« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
converted into an overshadowing, centralized despotism.
Sir, I shall always be found supporting the General Government in all its just and constitutional powers, as "the sheet-anchor of our peace at home, and safety abroad;" but, sir, I shall, with the same determined zeal, support and defend the just rights and powers of the States. They are our most efficient and competent governments for the home rights of the people; "and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies." The maintenance of these rights are essential to our system of goy
the same power, Congress may regulate and control the political rights of the people of the several States. You have precisely as much in the one case as in the other; and that power is, just none at all. You have as much right to say to the States that they shall allow the negro to vote, and hold office, as you have to say that they shall permit him to be a witness. The fact is you have no constitutional power to do either, and when it shall be acquiesced in by the people of the United States, that the General Government may exercise such powers, then, indeed, may we bid farewell to the rights of the States and our system of free government.
Such, sir, it seems to me, is the purpose of the men who control the majority in this Congress. A spirit of aggression upon the rights of the States, strong, bold, and determined, is busy at its work, and if not arrested by the clear and overwhelming condemnation of the people, at the coming elections, it may be too late to resist these encroachments, which gain strength as they advance.
Sir, in my judgment the doctrines of the distinguished gentlemen who control this Congress are inconsistent with our system of government, State and Federal. Their organization can only survive by so changing the system which our fathers framed, as to make it conform to their radical views of policy; and to effect this purpose, they must have a continuance of power. Eleven States of this Union, clearly entitled to representation, must be excluded, and their voice hushed in silence, while such important, unwarranted, and radical measures are fastened upon the country.
Sir, I warn the people, that although the rebellion has been suppressed, although we are at peace, at home and abroad, yet danger, the most threatening and disastrous, lurks within our borders; that schemes, the most dangerous to our system of government, are pressed upon Congress. Well may the President, who so nobly stands by the Constitution to ward off the assaults made on that sacred instrument, declare that
"They interfere with the municipal legislation of the States; with the relations existing exclusively between a State and its citizens, or between inhabitants of the same State; an absorption and assumption of power by the General Government, which, if acquiesced in, must sap and destroy our federative system of limited powers, and break down the barriers which preserve the rights of the States. It is another step or rather stride toward centralization and the concentration of all legislative powers in the national Government. The tendency of this bill must be to resuscitate the spirit of the rebellion, and to arrest the progress of those influences which are more closely drawing around the States the bonds of union and
Sir, I thank the President for his noble, manly, and patriotic defense of the Constitution and the rights of the States. Sometimes when I contemplate the rapid strides with which the extremists are carrying forward their inroads upon the great landmarks of our Federal system, I shudder at the dangers which threaten us. But, sir, I have not lost all hope. So long as we have a faithful and honest Executive, and a patriotic people, I will not despair. It is to the people at last to whom we must look for the proper correctives. Free gov ernment can only be maintained by constant vigilance.
"The spirit of liberty will not permit power to overstep its prescribed limits, though good intent, patriotic intent, come along with it."
Gentlemen cannot deceive the people by declaring that this law only involves civil rights. Sir, it does more, it involves the right of the Federal Government to declare the laws and constitutions of the States, which exclude negroes from voting, holding office, and acting as jurors, illegal, and set them aside, and punish the authorities of the States for executing them; because if this may be done in regard to civil rights, so it may in regard to political rights. Sir, I deny that any such powers have been delegated to the General Government; and if their exercise shall be sanctioned by the people, then, indeed, will the rights of the States, and all local legislation have been completely stricken down, and our Federal system
There are some Senators who profess a great regard for the rights of the States. Iam one of those who have quite as much regard for the rights of the States as some who make louder professions on the subject than I do. I am one of those who, not only when an election is pending, but at all times, believe in the the the ground of the Virginia resolutions of 1798 and 1793e propriety myself upon those resolutions; and, standing upon them, I denounce this bill as a violation, not only of the spirit of those resolutions, but as an attempt to trample upon the rights of the States and deprive them of the power to protect their own citizens from aggression and abuse. Do gentlemen suppose that the States, now awakened to a keen sense of their rights and the danger of consolidation, will ever submit to such a bill as this? I tell you nay."
"Who is to be the judge in the last resort of the violation of the Constitution of the United States by the enactment of a law? Who is the final arbiter? The General Government or the States in their sovereignty? Why, sir, to yield that point is to yield up all the rights of the States to protect their own citizens, and to consolidate this Government into a miserable despotism. I tell you, sir, whatever you may think of it, if this bill pass, collisions will arise between the Federal and State jurisdictions-conflicts more dangerous than all the wordy wars which are got up in Congress-conflicts in which the States will never yield; for the more you undertake to load them with acts like this, the greater will be their resistance."-Congressional Globe, Appendix, pp. 213, 214.
resolution have indorsed the most extreme doctrines; doctrines on which it is charged the South based their recent rebellion."
"1. That the several States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force, and being void, can derive no validity from mere judicial interpretation; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party; that this Government, created by this compact, was not made the exclusive final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the modes and measures of redress."
Sir, here the Republicans who adopted this
I know that it has been announced in the Senate, by a friend of the Chief Justice, that although he did make a speech at the Cleveland meeting which passed this resolution, yet that he was not aware of the fact that such a resolution had been adopted.
