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 
14·76 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 

Commodore J. B . .Marchand, late of the United States NnyY, and p~y her .a. pen- eion at the rate o?$50per month from the date of the passage ofth1s act. . 

The PRESIDL.~G OFFICER.. The amendment reported from the 

Committee on Pensions will be read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. In line 8 strike out '' fifty' ' before the word 

"dollars 11 and insert " thirty; ' so as t{) rea,d: 

At the rate of 30 per month. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The que tion is on agreeing to the 

n.mendment. 

Mr. BLAIR. i think the attention of the Senate ought to be called 

to this bill, because it is an important one. This bill, rather inadvertently brought before the Senate, is of too much importance to be 

disposed of in the hurried manner t~a t it seems likely to be, and therefore I ask the attention of the Senate while I state what it is. 

It is a bill of the same class as those upon which the Senate had a 

somewhat closely co.ntested discussion at ~he last session. It proposes 

to pension the widow of a rear-admiral of the Navy~ho I'endered very 

distinguished service to his country during half o. century of time, if. I 

remember correctly. The report sets forth fully the facts. The bill was passed by the House, gi •;-ing her ~ pension at the rate of $00~ which 

has come to be perhaps the ettled practice of Congress in such cases. It was referred to the en.ate Committee on Pensions, who l'eported it 

favorably to the extent of'$30-tha~ is, with an· amendment reducing 

the amount proposed by the House·to $30. 

The real controversy that is pertinent to this and to som.c ten or twelve other cases of like character now pending upon the Calendar of 

the .Senate i whether the Senate will give to this lady the additional 

$20 which has been voted by the House. It is important not alone on account of the propriety, to s..·w the least, of treating all these ladies 

with some consistency; bt1t- because there are pending ten or twelve cases at the present time, aml whatever principle is adoptf>...d by the Senate in disposing of this case will be very naturnlly followed in the others. 

I do not-wish to reopen the discussion upon this class unless others 

should see fit to do so, l:iecau e the. discussion has already been very full 

an~ I could add no new light to the matter. It is m! it was at the last 

session, save only that by a very emphatic vote of the Senate in all the cases which were called to its attention tho previous precedents have 

been greatly strengthened. 

Mr. PLUUB. I should like to inquirP. what is the order of business· 

now under the eonsideration of the Senate? - The PHESIDING OFFICER. The Senatm from Pennsylvani~ 

asked unanimous consent that this pension bill be considered at this 

time, which was granted. 

Mr. PLU.l\IB. What is the order of business~ the morning hour? 

'l'he PRESIDING OFFICER. Reports of committees .. 1\Ir. PLUMB. I object to the further consideration of the bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER.. Objection is made, and the bill goes 

ovet. Reports-of committees are now in order. . Ur. BLAIR. As this bill was called up hurriedly, I wish to correct 

a st..'ltement I made. I am informed that it is a Senate bilL Some of 

the: e bills pending before the committee ru;e from the House; but two or three wer~ introduced originally in the Senate.' I may have been 

mistaken as to this one having passed the House, but quite a number 

of others being exactly similar to. it have passed that bodyJ so that the 

principle involved is the same. Mr. PLATT obtained the floor. 

Ur. SEWELL. I ask unanimous consent to have the correction 

made un.d tho ad ver e 1·eport stricken .from the Calendru· opposite the bill 

Mr. JACKSO~. That is improper. !twas an p.dverse reportofthe 

majority of·the committee, and the views of the minority were presented by the Senator from New Hamp hire. The bill is reported adversely so far as a pension at the i:ate of 50 a month is proposed in the 

bill. 

Mr. BLAIR. The repol't is adverse so far as the additiooal $20 are concerned, and f:wora ble so far as the $30 are concerned. The bill should 

be marked as ''reported faYorably with an amendment. ' ' 

The PRE IDING OFFICER. The Chair finds in the RECORD of 

February 7 the following: · · 

::Ur. BLAIR. By direction of the Committ-ee on Pensions I al o ·1·eport ad- ·\'er ly the bill (S. 957) granting 'a pen ion to J\.Iargaret D. March~d, recom- mending its indefinite postponement. I submit also with the re~rt the views of the minority favoring the passage of the bill. I ask that the btll be placed on the Calendar. . The PRESIDEXT pro tempore. The bill will be placed on the Calendar. 

That is the record. 

Mr. BLA.IR. That. is precisely correct. I have a recollection now itl regard to it that the bill was rejected in toto; it wa8 not sanctioned 

at all by the cOmmittee. 'rh~ report as stated in the RECORD js precisely correct. My statement at the time, in the ordinary way in 

which these cases have come before the committee, should have been 

that the report was favorable so far as $30 per month was concerned; 

but in this ca e the.committee rejected the bill in to(o-that is to say, 

they did not allow a pension in any degree. · . I ought to say, further, that this was called to my attention by the 

Senator from Pennsylvania and the case <>illled np, which· I supposed was somewhat under my own charge, in such a way that my recollect.ion ·wvs a little obtu e. Th~ bill was in my mind, however, and the 

case woul.d h~ve been taken care of at what I shonl<l have considered a proper season. 1\Ir. :MITCHELL. I tlesire to sa.y a word. 

The PRESIDING O.FFICER. The Senator from C<mnecticut [Mr. 

PLATI] bas been reoognized by the Chair. 

1\'lr. PLATT. Let me hav~ my say first. 

:Mr. INGALLS. What is the question pending? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. 

PLATT] has been recognized. The Chair does not .know for what purpo e he rises. 

1\Ir. INGA.LL . I ask, for parliament..'l.ry information, w:Qat is t.be 

pending question? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER Tieports of standing and select com- mitte::es. 

Mr. l\IITCHELL. I desire to make a report from the Committee on Pension. 

Mr. PLATT. Have I the floor? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has recognized the enator 

from Connecticut. , l\ir. PLATT. I should like to S..'l.y, if I ma.y be permitted, that it seems to me t~e matter which we have been considering, having come up under the circums~ces in which it has, ought not to go over into 

the Calendar under the ninth mle, but it ought to be passed over with.:. 

out prejudice. I trust the Senator fromKansas [.Mr. PLmm], who 

objected to the further consideration of the bill, will have no objection 

to that course. · 

The PRESIDlliG OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut asks 

that the bill may be placed on the Calendar imcle1· the eighth rule, without prejudice. · · 

l\Ir. PLUMB. The purpose of my objection was simply that we might 

go. on with the morning business. I have no objection to the bill being placed exactly where it was before it was brought to the attention 

of the Senate in this irregular manner this morning. . 

:Mr. HQA.R. I should like to inquire what is the .rule about it. I 

UJ;Jderstand that 1manimous consent was given to taking up tbe bill; 

the Chair asked for it, a.nd two or three Senators spoke to it. Can an 

objection be interposed now? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ChaiT understand that an objection can be inteJJ>osed at any time. 

Mr. HOAR. Under the eighth rule? • The PRESIDING OFFICER. o the Chair understands. 

Mr. HOAR. I understood that -the bill was taken up by unanimous 

consent at the time of morning business, before l'eports.Qf committees were concluded, not under the eighth rule, and that unanimous consent 

would give the measure its rjght, and no objection conld remove it. 

l\Ir. MITCHELL. That was my understanding of the case. Ho·wever, I do not care for it; but as many mistakes have. been made in re- gard to this matter, I think it due to myself that I should tate what 

I understand to be the facts in regard to it .. 

In the :first place, I did not ask forunanimousconsent. I suggested 

to the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. SEWEJ,L] that it would be·a proper case to consider at this time, inasmuch as by my understanding 

it came within the rnle which was ali.opted in the Senate the other daY. 

for the consideration of pension bills. l\Iy recollection in regard to the 

report is entirely different frQm that now stated by the Senator from 

New Hampshire. · My recollec:tion is that the committee did. agree to 

report in favor of granting a pension of $30 a mouth in this case, and I 

t4ink the report so shows. However, I think the bill may as well go over and come up regularly hereafter. I do not desire to press it, and 

I had no such desire at. the time I made the suggestion. 

Mr. WILSON. If the S~ator from Pennsylvania will yield to me I wish to make a statement. The ~ction of the committee, according to 

my recollection of the case, was based upofi: the fact that we had no information before us that an application had been made for the allowance ·of a pension. · -

l\Ir. BLAIR. No application to the Pension Office? 

l\Ir. WILSO~. No application had been made to the Commissioner 

of Pensions; and while a majority of the committee, I may ay all the 

members according to my present recollection, were in favo~ of the allowance of a pension at the rate of $30 a month, still :i. portion of the 

committee desired that the application should be made to the Commissioner of Pensions in order that we might have the record from the 

Pension Office, and it was on that basis tha,t .the committee acted. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Reports of standing ancl select com- mittees are now in order. 

REPORTS OF CO:UMITTEES. 

. 1\Ir. SHERMAN, from the Committee on Finance, to whom was 

referred the bill (H. R. 7496) for the relief of Wehrle, Werk & on, 

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

Mr. SLATER, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was re- ferred the bill (S. 1877) granting an increase of pension to John Hall, report~d it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was refen·ed the bill (S. 

1739) granting a pension w tbe.widow and children of the late Byram 

Pjtney, reported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1477 

Mr. JACKSON, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom were re- ferred the following petitions, Teported adversely thereon; and their 

prayet was denied: 

Petition of John G. Burchfield, of illinois, praying for a pension; and 

Petition of Edward Kelly, of Maine, praying for a pension. 

l.Ir. JACKSON, from the Committee on Pensions, i9 whom were re- ferred the following hills, submitted adverse reports thereon, which were agreed to; and the bills were postponed indefinitely: 

A bill (H. R. 662) granting a pension to Mrs. Ann Sheffield; 

A bill {H. R. 3 29) granting a pension to John Beck; 

A hill (S. 2115) for the relief of Abraham Van Assum ; 

A bill (S. 2i28) granting a pe:n"Sion to James McLaughlin ; and 

A bill (S. 2114) granting a pension to Alonzo Raymond. 

:Ur. CAMDEN. I am instntcted by the Committee on Pen ions, to 

whom was 'referred the· bill (• '. 1995) granting a pension to John R. 

Hurd, to sO:bmit an auver e report thereon. ·The relief asked for in the 

bill has been granted in the Pension Office. · I therefore moYe tMt the 

bill be postponed indefinitely. • The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. CAMDEN, frofn the Committee on Pensions, to whom was re- ferred the bill (H. R. 5069) granting a pension to Mrs. Iary J. Stotts, reported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

:Mr. LAPHAM, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the joint resolution (S. n. 111) refening the controversy· between the United Stutes and VenezueL'l, in respect to the awards of 

the mixed commission, . tq the President; 1·eported it with an amendment, and submitted a report thereon. . He also, from the same committee. tow ltom were referred the following petitions, asked to be discharged from their further consideration; 

which was agreed to: . · Petition of RalphS. Demat·est, of Kew Jersey, in relation to the distribution of the Venezuela awards; and . Petition of Margaret F. Rawdon, of Little Falls, :N. Y. , praying the 

passage of there olution referring the conh·oversy between the .United 

States and Venezuela, in 1·espect to the awards of the mixed commission, tn the President. · . . :Mr. LAPHMI. Thejoint resolution which I have reported imply 

provides for the distribution of the Venezuela award as it lies in the 

State Department, amounting to about half a milllon dollar , while 

these petitioners and various other _claffi?.ants are kept out of their 

money. There is a sintilar -measure pen cling in the House. I a ik for 

the present consideration of the joint· resolution. I think there can be 

no objection to it. . . Mr. SHERMAN. I ask that it be read for iuformation first. 

Mr. LAPH.A.l\1. Certainly. . The Chief Clerk read the joint resolution and the amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present con- sideration of the joint t•esolution? ?.~r. HARRIS. I think it had better go over and be pri».te4l. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is 1uade. 

Mr. CULLOM) from the Committee on Pensions, to whom were re- ferred the folloWIDg bills, reported them seYerall y without amendment, 

and submittecl reports thereon: . · A bill (H. R. 7500) to restore the name of Lewi J. Blair to the pension-I·oll; 

.A. bill (H. R. 7952) granting a pension to Mrs. Julia Hart.ley ; and 

A bill (H. R. 8038) granting a pension to Haniet A. B. Corts. · Jt:II·. CULLOM, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was re- ferred the ·bill (S. 2524) granting a pension to Haniet A. B. COTts, re- ported adversely thereon, and the bill was postponed indefinitely. 

Mr. BLAIR, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom were re- ferred the following bills, report eel them severally without amendment, and submitted reports thereon~ · .A.. bill {H. R.- 2~2) granting a pension to Adolph Weach; 

A bill (H. R. 1711) grantingapension toi:rederickNelson, T. Caine, 

and Henry C. Sanders; 

A bill (H. R. 7673) granting a pension to :Mrs. Adeline E. Chad- -bourne; 

A bill (H. R. 7724) granting a pension to Lydia 'Vetherbee; 

:A bill (H. R. 5969) increasing the pension of Frederic S. Rich; 

A bill (H. R. 3701) granYing a pension to James Bradford; · . A bill {H. R. 033) granting an incJ.:easc of pension to George W. 

Clark· and 

A bill. (H. R. 5.762) for the relief of Ann Lumphrey. 

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

the bill (S. 2568) granting a pension to l\Irs. Adeline E. Chadbourne, 

reported adversely thereon; and the bill was postponed indefinitely. 

:Mr. VAN WYCK, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom were referred the following bills, reJ:>orted them severally without amend- . ment, and submitted reports t.hereon: . 

A bill (H. R. 7707) to pension Holden Cook; . . 

A bill (S. 2443) granting an increase of pension to Polly Young; 

.A. bill:(H. R.. 5813) granting a pension to Rachel Smith; 

.A bill (H. R. 6965) granting a pension to David T. Dudley; 

A bill (H. R 7315) granting a pension to Fx:ederick P. De:uth; and 

A bilJ (H. R. 2138) granting a pension to _}.Iai'tha Angell. · 

Mr. WILSON, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom ~ere I'eferred the following .. bill.s, reported them severally without amendment, 

and submitted renrts thereon: 

A bill (S. 1113 granting a pension to Ann ·E. Manchester; 

A bill (S. 2302 granting a pension to John Lowe; · A bill (H. R. 6196) granting a pension to R. D. Lawrence; 

A bill {H. R.l502) granting a pension to William Robinson; 

A bill (H. R. 4098) granting a pension to William Gibbons; 

A bill (H. R. 1984) granting a pension to Robert M. M:cKinlay ; all(l 

A bill (H. R. 7561) to allow a pension to George F. West. 

Mr. WILSON, ii·om the Committee on Pensions, to whom was re- ferred the bill (H. R. 5798) granting a pension to John E. Denham, reported it with an amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

Mr. ALDRICH, fi·om the Committee on Finance, to whom was t·eferred the bill (H. R. 691) for the relief of William W. Thomas, 

reported it without-amendment, and submitted a Teport thereon. . 1\:II-. MITCHELL. I am instructed by the Committee on Pensions, 

to whom was referred the bill (H. R 4280) to increase the pension of 

:Urs. Martha C. Breese, ·to report it adversely, with the views of the 

minority recommending the passage of the bill. I ask that it be placed 

on the Calendar. · . The i>RESIDENT prQ te1npore. The Senator from Pennsylvania re- ports adversely the bill named by him. It will be placed on the Calendar. The Senator also submits the views of the minority. If there 

be no objection they will be receiYed and printed. . _ . Mr. MITCHELL, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom were reJerred the following bills, reported them severally without amendment, and submitted reports thereon: . A bill (H. R. 4266) granting a pension. to Margaret A. Ringwalt; 

A bill (S. 2245) granting a pension to William N. Morris; and 

A hill (H. R. 6966) granting. a pension to Wealthy H. Seavey. 

He also,Jrom the same committee, to whom were referred the following bills, submitted adverse reports thereon, which were ageeed to; 

and the bills were }lostponed indefinitely: 

A bill (H. R. 2522} g1-anting a pension to John Q. Bellville; and 

A bill (H. R. 765) for the relief of Emily Agnel. 

.Mr. MITCHELL. I am a lw instructed by the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1079) granting an inct·ease of 

pension to Mrs. EmilyM. Wyman, tosubmitanadversereportthereon; 

and the views of the ru_inority .in favor of the passage of the bill. I 

ask that the bill be placecl on the Calendar. In this case the Secretary 

of the Navy recommended the passage ofthe bill to the committee. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The Senator submits the views of 

the minority. If there be no objection they will be received and or- dered to be printed. The ·bill will be placed on the Calendar. 

W ASHINGTOX 1\IOXUl\IENT )IEDAI.S. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I am directed by the Committee on Finance, to 

whom was referred the bill (S. 2615) to authorize medals commemo- rating the completion and dedication of the Washington 1\Ionument, to 

report it favorably "ith an amendment. ·If the bill is. to be pa....c;sed at 

this session it. ought to be passed now; and I ask unanimous consent 

for its present consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ALLISON in the chair). Is tbet·e 

objection to the present considemtion of the bill? 

:Mr. COCKRELL. Let it be read for infot·mation. and then we can t~. . 

The Chief Clerk read the bill, and, by unanimous consent, the Sen-. ate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to its con~deration. 

Mr. SHER?t:LA.N. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. ::M:ORRJLJ.,] suggests that I should make a statement in regard to the bill. 

It has been customary not only in this country but in all countries 

to commemorate any event 'in their history that they think important . Congress passed a somewhat similar resolution authorizing medals in 

commemoration of the laying of the corner-stone of the ·washington 

Monument. The Monument Commission believe that the completion 

and dedication of the monument is an event thaL ought to he commem- orated by the most enduring memorial in the world, a coin or medal. 

Collis have survived. Inde~d the evidence of the appearance, character, 

nature, and qualities of the. R-Omans and Grecians is better -preserved 

in their medals than in any other way. It is usual with all nations to 

commemorate-any important event in national history in this way. · The dies provided by the bill can be made at an expense of about 

500, and then anybody can get a medal at cost. I am told, coming 

from the Director of the 1\Iint., that the medals will co t from thirty to 

forty cents apiece, so that it is not a matter of much expense ; and the 

medals will no doubt be purchased by people not on-ly in our day but, as the die will be kept, the medals will be perpetuated and increa. ed to 

the extent that there may be a demand for them . The only doubt I have about the bill (and I wonder that some Senators have not called attention to it) is that it provides for one medal 

for each member of Congress. I should rather have that pro~i ion onJ., 

because we a.re able to buy these things. But that is not an unusual 

provision, and it is supposed members of Congress will place them in some libt·ary or ome receptacle where they will be perpetuated and 

preserve<l. · 

, 
1478 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 10, 

That is the object of the bill, an.d I beli~ve it is an. objec~ approv_ed 

by all nations. England and France especially have m thell' gallenes 

of medals a very-remarkable display of sk-ill. . The :Romans were also 

very celebrated for their medals, not only to commemorate eYents, but 

to perpetuate the faces and names of heroes and statesmen. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is 1·eported with ari amendment which will be read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. The Committee on Finance report to amend the 

bill after the word ''reverse,'' in line 7, by triking out ''an exact'' 

and inserting "a;" so as to read: 

That to commemorate the completion and dedication of tlte Washington Monument the Secretary of the Trea ury is hereby directed to have prepared, at the mint' at Philadelphia, medals, not le than four inches in diameter, bearing on one side the head of George Washington and on the J·everse a represen- tation of the Washingt-on Monument, with suitable devices to be approved by 

the Secretary. 

The amendment was agreed to. • The bill was reported to the Senate a· amendedJ and the amendment 

was conc'nrred in. 

The bill was- ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the 

third time, and passed. 

COM~llTTEE OK THE JUDICI.A.RY. 

:Mr. INGALL . I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary may have leave hereafter to sit during the daily sessions 

of the Senate. 

The PRESIDENT pro tem,pore. The Senator from Kansas moves that 

for the remainder of this session the CoiD..Iilittee on the Judiciary have 

leave to sit during the sittings of the ·senate. 

~e motion was agreed to. 

IARI.A. SYPH.A.X. 

Mr. VAN ·WYCK. I ask unanimous consent to take up--

?rfr. HAWLEY. Will theSenatoryield amoment? Ihave a report 

to make. ! _did not hear the close of that order of busine s. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will receive the report. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I am i.nstnlcted by the Committee on Military 

Affairs to report- favorably the . bill (S. 2342) declaratory of the mean- ing of the act entitled "An act for the relief of Maria Syphax," and I 

beoo to ask the Senate for ita immediate consideration. I think it will 

be 0granted if I can be allowed thirty ooonds to state the purpose of 

the bill. . By unanimous consent, the Senat~, as in Committee of the Whole, 

proceeded to consider the bill. It declares the act of June 12, 1866," for 

thereliefo£Maria Syphaxl'' releasing and confirming to her, her heirs 

and assigns, the title to a. piece of land therein desC1ibed, being part of 

the Arlington estate, in the county of Alexandria, Virginia, sluiJ.l be 

construed to operate as a relinqnishmentof any outstanding titlewhich 

the United States may have acquired since the date of that act. 

:Mr. HAWLEY. As there has not been tinlesince I hadmyinstructioris to report this bill to draft a written 1·eport, allow me to place on t;he record a very brief statement. 

Maria Syphax was a fa.vored servant of the Custis family on the 

famous Arlington estate. The family allotted her a. little house and 

piooe of ground. The United States afterward acquired the tax title, as everybody knows, to the whole estate. During that time while the 

United States claimed to ha-ve this title it passed the· act of June 12, 

1866, now before me, confirming to this favored old en·ant this piece 

of ground. The Supreme Court afterwa.rd decided that the United • States themselves had no title to any part of the estate. Since that 

decision the United States has acquired a full title to the property by 

negotiation and purchase. Nowt.he United States is asked simply to 

reaffirm its act of 1866, that the old woman 80 years of age, a favored 

old servant, may. have the piece of ground the Custis family originally 

iritended she should have. The Government yielded it to her once, 

supposing it had a perfect title, but now the cl~imant is advised that 

there ought to be a confirmatory act. 

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

be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and pa ed. . Mr. HAWLEY. I move t-<> amend the title by inserting after tbe 

word " act" the words " of J nne 12, 1866; " so as to read: "A bill 

doolaratory of the meaning of the act of June 12 . 1866, entitled. 'An 

act for the relief of Maria Syphax.' '' 

The amendment was agreed to. 

PUBLIC BUILDING AT FORT WA YXE. 

Mr. VAN WYCK. Mr. President--

?!Ir. VOORHEES. I ask the Senator from Nebraska _to be kind 

enough to yield to me to pass a bill of purely local importance, but the 

necessity for which is pressing. The bill was reported last session 

unanimously by the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. It 

is Order of Busin~ 871, Senate bill 2084. 

The ?REsiDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Nebraska. 

yield to the Senator from Indiana ? 

l\Ir. VANWYCK. Yes, sir, I yield; though I suppose the bill I have 

in charge will not take long. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana mons that 

the Senate proceed to the consideration of Order of Business 871; being 

the bill (S. 2084) to amend chapter 464 of the acts of the first session 

of the Forty-seventh Congress, entitled "An act to provide for a pub· 

lie building at the city of Fort Wayne, in the State of Indiana.'' 

