Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Mr. FERRY, of Michigan. Then let it go upon the Calendar.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be placed on the Calendar.

Mr. WRIGHT, from the Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the petition of William Alcorn, praying compensation for damages to property in Jefferson City, Missouri, during the late war, asked to be discharge from its further consideration; which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the memorial of L. C. P. Cowper, of Virginia, praying compensation for the destruction of his library by the troops of the United States, asked to be discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Barnard Hess, praying to be reimbursed for certain moneys expended in the line of his duties as an officer of the internal revenue department, asked to be discharged from its further consideration which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 166) for the relief of David Braden, reported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon; which was ordered to be printed.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Mrs. Annie Dorsey Reeves, of New Castle, Delaware, praying compensation for the use and occupation of her house and property in Charleston, South Carolina, by the United States forces under the direction of the Freedmen's Bureau, asked to be discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 2027) for the relief of William Howard, reported it with out amendment.

Mr. AMES, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 1773) for the relief of Andrew J. Jemison, reported it adversely, and asked to be discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of S. S. Barnes, ask ing the payment of $550, the value of the subsistence supplies used. by the Army in the Territory of Colorado, asked to be discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 996) to repeal so much of section six of an act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the year ending June 30, 1870, and for other purposes, approved March 8, 1869, as prohibits promotions in the staff departments of the Army, reported it with an amendment.

Mr. WILSON, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 627) to place colored persons who enlisted in the Army on the same footing as other soldiers as to bounty and pensions, reported it without amendment.

Mr. SCOTT, from the Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Caleb H. Blood, praying to be reimbursed for certain expenses incurred while United States consul at Monterey, Mexico, and expenses incurred in forwarding troops to the Army of the United States and assistance to escaped prisoners of war and paroled prisoners of war, submitted an adverse report thereon, and asked to be discharged from its further consideration.

The report was ordered to be printed, and the committee was discharged.

Mr. SCOTT. I am instructed by the select Committee on Alleged Outrages in Southern States to report back the memorial of Edward A. Pollard on the condition of affairs in the southern States, and to state that congressional action is inexpedient and unnecessary, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

The report was agreed to.

Mr. SCOTT. I am also instructed by the same committee to report back the resolution of the Legislature of South Carolina against the removal of military forces now in that State, with the statement that further action by Congress is now unnecessary, and asking to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

The report was agreed to.

Mr. WEST, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 475) for the relief of Selah V. Reeve, late quartermaster sergeant of the fourth Michigan infantry volunteers, reported it without amendment.

MRS. FRANCES A. M'KINNEY.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I ask permission to submit a report from a committee of conference which I believe contains no new matter, and will take but a minute.

The Chief Clerk read the report, as follows: The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 1866) for the relief of Mrs. Frances A. McKinney, having met, after full and free conference haye agreed to recommend, and do recommend, to their respective Houses, that the Senate recede from their amendment to the bill.

LYMAN TRUMBULL,
JOHN SCOTT,
T. W. OSBORN,

Managers on the part of the Senate.
CHARLES A. ELDREDGE,
BENJAMIN F. BUTLER,
JOHN A. PETERS,

Managers on the part of the House.

Mr. COLE. I do not understand the tenor of that amendment at all. We are left entirely in the dark about it.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I will inform the Senator that a bill passed the House for the relief of Mrs. McKinney, allowing her one year's salary of her deceased husband, who was United States district judge in Florida, and died of yellow fever. The Senate amended the bill by providing that the whole amount of the allowance should be for only one year including what had already been paid. The House disagreed to that amendment, and we had a conference on the subject. On the whole, the committee concluded, if we were to pay anything, we might as well let the whole year's salary go. It is a question between $1,200 and $3,500.

The report was concurred in.

ST. JOSEPH BRIDGE COMPANY.

Mr. RAMSEY. The Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 1014) to authorize the St. Joseph Bridge-Building Company to mortgage its bridge, with the appurtenances and the franchises relating thereto, have instructed me to report it back with an amendment, and to ask for its immediate consideration. The Senator from Missouri [Mr. BLAIR] will state how important immediate action is to the company. The bill is merely a verbal amendment to a bill passed a short time since.

Mr. BLAIR. This bill simply provides that this company may have the right to mortgage their bridge according to the laws of the State of Missouri. They have already expended $500,000 upon the bridge, but find themselves unable to obtain the money to finish it without having this power.

Mr. RAMSEY. We passed a bill on this

subject about a month ago, and this is simply

a verbal amendment to the former bill.

By unanimous consent, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill.

The Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads report the bill with an amendment, to strike out all after the enacting clause, and to insert in lieu thereof the following:

That the first section of the act entitled "An act to authorize the construction of a bridge across the Missouri river, at or near St. Joseph, Missouri," approved March 5, 1872, be, and the same is hereby, amended so as to read as follows:

Be it enacted, &c., That it shall be lawful for the St. Joseph Bridge-Building Company, a corpora

tion organized for that purpose under the general corporation laws of the State of Missouri, or its assigns, to construct a bridge across the Missouri river at or near St. Joseph, Missouri, and to lay on and over said bridge railway tracks for the more perfect connection of any and all railways that are now, or which may hereafter be, constructed to the Missouri river at or near St. Joseph, or to the river on the opposite side of the same, near St. Joseph; and build, erect, and lay on and over said bridge ways for wagons, vehicles of all kinds, and for the transit of animals, and to provide ways for foot passengers, and to keep up, maintain, and operate said bridge for the purposes aforesaid; and that when said bridge is constructed, all trains of all railroads terminating at said river, and on the opposite side thereof, at or near St. Joseph, Missouri, shall be allowed to cross said bridge for reasonable compensation, to be made to the owners of the same, under the limitations and conditions hereafter named. The owners of said bridge may also charge and receive reasonable compensation or tolls for the transit over the said bridge of all wagons, carriages, vehicles, animals, and foot passengers.

