1880. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1673 - …. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1673 not counting the...

1880. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1673 not counting the value of her own buildings that she has there, whjch added to that surplus would leave her under any state of the case six or seven thonsand dollars clear profit. I prefer, as my colleague did, and as the Committee on Public Lands did, that there should be a surplus ; and there are a few little fragments of expense yet to come in, which have not been counted, but the whole of them will not aggregate over $1,000 or $1,200.

That is the theory on which the assessments go. The value atta-0hed to this property these people have made themselves by their own improvements upon it ; and while it is a large thing financially to those people, many of whom had been born to believe they had as good right to that property as I have to the coat on my person now, it is a mere pittance to the Government. Nobody is taxed to pay it; no person loses a cent. The argument I have heard from the Senator uom Vermont on that point amounts to nothing. Not a citizen of the United States loses a cent by this; and the Government has several thousand dollars surplus from the property after giving these persons this little benefit which the bill proposes.

The House bill cuts the price down to 10 a lot. In fairness and justice I thought that was improper. Although I would be very glad to see the Government donate the property to these occupants, I did not think it proper and fair that the Government should be the loser in the operation, and if she comes out whole upon the transaction, I do not think in fairness and jnstice any person can complain. It is an important matter to these people; it is a mere drop in the bucket to the Government.

The Senator from Vermont finds another great difficulty in the way. He thinks that the General Government should receive benefits from all its lands. This bill does not ask Congress to give any lands to the State of .Arkansas. There is no claim of that sort. The State of Arkansas is not asking for it; but citizens of Arkansas come and ask yon for this favor or gratuity, if you call it so, and many of these citizens are persom from the various States of the Union-New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and elsewhere. Hot Springs is now the most cosmopolitan town in the world for its size. I ask the Senate in all sincerity and in all conscience if this is exorbitant, if this is an outrage either upon jnstice or fairness when you are trying to deal out equity to these people Y

Now, as to the question asked me by the Senator from Illinois. Recognizing in the terms of the act of 1877 that there was a disposition to make the proceeding final as near aB possible, (although as I stated before I waa not in the Senate when that was passed,) and recognizing a fact outside of that action, which is as old as the law can possibly be, that it is to the public benefit that there should be an end of litigation, I have more reason probably than any other man in public life to desire that there should be an end to this litigation and to this trouble. For eighteen years, long before I was in the Senate I was connected with the litigation in reference to the Hot Springs, and I know every foot of this land and can go blindfolded now I believe over every inch of the ground that is talked about. The place itself I love, and there I believe I am loved; indeed this ground is my second home. Hence the feeling I manifest on the subject.

Those persons who desire a review of the finding of the commissioners are constituents of my colleague and myself. They gave good reasons for this desire. We did not consider that we had a right to turn a deaf ear to them, and we have inserted a provision giving a review. We are not tena-0ious about it if the Senate in its wisdom sees proper to take that from the bill. The Senate may in its wisdom refuse the rest of the bill, and we mnst submit. We will make no contest for this review by certiorari. It can injure no one ; but if a stubborn :fight is to be made upon it, rather than endanger the bill and keep the question open, we will yield, as we do on all occasions, complacently to the will of the Senate; but we ask you at any rate to give these occupants the benefit of these reduced assessments, and take up these certificates and end this matter. With me, I hope it is ended forever.

Mr. DAVIS, of Illinois. I would sugge&t that the Senate pass this bill over until to-morrow, a.nd we may look at these sections in the mean time and see if· there is any change needed. Some gentlemen want to go into executive session now anyhow.

Mr. VEST. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

Mr. DA VIS, of lliinoia. That will do it. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to the con

sideration of executive business. After one hour and twenty-five minutes spent in executive session the doors were reopened, and (at :five o'clock and thirty minutes p. m.) the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE . OF REPRESENTATIVES. THURSDAY, March 18, 1880.

The House met at twelve o'clock 'm. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. '\V.P.IIARRISON,D.D.

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. RICHMOND A.ND SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. BEALE, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 5251) to authorize the Richmond and Southwestern Railway Com-

pany to build bridges across the Pa.monkey and Mattaponi Rivers; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed.

UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL COMPANY OF VIRGINIA.

Mr. RICHMOND, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 5252) to authorize the United States Commercial Company of Virginia to do business in foreign countries ; which waa read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.

PRIN~G FOR COMMITI'EE ON ELECTIONS. Mr. SPRINGER. I am directed by the Committee on Elections to

offer the following resolution : Resolved, That the views of the minority of the sub-committee of the Committee

on Elections in the contested-election case of Donnelly vs. Washburn qe printed for the use of the committee, and that the cost of such printing be paid out of the contingent fund of the House.

I will state that the fund for printing reports of this kind is exhausted, and the Public Printer has declined to print any further matter for the committee unless the House will make a special order to pay for the printing out of the contingent fund. The committee is now being delayed in its investigations by the failure of the Public Printer to comply with the orders of the committee. This printing will not cost more than $50.

Mr. KEIFER. There is no objection. Mr. NEWBERRY. Is this the unanimous request of the commit

tee\' Mr. SPRINGER. It is, undoubtedly. There being no objection, the resolution was considered and adopted.

THEOPHILUS P. CHANDLER. Mr. LINDSEY, by unanimous consent, reported back from the Com

mittee on Claims, without amendment, the bill (S. No. 22) for the relief of Theophilus P. Chandler; which was referred to the Com· mittee of the Whole House, and the accompanying report ordered to be printed.

COMMANDER GEORGE A. STEVENS. Mr. MORSE asked unanimous consent that the papers in the case

of Commander George A. Stevens be withdrawn from the files of th~ House and referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection that order will be made, and the papers will be referred a.ccordingly, not to come ba~k on a motion to reconsider.

There was no objection. JOHN D. M 1KIM.

Mr. WEA VER, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 5253) granting a pension to John D. McKim; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and ordered to be printed.

AMENDMENT OF REVISED STATUTES.

Mr. BRENTS, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 5254) amending section 4414 of the Revised Statutes of the United States; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committ.ee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed.

SETTLERS WITHIN RAILROAD . WITHDRAW A.LS.

Mr. BRENTS also, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. · No. 5255) to secure the rights of settlers on lands within railroad withdrawals; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on the Public Lands, and ordered to be printed.

LEA VE OF ABSENCE.

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to Mr. SAPP, for three weeks after to-day, on account of important business.

INTEROCEANIC CANAL.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, in reply to a resolution of the House calling for all information and correspondence, not hitherto published, in possession of the Navy Department, touching the interocea.nic cana1

6· which was referred to the Select Committee on Interoceanie

Ship- anal, and ordered to be printed. ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. WARNER. I call for the regular order. Mr. McMAHON. For the purpose of proceeding with the deficiency

appropriation bill, I move that the morning hour be dispensed with. The question being taken, there were-ayes 126, noes 12; two

thirds voting in the affirmative. So the motion was agreed to.

DEFICIBNCY APPROPIUA.TION BILL.

Mr. McMAHON. I now move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the pur· pose of resuming the consideration of the deficiency appropriation bill.

The motion was agreed to. · The House accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole

House on the state of the Union, (Mr. CA.BLISLE in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 4924) making appropriations to supply certain deficiencies in the appropriations for the service of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880,. and for other purposes.

1674 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. :M:ffiCH 18,

The CH.AIRMAN. The question is upon the point of order made against the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. REA.GAN.]

Mr. STEVENSON. I would like an answer from the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McMAHON] to the question I pot to him last evening.

Mr. McMAHON. Do I understand that the question of order is pending!

The CHAIRMAN. There is nothing really before the committee now except the question of order.

Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. Chairman, what is pending now Y The CHAIRMAN. Nothing but the point of order. Mr. BUCKNER. The gentleman from Texas who raised the ques

tion is not now in his seat. The CH.AIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas offered the amend

ment, but the gentleman from New York [Mr. HISCOCK] made the point of order against it. The Chair was pausing, as he saw the gentleman from Texas [Mr. REAGAN] was not in his seat.

Mr. BUCKNER. I move the matter be passed over informally for the present.

The CHAIRMAN. If there be :µo objection, the Chair will reserve the point of order for the present until the gentleman from Texas is in his seat.

Mr. STEVENSON. I simply desire to ask the gentleman from Ohio for some explanation as to how this deficiency has a.risen in regard tQ pensions.

Mr. McMAHON. Mr. Chairman, anticipating the question of the ~entleman from Illinois, I have made a little more thorough exammation than I was prepared to present to the Honse yesterday. This deficiency arose in the following way: On the 27th of January, 1879, we passed the general appropriation bill for pension purposes for the fiscal year ending Jone 30, 1880; that is, for the present fiscal year. The amount appropriated in that bill was altogether $29,366,000. Two days prior, however, Mr. Chairman, to the passage of this general pension appropriation bill, we had pa.ssed the bill known as the bill for the arrearages of pensions? to wit, on the 25th day of January, 1879. In that bill no appropnation of money was made to meet the arrearages provided for. On the 3d day of March, however, 1879, just before we adjourned, we passed what is known as the arrearage pension appropriation bill, in which we appropriated for arrearages of pensions, for all claims which bad been allowed prior to the 1st of January, 1879, the sum of $25,000,000; and then, as a deficiency for the current fiscal year of 1879, we appropriated $1,800,000 in addition to the money appropriated for that year. The committee will observe at once, Mr. Chairman, that when we passed the appropriations for 1880 it was impossible to include in that bill the increased expenditure of money which would arise out of the passage of the arrearage bill and of the other bills appropriating money fo~ the payment of those arrearages.

. I want the committee to understand that the $25,000,000 we appropriated for arrearages of pensions was an appropriation in the nature of back pay on all claims which had been allowed prior to the 1st of January, 1879, and that we are not now appropriating any money to meet any deficiency, as I understand it, prior to that date. ·

But, Mr. Chairman, we repealed the statute of limitations on applications for pensions, and we established something of a new rule in regard to the time at which the pension should date. Under this new law the Pension Office has been :flooded with new applications, and every application which successfully passes through the Pension Department has attached to it not only the allowance of so much a month from the time of the allowance forward, bot of so much a month back to the time when the pension under onr new law dates. It is to meet these new applications and arrearages accruing under them this $6,500,000 is to be voted.

In reading the amendment at the table, in the peculiar way in which the law is framed, it seemed all the money was appropriated for the purpose of paying invalids of the war of 1812; whereas if it is read properly it would be discovered the provision for the war of 1812 is simply as to a class and not words of limitation covering the total amount appropriated.

Mr. IDSCOCK. Let me suggest---Mr. McMAHON. Not now. I will read the original clause in the

pension bill : For pensions for Army invalids, widows, minors, and dependent relatives

Now I am reading it right as one class-survivors of the war of 1812, and widows of the war of 1812, $28,400,000.

Mr. REAGAN. I desire to aak the gentleman whether the surviving soldiers or the widows of soldiers of the war of 1812 would get anything under this bill T

M:r. McMAHON. Unquestionably. Mr. REAGAN. There is no law in existence which gives them ar-

rears of pension. Mr. McMAHON. I think not. Mr. REAGAN. This only provides for arrears of pension. Mr. McMAHON. I beg the gentleman's pardon; it provides for

arrears of pension and it provides for quarterly payments as well. The arrears of pension fall under the law which we passed on the 25th day of January, 1879, and the committee is doing nothing in this bill bnt appropriating money to carry out the express provisions of the statute; and gentlemen thoroughly misunderstand the object of this ·

appropriation in this bill if by its pa.ssage one dollar of arrearages is voted to any one who is not entitled to it by laws already passed.

Mr. REAGAN. Can you inform us what proportion in this would go to the soldiers of the war of 1812 and their widows f

Mr. McMAHON. · I think the chairman of the committee can answer that question, and I will yield to him for that purpose.

Mr. REAGAN. I have partly predicated the question on what the gentleman from Tennessee said, which seems to be correct, that this applies alone to arrearages of pension and has nothing to do with the pensions of the war of 1812. I now ask the gentleman the question how much of this $6,500,000 would go to the pensioners of the war of 1812, or their widows'

Mr. ATKINS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McMAHON] offered yesterday grows out of the arrearages of pensions act. A small per cent. does apply to the soldiers of the war of 1812, but it is all in consequence of the arrearages act. I stated that yesterday. Six hundred thousand dollars out of this sum will pay the arrearages of the soldiers of the war of 1812.

If my colleague on the committee will allow me while I am up-Mr. McMAHON. Certainly, sir. Mr. ATKINS. I will make one statement. The amendment offered

by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. REAGAN] yesterday proposed to reinstate those soldiers of the war of 1812 who were put on the roll by virtue of the act of 1871, but who have since been stricken from the roll in consequence qf alleged disloyalty, or in cases where, according to the Department, sufficient testimony has been adduced before the Commissioner to strike them from the roll on account of disloyalty. Now, those soldiers oBly amount to the number of six, and I think the honorable gentleman from New York [Mr. HiscocK] ought not to object to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas, but will allow these six men to be put back upon the roll, even although they may have testimony that they were disloyal after ·their rest-Oration by the act of 1871.

I will state further that I am assured by some gentlemen this testimony which has been brought forward against some of these men can be overturned. I had a conversation this morning with the Commissioner of Pensions, and I think there will be no objection, so far as the Department is concerned, to that being done.

Mr. DIBRELL. Let my amendment be adopted and it will cover that very thing.

Mr. REAGAN. Have your amendment read and perhaps I will withdraw mine.

Mr. ATKINS. These men are now upon the roll. They were restored by the act of 1878, and they were on the roll up to 1871, but were dropped on account of alleged disloyalty between 1871and1878.

Mr. BURROWS. Is it not a fact that these six men are now re-stored to the roll Y

Mr. ATKINS. Yes, sir. Mr. BURROWS. But their pay is withheld . Mr. ATKINS. That is so. Mr. BURROWS. Because they obtained some $300 apiece by virtue

of unjust restoration, and so pension is withheld until that amount can be liquidated.

Mr. ATKINS. That is true. Mr. BURROWS. If they did get on the rolls by reason of perjured

testimony, ought this money to be paid to them. . Mr. ATKINS. I do not say that. Mr. DIBRELL. There is no proof the testimony was perjured.

I have a case here in my desk where a man was restored to the roll and on the mere letter of a lady was dropped.

Mr. BURROWS. I understand they are all restored, bot their pay is withheld.

Mr. ATKINS. That is it. Mr. BURROWS. Because under the erroneous restoration money

was improperly paid, and so it is withheld until that amount can be liquidated.

Mr. DIBRELL. I now ask to have the amendment read .. The CHAffiMAN. The Chair will state that no other amendment

is now in order until the question of order maae on the -amendment offered by t.ho gentleman from Texas is decided.

Mr. DIBRELL. I hope that the amendment will be read for information at all events.

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Tennessee can be read, and the gentleman from Texas can then withdraw his amendment if he desires to do so.

The Clerk read as follows: Provided, That the Commissioner of Pensions shall not withhold a pension from

any soldier orpensioner of the war of 1812 who was granted a pension under the act of Congress of 1871, and was dropped for charges of disloyalty and reinstated under act of 9th March, 1878, and their pensions shall be paid from 9th March, 1878.

Mr. IDSCOCK. I make the same point of order on that amend-ment.

Mr. REAGAN. I withdraw the amendment I offered. Mr. DIBRELL. Then I offer my amendment. Mr. HISCOCK. I make the same point of order on that, and I sug

gest that it is in effect a private bill. Simply for the purpose of giving private relief.

Mr. DIBRELL. I would like to say a word upon the propriety of the measure rather than upon the point of order pending, because I do not think the amendment is subject to the point of order.

1880. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. 1675 Mr. HISCOCK. There certainly is neither more nor less of it than

giving private relief to certain individuals not of course named in the law.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the case with every pension bill. Mr. IDSCOCK. But this is purely a private relief bill. Mr. SIMONTON. I rise to make an inquiry of the Chair. What is

the point of order of the gentleman from New York Y The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. HiscocK)

has not stated any ground for raising the question of order but one. But the point of order having been made against the amendment, the Chair will of course decide it under the rules of the Honse.

Mr. DIBRELL. I insist, when this Congress during the present fiscal year has voted more than 60,000,000 for pensions, the point of order should not now be made on a bill that simply proposes to do. justice to six old soldiers who have been stricken from the rolls and who are now between eighty and ninety years of age, thew hole amount involved not being more than $3,000. I think it would be very illiberal in Congress to refuse to do justice to these men, and I hope the House will not sustain any objection to that being done. There are only six of them that are in this position, and it is an outrage, when we are voting more than 60,000,000, without a word of opposition, to the pensioners of the country, that these six old men should be denied the benefits of this provision.

I do not object to the ruling of the Com.nriRsioner of Pensions in this matter. He may have probably done what he considered right. He is an honorable gentleman I have no doubt. But he or his aaents acted merely on the letter of a woman-as I showed before the Committee on Pensions-alleging one of these pensioners was disloyal, .although he had proved by witnesses and his own oath that he was loyal. And now by the act of 1878 after he was restored they propose to dock him of two or three years' pay which he drew before he was dropped from the roll on the charge of disloyalty.

Mr. McGOWAN. I wish to ask the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. DIBRELL] a question. Does he not know that nearly a score of men were restored to the pension-rolls previous to the law of 1878 who swore to their loyalty, and who were afterward discovered to have been disloyal! Does he not know that a number of them had been officers in the confederate army, and their commissions were found in what is known as the rebel archives and they were stricken from the rolls by reason of that discovery!

Mr. DIBRELL. I do not. That is the first intimation I have had of anything of the kind.

Mr. McGOWAN. I can produce the record. The written statement of the Commi.Ssioner of Pensions to that effect is on record.

Mr. DIBRELL. Does the gentleman refer to soldiers of the war of 1812 Y My amendment only applies to them.

Mr. McGOWAN. I refer to soldiers of the war of 1812. I mean precisely what I have said.

Mr. DIBRELL. I do not think the gentleman can show it. I do not believe the facts are as he has stated them.

Mr. McGOWAN. I can bring you the statement of the Commissioner of Pensions to the effect I have stated.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is simply as to the point of order. Does any gentleman desire to address the Chair upon that question T

Mr. CALKINS. Would it be in order to ask that the Clerk read the section of the law proposed to be modified by this amendment f

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman asks that the law of 1878 be read. Mr.CALKINS. I ask that the lawwhich is proposed tobemodified

be read. The CHAIRMAN. That is the act of 1878, as the Chair understands. Mr. CALKINS. I ask also that the amendment proposed by the

gentleman from Texas [Mr. REAGAN] be read. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment proposed by the gentleman

from Texas has been withdrawn and the amendment now offered is one offered by the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. DIBRELL.]

Mr. 9ALKINS. That is of the same purport, as I understand it. I ask this that the Honse may be advised as to the point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the provision in the law of 1878.

The Clerk read as follows : .SEC. 5. That the Secretary o~ the Inrerior be, and he is hereby, authorized and

<iirecred to restore to the pens1on·roll the names of all persona now surviving heret.<>fore p~ns~oned on account of service in the war of 1812 against Great Brita:U. or !or service m any of the Indian wars, and whose names are stricken from the rolls ID p~uance of the act.entitled "An act authorizing the Secretary o.f the Interior t.<> s~1ke from the pension.roll the names of such persons as have taken up arms against the Government or who have in any manner encoura.,.ed the rebels " approv~~ J!'ebruary 4, 1862; and that the joint resolution entitlgd "Joint resoiution prohibiting payment by any offic~r of the ~vernment ~ any person not known to have been opposed to the rebellion and ID favor of its suppression," approved March 2, 1867, and section 4716 of the Revised Statutes of the United States shall not aJ?ply to the persons provided for. by this act: .Provided, That no money shall be paid to ~y one on account of peilSlons for the time during which his name re. mamed stricken from the rolls.

Mr. CALKINS. Before section 6 is read I ask whether the amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee applies also to section 6 of the actf

The CHAµuIAN. The Chair thinks the amendment has no reference to section 6.

Mr. CALKINS. I ask that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee be now read.

The Clerk read as follows : Pro~ That ~e Commissioner of Pensions shall not withhold a pension from

any soldier or pensioner of the war of 1812 who was granted a pension under the a-0t of Congress of 1871, and was dropped for charges Of disloyalty and reinstated under act of 9th March, 1878, and therr pensions sh.all be paid from 9th March, 1878.

Mr. CALKINS. I desire to make a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. CALKINS. ¥Y inguiry is !Vhether th~ gentleman offering this

amendment reports it by rnstrnctions from his committee or whether it is an amendment offered by the gentleman as a member of the House?

The CHAIRMAlI. The Chair understands the amendment is offered by the gentleman himself and not under instructions from a committee.

Mr. CALKINS. I desire to say but one word. It occurs to me that as the section is materially modified by the amendment the amendment is liable to the point of order which is being urg~d against it. Bu~ I do not want to.take UJ? time in discussing it, the amendment, a.a it seems t9 me, bel.llg on its face so clearly liable to the point of order.

Mr. SIMONTON. I think this amendment is not liable to the point of order. It certainly changes no existing law. It is intended to correct a construction given by the Commissioner of Pensions to a statute, which construction is that under the act of 1878 he has a right to withhold the pensions of those who were stricken from the rolls after their names had been placed thereon under the act of 1871. It does not change any existing law, but corrects what is deemed to be an erroneous ruling by the Commissioner npon a statute. It cannot be a change of existing law; it is merely an application of the very principles of the law as it now stands.

Mr. IDSCOCK. If it changes no existing law, then there is no need for the amendment.

Mr. SIMONTON. Ah I Mr. HISCOCK. The whole proposition is covered by that state

ment. If i~ does change existing law, then it is subject to the point of order which I have made, and which is the same point of order that I made yesterday against the amendment of the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. REAGAN.]

Mr. SU~O:~ITON. The gent~e~an from New York [Mr. HrscoCK] says that if it changes no existmg law then there is no need of it Suppose that the Commissioner construes a law wrongfully. ·

Mr. HISCOCK. Does the gentleman say that the Commissioner has wrongfully construed the law T

Mr. SIMONTON. Suppose he has done so · then there may be a necessity for a legislative interpretation of the' law and we have the right to make that legislative interpretation without changing the law.

