with, shall be concerned or interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract, purchase, or sale made on account of the prison. The tenth section provides that any officer who shall suffer a convict to escape, or shall in any way consent to his escape, or shall aid him to escape or in an attempt to escape, shall, upon conviction, be dismissed from the service and suffer such other punishment as a court-martial may inflict. The eleventh section provides that any soldier or other person employed in the prison who shall suffer a convict to escape, or shall in any way consent to his escape, or shall aid him to escape or in an attempt to escape, shall, upon conviction by a court-martial, be confined therein not less than one year. The twelfth section provides that all prisoners under confinement in said military prisons undergoing sentence of courts-martial, shall be liable to trial and punishment by courts-martial under the Rules and Articles of. War for offenses committed during the said confinement. The SPEAKER. The question is on ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. Mr. COBURN. I ask that the report of the Committee on Military Affairs be read. The Clerk read as follows: " The Committee on Military Affairs to whom was referred House bill No. 1131, A bill to provide for the establishment of a prison for the Army of the United States, and for its government," would respectfully report that they have had the same under consideration, and recommend for passage a bill upon that subject, which is herewith presented to the House. In doing so the committee desire to call the attention of the House to some facts in connection with the subject. On the 30th of June, 1871, the Secretary of War appointed Colonel Jeff. C. Davis, Major J. M. Brannan, Major Thomas F. Barr, and Lieutenant Asa B. Gardner, a board to investigate and report as to the system of army prisons, discipline, and punishment in the British service. The result of this has been a report giving in minute detail the military prison system of Canada, and with this as a basis the Secretary of War has recommended the establishment of an Army prison. The bill reported is the result of your committee's investigations. A statement of the Adjutant General as to the places of confinement, the number of prisoners, their term of service, and the rates charged would seem of itself to be a sufficient argument for the establishment of an Army prison. They are scattered in eleven States, in their penitentiaries: 38 in Arkansas, 15 in New York, 5 in California, 33 in Iowa, 3 in Kentucky, 54 in Kansas, 120 in Louisiana, 17 in Minnesota, 32 in Missouri, 7 in Mississippi, and 22 in Texas, making in all 316 prisoners, with an average term of service of four years and fifty-two days, at an average cost per man per annum of $217 20, and an average cost per diem of fifty-nine and a half cents; the total cost of keeping prisoners being $75,151 per annum. Beside these there are at thirtytwo different military posts, in all, 384 general prisoners; the greater part of them (271) being kept at Alcatraz Island, California, and at Fort Pulaski, Georgia. Many of these prisoners have been guilty of crimes against military law, and not involving any moral turpitude. They are cast into prison with the basest characters and punished with those stained by every erine known to the law. Your committee feel convinced that this cannot be done without injury to the prisoner whose offense may have been affected with but slight moral obliquity. To prevent this unnecessary contamination we think a separate prison should be provided. The bill under consideration contemplates the erection of a prison at Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, in such a position as that the labor of the convicts may be utilized in the Government arsenal and armory erected at that place. This town is located centrally in the United States, and not remote from that portion of the country in which the Army is largely stationed for duty. It is thought that the prisoners may be very usefully employed in the cleaning, repair, and manufacture of arms, a business consonant with the duties of the soldier, and quite proper and valuable as a part of his military knowledge. The location is in the center of a very productive country, where the cost of living ought to be at a reduced rate, and where building materials and labor in construction can be had upon as fair terms as at any point in the Union. Your committee have taken some pains to ascertain the cost of construction of a suitable building. This can only be approximated. The Kansas prison, which is extravagant in point of architecture, cost $1,500,000, with one hundred and seventy-two cells. The Massachusetts prison, with six hundred and eighty cells, cost $800,000. The Missouri prison, with three hundred and fifty-six cells, cost $200.000. The Indiana northern prison, with three hundred cells, cost $430,000, The Joliet, Illinois prison, with one thousand cells, cost $1,100,000. The New York prisons, at Auburn, with nine hundred and ninetytwo cells, cost $613,000; at Clinton, with five hundred and forty-four cells, cost $465,000; at Sing Sing, with one thousand three hundred and eighteen cells, cost $813,000. The Albany penitentiary, with four hundred cells, cost $200,000; the Rhode Island prison, with eighty-eight cells, cost $100,000; the South Carolina prison, with five hundred cells, cost $200,000; the Vermont prison, with one hundred and four cells, cost $150,000; the Wisconsin prison, with over two hundred cells, cost $500,000. An average of the cost of twenty prisons shows an expense of a little less than a thousand dollars a cell for the whole prison. The structures in Illinois and Kansas are unnecessarily expensive, and make the average too high. An excellent prison ought not to cost over $800 to the cell. The prisons of Alabama, Connecticut, southern Indiana, Massachusetts, Detroit prison, New Hampshire, the Albany penitentiary, of North Carolina, Rhode