1448' OONGR,ESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE .. FEBRUARY 9, 

Also, petition of Joseph Hensen (Bull Frog), a Cherokee Indian, as to certain lands iii North Carolinar-to the same committee. 

Bv Mr. A. J. WARNER: Petition of James N. Chamberline and 

others, against the repeal of section 4419, Revised Statutes-to the Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. ·wiNANS: Petition of--veteran soldiers of MichigaD., for 11n 

increase in the pension allowed Jane Brent, widow of Captain Brent, Iat~ of the regular.Army-to -the Committee on Pensions. 

By Mr. WOODWARD: ResolutionoftheState Grangeof_Wisconsin, 

ilrging .amendmentofpa~ntlaws-to t~e Committee on. the Judiciary. 

By Mr. YAPLE: Petition of A. E. Knapp and 62 others, citizens of 

Kalamazoo! Mich., for legislation to check the increase of the 'evil of 

:M:ormoirlsm-to the same committee. 

The following petitions for the pa age of the Mexican war pension 

bill with Senate amendments were presented and evemlly referred to 

the Committee on·Pensions: 

By 1\Ir. BALLENTINE: Of citizens of Wayne County, Tennes ee. By Mr. BREITUNG: Of citizens of Platte, of Tr:we~e City; and of 

Omena, Mich. · By J\fr. CULBERTSON: Of 121 voter of Catlettsburg, Ky., and of 

472 citizens of Fearis, Ky. · .. By Mr. CURTIN: Of citizens of Elk County, of Clearfield County, 

of Miffiin County, of Centre COunty, and of Philipsburg, Pa. ·By Mr. FUNSTON: Of citizens of Coffeyville, of Ransomville, of 

Empire City, of Louisburg, of Oti:.c'\wa,- City, of Oswego, and of Paola, 

Kans. 

By .Mr. HART: Ofl\I. W. pargur and 114 others, soldiers of Highland County, Ohio. 

By Mr. KEIFER: Of Theodore Smith and 115 others, of Madison 

County, Ohio, and of H. 1\1. Cline ~nd 62 others, of Bellefontaine, 

Ohio: 

By Mr: KLEINER: Of ex-soldiers of Leopold, Ind. 

By Mr. LACEY: Of Charles . Daskam and 42 others, of Albion, 

Mich., and of A. D. Goodricn and 61 others, of Olivet, :Mich. 

By Mr. LOWRY:' Of62 eitizensofLigonier, Noble County, Indiana. 

By Mr. LYMAN: Of citizens of • omerviUt-, of Pepperell, of Shelbume Falls, and of Chademont-, l\Iass: By Mr. PATTON: Of 1\Irs. "U. :1lsgiver and 20 others, citizens of 

West Lebanon, ~ndiana County, Pennsylvania. 

By .Mr. RAYMOND: Of citizens of Union, Day, Hoghe , .and Yank· 

ton Counties, and of Den~er, Dak. 

By 1\'{r. OSSIAN RA 'Y: Of Madeline E. Cat1· and 39 others, of Stewartstown, N. H. 

By 1\Ir. RYAN; Of 184 citizen of Kansas. 

' By 1\Ir. H. Y. S~ITTH: Of 38 citizens of Perry', Dallas County, Iowa. 

By 1\Ir. STONE: Of citizens of Law1·ence, Essex Coll;Ilty, )lassa.-

chusetts. 

SENATE. 

J\IoNDAY, Feb't'lW't'Y 9, 1885. 

The Senate met at 11 o'clock a. m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. D. HUXTLEY, D. D. 

The Journal of the proceedings of Satmday last was read and ap~ 

proved'" 

CREDE.Nl'IAL • . . 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore presented the credentials of _DL'HEL 

W. VooRHEE , chosen by the Legislature of Indiana a Senator from 

that State for the term-commencing March 4, 1885; which were read, 

and ordered to be filed. 

1\Ir. 1\IORGAN presented the credentials of JAMES L. PUGH, chosen 

by the Legislature of Alabama a Senator from that State for the term 

commencing March 4, 1885; which were read, and ordered to be filed. , COMMITTEE SERVICE. 

1\Ir. PENDLETON. I am Tequested by the Senator from California 

[1\lr. FARLEY] to_ ask that he be excused from service upon the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Transporta~ion Routes to 

the Seaboa1·d. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator fmm Ohio, on behalf of 

the Senator. from. California (1\Ir. FARLEY], asks. that the Senator from 

California be excused from further service upon the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Transportation Routes to the Seal:Soard. 

Is there objection? The Chair hears.no objection, and the Senator from 

California is excused. . 1\Ir. PENDLETON. I now move that the Chair have authority to 

fill the vacnncies on tJ10se committees occasioned by the retirement of 

:Mr. FARLEY. 

The motion was agreed to by unanimous consent. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore.. The· Chair will appoint upon the 

Committee on -Commerce the Senator from Oregon [Mr. SLATER], and 

upon th~ Committeeon Transportation Routes to the Seaboard the Sen· 

ator from South Carolfua [Mr. BUTLER]. 

EXECUTIVE COMl'l:lUNICATIONS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a communication 

from the S~retary of the Treasury, transmitting recommendations of 

theSnpervising Architect to extend the limit of cost of the public buildings at Leavenworth, Kans., and Peoria and Quincy, Til.; which, with 

the accompanying papers, was referred to the Committe~ on Public 

Buildings and Grounds, and Ol'dered_ to be printed. . He also laid b~fore the Senate a cm;nmunication from the Secretary of 

the Navy, transmitting, incompliance with the requirements of the joint· 

resolution of February 13, "1884, a detruled report of the expenditure 

of the appropriation for the Greely relief expedition; which, with the 

accompanying papers, was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, 

and ordered to be printed. 

PETITIOX. AXD MEMORIAL . 

.Mr. SHERMAN presented U1e petition of Sylvester F. Scord, president of the Worcester University, in 01?Jo, and other members of the 

faculty of that institution, praying for the passage of laws providing for 

the education of Indians; which was·1·eferred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. · 

Mr. PENDLETON presented petitions of the Block Publishing and 

Printing. Company, of Cincinnati, Ohio; the Times-Star Company, 

of Cincinnati, Ohio; the United Brethren Publishing House, of Dayton, Ohio; the Cincinnati {Ohio) Furniture World; the Publishing 

House of the Evangelical Association, of Cleveland, Ohio; the Iron 

Trade Review,_ of Cleveland, Ohio; L. Hirsch & Co., of Columbus, Ohio; 

the Jeffersonian, of Cambridge, Ohio; and Will C. Turner, ofColnmbus, Ohio, praying for a reduct-ion of the postage on second-class mail 

matte1·; which were referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and PostRi:>ads. 

· Ur. HOAR. I present the petition of the trustees and pastor and 

congte.,aation of the East Washington Colored 1\Iethodist Episcopal . chnrch, ofthe District of. Columbia, praying compensation for damages 

done their church property by certain public works. When that order 

is reached I sh::ill introduce, by request, a bill for the relief of these 

parties. I move that the petition be referred to the Committee on the 

District of Columbia. · · The motion was agreed to. 

1\:Ir. BUTLER presented a petition of citizens of Charleston, South 

Carolina, favoring-the adoption of certain amendments to the patent 

laws; which was referred to the Committee on Patents. 

He also presented a letter from William P. Craighill, LieutenantColonel of Engineers, United States Army, suggesting that the unex- pended balance appropria~ed for the monument at Yorktown, Va., be . u...~d for the erection of a small building and the employment of a watchman at that place; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations. 

REPORTS OF COMl\llTTEES. 

1\Ir. :UAHO~, from the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, 

to whom was referred the bill (H. R.1339) to increase the appropria- _ tion for the erection of the public building at Pittsburgh, Pa., reported 

it without amendment. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was 1·efened the bill 

(H. R. 1013) for the erection of a public building at Troy, N. Y., re- ported it without amendment. 

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

(S. 2542) :to amend an act entitled ''An actforthe erection Qf a public 

building at Quincy, ill.," approved May 9, 1882, reported it without 

amendment. 

He also, from the same co'mmittee, to whom was referred ·the bill (S. 

2441) to amend an a~t entitled "An act to provide for the erection of a public bujlding _in the city of Peoria, in the State of Illinois," approved 

1\Iay 9, 1882, reported it without amendment. 

1\Ir. MAHONE. I desire to call the attention of S~nators to the re- port accompanying the bill cs.- 2617) to authorize the acquisition of 

certain parcels of real estate embraced in square No: 406 of the city of 

Washington, for the enlargement of the Post-Office Departnient building and to provide accommodations for the city post-office. The report 

is now being distributed, and I give notice that I shall call the bill up 

during the morning hour to-morrow. 

1\Ir. _PLUMB, from the Committee on Public Lands, to whom was re- ferred_ the bill (H. R. 489) to extend the laws of the United State over certain unorganized territory south 9f the State of Kansas, reported it 

without amendment. · 

PUBLIC BUILDING AT PITTSBURGH. 

l\Ir. MAHONE. I ask unanimous consent that the bills just reported by me from the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds 

may be taken up and considered. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Tlie Chair hears n9~e, ~nd the first bill will be read. . -The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider 

the bill (H. R. 1339) to increase the appropriation for the erection of 

the public building at Pittsburgh, Pa. It proposes to inc1-ease the 
·CONG~ESSIONAI;~ RECORD-SENATE. IL149 ~ . -·- ·-

amount heretofore fixed as the limit of cost for the erection of a public 

building by the United · States Go"\""ernment at · Pittsburgh, Pa., to 

1,500,000. . 

The bill was reRorted to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, rea(,l the third time, and pa.Ssed. 

PUBtiC BvnDIN:G AT TROY. 

The bill (H. R. 1013) for the erection of a public building at Troy, 

~. Y., was considered as in ~ommittee ofthe Whole. · ·. The bili was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to 

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

PUBLIC ·BUILDING .AT QUIXCY .. 

- The bill (S. 2542) to amend an act entitled "An act for the erection 

of a public building at Quincy, ill.," approved 1\Iay 9, 1882, was con- sidered as in Committee of the Whole. It proposes to extend the limitation of $17~,000 to $200,000, forth~ p.nrpose of adding a third story 

to the public building now in course of erection at Quincy. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordere<i to 

he engrossed for a third reading, read the thinl time, and passed. 

PUBLIC Bmi,DIXG .AT PEORIA. 

The bill (S. 2441) to amend an act entitled "An act to provide for 

the erection of a, public building in the city of Peoria, in the State of 

ijlino.is, ' approved l\Iay 9, 1882, was considered as in Committee of 

the Whole. It proposes fo extend the limifation of$22.3,000 to 245,-

000, for the. purpose of adding a third story to the building -at Peoria, 

and of changing the first story according to plans and specifications to 

be previously made and approved by the Secretary of the Treasnry. 

The bill \vas reparted to the enate without. amendm.ent, ord~red to 

be. engrosse<.l fo1' a third ·reading, reru.~ the third time, and passed. 

WASHINGTO~ CITY PO T-OFFI 'E. 

Mr. :MORRILL. I ask unanimous con ent to take up Senate bill 

2617, providing for the Washington city post-office. The notice given 

hy the chairman of the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds 

(Mr. :MAHO~E] that he would call it up to-morrow, was. made in consequence ofthe report not having been laid. upon the desks of Senators 

at thai time; but it is so important that the bill should pass the Senate 

and reach the other House, that I venture to ask that it be considered 

this mprning. I think any Senato1· on reacling tl.te l'eport will not he itnte to vote for the bill. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont asks 

unanimous consent that the bill (S. 2617) to ;tuthorize the aequisit:iou 

of certain parcels of real estate em braced in sq nare N 9· 406 ofthe city 

of Washington, for the enlargement of the Post-Office Department 

bqilding and to provide.accommodations for the city post-office, be now taken from the Calendar for ~resent consideration. Is there objection? 

:Mr. HOAR. Will that require any debate? 

Ur. MORRILL. No; the report fully explains it. 

By unaBimous consent, the • enate, as in Committee of the Whole, 

proceeded to consider the bill. 

lli; MORRILL'.. In lines 8 and 9 of sectionS I move to fill the blank 

by inserting the words" ten thoUBand; ,; so as-to read: 

And for that purpose the sum of $10,000 is hereby appropriated out of any 

moqey in the Treasury not otherwise appropl'iated. · . 

The amendment was agreed to. 

1t1:r. UORRILL. I move an amendment, to' correct the exhibit on page 6, opposite to " 55;000," by striking out the name " C. Moore" 

and inserting in lieu thereof "C. T. Wood;" and. in the same-line by 

striking out the second word '' Mom·e and inserting the word ''Wood;'' so that the line will read : 

C. T. Wood, agent for l\Irs. A. 'Vood. 

The PRESIDENT pTo tempore. The question is on ag~ecing to the 

amendment proposed to the exhibit attached to and by reference made a part of the bill. 

The amendment was agreed to. . Mr. INGALLS. I should like to ask the Senator from Virginia how 

much property in thiS square remains not covered by definite offers 

mentioned in Exhibit .A. · 

Mr. MAHONE. One hundred. thousand dollars-three lots. • .Ur. INGALLS. Three lots valued at $100,000? 

Mr. MAHONE. Yes, sir. . The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in. . · • 

The bill w~ order~d to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third. 

time, ·and passed. _ ' . · . 

EULOGIES ON REPRESENTATIV~ EVINS. 

Mr. 1\I.A.l~DERSON. On behalfofthe Committee on Printing,.! re- port back favorably the joint resolution (H. Res. 327) providing for 

printing the eulogiesdeliveredin Congress upon the late John H. Evins, 

late a RepreSentative in the Forty-eighth Congress.from the State of 

South Carolina. · I am directed to ask for the immediate consideration 

of the joint resolution. . By unanimous consent, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, 

proceeded to·consider the joint rCS?lution. 

-The joint res6lution wa8 reported to the Senate without amendment, 

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

PUBLICATION bF TREATIES. 

J.fr. :MANDERSON. I am directed by the Committee on Pr~ting to report back a concurrent r~lution for printing treaties an4 con- ventions, and I .ask for its present consideration. 

The concurrent resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and 

agreed to, as follows: · 

lle8olved by tM Senate (the House of Rep1·esimt.atives coneun·ing), That there be 

printed 9,500 additional copies of the Treaties and Conventions transmitted to the Senate by the President in his message of January 23, 1885, of which 1,500 

copies shall be for the use of the Senate; 3,000 copies for the use of the House; 

4,000 copies for the use of the Department of State; and 1,000 copies for distribution by the Department of the lntel'ior amoi)g public libraries not depositories 

under existrng laws, each Senator, Rep1·esentative, and Delegate in Congress to designate two libraries to whom copies of the work shall be thus sent. And 

the Public Printer is also authorized to print and have bound 2,000 additional 

copies to be sold at actual cost and 10 per cent. added. 

PUBLIC BUILDL\G .AT TYLER, TEX. 

Mr. VEST. I am instructed by the Committee on Public Buildings 

and Grounds to report.favorably the bill (H. R. 5674) for the erection 

of a public building at the city of Tyler, in the State of Texas, and I 

am also instructed toaskfor its presentconsidemtion. This completes 

the reports from that committee of bills for public buildings. 

~y unanimous consent,. the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, 

proeeeded to consider the bill. · 

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

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

DILLS IXl'RODUCED. 

Mr. HOAR in trounced a bill (S. 2622) for the relief. of the trustees, 

pastor, and congregation of the East Washington Colored )Jethodist 

Episcopal church of the District of Columbia; which was read twice 

by its title. 

Mr. HOAR. The bill i introduced by request. I know nQthingof 

the contents of the bill, except a shown in the petition relating to the 

subject which I presented this morning. I move that the bill be re- ferred to the Committee on the District of Columbia. 

The motion was agreed to. 

l\Ir. CAU introduced a bill (S. 2623) to remove the political ~billties of Alexander W. Stark, of Virginia; · which was read ·twice·by its 

title, alHI, with the accompanying pe.tition, refeued to the Committee on the Judiciary. . l\Ir. BUTLER introduced a bill (S. 2624) to appropriate money for . the pmcluse of a steam-dredge to be used in Govern~ent work on the 

coas._t of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida; which was read twice by 

its title, an<l referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

I{e also jntrod uced a bill (S .. 2625) to make appropriation for continu- ance of improvements in Charleston Harbor; which was read twice by 

its title, apd referred to the Committee on Commerce. . He also introduced a joint resolution (S-R:120) aY.thorizing the sec.: 

retary of War to loan arms to.the Richland Volunteer Company, of 

Columbia, S. C.; which was read twice by its title, and, with the ac- companying papers, reterred to the Committee on 1\lilitary Affairs. 

A·l\IEND:\IENT TO A..PPROPRI.A.TION BIJ.L. 

l\fr .. UAXEY, from the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads, 

reported an amendm.ent intended to be 'proposed to the Post-Office 

appropriation bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. · 

JNTER~ .A.TIONAL LO~GITUDE CONFEREXCE. 

The PRESIDENT p.ro tempore. ''Concurrent or other resolutions" are now in o.rder. The Chair lays before the Senateaconcutrent resolution 

offered on a former day by the Senator from California [1\fr. ·MILLERJ! 

authorizing the President to communicate to the governments of oth~ 

nations the resolutions adopted by the international conference for fixing a prime meridian. However, the· resolution was reported from the 

Committee on Foreign Relations, the Chair 9bserves. It belongs on the 

Calendar. 

. l\Ir. SHERMAN. It had better be considered now. 1\Ir. 1\fiLLER, of California. If there is no objection I should. like to 

have the l'esolution considered. 

The PRESIDENT pYo tempore. The resolution wasreported.onafor- mer day, and it was laid on the desk of the Cha.U: ~s a resolution offered 

to which objection bad beenmade. Resolutionsrepoitedfromcommittees go on the Calendar. The Senator from California asks unanimous 

consent that the resolution, the title of which tke Chair has read, be now considered. Is there objection? 

M:r. CONGER. Let the resolution be read subject to objection. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolution. will be rea<l for infQrmation. . The Chief Clerk 1·ead the resolution. 

The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to, 

as follows: 

..Resol .. ved by tM Senate of the United Slates (the Hotue of .Representa-tives concun'ing), That t-he President be authorized and requested to communicate to the govern, ments of all nations in diplomatic relations with the United States the reselutions adopted by the inte1·national conference held at Washington, in Octo\.-er-
1450 CONGRESSIONAL ~ECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 9, 

188-l, for the purpose of firing a. prime meridian and a. unh·ersal day, and to invite 

their accession to tlie same. . · . 

PROPOSED CHANGE OF REFEREXCE. 

1\Ir . .MORRILL. · i ask that the Committee on Finance be discharged 

from the further consideration of the bill (S. 2615) to authorize medals 

commemorating the completion and dedication of theW ashington Monument, which was erroneously referred to that committ-ee and that it 

be refened to the Commit~e on the Library. ...... Mr. SHERMAN. I do not care to which committee the bill is re- ferred, but the Committee on Finance have always dealt with questions relating to coinage at the Mint; &c. I think the 1·eference to the 

CQmmittee on Finance was proper. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont asks 

unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from 

the further consideration of the bill, and that i~ be referred to t4e Committee on the Library. Is there objection? 

Mr. COCKRELL. I C..'\n not see why a bill of that kind hould go 

to the Committee on the Library. 

The PRESIDENT pro te~nJJOt e. Is there objection? 

Mr. OOCKRELL. I object to the proposed change of reference. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is made. 

MESSAGE FROl\I THE HOU E. 

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

clerk, announced that the House had passed a bill (H. R. 7551) admitting free of duty an altar and churcll regalia for the Catholic cpurch at 

Carrolltown, Pa., in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate. 

EXROLLED BILL · IGNED. 

The message also announced that the SpeakeroftheHousehadsigned 

the following enrolled bills; ::tnd they. were thereupon signed by the 

President pro tempore: 

A b~(S. 475) granting arrears of pension to Emily .Agnel; 

A bill (S. 750) granting a pension ·to Catharine Schools; · 

A bill (S. 1793) to amend section 4434 of title 52 of the Reyised Statutes of the United States, concerning commerce and navigation and 

the regulation of steam-vessels; . . A bill (S. 1823) granting a pension to Ebenezer K. Marden; 

A bill (S. 646) for the relief of R. G. White, Peter Hanger, and L. 

T. Green{· and • A bill R. R. 75'~17) making appropriations for the support of the 

Military Academy for the fiscal year ending J nne 30, 1 6, and for 

other purposes. AMERICAN SHIPPIN'G TRADE. 

Mr. CAMERpN, of Pennsylvania. I ask that the resolution which 

I offered on the 4th of Dec~mber relative to the American shipping 

trade be taken from the t.able and read, and I wish to ubmit some re- marks on it. . By unanimous Cbnsent, the .Senate proceeded to consider the resolu- , tion; which was read, as follows: 

Whereas the shipping t1·ade in American vessels is, and has foryearg been, 

depressed, and the export trade in American :produce is languishing for want of a. market that might be reached if the shippmg trade was in the hands of citi- zens of the United States: Therefore, · Resolved, That the Committee on Finance be, and is hereby, directed to inquire whether it would beexped.ienttoexpendthesul'plusrevenueoftheUnited States, or any portion thereof, for the purpose of reviving the shipping .a.nd ex- port trade by allowing a. rebate from tariff duties on foreign goods imported in 

ships built a.nd owned in the United States, and ·by also allowing a premium on American-grown products and articles of American manufacture exported in 

American vessels, and report by bill or other'Yise. . 

1\Ir. CAMERON, of Pennsylvania. M:r. President, the most important question before the country to-day is the depressed condition of 

bu iness, and my object in introduci~g this resolution is to direct attention to the means by which I firmly believe that business can be 

revived. I do not claim to have a plan perfected in all its details, and 

I do not think that any one man can devise such a plan. But I think 

that I see the direction through which relief can and must come, and 

by agitation and discussion and mutdaJ. consultation I hope that from 

the general ideas which I shall suggest a p~cticable working plan may 

be elaborated, by means of "Which the country may resume its march 

of prosperity. 

:M:y belief is that relief can be obtained. only bj applying and extending the pr~ciple of the protective tariff in such manner as to secure foreign markets for our agricultural and manufactured products,· and the. best method of'doing this is on the principle adopted in a recent French 

law, of which I shall present a full translation, namely, to pay a bounty 

both for the building and the running of American vessels-so much a 

ton for their construction and so much a mile for every ton transported. 

If our ship-building and ship-carrjing interests are protected and fostered in this manner they can und~rbid th~ ships of Great Britain and oth~r countries in the carrying trade, and we can find markets in every 

quarter of the globe for the supplies we are capable of producing over and above the needs of the home market. 

In brief, then, I propo ·e that we use ten, twenty, or, if necessary, 

thirty million of our surplus re>enue every year to protect the carrying trade, and thereby find markets for two hundred to three hundred 

millions of our surplus products. 

I believe this met~od to be much simpler and more feasible than th& 

system of rebates which I had in view at the time I introduced this 

resolution. Sincethattime I have conversed with thf)sewho arefamiliar with the deta:Usof the question. I have also consulted some of the 

most prominent statisticians in the country, and have used very freely 

the facts and figures obtained from them. 

With these preliminary remarks, I will endeavor to- explain as briefly as Possible why I think the present an opportune time to call the attention of t~e country to the necessity of a practical measure looking to 

the restoration of the American carrying trade, and why, under the ·existing condition of affairs, such an agitation is likely to be prolific 

of good results. . . 

In these times of business depression, when troubles are falling thick 

and fast upon our manufacturers; when the grain of the country is being 

stored in granaries because it will not pay to transport it to a distant 

market; when there are various estimates that from 500, OOOto 1,000, 000 

of our working :pOpulation are out of work; when capital lies idle for 

the want of useful employment, and when the cry comes from labor 

organizations throughout the land that work m~ be found for the unemployed, it is about time we turned our attention to measures of relief. 

In the midst of this suffering 'for the want of employment there is on 

all sides a great plenty. The granaries of the country are, as I have 

said, overflowing with the product of our fields. The mills and faetories of the country are closing down for laek of .orders. F.or the time 

being production seems to have overtaken consumption. We can raise 

in one year more grain and cotton and meat than we can consume in 

two years, and it bas been said that we can manufacture in six. months 

more than we can sell in a year. Stored away in our warehouses are 

millions of dollars' worth of goods for which we can find no purchasers. 

. The national Treasury of the country partakes of the same plethoric 

condition as the nation at large, and the question is asked on all sides, 

What shall we do with the surplus revenue? 

We haye the mean at hand in the surplu revenue that annually 

accumulates in our Treasu,ry-a surplus revenue, by the way, that in a few years we shall not be able to apply to the abolition of our debt, 

unless we go into the market and]mrchaseour own bonds at a premium. 

Then, why not tum a portion of this surplus revenue into a practical 

channel, that of s1rip-building and ship-carrying? The honorable Senator from New York [Mr. MILLER] made an estimate last May tha.t 

the total subsidies paid to vesseJs engaged in foreign· commerce by all 

the nations ofthe earth was less than $25,000,000 annually. I am informed upon competent authority that less than one-fifth of this sum steadily applied would establish an American merchant marine that 

would in ·a short time create for us a great industry, aid in finding new markets for American products, -and place us on an equal footing with 

the other nations of the world in our foreign carrying trade. . If, however, it requires more than ·this, if it requires an amount 

equivalent to our entire surplus revenue, I claim that the proposed 

object of expenditure would be just and right: Other nations would 

undoubtedly struggle against it, but in such a stmggle the nation with 

the greatest resources would win. That nation is the United States, 

and the time has come for her to assert and win her commercial supremacy on the ocean in the same manner and by th:e same means that in 

the last forty years she has established her commercial supremacy in 

the home market, by building up her own resources instead of being 

content to pay tribute forever to the foreign producer. 

Great Britain woul<l not give up this great source of wealth-the car- rying _trade-without a commercial struggle anymore than she gave up 

her American colonies without a war. She would increase her subsidies, and to that extent we must be prepared to incTease ours. · But in such a contest the United States will prove thestrongel'power 

and will survive. The people of England are now ground down undet· a system of taxation which enriches the few and impoverishes the many. 

Hoyle, the great authority on the English pooT law and its workings, 

has estimated that 7,000,000 people of that island are, to use his ex- pression, " toeing the line of pauperism." Anjncrease of a million or two dollars in her budget has to be met with an increase of the income 

tax, while with our present taxation we have a large surplus which can be used i1i the struggle. We have paid ·more of our national 'debt in 

ten years than England has p~id in sixty yeru.-s. England is dependent 

upon other nations for the food her population consumes, while so boundless are our resources that we ron live and :flourish independently 

of the rest of the world. 

Our system of taxation, which bears lightest upon those lea table 

to pay, now brings us annually a surplus far greater than can possibly 

be needed. To secure for the United States pre-eminence in the world' 

carrying trade·would complete her·commercial system and make her 

the first commercial nation in the world. This is an o~ject worth attaining. We have the means at hand, but we must apply them with 

boldness and vigor in order to succeed. · It was only by decided meas- ures, like those I shall propose, that England wrested the commer- ·cial supre:qtaey from Holland. It is of no use to nibble at the question, and it is of no use to advocate anything but old-fashioned, vig-
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1451 

orous, protective methods. The condition of our foreign shipping 

shows the blighting effect of free trade and the wonderfn.lly prosperous 

condition of our coastwise shipping shows the beneficent effect of protection. · . 

. The measure -proposed is a measure for. the benefit of the-entire country. It is not intended for the ship-builder along the seacoast. It is 

not intended for the capitalist, who puts hismoneyintoshipsaftert4ey 

are built. It is not intended for any c1as , but is merely the extension 

of the policy of protection to•this one industry which we have left unprotected, and a rounding or completion of the American system. It 

grants no subsidies. n is free to all. The railroads of this country 

annually carry nearly 300,000,000 tons of merchandise. Nearly onethird of this amount is the product of the farm, a large proportion of 

which is dependent upon ocean transportation before it reaches the con- sumer. · · 

It has been clearly demonstrated that the protection given to American manufacturers has ultimately reduced the cost of all kinds of goods 

to the consumer until he, in many in.stances, pays les8 than the present 

foreign price for an n.rticle of eqn..'tl quality, -and much less than the for--

eign price would have been had we been dependent upon foreign countrie . 1t e paid the English manufacturers for steel rails $100 per ton, 

delivered at English seaports, when we imported them. By the de-velopment of our own steel industry the cost of those rails ha been reduced to $30 per ton. We have reduced. the price of wool because, by 

protection, we have increased its production from 60,000,000 pounds annually, when the Morrill tariff was enacted, to 32~, 000,000 pounds at the 

present time. We have reduced the price of our cotton goods so-rapidly 

to the consumer that the common grades are cheaper her than in England. The srune is true of our manufacture of silk, earthenwa1·e, china, 

porcelain-ware, plate-glass, anrl, in short every manufactured article 

consumed in the United States. · 

The agricultlrnll interests have · been benented in two ways by this: 

the value of land and the value of product have been enhanced a.'i hundreds of centers of manufacturing enero".,y have been started and lmilt 

up in the mi(ht of agricultural districts. The farmers have a.l o b~n 

benefited by the decrease in the cost of wlmt they boy. 

The encollraoa-ement of the American carrying trade would timulate 

the shipping interests in the same way as the States fotty years ago 

stimulated the building of canals, and as the United, tate has stimulated the building of railroads and the manufacture of steel rails and 

textile goods. And it would as surely decrea e the cost of freight from 

the seaboard to foreign ports as these other protective measures have 

ultimately decreased the co t of intemal tran~portation and the cost of 

manufactured goods. 

It would also benefit the American farmer just as all other measures 

creating h~me industries have benefited the farmer. It would enlarge 

our ship-building interest and increase the number of people employed 

in it. And by this I do not mean the ship-building interest on the 

Delaware and of New England alone, but all along our seaboard. 

The iron of Alabama and Tennessee could be profitably converted into 

ships 'at Mobile, Savannah, New Orleans, and Galveston. The ir6n 

from the Virginias could be used in the same -way at N orf~?lk. All of 

these ports would have extensive ship-yards.ifthe same protection was 

extended to this industry that we exten<l to all others. The 100,-

000,000 paid annually to foreign nations, or to Great Eritain, for carrying our farm products, would be paid to Americans, and thu increase 

the earnings of capital, which is awaiting new avenues of usefulness. 

The proposed -plan, ·while making.a new avenue for capital, is free to 

all. It has no proscribed lines. To extend our foreign trade and find 

foreign markets for om products is it ultimate aim. It would form 

the most comprehensive feature of our present protective tariff. It 

says to every individual having a dollar to invest, put it inter ships and 

the Government will protect you again t all rivals; to the cotton producer build your ships in 1\Iobile, Norfolk, Savannah, Galveston, New 

Orleans, and put your cotton into these American vessels and send it to 

Emope. It says to the farmer on the Pacific coast, build your ships at 

Portlan,d, at San Francisco, or any other port, and instead of. sending 

your 30,000,000 bushels of wheat annually to Europe in foreign vessels, 

send it in American vessels. It says to the farmers of the prairie 

States, who ship nearly 50,000,000 tons of grain annually on her railroads, we Will furnish you a cheaper transportation to the world's cot}.-

suming points. 

And more than this. 'The money which you now pay out for ocean 

freight, and which goes into the pockets of the builders and owners of 

foreign -.essels,_ will come back to you and benefit you in the American labor that it will employ and in the American industries that it 

will build up. 'l'here are now 500,000 persons directly employed by 

the railroad companies of the United States. There are 2,000,000 to 

2,500,000 of our population thus dependentu~n this industry. There 

is no reason why our foreign carrying trade should not be extended 

until a like number is employed in it, and a like number of our population dependent upon it. And no one can estimate the value in time 

of war or emergency of having a large maritime population from which 

to obtain sailors for manning our war vessels. This population we can only get by fostering the mercantile marine. 

No further argument is needed to prove that all parts of the United 

States will be benefited by the expansion of foreign trade. 

It is generally admitted that our commerce flows in an improper channel and calls loudly to us to give it a different direction, and in doing 

this I would only propose such a. degree of encouragement as will enable us to enter into competition: with foreigne~ in our own carrying 

tmde. For years the shipping industry of this country has been knocking loudly at the door of Congress for some kind of equitable legislation 

that will putthisimportantindustryon a level with the other protected 

industries of the nation. As I shall presently show, various measures 

of relief hn.ve been proposed, but, owing to the great prosperity of other 

industries and the numerous avenues for profitable investment, those 

propositions have never crystallized. 

I will first call attention to our position in the world as a maritime 

nation. The following table bows the shipping of all :flags, the nominal tonnage, and carrying power of the several nations of the world: 

Flag. 

I ___ N_T o_m_i_n_al_t_o_n_na_g_e_. ___ j Carrying power. 

