each man was allowed to return home, not to be disturbed by the United States authority so long as he observed his parole and the laws in force where he resided. These men were especially excepted from the amnesty proclaimed by the President May 29, 1865, under the tenth exception, and there appears to have been no other act of amnesty up to the time of this election which could include them. They were paroled prisoners of war. No reason occurs to the committee why these men should be allowed to vote which would not apply with equal force to them while actually in the field against the Government. The only difference which appears is, that they had now been captured; their object, aim, and intent, whether in fighting or voting, was manifestly to destroy the Government. It seems absurd to say that it was a patriotic duty to kill them while they were in arms against the Government to prevent the destruction of the Government by them, and at the same time wholly illegal to refuse to allow them to accomplish the same result by their votes. The whole plan of reconstruction by Congress, as also the plan of reconstruction proposed in the proclamations of the President, has proceeded upon the assumption that those who had renounced their allegiance to the Government and fought against it have forfeited their right to vote.'

Where is there any law for that? I deny the whole of that statement. There is not a particle of law for it whatever anywhere within my knowledge. That is a misstatement of fact, not intentional, I hope, but nevertheless a misstatement. They refer to what is well known in Kentucky as the disfranchising law. I submit not only that this report is erroneous, but that it is directly at war with the position taken by the committee itself. I put the decision of the committee to-day against the decision of the committee three months ago. Here is the law, the disfranchising act of March 1, 1862: An act to amend section one, article three, chapter thirty-two, title "Elections," of the Revised Statutes.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, That hereafter, so long as there are two distinct political parties in this Commonwealth, the sheriff, judges, and clerk of election, in all cases of election by the people under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and under the constitution and laws of Kentucky, shall be so selected and appointed as that one of the judges at each place of voting shall be of one political party, and the other judge of the other or opposing political party; and that a like difference shall exist at each place of voting between the sheriff and clerk of elections: Provided, That there be a sufficient number of the members of each political party resident in the several precincts as aforesaid to fill said offices. And this requirement shall be observed by all officers of this Commonwealth who have the power to appoint any of the aforesaid officers of election, under the penalty of fine of $100 for each omission, to be recovered by presentment of the grand jury.

MARCH 15, 1862.

An act to amend an act entitled An act to amend section one, article three, chapter thirty-two, title Election,' of the Revised Statutes," approved February 11, 1858.

SECTION 1. That in construing the act approved February 11, 1858, to which this is an amendment, those who have engaged in the rebellion for the overthrow of the Government, or who have in any way aided, counseled, or advised the separation of Kentucky from the Federal Union by force of arms, or adhered to those engaged in the effort to separate her from the Federal Union by force of arms, shall not be deemed one of the political parties in this Commonwealth within the provisions of the act to which this is an amendment.

SEC. 2. This act to take effect from and after its passage.

There the committee stopped. They knew no other law, or for reasons satisfactory to themselves they saw fit to cite no other law. I propose to read another law, passed December 14, 1865, by the Kentucky Legislature:

"That the act entitled 'An act to amend the fifteenth chapter of the Revised Statutes entitled 'citizens, expatriation, and aliens" passed March 11, 1862, be, and the same is hereby, repealed; and all persons who may have lost any constitutional, legal, or other right or privilege by the operation of said act shall be, and are hereby, restored to the full and free use and enjoyment of the same, as completely as if said act had never been passed.

"SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That this act shall be in force from its passage, and may be plead in bar of any prosecution or any indictment or other penal proceedings growing out of said act.'

Again, I refer to an act passed January 13, 1866, entitled "An act to pardon all persons who have heretofore committed the crime of treason against this Commonwealth :"

"Whereas the power to pardon persons who have committed treason against this Commonweath is, by the constitution, vested solely in the General Assembly thereof: Therefore,

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, That all persons who have at any 40TH CONG. 2D SESS.-No. 210.

time heretofore committed the offense or crime of treason against the said Commonwealth be, and they are hereby, pardoned and absolved from all the pains and penalties thereto attached.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That any person heretofore indicted for such offense in any of the courts of this State may plead this act in bar of further prosecution of such indictment."

Now, I submit if there be a single, solitary elector in the ninth district of Kentucky who, by the act of the Kentucky Legislature, or by any act of the Federal Government, is not entitled to vote, that Andrew Johnson himself has proclaimed universal amnesty and restoration to all such.

And here I rest the case, in the hope that though you do emasculate the State of Kentucky further by depriving Mr. Young of his seat on this floor, as noble, gallant, and glorious a representative as ever sat in this Hall, you will not insult Kentucky by foisting upon her by your vote a man whom she spurned and repelled at the polls, and against whose repre

sentative of her sentiments as one of Ken

tucky's humblest representatives on this floor, in her name and in the name of liberty and justice, I enter my most solemn protest.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message was received from the Senate, by Mr. GORHAM, its Secretary, notifying the House that that body had agreed to the amend ment of the House to Senate bill No. 450, relative to filing reports of railroad companies.

