those two classes; because the old law, the law which was repealed in January, provided for transportation and export bonds precisely as this will do. This bill furnishes no additional guard or restraint on the exportation of rum or alcohol. It simply provides that if proof is made that it was already distilled and was intended for export, or that it was contracted for exportation, the law is to stand as it did before the act of January last, and it may be exported under transportation bonds.

I know that no Senator desires to see the hold we have on the whisky on hand loosened. I have no doubt that in a short time, when we reduce the tax on spirits, we shall be able to get the revenue from nearly all the whisky on hand, which, according to official estimates, is twenty million gallons. Indeed, it has been estimated as high as forty millions; but I take the lowest, twenty millions. If that is so, we may by holding on to this whisky interfere somewhat with the legitimate trade in rum for Africa; but we shall at any rate prevent any further frauds in regard to the whisky on hand. That is the only fear I have had in regard to this bill. If it could be confined to the article of rum, which, according to the statements made to us, is the only article exported to Africa, the negro always preferring rum to whisky, and if it could be made with such guards as would prevent fraud in the exportation, I should have no objection whatever to the bill, because, as a matter of course, any revenue bill which we may pass will allow, under proper guards, the exporta tion of whisky and rum manufactured in this country. But I am satisfied, without now being able to offer the proper amendments, that this bill will open the door to fraud. Í am satisfied, from a statement that has been made to me, that this bill will be the medium by which frauds will be committed on the revenue by the exportation of alcohol and whisky; because the proof required by this bill can be so easily furnished, will be so easily manufactured, will admit cases of fraud more easily than under the existing laws.

This is all I desire to say upon the subject. I know that the bill is pressed a great deal by merchants and others who desire to export rum, because it is a legitimate and fair trade in the ordinary course of business operations, and I do not desire to interfere with that trade; but I am afraid that this will be the entering wedge by which we shall lose more revenue ten times than the value of the trade in rum between this country and Africa.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. President, the fact that there was a possibility that frauds might grow up under this bill led the committee to make inquiry and to be more than usually particular about it. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, after it passed the House, saw no difficulty in making regulations that would confine it entirely to the two articles of alcohol and rum. It is a mere question whether this bill shall be passed now, or whether we shall wait for the bill which is in the House of Representatives, in which they have provided, as I understand, for this very thing; but it is rather severe upon the merchants who have chartered shipping for this trade to be compelled to retain it in the harbor until after the passage of that bill. This bill is limited to sixty days, within which time the merchants are to be allowed to remove and export alcohol and rum "already distilled or redistilled and intended for export, or actually contracted for to be delivered for exportation."

All such spirits are to be actually exported within sixty days from the passage of this act. Mr. FESSENDEN. Why not confine it to that actually contracted for, by substituting the word "and" for "or" at the end of the seventh line; so as to read, "already distilled or redistilled and intended for export and actually contracted for," &c.

Mr. MORGAN. I have no objection to that amendment.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I suggest to the Senator from Ohio whether that will not meet his

objection, to just change the word "or" at the end of the seventh line into "and," so that the bill will read:

That the act of January 11, &c., 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 and actually contracted to be delivered for exportation, &c.

That will limit it to those who have made contracts. The law is very hard now on the men who have actually made contracts and are waiting for this permission to export.

Mr. SHERMAN. That amendment, as a matter of course, will take away one half of the chances of fraud. I think "alcohol" should also be stricken out. I am told the article of rum is a cheap article, and all the letters that have been written to me on this subject are about rum. If the Senator will also move to strike out "alcohol," in the sixth line, and confine it to rum, a distinct article of commerce, that will lessen the chances of fraud very materially, because alcohol is a very valuable product, and can be put in small bulk.

Mr. MORGAN. There is some alcohol exported to South America from New York and Baltimore; but it is an entirely different article from whisky, and is not known as whisky

at all.

Mr. SHERMAN. Alcohol can be converted into whisky, and whisky into alcohol by a very simple process of distillation, I am told.

Mr. HOWE. I wish to know from the Senator from New York or the Senator from Ohio whether there was any evidence before the committee that any considerable quantity of these spirits were contracted for to be exported?

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. When the bill was up before-probably it escaped the attention of the Senator from Wisconsin-there was evidence presented to the Senate, especially from the collector of Boston and others, as to the number of vessels that were engaged for this trade, and how severely the law operated upon the commerce of that port. I have also myself received numerous letters, and I presume every member of the committee has, complaining very bitterly of this delay.

Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, the fact that several vessels in Boston had been employed in this trade would not be evidence that any merchants had outstanding contracts for spirits to be exported hereafter; and if that was urged there should be some evidence of it, it seems to me, before the committee, instead of letters from the merchants.

Mr. FESSENDEN. They will have to furnish the proof of the contract under this bill. Mr. MORGAN. The exportation is to be under regulations made by the Internal Revenue Bureau.

Mr. HOWE. It is true they will have to furnish evidence of a contract; but getting that evidence hereafter is a very different thing from having it already, and having it submitted to the committee. I wish to ask one more question, and that is, if there was any evidence or any suggestion from any quarter that contracts were outstanding for the distillation of these spirits for export? for I see the bill provides for the case of spirits contracted to be distilled for export.

Mr. MORGAN. We have had letters on the subject; but no proof of it, except the communications from the parties.

