pardon, regardless of contract and everything else, you must purge yourself of all disloyalty before you can be heard in the courts of this country."

I will not dispute, and have not disputed, the power of Congress to pass a law in estab lishing a court saying who shall go into it. You have power to do that. But you have established this court, and I make the point that having established the court, you now seek to pass a law in the nature of an ex post facto law, a law after the fact, to affect the litigants who have already gone through the court that you have made for them and invited them to come forward and be heard in.

Mr. HOWE. Will the Senator allow me to state the difference between my position and his right on that point?

Mr. ALCORN. Certainly.

Mr. HOWE. My position is that we are not trying to pass an ex post facto law at all, but we are trying to say distinctly and explicitly, so that it shall be intelligible to me and to the Supreme Court, what we thought we had said in the act of 1864-no more and no less.

Mr. ALCORN. As to what Congress thought I am not capable of explaining. As to what Congress did, I have the authority of the Supreme Court for saying. You passed the law, you passed it to your own satisfaction when there was nobody here to object, and you referred it to the highest court of this nation to explain and to construe, and that court has construed it; and now what we complain of is that after the court has construed it, and after under that construction of the court the south

ern people have gone on and have presented their claims, you say not one word until the case is heard and has passed through all the forms of adjudication, and then, when the decision has been declared in favor of the claim ants, I hold that this action of yours is in the nature of an ex post facto law. It is an unjust law, and a law that perpetrates a fraud upon the people who have gone through this court, now to come in and say to them "You shall not have the benefit of your judgment." If you will, say so in plain language; you have the power to say it; but I put myself before the people of this nation in the equity and justice of their nature that it is not right to do so. Mr. HOWE. The Senator from Mississippi and myself I think will not differ essentially as to what is in itself right or wrong. He seems to think this is a fraud; but if this act says no more than what we conscientiously believe we had said in 1864, is there any fraud on anybody unless it be the fraud which was perpetrated in effect by that decision which declared that we did not say what we all thought we had said?

Mr. ALCORN. Again I repeat, that as to what the gentleman thought I shall not dispute or cavil with him; but that he did not think exactly right is very apparent from the fact that the decision of the Supreme Court does not support him in his view of the law of the case. The Senator contends that there is yet a land of rebellion. He shakes his head; but he said awhile ago that he did not propose to open the courts of the country to all rebeldom. That implies that there is a land of rebellion.

Mr. HOWE. I think the Senator will agree on reflection that it does not imply any such thing necessarily, but simply implies nothing more than that there was such a land once. If I spoke of rebeldom, if I used that term, and I think very likely I did, I spoke of it with reference to that class of men who in a late unhappy period of our existence were in rebellion, and as to that very class which for that very reason we meant to keep out of the Court of Claims, I used that term. I did not mean to say that there was any portion of the country in rebellion now.

Mr. ALCORN. I am glad that the Senator puts the rebellion at a period of time that has passed. But the Senator says that the object | 42D CONG. 2D SESS.-No. 183.

is to keep out of the Court of Claims the people who have been engaged in rebellion. But having invited those people, under the ruling of the Supreme Court, to go into the Court of Claims, after they have passed a long and weary way in litigating these questions before the Court of Claims, I contend that it is now an act of injustice to that class of people who have obtained judgments under the acts of Congress and the construction of the Supreme Court, to interpose new conditions; and the Morrill amendment does interpose other conditions than that which the Supreme Court declares to exist now as the law stands to-day.

Secretary of the Treasury, but their application is the end of the case; and that is a complete answer to the suggestion that there is a remedy.

Mr. HOWE. The Senator does not mean to do any injustice certainly?

Mr. ALCORN. Not at all.

Mr. HOWE. I do not know-I wish my colleagues upon the Committee on Claims would support or defeat me with their testimony-I do not remember when such a claim as that has been presented to the Committee on Claims of the Senate and has been denied. The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. BOREMAN] has not been so long on the committee as some others, but I am under the impression that there are one or two claims of that sort before the committee now; but I do not remember that a claim of that kind has ever been denied by that committee.

Mr. ALCORN. Not being a member of the committee, I am not prepared to speak except generally. I certainly do not wish to say anything that is improper.

Mr. BOREMAN. If the Senator from Mis. sissippi will allow me, as remarked by the Senator from Wisconsin, I have but recently been appointed upon the Committee on Claims, about a year since. I have heard nothing of any claim of this sort since I have been on that committee. There may have been such claims presented; but if so, I have not heard of one within a year, and I have been a memof the committee about a year.

But, more than that, property was taken after the war had ceased. As I stated the other day, cotton was taken by the agents of the Treasury Department after the war had ceased, and after the proclamation of the President had been made reviving the commercial relations between the sections, and after the property of the citizen was under the civil law, as we propose to show to the Senate. Then agents of the Government of the United States, agents of the Treasury, seized upon this cotton. They had so long regarded it as the subject of seizure and speculation that for five long months after the war had ceased every one of them, whenever he saw a bale of cotton, felt himself privileged to pounce upon it, and if there was any resistance to call upon the military forces of the Government for the purpose of protecting him in the seizure. Cotton was seized after the war had ended, after the commercial relations of the two sections had been revived under the proclamation of the President and the circu lar of the Secretary of the Treasury Depart-gia, Mr. Hamilton, the other day told me that ment declaring such seizures to be in violation of military orders and of ail civil law. Then those who were not yet acquainted with their rights and who were powerless to protect themselves had their property taken before their eyes, their cotton seized, under the promise that it was to be held in trust; but they were rebels! Are they entitled to pay for that cotton?