The CHAIRMAN. But would it not change the law from this time onf

Mr. SIMONTON. ~ot at all. If the Commissioner is compelled hereafter to .act according to the law, and has not been doing so heretofore, that 18 not a change of the law; it is merely a legislative construction of the law; that is all.

. T.he CHAIRMAN. 1:he fifth section of the act of 1878, after providmg for the restoration to the pension-rolls of the soldiers of the war of 1812 who had been dropped for disloyalty, goes on to provide-

That the joint resolution entitled "Joint resolution prohibiting payment by any officex: of the ?-overnme~t to any pe~on not known to have been opposed to the rebellion aJ?-d m favor of its supp~1on," approved March 2, 1867, and section 4n6 o~ the Revised .statutes of ~e Umtoo States, shall not apply to the persona provided for by ~ act: Propided, 1;.hat no. mon~y shall be paid to any one on account of peDSlons for the time durmg which llJ.s name remained stricken from the rolls.

Now, as the Chair understands it, the Commissioner of Pensions holds that if a person -w:ho otherwise would have been dropped from the rolls under the previous acts of Congress wrongfully received any part .of his pension during the time he should have been so dropped, and is now restored to the rolls by reason of this act then under the ~t the Commissioner.is authorized to withhold or ded~ct from his pension the amount which he wrongfully received during the time he should have been dropped. Whether that is a correct construction of. t~e statute or not, the Chair is not prepared to give a positive ?pm10n. At any r~te it is the construction which has been put upon it by the officer designated by the law to administer it.

The effect of the amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr PIBRELL] if .adopted will be to change that law; or perhaps, to sta~ it properly, it~ change the e:onstrnction of that law so as to prevent the CoIDmlS8ioner of Pensions from charging to these persons who. have b~en restore~ such money as they may have wrongfully received dt;ITmg th6 p~nod when they should have been dropped.

';l'he Chair has ~een mformed by the Commissioner of Pensions that ~his amendment if adopted would affect but five or six persons; still it w~uld change the law as respects a number of persons whether five or six or more. The Chair therefore thinks that it will change the law, within the meaning of the :n~e; beca~se undoubtedly if the amen~ent be adopted the Commissioner of Pensions will hereafter be required by the express letter of the law to do what he has not been heretofore required to do by the express· letter of the law

.Then this amendment is not offered by the instruction of ~ comnutt~e, nor does it retrench expenditures in any one of tl;le three ways provided by the new clause of the rule. That is, it does not :retren~h:

1676 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MARCH 18,

expenditures by "the reduction of the number and salaries of the officers of the United States;" it does not retrench expenditures by "the reduction of the compe11sation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States;" and it does not retren.ch expenditures by "the reduction of amounts of money covered by this bill.'' It is not, therefore, such an amendment as an individual member can offer, except upon. the instruction of his committee.

Mr. SPARKS. The only point is, does it change the law Y The CHAIRMAN. The Chairthinks i t tl.oes. Mr. SPARKS. · It certainly changes the ruling under the law; but

does it change the law 'f The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks it does change the law, be

cause without this amendment the proviso of the act of 1878 is a prohibition upon the Commissioner of Pensions paying to any person who has been restored to the pension-rolls his pension during the time when he ought to have been dropped from the roll. Under the law as it now stands, when the Commissioner of Pensions discovers that he has paid to a person his pension during the time when he otherwise would have been dropped from the rolls, he simply charges it up to that person, and puts him upon identically the same footing as all other persons who did not receive pension during such time as they were dropped from the rolls.

Mr. HAWLEY. Which is the general practice. The CHAIRMAN. Which the Chair understands is the general

practice, not only in reference to this class of pensioners, but to all pensioners under the law. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Mr. REAGAN. I move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio by reducing the amount $1,000,000. I desire to call attention to the fact that we have here a bill which as reported from the committee proposed to appropriate for certain deficiencies, a.mounting to 665,530.50. An amendment comes in afterward proposing to appropriate an additional 600,000, making something over 1,200,000. Now we are confronted by an additional amendment, which was sprung upon the Honse without having been printed so as to notify ns that it was inte.nded, an amendment appropriating 6,500,000, making the bill grow by the amendments of the committeefrom$665,000to$7,765,-000. This amendment is for "pensions for Army invalids, widows, minors, and dependent relatives, survivors of the war of 1812 and widows of the war of 1812, $6,500,000," with some other appropriations, making the amount of tlie amendment something like $7,000,000.

Now, as explained by the gentleman reporting the bill, this amendment appropriating $6,500,000 for pensions is designed to supplement the appropriation of about $27,000,000 made by the last Congress for arrears of pension. This large appropriation is explained as supplementa.l to that appropriation for arrears of pension; but the language ''arrears of pension" is not in this amendment. In lieu of such language, somehow or other the expression has got in referring to snrvi ving pensioners of the war of 1812, and widows of such pensioners. Why they come in, how they are to be benefited, under what recnmmendation from the Department they are to be benefited, upon what rule of reason or law they are to be benefited, is not exactly apparent to me, and has not been made so by the gentleman reporting the bill.

During the last Congress we passed an appropriation of $27,000,000 which was to be added to the pensions of soldiers already receiving their pensions. It was passed under very peculiar circumstances. I think I have the right to refer to what occurred upon the floor of the Honse-that democrats urged other democrats to vote for it, to be ahead of the republicans with the "soldier claim,'' because the Senate would defeat it; and republicans urged republicans to vote for it to be ahead of the democrats with the "soldier claim" because the Senate would defeat it. I do not like to speak with disrespect of that boay which out-demagogued the Honse, for it was a great undertaking under the peculiar facts of the case. It was using the industries and money of the country as counters in political gambling for the vptes of the people. Sir, the time cannot be lo~~ delayed when the property and the industries of this country will demand that they sha.11 cease to be gambled with as a means of securing political favor.

Now, here comes another proposition modestly proposing to appropriate $6,500,000 for the same class of soldiers; and it does not even mention that it is for arrears of pensions. This amendment came here with no notice; and this Honse ought to reject it. The proposition ought to come before the House upon its merits, with notice, ao that we can see whether we are to go on in this career of squandering the public money in order to buy political favor with any class of people in this country.

I make these remarks for the purpose merely of calling attention to the nature of this proposition, the circumstances under which it comes here, the objects for which it comes, and the wording of the amendment, which was calculated to mislead, which at least did mislead entirely one of so poor judgment as myself as to its objects. I hope the whole amendment will be rejected. Let it come before

. the Honse when it can be fairly considered. [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gen

tleman from Ohio, under instructions from the Committee on Appropriations, had in view no special class of pensioners-no more those ,entitled to arrears than any other. It is intended to supply some six or seven million dollars in order that the Department may go on and pay all lawful demands for pensions.

Mr. REAGAN. Would the gentleman give the details f That is what we want.

Mr. HAWLEY. Wait a moment. All lawful demands for pensions can be paid out of this money. The question is asked, why is this needed f It is needed for a great variety of reasons. There are many more applications for pensions than there used to be because of the arrearages bill, which, of course, increases the amount to be expended, so that i t is correct to say, when we are asked "why this necessity f" that it is due to the arrearages act in part. But it is not to be charge4l to that alone ; it is due to a great many things. There are changes in the law which swell the general demand for pensions, and the money appropriated is not sufficient to meet that general demand. There is no discrimination, no partiality in this amendment. I t is to supply all demands for pensions, and in this debate the discussion of the arrearages law is not in order any more than the discussion of the first pension law that the Government ever passed, or any law pensioning soldiers of the war of 1812, or of the .Mexican war, or of the Indian wars. Among the demands which make this necessity the arrearages pension bill comes. Am I not right T

Mr. REAGAN. I did desire to know the reason for this, bnt the gentleman ha.s still failed to give it. Just give us the details; let ne know what the Department says as to whom it goes.

Mr. HAWLEY. The details are to be found in the severa.l hundred thousand pension claims, and I could not give them in a week.

Mr. REAGAN. But the gentleman, as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, could have given us the estimates of the Depa.rtment to show what it was for.

Mr. ATKINS. I gave them yesterday. Mr. HAWLEY. I believe they were given yesterday by the gen

tleman from Tennessee, chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. ATKINS. I gave them to the gentleman yesterday. Mr. REAGAN. I do not remember. Mr. ATKINS. If yon examine the RECORD yon will :find it. Mr. HAWLEY. The amendments submitted by the gentleman from

Ohio follow, in general, the language of the sta.tut.e. It would have been a little trifle clearer if the words" and for" had been in the law; "for pensions for Army invalids," &c. Let us put in the preposition "for" and see bow clear it is. "For pensions for Army invalids," that is, a.11 Army invalids, "for widows, for minors, for dependent relatives, for survivors of the war of 1812, and for the widows of the war of 1812." That is what it is for.

:Mr. McMAHON. Insert the word" included." Mr. HAWLEY. Or the word "included" ought to be inserted. Mr. REAGAN. I wish to say I have understood from the gentle-

man from Ohio this was mainly for arrearages of pensions. Then why not mention arrearages f

Mr. HAWLEY. That is the largest blank to be filled; but all th~ things come in and there is not enough to pay the whole general account.

Mr. REAGAN. Why not make the act so it shall read "for arrearages of pension 'f " How can you use it for arrearages unless you say so Y ,

Mr. HAWLEY. Arrearage pension is not in the nature of an ordinary claim against the Government. It has merged itself since the passage of that bill into the general pension claim. There is not any more need of specifying that than of specifying a pension for the loss of a leg or arm or anything of that sort. All the specifying that is needed is made in this amendment, which is in the language of the general statute.

Mr. REAGAN. I withdraw my amendment by consent of the House. Mr. ATKINS. The gentleman will allow me a word before with

drawing his formal amendment. Mr. REAGAN. Certainly. Mr. ATKINS. The gentleman seems to think no estimate has been

made at all for this appropriation. I stated yesterday as plain as language would allow me that the Commissioner of Pensions had stated in his report there would be a deficiency for this year of $5,000,000 for these Army invalid pensions, &c., which I will read :

And there will be a deficiency in the pension appropriation for the current year, as nearly as can now be estimated, as follows: $5,000, 000, Army pensions; $30,000, Navy pensions, which should be provided for in order that the pensions for the June quart.er may be promptly paid.

I stated that yesterday in the remarks I then made. This estimate has been on the gentleman's table ever since the lat day of December last, and yet he says be has not seen the estimate.

Mr. REAGAN. As my friend from Tennessee helped to mislead me, he ought not to blame me for it now. If he will look at his remarks, he will :find that he did not make the statement in the language of the report from which he has just now quoted; but he stated that this waa for arrears of pension. I have from the reading of the amendment supposed in some way the pensioners of the war of 1812 were concerned. I have been trying to :find this morning how far they were interested in this; and it waa because I was trying to correct the part of it which related to the soldiers of the war of 1812 when the gentleman corrected me and said there was nothing about the pensioners of the war of 1812.

Mr. ATKINS. The gentleman stated that the entire proposition related to pensions for the war of 1812, and I denied that.

Mr. McGOWAN. What is the question befo.re the House T

1880. CONGRESSIONAL REQO.RD-HOUSE. 1677 The CHAIRMAN. The pending question is on the proforma amend

ment to the amendment moved by the gentleman from Texas. Mr. REAGAN. I withdraw it by consent of the committee. The CHAIRMAN. The question then recurs on the amendment of

the gentlemanfrom Ohio, [Mr. McMAHON.] . Mr. STE:VENSON. I move to strike out the last word, and I will

yield my time to the gentleman from Ohio. . ~· McMAHON. Mr. Chairman, I scarcely know how to take the

drift of the remarks of the gentleman from Texas, for, if I were to take the record of the past, I should suppose he was chiefly desirous of criticising the Committee on Appropriations, because be says we came in with a bill for 600,000, that we then increased it to 1,200,000, and now propose to increase it to $7,500,000.

I ask what difference it makes to him or the Honse if these appropriations are proper appropriations to be made, and why he has seen fit to criticise the Committee on Appropriations because they have endeavored to put into one bill provision for all the immediate necessi~ies of the Government Y He says we come in with an appropriation for these pensions of $6,000,000 which no one had time to consider, but which bill is brought and laid on our tables suddenly. That comes with a bad grace from the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, who annually rises in his place with appropriations to the extent of six and eight millions of dollars and moves to rush them thr?ugh under a suspension of the rules-bills relating to matters which none of us know anything about, and a majority of which are not open to any consideration or discussion on the part of the Honse. It comes, I·say, with a bad grace from that gentleman to make the criticism he has this morning.

Mr. REAGAN. It neYer has been done, but the bill, on the contrary, has been printed and laid for weeks on the tables of gentlemen.

Mr. McMAHON. And that is all we know about it. It was there, b~t w~ had no opl?ortunity for discussion; none ~f the views of the mmonty on any bill. All we had to do was to go it blind and swallow it whole. Many a steal was put through this Honse under that bill.

Mr. REAGAN. Never got one for $27,000,000 or for $6,500,000 on it. Mr. McMAHON. I wish to say in answer to that-Mr. HISCOCK. Does the gentleman say this is a steal Y ~· McMAHON. I do not yield to the gentleman from New York.

I wish to say to my colleague from the State of Texas on this side of the Honse there is no steal in this, and I am sorry to hear it from him. ~d when he .talks abo~t the ;inotives oth~rs have in passing these bills I want him to look. mto bis own consmence and probe it and see whether he is nc;>t appea~~ to some latent prejudice somewhere else.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is a law upon the statute-books which we have passed. It was passed by a two-thirds vote. I want to know now if the gentleman advocates the not carrying out of that law. I want to know if he wants to go before the country and say although we have passed a law which has been on our statute-books for a whole year, we will not appropriate money to carry it out. Because you have said these men shall have this, and they shall be entitled toit-

Mr. REAGAN. The gentleman has been instructing me in the last few days that we have the right to vote against appropriations under a bad law. [Laughter.] •

Mr. McMAHON. Exactly· but did I not draw the distinction before this Honse that when Congress failed to appropriate money it had a right t~ d.etermine '!hether th~ law was a good law or a bad law~ ~ut thIS 1s a yery different thing. The pension of the Union soldier IS a debt which the Goyernment of the United States owes to him. It is a debt which, when he files bis application in the Pension Office and wheD: it is allowed, becomes as obligatory on the Government of the Umted States as the payment of any other obligation of the Government.

Mr. REAGAN. I recognize that as fully as the gentleman from Ohio; but this is not a pension.

Mr. McMAHON. I beg the gentleman's pardon, there is not a dollar in this bill but what goes for pensions under the law.

Mr. REAGAN. This is for arrearages of pensions. Mr .. McMAHON. It simply fixes when that pension shall date. It

says 1t shall date from the time when he was wounded or when he died. I wish to ask the gentleman now does he pretend when the Goven;imen~ of the Un.ited States °'!es a soldier a pension it shall onl~ give him the pension from the tune he comes in to apply for itf I wish to say the true way is to give it to him from the time that he was wounded in the United States service.

And .we all Ir?ow in ~nr private experience that many of the most deservrng pens10ners failed to apply for pensions until extreme want compelled them; and that some of the best men now on the rolls were amon~ these later applicants who were only recently pensioned. I ~m snrprISed to hear my colleague from the State of Texas make this statement and use the arguments that he has used here to-day.

Mr. REAGAN. If there will not bemore surprise when the people ge~ awake to the fact that we are squandering the public money in this way, then I shall be surprised. ·

The question waa taken on the amendment of Mr. McMAHON The committee divided; and there were-ayes 137, noes 18. · So the amendment was agreed to. Mr. SAMFORD. I wish to give notice that I will aak for a yea

and-nay vote in the Honse on that amendment.

The Clerk proceeded to read as follows: INTERIOR DEPARTMENT.

Office of the .Auditor of Railroad Account.a: For traveling and incidental expenses of the office, f750.

Stationery: For stationery for the Interior Department and its several bureaus, $5,000. l\Ir. CONVERSE. I desire to offer an amendment to that section. The Clerk read as follows: Insert after line 74 the following: For the expenses of the commission on the codification of existing laws relating

to the survey and disposition of the public domain, and for other purposes $15 000 • Provided, That said commission shall make its final report upon all the public 13.nd& of the United Htates on or before the 1st day of January, A. D. 1!~81.

Mr. McMAHON. I hope my colleague will not press that now. It is a matter that the Committee on Appropriations is now considering, and I make the point of order upon the amendment.

Mr. CONVERSE. What is the point of order Y l\Ir. McMAHON. It is that the amendment increases expenditures,

and that this is not properly a deficiency; besides that it is now being considered by the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. CONVERSE. I will say to my colleague that this is a deficiency, and it is not an increase of the expenditures either.

It will be recollected that under a law of last year a commission was raised consisting of five persons to codify the land laws, and also to examine and report to this Honse some measures for the proper claBsification and sale of the public lands. This commission has been at work since last June. The sum of $20,000 was appropriated for their payment and necessary expenses. The commission is authorized to exist for a period I think of one year from the time of appointment. The appropriation, as I am informed, has run out.

The commission have already prepared the measures they recommend in relation to the public lands themselves, but as to the codification of the laws no report has been made. The commission is now engaged in codifying those laws preparatory to making their report a most important part of their work. It will be remembered that the expenses of this commission are comparatively trifling. There are o~y two of them that are pa.id out of the appropriation, and they are .paid only $~0 a d~y. One of these _gentlemen has a large practice which would yield him three or four times the amount he receives as a member of this commission. If he should be obliged to stop now in his work and a delay should intervene of three or four months he could not afford to return to the discharge of this public busines; at the end of that time, at the still greater sacrifice of his private b~siness. The work is being done, the codification is being made, and this .appropriation ought to be made now so that _the work may go cont1nnonsly forward and be completed as speedily as possible. I hope the amendment will prevail.

The CHAIRMAN. What has the gentleman from Ohio to say as to the question of orderf

Mr. CONVERSE. My statement is this: That the amendment provides for a deficiency. The original appropriation was insufficient for the purpose for which the commission was raised.

The CHAIRMAN. But the Chair understands the gentleman to state the commission was to exist for one year, and this amendment provides for its continuance till the 1st of Jan nary, 1881.

Mr. CONVERSE. I will withdraw that portion of the amendment, and ask the appropriation without it if that is objectionable.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman can offer bis amendment in any form he pleases.

. Mr. CONVERSE. Then I offer the amendment without the proVISO.

Mr. Mc~ON. I desire t? ask my c~Ileague a qnestio?l bearing upon the po~t of order. I wish toa.akhim '!hetherthe original law did not proVIde for the survey of only a portion of the public lands, whereas he would have that system now extended to all the public lands, according to the wording of his amendment T

Mr. CONVERSE. There waa no survey provided originally. The commission was eimply authorized to codify the laws and make a classification of the public lands. The classification has already been accomplished, and the report in relation to that has been made to the Honse.

Mr. McMAHON. But there is something there about including all the other public lands.

Mr: CONVERSE. That is withdrawn. The CHAffiMA.N. The gentleman from Ohio has modified the

amendmtmt so as to omit that part. Does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McMAHON] still make his point of order against the amendment!

Mr. BLOUNT. Let the amendment be read as it has now been modified.

The Clerk read as follows : For the expenses of the commission on the codification of existing laws relating

t-0 the survey and disposition of the public domain, and for other purposes, $15,009.

Mr. BLOUNT. I do not understand that that is a deficiency at all. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair desires to understand whether after

t~e explanation made by the ~entleman from Ohio and his modifica-tion of the amendment the pomt of order is still urged. ·

Mr. BLOUNT. I do urge the point of order and insist that this is not a deficiency at all. There is no law requiring this work to be accomplished within the year. There was a sum of i;noney appropriated

1678 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MARCH 18~

for the purpose of commencing the work and it is not absolutely required to be finished during the year. This, therefore, is not a deficiency. If the law required this to be done within the year and the fund was exhausted, then it would be in the nature of a deficiency.

Mr. CONVERSE. Does the gentleman state that the law does not require the work to be done within a year t

Mr. BLOUNT. That is my recollection. Mr. CONVERSE. The gentleman is mistaken. By the law, as I

understand, the commission exists for one year. An appropriation of $20,000 was made. And I will state to my friend this commission has been obliged not only to pay its traveling expenses out of that sum, but to pay for taking testimony~ amounting to seven or eight hundred pages, and to pay also for a very considerable portion of its printing. The appropriation is insufficient for the completion of this work of codifying the land laws, which I consider as important aa any work before this House. There are now more than three thousand acts relating to the public lands, scattered through nearly a hundred years of legislation, till even the very best lawyers are scarcely able even with protracted research to hunt out and ascertain with certainty the present condition of the land _laws. There is no more important work than the codification of these land laws, and it ought to be done at once.

The CHAIRMAN. If it be a fact that the existing law requires the work of the commission to be done within a year, of course this amendment in its present form does not change the existing law, and therefore is not liable to the point of order. The Chair, of course, will accept the statement of the gentleman from Ohio unless the contrary be shown.

Mr. CONVERSE. The commission exists for only twelve months. And I will state further that this additional appropriation will cover all the expenditures of the commission; there will ·be no future appropriation necessary to complete this important work.

The CHAIRMAN. Then the point of order is overruled ; and the question is upon the- amendment proposed by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CONVERSE.]

Mr. ATKINS. I would inquire of the gentleman how large this work will be f

Mr. CONVERSE. The final report will contain three or four hundred pages.

Mr. ATKINS. Has the gentleman investigated the subject so as to be satisfied that the money heretofore appropriated has an been expended upon .this work f

Mr. CONVERSE. I have been so informed by the chairman of the commission, and I have no doubt about it.

Mr. ATKINS. And there is an actual deficiency of $15,000 to complete the work Y

Mr. CONVERSE. There is an actual deficiency to complete the work. The entire commission is united in urging that this appropriation be made now, so that they can go forward with the work while they have the clerks en~aged in it. If they are obliged to drop out for three or four months it would be a great while before they could get in working shape again. Indeed it is doubtful if we could obtain the services of all the members of this commission after an enforced delay of three or four months.

