court judges of the District of Columbia, or for some other reason, have put in the bill an elevation of salary for the judges of the supreme court of the District of Columbia; and, an offset to that, they have left out

everything touching the pay of district judges themselves. The Senator does not respond to that. The appropriate response for me is an expression of my gratitude to the committee for leaving out the salaries of the district judges. That, I think, was a wise and humane act on the part of the conference committee. Whether the conference committee, under any latitude which has been given to the powers of such committees, have a right to invent themselves a provision not contained in any way in the bill, to make out of the whole cloth a provision as to which the Houses did not differ, as to which the Houses did not agree, as to which the Houses took no action whatever, is a question, regardless of this bill, of some importance, I think; and I must say that I do not believe the conference committee had any authority whatever to do that. I do not believe they had any more right, however meritorious the provision may be, to import into the bill a new and original provision touching a subject not referred to by any provision of the bill or any amendment of the bill, than they would have had to put in the bill a provision touching the Ku Klux law or any other thi thing foreign to it; and I think it is of some importance that either here or pretty soon we should begin to define the limits of the powers of conference committees. It is a blind and objectionable way of legislating at best, for the reason, among others, that it brings the House to vote for or against the whole bill. And now, if, in addition to the very broad discretion necessarily committed to a conference committee, it is to be assumed that they may go at large in their own discretion over the whole field of legislative topics and introduce any new topic that they please, I submit to the honorable Senator from Vermont that we are entering upon a dangerous departure in a field already pretty precarious. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I should like to know what the measure introduced, to which the Senator refers, is. I have been out of the Chamber.

Mr. CONKLING. I am referring to this: a committee of conference has reported the legislative and executive appropriation bill; that bill left the House and left the Senate and went to a conference committee containing no provision touching the salaries of the supreme court of the District of Columbia; it did contain provisions touching the salaries of other judges. The conference committee has eliminated from the bill all provisions touching the salaries of district judges and of such judges as either of the two Houses had included or referred to in the bill, and in lieu of the provisions thus disregarded and stricken out, the committee has introduced, of its own accord, provisions raising the pay of the judges of the supreme court of the District of Columbia; and at the moment when the Senator put his question I was commenting upon the safety or the danger of conference committees undertaking not only to deal with everything in the bill, not only to change, as conference committees have sometimes done heretofore, matters upon which the two Houses had agreed, as well as to compose disagreements, but going beyond that and inventing themselves fresh and original provisions touching topics not referred to in any way by either House.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I can call the attention of my friend to a much broader operation of that kind than the one to which he refers. The one to which he refers arose on an amend ment of the Senate, and it might be argued possibly that in readjusting that amendment other things might be included; I do not say it could truly. But when we turn to the

last print of the House of Representatives we find that the amendment of the Senate proposed there was to make the expenses of the cash system, maps, diagrams, &c., of the General Land Office $20,000 instead of $30,000.

The House had allowed $30,000 for a variety of expenses of that kind, and advertising, telegraphing, &c. Now the conference committee has provided that instead of being $20,000 it shall be $92,000, or something like that, and that forty clerks of class one, I believe-no matter what the class is-shall be appointed in that Department, additional clerks, having no reference to any part of the item to which we made the amendment for reducing the expense of advertising, &c. We proposed to change the word "thirty" to "twenty" in the sum to be allowed for these little expenses, and upon that the committee put on a clause providing for forty new clerks in the Land Office.

Mr. SAWYER. If my friend will allow me, the House in their consideration of this bill subsequent to its passage by the Senate, I understand, adopted that amendment of forty clerks, and it was done by the action of the House as an amendment to one of our amendments, so that it was not new matter in any

sense.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Let us see.

Mr. CONKLING. While the Senator is looking that matter up, I beg to make this observation: I do not think the Senator from Vermont cites so strong a case as the other, even as he puts it, and for the reason that the matter interposed in the bill was considered in the Senate. It was adversely considered, to be sure; the Senate voted it down; but the consideration of the subject had taken place, and thus it entered into the process and proceeding which resulted in the bill. Now, if a committee of conference taking up a topic like that deal with it, I humbly conceive they have not strayed so far from the ordinary track of conference committees as they do when they take up something which has never been considered at all. It seems to me that that presents even a broader case than the one cited by the Senator from Vermont, even if he be right in his recollection of the facts; but if the Senator from South Carolina is right, that the House adopted that amendment, then certainly it must be conceded that it was within the ad mitted jurisdiction of the conference committee.

Mr. EDMUNDS. It makes it worse, as I will show you in a minute, if my friend is right about the facts.

Mr. CONKLING. That may be for some reason that does not occur to me. It seems to me at first sight, the House having insisted upon this, the Senate having voted it down, it might be deemed one of the things considered not only by one House, but by both Houses, and one of the things upon which the two Houses disagreed; whereas the other matter to which I have called attention is one to which not the slightest reference was made in either House, and I repeat that if a conference committee is to be indulged in that, then I know not any limit to the provisions which may be introduced by a conference committee in a bill, however proper or simple the bill may be when committed to them.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. This conference report may be all put in a nutshell. The conferees on the part of the Senate were desirous to carry out the wishes of the Senate. We had made very large appropriations for additional salaries to which the House seemed to be inexorably opposed. The Senate had provided an increase of the salaries of all the district judges throughout the whole country. It was by a mere inadvertence that the supreme court of this district was not included. Everybody will concede that if these other judges' salaries should be raised, these were of paramount importance on account of

of the judges of the district courts of the United States that begin to do the amount of work that the supreme court judges of this District perform.