Mr. HOWE. Will the Senator allow me to answer him right there?

Mr. ALCORN. Certainly.

Mr. HOWE. Unquestionably entitled to pay. Two remedies are open to them, or rather one remedy is open and another is being opened. They have a plain remedy to come here. There never was any authority in the world for taking that cotton. They have a plain remedy to come here and ask for compensation, just as if my horse had been taken I should have no other remedy than to come here and ask compensation. I cannot go to the Court of Claims any more than I can go to the Kingdom of Heaven-on that petition, I mean. Another remedy is being opened. A bill is before this House, and I think before the other, proposing to remit them to the Treasury Department to have their claims settled there. That is a distinct thing entirely outside of the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, even according to the decision of the Supreme Court, and is not affected at all by || the original act of 1864.

Mr. ALCORN. They have their remedy, the Senator says. Yes, sir, they have their remedy; they can come to Congress; they can go to the Treasury Department; but have not these people been appealing for the last seven years for the proceeds of their cotton after the expenses of the Government have been deducted from it? Have they not for the last seven years appealed here and impoverished themselves lying around Congress, and begging that they might have that which belonged to them? Why, sir, within my own knowledge there are some of them who have been before Congress at every session; there are some of them here now who are seeking relief from the Government, and yet none has come. They have their remedy, we are told. Yes, to apply to Congress or to apply to the

Mr. ALCORN. Some of these claimants have been very unfortunate or they misrepresent the facts to me. A gentleman from Geor

he had had a claim before the committee here for quite a time; he asserted that he had a large amount of cotton seized after the war ended, and he assured me that that claim had been in the hands of the honorable Senator from Wisconsin who responded but a few mo ments ago; but the Senator's answer is sufficient on that point, as a matter of course.

Mr. HOWE. What part of Georgia is he from?

Mr. ALCORN. From Atlanta, I think. He had a large claim amounting to several hundred bales of cotton, and he assured me that he had been here; that the cotton was taken after the war ended, and that he had been to the Department again and again, and that he had been before the committee, and that the Senator from Wisconsin now had that matter before him, and that he hoped at some time during the present session he would report it, and he assured me that the Senator was friendly to the consideration of his measure.

Mr. HOWE. There is some mistake about it; I cannot undertake to say precisely where it is; but I have no recollection of Mr. Hamil. ton or his claim.

Mr. ALCORN. What the Senator from Wisconsin says is satisfactory to me in regard to any participation he may have had in this matter. I only know generally about this, and I speak here for the reason that I have not understood that it was the purpose of the Gov ernment to do a wrong to any one. I speak here as one who comes from the land that was in rebellion; I speak here as one who was engaged in the rebellion; and I speak plainly, and I have a right to speak. We ask nothing that the Government of the United States seized as the property of the confederate gov. ernment under its confiscation law. We ask nothing that you destroyed by the Army as it went forth. It was our misfortune to be in the path of the Army and to have our houses burned, our fields laid waste, our property taken. It was one of the misfortunes that belonged to our position; it was one of the misfortunes that grew out of the revolution. It was ours. Mournful, painful though it was, it was for us to bear it, and we bore it without murmur and without complaint.

But that property which belonged to the

private individual, that which is regarded by all civilized nations, being the property of individuals, as sacred and to be held untouched, civilization having demanded that even in time of war private property shall be respected; property that was respected by this Government as it marched triumphantly through Mexico; property that was respected by William as he marched victoriously toward the city of Paris; property that has been regarded as sacred from the touch of an invading army under all civilized Governments-we ask simply that this property shall_to-day be paid for under what we conceive to have been the policy of the nation, under a policy that we have accepted and understood as being that of the people of the United States, that this shall be paid for under the law of Congress which settled the revolution and provided a Court of Claims for adjusting between the citizen of the United States, who was a rebel nevertheless, and the Government of the United States, in order to define and adjudicate the distinction between private and public property.

Now, the private citizen comes with the judgment of that court which you have established, whose jurisdiction you have defined, whose decision he holds in his hand, pointing to the proceeds of his property in the Treasury of the United States, and bearing up in his hand at the same time the act of Congress and the adjudication of the Supreme Court upon that act, and he asks that you shall throw here no obstruction in his way in carrying forward the judgment to its legitimate result. This is all he asks. He cannot ask less than this.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I have not the slightest personal interest in this question. I wish I had, for I wish that a great deal of cotton of my own that was burned had gone into the Treasury of the United States; I wish it, even if it had never been given back to me; but it was not my good fortune to have mine go there. I never had a bale sold and the proceeds put into the Treasury. I had many a bale burned in the march of Sherman's army at different places. I have told General Sherman himself that I did not think there was any good in burning that cotton; that the destruction of the railways through the country by his army put it out of the power of individuals to send it to the sea-board, and more than that, he was marching with a strong force upon our principal sea port at the time this burning took place, and the cotton would have been left behind him. From Savannah, crossing the river at that point, he turned up into South Carolina, and destroying the railroads that communicated between Augusta and Richmond he made cotton as useless to the rebels as the pines that it was lying among in the South.