Mr. BLOUNT. Has the whole $20,000 heretofore appropriated been expended T

Mr. CONVERSE. I am so informed by the chairman of the com-mission.

Mr. BLOUNT. And now they have no funds at all f Mr. CONVERSE. I understand so. Mr. MAGINNIS. I will ask the gentleman if the object of this ap

propriation is simply to make_ a codification of the land laws, or is it proposed ·to expend it in printing reports and getting up expensive maps, alrea-dy covered by other maps, for the purpose of sustaining the theories of certain gentlemen in regard to the public lands, which theories I think a.re erroneous 'I .

Mr. CONVERSE. It will not embrace the publication or the making of any maps. I understand that the work is now all done except the codification of the laws, the collection and annotation of the decisions of the courts relating to the public lands, under the statutes heretofore existing or now in forcet and also the decisions of the Commissioner of the Land Office and tne Secretary of the Interior on the same subject.

Mr. MAGINNIS. That is all very right and proper. Mr. CONVERSE. Thevolumewhich thecommissionisnowengaged

upon is the codification of the laws in relation to public lands, the decisions of the district and circuit courts of the United States, and also the decisions of the Land Department relating to the several questions that have from time to time come before those tribunals since the organization of the Government.

Mr. ATKINS. Without the appropriation now asked for would not the work be incomplete; would not the work of this commission be to a great ext ent a failure T

Mr. CONVERSE. As I regard it, the work already accomplished by the public land commission is important and valuable, but of far less value than that now in progress and which is to be continued to completion under this appropriation. This is a most important work, important to every lawyer and to everyman in the United States.

:Mr. BLOUNT. I am not prepared to say anything now in regard to the merits of this proposition. It is unusual to bring forward a

measure in this way without some examination as to the manner in which the money heretofore appropriated for the purpose has been expended. It was regarded by the Committee on Appropriations at. the time the appropriation was made that $20,000 would cover all'. expenses, and the amount was given upon the estimate furnished th& committee. In view of the importance of codifying the land laws of the United States, I wish, so far as I am personally concerned, t<> waive any objection to the adoption of this amendment at this time, although I do object as a general proposition to appropriations being made in this way, without any examination on the part of those who propose the amendments.

Mr. McMAHON. I desire to call the attention of my colleague [Mr. CONVERSE] to the wording of his amendment, which reads "For th& expenses of the commission for the codification of the laws." It does not say for what expenses.

Mr. CONVERSE. That is the name of the commission. The style of the commission is "for the codification of the laws and for other purposes."

Mr. McM.t\HON. I would like to have the expenditure limited according to the statement which has been made by the gentleman on this floor; that it is to complete the codification of the laws. _

Mr. CONVERSE. I will make that modification; and I will modify~ the amendment still further so as to make ·it read "$15,000 or s<> much thereof as may be necessary for the purpose."

Mr. McMAHON. It should read: "Necessary for the completion or the codification of the land laws."

Mr. CONVERSE. I am satisfied to modify the amendment in that. way.

The amendment, as modified, was adopted. The Olerk resumed the reading of the bill and read the following

POST-OFFICE DEPARTMENT. :Money-order office:

'For seven additional clerks for service in the money-order office, namely, two of class 4, one of cl.a.as 3, one of claas 2, and three at $900 per annum, from the passage of this act until .June 30, 1880, a sufficient sum is hereby appropriated.

Office of First .Assistant Postmaster-General : For additional clerks in post-offices, $10,000. For purchMe of letter-balances and scales, 12,500. To provide for increased pay of certain rout.e-agenta, wbo may be promoted to.

be postal-car clerks, to make their pay equal t.o tha.t of postal-car clerks, $5,000. Office of Second Assistant Postmaster-General :

For mail-route messengers $10,000. For additional postal-car cierks, $15,000. Mr. BLACKBURN. I am instructed by the Committee on Appro

priations to offer the amendment which I send to the Clerk's desk, to· come in after that portion of the bill just read.

The Clerk read the amendment, as follows: That the sum of $35,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, of the appro

priation for stamped envelopes a.nd wrappers for the fiscal year ending .June30, 1880, may be used for the purchase of post-office envelopes required for use duringthe said fiscal year.

The amendment was adopted. The Clerk read the following :

STATE DEPARTME::s'T. For extra. clerk hire and copying, $2,000. Mr. SINGLETON, of Mississippi. I am instructed by the Commit

tee on Appropriations to offer the amendment which I send to the Clerk's desk, to come in after that portion of the bill w'hich has just been read.

The Clerk read as follows : To enable the Secretary of State to purchase the manuscript of the revised con

sular regulations prepared by A. B. Wood, chief of the consular bureau in the Department of State, and approved by the Secretary of State, for such sum, not exceeding f2,000, as shall seem to him a fair pr ice for the work, and to use for thepayment of such purchase the appropriation already made by the a-Ot of Congress of· .January 21, 1879, for the expenses of editing and revising the consular regulations...

The amendment was a-dopted. The Clerk read as follows :

HOUSE OF REPRESESTATIYES.

For furniture and repairs of same, $1,500. UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION.

· Propagation of food-fishes: For continuing the work connected with the propagation of food-fishes, $15,000.

Fish-hatching steam fir: For supplying the :fish-hatching steamer authorized by and constructed under

t)le act of March 3, 1879, with the necessary fish-hatching machinery and other furniture, $12,500, or so much thereof as may be necessary ; and the Secretary of the Navy is hereby directed to plooe the Yessels of the United States Fish Commis~ sion on the same looting with the Navy Department a.s those of the United State Coast and Geodetic Survey.

EXECUTIVE OF FICE.

For contingent expenses of the Executive Office, including stationery therefor, s1,ooo.

MISCELLAKEOUS.

Southern claims commission : That. the sum of $800, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby author

ized to be transferred from the appropriation for contingent expenses of the southern claims commission, made under act of June 21, 1879, (see Statutes, volume 2~ page 29,) fo be available for paying the salaries and traveling expenses of the agents of said com.mission.

Mr. ATKINS. By instructions of the Committee on Appropriations. I offer the amendment which I send to the desk.

The Clerk read as follows : After line 122 insert the following: And the sum of $1,200, or so much thereof as may be necessary, of the unex-

1880. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1679 pended balance of any appropriations hererofore made for the support of the southern claims commission is hereby reappropriated for the payment of a clerk, who may be appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, at the rate of $100 per month, w COID:{>lete the records of the said commission, and care for the same, under the snpel'VlSion of the Treasury Department.

The amendment was adopted. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will now read the amendment re

ported by the Committee on Appropriations, to come in at the end of the bill.

The Clerk read as follows : Department of .Justice:

For the payment of the fees and expenses of United States marshals and their general deputies, earned during the fi.Scal year ending .Tune 30, 1880, '600,000.

Mr. HISCOCK. I move to amend the amendment by inserting after the word " general" the words " and special ; " so that the appropriation will be for the payment of general and special deputies.

It is not my intention to take very much time in the discUBBion of this amendment; but there is one point which has been so insisted upon by gentlemen on the other side that I must offer a remark or two upon it. The gentleman who has charge of this bill [Mr. McMAHON] and the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. COBB,] members of the Committee on Appropriations, have, in discussing this bill, insisted that the amendment I have offered is in effect in conflict with the provision of law forbidding the expenditure of money which has not been previously appropriated. I desire to call attention to the fact that the $600,000 which the committee propose to appropriate to pay marshals and their general deputies is to pay fees which have been already earned and for which no appropriation had been made. It will be remembered that we adjourned at the extra session without making any appropriation for this branch of the service. The ~entleman from Ohio pleads a~ainst the amendment I offer that it is unproper and illegal to make it in the face and eyes of the statute which he has read. When the statute applies to the 600,000 he proposes to appropriate, if it applies to the amendment I have offered, I urge that all fees of both general and special deputies are earned by minor officers; they are not earned under contracts made by any ·bra.heh of the Government; this money is not to carry out a contract. The proposed appropriation is for services of officers set in motion by law which have been earned in pursnance of statute, and not tinder a contract, and earned without the violation of any appropriation law or of any general statute.

When gentlemen upon the other side say that they vote against this amendment, and are uninfluenced by or will not obey the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, a serious question arises of the propriety of their action, and I desire to make it clear and emphatic. There is no legal excuse for rejecting the amendment, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court. In the last session the other side resisted the payment of these fees-let the appropriation go over because riders would not be accepted ; they demanded in effect that the Federal election laws should not be executed by the United States because of their unconstitutionality. The Supreme Court baa passed judgment upon that question, and now the " ·paleeyed priest from prophetic cell " comes not forth to lead the democracy; her oracles are dumb; no longer does she obey the voice of the Supreme Court of the United States, but the voice of Mississippi, where we all know elections are condu.cted in the 'llWBt q·uiet and peaceable -nianner. The voice of Mississippi is heard announcing that "this Congress when it will, will obey the decision of the Supreme Court." Other and new prophets have arisen in Cincinnati, Baltimore, New York City, prophesying if the operation of the Federal election laws is not defeated democracy is lost.

I ask gentlemen on the other side to be frank and fair. It will be as ·well for you. If yon are not, you will deceive no one. Do not plant yourself on the untenable doctrine that the payment of these fees is forbidden by any existing law, for, a-s I have shown in the very amendment offered by the committee, yon propose to provide an appropriation of $600,000 to pay fees which have been already earned, and which stand upon the same footing. Yon propose to authorize the payment of marshals and general deputies for services which they have performed dnrin~ the last fiscal year. Let the fact be recognized that it is in obedience to the men of the cities I have named, in obedience to the voice of the State of Mississippi, that your position is taken in defiance of the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and all because a faithful execution of the Federal election laws prevents fraud and insures an honest vote and an honest count.

[Here the hammer fell.] Mr. McMAHON. Mr.Chairman, when we had the" star-route" ap

propriation under consideration, the three gentlemen on the other side who most distinguished themselves in favor of adhering to the amount of money that had been appropriated during any fiscal year for a particular purpose were my modest friend from New York, [Mr. HiscocK,] my friend from Connecticut, [Mr. HAWLEY,] and my friend from Illinois, [Mr. CANNON]-all members of the Committee on Appropriations. We remember how my friend from Connecticut denounced the conduct of the Second Assistant Postmaster-General in connection with the star service; in what emphatic language. he said that Mr. Brady had been guilty of violation of law which might lead to his impeachment. Indeed, he was so impressive upon that occasion that the reporter forgot to get down the exact words which the gentleman did use.

Mr. HISCOCK. Does the gentleman mean the words that I used T Mr. McMAHON. Oh, no. Mr. HISCOCK. My words were taken down, and I have nothing

to take back. Mr. McMAHON. The words of the gentleman from Connecticut,

it would appear, were not taken down; and, therefore, in quoting them I am compelled to rely upon my memory. But I desire to read the language of the gentleman from New York [Mr. HiscocK] upon that same question :

But I desire to say to the gentleman from California, and w all gentlemen who have taken the ground that the Post-Office Department has not violated law, that they have misconceived the spirit of the statute; they not only misconceive the spirit of the statute, but the letter of the statute also.

Mr. HISCOCK. I desire to inquire of myfriendfromOhiowhether the very $600,000 covered by the amendment which he offers on behalf of the committee is not to pay fees which have been already earned f

Mr. McMAHON. In part. Mr. IDSCOCK. Substantially all. Mr. McMAHON. In part only; I beg the gentleman's pardon.

· Mr. HISCOCK. When the gentleman says " in part" he covers the whole ground and the whole principle.

Mr. McMAHON. The amendment applies only to the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880. But the point I want to ma.ke is this: heretofore whenever appropriations have been made for carrying out the election laws the appropriation has always been specific for that purpose; the estimates were sent to us in that form. Now, we all know that in this case no specific appropriation and no general appropriation was made for this purpose. I want to know whether gentlemen on the other side understood that the Post-Office Department could not run without a specific appropria.tion covering the full year f If, for example, we discover that the auditor of railroad accounts cannot examine the books of the Pacific railroad.a for the purpose of ascertaining how much money is coming to the United States Treasury because there is no appropriation available for that purpose; if the ''fish-hatching steamer" cannot be fitted out ; if this Government cannot be run in any of its Executive Departments unless appropriations are made therefor, I want to know why gentlemen on the other side claim that special deputy marshals of election, mere political agents, can be employed without any appropriation for that purpose, and that a debt against the Government is thus created f

Mr. HASKELL. I wish to a-sk the gentleman whether when the democratic party failed to appropriate money for the marshals of the United States, it was their intention to stop the judiciary of the United States and hold it in abeyance until they saw fit to set it running again f

Mr. McMAHON. That is an awful question, Mr. Chairman. I say no. [Laughter.] In putting that amendment on that bill they simply wanted when yon were getting money for the courts you should also take your medicine for the election laws. [Laughter.]

Mr. HA.SKELL. You failed to appropriate money for the courts; you adjourned Without appropriating it. The argument you have used goes to show you meant to stop the judiciary of the United States unless--

Mr. McMAHON. I beg the gentleman's pardon; we passed the .bill twice for the payment of the fees of marshals, but your Executive vetoed it.

Mr. HA.SKELL. You adjourned without making the appropriation. . Mr. McMAHON. We could not stay here all the year to accommo-

date yon ; and did not. Mr. ATKINS. The President vetoed the bill. Mr. McMAHON. Of course he vetoed it twice, may be three times. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. SPRINGER and Mr. -PAGE rose. The CHAIRMAN. Debate on the pending amendment is exhausted. Mr. PAGE. I move to strike out the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Further amendment is not in order. Mr. SPRINGER. I understand the proposition offered by the gen

tleman from Ohio is an original proposition and not an amendment to any particular section of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee on Appropriations through the gentleman from Ohio, in reporting this bill back to the Honse a second time, reported along with it the amendment already read.

Mr. SPRINGER. There may be two amendments to that, being a part of the original text.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not a part of the original text, but is an amendment pending before the committee.

Mr. SPRINGER. Then no further amendment is in order. The CHAIRMAN. Not until this is disposed of. Mr. SPRINGER. I ask the gentlemanfromNewYorktowithdraw

his amendment ; and I will renew it. Mr. HISCOCK. The gentleman from California [Mr. PAGE] made

the amendment. Mr. PAGE. I made no amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York moved to amend

by adding the words " and special" after the word " general." O~ that amendment debate is exhausted.

Mr. SPRINGER. I ask the gentleman to withdraw it, and I will renew it.

Mr. HISCOCK. Debate has not been exhausted.

1680 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MARoH 18~

The CHAIRMAN. No amendment is in order and no debate is in order nntil this amendmeQ,t is disposed of.

Mr. SPRINGER. I ask the gentleman to withdraw it, and I will renew it.

Mr. HISCOCK. I withdraw it for that purpose. Mr. SPRINGER. I rise for the purpose of stating that I have pre

pared an amenclment which I think will meet this view of the question. As I have sent it to the Clerk's desk, I ask it to be read.

Mr. ffiSCOCK. I do not understand that amendment is offered now. Mr. SPRINGER. Of course not, but I give notice at the proper

time I will offer it. The CHAIRMAN. Only one amendment to the amendment can be

pending. Mr. SPRINGER. I now ask it be read as a part of my remarks. The Clerk read as follows : Am.end the amendment by adding thereto the following : For special deputy marsnals of elections, the sum of 7,600: Provided, That

hereafter special deputy marshals of elections and general deputy marshals, for performing any duties in reference to any election, shall receive the sum of $2 J>er day in full for their compensation; and that all appointments of such special deputy marshals or of general deputy marshals having any duty to perform in respect to any election shall be made by the judge of the circuit court of the Unired States for the district in which such marshals are to perform their duties, or by the district judge, in the absence of the circuit judge, and not less than two nor more than three appointments shall be made for any voting precinct where such appoint. ments a.re required to be made, and the persons so appointed shall ea.oh be of different political parties, of j?OOd character, and able to read and write the En~lish language, and shall be well-known residents of the voting precinct in which their duties are to be performed.

Mr. SPRINGER. I will state this is the amendment which appears in the RECORD this morning and which I gave notice I would offer.

Mr. BUCKNER. I rise to a point of order. Mr. FRYE. Strike out those limiting, qualifying words "of good

character" as it will be difficult to find them on that side. [Laughter.] ~fr. SPRINGER. Those words were put in to meet the ca-se which

occurred in the city of Philadelphia at the last presidential election when, by the proof offered before one of the committees of Congress, it was shown those who were appointed were the very worst characters which could be found in that city. I desire to avoid that in the future.

Mr. O'NEILL. I want to tell the gentleman-·Mr. SPRINGER. I cannot yieia. Mr. O'NEILL. I want to tell him how ignorant he is in refer

ence-Mr. SPRINGER. I have only five minutes, and I cannot yield to

the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I desire to state that when I can offer this amendment I will do so, and that I have been authorized by the Committee on Elections to submit this as an amendment to the amendment now pending. The committee have directed me to submit this, but in doing so the Committee on Elections desires it to be understood that it does not bind individual members, but t\lat when the mea-sure comes up it may be that some will support it and some will vote against it. Now this proposed amendment meets everything which seems to be desired by the gentleman from New York, and more. It provides in the future that the number of these deputy marshals at elections shall be limited to not less than two or more than three. It provides that they shall be of different political parties, of good character, and able to read and write in English, and that they shall be well-known residents of the precinct in which the election is to be held.

Mr. CONGER. Is that an attack on the German citizens f Mr. McMAHON. I will say to the gentleman from Michigan that

I doubt if he has ever seen a German who could not read. Mr. SPRINGER. The Germans who vote the democratic ticket

know how to read and writ.a in English. I now withdraw the amendment in order that the gentleman from New York may again offer it.

Mr. PAQE. I renew the amendment of the gentleman from New York, and desire to say a word only in reference to it. If this amendment is adopted it will enable the disbursing officers of the Government to pay the deputy marshals that were appointed at the election in California in September last. These men, Mr. Chairman, were appointed in accordance with the existing law. The democratic party as well as the r~publican party in California last year believed, I think, generally that the United States law should be invoked for the protection of its citizens on election day. There were four parties in California last year, and three parties had candidates in the field for Congress.

It is well known to the people of this country that there wa-s danger to be apprehended on election day and for several days prior to the election last fall in California. It is also well known that the leader of one of the political parties assailed the head of one of the other contending parties with an attempt to commit murder, neither belonging to the republican or democratic party. But the in.flammable condition of affairs in the State of California ten days prior to the <lay of election rendered it necessary that the authorities should take every possible precaution in their power in order to protect the people from what seemed likely to be a source of trouble growing out of that election, and with a view that there should be a peaceable and fair election. The military of the city of San Francisco and of the State of California ·were employed to guard one of these parties who was confined in the county jail for an assault with intent to murder; and numbers of workingmen paraded the streets threatening that they

would take this party from the jail; and all this occurred about election time. Now, I say that it was right and necessary that the lawabiding people of that State without regard to party should invoke the power of the General Government if necessary for the protection of this people and for the purpose of securing a fuir and free election.

On turning to your election Jaws I find it is provided that the United States marshals at the request of two citizens must appoint deputy marshals for the purpose of seeing that there should be a fair election held and also for the purpose of preserving the peace at the polls. Now, I aBk my friend from Ohio in charge of this bill if he believes that the marshals did right in appointing these deputy marshals and if he believes it right that this House should pay the debt. The ~entleman asked me yesterday, and I have no doubt that he was senous in his question, if these marshals in California had not been already paid. I know of no sum _out of which they could have been paid. I do not think the gentleman seriously believes that the republican party paid the expense incurred under the law. I do not believe that the democratic party or any other party paid the bill, but I do say that it was an expense created exactly in accordance with law, and that the best citizens of that State without regard to party believed it right to have the marshals appointed as a precautionary measure, if for no other purpose. They would have been derelict in their duty if they had not complied with the law appointing the marshals when required to do so. And these appointments were made, and these marshals performed the service, in order to provide that the election in San Francisco and Oakland should be fair and free, and I do hope that this measure of justice will not be defeated here.

I hope that the Honse, without any objection, will pay these one or two hundred marshals-I do not remember the exact number, but the amountrangesfrom $20to $40 each, and I hope thatthe payment will not be delayed. I do not know the exact amount.

Mr. HISCOCK. Seven thousand six hundred dollars in the aggregate.

Mr. PAGE. And it does not seem possible that that side of the House would refuse to pay these men who were appointed under the law of Congress; that you will now withhold the necessary appropriation for paying these men what they are entitled to under the law.

And let me say to the gentleman from Ohio that the legality of their appointment can no more be questioned than the legality of the general marshals that were appointed by the marshal himself. If it was wrong for him to retain in his employment the general marshals it was wrong then, perhaps. for him to have appointed these extra marshals. But it waa no more unlawful in the one case than in the other, because you had made no appropriations to pay the general deputies and no appropriations to pay the marshal his salary, and it was jm~t as lawful for the marshal of California to appoint these marshals on election day as it was to retain under his control the general marshals.

[Here the hammer fell.] Mr. WRIGHT. I want to ask the gentleman from California a

question. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has

e.xpired. Mr. O'NEILL rose. The CHAIRMAN. Debate on the pending amendment is exhausted.

The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] renewed thA amendment and made a speech and the gentleman from California opposed it.

Mr. PAGE. The gentleman from Illinois withdrew the amendment and I renewed it.

The CHAIRMAN. Then the gentleman from Pennsylvania is entitled to five minutes.

Mr. O'NEILL. I do not think I want five minutes to defend Philadelphia or. Philadelphia elections or the officers who conduct the Philadelphia elections.

During the session of last summer I gave this House what I thought was a very clear view of the conduct of the marshal of the eastern district of Pennsylvania and a defense of the special marshals who had been appointed by him. Now I want to say what hurts the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] and the democratic party in this House and the democratic party all over this country is this, that Philadelphia is radically a republican city and that you cannot repress its republicanism. And I want to say in reply to the gentleman's slnr on the marshal and his conduct there that the democratic Senate of the United States sent a committee of investigation to Philadelphia, that that committee investigated the democratic side of the case, and came back ashamed of itself and afraid to return to Philadelphia to examine republicans who would have come before it and told it the honest truth. It never dared to go to the city of Philadelphia to carry on thii investigation.