Mr. HOWE. I have one suggestion to make upon that point. I understand-I suppose the Senator from New York knows that fact that these liquors cannot be distilled for less than forty-five cents a gallon. Is not that about it? Mr. MORGAN. I do not know the exact expense. I am not well-informed on that subject.

Mr. SHERMAN. I think that is the case with rum. Whisky can be manufactured for twenty-five cents.

Mr. HOWE. I take it whisky cannot be distilled for twenty-five cents a gallon as grain is now; but I am told that whisky has been selling at from fifteen to twenty cents in bond. Mr. FESSENDEN. Rum is not made from grain,

Mr. HOWE. I am talking about whisky and alcohol. I do not think it very likely that merchants will be contracting to pay forty-five or even twenty-five cents to have spirits distilled to be exported when they can go into the market anywhere and buy in bond for fifteen or twenty cents.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The bill is now confined to rum.

Mr. HOWE. I did not so understand. Mr. FESSENDEN. We propose to strike out everything but rum.

Mr. HOWE. Well, that would make it purely a New England transaction, and I can not have anything to say against that. [Laughter.]

Mr. MORGAN. The Senator from Ohio has moved to strike out "alcohol." I suppose the bill would meet the case of the persons engaged in the African trade if that was stricken out; but there are some persons engaged in the South American trade who export alcohol. However, in order to have the bill passed, I will accept the amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN. I move, then, to strike out in the sixth line the words "alcohol and," and also to strike out the word "or" at the end of the seventh line, and to insert the word "and."

Mr. FESSENDEN. And put a comma after the word "exportation" in the eighth line.

Mr. SHERMAN. I desire to say in offer. ing this amendment that I shall vote against the bill on the ground that frauds will be likely to arise under it; but I think this amendment will lessen the chances of their arising very greatly.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. POME ROY in the chair.) The amendment of the Senator from Ohio will be reported.

The Chief Clerk read the amendment, which was in line six to strike out the words "alcohol and," and in line seven, after the word "export" to strike out the word "or" and insert the word "and;" so that the bill will read:

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 rum, which at the date of the passage of said act was already distilled or redistilled and intended for export, and actually contracted for to be delivered for exportation, to be withdrawn, removed, &c.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SHERMAN. After the word "act" in the twelfth line, I move to insert the words, "and as shall be provided for hereafter." The bill now provides that this exportation shall be under such regulations "as were required therefor immediately prior to the passage of said act." The exporters have got so familiar with those regulations that I am afraid they have learned to evade them.

Mr. FESSENDEN. If you stop to pass new regulations, it will delay them all the time the Treasury Department is making them.

Mr. SHERMAN. They can be promul gated at once. All this exportation will be from one or two ports.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Still, it makes a delay in the time, and it is so small a matter that I think it had better stand as it is.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator is mistaken. I have letters showing that there are at least a dozen vessels now waiting to transport this

rum.

Mr. FESSENDEN. That is comparatively small.

Mr. SHERMAN. It is a pretty large amount of spirits.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. NYE. Mr. President, even with that amendment, it seems to me that this bill is opening a pretty wide door. I am a little suspicious whenever we attempt to legislate in favor of opening the doors on this whisky business.

Mr. MORGAN. The bill is now confined to rum.

Mr. NYE. I was going to say that it has a peculiar faculty of transforming as well as transporting itself. It will be rum when it starts,

and alcohol when it comes out, or water. Two months ago I was in New York, and I met an old acquaintance of mine, a captain of a vessel, who said he was just in from Austra lia. I asked him what his cargo was. He said he supposed he carried out two thousand barrels of whisky, but when he got there and went to get his consul's certificate he found that he had carried two thousand barrels of water. I expect that will be about the way this New England rum will be transported: it will be water when it gets to Africa. In this process of being transported from one place to another, it will become alcohol first, Santa Cruz next, New England rum next, and all be back in the shape of whisky in the city of New York.

Now, sir, I feel kindly toward these gentlemen who want to export it out of the country. I think they are doing a great favor to the public! But, sir, it is not going out. The old trade in New England rum and slaves in Massachusetts is not quite done away with yet. I do not understand this African trade; there is an Australian trade carried on in the manner that I have stated; there is a Gulf of Mexico trade to Matamoras. All this article disappears, and nothing comes into the Treasury of the United States. I think the experience of the Senate will bear me out when I say that these bonds have been the fruitful source of all the frauds upon the Government. Here we see a redistillation bond mentioned. I should like to inquire of the Senator from New York what kind of alcohol they make out of run that is redistilled.

Mr. MORGAN. I do not know.

Mr. NYE. That is in the bill. The honorable Senator from Ohio may possibly be more familiar with the subject than my friend from New York, and may be able to tell me what redistilled rum would be.

Mr. SHERMAN. No; I cannot. Whenever I have seen rum I have always seen it in the raw state. [Laughter.]

Mr. NYE. I appeal to my friend from Massachusetts [Mr. WILSON] if he knows what redistilled rum is.

Mr. WILSON. No; I know what cold water is. [Laughter.]

Mr. NYE. That is the best thing; and that is what this will turn out to be-water, not cold, but warm. [Laughter.] I will inquire of any Senator what kind of rum is it that is redistilled?

