, looking at the whole subject and dealing in a spirit of equity, to determine whether or not this gentleman 

should be indemnified, who bas patriotically, I will say, agreed to 

chauga that route, agreed to carry the mail where before he was not 

bound to carry it, who has incurred losses by so doing, who has not 

received the protection as it is said he ought to have receivedwhether the Government in honor and equity and good faith toward 

him ought not to reimburse his losses. It is a question for Congress, 

not a question for a court. So it seems to me; and ajortioriis it so if the Senator from Kansas is right, if there is no evidence in the 

wide world on this subject but these ex pa1·te affidavits taken long 

ago. If the proposition is to recall those men who will not answer the call any more than "spirits from the vasty deep" would answer to Glendower's call-if that is the case, what is the use of sending 

this to the Court of ClaimsT Why not let the Committee on Claims 

decide what is right and report it tons and let us act 7 

Mr. MORRILL. Will the Senator from Ohio allow me, as this matter will evidently not be disposed of to-day, to offer what I intend to 

propose at the proper time as a substitute for the bill in order that it 

may be printed. 

Mr. THURMAN. I will not only allow the Senator to do it, but I 

will do precisely what I was going to do when be arose, take my seat. 

Mr. MORRILL. I offer a proposed substitute. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. Let it be read for informacion. 

The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to strike out all after the enacting clause and in lieu thereof to insert : 

That the claim of Benjamin Holladay in consequence of !!poliation of his,-,roperty 

used in carryin~ the United States mails by hostile Indians or by having such prop. 

erty taken and used by United States troops for the benefit·of the United States, 

and for actual loss arising from cbangin_g his mail-route between tho years 1860 and 

1866, for which the United States is justly char_l!;eable, be, and the same is hereby, referred to the Court of Claims for adjudication; and upon the facts of record ex- isting in the Executive Departments and such additional competent testimony as either party may present, render judgment theroon, with the nght of appeal to the 

Supreme Court of the United States. . 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. CmuSTIANCY,] upon 

which the yeas and nays have been ordered. 

Mr. KERNAN. I sbonla like to inquire what are the papers on file 

in the Executive Departments Y 

Mr. MORRILL. Of course they are the written contracts and any orders for changing the route. 

Mr. KERNAN. Does the Senator know that these .very affidavits 

have not been filed there t I think we had better have the substi-
1642 .CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. M.AROH· 11,. 

tute printed before we vote on it, so that we may know something 

about it. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question iqon the amendment of the Senator from Michican, [Mr. CHRISTIANCY,] on which the 

yeas and nays have been ordered. 

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. 

:Mr. DAVIS, of lliinois, (when his name was called.) I am paired on this question with the Senator from New York, [Mr. CONKLING.] 

He would vote against the amendment if he was here, and I should 

vote for it. 

Mr. GARLAND, (whenhisnamewascalled.) On this question I am paired with my colleague, [Mr. DORSEY.] If he were here, he would 

vote "nay" and I should vote "yea." • The roll-call having been concluded, the result was announcedyeas Zl, nays 23; as follows: 

.Anthony, 

13ayard.- "' 

Burnside 

Christiancy, 

Coko 

Davis of Weet Va, 

Eaton, 

Allison, 

:Bailoy, 

Blaine, 

:Booth, 

Cameron of Wis., ·Chaffee, 

Eustis, 

Ferry, 

run 

Ho~e, 

Inaalls, 

Jo'Lnston, 

Kernan, 

YEAS-27. 

McCreery, 

McDonald, 

Maxcy, 

Merrimon, 

Morrill, 

Plumb, 

Ransom, 

NAYS-23. 

Conover, Jones of Nevada, 

Gordon, Kellogg, Grover, Kirkwood, 

Harris, Matthews, 

Hereford, Mitchell, 

.r ones of Florida, Morgan, 

ABSENT-26. 

Annstrong, Conkling, llanllin, 

:Barnum, Davis oflllinois, Hoar, 

Beck, Dawe11, Lamar, 

:Broce, Dennis, McMillan, 

:Butler, Dorsey, McPherson, 

Camero.11 of Pa., Edmonds, Oglesby, 

Cockrell, Garland, Patterson, 

Sargent, 

Thurman, 

Voorhees, 

Wallace, 

Windom, 

Withers. 

