« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
accept any suggestion which would carry out his idea. I have prepared a proviso which will, I think, answer the objection he contemplates removing, and with his permission I would like to have it reported as an amendment to the amendment.
And then does the gentleman intend to separate them, and assign them to duty in ten particular regiments? If so, that constitutes a Veteran corps, and legislate as we please on the subject it will always be called such. One of these two things he must do, either mix up improperly and inappropriately, and to the detriment of the service, officers of different physical characteristics throughout the whole Army, or else separate them. If you do the former, you encounter a difficulty in that direction. If you do the latter, you have a Veteran corps whether you choose to call it so or not. If not known by law as such, it will receive some soubriquet or nickname from those who speak of it as a part of the Army.
Then in regard to the provision as to those who have been officers of colored troops, why make a special provision that you shall select enough officers who have heretofore commanded those troops to command the eight regiments, unless you mean to have eight regiments commanded by them? Why select that particular number of men who have had experience in command of colored troops, unless you mean something by it? Why pick out enough of those officers to replete them if you are only intending to scatter them throughout the Army?
It seems to me, therefore, that the only effect of all this is simply to mix up the whole matter, and to fail either on the one hand to accomplish the object intended or else to accomplish it without giving the appropriate name, and leave it to be nicknamed in such a way as those who shall turn their attention to giving names to these particular arms of the service may choose when they shall once have been ordered.
Mr. GARFIELD. I will hear the gentleman's amendment read.
The Clerk read, as follows:
Provided, That graduates of the Military Academy at West Point and all officers of volunteers, including Veteran volunteers and the Veteran Reserve corps, shall be eligible to all offices necessary to fill vacancies under this bill: Provided, Such officer or officers can pass a satisfactory examination before a competent board of officers.
I cannot accept that. It is not germane to the subject now under discussion.
The amendment which I sent up to the Clerk's desk, and which the chairman was not willing I should go back to offer as a modification of the fourth section, was to the effect that the Secretary of War shall be authorized and directed to accept persons partially disabled as enlisted men in the Army to the number of not more than five thousand; and that when they were accepted he might put them into separate companies, if he chose, or even separate regiments. Idesigned in that amendment to strike out that clause of the fourth section which organized these troops as a Veteran Reserve corps, and compelled the President to aggregate all of that kind of troops and officers as a distinct organization for special service. That was my purpose in introducing it. If the amendment which is now before the House shall prevail, I hope the chairman of the committee will allow me to go back and make the necessary modification.
Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Speaker, every gentleman in this House accustomed to legislation, including my colleague, [Mr. GARFIELD,] must know how much easier it is to attempt to put here and there a patch upon a bill, which after all will render it incongruous in its parts, than it is to deal with that bill as an entirety with all its parts coherent. I think if the gentleman should succeed in making some or any of the amendments he proposes, it would result in marring the harmony of the bill as it now stands, and would only render necessary its recommittal in order to lick it into shape," to use a vulgar expression.
So far as the amendment which I objected to going back to insert in the preceding section is concerned, it is borrowing language from the tenth section of the bill, which contains a provision in reference to enlisting men who could not otherwise pass medical inspection, unless there was a statutory provision that they might be received as enlisted men in the Army. And the only object of inserting the amendment in the fourth section instead of confining it in that connection to matters to which it properly belongs, must be to get rid of the words "Veteran corps." It seems to me it would be much better in connection with the matter of enlistments, which is provided for in the tenth section.
Then comes the amendment which the gentleman now proposes to the section under consideration, that you shall not have a Veteran corps, known as such, but shall authorize the Secretary of War to receive as many into the service, of all grades, as would, if put together, make up a suflicient number of officers for ten regiments.
Now, what is to be done with these wounded officers? You are either to take them as wounded officers and mix them up with the whole of the rest of the Army, so that you shall have light duty and hard duty, garrison duty and frontier duty, to be performed by a class of men not quite well suited for hard duty, because of their suffering arising from wounds received in former service, instead of assigning to that duty the able-bodied men who are peculiarly fitted for it. You make your Army incongruous in its character as regards its efficiency and capability and the physical characteristics of its various officers. You mix them all up together.
Now, as to the latter part of the amendment, I have no objection to it. It was the intention of the Committee on Military Affairs of the House to provide that without reference to whether they belonged to one corps or the other, in promotions hereafter to be made, there might be promotions in any one arm of the service without reference to these distinctions or divisions, and that is all that is necessary, it seems to me, to accomplish the object the gentleman has in view.
In the Senate bill, as originally printed and laid upon our tables, there was a provision that promotions in the colored troops, in the Veteran Reserve corps, or in any branch of the service should be confined to that particular division of infantry. Afterward, when the Veteran Reserve corps was dropped in the Senate, the colored troops remaining, this section was stricken out, and the bill of the Senate and the bill of the House both agree now on the subject of promotions in the divisions created between different portions of the infantry force; and therefore, the gentleman's amendment will only carry out what, it seems to me, is a fair construction of the bill, either the Senate bill or the House bill. But, in order to render it perfectly clear, as suggested by the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. WILSON,] I have no objection that it shall be made, by specific terms, to be understood that promotions in that way shall be competent hereafter. But as to the original organization of these corps, I think that while nothing is accomplished, except perhaps confusion, by that which is proposed by my colleague, he will not escape from that difficulty which he thinks, as I believe improperly, will occur from having these different branches of the infantry of the Army.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I wish to offer an amendment which would more properly, I think, precede the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. GARFIELD,] for it is an amendment to the text for which the gentleman from Ohio offers a substitute.