It further announced that the Senate had passed bills of the following titles; in which the concurrence of the House was requested:

An act (S. No. 175) for the relief of Joseph McGhee Cameron and Mary Jane Cameron. minor children of La Fayette Cameron, deceased;

An act (S. No. 232) for the relief of Henrietta Nolles;

An act (S. No. 238) granting a pension to Carrie E. Burdett;

An act (S. No. 434) for the relief of Elizabeth Barker, widow of Alexander Barker, deceased;

An act (S. No. 456) for the relief of Sylvester Nugent;

An act (S. No. 457) granting a pension to Elizabeth J. Miller, widow of General John Miller;

An act (S. No. 494) granting a pension to Elizabeth Steepleton, widow of Harrison W. Steepleton, deceased;

An act (S. No. 495) for the relief of Henry Reens;

An act (S. No. 496) granting a pension to Riley H. Smith;

An act (S. No. 497) for the relief of Catharine Wands;

An act (S. No. 498) granting a pension to Anna M. Howard;

An act (S. No. 499) granting a pension to the widow and child of Martin Whitt, deceased; An act (S. No. 500) granting a pension to Lucinda R. Johnson;

An act (S. No. 501) granting a pension to Harriet W. Pond;

An act (S. No. 516) granting a pension to Julia Whistler;

An act (S. No. 517) granting a pension to the widow and children of Henry Brown;

An act (S. No. 518) granting a pension to the widow and child of John P. Fetty;

An act (S. No. 519) granting a pension to Mrs. Emma M. Moore;

An act (S. No. 520) granting a pension to Martha Stout;

An act (S. No. 521) granting a pension to the children of William M. Wooten, deceased; An act (S. No. 545) granting a pension to Hannah Cook;

An act (S. No. 546) for the relief of Jane M. Murray;

An act (S. No. 547) granting a pension to John Sheets;

An act (S. No. 548) granting a pension to Amanda Stackhouse and children of Parkes J. Stackhouse, deceased; and

An act (S. No. 549) granting increase of pension to Catharine Eckhardt.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. COOK. I demand the previous question.

Mr. MUNGEN. I move that the House adjourn.

The question being put on the motion to adjourn, there were-ayes 25, noes 69; no quorum voting.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will order tellers.

Mr. UPSON. Is it necessary to have a quorum?

Mr. MUNGEN. I withdraw the motion. Mr. ELDRIDGE. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. TRIMBLE] wishes to make a speech on this question, which he is now prepared to make. I hope the House will allow him the opportunity.

Mr. TRIMBLE, of Kentucky. I hope the gentleman from Illinois will not press the previous question now, but will let me have thirty minutes on Monday. This is an important question.

Mr. COOK. It is apparent that I cannot press this question on Monday after the tax bill comes up, and I must, therefore, insist on the previous question.

Mr. TRIMBLE, of Kentucky. I hope the gentleman will consent that I shall have an opportunity to express my views on this question. I have not troubled the House often.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. The gentleman from Kentucky will be satisfied with thirty minutes. The SPEAKER. It is proposed by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Cook,] as the Chair understands, that the discussion shall continue, but that by unanimous consent the previous question shall be understood to be seconded at the close of this day's session.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. Will that require the gentleman from Kentucky to make his speech this evening?

The SPEAKER. It will.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. Then I object.

Mr. BECK. I desire to know if the House will grant me leave to publish my views on this

case?

There was no objection, and the leave was granted.

Mr. TRIMBLE, of Kentucky. After a session of five hours I do not feel like inflicting on the House a speech at this time. I would like to have time on Monday morning.

Mr. COOK. I have promised part of my time to the gentleman's colleague, [Mr. ADAMS.]

Mr. TRIMBLE, of Kentucky. By general consent there will still be an opportunity to have the vote taken on this question before the tax bill comes up. Mr. JONES. I would like to ask the gentleman from Illinois what pressing necessity there is to demand the previous question this day on this case? It has occupied the committee for four or five months, and now we have had but two hours, discussion upon it. There are other gentlemen here from Kentucky who would like to say a word on this case.

Mr. MULLINS. And Tennessee wants to say something.

Mr. JONES. It is a great question affecting the sovereignty of the States, and I say it is unfair, improper, and unmanly to demand the previous question on it. [Cries of "Order!" "Order!"]

Mr. COOK. The tax bill comes up on Monday.

Mr. ROBINSON. I move that the House adjourn; and on that motion I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. UPSON. I rise to a question of order. Has there been any action in the House since a motion to adjourn was voted down? The SPEAKER. That motion was withdrawn.

Mr. ROBINSON. I withdraw the motion. Mr. ELDRIDGE. Will not the gentleman from Illinois consent that the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. TRIMBLE] shall speak for thirty minutes on Monday morning? There is no disposition to occupy the time of the House.

