Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

rather considered the question as one belonging to them than to anybody else. We are not the guardians of Territories so as to say that when they are willing to relieve the General Government of the burden of sustaining a territorial government and they are able to maintain themselves we will prevent them from doing it; but we have generally accommodated them and said, "If you are willing to relieve us from the burden of sustaining a territorial government and to take upon yourselves a State government, we are very glad to invite you in." That has been the general course of Congress, but it has been departed from by the President upon this occasion, and I am not going now to scrutinize his reasons for it. He may have good reasous. Undoubtedly they are satisfactory to himself; but they are not quite as satisfactory to me and I hope they are not to many members of this Congress. His action is novel, and I hope it will not be repeated by any Executive hereafter when Congress gives its assent to the admission of a State. But I am not going to argue that point now. If I have voted both ways upon this subject, I have only to say that the evidence was made to appear very differently on the different occasions when the measure was up, and that is the reason I changed

my vote.

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, I am unwilling that this question shall be treated as a question of courtesy to the President of the United States. I prefer that it shall be regarded, as I think it really is, simply as a question on the order of business. I believe it is in that way that the Senator from Indiana has chosen to present it-a question on the order of business. Now, looking at it in that light, it does seem to me that the Senate ought not longer to postpone its consideration. It has been already unduly postponed; postponed, I think, longer than any such measure ever before was postponed.

But as I have said, it is simply a question on the order of business, and it is not a question of principle, nor am I disposed to regard it as a question of courtesy; therefore I am very much disposed to follow what seems to be the inclination of the Senate. I do not wish to interpose any individual opinions of mine to go across those of Senators who have this measure specially in charge. If the Senate is not disposed to proceed with its consideration to-day, if there is obviously a majority against it, I am perfectly willing for one that for the present it should subside. At the same time I cannot say that without expressing the opinion that the Senate does owe it to itself and to the question at issue not to allow its consideration to be too long postponed.

Having said this, perhaps I have said enough in reply to the practical observations that have been made by Senators who have preceded me; but there seems to have been a disposition to open the main question; different Senators have expressed their opinions with more or less fullness on that. I shall not follow them in that. This is not the time for such a discussion. That time may come. It has already been before in this Chamber, and then I had ample opportunity to say what I chose to say. Perhaps hereafter I may deem it proper to take another opportunity; but so far as I am personally concerned I am in no haste to speak. I have no disposition to press the matter.

I cannot take my seat, however, without making one remark in reply to my friend from Ohio. He says that he is for the admission of Colorado now, notwithstanding the veto of the President. To that I reply that I am against the admission of Colorado now, notwithstanding the veto of the President. I, for one, mean always to stand by the principle that no State shall be received into this Union from this time forward with a constitution which disavows the first principle of the Declaration of Independence. On that principle I stand, and I shall take advantage of every opportunity that is given to me to uphold it, whether by any Seuator on this floor or by the President of the United States.

[ocr errors]

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I was out of the Chamber at the time when this matter was called up, and I desire to ask whether the question now is on taking up the bill at this time for consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. CLARK in the chair.) The question is on taking up the bill and making it the special order for tomorrow at one o'clock.

one.

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I am very anxious to get before the Senate, if it be possible, prior to Wednesday, and to have the action of the Senate upon it, a bill reported by the Committee on Public Lands, which is a very important It relates to the public lands in the States that have been in rebellion. It is a bill which has already been passed by the House of Rep resentatives, and has come to the Senate, and I look upon it as one of the most important measures, perhaps, upon which we shall act during this session. I hope that the bill will not be taken up at this time, but that an opportunity will be afforded to take up the bill to which I allude.

Mr. JOHNSON. The motion made by the honorable member from Indiana is not to take up the bill now, except for the purpose of affixing some day on which it shall be considered. He has proposed to-morrow. Perhaps that is too short a time, and as the friends of the bill ought to have, in some measure, the fixing of the time at which it is to be considered, I would suggest to them that they name some day when the matter shall be considered.

I regretted very much to see the Senate a few days since refuse to take up the message; and I also regretted to see that treated as an intention by the Senate to act discourteously toward the President; and I still more regretted to see it stated that that was considered to be the purpose of the honorable member from Maine and those who agreed with him at that time and who objected to the consideration of the message. I certainly never supposed that the honorable member from Maine intended any such thing or was capable at any time of showing any discourtesy to any branch of the Government. As far as I am concerned his disclaimer was perfectly unnecessary. And I am equally sure that the majority of the Senate could not have contemplated any such discourtesy to the President; but I submit to the friends of the bill for the admission of Colorado whether it is not proper that some day should be fixed on which the subject may be considered. If to-morrow is too soon, say to-morrow week or this day week; we shall all then be notified of the time when the matter is to be called up and can all be at our posts to vote as we may think it our duty to vote. I will add that although so far no discourtesy has been designed to be shown to the President of the United States, yet perhaps it would look a little discourteous, whether designed or not, if we should refuse to fix some day at which the question shall be considered. I appeal, therefore, to my friend from Ohio to name some day next week or this week on which he will agree to take the measure up.

