3654 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JUNE 7

EXECUTIVE SESSION. Mr. EDMUNDS. I move that the Senate proceed to the consid­

eration of executive business. Tlle motion was agreed to, and the Senat~ proceeded t<_> the cons.id­

eration of executive business. After ten mmutes spent m executlve ses ion the doors were re-opened, and (at four o'clock and twenty minutes p.m.) the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

WEDNESDAY, June 7, 1876. ·The Honse met at twelve o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev.

I. L. TOWNSEND. The J onrnal of yesterday was read and approved.

JOANNA NAY PAGE. Mr. BLAND. I rise to a privileged motion. I find bythe REcoRD

of this morn in()' that yesterday leave was obtained for the withdrawal from the files of the House of the papers accompanying House bill No. 1723 for the relief of Joanna Nay Page. I desire to enter amotion to reconsider the vote granting such leave, inasmuch as a report of the subcommittee has been made ad erse to that claim.

The SPEAKER. The motion will be entered. CIVIL-SERVICll~ REFORM:.

Mr. HURLBUT. I am directed by the Committee on Civil-Service Reform to report back certain testimony, and to move that it be or­dered to be printed and recommitted.

There being no objection, the motion was agreed to. THOMAS D. WRIGHT.

Mr. JONES, of Kentucky, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 3668) for the mlief of Thomas D. Wright, of Carrollton, Kentucky, for tho destruction of his property by the Federal troops in the year 18G2; whicu was reau a firi:lt aml seconu time, referred to the Committee on War Claims, and onlered to be printed.

K:\UL HEL'\EMAN AXD OTHEUS. Mr. DAVY, by unanimous consent, introuuced a bill (H. R. No.

~~669) for tbe relief of Emil Heinemau, Francis Pa.yson, and George H. Morgan; which was read a Jirst a.ml second time, referred to the Commit.tee of Ways and Means, unu ordered to be printed.

COIDUTTEE ON 1~XPE~DITUHES OX' PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

Mr. COX. The Commit.tee on Rulus, who are authorized, I believe, t.o report at auy t.ime, have directed me to report back, with a favor­able recommeudation, the following resolution:

.Raolvea, That Role 103 he so amende!l a to st.rike out the shth clause, referrinf.rr to the committee on public accounts nnu cxpcmlitm·cs rclatin~ to public buil.' · in..,.s and insert at the em\ of saitlrolo thofolluwin~ additional clause: "A commlt­~ ~n so much of the public a~counts and expenditures as relates to the public buildinrrs, to consist of seven mombers; ., aml tlli.s amendment shall continue in f01·ce o~y during the present session.

Mr. Speaker, the only amendment here proposed is to increase the number of members on this committee from fivo to sevon, in conse­quence of the absence and sicJmess of some members.

The resolution was agreed to. Mr. COX moved to reconsider the vote by which t.he resolution was

adopted; and also moved that the motion torcconsider be laid on tho table. ,

The latter motion was agreed to. The SPEAKER subsequently announced the appointment of Mr.

POPPLETON and Mr. BELL as tlle additional members upon the Com-mittee on Expenditures on Public Bnilt.lings. ·

RAILROAD TRACKS IN SOUTII WASillNGTON. Mr. HARRISON, by unanimous consent, reporte(l from the Commit­

too on Public Buildings and Grounds a memorial of residents of Wash­ington City for the removal of railroad tracks now used in the south­ern portion of tho city of Washiugton, and also a brief on the rigltt of Congress to repeal the privileges aml franchises heretofore granted to the Baltimore and Potomac Railroatl Company and other. railroau companies having grants to enter South Washington ; and moved that the same be ordered to be printed and recommitted.

The motion was agreed to. BRIDGE ACROSS THE MISSOURI RIVER AT NEBRASKA CITY.

Mr. CROUNSE. I ask unanimous consent to report from the Com­mittee on Commerce a short bill, which I desire to have put on its passage. I believe there will be uo objection to it. The report of tho committee is unanimous; and the measure has the approval of tho War Department.

There being no ohj~ction, the bill (H. R. No. 3670) reported as a substitute for House bill No. 175, authorizing the Nebraska City Bridge Company to construct a ponton-railway bridge across the Mis­souri River at Nobra.ska City, in Otoe County, Nebraska, was read a first and second time. Th~ bill was read, as follows: B e it enacted, &e., That it shall be lawful for theN ebra.'lka City Bridge Company,

a. corporatioiLhaving authodty from the State of Nebraska aml from the State of

Iowa, its successors n.nd assigns, to build. mli.intain, and operate a ponton-railway transit and wagon bridge across the Missouri River at Nebraska Uity, in the County of Otoe, and State of Nebraska; and said company, it..'l successors or as­signs, shall keep up and maintain a suitable pouton draw of not less than three hundred feet in length; ancl that said draw shall be opened promptly, upon rea.­sonablo signal, for the pa sage of boats or raft-s; but in no case shall unreasonable delay occur in the opening of said draw before or after the pa sage of trains ; aud thR company, corporation, or individuals having the charge or control of said bridge shall, for the security of navigation, maintain, from sunset to snnri e, throughout the year, such lights on said bridge as may be required by the Light­House Board.

SEC. 2. That all railway companies desiring to use said ponton bridge shall have, and be entitled to, equal ri~hts antl privileges in the use of the same, and in the usa of the machinery and fixtures thereof, and of all approaches thereto, under and upon such terms an1l comlitions as shall be prescribed by the Sec1·etar.v of War, upon hearing the allegations and proofs of the parties in case they shall not agree; and the United States shall have the right of way for postal and telej:,rraphic purposes across said l.nid.~e; and no greater charge shall be made for tho trans­mission o>er the same of the mails, the troops, and m1mitionsof war of the United States than the rate per mile paid for the transportation over the railroads or public highways leading to saitl bridge; and in case of any litigation arisin~ from anv obstruction, or allc_ged obstruction, to the navigation of -the said Missouri River, created by the construction of said bridge under this act, the cause or ques­tion arising may be tried before the district or circuit court of the United States of any State wherein the obstruction exists.

SEc. 3. That the right to alter or amend this act so as to prevent or remove all material obstruetions to the navigation of said Missouri River is hereby expre sly reserved, without any liability to the Government for damages on account of the alteration m· amendment of this' act or on account of the prevention or requiring the removal of any such obstructions; and if any change be made in tlle plan of construction of said ponton bddge, such change sball be subject t.o t-he approval of the Secretary of War; and any cban!!e in the construction or any alteration of sa ill bridge th:tt may be directed at any time by Congress or the Secretary of War shall be at· the cost and expense of the owners thereof. Said bridge shall be constructed, as near a.s may be practicable, upon the line heretofore s11rveyed and established by theN ebraska City Bridge Company.

SEC. 4. That any bridge authorized to be constructed under this act shall be bnil t and loe.ated under and subject to such regulations for the seourity of navi.~ation of said river as the Secretary of War shall prescribe; and to secure that object the saitl company or corporation shall submit to the Secretary of War for his examin.'lo­tion and approval a desi_!!Il and drawings of the bridge and a map of the location, giving for the space of one mile above and one mile below the proposed location tho topography of the banks of the river, tbt' ehore lines at high and low water, the directwn and strength of tho currents at all stages, and the sounrlings, accurately showing the bed of the stream, the location of a.ny other brirlge or bridges, and shall furni!lh such other information as may be required for a. full and satisfa~tory understaudin~r of the subject; and until the said plan and location of the bridge are approved by the Secretary of War the bri(lgo shall not be built.

Mr. CROUNSE. I repeat that this billlta.s the unanimous inuorso­ment of the Committee ou Commerce, and also tb~ approval of the engineer of the "Tar Department. There can be no objection to it; and it is important that it should be p~sed promptly.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and rea-d a third time; and being engrossed, it was acconlillgly read t.he third time, aud passed.

l\11·. CROUNSE moved to rccoutiider the vote by which tlle uill was passed; and also moved that the motiou to reconsider be laid on the table. T~e latter motion was agreecl to.

CO:\fillTTEE APPOINTIIIENT. The SPEAKER announced the appointment of Mr. PHELPS to fill

the vacancy upon the Committee on Foreign Affairs occasioned by the resignation of .Mr. BARNUM.

ORDER OF BUSINESS. Mr. WILLIS. I a.sk unanimous consent--. Mr. THORNBURGH. I demand the regular order of business. Mr. \VILLIS. I have the floor, and I hope the gentleman from

Tennessee will allow me to go on. The SPEAKER pro tempore, (.Mr. BLACKBURN in the chair.) Does

the gentleman withdraw his demand for the regular order of busi­ness?

.Mr. THORNBURGH. No, I insist on it.

PUBLIC LANDS IN ALABAMA, ETC. The SPEAKER pl'o tempo1·e. The morning hour now begins at

twelve o'clock and twenty-five minutes, and the regular oruer of business is the call of committees for reports of a public nature, the call rt>sting "\rith the Committee on Public Lands.

The pemling business is the bill,reported by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Morey) from the Committee on Public Lands, the bill (S. No. 2) to repeal section 2303 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, making restrictions in the disposition of the public lands in the States of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Florida, and for other purposes. The Clerk will report the bill.

The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted, ti:c., That section 2'303 of the Revised SlAtntes of the United States,

confining the disposal of the public lands in the States of Alabama, Mississippi Louisiana, .Arkansas, and Florida to the provisions of the homestead law, be. and tho same is hereby, repealed : Provided, That the repeal of said section shall not ba.vo tho effect to ·impair the right, complete or inchoate, of any homestead set­tler, and no lane\ oocn pied by such sett lcr a.t the time this act shall ta.ke effect shall bo subject to entry, pre-emption, or sale: A.nd provided, That tho public lands af. fcctcd by this act l'lball be offerecl at public salo, as soon as practicable, from time to tiwe, and according to the provisions of existing law, and shall not bosubjcct to pl'ivate entry until they are so offered.

The amcn<lments reported by the Committee on Pnblic Lancls were rea<l, as follows :

Amend by insP.rting in linell, after the word "act" and beforothe word" shall," the following: "whiCh are nusuited for a.gricultural purposes." And at the end of tho section add as follow!!: "a·ul that all public lan\ls in sairl States titte;l for the purposes of agriculture shall be subject to tlisposal under the pr0V1Sio11.s of 'the

187.6. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3655 homestead laws of the United States, and not otherwise: And pr01Jided further, That no thin~ herein shall be construed to affect the disposal of any mineral lands asuow proVIded by law."

Mr. WALLING. Mr. Speaker, members will recollect that this bill wa.s reported from the Committee on Public Lands by the gentle­man from Louisiana, (Mr. Morey;) that a lengthy discussion was bad on its merits; that more than one-half of the time was oncupied by the opponents of the measure ; and that on the la-st day it came be­fore the House, the 24th of May, Mr. Morey took the floor to close discussion, giving notice that the a.mendments that had been sug­geste(l by the Committee on Public Lands he was ordered to with­clraw. At the end of that hour, discussion having been exhausted, the gent.leman from Virginia [Mr. HARRIS] rose to a question of priv­ilege, calling up a conte~:.tested-election case. The House therefore is now brought to a vote on the bill proper. Mr. Morey since then has been mJseated; and, by order of the Committee on Public Lands, t.be charge of the bill ha been tunted over to me. In accordance with the instruction of the committee to Mr. Morey and with his notice t~ the House by order of the Committee on Public Lands, I now formally witbqraw the committee's amendments to the bill, and demand the previous question.

The bill, Mr. Speaker, is one reasonable in itself, and is unanimously approved by the Representatives of the people interested in its pas­sage. The legislation which it is proposed to repeal is not desired by those people. It was enacted, not by their request, but at the sug­gestion of people in other sections of the Union, under the idea that a principle which might well apply to other parts of the country would also apply to those States. The result of t.he experiment ha-s demonstrated its utter failure to produce the effect intended.

It does not affect the homestead law elsewhere, but merely puts the lands in those States upou the basis of other public lands elsewhere in the United States. It is an act of justice to those people. It is an act of right. It is in the line of equality. It is a measure deemed proper by the CoiDlirittee on Public Lands, who have unanimously reported it to t.he House.

Mr. TOWNSEND, of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman yield to me for a few moment.~ T

Mr. WALLING. I must decline to yield the floor, a8 three morn­ing hours already have been taken up in the discussion of this ques­tion ; and on the last occasion at the close of the morning hour notice was given t.hat the vot.e would be taken. That morning hour was de­voted to discussion in ten-minute speeches pro and con upon the bill. Other morning hours, as I have stated have been occupied in discus­sion in the same way. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HOLMAN] occupied one entire hour. The bill has been discussed at greater length tha.n any other coming before the House during this session. In jus­tice to other committee_s, in justice to the House itself, and especially in justice to those interested in this bill, I must respectfully decline to :vield the floor. • .Mr. TOWNSEND, of Pennsylvania. I should like the gentleman to yield to me for only five minutes.

lir. PAGE. Was it not the agreementwhen the bill wasnp before that the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HOLMAN] 'Jhould be accepted T

1\Ir. WALLING. No, sir. Mr. PAGE. Or at least that a vote should be taken upon itT Mr. WALLING. No, sir; there was no agreement except that at

the close of the hour the discussion should be closed, and the vote taken on the bill without amendment.

1\fr. KASSON. Was it not understood it should apply only to tim­ber lands!

Mr. CLYMER. Is this unanimously reported from the Committee on Public Lands T

Mr. WALLING. It is, and under the order of that committee I now demand the previous question, having already formally with­drawn all pending amendments reported from the Committee on Pub-lic Lands. ·

Mr. TOWNSEND, of Pennsylvania. Let me ask the gentleman a question.

Mr. WALLING. I decline to be interrupted further. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. W AL­

LING,] on behalf of the Committee on Public Lands, withdraws the amendments reported by that committee, and demands the previons question on the third reading of the bill.

1\fr. SAYLER. I desire to say on behalf of the Committee on Pub­lic Landa that there are three members of the Committee on Public Lands who favor an amendment to this bill.

On seconding the demand for the previous question there were­ayes 71, noes 49; no quorum voting.

Tellers were ordered; and Mr. WALLING and Mr. PAGE were ap-pointed.

The House again divided; and the tellers reported-ayesl02, noes 56. So the previous question wa.., seconed. The SPEAKER pro tempO're. The question is, Shall the main ques­

tion be now ordered Y Mr. DUNNELL. I desire to ask the gentleman who has charge of

this bill a question. 'Vill he permit any further debate upon itt Mr. WALLING. I cannot. It has beeiJ debated at great length. Mr. TOWNSEND, of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman from Ohio

allow an amendment to be offered for consideration f

Mr. WALLING. I cannot. Mr. KASSON. On the question of the passage of the bill I shall

call for the yeas and nays, to see if we are going back on the home­stead principle.

The main question wa-s orderecl; and under the operation thereof the bill was ordered to be read a third time; and it was accordingly read the third time.

Mr. KASSON. I call for the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill.

The yeas and nays were ordered. 1\fr. REAGAN. I would like to have the bill reported again before

wo vote on it. The bill was again reacl. The question was on the passage of the bill; and being taken,

there were-yeas 108, nays 97, not voting 83; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Atkins, Bap:by, John H. Bagley, jr., Beebe, Bell, Blackburn,

Bland, Boone, Bradford, John Young Brown, Bucher, Samuel D. Burchard, Ca­bell, John H. Caldwell, William P. Ciildwell, Candler, Cate, John B. Clarke of Ken­tucky, John B. Clark, jr., of Missouri, Cochrane, Cook, Cox, Culberson, Davis, De Bolt, Dibrell, Douglas, Eden+.-Egbert, Felton, Finley, Forney, Franklin, Gause, Goode, Gunter, .Andrew H . .tlamilton, Robert Hamilton, Hardenbergh, Harrison, Hartridge, AbramS. Hewitt, Goldsmith W. Hewitt, Hill, Hoge, Hooker, Hopkins, House, Hurd, Jenks, Thomas L. Jones, Lamar, George M. Landers, Levy, Lewis,' Lord, McFarland, Meade, Metcalfe, Milliken, Mills, Money, Mor11.an, O'Brien, Odell, Parsons, Phelps, John F. Philip8, Rea, Reagan, John Reilly, .tticldle, John Robbins, Roberts1 Jlliles Ross, Scnles, Schleicher, Schumaker, Sheakley, Sin~leton, Slemons, William E. Smith, Southard, Sparks, Spring!lr, Sten~r, Stone, Swann, Teese, Terry, Thomas, Thompson, Throckmorton, ·.cucker, JWbert B. Vance, Charles C. B. Walker. Gilbert C. Walker, Walling, Walsh, Erastnd Wells, Whit­thorne, Wike,James Williams, Jrunes D. Williams, Jeremiah N. Williams, Willis, Fernando Wood, and Yeates-108.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, .Ainsworth, .Anderson, Goorp:e A. Bagley, William H. Baker, Ballou, Blair, Bradley, William R. Brown, Horatio C. Burchard, Burleigh, Campbell, Cannon, Cason, Caswell, Chittenden, Ulymer, Collins, Urapo, Crounse, Cutler, Danford, Davy, Denison, Dobbins, Dunnell, Durand, Eames, Evans, Foster, Garfield, Goodin, Hale, Benjamin W. Harris, Hartzell, Hathorn, Haymond, Hendee, H1mderson, ~oar, Holman, Hunter, Hurlbut, Joyce, Kasson, Kelley, Ketcham, Kim­ball, Franklin Landers, Lapham, Leavenworth, LeMoyne, Lynch, Edmund W. M. Mackey, L.A. Mackey, McCrary, McDill, Miller, , Monroe, :Ka.sh, Neal, Norton, Oliver. O'Neill, Pa{}ker, Page, Pierce, Piper, Platt, Potter, Pratt, Rainey, Randall, Robinson, Sampson, Sa.v~e, Seelye, Sinnickson, Smalls, A. Herr Smith, Strait, Tarbox, Thornburgh. Washingt.on'Townsem1, Van Vorhcs. Waldron, AlexanderS. Wallace, John W. Wallaoo, G. Wiley Wells, Whitehonse, Whiting, Willard, An­drew Williams, Charles G. Williams, James Wilson, Alan Wood, jr., and Yonng-97.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Ashe, John H. Baker, Banks, Banning. Bass, Blaine, Bliss, Blount, Bright, Caulfield, Chapin, Conger, Cowan, Darrall, Durha.m. Ellis, Elv, Faulkner, Fort, Freeman, Frost, Frye, Fiiller, Gibson, Glover, Hancock, Har­alson, Henry R. Ha.rris, John T. Harris, Hatcher, Hays, Henkle, Hereford, Hos­kins, Hubbell, Hunton, Hyman, Frank Jones, Kehr, Kin<T, Knott, Lano, Lawrence, Luttrell, Lynde, Maaoon, Maish, MacDougall, McMahon, Morrison, Mutchler, New, Payne, William A. Phillips, Plaisted. Poppleton, Powell, Purman, James B. Reilly, Rice, William M. Robbins, Sobieski P.oss, Rusk, Sayler, Stevenson, Stowell, Martin I. Townsencl, Tufts, Turney, John L. Vance, Waddell, Wait~ Ward, Warren, Wheeler, White, Wiggint<>n, AlpheusS. Williams, WilliamB. Williams, Wilshire, Benjamin Wilson, WoOdburn, and Woodworth-83.