Now, the subject being that of the increase of the salaries of judges, and these judges perform the same kind of labor, only more of it, the committee on the part of the Senate thought it was just and proper, if almost the entire amendment of the Senate was to be stricken out, that some little part of it should be saved, and it was with that view that these were included.

In relation to the other amendment about which fault is found by my colleague, I think it will be ascertained that it is not any increase of the present force, that it is merely providing for what now exists under a different form. It is entirely immaterial to me what the Senate does with it, for the principle upon which the conferees on the part of the Senate went was that of general economy, and they have made the bill, so far as they were able, to conform with the judgment of the Senate.

I will only add in a single word that my impression is that it is not the points here that are brought before the Senate which are really aimed at in the attempt to overturn the report of the committee.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I think my colleague saying that, ought to state what he means. If he means that Senators are not in earnest who have spoken on this subject, he ought to say what he thinks they do mean.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. There are a great many other things embraced in the report, and I did not mean anything more than to say that I thought there were some other portions of the report to which gentlemen were hostile rather than the points selected.

Mr. EDMUNDS. All I wish to say as to this forty clerks business is this: I find it to be as the Senator from South Carolina stated it in substance, that we had proposed to reduce the $30,000 appropriated for cash system, maps, diagrams &c., to $20,000, making the total appropriated for the General Land Office $244,560, and sent the bill back with that amendment, changing the word "thirty" to "twenty." The House of Representatives say, that being our sixty-sixth amendment, that they wish to amend that by inserting, after the word "dollars," in the clause to which I have just referred, in line ten hundred and thirty, not after the words "twenty thousand," but in the text

To bring up arrearages of work in the Land Office by the employment of forty clerks of class one, for one year only, $48,000.

There was a provision which was not contained in the House bill when it was sent to us originally. It was proposed here as an amendment; but the House of Representatives had nothing to do with that. It could not affect their action either way that a motion had been made here to put in a provision similar to that, and that the Senate had decided not to do it. Instead of that we decided to reduce the $30,000 to $20,000. It was not proposed to put it in in that place either; but we decided to reduce this miscellaneous expense by $10,000 with a view to economy-to have them a little more strict in their expenditures. The bill goes back to the House of Representatives. They turn around and say we disagree to that "twenty," and propose to amend by adding in another place, after the word "dollars," an entirely new and fresh proposition in the text of the bill that they had not submitted to us before, and which had nothing whatever to do with the amendment we had proposed, which was the reduction of a sum of money appropriated to altogether different purposes entirely. They proposed to change the text of the bill which they had sent to us, and which in that respect we had sent back to them, exactly as they had passed it, by sending us a fresh proposition.

I undertake to maintain, without the fear of contradiction, that that was a thing which the House of Representatives had no right what ever to do. And as that body is standing latterly, I understand, somewhat largely upon its privileges-I believe I do not violate any parliamentary law in going thus far-it would perhaps not be amiss for the Senate, if it has any privileges left, to stand up for them a little. Therefore the House of Representatives having sent an amendment of that kind to us went entirely beyond their jurisdiction. I do not say-because I intend always in these discussions to be perfectly candid but that our having agreed to the conference which they asked upon the whole bill, and without indicating what they had done at all (and we ought never to agree to another conference in that way) may be a waiver of our right to refuse to entertain that subject at all. Possibly so; but I wish to call the attention of the Senate to this to show that legislation ought not to be allowed to go on in this way.

The House of Representatives send us a bill which, in a certain respect, we pass just as they have sent it. We wish to amend it in some other respect. They take up that other respect which has nothing to do with the subject they wish to add, and send us back a bill which, on a point like this or any other point they might choose on the same principle to put in, is a total departure from the provisions that the original bill contains. It is contrary to the parliamentary principle; it is contrary to all wholesome legislation. So much for that. Mr. COLE. On that point, if my friend will allow me, I wish to say, not in vindication of the House, but in explanation of this matter, that the amendment they made is really connected with ours, and the reduction of the amount from $30,000 to $20,000 related to the same subject. So that I think the objection on that point is a little fine and rather technical. I think the amendment here relates directly to the subject.

Mr. EDMUNDS. If the Senator will do himself the trouble to read the paragraph, he will find that he is altogether mistaken. It has not from beginning to end the slightest reference to the force in that department, or to the appointment or employment of anybody. The provision for the Land Office clerks is in an entirely different part of the bill and is not in that paragraph at all. We agreed to that just as the House of Representatives had passed it. Now, when we undertake to reduce the little miscellaneous expenses for maps, if you please, or furniture in the office from thirty to twenty thousand dollars, they make that the occasion of importing a fresh provision increasing the force. They might create, upon the same principle, an entirely new department if we undertook to diminish the contingent expenses in some office. It is totally indefensible, I take leave to say again, upon every principle of parliamentary propriety and upon every principle which governs the privileges of the two Houses, as I understand it.