It is not my purpose, because the matter is not before the Senate, to answer one of the suggestions of the honorable member from Ohio, which would have been more proper, perhaps, if the bill were before Senate than simply on a motion to take it up, that this is the first time when a President of the United States has vetoed a bill for the introduction of a State into the Union. That may be true; but it is not the less true that he has the constitutional right to veto it; just as much right to veto a bill of that description as any other bill that the Congress of the United States may pass. The honorable member is mistaken in supposing, too, as he seems to suppose, that this measure comes before us by force of an enabling act. I do not understand that to be the condition of things. What the enabling act authorized the people of the Territory to do was to vote under certain restrictions and at certain times, and at the election held under the authority of that act they rejected the con

[ocr errors]

stitution by a majority of some three or four thousand.

But I conclude with asking the honorable member from Ohio, or the friends of this measure, whether it is not advisable, looking to the wishes of all the members of the Senate, that some day should be set aside at which this measure should be considered.

Mr. WADE. I should not say another word if it had not been insinuated that if we treat this measure as we do other measures the President will be somehow called in question in regard to it.

Mr. JOHNSON. I have not said so.

Mr. WADE. You appealed to us, saying that if we delayed it might be so construed, or so understood, or something of that kind. Now, I disclaim all such considerations and all idea that such an effect can follow. I do not know whether the President supposes, or anybody else supposes, when he has exercised his constitutional right that nobody denies him, and has sent a bill back here for our reconsideration, that we should not treat it precisely as we do any other question, or any other message coming from him, I care not what. Why should we not treat it as we do his annual message, or any other message, with regard to which we act precisely as we do with reference to any other question that is before us? If we are not ready to take it up we postpone it; and the President has no right to consider that he is treated with any courtesy or any discourtesy whatever we may do with it, unless we treat him with disrespect in relation to it.

Our time, our manner, our way of dealing with the veto message of the President is within our own power, precisely the same as every other question. There is no difference between it and other measures, in that respect, in my judgment; and therefore I have forborne to say anything about the question of courtesy, nor will it influence my action because it cannot affect the President at all. We are entirely independent, as he is independent, any further than he is bound by the Constitution within ten days to make up his mind and send back a bill either approved or disapproved, and he generally has taken the longest time in which to do it. There is no reason why he should not do so, if he is not ready to make up his mind earlier; and it is no discourtesy to us that he goes to the extreme of his rope on the subject. It can be no discourtesy to him if we take our time to consider his message. There is no question of courtesy or discourtesy in the matter at all.

As to the manner of taking up this bill, my course upon it is precisely what it has been with every other bill of which I have had charge. I am anxious that the bill of which I am in favor should pass; and if I stand behind it to conduct it through the Senate, I will always, so far as I can, make use of all honorable means to secure its passage. If I think_one time is more favorable to it than another, I will take that time, if the Senate will give it to me. I do not think the Senate ought at present to fix a time for the consideration of this bill, because several Senators are absent and there is a very important measure just before us, and about to come up which will take some time. I do not know that we ought now to fix a time for this matter. I prefer to leave it under the control of the Senate, from day to day, without making it a special order.

Here let me say that I have never been able to understand the reason why Senators are so intent upon making questions special orders. They have no more force than other bills which are not made special orders. A Senator can move at any time to take up a bill, and the order of business is entirely within the control of a majority of the Senate from day to day. I may add that if I am to conduct this, bill I shall take no longer time than I think is necessary to bring it fairly before the body, taking no advantage of one side or the other, seeking nothing but the deliberate judgment of the Senate upon it, and desiring action when all can be present. If it was so now that that

could be done, I should not delay the measure a moment; I would as soon have the vote taken to-day as any other day. There are several Senators absent, however, who ought to be here to pass their judgment upon it. I cannot tell when they will be back. When they are here, if any Senator suggests to me that he wants the bill taken up, and I can see no good reason to the contrary, I shall very cheerfully move to take it up, and that without any attempt to take advantage of one side or the other. I expect always to act in subordination to the deliberate will of a majority of this body fairly expressed. I never ask for any snap judgment on any measure I have in charge, however strongly I may feel on the subject. That is not my habit, and it will not be on this occasion. I want the bill to pass, but I want a fair expression of the Senate upon it, with all present who see fit to be present. The question of amending the Constitution is coming up in a day or two, and we have been told that when it is once up we ought not to depart from its consideration until we get through with it. I think, then, that at this time we ought not to take up this bill for action. I think it had better lie on the table as it is, with my assurance that, so far as I am concerned, at the earliest time when it can be taken up so as to get a full expression of the Senate upon it, it shall be done.

Mr. HENDRICKS. With the permission of the Senate, at the suggestion of gentlemen around me I will modify my motion so as to take up the bill with the view of making it the special order for to-morrow week. I want no snap judgment, to use the language of the Senator from Ohio; and I am glad to hear him say that he does not. I was a little afraid perhaps that he did, from the fact that one evening here, when a couple of Senators were sick, he insisted upon a vote just then, and said he had a right to take advantage of their sickness. I do not want any snap judgment on this question.

Mr. WADE. I have no objection to having the bill made the special order for to-morrow week, with the understanding, however, that it will be of course superseded at the will of those having charge of the reconstruction matter, if that should then be under consideration. I have no objection to naming that time, hoping that the Senate will then be full, and if it should not be, I can move a postponement.