But I find in a Cleveland paper an extract from a letter reported to have been written, a short time before the Cleveland meeting, by Mr. Chase, in response to an invitation to join in a meeting at Boston, to celebrate the birthday of Thomas Jefferson; which I will read :
"And how large the debt we owe him on other grounds: for his lessons of confidence in the masses of the people; of just regard in legislation and administration to all home interests, and of the wise liberality toward emigrants from other lands seeking free and honorable homes in ours; for his warnings against extravagance in Government expenditure, and its inevitable concomitants, oppressive taxation and debt; against the surrender or compromise of the rights of the States; against the centralizing tendencies, so dangerous to liberty, of Federal power; and last, but by no means least, against the silent and, because silent, most perilous encroachments of a Federal judiciary, perverted from its noble function of administering justice into a convenient means for the subversion of State sovereignty and the destruction of the most sacred guarantees of personal freedom."
It is possible that some political friend of the Chief Justice may be able also to put in a disclaimer about this letter. I know no more about it than what I find in the paper from which it has been read. But, sir, during this same period, and while Mr. Chase was the Governor of the State of Ohio, the celebrated cases of ex parte Bushnell and ex parte Langston were argued and decided in the supreme court of that State, and the same doctrines which are declared in the Cleveland resolution, were argued at great length, and with much ability, by the then attorney general of Ohio, Mr. Walcutt, a leading Republican, and afterwards Assistant Secretary of War under Mr. Lincoln's administration, and his extreme views of the reserved powers of the States, were sustained by two of the judges of that court, Judges Brinkerhoff and Sutliff, both of whom were Republicans. In that argument he said:
"But then it is said that the courts of the United States are supreme within their sphere; all agree to that; but what then? So also are the State courts supreme within their sphere; and the same argument which proves that the Federal courts have a right to determine the extent of their jurisdiction and impose that determination on State courts, proves equally, that the State courts have also the right to determine the extent of their jurisdiction, and conclude the Federal courts in that determination."
But again, he says:
Any nation which has wholly surrendered the allegiance of its citizens or its correlative incidental right to protect them while within its territorial limits, has in that very act abnegated every attribute of sovereignty and become the inere local dependency of the power to which that allegiance and right have been surrendered. But" * * Ohio is still a sovereign State, and has therefore never yielded this right, as she never could yield it, and still preserve her sovereignty, to the Federal or any other Government."
You see that he carries his views of State rights to their most extreme verge, and speaks of the States "in their sovereignty."
But, sir, there was a celebrated meeting held at Cleveland, Ohio, by distinguished Republic-ing ans of that State in May, 1859, which was addressed by Mr. Chase, then the Governor of Ohio, and at which, among other resolutions, the following was adopted:
Further on, in the same argument, in speakof the powers of the Federal Government, he says:
"The powers granted being granted by independent sovereignties, it not only follows, as the result of all just reasoning, that all powers not granted are withheld."
Judge Brinkerhoff, a distinguished member of the Republican party, in delivering his dissenting opinion in these cases, uses the following language:
"I know no way other than through the action of the State governments, in which the reserved rights and powers of the States can be preserved, and the guarantees of individual liberty be vindicated. The history of this country, brief as it is, already shows that the Federal judiciary is never behind the other departments of that Government, and often foremost in the assumption of non-granted powers. And let it be finally yielded, that the Federal Government is in the last resort the authoritative judge of the extent of its powers, and the reservations and limitations of the Constitution, which the framers of that instrument so jealously endeavored firmly to fix and guard, will soon be, if they are not already, obliterated; and that Government, the sole possessor of the only means of revenue, in the employment of which the people can be kept ignorant of the extent of their own burdens, and with its overshadowing patronage, attracting to its support the ambitious by means of its hop
ors, and the mercenary through the medium of its emoluments, will speedily become, if it be not already, practically omnipotent.'
by a majority of the citizens of the United States.
Again, he says:
"It is therefore evident, both from the language and the early construction of the instrument, that the rights of the several State governments are as full and ample under the Constitution to protect the powers which they had not delegated, as is the Federal Government to protect the powers which had in fact been delegated to it. This right to protect its own legislative, executive, and judicial powers belonged to each of the States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The States in convention refused to surrender the right, or even to suffer it to be qualified. The power was not delegated in the Constitution, nor by it prohibited to the States, and is therefore reserved and still belongs to the State."
These opinions, it is true, were delivered by these learned judges, in a case in which they undertook to declare the fugitive slave law unconstitutional.
Mr. Chase, while these cases were pending in the supreme court of Ohio, 'was the Governor of that State, and I would be pleased to know, if the supreme court had held the fugitive slave law unconstitutional, and ordered the discharge of Bushnell and Langston, whether it was not the purpose of the Governor and his friends, to enforce and maintain the decision of that court, to the last extremity against the Federal Government? Certain it is that the views of these dissenting judges were indorsed by their party in Ohio, because Judge Swan, who with the majority of the court held the law constitutional, was defeated a short time afterward, in the Republican State convention for renomination, while Judge Brinkerhoff was in due season renominated and reelected by that party.
But, sir, the convention which nominated Mr. Lincoln for the Presidency at Chicago, in 1860, adopted the following resolution:
"Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each. State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force, of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
And Mr. Lincoln in his first inaugural quoted this resolution as a law to himself and those who had nominated him.
