ORDER OF BUSINESS TO-MORROW.

Mr. SCHENCK. I renew the proposition which I made to-day, that the House shall meet at eleven o'clock to-morrow, go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the tax bill immediately after the morning hour, sit until five o'clock, and have no evening session.

There was no objection; and it was so ordered.

The SPEAKER. No quorum having voted on the motion of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK] to close debate, it is not agreed to.

Mr. ROBINSON. I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and thereupon (at ten o'clock and twenty minutes p. m.) the House adjourned until eleven o'clock a. m.

to-morrow.

PETITIONS, ETC.

The following petitions, &c., were presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees:

By Mr. CLARKE, of Ohio: The petition of Mrs. Vene L. Kennedy, widow of Dr. Lock Kennedy, of Batavia, Ohio, for a pension.

By Mr. CULLOM: The petition of William J. Conkling, in behalf of the one hundred and forty-fifth regiment Illinois volunteers, asking Congress to provide for the payment of the soldiers of said regiment from the date of enlistment.

By Mr. GLOSSBRENNER: The petitions of manufacturers of iron &c., in Cumberland county, Pennsylvania, complaining of the want of efficient protection against the cheaper labor and capital of foreign countries, and praying that Congress will resume consideration of the tariff bill which passed the Senate but failed in the House, March, 1867, for want of time, and enact it into a law at the earliest practicable moment.

Also, a memorial of tobacco and cigar manufacturers and dealers in the various products of tobacco, remonstrating against the proposed change in the internal revenue tax upon tobacco and its manufacturing products.

By Mr. JUDD: The petition of Messrs. Armstrong & Co., and others, asking removal of tax on refined petroleum.

Also, the remonstrance of George Richards and others, against the extension or removal of Howe's patent on sewing-machines.

By Mr. STOKES: The petition of the widow of D. H. Bingham, of Athens, Alabama, praying compensation for forage and other property used by the United States troops during the month of May, 1862.

IN SENATE.

SATURDAY, June 13, 1868. Prayer by Rev. E. H. GRAY, D. D. On motion of Mr. MORTON, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of yesterday was dispensed with.

CONTRACTORS FOR IRON-CLADS.

Mr. DRAKE. I ask the consent of the body to take up for consideration Senate joint resolution No. 100.

The PRESIDENT, pro tempore. It requires unanimous consent at this time. Is there any objection?

R. No. 100) for the relief of certain contractors for the construction of vessels of war and steam machinery.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I object. That had better wait until the Senate is full.

Mr. DRAKE. I ask the indulgence of the Senate about this matter. I do not wish to press it while the Senate is so thin, and I am perfectly willing, if the Senate will take it up, to give way to other matters until the Senate becomes more full, which it will in the course of the next ten minutes, and I ask the indulgence of the Senate about it. The whole matter was incidentally discussed the other day in connection with the other bill that was presented, and the Senate, I suppose, understands the case perfectly. Gentlemen who are concerned in this matter, who, as has been before stated, have been driven to the verge of bankruptcy, if not to total, complete bankruptcy, by the subject-matters which this bill covers, have been here for months waiting anxiously to learn whether Congress would give them the poor privilege of going into the Court of Claims to see if they could make out a case.

Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senator from Missouri will allow his motion to pass by until the Senate is fuller, I will move to take up a little bill to which I am sure there will be no objection.

Mr. DRAKE. I beg the honorable Senator from Illinois to allow this joint resolution to be taken up, and then it may be postponed for other matters, if the Senate will so far indulge me.

Mr. CHANDLER. Is the morning business through?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It requires unanimous consent to consider the joint resolution indicated by the Senator from Missouri

at this time.

Mr. DRAKE. Does it require uranimous consent?

Mr. EDMUNDS. Certainly. We must first go through with the morning business.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the new rules it requires unanimous consent until the morning business is through with.

Mr. DRAKE. If the Senate will just let me take it up, I will give way to other busi

ness.

Mr. EDMUNDS. You can get it up after the morning business is through with.

Mr. DRAKE. I fear I shall not be able to do it then.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there any objection to taking up the resolution mentioned by the Senator from Missouri?

Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes, sir; I object. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Petitions and memorials are in order.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. TRUMBULL presented the petition of Emilie Rossmässler, of Quincy, Illinois, praying the passage of an act of Congress prohibiting the translation of the works of Professor E. A. Rossmässler, deceased, by any person without the consent of his widow, and granting a copyright to her for the publication of the translations of those works; which was referred to the Committee on the Library.