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

Whole, proceeded to consider the bill. It proposes to increase the lim.i .. tation from 100,000 to $175,000. 

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

be engro ed for a third reading, read the third time, and pa ed. 

ORDER OF BUSINES . 

1\Ir. VAN WYCK. Mr. President--

M'r. PIKE. Will the Senator yield to me a moment? 

1\Ir. VA...~ WYCK. If I can do so without seeming to be intruding on the enate. 

Mr. PLUMB. Let me say that I think it would better subserve the 

convenience of the Senate to go on and finish the bill in charge of the 

Senator from Nebraska. It will take but a moment,-an4 I wish to say 

for myself that I want to be here when it is passed. 

The PR~IDE~T pro tempore. It is the duty of the Chair to say 

that debate i not in order. Does the Senator .fi'Om Nebraska yield to 

the S'enator from New Hampshire? • . Ur. COCKRELL. I . rise to a point of order, and that is whether one Senator can take the :floor and then farm out· the business of the 

Senate to other? I opject to that mode of doing busin 

Mr. VAN WYCK. I shall have to go on. The PRESIDENT pro ternpor·e. The Chair thinks the point of order 

of the Senator from Missouri is well taken if the state of the case would 

warrant it as a matter of fact. The Chair only thought, accordin.g, to . 

the usual courtesy of the Senate, that it was his duty to recognize the 

Senato'r from Nebraska in p~efru·ence to any one else. 

~L.A.WFUL OCCUPANCY OF PUBLIO L.A:YD 

1\Ir. VAN WYCK. I move the consideration of Calendar nllDlber 

993, being the bill (H. R. 5479) to prevent unlawful occupancyofthe 

public lands. 

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

motion of the Senator from Nebraska. 

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

of the bill. 

The PRESIDEXT pro temp01·e. The question i , Shall the amendments be engroSded and the bill read a third time? But it is still open 

to amendment. . · 

Ur. PLUUB. At the time the consideration of this bill was con· eluded yesterday the Senator from Michigan [Mr. CONGER] had mad& a uggestion in rega.rd to an amendment to the first section. While I 

did not think then and do not now think that is necessazy, at the same • time, to make more specific the meaning of this section, I will move to 

add in line 10, after the word" faith," the words" with a view to entry 

thereof;" o as to read: 

Or au asserted right thereto by or unde1· claim. made in good faith with a view to entry thereof at the proper land office. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The que. tion is on the amendment 

proposed by the Senatol' from Ka.nsas. The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. VEST. I ask the Senator in charge of the bHl a to the language 

used in lines 10 and 11 of section 2, where it is provided: 

And the persons guilty of the violation as neru·ly as DlftY be, a,:1d by descrip- tion if the name can not on rea ona.ble inquir:y be a certained, to institute a civil suit in the pro~r Unit d States district or circuit court. · 

Under the Constitution the Territorial courts are not United tates 

courts. Every lawyer understands that the laJ?.guage here used would 

confine jurisdiction over these proceedings to the district or cil·cuit 

courts of the United States, which are not in the Territories at all. I 

would suggest an amendment to cov-er this point: In lin_e 11 o~ section ·2 say "the proper United State distiict or circuit or Territorial district court," because the evil that this bill seeks to remedy is in the 

Territories where the district and circuit coru·t.s ha•c no jurisdiction. 

1\'Ir. VANWYCK. There is no objection to the snggestion of the 

Senator from Missouli. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment of the Senator 

from 1\.Iissouri will be read. _ The CHIEF CLERK. In secLi.on 2, line 11, after the word ' court ., it 

i proposed to insert "or Territorial district court;" s<>·as to read: 

To institute a. civil suit in the proper United States district or circuit court or Territorial di trict court .. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tem.pore. The question is on agreeing to th1 

amendment. 

The amendment was agreed to. . 

Mr. VEST. In line 15 of the s~me ection the arne amendment 

will follow as a matter of course. · 

The PRESIDENT pro te-mpore. The Senator from ~Iissouri moves to insert after the word ''court,'' in line 15 of section 2, the words '' or Territoria1 district court.'' 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Ur. VEST. In section 3, I desire to call the attention of the Senator 

having charge of this bill to the mtheruncerta,in and nebulous language 

used in the pro-viso. Section 3 provides: 

That no peraon, by force, threats, intimidation, or by any fencing or ioclos· rue, or auy other unlawful means, shall prevent or obstruct or 'shaH combine 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECOitD-SENATE. 1479 

a~d confederate with others to prevent or obstruct any person from peaceably entering upon or establishing a settlement or residence on any tract pf public 

land subject to settlemtnt or entry unde~· the publio-Ia.nd laws of the United Stat~s, or shall prevent or obstruct free passage or transit over or through the 

public lands. ' 

Kow the proviso reads: 

Provided, This section shall not a pply to per-sons who have gone upo.p., improved, or oroupied said lands Qllder the land laws of the United States, claim- rug title thereto in good faith. 

As a matter of course a person who has goneon the public lands nn- dera coloroftitle orwith an honest claim underthelawsofthe United 

States iS not likely to confederate and with violence or by unlawful means prevent other persons from coming there. I suggest that the 

proviso be modified to read as follows: 

Pro1:ided, That this section shall not be held to affect the right or title of per- sons who have gone on, improved, or occupied said lands. 

I understand the meaning of the proviso to be to protect honest b01ui 

jkle settlers who have gone on the public lands claiming a homestead or pre-emption right. -

Mr. VAN WYCK. Does the Senator think the phraseology there 

used does not meet the case suggested? 

Mr. VEST. Yes. Suppose that should go into court for legal con- struction. Are yon to hold that it means that persons who go there 

claiming homestea-ds and pre-emptions should have the right by force, 

intimidation, or unlawful means to keep off other people? I take it 

the committee means that the right or title under the land laws of the 

United States of the honest bona fide pre-emption or homestead settler 

shall not be affected by this legislation. That I suppose is the mean- ing. 

Mr. VANWYCK. That is the Intention, and I think the language 

would give that meaning. _ If the Senator thinks he can make it clear, 

I shall be happy to accept the amendment. 

1\Ir. VEST. I am a friend of the bill; I want it to pass; but I should 

like it to pass without danger of litigation hereafter in reouard to these 

terms. 

1\-fr. VAN WYCK. Will the Senator repeat his amendment? 

Mr. VEST. Strike out in line 9 of section 3, after the word" not," 

the words "apply to " and insert " be held to affect the right or title 

of." , The PRESIDENT pro· tempore. The amendment proposed will be 

read. · 

The CHIEF CLERK. In section 3, line 9, after the word "not, 'it is 

proposed to strike out the word_s " apply to " and insert "be held to 

affect the right or title of;" so a:s to read: 

Provided, This section shall not be held to affect the right or title of persons who h1n-e gone upon, improved, or occupied said lands. 

The amendment was agreed to. . . The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read 

a third time. 

The bill was read the third time, and passed. 

EDWAY A. GR.ANT. 

1\Ii.'. PIKE. I desire to call up Order of Business 733,be-!ng the bill 

(S. 1972) for the relief of Ed way' A. Grant, not for the purpose of asking its passage, but to move its indefinite postponem·ent. 

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

Whole, proceeded to consider the bill. . _ 

:Mr. PIKE. I move that the bill be indefinitely postponed. The reason of this is, that since the Committee on Claims reported the bill 

favorably I am informed by the claimant that his claim has been adjusted at the Post-Office Depadment, and lie does not desire further 

action. I move that the bill be indefinitely postponed. 

The motion was agreed to. _ 

Mr. PIKE. I offer the following order for returning the papers to 

the claimant: 

< Ordel'ed, That Edway A. Grant have leave to withdraw from the files of the 

Senate the papers relating to his claim. 

The order was agreed to. 

ORDER OF BUSISES . 

1\Ir. COCKRELL. I gave notice yesterday that I should ask the 

Sen:lte to-day to take up and consider in consecuti•e order.the House 

bills reported favorably by the Senate committees. I stated yesterday 

that there were only forty-nine of these bills on the Calen:dar. One 

has been passed this morning, which leaves only forty-eight. I have 

looked over them all, and I am satisfied that the unobjected cases will 

Possibly not occupy much longer than an hour and a half or two hours. 

I think we can finish nearly all the unobjected cases in one morning. 

It will be a great relief to all the Senators to ha-ve this done. . 1\Ir. HARRIS. Consider them under Rule VITI? 

1\Ir. COCKRELL. Consider them nnder Rule VIII, whereby one objection will carry. a bill over. . · . 

1\Ir. BLAIR. What is the first number? Can the Senator give us 

the first Calendar number? . 

Mr. COCKRELL. It is on page 11 of the Calendar. I have all of 

them marked. . The PRESIDEl.~T pro tempore. The Senator from l\Iissouri asks _unanimous consent that House bills on the Calendar be taken up in 

.their order and be considered as under Rule VIII. Is there objection?._ 

1\Ir. WILSON. I object to that. • 1\Ir. McMILLAN. Theproposition, I understand, wastotakeupths case subject to objection. A single objection would then put them over. Mr. CAMERON, of 'Visconsin. Certainly; the Senator from Missouri asks that they be taken. up under Rule Vill, and under Rule Vlli a single objection puts a bill over. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. But under Rule Vill the Senate by a majm;ity can proceed with the consideration of any bill that is objected 

to. Does the Senator from Missouri intend to have that part~f-the rule 

apply, or only to take up bills not subject to objection? 

1\Ir. COCJ{RELL. Subject to discussion llhder five minutes' debate. · The PRESIDENT p ro tempore. Is there objecti~n ? 

1\Ir. WILSON and others objected. . The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection the Senator 

from Iowa who has risen will proceed. 

Mr. WILSO~. I wish to state in this connection that on the 19th 

day of March, 1884, the Committee on Public Land3 reported a bill (S. 

1886) to quiet title of settlers on the Des ~Ioines River lands, in the 

State of Iowa, and for other purposes. That bill has now won its way 

to the head of the Calendru·, under Rule VIII, and it has occupied that 

position for some time. It. has given away now and then from time to 

time on the request of Senators, until it is growing so late in the session 

that it will be almost impossible to expect fuyorable action in the House 

of Representatives should it pass the Senate, unless it be acted on now; 

and, therefore, until some disposition i made of that bill, I must 

object. • The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is made. The Chair lays 

before the Senate the Calendar under Rule VIII. 

Ur. COCKRELL. I call for the regular order. · - . 'l'he PRESIDENT pro tempore. The regular order is the Calendar 

under Rule VIII. FOREIGN-LABOR -~TRACTS. 

1\Ir. BLAIR. I m·ove that the Senate now proceed to consider Order 

of Business 863, being the bill (H. R. 2550) to prohibit the importation 

and migration of forcigners and aliens under contract or agreement to 

perform labor in the United States, its Territories, and the District of 

Columbia. , The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire moves_ that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of the bill 

named_ by hiJll. The question is on agreeing to the motion. 

Se,'eral Senators addressed the Chair. · The PRE.SIDE!\TT pro temp01·e. Debate is not in order. 

Mr. BLAIR. I withdraw the motion, as I am informed--

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Debate. is not in order. 

Mr. BLAIR. Is it in order to withdraw the motion? 

The PRESIDE...~ pro tempore. . It is. 

Mr. BLAIR I ask unanimous consent to give my reason for so doing. 

-Mr. PLUMB and Mr. COCKRELL. I object. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is made~ and the Senator 

from New Hampshire can not proceed. The motion is withdrawn. 

The Calendar under Rule VIII is before the Senate. _ 1\Ir. COCKRELL. I call for the regular ~rder. 

PUBLIC LAND LAWS. 

Mr. DOLPH. I move to take up Order of Business 1001, being -House 

bill7004, which has been partly considered by the Senate. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon moves .that 

the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Order of Business 1001, 

being the bill (H. R. 7004) to repeal all laws providing for the preemption of the-public lands and the laws allowing entries for timber 

culture. The question is on agreeing to the motion. 

Mr. ALLISON. I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion. 

Mr. OOCKRELL. And I join you. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Debate is not in order. On this 

question the yeas and nays are called foL Is there a second? 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. HARRISON. Will the Chair state the question? · The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The que::."'·tion is on agreeing to the 

motion of the Senator from Oregon that the Senate now proceed to the 

consideration of Order of Business 1001, being House bill 7004, on which 

motion the yeas and nays have beeJ?. ordered. - The question being t aken by yeas and nays~ resulted-yeas 151 nays 

36; as follows: 

YEAS----15. 

Cameron of Wis. , Ilarrison, :t.lc1\Iillll-n, Platt;, 

Dolph, Hawley, 1\Iiller of U'l.l., Sawyer, 

Edmunds, Hoar, Miller ofN. Y. , Sher,ruan. 

George, Lapham, Pike, 

NAYS-36. 

Allison , Chace, Ingalls, . Plumb, 

Bayard, Cockrell, Jackson, Pugh, 

Beck, Coke, Jonas; Sabin, 

Blair, Conger, McPherson, Saulsbury, 

Bowen, Cullom, l\!anderson, Sewell, 

Brown, Frye, l\1axey, Slater, 

Butler, Garland, Mitchell, Vance, 

Call, Hampton, Morgan, _,, oorhees. 

Camden, Harris, Morrill, Wilsun. 
1480 OONGRESSIONAL'-· RECORD-· SENATE. FEBRUARY 10, 

.A.BSEXT-25. 

Aldrich, Gorman, 

l.'ameron of Pa., Groome, ~Jolquitt, Hale, 

l>awes, Hill 

J:.'o.ir, Jon~s ofFlofida, 

Fal'ley, Jones of Nevada, Gib on, Kenna, 

So the motion wa not agreed to. 

Lamar, 

Logan, 

Mahone, 

Palmer, 

Pendleton, 

Ransom, 

Riddle berger, 

. • EFFICIENCY OF THE ARMY. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I caJ.l for the regular order. 

VanWyck, 

Vest, 

'\Valker, 

Williams. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Order of Business 394, being the bill 

(S. 1420) tb increase the efficiency of the Army of the United States, 

will now be laid before the Senate. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I object to its consideration. 'l'he enator who 

1·eported it is not present. . . The PRESIDE~T pro tempore. Tho ~ill goes over. 

DES IOIN"E" RIVER LA.NDS. 

The bill (S. 1886) to quiet title of settlers on the Des Uoines 'River 

lands, i.ri. the State of Iowa, and for other purposes, was announced as next in order; and the ·senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed 

its Consideration. 

The PRESIDENT pro te{npore. 'l~:s bill has been read and the reading of the report was called for. The Secretary will1·esume the reading of the report of the .Committee on Public Land. where it was suspended on a former occasion. 

The Secretc'll'y Tesumed the reading of the report, submitted by Ur. 

PLUMB~ from the Committee on Public Lands, AprilS, 1884. 

MI-. LAPHA:\1. I ask the Secretary at what page he is reading. 

The PRESIDEl~T pro tempore. About the middle of page 16. The 

reading will proceed. 

The Secretary resumed and continued the reading of the report till 

1 o'clock. . ThePRESIDENTpro temzm·e. Thehourofl o'clockhavingarrived 

it becomes the duty of the Chair to lay before the Senate the unfinished 

business of yesterday, being the bill (H. R. 49i6) for the retirement and 

recoinage of the ti·ade-dollar. •. Mr. PLUMB. I ask UJ.lanimous consent that the special order may 

be laid as:idesothatthereportinthis ca e, thereadingofwhichhasnow 

been nearly completed, may. be concluded, in order that at the next 

sitting of the Senate when the bill come up the bill itself may be con- sidered. , · 

MT. MORRILL. I hope the 'enator from~ ew York [Mr. LAP HAll] 

will forego the further reading of the report;. Manifestly it is a baro 

consumption oftinle; nobody is paying any attenUon to the reading of 

it; and I do ·not t.hink we have any time to waste in this way. I hope 

the consumption of furtller time in 1<-eading a document that all of us are fam.i.llitr with. will not be insisted on by the Senator from New 

York. · The PRESIDENT pro tempore. TheSenatorfr~mKan..,asasksunanimous consent that the pending order be laid aside informally until. the 

Secretary concludes the Teading of the report. Is there objection? 

MI-. LAPH.UI. I object. 

COL~AGE OF SILVER DOLI...ARS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is made, and the bill (H. 

R. 4976) for the retirement and Tecoinage of the trade-dollar i before 

the Senate as in Committee of the Whole. Thequestionisonagreeing 

to the motion of the Senator from Kansas (Mr. nwALL] to amend the 

amendment repoTted by the Committee on Fi~ance by strildng out sec- tion 5 of the amendment. 

Mr. MORRILL. I do not ee the euatoT from Ohio [lli. SHERMA~] 

who is entitled to the floor in his seat at this moment, :md I ask that 

the bill be passed over, to be taken up to-morrow. 

The PRESIDENT pro iellli_Pore. The Senator from Vermont moves that the further consideration of this bill be postponed until to-morrow. 

lli; PLU.Mll. I move that the special order be laid aside informally, 

in m·der that the reading of the report in the Des Uoine Rive~ bill may 

be completed. · The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. That ·motion· i not in order. 

Mr. MORRILL. l move to lay the pending order aside until tomorrow. The Senator from Ohio [~fr. SHERM~~] does not appear to 

be in his seat. · · The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The enator from Vermont moves tbat the pending bill be postponec1 until to-morrow. 

The motioll was agreed to. 

PESSIO.N APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. ALLIS~. I ask the Senate no.w to finish the pension appropTiation bill. 

Mr. PLUMB. I mo>e, if the Senator from Iowa will withdraw his 

motion for that purpose-- · The PRESIDENT pJ·o tempore. The Chair will state the question. 

The Senator from Iowa. moyes that the Senate now proceed to the con- flideration of the bill (H. R. 7785) making appropriations for the payment of inYalid and other pen ions of the United State. for the fiscal 

year ending June 30, 1886, and for other purpose . The question is on 

agreeing to the motion. • The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumecl the considel'ation 

of the bill (H. R. 7785) making appropriations for the payment of invalid and other pensions of the United States for the :fiscal year ending 

June .30, 1886, and for other purposes. 

The PRESIDENT pro temp01·e. The next amendment made as in 

Committee of the Whole will be reported. . The SECRETARY. The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, in sec- tion 1, line 34, before the word ''agents,' 1 struck out' 1 twelve'' and inserted ''eighteen;'' and in line 35, after the word ''each, 1 ' struck out 

"forty-eight'" and in ·eited " e•enty-two;" so a to read: 

For the salaries of eighteen agents for the payment·or pensions, at 000 each, 

$72,000 . . 

-The amendment was concurred in. 

The next amendment made as in Committee of the Whole was, in 

section 1, after the word '' dollars, ' in line 36, to trike out the follow- in~ clau e: · 

And fromandafter'July 1,1885, the1·e shall be no more than twelve agents for 

the payment of pensions,. and it shall be the duty of the President, and he is 

hereby authorized and directed, to reduce the pen ion agents to not exceeding the number aforesaid; and so much of section 4778 and 4780 as is in conflict with this provision be, and the same is hereby, repealed. 

)fi. COCKRELL. . I raise the point· of order that in the amendment of 

the Committee on Appropriations there is general legislation and can n9t l;>e entertained. 

The PRESIDENT 1Jro itmpore. The Chair overrules the point of 

order {)n the ground that the amendment proposed by the Committee on Appropriation takes legislation out of the bill, instead of leaving it 

in. The q\testion is on concurring in the amendment made as in Committee of the \\lbole. 

The amendment was concuned in. 

The next amen!lment·made as in Committee of the Whole was, in 

section 1, line 44, after the word "lights," to stl'ik"e out "and;" in 

l~e 46, after the word '' pe.nsioners, '' to insert ''stationery, and other 

necessary expenses, to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior;" 

and before ''thou ancl, ' in line 4 , to strike out ''fifty-three'' and insert '' fifty- ix; ' so as to read: 

For fees for preparing youcher , rent, fuel, lights, postage on letter to the 

EXecutive D~partments and to pensioners, station~ry, and other nece <mry 

expe11 es, to be approved by the SeCJ·etary of the Interior, $?..56,000. 

The amendment was concurred in. 

The next amendment made a.<> in Committee of the :Whole was, ·in 

section 1, line 48, after the word " after," to strike out " Marc~ 4 " 

a:nd insert "June 30;" and after the word "available,' at the end of 

line 5!5, to trike out: · 

And hereafter the mode and manner provided by law aml1·egulalions for the 

payment of white per ons entitled to pensions shall apply to and goyeru tbe 

payment of nll pensioners. 

So as to make the proviso Tead: 

Provided, ·,.rhat from and after June 30, 1:885, 'the salary and emoluments of 

agents for tbe payment of pensions shaJI be $4,000,- and no more., per annum; auu of t-bc fees~rovided by law for youchers prepared and paid, only so much 

thereof as may be require<! fm: cxpen es incurred in having said vouchers pre-· pared, as well a the necessaryclcri~al work at the agencie ,.shall be a'\"ailabJe. 

The amendment was concurred in. 

The next amendment made as in Committee of the Whole wa~ to 

strike out lines 59 and 60, as follows: 

For contingent expen es of pension agenciel'!, ... 3,000. 

The amendment was concurred in. 

The next; amendment made as in Committee of the Whole was to 

strike out section 2., in the follo-vting words: 

SEc. 2. That no agent, attorney, or other person shall demand or receiYe any fee for his services in pension, arrears of pension, or bounty-land claim until 

the' allowance of the claim. 

:Mr. ALLISON. The striking out of all the e~tion fro:m: ection 2 

to the end of the bill is one amendment. 

Mr. SHER~[4N. It ought to be read. . Mr. ALx-ISO~. It has been read through; it was read through in 

Committee of the Whole. I suppose tho Senator may require another 

rending, but it was read through in Committee of the Whole yesterday. 

l\Ir. SHERMAN. The Senate was not full yesterday. 

The PRE"'IDENT pro tempore. The· Chair thinks that althollgh all 

the secUons from 2 to 10, both inclusive, are stricken out, the striking 

out of each section is an amendment of itself, and therefo1·e the Chair 

will be bound to put the question on striking out each section. The 

question is on the am.endmen~ of the Committee of the Whole triking 

out section 2, which will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read section 2, as follows: 

SEO. 2. That no agent, attorney, or other person shall demand. or receive any 

fee for hls services in pension, arrears of pension, or bounty-land claims until 

the allowance of the claim: • 

The amendment was concurred in. 

1\Ir. SHERMAN. The Senalor from Kansas [~I.r. I~GAl L ] ex- pressed a desire to take the sense of the Senate on some of these legislative provisions! The bill came up suddenly without his knowledge, 

and he, supposing the regular order would go on, is not present. I have no objection to baving tbese sections laid over. It i but fair be should 
1885. CONGRESSIONALJREC.ORD-SENrAJl'E. 

be present. I know he desires to retain some of these sections, but I am not f~miliar with his views on the subject. I know he wishes to 

mise the question. 

