WILLIAM M. WOOTEN.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 521.

The motion was agreed to; and the bill (S. No. 521) granting a pension to the children of William M. Wooten, deceased, was read the second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole. It provides for placing on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the names of Alfred C. Wooten, Susan M. T. Wooten, Jesse Wooten, and Rosalia M. Wooten, children under sixteen years of age of William M. Wooten, deceased, late a private in the Daviess county company of horse guards, Kentucky militia, who, or their legally appointed guardian or guardians, are to receive a pension at the rate of fourteen dollars per month, to commence on the 11th day of August, 1864, and to continue until they severally attain the age of sixteen years.

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

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I move to take up next Senate bill No. 545.

The motion was agreed to; and the bill (S. No. 545) granting a pension to Hannah Cook was read the second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole. It proposes to direct the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Hannah Cook, widow of Lyman N. Cook, deceased, and to pay her a pension at the rate of $22 50 per month, to commence from the 2d day of April, 1868.

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

JANE M'MURRAY.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I move that we proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 546. The motion was agreed to; and the bill (S. || No. 546) for the relief of Jane McMurray was read the second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole. It provides for the payment to Jane McMurray, of Carlisle, Pennsylvania, widow of Ezekiel McMurray, a soldier of the war of 1812, a pension at the rate of eight dollars per month, in lieu of the sum of four dollars per month now received by her, to commence from the 14th day of July, 1862.

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

JOHN SHEETS. Mr. VAN WINKLE. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 547.

The motion was agreed to; and the bill (S. No. 547) granting a pension to John Sheets was read the second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole. It proposes to direct the Secretary of the Interior to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of John Sheets, late a private in company F, twelfth regiment West Virginia volunteers, and to pay him a pension at the rate of fifteen dollars per month, to commence on the 14th day of March, 1863.

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

PARKS J. STACKHOUSE.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I move now to take up Senate bill No. 548.

The motion was agreed to; and the bill (S. No. 548) granting a pension to Amanda Stackhouse, and the children of Park's J. Stackhouse, deceased, was read the second time and considered as in Committee of the Whole. By its provisions the Secretary of the Interior is directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Amanda Stackhouse, widow of Parks J. Stackhouse, late a private in company G, second regiment Pennsylvania reserves volunteers, and to pay her a pension at the rate of fifteen dollars per month for herself during widowhood, and two dollars per month for each child of Parks J. Stackhouse under the age of sixteen years, to commence on the 29th day of March, 1868, and to continue until they severally attain the age of sixteen years.

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

CATHARINE ECKHARDT.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 549, which is the last pension bill I shall trouble the Senate with to-day.

The motion was agreed to; and the bill (S. No. 549) granting an increase of pension to Catharine Eckhardt was read the second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole. It is a direction to the Secretary of the Interior to pay to Catharine Eckhardt, widow of Henry L. Eckhardt, late a private in company C, fifth regiment Missouri volunteers, in addition to the pension heretofore granted her, the further sum of two dollars per month, for and on account of the care, custody, and maintenance by her of Anna M. Eckhardt, a child under sixteen years of age of Henry L. Eckhardt by a former wife, from the 3d day of February, 1868, while she has such care, custody, and maintenance, until the child shall attain the age of sixteen years.

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

PACIFIC RAILROAD REPORTS.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. No. 450) relative to filing reports of railroad companies. The amendment was to add to the bill the following section:

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That in addition to the eight subjects referred to in section twenty of the act of July, 1862, to be reported upon, there shall also be furnished annually to the Secretary of the Interior all reports of engineers, superintendents, or other officers who make annually reports to any of said railroad companies.

Mr. POMEROY. I move that the amendment be concurred in.

The motion was agreed to.

REPRESENTATION OF ARKANSAS-VETO.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the bill (H. R. No. 1039) to admit the State of Arkansas to representation in Congress, which had been received from the House of Representatives with the veto message of the President thereon.

The Secretary read the veto message, as follows:

To the House of Representatives:

I return without my signature a bill entitled "An act to admit the State of Arkansas to representation in Congress."

The approval of this bill would be an admission on the part of the Executive that the act for the more efficient government of the rebel States, passed March 2, 1867, and the act supplementary thereto, were proper and constitutional. My opinion, however, in reference to these measures has undergone no change, but, on the contrary, has been strengthened by the results which have attended their execution.

Even were this not the case, I could not

consent to a bill which is based upon the assumption either that by an act of rebellion of a portion of its people the State of Arkansas seceded from the Union, or that Congress may, at its-pleasure, expel or exclude a State from the Union, or interrupt its relations with the Government by arbitrarily depriving it of representation in the Senate and House of Representatives. If Arkansas is a State not in the Union, this bill does not admit it as a State into the Union. If, on the other hand, Arkansas is a State in the Union, no legislation is necessary to declare it entitled "to representation in Congress as one of the States of the Union." The Constitution already declares that each State shall have at least one Representative;""that the Senate shall be composed of two Senators from each State," and that no State without its consent shall be deprived of its suffrage in the Senate."

That instrument also makes each House "the judges of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members," and therefore all that is now necessary to restore Arkansas in all its constitutional relations to the Government is the decision by each House upon the eligibility of those who, presenting their credentials, claim seats in the respective Houses of Congress. This is the plain and simple plan of the Constitution; and believing that had it been pursued when Congress assembled in the month of December, 1865, the restoration of the States would long since have been completed. I once again recommend that it be adopted by each House in preference to legislation which I respectfully submit is not only of at least doubtful constitutionality, and therefore unwise and dangerous as a precedent, but is unnecessary, not so effective in its operation as the mode prescribed by the Constitution, involves the additional delay, and from its terms may be taken rather as applicable to a Territory about to be admitted as one of the United States than to a State which has occupied a place in the Union for upward of a quarter of a century.