Mr. HOWE presented the petition of Charles Radcliff, father and heir-at-law of First Lieutenant H. Gansevoort Radcliff, commanding company C, eighteenth regiment United States infantry, praying payment to him of an amount due from the United States to Lieutenant Radcliff at the time of his death; which was referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. What is it? Let the title be read for information.

all services, whether official or otherwise, render it impossible for them to support a State government except by taxation, which will be ruinous to all business enterprises. They recite that the plan of admission at present is a scheme which has been in abeyance for three years, and that it is contrary to the wishes of the people for reasons going beyond the mere question of admission. They recite further that at the election at which it was alleged to have been revived, it was treated as a dead and abandoned issue by both political parties, and that no inference is to be drawn from that election favorable to it; and they recite further that the Senators who seek admission are not the choice of the people of the Territory or of any party, and would not be. The bill having been reported, I ask that the remonstrance lie on the table.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That order will be made.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, from the Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Richard B. Duane, on behalf of Washington Tams, submitted a report, which was ordered to be printed, and asked to be discharged from the further consideration of the petition; which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 1063) for the relief of Charles B. Tanner, late first lieutenant sixty-ninth Pennsylvania volunteers, reported it without amendment, and submitted a report; which was ordered to be printed.

REPORT OF PARIS EXPOSITION.

Mr. ANTHONY. The Committee on Printing, to whom was referred a resolution instructing the committee to inquire into the cost of printing the reports of the Paris Exposition, have had the subject under consideration, and instruct me to report a resolution which I send to the Chair, and I ask for its present consideration.

By unanimous consent the Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution:

Resolved, That so much of the resolution passed March 19, 1868, as suspends the printing of the report of the commissioner of the United States to the Paris Exposition, be, and the same is hereby, rescinded.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I have examined this subject since the resolution was referred to the Committee on Printing, and I am of the opinion that if any document should be printed for distribution it is probably wise and proper that this report should be, because I think it will be a benefit to the industrial interests of the country to have the engravings, most of which I understand are mere outlines, that will afford practical facilities for the mechanics and artisans of the country to understand the various products that were exhibited at the Paris Exposition.

But I should like to inquire of the Committee on Printing in reference to a resolution which I had referred to that committee early in the session, in relation to a project by which we were to cease the general publication of documents for distribution, and publish them only at cost for those who might be willing to pay for them. I am desirous that that proposition should be acted upon; but until that principle shall be adopted by Congress, if anything is printed by Congress, I conceive that this is a proper subject to be printed. I desire information in relation to the general policy of the country, as to whether the printing of this mass of useless documents at a vast expense to the country is to be continued or

not.

Mr. ANTHONY. That is for Congress to decide. The Committee on Printing agree entirely with the Senator from Vermont that the printing of documents for gratuitous distribution is a great abuse. Although it has been much diminished of late, and the expense of printing for Congress is very much lower in greenbacks than it was formerly in gold, still it is the opinion of the committee that the proposition of the Senator from Vermont ought to be adopted; and we are now preparing such

data and information on the subject as will enable us to present it in a form which we hope will meet the approbation of the Senate. In my opinion there should be a few additional copies printed of those publications which are necessary to be placed before us for our own information. Of course the reports of the Executive Departments are of no use to us unless they are printed. Large masses of manuscript referred to a committee cannot receive any attention even in the committee, much less out of it; and when they are printed I think, and I believe my colleagues of the committee agree with me, a few additional copies should be printed and sold at about the cost of publication, or a little less than the cost of publication, for the Government should do something toward distributing that kind of information, and then let it pass into the hands of those who think it of sufficient value to pay for it. My own experience is that whatever a man gets in this world without paying for it is of very little use to him or anybody else.

I am glad that the resolution which I have reported meets the assent of the Senator from Vermont, as it was on his motion the resolution was passed which is to be rescinded. The committee thought that this report was of very great consequence to the industrial interests of the country, and also to the manufacturing and mechanical productions of the country. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the resolution. The resolution was adopted.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. HOWE asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 541) to amend an act entitled "An act to aid the construction of certain railroads in the State of Wisconsin," approved May 5, 1864; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. CHANDLER asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 542) for the relief of Thomas W. Ward, collector of customs at Corpus Christi, Texas; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. FOWLER asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a joint resolution (S. R. No. 144) in relation to the erection of a custom-house at Nashville, Tennessee; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

PRATT, ARNOLD, AND WALBRIDGE..

Mr. STEWART submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Postmaster General be requested to furnish to the Senate all information in his Department in regard to an alleged contract of Pratt, Arnold & Walbridge for carrying the mail on route No.15703, between Humboldt City, Nevada, and Boisé City, Idaho, and also in regard to services performed by said parties under said contract, together with all other information touching the claim of said parties against the United States.

STATUTE OF LIMITATION AS TO CRIMES. Mr. TRUMBULL. I move to take up for consideration Senate bill No. 509. I think it will take but a few moments to pass it.

Mr. HARLAN. I desire very much to have the Senate take up and act on the bill pertaining to contested elections in this city. I think it ought to be acted on."

Mr. TRUMBULL. The bill which I move to take up is a bill that ought to be acted on, and I think it will take but a moment. I hope there will be no objection to it.

The motion was agreed to; and the bill (S. No. 509) in addition to an act passed March 26, 1804, entitled "An act in addition to an act entitled 'An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,' sidered as in Committee of the Whole.

was con

The bill consists of two sections. The Committee on the Judiciary proposed to amend the first section by striking out after the word "committed," in line seven, as follows:

And such indictment may be found within said period, and prosecution, trial, and punishment had

thereon in any judicial district of the United States where the offender may be found, or in which any underwriter or owner of such vessel may reside or have his established place of business: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent the finding of such indictment against any person or persons fleeing from justice after the expiration of said period.