So the bill was passed. During the roll-call the following announcements were made: Mr. DURAND. My colleagues, 1\ir. A. S. WILLIAMs and Mr. CoN­

GER, are absent by order of the House. Mr. BRADLEY. l\Iy colleague, Mr. W. B. WILLIAMS, is absent on

important business. Mr. DURHAM. On this bill I am paired with Mr. HUBBELL, of

Michigan. The result of the vote wa-s then announced as above recorded. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and

being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. .Mr. W ALLL~G moved to reconsider the vote by which the hill was

pru:~sed ; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to. LEAVE OF ABSE~CE FOR SPEAKER.

The SPEAKER. The Chair feels the necessity of asking the fur­ther indulgence of the House. He asks that he may have leave of ah~ence for ten days, though he may not be absent for so long a time. Is there objection to this request 7

There was no objection. APPOINTMENT OF SPEAKER PRO TE~IPORE.

The SPEAKER. The Chair, subject to the approval of the House-,. appoints the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] as Speaker during his absence. Is there objection to thls appointment T

There was no objection, and Mr. Cox took the chair as Speaker pro tempo1·e.

MAILL'W OBSCENE BOOKS, ETC. The SPEAKER pro tentpore. The calling of committees for reports

has now reached the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. Mr. CANNON, of Illinois, from the Committee on the Post-Office

and Post-Roads reported back, with the recommendation that it uo pass, the hill (H. R. No. 2575) to amend sections 3893 and 3894 of the Revised Statutes, providing a penalty for mailing; obscene· books and other matter., therein contained, and prohlbitfug· lottery-circulars passing through the mails.

The bill was read, as follows: Be it enacted. etc., That section 3893 of the Revised Statutes slla.llbe-, and is hereby,

amended so as to read as follows : "Every obscene, lewtl, or lascivious book, pamphlet, picture :paper, print~ or

other publication of an indecent character, aud every article or thmg designed or

.

3656 CONG-RESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JuNE 7,

intended for the preventjon of conception or procuring of abortion, and every article or thing intended or adapted for any indecent or immoral use, and every written or printed card, circular. book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kin£1 giving information, dit'ectly or indirectly, where. or bow, or of whom, or by what means, any of the hereinbefore-mentioned matters, articles. or things may be obtained or made, o.nd avery letter upon the enYelope of which, or postal card upon whlch, inclecrut, lewd, obscene. or la.'lciYiOJlS dclinrations, epithets, terms, or lan­gna~e may be Wlitten Ol' printed, are hereby lleclarcd to be non-mailable matter, and shall not be conveyed in t.he mails, nor delh·ereu from any post-office nor by any lett-er-carrier; and any person who shall knowingly ueposit or can e to be de­posited, for mailing or tlelivcry, anything dedared by thi!:l section to be non-mail­able matter, and any pcr.·on who shall knowingly take the 81\me, or cause the same to be t-aken, from the mails, for the purpose of circulating or rlisposiug of, or of aiding in the circulation or dispo!iition of the same. shall be deeme(L guilty of a mjs­demeanor, and ~hall for each and every offense be fined not less tha.n$100 nor more than $5,000, or imprisoned at hard labor not less than one year nor more than ten year~ or both., at the discretion of the court .. "

And all offense-a committotl under sajll ori•rinal section 3893 of the Revised Stat­utes prior to the approval of tl.rls act may Ge prosecnte.l and puni!:lhed nnder the saitl oricinal section in the same manner and with tho same effect M if this aot had not been passed.

SEc. 2. Tbat section 3894 of the Revised Statutes be, and is hereby, amended by striking out the word ''illegal" in the fir!lt ljne of said section.

Mr. CANNON, of IlJinois. This bill is reported nmtuimonsly by the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. If pa-ssed it does not materially change the two sections of tho Revised Statutes that are proposed to l>e amended. Section 3893 of the Revised Statutes is per­fected by the bill so as to provide a complete penalty for the mailing of all kinds of matter therein prohil>ited to pass through the mails.

The other section, section 3894, provides that "megal" lottery cir­culars shall not pass through the mails. In some States lotteries a.re legalized, in others they aro prohibited, so that we h:we matters mail­able in one State that are not mailable in another. The object of the amendment to t-hat section is to secure nniformity and prohibit lottery circulars of any kiud from passing through the mails. This bill, or one substantially like it, was reported before, and, ou the suggestion of various gentlemen and with the consent finally of the committee, it was recommitted an<l amended in some particulars to meet the sug­gestions made at that time. I thlllk there c:tn be no objection to the bill, and if there is no de:sire to say anything about it, I will ask that it uo placed npou it::; pn.ssage. I call tho previous question.

The previous q ue~SI ion was seconded and the main question ordered; and under the operation t!Jereot the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the thiru time, antl pnssed.

.Mr. CANNON, of Illinois, movt!d to reconsicler the vote by which the bill was pa&~ed; and al~So movetl that t.he motion to recolll3ider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to. PO'T-ROADS.

Mr. CLARK, of Missouri, from the Committee on t.he Post-Office and Post-Roads, reportoll hack, with amendmen~, the l>ill (H. R. No. ~1628) estaulishing post-roads.

The Clerk proceeded to read the amendments. :Mr. HOAR. These amendments relate to post-roads simply, I pre­

sumef The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chairman of the committee in­

forms the Chair that there is nothing in the l>ill in the shape of leg­islation except in the establishment of po t-roatls.

Mr. HOAR. I presume it is not necessary to read them. I under­stand that these post-roads are put into a bill of this kind on the re­quest of any meml>er a-s a matter of course, and there is no necessity to read them.

The SPEAKER PJ'O te-ntpore. That is the uniform course. The amendments were agreed to. The bill, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed and read a third­

time. Mr. CANNON, of illinois. At what time docs tho morning hour

expire' The SPEAKER pro tempore. At twenty-five minutes after one

o'clock. :Mr. CANNON, of Illinois. I want the engrossed bill read. • The SPEAKER pro ternpore. The bill is not now engrossed, and it

will go to the Speaker's table to come up whenever the business on the Speaker's table is reached by a. vote of the House; but if the bill goes to the Speaker's table it can l>e taken from it by a. motion.

:Mr. CANNON, of lllinois. I will not call for the readjng of the engrossed bill, but I ask that it be read in full on the third reading.

'l'he Cle1·k proceeded to read t-he bill. 1\ir. O'BRIEN. Is this a. third reading of the bill f The SPEAKER p,.o iertllJore. It is. :Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Has the call for the reading of the en­

grossed bill been withtlmwn f The SPEAKER pro tempore . . It has. The Cllair nnderstands that

the object of the gentleman from Illinois is to exhaust the morning hour so a.~ t.o verify the bill.

Mr. CANNON, of Illinois. If l>y unanimous consent the morning hour can now be consiUered as closed, I am willing to dispense with the reading.

The SPEAKER pro temp01·e. The Chair cannot ent~rtain such a motion dttrin•J' the morning hour.

Mr. CANNON, of Illinois. Then I must ask for the reading of the bill.

The Clerk resumed the reading of the bill.

Mr. CANNON, of Illinois. I withdraw the request for the further reading of the bill.

The 8PEAKER pro ternp01·e. The morning hour has expired, and tile bill goes over.

ALASKA COMMERCIAL C0l-1PANY.

:Mr. WOOD, of New York. The Committee of Ways and Means have unanimously directed me to report back the following resolu­t.ion and ask its a_doption:

Whereas the Committee of Ways and Means, after a full and com]}lete investi­)!ation into the law and facta relating to the granting of the "lease to the Alaaka Commercial Company for the right to take fur-seals on the islands of Saint Paul ancl Saint Geor~e, report that they find that the lease aforesaid was made in ac­cordance with tlle act approved July 1, 1870, aml has been compli&l with on the part of the lessees, and is for the advantage of t-bo United States: Thoreforo,

Resolved, That in tho opinion of thlS House there is no just ground of complaint against the Alaska. Commercial Company or the officers of the Government who were intrusted under tho law with tho power to make and see to the performance of thelea.~e aforesaid, and that it is entitled to tho enjoyment of the franchise so lonJ! as it faithfnll.v performs all the requirements and stipulations of the law and contract under whlch it holds its rights and so long as the act shall remain in force.

I will only state to the House that after four months of very patient and thorough examination and investigation the · committe~ have unanimously agreed upon this report, ana I have been directed tore­port the resolntion back to the House and ask its adoption. I call for the previous question.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; and unller the operation thereof the resolution was agreed to.

Mr. WOOD, of New York, moved to reconsider t.he vote by which the resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to re­consider be laitl on the table.

'l'he latter motion was agreed to.

WALLABOUT BAY, BROOKLYN.

Mr. WILLIS. I ask unanimous consent to report back from the Committee on Naval Aftairs the bill (H. R. No.7) t,o provide for the sale or exchange of a certain piece of l:tnd in the Wallal>out Bay, in the State of New York, to the city o.f Brooklyn, with amendments, aull to ask its imme(Uate pass:tge.

The bill and amendments were read. The SPEAKER pro tempor~. Is there objection to the considera-

tion of this bill now f Mr. LANDERS, of Indiana. I object . The SPEAKER 11ro tempo1·e. Then the bill is not l>efore the House. Mr. WILLIS. I trust the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. LANDERS,]

in view of the fact that I am willing to make any e~la.nation neces­sary to remove his doubt-M regarding this matt-er, will withdraw his objection.

Mr. THORNBURGH. Will the gent.lem:tn answer a question f Mr. WILLIS. I am ready to answer it. · Mr. THORNBURGH. Why is the Secretary of the Navy selected

to dispose of pn l>lic ]and in~tead of the Secretary of the Interiorf Mr. WILL IS. I will answer the gentleman in regard to everything

in this bill. Mr. THORNBURGH. I only wish that question answered. Mr. WILLIS. This land is in the heart of the city of Brooklyn,

where there are 500,000 people, who without reference to party are demanding that this land, which is covered by water and produces pestilence, disease, and death, shall be sold. The terms and provis­ions provirle<l by this bill are these--

Mr. THORNBURGH. The gentleman docs not. answer my ques­tion.

Mr. WILLIS. I will answer it in a moment. The bill provides for four commissioners, two of them to be appointed by the Secretary of the Navy and two of them to be the mayor and comptroller of the city of Brooklyn, the one a republican and the other a democrat ; that this commission· shall immediately proceed to agree upon the terms and conditions and consideration for which this land shall be sold, and that they shall report their ci:mclnsiQns to the next session of Congress, nnd, if the next session of Conuress shall ratify their conclusions, thereupon the Secretary of the Navy is directed to exe­cute and deliver a sufficient and proper deed of guarantee.

Mr. THORNBURGH. The gentleman has not answered my ques­tion, which is, why the Secretary of the Navy, instead of the Secre­tary of the Interior, is selected to dispose of public land!

Mr. WILLIS. The reason is-- ' Mr. HURLBlY.l'. I rise to a point of order. The SPEAKER pro temp01·e. The gentleman will state his point of

ortler. Mr. HURLBUT. :My point of order is that, the bill being objected

to, debate is out of orcler. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill is not before the Honse, ob­

jection having been made. Mr. WILLIS. I think the objection will be withdrawn. Mr. LANDERS, of Indiana. I nuclerstand that this question is to

be l>rou~ht back to Congress again--The t;PE.AKER pro tempore. No debate is in order. Mr. LANDERS, of Indiana. And upon that understanding I with­

draw my ohjection. Mr. OLJV ER. I renew it. :Mr. WILLIS. I hflpe the gentleman will not renew it. This is a.

bill of pul>lic uecessit.y .

1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3657 Mr. OLIVER. I insist npon my objection. Th~ SPEAKER pro tempm·e. The bill being objected to, it is not

before the House. SAMUEL B. NELSON.

Mr. COCHRANE, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 3671) for the relief of Samuel B. Nelson; which was read a first anu second tJme, referred to t.he Committee on Patents, and ordered t,o be printed.

PACIFIC RAILROAD. Mr. LAWRENCE. I ask that there be printed in the RECORD the

bill which I send to the Clerk's desk. It bns been fully agreed upon by the Committee on the Judiciary, and I a.ak that it be printed in the RECORD for information. It is a bill to provide a sinking fund for the Pacific Railt·oad.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The title of the bill will be read. The Clerk read the title of the bill, as follows: .A bill to amend the act entitled ".An act to amend an act entitled '.An act to aid

in the construction of a. railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean, and to secure to the Government the use of the same for postal, mili­tary, and other .purposes,' approved July 1, 1862," and other acts in relation to the railroad compames therein mentioned.

The SPEAKER pro t&m.pore. Is there objection to printing t.his bill in full in the RECORD T

Mr. HURLBUT. I object. · Mr. KASSON. Has not the bill already been printed f Mr. LAWRENCE. Several amendments have been made to the

bill. I ask that it be printed as a separate bill and recommitted. There being no objection, the bill (H. R. No. 3672) was received,

read a first and second time, ordered to be printed, and recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary.

ORDER OF BUSINES~. Mr. DURHAM. I object to any further busine.ss that will be in

the way of my calling up House bill No. 2284, which is the oldest S})ecial orrler now on the Calemlar.

Mr. LORD. I propose to call up a special order, being the bill for the dist.rilmtion of the unappropriated moneys of the Geneva award.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. LORD] and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. DuRHAM] rise to call up each a special order.

Mr. LORD. The Geneva award bill was made a special order for Monday last at two o'clock.

Mr. DURHAM. The bill (H. R. No. 2'284) to amend section 2324 of the Revised Statutes concerning mineral lands is the oldest special

·order now upon the Calendar, having been made the special order for the 9th of March last. I am Slll'e it will not take ten minutes to pass th~ bill. .

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will submit the question to the Honse, and let the Honse determine between the motions of the gentlemen.

Mr. DURHAM. I am perfectly willing to yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. LORD] if I may have the assurance that my bill will be taken np after his bill has been disposed of.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would state that the earlier S"J)ecial order is the one referred to by the gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr. DURHAM.]

Mr. DURHAM. I will yield to thegentlemanfrom NewYork [Mr. LoRD] at t.his .time, as his bill seems to be of more gtmeral interest thau mine. Afterward I will call up my bill.

Mr. BANNING. There is an older special order, or at all events a more importa,nt one, than that of the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. DuRHAM)-that is, the bill to equalize the bounties of soldiers-which I shall insist upon after the Geneva award bill has been disposed of.

Mr. DURHAM. All right; we will try our strength on our bills. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is upon the motion of

the ~entleman from New York [Mr. LORD] to proceed to the consid­eratiOn of the Geneva award bill.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION. Mr. TARBOX. I l'ise to a question of "Privilege. Mr. KASSON. Is it a question of privilege! The SPEAKER p1·o tempore. The gentleman will state it. 1\fr. TARBOX. It is a personal explanation. Mr. LORD. How long will the gentleman take for his explana-

tion! . Mr. TARBOX. Not more than fifteen minnt.es. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts

[Mr. TARBOX] will proceed. Mr. TARBO;K. When on Monday last the gentleman from Maine

[Mr. BLAINE] occupied the floor in a personal explanation--Mr. KASSON. Before the gentleman proceeds, I would inquire

whether the gent.leman from Maine is on the floor; and, if not, I would suggest whether it would not be more delicato for the gentle­man from Massachusetts [Mr. TARBOX] to postpone his personal ex­planation in order to enable the gentleman from Maine to be present.

.Mr. TARBOX. In response to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. KAs­SON] I will say t.hat I should be very happy t.o have the presence of the gentleman from .Maine when I ma,y occupy the floor in an ex­planation touching a matter in which lle is concerned, providerl I can have some assurance when that gentleman's presence may be ex­pected.

1\fr. MILLIKEN. I understand he is in the committee-room. Mr. KASSON. After the gentleman from New York [~1r. LORD]

has occupied the floor I presume there will be no objection to the gentleman from Massachusetts proceeding, and meanw bile there will be opportunity to advise the gentleman from Maine.

Mr. TARBOX. Upon that suggestion I am very happy to yield for the present.

EVIDENCE IN PACIFIC RAILROAD INVESTIGATIONS. Mr. HUNTON. I ask my friend from New York [~1r. LoRD] to

yield to me a moment thai I may present a resolution for the printing of evidence.

Mr. LORD. I yield for that purpose. . Mr. HUNTON, by unanimous consent, submitted the following res­

olution; which was rea~, considered, a,nd agreed to: Resolved, That the Committee on the J udiciar.v is authorized to print the evidenoo

taken before said committee umler the resolution offered by Hon. Mr. LUTTRELL, and untler the resolution offered by Hon. Mr. TABHOX .

Subsequently, during the course of Mr. LoRD's speech, the follow­ing occurred :

Mr. BLAINE. The gentleman from New York kindly yields to me to enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which the resolntiOJJ. offered ~his morning by the gentleman from Virginia [~1r. HUNTON'] in regard to printing certain testimony was adopted. I only enter that motion now. I will expl!l.in the rea..'iOn for it afterward.

The SPEAKER pro temp(Yre. The motion to reconsider is entered. Mr. LORD. I yield for the introduction of several bills.

SMYTH COUNTY, VIRGINIA. Mr. TERRY, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No.

3673) for the relief of Smyth County, Virginia; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee of Claims, and or­dered to be printed:

ERASTUS T. BUSSELL. Mr. LANDERS, of Indiana, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill

(H. R. No. 3674) to enable Erastus T. Bussell, of Indianapolis, Indiana, to make application to the Comissio.ner of Patents for an extension of letters-patent for a" combined rubber and spiral steel spring;" which wa-s read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Pat­ents, and ordered to be printed.

CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE ARMY. Mr. BANNING, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No.

3675) to provide military headquarters and posts with copies of all publications made by authority of Congress; which \vas read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed.

DISTRIBUTION OF GENEVA AWARD. The House, according to order, proceeded to the consideration of

the bill (H. R. No. 2685) for the distribution of the unappropriated moneys of the Geneva award. ·

Mr. LORD. I ask that the bill, with the amendments reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, be read:

The bill was read, as follows : Be it enacted, tic., That it shall be the duty of the court of commissioners of .Ala­

bama claims, in the mode and subject to ail the conditions, limitations, and pro­visions of chapter 459 of the laws of the Forty-third Congress, except as changed or modified by this :wt, to receive and examine the claims mentioned in section 2 of this ad, and to enter judgment for the amounts allowed therefor in three classes.

SEc. 2. That the first class shall be for claims directly resulting from damage done on the high seas by confederate cruisers durin~ the late rebellion, inolmling vessels and cargoes attacked on the high seas or pursued therefrom, although de­stroyed within four miles of the shore, except as provided for in section 11 of said chapter 459. The second class shall be for claims for the Y.ayment of premiums for war risks, whether :{laid to corporations, agents, or indiVIduals, after the sailing of any confederate crwser. .The third class shall be for claims for sums actually ,Paid for insured property destroyed on the high seas by such confederate crrusers except claims for which judgments have been entered under section 12 of said chapter.