There was an immense amount of cotton captured at Savannah, not captured until Savannah fell before the victorious army of General Sherman. That cotton remained there until after active hostilities had ceased, mainly, before it was carried away. It cannot be said with propriety that while the United States forces occupied Savannah, it a conquered city fully in their possession, with the possession of its harbor, no means of egress or ingress on the part of the confederates any longer, that it was a means of repressing hos tilities to take the cotton that was found in that city, and it does not strike me that it was necessary or that it accomplished anything in that way. Georgia had been overrun, Savannah had fallen, and the cotton was captured. There was no way on earth for the rebels to take that cotton away from Savannah. afterward transported to New York, and what was left of it sold and the proceeds carried into the Treasury of the United States, where they now lie.

It was

As I said on a former occasion, I can see no difference in the seizure of cotton under such circumstances, and the seizure of treas

ure, of gold and silver, or of household goods. One might as well have been done as the other, if the object had been to raise money for the Treasury of the United States. And long after active hostilities had ceased, seiz ures of cotton were continued in the State of Georgia in the interior, and in the interior of other southern States. It was seized upon pretexts of doubtful ownership, and sometimes I have no doubt rightly seized as the property of the confederate States, but not very often. Very frequently there was a mis take in that particular.

It does seem to me that it would have been better never to have taken the cotton away at all, better to have left it there in the desolate, impoverished condition of that country and of that people. Since that was not done, but in the heat and excitement incident to war the cotton was seized and taken away from them and the proceeds put into the Treasury, it is better to day, I think, (better than to keep the few millions that compose the amount of money which was derived from such cotton,) that the proceeds be returned to the original owners whenever they can be ascertained. Sir, I think there are Senators here who, if they could go through the districts of country where some of this cotton was seized, if they could have known those sections as I knew them before there was any war, if they could have seen the freshness and the beauty that the country exhibited at that time, and look upon it now in its desolate, ruined state, scarcely a straggling fence to be seen, rarely any evidence of repairs; and even the fine old mansions of the country, once the abodes of almost princely hospitality, destroyed and gone, and with their beautiful grounds all left desolate, all mere marks of ruin and decay

"And not a rose left to bloom on the stalk,

To tell where the garden had been," would awaken some emotions in the generous heart other than those of vindictive feeling and bitter memories of the wrongs of former years.

Better to give to these deluded people, if they were all rebels, that owned this cotton the money that arose from its sale and help them to rise again from their impoverished helpless condition.

I hope, sir, that the new rule adopted yesterday, the excellent regulation in regard to amendments inappropriate to appropriation bills, will be signalized to-day by the rejection of this amendment, and that it will not go upon this bill to mar its symmetry. Let us make this the distinctive point, beginning here in that good work. If there is to be any legislation upon upon this subject, it might be well to determine whether there should be some discrimination between the cotton of claimants takes during flagrant war and that which was taken after hostilities had ceased. There seems to me there may be something in that. No one complained of seizures while war raged. While they were fitting out little vessels and running the blockade and carrying cotton secretly to Nassau, and bringing in goods, it was certainly proper for the Government to seize the cotton and prevent its being used to its detriment; but after this had ceased, as it did cease at Savannah as soon as Sherman took the city, and could no longer be done, I can see no reason why there should have been seizures of cotton in Savannah. was well known by General Sherman when he garrisoned that city that there was not force enough anywhere in the South to retake it and occupy it and expel or capture the garri

son.

It

He had no apprehension of that, and he marched away through the Carolinas, destroying as he went the railways behind him, so that there was no longer means left for furnishing supplies for the government at Richmond. The whole edifice was tottering to its fall, and had absolutely gone down, was prostrate in the dust at the time a large portion of this cotton was seized, the proceeds of which are now in the Treasury.

Mr. COLE: I move that further debate on amendments to this bill be restricted to five minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. AN THONY in the chair.) The Senator from California moves, under the rule adopted yesterday, that further debate on amendments to this bill be restricted to five minutes; and that question must be taken without debate.

Mr. CASSERLY. I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 30, nays 18; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Ames, Anthony, Boreman, Buckingham, Caldwell, Cameron, Carpenter, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Cragin, Ferry of Connecticut, Flanagan, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howe, Kellogg, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Pomeroy, Pratt, Ramsey, Rice, Scott, Sherman, Wilson. Windom, and Wright-30.

NAYS-Messrs. Alcorn, Bayard, Casserly, Davis of West Virginia, Goldthwaite, Hamilton of Maryland, Hill, Johnston, Kelly, Norwood, Saulsbury, Spencer, Sprague, Stevenson, Stockton, Sumner, Trumbull, and Vickers-18.

ABSENT-Messrs. Blair, Brownlow, Clayton, Cooper, Davis of Kentucky, Edmunds, Fenton, Ferry of Michigan, Gilbert, Hamilton of Texas, Hamlin, Hitchcock, Lewis, Logan. Nye, Osborn, Patterson, Pool, Ransom, Robertson, Sawyer, Schurz, Stewart, Thurman, Tipton, and West-20. So the motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. MORRILL.]

