And all cigars manufactured after the passage of this act shall be packed in boxes or paper packages. Mr. MORRILL. That is right. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. In line sixteen hundred and ninety-eight I move to strike out "one half of" and to insert in lieu thereof "and;" and in lines sixteen hundred and ninety-nine and seventeen hundred to strike out the words "to be paid to the informer, and the other moiety to the United States ;" and to insert in lieu thereof the following: "shall be distributed between the United States and the informer, if there be any, as provided by law;" so that the same will read:

Any manufactured tobacco, snuff, and cigars, whether of domestic manufacture or imported, which shall be sold, or pass out of the hands of the manufacturer or importer, except into a bonded warehouse, without the inspection marks or stamps affixed by the inspector, unless otherwise provided, shall be. forfeited, and may be seized wherever found, and shall be sold, and the proceeds of such sale shall be distributed between the United States and the informer, if there be any, as provided by law, &c.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GARFIELD. I move to amend near the close of the paragraph by inserting the word "shall" before the words "return to the said Commissioner," &c.

The amendment was agreed to.
The Clerk then read as follows:

That section ninety-two be amended by striking out all after the enacting clause, and inserting in lieu thereof the following: that if any person other than the manufacturer shall sell, or consign, or remove for sale, or part with the possession of any manufactured tobacco, snuff, or cigars, upon which the taxes imposed by law have not been paid, with the knowledge thereof, such person shall be liable to a penalty of $100 for each and every offense. And any person who shall purchase or receive for sale any such tobacco, snuff, or cigars, which has not been inspected, branded, or stamped as required by law, or upon which the tax has not been paid, if it has accrued or become payable, with knowledge thereof, shall be liable to a penalty of fifty dollars for each and every offense. And any person who shall purchase or receive for sale any such tobacco, snuff, or cigars, from any manufacturer who has not paid the special tax, shall be liable for each and every offense to a penalty of $100, and, in addition thereto, a forfeiture of all the articles, as aforesaid, so purchased or received, or the full value thereof. And every person, before making any cigars after the passage of this act, shall apply for and procure from the assistant assessor of the district in which he or she resides, a permit authorizing such persons to carry on the trade of cigar making, for which permit he or she shall pay said assistant assessor the sum of twenty-five cents. And every person employed or working at the business of cigar making in any other district than that in which he or she is a resident shall, before making any cigars in such other district, present said permit to the assistant assessor of the district where so employed or working, and procure the indorsement of said assistant assessor thereon, authorizing said business in said district, for which indorsement the assistant assessor shall be entitled to receive from the applicant the sum of ten cents. And it shall be the duty of every assistant assessor, upon application of any person residing in his district, to furnish a permit, or to indorse upon the permit of the applicant, if resident in another district, authority to pursue the trade of cigar making within the proper district of such assistant assessor; and said assistant assessor shall keep a record of all permits granted or indorsed by him, showing the date of each permit, the name, residence, and place of employment of the party named therein, the name and district of the officer who originally granted the same, or who may have made any subsequent indorsements thereon, and the name or names of the party or parties by whom the person named in such permit is employed, or, if working for himself or herself, stating such fact: and every person making cigars shall keep an accurate account in a book of all the cigars made by him or her, for whom, and their kind or quality; and, if made for any other person, shall state in said account the name of the person or persons for whom the same were made, and his or their place of business, and shall, on the first Monday of every month, deliver to the assistant assessor of the district a copy of such account, verified by oath or affirmation that the same is true and correct. And if any person shall make any cigars without procuring such permit, or the proper indorsements thereon, or neglect to keep such account in a book, he or she shall be punished by a fine of five dollars for each day he or she shall so offend, or by imprisonment for such time as the court may order for each day's offense, not exceeding thirty days in the whole, upon any one conviction. And if any person making cigars shall fail to make the return herein required, or shall make a false return, he or

she shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $100, or by imprisonment not exceeding thirty days. And any person furnished with such permit may apply to the assistant assessor or inspector of the district to have any cigars of their own manufacture counted; and on receiving a certificate of the number, for which such fee as may be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall be paid by the owner thereof, may sell and deliver such cigars to any purchaser, in the presence of said assistant assessor or inspector, in bulk or unpacked, without payment of the duty. A copy of the certificate shall be retained by the assistant assessor, or by the inspector, who shall return the same to the assistant assessor of the district. The purchaser shall pack such cigars in boxes or paper packages, and have the same inspected and marked or stamped according to the provisions of this act, and shall make a return of the same, as inspected, to the assistant assessor of the district, and, unless removed to a bonded warehouse, shall pay the duties on such cigars within five days after purchasing them, to the collector of the district wherein they were manufactured, and before the same have been removed from the store or building of such purchaser, or from his possession; and any such purchaser who shall neglect for more than five days to pack and have such cigars duly inspected, and pay the duties thereon according to this act, or who shall purchase any cigars from any person not holding such permit, the duties thereon not having been paid, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined not exceeding $500, and be imprisoned not exceeding six months, at the discretion of the court, and the cigars shall be forfeited and sold, one fourth for the benefit of the informer, one fourth for the officer who seized or had them condemned, and one half shall be paid to the Government. And if any person, firm, company, or corporation shall employ or procure any person to make any cigars, who has not the permit or the indorsement thereon required by this act, he, she, or they shall be punished by a fine of ten dollars for each day he, she, or they shall so employ such person, or by imprisonment not exceeding ten days. And if any person shall be found making cigars without such permit, or the indorsement thereon, the collector of the district may seize any cigars, or tobacco for making cigars, which may be found in possession of such person, and the same shall be forfeited to the United States and sold; and one half of the proceeds shall be paid to the United States, one fourth to the informer, and the other fourth to the collector making the seizure.