Mr. DAWES. I understood the Senator from Kansas wished to test 

the sense of the Senate on the legislation in the bill, but ihat question 

was determined yesterday. I construe the vote of the Senate yestetday as a determination to strike but and not amend the legislation in the 

bill. 

Mr. SHERMAN. The 'e'! first legislative section in the bill provides: 

· SEc. 2. That.no agent,. attorney, or other person shall dema.nd o1· receive any fee for his se1·vices in pension, arrears of pension, or bounty-land Claims untH the allowance of the claim. · 

I believe that was the old law until it was repealed at the last ses-

~~ . 

Mr. ALLISO~. Though not the law now, it was the law up to 

1878 from the beginning, I believe, of the pension legislation. .In 1878 

ihe fee was reduced in all cases to $10, and an attorney could collect .the fee at any time; but in 1884: the legislation ·on the pension appropriation bill provided that no attorney's fee should be paid except out 

of the claim. So this is a re-enactment of the law as it stands now, so far as section 2 is concerned. · Mr. SHERl\IAN. The Senator from Kansas _[Mr. INGALLS] is now present. He and the chairman of the Committee on Pe:J;lSions are much more familiar with these provisions than I am. The Senator from 

Kansas desired to raise some question on the legislative proyisions ·of 

the bill. He· can -now uo so. · • The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The next amendmen.t will be ·read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. The next amendment made as in Committee of 

the Whole was to strike out section 3, in the following word : 

SEC. 3. That all fees i~1 pension claims shall be paid by the agent for paying }Jcnsions out of the firgt iustallmentofpensionduetheclaimant; and no agent, 

attorney, or other persons shall receive any fee for hls services in a pension claim, except tln-ough the agent for paying }>ensions. 

The amendmen as concurred in. 

The next amendment made as in Committee of the Whole was to 

stTike out section 4, in t~e following words.: 

SEc. 4. That the fee in all i>ension, arrears of pension, or bounty-laud cfaims 

shall be$10, except in cases of special wTittcn contract, filed in th.el'ension Office 

and approved by the Commis;oionel' of Pensions, as hereinafter provided. The 

claimant may contract with his attorney of 1·ec.ord, in writing, in such form as the Commissioner of Pensions may prescl'ibe, for a fee to an amount not ex- ceeding S25, except in claimli for increase of pension where no new disability is 

alleged, in ~es of pensions for sen·ice, and in all claims filed in the Pension 

Office after June 28, 1878, ·and prior to the 4th day of ,July, 1884, in which cases DO fee above $10 shall be contracted for; and in all claims filed J.>l'iOr to the pa_s- sage of this act the ~ttorney shall file a statement, un!ler oath, duly attested, set- ting forth the amount of fee all-eady received by him, and the. amount already 

t·eceh:ed hall be deducted fr·om the fee allowed by this act. 

The amendment was concurred in. 

The next amendment made as in Committee of the Whole was to 

strike out section 5, as follows: 

• SEo. 5. That the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe rules and regulations 

governing the recognition or agents, attorneys, or other persons 1:epresenting claimants before his Department, and may require of such persons, agents, and 

attorneys; before being recognized as representatives of claimants, that they shall show that they a1·e of good moral character and in good reput~, possessed of the necessuyqualifications to enable them to rendersuchclaimantsvaluable 

service and otherwise competent to advise and assist such claimants in the pres- entation of their cases; and such Secretary maf 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 rules and regulations, o1· who shall in any manner deceive, mislead, or tlweaten any claimant or presumptive claimant by word, circular, letter, or by advertisement. . 

The amendment was concurred in. 

The next amendment made as in Committee of the "Whole was to 

strike out sectiOJ?. 6, as follows: 

· SEc. G. That any agent or attorney or other pm'Son instrumental in prosecut- ing any claim for pension, or anears thereof, who shall directly or indirectly contract for, demand, or receive and l'etajn any compensation for his services or insti·umentality fov prosecuting a claiJ?-1 for pension, or arrears thereof, grea t~r 

than is herein provided, or in any other manner than herein provided, or shall 

willfully or knowingly make a false statement in regru:d to the amount of fee 

ah·eady received, shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and, upon con- viction thereof, shall for every such offense be fined not exceeding 1,000, or be 

confined at hard labor not exceeding two years, or both, at the discretion oft.lte 

court, and be f01·e-.;-er afterward debaned from practicing before the Pension 

Office. 

The amendment was concurred in. 

The next amendment made as in Committee of the Whole was to 

strike out section 7, as follo"Ws: 

SEc. 7. Thal no agent or attorney shall either demand or receive, on account of the pro. ecution of any claim provided for under the provisions of this act, whe~e such claim was fi\ed after the 28th day of June, 1878, and prior to the 4th 

day of July, 1884., any fee 01· sum of money in excess of $1.0 · nor shall said $10, or any part thereof, be paid to any agent o1· attOl'ney until he 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 affidavitt or in any other way, that 

all or any parf of said no has been paid, itshall be deaucted therefrom and the 

residue, if any, shall be paid to such attorney as hereinbefore provided: Prouided, Thn.~ this act shall not be so construed as to interfere with any contt·acts, entered 

inoo fairly and without fraud or duress, t'or the prosecution of claims filed after 

the ~th day of July, 1884, and prior to the passage of this ad; and that any per- lllOD who shall violate tl"Je provisions of this act shnll be, upon conviction, pun- il;hed as pronded in tile sixth se<!tion of thu act. 

The :-tmendment was concurred in. · 

The next amendment made as in Committee of the Whole was to 

stlike out section 8, as follows: 

SEc. 8. That this act shall not be so construed as to prohibit any claimant the 

prosecution ofwhose claim has beenbereooforeabandoned 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: Prof>idtd, That if such new attorney successfully prosecute such claim, that 

the original attorney or agent shall not be allowed to demand or receive any 

part thereof, under the penalties of the sixth section of this act. 

The amendment was concurred in. . The next amendment made as in Committee of the. Whole was to 

strike out section 9, as follows: 

SEc. 9. That he1:eafter no person or perso;lS who may have been heretofore en- gaged in the prosecution of pension or bounty-land claims of any characte1· what- soever, and who may have heretofore collected on account thereof auy sum what- ever, shall be allowed to sell, assign, convey, or make over to any other person 

any such claim or claims, so as t-hat it shall be lawful for any vendee or assignee of such claim or claims to demand or receive any other or greater fee than is hereinbefore provided for; nor shall such vendee or assignee be allowed tore- ceive anything therefor until the vendor o1· assignor of such claim or claims, if a liTe, shall make and file in the office of the Commissioner of Pensions the affidavit provided for in the fourth section of this ad; and any person or persons who 

shall violate the provisions of this section shall be subject to the penalties imposed by the sixth section of this act: Provided, That the provisions of this act authorizing contracts for a fee of $25 shall be limited to attorneys 01· agents re- siding ln 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 the claimant is resident to enter into part- nership with or otherwise to divide the fee of $25 wjth any attorney or agent 

residing in the District of Columbia. 

-The amendment was concurred in. 

The next amendment made as in Committee of the .Whole ~as to 

strike out section 10, as follows: 

SEc. 10. That all the provisions of the act 111aking appropriations for the pay- ment of invalid and other pensions of the United States for the fiscal year ending June 30,1885, and for other purposes, approved July4, 1884, 1·elating to claim agents and attorneys in pension cases, are hereby repealed: Prov-ided, That as to otl"enses committed under said act all the provisions thereof shall remain in 

full force. 

The amendment was concurred in. 

'l'he PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. The bill is still open to a~endment. 

:Ur. INGALLS. I understand that the Senate by its action yesterday resolved upon the subject of general legislation upon general ap- propriation bills to be hereafter Yirtuous; that there should be no more cakes nor-ale, and tha~ ginger should not be hot in the mouth. I should 

like to ask the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the Committee on ApprQpriations, whether he regards the action of' the Senate yesterday; 

as exptessing the sense of this body, binding upon that committee that 

herea_fter there shall be no legislation admitted upoh these bills? - Mr. ALLISON. I certainly regard the action of the Senate yesterday as requiring the Committee on Appropriations as well as the Senate 

to ol>sern the rnle as it was interpreted. "'bile, of course, I can not 

speak for all the members of the Committee on Appropriations as to 

how they may vote ~pon special questions, for myself I believe the 

Comn!ittee on Appropriations practically to be instructed to report these 

bills without legis~ation. 

:M:r. INGALLS. And that there is to be nosurrender in committees. 

of confe1·ence? I a k whether the instruction goes that far? 

Mr. ALLISON. I can only speak for myself, as I say. 

1\Ir. INGALLS. Sproking as the organ of the committee. 

1\Ir. ALLISON. For myself I regard the action of yesterday as re- quiring a committee of conference on the part of the Senate not to 

report legislation here without the instrnct.ions of the Senate. 

1\Ir. INGALLS. And that the conference committees are to adhere 

to the instructions even if th-e appropriation bill shonld fail? 

Mr. ALLISON. They would, of course, in that event probably take 

the advice of the Senate. I certainly would not undertake to force an extra ses,sion of Congress-by the failure of appropriation bills without 

taking the advice of the Senate. But I repeat tillit as a member of a conference com'!llittee, if the presiding officer of this. body should ever appoint me upon such a committee, I should not feel, after the -vote of 

yesterday, that I was permitted to agree to legislation upon appropriation bills. 'Mr. INGALLS. Without furthe1· order from the Senate? 

Mr. ALLISON . . Yes. 

1\ir. INGALLS. There appears to have been some discrimination 

exercised by the Committee on Appropriations in t.heir report u_pon this 

bill. Some of the general legislation that came to us from the House 

of Representatives has been stricken out; other. of that legislation the 

committee have allow:ed to stand. I am unable to seewhy, if'the rule 

is to be applied, it should not be applied uniformly. I will, therefore, 

ask the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the Committee on Appro- · priations, whether the matter contained upon page 2, ~line 18, after 

the word " dollars " to and including the word " made . in line 29, is 

not general legislation ? . · 

.M:r. ALLISON. I will state to the Senator from Kansas that it w.as 

not so regarded by the committee. It is open, I think, however, to the 

criticism of the Senator from Kansas, inasmuch :~s the word ''hereafter '' 

is inserted in line 18. If that word shonld be stricken out, the provision would in no sel'lSe be legislation. It is a mere regulation of the 

appropriation of $500,000 for fet>s and expenses of examining surgeons. 
1482. CONGRESSIONAL · RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 10, 

Mr. L'fllGAL.LS. Let me ask theSenatorifthe provisofi;'omlines23 

to 29 is nQt general legislation? 

llr. ALLISON. I do not .so regard it. It is a mere regulation as to 

how the appropriation of $500,000 shull be expended.. 

Mr. INGALLS. Is not the proviso which closes t:p.e paragraph, from 

lines 29 to 33, general legislation? :Ml'. ALLISON. 'that might be so construed, although it is claimed 

by many good lawyers that that is the law now. But I will say to the 

Senator from Kansas that although that is general legislation, for one I was not willing to report the bill with that provision stricken out. 

1\Ir.· INGALLS. 'l"'hat is, the Senator thought it was valuable and 

necessary legislation, and therefore preferred tQ leave it in. 

Mr. ALLISON. No, sir; not precisely that. The Senate ha twice 

passed that provision as a bill separately. Of course the Committee on Appropriations could report to strike it out, or any Senator could move to strike it out. If the Senator from Kansas thinks it ought not to be. in the bill, he can now move to strike it out. · J do not myself regard 

that clause as a change of existing law. 

Mr. INGALLS. It is a change of existing law·although it fs not a 

change of existing practice in the Pension Office. Of cam'Se it see~ 

inequitable and unjust that the Governmffilt after having mustered a soldier, subjecting him to the most rigid examination, should be all9wed, when he applied for a pension, to say that he was not sound when 

he was enlisted. After havingaccepte.d his services, it appears as though 

the Government should. be estopped from denying his soundnes o1· his 

capacity to serve. . . Up®. inquiry at the Pension Office the otherda.y, I was info:rmed by 

the Commissioner that the law is now practically interpreted in that 

way, but that it. is necessary that there should be a discretion left in 

the pension examining officers for the reason that certain disabilities 

might have existed at the time of offered enlistment which did not 

render the man unsound within· the purview of the law. That is to 

sa.y, the loss of the left eye did not render a· man incompetent to be 

mustered; the loss of a little finger was not such a disability as ren- dered him incapable of being mustered. Therefore, if the soldier now applied for a pension upon the ground of loss of left eye or of little 

finger he ought to be compelled to show that those disabilitieS were incurred in the service after his enlistment and did not exist at the time 

when he was· mustered. Obviously that is just. It appe:u to me, 

however, that the proviso contains general legislation. 

Mr. ALLISON. I move that the word ''hereafter,'' in line 18 of 

section 1, be stricken out after the word" and;" so a to read: "And 

each memQer of each examining board sha.ll," &c. 

The PRES!! ST pro tempoTe. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment of the Senator from Iowa. · The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. JACKSON. I understand from the Senator from Iowa that he 

keeps in the provisQ found from line 30 to line 33, which is certainly new legislation, and that is retained in the bill because the Senate has 

heretofore expressed its judgment that it is proper legislation. 

!Ir. ALLISON. To what line does the Senator refer? 

11Ir. JACKSON. The proviso from line 30 to line 33. I undei'Stood 

the Senator to state that that new legislation was retained by tbe com- mittee because it had received the sanction of the Senate beretQfore in 

separate bills that had covered that provision. 

Mr: ALLISON. "No; the Senator misunderstood me. The Senator 

from Kansas interrogated me upon this point, and I stated to him that 

the Committee on Appropriations undeJ:Stood this to be a mere asser- tion of the law as it now exists, and therefore we did not choose t~ rec- ommend that it be stricken out. ·or course any Senator can make a motion to strike it out. 

Ur. JACKSON. It is cle.'lrly new legisiation. Instead of mo~g 

to strike it out, I ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to add as an 

amendment the bill the enate passed last Friday on the subject ot 

pension fees. · · . 

Mr. ALLISON. That relates to that part of the bill f<lund on 'page 

4 and the succeeding pages. ~!r. JACKSON. Yes, sir. It seems to tme that when the Senate 

referred that bill to a committee of this body, when it reCeived its 

investigation and sanction, and then was unanimously adopted by the 

Senate, consent ought to be given to allow it as an amendment to this 

bill rather than tb..'lt the legislation should fail. I ask the consent of 

the Senate that the bill passed by the Senate may be taken as an amendment to the pension appropriation bill. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Let the amendment be read. · 

Mr. JACKSON. The amen~ent I propose is the bill that was passed by the Senate on Friday. 

The PRESIDENT pro temp(Yre. The Senator from Tennessee asks 

unanimous consent that the bill be amended by adding thereto what 

will now be read by the Chief Clerk. · The Chief Clerk proceeded to read the matter contained in Senate 

bill No. 2511. 

Mr. ALLISON. The Chief Clerk is not reading the bill as it was . passed.by the Senate on Friday. At the close of the second section·we inserted the words "under such regulations as the Comni:issioner.of 

Pensions may prescribe.'' 

lli. JACKSON. I sent to the d~ the reprint of the bill, and I 

supposed it contained the exact amendments that were adopted by the 

Senate. 

The ·PRESIDENT pro tempore. The paper the Senator from Tennes- see has sent to the desk. the Chair understands is not a correct reprint 

of~ bill. 

Mr. JACKSON. . My idea was to propo e the reprint with the amendments as adopted. The Secretary can procure a con·ect copy of the r - print. . 

Mr. MITCHELL. I call the Senator's attention to the fact that the 

bill as it was passed by the SenatE> w:LS incorrectly printed at first. 

After th~ incorrect print was received it was returned to the Printing 

Office, and a correct reprint is now het·e. I have a copy of the correct. reprint, which was furnished me this morning. ·1\lr. JACKSON. That i the amendment I desire to offer. Will the 

Senator from Pennsy I vania end that to the desk? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly. . 

The PRE IDEN:T pro temp01·e. The Senator from Tennessee asks 

unanimous consent that there be added to the bill as amended what. . will be read for information. 

1\I"r. DAWES. Before it is read I should like to a k the Senator from 

Tennessee if it is his proposal to ask the Senate unanimously to reverse the deci.sion of yesterday'! 

Mr. JACKSON. I suppose that would be the effect of the request. 

In.asmuch as some new legislation i retained in the bill that the Senate has heretofore approved, I :LSk that the Senate retain this, which the 

Senate has also appro\ed by a unanimous vote, I believe: 

1\Ir. DAWES. I hope the majority of the Senate will take notice of 

the fact that it is proposed to-day by a unanimous vote of the Senate 

to ~ndo what it did yesterday and renrse the construction put upon 

the rule yesterday, so that to-morrow we shall know exactly the opinion of the Senate upon the subject of inserting legislation in appropriation bills. Yesterday we decided that come what may there should 

be no legislation in an appropriation bill; and we ar asked now unanimously to S!l.Y that that means only such legislation s we do not like ! 

Mr. JACKSON. There is just this difference in the two cases which occurs to me, · that the amendment recommended by the Committee on Appropriations, which was stricken out yesterday on the point of order as being legislation. on an appropriation bill, had never received the sanction of the Senate and had never been considered by the Senate. My 

proposed amendment has received the sanction of the Senate; .1t ha 

been investigated by a committee of this body; it bas beeD. reported to 

the body and adopted by the body. 

Mr. DAWES. I suppose that means that it is only a question of 

time at what time we shall introduce independent legislation on an appropriation bill-that is, before it has been considered or after it has 

been considered by the Sena.te as a separate measure. Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. I do not think the SenatQr from 

Massachusetts states the case correctly. The Senate did not resolve 

yesterday that, come what may, no generallegislationsbould be placed 

upon general appropriation bills. It simply decided that under the 

rule, if objection be made, general legislation conld not be pla~ed upon 

general appropriation bills. That is all the Senate decided. 

Mr. DAWES. I understood the Senator f!om Wisconsin, whom I 

am following implicitly, to say that he understood it in the way I 

stated. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin: The Senator mis~de1'Stood me. 

Mr. DAWES. I suppose I did. . Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. The Senator from Wisconsin voted 

to give a construction to the rule as he understood it. He did not 

vote at all upon the question as to whether general legislation shall 

not be placed upon general appropriation bills~ but simply that under 

the rule as it now is if objection be made general legislation can not be 

placed upon general appropriation bills; that is all. · 

1\Ir. PLAT!'. I am opposed to general legislation on appropriation 

bills, and I am opposed to placing it there by unanimous consent. I do 

not like to be placed in a position where, to carry out my ideas of proper 

legislation, I must object to a proposition of this kind; but as my poitien is founded on principle, and as I believe it is better to adhere to 

the principle than to violate it whenever there is some legislation plX)-

posed which we desire to have enacted, I shall object. · The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MORGAN in the chair). The Senator frOm Connecticut objects to the amendment suggested by the >.:: nator from Tennessee. 

Mr. MAXEY. Mr. President, while I am opposed as much a any man in the body-and ha\e so held for the ten years I have been in 

the Senate-to legislating on appropriation bil.J.g, that is not now the 

question before us. Legislation comes from. the House to the Senate on 

an appropriation bill. It. may 'be wise legislation or it may not be. It 

may be wise but defective. The. question then comes np, can the Senate amend that legislation which has reached us from the House under their roles? It is conceded by all thatEach House shall be the judge of the el~tions, returns, and qualificatioug of 

its own members. . • 

And: 

Ea9h House may determine the rules of its proceedings. 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1483 

That is entirely clear. There is another clause in the Constitution 

which bears on the proposition: 

All hilts for raising revenue shall originate in the House or Representatives; but the Senate may prepose or concur with a.mendments as on other bills. 

It occurs to me that although each Honse may adopt rules for its 

own government, yet those rules must be consistent with the provis· 

ions of the Constitution. They can not be in conflict, but they must 

be in conformity with its provi'iions. In the only case in which t}le 

House has the exclusive right of originating a bill, a revenue bill, that 

clause itself reserves to the Senate the right to propose or concur with 

amendments as. on other bills, thereby showing conclusively that it is 

the constitutional right ofthe Senatetopro~amendments or to concur in amendments. 

That being the case, a rule, under the power given to each House to 

make its own rules, must conform to the Constitution and not violate 

it. How can a rule of this body deprive a member of the Senate or 

the Senate of th~ right of amending any bill whatever that comes here 

from the Honse? 

·So, not pretending to be a rule man, I do not believe that any rule 

can be adopted which will deprive a member of the Senate or the Senate of the right of making an amendment germane to any propOsition 

which comes to us from the House. 

As to the manner in which a bi).l should come to us from the House, 

the House determine that; we have nothing tp do with it. It is their 

business, not ours. The Constitution does not provide any specific 

method irr which a bill shall be drawn. It is perfectly true that most 

States have determined it to be wise that no bill shall relate to more 

than one subject, and that the subject shall be set forth in the caption, 

but that is not required by the Constitution. A bill comes to us. It 

matters not how it comes. It ·contains legislation, and the Senate believes that that legislation ought to be amended. The Senate has the 

right under the Constitution to amend, unless that right is destroyed by 

reason of a rule which is adopted by this body. Can a rule be made in 

such a manper as to deprive any member of the Senate of a constitu· 

tional right? I think not: · 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee .[Mr. 

JACKSON] asks the unanimous consentof"theSenatetoofferanamendment. The Senator from Connecticut [1\fr. PLATT] objects, and the 

amendment is not before the Senate. 

:!til'. INGALLS. I move to strike out the proviso after the word 

"made"in lines 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 of section 1, on the ground that 

it i general legislation. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I hope the Senate will not d9 any such thing. 

That would be carrying our new idea to an extreme extent. There is 

not a man in the Senate who doe8 not know that this provision sent to 

us by the Honse is 1·ight and just, and that it is a gross outrage and. a 

shame that a man should now at the end of twenty years be compelled 

to prove a fact. which the Government by its own officers, by its medica) examiners, admitted at the time when the soldier commenced his 

ser,;ce. He may have passed through the service,. he may haYe been 

wounded, and now he may be absolutely unable toprovethatwbenhe 

entered the service he was a well man. Although the Government cer· tifi.ed it, its medical officer found it, and his services were received and 

he performed those services, yet it may be a physical impossibility to 

prove the fact. Some cases have been brought to my attention where 

it is absolutely impossible for a man to prove the condition of his health, 

the condition of his body twenty-odd yean; ago. 

Mr. JACKSON. Will the Senator from Ohio yield to me for a mo- ment? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Certainlv. 

Mr. JACKSON. That is the rule in reference t~ privates, ·but I 

believe the officers are subjected to no examination, yet tiPs proviso in 

the bill would relate to the cases of otliceTS who are subjected to no such examination prior to enlistment. 