SEc. 3. That in examining claims in the second class it shall be the duty of the conrt to deduct any su~ in any way received by or repaid to the claimant, dimin­ishin~ the amount paid for any such premium, so that the actual loss of the claimant only shall be allowed ; and no claimant in the second class who has been paid snch loss shall be entit.led to receive from any insurance company recovering in the thil·d class any further sum on account of such loss.

SEc. 4. That the judgments renclered by said conrt under this act shall be paid by the Secretary of the Treasury out of the sum of money paid to the United States pursuant to article 7 of the treaty of Washington, and accruing therefrom, not ap­propriated to claims provable under the pa'Ovisions of said chapter 459 and the act extending the time for the filing of claims thereunder.

SEc. 5. That judgments entered in the first class shall be paid before judgments of the second cla..'!8 are paid and judgment.s of the second cla.ss shall be paid before judgments of the third class are paid. If the sum of money so unapprol'riated shall be insufficient to pay the judgments of the first class, they shall be pa1d accordi'lg to the proportions which they severally bear to the whole ammmt of such unap~ro­priated sum. If such snm shall be sufficient to pay the judgments of the first class and not sufficient to pay the judgments of the second class, the latter judg­ments shall be paid according to the proportions which they severally bear to the residue of such unappropriated sum. If such sum shall be sufficient to pay the judgments of t.he first and second classes and not sufficient to pay the jud~enta of t.he third class, they shall be paid according to the pt'Oportions which they sev­erally bear to the residue of such unappropri'ated sum after the payment of the judgments of the first and second -classes .

SEc. 6. That in other respects the said judgments shall be reported and paid in the mode provided for the payment of judgments by sairl chapter 459 and the act providing for the payment of jud!{ID.ents rendered and to be t·endered thereunder.

SEC. 7. That all claims filed or that may hereafter be filed in saicl court in the name of one or more claimants, rclatin"' to a vessel in which ot.her claimants are interested, shall be deemed and held to 'be le~aHyfiled the same as if all the parties in interest had joined in the filing of the petition.

3658 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSK JUNE 7,

The amendments reported by the Judiciary Committee were read as follows:

At the end of the first section add the following: · Such claims to be filed with the clerk of said court within six months from the

passao-e of this act; and said court is hereby continued until July 22, A. D. 1 77. Ins~rt after the words " vessels and cargoes attacked," in the third line of the

second section, the words "or taken." Mr. LORD. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. KNoTT,]

that he may offer a substitute. Mr. KNOTT. As a substitute for the bill which has just been read,

I offer the measure reported by the minority of the committee. The Clerk read as follows:

A bill to amend the act entitled "An act for the creation of a court for the acljudi­cation and disposition of certain moneys received into the Treasury under an award made by the tribunal of arbitration constitutecl by virtue of the first arti­cle of the treaty concluded at Wasbin,e:ton the 8th day of May, A. D. 1871, be­tween the United States of America and the Queen of Great Britain," approved June23, 1874. Be it enacted by the Senate a.nd House of Representatives of tM United States of A mer­

ica in Congress assembled) That so much of the twelfth section of the said act a.s pro­vides that " no claim shall be admissible or allowed by tho court by or in behalf of any insurance company or insurer, either in its or his own right, or as assignee or otherwise in the right of a person or part;y insured, unless sucli claimant shall show to the satisfaction of said court that during the late rebellion the snm of its or his losses in respect to its or his war-risks exceeded the sum of its or his premiums or other gains upon or in respect to such war-risks; and, in case of any such allowance, the same shall not ue greater than such excess of loss," be, and the same is hereby, .repealed.

SEc. 2. That any claimant excluded by the provision hereby repealed shall have the like period of time within which to present, file, ami prove its or his claim after the P.assage of this amendment as. he could have h~ after the passage of tho said act If not so excluded. A..nd the time of the durat10n of the court created by the said act and its powers are hereby extended for a period sufficient to enable it to hear and dispose of such additional claims and tho claims already referred to it; which period shall not exceed one year from the e:xpirJ.tion of the time for filing claims under this section. .

Mr. LORD. I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LAw­RENCE] to offer a substitute.

Mr. LAWRENCE. I desire in the first place to offer some amend-ments to the original bill. '

Mr. LORD. I have not yielded for that purpose, but only for the offering of a substitute. At the proper time I will yield for amend­ments to the original bill, but not now. It is only fair that the prin­cipal quest,ion should be first discusse(l.

Mr. LAWRENCE. I thought it better to offer all the propositions now.

Mr. LORD. No, sir, I object. I have only yielded for the purpose of allowing a substitute to be offered.

~!r. LAWRENCE. I understood when the committee acted on this matter that t he arrangement was otherwise; but I will offer the fol-lowing substitute: ·

That all bonds of the United States in which tho money awarded to the United States by the tribunal of arbitration at Geneva bas been invested, after paying all charges thereon and judgments as determined by the court of commissioners of Alabama claims under eXIsting law, shall be canceled by the Secretary of State ancl the Secretary of the Trea-sury; and all money, if any, arising froiP said award or from bonds in which it has been invested shall be covered into the Treasury.

Mr. LORD. I now move to recommit the bill and several amend­ments, in order that the de bate may proceed with that motion pend-

in~he SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion will be entered. Mr. LORD. Mr. Speaker, as near as can be estimated there re­

mains unappropriated of t.he moneys paid under article 7 of the treaty of ·washington over $10,000,000.

PROPOSITIONS TO BE SUSTA.INED.

First. The a·ward made in pursuance of such treaty was in favor of the United States as a nation against Great Britain as a nation, ab­solutely free from any trust or legal claim, to be distributed by the former according to its sense of justice. Therefore the last Congress had the power to legislate as it did in favor of aetual sufferers, and with this exercise of it-s discretion this Congress ought not to interfere.

Second. The claim made by the underwriters that section 12 of chapter459of the laws of theForty-thirdCongressshould be repealed rests on no legal, equitable, or meritorious basis. Those who make this demand have been paid, in fact overpaid several millions of dol­lars. This sum they should not divert from those who paiU. t.hem.

Third. Those who lost property on the high seas, and those who were compelled to pay war premiums by reason of the confederate cruisers should be paid from such unappropriated sum to the extent of their actual losses.

Fourth. If any interlocutory decision of the tribunal of arbitra­tion, organized under the treaty of Washington, appears to be in con­flict with the foregoing positions, although the award is binding as between the nations, such decision is in no nmnuer binding ou the United States, in regard to its own citizens, jo1' the clain~s for all prop­ertg destroyed by such cmisers are toithin the protisions of the treaty a-ud 'are satisfied thereby. Neither the claims for war premiums nor for in­surance could have been added to the award without allowing a double claim.

Fifth. The residue after the payment of such actual losses should be paid a-s a secondary loss td insurers excluded by section 12 of said chapter:

.have the attention of the House, I will demonstrate to it, I think, beyond all question. In this regard the majority report does not differ from one of the minority reports. The minority report, mn.do by Mr. LAWRENCE, of dhio, is predicated on the theory that this award was wholly and absolutely in favor of the United States, and the United States the sole owner n.nd custodian of the money awarded.

The Clarendon-Johnson treaty was rejected under the inspiration of Senator Sumner, notably because it was bn.sed upon the vicious principle of former treaties made with Great Britain, France, and Spain, which provided for payment directly to individuals, thereby failing to recognize the true principle upon which all claims a.o-ainst a foreign cmmtry for the destruction of property should be based. 1\Ir. Sumner denounced the Clarendon-Johnson treaty "as a bundle of private claims," and asserted the principle whiph it is believed will be recognized in all future treaties, that if a nation has lost a port.ion of its t.axable property by reason of the unwarranted acts of another nation, the claim for damages should be made and recovered by t-he nation, and whenrecovered the amount should be distributed to the actual sufferers, subject, of course, as a matt-er of law to .the right of taxation. .

The treaty of Washington was the result of a claim on the part of the United States that Great Britain by its unwarranted recognition of belligerent rights in favor of the seceded States and allowing its citizens t.o aid the cruisers, which, but for such recognition, would not have been on the sea, caused great injury to the material intere,.sts of this nation; and it was proposed that the commission which framed the treaty "should agree upon a sum to be paid by Great Britain to the United States in satisfa-ction of all the claim.s." (See papers re­lating to the t-reaty of Washington, volume 1, pages 9 and 10.)

Instead of following this suggestion, but in ha.rmony therewith, the treaty of Washington w~ made, which contained the following arti­cles.

Now, t,Q these articles I ask the attention of the House to show how clearly the proposition is demonstrated that this is the money of the nation, received by the nation, to be distributed accordi11g to ita sense of justice and according to actual merit:

ARTICLE L Whereas differences have arisen between the Government of the United States

and the go>ernment of Her Britannic MajP.sty, and still exist, growing out of the acts committed by the several vessels which have given rise to the claims generic­ally known as the "Alabama claims;"

* * * * * * * Now, in order to remove and adjust all complaints and claims on tho part of the

United States, and to provide for the speedy settlement of such claims, which are not admitted by Her Britannic Majesty's government, the high contracting parties agree that all the said claims, growing out of acts committed by the aforesaid t•essels and generically known as the "Alabama claims," shall be rejdrred to a tribunal of arbi-tration. ·

And it is important that the House should rememl>er that the word "Alabama" was used generically and typically, ( anrl in regard to this I presume there will be no dispute,) to cover all the losses occasioned by the confederate cruisers on the high seas.

From the foregoing art-icle it will be seen that in the most compre­hensive words the treaty of Washington provides for the reference of to such tribunal of all claims growing out of "the several vessels" which found a place upon the "high seas" under cover of the recog­llition by Great Britain of belligerent rights in the Confederate States. The claims and vessels are described in the argument of the counsel of the United States before the tribunal as "losses growing out. of the acts of crui&ers of the confederates designated by the typical name of the Alabama:'' (Volume 3 of papers relating to the treaty of Wash­ington, page 209.) And it appears by the award of the arbitrators that claims were presented for losses occasioned by a large number of such cruisers.

I now call attention to the second article of the treaty :

ARTICl-E II The arbitrators shall meet at Geneva, in Switzerland, at the earliest convenient

day after they Rhall have been named, an«l shall proceecl impartially and carefully to examine anrl decide all questions that shall be laid uefore them on the part of the government.s of the United States and Her Britannic Majesty, respocti>ol~. All que tions considered by the tribunal, including the final award, shall be decided by a majority of all the arbitrators.

Ea-ch of the high contracting parties shall also name one person to attend the tribunal as its agent, to represent it generally in all matters connected with the arbitration.

ARTICLE VIL • •

The said tribunalshallfirstdetermine as to each vesselseparatelywhetberGreat Britain has, by any act or omission, failed to fulfill any of tho duties set forth in the foregoing three rules, or recognized by the principles of international law not inconsistent with such rule.~. antl shall certify such "fact as to each of the said vos . sels. In case the trihunal find that Great Britain has failed to fulfill any duty or duties as aforesaid, it may. if it think proper, proceed to award a sum ill gross to be paid by Great Britain to the United Stares for all the claims referred to it; and in such case the gross sum so awarded shall be paid in coin by t-ho government of Great Britain to the Government of the United States, at Washington, \Vithin twelve months aft·-r the tlato of the award.

The award shall be in duplicate, ono copy whereof shall be deliveretl to tbe a~ent of the United States for his Government, and the other copy shall be delivereu to the agent of Great Britain for his government.

Thus by the express terms of the treaty the snm in gross was to be paiu for all the claim~ 1'efen·ed to the t1·ibunal.

L:._THE A.WARD WAS TO THE lThTIED STATES AS A NATION. ARTICLE VIII.

I now proceed, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the first proposition, that Each Government shall pay its own a;;ent and provide for the proper remunem-this award was to the United States as a nation; aD(l this, if I can tion of the counsel employed by it and of the arbitra.tor appointed by it, and for the

1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. . 3659 expense of preparing and submitting ita case to the tribunal. All other e;xpenses already appeared, is an error; either tribunal would only examine connected with tll.e arbitration a.hall be defrayed by the two·governmont.a m equal individual claims as evidence. It also states that-moieties. •

ARTICLE XI. The hlrrh contracting parties engage to consider the result of the proceedings of

the tribunal of arbitration and of the board of asseasors, should such board be ap­pointed, as a full, perfe::t, and final settlcm;e-nt of all the claims Mreinbefore referred to · and further engage that every such c laun., 1ohether the sa1n.em.ay or may not have be~n preRented to the notice o.f, made, preferred, or lai4 before the tribunal or board, 8hull, from and ojter the conclusion of the proceedings o.f the ~ibun~l ~-r board, be con­sidered and trP.ated as finally settled, barred, and thenceforth tnadmub'tble.

The award of the tribunal is in entire harmony with thls proyjsion of the treaty of W m~hington.

Therefore all claims growing out of the acts of the confederate cruisers on the high seas, generically or typically known by the name of the Alabama, whether presented or not to the tribunal or whether allowed or <lisallowed by it., were to be absolutely sn.tis:fied and forever barred by the award, whether made by the tribunal of arbitration or the contemplated board of assessors. To assume "that the Government did not by these provisions reserve to i!iself the su­pr~me right to do justice would be to assume that it was acting in a most reckless and arbitrary manner, disregarding entirely the rights of its citizens and the merits of their claims.

These provisious ·make it entirely certain that the United States, recoveriug the money in its own name and at its own expense under its inherent right to recover the value of its taxable property so de­stroyed, intended to reserve and did reserve the right of distribution as t.o aU the claims so satisfied, or to such of th~m us should prove to be the most. meritorious.

From these provisions it appears that, in all its parts, the treaty of Washington was made for and between t.he two governments. They alone were to conduct tlle proceedings and to bear the expense. The claims to be oatisfied were "all the claims," 1ohethm· or not presented to or allowed or di.Ballowed by the t1·ibttnal of a.1·bitration. The rules in· corporated were to bind the governments the same as "the duties (theretofore) recognized by the principles of international law." This international treaty recognized no individual right, but, as be­fore suggest.ed, repudiated the long-established lleresy by which the citizens of one nation, through commissions, could prove claims di­rectly aO'ainst another nation, thus involving practices often discred­itable a~d tending to bring the nation the claimants represented into disrepute. Both the dignity and interest of the nation, as well as its superior power to do justice, uphold the principles un<lerlying the treat.y of Washington.

Before proceeding to quote the instructions of the Stn.te Depart­ment, the views of the prime minist-er of Great Britain, the (1ecisions of the court, and the statements of the couusel of the United States in relation to this queiition, all concurring in the view we have taken, attention is called to art.icle 10 of the treaty of Washington :

In case the tribunal finds that Groot Britain has failed to fulfill any duty or du­ties as aforesaid, ami does not award a sum in gross, the high contracting parties a!ITee tJmt a board of as eMSors shall bo appointed to ascertain and determine what claims are valid, and what amount or amounts sh:ill be paid by Great Britain. to the United States on account of the liabi!ity a·rising from such faiJ;u,re, as to each vessel, according to the extent of such liability, o.s decided by the arbitrators.

As in this article an expre-ss limitation is imposed upon the inferior tribunal created thereby, in case a gross sum was not awarded, not to inculpate any othor cruiser than had the" tribunal of arbitration," aDd as no such limitation was imposed on the United States it shows that there was no intent to impose such a limitation upon the United States, the supuior tribunal to both. Had the board been o.tganized, the underlying principle was the same, the proceeding was still between the two governments; and it was to proceed, in the language of the treaty," to the investigation of the claims which sh;:J,ll be presented to them by the Government of the United States, and sb~U examine and decido opon them in such order and manner as they may think proper, but upou such evidea:}e or information only as shall be furnished by or on behalf of the gave1'mnents of the United Stntes and of G·reat B1·itain reapectively. They shall be bound to hear on each separate claim, if re'!uired, one person on behalf of each gm;­ennnent as cou11sel ar agent."

As this limitation confining the board of assessors to the injuries do'De by the inculpate<l cruisers constitutes the only material differ­erlce between the tribunals it is evident that the object of the treaty in this regard was, if insisted on, to allow the test of evidence to be ap}Jlied as to the value of the vessels and cargoes destroyed by each cruiser instead of relying upon the ex pm-te statements of interested parties received by the tribunal of arbitration. Either would make up the amount of the national loss from individual claims, in the oDe case on ex pa1·te statements, in the other by the aid of testimony. The treaty further provides in regard to such board:

The report or report.<> shall be made in dU}Jlicate, and one copy thereof shall be delivered to the Secretary of State of the United States, and one copy thereof to the representative of Her Britannic MaJesty at Washington.

All sums of money which may be awanled unrler thls article shall be payable at Washlngt()n in coin within twelve months after the delivery of each report.

Thus, whether before the trihnual or the board, the two govern­ments were t.be partiel'l, and the award was to be paid to the United States, without limitation, to be «listrilmte<l upon the claims satiBfied by the treaty of Washington, according to their respecth·e merits.

The minority report seems to assume that, had tho board of assessors been appointed, it woulu have dealt with iudivi<lna,ls. Thi:>, as ha.s

It was not necessary, if indeed it would not have b~en indelicat~. to insert a stip­ulation in the treaty that the United States should f:uthfnlly adnumster such sum as might be aw:u·ded to them in gross in accordance with the judgment of the tribunal.

Why indelicate to bind a nation more than the indiyjdnals com­posing it f Why indelicate to bind this nation mo1·e than the representa­tives of the th1·ee nalious contpmJing the "board of assesB01'B 1"

The reasoning of the minority is very far from being sufficient to . reve1·se the axiom, Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. But it is a suf-­fi.cient answer to the speculations of the minority report to say that a "gross sum" was awarded and the "board" was not appointed. And it must be remembered that had this board of assessors been ap­pointed every proceeding as to the award would have been the same as before the tribunal, except in regard to the single limitation put upon the board by the treaty in question.

In furtherance of the yjew that the sum so awarded "in gross" to the United States was paid to it as a nation, to be distributed in its discretion, bounded only by the claims satisfied by the treaty of Washington, we quote the instructions given by the State Depart­ment, under date of December 8, A.. D. 1871, and found in the second volume of papers relating to the treaty of Washington, pages 415 416, as follows:

The President desires to have the subject discussed as one between the two gov­ernment.<>. * * * In the discussion of t.his question and in the treatment of the entire case, you will be careful not to commit the Government as to the disposition of what may b~ awarded. * * * The Government wishes to hold itself free to decide as to the right.<> and claims of insurers upon the tel'lllination of the case. If the value of the property captured or destroyed be recovered in the name of the Government, the distribution of the amount recovered will be made by this Gov· ernment, without comroittalaa to the mode of distribution. ,

We also quote the view of Great Britain; (See Foreign Relations of the United States, part 1, page 377 :)

Mr. Gladstono, then prime minister, said: "It appears to be implieti that the government submitted the claims of certain

persons not subjects of Her Majesty to arbitration. "This is alt()get.ber a mistake. No claims of individuals have been submitted ro

arbitrntion in relation to the Alabama. "What was submitted to arbitration waa entirely a question between the two

government.<>."

Now I ask the attention of this House to the decision of the court of commissioners of Alabama claims made on the precise question. I have read the treaty which in its broad range satisfied every claim re­ferred to the tribunal of Geneva by the treaty of W asbington, and every claim was referred to them which could possibly grow out of the rava.ges of confederate cruisers on the high seas. I have read to you the instructions of the State Department to its counsel at Geneva. Not one single suggestion was made by that tribunal o.s to the sub­ject of distribution to incllvidnals, the United States having reserved to itself the supreme right of distribution.