SEC. 2. That the fifth section of the act of which this is amendatory be, and the same is hereby, amended, so as to read as follows:

SEC. 5. That the St. Joseph Bridge-Building Company, after the passage of this act, shall not have the right to assign the charter which said company now holds by assignment from the St. Joseph and Denver City Railroad Company, and which was granted to said last-named company by virtue of an act of Congress approved July 14, 1870, to any other company, person, or persons; nor shall said bridge-building company be permitted, under the said charter so obtained as aforesaid from the St. Joseph and Denver City Railroad Company, to construct any other bridge than the one now being constructed at St. Joseph, Missouri: Provided, however, That nothing in this section contained shall prevent the said bridge-building company from mortgaging said charter and franchises held by it by assignment from the said railroad company, with the bridge constructed or to be constructed thereunder, in the manner and for the purposes in and for which the said bridge-building company is or may be authorized by or under the laws of the State of Missouri to mortgage its property.

Mr. MORTON. That seems to be a somewhat curious amendment. I think the bill had better go over.

Mr. CONKLING. And be printed.

The VICE PRESIDENT. It will be printed and placed on the Calendar.

Mr. RAMSEY. I desire permission to say a word. As I have already stated, this bill is merely a verbal amendment of a bill passed last month. It is somewhat long, but there is nothing particular in it. The two sections of the bill we passed last month are reproduced in full in this amendment. In the first section of the bill the simple words "or its assigns" are inserted, and the fifth section of the act to be amended is reproduced again with a proviso that nothing in this act shall prohibit the bridge-building company from raising money upon mortgage. It does not say they shall make a mortgage, but being in some difficulty at the present time in raising money and completing the bridge, this proviso says they shall not be prohibited from raising money in that way. I repeat, the bill is simply a reenactment of the former bill with some slight verbal amendments.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Indiana desired, however, to look into it further.

Mr. MORTON. I withdraw the objection. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from New York object?

Mr. CONKLING. I do not like to object; but I suggest to the Senate that we ought to know in voting for this how much of the statute as it stands we are merely repeating, and to what extent we are interposing modifications. The amendment very likely is in the most convenient form, but it reproduces and renews and changes altogether the former law. It is a matter which I know nothing about.

Mr. BLAIR. I will state to the Senator from New York that the only change is that indicated by the Senator from Minnesota. The proviso enables the bridge company to mortgage the bridge for the purpose of its completion. There is no other change.

Mr. CONKLING. Then, if I understand my friend from Missouri, it merely recites the old act, making the addition of which he speaks?

Mr. BLAIR. That is all.

Mr. CONKLING, I do not feel at liberty to object to it.

The amendment of the committee was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed; and its title was amended so as to read: A bill to amend an act entitled "An act to authorize the construction of a bridge across the Missouri river at or near St. Joseph, Missouri," approved March 5, 1872.

HEIRS OF B. R. PERKINS.

Mr. WILSON, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 765) for the relief of the heirs of the late Captain B. R. Perkins, of the United States Army, reported it without amendment.

Mr. BUCKINGHAM. I ask that that bill be put upon its passage.

By unanimous consent, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill, It directs the payment of one year's pay and allowances to the heirs of Captain B. R. Perkins, late of the United States Army, being the amount to which he would have been entitled had he received notice that he was honorably mustered out prior to his death.

Mr. BUCKINGHAM. Captain Perkins was a captain in the Army, and under the act of March, 1870, if I remember the date aright, he was mustered out of service on the 2d day of January, 1871. At that time under the law he was entitled to one year's pay and allowances. He was in command of a fort in Arizona. But he received no notice of his muster-out during his life. He died on the 7th day of January, six days after the musterout here. If he had received notice on the 4th or 5th day of January, or any time previous to his death, he would have been entitled 10 one year's pay and allowances. Not receiving that, the accounting officers do not feel that they can pay it, because he was not actually mustered out, but died in the service. This bill proposes to give his heirs precisely the same rights that they would have had if he had had notice.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

ADDITIONAL BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. CARPENTER asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (8. No. 1025) to quiet the title to the lands of the settlers on lands belonging to the West Wisconsin Railway Company; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. CRAGIN asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1026) for the relief of the officers and crew of the United States ship Vicksburg; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. SCOTT asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1027) to restore Lazarus L. Reamey to the Navy of the United States as a midshipman; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, and ordered to be printed.

JOSEPH C. ABBOTT.

Mr. MORTON. By authority of the Committee on Privileges and Elections I offer the following resolution, and ask for its present consideration, if there be no objection:

Resolved, That Joseph C. Abbott, late contestant for a seat in this body from the State of North Carolina, be allowed his salary from the 4th of March, 1871, up to the 23d of April, 1872, and one mileage each way,

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

AMENDMENT TO TEA AND COFFEE BILL.

Mr. SPRAGUE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill (H. R. No. 174) repealing the duty upon tea and coffee; which was ordered to be printed.

LAKE ST. CROIX BRIDGE.