-------- l __ aili _ ·_n_g_. -:I-Q_t_ea_m_ . -:'-_ T_o_t_a_l_. -~ ~:__ ~ United Kingdom ........... .! :1,~,000 1 3, 004, 000 

~2;?.~:::::::::::::::::::::~:: : :t:5 ~~:~ tw~~~~:::::::::::::::::~::::::::: , ~:~ ~:~ 

6,692,000 1 ,110,000 42.1 9"....0,000 2,032,000 4.7 1.182,000 2, 04.6,000 -i.7 554,000 846,000 2.0 310,000 558,000 1.3 999,000 1,307,000 3.0 Spain .............................. 374,000 164,000 538,000 1,1~,000 2.8 . Portugal ........... ...... .. .... 71,000 ·n, 000 Belgium......................... 10,000 6-3,000 Holland.......................... 3-3"2, 000 000 

Denmark ............ ·-········· · 175,000 , 51,000" 

82,000 126 000 0.3 75,000 335:000 0.8 4w,ooo 747,000 1. 7 2"..6, 000 430,000 1.0 Sweden.......................... 447,000 I 84., 000 531,000. 887,000 2.0 

Norway ......... ···-············· 1, 4.'56,000 55 000 Greece ............................ 1

· ~(11, 000 __ 1o_:_ooo __ !----·:-----J---

. Europe ................. ·1 10, 013, 000 I 4., 233, 000 

1,511,000 I 1, 730,000 4.0 2ll,OOO 251,000 0.6 

,.., ... ooo I ao ..... ooo 71.0 

United8tates ...... :··········· ~,8.)6,000 1,2U,OOO 

Canada ............ ,.............. 1,~,000 78,000 Australia ..................•..... ! 201,000 77, 000 India, Cape,&c ............... l 427,000 I 28,000 Jn1~au ........... ····-···········' 151,000 41,000 Bnuil, Chili, &c.............. 24.0, 000 58, 000 

Total ..................... j 1::>,121,000 j- _-:>,-'i-26-,-000-l-r---

4, 007,000 8, !llO, 000 20.6 1, Sll, 000 1, 623,000 3.8 278, 000 586, 000 . 1.3 

45'>, 000 567,000 1.3 192,000 356,000 0.8 ~98,000 530,000· ~ 

L2 

10,847.000 43,131,000 100.0 

, ' I 

From the above table it will be seen that t.he carrying power of Great 

Britain is 42 per cent. of the aggregate carrying power of the world, 

while the carrying power of the United States is less than ha~ as great, 

or a little more than one-fifth of the world' carrying power, and that, 

too, including our coastwise tonnage. Of. foreign shipping the United 

States has much less than 10 per cent. Great Britain, therefore, mnks 

in shipping as we do in railroad , having a carrying-power nearly equal 

to there t of the world. At the beginning of the present century the 

carrying power of the United Kingdom was 2,211,000 tons. To-day it 

exceeds 18,000,000 tons, having grown eightfold since 1810. Nearly 

200,000 seamen are employed in this great merchant marine, the flags 

of which may be found in the ports of everyconntrythrougb.out the civilized world. · 

What are the earnings of these ships and w}lat proportion of th~ 

benefits of this carrying trade. do the several countries reap for themselves? Here it is. The British includes colonial, and the table comprises all trade: . 

I Earnings. 

Flag. I Ton carried. 

Freight. Pas enger. Total. Ratio. 

British .............. , 63,190,000 $.'307, 000,000 $61, 500, 000 11368, 500, 000 65.2 French .............. 6,100,000 29,500,000 6,000,000 35,500,000 5.4 German ............. , 6,200,000 30,000,000 6,000,000 36,000,000 5.4 ItaHun .•............. 3, 900,000 18,500,000 4,000,000 22,500,000 3.3 Spanish ......... ... 3,600,000 17,500,000 3,500,000 21,000,000 3.1 United States .... ! 37,000,000 52,500,000 ' 77,500,000 130, 000, 000 19.6 Various ............. 9,500,000 42,500,000 9,000,000 51,500,000 8.0 

Total.. ...... : 129,490, ooo 1 497,500,000 167,500, ooo 1 665, ooo. ooo 1 100.0 

Thus 55 per cent., or $368,500,000, of theeamingsofshippinggointo 

the coffers of Great Britain to enrich her ship-owners and manufactureTs, while less than ohe-fi:fth of the total amount, or $130,000,000, is 

the share that comes to the United States; and this again includes the 

coasting trade. Of course these figures are approximate. They were 

originally compiled by MuJ.hall, the English statistician, and I only 

use them for comparative purposes. . 

In amount of ship-building England is even more in advance of us 

than in her carrying power and earnings of shipping; yet, as the following table shows, in 1850 the tonnage built in the United States was more than twice that of England, and even as l~te as 1860 the average 

I 

-
1452 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN~TE. FEBRUARY· 9, 

annual output in the United States was greater than in England. In 

1882 it will be seen that the Brinsh exceeded ours fourfold: 

Year. 

Tons. I . Tons per ves el. 

American. British. I American.. British. 

1850 ......................................... . 1860 ......... ' ................................ . 1870 .................................... .... .. 1882 ......................................... .. 

2i2,000 

213,000 

2i7,000 

281,000 

134, 000 212,000 

343,000' 

1,194,000 

201 

198 

152 

250 

192 

! . .'08 

352' 

770 

The following figures for each emi-decennial year since 1 40 will 

present at a glance the facts relating to the past and present condition 

of American shipping: 

~ 

I 

Q.) I ~ I d!:: '1:l I ·- d ~.! 

~ !~ I ;~ 'd.~,.; ern 

~& _rn 

Years. >= Q.) .. -

~~ ~I) Ul~ ~,e Q) ~ .f I c~- I_ 8..§ .. ~:s 0 0 ~ ciS i> ~·~ ~ 0 ~ 0 

! - --- ----

To ns. To?i. I Valtte. Perel. Per ct. 1840 ............... .................... 762,838 1, 17ll, 694 ~~1. 22i, 465 1:12.9 17,1 1845 ................................... 1 9().1,476 1,22:J,!!l8 . ~1.001,170 81.7 18.R 

~e ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~:~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~; ;~ 1 

1,439,694 1,79i,82S ;>3(), 03i, 038 2.5 li.5 2,348,358 2, 5-!3, 255 536, 625, 366 85.6 14.4 2, 3i9,396 . 2,644.867 762, 288, 550 66.5 33.5 1,518,350 3,381,522 604 412,996 2i.7 62.3 1870 ................................... 1,448, 846 2 63 , 24i Wl,896,889 35.6 6!.4 1875 ................................... 1,515,598 3, 219, 693 . 1' 219, 434,544 25.8 14. 2 1880 ...... , ......................... ... 1,314,4.02 2, &,3i, 686 1, 613,770, 63.'3 17.4 86.6 1881 ................................... 1, 297' O"u5 2,6-tG,Oll 1' 675, 024, 318 16.0 Si.O 1882 ................................... 1, 259, 49'.!. 2, 73,633 1, 56i, Oil, 700 14.5 14.5 

-doubled, and t'b.eir population has more than doubled. The impo~t 

indUBtries have developed in the same proportions. The annu~~:l product· of our coal mines has increased nearly sevenfold. ·. Our iron mines produced in 1880 nearly nine times the amount that they produced in 1860. 

The varioUB metal industries of the·countl'y have increased by sixfold 

in the number of their employes and nearly fourfold in the value of 

their products. In industries relating to wood the increase has been 

threefold, and in the woolen industry the same. In the cotton industry need I say that we have practically 1·obbetl 

England of 55,000,000 custome1'S, increased the number employed in our mills to 200,000 persons, and in the last two decades doubled the 

value of the product? Imports of cotton goods.have steadily declined 

until they are now only one-~nth of what they were twenty years 

ago. A more remarkable pr9gress has been ma.de in the silk industry, 

which, before the Morrill tariff, gave employment to 5,000 persons; 

in 1880 it employed over 30,000, a sixfold increase. The inlportation 

of silk goods has remained stationa1·y since 1860 at a.bout $30,000,000, 

the production from our own mills. increasing from $6,000,000 in 1860 

to over $40,000,000 in 1880, or. nearly sevenfold. The manufactiD·e of 

pottery, stoneware, and glass employed 12 000per~ons in 1860, against 

a.:>,OOOnow. Thechemicalindustrywasinitsinfancythirtyyea.sagoG 000 persons were engaged in it ; to·day there are five times that 

number, ot 30,000. · . Ou.r 30,009 miles of railroads of those times will exceed 120,000 miles now-a ·mileage equal to the railroad }llileage of the rest of the world. 

This enormous increase in manufacturing, internal improvements, 

and home trade has been very largely due to protective meas\ues, which 

must now be appUed to our hipping interests in order that they may 

be developed and extended as our manufacturing interests have been. 

Tho e opposed to giving sufficie:p. t encouragement to ship-building ought 

to recollect the manufacturing interests, which, as I have shown, have 

been reared by the fostering care of the Government. They ought to 

remember the land gmnts that have been given to eXtend that grn.nd 

system ofinterD,ill improvements that is equal in mileage to the sys-· In other words, forty-five years ago four-fifth of our exports and im- tems of the rest of the earth. They ought to remember that this Govports were carried in our own · hip , and now more than four-fifths are ernment has given in aid of. the construction of milroads an area very 

carried in foreign ship . · little less in extent than that of the original thirteen States, namely, 

In the face of the growth that we ha,:e hown of railmads and man- . 335,000 squa1·e miles. · ulactures this is a Yery unhealthy condition of affairs. The growth .of The same is true in regard to the artificial water ways of the coun- Amerrcan tonnage practically ceased in 1835. Before that period it had try. ~ 1 30 we find tha,t nearly $103,000,000, or 60 per cent . . of the 

increased for many years at the rate of about 12 per cent. per annum; then entire State indebtedness, had · been expended for the improvebut between 1855 and 1 60 (notwithstanding our exports and imports ment of a system of internal transportation, and it was exactly this 

increased 8 per cent. per annum, or 40 per cent., during ·tlie five years) '}>rinciple which led the State of New York to build the Erie Canal at o~tonnage employed in tlte foreign trade 1·emained almost stationary; its own expense_:_a work which repaid its whole cost of construction in 

and the ship-building industry, so far as it.wa directed to the construe- ten year , reduced the cost of freight from Lake Erie to the Hudson 

tioll of vessels for the foreign trade, rapidly declined. River from 8100 to $7 a ton, and added$10Q,OOO,OOO to the value of the 

I shall show further along how during the four years of civil war farms of the State. It is needless to point out th~ effect of th~ appli~ 

American tonnage employed in foreign trade declined, alossof nearly tion ofthis principle.on these industries. It can be best read in the 

1,000,000 tons, or nearly 40 per cent .. , in the four years, being there- · progress and wealth of the nation. It can be best read .in the simple 

sult of this turn in the tide against our shipping interest . fact that we are to-day :first in agricultural productions, first in manu- . The situation to·dayshO\Vi!British shipping triumphant on every sea facturing, first ip. railroads, first in annual increment Qf wealtll, and 

and ours successful on none, except in our coasting trade, wbere, in first in aggregate wealth. . · · consequence of a wi e protection it is impossible to compete with us. On the other hand, the neglect to apply this principle on the ~an has 

When the policy of protection wa judlciqusly applied to American enabled our greatest competitor to wrest from us the lion's share of the 

ship-building and .American hip·owning, as it was in the earlier days carrying tmde of the world and to effectually prevent the development 

of the Republic, the re9ult was atisfactory from the start. From 1789 of the industry of ship-building, so necessary to the prosperity 11;ncl safety 

to 1812 ou.r tonnage increa ed from 208,000 to 1,100,000 tons, or 500 of the eountry, to saynothingoftheexteusionofourforeigncommerce. 

per cent.; while that of England increased only from 1,500,000 to In showing the policy of other governments toward the ship-build2, 000,000, or 25 per cent. The growth of our tonnage continued. In ingindustry, I do not think it necessary to go back };o the days of wooden 

1850 we had a tonnage of 3,335,454 an increo.se of over 200 per cent. sailing vessels. I shall have to deal.with iron U!ld teel ships. Since 

since 1815. 1837, according to one of the most reliable authorities op. ship-building 

Our coasting trade from which foreign . hips were excl~ded, em- in the United States, England has paid 222,500,000 in mail compensaployed nearly 2, 000,000 tons of shipping, an increase of nearly 400 per tion and bOunties to encoumge her capitalists to invest in the fast mail 

cent. in the same period. Our tonnage increased to over 5,000,000 ships. Here are the estimates in detail: 

in 1860. This growth, of course was almost wholly in the wooden Fromgeneralpost-office,1837to1849 ...................................... : .......... " $25,000,000 

sailing ship . · The war came and almost sinmltru1eously the change From mercantile marine fund............................................................. 37,500,000 

from wood to iron and steel. The Navy Department took of our best From general post-office, 1.850 to l859, over.......................................... 60, ooo, 000 · . ( . ll ) From general post-office, 1860 to 1869................................................... f.!O, ()(X), 000 shtppmg prinClpa y steam 565,978 tons; and the War Department From general post-office, 1870 to 1879 .................................... ............... 50,000,00Q 

took for transportation 787,611 tons. Having no navy to protect·our hipping, it sought refuge under foreign :fl~gs, and 801,311 tons were Assistance from British treasury to her shipping ervice, ~83i ............ 222,500,000 

lost to us in this way, making our totallo of tonnage during the war It may be urged that a great deal of this money was paid for mail 

2,154,900. · service to her <..'Olonies. This is undoubtedly true, but when we com- Between 1865 and '1875 I am informed that 4.57,000 tonsweresold to pare side by side the amounts paid for the carriage of foreign mail by 

foreigne1·s, because the cheap capital, cheap labor, and favorable laws of the United States; and when we see our own Government actually trytaxation of other countries, and the refusal of our own Government to ing to squeeze a profit out of our decaying shipping industry, as com- afford the shipping industry adequate protection, made it impossible pared with the liberal policy adopted by Great Britian, we no longer 

for American ship-owner to run them in the foreign trade in competi- wonder that England enjoys the largest share of the carrying trade, 

tion with other countdes. Thus we have a total decline of 2,611,900 the surprise being that we are even.permitted. tohave any. The entire 

tons, the loss representing nearly $116,000,000 of invested capital cost of transporting our mails to foreign coun~ries rarely exceeds a The capital thus displaced went into the protected industries of the quarter of a million dollars, and not infrequently the Postmaster-Geneountry, which have during the last twenty years grown by leaps and . eral announces an actual profit of one million and a quarter t9 the 

bounds. Under the protective tariff we have grown from a purely Department o:p. tliis service, while every year we incur cheerfully a agricultural country, Jargely dependent upon Europe for our manufact- deficit of double this amount in carrying the mails to some of the States 

ures, to a nation teeming with important industries. During twenty and Territories. 

years of proteCtion we have added 20,000,000 to our population. The Many attribute the decline t~t I have already shown in OUI' ocean- number of our cities and towns with over8,000inhabitantshasactually carrying trade to what they term (it must be confessed not inaptly) 
1885. CONGRESSIONA'L RECORD-. SENATE. 1453_ 

the iniquitous posta.llaws existing on ·the statute-books of the United .time when the present laws came int{) force, as stipulated il). articles 4 and 5, ~tates; which compel vessels of the United States to transport and de-· afte~ deducting the ~~:mount of cust.oms dues fi,xed. by the conve~tion~l ~rift' on 

1i ail t 2 ts ~ 1 u.~ d 1

. d Th to U 'ted foreign imports, which may have been entered m bond for ship-building pur- ve:r m s a cen 10r every eUI':lr so e 1vere .. e pay m poses. 

States vessels in the foreign trade for transporting the mails in 1880 was, A_R'!· 9: As com~~~tion for charges. im.posed on the mercantile navy for reI am informed only 2.\ cents per mile· while at the same time the crmtwg, and the military navy:, a ~vtgattc;>n bounty shall be granted, d~J:r!ng ' ~ • ' ' . . . ' . . ten years from the date of publicatiOn of thts law, to all French vessels, sailing tlteamers on our .coasts, which contracted for domestic mails, receive 57! ·or steam.. This bounty is applicable only to foreign-going vessels. It is fixed at 

cent.u per mile for mail service. While we make a profit on our foreign 1 :franc 5Q-centimes per register ton, and per 1,000 miles run for vessels fresh otf 

mail ervice Eno-land pays out more than double what she receives the sto':ks, and decreases annu_:lllY by 0.075 franc for wo?d~n vessels, 0.075 for. . ' o . composite vessels, 0.05 franc for uon vessels. The bounty IS mcreased by 15 per from 1t. . cent. for steamers built in France according to plans approved by the marine 

I append a statement from the report of the Postmaster-General, show- department: The number of miles~ is calc~ated according to t~e distan~. 

ing our foreign mail service for 1883.. ~om tJ;le pomt of departure to the pomt ?f arnval, meas~e.d on a. direct. man- time lme. In case of war, merchant ·ships can be requ1s1t1oned by the state. Vessels used for fishing, those belonging to subsidized lines and yachts, are ex- cepted from receiving a bounty. Twenty~r cent. from the bounty granted by the present law shall be deducted and patd into the "Caisse des Invalides" of 

the marine, so as ~ increase the retiring pensions of registered seamen. · 

Slatmnent slwwing appro:t-inwtely the net 1·evenues oftlw Post-Office Depm·t- ment· of the United States on nwil mait{!r sent to mid 1·eceived jro1n foreign countries dm·ing Ute fiscal year ended Jmte 30, 1883, ba.sed 'l.tpon th.e 

tabulated estimate of 1nail matter excltanged during the period, g.ir:en on 

page 697 of the Pommaster-General's report for 1883. 

RECEIPTS. 

Amount of postage prepaid on letters sent abroad ...........••............ Sl, 450,078 90 Amount .of postage prepaid on postal cards sent abt·oad..... ....... ... .. 32, 328 26 

Amount of postage prepaid on printed matter sent abroad............. 451, 357 92 Amount~llected on unpaid mail matter received......................... 145, 148 46 

ARr.IO. Every maste'r of n vessel receiving a bounty 4:ixed by article 9 of the 

present law shall be obliged to carry, free of charge, mails put under his charge by the post-office f!.Uthorities, or which he will deliverto their administration, as prescribed in the consular decrees of the 19th Germinal, year X. If a. post-office 

agent is deputed to accompany the dispatches, he shall also be conveyed free of 

charge. 1 

ART.ll. A regulation of public administration, containing a special statement of the distances between ports, shall fix the system on which this law shall be 

nppli.ed. Forty per cent. on $52,507.80 ofrcgistration fees on 525,078 registered a:ticles sent. abroad, thi;s being estimated as net profit on regis!ra- tton .................................... ........................................................... . To give a practical illustration of this new French bounty law, one 21,003 02 of our well-known ship-builders wa~ requested to apply it to a 3,000-

Totali·eceipts.. .................. ............. .......................................... 2, 099,916 56 ton steamer. The result is as follows: ' 

Amount paid i'or sea conYeyance other than interm~diary or tran- sit, namely: 

1. To foreign vessels, including .French packets..... $284,076 41 ~- American vessels .................................... :........... 32,445 72 

Amount :paid foreign administrations for intermediary, territorial, and sea transit of 

United States mail .................................... &86, 74.5 91 

Less amount received fol' similar service per- formed for said administrations by the 

United·States............................................. 30,252 9G 

Estimated cost of interior (domestic) mail 

service on 57,573,272 letters sent and re- ceived (three letters t.o one ounce= 19,191,091 ounces, 2 cents per half ounce) ... 767, 643 6-1 2

' ~l!c~~-~-~~~-~~.~-~-~-~~ .. ~~~!.~~~:.~~-~ 29,397 35 

4.8,329,548 packets, prints, &c.; 490}422 pacltets, samples, sent and received ~50,&51,391 

ounces, at 1 cent for two ounces) .............. 254, 256 96 . 

56,492 95 

. 1, 051, 29J 95 

Total expenditure .................................................................. 1,424,313 03 

Net reyenue .............. , .................•...... .................... : .. ............. . Net revenue, without charge for estimated cost of interior service a'S above, namely.·-··········· .......................................................... . 

675,603 53 

1, 051, '1,97 95 

1, 726, 901 48 

Turning to France, we find that she has aided her ship-owners for 

years, and quite recently, finding it ~possible to obtam a great mer- chant mar4le by ·purchasing it of England, she passed a law offering a bounty for every iron steamship built in France-an encouragement 

said to be equal to $7,000,000peryear, in.cludin_.gthesums paid to those 

running French-built ships under the French tlag. 

The following is a translation of the French mercantile-marine bill as passed by the Chamber of Deputies: 

ARTICLE 1. The right .of free pilotage is granted to all sailing vessels not meas- tuing over eighty tons, and to steamers whose measurement does not exceed one hundred tons, whenever they run regularly between port and port, and 

habitually frequent the entrance to rivers. . Nevertheless, at t.be request of the Chamber of Commerce, and after an inquiry in the usual form has been made, the public administrative regulations shl\li <letermine the modifications of rules which may be considered necessary in the in,terest of navigation. ART. 2. For foreign-going vessels, the visit of inspection preS()ribed by article 2?-5 of the commercial code-for a fresh cargo loaded in France shall not be obHgatory unless six months ha.ve elapsed since. the last inspection, except the 

vessel may have sustamed damage. · ART. 3. For th~ official documents or proces-verbaux showing the changes of owners of the ship, either totally or partially, a fixed charge shall be made for 

registm.tion of 5 francs. Article 5, No.2, of the law of the 28th Februa1-y, 1872 

is repealed so far as it is contrary to the present provision. ' ART. 4. To oompensate ship-builders for the charges fixed by the custom- lJOuse ~aritf, the following allowance shall be made to them for gross tonnage: Fo1· non or steel vessels, 60 francs. 

For wooden vessels of two hundred tons or more, 20 francs. 

For wooden. vessels of less than two hundred tons, 10 francs. 

For composite vessels, 40 francs. . For engines placed on board steamers, and for aUxiliary apparatus, such as 11team-pumps, donkey-engines, winches, ventilators worked by machinery, also boil~rs and connecting pipes, 12 francs per hundred kilograms. - Shtps planked '}Tith timber, having beams and ribs of iron or steel, are to be ~ considered ns composite vessels. ABT .. 5. Eyerychangein a ship by which an increase in measurement is gained shnll gtvc r1ght to a bounty based on the above tariff according t-o the increase 

of tonnage gained. · .!. similar bounty shall be granted for driving-engines and auxiliary apparatus J>laced on board after completion of the ship. · . . . On change of boilers, the owners shall be allowed a compensation of 8 francs 

per 100 kilograms on new boilers without the tubes, if of French make. ART. 6. The fees granted by articles 4 and 5 shall be paid on delivery of the 

6hipls register by the receiver of customs, at the port nearest to the place of 

construction. . · . - ART. 7. The regulation of admission in bond fixed by article 1 of the law of the 

19th of May ,1866, and by article 2 of the law of the 17th of May ,1879, is abolished ART. 8. Sh~p-builders shall receive allowance for vessels on the stocks at the 

Weight of iron in hull, 1,800 tons, at $12 .................................................... $21,600 

Weight of machinery, 500 tons, at $24.43 ............... ,... ............... .. .... .. .... .. . ... 12, ~5 

. 33 815 

Then there is allowed 30 cen~s per ton for every 1,000 miles :run ' ' 

after being put in service for first year, diminishing 1 cent per ton fo:r 

each year thereafter. Presuming the above 3,000-ton steamer makes 

ten trips from Havre to New York per annum, or 60,000 miles, this ·gives for first year's service, as follows: 

Three thousand tons, at 30 cents= $900X60 ......................... : ................. m. $54,000 

And second year's service ............................................................. : ........... 52,000 

This will e~pire entire1y at the · end of thirty years. Adding th~ bounty and allowance per mile, the law would grant the 3, ooo-ton ship 

the first year $89,015. The French Government for this year requires 

in return the carrying of its mails and the right to use the ships in case of war, taking them at a fair valuation. Though this law seems an ex: pensive one, yet it will furnish France, at small expense, with the ma~rirus for a large and sudden increase of the navy. 

Germany contraets with her numerous navigation companies for cer- tain ·amounts of mail pay and fosters her commercial interests in other 

respects, and at this moment bills are pending before the German Par.: 

liament to largely increase the assistance which it already gives to its 

shipping interest. . · . . Italy expends in subsidies and postage to steamships yearly the sum of about $3,000,000, besides payments of postage& to other lines. · Russia pursues a system of compensation to her steamship lines, paying 1.4~ ~r miJe, although to one 1?-.ne she pay~ a round subsidy. ~ 

Austria likeWI."!e pays a remuneration per manne league per voy~ge. 

· Even Belgium,_ out of ·her limited revenues, pays $250,000 a y.ear to 

encourage her shipping interest. 

·Spain, Holland, and Brazil, and indeed it would be safe to say every 

civilized country, have found it necessary to encourage their own shipbuilding, and to give advantages to th~irownshi~ping. Even China is 

pursuing a policy of wonderful energy, and, after ruiningthe owners of 

the native junks, by permitting foreign ships to do its coasting trade; 

has :finally secured the coasting trade of its great empire . . I append here a summary of what other nations a.re doing for their 

shipping industry, for which I am indebted to the honorable Senator 

from New York [Mr. 1ifiLLER], and which shows that other nations are paying nearly $25,000,000 annually as subsidies to thei~ ships~ 

It also brings out the ridiculously insignificant sum paid by the United 

State& to American vessels for mail services. 

Recapitulation of nations that at·e to-day paying subsidies to shipping, ana 

. · tlte !UIW1mts paid thereto. 

' Total ............................... ~ ........................................................... 22,877,000 

The United States to American ships (postage *)................................ 43,000 

Total with United Sta.tes postage............................................... 22,920,000 

·~he United 'States to foreign ships $230,000 • 

• 
1454 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. SENATE. FEBRUARY 9, 

Our direct loss in not having a su.flicient merchant. marine ·is at least 

the sum of 100,000,000 annually, wllich we pay to foreign vessels that 

ought to go to vessels built in American ship-yards. We are carrying 

only 20 per cent. of our foreign commerce in our own vessels, and have 

invested in ships engaged in the foreign carrying trade about one hundred million dollars. If we could .regain and control four-fi.ft~ of this 

trade, we s~ould have invested in ship property $300,000,000. Our 

foreign commerce is growing with great rapidity. From 1869 to 1879 our exports increased from 2, 482,172 tons to 11,149,160 tons, or more than 

400 per cent. It is estimated that we build only about 10 per cent. of 

the tonnage afloat, hence the country loses largely in the industry of 

building and repairing the shipping lost or broken up. In case of war we lose~e advantage of a navy, to say nothing ofvaluablecommercial 

business. 

The indirect losses.are educated ship-builders, seamen, and managers 

ofships..:.....a very important class of people in Greab Britain. We also 

lose a very iniportant amount of inarine insurance business. 

After a thorough investigation of this subject·an authority on navigation in the United States, Mr. Henry Hall, of the New York Trib- un~saM: · 

There appears to be no prominent government in the world which, whileiegisl&ting directly in favor of native shipping, does not give it financial support, 

except the United States. · 

Havi.Dg shown how all parts of 'the United States will be benefited 

by an expansion of foreign trade, and that·ourwant of a ·merchant ma- rine prevents us from taking that position which is rightfully ours, and 

having shown that the reason for the present unsatisfactory condition of 

our merchant marine is because the same principles that have been applied in building up our internal system of transportation, our manu- faetories, and our agricultural in~rests, have not of recent years been 

applied in the building up of the iron and steel ship-building industry; 

having also shown that other countries have seized the opportunities, 

and when the change ft'Om wood to iron and steel came, by subsidies, ~unties, and other favorable legislation, have not only wrested from us · a large part of the carrying trade which rightfully belon~ to the United 

States, but so crippled our ship-building industry and obtained such 

advantages by ch~p capital, cheap labor, and less taxation that we are rapidly being pushed out of tke world's markets by other nationshaving established this, it is next important to examine the various 

methods proposed to revive shipping. 

Among the various remedies proposed are ''free ships,'' the repeul of 

the navigation laws, the remission of local taxation, additional subsidies to mail lines, and other propositions, no one of which, in my epinion, goes deep enough to remedy and to be of real service. Nothing 

short of old-fashione<l methods vigorously applied can deal with this 

qaestion effectually. Free ships will merely destroy the ship-building 

industry and leave us as far behind as ever ip. competition in the world's 

commerce, I might more properly say our own foreign comm.erce. 

The. effect of the ~bolition of our navigation laws, evGal. if they are inmlequate and useless,. as their enemies say they have become, would 

jeopardize our vast coasting trade, the fostering of .which was one of 

the first meas~ of the fi.tst Congre8s. One of the very first acts of 

Congress, after the Gove~ent had been formed, was to exclude from 

the trade of our rivers and coast the vessels of all other nations . . 

From the beginning of the Republic we wisely discriminated in 

.favor of American shipping. Not only was Ap1erican shipping subject 

to less taxation than 1oreign shipping, but merchandise, such as tea, 

for example, which did not compete with our home· industries, was admitted at a less rate of duty, if in an American ship direct from the 

place of production, than in an American ship from Europe or than in a foreign ship. This so stimulated American shipping that in 1827 

$145,000,000 of the commerce of the United States was carried in 

American vessels and only $14,000,000 in foreign vessels. This con- dition of affairs, owing v_ery largely to the wisdom and boldness which 

characterized our early legislation in regard to our marine, continued 

(t.hough the rates of foreign tonnage increased somewhat) until1850, 

when $'240, 000,000 of our foreign trade was carried in American vessels 

and $90,000,000 in foreign. We know how.all this bas been reversed. 

It is not the building of vessels that troubl~ our people. We have· .abundance of ship-iron·, and, though labor costs more, the great-er ingenuity and mechanical genius of Americans have overcome these obstacles. · According to Mr. C. A. Griscom, who, as far as I can ascertain, has 

presented the clearest and most precise testimony ·in regard to the difference in the cost of ship-building here and in England, and which testimony has not been controverted even by the ·opponents of protection, 

the cost of first-class steamers is about 10 to 12 per cent. more in this 

country, and of the so-called "ocean tramps" from 30 to 40 per cent. 

more. The reason for this is apparent: To the extent that extensive 

joiner-work becomes a part.ofthestructure, tothatextentis theAmeri- can cost relatively cheapened; and to the extent that you descend in 

the scale toward a simple freight carrier, which, as Mr. Griscom said, means merely an iron box with engines tO drive it, is the difference »-e,~t building in this country. 

From the report made by Mr. DINGLEY, from the Joint Select Committee on American Ship-building, we leam that the committee, after 

• 

examining a number of the most practical ship-bllil.ders in the United Sta~ anived at the conclusion that it now costs on an average from 

$10 to $15 per ton more to build an iron sailing vessel and from twentyfive to thirty-five dollars per ton more to build nn iron atealllilhip in 

the United States than it costs on the Clyde. They all agree that the 

chiefcauseJ)f.this excess of cost is the fact that the labor required to 

mine, smelt, and make the iron and fasb4->n it into the form of a steamship costs considerably more in the United. States than it does on the 

Clyde. . Prominent among the causes named for this enhanced cost was the 

fact of the small demand for iron vessels, as it gives little encouragement to investments of the large amounts of capital needed to establish 

and extend iron ship-yards and to overcome the obstacles alw~ys en- oountered in inaugurating .new industries. The committee dwelt so 

stro.11gly on this point that I at:n inclined to t~k that if the demand 

for A.merican shipping was-greater we could soon build them as cl1eaply, 

ton for ton, class for class, as they are built on the Clyde. 

It is evident, therefore, that it is not a measure for free ships that we want, but- a . measure looking toward helping the American flag after 

the !Jhips have been built in American ship-yards. . There are many 

obstacles in the _way of this-such as taxation, dear capital, d~ labor, 

and other burdens. Not altogether in the original construction of the 

boat, for that, as I have shown, by ingenuity and adaptability has been 

in a measure overcome, but a steady addition of 50 per cent. on all the 

labor employed in running a ship, preOCC1.W3tion of the northern Atlantic by other nations, non-American agitation, lack of that firm adherence·to.p:rinciples which characterized the·actions of the founders of 

the Republic, when theyenactedstringentnavigationlawsnnd-discriiirinated in favor of goods carried in American bottoms as against vessels 

under other flags. 

As I have said, one of the obstacles to our shipping interest is the 

amount of taxes levied upon ship properly, the title of which must be 

registered at some port of entry. These taxes in some cases are as high as 2~ per cent., based on the value of the ships, while the English impose no direct tax upon theh ships, but levy a t.ax ·or 1 per cent. on the net profits that the vessels earn. The State of :Massachusetts and the State of New York and, I think, 

possibly some other States have already realized the inconsistency of 

asking aid from the General Government for the shipping interest, while 

withholding what they can render themselv:es. They have, therefore; 

been among the first States to .lead off and exempt from local taxation 

vessels engaged in the foreign trade for more than ten months in the 

year. . 

The same principles apply to navigating ship as apply to manufacturing. No man can run a factory on the American plan ofhigh ta..~ition, high capital, and high labor, successfu.lly in England; and hence, 

unless our flag can carry our protective policy with it into all the ports 

of the world: we shall never be able to compete with foreign ves els. 

Referring to the State laws, I find that they generally adopted the 

idea of discrimination. The State of Pennsylvania discriminated in 

favor of its own vessels and against those of other nations . . So did the 

State of :Maryland; the British vessels paying as much as 6.'. &l. (.$1.60) 

per ton and 2 per cent. extra on goods imported over and abovP. those 

paid by American vessels. The laws ofVirginia.and South Carolina. 

discriminated in the same way. · 

BelieTing in the wisdom of the founders of thi Republic and having 

proof of their foresight in the rapid development of American commerce until it was checked in 1860, having faith in the policy of Great Britain 

of subsidizing her steam.Ships to the extent of 224,000,000 since 1837, 

recognizing the fact that the wisdom of that policy is demonstrated by 

her present control of the world's carrying trade, and wit.h the example 

of nearly every other civilized country .befure us, I believe that we ought 

at once not only to correct existing legislation, such a that compelling 

American vessels to carry mails at an actual loss, but also at the same time lay the foundation for a comprehensive plan to restore Americ.au 

navigation. 