Mr. COOK. I want to say to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. TRIMBLE] that I have already promised thirty minutes of my closing hour to his colleague, [Mr. ADAMS;] and thirty minutes ought to be reserved for those who shall defend the other side of the proposition. That seems to me to be right and reasonable.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I understand a proposition to have been made that Judge TRIMBLE may go on to-night for thirty minutes. Now I propose that by unanimous consent he shall be allowed thirty minutes on Monday morning, not to come out of the hour of the gentleman from Illinois; and that then the previous question shall be considered as seconded.

Mr. COOK. I am perfectly willing that the gentleman from Kentucky shall have any time that the House will allow him, if it is not to come out of my time.

Mr. GARFIELD. Will it be understood, then, that at the end of Judge TRIMBLE's thirty minutes the previous question will operate?

Mr. ELDRIDGE. That is understood. The SPEAKER. The Chair will state to the House the condition of business, which, of course, accumulates toward the close of the session. After the morning hour on Monday the first business in order will be the consideration of the motion to reconsider the vote rejecting the report of the committee of conference on the bill removing political disabilities. That, unlike other business, can be taken up and acted on at any time, whatever else may be before the House. It is the only character of business that can be taken up when other business is being transacted, being highly privileged. The motion to reconsider will come up immediately after the morning hour. When that shall have been disposed of, if the previous question should not be operating at the adjournment to-night, this election case will then be resumed; but if the Committee of Ways and Means should demand the floor, they will be entitled to it under the order of the House.

Mr. SCHENCK. I ask unanimous consent that the morning hour of Monday be dispensed

with.

Mr. HARDING. I object.

Mr. GARFIELD. I ask unanimous congent that the hour of meeting Monday be eleven o'clock a. m. instead of twelve o'clock.

The SPEAKER. That would require unanimous consent. Is there any objection?

Mr. GARFIELD. I hope there will be no objection.

The SPEAKER. The Chair hears no objection, and that will be the order.

Mr. SPALDING. I object.
Mr. KELSEY. I object.
Several MEMBERS.

late.

The objection is too

Mr. HARDING. I will withdraw my objection to dispensing with the morning hour of Monday.

Mr. ASHLEY, of Nevada. I renew the objection.

The SPEAKER. Objection being made, the morning hour of Monday will not be dispensed with.

Mr. PRUYN. I ask unanimous consent that the House meet at half past six o'clock Monday morning and adjourn for the day at eleven o'clock.

Mr. BLAINE. The gentleman can come here as early as he pleases.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York [Mr. PRUYN] asks unanimous consent that the House meet at half past six o'clock on Monday morning and adjourn for the day at eleven o'clock. Is there objection?

Objection was made by several members. The SPEAKER. Then the hour of meeting will be eleven o'clock.

Mr. SPALDING. How can that be? The SPEAKER. The gentleman's colleague [Mr. GARFIELD] asked unanimous consent that the hour of meeting on Monday next be eleven o'clock.

Mr. SPALDING. And I objected.

The SPEAKER. The Chair asked if there

Mr. SPALDING. I certainly objected before any announcement was made.

Mr. GARFIELD. I was listening for objec tions and I heard none.

Mr. SPALDING. I say I did object.

The SPEAKER. If the gentleman states that he made his objection in time, before the Chair made the announcement, of course the Chair will entertain the objection.

Mr. SPALDING. I certainly did object, both before and after the announcement.

The SPEAKER. Then objection being made, the hour of meeting on Monday will be twelve o'clock m.

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

Mr. GARFIELD. Is it in order to move that the House now take a recess until eleven o'clock Monday morning?

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York [Mr. ROBINSON] has moved that the House now adjourn, and the motion to adjourn takes precedence of the motion to take a recess. Should the motion to adjourn be withdrawn or voted down, then a motion for a recess would be in order.

Mr. GARFIELD. I ask the gentleman to withdraw his motion to adjourn, so that I may submit a motion for a recess.

Mr. ROBINSON. I will withdraw the motion to adjourn.

Mr. GARFIELD. I now move that the House take a recess until eleven o'clock on Monday morning, with the understanding that after this case has been resumed for a half an hour the previous question shall be considered as ordered.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I desire to ask a parliamentary question of the Chair.

but the Chair will answer a parliamentary The SPEAKER. No debate is in order, question.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. If the House shall take a recess until eleven o'clock on Monday morning, will any business set down for consideration on Monday come up before twelve o'clock?

The SPEAKER. It will not.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Then what will be the advantage of taking a recess until that time?

The SPEAKER. The session of to-day, and the consideration of the business pending at the time the recess is taken will be resumed at eleven o'clock and continued until twelve o'clock, when the session of Monday will begin. Mr. FARNSWORTH. I have no objection to that.

The question was then taken on the motion of Mr. GARFIELD for a recess until eleven o'clock a. m. on Monday next; and upon a division there were-ayes 84, noes 15.

So the motion was agreed to; and accordingly (at five o'clock and five minutes p. m.) the House took a recess until eleven o'clock a. m. on Monday next.

AFTER THE RECESS.

The House at eleven o'clock a. m. [Monday, June 22, 1868] resumed its session of Saturday.

DAVID VAN NORDSTRAND.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, took from the Speaker's table the amendment of the Senate to House bill No. 455, granting a pension to David Van Nordstrand.