Mr. GARFIELD. I move to amend by striking out the words "or hers," "or she," "she or they," wherever they occur in this paragraph.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. THAYER. I would ask the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] if the word "assistant" should not be stricken out before the word "'assessor."

Mr. GARFIELD. The gentleman is right. I move that amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. THAYER. I move to amend by inserting the words "wherein the same were manufactured" after the words "shall make a return of the same, as inspected, to the assessor of the district.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to amend, at the close of the paragraph, by striking out the following:

And one half of the proceeds shall be paid to the United States, one fourth to the informer, and the other fourth to the collector making the seizure.

of all the work done in the shop, but every journeyman and every apprentice working there must keep his book and make out his nightly return to be handed to the assessor.

Now, I suppose that construction of this provision was never intended; but it is a construction which has been put upon it. I know it may be said that this is a sort of check upon the employer: the workmen are all made spies upon the employer. It may have that effect in some instances, but it is so entirely perplexing that very few workmen will be found who are willing to work under this provision if so construed. I know that in my town last year the workmen refused to work, and turned out and paraded the streets until the assessors agreed to take the returns of the employers and bookkeepers, and dispense with the returns of the workmen.

Now, I do not know anything more irritating than this very provision requiring every journeyman when he goes home at night to set down in his book and make out an account of his day's work to be returned to the assessor. This provision is very stringent upon the owners, employers, and book-keepers, and it should not, I think, impose this task upon the laboring classes.

Mr. MORRILL. I regret to be compelled to oppose the proposition of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS.] I have no doubt there is some hardship caused by this provision; but I cannot conceive that it is anything like the hardship that the gentleman has represented.

As I understand it, these parties are employed to make cigars by the thousand; and they have to keep an account with their employers to show what they have done, and what their wages amount to. The gentleman says that they must make these returns every night; but in point of fact they are not required to make the returns except once a month.

Experience has taught us that without such a provision as this in the law we have no clue by which to reach the manufacturer and find out whether he makes a true or a fraudulent return. The Government was formerly defrauded to a large extent by collusion between the manufacturer and the persons taking out tobacco to manufacture for him. This provision has been found a very effectual one thus far in the practical operation of the law. It has been found, I believe, to be a sure preventive of collusion such as I have referred to. I trust that the amendment will not be adopted. The question being taken on the amendment, it was declared not agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. I call for a division. Mr. MORRILL. As there is evidently not a quorum present, I move that the committee rise.

The motion was agreed to.

So the committee rose; and the Speaker

And the proceeds of such sales shall be distributed between the United States, the informer, if there be any, and the collector making the seizure, as provided by law.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. One portion of this paragraph reads as follows:

And every person making cigars shall keep an accurate account in a book of all the cigars made by him or her, for whom, and their kind or quality; and, if made for any other person, shall state in said account the name of the person or persons for whom the same were made, and his or their place of business, and shall, on the first Monday of every month, deliver to the assistant assessor of the district a copy of such account, verified by oath or affirmation that the same is true and correct.

I move to amend by inserting, at the close of the sentence I have read, the following proviso:

Provided, That journeymen cigar-makers and apprentices who work for others shall not be considered as included within this proviso.

I will state briefly the object of this amendment. By the law as it now stands, and as it has been construed, a man may have twenty journeymen employed at making cigars. Not only the employer and his book-keeper are required to make out every night a full return

that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had under consideration the Union generally, and particularly the special order, being bill of the House No. 513, to amend an act entitled "An act to provide internal revenue to support the Government, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1864, and acts amendatory thereof, and had come to no resolution thereon.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. WILLIAM J. MCDONALD, its Chief Clerk, informed the House that the Senate had passed a joint resolution of the House (No. 103) to refer the petition of Benjamin Holliday to the Court of Claims, with an amendment, in which he was directed to request the concurrence of the House.

The message further informed the House that the Senate had passed bills and a joint resolution of the following titles, in which the concurrence of the House was requested:

An act (S. No. 313) regulating the transportation of nitro-glycerine or glynoin oil;

An act (S. No. 316) to establish a post route from West Alburg, Vermont, to Champlain, in the State of New York, and for other purposes; and

Joint resolution (S. R. No. 92) authorizing the appointment of examiners to examine a site for a fresh-water basin for iron-clad vesselst of the United States Navy.

Mr. INGERSOLL moved that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and thereupon (at half past four o'clock p. m.) the House adjourned.

PETITIONS, ETC.

The following petitions, &c., were presented under the rule and referred to the appropriate committees: By Mr. CONKLING: The petition of citizens of Utica, New York, asking extension of time for State banks to retire their circulation.

By Mr. DUMONT: The petition of the board of trustees of the Indiana Agricultural College.

By Mr. GARFIELD: The petition of 65 citizens of Geauga county, Ohio, asking for increased protection on American wool.

By Mr. HARDING, of Illinois: The memorial of citizens of Oquawka, Illinois, against obstructive bridges across the upper Mississippi.

Also, the memorial of citizens of Rock Island, against the building of obstructive bridges across the upper Mississippi.

By Mr. INGERSOLL: Two petitions from citizens of Peoria county, Illinois, one praying an increase of duty on imported wool, and twenty-five cents per pound duty on foreign shoddy and woolen rags; and one praying a tax of two dollars per head on all dogs.

Also, two petitions from citizens of Knox county, Illinois, one praying an increase of duty on imported wool, and twenty-five cents per pound duty on foreign shoddy and woolen rags; and one praying a tax of two dollars per head on all dogs.