There are one or two other things in this report which are somewhat extraordinary, it must be said. Here is one to which I wish to call the attention of the Senate. It is a small matter, to be sure; it does not take a great deal of money out of the Treasury; but for the first time I believe in the history of this Government the House of Representatives have put into this bill and sent over to us a provision for the appointment of a messenger to the Committee on Appropriations, and the payment of $1,314 to him, and a messenger to the Committee of Ways and Means, and to pay him $1,314, taking out of the organization of the House the regular appointment of messengers, and setting up for these two particular committees over there, just like the clerk of a committee, a special man who shall be appointed by that committee, who shall not be responsible to the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House, but shall be the executive officer, so to

speak, the sheriff, or whatever you may call him, of the particular committee; a thing never heard of or proposed before that I know of.

The Committee on Appropriations of the Senate rejected the two items, and I think I am not saying too much when I say without any difference of opinion about it, as a thing totally unwarranted, although it did relate to the method of the House carrying on its own business. But as it changed the law entirely, and upset the organization of their methods of carrying on affairs, we felt entirely justified in striking it out; and afterward it was struck out in the Senate without any opposition or question from anybody, and sent back to the House, and they insist. Now the conference comes. What does the conference committee do? It does the simple little thing of having the Senate recede from its disagreement to these two provisions of the House bill, and agree to the same with another provision, over

ments, it appears that we made no question upon that and let it go to the House, but at the end of the clause after the words "Sergeantat-Arms, $4,320," our eighth amendment was:

Provided, That hereafter he (the Sergeant-atArms] shall receive directly or indirectly no fees or other compensation or emolument whatever for performing the duties of the office, or in connection therewith, otherwise than as aforesaid.

The committee of conference hanging on to that amendment as the jurisdiction for it, taking its limitation of the power of the Sergeantat-Arms as jurisdiction, provide for changing the language in the text of the House bill"clerk to Speaker at $5 76 per day"-so that it will read, "Clerk at the Speaker's table, at $5 76 per day; private secretary to the Speaker, $2,102 per annum."

So that the gain we have made in that part of the bill by putting a limitation on the fees of the Sergeant-at-Arms has been that the text of the bill in another place is amended by add

mittee on Appropriations of the Senate shall have exactly such a fellow for them. So that the gain for the public interest that the Senate has made in rejecting this innovation, injurious to the public interest and disturbing in every way, has been that another man is saddled upon us of that kind!

Mr. HOWE. Allow me to ask the Senator a question?

Mr. EDMUNDS. Certainly. Mr. HOWE. Is he not willing that the House may ride, if the Senate may ride, too? [Laughter.]

Mr. EDMUNDS. I am not willing that the House of Representatives shall ride the public, even if we can have the same privilege. I am opposed to either House having this privilege, and I beg leave to say for one, as one member of the Committee on Appropriations, that the necessity of a messenger specially appropriated to us is entirely a delusion. We, like every other committee of this body, when we meet, or when we need anything to be done that a messenger is to do, have a whole corps of messengers here, under the direction of the Sergeant-at-Arms, at our command. We may have half a dozen, if we need them, on a given occasion; we always have one on the proper occasion when we need him. Therefore, there is no more ground for setting up a special messenger to be appointed by the Committee on Appropriations in this body, than there is for the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Rules, or any other of the twenty or thirty or forty committees we have. And you create feeling among the employés of a body like this, if they find that one man has an aristocratic position of that kind, that he can stand around all the day except just when we are sitting, that the Sergeant-atArms cannot ask him to wait on anything or anybody else; he is not subject to his orders in any way. It produces a just feeling of inequality and unfairness among those that we employ, and it is a tax upon the Treasury without the slightest necessity. If the whole body of messengers of the Senate are not sufficient to transact the public business, then let us according to the ordinary way provide for another one who may be subject to the orders of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and let him be made to earn the money that we pay.

But, as I said, of course in dollars and cents for this particular moment it is but a small matter to spend a great deal of time about; but it is a thing which involves a principle to which I confess I am entirely unwilling to

tives a private secretary for the Speaker, which the bill does not appear to have contained before. That was entirely outside of the jurisdiction of the conference committee, clearly. Of course it is a small matter. If the House of Representatives wished to give the Speaker a private secretary they probably had only to say so in a regular bill; but that would not authorize the committee of conference to be sticking in a private secretary for everybody that wanted one, whether it was necessary or not, unless it was a subject committed to their consideration; and the excuse for it, as I see from the print, unless there be a mistake, which I have not discovered, is that we undertook to provide the usual limitation upon the fees of the Sergeant-at-Arms. That was the jurisdiction for the conference committee providing a private secretary for the Speaker.

Mr. SAWYER. Will the Senator allow me a moment? In the deficiency bill the private secretary of the Speaker is provided for by law. That was the reason he was put in this bill.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is no reason at all on the subject I am talking about. I am not discussing the question whether the Speaker of the House of Representatives ought to have a private secretary or not. I am discussing the right of a conference committee to import into the text of a bill (where no provision or alteration is made and which we passed just as the House passed it for a clerk to the Speaker of the House of Representatives) a fresh and additional provision that he shall have a private secretary too.