The amendment of the Senate provided that the pension should commence on the "9th of October, 1864," instead of "from and after the passage of this act."

The amendment was concurred in.

Mr. BLAINE moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was concurred in;

and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN,

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

Resolved, That the Committee on Appropriations is hereby directed to include in the deficiency bill a provision fixing the salary of the Assistant Librarian in charge of the Hall Library the same as that paid to the file, printing, and enrolling clerks.

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

The latter motion was agreed to.

PENSION BILLS REFERRED.

The following pension bills from the Senate were, by unanimous consent, taken from the Speaker's table, severally read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions:

An act (S. No. 175) for the relief of Joseph McGhee Cameron and Mary Jane Cameron, minor children of La Fayette Cameron, deceased;

An act (S. No. 232) for the relief of Henrietta Nolles;

An act (S. No. 238) granting a pension to Carrie E. Burdett;

An act (S. No. 434) for the relief of Eliz abeth Barker, widow of Alexander Barker, deceased;

An act (S. No. 456) for the relief of Sylvester Nugent;

An act (S. No. 457) granting a pension to Elizabeth J. Miller, widow of General John Miller;

An act (S. No. 494) granting a pension to Elizabeth Steepleton, widow of Harrison W. Steepleton, deceased;

An act (S. No. 495) for the relief of Henry Reens;

An act (S. No. 496) granting a pension to Riley H. Smith;

An act (S. No. 497) for the relief of Catharine Wands;

An act (S. No. 498) granting a pension to Anna M. Howard;

An act (S. No. 499) granting a pension to the widow and child of Martin Whitt, deceased; An act (S. No. 500) granting a pension to Lucinda R. Johnson;

An act (S. No. 501) granting a pension to Harriet W. Pond;

An act (S. No. 516) granting a pension to Julia Whistler;

An act (S. No. 517) granting a pension to the widow and children of Henry Brown; An act (S. No. 518) granting a pension to the widow and child of John P. Fetty;

An act (S. No. 519) granting a pension Mrs. Emma M. Moore;

An act (S. No. 520) granting a pension to Martha Stout;

An act (S. No. 521) granting a pension to the children of William M. Wooten, deceased; An act (S. No. 545) granting a pension to Hannah Cook;

An act (S. No. 546) for the relief of Jane M. Murray;

An act (S. No. 547) granting a pension to John Sheets;

An act (S. No. 548) granting a pension to Amanda Stackhouse and children of Parkes J. Stackhouse, deceased; and

An act (S. No. 549) granting increase of pension to Catharine Eckhardt.

PRINTING OF INTERNAL TAX BILL.

ing, reported the following resolution; which Mr. CAKE, from the Committee on Printwas read, considered, and agreed to:

Resolved, That one thousand extra copies of the bill revising the internal tax on whisky and tobacco, &c., be printed for the use of the House.

ELECTION CONTEST-M'KEE VS. YOUNG. The House resumed the consideration of the contested-election case of McKee vs. Young, in the ninth congressional district of Kentucky,

Mr. TRIMBLE, of Kentucky, being entitled to the floor.

Mr. COOK. I deem it proper that I should call the attention of the House to a section of an act passed on the 2d day of March, 1867, and to say that the section being incorporated in an act having no relation to the general subject of legislative declarations on the subject of secession and rebellion had escaped my notice, and so far as I know the notice of members of the committee. I deem it but fair and just, therefore, to call the attention of the House to that section. It is as follows:

"SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That section one of the act entitled "An act to increase the pay of soldiers in the United States Army, and for other purposes," approved June 20, 1864, be, and the same is hereby, continued in full force and effect for three years from and after the close of the rebellion, as announced by the President of the United States by proclamation bearing date the 20th day of August, 1866.'

I was not aware that there was any statute which gave any legislative declaration about the close of the rebellion. This section being incorporated in an appropriation bill escaped my notice.

Mr. TRIMBLE, of Kentucky, addressed the House. [See Appendix.] Before concluding, he said: I believe, Mr. Speaker, I have three minutes of my time remaining, and I will yield them to my colleague, [Mr. BECK.]

Mr. BECK. I wish to state two facts, but I do not think I can do it in three minutes.

The SPEAKER. The session of Saturday will expire at twelve o'clock m. and then the business of the morning hour of Monday will begin.

Mr. BECK. I will wait and get ten minutes of the time of my colleague, [Mr. ADAMS.]

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I suggest that the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. BECK] have the three minutes given to him by his colleague [Mr. TRIMBLE] when the debate is resumed, and that only seven minutes be deducted from the time of his other colleague, [Mr. ADAMS.] There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly.

Mr. COOK. I now demand the previous question, and will let the subject go over in that way.

Mr. BOUTWELL moved that the House adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and thereupon (at twelve o'clock m.) the House adjourned.

PETITIONS, ETC.

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

By the SPEAKER: The petition of Mrs. Mary Tiffany, of Schenectady, New York, for relief.