So as to make the section read:

That no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for the capital offenses set forth in the act to which this act is in addition unless the indictment for the same is found by a grand jury within five years after such capital offense is committed.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was after the word "committed," in line three of the second section, to insert "within three years;" so as to make the section read:

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That this act shall take effect from and after its passage, and its provisions shall be applicable equally to offenses committed within three years before and offenses committed after its passage.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I should like to have the chairman explain what this bill means, and who it is for, and so on.

Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senate desire an explanation about it-I am sure the Senator from Vermont does not, for he knows all about it-it is a bill that was considered in the Committee on the Judiciary. The whole effect of guilty of capital offenses against the United the bill is to extend the time within which men States may be indicted from three years to five years.

Mr. MORTON. I ask the chairman of the committee if it is not intended to meet a particular case?

Mr. TRUMBULL. The bill has its origin probably arising out of the fact that there is a particular case where the limitation will likely expire before proceedings would take place; and that is a very proper reason, I suppose, for calling attention to the law upon that subject and correcting it.

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.

CONTESTED ELECTIONS IN WASHINGTON.

On motion of Mr. HARLAN, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. No. 534) relating to contested elections in the city of Washington, District

of Columbia.

The first section provides that whenever any person has received or shall hereafter receive a certificate from the register of the city of Washington, based upon satisfactory evidence furnished by the commissioners of election, notifying him of his election to any elective office of the city, the person receiving such notification shall be entitled to enter upon the discharge of the duties of his office, and the certificate of the register shall be prima facie evidence of his election to and right to discharge the duties of the office.

The second section provides that any person who shall hinder or obstruct a person holding the certificate of election mentioned in the foregoing section from entering upon or discharging the duties of his office, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, in any court of competent jurisdiction, shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $1,000, or be imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding six months, or both, in the discretion of the court.

The third section proposes to give the supreme court of the District of Columbia, or any judge thereof, jurisdiction to enforce, by mandamus, or otherwise, the right of any person holding the certificate mentioned in the first section; and the action of the court in relation thereto is to be final.

Under the fourth section any person who claims, or shall hereafter claim, to be elected to any elective office in Washington city, may commence proceedings before the supreme court of the District of Columbia, by petition setting forth the facts upon which he relies,

and shall serve a copy on the incumbent or person who has received the certificate of election; and the person so served is to make answer to the petition within five days; and the court is thereupon to try the rights of the parties to the office in a summary mauner; and for that purpose a special session is to be called and held whenever necessary for the purposes of such trial; and the decision of the court in any case so brought before it is to be final and conclusive. And when any contest exists in relation to the election of any member of the board of aldermen or common council, the mayor of the city is to appoint all subordinate officers.

An amendment was reported by the Committee on the District of Columbia, to strike out of the fourth section the following words:

And when any contest exists in relation to the election of any member of the board of aldermen or common council, the mayor of said city is hereby authorized to appoint all subordinate officers.

And in lieu thereof to insert :

And when the legal organization of the board of aldermen or board of common council shall be delayed on account of any contest in relation to the election of any member of either of said boards, the mayor of said city is hereby authorized to make temporary appointments of all subordinate officers, whose appointment or election is authorized by the said mayor and members of said boards under existing laws, to continue until said boards shall be legally organized.

The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on concurring in the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I think some explanation of the force and effect of that amendment ought to be made to the Senate.

Mr. HARLAN. It seems to me the amendment explains itself. Under the existing laws subordinate officers in the city of Washington are elected or appointed by the mayor and the members of the boards of aldermen and common council in joint meeting. While these boards are in a disorganized condition it is impossible of course for them to make an election. It may be necessary, however, to have certain of these offices filled during that period, and the amendment is intended to confer on the mayor the authority to make temporary appointments to act during the period of this supposed controversy. The bill as it stood originally authorized the mayor to make permanent appointments, which the committee thought was not proper. They think the law as it now stands is right; but a contingency having arisen when the boards are unable to organize, when it may be necessary that subordinate officers may be appointed, the authority to appoint them temporarily ought to be lodged somewhere, and the committee propose to lodge it in the mayor for the time being. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, I ask the honorable Senator who has charge of this bill if its operation is not to be retrospective. The first clause reads:

That whenever any person has received or shall hereafter receive a certificate from the register of the city of Washington, based upon satisfactory evidence furnished by the commissioners of election, notifying him of his election to any elective office of said city, the person receiving such notification shall be entitled to enter upon the discharge of the duties of his office.

I understand that a corporation election has recently taken place in the city of Washington. ask the honorable Senator if the effect and object of this bill is not to furnish a new law to regulate and decide that election from what existed at the time the election took place.

Mr. HARLAN. In answer to the Senator's inquiry, I would state that it is intended to provide a law to meet an existing case. There is now no law on the subject, as far as I can discover by examination.