The bill declares the State of Arkansas entitled and admitted to representation in Congress as one of the States of the Union upon the following fundamental condition :

That the constitution of Arkansas shall never be so amended or changed as to deprive any citizen or class of citizens of the United States of the right to vote who are entitled to vote by the constitution herein recognized, except as a punishment for such crimes as are now felonies at common law, whereof they shall be duly convicted under laws equally applicable to all the inhabitants of said State: Provided. That any alteration of said constitution, prospective in its effect, may be made in regard to the time and place of residence of voters."

I have been unable to find in the Constitution of the United States any warrant for the exercise of the authority thus claimed by Congress. In assuming the power to impose a "fundamental condition upon a State which has been duly admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, Congress asserts a right to enter a State as it may a Territory, and to regulate the highest prerogative of a free people-the elective franchise. This question is reserved by the Constitution to the States themselves, and to concede to Congress the power to regulate this subject would be to reverse the fundamental principle of the Republic, and to place in the hands of the Federal Government (which is the creature of the States) the sovereignty which justly belongs to the States or the people, to the true source of all political power by whom our Federal system was created, and to whose will all is subordinate.

The bill fails to provide in what manner the State of Arkansas is to signify its acceptance of the "fundamental condition" which Congress endeavors to make unalterable and irrevocable. Nor does it prescribe the penalty to be imposed should the people of the State amend or change the particular portions of the constitution which it is one of the purposes of the bill to perpetuate, but leaves them in uncertainty and doubt as to the consequences of such action, when the circumstances under

which this constitution has been brought to the attention of Congress are considered. It is not unreasonable to suppose that efforts will be made to modify its provisions, and especially those in respect to which this measure prohibits any alteration. It is seriously questioned whether the constitution has been ratified by a majority of the persons who, under the act of March 2, 1867, and the acts supplementary thereto, were entitled to registration and to vote upon that issue. Section ten of the schedule provides that

"No person disqualified from voting or registering under this constitution shall vote for candidates for any office, nor shall be permitted to vote for the ratification or rejection of the constitution at the polls herein authorized."

Assumed to be in force before its adoption, in disregard of the law of Congress, the constitution undertakes to impose upon the elector other and further conditions. The fifth section of the eighth article provides that "all persons, before registering or voting," must take and subscribe an oath which, among others, contains the following clause:

"That I accept the civil and political equality of all men, and agree not to attempt to deprive any person or persons, on account of race, color, or previous condition, of any political or civil right, privilege, or immunity enjoyed by any other class of men."

It is well known that a very large portion of the electors in all the States, if not a large majority of all of them, do not believe in or accept the political equality of Indians, Mongolians, or negroes with the race to which they belong. If the voters of many of the States of the North and West were required to take such an oath as a test of their qualification, there is reason to believe that a majority of them would remain from the polls rather than comply with its degrading conditions.

How far and to what extent this test-oath prevented the registration of those who were qualified under the laws of Congress it is not possible to know; but that such was its effect, at least sufficient to overcome them all and give a doubtful majority in favor of this constitution, there can be no reasonable doubt.

66

Should the people of Arkansas, therefore, desiring to regulate the elective franchise so as to make it conform to the constitutions of a large proportion of the States of the North and West, modify the provisions referred to in the fundamental condition," what is to be the consequence? Is it intended that a denial of representation shall follow? And if so, may we not dread, at some future day, a recurrence of the troubles which have so long agitated the country? Would it not be the part of wisdom to take for our guide the Federal Constitution, rather than resort to measures which, looking only to the present, may in a few years renew, in an aggravated form, the strife and bitterness caused by legislation which has proved to be ill-timed and unfortunate?

ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, June 20, 1868.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I move that the message be printed, and that the subject be postponed until Monday.

The motion was agreed to.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

Mr. SHERMAN. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

Mr. HARLAN. I desire very much to have the attention of the Senate to several District bills, and it is not now quite the usual time for adjournment; and I think if the Senate would give the Committee on the District of Columbia an hour to-day we could dispose of several bills that will not elicit discussion, and, perhaps, in this way economize time very much.

Mr. SHERMAN. There was rather an understanding that we should not do anything but pension business to-day, and we have not a quorum, so that if there was any dispute on any bill it could not be passed.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the

Chair understand the Senator from Ohio to persist in his motion.

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, sir; I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

The motion was agreed to; and after some time spent in executive session, the doors were reopened, and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SATURDAY, June 20, 1868.

The House met at twelve o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. B. BOYNTON. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

LAWS OF MONTANA.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a copy of the laws of Montana Territory; which were referred to the Committee on the Territories.

MAIL SERVICE IN DAKOTA AND MONTANA.

The SPEAKER. The first business in order

is that pending at the adjournment yesterday, being Senate joint resolution No. 134, authorizing a change of mail service between Fort Abercrombie and Helena. The joint resolu. tion had been read three times, and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. DONNELLY] had the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. DELANO] moved called the previous question, pending which that the joint resolution be laid upon the table. The question was taken, but no quorum voted. The gentleman from Ohio called for the yeas and nays, pending which the House adjourned. The question now is upon ordering the yeas and nays on the motion that the joint resolution be laid on the table.

The yeas and nays were not ordered.

The question was again taken upon the motion to lay the joint resolution on the table, and it was not agreed to.

The question recurred upon seconding the previous question.