Mr. HENDRICKS. If the report of the committee of fifteen should be the business then before the Senate, of course it would take precedence of a special order, so that there can be no difficulty upon that question. Mr. WADE. Very well, then, I have no objection to that. It is some time ahead, and I hope we shall be ready then.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I should like to have a further understanding with the Senator from Ohio. I shall go with him, if there is any considerable portion of the friends of this bill absent at the time who cannot be here and that want to vote on it, to postpone it until they can be here. If it is the will of this body that Colorado shall come in under the circumstances, I want her to come in. I do not want to pass any bill here because I find some Senators absent, and I shall always vote to postpone a measure until there can be a full hearing upon it. Now, if it should so happen at the time the measure is taken up that there should be an absence on the other side of the Senate, I shall want to postpone it, and I hope the Senator from Ohio will meet me in that sentiment. I shall want to pospone it, if it shall be found at the time that there is any considerable number of Senators who are opposed to the bill absent, and I want the same position to be assumed by the Senator from Ohio, in that event, that he assumes in regard to an absence on his side of the Senate. Then, sir, I modify my motion so as to make the bill the order of the day for to-morrow week, and then everybody will know it is coming up.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana moves to take up the bill

(S. No. 74) for the admission of the State of Colorado into the Union, and to make it the special order for Tuesday week. The Chair will divide the question, because it requires two different votes. The first is carried by a majority and the other by a two-thirds vote. The first question is on the motion to take up the bill.

The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana now moves that the bill be made the special order for Tuesday week, at one o'clock.

The motion was agreed to, two thirds of the Senate voting therefor.

FORTIFICATION APPROPRIATION BILL.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the fortification appropriation bill.

Mr. SHERMAN. I hope the Senator from Maine will not press the consideration of that bill, because I represent, in behalf of the Com- || mittee on Finance, a very important bill, which I should like to bring to the consideration of the Senate. The bill he now proposes to take up is the same one which he proposed to take up on Thursday last. There is no necessity for pressing it now. Last week he gave notice of his intention to call up to-day a question in which the whole country feels a great interest, and I did not intend to resist its being taken up. Why not now take up the report of the committee on reconstruction, and proceed to dispose of it? There is no occasion for proceeding to the consideration of the fortification bill now, and I trust therefore it will not be pressed.

Mr. FESSENDEN. If the honorable Senator will take pains to inquire a little he will perhaps come to the conclusion that it is hardly worth while to press his bill this morning. I made my motion, supposing he would not do

So.

If he would inquire of the Secretary of the Treasury, who, I see is present, he would not insist upon his motion now, I think.

Mr. SHERMAN. I do not act here as the agent of the Secretary of the Treasury; I act on my own responsibility.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I will give a reason, then, why the Senator's bill should not be taken up. I had a resolution in my hand on Friday, which I did not get a chance to offer, calling for some information which I deemed it necessary to have before that bill came up. On presenting it to the Secretary of the Treasury to see if I could get the information, he remarked to me that he was not quite ready to afford it, and that he would not advise that that bill be taken up until I could get the information which I required; and on that suggestion I supposed the bill would not be pressed now. I should be unwilling to proceed with it under these circumstances because I am not prepared to do so.

Under the circumstances, I do not mean to have any further controversy, either of an "excited" or an unexcited character, with the honorable Senator from Ohio on that subject. The question is for the Senate to decide. If they decide that the Senator from Ohio shall be allowed to take up his bill to the exclusion of other business, and proceed with it under the circumstances, very well. I am not more interested in it than anybody else.

Mr. SHERMAN. I came here this morning with the expectation that the Senator from Maine would call up the joint resolution reported from the committee of fifteen, which has excited so much attention; and I have yet heard no reason given why it has not been called up. Perhaps a reason was given when I was not in my seat; but I see no reason myself why that subject should not be proceeded with, or if there is a reason, it should be stated to the Senate. We must conduct our business with some kind of order, and when notice is given of a proposition to take up a particular measure of great importance, we ought to know the reason why it is not done.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I will state to the Senator that I gave notice this morning why I could not call up that report until Wednesday.

Mr. SHERMAN. I did not hear it. Then I will state further to the Senate that I show little feeling about this matter, chiefly from what occurred here on Thursday. I represented a bill which was reported from the Committee on Finance. I had no interest in it. It was a bill prepared at the Treasury Depart ment, and came to us in the ordinary course of business, and was reported by the committee without the assent of the chairman. That bill, standing before the Senate, has just as good a right to be heard as if it had the assent of the chairman of the committee; and yet, when I endeavored to bring it up on Thursday, he treated it in a very discourteous and improper manner. It was late in the day, and perhaps he was fatigued, and I was not disposed to hold the Senator to a very rigid account; but when I read over the debate which occurred in the Senate then, it seems to me now that he must perceive that the whole of that debate on his part was discourteous, unkind, and uncharitable to the committee of which he is a mem ber. When a bill was reported from that com mittee by me as representing a majority I considered that it had just the same right in the Senate precisely, and should receive the same consideration, as if it had obtained the consent of the chairman, and that it was not necessary to have his consent in order to have it reported. But he announced when the bill was reported, much to my surprise, that he would not only vote against it and oppose it, as he had a perfect right to do, but that he would not allow it to be taken up if he could help it, or words to that effect. When I endeavored to get it up on Thursday he showed a great deal of feeling against it.

