Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1862-01-10
37th Congress---First Session
WASHINGTON. January 9.


HOUSE-Mr. Duell, of New York, pro-
duced tabular statement of Postofice ex-
penditures and deficits. Under the law as it
now stands, at least twenty thousand per-
SONS, including postmasters whose salaries
do not exceed 5000, receive and transmit
letters and packages free of postage, in no
wey relative to public business.
He opposed the bill, for the reason that,
while it abolishes franking in one part it
restores it in another. He chained for his
substitute at least equality and justice, as it
placed all on an equality.
Mr.. Vallandigham, of Ohio, said this was
the day Of small reforms; and as the measure
LOW pending was eminently one of the very
smallest it would doubtless meet with ia.
vor. He read from the report of the Special
Committee, of which he was member, the
views therein expressed against the abolition
of the franking privilege, maintaining,
among other things, that there should be
the freest communication between Congress
men and their constituents, repudiating the
principle that the Post office Department
should be self.sustaiIing, and showing that
the increased expenses were owing mainly to
the increase of mail facilities.
Edwards, ConkliDg and Po4eroy con-
tinued the debate. The last naAted offered
a resolution to recommit the bill to the Post
office Committee with instructions to report
pies: First, abolishing the transmission of all
written and printed matter free of postage,
excepting that ordered to be printed by Con-
gress; and second, such matter shall be
stamped ''pub. docs.," and on being franked,
shall pass through the mails free.
Wright and Kellogg, of Illinois, opposed
the bill.
Mr.. Colfax, of Indiana, replied to the OBJ
iections urged against the pending measure.
H..I-. - 10 kl,a
| abolition of the franking privilege was q
| fayorite with the Secessionists. If reforms
were desired, let gentlemen direct their at
| tention to the millions of dollars squandered
| for ships, horses and provender, to the thefts
in general, of which every member has some
knowledge, more or less.
| Mr. Wright, of Pennsylvania, moved to lay
the whole subject on the table, which was
decided in the negative-5l to 78,
SENATE-Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire,
introduced a bill to punish frauds on the
Treasury.
The bill provides that any persons obtain.
ing money fraudulently be punished by fine
and Imprisonment to hard labor for not more
than ten years. If any officer of the Gov
ernment do it that he be discharged anC
punished, and ever after held ineligible fo
any Office. Referred.
The House resolution in regard to bonded
sugar and coffee, laid over yesterday, wa
taken up, and passed by yeas twenty three
nays fifteen.
The communications from the Secretary
of State in regard to the Trent affair, wer
taken up.
Mr.. Sumner Of Mass, proceeded to ad
dress the Senate. He took the ground tina
Captain Wilkes was not legally justified il
searching the Trent and taking from her tn,
rebel ambassadors, though in making tn
seizure the gallant Captain was actuated b,
the purest motives, and acted in strict &C
cordance with British precedents, and will
international law az expounded by the high
est British authorities.
He contended that the uniform policy Q
the United States, as well as the States 0
Continental Europe, has been opposed to tn
pretensions of the British Government, AM
has maintained q liberal Interpretation 0
the right of neutrals; and that in man,
solemn treaties, in many mostimportant anC
authoritative State papers, from the founda
tion Of the Republic to the present time, tn
American Government has committed itsel
fully and unreservedly to the right of neu
trail flag to cover civil passengers. Tn
question, he continued, has been argued wit
the greatest ability and thoroughness by tn
most eminent of our statesmen, includin
Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and other Presi
dents, and the whole record of our diplomac
is luminous with arguments against such act
as that of Captain Wilkes.
Mr.. Sumner proceeded to show that "
had protested again and again that nav
captain had no right to constitute himse
Judge on deck Of neutral ship, and tai
from her, at sole pleasure and discretion
, what be might think was coutraband.
/ he was bound, if he suspected her of ca
| rying contraband, To carry her into port an
have the question decided by compotel
: Courts; but no Court mathis country, recoI
nizing our national and long established p
sitiOn on the Law of nations, could have las
fully condemned the Trent or held Il
. captive ambassadors, In taking them fro
. under the British flag Mr.. Sumner held tn
o authority and by British law books, b
4 violated the American principle of the rig
Of search, while the British Government,