I shall read to you the decisions of the court created by the Con­gress, composed of intelligent judges, and which has had to pass upon this identical question. If the treaty, the award, the construction of Great Britain, the construction of the State Department, as well as the decisions of such court agree in this one direction, and more, if the last Congress in its discretion agreed with all these authorities and enacted the law the in.surer8 desire to repeal, I ru;k by what right it is claimed that this Congress should repeal that law f Shall we yield to the arguments of newspapers, perhaps advertisements paid for by the very men who demand the repeal f

Several decisions made "in the court of commissioners of Alabama claims" sustain the declaration of the State Department that-

If. the value of the property captured or destroyed be rl'eovered in the na?ne of th~ Government, the di8lributim of the amount recovered will be made by this Govern· ment, without com.mittal as to the mode of di8tribution.

The act organizing the" court of commissioners of Alabama claims" was approved June 23, 1874. (See Statutes at Large of the Forty­third Congress, page 249.)

By sect_ion 11, page 247, it is made the duty of the court to exam­ine claims admissible under the act, "to decide upon the amount and validity of such claims in conformity with the provisions thereinaf­ter contained, and according to the p1'inciples of law and tlte merits of the se1:eral cases." •

By the Constitution of the United States, article 6, subdivision 2, "treaties made * • • under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land."

It is alleged that the rule of damages enacted in section 12 of such act is in contravention of the treaty of ·washington.

In Schreiber and others vs. The United States, page 4, the court say:

The court of commissioners of .Alabama claims was, by the act of the 23d of ;r one, l874, constituted a court, not in form merely, but in every essential attribute of o. court. * • * Its j UTisiliction is certainly liroi ted to a. particular class of sub­jects, but withln the range of its jurisdiction ita power to hear, to decide, and to enter jud~ment is a.s complete as could be claimed for any coUTt of the most en­larged jurisdiction.

In Williams vs. The United States, pages 2 and 3, the court say: Let not the proper attitudeof the claimant to the fund for distribution be misun­

derstood. Whatever his loss may have been, he had not the power to obtain com­pensation from Great Britain bv his own act. * * *

The Government of the United States accepted the sum awardod in full aettle ­.ment of all the claims comprehemlell in the terms of the treaty. * • *

3660 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JUNE 7,

It is clear the QQvernment had the right to prescrib('. the terms on which claim­anti'! shouM present tbrir claims. They were not strong enough to compel payment of the money uy Great BritaJn, and when this Government obtaine{l it the claimants harl no legal right to it except that which this Government, by its own acts, chose to accord.

Raynor, Justice, in Hubbell vs. The United States, page 3, says: Nothing can be found in those proceedings to limit or control good faith on the

part of our Government in making such allowance to claimants before us as in their JUd~ent and discretion Congress mi~;ht think proper. In fact, the very able com­mittee to whom the British board of rrade referred the investigation of the points at issue say in their report:

"The proper compensation for the losses occasioned by the cruisers is the ques­tion we have to oxamiDe, but wif.h the mode of distributing that among the various claimants the American QQvernment alone is concerned."

And the position taken by the Board of Trade of Great Britain is thus indorsed by the court of coilliilissioners of Alabama claims.

In the recent case of Rhind vs. The United States, in which the point was distinctly before it, the court say:

The award was made in favor of the Government and not in favor of th('. claim­ants. The Government thus vindicated the national honor, but it did not assume to pay any particular class of claimants nor any particular claim. Having obtained the money by its own act and at its own cost, it had therighttoprcscribetheterms on which'tbe distribution should be made.

The. clistingoished counsel of the United States, William M. Evarts, Caleb Cushing, andMorrisonR. Waite,nowChief Justice, stated-see volume 3, page 16, of the papers relating to the treaty of Washington :

That these claims were all preferred by the United States as a. nation againRt :Britain as a nation.

It .is evident that Great Britain did not become liable to any citizen of the United States for any loss sustained by him by reason of such cruisers. Neither could such citizen make any legal claim therefor upon his own Government. The wrongs done by Great Brit.ain to the United States were treated throughout as -a national claim. The moneys pn.id therefor were paid."by the government of Great Britnin to the Government of the United States," and "the United States" is made the respondent upon the prosecution of any claim before the court organized by the act of Congress.

From t.he foregoing it follows that the Forty-third Congress had the power to emwt chapter 459 of the laws of that session.

It should be stat.ed also that "a treaty may supersede a prior act of Congress and an act of Congress may supersede a prior treaty." (Fos­ter vs. Neilson, 2 Peters, page 314; The Cherqkee Tobacco, 11 Wallace, page 621; Taylor vs. Moden, 2 Curtis, page 454.) Bot we choose to rest the power on the higher ground that the nation recovered tile money in question as a nation, for so much of its taxable property de­stroyed, to distribute it" according to its sense of justice" to actual sufferers by reason of the presence and ravages of the confederate cruisers.

The tribunal of arbitration was first to determine whether Great Britain had by any act or omission failed to fulfill certain duties to show a reasonable foundation for awardiug to the United States a "gross sum" or organizing a board of assessors.

The determination of the tribunal as to liability was but interlocu­tory so far as the government a'nd its constituent parts are con­cerned. It could in no manner, I repeat, control the United State~:~, because, by the express terms of the treaty, the sum awarded was to he "a full, perfect, and final settlement of all the claims thereinbe­fore referred to," namely, "All the • * * claims growing out of the aet.s committed by the several vessels which have given rise to the claims generically known as the Alabama claims."

In no way was it referred to the tribunal of arbitration to settle questions between the individual citizens of the United States, and the nation reserved to itself the supreme right to do justice.

While the Forty-third Congress by section 15 of said act provided for ..a further distribut.ion ':in payment of other claims," should there be a residue, yot it is evident that it supposed that the actual losses it provided for would exhaust the amount of the award.

Now I wish to call the attention of the House t·o tho r•osition in which this matter would be left if we overruled the action of the last Congress in doing what it did in furtherance of justice. Had such supposition proved to be true, the recognition of the present claim of the underwriters ·would I:esolt in setting aside all the jud~ments rendered by the court of commissioners of Alabama claims; 1f paid, such companies could properly claim the amount due them from the United States.

The rule of damages asserted in section 12 is not only in con­flict with such claim, but the act in question ueparted from the con­cluaions of the tribunal of arbitration, as construed by the under­writers, in several other particulars:

First. By directing that the difference in valne between the amount of insurance and the vessel destroyed should be paid to the owner of the vessel.

Second. In allowing an insurance company, under section 12, to include all its losses hy both the inculpate<l and exculpated cruisers.

Third. By excluding unincorporated insurance companies. Fourth. By excludiug the claim of auy persou not entitled at the

time of the loss to the protection of the United States. Fifth. By excluding all persons who during the late rebellion clid

not bear true allegiance to the United States. If the Un.<lerwriters are entitled to the value of the insured vessels

destroyed, then any sum awarded to the owners for such difference in valne should not be paid; if the findings of the tribnna.l were fi.u~tl, then any sum awar<lc<l to an insurance company for loSBes occasioned·

by the exculpated cruisers should not be paid, n,nd the judgments should be modified accordingly. Th~refore it a'Ppears that both jnH·· tice and policy combine. rn· requiring this Congress to uphold the action of the last Congress in relation to the money paid to this Gov­ernment under the Geneva award.

As its moue of dist1·ibution was" within the power of the Congress," this Congress ought not to disturb it. Any other rule, particularly as relating to the distribution of money, would, as in this case, lead to great confusion. Questions resting in discretion, after having been decided by acompeteuttribunal, arenotafterwardreviewable, whether in legal or legislative forums.

ll.-TBE CLADI OF THE ID\DERWRITBRS.

The underwriters assume that they have a. specific interest in this fund :md that the award would have been less to the extent of the amount of their claims had the tribunal of arbitration taken the same view of their rights as did the last Congress.

As has been seen, the insurance companies are put by tho act of the la.st Congress, not only upon the same footing with other claimants, but are preferred to them, and allowed to prove losses outside of those occasioned by the inculpated cruisers, including war premiums paid by way of re-insurance.

But it is a great error to claim that the Geneva· award would have been any Jess if the underwriters hacl stated that they bad mado profits amounting to millions of dollars by reason of such cruisers be­ing on the sea, and had such tribunal held that they were not enti­tled to receive anything more. lt will not be disputed but that the basis of the Geneva award was

the value of the vessels and cargoes destroyed by tho confederate cruisers inculpated by the tribunal of arbitration. Claims for in­surance were predicated on the value of the vessels or cargoes in­sured; so in either case, whether the owners or the insurers made the claim, the awa.rcl as to value would be the same. This seem~ to be conceded hy the distil~~ished gentleman from New York. The un­derwriters presented tlleir claims; the war-premium claimants pre­sented their claims, in pursuance of t.he invitation of the Govern­ment. One or both of them may have been an aid iu estimat,ing the value of the \easels and cargoes, but the Recessary office of the tri­bunal was to ascertain the value of the property de-stroyed, leavin,.,. the United States to ascertain the actual sufferers; in other words~ to trace the losses to their respective sources.

Now, if the House please, the doctrine of subrogation is the founda­tion-stone upon which the ins01·ers have finally rested in regard to their claims. They have talked something about a trust. But this idea of a trust cannot exist in the light of the fact that this money was recovered by the nation. The underwriters have bllen back, therefore, upon the right of subrogation. They say that had the Geneva tribunal taken the same view of their claims as did the last Congress, the award would have been so much the less. We say that inasmuch as the award was necessarily made from evidence of tho value of the cargoes and vessels destroyed, it made no difference whether an insurance company had ever been beard of or not. AU they ha£1 to furnish was evidence. Not one dollar of their claims en­tered into the award. Not one dollar of their claims could have gone into the award, nor one dollar of the war premiums, without allow­ing a double claim. Therefore, if the value of the property destroyed was $15,000,000, and if the war-premium men had paid $8,000,000, and the insurance men ~,000,000, to have allowed n.U these c1ai.ms would have been to nearly double the amount. To have allowed the war-premium claims would have added abont $8,000,000; to have al­lowed the insurance claims would have added over $5,000,000 more, and increased the claim from $15,000,000 to 28,000,000.

The agent of the United States, J. Bancroft Davis, (volume 4, pages 7 and 8 of the papers relating to such treaty,) says:

We devoted our energies toward securing such a sum as should be practically an indemnity to the su.ffere·rs. Whetllcr we have or have not boon successful can be determined only by the final division of the sum.

The insurance companies who seek the repeal of section 12 are not in fact sn.iferers. If they were, as has been seen, they have their remedy and a wider range for damages than other claimants. The claim to subrogation is always a legal claim.

The underwriters, therefore, most place the. right to be subrogat~ on a legal ba.'!is. Their claim under the right of subroua.tion is as founda­tionless as the assumption that the Geneva award would have been less but for their dema.uds, or that the money is held for them in trust.

First. Subrogation exists in favor of an insurer who has paid a loss on the policy of insurance " to all actions against the person by w bo e negligence or wrong the loss was caused." (Dixon ou Insurance, page 151.)

Second. Subrogation must therefore be based on a legal claim which the. insured could have enforced. The stream can rise no higher thau tho fouutain. No citizen of the United St.ates by reason of snch cruisers had any such claim against Great Britain, or against his own Government. He might have had a claim against the captain of tile cruiser destroying his vessel but. for his commission; he might have had a claim against the Confederate States but for a state of war. He could have no claim against Great Britain for exercisiug the legal right of recognition, and such recognition wa-s too remote for any po:ssible cause of action, assuming Great Britain sua.ble.

.Mr. LAWRENCE. Will my colleague on the committee allow me a question f

1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3661 Mr. LORD. Yes, sir. ~ I On tllis basis iusnrcrs made more than they paid out. Mr. LAWRENCE. The gentlema.n asserts, as I under tand him, This, I presume, is the case with most of the insurance compa.nies.

tbe claim of the insurance compauies upon the ground of a. right of · But whether they made one million or five millions or ten millions subrogation. it makes no difference in the principle. If they have lost a.nythin~

Mr. LORD. I <leny tha.t right. they are fully protected by the present legislation. 0

Mr. LAWRENCE. Then you are all right upon that point. The authorities quoted by the minority do not affect the question :Mr. WILLIS. All wrong. in controversy. Mr. LAWREN<;E. You may be all right there, but you are wrong The <J,Uestion in ~he case of Ranrlall vs. Cochrane, 1 Vesey, 98, was

on some other pomts. a questiOn as to pnze-money between the owners of a vessel and the Mr. LORD. I have not differed with you yet. Hold on till I differ insm·er, who had pa:id the owners in full for their loss.

with you. You a.re sound so far as I have yet gone.. . The case of the Lubeck Fil·e Insurance Company vs. Saint Louis, Iu L'angredge VB. Levy, 2. ~~eeson & Welsby •. 5~0, It was clai.med .by 7 Moore, P. C., ~6, was as to subrogation between individuals under

cot~sel tha.t when a duty IS unposed any one mJnred by the v10lat10n the French la.w m L. C., and touches no question in this case. o~ it may recover against the \v;ong~u?er, but the co~t ~~uied a prift- !he c~e of Comynge ·vs: V ~' 1 P~ters, 193, arose Ullder the treaty c1ple which would lead to that mdefimte extent of liabihty, and said, wtth Spam,.(1819,) by which, m constderatiou of the cession of" the "To create liability the act complained of must result, not from an Florida.s," the United States agree<.l to pay $5 000 000 tO its own citi­a.ct I'emote and consequential, but one contemplated by the defendant zens for spoliations by Spain, to be ascertained as' to the individuals at the time as one of its results." by a commission. No national claim was involved.

The cla.mage to be recovered must always be the natural and prox- The case of Rogers '118. Hosack, 18 Wendell, 319, arose under the i.mate consequence of the act complained of. (2 Greenleaf on Evidence, French treaty of 1803, by which certain claims were to be paid to section 562.) A .re::son da~nifieu by a wrong-uoer bas no right to be ci._tizen.s of the United States, and under ~ay's treaty with Great Brit­subrogate<l to h1s mdemmty. (McGay rs. Keelback, 14 Abbott, 142.) am, whereby the money was to be paid to the citizens complainant

Thircl. The premiums charged were based iu :fact on the expectation through the tribzwals awarding the judgments. (Comynge vs. Vasse of total destruction; on the contrary, the1·o was no expectation.. that by su.pm, page 217.) ' the award of an unthought of anu therctofor ·unheard of tribunal a In the case of Campbell vs. Mullet, 2 Swanson, 551-613, it was ex­fum! was to be provided for the benefit of the sufferers from the acts pressly held that even in cases in which the individual citizen re-of the cruisers. . . . . . covers, it is not a matter of legal right. The court say:

Fourth. If Ullder a spint of prophecy It could have been an t1c1- It is said that the sums awarded by the oonunissioners are not matters of bounty pated that such a trilmnal might be called into existence ex gratia or donntion; can they be matter of right~ What is right 1 'I.'hat which may be and uot de jtwe, and should award money for the purpose of protect- e~force~l in a .court of jus~ice .. • • • T.h~ ground of relief before th~ C(_)~inis­ing actual sufferers by the rava O'es of such cruisers a special coutiact Slon~rs 1.s the want of redres.~ m _any muru~1pal court. Whatever the l!'divHlt!al

o . '· . obtams I.S not on the ground of nght, or pnvate property, but of hardship and m· would have been ne~essary for t~e assignment o~. such. c~1m; but .iustice \ " • . • a grant!<>. the sufferer for what he lost. The inducements for such contract woulU 10 law be vmu, upon the famthar prmc1 ple that one natio?. to_g:~ve to the mtizcna of another this bounty are matters of liberality a man cannot assign that to which he has no legal claim, certainly and conmliat10n, b?t. not of strict legal ri.ght. • . •. • . . not that to which he could never have a }eO'al claim. At common AI! pers<.ms recei-yrng benefit under thls comm1s~1on succeed not m ~u~of any

. o . . cons1demtwn movmg from them, but by an article of a treaty whwh g1ves as law the conveyance of a mere nght of expectancy IS void. (Tooley bounty from this nation to American citizens a. compensation for'losses. tJB. Dibble, 2 Hill, 641.) If h' b th 1 h th · · ·

A power to seize future a.cquired property does not operate even in . t IS e e aw w en e treaty treats With ~he citizen ?f a for-equity as an assignment thereof. (Reeve vB. Whitmore, 9 Jurist, new e~gn state, how much stronger ~he rul~ when nat10n deals With a na­series, pa(J'e 1214.) twn. Bnt of course, wbe~ th_e rnsurer ts.the actual sufferer, he should

Adeeu does not convey property which diU not belong to the grantor be protected. under the prmCiple for.w~ICh.we co~tend. So f~r, and at the.timeof tile execution. (Dunn t'B. Thompson, 1 Common Bench, so far only, dldWebster-orGreat Bntam-rntendm the cases cited hy page 379.) the honorable member, [Mr. WARD.]

A cause of action, a.g before admitted, may be anticipated, by the COn- lV.-THE CLAmS 0~' 'l'HOSE WHO LOST PROPERTY BY THE CONFEDERATE CRUISERS tract of in1-1urance. If an insured vessel is rnn down by another ves- AND oF THOSE wno PAID WAR PREMimrs. sel under circumstances making the owner of the latter legally liable It may be hard to distinguish between the claims of those who had to the former, the docrine of su broga.tion would aid the insurer, but property destroyed on the high seas by the so-called exculpated cruis­only because of such legal right. Assume that the destroyed vessel er-s and those who lost by being compelled to pa.y war premiums by ·was at fault and the generous and wealthy owner of the surviving reason of the existence of such cruisers. Practically the question vessel, of his own grace, had inuemnified the loser, could the n111ler- need not be settled. The proposell bill puts in the £rst class the own-writer claim the moueyf ers of sucli ve~els, a,nd persons who had property destroyed therein.

If the underwriter could not claim the money in the precise case Some q_nestions are raised in regard to those who paid war premi-supposed, where the vessel run down was at ·fault, how would it be urns which I propose now to consider. The principal objection (ancl in the case where a generous owner whose vessel had inadvertently to this I call tho particular attention of the House) made to paying destroyed the other shoul.<.l say, '' Sn·, I will protect you ; you have the losses they sustained is that the tribunal of arbitration held the not come out of what proved almost to be a watery grave, charging claims for such "i~creased insurance" indirect, and our GQvernment upon me. the fault. But admit that it is your own fault. I am rich anu cousenteu to their withdrawal from the consideration of the tribunal. you are poor; therefore I will give you $5,000 to indemnify you." The term indirect was introduced by the counsel for Great Britain.' ·wm any lawyer in this House, will those who presented the minority It is not necessary to ascertain or discuss its precise significance. If report, claim that under such circumstances there was such a legal a right conclusion was made, it makes no difference if a wrong reason claim that the insurance company could claim the right of subrogation t were given.