Mr. WARD. If the previous question is not seconded, will it then be in order to move to refer this joint resolution to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads? The SPEAKER. It will.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. And it will kill it. Mr. WARD. The chairman of that committee [Mr. FARNSWORTH] seems to be friendly to the measure, and I desire to refer it to his committee for investigation.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. We have investigated it informally.

Mr. WARD. Are the committee prepared to report in its favor?

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I think they are. Mr. DONNELLY. It is utterly impossible for the committee to report on this joint reso. lution at this session if it is referred to them. To refer it will be to kill it.

Mr. HIGBY. Have not the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads a measure of a similar character now before them?

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Not that I am

aware of.

Mr. HIGBY. I understood they had. Mr. FARNSWORTH. O! yes; I think they have; a bill or petition or something of the kind.

Mr. HIGBY. Did not a majority of the House Committee and all the members of the Senate Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads unite in a joint request to the Post Office Department to make the change here contemplated?

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I think that is so. Mr. BOUTWELL. Is there any exigency in this business that justifies taking this joint resolution out of the ordinary course? Why not refer it to a committee for examination, even if they do not report upon it until the next session?

Mr. DONNELLY. It is very important that this joint resolution should pass now, so that the parties who may take the contract may have time to build the necessary station houses,

depot houses, and bridges during the coming fall.

Mr. WARD. Is it not always made a pretext for putting large bills through at the heel of a session, that we have not time for committees to examine them? I have noticed that the largest jobs that have gone through Congress in the way of expenditures come up at the heel of the session, and the pretext always is that they cannot be examined by committees for want of time. I insist that we should take time to examine this scheme, involving, as it does, an increased expenditure to the extent of $70,000.

Mr. DONNELLY. I insist upon the previous question.

The question was taken upon seconding the previous question; and upon a division there were-aves 44, noes 32; no quorum voting.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana, and Mr. WARD, called for tellers.

Tellers were ordered; and Mr. DONNELLY and Mr. WARD were appointed.

The House again divided; and the tellers reported that there were-ayes 60, noes 35. The Speaker voted in the affirmative; and accordingly the previous question was seconded. The main question was then ordered.

The joint resolution was then ordered to a third reading; and it was accordingly read the third time.

Mr. WARD demanded the yeas and nays on the passage of the joint resolution.

The House divided; and there were-ayes eighteen, noes not counted.

Mr. WARD demanded tellers on the yeas and nays.

Tellers were ordered.

The SPEAKER. More than enough have voted for tellers to order the yeas and nays, and they will be considered ordered, if there be no objection.

There was no objection; and it was ordered accordingly.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 57, nays 50, not voting 82; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, Beaman, Beck, Blair, Coburn, Donnelly, Driggs, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Fox, Golladay, Grover, Haight, Higby, Hotchkiss, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Johnson, Jones, Judd, Kelsey, Knott, Koontz, Lincoln, Loughridge, Marvin, McClurg, McCormick, Moorhead, Morrell, Morrissey, Mungen, Newcomb, O'Neill, Paine, Poland, Price, Sawyer, Sitgreaves, Smith, Starkweather, Stokes, Taber, Taffe, Taylor, Lawrence S. Trimble, Trowbridge, Twichel!, Van Aernam, Van Trump, Cadwalader C. Wash burn, James F. Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge, and Woodward-57.

NAYS-Messrs. Bailey, Baker, Baldwin, Beatty. Benjamin, Benton, Boutwell, Buckland, Cake,Reader W. Clarke, Cobb, Cook, Cornell, Cullom, Eckley, Eggleston, Ela, Ferriss, Garfield, Getz, Glossbrenner, Harding, Hawkins, Hill, Holman, Chester D. Hubbard, Julian, Ketcham, George V. Lawrence, Maynard, McCarthy, Mercur, Moore, Mullins, Orth, Plants, Polsley, Pomeroy, Scofield, Spalding, Aaron F. Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, John Trimble, Van Wyck, Ward, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Thomas Williams, and John T. Wilson-50.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Archer, Arnell, James M. Ashley, Axtell, Banks, Barnes, Barnum, Bingham, Blaine, Boyer, Bromwell, Brooks, Broomall, Burr, Butler, Cary, Chanler, Churchill, Sidney Clarke, Covode, Dawes, Delano, Dixon, Dodge, Eliot, Ferry, Fields, Finney, Gravely, Griswold, Halsey, Hooper, Hopkins, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Humphrey, Hunter, Kelley, Kerr, Kitchen, Laflin, William Lawrence, Loan, Logan, Lynch, Mallory, Marshall, McCullough, Miller, Myers, Niblack, Nicholson, Nunn, Perham, Peters, Phelps, Pike, Pile, Pruyn, Randall, Raum, Robertson, Robinson, Ross, Schenck, Selye, Shanks, Shellabarger, Stewart, Stone, Thomas, Upson, Van Auken, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Elihu B. Washburne, William Williams, Stephen F. Wilson, and Wood-82.

So the joint resolution was passed.
During the vote,

Mr. HILL stated that Mr. MYERS was paired with Mr. RANDALL.

The reading of the vote was, by unanimous consent, dispensed with.

The vote was then announced as above recorded.

Mr. DONNELLY moved to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

MRS. ANN CORCORAN.

Mr. VAN AERNAM. I submit a report from a committee of conference.

The report was read, as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment to the bill (S. No. 184) granting a pension to Mrs. Ann Corcoran, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend, and do recommend to their respective Houses, as follows:

That the Senate recede from their disagreement, to the amendment of the House, and agree to the same. H. VAN AERNAM, G. F. MILLER, Managers on the part of the House. P. G. VAN WINKLE, LYMAN TRUMBULL, Managers on the part of the Senate,

The report was adopted.