Mr. SAWYER. My impresston is that the House put that in when they acted on our amendments.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Suppose they did. I am taking the print as they printed it. If they did they stand on the same category as to the forty clerks. They have undertaken to amend the bill in respect in which we did not touch it at all; we had agreed to it; and that being agreed to, neither House had the slightest right to alter it any more than they had after it was sent to the President of the United States-much less, indeed. I hope the Senator does not understand me as making war upon my good friend, Speaker BLAINE, having a private secretary if he wants one. That is a question which I leave to the judgment of the House of Representatives. I am on the propriety and regularity of doing business in this way. And the fact that there is a provision in the deficiency bill, which has not yet passed, that may give the Speaker a private secretary, it seems to me is rather a remote argument for upholding a proposition of this kind.

Now, I will go over to the subject of salaries. We had provided upon principles of equality and justice, and in every case I believe by a very large vote of the Senate, for increasing the salaries of perhaps two dozen of the leadSecretaries of the several Executive Departments, the highest next to the Secretaries, and whose salaries required to be increased probably as much as the salary of any person in the Government-that the Second Comptroller, the Register, the Auditors, the Commissioner of Customs, the supervising architect, the Assistant Postmasters General, the superintendent of the money order business, the Commis. sioner of the General Land Office, the Commissioner of Pensions, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the Commissioner of Education, and the Commissioner of Agriculture, and the Solicitor of the Treasury, should have $4,000 salary. We put them all on the same footing. The Senate being of that opinion, the conference committee, in order to compose the difference with the House of Representatives, has, it seems, selected only three gentlemen among all these, none of them Assistant Secretaries; but they have taken the Second Comptroller, the Register, and the supervising architect of the Treasury, and have raised their salaries from $3,500 to $4,000, a mere nothing so far as the increase goes, nothing which is of any great benefit to them; but they have picked out these three persons and said that the proper principle of compromise on the question of increasing salaries, which no man would dispute is proper if this is the time to increase salaries at all, is to produce harmony between the two Houses by selecting three special favorites, giving them the money, and denying it to all the others. I say that is wrong, and as I think it is wrong I shall vote to disagree with this report.

Mr. TRUMBULL I am very glad that attention has been called to the report of this committee of conference, and I do hope that the Senate will pay sufficient attention to it to see what it is, and to see the abuses that are likely to grow out of adopting reports of committees of conference without examination.

The theory of a committee of conference, if I understand it, is this: they are to consider questions upon which the two Houses have disagreed, and they have no jurisdiction of anything else except upon the question of disagreement between the two Houses. The committee is appointed to consider and confer in regard to those questions about which the Houses disagree, in order, if possible, to bring about an agreement.

Now, sir, what have we presented to us? The question is not whether the amendments proposed by this committee of conference are right or wrong; but the question is, whether the committee of conference had any jurisdiction to do what it has done; whether either the House of Representatives or the Senate has ever passed upon questions that are now submitted to us for the first time and not capable of amendment. When a committee of conference present their report, the only question submitted to the Senate is, will the Senate agree to the report. No one can move to amend that report or change it in any respect, and the Senate is brought to a direct vote upon agreeing to the report and everything contained in it, or rejecting it. Now I suppose this report contains, perhaps, fifty propositions. I have not counted them, but there were ninety-three amendments, I think, made by the Senate.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Illinois will please suspend. The morning hour has expired, and the deficiency appro priation bill is before the Senate, the pending question being on the motion of the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. BAYARD,] to lay upon the table the amendment in regard to the Court of Claims offered by the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. MORRILL.] The Chair also desires to state that this day at one o'clock was set apart for the consideration of the bill reported by the joint select Committee on Alleged Outrages in the Southern States. The antagonism the Senate will take notice of. The deficiency bill is before the Senate.

Mr. COLE. I hope the Senate may consent to go on, by unanimous consent, with this conference report.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection to passing over the unfinished business informally until some Senator demands the regular order, so as to conclude action, if possible, on the conference report?

Mr. SCOTT. My only desire is that the bill alluded to by the Chair should not lose its place. I have no objection to its being passed over rin informally, subject to be called up.

The VICE PRESIDENT. It is not yet before the Senate. The antagonism will come up when the conference report is disposed of. Mr. SCOTT. The bill now before the Senate is one that may consume the rest of the day, and I only wish that that bill shall not lose its place.

The VICE PRESIDENT. It has lost its place now, because the deficiency bill is up in antagonism to it, being the unfinished business. But if it is laid over to allow the conference report to be acted on, when the deficiency bill is called up the Chair will again state the antagonism to the Senate, so that they may lay the deficiency bill on the table and go on with the Senator's bill, if they desire.

Mr. SCOTT. I shall claim the privilege during the day of having that bill taken up.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I did not say any such thing. I said it was a matter they had jurisdiction of.