Sir, I have quoted from these distinguished gentlemen in the Republican party, to show how industrious they have been in the past, in advocating the rights of the States, and to contrast their speeches and declarations then, with their position now in supporting measures, which strike at the very existence of the States.
Mr. Speaker, in my judgment this organized attempt to centralize power in Congress, is revolutionary, and it is so because it is attempted by the exercise of unwarranted power.
It is revolutionary because a majority of this Congress persistently, and unconstitutionally, refuse to eleven States of this Union any representation whatever. It is revolutionary because, taking advantage of the absence of such representation, whose presence is unconstitutionally prevented, this same majority seek to fasten upon the country, measures which are not sanctioned either by the Constitution, or
Sir, I do not propose to enter upon an argument to prove that all of these States are in the Union-that their attempt to withdraw was a failure-that the result of the late terrible conflict was to preserve and not destroy the Union. All this I discussed in a speech which I made in this House during the early part of this session.
These States, then, being in the Union, and peace having been completely restored, there is no constitutional right whatever for depriving them of their just and constitutional representation. All talk about establishing, or requiring conditions or guarantees from them, before they shall be represented in Congress, is mere trifling with this great question. If these States are in the Union, as I insist they are, then you can no more exact conditions from them than you can from New York or Massachusetts. These States are all equal States, and each one is entitled to be represented, and to deny such representation, is not only clearly unauthorized, it is worse; it is revolutionary.
The Constitution declares that "the Senate of the United States shall consist of two Senators from each State," and to prevent a majority of the States from combining to deprive any State of its representation in the Senate, it is also declared that"no State without its consent shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." Is any State to-day deprived without its consent of its equal suffrage in the Senate? Sir, we all know that eleven States are in violation of these plain provisions of the Constitution, deprived of any voice whatever in that body. And in relation to the House of Representatives the Constitution is equally clear and explicit; and among other provisions it is declared that "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers," which is determined in a mode provided in the Constitution. These Representatives are to be apportioned among the States every ten years; and the same instrument declares that "each State shall have at least one Representative," thus establishing firmly the great principle of taxation and representation. The direct taxes have been assessed and are being collected, but the representation is denied.
Sir, the true Union men of this country are those who are for the immediate restoration of all these States, to their just and constitutional relations with the Federal Government; and the admission of Senators and Representatives constitutionally qualified. To deny these States these constitutional rights, is an attempt at disunion.
Sir, I am to-day, as I have always been, for the Union of all the States. I am opposed, as I have always been, to all attempts to break up this Union, whether they come from the North or the South.
The questions which are now pending are, in my judgment, of the most grave and serious character: union or disunion; the preservation of our system of Government, or the consolidation of power in the hands of Congress; the absorption of the clear rights of States, and practically the establishment of a centralized despotism.
the Constitution. They will sit in judgment on these great questions, and send Representatives here who will respect the just rights of the States; who will seek to heal and not destroy; who will labor to unite and not separate; who will, with that true and generous policy which finds but little favor here, welcome into these Halls, Representatives from all the States, who may be devoted to the Constitution, and determined to maintain the Union.
These great issues have been made. The purposes of the majority of this Congress are clearly understood. You have the power now to pass what measures you please; you can deprive States of their constitutional voice in Congress; you can deprive clear majorities of the voters in districts in the northern States from being represented by the men of their choice. But, sir, it will not always be so. No, sir; no, sir. There is a power higher and stronger than yours, which will overrule you. The peoplethat people who love free government, and who have sacrificed so much to maintain it; that people who revere and cherish the Union of these States, and who will never abandon it; that people will demand, in a voice not to be misunderstood, a return to the requirements of
NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD.
Mr. ALLEY. I rise to a privileged question. I notice that I am down among those the Northern Pacific railroad bill. I voted in not voting on the motion to lay upon the table the negative, and I ask that the correction be made.
The correction was made accordingly. Mr. BANKS submitted some remarks which will be found in the Appendix.
At the conclusion of the remarks of Mr. BANKS,
Mr. GRINNELL said: My colleague, [Mr. PRICE,] who had charge of the Northern Pacific railroad bill, is not able to be here to-day. I am requested to state on his behalf that no one regrets more than he that circumstances prevented his yielding the floor to the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BANKS,] as he had intended to do. He would have been pleased to hear the able and logical speech we have just listened to.
Mr. BUNDY obtained the floor, but yielded to Mr. GRINNELL, who moved that the House adjourn.
The motion was agreed to.
And accordingly, (at five o'clock and twenty minutes p. m.,) the House adjourned.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, IN THE YEAR 1866. Resolutions on the state of the Union and the duties of Government to the freedmen.
Resolved, That the rebel States should be held in abeyance, and should not be permitted to join in the management of national affairs through representatives in Congress until the people of said States shall, by fundamental enactments and otherwise, manifest a loyal spirit of submission to the authority and Constitution of the United States, and give such guarantees as Congress may deem sufficient to render it safe and prudent to permit them to again resume the functions and privileges which they voluntarily surrendered by their rebellion and war; and in these matters the right of determination rests with Con
Resolved, That we tender our thanks to the Senators and Representatives at Washington for their firmness hitherto in maintaining their principles and for their resistance to all attempts to place in the Halls of Congress disloyal men, or the Representatives of disloyal constituencies, to the peril of the national credit and at the imminent risk of losing by And we expect them to maintain this position in the legislation all that we have gained by successful war.
future and to the last.