Mr. HOWE. The business of the morning hour seems to be transferred to the hour between one and two o'clock instead of between twelve and one, and I appeal to the Senator from Pennsylvania on behalf of Senate bill No. 771. It is to legalize a bridge already constructed over the St. Croix river, and it is very important, if it is to pass, that it pass before navigation opens on that river.

Mr. SCOTT. So far as the Senator appeals to me, I asked general consent that the morning business be finished, and as far as I am concerned, of course, I have no objection.

Mr. COLE. Then let this be the last appeal of the kind. I desire to give notice that I must object hereafter,

By unanimous consent, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. No. 671) to authorize the West Wisconsin Railway Company to keep up and maintain a bridge for railway purposes across Lake St. Croix at the city of Hudson, in the State of Wisconsin.

The bill was reported by the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, with amend

ments.

The first amendment was to insert, after the word "rafts," in the twelfth line of section one, the words "that the draw to said bridge shall be opened promptly, upon reasonable signal, for the passage of boats." The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in lines twentyone, twenty-two, and twenty-three of section one, to strike out the words "judge of the United States district court for the western district of Wisconsin" and insert the words "Secretary of War;" so that the clause will read:

And all railroad companies desiring to use said bridge shall have and be entitled to use and run their trains over the same, as now built and track laid over it and its approaches, under and upon such terms, rental, or remuneration, first to be fixed by the Secretary of War.

The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was to strike out at the end of the first section the following clause:

But Congress reserves the right to direct the necessary modifications and alterations of said bridge, should it at any time substantially and materially or unnecessarily obstruct the navigation of said stream.

And insert as additional sections the following:

SEC. 2. That the structure herein authorized shall be built under and subject to such regulations for the security of the navigation of said river and lakeas the Secretary of War shall prescribe, and the said structure shall be at all times so kept and managed as to offer reasonable and proper means for the passage of vessels through and under said structure; and the said structure shall be changed at the cost and expense of the owners thereof, from time to time, as Congress may direct, so as to preserve the free and convenient navigation of said river and lake; and the authority to erect and continue said bridge shall be subject to revocation by law whenever the public good shall, in the judgment of Congress, so require.

SEC. 3. That the right to alter or amend this act, so as to prevent or remove all material obstructions to the navigation of said river by the construction of bridges, is hereby expressly reserved.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CORBETT. Is this bill recommended by the War Department?

Mr. HOWE. By the provision of the bill the bridge is to be maintained under the direction of the War Department.

Mr. CORBETT. The reason why I inquire is that we had a similar bill before the Committee on Commerce, and my impression is that we reported adversely to the bill. I think

it ought to be submitted to the Secretary of War before it is passed.

Mr. RAMSEY. This bill was referred to the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads. It has been a matter of some controversy between the cities on the lake, Hudson in Wisconsin and Stillwater in Minnesota, which is six or seven miles above, as to whether the spaces between the piers were large enough to accommodate the business on the river. The Board of Trade at Stillwater, the town above, and of course most largely concerned in seeing that all the proprieties were observed in the building of this bridge, advised with me and gave me their opinion as to what these spaces should be and how the bridge should be constructed so as to secure their trade. This bill is framed in accordance with the advice of the people at Stillwater. No other parties have taken any interest in the question.

Mr. CASSERLY. I wish to ask the Senator from Minnesota a question. I perceive that the usual clause as to jurisdiction in the case of nuisances and obstructions is not in this bill. I ask the Senator from Minnesota what is the explanation of that omission?

Mr. RAMSEY, I do not know. I have not the bill before me now. Possibly the Senator will find it, as he did the other day when he was mistaken in another case, in some other clause of the bill.

Mr. CASSERLY. The Senator is not quite right in saying that I was mistaken. I was mistaken only in part. and that the least material part, the other day. But the bill is a short one, and if the Senator can point out where there is any clause of jurisdiction over nuisances and obstructions I should be glad to see it.

Mr. RAMSEY. It is barely possible that it may have been omitted by the clerk of the committee or by the Printer.

Mr. COLE. I call for the regular order. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from California demands the regular order.

Mr. CASSERLY. So far as I am concerned, if that provision can be inserted now I have no objection to the bill being passed.

Mr. RAMSEY, The usual provision might be put in, that any question shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the district courts of the two States.

Mr. HOWE. I will have the amendment prepared by to-morrow morning.

Mr. COLE. I insist on the regular order. The VICE PRESIDENT. Then the bill will be returned to its place on the Calendar.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed the followings bills; in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate:

A bill (H. R. No. 1064) to amend an act granting a pension to William C. Pickens;

A bill (H. R. No. 1872) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to place the name of Mary A. Morris, widow of Major General William W. Morris, upon the pension-roll, at the rate of fifty dollars per month;

A bill (H. R. No. 2395) increasing the pension of Mrs. Jane W. McKee;

A bill (H. R. No. 2396) granting a pension

to Martha R. White;

A bill (H. R. No. 2397) granting a pension

to Margaret C. Gibson;

A bill (H. R. No. 2398) granting à pension

to Martha G. Rudolph;

A bill (H. R. No. 2399) granting a pension

to Ada H. McDonald;

A bill (H. R. No. 2400) granting a pension

to William B. Taylor;

A bill (H. R. No. 2401) granting a pension

to Margaret Coldwell;

A bill (H. R. No. 2402) granting a pension

to Martha A. Brooks;

A bill (H. R. No. 2403) granting a pension to George G. Gardner;

A bill (H. R. No. 2404) granting a pension to Elizabeth O'Neill;