Mr. COLE. I did not understand the Senator.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I was saying that I hoped when this report came up to be considered again the committee of conference would change this feature of the report. The sal aries of the judges of the Court of Claims are $4,000, and have been from the beginning, as now, fixed by law. I wish the Senator from California would bear in mind that there is no distinction, and never has been, between the chief justice of the Court of Claims and the other judges of that court in point of salary. They are all alike at $4,000. Now, why, for the purpose of adding dignity to the chief justice, the conference committee should retain the amendment put on by the Senate at $5,000 for him, and strike the others down to $4,500, I do not know. If it was necessary to throw a little additional dignity upon the chief justice by giving him a little more than the others, I think we had better have put his salary at $4,500; but I know no reason why that additional $500 was necessary. There has never been such a distinction hitherto in reference to that court.

Mr. COLE. Not in reference to that court; but the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary knows that there is such a provision in reference to the Supreme Court of the

go over.

they have gone beyond the powers of a conference committee. I was about to suggest to my honorable friend from California whether he had not better let the conference report The conferees not having been discharged, and neither House having acted on the conference report, they probably may on further conference avoid the difficulty that has arisen in regard to some of the items in this conference report.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator suggest a recommitment of the report? Mr. SHERMAN. I suggest that it be done by consent in order to expedite business.

The VICEPRESIDENT. The Senator from Illinois is entitled to the floor on the conference report.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not desire to take up time.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The unfinished business is informally passed over, and the Senator from Illinois will continue.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I shall occupy but a moment. Perhaps the course suggested by the Senator from Ohio may be the best one; but it is a very important matter, I think, that it should be understood by all conference committees that they are not to introduce new matter into a conference report; matter that the two Houses have not had a chance to disagree about at all.

I shall not go over the cases that have been pointed out by the Senator from New York and the Senator from Vermont, because the attention of the Senate is already called to them; but there is one thing to which I think the attention of the Senate has not been called, of which the conference committee ought to have jurisdiction, which I hope they will change when they come to reconsider this report; and it is in regard to the salaries of judges. It will be remembered that the Senate fixed the salaries of the judges of the Court of Claims at $5,000, and also the judges of the district courts at $5,000. The committee of conference have changed the salaries of the judges of the Court of Claims in this way: they have put the salary of the chief justice of the Court of Claims at $5,000, and struck down the salaries of the other judges of the Court of Claims to $4,500. Now, as the law stands at present

Mr. COLE. Does my honorable friend say that it was not within the province of a conference committee to compromise that difference?

supreme courts of the several States; and it is a very common thing to make a distinction, not on the ground of dignity, but on the ground of responsibility. The chairman of the Committee on the Ju Judiciary can give the reasons

better than I can.

Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senator from California knows of any additional responsibility he knows more than I do. If he knows also of a distinction in the salaries of the judges in the courts between the Chief Justice and his associate justices in the respective States, he knows more than I do. It may be the case in some of the States; I am not aware of any such distinction in my State; but there has never been such a distinction in the Court of Claims, and I hope the Senator from California will insist on putting them all at $5,000, and that it shall not be made a reason for putting the others at $4,500 in order to give the Chief Justice a little additional dignity by way of having him receive more than the other judges of that court. They all ought to have $5,000. If it is necessary to make a distinction, I hope it will be made by adding $500 to the Chief Justice above $5,000. I was very sorry to see these salaries stricken down in that way; and as I infer from the remarks of the Senator from Ohio that this report will be recommitted, I hope that that matter will be taken into consideration, and I will not take further time if that is the understanding of the SenBut if there is to be a contest about it I

ate.

have some other things to say.

Mr. SAWYER. I think it is evident this report will not receive the indorsal of the Senate without a great deal of discussion. [ move, therefore, that the report be recommitted to the committee of conference.

Mr. THURMAN. I only want to make one remark. I concur entirely in the view which has been expressed that a conference committee transcends its power when it introduces a new subject into a bill. I am not going to discuss that subject. I only want to state this fact: I happened to be on two conference committees, each of which did that very thing, against what I thought was right and against my protest; but it was said by the House managers on each of those committees that it was the settled practice in the House to do that thing, and that the House would not give it up. Now, whether they will or not I do not know. If we can get them to give it up and come back to the right practice, of a conference committee only deciding upon the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, it will be "a consummation devoutly to be wished."

..

Mr. CONKLING. May I ask the Senator a question? Did he say it was insisted on the part of the House that the conferees had a right not only to consider matters on which the two Houses might have disagreed, but to introduce new and original matter?

Mr. THURMAN, I did not speak of what the House had done, but the House managers on those two committees of which I spoke asserted that it had been again and again ruled by the House that it was proper to put in new matter, and they cited a great many instances. I think, however, they nearly all occurred here during the war, and when there was an exigency for putting things through in a hurry. I know in those cases they put in entirely new matter. Take the case of the government of this District, the conference committee reported almost entirely a new bill.

Mr. CONKLING. Did it not all relate to matter which had been considered by the two Houses?

Mr. THURMAN. No, I think it went far beyond that. It was, in fact, a new measure. It passed both Houses in that way by agreeing to the conference committee report.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Will the Senator allow me to ask a question? Was there not a total disagreement as to the whole bill between the two Houses?