Resolved, That while thus expressing our confidence in our senatorial and representative delega tions in Congress, and the determination of the people to stand by them, we are also impelled to take notice of the recent charges made by name against one of the Senators of this State, Hon. CHARLES SUMNER, in the lately rublished speech of the President
of the United States, and to declare that the language used and the charges made by the President are unbecoming the elevated station occupied by him. an unjust reflection upon Massachusetts, and without the shadow of justification or defense founded upon the private or public record of our eminent Senator. Resolved, That the enlightened judgment of mankind will hold not only the Government, but the people of the United States, to the fulfillment to the uttermost, in letter and in spirit, of the promises solemnly made to the freedmen; and any failure to fulfill them would inflict a stain upon our national character which would debase us among the nations and subjeet us to the contempt of our contemporaries and of posterity.
ferred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.
Resolved, That his Excellency, the Governor, be requested to transmit a copy of these resolutions to our Senators and Representatives in Congress.
The resolutions were ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.
Mr. WILSON presented the petition of hospital stewards of the Army, praying that such action may be taken by Congress as will place them upon an equal footing with those who perform similar service in the armies of Europe, by creating a grade with the rauk, and pay, emoluments of a second lieutenant of infantry, for those of the corps of hospital stewards who upon examination, may prove themselves competent for the position; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.
He also presented a petition of journeymen book-binders, book printers, and working men of the United States, praying for the repeal of the revenue tax of five per cent. on manufactured books; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. RAMSEY presented the petition of J. S. Giers, of Morgan county, Alabama, setting forth the destitute condition of the people of that State, and praying Congress to take some measures for their relief; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.
He also presented a petition of citizens of Otter Tail County, Minnesota, praying for the establishment of a mail route from Crow Wing, in that State, via Otter Tail City, to Fort Abercrombie, Dakota Territory; which was referred to the Committee on Post Offices and l'ost Roads.
Mr. SHERMAN. I present the memorial of Merrick & Sons, William Sellers & Co., and other manufacturers of heavy machinery, of Philadelphia, reciting at some length that under the present system of internal revenue they are compelled to pay a complex system of taxes, by which it is uncertain how much the corresponding duty on imported articles should be in order to put them on an equality with foreign manufacturers, and by which it is very dificult for them to ascertain the amount payable on their machinery. They say the system of taxes operates very injuriously to them. They therefore ask that a uniform tax, whatever may be necessary for the Government, shall be levied on the completed article. I ask that this memorial be referred to the Committee on Finance.
It was so referred.
Mr. WILLEY presented the petition of Abigail Ryan, widow of the late Thomas A. Ryan, a sergeant in company E, seventeenth regiment West Virginia volunteers, praying that she may be granted a pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.
Mr. MORGAN presented the petition of C. K. Tuckerman, praying to be reimbursed for expenses incurred for the colonization experiment at Hayti, which, he alleges, was undertaken at the request of President Lincoln; which was referred to the Committee on Claims.
He also presented a memorial of the Legislature of Wisconsin, in favor of the establishment of a mail route from Dodgeville to Avoca, via James Mills, William S. Bean's, and Booth Hollow, in that State; which was referred to the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads.
Mr. NYE presented additional papers in relation to the claim of Paul S. Forbes, for relief under his contract with the Navy ment to build and furnish the sloop-of-war Idaho; which were referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. Mr. DOOLITTLE presented a memorial of the Legislature of Wisconsin, in favor of so equalizing the bounties awarded by the Government to soldiers during the late war as to make them as nearly as possible in proportion to the time of actual service; which was re
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.
Mr. LANE, of Indiana, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of Mrs. Rebecca Irwin, widow of Archibald Irwin, who was a private soldier in battery C, first Rhode Island light artillery, praying for a pension, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill (S. No. 291) granting a pension to Mrs. Rebecca Irwin. The bill was read, and passed to a second reading, and the report was ordered to be printed.
Mr. WILSON, from the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to whom was referred a bill (H. R. No. 475) to facilitate the settlement of the accounts of paymasters in the Army, reported adversely thereon.
He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred a bill (S. No. 46) for the relief of Henry M. Whittlesey, asked to be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be referred to the Committee on Claims; which was agreed to.
He also, from the Joint Committee on the Library, reported a joint resolution (S. R. No. 79) to authorize the purchase for the Library of Congress of the law library of James L. Pettigru, of South Carolina; which was read, and passed to a second reading.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The joint committee, so called, on reconstruction have directed me to report, first, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States; second, a bill to provide for restoring to the States lately in insurrection their full Depart-political rights; third, a bill declaring certain persons ineligible to office under the Government of the United States. They directed me, further, in reporting this resolution and bills, to say that it was the intention of the committee to accompany them with an extended report of their reasons, and the grounds, upon which they report them. Unfortunately, however, such has been the situation of the committee, relying upon the chairman, who has been un
Mr. HOWE, from the Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Captain F. M. Faircloth, praying for remuneration for property lost on board the steamer Boston, while on an expedition up the Ashepo river, South Carolina, on the 26th of May, 1864, submitted an adverse report; which was ordered to be printed.