1\ir. SHERMAN. This is a just provision. Why hould we strike 

it out merely because all at once we find out that it is wrong to put 

legislative provisions upon an appropriation bill? We have done so 

repeatedly. I venture to say that there has hardly been a single general appropriation bill passed in the last twenty years-sometimes the 

fortification bill or some other little bill may have passed without itthat bas not had legislative p~visions in it, and we have pu,t them on ourselves time and time again. I would not carry on this farce any 

further. I shall not vote to strike out the proviso, and I shall insist. 

upon the yeas and nays. 

Mr. INGALLS. So shall I. 

Mr. SHERMAN. If we are going to do it, then let us strip these 

appropriation bills and say to .the Hou"se that they sh:ill not conect an error when theyhavemade a mistake, that they shall not do anything, 

by unanimous consent. Now, because it has been misplace-d or has not 

been dotted right, or that the t's are not crossed, or because of some other 

critical objection which is made, it is proposed to deny to the soldier a rule that is manifestly equitable, just, and right, and which we all know 

to be right. I for one shall not vote for any such proposi.tjon. · 

Mr. VOORHEES. What is the motion of the Senator from Kansas? 

I did not bear it distinctly. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chief Clerk will report it. It 

has not been reported by the Chief Clerk. 

Mr. VOORHEES. Is it to strike out the proviso entirely? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ChiefClerkwillreport the-amendment proposed by-the Senator from Kansas. 

The CHIEF CLERIC In section·l, line 29, after the word "made," 

it is proposed to strike out down to and including the word "rebutted" 

in line 33, as follows: . . Provided, That all applicants for pensions shall be presumed to have had no disability at the time of enlistment; but such presumption may be rebutted. 

Mr: VOORHEES. The Senator from Kansas moves to strike out 

the proviso which 4as been read. In that I can not agree with hfin. 

The suggestions made by the Senator from Ohio have been in my mind 

for years past, and they have been greatly strengthened within the last rew months. · 

When a soldier went to enlist in the service of his country he underwent the severest physical examination a man ever undergoes who is a 

well man. There is no such examination ever given to the human system, unless it is down prone with sickness, as the medical surgeons gave 

to the men when they were enlisted. With a certificate that the man 

was fit to fight, that he was well enough to shoulder a musket, sound 

enough to sleep on the ground, and live on hard food, he went to the 

front. I think a meaner, more contemptible spe_ctacle no government 

ever presented than that which is presented by the Government of the 

United States saying that that is not an estoppel; that it can go behind 

. that and prove that the certificate of the agent of the Government was false, and that the soldier was not a. sound man. After obtaining his 

service on the field, his exposure to death, his wounds, his blood and 

all, it can then turn around and say when he applies for a pension, 

''Despite the certificate which we gave you in order to get your serv- ices, you are not a sound man. '' ·Certain instances have come to my mind of the most shocking char· 

acter. During the last canvass of the State of Indiana, in which I was 

engaged, I remember well-! remembro· the town and the place and 

the grove where it occurred-a little Irishman came up to me to show 

me his pension papers. In looking at them I saw that the last com· 

mnnication betwee11 him and his Government was a. paper stating that 

his pension claim bad been rejected because be was not sound at the· 

time of enlistment. I asked him how long he had served. His papers 

showed he had been in the service three years and a half; he had been 

mustered out on the great campaign closing in Virginia. While talking with him I observed on his coat lapel something that· I took to be 

a silver dollar. He was so poorly dressed that I wondered he should 

have anytbiJ:Ig like an ornament upon him. I investigated and found 

that under a law which scarcely a Senator on this floor now knows 

exists, he bad been decorated by J:ris Government with a. silver medal 

given to a private by order of the War Office, and which read as follows substantially: "Presented to Micha-el Torpey for distinguished 

and conspicuous gallantry-at Edgefield Junction, Tennessee, August 22, 

1863." There stood that man crippled and warped with inflammatory rheumatism, which be. had contracted by lying upon the ground 

in the service, decorated with a medal, of which a soldier of Napoleon 

might have been proud, on one lapel of his coat and in his pocket a letter from the Commissioner of Pensions telling him that in despite 

of fift.y battles and in despite of his decoration. of honor, nobler to him 

than the cross of the Legion of Honor ever was to a soldier of Europe, 

his pension appli~tion was r~jected because he was not sound when 

he was mustered into the servjce. 

I state this f!aSe among hundreds and thousands, but I state it becau!!e it is a very strong one. The Government had had that man's 

service. He came-out broken; he came out decorated; and he was re- jected from the pension-rolls of his country. I do not know whether 

he has since succ.eeded in getting a pension. That man had been thoroughly examined, the surge.Ons had passed upon him, and he was o 

sound and his conduct so good that he received distinctions unusual in 

our service. I could detail, if! saw fit, the circumstances which called 

for this unusual attention and honor on the part of his country. He 

had been told t~ retreat from an exposed position. Although a; private he was -yirtually in eommand of a squad of men, for courage take 

command over rank in desperate situations. Hie commanding officer 

from a place of safety called upon him to come back from there or he 

would be killed. In the midst of shot falling thiek and fast he exclaimed over.his shoulder, "What are we here for except to be killed or hold this place?'' and they held it. 

Yet this Government rejects pensions on the ground ... that men like 

him, whose services were given, were not sound. I interrogated him 

a little more and I found the usual explanation, that somebody had 

testified that some time in the years gone by he had bad some rbeumatism perhaps, had been seen a little crippled up. Suppose he had, 

what care I whether he was sound or not; when a man gives such 

services as that, I shall not pause for a moment, had I the power, to 

question a man's right to a pension. Even if he had limped before he 

went into the service he earned a pension. 

I hope this clause will stand in the billasitis. Itshould have been 

in the law long before now. It is tardy justice, but it has r.omeatlast, · 

and it will stay. 

Air. FRYE. I call-the attention of the Senator from Indiana to the 

fact thatmorethanayear ago the Senate sent to theHonse a bill which 

provided that service in the Army should be prima fa cie evidence of 
1484 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 10, 

soundne , and to the additional faet that that bill has not yet become a law. 

- !Ir. VOORHEES. The Senator from Maine I suppose'is alluding to 

the amendments of what is called the M:ex:ican pension bill. 

:Mr. FRYE. I am. Mr. VOORHEES. That i a miXed-up affair, I thought unfortunately ple.sented, though the measure the ~enator speaks of was en- tirely right, and I voted for-it here. 

!ir. FRYE. Nowidesiretosayone word further, called out by the 

remarkoftheSenatorfromOhio [1\Ir. SHER:\I.A.N]. Theblame, ifthere 

is any blame, for the position in which ·the Senate is placed to-day is 

that of the Senate alone, a, majority of it.. A propo ition comes before 

the United States Senate which under the ruling'Qf. the presic;ling offi- cer can not be stricken out on objection or on a point of order; it can only be stricken ont lJy a vote on a motion to strike out: The motion 

to strike out is made, as the motion now is made in this case, and the 

presiding officer of the SeBate rules that that motion being made the 

subject-matter of it is not open to amendment; that'itmustbestricken 

out. The S~ate yesterday by .a vote on ~he yeas and nays sustained 

the presiding officer in that ruling, and be having been sustained in it 

by the Senate there is_ but one thing for the Senate to do, and that is to 

strike out. 

I respectfully contend that -the majority of the Senate was wrong; 

that 'When it was admitted that you.. can not act upon general legislation on an appropriation bill in the Senate except by a motion to strike 

out, the moment the motion to strike out is made that generallegisl:ttion is before the Senate for consideration, and there is no rule, there 

is no parliamentary law, when a matter is before a body like this for 

consideration, which pre;ents amendment . . On the conh"ary, it is open 

to amendment just so- long as any Senator in this body desires to 

amend, there being no previo.us question here. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I wish to ask myfriendfi:om Maine if he doe not 

know that there is an express rule which requires that a motion to 

amend-a clause proposed to be stricken out shall fh-st lJe put before the 

motion to strike ol1t can be put? The motion to strlkeoutthis~la-uSe 

can not be put to the Senate UBtil every Senator here has had an opportunity, according to the express rule, to niove to amend the part proposed to be stri.cken out. 

Ur. FRYE. I thank the Senator from Ohio for the suggestion. I wa.<Jgoingtoaddfurtherthatthewholespiritof~uleXVIllisthatwhen 

a motion is made to s~e out, the part moved to be stricken out shall 

be open to amendment, and it is the right of every Senator before he is 

compelled to vote on the question of whether or not a proposition shall 

be stricken out: to modifY it, to iiD:prove it, to make it satisfactory to 

himself or to the Senate before he is compelled to vote on the yeas and 

nays whether or not it shall be stricken out.·. I say·there is only one exception known to parliamentary law, and that_ is where in a body by 

its rules there i a previous question, and that previous question is 

ordered by the required vote of that body. Then amendn).ent and 

discussion are cut off; but no Senator CJlJl name another insta~ce in 

parliamentary law or in the rules of any legislative body in the United 

States of America, where a proposition is legitimately before the body 

and a motion is made to strike out a portion of that legislatiou, that 

that proposition is not open to amendment. 

So I contend respectfully that my vote was right yesterday and that · the ruling of the presiding officer was 'lil'Ong yesterday, and that the 

Senate did not avail itself of the oppo1tunity it had then to oven:ule 

that ruling qf the-presiding officer. ' 

Why, · Mr. President, the Senate by that iron rule is only going to 

put itself into the po ition in which the resolution offered by the Se:qator from Kansas three or four days ago would place it. It is only going 

to compel the Senate in· time to adopt the mle that any proposition, any amendment, germane and relevant shall be in order, for so long as the present rule abides in the other House, and ge~eral legislation comes here, Jly, even without the mle, it is in the power of tlie ma- jority of the House to put general legislation on the appropriation bills, and so long as that condition of things _exists there is no power in the 

Senate to amend. The Senate itself would in cases like the one now under question be compelled to open its own 1·ules, which I should re- gard as a very Sel'io:ns misfortune. I believe that the. iron rule will 

compel us to do what in my judgment we ought not to d9, provide by our own rilles to put general legislation on appropriation bills. 

Mr. CA.l\IEBON, of Wisconsin. Will the Senator allow me a rema.rk 

right here?. Mr. FRYE. With pleasure. 

Mr. CAl\IERON, of Wisconsin. Rule XVI provides thatNo amendment which proposes general legislation shall be-received -t.o any 

general appropriation bill, &c. · 

A few days ago the Senator from. Kansas proposed a. resolution looking to an amendment of that rule. That resolution was referred to the 

Committee on Rules, of which my .friend from Maine is the chah-man. 

I do not know whether the Committee on Rules has taken any action . upon it or not. All that I know is that it has not yet been reported to 

the Senate from that committee. · The Senator now says that he should regard the adoption of the 

amendment propo e(l by the Senator ft·om Kansas as a very unfortunate 

~g; but he proposes by construction to open the rule quite as wide as the Senator from Kansas proposes to open it by his resolution, so that 

it would make very little difference in the result whether the 111le were opened wide by the constmction which the Senator from Maine desires 

to be given to it or by the resolution of amendment propo ed by the 

Senator from Kansas. 

Mr. McPHERSON. Will the Senator from Wisconsin state before 

ta.JPng his seat, as I have been absent from the Senate for some days, 

in what manner and to what extent the resolution of the Senatorfrom 

Kansas proposes to amend the rnle? 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. If the Senator from New J~ 'Sey 

will consult the RECORD he will find ·exadly. 

1\ir. INGALLS. - It proposes to permit any general legislation ger- mane and 1·elevant to general appropriation bills to be offered in the 

Senate as it now·is in the House. · Mr. CAUERON, of Wisconsin. I think the . enator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMA.i.~] also proposed an amendment, or inade a. suggestion looking 

to an amendment, to the resolution offered by the Senator from Kansas, and that that proposition was also referred to the Committee on Rules. -

Mr. FRYE. I want to add one word right here in relation to the 

amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas. It goes a great deal 

further, because, as a matter of fact, the amendment o:tlered by the 

Senator frorp. Kansas provides that any amendmenj; germane and relevant shall be in order. Now our rules provide that on the question 

of relevancy the Senate it elf shall determine, not the presiding officer. 

Therefore the amendment proposed by the Senatqr from Kansas provides that any amendment in the opinion of the Senate·of the United 

States relevant shall be in order; o that a majority of the ~enate under 

it may put on. a~y appropriation bill an} amenqment it please . Mr. CAl\IERO.N, of Wisconsin. The Senator will allow me to say 

that the whole matter was confided to the Com,mittee on Rules. That 

committee was ·not bound to take the proposition made by the Senator· f1·om Kansas as he made it. It was at liberty to alter or amend or change it, or to propo e any other amendment to the rules tha.t that 

committee thought it advisable to propose. 

Ur. FRYE. It was referred to the Committee on Rules. It is true 

that the Committee on Rules immediately held a meeting and considered the amendment. It is true that a majority of the committee were opposed to any amendment of Rule XVI of the Senate and that the chair- man was instructed to draw a report, and that the chairma'n has drawn a report and holds it in his hand, but is not at liberty to present it to 

the Senate now, fi:om the fact that although authorized to draw the 

1·eport further action was postpone4 until the report was submitted to 

the committee, and it has-not yet been so submitted. But the report ta~es gmund against any amendment to Rule XVI and against genro:al 

legislation on appropriation bills anywhere. Can not the Senator .from 

Wi consin ee the difterence between the ruling of the presiding officer 

of the Senate reversed and the proposition ofthe Senator from Kansas? 

They are as broad apart as the two poles. · In the one case, there is simply permitted under a ruling of the presiding officer an amendment to 

legislation already on an appropriation bill, as is the fact here. In the 

other case amendments would be permitted to be put on in ~he Senate. 

The Senate will pardon ·me for saying that in my judgment a rule 

of that kind in the Senat~ is infinitely more dangerous than it is in the 

House of Representatives. Why, Mr. President, the early history of 

legislation shows that the fight was be.tween the Senate aud the House, 

the Senate putting general legislation on appropriation bills and the 

House resisting. That was true until1855. The great fight of 1849 was on legislation. put on by the Senate and not by the House. And 

in the- Senate when we are confronted with this position, that we pass 

three btmdred· Senate bills and send t'hem to the House of Represen~'l.­

ti ves, and they lie on the S~ker s table six months 'vithc_:mt any refer- ence whatsoever to any comJDittee of the House of Representatives, 

and when we have the power to legislate on appropriation bills, is not 

the temptation infinitely stronger in the Senate to avail itself of that 

opporttmity than in the House of Representatives? 

Every morning we dispoSe of every bill and every resolution that 

conies here from the House. The House could do the same; and under 

the proposed joint rule sent to the House-there was a; proposition that 

they should do so. They do not, but the Senate bills go to the Speake,:' 

table and lie there. The Senator fro'm l\1assachusetts [.Mr. HoAR] 

talked about the bankruptcy bill, the elccto~l-count bill, and divers other important bills that have been sent there, in a speech that he made here yesterday. If you could under the amendment of the Senator from Kansas load down the appropriation bills with general legis- lation, would not the temptation be ~ great to withstand for the 

Senate, situated as it is with its legislation, to pile and -heap on the appropriation bills all conceivable legislation? I say, sir, one propo ition 

is infinitely more dangerous and more liable to be p1·oductive of hru:m than the other. . ·But I maintain that the ruling of the presiding officer was WI·ong. 

I believe tmder the well-settled principles of parlia,mentary law it was wrong. !fit was wrong-and I believe it-thenitis my right and my 

duty to argue against it and vote against it. I repeat, sir, in no de-· liberati>e legislative body on earth can a proposition be placed before 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1485 

it, and no Senator can name one, on which a motion to stlike out can be made without opening that proposition to motions to amend, except 

"Where a pre~ous question has been ordered. · :Mr. C.AMERO:N, of Wisconsin. I think I can name another. 

1\Ir. FRYE. I shall be happy to hear it. 

:Mr. CAMERON, ofWisconsin. I can name it, I think, here and now. Take the case that was under consideration yesterday, t:Pe proviso on page 2: 

Provided, That all applicants fo1· pensions shall be presumed to haYe had no disability at the time of enlistment; but such presumption maybe rebutted. 

That is the provision as it came from the House to the Senate and as it stood before it was acted upon by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. The Senate Committee on Appropriations proposed this 

amendment-to insert, after "pensions," thcwords ''who shall have 

served at least three months after date of mu~ter." If it be admitted 

that that is general legislation, then, notwithstandingthe genernl parliamentary rule which the Senator from l\Iaine correctly state,s, clause 

3 of Rule XVI st~ps in and provides that no amendment which proposes general legislation shall be receiYed to any geneml appropriation 

bill: That is the special rule which governs. It prevails over the gene-ral parliamentary rule to which the Senator from Maine refers. 

So that in addition to the case he has stated, where a previous question prevails, I say thn.t where a special rule governs it is another case where an amendment ·can not be received when the motion is to strike. 

out. .A proposition to amend the portion to be stricken out can not be 

received if that is an ~nsertion of general legislation into a general appropriation bill. . . 1\Ir. FRYE. I contend, Mr. President, that clause 3 of Rule XVI is 

not open to. that interpretation. I contend that clause 3 .of ~ule XYI 

applies t~ propositions made by the Senate fo~ general legislation on an appropriation bill, and that under well..settled parliamentary ln.w when 

another body sends general legislation on appropriation bills to this 

l)ody, and a motion is made to strike out. that general legislation, not . proposed by the Senate at all, but proposed byanQther bodyand legitimately before the Senn.te, it is open to amendment, and that the power 

to amend can not be cut off except by a rule which affirmatively and pos· 

itively provides that no proposition for general legislation sent to the 

Senate by the House shall be open to amendment; else the thing is 

utterly absurd. 

Here is general legislation in this bill of grrot importance. It comes before the Senate of' the Unitecl States, and the Senator from Kansas 

makes a motion to strike it out, and I am compelled to vote "yea" or 

" .nay" on that. I think it is absurd to say that I am compelled to >ote '

1 yea'' or" nay" unless first I have exercised the right which all parliaJnentary law gives me to perfect that legislation which ?tis proposed 

to strike out. 

:1\-Ir. CAMERON", of Wi'3consin. Then change paragraph 3 of Rule 

XVI. There is no use talking about imposing an iron rule upon ~ru·­

sehcs. If there be an iron rule it isimposed -by the rules we nave prescribed .to ourselves. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of 

the Senator from Kansas. 

SUITS FOR D..i:\IAG E . . 

Mr. HARRIS. I de ire to preSent the reporl of a conference committee at this time. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee, from a con1erence committee on the part of the Senate, submits a report on the bill (H. n. 7131) to authorize suits. for damages where death re- sult from the wrongful act or neglect of any person or corporation in 

the District of Columbia. The report will be read. 

The Secretary read the repo1·t. 

1\Ir. HARRIS. I see that the wotcl "section" is left out after the 

word "second" in one clause of the report: i .will ior the present 

withdraw it in order that the word may be inserted. I shall.ha\e to 

see the conferees on the part of the House. 

The PRESIDENT pro temp01·e. If there be no objection, the report 

is withdrawn. PRESIDEXTIAL APPROY ALS. 

A message from thePresidentofthe UnitedStates, by~II·:O. L. PRuDEN, one of his secretades, announced that the President had, t~ day, 

approved and signed the following acts: 

An act (S. G74) to authorize the purchase of additional grounds for 

the United States court-house and post-office building at Springfield, 

lll.; . · An act (S. 1111) granting an increased pension to Sally Rodman, 

widow of General Isaac P. Rodman; and 

An act (.S. 468)granting an increase of pension to l\lrs. Mary K. S. 

Eaton. CREDE~TIALS. 

:M:r. BUTLER presented the credentials of W A.DE HA..'\IPTON, chosen 

by the Legislature of South Carolina a Se:sator fl'om that-State for the 

term commencing March 4, ·1885; which were read, and ordered to be 

file<f. . 

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore signecl the following enrollec.l bills and 

joint re...<:Olution, which · had heretofore _receiYed the signature of the 

Speaker of the House of Representatives: 

A bill (S. 729) for the protection of cbildl·en in the District of Columbia, and for other purpos~s; 

A bill (S. 1335) to authorize the settlement of the accounts of the 

late John V. B. Bleeckc1·, a pay~aster in the Navy; 

A bill (H. R. 433) to increase the pension of Simpson Harris; 

A bill (H. R. 499) granting a pension to ~fury A. Knawber; . A bill (H. R. 760) granting an additional pension to Watson S. 

.Bentley; · • A bill (H. R. 1084) granting a pension to Dorathca. Bothner.; 

A. bill (H. R. 1171) granting a pension to Isabel Campbell; 

A. bill (H. ·R. 1256} increasing the pension of Ben_ Morgan; 

A bill (H. R. 1504) for the relief of :Millia Staples; . 

A. bill (H. R. 2002) for the relief of :Mrs. Jennie E. Johnson; 

A. bill (H. R. 2140) for the relief of Hugh Dougherty; 

.A bill {H. R. 2348) granting a pension to John D. R.i~kards; 

A bill (H. R. 2399) granting a pension to Clarissa l\IcKee; 

A. bill (H. R. 2432) for the relief of Mrs. Jane Young; 

A bill (H. R. 2433) granting a pension tO Fra.nk S. l\Iarsh; 

A bill !H. R. 2692) granting a pension to Sarah Kennedy; 

A bill H. R. 2908) granting a pension to James 1\Ic"l\Ianus; 

A bill H. R. 2920) for the relief of John Johnson; · 

A bill (H. R. 2987) restoring Rebecca. Walcott to the pension-roll; · A bill {H. R. 3527) granting a pension to George A.. Marshall; 

A bill (H. R. 3565) granting a pension to William Eurele; 

A bill (H. R. 3612) granting a pension to Hayden Tieynolds; 

A bill (H. R. 3663.) granting a pension to John T. Marshall; 

A bill (H. R. 3703) granting n. pension to James W. Brown; 

A. bill (H. R. 4041) restoring the name of Zelica 'I\ Dunlap to the 

pension-roll; . A bill {H. R. 4059) granting a pension to Isaac Demaranville; 

A lJill (H. R. 4238) granting a pension.to Sallie Ingham; - · A bill (H. R. 4248) granting a pension to William Harbeson; 

A. b~l (H. R. 43?9) for th_e relief of_.Maj. W .. ~· Frybar~er; 

A bill (R. R. ·47o2) grantmg a penswn to Will1am Herrmg; 

A bill (H. R. 5004) for the relief of William B. Smit~; 

A. bill (H. R. 5500) for the relief of Benjamin F. Amos; 

A bill (H. R. 5565l granting a pension to Theo. Ahrens; 

A. bill (H. R. 5630 granting a pension. to George W. Rugg; 

A bill (H. R. 5632 granting a pension tO Sarah J. Bremmer; 

A bill (H. R. 5670) to authorize a, retired-Jist for privates and non- commissioned officers of the Unitell States Army who have served for a period of thirty years or upward; 

A bill (H. R. 577G} granting 3! pension to Louis D. Petty; 

A bi:H (H. R: 5812) granting a pension to Ellen· A.. Vance; 

A bill (H. R. 5926) granting a pension to John Maloney; 

A bill (H. R. 5923) grnnti:ng n. pension to Ruth Stmtton; 

A bill (H. R. 5960) granting a pension to George Zeifl.e; 

A bill (H. R. G084) to restore the name of Walter H. Crow to the 

pension-roll; 

A bill (H. R. 62 2) to placfil the name of R. W. Duncan on the pension-roll; 

A bill (H. R. 63111 granting a pension toUrs. Samh S. Sampson; 

A bill (H. R. 6461 granting n. pension to Nelson Gammons; . A bill (H. R. G480 granting a pension to M"a1·garet G. Halpine; 

- A bill ~H. R. 6594) granting a pension to Russell ·F. Dimmick; 

A bill H. R. 6665) for the relief of James Stack; 

A bill H. R. 6126) granting a pension to .M:argaret A. l\Iaguire; 

A bill (H. R. 6882) granting a pen ion to John Otis; 

A bill (H. R. 6927) granting a pension to Mmit M. Oakley; 

A bill (H. R. 6934) granting a pension to Ann J. Williams; 

A bill (H. R. G956) granting a pension to Maria H. Sargent; 

A bill (II. R.· 6997) granting a pension to Henry Davis; 

A bill (H. R. 7046) granting n. pension to Alonzo Cornwell; 

A bill (H. R 7141) granting a pension to Daniel W. Ada.ms; 

A bill (H. R. 7295) granting a pension to Albert D. Simmons; · A. bill (H. R. 8121) to ~nable the commissioners of the District of 

Columbia to maintain public order during the ceremonies of the inaugmation of the President, and for other purposes; and · Joint·· resolution (H. Res. 323) for the pl'inting of certain eulogies deJiYered i.n Congress npou the late William .A.. Duncan. . . PE...'{SIO~ APPROPRIATION BILL. 