Mr. THURMAN. I think not. I know that I objected to it, and I did not agree to the report in either case, for I thought it was all wrong. I thought we had nothing to do but to report on the disagreeing votes; but I was overruled, and both those bills passed both branches. I shall be very glad to do anything to bring the House to the right position.

Mr. POMEROY. I think there is some importance attached to this matter as a precedent, and it is only as a precedent perhaps. I do not think committees of conference have any right to put in matters that were not disagreed to either by one House or the other; but the Senator from Vermont has spoken of one item in this report to which I wish to call the attention of the Senate. He spoke of the additional clerks for the Land Office authorized by this report of the committee of conference, but that is an item which was put into the House bill, and a committee of conference, if the Senate does not waive its right, has jurisdiction over everything that was disagreed to between the two Houses. When a bill originates in the House of Representatives and comes here, and we amend it and send it back to the House, and they put in new matter, we have the right to decline a conference until we have examined their new matter, but if we accede to the conference we waive that right, and then it is a disagreeing vote between the two Houses, and a subject of conference. Mr. CONKLING. What is?

A

Mr. POMEROY. I will state the case. bill originates in the House of Representatives, amended, it goes to the

comes

here, and is

House, and they put new matter into it, as in this case; we have a right to dissent from their request for a conference until we examine the new items; but if we waive that right and agree to the conference, all the disagreeing votes are a subject-matter of conference. The House did in this instance put some new matter into the text of the bill after it had been sent to them and after we had amended

it. Our proper course would have been to have declined the conference and refused to consider their new matter, but as we did not decline the conference but acceded to it, then the disagreeing votes between the two Houses, all of them, were the proper subject of conference. That, however, does not authorize a committee to put in new matter.

me to inquire of him if the attention of the Senate was called at all to new provisions put into the bill? Did we agree to a conference in reference to a matter that we had never heard of?

Mr. POMEROY. We did.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not know who had charge of this bill, but I am very sure that the person having it in charge if it had been my. self would have considered it a duty to bring to the notice of the Senate the fact that new matter was put into the bill of which the Senate had no knowledge. We should have been informed of it.

Mr. CONKLING. I want to understand the Senator from Kansas there. I made no point such as he is now discussing of the House having put in new matter and a conference having been ordered. I ask the Senator does he mean by his remark to assert or imply that one House having proposed a bill, and the other House having agreed to the text precisely as it stood, so that the text is complete be tween that two Houses, then the conference committee may change that?

Mr. POMEROY, No, I did not say any such thing.

Mr. CONKLING. Does he mean to say that that having occurred, and the bill going back to the House in which it originated, that House may change items upon which the two Houses have agreed, and that when they do so, and we not knowing it grant a conference committee, that, too, is within the scope of the committee?

Mr. POMEROY, It is our business to know when the bill comes back to us that they have put in new matter and sentit here. Itisa bill then before the Senate. We may proceed with the new matter that they have put before us and we may ask a conference.

Mr. CONKLING. Undoubtedly.

Mr. POMEROY. If we ask a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, then we have a right to proceed with the new matter that they have put in and put it all in the hands of a committee of conference.

Mr. CONKLING, I agree with my friend entirely as he now states it, where the House adds new matter and we grant a conference, that new matter upon which only one House has acted has been held repeatedly to be embraced within the powers of the conference committee; but when the House adds new matter by way of changing what both Houses have agreed to and completed, then I submit to the Senator it gives rise to a very different question.

Mr. POMEROY. When the House of Representatives have changed what both Houses have agreed to, it is simply new matter. It may be of more or less importance. In this instance it amounts to the importance of $48,000; in some instances it might be very little; but in regard to the principle of the thing it is no matter whether much or little. The House did add to the text of the bill as they originally passed it and as the Senate agreed to it. When it came here from the House, I say we had a right to consider that new matter, or we had a right to waive it and put it into the hands of the conference committee. We chose to put it into the hands of a conference committee, and therefore it was all a subject of conference; but the conference committee have no power over new matter not embraced in the disagreeing votes of either House. That is a clear law established by all parliamentary usage.

Mr. HAMLIN. Mr. PresidentThe VICE PRESIDENT, Before the Senator from Maine proceeds, the Chair will state how this conference came to be agreed to. The House of Representatives acted on the amend ments of the Senate, agreeing to some and disagreeing to others and concurring in others with amendments, and when they concluded,

Mr. TRUMBULL. Will the Senator allow || asked a conference on the disagreeing votes. 42D CONG. 2D SESS. - No. 171.

The bill came back with that message; the new amendments made by the House of Representatives were not read, and the conference asked for by the House was agreed to by the Senate, and the conference committee was raised.

Mr. HAMLIN, I desire to detain the Senate but a single moment. I do not propose to go into a discussion of this matter, but I wish to state what is my recollection of the practice of the Senate. First, let me say I can have no earthly doubt that it is not competent for a committee of conference to introduce one single new word of matter into their report. That which has been concurrently agreed to by both branches certainly cannot be changed by a committee of conference. The decisions of this body on that point are as plenty as autumnal leaves. One would suppose, then, that ought to be satisfactory, But when I come to the other side of the question, your conference committees have time and time again incorporated new matter into their reports; we have had full knowledge of it; we have passed them and the new matter has become a law. The precedent, therefore, of the Senate is just what the will of the Senate is upon the given subject before it, and it is nothing else. It is this to-day, and it will be that to-morrow.