By Mr. LAFLIN: The petition of citizens of Jefferson county, New York, in favor of an increased tariff on imported flax and flax tow.

By Mr. LATHAM: The memorial of ladies of French Creek, West Virginia.

By Mr. LONGYEAR: The petition of William Clapp, and 56 others, citizens of Jackson county, Michigan, asking for an increased duty on wool.

By Mr. MARVIN: The petition of sundry citizens of Fulton county, New York, asking an ad valorem and an increased duty on imported wool.

By Mr. MARSTON: The petition of Joseph H. Graves, and 290 others, citizens of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, praying that Congress will fix eight hours for a day's labor.

By Mr. ROLLINS: The petition of Seth Eastman, and 35 others, citizens of Concord, New Hampshire; James A. Smith, and 34 others, citizens of Rhode Island; George H. Phelps, and 20 others, citizens of Lee, Massachusetts; A. P. Rand, and 31 others, citizens of Westfield, Massachusetts; Jacob Stone, and 32 others, citizens of Newburyport, Massachusetts; and Taylor, Symonds & Co., and 33 others, citizens of Providence, Rhode Island, severally praying for the passage of just and equal laws for the regulation of interState insurances of all kinds.

IN SENATE.

FRIDAY, May 18, 1866.

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. H. GRAY. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. TRUMBULL presented the petition of William M. Riggs, claiming compensation for services rendered as a scout and guide to the Union forces in the State of Tennessee during the years 1864 and 1865, accompanied with the evidence of the services which he performed; which was referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. WADE presented the petition of William A. Otis and S. A. Mather and other officers of the savings bank at Cleveland, Ohio, praying that deposits in savings banks may be exempt from taxation; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. SUMNER. I offer the petition of colored citizens of Baltimore, in which, among other things, they ask Congress to strike out the second clause of the proposed amendment to the Constitution, which has already passed the House of Representatives, and which is now pending before the Senate, and to substitute therefor these words: "No Congressman shall sit as such who is not elected by at least one half of all the loyal men of his party, without regard to color or race, if citizens of the United States and over twenty-one years of age.

As that subject is now before the Senate, the committee having made their report, I move that this petition be received and that it lie upon the table.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. SUMNER. I offer the petition of John J. Varannes, who calls himself "a soldier for the Union," wherein he represents that the arch-rebel Jefferson Davis should be punished for his many crimes; and he proceeds to say there is great danger that if tried by a civil court secessionists may get on the jury and consequently he may be acquitted or the jury may disagree. Accordingly, he asks that he may be tried by a court-martial, and prays that the Senate may direct his Excellency the President to convene a court-martial with powers to try Jefferson Davis. In offering this.petition I desire to say that I express no opinion with regard to its prayer. I am willing, however, to add, as the subject is directly before us, that in my opinion a trial of Jefferson Davis at this moment by a jury at Richmond will be one of those great comedies which hereafter will excite the derision of history. I know of no committee to which this may more appropriately be referred than the Committee on Military Affairs; and I ask its reference to that committee.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That ref erence will be ordered.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Mr. CLARK. The Committee on Claims, to whom were referred two petitions of sundry voters in the State of Florida, praying for compensation for property destroyed by the rebel authorities, have had that matter under consideration and directed me to report that the prayer of the petitioners cannot be granted. I ask that it be disposed of at once. It is a very

short matter.

The report was concurred in.

Mr. WILLIAMS, from the Committee on Claims, to whom were referred resolutions of the Legislature of New York, in favor of the payment of claims of the militia of that State who served in the war of 1812, asked to be discharged from their further consideration; which was agreed to.

was referred a joint resolution (S. R. No. 86) to provide for the publication of the Official History of the Rebellion, reported it without amendment, and submitted a report in writing; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. CRAGIN, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred a bill (H. R. No. 422) for the relief of Mrs. Ann E. Smoot, widow of Captain Joseph Smoot, reported it with an amendment.

Mr. NORTON, from the Committee on Claims, to whom was referred a bill (H. R. No. 354) for the relief of Edward P. McKin ney, of Binghamton, New York, late captain and assistant commissary of subsistence, reported it without amendment.

BILL RECOMMITTED.

On motion of Mr. POMEROY, it was

Ordered, That the bill (S. No. 224) to aid in the construction of a southern branch of the Union Pacific railway, and to secure to the Government the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes, together with the amendments thereto, be recommitted to the Committee on Public Lands."

PRINTING OF A BILL.

On motion of Mr. POMEROY, it was Ordered, That the bill (S. No. 169) granting lands to make up deficiencies of former grants in aid of the completion of the Tomah and Lake St. Croix and the St. Croix and Lake Superior railroads, in the State of Wisconsin, be printed and recommitted to the Committee on Public Lands,

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED.

The following bills from the House of Rep resentatives were severally read twice by their titles, and referred to the Committee on Finance:

A bill (H. R. No. 597) to authorize the use in post offices of weights of the denomination of grammes; and

A joint resolution (H. R. No. 140) to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to furnish to each State one set of the standard weights and measures of the metric system.

The joint resolution (H. R. No. 141) to authorize the President to appoint a special commissioner to facilitate the adoption of a uniform coinage between the United States and foreign countries, was read twice by its title.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The joint resolution will be referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. SUMNER. I think that last joint res olution should go to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. SHERMAN. These bills ought to go together to the same committee. They were all reported from a special committee of the House and ought to go together; they are kindred bills. The metric system-that, I believe, is the name given to it-is a system proposed to be adopted in regard to coinage and weights and measures.

Mr. SUMNER. I have no wish certainly to draw them to the committee with which I am associated; only it seemed to me from the title that perhaps the latter resolution belonged to that committee..