Island, and South Carolina, earn money in excess of expenses, by judicious management of trades and expenses, while other States are involved in expenditures by the payment of large salaries, as in Illinois, New York, Missouri, and Virginia. The cost per capita and the earnings per capita are in marked contrast in several States, and show the effect of management. For instance, the cost of living in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, and Kansas, is very nearly the same, yet the cost per capita in Ohio is $124 a year; in southern Indiana $125, in Illinois $295, in Missouri $230, and in Kansas $290 a year; in Iowa $150, and in Virginia $152 a year. The earnings per capita are in contrast also, but not in so great a proportion. They are, in Ohio, per capita, $161 a year: in southern Indiana, $129 a year; in Illinois, $206 a year; in Missouri, $161 a year; in Kansas, $40 a year; in Iowa, $102; in Virginia, $21 a year. If the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa can so manage their prisons as to make them self-supporting, there is no reason why neighboring States cannot do so. Good management is at the bottom of all of it. An Army prison can be managed more cheaply thau any of these, because the officers, keepers, turnkeys, and guards may all be detailed from the Army and no salaries need be paid. Is it possible that with the same good management a prisoner will earn $206 a year in Illinois and $24 a year in Virginia, or $161 a year in Missouri and $40 a year in Kansas? Honest, faithful, economical, and judicious administration would place these averages of cost and earnings very nearly on a par in the States named. It is believed that a prison well managed, under the eyes of careful and faithful Army officers, would be more than self-supporting, It is contemplated to erect a prison large enough to accommodate four hundred prisoners. This, at the rate of $800 a cell, would cost $320,000, with all offices, walls, appendages, and shops complete. The interest on this sum, at six per cent., would not be a third of the present annual expenses. There are forty-two State prisons in the United States. Of these nineteen are valued at $8,357,495. It is supposed that $12,000,000 is the whole sum invested. The average number of cells is 13,338; the average number of prisoners is 16,311; the average cost per cell is $900. In nineteen States the whole number of officers and employés is 828. Their aggregate salaries are $638,915. Each receives, on an average, $772 a year. At the same ratio there would be 1,242, at salaries of $958,472, for all the prisous named. The entire expenditures for twenty-five States ..$2,863,312 are. The salaries in these States about equal the excess of expenses. The average cost of prisoners is $200 per capita. The average earnings are $130 per capita. The prison at Albany is the cheapest, costing only $113 per capita. Nevada is the dearest, costing $1,254 per capita: Oregon prisons cost per capita the sum of $351; Missouri prisons cost per capita the sum of $320; Connecticut prisons cost per capita the sum of $117; Michigan prisons cost per capita the sum of $149; South Carolina prisons cost per capita the sum of $146; Virginia prisons cost per capita the sum of $152. Eighteen States have the contract system, namely, Alabama, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Massachusetts, Michigan, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and others. Twelve States work on State account. The contract system on an average pays $127 per capita. The work on State account, on an average, pays $208 per capita. After careful estimates it is found that twentyeight per cent. of the prisoners are illiterate, seventy per cent. are intemperate. Ignorance and intemperance produce like effects in the Army. The system of pardons so freely used in many States is condemned, and many think that it should be abolished. The test of release should be reformation, proof of which is practically made by the convict. The prisoners ought to be subject to a uniform discipline. They ought to have a thoroughly reformatory management. They ought not to be mixed with ordinary criminals, and contaminated by intercourse with them, since many of the crimes of the Army are not stained with great moral turpitude. The punishment for prison offenses or against prison rules, varies in various States; for instance, in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Rentucky, Missouri, and Oregon, flogging, and in some instances ball and chain or shackles are used. In Illinois, Albany, New York. Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, the dark cell is employed, and in some of the States with the addition of dieting, and in others with the additional loss of privileges. With such a variety of discipline and management, to which the Army convicts in the various prisons are subjected, it is not surprising that the result is unsatisfactory. A system based upon principles of humanity and reformation as well as justice can, with lights of the present day, be adopted. And your committee most earnestly and respectfully ask the House to give the proposed measure a fair examination, confident that it will meet with approval. Mr. COBURN. I ask that the report of the committee be printed in the Globe, as I see members are not paying any general attention to its statements. And, Mr. Speaker, I will now say a few words why this bill should pass. The object of the bill is to establish an Army prison. At present there are three hundred and forty-six prisoners in eleven different penitentiaries of the United States, having an average term of service of four years and fifty days. These men are scattered around from California to Maine and Texas and in various parts of the United States. The object is to gather them together in one place. They cost the Government some seventy-five thousand dollars a year. The committee has been inquiring into the cost of erecting a penitentiary that will be large enough for four hundred