Also, the petition of citizens of Fayette, Blanco, and Kerr counties, for. a division of said State.

Also, remonstrance of John Beeson, against the payment of any money to speculators in Indian wars.

Also, a remonstrance of Howard Wiswall, of Washington, North Carolina, against being included in the act relieving from disabilities, as he had never been disloyal to the Government of the United States.

By Mr. BANKS: A memorial of the mechanics employed in the navy-yard at Washington, District of Columbia, praying that they may be included in the list of employés of the Government to whom an increase of twenty per cent. on their pay may be given.

IN SENATE.

MONDAY, June 22, 1868.

Prayer by Rev. A. D. GILLETTE, D. D. On motion of Mr. MORTON, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of Saturday last was dispensed with.

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED.

The bill (H. R. No. 1035) authorizing the Manufacturers' National Bank of New York to change its location, and the bill (H. R. No. 1282) authorizing certain banks named therein to change their names, were severally read twice by their titles, and referred to the Committee on Finance.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Mr. WILSON, from the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to whom was referred the resolution (S. R. No. 151) to drop from the rolls of the Army certain officers absent without authority from their commands, reported it without amendment.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the joint resolution (S. R. No. 149) authorizing the sale of damaged or unserviceable arms, ordnance, and ordnance stores, reported it without amendment.

SITE OF FORT COVINGTON.

Mr. WILSON. I am directed by the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to whom was referred the joint resolution (H. R. No. 264) to provide for the sale of the site of Fort Covington, in the State of Maryland, to

He also presented resolutions adopted at a meeting of the National Typographical Union, held in Washington city, June 4, 1868, against the passage of an international copyright law; which were referred to the Committee on the Library.

Mr. RAMSEY presented a petition of citi zens of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, asking that the soldiers of the war of 1812 and the widows of deceased soldiers be placed on the pension-roll; which was referred to the Com

mittee on Pensions.

Mr. WILLEY presented the petition of James C. White, of Portsmouth, Virginia, praying a removal of the civil disabilities im posed on him by acts of Congress; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. YATES presented a memorial of settlers on Cherokee neutral lands, asking that they may purchase their homes at $1 25 per acre, and protesting against the granting of large tracts to railroads; which was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

Mr. HOWE presented the memorial of G. E. Weiss and R. B. Rice, inspectors of customs of the port of Milwaukee, remonstrating against an American register being granted to the schooner Victoria, a Canadian-built vessel; which was referred to the Committee on Com

merce.

Mr. SUMNER. I present a petition from Rev. Rufus Ellis, of Boston, pastor of the First Church there, and several other persons, leading members of that society, in which they set forth that they have ordered from England painted glass windows to be used in their new church which they are now building, valued at from ten to fifteen thousand dollars, and which are expected to arrive in this country about the 1st of October next. They state that it was found impossible at any expense to procure first-class work of this character in the United States; and believing that the undertaking will tend to raise the standard of taste in matters of art, and will facilitate and improve manufactures of that character in the United States as being the most considerable attempt yet made to supply good models; and also in consideration of the expense of the enterprise, they respectfully ask the remission of the duties on this glass. I move the reference of this petition to the Committee on Finance.

The motion was agreed to.

By Mr. LYNCH: The petition of James Murphy, of Maine, asking compensation for time unjustly detained as a deserter.

national honor protected. I move the reference of this memorial to the Committee on Finance.

The motion was agreed to.

mend its passage. It is a joint resolution containing but one section, and, if there is no objection, I should like to put it on its passage. By unanimous consent, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the joint resolution. It authorizes the Secretary of War to sell in entirety or by subdivisions, at public auction to the highest bid. der, after thirty days' notice in three daily newspapers in the city of Baltimore, one of which newspapers shall be published in the German language, a certain tract of land belonging to the United States, situated within the limits of that city, on the Patapsco river, Maryland, known as the site of Fort Covington, containing about two and three quarters acres, more or less, with all the tenements, rights, and privileges pertaining thereto; and the proceeds of the sale are to be paid into the Treasury of the United States.

Mr. WILSON. I will simply state that the joint resolution has the approval of the War Department, and is recommended by the Department.

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

AMERICAN CITIZENS ABROAD.

Mr. CONNESS. I offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from the further consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 768) concerning the rights of American citizens in foreign States.

Mr. SUMNER. I object to its consideration to-day.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection being made, the resolution must lie over under the rules.

Mr. CONNESS. I give notice that to-mor row I will ask the Senate to consider this resolution, and at the same time submit some remarks in connection therewith.

ELIZABETH CARSON.

Mr. WILLEY. I move to take up for consideration Senate bill No. 536.

The motion was agreed to; and the bill (S. No. 536) for the relief of Elizabeth Carson was read the second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole. By its terms the Secretary of the Treasury is to pay to Elizabeth Carson, of Bourbon county, Kentucky, the sum of $2,630 40, in full satisfaction for subsistence, use of jail, fuel, fire, care, and attention furnished by her to conscripts, deserters, and rebel prisoners confined in the jail of Bourbon county, Kentucky, by the military authorities of the United States in the years 1862, 1863, 1864, and 1865.