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7785) making appropdations for the payment of in,alid ann other pensions of the 

United States for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1886, and for other 

purposes. · 

The PRESIDE....~T pro temJJore. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment proposed by the Senator from Kansas [Mr. INGALLS]. 

Mr. 1\IILLER, of California. Rule XVITI seems to imply that where 

a motion is made to amend by striking out a portion of a bill a motion 

_to amend the part proposed to be stricken out shall have precedence 

and be put before the question is taken on the motion to strike out. I 

desire to offer an amendment to the part of the bill which the Senator 

from Kansas has moved tostrike out, byinsertingafterthewQrd "pen-
1486 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 10, 

- I 

sions," in line 30, the words "who shall have served three mo~.t.hs next any proposition can be quite as essentially amended by striking out aa aft.er date of muster inro service.'' by adding words. The Senate ruled that the sense of this proposition, 

The PRESIDENT pm tempore. The Chair is of opinion that the coming-here rightfully from the House of Representatives, could not be 

amendment is not in order. changed by additional words emanating from the Senate itself. Now 

:Mr. MILLER, of California. I merely wanted the ruling of the do I understand that the Senate ma.y entirely change the sense of that 

Chair. Now, Mr. President, a motion to strike out a portion of the same proposition by striking out words, when i~ can not affect the sense matter included in the motion of the Senator ·from Kansas would be in of the proposition by making additions thereto? 

order, _and I therefore move that all aft~r the word "enlistment," in The PRESIDE..1{T pro tempore. The Chair holds that amendments 

line 3'2 of that clause, be stricken out, being the words; "but such pre- proposing to strike out legislation or a p..m of legislation in an approsiunption may be rebutted." pria.tion -bill are in order. It would be in order ro move ro strike out 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California moves· all the legislative pro\dsions of the bill in a body, all together, or to 

to amend by striking out the words " but such presumption may be strike them out word by word, as stripping the bill, as far as the mo- rebutted." The question is on this motion. · tion goes, ofit_c, legislative provisions. 

Mr. MITCHELL. May I inquire what became of the amendment Mr. BLAffi. Perhaps not entirely in the nature of a parliamentary 

proposed by the Senator from Kansas? - inquiry, if I have the floor, I should like to state a few points in tltis 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is pending; but under another matter that trouble me, and I should be glad to see them elucidated. 

rule of the Senate it is in order t-o perfect within the rnle.S the para- I wish t~t the Senator from Maine (Mr. FRYE] were present who gave 

graph proposed ro be stricken out. The Senaror from California moves us such a zealous and emphatic dissertation upon parliamentary law ; 

to perfect· the paragraph by stniring out a certain part of it, so as to but he is not here. My difficulties can be perhaps as well resolved 

bring the Senate to a vote on wha\ will be left if the Senate should otherwise. I understand . that everybody agrees that a general approagree fu •the motion. priation bill must come from the House. 

Mr. INGALLS. Is that motion an amendment to the section? Mr. INGALLS and others. No. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is an amendment to the para- Mr. BLAIR. Well, Mr. President, it is agreed that a general apprograph proposed ro be stricken out. - priation bill coming from the House, whether it is simply a bill of sup-

:Mr. MITCHELL. I desire to state that it would be unwise, if the ply or a bill of supply plus general legislation, is rightfully here, and 

provision in the bill is ro become a law, ro agree ro the amendment pro- as it comes from the House it must be properly considered. by the Senposed by the Senator from California. I could give the Senat~ -an in- ate, or i~ may be-I will use as a matter of preference the words "must 

stance of almost an entire regiment which was JUUStered into service be "-as a matter of legislative duty considered. by the Senate. There near here, in the State of Maryland, daring the latewar, composed of are no rules of the .Senate to the contrary, at all events. When that 

persons who hadbeenexaminedandrejected bytbeexaminersappoint~d general appropriation bill in its entirety is thus properly in tl}e possesby the Government. Of course those musters were fi'andulent. I could sion of the Senate for action, WQ are met by a rule of the Senate which 

also give very many instances of individuals who were substitutes for says that we shall not act upon that portion of the bill coming from 

other persons, where the examination was made of some other person, the House which proposes genera] legislation. We may alter and 

anditisnecessaryfortheprotectionoftheGovernmentthatthereshould amend, approve or reject, as we please, that part which does not probe the right to rebut this presumption. pose general legislation but which is strictly a supply bill; but the part 

Mr. MILLER, of California. When the Gpvernment bas accepted which proposes general legislation we mu t either accept precisely as a soldier and'received his service, it has no right t~ come in afterward it comes from the House or we must reject it in toto. There is no role 

and say that he was not sound at the time of his enlistment, and it has which compels us to reject it. no right ro rebut the presumption that he was a sound man, because I think this is of the very gist of this whole discuc: ion. There is no the Government itself decided that he was a sound man at the time of rule which compels us to reject it. There is a rule which deprives us · his enlistment. . of the power to modify it. The Senate yesterday construed that r~e, 

Mr. MITCHELL. Will tbe Senator allow me a word right there? and its decision was that the rule is simply that we can not modi(v Mr. MILLER, of California. Certainly. what cotnes to us; we must accept it as it comes tons or we must re- Mr. MITCHELL. In the case I stated it is a matter of history that ject it in toto; yet the rule does pot require us ro reject it in toto. We 

nearly the whole of a regiment had been examined and rejected, and may, however, under the rule permit the motion, which the SenatQr 

afterward, by a floaud upon the Government, they were mustered into from Kansas has last made, to strike out fu be made. If it strikes out 

serrice. Does the Senator say that in a case of that kind the Govern- the whole, excludes the whole, of thiS proposed legislation, then any 

ment should not be permitted to protect itself against a muster of that member of the Senate holding ro the rule and ro the construction of' 

sort? the rule which was adopted yesterday may support-that motion, as I 

:Mr. MILLER, of California. The amendment which I offered, and understand. But believing in and voting for the construction of the 

which was ruled out on a point of order, would have protected the x:ule which was adopted yesterday, that we may not amend that proGovernment in that case byrequiring that the menshould have served posed-general legislation, I do not see wherein, believing in that con- three months; but it seems we can not get that in. While there may struction and voting for that construction of the rule and for stril..'"ing off 

be such a case as the Senator mentions, there are thousands and tens the proposed amendments (whether by additional words or by striking 

of thousands of cases where pensions have been refused to soldiers who out so as to change the nature of the proposition, which is now the 

served well and faithfully because they were technically not sound at suggestion of the Senator t;rom California), I am involved in any incontbe time of their muster inro service; they were under some disability. sistency if I vot~ for the motion of the Senaror from Kansas, that mo- l claim that in these instances great injustice has been done, and great tion being to strike ont the entire proposition-which came froni the 

injustice continues to be done in such cases. It is better that the Gov- House. I think I am consistent, and I think the majority of the Senate 

ernment should suffer a loss in the case the Senator from Pennsylvania would be perfectly consistent in approving of his motion. He holds to 

mentions than that all this great number of men should be so unjustly the contrary. The speech of the Senator from Maine was made apetreated. I do not know of any such cases as he mentions. I suppose cificallyto charge upon the majority of the Senate inconsiSt~ncyif they 

there is some foundation for the statement, and perhaps frauds have fail tQ vote ~fYilinst this Il}Otion to strike out. It seems. ro me that w~ 

been perpetrated upon the GQvernment in the matter of enlistments, are consistent with ourselves and we s~ill enforce the rule. Here comes but they were not usual; they were extreme cases. · this proposition from the Hol1Se in its entirety. There is nothing in 

I do not propose to prolong the discussion upon this matter. Of the rule of the Senate which prevents us from rejecting the whole. course I would rather have th~ clause with the words which the Com- The rule of the Senate simply prevents us from modifying the whole; 

mittee on Appropriations proposed ro put in, and which I in substance and, notwithstanding the suggestion of the Chair, I beg leave to ask 

moved to insert just now, included in the law before striking out the whether I am not right in saying that under that rule of the Senate we words that I have moved to strike out; but I do not believe the Gov- can neither modify by addition nor by striking out. We must reject 

ernment ought to go into a trial of the soldier who is asking for a pen- the proposition a8 a whole in order fu be outside the rule. · sion upon the- question of fact whether he was under a physical dis- Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. If the Senator from New Rampability at the time of his enlistment. I do not think ~tis just or right shire Will. look at the third clause of Rule XVI, I think hewillseethat 

to do it. It puts the soldier to great inconvenience and great trouble. he states it broader than the rnle lays it down. 

Mr. BLAIR. I should like to make a parliamentary inquiry, and Mr. 'BLAIR. "Norshallanyamendmenttoanyitemorclause '-- that is whether this motion fu amend the part proposed ro be stricken Mr. CAMERON, of WiSconsin. "No amendment which proposes 

out on the motion of the Senaror from Kansas, by striking out '' but general legislation shall be received ro any g-eneral appropriation bill. '' 

such presumption may be rebutted," is in order under the ruling of Any amendment can be received under this rule which does not prothe Chair. . . pose general legislation. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o (empore. The Chair thinks it is. Mr. BLAIR. I understand that; I am oruy dealing with that porMr. BLAIR. I understood the decision of the Senate yesterday robe tion of a general appropriation bill which, coming properly from the that this section, properly here from the House, part of a general. appro- ·House, proposes general legislation. _ priationbillcomingfrom the House,cannotbeamendedbyactionofthe Mr. CAMERON, of .Wisconsin. But the Senator from New &mpSenate. It went certainly to this extent, that it can not be amended shire stated a broadly as it could be stated that the. Senate must either 

by the action of the Senate when that action involved the addition of take the proposition that comes from the House as a whole or reject it 

further words. But it is obvious that a general appropriation bill or as a whole. 
.......... -· 

1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~SENATE. 1487 

Mr. BLAIR: The proposition containing genemllegislation. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. We.can modify that proposition if onr modification or amendment does not propose gene:rallegislation. 

Mr. BLAIR. We can make an amendment which strikes out the 

whole. That is not a proposition-for general legislation. 

Mr. CAMERON, ef Wisconsin. Cel1ainly not. · Mr. BLAIR. But what I say is this: When a proposition comes here 

fo1· general legislation and we propose to amend that by striking out any 

portion of .it, thereby changing the sense of that proposition, then we ofter an amendm~nt and force an amendment in. violation of this rule 

touching general legislation. 

Mr. CAUERON, of Wisconsin. But is it in violation of the rule? 

The rulesimplyis" no amendment which proposes general legislation." 

Mr. BLAIR. Certainly. 

Ur. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. This proposition to strike out does 

not propose any legislation. 

Mr. BLAIR. Certainly it does, because will the general legislation 

if-adopted with these words stricken out be the same general legislation that it would if the words were not stricken out? Does the Senator suggest that the sense of a proposition can not be change<l by striking·ont as we]J. as by inserting? The point I think is a very clear one and a very important one, and I feel that the Senate, to be at all consistent with itself if holding to its vote of yesterday, must disagree to 

the su~estion of the presiding offi.ce1· at the present time hat this 

proposition coming from the House may be corrected by striking out 

when it can not be amended by inserting. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will state that under the 

rule of the Senate which the Chair is bound to --enforce as he understands it., subject to the judgment of the Senate afterwar.d--

lt!r. BLAill. I appeal from the decision of the Chair. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo1·e. The Chair has not yet stated. his 

conclusion. The Senator will pal'don the Chair. The Chair is proceeding to make a decision from which the Senator from New Hampshire desires to take an appeal. The amendment proposed by the Senat~r from California to strike out certain words is in order, the reason of the Chair in so holding being that in the opinion of the Chair the 

motion of the SenatOr from California does not proj>ose general legislation, but proposes to strike out general legislation which is oontained 

in the bill. It is true that the motion does not propose to strike out 

all the legislation in the bill; and what the consequence may be as to 

what is left. if that is not stricken out, is a matter with which the Chair 

has nothing to do. · Does the Sena.tor from New Hampshu·e appeal 

from .the decision of the Chair? · Mr. BLAIR. If there is any desire for farther diseussion I withdraw 

the appeal for the moment. Can I renew it? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The appeal is open to. discussion. 

Mr. BLAIR. Then I appeal from the decision of the Chair. 

The PRESIDENT pro temp. 01·e. The Senator from New Hampshire 

appeals from the decision of the Chair on this po~t. · The question is, 

Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? 

Mr. HARRISON. It seems t~ me t.ll:lt the rule as stated by the 

Chair, while it appears t.o have plausibility, is after all perhaps sticking in the bark a little. It can very well be seen that the striking out 

of a thing may convert a proposition w.}rich is affirmati \e into a negative 

propo itionora negativeintoanaffi.rmativeproposition; as for instance, 

in this case, if the House legislation should say that it should not be 

presumed that the soldier was suffering under disability at the time of 

enlistment, if under the rules of the Senate we might amend by striking out the word ''not'' we should have as effectually introduced new legi. ation by that amendment as if it had been contained in an inde-

~ndent and separate proposition. . So it seems to me t~t unless the motion here to strike out strikes 

out some substantive part of the Honse legislation so as to deprive it 

of any force, the particular proposition is given the power to carry the 

whole with it instea,d. of being a mere modification and being intended 

to be. a modification of it. So then in the one case the ruling of the 

Chair might be correct and in the other incorrect, because the proposition of the Senator from California. does not destroyf does not strike 

out any affirmative piece of legislation, but converts it from one thing 

into :mother, and is as distinctively a. change in legislation by an amendment in the Senate involving general legislation as if it had been accomplish~d by the insertion of new wor~. . - Thus it seems to me in the one case the ruling of the Chair might be 

right where something was to be stricken out, some propoSition, but if 

it i. the striking out of a word that con>erts the legislation fro~ an affirmative to a negatiye proposition and changes the whole scope of it, 

but maintains the legislation, it is subject to the rule against amendments of general legislation. 

Mr. MILLER, of Califopria. My purpose in moving these amendments was to see ho~ it was that we could not insert_ matter in provisions that came to the Senate, and· at the same time we !Dight strike 

outwordswhich would also change the sense and make esSentiAlly new legislation. The words which I moved to insert were clearly general 

legislation, and the words which I have now moved to strike out con- vert this proposition from a prima facie presumption to a conclusive 

presumption that the soldier was under no disability when he w~ 

mustered in. · 

It seems to me that the p-roposition to strike out here involves a question of general legislation just as much as the propoSition to insert. 

The words of the House provision are; 

That all applicants for pensions shall be presumed to have had no disability at the time of enlistment; but such presumption may be rebutted. 

If we strike out the words ;, but such presumption may be rebutted,, 

then what wa8 a prima facie case for the soldier, a prima facie presumption in his favor, becomes a conclusive presumption. It changes the 

entire sense of the provision and makeS it a new legislative proposition, a new law cliffering t~tnlly from that which this would be if enacted as submitted to us. I have made these propositions for the express 

purpose of having the ruling of the Chair upon them, ·to test the ques-. 

tion whether we could do the one thing OT whether we could not effect 

. the same object by the insertion of words, as by the striking out of 

words in a proposition from the House containing legisl~tion. 

Mr. INGALLS. Upon the decision. of this question would depend 

whether the Senate can oo by indirection what it can not directly do. 

If the Chair will observe the language .that I propose to strike out by 

my motion, in connection with the portion that the Senator from California proposes to eliminate, the Chair will see that the effect of striking 

out the words which the SenatM from California mo.ves to eliminate 

from the bill will be exac~y the same as if the wotd "conclnsi vely ' 1 

were to be "inserted before the word "presumed" in line 31. 

ThePRESIDENT pro tempore. TheChairmaybeallowedtostalethat 

the Chair thinks the fundamental question is, first, whether it is competent und~r the rules of the Senate, legislation coming on a House bill, 

for the Senate to strike it out. The Chair supposes that e'\'erybody 

agrees that it is. Then the question is whether you are bound to strike 

ont the whole of it altogether, or. may strike out a part of it and leave 

some of it ~ill standing. · Take an appropriation bill in which, as in 

this instance, there are several sections. If a motion be made to strike 

out one section of the legislation and not made to strike out all the sections of legislation, it changes the character of the bill. It will be if 

it becomes a law a di:fterent law from what it would have been had the 

section been left to stand. The Chair thinks that the same intellectual reason would apply to the striking out of a part of a section, just as the Senator from Kansas has moved himself to strike out a proviso to a section that may be supposed to contain and as the Chair thinks does 

contain legislation. The Chair has entertained that motion because, so 

far as it goes, if agreed to by the Senate, it rids the bill of so mnchlegislation. It leaves ~e bill a different bill and with different legislative 

provisions and that may have a different effect than it would have if 

the section, or the proviso, or the part of the proviso had been left in. 

So the Chair thought and still thinks the motion Df the Senator from 

California is. in order although the consequence may be that the bill 

will be entirely different with those words stricken out, and that too 

proviso will be different as the bill would be different if the proviso 

itself were stricken out. 

The question is, Shall the decision of the Chait· stand as the judgment of the Senate? 

Mr. HOAR. I was absent from my seat for a moment on public 

business, and I ask that the ~ir will restate the proposition; I do 

not mean restate the entire proposition in full, but state the substance 

of the question. · The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas moved 

that the proviso on page 2, lines 29 to 33, be stricken out. Pending 

that motion the Senator from California moved to perfecttha~proviso 

under anothe1· rule of the Senate, by moving to strike out the words 

"but such presumption may be rebutt~." The question of order 

having been made whether the motion of the Senator from California was in order to strike out those words; before the question was put' on ·the motion· of the Senator from Kansas, the Chair held that that was 

in order. From that decision. the Senator from New Hampshire appealed to the Senate. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair 

stand as the judgment of the Senate? [Putting the question. J .The 

ayes haYe it. . 

· 1\Ir. BLAIR. I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were not ordered. 

So the decisi{)n of the Chair was sustained. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing t~ the 

motion of the Senator from California. • The motion was not agreed to. 

l'he PRESIDE...llfr pt·o tempore. The question recurs on agr~ing to 

the motion .of the Senator from Kansas [Mr. INGALLS]. _ 

Mr. CoNGER rose. . 

The PRESIDENT pro te1npm·e. Does the Senator fi·om ~1ichigan 

desire to address the Senate? 

Mr. co .... TGER. I did desire to do so on the amendment of the Senator from California. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. The Chair had announced the. result 

of the vote, but the Chair will consid~r it.as not having been announced as the Senator from Michigan had risen t.o address the Senate upon the 

question. - . Mr. CONGER. I should like to have a vote-upon that proposition. 

I think with a clause standing in the bill that the presumption may 

be rebutted by other evidence, it leaves the applicant for a. pension in a worse condition than now, the clause providing that the enlistmenl 
1488 CONGRESSIONAL R.ECORD-SENATE. :FEBRUA.l{Y 10, 

shall be considered as presumptive evidence of soundn~s but may be 

rebutted by other evidence. Where, how, and in what manner, and 

whn.t kind of a. suggestion? We are met with that continually now, on the mere suggestion of the Pension Office or of some ~lerk in the 

office, that some letter has·been received or some statement or some suggestion of incompetency or disease or disability exLc::ting before the 

muster-in; and now a. claimant is required to search through all the ·country to find out somebody to rebut the mere suggestions of the office, or of private letters, or ofanonymous"letters, as I have kno~n in some 

cases. With a. statement that the presumption of soundness at the time of 

the muster-in may be rebutted by other testimony, without defining 

how it shall be obtained or what a.mount of testimony may .rebut that 

presumption, I venture to say that every person who is called upon to 

sustain the question of soundness before enlistment will.be more a.nd more embarrassed by this provision as it stands than he would be under 'the present construction of the law in the Pension Office. At least 

60,000 cases are hanging just upon tliat ·one question, upon which eyery 

Senator, I presume, receives twenty-five or thirty letters a week from 

t.he applicant and from his friends, saying that he is unable to find testimony .to prove tJ:tat he was sound-that he is unable to meet the 

suggestion of an enemy that he was unsound befox;e his enlistment. 

The whole trouble Will be aggravated and the complaints will come npon Senators and upon membe~ of the House with redoubled force. 

Sir, what matter is it if there were a few cases of frauP,ulent musterin by proper officers of the United States? ·What matter is it to us if 

there was a 1·egiment or a part of a regiment rejected because thP- men were assumed by one mustering officer to be unsound,· and by a-nother 

mustering officer, perhaps infinitely better prepared to decide justly, 

to be sound and were mustered in? The Government has had their 

services. They went into the service and into battle. Some lost their 

health; others lost their lives. They did ail that soldiers could possibly 

do for their country; they endured all hardships, were exposed to all 

perils. There is no question of cowardice, no question of desertion; 

but somebody comes twenty years after and says there was some infirmity, some complaint about this man in his boyhood, in his early 

years, ·which escaped the attention of.the mustering-in officer and the 

rigid examination which wa~ held over him in these cases. Now,· I want a yea-and-nay vote upon a proposition to st1·ike out this 

clause, which, in my judgment, would embarrass the poor soldier more than he is embarrassed now, and what seems to come as a. benefit really 

becomes an unmitigated curse to the poor, disabled oldierwhois seekjug a pension from his country. 