men. We find in looking at the cost of these prisons that the average cost of a first class prison is at the rate of $800 a cell, which would cost $320,000 for erecting a prison large enough, with cells, workshops, and other appurtenances, for four hundred men. The interest on this $320,000 would be not quite twenty thousand dollars at the rate of six per We are now paying $75,000 for these men. We have officers of the Army and soldiers who can be detailed for the purpose of taking care of these prisoners, and we have chaplains and other officers and men of the Army to do all the duties which would be requisite. cent. As a measure of economy it will be beneficial. As a measure of humanity and reformation it will undoubtedly be very beneficial. These men have been guilty of some little crime, some violation of the orders of superior officers, offenses not stained with any great moral turpitude, not in the nature of a felony. But they are cast into prison, and stay there very frequently years and years, by the side of men of the blackest character, who have committed robbery and murder, or other felonies. Now, it is very improper that these soldiers should be put there, and we feel that as a matter of economy, as a matter of humanity, as a matter of reformation, they should have a place of their own, subject to the inspection of the higher officers of the Army, where the discipline of military men can be in a measure enforced and a uniformity of treatment tempered with humanity may be observed and enforced. We have provided, therefore, that there shall be a board of officers, and civilians besides, who shall make rules for the government of and shall inspect these prisons. The committee have thought it best that the prison shall not be inspected and managed entirely by officers of the Army, but that civilians, who may have an eye to humanity and reformation, who have devoted years of thought to the subject, perhaps more than Army officers, shall also coöperate in the work. The requirements of the age demand something of this kind. We have provided that this prison shall be located at Rock Island. The object of putting it there is to have the convicts work in the armory and arsenal there. It is necessary and proper that soldiers should have a knowledge of the cleaning, repairing, and manufacture of arms, and if they can be put to work there, as they have been in many prisons, they can save the Government thousands and tens of thousands of dollars a year by the work they perform as hands in the armory and arsenal. Men will acquire in that time very considerable skill in any trade, and the committee believe that Rock Island will be as suitable a place as any in the United States, as far as locality and position is concerned, and so far also as cheapness of labor and materials are concerned in building the prison. And supplies also for feeding and clothing the men can be procured there certainly as cheaply as in any part of the United States. There is no appropriation in the bill. All that we ask now is that a law be passed providing for the establishment of the prison. I offer the letter of the Adjutant General and the accompanying table to show the number, location, &c., of our Army prisoners: ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, WASHINGTON, January 26, 1872. SIR: In reply to your communication of the 22d instant, addressed to the honorable Secretary of War I respectfully inclose herewith a statement showing the number of prisoners confined at hard labor in penitentiaries under sentence of general courtsmartial, the length of their terms of confinement, and the rates charged for maintaining them; also, statement showing the number of general prisoners confined at military posts. This comprises all the data that can be obtained from the records of this office, and does not embrace the number of prisoners confined in guard-houses at small military posts, which can only be obtained by a voluminous correspondence with officers stationed at the several military posts throughout the country. Of the military posts enumerated, Fort Columbus, New York harbor, Fort Pulaski, Georgia, and Alcatraz Island, California, are designated as depots for the concentration of general prisoners in the localities where they are situated. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, E. D. TOWNSEND, Adj. Gen. Hon. JOHN COBURN, Chairman Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives. Statement showing the number, term of sentences, and rates charged for maintaining military prisoners confined at hard labor in State peni tentiaries under sentence of general courts martial. with the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs that there is no darker spot in our whole military service than our present prison system. I visited Bedloe's Island a few months ago and saw the military prison there, and I do not believe a man can well see a sadder sight, and one that will make him really more indignant at our system of military discipline and punishment, than he can witness at that island; and anything that would alleviate or raise the character of that system of punishment, and reform it, I would be most heartily glad to join in helping. My only fear is that if we were to have one great prison in the center of so great a country as this, where prisoners must be sent from Alaska, Florida, Maine, and California under escorts, there would be a very considerable addition to the expense. Perhaps the benefits of the system will be so much greater than its disadvantages that the bill ought to pass. I certainly do not raise any 1 objection to the bill; I only wish to call attention to this particular view of the matter. 1 3 3 .384 E. D. TOWNSEND, Adjutant General. ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, Let me add that the Secretary of War has inaugurated this matter, has taken great interest in it, and has recommended it in his general report, and in special letters to the committee. He sent out a commission last summer, who inspected the Canadian military prisons and reported minutely upon the system, and I believe there is not a member of the House who will not indorse it heartily. I move the previous question. Mr. GARFIELD, of Ohio. Before the gentleman does that, I desire to ask him one question whether he has considered the expenses of transportation; the expenses of sending convicts from such widely separate points as Alaska and Florida to Rock Island? Mr. COBURN. In reply to the gentleman from Ohio I will say that these men are now transported great distances. For instance, at the Arkansas penitentiary there are thirtyeight men; at Leavenworth, Kansas, there are fifty-four men; at Huntsville, Texas, there are thirty-two men; at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, there are one hundred and twenty men. They are scattered all over. I think the average expense of transportation would not be necessarily much increased by this bill, and will be but a small item compared with other expenses now borne. Mr. GARFIELD, of Ohio. I quite agree Mr. COBURN. The majority of the soldiers of the Army are employed upon the Indian frontier, and nearer Rock Island than almost any other place we can get for this purpose. It is better to build one prison than two. Another may be needed hereafter; let us build one well. I call attention to the following documents, especially one in relation to the punishments sometimes inflicted in the Army, such as branding or otherwise indelibly marking the prisoners. The attention of the com. mittee has been called to the abominable cruelties occasionally inflicted upon soldiers by sentences of court-martial or by orders of Army officers. To the credit of the army be it said such instances are rare, and always discountenanced and denounced. The documents referred to are as follows: "The case of Private Slaybeck was that of a man who had not been three months in the service, of whom it was said in evidence that he was a very good, clean soldier,' and 'the last man whom the witness thought would desert.' It was the case of a man who voluntarily surrendered himself after a short absence. Yet this mild case has received the severest sentence that has yet come to department headquarters-a sentence, moreover, which not only seems vindictive, but is of a character that has been condemned both here and at the War Department. "It is true that it has been customary to mark indelibly the body of certain prisoners, as it was once the practice to brand them on the face with a hot iron; but such punishment as that given by the court has become so abhorrent to the present state of society that it is not too much to say that if it were generally known to be still insisted upon in the Army, Congress would be allowed no rest till it had abolished it, even if it had to abolish the Army along with it. "In this connection attention is again called to General Orders No. 23, series of 1869, from these headquarters, in the case of Private Bell, fourth artillery, an extract from which is republished as an appendix hereto. So much of the sentence in this case as directs the accused to be indelibly marked with the letter D one and a half inches long on the left hip.' and so much as requires him to be dishonorably discharged and bugled out of the service,' and so much as requires him to be confined more than six months, is, for the reasons before set forth, disapproved. The remainder of the sentence is approved, and, subject to the foregoing remarks, the proceedings are approved and confirmed. The sentence as modified will be duly carried into effect at the station of his battery. Extract from remarks in case of Private Bell, fourth artillery. "In this connection the following opinion of the Judge Advocate General, pages 305 and 306, paragraph three, which is entirely approved by the department commander, is published for the guidance of future courts in this department. [From the Army and Navy Journal, January 13,1872.] and opposed to the dictates of humanity, and conse We commend the following emphatic remarks of General McDowell upon the subject of branding as a punishment to the special attention of officers serving upon courts-martial, and to officers reviewing their proceedings: In the case of Private Adam Slaybeck, battery C, first artillery: it has been the rule at these headquarters to recognize the fact that there are different grades of criminality in the military offense of desertion. That a recruit, led off by companions, or by home-sickness, or unfamiliarity with his new life and partial ignorance of its laws, is not to be punished the same as an old soldier, nor as much as in the aggravated case of repeated desertion, or desertion after pardon, or desertion of a non-commissioned officer, or desertion, accompanied by conspiracy, violence, theft, or other crime. And further, that a man should not be deemed forever lost to the service and be dishonorably discharged from it for a first and simple offense, for which his after life may fully atone. In fact the records of the department for the last three years show that in nearly if not fully half the cases of sentence to dishonorable discharge,' accompanied by long confinement, where the dishonorable discharge has been disapproved by the department commander and the confinement reduced, the mitigated sentence has finally been entirely remitted; and this invariably on the earnest application of the prisoner's officers on account of their belief that it would be for the good of the service. The punishment of branding rests for its sanction in this country upon the custom of the service. This custom, however, is opposed to its infliction in any mode which might be deemed cruel or unnecessarily severe. Branding with a hot iron is therefore discountenanced, and a sentence of marking the letter D, in indelible ink on the cheek should be disapproved. The ordinary practice is to mark this letter in ink upon the hip. But the penalty of branding, marking, or tatooing, however mildly it may be