Mr. CHANDLER. A few weeks ago I unintentionally did an act of injustice to a patriotic body of individuals in this city, which I wish to correct. During the winter of 1860-61, there were two military organizations here, the one called the National Rifles and the other the National Volunteers. The National Volunteers was a rebel organization which marched from the District of Columbia into the rebel army; but the National Rifles was composed of the most patriotic citizens of the District. They were the first to march into Virginia; and they headed the column that first crossed the Long Bridge. They furnished a large number of soldiers and a large number of officers to the Union Army, and were really one of the most patriotic bodies in the United States. In the heat of debate, I inadvertently spoke of the National Rifles instead of the National Volunteers. I wish simply to do justice to a patriotic organization, to which I inadvertently did injustice, and I make this statement to correct that injustice.
Mr. HOWE. I wish to make a comment or two on an item that I find in the National Intelligencer to-day, taken from the Washington dispatches to the New York Herald. The item to which I call attention is as follows:
"Governor Fairchild, of Wisconsin, is here to push the appointment of a radical postmaster for Fonddu-Lac, which office will soon be vacated by resignation. The appointment was lately made in accordance with the Governor's views, but was subsequently withdrawn at the urgent request of Wisconsin Johnson Republicans, on the ground that the appointeo was not one of them. The appearance of the Governor here to reopen the fight is looked upon as a tride 'cheeky' by the friends of Senator DOOLITTLE, inasmuch as the Governor went out of his way to indorse and approve the Wisconsin resolutions censuring Mr. DOOLITTLE. The Governor, no doubt, came on at the suggestion of Senator HowE; but it is fair to presume their joint labors will be fruitless. The Post Office Department has at last commenced to look out for the President's friends in the matter of appointments."
Upon this paragraph I wish to say, first, that the Governor of Wisconsin is here on no invitation of mine, and upon no business that I have any sort of connection with. I understand, and I believe, that he came here without the slightest knowledge that there was a vacancy in the post office at Fond-du-Lac. I understand, and I believe, he is here simply to aid in the adjustment of some accounts between the State of Wisconsin and the United States of America, and that he takes no more interest in the question of who shall be postmaster in the city of Fond-du-Lac than any other Republican of the State of Wisconsin does take.
I think it is due to Governor Fairchild that I should say so much; and I think it is due to myself, to the Senate, and to the people of the United States, since this subject has been alluded to, that I should say one thing more about the post office at Fond-du-Lac. There has been no "fight" about it, to begin with. A vacancy exists in that office, occasioned by the resignation of the late incumbent, who has removed from the city, and from the State, and from the United States. My colleague, the Representative from the fifth district of Wis consin, who lives within twenty miles of that
town, whose partner and whose son resides in the town, and who has his principal place of business in that town, and myself, all united in recommending the appointment of a man by the name of Gillette to fill that vacancy. His name was sent in to the Senate. I am glad to have the attention of the chairman of the Post Office Committee. It was referred to that committee, and by that committee reported back to the Senate with a recommendation that he be confirmed. Some one or two weeks ago-I do not recollect the precise time-the name of Mr. Gillette was withdrawn from the Senate by a message from the President of the United States. That withdrawal, I am bound to say, was made without any request of mine, without any consultation with me, without the slightest knowledge on my part that it was to be made, and, as I believe, without the slightest knowledge on the part of any Representative from Wisconsin except my colleague here, and possibly the Representative from the fourth district who was not elected by the Union party, and who probably never will be elected by the Union party until he or the Union party meets with a change of heart. That name was recommended to be withdrawn, as I understand, simply because it was alleged that Mr. Gillette did not support the policy of the President. I understand that it is asserted by the First Assistant Postmaster General that no man, with his consent, shall eat the bread and butter of the President unless he does support the President's policy.
authorize and establish certain post roads, the
That it shall be lawful for any person or persons,
Mr. HENDERSON. I withdraw the amend-
Mr. GRIMES. I offer an amendment which
Now, it will be seen that there has been no fight in reference to this subject. It will be seen, and I trust it will be believed, that the Governor is not here with any view to influence the disposition of that office.
Mr. President, I am compelled to draw two or three inferences from the facts I have stated to the Senate. The first is that whereas my colleague and myself were appointed to represent the State of Wisconsin by precisely the same party, I am now not recognized by the executive department of the Government as belonging to the party to which my colleague belongs. That is the first inference I draw, and my conclusion is, that if I do not belong to the party to which my colleague belongs, he does not belong to the party to which I belong. That is another deduction which I draw from this state of facts.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.
A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced the appointment of Mr. J. B. GRINNELL, of Iowa, and Mr. J. L. DAWSON, of Pennsylvania, as managers on the part of the House of Representatives at the conference on the concurrent resolution to prohibit the sale of liquors in the Capitol building and grounds, in the place of Mr. HIRAM PRICE, of Iowa, and Mr. SAMUEL J. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania, excused. RAILROAD BRIDGES ACROSS THE MISSISSIPPI.
And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company, whose road has been completed to the Mississippi river and connects with a railroad on the opposite side thereof, having first obtained authority therefor from the States of Illinois and Iowa, to construct a railroad bridge across said river upon the same terms, in the same manner, under the same restrictions, and with the same privileges as is provided for in this act in relation to the bridge at Quincy, Illinois.