Therefore, in the case before the Congress, there is not even the After performing the yreliminary duty of ascertaining whether shadow of a legal right for the insurers, who have been more than Great Britain had failed to perform certain duties, the tribunal, be­paid, to take the money in question from those who have paid them. fore it could award a" sum in gross," bad to ascertain the amount of The remotest possible semblance to subrogation they would create the dama.ge done by" each vessel" inculpated. All other claims hatl iuto a devouring Moloch, to constune the money which should go to been withdrawn or excluded except the claim for the destruction of their benefactors, to those who paid. them at lea-st two or three mill- vessels a11d their cargoes, the value of which the tribunal proceeded ions of dollars more than they paid out, as appears from the follow- to ascertain. . ing table. The valuations made by the British and American cases differed

We have not the precise evidence how much the insurers made; very largely. From all the statements before it the tribunal came to I mean those insurers who caunot prove their claims under the act the conclusion that the value of the vessels and cargoes so de troyed of last Congress, which I beg the House to remember they have the amounted to 15,500,000. Nothins-could beallowed for sumspaidfor rigut to do if they lost anything. But we can approximate to it. warprcmiums,notbingforsumspaiubyinsnrers,because,ineithercase, Here is the table: it would have been to allow a double claim. But by a-scertaining the Claims for war f.remiums filed with Secretary of State. ___ ......... $6,141l, 219 71 value of the property destroyed absolute justice coulc.l be attainec.l. Claims not filet, estimated lly insurers from $3,oco,ooo to 14,000,000, If the owner had been paid by the insmer, as against the owner, the

say ............................. , ................................. _2,_ooo_,oo_o 00 insurer would be entitled to the money. If the insurer had been paid · · 8, 146, 219 71 by war premiums, those who paid them as against the insurer would

Paid out by insurance companies.................................... 5, 750, li93 oo be entitled to the money. In otherworus,a.scertaining the value of tile ----- property, the loss could and should be traced to the actual sufferer.

2, 3J6, 526 71 Therefore the rejection or withdrawal of either the war premiums or Leaving f.boir actual profits, so far as has been ascertained, in round insurance claims, both of which were presented, had no sibrnificance •

. nnrubers, 2,GOO,OOO. Probably this aruonn tis too small by half. We There is another answer which has been before suggested. By the l1ave one specific case to which I call the attention of the Hou.se, that e~press terms of the treaty the award of such snm Hill gross" was of t.be Columbia Company: to be iu satisfaction of aU· the claims referred to the tribunal. 'l'hese The hooks of the Columbia Company show that it received for war claims were as broad a-s the high seas, and covered all the destructions

r~f~~~~~~~~-:~-~·~·~·~·::~·~·~·~·~·~·~·~·~·~·~·~-~·~·~·~-~·~·~·~·~·~-~-~·~-~·~·~·~·~·~-:-~t~:m ·~ $1,018,760 00 :;.~1~J'l~Jt~~~e~e~!eli~~e!~ ~f::t:1J.:, all claims" generically (or ___ 780 713 00 To Great Britain it was a matter of profound indifference to which

• class of claimants the money wa-s paid. By ohjection antl argnmP-nt 1, 138, 047 oo its counsel sought to reduce the amount of tbe award. On the otller Profits ............................... , ............ .

I

3662 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JUNE 7,

hand, the United States, most anxious to secure certain national rules, consented to the withdrawal of certain claims without passing npon their merits, yet reserving the power to do justice. Neither Great Britain nor the United States had any intention, in their respective at­titudes, to pass upon the question as to who were the real sufferers,

. certainly not to foreclose them. As all these claims were referred to the tribunal of arbitration it

made no difl'erence whether it allowed or disallowed them, for they were absolutely satisfied by the award, all(l therefore should be paid according to the intent of the treaty of Washington and pursuant to the declaration of the State Department. The war-premium claims were referred to the tribunal of arbitration.

Now, I wish to call the attention of the House to the declaration made in t.his regard by the government of Great Britain, and the reply of the United States showing that the minority report is greatly in error in giving the least significance to the position assumed by some, that these cla.ims, because withdrawn, were not referred to the tribunal.

The treaty was madP. in 1871. ·In 1872 the Queen of Great Britain, in proroguing the two Houses of Parliament, stated:

In the case so submitted on behalf of the United States, large claims have been included which are understood on my part not to be within the province of the ar­l>itrators. (See volume 2 of such papers, page 582.)

The Secretary of State responded, pages 583 and 584: -If they were not within the province of the arbitrators, w by should the arbitrators

give them consideration, • • .t or why should they express their individual and collective opinion with regard to them '

If not within "the province of the arbitrators," why should the British ~rovern­ment, • • * upon the statement of the agent of the United States that they will not be further insisted upon before the tr1bunal, ask for the entry of an order

* • • "that they be henceforth wholly excluded from all consideration~"

A very significant reason why the United States should not raise the question aa against the claimants is found in the fact that tilis Government withdrew such claims for a consideration largely ad­vantageous to itself.

The American minister (volume 2 of papers relating to the treaty of Washington, page 516) says:

I think the principle declared in this article (the fifth) for future observance be­twel'n the two nations is one which, if settled and maintained, must be of inesti­mable advantage to the United States.

The Secretary of State, in writing of these ''indirect claims," page 476,says:

The United States now desire no pecuniary award on their account. • • • In the correspondence I have gone as far as prudence would allow in intimating * •

• that we should be content with an award that a. state is not liable in pecuniary damages for the indirect results of a failure to observe its neutral obligations. *

* * This Government expects to be in the future, as it bas been in the past., a neutral much more of the time than a belligerent.

In regard to the withdrawal of the claim for indirect losses (page 526 of such papers) the following appears:

In consideration thereof the President of the United States, by andllwith the ad­nee and constnt of the Senate thereof, consents that he will ma'ke no claim on the part of the United States 41. respect of indirect losses as aforesaid before the tri­bunal of arbitration at Geneva.

The British minister writes, (page 532)-That the Senate considered that the adoption of the wider principle with regard

to indirect claims would be an equivalent for the consent given by the Presiuent that he woulu make no claim for indirect losses before the tribunal of arbitration at Geneva.

It is stated by the Secretary of State (page 533) that the President, to preserve such a tre._'tty," has been willing to make large concessions."

The American minister writes (page 560) to the Earl of Granville: I am now authorized * " * to say that the Government of the United States

re)!ards tho new rule * * * ns the consideration for and to be accepted as a fbal settlement of the three classes of the indirect claims put forth in the case of the United States.

The Secretary of State (page 579) says: This is an attainment of an end which this Gi>vernment bad in view in the .put­

ting forth of those claims. We had no desire for a pecuniary reward, but desired an expression by the tribunal as to the liability of a neutnll for claims of that character. ·

The counsel of the United States (page 223, volume 3) state-That the United States did not insist on extravagant damages; their object was

a higher one, and one more important to them. The learned counsel (pa.ge 224) say: We • * * have acted accordingly * • • regarding a mere question of the

amount of national damap:es to be awarded as secondary to the higher considera­tion of the welfare and the honor of the United States.

Without this last statement it is evident that the United States never intended by withdrawing the indirect damages to extinguish an claims therefor as between this Government and its own citizens.

Notwithstanding, such recognition of the belli~erent rights of the seceded States great.ly prolonged the war, and this Government paid more to protect its commerce from the cruisers created thereby than the whole amount of the Geneva award, yet not having presented or for its own advantage having withdrawn or acquiesced in the rejec­tion of its own claims ·for indirect losses and also the indirect losses of individuals who had also borne their part of the national los es, it would seem more than unjust for the United States, which acted vol­untarily in the premises, to cover any portion of the award into the Treasury before the payment of all individual losses, even if the io­tnnt to pay tb.e losses of individual8 so denominated by tile agent of

the United States as "the sufferers" were not made apparent by every statement and proceeding involved in the history of theca e.

In what way would the award be ''an indemnity to the sufferers," as proclaimed by the agent of the United States, if such f;ufferers were sa-crificed on tile altar of negotin.tion from which tJ1e nation re­ceived such "inestimable ad vantage t" So far did the United States take the control of this whole matter that it, as the successor of the confederacy, took the Shenandoah and sold it in Great Britain, (Ala­bama Claims Correspondence, volume 3, pages 319, 447 ;) which seiz­ure prevented the owner of one of the ships d~stroyed by the She­nandoah, before it entered Melbourne, from bringing his libel in a British court. .

It is objected that those who paid war premiums have in some way received back the amount paid by them. It is a sufficient answer to this to say that in regard to this cla-ss the bill provides: It shall be the duty of the court to deduct any sum in any way received by or

repaid to the claimant, diminishing the amount paid for any such premium, so that the actual loss of the claimant only shall be allowed; and no claimant in the second class who has been paid such loss shall be entitled to receive from any insurance company recovering in the tbird class any further sum on account of such loss.

Therefore, if the premium itself were insured or repaid or a-dded to the price of the goods, or diminished by non-payment of tonnage , duties, or otherwise, the facts will be ascertained by the court and only the actual loss will be allowed. But we say both the reason of the case and the evidence concur in the following propositions:

1. The claimant~:! who paid snch ·war premiums were compelled to pay them because such cruisers were on the sea.

2. In order to obtain credit in the purchase of foreign goods, they were required to procure such increased insurance, or, if exporting, they had to pay such increased insurance on account of the war risks.

3. So many American Yessels sailed under neutral flags, the com­petition made it impossi !Jle to add the increased insurance to the price of the merchandise.

4. These claimants are actual losers to the amount of the premi­ums paid by them, less such amount as they may have received from dividends or otherwise.

5. The owners of vessels bad to pay such war premiums, for they were compellAd to carry freight in competition ·with all vessels sail- ' ing under neutral flags, and not only lost the premium but had to take freight at less rates than the neutral ·vessels lying side by side, until the former were dri\"en from the sea.

Now, I wish to call the attention of the Honse to what the evidence was before the subcommittee. Not only was it proven that the war premiums could not be added to the freight or the price of the goods, !Jut it was proven by one witness that he offered to bring goods from China for fifteen cents less per hundred than was offered by the neu­tral vessels, and that he continued in business until his fifteen vessels were driven from the sea because he refused to hoist a neutral flag anti- abandon the flag of his country.

Many of these owners bore up heroically, preferring that their ves­sels should be" driven from the sea," rather than to sail under a for­eign flag.

You of the South, who so heroically stood by the "lost cause" be­cause you believed yon were right, can but honor the men whom the lust of gain could not seduce to abandon a flag which they so in­tensely honored and which now floats again over a great and united people. May it thus float forever.

The abstract right of those who paid the war premiums to recover them Ilas been settled by "the court of commissioners o.f Alabama claims" in ascertaining the loss in the insurance cases which have found a standing before this court under the act. of the last session.

Now, if the House pleasE-\, I wish to call particular attention to these decisions. I have already said that the insurance companies had a better foundation for their claims in regard to damages t.han any others who lost. Some of them have lost and have been before t.he tribunal created by Congress to award this fund to tb.e proper claimants, and the question bas been distinctly presented. It is claimed that the war premiums are necessarily indirect. We have no such term as indirect in American law. We speak of damages as direct and consequential. The Court of Claims has held that war premiums are the most direct of damages in three or fonr cases to which I will refer. I have copies of the records in court--

[Here the hammer fell.] Mr. KELLEY. I move that the time of the gentleman from New

York be extended. Mr. LORD. I shall want but a very few moments. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the gentleman

from New York proceeding! No objection was made. Mr. LORD. In the case of The Mutual Marine Insurance Company

vs. The United States, No.l098, the company paid for war premiums for re-insurance of its war risks the sum of $2,511.57 and was allowed, less scrip received, $470, 2,041.57.

In the case of The Merchants Mutual Marine Insurance Company vs. The United States, No. 257, the ,company waB allowed war pre­miums paid for re-insurance of its war risks, 2,550.88.

In the case of The Ocean Mutual Insurance Company vs. The United States, No. 1093, the company "paid for re-insuring war risks" 27,209.59 and received for war losses re-insured , 22,057.15. The balance itrecovered in its judgment, namely, $5,152.44.

1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3663 In The Commercial Marine Insurance Comp3.ny t•s. The United

States, No. 1089, the company paid for war premiums by way of re­insurance $30,!"l99.8:~ and received for re-insurance losses $10,556.40 and recovered in its judgment tho balance, $20,243.43.

That the underwriters who demand the repeal of section .12 have made several millions of dol1ars out of their war risks during the rebellion ha.<; already appearetl and is not disputed. That those who paid war premiums have lost several millions of dollars cannot be disputetl. If they have not actually lost they cannot recover, and the insurers nntler the uill in question will have the benefit.

The statement of this case is its argument, unless some inexorable rule of 1aw demantls that insurers who have made these millions should take the fund in question from those who ha.ve lost millions not only but have also actnally paid the insurers the millions which they have paid out on war l'isks and the millions thoy h!l.ve made in profits.

We have shown that no such r~le of la.w is in this case; that the insurers make a claim that cannot rest even under the shadow of a technical rule, for the facts show t-hat the insurers neither by con­tract nor in expectation had any reference to this extraordinary and unexpected award.

Therefore the wheels of justice need not be reversed in obedience to an arbitrary and in this case an imaginary rule.

' !IUTUAL COMPA~IES.

It has been suggested that the money paicl for wa.r premiums, so far as mutual companies are concerned, should be paid to the compa­nies, with directions to ascertain and pay over to those who paid the premiums, called by some assessments. This plan is objectionable. Many of t1e companies have failed, all have changed; it will create too many tribunals. And without a sufficient guarantee as to uni­formity in rules of evidence or decisions as to the law, far bot.ter to make the distriuution through the court organized for such purpose, familiar with the general character of the cases, with the rules of evidence, and principles of law.

A more objectionable plan is, that such part of the award as be­longs to the war-premium claimants, who paid or were assessed in mutual companies, be pain directly to the companies, leaving them to distribute according to their sense of the right or under the statutes of the particular States.

In New York such companies may, after ''deducting expenses and liabilities," divide the money "derivecl from the Geneva. award" among those who paid the premiums; but in this there is no guarantee that it will be done or jnstly done.

.Many of the mutual companies have failed, not by reason of their war risks, but for other causes, and there would be an entire diver­sion of the money.

Several of these companies took fire as well as marine risks, and, after making large pro1its on their war risks, failed by reason of the Chicago and Boston fires, so that by payment to them there would be another diversion.

It may be here stated that a claim made by one of these cvmpanies in Boston on the Geneva award for over 145,000 sold for $1,000, or less than seven-tenths of 1 per cent. This shows the estimation of the Boston business men as to the value of claims of insurers who have lo~:~t nothing uy their war risks. Again, many of the claimants in this lapse of years are dead, and those who represent them un­known; the money in such cases would remain with the insnrauce companies; under the bill proposed it would remain in the Treasur.v.

V. The bill proposed is strictly in accordance with jnstice and should be passed. It divides the claimants into three classes, to be paid as classified. ·

First. Those who h3.(l vessels or cargoes destroyed on the high seas by confederate cruisers, which for want of evidence, or on a divided vote, were exculpated by the tiiuuual of arbitration as in the case of the Shenantloah, a cruiser built, armed, and manned in England, it coaled in Australia; exculpated before it entered Melbourne, in­culpated after.

To pay this class it will ta.ke less than 1,000,000. Second. The second class is for claims for sums paid for war pre­

miums subject to the conditions before stated. Five million dolbrs will cover this class of claims, leaving over four millions unappro­priated, as will appear from the following table: War Jlremiums filed .•. .••...•••.••..••.......•. .•. ..••••••••••••••• $6,146,219 71 Not filed, (supra) .•...••..•. -------................................. 2, 000,000 00

8, 146, 219 71 Deduct for scrip or premiums returned to the insured, one-third . • • • 2, 715, 406 !iO

5, 430, 813 81 Deduct claims which will never be filed, and reductions by court, at

least .•... ----·.................................................... 1, 000,000 00

Leaves......................................................... 4, 430,813 81

It is claimed that this class of claims will absorb the whole of the award. I say, after the most careful examination-assuming that the tribunal which has so far acted wisel.v,justly, al\d with great dis­crimination, will observe the same rules of evidence Jiereafter as here­tofore, that ther~ will be left four, if not five, million dollars in the Treasury. In my judgment, the war-premium claims will not amount to more than $4,500,000 when reduced to judgments.

Before sfating as to the thircl class created by tho bill, I will say there are some who think that -prisoners taken by the~:~e cruisers an•l suffering injuries the1·eby shonld be paid before any of tho money goes to insurance companies; but the difficulty of reaching tlmt class is so groat, that I still adhere, as a matter of jn<lgment, to the plan proposed by the majority of tho committee in favor of paying the residue, after paying the actual sufferers by loss of property, to the in­surance companies.

Third. This residue the biB provides shall be paid for insured prop­erty destroyed on the high sea.s by such cruisers, except for claims provaule under section 12.

Whi1e the insnmnce companies can onlyrecovertheiractuallosses, and are thereby put on an equality with other claimants, yet when such actual losses which may be distinguished as primary are satis­fied, may not Congress, if the amount paid under such treaty is suffi­cient, provide for losses of a secondary character t

The claim of the insurance companies baa entered largely into all the discussions pertaining to the treaty of Washington and the award and legislation thereunder. ·

'fhe determination of the Congress that all actual losses should first be paid has prevailed ; yet it is true that, had not the cruisers in q ues­tion destroyed the particular vessels inslll'ed, such companies would have had the amount they paid to the insru·ed therefor in their treas­uries.

The residue of such unappropriated sum which shall remain after paying actuall3nfferers should be paitl, pro rata to their claims, to such insurance companies. This disposition of the residue is more just than the covering of it into the Treasury of the United States or returning it to Great Britain.

Great Britain having paid under the award of a mutual tribunal, and as the national losses of the United States by reason of such cruisers are far beyond the amount of the award, this Government has a strict legal right to cover such residue into the Treasury. But the United States asserted so often, and in so many ways, that to procure the adoption of rules so favorable to a neutral nation it would waive all claims for damages except those in favor of individual sufferers, it would not be consist-ent with the nat.ional honor to cover any part of the award into the Treasury of the Unitetl States; and therefore, as it makes no difference to Great Britain whether the money h~ paid on a primary or secondary loss-within the range of the treaty of Wash­ington-it will be both just and proper to pay such residue to insu­rers so sustaining a secondary loss rather than to raise an international question to vex the ear of the ages.

Mr. KELLEY. I would like to ask the gentleman a question : Whether his bill or scheme contemplates the payment of losses by cruisers not named in the award f

.Mr. LORD. It contemplates the payment of losses occasioned by all confederate cruisers on the high sea.s, because they were all re­ferred to t.he triuuual of arbitration.

Mr. KELLEY. That wa.s my understanding. Mr. LORD. And they were all satisfied by the treaty of Wa.sh­

ington, and all wi*ihin the notice given by the United States to the tribunal.

.Mr. KELLEY. I havfl not had the pleasure of hearing all that the gentleman bas said, and I wanted that point settled.