I move to insert after the word "was" in the twenty-seventh line, the words:
Or from those who have served in other volunteer troops either as oflicers, non-commissioned officers, or privates.
of colored troops shall be taken from among those who have served, &c.
Now, as this bill stands, there are four regiments of white cavalry and fifty-four companies of white infantry, making five and two fifths regiments; ten regiments of colored troops, being two regiments of cavalry and two of infantry; and ten regiments of the Veteran Reserve corps; and as the bill now stands, you can only appoint in all the forces provided for in this bill, from among all the troops that have served in the last war, except the invalids and those who have served with the colored troops, nine colonels, nine lieutenant colonels, nine majors, and line officers in proportion, while the bill will require you to appoint ten invalid colonels, ten invalid lieutenant colonels, ten invalid majors, and so on, and also ten colonels that have served with colored troops, ten lieutenant colonels, ten majors, and a like proportion of line officers.
The bill provides that the officers of the colored troops shall be selected exclusively from among those who have served with colored troops, while it also provides that officers who have served with the colored troops may be appointed to the command of white troops. The door is open for the captain of a colored company to compete for an appointment as captain of any one of the white regiments.
Mr. PAINE. I want to inquire of the gentleman whether this is or is not the identical amendment upon which the House voted when it resumed the consideration of this bill this morning.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. No, sir; it brings up the same question, but it is not the same amendment. I desire to bring the question up again, because I do not think the House understood it when they voted upon it this morning.
I do not think this House intended to confine the selection of the officers of these ten colored regiments exclusively to those who have served with colored troops, while those officers at the same time may be appointed in any of the regiments of white troops provided for by this bill. In the reorganization of the Army why should we, among all the troops that have served in this war, select ten colonels from among those officers who served with colored troops, when you select from the great mass of the other soldiers only nine colonels for the other regiments?
And it is proposed by this bill that ten colonels, ten lieutenant colonels, and ten majors shall be selected for the Veteran Reserve corps from among the invalids of our soldiers, while only nine colonels are to be appointed from sound and able-bodied men.
That will provide that the officers selected to fill the original vacancies in the regiments il
Now, I think the bill ought to be amended in these respects. I think that the door should be opened more widely, and that we should not make a privileged class, but allow the Government, in the selection of these officers, to select. from among any who have served in the late
Mr. PAINE. I voted this morning for the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. FARNSWORTH,] and I believe I was the only member of the House besides himself who did vote in favor of it. And I am still in favor of it as an independent proposition.
But I feel it my duty to call attention to some statements made by the gentleman from Illi nois which seem to me to be incorrect. I think he has not correctly stated the number of colonelcies which shall be open to volunteers outside of the Veteran Reserve corps and the colored troops: In the first place there are the six new cavalry regiments, for which colonels are to be provided.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. Two of those regiments are to be colored regiments.
Mr. PAINE. Then there are four new cavalry regiments, at any rate. Then there are eighteen new infantry regiments for which colonels are to be appointed.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. How does the gentleman make out the eighteen new infantry regiments?
Mr. PAINE. There are now nine regiments
section referred to by the chairman of the committee, if the House should then decide to dispense with this office altogether that will apply to the whole bill, while if we adopt the gentleman's amendment now it will still not effect the general purpose. The gentleman had bet
ter wait till we reach the seventh section rather than involve us now in a general discussion whether we shall dispense with the office of regimental commissary in the whole organization of the Army.
Mr. VAN AERNAM. Well, then, I give notice that when we reach the seventh section I shall move to strike out the words "regimental commissary" wherever they occur.
consisting of three battalions each, which are to be converted into twenty-seven regiments, thus providing for eighteen new colonels.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. These twenty-seven battalions are to be increased by adding two companies to each battalion, and there are to be appointed, therefore, only the two captains and the two lieutenants for these two new companies of each battalion.
Mr. PAINE. The gentleman from Illinois seems to suppose that these three-battalion regiments already have a colonel for each battalion. Now, in these nine three-battalion regiments there are only nine colonels, and this bill, by providing for changing each battalion into a regiment by the addition of two companies, making a regiment of ten companies of each battalion, will provide eighteen new colonelcies to be filled by appointment. Those eighteen, with four for the new regiments of cavalry that are to be composed of white troops, will make at least twenty-two colonelcies to be filled by appointment from among persons other than those persons in the Veteran Reserve corps, or the colored regi
Mr. GARFIELD. I hope that the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. VAN AERNAM] will not prevail, because in the first place I do not see the reasons why we should dispense with the office of regimental commissary. But still it may be that when the general discussion on that subject shall come up, I may be led to take a different view from that which I now hold. Hence, without pronouncing either for or against the proposition, I hope the gentleman will not press the amendment until we come to the section which treats of the organization of a regiment.
But they are not all. There may be other vacancies in the artillery regiments, in the old regiments of cavalry, or in the colonelcies of the nine three-battalion regiments; and if there should be such vacancies, then any volunteer officer will be eligible to appointment to fill any such vacancy. There is no clause in this bill, from beginning to end, which renders a volunteer officer ineligible to any such position in our artillery, cavalry or infantry regiments. Now, I was inclined, as the gentleman from Illinois is inclined, to throw open these commissions in the colored regiments to wounded officers and soldiers of volunteers and the regular Army, and to graduates of West Point. And I voted for his proposition to that effect. But this proposition seems to me to be the same which he presented before and which the House has already decided in the negative. And I think it is hardly proper to call upon the House again to pass upon the same proposition.