Mr. VAN AERNAM moved to reconsider the vote by which the report was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

THOMAS CROSSLEY.

The SPEAKER stated that the House resumed in the morning hour, which had just commenced, the consideration of Senate bill No. 426, for the relief of Thomas Crossley, reported yesterday from the Committee on Patents by Mr. MYERS.

The bill was read. It provides that Thomas Crossley have leave to make application to the Commissioner of Patents for the extension of the letters-patent issued to him for improvements in machines for printing woolen and other goods for the term of fourteen years from April 5, 1854, the letters-patent bearing date June 20 in that year, in the same manner as if the petition for such extension had been filed at least ninety days before the expiration of the patent, and that the Commissioner be authorized to consider and determine this application in the same manner as if it had been filed ninety days before the expiration of the patent.

Mr. JENCKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of making an explanation. It is simply to enable the petitioner to make a correction as to a date. It gives him no rights. It makes no grant. It does not control the action of the Patent Office or any person employed there. It permits him to file his petition now as if he had filed it at the time allowed by law. There was an accidental mistake.

I demand the previous question.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the bill was ordered to a third reading; and it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. JENCKES moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

Mr. HOLMAN, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the

same:

An act (H. R. No. 861) relating to the Supreme Court of the United States;

An act (H. R. No. 538) to extend the boundaries of the collection district of Philadelphia so as to include the whole consolidated city of Philadelphia;

An act (H. R. No. 598) to continue the Bureau for the Relief of Freedmen and Refugees, and for other purposes;

An act (H. R. No. 764) for the relief of certain exporters of rum; and

An act (H. R. No. 176) to amend an act entitled "An act to provide for carrying the mails from the United States to foreign ports, and for other purposes," approved March 25, 1864.

ANDREW S. CORE.

On motion of Mr. HUBBARD, of West Virginia, the bill (S. No. 522) to authorize the Commissioner of the Revenue to settle the

accounts of Andrew S. Core was taken from the Speaker's table, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.

ABELARD GUTHRIE.

Mr. POLAND, from the Committee on Revisal and Unfinished Business, submitted the following report:

The Committee on Revisal and Unfinished Business, to whom was referred the memorial of Abelard Guthrie, praying to be allowed mileage and per diem as Delegate from the Territory of Nebraska to the Thirty-Second Congress, have had the same under consideration, and respectfully report:

That the memorialist, on the 17th day of December, 1852, presented a memorial to the House of Representatives, asking to be admitted as a delegate from the Territory of Nebraska. The matter was referred by the House to their Committee of Elections. On the 3d of March, 1853, the Committee of Elections reported to the House that the memorialist was not entitled to admission as a Delegate, and asked to be discharged from the further consideration of the case; and the House unanimously so ordered. It does not appear that the memorialist made any application to Congress for compensation until the 23d of February, 1851, when his memorial for that purpose was presented, and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and the matter has been kept before the House in some form from that time to the present. The committee have not studied its history closely enough to be able to give the precise dates or order of its transfer from one committee to another, but it appears to have been before the Committees on the Judiciary, of Elections, on Appropriations, on Claims; and more than once before some of them.

The Committee of Elections, in 1856, and again in 1862, reported in favor of paying the memorialist five dollars per day, from the time of presenting his memorial to the close of that Congress, and his mileage, not exceeding $2,000.

All the other committees who have had the matter before them have reported adversely to the payment of any sum to the memorialist, or have been discharged from its consideration without reporting thereon.

This committee, having at last been intrusted with the investigation of this claim, consider that justice to the memorialist, as well as to the House, requires that it should be finally disposed of, and they have therefore endeavored, as far as possible, at this late day, to ascertain the facts upon which its merits

rest.

Such election as was held was in the month of October, 1852. There was at that time no organized government in the Territory of Nebraska. What was called the territory of Nebraska embraced all the present States of Nebraska and Kansas, and a considerable amount of territory beside. What extent of settlement or number of people there were in that extensive region we have not had opportunity to investigate. Some part, and perhaps all the people there, desired to have a territorial government established, and it was deemed advisable by some of them that some one should be sent to represent their wishes and intents before Congress.

The memoralist stated before us that meetings were held in four places, and that about one hundred votes were cast in all. It should be stated, however, that when the Committee of Elections reported upon the memorialist's right to a seat, they stated that there was voting at but two places. What notice was given of these meetings that were held, or how extensive this notice was, or whether any other part of the people of that region had any opportunity to hold meetings and vote, did not appear. If any evidence was ever before Congress as to these meetings, or anything in the character of credentials to the memorialist, none can now be found. There were no election officers to call or hold elections, and such meetings as were held were mere voluntary and inforinal meetings of a few persons who had become resident in that new region.

It is not claimed now by the memorialist that he was legally entitled to a seat as a deiegate, or that he is by any law entitled to compensation as such. He claims compensation upon the ground that he performed valuable public service in promoting the establishment of a territorial government for Nebraska. He also urges that claims of a character similar to his have been recognized and paid by order of Congress.

An act establishing a territorial government for Nebraska passed the House in February, 1853, but failed to pass the Senate.

The committee have no special evidence on the subject, but they do not doubt the memorialist used his best efforts and influence to promote the establishment of a territorial government. The history of that region since that time is of a public character, and need not be repeated. But we cannot regard the service of the memorialist as of such a public

character, or as being for the benefit of the Government in any such sense as to entitle him to be paid therefor out of the public Treasury.