Mr. SHERMAN. I imagine that that term applies only to alcohol.

Mr. NYE. I understand that is stricken out. Mr. SHERMAN. I know it is stricken out. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the subject to inform the Senator.

Mr. NYE. I do not know, but I suppose this bill applies to what we used to know as old New England rum. It is a beverage that is well known; but I never heard of its being redistilled into anything else. It will kill around the corner with the first distillation. [Laughter.]

Mr. President, I am afraid of this bill. I assure you that if there are twelve ships waiting, in view of the change this system is undergoing, they will take every gallon of liquor in the city of New York and the city of Boston under these export bonds.

Mr. SUMNER. You do not want to keep it at home?

Mr. NYE.

No; but, as I say it is going to be devoured here, I want it to pay something to the Government. I know the care with which the Senator from New York investigates these things; but I am a little afraid that these men have got the weather-side of him in this maneuver to ship twelve ship-loads of rum, distilled or redistilled, to Africa. It seems to me that is not the current that rum takes; it is not the vein in which it runs. It will be lost in this whirlpool of the "whisky ring," and it will turn out as vapor or water on the coast of Africa. I think we had better keep it at home until something is paid on it. The moment these bonds are executed not one cent will ever be collected upon them, and not one gal- ||

lon of this whisky or rum, in my judgment, will ever reach Africa or any foreign or South American port.

Sir, the whisky frauds have done more to demoralize this country than all other institutions that have been started. Your public offi. cers all smell with fraud. They have been committed under the system of bonding; and it is a well-known fact that there has been a regular_line, not of steamers, but of sailing ships from the city of New York, taking out whisky under export bonds in gutta-percha bags, transferring it at sea to another ship, and then bringing it back into our own ports, and using it here, thus defrauding the Government out of every cent of revenue upon it. Sir, I mistrust this bill. As a change in the tax bill is anticipated, I suppose there is a great desire to run out quickly this accumulation of rum and alcohol, so as to get it back and get it into shape before the taxes are knocked entirely off. I think that, perhaps, is the hope about it. If there is any expectation of getting anything to the Government from whisky it seems to me we had better hold on to what we have got as a sort of security, to be transferred with other assets when our friends on the other side shall get into power. [Laughter.] We shall then hand over to them the whisky in bond.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Mr. President, it should be borne in mind that we had laws up to the passage of the law repealing the bonded warehouse system in relation to whisky that permitted these parties to engage in the exportation of rum. It was suddenly shut down upon them without a moment's notice. Many of them had made written charters, as was in evidence before the committee, for vessels in this trade. A large share, perhaps two thirds of all this business, is done at the port of Boston. We had before the committee a statement from the collector of Boston that there never has been a case of fraud known in that port in relation to this trade.

Now the question again arises whether we shall permit this article of rum to go out of the country, and to continue a certain kind of trade that is profitable to the country. They get returns of palm oil; they get ivory; and there are many articles that we get, even from Liberia, in return for this article.

I am perfectly aware that it is almost impossible that we can have any bonded system by which we can absolutely determine that there shall be no frauds; but I think that there are as many guards and securities about this bill as perhaps we can put on by legislation. The time which it is to run is extremely short. It is only for sixty days, allowing parties to get rid of the obligations upon which they have entered. I think it is safe for the Senate to allow the bill to pass.

Mr. HOWE. Will the Senator answer me a couple of questions before he sits down? Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I cannot promise that beforehand.

Mr. HOWE. The first question I should like to be informed upon, and I ask it for information, is whether the Senator remembers, as he is more likely to do than I would, the amount of rum exported from this country during the last fiscal year?

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I do not remember how much was exported. I know that there have been great frauds in relation to it; but I do not remember the amount.

Mr. HOWE. You know that there have been great frauds?

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I know that there have been great frauds in relation to our exports; I mean of whisky.

Mr. HOWE. I refer to rum.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. No; I do not know how much has been exported.

Mr. ANTHONY. There has not been a single fraud in the export of rum.

Mr. HOWE. I am told there has not been a single fraud in the export of rum. If that is so, the returns must show it; and I supposed the Senator from Vermont was familiar with the amount of export. There is another ques

tion I desire to ask which I will put to the Senator from New York. I notice that this bill as reported only asked thirty days to close up these contracts. It has been delayed here on its passage for several weeks, and now they ask for sixty days. I assume that there cannot be any more under contract now than there was then, for in the face of this hostility to permitting this export, I take it new contracts would not be made. I ask why sixty days are required now when only thirty were deemed necessary when the bill was first before us?

Mr. MORGAN. As the bill passed the House of Representatives, it was fixed at thirty days; but the Commissioner of Internal Revonue thought the time was too short within which to prepare the regulations, and the Committee on Finance unanimously agreed to recommend sixty days; and we did recommend sixty days at that time.

Mr. HOWE. I understand that by the bill as reported from the Committee on Finance this export was to be made under regulations already out, and not under new regulations, and that these new regulations have been provided for by an amendment introduced by the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. SHERMAN. They may be.

Mr. HOWE. They may be new regulations? Mr. MORGAN. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue told me that thirty days was too short a period to enable him to make regulations and obtain the necessary proof; that the whole thirty days would be taken up in that way. We therefore amended it so as to make it sixty days.