executed, is regarded as against public policy quently as not conducive to the interests of the service. The effect of fixing upon an offender an ineffaceable brand of guilt must be to deprive him of the locus pœnitentice which modern legislation, as well as true philanthropy, is careful to extend to the criminal, and almost hopelessly to discourage him in making an attempt to reform his life. There is, indeed, in this punishment a certain merciless quality which might well characterize the code of a less civilized period, but is certainly abhorrent to the sense and judgment of an enlightened age. It is conceived, therefore, that if reviewing officers should in general remit that part of a sentence of courtmartial which imposes this peualty upon the deserter, they would materially promote the welfare of the military service.' **And so held in regard to branding or marking with the letter T upon a conviction of theit. For similar reasons, held that the punishment of shaving the head or beard and of drumming or bugling out of the service, involve a degree of degradation ordinarily uncalled for, and believed to be opposed to the better sense of the Army, and should not, therefore, be employed, except, perhaps, in extreme cases." The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. Mr. COBURN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on. the table. The latter motion was agreed to. Mr. GARFIELD, of Ohio. I would ask the gentleman to amend the title of this bill so that it shall read, "a bill to establish military prisons," and not "to establish a prison for the Army." Mr. COBURN. It strikes me that the present title is just as good as the other. However, I will move to amend the title so that it shall read to establish a military prison." The amendment of the title was agreed to. MUSTER-IN OF OFFICERS. Mr. COBURN also, from the same com mittee, reported back, with the recommenda tion that the same do pass, House bill No. 804. declaring the meaning of the third section of the joint resolution approved July 11, 1870, entitled "A joint resolution amendatory of joint resolution for the relief of certain officers of the Army," approved July 26, 1866. The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. The bill, which was read, provides that the third section of the joint resolution approved July 11, 1870, amendatory of joint resolution for the relief of certain officers of the Army, approved July 26, 1866, shall not be construed to limit the application of the first and second sections of said joint resolution, except in those cases wherein, at the time of issuing commission, there was no lawful vacancy existing into which the officer could be mustered. Mr. COBURN. I will explain this bill very briefly to the House. It is a bill to construe a joint resolution that was passed in 1866, and also an amendatory joint resolution, passed in 1870. The joint resolution of 1870 provided that officers who had been on duty with their companies or regiments but were not mustered should be considered as mustered back to the time at which they went upon that duty under their commissions. If they went on the duty at the date of their commission then they should be mustered back to that date. The second section of that joint resolution provided that officers who were in rebel prisons or who were sick in hospitals and were commissioned to a higher grade than the one held at the time they were put into prison or hospital, should be mustered back to the date of their commission and paid accordingly. The third section of that joint resolution provided that the two previous sections should not apply in any case where the officer could not have been mustered even if he had his commission. The committee propose to put a construction upon the third section to the effect that the exception shall only be construed to apply to cases where there was no lawful vacancy existing at the time the commission was issued. The members of the House are aware that there were quite a number of cases in the Army where men have been put upon duty at a higher grade than the one to which they were mustered, having their commissions in their possession, and when there was no officer about with authority to muster them in. They have gone on for weeks and months performing the duties of an office of higher grade, expecting to be mus tered and paid according to the grade of their commission; but when they came to be mustered out they could not get their pay according to their commission. There were besides many other officers who were languishing in prison or in hospital, who, by no fault of their own, were prevented from being mustered. The object of the law of 1866 and the law of 1870 was to provide that these men should be paid back to the date of their commission, or the date when they entered upon duty under their commissions. It is a just provision, and it strikes me that the muster back should be according to the language of the acts of 1866 and 1870. But the Adjutant General of the Army and Secretary of War have construed the first two sections of that joint resolution to be utterly null and void, and deprived of all force and effect by reason of the provisions of the third sectiona most astonishing construction-a construction which makes Congress stultify itself by declaring in a little section at the end of the law all the previous provisions of the law null and void. According to a fair construction effect should be given to the entire law and all its provisions be enforced; this is not done. I yield to my colleague on the committee, the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. STOUGHTON.] Mr. STOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I desire to treat this question with perfect fairness; and I hope the House will fully understand the question before acting upon it. I confess I am somewhat surprised at the action of the chairman of the committee in reporting this bill. Only three or four days ago, as the chairman and my colleagues upon the