Mr. EDMUNDS. What committee.reported that bill?

Mr. DAVIS. I ask for the reading of the report of the Committee on Claims.

The Chief Clerk read the following report, made by Mr. WILLEY on the 12th instant:

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Elizabeth Carson, praying compensation for subsistence furnished to prisoners confined in the Bourbon county jail, in Kentucky, by order of the military authorities of the United States, from

August, 1862, to the latter part of 1865, having considered the same, beg leave to report:

That Mrs. Carson is a widow, residing in Bourbon county, in the State of Kentucky, and was from August, 1862, to the latter part of the year 1865, the keeper of the jail in said county; that during that time the military authorities of the United States then stationed in said county took control of said jail as a military prison and compelled her to furnish subsistence for conscripts and for deserters from the United States Army and prisoners taken from the rebel forces; that during said time she furnished subsistence, amounting in all to four thousand three hundred and eighty-four days' subsistence, for prisoners placed in said jail by said military authorities; that said authorities never paid a cent therefor; that said petitioner kept an accurate account of the number of days' subsistence thus furnished, which is filed with her petition, with evidence of the justice and truth thereof; that she also claims compensation for fire furnished in the prison for a portion of said time, and also for fuel furnished to the guards around the jail, and also for rent for said jail; and her charges for subsistence are at the rates of seventy-five cents per day, and for fire thirty-five cents per day, which were the rates allowed by law in that jail for keeping persons confined therein under the civil law. Her total claim thus made out amounts to the sum of $4,618 70.

Upon examination of the facts, and upon consideration of the case, the committee are of opinion to allow her sixty, cents for each day's subsistence, making the sum $2,630 40, in full discharge of her account. Accordingly they report the accompanying bill.

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

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House had concurred in the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 455) granting a pension to David Van Nordstrand.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

The message also announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the following enrolled bills and joint resolution; and they were thereupon signed by the President pro tempore of the Senate:

A bill (S. No. 450) relative to filing reports of railroad companies;

A bill (S. No. 426) for the relief of Thomas Crossley;

A bill (S. No. 184) granting a pension to Mrs. Ann Corcoran; and

A joint resolution (S. R. No. 134) authorizing a change of mail service between Fort Abercrombie and Helena.

THANKS TO SECRETARY STANTON. Mr. EDMUNDS submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate communicate to Hon. Edwin M. Stanton the concurrent resolution of the two Houses, signed by the Presiding Officers thereof, presenting to him the thanks of Congress for his eminent public services while Secretary for the Department of War.

ADMISSION OF COLORADO.

Mr. YATES. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 11.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Let the title of the bill be read that we may know what it is.

The CHIEF CLERK. "A bill (S. No. 11) to admit the State of Colorado into the Union."

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I hope that bill will not be taken up in the morning hour. Mr. YATES. It will take but a few minutes. Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I desire to say to my friend from Illinois that at one o'clock to-day I shall ask the Senate to indulge me in taking up the legislative appropriation bill. Mr. YATES.

that.

This will not interfere with

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Very well. The question being put, there were, on a division-ayes 15, noes 3; no quorum voting. Mr. YATES. I suppose it is necessary to ask for the yeas and nays. I wish to make

a statement to the Senate, and then I think the Senator from Vermont will withdraw his objection.

Mr. CONNESS. I hope the Chair will put the question again.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is a quorum present.

Mr. CONNESS. I ask that the vote be taken over again.

The question being again put, there were, on a division-ayes 21, noes 8.

So the motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. No. 11) to admit the State of Colorado into the Union.

The preamble recites that on the 21st of March, 1864, Congress passed an act to enable the people of Colorado to form a constitution and State government, and offered to admit that State, when so formed, into the Union upon compliance with certain conditions therein specified; that it appears by a message of the President of the United States, dated January -, 1866, that the said people have adopted a constitution which, upon due examination, is found to conform to the provisions and comply with the conditions of that act, and to be republican in its form of government, and that they now ask for admission into the Union. The bill therefore proceeds to enact that the constitution and State government which the people of Colorado have formed for themselves be accepted, ratified, and confirmed; and to declare the State of Colorado to be one of the United States of America, which is admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever.

The second section declares Colorado to be entitled to all the rights, privileges, grants, and immunities, and to be subject to all the conditions and restrictions of an act entitled "An act to enable the people of Colorado to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States," approved March 21, 1864.

The third section provides that the act shall take effect with the fundamental and perpetual condition that within the State of Colorado there shall be no abridgment or denial of the exercise of the elective franchise or of any other right to any person by reason of race or color, (excepting Indians not taxed;) and neither this condition nor the laws of Congress securing such equality of rights now in force in the Territory of Colorado shall be abrogated or set aside, anything in the constitution or laws of that State to the contrary notwithstanding, the right to require and enforce a compliance with and obedience to this condition being reserved to Congress.