And if gentlemen wi11 look over the records of the Senate they will see what was done in executive session in regard to the reappointment of the marshal of that district. Marshal Kerns, a gentleman of the highest integrity in his official conduct, was unanimously confirmed by the democratic Senate in executive sesaion, which thna indorsed his acts M marshal.

Mr. RANDALL, (the Speaker.) How does the gentle.man know the confirmation was unanimous t

Mr. O'NEILL. I know it from having heard it. Mr. RANDALL, (the Speaker.) Ahl

1880. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1681 Mr. O'NEILL. I know there are no secrets that are not told out of

the executive session of the Senate, and so does the Speaker of this Honse.

Mr. RANDALL, (the Speaker.) I want to know the gentleman's authority for the statement he ma-Oe that the nomination was confirmed unanimously.

Mr. O'NEILL. I give it as spoken on.the streets of this city-just in the same way as we always get information of what is done in executive session.

Mr. FORT. And did not the committee report unanimously' Mr. O'NEILL. I was about to state that. Every member of the

House knows that we hear everything that occurs in the executive session of the Senate relative to confirmations.

Mr. SPRINGER. I call the gentleman to order. Mr. O'NEILL. The committee reported unanimously to the Sen

ate and the confirmation was unanimous. Mr. SPRINGER. I call the gentleman to order. The gentleman

has no right to refer to the proceedings of the Senate in this House, and especially to proceedings of the Senate in executive session, which are secret.

Mr. SPARKS. Unless he can tell usthemeansbywhichhe knows it. Mr. O'NEILL. I have referred to that, and my reference has gone

into the RECORD. Mr. SPRINGER. I insist on the question of order. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not understand there is any rule

of the House or any rule of parliamentary law which prevents the gentleman from referring to proceedings at the other end of the Capitol; although he is prevented from criticising or calling in question the proceedings there or alluding by name t,o the gentlemen who participated in those proceedings. The proceedings of the other branch are constantly alluded to in this House.

Mr. SPRINGER. ·But the gentleman is attempting to state the proceedings of a secret session of the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN. He is stating the result of the proceedings as he understands it. .

Mr. SPRINGER. And I state further I made no attack on Marsha.! Kerns.

Mr. O'NEILL. But you made an attack on the great republican city of Philadelphia.

Mr. SPRINGER. In that, too, the gentleman is wrong. Mr. O'NEILL. I will say farther in reference to this confirmation,

it was opposed strongly by certain democrats. But, sir, the democratic Senator from the State of Pennsylvania rose above party feeling and showed himself superior in his action to the democrats who sought to pull down this respected official, Marshal Kerns. And he permitted that confirmation to be made in the Senate, because he knew there was no cause for rejecting him, as he had simply discharged his duty conscientiously.

Mr. SPARKS. My colleague only attacked the republican party of Philadelphia, not the city. .

Mr. O'NEILL. He attacked the citizens of Philadelphia who are republicans and who will remain republicans.

[Here the hammer fell.] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. O'NEILL. I have been interrupted a great deal. Mr. RANDALL, (the Speaker.) I desire to say but a few words. I

do not want by silence to have it understood that I am of the opinion that there was any occasion whatever for United States marshals at the election to which reference has been made. On the contrary, I assert that there was no occasion for them, and the very gentleman alluded to, who was the officer that appointed them, stated subsequently under oath that there was no occasion for them.

Nor do I want by silence to have it understood that the men who were so appointed were of that character of citizens who were entitled to be selected for that particular service. I want to say further, notwithstanding the gentleman's allegation that this officer was recently confira:led by a unanimous vote of the Senate, that he was confirmed over my written protest.

Mr. O'NEILL. That only shows the manner in which Senator WALLACE performs his duty toward a gentleman who was worthy of his

. support. TheCHAIBMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. O'NEILL]

is not.entitled to the floor. Mr. RANDALL, (the Speaker.) I yield the remainder of my time

to the gentleman. [Laughter.] Mr. O'NEILL. I am much obiiged to the gentleman. I want to

say something more for the instruction of the democratic party of this House and of the country [laughter] relative to elections in the city of Philadelphia. It is but a few years since republicans by hundreds and thousands were driven from the polls in Philadelphia. That continued until the city of Philadelphia became a republican city, until we were enabled to elect a mayor of the city of Philadelphia and to have a police force that knew how to perform its duty; until we passed a few years ago (and I aided in its passage through this House) the very law under which special deputy marshals are appointed to serve at elections. We wanted a police force and United States marshals at our elections to give the great republican city of Philadelphia an opportunity to express its real sentiments at the

. polls, and which it had been obliged to express before that time upon election days time and again through blood an~ the most fearful riots

X-106

ever known in this country, instigated by the desire of the democrats to keep possession of that city if they could.

Mr. SPRINGER. The gentleman entirely misrepresents me when he says that I attacked the people of Philadelphia. I simply referred to certain special deputy marshals appointed for the elections in that city, who were proved by the evidence before a committee of Congress to have been in several instances persons of the most disreputable character, some of them keepers of bawdy houses, others of them convicts, others of them jail-birds, and others vagrants and tramps who had no visible meaus of support whatever. '!'hey have been proven to be persons of that character by a committee of Congress, and nobody has come to their defense. It was such persons that I attacked and no other. I did not say a word against the good people of Philadelphia. Those persons do not represent even the republican party of Philadelphia.

Mr. O'NEILL. The gentleman says that was proved ; it was by ex parte testimony.

Mr. SPRINGER. ltwasnot by expartetestimony. It was in.open committee, where the witnesses were subjected to cross-examination.

Mr. O'NEILL. And the committee laughed in their sleeve whilethat testimony was being taken.

Mr. SPRINGER. I do not see the laugh in the record; but I see evidence of the fact that some of those persons were of the most disreputable character.

Mr. SP ARKS. And they were selected" to give the republicans of Philadelphia a chance."

Mr. O'NEILL. The Senate committee never returned to Philadelphia to give. these men a chance to defend themselves. I was obliged to bring into this House and put into the RECORD as a part of my speech ,in April last the affidavits of a number of these men whose characters had been assailed before the Senate committee.

Mr. SPRINGER. So much was proved by the testimony that it was not necessary to return to that city in order to heap up proof upon proof.

.Mr. O'NEILL. At all events the gentleman who appointed t hose men has been confirmed by a democratic Senate as marshal.

Mr. RANDALL, (the Speaker.) Sachaction could not have occurred in a democratic House.

Mr. O'NEILL. No, not by a democratic Honse; but by a democratic Senate.

Mr. HAWLEY. I raise the point that this debate is not in order. The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is well taken; debate has

been exhausted upon the pending amendment. Mr. FINLEY. I move to amend by striking out the last three words. The CHAIRMAN. No such motion is in order because an amend

ment to the amendment is already pending. Mr. PAGE. I desire to withdraw temporarily the amendment which

the gentleman from New York first offered and which was renewed by me; and I wish to yield--

Mr. FINLEY. We object to the withdrawal. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. PAGE] can

not yield, because he has not the floor. Mr. HISCOCK. He withdraws the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is made to the withdrawal. The ques

tion is upon the adoption of the amendment offered originally by the gentleman from New York [Mr. HISCOCK] and renewed by the gentleman from California.

Mr. HISCOCK. I trust that there will be no objection to the temporary withdrawal of this amendment, to the end that one or two more gentlemen may speak on the question.

Mr. WRIGHT. If you want debate on it, let it be general. Mr. HISCOCK. We shall not restrict it. The CHAIRMAN. Tho gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER]

has given notice of an amendment to be offered as soon as this question is disposed of. That amendment wi11 present substantially the same question, at least in one of its forms. The amendment of the gentleman from New York will be read.

The Clerk read a~ follows: After the word •• general" inse:rt the words " and special; " so that the amend

ment will read: " For the payment of the fees and expenses of United States marshals and their

general and special deputies, earned during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, $600,000." .

Mr. GARFIELD. We may as well have tellers on this question. The CHAIRMAN. If there be no objection, the Chair will appoint

tellers. There was no objection, and Mr. McMAHON and Mr. HISCOCK were

appointed. The committee divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 105, noes

124. So the amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. Mr. SPRINGER. On behalf of the Committee on Elections I now

offer the amendment of which notice has been given. The amendment was read, as follows: Amend the amendment by add.in~ theret.o the following: For special deputy marshals of elections, the sum of $7,600: P'l'ovided, That

hereafter special de_Puty marshals of elections, and general deputy marshals, for performing any duties in reference to any election, shall receive the sum of $2 per day in full ror their compensation; and that all appointments of such special deputy marsha.ls or of general deputy marshals having any duty t.o perform in resrect to any election shall be made by the judge of- the circuit court of the Unit.ad 8tates for the district in which such marshal.8 are to perform their duties, or by the dis-


trict judge, in ttie absence of the circuit judge, and not less than two nor more than three appointments shall be made for any voting precinct where such a;P,pointmants are required to be made, and the persons so appointed shall be of different political parties, of good character, and able to read and write the En.,.lish language, and shall be well-known residents of the voting precinct in which their duties are to be performed.

Mr. ffiSCOCK. I desire to make a point of order on that amendment.

Mr. KEIFER. I also wish to make a point of order. Mr. McMAHON. I hope gentlemen on the other side will not make

points of order upon this. We had a promise yesterday from the other aide that something of this kind would be accepted. My colleague [Mr. GARFIELD] said that the lamp was still burning.

Mr. ffiSCOCK. I make a point of order on the amendment. I suppose it will hardly be claimed that this amendment can be offered under the clause of the rule which we have had under discussion:

Nor shall any provision in any such bill or amendment thereto changin~ e:ristin"' law be in order, except such as, being germane to the subject-matter of the biif, shall retrench expenditures.

I suppose the proposition is offered--The CHAIRMAN. It comes from a committee, as the Chair under

stands. Mr. HISCOCK. It comes from a committee. Now, the first point

I make is based upon the proviso of Rule XXI: Provided, That it shall be in order further to amend such bill upon the report of

the committee having jurisdiction of the subject-matt~r of such amendment, &o.

I submit that the subject-matter of this amendment has never been confided to the Committee on Elections, and that committee has no jurisdiction of it by any order of this Honse. It can only acquire jurisdiction under the order and direction of the House.

The next point I make is based upon this language of the rule : All proposed legislation shall be referred to the committees named in the pre

ceding rule, as follows, namely: Subjects relating-1. To the election of members: to the Committee on Elections.

I submit that the clear intent of this language is that the province of the Committee on Elections shall be limited to questions concerning the election of members to this Honse; that it is not competent for that committee, even under the direction of the House, to take j nrisdiction of a general election law making provision for the future election of members; that the whole jurisdiction of this committee is confined to the investigation of subject-matters relating to the election of members already claiming seats here-that their jurisdiction does not extend beyond that.

Mr. KEIFER. The points of order have been well stated by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. HiscocK.] I wish to call attention to a bill introduced by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] and referred to the Committee on Elections, and I will say that this amendment is in substance that bill. I agree that it is not in precisely the same Janguage, but in every sense it is in substance that bill. I take pleasure in sending a copy of the bill to the Chair.

Now I wish to say if this be not true-if it be controverted by the ~entleman from Illinois-if he claims that this proposed amendment is not in substance the bill now before the Committee on Elections, then the point made by the gentleman from New York is sound-that this subject-matter referred to in the amendment was never before the Committee on Elections. It was never referred to that committee if it did not get there by virtue of the reference of the bill of the gentleman from Illinois.

In terms the proposed amendment containsmorethan the bill that was referred. It contains in addition an appropriation, but in its subject-matter it proposes to change existing law in relation to the special deputy marshals and their mode of appointment. The objection must go, of course, to the whole amendment. If the amendment simply proposed to pay these special deputy marshals in the State of California, the objection would not be good, and I think I am safe in saying that no objection would be made, at least on this side of the House, to such an amendment. That amendment would be entirely in order, because this is a deficiency made in accordance with law. I know it is that sort of deficiency that my colleague [Mr. McMAHo~] undertakes to say the Congress of the United States ought not to make good. But, Mr. Chairman, while I do not characterize that utterance of my colleague, I wish to characterize the conduct of the Congress of the United States in refusing to make appropriations which ai·e in exact accordance with the mandates of law. It is not cowardly to refuse, but it is doing that which will be denominated before the country and the world dishonest not to ap-propriate money to pay a debt which has been contracted in exact accordance with law.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that my point of order must ~o to the whole of this proposed amendment; and I wish to have it distinctly understood the gentleman can make proper appropriations but in this way. He cannot change existing laws. We do not wish either to have a repetition of what we have had in the early days of this Qongress.

Mr. SPRINGER. The gentleman from Ohio, who ha-s just taken his seat, makes the point of order, first, that the subject-matter of this amendment has not been before the Committee on Elections; and, secondly, that the subject-matter of it is before the Committee on Elections, and for that reason is not in order.

Mr. KEIFER. The gentleman will nnderstand me: I say that it is not 'before the Committee on Elections nnless it gets there by virtue of a. bill which the gentleman has introduced; and if it does get

there by virtue of that bill, then he can only report in accordance with the subject-matter contained in that bill. If it is not in atcordance with that, then it should be ruled out upon that ground.

Mr. SPRINGER. A bill is pending before the Committee on Elections, as appears by the RECORD, concerning the election of Representatives in Congress. It is not necessary to look into that bill any further as to the subject-matter of this amendment. The sul>jectmatter of the election of Representatives in Congress is now before that committee. Therefore on that ground the point of order is not well taken.

The next question is, whether it is in substance the bill pending before the Committee on Elections. In order to he in substance the same it must in terms or words sufficiently plain represent the substance of that bill. It does not do so, and the gentleman cannot pretend that it does.

The bill before the committee contains three sections, one in relation to supervisors of election, another in reference to deputy marshals of election, and the third in reference to arbitrary arrests by such manihals of election, so that the substance of the bill is not embraced in the pending amendment nor in the language of that bill. The subject of deputy marshals is covered, but it is entirely different in its provisions.

As to the point made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. HiscocK] that the Committee on Elections did not properly have jurisdiction of this subject, that question has alrea-Oy been adjudicated by t.he reference of the bill to that committee. If the gentleman thought the reference was improper, it was his right at the time the reference was made to move a different reference ; but the House having referred this bill all questions as to whether it is properly there or not have been adjudicated by the House. But independently of that, I hold that under the rule all questions relating to the election of Representatives in Congress properly should be referred to the Committee on Elections. As to the point made by the gentleman from New York, I do not think it is well taken from the fact that, under the rule, it is provided-

That it shall be in order further to amend such bill upon the report of the committee having jurisdiction of the subject-matter of such amendment, which amendment, being germane to the subject-matter of the bill, shall retrench expenditures.

Does this provision retrench expenditures t It reduces the compensation of deputy marshals of election from $5 a day to $2 a day. It reduces their number from being unlimited to not less than two nor more than three in each district where they are required to be appointed. So in both respects, in the reduction of the number of officers and the amonnt of their pay, it does retrench expenditure by its terms. Then, being germane to this bill as an appropriation to supply a deficiency, which this bill in its title purports to refer to, and making that appropriation on the condition that hereafter the pay of such marshal~ shall be reduced in amount and they shall be reduced in the number, ifl comes entirely within the role under every feature of'it.

Mr. ffiSCOCK. Mr. Chairman, I suppose these rules are not intended for a snare, and I suppose a fair and liberal construction is to be put upon them. I do not suppose, if a bill is introduced to the House and by mistake or if because the gentleman from Illinois was not carefully watched a bill was referred to his Committee on ElectioM over which it had no jurisdiction, the fact that it was sent there in that way would bring it within the proviso which is added to this third clause of Rule XXI. The language of the proviso is:

Provided, It shall be in order to further amend such bill on the report of the committee having jurisdiction of the subject-matter of such amendment.

"Having jurisdiction" under these rules. Here is a code of law for us, a code of law which is to guide us, which is to guide this House. It is in fact its chart of government. The point is whether nnder the rules the committee has jurisdiction of the subject-matter. Now, turn back to Rule XI, and this subdivision has special reference to Rule XI in reference to the powers of committees when it says what subjects may be considered under this proviso.

Turning back to Rule XI and the language is that-.A.11 proposed legislation shall be referred to the committees named in the pre

ceding rule, as follows, nameJy: Subjects relating-1. To the election of members.

The role refers to election of members of this House, not members of a future Congress. We all understand the jurisdiction of the Elections Committee. We all understand what jurisdiction it was intended to confer on that committee. And I say that the language used here, the word" jurisdiction" in this subdivision of Rule XXI, refers to the jurisdiction as it is referred to and defined in Rule XI, which confers jurisdiction upon the different committees of this House.

So far as the question of fact which has been referred to by the gentleman from Ohio on this side of the Honse is concerned, I do not know in reference to that; but this is the first time I have ever understood that any bill on this subject had been referred to that committee. I understand the gentleman from Ohio to say this is not in substance the bill referred to the committee, or it was not a bill which would carry the jurisdiction of this amendment or of the subject-matter of this amendment to that committee; but the point which I insist upon, and the vital point here, is the language of this subdivision No. 3 of Rule XXI. It speaks with reference to the jurisdiction as it is laid down and defined in Rule XI, where the jurisdio-

1880. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1683 tion and powers of the various committees of the House over subject-matters referred to them is defined, and not with reference to a jurisdictioi;i. which may be eonferred by a special reference. Upon the question which the gentleman from Mississippi has discussed I shall spend no time, because under the intimation of the Chair I understand that the vital point in his mind is that I have discussed. · Mr. ROBESON. Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that the important point in this case is whether the Election Committee has jurisdiction oft.he subject-matter of this amendment or not.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks the point of order turns upon that question.

Mr. ROBESON. Yes, sir; turns upon that point. I find by Rule XI tllat all proposed legislation on subjects relating to the election of members shall be referred to the Committee on Elections. What does that mean Y This, and this only : by the Constitution this Honse is the'' judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members." In the discharge of that function this Honse has created a committee which it calls its Committee on Elections, and to them are referred all the questions growing out of the controversies which are involved in these particular elections.

Mr. SPRINGER. Will the gentleman allow me a question Y Mr. ROBESON. Certainly. Mr. SPRINGER. Rule XI, which the gentleman from New Jersey

[Mr. ROBESON] has just quoted, provides that all" proposed legislation" shall be referred to the several committees thereafter named, &c., and then provides that all proposed legislation in reference to the elections of members shall be referred to the Committee on Elections. This is not a contested-election ca-se.

Mr. ROBESON. I admit it. Mr. SPRINGER. Now if we look to the jurisdiction of the Judi

ciary Committee we find that it relates to judicial proceedings, to civil and criminal la.w. Should this bill, therefore, go to the Committee on the Judiciary Y Not at all. It does not relate to any of the subject-matters referred to in the rule prescribing the duties of that committee and it can only go to the Committee on Elections under the rule.

Mr. ROBESON. I was about to state a general proposition, when the gentleman interrupted me, that "all proposed legislation shall bo referred to committees named in the preceding rule," as follows: "Subjects relating to the election of members, to the Committee on Elections." Now my point is that that committee was organized for the consideration of the election of members after they get into this House wit.h refernnce to contests in regard to their seats, and that the committee does not naturally and generally have charge of the subject-matter of the laws whichregulate,andare forthefnturetoregulate, tho e elections. I say that is so, first, because that committee is organized under that clause of the Constitution which gives to this House the power to which I have referred; second, because the practice has always been so; third, because all subjects relating to civil and criminal law are under this rule referred to another committee, and that division of the rule which refers subjects relating to civil and criminal law to the judiciary is the special and last provision on this subject, and takes the general subject-matter from the Committee on Eltictions and gives it to the Committee on the Judiciary by that direct assignment, excluding all inference of language whioh would take it to the Election Committee. So much for the general proposition. Since then it seems that the Committee on Elections has not generally the jurisdiction of this subject-matter.

Now, t.bere still remains on the gentleman's side-and I wish to state it fairly-this argument: that this subject-matter has been referred to his committee by the reference of a bill on the subject which is before the committee. I say now that if my first proposition be true that generally the committee have no charge of the matter, then the special reference of that bill to them carries with it nothing but the bill and their action on it, and gives them no charge of the subject for any other purpose nor clothes them with power under this rule which belongs to an other committee. Their jurisdiction is not general, but is confined to their special action on that bill alone. It is given to them subject always to the general rule of this House, and extends no further than the special reference. I do not care to detain the Chair further upon this point. I know that a suggestion of itto the distinguished gentleman who occupies the chair is sufficient to set his acute and judicial mind to the calm and full consideration and decision of the question, and I am cont.ent to rest on his decision of this matter when his mind has been once directed to it.

Therefore I will not detain the House at an upon that subject-matter. But I trust the Chair will discriminate in his ruling, if he admits this amendment, between the questions whether he admits it on the general proposition that the committee have charge, or upon the proposition that the subject-matter has been specially referred to it by the reference of the bill; because it is exceedingly important now, when these rules are crystallizing into law for the future government of this House, to let us understand whether, when this rule savs that all questions relating to the civil and criminal law shall go 'to the committee organized for considering the laws, they are to be divided up and assigned to every committee whose mere name may suggest an analogy with the subject-matter.

Mr. CONGER. It is only because of my desire that in the first construction of these rules they shall be made to conform to their general intent, that I make any remarks at all. I think I may call the atten-

tion of the Chair to the very wide range which this question involves. I ask his attention to paragraph 32 of Rule XI. Rule XI says:

All proposed legislation shall be referred to the committees named in the precedin~ rule as follows, namely: Subjects relating.

In paragraph 32 of Rule XI, where the matters within the jurisdiction of the eight committees named a.re stated, the chairman will see among other things that are referred to those committees on expe1,1-ditnres in the different Departments-the Department of State, the Treasury Department, the War, Navy, Post-Office, and Interior Departments, the Department of Justice, and on Public Buildings-the proper applicat~on of public moneys.