A bill (H. R. No. 2405) granting a pension to Julia Whistler;

A bill (H. R. No. 2406) granting a pension to Margaret Riley;

A bill (H. R. No. 2407) granting a pension to Elizabeth Cupp;

A bill (H. R. No. 2408) granting a pension to Hannah E. Currie;

A bill (H. R. No. 2409) granting a pension to Mary A. Shoemaker;

A bill (H. R. No. 2410) granting a pension to the minor children of Benjamin Franklin Browne:

A bill (H. R. No. 2411) granting a pension to A. Schuyler Sutton;

A bill (H. R. No. 2412) granting a pension

to Helen M. Smith;

A bill (H. R. No. 2413) granting a pension

to George W. Paris;

A bill (H. R. No. 2414) granting a pension to Mrs. Abigail Chaplin;

A bill (H. R. No. 2415) granting increase of pension to William T. Simms;

▲ bill (H. R. No. 2416) granting a pension to Andrew Reinfort;

A bill (H. R. No. 2417) granting a pension to Abraham Cooper;

A bill (H. R. No. 2418) granting a pension

to Mrs. Nancy E. Pugh;

(H. R. No. 2419) granting

A bill (H.

to William Fresohne;

a pension

A bill (H. R. No. 2420) granting a pension

to Margaret A. Renshaw;

A bill (H. R. No. 2421) granting a pension to Eleanor K. Fillis;

A bill (H. R. No. 2422) granting a pension to Phebe Ann Elderkin;

A bill (H. R. No. 2423) granting a pension to James Supple:

A bill (H. R. No. 2424) granting a pension to William B. Lilly;

A bill (H. R. No. 2425) granting a pension to Hugh Wallace;

A bill (H. R. No. 2426) granting a pension to Mary A. Diamond;

A bill (H. R. No. 2427) granting a pension to Martha M. B. McCulloch;

A bill (H. R. No. 2428) granting a pension to Samuel Shaffer, late a private in company I, seventy-eighth regiment of Pennsylvania infantry volunteers;

A bill (H. R. No. 2429) granting a pension to Sarah P. Wing;

A bill (H. R. No. 2530) granting a pension to Henry T. Schult;

A bill (H. R. No. 2431) granting a pension to John Davis, corporal of the night night watch board the United States ship Octorara;

on

A bill (H. R. No. 2432) granting a pension to Daniel Beatty;

A bill (H. R. No. 2433) granting a pension to Priscilla Harrison;

A bill (H. R. No. 2434) granting a pension to Eliza Webb;

A bill (H. R. No. 2435) granting a pension to Ann C. Butler;

A bill (H. R. No. 2436) granting a pension to Mrs. Mollie L. Roberts;

A bill (H. R. No. 2437) granting a pension to Martin Zeeb;

A bill (H. R. No. 2438) granting a pension to Mrs. Mary Davis, of Philadelphia;

A bill (H. R. No. 2439) granting a pension to Jane D. Mumford;

A bill (H. R. No. 2440) increasing the pension of Caroline H. Miller;

A bill (H. R. No. 2441) granting a pension to Annie Bagley;

A bill (H. R. No. 2442) granting a pension to Charles B. Fairchild;

A bill (H. R. No. 2443) granting a pension to Wesley Hensley;

A bill (H. R. No. 2444) granting a pension to Mrs. Margaret S. Fair;

A bill (H. R. No. 2445) granting a pension (H. R. No. 2446) granting

to Susan Schofield; A bill (H.

to Benjamin Clark;

a pension

A bill (H. R. No. 2447) granting a pension to Sarah Reynolds;

A bill (H. R. No. 2449) granting a pension to Mary H. Bartlett;

A bill (H. R. No. 2450) granting a pension to Lucretia B. Galloway:

A bill (H. R. No. 2451) granting a pension to John Oliver, Louisa Oliver, Robert Oliver, and Martha A. Oliver;.

A bill (H. R. No. 2452) granting a pension to Abigail Stukey;

A bill (H. R. No. 2453) granting a pension to Rosa Wollaner;

A bill (H. R. No. 2454) granting a pension to Hetty M. Kepner;

A bill (H. R. No. 2455) granting a pension
to Jerome E. Pampell;

A bill (H. R. No. 2456) for the relief of
Mary C. Griffin;

A bill (H. R. No. 2457) granting a pension
to Sarah S. Cooper;

A bill (H. R. No. 2458) granting a pension to Margaret J. Boyd, Rachel D. McIlvaine, and William L. Mellvaine;

A bill (H. R. No. 2459) restoring to the pension rolls the name of Margaret L. Bybee; A bill (H. R. No. 2460) granting a pension to John A. Crozier, of Indiana;

A bill (H. R. No. 2461) granting a pension to Lorenzo D. Hogle;

A bill (H. R. No. 2462) granting a pension to Dean A. Wills, of Indiana;

A bill (H. R. No. 2463) granting a pension to Ellen W. P. Carter;

A bill (H. R. No. 2464) granting a pension to Evan Johnson;

A bill (H. R. No. 2465) granting a pension to Hila A. Cooksy;

A bill (H. R. No. 2466) granting a pension to Angelica Hammond;

A bill (H. R. No. 2467) granting a pension to Aidy A. Autry;

A bill (H. R. No. 2468) granting a pension to Samuel B. Davis;

A bill (H. R. No. 2469) granting a pension to Peter Brewer;

A bill (H. R. No. 2470) granting a pension to Robert H. Brown, of Adair county, Missouri; and

A bill (H. R. No. 2471) granting a pension to John Heddinger.