The Committee on Territories propose to amend the bill by adding as a new section:

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the acting Governor of the Territory of Colorado, as soon as practicable after the passage of this act, by proclamation, to call a general election to choose members of the State Legislature and State officers to fill the places of all whose terms of office shall have expired under said constitution. Said election shall be held, and the legal voters registered under the laws now in force in said Territory. The time for holding said election shall be fixed not more than ninety days after the passage of this act, and the time for the meeting of the Legislature at the capital of the Territory and the installation of the State officers shall be fixed, not more than thirty days after said election, by said proclamation. All the officers so elected shall continue in office until the commencement of the next constitutional term of their offices respectively: Provided, That before being admitted to representation in Congress, the Legislature so elected and convened shall ratify the amendment to the Constitution of the United States known as the fourteenth article, and also the fundamental conditions herein imposed. And in case said Legislature shall refuse to ratify said amendment and said conditions this act shall be null and void. Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Mr. President, I do not know precisely what amendments the Committee on Territories propose to this bill; but I am very sure they cannot lick it into any shape that will command my vote. I am utterly hostile to making little boys put

on men's clothes and men's hats before their time. The idea of erecting a State government in a Territory that cannot possibly have over about thirty thousand inhabitants to me seems preposterous; and it is utterly impossible for the gentlemen who represent the Committee on Territories to show, by any census that has

been taken, or by any vote that has been given, or by any production of the country, that Col orado has even that amount of population. Then they come here with a constitution madə by a mob, or not made under any authority of law, either of Congress or the Territory, and ask us to adopt it and accept it, and receive men from them as Senators and Representa tives.

Mr. President, in relation to these vast Territories in the West, we ought to have some order, some system or rule, by which we shall admit one and all when they have arrived at their proper stature and growth. I am utterly opposed to admitting any State until it has at least a population sufficient for one Representative in the House of Representatives. To admit them before that time is to try a very poor experiment, in my judgment. It imposes a heavy expense upon the people without adequate compensation, and it is unfair to the rest of the Union.

I know it is claimed here that this Territory within the last year or two has increased rapidly in population; but if gentlemen will take out that kind of population that has been drawn there temporarily in consequence of the construction of a railroad across the State they will find that the actual population has possibly been diminished. There is no evidence of an increase. As I understand, it is not much of an agricultural country; its great attraction has been as a gold-mining country, and the yield of gold has been steadily decreas ing from year to year. Let me call the attention of the Senate to this great decrease.

Mr. NYE. What document does the Senator propose to read from?

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. A document that appears to come from an honest man, who is willing to tell the truth about Colorado, as I wish that others would be, and no doubt they are. But, sir, I will not read from it; I will make a statement without going into details. The fact is, according to the reports on finance, that whereas the Territory as long ago as 1862 and 1863 produced something like two million and a half or more of gold, it has been stead ily decreasing; so that in 1866 it produced in value but little over a million, and in 1867 less than a million dollars.

I know that it is claimed that the amount of internal revenue tax has increased, showing that the population must have increased; but I have a statement here from a gentleman of that Territory, by the name of Teller, which shows that the chief amount of increase was derived from the importation of whisky in bond, and that one party alone paid something like thirty thousand dollars of taxes on that, and consequently there was an increase of internal revenue of about three thousand dol lars. I think these facts prove only that Colorado is a better place than some others to collect the tax on whisky.

But, Mr. President, as I said in the first place, I am utterly opposed to having any of these Territories admitted until they have the requisite population. If this bill provided that a new census should be taken, and on its being shown that Colorado had a sufficient amount of population to entitle it to a Representative in the other House; that the people should go on and make a constitution by & convention duly authorized by law, and then submit it to the popular vote, I should be will ing, should it be accepted by the people, to vote for a bill admitting the State, but not otherwise. I understand that this bill contem plates nothing of that character.

Sir, look at these Territories. Many of them, if they ever become peopled, ought to be divided into several States. Some of them contain territory sufficient for two, three, or four large States; others may not ever become populated so as to require to be cut up. Once admitted as States, however unwieldy in size, they must forever so remain. Let us wait at least until they have developed the country sufficiently to know whether they are to become

large and populous or not, and if they are likely to become populous, we ought to move with such rapidity as not to reserve the power in our hands to divide them into States of proper dimensions. It may be that we ought to make out of some of them two, three, or four States. This early, hasty action, pushed on for no other conceivable motive than be cause a few very excellent gentlemen desire to represent that country in Congress, is, it seems to me, utterly unstatesmanlike. We surely ought not to act upon any such ground or motive. For one I hope that we shall either set aside and postpone the whole matter, or else make out a plan, as was formerly the custom of Congress, to authorize the people of the Territories to meet together and form a constitution in convention, properly called, to have a census taken, and then present the constitution here, and if everything shall be in fit shape and in the order that has been almost the uniform practice of our forefathers, then allow them to come in for admission, and not otherwise.

Mr. CRAGIN. I desire to offer a few remarks in reply to the Senator from Vermont. Being a member of the Committee on Territories, and having examined this question with considerable care, I desire to state briefly the reasons why I am in favor of the passage of this bill.