By the strictness of our laws, I will not say by fa] e constructions of 

them by the officials of the Pension Bureau, 've have now through this 

country thousands of suspended cases in which every man in the com- munity believes the applicant i's entitled to a pension. They are men who have known the S<?ldier from his youth np, and his daily life, and 

his health and his strength, and his laboT, until he went into. the Army, as I know cases of men young, vigorous, able to perform a lllabor, a.ble to 

engage in all athletic sports, fuU of vigor an~ full of life. They _went 

into the Army, performed then· duty well, retumed, and asked for a pension; and some enemy, in most cases some enemy, some trai~~r him- . elf to hls country, envying the soldier for the possibility o( a pension, 

writes letters raising doubts of his health, of his s~mndness before he 

was enlisted. 

I could pick out of my file of letters which have .been sent to me some fifty or sixty coming to me in that same way, with the proof that an enemy interposed this objection with no proof but a -naked assertion, 

and threw the applicant upon his proof-unspecified proof, with no date, no time, nothing which a · soldier can meet as he is required to do in 

other cases. There are cases of that kind lingering along now in the· Pension Office or compelled to be bro'ught to Congress for relief, where 

I know the men went forth to battle for their country as strong, hearty, Vig~ous, and valiant as men ever went, and they came home worn out, 

<liseased, the very li1e sapped from their system, and they are gradually 

sinking and sinking from no known cause to their graves. 

Sir, I have been more ashamed of the procrastination and I nave been more ashamed of the pension laws when these questions ha\e come to 

me and these charges of unsoundness in that roundabout and hostile 

way than of anything connected with the soldier which has fallen un- der my observation. I had almost said that right or wrong I would 

vote te repeal any rule that prevented ~ny amen,dment or preven~d 

the introduction int~ a bill.of a. clan....~ which should compel one department of this Government to take in good faith the decision of an- other department of the Government that a man was sound when he 

enlisted in the service of his country, and when he returned a. poor, 

shattered wreck from disease or from wounds or w batever might be the cause he might be entitled to the benefit of a. pension without wearing 

ont years and years of hopeless effort to defeat a hostile and a. false 

t-barge of previous infirmity. 

With that view, I ask for the yeas and nays upon agreeing to the 

proposition. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. CONGER. Will the Chair state the question again, so that we may understand it? · 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreei.Bg to the 

amendment proposed by the Senator from Califonria, which is in sec- tion 1, line 32, after· the word "enlistment," to strike out the words: 

But such pre umption may be rebutted. 

1\I-r. HARRISO~. Mr. Presid~nt, iftheamendmentproposed bythe 

committee, which 1imited this presumption to such soldiers as had ren- dered three months' service, could have been continued in the bill, I 

should have be~n entirely willing to make the presumption a conclusive 

one, but under the point of order made against the"amendment suggested by the committee thos~ words have been stricken out. 

Jf th_e amendmenh of the Senator from California i adopt.ed, it makes 

the presumption of soundness absolutely conclusive u·pou the Government without reference to service. The soldier may have been mus- tered in one day and never have left the camp of rendezvous, he may never have faced the enemy in battle, he may never have left the State 

where he enlisted. In very many w es it may be ·absolutely certain 

that the disease for which he asks a pension was upon him at the time 

of his enlistment, that it not only did not orjginate in the service but was nQt aggrav.ated in the service; and yet it is proposed in every such case to make enlistment an absolutely conclusiYe presmv.ption that he was a sound man. I am dispo ed, I think, to· be liberal in these matters of pension pro- . visions. have thought that I was usually safe if I listened to those 

representations which were made to Congre by the so1diers ~hemselves. 

If I found myself willing to give them ju.St what they asked in their 

memorials and petitions and ju!'lt what they askecl through then· influential committee ·of the Grand .Army of the Republic, which have 

appeared before the Committee on Pe~sions of the Senate, I supposed tbn~ I was dealing 'vith liberality tow.ard the soldiers. The proposition which came to us· Trom th.e committee of the Grand Army of the 

Republic which met with our Pension Committee at the last session 

and di cussed this matter, was the proposition of the bill, that accept- ance and enlistment should be pr-ima facie p1·oof of soundness. I am · told by the chairman of the Committee on Pensions, refreshin~ my own recollection, that su.ch was the request of that committee composed in 

part of men who were maimed themselve in the heroic defense of their 

country's flag. 

It see·ms to me that so far from leavj..ng their condition worse it re- lieves at once those meritorious cases that have been dragging in the 

Pension Office. Very often a soldier at the time of making his application ior a pension is in a community xemote from t-he place of his en- listment; there is no one near him or accessible to hlm who knew anything about his condition of health prior to his enlistment, and he is 

..grea.tly embarrassed if the affirmative is put upon him, the b.urden of 

proof, to produce to the Department affidavits howing his condition of 

health at the time of enlistment. But the bill as it comes to us from 

the House relieves him absolutely from the necessity of producing any 

evidence on that subject at all. He is not Tequired even to make oath 

himself tha.t at the time of enlistment he was a. sound man. · The law 

says to bim: "We take that for granted; we require no proof of you 

upon the subject;" and at once all of this great class of cases where it 

has been difficult for the pension applicant to find persons who coul<l 

make any proof as to his condition of health before enlistment_m·e relieved. 

I think 'that goes far enough; I think it goes as far as the oldiel's 

of this country have asked that it should go. I do not believe they 

demand that the Government shall be prohibited from showing that 

:fhct in theca e of those who under the stimulus of great bounty or otherwise were accepted into the service under the exigencies ot the 

Gove:nnnent and immediately broke down, who rendered no service, 

and where it is apparent that their disease had no connection whatever 

with their service. The soldiers who ask for a pen ·ion, the de e1-ving men to'. whom the bou~ty of the Government ought to flow freely as a. 

river, are the men who u:ffered disability by reason of senice. All 

such by the bill itself are relieved of any burden, even the filing of 

their own affidavit that they were sound at the time of enlistmept. 

I should prefer myself, if we could, to have some limitation of serv- ice, some months of actual service, in order to make the presumption 

conclusive. .I should be. willing to do that; but as we can not have 

such a provision, I think we go as far as the L1.w goes in any case when we say, '~We will give you a.JJrimafacie case; we will relieve you 

from all burden of proof." It is not to be supposed that the Gov~rnment or anybody else will be Yery diligent in combating that pres-q.mption whlch we give the soldier at the threshold. The great bu)k 

of these cases will go witho_ut challenge, but the pmvision will exclude 

those cases (and doubtless in om· great Army there were many thousands 

of such cases) where the disability had no possible connection with the 

service of the soldier. 

:Mr. CONGER. The Senator from Indiana, in my opiniQn, has not 

met the point in this case. The applicant for a pension under the law 

with tliis provision must-prove his disability received in the line of 

duty in the service just as much with the clause as without it. 

Mr. HARRL'30N. Undoubtedly; I did not say the contrary of that; 

but he is relieved from all obligation to connect his disability with his 

senice by proof ~hat he was ~ound when he started upon the service. 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL ~ECORD-SENATE. 1489 

Mr. CONGER. He is with these words stricken out, but nn1ess that 

is done he has got to meet all the suggestions of former disability with 

proof just as much as now if anybody makes the suggestion or brings a little proof of prior disability. It is enough for the soldier that be was received as a soundmanland rendered service to his country, what- ever was demanded of him, more or less. 

The point, and the only point made in this proposition, is that the 

presumption and the rule for the Pension Office shall be that where the 

Government certified through its proper officer that the person applying for a pension was sound, .and under the str~ct rilles of ~n~tment 

was a suitable person to be enlisted andmusteredmto the semce, 1t shall 

be taken as conclusive, that the Government shall be held by that rule. 

I have saia in my remarks that striking out the clause proposed by the 

Senator from California leaves that rule full and positive and beneficial. 

Leaving that clause in, in my judgp1ent, makes it worse for the soldier 

than it is now. A mere suggestion of former disability would require 

him to go through all the proof as he would be required to do without 

this provision. 

But the Senator from Indiana says he wou1d prefer a. certain length 

Qf service. I can not see bow any one who desires to do the applicant 

good would say that he must show that be bad served three months before be could avail himself of the benefits of this proposed legislation. 

Mr. MITCHELL. If the Senator from Michigan will allow me at 

that point, I will state to him what I believe to be the rule at the Pension Office at this time. 

?t1r. CONGER. Certainly. _ Mr. MITCHELL. At the present time the ruling in the Pension 

Office is, that if the disability appeared within three months of the 

time of enlistment and muster, then the burden of proof is thrown upon. 

the applicant to show that he was sound at the time of enlistment. It 

is in pursuance of the practice in the regular Army, where, as I understand, if a soldier is enlisted and is discharged within three months of 

the time of enlistment, it is expressly stated on the certificate of disability that the disability arose before his entry into the service·. It is 

by analogy with that rule of the regular Army that the Pension Office 

adopted the ru1e that where the disability was developed within three 

months it is presumed that it arose before enlistment. 

Mr. CONGER. If that is the rule of the Pension Office, and I sup- -pose it is, it is a rule that never ought to have been adopted, no matter 

in what other branch of the service it has obtained. The mere circumstances of the case show that that is a harsh and unjust rule. Here are young men going from comfortable homes in the midst of all the 

enjoyments and comforts of life; they enlist and go into the service, 

and for the first three months they sleep in wintry nights without tents, 

they are exposed to all the hardships of camp life before they become 

hardened. Those three months are the crucial months of a soldier's 

life. If he can live through them without contracting disease from the 

exposure he is good for three years. Everybody knows that. So the 

ru1e is a wrong one, and the purpose now is to obviate that rule. 

Mr. DOLPH. Will the Senator from Michigan allow me to ask him a question? · 

Mr. CONGER. Certainly. 

Mr. DOLPH. I wish to ask the Senator from Michigan if he supposes that striking out the words '' but such presumption may be re- butted" wou1d at all change the sense of the proviso? I understand 

that it is only a prima facie presumption. 

Mr. CONGER. Will the Senator read the first clause of the proviso? ' 

Mr. DOLPH. It reads: 

Provided, That all applicants. for pensions shall be presumed to have bad no disability at the time of enlistment. 

I think the subsequent words, "but such presumption may be re- butted," are surplusage. It is not a conclusive presumption. 

Mr. CONGER. Then the words ought to be stricken out, of course, 

if it means the same thing without them. I thank the Senator for his 

suggestion, and I think there is some force in it; but for fear tha.t it 

might have a different construction from men who can notjudgeofthe 

law and of the change of words as the Senator from Oregon can, the 

cianse should be stricken out. 

M:r. HARRL'30N. I simply want to make good a statement I made 

that the Senator from Michigan is asking more than the representatives 

of the soldiers before our Pension Committee themselves asked. He 

speaks with great eloquence of the men who went out and fhced danger and death and slept under a covering of snow and endured hardships for the flag. 

The gentlemen who signed the memorial from which I am about to 

read were men who had done and suffered aJl those things themselves. 

One of thein at least was a man who had lost both his legs in the 

service of his country. All oftbem were influential members of that 

great body, the Grand Army of the Republic, and were in the habit of 

meeting from week to week in those social conferences in which the 

men who carried the flag to victory meet in every village and hamlet 

in the country. They were. appointed by the national convention of 

that order t-o represent the wishes of the· several hundred thousand soldiers who are now enrolled in the Grand Armyofthe Republic, as a special committee upon pension legislation. They came here and preXVI-94 

----

sented to our committee a memorial or address in which they asked 

for certain legislation. Among ot~er things they said: 

We are in favor of the bill which provides that the fact, as shown by the rec- ord of the acceptance and muster-in of the soldier and sailor, shall be received 

by the pension authorities as prima facie eyjdence that he was 8ound p.t that 

time-the Government not to be debarred fiWm proving that be was unsound at date of enlistment, but the onus of the proof to be on the Government. 

Mr. FRYE. Is not that exactly what the bill says? 

Mr. HARRISON. It is-exactly what the bill says as it stands now, 

but it w-ill not be what the bill says if the amendment of the Senator 

from California prevails. The biJ.l will then say that this presumption 

shall be conclusive. If a man was accepted and mustered in with one eye, the mustering officer believing that he had the physical capacity 

to render good s~vicc as a soldier, the Senator from Michigan wou1d 

make this provision read that he shall be conclusively presumed to have 

had both eyes when he enlisted. 

I only desired to show that this propose4 legisla.tion as it stands ex- presses the deliberate judgment of the great body of the soldiers of the 

country as to what they want, and that if a man who went into the 

service had lost a finger or :m eye, or was suffering under some disability 

at the time of his acceptatwe into the service, comes ba-ck asking for a pension for the loss of an eye, the Government shall not absolutely be debarred from showing that he had lost it beforehewentinto the service. 

The soldiers of this counh·y are not asking for such legislation; at least 

they have not asked for it in any of the memorials or petitions which 

have been presented here. 

Mr. MILLER, of California. The Senat.or from Indiana has read 

what the soldiers ask for, and it amounts to this: they ask that the burden of proof shall be on the Government of the United States and not 

upon the soldiers. I ask the Senator from Indi:ma as a lawyer whether 

the clause as it stands throws the burden of proof upon the Government? Does it require the Government to prove tbat the soldier was unsound at the time of his enlistment? 

Mr. HARRISON. If I am able to understand language, it does. It 

says that ''all applicants for pensious shall be presumed to have had no disability "-tlmt is, to be sound "at the time of enlistment." The 

Senator as a lawyer knows that in the trial of a case, whether it be a presumption resulting from the proof of certain facts, or whether the 

law gives the defendant the prim-a facie evidence, the burden is cast 

upon the other party at once to disprove his case. So in this case, as I understand it, a soldier does not file with his application any evidence as to his status or as to his physical condition when he went into the 

service. He omits that . . That evidence is prima facie fun;rished by the 

fact of his enlistment. But the Government may call witnesses to show 

that he had lost his eye or his thumb before he went into the service. 

If the .amendment of the Senator from California shou1d be adopted, 

that could not be done. 

?t1r. MILLER, of California. It amounts to saying that the soldier 

must go into a trial, and if the Governwent suggests that he was un- sound at the time of enlistment, then "there is a trial upon the question of fact, and the Government rebuts the presumption of sound- ness. .But it is not required under this provision to offer conclusive 

proof that the disability existed before enlistment. That is the difference. It does not throw the burden of proof wholly upon the Government. The Government can put the soldier to his proof by a mere 

rebuttal. Any evidence tending to show that the disability existed 

before 'enlistment is rebutting evidence, and that puts the soldier upon 

his proof again, just as he is now. With these words stricken out, if 

the soldier commits a fraud the evidence of that fraud can be introduced. The presumption is not conclusive against fraud; but the pension is a contract between the Government and the soldier, and fraud 

vitiates everything. 

Mr. HARRISON. I beg the Senator's pardonJ if he Will-allow me to interrupt him. Sup_pose a case. Suppose a soldier in making application for a pension for the loss of an eye, as be alleges, which occurred 

in the battle of Spottsylvania. Under the bill as it stands it would be 

presumed that he had both eyes when _he went into the service, but 

under the bill as it would stand if the Senator's amendment is adopted 

it would be conclusively proved against the Government that be had 

both eyes when he went into the serviee, and so far he wou1d be helped 

in his application in making out his case that he lost his eye in battle 

that the Government orsomebody wouldbaveto a.cconntfor the loss of 

the eye after be went into the service, when the fact was he lost it before, because the presumption is that he had two eyes. The Senator 

says it wou1d not apply to a case of fraud. There is no fraud about it. 

The soldier simply avails himself of the law, which says he had two 

eyes when he enlisted. , Mr. MILLEI~, of California. But t.he fraud I speak of is a fraud in 

enlistment. If a man presents himself for enlistment and knows he 

has a disability, some hidden defect which would unfit him for a sol-

-dier, and be is accept¢ and does not disclose that defect, of course that 

is a fraud upon the Government. 

In the case put by the Senator from Indiana, where the party applying for a pension alleges that he lost an eye or a limb at some particular battle, and there is a presumption raised by the law tbat that is the 

fact, if you strike out these words the presumption is not so strong, it is 
1490 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 10, 

not conclusive; the Government may introduce proof to show that such 

is not the fact, but that it is a false and fraudulent representation. ~lr. HARRISON. I do not so understand it. I undeTSta.nd that a 

conclusive presumption ~ not be rebutted_; it can not ~e overcome. No proof will have any effect ~n a conclusive presump~10n. 

Mr. MILLER, of California. The presumption by this bill is not so conclusive as that. It is a presumption which requires proof to set it 

aside; that is all. What we contend for is to have the bill so that the 

bt;\rden of proof shall be upon the Government all the time in these 

cases, which the bill does not do in my opinion._ The lawyers here dif· 

fer. The Senator from Indiana says that this makes a conclusive pre· 

sumption. The Senator from Oregon, who is an equally learned law· 

yer, says that it does not; that it is a mere prima facie case made out by 

the soldier; that striking out the clause· does not affect t)le provision at 

all, as itis mere surplusage. I agree with the Senator ~om Oregon that 

if the words are surplusage they ought to be stricken out. There never 

ought to be surplusage in a law. 

Mr. DOLPH. I do not understand that any presumption created by 

statute is conclusive unless it is so stated, and the addition of the words 

"but such presumption may be rebutted" dOf.S not change the effect 

of the proviso as it would stand if they were stricken out. The Ian· 

gua(J'e is that" all applicants for pensions shall be presumed to have 

had0no disability at the time of enlistment." The applicant makes a case as to soundness by the fact that he was examined when he was en· listed, but that may be overthrown by the Government, in my judg· 

ment, whether or not the words remain in the bill which the Senator 

from California has moved to strike out. As it was broadly stated that 

if these words were stricken out this would be a conclusive presu.mp· 

tion1 I desired to give my understanding of it before the question -was 

voted upon. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I hope the bill will not be left in such a shape as to 

permit anybody to say that the enlistment, the reception of .a soldier, 

was conclusive evidence of his soundness. I think it would be so lefliif 

the last clause should be stricken out. It is proposed to strike out the 

words ''but such presumption may be rebutted.'' The proviso would 

then read: 

Provided, That all applicants for pensions shall be presumed to have had no disability at the time of enlistment. · 

It seems to me (I speak humbly as a lawyer of comparatively slight 

experience) that with that clause so reading it would still be the right 

and duty of the Government to show, in case of reasonable cause for 

doing so, that the soldier was unsound at the time of enlistment. It 

would be open to the Government to do that. . · Mr. MILLER, of California. The burden of proof would be on the 

Government instead of on the soldier, as it is now. Mr. HAWLEY. I do not see that the retention of the clause would 

change the burden of proof at all. 

Mr. MIL.LER, of California. . It would change the law. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Ineithercase it rests upontheGovemmenttoshow 

that the presumption the soldier has under the law is an unsound and 

unjust one; that it is not true. The burden of proof in the sense that 

my friend uses the term seems to have the same office in either case. It is possible, however, that it might be that stril.'ing out the clause 

"but such presumption may be rebutted" might change the judicia:! 

construction of this proposed act, and I should be sorry to have it do so. I hopenoamendmentwill bemade, that no construction will be given 

here in debate that will make the presumption absolute, for I do know 

myself that there are cases where the presumption should not be abso· 

lute. I can see one of the men now in my mind's eye distinctly who 

would get a-pension probably, and, who would not in the slightest de· 

gree in the world deserve it. He could make a conclusive presumption. 

It is not one case alone. There are hundreds-yes, thousands-of cases toward the latter part of the war nearly entirely. When there came 

to be gr~t bounties of three hundred, five hundred, six hundred, or a thousand dollars offered, and when the enlisting officers were very 

anxious to clear their county or their town of its quota under the draft, 

they gathered in whatever would come, men beyond age, men who obviously had physical unsoundness. They had not lost an eye or an arm, 

perhaps; there was no great visible disability; but the man I spoke of 

whom I had in my eye could not have gqne on a double-quick for three 

hundred yards to save his life, and he looked as well as average men. He did not stay with our forces three weeks before he was s_ent back in 

contempt to the town from which he came as a disgrace to the law and 

the people who had sent him. That was more obvious than many other 

cases, but there were many of them toward the close, just as there were, 

unfortunately, of the miserable b~unty-jumpers and deserters and 

thieves, many of whom were shot in the front of the line for attempts 

at desertion or other shameless crimes. 

I object to the proposed amendment. I think the ex- oldiers of the 

Army would unanimously say that the Government ought clearly to 

have the right of rebuttal and ~ught to exercise it, for the pensioning 

of any such man-and it is generally known in his neighborhood, in his 

town, in his county-is a grievous offense and is felt as an insult. They 

desire to protect their own honor as well as the finances of the nation. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HARRiS in the chair). The ques. 

tion is on the amendment proposed by the Senator from California [Mr. 

MILLER], upon which the yeas and nays have been ordered. 

The SecPetary proceeded to call the roll. ~lr. FRYE (whenhisnamewas called). I am paired withthejunior 

Senator from Louisiana [:Mr. GIBSON], who is detained from the Senate 

by sickness in his family. I shall not vote unless my vote may be nee· essary to make a quorum. 

The roll .call having been concluded, the result was announced-yeas 

17, nays 36; as follows: 

YEA8-17. 

Aldrich, 

Bowen, 

Conger, 

Cullom, 

Dolph. 

Hale, tiller of Cal., Voorhees, 

Hill, Miller of N. Y., Wilson. 

Allison, 

Bayard, 

Beck, 

Butler, 

Call, 

Camden, 

Cockrell, 

Coke, 

Colquitt, 

Jones of Nevada., Palmer, 

Lapham, Sabin, 

Manderson, Sawyer, 

Garland, 

George, 

Gorman, 

Groome, 

Hampton, 

Harris, Harrison, 

Hawley, 

Hoar, 

NAY.s--36. 

Ingalls, 

Jackson, 

Jonas, Kenna, :11-laxey, 

-Mitchell, 

Morgan, 

l'tiorrill, Pendleton, 

ABSENT-23. 

Blair, Edmunds, Lamar, Brown, Fair, Logan, Cameron of Pa., Farley, McMil.la.n, 

Cameron of Wis., Frye, 1tfcPherson, 

Chace, Gibson, Mahone, 

Dawes, Jones of Florida, Platt, 

So the amendment was rejected. 

Pike, 

Pugh, 

Saulsbury, 

Sewell. 

Sherman, 

Slater, Vance, 

Vest, 

Williams. 

Plumb, Ransom., 

Riddleberger, 

VanWyck, 

Walker. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the amend· 

ment proposed by the Senator fr9m Kansas [Mr. INGALLS] to strike 

out the proviso. 

1\Ir. INGALLS. Mr. President, I made that motion intending to 

vote against it. I believe that the legislation as it appears in the bill as it· came from the Honse of Representatives is wise and just and 

prudent. The Senate yesterday upon a point of order rejected an amendment that was offered by the Committee on Ap.Propria.tions tQ this 

provision·, upon the ground that it was general legislation upon an appropriation bill. The Committee on Appropriations reported amend· 

ments to strike out a large number of sections in this bill upon the 

ground that they were general legislation, and, therefore, properly not 

in the bill. They omitted to strike out the provisions of general legislation contained upon page 2, a part of which I have moved to eliminate for the purpose of ascertaining whether the rule about which we have been debating for the last week or two is to be enforced absolutely or only when it applies to legislation that the Senate desire to place 

upon an appropriation bill. I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is upon the amendment 

proposed by the Senator from Kansas, on which the yeas and nays have 

been demanded. Is there a second? 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. ~llTCHELL. As the case is stated by the Senator from Kansas, I shall vote against this provision; but there are other good reasons in my mind why I should vote for it. The Senate has passed two bills 

containing a provision which I regard as better than the 'one here pra. 

posed on this subject. Only on Saturday to the bill (H. R. 5800) for 

the relief of Sarah B. Jackson the Senate adopted an amendment which 

reads as follows: 

SEC.-. That in all applications under· the general pension laws, including this 

act, where it appears by recortl evidence that the applicant was regularly en- listed and mustered into the service, tha.t fad shall be prima fac-ie evidence of 

soundness at the time of his enlistment ; but such pre umption shall be subject to rebuttal by record or other competent evidence. 

I regard this provision as much better than the one· here propo ed; 

and for the reasons which I have stated I am disposed to vote against 

this clause of the bill. If the House of Representatives desire to a~t 

upon this question they have two opportunities-one in the .Mexican 

pension bill, so called, and the other in the bill to which I have just 

referred; and my information in regard to the latter bill is that there 

is a very strong probability that it will be agreed to. That bill also 

contains the provision in relation to increase of pension to widows and 

dependent parents, and it appears to me it is most likely it will be 

adopted by .the House. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Let tbe amendment to be voted on be now read. 

Mr. 1\IITCHELL. I shall vote to strike out the clause, as I understand that is the form of the amendment proposed. 

ThePRESIDINGOFFICER. The motionoftheSenator from Kan· sas is to strike out what will now be read. . 

The SECRETARY. It is proposed to strike ouj; the proviso at the end 

of section 1, beginning in line 29, as follows: 

Provided, That aU applicants for pension shall be pre wned to have had no disability at the time of enlistment; but such presumption may be rebutted. 

Mr. VOORHEES. I shall detain the Senate but a. moment. The 

proviso does nothing when it allows presumption. to be denied, because 

the presumption now is that a man was sound when he enlisted. Every 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD-SENATE. 1491 

applicant for pension in filing liis application says he was a sound man when he enlisted, and that is the presumption now, and then the GQvernment is permitted to turn around on him with all its force and destroy that presumption. That is just what it claims the right to do 

now, and it leaves him exactly where he is under the present law. 

Mr. HARRISON. Will my colleague allow me to ask him whether 

he understands that under the present law all the proof a soldier is re- quired to make that he was sound at the time of enlistment is his own 

a:ftidavit? 

Mr. VOORHEES. No, I do not; but shall I understand my colleague 

in that question to imply that a soldier who makes such a declaration 

has no presumption in his favor, or that he is presumed to not tell the 

~th? ' 

1\Ir. HARRISON. No; nothing of the kind; but it is left as a fact 

to be proved, upon which the burden rests on him to supply what 

will be aecepted as adequate proof, and under the law and the administration of it the soldier's affidavit of any particular fact, as for intance the fact of his having been shot in battle, is required to be supported by additional proof. · So as it is now the burden of establishing 

the fact of soundness at the time of enlistment is upon him, and his 

affidavit is not accepted as .sufficient proof on that or ~y other question; so that the legislation does help him. 

1\Ir. VOORHEES. I just wish to call the attention of the Senate 

and the country to the fact that this matter is left where it is now, 

with perhaps the exception of the soldier, a.s the lawstandsnow, being 

required to put in some additional proof besides his own declaration; 

but after he has made his declaration and his proof, the Government 

then has the right, as the law stands now and as it will stand after this measure is-passed, to go to work and scour the country with its ex- aminers, hunt up men who a.re the soldier's enemies in the neighborhood, and do everything toward him to break down his case as they can now. ·There is no question about that at all. This term " rebuttal" means nothing more than that the Government is at liberty to go to 

work and prove that it certified a falsehood when it certified that the 

man enlisted was sound. 

If there isanyvaluein this discussion at all it maybe this, that when 

the Government accepted a man and certified that he was sound and 

qualified to be a soldier it shall be held to that record, that it shall not 

be permitted twenty years afterward to turnaround and prove that it 

it.9elf certified: to a falsehood. That is the value of this. There is nothing more or less in it. When a soldier was inspected for service his 

lungs, his stomach, his limbs, his thews, his sinews, his heart, all his 

vital powers underwent medical inspection, and the authorities of the 

Government said, ''This man is a sound man; '' and I say the Government should be hela to the same rule that would govern an honest man- that is, it should be estopped from going behind a record deliberately 

made and sending an officer to investigate the fact and say that what 

he said then was false. 

I believe in no morals of tha.t kind.- When yon say that the soldier 

shall be presumed to have been sound and then say that the Government may rebut the presumption, you just let the Government go to 

work with all·it.s power of examiners and with money, as I have seen it going on for years past, to break down the soldier's case. I proclaim 

here as far as my feeble voice will extend that the soldier gains nothing 

by this proviso. 

1\Ir. HARRISON. I supposed my colleague had had sufficient experience in his extended practice as a lawyer, too much experience, to 

make the statement-which we have just heard from him, that it was no ad vantage to a litigant or claimant to have given to him at the outset a prima facie case. It will be new, I think, to the other lawyers in this 

body. ''The burden of proof" is an expression well understood by 

every lawyer; he knows how much the difficulties of his case have been 

relieved when he can roll the burden of proof off upon his adversary 

and stand from under it himself; and yeti grieve .to hear my colleague 

say that wherea.S now there is no presumption in favor of the soldier 

at all, but he is required to prove the fact of his soundness at the time 

of enlistment with precisely the same quality and the same amount of 

evidence that he is required to prove that he received a wound in ac- tion, it gives no relief, forsooth, when we start him in upon his proof 

without any burden as to the question of his soundness at the time of 

enlistment, but create a presumption in his favor without any proof 

whatever. 

Mr. President, there are hundreds of cases that have been brought to 

my own attention, such as I alluded to a moment ago, where the soldier 

has removed from the place of his enlistment, where he has gone aV'fay 

from the friends who knew him before his enlistment, and where it is 

impossible for him to produce any testimony as to his physical condition 

before enlistment. Now, by this proviso in this bill that soldier is absolutely relieved of the necessity of producing any evidence at all on .. thatpoint. Hestartsfree. Thebu.rdenison theotherside. Thelegal 

aspect of the case is, '' My .pension must be granted so far as the proof 

upon that qnestionisconcemed, unless the GQvernment can prove that 

I was unsound at the time of my ~nlistment. 1' 

Mr. President, I was surprised to find that soldiers themselves know so little about these questions of pensions and the delays and impediment and restraints of the law which have been felt by them as personal matters, which bave.been discussed by them in those meetings 

where soldiers only act, in their camp-fires, in the Grand Army posts, in their national conventions of men who were in the field, men keenly 

alive to and in sympathy with their comrades who were disabled-that 

it never occurred to them, though they have discussed this matter for 

years, that to be relieved of the burden of proof and to be given a prima 

facie case was no relief. As I showed a moment ago, the intelligent 

representatives of the Grand Army of the Republic came to the Senate 

and said, ''That is all we want; that relieves this difficulty, it removes the trouble;" and yet we are to be told here to-day that th()Se gentle. 

men, as I said a while ago, one or more of them men who had been 

wounded in battle, are really ignorant of this question, and my colleague thinks that which they ask and all they ask will result in no benefit whatever to them. 

Mr. President, I venture to say that those soldiers understood this 

question; they knew just where the difficulty was, and theymadethat 

reasonable deman,d which would remove the difficulty out of their way. 

I say no soldier has asked, by petition or otherwise, Congress to say that 

when a man was accepted, if he was found afterward with one eye, it. 

should be conclusive presumption that he had two when he enlisted. • Mr. VOORHEES. Suppose the Government surgeon certified that he 

had two, then what would you do? 

:Mr. HARRISON. My colleague is unfamiliar with a mustering cer- tificate. He is not familiaT wit4 the mustering cerJ;ificates. The Gov· 

ernment never did certify as to whether a ·man had one eye or two. 

They accepted him as a soldier, and that was all they certified; and it 

is within the knowledge ·of every man who was a soldier that some. times during the stress of war and the demand for troops at the front men were accepted with but slight examination, and those men only 

ask that they may have a primafaeie case. I hope this proviso will not be stricken out, becauseitstandshereas a, response by the Senate of the United States to the demands of the 

Grand Army of the Republic, the organization of the veterans who went 

to the front and came back by God's grace alive ifnotwhole--anexact 

response to the prayer which they have made in every particular. It 

starts every honest applicant for a pension upon his race of proof without any imputation against him, with the presumption that he was sound 

when he entered the service. It simply leaves it to be shown, if the fact was so, that in the particular case there was some existing unsound_· ness. 

~Ir. VOORHEES. But a single moment, Mr. President. The q ues· tion which it seems my colleague either will not or can not discern in 

this matter is, whether the Government shall be allowed to dispute its own solemn record in order to evade the duty of paying a pension. 

That is not a question of presumption. I vote to retain this proviso 

for what it is worth. It would be worth everything to the soldier if it were not for the last clause of ib. I am willing to go to the country 

and to any honest tribunal on the question whether the United States 

Government, after certifying to a fact, shall be allowed to turn around 

and .say it did not tell the truth. I am willing to stand on that. That 

is the question here. I say the Government, after it certified that a man was qualified to be a soldier, should not be allowed to dispute it 

in order to defeat the payment of a pension. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of 

the Senator from Kansas [:rtlr. INGALLS], on which the yeas and nays 

have been ordered. · 

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

what will be t_he effect if the amendment prevails and the proviso.is 

stricken out? 

1\Ir. HARRISON. The soldier is left without any prima facie case; 

he is left as now to make his proof as he can. The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 16, nays 

44; as follows : · 

Bayard, 

Beck, 

Brown, BuUer, 

Aldrich, 

Allison, Blair, 

Bowen, 

Call, 

Cameron ofWis., 

Chace, 

Cockrell, 

Conger, 

Cullom, 

Dolph, 

Camden, 

Coke, Garland, Hampton, 

Frye, George, 

Gorman, Hale, Harrison, 

Hawley, Hill 

In~lls, Jonas, 

YEAS-16. 

Harris, Hoar, 

Jackson, 

Maxey, 

NAYS~ 

McZ.fillan, :McPherson, Manderson, 

]')filler of Cal., 

Miller of N.Y., 

]')forgan, Morrill, Palmer, 

.Jones of Nevada, 

Lapham, 

· Pendleton, Plumb, Pugh, · 

ABS~NT-16. 

Mitche\1, Pike, 

Platt, Vance. 

Ransom, 

Sabin, 

Saulsbury, 

Sawyer, Sewell, 

Sherman, Slater, Vest, 

Voorhees, 

Williams, Wilson. 

Cameron ofPa., Fair, Jones of Florida, Z.Ia.hone, Colquitt, Farley, K:enna,. Riddleberger, Dawes, Gibson, · Lamar, VanWyck:, 

Edmunds, Groome, Logan, Walker. 

So the amendment was rejected. ' 

?tlr. MITCHELL. I desire to say that my colleague [Mr. C.UIERON, _ of Pennsylvania] is called away by illness. I presume he would vote 

"nay'! if he were present. 
1492 CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 10, 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is still open to amendment. 

Mr. LAPHAM. At the end of line 33, section 1, I move to add: 

By record evidence or other competent evidence on behalf of the United 

States. · 

So as to rea<J: 

But such presumption may be rebutted by record evidence or other compe- tent evidence on behalf of the United States. 

Mr. BAYARD. Is that in order ? 

Mr. LAPHAM. This amendment makes the bill correspond with 

the one the Senate has already passed an"d sent to the Honse; that is, 

it defines the mode of proof by which the presumption may be re- butted. 

Mr. PLA'IT. I am not aware that the amendment has been re- ceived. Does not a point of order lie against the amendment? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will dispose of any question of order which may be raised upon it when raised. 

Mr. PLA'IT. I was not aware that the amendment had been re- ceived so that it was before the Senate. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the duty of the Chair to receive 

any amendment that may be proposed. If any Senator chooses to make a question of order upon the amendment, the Chair will dispose of the 

question of order when raised. 

Mr. PLA'IT. If it is not too late, I raise the question-- - The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not too late. 

Mr. PLATT. I raise the question of order. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair does not hesitate to sustain 

the-point of order. The amendment is legislation and is no~ in order. 

The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be 

read a third time. 

The bill was read the third time, and passed. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

1\{r. DOLPH. Now I move that the next special order be laid aside. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate the 

next special order on the Calendar of special orders. 

Mr. DOLPH. I move that the Calenda'r be laid aside. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will report the special 

order by its title, and then the Senator can be heard. 

The CmEF CLE:ruc A bill (S. 60) to declare certain lands subject 

to taxation. 

Mr. DOLPH. I move that the Calendar be laid aside for the p~ 

of considering House bill 7004. I move that it be taken up for present 

consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair holds that the Senator's 

motion is not in order. 

Mr. DOLPH. Tha,t the Calendar be laid aside? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That the Calendar be laid aside. The 

Senator may move to postpone to a day certain or indefinitely the 

special order, and that disposes of all special orders, and the motion 

he has suggested, the Chair thinks, would then be in order. 

Mr. DOLPH. Very well, Mr. President, I accommodate myself to 

the ruling. I move that the special order be laid aside for the present 

for the consideration of House bill 7004. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. He can move to postpone to a day 

certain, if the Senator desires to conform to the rule. 

Mr. DOLPH. I move to postpone it until to-morrow. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon moves that 

the pending bill be postponed until to-morrow. 

Mr. GARLAND. The bill now called as the special order is a bill 

which I reported from the Judiciary Committee; but the Senator from 

Kansas [Mr. PLmm] who is absent from his seat introduced the bill 

originally, and manifested more concern in it than anybody else. I 

would supplement the motion by moving that it be postponed until 

Saturday next, because it will be impossible to consider it to-morrow 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. · The Chair lays before the Senate the on account of the counting of the electoral vote at the other end of the 

next special order upon the Calendar of Special Orders, being, as the Capitol. · Chair is advised, the bill (H. R. 3933) to declare a forfeiture of lands The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas moves granted to the Texas Pacific •Railroad Company, and for other purposes. that the further consideration of the bill be postponed until Saturday 

Mr. · DOLPH. I now move to take up for consideration Order of next. 

Business 1001, being the bill (H. R. 7004) to repeal all laws providing The motion was agreed to. ·for the pre-emption of the public lands and the laws allowing entries PUBLIC LAND LAws. 

for timber culture. · . The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair :is informed that under Mr. DOLPH. I Understand, Ur. President, that that was an amendthe order of the Chair a moment since the wrong bill was announced. ment to the motion made by me. I now move to take up Honse bill 7004. . ·The Chair ordered that the :first biiLon the Calendar of Special Orders The PRESIDING OFFICER. The title of the bill designated by be reported to the Senate. The Secretary will now report the bill the Senator from Oregon will be read. . which is the :first of the special orders. . . ) The CHIEF CLERK. Ajointresolution(S. R.l8)proposinganamend- The CHIEF CLERK. A bill (H. R. 7004 to repeal all laws providing 

ment to article 1, section 7, clause 2, of the Constitution of the United for the pre-emption of the public lands and the laws allowing entries 

States, in relation to the veto power. for timber culture. 

Mr. DOLPH. I now renew my motion that the Senate proceed to The. PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon moves that 

( ) the Senate proceed to the consideration of this bill. the consideration of the bill H. R. 7004 to repeal all laws prov:i,ding The motion was agreed to; and the consideration of the bill was re- for the p~emption of the public lands, and the laws allowing entries sumed as in Committee of the Whole. · for timber culture. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would suggest to the Sen- The PRESIDING OFFICER. . The Chair is informed that the bill 

ator from Oregon that he must :first dispose of the joint resolution be- has been read, and all the amendments recommended by the Commit-

. h 'd · h tee on Public Lands agreed to. fore the Senate by postponrng t e cons1 erat10n of the same or ot er 1\Ir. DOLPH. I think not; the l:ist two amendments have not been 

disposition, before his motion will be in order. acted on yet. 

Mr. DOLPH. I move then that the joint resolution before the Sen- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary has just corrected his 

ate be postponed until Saturday next. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon moves that former statement, and informs the Chair that some of the committee 

the further consideration of the joint resolution now before the Senate amendments have not yet been acted on. The :first of the amendments 

be postponed until Saturday next. • not heretofore acted on will be rea-d. · Mr. INGALLS. By whom was that resolution reported? The CHIEF CLERK. The Committee on Public Lands propose to inMr. CULLOM. I hope that resolution will be passed over inform- sert, as a. new section, the following: 

ally. It is a J. oint resolution introduced by my colleague. SEc. 5. That after the passage of this act no public lands of the United States, except abandoned military or other reservations and mineral and other lands The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution was reported by the sale of which at public auction has been authorized by acts of Congress of 

the Senator from Illinois [Mr. LOGAN]. a. special na.ture having local application, shall be sold at public auction or be 

1t1r. CULLOM. I ask that it be passed over informally, retaining its subject to private entry; and all offered public lands are hereby withdrawn from market, and shall be disposed of as unoffe-red public lands. . place on the Calendar. this 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senat<>r from Illinois asks that The PRESIDING OFFICER. To amendment of the committee 

the J' oint resolution be informally laid aside, holding its pla.ce as the the Senator from Missouri [Mr. COCKRELL] offered an amendment, which will be read. ~ :first special order upon the Calendar. Is there objection? The Chair The CHIEF CLERK. The proposed amendment to the amendment is, hears none. Mr. DOLPH. Now I renew my motion to proceed to the considera- at the end of line 8, to insert: 

tion of House bill 7004. Excepting all lands situate in the State of Missouri. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thinks it is the duty of the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the 

Chair to lay the next special order upon the Calendar of Special Orders amendment proposed by the Senator from Missouri to the amendmen.t 

before the Senate. The Secretary will state it. · of the Committee on Public Lands. 

Mr. DOLPH. I move that that be laid aside. Mr. DOLPH. I hope that if this course is to be followed by SenaThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The title of the bill will first be read. tors from other States where there are offered public lands, the amendThe CHIEF CLERK. A bill (S. 1652) to provide for the improvement ment will be voted down and the section offered M an amendment by 

of the channel between Galveston Harbor and the Gulf of Mexico. the committee be voted down also rather than undertake to except the 

Mr. COKE. I ~k that that bill may be informally laid aside, re- several States where there are offered public lands. . taining its place as a special order on the Calendar. As I stated on a former occasion, "there are but few States where there 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas asks that the are offered public lands for sale at private entry. Those are Missouri, 

bill just announced be informally laid aside, holding its place on the Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama., Florida, Michigan, and 

Calendar of Special Orders. Is there objection?_ The Chair hears none. _ Minnesota. There are also small amounts of such lands in California, 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. ·1493 

O.rev.on, and Washington Territory, and the Terrirory of New Mexico. 

If t-lte Senators from the Southern States, where there are considerable 

quantities of offered lands, are not in favor of this provision withdrawing those lands from private entry, it will be better to vote down this 

section offered by the committee and then strike out of the bill section 

6, as it came from the House, than to undertake to except the several 

States in this section. I do not see the Senator from Missouri, who 

offered the amendment. 

1\Ir. VEST. l\Iy colleague is not present, but I can state the reasons which I think will be entirely satisfactory to the Senate why this provision should not apply to the State ofl\Iissouri. There are no public 

lands in the State of Missouri that will ever be taken up by homesteads or pre-emptions. The only lands within the limits of that State which are now public lands are mineral lands, lands situated in the hilly or mountainous portions of the State, and they are not taken up by 

homesteaders. If this section applies to the State of Missouri, it simply amounts to keeping those lands that are now public lands in their 

present condition forever. All we desire as representing that State is 

tha.t this provision shall not apply to Missouri in order that these lands 

may be entered for grazing and mineral purposes, as they certainly will 

not be taken up by homesteads or pre-emptions. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment to 

the amendment. 

The question· being put, there were on a division-ayes 20, noes 15; 

no quorum voting. 

Mr. DOLPH. I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Now let the amendment that I offered be read 

again, that I may see exactly the relation of it. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri will be read again. 

The Chief Clerk read the amendment and the amendment to the 

amendment. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I should like to ask what action has been taken 

upon section 4. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Section 4 has been agreed to. 

Mr. COC~ELL. And then section 5, the new section? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending section, to which 

the Senator's amendment is proposed. 

l\ir. COCKRELL. I should like to ask the Senator from Oregon if 

this proposed a10endment, section 5, the new section, was disagreed to, 

what would be the condition then of the bill? 

Mr. DOLPH. If the motion to strike out section 6 and insert sec- tion 5, which is under· consideration, should not prevail, the bill 

would stand as it came from the House, with section 6 in it, and then a motion could be made to strike out section 6. If section 5 is not 

adopted and section 6 should - stricken out, it would leave all the 

offered lands, lands subject to private entry, in the States named, still 

subject to private entry. . My objection to the amendment of this section by excepting a State 

is that it is likely to be followed by like amendments excepting other 

States where there are offered lands. If that is to be the case the sec- tion had better be voted down at once1 but if there are no other Senators who desire to except their States from the operation of this sec~ 

tion I should have no serious objection fA> the amendment offered by 

the Senator from 1\Iissouri. · Mr. · COCKRELL. I have no disposition to complicate this bill in 

any shape, manner, or form,· for I am heartily in favor of the general 

provisions of it; but it would do great . injustice to the State of l\Iissouri and to her people for this section 5 to be adopted. I offered the 

amendment which I did for the purposegf excepting Missouri from the 

operation of the law. I see at once that if an exception be made in 

favor of one State there will be exceptions then sought in favor of others, and the better way and the proper way would be to disagree to 

section 5, the amendment proposed by the committee, and then agree to 

strike out section 6. I ask the ·Senator if that would· not leave the 

public lands in these old States just in the condition they are now in? 

Mr. DOLPH. So far as the question of their sale at private entry 

is concerned, it would. Mr. COCKRELL. That is what I mean. I have in my hand a letter from the Commissioner of the General Land Office, which I will read: 

DEPARTME NT OF. THE I N TERIOR,GENERAL LAND OFFICE, 

Washington, D. C., February 5, 188.5. 

Sm: In response to your verbal request of to-day, I have the honor to state that it is probable that all public lands in the State of 1\lissouri, now vacant, have once been offered at public sale. There were withdrawals made for the following railroads: Hannibal and Saint Jo, lands within the six and fifteen miles 

limits; Saint Louis and San Francisco, from Saint Louis to Springfield, six and 

fifteen miles, and from Springfield west, for Atlantic and Pacific, twenty and 

thirty miles limits; the Iron Mountain, from Bird's Point southwest to State 

line, six, fifteen, and twenty miles, and from Ironton to Poplar BluW, ten and 

twenty mi!es limits. 

The alternate sections, which were increased in price by reason of being within 

the granted limits of the above roads, were offered at !2.50 per acre, but such as were reduced in price by act of June 15, 1880 (21 Stat., 236), have not been re- offered at such reduced price, and they are not subject to private entry until so reoffered. The sections within the indemnity limits, which did not inure to the 

benefit of the railroads, were restored to market at private entry. There is probably a large amount of land in 1\lissouri that has been withdrawn 

from sale at private entry by having been entered under the homestead laws, 

which entries were subS§.\quently canceled. Such lands are not subject to private 

entry unless they shall have been properly restored. 

Very respectfully, 

Bon. F • .M. CoCKBELL, 

United States Senate. 

L. HARRISON, 

Assistant Commissioner. 

I desire to say simply that on the north side of the Missouri River, in our State, there are no public lands. All the public lands in l\lissouri are south of the Paeific Railroad substantially, and the greater part of 

them fu the southern part of the State. There are no prairie lands, 

there are no agricultural lands in Missouri to-day vacant; no lands 

whatever that can be called~uriculturallands. Therecannotbefound one hundred and sixty acres of public land in Missouri upon which you 

could make a tillable field of sixty acres. There is land some of which 

has timber upon it; SOII!e of it has brush; it probably will be valuable 

for grazing cattle and sheep; and it will be valuable to some e:K:tent for 

the timber. 

Ifyou make this land subject to homesteads you simply preclude 

the sale of another acre of land in Missouri. There it is. It has been 

for twenty-five years subject to private entry; nobody has taken1

it up, 

speculators have not gone there and taken it up, and there is no danger 

of anything of that kind. Now, l\Ir. President, I shall insist that the 

Senate disagree to this proposed amendment known as section 5, and 

let the Missouri lands remain precisely as they have been so far as the 

provision at private sale is concerned. I hope that the Senate will do 

this. It does not affect any other lands which are properly tillable, ~cultural lands. 

If I may be allowed I would move-the motion, I believe, would not 

be in order, however-that the Senate disagree to the proposed amendment of the committee. If the Senate will permit, I will withdraw 

the amendment which I proposed, making a special exception of 1\iissouri, and ask the Senate to non-concur in this amendment of the com- mittee. . . The PRESIDING OFFICER (l\Ir. HALE in the chair). The yeas 

and nays have been ordered on the amendment offered by the Senator 

from Missouri. · l\Ir. DOLPH. I should like to suggest to the Senator from Missouri 

that he can offet his amendment in the Senate; that be withdraw it at 

this time, and let the vote be had in Committee of the Whole on the 

section as it stands. If it should be voted down of course the matter 

will be_ ended; but if the Senate adopts the amendment of the C()mmittee it will be open in the Senate to amendment still, and then the 

amendment excepting Missouri can be offered. · l\Ir. COCKRELL. That· was precisely what I was stating, that I 

would withdraw the amendment which I had proposed and ask the 

Senate to vote down section 5. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Missouri desire to withdraw his amendment? 

l\Ir. COCKRELL. I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed 

to withdraw my amendment, or that the order of the Senate ordering 

the yeas and nays may be reconsidered, and then that I may be allowed to withdraw the amendment in order that we may take a. direct 

vote on the amendment of the committee. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri asks 

unanimous consent that the order of the ~enate ordering the yeas and 

nay& on his amendment be va-cated. If there be no objection it is so ordered. The Senator f1·om l\Iissouri now asks leave to withdraw his 

amendment. There being no objection it is so ordered. 

1\Ir •• DOLPH. Before the vote. is taken on the amendment reported 

by the committee I desire to call attention again to the States i:u which 

the lands subjE!ct to private entry ate situated. There are in the State 

of Mississippi about 1,000,000 acres; in Florida about 500,000 acres; in 

eachoftbe States of Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana about 200,000; 

in the northern portions ofl\lichigan and Minnesota about 500,000 acres each. There are only about 50,000 acres in California, 50,000 acres in 

Oregon, and 50,000 acres in Washington Territory. These amounts are not large enough to- make the matter of any considerable importance to the people of the Pacific coast. I understand that portions of. 

the lands subject to private entry in some of the States1 if not in :Missouri, are agricultural lands. I simply want the Senate to und~rstand 

what they are voting upon, where the lands are situated, and whatthe 

character of the land is, before they vote on the committee amendment. 

Mr. SHERl\IAN. I ask the Senator if all the lands thus situated 

have not been open to private entry for more than twenty years? 

l\Ir. DOLPH. I think probably for more than twenty-five years and 

continuously, .except in the Southern States, where during or just after 

the war they were withdrawn from private entry for a time, and then 

again placed on the market subject to private entry by act of Congress. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Then it seems to me there would be no harm in 

letting the thing gtand as it is. 

The PRE~IDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

of the committee proposed as section 5. 

Mr. CALL. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Oregon if the 

effect of this sootion 5, when passed, is not to prevent any entry of tha 

public lands except a homestead entry? 
1494 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. FEBRUARY 10, 

~Ir. DOLPH. Did I understand the Senator from Florida to propose 

a question to me? 

:Mr. CALL. I asked the Senator from Oregon if the effect of this sec- tion 5, if passed, is not to pre>ent any entry on the public lands except a homestead entry. · Mr. DOLPH. Certainly not. The section under consideration, if 

adopted, would only withdraw lands from private entry. Unless we pass the bill itself and adopt the sections which repeal the pre-emption 

law the land can still be entered under that law. Unless we adopt 

the ection which repeals the timber-culture act they ~n still be en- tered under that act, and so with the desert-land act. · Mr. DOLPH. O:ffet·ed public lands are such lands as have been 

offered at public sale, and not having been sold at public sale are afterward subject to private entry. That would be the only class of land 

which would be affected by this section. 

Mr. CALL. Unoffered public lands are only subject to pre-emption 

entry. 

!tfr. DOLPH. Under the homestead law, the timber-culture act, and 

the desert-land act they are open to settlement. 

Mr. CALL. I am speaking of section 5. The section says: 

SEC. 5. That after the passage of this act no public lands of the United States, 

except abandoned military or other rese rva tions and mineral and other lands 

the sale of which at public auction has been authorized by acts of Congress of a speeial nature having local application, h~ll be sold at public auction or be 

subject. to private entry; and all offered public lands are hereby withdrawn 

from market, and shall be disposed of as unoffered public lands. 

M:r. DOLPH. But the Senatorwill understand that the terms "offered lands'' and ''private entry ' ' have come to have a spooial mean- ing when applied to the land laws. 

Mr. CALL. I so understand. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of 

the Committee on Public Lands proposed as section 5. 

The amendment was rejected. 

Mr. DOLPH. There is still another committee amendment. 

The CHIEF CLERK. The oommi ttee report to strike out section 6, as 

follows: 

SEO. 6. That after the passage of this act no public lands of the United States· adapted to agriculture shall be sold except mineral lands and town sited; and all 

of the public lands of the United States adapted to agriculture shall be resetved 

for a ctual and bonafide settlers only, under the provisions of the homesteact,law, 

subject, however, to bounty-land warrants and college scrip issued by author· 

ity of Congress, and the grants which Congre s has made and shall hereafter 

make in the ne\V States aud Territories for the purpose of education ; but allla ws and parts of laws touching the rights of the officers, soldiers, and seamen heretofore in the military or naval service of the United States in the public lands are continued in full force: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be con- strued to amend or repeal the act for the sale of timberlands intheStatesofCalifornia, Oregon, Nevada., and in Washington Territot-y, passed June 3, 1.878: Pro- vided further, That nothing in this act shall be construed to impair, defeat, or in 

any manner affect the rights of any State to indemnity for swamp and over- flowed lands granted to the State of Arkansas and other States under the pro- visions of an act entitled "An act to enable the State of Arkansas and other 

State- to reclaim the swamp lands within their limits," approved September 28, 1850, as provided in sections 2479, 2480, 2481, 2482, 24.83, 2484, 2485, 2486, 2487, 

2460,2489, and 2490 of the Revised Statut-es of the United States. 

Mr. DOLPH. I think the previous section has been inadvertently 

acted on. The lll:otion 'was to strike out and insert, and it failed, and 

there has been no motion renewed to strike out. I understand it will 

not be in order until the committee amendments are disposed of; and on page 7 is another committee amendment which I suppose will be 

in order to be acted upon.' • The PRESIDING OFFICER. No action of the Senate haa been 

taken on the amendment which has just been read. · 1tir. COCKRELL. As I understand, really section 5 was a substi-· tute for section 6, but the proposed amendment came in in advance of 

what was proposed to be stricken out. We have dis?-.$_I'eed to section 

5 to be inserted, and now I hope we shall agree to stri.Jring out section 

6, and that leaves us all right. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

striking out section 6. 

Mr. COCKRELL. It is only a question of the order in which it was 

printed. Section 5 comes in in advance of section 6, and it is an independent proposition, though practically it wAs intended to strike out . section 6 and insert the proposed section 5 in lieu of it. Now, I hope 

the amendment of the committee proposing to strike out section 6 will 

be agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

to strike out section 6. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The next amendment was to insert as a new section the following: 

SEc. 6. That section 2288 of the Revised Statutes be amended so as to read as follows: 

" SEc. 2288. Any person who has already settled on the public lands, either by 

pre-emption or by virtue of the homestead law, or any amendments thereto; and 

any person who shall hereafter settle on the public lauds byvirtueofthehomestead law, or any amendments thereto, shall have the right to transfer, by war- ranty against his own acts, any portion of his pre-emption or homestead for 

church, cemetery, or school purposes, or for the rtght of way of railroads across ~ucb pre-e~p~ion or h~mestead; and the transfer for s~ch publi«: purposes shall ~ b~::~"';;j~~ t.he r1ght to complete and perfect the htle t.o t.heU" pre-emptions 

!1r. DOLPH. This is an exact copy of the old statute, except that 

it eliminates the words "pre-emption law" where they occur in this 

section so as to make it conform with the bill, if it is passed, which re- peals the pre-emption law. . · The amendment was agreed to. 

!tfr. INGALLS. Are there further amendments from the committee? 

Mr. DOLPH. There is an amendment I should like to offer in sec- tion 1, in lines 9, 10, and 11, to strike out the words "and all other 

la.ws allowing pre-emption of the public lands in the United States." 

I have ascertained since the bill wa-s reported that there are some special acts authorizing the pre-emption ofland.Ej on Indian reservations or lands ceded to the United States by Indian tribes, which can only be 

disposed of in that manner. I have ascertained further that since the 

statutes were revised there have been no amendments of importance to 

the pre-emption law, and therefore the words "and all other laws allowing pre-emption of the public lands of the United State.q" may be 

stricken out without doing any harm, and striking them out will leave 

in fore~ the laws covering these exceptional cases which we might over- look if we undertook to specify them all in the aet. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

of the Senator from Oregon, which will be read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. In section 1, lineD, after the words" United 

States,'' it is proposed to strike ouk · 

And all other laws allowing pre-emption of the public lands of Ute United 

States. . 

The amendment was agreed to. 

.Mr. DOLPH. I move further to amend the bill by adding after the 

word '' repealed,'' in line 29 of section 1, the following pro vi o: 

And prot>ided further, That all entries heretofore made uoder the pre-emption 

laws on which final proof and payment have been made and tow hich there a.re no adverse claims and which have been sold to innocent purchasers, shall be 

confirmed and patented upon presentation of satisfactory proof to the proper 

Department officer of such sale. 

Mr. SHERMAN. It seems to me that is a wide-reaching provision, 

which may confirm illegal entries, irregular entries, entrie.-.. that are in 

violation of law. The Senator, I suppose, does not intend t.hat. 

MF. DOLPH. I will state what is proposed. This amendment was 

submitted tome by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. SA.BIN], and I waa requested to offer it. It has been submitted, I believe, to all the mem- bers of the CoQl.Inittee on Public Lands who are present and accessible 

and has been approved by all of them. It only proposes the confirma--

tion of titles where final proofhas been made, where p~yment has been 

made, and where the land has passed into the hands of innocent pur· 

chasers, and where the Commissioner of the General Land Office or the 

Secretary of the Interior sha.ll be satisfied from the proof that the purchasers are innocent purchasers. Under the laws regulating the transfur of property between private citizens, a purcha er of property in 

good faith and for a valuable consid•ation from a person having evidence of title would be enti tied to hold it, as agui:osta third person who 

might be the real equitable owner of it. It is only proposed to apply 

the same rnle to the Government where there are no ad ,·erse claims to 

the property; and where, as I have said, the land has been entered, final 

proof and payment made before the transfer, I see no objection to it 

my~lf. And, as I said before,~ I understand from the Senator from 

1\finnesota that it has been submitted to each member of the Committee on Public Lands and no objection made to it. That was the reason I offered it. 

Mr. SHERMAN. It seems to me this is a wide-reaching provision. 

This would confirm absolutely void pre·emption claims. It wonld prevent the United States from setting up its title merely because some person alleged to be an innocent holder might claim the land. Thee 

pre-emptions may have been made on lands not subject to pre-emption. 

The proof might have been made. I trust the Senator will not press 

it. I am not sufficiently informed about the nature of pre-emptions. 

I hope, therefore, it will not be offered here unless 'it is reported from 

the committee, and I do not think then it ought to be reported except 

upon a letter from the Commissioner of the Land Office or the Secretary 

of the Interior. Certainly this would confirm we do not. know how 

many claims. In ordinary cases, when the pre-emptor has paid the purchase-money and the matter seems to be all clear, he wonld get his title aa a matter of course. Consequently this is intended to confirm illegal 

pre-emptions, fraudulent pre-emptions, pre-emptions on land that is 

not open to pre-emption, and denies to the United States the power to 

resist those pre-emptions and the execution of patents based upon them, 

simply, forsooth, because somebody who is innocent of the fraud is, may 

be, now in po ession. That would be wrong. The United States might 

be in great danger from such a wide-reaching provision, and therefore it 

ought not to be adopted, it seems to me. except upon full consideration. 

Mr. PLUMB. The Senator from Minnesota exhibited this amend· 

ment to me yesterday. Without fully getting its scope, perhaps I may 

have said I did not see anyobjection to it. Butthegeneralsubjecthaa 

been before the Committee on Public Lands in the shape of a bill introduced by the Senator from Colorado, and the committee encountered a great deal of difficulty in the consideration of it. Undoubtedly there are a great many claims which ought to be passed and patented whieh 

have been prevented, but on the other hand there are a great many 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-· SENATE. 1495 

claims which have been suspended which ought not to be passed. That 

is the prima facie condition at least. · A provision of this kind, so sweeping in its nature, would in my judgment be really against the interests of the Government and against the 

interests of justice as between claimants; but with reference generally 

to the disposition of the public lands the bill which the Senator from 

Colorado introduced and the committee have under consideration, provided that after a certain lapse of time, after the issue of a patent, proceedings might be taken to set aside the patent, and that brought up 

the general questionofboldingup claims in the General Land Offi.ceon 

the ground that the pre-emption law or the bomest~ad la. w or w hate>er 

law they were sought to be entered under, had not been complied with. 

I have no doubt that in a great many cases the reports of special agents or other reports on which the Interior Department has acted have been 

partial and have worked injustice; but on the other hand every one who 

read:> the report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and who 

is at all conversant with the history of the administration of the public 

land laws during the last fewyear8, must know that in the greed to get 

land which has seized upon a good many people during the last few 

years a great many instances ha>e occurred where entries ha\7e been 

made which were not warranted. by the law at all and which were practically a fraud on the Government. 

If the Government were dcsjrous simply of getting the money for the 

lands, if it was only a question of getting a dollar and a qu;uter an acre, then of course the Government side of the question might well be 

satisfied by the money; hut for m..<tny years the public lands have been 

regarded as a trust for the benefl t of those persons, citizens of the United 

States who desired to make homes on them and therefore the mere payment of money unaccompanied bytheevidencesofsettlementwhich the 

lawrequiresandunaccompaniedbythefactthatrnenhaveactnallymade 

homes to entitle them to enter them is practically a frautl upon the 

public. It is that class o£ cases which this bill is designed to prevent. 

While a healing act in reference to certain cl.as.< e.sof those cases might 

be well, at the same time it can not be framed off-hand. It is not wise, as I think, to put it onto a bill of this kind, or of any kind, without some discussion of the matter so that the exact limitations of it may 

be thoroughly understood. It might be- possible that you could heal 

all entries made in a certain number of years. That would do in cer- tain sections of the country; but in cert:lin others perhaps that would 

not do. Therefore, this being a very large question, it seems to me to 

be unwise to attempt in thi'! manner to ingraft it upon legislation. 

1\fr. VEST. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of 

exccut.i ve business. 

l\1r. HARRIS. I ask the Senator from Missouri to withdraw thatfor 

a moment. 

Mr . . VEST. We can not finish this bill to-night because there are important amendments here. It is impossible to finish it. 

Mr. HARRIS. I ask the Senator from Missouri to withdraw the mo- tion until I can make a report from a conference committee. 

:Mr. VEST. Certainly. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn. 

SUITS FOR DAMAGES. 

1\Ir. HARRIS. I offered this morning the report of a committee of 

conference, but on hearing it read atthedesk I discovered thattheclerk 

of the House committee in making the duplicate copy bad omitted a single word, and I sent it back to have· the House conferees and Senate 

conferees agree to insert the word. I now present the report in correct 

form. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee submits a report from a conference committee, which will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes otthe two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill of the Honse No. 7131, to authorize suits for damages where death results from the wrongful act, neglect, or default of any person or corporation in the District of Columbia, having met, after full and free 

H~~~~r~rov: a:greed to recomme~d and do recommend to their respective 

That the House recede from its disagreement. to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with the following amendments thereto : In the fu'St section of said Senate amendment and next before the proviso to said section insert the following words: "And such dama<>'eS shall be assessed with reference to the injury resulting from such act, neglebt or default causing such death, to the .widow 8.Ild next o~ kin of such deceased person." A n d also ,bY addmg to said first sectiOn, after the proviso. the following words: 

"And prowdedfurther, That no action shall be maintained under this act in any case where the party injured by such WTongful act, neglect or default has recov- ered damages therefot: dlll"ing the life of such party." . ' And also .bY amendmg the said Senate amendment by striking out of said second section thereof the words "two years'' and inserting in lieu thereof "one year." 

And the &lnate agree to the said amendments to the Senate amendments to l!Rid bill. . 

. ISHAI\I G. HARRIS, 

JOHN J. INGALLS, 

H. H. RIDDLEBERGER, 

Managers Oil the part of the Benat~. · 

LUKE P. POLAND, 

J. R. TUCKER, WILLIAM DORSHEThiER, 

Managers on the part of the HoU8e. 

The reporl was concurred in. 

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

A message from the House of Representatives, by 1\Ir. CLARK, ita 

Clerk, announced the appointment of .Mr. JAl'tiES ·F. CLAY, of Kentuclcy, and ltir. J. WARREN KEIFER, of Ohio, as tellers on the part of 

the House provided for in the concurrent resolution of the two Houses 

on the subject of counting the votes for President and Vice-President 

of the United States. 

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED. 

The message also announced that the Speaker of the House had 

signed the following enrolled bills and joint resolution; and they were . thereupon signed ·by the President p1·o tempore: 

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

N.Y.; . A bill (H. R. 1339) to increase the appropriation for the erection of 

the public building at Pittsburgh, Pa.; 

A bill (H. R. 5674) for the erection of a public building at the city 

of Tyler, in the State of Texas; and 

Joint resolution (H. Res. 327) providing for printing the eulogies de· 

livered in Congress upon the late John H. Evins, late a Representative 

in the Forty-eighth Congress from the State of South Carolina. 

BILLS INTRODUCED. 

1\Ir. HOAR introduced a bill (S. 2G26) for the relief of William E. 

Blunt; which was read twice by its title, and re~erred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads. 

Mr. MILLER, of New York (by request), introduced a bill (S. 2627) 

for the relief of Elizabeth Fleming, Frances E. Robinson, and Mary 

aud Margaret J obnstone; w hlch was read twice by its title, and referred 

to the Committee on Claims. 

Mr. INGALLS (by request) introduced a bill{S. 2628)relatingtosales 

for taxes in the District of Columbia; w1Jich was read twice by its title, 

and referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia. 

Mr. GROOME introduced a bill (S. 2629) to amend the law concern~ 

ing mechanics' lieus in the District of Columbia; which was read twice 

by its title, and referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia. 

Mr. COCKRELL introduced a bill (S. 2630) granting a pension to 

Mrs. Ann Bailey; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the 

Committee on Pensions. 

ArtiENDMENTS TO BILLS. 

~fr. 1\IAHONE, from the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, 

reported two amendments intended to be proposed by bim'to the sundry 

civil appropriation bill; which were referred to the Committee on Ap~ 

propriations, and ordered to be printed. 

Ur. GEORGE subm\tted an amendment intended to be proposed by 

him to the Army appropriation bill; which was referred to the Com· 

mittee on Appropriations., and or~ered to be printed. 

1\IESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

A message from the House of Representatives, by M:r. CLARK, ita 

Clerk, announced that the House bad passed the bill (S. 235) to provide 

for the erection of a public building in the city of Augusta, Me., with an amendment; in which the concurrenee of the Senate was requested. 

The message also announced that the House had passed the bill 

(S. 591) for the relief of the estate of Chester Ashley. . The message further announced that the Ho~ had passed a bill 

(H. R. 6533) for the relief of.Dr. Thomas J. Jones; in which it re· quested the concurrence of the Senate. · 

PUBLIC BUILDING AT AUGUSTA, 1\IE. 

Mr. FRYE. I ask' unanimous consent that the question of cone~· renee in the House amendment to the bill providing for the erection 

of a public building in the city of Augusta, Me., may be passed upon now. It is a Senate bill, has" passed the Senate twice, and is returned 

from the House with an amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER ("Mr. HALE in the chair). The Chair 

lays before the Senate a bill returned from the House of Representa· 

tives. · The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate, No. 235, entitled "An act to provide for the' erection of a public building in the city of Augusta, Me.," do pass with the following amendment: In line 11 of the bill, after the word " dollars," insert the following: "And it shall be the duty of the Secretary o(the Treasury, after the site for said building shall have been purchased, to C~tUSe a plan and specifications of said building to be prepared, which plap. and specifications shall not involve an ex- penditure, in the erection and completion of said building and the approaches 

thereto, exceeding the portion of said $150,000 remaining after the site of said building shall have been paid for; and no plan for said building shall be ap- proved by the Secretary of the Treasury involving an expenditure exceeding the sum so remaining after paying for the site of said building." 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine moves that 

the Senate concur in the House amendment. 

The amendment was concurred in. 

Mr. INGALLS. I move that the Senate do now adjourn. 

· The motion was agreed to; and (at 4 o'clock· and 55 minntes p.m.) 

!he Senate adjourned.