Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

had served in various penitentiaries and State prisons throughout the country. That was a list published in one of the leading journals in New York for several days. No denial of such extraordinary statements was ever made. I find here the name of one man appointed a supervisor in the city of New York, William Lewis, who was arrested for stealing personal property, one gold watch and chain, one locket, bracelets, ear-rings, and breast-pins, all valued at $195, and the stolen property found in his possession, and he was committed for trial, but the war being then raging he was released on condition of enlisting in the Army-not a very valuable addition, I should say, to the brave men who were then risking their lives for us all in the field.

Another supervisor of the eighteenth ward was arrested as. accessory to the murder of one Guernsey, a grocer. Another supervisor was a principal in a murder in a saloon, and ran off to escape arrest and punishment. I find the name of a prominent deputy marshal, Allen, who served a term of five years in the Connecticut State prison. He was sentenced to five years more in the State of New York to the State prison there, but appealed his case, and while waiting for the decision of a higher court got out on bail and found it convenient to disappear.

I could occupy the time of the Senate for ten times the five minutes allowed to me in reading similar details. In my own city many men succeeded in imposing themselves on the circuit judge and being appointed as supervisors to whom no man in his senses would give five dollars a day; any man who would regard them as worth half that amount would thereby establish his liability to have a commission of lunacy appointed on him.

You do not give your jurors, the men who are the chosen men of the community, the good and true men, the lawful and discreet men of your community such compensation as is to be paid to these men. You are mak ing a job of the whole thing; you are making this law, inquisitorial and extraordinary at the best, an instrument for oppressing the people by the taxation which it will produce.

I hope, sir, that my amendment will be adopted, putting these people on a level at least with honest laborers in their compensation.

Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, if there is to be compensation allowed at all, I think that allowed in the law as it now stands is not too high. The object is to get men who are qualified morally and intellectually to perform these duties. Therefore, I am opposed to the adoption of the amendment offered by the Senator from California.

But he says that bad men have heretofore been appointed in New York, and he reads some names and describes some characters. Why, Mr. President, in the city of New York men have been elected by the people, and have been appointed by the mayor and common council of that city, who in the course of about three years stole $120,000,000; and the whole world knows it. Is that a good argument for abolishing elections by the peo ple? Is that a good argument for depriving the city government of New York of all power? It would be a good argument if that made by the Senator from California is a good argu ment against this law. He cannot impeach the excellence of a law by showing that it may have sometimes been abused, or that bad men may sometimes have been appointed under it.

Mr. CASSERLY. Will the Senator from Indiana allow me to ask him a question without trespassing on his time?

Mr. MORTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. CASSERLY. Does the Senator consider that because bad men stole millions of dollars in the city of New York, as he says, graduates of two State prisons in as many different States should be paid five dollars a day as supervisors or deputy marshals to insure purity of elections?

Mr. MORTON. Even the graduates of State prisons may sometimes go where they are not known and be appointed to office or be received in respectable society. I have heard of that. But what I mean to say is this: if these exceptional cases that the Senator refers to have occurred-which, perhaps, he cannot prove; they may be entirely apocryphal for all we know, and I presume they are, for I think they are among the exaggerations of politics-even if it were so, it would form no good argument against the law any more than the existence of Tammany thieves would form a good argument against electing the officers of cities by the people.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is upon the amendment offered by the Senator from California.

Now, I

Mr. SAULSBURY. I shall vote against this whole bill when it comes to the final vote. I am opposed to the appointment of these supervisors of election, and consequently I am opposed to paying them anything. should like to know what business it is of Congress how the people of any State conduct their elections. Are you going to strike down every right of the States? A few moments ago you had a bill pending in this House, advocated by many Senators, that proposed even to take from the parents of children the right to determine how they should go to school and how they should educate their own children. You proposed in that bill to take from the people the right to say where they would bury their dead. Now you come here with this "bill of abominations" and propose to supervise the elections of the people in their own States. I am opposed to your whole bill, and consequently I say I am opposed to any compensation whatever.

Why

If Congress mean to interfere with the rights of the electors, why do they not take a manly course and say "Congress intends to usurp the powers which the people themselves have beretofore exercised to determine their own elections and rule at their own polls?" do you propose now to come in with congressional interference, to appoint scalawags to superintend the manner in which honest men shall cast their votes? What the Senator from California read as being true in the city of New York was true in many other States. In my own State parties were sent for to Philadel phia, as I have understood, to go into one of the election precincts and to appear there and claim to be appointees of the marshal and superintend an election; but the good people of that neighborhood said to them, "Sirs, the sooner you make tracks the better; there are limbs and rope in this neighborhood, and you had better leave;" and I hope and trust that whenever an attempt is made by scalawags to interfere with the elections of the people they will read to them their death warrant unless they leave the place in short order.

Sir, the people ought not to submit to it. If the people of this.country do submit to be divested of all their rights, then their liberties are gone, unless to shame the coward spirit of their sons, the swords of patriot sires shall leap unbidden from their rusty scabbards and strike down the despoilers of American liberty.

For one, I protest against this whole thing as an infringement upon the rights of the people, and I shall therefore oppose giving anything to any of these scalawags that may be sent into my State or any other State for the purpose of supervising elections.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from California.

Mr. CASSERLY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. TRUMBULL. That will pay them $250 a day, if it is adopted. I think that is enough.