Having stated these two inferences, I have one other thing to say, and that will end my explanation upon this point; and that is, that I dissent entirely from the idea that these offices are in the first place "bread and butter," and secondly, I dissent entirely from the idea that if they are bread and butter, the President owns them. I conceive that they are agencies created by law, which the Congress of the United States makes and the Congress of the United States alone can make; that they are designed not to do the will of the President of the United States, but as agencies to execute the will of Congress; that they are paid by appropriations made by Congress; they will continue while Congress says so and when Congress says so, and are not the private prop-navigation upon that river. erty of anybody, and are not intended as instruments through which the President of the United States or any other individual can dragoon the people of the United States into one idea or another or into one policy or another.
On motion of Mr. TRUMBULL, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. No. 286) to
Mr. RAMSEY. The honorable Senator from Missouri, [Mr. HENDERSON,] when this bill was before the Senate some days ago, expressed some surprise that I should advocate the building of bridges upon the Mississippi river. That Senator should have known that at this time, without any authority of law, at least on the part of Congress, there are two bridges upon the Mississippi river which are alleged to be by those who trade upon that river-the navigation interests there-highly obstructive to navigation. There are but three bridges, I think, on the Mississippi river from the falls of St. Anthony to the mouth of that stream. One is at St. Paul. That is a bridge of continuous span. It presents no obstruction to navigation. The bridge is elevated nearly one hundred feet above the ordinary stage of water, and boats of the largest class that navigate the waters of that region pass under it without obstruction and without difficulty. There are two other bridges spanning the Mississippi river, one at Clinton and another at Rock Island, both alleged to be highly obstructive to navigation, and bridges that have been remonstrated against by that interest for years past. So high has been the excitement at times that the boatmen following the river have been upon the point of abating the Rock Island bridge as a nuisance by violence. The remonstrances were so strong against its continuance that in 1859 a commission of officers of the Topographical corps of the United States Army was appointed to visit and examine that bridge.
The engineers of the railroad companies and the river interests differ entirely as to the character of the bridges that should be erected across the Mississippi river. Those having charge of that interest at St. Louis-the Chamber of Commerce-claim that the span upon the pivot bridges should be four hundred feet. On the other hand it is alleged by experienced engineers that a span of that size would be much more obstructive than one of a reasonable size; that the difficulties of opening it at times would be such as unfavorably to obstruct
The commission which was sent by the Secretary of War in 1859 to examine the Rock Island bridge was composed of Captain Hum phreys, Captain Meade, and Captain Franklin, of the Topographical corps, each of whom has since attained the position of major general in the Army. In their report upon that occasion they said:
"From the drawings above alluded to, and from personal examination, the board found that the railroad bridge is placed at the foot of the rapids, and is thrown from the island of Rock Island to the city of Davenport, Iowa; that it is supported by two stone abutments on the shores, and six stone piers. The spans (five in number) are two hundred and fifty feet broad, the draw spans being at the water-level (nine and one half feet stage) and one hundred and seventeen and one hundred and twelve feet respectively, making the whole length of the bridge fifteen hundred and thirty-five feet.
fourteen broad at the bottom. The turn-table pier, including the guard pier and starling, is three hun dred and fifty-five feet long and forty and one third feet broad at the top, and three hundred and eightysix feet long and forty-five feet broad at the bottom This pier is composed of a stone center pier thirty five feet in diameter at the top, the remainder being crib-work filled with stone. The up-stream starlings of all the piers are isosceles right-angled triangles. The center line of the roadway crosses the turn-table pier two hundred and ten feet from its head, this pier being one hundred and fifteen feet longer and nineteen feet wider on the top than the truss which forms the draw. The superstructure of wood, built upon Howe's patent, istwenty feet above ordinary high and thirtythree feet above ordinary low water."
"The piers, except those of the draws, are thirtyfive feet long and seven feet broad at top, and fiftythree feet long and eleven feet broad at the bottom. The two small draw piers are thirty-eight feet long and ten feet broad at top, and fifty-four feet long and
The great vice in that bridge is the obliquity of the piers to the current of the river. This commission further state:
"It will be seen that above the bridge the direction of the current makes with the axis of the piers, different angles varying from 26° to 14° 30'; that through the Illinois draw of the bridge, the angle with the axis of the pier is 50, and that below the bridge the angle varies from 8° to 9° 30.'"
"Were the same piers placed parallel to the current, the obstruction to the flow of the water would be about one third of what it now is."
"The general level of the river is raised by the piers of the bridge .49 feet, or nearly six inches, and the increase of the mean velocity due to the contraction of the water-way is 2.27 feet per second or 1.55 miles
per hour, making the computed velocity under the
In summing up their conclusions, they say: "1. The board is of opinion that the railroad bridge which crosses the Mississippi river between Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, and Davenport, in the State of Iowa, is not constructed according to correct principles, reference being had to the interests of navigation.
2. The piers of the said bridge are not of the best form, and that there was no practical difficulty in constructing them of the proper form. With the exception of the turn-table pier, the board is of opinion that the defective form of the piers is a matter of no material importance. The turn-table pier will be more particularly referred to in the answer to the next question.
3. The only pier larger than is necessary is the turntable pier. This pier, in the opinion of the board, should have been constructed no longer or broader than was absolutely necessary to sustain the truss when the draw is open, and protect it from injury by passing boats. It might have been constructed with a length of two hundred and ninety-five feet, affording ample support and protection, and being actually three hundred and fifty-five feet in length; the difference, sixty feet, is unnecessary, and, in the judgment of the board, pernicious. The effect of making it longer than was absolutely required, is to contract the water-way, increase the velocity, narrow the draw-passage, and present more surface for boats to strike against, thus increasing the difficulty of their passage through the draw. In a pier of this size the form of the starling is of importance, and the upper faces of the pier should have been curved surfaces.