Now, here is a question involved in this very bill-the proper application of public moneys whether to special or to general deputy marshals. A little variation in the ruling would give to the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Stat.a the whole of this question that is in dispute.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman from Miohigan allow the Chair to suggest that the thirty-second clause of Rule XI seems to apply to investigations as to the proper application of moneys already a.ppropriated' This amendment proposes to make a specific appropriation for the special deputy marshals .

. l\Ir. CONGER. It is now making this appropriation, and that involves the proper application of it when made. But I ha'{e merely referred to that. I refer to another point provided for in that same clause 32, ''the reduction or increase of the pay of officers." Another is" the abolishment of useless offices," which is one of the very objects of this amendment, as claimed.

Now if a member of one or the other of those committees instructed by his committee should offer an amendment in regard to the abolishment of useless offices, under the construction claimed by the gentleman from Illinois that he has the right here under the other clauses of the rule, his committee having the subject-matter of the amendmant under control, that could not possibly be ruled out in my opinion; and so of several of these things. The provision is so distinct that those committees shall have charge of those particular subjects that if they report amendments here under the ruling which is asked because some matter of the election of members is involv-ed, or the attendance of marshals at an election of members, the Chair will see bow very far and how very wide such a ruling would open the door for every committee and any committee to interfere and get in amendments under that rule.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that was not at all the intention of the rule. The intention of the rule undoubtedly waa that in a general deficiency bill or other appropriation bill of this kind a committee having special charge of that part of the expenditure to which the bill related might offer an amendment to it, as, for instance, th& Military Committee in regard to a deficiency in the Army appropriations, the Committee on Naval Affairs in regard to a deficiency for carrying on the naval service of the country, the Committee on Foreign Affairs in regard to some ex pen di tore in a deficiency bill making appropriations for carrying out our foreign relations. I think such a ruling oan be made as shall give full scope to what I conceive to have been the object of this amenclment, to permit the committees who are familiar with and understand the wants of the departments of the service, committed under the rules to their,charge, to come in and say in this deficiency or in this appropriation bill-for I take it for the purpose of this discussion these are the same-for the nayal service, for the military service, or for public buildings, matters committ.ed to their examination, brought under their supervision, require in their judgment this additional appropriation to be made, a.n.d they offer their amendment as being tlie committee to supervise and have the jurisdiction of that subject-matter.

I have no doubt th11.t the Chair will consider all these propositions, and I have no doubt about the correct ruling of the Chair if all the propositions are presented to his mind. My only object is that we may start right under these new rules. What I have said has been without special reference to this particular matter, but that the ruling, as the Chair has already suggested, under the ne~ rules may be such that it shall be consistent, uniform, and capable of being maintained on principle and on a strict construction of all the rules together. It is for that reason I have ventured to call the attention of the Chair to the manner in which other committees might continually, in connection with the matters referred to them, introduce under that rule amenilinents and claim the right to introduce them if the construction be as claimed by the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. KEIFER. I simply wish to add a word or two to what I have already stated. I am induced to do it by the- intimation of the Chair that on one point I suggested the Chair differed from me. As has already been said, I regard the ruling on this question as a very important one, not for to-day or perhaps for this session or for this Congress, bnt for t~ future Congresses. I wish to state again what I tried to state in the first instance : that is, if the Committee on Elections had the subject-matter of this amendment referred to it by Ilea.son of the reference of the bill offered by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. SPRINGER,) and if we gave that committee jurisdiction to report upon this question at all or jurisdiction to consider the question at all, then it was because the amendment itself was ht. substance the same a.s the bill.

Now I have invited the attention of the Chair to the consideration of the bill. The analysis of the amendment will show that it per-


tains generally to an alteration of an existing law relating to the appointment of special deputy marshals. Is not that the substance -0£ the bill of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. SPRINGER T] If it is not, then the committee which this morning undertook to instruct its chairman to report an amendment to this House was doing a vain thing and one outside of its jurisdiction.

Let me repeat: if that bill gave jurisdiction to the Committee on Elections over this matter, then it was because it contained the substance of this amendment. If the amendment contains the substance of the bill, then we can come lo~ically, I think, to the conclusion that it is not in order under the fourtn clause of Rule XXI, which prohibits the introduction by way of amendment of "the substance of any other bill or resolution pending before the House." That is all I desire to say on this point of order.

Mr. HISCOCK. One single further suggestion. The proviso of the third subdivision of Rule XXI is a.a follows:

Provided, That it shall be in order further to amend such bill upon the report of ,the committee having jurisdiction of the subject-matter of such amendment, which amendment, being germane to the subject-matter of the bill, shall retrench expenditures.

Now let us look for a moment at the amendment. For special deputy marshals of elections, the sum of $7,600. That much I concede is germane to the bill under consideration

Let us then look at the proviso of the amendment, the vicious part of it, to wMch objection is made. It reads:

PrO'IJided, That hereafter special deputy marshals of elections, and ~eneral dep· uty m_arshals, for peif?rming any d~ties in refer~nce to any election, shall receive the sum of $2 per day m fall for their compensation; and that all appointments of such special deputy marshals or of general deputy marshals having any duty to perform in respect w any election shall be made by the judge of the circuit court of the U uited States for the district in w bich such marshals are to perform their duties, or by the district judge, in the absence of the circuit j adge, and IJot less than two nor more than three appointments shall be made for any voting precinct where such e.-ppointments are required to be made, and the persons so appointed shall be of different political parties, of good charact.er, and able to read and write the En~lish language, and shall be well-known residents of the voting precinct in which their duties are to be performed.

That is a proposition to enact a law for the future. The point I make is that the enactment of a law regulating elections in the future, and which may run for all time, is certainly not germane to this bill under the proviso which I have read of the third subdivision of Rule XXL

Mr. McMAHON. I am very sorry that our friends on the republican .side of the House have with such unanimity interposed their points of -order. After what was said yesterday by the gentlemen whom we all ~cknowledge upon either side to be the leader of that side of the House, I thought that a proposition to amend these election laws would be met with favor by gentlemen upon that side. But it seems now that with a great degree of unanimity they have taken the opposite tack, and now interpose a point of order upon which I propose to speak.

The committees of this House obtain jurisdiction of a bill, or of the subject-matter of a bill, either because of the nature of questions pending before them, or uy the reference in open House of a particular l>ill to them. Now, the Committee on Elections was a very proper committee to which to refer the bill which my friend from Illinois (Mr. SP~GER] presented here as a bill pending before his committee. The second section of that bill provides that section 2021 of the 1Revised Statutes shall be amended by adding thereto the following:

PrO'IJidea, That all applications for the appointment of special deputy marshals, .ai, provided in this section, shall be submitted to the court, and before any ap· pointments of such deputy marshals, or of any general deputy marshals, having .any duty t.o perform in respect to any election, the court ab.all cause a notice of ·.such application t.o be served on the candidates for Representatives in Congress, iin the voting precinct where the appointments are to be made, representing the three drlferent political parties casting the greatest number of votes in said pre-einct at the election next preceding for Representatives in Congress; and appointments of such marshals shall hereafter be made only by the court for each voting "Precinct where such appointments are required by law to be made, and an equal number of appointments for each voting precinct shall be made on the recommendation of each of such candidates; and each person so appointed sball be a resident of the -voting precinct where his duties are to be performed.

The point I make is this: that the introduction and reference of this bill in open House without objection to the Committee on Elections gave that committee jurisdiction of the subject-matter of regulating the method of electing members of Congress. But I need not insist npon the committee having jurisdiction of the whole subjectmatter. I will only insist upon its having jurisdiction according to the express terms of the bill. In the second section of the bill I find that it is proposed to amend the method of appointing special deputy marshals at elections. Therefore there can be no earthly doubt that the ·Committee on Elections would be authorized to report to this House any bill upon the subject-matter of either the first or the second section of that bill, because it has been referred to that committee by -the House. ·

But getting jurisdiction of the :first and second sections of this bill _ii.mposes no obligation on the Committee on Elections to report that bill back to the House in the exact shape in which it was introduced 1by my friend from Illinois. The very object of referring the bill to ~the committee wa~ that they should consider it-should see whether ii.twas well matured, and if not, should mature it and put it in shape.

Now, as I understand, they have considered the bill and have coneluded to report in lieu of the precise bill as introduced the substance of it or something like it. They have jurisdiction to do that. They

have the right to report their amendment, as they have done, because it is based upon the express provisions of a bill which was referred to them in open House without objection ..

Now, let me come to the second proposition. My friend from New York [Mr. HISCOCK] admits that it is in order and germane upon this bill to move to appropriate $7,600 for the payment of special deputy marshals at elections. When that amendment was offered without qualification nobody raised the point of order, but we voted upon it. Now my friend from Illinois comes in and states that he is instructed by the Committee on Elect.ions-to do what T To offer a further amendment to the pending bill. The gentleman from Illinois moves to insert $7,600 for the pay of special deputy marshals. My friend from New York admits this to be germane; but then the committee--

Mr. HISCOCK. Now, let me call attention to this language in the proviso of the rule :

Having jurisdiction of the subject-matter of such amendment, which amendment being germane to the subject-matter of the bill.

Now does the gentleman claim that this amendment providing that l;iereafter deputy marshals shall be appointed in a particular mannerthat this chapter of legislation attached to the appropriation of $7,600 iM germane to the pending bill f

Mr. McMAHON. I do. I do so in all honesty and sincerity ; and I will state why. In the :first place, what is the character of the whole bill now pending before the House' It is a bill to provide for deficiencies in the service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880. If this Congress should vote this appropriation of $7,600, it will be for a supposed deficiency arising in the current fiscal year. Hence the appropriation of $7,600 is germane to the subject-matter of the bill. Now, what is under consideration in this particularclauseT The pay of United States marshals and their general and special deputies. That is the question under consideration. Shall we pay them not only the fees they have earned, but those they may earn Y For this appropriation is to run until the 1st day of next July.

Mr. HISCOCK. It is perfectly clear that nothing can be earned by them before that time.

Mr. McMAHON. Why not f A member of this House may die; there may be a special election ordered; the money may be needed for that purpose; and it could be used for that purpose. There is one thing which my friend has overlooked in this discussion from the beginning to the end-that this appropriation is not only for the payment of fees already earned, but for the whole fiscal year, including more than three months yet to come. ·

Now the amendment, being germane, proposes what Y To retrench expenditures; and I suppose no gentleman on the other side of the House will for a moment contend that it does not retrench expenditures. It proposes to limit the number of deputies that may be employed at any polling place to three--

Mr. CONGER. Does the gentleman doubt that it will increase very largely the number of deputy marshals in places where otherwise they would not be called for f

Mr. McMAHON. It does not require them to be appointed. Mr. CONGER. But if each party is to choose deputy marshals, will

it not naturally and necessarily increase very largely the call for these officers all over the country where now they are not called forT ·

Mr. McMAHON. But, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will understand this amendment reduces the pay of these deputies from five to two dollars a day, besides providing that no more than three shall be employed at any one polling place. We know that now, not only under the law as properly construed, but under the practice, more than three may be employed.

Mr. CONGER. Not at one polling place. Mr. McMAHON. Yes, sir; at one polling place. Mr. CONGER. No. Mr. McMAHON. Yon may employ a hundred under the present

law at one polling place. . Mr. CONGER. There is no example of that kind.

Mr. SPRINGER. Oh, yes. There is an example of seven hundred and forty appointed in the city of New Orleans in 1876; thirty-five hundred in the State of Louisiana; and in one congressional district in Missouri, represented by the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. FROST,] seven hundred and twenty deputy marshals werA appointed.

Mr. McMAHON. I do not care to hinge my argument on this point of order upon the practice, I base it upon the right under the law, to appoint as many deputy marshals for a polling place as the marshal sees fit. ,

Now, I say that the amendment is eminently in the interest of economy because it limits the number of deputies at any one polling place to three, and reduces their pay from $5 a day to 2 a day. If my friend from Illinois had adopted the suggestion I threw out yesterday he would also have limited the number of days during which these men are to be employed. I think it a mistake that his amendment does not contain such a limitation, but in that it is liberal to gentlemen on the other side. I hope those ~entlemen will withdraw their points of order and let us have something like a fair vote.

Mr. CONGER. The gentleman is now speaking to the merits of the amendment. I insist that he shall speak to the point of order or else that w:e sh.all have an opportunity to go into the merits.

Mr. McMAHON. I want to know, Mr. Chairman, whether it is out of order to appeal to gentlemen to withdraw their points of order!

1880. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1685 The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has the right to make such an

appeal; but not to discuss the merits of the quesLion. Mr. McMAHON. I now make that appeal to every member on that

side who bas raised a point of order. Mr. CONGER. And every member refuses to withdraw the point

of order. I think I have the right to speak for the whole crowd. [Laughter.]

Mr. McMAHON. Where is my distinguished colleague from Ohio, [Mr. GARFmLDY] The "lamp" is still burning, I understand. We ''vile sinners" are anxious to return. •.

Mr. HISCOCK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio--Mr. ROBESON. The la.mp is still burning and the gentleman from

Ohio can still come in. Mr. McMAHON. Why does the gentleman extinguish the lamp

when the sinners are ready to return T The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemen. will save time by con1iningthem

selves to the pending point of order. Mr. McMAHON. I have used all my efforts to get gentlemen on

the other side to withdraw their point of order, and therefore now refer the matter to the Chair.

Mr. CASWELL. Mr. Chairman, I desire only a moment. There is still a point of order which it seems to me has not been made. Perhaps it has been partly covered by the gentleman from New York. I do not regard this as coming within Rule :XXI, or that it is material w hetber it retrench~s expenditures or not. My point is it is foreign to the subject-matter under consideration. It introduces a new subject. This is not on~ of the general appropriation bills. It is a deficiency bill. A deficiency bill is to supply the funds necessary under the law of Congress as it exists, to administer the Government until the end of the fiscal year.

Here is a new subject introduced. The gentleman from Illinois proposes to change the entire system of appointing deputy marshals ; to provide an entirely different system of appointment'; that they shall be made by the judges of the court instead of by the marshals themselves. I invite the attention of the Chair to Rule XVI, to the latter pacrt of clause 7, which reads "And no motion or proposition on n. subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." The amendment of the gentleman from Illinois introduces a new subject. It has no reference to a deficiency bill, but it proposes to change the mode of appointing deputy marshals. It is entirely different from the subject-matter under consideration. Rule XXI is not applicable, but Rule XVI is, which would exclude in this case as in any other the introduction of a matter dif-ferent from that under consideration. ·

Mr. SPEER. Mr. Chairman, I presume no gentleman who did me the bonortolisten to what I had to say in the discussionon.RuleXXI will pretend, forone moment, I am in favor of ridersonappropriation bills; but the House, in its superior wisdom, saw fit to adopt this Rule XXI and it is upon the construction. of that rule this question of order bas arisen.

Now, that rule contains this proviso, "That it shall be in order further to amend such bill upon the repQrt of the committee having jurisdiction of the subject-matter of such amendment, which amendment, being germane to the subject-matter of the bill, shall retrench expenditures."

The question is first, has the Committee on Elections jurisdiction of the subject-matter of this amendment¥ I contend that it bas. In the first place, sir, this bill has been referred to that committee. The reference itself is an adjudication by the authority of this House of the propriety of that reference. It is an adjudication of the question of jurisdiction, and that adjudication being final, that committee has jurisdiction of the subject-matter.

Sir, it needs only the most casual reference to the terms of the bill to see that the subject-matter of the bill and the amendment is the same. "All applications for appointment of special deputy marshals, &c." In order to obviate the effect of that proposition gentlemen will have to assume the position here that the Committee on Elections is limited to the terms of the bill which is referred to it. That is not true. It is not sound parliamentary law. Having jurisdiction of the subject-matter, the Committee on Elections can make such report as seems to them best on the subject; and they have accordingly instructed their chairman to report this amendment to the pending appropriation bill.

But, sir, aside from the question of reference, has not the committee jurisdiction. of this question T Is it not properly referred to that committee f To return to Rule XI, we see it there provided that-

All proposed legislation shall be referred to the committees named in the preceding rule, as follows, namely: Subjects relating-

!. To the election of members: to the Committee on Elections.

Does this bill relate to the election of members Y But gentlemen say that refers to contests now pending before the House. That I understand was the proposition. of the gentleman from New York. Will that gentleman contend there can be any such thing as proposed legislation about a contest that is already pending T Can you propose a law about a contest before this Honse unless you propose an ex post facto law relating to that contest T

Mr. HISCOCK. I have seen that done. Mr. SPEER. Well, but the gentleman will not say it was right or

parliamentary. It would be highly improper to do so, and yet the gentleman is forced to that position to sustain his argument.

' Mr. ROBESON. Will the gentleman permit me to make a state

ment! Mr. SPEER. Yes, sir. Mr. ROBESON. If "proposed legislation" is to govern the Com

mittee on Elections, then it will not have control of anything but "proposed legislation."

Mr. SPEER. Not at all. Mr. ROBESON. Certainly, for that governs the whole snbject

matter. Then bow does this get before them t :Mr. SPEER. That question I am not discussing. The logic of the gentleman's argument would be that the Commit

tee on Elections could not decide contested-election cases at all. I say that would be the logic of it. The mistake in the gentleman's argument is that he takes the old rule as the basis of it in.stead of the new rule.

The old rule to which he refers is as follows:

th;~::~ic~~!1~l~Ilo~~~~ ~fu~~6de~~:~~~og.~ ~:ia=~~:~~~t :!i~! in this House1 and to take j.nto their consideration all such petitions and other matfors touchrng elections and returns as shall or may be present.ed or come into · question and be referred to them by the House.

That was the old rnle. But the language of the new rule is : All proposed legislation shall be referred to the committees named in the pre

ceding rule, as follows, namely: Subjects relating-1. To the election of members.

Now, this is proposed legislation; it touches the election of members; it has been referred by an adjudication of this Honse ·to the Committee on Elections, and therefore it properly comes before the Honse in the manner presented by that committee.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. Chairman, that is entirely a novel construction of tb.at rule. We have for the first time here heard that there was to be any change whatever in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Elections. !·never heard an intimation of that fact before. Now, I bold that the fact that the bill is in the hands of the Committee on Elections is by no means conclusive of its rightful jurisdiction.

If the bill upon its face shall appear to them belonging more pr'll>--erly to any other committee, the presumption of course is against that jurisdiction, and we must recur to the manner of the reference. If at the time of the reference, notwithstanding the apparent impropriety of that reference, the House had an understanding of the question, and referred it distinctly to this or any other committee, then we should be concluded against questioning its jurisdiction. But here we find a bill proposing to change the permanent statutes of the United States which regulate and govern the election of members of Congress, in the bands of a committee which has never from the organization of the Government had anything to do but to inquire into the certificates and manner of election of members of that particular House, whether they were rightfully or wrongfully elected-trying a. personal issue between a man out and a man in. The committee never had any other jurisdiction; but the manner of electing and certifying · and all that, according to the general statute, went to the hands of · the Judiciary Committee.

Now, sir, I hold, therefore, the question of' that committee having jurisdiction is just as much open to the Chair, on this point being raised, as it would have been open to the House when the reference was originally made. The Chair must take knowledge of the fact that thousands and thousands of bills are referred here just as rap- · idly as the Clerk can read and refer them, by the chance words which may happen to catch his eye on the back of the bill. If, for instance, a bill providing the ways and means for improving the navigation of the Mississippi Rive1· should happen to be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, that reference in the hearing of the House would not control the question of jarisdiction. The bill belongs to the Mississippi River Committee. If a question concerning elections happens to get to the Committee on Elections it does not follow by any means that committee has jurisdiction of it. For, as I said, the committee has never concerned itself with making amendments to these general statutes, but only in deciding what I may call personal issues between men claiming seats.

Mr. SCALES. Mr. Chairman, if I understand this proposition it is that a bill has been referred to the Committee on Elections by this House in accordance with its rules. I understand that committee have · considered that bill, and they have reported back to the House their action in the way prescribed by the rules in the shape of an amendment to a bill now pending before this Committee of the Whole.

Now, sir, will the chairman of the Committee of the Whole undertake to decide that the House was wrong when it saw .fit to refer that question to the committee' If so, it involves us in a difficulty which cannot well be remedied. This bill is referred to the Committee on Elections. It is the duty of that committee to consider and to report, and they have reported in accordance with that duty; but if you say now they did not have jurisdiction of the matter, then you deprive any committee of the power to make or propose the amendment which the Committee on Elections have deemed necessary. That · committee has submitted that amendment and it was the only committee that could do it. No other committee can make it, becanse it is not to be presumed that the House bas referred the same subjec-tmatter to more than one committee, and having referred this subject to the Committee on Elections, it is more than probable that it will not be found before any other committee.

1686 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. MARCH 18, ·

Now, if the report of this Committee on Elections is ruled out, the probability is, indeed it is almost certain, that the Committee of the Whole will lose whatever benefit there is in the amendment.

Now, will the chairman of the Committee of the Whole Honse say he will override the action of the House, and bring on this difficulty which could be avoided if we a.bide its action Y I care not whether the reference was considerately or inconsiderately made. It does not matter. It was the action of the House; it was committed by the House; it has been reported back, and this committee must abide by it. If the chairman says the reference was improperly made, he will deprive the committee of the power of making this amendment, how-ever anxious we might be to do it . .

Will the Chair do that T Does the Chair feel that he has the authority under the rules of the Honse to do thatf Would it not be better for the Chair to say-and I hope the Chair will not consider me as Clictating what he should say, but simply as presenting my views in my own way-the Honse having decided, its action shall stand. It may be that if the House had taken no action, and ·this was an original question, the decision of the Chair would be different; bat since the House has acted, with all due deference, it does occur to me the Chair is concluded by it. I feel sure the amendment ought to and -will be admilited.