We ought to provide fot the payment of certain rates of compensation to all American-built ships, and I believe this to be better than by 

discl'im.inating in the duti.eg paid by imported merohandi e, as originally proposed. · 

Vessels receiving aid should be offi.cered by American citizens, built 

to carry a reasonable tonnage, and in all respects cred.ita.ble to the na- tion, and should be encouraged in the foreign · ocean canying trade. 

The safest unit of service upon which payment to such vessels could be 

based would be the aetual mileage run. The sum to be paid per unit 

of.service shou).d be such as to afford a protection equivalent to the 

average protection afforded American industries-say 40 per cent. 

Mulhall estimates the monthly work-ing expen e for a,yessel of 1,000 

tons, crew twenty men, to be as follows: 

British ..................................... ; ............................................................ :........ 87'2ii 

French ......................................................... : ............................ -........ ......... 675 

German ........ , ................................................................................. -......... ... 675 :A.nstrian ....................................................................................................... · 625 Italian........................................................................................................... 475 

American ..................................................................................................... 1, 009 

If this estimate is approximately correct, the protection that aholild 

be afforded American ship-owners to compensate them for the differ-
1885. OONGRESSIONAL · RECORD~NATE. 1455 

ence in the-cost oflabor ought not to be less than 40per cent. If such a plan as this can be adopted and put into force, our ship-building industry would increase in the same manner that our manufacturing 

and agricultural industries have, while our vesselswould extend over the ocean8 and .seas as our railroads have extended over o:nr vast domain. Ten millions of our surplus revenue thus judiciously expended 

would in a few years bring l;Lbout this- beneficent result, and place us fust in shipping and in foreign commerce. The method proposed is in 

direct keeping with what our ancestors did; it is in keeping with what we ourselves have done for every other of our great industries; it is in 

keeping with what other nations are doing, and the only practical wn:y 

out of the difficulty. 

In order to ascertain whether the French rate of30 cents per ton would 

give us the needed protection, an expert investigation woUld be neces- sary. One Of our ship-owners informs me that 40 cents per ton would 

give us the needed protection. Let us compare the American wages 

witli the English. . · Below are ta.bles showing the average . wageS paid in England and 

America, which arc taken from a speech delivered in the Senate (April 

30 and .Mayl) by the honorab~e Senator from Maine [Mr."FRYE]; and 

which were disc~d atlength in-the Senateandgenerallyadmitted to 

be true. · 

The fo~lowing table comprises the monthly wages paid by steamships 

at Philadelphia and Li~erpool: · 

Occupation. 

First officer .... : ................................................................... , .. .. 

~~~~~~::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::: 

Second 

~i!i~~~L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;-~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~;~:::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ boatswsin ...............................................................J .. 1 

~i;l.:·ff:r~;;::;·-:.·:~~·-_.;;·_:;·r"[:t·:~1(~\.:;:·;:_::·:;:~~:::::J Fourth engineer ................................................... : ................ . Oiler ................ ................. " ................................................. .. Storekeeper ..................... ..................................................... . 

~~~~~~~:::::::::::::::::::·.:::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Coal-pas er ........................................................................... .. Chief teward ....................... : .................................................... ~. 

I 

Pliiladel- Liver- phi&. pool. 

S8~uo 

6300 

49 50 40 50 6300 

6300 

4000 

3500 

3000 

3000 

2500 

13 50 

121 50 81 00 70 20 6210 

4050 

36 00 · 3600 

4000 

3000 

6300 

$3839 

4866 

3406 

2433 

48 66 48 66 3406 

31 62 

24 33 2066 

19 46 .7 Z9 87 59 68 13 58· 39 48 66 23 11 2433 

2311 

2189 

19 46 4866 

Phi1'ldelphia wages 36 per cent. higher than wages at Liverpool. 

The following list of prices are paid by sailfug ships at present: 

• 

Occupation. Sa~ Fran- I Liverpool ClBCO. ' 

!':tn~::·~~.'.'.'.':::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:·.·.·.:::·.:·.:~::·: .. :::·.::::·:::.J 

$60. 00 843 79 6000 48 66 4000 29 19 Carpenter ..................... - ................................................ .. 3500 2919 Steward ......................................................................... .. 3500 MOO Cook .................................. ........................................... _ .. 3000 24 33 Seaman ........................................................... ................ .. 3000 12 16 

Ordinary~man.: .......... : ..... , ................. ..................... { 15 00 } 973 2000 

.Wages at San Francisco 33!- per cent. higher than at Liverpool. 

It will be seen from thesetablesthat thedi1ferenceinsejlmen'swages 

alone is 36 per cent., and I am informed on reliable authority that it 

is, upon, the whole, nearer 50 per cent. 

The Forty-eighth Congress has passed two acts in relation to our merch!lnt marine: The. first was called an act to remove certain burdens on the American merchant marine and encourage the American foreign 

carrying trade, ~nd the second was an act to constitute a bureau of 

navigation. These measures, while they may have been a move in the 

right dir~ctllm., are entirely inadequate. The recent shipping law made some changes that were said to be needed in relation tO the discharge of 

seamen, payment of wages, and return of destitute seamen; permitted 

the employment of foreign seamen; reduced the amount of tonnage 

duties for American vessels en~aed in certain lines of trade; removed 

the expense of maintaining the Marine-Hospital Service from shipowners, or, as a matter of fact, from the American seamen; allowed·a drawback on all dutiable mat-erials entering into the construction of 

vessels for foreign 3C{)Onnt, and, in short, made a complete circuit of the 

shipping problem without once touching the core of the queition. 

The House committee, in ·preparing and reporting the bill .refetred 

to, frankly admitted that this problem will never be satisfactorily solved 

until a policy of protection !las been inaugurated which will secure the 

~g trade to. American sailing and steam vessels _after~hey are built, 

and this at no higher cost .to the owners than English ship-owners can · sail their·vessels under British laws. This is the heart of the question. 

The propositions of this same committee, which, however, were not 

incorporated in the act pas!ied, to allow adequate compensation for tl;l& 

transportation of mails and to provide for the abolition of taxation of 

vessels by State authority, are both to be-commended, perhaps, to those 

who believe in doing things by halves; but a complete revival of the 

foreign carrying trade is never to be had by half measures. None of 

the enacted or proposed measures go to the marrow of the question. 

Hon. WILLIAM A. RussELL, of Massachusetts, made an interesting 

Teport upon, the causes of the decadence--of our merchant marine, andhe came to -the conclusion that of the ten elements urged as obstacles to our ~uccess, four, namely, tonnage duties, admeasurements, compulsory 

pilotage, .and individual ljability of ship-owners, impose no burdens 

upon the foreign carrying trade; which we are now seeking-to res~Te, 

that are not borne by our competitors in this business. Four, namely, 

the privilege of taking ·ship-stores out of bond free of dnty, extra pay 

to seamen discltarged in foreign ports, excessive consnlar f~, and local 

taxation; are in a greater or less degree burdens which bear dh-ectly 

upon our vessels engaged in the ocean carrying trade, not borne by our rivals, and are questions that demand consideration, and-which have 

subsequently, to some extent at least1 been TP.lieved. 

The question of wages paid the seamen and the repeal or mainte- nance of the navigation laws are two other obstacles. The latter, which 

in its more common phrase means "free ships," is ont,of. the question. 

The question of the wages paid to seamen can only be overcome by ex- tending ·not only t~ the building of ships but to the running of them 

the same provisions and the same protection that we extend to m.anu- facturers. · 

The following resolution was passed by the national convention of 

.ship-owners by a vote of 63 to 14:_ 

That resulta have clearly and foiclbly proved that under the present condition of aft'o.irs our shipping can not pt'Osper or ·even maintain itself in eompetition wilh the navigation of other m~Uitime people: therefore we call upon the Gov- ernment to aid the restoration of our commerce by granting a. bouuty of $-- per ton per yeac fol' sail tonnage, s~d $--per ton per year for steam tonnage, for n. period· of-years after the passage ofthiHact; this to apply only to ves- sels engaged in the foreign trade, arid not" exceeding fifteen years of age. 

·The above is in the line that I propose. It was passed after a long 

debate, in which the details of reasons or causes were set forth at length. 

These reasons were founded on the cost of vessels themsetves, the cost 

of service, the absence of just compensation for postal bnsin~s, and the 

existence of obstrncti ve practices and charges in pilotage, tonnage meas- urements, and tonnage dues. I have endeavored to touch on all these 

point&, bu"t not with the. same degree .of thoroughness' and detail as those shipping experts did. · To sum them up, the points to be con idered are: ~· The relative cost of construction of American and for.eign vessels 

and the extent to which American ship-owning is affected thereby . . 2. The relative cost of operating American and foreign ships. 

3. The charges and taxes which ·American ships have to pay from 

which foreign ships are exempt . 4. The policy pursued· by fQreign powers, so far as it is hostile ro 

American ship-owning. · 

5. The policy of Government aid to the shipping mvrest. . On all. these ~ints and many others it was shown at the ship-builders' convention, as~ have- endeavored to show to-day, that American 

ships are now at a disadvantage as compared with foreign ships of 

almost every country. I have to-(}.ay explained fhe general principle on which relief must be based. Th~ ad vice of experts will have to be 

obtained befcne I can incorporate this principle in a bill, which I intend to do at the next session. · 

:Mr. President, I have given this s.nbject long and careful consideration, and have endeavored to discover the 1·easons why the ;mpping interest has. not-prospered. It is because it was not fostered. The enterprising, restless, ambitiotl.s, and adventurous youth of this country 

for a half century ha-ve been pushing westward, where obstacles were to 

be overcome and forttmes made, and there "they have established great 

enterprises, produced wealthinfabulousamonnts. Now, however, they are :mxious for new fields to open for their enterprise. Start them on 

the ocean, and_the same American force and energy will soon push to 

the ti'ont, and we shall again be mistress of the seas. W:hat has taken 

other people centuries to accomplish can and will be done by our people in a single generation. The accomplishing power of Americans 

has never been appreciated. Whether it is the mixed blood, the clear, 

bracing atmosphere, the vast domain,-the freedom from restraint, and the 

effort to ·rise in the social scale, or whether it is -the coxnbination of all 

these, I can not tell, but certain it is that our growth in a;U material 

interests is phenomenaL . 

I have shown you that the United States is to-day first in agriculture, first in manufacture, first in railroads, ..first in annual incrementa 

of wealth, and the measure I propose will, I believe, give us in addition the control of the carrying trade, and thns make us the f!:rst com- mercial natio:p. in the world. In the well-known article published in 

the North American Review a few years since by Mr. Gladstone, he 

says: -

It!s she (the United States) alone who, at a coming time, can and probably will wrest fro.m WJ t-hat commercial primacy. We have no title-1 have no in- clination to murmur ali the pl'OSpect. If she acquire it,shewillmaketheacqul- sition by the right of the strongest; but in-this instance th~ strongest me.a.ns t-he 
1~56 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 9, 

best. She will probably become what we are now, the head-servant in the great household of the. world, the employer of all employed, because her service will 

be the most and ablest. We have no more title against her than Venice, or Gel:.oa, o~ Ho?and h~ had ~ga.inst us. . 

Do we real~ this?_ Do we comprehend that th.e world's carrying 

trade is within our grasp i:i we only take the proper steps to seize it ? 

And above all things it must be remembered that the measure I propose is not a measure to benefit any particular class. It is a national measure. It holds out the same inducements to every one in this broad 

land. It says to. the farmer, we mean to give you facilities to reach 

every market in the world. We propose to protect our producers until 

their prOducts meet the consumer, in whatever part of the world he 

JQay oo found. If a Chinaman in Hong-Kong wants cotton goods, we · propose to enaple our cotton planters and manufactmers to deliver it 

to him cheaper than any one else can. If hardware is needed on the 

Congo, we propose that oti.r hardware merchants shall supply it cheaper 

than any one else. If food is needed in England, we propose that our farmers shall deliver it cheaper than it can be bought from any of the 

English colonies. · . Who will derive the most advantages from-it? The American producer, behefarmerorbehemanufaeturer. He canhavehisgoodstrans.- poJt,ed at a very low rate, because the ship-owner can afford to do it. 

Therefore it may be truthfully ~d that this aid given by the Treasury 

of the United Stares, a~d assessed on the general interests of the coun- try, would be one of the pest means of developing om agricultural in- ·terests by cheapening transportation from the place of production to the 

place of consumption in whatever portion of the globe it may b~. 

· And now, sir, one. word in conclusion. We have had propositions before usforthelast ten years for the revival of our shipping. Few of them 

have been carried, andnoneofthem, it mustbefranklyconfessed, have 

excited the interestthatthey deserved. Andithinkthereason has been 

that. peopJe did not really care much about the carrying trnde, because 

there ·were so many other channels open to commercial enterprise. The 

building of railroads, the opening up of the great West, _the dev.:elopment of manufactures-all these have afforded ·favorable opportunities 

for th~ investment of capital; and in them the entire capital and labor 

of the country has found full employment. Now, however, with our extraordinary growth we have reached a point where these pursuits do 

not offer inducements to capital, and consequently both capital and labor 

areidle. · · The commercial conguestof our own country by our own people is com- plete . . We have more railroadsand 1iotetoriesandagriculturalproducts 

than.-we need for our own use. Shall we then lie idle and wait till we grow up to the capacity of our industries? I say, no; but rather let us push our way boldly into foreign markets. To do this we must have our own shipping, an<l we can only get it by protection-by the srune means that have given~ such an unexampled development at home. At 

last, therefore, the time is ripe for the revival of the shipping interest, 

because that is the instrument by which all industries and all commer- cial interests can be revived. I therefore ask the earnest attention of 

the Senate to the measure, or more properly the principle, which I advocate, the prQtection of the ship-building and ship-carrying interests; ~t only and n~ chiefly for the sake of tho~e interests thcmseh:es, but 

because in the present condition of affairs by -reviving these interests· we shall set in motion the wheels of trade in every one of its branches. 

By adopting these principles I confidently believe that in 1~ than. a generation we shall be mistress of the seas and command the markets 

of the world as completely as to-da.y we control the markets of our own broad land. · 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. WILSOY in thecl1air) . . The question is on the resolution. · . Mr. VAN WYCK.. I ask unanimous consent for the consideration 

of a House bill. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Let this resolution be referred. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the resolution of 

the S~na.tor from Penilsylvania. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

UNLA. \YFUL OCCUP .L.'TCY 0~ PliBLIC LANDS. 

llr. VAN WYCK. I ask unanimous consent for the consideratioJl 

of the bill (H. R. 5479) to prevent tinlawful occupancy of the public 

lands, known as the fencing bill. It is reported from the Committee ~n Public Lands witq some amendments. The reportofthecommitree 

of the Senate is unanimous, aud therefore the bill will probably not 

provoke any discussiOtt. . · The PRESIDING .OFFICER. The Senator from Nebmska asks 

unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the 

bill named by him. Is there objection? 

~Ir. COCKRELL. One word. I desire simply to say that I ·have examined the -Galendar and there are only forty-nine House bills upon 

the Cnlendar which have been reported favorably by senate committees. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Missouri object to the·request of the Senator from Nebraska? 

Mr. COCKRELL. I intend to object at the proper time to all others 

es:oopt this bill now. I simply desire to give notice that I shaJl move iD oonnection wi~ the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. C.AMEROY] either 

to-day, or, if the time is too far gone now, to-morrow, to take up the 

House bills and consider them in their consecutive order. W..e can dis- • pose of all of them inside-of an hour and a half, Tam·satisfied. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of 

the Senator·from Nebra-ska? The Chair hears noBe. 

The Senate, as in Committee ~f the Whole, proceeded to consider the 

bill (H. R. 5479) to prevent unlawful occupancy of the public lands. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Public J .. ands with ~endment.s. 

The first amendment was, in section 1, line 6, after the word ' to," 

to strike out ''all" and insert " -any; ' and in line 19, after the word 

"prohibited," to strike out: · 

And it shall be lawful for ~my per on to tear down, cut, or demolish any such 

inclosure as is above prohibited, when the inclosure includes more than one hundred and sixty acres of land. 

So as to make the section read: 

That all inclosures of any public lands in any State ·or Territory of the United 

States heretofore or to be hereafter made, erected, or constructed, by any person, 

party, association, or corporation, to any of which land included within the inclosure the person, ·party, association, or corporation making or controlling the 

inclosure had no claim or color of title made or acquired· in good faith, or an a.sserted right thereto by or under claim made in good faith at the proper land 

office, under the general laws of the United States at the time anY such inclosure was or shall be made, are llereby declared to be unlawful, and the maintenance, 

erection, construction, or control of any such inclosure is hereby forbidden and 

prohibited; and tbe assertion of a right to the exclusive use and occupancy of 

any part of the public lands of the United States in any tate or any of the Territories of the United States, without claim, color of title, or asserted right ns above 

specified as to inclosure, is likewise decla1·ed unlawful, and hereby prohibited. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was, in section 2, line 10, after the word" proper," 'to insert "United States.district or circuit;" inline 14, after the word 

"any, ' to insert "United S~tes district or circuit;'-' in line 15, after 

the word ':court," to strike out ''of l'Ccord;" and in line 28, after the 

word "way," to strike out "with a posse comitatus, if necessary;" so as to make the section read: 

. SEC. 2. That it shall be the duty of the district attorney of the United States 

for the proper district, on affidavit filed with him by any citizen of the United 

State that section 1 of this act is being violated, showing a. description of the 

land inclosed with reasonable certainty, not necessarily by metes and bounds nor by Governmental subdivisions of surveyed lands, but orily so ·that the in· 

closure may be identified, and the persons guilty of the violation, as nearly as may be, and by description if the name can not on reasonable inquiry be ascer- tained, toinstitnt-e a civil suit in the propcrUnitedStates district or cit·cnitcourt; 

in the name of the United States andagainsttheparties named or described who 

shall be in Charge of or controlling the inclosure complained of as defendants; 

and jurisdiction is also hereby conferred on RDl: United States district or circuit court having jurisdiction over the locality where-the land inclosed, or any part thereof, shall be situated, to hear and determine proceedings in equity, by writ 

of injunction, to restrain violations of. the provisions of this act; and it hall be 

sufficient to give the court jurisdiction ·if service of original process be had in 

any civil proceeding on any agent or employe having charge or control of the 

inclosure; and any suit brought under the provisions of this section shall have 

precedence for hearing and trial over other cases on the civil docket or the court, 

and shall be tried and determined at the earliest practicable day. In any cnse, if the inclosm-e shall be found to be unlawful, the court hall make. tbc proper order, judgment1 or decree for the destruction of the inclosure in .n. summary 

way, unless the mclosure shall be removed by the defendant within five days 

after the. order of the court. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The nex~ amendment was, in section 3, line 10, afte1· the worcl ''lands," 

to strike. out "not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres" and insert 

"under the land laws of the United States;" so as to make the ection 

read: 

· SEC. 3. That no person, by force, threats, intimidation, or by any fencing or inclosing, or any other unlawful means, shall prevent or obstruct or shall combine 

and confederate with others to prevent or obstr~t any person from peacea.bly entering upon 01: establishing asettlement or residence on any tract ofpublic land 

subject to settlement or entry under the public-land laws of the United States, or shall prevent or obstruct free ·passa.ge Ol' transit over or through tbe public lands: Provided, This section shall not apply to per on who have gone upon, 

improved, or eccupied said lands under the land laws of the United St.ntes, 

claiming titJe thereto in good faith. · 

The amendme~t was agreed to. -. . The next amendment was, in section 4, line 2, a£ter the word ''agent,'' 

to s~lke out "''attorney or employe," aud in line 6, after the word · "ofl:tmse," to strike out.: · 

And the continuance of an unlawful inclosure after conviction or pentling prosecution shall be deemed another offense. · 

So as to make the section read: 

SEc. 4. That any person violating any of the pPOvisions hereof, whether as owner, part owner, or agent, or who spall aid, ab~tl counsel, advise, or assist in 

any violation hereof, shaH be deemed guilty of a Dl.lS<lemeanor, and fined in a. sum not exceeding fl,OOO and be imprisoned not exceeding ()DC year for each otfense. 

The amendment was agreed to. · The next amendment was to insert as a new section the following: 

SEc. 5. That the President is hereby authorized to take such measures as shall be necessary to remove and destroy any unlawful inclosure of a.ny of said 

lands, and for such purpo e to employ civil or military force, as may be neces~ 

sa.cy-for thS:~ purpose. · 

Mr. VANWYCK. The words "for such purpose" occur in line 3, 

and the words ''for that purpose'' in line ~- ·Let the words ',.for such 

purpose," in line 3, be stricken out. ·The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment to the amendment is, 

in line 3, to strike out the words ''for such purpose.'' If tliere be no 

• 
1885. CONGRESSION.&L RECORD-· SENATE. 1457 

objection the amendment will be so modified. Tbe question is on the 

amendment of the committee as modified. 

The amendment as modified ·was agreed to.· 

Mr. GARLAND. Is there a report witli this bill? 

Tbe PRESIDING OFFICER. There is. 

Mr. GARLAND. Let the report be read. Some Senators may not 

understand it. 

The Sec.ret..'try read the following :report, submitted by Mr. VAN 

WYCK January 12, 1885~ · 

The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was ref~rred bill H. R. 3479; beg 

leave to submit the following report: . That they haYe suggested certain amendments, which will appear in the body 

ofthe bill. • The necessity of additional legislation to protect the public domain because of 

illegal fencing is becoming every day more apparent. Without the least au- thority, and in open ·and bold defiance of the rights of the Government, large, 

and oft-entimes foreign, corporations deliberately inclose by fences areasofhundreds of thousands of acres.,. closing the a>enues of travel and preventing the oc- cupancy by those seeking nomes. · While those fencing allege the lands within 

such inclosures are open to settlement yet no humble settler, with scarcely the· means for the necessaries of life, would presume t.o ent-er any such inclosure to seek a home. 

The Government has sufficient authority to dri>e those seeking homes from 

the Indian Territory, and to burn the ranches of those invading the Yellowst-one. 

Park, wltile those appropriating vast o.reas are hoping the only remedy to be 

used against them will be the law's delay in-the courts. · Therefore your committee have added a new section to the Army bill, authorjzing the Presi4ent of the Unit-ed Stares to summarily remove all obstructions, 

and, if-necessary, to use the military power of the United States, . 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I should like to ask the Senator in charge of the 

bill if it compels the taking down of these nhlawful inclosures. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. Certainly; that is the intention. . Mr. COCKRELL. I see that by section 2 proceedings may be com- menced upon the affidavit of any citizen of the United States. The 

judgment of the court is that th~ man shall take down his-fence: · Who 

is to pay the .costs and all that? · · Mr. VAN WYCK. The party against whom the judgment is ren- dered will pay the costs. If the Senator will examine the whole bill 

he will see ~hat was the only remedy by the House bill as it came to us. We3dded to the bill, to make it more stringentand suriunary, the 

provision of the law of 1870, which in my judgment is still in force, 

but has not been recognized a8 in· force by the Interior Department. 

That provision a,uthorized the President of the United States to use the 

military force to remove unlawful obstructions. The committee intended to meet the very point which I think the Senator has suggested. 

Mr. PLUMB. I think if the Senator from Missouri will read .section 

4 he will not object to the bill as not being l!itringent enough. · Mr. COCKRELL. I have read section 4, but how are you going to 

enforce it?· The section proyides: . 

That any peYson violating any of the pro\>isions hereof, whether as owner, part owner, or· agent, or who shall aid, abet, counsel, advise, or assist in any violation hereof, shnJl b~ deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and fin~d in a sum not exceeding Sl,OOO, and be imprisoned not exceeding one year for each offense. 

How is that tO be enforced? . Mr. PLUMB. It is to be enforQed by an a-ction in the courts of'·the 

United States just as all other offenses against United States laws are punished. 

Mr. MORGAN. I call the attention of the Senator from Missouri to 

the concluding clause of the second section: · · 

In any case, if the inclosure shall be found to be unla ul, the court shall 

make the proper order, judgment, or d~cree for the destruction of the inclosure in a summary way, unless &.he inclosure shall be removed by the defendant Wit.bin 

five days after the order of the eourt. . · · 

That ·seems to be a very full remedy for the destruction of inclosures 

by order of the court, and I think tba t is the proper way to get at it. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on concurring in the 

amendments made as in Committee of the Whole. 

The amendments were concurred in. 

Mr. CONGER. It ~ms to me "that the provisions of the first sec- tion of the bill would prevent the settlement of ahy person, a squatter 

if you will sa.y so, on-any of the unsurveyed public lands of the United 

States and make him liable to punishment and :penalties. It makes no discrimination for an actual settler. Of course he could have no title 

and could acquire none, for there would be no land office where he could 

acquire any title. 

I think the bill is dangerous in that r~t, and instead of punishing those who occupy and inclose large traets of country it leaves ~tizens of the United States liable to prosecution for going and attempting to make a settlement on lands that have not been surveyed, and 

where _there is no land office. Perhaps I may b_e mistaken about it. 

It punishes. those who may make or control an inclosure who haveNo claim or color of title made or acquired in good faith, or an asserted right thereto by or under claim ·made in good faith at the proper land office, under 

the genernlla.ws of the Unit-ed States at the time any such inclosure was or shall 

bema.de. . 

There are settlements made in remote parts of the country, where 

there is no land office, where there has been no survey, with the intention of securing a future bomestead' there-what we call a squatter's 

right. I think this provision, without some amendment of it, would 

make such settlers liable to penalty and prosecution.· . Mr. PLUMB. · I think the Senator is mistaken in that. He will 

XVI-92 

find that two claBses of claims are provided for in the section which he 

objoota to. Possiblyit mightbe made a littlemore oortain. ·The :first 

cl3.'38 ~xcepted from the operatio~ of the section is persons who have 

made claim or color of titJe acquired in good faith. . Und~ the public 

land laws entry upon the public lands in accordance'with the provision 

of the law which authorizes persons to go there forthe purpose of effecting a settlement under the land laws is .the assertion of a claim or color 

of title, I think, fairly within the meanjng of this section. .Then there 

is another class of claims provided for, and that is where the right has 

been asserted in good faith at the proper land office. It. seems to me 

that the claBs of claims to which ihe Senator refers is covered by that 

provision. · Of course it would be made perhaps a little broader if the 

words ''the proper land office ' ' were stricken out, but I do not think 

that is necessary, because of th-e first c1ause which refers to the per.: 

sons who 'have a. claim or color of title acquired in good, faith. 

The PR~IDING OFFICER. The hour of 1 o'clock having arrived the Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business. · 

Mr. PLilliB. This billl:ias proceeded so nearly to a conclusion that 

I think it would be a saving of time for the Senate-to close the consideration of it this morning. 

Mr. CONGER. Let the bill go over and ·be examined a little. 

Th~e may be no objection to it hereafter. Let it go over to another 

morning. · 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will lay before the Senate 

the unfinished business and will then entertain the request of the Sen.-

ator from Kansas to proceed by unanimous consent. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. .I will assent cheerfully to the suggestion of the 

Senator from Michigan if it can be understood that the bill shall be 

taken up again in the morning hour to-morrow~ .· , Mr. CONGER. There will be no objection, I presume, to taking it 

up at some time when it can be examined. . The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Michigan object? · !fir. CONGER. I should rather have it go over;. . The PRESIDING. OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan objects. . . COINAGE OF SILVER DOLLARS. 

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 4.976) for the retirement and recoinage of the 

trade-dollar, the-pending question being on the motion of Mr. INGALLS 

to strike out section 5 of the substitute reported from the Committee on Finance. . Mr. BECK. Mr. President, I shall endeavor as briefly as I -can to 

show why the first three sections of the bill Teported by the Finance 

Committee, being an amendment to the Ho~. bill retiring the tradedollar, should pass; t~at done, r shall endeavor to showwhywe should 

notatthistime interfere with the coinage of the stanaard silver dollar, or commit ourselves to any future change of.policy in regard to' it. 

When the bill was reported from the Fi.Uance Committee and argued so elaborately by the chairman [Mr. MORRILL] .and so ably· by the 

Senator from Delaware [Mr. BAYARD], I took occasion to announce that the report was not a unanimous one. · Several ~ the committee, of.~hom I wn,s one, were entirely satisfied to retire the· trade-dollar, 

but we thought that the!e was neither a necessary nor natural connec- tion or relation between the subjects, indeed that it was irrelevant and 

improper t.o attach to such a bill a measure to stop the coinage of the 

standard silver dollar either now or hereafter. The House had sent us a very simple proposition; the Senate Finance Cotnmittee amended it, 

and, I think, properly; but to tack onto it the whole question of sil- ver coinage, which involves very serious consequences, seemed to me to 

be just as much· out of place as it would have been to have tacked on an amendment proposing to build new cruisers, or to att..'\ch the river 

and harbor bill or any other· measure entil'ely foreign io the subject 

that the House had asked u.s to deal. with. The rider is bigger than 

the horse; the tail wags the dog. in this case. · The only effect of insisting upon retiring the standard sHvex dollar on a proposition to retire the trade-dollar and substitute standard legal- ten~er dollars for it is in fact to do nothing; it simply means the defeat 

ofthe bill, which a. majority of the committee, and I think a majority 

of the Senate, would like to see passed. Therefore, as I said, I shall 

endeavor to show why we ought to retire the trade-dollar_, and why we· ought not to deal with the other subject at all, because it must beobvious. that when we do it is important enough to be brought before us as a separate matter to be discussed fnlly, elaborately, and carefully 

by both Hou$81 and not be made a rider to a. bill to which it has no necessary or proper relation in the closing hours of a session and in the 

ex])iring days of an administration. · The Committee on Finance ofthe Senate have never found anydifficulty before this body in obtaining a bearing when they make a report 

upon any important question, an~ I do not see wlly -we ought now, on: a bill like this, to sa.y th.i.t we will do what the House proposes pro-1 

vided they will agree to stop the coinage of the· silver dollar. We 

might as well propose tO pass the bill sent to us provided they would1 

agree to build up the Navy, or· provided they would establish a manu-' 

factory for great gnnst or make the Commissioner of Agricul~e a Cabinet minister, or provided they would agree to do anything that was 

• 
1458 CONGRESSIONAL. ·REC_ORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 9, ' 

not in anyway connected with the subject-matter under consideration. · In my judgment that is not the way to deal with a great question of 

this sort. · 

I am onepfthosewhohavebelievedeversincethelegal-tenderquality was .taken from the trade-dollar that it ought to be retired, and I have 

not failed since I have been a member of the Senate to introduce bill 

after bill during three Congresses for the purpose of substituting legaltender-standard dollars for it. · I thought that good faitij to the country, good faith to the laborers who were for years compelled to take 

those trad~dollars for their d~ily wages, and yet were unable to pay 

them out for the rent .of their homes, or for the clothes their families 

needed, or for groceries or anything else, required Congress to retire 

them and substitute- for them a coin having the qualities which· all 

money allowed to circulate ought to have. 

Duri~ the :first Congress in which· I had the honor to be-a member 

of this bOdy, before I was a member of the Finance Committee, on the 

2d f December, 1878, the first day-of the third session of the Forty1ifth Congress, I introduced a bill·to provide for retiring the trade-dollar 

and for itsrecoinage intostandardsilverdollars. It was referred to the 

Committee on Finance after being twice read, and never was hearo of 

any more. At the next Cong:rees, the Forty-sixth, I was, by the kindness of Senators, made a member of the Finance Committee, and thought 

I would be able to do something in that regar<Pr At the :first special 

session, without waiting for the regular session, on the 21st day of 

March, 1879, I introduced Senate bill No. 70',.it being a bill to provide 

for retiring the trade-dollar and for its recoinage into standar.d silver 

dollars. That, too, was referred to the Finance Committee, and died 

there as the former bill had done. Not content with that, still hoping 

to get rid of the dishonored coin, when the Forty -seventh Congress met on the 5th of December, I be]Jeve the very first day of the Congress, 

I again introduced Senate bill No. 84, to provide for the retirement 

of the trade-dollar, and it 3.oaain went to the Finance Committee, and never was heard of any more. When this Congress met the evils which 

I was seeking to remove had comparatively passed away. Trade-dollars were not being paid to laborers any more; they were not being re- quired· to take them for~ages. They had been dishonored everywhere. 

Our own post-office offici:lls and fiscal agents had driven them out of 

circulation. I did not introduce a bill to retire them when this Congress opened; they had passed into tl;te hands of associations of ba.ilkers 

and brokers. The- men who had obtained them doubtless took them 

from the laboring classes at a heavy discount in most instances, I know 

they did in many, yet I knew that through their press, with their or- ganizations and their united power, they would make them.sehres felt even-by Con~ in a way that I had not been able to make myself 

felt when advocating the cause of the people who had taken this degraded money for their wages, and that they would enlist champions more potent than I had proved to be. · 

I guessed right. Itwasnot long before the press, especially of Philadelphia, sustained by the press of the almost united North, the bankers, the brokers, the.moneyed organizations eYerywhere, demanded that 

the trade-dolL.'l.r should be retired. · The Rouse acted u:pOn their demand promptly. The Senate committee held it back for a long time. 

The.Finance Committee ofthe body was pressed to report on this subject in sonie way at the last session .of this Congress; they did p.ot, but 

they report now, and when they do they attach a condition in the form 

of a rider to it, which, if not intended to defeat the bill, overthrows or looks to the overt~w of the whole silver coinage of the country. 

I do not d~e to be understood as saying that the trade-dollar ought 

not to be retired now. I think it ought, and for the same reasons that 

I sought to retire it during .the three previolli! Congresses. I do not care whether ~he present holders of them took ~em at par or at a discount, whether lliey obtained them by gift; or by purchase or in any 

other way. They are outst-anding, after being dishonored by Congress. 