4. The piers are not placed parallel to the current, but at angles varying from 26° to 14° 30. The effect of this obliquity is to treble the obstruction to the flow of the water, and consequently to affect the increase of velocity in the same ratio. Another consequence is, that the passages of steamboats and rafts through the draw and between the piers are rendered much more difficult and hazardous. Furthermore, the draw on the Iowa side is rendered useless by the formation of an eddy therein.
5. The velocities of the different parts of the river in the vicinity of the bridge have already been stated, and will be found tabulated in appendix C.,
"6. The eddy on the Iowa side of the turn-table pier, as nearly as could be estimated, is about one hundred feet wide at the foot of the pier, and the turbulence or boiling of the water extends about five hundred feet below. This eddy, however, is constantly varying in its position and dimensions. Its effect on the passages of boats ascending and descending is undoubtedly to render them more difficult, on account of the care required to avoid getting one part of the boat in it while another part is in the current of the draw. It has been previously stated that the effect of this eddy in the Iowa draw is to render it useless."
"In conclusion, the board considers it proper to recapitulate some of the well-known principles of bridge building, to show how far they have been conformed to or departed from in the Rock Island bridge. These principies are:
"1. That at a given place, in locating a bridge over any stream, the site where the velocity of the current is a minimum should be selected.
"2. That in designing a bridge, the piers should have a minimum cross-section consistent with the support of the super-structure thus offering the least obstruction to the flow of the water and increasing the velocity of the current as little as possible.
3. The piers should always be placed parallel to the thread of the stream, for the same reasons as those stated in the second principle, and because they thus render the passage of boats and rafts less difficult.
"4. In designing a bridge over a river having a large commerce in boats and rafts, the draws and spans should be of the greatest practicable width.
In applying these principles to the Rock Island bridge, the board is constrained, with extreme regret, to report that all have been violated; thus rendering the bridge not only an obstruction to the navigation
engineer to recommend any such thing. I do not understand the authority the Senator just read from to do so.
of the river, but one materially greater than there was any occasion for.
"The board fully appreciates the value and importance of the railroad traffic, and is of opinion that a bridge is necessary and should be constructed, not only at Rock Island, but at other points on the Mississippi river; but it is also of opinion that the interests involved in the free navigation of this noble stream demand that in locating and constructing these bridges unusual study should be brought to bear to insure the presentation of the least possible obstruction to the navigation, and that all considerations of expediency and economy should be made to yield to the paramount interests of the commerce of the river."
The Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, to whom this bill was referred, sought information on the subject from every source where they could find it. The bill as referred to them provided for a draw of but three hundred feet, leaving a clear draw on either side of the pivot pier of less than one hundred and fifty feet, probably not over one hundred and ten feet. It was also mandatory on the company to build a draw-bridge. .Inasmuch as the committee conceived that a bridge of continuous spans was to be greatly preferred to a drawbridge, they changed the bill in that respect, leaving it optional with the company which to
The Senator from Missouri said that there was no use in referring these bills to that committee, that they would make no examination or modification of them, but simply report them as they received them. If he had read the bill as reported by the committee, and also the bill as referred to them, he would have seen that they have made very important modifications, and all in the interests of the navigation. We have provided in the bill as reported that the draw shall be three hundred and fifty feet, leaving a clear passage on either side of the pivot pier of one hundred and fifty feet. If the bridge shall be built with unbroken and continuous spans, it is to be fifty feet above extreme high water. This, we learn from experienced river men, is all that is desired. Where the chimnies are taller than that, the arrangement is to lower them upon the telescopic plan which has been introduced there.
With regard to the spans other than the pivot span, we have the information of competent engineers that an excess of over three hundred feet is not advisable. General McCallum, who had charge of railroad and bridge structures during the war, says:
"The longest draw-bridge ever constructed in this Country is of two openings of one hundred and fifty feet each, although I do not consider even a greater length than this impracticable. Inevertheless would consider it unnecessary and impolitic. Any bridge located at right angles with the stream, with current of not more than four miles per hour, all purposes of navigation should be fully met by one hundred and fifty feet openings."
Mr. HOWE. I understand that the bill as reported provides for these openings to be one hundred and seventy-five feet.
Mr. RAMSEY. No, sir; the pivot pier and the one half of the pier at each end of the swing on which it rests detract from their width. Mr. HOWE. But the span is to be one hundred and seventy-five feet?
Mr. RAMSEY. The span is to be three hundred and fifty feet.
Mr. HOWE. The spans are to be not less than one hundred and seventy-five feet in length on each side of the center or pivot pier of the draw.
Mr. RAMSEY. One hundred and fifty feet in the clear. "Spans of not less than one hundred and seventy-five feet in length on each side of the central or pivot pier of the bridge." The pier on which it rests on either end of this swing detracts from it; and a fair construction would be from the center of the bridge one hundred and seventy-five feet. The pivot pier is a pier probably twenty feet in width, of greater width than any of the other piers, and under the bill it is required to be. The whole of this immense structure, the swing-bridge, rests upon it. That with the half the pier it rests on at either end detracts so much from this length as to reduce it to a clear passage of about one hundred and fifty feet. That much can be done, and I think that much ought to be conceded.