The precedents upon which the memorialist relies are the cases of Hugh N. Smith, of New Mexico, and A. W. Babbitt, of Utah, who claimed and asked to be admitted to seats as Delegates from those Territories respectively before any territorial organizations therein. They were denied seats, but were allowed their mileage and per diem.

It appears, however, that those gentlemen were chosen by conventions of delegates chosen from all parts of those Territories, so that in some sense they might be said to be representatives of the entire people of such unorganized districts. But in the case

of the memorialist, he cannot be considered as the representative of any more than a few individuals, and the request upon which he came here is no better than if no meeting had been held, and he had come by the private and personal request of each of them.

But the committee are of opinion that the precedents themselves are mischievous in principle and ought not to be followed, even if the memorialist brought his case within them. He came here as the agent and representative of private wishes and interests; and though those wishes and interests were to be forwarded by procuring a law of the most public character, still his character and responsibility are not changed thereby. If Congress recognize the validity of that class of service, and the liability of the Government to pay therefor, there will be no limit to calls upon the public funds. In this or any similar case, two or half a dozen agents might be sent to operate upon Congress, and if their services were equally beneficial, they would all be equally entitled to be paid for their services out of the public Treasury.

The committee therefore ask to be discharged from the further consideration of said memorial, and recommend that the same be laid on the table.

Mr. POLAND. I am not able to state any further facts than are contained in the report.

The committee was accordingly discharged from the further consideration of the memorial, and the same was laid on the table.

VENTILATION OF THE HALL.

Mr. COVODE, by unanimous consent, made a report from the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds in relation to ventilation of the Hall of the House of Representatives; which was ordered to be printed, and recommitted to the committee.

Subsequently Mr. COVODE entered a motion to reconsider the vote by which the report was recommitted.

PAYMENT OF WITNESSES.

Mr. COVODE also, by unanimous consent, offered the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:

Resolved, That there be paid as mileage and per diem to George H. Haupt and Lewis W. Leeds, witnesses before the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, $124 each.

LEONIDAS SMITH.

Mr. KERR, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1280) for the relief of Lieutenant Leonidas Smith, late of the twentysecond regiment Indiana volunteer infantry; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

JACOB BIGGS.

Mr. KERR also, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1281) for the relief of Jacob Biggs; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Mr. UPSON moved to reconsider the votes by which the bills were referred; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

NATIONAL BANK IN NEW YORK.

Mr. POMEROY. I report back from the Committee on Banking and Currency a bill (H. R. No. 1035) authorizing the Manufacturers' National Bank of New York to change its location, with a recommendation that it do pass. Without reading the bill I will state that it simply authorizes this bank to change its location from New York city to Brooklyn. It was formerly located in Brooklyn, but at the time it formed itself into a national bank it changed its location to New York city. It now desires to go back to Brooklyn.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. POMEROY moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

CHANGE OF NAMES OF NATIONAL BANKS. Mr. POMEROY, from the same committee, reported a bill (H. R. No. 1282) authorizing certain banks named therein to change their names; which was read a first and second time.

The bill provides for the change of the name of the City National Bank of New Orleans to the Germania National Bank of New Orleans, whenever the board of directors of said bank shall accept the new name by resolution of the board, and cause a copy of such resolution, duly authenticated, to be filed with the Comptroller of the Currency; provided such acceptance shall be made within six months after the passage of this act.

Section two provides that all the debts, demands, liabilities, rights, privileges, and powers of the City National Bank of New Orleans shall devolve upon and inure to the Germania National Bank of New Orleans, whenever such change is effected.

Sections three and four contain similar enactments providing for the change of the names of the National Bank of Plattsburg to the Vila National Bank of Plattsburg.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Is this a private bill? The SPEAKER. The Chair regards this as a private bill. On page 15 of the Digest will be found this language:

"It has been the practice in Parliament and also in Congress to consider as private such as are for the interest of individuals, public companies or corporations, a parish, city, county, or other locality.""

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I would suggest that this bill, if I understand it, changes a public

law.

The SPEAKER. That is very often done by private bills.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Would a bill in relation to the Pacific railroad changing the existing law be a private bill?

The SPEAKER. The Chair will rule upon that question when it comes up. There is a general pension law, but every special pension law passed by Congress changes that general law in regard to certain persons, and yet such bills are always held to be private bills.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Those are bills for the relief of private persons.

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks that this is clearly a private bill, and the question is on ordering it to be engrossed and read a third time.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. It seems to me that this is a way of whipping the devil round the stump, by closing up the affairs of one bank and starting another without going through the process required by law at the present time; and if that is the case, I am against it.

Mr. POMEROY. I will state that the object of the bill is not to accomplish any such purpose. I am as strongly opposed to that as the gentleman is. Its object is simply this: the House all understand that at the original organization of these national banks the old original bank names had to be surrendered, and, as was the case in the celebrated Stickney family, whose children were all named: first Stickney, second Stickney, third Stickney, and so on, these banks were required to be named first national bank, second national bank, and so on; and all that is sought to be accomplished is simply to change the names of the banks to such names as the parties desire. This is now allowed, the original system adopted of requiring them to be known by numbers having been abandoned by the Treasury Department itself. In the organization of national banks for some time past the old system has been abandoned and they have been allowed to take such names as they desired. There is a particular reason why they desire to have the name of this bank in New Orleans changed to the "Germania National Bank." The bank stock and the bank have passed almost entirely into the hands of Germans, and they wish to make it in its character and in its direction such as to attract the confidence and support of the German citizens of New Orleans, and they are very anxious to have it known as the Germania National Bank. reasons assigned were such that the Committee on Banking and Currency unanimously agreed to it, as they did also in the other case. In the other case the change proposed is simply to insert the name of the individual who is and

The

has been at all times the ruling man of the bank in place of "second." That is all. It does not change the location of the bank; it does not change the securities nor the circulation nor the liabilities in any way or manner. I will ask the previous question on the bill. Mr. MUNGEN. Will the gentleman allow

me a moment?