Mr. CONNESS. They are financial meas

ures.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. POLAND presented the petition of A. D. Prindle, and thirty-one others, citizens of Franklin county, Vermont, representing that the duty on foreign wool by the existing tariff is wholly insufficient to furnish proper protec tion to the wool-growers of this country, and praying that the same may be increased; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. WILSON, from the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to whom was

relative to appointments to the Military Academy of the United States, reported it without amendment.

He also, from the same committee, to whom the subject was referred, reported a joint resolution (S. R. No. 96) providing for the transfer of certain clerks to the office of the Quartermaster General; which was read and passed to a second reading.

He also, from the same committee, to whom

will stand, no objection being made.

Mr. SUMNER afterward said: Several bills came from the House of Representatives this morning relating to the metric system. I thought at the time they should be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. One or two of them were referred without notice to the Committee on Finance. I understand from the Senator from Ohio that the Committee on Finance, so far as they have considered the question, are not disposed to proceed with those bills, and the Senator himself has suggested to me that a special committee would be more appropriate. It will be remembered that there is a special committee on this, subject in the other House. I have therefore thought it advisable to move the appointme-it of a special committee on this subject, to which these

bills-there are three already, and I think there is a fourth on your table-should be referred. I move that a special committee of five be appointed by the Chair, to which all bills and measures relating to the metric system shall be referred.

Mr. HENDERSON. It seems to me that the Finance Committee is the most appropriate committee for measures of this description. I scarcely see the necessity of raising a special committee on the subject. It will, perhaps, more appropriately go to the Committee on Finance than to any other, unless there be some special reasons that I have not heard.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore: The question is on the motion of the Senator from Massachusetts.

The motion was agreed to.

CIRCUIT COURT IN VIRGINIA.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. A bill (H. R. No. 563) amended by the Senate is returned from the House of Representatives accompanied by the following resolution:

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Μαν 16, 1866. Resolved, That the House non-concur in the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 563) to regulate the time and fix the place for holding the circuit court of the United States in the district of Virginia, and for other purposes, and ask a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I believe it is in order to move to recede from the Senate amendment and agree to the bill as passed by the House originally. If so, I make the motion. The amendment which the House has disagreed to, I will state to the Senate, was striking out the latter part of the bill which gave to the judges of the court authority to appoint special terms and to adjourn the court from time to time. It was thought by the Committee on the Judiciary that the laws already conferred that power, and hence we struck out that provision in the bill as it came from the House. The House has disagreed to it, and I move that the Senate recede from its amendment and then the bill will be passed.

The motion was agreed to.

TRANSMISSION OF SOLDIERS' MEDALS.

Mr. SHERMAN asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a joint resolution (S. R. No. 97) to authorize certain medals to be distributed to veteran soldiers free of postage.

Mr. SHERMAN. Perhaps the Senate are The State willing to pass the resolution now.

of Ohio gave medals to veteran soldiers, and the Legislature adjourned at the last session without making an appropriation for their distribution. They are now on hand for distribution, and this simply provides that they may be sent through the post office free of postage. If any Senator desires a reference I have no objection to its being referred; but if not, as the medals are there, I should like to have it passed so that it may go to the other House.

Mr. WADE. Let it be passed at once; there can be no objection to it."

The joint resolution was read at length. It proposes to authorize the adjutant general of the State of Ohio to distribute through the mails free of postage to veteran soldiers enlisted in Ohio certain medals furnished by the General Assembly of that State, and to provide that in such case the envelope inclosing the medals shall be franked in the mode prescribed by the Postmaster General.

The joint resolution was read three times and passed.

BRIDGE AT WINONA.

Mr. NORTON. I move to take up Senate bill No. 263, which was laid aside the other day on the motion of the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. DOOLITTLE.]

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. No. 263) to authorize the Winona and St. Peter's Railroad Company to construct a bridge across the Mississippi river, and to establish a post route.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, Will the Senate concur in the amendments made as in Committee of the Whole?

Mr. NORTON. I will state to the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Howe] that the amendments that have been adopted were the amendments proposed by the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads.

Mr. HOWE. There is one of those amendments that I thought there was a question about. I wish to call attention to the amendment to the first section. Is not that a new principle? Mr. RAMSEY. It is embraced in all the other bills that have been reported here by the Post Office Committee. It is to avoid a difficulty that occurred in the litigation in regard to the Rock Island bridge. I believe the proceedings were first had in the district court of the United States for the State of Iowa; and I think it was there held that they had jurisdiction but to the thread of the stream, and hence had not jurisdiction of the whole matter of the bridge. This is to give that jurisdiction to the courts.

Mr. HOWE. I have no objection to it.

Mr. RAMSEY. The amendment was suggested by those who have in charge the interests of navigation at St. Louis.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will put the question on concurring in the amendments collectively, unless a division of them be asked.

The amendments were concurred in.

Mr. HOWE. I move to amend the first section of the bill by inserting after the word "Wisconsin" in the ninth line, the words "or between La Crosse, in the State of Wisconsin, and the opposite bank of said river, in the State of Minnesota, as may be agreed by the Legislatures of Minnesota and Wisconsin;"

so that the section will read:

That the Winona and St. Peter's Railroad Company, a corporation existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Minnesota, be, and the same is hereby, authorized and empowered to erect, maintain, use, and operate a bridge across the Mississippi river, between the city of Winona, in the State of Minnesota, and the opposite bank of said river, in the State of Wisconsin, or between La Crosse, in the State of Wisconsin, and the opposite bank of said river, in the state of Minnesota, as may be agreed by the Legislatures of Minnesota and Wisconsin, subject to the conditions and limitations hereinafter provided.