Mr. EDMUNDS. On this question I am paired with the Senator from North Carolina,

[Mr. RANSOM,] who would vote "yea" if present, and I should vote "nay." I am requested to state, also, that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. RAMSEY] is paired with the Senator from New Jersey, [Mr. STOCKTON.] Mr. STOCKTON would vote "yea" if present, and Mr. RAMSEY " nay.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 18, nays 29; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Alcorn, Blair, Casserly, Cooper, Davis of West Virginia, Goldthwaite, Hamilton of Maryland, Hamilton of Texas, Johnston, Kelly, Norwood, Saulsbury, Schurz, Stevenson, Thurman, Tipton, Trumbull, and Windom-18.

NAYS-Messrs. Ames, Anthony, Boreman, Buckingham. Caldwell, Cameron, Carpenter, Clayton. Cole, Corbett.Cragin, Ferry of Connecticut, Ferry of Mich igan, Flanagan, Frelinghuysen, Gilbert, Harian, Kellogg, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Osborn, Pool, Robertson, Sawyer, Scott, Spencer, Sumner, and West-29.

ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Brownlow, Chandler. Conkling, Davis of Kentucky, Edmunds. Fenton, Hamlin, Hill, Hitchcock, Howe, Lewis, Logan, Morrill of Maine, Patterson, Pomeroy. Pratt, Kamsey, Ransom, Rice, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Stockton, Vickers, Wilson, and Wright-27.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. CASSERLY. I move to amend the bill by adding:

SEC.. That all appointments of supervisors of election, or deputy marshals, or persons appointed by court commissioners to execute process, made under this act, or the acts to which it is amendatory, shall be made in writing upon the written recommendation of at least two reputable citizens who are qualified as jurors under the laws of the State, and also qualified as voters in their respective eleetion or voting precincts; and such recommendation shall be filed with the appointment in the office of the clerk of the circuit court.

The amendment is confined to supervisors, deputy marshals, and that large body of officers denominated "persons" in the act, who are appointed by the court commissioners to execute process. It seems to me that those officers are invested with powers so large that some special care should be used in the manner of their appointment.

Mr. CARPENTER. Will the Senator allow me to make a suggestion to him?

Mr. CASSERLY. Certainly.

Mr. CARPENTER. I suggest that his amendment is unconstitutional. The appointment of every Federal officer must be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, by the heads of Departments, or by the courts of law. Now, you cannot provide that a court of law shall appoint men recommended to them by somebody else.

Mr. CASSERLY. The Senator from Wisconsin is a known friend and champion of civil service reform. I am, therefore, not at all equal to the task of coping with him on a question of this kind which relates to the constitutional power of officers charged with the duty of appointments to make appointments upon the best information or guarantee that they can obtain. I do not see how my amendment, however, conflicts with the Senator's view of the Constitution.

Mr. CARPENTER. It substantially puts the appointing power in the two persons who make the recommendation.

Mr. CASSERLY. No, sir; the provision is that the supervisors shall not be appointed unless they have such recommendation. It does not say that the man who has that recommendation shall be appointed.

Mr. CARPENTER. I thought it read that he should be appointed upon the recommendation.

Mr. CASSERLY. No.

Mr. CARPENTER. What is the phraseology?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be read.

The CHIEF CLERK. The amendment is as follows:

That all appointments of supervisors of elections.or deputy marshals, or persons appointed by court commissioners to execute process made under this act or the acts to which it is amendatory, shall be made in writing upon the written recommendation of at least two reputable citizens who are qualified as jurors under the law of the State, and also are qualified as voters in their respective election or voting pre

cincts, and such recommendation shall be filed with the appointment in the office of the clerk of the circuit court.

Mr. CASSERLY. That does not limit the appointing power of the court at all. If it does, of course I am willing to change it in any way that will make it satisfactory. The provision simply is that before any supervisor can be appointed by the court he shall have the recommendation of two reputable citizens. The court is not bound to appoint any man who brings that recommendation. It may insist on the appointment of some other man who will have a like recommendation, or the third or fourth man who comes forth with a similar paper.

Mr. CARPENTER. Allow me to make a suggestion

Mr. CASSERLY. The difficulty is, if the Senator will allow me just one moment, that the civil service reform of which the Senator has had occasion to speak more than once in this body did restrict or undertake to restrict, the appointing power of the President to such and such persons as a board might report as qualified.

Mr. CARPENTER. Now, if my friend will permit a suggestion, suppose some disreputable person gets the recommendation of two individuals from a town fifty miles distant, takes it to the judge and demands his appointment, and the judge knows him to be utterly disqualified. By law he must make the appointment. He knows fifty men in the town fit for it and knows this man is not fit; and yet, if the section has any validity, he is bound to appoint this bad man.

Mr. CASSERLY. No, sir; he is not.

Mr. CARPENTER. He must make the appointment; he cannot make it without the recommendation of two persons in writing, and this is the only man recommended. How is he to help himself?

Mr. CASSERLY. The result of that would be, that, according to the view of the Sen ator from Wisconsin, the very first person who offered a recommendation of two reputable citizens would have to be appointed by the circuit judge. He would have neither choice in the selection nor could he have any time to consider the applications of others similarly fortified. I do not think the provision is amenable to any constitutional objection.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from California.

Mr. MORTON. I hope the amendment will not be agreed to. It would only complicate the law to no purpose.

The question was put, and the Chair declared that the amendment was rejected.