They are the coin of the United States. They were issued by our au- thority. Their legal-tender quality,, which was all that enabled men t{) use them to supply their wants, was taken away from them by law. 

My position has always been that the moment that was don~ it became 

the duty of the United States to retire its repudiated coin and to substitute a coin which the people could use. Whether they. are held by 

brokers or bankers, or wh~~.ther they are held by Shylocks who preyed 

upon the necessities of the laborers in order to get ~hem below their 

value, it makes no difference to me; they ought not to exist, and Congress ought not to allow them to rerua~n outstanding. 

The only excuse that I have heard offered by any gentleman who 

differs with me is that they are not a coin of the United States; that 

they were coined for the private benefit of the inen who owned silver 

bullion, and that we are therefore under no obligation to retire them Ol' ubstitnte legal-tender dollars for them. Indeed, the Senator from 

·vermont went so far as to say that they were givenalegal-tendervalue even to the extent of 5 by accident, by inadvertence, in 1873. Let me qn.ote his exact l:mgunge. He said: · . It is true thn.t by some inadsertcnce it happened to be included as ·a. l~gal ~ender by the coinage net of 1 73, the me a subsidiary silver coins, to the ex- tent only of S5 for three years. or tmtil.July 22,1876, when even its limited legal- tender character was repealed. Up to that time the whole amount issued. was ll5,n ,450. 

He said further along in his speech ' 1 somebody blundered'' in making them legal-tender, and argues that because it was done by inadvertence Congress ought not to take any notice of them.. I deny h.i8 

statement offa<Jt8. There was no inadvertence about it. Section3511 

of the Revised StatuteS provides that: 

The gold coilu of the United States hall be a one-dollar piece, which at the 

standard weight of.25.8 grain • hail beth~ \mit of '"alue j a quarter-eagle, or twe:-

and-a·ha.lf-dollar p1ece; ."'three-dollar p1ece; a half-eagle, or five-dollar piece; an eagle, or ten-doTiar p1ece. * * * • ' * * • ' 1!1 

SEc. 3513. The ilver coins of the United State hall be a trade-dollar '-halfdollar, or !ifty-cent piece, a quarter-dollar, or twenty-five-cent piece, a dime, or te~-cent p1ece: · 

Giving the weighu respectively of these. Thenfollows afurtherprovision which, I think, i a complete answer to all gentiemen who are 

contending that they are not as much coin of the United States as gold 

coin because they were coined for the pri-vate use of individual men. 

They were coined bylaw, just as the gold coin of the United States was 

coined. Section 3519. of the Revised Statutes says: 

. · Any !>wner of gold.bulliou may deposit. the same at any mint, to be formed mto com or bars for his benefit. 

SEc. 3520. Any owner of sih·er bullion may depo it the . ame at any mint to 

befoYmed into bars, qr into dollars of the weight of 420 grains troy, designated 

in this tltle as trade-dollars, and no depo it of silver for pther coinage hall be 

received, · • 

Congress by the act of July, 1873, had s~cken down the old silver 

dollar, but as to the trade-dollar it was provided that silver bars and 

bullion were to be received at our mints and coined for the benefit. of 

the person who deposited the silver bullion, just as the gold was to be 

C?in_ed ~or the benefit of the man who deposited the gold bullion. No 

distinction was made between them. When I called the attention of 

the Senaror from Delaware (Mr. BAYARD] to that subject I said to him 

that there was no distinction, and I believe with the exception of giving to the holder of gold the right ro sell or the Government the right 

to purchasewha~ver silverwas found mixed with thegold, forwewere 

buying silver for subsidiary coin, he failed to show any distinction. 1 

called at:tention also to the· fact that it was made a felony and is a felony 

to-day to counterfeit any of these coins of gold or silver, the tradedollar included. 

Section 61 of the act of February, 1873-the section of the Revised 

Statutes from which I have read being part of it-provides ''that if 

any person or persons shall falsely make, forge, or counterfeit, or cause or procure · to be falsely made, forged, or counterfeited, or·willingly 

aid or assist in falsely making, forging, or counterfeiting, any coin or bars in resemblance or similitude of the gold or silver coins or bars, 

which b,ave been, or hereafter may be, coined or stamped at the mints 

and assay offices of the United States, or in resemblance or similitnde 

of any foreign gold or silver coin which by law is, or hereafter may be 

made, current in the United States, or are in actual use and circulation as money within the United States, or shall pass, utter" the same-, he 

shall be guilty of a felony, and all the penalties prescribed by the statnte . :;;hall be impo~ed upon him precisely the same for silver coin, for the 

trade-dollar, as for the gold eagle; there is no dift"erence between them. 

The Senator frpm Delaware very pertinently answered his own argument in his speech in regard to the difference between the two coins 

when he said: 

1\Ir. President, since 1878, I think in February, the Government of the 'United 

State has assulll.8d a new relation, a new function and duty in res,J?ect to its 

coinage. Before 'fhat time·, exoept for the manufacture of its subsidiary coi.ns 

which are debased below the standard ooi.ns, the Government of the United 

States never owned an ounce of eithet· metal that came into it mints for coinage; all that came·was private property. 

Y~t all had full legal-tender quality and were coin of .the United 

States for all purposes. . That is tru~; true as well of the gold coin as ofthe'trade-dolla.r; true as well of one coin as of another, so ·that there is no weight in the ar- gument that the tr~de-dollar was coined for the pl'ivate benefit of the 

persons who brought the bullion to the mint any more than could be 

ba.sed upon the fact that the gold coin was coined for the benefit of the men who bronghtthe gold bullion there for coinage. When we demonetized or deprived the trade-dollar of its legal-tender quality by joint 

resolution in 1876 there was no attempt to deprive it of its existing 

relation as a coin of the :United States further than to take away its 

legal-tender quality. The Senator from Delaware thought there was, 

but when he came to read the law he foun·d, I think to his own satisfaction, that there was not. Thi is the language. I will read it so that there may be no mistake about the facts in regard to it. July 22, 

1876, the legal-tender quality was taken away from the coinage of the 

trade-dollar, and this was added: 

And the Secretary of the Treasury is herebv authorized to limit fl·om time to tim.e the co1nage' thereof to uch an amount as he may deem ufticient to meet the export demand for the same. . 

That was not altering its quality ; that dfd not make it less a coin of 

the United States, but it gave authority to our agent, the Secretary of 

the Treasury, to limit the amount to be issued to what he might deem was necessary for the foreign export trade. But all that he saw fit to 

allow to be issued, all that he saw fit to allow to go into circulation in 

the ha~ds of the·people, was as much a coin of the United tat , and 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.-SENATE. 1459 · 

was paid out to men for their days' wages just as freely as before that order-to· prevent labor from being driven out of employment, and say act was pa8Sed, and very likely a. good deal·more so. If any one was it should not be used? The raw material is th~re, but you can not use to be blamed for allowing the dishonored and useless trade-dollar to be it, and there is no practical value m it to anybody, no matter how great 

issued at all after 1876 it was the Secretary of the Treasury. He was its capacity. If the 420-grain dollar will not pay a. debt, will not pay · the agent of the authorities of the United States. Congress trusted house-rent, will not buy shoes, will not procure clothing, Will not buy 

him and invested him with power. The pepple ef the United States, the necessaries of life, it is of no value to a laboring man who holds' 

to whom that money was paid in small sums and wages could not tell it; it is not a fabric, and he can not use raw material; as to him it is . 

what the Secretary of the Treasury was doing or what his object was not a rep:resentati~e of value. The standard legal-tender dollar, with 

in allowing that coin to be issued in th~ way it appeared. It found its less raw material in it, has been adopted by the Government, issued, 1 

way into the hands of their employers. They may have bought the put into the hands of the people in all the States; it regulates transsilver bl;lllion at 10 or 15 per cent. discount from wbich to coin it to actions among individuals, States, municipalities, and corporations over pay their hands with, or they may have paid par for it. So it ~as these the whole couutry. It has it8 fixed value and its uses; and the greater 

trade-dollars were paid to them on Saturday night for their wages. · the uses the greater the value. That is the accepted doetrine as I un- They believ:ed it to be good money, they hoarded it, they held on to it, derstand it; that is the facl wbaoover may be the theory. 

they thought it better than depreciated paper, they believed that the . The object of passing the House bill is to give people something they 

Secretary of.the Treasury, under the authority given to him, was doing can use, and not force them to hold something which we have destroyed 

his duty and was giving t}lem a good, honest coin, and that the United for all the purposes money is heeded for, which by law we have said 

States would p.rotect them in taking it, if they thought or knew any- shall no longer perform any of the function& of coin, and which our 

thing about it at all. · Secretary of the Treasm:y under the discretion given him allowed the 

I remember upon one occasion in a town in my own State, for we had mints to coin. Everybody knows that when Congress determined to 

great trouble therewith it for years, an honest German had collected resume specie payments on the 1st of JariW~>ry, 1879, the moment the 

$65 in silve1· coin, trade-dollars every one of them. He had taken them· Secretaryt>f the Treasury, even in violation of law, said, ''Although the 

for his chickens, his ~utter, his eggs, and the things he was selling at law prohibits Ille from receiving the legal-tender notes of the country: 

the market-house and had laid them away until he had sixty-five. He the greenbac~s as they are called, at the custom-houses, I will receive 

and his wife came into the town to get a draft to send to some depend- them for customs dues,'' they were taken, and there was never a dol~ 

• ent relative in Germanyl whe~ it was found they were trade-dollars; the lar of gold called for to redeem them, because greenbacks, having even bank refused to take them at par, the United States_ officials and by executive order received that additional use, were at once as good 

everybodywas refusing them; the German . gardener had to suffer 10 as gold. Over 200,000,000had to be paid every yearincuston:ur'dnes: 

per cent. discount on his 65 to g~t the little drnft he desired to send The greenbacks had beel;llong dishonored in the interest of the bondabroad. That ought not to be; it ought never to have been possible. holders, and were, of course, at a discount because their use was limited: 

It was a common case. I only use it U? illustrate the general condition. The moment that additional use was given to the legal-tender notes the 

When we issued a .coin and punished men for counterfeiting it and difference between them and gold disappeared at ~nee. \. 

authorized onr Secretary of the Treasury to let as. many be issued as Mr. Hunter's report,.from which. I read a moment ago, shows that the 

he saw fit-and he did s~ fit to let thirty-fivemillionsbeissued-every bills of exchange issued by the Amsterdam merchants in the last cen:- one of them that has not been adopted by foreign nations and branded tury were worth more than gold because they woul~ pay bills in Italy; 

with the brand of a foreign country that is now 'here unchanged, :Q.O in Austria, in France, in Holland, in ~ngland, and almost everywhere 

niaLterwho holds them, ought to .be retired and a good dollar that will else, whereas the gold had to be transported at great cost, risk, and ex-' 

pay the rent of the laborer's house, that will pay his bill at the grocery, pense to those different countries. Therefore Amsterdam bills of ex~ 

• that will buy himself a pail: of shoes or clothes for his family, and that change were alway at a. premium because of the additional use which 

he c~ require evecybody to take as he has to take it, should be given could be made of them aud the safety and convenience.attending ~heir 

to him in its place. That is the only fair. and honest solution of the use. 

question. A Government like this can not afford to hlggle about tech- I repeat that it will not do to insist that the trade-dollar was. not 

nicalities. · money, and therefore that we ought not to take it back and furnish a It will not do to sa,y, as has been argued here, ·that values can not be substitute for it after we ha>e declared that it should no longer have 

changed or created by law; that there is no diffe.renee between the the Uses it had when we adopted it as a coin. There are but six or value of money as a coin and its value as a merchantable article. The seven millions, according to the best estimates we can obtain, now very fact that the holders of. trade-dollars are willing and anxious to in the bands of the people of this country. The other twenty-eight 

take a. coin of 412! grains and give up for it a dishonored coin contain- millions went abroad. The Director of the Mint advises us that he 

ing 420 grains shows that they know that there is a difference in value believes much of it bas been melted up, but whether it has been or not 

because of the uses to which the one ca.n be put and to which the other it Qa8 bee¥ adopted in great part· by China and other countries, and can not. All the :financiel'S of the country have insisted upon that be- their brands, marks: and stamps have been P.Ut upon it, and it thus being the effect of the legal-tender quality. 1\fr. Hamilton in his earliest came theirs. I insist-I differ in that from other members of the com!. 

report, in 1792, when he started the United States Mint-I do not care mittee-tbat we ought not to be called upon to take back a coin that 

to take time to read much-showed that we were at the mercy of for- China bas stamped as her own, whether the change has been made by 

eign nations, and that the values of the coin we used depended upon the government or the merchants ofthat.country. · action abroad .on the values the foreign countries saw tl.t to gi>e them. . The committee had great difficulty in finding a trade-dollar with the 

The l'easoil why the States gave up the right to coin money was because Chinese stamp, but the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] obtained 

of these differen~es and changes in value in different coinage. I will . one somewhere; it was stamped all over with hieriJglyphics so. t~t ntr . read one extract however. It covers the-whole case. In his report of body in this country would have a. doubt butthat it had beenchanged 

17911lfr. Hamilton used this language: from what it. was when it was issued from the Mint of the United States; 

Every fabric, it is rem.a.rked, is worth"\ntrinsically the price of the raw mate- and there would be no danger of our people being deceived in regard rial and the expense of fabrication-a truth not less applicable to a piece of coin to that fact. • · than to a yard of cloth. · . Returning to the old silv~r dollar and thetreatmentitreceivedat the This position, well founded in itself, is here misapplied. It supposes that the h f C · 8 l h · · h be b' ted to coins now in circulation are to be considered as bullion, or, in other words, as a ands o ongress m. 1 73, anc t e persecution lt as en su !JeC raw material; but the fact is that the adoption of them as money has caused ever since, attracted by what the Senator from Vermont said the other 

them to become the fabric; it has invested them with the character and office of day, that it was by some inadvertence that the trade-dollar happened coins, and has given them a sanction and efficiency equivalent to that of the ed ha 1 1 d li · h · t f 1873 stampofthesovereign. Thepricesofallourcommoditiesathomeandabroad, tobeallow to veany ega-ten erqua tymt ecomageac o , 

and of all foreign. commodities in our markets, have found their level in con- I hopethatdistinguishedgentlemanwill tell usaboutt}latinadvertence, 

formity to this principle. · and I am glad the Senator from..Qhio fl\Ir .. SHERMAN], as he adv:ised 

Mr. Hunter, in 1853, when the same question was up, repeated the me a ·few moments ago, is going to argue this qu~tion when I sit down; same idea when he said, speaking of gold and silver: which will be very soon. I want him to tell us what "inadvertence"· 

These metals derive their value from two distinct soW'ce -one from their use as a currency, the other from their application to manufacturing purposes. The 

demand for them as currency in any given year is to be measured by th.e num- ber and amount of exchanges to be made in specie during that year-their value 

for mechanical uses is their bullion value-that is flwJay, it is measured by their 

proportion to the residue of the property of the wol!ll,.for the demand for them 

in the arts will be very nearly in proportion to the wealth of society. 

These principles regulate the value of onr coins; ~t is the use to 

which we by law allow the 412!-grain dollar to be applied when we 

do not allow the 420-grain dollar to be ~ed for any public purpose that 

give<J the former greater value.' Its value is governed by the uses to 

which it can be put. It is a fabric. What would be the use of even 

the celebrated Wood's self-binder, which has re>olutionized the grain- ~ising of the country, if we were to pursue the policy of Chiri.a in 

it was tl;lat allowed to the trade-dollar the legal-tender quality given 

to it by the act of 1873. 

If there was any . " inad>ertence " in that law it was in striking 

down and destivying the old standard legal-tender dollar of 412! grains, 

which up to thatdJI.y had been of equal legal-tender qnalitywithgold. 

from and before the adoption of the Coru!titntion. We had been a silver-using country in all time. . The Senator from Vermont, while I think of it-for I have no particular order in speaking on these ·questions-seemed to think that it was a strong argument against sil>er coinage in any form that up to 

the time wh~n the standard dollar was demonetize<J in 1873 only 

$8,445,838 of standard silver dollars'hadever been coined in the Unite~. 

States; but he forgot to tell that we had }lalf-dollars, quarter-dollars, . 

cent pieces, 10-cent pieces, and 5-cent pieces, and of them we had coined 
1460 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE. FEBRUARY 9, 

before 1853, if I mistake not, over one hundred million dollars' worth; 

they were of full legal value. Wehadcoinedoffulldollars,itis true, only 

about eight millions and odd, but of half-dollars one hundred inillion 

dollq.rs' worth, of qJiaiter-dollars some ~40,000,000, and of other small 

coins large amounts; making in all $184,280,941.40 in 1877. Upward 

of $100,000,000 of half-dollars had been coined before 1873; nearly 

$2,000,000 of standard dollars had been coined within fourteen mont'Q,s 

before tbe aet of February, 1873, was passed. Uptothe timethatgold was discovered in California in 1849, we had more silver in the country 

than gold; I believe almost double as much, if the amount of Spanish 

milled dollars in circulation is taken into account. · 

It iS difficult to tell how much silver we had, because we adopted_ the 

Spanish milled dollar; indeed it had been adopted bytheseveralStates 

long before the Constitution of the United States ~as' adopted; and in 

1793, in the first coinage act, while we allowed foreign coin$ of gold and 

silver to circulate under the regulation of Congress and to be accepted as a legal ten~er at the value so regulated, this provision was made by 

section 2 of the act of February 9, 1793: · . 

That at the expiration of three yea~ next ensuing the time when the coin- age of gold and silver agreeably to the act entitled "An act establishing a. mint, 

and regulating the coins of the United States," shall commence at the Mint of 

the United St.a.t~s. which time shall be announced by the proclamation of the President of the United States, all foreign gold coins and a.ll foreign silver coins, 

except Spanish milled dollars and parts of such dollars, shall cease to ben. legal 

t(!nder, as aforesaid: · • 

· That ·act made another provision, that when foreign coins were re- ceived by the United States they should berec<>ined into the coin of the 

United States at the M41t, all except the Spanish milled dollar. That 

coin was retained and kept as part of our coinage; it waa paid' out at the 

Treasury and paid back into the Treasury and passed between man and man under the laws of the United States without change. Consequehtly our own coinage of silver dollars. is apparently small, because we had 

adopted the Spanish milled dollar and did notrequire it to be recoined as we did other foreign coins, but kept it as part of our own coinage at 

full legal-tender valtte. The great mass of silver came from the Spanish countries at that time. The Senator from Delaware said in his 

speech, as he reminds me now, that at ·that time we were in fact a silver-using country, but we suffered no inconvenience from it. We had 

gone through the war of 1812; we had acquired Louisiana; we carried on the Mexican war, and by it acquired all the great States and Territories on the Pacific, while we relied on silver much more than we did on gold. · · 

· I do not ca.re to refer tO the various changes in our laws relative to 

foreign coins; they were regulated by Congress and were most of the 

time a legal tender at the rates fixed, but at all times the Spa~ish· 

milled dollar was the favorite standard com. . • A great ·wrong was perpetrated by the act of 1873 in demonetizing 

silver, and the way it was done made the offense a grievous one. The 

Constitution of the United States declared that theStatesshouldmake 

nothing but gold and silver coin a legal tender; that Congress· shall 

alone have power to coin money. When it had coined money, when it 

had induced ;people to buy Spanish I)lillOO dollars and had placed them 

in the hands of the people, when the States, the municipalities, the 

COrpOrations, private individuals, and the United States itself in its 

own obligations had contracted enormous debts upon the basis of the 

standard silver dollar, and when we had in regard to our own bonds 

said that they should be paid in gold or silver coin of the standard value 

of July, 1870, to stti]re down that coinage f.rom the country, and say 

that silver should no longer be coined, should no longer be a legal tender for anything, was an unparalleled outrage, especially in a country 

like ours, growing as rapidly as we are, owing as we did site or seven or eight thousand million ·dollars in debts of the United States, of the 

S'tates, of municipalities, of' corporations, and of private individuals; 

yet the Senator from Vermont·complains i.il the faceofthat action that 

somehow or other, by some ''inadvertence," Congress happened to 

allow the trade-dollar to· have ~legal-tender · quality of $5. I said I 

desired to know what that ~inadvertence'' consisted· of. I aver here 

that there were not ten men in the lower House of Congress who knew 

at the time that the standard silver dollar was demonetized, that it was so stricken down. I have never seerror beard of one. The" inadvertence;" when explained, may enlighten many of us. I was then a member of that. body a~d would be glad to hear all about that trans- ~~~ . . 

I have a very remarkable speech in my hand. I refer to a speech 

made by Ron. WILLIAM D. KELLEY1 stating how little he and others 

knew about it. I call the attention of the Senator from Vermont to 

it. Perhaps he can tell where the" inadvertence" comes in. I would 

like t() be informed, and I think the country would. ·Mr. KELLEY 

said: 

In 1872, when I made the remarks which were cited by those gentlemen, and 

which have been frequently quoted in both Houses, and always with an air as much as to 158.Y thnt. to convict this man of the crime of having been instructed 

by the logic of events would forever settle this momentous question, we were · not using coin, and no gentleman in cither House appears to have appreciated the scope and magnitude of the silver question or to have given it special stsd);'. Hence the bill-and I wish gentlemen to know what that bill was; it was a bill ~o reorganize the mints, not to revise the coin money of the country, but to re- organize the mints, and it was J)II.Sded without allusion in debate to the question cl the :retention or abandonment of the standard silver dollar. · The then 

Speaker of the House_, now a di_stinguished member of the Senat(!, and Bon. Mr. VooR_HEES, of~dlana,,who IS n.lso a member of that body, were then mem- bers of this House\ and durmg the last Congress this colloquy occurred between I 

them. Jt was, J tnink, denied by Mr. VooRHEES that members of file House ~ew that ~e bill proposed to dem~netize the silver dollar, and to sustain his I VIew he sa1d to the ex-Speaker: ':D1d you know it sir?" "No" said Senator 

Blaine," did you?" "No," replied Senator VooRHims. ' · IwnschairmanofthecommitteethatreportedtheO'riginalbill andlaveronmv 

honor that I did not know the fact that it proposed to drop the sta'ndard doll:n and 

did not learn that it had done it for eighteen months after the passage of the' substitute ofThred b;r Mr. Hooper whenldisputedthefa.ct. Thedistinguishedgen• 

tleman from Ohio [Mr. Garfield) W'ho now leads this sideoftheHousewas then as no\y a?.attenti>e aud already n. distinguished member of the House; yet when m JOint debate before the people of Ohio in October lfr77 the question · arose as to who was responsible for its demonetization, he fra~ly ~aid he did not ~ow that such a. pr<_>vis~on was in the bill w:hen it passed the House. I state this the more freely m hiS absence because! mformed him that !intended to do so; n.n~he replied,_ ''It is the ~se; I did _make that sta:tement, n.nd itis true." • Nor d1d the Pres1dentwhos1gned the bill know that 1t abolished legal-tender standard silver dollars, for in his letter to Mr. Cowdrey of October 6 lfr73 cited 

by the gentleman from Ohio [l\Ir. W ARNERJ, be said: . ' ' "Silver will gradually take the place ofthtscurrency, and further will become th~ s~ndm-d of values, which will be hoarded in a small ~ay. I ~stimate that t~s Wlll consul?e from ~00,000 000 to 8300,000,000 i.n time of this species of.our cuculating medium. * "' * I confe s ton. desire to see a limited hoarding of 

IPOney. It insures a firm foundation in time of need. But I want to see the hho.ar~ing of something that has a standard value the world over. Silver has J&. • 

!lore remarkable perhaps than that, ~ben a debate arose ·m the 

House of Representatives fourteen months after that .bill had passed in 

which the Senator from Vermont says byinadvertence the legal-tender 

quality to the extent of $5was allowed to the trade-dollar-! suppose 

he means that they did not do the work as well as they thought they 

had done; they thought they had struck down silver in every form but 

by inadvertence the t~e-dollar happened to be allowed a five-d~llar legal-tender quality; the law passed. in February 1873 yet on the 14th 

day of Apnl, 1874, fourteen months after, aa the Sena~r .from Vermont 

contends, all silver was supposed to be demonetized and stricken from. 

the coinage and.its legal-tender quality-taken away. except the inad- • v_ertence he speaks of-a deba~ .sprang up in the House of RepreSentatives growing out of what was known as the- greenback controversy 

whether we shoUld retain the volume of greenbacks at $356,000,000~ they ~hen were, or make the amonnt $400,000,0()0, which was finally 

compromised, I believe,· at $378,000,000, and whether we should have 

free banking.. Mr. E. Rockwood Hoar, a vecy distinguished gentleman . who had been Attorney-General, and a very able one; by unanimous • consent offered the following amendment to the bill: . . 

That from and after the 4th day of July, in the year 1876, nothing but gold and 

silver coin of the United States shall be a legal tender for the payment of any debts thereafter contracted. 

Do you thi.nt he had any suspicion that there was no silver ~oin of 

the United States then a legal tender for anything? Did he know any 

of the secrets of the act of February, 1873? No. The yeas and nays _ were called on Judge Hoar's proposition, and among-those who voted 

for this amendment were Hon. HENRY L. DAWES, Hon. WILLIAM 

P. FRYE, James A. Garfield, EUGENE HALE, JOSEPH R. HAWLEY; 

GEORGE F. HoAR, and quite a number of other distinguished gentle- men. They evidentlydidnotunderstandwhen theyeas and nays were called fourteen months after the pa...."Sage of the act of 1873 that there was simply a five-dollar legal-tender quality to the trade-dollar and 

that that waa there by inadvertence. The inadvertence was all o'n the 

other side. These gentlemen did not know that silver coin had be.en stricken down. When tha.t bill came to the Senate it was managed by 

the distinguished Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN], and the RECORD 

shows every form of expression used by him indicated that he did not 

know it. Among other things he said: · . - And in order to show this, wherel'e~our silver coin shall float-and we are providing that it shall float all over tl:le world-we propose to stamp upon it in- stea~ of our eagle, which foreigners may not understand, and which they ~ay not distinguish from n. buzzard, or some other bird, the intrimlic finenes and 

weight of the coin. In this practical utilitarian age the officers of the l\Iine 

seemed to think it would be better to do that than to put the eagle on our silver 

coins, I must confess I do not think it is very important; but I thin~ the Sen- ator ouo-ht to be willing to defer in these matters to the practical knowledge of. the officers who have charge of_ this branch of the Go'\'ernment service. . · 

In all the .debate the only controversy in the Senate was whether 

there should be a coinage charge. l\Ir. Casserly, a Senator from California, protested against it, and lir. SHERMA..~ and others contended 

that we ought to have the right to charge enough to pay the expense ·of the coinage; but no suggestion was made anywhere by anybody that 

Congress proposed to_ strike silver from the coinage altogether, or that 

the five-dollar legal-tender quality that was ultimately given to the 

trade-dollar was by anwadvenence. . . 

As I said,~ do not J'ropose to argue elaborately the policy of the provision of the fifth section of the committee's measure. I desire t-o content myself with showing now that WE? ought to retire the trade-dollar. 

The people took it believing it was good money and could be used as su~. It had the sanction of the Government as one of its coins; men were punished for counterfeitingit; t:he amount of issue was under the 

control of the Secretary of the Treasury. No private man could tell 

what was the reason why he was allowing it to be issued; before 187G 

$15,600,000 had been issued, $12,000,000 and more had been exported, 

three and a half millions was at home, and after the other $201000,000 
1885.· CONGRESSiONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1461 

were coined the report of the Director of the Mint shows the following 

facts as to the coinage and export of trad~dollars: 

For the month of- Coined. Exported. 

November, 18i7 ................................................................ 400,000 487,1';'7 

December, 1877................................................................. 589,060 531,301 

Ja.nuary,1878 ......... : .... ,..................................................... 1,391,300 381,237. 

t~~~'h~?·i.-~~~0~:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: t~:~ ig~: ~ .April, 1878 ............ ...... ..................... ................................. 35,000 290, 83-5 

l\lay, 1878 ..... , ................................................................... ---200-1---85_,_306_ 

. Totlll ....................................................................... . 2,008,867 

The ooinage was. 5,248,000, yet we only exported $2,008,000, leaving $3,400,000 to be scattered over the country and paid as I said to men ,v ho were working for wages to earn their daily bread, and this was going 

on under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. 

Mr. MORRILL. Will it interrupt the Senator if I ask him to allow 

me to say a single word ? 

Mr. BECK. Certainly not. 

Mr. MORRILL. As it is obvious to every one that the trade-dollar 

was solely intended for other parties, to be exported, the only thing I 

intended to convey by the word "inadvertence," which furnishes the .Senator from Kentucky with so much music, was that it was wrong to 

allow a coin that was intended for export only to have any legal-tender 

quality whate,er. 

M:r. BECK. Then the Senator from Vermont intended that there 

should be no silver coinage that should have any legal-tender quality 

at all. . .Did he intend or avow that we should have gold, and• gold 

alone, and exclude from our people one-half the coinage that then ex- isted. In other words, did he intend to give· the money that every 

creditor received from his debtor double the value that it had before, so that it wouid take twice the number (>f bushels of wheat, twice the 

number of acres of land, twice the number of cattle7 horses, o1· anything a man had to pay the debts that his creditor held over him, thus doubling the burdens of the debtor class of the whole people, doubling the · value of the money that the creditor was to have, and do l;\11 this by an aet that was n.ot known to the men that did it, and,yet complain that 

therewassome 11 inadvertence,"' that somebody blundered? It seeins 

to be a source of regret that they did not do i~ absolutely and are sorry 

because they allowed the trade-dollar to have a iive-dollar legnJ-tend~r 

quality. I ask the Senator from Vermont after the legal-tender quality 

wa!3 taken away from it what use was it to the men who held it? Why was it not 1·etired at once? Did not fair dealing, did not common justice require that money issued by authority of the Government, coin 

of the United Stat~ coined upon precisely the same terms as gold, and 

given to men who brought the mP-t.<tl there just as gold coin was given 

to the. men who brought gold, put it into their hands having a legaltender quality that a man eould not refuse to the extent of· $5-and 

workers for wages seldo~ got more than that from one pay-day to an- other-require that the Government should bop.or it? To refuse to 

take it from them-unless at a discount is an ol!trage that ought to be 

corrected, and that promptly. 

1n 1878 we restored the legal-tender quality of the 412~-grain dollar. Weannulled theactof1873. We were told then that gold would 

be driven out of the country in less than a year. There is nearly double 

as much gold in the country now as there was then. Silver .has not 

driven gold out. That bill was vetoed by the President, it was passed over his veto in this body on a callofthe yeas and nays by a vote of 46 to 

16. Why turn a.:,<Yainst it now, it hils performed its functions well from 

that day to this? I do not knowwhat11the discount on silver was then. 

I see by. the reports it was almost as great, if not quite as great, as it is 

now, and it has never had fair play from any of the officials of the Government; it ha,s been an illused step-child all the time. 

Why should the coinage be stopped at this time? "\\'1latever it may 

become nec~ry to do hereafter, why should we new strike it down? · The bank circulation has dect·eased, as the Comptroller of the Currency 

says, last year twenty-five and a. half millions, I think twenty-nine 

millions by this time. He has assured us that it will decrease every 

year $40,000;000 hereafter. There are only one hundred and ninetythree or one hundred and ninety-four millions of bonds outstanding now which can be paid before 1892, and they are payable now, on which 

say 135,000,000 of bank circulation is based. When these bonds are withrawn the banks are under no obligation to buy others or to con- tinue to-keep out their circulation. They can withdraw if they please, 

and if they do as they may why should we now be in hot haste to strike 

d9wn the silver currency and the sU-rer-certificates that have done so well? • 

Let me refer for a moment to another fact before I take my seat. 

We passed a law when we rechartered the national banks on-the 12th 

of July, 1882, in which we made this provision: 

SEC.12. That the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to re- ceive deposits of gold coin with the '.freasurer or assistant treasurers of the 

United States, in sums not less tban S2(), and to issue certificates therefor in dellominations of not less than 320 each, corresponding with the denominations of 

United States notes. The coin deposited for or representing the certificates of deposits shall be retained in the Treasury for the payment of the same ori demand. 

Said certificates shall be receivable for customs, taxes, and all public dues, and 

when so received maybe reissued.; and such certificates, as also silver certificates, when held by any na.tional banking a,!!sociation, shall be counted as part of its lawful reserve; nnd no national banking association shall be a member of RDY clearing-house in which such certificates shall not be receivable in the et· tlement of clearing-house balances. · 

Yet to-day, in order to force us to strike down silver, these banks, in 

violation of that law, are combining with others, although they are 

prohibited by the nry act granting them their charters from doing so, 

and are refusing to receive silver certificates, ·for the purpose, of course, 

of making them less valuable, the la.wof Congress to the contrary notwithstanding. Mr. President, I do not care to arglie this matter elaborately, indeed 

I do not care to do so at all, but when we do discuss it I think it will 

be. shown to the satisfaction of t~e people of this country that the 

present condition is the result of an unlawful combinati9n, organized 

in· great part by men who are our fiscal agents, our creatm·es, living 

under our law, having only such authority as we see fit to give tl~em, 

and yet they are publicly and openly defYing our authority because 

they t,hink it is their individual inferest. to do so. They are endeavoring to drive silver and the silver certificates which we have provided 

for out of existence in order to bring gold to a premium, and thus 

embauass the Government of this country. I do not know what is to 

be done by the new administration, but the difficulty that we have had 

all along in the pa$t has bee~ that Ol;IT own agents have been allowed 

to violate the law. The bank's_have been allowed to violate it. They 

have-certified checks when they had no money, time and again. No, 

body will venture to deny that. They are not authorized to charge a grea-ter rate of interest than is allowed by the State in which they exist, and yet they have done it all the time. 