While on the floor, I wish, if the gentleman will allow me, to say a word with reference to my amendment, in response to the remarks of my colleague, [Mr. SCHENCK.] I do not believe that the amendment which I offer as a substitute for the latter portion of this section will embarrass at all the general provisions of the bill. The whole manner of selecting these officers, so far as it is set forth in my amendment, was borrowed bodily from one of the subsequent sections of the bill as it lies before me; and therefore it will not, if adopted, be a patch or a blotch upon the bill.
As it is now proposed to have ten regiments consolidated and known as the Veteran Reserve corps, it seems to me that we shall have trouble in the future in continuing the organization of that corps. Is this corps to be kept up perpetually? Manifestly not; for the day will But there is one consideration which ought come, we trust, when we shall not have, among not to be overlooked in this case; that is, that the population of this country, a sufficient the officers of the colored regiments are in number of men wounded in military service cluded among the volunteers in the general to supply the raks of this Veteran Reserve distribution of offices in the Army. That conThe time will therefore come when corps. sideration would be a reason in favor of the young blood will be infused into the Army, proposition of the gentleman from Illinois, and and when this Veteran Reserve corps will it was the main reason which influenced my cease by the very inability to enlist men of the vote in favor of the proposition he submitted class described. Now, why not let those of on yesterday. I admit its weight; and if the this class come in and be put in separate comproposition should come up anew I should vote panies if the Secretary of War so chooses, and for it, as I did this morning. But at the same when they fail to come forward in sufficient time, I cannot agree with the gentleman in numbers to keep filled up the ten regiments supposing that without his amendment these their places can be supplied without the necesvolunteers would be cut off to the extent hesity for any new legislation? You will not imagines. On the contrary, I think the provisions of the bill are broader than he supposes. I shall therefore vote against his amendment now pending.
then have to tear down the structure of your Army. It can move on under its present organization, and without a jar.
But if you put into the Army this Veteran Reserve corps by name-if you have a specific, definite, well-defined body of men known as the Veteran Reserve corps-you will be obliged some day to reform your legislation, and remodel your Army, simply because of this provision for the Veteran Reserve corps as a permanent branch of the Army. I desire that we shall organize our Army in such a way that it can be maintained permanently without the necessity hereafter of new legislation, when it shall be no longer practicable to preserve a Veteran Reserve corps.
Besides, sir, who knows that we want just ten regiments of this sort consolidated in one body? A company of these disabled soldiers may be required, for instance, at Milwaukee or at Sault Ste. Marie. A company, or two companies, may be required here or there along the northern border, along the Atlantic sea-board, on the Gulf, or on the Mexican frontier; and sometimes a regiment or half a regiment of able-bodied troops may be required in conjunction with one or two companies that may not be classed as able-bodied. Therefore, let the Secretary of War have discretion, if
Mr. SCHENCK. I demand the previous question upon the pending amendment.
Mr. GARFIELD. I trust my colleague will ask the previous question only on the amendment to the amendment; I would like to say a word on the amendment.
Mr. VAN AERNAM. Before the previous question is called, I would like to offer an amendment.
Mr. SCHENCK. I withdraw the call for the previous question.
Mr. VAN AERNAM. I desire to move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] by striking out the words "regimental commissary" wherever they occur. I believe that that office is unnecessary.
Mr. SCHENCK. It is the seventh section which provides for this office; and we have not
yet reached that section.
Mr. VAN AERNAM. I desire to strike out these words in this amendment; and when we come to the seventh section I shall move to amend that also.
Mr. GARFIELD. The gentleman will allow me to suggest that when we come to the
you please, for one regiment of disabled heroes, for one company of these disabled men in a regiment, and nine companies of able sound men. Let us not compel him to have a whole regiment made up entirely of only that class of persons. Let him distribute them through the Army as the best interests of the service may demand.
Now, it is proposed by this bill he shall have these ten regiments known by a special name and collected in a special body. I think it will work evil to the Army, and it will certainly be inharmonious. I am thoroughly persuaded if the amendment I have offered be adopted, with a few amendments, not in the spirit, not in the structure, but only in the incidental form, we will make it a more acceptable and desirable bill.
Mr. SCHENCK. I did not think when I yielded that it was for the purpose of again going over the whole discussion of the amendment. I will say now to my colleague, that in reference to his own amendment, he himself admits these troops are to be kept separate. There is to be one company of them in each regiment. Those companies will be mixed up with companies of men of another class, and the officers commanding the companies with officers of another class of troops.
His objection is to their being called the Veteran Reserve corps. If they are not called the Veteran Reserve corps, separated as he proposes, perhaps they will get a name which may be worse. I think the name of Veteran Reserve corps is a good one. It is significant and honorable and descriptive of that which they have done, and indicating what they have earned. I suppose by wiping out the idea of a Veteran Reserve corps, and having one of these companies to a regiment, the gentleman thinks he has accomplished everything. It may be we will then hear of the cripple companies or the regiment of cripples or of condemned Yankees," as the rebels speak of them, or some other nickname. I protest against that. If we are going to have a Veteran Reserve corps, and it seems to me the House so moved on this question yesterday by a vote of 80 to 30, let us meet the question. If we are not going to have it, let us not take it in fact and yet shrink from giving it its name, but have it nicknamed in some other way.