ID~SSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

.A. message from the Senate, by Mr. SniPSO~, one of their clerks, announced that the Senate had passed bills of the following titles; in which the concnnence of the House was requested :

An act (S. No. 49) to confirm to the State of Florida the swamp and overflowed lands granted under the act of September 28, 1850;

An act (S. No. 398) for the relief of Luther Hall; An act (S. No. 454) for the relief of the suret,ies of J. W. P. Hunt-

ington, deceased, late superintendent of Indian affairs in Oregon; An act (S. No. 737) granting a pension to Harrison H. Dodds; An act (S. No. 767) granting a pension to Theodore Gardner; An act (S. No. 773) to remove the ·political disabilities of W. H.

Jenifer, late first lieutenant Second Cavalry, United States Army; An act (S. No. 774) to remove the political disabilities of Samuel

Jones, of Virginia; and An act (S. No. 842) authorizing the commissioners of the District

of Columbia to remove the jail on Judiciary Square to grounds near to the Washingt-on Asylum, for the use of the District. _

The message further announced that the Senate had passed, with­out amen<lment, bills and a joint resolution of the Honse of the fol­lowing titles:

A bill (H. R. No. 26) to remove tho political disabilities of Francis T. Nicholls, of Louisiana;

A bill (H. R. No. 2:l&!) granting a pension to Fannie .A.. White; A bill (H. R. No. 3033) for the relief of A. :E'. McMillen, late captain

First United States Heavy Artillery; .A. bill (H. R. No. 3179) granting a pension to Thomas F. Wildes,

late lieutenant-colonel One hundred and sixteenth Regiment Ohio Volunteers; and .

A joint resolution (H. R. No.102) authorizing the Secretary of W3.r to loan the use of tents and camp and garrison equipage for shelter of the surviving veterans of the war of 1812 and of the .Mexican war during the centennial exposition at Philadelphia.

The mest:Jage further announce(] that the Senate had passed bills of

,,

3664 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOlJSE. JUNE 7,

the House of the following titles, with amendments; in which the con­currence of the Honse was requested:

A bill (H. R. No. 1592) to re-imburse Horace Glover for property unlawfully seized and sold by the United States Government;

A bill (H. R. No. 1970) relating to the approval of bills in the Ter­ritory of Arizona ;

A bill (H. R. No. 2140) establishing Clleboygan, in the State of Michigan, a port of delivery; and

A bill (H. R. No. 3573) to amentl an act for the relief of certain sett.lers on the public lands, approved December 28, 1874, and for other purposes.

The message further announced that the Senate had passed a con­current resolution 1·equesting the President of the Unit-ed States t.o propose a convention between the United States nnd Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, having for its ohject to secure uniformity in the coins and moneys of account of the respective conn­tries; in which the concurrence of the Honse was requested.

Themessagefurtherannonnced thatMr.COOPER had been appointed as a. manager on the part of the Senate at the conference on the dis­agreeing votes of the two Houses on t.he bill (H. R. No. 2441) author­izing the appointment of receivers of national banks, and for other purposes, in plaoo of Mr. BAYARD, excused.

ORDER OF BUSINESS. Mr. KNOTT addressed the House upon the Geneva award bill, and

during his remarks the following discussion occurred;. Mr. BLAINE. Will the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. KNOTT]

yield to me for a moment f Mr. KNOTT. For what purpose 7 Mr. BLAINE. Not for anything between the gentleman and my­

self; merely for a statement. Nearly an hour ago I was notified by a friend that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. TARBOX] had risen to a personal matter, and had waived his right to speak until I could be present, and that he would speak at the close of there­marks of t1.legentlemanfrom New York, [Mr. LORD.] I merely wanted to notify the gentleman of m~ presence, and to ascertain what his views and desires were.

Mr. KNOTT. I reckon the gentlemen can settle that privately. Mr. BLAINE. The announcement was made publicly. Mr. TARBOX. 'l'he gentleman from Maine [Mr. BLAINE] is in er­

ror in his informantiou as to any notice I gave when it would suit ruy pleasure to again rise to the privilegtld question. I choose to select my own occasion for that purpose, and that is not at this time.

Mr. BLAINE. I understood that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. TARBOX] was proceeding when my friend from Iowa [Mr. KAs­SON] interrupted him by the suggestion that I was not present.

!-Ir. KNOTT. I do not yield fn.rther. Mr. BLAINE. I would ask if the gentleman proposes to avail

himself of the floor when I am not present f The SPEAKER p1·o tempm·e, (Mr. BLACKBURN.) The gentleman

from Maine [Mr. BLAINE) is not in order at thit~ time. Mr. BLAINE. I hope the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. KNOTT]

will not cut me off. The SPEAKER pro ternpore. The gentleman from Maine is not in

order as long as t.he gentleman from Kentucky declines to yield further. Mr. KNO'rr. I supposed the matter was sett.led; the gent.leman

from Massachusetts [Mr. TARBOX) said that he was not ready to ·go on at this time.

1\Ir. EDEN. I call for the regular order. Mr. BLAINE. I want to know whether the gentleman proposes to

go on when I am absent f Mr. RANDALL. He has said that he does not. The SPEAKER p1·o ternpm·e. Does the gentleman from Kentucky

[Mr. KNOTT] yield any further 7 Mr. KNOTT. I will yield t.o the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr.

TAUBOX.] ' Mr. TARBOX. I will simply respond to the question of the gentle­

man whether I intend to proceed in his absence by saying that I c~r­tainly do not. I wish to speak when he is present, and shall do so.

DISTRffiUTIO'N OF GENEVA AWARD. [Mr. KNOTT resumed and concluded his remarks. They will ap­

pear in the Appendix.] RECESS. ·

1\Ir. MORRISON. I move that the House take a. recess until half past seven o'clock, and I a~k unanimous consent that to-night's ses­sion shall be set aside for debate upon this subject only, no business to be transacted.

Mr. McCRARY. I desire to retain my place in this discussion, and I do not wish to go on before to-morrow morning.

1\lr. MORRISON. I will say to the gentleman from Iowa that there are a number of gentlemen here who desire to speak to-night.

No objection was made. 1\Ir. DURHAM. I would suggest to the gentleman that he make his

motiou for a recess until eight o'clock, a.'i the houris late now. Mr. MORRISON. I will modify my motion so as to move that the

House take a reces1:1 until eight o'clock. LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Mr. MAcDouGALL was granted leave of absence for two weeks from to-morrow.

1\Ir. HARRIS, of Massachusetts, was granted leave of absence for two days.

The question was taken on Mr. MoRRISON's motion, and it was agreed to; and accordingly (at five o'clock p.m.) the House took a recess until eir,ht o'clock p. m.

EVENING SESSION.

The House re-assembled at eight o'clock p.m., Mr. Cox in the chair as Speaker pro tempore.

The SPEAKER pro tempm·e. The session this evening will be de­voted to the discussion of the Gevena aw:trd bill; no vote to be taken and no other business to be transacted.

Mr. DAVY. Mr. Speaker, I desire to express my views very briefly in relation to the bill now under consideration. I for one am not in favor of the proposition entertained by gentlemen on this floor that the insur:mce companies who have paid losses upon policies of insurance cov~ring vessels and pt-operty destroyed by certain pri­vateers which England allowed to sail from her ports upon the high seas ought to be excluded from recei\"ing any portion of this fund unless they can show that the premiums received by them during the war did not exceed the losses paid. Now, &ir, in considering this ques­tion it is important to ascertain, first, whether this money belongs to the United States or not. If it does, then she has a perfect right to do what she chooses with it. She may refuse to pay any of these claims; she may appropriate it to any purpose she sees fit. Bnt if it is a trust fund, she has no right to do with it as she pleases. If she obtained this mouey for those who suffered losses, then she holds it in trust; subject to the rights of those whose claims were allowed by the Ge­neva tribunal.

When this case on the -part of the Government of the United States was served npon the EngUsh government or her representatives, that government raised the objection that claim8 for indirect losses, such as "the enhanced payments of insurance," were not embraced within tho scope or intention of the arbitration. England demanded that these claims should be withdrawn; but our Government declined to withdrMv them. A long diplomatic correspondence ensued upon this subject, which will be found in volume 2 of the documents or papers relating to the treaty.

In June, 1872, when the arbitrators assembled at Geneva, the ad­justment of this question not having been arrived at by the repre­sentat.ives of the two great governments, our Government insisted t.hat these remote claims should be i1llowed. The English counsel asked for an adjournment, which was granted till the following Mouday, for consultation. 'Vhen the arbitrators again assembled the following proceedings took place, as will appear by the official report found in volume 2 of the documents, beginnmg at page 577:

No. 112.-Mr. Davis to Mr. Fish. fTelegram.] GE rEV A, June 19, 1872. (Received 4.50 p.m.)

Tribunal will this morning make declaration reciting British motion for adjourn. ment, and reasons given for making it, namely, the differences between the go\·ern· ments as to competency of tribunal to determine the three claMeS of indirect claims, ancl then continues:

"The arbitrators do not propose to express or imply any opinion upon the point thus in difference between the two governments aa to the interpretation or effect of the treaty, but it seems to them obvious that the substantial object.of the adjourn­ment must be to give the two governments an opportunity of determining wflether the claims in question shall or s.hall not be submitted to the decision of tlie atbitra­tors, and that any difference hetween the two frrovemments on this point may make the adjournment unproductive of any usefu effect, and after a delay of many months, during which both nations may be kept in a st.ate of painful suspense, may end in a result which it is to be presumed both ~overnments would equally deplore, that of making thiil arbitrut.ion wholly abortive. This being- so, the arbitr .. tors think it right to state that after the most careful perusal of all that has been urrred on the part of the Government of the United States in respect of these claims, t~ey ~lave aJTived, individually and collectively, at the conclusion that these claims tlo not coustitute, upon the principles of international law applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of compensation or computation of uamages between nations; and should, upon such principles, be wholly excluded from the considera­tion of the tribunal in making its award, even if there were no di.'lagreement be­tween the two governments as to the competency of the t-rilmnal to cleciue ther-eon. With a view to the settlement of the other cW.ims, to the consideration of which by the tribunal no exception has been taken on the part of Her Britannic Majesty's government, the arbitrator~ have thought it desirable to lay before the parties this expression of the views they have fonned upon the que11tion of public hw in­volved, in order that, after this declamtion J>y the tribunal, it may be considered by the Government of the United States whether anv cour11e cau be adopt ·d re· specting the first-mentioned claims which would relieve the tribunal from the necessity of deciding upon the present application of Her Britannic Majesty's government."

No. 113.-Mr. Davis to Mr. Pish. [Telegram.]

DAVIS.

GENEVA, June 19, 1872. (Received at 6 p. m.) The counsel write me aa follows : "We are of the opinion that the announcement this day made by the tribunal

must be r eceived by the United State.~ a.'! detenninati\'6 of its judgment upon the question of public law involved, npon which the United States have insisted upon taking the opinion of the tribunal. We advise, therefore, I hat it should be sub­mittea to, as precluding the propriety of fm·ther insist~~ upon the claims covered by this declaration .of the tribunal, and that the Unirea Stakf!, with the view of maintaining the clue course of the arbitration on tho other claims without adjourn. ment, shoulu announce to the tribunal th.c'lt the said claims cm-erecl hy its opinion will not be furthbr insisted upon before the tribunal by tho United State.'l, anu may be excluded from all consideration by the tribunal in making its u.wa.rd."

DAVIS.

. ~

/

1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3665 No. 114.-Mr. Fish to General Schenck.

LTelegram.) DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

w~hington, June 2"2, 1872. Send following by telegraph, and also by mail, without delay, to Davis, Geneva:

"Mr. Fish w Mr. Davis. "Your telegram of 19th informs me that the tribunal has made a declaration

stating that tho arbitrators have arri vocl at the conclusion that a class of the claims set forth in tho case presenrod in behalf of tho United States do not constitute, upon the principles of internati~nal law applica?le to such cases, a good fou_nda.­tion for an award of compensation or computation of damages between nat10u , and should, upon such princjples, be wholly excluded from the consideration of the tribunal in making up 1ts award.

"You also inform roe tl!a.t tho counsel of this Q-Qvernment before the tribunal at Geneva have advised in writing that they are of opinion t.hat the announcement thus made by the tribunal must be receivecl by the Unitocl States as determinative of itsjuugment upon the question of public law involved, upon which the United States have in is ted upon taking the opinion of tho tribunal; that the counsel ad­vis , therefore, that thiR juugment be submitted to as precluding the propriety of further insi ting upon tho claims covered by the declaration of the tribunal; and that the United States, \vith a view of maintaining the due course of arbitration on the other claims, without adjournment., should announce its opinion that tbecl..'lims referred to by the tribunal will not be further insisted upon by the United States, and may be excluded from its consideration by the tdbunal in making its award.

"I have laid your telegrams before the President, who directs me to say that he accepts the declaration of the tribunal as its judgment upon a question of public law, which he had felt that the interests of both governments required should be decitled, and for the determination of which he baa felt it impnrtant to present the claims referred to for the purpose of taldng the opinion of the tribunal.

"'.fhis is the attainment of an end w hlch this Government had in view in the put. ting forth of those claims. We bad no desire for a pecuniary award, but desireu an expre11sion by the tribunal as to the lia8ility of a neutral for claims of that char­actor. The President, therefore, further accepts tho opinion ancl advice of the counsel as set forth above, and .authorizes the announcement to the tribunal that he accepts their declaration as determinative of their j ndgment upon the import .ant question of public L'llw upon which be had felt it his duty to seek tho expression of their opinion; anti that, in accordance with such judgment and opinion, from hence­forth he regards the claims set forth in the rose presented on the part of the United States for 1oss in the transfer of the American commercial marine to the llrilish fla~, the enhanced payment of insurance, and the prolongation of tho war, aml the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war, and the suppres ion of the rebellion, as adjudicated and dispo, ed of; and that, consequently, they will not be further in· sisted upon before the tribunal by the United States, but are henceforth excluded from its consideration by the tribunal in making its award.

"FISH."

Claims of a national character and also claims for indirect losses were thrown out by the arbitrators.

Upon the subject of indirect losses the court said: Count Sclopis, on behalf of all the arbitrators, then declared that the said several

claims for indirect losses mentioned in the statement made by the a~ent of tho United States on tho 25th instant, and referred to in the statement just matle by the agent of Her B!'itannic Majesty; are, and from henceforth shall be, wholly ex:­cludeu from the consiuemtiou of the tribunal, and directed the secretary to embody this declaration in tho protocol of this day's proceedings.

Now, sir, in distributing this money shall we recognize the decision of that tribunal or not 1 If we propose to be governed by the Geneva decision, then we must distribute the money awarded to ns to those whose claims the arbitrators considered Great Britain liable for. A nation cannot afford to transgress the plain prind ples of justice and honor any more than individuals. I maintain, sir, that we only hold this money in trust for those who sustained ilirect losses. It must be applied to the purposes for which the arbitrators designed it. What right have we to exclude the class of claimants in whose name we presented our demands to Great Britain, and for whom the money was awarded' If we intended to exclude them it should have been done when the Government called on our citizens to p:esent their claims. If we did not intend that the insurance companies should be paid, we should have said so. We did not say so; and can we now exclude them without doing great injustice to them, and without bringing dishonor to our Government 7 Let us, sir, cany out the very spirit and letter of the treaty. We must bear in mind that this award was not made to the Government of the United States as a government and the proceeds to be applied to general use and purposes. We ob­tained it to repay certain losses which we specified and presented to the court for its decision, and it was paid to ns in trust for the losses which the findings of the arbitrators set forth. The language of the award was for all claims referred to the consiueration of the tribunal:

The t.ribunal, making use of the authority conferred upon it by article 7 of the sairl treaty by a maJority of four voices to one, awards to the United States the sum of Sl5,500,000 in gold as the i.ndelllllit.y to be paid by Great Britain to the United States for the satisfaction of all the claims referred to the con.'3ideration of tho tribunal. (Decisions and award papers relating to trea.ty of Washington, vol· uroe 4, page 53.)

Thus it will be seen that all claims expressly excluded from the consideration of the tribunal cannot justly be claimed to have been referred to its consideration; and none will contend that such claims, as were expressly and deliberately excluded from the consideration of the arbitrat,ars with the consent of both parties, were "referred to the consideration" of said tribunal.

The honor of the American people will not permit us to disregard the conditions upon which we received this money from a friendly power, as clearly indicated by the n.ction of the arbitrators at Geneva.

I, for one, would be glad if our Government could rightfully and legally distribute this money among all those who had sustained either direct or indirect losses, but I do not see how she can honor­ably do it. She cannot without ignoring the decisions :>f the Geneva tribunal.

I claim, sir, that we have no mo~al or legal right to depart from

IV--2:30

the juclgment of that tribunal. If a government has that right, then with equal propriety she may depart from all principles of interna­tional law. The Government of the United States, after all national claims had been thrown out, still insisted upon the payment of t.he private claim of:he:r cit.izens, and among them the claims of the in­sumnce companies, our Government representing all the time that it wanted payment for them in order to indemnify them out of the sum awarded, leading the arbitrators to believe that they were pre­sented in good faith. We insisted that the sum t.o be aw3J'ded should be large enough to cover all private claims, otherwise the United States might be called upon to"make up to the private claimants what the arbitrators failed to give. Now, after we have insisted be­fore the arbitrators that these claims should be allowed, how can we refuse to pay them'

It would be claimed at once by Great Brit.ain that we presented to the Geneva tribunal and asked that certain private cln.ims or direct loses be allowed, and then disposed of the money awarded to pay such specific claims contrary to the spirit and cleci ion of said award. I ask yon could we in the disbursement of this money thus violate tho <londitions upon which it wn.s received without de~radiug our­selves in the estimation of the civilized world 7 It appears, sir, that the officers of our Government who received this money regarded it as a trust fund, for the certificate of deposit or bond which was issued was in these words :

The United States of America are indebted to Hon. Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State, in trust, to be held su~ject to the future disposition of Congress, in the sum of $15,500,000.

Now, sir, I admit we can exerciseanarbitraryandsovereign power and do whatever we choose with this money because .it is within our grasp and the claimants must submit. They are powerless, because there is no appeal from our decision. They cannot sue the Govern­ment or compel her to pay them a single dollar.

But, sir, upon what principle of law or justioe1 can we do it Y And upon what principle can we deprive the underwrit.er of his claim to this money, and give it to a class of claimants who were not recog­nized before the Geneva tribunal' If we compel the underwriters to give an account of their profits, that we may determine how much to pay them, why not compel those who paid war premiums to ren­der an account and compel them to show whether they have not re­ceived compensation in profits sufficient to overbalance the extra pre­miums which they have paid Y Why is it not just as ~easonable to compel the merchant to show a baln.ncc of losses over h1s profits be­fore recovery as it is the underwriter 7 The reasoning applies with equal force to the one as to the other. Take the ves els and cargoes de­stroyed that were insured ; the owners were paid for their losses by the insurance companies according to the contract of insurance. Then, as these companies in fact sustained the loss, equity and justha} as well as the decision of the arbitrators at Geneva demancl that t,hey should receive their share of the damages awarded. We ought not as legislators to be influenced by any feeling of prejudice which we may have against insurance companies. It is our duty to do right and protect the honor and credit of the nation under all circum­stances.