Mr. HOWARD, I wish to ask a question of the Senator from Vermont. I really do not understand what is meant by redistillation in Africa.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It is not to be redistilled there, but here.

Mr. SHERMAN. I feel quite sure that the word "redistillation" applies to the article of alcohol alone. Alcohol may be redistilled and changed, and as we have stricken out the word "alcohol," we ought properly to strike out the word "redistilled;" but I am not sufficiently positive as to whether rum can be redistilled.

Mr. FESSENDEN. What harm will it do to leave it in? It may be that they sometimes redistill rum to refine the quality.

Mr. HOWARD. I merely wanted an explanation. There seemed to be a dark cloud on that branch of the subject.

Mr. FESSENDEN. There is no danger about it. It remains rum anyhow.

The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a third time. The bill was read the third time.

Mr. SHERMAN. I should like to have the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill. Mr. FESSENDEN. Oh, let it pass as it is. It cannot do any harm.

Mr. SHERMAN. I think it may.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 13, nays 17; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Cragin, Fessenden, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Sumner, Van Winkle, Willey, Williams, and Wilson-13.

NAYS-Messrs. Chandler, Davis, Ferry, Harlan, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, McCreery, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross. Sherman,Sprague, Thayer, Tipton, and Trumbull-17.

ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, Conness, Dixon, Doolittle, Drake, Edmunds, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Johnson, Morrill of Maine, Morton, Norton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Saulsbury, Stewart, Vickers, Wade, and Yates-24.

So the bill was rejected.

Mr. SPRAGUE afterward submitted a motion to reconsider the vote rejecting the bill; and the motion was entered.

ROCK ISLAND BRIDGE.

Mr. HARLAN, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution (H. R. No. 201) in relation to the Rock Island bridge.

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

It proposes to amend the act of Congress "making appropriations for the support of the Army for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes," approved March 2, 1867, as to direct the Secretary of War to order the commencement of work on the bridge over the Mississippi river at Rock Island; but the ownership of the bridge is to be and remain in the United States, and the Rock Island Pacifie Railroad Company is to have the right of way over the bridge for all purposes of transit across the island and river, upon condition that the company shall pay to the United States, first, half the cost of the superstructure of the bridge

over the main channel and half the cost of keeping the same in repair, and shall also build at its own cost the bridge over that part of the river which is on the east side of the island of Rock Island, and also the railroad on and across the island of Rock Island. Upon a full compliance with these conditions the railroad company is to have the use of the bridge for the purposes of free transit, but without any claim to its ownership. The railroad company, within six months after the new bridge is ready for use, are to remove their old bridge from the river and their railroad track from its present location on the island of Rock Island. The Government may permit any other road or roads wishing to cross on the bridge to do so by paying to the parties then in interest the proportionate cost of the bridge; but no such permission to other roads is to impair the right granted to the Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific Railroad Company, and the total cost of the bridge is not to exceed the estimates made by the commissioners appointed under the act approved June 27, 1866.

on this amendment, which requires that the bridge shall conform to the general law on the subject of bridges over the Mississippi river. Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. No; I merely desire to call the attention of the Senate to the subject. I withdraw the call for the yeas and

nays.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.

Mr. HARLAN. I desire to say in relation to this amendment, that I have no wish that the amendment should be adopted, nor do I deem it necessary. The bridge is to be constructed under the direction of the engineers of the War Department, and it can hardly be supposed to be probable that they would construct a bridge that would materially obstruct navigation. Therefore I do not think that amendment necessary. But a majority of the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads directed it to be reported. I shall vote against the amendment myself.

It is

Mr. RAMSEY. The good thing that there is in this resolution is that it supersedes the old Rock Island bridge, which has been a great nuisance to the navigators of the river. objectionable in a great many ways, and has been the cause of the destruction of a great deal of property on that river. The people injured have been in the courts of the United States; they have been all around trying to get rid of it, and at length they have hit upon this plan. That is the merit of this resolution.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I ask the Senator from Minnesota whether there is any more propriety in the United States building a bridge here than there is in building a bridge over any other river throughout the United States? Why should the United States be put to the expense of building a bridge at this point rather than at any other in the United States? For myself I can see no reason for it whatever.

The Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads reported the joint resolution with an amendment, to add as an additional section the following:

SEC. 3. And be it further resolved, That any bridge built under the provisions of this act, shall be constructed so as to conform to the requirements of section two of an act entitled "An act to authorize the construction of certain bridges, and to establish them as post roads," approved July 25, 1865.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I merely desire to call the attention of the Senate to. this joint resolution. It looks extremely harmless; but, in my judgment, instead of its being a measure of that character, it is one that will involve the Government not only in needless expense, but in a needless law-suit. Instead of enlarging the powers that we have already granted to this company, our business should be to repeal what we have heretofore done. Why should we make an agreement to build a bridge there and keep it in repair, and that the company is only to restore one half of the cost to us? But not content with the law as it stands, they propose that we shall go forward and tear down an existing structure and build another. I merely desire to call the attention of the Senate to this kind of legislation, which, if I might be permitted to characterize it, I would say was monstrous. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. tion is on the amendment reported by the committee.

The ques

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I ask for the yeas and nays, for the purpose of calling the attention of the Senate to it.

Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senator from Vermont surely does not want the yeas and nays

Mr. RAMSEY. Certainly the Senator will concede that for a great many years, in the courts and in every other way, the steamboat men and the river men of the West have attempted to get rid of the old Rock Island bridge, which is a nuisance and a curse to the navigation of the river, chiefly because the

thread of the stream, as the laws now require, were placed obliquely, causing a great destruction of property on the river. The river men have attempted to get rid of it. They have gone into the courts and everywhere else, but they could not do it. At length they hit on this happy compromise with the Government, that when another bridge is built the existing bridge shall then be removed. That is the great merit of this thing, and led the Post Office Committee to give its assent to it.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I think I can answer the Senator from Vermont, who inquired why the Government should build a bridge here more than anywhere else over a river. The Senator certainly is aware that the Government of the United States is the owner of the island of Rock Island in the Mississippi river, a large island-I do not remember the precise number of acres, but I should think two thousand acres of land-which it has reserved from sale from the beginning, as a most desirable and useful point to be held by the United States Government; and some years ago a law was passed establishing an arsenal and armory at Rock Island. The Government has commenced very expensive works there. When the rebellion broke out it had not in all the Northwest a single deposit of arms. This is being made the great armory for the Northwest; it is located on the Mississippi river near where railroads cross; and it is necessary, in the opinion of the Government engineers, that the Government of the United States should have bridges to connect this island both with the Illinois shore and with the Iowa shore. The value of the great works which the Government is erecting there depend upon having this connection; they must have it with the

shores; and the Government is about to erect a bridge as a necessity for the works which are being established there. This is being made the great depot for arms in all the Northwest.

The Government owns the whole of the island. The Government has taken steps since it commenced these works to procure the title to a small portion of the island upon which preëmption claims were established some years ago, and has also acquired the title to some very small islands contiguous to this island of Rock Island. There is great water power there, with all the advantages for an armory and arsenal that could be obtained anywhere. At any rate, the Government has always so supposed and has selected it. The reason why the Government is interested in the bridge is because the works erected there will be almost valueless without it. You must have a bridge. How are you going to get to the island of Rock Island? It is separated from the main body of the land on both sides. We have had a bridge connecting the island with the Illinois shore, put there by private parties years ago; but Í think it has been injured or partially carried away recently.

Mr. WILSON. We have got to build a bridge there.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Unquestionably we have. Then the question arises whether there should be two bridges. The Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company has a bridge now which crosses the river north of the island, and is erected at a point where the navigating interests have complained very much of it, whether rightly or not I will not undertake to say. But they have their railroad bridge, and this arrangement was entered into between the Government of the United States, acting through the War Department, and the owners of this railroad bridge, by which they agreed that their bridge might come down and they would pay half the expense of erecting a bridge at another point which it was supposed would be less objectionable to navigation and which is absolutely necessary to the Government. The Government must have it. This plan has received the sanction of the Government officials, is recommended by the engineers, and indorsed by the Department of War, by Mr. Stanton when he was Secretary of War. I am not sure whether General Schofield has made a formal recommendation or not; but General Schofield was one of the commission appointed under authority of the War Department who assessed the damages that were to be paid to parties who had interests in Rock Island, and he is familiar with this whole matter. I think there is a reason why the Government of the United States needs a bridge here that does not apply to any other point that I know of: it is an absolute necessity that the Government of the United States must have it.

Mr. HARLAN. Mr. President, this is not a new proposition. In the act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes, approved March 2, 1867, this appropriation was made, with the proviso which I will read:

For the erection of a bridge at Rock Island, Illinois, as recommended by the chief of ordnance, $200,000: Provided, That the ownership of said bridge shall be and remain in the United States, and the Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company shall have the right of way over said bridge for all purposes of transit across the island and river, upon condition that the said company shall, before any money is expended by the Government, agree to pay and shall secure to the United States, first, half the cost of said bridge; and second, half the expenses of keeping said bridge in repair; and upon guarantying said conditions to the satisfaction of the Secretary of War, by contract or otherwise, the said company shall have the free use of said bridge or purposes of transit, but without any claim to ownership thereof."

When they attempted to carry out this arrangement between the company and the Secretary of War, in pursuance of the provisions of this law, it was ascertained that the company had not the legal power under its charter to make the contract. The company and the Secretary of War ad interim-General Grant was then, I believe, acting as Secretary

of War-made an arrangement in, I believe, the precise terms of this resolution, except the amendment which is now pending, and intended to execute it as a contract under the law which I have read; but when the question was submitted to the Attorney General, with a view of having the contract executed, he examined the charter of the company referred to, and decided that, in his opinion, they had not the legal right to make such a contract, and on that account the question came up in the House of Representatives, and they have proposed to enact the contract previously drawn up under the direction of the Secretary of War between the Government and this company.

This explains the origin of the bill. It is in pursuance of a law now existing, and is intended to provide a legal remedy to enable one of the parties to carry out in contract what Congress intended it should do under the law which I have read.

I might state in relation to the merits of the question, (although it seems to me they are not now properly pending,) that Congress has already decided that this bridge shall be built; it has provided for it by a law now on the stat ute-book, providing that the company shall pay one-half and the United States the other half of the expense. The reasons for that, I appre hend, were those which have been hinted at by the chairman of the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads. The Rock Island. Railroad Company had a bridge for railroad purposes which was badly constructed, which was an impediment to navigation. The people above on the river complained very much of the existence of the bridge as a partial obstruction to commerce; and so with the people below, particularly the merchants at St. Louis. They desired the removal of that bridge. The bridge was sufficient for the purposes of the company, but they have agreed that their bridge shall be destroyed and that they will pay half the expense of constructing another bridge.

At the same time the Government needs a bridge, and if this company should not thus unite with it, would be under the necessity of constructing one at its own expense.

The resolution also provides that if any other railroad company shall desire to use this bridge for the purposes of transit across the river, it may do so by paying a just proportion of the expense. It is believed, I think, that another railroad company will use the bridge, and thus diminish the cost of this structure to the Government of the United States to one third. I was told but a minute since by one of the colleagues of the honorable Senator from Illinois that the Secretary of War has asked for an appropriation of $100,000, which is now pending before the House of Represent atives, for the construction of a bridge between the island and the main land on the Illinois shore. If this resolution should pass, the railroad company would be compelled to build that structure; aud this member of the House desired very much that the Senate should act on this measure so that they might know what to do with the Secretary's recommendation in relation to an appropriation for that structure. It will be seen by looking at the top of the second page that this resolution provides that this company "shall also build at its own cost the bridge over that part of the river which is on the east side of the island of Rock Island, and also the railroad on and across said island of Rock Island," so that if it becomes a law this company will be obligated to build the bridge at its own cost on the east side of the island, and pay the whole cost of moving the track of the road across the island, and one half of the entire cost of the main structure on the west side of the island. There is, it seems to me, no reasonable objection to the passage of this joint resolution.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Mr. President, I desire that the Senate should fully understand this question. It is true that the Government of the United States has some nterest upon this island. After they estab

lished a Government arsenal there they bought out a bridge connecting with the Illinois shore and paid for it. The Senator from Illinois is mistaken if he supposes that any Secretary of War has ever recommended this measure. General Grant recommended it, but no Secretary Stanton has ever committed his name to any paper recommending this at all, as I understand.

Mr. TRUMBULL, I think the Senator is mistaken.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I think I am not. That is according to the information I had in the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads.

Mr. TRUMBULL. My information is directly the reverse.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. The information before the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads was that he declined to do it. Mr. President, does it look likely that the United States want a railroad across there? Do they own any railroad, that they are compelled to have a railroad bridge? I know that the Senators from Iowa and Illinois would like to have the United States build a bridge across there. They not only want a bridge built for the accommodation of ordinary travel, but a railroad bridge. They want it so that the men who are employed on the island can go across to Iowa, and buy lager beer, peanuts, and tobacco daily; they want some portion of the trade of that island; but it is utterly idle to contend here that the United States have an interest that requires them to lay out a million of money in building a bridge across this stream. We might as well be required to build a bridge across the Ohio or Mississippi at almost any other point as to be required to build this bridge.

Imprudently, as I think, Congress passed a previous law agreeing to build one half of the bridge provided this Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company would build the other half; but the railroad company declining to do it, we now have a bill sent to us from the other House directing that the United States Government shall commence at once upon the work of building a bridge entirely at its own cost, leaving it to the option of the railroad company whether it will come forward hereafter and pay one half the expense or not, or pay one half the expense of keeping it in repair. Why should we keep up a magnificent structure, half at our expense, even if the company should come forward and agree to this contract? Why should we not only build a bridge, or build one half of it if they come into the con tract, and pay one half the expense of keeping it in repair for all time to come, when for all the purposes that the United States want any connection with the Iowa shore for we can build a bridge for one tenth part the sum?

Mr. RAMSEY. There are legal quibbles, you know.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Ah! Mr. RAMSEY. If the Senator will allow me further, I will say that actions are brought in the United States district court for Illinois. That court has jurisdiction of only part of the river, and caunot order down the whole bridge. Suits are brought also in the district court for Iowa, and there the same difficuly is encountered. The court has jurisdiction over only half the river, and cannot disturb the whole bridge.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I think it is very safe to leave the matter in the hands of the Legislatures of those two States. I do not understand why we are to determine a lawsuit in relation to a railroad bridge across the upper Mississippi; nor can I understand why we are suddenly called upon to commence this structure and to build a bridge beyond what it will be even pretended is required for the purposes of the United States. If the United States want an opportunity for their workmen to get across into lowa, where they can buy lager beer cheaper than they can in Illinois, let them say so; bring in a bill here for that purpose, not bring one in here that is to cost a million or more of money.

It is claimed here that the old bridge is a nuisance. Is there anything to guard against the new bridge being a nuisance? The Senator from Iowa has just said that he did not care anything about this last amendment proposed to guard that particular point. We have got one nuisance, and the Senator from Iowa is quite willing that the bill should pass without any protection or safeguard against erecting another

Mr. HARLAN. The Senator certainly does not intend to misrepresent me. I do not.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Mr. HARLAN. I stated in connection with that, that I had no belief that the engineers of the War Department would construct a bridge so as to create a nuisance. Therefore I did not deem the amendment necessary. I thought it would be necessary, if we were incorporating a company to build a bridge, to guard against an improper structure; but as this is to be constructed under officials of this Government, engineers of the Army, I had full confidence they would build it on the best plan; and for that reason I had no wish that this amendment should be adopted.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. When this matter was up before I was quite willing that this company should be allowed to build one half this bridge and allow the law to stand as it is, compelling the United States to build the other half; but, on examining it, I think the previous law ought to be repealed. think it was highly improvident that the United States ever engaged to build any portion of this bridge. I see no propriety in any expend

I

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. This changes the law. Under the old law we were to build one half the bridge and keep one half in repair. This bill sets out that we are to commence and build the bridge at once, and then it provides that if the company shall come forward and pay one half the expense they may do so.