Pall dock, 

Rollins. 

Saunders, 

Spencer, 

Teller. 

Randolph, 

Saulsbury, 

Sharon, 

Wadleigh, 

Whyte. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the amendment submitted by the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. MATTHEWS.] 

Mr. CMIERON, of Wisconsin. I desire to state that the friends 

of the bill are in favor of the amendment proposed by the Senator 

from Ohio. 

Tne· PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the amendment 

proposed by the Senator from Ohio T The Chair hears none, and it is 

agreed to. · Mr.-DA VIS, of Illinois. Of what use is the amendment of the Senator from Ohio if the affidavits are stricken out f 

Mr. CHRISTIANCY. That was precisdy what I was about to call 

attention to. · The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is before the Senate. . _ ·Mr. DAVIS, of Illinois. The amendment of the Senator from Ohio, as I understood, applied if the affidavits went to the Court of Claims as evidence. Otherwise it does not apply at all. 

Mr. CHRISTIANCY. It has no application now. Mr. DAVIS, of illinois. Let the amendment be reported. 

The P.RESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be rea.d. 

The CmEF CLERIC. The amendment is in section 2, line 2, to strike 

out the word "cause" and insert the word "require/' and at the end 

of the section to insert "or otherwise to reject the affidavit;" so as to 

make the section read: 

That the said court shall have the power in its discretion to require the production for crol!s-examination of any witness whose affidavit is now before Congress, or otherwise to reject the affidavit. 

Mr. McDONALD. I move to amend by striking out the second 

section alto~ether. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER.. The Senator from Indiana moves to 

strike out the second section. 

Mr. TELLER. I offer as a substitute for that section the following: 

That the affidavits now before Congress of persons that the court shall be satisfied are not living at the time of the hearing of the causo shall bo received and 

considered by the court, and the court shall ~ve such affidavits such weight as the court shall consider they aro entitled to rece1ve. 

I wo11ld say that there are two or three of these witnesses who are 

important witnesses that I know to be dead; and I think the affidavits might be used with that qualification, that the court shall give 

to them such weight as they may think they are deserving of. 

Mr. CHRISTIANCY. I am opposed to this amendment for the same reason that I favored the other. Here, according to the statement of the petitioner himself, according to the report of the com- mittee, were four hundred and fifty men in the employment of Mr. 

Holladay at the time these transactions took place, and there can be no real difficulty in getting at enough of them to make out whatever case there iB, it seems to me. I have a great dislike to trying any case upon affidavits, and I will state one reason why, and it must be evident to every lawyer; it is this: take this case, for instance, of :Ur. 

Holladay. He calls upon a number of men to make affidavits. What 

does he want f He w:mts the facts that make in favor of himself. 

E\·ery one of tho2e witnesses may know enough facts to defeat the 

entire claim, and yet may state facts which are true which take11 

alone would make a good claim. It is the most dangerous kind of 

testimony upon which to try the merits of a case. Mr. TELLER. I should like to say a word. My amendment does 

not propose that the court should treat these affidavits as proof of 

anything unless the circumstances surrounding the case may induco 

the court to think that they ought to be so received. If there were four hundred and fifty men employed, as is suggested, it docs not follow that each man of"the four hundred am] fifty has knowledge of 

all these transactions. There is an affidavit here by a superintendent 

of a division who has since died. I am toltlseveral others havo died. 

It is safe for the Govetnment to go to trial treating these affidavits as making a prima facie case, with the opportunit.y of discreilitin;! or disproving them if it sees fit; and the objection that was urged 

against the former provision does not apply to tllis in my jud·gment. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. It seems to me, Mr. President, that this is a peculiar case. During the time from 1860 to 1866 we had civil war. Our Pacific coast was deemed by those in charge qf our GQverument to be held by a very precarious tenure. "\Ve did not know from 

year to year bow soon foreign natione might take part in the war we were engaged in. I happen to know that it was held to be exceerlingly important that we should keep up communication with the 