The arbitrators only held Great Britain liable for depredations com­mitted by certain named confederate cruisers. But, by the bill re­ported by the majority of the committee, it is proposed to pay a class of claimants who were distinctly ruled out before the Geneva tribu­nal. Now, after our Government agreed to abide by the rulinrrs of that court and received the money awarded in trust for such chtim­ants a-s were recognized at Geneva, we never can appropriate said money in payment of such demands as were excluded by the tribunal from its consideration in mn,king up the' awa1·d without greatly im­pairing the good name and integrity of the nation. It would be bad enough for Congress to disregard the settled rules and principles of law between private individuals; but to ignore the decisions of a great internationa.l court, chosen to seLtle the dispute between two great nations, would not only be bad faith on our part toward a friendly nation, but an unwarrantable infringement upon the rights of a large and worthy class of our own citizens.

Now, sir, a-side from the decisions of the Geneva tribunal, there are certain legal principles which should govern our action in this case.

I believe that this question as between the underwriter and the insured must be decided upon legal principles. The lmderwriter must be treated as a surety. By the contract of marine insnranoe, the company becomes the surety against the los for the owner. And in case of loss, such company, according to the acknowledged laws of the laud, stands in the place of, and succeeds to, all the rights of the owner.

The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly held that the insurer in such cases is entitled to the right of subrogation, and succeeds to aU the rights of the owner, including the right to all moneys recovered on account of loss or destruction.

Story speaks of the doctrine as derived from the civil law. He says:

< By the contract of marine insurance the company becomes the surety against loss for the owner, and in case of loss, like any other surety, becomes entitled to stancl in the place of the creditor; the company succeeds to all the rights of the owner, including the right to recover the vessel if restored, and all moneys ro­covered on account of its loss or destruction.

In the case of Hall & Long vs. Railroad Company, 13 Wallace Re-

3666 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JUNE 7,

ports, 376, the court held "that the insurer stood practically in the position of a surety he is entitled to n.ll the means of indemnity which the satisfied owner held against the party primarily liable." It rests upon the broa-dest and clearest prin.ciples of law and justice, ~ec.ause the insurance and the rate of premmm are based upon the prmmp1es of subrogation. If the nnderwritersarenot entitled to the indemnity, then, sir, I ask, w~o is entitled to it T For the o~er has alrea~y been indemified for his loss under the contract which he made with the insurance company.

The English lawyers before the Geneva tribunal even admitted the right of the insurance companies to be subrogated. The counsel for Great Britain said:

The American irum:rance oompanies who have paid the owners as for a total loss are in our opinion, entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the latter, according to the well-known principle that au underwriter who has paid as for a total loss ac­quires the. rights of th~ assured in resp~ct of the suqject-rnattJ:r of insurance. This prinCiple wasexplamed and acted on m the well-known English cases of Ran­dall vs. Cochran, 1 Vesey, sr., 98, and the Quebec Fire Insurance Company vs. Saint Louis, 7 Moore's P. C., 286, and is well recognized by the courts of Amenca..

In 1835 Mr. Webster said: There is no more universal maxim of law and justice throughout the civilized

and commercial world than that an underwriter who has paid any losses on a ship or merchandise to the owner is entitled to whatever may be received from the property. His right a~rues by the very act of payment, and if the property or its proceeds be afterward recovered in whole or in part, or whether the recovery be from the sea. from the captors, or from the justice of foreign states, such recovery is for the benefit of th.e underwriter.

Suppose this money was handed over to the court to be distributed according to legal principles and accor~ing to the ~rms of the Geneva arbitration; does any lawyer npon this floor believe that the court would not hold that as between the underwriters and the insured, whatever claims the insured may have had to this money, it becomes subrogated to the insurance company upon their payment of the policy of insurance T

I think, sir, that this whole matter in the first pla-ce ought t.o have been referred to the judicial tribunals of the country, and let every person who claims any portion of this money submit his claim to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is the proper tribunal to settle this disputed question, and we ought not to be afraid to let the question of title to this fund be judicially determined, and without doubt all claimant.s would be satisfied with the result and justice would be done between the high contracting parties and the cestui que tntst.

Entertaining the views which I have already expressed, I cannot vote for the bill presented by the maJority of the committee. It takes the money that we collected from Great Britain and gives it to a class of claimants who were not recognized before the Geneva tribunal. Such a distribution of the funds is clearly against all principles of law and justice, and it will greatly impair the high character and standing of the America.n nation among the peoples of the Old World.

Mr. HEWITT, of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ought perhaps to ex­plain bow it happens that I undertake to discuss this bill at all, for 1t seems to me that it belongs rather to that class of legislation which concerns the lawyers, especially of the House, rather than laymen and men of business, but my friend and colleague from New York [Mr. LoRD] requested that I should make an examination of the bill, probably because he wished to have the views of a man of busi­ness. I took it up and followed the subject with great interest, and the result was that I ha-d to read the entire discussion in the Forty-

. third Congress and all the treaties and the instructions of the State Department, and everything in fact that has been donE\ by Congress in reference to this important matter, and I have arrived at some conclusions which differ from the conclnsions which are contained in the report of the majority of the committee and the two reports of the minority.

The most important subject of discussion in the Forty-third Con­gress was the distribution of the sum of money awarded by the inter­national tribunal which met at Geneva to pass npon what are com­monly known as the Alabama claims;' and no discussion was ever more thorough and exhaustive, receiving as it did the careful atten­tion of the lea-ding members of the Senate and the House. The result was the act which it is now proposed to supplement by additional legislation.

I agree fully with the proposition laid down in the majority report, that it would be unwise to unsettle the principles upon which this legislation wa-s baaed. In fact, it is difficult to conceive of a caae in which legislation, framed upon a new basis of settlement, would be more productive of confusion and unmitigated evil. Under the ex­isting ln.w a court has been organized, awards have been made, prec­edents have been established, equities have been defined, and money bas been paid beyond recall. No one would be reckless enough to pull down the edifice which ha-s thus been laboriously constructed and begin to build anew. Principle and policy alike concur in this case to preserve, and not to destroy. But while we are thus limited by the underlying principles embodied in the conclusions of the last Cong~·ess, it is the right and the duty of the existing Congress to cure wl1n.tever defects may have been discovered in the law aa it stands, and to carry to their logical consequences the principles upon which it is based.

What: then, was settled as the governing principles of the existing statute f First, it is based upon the ftmdamental idea that the awa1·d

was paid over by Great Britam to the United States, not as a trust fund to be distributed to particular claimants who hn.(l proved losses, but as a sum of money absolutely within the discretion of Congrc, s as to its disposition. Whether we accept tbis judgment as right or not, it is now too late to re-open the question and proceed upon any theory which would limit the right of Congress to distribute this money, or even to retain it in the Treasury for the benefit of the whole peop1~ if it bad seemed good to do so. But it did not elect to retain it in the Treasury, but, on the contrary, the conclusion was reaehed that the fund should be dist1'ibuted, not as a trust fund, but to those parties, and to those only, who had sustained actual loss and dama.ge by the acts of the confederate cruisers. ~

It was also decided that this distribution should be mac.le within certain limits clearly defined by the act. It provided that those who had sustained losses by the inculpated steamers without insnrance should be paid in full. Thot~e sufferers were placed in the most meri­torious class, and justly so. It next provided that those who had had partial insurance should be indemnified as to the excess of their losses over the insurance received. Next that insurance companies shonld be indemnified for actual losses paid by them on war risks, whether those losses occurred through the acts oftheincnlpated orexculpn.ted* steamers, after crediting the total amount of war premiums received on wn.r risks. By this action the legal doctrine of subrogation was entirely disregarded and rejected evidently upon the consideration urged in the discussion: that no one, whet.ber private individun.ls or insurance companies, sustaining loss had or could have any legn.l claim npon the Government· in the distribution of this funu, for the reason mainly that the losses were the result of seizures lega11y mane during a state of recognized war. The equitable and not the lep;:tl doctrine is the underlying basis upon which the whole act rests. It was admitted, and it cannot be denied, that the insurance companies proved the loss; but because they prove£1 it it did not follow t.hat they sustained any portion of the damage. As a matter of fact these lo ses were, except in a few cases involving no great amount, recouped by imposing war rates of insurance upon the insured, and to the ex­tent that insurance companies were not thus indemnified they were allowed a lien upon the fund.

This statement covers all classes which were inc1ucled in t.he dis­tribution provided for by the legislation of the last Congress. Thn.t legislation excludes all claims for war premiums, all claims for loss by exculpated cruisers, except so far as the latter losses were allowed to the insurance companies as an offset against the a.ggregate amount of war premiums received.

Now, then, I lay down the proposition that it is neither competent nor wise for this Congress to disturb this legisln.tion. Whatever might be our views, if the question wore still an open one, we are bound by the principles settled and concluded by the Congress upon whom fell the duty and the responsibility of dealing with the question. It is in fact in the nature of res adjudi.cata. But on the other ha,-nd I am equally clear that it is our dut.y to correct any failure of that Con­gress to carry into e1f'ect the principles upon which its legisln.tiou was intended to be based. In fact in the closing debate upon the adop­tion of the report of the conference committee this doctrine was dis­tinctly avowed, and it was conceded on both sides that the presont Congress would necessarily be called upon to rectify errors, supply omissions, and provide for the further distribution of the fund upon the principles of equity and justice. Now two manifest errors ap­pear to me to be incorporated into the law of the last session, the first of which arose ·from confounding what n.re known as mutual-in­surance companies, having no cn.pitalstock and making no profits, with insurance companies having a capttal stock upon which divi­dends are paid. The latter class are organized for the profit of the stockholder alone, and in no respect differ from corporations organ­ized for manufacturing or trading purposes. They engage in a law­ful business for the express purpose of mn.king money for the stock­holders. Mutual-insurance companies on the other baud ha.ve no such object in view. They take profit ont of no one. They have therefore no profits to divide and they have no stockholders among whom to divide profits. They merely provide a ma-chinery, so to speak, for the distribution of losses, and not of profits; and all that they have to do is to assess the losses incurred by any one associate upon the whole number of associates for the time lJeing in proportion to the amount of insurance taken by each. In other words, they are self-insurers, and therefore they are in reality uninsured. This will be made plain by imagining that ten merchants send out their car­goes without any insurance whn.tever. Some of these cargoes arrive at their ports of destination safely and some are lost. In the course of time it naturally occurs to the owners that the loss in any partic­ular case may bo too heavy for one to bear alone, and they agree to distribute the loss over the whole number in proportion to the value of all the cargoes. The loss when made remains a loss without pos­sibility of indemnity from any source wl1atever. Therefore in the aggregate these ten merchants are just as much uninsured as if they hn.d never combined to distribute the loss among the whole number.

Hence, the mutual-insurance companies belong in the most meri­torious category; and, but for the fact that they are called "insurance companies" an<l have chosen so to regard themselves and have come to be so regarded by the public, it seems to me that they might have gone before the court and proved their claims as in the class of un­insured. To deprive them of this right was and is n. gross wrong

1876. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3667 which should be repaired by restoring them to the precise position which they would have occupied if each individual had continued to insure himself without any agreement with any other individual to divjde whatever losses might occur.

The second error in the existing statute was made in the exclusion of claims for losses caused by the exculpated cruisers. In calling this an error I do not mean to imply that Congress had not the abso· lute right to exclude losses by those cruisers; on the contrary, I as­sert that they had, and I should have bad no dillerence with them if they had in reality excluded them. But, while apparently excluding claimants for such losses, they in fact allowed a portion of them to come in when they authorized insurance companies to include in their statement all damages resulting from inculpated and exculpated cruisers alike, subject only to deduction by the total amount of war premiums which they had received. Take the case of a company which lost 100,000, $40,000 of which was by inculpated steamers and $GO,OOO by exculpated steamers. The amount of war premiums re­ceived by this company amounted to $40,000. The court, on the prin­ciple it ha-s laid down, would award to that company $60,000 a,s the balance of loss, which is, in effect, a payment in full of the amount of loss caused by the exculpated cruisers. This principle has actually been decided in the ca,se of the Mutual Insurance Company of New Bedford, a,s will appear by the following brief statement:

The Mutual Marine Insurance Company of New Bedford paid for losses caused by all the confederate cruisers, including one by the Sumter, an exculpated cruiser ......••.••.•............ $88,019 17 It paid war premiums on a part of its own risks, re-in-

sured in other companies •••••• •• •••••• •••• •••• •••• •• 2, 041 57

90,060 74 ==

It eceived in war premiums . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . 45, 863 02 The court of Alabama claims gave its judgment for the

whole balance of the gross amount................... 44,197 74

90,060 72

Thus it has received in war premiums or from the Geneva award the whole amount of its gross losses by both inculpated and excul­pated cruisers and all it paid for war premiums.

Had $41,569.45 more of its gross loss been caused by the exculpated cruisers, the judgment of the court would have been the same, for by the existing law payment for all actual loss on all the war busi­nAss of an insurance company may be made from the Geneva award fund, provided such loss does not exceed its gross payment for de­structions by inculpated cruisers.

Now, then, if it be just to allow the insurance companies payment for the losses caused by the exculpated cruisers, upon what principle of equity and justice can private individuals who have sustained losses by these cruisers be denied equal indemnity f And yet this is the precise inconsistency which prevails under the existing statute, giving in fact a preference to the incorporated companies over private persons, which should never be the policy of enlightened legislation. The logical sequence of the principle thus recognized is that all losses caused by the exculpated cruisers should be paid out of the fund.

There is still one other feature of the existing legislation which is inequitable, and which doubtless would have been corrected if it had been pointed out. The persons who paid war premiums were not re­cognized by the Geneva trjbunal nor by the Forty-third Congress, for the reason, a,s is cle:u:ly stated in the decisions of the tribunal and the discussions in Congress, that the premiums so paid were, as a rule, added to the price of the goods and in reality recouped from thecom­munity at large. This view is clearly enforced in the minority report submitted by J nd~eLA WRENCE. Now, this view is undoubtedly sound, except as to part1es who, prior to the sailing of the confederate pri­vateers, had made contracts to deliver goods at fixed prices, either in home or foreign ports. In those cases it wa.s impossible for them to add the amounts which they may have paid for war premiums to the prices of goods specified to be delivered at fixed rates in the contracts. To such part.ythe amount paid for war premiums was an absolute and total loss. Such persons fall clearly within the fundamental principle of the legislation of the last Congress, that all who sustained actual, direct losses by reason of the acts of the confederate privateers should bo indemnified out of the fund to the extent of such actual loss, and no further. But I can imagine no other case in which parties who have paid war premiums should be admitted to share in the award.

Any surplus which may remain after providing for the classes thus indicated should be held subject to the further disposition of Con­gress. It has been suggested that the balance, if any, should be re­turned to the British government. But when it is remembered that the fund wa,s paid over in a gross sum upon the express understand­ing that if it should prove to be insufficient to meet all just claims upon it no further demands should be made upon Great Britain­thus, in fact, giving that power a receipt in full-no good reason in equity or comity can be advanced why any portion of it should be Teturned. The set.tlement was full, final, and absolute; and it seems to me that it would be little short of an insult to Great Britain, after such a settlement, to ofier to return any portion of the money.

The conclusions to which I arrive are therefore as follows: First. That the stock-insurance companies having received full in­

demnit.y for all their losses, and having actually profited at the ex­pense of the community at large by war risks which they imposed and collected, are entitled to no fm·ther beneficial legislation, unless we are prepared to overthrow the fundamental principle adopted as the basis of the existing legislation.

Second. That mutual-insurance companie,s, never having derived either profit or indemnity from any source whatever, should be paid the full amount of their losses, whether incurred in consequence of the acts of inculpated or exculpated cruisers, upon the express con­dition, however, that the money so received shall be divided among those, and those only, who were assessed for the losses paid, and not to any insured party who did not contribute to the payment of losses caused by the confederate cruisers.

Third. That losses sustained by privat.e individuals from the a-cts · of exculpated cruisers should be paid in the same manner and to the same extent as if those losses bad arisen from inculpated cruisers, because this rule bas already been applied to the insurance companies.

Fourth. That tlie war-premium men, as they are commonly called, are entitled to be indemnified in all cases in which they were pre­cluded by actual contracts or other circumstances equivalent thereto from adding the amount of the war premiums to the prices of the goods which they insured.

It will be seen that these conclusions, which are the result of a careful study of the debates of the Forty-third Congress, are not in harmony with any one of the reports submitted by the majority and the minority of the Judiciary Committee. I cannot expect that the mere presentation of these views will lead to such modifications in the proposed legislation a-s I now advocate; but as they are presented in no partisan spirit, and differ quite as much from my own precon­ceived notions, held before I had fully examined the subject, as they do from the conclusions of the majority, I venture to suggest them to the careful consideration of the committee, in the hope that before the bill now pending be put upon its passage the amendment which I may venture to offer will at least not meet with opposition from the committee and commend themselves to the favorable judgment of the Honse.

POLITICAL CONDITION OF THE SOUTH.

Mr. NASH. Mr. Chairman, it was not my purpose to crave the in­dulgence of the House during the present session, in view of my in­experience in public legislation, and especially in public speaking, but the recent speech of the honorable member from North Carolina [Mr .• YEATES] is- such an extraordinary production in its reflections upon the existing State government of Louisiana and the character of many of its citizens that I feel that I would be false to my !J tlolic trust were I to remain silent and fail to refute the many glaring mis­representations of the distinguished gentleman's production. The flentleman from North Carolina has given the caption to his speech, 'Economy, Ret.renchment, and Reform," and the Honse now being in

Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union I shall follow with a like caption as the text for my remarks.

The gentleman from Nort.h Carolina in his speech says: I could go through the Southern States and select leading secessionists of the

country whom the republican partf has hup:ged to its bo om long ago. There is one distinguished hero and leader, General Longstreet, whose fiery columns wera felt on every battle-field but a few years since, and whose name was worth a thou­sand men to the cause of secession. Where is he to-day 1 and where has he been for the lruit ei&ht years 1 He is on that side, and they think him a. marvelously proper and goou patriot.

Now, sir, General Longstreet needs no defense at my hands, being a representative man of that class of our J.econstructed citizens who immediately after the close of hostilities patriotically came to the front, accepted the situation, put their shoulders to the burdens and responsibilities of bringing order out of chaos by re-establishing the practical relations of the insurrectionary States and the people to the Federal Government. He had political sagacity and independence of chara-cter to be among the advanced guards in this patriotic labor of reconstruction. The democratic party in like spirit and for like pur­poses, as evidenced by the remarks of the gentleman from North Caro­lina, have made General Longstreet a target of their displeasure and attack. The gentleman admits that General Longstreet performed valiant services for the confederacy, and I will tell him that he bas done equal service for the reconstruction of the Federal Union; and I do not understand why he should be specially assaulted for the per­formance of his duties as a citizen. But it seems the special pleas­ure of the democratic party to a.ssault the character and impugn the motives of all white men who act in concert with the policy of the republican party in the Southern States, as well as to doubt the integrity and ability of the few colored men called to the perform­ance of the public trusts therein. I can better explain my position to the House by reading a portion of the recent report to this House made at the last session of Congress bearing on the subject, and known as the Hoar Louisiana report, in which the honorable chairman of the committee [Mr. HoAR] used the following language:

Cha.r.,.es of corruption are made by the conservatives against republican officials without the slightest discrimination. They assume that the acceptance of office is a badge of fraud. No matter how high the position hitherto occupied sociall;y, how spotless the reputation, the moment of acuepta.nce of oftice witnesses an entire re­verse. The gentleman suddenly becomes a blackguartl, the honest man a. thief.