The message also announced that the House had passed the following bills:

A bill (S. No. 878) granting a pension to
the minor children of Amanda M. Ritchey;

A bill (S. No. 879) granting a pension to
Mary Armstrong; and

A bill (S. No. 894) granting a pension to
the minor children of Frederick F. Dayton,
deceased.

The message further announced that the House had passed the bill (S. No. 347) granting a pension to Sarah McEnany, with amendments; in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate.

The message likewise announced that the House had concurred in the resolution of the Senate to print extra copies of the "case" of the United States presented to the tribunal of arbitration at Geneva.

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED.

The various pension bills received to-day from the House of Representatives were read twice by their titles, and referred to the Committee on Pensions.

DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION BILL

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 1654) making appropriations to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the service of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1872, and for former years, and for other purposes, the pending question being on the motion of Mr. BAYARD to lay the amendment of Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont, on the table.

assigned for the consideration of the bill reported by the select Committee on the Condition of the Insurrectionary States, I could not yield were it not that the statements already made by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations have been such as to impress me with the importance of having this bill disposed of. I will not therefore for that reason antagonize that bill against this, for the reason that it might lead to debate; but I give notice that as soon as the deficiency bill is disposed of I will call up that bill.

Mr. COLE. I am glad that the honorable Senator does not urge it now.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the motion to lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from Vermont to the deficiency bill.

Mr. CONKLING. The honorable Senator from Ohio [Mr. THURMAN] was compelled to leave the Chamber, and I am paired with him. If he were present he would vote in the affirmative, and I in the negative.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I am paired with my honorable friend, the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. SAWYER.] If he were present he would vote in the affirmative, and I in the negative.

The yeas and nays were taken.

Mr. PATTERSON, (when his name was called.) I am paired with the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. SAULSBURY.] If he were here he would vote "yea," and I should vote " nay."

Mr. SAWYER, (when his name was called.) I desire to say that on this question I am paired with the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. EDMUNDS,] who would vote "nay," and I should vote "yea."

The call of the roll having been concluded, the result was announced-yeas 25; nays 25; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Alcorn, Bayard, Blair, Casserly, Cole, Cooper, Davis of West Virginia, Goldthwaite, Hamilton of Maryland, Hamilton of Texas, Harian, Hill, Johnston, Kellogg, Kelly, Ransom, Robertson, Spencer, Sprague, Stevenson, Stockton, Tipton, Trumbull, Vickers, and West-25.

NAYS-Messrs. Ames, Boreman, Chandler, Clayton, Corbett, Cragin, Fenton, Ferry of Connecticut, Ferry of Michigan, Frelinghuysen, Hamlin, Howe, Logan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Osborn, Pratt, Ramsey, Scott, Sherman, Sumner, Wilson, Windom, and Wright-25.

ABSENT-Messrs. Anthony, Brownlow, Buckingham, Caldwell, Cameron, Carpenter, Conkling, Davis of Kentucky, Edmunds, Flanagan, Gilbert, Hitchcock, Lewis, Norwood, Nye, Patterson, Pomeroy, Pool, Rice, Saulsbury, Sawyer, Schurz, Stewart, and Thurman-24.

The VICE PRESIDENT. On the motion of the Senator from Delaware to lay on the table the pending amendment of the Senator from Vermont in regard to the Court of Claims, the yeas are 25 and the nays are 25. The Chair votes in the negative, and the amendment is not laid on the table. The question recurs on agreeing to it.

The amendment was read as follows:

SEC.-. That the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, under the act approved March 12, 1863, entitled" An act to provide for the collection of abandoned property, and for the prevention of frauds in insurrectionary districts within the United States," and under any act amendatory thereof or in relation thereto, shall extend only to cases duly commenced in said court within two years after the suppression of the rebellion, in which it shall be established as a fact, by proof satisfactory to said court, that the owner of such property has never, in fact, given any aid or comfort to said rebellion and no judgment of said court, in any case, under said acts shall be paid, unless such finding shall be stated as a proven fact in the judgment of said court, nor without a special appropriation therefor thereafter to be mado by Congress.

Mr. HILL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. HILL. Before the vote is taken, I ask to submit a thought or two in connection with this subject.

I had never known that it was the purpose of the Government of the United States to seize the property of citizens of the southern States, during the war, for the purpose of

Mr. SCOTT. As this day was specially || enriching the Treasury. The armies in their

march through Georgia left large sections, fertile regions, where a great quantity of cotton is produced, untouched, leaving to these planters in the richest section large crops of cotton; but in the poorer sections it frequently happened that there were seizures of cotton after the close of actual hostilities. Now, sir, it does strike me as being very discriminating for the Government on account of these accidental, and I may say unauthorized, seizures of cotton, and other property in many cases, to hold now that it will retain the proceeds and give no hearing and no chance for redress to the owner. It depended on the caprice of an officer; he may have been a lieutenant or some other subaltern, who took it into his head, on a mere rumor, that possibly certain property belonged to the confederate States, to seize the property and carry it to the nearest port, particularly if it was cotton, have it shipped to New York, and there sold, if it ever chanced to reach its destination; but in a great many instances, in almost all, a large percentage of cotton was lost between the port where it arrived and its destination, New York.