Mr. CASSERLY. I regret very much that the Senator from Indiana feels called upon to demand the rejection of every amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thinks the Senator is late. When the Chair states "the ayes appear to have it" or "the noes appear to have it," and no Senator challenges that declaration, it is not in order to rise to debate the proposition and then call for the yeas and nays, because, according to parliamentary law, the Chair pauses but an instant to allow his own judgment to be challenged. But the Senator from California asks for the yeas and nays, and the Chair will entertain the call.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 14, nays 31; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Blair, Casserly, Cooper, Davis of West Virginia, Hamilton of Maryland, Hamilton of Texas, Johnston, Kelly, Norwood, Ransom, Schurz, Stevenson, Stockton, and Thurman-14.

NAYS-Messrs. Ames, Anthony, Boreman, Buckingham, Caldwell, Cameron, Carpenter, Clayton, Cragin, Edmunds, Ferry of Michigan, Flanagan, Frelinghuysen, Gilbert, Hamlin, Harlan, Kellogg, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Osborn, Pomeroy, Pool, Sawyer, Scott, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Windom, and Wright-31. ABSENT-Messrs. Alcorn, Bayard, Brownlow, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Davis of Ken

tucky, Fenton, Ferry of Connecticut, Goldthwaite, Hill, Hitchcock, Howe, Lewis, Logan, Patterson, Pratt, Ramsey, Rice, Robertson, Saulsbury, Spencer, Sprague, Tipton, Trumbull, Vickers, West, and Wilson-29.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. CASSERLY. I offer another amendment, as follows:

SEC.- That it shall not be lawful for any supervisor of election, or deputy marshal, or person appointed to execute process by court commissioners, to call out or have any authority over any portion of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia, under this act, or the acts to which this act is amendatory.

Mr. President, whatever may be thought by some of the supporters of this measure, who seem determined to vote down all amendments, I wish to say for myself, that after being at the trouble of preparing and offering these amendments, it is with an earnest desire on my part to do something to make this a fair bill. The Senator from Indiana declared that to be his purpose in the beginning. I am quite willing to test that declaration, but it is not for that object alone, or in any great degree even, that I offer these amendments.

Now, I call the attention of the Senate, or of such Senators as probably have forgotten the fact, that by section ten of the original act still in force the commissioners of the courts were authorized to appoint persons from time to time to execute process issued by the commissioners in the performance of their duties under the act. Then follows this most enormous provision, I believe perfectly unheard of in any civilized Government in this world besides this:

And the persons so appointed to execute any warrant or process as aforesaid shall have authority to summon and call to their aid the by-standers or posse comitatus of the proper county, or such portion of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia; as may be necessary to the performance of the duty with which they are charged."

Of which they are to be the judge, both of the necessity of employing them and of the extent to which it is necessary. Now will anybody seriously contend that such a provision is defensible, or even excusable? What does it do? It commits the most critical power that the highest officer of this Government can wield that is, the employment of the Army and Navy-to the hands of any one, of a hun dred, or a thousand, or two thousand, or ten thousand irresponsible persons appointed by court commissioners to execute process. Why, sir, neither in France nor in Russia, and certainly not in the countries of Europe which boast free institutions, at least free in some measure, could any minister or any ministry venture to propose such a provision of law. Why, sir, consider; the commissioners are not infallible; these appointments are very numerous, made in the heat of a contested election. Will you commit the peace and the security of a whole community to any one of those men who in the execution of such process as is given to him is armed with the power of calling to his side the Army and Navy of the United States?

The Senator from Indiana undertook to make light of this list of supervisors and dep uty marshals appointed in New York for the election of 1870; he said it was apocryphal. How does the Senator know that? It was published in a leading journal there not once, but twice or three times. Where was the contradiction? I never saw any contradiction of it. The specifications are minute; the name of each man is given, his occupation, the district for which he was appointed, and where he was charged with guilt; the time and place of the charge was mentioned. Where he was charged with being recently at the State penitentiary or the State prison, all particulars were furnished. I repeat, I have seen no denial of these charges. And it is to men like these, one of them a graduate of two State prisons in as many different States, that you propose to give that tremendous power, in a time of high excitement, to call out the Army

and the Navy of the United States according to their discretion! It is a frightful thing to con template, sir. I am sure it was adopted, as some other provisions in the original law were adopted, improvidently and without such consideration as the subject demanded. The section is section ten of the first law-the law of 1870.

Mr. CARPENTER. That is the bill that the Democrats perfected the details of here for all one night.

Mr. CASSERLY, No, sir; the Senator from Wisconsin and his associates were so much in love with their ill-featured progeny that they sat here and forbade any correction or amendment of the production. They listened to our debate, noted down everything, and themselves stood like dumb sheep, I will say, without attempting to defend, or to apologize, or to excuse the deformities of their offspring.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. FERRY, of Michigan, in the chair.) The Senator's time has expired.

Mr. THURMAN. I wish to call the attention of the Senate to an incongruity in the original act on this subject. I agree with what has been said by the Senator from California. The proposition is to allow any one of these deputy marshals to require the Army to come to his aid. Of course, under the provisions of this act, the military officer is bound to obey; otherwise the call amounts to nothing. The idea that any deputy marshal may call upon General McDowell, or some subordinate of General McDowell's in the city of New York, to take away the troops of the United States to use as a posse, and that that is all in the discretion of any one of these deputy mar shals, themselves irresponsible, and appointed by an irresponsible power, is to my mind as shocking a thing as you can possibly conceive.

But here is what I want to call the attention of the Senate to: that while this power is given to these deputy marshals, the law does not intrust such power to the President himself, but only authorizes him to use the military or naval forces when it is necessary to execute judicial process. Those who were here, when the original act was passed will recollect that that was not the way the section was originally drawn. The section as originally drawn gave to the President complete power to use the Army and the Navy for the purpose of enforcing any of the provisions of the act; but upon the fight which was made on that bill, the bill was apparently to o strong even for the majority themselves, and it was finally amended so as only to confer upon the President the power to use the Army or Navy in order to execute judicial process, and that is embodied in the thirteenth section of the act. But while the President cannot exercise this power, cannot call on the Army or the Navy except to execute judicial process, here is the tenth section, which provides:

[ocr errors]

And the better to enable the said commissioners to execute their duties faithfully and efficiently, in conformity with the Constitution of the United States, and the requirements of this act, they are hereby authorized and empowered, within their districts respectively, to appoint in writing, under their hands, any one or more suitable persons, from time to time to execute all such warrants and other process as may be issued by them in the lawful performance of their respective duties; and the persons so appointed-"

That is, these persons appointed by commissioners (for the commissioners are appointed by the judges) to execute process

[ocr errors]

and the persons so appointed to execute any warrant or process as aforesaid shall have authority to summon and call to their aid the by-standers or posse comitatus of the proper county, or such portion of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia as may be necessary to the performance of the duty with which they are charged, and to insure a faithful observance of the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and such warrants shall run and be executed by said officers anywhere in the State or Territory within which they are issued."

It does seem to me a most extraordinary proposition that a mere appointee of a commissioner of a circuit court of the United States,

a man who is not a responsible man at all, who is merely a special appointee to serve a process, should have the power which you will not confer upon your President himself to call forth the Army or the Navy of the United States to assist him, and to do what? To enforce "the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution." That is a most extraordinary provision in the law. I say that it ought to be stricken out. It is monstrous that it should be here at all. I once more remind the Senate that if it amounts to anything, the General of the Army and all the Army within his reach are bound to obey the mandate of some little petty special bailiff appointed by a little petty special commissioner of the circuit court of the United States!

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from California.

Mr. THURMAN. On that let us have the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. MORTON. I desire to say that the provision alluded to does not refer to any duty performed by a supervisor under this act, but refers to an officer appointed to execute process; a different thing entirely.

Mr. CASSERLY. I did not hear the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. MORTON. I said that the section alluded to by the Senator from California does not refer to any duty performed by a super. visor appointed under the provisions of this act; but the duties to be performed by an officer appointed to execute process issued by a commissioner appointed by the circuit court of the United States, a very different thing.

Mr. CASSERLY. Does the Senator understand that my amendment does not cover those persons so appointed by the commissioners to execute process? They are specified in my amendment.

Mr. MORTON. The Senator from Ohio was discussing that section.

Mr. THURMAN. I ask that the amendment be read.

The Chief Clerk read the amendment of Mr. CASSERLY.

Mr. ROBERTSON. On this question I am paired with the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. SAULSBURY.] If he were here he would vote "yea," and I should vote "". nay.”

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 17, nays 30; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Alcorn, Blair, Casserly, Cooper, Davis of West Virginia, Goldthwaite, Hamilton of Maryland, Hamilton of Texas, Johnston, Kelly, Norwood, Ransom, Sprague, Stevenson, Stockton, Thurman, and Tipton-17.

NAYS-Messrs. Ames, Anthony, Boreman, Cameron, Carpenter, Clayton, Cole, Corbett, Cragin, Edmunds, Ferry of Michigan, Flanagan, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Hitchcock, Kellogg, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Osborn, Pomeroy, Pool, Ramsey, Sawyer, Spencer, Sumner, West, Wilson, and Windom-30.

ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Brownlow, Buckingham, Caldwell, Chandler, Conkling, Davis of Kentucky, Fenton, Ferry of Connecticut, Gilbert, Hamlin, Hill, Howe, Lewis, Logan, Patterson, Pratt. Rice, Robertson, Saulsbury, Schurz, Scott, Sherman, Stewart, Trumbull, Vickers, and Wright-27. So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. CASSERLY. I move another amendment, to insert the following additional section:

SEC.. That no person shall be appointed under this act as supervisor of election who is not at the time of his appointment a qualified voter of the election district or voting precinct for which he is appointed. No person shall be appointed deputy marshal under this act or the acts to which this is amendatory who is not a qualified voter at the time of his appointment in the precinct where he resides. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CASSERLY. The Senate has treated me so well in adopting that amendment that I shall not offer any more amendments. [Laughter.]

Mr. EDMUNDS. We would have compromised upon that basis some time ago. [Laughter.]

Mr. SPENCER. I hope that last amend ment will be reconsidered. In the State

[blocks in formation]

Mr. STEWART. Let it be read, that we may see what it is.

The amendment adopted on Mr. CASSERLY'S motion was again read.

66

Mr. SPENCER. I move to amend by inserting the word "county" before the word election," so as to require him to be a resident of "the county, election district, or precinct."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. THURMAN. I hope the Senator will see that there is no necessity for that.

Mr. COLE. The impracticable part of the proposition is this: that the officer will be on duty not in one precinct but oftentimes in several precincts. It would not do to confine a deputy marshal to duty, for example, in a little precinct of the city in which he happened to reside. It ought to be allowed to put him upon duty in the whole city.

Mr. CASSERLY. My colleague misapprehends my amendment. In regard to supervisors the amendment requires the supervisor to be a voter of the precinct for which he is appointed; but in regard to deputy marshals it simply requires that they be qualified voters of the precinct where they reside, not where they are to act. Residence and suffrage go together under our laws almost universally.

Mr. COLE. Perhaps I may not have understood the designation of the officer. Call him a supervisor, for illustration, is he to be a resident of the precinct for which he was appointed?

Mr. CASSERLY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLE. He will be on duty not in one precinct but in many?

Mr. THURMAN. Not at all. The supervisor can only act in one precinct. He is to be at the election.

Mr. COLE. Very well.

Mr. CASSERLY. I think there is no objection to the amendment as adopted. Mr. EDMUNDS. I think we ought to insert the word "county."

Mr. KELLOGG. I move to insert "parish" as well as county.

Mr. SPENCER. I accept that amend

ment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair hears no objection.

Now

Mr. CASSERLY. I supposed the amendment was mine. I may not have any objection to the amendment of the Senator from Vermont or that of the Senator from Alabama; but I would like to know what it is. Mr. EDMUNDS. The amendment of the Senator from California was agreed to. the Senator from Alabama moves further to amend by inserting the word "county," before the words "election district," where they now occur in the bill as amended-that is all; and the Senator does not see any objection to it. The Senator from Louisiana suggests that in Louisiana they have no counties, but the divisions are called parishes, and therefore, as descriptive, the word "parish" ought also to be in, and I think he is right about it, and he moves that amendment to the amendment

proposed by the Senator from Alabama, who accepts it, so that the pending question is on inserting in the bill the words "county, parish," so that it will read, "county, parish, election district, or voting precinct."

Mr. KELLOGG. If the idea embraced in this amendment is so exceedingly brilliant as

to be an absolute monopoly, I will withdraw "parish." ["No!" "No!"] Very well.

Mr. CASSERLY. What I wish is to understand the nature of the amendment now proposed. Is it an amendment proposed in regard to the deputy marshals?

Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes, sir.

Mr. CASSERLY. Then I have no great objection, although I think it would be much better the other way.

Mr. EDMUNDS. It would make the law inoperative in certain States.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will report the section as proposed to be amended by the Senator from Alabama,

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

That no person shall be appointed under this act as supervisor of election who is not at the time of his appointment a qualified voter of the county, parish, election district, or voting precinct for which he is appointed. No person shall be appointed deputy marshal under this act, or the acts to which this is amendatory, who is not a qualified voter at the time of his appointment in the county, parish, district, or precinct where he resides.

Mr. CASSERLY. I understood that the amendment applied only to deputy marshals. When you come to apply it to supervisors it seems to me that it becomes quite improper.

Mr. THURMAN. I can make a sugges tion to my friend from California that he will see upon reflection that the amendment is not out of the way. In some of the States all the votes of the county are taken at one place. Then the amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama would properly apply. There are going to be two supervisors appointed, then, for that county. I do not know how it is in Louisiana, but it may be that all the votes in a certain parish are taken at one place.

Mr. KELLOGG. I think not.

Mr. THURMAN. Then there is really no necessity for applying the word “parish ;" but that makes no great difference. What I suggest to my friend from California is that these words are to be taken singula singulis, as lawyers say, and on any fair interpretation, where the elec tions are all held at one place in the county, it is sufficient that the supervisors should be electors in the county; but where the elections are held in the precincts of the county the words must be taken to mean that the supervisors must be electors of that precinct, and not of some other part of the county. That would be the true interpretation.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not think it would. Mr. MORTON. It is suggested to me that this amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama should have a wider scope; that it should be sufficient if he was a resident of the county without being required to be a resident of that particular voting precinct, for this reason: it is said that there are many voting precincts where the voters are all of one party, and it has happened a great many times in the South in the last two or three years that men of a particular party were afraid to go to the polls in a particular precinct or township, and that men of a particular party would be afraid to accept such appointments. That, perhaps, is one of the reasons that have made this law a necessity. Therefore the amendment suggested by the Senator from Alabama should perhaps receive the construction that if a man is a resident of the county and a voter in the county, it should be suffi cient.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques tion is on the amendment of the Senator from Alabama, as modified.

The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time. Mr. THURMAN. On the passage of the bill I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. CASSERLY. Does the five-minutes rule extend to this stage of the bill? [“Oh, yes!"]

Mr. EDMUNDS. There was only five-minutes debate on amendments.

Mr. CASSERLY. What I mean is, can the bill be debated five minutes at this stage? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thinks not at this stage.

Mr. ANTHONY. The bill cannot be debated at all.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. So the Chair understands.

Mr. CASSERLY. What motion is now in order?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill cannot be amended except by unanimous consent. It may be laid on the table or postponed, or any motion of that character may be made; but the bill cannot be amended.

Mr. STOCKTON, (to Mr. CASSERLY.) You can move to amend the title.

Mr. CASSERLY. The title cannot be amended until the bill is passed.

Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senator wants to speak five minutes I hope he will be allowed to do so.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I think the Senator from Illinois called me to order for speaking out of time.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I merely reminded the Senator; but I promised not to make any question.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Except by unanimous consent the Senator from California cannot discuss the bill.

Mr. CASSERLY. There is one amendment to this bill that I should like to hear read, and that was the amendment of the Senator from Indiana in regard to the appointment by the circuit judge of a district judge or judges in his circuit to act in his place under certain circumstances.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment referred to will be read.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

That the third section of the aot to which this is an amendment be so amended as to authorize each of the judges of the circuit courts of the United States to appoint one or more of the judges of the district courts of the United States within his circuit to discharge the duties contemplated by this act and the act to which it is an amendment.

Mr. CASSERLY. Is it in order to amend that? [No! ]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not. The bill cannot be amended at this stage. The question is on the passage of the bill, upon which the yeas and nays have been ordered.

Mr. ROBERTSON. On this bill I am paired with the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. SAULS BURY.] If he were here he would vote "nay," and I should vote "yea."

Mr. CHANDLER. On this bill and all questions connected with it I have been paired with the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. BAYARD.]

Mr. TRUMBULL. I am requested by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. SCHURZ] to say that he is paired with the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER.] If the Senator from Missouri were here he would vote against the bill, and the Senator from Massachusetts for it. The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 36, nays 17; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Ames, Anthony, Boreman, Caldwell, Carpenter, Clayton, Cole, Corbett, Cragin, Edmunds, Ferry of Michigan, Flanagan, Frelinghuysen, Hamlin, Howe, Kellogg, Logan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Osborn, Pomeroy, Pool, Pratt, Ramsey, Rice, Sawyer, Scott, Sherman, Spencer, Stewart, West, Wilson, Windom, and Wright-36.

NAYS-Messrs. Alcorn, Blair, Casserly, Cooper, Davis of West Virginia, Goldthwaite, Hamilton of Maryland, Hamilton of Texas, Johnston, Kelly, Norwood, Ransom, Sprague, Stevenson, Stockton, Thurman, and Trumbull-17.

ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Brownlow, Buckingham, Cameron, Chandler, Conkling, Davis of Kentucky, Fenton, Ferry of Connecticut, Gilbert, Harlan, Hill, Hitchcock, Lewis, Patterson, Robertson, Saulsbury, Schurz, Sumner, Tipton, and Vick

ers-21.

So the bill was passed.

Mr. KELLOGG. I move to amend the title by inserting at the end of the title the words "approved the 28th of February, 1871."

Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not care to inter

fere with it, but I think those long titles are very objectionable. It is simply an amendment to the act to enforce the right to vote, and to say that would be sufficient.

Mr. MORTON. I think that is sufficient. Mr. TRUMBULL. I have no objection, but I merely suggest that a short title saying that this is a bill amendatory of the various acts, if there are several, relating to the right to vote, would be sufficient.

Mr. KELLOGG. I will state to the Senator from Illinois that that would suit him just as well, but it would not suit the friends of the bill; for the way the title stands now it is no bill at all. It is essential that these words should be inserted.

Mr. CASSERLY. I think that the sugges tion of the Senator from Louisiana is conclusive about the friends of the bill. They have had all that they wanted pretty much thus far, and I think the Senator from Illinois ought not to interpose any objection.

Mr. EDMUNDS. The friends of any bill generally get all they want if they stick. Mr. TRUMBULL. I did not make any objection.

The amendment to the title was agreed to, so as to make it read: "A bill to amend an act entitled 'An act to amend an act approved May 31, 1870, entitled "An act to enforce the rights of citizens of the United States to vote in the several States of the Union, and for other purposes, approved February 28, 1871."

PAPERS WITHDRAWN.

On motion of Mr. HOWE, it was Ordered, That James M. Ellison have leave to withdraw from the files of the Senate his petition and papers.

MARY ANN MONTGOMERY ----VETO.

Several messages were received from the President of the United States, by Mr. PORTER, his Secretary.

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following veto message:

To the Senate of the United States:

I have the honor to return herewith the bill (S. No. 955) entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary Ann Montgomery, widow of William W. Montgomery, late captain in Texas volunteers," without my approval, inasmuch as the concluding phrase, "and in respect to her minor children under sixteen years of_age," has obviously no meaning whatsoever.

If it were the intention of the framer of the bill that the pension thereby granted should revert to said minor children upon the remarriage or death of the widow, the phrase referred to should read as follows: "and in the event of her remarriage or death, to her minor children under sixteen years of age.' I therefore return the bill for proper action. U.S. GRANT.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 14, 1872.

S. 955.

FORTY-SECOND CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AT THE SECOND SESSION, begun and held at the city of Washington on Monday, the 4th day of December, 1871. An act granting a pension to Mary Ann Montgomery, widow of William W. Montgomery, late captain in Texas volunteers.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Ɑ8sembled, That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Mary Ann Montgomery, widow of William W. Montgomery, late captain of Texas volunteers, and to pay her a pension, from the passage of this act as a captain's widow, and in respect to her minor children under sixteen years of age.

J. G. BLAINE,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
SCHUYLER COLFAX,
Vice President of the United States, and
President of the Senate.

I certify that this act did originate in the Senate. GEO. C. GORHAM, Secretary. Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not see the chairman of the Committee on Pensions in his seat. I suppose that bill came from that committee. It had probably better be referred to the Committee on Pensions.

[blocks in formation]

House of Representatives of the United States: In my message to Congress at the beginning of its present session allusion was made to the hardships and privations inflicted upon poor immigrants on shipboard and upon arrival on our shores; and a suggestion was made favoring national legislation for the purpose of effecting a radical cure of the evil.

Promise was made that a special message on this subject would be presented during the present session should information be received which would warrant it. I now transmit to the two Houses of Congress all that has been officially received since that time bearing upon the subject, and recommend that such legislation be had as will secure, first, such room and accommodation on shipboard as is necessary for health and comfort, and such privacy and protection as not to compel immigrants to be the unwilling witnesses to so much vice and misery: and, second, legislation to protect them upon their arrival at our sea-ports from the knaves who are ever ready to despoil them of the little all which they are able to bring with them. Such legislation will be in the interests of humanity, and seems to be fully justifiable. The immigrant is not a citizen of any State or Territory upon his arrival, but comes here to become a citizen of a great republic, free to change his residence at will, to enjoy the blessings of a protecting Government where all are equal before the law, and to add to the national wealth by his industry.

On his arrival he does not know States or corporations, but confides implicitly in the protecting arm of the great, free country of which he has heard so much before leaving his native land. It is a source of serious disappointment and discouragement to those who start with means sufficient to support them comfortably until they can choose a residence and begin employment for a comfortable support, to find themselves subject to ill treatment and every discomfort on their passage here, and at the end of their journey seized upon by professed friends, claiming legal right to take charge of them for their protection, who do not leave them until all their resources are exhausted, when they are abandoned in a strange land, surrounded by strangers, without employment, and ignorant of the means of securing it. Under the present system this is the fate of thousands annually, the exposures on shipboard and the treatment on landing driving thousands to lives of vice and shame, who, with proper humane treatment, might become useful and respectable members of society.

I do not advise national legislation in affairs that should be regulated by the States, but I see no subject more national in its character than provision for the safety and welfare of the thousands who leave foreign lands to become citizens of this Republic.

When their residence is chosen they may then look to the laws of their locality for protection and guidance.

The mass of immigrants arriving upon our shores coming, as they do, on vessels under foreign flags, makes treaties with the nations furnishing these immigrants necessary for their complete protection. For more than two years efforts have been made on our part to secure such treaties, and there is now reasonable ground to hope for success. U. S. GRANT.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 14, 1872.

Mr. COLE. I move that that message be printed and lie on the table. The Committee on Commerce have reported a bill affording the remedy called for in the message.

Mr. CASSERLY. It may be a question whether, to make any regulations satisfactory and efficient, conventions with the Governments from whose ports the ships sail with immigrants might not be necessary. I suggest that with regard to the reference of this message, whenever it shall be referred I am inclined to think it should go to the Com. mittee on Foreign Relations.

The VICE PRESIDENT. It might be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, but the Chair thinks the Committee on Commerce have had charge of legislation with regard to immigrants.

Mr. CASSERLY. I merely throw out the idea, as it occurs to me that nearly all the vessels carrying immigrants are European ships, sailing from European ports under European flags, and it may be a question whether the whole subject ought not to be made a matter of regulation between this Government and the respective European Governments.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator's colleague has moved that the message be laid on the table. Does the Senator insist on that motion?

Mr. COLE. I am not particular about it. It is a subject of a great deal of importance; and I inquire of the chairman or of some members of the Committee on Commerce if they have not reported a bill on that subject?

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. The subject has been before that committee.

Mr. CHANDLER. The message ought to go to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. COLE. I believe that committee have a time set ahead for the consideration of their bills, and probably this very bill will be one of those considered.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from California changes his motion, and moves that the message be printed and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. CASSERLY. I do not wish to raise a contest about the reference. The Senator from Michigan was not in when I made the suggestion that as this immigration is carried on almost entirely in foreign ships, sailing from foreign ports under foreign flags, it might perhaps be necessary in order to make the regulation for the benefit of immigrants efficient all around, to do it by conventions or treaties with those Governments. Of course, I feel that the subject is one of great interest. I am glad the Committee on Commerce are looking into it. What I said was by way of suggestion on the message.

Mr. CHANDLER. I am willing it should go to the Committee on Foreign Relations, but heretofore all such matters have been referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. CASSERLY. I do not wish to make any contest about it.

The message was ordered to be printed, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

RIVER AND HARBOR BILL.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont, submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill (H. R. No. 2208) making appropriations for the repair, preservation, and completion of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed.

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont, submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill (S. No. 693) to provide for the further endowment and support of colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts, and the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pur suits and professions in life as established under an act of Congress approved July 2, 1862; which was ordered to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House had agreed to the resolution of the Senate to print extra copies of the report of the Superintendent of the United States Coast Survey for 1871.

The message also announced that the House had agreed to some and disagreed to other amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R.

No. 1191) making appropriations for the naval service for the year ending June 30, 1873, and for other purposes, and had agreed to other amendments of the Senate to the said bill, with amendments; that it asked a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and had appointed Mr. EUGENE HALE of Maine, Mr. G. W. SCOFIELD of Pennsylvania, and Mr. STEVENSON ARCHER of Maryland, managers at the same on its part.

PENITENTIARY CONGRESS REPORTS.

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following resolution from the House of Representatives; which was referred to the Committee on Printing:

Resolved by the House of Representatives, (the Senate concurring.) That there be printed five thousand extra copies of the preliminary report of the commissioner of the United States to the international penitentiary congress of London, with accompanying documents, one thousand copies to be for the use of the Senate, two thousand for the use of the House, and two thousand for the State Department.

NAVAL APPROPRIATION BILL.

The Senate proceeded to consider its amendments to the bill (H. R. No. 1191) making appropriations for the naval service for the year ending June 30, 1873, and for other purposes, disagreed to by the House of Representatives, and the amendments of the House of Representatives to other amendments of the Senate to the said bill.

On motion of Mr. COLE, it was

Resolved, That the Senate insist upon its amendments disagreed to by the House of Representatives, and disagree to the amendments of the House to other amendments of the Senate, and agree to the conference asked by the House of Representatives on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon. Ordered, That the conferees on the part of the Senate be appointed-by the Vice President.

EXTENSION OF THE KU KLUX ACT.

Mr. SCOTT. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 656, to extend the provisions of the fourth section of the act approved April 20, 1871, in regard to extending the writ of habeas corpus. Mr. STEVENSON. Let that bill be read for information.

The Chief Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, That the provisions of the fourth section of the act approved April 20, 1871, entitled "An act to enforce the provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other purposes," shall continue in force until the end of the next regular session of Congress.

Mr. STEVENSON. I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania does that propose to continue the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus?

Mr. SCOTT. The purpose of it is to continue the right in the President until the end of the next regular session of Congress.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. STEVENSON called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.

Mr. CHANDLER. I am paired with the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. SAULSBURY.]

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 40, nays 19; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Ames, Anthony, Boreman, Buckingham, Caldwell, Cameron, Carpenter, Clayton, Cole, Corbett, Cragin, Edmunds, Ferry of Michigan, Flanagan, Frelinghuysen, Hamlin, Hitchcock, Howe, Kellogg, Logan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Osborn, Pomeroy, Pool, Pratt, Ramsey, Rice, Robertson, Sawyer, Scott, Sherman, Spencer, Stewart, West, Wilson, Windom, and Wright-40.

NAYS-Messrs. Alcorn. Blair, Casserly, Cooper, Davis of West Virginia, Goldthwaite, Hamilton of Maryland, Hamilton of Texas, Hill, Johnston, Kelly, Norwood, Ransom, Sprague, Stevenson, Stockton. Thurman, Tipton, and Trumbull-19.

ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Brownlow, Chandler, Conkling, Davis of Kentucky, Fenton, Ferry of Connecticut, Gilbert, Harlan, Lewis, Patterson, Saulsbury, Schurz, Sumner, and Vickers-15.

So the motion was agreed to.

Mr. COLE. I hope we may have time now to consider the deficiency appropriation bill conference report.

Mr. STEWART. I wish we could have a vote on the coal bill.

Mr. SCOTT. I desire to speak upon the bill which has just been taken up, but the remarks which I will make would probably occupy a longer time-I feel sure that they would-than will intervene between this time and the hour fixed for the recess. The conference report that I understand the Senator from California appeals to me to have taken up, I suppose, could be disposed of in that time.

Mr. COLE. Easily, I have no doubt.

Mr. SCOTT. If I can retain the floor and have this remain the unfinished business, I will yield for the consideration of that report.

The VICE PRESIDENT. At half past four o'clock the Senate takes a recess until half past seven, the unfinished business of the afternoon being the unfinished business of the day, and the evening session being devoted to reports from the Committee on Commerce. The Senator from Pennsylvania yields to allow the conference report on the deficiency bill to be taken up on condition that he shall resume the floor at half past four o'clock, so that he shall be entitled to the floor to-morrow to open the debate on this bill.

Mr. STEWART. Now I appeal for five minutes to pass the coal bill.

Mr. ROBERTSON. It cannot be passed in five minutes.

Mr. MORTON. The Senator from Nevada has requested the Senate a great many times to allow him a few minutes to pass the coal bill, and whether we favor this bill or not, I think he ought to have it.

Mr. THURMAN. I objected yesterday, and was the cause of the Senator from Nevada not getting his bill up. I did it because I did not understand it. I have since studied the subject, I believe pretty fully, and now I hope that his bill will be taken up. As I was the cause of putting it off yesterday, I feel bound to say that I hope the bill will be taken up, and, with amendments, it ought to be passed.

Mr. ALCORN. I wish to say that the deficiency bill is one of paramount importance. The marshals from the various districts in the land are crying aloud to Congress, saying that they have exhausted their means and their credit to sustain the action of the courts. Some of them have borrowed as much as $10,000; and they have renewed their notes at great sacrifices. Everybody is in favor of passing the bill, I believe, and it seems to me we can dispose of it in a very few minutes, and then take up the bill of the Senator from Nevada, and pass that also.

Mr. CORBETT. I think the deficiency bill The United States ought to be passed now. district judge in my State has written me urging it. He says that for the last quarter of 1871 he has not received his pay, and he receives a small enough salary at any rate. I think that bill ought to be passed. He urged me the first of the session to get it up as a separate bill. It seems to me we ought to concur in the deficiency bill, pass it, and then take up the coal bill and pass it.

DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION BILL. The VICE PRESIDENT. The conference report on the deficiency bill is before the Senate, the Senator from Pennsylvania having yielded to allow it to be called up on condition that he resumes the floor at half past four o'clock. The question is on concurring in the conference report. The Senator from Mississippi was entitled to the floor yesterday upon it. Does he now claim the floor?

Mr. ALCORN. If there is no opposion to it. I will not claim the floor. Mr. EDMUNDS rose. Mr. ALCORN.

from Vermont.

I will follow the Senator

Mr. EDMUNDS. I am very happy to have such a good follower, I am sure. [Laughter.]

« ÎnapoiContinuă »