com. mittee will bear witness, the committee voted down a proposition of this kind which had come from the Senate and was referred to our committee; and after a full discussion of the question the measure was placed in my hands by the chairman to be reported to the House adversely. This bill, I understand, was passed by the committee a long time ago. For my own part I had thought that the discussion the other day in committee covered the whole ground, and I think that was the impression of other members of the committee. I do not of course impute any bad faith to my friend the chairman of the committee. I merely refer to this fact to show that I am, and I think my colleagues on the committee are also, taken by surprise. Now, sir, a few words as to the merits of this proposition. It may be, and doubtless is, plausible on its face; but it is a pernicious and dangerous measure. If passed, it sweeps away and destroys all the muster-rolls of the Army; and you might just as well burn up your Adjutant General's office. If there are special cases of hardship, they may be removed by special legislation; but to pass a sweeping general bill which will take millions of dollars out of the Treasury without any real reason, will be unjust to ourselves and unjust to the Government. To show I am not mistaken as to the effect of this measure, I send to the Clerk's desk to be read a report from the Secretary of War on this subject. The Clerk read as follows: WAR DEPARTMENT, January 16, 1871. The Secretary of War has the honor to submit to the House of Representatives, in answer to the resolution of January 4, 1871, the accompanying report of the Adjutant General upon the construction placed by the War Department upon the law of July 11, 1870, for the relief of certain officers of volunteers, and to state that if the construction alleged to be correct by certain claimants under that act is held to be the true intent of the law, the rules and regulations by which some eighty-five thousand volunteer officers were controlled during the course of the late war will be overthrown; thousands of muster-rolls, certified at their date, under the Articles of War, as exhibiting the "true state" of the command, will be invalidated, and large appropriations of money, (nearly twenty million dollars,) will be needed to settle claims, the justness of which cannot always be definitely ascertained at a date so remote from that of their origin. WM. W. BELKNAP, Secretary of War. Mr. STOUGHTON. Here is a cool proposition to take nearly twenty million dollars out of the Treasury. I trust it will not be pushed through here without opportunity for a full explanation and a full understanding of its real effect. There were during the war some eighty-five thousand officers. Now, what would be the effect if you set aside the muster rolls of the Army and let all these officers draw pay from the date of their commission? Any one can see that under such a law as this every officer in the service could come in and claim extra pay once, twice, and perhaps three times. Take an instance and see how it would work. We will suppose that in an engagement the The lieuten colonel of a regiment is killed. ant colonel, if he was a good man, did not, of course, desire the colonel's death; but the death of the colonel is nevertheless a benefit to him, because he gets promotion by it. It takes, we will say, one week for the news of the colonel's death to go to his State, and another week for the lieutenant colonel's commission as colonel to come on; and then the new colonel is mustered in. Thus there intervenes half a month between the death of one colonel and the mustering in of another. It is true that during this interval the lieutenant colonel acts as colonel commanding; but it is to his interest to do so. He would rather be acting colonel than serving as lieutenant colonel. Now, would you in a case of that kind open the pay-rolls and allow parol proof to be introduced to show that he was a colonel, when the muster-rolls show he was not. If you allow extra pay in all such cases, it is hard to estimate how much money may be required. As I have said, there were eighty. five thousand officers during the late war, and there was scarcely one of them who was not at some time promoted. Hence, this provision will come into operation in the case of almost every officer. How unjust and expensive it will be must be obvious, I think, to every one. There is another point to which I invite attention. At the opening of the war Congress provided that the volunteer troops should be placed upon an equality with regulars. That was a benefit to the volunteer troops; it gave them rank and character. But, sir, it is an established principle in the regular Army, and in the Army regulations, that an officer only takes rank and draws pay from the time he is mustered. The muster is in the nature of a solemn obligation between the Government and the officer. On the part of the officer it is an obligation that he will faithfully discharge his duty, that he will obey the orders of his superiors, and that he will support the Constitution of the United States; and on the part of the Government, that it will pay the amount due such officer, and recognize him as an officer of the grade in which he is mustered. Whom does it take to make the contract? Evidently it takes both the Government and the officer. No one else can make it. Now it is proposed to have the muster date back to a time when no such contract could possibly be made. When the delay in muster was the fault of the Government during the war, it was always dated back. If exceptional cases exist, they ought to be the subject of special legis lation. I hope the House will not pass a law so dangerous and pernicious as this without considering its full bearing and effect. I desire, Mr. Speaker, to move to lay this bill upon the table. Mr. POLAND rose. Mr. COBURN. I will yield to the gentleman from Vermont presently. The gentleman from Michigan has expressed some surprise that this