Mr. DAVIS. The explanation of the honorable Senator is just what I conceived it would be. I understand the present law of the District of Columbia to be such that no disputed election can exist which may not be decided in the courts by the law. If I understand the

state of the case, there is now pending in this city a disputed election in relation to the mayoralty, and probably other officers. This pute is about to go to the courts for decision according to the existing laws at the time the election took place. The laws as they existed at the time the election took place are not satisfactory, however, to the majority of the Committee on the District of Columbia, and they are not satisfactory to some of the Radical candidates and claimants for these disputed offices; and the effort and object of this bill is simply to introduce a new law and a new principle of decision for those disputed elections than what existed under the law at the time the elections took place. I do not think that that is a proper system of legislation. When an election takes place in the District it ought to be conducted in conformity with the existing law. If it is not so conducted, and there is any irregularity in the election that would entitle either the one candidate or the other to the office that may be in dispute, the contest ought to be decided between the disputants according to the existing law, and it is not, in my judgment, proper legislation for the Congress of the United States to intervene as the supporters and partisans of one of the candidates in a local election, and to establish a new rule and a new principle by which contested elections shall be decided by the intervention of a new law on the subject.

I am not, to be sure, au fait on the subject of the local laws of the District of Columbia. I never belonged to the Committee on the Dis trict of Columbia. The honorable gentleman is chairman of that committee; and I concede that he is much more familiar with and better informed in regard to the laws that regulate these elections and all the affairs of this District and its people than I am. But if I understand the case there are statutes in operation now by which the disputed questions and the disputed rights to office under the recent corporation election may be decided in the courts under the existing laws at the time the elections took place. After the elections have taken place, and when contested elections and contested rights to the offices are raised or about to be raised in the courts, why should the legislation of Congress be invoked and be thrown in favor of one of the contestants against the other?

If I understand aright, there was no law in existence at the time the election took place, and there is none now, that authorized the register to give such a certificate of election as this first section of the bill provides for; but that does not leave the case without a remedy. It is not necessary for the decision of this contested election and of the rights of the parties to it that this bill should pass to enable the register to give such a certificate. The laws as they now exist may be resorted to, and are sufficient to enable the parties in the contest to the offices that are now in dispute to go to the courts to have their rights decided fairly and properly. If I understand this proposition, it is to pass a retroactive law, to control or to regulate in some degree an election that took place under other laws, and to give to one of the parties contestant in the election an advantage and a right which he has not according to the existing law. In other words, the disputed election now has become a judicial question; it is before the courts, or it is about to be taken to the courts; it has passed from the legislative function to the judicial, or is in a state of transitu. It is about to pass from the hustings and the polls to the courts to decide the rights of the parties who were candidates for office; and those rights ought to be passed upon and to be decided according to the laws that were in existence at the time the election took place. One of the parties to this contested election is not satisfied to have the question decided according to the existing law; he comes to Congress; he comes to the Senate; he comes to the Committee on the District of Columbia, and that committee, with partisan haste and zeal, is now concocting bills to

change the law which existed at the time the election took place, and by which the rights of the parties ought to be decided, and proposes new legislation to give to one of the contestants an advantage which the existing law did not give him. Sir, I do not believe that any legis lation in such a state of contest growing out of an election, to give to one of the parties an advantage, ought to be undertaken by the Senate. I hope, therefore, that this bill will not pass, but will be rejected.

Mr. HARLAN. Mr. President, the honorable Senator who has just taken his seat presents his objection to the bill fairly. I agree with him that no new law ought to be passed, and no amendment of an old law, unless those who present it can give a satisfactory reason for it; and if there is at this time no satisfactory reason for the passage of this bill, I agree with him that the Senate ought not to enact it. The Senator has stated, however, that he is not familiar with the laws as they now exist, and on account of that want of familiarity he has adopted an error, as I think. There is no existing law which will furnish a remedy for the existing case. This, therefore, is intended to be merely a remedial statute, to provide a remedy for an existing case where there is at present no legal means of obtaining relief.

Under the old charter of the city of Washington, which probably still is in force, at least it is the law under which this election was held, the board of aldermen and the board of common council are the judges respectively of the qualifications and election of their own mem bers. I suppose that that would exclude the jurisdiction of the courts, the law providing that the boards shall be the exclusive judges; in that respect adopting the principle of the Constitution as applied to the Senate and House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States. Usually such a law would be sufficient to provide for the trial of any contested election of a member of either body, but in the existing case this law is inoperative, from the fact that there have been organized two boards of aldermen and two boards of common council, each claiming to have been legally elected under the existing law. The board of common council, I understand, are equally divided; that is, the two organizations have an equal number of members, neither of them has a majority of all; and of course each is as competent to try the legality of the election of the members of the whole board if they were united as the other is. It will appear, therefore, as it seems to me, to every one, that it is utterly impossible for this question to be settled under the law as it exists, there being two organizations, they being equal in number, and neither of them having a majority of the whole; that is, excluding the cases of contest.