Mr. NORTON. I hope this amendment will not be adopted for several reasons; chiefly from the fact that this company, the Winona and St. Peter's Railroad Company, has no authority to build a railroad to a point on the Mississippi river opposite the city of La Crosse. This company is building a road west from the city of Winona, and also has a charter authorizing it to construct a road on the east side of the river from a point opposite the city of Winona to intersect with the Milwaukee and La Crosse road. This company has no authority, nor is there any company in the State of Wisconsin incorporated that has authority to build a railroad from Winona to La Crosse. There is a road in process of construction from La Crosse, or opposite La Crosse, westwardly, running through Minnesota, now running perhaps twenty or thirty miles. To the construction of a bridge at that point to connect those two roads, there is no objection on the part of the people of Minnesota; certainly none on the part of the persons interested in the construction of this bridge at Winona.

The effect of the amendment proposed by the Senator from Wisconsin is to inaugurate, or rather to continue, a local contest between the city of La Crosse and the city of Winona. The Senator from Wisconsin proposes to amend the bill by authorizing the construction of a bridge either at Winona or La Crosse as the Legislatures of Wisconsin and Minnesota may agree. The result of that would be that the Legislature of Wisconsin, consulting the interests of the city of La Crosse, would insist upon the construction of the bridge at La Crosse, and would not consent to the construction of a bridge at

Winona; and the Legislature of Minnesota would withhold its consent to the construction of a bridge at La Crosse, and insist upon its being at Winona. The consequence would be, the Legislatures not agreeing, that there would be no bridge built.

Now, sir, the interests of the two States will be subserved and there will be no conflict of interest between these points if we allow the construction of a bridge at La Crosse when the railroad companies touching the river at that point and opposite to it shall desire it; and to that the State of Minnesota has no sort of objection; and we think that the State of Wisconsin ought to have no objection to the construction of a bridge at the city of Winona, where the Winona and St. Peter's Railroad Company now have some seventy miles of road, and are engaged in the construction of a road on the east side of the river. The effect of the amendment proposed by the Senator from Wisconsin, if adopted, will be inevitably that there will be a disagreement between the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota on this subject, and consequently no bridge will be built. I hope it will not be adopted.

Mr. HOWE. It seems to me the Senate will not refuse to agree to this amendment. There is a very large interest in the State of Wisconsin and in the State of Minnesota which is opposed to the bridging of this great natural highway at all; but it is very generally conceded that the interests of commerce tending between the East and the West do require bridges at certain points; and this necessity has been recognized in two or more instances by the Senate of the United States. But I think every Senator will agree that there is no commercial interest that requires a bridge, which is a sort of highway, to be constructed across that river except at points where the river is touched by railroads both from the West and from the East. Where there is a mere ferry across the river now, connecting two common roads, there can be no commerce over such a point of sufficient importance to warrant the building of a bridge; but where railroads, which are great highways, ministering to great commercial wants, touch the river on each bank there may be a just claim set up for furnishing a bridge connecting those two great artificial highways.

This bill proposes the bridging of the river at a point called Winona, in the State of Minnesota. There is a railroad touching the river at that point from the West, but there is no railroad in existence touching it from the East. It connects with no road on this side. It is alleged that if this bridge be authorized, a road will be built from the point opposite Winona, on the Wisconsin side, to connect with the roads east; but at La Crosse, which is about thirty miles below Winona, on the same river, there is a road touching the river from both sides.

Mr. NORTON. Will the Senator allow me, just here, to say that neither of the railroad companies touching at La Crosse, neither the Minnesota company nor the Wisconsin company, is now asking for the privilege of building a bridge there.

Mr. HOWE. No, Mr. President; neither of them is here asking for a bridge at this time. Mr. NORTON. Nor are they asking it of the States.

Mr. HOWE. I state the fact that at that point, which is about thirty miles below Winona, there are three artificial highways already constructed and touching the river on both banks; and it would seem to me that if a bridge were to be built anywhere in that region, across the river, there is the proper place.

It is said that the company which has constructed the road touching the Mississippi at Winona is not authorized to go down to the river to the point opposite La Crosse and does not want to go down on that side. That is very likely to be the case with that company; but we understand that there is no difficulty in the way of their coming down there if they wish. But here is the fact: this company has sought permission of the State of Wisconsin to

build this bridge at Winona, and the State has refused to give her assent. Whether she has acted wisely or not it is not for me to say. It certainly is not for me to say that she has acted unwisely. I am bound to suppose that her own Legislature knows her own interests and is truly subserving those interests. But the friends of this project insist upon it that it is of great service to the State of Wisconsin to have that traffic which they say is coming to the Mississippi from the West carried through the State of Wisconsin. If it is, Wisconsin knows it, and if it is, Wisconsin will consent to have the river bridged. But I must conceive that the State of Wisconsin knows better where she wants the bridge than I can know, and I think it is not unreasonable to suppose that she knows better than this Senate. If she wants that commerce enough to allow the bridge to be built at Winona, then the company owning the road on the other side have only to say, "We will not cross the river anywhere else," and Wisconsin will have the privilege of taking the traffic over the river at that point or not taking it at all.

I do not see anything unfair or unreasonable in this. Hitherto the State of Wisconsin has refused her assent to the building of a bridge | at Winona, and now this very grave and serious question is presented to the Senate: will you compel the State of Wisconsin to consent to the building of a bridge at that point against her protest? I have heard it argued very gravely here, and insisted upon repeatedly, that Congress cannot impose any such obligation upon a State or any such burden upon a State; that it is absolutely beyond the constitutional power of Congress to authorize the building of a highway within the State, whether a bridge or a railroad, against the assent of the State. Here the State refuses, has refused, her consent. I really hope the Senate will not compel the State to give her consent. She has just as much interest in having this traffic pass through her borders, perhaps, as Minnesota has in sending it through. I do not doubt but that the two Legislatures can agree as to the point where the bridge shall be built; but I do think it is just as fair that Wisconsin should be consulted about it as that Minnesota should be allowed to dictate the point, and I hope the Senate will give her that privilege.

Mr. NORTON. Mr. President, the State of Minnesota certainly has no disposition to dictate to the State of Wisconsin upon this subject, or upon any other; and at the same time that she has no such disposition, she is certainly not disposed to allow the State of Wisconsin to dictate to her what shall be the system of railroads within her State. The road built by this Winona and St. Peter's Railroad Company is one of the land-grant roads built in pursuance of and in carrying out the general railroad system of Minnesota. The proposition of the Senator from Wisconsin is to compel Minnesota to change that railroad system and construct a road some forty miles to make an eastern connection which she can make in twenty-seven and a half miles. Neither the the people of the city of Winona, nor this company, nor the State of Minnesota has any sort of objection to the construction of a bridge at La Crosse whenever the railroads at that point or the State of Wisconsin shall want it. We are entirely willing that they shall construct a bridge there, and we think that it is not asking too much that the State of Wisconsin should consent to the construction of this bridge at Winona.

As I said before, there is no railroad company in Minnesota authorized to construct a road from Winona to La Crosse on the west side of the river. There is a road through southern Minnesota touching the river opposite La Crosse. That is a land-grant road, and one being constructed in pursuance of the general railroad system of the State. The company constructing the road touching at Winona have authority from the State of Wisconsin to construct a road on the east side of the river a distance of twenty-seven and forty-seven one hun

dredths miles to a point on the Milwaukee and La Crosse road. Now if we should be compelled in Minnesota to construct a road on the west side of the river and cross at La Crosse we should be required to construct a road fif teen miles longer to reach the same point on the east side of the river, and at a cost estimated from surveys on the west side of the river of something nearly three quarters of a million dollars more than the cost of a road on the east side connecting at the same point with the Milwaukee and La Crosse road. It is true the road on the east side of the river is not yet constructed, but it is in process of construction, and I am assured will be constructed this summer. This company desire the privilege of building the bridge, so that by the time the road is constructed, or nearly by that time, the bridge may be completed and afford a continuous connection and communication with the lakes.

The Senator says that Wisconsin has refused to consent to the construction of this bridge. The Senator will allow me to say that he is misinformed. The truth is, that late in the session of the Legislature of Wisconsin application was made for the consent of that State to construct this bridge, that the bill in the House passed through the Committee of the Whole, but owing to the pressure of business, it being near the end of the session, it was not reached and was not acted upon, and in point of fact there was no refusal on the part of the Legislature of Wisconsin to consent to the construction of this bridge.

Now, I think I can explain to the Senate in a very few words the precise condition of this matter. La Crosse lies some forty miles below Winona. It is the terminus of the Milwaukee and La Crosse road on the east and of the Southern Minnesota railroad on the west side of the river. Winona is the terminus of the Winona and St. Peter's road on the west side and the terminus of the La Crosse; Trempealeau, and Prescott road on the east side of the river. I am informed, and I have had an opportunity to know something myself in regard to the fact, that the only interest in the State of Wisconsin that opposes the construction of this bridge at Winona is the local influence of the city of La Crosse. We are entirely willing that that local interest shall be subserved so far as it may be by the construction of a bridge at that point; and all we ask of them is that they will not object to the construction of this bridge at the city of Winona, which is certainly quite as much required and demanded by the business and commercial interests of the two States as is the construction of a bridge at La Crosse. I hope that the Senate will not, by the adoption of this amendment, place this matter in the position that it would be in of continuing a contest between those two States which mnst inevitably result in the failure to construct any bridge

at all.

Mr. RAMSEY. I understand my colleague is willing to accept this bill with an amendment making it subject to the assent of the State of Wisconsin.

Mr. NORTON. Certainly; I have no objection to that. I do not understand the Senator from Wisconsin as urging that, but that it should be left to the States to choose between these two points. If the Senator from Wisconsin will propose an amendment requiring this company to obtain the assent of the Legislature of Wisconsin to the construction of this bridge at Winona I shall not object to it; but I do object to his leaving it in the alternative, for the Legislature to select one of these two points. If the Senator will propose an amendment to authorize the construction of both these bridges I have no objection to its being put on this bill, or I will favor a bill providing for the construction of a bridge at La Crosse.

Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, that would be partial justice, but not complete. The Senator from Minnesota says, that while he does not wish to dictate to the State of Wisconsin where bridges shall be built across this river, he does not wish the State of Wisconsin to dictate to

the State of Minnesota her railroad system. We do not propose any such thing. When he crosses the thread of the Mississippi river he is in Wisconsin with his railroads, and not in the State of Minnesota. While they are constructing railroads and bridges in the State of Minnesota, of course they can take the direction of their own Legislature; but when they come into the State of Wisconsin, we think the State of Wisconsin ought to be consulted. So much for that point.

But the Senator says that he is willing, if I will propose such an amendment, to allow this bill to be amended so as that it shall not be operative except upon the consent of the Legislature of the State of Wisconsin. I say that is partial justice, not_complete, because then Congress says to the State of Wisconsin, "If you want that traffic to come through your State, and consent to the building of that bridge at Winona, you can take it, not otherwise." I ask Congress to say to the two States, "You may have the choice of allowing the river to be bridged at either of the two points." The bridge cannot be built at La Crosse without the consent of the State of Minnesota; it cannot be built at Winona without the consent of the State of Wisconsin. Both States are put upon an equal footing, and have equal authority over the question. Nothing can possibly be fairer than that, and then Congress does not coerce either of the States.

My friend from Minnesota says that this is a controversy between the cities of La Crosse and Winona. Not at all. If it be so, I do not represent La Crosse here in the controversy; I represent the State of Wisconsin. I only know-and I cannot concede that I am mistaken on the point-that the State of Wisconsin has hitherto refused to allow this bridge to be built at Winona; has refused to consent to it. The Senator says it was by reason of want of time.

Mr. NORTON. I will inquire of the Senator if he is informed that the Legislature of Wisconsin acted upon the proposition and refused to adopt it.

Mr. HOWE. No, sir. I am not informed that they rejected any such bill, but I am informed that they refused to assent to any such bill.

Mr. NORTON. Did they act upon the bill at all? Did they consider it?

Mr. HOWE. I understand they did consider it through the whole winter. I understand there was an active lobby there.

Mr. NORTON. If the Senator will allow me, I think he will find that he is mistaken. His information is as to an amendment of the charter of the La Crosse, Trempealeau, and Prescott Railroad Company. An amendment to that charter was the matter which was protracted there, but this subject was not acted

upon.

Mr. HOWE I make no affidavits here. I only state what is reported to me. I understand there was a lobby in attendance upon the Legislature during most of the session urging this project.

Mr. NORTON. Not upon this subject; it was upon the other.

Mr. HOWE. So I am informed. The Senator may be more correct than myself. The fact is there is no denial of that-that Wisconsin has not assented to the building of this bridge.

Mr. NORTON. That is true; she has not. Mr. HOWE. The Senator says that he is perfectly willing that a bridge shall be built at La Crosse, if they can have a bridge at Winona. That would put the commerce, up and down the river, to the necessity of encountering two bridges within thirty miles of each other.

Mr. NORTON. Forty.

will not say that it is not forty miles by the Mr. HOWE. My friend says it is forty. I course of the river, but, as I find by the map, Winona is just about two townships due north of the latitude of La Crosse.

Mr. RAMSEY. And just as many west.
Mr. HOWE. But La Crosse is about three

townships further east than Winona; so that if a road were built along the west bank of the river, from Winona to La Crosse, it would make a southing of two townships, or twelve miles. It would make an easting, it would get on its way to the East, about three townships, and when it gets to La Crosse it is in connection with the railroad already striking the river at that point. Now, I am informedI do not seek to enforce the truth of this upon the Senate, because it is not a question that I think the Senate has any particular interest in considering that the bridge, supposing there is to be but one, would better accommodate the State of Minnesota-not the city of Winona [Mr. NORTON. That we will judge of]-but the State of Minnesota, better at La Crosse than at Winona. Why? Because all the commerce from every part of the State could strike the river at La Crosse, without going more than twelve miles south of Winona, and is all the time going east; but if the bridge be built at Winona, it is away north of some of the finest agricultural districts in Minnesota. This is what I am told; but, as my friend says, that is for Minnesota to consider, and not for me. I only ask that you will allow Minnesota to consider it, to consider it not for herself alone, but in conjunction with the State of Wisconsin; allow the two States to consider it, and let them determine.

The Senator says that that will defeat the bridging of the river at all. Why? Because the two States will not agree. Then will you impose upon either of the States the burden of having a bridge built within its borders where it does not want it? I do not ask you to impose the burden upon Minnesota in reference to La Crosse. Why should they ask you to impose it upon Wisconsin in reference to Winona?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The morning hour having expired, it becomes the duty of the Chair to call up the special order. By an order of the Senate, to-day, at one o'clock, is fixed for the consideration of bills reported by the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. NORTON. I hope we shall be allowed to get a vote on this bill. If this company are to be allowed to construct this bridge, it is very important that they should know it at once, so that they may enter upon its construction this summer; and if that privilege is not to be allowed them, we would like to know it.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The special order can be laid aside only by unanimous consent, without a motion.

PENSION LAWS.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 363, supplementary to the several acts relating to pensions, this day having been specially set apart for the consideration of bills and reports from the Pension Committee.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill is before the Senate under the order.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill, the pending question being on the amendment proposed by Mr. VAN WINKLE to add as an additional section the following:

SEC.. And be it further enacted, That the fourteenth section of an act entitled "An act supplementary to an act entitled 'An act to grant pensions,' approved July 14, 1862," approved July 4, 1864, be, and the same is hereby, repealed, and that the widows and children of colored soldiers and sailors who have been or may be hereafter killed, or who have died or may hereafter die of wounds received in battle, or of disease contracted in the military or naval service of the United States, and in the line of duty, shall be entitled to receive the pensions provided by law, without other evidence of marriage than proof, satisfactory to the Commissioner of Pensions, that the parties had habitually recognized each other as man and wife, and lived together as such for a definite period, not less than two years next preceding the enlistment of the man; and the children born of any marriage so proved shall be deemed and taken to be the children of the soldier or sailor party thereto: Provided, however, That if any such soldier or sailor, and the woman alleged to be his widow, resided previously to the enlistment of the former in any State in which the marriage between them might have been legally solemnized, the usual evidence of marriage shall be required.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. When this bill was

The

under consideration some five weeks since, or very nearly five weeks since, I endeavored to explain the object of this amendment to the Senate, but as that length of time has elapsed, I will do so again as briefly as I can. amendment is printed and has been on the tables of Senators for that length of time. I will first read the section which it is intended to amend, and then I can point out easily the difference between the two propositions. Section fourteen of the act approved July 4, 1864, provides

"That the widows and children of colored soldiers who have been or who may be hereafter killed, or who have died or may hereafter die of wounds received in battle, or who have died or may hereafter die of disease contracted in the military service of the United States, and in the line of duty, shall be entitled to receive the pensions now provided by law without other proof of marriage than that the parties had habitually recognized each other as man and wife, and lived together as such for a definite period next preceding the soldier's enlistment not less than two years, to be shown by the affidavits of credible witnesses: Provided, however, That such widow and children are free persons: Provided further, That if such parties resided in any State in which their marriage may have been legally solemnized the usual evidence shall be required."