Mr. POMEROY. Certainly.

Mr. MUNGEN. As I understand the original national banking law, or by the Treasury regulations, the banks were required to take the name of the locality and a number in numerical order. Now, it seems to me that there is something in a name. I think the security of United States stocks ought to give faith and assurance enough to the Germans of New Orleans or of any other place as to the redemption of the notes of a bank—their issue being based on Government bonds. You might call it the|| Hamburg bank or the Amsterdam bank or the Rotterdam bank or any other bank, but I do not think it would add to the credit or responsibil ity thereof. I like German names, as General Scott did; but I fail to see the necessity for this change of name. I apprehend it will involve some new and additional expense. I presume the next step will be to return the old issue and have a new issue printed with the new name on it. I think it is only an additional expense, without any corresponding benefit. I see no particular objection to it, neither do I see any particular necessity for it.

Mr. POMEROY. I do not know that there is any public necessity requiring this to be done. But it is only giving to these banks the same right in adopting names that half of the other banks have had. In pursuance of regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, and not according to law, banks at first were required to adopt numerical designations, but afterwards that was not required. I now call the previous question.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. POMEROY moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

REPORTS OF PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANIES.

Mr. PRICE. I ask consent to report back, with an amendment, from the Committee on the Pacific Railroad, Senate bill No. 450, relative to filing reports of railroad companies.

The SPEAKER. This is a public bill, and will require unanimous consent for its consideration at this time.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. Let the bill be read.

The bill was read. The first section provides that the reports required to be made to the Secretary of the Treasury on or before the 1st day of July of each year, by the corporations created by or entitled to subsidies under the provisions of an act entitled "An act to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri river to the Pacific ocean, and to secure to the Government the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes," approved July 1, 1862, and the acts supplemental to and amendatory thereof, shall hereafter be made to the Secretary of the Interior on or before the 1st day of October of each year, the reports to furnish full and specific information upon the several points mentioned in the twentieth section of the act of 1862, and shall be verified as therein prescribed, and on failure to make the same as herein required, the issue of bonds or patents to the company in default shall be suspended until the requirements of this act shall be complied with by such company; and the reports hitherto made to the Secretary of the Treasury under that act shall be transferred and delivered by him to the Secretary of the Interior, to be filed by him.

The second section provides that the corpo

rations created by the provisions of the acts of Congress approved July 2, 1864, and July 27, 1866, and known as the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company, and the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, shall make reports to the Secretary of the Interior on or before the 1st of October of each year, as are required to be made by the Union Pacific railroad and branches, under the provisions of the first section of this act, and on failure so to do shall be subject to the like suspension.

The third section provides that the reports required from the commissioners appointed to examine and report in relation to the road of any of the corporations whereto reference is made in this act, shall be addressed to and filed in the Department of the Interior; and so much of any and all acts as requires any reports from such companies, or any officers thereof, to be made to the Secretary of the Treasury, is hereby repealed.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. I understand that this is merely a proposition to change the method of making reports on the part of these companies. Under existing laws some are to be made to the Secretary of the Treas ury and some to the Secretary of the Interior. This bill simply requires that all the reports shall be made to the Secretary of the Interior. I think that is very proper, and therefore will make no objection to it.

The amendment reported from the committee was to add to the bill the following:

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That in addition to the eight subjects referred to in section twenty of the act of July, 1862, to be reported upon, there shall also be furnished annually to the Secretary of the Interior all reports of engineers, superintendents, or other officers who make annual reports to any of said railroad companies.

The amendment was agreed to.

The bill, as amended, was then read the third time, and passed.

Mr. PRICE moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

ELECTION CONTEST--M'KEE VS. YOUNG. Mr. COOK. I now call up the contestedelection case of McKee vs. Young, in relation to the ninth congressional district of Kentucky.

The resolution, reported by the majority of the Committee on Elections were read as follows:

Resolved, That J. D. Young was not legally elected a member of the House of Representatives of the Fortieth Congress from the ninth congressional district of Kentucky.

Resolved, That Samuel McKee was duly elected a member of the House of Representatives in the Fortieth Congress from the ninth congressional district of the State of Kentucky.

Mr. COOK. There was another resolution reported from the Committee of Elections some time before those just read. I ask that it also be now read.

The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That John D. Young, having voluntarily given aid, countenance, counsel, and encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility to the United States, is not entitled to take the oath of office as a Representative in this House from the ninth congressional district of Kentucky, or to hold a seat therein as such Representative.

Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, if I can get the attention of the House for a short time, I think I can make clear the reasons for the adoption of the resolutions just reported.

On the 9th of July, 1867, the Committee of Elections made their first report in relation to the Kentucky election cases, which report was adopted by the House. In that report the com

mittee say:

"The committee are of opinion that no person who has been engaged in armed hostility to the Government of the United States, or who has given aid and comfort to its enemies during the late rebellion, ought to be permitted to be sworn as a member of this House, and that any specific and apparently well-grounded charge of personal disloyalty made against a person claiming a seat as a member of this House ought to be investigated and reported upon before such person is permitted to take the seat; but all charges touching the disloyalty of a constituency in a State in which loyal civil government was not overthrown

during the late rebellion, or the illegality of an election, are matters which pertain to a contest in the ordinary way, and should not prevent a person holding a regular certificate from taking his seat."