I happen to know in my own State some of the hardships of the enforcement of this rule. I can instance a case of an old man of seventy, who bought during the years 1863 and 1864 cotton from the planters of his own county and paid them for it, and put it in his warehouse, having some three or four hundred bales. About the 1st of June, 1865, an offi cer with a small body of men came and seized this cotton and carried it to the city of Augusta, on the Savannah river. There were three or four hundred bales taken in this arbitrary manner, and the pretext was that the cotton belonged to the confederate States, whereas I know of my own knowledge of abundant and conclusive evidence to show that the confederate States never owned one dollar's worth of it. It was the private property of this old gentleman, bought with his own money; bought from the producers of the cotton, and he an obscure man. If it had been the pur pose of the Government to seize the cotton of rebel citizens, would they have allowed, as they did, the cotton of the more conspicuous authors of the rebellion in Georgia to have gone untouched? They did do that. The leading spirits of the rebellion in Georgia did not lose any cotton; but wherever a military force happened to be stationed within a few miles, say fifty or one hundred, or somewhere near a railway, and found a lot of cotton, in a majority of cases they took possession of it and transported to the nearest shipping point, and from there it was sent to New York.

This made an invidious distinction; and today, if the object of Congress be, as I think it ought to be, to break down the asperities that were occasioned by the war, they surely go badly to work to accomplish such a purpose by passing a law that will close the doors of the Court of Claims in the face of such citizens as this old man whom I have instanced, who bought property of citizens that was as much theirs as gold in their pockets, and which there was no more justification, I insist, on the part of the officer taking, than there was of taking his household goods. Would it not have been monstrous if they had gone into this man's house and taken his silver and his gold and his precious things that were there? If it had been so, and those things had been transported and had been sold and the proceeds had gone into the Treasury, would we pass an act saying to this man that he should not go into the Court of Claims and be heard there because two years had elapsed since the war closed?

If there had been an act of confiscation that directed the seizure of the cotton of every man in the southern States, I could see some regularity and some equality in such a procedure, however harsh I might regard it. But that was not the case. These are individual cases that depended very much on the casualties to which

I have referred. I should dislike exceedingly to see so harsh, so discriminating, so unjust a rule enacted here. Indeed, I have always been of opinion that great error was committed in any order of any military man, whether it emanated from the War Department or elsewhere, in the march of armies to destroy the cotton that lay in their course, because cotton was not one of the articles that enabled their adversaries to contend with them more effectually in war. I saw no good reason for it. The case that I have instanced is one of hundreds where cotton was seized under a misapprehension of the facts, or under wrong information, and taken away from the owners. Why should this man be debarred from going into the Court of Claims? The reason these parties did not go into court was because they were compelled to allege loyalty and to prove it, and in the case I referred to, which is one of a great many similar cases, the party knew he could not prove loyalty to the Government, as he had assisted the revolution.

I once heard a very distinguished citizen of the United States, who had filled the office of Secretary of the Treasury very acceptably to this Government, and at a very important crisis in its history, say it was a great mistake on the part of the Government to seize the cotton of the southern people at all after the surrender of their armies. It ought to have been left to that people and to their tribunals to determine to whom the lots of cotton belonged, unless it was clearly shown they belonged to the confederate States.

While speaking on this subject I will advert to a little incident I am familiar with, to show how harshly the Treasury of the United States has dealt with men that I think deserved better treatment at its hands. After the close of the war, a warehouseman in the city of Augusta having one hundred bales of confederate cotton in his possession came to me as his personal friend and revealed the fact. The marks on the cotton did not show that it belonged to the confederate States, and he asked me as a friend of the Government to tell him what was his duty in regard to this cotton. I told him to go with me to the commanding officer of the Government at that place, and give him notice that he had this cotton, and had had it for two or three years in a close store, and to let it be surrendered. He did as I advised him, I telling him that he would have salvage and storage upon the hundred bales of cotton. The cotton was given up, surrendered to the officer, and sent to New York; but I regret to say that, according to the records of the Treasury, about thirty-three per cent. of it (which was a very moderate one at that time) was lost in its transmission, and some sixty bales sold and the proceeds covered into the Treasury, and when an appeal was made, with my own testimony at the Treasury Department as to how this cotton came into the possession of the Government, and as to how faithfully, honestly, and justly this citizen had acted, they turned a deaf ear even to paying him the storage that was due him, and he never received a solitary cent, and the money lies there to-day. Is that the way to affect citizens kindly toward the Government, I would inquire? No, sir. Let us have no discrimination. If it was intended as a measure of confiscation, let the confiscation be widespread and universal, seize all the cotton that can be found, take it all to New York, sell it all, but do not discriminate between citizens merely because you happen to have military at one point and none at another.

Sir, has anybody ever heard that Mr. Toombs, of my own State, who was a large cotton planter, lost one pound of cotton by the casualties of war? Never did I hear that Mr. Howell Cobb, another very large planter, lost a pound of cotton by the war.

Would you go into the gin-houses of the poor, small planter, a man that yielded to the storm that swept

over the country at that time, and seize his little pittance of cotton, drag it away from him, take it to your ports, ship it to the city of New York, sell it, and then shut the doors of your courts in this humble citizen's face?

Such is not the way, I undertake to say, to win back the disaffected citizens to fealty to this Government. I do not wonder that they remain estranged and imbittered if proceed ings of this sort are to be enacted toward them. This Government should not seek to make money by such a procedure. It is no more entitled, in my judgment, to the proceeds of the cotton now lying in the Treasury of the United States than to the proceeds, if we could follow it, of that which was never seized, but was sold by the owner himself. The fact of the seizure did not confer title. Active hostilities in most cases had ceased; and though an arbitrary decision has been arrived at as to when the war actually did close, I have always been of opinion that it closed when General Lee surrendered his army in Virginia. It was generally taken all over the country as a signal for it; and if there were little armed bands of men after that they were merely dispersing to their homes, and not seeking to continue hostilities.