Pacific coast otherwise than by steamer. Why does this man now ask compensation at our hands! He was prevented from doing what 

he had undertaken to do, by the enemies of our Government on the 

plains, by hostile Indians incited to hostility by those who favored 

the civil war. He appealed to the Government and said he could not 

do what they desired to have clone, because they were not able to 

keep peace within the borders. Viewing the necessity for what he 

bad undertaken t.o do, they said to him "Go on and do this and we will protect you," and he undertook to do it again and the proter.tiou 

failed. He still again and again tried; and beyond the expectation 

of almost every one be succeeded in doing what was done. When 

the war was over he came to ns, or to those who preceded us bore, 

and asked compensation for the losses sustained by him iu doing this 

good thing, as we now all think. He has been hero from ten to twelve 

years asking us to do this justice to him, and we have put him off from 

Congress to Congress, from ·congress to Congress, sometimes one House agreein~ that it was right, and again another House agreeing 

that it was rignt, but we have never paid him a dollar. 

We had some very earnest lectures on a recent occasion in this 

Chamber upon the honor of our Government, its duty to pay what 

it owed. I apprehend that there is no duty we were th3n called upon 

to respond to more imperative than the duty we are now called upon 

to respond to. As I have said, we have gone on year after year, year 

after year, postponing and procrastinating in this matter, and one and another of the persons whose te~timony this man relied upon 

to prove the justice of his claim and the amount of it have (lied; they 

cannot be brought into court; they cannot be m·oss-examined; antl now gentlemen tell us that because we have been derelict in our duty, 

because we have failed to do what we ought to have done long ago, 

and because by reason of our delay this man has lost the means of 

proving his claim, therefore it comports with the honor of this Government to say be shall not be paid unless he can do what we know 

he cannot do, bring the dead to lifo! 

Mr. President, that may comport With the honor of the American 

Government; it may comport with the honor of this body; but it does 

not comport with mine. I favor the amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado, [Mr. TELLER,] that at least the testimony of the 

witnesses who have died shall he allowed to go before the court and 

be considered by it. It would be cheaper for us perhaps to postpone 

this matter ten years longer and they might all be dead by that time 

and we should not have to pay a cent, do you not see, and thus we should save our honor and the money too! If we just wait ten yeau~ 

there may not be a man left who knows a thing about all this matter, and then all will be saved! 

Mr. INGALLS. Does the Senator see any reason why the committee should not report at once and allow us to vote on itT 

l\Ir. KIRKWOOD. Let me say to the Senator from Kansas that I 

have had referred to me on another committee recently--

Mr. INGALLS. I want an opportunity to vow on Mr. Holladay's 

claim. I think he has a claim and that it ought to be voted on, and 

I wish to vot-e on it. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. If the Committee on Claims saw fit to report as they might have done, I would be very apt to take their conclusion as conclusive with me and vote what they reported; but does 

not the Senator from Kansas see this peculiarity f He asks that the 

Committee on Claims shall report on this ex parte testimony; he says 

that when they have reported upon it he is willing to vote in favor 

of what they report; and yet he is un:willing to allow that same proof 

to go before the Court of Claims. If it is good enough for the Committee on Claims, wbyis it not good enoughforthoCourtof Claimsf 

Mr. INGALLS. Because they are two entirely difterent tribunals, 

with different jurisdiction. Mr. KIRKWOOD. Certainly they are. :Mr. INGALLS. One is controlled by equity alone or may be, and 

the other is controlled by law. 

:Mr. KIRKWOOD. They are controllecl just by the law we make 

to control them; and if we make t.he law to control them, wo can· declare that evidence that we say is goou enough for us shall bo good 

enough for them too; H.n<l why it shoultl not b3 I cannot conceh_:e. 
--- ,,.. ... ..,._ - ~ .,.... 

1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1643 . -

Then they will be judging a.ccording to the law as we make it for 

them. 

Mr. THURl\IAN. Then why not say the Court of Claims shall decide all cases on affidavits t 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. No; the case is peculiar, I apprehend. The 

Senator from Kansas himself told us a short time ago the character 

of the men who knew about this thing, mule-drivers and stage-drivers 

an(l milit.ia soldiers and regular soldiers and bushwhackers, and God 

knows what else, who frequent such places. Yon may find them today, and a year hence you may not find one in five hundred of them. 

Be argued earnestly and strongly to a man who knows so much about 

these things as I do the utter impossibility of ever getting together 

again the testimony we now have here, .and, having shown that it is 

utterly impossible ever to get it again, w by not let it go to the Court 

of Claims! 

Mr. INGALLS. The Senator from Iowa must not do me the injustice of saying that I am unwilling to have Mr. Holladay's claim aujudicated~ I think the courageous and manly thing to do is for 

this body to take that testimony, give it the weight it is worth, and 

act in accordance with it, and not ask a tribunal organized upon 

different principles for the administration of law to violate every 

principle of evidence that governs the consideration of differences ~tween human beings. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. II the Senator from Kansas has a controversy 

with the Committf.e on Claims upon this subject I do not wish to 

take part in it. If the Committee OJ:I. Claims saw fit to report this 

matter to the Senate on the best lights they had, I will with t.be best 

lights I can get act on their report; but they have made the report 

to us that they do not think it prudent and safe for them under the 

circumstances to pass upon the amount due this man, and that the 

Court of Claims is better constituted to do that worlr than they are, 

and having so reported I would take their report and act upon it. 

In view of the class of population that inust make up these witnesses 

if ever they are got together, if ever they can be got together, in 

view of the fu;titive character of the men who must have known if 

anybody ever did know about this case, it seems to me to be utterly 

unjust to say that after compelling this man to wait from ten to 

twelve years before he can get a hearing, then he shall be deprived 

of the evidence which he lfas procured to enable us to determine the case. 

Mr. THURMAN. If the Senate will give me its at.tentiou for ten 

minut.es-I do not think I shall occupy more-l flatter myself that I can show that this is no claim to go before a court. A court must act 

upon principles of Jaw well recognized and settled and binding upon 

it. On what principles of law does this claim rest! Upon the ground 

that the Government has violated a contract with Holladay! We are told not. On the ground that the Government is liable at law for 

the operations of enemies hostile to the Government f No such principle is known to a court. On the ground that he has, upon the order 

of a military officer who had no authority to order him and without 

any change of his contract by the Post-Office Department, the only 

Department that could change it, undertaken to carry the mail on a rlifterent route from th&.t upon which he ha-d contracted to carry it f 

Is it on that ground! There is no such principle known to a court of 

Jaw. It must say at once, "These military men had no right to order 

you off on this route and you can acquire no claim on the Government by their so doing that is known and cognizable by a court of 

law." If, therefore, you send the case to the Court of Claims, the first 

t.hing you must do is to fix the principle upon which that court shall 

adjudicate the claim, and thus make it a simple auditor like an auditor 

in a court of chancery. After the court has settled all the principles 

upon which the account shall be taken, he then ascertains the damages according to the principles thus settled. You leave to the Court 

of Claims nothing in the wide world in the shape of Jaw to decide if 

you send this bill to t.hem in any shape in which that court can take 

cognizance of it. You send it to them in this way, and what can the 

court say t They say, "We know no law applicable to this case; it 

is a simple appeal to t,he justice and equity of the Government; there 

is no principle of law that is applicable to the case, and therefore 

there is nothing upon which we can decide." I say therefore, again, 

if you send this case to the Court of Claims, you are bound in the 

first place to settle by your law the principle upon which that court 

shall proceed in estimating damages. 

That being true, this is simply an appeal to the juetice of the Government. From what I have heard I believe there is much merit in 

this claim. I mean from what I have heard this afternoon, for that 

is all I know about it. I think from what I have heard this after- noon there is much merit in this claim, and that the Government does owe something to Mr. Holladay by way of indemnity for his losses. 

But I say it is an appeal to the equity of the Government, to its sense 

of just~ce, to its sense of honor, and that is a question for Congress 

and not for a court to decide. 

In answer to what was said by the Senator from Iowa, [Ur. KIRKWOOD,] that the Committee on Claims would have to act upon affidavits, that Sena.tor ought to know that whenever that committee asks 

the Senate to give it power to send for per&ons and papers in any case of importance that power is readily granted. I therefore concur with the Senator from Kansas [lli.lNGALLB] in saying that tho right 

way to deal with this subject is to take these affidavits, and if coun- ter-proof is necessary, let the committee aak for power to send for 

persons and papers, or let depositions be taken under the general law 

of the land to be read before a committee of Congress; let that be 

done, and let the committee decide. Believing most firmly that t.h.is 

is no case for a court, I move that the bill be recommitted. 

:Mr. MORRILL. Mr. President, I am not, for one, dis poRed to arguo 

entirely against the propriety of passing some m.easure of relief for 

Mr. Holla-day; but when it is constantly asserted here that men are postponed for years ~th just claims, I want to give it as my opinion 

that there are two claims pushed through Congress by worriment that 

ought not to pass for one tbat is postpone~. 'l'his bill proposes a very 

large job for the Court of Cla.ims. It proposes three distinct classes of 

claims to be adjusted by the Court of Claims. The first is for spoliations by the Indians. I want to say that if we shall pass a bill of this 

kind we shall be immediately called upon to pass claims for other mail 

contractors that lost vast numbers of mules on the Texas rout.e to 

Arizona. Then, again, it proposes t{) adjust claims for property taken 

by the United States troops; and then again for losses of property in 

consequence of the change of the route. This is not for property tlSCd 

in the carrying of the mail, but for any property, however exposed, 

that belonged to this man; he is to have indemnity for it if it was lost, whether by his carelessness and neglect or not. If the property 

been has lost, according to the terms of this bill the court must ren- der a judgment against the Government. 

:Mr. President, I merely offered a proposition embracing these claims, 

but in a restricted form, that they should come up only where the 

Unit,ed S~ates were justly char~eable, and then that they should be 

adjudicated upon competent eVIdence. I ask to have the substitute 

proposed by me printed, in order that it may be considered whenever 

the bill comes up again. NQw, I move that the Senate a-djourn. 

The motion was agreed to; and (at five o'clock and two minutes 

p. m.) the Senate adjourned. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

MoNDAY, March'll, 1878. 

The Bouse met at twel vo o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. 

W. P. llARrusoN. 

The Journal of Saturday was read and approved. 

The SPEAKER. This being Monday, the first business in order i1 

the call of States and Territories commencing with the State of Maine, 

for the introduction of bills and joint resolutions for reference to appropriate committees. Under this call joint resolutions and memo- rials of State and territorial Legislatures are in order. · 

PRIVATE CALENDAR. 

Mr. MILLS. I desire to ask unanimous consent of the House that we may have night sessions on Tuesrlay, Wednesday, and Thursday, 

to be devoted exclusively to the Private Calendar. There are now some one hundred and eighty bills upon that calendar which have 

been reported, and many of them are cases which have been reported 

successfully for many years, but which have always died upon ihe 

Private Calendar. 

Mr. BALE. That motion will give rise .to some objection. Let it 

go over until after the morning hour. 

Mr. FRANKLIN. It can be disposed of now as well as after the 

morning hour. 

:Mr. HALE. It had better be postponed until after the morning 

honr. 

'l'he SPEAKER. The morning hour commences at twelve o'clock 

and eight minutes p.m. 

MANAGERS OF THE UNITED STATES HOSPITALS. 

Mr. HALE introduced a bill (H. R. No. 3741) to provid; for the fill. 

ing of vacancies in the l1oard of managers of tho United States hospitals for disabled volunteer soldiers; which was read a first and sec- ond time, referred to the Committee on .Military Affairs, and ordered 

to be printed. MANUFACTURERS OF CIGA.RB. 

Mr. HARRIS, of Massachusetts, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 3142) 

to protect manufacturers of cigars who use imported tobacco exclusively; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed. 

WILLWI H. VAINEY. 

Mr. LANDERS introduced a bill (H. R. No. 3743) for the relief of 

William B. Vainey, assistant naval constructor of the United States 

Navy; which was read a first and second time, reforred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

DWIGHT DE SILVA. 

Mr. BEEBE introduced a bill (H. R. No. 37 44) granting a pension to 

Dwight De Silva; wliich was read a frst and second time, referred to 

the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed. 

GORDON n. BA.R.."U£8. 

Mr. BEEBE also introduced a bill (H. R. No. 3745) granting an in- crease of pension to Gordon 'B. Barnes; which was read a first and 

second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and 

oTdered to be printed.