3668 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JUNE 7,

Mr. Chairman, comment by me is unnecessary. The language ~f t.his report gives to the world the true secret of the ostracism and menaces of the democratic party against such worthy citizens of the South as General Longstreet; so I will dismiss all further reference to that portion of the debate.

Again, the member from North Carolina, [Mr. YEATES,] fm-ther along in hjs speech, uses the following language :

Now, Mr. Chairman, to be perfectly serious, we all know that the republican party did not start out in the war with tho aim of freeing the colored lleople. It declared in its resolutions in Congrel!s and in the proclamations of its President that tlmt was not the object. But, sir, the colored man was freed, in spite both of tho northe•n and southern men, by the will of Goll·; and the colored people are lea,rning that. Another thing: the republican party did not willingly give the col· ored man his ri~ht to vote.

A MEM~ER. Who did ·~ Mr. YEATES. I will answer that question. They undertook to pass the four­

teenth amendment to tho Constitution of the Uniteii States, and said to the south­ern people, "Vote for that." You are fresh out of the war, now turn around and abuse and curse your friends P.Dd let them die. We would not do thJ\t. li there­publicans coultl have _got tho white people of the South to have voted with them they would have let the colored man ~o on forever without a •ote. But when they found out that the southern people, though defeated in arms, still rose pure and strong in virtue and could not be beaten down in that way, they threatened us that they would let the colored people vote. Is not that the history of the times 1

So, in due course of time, when they could not l!;et our votes then they turned the colored people loose :mel let them vote. What else did they do~ They multiplied olliees and filled those offices with ten thousand carpet-bagj?;ers, who came down and pr~judiced the colored people against us. * .. * They poisoned the minds of the colored people; they left tho conn try a howling wa-ste and wilderness; they de­stroyed liberty in Louisiana * * * and in all the States where they hat! the power to do it.

Mr. Chairman, I am willing to admit with this gentleman that the colored race owe their freedom rather to the providence of Almighty God, who took His own good time and adopted His own means to accom­plish this great result, than to any party. Being one of that proscribed race which has been benefited by the results of the war of t.he rebell­ion in the providence of God, I take this occasion to publicly offer up my thanksgiving and heartfelt prayer of gratitnde to Him who is the Giver of all good for the ema.ncipation of my race in view of the anticipated future which I trust aw-aits them as citizens of this Re­public. But, sir, I cannot agree with the gentleman in that portion of his speech where he announces that the colored mce owes nothing to the republican party for the enjoyment of the political ri.l¥lts con­ferred upon ns. I may be no historian, but this much of history do I know, because I have been an actor in its scenes. Let me remind the gentleman what the democratic party have done for ns in the past. \Vhen the thirteenth amendment, abolishing slavery, was proposed, the democratic party, both in Congress and throughout the country, opposed it; when the fourteenth amendment was proposed the demo­cratic party opposed it; when t.he fifteenth amendment was proposed the democratic party, with a vehemence only equal to its a.':lsault.s upon the life of the nation, opposed it. Why, sir, when arming the negroes was proposed, the democratic party opposed H; when paying pensions to negroes wa-s proposed, the democratic party opposed it; when giving the right of snffrage to the colored people of the District of Columbia waa proposed as an experiment, the democratic party carne forward with its usual philanthropy and oppo ed it.

Now, sir, tell me where any measure of constitutional law or gen­eral legislation has been proposed or enacted for the benefit of the emancipated black race which the democratic party h:ts not strenu­ously opposed; and, not satisfied after the popular verdict had been rendered in favor of the rights which we have thus far secured, this same democratic party in the South, encouraged and backed by its brethren of the North, has kept a continual warfare upon the ad­vancement, peace, and prosperity of our people. Therefore, I pro­pose to give a timely warning to these stirrers up of strife, what they may expect if they continue this war of races. Ex-Governor Pinch­back, of my State, hit th.e nail squarely on the head in his recent ad­dress before the colored convention at Jackson, Mississippi. Said Mr. Pinch back :

I tell you my white friends, that this killing off our people must be stopped, and I intend to help in putting a stop to it. Not by force of arms, not by use of needle­guns and Remington rifles, by breaking up this issue of race and by breaking up your whitelino (femocratic party. Tho colored people a.ro bound to have their rights, and I advise you who are gentlemen to bo tho ones to guarantee them those I'ights; for if you do no~ in sober earnestness I warn you to beware of the day when the ruffian class of whites shall unite with the more ignorant class of col­ored people! I leave yon to imagine the result.

Sir, it is not difficult to comprehend the effect of a combination like that named by Mr. Pinchback. When it shall be made, if it ever shall be, the day will be a sorry one for southern society. So far it has been for the interests of the ruffians and outlaws of the South to work with the white-leaguer. But tho moment the scramble for spoils shall have fairly commenced there will be a division, and in that division white respectability must be re-enforced bv colored de­cency, or the cotton States will be handed over to a rule ·as shameless and scandalous as the imagination can conceive. There has been a great <leal of opposition manifested by the native southern whites to the education of the colored people. Wherever the republicans have had control, as in Texas, Louisiana, and l\lississi ppi, a system of schools Las been put in ope1·ation that would have honored the New England States themselves. But the moment any of them fall into the hands of the democracy, that moment pnb1ic education meets with dis­couragement. This is such egregionsiolly that it is surpl'ising that

the people of the South do not see it. The danger to that sect.ion is and has been in the ignorance of the masses. DesiO'ning dema<roO'ucs can in:fl.uence the uneducated and thus compass thgir ends; whe1t;'eas if intelligence were univ~~·sal, any combination of vice and i!!lloranc~ would be impossible. L-et-the South realize this fact and e~courarre p_opul~r education. The_ra~e issue is the isB!le of ignorance. Educa­tiOn d1spels narrow predJudices as the sun d1spels the noxions vapors of the night. The South needs more and better schools than t.ho North, for she has a wider field for them. Not only has she a larO'e colored population grovel.i.rlg in the dnst of intellectual squalor b~t a majority of her whtie citizens are without tho facilities for m~ntal im_Provement. Refo~m this altogether. Let a spirit of progress iu th1s respect be manifested, and the southern people will finu tho North giving them a helping hand and bidding them Godspeed in the work.

Mr. Chairman, there are other portions of the gentleman's speech that I might take notice of, but I hardly deem it necessary, in::I.Smuch a-s I have already notiood tho e parts of it which apply more particu­larly to the interests and people of my State.

As to a defense of the whole republican party, which he has seen fit to arraign, there need little be said. We have before us to-clay a living and usefuJ illustration of the wise forethought and broad p-hi­lanthropy of the men of 1776. To-day it is the boast of the republican party that every man born in tl1is country or naturalized, no matter what his condition in life, his race, or color, is an American citizen a_n~, as. su~h, is entitl~cl to equa~ rights before ~he law, a.nd to a par~ t1mpatwn m the elective franch1se. The rcpu blicau party, which has achieved much for the country, has wrought no gTeater wotk than this. _It is a proud d~y for. us. Although we have pas ed through a s:mgumary struggle m whiCh thousands of our brave and patriotic citizens have yielded up their lives, yet we cannot lo e sight of the fn.ct that at the close of tho conflict the immortal principles so hap­pily announced in the Declaration of Independence have not only been preserved, but have·!!I'own into practical and liTI.ng reality. This is the essential creed of the republican party. It is true we have not yet seen unqualified acquiescence in this grand result on the part of our democratic fellow-citizens, but the tirile is not far distant when even the people of the South must lay aside the pre:iudicel:! engendered by the late war, nnu accept in its fullest sense the freedom of citizen­ship and equality before the law of a.ll men. Democratic conventions mn.y be silent on thi.s snbject, and a democratic House may be crimi­nally neglectful of its highest duty; the people themselves may be misled and decei ve<l by political leaders; the ''still, small voice' of rea-son may be hushed and silenced l~y the turbulent pa sion of the hour, yet t_he dny is not_ far distant when this underlying principle of the republican party Will be fnlly acknowledged and accepted by all the people. When this shall be done, the first great purpose of the republican party will have been accomplished ; and it will then be the dnty of that party to preserve intact its own great power.

The missio_n of the republican party is not yet ended. The loyal people of this country, who preserved the Government in war ancl have maintained its honor in peace, are not yet ready to hand it over to the party that conspired to destroy it and has resisted every effort to make it in<lestructi ble. At no time in our histor.v ha the canso of civil and religious liberty mnde such progress as in this decade under the fostering care of the republican party. In giving freedom with. civil and political rights to one race it has not been unmindful of the rights and liberties of the other. The same constitutional provision that gave freedom to the black man makes it forever impossible to enslave any portion of the white race. The citizenship secured by tho fourteenth article of amendment to all persons born or naturalized irt the United States applies alike to all persons, rich and poor, white and black. The inhibition upon the States to make or enforce ::my law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States, or to deprive any person of life, liberty, or pro~­erty without due process of law, or to deny to any person within thetr jurisdictio_n._the equal protecti?n of t~e laws, is a bulwark of afcty to every Citizen and a protectwn agarnst the oppressors that wight otherwise be created by sectional jealously or local hate. All these constitutional provisions were passed in 1he interest of personal lib­er-ty and individual security. The love of liberty is inherent in human nature. It may be stifled, but not without much difficulty. When­ever it is not gratified there is danger to the state. Gratiiy it auu you insure the safety of society. Neithor the e constitntional pro­visions nor any statute pa-ssed in conjunction with them oppres e or harms any human being. A government which cannot protect its humblest citizens from outrage ancl injury is no worthy the name and ought not to command the support of a free people.

These are the works of the great mpublican party of the nation, which saved the country iu war and is able to preserv(\ it in peace. This is the party which must control the destinies of this free coun­try for years to come.

The awful scenes of the late war are passed, and forever. The bat­tle-cry is no longer sounded; war's thunder-clouds have rolled mutter­ing away, and the skies are bright after the storm. The heroes of one side are sleeping side by side with those whom they withstood in battle, an<l they sleep in peace. The grave has closed over their anirnositie and a truce has been proclaimed between them forever. Let the living strike bauds also, for we are not enemies but brethren. A man with t.he noblest instincts may 1mccumb to a temporary maduesB, but h.e is

187G. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE. 3669 nevertheless a man, and when the cloud has passed away he is to be restored to a man's love and rights and privilege::~. Brother, late our foe in battle but our brother still, this country is ·our joint inheri­tance, this ftag has always been our joint banner. The glories of our past belong to both of us. This purified land, this great, united ]Jeople, these broad acres stretching from ocean to ocea.n, yet bouncl by t he conl of commerce, which makes of oceans near neighbors and of mountains level plains-this boundless wealth, this tireless energy, this hunger for progress, this thirst for knowledge-it is yours, it is m~ rs, and no power can despoil us of it. We alone by our dissensions c:. ·1 destroy this rich inheritance. Over brothers' graves let l>roth~rs' quarrels die. Let there be peace between us, that these swords which we have learned to use so well, may if used again strike only at a com­mon foe. Let us sing anthems of peace; let the song be taken up throughout the land; by the shores of the great lakes, by the waters of the Gulf, in the land of the loom and spindle, in the land of gold, on broad prahies, on sunny savannas, let the chorus again and again break fortll, "Peace on earth, good will toward men." We have bad enough war. Too many widows' weeds are scattered in this land; too many orphan children arc gazing upon and lamenting the pa-st. lt was a just and righteous war, bravely fought and nobly won. Thank God it is over; and let us hope it will be revived .only in memory.

I think the time has arrived for the ravages of this war to entirely disappear. Where any turbulent elements still exist the law sh.o~ld baTe its just swa.y, however much we may dread such necess1tws. Al1d unto every citizen is there a duty assigned. As to what that is no honest patriot can doubt. The elimination of bias and bigotry and the general education of the high and low of every section will be found the b:ue source of onr national prosperity; and as the mind is expanded, reason will come forth from the dark obscurity of ignorance to balance with a nice hand the scales of justice.

America will not di~. As the time demands them great men will appear, and by their combined efforts render liberty and happiness more secure. The people will be ready and answer in every emergency that may ari e. If they have been able to direct and manage affairs wisely in the past, how much additional power will they have in the future with which to mold and invigorate the mighty fabric of the Republic. The union of national prosperity with social harmony, which is sure to come, will be indicated by one rapid reconstruction. Wisdom and knowledge from their highest pinnacles must no longer view the progress of national greatness, but its perfection. From Maine to Alaska will resound the shouts of rejoicin~ which will arise from millions of intelligent and happy freemen. ·with such watch­words as freedom, equality, and fraternity no factor of discord will be apparent. The seed has been. sown and the harvest shall be reaped, and such a one a.s has never been known before in the history of na­tions-a llarvest of peace, prosperity, and virtue.

But before this millennium dawns there will be still much to accom­plish. However, we may comfort ourselves with the reflection that the path of virtue is sometimes dark ; if we follow it steadily diffi­culties and embarrassments will melt away. The cloud will one day roll off, and the bow of hope and promise will be fotmd in its place. LPt us surrender no vital principle ; neither let us waste precious tt.L:Ic in the idle discussion of obsolete issues. The policy to be adopted must bo one that will build up our waste places, cover our broad acres with waving grain, send our ships into every sea, start our factories, bridge our streams, and make the hum of industry resound on all sides. Let us go on as an orderly, law-abiding people, and wait pa­tiently for the time when the reward cometh; for the time when a sense of justice shall once more animate tbe hearts of all, and malice and hate shall give place to brotherly love.

With the ardent prayer that our Government may remain an ever­la ting tmit, and that the great Commonwealth of Louisiana regain and then maintain her lofty position among the sisterhood of States, I shall close with the prediction that this Government" of the people, for the people, and by the people" will not ·perish from the face of the earth.

And then, on motion of Mr. REAGAN, (at nine o'clock and twenty­five minutes p. m.,) the House adjourned.

PETITIONS, E'I'C.

The following memorials, petitions, and other papers were pre­sented at the Clerk's desk under the rule, and referred as sta,ted:

By Mr. BLACKBURN: The petition of Samuel Lee, to be re-im­bursed the amount expended by him in contesting for the seat of Ron. JOSEPH H. RAL.~Y in the Honse of Representatives, United States Con~ress, to the Committee of Elections.

By Mr. 1! OSTER : The petition of Omar P. Norris, for additional compensation as a United States Army officer, to the Committee on War Cln.ims.

By .Mr. HOAR: The petition of Sidney S. Turner, for a renewal of a patent, to the Committee on Patents.

By Mr. LAPHAM: The petition of soldiers of the late war, for an equalization of bounties, to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. PHELPS: The petition of W. A. Norton and others, pro­fessors and instructors in Yale College, for au additional appropria­tion to tbe board for testing iron and steel and other metals, to the Committee on Appropriations.'

IN SENATE.

THURSDAY, June 8, 1876. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. BYROl'i SUNDERLAND, D. D. The J onrnal of y&aterday's proceedings was read. l\Ir. WEST. My attention has been called by parties interested to

the fact that neither the Joumal nor the report of the proceedings in the RECORD corresponds exactlywith the report ~ade l>ythe Senator from Kansas [Mr. L~GA.LLS] yesterday upon the b11l (H. R. No. 1652) giving the approval and sanction of Congress to the route and ter­mini of the Citizens' Railroad and to 1·egulate its construction and operation. The Senator from Kansa.s reported the bill adversely; but, as the committee were divided, he asked that it be put upon the Calendar. I move that the Journal be so corrected as to contn.in tbe request of the committee, that the bill ue placed on the Calendar ·with the adverse report. · .

l\Ir. SHERMAN. I think the bill ha-s been placed on the Calendar. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is informed that the

Journal is right. 1\!r. WEST. I followed the Secretary as he read the Journal, and

did not hear it so stated. The PRESIDENT p1·o temporo. The Secretary will read the entry

in the Journal. The Secretary read as follows : Mr. INGALLS, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was re­

ferred the bill (H. R. No. 1G52) giving the approval and sanction of Congre . to the route and termini of the Citizens' Railroad and to regulate its construction and operation, reported it without amendment, and t.hat it ought not to pass.

Mr. INGALLS. I move that the bill be placed upon the Calendar. The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. A bill goes upon the Calender when

reported adversely if it is not postponed indefinitely. The Journal was approved.

PUBLICATION OF DISTRICT TAX-LIS'!\ The PRESIDENT pro tmnpore laid before the Senate the following

communication; which was read, referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia, and ordered to be printed:

OFFICE OF THE COID!ISSIONERS OF TaE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, June 7, 1 76.

Sm: In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 2d inst-ant directing- the commissioners of the District of Columbia to furnish the Senate with a copv of the contract entered into with the National Republican newspaper for the publication of the list of delinquent tax-payers for the present year, and to inform the Senate whether the collector of taxes for the District has charged delinquent tax-payers for the publication of such list in excess of the price paid said newspaper, and if so, by what authority the same has been done, we ha>e the honor to send herewith a copy of the contract with the National Republican newspaper and a statement of the collector of the District., from which it will bo seen that in the opinion of the collector no excess of the price paid for said publication bas been charged delin­quent tax-payers.

Very respectfully, W. DENNISON,

Hon. THOMAS W. FERRY,

J". H. KETCHAM, S. L. PIIELPS,

Oommis8ioners of the District of Oolumhia.

President United Statu Senate.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. Mr. SHERMAN presented a. petition of citizens of Iowa, praying

the passage of a law authorizing the Federal courts in that State to grant a general injunction restraining all persons from mining or other operations, except the cultivation of the soil by actual settlers, on the so-called Des Moines River land grant; which wa.s refeiTed to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. l\IORRILL, of Vermont., presented the petition of Sarah E . Cook, James F. O'Brien, and others, of ·washington, District of Columbia, praying that the District commissioners IJe authorized to inclose the Holmead burial-ground; which was refeiTed to the Committee on the District of Columbia..

Ur. SPENCER presented the petition of W. B. Sherrell and other citizens of Morgan and Winston Counties, Alabama, praying for the establishment of a mail ron te from Hartsell to Houston, Alabama ; which was referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads.

l\Ir. GORDON. I present the petition of S. D. Lee, of Mississippi, praying for the removal of his political disabilities. I will state that this petition has been presented once before and by some mistake was mislaid. I move its reference to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The motion was agreed to.

GLE..~WOOD CEMETERY. Mr. SHERMAN. I ask, I believe with the consent of the Senator

from Alabama., [Mr. SPENCER,] that the bill(S. No. 475) to amenda.n act entitled "An act to incorporate the proprietors of the Glenwood Cemetery," approved July 17, 1854, reported adversely by him yester­day, be recommitted. I do this at the request of one of the parties in­terested.

l\1r. SPENCER. I ha,ve no objection to a recommitment, but the bill would have to be changed very much in order to meet the ap1Jroval of the D!Rtrint Committee.

Mr. SHERMAN. Certainly, it will be open to amendment in the committee.

l\Ir. INGALLS. Would it not be better for the purposes of the Son­ator from Ohio to allow the bill to go on the Calendar f