Mr. STEVENSON. On that I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The amendment was to add the following as an additional section:

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 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: Provided, That the provisions of this section shall not apply to or embrace judgments heretofore rendered by the Court of Claims in which it has been found as a proven fact that the claimant has not given aid or comfort to the rebellion: And provided further. That proof of loyalty to the United States, or of not giving aid and comfort to the rebellion, shall not be required of any party to a suit cognizable by the Court of Claims founded on contract with the United States entered into since the suppression of the rebellion: And provided further, That on any judgment heretofore rendered in favor of claimants in which the question of loyalty was not passed on, the court on application of the claimant may hear, determine, and certify as to the question of loyalty as shown by the evidence on the record.

Mr. CALDWELL. I am paired on this question with the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. BLAIR.] If present, he would vote "nay," and I should vote yea."

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. On this question my colleague [Mr. EDMUNDS] is paired with the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. SCHURZ.] If present my colleague would vote "yea,' and the Senator from Missouri would vote nay.”

66

Mr. CONKLING. I am paired on this question with the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. THURMAN.] I should vote for the amendment, of course, and he would vote against it.

Mr. WILSON. I am paired with the Senator from North Carolina, [Mr. RANSOM.] If he were present, I should vote "yea," and he would vote 66 nay.”

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 26, nays 26; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs Ames, Anthony, Boreman, Buckingham, Cameron, Carpenter, Chandler, Cole, Corbett, Cragin. Ferry of Michigan, Flanagan, Frelinghuysen, Gilbert, Hamlin, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Verinont, Morton, Patterson, Pratt, Ramses, Scott, Sherman, Sumner, Windoin, and Wright-30. NAYS-Messrs. Alcorn, Bayard, Casserly, Davis of West Virginia, Ferry of Connecticut, Goldthwaite, Hamilton of Maryland, Harlan, Hill, Johnston, Kellogg, Kelly, Lewis, Norwood, Pomeroy, Pool, Rice, Saulsbury, Sawyer, Spencer, Sprague, Stevenson, Stockton, Trumbull, Vickers, and West-26.

ABSENT-Messrs. Blair, Brownlow, Caldwell, Clayton, Conkling, Cooper, Davis of Kentucky, Edmunds, Fenton, Hamilton of Texas. Hitchcock, Howe, Logan, Nye, Osborn, Ransom, Robertson, Schurz, Stewart, Thurman. Tipton, and Wilson-22.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The yeas are 26 and the nays are 26. The Chair votes in the affirmative, and the amendment is agreed to.

Mr. ALCORN. I move to amend the bill by adding to the section in regard to the hours of labor

The VICE PRESIDENT. The House section with the proviso stricken off was agreed to.

Mr. ALCORN. Now I propose, after the section as it now stands amended by the Senate, to add:

Provided, That in all cases wherein the persons described in the following section shall be found to have performed labor at the rate of ten hours a day, the workman, laborer, or mechanic who so worked shall have his or their wages correspondingly increased, and shall be so paid.

I wish to call the attention of the Senate to the fact upon the statement of the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. EDMUNDS,] that at the time the eight-hour law went into operation the officers in charge of the Government works informed the workmen and laborers that if they worked longer than eight hours they should be paid for it, and many of them worked ten hours during the day and received a day's pay therefor. The law of Congress on the subject of this eight-hour system I propose to read in order to show the justice of my amendment:

"All persons shall receive per diem compensation for the time during which they were actually engaged."

This was the law of Congress, and under this law there were workmen who performed ten hours' labor and received compensation. Now the amendment that has been adopted by the Senate provides that those who worked but eight hours, those who refused to work ten hours, but placed themselves upon the law of Congress which fixed eight hours as a day's work, shall have as much pay as the men who worked ten hours. Now, I propose to follow up that legislation to its legitimate consequence, and if a man who worked eight hours is entitled to pay for ten hours, the man who worked ten hours is certainly entitled to extra pay for two hours extra,

Mr. COLE. I suggest that that would make it unequal.

Mr. ́ALCORN. Then the inequality exists now against the man who worked ten hours. The inequality exists against him. I know it is not equal; but when compensation is made to a workman who worked eight hours a day for two hours' labor that he did not perform, is there any inequality in giving the man who worked ten hours pay for two hours that he did not perform? I wish that those men who worked ten hours shall not be rebuked by Congress in the legislation that has now been adopted upon this bill, and that they shall not have it said to them, "Your labor has been appropriated by the Government, and you have not been compensated for it; you have worked two hours that the Government takes and appropriates without giving you any compensation other than that which was stipulated in the law, while we have given the same pay to the man who worked but eight hours." It is unjust to the enterprising laboring man who chose to devote ten hours of muscle and sweat in the service of the Government, and, without saying anything against the law giving the eight hour man the pay for ten hours' work, I speak for the man who worked ten hours, and I say that he should not be thus rebuked for his enterprise, his industry, and his toil.

Mr. COLE. I hope this amendment will not be adopted. The eight-hour law removed all obligation upon any person laboring for the Government to continue his labor beyond that time, because he was entitled to receive a full day's wages for his day's work of eight hours. It may have happened that some persons

worked longer than eight hours; and some may have worked eleven hours or twelve hours or even a larger number of hours, and we should find ourselves in the dilemma of being obliged to pay each man throughout the country who two years ago, in the past, was in the employment of the Government, for odd hours that he may have been employed. I suggest to my friend that in some cases persons may have wrought for twelve hours, and his amendment would not meet that emergency; in other cases eleven hours, and his amendment would not reach them.

I suggest that in accordance with the law which he read it is sufficient and all-sufficient to pay for the day's labor of eight hours, of which a party might avail himself, and where he was not under any obligation to labor longer. If he did labor for an hour or two hours beyond, it was certainly gratuitous. We have gone to the full extent of doing justice to the laboring men in providing that they shall receive full wages for eight hours' labor, and that is already provided for in this bill, and there can be no necessity for going further than that. I hope the amendment will not be adopted.

Mr. ALCORN. One word in reply. As to the sequences

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. ANTHONY in the chair.) The rule under which we are acting allows a Senator to speak but five minutes.

Mr. ALCORN. I will not speak half of five minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has already spoken five minutes.

Mr. ALCORN. Five minutes at one time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair does not understand that a Senator can speak repeatedly, five minutes each time.

Mr. ALCORN. I submit to the ruling of the Chair; but just there I would ask the question whether when I have spoken once five minutes on any question I am precluded from again appearing on the floor. If that is the ruling, I will submit, of course.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will read the rule. The Chair prefers that the Senator shall be satisfied.

Mr. ALCORN. I am entirely willing that the Chair should decide what the rule is, and I will submit to it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thinks there is no doubt about it. The rule is that "during the present session it shall be in order at any time to move a recess; and, pending an appropriation bill, to move to confine debate on amendments thereto to five minutes by any Senator on the pending motion."

Mr. ALCORN. I then move to strike out the last word in my amendment, and upon that I will speak briefly with the consent of the Chair, if I have a right to make that motion. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to make that motion. Mr. ALCORN. And to speak on it. I merely want to make one single point. I am not responsible for the sequences or results of this legislation. The law declared that "all persons shall receive a per diem compensation for the time during which they were actually engaged."

Under this some workmen chose to work eight hours, others chose to work ten hours, and were so paid. Now we give the man who worked eight hours pay for ten hours, which is simply practically to increase the wages or pay that he received. I propose to give the man who worked ten hours the same enlargment of compensation, to increase his pay, not exactly in the same ratio, but in a ratio equal to the proportion of two hours to ten, and that is all. I speak not of anything that has been done for the eight-hour men; I am content with that; but I speak for the tenhour men, whose labor and muscle you have had for two hours without any compensation.

Mr. WEST. I rise to a question of information and perhaps somewhat of order. The five-minutes rule was applied by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to the motion to adopt the Morrill amendment, so called. If I understand the language of this new rule that has been adopted by the Senate, it requires the same motion to be made on every pending motion.

Mr. CONKLING. Oh, no.

Mr. WEST. Then what do the words " on the pending motion" mean?

Mr. COLE. The motion under consideration at any particular time.

Mr. WEST. Is not this a new motion? The PRESIDING OFFICER. A new motion is now pending. The Senator from Mississippi moves to strike out the last word of his amendment.

Mr. ALCORN. I ask leave to withdraw that. I intended to do so before I took my seat.

Mr. WEST. As I was not here at the final adoption of this rule yesterday, I merely wanted to get at the construction of the Senate.

Mr. CONKLING. That very question was suggested yesterday in the debate. Several Senators, the Senator from Maryland [Mr. HAMILTON] especially, inquired whether the rule did not mean that one motion would in advance confine debate on all future amendments, and the Chair answered that it would have that effect, and so the resolution undoubtedly, as we all understood, meant and was || adopted in that sense.

Mr. WEST. I beg pardon for interrupting, then-for interposing.

Mr. CASSERLY. I ask the Secretary to read the resolution. I did not hear any such debate yesterday, or rather it escaped my attention. I think that is rather a novel view to take of such a resolution.

The Chief Clerk read the resolution adopted yesterday, as follows:

"Resolved, That during the present session it shall be in order at any time to move a recess; and, pending an appropriation bill, to move to confine debate on amendments thereto to five minutes by any Senator on the pending motion; and such motions shall be decided without debate. And no amendment to any such bill making legislative provisions other than such as directly relate to the appropriations contained in the bill shall be received."

Mr. CASSERLY. I agree that that is the proper construction of the resolution. I did not understand it exactly as it seems to have been passed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. ALCORN] to the second section of the bill.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont.

There was

an amendment, of which I gave notice to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for lighting the Capitol grounds. I offer that amendment now, to insert on page 28, after line six hundred and sixty:

For additional lamps and service-pipe in the east and west parks, Capitol grounds, $4,000.

I will say that there is absolute necessity for this. It may be that our police are remiss in doing their duty; but at any rate, the portion of these grounds that are unlighted are subject to night-walkers, and I take it there will be no objection on the part of either House to having an appropriation made so that these walks shall be properly lighted.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BUCKINGHAM. I offer the following amendment:

After line five hundred and eighty-three, on page 35, insert:

So much as may be required for the payment of expenses incurred by order of the Secretary of the Interior in the investigation of certain charges of fraud in the payment of bounties and back pay to the members of the first, second, and third regiments of Indian home guards, $2,000.

I will simply state that the authorities of the Cherokee and Creek Indians made complaints of fraud against an agent appointed by the Secretary of the Interior to investigate the

payments which had been made of bounties and pay for their home guards. The Secretary appointed a commission to make inquiry into the matter and report. This amendment proposed to make an appropriation to pay the expenses of that commission.

Mr. COLE. I do not know but that this is in the nature of a private claim. I raise the question.

Mr. BUCKINGHAM. I believe it is not in the nature of a private claim. It is to liquidate expenses incurred by the Secretary to carry out a special object.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair does not understand that this order was issued under any law.

Mr. BUCKINGHAM. I understand that the investigation was made under a law, and this is for the expenses incurred in consequence of the investigation.

The VICE PRESIDENT. If the law authorized the investigation, this is not a private claim. If the law did not authorize the investigation, in the apprehension of the Chair it is a private claim.

com

Mr. BUCKINGHAM. I have here a con munication from the Secretary of the Interior on the subject, which can be read.

The Chief Clerk read the following letter:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

WASHINGTON, D. C., April 25, 1872. SIR: During the last fall and winter a commission, authorized by this Department, was engaged in the investigation of certain charges made by the authorities of the Cherokee, Creek, and Seminole nations against a former agent of this Department in the matter of the payment of bounties and back pay due the members of the first, second, and third regiments of Indian home guards.

In order to meet the expenses of this commission I have the honor to submit the accompanying estimate of appropriation, amounting to $2,000, and respectfully request the favorable action of Congress upon the same.

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, B. R. COWEN, Acting Secretary. Hon. JAMES HARLAN, Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, Senate of the United States.

The VICE PRESIDENT. This letter does not state that the law authorizes the Secretary of the Interior generally to investigate charges in regard to Indian matters.

Mr. HARLAN. The law does confer that authority.

The VICE PRESIDENT. If he has authority of law to order investigations, it is for Congress to decide how much or how little shall be paid or not to pay at all; but it is not a private claim if it is authorized by law. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. COLE. Is it reported from the Committee on Indian Affairs?

Mr. BUCKINGHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. COLE. I have not had an opportunity to examine it. No notice was given.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BUCKINGHAM. After the word "dollars," in line one hundred and sixtytwo, page 8, I move to insert "for this amount (deficiency in the construction of the assay office, Boisé City, Idaho Territory,) $2,092 05." I will state that an appropriation was made for that assay office, but in consequence of the heavy bills for transportation the expense has been rather more than the appropriation, and this is a deficiency. The Secretary of the Treasury asks that it may be put in the appropriation bill.

Mr. COLE. It is accompanied by a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury with specific items, I remember distinctly.

Mr. BUCKINGHAM. I have the specific items here.

Mr. COLE. It is not worth while to read them. I have examined them carefully. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. WINDOM. I offer the following amendment from the Committee on Contingent Expenses:

On page 2, line thirty-six, after the word "apparatus, insert for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1871;" so as to read: "for expenses of heating and

ventilating apparatus for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1871, $4,000."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WINDOM. On page 3, after line fortyfive, I am instructed by the same committee to move to insert "For clerks of committees, pages, horses, and carryalls, $10,000." I will state that there are not funds enough to meet these payments which are due, and unless the appropriation is made the pages and other employés cannot be paid.

Mr. COLE. This is a deficiency bill providing for the present fiscal year.

"coffee," and to insert the words "salt and coal."

Mr. SHERMAN. I hope that amendment will be laid aside informally until the amendments proposed by the committee to the bill shall be considered.

Mr. CONKLING. Why not vote on the amendment now?

The VICE PRESIDENT. No amendment as yet appears to have been offered by the committee to this precise bill. There was an amendment to another bill.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator from Penn

Mr. COLE. I suppose the Committee on Contingent Expenses have inquired carefully into the amount of the deficiency. I have not had time myself to look into it.

Mr. WINDOM. I will state that if the this would be more than would be required; Senate should adjourn by the 1st of June but if it should remain in session until the middle of June, as it is usual to pay for the entire month, the whole amount would be required.

Mr. COLE. Then I think we had better appropriate a smaller amount, as I hope we shall get off by the last of May. How much will meet the expenses up to the 1st of June? Can the Senator state that?

Mr. WINDOM. I cannot tell the proportion; about twenty-three hundred dollars I am informed. I think the whole amount had better be appropriated, because it will not be used unless we should remain in session. The amendment was agreed to.

The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a third time. The bill was read the third time, and passed.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION.

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a message from the President of the United States, transmitting the annual report of the Board of Public Works of the District accordance with section thirty-seven of an of Columbia in regard to their transactions, in act to provide a government for the District of Columbia, approved February 21, 1871; which was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia, and ordered to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. CLINTON LLOYD, its Chief Clerk, announced that the House had concurred in the resolution of the Senate tendering the thanks of Congress to the Governor and through him the people of the State of Connecticut for the statues of Roger Sherman and Jonathan Trumbull.

TEA AND COFFEE DUTIES.

Mr. SCOTT. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 174, repealing the duty on tea and coffee.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thinks that when this bill was previously considered there was an amendment pending.

Mr. SCOTT. Those amendments were moved in the morning hour. Do they come up now?

The VICE PRESIDENT. The amendment pending when the subject passed over comes up now.

Mr. SCOTT. I have an amendment to offer when it is in order. The Chief Clerk read the bill. The VICE PRESIDENT. When this bill was last under consideration the Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] moved an amendment to it which will be read.

The Chief Clerk read the amendment, which was to strike out the word "and" in the third line after the word "tea" and before the word

amendment to the bill which has the sanction of the committee.

The VICE PRESIDENT. If there be no

objection-the rights of the Senator from Illi

nois will not be lost-the Senator from Pennsylvania will now offer an amendment in regard to the time of the taking effect of the bill, as the Chair understands.

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir. I propose in the first line of the bill to strike out the word "from" and insert the word " on," and in the same line to strike out the words " of passage this act" and insert "1st day of July next," and at the end of the bill to add:

And all tea and coffee which may be in the public stores or bonded warehouses on said 1st day of July shall be subject to no duty upon the entry thereof for consumption; and all tea and coffee remaining in bonded warehouses on said 1st day of July, upon which the duties shall have been paid, shall be entitled to a refund of the duties paid.

This makes the provision the same as was adopted in the previous bill, and I desire that the amendment may be considered now as offered.

The VICE PRESIDENT. To perfect the bill the Senator from Pennsylvania proposes the amendment which was offered by the Committee on Finance to the previous bill of the same character.

Mr. STEVENSON. I should like to hear the amendment reported.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] has now come into the Chamber, and the Chair will state to him that his amendment was passed over informally that the Committee on Finance might be enabled to offer an amendment about the taking effect of the bill on the 1st of July, which is now pending, and the Senator's amendment is reserved.

Mr. STEVENSON. Let the amendment be read.

The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to amend the bill so as to make it read:

That on and after the 1st day of July next tea and coffee shall be placed on the free list, and no further import duties shall be collected upon the same; and all tea and coffee which may be in the public stores or bonded warehouses on said 1st day of July shall be subject to no duty upon the entry thereof for consumption; and all tea and coffee remaining in bonded warehouses on said 1st day of July, upon which the duties shall have been paid, shall be entitled to a refund of the duties paid.

Mr. SCOTT. I claim the indulgence of the Senate for not more than five minutes in offering this amendment.

When this bill was proposed to be called up before, I believe I made the statement with out qualification that I hoped the bill would be passed without amendment. At that time I did not intend the statement to be as broad as it was interpreted to be. I did mean that no amendment should be adopted that added any new subject to this bill, but the announcement had been previously made in the Senate by the chairman of the Committee on Finance which assured the business community that any change that should be made on this subject would not go into effect until the 1st day of July next. I am satisfied myself that justice requires that that should be a provision of the bill, and I so intended when I made that statement in the Senate, although there were many persons pressing for the passage of the bill to go into effect immediately.

I do not wish to detain the Senate, but I

will state briefly the reason why this amendment ought to be adopted. There are three classes who will be affected by the passage of this bill: first, the importers of tea and coffee; second, the dealers of all classes, jobbers and small retailers; third, the consumers. The importers who have goods in bond complain that their trade is stagnated, that many of them are being ruined for the reason that while the subject is pending, uncertain, no dealers will buy. On the other hand, the dealers, who have their stock in hand, have purchased it of the importers and in their purchases the existing duty was an element in the price, and to put the bill into effect immediately would be to bring into competition with their duty-paid tea and coffee the duty-free tea and coffee; so that it would be unjust to the retail dealers, the small dealers who have their stocks in hand. So far as the consumers are concerned, the amendment only postpones the operation of the benefits which will inure to them until the 1st day of July and brings the revenue law in harmony with the accounts of the Government in the fiscal year, which will end at the same time that this bill will go into effect.

While there might have been, and were, and perhaps are yet many reasons that might be pressed for putting the law into immediate operation, I believe I am correct in stating that it was the unanimous opinion of the Finance Committee, and an opinion concurred in by the interests generally who were affected by this bill, that the 1st of July should be the period when it should go into operation. It is for that reason I offer the amendment, and in offering it I again express the hope that this will be the only amendment that will be adopted to this bill; that the Senate will concur in this amendment and refuse to introduce any other subject, for I am satisfied, I think I may say more than satisfied, I feel assured if we do that, speedy, immediate action will be taken upon the subject in the House, and the great stagnation in trade and the ruin that has been brought to many will be averted from others by this immediate action.

I shall not take up the time of the Senate in reading to them the numerous dispatches that have come to me within the last few days urging immediate action, not this or that action, but immediate action; so that they may know that this subject is settled. I trust, then, that we may be able at once to reach a vote on this amendment and dispose of it.

Mr. STEVENSON. I should like to inquire of the Senator from Pennsylvania or he chairman of the Committee on Finance whether the 1st of July would be a period long enough for the large importing merchants of the West to dispose of their stock? I have received a great many dispatches, I believe from every wholesale merchant in Louisville, which is the largest city in Kentucky, on this subject. I take it that this bill is to go back to the House, how long it will remain there we cannot tell. Now, it seems to me we cannot expect that this bill will pass before the 15th of May; and without any experience or definite knowledge myself, I submit to the gentlemen on the Finance Committee whether five or six weeks will be a sufficient time for the wholesale merchants having large stocks on hand to dispose of those stocks without serious injury. If they think it is, if they are satisfied on that subject, then I have nothing more to say. I only desire, so far as I can, to guard the interests of the large importing merchants in the State of Kentucky.

Mr. SHERMAN. In answering the question of the Senator from Kentucky I can say all that I desire to say in regard to this bill. I am opposed myself to the repeal of the duty on tea and coffee, although I should not oppose its reduction to about one half-not on the ground that I do not know it is a public benefit to repeal the duty on tea and coffee, but that I believe the repeal of other taxes

In regard to the time when this act shall take effect, when the subject was first presented to the Finance Committee we had before us in numerable petitions from all parts of the United States praying a postponement of the taking effect of the act. The importers and other persons interested in tea and coffee came here from Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. Some of them wished the repeal to take effect on the 1st of May, some on the 1st of June, some on the 1st of July, and some of them wanted to postpone it until the 1st of January next; but finally, after a conference among them, they agreed upon the 1st of July, and at their instance, and by the unanimous direction of the Committee on Finance, I re ported the fact to the Senate in reporting the bill, and, so far as I know, no complaint has ever been made of the day fixed by the Senate committee, the 1st of July. The jobbers of Cincinnati, who have a common interest with those of Louisville, were satisfied with, and indeed many of them were anxious to have the bill passed fixed at that date. They say that the stock of tea and coffee on the market in March when this repeal was first passed was rather small, that the consumption from the 1st of March to the 1st of July will use up the whole stock on hand, so that the dealers will not be affected by the sudden change of value of tea and coffee. So far as I know, they are content, and there has been no objection made since the announcement by me in the Senate that the 1st of July was fixed; there has been no complaint made, so far as I know, by any one in the trade. On the contrary, they generally desire to have this bill passed in order that they may make their purchases for the future in view of the repeal of the duty on the 1st of July.

Now, Mr. President-and this is the point I wish to mention to the Senate-some of the very men who came to us and insisted that we should fix the 1st of July as the time when this act should take effect have endeavored to create a clamor in the city of New York, and in other great commercial cities, against the action of the Senate on this very point, and I have received telegrams and letters from some of the very men who agreed to the statement made here in the Senate, and who appealed to us to make that statement, and fix the time-some of those very men have used every effort in their power to induce us to violate that agreement made at their own suggestion. I have no word of complaint of them. I think to do that under the circumstances would be a violation of a kind of quasi public faith, a violation of an implied understanding, a violation of an agreement that I would not consent to under any circumstances. I have been rather surprised that men engaged in this business would make the kind of appeals that I know they have made to have this law take effect immediately.

Mr. STEVENSON. May I ask my friend whether that agreement extended to anything more than the operation of the repeal?

Mr. SHERMAN. Not at all.

In regard to the amendments of this bill, I believe myself it would be well to attach to this bill the free list that was agreed upon in the Committee on Finance, and was passed by the unanimous vote of the Senate, and of our right to propose which there cannot be a possibility of doubt. The Committee on Privileges

Therefore, while we have this tea and coffee bill before us, though I do not intend to offer any amendment myself, I shall certainly vote for an extension of the repeal to many other articles just as necessary to the people of this country, just as necessary to the manufacturing interests of the country, just as necessary to all branches of business in the country, as the repeal of the duty on tea and coffee. So far as I am concerned I shall vote for the extension of the free list, and to make this bill what it ought to be, a free list including tea and coffee, although, as I said before, I think the duty on tea and coffee ought not to be entirely repealed, at least at the present stage, until we are able to repeal nearly all our internal taxes. With that amendment I should be perfectly content.

I believe this is all I desire to say about this bill except that there has been a good deal of unnecessary complaint made in regard to the action of the Senate in some of the commercial papers, and I must confess I felt a little sensitive about it. The whole of the difficulty has grown out of the fact that this bill was passed hurriedly in the House of Representatives without ten minutes consideration. A single member at his desk sat down and hurriedly wrote the bill as it was sent to us, on a Monday morning, without any notice to any member of the House, and it was put through by a suspension of the rules under the previous question, against the united voice of the Committee of Ways and Means of the House, against their remonstrance, and sent to us over a year ago. When we proposed to amend the bill, complaint was made that we proposed to amend it, and complaint is also made that we did not pass it. If we had passed it in the form in which it was sent to us by the House of Representatives it would have confiscated property of more than $20,000,000 in value. The amount of tea and coffee on hand then in the hands of dealers upon which the duty has been paid was probably worth from ten to twenty million dollars. The value of the tea and coffee consumed in this country amounts to nearly one hundred million dollars a year, and it is presumable that at the time this bill was passed $25,000,000 of that kind of property was in the hands of people of the United States upon which they had paid duty. and if we had passed the bill on the very day it passed the House of Representatives we should have confiscated all the duty that had been paid on the goods on hand and brought free tea and coffee into direct competition with $25,000,000 of property in the hands of honest dealers who had bought the articles and paid the tax on it. Such an injustice would be without a parallel. Therefore it has always been the custom, never departed from except in time of war, to fix some future day when these bills shall take effect. Because we have not hurried through this bill in utter disregard of the rights of the people of this country engaged in this business, at the demand of those who hold these articles in bond as importers ready to sell at reduced rates to the injury of the dealers of the country, we have been harshly criticised and complained of.

I desired to make these remarks in justice not only to the Committee on Finance, but to myself.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. POMEROY in the chair.) The Chair must remind