Mr. HOWE. The idea is this: the span is required by the bill to be one hundred and seventy-five feet. The span I understand to be the stretch from pier to pier, and not from the center of one pier to the center of the next.
Mr. RAMSEY. When we framed this bill we understood it to be from the center of the pier to the center of the opposite pier, from the center of the swing pier to the center of the resting pier.
Now, I think in this bill we have guarded all these various interests upon the river. We have insured, I think, a safe passage-way sufficiently large. We have required the piers to be on a line with the current. We have required the elevation to be fifty feet above high water if the bridge be constructed of a continuous span. I think we have provided against every fault that has been heretofore complained of in the other bridges erected upon that river. As I said before, if we could avoid building bridges entirely on the Mississippi river, I should esteem it in the interests of the country which I represent and in the interests of navigation upon that river; but the fact is that almost in spite of law they are building them. At this time I am told they are building a bridge upon the Mississippi river at Burlington. It is, then, important at this time, before these structures are up, when it will be impossible to remove them, the interest for retaining them being so large, that Congress should step in and regu late the construction, so as to be as little injurious to the navigation of the river as possible. No one can appreciate more than I do the importance of the trade on the river. I know that at a few of the towns on the Mississippi-St. Louis, Louisville, and others-the trade of 1865 amounted to more than seven hundred million dollars; twice as much as our foreign || trade. In the State of Minnesota, far up at the head of that river, we ourselves shipped eight million bushels of wheat last year. Then the continued navigation of this river to us is of the first importance. But, sir, we realize the fact that in spite of us, in spite of all our desires, in spite of the interest of navigation on that river, they will persist in erecting these bridges; and hence we deem it of the highest importance now, when few have yet been constructed, that Congress should step in and, as well as it can, regulate them. As I said before, there are but three bridges now spanning the river, but there are applications for a dozen in this and the other House of Congress. We know, too, from the immense capital invested in the railroads that approach that river upon the east and upon the west, that they will cross it. It is not to be expected that they should be successfully resisted forever. They will cross it some time. I think now is the time when Congress should step in and regulate them, so as to be as little obstructive as possible.
Mr. HOWE. I should like to ask the Senator from Minnesota before he takes his seat what evidence the committee have that a draw of the length prescribed in this bill is manageable.
Mr. RAMSEY. We have evidence of larger draws, but they have been erected under ex
traordinary circumstances. There is a bridge at one of the sea-port towns of France longer even than this. There is an iron swing-bridge at Brest, in France, spanning a water passage of three hundred and forty-seven feet clear, movable off its bed, erected at a total cost of $406,000. It is a Government work, erected, I presume, without reference either to the expense of its construction in the first instance, or to the expense of its management afterward. It is desirable, of course, that we should strike a medium in the erection of these swingbridges on the Mississippi, so as to injure neither the river nor the bridge interest. If we make them too large, they will often be out of order and immovable, and the boats, in passing up and down, will be interrupted. If they are made of smallest size, as requested by some, of course the channel-way will not be large enough for business. Now, the point between the two most desirable is that they should be easily workable, and at the same time as large as can be allowed. In that way the proper medium will be obtained and all interests preserved.
Mr. GRIMES. The proposition now pending before the Senate is an amendment proposed by myself authorizing the construction of a bridge at Burlington, on the Mississippi river, by the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company, upon the same terms and under the same restrictions and with the same powers and privileges that are proposed by this bill to be granted to the company that seeks to be authorized to build a bridge at Quincy, in the State of Illinois
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. ANTHONY in the chair.) The hour of one o'clock hav ing arrived, it becomes the duty of the Chair to call up the unfinished business of Friday last, being the bill (H. R. No. 280) making appropriations for the service of the Post Office Department during the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1867, and for other purposes.
Mr. HENDERSON. I think this can be disposed of in a short time.
Mr. GRIMES. Very soon, I think. Mr. SHERMAN. I have no objection to the special order being laid aside informally, if it does not lose its place.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will be done by unanimous consent. The Chair hears no objection. The consideration of Senate bill No. 236 will be continued.
Mr. GRIMES. I suppose if there is any body here who is peculiarly interested in the navigation of the Mississippi river, I am about as much interested as any one else. I have for thirty years lived immediately upon its banks, and I think that I am somewhat familiar with the condition of the commerce of the country connected with that river. A portion of the people in the town in which I live, fancying that the construction of a bridge will not be to their own particular individual benefit, would not favor the passage of this law, while I think that those who take the broadest, most comprehensive, and most correct view on the subject would favor it.
But whatever may be the opinions of my fellow-citizens of that town, there cannot be any question that the commerce and the interests of the State at large, which I have the honor here in part to represent, demand that there should be facilities for crossing the river without breaking the bulk of the freights that are to go over. Then the only question is whether or not bridges can be constructed across the Mississippi river so as to facilitate the crosswise commerce that is going east and west without obstructing or unnecessarily impeding the commerce that has hitherto and which is destined in the future to pass up and down on the river. I am satisfied that the proposition which comes from the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads ought to be adopted, for the reason that I believe if the bridges are constructed upon the plan which they propose they cannot, by any possibility, be any obstruction to the navigation of the Mississippi river.