Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1866-07-27

lity laws of this country to the same leye
as those of Great Britain.
Mr.. RAYMOND, member of the com
mittee, moved as a substitute for the bill tn
following:
Be it enacted, That joint committee o
three members Of the Senate and six mem
bers Of the House of Representatives be ap
pointed to revise the several statutes affect
ing the neutrality CT the people Of the Uni
ted States with those Of other nations. anC
consider and report what legislation is ne
cessary 70 secure to our people the righti
enjoyed by other nations, to secure the
largest liberty Of intercourse and trade con
sistent with permanent peace. and to har
| monte the statutes Of the United States
upon this subject with those Of other nation.
and the progressive spirit of the age.
The cUrsory statement just made by the
| Chairman of the Committee would show
the House that the changes proposed in the
neutrality laws OF the country were of q
| very Sweeping character, and they ought
/ not 20 be made without more careful delib-
Grafton than could now be given. The po.
si.ion which the Government had always
| held in reference to neutrality laws had
commanded the respect Of all other nations
as well as the confidence and support of its
own. This Government had provided more
fully than any other nation for observing
the rights and obligations of neutrality to-
wards all others, but it had held at
the same time tast war was an affair of the
Govern meut and that individual citizens of
a nation should never be allowed to make
war or commit acts to lead q nation into
war. He knew of nc. .exigency that required
6 change in the Neutrality laws. On the
contrary, circumstances existed which in
clined him to believe that caution was
more than necessary in making such g
change. .He could easily see how the eu-
aesmen. Of such laF might encourage in
dividusls 10 enterprises at war with the
spirit and real interest and honor of the na-
tion. The argument that our neutrality
laws should be scaled to those of Great
Britain was not one Which should have
been made. This Government owed it TO
its honor and dignity to continue
hereafter, as it always had done,
to base its neutrality laws on public
principles which had become known as
the American principle on the subject Of
international law. Not without reluctance,
should there be any departure from the ira
ditional policy Of the country.
Mr.. ORTIZ, another member of the Com
mittee on Foreign Affairs, supported the
bill reported from the committee, and op-
posed the substitute proposed by Mr.. Ray
m0nd.
Mr.. PATTERSON, q member of the Com
mittee, expressed his hearty concurrence
with the general purpose aud scope made
by the Chairman; but said that he had,
nevertheless, signed tho minority report,
because he had never heard of the bill be&1
ing before the Committee until yesterday
morning, when there was a meeting of the
committee for about u minutes. matter
of such grave importance and such wide
required more time than could
possibly be allowed to it.
Z EAIr. CONKLING expressed his concur
renee with the two gentlemen Messrs Ray
mOnd and Patterson in the wish that longer
tim9 and greater deliberation might have
been given to this bill. He was opposed to
any action upon it except that decisive ac-
tion which there was not time enough 10 take.
HIS colleague Mr.. Raymond, had spoken
wello OF great respect in which our neutral
ity law was held by foreign nations, but he
vas sorry TO say the GOLDEN rule had not
been practiceh towards US by those nations.
Mr.. JENCKS asked Mr.. Banks whether
this bill was not substantially the original
law oC the United States. the irst
one ever adopted By any nation.
Mr.. BANKS replied that It was almost
with the law passed in Washing
tons administration, and from which the
government had departed.
Mr.. JENCEs enquired also whether that
portion Of our neutrality laws most COM
planned Of in late years, had not been i'm
posed upon US at the request of the Portu-
gese and Spanish governments during the
South American revolution.
Mr.. BANKS replied that such was the
impression made by history.
Mr.. JESCES inquired further whether
in the Aieras- Russell correspondence the
whole history of the imposition of those
laws on nations had not been exposed.
Mr.. BAH2S replied that he believed it
had been. Er. Banks closed the debate.
He trusted the House would not assent to
the appointment Of joint committee, but
would approve or disapprove of the bill ac-
s0rding to its Judgment In reply 70 the
of Mr.. Patterson that he had never
heard this bill read in the Committee, he
had only to say that the gentleman from
New Hampshire did not honor the Commit
Tee with his attendance, except at the last
moment. Tho Committee had given many
hours of careful consideration to the sub !
ect for many weeks past.
The question was taken first upon MI |
Raymond's amendment, and it was rejected |
without a division.
The yeas and nays were then taken upon |
he passage of the bill, and they resulted
n yeas l24, nays none. The Speaker direct
I'd the Clerk 10 call his name, and he re-
iponded in the affirmative. Mr. Raymond
lid not vote. Mr.. Patterson voted aye, and
20 the bill was passed unanimously.
Mr.. GARFIELD, from the Committee of
Conference on the bill to protect the reve-
iue by an additional Tariff bill, made
eport which he explained. The House
lg7ces to the Senate amendment striking
,ut the 9th section, which provided for
,dding to the valuation Of dutiable goods
he cost of transportation, commission, &c.
md the Senate recedes from its amendment
tril;ing out the 18th section, which estab-
ishcs Bureau of Statistics
Mr.. MORHEAD protested against the re-
'Ort and called for the yeas and nays on its
.dOpti n.
The vote was taken and resulted in yeas
10, nays 55, 50 the report was disagreed to,
nd tho House took recess till 7:30 p. m.
EVENING SESSION.
Mr.. MOORHEAD moved to insist on tho
disagreement of the House to the Senate
mendment to the additional Tariff Bill,
nd asked for another committee of con-
ereuce.
Mr.. WENTWORTH was in favor of
imply notifying the Senate that the House
insisted on its disagreement, and leaving
he Senate TO ask for another committee.
10 would go for the bill with or without
be ninth section, but no was opposed to
against wool.
Mr.. DAWES did not understand the tenth
sction to be discrimination against wool
he interests of the wool grower and wool
we're identical. If the grower
nonght of Prospering without the manufac- (
lrer, he would be in the condition of the {
arkey who proposed to keep store when
Il the rest of the world was dead.
The motion was agreed to and the Joint .
was passed.
Mr.. PRICE, from the Committee on Revo-
ltionary Business, withdrew the Joint re-
olution raising the pensions of widows of
soldiers married before the |
st of January, 1890, to the same rate as .
leir husbands would, if living. be entitled
under the existing law, commencing the {
9TH Of September, 1865. It was read three
mes and passed. ,
The House proceeded 70 the business on /
le Speakers table, which was disposed of 7
follows; 7
The Senate bill to prevent the wearing
sheath knives by American seameu in
-e merchants service, which was passed.
The Senate bill repeating the act Of the +,
ith Of June, 1861, respecting certain pro-
siOns Of law concerning seamen on Oard
public and private vessels Of the United
-ateg. c
The Senate bill for the removal Of clauses t
certain cases from the State Courts was L
ken up. g
Mr.. BOUTWELL, explained and advoca- 1
d the passage Of the bill It authorizes #
tizens sued IN State other than that in c
hich they retide, TO have the case re- d
owed to the Circuit Court Of the United C
IL