Mr. REED. I desire to make a suggestion upon the question of order, altllongh it may seem to have been pretty thoroughly exhausted by what has already been said. If I understand the object of the amendment which changed the rule to its present shape, it wa.s that the House might in all these matt.era of amendment have the benefit of the peculiar experience of the committees which might submit them; and therefore the House very carefully used the language which was employed in the present rule as it now stands, namely, that the amendment must be proposed, not by a committee to whom a bill in substance of the same character was referred, but by a committee having jurisdiction of the subject-matter.

Now, I submit to the Chair that under the third and fourth clauses of Rule XXI there result s this dilemma: if this be a bill in substance like the amendment which is offered, and therefore giving jnrisdict!on to the Elections Committee of the subject-matter, then the amendmen t must be obnoxious to the fourth clause of the role. The fourth clause must rule it out a.a being a bill in substance like the amendment which is offered.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman not confound the word "substance" and the word "subject-matted" May not two bills relate to the same subject-matter and yet be very different in sub

. stance¥ Mr. REED. Yes, they may; lm t if it be a bill which gives of itself,

ipso facto, jurisdiction to the committee of tho subject-matter, tben it must be a bill which in substance is like the amendment, because you cannot give a committee jurisdiction by giving it power over a bill which is not in substance like this, but simply relates to the snbjectmatter in general. Suppo e it was a bill referred to the committee which related to the business of elections and not to deputy marshals at all. In a certain broad sense thatmightgive jurisdictionof a subject-mat ter relating to the election of members. Bat if it is claimed that jurisdiction over the subject-matter of this amendment is given by tho reference of this bill, then it must be because the amendment

1 is :i+i subst:mce like the bill itself. And if that is so, then it is ruled o'a~ ~y the fourth clause of the rule. · Bat what I contend is that the object of the House in establishing this ruie was to guard us against amendments that were offered by committees that had no general jurisdiction of the subject; in other words, it was intended the amendment should have the sanction of a committee which by its training and its considerat ion generally of the subject was specially fitted to guard t.he Honse against the disasters which result from inchoate and inconsiderate legislation as placed upon appropriation bills; for I am bound in discussing this matter to suppose the democracy in offering this amendment had some good and wise reason for it. It would be parliamentary to suppose so at least.

Mr. SPRINGER. In that respect yon are quite right. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is anxious not to make any erroneous

ruling upon these new parts of the rules, because, as has been saicl, such rulings may be regarded as precedents hereafter. Therefore the Chair has listened longer than he otherwise would have done to the discussion of t his question.

The first part of this amendment, which proposes to make an appropriation of c;)i,600 to pay special deputy marshals of elections, would have been in order if offered by any individual member on the floor, because it provides for a simple deficiency and changes no exist ing law.

Therefore, it is the latter part of t he amendment alone to which the objection seems to be mged. There are three, perhaps four, committees of the House to which this subject-matter might have been rel'erred, not improperly, the Chair thinks. It might have been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, because it relates to the courts of just ice and to the proceedings in the courts. It might have been referred t o the Committee on the Revision of the Laws. because it relates to a change of part of a certain statute. It might have been referred to the Committee on E lect ion , as it was in fact , because it affects the manner of electing members of Congress. Or perhaps it might hav~ · been referred to the Committee on Expendi-

/

tores in the Department of Justice, because it relates to a. reduction of the number and salaries of the officers who are appointed nuder that Department.

But the Honse has selected the committee to which it would refer this subject-matter, to wit, the Committee on Elections. Now, it seems that the chairman of the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union would be assuming a very grave responsibility if he were to determine that the House had selected the wrong committee out of these four, and perhaps others, and that he would hold that the committee to which the House had referred the subject-matter had not jurisdiction over it. If the Honse had not acted at all, then of course it would be incumbent upon the Chair to decide according to the best of his judgment to which one of these committees this subject-matter belongs. But no such case as that is presented, and the Chair is bound to hold that the Committee on Elections has jnris~ diction of the subject-matter to which this amendment relates. That presents the qnesl;ion whether the amendment is the same in substance as the bill which that committee has before it.

As the Chair stated a moment ago, two bills may relate to the same subject-matter and yet be very different in substance. Tlie Chair thinks that is the case here. The subject-matter to which the bill referred to and the amendment now pending relate, is ~he appointment of special deputy marshals by the courts, whose duties pertain to elections for members of this House; but the provisions contained in the two are quite different. For instance, the bill cont.a.ins no prov:ision in reference to the salary of these officers. It provides that before they shall be appointed notice shall be given to the candidates for Congress, and it contains a groot many other provisions upon the subject, which are not contained at all in thiB amendment.

The Chair therefore thinks that the Committee on Elections has jurisdiction of this so bject·matter by the express order of the House, if not by the rules of the House; and that the proposed amendment is not in substance the same as the bill which has been banded to the Chair. The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Mr. HISCOCK. Does the Chair pass upon the other point, that the amendment is not germane to the subject-matter of the pending bill t

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state his conclusion upon that point. By the universal practice of this House, both in the Hoose and in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment when offered is treated as an entirety. In pursuance of this practice the Chair, but a few moments ago, was about to sustain the point of order raised agaiast an amendment offernd by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Co:NVERSE.J Thereupon the gentleman modi.tied bis amendment so as to take out of it that portion which made it subject to the point of order .

'l'reating the pending amendment a.a an entirety, the Chair is of opinion that it is germane to the bill,- because, as already stated, t he first part of it relates purely to a deficiency. The latter part of it is connected with the first part, inasmuch as it provides for the compensation hereafter of the same officers for whose compen ation for past services provision is made in this bill. It does not, like t he amendment passed upon yesterday, bring entirely new subjects before the Committee of the Whole. It brings before the committee simply an appropriation for a deficiency, and in connection with that appropriation a reduction of the number and the amount of salary of the officers for which this very appropriation is made.

Mr. HISCOCK. Then am I to understand the Chair to hold that if an amendment in one feature is germane to the subject-matter of the bill to which it is offered, and not germane in its other feat ures, nevertheless the whole amendment is in order

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not so decide at all. The Chair would decide without the slightest hesitation, if the latter part of this amendment had no reference whatever to t1te sabject·m~tter to which the first part relates, that the whole amendment would be out of order. The Chair would not divide the amendment, but would exclude it entirely.

Mr. CONGER. As the amendment is capable of division, under the rule a separate vote may be demanded upon the different parts of this amendment Y

The CHAIRMAN. Of course. Mr. CONGER. Then I shall ask for a division of that amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman ha.a that right, the amendment

containing two distinct propositions. Mr. WEA VER. Mr. Chairman--Mr. KEIFER. The amendment is now debatable. The CHAIRMAN. It is. Mr. WEA VER. I understand that the gentleman presen.ting the

amendment now pending will consent to have incorporated in it what I send to the Clerk's desk.

The CHAIRMAN. The mover of the amendment can modify it if he sees proper.

Mr. WEA VER. Then I ask the Clerk to read the modification whfoh I understand the gentleman will accept.

The Clerk read as follows : And when there are three or more political parties having separate tickets t.o be

voted for at any election, three deputy marshals shall be appointed as above provided, no two of whom shall b elong to the samo political party.

l\Ir. SPRINGER. I have no objectien to that, and will accept it as a part of my amendment. .

The CHAIRMAN. The question is upon the amendment as modi· fied ; and debate is now in order.

1880. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1687 Mr. CONGER. I ask for a division of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has stated that a division of the

.amendment has been called for; and the Clerk will read the first part -0f the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows : For spooial deputy marshals of elections, the sum. of $7.600. Mr. CONGER. I ask for a separate vote on that first. The CHAffiMAl~. The gentleman is entitled to that. Mr. McMAHON. If we vote upon the first proposition will not de

bate be cut off on the whole proposition 7 The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is offered as an entirety; but

if it contains two or more distinct propositions a separate vote can be demanded upon each proposition.

Mr. McMAHON. Debate upon the amendment is now exhausted f The CHAIRMAN. There has been no debate proper upon the

amendment. Mr. McMAHON. If we proceed now to vote upon the first propo

sition, will debate upon the second proposition be cut offY The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Mr. GARF'IELD. Do I understand the Chair to hold that the vote

en one branch of the amendment would cut off debate upon the sec-0nd branch f

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks it would. It is all one amendment; and if there is to be any debate upon it, it should take place before any vote is taken. ·

Mr. GARFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer an a.mendment to the second branch--

The CHAIRMAN. That is not in order. Mr. SPRL.~GER. I will hear the gentleman's amendment; perhaps

I will accept it. Mr. GARFIELD. It is to strike out all after the words" in the ab

sence of the circuit judge," where they occur in the last line of the RECORD print, page 39. I speak for nobody but myself, but I will vote for the amendm~t if all following these words be struck out.

A MEMBER. WhatTis the effectf Mr. SPRINGER. I cannot accept that amendment. Mr. GARFIELD. I do not ask the gentleman to accept it. This

is not a contract. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state to the gentleman from

Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] that the Committee on .Appropriations has reported back this bill, recommending the adoption of an amendment making an appropriation of $600,000 to pay marshals and their general deputies. To that amendment the gentleman from Illinois has proposed an amendment. Therefore not only an amendment, but an amendment to the amendment, is now pending; and at present no farther amendment is in order under the rules.

Mr. GARFIELD. Would it be in order to offer a substitute for the whole amendment of the gentleman fr<>m Illinois'

The CHAIRMAN. That can be done. Mr. GARFIELD. . Then I offer as a substitute the amendment of

the gentleman from lliinois, with these modifications: inserting 5 a <lay instead of $2 a day, and omitting everything after the words " in the ab~~nce of the circuit judge."

The proposed substitute was read, as follows : And for special deputy marshals of elections, the sum of 7,600: Pr01Jided, That

hereafter special deputy marshals of elections and general deputy marshals, for performing any duties in reference to any election, shall receive the sum of $5 per day in full for their compensation ; and that all appointments of such specialdeputy marshals or -Of general deputy marshals having any duty to perform in respect to any election shall be made by the judge of the circuit court of the United States for the district in which such marshals are to perform their duties, or by the dis· trict judge, in the absence of the ~ircuit judge.

Mr. COX. Mr. Ch.airman, I am opposed to the original amendment, to the a.mendment to the amendment, and to any possible substitute of the .gentleman from Ohio. I oppose every form of recognition of these supervisors or deputy marshals. I opposed the bill by which originally these men were placed around our polls. I have seen them sometimes, when acting in conjunction with the muncipal and State authorities, behave well. On the other hand, I have known occasions when, according to testimony which I cannot doubt, they have behaved ill; for instance, in the city of Philadelphia, where monstrous irauds were committed, as the evidence will show-where twenty thousand fraudulent voters were registered; while in New York--

Mr. O'NEILL. The gentleman's assertion in regard to Philadelphia has been utterly disproved time and again.

Mr. COX. I supposed that my friend from Philadelphia was asleep; but if he is very anxious I will read him a little chapter from the report of a committee that examined this subject fully :

At the last election in Philadelphia-That is the election in 1876-

it appears from. the testimony the registration was from twenty-five to thirty thousand excessive. In the city of Philadelphia, with a population of about eight hundred thousan<;l. ~e regis1!1-'ation of last year ~as over one hundred and eighty.six thousand, while m the city of New York, with a population nearly 50 per cent. greater, the registration was but one hundred and eighty-three thousand.

* * * * * * * The fact of the excessive registration in Philadelphia. becomes more apparent

when it is known that over twenty thousand of the nam.esregistered were successfully attacked, and the names stricken off or marked with a red cross.

Mr. O'NEILL rose. Mr. COX. Now let the gentleman-sit down.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York declines to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania .

Mr. COX. My friend from Philadelphia has never indulged in any unparliamentary conduct or language toward me. Therefore I excuse his former interruption if he will only sit down now.

Mr. O'NEILL. I will sit down until the gentleman again states somethin<T that I know not to be a fa.ct.

Mr. COX. The gentleman has no right to interrupt me until I get through my five minutes. I will put the" red cross" on him if he does not conform to the rules. [Laughter.]

Let me read farther from the same report : And it is a matter of no little surprise that over nine-tenths of the names thu&

attacked in court were so attacked by democratic petitions. Accerdingtothe evidence, tho oourt.s to which those petitions were returned were engaged for a month previous to the elootion in trying those cases alone ; and but for want of time very many moTe names would have been stricken off, ninety petitions which had bee. returned not having been reached in the investigation by the courts.

This was all substantiated by testimony. But in New York-so often abused here by reckless and ignorant people, [laughter]-only fifteen hundred complaints were filed, and three ~undred persons arrested. According to the testimony of Supervisor Davenport, men were frightened away from the polls by the advertisement of their names. Of the three hundred men arrested, 90 percent. were allowed to vote as legal voters after a fair trial by the United States court. That was because in that election in New York there was, for the sake of peace and safety, an arrangement between the State, the municipal, and the Federal officers to act in concert in keeping the peace, and to have, if possible, a fair election. But in Philadelphia it was all rottenness-fair-seeming outside, but inside "full of dead men's bones." They literally voted d'ead men, though sometimes a dead man's vote was challenged because he had not been buried in the proper precinct !

I am only amazed and surprised to hear my friend from Philadelphia making a merit of this thing in the City of Brotherly Love. The red cross has been used by associations for better purposes, and the red-cross knight has borne his banner without shame or fraud upon other fields.

I am opposed to recognizing this Federal supervision over our elections. I voted against this bill in 1871-1872 because I knew it was unconstitutional. [Laughter on the republican side.] Ay, smile; nrackle your thorns under a pot. The Supreme Court bad said there was no such thing as a Federal election, only a State election ; and, sir, for one I will not pla-ce the Supreme Court as now packed, partisan antl demoralized, above the popular branch of the Legislature of this country. [Loud applause on the democratic side.] " ·

Mr. KEIFER. Mr. Chairman, on the merits of this bill which we · have been considering for many days I have not undertaken to occupy a moment;s time. I would not take the short time allotted to me under the rules but for the fact that I think we ~re again launching . ourselves upon the issue which divided this House and divided the country and concentrated the interests of this country aU through , the extra session of this Co'ngres . "' . ·

The amendment proposed to the substitute by my distinguished col- • league from Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] may be entirely unobjectionable in form and in terms, but, Mr. Chairman, to me it is wholly objectionable, because it comes here in the form of a. rider to an appropriatio11. bill, and a mere deficiency bill at that. While I may feel bound to ' vote for it if I think it is the best we can get, especially after the · Chair bas ruled such an amendment is in order, yet I wish here distinctly to protest against it.

I am not particularly surprised that the gentleman.from New York ~ [Mr. Cox] undertook to set himself up against the Supreme Court of the United States and at his undertaking, by his i_pse dixit, to say, that a solemn, well, and carefully considered decision of that most august body of this country is wrong. I was not surprised to hear him say that. l\1r. Chairman, I was not surprised to hear the general applause coming from that side of the House when they responded to that statement. The decision of the Supreme Court remains, however, the supreme law of the land under the Constitution.

That Supreme Court of ours he says is partisan'in its character; packed is the word he uses. Who packed that court Y Turn to the character of those men; read it ; read the record they have made in all their life-time-each one of them-and you will see how utterly reckless and false this statement was. I might say their lives would give the lie to such a charge as that. The source of the charge need not be considered.

I desire, Mr. Chairman, to say one thing further, in reference to a remark made by my colleague from Ohio [Mr. McllAHO~] who has charge of this bill on the floor. He undertook to state to the committee a day or two ago that while the Supreme Court decided these election laws were constitutional, yet that court did not decide the law was a good one. Of course he made that statement without having read the opinion of the Court. I have not time here, in the limit allowed me, to go into that opinion. I hold it in my hand. There are some grand views stated there in the opinion of J astice Bradley, who spoke for the majority of the Court. Unless there is objection, I will insert an extract or two a-s part of my remarks.

The Court say in the recent case of Ex parte Seibold et al., in speaking of governmental power, that--

In exercising:_the power, however, we are bound to presu.m.e that Congress has done so in a juaicious manner; that it has endeavored to guard as far as possible


against any unnecessary int~rference with State laws and regulations, with the duties of State officers, or with local prejudices. It could not act at all so as to accomplish any beneficial object in preventing frauds and violence, and securing the faithful performance of duty at the.elections, without providing for the presence of officers and agents to carry its regnlations into effect. It is a1so difiictilt to see how it could attain these objects without imposing proper sanctions and penalties against offenders.

And in another place Justice Bradley, in the opinion, says: Without the concurrent sovereignty referred to; the National Government would

be nothing but an advisory Government. Its executive power would be absolutely nullified. ·

Why do we have marshals at all if they cannot physically lay their hands on persons and things in the performance of their proper duties ¥ What functions can they perform if they cannot use force 1 In executing the process of the courts must they call on the nearest constable for protectio~ 1 must they re~;y: ~n him to use the requisite compulsion and to keep the peace while they ar!3 solic1tmg and. en.treat· ina the parties ancl bystanders to allow the law to take its course 1 This IS the ne'Cessary consequence of the positions that ~ assumed. If ~e indulge in s~ch inlpraoticable views as these, and keep ~n refining and re-refinin~. we shall. dr1_ve the National Government out of the Umted States, and relegate It to the DIStrict of Columbia., or perhaps to some foreign soil. We shall b~g it back to a condition of greater helplessness than that of the old confederation.

The ar!mlllent is based on a strained and impracticable view of the nature and powers of the National Government. It must execute its powers or it is no Government. It must execute them on the land as well as on the sea, on things as well as on persons. And to do this, it must necessarily have power to command obedi· ence preserve order, and keep the peace; and no person or power in this land has the ;ight to resist or question its authority so long as it keeps within the bound.a of its jurisdiction. Without specifying other instances in which this power to pr&erve order and keep the peace unquestionably exists, take the very case in band.

I,et; me read a single extract more on the power of the Government anG. its duty:

It is argued that the preservation of peace and good order in society is not within the powers confided to the Government of the United States, but belongs exclusively to the States. Here again we are met py the th~ry that the Government of ~he United States does not rest upon the soil and territory of the country. We think that this theory is founded on an entire misconception of the nature and powers of that Government. We hold it to be an incontrovertible principle that the Government of the United States may, by means of physical force-

Note the words, gentlemen-by means of physical force exercised through its official agents, execute on every foot of .American soil the powers and functions that belong ro it. This necessarily invokes the power to command obedience to its laws, and hence the power to keep the peace to that extent.

A power that gentlemen on the other side deny-the power to keep the peace at elections, if you please, the place of all others where it should be maintained.

I might pursue this further, but I will not. It is sufficient for me to say the Supreme Court of the United States has not only said this legislation which has proved good whenever executed was constitutional but it has -in effect pronounced it a good, wise, and wholesome law. This.law ought to have been executed with a stronger arm and firmer hand than it has been. Now that the Supreme Court have held all these election laws to be clearly within the purview of the Constitution of the United States and that it is right in .principle, it becomes our duty to appropriate money to pay for its execution, and especially is this so since a debt has been contracted on the faith of the law. The democratic party can hardly afford to persist in refusing to pay officers chosen under a constitutional act of Congress and who have in good faith performed their duty on the faith of it. No party can afford to be thus faithless to its duty.

[Here the hammer fell.] Mr. FINLEY rose. Mr. McMAHON. Are there not three amendments pendingf The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands the gentleman from

Ohio, [Mr. GARFIELD,] to propose a substitute which has not been sent to the Clerk's desk in writing.

Mr. GARFIELD. Oh! yes, Mr. Chairman, it has been read. Mr. :McMAHON. Then further debate is not in order. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not understand this to be a sub

stitute. It is simply a proposition to strike out certain words in the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. GARFIELD. That is a substitute which I sent to the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman, then, offers this as a substitute T Mr.GARFIELD. Yes. Mr. McMAHON. The gentleman offers it as a substitute and

changes the compensation from two to five dollars per day. Mr. GARFIELD. That is the only change, except leaving out the

last four or five lines. Mr. COX. Is further debate in order on the substitute T The CHAIRMAN. As the gentleman from Ohio has the floor, and

the gentleman from New York has already once spoken, he is not now entitled to be heard. .

Mr. COX. I did not rise to debate, but to ask whether debate is in order on the substitute.

The CHAIRMAN. Debate is exhausted, if gentlemen are discussing the amendment. The rule allows five minutes' discussion for and five minutes against the amendment.

Mr. FINLEY. Five minutes have been exhausted against it, but not one minute in favor of it.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York made a speech--

Mr. FINLEY. Against it. The CHAffiMAN. And the gentleman from Ohio made a

speech--

Mr. FINLEY. Against it, and I want to say now a few words in favor of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the Chair understand now, and state this proposition so that there will be no question hereafter about it. Two speeches have been made upon the substitute, and the debate now for ten minutes longer is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. FINLEY. Now I desire to say in the five minutes that I have a few words in reference to the marshals employed in the last presidential election. In that election there were employed 11,615 special deputy marshals, of which number 10,874 were placed in democratic precincts as shown by the report of the Attorney-General.

Now, I want to say that I am in favor of this amendment, protesting as !'always have and always will against the appointment of these special marshals as a partisan outrage; protesting against a law that has been used and abused constantly for partisan purposes. I will vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois for the reason that it is a step in the direction for protecting ourselves from the outrages which we are powerless to prevent; in these appointments. When I look into the repcrt of the Attorney-Gtmeral and analyze it in connection with testimony relating to the kind of men used in those precincts for partisan purposes, I feel inclined to do anything that I can by my voice and vote to procure a fair election at the polls and to procure relief from the political bummers appointed by the republican party and paid out of lihe Federal Treasury.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, who seems to be so particularly tender whenever anything is said about the politicians of his State, passed an encomium a moment ago on some of the leading politicians there. Now, Mr. Chairman, I know nothing of the politicians of the State of Pennsylvania, excepting what I find in the newspapers. I do occasionally see something about them there-and a case in point: I find that a large number of the prominent republican politicians of that State are now under indictment for attempting to bribe and purchase the Legislature. One of these gentlemen, W. H. Kemble, president People's Bank of Philadelphia and a republican ex-treasurer of state, came into open court the other day and plead guilty to having gone into the Legislature and attempted to bribe the members.

But he talks about. the marshals in his district. Why, Mr. Chairman, of the seven hundred marshals employed in Philadelphia in the last election I find, from a report of a committee of the other House, that thirteen of them were convicted of crimes, such as murder, burglary, shooting with intent to kill, &c. Two of them were keepers of houses of prostitution, two were keepers of low doggeries, and the whole lot of them, every one of them, was an active working republican at the polls who wore the badge on his breast of a special deputy marshal. [Laughter.]

I will give the gentleman the names of some of his constituents and probably he will remember them. One of them is Philip Madden. He was a special deputy marshal at the polls who had been convicted of highway robbery and served two terms in the penitentiary. [Laughter.] Francis McNamee, of the Seventh ward, had been arrested five different times for different crimes, some of them as high as burglary. Daniel Redding, who a.1so wore the badge upon his breast, had been tried for murder, and he was the gent.leman that the testimony shows had voted no less than eight times in one day. He was an active working republican and wore the marshal's badge on his breast.

Michael Slavin, marshal Fifth ward, is des9ribed as " a thief and notorious repeater.'' J. Roberts, marshal sixteenth division, had been a policeman in the City of Brotherly Love. He had blocked up the polls and arrested citizens who went there to vote, and he had a beautiful record. He had been keeping a. house of prostitution a.nil had there a lot of republican policemen that were paid out of the Federal Treasury for keeping the peace at the polls!

I hM·e not time in the five minutes allowed to give a history of the savory reputations of the gentleman's constituents for whom he pleads so strongly on the floor of this House. But a11 the way through it was shown that the republican policemen at the polls a sisted these worthy marshails to keep democrats away' from the polls.

Now, under the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois there can be a mitigation of that kind of outrage in this: that instead of five hundred or six hundred republican marshals, appointed at the polls, as in some oases-for instance, one precinct in Georgia had one hundred and three, one in Missouri had several hundred-instead of that number paid out of the Federal Treasury, every one of them a republican and a partisan, we can under the amendment of the ~entleman from Illinois have a decent number of uecent people to att.end to the duties.

[Here the ha!Dmer fell.] Mr. DA VIS, of California. I wish to say a. iew words in addition

to what was said by my colleague in reference to theeleotion in California, the appointing of these marshals, and the character of the men who were selected. It is scarcely necessary for me to say to this. House now, after what bas been in the public prints during the last few weeks, anything with reference to the nature of the disturbances there. It is hardly necessary for me to call the attention of the House to the fact that within ar year past California has been the theater of a social convulsion, resulting in the adoption of a new constitution at a special election held less than a year ago, and unde~ circumstances of peculiar interest and excitement, when political feeling

1880. OONGREf3SIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1689 ran high and the whole population foom one end to the other ·of the State was excited on the subject. · Following immediately on that election came the campaign of the fall. Party feeling ran high, partisanship was red-hot all over the State. Charges and mutual recriminations were indulged in until at last, as you well know, it terminated in bloodshed in the very streets of San Francisco.

Under those circumstances is there any man on this floor who will tell me that there was no need of special care and prudence and a special watch over the polls \> Then at this very critical joncture came the necessity for a re-registration of all oar voters. The statute passed by the la.st Legislature required, previous to this election, a re-enrollment of all our voting population. This registration in the precincts began in the midst of all this turmoil und disturbance. Under those circumstances came the appointment of these marshals. Then followed the election; and look at the prize there was at stake. Under our new constitution every officer in the State had been deposed from office, and the ticket we voted at San Francisco was a ticket two feet in length, and containing eighty-four or eighty-five na,mes. With a political prize like this held out you can imagine what was the inducement to fraudulent registration, and crowding men to the polls that were not entitled to come there. .

It is a well-known fact that thousands and thousands of names were rejected from the poll-lists of men who en.deavored to get upon the registry. After the election, the number of voters .had been so large that in some of the precincts of San Francisco it took five or six da,ys of steady work, day a.nd night, to count the vote. These are the circumstances under which these men were appointed. It has been insinuated they were paid by the republican party. I challenge any man to offer the slightest shadow of proof for that statement. I have no hesitation in saying that the charge is absolutely false. And I will say the body of men appointed there were as honorable, upright citizens as ever did police duty in any part of the United States. I ask gentlemen before they vote against this proposition to pay these men employed to carry out the law of the United States and to preserve the peace at that critical juncture-I ask them to consider what will be the effect on the State of California if Congress refuses to give t hese men their just dqes, earned at a juncture like that.

Mr. SIMONTON. I desire to make a. parliamentary inquiry. Tho CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. SIMONTON. Is the substitute of the gentleman from Ohio open

to amenclment f The CHAIRMAN. One amendment may be offered to that substi

tute. Mr. SIMONTON. Then I offer as an amendment to the substitute

what I send to the desk. The Clerk read as follows: Strike out " $5 " and insert "$2; " and after the word "judge" insert " and not

less than two nor mor~ than three appointments shall be made for any voting precinct where such appointments are required to be made, and the persons so appointed shall be of different political parties; and if there aro more than two political parties having tickets t,o be voted for, no two of said deputy marshals shall be appointed from the satne party. And the persons so appointed shall be persons of good character, able t,o read and write the English language, and shall be wellknown resident.a of the voting precinct in which their duties are t,o be performed."

Mr. CONGER. That is the original proposition. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks it is substantially the same

thing, but it is offered as an amendment to the substitute. Mr. CONGER. Marshals of three political parties were provided

for bythe modification of the amendment of the gentleman from lliinois1 [Mr. SPTIINGER,] and this is virtually restoring the original proposition.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no doubt about that; but the Chair cannot rule it out on that account.

Mr. SPRINGER. Is the amendment of the gentleman from Ten-nessee [Mr. SIMONTO~] now before the committee 'f

The CHAIRMAN. It is. Mr. HORR. I desire to oppose the amendment. Mr. SPRINGER. I rif(l to support it. Mr. SIMONTON. I win yield my time to the gentleman from llii-

nois, [Mr. SPRINGER.] • The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will first recognize the gentleman

from Illinois, ·to support the amendment, after which he will recognize the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. HoRR.]

Mr. SPRINGER. I regret that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] should so soon have retreated from the position which he took in this House yesterday.

Mr. GARFIELD. I have not retreated from it at all. Mr. SPRINGER. The gentleman says he ha.a not retreated. Mr. GARFIELD. Not at all. ' Mr. SPRINGER. I will read from the RECORD to show whether

the gentleman has retreated or not. The gentleman saidWeo:ffered last session ro let the law be changed so that these officers should

be appointed from the two parties. I distinctly held that out as a standing offer; and, so far as I am concerned, that "lamp still bolds out t,o burn."

Now that gentleman comes in with a substitute and proposes to leave out the very portion of my amendment which provides that these officers shall be appointed from different political parties. Is not that true T

Mr. GARFIELD. If the gentleman will allow me, I will say that I am·entirely willing to put that in. I had not in the moment allowed

me the time to prepare carefully thew hole amendment. The part to which I objected and which I wanted to get stricken out was that part which limited us to three marshals to keep the peace in a precinct where there might be a riot of several thousand persons.

Mr. SPRINGER. Then the gentleman should have moved to strike out "three" and insert "as many as the court may deem necessary.',.

Mr. GARFIELD. Very well, but I will not take your three-marshal proposition.

Mr. SPRINGER. It seems to be difficult to frame a proposition to which the gentleman will agree.

Mr. GARFIELD. Restricting the number of marshals to three for· a whole voting precinct was never a part of any proposition suggested by the other side yesterday, or accepted by us on this side. 'rha.t is what I objected to.

Mr. SPRINGER. If the gentleman desired to remedy that, it was. his province to move an amendment as to the number.

Mr. GARFIELD. I am willing to do so now. Mr. SPRINGER. The gentleman did not do so, but moved an

amendment in regard to the manner of appointment only of these marshals.

Mr. McMAHON. If the gentleman will permit me, I will say tomy colleague from Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] that he seems to forget that the law is not interfered with at all which permits general deputy marshals to be present at the polls; and under the statute they may be appointed to an unlimited number.

Mr. GARFIELD. Not under this amendment. This amendment. limits the number to three, of general ~nd special deputies. The point I make against the amendment as it stands is that in all cases of doubt, danger, and disturbance the Government of the United States can have but three officers empowered to keep the peace against a riot, however large.

Mr. SPRING BR. I will say to the gentleman from Ohio that I have no objection to lea.ving to the discretion of the court the power to appoint a sufficient number in each precinct to keep the peace at the polls. I desire a. free and fair expression of the popular will at every. poll. The democratic party desires such free and fair expressions of the people's will at overy poll in the United States.

Mr. REED. It must be a recently-born desire. Mr. SPRINGER. And any one who a~serts that the democratic

party desires to commit or permit fraud at any poll in the United States asserts that which is not true and which is not supported by the history of the democratic party in the past.

I ask the members of the democratic party on this floor, I ask the republicans on the other side of this House, to support this amendment, or the substance of it, in order that t.his vexed q nest.ion of· deputy marshals at the polls may be settled by this House in such manner as to give satisfaction to all the people of this country, and to take the subject out of the discussions of political parties.

We all say that we desire fair and free elections. Gentlemen on the other side must understand that it is not fair to surround the polls with an unlimited number of their own partisans, paid out of the Treasury of the United States, for the purpose of electioneering in behalf of their own party candidates. You know that .is not fair _ I ask yon to remedy it. You can remedy it by voting for this amendment. If you do not remedy it, but contend for the right to surround all the polls with your own paid partisans in order to electioneer for· your party candidates, you will be asking for that which you know is not right, and which should not be sustained by the law.

[Here the hammer fell.] Mr. HORR. Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to take any part in

this debate, and I should not do so now were it not for a peculiar feature that seems to attend this bill, as it has all similar bills since I have been a member of this Honse.

When my friend from Mississippi [Mr. SINGLETON] sought t-0 strike down one of the old officers of this Government, he attempted to do so by attaching a rider to this bill, and seemed perfectly satisfied that his reason for doing so was complete when he could say that in Andy Johnson's time -the republicans did just as mean a thing. [Laughter.] That was the very acme of his argument. •

Not a rider has_ been put on an appropriation bill by the majority of this House that has not been defended by the democrats upon the ground that" you republicans have done just the same mean thing." .And yesterday when the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McMAHON] who has charge of this bill sought to clinch the matter beyond all doubt, . he stated as a reason why he and his party have the right to violate the law and refuse appropriations for marshals who have done their duty, "you republicans once violated law; you did not enforce the fugitive-slave law." So it has ever been. It seems that the highest idea of legislation that democrats can get is to try to imitate the meanest measures we republicans have ever passed. [Laughter.]

Why, Mr. Chairman, it would be refreshing to me to have these gentlemen introduce one bill here upon which they could stand up and say before the Honse," we are in favor of this bill because it is right, because the interests of the country demand it," and not have to resort to the argument that in some unguarded moment the republican party had done somethin~ just a.s bad. Has it come to this,. that the democratic party of this country has no higher idea of legislation than to follow and imitate our mistakes T Is it true that the meanest things we have ever done seem to a democrat to be directl;y:in the line of retrenchment and reform t [Great laughter.1


Mr. WARNER rose and attempted to interrupt. Mr. HORR. I hope the gentleman from Ohio will not interrupt

me, for he has the ability to speak longer ancl oftener on any subject without exhausting either the subject or himself than any man I •ever saw. [Laughter.]

Mr. Chairman, there are before the country great questions that this Congress ought to be at work upon. We have been here three months and a half and only a single general appropriation bill has been . reached. Our river and harbor bill still sleeps in committee. The great question, what shall be done with the Indfan tribes and their reservations, is still unsolved. The question of interstate com-

' merce, which has agitated this country from end to end, is still unsettled. Our friend from New York [Mr. WooD] has in his charge nndisposed of one of the most important financial measures yet introduced into this Congress. I refer, sir, to the funding bill; and I say tQ the gentlemen who live on the seaboard," You ought to be here with some measure that the men from the West, who are not familiar with the subject, can support, providing for the restoration -0f our commerce to the oceans of the world." But nothing of the kind has yet been proposed.

Yet, sir, with all these questions and many othere demanding immediate attention, we cannot have presented here a little bill to make up deficiencies without a week being frittered away on this kind of profitless discussion. I say, Mr. Chairman, it is time that this Con_gress should go to work and do some of the business for which we were sent here.

I should leave this subject right here but for a "sneer" which fell from the lips of our democratic friend from Ohio, [Mr. McMAHoN,] in reference to the "bloody shirt." I was sorry to hear him refer to that. The effect was not great. I have heard that sneer before. It is twenty years old. I was in Ohio during the war and well remember how the party he represents was in the habit of sneering at that -same shirt when the blood on it was yet fresh and new, and when it was the only winding-sheet of so many of the brave soldiers who went down to death that the nation might live, and these same gentlemen have been sneering at this "bloody shirt" from that time until now.

Mr. WEA VER. Did the gentleman get any farther south than ·Ohio?

Mr. HORR. No, sir; I was not in the service. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, Ohio had so many rascally copperheads within her bor-Oers at that time that she was compelled to keep some of her bes men at home to take care of those fellows in the rear. [Great laugh ter.]

[Here the hammer fell.] Cries•all over the Honse: "Go on!" "Go on I" Mr. HORR. No, gentlemen; I will take no morn time. Mr.WARNER. The gentleman from Michigan is exhausted; no

let us have a vote. Mr. BUCKNER. Mr. Chairman--The CHAIRMAN. Till one of the proposed amendments is disposed

of, no further amendment is in order. The question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. SIMONTON] to the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Ohio, [MR. GARFIELD.] The gentleman from Ohio has modified his substitute as the Clerk will read.

Mr. SIMONTON. Has the gentleman the right to modify his sub-stitute! ·

The CHAlRMAN. He has; but, as the Chair now understands, he does not propose to do so.

Mr. SIMONTON. If the gentleman modifies his substitute, I de·sire a like privilege with reference to my amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Any gentleman offering an amendment has a right to modify it before a vote is taken.

Mr. SIMONTON. If the gentleman from Ohio proposes to modify bis proposition, I would like to modify my amendment, so that it may come in properly in connection with his.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio has made no modification in his amendment, although at one time he proposed to ·do so.

Mr. EWING. I hope my colleague [Mr. GARFIELD] will be permitted to make such modification as he desires.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has a perfect right to modify the substitute if he wishes to do so.

Mr. EWING. He can have unanimous consent if necessary, as he seems to be anxious to have non-partisan deputy marshals.

Mr. GARFIELD. I hvee written out a modification in the form of an additional clause.

The CHAlRMAN. The Clerk will report the substitute as now modified.

The Clerk read as follows : For special deputy marshals of elections, the sum of $7,600: Provided, That

hereafter special deputy marshals of elections and general deputy marshals, for performing any duties in reference to any election, shall receive tbe sum of $5 per

-day in full for their compensation; and that all appointments of such special deputy marshals or of general deputy marshals having any duty to perform in respect to any election shall be made by the .iudge of the circuit court of. the United States for the district in which such marshals are to perform their duties, or by the dis· 'trictjndge in the absence of the circuit judge; said special deputies to be appointed in equal numbers from the different political parties.

Mr. GARFIELD. I modify the substitute further by striking out

the words "and general deputy iµarshals " as the amendment ought to relate to special deputies only. '

Mr. SPRINGER. I object to that modification. Tb~ CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has the right to modify his own

substitute. l\~r. FIELD .. I desire to call the attention of the gentlemaa from

0~10.to one pomt. The provision is that in the absence of tlte circmt Judge these officers shall be appointed by the district judge.

Mr. GARFIELD. Yes, sir. Mr. FIELD. I suggest that the words "of the district" be inserted. Mr. GARFIELD. Very well; I modify the amendment farther by

inserting after "district judge'' the words "9f the district." The amendment of Mr. SIMO~TON to the substitute of Mr. GARFIELD

was read, as follows: . Strike out" $.5" and insert " 2;" and after the word "jud e" insert: A;nd not l_ess than two no_r more than three appointments s~a.11 be made for any

vo~g precmct where appomtments are required to be made· and the persons so ap~~nted sha;ll be of.dift'e~ent political parties; and if there' are more than two pohtical par~es havmg tickets t.o be voted for, no two of said deputy marshals shall be appomt.ed from the same party. And the persons so appointed shall be ~ersons of good c~aracter, able to read and wrille the Eno-lish Janguacre and shall f:Z:::~~ln1own residents of the voting precinct in which their dutfes ;~ to be per-

Mr. KEIFER. I should like if we are going to vote on the amendment .of my c.olleague [l\~r. GARFIELD] to have the Clerk read that substitute as it would be if adopted.

The CHAIRMAN. That bas just been done. Mr. KEIFER. I understood the Clerk to read what is to be stricken

out of the original amendment; but I should like to have the amendment read as it will be if adopted.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will again read the substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio as it now stands, and the Chair asks that gentleman to observe whether the changes have been made according to his desire.

The amendment was read. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands the gentleman from

Tennessee to modify his amendment so as to make it come in at the end of the substitute as originally offered.

Mr. SIMONTON. Before the word ''said" and after the word "'udge."

he question recurred on l\Ir. SIMONTON7S amendment to Mr. GARFIELD'S substitute.

Tke committee divided; and there were-ayes 105, ~oes 10~. Mr. GARFIELD demanded tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Mr ... GARFIELD and Mr. SIMONTON were

appointed. The committee again divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 117

noes 114. • ' So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to. Mr. SPRINGER. I desire to restore the words "and general dep

uty marshals having any duty to perform at any election," wherever the~ occur in the original text. I desire the general deputy marshals havmg any duty to perform at any election shall be subject to the same appointment as special deputy marshals and limited to the same number.

Mr. GARFIE..LD. You cannot change it now. Mr. CANNON, of Illinois. What is the difference between general

and special deputy marshals f Mr. SPRINGER. These general deputies are to perform their duty

over the whole State. Now at tke last election in the State of South Carolina several hundred deputy marshals were appointed who went into all parts of the State and raided around for the pretended purpose of enforcing these laws. I desire those general deputy marshals shall be subject to the same appointment as special marshals and in. the same number. I desire to restore those words, therefore. i

The CHAlRMAN. The question then is on the amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. FINLEY. Let us have that substitute, as amended, read. Mr. GARFIELD'S substitute, as amended, was then read. Mr. CONGER. I ask for a division on the~amendment. The CHAIRMAN. On. what Y :Mr. CONGER. First on the proposition to appropriate $7,600. The CHAIRMAN. That is not the question now before the com-

mittee. The question before the committee is the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Illinois to insert the words " general deputy marshals" in this amendment which has just been read.

Mr. HISCOCK. I suggest to the gentleman from Illinois the effect of conferring on the judge the power to appoint general deputy marshals is simply to take it from marshals in all cases.

Mr. SPRINGER. Where it speaks of general deputies kaving any duty to perform at any election in the State.

Mr. HISCOCK. The duty the general marshal would have to perform -would be in the execution of process. When it comes down to the question of supervising elections, he is not charged with the same duties as the marshal himself. From that fact of executing process he becomes a. deputy marshal.

Mr. SPRINGER. If the gentleman will put in words prohibiting general deputies having any duties to perform in reference to elections, very well.

Mr. KEIFER. Have they nowt Mr. SPRINGER. I have tmderstood that in 1876 in the State of

1880. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1691 South Carolina, all over that State, general deputies were appointed to go into precincts where under law special deputies could not go.

Mr. IDSCOCK. General deputies have power to execute process, and they may be called upon to preserve the peace; but as general -deputies they have no power whatever over elections.

Mr. SPRINGER. I understood it was construed differently. It will do no harm, however, to put it in.

Mr. HISCOCK. The effect of the amendment will be to change the appointing power of deputy marshals.

Mr. KEIFER. Is it open to the point of order f The CHAIRMAN. It has been under discussion for ten minutes

.and the point of order comAs too late. Mr. BUCKNER. I move the committee rise. '£he committee divided; and there were-ayes 98, noes 64. So the motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose ; and the Speaker having resumed

the chair, Mr. CARLISLE reported that the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union bad, according to order, bad under ·consideration the bill (H. R.No.4924) making appropriations to supply certain deficiencies in the appropriations for the service of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 3(.l, 1880, and for other purposes, and bad come to no conclusion thereon.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. BURCH, its Secretary, announced

that the Senate had passed, with amendments in which the concurrence of the House was requested, a bill of the following title:

An act (H. R. No. 4376) to provide for a deficiency in the appro·priations for the transportation of the mails on star routes for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880.

The message also announced that the Senate had passed bills of the following titles; in which the concurrence 'of the House was requested:

An act (S. No. 637) granting an increase of pension to Lucien Kilbourn; and

An act (S. No. 1281) authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to introduce cotton cordage into the naval service of the United States.

The message also transmitted for the consideration of the House a letter of the Secretary of War in reference to Mobile Bay.

REVISED RULES. Mr. BLACKBURN. I am directed by the Committee on Rules to

submit the following report amending the rules of the House, and ask that the same be printed in the RECORD, and also in the usual form. I also give notice that I will call the same up to-morrow for action. ·

There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly. The report is as follows : The Committee on Rules ask leave to report certain amendments to the rules

made necessary by a. clerical and sundry typographical errors, and also by reason of amendments made in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to the report of the Committee on Rules submitting "revised rules/' which amendments were not at the time supplemented by other amendments making other rules conform to and in harmony with such amended rules. -

The amendments ~roposed are as follows: .After the words' select committee,'' in line'3 of clause 2, Rule XIII, insert the

following words: "The Committee of the 'Vhole House on the state of the Union, the Honse Cal

endar, or the Committee of the Whole Honse, Mcordin"' to its character." Strike out the word "ordered,' ' in line 2, clause 1, R~e XVII, and insert in lieu

thereof the word "seconded." w~; the word "debate,'' in line 3, clause 1, Rule XVII, insert the following

"Except the honr authorized ill clause 3, Rule XIV." · .After the word "submit," in line 12, of same clause and rule, strike out the letter

"' 'a" and insert the word "one." _. , ~~~~~od:b~~1tructions, ' ' in line 16, same clause and rule, insert the words

After the word "names," in line 2, clause 1, Rule XXII, strike out the words "and the reference or disposition to be made thereof," and insert in lieu thereof the words "thereon, and the same shall be referred to the committee having jnristliction of the subject-matter thereof."