bill was reported; that the commit tee had resolved to lay a bill like this upon the table. A bill from the Senate came in construing the second section of a joint resolution approved July 11, 1870, entitled "A joint resolution amendatory of joint resolution for the relief of certain officers of the Army, approved July 26, 1866." Inasmuch as the gentleman alludes to what has been done in the committee, let me state what transpired. A bill came from the Senate construing the second section only. It was before the com mittee, and I proposed to amend it by con struing the first and third sections of the joint resolution of 1870, and that the third section should not be construed to limit the applica; tion of the first and second sections of said joint resolution, except in those cases wherein, at the time of issuing commission, there was no vacancy existing into which the officer could be mustered; provided that this act shall not be construed to apply to officers in companies, or to field officers in regiments which were at the time below the minimum fixed by law. I also proposed to construe the first section so that in all cases the person to whom the commission shall have issued shall be considered as commissioned to the grade therein named from the date of such commission and entitled to all pay and emoluments as if actually mustered at that date, if at that date he was performing the duties of that grade, and if not, then he shall be considered as commissioned to such grade and entitled to all pay and emoluments from and after the date at which he may have actually entered upon such duties previous to muster. Now the Senate bill was before the committee with these two amendments for consideration. They were different from this bill and wider in their range. and were voted down. Not so this bill. It was ordered to be printed and recommitted to the committee in February, as gentlemen will see by looking at the date of the bill, and it has so stood of record ever since. I am sorry the gentleman has intimated anything like disregard on my part to the direction of the committee. I would be the last one in the world to do anything of that kind. There is the record of the committee and there is the record of the House, unchanged, directing that this bill be printed and recommitted, and reported for action, as I have done. Now, in reference to what the gentleman has said about the cost of this thing. Is it possible men should languish in prison and in hospitals, suffering everything, without compensation? Mr. SLOCUM. I rise to a point of order. The gentleman from Michigan moved to lay upon the table, and I make the point of order that motion is not debatable. The SPEAKER. The motion was not in order, as the gentleman from Michigan did not have the floor for that purpose. The floor was not yielded for any purpose of that kind. The gentleman from Michigan had the floor for the purpose of making some remarks. Mr. COBURN. The floor was yielded for the purpose of making remarks, and not for the purpose of making such a motion. . Now, Mr. Speaker, if we are to shut our eyes to the suffering of these men, if we are to ignore their hardships and trials, I wish gen tlemen to put their feet squarely upon the record. I It has been asserted this is going to cost $20.000,000 to the Government. I do not believe it will cost one tenth of that amount. have no idea it will; but suppose it does. if we are doing right, if we are carrying out our contract, let us do it though the heavens fall. The man who marched with his command, who accepted his commission and was put on duty under it, who took his life in his hands as an officer and faithfully served his country, ought to be paid for his service. If gentlemen think otherwise, let them say so. I stand ready to comply with our contract. Shall not the officers the lieutenant colonel, major, or cap tain-who went in and took the risks and bazards of battle have his pay? According to the position of the gentleman from Michigan, because somebody was not there ready to muster him in, and because he happened, for sooth, to be in hospital, or in a rebel prison, is be not now to get the benefit of his services or any recompense for his sufferings? I yield to the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. POLAND.] Mr. POLAND. I am not a member of the Committee on Military Affairs, and therefore I have nothing to do with the settlement of any committee differences in relation to whether this bill is properly reported or not. Nor am I very well acquainted with Army affairs. But I have had occasion to have some experience with the War Department in reference to this act or joint resolution of July, 1870, and of the utter perversion that has been made of that law by the War Department. Now, I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that this bill, as reported from the Committee on Military Affairs, changes the law of 1870 at ail. That is the law now. Any correct construction of the act of 1870 is precisely what our committee says shall be the construction of it hereafter; and it was so understood by Congress and so understood by the Committee on Military Affairs which reported it, and so all the accounting officers of the Treasury Department hold. But inasmuch as the Attorney General and the Secretary of War hold to a different construction, and consider that this section of the act of 1870 really nullifies and does away with all that goes before, therefore, in order that any of these persons might get relief, it is necessary for Congress to reenact the law which had become practically nullified. Let me call the attention of the House to the precise language of the act. The first section applies to cases where an officer performs the duties of a grade above that for which he held a commission. The second section, and that is the one I suppose which it is specially intended to maintain, provides "That persons held as prisoners of war by the enemy, or who may have been in hospital by reason of wounds or