Mr. VAN AERNAM. I move to strike out the words "regimental commissary" wherever they occur in the amendment or in the bill.
I do this because I believe neither economy nor justice demand the creation of this office. By reference to the Army Register, I see only six regimental commissaries in the old organization. They are attached to cavalry regiments, and to cavalry regiments alone. If the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio should prevail, or the bill should pass, it would create seventy-one officers whose pay would not be less than $200 per month. During the rebellion the same duties were discharged by commissary sergeants at twenty-one dollars per month, and I do not see why they should not continue to be so discharged.
Mr. SCHENCK. All I have to say is, that while I have doubted the necessity of having these two offices, concurrent military authority, and especially of the heads of the commissary and the quartermaster's departments, induced the committee to adopt the separation. It was so provided in the Senate bill as recommended by the military commission. As it is, one officer combines in his own person the qualities of two distinct offices, having to account to two distinct departments. I hope the amendment will not prevail. I demand the previous question on all the amendments.
The House divided; and the tellers reported -ayes 37, noes 54; no quorum voting. Mr. GARFIELD demanded the yeas and nays.
is closed on a section, amendments can be offered and voted on, but not debated. Now, the previous question cuts off both debate and further amendment. Shall the rule be adopted as in Committee of the Whole? Several MEMBERS. Oh, no.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 51, nays 58, not voting 74; as follows:
YEAS Messrs. Ames, Baker, Baldwin, Bidwell, Boutwell, Brandegee, Broomall, Buckland, Chanler, Conkling, Davis, Dawes, Dodge, Donnelly, Eggleston, Eldridge, Farquhar, Garfield, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Aaron Harding, Hayes, Hogan, Hooper, Edwin N. Hubbell, Kelley, Kelso, Loan, McClurg, McRuer, Miller, Moorhead, Morris, Myers, Newell, Niblack, Nicholson, O'Neill, Samuel J. Randall, Ritter, Rogers, Spalding, Taber, Francis Thomas, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Wentworth, Williams, and Wright-51.
NAYS-Messrs. Ancona, Barker, Baxter, Benjamin, Bingham, Boyer, Bundy, Deming, Dixon, Driggs, Farnsworth, Ferry, Finck, Hale, Abner C. Harding, Henderson, Holmes, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Ketcham, Kuykendall, George V. Lawrence, Longyear, Lynch, Marshall, Marston, Marvin, McKee, Mercur, Paine, Patterson, Perham, Price, William H. Randall, Raymond, John H. Rice, Rollins, Ross, Schenck, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Smith, Stevens, Stilwell, Taylor, Thayer, Trowbridge, Upson, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Whaley, and Woodbridge-58.
NOT VOTING-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Banks, Beaman, Bergen, Blaine, Blow. Bromwell, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Coffroth, Cook, Cullom, Culver, Darling, Dawson, Defrees, Delano, Denison, Dumont, Eckley, Eliot, Grider, Grinnell, Griswold, Harris, Hart, Higby, Hill, Hotchkiss, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, James Humphrey, James M. Humphrey, Ingersoll, Johnson, Jones, Kerr, Laflin, Latham, William Lawrence. Le Blond, McCullough, McIndoe, Morrill, Moulton, Noell, Orth, Phelps, Pike, Plants, Pomeroy, Radford, Alexander H. Rice, Rousseau, Sawyer, Scofield, Shanklin, Sloan, Starr, Strouse, John L. Thomas, Thornton, Trimble, Warner, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, and Winfield-74.
So the amendment was disagreed to.
During the roll-call,
Mr. INGERSOLL stated that he was paired with Mr. J. L. THOMAS.
Mr. SCHENCK moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected; and also moved to lay that motion on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
The question recurred on the amendment proposed by Mr. CONKLING to add to the section the following proviso:
Provided, That all officers of the existing Veteran Reserve corps, except those now actually detailed for duty in the Freedmen's Bureau or otherwise actually and necessarily employed, shall, upon the passage of this act, be mustered out of service and put upon the same footing with other disabled officers not now in service.
The SPEAKER pro tempore, (Mr. BOUTWELL in the chair.) On this amendment the main question is ordered.
Mr. CONKLING. I demand the yeas and nays on the amendment. And I call attention to the fact that the previous question exhausted itself on the amendment preceding this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair, upon reflection, thinks that the previous question has exhausted itself and does not cover this amendment. The Clerk is of a different opinion, and the Chair followed that.
Mr. SCHENCK. It was not understood that the previous question covered this amendment. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair rules that the amendment is open to debate.
Mr. SCHENCK. Would it be in order to stop discussion on this section? I have no objection to amendments being offered and voted upon.
The SPEAKER, (resuming the chair.) The House is not in Committee of the Whole, and debate is limited to fifteen minutes. The previous question being applied to any section cuts off any member froin amending it. You pass by the section by the operation of the previous question and go on to the next.
Mr. SCHENCK. My object is to stop the interminable discussion.
The SPEAKER. The gentlemen may arrive at that object if the House will consent that debate shall be considered as in Committee of the Whole, and allow fifteen minutes for and against each amendment. Then, when debate il
The SPEAKER. The Chair sustains the ruling of the Speaker pro tempore, [Mr. BoUTWELL,] that debate was not cut off upon the motion of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CONKLING.] This proviso was reserved when the previous question was demanded by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SCHENCK.]
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I do not see the necessity of this amendment. The Department can muster out at any time. And if after you pass this bill you muster them out they will all be entitled to three months' pay, according to the law. Mr. CONKLING. I would like to ask the gentleman whether he has taken the pains to ascertain how many officers of the present corps would be retained in the corps to be established if an impartial distribution of commissions takes place among all the wounded officers
Mr. STEVENS. I have not taken any such pains, because I do not see what it has to do with the selection of officers impartially. That is drawing lots, I suppose. Those who have the appointment of them will select just whom they choose, twenty, thirty, or forty, by name. And as I said before, so much will be saved by allowing them to stay in. If they are not wanted they will be mustered out. I cannot see any need of mustering all of them out and letting them go home and draw three months' pay, and then bringing in the same men again.
Mr. SCHENCK. It is merely singling out these wounded officers of the Veteran corps, and giving direction to the War Department to do what they can do in other cases. Congress has never done any such thing before. They are all left under the operation of law to be dealt with by the military authorities in the same way. I do not understand why any such discrimination should be made. Or if made in this case, I would suggest whether we might not as well extend it to other officers and give instructions as to the mustering out of other arms of the service.
I demand the previous question on the amendment.
Mr. CONKLING. I hope not without giving me an opportunity to state why I offered it. Mr. SCHENCK. I supposed the gentleman was through. I have made no special argument against it and I really wish to get through
So the previous question was not seconded. Mr. CONKLING. I wish to detain the
House but for a moment. And I wish first to repel entirely the insinuation made again by the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs that any assault is intended upon these wounded officers. It must have been repeated. I think, for the benefit of the galleries here and the galleries elsewhere; because I hope no gentleman upon this floor is to be frightened from his propriety or sense by the repetition of a statement which has no foundation whatever in fact. An assault upon whom? The House has consented to retain this provision upon the guarantee-for it comes to that-of the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs that impartiality, in theory and in substance, is to be preserved in the dispensation of these commissions. How? By putting upon a par the wounded officers and soldiers of the country; by not making a distinction in favor
of those who for the past three years have been enjoying what, in the parlance of the day, are called "the soft places" in the Army. I say that the House has consented to retain this provision in the bill upon the assurance and declaration that the bill is to be so modified as to secure that impartiality.
This provision is offered merely to carry out that understanding; merely to say that these officers, except so far as they are now in some way employed, shall be put simply upon a par, fairly, with other officers disabled by disease or wounds.
We are met by the chairman of the Committe on Military Affairs with the objection that such a provision is unnecessary. I will admit it for the sake of the argument. If it be unnecessary certainly it will do no harm. Let us put it in out of abundant caution, so that wounded officers throughout the country, even though they are not here in Washington, or belonging to any organization keeping special guard and watch over our legislation, may know that they have the same opportunities as anybody else. If this amendment is mere surplusage it is harmless, and let it be adopted for the sake of fair dealing, and to carry out the understanding of the House.
The able gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] makes a practical suggestion; he says that this amendment would involve some expense. I beg to ask the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. PAINE,] whose fairness and good judgment as exhibited on this floor I respect as a military man, whether it be true that the mustering out of the service of ten. twenty, or thirty of these men, assuming that they would be reappointed, would involve any expense whatever that would be appreciable or to be talked about? I will thank him to state to the House whether it would or would not.
REORGANIZATION OF THE ARMY-AGAIN.
Mr.CONKLING. Everybody will see, assuming that the three months' pay would be due, that the expense would not be so great as if we continued the regular pay of all these men pending the selection. Again, I am informed that a muster-out and a muster-in, as a simultaneous act, would not involve this three months'
Now, if I can get the attention of the members of this House, I ask them to consider for a moment the utter insignificance of the expense of which we are speaking. I have had a computation made, approximating certainly as nearly as I can arrive at it by consulting gentlemen who know, which shows that there cannot be fewer than two hundred thousand men and officers in the country who have served in the armies of the Republic, and who have become disabled by wounds or disease. Now, in these ten regiments there are three hundred and sixty commissions, or in the proportion of about one commission to each forty disabled officers and soldiers in the country. So that if the distribution of these offices
corps, or its continuance or connection with the Army in any capacity whatever, to submit to the men of that corps the question whether or not would vote to be mustered out and go home. The result was precisely what would follow if you were to submit such a question to the vote of any regiment, brigade, or division of the Army, or the crew of sailors on board any vessel in our Navy. There is not a body of soldiers or sailors in our service who would not vote themselves out for a holiday if they had the opportunity, although they might be looking for a chance to reenlist three days afterward. Hence they all scattered; they went to their homes. Then the Secretary of War, always friendly to this Veteran Reserve corps, himself the originator, or at least the executor of the idea which called that corps into existence, was puzzled to know what it was his duty to do in regard to the matter. A number of gentlemen, members of this House, accompanied by one or more Senators, believing that it would be an act of great harshness if these wounded or disabled officers who had been selected and placed in this corps should be turned out at once, with the question still unsettled whether any of them were to be retained in the service or not, and with no provision in reference to the subsistence of themselves or their families, called upon the Secretary of War, who, after a full conversation, manifested his willingness to retain those officers until it should be settled whether we were to have a Veteran Reserve corps, for whose officers some of these men might perhaps be selected, provided there could be some sort of official indication of the wish of Congress that these officers should be thus retained.
In consequence of this, the Committee on Military Affairs of this House, after considering the whole matter, directed me to report a resolution, a copy of which I hold in my hand; and this is the resolution about which so much has been said. It was drawn up as a joint resolution, and is in these terms:
should be made according to an impartial rule of selection, there would be about nine commissions to be given to the three hundred and fifty or four hundred officers of the Veteran Reserve corps not now provided for. There fore, the point made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS,] results in just this, that there may be incurred the expense of mustering out nine men who will be mustered in again. And that can be provided for by the insertion of a word or two in some subsequent section of the bill.
Now, I hope that, as a large majority of this House voted to retain this provision concerning the Veteran Reserve corps, upon the express understanding that all wounded officers and wounded men are to be allowed barely to compete upon an equal footing for these commissions, that understanding will be carried out, and carried out certainly, even if we put in a provision for abundant caution, which we might do without. That will do no harm, and this amendment is intended only for that purpose. It is intended to prevent any advantage being gained by those who happen to be in Washington, who may happen to have such facility of access to the Department as will give them an advantage when the bill comes to be administered.
It is suggested to me to call the previous question, which I will not do, however, if it will cut off any other gentleman who desires to be heard this subject.
Mr. SCHENCK. I do not intend to pursue the course of argument which the gentleman from New York [Mr. CONKLING] seems to invite upon this subject. His elegant self-complacency at times in his treatment of the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs is only surpassed by the severe irony I always receive from the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CHANLER,] on the other side of the House. Mr. CHANLER. Mr. Speaker [Great laughter.]
The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK] yield to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CHANLER?]
Mr. SCHENCK. The gentleman can speak some other time. I have always received severe irony from that quarter, for proof of which I refer to the files of the Globe, and the reports of the debates therein contained. It is my misfortune to be so situated on both sides.
I indicated my opinion that the course of this debate had developed hostility to this Veteran Reserve corps upon the part of the gentleman from New York on my right, [Mr. CONKLING.] I do not think I am mistaken in that assertion; I do not think anybody in this House will differ with me. Nor do I think there is any question about the fact that when defeated in one mode of assault he resorts to another.
But, sir, what I object to-and this is the whole of my objection-is the impropriety of inserting in a grave legislative act an instruc
to the executive department to deal in a particular way with a particular branch of the public service, when nothing of that kind has ever heretofore been done, or has been thought proper to be done, in reference to any other class of men or officers employed in the military service.
But I do not put my reply to his propositiontion upon any ground of that kind, or upon any such ground merely. I said before, as I say again, that to introduce a provision of this kind into a law, calling upon the executive authority, upon the War Department, to exercise this power of mustering out in reference to one particular class of officers or of men, is an unusual course, is an unprecedented course of proceeding. In this as in all other cases, where men or officers are to be mustered out of or retained in service, whatever requests might be attempted to be made by resolution or otherwise, it is hardly necessary to put in a solemn legislative enactment any instruction to the Executive upon that subject.
Now, this House is not bound, any more than is the Executive, by any resolution that may have been passed upon this subject. In fact, no resolution of the kind has ever been passed. Gentlemen are mistaken upon that point, and I will correct them, so far as that is concerned. The history of that resolution, offered at a very early day in the present session of Congress, is simply this: there had been a proposition made and urged by some persons not particularly friendly to this Veteran Reserve
Now, sir, there are in the military service men who might, perhaps, be mustered out. There are officers whom we once sought to have mustered out, when it was admitted that some of them had been for a year or more entirely unemployed, and were likely to remain so. But even in that action of ours, the Senate of the United States refused its concurrence. There has never been any action upon the part of the legislative power instructing, informing, or directing the Military Department upon such a subject as this. That, at least, is my present recollection, and I think no one is able to contradict it.
I object, therefore, to any such invidious distinction, any such odious discrimination, being made against any class of officers or men, whether wounded or not wounded, whether belonging to the regular Army or to one of the volunteer branches of the Army,
as to embody in a legislative act our instructions that there must be some haste in clearing them out of the way before it shall be considered whether any of them are to be retained in the service, or clearing out of the way as many of them as do not happen at this moment to be employed.
Then, again, the language of the amendment is "who were not necessarily employed." Now, who, after all, is to determine the meaning of that word "necessarily?" So long as we have a Military Department, the discretion with reference to this matter must, after all, rest with that Department; and I am willing it shall rest there.
Now, sir, as the gentleman from New York has advocated his amendment, and as I have replied to him, I do not know that I will be considered illiberal if I ask the previous question.
YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Ancona, Baker, Baldwin, Bidwell, Boutwell, Boyer, Brandegee, Chanler, Sidney Clarke, Conkling, Davis, Dodge, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Finck, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Grider, Aaron Harding, Abner C. Harding, Hooper, Asahel W. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, Hulburd, Julian, Kelso, Loan, Marvin, MeRuer, Mercur, Moorhead, Morris, Myers, Nicholson, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Ritter, Rogers, Shanklin, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Spalding, Strouse, Taber, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Ward, Warner, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Wentworth, and Wright-59.
NAYS-Messrs. Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bingham, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Deming, Driggs, Eckley, Eggleston, Garfield, Hale, Hayes, llogan, Holmes, Chester D. Hubbard, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Kelley, Ketcham, Kuykendall, George V. Lawrence, Longyear, Lynch, McClurg, Miller, Price, William H. Randall, Raymond, John H. Rice, Rollins, Rousseau, Schenck, Stevens, Taylor, Thayer, Trowbridge, Robert T. Van Horn, Welker, Whaley, Windom, and Woodbridge-43.
NOT VOTING-Messrs. Alley, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Banks, Barker, Bergen, Blaine, Blow, Bromwell, Reader W. Clarke, Cobb, Coffroth, Cook, Cullom, Culver, Darling, Dawes, Dawson, Defrees, Delano, Denison, Dixon, Donnelly, Dumont, Eliot, Grinnell, Griswold, Harris, Hart, Henderson, Higby, Hill, Hotchkiss, Demas Hubbard, John II. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, James Humphrey, James M. Huhmprey, Johnson, Jones, Kasson, Kerr, Laflin, Latham, William Lawrence, Le Bond, Marshall, Marston, McCullough, McIndoe, McKee, Morrill, Moulton, Newell, Niblack, Noell, Patterson, Perham, Phelps, Pike, Plants, Pomeroy, Radford, Samfield, Sloan, Smith, Starr, Stilwell, Francis Thomas, uel J. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, Ross, Sawyer, ScoJohn L. Thomas, Thornton, Trimble, Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, and Winfield-81. So the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DAVIS. I move to add the following: And it shall be lawful to appoint and commission as officers in any of the organizations authorized by this act any persons who have been distinguished for gallant and meritorious service in the Army of the United States during the late rebellion, and have been wounded or partially disabled therein while in the line of their duty: Provided, The disability arising therefrom shall be such only, as if incurred in the. regular service under officers' commissions would not incapacitate them from duty therein.
around me on this side of the House in oppo-
I hope this explanation will be satisfactory
Mr. SHANKLIN. The explanation of the gentleman covers, I suppose, the whole ground in relation to myself, and is entirely satisfactory. I accept the explanation and apology.
The SPEAKER. The Chair reappoints the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. SHANKLIN] on the Committee for the District of Columbia.
And then, on motion of Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, (at four o'clock and five minutes p. m.,) the House adjourned.
Mr. Speaker, I offer that amendment because I believe it to be entirely just; and in submitting it, I wish to repel the insinuation made against me upon this floor yesterday that I was willing to do injustice to any branch of our Army or to any soldiers who have been in the field. I believe the provisions of this bill do injustice to thousands and tens of thousands who exposed themselves gallantly in defense of the flag of the country. They are restrictive. My desire is to open the way to all of the soldiers who have been disabled, provided they are fit for this duty.
It was charged yesterday by the honorable gentleman from Illinois that I had slandered the Veteran Reserve corps. I deny it. I said they were disabled; does he deny it? Is it a slander upon a soldier of the Army who bore the flag of his country over a defying fortress to say that he was wounded in the body or lost a limb or an eye in the service? I honor the gallantry and service of that soldier, but I do not slander him when I say that he has been disabled.
By this amendment I do not wish to give to the officers of the Veteran Reserve corps alone the benefit of these provisions, but I wish to give it to all who have been in the service, whether officers or privates.
The loss of a finger or of an eye disables a man under the present law so that he cannot be retained in the Army service unless he happens to be in the regular Army. In the regular Army a man thus wounded is not disqualified to serve, but still retains his rank. I ask, in God's name, why should not a man who suffers only equal disability in the volunteer service be entitled to the same benefits and advantage.
I offer this amendment, and I deny that any word that I have uttered on this floor can be tortured into anything like discourtesy to the disabled soldiers.
Mr. SCHENCK. I now demand the previous question on the section and amendment. The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.
Mr. CHANLER. I demand the yeas and nays on the amendment.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman with
draw that motion for a moment?
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I will.
ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.
Mr. TROWBRIDGE, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled a bill and joint resolution of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the same:
An act (S. No. 248) for the relief of James G. Clarke; and
A joint resolution (H. R. No. 102) for the relief of Alexander Thompson, late United States consul at Maranham.
Mr. INGERSOLL. I desire to make a personal explanation in regard to the action of the House upon the passage of the joint resolution appropriating $25,000 for the benefit of the poor of the District of Columbia. I apprehend that the House did injustice to my colleague upon the Committee for the District of Columbia, [Mr. SHANKLIN.] It was the understanding between himself and myself that when that resolution came up for action in the House he should be heard in opposition to its It passage. is but justice to him to state that he was opposed to it, and desired to make some remarks in opposition to its passage, and as a member of the committee, and its chairman, I had given my assent, and supposed that the House would extend to him that courtesy.
When I called the resolution up the gentleman rose and asked to be heard. I stated to the House that I hoped he might be heard, and I desired to yield to him before the previous question should be ordered so that he might express his views in opposition to the resolution. There were several voices heard all
The following petitions, &c., were presented under
"By Mr. AMES: The petition of South Scituate Sav-
By Mr. DAVIS: The memorial of B. F. Rexford, James S. Leach, and others, attorneys of the Federal courts in the State of New York, remonstrating against the passage of the bill now pending in the Senate for the reorganization of the Federal courts. By Mr. DELANO: The petition of George W. Penny, and 1,200 others, citizens and wool-growers of Licking county, Ohio, praying an increased duty on foreign wool, and the protection of wool-growers equal to that of manufacturers of this country.