With regard to the bill which I have called up, the fortification bill, I do not know that it I know the Senate will bear me witness that is of great importance that it should be taken in our relations to each other, and in regard up this morning instead of another day, ex- to the business of the Senate, I have generally cept that I desire, as I said before, to have it deferred to the wishes of the chairman of the out of my way, because there are other matters Finance Committee; but when he endeavors to which I must afterwards give my attention, to set up his opinion and his wish against the and I do not like to be embarrassed with it. order of business reported from the CommitIt is a very short matter; and if the Senate tee on Finance, I think he ought to give to the will allow it to come up it can be disposed of decision of the committee the same considerain less than half an hour without the slightest tion that the members of the committee usually difficulty in the world. Then my object will give to his motions when he makes them. For have been accomplished; and if the Senator this reason on Thursday, for the first time, I from Ohio is disposed to ask the Senate to believe, I resisted the taking up of a bill take up his bill notwithstanding the fact that I reported by him; and I did it only because I am not ready, I suppose after he has stated understood his purpose to be to oppose the bill his views, I can secure a postponement if II reported by direction of the committee; an desire it. Although he represents a very im- unreasonable opposition, an opposition that portant bill from the Committee on Finance, was extraordinary in its character, and urged believe I have the honor of representing an with a good deal of heat. Now, the Senator important bill from the Committee on Finance, states a reason for desiring delay. If he had com also, which has been before this body, reported, municated it to me I would not have antagonized and on the table for several weeks, while his with his bill. He now states that he desires has been before the body not yet for a single information from the Treasury Department. week, for it was reported, I believe, last Tues- If he really desires that information-and, as day-not a week ago. a matter of course, what he says is conclusive

up

on that point I do not wish to urge this bill against his wish to acquire that information. After the fortification bill is disposed of I may desire to call the bill for the purpose to-morrow of presenting my views to the Senate on the subject, and then if the Senator desires delay for the purpose of obtaining information from the Treasury Department I will not object.

As I stated on a former occasion, the bill in my charge is one of great public importance, intended to reduce the interest on the public debt, carrying out perhaps a favorite idea with me, that we should not in time of peace present to the world the spectacle of paying a higher rate of interest on our public securities than any Christian nation of these times, and going into the markets of the world with our bonds at a lower rate for gold than any nation of Christendom, I believe. It was to enforce this view, to save, if I could, this undue amount of interest, that I presented this bill and urged it on the consideration of the Senate. I will no longer urge it at present, after the declaration of the Senator from Maine that he desires information; and as the reconstruction question is postponed until Wednesday, I will not now resist the taking up of the fortification bill, but I shall ask the indulgence of the Senate to take up the funding bill to-morrow, so that I may be able to present my views upon it.

Mr. FESSENDEN. After I had given notice that I would have no further controversy with him on this subject, it was quite unnecessary for the Senator from Ohio to repeat what he chose to say on Thursday evening, that I had conducted in an improper manner with reference to this matter. I think, having said that once-and even then I suffered it to pass without reply, although I really felt the remark somewhat-it was rather unnecessary that he should have taken pains to repeat it this morning. Now, sir, it so happens, I believe-I must say it, although I do not like to talk about myself-that I am the only man in this Senate who never is suffered to get in the slightest degree excited without having somebody in the Senate and somebody out of the Senate make remarks upon it. [Laughter.] If I allow my voice to rise above its ordinary pitch it is remarked that I am under excitement, and the newspapers seem to think it a very considerable thing. [Laughter.] Well, sir, I think it proves that I am so universally acknowledged to be au amiable man and an excellent-tempered man that when I do get excited it is worthy of remark, which is not true of any other member of the Senate, because they may have all sorts of fights here and it does not seem to amount to anything; nobody says anything about it; it seems to be treated as a matter of course. My friend from Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON] may get into a heat and it is treated as a matter of course, and nothing is said about it. So with my friend from Iowa, Mr. GRIMES,] and my friend from Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER,] and everybody else. [Laughter.] But, sir, let that pass.

I did feel somewhat annoyed about the charge that was made, coming from a member of the committee, and the gentleman who is second on the committee. I was annoyed that he took pains to express his opinion that my course of conduct in regard to this matter was improper; and I really felt hurt this morning that he should have taken pains to repeat it.

Mr. SHERMAN. I felt it, and therefore I said it.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator had ex

pressed his feelings once, and I think that after three nights sleep he might have got over that annoyance sufficiently to have held his tongue on a subject on which he had already once spoken. I think he must have been a little excited, although he does not show it so much in the tones of his voice.

Now, sir, allow me to say, that the honorable Senator reported his bill by order of the majority of the committee, not a particular order that he should report it, but after the vote was taken, that it should be reported by the consent of the chairman of the committee, whose busi

ness it was to report it if he chose to do so;
but he chose, as a matter of courtesy, to pass
it over to the honorable Senator who had in-
troduced it. That is the way it came to be
reported by the Senator; otherwise it would
have been reported by me, and been under my
charge as chairman of the committee. That
is the simple fact about that. I gave notice in
the committee (as I always do when I intend
to act in that way) that when the bill came into
the Senate I should oppose it by all means in
my power; and when it came into the Senate
and was reported apparently with the assent
of all the committee, I stated the same thing.
I know and understand what effect these finan-
cial measures have upon the money market
always, and that they are made a matter of
trade and speculation; and I for that reason
took pains to say that the committee was not
unanimous upon the bill, and that I myself
was opposed to it. I went no further at that
time.

Sir, I have a perfect right to say, and any
member of a committee has a right, when he
understands that a bill is reported not with the
approbation or sanction or pledge of the ma-
jority of the committee to it, but simply by
leave of the committee in order that it may be
brought into the Senate and presented to the
Senate, to state that fact. It has been done
repeatedly, and I had a perfect right to say, as
I did say, that the bill, although reported with
the consent of a majority of the committee, was
not reported as the decision of the committee.
The Senator's opinion of the impropriety of
that thing he may entertain; but I maintain
that I had a perfect right to do it and there was
nothing improper in it, and I should do the
same again under like circumstances if I chose
to do it. That is all there is of that.