Much of this cotton was taken immediately afterward, between April and the 1st of July, 1865, the greater portion of it, and because citizens were not rash enough to rush into the Court of Claims alleging that they had been loyal to the Government of the United States, and try to suborn witnesses to prove the fact, but in candor admitted that they had not been, and that they could not make proof of what did not exist, shall we say to them today, "Go away, because you did not indulge in this turpitude and degradation, we will no longer give you an opportunity to be heard in the court. 27

I hope sir, this amendment will not be enacted.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, the object of this amendment is, as I understand it, to prevent the Court of Claims from taking jurisdiction of cases of disloyal persons who sue to recover the proceeds of their cotton that was seized under the authority of the Government of the United States. I believe that is its whole object. So far I am in favor of it. We have never thus far permitted persons engaged in the rebellion against the Gorernment of the United States to bring suits in our courts to recover for their property that was taken during the war; and that is the law now, the positive statute, and it will not make it any more so to reenact it over. Let me read for the benefit of the Senate the statute as it now exists, and let us see what the purpose, then, of this amendment is:

The twelfth section of the act passed in 1863 provides as follows in reference to the Court of Claims:

"That in order to authorize the said court to render a judgment in favor of any claimant, if a citizen of the United States, it shall be set forth in the petition that the claimant, and the original and every prior owner thereof where the claim has been assigned, has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, and whether a citizen or not, that he has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government, which allegations may be traversed by the Government, and if on the trial such issue shall be decided against the claimant, his petition shall be dismissed."

In

That is the law. It has been the law all along. If it appears that the petitioner has at any time voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the Government of the United States, he has no standing in the Court of Claims. What more? order to regulate the proof upon that subject, we enacted another section in 1868-I recollect these statutes very well-and we provided this law; and I wish Senators to give their attention to these provisions of law already on the statute-book and see whether we can do much more by legislation than we have done.

Section three of the act of 1868 reads as follows:

That whenever it shall be material in any suit or claim before any court to ascertain whether any person did or did not give any aid or comfort to the late rebellion, the claimant or party asserting the loyalty of any such person to the United States during such rebellion shall be required to prove affirmatively that such person did, during said rebellion, consistently adhere to the United States, and did give no aid or comfort to persons engaged in said rebellion; and the voluntary residence of any such person in any place where, at any time during such residence, the rebel force or organization held sway, shall be prima facie evidence that such person did give aid and comfort to said rebellion and to the persons engaged therein."

Now, we have a statute enacted in 1863, amended in 1868, which declares that no disloyal person shall have any standing in the Court of Claims; that that court shall not take jurisdiction of a case unless the petition alleges-it must be set forth in the petitionthat he is loyal. I will read that part of the

act:

"That any petition filed under this act shall be verified by the affidavit of the claimant, his agent or attorney, stating that no assignment or transfer of said claim, or any part thereof, or any interest therein, has been made, except as in said petition stated; that said claimant is justly entitled to the amount therein claimed from the United States, after allowing all just credits and offsets; and that he believes the facts as stated in said petition are true."

Then comes this proviso: "Provided, however, That in order to authorize the said court to render a judgment in favor of any claimant if a citizen of the United States, it shall be set forth in the petition that the claimant, and the original and every prior owner thereof, where the claim has been assigned, has at all times borne true allegiance," &c.

That is if he is a citizen; and if he is not'a citizen, he is to prove that he has not voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to the rebellion. This must be set forth in the petition; issue may be taken upon it; and when that issue is taken, if it appears that the claimant was in a district of country which was at any time under the control of the rebels, then that is prima facie evidence that he was disloyal. That is the law; and when it appears that he is disloyal, the law says his petition shall be dismissed. What more can we do?

Mr. POMEROY. The point is as to a pardon.

Mr. TRUMBULL. If the pardon takes it out, it is upon the principle that the Constitution of the United States gives that effect to the pardon.

Mr. POMEROY. That is the basis.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Can legislation alter

that?

Mr. POMEROY. We cannot alter the Constitution.

Mr. TRUMBULL. The Legislature cannot alter the Constitution. So far as the Legislature can go we have said that this class of per standing in the Court of

sons shall have no standing Claims; their petitions shall be dismissed. We have provided a rule of evidence, making it easy to determine the question, and putting the burden of proof on the claimant to show his loyalty.

Now, if it be true that such an effect is given to the pardon as it is contended, and that we have no right to define the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, we cannot alter it by legislation; but I am very free to say that I do not believe a pardon has any such effect. I think we have a right to organize the Court of Claims, and give it such jurisdiction as we think proper, and having organized the Court of Claims, and having said that a certain class of persons shall have no standing in that court, I think we have done all we can do by legislation. We might provide that a man whose hair was white should not sue in the Court of Claims, and if it appeared in evidence that he had white hair, that his petition should be dismissed. It would be a very unreasonable and unwise thing to do; but I think the constitutional power of Congress to provide a Court of Claims that should only have jurisdiction of cases brought by persons whose hair was of a particular color, cannot be questioned.

