officers, soldiers, sailors, and marines, praying that claims for homestead lands may be assignable; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands. Mr. CONKLING. I present also a petition signed by a very large number of citi zens of the county of Rensselaer, in the State of New York, the mayor of the city of Troy, and a great many others, asking aid for the national homestead at Gettysburg for the orphans of soldiers and sailors of the United States. With this petition is a letter signed by the whole body of the clergy of Troy, and which, although addressed to myself, I ask to put with the petition, and refer with it the papers setting forth an urgent case and a meritorious one, calculated to appeal to the judgment and the sympathies of the Senate. I move its reference to the Committee on Foreign Relations. The motion was agreed to. Mr. NYE presented the petition and papers of Madame Don Bernard, née de Rochfermoy, one of the survivors and legal representatives of her grandfather, Brigadier General Mathieu Alexis Chevalier de Rochambeau, praying compensation for services rendered by him in the revolutionary war; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. printed, and the bill was postponed indefinitely. Mr. PRATT. The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 862) to amend an act entitled "An act granting pensions to certain soldiers and sailors of the war of 1812, and the widows of deceased soldiers," introduced by the honorable Senator from Iowa, [Mr. WRIGHT,] have had the same under consideration, and have directed me to report adversely, and to recommend its indefinite postponement. The VICE PRESIDENT. If there be no objection the bill will be postponed indefinitely. Mr. WRIGHT. I wish to have it placed on the Calendar. The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be placed on the Calendar with the adverse report of the committee. MARTIN WATKINS. Mr. PRATT. The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 1544) for the relief of Martin Watkins, of East Windsor, Connecticut, have had the same under consideration, and have directed me to report it back to the Senate without amendment, and to recommend its passage. I also submit a report in writing, which I ask to have Mr. PATTERSON presented the petition printed. of Mary H. Seward, praying indemnity for spoliations committed by the French between the years 1793 and 1801; which was ordered to lie on the table. Mr. FENTON presented papers relating to the application of Calista E. Cox, for the extension of a patent for horse hay-rakers; which was referred to the Committee on Pat ents. He also presented the petition of the auditor and canal commissioners of the State of New York, praying that the provisions of the law of 1870, revising the tariff and permitting certain articles to be imported duty free, may be continued in force for two years from July, 1872; which was referred to the Committee on Finance. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. Mr. SCOTT. I am instructed by the joint select Committee to Investigate Alleged Outrages in the Southern States to report the testimony taken by sub-committees in the States of Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi. This testimony was embraced in the resolution already passed for the printing of extra copies, but I will state that the committee may have hereafter a brief supplementary report to add to this testimony. I move that it lie on the table and be printed. The motion was agreed to. Mr. PRATT. The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of Emanuel Roberts, praying that he be allowed a pension, have had the same under consideration, and have directed me to report adversely to the petition, and ask that the petitioner be allowed to withdraw his papers. Mr. TRUMBULL. Why should he be allowed to withdraw his papers? Mr. PRATT. Possibly because he can make out a better case in the future, and we think he has a remedy at the Pension Office. The report was agreed to. Mr. PRATT, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 752) granting a pension to Peter Campbell, submitted an adverse report; which was ordered to be printed, and the bill was postponed indefinitely. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 761) for the relief of Albert A. Morey, submitted an adverse report; which was ordered to be printed, and the bill was postponed indefinitely. He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 1198) granting a pension to Ann Hunter, submitted an adverse report; which was ordered to be The report was ordered to be printed. Mr. PRATT. I ask for the present consideration of this bill; and before doing it I will make to the Senate a statement of the facts. Mr. Watkins, in 1869, was living upon the borders of a stream called Broad creek, in East Windsor, Connecticut. An extraordinary flood occurred which bore away his house with all of its contents and his child, he himself and his wife barely escaping with their lives. Among the property were four coupon bonds, one calling for $200, another for $100, and two calling for fifty dollars each. The $200 bond has been irrecoverably lost; the $100 bond has been found, and fragments of the two fifty-dollar bonds were found some time afterward hanging to the bushes. These fragments, identifying the bonds and showing their numbers, were in evidence before the committee. This bill merely authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue new coupon bonds in place of the two fifty dollar bonds destroyed. The case seemed to be a very clear one to the committee, and on this statement of the facts I ask for the present consideration of the bill. There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill. Mr. EDMUNDS. What kind of security does that provide for? Let that part of the bill be read. The Chief Clerk read as follows: Provided, That before issuing the new bonds the Secretary of the Treasury shall require a sufficient bond of indemnity securing the Government against the presentation of the aforesaid bonds alleged to have been destroyed. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. WILLIAM AND COLEMAN SELLERS. Mr. CAMERON. I ask unanimous consent of the Senate to take up House bill No. 896, to enable William Sellers and Coleman Sellers to make application to the Commissioner of Patents for the extension of letters-patent for an improvement provement in coupling for shafting, which was indefinitely postponed for the purpose of putting it on the Calendar. I do so because some additional information has come to hand. The VICE PRESIDENT. It requires unanimous consent to reconsider the vote indefinitely postponing the bill. Mr. SUMNER. When was it indefinitely postponed? Mr. CAMERON. Some time ago. Mr. SUMNER. It cannot be reconsidered unless the motion to reconsider was made within two days. Mr. CAMERON. It can be done by unanimous consent, which I take it for granted will not be objected to. Mr. SUMNER. I do not mean to object. The VICE PRESIDENT. It will require unanimous consent, as the time under the rules for a reconsideration has passed. If there be no objection, the bill will be reconsidered by unanimous consent and placed on the Calendar with the adverse report of the committee. It is so ordered. ORDER OF BUSINESS. Mr. SUMNER. I now ask the Senate to be good enough-it has already acted on one bill-to take up Senate bill No. 365. The VICE PRESIDENT. Several Senators have risen with morning business. Mr. SUMNER. If this bill be taken up, I will cheerfully yield to morning business. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Wisconsin, before the Senator from Massachusetts came in, obtained unanimous consent to take up a bill subject to morning busi ness. Mr. SUMNER. If I am anticipated, I of course must sit down, but I intended to ask the Senate to finish the bill to secure equal rights in the public schools in the District of Columbia. The VICE PRESIDENT. If there is unanimous consent for that bill Mr. BLAIR and others objected. Mr. MORTON. I ask unanimous consent of the Senate to take up Senate bill No. 58. I very seldom— Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President- ing business. Mr. ANTHONY. I have a report to make. The VICE PRESIDENT. Reports of committees are still in order. ADDITIONAL REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. Mr. FENTON. In the matter of the petition of Samuel Gardiner, praying for relief from Congress for an infringement on his electric gas-light apparatus, the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, to whom it was referred, are of opinion, the cause of complaint being the alleged infringement of a patent, the case is one more proper for determination by legal proceedings in the courts. The committee therefore ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the petition. The report was agreed to. Mr. EDMUNDS. I am directed by the Committee on Pensions to report adversely on report adv the petition of Ann McTauge, widow of Neal McTauge, lately a soldier in the Army, on the ground that the committee are unable to conclude from all the evidence that the Pension Office has committed an error in rejecting the application for a pension. It seems to be a doubtful matter, and in doubtful matters certainly we cannot revise the findings of the proper department. The committee was discharged from the further consideration of the petition. Mr. EDMUNDS, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom were referred the petitions of Catherine La Vouture, Margaret Chard, and Henry M. Renell, praying to be allowed arrears of pension, asked to be discharged from their further consideration; which was agreed to. Mr. MORTON, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 791) to amend an act entitled "An act to amend an act approved May 31, 1870, entitled 'An act to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in the several States of the Union, and for other purposes," reported it with amendments. Mr. GILBERT, from the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 213) authorizing the Postmaster General to continue in use in the postal service of the United States a machine for post-marking and for the cancellation of postage stamps, and to make settlement with the inventor, patentee, and assignee thereof, for the past and future use of the same by the Post Office Department, reported it with an amendment. REVENUE BILLS. Mr. ANTHONY. The Committee on Printing, to whom was referred a resolution to print the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections upon the resolution of the House of Representatives with reference to the difference between the two Houses in regard to revenue bills, have instructed ine to report it back and ask for its present consideration. The resolution was read as follows: Ordered, That three thousand additional copies be printed of the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections on the resolution of the House of Representatives, declaring the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 1537) to repeal the existing duties on tea and coffee to be in conflict with the Constitution, Mr. EDMUNDS. We have not considered the report of that committee. I think the usual number ought to be sufficient for the present. The VICE PRESIDENT. The usual number has been ordered to be printed, and now the Senator from Rhode Island reports back from the Committee on Printing a resolution to print extra copies. Mr. EDMUNDS. We have not considered that report, and if the Senate should happen to differ in opinion from the gentleman who made the report, as I should not be at all surprised if they did when it came to be discussed, perhaps it would not be necessary to print so many. The VICE PRESIDENT, If the Senator objects the resolution will lie over. Mr. EDMUNDS. No, I only make a suggestion. Mr. ANTHONY. I do not wish to press it against the wish of any Senator. Mr. CARPENTER. I understand the Senator from Vermont not to object. Mr. EDMUNDS. I only suggest that the question of printing additional copies of the report ought to be postponed until we see the report and know what it is. The VICE PRESIDENT. If no objection be made, the resolution reported by the Committee on Printing is before the Senate, and the question is on agreeing to it. The resolution was agreed to. REFLECTIONS IN HOUSE DEBATES ON SENATORS. Mr. COLE. I rise to ask the indulgence of the Senate for a few moments on a personal matter. The VICE PRESIDENT. Pending the call of reports of committees, the Senator from California states that there is a matter of a personal character which he desires to bring to the attention of the Senate. It requires unanimous consent pending the morning busi ness. Mr. TIPTON. I wish to make a report. The VICE PRESIDENT. That is in the nature of an objection if the Senator insists upon it. Mr. EDMUNDS. Oh, no; do not object to his making a personal explanation. Mr. CASSERLY. I have no special claim on the Senator from Nebraska, but I trust he will not interpose any objection. Mr. EDMUNDS. He has withdrawn it. Mr. CASSERLY. After my colleague has spoken, I wish to say a very few words of a personal nature myself. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from California farthest from the Chair [Mr. CASSERLY] desires to follow his colleague in this matter. The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. HOWE] had the remainder of the morning hour assigned to him by unanimous con sent for the consideration of a bridge bill, but that is superseded now by unanimous consent given for a personal explanation, and the Senator from California [Mr. COLE] will proceed. Mr. COLE. I shall arrest the business of the Senate only a few moments, and for the briefest time I can possibly confine myself to in order to notice the matter which I am about to bring to the attention of the Senate. In the Globe of yesterday, to which my atten. tion was called late last night, and to which my attention was not directed prior to the adjourn ment yesterday, I find some remarks which I ask the Clerk to read. It is proper I should state that the matter upon which these remarks were made was the so called Goat Island bill, a proposition to lease or grant a portion of that island to the Central Pacific railroad. The Chief Clerk read as follows: "Mr. SARGENT. But I am fully prepared to show that the bill, as it existed before these modifications, had the approval" Mr. HAMLIN. I object to reading any remarks of a member of the House here in this body. The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. ANTHONY in the chair.) The Senator from Maine objects. The Chair does not understand the objection. Mr. HAMLIN. I object to reading the remarks of any member of the House in this body, as out of order. Mr. THURMAN. It has not been stated, as I understand, that those are the remarks of any member of the House or were made in the House. Mr. CONKLING. Oh, yes, I beg the Senator's pardon; the Senator from California sends up the Globe and says the remarks were made on a bill which he named. Mr. THURMAN. I did not so understand it. Mr. COLE. I am not sufficiently conversant with the rules of the Senate to know whether this is objectionable. Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. The Senator can take the remarks and read them himself and make any remarks he pleases. Mr. HAMLIN. If the Senator will allow me, I interpose this objection surely in no unfriendly spirit, but I do think that there should be no controversy between members of the House and members of the Senate. I think we have had enough of that. I think the whole thing should be suppressed by the Senate. That is my idea of it. Mr. EDMUNDS. It is certainly contrary to parliamentary law. Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I deprecate as much as the Senator from Maine can these controversies between the two Houses; but the Senator from California clearly has the right, which is constantly practiced, of reading remarks that have been made "in some other place." I believe that is the parliamentary language that is used on such occasions. Mr. COLE. I will wait for the ruling of the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Undoubt edly the parliamentary rule does not allow the proceedings of one House to be referred to in the other, unless they have been officially communicated. The law laid down is: "They are therefore " That is, the members of either House "not to take notice of any bills or other matters depending, or of votes that have been given, or of speeches which bave been held by the members of either of the other branches of the Legislature, until the same have been communicated to them in the usual parliamentary manner." In regard to this particular matter the Chair will submit the question to the Senate. Mr. SHERMAN. A personal explanation is always a matter that is made by unanimous consent. It is not a proceeding in the course of debate such as is referred to by the parliamentary rule. When a bill is pending, it is not in order, according to parliamentary law, to refer to the debates or proceedings of the mous consent, and I have never heard a Senator denied the right to correct any misstatement that may have been made in the other House. It is really a great hardship if a statement should be made in the other House involving a man's character in any way and he has not the right to reply to it in another place where he is at liberty to speak. I do not know what the charge is here; but the Senator seems to think it involves his personal character. If so, certainly he ought to have the right in his place to reply to a personal charge made against him in the other House. Mr. THURMAN. I think if the reason which is given in the Manual for that rule is looked into, it will be found that it is not applicable to this case at all. The reason given for it is that neither body ought to be influenced by what is said in the other body; that is, our votes ought not to be influenced. That has no application to the case of a personal assault upon a member of one body made in the other body. If there was a personal assault made there, it was undoubtedly out of order to allow it, and the House ought to have stopped it; but if the House did not stopit, then the charge goes forth. I know nothing of what is going to be read; going I do not know what the charge is; I have no idea what it is; but I deny that a member of the House can get up and be permitted by the House to make an accusation against a Senator and the Senator's mouth be closed. Suppose he were to make a direct charge which if true would devolve upon the Senate the duty of expelling a Senator, could not that Senator get up here and have that charge read, and ask for a committee of investigation? The matter of a personal explanation stands upon wholly different grounds from the reasons which induced the rule that has been read by the Chair. The reason of that rule is, as I stated before, that our judgment is not to be influenced by what is said in the House upon measures that are pending here. But when an accusation is made against a member of this body in the other House, and the member who makes it is not stopped, is not prevented from making that accusation-and I grant he ought to be stopped-it would be very strange indeed if the Senator could not be allowed to call the attention of the Senate to it. Who knows but that he may want a committee of investigation? Mr. HAMLIN. If the Senator will allow me, when I interposed the objection I did it for a general reason; but there is a particular personal reason which did not occur to me at the time when I made it which leads me to withdraw my objection. Mr. EDMUNDS. I renew it, as there is no personal reason with me, as my friend from California knows. I felt, I confess, a very considerable humiliation as one Senator when not long since we allowed a Senator who is not now in his place, and on account of his physical condition probably, to reply to a similar attack made in the House of Representatives. I believe the most of us thought we had, out of our peculiar sympathy in that particular case, gone beyond the proprieties of this body; and I remember that, for one, I promised myself I would never do it again. 1t. The principle of parliamentary law is not precisely as my friend from Ohio has stated He has stated it correctly as far as he has gone; but there is another and quite as important a part of that proposition, as I understand parliamentary law, which he did not mention, and that is, that reflections by members of either House upon the conduct of members of the other lead to a state of hostility of feeling in both branches, each toward the other, for the reason that all the members of each body are supposed to, and they generally do, sympathize with any position that one of their own body may take toward the other. other House; but this is a matter by unani- || Therefore, I take it to be plainly laid down in the parliamentary books, not only that we are not to be influenced in our public action by what takes place in the other House, but that no member of either House has any right whatever to comment upon, reply to, or allude to, in anything he may say, what a member of the other branch has stated, for the reason that its tendency is, as the parliamentary writers say-and anybody can see that is its tendency to produce a general state of feel ing and hostility between the two bodies. on business in that way, and then that being paragraph will bear that construction; and Mr. COLE. I did not suppose that anything would tempt me to make a personal explanation, or to ask the privilege of doing it in the Senate of the United States Mr. THURMAN. If the Senator will allow me to interrupt him one moment, I recognize the force of what he says, but I put this question to him: suppose a member of the Senate were grossly assailed in the House and the member of the House was not stopped in that assault, but was allowed to go on; or take the converse, that a member of the House was grossly assailed in the Senate; would it not be competent for the House whose member was thus assailed to take notice of that, and to send | Jefferson's Manual, which the Senator from a message to the other House complaining of it? Has not that been done in the British Parliament again and again? Mr. EDMUNDS. Unquestionably, and I should have stated that very thing in a moment or two if my friend had waited. The writers on this subject, acting upon this principle that I have stated, which my friend says he acknowledges the force of, and it is a necessary principle to keep up the proper harmony for the public interests between two branches like the two Houses of Congress, say that if any member of either body is wrongfully assailed in the other, it becomes a matter of just complaint by the body of which the member thus assailed is one to bring it to the attention of the other House and to let it redress the wrong that has been committed. Mr. HOWE. Will the Senator allow me to put a question? Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes, sir. Mr. HOWE. It is a practical question, and that is, how the one body can take such a proceeding as to what has been said in the other if it is absolutely a violation of parliamentary law to refer to what has been said in that body? Mr. EDMUNDS. That is a question very easily answered; but my friend cannot be ignorant of the fact that it is one thing for a member to carry on a warfare with the members of the other House upon his own account, so to speak, and for every member to do so upon his own account, producing a constant turmoil, and it is another thing for the body that thinks that one of its members has been assailed contrary to the proprieties of the occasion to introduce the proper resolution for the action of the body upon the subject and then submit it to the other. When such a resolution is introduced, of course it becomes a part of the very parliamentary matter which we have a right to try and to proceed upon. It is just the same question that occurs in public politics, between every citizen making private war upon some neighboring nation, instead of every citizen being prohibited from making private war and having private feuds that he is carrying on upon his own account, but if he has any wrongs to be redressed, they must be redressed by the body or community of which he is a member. Now, then, as I have not read this at all, if this is a matter of sufficient consequence to my friend from California to lead him to suppose that it needs any attention at all from him, I shall be glad for one to assist in taking the first step to put an end to this sort of thing by having a resolution prepared and presented to this body referring to this paragraph, whatever it may be-I have not seen it-that such a statement having been made in the House of Representatives by one of its members, impugning the motives or the conduct (as I as sume it must, or my friend would not pay any attention to it,) of one of our own members, and remonstrating against the House carrying Mr. EDMUNDS. My friend will pardon me a moment. I meant to have read from New York has handed me, this paragraph: "Neither House can exercise any authority over plain to the House of which he is, and leave the Mr. COLE. I was about to remark that I personal explanation; ; and I should not on The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. AN- Mr. THURMAN. Before that I wish to say I think it is right that it should be read, that we may know whether to move a resolution or not. It is true, you might embody it in a resolution and offer the resolution, and then it would be read; but I think it is proper that it should be read now, and then it will be for the Senate to determine whether or not to adopt a resolution upon the subject. I think, therefore, it is proper that it should be read. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will submit the question to the Senate whether the Senator from California shall be allowed to proceed. Mr. TRUMBULL. I hope he will be allowed to proceed. Mr. EDMUNDS. I hope not. The PRESIDING OFFICER put the question, and declared that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. EDMUNDS. I ask for the yeas and nays on that question, as I think it a question of great importance. [" No!" "No!"] Yes, I want the Senate to decide fairly. My friend from California knows I do not make the motion in any hostility to him, of course. Mr. COLE. I do not accept it in that sense. The yeas and nays were ordered. affected by a portion of the remarks to which my colleague objects, I desire to say that after having heard the suggestions of the Senator from Vermont, I quite agree that the course pointed by him and assented to by the Senator from Ohio is the proper and dignified course for the Senate to adopt. I do not wish, of course, to interfere with my colleague's choice in the matter if he prefers to make what is called a personal explanation. Inever should inflict upon the Senate anything of the kind as a matter of personal choice. I know of nothing more distasteful. I should never ask leave to do it except in some case where I thought a much larger interest than any personal interest of mine was involved. But I repeat, that I think the true course for the Senate to take is to adopt some order in the shape of a resolution, presenting the case with proper remarks, and transmitting it to the House. That, of course, does not interfere with, but on the contrary would seem to require the reading of the words complained of by my colleague in part, and part by myself. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, shall the Senator from California [Mr. COLE] be allowed to proceed? Mr. CONKLING. I regret that this question has arisen, but it is here, and, as the yeas and nays are to be taken, I beg to say a single word as to the vote I shall give. Of course I would vote for anything within the limits of courtesy to enable the Senator to achieve a wish of his own personal to himself; but the question now put to the Senate is not one of courtesy or indulgence to the Senator from California. If it were, or when it is, I will vote for him promptly as I should like to have him vote for me were I in his place. The question is one of parliamentary practice and law; and it is whether the utterances in one House may be read and answered in the other House. That, I submit, is all there is of it. One Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] says this is a personal explanation, and that a personal explanation proceeds by leave. The other Senator from Ohio [Mr. THURMAN] says suppose a member of one House asperses the moral character of a member of the other, shall he not be allowed to reply to that and demand an investigation? After all, the question before us is whether a speech in one House may be answered in the other, and formally read with a view to that answer. I cannot believe that that is the law or the practice, or a safe experiment for any parliamentary body. And now I answer the honorable Senator from Ohio farthest from me, [Mr. THURMAN.] He says if a member of the House cast an aspersion upon a member of the Senate, shall he not be allowed to repel that aspersion and to demand an investigation? I answer him certainly, he may do it without even resorting to what the Senator from California farthest from me [Mr. CASSERLY] pronounces the more dignified course of proceeding; he may do it by personal explanation. Some Senator finds himself in a newspaper represented as having committed an unworthy act, and the form which the statement takes is a speech uttered by a member of the other House. I concede it is entirely proper for him to rise here and inform the Senate that he has been so aspersed, that he sees in the public print an allegation that he has been guilty of dishonorable conduct, and that he demands an investigation of it, and on that proceed to vindicate himself with his own words. I remember in the House of Representatives instances in which this liberty was carried to a great extent. I remember an oссаsion when a member then from Ohio, now in his grave, rose in the House and obtained leave to make a personal explanation. He proceeded to say, nobody doubting his right to do so, that he found himself in the public journals charged with such and such things. Having completed his statement, at the very Mr. CASSERLY. As I am personally end of it he said "the man who made those charges is a Senator, and his name is" so and so, uttering it. A great storm of calls to order was instantaneous; but he had com. pleted his statement, and he sat down. That member was a very good parliamentarian, but I think that neither he nor any other member of the body supposed that had he prefaced his statement with the words with which he concluded it he would have been permitted to proceed. President Now, Mr. President, if the Senator from California chooses to say that he has been charged, that he has been referred to in a certain particular which he mentions, and then to proceed to explain that matter and to vindicate himself, I do not think we are bound to know that the allegation originated in the other House or put him upon a disclosure of the fact that it did originate in the other House; but when he sends to the Secretary the Globe and says "I propose to have read a speech made in the other House upon the adoption of a bill which I now mention, and then I propose to answer and comment upon that speech," it presents to us broadly the simple question whether a speech made in one House is answerable, at the option of a member, in the other House. The rule which the Senator from Vermont read from Jefferson's Manual, and which has been referred to by other Senators, puts it entirely within the power of the Senate, by a direct formal recognition of the fact that the words were uttered in the House of Representatives, to take such measures as those words may demand. Mr. CARPENTER. Allow me to ask the Senator a question ? Mr. CONKLING. Certainly. Mr. CARPENTER. I take it to be per. fectly clear that if any member of the Senate receives any indignity which amounts to a violation of the privileges of this body he is not bound to introduce a resolution in which he may have so deep a concern, and I take the regular practice to be that the Senator informs the body of the outrage which has been committed on him, and then any other Senator can move the proper proceeding. Is it not perfectly proper as laying the foundation for such a proceeding on the part of the Senate for a Senator to inform the Senate that a member of the House said so and so against him in debate yesterday? Having done that, that so far is parliamentary, and is excusable as laying the foundation for the Senate to proceed and vindicate its dignity, which the Senator may not choose to institute by a resolution offered by himself, he having personal interest in it. If that much is parliamentary, we can certainly by common consent give him a chance to make the personal explanation to lay the foundation. Mr. CONKLING. I wish to express my doubt whether even so much as the Senator proposes would be parliamentary. Doubtless it would be parliamentary for him to inform the Senate that in the other House remarks and statements had been made of which he complained, and which he wanted to make the foundation of the proceeding pointed out in Jefferson's Manual. So much would be parliamentary. But suppose it would be parliamentary to go to the length the Senator suggests to us now; a member rises and says: “I propose that these remarks be read in extenso, in order that the Senate may see their aggravation." The Senate will observe that even so much makes no advance at all in the argumentthat having done this, the Senator is to proceed to comment upon those remarks, to characterize them, to take issue with them himself. So that I submit, Mr. President, that the Senator should either accomplish his purpose, not by having read proceedings as having oc curred in the House, but by referring otherwise in general terms to any statement that has been made against him, or if he will adopt them as a part of the proceedings of the House, and so present them here, then he should make them | Chair understands that several Senators have the foundation of that proceeding alone recognized in parliamentary bodies as the one which may ensue. Mr. CASSERLY. Mr. President The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of one o'clock having arrived, it becomes the duty of the Chair to call up the unfinished business of yesterday. Against it was antagonized the bill for the payment of claims for French spoliations, presented by the Senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. CASSERLY. I trust this matter will be allowed to be disposed of. I think it can be in a few minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The deficiency bill is now before the Senate, and the motion must be to lay that on the table, unless it be passed over informally. Mr. SHERMAN. I have looked over the remarks referred to, and I will state that I think the Senator from California will have ample opportunity, when the bill which was under debate in the House yesterday comes before the Senate, as it must necessarily do, to say what he has to say without a violation of parliamentary law. I hope, therefore, he will forego the opportunity of saying anything now, and as he has called attention to the fact, and has accomplished the purpose of showing that he has not overlooked it, he will have ample time when the bill referred to comes up for action in the Senate. I hope, therefore, he will follow that suggestion, rather than interrupt the important business we have before us. Mr. CASSERLY. Will not the Senator from Ohio allow me to say five words; they are not in the direction of any personal explanation? Mr. SHERMAN. It was the Senator on my right [Mr. COLE] that I referred to. Mr. CASSERLY. The question of a per sonal explanation is so completely one of personal delicacy and courtesy that I trust the Senator from Vermont will, in the first place, withdraw his call for the yeas and nays. Then I suggest to my colleague whether he does not take the same view that I do of this matter, that it is one which concerns the Senate, and concerns him and myself merely as members of the Senate. If that be correct, the course to be pursued is, I think, the one I have already spoken of with approval as that suggested by the Senator from Vermont, that whatever is done here should be in the shape of resolution by the Senate, calling the attention of the House of Representatives to what has taken place, if the Senate shall see fit to take any course in regard to it. I suggest to my colleague whether that is not the best disposition of it. I understand that the Senator from Vermont is now engaged in preparing such a resolution. Mr. COLE. The matter that was proposed to be read will take some time. My remarks, of course, would be somewhat extended, though, perhaps, not beyond twenty minutes. I was not aware of the existence of the rule that has been read in reference to the notice taken in one House of matters that occur in the other. I will state now that I will avail myself of some occasion, and the earliest occasion I can, perhaps, on the discussion of the measure upon which the remarks were made, to make some such statements as I intended to make to the Senate; and though I have not had time up to this hour to prepare a single word that I intended to say, or even a note or memorandum of what I intended to say, I will endeavor to bring myself within the rules in what I shall say hereafter when I shall ask the attention of the Senate to the subject, acquainting myself, in the mean time, with what my privileges are in the case. BILLS INTRODUCED. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The deficiency bill is before the Senate; but as the bills to be introduced, the Chair will, if there be no objection, receive them. Mr. HAMLIN. I ask unanimous consent to introduce a bill which I have been requested to present, and I desire to say that I neither approve nor oppose it. By unanimous consent, leave was granted to introduce a bill (S. No. 1029) to facilitate improvement in the postal po service; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, and ordered to be printed. Mr. TRUMBULL asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1030) for the relief of George W. Black; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Claims, and ordered to be printed. Mr. HITCHCOCK asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1031) granting to the American Fork Railway Company the right of way through the public lands for the construction of a railroad and telegraph in the Territory of Utah; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on the Pacific Rail road, and ordered to be printed. Mr. STEWART asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1028) to incorporate the Helena and Northern Utah Railroad Company, and grant the same the right of way through the public lands; which was read twice by its title. Mr. STEWART. I wish to say that I have not read the bill, and do not know whether I am in favor of it or not. I move that it be referred to the Committee on the Pacific Railroad. The motion was agreed to. Mr. SAWYER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to the bill (H. R. No. 1191) making appropriations for the naval service for the year ending June 30, 1873, and for other purposes; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. PROFESSOR S. F. B. MORSE. Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. The Committee on the Library, to whom was referred a resolution of the House of Representatives expressing the regret with which Congress has Morse, have directed me to report it back with an amendment, and I ask unanimous consent of the Senate to consider it at the present time. It is very short. the demise of Professor F. B. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution of the House of Representatives: Be it resolved, &c., That the Federal Congress has heard with profound regret of the demise of Professor S. F. B. Morse. His fame is not merely national or American, but world-wide. His distinguished and varied abilities have contributed more than those of any other intellect of our generation to the development and progress of the practical arts. His invention of the electro-magnetic telegraph, which was at first received with incredulity by the people, and with the meager favor, if not distrust of Congress, has during his life attained an eminence which, so long as human thought is dissominated by the lightning, will form an ever-growing tribute and enduring monument to his fame. While his name will be forever associated with those of Guttenberg, Watt, Fulton, and others, who made science useful, benign, and civilizing, his purity of private life, his loftiness of scientific aim, and his resolute faith in truth, render it eminently proper that the Representatives of the people and the Senators of the States should solemnly testify to his worth and greatness. The amendment reported by the Committee on the Library was to strike out all after the resolving clause, and in lieu thereof to insert the following: That the Congress of the United States have heard with profound regret of the death of Professor S. F. B. Morse. The American people cherish a grateful sense of his preeminent services to his country and mankind in happily applying the discoveries of science by the invention of the electric telegraph to relations most important in human affairs. To the memory of a citizen thus allied with the triumphs of science and the arts, whose genius and character are honored in every land, the Congress pauses to pay this tribute of respect. The amendment was agreed to. The resolution as amended was concurred in. LAKE ST. CROIX BRIDGE. Mr. CAMERON. Mr. PresidentMr. HOWE. I appeal to the Senator from Pennsylvania to let us complete a chore which was commenced yesterday. It will take but a moment. Mr. CAMERON. If it does not take more than two moments, I will consent. Mr. HOWE. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 671. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. No. 671) to authorize the West Wisconsin Railroad 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. Mr. HOWE. I offer the following amendment as a new section, to come in after sec. tion two: That in case of any litigation arising from any obstruction or alleged obstruction to the free navigation of the St. Croix river at or near the crossing of said bridge, and caused or alleged to be caused thereby, the case shall be commenced and tried in the district court of the United States for either the district of Minnesota or the western district of Wisconsin. The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amend ed, and the amendments were concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed. ORDER OF BUSINESS. Mr. COLE. I call for the regular order. Mr. NYE. I wish the Senator would give way a moment. Mr. CAMERON. I shall not give way any further. If I yield any more to the importunities of my friends I shall forget all about my speech, which would be a great loss to the country. [Laughter.] Mr. NYE. I have a little bill here. Mr. MORTON. I hope the Senate will allow the Senator from Pennsylvania to proceed with his speech. Mr. NYE. I want to hear that speech, but we can pass this bill in a minute. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is entitled to the floor. I Mr. NYE. I want to ask the Senator from Pennsylvania to yield a moment to me. know how much that is asking and how reluctantly he will consent, but I think he will yield. Mr. CAMERON. Mr. President, I will not. [Laughter.] Mr. NYE. I think the Chair awarded the floor to me. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the Senate is the deficiency bill, and these proceedings have been going on by general consent, the Senator from Pennsylvania having yielded the floor, and the Senator from Nevada having taken it. Mr. NYE. I gave notice yesterday morning that I should call up this morning a little bill that it is very important should be acted on, either passed or rejected; and if my friend from Pennsylvania will listen a moment I can convince him of the importance of acting on this bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion of the Senator from Nevada can only be entertained by unanimous consent, or by laying the pending bill on the table, to which the Senator from Pennsylvania objects. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania move to lay it on the table himself, or ask that it be laid aside informally? Mr. CAMERON. I ask that it be laid aside informally, in accordance with the special order the Senate made a week ago. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. FENTON. Let me inquire if it is for the purpose of allowing the Senator from Pennsylvania to make his remarks? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair so understands. Mr. FENTON. And the consideration of the bill of the Senator from Pennsylvania is not to be proceeded with, but the deficiency bill is to be resumed afterward? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is such the understanding? Mr. CAMERON. Oh, no. Mr. SUMNER. I beg pardon of the Chair. There has been an understanding I think for weeks that the Senator from Maryland [Mr. VICKERS] should follow the Senator from Pennsylvania. Am I not right? Mr. CAMERON. That is so. Mr. SUMNER. I understand that the Senator from Maryland is prepared to go on. Indeed this measure was allowed to drop out of its place ten days ago, partly because the Senator from Maryland had gone home. He is now in his place, and I presume is ready to go on. I hope, therefore, that the Senator from Pennsylvania will be allowed to open the case, and that the Senator from Maryland will follow, and then I hope the Senate will be ready to vote. I do not know why they should not; they will have heard a Senator on each side then. Mr. CAMERON. I gave notice on at least two occasions that when I called up this bill again I would expect it to be acted on and disposed of. Three months ago I asked permission of the Senate to allow me to make my speech and let that be printed, and then let the bill lie on the table for the present. Now, I desire that the bill when taken up shall be disposed of, either favorably or adversely. Mr. NYE. Will the honorable Senator just let me pass this little bill? Mr. CAMERON. No, he will not, nor permit anybody else to interrupt this French spoliation bill to day. [Laughter.] My motion is that the bill in the hands of the Senator from California be laid aside informally for the purpose of taking up the French spoliation bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania asks unanimous consent that the pending bill, which is the deficiency bill, be laid aside informally, subject to be called up by any Senator. Is there objection? Mr. NYE. I think we had better not. Mr. COLE. I am reluctantly compelled to object, because I hear Senators all around me say they will call up other bills which will interfere with the deficiency appropriation bill, which is almost upon its passage. Mr. KELLOGG. I call for the regular order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is before the Senate. Mr. CAMERON. Now, Mr. President, because the Senator from California has forgotten that degree of courtesy which he usually allows to everybody here, I move that his bill be laid on the table for the purpose of taking up the French spoliation bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania moves that the pending order, the deficiency bill, be laid on the table. Mr. FENTON. Mr. PresidentThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is not debatable. Mr. FENTON. I hope I may be allowed to call the attention of the Senate to the notice given by the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania and the qualifications which accompanied it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair reminds the Senator from New York that this motion is not debatable. The question must be taken without debate. The motion is to lay the deficiency bill on the table. The motion was not agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The deficency bill is before the Senate, and the immediate question is on the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. ALCORN] to the amendment offered offered by by the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. MORRILL,] on which the Senator from Mississippi ( Mr. ALCORN] is entitled to the floor. Mr. ALCORN. Mr. PresidentMr. SUMNER. Will the Senator yield to me one moment that I may make a remark? Mr. ALCORN. Yes, sir. Mr. SUMNER. The question now is on proceeding with the deficiency bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is before the Senate. Mr. SUMNER. It is now before the Senate, and I wish to assign a reason why it should not be proceeded with. The other day when the bill for equal rights in the schools of the District of Columbia was under consideration the Senate adjourned, leaving it as the unfinished business. It came up as such the next day, and when I urged its consideration I was met by a special order precisely like that which the Senator from Pennsylvania has tried to get before the Senate to-day. I was told that, though the bill for equal rights was unfinished business, it could not prevail against the special order; that by courtesy of the Senate, if not by rule, the special order should have its day, and the bill for equal rights was voted down in this Chamber. Now, sir, is the same rule applied to the bill moved by the Senator from Pennsylvania? Not at all. His bill was the special order for this day and according to the rule adopted the other day it should have been proceeded with; but no, the unfinished business is proceeded with. Now I have to remind the Senate that you have been more austere and harsh toward the bill for equal rights than you have been toward the deficiency bill. You have applied one rule to one bill and another to the other. Mr. FENTON. I desire to correct the statement of my honorable friend from Massachu-. setts, so that there may be no misapprehension in regard to the assignment of this day in the order of business. I read from the debate on assigning this day to the Senator from Pennsylvania: "Mr. CAMERON. I desire to say that I expected to-day to call up the bill providing for the payment of the French spoliation claims, but the Senator from Maryland [Mr. VICKERS) being absent I cannot do so. He intends to make a speech on that subject which I think will have a great effect on the Senate. I therefore ask that the Senate will allow me to fix to-morrow week for that bill. "Mr. POMEROY. That day has already been assigned. "Mr. CAMERON. Then I ask for Thursday of next week. "The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Pennsylvania asks that Thursday of next week be assigned for the consideration of the French spoliation bill, which has several times been postponed. "Mr. COLE. I hope my friend will not ask for that until we get along a little better with the appropriation bill. "The VICE PRESIDENT. It requires unanimous consent, as the bill is not before the Senate, and resolutions are not yet reached. "Mr. CAMERON. I think the Senator from California will not object when I tell him that if any of his bills are before the Senate then which he desires to push through immediately, I will wait for another day. "Mr. COLE. I suppose that the Senator gives notice that he intends to call up his bill on that day. The VICE PRESIDENT. NO; he desires the assignment of Thursday next for the French spoliation bill, but states that he will give way if an appropriation bill should then be pressing. "Mr. CAMERON. That is it. "The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection to that request? Mr. FENTON. What is the request? "The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Pennsylvania asks that Thursday of next week be assigned for the consideration of the French spoliation bill, stating that he will yield the day, as he has several times already, if an appropriation bill should then be pending. "Mr. FENTON. If the Senator will also except Senate bill No. 2 I will make no objection at all. It may not be before the Senate at that time. "Mr. CAMERON. Of course, I will make no objection to that." |