After that report was made, the House directed the Committee of Elections to inquire during the coming vacation of Congress whether certain-named gentlemen claiming seats in this House as Representatives from the State of Kentucky had been guilty of such acts of personal disloyalty as disqualify them from holding seats on this floor as Representatives from Kentucky.

After that investigation in Kentucky, the Committee of Elections made a report December 3, 1867, which reported their conclusions as follows, referring to the first-named report:

"The committee adhere to the views expressed in that report, that no man who has been engaged in an attempt to overthrow the Government and subvert the Constitution by force of arms, or who has voluntarily given aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons so engaged, ought to be admitted to a seat in this House to make laws for the nation he has traitorously sought to destroy, and it is apparent that there must be power in this House to prevent this, the House being the judge of the qualifications of its members, of which fidelity to the Constitution is one, and that this end can only be certainly accomplished by the investigation of any specific and apparently well-grounded charge of personal disloyalty made against a person claiming a seat as a member of this House, before such person is permitted to take the seat."

In the same report the committee said: "Whenever it is shown by proof that the claimant has, by act or speech, given aid or countenance to the rebellion he should not be permitted to take the oath, and such acts or speech need not be such as to constitute treason technically, but must have been so overt and public, and must have been done or said under such circumstances, as fairly to show that they were actually designed to, and in their nature tended to, forward the cause of the rebellion."

In this report the principle is announced that any one who has given aid or comfort to the rebellion shall not be permitted to take the oath.

Now, sir, the Committee of Elections believe that the evidence shows Mr. Young, one of the claimants to this seat, from the State of Kentucky, comes fairly within the rule laid down by the committee in this report to which I have referred. The evidence shows both by speech and act he has given aid and countenance to the rebellion, and that such speeches and acts in their nature tended to give countenance to the rebellion, and must have been so designed. And the proof on this point I will first call to the attention of the House; and from that proof the House will become satisfied, as the committee has already become satisfied, that John D. Young is not entitled to a seat as Representative from Kentucky, unless, indeed, the House is prepared to reverse the decision of the House in sustaining the previous reports of the committee.

This proof I will proceed to lay before the House. Now, first as to the charges of personal disloyalty against John D. Young. The committee say in their report if the claimant to the seat has by act or speech given aid and countenance to the rebellion he is not entitled to a seat in this House. The proof is that John D. Young did repeatedly give aid and countenance to the rebellion by speech and act. His position was a prominent one. He was the leader of public opinion. His opinion guided that of the community where he resided in reference to public affairs. His opinion was in favor of the rebellion, and its expression was designed manifestly to give aid and countenance to the rebellion. He was county judge before and during the rebellion. It was impossible, then, that such a man, occupying such a position, declaring himself openly for the rebellion, against the Union and national Government, and in favor of the pretended confederacy, could be considered in any other light than as giving aid and countenance to the rebellion.

First, I will refer to the proof of what were his declarations. Mr. Sharp testifies:

"In an interview with him [Young] he took the ground that the war was not a rebellion, but a revoZation. I recollect distinctly asking him if he thought the South had just cause for the revolution. He said 40TH CONG. 2D SESS.--No. 209.

he thought it had. I laid his case before General Boyle, and was ordered by him to send Mr. Young to camp Chase."

On page 59, Mis Doc. 47, G. W. Parsons testifies :

"In the year 1861, one day Mr. Young stayed for dinner," &c. "I was there." "After dinner Mr. Gill, Mr. Young, and myself got into conversation on the subject of the war. It was after Mr. Lincoln had called for seventy-five thousand men, and that was the subject of the discussion. Mr. Young took position against the action of the President, and remarked, among other things, that Mr. Lincoln ought to be impeached and hung as high as Ilaman. I asked him what ought to be done with Jefferson Davis, and he said nothing; that Mr. Davis had violated no constitutional obligation.""

On page 58, Mis. Doc. 47, Spotswood Deadman (colored) testifies:

"He [Young] always talked in favor of the rebellion."

On page 57, same book of testimony, John Miller testifies:

"All took him to be a rebel. He was a rebel. I heard Josh Ewing talking to him one day and saying that he could take his [Ewing's sons into the rebel army, but could not go himself. That was on the street in Owingsville."

And this is confirmed on page 65, same book, by W. H. T. Moss, who testifies:

"Mr. Joshua Ewing and Mr. Young and a crowd were chatting in the street one morning, and I heard Mr. Young remark to Mr. Ewing, I expect to have a company in South Carolina to fight the Yankees, and I expect to take your boys with me.' Ewing replied, Perhaps you will. If you do not like this country you had better leave.""

On page 72, same book, James Hall testifies: "He [Young] was in favor of the South gaining its independence. I heard him speak of it frequently on, the street in Owingsville "

These declarations are repeated by a man holding the office of county judge of that county. They were accompanied by acts to which I desire, very briefly and as succinctly as I can, to call the attention of the House.

It is in proof that at different times, Mr. Young gave food to bands of rebels who were organized in the commencement of the war in the vicinity of his residence. On page 58, said Mis. Doc. 47, Spotswood Deadman (colored) testifies :

"When the rebels were passing through Owingsville, where I was then living, and where Mr. Young lived, he took a very active part in feeding them and conveying provisions to them." When rebels were passing through he would take them to his house and feed them." "At this time nobody was forced to feed them unless he chose. It was voluntary." "Sometimes he would go out and meet them, and he would welcome them to town."

POINTS OUT A UNION SOLDIER.

But Union soldiers were not favorites with those who were in favor of "the South gaining its independence."

Another fact to which I wish to call attention is the charge which is made against Mr. Young, and which the committee believe is sustained by the proof, that at one time when a squad of rebel cavalry came into the town of Owingsville, where Young resided, they were met by Young, who, after a very pleasant interview, in which there seemed to be an entire concurrence of opinion between the rebels and Young, the latter said to the commanding officer that in such a house was a Yankee soldier, and suggested that they should go for him. Thereupon the party of men went to the house and captured the Union soldier who was there found. I ask the attention of the House to the evidence upon that point.

Greenup Nickell, on pages 16 and 17 Miscellaneous Document No. 13, above named, testifies as follows:

"By SAMUEL MCKEE:

'Question. State where you reside, your age, and what position you occupied during, in 1864, the late rebellion.

Answer. I reside in Centre county: I am forty years old; I was a captain, eompany A, fifty-fourth Kentucky mounted infantry. Federal Army; went into the Army in 1864, in the fall season.

"Question. Please state if you have any knowledge of any disloyal act or acts committed during the rebellion by Judge John D. Young, now claiming a seat in the Fortieth Congress from the ninth Kentucky district-anything in aid or encouragement of the rebellion, or those who were in arms against the Government of the United States.

Answer. In the spring of 1863, I was on my way from Mount Sterling, Kentucky, home. After passing Owingsville, between Owingsville and State

Bridge, I was met by a squad of confederate soldiers, as they called themselves, in number from fifteen to twenty, as near as I remember; they told me they were going into Owingsville and did not allow anybody to go out until they got ready, and that I must go back with them, which I did. After they rode into the town there was a pretty general rushing of the town people, who came up or out to see them. Among others who came, there was a certain gentleman who came down toward where I was, and up to the men who had me in charge, and close by where I was standing; he was pointing his finger in the direction of a certain house, and named the house, but I don't now remember the name of said house, and told the men that in that house there was a Yankee soldier,' and to go for him, which the rebel soldiers did. A part of the lot went to the house, and some who remained near me turned toward the gentleman, whom I did not know, and spoke to him and said How are you, Judge Young? This same man whom they called Judge Young, and a part of the rebel soldiers, turned away from me and engaged in conversation, in rather a lower tone of voice than at first; I did not hear what was then said, but in a very short time a part of the same men went off and in a few minutes retured with some horses, upon one of which they mounted the prisoner they had taken, and soon after moved off. Before they returned with the horses, the man whom they called Judge Young went off, and I did not then again see him any more.

Question. Have you seen him since? And if so, state the circumstances.

**Answer. I don't know whether I have ever seen him since or not, but at February court, just previous to the May election last, I was in court, in the courthouse at Moorehead, and while the court was going on I heard some one speak out,How are you, Judge Young?' I was at once reminded of the same expression I had heard at Owingsville, and turned to see who it was. Tom Hayes, who had been a captain in the rebel army, was standing near, and I took him to be the man, from the voice, who then addressed the man he called Judge Young. I was not acquainted myself with Judge Young, but when I saw him there in the court-house at Moorehead, I took him to be the same I had seen at Owingsville, and believe that he was the same man. These are the only two times I have seen Judge Young, if this was him.

Question. Please describe the man whom you saw, and whom they called Judge Young,

"Answer. As near as I recollect, he seemed to be about a common man in height and size. He was a good-looking man, as I thought; had very dark hair, dark whiskers, and a very keen black eye; thought about as keen an eye as I had ever seen.

Question. Were you a soldier or citizen when captured near Owingsville in 1853?

Ansicer. I was a citizen, dressed in citizen's clothes, and had nothing to do with the Army at that time.

Question. Did the rebel soldiers capture the Yankee soldier from the house to which Young pointed? "Answer. They captured the soldier, brought him out, and took him off with them; released me, and told me I could go where I pleased.

Cross examined:

"Question. Picase state who was in command of the rebel squad that captured you near Owingsville, Kentucky, in the spring of 1863; and state what time of year it was.

"Answer. I did not know any of the squad of rebels that captured me in 1863. I was captured in the spring, I think, the last of February, or the first of March.

Question. Please state whether you were acquainted with any of the citizens of Owingsville when you were taken there; and if so, who were they?

Answer. When I was taken back to Owingsville, I did not recognize anybody that I knew that lived there. I recognized Jo. Wells, who resided in the neighborhood; he was with me when I was arrested and went with me to Owingsville.

Question. Did you hear J. D. Young use any disloyal language; and if so, what was it?

Answer. A man whom the soldiers called Judge Young came to them and pointed to a house, and told said soldiers that there was a Federal soldier there, and to go for him, which they did; this is all the language I heard the man called Judge Young use. The soldiers that arrested me professed to belong to Colonel Clarke's command.

Question. State the height, age, weight, &c., of the man that was called Judge Young by said squad of soldiers."

The evidence, in my opinion, fully identifies this Judge Young named by the parties as the person who pointed out where this Federal soldier could be found and captured.

One witness, J. W. Moore, an ex-member of the rebel Congress, was introduced by Mr. Young, and testified before the committee, and the attempt was made to prove by him that Captain Greenup Nickell was not entitled to 'belief on oath.

This ex-rebel congressman testifies that he had been in Kentucky but one day since, in 1861; that he knew two men by name of Greenup Nickell, of Morgan county, one sixty, and the other "perhaps thirty years of age, and that "the younger was of a bad character."

The testimony shows the witness, Captain Nickell, to be Greenup Nickell, of Carter county, and forty years of age; so that there