.After the word ' ' propositions,'' in line 1, clause 3, Rule XXIII, insert the words "directly or indirectly ; " and after the word " people," in line 2 of same clause and rule, strike out the semicolon and insert in lieu thereof a com'ma.

In clause 1, Rule XXIV, line 7, after the word "only," insert the words "House resolutions and;" and in lino 9, of same clause, after the word "resolutions " in-sert the words "of inquiry." '

Strike out all after the word "Union," in line 4, clause 6 Rule XXIV. Add to Rule XXXIV, after the word "consent, " the foliowing proviso: "Provided, That the persons embraced in clause 2, Rule XXXVI, shall be ad

mitted to the marble-room on the south of the Hall of the Honse under such r egulations as the Committee on Rules may from time to time prescribe."

POST-OFFICE DEFICIENCY BILL.

Mr. BLOUNT. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill making appropriations to supply deficiencies for the Post-Office Department. I do not remember exactly the number of the bill, and ask that the Senate amendments thereto be printed, and that the bill be referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

There was no objection, and it was ordered accord~ly. Mr. CONGER. I move that the House adjourn.

POST-ROUTE BILL. Mr. MONEY, from the Committee on f,he Post-Office and Post

Roads, by unanimous consent, reported a bill (H. R. No. 5256) to establish post-routes; which was read a first and second time, ordered to be printed, and recommitted to the same committee.

ORDER OF BUSINESS. Mr. CONGER. I move the House adjourn. Mr. McMAHON. I desire to notify the House that I shall call up

for consideration to-morrow morning the deficiency appropriation bill and move to suspend private business for the purpose of considering it.

WITHDRAW.AL OF PAPERS. On motion of Mr. CLARK, of New Jersey, the papers i'n. the oase

of Nathaniel G. Smith, previously referred to the Committee on Claims, were referred to the Committee on the Posli-Office and PostRoads .

TRANSPORTATION OF UNITED STATES MAILS.

Pending the motion to adjourn, The SP EA.KER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House .a let

ter from the Postmaster-General, transmitting the report of all fines imposed upon and deductions made from the pay of contractors for transporting the mails of the United States for the years 1875, 187tJ, and 1879; which was referred to the Committee on Expendituroo in the Post-Office Department.

The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House .a letter from the Secretary of War, relating to an investigation respecting certain lands in Washington City belonging to the United States; which was referred to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds.

And then, on motion of l\Ir. CONGER, (at four o'clock and thirty-six minutes p. m.,) tke House adjourned. ·

PETITIONS, ETC. The following memorials, peti\iions, and other papers were laid on

the Clerk's desk, under the rule, and referred as follows, viz : By Mr. WILLIAM ALDRICH: The petition of Marder, Luse & Co.,

type-founders, of Chicago; illinois, against the abolition of the duty on type-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, the petition of James W. Stone and 40 others, soldiers of the United States Army, engaged in the late war, for the early passage of a lawproviding for the payment of the difference between the value of greenbacks, in which they were paid for their service.a, and the value of gold at the time of payment-to the Committee on Military .Affairs.

By Mr. BARBER : The petition of Dr. W. S. Pearce, of Waukegan, Illinois, for the removal of the stamp-tax on perfumery, cosmeties, and proprietary medicines-to the Committee on Ways aud Means.

By Mr. BAYNE: The petition of George S. Hays and others, citizens of Pennsylvania, that Congress grant lands to actual settlers under the homestead laws and provide sufficient money for an outfit, to be secured by mortgage to the United States-to the Committee on the Public Lands.

By Mr. BENNETT: The petition of 68 citizens of Northern Dakota, that the bill organizing the Territory of Pembina be amended by changing the name to North or Northern Dakota, and when. so amended that it pass-to the Committee on the Territories.

Also, the petition of 110 citizens of Northern Dakota, of similar import-to the same committee .

By Mr. BICKNELL: The petition of Charles L. Hoover and 19 others, druggists and manufacturers of medicines in :A"ew Albany, Indiana, for the removal of the stamp-tax on perfumery, cosmetics, and proprietary medicines-to the Committee on Ways and MeanM.

By Mr. BOUCK: The petition of G. K. Whitney and others, of Winnebago County, Wisconsin, soldiers of the United States Army, engaged in the late war, for the early passage of a lavr providing for the payment oft.be difference between the value of greenbacks, in which they were paid for their services, and the value of gold at the time of payment-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. BREWER: A. paper relating to the pension claim of John Bartow-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. BRIGHAM: The petition of printers, publishers, and others, of New York and elsewhere, against the removal of the tariff upon type-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. CA.BELL: The petition of P. Bouldin, A. Anderson, and R. H. Glass & Son, of ·Danville, Virginia, that materials used in making paper be placed on the free list, and for a reduction of t he duty on printing-paper-to the same committee.

By Mr. CALKINS: The petition of S. E. Douglass, of Porter County, Indiana, for the removal of the stanu>-tax on perfumery, cosmetics,, and proprietary medicines-to the same committee.

By Mr. CO:NGER: The petition of H. C. Knill, of Port H11ron1 Michigan, of similar import-to the same committee.

By Mr. CONVERSE: The petition of C. Hills and 38 others, citizens of Delaware County, Ohio, that the patent laws be so amended aa to make the manufacturer or vendor of patented articles alQne responsible for infringement-to the Committee on Patents.

Also, the petitions of Joseph Carman and 21 others, and of A. B. Elliott and 120 others, citizens of Fayette County, and of A. J. Case and 37 others, citizens of Delaware County, Ohio, for a law to prevent fluctuations and unjust discriminations in freights-to the Committee on Commerce.

By Mr. COVERT: The petition of the National Association of Bleachers and Dyers, for removal of the duty on chrome iron ore and bichromate of potash-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

1692 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. · MARCH 18,.

By Mr. COX: The petitions of Tbiteheuer & Glastaeter and other printers, publishers, stereotypers, and type-founders, of New York City, and of theemployes of Farmer, Little & Co., of New York City, against the reduction or abolition of the tariff duty on type-to the same committee.

Also, the petition of the publishers of the Eco d'Italia, New York City, for the abolition of the duty on type-to the same committee.

By Mr. DICK: The petition of Seth Hoagland and 10 others, citizens of Mercer County, Pennsylvania, that the Agricultural Department be made a Cabinet bureau-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, the petitions of E. Jewell and 15 others; of J. L. Moore and 8 others, and of W. D. Burnett and 28 others, citizens of Mercer County, Pennsylvania, against discriminations by railroads-to the Committee on Commerce.

Also, the petitions of Nelson Boylan and 29 others; of Thomas Bagnall and 7 others, and of E. Jewell and 14 others, citizens of Mercer County, Pennsylvania, that the patent laws be so amended as to make the manufacturer or vendor of patented articles alone responsible for infringement-to the Committee on Patents.

Also. the petition of W. C. Wygant and 33 others, soldiers of Crawford County, Pennsylvania, for the passage of the Weaver soldier bill-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. DICKEY: The petition of L. Evansline and 106 others, citizens of Clermont County, Ohio, of similar import-to the same committee.

Also, the petition of Maddox, Hobart & Co., of Cincinnati, and 9 other distillers and rectifiers, of Ohio, against certain provisions of the bill to amend the revenue laws relating to distilled spirits-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. EVINS: The petitions of P.H. Riley, of Edward Bailey, and of A. M. Howell, of Glenville, and of L. M. Grist, of the Enquirer, Yorkville, South Carolina, for the abolition of the duty on type-to the same committee.

Also, the petitions of James A. Hoyt and others, and of J. C. Bailey, of Greenville, South Carolina, that materials used in making paper be placed on the free list, and for a reduction of the duty on printingpaper-to the same committee.

By Mr. EWING: The petition of John G. Comwell and others, of Middleport, Ohio, for the defeat of the bill (S. No. 496) providing for the examination and adjudication of pension claims-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, the petitions of John W. Free and other officers and soldiers of the United States volunteers; also of John G. Cornwell .and other soldiers and sailors of United States volunteers, for the passage of a law equalizing bounties-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Also, the petitions of Charles V. Clark and others, citizens of Gallia County, and of T. H. McKnight and others, citizens of Meigs County, Ohio, that Congress enact such laws as will alleviate the oppressions imposed upon the people by the transportation monopolies that now control the interstate commerce of the country-to the Committee on Commerce.

Also, the petition of Charles V. Clark and others, of Gallia and Meigs Counties, Ohio, that the patent laws be so amended as to make the manufacturer or ;vendor of patented articles alone responsible for infringement-to the Committee on Patents.

By Mr. FISHER: The petition of soldiers of Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, for the passage of the eq aa.lization bounty bill-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. HA WK: The petition of the Western Wholesale Drug Association, for the removal of the stamp-tax on perfumery, cosmetics, and proprietary medicines-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. HAYES: The petition of Norton & Co. and 9 others, citizens of Lockport, Illinois, against the reduction of the daty on pa-per-to the sa.me committee. ·

Also, the petition of certain distillers in the first Ohio district, in regard to the revenue bill now before the Committee on Ways and Means-to the same committee.

By Mr. HOOKER: The petition of citizens of Cincinnati, for a revision of the revenue laws relating to certain articles-to the same committee.

Also, the petition of Charles S. Brown, of Jackson, Mississippi, and T. W. Tarrant, of Galveston, Texas, for the removal of the stamptax on perfumery, cosmetics, and proprietary medicines-to the same committee.

By Mr. HUNTON: The petition of citizens 9.f Warren County, Virginia, that the patent laws be so amended as to make the manufacturerorvendor of patented articles alone responsible for infringementto the Committee on Patents.

By Mr. HURD: The petition of Daniel Brown and others, of Wood County, Ohio, for the passage of the Weaver soldier bill-to the Committee on Military .Aftairs.

Also, the petition of C. M. Canfield and others, of Fulton Count.v, Ohio, that Congress enact such laws as will alleviate the oppressions imposed upon the people by the transportation monopolies that now control the interstate commerce of the country-to the Committee on Commerce.

Also, the petition of Andrew Welton and others, of Wood County, Ohio, that the patent laws be so amended as to make the manufactureror vendor of patented articles alone responsibleforinfrin gementto the Committee on Patents.

Also, the petition of James Timmons, o.f Wood County, Ohio, that materials used in making paper be placed on the free list, and for a . reduction of the duty on printing-paper-to the Committee on Ways. and l\Ieall'S.

Also, the petitions of B. L. and D. E. Peters, and of J a.mes Timmons, of Wood County; of H.F. Paden and P. Knerr, of Sandusky County, and of C.H. Coy, of Toledo, Ohio, for the abolition of the· duty on type-to the same committee.

Also, the petition of H. A. Pratt and others, against the further introduction of the French metric system of weights and measuresto the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures.

By Mr. JAMES : The petition of J.C. Sprague and others, of Ogdensburgh, New York, for the removal of the stamp-tax on perfumery, cosmetics, and proprietary medicines-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. JONES: 'fhe petition of Allen & Crozier, of Burnett, Texas, for the abolition of the duty on type-to the same committee.

By Mr. JOYCE: The petition of citizens of Vermont, that Josephus D. Lathrop be pa.id arrears of pension alleged to be justly due his late wife-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. LADD: The petitions of 100 soldiers and citizens, of 60 soldiers and citizens, and of 71 soldiers, of Aroostook County, Maine,. for the early passage of a law providing for the payment of the difference between the value of greenbacks, in which soldiers of the late war were paid for their services, and the value of gold at the time of payment-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. McGOWAN: The petition of E. H. Lathrop and 225 soldiers. of the late war, of Barry County, Michigan, for the paRSage of the bill (H. R. No. 3955) providing for the equalization of bounties-to the same committee.

By Mr. McKENZIE:. Joint resolution of the Kentucky Legislature, for the benefit of soldiers of the late war-to the Committee on War· Claims.

By Mr. McLANE: The petition of E. D. Morgan & Co., Moses Taylor & Co., and others, against changing the tariff on sugar-t-0 the Committee on Ways and Means. ·

Also, the petition of Baird & Butts, of Baltimore, Mary land, for the abolition of the duty on type-to the same committee.

Also, resolutions of the city council of Baltimore, Maryland, asking for an appropriation for continuing the work on Fort Carroll-to· the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. MONROE: The petition ef W. M. Crandall and 28 other soldiers, citizens of Ohio, for the passage of Honse bill No. 2480-to the same committee.

Also, the petition of E. L. Burge and 64 other soldiers, citizens of Ohio, against the passage of Senate bill No. 496-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. MORSE: The petition of merchants and citizens of Buffalo, New York, and vicinity, for reciprocal trade with Canada and Newfoundland-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. NEWBERRY: The petition of the publisher of the Public Leader. Detroit, Michigan, for the abolition of the duty on type-to the same committee.

Also, the petition of 46 citizens of Northville, Michigan, for a. bridge across the river at Detroit, Michigan-to the Committee on Commerce.

By Mr. O'NEILL. The petition of mannfacturers and dealers in sheet-metal and metal goods, manufacturers and dealers in paints, oils, and varnishes, in Philadelphia, against the extension of the Harman Miller patents-to the Committee on Patents.

By Mr. OSMER: The petitions of Mr. McCormack and 24 others, and of Daniel Haworth and 11 others, for the pa-ssage of House bill No. 269,. relating to the homestead laws-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. PHISTER: The petition of John W. Zoller, of Robertson County, Kentucky, that materials used in making paper be placed on the free list, and for a reduction of the duty on printing-paper-to the Committee on Ways and Means. '

By Mr. ROTHWELL: The petition of J. T. Plunkett, of Brunswick, Missouri, for the removal of the stamp-tax on perfumery, cosmetics, and proprietary medicines-to the same committee.

By Mr. STARIN: The petition of 8 citizens and ex-soldiers of Montgomery County, New York, against the passage of the sixty-surgeon pension bill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. STEVENSON : The petition of N. Patterson, of Ellsworth,. Illinois, for the removal of the stamp-tax on perfumery, cosmetics,.' and proprietary medicines-to the Committee on Ways andMeans.

By Mr. AMOS TOWNSEND: The petition of citizens of Ohio, for the passage of a bill to create a department of manufactures, mechanics, and ruines-to the Committee on Education and Labor.

By Mr.WASHBURN : The petition of W. H. Grant, president of th& Snake River Transportation Company, to appropriate 10,000 for the improvement of the Snake River in Minnesota-to the Committee on Commerce.

By Mr. WELLS: The petition of type-founders, printers, and others, of Saint Louis, Missouri, and elsewhere, against the reduction of the· duty on type-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. WHITEAKER: The petition of M. V. Brown and other publishers, of Albany, Oregon, that materials used in making paper be placed on the free list, and for a reduction of the duty on printingpaper-to the same committee.

1880. ). CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1693 By Mr. WILBER: Three petitions of publishers of. New York, for

the abolition of the duty on type-to the same comnnttee. By Mr. FERNANDO WOOD: The petition of type-founders and

printers of New York, against reducing the duty on type-to the same committee.

By Mr. WRIGHT: The petition of L. McCarty a_nd 83 others, citizens of Sioux City, Iowa, for the passage of the bill (H. R. No. 269) known ai; the Wright supplement to the homestead act-to the Committee <>n the Public Lands.

IN SENATE.

FRIDAY, March 19, 1880.

Prayer by Rev. A. W. PITZER, D. D., of the city of Waahington. The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approve~.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

The VICE-PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting a commun.ication from the Chief of Engineers, covering a report of Major W. H. H. Benyanrd, Corps of Engineers, upon a survey and proposed improvement of the mouth of Red River, Louisiana, with four maps showing the present and former -0onditions of the navigation in that locality; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed.

He also laid before the Senate a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate -0f the 11th instant, certified copies of pa.tents issued to Indian tribes in 'the Indian Territory and of applications for lands in that Territory by railroad companies or corporations, and the action thereon by his Department; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and ordered to be printed.

He also laid before the Senate a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitt.ing a communication from the Commissary-General of Sub.sistence, representing the absolute need of six clerks in his office in addition to those estimated for, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1881, to effect the disposal of claims now on file in a reasonable time, should Congress not establish some tribunal to which they can be referred for settlement ; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed.

He a~so laid before the Senate a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting, in connection with the report of Captain A. N. Damrell, Corps of Engineers, upon the survey of the harbor of Mobile, transmitted on the 1:3th instant, a communication of the Chief of Engineers, -0overing a report with accompanying map from the Board of Engineers for river and harbor improvement, to which the report of Captain Damrell was referred for consideration; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. KERNAN presented the petition of Mrs. Dora Stark, wife of Theodore 0. Stark, ;formerJy Dora Lambeth, and Fanny Lambeth Randolph, widow, formerly Fanny Lambeth, surviving heirs of the estate of W. l\f. Lambeth, both residents of the city of New Orleans, Louisiana, praying that their claim against the United States for property taken during the late war be referred to the Court of Claims

·for adjudication; which wasreferred totheCommitteeon the Judiciary. Mr. ANTHONY. I present the petition of Susan B. Anthony, pray

ing for relief from political disabilities. The petitioner complains that while Congress bas passed many acts for relieving men from

-political disabilities, it bas not passed any act for relieving a woman from her political disabilities. She asks that the same attention be paid to her petition as though her name were Samuel, instead of Susan. I move that the petitipn be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The motion was agreed to. Mr. JONES, of Florida, presented a petition of citizens of Marion

County, Florida, praying for the deepening of the entrance to Cumberland Sound to the depth of twenty-one feet at low-water; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. McPHERSON presented the petition of the National Association of Bleachers and Dyers, Moses Pierce president, praying for a reduction of the prohibitory duties on bichromate of potash; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

REPORTS OF COMl\IlTTEES.

Mr. HOAR, from the Committee on Patents, to whom wa'9 referred the bill (S. No. 915) for the relief of Edgar Huson, reported it without amendment and submitted a report thereon; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. JONES, of Florida, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 826) for the relief of several persons impressed into the United States naval service, reported it without amendment and submitted a report thereon; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. PLATT. . The Committee on Pensions, to whom were referred the petition of Mrs. Britania W. Kennon, widow of Commodore Bev

. erly Kennon, praying an increase of pension, and the bill (S. No. 871) granting a pension to Mary W. Jones, ·bave had the same under con-

sideration, and have directed me to report a bill for a public act to cover these and similar cases.

The bill (S. No. 1501) to restore pensions in certain cruie was read twice by its title.

REPORT OF ENTOMOLOGICAL CO IMISSIO.N.

Mr. WHYTE. I am instructed by the Committee on Printing, to which was referred a resolution for printing six thousand extra copies of Bulletin No. 5 of the United States entomological commission, to report it favorably with an amendment striking out the words, "the House of Representatives concurring." The cost being less than $500 it can be a Senate resolution ::simply. I ask its present consideration.

By unanimous consent, the Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution :

Resolved by the Senate, (the House of Representatiives concurring,) That there be printed, with necessary illnstrations, at the GQvernment Printing Office, 6,000 extra copies of Balletin No. 5 of the United States entomolo!!ioal commission on the subject of the cltinch-bug ; 3,000 copies for the use of the Rouse, 2,000 for the use of the Senate, and 1,000 copies for the use of the Department of the Interior.

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment reported from the Committee on Printing, striking out the words "the House of Representatives concurring.''

The amendment was agreed to. The resolution, as amended, wat< agreed to.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. PLUMB asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1502) for the relief of certain pre-emptors in the State of Kansas ; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. SLATER asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1503) authorizing the Legislature of the State of Oregon to provide for the completion of the Oregon and California Railroad; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Railroads.

Mr. McDONALD asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a. bill (S. No. 1504) refunding t<> the University of Notre Dame du Lac, of Saint Joseph County, in the State of Indiana, the sum of 2,334.07 in gold coin, that being the amount paid on certain imported articles, &c.; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. COKE asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1505) for: the disposition of certain stocks, and accrued interest thereon, belonging to the Prairie band of Pottawatomie Indians, temporarily invested for their benefit under authority of act of Congress approved March 3, 1875; which wa.s read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

Mr. CALL asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1506) to authorize persons who have entered homesteads on the public lands which have been abandoned or for any reason canceled to make a new entry, also to require mistakes of description in making homestead entries to be corrected; which was read t.wice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. PLUMB asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1507) to provide for the allotment of lands in severalty to the united Peoria.a and Miamie.s of the Indian Territory, and for other purposes; which wa.s rea.d twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

Mr. McMILLAN asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1508) for ari appropriation of money to close the slough at the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers; which was i·ead twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. WHYTE asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a joint resolution (S. R. No. 95) providing for the ascertainment and payment of the claim of the legal representatives of Walter H. Stevens, deceased; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

A.l't:lENDMENT TO A BILL.

Mr. PLUMB submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill •to establish post-routes; which was referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads, and ordered to be printed.

On motion of Mr. WHYTE, it was

the°fil~~ll:J!~~ ~~~c~ft~!~~!~i~~ of Mary Good be taken from

On motion of l\fr. COCKRELL, it was Ordered, That the papers in the case of Thomas B. Wallace be taken from the

files of the Senate and referred to the Committee on Claims.

NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION.

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary will proceed with the call of the Calendar of General Orders, commencing at the point reached yesterday.

The CHIEF CLErur. The bill (H. R. No. 2518) for the relief of Nelson Lyon and Jeremiah S. James.

Mr. BAILEY. The bill (S. No. 1282) to incorporate the National Educational Association, reported by the Senator from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL] from the Committee on Education and Labor, was considered yesterday morning and the Senator from New York [Mr. CONKLING] objected to it. I think with some amendments proposed the

Date post:	20-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dangdat
View:	220 times
Download:	2 times

1880. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1673 - …. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1673 not counting the...

Documents