By Mr. DODGE: The memorial of Richardson, Boynton & Co., and J. L. Mott & Co., and others, relative to the inanufacture of stoves.
Also, the memorial of George W. Blunt, Moses H. Grinnell, and others, urging that an appropriation be made for the payment of the officers and crew of the Kearsarge for the destruction of the Alabama. Also, the memorial. of manufacturers of flax and hemp, praying an increased duty on imported articles made from hemp.
By Mr. FARNSWORTH: The petition of J. W.
Also, the petition of citizens of Kane county, Illi-
By Mr. HARDING, of Illinois: The petition of
By Mr. HOLMES: The remonstrance of D. M. K.
By Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania: Two peti-
By Mr. LONGYEAR: The petition of Henry C. Andrus, and 75 others, citizens of Battle Creek, Michigan, asking for an increased duty on wool.
By Mr. MYERS: The petition of Campbell & Thayer, Grove & Brother, Judd Linseed and Sperm Oil Company, John F. Lewis & Brothers, and others, manufacturers of linseed oil in the cities of New York and Philadelphia, for increase of the tariff on foreign linseed oil to thirty cents per gallon, and for the removal of the discrimination of ten per cent. on linseed imported direct.
Also, the petition of citizens of the State of Delaware, asking that the salary of Ephraim L. Lockerman, keeper of the light house at Reedy Island, in Delaware bay, now but $400, may be increased.
By Mr. MILLER: Apetition from citizens of Pennsylvania, praying that the Constitution of the United States be amended so that the President and Vice President may be chosen by the qualified voters directly without the intervention of Electoral Colleges, and that the voting for these offices be confined to citizens who can read.
Also, the petition of Elliot E. Kellogg, and 43 others, citizens of Windham county, Vermont, praying for an increased tariff on wool.
By Mr BCHENCK: The petition of John Hatfield for relief.
By M UPSON: The petition of J. B. Tompkins, and 49 others, citizens of Girard, Branch county, Michigan, praying Congress to increase the duties on foreign wool.
By Mr. WILLIAMS: The petition of wool-growers of Butler county, Pennsylvania, asking for an increase of duty on foreign wools.
By Mr. WILSON, of Pennsylvania: The petition of Joseph B. Roper, for compensation for damages done him and his property by Indians.
Also, the petition of Edmund Blanchard, executor of the last will and testament of Captain Evan M. Buchanan, deceased, for the passage of a law releasing the estate of said Buchanan from the payment of the sum of $436 89, due the United States from him as commissary of subsistence, third division, sixth Army corps, United States Army.
By Mr. WOODBRIDGE: The petition of Prosper Elithorp, and 55 others, citizens of Bridgeport. Vermont; and also the petition of George Hammond, and 35 others, citizens of Addison county, Vermont,praying for an increased duty on foreign wool.
THURSDAY, April 19, 1866.
Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. H. GRAY. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.
Mr. MCDOUGALL. A few days since I presented some remarks to the Senate of a personal character. It was and is the opinion of my most trusted and nearest friends that the remarks of which I speak were not justified by the then present occasion, were in violation of the true rule of decorum, and were also offensive to this body. Under the influence of such counsels and with careful thought it has become my conviction that the judgment of those to whom I have referred was and is correct. I have always thought that it was nobler to confess an unpremeditated wrong than even to maintain the right. With this conviction I have risen to acknowledge the wrong, to express my profound regret, and to ask the pardon of this body. I do this with more than mere satisfaction.
It is further due to myself, as also to the Senator, my colleague, that I should request his pardon; this I now do. I had at the moment forgotten the old rule, a conclusion stated in a supposed Socratic discussion, Ad Tusculum, "Avoid the perturbations." I violated the injunction, "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath." With the morning, when the morn stood "tiptoe on the misty mountain-tops," there came penitence.
These short remarks are designed to be penitential.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
Mr. LANE, of Indiana, presented the memorial of Mary K. Smith, praying for an increase of pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.
Mr. SHERMAN presented a petition of citizens of Ohio, praying for such an increase of the duties on imports as will afford ample protection to American labor; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. MORGAN presented the petition of Catharine F. Winslow, mother of Cleveland Winslow, deceased, late licutenant colonel fifth New York Veteran volunteers, praying to be allowed a pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.
Also, a petition from citizens of the counties of Union and Northumberland, in the State of Pennsylvania, praying Congress to impose such conditions upon rebel States as shall punish treason and reward loyalty with confidence and honor.
Mr. RAMSEY presented a petition of citizens of Minnesota, representing that the tax of six per cent. ad valorem which is imposed upon the gross amount of sales arising from the class of stoves composed of cast and sheet iron respectively, in addition to the tax and duty previously paid on the component parts of the same, amounting to ten and three fourths per cent. on the gross amount of sales, is a rate which far exceeds that laid upon any other article of iron manufacture, and praying that this special tax upon the class of stoves com
By. Mr. MORRILL: The petition of W. II. Walker, and 24 others, citizens of Ludlow, Vermont, praying for the establishment of a national Bureau of Insur
Also, the petition of II. A. White, and others, citi-
Also, the petition of S. M. Dikeman, and others,
upon the increased value only; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.
He also presented the petition of D. A. Dan