The Comptroller of the Currency reports many cases, and says they 

have been wa.rned and warned. All through his reports are warnings 

not to repeat those offenses, but nobody is punished. The law provides 

that gold and silver coin only shall be taken at the custo~-hotre in 

payment of customs dues; and yet the greenback is taken by Treasury 

order, and the very men who ordered it to be ta~en illegally refused on a call of the yeas and nays in this Chamber to allow it to be legalized. 

They would rather operate against law and in violation of law ::md above 

law than act in accordance with it. The law provides that all the coin 

received at the custom-house-! have repeated that so often that I am almost ashamed to repeat it again-shall be set apart and applied first 

to pay the interest, and then to purchase 1 per cent. of the entire na- tional debt as a sinking fund, and the b:1lance only shall be paid into 

the Treasury. . · 

The reports of our officials show, and the Selli'l.tor from Vermont in 

his speech the other day. showed, that they were receiving silver and 

silve·r certificates in large amounts ~tour custom-housesanq. refusing to 

pay them out as the law directs. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. ~IORRII.L] said: "In six months, from July to December, 1883, inclusive, the receipt~ of customs at the port of New York in gold and ·gold certificates was 54,000,000, and thereceiptsforsixmonths in 1884 

in gold and gold certificates were $22,000,000, while the entire receipts 

at that port were three-fourths of the entire customs, $64,000,000,_ 

showing little more than one-third actually paid in gold or its equivalent.'' . Silver i~ by law the equivalent of gold, and is by law required to be 

paid out on the same terms; yct.it is agreed by all that not one dollar 

received at the custom-house in silver coin or silver certificates has ever been paid for any such purpose as the lawreqnjres the customs receipts 

to be paid. . I do not · know, as .I said, what is going to happen hereafter, but I 

desire our coinage to remain as it is now until we see what does· happen; 

whether me.Q. will b.e required to obey the law; whether they will be 

allowed to form syndicates or combinations or clearing-house aiTangem,ents in violation of their own charters; whether the next Secr-etary 

of the Treas~y will dare to withhold silver and silver certificates re- ceived at the· custom-house that he is required to use in payment of 

interest to the bondholders and in the purchase of bonds for the sinking fund. . I know w_hat I think ought to be done. Whenever any bank forms an association of an illegal character and seeks to discredit the money, 

the gold or the silver or the certificates of this country, I would pay_ 

every dollar I could legally pay to them in silver and in silver certificates, and I would make them take the silver coin in payment of intet-est on their bonds, and I would 1·edeem the bonds they held in silver 

and silver certificates, even if I had to take the gold that I received and 

pay it to banks and corporations that obeyed the law. ~would discriminate as far os I could by aiding men and banks who obeyed the 

law, and I would do whatever the law allowed me to do to make those men who are defying our authority obey it and make it t.heir interest to 

obey it by giving them the coin the Secretary is required to give them 

and which they are compelled to receive. I would make it their in· 

terest to make it good and thus put an end to the combinations they 

admit to-day they are illegally a part of. . Mr. MORGAN. Will the Senator from Kentucky allow me to osk 

whether he thinks there is any furthet• legislation necessary in order to 

c 
1462 CONGRESSION~L RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 9, 

prot~t the Government against these crimes which he says the banks ·have been committing? · 

Ur. BECK. With officers to enforce the law, with officials here to 

compel them to ~bey it, we h:l,ve law enough; but there is ·no effort to 

punish them, and never has been anything but p-retenses. 

Mr. MORGAN. If I understand the statement mad~ by the Senator 

from Kentucky, a member of the Committee on Finance, it is that the 

banks have deliberately violated the laws, the criminal laws, of the 

United States; that the Secretary of the Treasury repo-rtS those viobtions to Congress and to the Committee on Finance, and that instead of 

there having been any proceedings taken to punish. the men who thus 

openly and flagrantly violate the law, a mere admonition is served 

upon them that hereafter they must do better than that or el e they 

will be dealt with. Is that the situation? 

:Mr. BECK. Tl:lat is the way I understand it substantially. . Ur. MORGAN. Last spring I received quite a rebuff in the Senate 

for having invited the Committee on Finance to look into this question 

and make a report upon it. The resolution that I had the honor to introduce was referred to that committee, and they sat down upon it. 

They have got it still in the committee, without having paid the slightest attention to it I believe; and now it turns out from the statement 

of a member of the Committee on Finance that all of those able Senators have been cognizant of the fact that these crimes have been com- mitted; that the President of the United States has been cognizant of 

the fact that these erimes ba'f'e been committed, ann that they have not 

got the power to call these criminals to the bar of justice and punish 

them for the violation -of the law. 

I will further add, if the Senator from Kentucky will permit.me, th.at 

there is no nse of multiplying statutes merely to be dishonored by the 

Senate of the U nitedStates in its constant, :persistent ignoring of crimes 

committed against law which they refuse to t.ake any steps to insist 

shall be punished. 

Mr. BECK. Mr. President, I said when I rose that I only meant to 

sust.ain the action of the committee in reporting the first tl~ree sections 

of this amended bill, and did not care to argue the other branch of the 

question. I am wil~g to wait. I am not alarmed by bank clearinghouse combinations. Every dqllar of every debt we owe can be paid 

in silver coin, and it is said our Yaults are full of them. Every State, 

corporate, and private debt can be paid in silver. It will not be long 

before there will be a change of administration. I hope· it will be an improvement on what we have had in the years gone by. Only one word more. Section 4 of the amended bill provide : That the President is hereby authorized to renew negotiations with the States 

oCthe" Latin union," and with other foreign powers, for the purpo e of making treaties with them in order to secure such co-opehltion as may enable the na- tions agreeing thereto to open their respective mints to the free coinage of silver, 

with full legal-tender power, at a.n agreed mtio to gold. · 

I do not think that there is any objection to that; I do not know 

that the Housewill object to it. I am willing so far as I amconcerned 

to give the sanction of C-ongress to any honest effort that any Executive may make in dealing with other IL.'l>tions to endeavor to utilize our silver and in keeping up our coinage of it. Wc·are producing in the 

United States 40 per cent. of all the silver that is produced in the world. 

The gold product of the world ht\8 faHen from $152,000,000 a year a few years ago down to $94,000,000. The Director of the Mint shows 

that four countries, the United States, England, France, and Germany, are using fifty-two millions per annum of the ninety-four millions produced intheworldinomamentation, jewelry, andothertbingsforwhich 

gold can be used; he show that gold is diminishing in quantity and 

thereby increasing in va~ue; that our silver is not increasing in quantity, 

but has somewhat diminished, but holding its own better in proportion 

than gold has done, while trade and businessisrapidlydevelopingeverywbere, and silver will buy more of anything but gold than it eYer would. 

We know that Fra~ce is maintaining a far larger propor.tion of silver 

to gold than we are maintaining to-day-five hundred ~ons of silver against six hundred millions of gold, and her silver is worth 12~ 

grains less to the dollar than ours. · .. 1\Iex:ico, Central America, South America, China, Japan, the Indies, 

all the countries with whom we shall ever have any sale in the future 

for our manufactures, are .silYer-using countries; an~ if. the President can m.a.ke any arrangement whereby England will no longer dominate 

the coinage of the world, and the trade of the world, and the bills of 

. exchange of the world, as she is doing now through her 60 pet cent. of 

its carrying trade and commerce-she, of course, wants gold and gold 

alone-I hope we will.if we can, aid the President in rna. king an earnest 

efforb to get the other countries to agree with us in maintaining a sil- ver standard equal with gold. I am very anxious to see that done; 

but I am not willing, in advance, to vote for the ection which provides that if we fail to do.whatwe desire we will quit coining silver on 

agivendaywithinsixteenmonthsofthis time. I regardthatasequivalent to saying in advance to England or Germany, "If you great 

creditor countries can prevent other countries from uniting with the 

United States for twelve or fifteen months, then we have a contract already by an act of Congress that the United States will make no further 

effort to maintain silver coinage; then they will be at your mercy and 

at the mercy of the creditor class at home, your allies.'' I will not say 

that a the L'tSt section of the committee bill propo es to do. 

England _with her diplomacy and power w;i.ll prevent all agreements it we pass t~t section. Germany, though I think she is not as anxioUB to 

maintain gold alone as she was after she 9btained a thousand millioll8 

in gold from France, has an object in view. England dr~ws coin from 

every qna.rter. Her reports show over ten thousand ports in the world 

to which her ships trade; she ha.s her agents gathering in business and 

cargoes everywhere. She is now drawing from us$100,000,000 for doing our ocean-carrying. All bills of exchange have to be drawn on London. 

Her lmnke1'S get the profit. She is to-day storing the goods of the 

world in her great warehouses and selling the sil vm· tliat she obtains 

from us to her serfs in India, while her own people at home are draw-

~g in the gold of the world. I am not willing to say in advance to 

her that if she can defeat any eftorts made by us to restore our silver 

coinage we will surrender to her. That is what is proposed by the fifth 

section of the bill. But I must close. I said to the Senator from Ohio 

[Mr. SHERMAN] I would not consume over three-quarters of an hour. 

I have exceeded my time and I will now yield the floor. 

Mr. SHEllMAN obtained the fl.oor. 

l'tlr. :MORGAN. Will the Sena.t.or from Ohio yield to me? 

Ur. SHERUAN. I understand the Senator from Iowa [Mr. ALLIO"N] desires to call up an appropriation bill. I will yield to that. 

Mr. ALLISON. I a.sk the Senator from Ohio to yield tome in order 

that I may at this time present_tothe Senate t,be pen ion appropriation 

bill. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I have no objection, having theflooton thlsqu - tion, when the bill comes up again. I uppose the bill ought to be laid 

aside informally. 

1\Ir. ALLISON. I desire that the bill be laid aside informally. 

The PRESIDING .OFFICER. That course will be taken if there be 

no o'bjection. 

PREl IDENTIAL APPROVAL . 

· A message from the President of the 'Lnited States; by 1\'lr. 0. L. 

PRUDE"N1 one of his secretaries, announced that the President had, on the 6th instant, approved and signed the net (8. 1242) to reimburse 

:Eli.mbeth Comstock en toms dues paid by her on articles donated for 

the relief of colored emigrants; and, on the 9th instant: the joint reso- lution (S. R. lOt) providing for the printing and distribution of th-e 

Descriptive Catalogue of Government Publications. 

HOUSE BILL REFERRED. 

The bill (H. R. 75Sl) ~dmitting ft·ee of duty an altar :md church re- gali:t for the Catholic church :ttCarrolltown, Pa., wa read twice by it 

title, and referred to the Committee on Finance. 

PE ·siON .A.PPROPRIATIO!\ BILL. 

lli. ALLISOX. I a.sk that House bill 77 5 being the pen ion nppropriation bill, may be taken up at this time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to t;h request of 

the Senator from Iowa? The Chair bears none. The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the 

bill (H. R. 7785) making appropriations for the payment of invalid and 

other pen ·ions of the United States for the fucal year emling June 30, 

1886, and for other purposes. 

1\lr. ALLISON. I ask that the bill may be read for amendment, and 

that the first or formal reading of the bill may be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no objection the formal 

l'Cading of the bill will be dispensed with, and the reading for amendment will proceed. The Chair hears no objection. 

The Secretary proceeded to read the bill. 

The fu:st amendment r(>ported by the Committee on Appropriatiorn 

was, iri. section 1, line 30, after the word "pensioma," to insert ' who . hall have served at least threi month. after date of muster· ' so as to 

make the pmviso read : · Provided, That all applicants for pension who shall lta'\'e erved at least three 

months after date of mu t~r shall be presllllled to have had no di ability at the 

time of enlistment; but such pre umption m:.y be rebutted. 

The amendment was agrood to. . The next amendment was, in section 1, line 34, before the word 

"agents," to strike out " twelve " and insert " eighteen; " and in 

line 35, after. the word "each;"' to strike out "forty-eight" and insert 

" seventy-two ; " so as to read : For llie sala.rie of eighteen agents for the paymeut of pen. ions, at $-1,000 ach, 

$72,000 . 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment wa.s, in section 1 after the word ' dollars," in 

line 36, to strike out the following clause: 

And from and after .July 1, 1885, there shall be no more th:.n twelye agents for 

the payment of pensions, and it shall be the duty pf the Pre ident, and he is 

herel>y authorized and directed, to reduce the pension agents to not exceeding 

the number aforesaid; and so much of s~ctions 4i7 and 4'780 u is in conflict witl.t 

this pronsion be, and the arne is hereby, rel>ealed. 

The a~endment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was, in section 1', line 44, after the word ''lights,'' 

to strike out ''and;'' in line 46, after the word ''pensioners,'' to insert 

"stationery, and other necessary expenses, to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior;'' and before ''thousand,'' in line 4 , to trike out 

"fifty-three" and insert '"fifty-six;" so as to read: FOl' fees for preparing vouchers, rent, fuel lights, po-ta.ge on letter to the 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. 1463 

Executi\'e l)eparlments and to pensioners, e1ationery, and othet· necessary 

expenses, to be approved by ~e Secretary of the Interior, $256,000. 

The amendment was agreed to. . Thenextamendmentwas, insection 1, line48, after the word" after/' 

to strike out "March 4 , and insert "June 30; ' and after the word 

''available;" at the end of line 55, to strike ont: 

· And hereafter the mode and manner provided by law and regulalions for the 

payment of white persons entitled to pen!<ions shall apply to and govern the 

payment. of all pensioners. 

So as to make the proviso reaa : 

.PI·ooided, That from and after June 30, 18>S.3, the sala ry and emoluments of 

agents for the payment of pensions shall be $4,000, and no more, per annum; and·of the fees provided by law for vouchers prepared aud paid, only so much 

thereof as may be required for eXJ?enses incurred in having said vouchers pre- pared, as well as the necessary clertcal work at the agencies, shall be available. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was to strike out lines 59 and 60, as follows: 

For ~ntingent expenses of pension agencies, $3,000, 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was to strike out, from section 2 to section 10, 

inclusive, a follows: 

SEc. 2. That no agent, attorney, or other person shall demand or receive any fee for his services in pension, arrears of pension, or bounty-land claims until 

the allowance of the claim. 

SEc. 3. That all fees in pension claims shall be p~id by the agent for paying peusions out of the first installment of pension due the claimant; anrl no agent, 

attorney, or other person shall receive any fee for his services in a pensi<ftl claim 

except through the agent for paying pensions. SEC. 4. That the fee in all pension, arrears of pension, or bounty-land claims 

shall be $10, except in cases of s_pecial writt-en contmct, 1iled in the Pension Office 

and approved by the CommissiOner of Pensions, as hereinafter provided. The 

clltimant may contract with his attorney of record, in writing, in such form as the Commissioner of Pensions may prescribe, for a fee to an a.~ount not ex- ceeding $25, except in claims for increase of pension where no new .disability is 

alleged, in cases of pensions for s~rvice, and in all claillllt filed in the Pension 

Office after June 28, 1878, and prior to the 4th day of July 1884, in which cases no fee above $10 shall be contracted for; and in all claims flled prior to the passage of this net the attorney shall tile a statement, under oat·h, duly attested, set- ting forth the amount of fee already received by him, and the amount already received shall be deduct-ed from t.he fee allowed by this act. . SEc. 5. That the Secretary of the Interior may pre,;cribe rules and regulations governing the recognition of agents, attorneys, or other persons representing claimants before his Department, and may require of such persons, agents, and 

attorneys, before being recognized as representatives of claimants, that they sha U show that they are of good moral character and in good repute, possessed oft.be necessary qualifications to enable them to render such claimants valuable 

8ervice and otherwise competent to advise and assist such claimants in the pre- sentation of their cases; and such Secretary may suspend, debar, dismiss, and .disbar from further practice before his Department any such person, agent, or attorney shown to be incompetent, disreputable, or who refuses to abide by the 

said t·ules and regulations, or who shall in any manner deceive, mislead, or threaten any claimant or presumptive claimant by word, circular, letter, or by advel'tisement; 

: SEc. 6. That any agent or attorney or other person in trumental in prosecut- ing any olaiJ:n for pension, or arrears the-reof, who elmll directly or indirectly contract for, demand, or receive and retain any compensation for his services or instrumentality-for prosecuting a claim for pension, or arrears thereof, greater than is herein provided, or in any other manner-than herein provided, or shall 

wilfully or knowingly make a false statement in regard to the amount of fee 

already received, shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and, upon con- viction thereof, shall for every such offense be fined not exceeding· 81,000, or be confined at hard labor not exceeding two years, or both, at the discretion of the court, and be forever afterward debarred from practicing before the Pension 

Office. . SEC. 7. That no agent or attorney shall either demand or receive, on account of the prosecution of any claim provided for onder the provisions of this act, 

where such olaim was filed after the 28th day of June, 1878, and prior t{) the 4th 

day of July, 1884,aqy fee or sum of money in excess of $10; nor shall said$10, or any part thereof, be paid to any agent or attorney until be make and file in 

the office of the Commissioner of Pensions the affidavit provided for in section 

4 of this act; and if it shall appear from said affidavit, or in any other way, that all ot· any part of said SlO has been paid, it shall be deducted therefrom, and the 

1·esidue, if any, shall be paid t{) such attorney as het:einbeforeprovided: Provided, 

That this act shall not be so construed as to interfere with any contracts, entered 

into fairly and without fraud or duress, for the prosecution of claims filed after 

the 4th day of July, 1884, and prior to the passage of this act ; and that any per- son who shall violate the provtsions of this act shall be, upon con"\'iction, pun- ished as proVided in the sixth section of this act. ' · SEc. 8. That this act shall not be so construed as to prohibit any cla.im.ant the 

prosecution of whose claim bas been heretofore abandoned by his attorney from 

employing another attorney or agent, but in no such case shall the fee paid such 

attorney exceed the sum of $10, under the penalties of the sixth section of this act: P?·~ided, That if such new attorney succe fully prosecute such claim, that 

the or1gmal attorney or agent shall not be allowed to demand or receive any 

part thereof, under the penalties of the sixth !!lection of this act. SEC. 9. That hereafter no person or persons liVhomay have been heretofore en- gaged in the prosecution of pension or bounty land-claims ofanycbaracterwhat- soever,andwhomayhaveheretoforecollectedonaccountthereofanysumwhat-

·ever, shall~ allowe~ to sell, assign~ convey, or make over to any other person 

any s uch c~atm or cl~1ms, so as that 1t shall be lawful for any vendee or assignee of s~oh chum or c~a1ms to demand or recei\re any other or greater fee than is 

herem before provided for; nor shall such vendee or assign·ee be allowed tore- ce~v e anything therefor until the vendor or assignor of such claim or claims if 

abve, shall make and file in the office of the Com..missioner of Pensions the affi;h. ·vit proyided for in the fourth section of this act; and any person. or persons who 

shall vtolate the provisions of this section shall be subject to the penalties imposed ~Y the sixth section of this act: Provided, That the provisions of this act authortzing contracts for a fee of$25 shall be limit-ed to attorneys or agents residing in the State where the claimant resides, and shall not extend to agents or attorneys in the District of Columbia; and it shall be unlawful for any agent or attorney residing in a State of which tlie claimant is resident to ent-er into partnership with or otherwise to divide the fee of$25 with any attorney or agent residing in the District of Columbia. 

Sxc. 10. That all the provisions of the act making appropriations for the pay- ment of invalid and other pensions ofthe United States for the fiscal year ending 

.Tune 30, 1885, and for. other l>urposes, approved July 4. 1884, relating t{) claim a~u s nnd attorneys m pension cases, are hereby repealed : Provided, That as 

to offenses con1mitted under said act all the provisions thereof ball remai::J. in 

full force. · 

The amendment was agreed to . Mr; INGALLS., All the portion that embraces genemllegishtion 

is, in accordance with the reCQmmendatio~ of the committee, stricken 

out? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (1\Ir. PLATT in the chair). From and 

including section 2 to the end of the bill. 

Mr: MITCHELL. I desire to call the attention of the Senator fmm 

Iowa to the provision in Telation to the presumption of oundness in the proviso at the end of the clause on page 2: 

Provided, That all applicants for pensions who s.ha.ll have served at least three months after date of muster shall be presumed to have had no disability at th~ 

time of enlistment; but such presumption may be rebutted. 

On Saturday the Senate adopted an amendment to the bill for the 

relief of 1\f:rs. Sarah B. Jackson.on that subject which reads as follows: 

That in all applications under the general pension laws, including this act, 

where it appears by record evidence that the applicant was regularly enlisted 

and mustered into the serv:ice, thatfa<ltsball be prima facie evidence of sound· ness at the time of his enlistment ; but such presumption .shall be subject to re- buttal by record or other competent evidence. 

There is a conflict between these two p1-ovisions. 

Mr. ALLISON. I suggest to the Senator that wheu the bill comes into the Senate he can ask for a separate vote on that amendment. Mr. 1\'II';I'CHELL. Very well. 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended. . The PRESIDING OFFICER. How shall the question be taken on 

the amendments? 

Mr. ALLISON. At thesuggestionoftheSenator from Pennsylvania, 

I ask for a separate vote on the amendment found on page 2, section 1, 

lines 30 and 31. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A separate vote will be reserved upon 

that amendment, and the question will he· put on concurring in the 

other amendments. . The question being put, it was declared that the affirmative appeared 

to prevail. 

Mr. INGALLS. Is the qu~tion now· o 

legislation? 

triking ont the general 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It includes all the amendments ex- cept the one on the second page at lines 30 and 31. 

M:r. INGALLS. I will ask for a division of the Senate upon the 

question of agreeing to the a.mendments made as in Committee of the 

Whole-that is, on the proposition to strikeout the general legislation 

in this bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator fmm Iowa asked for a separa.te vote as to agreeing to the amendment on page 2, in lines 30 

and 31, and the question was put on agreeing t~ all the other amendments in gross. ~Ir. ALLISON. Of course, if the Senator from Kansas desires a separate vote, I shall not object to it. I think the Senate ought to un- derstand exadly what is proposed in striking out the legislation found on page 4 and the following pages. • The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Kansas ask 

for a separate vote upon any other amendment than the one reserved 

by the Senator from Iowa? 

Mr. INGALLS. The Senator from Iowa r~erYed, I understand, the 

amendment on page 2, lines 30 and 31. 

Mr. ALLISON. Yes. 

Mr. INGALLS. What .I desire to obtain is a vote of the Senate upon 

the amendment striking out the general legislation from this bill. 

Will the Senato.r from Iowa allow me to ask him~ are those words upon 

page 3, lines 36 to 43, recommended to be stricken out because they are 

general legislation? 

Mr. ALLISON. They are recommended to be stricken out for a double reason; first that they are general legislation, and secondl;r be- cause we do not think it is a wise thing to reduce the number of agents 

from eighteen to twelve. 

Mr. BLAIR. I should like to inquire of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations where the new legislation commences. It 

does not seem to be that which is erased simply, but it certa.inly includes some other provisions, because in the thirtieth line in the proviso 

there is language in Italics which the committee have reported to insert which is an amendment of other new legislation. · Mr. ALLISON. A separate vote has been asked on that, and I uppose it will _be voted out. · • 1\!r. BLAIR. The committee has reported the rej ection of some of 

the ri.ew legislation, and has not reported the rejection of others, as 

would appear from the form of the bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. .AI> there seems to have been some misunderstanding, the Chair will inquire again· whether any Senator 

desires a separate vote upon any amendmentother.than the .one which 

was asked for by the Senator from Iowa. 

Mr. INGALLS. Yes, sir; I have just stated that I desire to Qbliain 

the sense of the Senate on the queition of striking out the general 

legislation, beginning on page 4, as recommended by the committee . 

Mr. BLAIR. I should like to inquire whether the motion of the 
1464 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE~ FEBRUARY · !J, 

Senator f1-om Kansa .. ~ 'is designed to include all the new gene1-itl legislation. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair was about to suggest to 

the Sen3tor from Kansas that be should specify the amendment upon 

which be. desired a separate vote. The Chair nnclerstands that he only 

asks for a separate vote on the striking out of the sections commencing on page 4. The Chair will put the question-- ~1r. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. What is the question? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understa.nds the question 

to be thi.s, whether the Senate will concur in the amendment made as iq Committee of the 'Vhole, -striking out all of the bill commencing on page 4, section 2, to the end. 

Mr. BLAIR. Now; Ur. P1·esitlent, I wish to nndertand where we are. This comes here under the broad general statement of a principle 

of action adopted by the Appl·opriati.oDS' Committee, as I understandl may be wrong, and I should like to be set r~ght if I am m:ong-that 

they will, under the rnles of the Senate and the supposed instruction of 

the Senate, reject all general legislation sent to the Senate from the 

House upon an appropriation bill, and therefore they have reported in 

favor of sb·iking out certain portions of this bill; and those portions 

which they recommend to be sb·icken out, in the applic:1tion of this 

principle, arc d~ignated by a line drawn through them by way of eras- ure. It seems to me, and I suppose it to be so from other portions of 

the bill, that they have reported favorably an(l have amended themselves other general legislation coming to us from the House u:pon this aame bill. I >ery likely am wrong; I shall be glad to be set right if I am wrong. I will call a point to the Senator's attention. 'Jake the 

second page, line 29, where the pro>iso commences: 

Provided, That all applicants for pensions who sl1all h a \'e een·ed n.t least 'three 

months nft-er dat-e of muster shall be presumed to h~we had no disability at the 

time of enlistment; but such presumption ma,y be 1:! butted. 

Is' not that gen~ral and new iegi~lation ? 

l!ir. ALLISON. It·is. ~11'. ·BLAIR. There i no such law at the pre ent time~ That is not 

erased. 

Mr. INGALLS. The nator will-pardon me a moment. The com- mittee have also reported an amendment to that provision of general l~islation coming from the House in the bill. 

.1\Ir. BLAIR. Certainly; so that the committee seem to have adopted 

!he instruction of the enate where it pleased them and to have rejected 

it where in their judgment it was unwise to follow the admonition of 

the Senate. Undoubtedly it is all right, ·but it ought not to be understood by the Senate that the committee comes here rejecting certain 

legislation, becai~ it is general legislation, thereby standing by the instruction of the Senate and the principle prohibited in our rules, when as part of the same bill, in the same bill, they report favorably other 

gencm.l legislation and amend the same which may commend itself to 

their j ndgment. 

1\Ir. JACKSO~. I understand that the new legislation that is proposed to be stricken out by· the committee is substantially the same as 

the bill that the Senate passed the other day. Mr. ALLlSO~. Yes, ·sir. 

· M.r. BL.AJR. It maybe all right to strike that out, and undoubtedly 

it ought to be stricken out. I only call· attention to the fact•tbat there 

is other legislation on this same bill com,ing from the House which 

the Appropril\tions Committee reports favorably along with amendments to the same. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment has not yet been 

acted upon. · 

Mr. INGALLS. Is that the amendment I inilicated? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is on page 2, line 30. It has not 

yet been acted on. 

:M:r. h'fGALLS. Is it now subject to the point of order? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thinks that it is. 

1\Ir. INGALLS. Then I make the point of order. 

The PRESID~G OFFICER. The Chair thinks it will be subject ·to the point of order when it comes before the Senate. It is not now before the Senate. 

1\Ir. INGALLS. I understood it was all now before the Senate. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thinks it is not . . The 

Chair thinks the question now before the Senate is on concnning in the 

amendment of the Committee of the Whole striking on t from section 2 

to section 10, both inclusive. 

Mr. INGALLS .• The bill has been reported to the Senate? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has been. · 1\Ir. INGALLS. Then I raise the point of order on the amendment 

l'Cported by the committ~e in lines 30 and 31 that it is gene~ legislation on an appropriation bill. . 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will consider that point of 

order after having disposed of the question now before the Senate. 

The question befo1·e the Senate-=--

Mr. INGALLS. I will relieve the Chair from any embarrassment 

by reserving a separate vote on each of the amendments. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Perhaps it would be more in order, 

then, that the Senate should take them as they occur in the bill. 

.M1·. INGALLS. In their order. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no objection, that order 

will be pursued. The question is on concurring in the amendment 

made J\8 ·in· Committee of the Whole in lines 30 and 31, on page 27 

which will be read. . The SECRETARY. After the word " pensions,'' in line 30 of section 

1, the Committee of the Whole inserted, "who shall have served at 

least three ·months after date of muster." 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that the Senator from Kansas raises the point of oriler. 

lli. INGALLS. Yes, siT. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That this is an amendment in the 

nature of general legislation'? The Chau· sustains the point of order. 

M:r. INGALLS. Although tbeChair is right, for tliepnrpose of settling this question by vote of the Senate I appeal from_ the decision of 

the Chair. 

The PREBID~G OFFICER. The enator fi-om Kansa appeals 

from the decision of tbe Chair sustaining the point of ordex. 

Mr. UITCHELL. Will the President state the question ? I do not 

understand it. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the Senate was upon concmring in the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole on page 2, lines 30 and -31; and the Senator from Kansas made the 

point of order that the amendment proposed wa.s an amen(lmentinthe 

nature of gen~ral legislation. The Chair sustained that point of order, 

from "hicb decision the Senator from Kansas ha,o; taken an appeal. 

1\II'. ALLISON. I deshe to understand from the Chair the ground 

he takes in reference to this legislation. This is legislation a~ched 

to a legislative provision which was inserted in the House. Am I to 

understand the Chair to decide that although !:1> legislative provision 

appears in tl:ie bill a it comes from the House, it is not competent for 

the Senate ~ amend that legisia.tion? -In other words, shall I under~ 

stant.l the decision of the Chair to mean that we must take whatever 

House legislation comes in these billsasawhole, without amendment; 

not having the power or the pri vilegc in this body of amending a legis- l~ttive provision found on the bill as it comes here'? That is, a I undertam], the ruling of the Chair. 

'l"be PRESIDING OFFICER. If it were an original question it is 

possible :the Chair might have decided diff~rently, but the Chair un- derstands that thc.rnling now made-is in accordance with former rulings made by the-regular presiding officer of the body; and in holding 

that this amendment was not in'order the Chair supposed he was following what bas been _laid down as the rule of the Senate. If the 

Chair is in en·or in that respect be would be very glad to be con-ected; 

but tne Chair so understands the rnli~gof the Senate, and proposes to 

follow it without expressing any individual 9pinion on the point. 

Mr. INGALLS. Mr. President, I do not think this precisep6intbas 

been 1·uled upon by the present President p1:o tempore of tho Senate. 

The Senator from 1\:Iassachusetts [1\Ir. HoAR] asks that the precise point 

involved in this appeal may b~ stated to the Senate. I :will state it. 

House bill 7785, being the hill making approprh\tions for the payment of invalid and other pensions of the United States for the fiscal 

year ending June 30, 1886, and for other purposes, is under consideration. This bill, in section 1, contains general legislation sent here by 

the Honse of RP-presentatives. The Senate Committee o.n Appropriations have reported an amendment to the general legislation contained 

in the bill asH comes from the House of Representatr.ives. It has hith- . erto been held that ]{'gislation on appropriation bills coming from the 

House of Hepresentatives was not open toamendmentin the Senate. 

I have raised the point of order upon tho amendment in lines 30 and 

31 of the first section of the bill, that it was not admissible under the 

rples of the Senate, being generallegisla.tion on. an appropriation bill. 

The Chair held, in accordance with previous rulings, that the }:>Oint of 

order was well taken a,nd that the amendment should be stricken from 

tile bill. From that decision I have appealed forthepnrpo e of obtaining the opinion of the Senate whether or not the spirit of onr rule that 

forbids. us to put general legislation upon appropriation bills prevents us from amending general legislation that comes from the Hou e of Rep.~;esentatives on such b:iUs. I believe that the rule in its spirit does 

not prevent us from ameniliug such legislation. I think the decision 

of the Chairhashitherto.beenimprovidentlymade; I -think the <.lecision was wrong; and I want the Selli'\te by its vote to declare a precedent 

that will enable us hereafter to offer amendments to genemlle.gi Jation 

coming on appr9priation billcf from the Honse of Representatives if we are forbidden by our own rules from offering amendments in t.be 

nature of general legislation ourselves. . Mr. DAWES. I hope that the decision of the Chair will not be sustained, although I agree with the oceupant of t.he chair that the precedents require that ruling by him. I always believed that it was erroneous, and it has led to m ncb trouble. The amendment is not 11- proposition to amend eXisting legislation, but to amend proposed legislation. 

It is pr.op9sed legislation which is in order. It is in order be 1.use it came here fi:om the other branch. . The proposed legislation is in order. You can not strike that out 

except by a vote. The idea that to offer an amendment to proposed independent legislation is topropo e itself independentlegislation I ndver 

could understand. The consequence of it has been uch that we ought, 
18,85. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA~E;. 1465 

in the shortest possible way, without reflecting upon any occupant of 

the chair, to put a construction UPQn that mle which has some sense in 

it, I hope I maybe permitted to say. Theideathatwe can notamend 

proposed legislation because we can not introduce independent legislation, is like saying that we can not propose an amendment to an appropriation bill because we can not introduce an .appropriation -bill here. 

I do not think it is right and sound; and the effect of it has been such as to bring its impropriety so prominently before the Senate that I am -very glad the Sena.to1· from Kansas has taken this appeal from the decision of the Chair, and I hope we shall not omi~ this opportunity to 

make the rule what I Stq)posed it was. Mr. HALE. Will the Senator allow nie to interrupt him for a mo- ment? 

Mr. DAWES. Certainly. 

Mr. HALE. Will the Senator state, if it has not been alreatly state~l 

in the debate, how long a time back the rnling that tpe Senate oan not- in any way deal with and amend propositions from the Honse embodying general legislation has been the parliamentary law of this body? 

MI·. DAWES. Other Senators could tell more definitely than myself. 

When the Presiflent pro tempore preceding the present President p1·o ·tempore was occnpying the chair, I should think some four years ago, I 

heard it mmouuced for the first time as a ruling. It took l)le, and I 

supposed, from the 1·emarks that were made in the discussion, it toolt 

the whole Senate by surprise as a new ruling. Up t<> the time of the 

ruling by the President pro tempore who ·immediately preceded the 

present President pro tempore of the Senate I had never heard of such a construction upon the.rule; but still my memory is not conclush-e. 

Mr. HALE. Was it not the actual fact that up to that time it was the common practice-for the Senate to deal with House provisions em- bodying legislation upon appropriation bills by amending them, by 

modifying them, by changing them aecording to the :will of the Senate, 

without any .point of order being raised? 

Mr. DAWES. That is my memory in reference to the decision.here, 

though I would not speak with a.ny great confidence. 

Mr. HALE. Thatwasbeforemyservicein the body, but my recollection is that th~t was the course of procedure in the Senate up to within a comparatively brief space of time. . Mr. DAWES. Bet; my service in the Senate, if my memory serves me 1·ight, there was a rule in the Senate which allowed independent legislation on :t.ppropriation bills, while there was one in the House w]J.ich 

absolutely forbade it. I know the habitofmembersoftheHoilsewas, 

when ever they failed to get an amendment into an appr&priation bill on that ground, to come to this body and get it inserted here. I remem- ber one very distinct case, a very important civil-service law, that we had until this1astone, wasaprovision whichhadbeen tried twoorthree 

times upon an appropriation·bill in the other branch; and at my suggestion the author of it came over here and it was sent down to the House 

in an appropriation bill from this body. - As I rmderstan<t, this change in our rules h~ gone further, and the 

Senate till a 1·ecent pe1·iod permitted some sort ofindepenaent legislation and the House excluded it. The House has gone the other way, 

and the Senate has receded to the extent that it has voluntarily, by a construction which 10eems to me to ~wrong, tied its own hands and 

said to the.House, "We will tn.ke or reject, but will not amend, anything you send over.'' . lir. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. Will the Senator from .Massa-ehusetts permit me, before he sits down, to ask a question? The proposed 

amendment in lines 30 and 31 is undoubtedly germane, but suppose an amendment were-proposed not germane to the matter, for instance, putting in a whole pension bill,-would the Senator still be of opinion that 

it should be received? · · Mr. DAWES. Putting new matter in? 

:Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. Under our rule it is Bot essential 

that an amendmentshall be germane. We can propose an amendment 

entirely changing the miginal bill. 

l!r. DAWES. I do not think that an independent amendment, an amendment having no pe1·tinency to a.nd not ge1·ma.ne to the m~asure, 

would be in order. It seems to me it is not independent legislation to 

propose to amend in any way that is gennane to the subjectrmatter be1ore the Senate. It was a good while before I ·could learn that it was no objection to an amendment in this body that it was not germane to 

the subject.-matter. That was so strange a parliamentary rule that it was a good while before. I could learnt<> govern ;myself accordingly. ~Ir. PLATT. If the Senator from Massachusetts will permit me, 

there is 1\0thing in the rule I think which requires that an amendment 

proposed shall be germane to the particular matter of legislation which 

nppears in the bill to which· the amendment is moved. If an amendment is not germane or relevant to the subject-matter contained in the 

bill it can not be received. But to .illustrate: Supyose that we may· amend legislation wbi~lr comes ft·om the Housel taking this very legislation which comes from the Hause, if an amendment is in order, _why 

may we not take section 2 to section 10 and substitute them for thiB 

legislation which has come from the House to which really they ha\".e no particular relevancy? 

Mr. DAWES. I would so administer the parliamentary law of this 

body, until J-was required t{) administer itsomeotherway, that~atter 

not germane should not be in order; that matter having no reference 

to the independent legislation that has come here in .order should notJ 

und,er the guise of amendments to it be ruled in order. · The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair begs leave to state, although the matter has been decided and is. now pending on appeal, if 

the Senate will pardon him, that this precise question as it now appears on raising the point of order upon an amendment to legislation which comes in a House bill has been presented to the Senate several times n the recollection of the present occupant of the chair. . present occupant of. the chair recollects th..'l.t in the time of Mr. 

x, Vice-President of the United States, in the time of Mr. Wheeler, 

Vice-President of the United States, and in the time of Senator Davis, 

President pro tempore, not always by the Senator who now occupies 

the chair decisions have been made (sometimes by the Senator who now occupies the chair) upon distinct amendments proposed to legislation 

that appeared in a .House _app1·opriation bill coming from the House; 

and the recollection of the Chair is lhat all these presiding o:Qicers held 

that such an amendment was not in order, upon .the ground that the 

rules of the Senate made no. distinction as to the part of the bill at 

which the proposed amendment by a Senator or by a committee might come in. That ruling was always acquiesced ·n or sustained. The 

Chair does not remember any case of an ap~ 

So the Chair thinks it clear that the history or a good ma~y years, 

going back to the time of 111r. Colfax, of the action of the Se~ate h:l8 

been such as would sustain the ruling of the Senator from Connecticut 

who occupied the chair when this question arose. The provision of 

the rule is thatNo an1endme~t which proposes general legislation shall be received -to any general appropriation bill, nor shall any amendment not germane or relev-ant to the subject-matt-er contained in the bill be re<:eived. 

The effect of holding t•t this particular amendment reported from 

the Committee on Appropriations is in order would be that it would 

be in order to propose any other amendment to this legislation that is 

germane to the bill-that. is, germane to the subject of providing the means of carrying on the payment-of pensions. It seems clear to the 

Chair, this amendment being held to be in order, that if some Senator 

should rise and propose an addition to this-legislation and as a continuation of it· some other provision that should seem to be useful to the -Senator on the subject of administering the pension laws, it would be 

gemtane--to the bill, as much so as the amendment that is now pending, 

whichi.9 certainly germane to the bil1. It relates to the subject that 

the b.ill has under consideration. No point of order could be made upon 

this amendment on the ground that it is not germane. The result 

would be that any legislation which touched. the Pension Office and the _payment ofpensio~ would be-germane to the bill. If an amendment 

to the House legislation is in order on the ground that it does not fall 

within the condemnation of the other part of the rule, then any_legislation that is proposed in·this bill t<> the House legislation, although 

not germane to that particular point, but still germane to the suJ;>ject 

of a pension appropriation bill, would be in order, and the result would 

be that the whole subject of legislating about pensions would be open. 

Mr. HALE. Will the ChaiT excuse me for asking a-question here? 

What would be the construction the Chair would place upon the next 

clause in the rule? It reads~ · 

Nor.shall any a.mendment to any item or clause of such bill be received whieh 

does not directly relate thereto. 

Is the force of the word " .thereto " to be made applicable to the 

"item or clause of such bill," or to the bill in general?- It seems to 

me that if it is applicable to the "item or clause," you thereby get a limitation which prevents general sweeping legislation coming in relating to -the whole subject of the bill. I make theinquicybecause I desire to be enlightened. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair unders~nds the point 

precisely, and can state in reply that that subject has undergone a con- stant pmctice in the Senat-e for a great many years, the construction of 

that clause in the 1"Ule ~ving always been that it relates to items of 

appropriation and clause~ of appropriation, and not to the question of 

general legislation which has been exhausted and provid~d for in the 

previous proVision; so that if there were an item to pay so much for 

pensiop clerks you could not add t<> that item a provision for paying 

special agents, or whatever it might be, that did not relate to the question of pension clerks. It relates to appropriation items as distinguished 

from legislation. That the Chair thinks has always been the practice o~enate. · \Mr. lNGALLS. Speaking historically, I think the Ch;air has prob- ·ably fallen ·into an error in the statement that the interpretation of the 

rule to which he alludes had been given to it by Mr. Colfax among 

others. Since this subject was previously under discussion I have ex- amined the history of this rule, and I find that the first inhibition in 

the rules of the Senate against general legislation upon an appropriation 

bill appeared in 1876 in the revision that was made under the leadership 

of the then SenatOr from Mi~higan, at one time President pro tempore 

of the Senate, Ron. T. W. F~ Inasmuch as Mr. Colf& disappeared 

from public life in 1873, the m ory of the Chair I think would hardly 

be borne out by the statistics But that of course is immaterial. I 

mere1y allude to that fact b ause it was stated somewhere within my 

·• 

• 
.,., 

1466 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 9, 

hearing not long since that there had been a prohibition forbidding generallegisla.tion on appropriation~ as far back as 1837. 

That is absolutely incorrect. U'here has been, no such .rule even in 

the House of Represent.'lttives until within ten years lpst past, and even there it is no tin words a prohibition of gene:rnllegisla.tion, buta. statement 

that no amendment shall be received to change existing law, which is 

of course tantamount to the same thing.. But so far as the history of 

parliamentary procedure in the Senate is concerned, the prohibition 

first appeared in our rules in 1876-'77. Whether the interpretation has 

been such as the President pm tempore states since then, of course I 

am not fully advised, but with l'egard to every other intru:pretation of our rules I think I am correct in saying that it has been upon which- ever side of the rule a majority of the Senate seemed inclined to favor. 

There can be fouhd upon~ th~ disputed points decisions on one si.de 

and decisions on the other 

Now, about the ruling at is at present before !IS, I think that the 

Senator from Connecticut then occupying the chair was entirely correct 

in ruling as he did, that the amendment proposed by the committee 

to the bill as it came froin the House was not in order under our rules . as they had been previously inte1·preted, but I t'hink the interpretation was improvidently made; it is one which I think is not within the 

spirit of the rule; and I desire to present as b~oadly and as distinctly as is possible, by an appeal from that ruling, the que tion whether we !Shall be permitted to propose amendment-s to genera.! legislation upon 

appropriation bills propounded by the House, because if ·we are not to 

do it then we have one simple alternative, either to reject aU such legislation under our rule, which does not apply to legislation coming 

from the Houseuf Representatives, or to accept such legislation exactly as the House proposes it to us. · I should like to make a further parliamentary inquiry, because this 

question is one of very great interest; it is dtte of great moment . . If a committee of conference submit a report amending general-legislation 

upon an appropriation bill, is that open to a point of order under the 

rules of the Senate; or bas a committee of conference a right toviolate 

those rules and bring in general legislation here to which we are com- pelled to submit without amendment? I ask that as a parliamentary 

question of the Chair in order that we may ba.>e a full view of all the 

exigencies that confront us. · The PRESIDENT p1·o t~mpore. Of course the Senator from Kansas, 

with his familiarity with parliamentary law, will perfectly understand 

that the question would be premature, and the Cbair could not, fully 

performing his strict duty, be caUed upon to make any reply.- Mr. INGALLS. I understood that, sir. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Buttbepresentoccupantoftbecbair · will state to t.be Senator from Kansas tho.t it is clear to the present oc- cupant of the chair that no conferees on the p:trt of the enate (we have 

nothing to do with those of the Honse) can have any right to recom- mend anything that would violate the rules of the Senate, whatever it 

might ·be, on appropr.illtion bills or anything else; and that a point of 

order made upon a report of enate conferees on any bill that what they 

had reported contravened the rules would necessarily be sustained if it 

turned out that it did contravene the rules. 

Mr. INGALLS. That is if the Senat-e conferees should submit are- port here in which it appeared that an amendment bad been made to 

general legislation upon an appropriation bill coming from the Hou e, 

that would be open to a point of order under the Senate rules? 

The PRESIDENT pro temp01·e. The Chair thinks so. Mr. HALE. Now, Mr. President, let us understand tliis. Under 

that i~timation from the Chair, if the House of Representatives under 

its rules, which are the law of that body, incorporates upon an appropriation bill features of general legislation which the rules of the Senate would forbid. this body to put on, but which the House can put on, 

and the blll is sent here and the Senate strikes out that legislation, and 

the bill is returned to the House with the House legislation stricken 

out, and conferees are appointed by the two bodies, if then the Senate 

conferees report that they have at last in conference assented to the 

House proposition and report the bill back to this.body with the legislation put o~ by the Honse left upon the bill, is it the intimation -of the 

Chair that a point of order would then be good and would be sustained on the report of the conference committee? 

l The PRESIDENT pro te-mpore. That bas not been the intimation of 

the Chair. That is a difl'erent question, leaving the bill precisely with 

what the Honse bad in it. But if the Senate conferees should report 

any provision in a bill which if moved by a committee of this body or by any Senator in it would be out of order, it would be still out of 

order if repcirted by the conferee . 

Mr. HALE. But if the enate conferees report that they have as- sented to the legislation which tJ1e House pnt on, which the Senate 

could not, under its l'Ules, put on, would that be ubject to a point of 

order on the conference report? 

T}le PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is quite a difterent question. 

Mr. HALE. I do not understand the Chair. · The PRESIDENT JffO tempore. That would be merely a recom- mendation by the Senate conferees, because the enate conferees have 

nothing else to substitute. It would be merely a recommendation that 

the Senate recede from its disagreement to the propo ition of the House. 

Mr: HALE. Then we may not understand that there is any intimation that a point.of order would lie ;in the case I have stated? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no uch intimation from 

the Chair. . Mr . . DAWES. I should like to inquire if there is any precedent for 

the idea iihat when independent legislation is submitted to a committe 

of conference of the two bodies, it can not be modified? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair can not st..'lte. The Chair can only say that it is the duty of the Chair to enforce the law of the 

Senate as laid down to him in the rUles; and when the rules provide 

that no amendment snall be received to an appropriation bill which is 

legislative in its chara-cter, and the Senate and the Chair hold that :w amendment is legislative in its character, the Chair is of opinion (speaking in advance of such a question being raised and of course having the 

right to change his opinion upon consideration; it is merely an intimaion) that the conferees of the Senate, the agents of the Senate, in con- ferring with the House, have nomorepowertoagreetoviolate therules 

of the enate than any committee of the Senate or any Senator would 

lmve. That is all the Chair now says . 1\fr. DAWES. Could the Chair indicate what would be the use.of 

submitting such a proposition to a committee of conferen.ce .if it could 

not be modified? · The PRESIDE!\T p1'o temptn·e. The Chair thinks it can. 1\Ir. DAWES. The Chair thinks it can be modified? 

The PRESIDENT pro ie?7!P01'e. The Chair thinks be can intimate 

what would be the use of it. In persuading the House of Representati\"'e -- · Mr. DA W'ES. If the Chair will allow me, I do not see what else the 

committee of conference could confer about except whether they would 

take the legislation as the House dictates it. I do not think anybody 

would want to go on such a committee of conference. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is· not of opinion that the 

House dict.ates anr.Iegislation to the Senate or the Senate to the House. 

The -chair is of opinion, speaking in advance of all such questions, that 

there might be a use in conference in attempting to persuade the House 

of Representatives that any ~egislation upon an appropriation bill wn vicious and that the Senate could not consent to it. 

Mr. DAWES. If the Chair will bear with e (because I am some- times on committees of conference, and I am at sea. just now), am I to 

understand that the Senate conferees could go to this extent, that they 

might persuade the Honse conferees to modify their proposition, but 

that they could not suggest any modification of their own? Is that 

the understandin~ of the Chair? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. ItistbeunderstandingoftheChair! 

beginning with the fundamental principle which the Chair believes in, 

that the agents of the Senate have no greater power in conference thrut' 

any committee of the Senate would have in a proceeding within ita 

walls, and that therefore when the agents of the Senate conferring with 

the House propose th~ the Senate shall violate its own rules by introducing matter which the rules forbid, the fact that they are called upon 

to reach an agreement gives them no different status from that which a standing or select oomn'littee would have. · . Mr. DAWES. If the rules of the Senate require that when a com- mittee of conference is appointed on the part of the Sen;J.te QVer some independent legislation that gets into conference, the Senate conferees are limited to the effort to persuade the House conferees to modify it, .and they can not themselve suggest any modification, the Chair will 

permit me to relllark that it is highly instructive, to say the least. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair thinks that the simple 

questi9n is this, if the Chair may be allowed to say it here, instead of on the floor. If the Senate of the United States is unwilling that legislation shall go on appropriation bills, it is only necessary to say so to 

the House of Representati>es. Neither House ever undertakes to dictate to the other, and whatever one House proposes to the other must" 

be agreed to by the other Honse before it can become operative. If 

therefore the Senate of the United States speaking through its con- ferees says to the House of Representatives," We cannot consent to this 

bill, this cia use, or phrase, or section, or seri~ of sections in it,'' if the' 

House of Representatives can not persuade the Senate that they ought 

to leave those sections in, the House of Representatives will of course recede, as the Senat-e would if the proposition were an independent 

amendment' of its own put on by it to which the House objected. The 

House of Repre entati>es bas an absolute right to make its own rules. 

It may provide that no legislation shall be bad in that body except on appropriation bills, if it desires to do so, and we have no right at all to 

complain of it, the Chair thinks. The House of Representatives is the 

sole and independent judge of its own methods of procedure. If the 

Senate chooses to think that it is unwise to introduce any legiSlation on 

an appropriation bill it has the right to say so, and to say to the House 

of RepresentativeS that it can not consent to int:roducing any legislation 

upon an appropriation bill good or bad, because "any " implies that it 

may be good or it ma,y be bad. The Chair thinks, therefore, that the 

EJ:Uestion.is.a pel'fectly simple one between the two Houses, and should 

occasion no collision whatever. 

Mr. CALL. '1\Ir. President, it seems to me very clear that the Senator ~rom Kansas [Mr. INGALLS] is tight in his propo ition, and fbat 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. 1467 

the role never had and never could have any reference to an amend- ought to be qualified in one particular. We ought to have the power 

ment of general legislation coming from the House on an appropriation to qualify it. Take the next page of the bill, page 3. When I called 

bill The Constitution vests the legislative power in the Senate and for the reading of the pending amendment I s\tppose(Hhe amendment 

in the House, and it recognizes the power to propose amendments and on page 3 to be the legislative provision involved in this debate. There 

to confer in regard w a disagreement upon any amendments as a part it is proposed to limit the salaryandemoluments of agents fo:rthepayofthe legislative power. A construction of the rule to the effect that ment of pensions w $4,000, and no more, in everycase. lam prepared 

the Senate shall not propose any amendment to a legislative provision to show that to 14nit the compensation of a pension agent to $4,000, 

in an appropriation bill coming from the House, and that this body cutting off all fees and throwing upon him all the expen~ of clerical 

shall be thus limited in its functions, is unquestionably a violation of force, &c., in some cases expenses of office rent, would be pra~tically to 

the constitutional duty imposed upon the. Senate: Therefore to a.s- disable the 'pension agent from transacting his business. sume that the rule of the Senate forbids the proposi.lli of amendments 1\Ir. DAWES. The expenses to which the Senat.or refers do not come· affecting general legislation upon a House bill is unquestionably to say out of the pay of the agents·. 

that the Senate shall not perform its constitutional duty of propo ing 1\fr. SHERMAN. Is it $4,000 clear of all expenses? 

amendments to legislation coming from the House. 1\Ir. DAWES. Clear of all expenses. 

I think that a construction of the rule which violates the Constitu- Mr. SHERMAN. ·That I did not know, because the proYision does 

tion and limits the constitutional functions of the Senate can never be not so state. · · sustained. Nothing can be clearer than this. To say that the House Mr. DAWE. . The bill· provides subsequently that the agent shall 

has a right to put such legislation on an appropriation bill and the Sen~ pay his clerks, his :rent, &c., out of another fund. 

ate a right to refuse to amend it, because it is on an appropriation bill, 1\Ir. HALE. It comes out of the voucher fees. They pay the exis to affirm the truth of two contradictory things. It is to say the House peuses of the office. 

has aright to legislate on an appropriation bill and the Senateis obliged M:r. ALLISON". Still the Senator from Ohio is right in one sen8e. 

to _consider and amend such legislation as the House sends, but the~n- It is in a sense legislation, because it changes the compensation to be 

ate may refuse to consider and amend legislation on an appropriation gi'\·en to pension agents. 

bill. . Mr. SHERMAN. It not only changes the amount of compensation, 

Mr. SHERMAN. I ask for the reading of the amendment now pend- but it changes the rule of compensation. . 

ing to the House bill. :rt'Ir. DAWES. 'l,'he Se.nator'sargument is just as good as if the proThe PRESID~NT pro tempore. The amendment will be read for in- vision was-a& he first supposed. 

formation. Mr. SHER~IAN. If we could vote on this proposition so :1$ to :t:eThe SECRETARY. In section 1, line 301 after the word "pension," .serve to the Senate the right to propose pertinent and relative amendthe Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, inserted: ments to legislative p1·ovisions in a general appropriation bill, I think 

Who shall have served at least three months after date or muster. that would be the best solution of the question for the pre.sent. But if, 

So as to make the proviso read: on the other hand, we sustain the ruling that has been made and propP,.ot>ided, That all applicants for pensions who shall ha.ve served at least three · er]y stated by the Chair, that no legislative provision whatever of any 

months after date of muster shall be presumed to have had no disability at the kind modifying or altering the proposed legislation by the House is in 

time or enlishnent; but such presumption may be rebutted. order, then it seems to me we have disabled ourselves from performing 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question iS, Shall the decision our most important duty. I should feel disinclined to vote for any such 

of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? rule. It is true that if we vote upon the question broadly by revers- Mr. SHERMAN. This amendment fairly presents the trouble which ing the rule, as ha.s been proposed, we practically substitute another 

has arisen between the two HotLSes in regard to legislative amendments rule, that all legislative provisions pertinent to pensions may be put on to a general appropriation bi1l. The paragraph from lin.e 17 to line 33 this bill as an amendment to propositions made by the House, and that 

contains new and very important changes in t.heexistinglaw. We have is practicaUyto nullify and repeal our rule. That is the (]anger I wish no right to call in question the power of the Honse to put this legis- to n.void. I do not wi~h to open the door so wide that the Senate or lative provision on the bill. Even though it were a violation of the the Senate committees may propose legislative provisions that go be· 

roles of the House, the Hou e could by unanimous consent waive its yond the scope of the Jegislative provisiqns proposed by the House; but 

rules and place this or any other legislative provision on a general ap- if we confine our power to offer legislative provisions merely to amendpropriation bill. If the Senate has so tied itself up, if it has so disabled me:p.ts to the provisions proposed by the House, 1 think there can· be 

itself that it can not modify. this proposed legi lstion, then ~ we ·no great harm done. I should like to vote for that, but I do not know 

have surrendered the most important power that we possess. The ob- how that Yote could be brought about except by a change of our rules. 

ject of the Senate as an organic body was to correct and amen proposi- I ask the Chair if it would be in orderpe':ldingthisappeal to propose 

tions made by the House as well as to proposenew items, newproposi- a resolution in·the nature of the opinionoftheSenate expressed on the 

ti:ons of a legislative character; but if we have no power to amend this appeal, so that in ca..~ the decision of the Chair is not sustained we can general legislation, but must take it all or none, then we are practically by this order confine the .amendments to pertinent and relevant amenddisabled from legislating here and performing our functions as a sepa- ments made t~legis1ative pro\"isions found in the House appropriation 

rate and independent branch of the legislative power. bills as they come to us? 

I have foreseen that the time would come wh{m eit)ler the Senate The PRESIDEhTT pro tempore. Th~ Chair does not think it would 

must modify its rules or we must have all so1·ts of very faulty legisla- be in order without unanimous consent. 

tion proposed by the House in the hurry of their proceedin~ often Mr. SHERMAN. It can not be offered except by a proposed rule, 

amid great confusion, and thtLS ingraft upon our appropriation bills ~~that is the case. Nor do I agree with the Chair, though perhaps I 

legislative provisions that are entirely faulty, nugatory, or vicio~~~m wrong in that; in regard to committees of conference. Our rules 

Nearly all the amendmen~s of a Jegislative c.haracter proposed ro a~- do. not apply to committees of conference. It seems to me that the plain 

propriation bills by the Hou e might, unamended, befaultyandinjuri- reading of the rules sn.ys that they do not apply at all to conference ons. committees. When a committee of conference is appointed it is a free 

If the Senate by unanimous consent, as was done on Saturday, should conference. The only restriction upon the powers of a committee of 

waive its objection to legislative provisions, that is a different thing. conference is that it must in trod. lice no new matter that has not already 

We may waive oul" rules by unanimous consent. The bill that was passed been Toted upon in one House or the other. That is the rule, and 

Saturday contains probab1y fifteen or twenty different legislative pro- there is no other re triction made upon a free conference. No instrucvisions, and every one of them was agreed to by the Senate without tions are given . . objection. Therefore it seems to me, with _due deference to the opinion of the 

We have a perfect right to waive our rules and bynnanimous con ent Chair, that when a committee of conference is appointed by the Senate 

to agree to these legislative proTisions. We have done ·that, but if a upon legislative provisions contained in an appropriation bill, that 

legislative provision comes to us from the other House that we desire committee of conference is not restrained by the rules which apply to 

to amend we certainly ought under our rules to have the power to our standing and select tR>mmit~ees. A conference· committee is en· amend such a proYision. Therefore, when this ubject was discussed the tire1y distinct from one of the standing or elect committees of the body. 

other day, I proposed that either by a ruling or by an amendment to The one is an organ of the Senate itself; but when our conferees go.into our rules a modlli.cation be made, which I belieYe would meet all the conference they cease to 0e organs of the Senate merely. They are not 

difficultyweenconnter. It is that, in the opinion of the Senate, amend- restrained in any way except that they can not propose any new item, 

ments may be made in the Senate pertinent and relevant to legislatiYe either in amounts or language, or anything of that kind. They must 

provisions in a general appropriation bill as it comes from the Honse. take up and -act on the disagreeing votes of the two House , and they 

If we would adopt that rule, or something similar to it, so that we may modify propositions upon which the two Houses disagree in any 

should confine the amendments proposed in the Senate of a legislative way they choose. 

character to propositions to amend the legislative provisions contained It would be unwise indeed to tie up the hands of a conference comin the House bills, no great harm could result. Indeed, 'Dearly all the mittee by any such con.struction as is suggested by the Chair. In that 

legislative provisions that are hurriedly put on in the House or Senate case a single Senator could prevent the passage of any appropriation are provisions which command the attention and the snpport of one or bill at thiH session, or could have prevented the passage of any approboth Houses. . priation bill in the last twenty years. There is not a single bill re- It seems to me there is no objection to this proposition, except that it ported back to us from a committee of conference that has n'lt in sotno 

• 
1468. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 9, 

respect done what the rules forbid a standing or select committee of insist but to adhere, but tha.t would not be an ordinary p~liamentary 

the Senate to do,·or perhaps forbid the Senate to adopt. A commi~e practice. It is very rarely indulged in . . I do not know any such case. of conference is a free one, not restl:ained by these rules. The only re-· l\11·. DA. WES. There are two kinds of conferences. One is a free 

straint upon them is that they must try to bring about an agr~ment conference, to which we commit bills, and the other is a special conferbetween the two Houses upon a particular substantive proposition ence, to which· instructions may be given by either branch; but a free 

which has been disagreed to between the two Houses. · They may mod- conference is the one to which we ns~ally commit bills. . ify or change it as to amount, as to terms, and all that, and they may Mr. SHERMAN. I have no doubtabouttbe powerofthe Senate to 

t·eport so hel'e. It is true we can reject the report· of tpe conference adhere or to give instructions, but that is very rarely done, and when 

committee and appoint a :new one that will more strictly carry out the it has been proposed in certain cases it has generally been voted down. 

wishes of the· Senate; but it seems :to me that any rnle or any. con- We may do it, but in an ordinary free conference, as it is called by parstruction of our rules :which tends to tie up or limit tl;le powers of a liamentary law, the whole matter of the disagreeing votes of the two 

conference committee beyond the limit fixed as to.all conferences would Houses is sent to the conferees, and the only instruction they have i~ 

be unwise. It would plaee it in the power of a single Senator to de- that they shall not put in new matter that has not been proposed in 

feat any conference report whatever. I take it the Senator from Iowa either House; and that is the old parliamentary law. In all other re .. [Mr. ALLISON] will know whether there has been a single general ap· spects they are open and free, the res1;1lt to be reported, as a m:ttter of 

propriation bill passed in this body since he has held the position of course, to their r.espective Houses. ~hairmail of the Committee on Appropriations that would not be sub- Mr. FRYE. Mr. President, I ha\e never been able yet to yiel<.l my 

ject to objection on a·point of order made by any Senator. I doubt if a ent toihe ruling of the Chair made at a former session of Congress, 

there is any such case. and, I understand, made again to-day by the Senator from Connecticut 

.lvlr. ALLISON. I think almost without exception these bills con- [Mr. PLATT], who was temporarily in the chair when theques~onwas 

tain legislation, but usually legislation limiting the approp1·iation it elf raised. I do not believe that it is possible under rules for a body to be 

or l'elati.ng strictly to the appropriation. . But, of course, in most of plaeed in the anomalous position that a ruling of that kind would place these bills in one way and another legislation does creep in, as the Sen- thls body in. 

at{)r fi:om Ohio says. . ;rt is beyond any question whatever that the House of RepresentaMr. SHERlll.AN. - I will say f~ther that there has scarcely been an tives under its. rules has a clear, well-defined right to send this legislaappropriation bill reported on which the Senate has not itself aaopted tion to the Senate. It has just as mueh right in a general approprialegislative provisions, as it did on Saturday' adopt several _important tion bill which does not increase expenditures to s~d to the Senate 

legislative provisions. · · legislatioQ. as it has a right to introduce a bill and send it to the SenMr. INGALLS. In what bill? . ate, to introduce a resolution and send it to the Senate. GenerallegisMr. SHERM~~. In the District of Columbia appropriation bill. lation on an appropriation bill is just as clearly rightfully here now and 

There was one: very important prop,osition of legislation contained in under con iderntion now in the Senate as if it was .contained in a septhat bill, bnt it was adopted by unanimous consent. It was perfectly arate bill sent from the House. • :rightj nobody raised the point of order, and it was agreed to; but sup- Ur. HALE. Or as the rest of the bill. 

pose that .after this has been done by general consent either ij:ouse Mr. FRYE. Or as the rest ofibe bill. There can not benny ques8hould object to it because the bill docs contain provisions that have tion about that. Now, is it possible that there can be a rule which 

been agreed to by the Senate which are legislative in their character. properly construed preYents us from taking any action whatever upon 

.A Senator might change his mind. After agreeing to the very propo- legislation truly, correctly, properly before this body? I am not presition in the Senate be might change his mind, and when the commit- ·pared to believe it, Mr. President. I do not believe that there. is anytee of conference reported back an agreement upon the subject he might t-hing in the Senate rule which says so. I know that in well-settled 

raise the point of order that the bill as it stands contains legislative parliamentary law no rule can be found which shall put a body in the 

pro,isions. It seems to me that that wonlc:l not be logical. Thel'e position we find ourselves in if the rnling is correct. If it is not to be 

should be no restraint whate>er upon a committee of conference. It is found in well·settled parliamentary law, then you must look to a rnle a free a.I).d open conference where the repreRentatives of the two Houses of the Senate which directly, affirmatively, positively says that no such 

meet and discuss propositions and try to reconcile differences. legislation shall be received. I respectfully contend that in Rule XVI 

Now I will ask the unanimous consent of the Senate-I hardly ex- there is no such prohibition. . 

pect it to be gmnteti, but I hope it will be-that during the present No amendmCilt which propo_es general legislation shall be re<.'civet.l to any 

session we may be at ljberty to offer amendments to such legislative general appropriation bilJ. 

propositions as oome to us from the House in respect to appropriations. The proposition· h~re is not a proposition of geneml legislation of1 believe that would relieve us from the difficnlty. ~tit apply to the fered by the Senate of the United States to a general appropriation bill. 

present session of Congress. If it does not work well we can ignore it It is simply a proposition to amend general legislation on the Honse 

at future sessions. It does not change our rules. appropriation bill which is properly and rightfully here in the Senate :Mr. HALE. L~t us see what the language is. for consideration. I contend respectfully that it is a strained construcMr. SHERMAN. I will send it to the desk. • tion of cia~ 3, Rule XV I, which leads to a ruling by the Chair that - Mr. BAYARD. Let it be read. does aftect a proposition .sucb as that made hereon the :floor of the SenThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio submits a ate to amend the general legislation in this bill. [A pause.] 

resolution for information. It 'will be read. · Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President--

The Chief Clerk read as follows: TheYRESIDENT pro fRtnpore. The Sen:ttor from Tennessee. 

That in t.he opinion of the Senate amendments may be made in the&nate Mr. 1i'RYE. I have not yielded tbe :floor. 

pertinent and relevant to legislative provisions in a general apprQpria.tion bill Mr. HARRIS. I beg the Senator s pardon. as it comes from the House. Ur. FRYE. I was undertaking to discuss as well as I could to the 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Chair ruiderstand the Sen- presiding officer of this body a question touching a ruling which had 

ntor from Ohio to ask unanimous consent that the resolution be now been made. . considered? · The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair begs pardon of the Sena1\Ir. SHERMAN. I will aecept the suggestion made by the Senator tor from Maine. The Chair supposed the Senator was addressing himfrom Massachusetts, and modify it in one particular by saying that ''a self to tlie general question. 

true construction of the rule authorizes," and so t}lat it may be confined Mr. FRYE. I was contending tha.t the ruling which had been made 

to amendments relating to and pertinent to particnlar items of legisla- here before by a former presiding officer an(l the ruling which had been 

tion: inade to-day was not a correct ruling under Rule XVI of the Senate. 

Mr. ALLISON. Does the Senator mean to apply that to this session Inclanse3 of RnleXVI of the Senate, which is the clause which wonld 

only, or is it to be construed to be the rule for all time? · be cited to sustain the ruling, in the fi1·st sentence of that clause it is 

Mr. SHERMAN. I think I will leave it stand as in my original .Provided that- · · 

pl'oposition. It will apply to the present ion only. No amendment which Jlroposes gen eral legislat.ion shall be received to any 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair may be allowed ro say not general appropriation bill. 

perhaps in response to but in connection with what the SenatQr from I was respectfully contending that the proposition now before the 

Ohio has said about the powers of conferees ih respect of being free and Senate to· amend general legislation in an appropriation bill was not 

not being obstructed, that the Chair has very vividly within his recol- general legislation proposed to be received in the United States Senate 

lection that point being raised on what is called the" salary-grab " bill, to a general appropriation bill;.but was simply an amendment offered 

and the Senate decided that it was not competent to instruct Senate . to general legislation contained in an appropriation bill coming from 

conferees on that. particular bill certainly. But an investigation which the House, which came rightfnlly from the Hou e, which is here under 

was submitted to the Senate afterward, and which has ever since been the rules of the House and must be consid_ered by the Senate as com- acquiesced in and acted upon, showed that in both Houses it had fre- ing rightfully under the rules of t.be :House. . I believe under a fair 

quently been .the practice for ea.ch Honse to instruct its conferees and construction of the rule any provision which is on a genernl appropriaagent.s as to what they sbonld present and insist upon in their confer- tion bill coming from the House under their .rule '!llay be open to cnce with the representatives of the other Honse. · amendment in the United States Senate. · Mr. SHERMAN. Alll desire to say in respect to that point is that I do not believe in the proposition made by the Senator from Ohio 

1 have no doubt either body might instruct its conferee.s not only to touching this method of legislation. I do not believe that the ·cnate 

• 
• 1885. CONG-RESSIONAL REOORD_;_SENATE. 1469 

of the United States should open Rule XVI one jot or one-tittle. I be: that no amendment to any rule should be reported unless with una- lieve it is the most dangerous legislation that can p"ossibly come before Dimity, and unanimity not being obtained, that rule, as a matter of n. legislative body, and I believe the experience of the two Houses of course, ~me back to the House as it stood, and it is kept on its book ~s ought to have taught us that by this time. • to-day as one of the rules of the House. I do not believe that .a maVhe-:first time it was ever .resorted to, I !~~.&.was in 1855, when the jority of the members of the House are in favor of that rule, and I do 

House of Representatives deliberately ingran;ell upon a civil and diplo- believe that the time is coming and not far distant when the jojnt rule 

matic appropriation bill a reduction of the tariff and sent it to the United sent to the House of Representa~ves by the Senate at the very lastsesStates Senate. The United States Senate contested that for weeks and sion will be accepted by. the House. I do believe that if .the Senate 

weeks, and a distinguished Senator from Delawm'e, Senator Bayard, took stands finn in this matter, uTtimately the House will rescind .that porstrong ground against such legislation and declared that it was danger- tion of that rule under which all these troubles have arisen. ous to the very torm of existence of a republican government, and Sen- Mr. President, it may be said that a ruling of the Chair, such as atorClaytontookgroundsimilartoit. The Senate resisted theattempt, I say I believe to be correct, would do all the harm and inischief that 

and the House yielded. . positive and affirmative action on the part of the Senate as recom- The next instance was a provision put in the House upon an Army mended by the Senator from Ohio would do. Whether it would or, appropriation bill in 1856. The Senate resisted it on the same ground. not, I can not help it. I have examined this question with care. I 

Congress adjourned and -no Army appropriation bill was passed, and did examine it when the late Senator from Illinois, then President 

there was an extra session. · of the Senate, for the :first time made that ruling, and I do not believe 

The next case was in 1865, on the sundry civil appropriation bill, that the Senate can be placed in so anomalous a position by anything 

where the House put a provision that no man should be tried by mili- which is legitimately, fairly, and under the rules properly before the 

tary authority wherever there was a United States court.; and again the ·senate. · Senate resisted and resisted to the bitter end. The bill failed, and the Mr. EDMUNDS (Mr. HARRIS in the chair). J.Ir. President, I think 

appropriations could not be made till Congress again assembled. that we are proceeding on a slight misapprehension in respect to the 

I do not find that th~ proposition on the part of the House to put_ powers of the two Houses. Referring to what my friend from Maine 

legislation on appropriation bills ever prevailed until the measure in [Mr: FRYE] has said,. I wish to state with all the emphasis of which I 

the Forty-second Congress .increasing salaries. That did prevail; it am ptpable that it is no matter of ours constitutionally, whatever we 

became a law; but it humiliated the Congress of the United States may t~k of it personally as citizens, what kind ofi:ules the House of more profoundly than any legislation that it had ever enacted before; Representatives adopts for its own proceedings. It is absolutely indeit humiliated individual members of Congress as nothing else ever hu- pendent and we have no 1·ight in this Chamber to question the wisdom 

miliated them before, and it compelled Congress at the very earliest even or propriety ofitsmethods of doing business . . IftheHouseofRepopportunity in the next session to repeal every single word of that resenta.tives had a rule which authorized every species of legislation 

legislation. · . . ·upon an. appropriation bill,. it would be a matter of which we should 

All these propositions were put upon appropriation bills before there have no right to complain as a body'here, whatever we might think of was any rule of the House which au.thorlzed any general legislation on it as private citizens in respect t-o the wisdom of. that sortof.thing. The an appropriation bill; they were put onto appropriation bills by the same might be true in the Senate, and we might have a rule here which 

action of the House itsellj by its majority, and not by virtue of a rule, would authorize on appropriation bills coming from the HOuse every 

for there was no rule for 1t; on the con y the rules of the House of species of legislative amendment, germane or not, so as to make such a Representatives were as strict in rela.tio to general legislation on their bill an omnibus and put on-everything that a majority .of.the Senate chose 

bills as the rules of the Senate to-d p to that time, and includ- to put on, and tlie Honse of Representatives would .not have the slighting" even that last proposition of the :louse-- est. reason to complain of our right to propose t.b.at to them, but they 

Mr. INGALLS. To what date? wouldhavearighttosay,as we have a right to say on their1egislation, 

Mr. FRYE. Eighteen hnndred and seventy-thre~ it was; · what was that they could not cnnsent to that method of procedure; and when they 

known as the "salary grab." The present rule of the House was. not said that ..they could not consent to it, we should be put in the attitude 

adopted until some time later than that~ and the only proposition which ofsa.yl.ng "we· will not carry ou the GOvernment unless the House of 

has attracted geneml attention since the House adopt-ed the present Representatives will consent to change the laws in the particulars that 

rule was that to repeal certain provisions by which troops were at the we have named," a position-that; of course; everybody will under8tand 

polls on election days and by which supervisors· and United States istotallyindefensible, absurd, wicked. Thereisnophrasethatyoucan 

deputy marshals were employed in certain duties about the polls. That state it t-oo strongly in. Both Houses are independent. · · is fresh in the memory of every Senator, and I do not believe there is I do not see, therefore, the forceof the Cliticisms upon whatever phe a ~enator who wants that history repeated. It was in the Forty-fifth Home rules may be. They have a right to have their own rules ac- (JQ~gress. It was an angry1 exciting, exasperating debate. Congress cording to their own notions of the btst way of doing their business. 

closed and two great appropriation bills ;vere not passed-the Army bill . When they send a bill to us, be it an appropriation bill or any other 

and the legislative, executive, and judicial bill. We were. called in bill, if there is any section or clause in the bill that comes here which 

extra session within less than a month's time. We remained ii\ extra the Senate of the United States is unwilling to agree to, either because 

session for over fQlll' months, one of the most exciting sessions tbat this on discussion it believes it to be unwise, or because on principle it be.: 

country has ·ever seen in time of peace. Veto after ve_to Ca.me; crimi- lieves it has no place on that bill and it ought not to be cousidered in 

nation and recrimination; attack and defense. And that is the only connection with the other subjects in the bill, andsohavea-generalrule 

general legislation of any manner of importance, at least of importance about it, the House of Repre5entatives has no right to complain; and 

enough to attrad the attention of the country, under the new rule. that, ou the other hand, woul<J put them, if they insisted upon it, in 

Surely there was nothing in that which ought to lead the United States the attitude of saying "we will not appropriate money to carry on Senate to encourage the House in ~eeping on its books the exjsting rule the Army or the Navy or the Post-Office~ or to pay pensions, unless the 

allowing legislation on appropriation bills. · Se~ate of the United States wil1 consent to cltange the laws in respect 

Again, if Senators will notice the House rule is curiously drawn. of the general regulation of this business; unless the Senate ~ill con- It i's dmwn so that you can'destroy everything, build not~g. As a sentto do thatwe will not have any appropriation at all." They can distinguished member of the House orrce said, it was drawn s'o that not stand upon any-such position.. They never have and they never you could level down but you never could level up. Hex<C we ~re to- will, because they are just 115 patriotic as we are, and they, recognizing 

day within fifteen or twenty days of the close ·of the session and not ~ we do the absolute independence of the two Houses, know perfectly 

any great appropriation bill yet before the Senate. On the re~inder well thatneither House can insist upon the other's consenting to affirmof the appropriation bills, some of them not yet reported from the Com- ative propositions that both are not willing to agree to, whether it is 

mittee on Appropriations of the , House, there m,ay be generallegisla- under a rule, or whether it is under a discussion of a particular question under the House rule which shall ·destroy the· Army of the United tion. · · · · States; whichshall destroy its Navy; which shall cripple and destroy That is all clear enough as it seenis to me. Now, if we had a joint 

all of your foreign consulships a:nd diplomatic agencies; which Shall ~le,such as my friend from Mainerefers to, prohibiting all legislation 

cripple your post-office and mail facilities; which shall destroy the on appropriation bills, what would be the effect of that? Suppose in 

judiciary almost entirely; and not any legislation that can build up the Senate an amendment comes from the Committee on Appropriations 

any one of them if it costs a dollar; any legislation if it is germane to contrary to that joint rule? The Chair, the point being made, rules it 

the bill itself and reduces expenditure; none which increase expendi- out of order because the custom·is that the Chair on reports from com- tures. mi ttees, and very often on motions by Senators to amend bills, does not 

Now, 1\l!. President, I do not believe under the experience of the make the point of order himself. · He waits. No point of order is made, 

past and under that rule with its peculiar-nature that the Senat-e of the although ~he amendment Violates the joint rule. On the point of order 

United States ought to encourage the -House in keeping that rule on being suggested, unanimousconseutisasked to let that go on and send 

the book. It was adopted in 1876, I think. It was offered· by the it to the House of Representatives to see if unanimous consent can not 

member from Indiana [Mr. HOLMAN]; it was reported from the Com- be got there to do the same thing. What good 'does your joint rule do? 

mittee on the Rules by Mr. Cox; it was indorsed by the chairman of It comes back to the point of a proposition by the. Senate to the House 

the Appropriations Committee, Mr. RANDALL, for special purposes then to suspend that joint rule for the time being and let that legislation go 

existing. The committee, at the revision made subsequently .to that, on, and then you get into the same question. To be sure, one member 

undertook to repeal it, but that committee having agreed beforehand might object and then the Speaker wo.uld say.'' I can not suspend it.'' 

... 
• 

' 1470 CONGRESSIONAL' RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 9 

What is the state of the bill then? What are you to do with it? It Senate according to its wishes and notions, and not as a matt~r of strict 

is a bill that one House has sent to the other House, and then you have order by tlle Chair. · 

to 8ay "We refuse to recei>e the bill at all because it violates our joint So then the real question is; I think, whether the enate actually 

understanding.'' believes and de~ires that it will not have legislation on appropriatjon 

1\Ir. HOAR. May I ask th_e f?enator from Vermont a question?· bills. If ~t wishes le~lation on a)?propriation. bills, it is only ne6es-

.Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes. • saryto overrule the de&ion of the Chair, which has conformed to all 

Mr. HOAR. Willnottheeffectofthejointrulebethis, thatitwill previous decisions-every one-and open the door to additions and 

at least:confine this abuse, if it be an abu.se, to the passage of those changes to legislation within the scope of the bill under the other pro- measures which are so clearly demanded by public necessity that they visions of the rule, or else to say, "We will have none ofitj we will 

command unanimous consent? appropriate the money to carry out the laws ·as they stand, and we :M:l'. EDMUNDS. That would be the effect, but it still doesnotfail will change the laws as they stand on independent bills.' · to illustrate the proposition that as between the two Houses neither Mr. HOAR. :Mr. President, it seenis to me this question is one which can a<:t without the assent of the other, and you have only in the case a1fects very seriously the constitutional power and 'dignity of the Sen .. of a joint rule accumulat-ed difficulties of getting that assent. That is ate in legislation. We send over tothe House of Representatives bills 

all there is to it. · · by the hundred. Therewe1·esometime ago when I counted them about 

I repeat, the Senate has no right to complain of whate>er rule the three hundred Senate bills on the House Calendar or the Speaker's 

House of Representatiyes has, be it much or little. U we think really table untouched, sent there in the ordinary way under the constitutional 

and seriously (which I begin to doubt) that legislation on appropria- power of the Senate to propose general legislation; and they remain, 

tion bills is unwise, let us say so by adhering M our rule. The legis-. · so far as we have any official information, untouched and not to be 

Iation proposed may be good in a particular instance, as in this, if you touched. 

please, very good indeed;· but if it is good in this instance, and you The House sends up to us such few measures of general legislation 

have a rule that tolerates it, the next instance may be one where it is persons in that body who have the power of obstructing general busivery bad, .and yet where you can get a majority, it may be not under- ness choose to select and approve, at the close of the session, upon apstaliding the question in the heat of excitement1 or whatever it may propriation bills, and if we submit to that proceeding because of the · be, in the fear of the faillll'El of a bill, to sanction 1t. Therefore, if .you necessity or convenience of a particular period of the session, you have 

open the door at all, you open the door to every ,amendment that may extended the constitutional claim of the House to originate money or be proposed in the methods which are indicated and then you load up appropriation bills, asitisconstrued, toorigi.natingalllegislation whatyour appropriation bills just as you did before. ever. Here is the bankruptcy bill; here is the library bill; here area Now, what can we do? All that we have to do is to say by a rule, dozen bills which I enumerated the other day in the hearing of the or without a rule by the >ote of the Senate at this moment, that we do Senate; important matters, including the bill in regard to the Presi· 

not think legislation on an appropriati-on bill is a good thing, and we dential count; measures which have commanded almost the unanimous 

have, therefore, rejected all the parts of the House bill relating to pen- assent of this body without distinction of party, every one o.fthem, and 

sions that are legislation, and we must stand upon it; not a.s undertak- they remain absolutely U¥totiched, and a few measures of generalleging to dictate to the House of Representa~ives; we do nothing of the islation are sent up here at the end of the se ion and ybu are a ked to 

kind. We say we are unable to assent to sundry affirmative proposi- take them or to let the Government stop because otherwise the apprositions, sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 of this bill. We are perfectly willing priation. bills will fail. You are .asked to mature them, not by the or- to appropriate this money to pay pensions Uflder existing laws, -and we dinary process of debate and consultation and consideration, but yon are willing to consider changes in existing laws on bills appropriate for are asked to take them in their final shape at the hands of an Appro· 

that purpose and not on bills paying money from. the Treasury to carry priations Committee at midnight, two or three days before the session 

out existing laws, and we can uot accede t.qyour proposition tO change ends; and you are bound so to take them or submit yourselves to the 

existing laws in this bill. . · inconvenience and the country to the disturbance of a special se ion 

When we do that, what does the House of Representatives say as a of Congress. 

patriotic body, rurit is? "The Senate of the United States has a notion; Now, if we, by modifying ·our rule, or by making a special rule foi' we do not think that it is a wise notion; but we have no business to the time being, which can· be extended for every time being under the 

quarrel with it . . Thefare unwilling'to legislate in this manner. The same circumstances a proposed bymyhonoral>le friend from Ohio, say 

question, therefore, is whether we will pay pensions under the laws as that if we can not get any legislation in the ordinary way, we will take 

they stand, that either House has had the right to propose a change·in it when proposed by the House of Representatives upon an appropriation 

during all its session but has not; or will have no payment at all until bill, you may j u.st as well amend the Constitution of the United States 

the Senate can be got to agree on this very bill or another like it to and declare that henceforth all legislation whatever is to be propo ed 

change these laws.'' Neither House will stand on any such thing as by theHouseofRepresentatives,and that we are a body exercisingQD].y 

that. You can not find a member of the other House or of this body a veto power like·that of the Executive. 

who will stand up and maintain it. Our way, therefore, iB perfectly Mr. HARRISON. I wish to call the attention of the Senato from 

clear. · If we sincerely believe that legislation on appropriation bills is .Massac4nsetts to the fact that one of the important provisions of genbad, all we have to do is to strikeout under our existing rules whatever eral legislation in this v-eiy bill was passed by the enate at the last 

legislation there is in a House bill and say to the House of Representa- session in our general pension bill, and the House has selected one of 

tives in a conference, or without a conference, as we do when we &end th~ provisions, all ready passed by us, and put that on here. . the bill back with the amendment, "We are unwilling to put these Mr. HOAR. I do not believe any Senator will question that it is a provisions on this bill; we are willing to consider them on any appro-- most vicious form of legislation to send in provisions of generallegislapriate bill at any time." There is no collision; there is no co:p.testJ tion from one House to the other or from the two Houses to thePresithere is nothing about i. except the simple independ~nce of the two dent of the United States with the declaration, ''This legislation is the 

Houses. . condition upon which an adequate provision is to be made for the supIf you take the other line, and hold to t_his rnle, which I am bound port of the Government during the y~r, ~ccording to existing laws.'' 

to say the Senator from Connecticut occupying the chair has interpreted There was an attitude of that kind, as the Senator from Maine has said, as it has been interpreted ever since the rule existed, and, a.s I am told taken a few years ago, and-it was supported for a little while by some by our friend who sits here as the Reporter, who remembers more abeut very able, some >ery clear-headed, some very honest, and some very 

t.he practiCe of legislation than any gentleman whom I know; as was patriotic members of this body; but on reflection it did not meet their 

the practice under special rules and orders about appropriation bills approbation, I think; they abandoned the position after a little while. 

before frOm session to session, which carries me back to the time of Mr. A very distinguished Senator from Delaware, who e name is repreColfax t~t I referred to-if you do that, and hold to what has been sented in this body, was quoted as having · uttered thirty years ago in 

held aJ.J, this time, then you are simply driven to the alternative of say- the Senate his judgment that the establishment of that practice w ing, "We will take the House legislation, as bad and imperfect as it• one of the most dangerous things to the Constitution of the United 

is, and let it go," or else say, "We will strike it all out." States which could possibly happen. 

IrememberperfectJyweUinthetimeofMr. Wheeler, I myself, stand- The fathers of the Republic, and statesmen of both parties of all 

ing at this very desk, thinllig that p6ssibly within this rule an amend- sections of a later generation, have agreed, as it ha been agreed in 

ment to House legislation might be in order, proposed an amendment England-because the practice of putting general legislation upon their 

that was clearly necessary and that nobody denied, and the Tice-Presi- bills of supply has been discontinued now for more than a century 

dent, occupying the chair, ruled within this very rule as it now stands and a half-the agreement has been there and here that this is one of 

that it was not competent to offer that amendment to a legislative pro- the most dangerous forms of legislation. In my judgment it would 

>ision in.anappropriation bill because it was anamendmenttothebill, be better for us to submit to the inconveniences of an extra s ion, 

and if one amendment were offered to it, any other amendment that howeve.r grave and serious those may be, rather than make an inroad 

related to that general subject by way of addition of just as many ec- upon the position which has been taken and assumed by the enate 

tions as the Senate chosetoput on would still be inorder, and that the after great deliberation in this matter. . moment yon departed from the rigor of the rule you would open.the ·Mr. President, I do not belieYe that the patience of the American 

whole question of putting on ge~ne legislation, which is a very in- people will very long tolerate that either of it legislative. bodies shall 

definite term, and which the rules provide shall be determined by the live and be fettered under a sy tem of rules which deprive the consti-

. . 
. 

1885. CONGB.ESSION.A.L RECORD~ENATE. 1471 

tutional majority of that body of the right to consider, uelibera.te, debate, and deciue on the gra-ve legislative questions which a.ffect the welfare of the American people, and carry out after that deliberation the 

will of the constitutional majority of that body. I do not believe they 

will· submit to the practical overthrow of the constitutional provision 

that laws shall be made, laws shall be changed, laws shall be repealed, 

grievances shall be redressed whenever a majority of each of the two 

bodies elected under the Constitution shall think best. · 

Why, tarke the bankruptcy bill; it was almost the unanimous desire 

of this body to pass that bill after full and thorough discussion and deliberation up<>n its details; and I believe there is no legislative body in 

this country un~er the Constitution of whom it-is not the desire by a 

two-thirds majority at least to pass that bill, and still we receive no 

notice of its passage, and I am not at liberty to say whether it happens 

that some dozen or twenty gentlemen are able by methods not in accordance with the spirit of the COnstitution to prevent the passage of 

that much-desired measure. That is a mere illustration. 

There are some gentlemen in this body who are opposed to that legisation; but I could name adozen bills which each one, probably, of the 

gentlemen whg oppose that legislation favor, and which also are favored 

by large m~jorities of the American people :md of both Houses of Congress", that fail to get through for the same reason. · 

If we submit to this keeping of general legislation on appropriation 

bills, or if we. make that submission -easjer by re'\'ersing the ruling of 

the Senator from Connecticut and saying that instead of rejecting it in 

toto we will take it and amend it and pass it, we make that condition 

of things to which I have alluded much more likely .to be permanent . 

. I think we should plant ourselves at the gate and we should say that 

we will·do nothing here which makes it easier to prevent the carrying 

out the will of a constitutional majority of the people and of therepre..; 

sentatives of the people in legislation, and we will do nothing to esta-blish or to continue the practice which Jc>resents general legislation to the 

Senate or to the Executive and says: 'Agree to it-or the supplies necessary for carrying on the Government shall full.'' . 

Mr. BAY .A.RD. Mr. President, the great importance of the question 

involved in this discussion must be my apology for troubling the Senate at all upon it. 

If.there be one admitted co.rner-~one in the structure of this Govemment .of laws deSigned t-o promot-e liberty, it was the independence of 

the two Houses of Congress. There is no. feature of our Government so 

frequently referred to -and so emphatically expressed as the one I have 

stated in the constitution of the Govemment. They are to be absolutely 

independent of each other, and the consentofbothacting independently 

of each other is to be obtained before any measure can become a law, no matter what may b'e the majority in one House or the other. 

It is obvious that for the transaction of pnblic business for the public welfare a spirit of comity must prevail between the two Houses, a 

desire. on either· part to promote the great objects of the Government, 

not to obSt,rnct them; for if the desire of obstruction shall prevail, then 

an illustration of onr unfitness foF self-government will have been ~~ . 

One of the features of the Constitution securing this independence is 

that each. House shall determine the rules of its own proceedings. It 

is true thatthey can make a joint rule, but it is also true thatthat rule 

is binding only until either House shall retire from it. It is expected 

that th~ spirit of comity, that a grave sense of public duty, a sense of 

self-respect and propriety will so constrain members of the two Houses 

that rules shall not be enacteq in haste and repealed at mere will;. but 

the fact nevertheless remains -that tbe rules of the Senate are absolutely 

within the control of the Senate, and they may be suspended at the 

pleasure of the Senate in accordance with such terms and by such notice 

38 the rules themselves may regularly provide. 

And herein.! must diffru: from my distinguished friend from Maine, 

who in the course of this discussion ha been disposed to state as a fact 

for onr consideration and as having aut4ority upon us that the action 

of the House in this or any other respect has been regularly in accordance with its rules of order. I submit to that Senator we have nothing 

to do with the 1·egularity or the irregularity of the proceedings of the 

House under its own rules. The House is, so far as we ate concerned, 

a law unto itself. It may suspend its own rules from day to day; it 

may change them; and I apprehend we have no right here in discussion 

to bring into consideration the regularity of the proceedings of the other 

branch of Congress either with or without rules of their own.· lfthat 

be so-and I say it because the Senator cited the fact that a feature of 

general legislation had been ingrafted upon a mere money bill called an_ 

appropriation bill, and that it had been done under the admitted rules 

of the House-with due respect to the Senator, I do not care whether it was done under the admitted ru1es or not. If W-comes to us in the 

ordinary channel of communication, we are to treat it-how? According to onr own. rules an@!. our own sense of comity in the transaction of 

public business. . 

The proposition of the honorable Senator from Ohio would seem to me 

to give up entirely thepriociple that I think it is essential for us to maintain, first, the independence, and next, the question of the wisdom of the 

mle wehavemadeon the subject, Rule XVI. Thatrnleforbidsamendments of a legislative character upon a general appropriation bill. I 

•• 

am not here to repeat what has often been said before, and I think seldom better said than it has been said to-day in this Chamber, of the 

danger of permitting geneJ;'llllegisl.a.tion to be attached to appropriation 

bills, money bills for the necessary exj;>enses of the Govermilent. I do 

not prop<>se to reiterate to the Senat.e now the reasons fortha.twiserule. 

Long ago, up<>n the first examination of the subject I became 'convinced 

of the profound impo~tance of avoiding legislation of ~hat .character, 

and I would protest now, as I have always protested, and.this without 

exception in the last sixteen years, against 'the Senate being compelled 

to .legislate in defiance of its own rules and under duress because of the 

manner in which legislation was presented to t)le Seru)te. 

I know that there was in some qnarters·a claim made to grant appropriations only up<>n terms, that it was in the power of either Honse 

to couple provisions of general legislation with an appropriation bill, 

and so to coerce one HouSe, or both Houses joining together to coerce the ExecutiYe and compel him to give his unwilling sig~tnre to a law 

that he knew to be vicious because that bill contained appropriations 

necessary for the maint-enance and support of the Government. Sir, . 

against that principle I am just as much opp<>sed to-day as I ever was, 

and I never have given to it my consent, for it seems to me that to 

yield onrsel ves to such a doctrine is to deposit in the hands of the House 

having the p<>wer to originate these bills, the power to attach to them 

such conditions as. would make them masters of the whole. In other 

words, it would resolve all the powers of this GoYernment into a single 

House of the legislative branch. . · . 

But, sir, the Senator from Ohio says that he proposes now that we 

shall not repehl the language of our own rule, but that if general legislation comes to us we may amend it. It is an axiom of mathematics 

that things which are equal to the same thing are equal to one anotp.er. 

The power of amendment is unlimited, and the power of amendment 

may ingraft every original proposition that could have been conceived 

in the original features of the law. If the Senat-e can tack on under 

the name of amendment to general legislation anything tb.at it devises, 

there is not a law of the United States· relating to our· general policy 

that may not be changed up<>n an appropnation bill. 

Mr. President, ·the situation is a very serious one; it is very grave. 

I appreciate it fully; but I believe always that where a principle is profound and imp<>rlant and 'is recognized it should not be abandoned. I 

do not propose byJ my vote · to open wj.de this gate for the influx of 

measures without end, and to a system of legislation which I believe 

is practically destructive of all the philosophic machinery of checks 

and balances under a government of laws thatonr Constitution was intended to create. If it shall be that drifting aJong, from one cause or 

another, one of the Houses of Congress-and I am speak--ing now by way 

of illustration-shall have gotten its-rules for the transaction of business into such a perfectly insensible and incomp~hensible and obstructive condition that no measure, good or bad, questionable or not, 

can be brought before that House for decision but that it must await 

the moment of necessity of. the -Government, a time when every branch 

needs money to keep it. in motion, and then, and then only, ingraft.ed 

up<>n such a bill, can a hearing be obtained for ~hose measures which the 

machinery of their rules absolutely prohibits in the ordinary, regular, 

thoughtful manner of presenting business-if such a sliate of things 

as that has arrived, if it be true that a republican government is to be 

carried on under that species of snap judgment and dnress, the remedy 

had better be applied now and a stand had better be taken now. It 

w.ill always be incom·enient to ttke it; it will always give rise to some 

extra personal labor and responsibility; .but it might as weiJ. be met, 

because I can see-and I think without the slightest desire of~­

gerating the results-the absolute destruction of all those tests for the 

j~tice, the honesty, the reasonableness of measures oflegislation that 

parliamentary rules as known to the fathers of this Republic and to 

their descendants were ever intended to secnre. No, sir, ther~ must be two things. There are two independentjudgmenta. They ougM to be those of men acting in a spirit of comity for a great public end. Neither can coerce the other, and neither onght to 

be able to do it. The sense of public duty should weigh equally upon 

each, and each must be responsible for the maruier in which they shall 

recognize that public duty. There can not be force, but there can and 

there ought to be reason and conscience; and without reason and conscience, and without a sense of comity between the Houses of Congress, 

between all the branches of Congress, it·is in vain to talk about a just or a, possible administration of the affairs of this great country. 

Mr. HALE. Mr. President, !object, forone, to this proposition being 

considered as of the kind just stated by the Senator from Vermont [~r. 

EDMGNDS] when in his seat and not in the ch'air, that it was simply a question whether or not the Senate desired legislation to be incorporated 

into general appropriation bills. Upon that I do not believe there is 

much difference in this body. I do not think the sense of the Senator 

from Vermont or the sense of the Senator from Delaware·is any keener 

upon the dangers that may resnlt from general legislation being incorporated on appropriation bills than is mine or that of other Senators i:.n 

this body. 

We all realize how that it fundamentally does break up the opportunity for discussion, for investigation, and for considering grave sub~ 

jects-matter in the early part of the session when time can be given com~ 
1472 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SEN.ATE. FEBRUARY 9, 

mensumtely ro tfult considera.tion; and there is ~oman here who will ha8 no faith in ita declarations, and· that an' that the Senate means not at all proper times and places object to appropriation bills being when it declares that general legislation shall not be put upon appromade the vehicle for great measures of public legislation and precipi· priation bills is that it will stamp out with its veto the measures that 

tated p.pon this body in the waning days of each session. There is no- it does not want passed, -and will allow ro pass· the measures that it 

body here-who can appreciate that better than my friend the Senator ·does not·see fit roresist. I want to free the Senate from that attitude. 

from Iowa [Mr. ALLrsoNJ, the chairman of the Committee on -Appro- I do not want the House t() be able to reproach u.S in that way. Let 

{>riations; there are no men iu the Senate who know it and realize it us have either one rule or the other. And it seems to me, recognizinoo 

better than all the members of that committee; and there are no Sena.- all the evils that ·come from general legislation upon. appropriatio~ 

tors here who desire to be relieved of this irksome addition to labor and bills, that if this body is. ~qnfined strictly to pertinent and germane 

responsibility more than the members of the Committee on Appropria.- amendmeJ?.tS upon propoSitions that come from the House, leaving us tions. So it is not, lli. President, a question whether the Senate de- to deal with them, this body will maintain a consistent attitude better 

sires legislation upon appropriation bills. I have the right to assume than it will if it tries to adopt this procuste:m rule which says no letter 

that we all agree in that. · of legislation shall be n.llowed upon an appropriation bill, no matter 

I agree with the Senator from Massa.cbuse~ts [Mr. Ho.AR] as to the how sonnd and judicious it is in itself. 

evils. I recall, with some satisfaction, my own experience in another Mr. PLATT. Mr. P.resident, this present contention I understand 

place at the time tliat the very rnle under which the House thrusts in to be whethe:c notwithstanding our rules that forbid amendments to 

the face of the-Senate repeatedly great measures of general legislation be received containing general legislation to appropriation bills, we upon ~propriation bills was adopted'in that body, and the efforts that shall nevertheless allow the House of Representatives, we having del made to prevent it, and the-evils that it seemed to me would grow out prived ourselves of that privilege, to present just such measures of genof it. But what I am seeking here to help ro bring the Senate t6 is the erallegislation upon appropriation bills as it desires, we reserving to 

practiqal consideratiQP. of the situation that confronts us. ourselves the right to amend those propositions. It is said that is a When the Senator from Vermont, re-enforcedbytheSenatorfromDel- practical rather than a theoretical question, and I want to look at it 

aware, declares the proposition, which I beg leave to say is by no means for a moment as a practical question. . new to other Senators, that neither Hpuse may coerce the other and First, we agree that all suc]llegislation is wrong, is vicious, is danthat it is the bounden duty of each to cp.ltivate a spirit of comity and gerous, is destructive. We start with thatad.mitted proposition. Then 

to try to bring about harmony, there is nothing novel in that proposi- we come to this, that weare to receive from the House of Representatives 

tion. There is nothing novel i~ the proposition tb'at the body which 1legislation which, if we judge the future by the past, will be of a legislates, which seeks to force affirmative legislation, ought not to coer~ vicious character, will be dangerous, will possibly be destructive to our the other body. The Senator from Vermont says that it is an easy thing system of government, and that we oonfine ourselves simply and purely 

for the Senate to take that attitude, and if the House sends to us legis- to trying to make it better. And it is s:1id that that is a consistent 

lation upon an appropriation bill and the Sennte declines to accept it, po!)ition for the Senate to take. I think it is an extremely inconsistent 

to stand there like a rock, like a stone wan, and the Senator from Deh- position for the Senate to take. ware and the Senator fromMassacllusetts say, let there be an extrases- I am utterly opposed to depriving ourselves of the right to ingraft 

sion; Is the Senate ready to take that position? The proof whether it upon appropriation bills such legislation as we in our wisdom think is 

will take that position, not in,argument, not in illustration, not in in- proper to be enacted, and confining ourselves to the paltry privilege of 

citement as to what we ought to do, but the real, sober question of what saying that the legislation 'which is sent to us from the other branch we will do, is now straight before our noses. of Congress, which ha.'3 been hnstily consider~, illy considered, or not 

The House of Representatives has sent. a regular appropriation bill considered at all, may simply be revised and made not quite so bad as with items of appropriation for the payment of money to tbe great it is in the shape in which it comes ·to us, for that is all we gain by 

army of pensioners for whom we so liberally provide year by year!' 1~ the propo ed ,rale. · · _ addition ro that, it has selected .certain legislation that was passed last For myself I believe that we have just only to be firm once, and that 

year upon an appropriation bill that has worked irksomely and oner- is the end of this trouble. I believe that if we have convictions now, 

ously and oppressj.vely upon the great mass of pensioners,· out o:( the to-4ay, at this session as l believe the Senate and all Senarors in it have, 

operation of the rules as they are now, which gentlemen are so tena- that this kind of legislation is vicious and wror.6, we have but to say so cious of standing by. That legislation was passed by tbis-body and and the trouble will be ended. The difficulty about it istbatwhilewe ~me a law, containing provisions that since then have worked to the all agree that it is wrong in principle, while we all agree that it is better 

damage of the pensioners, and a great uproar has come up from that in the particular case S.Peaking as .a matter of principle, to say that there 

great body of men demanding relief. The House of Representatives shall be no general legislation on appropriation bills, yet some of us feel 

under its rules ba8 selectedtbosefeatures of-oppressive legislation that soanxioustobavesomeparticularmeasurepassed whichcome5from the 

put every pensioner at ~e mercy of tJ:te claim agent that had his case, House of Representatives that we .abandon our principle for the time 

whereby he was obliged to double. and more' than double the fee to be being, and we say, " _Oh, yes; for this once let us abandon the principle 

paid to that claim agent-the House bas selected the provisions con- and get this little matter of legislation which we really think ought to 

tained in that law, and nnder its roles has sent to the Senate provisions be adopted.'' SO to get a little good we submit to a very great evil. 

in this bill repealing those features of the law. . _ We can not legislate in that way. It comes every day. The pinch of 

Now, the question is whether, when there is good legislation upon an it come8just when there is some matter like this pension matter that 

appropriation bill, when there is admittedly wise legislation upon an we all desire to see passed. It seems to me that if we once say we will 

appropriation bill,, when there is l~islation that affects and touch~ not abandon our position and our principle for the sake of a little ternmen, women, and children in all the States who demand th€1 relieft the porary gail;l, we shall have no real trouble abo~t this matter in the ~nate will u~n tberuleand upon the attitude invoked by Senators here future. · . simply say, ' We decline to give this relief; •we decline upon the gen· It always comes that this argument is made: '·' Why, if you do not 

eral ground that we will not suffer any inf.r;l.Ction of the principle under take this legislation which has been sent from the other bra-nch of Conwhich we mean that app.t:opriation bills shall be passed shorn of legis- gress you are going to have an extra_ session, and are you ready to meet 

lative enactment.'' - the question whether there shall be an extra session of Congress?'' 

Mr. HOAR. - Will the Senator from Maine allow me to ask if it is Well, Mr.· President, I do not believe that there is any Senator who 

not true that we have passed that identical measure and sent it down desires an extra session of Congress; I do not believe that there is any 

to the House, so that they have nothing to do brit to say yes ro it and. member of the other branch who desires an extra session of Congress, 

make it a law? . bot just so long as that argument can be held up to us as a bugbear- Mr~· HALE. I know that very well, bnt the test case that is brought if that be a proper legislative term to use-just so long we shall fail to 

up here is the bill whereupon that beneficent legislation may be made accomplish what we desire to accomplish in the way of legislating in a a law or may be defeated, and Senatorshave to confront itthere. The manner which we believero be proper, to be constitutional, and to be 

fact that we havesentoverabill rotbeHouseofRepresentativeswhich for the best interests of this Government. . 

is lodged in the great mass of" matter that is piled up mountain .high on Take -this bill. The Senator from Maine [Mr. HALE) asks are you 

the Speaker's table does not relieve the Se~ate of the responsibility. going to refuse t.o take this general pension legislation upon this approThis beneficent legislation will pass upon the pension appropriation priation bill; all the pensioners want it, and do you wish to put yourbill, or it will receive its death-blow and will not pass, and Senators .selves in the attitude of having an extra session of Congress by rejecting 

may as well realize that they are to be Confronted with this question, it from this appropriation bill? How is an extm session of Congress 

whether they shall strike this out and let it pass from this session to to come if we say our rules are such as prevent legislation on approprianotber, or will pass upon it and let it become a law now. ation bills, and our principle is such that we can not accede to legislaIf the Senate is ready upon the grounds taken by the Senators from tion which comes on appropriation bill.S from the House of Repre antVermont, and Massachusetts, and Delaware, much older, ~bier, wiser, atives? How is any extra session going to follow any such action of 

better Senators than we who are yonnger here, then let us understand the Senate as that? Simply, if it comes at all, by the other branch 

it, bot do not let the Senate be put in the attitude that it stands up saying, "You must take that legislation upon that appropriation bill 

here for the cause ofpublicvirtue in legislation and speaks by its rule, or you cannot have the appropriation bill." Now, if it be within the 

and that the moment the question eomes in practical application it turns rules of the Senate, I desire to say that I have no idea that the House 

about and rnns from its conclusions, and thereby submits itself ro the of Representatives isgoing_toputitselfinthatattitude. Ihavenofear 

merited reproach on the part of the House of Representatives that it of it. I do not believe there is any such danger; but I do believe that 

• 

• 
1_885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE. 1473 

there is danger to the legislation of this country e•ery time we are in 

finenced by an argument of that sort. · . ·Mr. SAULSBURY. Mr. President, I concur very heartily in all that 

i said about the danger of legislation upon appropriation bills. That 

has been too well understood, I b~lieve, in the Se~ate to be de~ied by 

IIDY one. Hera we have a practic.'tl measure before us. We have a legislative 

provision in this bill which proposes to 1·epeal an act that was passed- at the last se sion unknown to a large number of the members of this 

House, whereby certain pension agents a.re to receive out of this very 

appropriation bill some two or-three million dollars-. The question is 

now whether we shall so far depart from our rule as to prevent such a result, or whether we shall adhere to our ruie and let the •ery money 

that we appropriate here for the benefit of pensioners go into the pock· 

ets of pension agents? Suppose we accomplish all that has been preilicted by the Senator from Com1ecticut; suppose we drive the I[ouse 

from its position; suppose that the House does recede and takes o:ff all 

this legislation, what i~ the result? We then pass the pension approtuiation bill and, according to my information, 1rom two to three million doJl:irs of the money thus appropriated "ill be diverted from the 

pensioners and go into the hands of pension agents. I say that to avoid 

such a result as that, to pre,·ent such a fraud and wrong upon the pensioners as well as upon the Treasury, from whi~h the money is approptiated; I am ·willing to suspend for the time being, in conformity with 

the resolution of the Senator from Ohio, the rule that ·we have adopted 

to govern our action in this case. . 'lhe Senate I believe with entire unanimity passed a bill on Friday or Satu-rday to correct the very evil that is corrected in this pension ap: 

propriation bill. Eve1·ybody knows that the bill w.hich we sent to the 

House can not become a law. We are therefore stultifying ourselves, 

unplyby-adherence to an iron rule, to do that which in the judgment 

not onJy of'this hody but of the other House ought to be done to secure the pensioners of this country against the wrong that was done by the 

legislation of the last session. 

Mr. PLATT. The Senator will permit me a word. He sa.ys everybody knows that that bill can not become a law·. I for one wish to 

dissent from that sweeping statement. I do not know that it cannot 

become a law. I think I know that it can become a law. I think I 

know there is no di.fficuity about t~t bill becoming a law. 

Mr. SAULSBURY. I confess. that I do not know, but the statement was made by the Senator from 1\Iaine a few moments ago that with the 

great mass of business on the Speaker's table it was utterly impossible 

to reach that bill, and I accepted that as about the conclusion to which 

every fair-minded man would come who unde1-stands anything about 

the rules of the House. But I am not willing to take the risk of its becoming a law. I want to save this money to the pensioners of the coun- try; I do not want it to go, and it ought not to go into the hands of the 

pension agents; and the question I am now call~d upon to meet--

1\Ir. HALE. The. Senator means not the pension agents, uut the 

claim agents, pension attorneys. 

Ur. SAULSBURY. Yes, claim agents. I am called. upon to meet 

the question whether I shall vote to adhere to the Senate ruie and 

thereby take from the pensioners of this country from two to three'million dollars, or whether I shall be ·willing to suspend the operation of 

that rule for the present session and secure that money to .the pension- ers. There is no disguising the true question we have to meet in this 

matter. I ha•e no such great pride of opinion as to the correctness of 

the ruies of the Senate. While I am willing to admit the general proposition that legislation upon appropriation bills is penticions, yet I am not so ~eat a stickler for our own rules that I am willing that they 

shall operate in every instance when I know that thereby great injustice is to be tlone, and done to a class of men that the Go>erument of this 

country has been bound to make provision for. 

To adhere to the rule is in my opinion virtually saying that from two 

to three million dollars of the appropriations for the penqioners in the 

bill now before the Senate shall be diverted from its legitimate object 

and put into the poc"kets of the claim agents around this city and 

throughout the country. When that alternative is presented to me, I 

"\\•ill vote for the resolution of the Senator from Ohio or I will Yote 

against the decision of the Chair that has been made in this case. . · Ur. CALL. Ur. President, I think that we have exaggerated this 

question a great deal. The importance of prohibiting general legislation upon appropriation bills is certainly a general opinion of the Senate and of the country, but that the life of the Republic depends upon 

it, that a promion becomes bad which ~n itselfis good because it come ~pon an appropriation bill, there is no Teason to belie•e; and the Constitution has happily provided against that. It has provided in the con- currence of the two Houses, in the veto of the President, in the responsibility of theRepre entat,ives to the people against hasty and indiscreet 

Jegislation; and these, and not the fact that it is upon a separate bill 

instead of au app1·opriation bill, are the great conservators of the country. · . 

Why i it that when the House of Representa6ves send to us legislation, and we say we recognize the sovereign and independent right 

of that body to send it here, and to send it here upon an appropriation 

bill, we shall still say we will not consider it because of the manner 

XVT--93 

in which it comes here, because we think the . rule of the House that 

allows general legislation upon an appropriation b~l is an improper 

rule? Why, sir, you_ can not acknowledge the independent and sover- eign right of the House as to its own . rules and ~s to the manner in 

which it shall send legislation here, and still say to it, "'Ve will not 

consider it; we will not perform our constitutional duty of amending 

it, because of the mall.ller in which you chose to end that legislation 

here." 

It is manifest that the consent which the Constitution requires this 

body to give; or the refusal to consent to the legislation of the other Hous~, 1·efers to the merits of the proposition, and that we are expressly 

forbidden by the Constitution from refusing to consent to it because of 

the manner in which the House shall send it here. Because they see fit to send it· upon a general aprpopriation bill, the Constitution ex- pressly forbids· us to refuse our concurrence in that legislation because 

of disapproval of the manner in which the House shall have senti there, 

and confers upon them as upon us the sovereign right to send it upon an appropriation bill or any ot.her bill or in any other way that they shall see fit; audit imposes upon us the duty of saying whether it is vicious legislation-not a vicious method-whether it will benefit the country or injure the country. That·seems to me perfectly clear,. and I am sur- prised that we should have any hesitation in arriving at a unanimous 

conclusion upon that subject. 

I maintain, sir, that the House has n. right to end legislatio_n hero 

upon appropriation bil1'3, and that we have a constitutional duty to 

consider not the manner in which it is sent hete, whether good or bad, 

but to consider whether it is proper legislation, whether its merits are such as to commend it to the country and Will benefit the people. The 

independent right of the· House to decide that they will send us generallegislationonanappropriation bill, and the Senate's righttorefuse 

to consiuer and amend it, can .not coexist, because the Constitution 

clearly imposes on the Senate the duty to consider and amend or l'eject 

the legislation of the House, and not the rules of the House. 

Mr. MORGAN. 1\Ir. Pre~ident, I do not wish to detain the Senate 

by debating this question any longer; put I have to vote on it, and I 

will vote against sustaining the judgment of the Chair, but in doing 

that I desire to expla,in thl}>t I am not adve1-se to the rule tha.tt,he Senate has so long observed. I believe, with every Senator who has ex~ pressed hin1seJf this af~rnoon, that that rule is :Qot only a very gOO<l 

orre, but it is one that is necessary to preserve the constitutional rights 

of this people. But the aifficulty about the rule of the Senate is not 

that it is too stringent, but that it is not sufficiently tri.ngent. I wish 

to explain that remark. 

A geneml appropriation bill comes from the llouse and it contains 

general legislation. It has been ruled by the Chair frequently, I think 

uniformly, that in order to get rid of that general legislation in the Sen-: a~ you mustmoYeto strike it out and take the vote of. the Senate upon 

it. That is the uniform ruling of the Chair. 

The rule ought ro be so framed as that it shoulsl be the duty of tlie 

Chair, or ati least the right of a Senator, on motion, to strike out any 

gen.eral legislation that the House. sends li.S on an appropriation bill; 

and in the amendment of our rules: instead of relaxing the rule so as to create exceptional cases we ought to strengthen it by making it 

the duty of the Chair to strike out upon motion of a Senator any mat;-. ter of geherallegisl..'l.tion that is fom1d on an appropriation bill. If we should take that course we would clear appropriation bills of all this 

kind of legislation, and they would stand ru they were designed to be; . the mere bills to apply the money of the people to a certained legitimate sn~jects of appropriation. 

M.r. MILLER, of California. Will the Senator allow me to ~ake a 

suggestion ? · Afr. MORGA~. Yes, sir. 

1\Ir. 1\IILLER, of California. Thel'e is a practical difficulty llere. 

You strike out of an appropriation bill general legislation. Take the case now before the Senate, the pension bill. You ·strike out all the 

geneTal legislation and pass the bill, and it goes back to the Honse . . They disagree to the amendment of the Senate striking out, and then a conference is had, and the conferees m·e appointed. Has it n..ot always 

been the custom of the Senatewhen itreachesthat stage torecedefrom 

its position, so that practically when we strike out this legislation it 

gets back again throu.gh.a confe1·ence? Is it not so in a majority of 

cases, and has it not been so generally? 

Mr. ALLISON. Now I must·interp_ose. I think the rule has been 

the other way. Of course conference committees have yielded, as in 

this C.'lse last year, but as a rule we have resisted as far as possible legislation on appropriation bills. . ·. Mr. HALE. Was it not under the operation of this rule and under 

the operation of the construction ofthisveryrule as given to it by different occupants of the chair that this ncious legislation did creep in 

last year? · Mr. ALLLSO~. It was piaced there through a conference committe~ . !Ir. HALE. And that conference committee had a discretion allowed 

under our rules. 

M:r. DAWES. If the Senator from Alabama will allow nw, I was on that conference committee--
1474 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY. 9, 

Mr. MORGAN. I did not suppose I was :raising such a distlubance on that side. Of course I will yield until it is ended. 

Mr. DAWES. The matter is perfectly clear and apparent. The 

Senate struck out the entire legisla.tion. The House non-concuned in 

;the Senate amendment. The difference between the two Houses was 

submitt~ to a conference committee . . One portion of the conference 'committee refused to adopt that legislation, anj} the other portion re- fused to take the bill without it, and the bill was pending in confer- •ence and reported back to the two bodies on disagreement several times 

!until at last the two conference committeeS agreed that~they would ,take the legislation now on the book in place of the legislation proposed 

1by the House, and the result was that this legislation that now every 

lOne is sa-tisfied was vicious was forced upou both Houses by the rules 

of the two Houses. 

Mr. MORGAN. Not by the rules of the Senate. 

Mr. DAWES. It was. forced upon both Houses as the alternative of a loss of the pension appropriation bill. 

Mr. MILLER, of California. And the Senate agreed to it. . The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The Senator from Alabama must not be interrupted without his consent. · 

1t1r. MILLER, of California. I thought I· had his conseut. 

Ur. MORGAN. The Senator has my consent. 

. Mr. MILLER, of California. The point I was making to the Senator 

from Massachusetts. was that the Senate sustained their conferees in 

their action on this matter and eventually yielded, and the conference 

committee was pe:r;mitted t{) legislate for both Houses by the consent of 

.both Houses. I say that is the practical Tesult, and it does not make 'much difference what you do now, whether. you stick to the rule you ·have or make another. The difficulty comes ·about in the way I have 

indicated. 

Mr. DAWES. The enator from California is exactly right, iii my 

opinion. 

.Mr. MORGAN. I am glad the Senators are agreed about it. This 

rule of course bas been made the stalking-horse for a great many irregularities in legislation. I do not doubt that the Senate has perfect con- trol of its committees of conference and can instruct them to any particular course that it may desire upon any bill that ma.y be committed 

to their keeping. Bnt I was not looking f01:ward to what might be 

the results of an abuse by. a committee of conference of the rules of the 

Senate or the indulgence on the part of the Senate of such abuse as its 

committee might see·proper to ma,ke. 

The question with me is just this: If I vote to sustain the Chair, do 

I vote to break down the rule of the Senate? I maintain that I do not. 

It may be called a relaxation of the rule; and if precedent were necessary to justify that relaxation I could go back in our history and find a great many, sometimes when the matter has gone on permissively 

and at other times when it bas gone on by express consent of the Senate on its vote, for I remember frequent instance& in which the Chair 

has been overruled on a ruling as to whe'ther a particular measure was a measure inclqded within the purview of our rule and was prohibited 

from going upon a bill. . This particular amendment is new legislation coming from the House. 

That ev~rybody concedes. It is the ruling of the Chair, as I understand, that a question of order does not lie t-o the new legislation as presented in the bill sent to us from the House. To get rid of that 

legislation we must have an affirmative vote of the Senate to strike it 

out. Then the question arises whether the amendment now proposed 

is of the character of amendment denounced in the third clause of the 

sixteenth rule. I tbihk it is notr for the reason that the legislation in 

respect of which that amendment is germane has been :received by the 

Senate; and in proposing to amend what the House has put in and 

wha~ the Senate has received and acted upon, we are not proposing new legislation in tl).e sense of a violation of the Senate rule, but we are exercising a constitutional right and privilege in amending a bill 

that has been teceived by the Senate and is here the·subject-matter of 

action, which bill, so sar as the parliamentary law is concerned, is open 

to every motion that any other bill is open to. 

Here, then, is the new legislation proposed by the House before the 

Senate, having been received by it, being under consideration, ·and 

which will become a · part of this measure unless it is stricken out. 

Finding it in this condition, the proposition ,under the sixteenth rule 

is to ameud it, and the question is raised, you have no right to amend 

it, because in amending it you propose general legislation. My answer 

to that is, that it is not a proposition of general legislation within the 

meaning of the rule, but it is a proposition merely to amend a preposition that is lawfully before the Senate and upon which we have a full 

freedom of action, just as much so as if the bill had been reported in 

the Senate and was not amenable to any rnle at all 

I merely desired t() explain that in voting against·sustaining the ruling of tbe Chair I do not wish to be understood as departing from this 

rule at all; on the contrary, instead of modifying the rule I would vote 

to strengthen the rnl.e and ~ake it more strict than it is by requiring . the Chair, whenever legislation of a general character came to us from 

the House of Representatives, to strike it out, at least on the motion of a Senator. · Ur. MJLLER, ofNewYork. ImovethattheSenateproceed.tothe 

consideration of executive business. ["No!" "No!"] If a vote is to 

be taken I shall not insist on the motion. • 

Mr. HALE and otherS. Let us try for a vote. , The PRESIDENT p'·o temp{)Te. Does the Senator from-New York 

withdraw his motion? 

Ur. 1r!ILLER, or New York. I withdraw the motion. 

The PRESIDENT pro te1np()re. The question is, Shall the decision of 

the Chair, holding this amendment not to be in order, stand as the judgment of the Senate? 

Mr. SHER1riAN. I ask again that unauimous consent be ·given to 

entertaining qn.d adopting the resolution I have oftered. If any Senator 

objects to it, of course that is the end of it. 

Th.e PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio ask unanimous consent to submit a resolution. 

Mr. HARRIS. Let it be read for information. 

Th~ Chief Clerk read as follows: • 

That in the opinion of the Senate amendments may be made in the Senate 

pertinent and relevant to legislative provisions in a general appro}>riation bill as it comes from the House. 

Mr. H.A .. RRIS. i object. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is made. The question 

is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment oftheSenate 

upon the pending amendment to the J>ension appropriation bill? 

Mr INGALLS called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered. 

Mr. HARRIS. One single moment, 1r!r. ,President. There are two 

facts to l>e ascertained by the Chai.r in respect to this question of order. 

First, is the bill under consideration a general appropriation bill? 

That fact determined in the affirmative, next, is the amendment rec- ommended by the committee generall~lation? 

If that fact be determined in the affirmative, it falls not only-within 

the spirit but the very literalism 6f the rule, and it is out of order. 

That is all I desire to say. 

The question being ta.keu by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 35, nays 

23; as follows: . 

Aldrich, Allison, 

Bayro-d, 

B~k, 

·Blair, 

Brown, Cameron ofWi ., Chace, 

Colquitt, 

Call, 

Ooke, Dawes, Dolpll, Frye, 

George, 

Bowen, Butler, 

Camden, 

Cameron of Pa.., Cockrell, · 

Conget·, 

uUom, 

Edmunds, Garland, 

Gorman, 

Groome, 

Hampton, 

llarris, 

Harrison, 

Hale. 

lngall, 

.Ja<'kson, 

Jonas, 

l\Iahone, 

1\Iaxey, 

Fair, 

Farley, Gibson, 

Hill. 

YEAS-33. 

Hawley, 

Hoar, Lamar 

Lapbar'n, 

l\IcMillan, 

Msnd.erson, 

Mit.chell, Morrill, 

Palmer, 

NAYS-2-3. 

1\Iiller ofCa.l.:.~ 

l\liller of N. x ., 1\Iorgan, 

Saulsbmy, 

Sawyer, 

Sherman, 

.A.BSENT-18. 

Jones of Nevada, 

Kenna, 

Logan, 

Jones of Flol"ida, McPherson, • Ridd.leberger, 

Pendleton, 

Pike, 

Platt, 

Plumb, 

Pugh-, Ransom, Sabin, 

Wilson. 

Slater, 

VanWyck, 

Vest, 

Voorhees, 

Willialll8. 

SeweLl, 

Vance, 

Walker. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The decision of the Chair stands as . the judgment of the Senate. 

Mr. MILLER, of New York. I move that the Senate proceed to the 

consideration of executive business. 

Mr. MORRILL. I hope that the uufi.uishecl busines will first be 

laid befor_e the Senate. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection, the Senate resumes the consideration of the unfinished business, being the bill 

(H. R. 4976) for the retirement a.nd recoinage of the trade-dollar ... The Senator from New York moves that the Senate proceed to the 

consideration of executive business. 

The motion was agreed to: 

ENROLLED BILL SIGXED. 

A message from the House ofRepresenta.tives, by 1\Ir. CLARK, its Clerk, 

announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the following en- rolled bills and joint resolution: 

A bill (S. 729) for the protection of ~hildreu in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes: 

A bill (S. 1335} to authorize the settlement of-.the accounts of the 

late John V. B. Bleecker, a paymaster in the Navy; 

A bill (H. R. 433) to increase the pension of Simpson Harris; · A bill (H. R. 499) granting a pension to ?tlary A. Knawber; 

A bill (H. R. 760) granting an . additional pension to Watsou S. 

Bentley; · 

A bi)l (H. R. 1084) granting a pension to Dorathea Bothner; 

A bill (H. R. 1171) granting a pension to Isabel Campbellj 

A bill (H. R. 12;)6) increasing the pension of Ben Morgan; 

A bill (H. R. 1504) for the relief of Millia Stapleog; 

A bill fH. ·R. 2002) for the relief of Mrs. Jennie E. J obnson; .A bill H. R. 2140) for the relief of Hugh Dougherty; 

A bill H. R. 23:48) granting a pension to John D. Rickards; ·A bill H. R. 2399) granting a pension to Clarissa McKee; 
1885. CON.GRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 

A bill~ R. 2432) fm· the Telief of Mrs. Jane Young;, A bill H. R. 2453) granting a pension to FrankS. Marsh; · 

A bill H. "R. 2692) granting a. pension to Sarah Keni1edy; 

A bill H. R. 2908) granting a pension to Ja~es 1\Icl\Ianus; · A bill H. R. 2920) for the relief of John Johnson; 

A bill H. R. 2S87l restoring Rebecca Walcott to the pension-roll; 

A bill ~H. R. 3527 granting a pension to George A. 1\Iarshall; 

A bill H. R. 3565 granting a pension to Willia.mEnrele; 

A bill H. R. 3612) graJ,lting a pension to Hayden Reynolds; 

A billlH. R. 3663) granting a pension to John T. Marshall ; 

A bill H. R. 3703) granting a perision to James W. Brown; 

A bill H. R. 4041) restoring the name of Zelica T. Dunlap to the 

pension-roll; · A bill (H. R . . 4059) granting a pension to !Brule Demar:mville; 

A bill !H. R. 4238) granting a pension to Sallie Ingham; 

A bill H. R. 4248) granting a pension to William· Harbeson; 

A bill H. R. 4379) for the relief of Maj. W. W. Fryba.rger; 

A bill (H. R. 4752) granting a pension to William Herring; . A bill (H. R. 5004) for the reliefofWi.!liam B. Smith; 

A bill (H. R. 5500) for the relief of Benjamin F. Amos; 

A bill~H: R. 5565) granting a pension to Theo. Ahrens; 

A bill H. R. 56301 granting a pension to George W. Rugg; 

A bill H. R. 5632 granting a pension to .Sarah J. Bremmeri 

A bill H. R. 5670 to authorize a retii"ed list for privates and non- commissioned officers of the United States Army who have served for a period of thirty yea,rs or upward; 

A bill !H.. R. 5776) granting a pension to Louis D. Petty; 

A bill H. R. 5812) granting a pension to Ellen A. Vance; 

A hill H.· R. 5926) granting a pension to John Maloney ; 

A bill" H. R. 59-23) granting a pension to Ruth Stratton; 

A bill (H. R. 5960) granting a pension to George Zeifle; 

A bill (H. R. 60 4) to restore the name of Walter H. Crow to the 

pension-roll; 

A bill (H. R. 6282) to place t he name of R. W. Duncan on the pension-roll; 

A bill~· R. 6311) granting a pension .to Mrs. Sarah S. Sampson; 

A bill ~n. R. 6461) granting a pension to Nelson Gammons; 

A bill II. R. 6480) granting a pension to Margaret G. Hal pine; 

A bill II.. R. 6594) granting a pension to Russell. F. Dimmick, A bill H. R. 6665) Jor the relief of James StaCk; 

A bill H. R. 6726) grantmg a pension to Margaret A. Ma,;uire; 

A bill H. R. 6882) granting a pension to John Otis; 

A bill H. R. 6927) granting a. pension to MeTit M. Oakley; 

A bill H. R. 6934) gmnting a pension to Ann J. Williams; 

A bill~ R. 6956) granting a pension .to Maria H. Sargent; A bill . R. 6997) granting a pension to Henry Da.vis; 

A bi11 H. R. 7046) granting·a pension to Alonzo Cornwell; 

A bill H. R. 7141) granting a pension to Daniel W. Adams; 

A bill H. R. 7295) granting a pension to Albert D. Simmons; 

A bill (H. R. 8121) to enable the commissioners of the District of 

Columbia to maintain public order during the ceremonies of the inauguration of the President, and for other purposes; and 

Joint resolution (H. Res. 323) for the printing of certain eulogies delivered in Congress upon the late William A. Duncan. -

EXECUTIVE SE;>SION. 

The Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business. 

After twenty-five minutes spent in executive session the doors were reopened, and (at 5 o'clock and 40 ininntes p.m.) the Senate adjom:ned. 

SENATE. 

TUESDAY, Febrtttat·y 10, 1885. 

The Senate met at 11 o'clock a.m. 

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

NAMING A PRESIDIXG OFFICEB. . 

Mr. ALLISON called the Senate to order, and the Secretary read the 

following letter: • 

To the Senate: 

Pu.rsuant to the rul~, I hereby name and designate Hon~ WILLIAM B. ALLISON, a Senator from the State of Iowa, to perform the duties of the Chair in"1Dy absence this day. · 

GEO. F. EDMUNDS, . Presiden' pro tempore. WASHL."WTON, D. c., February 10, ISS:>. 

Thereupon Mr. ALLISO~ took the chair as Presiding Officer. 

THE JOURX AL. 

The Journal of yest~rday's proceedings. was read and approved. 

EXECUTIVE CO~UNICATIO:YS. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ALLISON) laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a 

reoommendation of the Supervising Architect to extend the limit of eost 

oftl1e pnbli{} buildings at Dallas, Tex.; and Oxford, Miss.; which, wi.th 

. 

the accompanying papers, was referred to the Conimittee on PuMic 

Buildings and Grounds, and ordered to be pTinted. 

He also laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary 

of the Navy, transmitting a report of recent explorations in Northern 

Alaska. by Lieut. George M. Stoney, United States Navy; which, ou motion of Mr. HARRISON, was ordered to be printed., and, with the ac- companying papers, referred to the Committee on Territories. 

PETITIO.YS ru~D 1\fElliORIALS. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER presented a memorial of the Legislative 

Assembly of. the ·Territory'of Dakota, favoring the division of Dakota. 

and the admission of the southern portion of that Territory as a State; 

which was ordered to lie on the table. 

He also presented a memorial of the New York Produce Exchange 

of the city of }{ew York, in favor of' such steps and appropriations as 

shall be requisite to place t~e chief city of the nation in wealtli, population, and importance in a condition ~f safety, whatever foreign complications may arise; which was referred to the Committee on Military A~~- . 

Mr. ?!fiLLER, of New York, preSented a petition of seamen of New 

York city, praying for the passage of the bill to amend th~ tenth sec- tion of the act to remove certain burdens from the American merchant 

marine; whlch·was referred to the Committee on Commeree. 

He also presented a petition of citizens of New York city, interested 

in the navigation of Lake Superior, praying for the passage of the "bill 

providing for the acquisition by the United States of the Portage Lake 

Canal, so called; which was rererred to the Committee on Commerce. ~Ir. WILSON. I present the petition of J. W. Sargent and 100 

other citizens of Iowa, praying for the forfeitures of the unearned lands 

within the limits of the land grant·to the Sioux City and Saint Paul 

Railroad Company. ·.As the bill relating to that subject has been reported; I move that the petition lie on the table. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. WILSON presented the petition of D. W. Chamberlain and 47 

other citizens of Iowa, and the petition of John 0. Thompson and, 50 

other citizens of Iowa, praying for the forfeiture oftheunearned lantb 

within tbe limits of the land gmnt to the Sioux: City and Saint Panl· Railroad Company; which was ordered to lie on the table. 

·· Mr. CO~GER presented the petition of George A. Farrand 132other 

citizens of Grnnd Haven, Mich., praying for appropriations for the improvement of the harbor at that place; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

He also presented the petition of H. A. Lathrop, of Armada, Mich., 

praying to be reimbnrsed for property taken by the United States Government during the war; which was referred to the Committee on 

Claims. 

l\IA1WARET D. )!ARCHAND. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. .Reports of committees are in order, 

if there be no fmther petitions or memprials. 

Mr. SEWELL. On the Gth of February the. Senator fi:om New Ramphire [Mr. BLAIR] reported from the Committee on Pensions the·bill 

(S. 957) granting a pension to :Margaret D: ::Marchand with an amendment, and ·submittedafavorablereport thereon. I find thatitis marked 

on tha Calendar as an adverse report. I ask to have the Ca~~dar cor- rected. I call the attention of the Senator from New Hampshire to it. 

Mr. ~LAIR. It should be marked "reported favorably with an amendment." 

Mr. ~llTCHELL. I suggest to the Senator from New J er~y that the 

bill might be taken up and passed now, as it was really included in the 

order of the Senate the other day and the Calendar was incorrectly 

printed. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. . The Senator from Pennsylvania asks 

unanimous consent for the present consideration of the bill (S. 957) 

granting a"pension to Margaret D. Marchand. Is there objection? 

Mr. JACKSON. Is there-not an adverse report in that case? 

1\Ir. 1\IITCHELL. There was no adverse Teport. It was a favorable 

report, and it was improperly placed upon the Calendar as an adverse 

report. It comes within the order of the Senate the other day in regard to the coniideration of pension bills. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is informed that the ma- jority report was an adverse report, and therefore t·he bill was placed 

upon the Calendar accordingly. 

Mr. BLAIR. That is a mistake. The Chail' has been misinformed. It is a House bill granting a pension to this lady at the rate of $50 per 

month, reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Pensions w:i,th 

an amendment reducing the. rate from $50 to $30. So it becomes a favorable report with an amendment. It is not stmnge that it was nn- del1;tood to be an adverse report, because it js one of that class of cases on which we have had contl"oversy. 

The PRESIDINGOFFICER. Is there objection tothe present consideration of the· bill? · The. Chair hears none, and it is before the Senate as in CommitWe of the Whole. '.Pie bill will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read the bill; as f?llows: 

Be it enacted, cf:c., That t lie Secretary of the Interior be, nnd he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the pension laws, the name of J\'lar gare t D. l\Iarclumd, w idow of