When the Senator remarked that he should bring his bill up, and when he antagonized that to mine, I said, it is true, that I was opposed to taking up his bill, not only for the reason that I wished another to come up, but for the reason that I was opposed to it and hoped it would not come up at all; but I meant by that to express nothing more than I had said before; and that was, that I was opposed to his bill. The Senator, however, chose to understand that as an indication that I meant to try every parliamentary method to prevent action on his bill. That was an intention which did not exist in point of fact; which I never thought of. I meant merely to state that I was opposed to it and hoped it would not come up. I remain of the same opinion still. Undoubtedly the Senate will take it up in its own good time, and then we shall have action upon it. I have no feeling about it, not the slightest in the world; but burdened as I am with business, and in fact unfit to do any business at all, and having. staring me in the face in the course of a few days the tax bill, which I must take the principal charge of, if I am able to do so, or pass it over to the honorable Senator from Ohio, and the reconstruction business, I did wish to clear the table of these little matters which ought to go to the House of Representatives. Now, sir, I do not feel that I am under any special responsibility for the business of the Senate: but, so far as I am, I hope the Senate will indulge me in all reasonable requests.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question

is on the motion of the Senator from Maine.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. No. 255) making appropriations for the construction, preservation, and repairs of certain fortifications and other works of defense, for the year ending June 30, 1867. The bill was read.

The Committee on Finance reported one
amendment to the bill; which was on page 2,
after line eighteen to insert:

For Fort Popham, Kennebec river, Maine, $50,000.
The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as
amended, and the amendment was concurred
in. The amendment was ordered to be en-

grossed and the bill to be read a third time. The bill was read the third time and passed.

FUNDING THE NATIONAL DEBT.

Mr. SHERMAN. I now move to take up the funding bill with a view to have it assigned for

to-morrow at one o'clock.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I will say to the Senator from Ohio that I do not mean to oppose the taking up of the bill, but it may be that after it is taken up to-morrow and he has stated what he wishes to say upon it, I may then desire further time to consider it.

Mr. SHERMAN. I shall have not the slightest objection to the Senator's taking time in order to obtain further information and discuss the proposition. All I desire now is that it may be taken up and made the special order for to-morrow.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. No. 300) to reduce the funding the same. rate of interest on the national debt, and for

Mr. SHERMAN. I move that the bill be postponed to and made the special order of the day for to-morrow at one o'clock. The motion was agreed to.

CHANGE OF NAME OF VESSELS.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to take up Senate joint resolution No. 52.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to con. sider the joint resolution (S. R. No. 52) authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to change the name of the steamboat City of Richmond to City of Portland.

The Committee on Commerce reported the joint resolution with an amendment to add the following:

And also the owner of the schooner Lucinda Van Valkenburg to Camden.

Mr. WILSON. I desire to hear why these changes are proposed. It seems to me to be very injurious to change the names of vessels unless there is a positive necessity for it. Great wrongs have been perpetrated in this way.

Mr. MORRILL. The practice is quite uniform. There is never any difficulty or danger in this class of cases, provided proper caution is exercised. I know there have been instances, as the Senator from Massachusetts supposes, where vessels that had a bad reputation have had their names changed. That is always injurious, and the committee, in no instance that I know of, of late, have reported a bill upon such a state of facts. The facts in this case are these: this steamer City of Richmond is a new steamer, eighteen months old, I think, and has been purchased by a company who are running her now between Portland, have a fancy that it would suit their convenin the State of Maine, and St. John. They ience better to have her name changed to City of Portland. There is no public necessity for it, of course, as there is not in any of these cases, but the facts are such in this case that no injurious effect whatever can come of it. Mr. WILSON. That is all I want to know. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. While I am up I will explain that amendment. It is to change the name of a schooner on Lake Ontario, I think. It is a very small matter any way. I have here a note addressed to the Senator from New

York, [Mr. MORGAN,] in which the party desires the name of this vessel changed, simply as a matter of convenience, because her pres ent name is an unconscionably long one and a hard name to spell. The facts in this case are not unlike those in the case of the City of Richmond. She is a new vessel.

Mr. GRIMES. Is she a British vessel? Mr. MORRILL. Oh, no; she is an American-built vessel.

Mr. GRIMES. Both of them? Mr. MORRILL. They are both Americanbuilt and both new vessels.

The joint resolution was reported to the

Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

MINERAL-WATER BOTTLES.

Mr. MORRILL. I now move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 265.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. No. 265) to protect the manufacturers of mineral waters in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes. It provides that all manufacturers and venders of mineral waters and other beverages in bottles, upon which their names or their mark or marks shall be respectively impressed, may file with the clerk of the supreme court of the District of Columbia description of such bottles and of the name or marks thereon, and cause the same to be published for not less than two weeks successively in a daily or weekly newspaper published in the District of Columbia. It is to be unlawful for any person or persons hereafter, without the permission of the owner or owners, to fill with mineral waters or other beverages any such bottles so marked, or to sell, dispose of, or to buy, or to traffic in any such bottles so marked and not bought by him or her of such owner or owners; and every person so offending is to be liable to a penalty of fifty cents for every bottle so filled, or sold, or used, or disposed of, or bought, or trafficked in, for the first offense; and of five dollars for every subsequent offense, to be recovered as other fines in the District of Columbia.