I stated on a former occasion that this section which I have just read was drawn up by the late Senator from Vermont (Mr. Foot) at the third conference meeting upon the bill of which it is a part, and that it had seemed to prove satisfactory to all parties. Nevertheless, there are some additions, perhaps, that should be made to it, for it was considered at midnight and in a hurry, and there is also something in the change of circumstances since then which has induced me to offer the amendment now before the Senate. One difference is that this amendment is made to cover sailors as well as soldiers. Another is that this fourteenth section required the fact of marriage to be proved by the affidavits of credible witnesses. I have substituted for that "proof satisfactory to the Commissioner of Pensions." I have introduced a clause to meet a case where the wife of such a marriage may have died and where the children are the proper parties to receive the pension. While children are alluded to in the original section, it does not seem to cover a case such as I have stated, of the death of the mother where the children will be the only applicants. I have simply introduced the words, "and the children born of any marriage so proved shall be deemed and taken to be the children of the soldier or sailor party thereto." The preceding part of the amendment provides that the woman shall be deemed to be the wife.

I have also in the proviso to my amendment inserted the words "previously to the enlistment of the former in any State" so as to confine the proviso to the fourteenth section of the act of 1864, which is as follows:

"That if such parties resided in any State in which their marriage may have been legally solemnized, the usual evidence shall be required."

In the events of the war, many of these people were driven from their homes, and some

of them into the free States, or States in which a marriage might have been legally solemnized between them; but under the circumstances it is hardly to be expected that they could have had an opportunity to avail themselves of the ceremony. I have therefore changed the words, so as to require simply that if previous to the enlistment of the soldier they lived in a State where their marriage could have been solemnized, the usual evidence of marriage shall be demanded. Since the close of the war, and since the Freedmen's Bureau has been in operation, it has been almost compelling, if it was necessary, but inciting at least and advising, these people who had lived in the relation of man and wife, to have a legal ceremony solemnized between them; and I believe it has been pretty extensively done. This amendment, as the Senate will perceive, is certainly in the interest of their widows and children; and I believe from my knowledge of the subject and the customs that prevailed among them when they were in a state of slavery, of always having something in the nature of a marriage

ceremony between them, and knowing that many of them who were well disposed otherwise, lived as faithful to their marriage vows as other people-I think it is but justice to them that these pensions should be secured to them, and that something, at any rate, of this nature should be adopted in an amendment to the section which I have read.

Mr. GRIMES. I will inquire of the Senator from West Virginia if he supposes it is absolutely necessary that the last clause of the proviso to this amendment shall be retained, which requires that if they shall have cohabited together during the last two years preceding the period of enlistment, that shall not be evidence alone, but that the soldier or widow shall produce record evidence of the fact of marriage. It seems to me it is very possible, altogether probable, that although in some of the States they may have been authorized to be married by the laws of the State, yet that that law has not been complied with, and the marriage has not been solemnized, the public sentiment being in opposition to any such thing. Now, if we are going to allow and I think the committee is right in that-the fact of cohabitation for two years to be sufficient evidence, why not permit it to be so in all?

I

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I will explain further than I have done. I thought that the proviso as it originally stood, that is, that if such parties resided (not saying at what time) in any State in which their marriage could have been legally solemnized the usual evidence should be required would cut out many proper cases. presume that if an application is made even now for a pension by one of these parties the Commissioner would feel himself bound to inquire whether the man had at any time previous to the application resided in a State where the marriage might have been legally solemnized, and in such case would require record proof. In reflecting on the circumstance which I mentioned a little while ago, that some of these people were driven from their homes undoubtedly and driven into the free States, or into States where their marriages might have been solemnized, and were there as soldiers with perhaps their wives attending them in the camp, it seemed to me that it was almost an impossibility that a marriage could have been solemnized between them in such cases, and it is very unlikely that under such circumstances they would have thought of it.

Since the end of the war the Freedmen's Bureau has been doing what it could, and no doubt has been successful to a very great extent, in inducing these persons who had theretofore lived together as man and wife to have a legal ceremony performed between them. Now, if the old proviso prevails-and I think that if the Senate does not accept the one I offer that ought to be stricken out-those of this class who were driven into a free State, or into a State in which a marriage might have been solemnized, will find themselves under the necessity of producing record evidence of the marriage, when the fact is that they never had any legal ceremony of marriage. My impression is-I leave it to the better judgment of the Senate-that the modification I have proposed in this proviso is only justice to these people whose thoughts had not been called to the subject, and perhaps whose knowledge in regard to it did not lead them to know that the marriages under which they were living were, in fact, not sanctioned by law.

As I stated the other day, there was nothing on the statute-book of Virginia which forbade a marriage between colored persons. The dif ficulty there arose simply under the common law as they had interpreted it in that State, that persons in the condition of slavery, being subject to their masters, could make no contract, not even the contract of marriage; nor, as my colleague mentioned on that occasion, was a contract made by them with respect to their own freedom regarded as binding in any way. I presume this was the case through most of the southern States, although I believe that in Delaware, and perhaps also in South Carolina,