Mr. President, there is more under this bill than even this. It is said that the present existing bridge there is a nuisance. If it is a nuisance, why not go to the courts and have it abated? Why should we legislate a nuisance out of existence?

Mr. RAMSEY. People have been in the courts for many years and expended a vast amount of money in litigation to get rid of this bridge, and they cannot do it.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Because the courts will not declare, and they cannot prove that it is a nuisance.

Mr. RAMSEY. Yes they have proved it. Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Then the courts have not done their duty.

such structure as is contemplated by this bill. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. President, I should like to inquire of the Senator from Iowa or the Senator from Minnesota having charge of this bill, what is the estimated cost of the bridge; how much will it be necessary for the Government of the United States to appro priate in order to construct the bridge now contemplated?

Mr. HARLAN. I have not the report of the board of engineers that had this matter under examination, and am unable therefore to answer the Senator's inquiry.

Mr. RAMSEY. I have no recollection of it. It has been in charge of the Senator from Iowa for a long while. If the question is on the amendment I think there is a misprint in regard to that. Am I correct? Is the question on the amendment?

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. PoмEROY in the chair.) The question is on the amendment of the committee.

Mr. RAMSEY. The third section, which is the amendment, reads thus:

And be it further resolved, That any bridge built

under the provisions of this resolution shall be constructed so as to conform to the requirements of section two of an act entitled "An act to authorize the construction of certain bridges and to establish them as post roads," approved July 25, 1865.

There was no Congress in session in July, 1865; but the general Mississippi river bridge bill is the act of July 25, 1866. The second section of that act provides all the requirements that Congress have recently thought ought to be imposed on bridge-building on that river. Section two of that act provides:

"That any bridge built under the provisions of this act may, at the option of the company building the same, be built as a draw-bridge, with a pivot or other form of draw, or with unbroken or continuous spans: Provided. That if the said bridge shall be made with unbroken and continuous spans, it shall not be of less elevation in any case than fifty feet above extreme bigh-water mark, as understood at the point of location, to the bottom chord of the bridge, nor shall the spans of said bridge be less than two hundred and fifty feet in length, and the piers of said bridge shall be parallel with the current of the river, and the main span shall be over the main channel of the river and not less than three hundred feet in length: And provided also, That if any bridge built under this act shall be constructed as a draw-bridge, the same shall be constructed as a pivot draw-bridge, with a draw over the main channel of the river at an accessible and navigable point, and with spans of not less than one hundred and sixty feet in length, in the clear on each side of the central or pivot pier of the draw, and the next adjoining spans to the draw shall not be less than two hundred and fifty feet: and said spans shall not be less than thirty feet above low-water mark and not less than ten feet above extreme high-water mark, measuring to the bottom chord of the bridge, and the piers of said bridge shall be parallel with the current of the river: And provided also, That said draw shall be opened promptly upon reasonable signal for the passage of boats, whose construction shall not be such as to admit of their passage under the permanent spans of said bridge, except when trains are passing over the same; but in no case shall unnecessary delay occur in opening the said draw during or after the passage of trains."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The erro will be corrected by substituting 1866 for 1865, if there be no objection. The Chair hears no objection, and that correction is made. The question is on the amendment as modified.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SHERMAN. I think the gentlemen in charge of this measure ought to give us the cost of the bridge, because it seems from the papers that the cost is referred to and has been estimated by the Government and the estimates are on file. I should like to know myself what the cost of this bridge is to be, whether $200,000 or $1,000,000. The amount appropriated is $200,000.

Mr. WILSON. I hope this measure will go over until we can ascertain the facts of the case.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I hope it will go over until next December, and I make the motion that it be postponed until December next. If anybody will look at the second section, he will see that we provide not only for building one bridge, but for removing another. I move that the bill be postponed until December. That will leave the existing law which compels us to build one half the bridge, provided the railroad company build the other half, and I think that is quite enough and much more than we ought to do.

Mr. HARLAN. That is just what this joint resolution provides for: it reenacts the old law, but puts it in such a shape that it can be executed. The law as it stands would be sufficient if it could be carried into effect. The Senator says he is satisfied with the law as it exists.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. No; I am not.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I should like for information to ask the Senator from Iowa one question. Are there any bridges now connecting the island with the main land?

Mr. HARLAN. There is none on the Illinois side. The bridge there has been swept away; and I have in my hand now a communication signed "J. M. Schofield, Secretary of War," recommending an appropriation of $100,000 to put in the bridge between the island and the Illinois shore, which bridge, if this resolution shall pass, will be constructed by the railroad company.

Mr. WILLIAMS. So that the only bridge now is the one connecting the island with Iowa?

Mr. TRUMBULL. There is no bridge now connecting the island on either side. There is no bridge from the island to Iowa, except the railroad bridge.