disability at the time of the issuing of their commissions, shall be entitled to the same pay, emolument, and be efits under this resolution as if actually performing the duties of the grade to which they were commissioned." Now, is there any doubt about that language? Did Congress understand what they meant when they passed an act containing a section which declared in so plain words that when commissions were actually issued to men, but in consequence of their being incarcerated in rebel prisons, or being in hospital by reason of sickness or wounds received in battle, they were unable to actually accept their commissions and be sworn and mustered in; when they were prevented from receiving their commissions by any of these causes, they should have their pay precisely the same as if they had received those commissions? And I want to ask my friend from Michigan, who has himself been a soldier, if that is not honest and just and right; if there is any great generosity on the part of the Government in saying to these men, "Because you were in the rebel prison, suffer. ing all the torture experienced there, that shall not prevent you from having the same pay, as if you had actually been in the place you would otherwise have held in the Army ?" Can we claim anything on that score by being extra generous on that account. It seems to me we cannot. It seems to me the simplest act of justice on our part that we should make them as well off as if they had been in that position. Now, Mr. Speaker, here is a third section, which they say actually does away with and annuls the second section. It reads as follows: "That this resolution shall not be construed to apply to cases in which, under the laws and Army regulations existing at the time, there could have been no lawful muster into service even after the actual receipt of the commission." Now, what say the War Department-and the sentiment of the War Department seems strangely to have crept into the minds of some of the members of the Military Committee when they say that the rules and regulations of the Army require that a man should be actually sworn and mustered in, to use a technical phrase; that the man who was in a rebel prison, or who was sick in bospital, could not appear to take the oath and be mustered in ; therefore, the Army regulations, they say, con flict with this provision in the first and second sections of this act, and accordingly annul them. What was the use of passing the act at all? Why, the act was passed for the very reason that the Army regulations would not allow this to be done; for the very reason that it could not be done except by a special act of Congress. And we passed that special act. Now, there was a class of cases to which this was intended to apply. There was a regulation that when a company was reduced below a certain number vacancies among the officers of that company should not be filled. Therefore, if the man had been there, and a commission had been issued to him-and sometimes a commission was issued where there was no vacancy-this third section of this joint resolution was intended to apply to a case of that sort. It certainly was not intended to nullify the whole of the provisions of the two preceding sections. The rule of law is that an act must be construed, if possible, so that it will all stand; so that effect shail be given to the whole of it; and that can be done here without torturing the language at all. Now, the simple question is this: whether the Adjutant General of the Army is to rule in relation to this matter, or whether Congress is to rule? It was perfectly understood, as I said before, by the Committee on Military Affairs and by the House and by the Senate, because when this joint resolution was passed there was a very considerable debate over it in the Senate; it passed the House without objection; it was perfectly understood that we intended to provide for just exactly the cases that are named in the act, where men were sick in the hospital or were languishing in rebel prisons. It was intended that they should not be the sufferers by it; that they should be as well off pecuniarily as if they had been out of prison and hospital and present on duty. And Congress so declared. But the Adjutant General of the Army says that was not a good thing to do, and that it shall not be done. It is a question whether the Adjutant General of the Army or the will of Congress shall prevail on this subject. I trust that the opinion that was expressed and the judgment that was expressed by Congress at the time they passed this act will be the judgment of Congress now upon this subject, and that they will put that judgment in such language that the Adjutant General of the Army cannot undo it. Mr. COBURN In view of the fact that the gentleman from Michigan, my colleague upon the committee, [Mr. STOUGHTON,] says that he had a misunderstanding about this bill, I will move that it be recommitted to the committee, with the understanding that it may be reported during the present call of the committee. I am unwilling, if there is any misunderstanding about it on the part of any of my colleagues, that action shall be taken upon the bill now. Mr. GARFIELD, of Ohio. I am sure that will be the better arrangement-to recommit the bill. Will the Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. gentleman allow me to suggest an amendment? Mr. COBURN. I will. I would Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. suggest that the bill be amended by striking out the words of issuing commission," and to insert the words" when such muster should have been made." Mr. COBURN. If the gentleman from Massachusetts will reduce his amendment to writing, it can go to the committee with the bill, and we will consider it. I now ask that the bill be recommitted with the understanding that it may be reported during the present call of the committee. Mr. GARFIELD, of Ohio. Of course the committee can report it to-morrow night, if they wish. Mr. COBURN. I call the previous question. |