This bill proposes that the candidates who received the certificates or notifications of their election from the returning officer under the old law shall be held to be for the time being legally elected, and that any party claiming to be elected adversely to them shall have a remedy summarily before the supreme court of the District of Columbia, or any judge of that court, each one of these judges having the authority, under existing laws in this District, to hold a court, and in this way settle the question of the legality of the election of the members over which this contest has arisen. I suppose that in relation to other officers there may be a remedy under the laws as they exist, but the committee thought it best to make this law general in its provisions. There surely can be no valid objection to trying the validity of the election of any officer, where a contest arises between two candidates each claiming to have been legally elected, before the supreme judiciary of the District. There would be greater prospect of an impartial hearing and decision before the supreme court of the District, as it seems to me and seemed to the committee, than there would be before the judges of election.

The bill, therefore, simply adopts the prin

ciple which usually controls. I need not remind every Senator present that this Senate has adopted the rule that an applicant for a seat in this body, holding the evidence of his election shall be held to have been legally elected until the contrary shall be shown; that this shall be regarded as prima facie evidence of his right to a seat; and, usually, members of this body and of the House of Representatives are admitted to their seats on this evidence. The contestant who disputes the right of the claimant to the seat makes his appearance and the question is afterward tried and decided. The bill adopts the principle that is usually applied in such cases, that the party receiving the certificate of election from the register of the city shall be held prima facie to have been legally elected, and then provides an immediate remedy before the supreme court for any party who may claim to have been elected adversely. It was not the intention of any member of the committee to make an unfair law, a law that could be construed to have a party coloring in any way, but to adopt a law which would provide a remedy for the existing case where there seems to be no remedy, and which may be a permanent law for the future.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. POMEROY in the chair.) The question is on concurring in the Senate with the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. DAVIS. I will remind the Chair that I know what the subject is before the Senate. Mr. President, if there is any necessity for this legislation, I should be very far from intervening any objection to it. As I understand the explanation of the Senator from Iowa, the object of this bill is to enable evidence to be manufactured for some of the contestants to these seats that cannot be made under the existing law.

Mr. HARLAN. No. With the Senator's leave, I will say that I have made no such statement. The bill is not for the purpose of manufacturing evidence.

Mr. DAVIS. If I understand the wording of the first section, and if I understand the explanation of the honorable Senator, it is to enable a candidate for office to get a certificate of election which he cannot get under the existing law. The object is to pass a law to enable him to get a certificate of election that shall prima facie entitle him to the office. If that be the purpose and object of the bill, it seems to me evident that it is designed to enable evidence to be manufactured for one of the candidates that cannot be manufactured under the existing law. I so understand it.

This bill was introduced on the 11th of June. The honorable Senator from Nevada [Mr. STEWART] interjected an amendment into this bill late the day before yesterday, I believe. I do not object to that. He is an efficient and enterprising Senator; and that was all well enough. But there is no need of such extraordinary haste. I concede that I am not au fait on the subject of the laws of Congress regulating this District and its affairs; the honorable Senator from Iowa is; and I propose that he let this bill go over until Monday, until I can inform myself in relation to what would be its connection with existing laws and the rights of the parties contested in these litigated elections, and if the legislation proposed to my mind should be reasonable and necessary I will then intervene no objection to it whatever. If it should be of a different character, it will enable me to inform myself in relation to this particular bill, and how it will bear on the other laws that regulate the affairs of the District and its elections and the rights of parties contesting office, and I shall then be ready to make my objection to it. I propose that the honorable Senator consent that it be postponed until Monday, and made the special order, and taken up in the morning hour, or at any time to suit his convenience on that day.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Kentucky move to postpone the further consideration of the bill?"

Mr. DAVIS. I merely made the suggestion to the courtesy of the honorable Senator from Iowa.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not a motion.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I think this bill ought to be recommitted, and if legislation be necessary at all it ought to be upon a fair principle. It ought not to be in regard to the mayor one way and in regard to the board of councilmen another way. Everybody will see at once that it is not right to say that in regard to the mayor a prima facie case shall stand and in regard to the aldermen a prima facie case shall not

stand.

Mr. President, in regard to the recent election in this city, which, of course, everybody knows is the subject of this legislation, although in language it is general, the prima facie case was with the mayor voted for by the Republican or Radical party, but the prima facie case was with the majority of the board of aldermen and board of councilmen voted for by the Democrats and Conservatives of the city. This bill proposes, by a new and ingenious device, that a prima facie case shall be established in favor of the mayor, who shall be put into office and hold his office unless questioned; but in regard to the members of the boards who have the prima facie case that shall not be the rule. If any Senator can say that is right, he has a different view of what is right from mine.

Mr. HARLAN. If the Senator will permit me, I think he in error in his statement of the fact. The same rule is applied to both.

Mr. HENDRICKS. No, sir. The first section of this bill provides that the certificate of the register shall be conclusive, and then the amendment that is proposed by the com mittee is to add:

And when the legal organization of the board of aldermen or board of common council shall be delayed on account of any contest in relation to the election of any member of either of said boards, the mayor of said city is hereby authorized to make temporary appointments of all subordinate officers whose appointment or election is authorized by the said mayor and members of said boards under existing laws, to continue until said boards shall be legally organized.

Now, the certificate or declaration or finding of the commissioners of election made at the time the law required it to be made, elected Mr. Bowen as mayor of this city, as I understand the facts. The same certificate or finding and declaration by the boards of election under existing laws elected the Democratic or Conservative members of the two boards in a majority of the cases, especially in the case of the majority in the common council. The result was declared, and the vote showed a majority for the Conservatives in the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth wards, and for the Radcals in the first, second, and third; so that a majority of the Conservatives or Democrats had the prima facie case. I understand

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It becomes the duty of the Chair to arrest the business of the morning hour at this time and notify the Senate that the unfinished business of yesterday is before the Senate for consideration.

Mr. HARLAN, I move to postpone the consideration of the regular order for the purpose of continuing the consideration of this bill.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not yield for the purpose of that motion,

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The business of the morning hour must be arrested at this time, and the Senator from Indiana is speaking on the business of the morning hour. Another measure becomes the order of the day at this hour without any motion.

Mr. BUCKALEW. What is the order of the day?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unfinished business of yesterday.

Mr. BUCKALEW. What is that? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The banking. bill.

Mr. HARLAN. I make the motion to postpone.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa takes the floor upon the bill that is before the Senate, and moves its present postponement.

Mr. SHERMAN. I trust that will not be done, unless it can be laid aside informally. If the Senator can get a vote in a few minutes on his bill I shall not object.

Mr. HARLAN. I have no objection to the regular order being passed over informally until this bill is disposed of.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unfinished business can be laid aside if there be no objection.

Mr. HENDRICKS. That will be objected to. I think this bill ought to lie over anyhow, until we can have an opportunity to examine it. The printed bill has just been laid on our tables.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana objects, and it can only be done on a vote. The Senator from Iowa moves that the further consideration of the bill which is now regularly before the Senate be postponed.

Mr. HENDRICKS. This bill attracted no attention here until it was reported yesterday. The amendment is printed this morning, and for the first time comes upon our tables. There has been no opportunity for this side of the Senate to consider it. I believe we have no representative upon the Committee on the District of Columbia. The political character of the legislation in regard to the District is known very well to the Senate.

Mr. HARLAN. If the Senator will permit me, I will state that the honorable Senator from Tennessee who sits furthest from me is a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Then I withdraw what I said.

Mr. HARLAN. I am not sure but that he regards himself as a Republican or Radical, but I have drawn a different inference. The Senator from Indiana perhaps knows better than I do on that subject.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I did not know that he was on the committee. I thought it was a clean, pure thing. I withdraw what I said on that subject.

Mr. SHERMAN. I certainly will not agree to that; but the Senate can do as they please about it. I do not think that a bill of this kind, called up suddenly, for a special purpose, a local purpose, reported only yesterday, ought to displace important public legislation. I do not believe there is any such necessity for hasty action upon a mere matter of local legis-mittee on the District of Columbia. lation. Indeed I hope the Committee on the District of Columbia will cut this Gordian knot of local authority, and give us a good city gov ernment which will control the city and protect property. They can do that, and we can pass a bill of that sort in less time than it will take to pass this bill. Give us a set of good commissioners to manage the affairs of this city, and you will have no more riots or scenes of violence here.

Mr. PATTERSON, of Tennessee. Do I understand the Senator from Iowa as referring to me?

Mr. HARLAN. I remarked that the Senator from Tennessee was a member of the ComMr. PATTERSON, of Tennessee. That is true; but I understood the Senator to say in addition that I was a Radical. [Laughter.]

||

Mr. HARLAN. That is precisely what the committee propose to do by the passage of this bill, to harmonize these conflicts and give the city a good government, a good mayor, and a good board of aldermen and common council. It is the very thing we propose to do by the passage of this bill. The Senator is in error in saying that this is a bill sprung upon the Senate. The bill was introduced a few days ago, referred to the committee, and printed; it was reported back yesterday and laid on the table of every Senator. Personally I care nothing about the passage of the bill. If disorder should arise I can take my chances, I suppose, with the rest in any mob that may take control of the city. But I regard it as my duty as the organ of the Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom this bill was referred by the Senate, to call the attention of the Senate to the necessity of immediate action on it. I| am not sure that it would be in order now to state more at length the reasons for continuing the consideration of this bill. I hope, however, the Senate will take the view of it I have presented.

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President

Mr. HARLAN. The Senator misunderstood me. I said that I had supposed that he was not acting with the Republican or Radical party, but that the Senator from Indiana might know better than I did, as he sat nearer the

Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. PATTERSON, of Tennessee. I beg the Senator's pardon.

Mr. HENDRICKS. This bill has just come before us in the shape in which we now find it, and I think that we may ascertain the facts which are intended to be met by this legislation more satisfactorily. It is due to us that it should be postponed until Monday; but if it must be considered now, of course we shall do the best we can. The Gordian knot spoken of by the Senator from Massachusetts can easily enough be cut. If it is intended to do right by this bill, it is a very plain thing what is right. It is right that the men who have a prima facie case under the existing law should hold the office until the prima facie case is set aside on legal investigation and adjudication; and it is not right, whether done in Congress or in a State Legislature, or elsewhere, that you change the evidence establishing the right of a man to an office after his election, and arbitrarily declare that that shall be conclusive upon him. That is right nowhere

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thinks it his duty to remind the Senator that the bill before the Senate is not the bill on which he is speaking. The banking bill is before the Senate, and the question is on

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. PoмEROY in the chair.) The question is on post-postponing that. poning the special order.

Mr. SUMNER. I understand it so. I am in favor of proceeding with the bill of the Senator from Ohio, if we can; but I find myself confronted now with a practical question with reference to the District of Columbia, where we have exclusive jurisdiction. It belongs to us to settle the question. The Senator from Ohio has used a strong expression: he says that he hopes we shall now cut the Gordian knot. Very well; this bill is certainly one step in that direction, if it does not accomplish it, and I believe that for the moment it is the best and most efficient step. I hope, therefore, that the Senate will proceed with this bill which affects the District of Columbia, and finish it to-day. We ought not to take up any other business until this bill is acted on. We must give tranquility and peace to the city government of the District, where we have exclusive jurisdiction.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I understand that. Mr. SHERMAN. If my friend from Indiana will allow me, I will move to amend the proposition of the Sepator from Iowa. As I see it is manifest the Senate are disposed to finish this bill, I will move that the banking bill be postponed until Monday at one o'clock, and made the special order for that hour.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not yield for that purpose.

Mr. SHERMAN. Then I give notice that I shall make that motion as soon as I get the floor.

Mr. HENDRICKS. The question now is whether the special order shall be postponed for the purpose of considering the bill in relation to contested elections in the city of Washington.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On that question the Senator from Indiana is entitled to the floor.

Mr. HENDRICKS.. On that question I was

responding to the remarks of the Senator from Massachusetts. It is probable that I am not in order, and that he was. My remarks were addressed directly to his suggestion that the Gordian knot should be cut. Whether the Gordian knot, as presented by the Senator from Massachusetts, is in order for discussion or not should have been decided by the Chair when the Gordian knot was first presented to the Senate. Now I will stop for the decision of the Chair whether it is proper for us to consider the Gordian knot presented by the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. SHERMAN. Now, Mr. President

Mr. HENDRICKS. I have not yielded the floor. I am waiting until the Chair decides the question of order. The Chair has called me to order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair only reminded the Senator of the question before the Senate. It may be that he is in order in replying to any remarks made by the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. HENDRICKS. That depends altogether upon whether the remarks were in order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under our rules a large latitude of debate is allowed; and a Senator may reply to any remarks made by another, although not strictly in order on the subject before the Senate.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I am very much obliged to the Chair for permitting me, then, without deciding the point of order, to respond to the question raised by the Senator from Massachusetts. I am aware of the condition of affairs in this city, but the particular facts I do not profess to understand, perhaps, as well as the Senator from Massachusetts. I have not troubled myself to read even the newspaper statements of them, except so far as I have observed them within a few minutes in a paper of yesterday.

Under existing law, the election boards at the close of the election, as I understand, count the votes; they declare the result at each election precinct; they report that result to the register; they report it also to each of the boards of aldermen and common council. The register, under existing law, merely receives that report. He is not a judicial officer to revise that report. He has no power to purge it or to purge the polls. He is to receive the reports of the boards of election as the two city boards receive the reports of the boards of election. So that under existing law the evidence of a man's right to his office depends upon the returns made by the boards of election. Those returns make the election of Mr. Bowen as mayor. Those returns as first made elected the Conservative candidates for the board of alderman and board of common council in four of the seven wards. Now, what does the bill propose? This bill proposes to refer this question to the register. If he has given or shall give a certificate that Mr. Bowen is elected mayor that shall be the evidence. The law governing the election at the time it took place made the report of the boards of election the authority to decide that question. This bill proposes that the certificate of the register shall decide who are elected to the boards in the city, while the law which covered the election, and made the prima facie case under law, made the report of the election boards the evidence. Now, sir, why not apply the plain principle that where, according to those reports, a prima facie case is made, that prima facie case shall stand, and the man having that prima facie case shall go into office and hold office until that prima facie case is overcome by a legal investigation? Is not that right? Who wants it otherwise?

In one of the wards, as I understand the fact to be, the election board declared the result, and made a return in favor of the Conservative candidates, and afterward they revised that, and made another certificate, for a portion of it at least, and excluded the votes of some soldiers, and then declared a different result in that ward. When that election board had counted the votes, declared and made their return as

required by law, they had no further power over it. They had no judicial functions authorizing them to revise the election and to say that certain votes ought to be excluded. After they had made their returns, when the returns required by the law had been made, they could not be disturbed except upon a judicial investigation,

Now, sir, what I propose is, that this bill shall be returned to the committee, and that they shall report a bill upon the proposition that the prima facie case shall stand until that prima facie case is set aside upon an inquiry in the courts. That is the law everywhere. What would be thought in one of the States where an election takes place and the certificate of the officers provided by law is made which entitles the party to his office, if afterward the Legislature should provide that another and different officer might issue a certificate and that should make the case? No community would endure that. It would be so palpably wrong that it would not be endured.

Then, sir, it is plain that the prima facie case ought to stand until reversed, and I think the quiet of the city requires it. If illegal votes have been cast, that ought to be decided, not by the register of this city, because he has no means of making the proper investigation, but by the proper court. Whether the courts of this city are clothed with sufficient authority to try a question of this sort I do not know. If they are not, I would very cheerfully concur in proper legislation to give them the jurisdiction. I have no objection to that. Let this question be investigated in the courts; but until that investigation shall take place let the plain, square, and honest rule stand that the men who have the evidence of election as provided by law at the time the election took place take their offices and discharge the duties.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on postponing the order of the day in order to continue the consideration of the bill which has been under consideration in the morning hour.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. When we adjourned last evening the banking bill was under discussion; and I presume it will meet the views of the Senate that that measure shall be postponed until Monday, and be made the special order for that day. I submit that motion.

Mr. POMEROY, I do not think we need postpone it until Monday..

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I understand to-day will be consumed.

Mr. POMEROY. It is not at all certain that we shall need the whole day for this bill. Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. There are other measures.

Mr. POMEROY. If any other bill should be taken up to-day and left as the unfinished business, it would take precedence of the special order on Monday.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I make this motion in accordance with a request of the chairman of the Committee on Finance, who has made inquiry about the business of the day. He thinks it is against the general wish of the Senate to take up the banking bill to-day. As that bill is now in order, and may be called for by the chairman, I suppose there will be no objection to the motion I suggest.

Mr. POMEROY. I object to making it a special order.

1

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Vermont, to postpone Senate bill No. 440 until Monday at one o'clock, and make it the special order for that day. This motion requires a two-thirds vote.

1. The motion was agreed to-ayes 24, noes 8. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. McPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed the following bills of the Senate without amendment:

A bill (S. No. 322) granting a pension to Sherman II. Cowles;

A bill (S. No. 323) granting a pension to Michael Kelley;

A bill (S. No. 344) granting a pension to Caroline and Margaret Swartwout;

A bill (S. No. 420) granting a pension to James A. Guthrie ;

A bill (S. No. 421) granting a pension to Caroline E. Thomas; and·

A bill (S. No. 424) granting a pension to Bartlett and Carrie Edwards, children of David W. Edwards, deceased.

The message also announced that the House had passed the bill (S. No. 184) granting a pension to Mrs. Ann Corcoran; and the bill (S. No. 425) granting a pension to George Bennett, with amendments, in which the con currence of the Senate was requested.

A bill (H. R. No. 945) to place the name of Ellen Curry, widow of James Curry, deceased, a private soldier in company F, thirty-ninth regiment Illinois volunteers, upon the pensionroll of the United States;

A bill (H. R. No. 1220) granting a pension to Kate Higgins;

A bill (H. R. No. 1221) granting a pension to Sarah J. Rogers;

A bill (H. R. No. 1222) granting a pension to Catharine Ginsler;

A bill (H. R. No. 1223) granting a pension to Margaret Filson;

A bill (H. R. No. 1224) granting a pension to Jane E. Rogers;

A bill (H. R. No. 1225) granting a pension to Patrick Collins;

A bill (H. R. No. 1226) granting a pension to Barbara Weisse;

A bill (H. R. No. 1227) granting a pension to Martha Ann Wallace;

A bill (H. R. No. 1228) granting a pension to Joanna L. Shaw;

A bill (H. R. No. 1229) granting a pension to Anna H. Pratt;

A bill (H. R. No. 1230) granting a pension to Hannah K. Cook;

A bill (H. R. No. 1231) granting a pension to John Morley;

A bill (H. R. No. 1232) granting a pension to Ruth Barton;

A bill (H. R. No. 1233) granting a pension to William F. Moses;

A bill (H. R. No. 1234) granting a pension to Frederica Brielmayer;

A bill (H. R. No. 1235) granting a pension to Johannah Connelly;

A bill (H. R. No. 1236) granting a pension to the minor children of Michael Travis ;

A bill (H. R. No. 1237) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of James Cox;

A bill (H. R. No. 1238) granting a pension to Lavinia A. Gittings, mother of Andrew J. Gittings;

A bill (H. R. No. 1239) granting a pension to Owen Griffin;

A bill (H. R. No. 1240) granting a pension to Margaret Lewis;

A bill (H. R. No. 1241) granting a pension to Mrs. Mary Brown;

A bill (H. R. No. 1242) granting a pension to Esther Fisk;

A bill (H. R. No. 1243) granting a pension to William O. Dodge;

A bill (H. R. No. 1244) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of Solomon Gause;

A bill (H. R. No. 1245) granting a pension to Matthew C. Griswold;

A bill (H. R. No. 1246) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of Hiram Hitchcock;

A bill (H. R. No. 1247) granting, a pension to Orlena Walters;

A bill (H. R. No. 1248) granting a pension to Elizabeth Richardson;