Mr. TRUMBULL, I hope not.

Mr. HAMLIN. Well, sir, it is so, and I now call to mind I will not name it, but I can show it to Senators if they want to find itwhere there was an opposition gotten up to the report of a committee of conference because they had incorporated new matter in it, and it was recommitted, and the leading Senators who made objection to the bill because new matter was incorporated in it were put upon the committee of conference, and they reported it back with the precise amendment in it, and it was agreed to by the Senate. That case has existed since I have been here.

So this matter of precedent can be quoted both ways in numerous cases, but the law is as I have stated it, in my judgment; and the law has a reason for it; when we have agreed to a long bill concurrently with the House and there are sundry amendments on which we have disagreed and it goes to a committee of conference, the question upon the report of that committee is taken in the whole. Now, if they incorporate new matter in the bill, they may compel me to vote for an amendment of new matter to which I am opposed, or to vote against a hundred other propositions in the main bill that I know ought to be passed for the welfare of the country, and they put me in that condition. Therefore no new matter ought, in my judgment, ever to be incorporated in a conference committee's report; and yet it is done, I repeat, over and over again.

Mr. COLE. My friend, the Senator from Illinois, complains that the Senate was not satisfied of the amendments that were incorporated in this bill by the House after it was returned there, and just prior to their asking for a committee of conference. I have to state, in reply to that, that the bill was as much open to inspection of the Senator from Illinois and any other Senator as it was to any member of the Committee on Appropriations. It remained on the Secretary's desk all the while and was not referred; and I will add that it is a very unusual thing to refer a bill to a committee after a conference has been asked. I know of no such case in my experience here, although such cases may have happened. The modification of the amendments of the Senate made by the House were not examined into particularly, perhaps, by any member of the Senate. I infer that they were not looked into by the Senator from Illinois. I did not notice them particularly. Of course we all look at the Globe, and some of us see what has taken place in the House in reference to any bill that may be under consideration there. So far, I was acquainted with what was in the bill, or put in it in the form of new matter by the House before it was returned to the Senate with a request that a conference committee be raised. I do not accept any charge of blame or dereliction from the Senator on that ground. Now, Mr. President, all the complaint that has been made of the report of the conference committee on this bill, it seems to me, is very much without foundation to rest upon. There may have been the incorporation of some little new matter for the purpose of getting the bill in the form of law, which was necessary, and if so that has been customary as was stated by the honorable Senator from Maine who just preceded me. And I will state for the benefit of my friend from New York, who is forward in his criticisms on this report, that it was at his request that some portion of this bill was modified, and perhaps he will remember it is the case that some propositions not fully considered by either House are recognized in the conference report.

I am precluded, of course, from stating what took place in the conference committee or in any other committee; that is supposed to be private matter; but I will state this, that the utmost exertion that it was possible to command was had to follow out the wishes of the Senate by those with whom the bill was intrusted on that conference. We have not been

but it seems to me if we could have one or two men on that conference at some time who are in favor of that amendment, we might stand perhaps a better chance of having it finally passed.

I desire to make one other suggestion to my friend. If in these various changes any trade is necessary in order to harmonize the action of the two Houses in regard to this bill, I suggest to him that he should use that $25,000 that is to go for civil service reform and trade on that. (Laughter.) I will consent to let that be disposed of in almost any way, or applied to almost any subject, even to the judges of the District of Columbia. I suggest to the Senator that with that $25,000 he might be able to make a very good bargain in regard to some other good provisions of the bill.

The VICE PRESIDENT. If there be no objection, the report will be recommitted to the committee of conference and a message transmitted to the House of Representatives asking their concurrence in that action.

Mr. POMEROY. I understand that it is limited to the new matter. If it is not, I shall oppose it.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I object to any limitation.

The VICE PRESIDENT. It is not a free conference if it is limited. Of course, if the report is recommitted, the question comes up before both Houses on agreeing to it when it is again reported back. A message will be sent to the House of Representatives request

able to please everybody. It is impossible to
harmonize the conflicting views of Senators
upon any bill almost, and most of all upon a
bill of this importance. Here is the subject
of civil service reform. The House modified
the proposition of the Senate by reducing the || ing concurrence in this action.

appropriation from $50,000 to $10,000, and
the compromise hit upon by the conference
committee was the sum of $25,000 to carry
out the civil service reform. It was the best
that could be done. The same effort has been
made in reference to every proposition; and
though there is some complaint about the mat-
ter of salaries, yet it was impossible for the
Senate branch of the conference committee to
obtain more or a closer compliance with the
wishes of the Senate in regard to that subject.
Mr. HOWE. Will my friend allow me
to inquire whether he means to oppose this

motion to recommit or not?

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I hope the Senator will not oppose it.