Mr. HARLAN. It is not a carriage bridge; it is a railroad bridge. It touches the island at a point above the point named in this resolution.

Mr. TRUMBULL. The communication of the Secretary of War transmits a report of the ordnance office, which says:

"The temporary bridge connecting Rock Island arsenal with the city of Rock Island, on the Illinois shore, was destroyed by ice and flood during the past winter, and there are now no means of communication between them but a temporary ferry. The necessities of the public service require frequent communication of persons and transfer of materials between the city and arsenal, and the reestablishment of a bridge is necessary. A permanent bridge is preferable for every reason, and on the ground of economy. The estimate for the construction of such a bridge is $100,000, and I recommend that an appropriation of that sum be requested from Congress for the purpose."

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. addition to this bill.

That is in

Mr. TRUMBULL. This is a communication dated on the 3d day of June. I am reading from a letter of General Dyer, who is chief of ordnance; and that letter is communicated by the Secretary of War in the following letter:

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, June 8, 1868.

SIR: I have the honor to send herewith, for the consideration of the proper committee, a communication of June 3 from the chief of ordnance, recommending an appropriation of $100,000 for the construction of a bridge to connect Rock Island arsenal with the city of Rock Island, Illinois. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, J. M. SCHOFIELD, Secretary of War.

Hon. SCHUYLER COLFAX.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.. Now, this bridge having been carried away, there is a necessity for a bridge at once; but this is not required if the bill passes, because the bill under consideration makes provision for a bridge connecting the island with the Illinois shore, as well as for a bridge connecting the island with the Iowa shore. General Schofield was one of the commissioners that made the estimates, fixed the proportions which it was proper should be paid by this railroad company to the Government; and I have been assured by two members of the House of Representatives, since this debate began, that this bill did have the sanction of the Secretary of War; that the Secretary of War himself framed it in part; that it was submitted to him and had his sanction; and that that Secretary of War was Mr. Stanton. I am authorized to state that on the authority of two members of the House of Representatives, given to me within the last ten minutes.

I trust, Mr. President, that this matter is not to be postponed on the motion of the Senator from Vermont, because he supposes that this bridge is to cost something. Of course it is to cost something; we expect it to cost something, And is it not something appro priate to the armory at Springfield? Can you manufacture guns and cannon without some expense? After having commenced these works upon this island are you to stop? Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. want a railroad there.

Mr. TRUMBULL. bridges?

We do not

Do you not want

Mr. TRUMBULL. Perhaps the Senator from Vermont has been there and knows what it will cost. I know nothing except the inform ation communicated here officially. Accord ing to the estimate of the engineers of the Government, it is economy to build a bridge that The Senator from Verwill cost $100,000. mont says that $14.000 built the old bridge. I am not advised about that, he may be correct; I do not know what it cost; but I do know, according to the estimates of the proper officers of the engineers whose duty it is to inquire into this matter, that the expense of a proper bridge will be $100,000. Now it is proposed not to have a bridge at all, and to postpone this measure until next December. Then you had better sell your Rock Island arsenal and armory. Sir, in my judgment, it would be most miserable economy to postpone the passage of a proper bill to carry out the existing law. This is no new matter. As the Senator from Iowa has already stated, the law made provision before for this bridge, but in carrying into effect the provisions of that law the railroad company and the Government were unable to make a contract which was satisfactory to both parties without some further legislation, and this measure is framed with a view to enacting the necessary legislation. It is the joint result of a conference between the War Department and this railroad company, and it has the sanction of the War Department.

Mr. WILSON. I should be glad to look into two or three points connected with this meas ure, and with the consent of the Senator having it in charge, I propose that we now go into executive session. By this course we shall have some time to look into the matter.

Mr. TRUMBULL. There is no objection to that, certainly.

Mr. WILSON. I move, then, that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

Mr. STEWART. I wish to make a report from the committee of conference on the bill for the removal of political disabilities.

Mr. WILSON. I withdraw my motion to allow that report to be made.

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, with amendments, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate:

A bill (S. No. 164) to provide for appeals from the Court of Claims, and for other pur poses; and

A bill (S. No. 377) to change the times of holding the district and circuit courts of the United States in the several districts in the State of Tennessee.

REMOVAL OF DISABILITIES.

Mr. STEWART submitted the following report:

The committee of conference of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 1059) to relieve certain citizens of North Carolina of disabilities, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend, and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the House recede from their disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with the following amendments:

Strike out George S. Houston, of Alabama,” and "George W. Jones, of Tennessee.'

Strike out and Tennessee," where it first occurs in section four, and insert "and" after "Arkansas" where it first occurs in section four.

Also, strike out "Robert Austin," of North Carolina, and insert "Robert H. Austin."

Strike out" Wiley D. Jones," of North Carolina, and insert Willie Jones."

Strike out Eugene Grisson," of North Carolina, and insert "Eugene Grissom.' Strike out John D. Ashmond," of South Carolina, and insert J. D. Asbmore." Strike out John M. Rusty [or Burtz."] WILLIAM STEWART, HENRY WILSON, JOHN SHERMAN, Managers on the part of the Senate. J. F. FARNSWORTH, H. E. PAINE,

Managers on the part of the House.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I wish simply to express my contempt for the small business that has