The Committee on the District of Columbia reported the bill with two amendments. The first amendment was in section one, line four, after the word "beverages" to insert "by law allowable;" so that it will read :

That all manufacturers and vendors of mineral waters and other beverages by law allowable in bottles, &c.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was to strike out the third section of the bill in the following words: SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the fact of any person other than the rightful owner thereof using any such bottles for the sale therein of any beverage shall be prima facie proof of the unlawful use or purchase of such bottles as aforesaid, and any owner or owners, or agent of such owner or owners, who shall make oath or affirmation before any justice of the peace that he has reason to believe, and does believe, that any of his bottles, stamped and registered as aforesaid, are being unlawfully used or are concealed by any person or persons selling or manufacturing mineral waters or other beverages, that the said justice of the peace shall thereupon issue a process, (in the nature of a search-warrant,) directed to any policeman, commanding him to search the premises, wagons, carts, or other places of the offender or offenders where said bottles are alleged to be, and if upon such search any bottles so marked shall be found, to bring the same, together with the person or persons in whose possession they may be found, before said justice of the peace, there to be dealt with according to the provisions of this act.

The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

Mr. JOHNSON subsequently entered a motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. MORRILL. That bill involves a constitutional question. I hope the Senator will allow me to-day to clear the Calendar of matters pertaining to the District of Columbia. I have here half a dozen very small measures that I have been waiting some time to get an opportunity to pass, and if I do not get to-day I am sure I shall not get a day this fortnight. I think the public interests will be much better subserved by passing these practical measures than by going into the discussion of an abstract constitutional question to-day. I wish to dispose of these bills now, and it is possible that we can pass the Senator's bill afterward. These bills are small matters which will take no great time anyway.

Mr. SUMNER. I do not like a remark that the Senator has just made.

Mr. MORRILL. I will withdraw it, then, for the sake of conciliation. I do not know what it was.

Mr. SUMNER. He speaks of a certain bill that has already passed the House of Representatives twice, and been on the point of passing the Senate, I do not know how many times, and has just failed, through the extraordinary and superhuman exertions of my excellent friend, as an abstraction. I believe the bill that I wish to have proceeded with is a practical measure; that there is nothing abstract in it. It is to meet and cope with the railroad monopoly in New Jersey. But if I can have the Senator's favor hereafter on another occasion

Mr. MORRILL. I will favor the honorable Senator with all I have to say on that bill the first time he gets it up, if he will allow me this indulgence to-day, which will not be much.

Mr. SUMNER. Then I hope the Senator will bear in mind that one good turn deserves another, and if I make no opposition to his proceeding with his measures to-day, he will be very indulgent to this measure which has the sanction of the House of Representatives, and has come here for the sanction of the Senate.

Mr. MORRILL. The honorable Senator does not require me to state my opposition until I accept that compromise.

Mr. SUMNER. Under these circumstances I withdraw my motion.

ACADEMY OF MUSIC OF WASHINGTON.

Mr. MORRILL. I ask the Senate to proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 510.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to

ment.

hope that the Senate will negative this amend This seventh section authorizes the company to borrow money on mortgage of the franchise and capital stock. The commit tee, as a general statement, were rather opposed to the principle. I did not suppose it was of very much importance anyway, but those who are interested in the enterprise have called upon us to say that they deem this section very important to the success of the academy. On the whole, as I suppose no possible injury can result from it, I am rather inclined to hope that the Senate will allow the Academy of Music to have their own way on that subject.

The amendment was rejected.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. WILSON. Some days ago, in debate, I alluded to Lieutenant Colonel McKelvy, nominated as marshal for western Pennsylvania. I stated that he had been tried by a court-martial and ordered to be dismissed, and would have been dismissed the service and imprisoned had it not been for the interference of friends. I received a communication from a gentleman of character and standing making that statement, stating that he would have been not only dismissed the service, as he was ordered to be by a court-martial, but would have been imprisoned had it not been for the interference of General Moorhead, of his district. I have since had placed in my hands a copy of the record of the trial, and I rise simply to say that on examining the papers, they do not justify the statement made to me and which I repeated to the Senate. I have no disposition certainly to do him the least injustice in the world, and I therefore make this explanation.

METROPOLITAN MINING COMPANY.

Mr. MORRILL. I now move the Senate to take up for consideration Senate bill No. 178.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. No. 178) to incorporate the Metropolitan Mining and Manufacturing Company. It authorizes John Ford, George D. Williams, Thomas W. Hyde, Oliver Edwards, Charles H. Herd, Samuel A. Fulton, Charles Otis, Charles A. Ecleston, George W. Holmes, Joseph E. Hollis, John F. Brodhead, and Lewis P. Moody, or any five of them, to receive subscriptions to the capital stock of a company to be denominated the Metropolitan Mining and Manufacturing Company. The

consider the bill (H. R. No. 510) to incorpo- capital stock of the company is to consist of

rate the Academy of Music of Washington city. It authorizes Max Strakosch, William G. Pope, Max Maretzek, W. G. Metzerott, Joseph J. May, B. F. Isherwood, John G. Clark, Henry C. Sherman, Carl Bergman, and F. C. Adams, or any five of them, to receive subscriptious to the capital stock of a company to be denominated the Academy of Music of Washington, District of Columbia, which company is to have the usual powers and privileges of a corporation. The capital stock is to consist of ten thousand shares at fifty dollars a share. The president and directors are to be authorized, on behalf of the company, to purchase and hold in fee-simple, or lease for a term of years, real estate in the city of Washington sufficient to enable them to erect thereon a building suitable for operatic, dramatic, and other entertainments, in such manner, and upon such terms, as may be by them deemed for the best interests of the company.

The Committee on the District of Columbia reported the bill with an amendment to strike out the seventh section of the bill, in the fol

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sena-lowing words: tor from Massachusetts moves to take up the bill (H. R. No. 11) to facilitate commercial, postal, and military communication among the several States.

Mr. MORRILL. I hope that will not be taken up.

Mr. SUMNER. Let us dispose of it to-day.

SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That the said company are hereby authorized to borrow money to an amount not exceeding their capital stock, upon bonds to be issued by said company, secured upon their property and franchises: Provided. That no bond shall be issued for a less sum than $100, and bearing a greater rate of interest than seven per cent. per

annum.

Mr. MORRILL. I am rather inclined to

twenty thousand shares of $100 each.

The president and directors are be author and hold by deed for a term certain or in feeized, on behalf of the company, to purchase simple, lands and other real estate, and to carry on the business of mining for iron ore and preparing the same for market; and to stal other native minerals, and manufacturing and bonds not exceeding one half of the capital stock, upon such terms as may be deemed for the best interests of the company; but no bond is to be issued for a less sum than $100, or bearing interst at a rate exceeding six per cent.

per annum.

The Committee on the District of Columbia reported the bill with an amendment, in section one, line nine, after the words "Metropolitan Mining and Manufacturing Company" to insert "of the District of Columbia."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GRIMES. I will inquire of the chair man of the Committee on the District of Columbia where this company is to do its mining,

Mr. MORRILL. The Senator will see that I propose to confine the company to the District of Columbia. They will have no power outside of the District.

Mr. GRIMES. I ask for the reading of the amendment again.

The Secretary again read it.

Mr. GRIMES. I do not understand that that limits the power of the company to trans

act its business entirely within the District of Columbia. That is merely fixing the name of the company; This corporation has very large powers. As the bill now stands, it seems to me they can transact their business anywhere in the world.

Mr. POMEROY. I do not know that there is any law against a company incorporated in the District going wherever any State has a mind to let them go. I do not know anything about this company. I never paid any attention to it until this moment. I know that one State, the State of Iowa, for instance, will make a corporation, and that corporation will do its business in New York. My State, and all the States, will incorporate a company, and the first we know of the company their office is in New York or Boston, and they are doing business there. Now, I do not know but that Congress has as much right as a State in this respect. Of course Congress cannot incorporate, or at least ought not to incorporate, a company to allow it to do business in a State against the laws of that State; but if it is in harmony with the laws of the State, I do not know that that is an objection which ought to defeat the bill. I confess, in regard to this company, I cannot conceive what business they are going to do in the District; but then I am not posted as to that. I never heard of it before. But the simple provision that they may do business ontside of the District is only giving to a corporation of the District the same power given to the corporations of every State, because there is no State in the Union which does not create corporations that carry on their business outside of the State. Of course they have to do it in accordance with the laws of the State where they live, and in harmony with those laws, not against them. So with this company; suppose it can travel all over the United States.

Mr. GRIMES. I think the Senator is mistaken in point of fact. I think there are a great many States that refuse to incorporate companies to go beyond the State to transact business. I do not believe that the State of which I am a citizen ever has, or ever will, consent to charter a corporation whose whole business shall be transacted beyond its jurisdiction. It is not good faith to the other States. One State refuses to grant to certain persons a franchise, and then they go over the State line, and there, by some hocus pocus in legislation, secure a franchise from another State and then come back into the State that has already refused the franchise and do business there. I do not know anything about this company. I understand the Senator from Maine proposes to amend the bill so as to limit it, but it may be possible-I do not suppose it is in this instance that these identical men endeavored to obtain a charter, for instance, in Pennsylvania or Nevada, and were refused, and now they come here to the national Government and ask us to give them just such a charter as has been refused by those local Legislatures, and then the very kind of focal Legislatures, and then go into Pennsyl.

business which the authorities of those States • refused to bestow upon them the authority to do. Suppose we grant this charter and the State of Nevada or the State of Pennsylvania denies them the privilege of exercising their franchise; do you not suppose they will insist upon exercising it under this law? They will insist that here is the imperial Legislature of the country that has granted them the franchise, and that that franchise overrides all State authorities on the subject.

Mr. POMEROY. The Senator from Iowa did not entirely comprehend the point I made. I did not say that the State of Iowa and the other States inserted in the act of incorporation itself a provision that they might go anywhere, but they go without such a provision. The Senator will be reminded that some railroad companies of his State have their offices and do their business in New York. The same remark is true of my State and of all the western States. There is nothing in the charter about it.

Mr. GRIMES. But the entire property of those railroad companies is in my State; their entire business is done there, with the single exception that the treasurer's office is kept elsewhere; and they are incorporated under our law.

Mr. POMEROY. The meetings of the stockholders must be held within the jurisdiction of the authority making the corporation, but the directors' meetings are not held there at all. Take, for instance, the Hannibal and St. Joseph railroad, in the State of Missouri. They have never had a directors' meeting there, but the stockholders' meetings are always held there.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I think the Senator from Kansas is mistaken upon the law of this question. After very great argument, and in a very important cause, it has been decided in the State of Indiana that a corporation has a life only in the State that creates it by her laws, and can exercise its franchises by its board of directors only in that State. I think in 1 Black the same doctrine is incidentally decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in regard to the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad Company. I do not think the board of directors can hold a meeting outside of the State in which the company is incorporated unless that State and the other State both concur in the proposition that they may do so.

Mr. POMEROY. The point I was making is a matter of almost every-day occurrence. There is hardly a week that the directors of corporations created by the laws of Missouri and Iowa and Kansas do not meet in New York or Boston to do the business. It a matter which occurs constantly; and it is because the capitalists are there.

Mr. GRIMES. What does that prove? They are not the corporators.

Mr. POMEROY. They have the functions of the corporation.

Mr. GRIMES. They are the mere agents of the corporation, and have no more authority than the president of the road has, when he goes to buy iron or anything else.

Mr. POMEROY. All the authorities of the corporation are exercised for the time being by the board of directors.

Mr. GRIMES. Only such as are delegated to them.

Mr. POMEROY. The directors always have delegated authority. They are chosen in the first instance by the stockholders in the State; but, after having been chosen by the stockholders in the State, they have, during the time they are in office, the entire control of the franchise. The only point I wished to make in this connection was-I know nothing about this company-that if a State could make such a corporation, why could not the General Government do it. The State of New York has a general law, under which corporations are constantly being organized to go all over the country. You find companies incorporated under the general incorporation act of st the State of New York doing business in every State of the Union. It is a matter of constant occurrence that parties who have franchises from the States have their offices and do their business wherever they find it for their interest to do it, even outside of the State that created their corporation; but their directors are all chosen inside the State, and the stockholders' meetings are always held there.

Mr. MORRILL. I will explain this bill as I understand it. In the first place it associates certain gentlemen together as a body politic and corporate, and declares that "it shall be lawful for the said corporation to have a common seal, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, and have and exercise all the rights, privileges, and immunities for the of purpose the eorporation hereby created." The rest of the sections, down to the section giving certain power, are taken up with the organization of the company. The sixth section, which bears on this question of authority, reads as follows:

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That the president and directors are hereby empowered and fully au

[ocr errors]

thorized, on behalf of said company, to purchase. and hold by deed for a term certain or in fee-simple. lands and other real estate, and to carry on the business of mining for iron ore and other native minerals, and manufacturing and preparing the same for market.

That seems to be the full scope of the bill. There is another section which touches on the question of authority, and I believe that is all there is, and that is the fifth section:

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That the president and directors for the time being shall have power to ordain, establish, and put in execution such rules, regulations, ordinances, and by-laws as they may deem essential for the well-government of the institution, not contrary to the laws and Constitution of the United States or of this act, and generally to do and perform all acts, matters, and things which a corporation may or can lawfully do.

So that the question of power would seem to be about this: these persons are associated as a body politic and corporate, with the privilege to use a common seal, and with the great privilege of being sued and to sue. Then they are to have the right as a body-corporate, an artificial person, to purchase and receive the title to real estate for the purposes of carrying on the business of mining and manufacturing.

Mr. GRIMES. Where are they to do that? Mr. MORRILL. Wherever they can make the bargain. They are an artificial person, and being so, there is no limitation that ĺ know of either in the Constitution of the United States, or any of the States, that they shall not be at liberty to make the bargain. There is nothing more common than for persons associated into a corporation, and thereby becoming artificial persons, to have the right to trade, the right to make bargains, the right to sue in any of the courts of the States, the right to carry on business. Why not? Is that against the policy of the law in any particular whatever? Is there any State or national law that is opposed to the policy of two persons associating themselves together as an artificial person and doing what is perfectly legitimate and lawful to be done by contract in those States? That is this bill and nothing more. Mr. CLARK rose.

Mr. MORRILL. Before the Senator gets up to criticise I want to anticipate a difficulty which I am afraid he saw and which I did not see until I read it just now, and that is in the fifth section, giving to the directors authority to make "by-laws not inconsistent with the laws of the United States." I think that might be obnoxious to the criticism of my friend from Iowa, that they might claim to do some things by virtue of this authority which would not be permitted in the States. I move, therefore, to amend the fifth section by inserting, after the words "United States," in the sixth line, the words, "or of any State," so that the authority to be exercised under this bill shall always be in submission to the laws of the States.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I think this is rather a grave matter, in view of the fact that this corporation cannot exercise any of its functions or franchises in this District. There is no mining to be done here. Now, I wish to ask the Senator whether, under the clause of the Constitution which confers upon Congress the power of exclusive legislation over the District of Columbia, it is proper for us to pass a bill creating a corporation when we know that that corporation is not for the District of Columbia, when we know that it is not to transact business in the District of Columbia, but with a view to mining somewhere else. Is that within the spirit of the provision of the Constitution conferring upon Congress the power to legislate for this District? It does not seem to me to be within the spirit of that provision.

Mr. CLARK. I was going to call the attention of the Senator from Maine to much the same consideration that has been presented by the Senator from Indiana; and that is the question whether there are any persons as proposed in this corporation who contemplate undertaking the business of manufacturing within this District. If there be an association of gentlemen who desire to manufacture or to mine here. and who think it necessary to have an act of incorporation to enable them to do so success

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »