t

1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3999 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont moves

that the Senate adjourn. . . . Tho motion was acrreed to; and at (six o'clock and twenty-siX mm­

utea p. m.) the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTA-TIVES. SATURDAY, June 1, 1878.

The House met at eleven o'clock a. m. Prayer by tbe Chaplain, Rev. W. P. HARRISON.

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. 1\IESSAGE FROM: THE SENATE.

A messacre from the Senate, by 1\{r. SYMPSON, one of its clerks, an­nounced that the Senate had passed, with amendments in which the concurrence of the Honse was requested, the bill (H. R. No. 4104) miLking appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial ex­penses of tbe Government for the fiscal yea,r ending J nne 30, 187!>, a,nd for other purposes.

LEGISLATIVE, ETC., APPROPRIATION BILL. Mr. ATKINS. I ask una,nimons consent to take from the Speaker's

table the lecrislative a,ppropriation bill (H. R. No. 4104) just returned from the Se~ate and move that it be referred to the Committee on Appropriations, 'and that it be printed with the Senate amendments.

There was no objection, and it wa.s so ordered . .

ORDER OF BUSINESS. Mr. BURCHARD. I ca,U for the regular order. 1\fr. COX of New York. I uesire to call np the bill (H. R. No. 3988)

to orcraniz~ the life-saving service. Th~ SPEAKER. Theregula,r order is the unfinished business com­

incr over from Wednesday, being the bill reported by the gentleman frgm Illinois [Mr. BURCHAUD] in relation to the internal revenue .•

Mr. COX, of New York. I move to take up the life-saving-service bil1.

The SPE . .A.KER. That motion is not in order. The gentleman, however, may raise the question of consideration as to the unfin­ished business.

Mr. BURCHARD. The House was dividing when the adjournment took place.

Mr. KNOTT. I ask tho gentleman from Dlinoisand the gentleman from New York to forego the regular order until we can llave the morning hour.

Mr. DUNNELL. I hope that will be done. Mr. BURCHARD. I have no objection, if the c.ommittees des!re

to r~port to there beincr a mornin"' hour. A mornmg hour may m­tervene by unanimous gonsent, and the unfinished business can then be resumed. .

Mr. REAGAN. After the morning hour I shall insist on taking up the Lill for the regulation of interstate commerce.

Mr. BUCKNER. If consent is given for a. morning hour, I presume that will not prevent the question of consider~tion on the unfinislled business or any other mea~mre after the mormng hour.

The SPEAKER. The House bas control over its own business by a majority. It is proposed that the consideratio~ of the unfinished business be delayed, that there may b~ a mormng hour. Is tb~re objection.T [After a pause.] The Cbatr hears none. Tho mornrng hour begins at twent.y-sh minutes past eleven o'clock.

Mr. COX, of New York. I have a proposition to make, if gentle­men will hear me.

The SPEAKER. The morning hour has begun. The gentleman can make his proposition after the morning hour.

.Mr. COX of New York. I would prefer to make it now, that an understanding may be como to at this time.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will hear the gentleman, and the time will not be taken from the morning hour.

Mr. COX of New York. I do not propose to occupy much of the time of the' Honse with the bill to organize the life-saving senrice. I propose that it shall be taken up to-night and discussed, so far as deemed necessary, and that the previous question shall be called on :Monday at any hour t.hat may be agreed npon.

Mr. O'NEILL. The session of this evening to be for the considera­tion of that bill exclusively t

:Mr. COX, of New York. I will state briefly the reason for this proposition, ~d I th~nk. it .must a~prove itsel:f to e~ery gentleman. '!'his lifc-savmg service 1s m certam respects meffiment. We bad a storm only the niNht before last in which a vessel went ashore on the Jersey coast, ~d no provision is now made for such storms at this time of the year.

. Mr. BURCHARD. I desire to make a suggestion. I think there will be no objection to an evening session for the discussion of the bill which the geutleman from New York desires to bring up if it be confined to that business only; :md I would su~gest that an hour be fixed on Tuesday on which the vote shall be talien. Instead ?fha.v­ing the previous question ordered let an hour be fixed for taking the vote.

Mr. COX, of New York. I will accept the gentleman's suggestion if the House will agree to have an evening session, say on .Monday night for the consideration of this bill. The vote can be taken on Tuesday at an hour to be set by the House.

Mr. BURCHARD. If the previous question is ordered it can be reconsidered and then the matter might be brought up after the morning hour to the exclusion of other business.

Mr. COX, of New York. :My object is to have this bill .forwarded so that it may get to the Senate in time to be passed before the adjournment anu that it may be law before the September gales come on.

Mr. BURCHARD. The House has voted to take up the regular order. Let us uispose of that and get it out of the way.

Mr. COX, of New York. The Honse ha.s not voted to take up the gentleman's bill.

Mr. BURCHARD. It did the other day. Mr. HAYES. I demand the regular order. I do not think we are

making any headway in this discns~i,;m. . . Mr. O'NEILL. I hope the propositiOn to have an evemng sessiOn

to-night for the consideration of the bill of the gentleman from New York will be agreed to.

Mr. COX, of New York. I am willing to havo it fixed for Monday night, and to take the vote on Tnesda,y.

Mr. WOOD. I object to any special order or to any evening ses­sions being fixed except to proceed to tho regular business before the Honse.

The SPEAKER. The regul:l.r order is demanded, and the morning hour begins at eleven o'clock and thirty minutes. ~el?orts from the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads are stillm order.

There were no further reports from the Committee on the Post­Office and Post-Roads.

SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS. .Mr. HARRIS, of Virginia,. ~am instruc~d by t.he Committce.on

the Judiciary to report a snbst1tnte for the btll (H. R.No.179) to give circuit courts supervisory jurisdiction. in certain criminal cases .. This is the unanimous report of the committee, and I ask that the btU be put upon its passage.

The bill (H. R. No. 506?) was read a. ~rst ~nd seconu time. . . The tirst section provtdes that the cucmt court shall have JUriS­

diction on writs of error in all criminal ca-ses trieu before the district court where the penalty is confinement in the penitentiary ·or in the jail or where if by fine only, the fine may exceed unuer tho law the su~ of $500; ~nd in such cases a person feeling himself aggrieved by a uecision of a district court may except to the opinion of the conrp and tender his bill of exceptions, which, if the truth of the case be fairly stated therein, tho judge shall sign, and it shall be a. part of the record of the case.

The second section provides that the \petition for a writ of error from the judgment of a district court, in the casc;s referred to i.n t~e next preceding section, ~ay be ~resented to the JUdge of the '?ITcmt court in term or vacatiOn, and If aUowed shall be docketed m the circuit court having .jnrisuiction over any such district; but if re­fused may be presented to the justice of, the Supreme Court who is allotted to such circuit, and ii alloweu shall be docketeu and heard in such circuit court; and the judgment or decision upon such writ of error shall be remitted to the district court appealed from, to be enforced according to law. · · .

The third section provides that a writ of error awarded under tb1s act to any judgment shall act as a supersedea~ thereto on such terms and conditions as said court or judge awarding the same may pre-scribe. .

Mr. HANNA.. Under the provisions of this bill, unless the law re­quired that the indictmen~ should. be returned ~o t~e district court this bill would be wholly mopemtive. 1n my district, a.s a rule, all indictments are now returned into the circuit courts; formerly tho practice was to return them .to the district courts, bu~ now a r?-le <!f practice bas obtaiued by which they are all returned mto the cucmt oour~ .

Mr. HARRIS of Virginia. If they are all returned into the cir­cuit courts the~ the circuit court obtains jurisdiction. I think this bill will p:ovide all that the gentleman desires. I call tile previous question. . .

The previous question was seconded and the roam questiOn was ordered· and under the operation thereof the bill was orderetl to be enuross~d and read a third time; and it was accordingly read tho third time, and passed.

Mr. HARRIS, of Virginia, moved to reconsider tJ:e vote by w~ich the bill was passed; and also moved that tho motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to. HARPER'S FFtRRY1 VIRGTh""IA.

Mr. HARRIS, of Virginia, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported, as a substitute .f?r House bill No. 3241, a. bill. (H. R. No • 5066) authorizinrr the Sohc1tor of the Treasury, Ly and With the con­sent of the Secretary of War, to cancel certain contracts for the sale of lots of land made at Harper's l!..,erry in the year 1869 by the United States to resell the same, and sell or lease all other real estate and ripa.ri~n rights now owned by the United States at .Harper's Ferry, West Virginia; which was read a first a.nd second tune.

4000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JUNE 1,

The ·question was upon ordering the bill to be CD.oOTOssed and read a third time.

The first section of the bill authorizes the Solicitor of the Treasury, by and with the consent of the Secretary of War, to cancel contracts with and release each and all purchasers of lots of land from their purchases made on the 30th of November, 1869, at and near Harper's Ferry, West Virginia, whenever such purcha-sers shall quitclaim and t·elease said lots or parcels of land to the Government of the United States by deed in such form as may be required by the Solicitor of the Treasury. Provided that such quitclaim and release shall be executed and tendered to the Secretary of War within four months from the passage of this act.

Tho second section provides that whenever any of said lots and par­cels of land slwU be quitclaimed and released in pursuance of section 1 of this act, the Solicitor of the Treasury shall, by and with the con­sent of the Secretary of War, cancel the obligation of the purcha-ser or purchasers thereof, and release the same from all liability to the Government of tho United States for the purchase money of such lot or Jots of land. And the Solicitor of the Treasury shall, when he deems it expediant to subserve the interests of the Government, have the power, and is hereby authorized to offer for sale sahl lots or par­cels of land so quitclaimed and released by auction, after first giving notice of the time, terms, and place of sale in pursuance of existing law, upon such terms as in his judgment he may deem expedient.

The third section authorizes the Solicitor of the Treasury to make sale, in pursuance of law, of the whole or any p:ut of said property, or, if he deem it expedient and better for the public welfare, lease for any term of years any part or all other real estate and riparian rights now owned by the Government of the United States at or near Harper's Ferry, Jefferson County, West Virginia.

The fourth section authorizes the Solicitor of tile Treasury to abate part of the purchase-money due from purchasers who have made im­provements upon lots of land purchased as aforesaid at Harper's Ferry, provided that in his judgment such purchasers are legally or equitably entitled to such abatement; and provided further that such purchasers shall make application to the Solicitor for abatement within two months from the passage of this. act ; and, in case an abatement is made, shall pay the balance of the purchase money due for deducting the amount abated within sixty days thereafter; other­wise the debt to remain as if no abatement bad been made.

The fifth section provides that this act shall be in force from its passage.

:Mr. HARRIS, of Virginia, called the previous question. The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered;

and under the operation thereof the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; · and it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. HARRIS, of Virginia, 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.

DISTRICT COURT AT DANVILLE, VIRGIXIA.

Mr. KNOTT, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported back favombly House bill No. 389'2, to change the time of holding terms of the district court for the western district of Virginia at Danville.

The bill provides that the regular terms of the district court in the western district of Virginia, at Danville, shall be held on the Tues­day after the fourth Monday in February, and on the 15th day of November; but if said last-mentioned day shall fall on Sunday, the term shall commence on the following day; and repeals so much of section 572 of the Revised Statutes as conflicts with this act.

Mr. KNOTT. I call the previous question. The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered;

and under t.he operation thereof the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and it waa accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. KNOTT moved to reconsider tho vote by which the bill was pa-ssed ; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Tho latter motion was agreed to. JUDICIAL DISTRICTS L.~ MISSOURI.

Mr. KNOTT also, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. No. 5067) t-o divide tho western district of .Missouri into two divisions and to prescribe the times and places for holding tho courts therein, and for other purposes, as a substitute for House bill No. 563, to pro­-vide for holding the terms of tho district and circuit courts of the United States at the city of Kansas, Missouri; which was read a first and second time.

Mr. CRITTENDEN. Will the gentleman from Kentucky allow me to ask him how often are the ter~ of the courts to be held at the city of Kansas.

Mr. KNOTT. Twice a year; once in the spring and once in the fa.ll. I move the previous question. · The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; aurl under the operation thereof the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and i~ was accordingly read the third time, and passeu.

Mr. KNOTT 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. JUDICIAL DISTRICTS lY COLORADO.

Mr. CULBERSON, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported, as a !-'.ubstitute for Honse bill No. 2425, to divide the State of Colorado into three judicial districts, a bill (H. R. No. 5068) to amend an act entitled ''An act to further the administration of justice in tho State of Colorado."

Mr. CULBERSON. I move the previous question on the passage of the bill.

The previous question was seconded and the main question oruereu; and under the operation thereof the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and it was accordingly read tho third time, and passed.

Mr. CULBERSON 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. LEGISLATURE OF ARIZOXA.

Mr. CULBERSON also, from tho same committeo, reported back. with amendments, the bill (H. R. No. 793) to confirm certain acts of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona, and to provide for the apportionment of the members of the next Legislative Assem­bly thereof; which was referred to the Committee of the 'Vhole on th~ state of the Union, and: with the amendments, ordered to be prmted.

Mr. LAPHAM:. I desire to offer an aduitional amendment to that bill, and ask that it be printed with other amendments.

There was no objection, and it was so ordered. CHANGE OF JUDICIAL DISTRICTS IN TEXAS.

Mr. CULBERSON also, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported back, with amendments, the bill (H. R. No. 1582) to create the northern judicial district of Texas, and to change the ea,stern and western judicial districts of said State, and to fix the times and pl'aces for holding the courts in said district.

:Mr. CULBERSON. · I move the previous question on the passage of the bill.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the amendments were agreed to; and the bill was ordered to be engrossed, and read a third. time; and it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. CULBERSON moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed, and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laiJ. upon the table.

The latter motion was agreed to. JUIUSDICTION OF TliE CIRCUIT COURTS OF TilE UNITED STATES.

Mr. CULBERSON also, from the same committee, reported, as a substitute for House bills numbered 1837, 1380, 505, 1399, 11:34, 11:32, and 2375, a bill (H. R. No. 5069) to amend sections 1, 2, 3, and 10 of an act to determine the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States, and to regulate the removal of cases from the state courts, and for other purposes, approved March 3, 1875; which was ren.d a :first and second time.

Mr. CULBERSON. As this is a very important bill I am instructed by the Committee on the Judiciary to ask tho adoption of the fol­lowing resolution:

Resolved, That the bill entitled ''An act to nmenil sections 1, 2. 3, and 10 of an act entitled 'An act to determine the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of tlle United States, and t.o regulate the removal of cases from the State com·ts and for other purposes,' approved March 3, 1875," reported by the Committee on the Judiciary as a substitute for sundry bills relating to the same subject, be mado a special order for the first Wednesday in June next, after the morning hour, and from day to day until disposed of ; not to interfere with the consideration of general appropriation bills or special ortlors already made.

1\lr. FRYE. The gentleman should say" June instant," for we are in June now.

Mr. CULBERSON. I will then modify the res9lution so as to say "on Wednesday, June 5."

The resolution, as modified, waa then adopted. 1\lr. CULBERSON moved to reconsider the vote by which the reso­

lution was adopted, and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter mot.ion waa agreed to. Mr. CULBERSON. I ask that the bill be printed. There was no objection, and it was so ordered.

JUDICIAL DISTRICTS IN MICIDGA...."'i.

Mr. CONGER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported, as a substitute for House bill No. 1858, a bill (H. R. No. 5070) to detach certain territory from the eastern judicial district of Michigan, and to attach the same to the western district of Michigan, and to pro­vide for divisions in said western district, and for holding the district and circuit courts therein, and for other purposes; which was read a first and second time.

The bill was read. The question being on ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third

reading, Mr. CONGER calleu tho previous question.

1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4001 The previous question was seconded and tho main question ordered;

and under the ope.ration thereof the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading; and it was a.ccordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. CONGER moved to reconsider the vote by which t.he bill was passed; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to. UNITED STATES COURT AT MARTINSBURGH7 WEST VIRGINIA.

Mr. CONGER also, from the same committee, reported, as a substi­tute for House bill No. 2Sn, a bill (H. R. No. 5071) to authorize the holding of terms of the Uni ted States district court for the district of West Virginia at Martinsburgh; which was read a first and second time.

The bill provides that terms of the district court of the United States for the district of West Virginia, in addition to those now prescribed by law, shall be held at Martinsburgh on the 1st day of J uns and on the 1st day of December in each year; provided that when either of said days shall fall ,on Sunday the term shall-com­mence the day following; and provided further that the terms of bourt hereby authorized to be held at l\Iartinsburgh shall be held on condition that all the buildings and necessary conveniences to the holding oi court shall be furnished by the county of Berkeley free of all cost and expense to the United States.

The questionpeing on ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third reading,

]\fr. CONGER called the pr-evious question. The previous q nestion was seconded and the main question ordered;

and under the operation thereof the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

Mr. CONGER moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed ; and also moved t.hat the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The la.tter motion was agreed to. The SPEAKER. The morning hour has expired.

GENEVA AWABD.

Mr. KNOTT, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported back, with a favorable recommendation, the bill (II. R. No. 4553) to provide for the further distribution of the moneys received under the Geneva award.

:Mr. KNOTT also, by unanimous consent, submitted a resolution; ·which was read, as follows: _

Resolved, That the bill reported from the Committee on the .Judiciary (H. R. No. 4553) to provide for the fnrtherdistri bution of the moneys received l'rnder the Geneva award be made a special order for the first Wednesuay in the noxt sessioiJ- of tho present Congress, Immediately after the r eading of the Journal, and from day to day until completed, not to conflict with previous special orders, if any.

1\Ir. KNOTT. There is a written report accompanying this bill, which I ask may be printed; and request aLso that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McMAHON] representing the minority of the Commit­tee may have leave to present their views.

Mr. LAPHAM. I ask that the bill accompanying the minority re­port be printed. · The SPEAKER. The bill will be printed as a part of the report; it cannot be printed as a bill reported from the committee.

Mr. LAPHAM. The understanding in the committee was that the minority should have leave to report a bill as a substitute.

The s'PEAKER. The bill can be printed as a part of the minority report; and when the bill of the majority comes up this proposed substitute can be offered as an amendment. The resolution ofiered by the gentleman from Kentucky will be again read.

The Clerk again read the resolution. Mr. LAPHAM. I suggest to the gentleman from Kentucky to insert

in the resolution " and the substitute reported by the minority as an amendment."

Mr. KNOTT. I think t.hat would be supererogatory. I have alJ:eady asked that the minority have leave to present their views.

The SPEAKER. . There will be no difficulty about the matter. If the Honse should not prefer the bill of the majorit.y of the committee, it would vote down the demand for the previous question, and there­upon the amendment proposed by the minority would be in order.

Mr. FRYE. If the previous question is not demanded by the gen­tleman from Kentucky when the bill comes up, it will be open to amendment, so that the · substitute of the minority will be in order, and also an amendment which I desire to offer.

The SPEAKER. If the previous question should not be demanded, or if the call for it should not be· sustained, the bill will be subject under-the rules to such amendments as may be offered. If there be no objection this resolution will be adopted, and the majority and minority reports will be ordered to be printed.

There was no objection. ' WILLIAM T. DUVAL.

Mr.HUMPHREY. The Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds yesterday reported back adversely the bill (H. R. No. 1138) for the relief of William T. Duval; which was laid on the table; and the report of the majority was ordered to be printed, together with the views of the minority accompanied by the draft of a bill designed as a substitute, the claim being for work done on the Treasury exten­sion. I ask unanimous consent that the bill! together with the ac­companying reports, be taken from the table and referred to the Com­mittee of the Whole on the Private Calendar.

VII-251

There beirig no objection, it was ordered accordingly. OLIVER WHITSELL.

Mr. WRIGHT, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (II. R. No. 5072) for the relief of Oliver Whitsell ; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed.

MRS. C. M. PRITCHARD.

Mr. ELLIS, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. .5073) granting compensation to lllrs. C. M. Pritchard for the use, oc­cupancy, and damage to her property by the United States military authorities during the late war; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on War Claims, and ordered to be printed. ·

TOPOLOVAMPO ROUTE.

Mr. THROCKMORTON. I' ask, Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent, -to offer the following resolution, and ask for its adoption at this time:

Resolved, That when the sundry civil bill comes before the House it shall be in order to amend it by a. bill authorizing, under tho direction of the Secretary of War, a survey and report of a post-al and commercial route from the westernmost terminus of railroad, in Texas, to Topolovampo Bay, (latitude 25° 32' N.,) on the Gulf of California. ·

Mr. CARLISLE. That is a motion to suspend the rules, and is not in order.

The SPEAKER. It is a suspension of the rules, and requires unani­mous consent.

Mr. THROCKMORTON. Was my resolution objected toT The SPEAKER. The Chair understood the gentleman from Ken-

tucky to object. Mr. CARLISLE. It :requires unanimous consent. Mr. THROCKMORTON. I ask unanimous consent. Mr. CARLISLE. I object to a suspension of the rules at this time.

CREEK ORPHANS.

Mr. HOOKER, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on In­dian Affairs, reported a bill (H. R. No. 5074) to pay to the Creek or­phans the amount due and unpaid to them under the stipulation of the treaty of March 24, 1832; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Commit.tee of the Whole on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed.

Mr. EDEN. Not to be brought back by a motion to reconsider. The SPEAKER. Unanimous consent has been given with the un­

derstanding suggested by the gentleman from illinois that the bill is not to be brought back under a motion to reconsider.

There waa no objection, and it was ordered a-ccordingly.

BASL.~ FOR ffiON-CLADS1 NORFOLK.

Mr. GOODE, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, reported a bill (H. R. No. 5075) to provide for the construc­tion of a fresh-water basin for iron-clad vessels in the vicinity of the navy-yard n.t Norfolk, Virginia; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. EDEN. Not to be brought back by a motion to reconsider. The SPEAKER. The Chair hears no objection, and it is so ordered.

NANCY A. HERRICK.

Mr. LAPHAM. I ask, by unanimous consent, tbatthe House take from the Speaker's table the bill (H. R. No. 1896) for the relief of Nancy A. Herrick, of Rochester, New York, returned from the Senate with an amendment merely a-dding a pream hle and not changing th6 bill in any form, for the purpose of concurring in the Senate amend­ment.

There was no objection, and the amendment of the Senate was read·, as follows:

Insert the following preamble: Whereas Nancy A. Herrick, under and in virtue of the homestead laws, is en­

titled to• the patent for the land hereinafter described ; and Whereas under the circumstances of the caae the decision of tho Secretary of

the Interior, in 1874, that she was not so entitled, was and is er!'oneous: There­fore, &c.

The amendment was concurred in. Mr. LAPHAM moved to reconsider the vote by which the amend­

ment of the Senate was concurred in ; and also moved that the mo­tion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to. ORDER OF BUSThTESS.

Mr. BURCHARD. I demand the regular order of business. The SPEAKER. The regular .order of business is the unfinished

business coming over from Thursday last, a bill (H. R. No. 4414) to ·amend the laws relating to internal revenue, reportedfrom the Com­mittee of Ways and Means, by the gentleman from Illinois, [~r. BURCHARD.]

Mr. ROB~RTS. Is that the regular order of busine~ this morning 1 The SPEAKER. It is, undoubtedly. Mr. ROBERTS. Some days since, in my absence, but perhaps I am

misinformed in regard to it, I understood the order of the Honse was that the consideration of the life-saving service bill should be first considered, and I supposed it was the 1·egolar order now.

The SPEAKER. It is n,ot the regular order, nor is it the next in order after the internal-revenue bill, which the gentleman from Illi, nois is now calling up. That bill is the unliniahed business, and next

4002 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JUNE 1,

to that for consideration is the interstate-commerce bill teported from the Committee on Commerce by the gentleman f.rom Texas, [Mr. REAGAN.]

Mr. ROBERTS. Is it in order for me to raise the question of con­sideration Y

The SPEAKER. It is. 1\Ir. YOUNG. Is it competent for me, Mr. Speaker, to move to go

into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union! The SPEAKER. It is. Mr. YOUNG. Then I submit that motion and ask unanimous con­

sent to make a brief statement, not to occupy more than two min­utes.

Mr. COX, of New York. I rise to a point of order. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. COX, of New York. The gentleman from Maryland is on the

floor raising the question of consideration. The SPEAKER. The Chair has taken notice of that ; . but the gen­

tleman from Tennessee asks unanimous consent to make a statement not to extend over two minutes.

Mr. COX, of New York. .A.nd not to interfere with the quest-jon of consideration raised by the gentleman from Maryland.

The SPEAKER. The question of consideration cannot be inter­fered with.

Mr. SAYLER. The gentleman from Tennessee has made a motion to go into f,he Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, which is a privileged motion. . Mr. YOUNG. I wish to make this statement: my purpose in mov­ing to go into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union is to reach one or two bills on the public Calendar. One is a bill which ought to be disposed of one way or the other. I will not un­dertake to say how gentlemen should vote on it, but I ask as a mat­ter of courtesy it be disposed of one way or the other, in order that an important work should go on. It is Senate bill No. 608, in refer­.ence to the Memphis post-office. I ask the Honse to go into commit­tee to consider that bill, and then to consider--

Mr. BURCHARD. When the gentleman gets the Honse into com­mittee he will have to lay aside all prior bills.-

Mr. YOUNG. That is what I propose to do. Mr. BURCHARD. And he could be antagonized with other bu&i­

ness, as was done the other day. . .Mr. YOUNG. I have no objection to that. . The SPEAKER. The motion of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. YOUNG] is in order. But the Chair understands that the gentle­man wants to make a condition with the Honse that after the Honse shall resolve itself into Committee of the Whole all other bills shall be laid aside until the bill in relation to the custom-house at Mem­phis and another bill indicated by the gentleman are reached. - Mr. YOUNG. It will not take more than twenty minutes to disposo of them.

The SPEAKER. That arrangement can only be made by unani­mous consent.

Mr. KELLEY. I must object to any arrangement of that kind, be­cause I want to sustain tho chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means in bringing the tariff to discussion and vote.

Mr. WOOD. The chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means require!! no aiel or assistance from the gentleman from Pennsylvania in regard to bringing up the tariff bill.

Mr. KELLEY. I object to any order being made that would inter­fere with that.

Mr. WOOD. I give notice that it is m:v intention to move that the ·House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the U uion for the purpose of proceeding with the consideration of the :tariff bill.

Mr. YOUNG. I insist on my motion that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, and I will raise the question of consid­·eration when we get there. . Mr. CHALMERS. I desire to make a parliamentary inquiry. The last business, I understand, was going to the Speaker's table. Does not that bring up as unfinished business the bill in relation to the !lot Springs reservation f _ The SPEAKER. There was ·a bill by unanimous consent taken from the Speaker's table, but the House bas not determined to go to business on the Speaker's table.

.Mr. ROBERTS. I ask the House to hear the proposition which I send to the desk. If it be agreed to I will waive the question of con­sideration in re~ard to the unfinished business.

The Clerk read as follows: That House bill No. 3988, to organize the life-saving service, shall be considered

on Monday evening noxt, beginning at half past seven, and the previous question to be considered as called on Tuesday after the morning hour, and not to be recon­sldere<l.

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent that that order be made. There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly. Mr. REAGAN. I ask that by unanimous consent the bill regulating

interstate commerce be considered on Wednesday evening, the pre­.vious question to be called after the morning hour on Thursday. . Mr. COX, of New York. I would liko to have it understood by the Honse that under the order just made there will be absolutely a wceting of the House on Monday evening. That was the intention of the gentleman from Maryland.

lli. CARLISLE. The order does not so pro~de in terms,

The SPEAKER. The House determines its own sessions. If an evening session was ordered for Monday the House might adjourn on that day at half past four o'clock, the effect of which would be to vacate tho order. The gentlemen interested must take notice, there­fore, to see that there is a recess on Monday.

Mr. BURCHARD. I hope the regular order will now be proceeded with. For my own part I have no objection to the proposition of the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. REAGAN.]

Mr. WILSON. I ask that there be a session of the House next Tues­day evening, and that it be set apart for the consideration of tho Mexican award bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Oregon. Let the gentleman's proposition be modified so that the House shall go into the Committee of the Whole on the Private Calendar, that the business thereon may be cleared off in its order.

Mr. YOUNG. Yon can raise the question of consideration after we get into Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER. The proposition of the gentleman from West Vir­ginia is to take the bill he has indicated out of the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. YOUNG. I did not so understand. What is the gentleman's mot.ion!

The SPEAKER. The proposition is that there be an evening ses­sion on Tuesday next at seven o'clock and thirty minutes p. m., the object being to take from the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union the Mexican award bill, for consideration in the Honse.

Mr. CONGER. To be considered as in Committee of the Whole f The SPEAKER. Yes. Mr. CONGER. Then it would be open to amendment. The SPEAKER. Yes, unless the House should determine otherwise

by seconding the previous question. Is there objection! .Mr. BAYNE. I object. • Subsequently, Mr. BAYNE withdrew his objection, and there being

no further objection, the order was made. • Mr. CALKINS. I desire to ask unanimous consent that it be ordered

that the House on Wednesday night, as in Committee of the Whole, shall consider the Private Calendar as on objection day.

Mr. FORT. We have been passing bills of that kind all the time and no opportunity has been given to consider other bills just as meritorious. I object.

Mr. BURCHARD. I insist on the regular order. The SPEAKER. The regular order is the motion of the gentle­

man from Tennessee [Mr. YoUNG] that theHouseresolveitsolf into Committee of the Whole on the state of tho Union.

The question being taken, there were-ayes 65, noes 63. Mr. HARRIS, of Virginia. I think gentlemen have voted under a

misapprehension. .A. number of gentlemen on my left belie\'ed they were going into Committee of the Whole to take up the bill of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. BURCIIARD] in reference to internal revenue.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state the question. The gentle­man from Tennessee moves that the House resolve itself into Com­mittee of the Whole on the state of the UIJion, and the gentleman has heretofore stated his object was to reach two bills, one of which relates to the construction of the custom-house at Memphis, Tennes­see.

Mr. HARRIS, of Virginia. That would take the gentleman from Illinois [.1\ir. BURCHARD] off the floor.

The SPEAKER. It would, because the bill of the gentleman from Illinois is being considered in the House as in Committee of- the Whole. If the motion is agreed to it would bring up the business of the Public Calendar in its regular order.

Mr. BURCHARD. Wha.t is the first business f 1\lr. CARLISLE. The first bill on the Calendar is the bill granting

pensions to Mexican soldiers. The SPEAKER. The first business that would bo brought up would

be the tariff bill, which is the first special order. · The question being put, there were-ayes 73, noes 83. Mr. YOUNG. I call for tellers. Mr. GARFIELD. Pending the motion that the Honse resolve itRelf

into Committee of the Whole I move that all general debate on the tariff bill be closed in two hours.

Mr. WOOD. I cannot agree to that. There are five members of the Committee of Ways and Means still to speak .

Mr. EDEN. I submit that the gent.leman from Ohio cannot make his motion while the House is dividing.

The SPEAKER. The point made by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. EDEN] is well taken. ThA question is on ordering tellers on the motion that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole.

Tellers were ordered; and ?tlr. YouNG and 1\Ir. BURCHARD were ap­pointed.

The House again divided; and the tell(}rs reported-ayes 82, noes 83.

So tbe motion of Mr. YOUNG was not agreed to. Mr. YOUNG. I then desiro to ask the unanimous consent of the

House that the bill be taken up and considered upon Wednesday evening next. [Cries of" Regular order."]

The SPEAKER. The regular order is demanded, and the Honse will resume the consideration of the unfinished business.

Mr. YOUNG. I hope the Chair will first put my request to the Honse. [Renewed cries of" Regular order."]

1878. CONGRESSIONAL REOOnD-HOUSE. 4003 AMENDMENT OF THE li~TER..lliAL~REVENUE LAWS.

The House resumed, as in CoJDmittee of the Whole on the state of the "Onion, (Mr. CARLISLE in the clutir as Speaker p1·o tempore,) the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 4414) to amend the laws relating to il)ternal revenue. ·

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The first question is upon the motion of the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. ScALEs,] to strike out the clause which the Clerk will now read.

The Clerk read a-s follows : .And when specially authorized so to do by the Commissioner, any internal-rev­

enue agent may exercise t.he power couferred by law upon collectors of internal revenue to examine persons, books, papers, accounts, and premises, to administer oaths, and to summon persons to produce books aud papers, or to appear an<l tes­tify undor oath before him, an<l to compel a compliance with such summons under tho provisions of section 3175, which are hereby made applicable to cases of dis~ bed1ence of any summons issued under this section.

Mr. GARFIELD. If I can be allowed to say a single word I would suggest that there may be cases where the collector himself is sus~ pected of wrong~doing or neglect of duty, and I sng~est that not to give the Commissioner this power is to crinple him m the perform­an::e of his duties. It seems to me that this provision ought to be retained in the bill. -

:Mr. DEAN. This provision is intended to -give the internal-reve­nue agents the right to enter the premises and examine the books and compel witnesses to appear, ~nd under section 3175 of the Revised Statutes to punish for contempt every person whom they may think does not comply with their orders. It seems to me that that is a great power to give to any internal-revenue agent that the Commis­sioner may see fit to send.

The question was put on Mr. SCALES's motion; and on a. division there were-ayes 48, noes 42.

No further count being insisted upon, the motion was agreed to. Tile Clerk resumed the reading of the bill, and reacl as follows: That section 3152 be amended by adding to such section the following: The agents whose employment is authorized by thi.~ section shall be known and

designated as internal-revenue agents, and they shall have all the powers of entry and examination conferred upon any officer of internal revenue by sections 3177, 32i6, 3277\3286, and 3318 of tho Revised Statutes; and all the provisions of said sec­tions, incmding those imposing fines, forfeitures, penalties, ot· other punishments for the enforce~IM~nt thereof, are hereby made applicable to the action of internal­revenue agents, in the same manner as if such agents were spechUy named in each of said sections.

Mr. SCALES. I move, in lines 91 and 92, to strike out the words, "thirty-two hundred and seventy-six." That section of the Revised Statutes reads as follows:

SEc. 3276. It shall be lawful for any revenue officer at all times, as well by night as bv day, to enter into any distillery or building or place used for the lmsiness of dist:illing, or used in connection therewith for storage or other purposes, and to examine, gauge, measure, and ta.ke an account of every still or other vessel or utensil of any kind, and of all low-wines, and of tho 9.uanti.ty and gravity of all mash, wort. or beer, and of all yeast, or other compositions for exciting or produc­ing fermentation in any mash or beer, of all spirits and of all materials for making or distilling spirits, which may be in any such distillery or premises, or in posses­sion of the distiller. And whenever any internal-revenue vffict'r, or any ~rson called by him to his aid, is hindered, obstructoo, or prevented by any diRtiller or by any workman, or other person acting for such distiller, or in his employ, from entering into any such distillery or building or place as aforesaid; or any such offi­cer is by the distiller, or his workman, or any person in his employ, prevented or hindered from, or opposed, or obstructed, or molested in the performance of his duty under the internal·Tevenue laws, in any respect, the distiller shall forfeit the sum of $1,000. And whenever any olbcer, having demanded admittance into a dis­tillery or distillery, premises, and having declax:ed his name and office, is not admit­ted into such distillery or premises by the distiller or other person having charge thereof, it shall be lawful for snell officer at all times, as well by n ight as by day, to break open by force any o£ the doors or windows, or to break through any of the walls of such distillery or premises necessary to be broken open or throu11:h, to enable him to onter the said distillery or premisoa; and the distiller shall forfeit the sum of Sl,OOO.

The object of this amendment is not to give these agents that p~wer. The collectors and deputy collectors already have it, and I do not want agents, appointed by the Commiss·oner of InternalRevenne, to have the right to go to a man's business place at any hour of the day or night without a warrant, whether be be honest or dishonest, and ex­amine his place of business, and therefore I move to strike out those words.

Mr. BURCHARD. The gentleman might as well offer an amend­ment to dispense entirely with these officers.

Mr. SCALES. Will not the amendment leave the ·Iaw as it is nowf There are already certain officers who have this power now. I do not want to add to the number who have the power; I think there is as much power in the hands of the officers of the Internal-Revenue

· department as they ong}lt to have. . Mr. BURCHARD. The clause which we haYe just passed and

which the committee agreed to strike out, gave to the agents, to tho same extE'nt the collector now has it, the power to administer oaths and to examine persons, books, papers, &c. This simply gives power to the agents to enter upon tho promises of the distiller, for instance, or the brewer, or the tobacco manufacturer, or any establishment for the manufacture of the articles upon which we collect our taxes. And this proposes to allow these special agents, these officers whose bnsiness it is to detect frauds, to go upon the premises, to enter upon theru and make an examination there, and I can see no objection to giving that power. Probably the agent has the power now, but in order that it may be definite, that no manufacturer shall say to an officer who represents the Internal-Revenue llureau that the law does

. not expressly say you shall go upon my premises, we put it in the law in expr-ess terms, and I cannot see why an officer whose business

it is to examine and detect violations of law shall not be permitted to go upon the premises and make the examinations necessary for such detection.

Mr. SCALES. Just one word. 'l'he only difference between the gentleman and myself is tbi~ Some of the officers of tho Internal­Uevenue department have under the existing statuto this power, and the gentleman asks that the same power shall be given to such agents as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall hereafter ap­point. I am willing that it shall remain as it is, that every'revenue officer now provided for by law shall have such power, but I am un­willing that every officer who shall be appointed, not by law but under the regulations of the Department by the Commissioner as a detective or spy, as an agent, shall have the power at any time, under any circumstances, at any hour of the night or day to go upon a man's premises and look into his business. No man is exempt. It is not necessary that there shall be probable cause, but every man is held liable, at any time, to have one of these agents come down upon him. I think for the sake of the revenue service that we ought to stop this thing. The law is odious enough now and I trust Congress will mod­ify it.

Mr. CANNON, of lllinois. I want to know bow I shall vote upon this question, and therefore I make the inquiry in good faith of the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. ScALES.] This provision says that these agents shall have all the powers of entry and examination that are conferred upon any officer of the internal revenue by section 3276 of the Revised Statutes. If I unders,tand the gentleman cor­rectly, he objects to this power being given to internal revenue agents. As I understand it the power is already given--

Mr. SCALES. To the other officers. Mr. CANNON, of Illinois. To certain other officers. Mr. SCALES. Now provided by law. Mr. CANNON, of Illinois. This bill proposes to give the power to

certain other officers, so that there may be a check not only upon a distiller but upon a dishonest officer providing any such should exist. It does not confer additional powers but confers the same powers upon additional officers, if I understand the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. BURCHARD.] And it is proposed to give this power to those additional officers in order to detect any officer who may enter into collusion with the distiller. Am I oorrect in that 'f

Mr. SCALES. It confers additional powers on a new set of officers. Mr. BURCHARD. These agents are already provided by law. ln

section 3152 the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is authorized to assign "any such officer to duty under the direction of any officer of internal revenue, or to such other special duty as he may deem nec­essary."

Now we propose in this bill to define what powers shall be exer~ cised by these agents ; what they may do under this section of the Revised Statutes, to more clearly point out and def;ine their powers. I am inclined to think they already have this power; that the Com­missioner of Internal Revenue can specially asE>ign them to.-dnty to go upon·thepremisesof all distillers, and that they do go upon these premises now. But that there may be no question about it we thong bt that it should be exactly defined and stated in the revision of the revenue laws to :which this bill relates. Every other officer has the power, the storekeeper, the ganger, and the other officers, anditseemed to us that these agents should also have the power.

?tfr. DEAN. As I understand, 'from the statement of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. BuRCHARD,] the Commissioner of Internal Revenue now has authority by a special deputation to authorize one of these agents to visit the premises of a distiller and to make an examination, and to do the various other things tha:t are mentioned in these several sections of the Revised Statutes.

Now there are twenty-five of these agents, and this proposed amend­ment of the Revised Statutes is to givo these twenty-five agents author­ity to go wherever they see :fit, to make any examination ·tbey see fit, to enter any premises they see fit, by night or by day, and to do so without any special direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Now it seems that if prenilses are to be entered by one of these agents he should have the special authority of the Commis­sioner for that purpose; and that these twenty-five agents should not be given a roaming commission to go over the_ country and enter any premises, by night or by day, that they may see :fit to enter.

Mr. TUCKER. Before my friend from North Carolina [Ur. ScALEs] took the floor and moved his amendment, I had proposed to move an amendment to section 3152 of tho Revised Statutes. 'On Thursday la-st there was some objection made to these internal-revenue agents, because of the source of their authority and appointment .• I propose to amend section 3152 of the Revised Statutes by inserting in line 2, after the word "require," the words " with the approval of the Sec­retary of the Treasury;" so that it will read :

The Commbsioner of Internal Revenue ma.y, whenever in his judgment the ne­cessities of tho service shall require, 'vith tho approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, employ competent agents, not exceeQ.ing at any time twenty-five in num­ber, &c.

There is no power given by this bureau to these internal-revenue agents beyond. that which is given under the present law to other revenue officers. I suggest to my friend from North Carolina [Mr. SCALES] that there is no serious objection to the provision which is proposed here; that the~:e internal-revenue agents, who are accessory to the business of the collector, should he authorized to enter upon these premises and make the examination that may be necessary. I

4004 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JUNE 1,

do not see any real objection to that. But I will move the amend­ment which I have indicated to section 3152 of the Revised Statutes.

The CHAIRMAN. •The amendment of the gentleman from Virginia. [Mr. TUCKER] is not now in order. The quest.ion is now upon the amendment of tho gentleman from North Ca.rolin:1, [Mr. SCALES.]

Mr. AIKEN. I wish to call the attention of the House to one or two points that I think will induce a majority to approve the amend­ment of the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. SCALES.]

That amendment is necessary, Mr. Speaker, if it serves only the purpose of checking and curbing revenue officers in the exercise of the authority now conferred upon them by law.

There is no section of the Union in which the undue exercise of a. little power has created greater confusion in communities and brought more opprobrium upon the people than in my own district. All the viobtions of the revenue laws that have been charged upon my con­stituents are based simply upon the bet that tho representatives of the Government there have never for one moment questioned their own authority to trespass upon the rights and premises of any and everybody, be they innocent or guilty. They never consider the constitutional requirement of having things done according to law; that they must have a warrant or writ, or some other official paper, authorizing their entering upon private premises to arrest, if need be, to handcuff, shackle, or strike down the citizen whom they charge as guilty of violating the revenue laws of the land. But a short time ago, sir, if the local press is to be credited, one of my constituents, lying ill of disease, was taken by force and arms from his sick-bed and carried to a colU, cheerless jail, ancl there incarcerated without even the comforts of a bed, because he was charged by on~ of these repre­sentatives of the Internal-Revenue department with violating the revenue laws. There was no warrant issued or other official p:1per shown authorizing such conduct on the part of this agent of the Government.

Sir, the local newspapers received but yesterday tell mo that an out­law from an adjoining Commonwealth, who haM been charged with frequent violation of the revenue laws, and oven with the crime of mmder in my own district, is confined in one of the jails there and put on exhibition, as Barnum would exhibit the hairy man, by one of these revenue officers as a curiosity because they accuse him of having violated the-revenue laws time aml again. I do not protencl to rlefend any such creature, and while I believe the full me<tSure of legal punishment should be meted out to him, I can but feel that be should be held a-s innocent until proven guilty, and no agent of the Government should bo allowed to violate the law by thus inflicting ·an illegal and unjust punishment.

An incident that came under my personal observation, and is not related from hearsay, will illustrate the arbitrary conduct of these revenue agents in executing the law. Two summers ago two strangers came to the county seat of my county, where there :ue over twenty stores, and going into every store asked for samples of tobacco. The merchants supplied them, and after testing the quality of each handed back the samples, which were thrown by the merchants toward the boxes from which they were taken. Some were thrown into the boxes, but others fell upon the shelves upon which the boxes were respectively placed. The revenue law requires the merchant to keep the manufactured tobacco in boxes upon which the stamps are seen. In this instance all those eases were noted in which the pieces of tobacco were thrown by the merchant toward the boxes but dld not reach the box, only fa.lling and remaining on the shelf outside of the box. The next morning each of these merchants, and I think there were eight of them, were arrested for violation of the revenue laws and canied off to Columbia, one hundred and five miles distant, and arraigned before a United States judge, who demanded that this willful infraction of the law could only be appeased by the payment of from one to two hundred dollars by each of these merchants. That is the way your revenue laws are administered and executed in por­tions of my district, an<l such instances are of frequent, almost daily occurrence.

[Here the hammer fell.] Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Speaker, no man can feel more indignation

than I do at the recital of outmges of this kind upon personal liberty. Dut such things have nothing•to do with the particular provision 11ow under consideration. If a collector or any other internal-reve­nue officer of the Government undertakes to arrest and incarcerate a man without warrant of law, he is a violator of the law and is amen­able to civil or criminal action. But nothing in this particular clause has anything to do'with this objection which my friend from South Carolina [Mr. AnmN] has urged. The only question is whether power shf)nld be given to any other than the collector of internal revenue to enter upon the premises where the distilling is going on. I realize the magnitude of the power which is given to these internal revenue officers in reference to entering the premises of the distiller; but this is an essential incident of the internlll-revenue system. If we are to have a system under which we lay interna-l taxes n pon distilled spirits, then every distillery must be under tho supervision of the Govern­ment. I <lo not see how you are to get rid of the evils connected with t4o oKei'cise of power unless you abolish the entire system. If gen­tlcmeq. are prepP,>reQ. to dQ that, let them ofier.an umemlment to that ~ffect j but if the system is tQ gQ on1 it must go on in such a way that men shall not distill whisky witho~t pn.ying"the ta~ upon it.

Mr. PRIDEMORE. Will ~y colleague fl>llow ~e to ask him whether this bill pmvides anywhere foF tile pompulspry appo~t,_x;le~t

of commissioners, so that parties arrested may be examined in the vicinity where the alleged offense has been committed T

.Mr. TUCKER. I will_ state to my colleague that when we come to the provision on that subject he will find that nobody is authorized to arrest any alleged violator of the law except (as could be done at common law) for the single purpose of taking the party beforo a United States commissioner to inquire into the offense. :My friend from Illinois [Mr. BURCHARD] will remember that such a provision was inserted at my instance.

Mr. PRIDEMORE. As my colleague has control of this bill, I want to call his attention to an evil connected with the administration of the present law. It is true that parties charged with violation of the law are now carried before commissioners; but in many instances the court will not appoint commissioners save at certa,in points, aml I know that frequently men are carried fifty, sixty, or even one hun­died and twenty-five miles for the purpose of examination.

Mr. TUCKER. If my colleague will wait till we come to the pro­vision relating to that subject- I will explain all that bas been dono in reference to it. No such evil is sanctioned by this bill. I think I can satisfy my colleague on that point.

Mr. SCALES. I call the attention of my friend from Virginia to the fact that urider the existing law none other than a collector can do what it is proposed to allow these a-gents to do. I think we have enough of these revenue officers already.

:Mr. TUCKER. What other officers than the collector does the gen­tleman refer to T

Mr. SCALES. These agents. Mr. TUCKER. According to the law as it now stands these agents

appointed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue have the right to go upon the premises.

Mr. SCALES. If they have such power-and I do not think they hav-e-it should be struck out.

Mr. TUCKER. Do I understn.nd my friend to say that the provis­ion of section 3176 gives power to other revenue officers than the collector f ·

Mr. SCALES. The question is, what does that mean-whether it me:1ns an officer provided by law or a mere agent sent out Y

Mr. TUCKER. But is not t.be a,gent provideu by law Y Mr. SCALES. Yes, sir; but--Mr. TUCKER. Section 3152 provides for agents as a part of the

present law. We propose to amend that provision. Mr. SCALES. Does my friend mean to say that an agent is an

officer 7 Is that one of the officers referred toT Mr. TUCKER. Well, sir, I really would not go into ihat interpre­

tation. I asked my friend from North Carolina what other internal­revenue officer there was than the collector, and he answered these agents. .

Mr. SCALES. The collector and the deputy collector. Mr. TUCKER. Of course the deputy collector can do it. Mr. SCALES. He can go out any time. Mr. DEAN. I desire to call attention to the fact that by section

3152 the CommiRsioner may, at his discretion, appoint any such agent to duty under the direction of any officer of the inte1·nal revenue, or to such other special duty as he may deem necessary. Now, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue under this section 3152 assigns a specific duty to an agent in his discretion. He bas some examination previously, and having bad his examination, having obtained his information, be is then assigned to specific duty under the direction of a revenue officer. The Commissioner assigns that agent to some specific duty. The trouble with this section as now attempted to be amended is tbat it gives all this power to every one of these twenty­five a~ents without any examination by tho Commissioner, and with­out •his specially assigning them to any particular duty whatever. It establishes twenty-1ive additional agents clothed with thepowers of the Commissioner of Interna.l Revenue to roam around the conn­try mak:ing these seizures and these examinations, controlled only by their own discretion.

The Honse divided; and there were-ayes 51, noes 51. :Mr. SCALES demanded tellers. Tellers were ordered; and .Mr. TucKER and Mr. SCALES were ap-

pointed. · The House again divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 66, noes 65. So the amendment was adopted. The question next recurred on .Mr. TucKER's amendment; which

was read, as follows: · In line 2 of section 3152 of the Revise<l Sta.tutes, af,ter the word "re11uire "insert

"with the approval of the Secretary of the Trerumr.v- ;" so that it will read: The Commissioner of Internal r..evenue may, wllenever in hisjud~ent the ne­

cessities of the service shall require, with t1io approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, employ competent agents, ~c.

Mr. TUCKER. The purpose of the amen<lment is to re<1uire these revenue agents to be appointed with the appro\a1 of tllo Secretary of the Treasury a.s well as of the· Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

The amendment was agreed to. The Clerk read as follows: And all the provisions of sections 3167, 3168, <tn<l3t71 of tho Revised Statuted

shall apply to internal-revenue agents as fully as to internal-revenue offioors.

Mr. STEELE. I move the following amendment. The Clerk read as follows: That section 1046, chapter 16, of tho Revise<l Statutes of the United St.ates bo

amended EO as to strike out from the second line thereof the words "the revenue

1B78. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4005 laws or ;" so the samo shall refer to and includo only violations of the law on the subject of the slave trade.

Mr. TUCKER. To what section is that an amendment f Mr. STEELE. It comes in as properly here as anywhere in the

bill. Mr. TUCKER. But whn.t section is it proposed to amend T Mr. STEELE. Section 1016. The SPEAKER. Section 1046 is referred to in tho amendment. Mr. STEELE. Chapter 16, section 1046. Mr. BURCHARD. I hope the gentleman will not offer it here, as

it is not germane to this part of the bill. Mr. STEELE. They do not touch that section of the bill, so far as

I can find, and this amendment is quite as applicable here as any­where else.

Mr. BURCHARD. I make the point of order that it is not ger­mane. If in order to any part of the bill, I hope the gentleman will not offer it here.

Mr. TUCKER. I ask that the amendment be again read, as I have t.he Revise(l S~atutes before me and I c:1.n see precisely what the amendment refers to.

'I'he amendment W'lB again read. Mr. BURCHARD. Why, Mr. Speaker, that is evidently not ger­

mane. Mr. STEELE. Is not germane f [Laughter.] Why, sir, accord­

ing to t.hat,_ then, all the propositions of tho gentleman from Illinois to put limitations upon theRev!sed Statutes in other sections are not germano to this bill any more than mine.

Mr. WRIGHT. Tell him what you mean by "germane." Mr. STEELE. I do not know except it is first cousin to Germn.ny.

[Laughter.] Now, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, I apprehend the proposition

I submit is quite as proper to this portiol1 of the bill as to any other. The whole o~ject i~::~ to put violations of the internal-revenue law of tho United States upon exactly the sn.me pla11e with violations of other revenue laws. I see no reason why, when, under the laws of this country a felony is committed against the United States, so it is not murder, the sta.tute of limit:1tions applies after three years, there should be an exception made in reference to violations of internal­revenue laws so as to provide the statute of limitations should not be~in to run nntil after five years. There is no justice in it.

Mr. TUC~R. I think the gentleman has mistaken the meaning of the section, and I say in all deference to his judgment I insist on tho point of order that the amendment iS not germane.

Mr. BL"'RCHARD. The gentleman from North Carolina proposes to amend the statute of limitations, and he proposes to · offer that amendment in reference to the stat.ute of limitations to a section in

· relation to the appointment of internal-revenue agents. 1\fr. STEELE. ~o, I do not. Mr. BURCHARD. How he can make them ns near kin as second

cousins I do not know. [LauO'hter.] 1\fr. STEELE. If the gentleman will excuse me, I desire to say

that I have not proposed to add this to a section at all, but I have proposed to make it a separate and independent proposition.

Mr. BURCHARD. That shows it is still more out of order. Not being germane it cannot bo interpolated here.

Mr. STEELE. It certainly ought to come in somewhere or other. Mr. TUCKER. I vm say to my friend from North Carolina that

if his amendment prevailed it would leave a man who violated the internal-revenue law liable to prosecution without any limitation whatever.

¥I'· STEELE. Not at all, sir. Mr. TUCKER. That is the effect of the gentleman's proposition. ~fr. STEELE. I . dislike to get into a controversy with the gentle-

man from Virginia. on the subject of law, but he has evidently mis­taken the effect of my amendment.

.Mr. TUCKER. The section which the gentleman from North Car­olina proposes to amend is as follows:

S~tc . 1046. No person shall be prol'lecuted, tried, or punished for any crime aris­ing under the rcvenuo Jaws, or tho slave· trade laws of the United States, unless tho inilictmont is found or the information is instituted within five years next aftjer tho committing ~f such crime. ·

Now be proposes to strike out the words" the revenue laws or," so as to have no limitation on the prosecution of offenses against the revenue Jaws. I am against that, for I want a limit to be maintained.

Mr. STEELE. If the gentleman will examine one or two of the sections immediately preceding seotion 1046, he will ~ee that there is ample provision about the limitation. The liruit will be fixed at two years under the general statute. I invite the gentleman to examine those sections.

Mr. DEAN. If tbe gentleman from Virginia will read section 1044 be will see the limit will be two years, provided lrhis amendment passes. Instead of throwing aw~y all limitation the amendment wm simply reduce tho limit to two instead of five years.

The SPEAKER pro tcrnpm·e. Does the gentleman from Illinois in­sist on his point of order¥

Mr. BURCHARD. I do. Mr. TUCKER. On examining the section I find that my friend

from North Carolina [Mr. STEELE} is right. I candidly admit it. llut I would suggest to him to bold his amendment to a later period of the bill. Thero aro some pro-visions in the latter p~t of the bill

to which his amendment will be more germane. Just at this partic­ular timo I do not t.hiuk the amendment is germane . . Mr. S~EELE. I thoorrht my friend from Virginia when he exam­rned a httle furthe-r wou~d agree thn.t his first posit.ion was incorrect.

Mr. TUCKER. I have so admitted. Mr. STEELE. Tho gentleman has so admitted, as a gentleman

under such circumstances always will. nut with very great respect for the opinions of the gentleman from Virginin.-and certainly I en­tertain a very high respect for him and his opinions-it occurs to me that. this amen~ent is jnst as proper to be ~ffered hero as in any portiOn of the bill. I havo endeavored to exa.mmo the bill as well as I could, to ascertain where the amendment would best como in, and I think it will come in just as well here as anywhere.

Mr. TUCKER. If ruyfriend will look at pngo 25of the bill he will ~ncl that there is a provision in reference to tho criminal procedures m these cases. If he attaches his amendment to section 9 of tho bill i~ ~ill be more germane than here. I have no objection to tho propo­sition. If the gentleman desires to mako the Jimitation on these prosecutions two years I am perfectly willing; but the amendment does not properly como in here.

Mr. STEELE. Using the word which has become classical here I do not desire to be in antagonism to the gentleman from Virginia' and therefore I yiolu and for the present withdraw the amendment:

Mr. TUCKER. I offer the following amendment: In line 101, after "3168," insert "3169 ; " so that it will read: And all tho provisions of sections 3167, 3168, ::1169, and 3l7L of the Rovised St.at­

ut~ shall apply to internal-revonuo agents as fully as to internal·revenue officers. Mr. SCALES. That is right. Mr. BURCHARD. If t.ho agents that are mentioned in this pam­

graph are not subject to the provisions of section 3169 they ought to be. The reason we did not include that section in tho bill was that the word " agent" occurs a.lready in that section. The language is:

Every officE'r or agent appointed and acting under the authority of any revenue law of the United Statos.

I supposed they were included in the section; but I have no objec-tion to t.he amendment. •

Mr. SCALES. I think it is 1ike1y the gentleman from Illinois is right. Still I believe it would do no harm, as the othor sections are cited, to put that in also.

The amendment was agreed to. · Mr. MILLS. I offer the amemlment which I send to the desk. The Clerk read as follows: Add after lino 104 the following: That from and after the passage of this act distillers, rectifiers, and wholesale

liquor dealers shall not be required to k eep on the outside of their establishments any sign showing their occupation, as herbtofore.

Mr. TUCKER. To what section of the Revised Statutes does the amend!!}ent of the gentleman from Texas apply f

Mr. MILLS. To section 3269. My attention has been called to a circumstance occurring in my own town since I have been here--

Mr. TUCKER. If t.he gentleman will allow me to interrupt him, I will say that he will find the sections are amended in the order in which they occur in the Revised Statutes. If he brings in now n.n amendment to section 3269, it will be out of place.

Mr. MILLS. If the gentleman will indicate the time at which be will consider my amendment in order, I will withdraw it for the present.

The Clerk resumed the reading of the bill :md read the following paragraph: ·

That section 3165 be amended by inserting in line 4, after the words "by law," the words "or regulation."

Mr. SCALES. I move to amend by striking out the words "or reg­ulation."

Mr. TUCKER. I offer, as an amendment to the amendment, to in­sert after the word "regulation" the words "authorized by law."

Mr. SCALES. If the gentleman from Virginia has nothing to say in support of his amendment, I propose to antagonize it.

Mr. TUCKER. My reason for offering the amendment is this: thoro are a number of cases in the internal-revenue laws where it is pro­vided that certain things Rhall be dono under certain rules and reg­ulations to be prescribed by the Seeft'J;ary of tho Treasury or by tho Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Now wherever those regulations are authorized by law I think they ought to be considered as having the force of law; but where they are regulations that are J:\Ot author­ized by law then I do not think that conformity to them should be insisted upon. I therefore propose to add the words "authorized by law," in order to bring them within the scope of those provisions which aut.horize regulations to be made by the Department under the authority of law.

:Mr. SCALES. Now, :Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the amend­ment of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Tucrum] meets my objec­tion at all, or that there is really any necessity for it. I take it that the word "regulations," without his amendment, means regulations provided by law. My objection to it is ,this: that they propose to amend section 3165 of tho Rovised Statutes, and I propose to read that section in order that the House may understand what this amend­ment means and why I propose to strike it out:

Every collector, deputy collector, and inRpector is authorized to administer oaths ana to ta.ke eviucnco touching any part of the administration of the internal-rev­enue la.ws with which he is charged, or where such oaths and evidenco aro author­ized by la.w to be taken.

4006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JUNE 1,

Now this amendment proposes that this evidence shall be taken whenever the Commissioner of Internal Revenue makes a regulation, and biB power to make regulations in regard to these revenue laws is almost unlimited. He mtty make almost any regulation for the en­forcement of the law. Now, it iB goin~ quite far enough to say that evidence shall be taken and oaths admrnistered when they are taken and administered a~cording to law; but certainly it seems to me to be going too far when the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, by his mere ipse dixit, can aut.horize any agent under any circumstance to administer oaths or take any evidence he may desire. There is no necessity for this. I have nothing to say against the present occu­pant of the position of Commissioner of Internal Revenue, but I would not trust this power to anybody, and I see no reason why he should be allowed to have it. If it is necessary that he should ad­minister oaths or take this evidence let that be the law of the land, but do not let it rest in his power, by any regulation, to do what no one else can do, unless by the law of the land.

Now, I beg gentlemen to remember that this system of laws is very oppressive and burdensome to the citizens of this country. No such system was everwitnessed or experienced by the people before in the history of the Republic. It is exceedingly odious and oppressive, and, instead of making exacting and oppressive laws and regulations for the purpose of hounding down our citizens, I say it is the duty of the Government to reduce taxes and put it in the power of every man who engages in these industries to carry them on successfully and pay taxes to the Government, and then you will collect the taxes and collect them successfully. llut when yon put the taxes too high you encourage the running of the blockade, and when you encourage the running of the blockade you not only do that, but you oppress the people of the country, and for that reaBon I oppose it. I hope this power will not be left to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Mr. TUCKER. I am very sorry that the gentleman from North Carolina haB such grave objections to this amendment; I think I can satisfy him in regard to it. There are a number of cases in which the parties ask to have the tax remitted or to have the tax refunded, and pow4lr is given to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to do so under the rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury or by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue himself. I suppose he says, in order to satisfy his mind as to the claim of a party for the remission of tax, that the party shall make an affidavit. Js th~re anything violent in that 7 I can see no rea~on why a collector or a deputy collector shall not be allowed to take the affidavits of parties in such cases and furnish them to the Commissioner. The purpose of this section is to extend that power not only to cases in which the law now requires it, but to where the regulations in accord­ance with law admit it.

Mr. SCALES. But this amendment would allow him to take oaths and affidavits under all circumstances.

1\fr. TUCKER. I can say to my friend that I think he cannot point­and if he can I will go with him to eliminate this provision from the law-to any provision of law where a collector or the Commis­sioner of Internal Revenue has the right to compel a man to make an oath or to give evidence where the party declines to do so. There is but one way in which an officer can compel a party to do it, and that is by summoning him before a judicial officer and let the case undergo judicia.} investigation. Now, when a party wants relief, why should he not be allowed to take an oath or make an affiuavit for his own convenience. It seems to me that it is for his benefit and not for his burt.

Mr. SCALES. Is not the collector authorized to take oaths under the law as it is now f

Mr. TUCKER. Under the law, but not under the regulations of tho Department, and this amendment only proposes to extend it for that purpose.

Mr. SCALES. Have they not done it all the timeT Mr. TUCKER. No, they could not. l'rlr. LATHROP. As I understand it, it is the purpose of this

amendment merely to authorize tho administration of oaths to par­ties for their own benefit, which is not now authorized by law.

Mr. TUCKER. That is aU there is in it. There is no compulsion about the matter. My fricncl' frorn North Carolina is mistaken in supposing that there is something inquisitorial in this. I would be the last man in the world to vote for anything inquisitori3.1.

Mr. SCALES. I am the last man in the worJd to vest power in one man to administer oaths at his discretion, and if there be any neces­sity for it then I ask him to amend the law anrl not confer a power by regulations, for I tell him that that is one thing that makes the system so odious to the country.

Mr. TUCKER. It docs seem to me very strange that a system can be odious which cannot compel a man to take an oath unless he wants to take it.

Mr. DENISON. This is a provision for the benefit of the tax­payer

Mr. TUCKER. Certainly it is. Mr. BURCHARD. The law in different statutes in general terms

gives the Commissioner of Internal Revenue certain general powers; 1'or instance, t.be power to abate, to remit., or to refund a tax under such rules and regulations as be may prescribe. The law does not say anything about how ho shall satisfy himself; it docs not provide that ho shall require tho oath of the party, but if he chooses be can

take the mere statement of the party. But regulations have been adopted in the Customs Bureau and in the Internal-Revenue Bureau requiring the parties to submit proofs verified by their own affida\'its or by the statements of witnesses and other persons. ,

Now this bill proposes, for the convenience of tho service, that a collector or deputy.collector shall be authori74ed to administer that oath, no such provision now being in the law. It proposes to author­ize the officer to administer the oath required. It is for the conven­ience of the tax-payer who goes to the collector's office, to have the oath there administered, and not impose upon him the necessity of going before a justice of the peace, a notary public, or other officer authorized by the State or United States laws to administer oaths. There is no compulsion in it Whatever. It only authorizes these offi­cers to administer oaths when the regulations require that oaths shall be administered and affixed to the proof that is forwarded.

The question wa-s taken npon the amendment of Mr. TucKER, to insert after the word "regulation," in line 112, the words, " author­ized by law;" and it was agreed to.

The Clerk resumed the reading of the bill, and rea.d the following: That section 3171 be amended by striking out" for or on account of any act by

him dono," and inserting "in tho discha.rg~ of his duty." 1\fr. DIBRELL. I movo to amend by inserting, after the para­

graph j nst read, that w bich I send to the Clerk's desk. The Clerk read as follows: All indictments or snits commenced in any State court against any collector,

special agent, or deputy collector of internal revenue, for viola.lion of law, shall be prosecuted to its termination in sa.id court, and shall not be transferred to a United States court.

:Mr. BURCHARD. I reserve the point of order upon the amend­ment.

Mr. DIBRELL. I would like to know what is the point of order. I hope the amendment will be adopted. It is customary in these rev­enue departments when an agent or deputy commits a wrong ancl is indicted in a State court to transfer the case to a Federal court, which requires the witnesses to go sometimes a hundred miles or more, and poor people are unable to attend; and the result is that the par­ties are turned loose. This amendment will allow a case to be pros­ecuted in the State courts, and I hope gentlemen will not object to it.

Mr. BURCHARD. Does it limit the transfer of cases to this par­ticular class of offenses T I understood that it was a general pro­vision.

1\fr. DIBRELL. It is for all violations of Jaw. Mr. BURCHARD. I understand it to be an amendment to the gen­

eral statute of the United States relating to courts aml the removal of causes from State courts to United States courts; if I remember aright, a part of the judiciary act.

1\lr. SCALES. I rise to a point of order. The SPEAKER p1'o tempore. The gentleman will state it. Mr. SCALES. I made a. motion to strike out and the gentleman

from Virginia [Mr. TucKER] moved an amendment to perfect the part which I proposed to strike out.

The SPEAKER pro ternpm·e. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. SCALES] diu not call for a. vote on his amendment after tho amendment of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. TucKER] w-as adopted. The Chair supposed that the amendment of tho gentleman from North Carolina w~:mld accomplish little if anything, as it was to strike out the words "or regulation." If the gentleman will move to strike out those words as well as those added his amendment would be e:ffecti ve.

Mr. SCALES. I move to strike out the words "or regulation au­thorized by law."

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question will then be taken upon that amendment.

1tlr. TUCKER. The gentleman had bettir move to strike out the whole paragraph as amended.

Mr. SCALES. That will be just a.s well, and I will do so. The question wa~ upon striking out the paragraph as amended, as

follows: That section 3165 be amended by inserting in line 4, after the words "by law,"

tl\e words "or regulation authorized b.v law." The question WaB taken upon the motion to strike out, and it was

not agreed to; upon a division, ayes 27, noes not counted. The question recurred npon the amendment of Mr. DIBRELL. Mr. HANNA. I submit to the gentleman moving this amendment

[Mr. DIBRELL] that he had better look with great care to tho ques­tion whether or not the State courts can take absolute jurisdiction of offenses of ·this sort. I apprehend when you come to Jook into tbe question that it will be found that he is attempting to confer juris­diction upon a tribunal that cannot take it. It seems t.o me, from the croppings out that we have hacl so far in tho discussion of this bill, and also in the discussion upon the Army bill, that iu certain sectiol1s of this country there is a determination tllat t.be revenue laws shall not be enforced. A few days ago the Army appropriation bill was amended by inserting a provision that the Army should in no wise be used as a police force. For what purpose was thatY It was that in certain localities the revenue laws shall not be enforced by the aid of the Army directly or indirectly.

1tlr. DIBRELL. Is the Army used now to enforce tho revenue lawsY

1tlr. HANNA. There may be a necessity in certain localities, in

1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4007 order to enforce the law and in the interest of public justice, that the Army be called on to aid in the enforcement of the revenue laws as of any other la.ws of the United States.

"\Ve know, as a matter of fact, that in given localities revenue offi­cers are shot down like dogs, simply because they are engaged in enforcing the law. Now, if you gentlemen desire to put yourselves upon record as against the enforcement of the revenue laws, then come out boldly and say so to the country, and not attempt to shirk the question by first providing that the Army shall not be used to enforce the revenue laws, and, secondly, by providing that revenue officers may be inclicted in t hese given localities and tried before tribunals that are in the interest of and are controlled by the public sentiment of those localities. That public sentiment, if I may judge by expressions used here, is against the enforcement of the revenue laws. Let us be fair and square upon this question.

1\Ir. DIBRELL. I want the gentleman to answer my question, whether the Army is now used to ~nforce the revenue Jaws. lie knows that it is not used for any such purpose, and that this stump speech which he has been making is like the one he made in regard to southern claims-that there is not a word of truth in what he bas said.

Mr. H~A. In reply to the gentleman I will say that if there­l10rts of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the statements published in demqcmtic newspapers in different localities are to be relied on, there has been necessity, time and again, for calling upon the Army to a.id in the enforcement of the revenue laws. And so far M I have said anything with reference to southern claims, I Rtand by every word I uttered. I am satisfied that what I stated was true, otherwise certain gentlemen would not '·jaw" over it so much as they have done.

Mr. MILLS. In reply to the point ma.de by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HANNA] about the jurisdiction of State courts, I will say that he is too good a lawyer to contend that a postmaster or other Federal officer in any of the States can be guilty of an assault and battery upon a citizen, or can steal a horse, or can commit murder, and claim to be exempt from trial in the State courts for such offenses. 'l'he point aimed at by my friend from Tennessee is, that where par­ties clothed with some official position as Federal officers steal prop­erty of citizens, kidnap them or murder them, or are guilty of false imprisonment, they shall be amenable in the State courts for their crimes, and not be torn from State jurisdictions to be sheltered under the protecting power of the Federal Government. My friend froD" Tennessee is aiming at the protection of citizens of the States.

When the gentleman asks us whether we will aid in having the laws enforced, whether we will submit to have the laws executed by the Army of the United States, I tell him boldly, for one, tha.t I will resist the enforcement of the civil law by the military power in any State where the operations of the courts are unobst-ructed.

This is a Government in which the military is subordinate to the civil power, and I do not recognize the right of any officer to call in the Army to execute the civil law so long as the courts . are free to administer it. Every solitary instance in which the armed power of the Government has been invoked to execute civil process has been a sham and a fraud. The real fact has been that in such cases the militar.v force has been used to rob and oppress the citizens. I am perfectly willing on this issue to meet any gentleman who objects to the opposition we make on this side to using the Army of the United States, ostensibly for the execution of civil process, but really to trample down the liberties and rights of the people.

Mr. FRYE. I would like to put a question t~ the gentleman from 'l'exa.s, [Mr. MILLS.] He seems to be replying to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HANNA] in relation to the removal of causes, and he alluded to the CaBe of a postmaster committing assault and battery or murder. I ask the gentleman whether he knows any law in Texas by which, when a postmaster commits murder, that case can be taken into the United States courts f

Mr. MILLS. I illustrated by that the a.bsurclity of the position of the gentleman from Indiana. I say that internal-revenue officers stand on no higher ground than postmasters do.

Mr. FRYE. I thought the gentleman was simply putting up pins to knock them down.

Mr. DIBRELL. If the gentleman wants to bear an instance I will tell him one. In my own district two weeks ago a collector killed a peaceable, quiet citizen; and I have introduced this amendment because I believe snch outrages should be tried in the State courts.

Mr. TUCKER. So far as regards a criminal prosecution against any collector or other United States officer in a State court, it is obvi­ous that such a case can never be removed to a Federal court; The very fact that the prosecution is for the violation of a State law shows that a Federal court can never try the case. Hence this part of the amendment is entirely unnecessary.

Mr. VANCE. Does not the gentleman know that under the prac­tice when revenue officers have killed meu the suits have been removed from the State courts to the Federal courts,T

Mr. TUCKER. When the prosecution was for murder T Mr. VANCE. Yes, sir. :Mr. TUCKER. Where did it ever occur f Mr. VANCE. It occurred in North Carolina. Mr. TUCKER. And who was the judge that ever made such a.

decision f He ought to be known. [~aughter.]

Mr. PRIDEUORE. I will tell my colleague from Virginia that in­his district--

Mr. TUCKER. Oh, I know the name of that judge. · Mr. PRIDEMORE. '!'here was an assault and battery committed by revenue officers--

Mr. TUCKER. I understand that. Mr. PRIDEMORE. Committed by revenue officers upon a citizen;

and that case was removed to the circuit court of the United States, where it became the duty of the prosecuting attorney to defend the criminals. I stood in court and saw the prosecuting attorne.v de­fending the criminals at the suggestion of tho Government of the United States. It is the practiCe in some circuits when revenue officers violate the criminal law to remove the cause to the circuit court where the criminals are defended by Government officers who should prosecute them.

Mr. TUCKER. If there was anything I did suppose would go through this House without excitement it was an internal-revenue bill. [A voice: "A very violent presumption."] I thought this was a thing there would be no trouble about, no party excitement, no excitement about the Army or anything of the kind. I do say upon my responsibility as a lawyer-and every man here will agree with me-that any judge of any court a.nywbero in or outside of Christen­dom who would decide that a prosecution in a State court under State law conld be removed to a Federal court ought to be impeached for ignorance or worse.

Mr. AIKEN. I will sa.y it has been done time and again in my con­gressional district by Judge Bond, of the United States district court.

Mr. TUCKER. I do not care who did it, my pronunciamento has gone out against it. [Laughter.]

Mr. AIKEN. What, then, does the gentleman meanT Mr. TUCKER. I mean to say no such cause can be tried in a Fed­

eral conrt. 1\Ir. MILLS. But they do try them. Mr. PRIDEMORE. If the gentleman from Virginia will allow me,

I wish to say it has been done in the State of Virginia. Mr. TUCKER. I do not mean to say it has not been done, but I

do say there is no law for it. Mr. PRIDEMORE. But how are yon going to end it f Mr. 'l'UCKER. I wili answer my colleague by saying that the man

who would do it now without any statute woulll do it with a statute. Mr. PRIDEMORE. Then put a penalty in the statute to reach the

•judge who violates the law. - Mr. TUCKER. The man who is either fool or knave enough to do it now, W'>nld do it in spite of your statute.

Mr. H.A RTRIDGE. Let me ask the gentleman from Virginia this question: If there is a constitutional provision in the Revised Stat­utes of the United States, why should we not strike it out T

Mr.. ELAM obt~ined the floor. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana is enti-

tled to the floor. Mr. TUCKER. But I rise to a personal explanation. [Laughter.J Mr. ELAM. I have the floor and will proceed. The SPEAKER 1n·o ternpore. The gentleman from Virginia has a

right to make a personal explanation. Mr. ELAM. I have been trying for half an hour to get the floor. Mr. TUCKER. I have no doubt, as my friend from Georgia sug­

gests, there are on the statute-books a groat many laws in reference to the removal of causes aml in reference to the trial of causes which have been passed within the last ten or fifteen years that he and I would agree were entirely unconstitutional; but that is not tile q nes­tion before us now. Those questions should be referred to the Com­mittee on the Judiciary, of which my friend from Georgia is a distin­guished member. ·

Mr. HARTRIDGE. 'l'he question is there now. Mr. 'l'UCK.ER. I would havethequestionrefeued totheJudiciary

Committee to have those laws stricken from the statute-book. But that has nothing to do with internal-revenue laws. "Let us return to onr mutton."

Mr. STEELE. Will my friend from Virginia allow me to give him a piece of information, for which he asked a while ago T

Mr. TUCKER. Yes, sir. Mr. STEELE. He said f,hat no such cause can be tried in a Fed­

eral court. Now, let me tell him it has been done in North Carolina. Mr. TUCKER. I have no doubt, sir--The SPEAKER pro ternpo1·e. The gentleman from Louisiana is en­

titled to the floor, and was only interrupted by the gentleman from Virginia. who rose to a personal explanation.

Mr. STEELE. I rise to a. :personal explanation, too. [Laughter.] The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana is en­

titled to the floor. 1\fr. TUCKER. Onr friends on the other side are really driving me

int.o a corner to defending all the outrages which they say ha.ve been done in the So nth the last ten or fifteen years ; I defend none of them, and I say the question has nothing to do with the internal-revenue bill now under consideration. •

Mr. MILLS. The gentleman had better come over to his own side of the House. [Laughter.] .

The SPEAKER p1·o tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana is en­titled to the floor. · Mr. EL.UI. Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the gentleman from

4008 CONGRESSION.A.L RECORD-HOUSEo JUNE i,

Virginia. There is no law or precedent authorizing the transfer of a case of criminal prosecution in a State court under a State law to a Federal court. A man who commits assault and battery in any St.ate of this Union, or larceny, or murder, or violates any provision of the criminal law of a State, cannot have his case transferred to a Federal court. If a party is indicted for violation of a Federal law, then the prosecution must originate in the Federal court unless" by the terms of the statute jurisdiction is also conferred by the State court. There are cases where jurisdiction is concurrent. Where prosecution in a State court, commenced in a State court, and prosecuted under State laws, has been transferred by .ignorant or corrupt judges it is idle to give that as an instance for the purpose of establishing a legal prop­osition.

Mr. PRIDEMORE. Will the gentleman let me ask him a ques­tion f ; Mr. ELAM. No, sir; not now. ;_ If prosecutions of that kind have been carried on, they are against the law, and, as the gentleman from Virginia has well said, no. pro­vision in a statute of this kind would prevent the recurrence of them. There was no warrant of law for it then, and there is no warrant of law for it now. And, while I sympathize with the feeling which the gentleman from Tennessee has in view, I am constrained to say I do not believe there is any necessity for this provision in the bill or in any other statute of t!le United States, because there is no statute which now authorizes it.

Mr. DIBRELL. It is not thirty clays since a case of that kind occurred in the middle uistrict of. Tennessee, a case of assault and battery which was transferred from the State court to the Federal court.

M.r. ELAM. When it comes to be tried in a Federal court, if tried by a competent judge, he will decide the trn.nsfer is illegal.

Mr. DIBRELL. '!'ben my amendment will do no harm. 1\ir. ELA.M. It will do no good. Does the gentleman propose to

alter the whole judiciary system of the United States by an amend­ment like this t

Mr. RIDDLE. -The case referred to by my colleague [Mr. DIB­RELL] occurred in my own district. A revenue officer was charged with assault and battery, and under section 643 of . the Revised Statutes upon the filing of a petition by tho defendant after an in­dictment against him in the State court, of which the State court after an elaborate argument decided it bad jurisdiction, upon a cer-. ti01·ad from the district or circuit court of the United States, I do not remember which, the case was tmnsferretl from the State court to the Federal court at Nashville, Tennessee. Judge N. W. McConnell was tho circuit judge who presided in the State court. This occurred in Macon County in my own district. .

The Sf\EA.KER pro tempo1'e. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. ELAM] bas expired.

Mr. ELA.M. I would like to have my time extended for a few mo­ments.

Mr. HA.NNA. obtained the floor and yielded his time to Mr. ELAM. Mr. ELA.M. I am much obliged to the gentleman from Indiana.

I would like if gentlemen who are citing these instances would show mo some Jaw or some adjudged case in a United States court, or at least in a respectable State court, tilat authorizes any such transfer. · Mr. PRIDEMORE. If the gentleman will allow me I will show him the law. There is a statute that allows the removal of these cases to the United States courts when the revenue officer is engaged in the discharge of his official duty. I tell the gentleman there is a law. Here it is. [Holding up the Revised Statutes.]

1\ir. ELAM. I cannot yield further to the gentleman. That is not the question before the House. The gentleman says, as I understand him, there is a statute that authorizes the transfer of a. criminal pros­ecution from a State court to the United States court where a revenue officer is wounded ·or injured in the prosecution of his business or in the exercise of the duties of his office. That does not belong to the cla-ss of cases that have been referred. to by my friend. from Tennes­see and by the gentleman on my left.

The case the amendment of · the gentleman from Tennessee would reach would be this: that where a prosecution is regularly and law­fully commenced in a State court for the violation of a Stato law for assault and battery, murder, &c., by au internal-revenue officer it should. not be transferred to a United. States court . . Now I say there is no necessity for any such law, for according to law the trial could not be transferred in any such case.

Mr. BURCHARD. I insist on the point of order I made~ Mr. PRIDEMORE. Will the gentleman allow me to refer to one

single section of tbe Revi~:~ed Statutes T Mr. BURCHARD. Gentlemen have traveled a-way from the sub­

ject-matter of this internal-revenue bill. We desire to keep all poli­tics if possible out of this, which is a mere bm~iness law for the collection of the revenue more efficiently if possible and relieving some of the rigors and hardships of the law as it now exists.

Now the point of oruer I made on this is that here is a general amendment that proposes to amend the judiciary act; a general amendment not confin~rl to this particular section under cousidera­ti<;~n. Section 643 gives the power of removal from the State court to a United States court in certain cases arising under the revenue la,ws or on account of any right or title claimed by any officer acting under such laws, and also in questions arising out of the civil-rights

act. Now I hold, Mr. Speaker, that it is not germane to tbiR p:utic­ular section to propose a general amendment to the law. I hope the Honse will avoid entering upon the broad field of political di~:~cussion and come back to this particular subject.

Mr. RIDDLE rose. The SPEA.KER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Tennessoe

desire to address the Chair on the point of order 'I .Mr. RIDDLE. Yes, .sir. I desire to have read section 643 of tho

Revised Statutes in onler to show the application of the amendment offered by my friend from Tennessee. It is the provision nuder which all those cases are transferred from the State courts to district anu circuit courts of the United States.

The Clerk read as follows: SEc. 643. When any chi.l suit or miminal prosecution is commenced in :my com-t

of a State against a.ny officer appoiqted under ot· acting by authority of any I'Ove­nno law of tho United States now or hereafter enact~, or a-gainst any por. on act­ing unrler or by authority of any such ollicer, on account of any net done under color of his office or of any such 1aw, or on account of any right, title, or autliority claimed by such officer or other person under any such law ; or is commenced against any person holuing property or estate by title derived from a.ny sncl.1. officer, and affects tho "Validity of any such rovcnoo law; or is commenced against , ny offi­cer of the Unitctl States, or oth<:>r person, ou account of any act dono under tho provisions of titlo 26, "Tho Elective Franchise," or on account of any right, title or authority claimed I.Jy such officer or other person tmdcr any of the sai<l pro'i'isions,

t~er::~!~t ~~f~~~cfu~~/!alir~!f~{;t~t ~~~~!·~ot~: ~!tl~~ ~~~~~~~~fc~h~he~!~ the same is pending, upon the petition of such defendant to said circuit court, aml in the followin~ manner: said petition shall set forth the nature of the snit or prosecution, and be vetified by atlido.vit; and, together with a certificate signed by an attorney or counselor at l:.J.w of some court of record of tho State whotc such suit or prosecution is commenceu, or of the United States, stating that, as counsel for the petitioner, be has examined the proceeuings a~rainst him, anti carefully in­quired into all the matters set forth in tho petition, anu that he believes them to be true, shall bo· presented to tho sa.itl circuit court, if in session, or if it be· not, to the clerk thereof at his office, and shall be filed in said ofiioo.

. Mr. RIDDLE.. I now ask to have read the passa-ge which I have marked in Abbott's United States Practice.

The Clerk read as follows: In 1866 the internal-revenue law was revised and re-enacted. In reference to

suit.s against revenue officer·s or persons acting under them, the act contains a pro­vision similar to that above stated in reference to reYenue causes nnuer the act of 1833. This provision enacts "that in any case, civil or criminal, where suit or prosecut.ion shall be commenced in any court of any State-

"Against any officer of the Unitetl States appointed under or actin_g by authorit.y of the act entitled 'An act to provide interna.l· revenuo to support the Government., to pay interMt on the public debt, and for other purposes, • passed June 30, 1864, or of any act in addition thereto or in amendment thereof; or,

"Against any person acting Under or by authority of any such officer on account of any act done under color of his office; or,

"Against any person holding property or estate by title derived from any snch officer, concerning such propertr or estate, and aft'ecting the validity of this act or acts of which it is amen!ln.tory,'

The proceedings may be removed.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The clause of the bill under consiu­eration proposes to amend section 3171 of the Revised Statutes by striking out the words " for or on account of any act by him done" and inserting the words "in the discharge of his." Section 3171 re­lates alone to the jurisdiction of courts in suits brought by officers of the Internal-Revenue Bureau for damages on· account of injuries sus­tained by them while in the discharge of their duties. It has no re­lation whatever to any criminal prosecution or civil suit against re\e­nue officers, but only, as stated, to suits brought by internal-revtJnue officers to recover damages for injuries sustained in the discharge of their duties. Now the amendment proposefl is a very comprehensive one. By its terms it purports to be an amendment to this section of the Revised Statutes, but in effect it proposes to make no change in that section, bot proposes legislation on another subject not having any connection with this section. It reads as follows:

All indictments or snits commenced in any State court against any collector, speci.a.l agent, or deputy collector of internal revenue for violation of law, shall be prosecuted to its termination in said court, and shall not be transferred to a United ~tates court.

That amendment, if adopted, would cbauge, not only the judiciary act of 17!:!9, which provides for the removal of civil suits from State to United States courts, but two or three other statutes on the same subject. Under that amendment, if adoptecl, an internal-revenue officer would be prohibitecl from removing any civil suit brought against him in a State other than the one in which be resides, from the State court to a Uuiteu States court, although the civil suit did not arise out of any official transaction. The general subject to which this bill relates is the internal-revenue laws, and this amendment proposes to change laws which have no relation to internal revenue whatever, ancl the Chair is therefore constrained to role that tho amendment is not germane and is not in order.

The Clerk resumed the reading of the bill, and read as follows: 'l'hat section 13, of the act entitled ''.An act to amoncl existing customs aud inter­

nal-revenue laws, and for other purposes," approved February 8, 1875, bo amended by striking out from the proviso of said section the words "except within one y<'ar after such services a1•e rendered," and inserting in lieu thereof tho following words: "If more than one year has elapsed since the close of tl..te fiscal year in which the services are rendered;" and also by striking out from the last paragraph of the said proviso the words " which may ha.ve happened by death or resignation," and inse1 t­mg in lien thereof the word" occurring."

Mr. BURCHARD. I move to striko out lines 116, 117, 118, down to the words" and seveuty-:fivtJ" in line UD, as follows:

That section 13, of the act entitled ''An act to amend existing customs and inter· nal-revenne J.a.ws, and for other purposes," approved February B, 1875. ·

I

1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSEo 4009 And to insert in lieu thereof the iollowing: That tho act entitled "An act to amend the existing customs and internal-rev­

enue laws. and for other purposes," approved F ebruary 8, 1 75, be amended as fol­lom~, namely: that section 12, be amended by striking out from the third line of .said section the words, (volume 18, United States Statutes-at-Large, pa~e 304,) "by him," and inserting after the word "service" at tho end of the third line, the fol­lowing:

And such allowance as shall be made by the Secretary of the Treasury, upon tho recommendation of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ; allowance shall also l.Je made in like manner for.salary and for expenses of collect-ors, the whole of which shall be in lieu of tho salary and commissions heretofore provided by law: P.rovided, however, That the salary of collectors shall be fixed at $~,000 ea~h per annum, where the annual collections amount to $25,000 or less, and shall, by the Secretary, on the recommendation of the Commissioner, be grauuated up to the ma.:rimum limit of $4,500, which latter sum shall be allowed in all cases where the collections amount to $1,000,000 or upward, anu the collector shall have power.

The question was put upon Mr. BURCHARD's amendment, and it was agreed to.

The Clerk resumed the reading of the bill, and rea-d as follows: .And it is hereby further prO'Vided, That for the preparation and approval by the

United States district attorney of each deed as above required, a fee of $5 shall be allowed to that officer, to be paid by the United States.

Mr. HANNA. I think there ought to be added to that the words "which he shall account for in his emolument returns."

Mr. TUCKER. We have no objection to that amendment. The amendment of Mr. HANNA was agreed to. The Clerk resumed the reading of the bill, and read the following: That section 3208 be amended by striking out the first sentence thereof en din~

with the words "for the payment of such debts," and by inserting in lieu thereof as follows:

The Commissioner ·of Internal Revenue shall have charge of all real estate which is now or shall become the property of the United States by judgment of forfeiture under the internal· revenue laws, or which has been or shall be assigned, set oft~ or conveyed by purchase or otherwise to the United St.ates in payment of debts arising under the laws relating to internal revenue, or which has been or shall be vested in the United States by mortgage or other security for the payment of such debts, and of all trusts created for the use of the United States in pay­ment of such debts due them; and, with the approval of the Secretary of the 'l'rea,~ury, may at public vendue, and upon not less than twenty days' notice, sell and dispose of all real estate owned or held by the United States as aforesaid; and until such sale the Commissioner of Intemal Revenue, with the appro~a.l of the Secretary of the Treasury, may lease such real estate owned as aforesaid on such terms and for such period as they shall deem expedient.

1\fr. LATHROP. I move to amend the paragraph jnst read by in­serting after the word, "deeds" the words "or penalties;" so that it will read" conveyed by purchaEe or otherwise to the United States in payment of debts or penalties arising under the laws relating to internal revenue," &c.

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. TUCKER. I move to insert after tho paragraph just read that

which I send to the Clerk's desk. The Clerk read as follows: That section 3223 be amended by inserting -after the word " insurance," in line

3, the words "for a sum greater than the actual value of the distilled spirits before and without the tax being paid."

:Mr. TUCKER. · In the revision and refunding of taxes, where the spirits have been destroyed by fire, the present law provides that "when the owners of distilled spirits in the cases provided for by the two preceding sections may be indemnified against such tax by a valid claim of insurance, the tax shall not be remitted to the extent of such insurance."

As the value of the whisky before it is taxed may be, we will say, fifty cents a gallon, and the tax put upon it is ninety cents a gaJlon, making a total of one hundred and forty cents, and t.he party insures for one-half of that full amount, he will in fact be insuring the tax due to the United States, and not his own property. My attention has been called to this matter by distillers as interfering with their insuring their own property.

The amendment was agree(l to. The Clerk read the following: That section 3224 be amended by adding thereto the words "unless it shall bo

mado to a-ppear t.o a juuge or court of the United States having jurisdiction where t.be same is assessed anu collected, that such tax is illegnl, or that the officer bas transcended his legal authm1.ty, and that tho injury which would be done to the person assessed could not be adequately compensated in damages recovered by action at law against the officer assessing and collecting the same."

Mr. TUCKER. Iu order to make the section more intelligible, I move to insert after the word" collected" the word" either;" so that it will read :

Unless it shall be made to appear to a judge or court of the United States having jmisdiction where the same is assessed and collected, either that such tax is ille· gal, or that the officer has transcended his legal authority, &c.

The amendment was agreed to. · The Clerk resumed the reading of the bill, and read the following:

DISTILLED SPIRITS.

SEc. 5. That tho ReviRed Statutes be amended as follows, namely : That section 3251 be amended by striking out the words, ".And any fractional

part of a gallon amounting to one. half gallon o:r over in a cask or package shall be taxed as a. gallon, and any fractional part of a gallon less than one-half gallon in any cask ~r package shall be exempt from tax," and by inserting in lieu thereof tho followmg: .

" The tax on any fractional part of a ~allon of spirits in any cask or package shall be collected at the same proportional rate and at the sa.me time as the tax on the full-gallons contained in such cask or package, and the collector shall recei~t, report., and account for tho same in such manner as shall be prescribed by tne Commissioner of Internal lleTenue."

Mr. RIDDLE. I move to amend l1y inserting after the paragraph last read that which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The Clerk read as follows : That when any distilled spirits are destroyed by fire or otherwise, after the time

when the same should have_been <l!awn oft' by the gauger and placetl in t.bo ware­house of the manufacturer, no tax shall be collected for such spirits so dcstroyeu, or if impropedy collected it shall be refunded.

Mr. RIDDL~. I bad a case from my own district during this Con­gress, where a gauger was to have been at the distillery and drawn off the spirits on the 6th day of December. He did not get there un­til the 8th day of December, and on the night of the 7th the distillery was destroyed.

Under a decision of the Internal-Revenue Bureau, as soon as the spirits came into being the right of the Government to the tax at­taches and it is the duty of the Government to collect it. In the instan·ce to which I refer the Government did collect the tax, and I was under the necessity of introducing a bill which passed this Honse to refund that tax. The predecessor of the present Commissioner o.f Internal Revenue said that in all such cases the bureau ought to have the right to refund the tax. There is no such authority now. The manufacturer himself had ·no right to draw off the spirits.

Mr. BURCHARD. Allow me to say to the gentleman from Ten­nessee [Mr. RIDDLE] that there is a subsequent portion of this bill which I think will be a more appropriate place for his amendment; where we propose to give the Commissioner authority to refund taxes in certain cases. ·

:Mr. RIDDLE. If the gentleman will call my attention to that part of the bill when it is reached, I will withdraw my amendment. •

:Mr. BURCHARD. I will do so. :Mr. TUCKER. If we do not come across any appropriate place,

there will be no objection to recurring to a portion of the bill where the amendment would be appropriate.

Mr. RIDDLE. It can come in at the end of the bill just as well. I will withdraw the amendment.

The Clerk resumed the reading of the hili, and read the following: That section 3276 and section 3286 be amended by inserting before the worrls

"ono thousand dollars" wherever they occur in each of said sections the words "not exceeding." ~

Mr. BURDICK. I mov~ to amend by in\ erting after the paragraph just read that which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The Clerk read as follows: That sect~on 3'~2 of the lleTised Statutes be amended by strikin.:r out the words

"or any vapor of alcoholic spirits," immeuiately following the wonl "alcohol," in the eighth line of said section, and also by striking out the words at the close of said section. namely: "nut nothing herein conta.ined sl.lall be construe<l to author­ize the-distillation of such fermented liquids except in an authorized U.istlllcry," and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "But no worm, goose-neck, pipe, oou­ductor, or contrivance of any description whatsoever, wherob.v vapor alight in any manner be conveyed away and converted into distilled spirits, shall !le used or employed or be fastened to or connected '"l:ith any vaporizrn.~ apparatus nse1l for tho manufacture of vinegar; nor shall any worm be permitted on or near the prem­ises where such vaporizing process is carried on. nut it shall bo lawful for manu­facturers of vinegar to separate by a vaporizing process the alcoholic l?roperty from tho mash produced by them, and condense the same by introducing it mto the water or other liquid used in making vinegar. And all the provisions of sections 3276, 3277, and3278 of the Revised Statutes of the United States are hereby extended aud made applicable to all premises whereon vinegar is manufactured, to all manufac t. urers of vinegar and their workmen, or other persons employed by them-"

Mr. BURDICK. The object of this amendment is to permit the manufacture of vinegar from grain by tbe vaporizing process, with­out subjecting the manufacturers to taxation as distillers. I presume there will be no objection to the amendment.

Mr. BURCHARD. In 1870, I think it was, the law was modified so as to authorize the manufacture of vinegar from mash or wort by a continuous process; but th~re was a provision in the law that it should not authorize the use of a still, or language that has been interpreted by the Department to forbid the use of a still.

Now, the answer to the question What is a still 'f depends upon the definition to be given to the law. A tea-kettle is, in one sense of the word, a still. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. BURDICK] proposes to authorize the manufacture of vinegar by a vaporizing process, under such restrictions as are mentioned in his amendment. Upon an exam­ination of the amendment I do not see any ohjection to it. It has been examined by the Department, I understand, and if the Honse is in favor of permitting the manufacture of vinegar directly from the mash, without paying a tax upon the distilled spirits, perhaps it would be· well to adopt the amendment. It is well drawn, will effect what the gtmtleman desires, and I do not oppose it.

The amendment was agreed to. The Clerk resumed the reading of the bill, and read tho following: That section 3293, as amended by joint resolution approveu March 28, 1878, be

amended by inserting after tho wonls "State of --,"in the eleventh line, tho words "during the month ending;" by strikin_g out the words "and proof e;al­lons," in the fifteenth line, and inserting in lieu thereof the worrls "proof ~!:allons and taxable gallons; " by inserting after the word " shall " and before tbe word "j:!i.ve," in the ei~btee.nth line, the words" at the time of making said entry;' ' b.v striking out tho word "bond," in the twenty-second line, and inserting in lie11 thereof the word "entry;" and by adding thereto the words: -

"A new bond shall be required in case of the death, insolvency, or removal of either of the sureties, and ma.v be required in any other contingency affecting its validity or impairing its effi.ciency~ . at the discretion of the Commissioner of In­ternal Revenue. And in case the uist.iller or owner fails or refussa to give the bond hereinbefore required or to renew the same, or neglects to immediately withdraw the spirits and pay the tax thereon, or if he neglects to withdraw any bonded spirits and pay the ta.x thereon before the expiration of the time limit.ed in tho bond, the collector shall proceed to collect the tax by distraint, issuing his warrant of distraint for the amount of tax found to be due, as ascertain eel by him from the report of the gauger ~ no bond was given, or from the terms of the bond if a bond

4010 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE . . JUNE 1,

was given. But this provision shall not exclude any other remedy or proceeding l'ro>illed by law." ·

Mr. 'VILLIS, of Kentucky. I move to insert after the paragraph just read the following:

That section 3293 of the Revised Statutes be further amended by striking out the word " double," in line 23 of the section.

I do not think this amendment will be objected to if understood. Wo ha.ve a.lrcady recognized the propriety of such a change in other portions of the Revised Statutes. 'fhat section which I propose to amond provides that'' the pena.l sum of such bond shall not be less than double the amount of tax on such distHled spirits." I propose to strike out the word" double," so that it will read: "tho penal sum of such bond shaH not be less tba.n the amount of tho tax on such dis­tilleu spirits." As gentlemen are well aware, the spirits themselves aro iu the custody of t.bo Government, and are a sufficient security. Besides, the bond which is to be given, even underthelawas amended, is subject to the supervi ion of the collector, anu can be rejected if not satisfactory. We all know that, under the law as it now stands, hundreds of thousands of dollars are locked up unnecessarily. The object of this amendment is not to take away any safeguard which the Government now has for the collection of taxes, but to relieve distillers and owners by lessening the amount of the bond, which, under the amendment, will be ample. The committee, in another section, has struck out the word" double," and I propose to follow up that action by striking out similar language in this section.

Mr. BURCHARD. There is some difterence between this proposi­tion and the one which the committee have recommended. The gen­tleman's amendment covers only the amount of taxes on the spirits actually deposited. The committee have proposed to amend the law so that the general bond of a distiller shall only be equal to the amount­of spirits that he could produce in a given number of days-fifteen days. But here is an actual production of spirits of a certain amount upon which a tax we will say of $10,000 has accrued. Now should the bond be limited to just $10,000 f When suit is brought upon the bond for the amount of the tax the recovery woulu be limited to that amount. •

Mr. WILLIS, of Kentucky. Does not the gentleman think that the Government woulcl be amply protected by having in its custody the spirits on which the tax is to be paid T The spirits are in tho cus­tody of officers of the Government, under their charge and control. Is not this a sufficient security 'I The bond is a mere formal matter. Besides, this bond must be satisfactory to the collector. The law as it now stands locks up millions of dollars unnecessarils, which is contrary to the interests of society. I hope the gentleman from illi­nois, representing the Committee of Ways and Means, will assent to the amendment.

Mr. BURCHARD. If in all cases the spirits were actually within the control of the Government t.he gentleman's argumeQ.t would have greater force. But though the law presumes that they are under the control of Government officers, and though the distiller has no au­thority to enter upon the premises without the consent of those offi­cers, yet a fraudulent transfer or disposition of spirits is sometimes made notwithstanding the law. Tile object is that the Government should have not only the spirits themselves for security, but if the spirits should disappear, that it may have the bond to fall back upon. Whether this is more security than the Government ought to have, I question; it has not been found so in some instances.

Mr. WILLIS, of Kentucky. Suppose whisky is removed fraudu­lently from a warehouse; .does the gentleman say that the distiller is thereby released from the tax T Besides, I take it that we are not to legislate upon the presumption that there will be fraud.

:Mr. BURCHARD. Unfortunately that presumption is very often well grounded.

:Mr. WILLIS, of Kentucky. The only question is whether the bond is sufficient to secure the tax to the Government.

The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. WILLIS, of Ken­tucky, it was not agreed to; there being ayes 37, noes not counted.

Mr. MILLS. I desire to renew the amendment which I proposed some time ago at a point which the gentleman in charge of the bill thought was not an appropriate place. I move to amend by insert­ing at the end of line 93, on page 15, the following:

That section 3279 of the Revised Statutes be, and the same is hereby-, repealed. The section here referred to provides that every rectifier; distiller,

and wholesale liquor dealer shall have a sign pot up on the outside of his premises showing his occupation, with t.he words" rectifier of spirits" or" wholesale liquor dealer" or" distiller." The letters upon this sign are required to be not less than tln·ee inches in lengtll. The sign is to bo painted in oil colors or gilded, and it must be of propor­tionate length, &c. Another part of the section impo es a penalty upon any one who puts up such a sign without having paid the' license. A third branch of the section imposes a penalty upon any person who removes any liquor from or to any establishment not having that sign ; and in this connection there is provided a forfeit­ure of all horses, carts, drays, vehicles, &c., engaged in snch removal. TI.Jere is also provided a :fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000.

Now, this section is wholly unnecessary for the efficient collection of the revenue. No ono has any right to be advertised as to the call­ing which any man is pursuing. No one has :my interest in a knowl­edge of the distiller's business except the Government of tho United

States; and the officers of the Government can at any time f{O and inspect the establishment and ascertain the material fact whethe1· he has paid his revenue tax, and his license for carrying on this occu­pation. It is wholly unnecessary to compel the distiller to keep up a sign with letters three inches in length, to be painted in oil colors, &c.

My attention wa,s called to this section and the onormous penn.ltics it imposes for this unimportant violation of law hy a certain trans­action which occurred in the unostentatious little city in which I livo. One of these internal-revenue agents who I suppose gets a part of the penalties came to our town and began to inspect the signs of tho wholesale dealers. He took down the sign of one of the business mon in my town and submitted it to the test of his rule to see whether the letters were exactly three inches long and whether it was painted in oil or water colors. Upon this inspection the letters were found to lack a little of three inches. Now, the penalty imposed ·by law in such case is $500. But the Government had received its pay for the license; the man had his license in his pockot; he had complied with every provision of the law- except this directory provision inserted in the law, for what purpose I am unable to comprehend. Because tue dealer had failed by the fra.ction of an inch to have the letters on his sign the required length he was subjected to the penalty prescribell by this section. People are sent all over the country hunting up such infractions of the law and robbing and oppressing honest dealers, who ought to be protected and not plundered by officers of tho Govern­ment.

If yon wish to enforce the collection of the revenue and impose penalties for non-payment of the tax and let the Government officer go and inspect the books if necessary-go and demand the informa­tion of the party charged with the payment of the revenue-I have no objection. But you require in this law he shall notify peoplo who have no interest in the ~ct whether he has paid his tax or not by advertising on the outside of his place of business by a sign exhibit­ing in plain and legible letters, not less than three inches in length, painted in oil colors or ~ilded. "Every person who violates the fore­going provision by neghgence or refusal or otherwise shall pay a pen­alty of $500.'' And that is not n.ll; it further provides that every person who works in any distillery-not the party who should pay tho revenue tax, and he is the only one in whom the Government is interested, but every person who knowingly receives at·, carries or conveys any distilled spirits to or from any such distillery, &c., not havin~ such a business sign in plain and legible letters, not less than three mches in length, shall forfeit all horses, carts, drays, wagons, or other vehicle or animal used in carr.ving or conveying such prop­erty aforesaid, and shall be :fined not less than $100 nor moro thn.u $1 1000, or be imprisoned not less than one month nor more than six months.

Why, sir, that is a law worthy of being written like that of Ca.­ligula, high up upon a column, in smalllotters, out of sight, so as to entrap parties into violating it without their knowledge and then punishing them, to render its author notorious. And the injostice and oppression of this law would render the name of its author, if known, AA notorious as that of the Roman tyrant.

Mr. BURCHARD. It is due to the honest distiller who pays the enormous tax, about 600 per cent., upon his product, that the Gov­ernment should provide every safeguard for his protection against illicit distilling. Illicit distilling is carried on secretly. These pro­visions of law are designed simply for the protection of the revenue and the protection of the honest distiller. We have six hundred and seventy-seven distilleries of grain besides four housand fruit distil­leries. Notwithstanding these safeguards and the utmost vigilance, there are distilleries in remote regions who do not advertise to the world that they are engaged in distillation. There were within the Jast year, of illicit stills-those engaged in the production of illicit spirits without license or paying tax-I think, over five hundred, nearly six hundred. Now, the man who is engaged in illicit distillation does not advertise to the world, but the honest distiller has nothing but to put out his sign saying "I am engaged in the business of distill::tr tiou, and I am willing the world should know it." · It is only to guard these men, to protect them; for when there is au illicit distillation throwing upon the market 1 per cent. of the product it bears down the price, and the honest distiller must carry on his business at a loss, and therefore we ought to do all we can to protect those honest dis­tillers.

I will frankly say if a case like that mentioned by the g~ntleman from Texas came to my knowledge, of a man who was standmcr upon technicalities of the law, a man in the service, I would instantly dis­miss him. The object is not to see whether he has complied abso­lutely with the law, or rather the object is not to take advantage of a mere technicality to impose penalties upon honest distillers; but there should be something to advertise to the world that the mn.n is engaged in t~e hon~s~ conduct of h.is business. And that is ~he i:n­tention of th1s proVISIOn of the sectwn, and I hope, therefore, 1t will not be stricken out.

Mr. MILLS rosa. The SPEA.KER pro tempo're. Debate is exhausted on the pending

amendment. Mr. MILLS. I move to strike out the last word. The object of

the law ought to be simply to collect the revenue and it ought not to tako advantage of technicalities. .Most of us representing southorn

. .......

1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE~- 4011 Q.istricts on this floor know that our constituents are bein~ constantly entrapped and punished in the execution of the revenue laws. I can see no 1·eason, notwithstanding what I have heard from my friend from Illinois, why the Government should require a distiller to ad­vertise his occupation to the people. The only concern the Govern­ment has is to know he pays the tax imposed upon him. The Gov­ernment bas no right to require him to advertise in oil-colors as it is provided in tlw statute, or in water-colors, or to compel him to wear a hand upon his hat saying be is a distiller of whisky, or to have a sign of a certain color to advertise him to the people, and then to im­pose penalties, not for refusing to p:l>y his taxes to the Government: but simply for not complying with the requirements of this section, and a terrible requirement it is, or is m:Ule so by the penalties attached and the way in which they are enforced.

If it be true, as my friend says, that the officer ou~bt to he dis­charged who is guilty of such a persecution of the citizen, is it not more true the law ought to be repealed which puts it into the power of an officer to oppress the people in this way Y What good can come to the country from this Y The gentleman and his colleague on the committee, from Virginia, did not know of the existence of such a In.w. Its inefficiency in aiding collection of the revenue was not dis­covered even by the Revenue Commissioner. It was discovered, how­ever, by these sharpers who have been appointed to act as informers, who drag those violating the law simply in a mere technical way be­fore the United States courts at great distances from their homes, and then compel them to pay large sums of money to compromise them­selves ont of the difficulty.

The House divided; and there were-ayes 43, noes 66. So the amendment was rejected. Mr. BURCHARD. I move by unanimous consent to go back to

page 11 to allow the gentleman from Pennsylvania to move an amend­ment.

There was no objection. Mr. CLYMER. I move to insert the following as a new section at

the end of section 4. The Clerk read as follows: That t.he third subdivision of section 4244 be amended by inserting after the word

"provided," where it first occurs in said subdivision, the words following: "That any person who rectifies, purifies, refines, or manufactures a-s aforesaid less than fivo lmmlred barrels a year, counting forty gallons proof spirits to the barrel, shall pay SlOO: provided."

Mr. CL Y.MER. I will state in a word or two the object of the .amendment. By this section of the Revised Statutes all rectifiers irre­spective of the quantity have to pay a special tax of $200. The oper­ation of this seems to he unjust. My amendment provides that persons who rectify distilled spirits to the y.mount of less than five hundretl barrels a year shall pay $100 instead of $200. The amend­ment meets the approbation of the Commissioner and I trust it will he adoJ>tecl without further discussion. ·

Mr. VANCE. I understand the object of the amendment is tore-duce tbe 'tax from $200 to $100.

Mr. CLYMER. Yes, for the smaller rectifiers. The amendment was agreed to. The Clerk resumed the reading of the bill, and read the following

paragraph of section 5: That section 3332 be amended by adding thereto as follows : And in case of seizure of a still, doubler, worm, worm-tub, mash-tub, ferment­

ing-tub, or other distilling apparatus, having a less prouucing capacity than one hundred and fifty gallons per day, for any offense involving forfeiture of the samo, where said apparatus shall be of less than five hundred dollars' value, and not in the possession of any one claiming to be the owner thereof, and-where it shall be impracticable to remove the samo to a place of safe storage from the place where seized, the seizing officer is authorized to so destroy the same as to prevent the use thereof, or of any part thereof, for the purpose of distilling: Provided, '.rhat such destruction shall be in the presence of at least one erodible witness, and that such witness shall unite with tho said officer in a dnly sworn report of snid seizure and destruction, to be made to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in which report they shall set forth the grounds of the claim of forfeiture, the reasons for such seizure and dest.rnction, their estimate of the fair cash value of the apparatus destro.vcd, and also of the materials remaining after such destruction, and a state­ment that, from the facts with.il\, their own knowledge, they have no doubt what­ever that said distilling apparatus was set uv. for use and not registered, or had been used in t.he unlawful distillation of spir•ts, and that it was impraetica.ble to r emove the same to a place of safe storage. Within one year after such destruc­tion, the owner of the apparatus so destroyed may mako application to the Secre­tary of the Treasury, through the Commissioner of Internal Re>enuo, for reim­bursement of the value of the same ; and if he shall prove, to the satisfaction of the

, Secret.ary and the Commissioner, that said apparatus was owned by him at the time of its destruction, and that it bad not been set up without registering, or had not been used in the unlawful distillation of spirit-s, the Secretary may make an allowance to said owner, not exceeding the value of said apparatus, as sworn to in tho· report of the seizing officer a'3 aforesaid, less the value of tha materials, as esti­mated in said report. And for a. wrongful seizure and destruction of property under the foregoing provisions, the owner thereof shall have right of action on tho ofikial bond of the officer who occasioned the destruction for all damages caused tbcrel1y. •

Mr. TUCKER. I desire to offer an amendment to this paragraph. In line 204 it reads:

The seizing officer is ·anthori1..ed to so destroy the same as to prevent the use thereof, or of any part thereof, for the purpose of distilling.

I propose to strike out the word "so," and to insert after the word "same" the words "only so far."

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. PRIDEMORE. I a.sk my colleague from Virginia if he will

not accept an amendment providing that these vessels shall only be destroyed where they cannot be sohl 1 In many instances the tnbs auu apparatus could be sold and something realized to the Govern-

ment. I have no objection to their being seized and confiscated to the use of the Government, but there are many ca~es where the tubs, stills, and apparatus, being of much less valne than $500, might be sold and again set up for legitimate uses and purposes. It seems to me a vast deal of property is destroyed Ulider this section the destruc­tion of which might be avoided. I desire to submit an amendment that this apparatus may be destroyed where it cannot be solU; but I was not sufficiently acquainted with the details of the hill to know at what point such an amendment would properly come in.

Mr. TUCKER. I yield the floor to my colleague on the committee, the gentleman from Illinois, to answer the question of my colleague fr m Virginia.

Mr. BURCHARD. The objection to the amendment of the gentle­man from Virginia I think would be that this apparatus if sold Ly the Government would be immediately set up somewhere else to be used for the same purpose. I think it would be Letter to destroy the whole apparatus.

Mr. PRIDEMORE. I am sure if my friend bad seen the practical workings of this he would agree to my amendment. It is just as easy for these parties who wish to carryon moonshining to buy new stills and pay taxes on them; and the Government loses by destroying this property. It docs not seem to me that the interest of the Govern­ment would suffer in any way. It would be a notorious fact in the neighborhood that the still would be sold and it would be just as easy for the Government to ascertain that a distillery was going on in the neighborhood using the apparatus that had been sold in this way as it would be to know that a new distillery was erected. This destruc­tion of property ·is an absolute loss and adetrimentt.othecommnnity. In many instances there would be men who carry on distilling legiti­mately who would purchase this apparatus and put it to a proper use. ,

Mr. BURCHARD. The intention of this section of the paragraph is, where the apparatus is in such a locality that it is impossible to carry it off, where there is no opportunity to take it away, to author­ize the officers to destroy it. It belongs to the Government. It is for­feited to the Government if parties are enga,ged in the illicit use of it. Now the question is will the Government make more money or can it save something by putting a guard over the apparatus, belong­ing perhaps to a small concern and such that two or three teams can haul it away-will the Government make more money by keeping the apparatus in this way and attempting to sell it than by destroying it Y There ought to be a power given to destroy. We have guarded it so that the party who owns this machinery can have his redress against the officer if he is not engaged in illicit {listillation. We pro­tect the citizen tut we do not intend in any way to protect the busi­ness. And it seems to us the Government will do better and will save more revenue by its officers having authority to destroy the apparatus than by appointing a gunrd and taking possession and selling and disposing of the property.

Mr. PRIDEMORE. I am sure the gentleman very greatly mistakes me if he thinks I have any interest in this business.

Mr. BURCHARD. I do not think anything of the kind. Mr. PRIDEMORE. I Toted against my party on this question ;

and I will vote against any party who will give any encouragement to illicit distilling. My vo~ has been all my life and shall be dur­ing the remainder of my life against distilling in all shapes, even when legalized.

Mr. BURCHARD. I disclaim any intention of imputing to the gentleman anything inconsistent with that.

Mr. PRIDEMORE. I desire to state, however, that my attention bas been called by revenue officers themselves to this useless destruc­tion of property, that might be saved to the Government. I would not care if all distilleries used iu the manufacture of whisky as a beverage were destroyed. I would have no objection to that as far as I am concerned. But I do not think the Government shou!d seize the property of the citizen and destroy it when it might he made useful and profitable to the Government. I think there would he hardly a case found where the stills might not be sold and used in the locality.

Mr. BURCHARD. Will the gentleman allow me to call his atten­tion to the limitation in line 280 t We do not intend to have this apparatus destroyed, except in cases where it is impossible to remove it to a place of safe storage. We so limit it in that line that I think the gentleman must see that his objection is removed.

Mr. PRIDEMORE. On which line' Mr. BURCHARD. Between lines 214 and 219. I will read the

cla.use: Every person who engages in or carries on the business of a rectifier with intent

to defraud tbe United St&tes of the tax on tho spirits rectified by him, or any part thereof, or with intent to aid, abet, or assist any person or persons in defrauding the United States of the tax on any distilled spirits, or who shall purchase or re­ceive or rectify any distilled spirits which have been removed from a distillery to a place other than the distillery warehouse provided by la.w, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the tax on said spirits, required by Iaw. bas not been paid, shall, for every snch offense, be fined not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000, and imprisoned not less than six months nor more than two years. •

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Virginia offer an amendment ! .

Mr. PRIDEMORE. I intended to do so, but will withhold it for the present. '

Mr. RANDOLPH. In lines 177 and 178, on page 10, I move to strike out the words "or having reasonable ground to believe." It is the first time in the history of legislation or jurisprudence, I presume,

4012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JUNE 1,

that any man was sought to be imprisoned on such ground. The sec- "My dear sir, I cannot buy these spirits because I have reason to be-tion reads: lievo that the tax bas not been paid upon them." "

Every person who engages in or carries on the business of a rectifier with intent Mr. HANNA. The language of the clause is-toO defraud the United States of the tax on the spirits rectifietl by him, or any part thereof, or with intent to aid, abet, or al!sist any I?erson or persons in defrauding tlto United States of the tax on any distilled spir1ts, or who shall purcha.seor re. ceh·e or rectifv any distilled spirits which have been removed from a distillery to a place other than the distillery warehouse providetl by law, knowing or having reasonable grounds to beliiY\'e that tho tax on said spirits, required by law, bas not boon paid, shall, for e>ery such offense, be finod not less than 1,000 nor more than $5,000, and imprisoned not less than six months nor moro than two years.

It might be very proper to punish the man if he knew that the spirits were illicit, but to say that he shall be imprisoned or fined $5,000 in a case where he had only reasonable gronnd to believe, would Lo stretching the law too far.

1\IESSAGE FROM: TIIE SENATE. .A. message from the Senate, by Mr. SYMPSON, one of its clerks, an­

nounced. that the Senate had passed bills of the following titles; in which he was directed to ask the concurrence of the House: . .A. bill (S. No. 542) to provide for the conveyance of the low_ground in the city of Washington under the provisions of the act of Con­gress, chapter 96, approved May 7, 18~2; and

.A. bill (S. No. 1178) to provide a fire-proof building for the use of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the mechanical branches of the Treasury and other Departments.

The message further announced that the Senate had agreed to the report of the committee of conference upon the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H. R. No. 3969) re:;ulating the appoint­ment ofjnstices of the peace, commissioners of deeds, and constables within and for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

The message further announced that the Senate had agreed to the amendment of the House of Representatives to the resolution of the Senate providing for the adjournment of the two Houses of· Con­gress on Monclay, June 10, A. D. 1878, at twelve o'clock noon.

AMENDMENT OF THE ThTTER~AL-REVENUE LAWS.

Mr. BURCHARD. I hope the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. ll.A.J."'IDOLPH] will Jet us proceed with the bill and at a later period he can ask to go back to this provision.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I was conscious that it was best to go forward; but this same privilege was accorded to a member of the committee, and I am satisfied that no member of the House will be willing to make a law punishing a man for what he does unless he has po~itive knowledge that it is wrong. I can see no objection to making the correction now. I am sure that no lawyer on the floor who ever studied a .proposition of law or wa.s about a court-house would vote for a proposition which would be so subversive to a man's rights as a citizen as to say that when a man does not know a thing but may have reasonable grounds to believe it he shall bo fined and punished. That would be an anomaly and an outrage, &nd I hope the committee will make the correction without further talk about it.

1\ir. TUCKER. I am not particular about this amendment, but I desire to explain tho reasons which induce the adoption of this clause, which reads:

Every person who engages in or carries on the business of a rectifier with intent to defraud the United States of the tax on the spirits rectified by him, or any part. thereof, or with intent to aid, abet, or assist any person or per.aons in defrauding the United States of the tax on any distilled spirits, or who ehall purchase or receive or rectify any distilletlspirits which ha>e been removed from a distillery toa.placo other than the distillery warehouse provided by law, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the tax on said spirits, required by law, ba.s not been paid, shall, for every such offense, be fined not less than l,OOO nor more than &;>,000, and imprisoned not less than six months nor more than two years.

The idea I had in adopting these words! which are a modification of some words which were proposed to us in committee, was that a man who buys from a rectifier spirits without knowing that the taxes have lleen paid upon it or having reasonable ground to suppose that they have been paid is bound to take notice of the fact, is bound to inquire into the fact whether upon those spirits at the time of his purchase the tax had been -paid or not. Now, if the party knows the tax has not been paid, of course he is guilty; but if be has reasonable ~round to believ,e the tax has not been paid, it is his duty to inquire mto the fact.

Mr. RANDOLPH. But he does not know it. Mr. TUCKER. Then the question is whether he onght not to in-

quire into the fact. . · Mr. VANCE. Would not -that provision embrace a man who should

haul a load of wood to a distillery T Mr. TUCKER. Why Y Mr. V .A.NCE. Suppose he had reason to believe it was an illicit

distillery¥ Mr. BURCHARD. Tho clause provides that­Every person who engages in or carries on the business of a rectifier with intent

to defraud the United States of the tax on the spirits rectified by him, or any part thereof, or with intent to aid, abet, or assist any person or persons in defrauding the Unit-ed States of the tax on any distilled spir1ts, or who shall purchase or re· .ccive, or rectifv any distilled spirits wllich have b en removed from a distillery to a plnce other than the distillery warehouse provided by law, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the tax on said spirits require<l by law has not been paid. shall, for every such offense, be fined not less than $l,OOO.nor more than $5,000, and imprisoned not less than six months nor more than two years.

We want by this provision to place a brand upon illicit spirits, so that any man shall be afraid to buy them; and if he knows they are illicit spirits, or if he has reason to believe that they are, he will say:

Every person who engages in or carries on the business of a rectifier with intent to defraud the United States of the tax on the spirits rectified by him, or any part thereof, or with intent to aid. abet, or assist any person or persons in defrauding the United States of the tax >n any distil ted spirits, or who shall purchase, or re ­ceive, or rectify .any distilled spirits which'bavo been removed from a distillery to a place other than the distillery warehousl! provided by law, knowing-, or ha"in.,. reasonable grounds to believe that the tax on said spirits required by law bas not been paid, snall, for every such offense, be fined not less than 1,000 nor more than $5,000, and imprisoned not less than six months nor more than two years.

Now, let me illustrate it. Suppose I have in my pocket a counter­feit ten-dollar bill. If I know that it is counterfeit, I ought not to pass it; bnt suppose my friend from Vir_ginia [Mr. TucKER] has said, "Mr. HAl\TNA, that is a counterfeit," anu although he may not be an expert, yet a good citizen has told me that it is a counterfeit. Now, what is my duty as a good citizen f I am put upon my ioqniry, and as a good citizen I have been furnished with evidence upon which to foun_d the belief that the note is counterfeit. Now, I say that when­ever any good citizen is furnished with evidence that furnishes goou ground for belief that the tax upon the distilled spirits has not been paid, then if he acts it should be at his peril. The part of a good citizen is then to make diligent inquiry, to the end that he may not become a party to a wrong. It seems to me there is nothing in this provision more than any good citizen ought to live up to; I think it is right.

Mr. RANDOLPH. The very illustration that the gentleman fur­nishes to the House, he being a prominent lawyer and I presumo accuS'tomed to investigate intricate questions of law-the very case he furnishes to tho House is an absolute illustration of the fact that this provision should not stand. Yourself, Mr. Speaker, and myself, and the gentleman from Indiana., [Mr. !Lu."'NA,] often have had bi11s that we did not know whether they were counterfeit or not. I do not know, neither does he know, at an times whether the bills are counterfeit or not. ShaH it be said that in these days of law and learning because a man passes a bill not knowing that it was coun­terfeit therefore he shall be punished f It would be monstrous to talk that kind of talk to an intelligent people, and especially to a court.

Mr. H.A.NN.A.. But suppose I have been furnished with good grounds to belie-ve that the note is counterfeit, or I have reasonable grounds to believe that it is f

Mr. RANDOLPH. I ask any intelligent lawyer or any other gen­tleman upon this floor who has ever been about a court-house aml knows anything about criminal law if any court under Go(l's heaven bas the power to say that a man shall be sent to the penitentiary or shall be hung because the court or jury might think that he had rea­sonable grounds to know that what he did was wrong? Nay, verily; the criminal law must be enforced strictly. Before you convict a man and execute him you must bring guilty knowledge home to him.

You cannot convict my neighbor upon the mere assumption that be bad reasonable grounds to believe that his act was wrong. You must bring guilty knowledge home to him; .that is a principle of law; and yon cannot punish him in any other wh'y.

Here is a bill that talks in the alternative. It proposes to punish a man if he knows that his act is unlawful, and it proposes to punish him if the court thinks that he has bad reasonable ground to believe that his act·was unlawful. That is a monstrosity, and it would be an · outrage upon the rights of the citizen to say that he shall be impris­oned and lined $500 or $1,000 because you suppose tlmt he had reason­able grounds to believe that he was violating the law.

·who is to judge of -t-his thing? If you bring guilty knowledge home to him, then he is guilty; but if you take the other horn of tho dilem­ma and say that you presume he knew better, and therefore you will punish him, that would he an oppression unheard of and an outrage on the rights of the citizen.

Mr. TUCKER. There are many cases familiar to gentlemen of the bar in which a party is convicted upon ci.rtumstantial evidence show­ing that he must have known that he was doin~ wrong, or, as Sir James Wigram said, "must have willfully shut his eyes to knowl­edge that he knew would stare him in the face if he opened them."

Now my point is this: I do not say that if a man buys· liquor with­out knowing or believing or thinking anything about it he shall be considered guilty. nut where he has reasonable ground to believe that the tax has not been pa..ld, then he buys it at his peril. Suppose that he has the statement made to him by the distiller himself, "I have never paid any tax on this liquor," that does not make him know that the tax has not been paid; for notwithstanding what the distiller says the tax may have been paid. nut it is reasonable ground for him to believe that the tax has not been paid. We meant to cover the cla-ss of cases where there is no actual knowledge of the fact, but where there is reasonable grounds to believo that the tax has not been paid. In such cases a man should not touch, taste, or handle tho contraband goods without first satisfying himself that the Gov­ernment tax had been paid.

Suppose, as suggested by my friend from Pennsylvania, [Mr. CLY-1\IER,] that a man goes to the distiller a.nd he says to him, "I will still you this liquor for twenty cents a gallon." Twenty cents a gallon! and there is ninety cents a ga1lon tax on it. Or he offers it to him for seventy cents a gallon, or for any sum that would put him upon

>J

i878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4013 the inquiry, and which would give him reasonable gronnd to believe that the tax bas not been paid.

1\lr. KEIFER. I think the gentleman who has just taken his seat [Mr. TUCKER] bas made a very good argument, i£ it were applied properly. But I think it will go further than he suggests. All that he refers to would be competent evidence tending to prove knowl­edge, and not alene a "reasonable ground to believe," as the bill pro­vides. The objectionable words which the member from Tennessee [Mr. RANDOLPH] proposes to have struck out are these: '' Or having reasonable grounds to believe." They appear in the clause of the bill which reads as follows:

Or who shall purchase or receive or rectify any didtilled spirits which have been removed from a. distillery to a. place other than tho distillery warehouse provided by law, knowin"' or having reasonable grounds to believe that the tax on said spirits, requir;;I'by law, ha.s not been paid, sha.ll, for every such offense, be fined uot less than $1,000 nor more than ~.ooo, and imprisoned not less than six months nor more than two years.

It will be noted that the penalty for "having reasonable grounds to believe" \he tax on spirits has not been pn.id before purchasing, receiving, or rectifying is very severe; and this in the absence of knowledge. The bill makes it a. crime for not knowing the fact when the accused had only reasonable grounds for knowing it, or for not believing a thing to be true when he ought to have believed it, or for not having sense enough to believe a fact which he ought to have had sense enough to believe.

I would like to know i£ we are earning to a time in this country when we will be so barbarous in the administration of the criminal law that a man will be held guilty of a crime in the absence of guilty knowledge. Let me put a case. Suppose that under this sec­tion of the bill, i£ it sh'>nld become a law, an indictment is found charging a man with having reasonable grounds to belie\e that the tax had not been paid on certain spirits when he purchased them. Suppose that is the .charge. Sir, when we have found him guilty under such an indictment we have struck down the greatest safe­guards for the innocent known to the criminal law. We have struck down the rule of the criminal law which has stood the test for hun­dreds of years in England and in every other civilized country, that n man is entitled to two presumptions: first, that he is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty and, second, that he must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before he can be convicted. The Committee of Ways and Means think guilty knowledge, the sc;ientes, need not be proved. Under this bill, proof that the accused ought to have known a fact which he did not know is made to take the place of actual knowledge of the fact upon which the crime rests.

The very point under such an indictment on the trial would be to offer proof to raise a presumption of reasonable grounds of know ledge as distinguished from knowledge.

A single word as to the illustration used by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HANNA] in regard to counterfeit money. The very fact that a man has been told a bill is counterfeit is iu general, when he comes to be put on trial, sufficient proof under the criminal law that he had knowledge the note or bill was counterfeit. Or take the case of a man to whom spirits are offered at twenty cents a gallon, when, if the tax werepaidon them, they would be worth, as everybody would know, a dollar or more per gallon. If a. man buys spirits un­der Rnch circumstances, such proof, on his trial, might bo sufficient in law to raise a legal presumption that he knew the tax had never been paid. Any such evidence as that would be competent to go to a jury as tending to show the guilty knowledge of the party. 'l'he trouble with this bill is that it undertakes to authorize some lower class of evidence which would only tend to show that a man is guilty of a high crime when he had reasonable grounds only to believe a thing and yet did not in fact believe it. If tbe bill does not mean this, it is simply nonsense. It makes it criminal to purchase, receive, or rectify spirits, knowing the tax thereon had not been paid.

Mr. TUCKER. Will the gentleman allow me to put a question to himf

Mr. KEIFER. Certainly. :Mr. ·TUCKER. How do you know what I know f [Laughter.] · Mr. KEIFER. Well, ior. the purpose of the criminal law, if the

gentleman states a fact to me and I go on and act without reference to it, not believing it., and I am afterward arraigned for my act, it is competent to prove that the gentleman told me such was the fact, ami to argue therefrom that I knew it. In such a case I act on my

·own responsibility i£ I do not believe it. It is not unfair to say that, taking +he bill as it reads, a person

might be found guilty of pmchasing, receiving, or rectifying distilled spirits upon which the tax had been paid, provided a jury could be convinced t,hat tho purchaser, receiver, or rectifier had reasonable ground to believe the tax bad not been paid.

There certainly is nothing in the history of criminal law that fur-nishes a precedent for this extraordinary provision in this bill.

Mr. TUCKER. Will the gentleman allow met Mr. KEIFER. Certainly. Mr. TUCKER. I admit that there n.re direct modes, such as he

mentions, of proving knowledge; but are those the only modes in which I can ascertain what the gentleman knew f

Mr. KEIFER. Not by any means. Mr. TUCKER. If I see his act which speaks louder than words,

and which shows he has in his heart certain knowledge, is :b.e not to be supposed to have reasonable ground for belief Y

Mr. KEIFER. That would ue reasonable evidence. not only to show the state of my belief, but also to show the state of my knowl­edge, and might be given in evidence for that purpose. I go one step further than the gentleman from Virginia. But the members of the committee want to take a lower grade of evidence; they deem it sufficient evidence of criminality to raise a legal presumption that the accused ought to know what in fact he did not know, and per­haps, with his comprehension, could not know.

Under this bill, nuless amended, a jury will be required to find a man guilty i£ they find he was too big a fool to belieye what in their opinion he ought to have believed.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. Chairman, it seemn to me that the objec­tions raised to the wording of this section are groundless. The lan­guage is" or who shall purchase or receive or rectify any distilled spirits which have been removed from a distillery to a place other than a distillery warehouse provided. by law." In other words, if the property is not in one of the places designated by law, the party is at once put upon notice to inquire into the fact whether the tax has been paid. If the party buys the spirits at a place designated by law, then this scienter is not chargeable to him.

If this provision is objectionable on ·the ground urged, then we might as well wipe out the statutes of our States which provide that homicide shall bA justifiable when the man committing it has reason­able ground to apprehencl great bodily harm. If a man can show to a jury that he had reasonable ground to fear great bodily injury, then homicide is justifiable; and it is for the jury to determine whether he had such reasonable ground or was in imminent danger.

Why not apply the same principle here Y The question is whether the man has reasonable ground to believe that the tax on the spirits has not been paid. If he purchases the spirits in any of the places designated by law, then the scienter is not chargeable to him. On the other hand, if the purchase is made at such a place and under such circumstances as to give the pmchaser reasonable ground for believ­ing that he was dealing with a party who bad not paid the tax, the jury are entitled to judge whether there was such knowledge on his part. It seems to me the objections to the section should not be en­·tertained for a moment. The jury, before convicting, must be satis­fied that a guilty intent existed. There is no danger of any injustice resulting from the operation of the section.

[Here the hammer fell.] The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. RA.NDOLPII, it

was not agreed to; there being ayes 28, noes not counted. .Mr. PAGE. I move that the House adjourn.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

The SPEAKER resumed the chair. Mr. RAINEY, from the Committee on Enrolled bills, reported that

the committee had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the same:

An act (S. No. 35) to repeal the bankrupt law; and An act (S. No. 396) to amend an act entitled" An act to encourage

the growth of timber on the western prairies." ·

LEAVE TO PRINT.

Mr. BUCKNER, by unanimous consent, was granted leave to print as part of the debates some remarks that be had prepared on the sub­ject of Treasury notes against bank-notes. [See Appendix.]

LOT ADJOThTJNG WL.'{DER'S BUILDL.'\'G.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the Hoose a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting a copy of the letter from J. H. Clark, owner of lot adjoining Winder's building; which was referred to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds.

MISSISSIPPI JE'ITIES.

The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting Captain Brown's ninth report on the jetties of the Mississippi River, and accompany­ing maps; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

GoVER:l'l'"liE.J.~T PONDS, SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS.

The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent., laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting a petition for the lease of Government ponds at Springfield, Massachusetts; which was re­ferred to the Committee on Appropriations.

U~"'ITED STATES TROOPS, PORT LA. VA. CA.

The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, relative to the occupation by United States troops of Port Lavaca: Texas, during the late war; which was referred to the Committee of Claims.

ADDITIONAL SIG~AL STATIONS.

The SPEA...TCER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting a letter from the Chief Signal Officer relative to certain bills establishing additional sig­nal stations; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Mr. GAUSE, by unanimous consent, was granted leave of absence for one week on account of the death of his father-in-law.

The motion of Mr . .PaGE to adjourn was then agreed to; and (at four o'clock and thirty-five minutes p.m.) the House adjourned.

'

4014 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN.L~TE. JUNE 3,

PETITIONS, ETC.

The following petitions, &c., were presented at the Clerk's desk, under the rule, and referred as stated:

By :Mx. ERRETT : Resolutions of the Chamber of Commerce of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, favoring the appointment of practical river men, in connection with Government engineers, on the commission to prepare plans for the improvement of. the Mississippi River-to the Committee on Levees and Improvement of the Mississippi River.

By Mr. HOUSE : The petition of cotton factors and others, of Nash­ville, Tennessee, against the extension of Cook's patent for improved cotton ties-to the Committee on Patents.

By Mr. McKINLEY: The petition of 280 citizens of Columbiana County, Ohio, that the national bomesteati bill may become a law­to the Committee on Public Lands.

By Mr. NORCROSS: The petition of James II. Newton, J. H. Apple­ton, and others, of Holyoke, Massachusetts, that all resolutions in Congress proposing to question the title of 1\fr. Hayes to the presi­dential office be indefinitely postponed-to the committee to investi­gate alleged frauds in the late presidential election.

By Mr. RAINEY: The petition of Alexander Mattison, for compen­sation for services as a United States revenue officer-to the Commit­tee of Claims.

By Mr. WILLIAMS, of Delaware: The petition of William Whalen, for compensation for services rendered in the Doorkeeper's depart­ment, House of Representatives-to the Committee on Reform in the Civil Service.

By 1\ir. WILLIAMS, of Michigan: The petition of Samuel H. Bell, of similar import-to the same committee.

IN SENATE.

:MoNDAY, June 3, 1878. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. BYRON SUNDERLAND, D. D. The Journal of Saturday's proceedings was read and approved.

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED.

The following bills from the House of Representatives were sev­erally reati twice by their titles, and referred to the· coinmittee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads:

A bill (H. R. No. 13) for the relief of H. G. Boardman, postmaster at Milton, Vermont ;

A bill (H. R. No. 184) for the relief of E. H. Lively, postmaster at Williamsburgh, Virginia;

A bill (H. R. No. 1:395) for the relief of John G. Campbell, of Clin­ton, Indiana;

A bill (H. R. No. 3854) for the relief of John Tweedy, postma.ster in Danbury, Connecticut;

A bill (H. R. No. 3860) for the relief of Charles C. Reynolds; A bill (H. R. No. 3862) for the relief of E. D. Head, postmaster at

Harrods burgh, Kentucky; A bill (H. R. No. 3863) for the relief of Nathaniel G. Smith; and A bill (H. R. No. 3866) for the relief of Mrs. F. A. Perrin, of Clyde,

Ohio. The following bills and joint resolution from the House of Repre­

sentatives were severally 1·ead by their titles, and referred to the Committee on Claims:

A bill (H. R. No. 799) for the relief of Paul McCormick; A bill (H. R. No. 2242) for the relief of William 1'. 1\Ialster, ofBal­

timore, Maryland; A. bill (H. R. No. 2421) for the relief of H. II. Lemon, member of

the Capitol police force, for injuries received while in the discharge of his duties in the year 1870;

A bill (H. R. No. 2848) for the relief of 1\I. F. Clark; A bill (H. R. No. 3186) for the relief of the Commercial Bank of

Knoxville, Tennessee ; · A bill (H. R. No. 3257) for the relief of William H. Merritt; A bill (H. R. No. 3733) for the relief of Hanson Harmon; A bill (H. R. No. 3734) for the relief of Thomas Strider, of Win-

chester, Virginia; . A bill (H. R. No. 3737) for the relief of V. H. McCormick; A bill (H. R. No. 373M) for tll6 relief of B.S. James; A bill (H. R. No. 3853) for the relief of 'Villiam F. Wheeler; A bill (H. R. No. 3856) for the re1ief ofT. A. Kendig, of Louisiana; A bill (H. R. No. 3857) for the relief of Robert Warner; A bill (H. R. No. 3858) for the relief of WilHam S. Burgess and

others, of Tennessee ; A bill (H. R. No. 3861) to reimburse Richard Joseph for money paid

on forged vouchers ; A bill (H. R. No. 5060) for the relief of William G. Ford, of Ten­

nessee, administrator of John G. llobinson, deceased; A bill (H. R. No. 50G3) for the relief of DanielS. McDougal; and A joint resolution (H. R. No. 106) referring to the Court of Claims

the claims of James E. Kelsey, John Loughlin, Theron Kelsey, and others against the United States, for damages done to the schooner C. anti C. Brooks. •

The following bills and joint resolution from the House of Repre-

sentatives were severn.lly read twice by their titles, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs:

A bill (H. R. No. 537) for the relief of Wi Hi am P. Hazard ; A bill (H. R. No. 541) for the relief of William H. Carmen; A bill (H. R. No. 609) for the relief of G. ,V, Jobe, late second lieu-

t~nant of Company F, Forty-sixth Missouri Infantry Volunteers; A bill (H. ll.. No. 720) for the relief of John Eaton; A bill (H. R. No. 739) for the relief of Henry Plowman; A bill (H. R. No. 11G3) for the relief of the heirs of Charles B. Smith,

deceased· · A bill (

1

H. R. No. 1301) for the relief of Henry E. Wilkinson, late first lieutenant of Company I, Ninety-~inth Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteers ;

A bill (H. R. No. 1901) for the relief of Philip W. Stanhope; A bill (H. R. No. 2394) for the relief of Leonard L. Lancaster, late

sergeant Second Regiment Cavalry Wisconsin Volunteers; A bill (H. R. No. 2396) for the relief of John E. Williamson ; A bill (H. R. No. 2918) for the relief of Merritt Barber, :first lieuten­

ant United States Infantry ; A bill (H. R. No. 3551::!) for the relief of Secon ·Lieutenant Thomas

T. Knox, regimental quartermaster First Cavalry; A bill (H. R. No. 3855) for the relief of William A. Mann; and A joint resolution (H. R. No. 63) requiring the assembling of a

court of inquiry in the case of Major Granville 0. Haller, late of the Seventh Infantry, United States Army.

The following bills from the House of Representatives were sever­ally read twice by their tit.les, and referred to the Committee on Finance:

A bill (H. R. No. 967) for the relief of William Hedgpeth, of Pauld­ing County, Georgia;

A bill (H. R. No. 1660) for the relief of Saint Michael's church, Charleston, South Carolina; and

A. bill (H. ll.. No. 5056) for the relief of Levi Price. The following bills n·om the House of Representatives were sever­

ally read twice by their titles, and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs:

A bill (H. R. No. 819) for the relief of Joab Spencer and James R. Mead for supplies furni shed the Kansas tribe of Indians; anti

A bil1 (H. H.. No. 3t!25) for the relief of Susanna Marble and others, heirs of Abel S. Lee. •

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a communica­tion from the Secretary of War, transmitting, in obedience to law, the ninth report upon the improvement of the South Pass of the Missis­sippi River; which was ordered to lie on the table.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. BAILEY presented the petition of J. H. Reagan, J. P. Miller, and others, citizens of Tennessee, praying for the establishment of a post-route fram Olympus, Overton County, Tennessee, to Travisvi11e, Fentress County, in that State; which was referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads.

Mr. BECK presented the petition of Mrs. Caroline Croxton, wiclow of John T. Croxton, of Kentucky, praying for a pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. CONKLING. I present the memorial of the collector of the port of New York, touching a mishap which occurred to the cashier of customs at that port now deceased. In connection with it, I shall also ask leave to introduce a bill to be referred to the Committee on Finance. I move the reference of the memorial to that committee.

The motion was agreed to. , Mr. GORDON. I present fJ:le memorial of Second Lieutenant Ho·

ratio D. Jarves, of Massachusetts, in reference to a distinction which it appears exists in the statutes of the United States against second lieutenants who have lost legs or arms in the late war. This memo­rial shows that second lieutenants are not furnished artificial limbs at the Government expense, but have to bny them at their own ex­pense, whereas their pension is only $15 a month, very little above that of enlisted men who are furnished with artiliciallimbs. I movo the reference of this memorial to the Committee on Military Ail'airs, and call the special attention of that committee to it.

The motion was agreed to. :Mr. WHYTE. I am requested to present the memorial of tbe pro­

prietors of the Congressio11al Globe, proposing to sell to the United States the stereotype plates used in that publication. I move th_at it be referred to the Committee on Printing.

The motion was agreed to. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Mr. VOORHEES, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was recommitted the bill (H. R. No. 4422) to amend section 4G95 of tho Revised Statutes of the United States, reported it with an amenti-m~~ 4

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referro(l the bill (H. R. No. 4387) granting a pension to .James C~ Bates, 1·eported it witlwut amendment, and submitted a report thereon; which was ordered to be printed.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred tho bill (S. Nq. 10i) for the relief of Mary A. Lord, reported adversely thereon, and the bill was postponed indefinitely.