Mr. COLE. I will say this, that economy of time in the Senate is becoming of the utmost importance; and if it will facilitate business, as I infer it will by the expression of Senators about me, not to oppose that disposition of the bill, I will not do it. I will acquiesce in it for the purpose of saving time. We have another bill of greater importance before us which is the regular order, and which may be called up any time by any Senator who chooses to do so.

Mr. MORTON. If there is to be any further debate, I shall call for the regular order.

Mr. CARPENTER. I wish to make one suggestion before this matter is recommitted to the conference committee.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Indiana demand the regular order? Mr. MORTON. I will hear the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. CARPENTER. In the first place, the question of raising salaries of district judges has been twice passed upon by a very large vote in the Senate.

Mr. COLE. Not in that form, raising them uniformly to $5,000 all over the United States.

Mr. CARPENTER. I think it has passed twice to my certain knowledge. That is my recollection. But it has so happened in each case that the committee of conference on the part of the Senate have been personally opposed to that increase of salary. I have no doubt this committee made as good a struggle as they possibly could, with their conscientious convictions about it, to maintain a decision of the Senate which they regarded as erroneous;

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. MORTON. I ask for the regular order. The VICE PRESIDENT. The regular order is demanded, which is the deficiency bill, the pending question being on the motion of the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. BAYARD,) to lay the amendment of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL] on the table; but to-day was assigned for the consideration of the bill reported by the joint select Committee on Alleged Outrages in the Southern States, which, however, is overridden under the rule by the unfinished business, unless that be laid on the table. The Senator from Pennsylvania having charge of that bill has risen.

Mr. CONKLING. I ask the Senator to allow me to make a report.

Mr. SCOTT. I was about to suggest, as several Senators were not present in time for the morning business, that they be allowed to submit it now. I am myself in that situation.

The VICE PRESIDENT. If there be no objection, the Chair will receive morning busi

ness.

ADDITIONAL PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. SUMNER. I desire to present, as the Senate will see, numerous petitions. They are from various parts of the United States, being collected through the office of the Boston Banner of Light. They protest against any so-called religious amendment to the Constitu tion. The signatures in the aggregate number thirteen thousand one hundred and ninety-one. Considering the number of the petitioners and the brevity of the petition, I will read it. It is as follows:

To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled:

We, the undersigned, citizens of the United States, respectfully and earnestly ask your honorable bodies to preserve inviolate the great guarantees of religious liberty now contained in the Constitution of the United States, and to dismiss all petitions asking you to adopt measures for amending said Constitution by incorporating in it a recognition of God as the source of all authority and power in civil government," and of "the Lord Jesus Christ as the ruler among the nations, and His revealed will as of supreme authority." We protest against such proposed amendments as an attempt to revolutionize the Government of the United States, and to overthrow the great principles of complete religious liberty and the complete separation of Church and State, on which it was established by its original founders.

As these petitions concern an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, I move their reference to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. SCOTT presented the petition of Lazarus L. Reamey, praying for the passage of a law authorizing his restoration to the Navy as a midshipman in that class of which he was a member at the time of his resignation; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

He also presented a petition of citizens of Pennsylvania, late soldiers of the Army of the United States, praying for the equalization of bounties and the granting of bounty land; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION.

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, communicating, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of April 3, 1872, a statement of the statistics of wools and woolens, showing the importation and domestic production thereof; which was referred to the Committee on Finance, and ordered to be printed.

ADDITIONAL REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Mr. CONKLING, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 1390) for the relief of the sureties of the late Jesse J. Simpkins, deceased, reported it with amendments.

Mr. CRAGIN, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 2048) for the relief of Robert A. Mayo, of Richmond, Virginia, reported it without amendment.

Mr. WRIGHT. The Committee on Claims have had before them what was styled the petition of Joseph G. Petrie, for compensation for services rendered to emigrants in Sacramento valley, California, in 1849 and 1850. We find upon an examination of the papers that there is no such memorial here, or anything beyond a joint resolution of the Legislature of Illinois upon the subject. We report it back and ask to be discharged from its further considertion.

The report was agreed to.

Mr. WRIGHT, from the Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 1944) for the relief of Edward F. Gates, postmaster at Thomaston, Connecticut, submitted an adverse report thereon; which was ordered to be printed.

The VICE PRESIDENT. If there be no dissent, the bill will be indefinitely postponed. Mr. BUCKINGHAM. I ask that it be placed on the Calendar.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be placed on the Calender with the adverse report of the committee.

Mr. WRIGHT, from the Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 355) referring the claim of Isaac W. Ingersoll, and Joseph Granger for damages under a contract for building a marine hospital at Detroit, Michigan, to the Court of Claims, reported adversely and moved its indefinite postponement. The VICE PRESIDENT. If there be no dissent, the bill will be indefinitely postponed. Mr. FERRY, of Michigan. I know nothing of the bill, but my colleague is not in his seat, and I suggest that it be placed on the Calendar.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The indefinite postponement can be reconsidered to-morrow or the next day if the Senator is not satisfied with the adverse report on an examination

of it.

Mr. FERRY, of Michigan, Can it not be placed on the Calendar now?

The VICE PRESIDENT. Of course; that has been the usage when any Senator desired it.