There is one objection to this amendment of the Senator from Vermont that I will now state. I think it only reenacts the law as it is, and I see no objection to reënacting it; but

Mr. CONKLING. Before the Senator leaves the point he has been commenting on, I should like to make a suggestion. I agree with him in the dissent he expresses as to the effect of a pardon. I cannot, however, agree with the doubt he expresses as to the power to correct this in consequence by legislation, and I suggest to the Senator that if we provide, as this amendment in the latter clause does, that although the Supreme Court may differ with us as to the effect of a pardon, although the court may ignore altogether such provisions as the Senator has been reading, no judgment shall be paid and nothing shall be received by a claimant except upon the special permission and interposition of Congress, as was formerly required in the case of all judgments in the Court of Claims. When we enact that, for example, I think we answer the Senator's question, What can we do to prevent it? We do that which practically keeps the money in the Treasury and prevents it going out, and after all, that is the thing for which we are laboring. I suggest to the Senator that that one provision in this amendment does do something in spite of what any court may decide.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I was about to com ment, when I was interrupted upon this last clause, that no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation specifically made by Congress in each case. I believe that is the purport of it. If that provision is adopted, it takes away the right of appeal. The Court of Claims, as originally organized, was a mere committee of Congress; its reports were made to Congress, and then each case was investigated here and our Committee on Claims passed upon it, and if Congress appropriated the money, very well, the claim was paid; and if it did not, the claimant got nothing. It was found that we had a a cumbersome and useless machinery; that claimants were put to the trouble first of going to the court, having a judicial investigation, obtaining a judgment in their favor, and then the whole case was reinvestigated here by a coinmittee of our own, and the claimant had all this trouble twice over. If he was going to prove his claim before a committee of Congress, it was unnecessary to go to the Court of Claims.

We

Congress on consideration, about ten years ago, provided that the judgments of the Court of Claims should be paid out of the Treasury from a general fund appropriated by Congress for that purpose, just as we appropriate a general fund to pay the expenses of the War or the Navy Department, or the civil service, and not a specific appropriation for each specific thing. We provided in that law for an appeal. had provided before this for appeals from the Court of Claims to the Supreme Court of the United States, but the Supreme Court of the United States decided that they had no jurisdiction of appeals from the Court of Claims while Congress had power over a judgment of that court, that it was not a final decision, that it amounted to a mere report of a committee, and that from such a decision of such a court no appeal lay to the Supreme Court of the United States, and they refused to entertain jurisdiction. We then provided, as I have stated, for the payment of those judgments directly out of the Treasury from a general fund which is appropriated every session of Congress. I do not remember the amount we appropriate, I think sometimes $300,000; the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations will perhaps remember how much we are appropriating this year for the judgments of the Court of Claims. I presume not over half a million, if that much.

Mr. COLE. I do not remember.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Not exceeding half a million is it? I think it amounts to about

half a million a year, or something less; the amount is not large.

Mr. COLE. That item of appropriation has not yet come from the House at this ses. sion.

Mr. TRUMBULL. In former years it was that; and I suppose it would be about the same this year. I am quite sure it does not exceed half a million a year on the average, and out of this all the ordinary judgments of the Court of Claims are paid. I do not know but that there is some special provision in regard to the payment of the judgments for captured and abandoned cotton. Perhaps there may be some provision distinct in respect to that; I am not quite sure. But if we incorporate this provision here that is now proposed to be inserted by the Senator from Vermont, we take away the right of appeal to the Supreme Court in these cases; we change the character of the Court of Claims in reference to this class of cases. I do not think we should do that. I do not think that we should alter the authority to appeal in these cases and make them exceptional. So far as we have the power to legislate I think we have legislated that persons who are disloyal should have no standing in this court, and if we cannot trust our own court to enforce our laws perhaps we had better abolish it.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator from Illinois has stated the very difficulty I had in the examination I made of this matter a week ago, but I came to a different conclusion from that at which he seems to have arrived, and I say that if the Supreme Court are able by their decision to defeat the plain and positive declaration of Congress in organizing a court to aid us in the examination of claims against the Government of the United States, I would abolish the Court of Claims entirely.

The Court of Claims is a tribunal that has sprung up within a short time. At first it was only intended to examine claims that grew out of contracts, in cases where a contract, express or implied, existed between the Government of the United States and an individual. The remedy of appealing to Congress had proved in many cases to be open to objection. To an honest claimant it was very difficult for him to enforce his claim; to a small claim it was practically no remedy at all, because the expenses of applying to Congress were generaily so great that it was utterly impossible to present small claims, and where any doubtful principle was involved the appeal to Congress was simply the denial of a remedy. It was only in great claims, where the amounts were $50,000, $100,000, or $500,000 that the parties could afford to come here, and then fraud supervened, and many cases arose where the Government of the United States was defrauded. I could mention half a dozen claims where, during my experience, it was subsequently shown that the Government had been largely defrauded by false testimony and a false claim.

At last this Court of Claims was organized to assist Congress, simply with power to send for persons and papers, with power to examine witnesses, with the aid of attorneys, and with other means which Congress would not exercise and could not exercise through its own committees, to examine into claims. Finally it proved to be so useful that the power of the court was enlarged, the number of its judges increased, the salaries given to them were increased, and their jurisdiction was finally extended until their judgment amounted to an appropriation by Congress, and the court proved to be a very salutary aid to the administration of justice between the Government and individuals.

During the war when we passed the bill for seizing abandoned property, property abandoned by its owners on the advance of our armies-when that process was going on during the war, then for the first time we commenced to give to this court power over matters grow.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »