in bottles; roofing and paving slates and tiles, and manufactures of stone of all kinds; precious stones and imitations thereof; and no abatement of duties shall be made for stains or injury to casks containing liquids, nor for damage of molasses by souring, nor shall there be in any event an average allowance for damage.

Mr. SHERMAN. My attention has not been called to this bill before. It seems to me that it is a part of the tariff system, and ought to go to the Finance Committee in connection with the tariff. It is a bill to provide for an abatement of duties, to modify the law in regard to duties. The provisions in regard to the abatement of duties are all under the tariff law. do not know to what extent this bill changes the tariff law.

I

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I agree with the Senator from Ohio that the original bill ought to have been sent to the Committee on Finance; but it not having been sent there, and having been considered by the Committee on Commerce, I saw no other way to propose any amendment but by offering it to this bill. I understand the original bill has received the approval of the Department, but it ought not to pass without this amendment, because it changes our laws in relation to damages. The amendment which I have proposed will leave the law very much as it now is, with the addition of a few articles more upon which no damage is to be allowed; and it is in harmony with the practice of other nations.

Mr. SHERMAN. This bill relates to the tariff, and is really a part of the revenue system. I move that it be referred to the Committee on Finance; and I will state to the Senator from Michigan that, if I find it satis. factory, I will return it to his charge as soon as I can examine it.

Mr. CHANDLER. I have no objection to its taking that course.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio moves that the bill and amendments be referred to the Committee on · Fi

nance.

The motion was agreed to.

REGISTERING OF VESSELS.

Mr. CHANDLER. I now move to proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 505.

The motion was agreed to; and the bill (S. No. 505) to amend section five of an act entitled "An act concerning the registering and recording of ships or vessels," approved December 31, 1792, was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It proposes to repeal section five of an act entitled "An act concerning the registering and recording of ships or vessels," approved December 31, 1792.

The bill was reported to the Senate, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

BRIG HIGHLAND MARY.

Mr. CHANDLER. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate joint resolution No. 113.

The motion was agreed to; and the joint resolution (S. R. No. 113) authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to issue an American register to the British-built brig Highland Mary was read the second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole. It proposes to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to issue an American register to the British-built brig Highland Mary, owned by H. and S. French, of Sag Harbor, New York.

The bill was reported to the Senate, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

BARK AUG. GUARDIEN.

Mr. CHANDLER. I now move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate joint resolution No. 36.

The motion was agreed to; and the joint resolution (S. R. No. 36) authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to issue an American register to the bark Aug. Guardien was read the second time, and considered as in Com. mittee of the Whole. It proposes to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to issue an

American register to the bark Aug. Guardien, of the port of New York, the same being a French-built vessel, but now owned by American citizens.

The bill was reported to the Senate, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

BARK GOLDEN FLEECE.

Mr. CHANDLER. I now move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate resolution No. 109, which was reported adversely by the Committee on Commerce.

The motion was agreed; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the joint resolution (S. R. No. 109) authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to issue an American register to the bark Golden Fleece.

Mr. FERRY. I desire to be informed by the chairman of the committee what were the facts in the case of the bark Golden Fleece, and if there be any special reason why an American register should not be issued?

Mr. CHANDLER. Last winter and winter before last the Committee on Commerce, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, had numerous applications from persons who had changed their flags during the rebellion; and after full consideration of the subject in all its aspects, the committees decided not to report favorably upon the application to give an American register to any ship that had changed her flag for safety during the period of the war. The reasons for this decision were these: if all the vessels belonging to our mercantile marine had changed their flags for safety during the war it would have been utterly impossible for the Government to have carried on the war; they could not have obtained transportation. During the rebellion most of the shipping interest of the United States obtained security by paying, I think my friend from New York told me, ten per cent. additional insurance risk. All could be insured by paying ten per cent. additional risk. These parties are loyal men, very loyal men; but they changed their flag, and this vessel comes under our rule. That is all there is in

the case.

Mr. FERRY. I have nothing to say with regard to the general rule upon the consideration of this particular case, although I might, if that were the subject-matter of inquiry now, have doubts as to the expediency of that general rule, especially in these days, when we are complaining that our flag is driven from the ocean and our commerce languishing in consequence of that fact. But in reference to this particular case I have something to say.

The principle upon which the rule has been adopted by the committee would seem to be that although the persons who changed their flag might be loyal citizens yet that the act itself was an unpatriotic act, and that therefore they ought not to be permitted to return their vessels to the protection of the American flag. Now, sir, I know the owners of the bark Golden Fleece. The principal owner is Mr. Thomas R. Trowbridge, of the city of New Haven, in my State, a gentleman who stands next to no man in my State or in New England in his patriotic devotion and exertions from the beginning of the war. Himself far advanced beyond the period of military ser vice, scarcely had Fort Sumter fallen when he devoted his whole energies, to my certain knowledge, to the raising of troops in the State of Connecticut, assisting our noble Governor, furnishing supplies out of his own private purse; and when the conflict actually began I have myself seen this same gentleman at the front, tending to the wants of our regiments; and I have no doubt that the amount contributed by him from his own private means during the period of the war and the results of his personal exertions were surpassed by those of no other citizen throughout the whole country.

Now, sir, what was the fact in regard to the bark Golden Fleece? She was on a voyage, as I understand, laden with a valuable cargo, and the

confederate corsairs were roaming the seas right upon her very track. The additional war risk, if paid for by the increased insurance, would not compensate for the loss of his vessel; his own Government was unable to protect him; and be it so that an error of judgment was committed by this question in transferring the vessel, for the sake of the protection of the ship and cargo, to a foreign flag, is it right that a citizen who has done so much as I know this gentleman has done, (and who since the close of the war, partly on account of his patriotic services, the citizens of my State have again and again offered the nomination for the Governorship of that State and he has steadily refused it,) is it right for an error of judg ment that he and his partners may have committed during the war, to continue to affix this stigma and compel him to keep his property afloat under the British flag? Now, I submit, Senators, if the general principle be right, if it be true that Mr. Trowbridge did commit an error of judgment, yet, stating what I know in regard to this gentleman, an exception ought to be made by the Congress of the United States in his case. I hope that the bill will not be indefinitely postponed, but passed.

Mr. SUMNER. I agree with the Senator from Connecticut in the view that he has presented, and indeed I should be disposed to go a little further and ask the Committee on Commerce if they are disposed now, at this late day, to adhere to the rule which they originally adopted? I do not undertake to criticise that rule so originally adopted by them. It may have been very proper immediately after the close of the war, when many applications were made. I myself was in the habit at the time of receiving applications from ship-owners whose interests were involved. But I venture now to ask the committee whether that rule has not been in force long enough?

We are now looking about in every direction to do away, so far as we can, with all those rules and usages that were the growth of the war. We have already passed a bill through this Senate which has relieved a large number of persons of their disabilities at the South; and now the question that I again put to the committee, is whether we may not properly turn to the North and see whether there are not parties there against whom a rule has been enforced which is calculated to be of serious detriment to them in their property and business. I am not going to raise the question whether the rule, when it was begun, was not entirely expedient. I accepted it as such at that time; but I submit that at this moment, when we are all seeking to bring about what, borrowing a phrase from another time, I would call the " era of good feeling," we may not properly apply that sentiment to this rule?

Now, unless I am mistaken, we should go beyond this individual case and generalize. We should open the door for the return of these flying vessels who left us for their safety or for the interests of their owners during the war. We should let them come back in peace and take their place once more in the mercantile marine of the country. Such, I must say, is the inclination of my judgment on this question, stated in its most general form; and that brings me to this special case. Even supposing the Senate is not disposed to adopt the more general proposition which I suggest, we have then the question presented on the individual case that has been argued by the Senator from Connecticut. It may be that the Senate will think it better to proceed by individual cases rather than by an alteration of the general rule. So be it; this individual case comes now before us, and, on the statement of the Senator from Connecticut, for one I shall be entirely content that by the legislation of this country we shall say to this vessel "come back."

Mr.CHANDLER. Mr. President, the Committee on Commerce had this subject a long time under consideration before it decided what course it would pursue. The impression of the committee was that to permit these vessels to come back and resume their flag after

selves, and being of ourselves chose to avail themselves of that position among ourselves to escape partially from the risks and dangers which others ran, to withdraw themselves or their property by a change of flag, by concealment of a fact, by so far just putting themselves outside of their country for the sake of gain or to escape loss, and then claim to come back again on an equal footing with those, and

resort to that course of action.

the termination of the war would be in all future wars offering a premium to those who should desert the flag. It was not only the ten per cent, which was a tax upon our commerce, but the insurance upon the cargoes was likewise ten per cent. additional. Consequently our vessels during the whole four years of war were compelled to do business at that loss over all vessels that changed their flag. Why should we take back a vessel that enjoyed this immu-perhaps to the injury of those, who did not nity for four years, I may say unpatriotically, although I would not apply that remark to this case, for my impression is that the owners of this vessel, had they been with the ship, would not have changed the flag. Mr. Trowbridge is as patriotic as my friend from Connecticut asserts; no man more so. The Committee on Commerce, in view of all the circumstances, were willing to make an exception of his case, and during the last Congress we reported a bill for his vessel, which was passed and sent to the other House, but the House refused to concur in it. We were willing to make an exception of the owner of this ship on account of his loyalty and devotion to his country. But, sir, the committee did not think-at least they have not yet arrived at the conclusion-that the rule ought to be changed. The matter is in the hands of the Senate. I have not the slightest objection to the Senate passing this bill, if they choose to do so, inasmuch as I once advocated it myself; but I am still satisfied that the gen. eral rule adopted by the committee was a correct one, and that it should be enforced.

Let

it be understood in all future time that the man who changes his flag during a war has changed it forever. We could not have carried on the war if our ship-owners generally had pursued this course. We had something like a thou. sand transports at one time engaged by the Government carrying supplies. If our ships had all changed their flags, where should we have found this transportation? It is perfectly evident that if their owners had done as these owners did our war would have failed for want of transportation. While I insist upon the general rule, I am not strenuous about its application to this case.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It strikes me that this is a very simple question. I do not know what the circumstances of this particular case are, for I have not heard them stated. I infer, however, from what has been said by the Senator from Michigan, that the flag was not in this case changed by the direction of the own. ers, but by direction of the master, the owners not being aware of it.

Mr. CHANDLER. It was acquiesced in by the owners during the war, after it was done.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Then the case does not differ at all from any other case where the change was made originally by direction of the owner if he acceded to it and availed himself of the benefits that accrued. It strikes me that the question is a very simple one; and it is, whether a man engaged as one of our people in our great contest should be permitted during the pendency of that contest to withdraw his property to his own particular benefit from the risk which others assumed in consequence of the war, and thereby put money into his own pocket, and during the war derived all the benefits from that course of action which he expected to derive from it, and then when the war is over just come back again upon an equal footing with those who exposed their property, and did not shrink or skulk from the dangers properly appertaining to their position. I cannot conceive that the question presents itself in any other light.

I unite with the sentiments which have been advanced by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] as to the importance of kindness and conciliation, and an endeavor to lo away with the asperities that have grown up during the war. I am very glad to hear him express these sentiments; but it strikes me that it is a very singular application of them to apply them in the first instance to owners of property belonging to men who were of our

In consequence of the withdrawal of such large amounts of shipping during the war other people put their property into that description of business, and any one can see that the introduction of foreign shipping largely into our commerce must affect their interests to a very considerable degree. It has been against the policy of this country always to nationalize shinping not built by ourselves. It is only done under very peculiar circumstances; generally in cases of wreck, where the amount of repairs put upon a vessel exceeds the original cost, and those repairs are made in this country. If that is the policy of the nation, is it right so far to controvert it, so far to act against it, as to introduce this large quantity of shipping at once among ourselves, when the owners have chosen in a time of national peril to denationalize it? Sir, I am for letting them take the consequences of their own act; at any rate I am not disposed to pass laws here in Congress for the mere purpose of giving additional value to property which the owners of that property chose voluntarily to withdraw from the protection of our flag. I see no justice in it, and no propriety in it, and therefore I shall vote against the bill.

Mr. FERRY. A few words in reply to the Senator from Maine. The Government of the United States has a duty to its mercantile marine and its ship-owners as well as they have a duty reciprocally to the Government of the United States. The Senator complains that the bill legislates to bring back under our flag those who have voluntarily renounced the protection of that flag. That is a begging of the whole question, for the very difficulty was that at this time the Government of the United States utterly failed in the performance of its first duty, perhaps from no fault of its, probably owing to its misfortune. The Government failing in the protection which it was bound to afford to the owners of the mercantile marine of the country, many of them resorted to the protection of other flags. While I do not excuse entirely those who sought the protection which their own Government did not afford from a foreign flag, I do say that now when the complaint is universal-and I have heard it on the floor of the Senate from the Senator from Maine-that our flag is banished from the ocean; now, when loyal American citizens who, not being able to obtain from their own Government during that period the protection which it was its duty to bestow upon them, from error of judgment, perhaps, sought that protection abroad, desire to come back and build up again our mercantile marine by the addition of I do not know how many more vessels to that marine, that we should continue, according to the Senator's argument, forever to ostracize these loyal citizens of the Republic, seems to me to be bad in principle and bad in policy. It may well be that a Senator from the State of Maine, upholding most firmly always upon this floor the policy which he has just enunciated as the policy of the Government in regard to nationalizing any foreign-built vessels, might be glad to extend the operation of the same rule to those vessels which were compelled to seek protection under a foreign flag.

I did not intend in the commencement of this discussion to go at all into the general inquiry as to the policy of the rule adopted by the Committee on Commerce, but I directed my argument mainly to this special case, where a vessel being on a voyage across whose track came the confederate pirates the master, with the responsibility of the vessel and cargo upon

him, unable to find protection from his own Government, sought temporary protection under a foreign flag, seeking, as it was his duty to do, the interest of the owners, and subsequently those owners acquiesced in the action at the very time when, to my certain knowledge, the principal owner of this vessel at any rate was engaged in pouring out his treasure as freely as water for the purpose of filling up our regiments and sustaining our troops in the field; and you say that these men for the error, if it be an error, committed then, shall be forever stigmatized by adverse votes of Congress upon an application of this kind, as during that very war having been unpatriotic and quasi disloyal to their country.

I agree with the general principle enunciated by the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER,] that it is time to put an end to these things on both sides, North and South. I think it is time to bring back harmonious feelings and the old fraternal relations if we can do so without endangering the interests and the future welfare of the country. I cannot see any danger from an operation of this kind; but I can see danger where such men as I know the owners of this vessel to be are kept perpetually stigmatized by the action of Congress and turned out of its doors when they come here, asking simply to increase the mercantile marine of the country by a vessel that is now under a foreign flag, and refuse because of an error which they may have made two or three years ago.

Mr. CHANDLER. I send to the desk the petition of the owners of this vessel, and ask that it be read as it sets forth their own case fully.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled: The undersigned, merchants of New Haven, Connecticut, and loyal citizens of the United States, respectfully represent that for a period of more than fifty years their house have been engaged in foreign commerce; that during the great rebellion they were owners and employers of many vessels in their own trade; that in 1862 they contracted for the building of a fine bark for their business, at a large expense, namely, for about thirty thousand dollars; that in the autumn of 1863, when the vessel was completed and ready for sea, the rebel cruisers were making such havoc with United States vessels that your petitioners having nearly their whole fortunes exposed to capture by the rebels-and as this bark with her cargo would amount to fully $50,000 additionalthought it prudent to avail of an opportunity to seek protection by selling the vessel to a friend who was a British subject, and taking a mortgage on the said vessel they accordingly sold the vessel, calling her the Golden Fleece, and thus she passed under the English flag, but has never passed out of the actual ownership of your petitioners. They now wish to have the said vessel returned to the American flag, and in accordance therewith humbly petition that an American register be granted to the said bark Golden Fleece formerly of New Haven. H. TROWBRIDGE'S SONS. NEW HAVEN, February 14, 1868.

Mr. FESSENDEN. That makes a worse case than I supposed. It seems now that at the time the vessel was being built the owners deliberately came to the conclusion that they would put her under a foreign flag, and for that purpose made a sham sale. So it seems they are solely responsible for it, and it was deliberately done. I do not see how their case differs in the slightest possible degree from a great many other cases where the same thing was done in precisely the same way.

This vessel was built early in the war, when the building of vessels was comparatively cheap. At this time, in consequence of the war itself, the cost of building vessels has almost doubled. Now, if you choose to bring back all these vessels thus sold-and they are quite numerous-you bring into our commerce to compete with vessels that were not thus sold and vessels built at the present time at double the cost vessels that have not cost more than half as much, and thus affect their interests and the interests of ship-building generally.

Mr. CHANDLER. The Senator will permit me to state that there were ten hundred and seventy-six vessels in all that either changed their flag or were destroyed—a very large number.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I call that a very large

number. The Senate will see at once what the effect would be upon the existing commerce that has been built up, so far as it could be built recently. It is giving to those men who chose not to run the hazard over those who chose to run the hazard, as many did, this striking advantage. Is that dealing justly by those who scorned to cover their property in that way, by disclaiming the protection, so far as it went, of the flag of their country and for the time putting their vessels under a foreign flag? I think it would not be just.

As to putting a stigma upon these gentlemen, I think that is a very curious way to look at it. If they had not brought their petition here nobody would have known anything about it; no stigma would have been put upon them by Congress. It is very curious logic that people come voluntarily into these Halls and say, "We have done a certain thing which you do not approve, which the country does not approve, which does not approve itself to the mind of any right-thinking man, perhaps, for the sake of gain, or to avoid loss; we ask you to restore to us not only the advantages we have lost thus voluntarily, but to give us a preference, in fact, over others who took a different course from us, and if you do not do it it is putting a stigma on us.' That is hardly an argument, I think, to be addressed to the sense of the Senate on a question of that description.

Why, sir, the argument which the Senator, from Connecticut makes, that they did this thing because the country was unable to make them secure in the possession of their property, might as well be carried further, and it would justify any other mean or disloyal act that was done by any man simply because he thought himself in danger at the time his country was in danger. You may carry it out to justify desertion, or even treachery, as more is granted to one who desires to save his life than one who desires to save his property.

Sir, I am opposed to this whole thing, not only on the general principle which I have stated, but on the principle that carrying this out the effect is materially to injure the interests of men who were not.exposed to the charge to which these gentlemen are exposed. They must take the consequences of their own act. They chose voluntarily to take their chance for the sake of gain. Let them be satisfied with it, and having saved their property and made their gain, let them not come and ask for more at the expense of others who are more worthy in that particular than they are themselves.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment.

Mr. MORGAN. The report of the committee was adverse in this case.

If no

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. amendment be offered, the question is on ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third reading. Mr. FERRY. I ask for the yeas and nays on that question.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. SUMNER. Before the vote is taken 1 desire to make one remark. I remember that several years ago while the war was raging, when there were various questions before the Senate of confiscation, of emancipation, of the enforcement of military rule in the rebel States, I said from my seat in this Chamber that I regarded all these measures, except the great act of emancipation, as acts of war for the maintenance of the rights of my country; that when those rights had been secured, and when there was no longer any reason for the enforcement of any of those rules, I would be among the foremost to insist upon removing them all; that no one should outdo me in clemency to any rebel the moment the time had come when that clemency could be shown with safety to the Republic. I am not sure that the time has yet come when all those rules which were then adopted with regard to the rebel States can be relaxed. I am not sure that it can be done consistently with the public safety. But now I turn round to this other rule which

was made to bear on the shipping interest of the northern States, and I apply to that the same principle that I would apply generally to the rebel States. I ask myself whether there is any reason of public safety that shall require the further maintenance of that rule. I cannot find it. The Senator from Maine says that the return of these vessels would bring a large interest in competition with another interest that is already in the country and which took no advantage of a foreign flag. It may be so. But I would ask whether that argument is not applicable to every proposed change in the rebel States; whether we can confer any rights on any individuals, or relax any of those severe rules anywhere in the rebel States, without, in some respects, directly or indirectly, bearing also upon faithful Unionists during the war? It seems to me that the argument, if apt in one case, is also apt in the other. For myself, so far as the rebel States are concerned, I fall back upon the position which I took some four or five years ago in this Chamber, that when the change can be made consistently with public safety it shall not want my vote. And now I ask that the same rule shall be applied to cases like that before us. I believe that there is no question of public safety now; I believe that this ship can be allowed to come back and take her old colors or her natural colors, the colors that belong to her, without the Government receiving any detriment.

Mr. MORGAN. As one member of the Committee on Commerce who reported this bill, I desire to say that I shall feel instructed by the decision of the Senate on this bill and I have no doubt the committee will also. This seems to be a test case. It is not like many others, where the captain of a vessel changed the flag in a foreign country without the knowledge of the owners. The flag was changed in this case by Mr. Trowbridge himself. There were two courses open to him while he was building his ship and when he concluded to send her to sea: he could pay the extra insurance, or he could make a sale of the ship and change its flag. He chose the latter course, and placed his ship under the British flag. Others chose the opposite, and paid the additional insurance. If the Senate shall decide that they will grant a register to Mr. Trowbridge, a highly-respectable gentleman, whom I have had the pleasure to know for a great number of years, I, as one member of the committee, shall consider this question settled, and that hereafter we are to grant all these applications. Heretofore we have granted

none.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I will suggest one other idea; and that is, that during the war all these vessels were in fact British vessels. They were under the British flag, engaged in British commerce; and their interest was, as it was the interest of British commerce, to destroy ours, what we had to destroy; and I am told as a matter of fact that the enemy got probably more information in regard to us through men sailing these vessels which were transferred to the British flag than they did from any other quarter. They were acting against us all the time necessarily, because they were British ships; and now they come and demand that they shall be taken back again under our flag. I think that I would extend mercy to the rebels that u the honorable Senator from Massachusetts speaks of to-day quicker than I would grant a petition of this kind.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third reading, on which the yeas and nays have been ordered.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 11, nays 20; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Davis, Ferry, Henderson, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sprague, Sumner, Van Winkle, Vickers, and Willey-11.

NAYS Messrs. Buckalew, Cameron, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Fessenden. Harlan, Hendricks, Howard, McCreery, Morgan, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Saulsbury, Tipton, Trumbull, Wade, Williams, and Yates-20.

ABSENT-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Cattell, Conness, Cragin, Dixon, Doolittle, Drake, Edmunds,

Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Howe, Johnson, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Norton, Ross, Sherman, Stewart, Thayer, and Wilson-23.

So the bill was rejected.

SALE OF SHIPS TO BELLIGERENTS.

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. If the Senator from Michigan will allow me one moment, I wish to move to reconsider the vote by which Senate bill No. 94, declaratory of the law with regard to the sale of ships to friendly belligerents, was passed. It will take but a

moment.

Mr. CHANDLER. Let the motion be entered.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection that motion will be entertained.

Mr. PATTERSON, of New Hampshire. I merely wish to say that this bill pretends to settle by an act of legislation a grave question of international law. It also forecloses all action upon a case which for six weeks past has been under consideration by the Committee on Retrenchment. It is well known that the Navy Department has sold two of our ironclads to the Peruvian Government, or to certain parties who have sold them to the Peruvian Government

Mr. CHANDLER. Let the motion to reconsider be entered.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on reconsidering the vote by which the bill was passed.

The motion was agreed to.

THOMAS W. WARD.

Mr. CHANDLER. I now move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 542.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. No. 542) for the relief of Thomas W. Ward, collector of customs at Corpus Christi, Texas. It proposes to direct the proper accounting officers of the Treasury to settle the accounts of Thomas W. Ward, late collector of customs for the district of Corpus Christi, Texas, from March 5, 1867, to July 31, 1867, and to allow him the same compensation and emoluments as if he had been legally collector of customs for that district for that period. It further proposes to recognize the deputy collector appointed by Thomas W. Ward on the 7th of March, 1867, as the legal deputy collector of the district, and the accounting officers are to settle his accounts in the same manner as if he had been legally appointed and all his acts were legal.

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

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. MORGAN. I move that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 764,.for the.relief of certain exporters of distilled spirits. It has been a long while before the Senate. I believe there is now no longer any objection to it; and it is very important that the bill should be taken up and disposed of.

Mr. HOWE. I wish to ask the Senator from New York if he will not allow me to call up a bill? I do not wish to antagonize it to his; but the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who is not able to be here to-day, sent word to me that there, was an urgent necessity for the passage of the bill appropriating $150,000 to sustain the Indian peace commission, so called. I suppose it will occupy but a moment, and I hope the Senator will allow that to be taken up.

Mr. MORGAN. When this bill is taken up, if it does not thereby lose its place, I shall not object to that measure being taken up; but I think the Senator had better let this bill be passed. I think it can be disposed of in a few minutes. It was up once before, but some objection was made, as it was feared there would be frauds under it; but I think those objections are removed.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ques

tion is on the motion of the Senator from New York, to take up the bill (H. R. No. 764) for the relief of certain exporters of distilled spirits.

Mr. HOWARD. I really hope that the Senate will not take up that bill, but will take up Senate bill No. 256, relating to the central branch Union Pacific railroad-a bill which has been before the Senate and has been pretty thoroughly discussed, and one which is of a great deal of importance, both to the Government and the parties who are interested in it. It has been pending before the Senate now for several months, and has been from time to time discussed, and I really hope the Senate will now consent to take it up and finish it, dispose of it one way or the other. I do not like, of course, to antagonize it against the bill of the honorable Senator from New York, but I do not see any other way that I can take. I hope, therefore, that the bill which is now mentioned will not be taken up, and that mine will be.

Mr. CONKLING. Without reference to the bill which it is proposed now to take up, I hope the Senator from Michigan will not insist upon taking up the bill that he suggests. The Senator from Vermont, [Mr. EDMUNDS,] who is not able to be here to-day, wishes to be heard on that bill, and has so stated. Several other Senators wish to be heard upon it; and to be entirely frank about it, I am one of those who have some observations to make upon the bill. I have investigated it with care since it was discussed before, and have provided myself with papers to put at rest some mooted questions with regard to it. It therefore certainly cannot be finished to-day, and I hope it will not be taken up in the absence of several Senators, two at least, who have announced their wish to be heard upon it when it is taken up.

I know my honorable friend from Michigan has proposed twice before to take up this bill, both times in the morning hour, when there was unfinished business which would cut it off at one o'clock; and the objection has been made by Senators that they wished to have an opportunity to discuss it, and therefore did not wish it to be taken up for ten or fifteen minutes or half an hour. Now, I will promise the Senator, for one, that if he will move to take up this bill at any time when the Senate is in its ordinary condition of fullness, after the morning hour, I will assist him to get it up, because I agree it ought to be disposed of one way or the other, although I differ with him entirely in saying that the public have any interest in it, except as to the question whether $2,500,000 shall be taken from the Treasury|| and a large donation of lands made. In that sense, of course, they have an interest. But every Senator who has been here to-day knows that at hardly any time has there been a quorum present. The Senate is somewhat fuller now than it was a few moments ago; but we all observe the unusual thinness of the body. I submit that a bill of this sort ought not to be taken up at such a time as this, and more especially not when, as I say, Senators wish to be heard, two of whom at least are detained on this occasion from sickness, and are unable to be present-the Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS] and the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. MORTON.

Mr. NYE. The Senator from New York says he desires to discuss the measure proposed to be taken up by the Senator from Michigan. There will probably be as much time to-day as he wants to use in his argument. I think it ought to be taken up. Here is a road that has only one end to it, and the bill ought to be taken up, and let these people who have been here all the winter dancing attendance on Congress know what their fate is to be. If it is taken up now, and the honorable Senator from New York commences the discussion, know he will be able to speak the day out, especially if he has got the papers he says he has. I hope that he will use what little time there is left of to-day himself. Then so much of the argument will be over, and to-morrow, Il

I

undoubtedly, the Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS] will be here, and in that way we shall get along with the bill; but if the Senate wait until everybody is here who wants to make a speech upon it we shall probably not reach it this session. It is a question, I contend, that the public are interested in, outside of the sense which the honorable Senator from New York suggests. It is a question in which the public faith is concerned, as I look upon it; and I insist upon it, it ought to be determined one way or the other, for I do not misstate the case when I say that this road has no connec tion, and it is impossible to make one unless Congress do something to put the company upon their own resources or to give them means to carry on the work so far as to fulfill the faith originally pledged.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I think the Senator from Michigan [Mr. HOWARD] perhaps had better accept the suggestion of the Senator from New York, [Mr. CONKLING,] with this modification: we should have an understanding that the bill will be taken up to-morrow at one o'clock. I think the bill ought to be considered, and I should like very much to hear the views of Senators upon it.

Mr. HOWARD. To-morrow has been set apart for the consideration of pension bills. Mr. SUMNER and others. Oh, no; Saturday is set apart for pension bills.

Mr. HOWARD. If I can have such an understanding, I will be entirely content to take it up at one o'clock.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I wish to add, as a reason why I would like a postponement until to-morrow, that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS] will discuss the question as a lawyer, of course, and I should like to hear his views upon it. It is a law question, in my opinion, that is involved in this case. When the bill first came up I was decidedly against it, because I thought this road never ought to be a part of the Pacific railroad plan; but upon an examination of the law I find myself very much embarrassed about it. It is almost impossible to resist the conclusion that the law has committed Congress to the support of this road; and as I find myself thus embarrassed about it, I should like to hear the views of Senators who are opposed to the bill, and I shall oppose taking a vote in their absence. I suggest that it be the understanding that this bill be taken up to-morrow at one o'clock, and be disposed of to-morrow.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I suggest to the Senator from Indiana to name Monday, because if the Senator from Maine [Mr. MORRILL] should be well enough to be in his place to-morrow he will, undoubtedly, insist upon proceeding with the regular appropriation bills that are now pending.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Let it be subject to that contingency.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. You had better place it beyond all contingencies, and have it understood when the bill is to come up.

Mr. HENDRICKS. There is no hurry about the appropriation bills. They have never failed yet, I believe, but once. As the friends of this bill have sought to have it considered so frequently, I think it is due that we should take it up to morrow.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question before the Senate is on taking up the bill mentioned by the Senator from New York, [Mr. MORGAN.]

Mr. SUMNER. I am in favor of the bill that is now moved by the Senator from New York, [Mr. MORGAN.] Indeed, I am very anxious that it should be considered and passed. I am also in favor of the bill moved by my friend, the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. HOWARD,] and I think that it ought to be taken up and passed. All things considered, I should prefer to proceed with the railroad bill this afternoon, and I think we might begin by listening to the Senator from New York, [Mr. CONKLING,] who has enlightened us repeatedly on the subject, and, I have no doubt, will continue to do so as long as the bill is under dis

cussion. But then he might begin this afternoon, if we should take it up at three o'clock. If the Senate is not disposed to proceed with it this afternoon, then I think that there should be an understanding that it shall be taken up at one o'clock to-morrow, and that nothing else shall be allowed to interfere with it until it is acted on finally. If the opposition of the Senator from New York should then prevail, be it so; but let us act upon it. I think that the bill is too important, whether you look at it in the light of the public interests involved or of the private interests in question, for the Senate to continue to sport with it, if I may be pardoned the expression, as it seems to me to have done during the last two months. Great interests are here in question. Private individuals have made large sacrifices, and they are now held in suspense. I do not think it right. I remember that the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. SHERMAN,] when he began the opposition to this bill, publicly announced here that the parties had an unquestionable equity. That was his own language. On looking into the bill, I am sure that he did not overstate the case; they have an unquestionable equity, and I think the Senate ought, therefore, to come to some understanding now to proceed with that bill until it is brought to a close.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there any objection to taking up the bill mentioned by the Senator from New York?

Mr. SUMNER. I wish to have an understanding with regard to the railroad bill, or I shall oppose taking up the other bill.

Mr. ANTHONY. The understanding is for those who agree to it. I do not agree to any such understanding. If the Senator from Maine comes in here to-morrow and asks us to take up an appropriation bill I shall vote to take it up against a railroad bill or any other private bill. It is true that the appropriation bills are never lost; they never can be lost; but they can be crowded into the heel of the session, so that they pass without any proper consideration; and every session we find in them, not only appropriations that are injudicious and inconsiderate, but we find legislation that never would have passed if we had had time to consider it. I will not agree, for one, to postpone these appropriation bills, which not only are necessary to carry on the Government, but which, by the system that has so long prevailed, contain a great deal of legislation for private interests, and let them be pushed aside to the close of the session when we are to pass them, as I have seen an appropriation bill passed here, without being read.

Mr. MORGAN. I think the Senate must conclude that it is time that the bill I have moved to take up was disposed of. It passed the House of Representatives on the 4th of March, came here a few days afterward, and had a favorable report from the Committee on Finance. I was instructed to report it, and as I supposed at the time without any opposition. It was brought up in the Senate, and it received some opposition from members of the Committee on Finance, and it was laid over. The business of all the persons engaged in the exportation of alcohol and rum to Africa has been suspended, hung up entirely, await- . ing action on this bill; and no State has se much interest in it as the State of Massachusetts. I am therefore a little surprised at my friend on my right [Mr. SUMNER] stating that he would prefer of the two that the railroad bill should be taken up; a bill to grant a subsidy to a railroad in Kansas in preference to this bill relating to the exporters of New York and Boston.

Mr. NYE. I should like to inquire of the Senator from New York whether the Africans are suffering from the want of this rum, or the merchants of Boston are suffering from not being able to send it? [Laughter.]

Mr. MORGAN. They are suffering both ways. [Laughter.]

Mr. TIPTON. I should like to have this question put in such a form that I could vote for taking up the bill designated by the Senator

from New York; but I cannot do so unless I can have an understanding that the bill moved by the Senator from Michigan can come up to-morrow. If a motion can be made in that way, i shall vote to act on both bills.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Each must stand upon its own merits. There can be no such agreement except by a vote of the Senate.

Mr. CONKLING. I rise, Mr. President, to join issue with the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER,] not in respect of his wit and facetiousness, both of which are great, nor in respect to the legislative morals, the idea of fair dealing among gentlemen which enters into the statement he makes. He seems to think that acting from what the doctors call vis a tergo, a pressure from behind, about this, it is quite right for him to insist that a bill of this private nature shall be pressed in the absence of Senators whom he knows, by reason of sickness, are detained from the Senate, and who have announced that they wish to be heard upon it. I have no quarrel with him on that subject.

Mr. SUMNER. What one Senator is in the predicament the Senator describes? It is all

news to me.

Mr. CONKLING. If the Senator from Massachusetts condescended to pay attention to what other members of this body says, and particularly the humbler members of the body; if that honor had just now fallen to my lot when I stated, naming them, two Senators who wish to be heard on the subject, and who are detained from illness, I should be relieved from the Senator's rising from his seat and inquiring of me who is in that predicament. The Senator was not out of his seat, but he sat where he does now when I made the statement which I refer to.

Mr. President, I rose to take issue with the Senator upon his statement of fact. I rose to object to his saying to the Senate that I have repeatedly enlightened, or attempted to enlighten, the Senate upon this subject. That statement is wholly incorrect, although the Senator made it without any qualification. I once took the liberty, on the first occasion when this bill was up, of assigning my reasons for voting against it. I have never discussed it on any other occasion, unless literally I am to except the question which I put to the honorable Senator who sits behind me [Mr. HARLAN] when he addressed the Senate, for explanation. I have never discussed the question in any other way, except once or twice to interpose an objection to its being taken up, as it seemed to me out of season.

The truth is, then, Mr. President, that I did once address the Senate against this bill; and I have no apology to make to the honorable Senator from Massachusetts for so doing, although I have witnessed the extreme zeal on various occasions with which he has pressed this matter upon the Senate. On the occa sion to which I refer several Senators, among others the Senator from Kansas, [Mr. POMEROY,] disputed-more than that he contradicted directly a statement which I made, which I had received from others. Since that time I have taken pains to fortify myself; to find out whether, in truth, I was right or whether he was right; and I say to the Senator from Massachusetts, that whenever this bill comes up again, unless the rules of the Senate are so changed as to confine observations in the body to the more eminent members of it, I shall take the liberty of going again somewhat over this ground, to the end that we may see whether in law or in equity we are bound to put our hands into the Treasury and take the sum of $2,500,000 from it and present it to these men, who, I believe in my conscience, in morals and in law, are no more entitled to it than my honorable friend who sits before me. I shall hold it my privilege to do that; and when I have done it, it will be true, should the Senator see fit to say it, that I shall have then twice addressed this body on the subject. But it is not true now that I have repeatedly, or more than once, attempted to enlighten the Senate

40TH CONG. 2D SESS.No. 204.

or

vex the ear" of the Senate upon the merits of this bill.

Mr. HOWARD. It is not, perhaps, very material whether the honorable Senator from New York has addressed the Senate once or twice or three times on this subject. We all know very well his strenuous opposition to the bill; and we all know that he has gone into the subject heretofore very fully; at least I supposed he had done so. What I want at the hands of the Senate is that this bill shall be taken up and fairly heard and passed upon, as other bills in the nature of claims against the Government are passed upon; that it shall be considered, voted upon, and decided one way or the other, after whatever amount of discussion may be necessary. The bill has been lying on our tables for five months to-morrow, and has been somewhat discussed; I think sufficiently discussed; and I think it is of that nature which calls upon us to pass upon it either pro or con, and to satisfy the parties in interest, who have been waiting upon us here for the past five months and more, whether or not we will give them the relief, or any part of it, which they ask at our hands. The question simply addresses itself to our common sense, and I cannot but observe that the opposition to taking up this bill to-day comes from those gentlemen who have shown a decided opposition to the measure in all its forms and phases.

Mr. HOWE. The question, I believe, is on the motion to take up the bill referred to by the Senator from New York, [Mr. MORGAN.] The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is the

motion.

Mr. HOWE. I am decidedly in favor of that motion, because the Senator from New York is willing when his bill is taken up to let it be put aside for a moment to pass the bill in relation to the Indian peace commission, which, I am instructed, it is very important should be passed to-day; and I hope the Senate is ready to vote on the question of taking up that bill. I do not propose to antagonize it against the bill moved by the Senator from New York, because to this there is no objection, I understand, and it will occupy but a moment. But we seem likely to spend the day in discussing another bill which is not before us, nor is there any motion to bring it before us at present. I wish the Senate would take a vote on the motion to take up the bill of the Senator from New York.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ques tion is on taking up the bill mentioned by the Senator from New York.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. HOWE. Now, I ask the consent of the Senator from New York to take up this other bill.

Mr. MORGAN. We can pass this right away. Mr. POMEROY. I hope the bill of the Senator from New York will be laid aside to pass the bill of the Senator from Wisconsin.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will be laid aside informally, if there be no objection, for the purpose of taking up the other bill.

INDIAN PEACE COMMISSION.

Mr. HOWE. I now move to take up House bill No. 1218.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is informed that that bill has not been reported from the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. HOWE. I am instructed to report, and I now do so.

By unanimous consent, the bill (H. R. No. 1218) appropriating money to sustain the Indian commission and carry out treaties made thereby was considered as in Committee of the Whole, for the purpose of carrying out treaty stipulations with various Indian tribes and defraying the expenses and disbursements made by the commission, authorized by the act of July 20, 1867, entitled "An act to establish peace with certain hostile Indian tribes during the year 1868." The bill appropriates the sum of $150,000, to be expended under the direction of the commission.

The bill was reported to the Senate without

amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

EXPORTERS OF DISTILLED SPIRITS.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill (H. R. No. 764) for the relief of certain exporters of distilled spirits, taken up on motion of the Senator from New York, is now before the Senate, and the pending question is on concurring in the amendments made as in Committee of the Whole.

The amendments were concurred in.

Mr. SHERMAN. I hope the attention of the Senate will be called to this bill, because I think it is a very important one. I have no objection in the world to the exportation of rum that has been manufactured under the circumstances stated in this bill, that is, manufactured under a contract to be delivered for exportation. I have no desire to interfere with the exportation of honest dealers even in rum. But, in my judgment, the bill as it now stands, if passed, will open the door to whisky frauds to a very large extent. We passed, some time in January last, a bill prohibiting the exportation of spirits in bond, because it was shown to the Committee of Ways and Means and the Committee on Finance that frauds were practiced under pretense of exportation by exportation bonds to a very large extent. Cases were furnished to us. If the Senate will look at this bill they will see how it may be open to similar frauds. My only hesitation about the bill grew out of the fact that I feared under its provisions rum and alcohol might be exported in fraud of the law. I will read the bill:

That the act of January 11, 1868, entitled "An act to prevent frauds in the collection of tax on distilled spirits," be so construed as to permit alcohol and rum, which at the date of the passage of said act were already distilled or redistilled and intended for export, &c.

That embraces nearly all the alcohol in this country, or might be made so by proof that could easily be furnished by the "whisky ring" -an intangible thing that we can talk about! The bill authorizes the export of alcohol and

rum.

"Which at the date of the passage of said act”— That is, to-day, or to-morrow, whenever this bill passes

"Were already distilled or redistilled and intended for export."

How easy it will be to prove that! It is said that there are now twenty million gallons of whisky on hand. I do not know how many gallons of alcohol there are. The one can be converted into the other with great rapidity. It is a mere process of distillation or redistillation, and it is a very simple one. Under this bill, by simply proving that the alcohol or rum, when it was manufactured, was intended for export, they have the right to export it under the old law; and they may do it in another case:

"Or actually contracted for to be delivered for exportation."

So that alcohol already in existence may be exported, either when it was "distilled or redistilled and intended for export"-how easy it will be to prove that factor actually contracted for to be delivered for exportation." It will only be necessary for the exporter to furnish proof of either of these two states of fact in order to enable him to avoid and evade the law. Then he may give transportation or exportation bonds according to law and he may export it.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I ask the Senator what danger there is of fraud in that? If I understand the matter, the law was changed not because there was any aversion to the exportation itself, but because under the bonding system there were abuses by which the spirits pretended to be exported were really sold in this country. Now, if this is only intended for a particular article, limited in its character, is there any danger of its going into use in this country and not being actually exported?

Mr. SHERMAN. This bill simply repeals the act of January last as to all alcohol and rum which may be brought within either of