The Senator says that he is opposed to the clothing of young boys in the garments of men. As a general principle, I should be opposed to that proceeding; but the Senator from Vermont probably will remember that in 1864, when he was a member of the House of Representatives, Congress passed enabling acts authorizing Colorado, Nebraska, and Nevada to form State constitutions preparatory to admission into the Union.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. And the people of Colorado acted under that and rejected it.

Mr. CRAGIN. And, Mr. President, so desirous was Congress at that time for the admission of these Territories that there were not men enough opposed to the proposition in either branch of Congress to call for the yeas and nays. The enabling acts passed without a division in both branches of Congress, and Nebraska and Nevada have been admitted under those acts with as great irregularities in the formation of their constitutions as in the case of Colorado.

Colorado, by the census of 1860, had a population of over thirty-four thousand inhabitants, more than either of the other Territories which have since been admitted into the Union; and to-day I believe as much as believe that I am standing in this Chamber that Colorado has more inhabitants than either Nebraska or Nevada has, certainly more than Nebraska had at the time she was admitted into the Union, and recent votes demonstrate my position. The last vote in Colorado, last fall, was 9,349. The vote in Nebraska just prior to her admission, on the question of the election of a member of Congress, was only 8,041; and the last election in Nevada for member of Congress showed only 9,342 votes, less than the vote in Colorado at last fall's election.

Now, Mr. President, if there was any reason in 1864 why this Territory, in conjunction with Nebraska and Nevada, should be admitted into the Union as a State, that reason exists now, and exists with stronger force, for Colorado since that day has been developed in her resources, her population has increased, and she is better prepared to assume the responsibilities of a State, and more entitled to be admitted here.

The Senator from Vermont says that her constitution was made by a mob. I do not know to what he refers. I know the constitution was formed, submitted to the people, voted upon, and a majority of those voting voted for its adoption. In Nebraska the Legislature formed the constitution and submitted it to the people, and it was ratified, and we accepted it here and admitted the State. In

Now, briefly, to show the resources of this Territory, and as an evidence of its population, I will refer to one item only, for I do not intend to occupy time in this discussion. The last report of the Postmaster General shows that the receipts of the Department from Colorado increased from $16,781 05 in 1864, at the time the enabling act was passed, to $32,580 24 in 1867. The receipts of the Post Office Department have doubled since the population of Colorado was shown to be over thirtyfour thousand. As compared with Nebraska, Oregon, Nevada, Arkansas, and Florida, the receipts from Colorado were considerably larger than the receipts from either of those States. From Nebraska the receipts were $30,770 39; from Oregon, $28, 656 23; from Nevada, $22,550 13. The post office receipts were $10,000 less in the State of Nevada than they were in the Territory of Nevada.

Mr. President, the Committee on Territories have examined this question; they have become satisfied that the people of Colorado almost unanimously desire admission; and they have reported this bill with amendments practically resubmitting the question to the people; for if the Legislature which is to be elected under this bill shall refuse to accept the conditions and adopt the constitutional amendment, then this act is to be null and void. The question of admission will enter into the election, which will result from this bill, of members of the Legislature.

I hope, therefore, that this bill will be passed, and that we may admit this Territory. After this is done, I shall be ready to join with the Senator from Vermont, whenever any other Territories come here, and require that they shall have a population equal to the population required for a member of Congress in the old States. But under the circumstances, that enabling act having been passed inviting this Territory with Nevada and Nebraska to come into the Union, and the people having accepted it, I think the plighted faith of this nation is pledged practically to their admission.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Will the Senator from New Hampshire allow me to ask him a question?

Mr. CRAGIN. Certainly.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Did not the people of Colorado, when they were called upon to vote under that authorization of Congress, reject the constitution that was franied?

Mr. CRAGIN. At the first trial they did reject it, and then afterward another constitution was formed and submitted to the people, and they adopted it.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Was it made by any legal, authorized authority? Was it not made by a convention of the people? in other words, it might as well be called a mob, so far as any legal authority is concerned.

Mr. CRAGIN. It was made by a convention elected by the people.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. But not authorized by the territorial Legislature or by Congress.

Mr. CRAGIN. I would suggest to the Senator that the constitution of Nebraska was made by the territorial Legislature and submitted to the people.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I am now talking about this one.

Mr. NYE. I should like to ask the honorable Senator from Vermont if that makes any difference? Does the Constitution prescribe any manner in which a State shall make its constitution? It ought to be the will of the people; that is all that is required.

Now, Mr. President, I desire to say a word on this subject, because the honorable Senator from Vermont so fiercely attacks the conclusions to which the committee have come, and treats them as of so little consequence to him that he says it is impossible to lick the thing into shape so that he can lick it after us-a

Neither does Colorado deserve to be treated with that utter contempt which the manner and the language the honorable Senator from Vermont has seen fit to use would indicate. She was invited at the same time. The good men of that State rallied to perform what the Government requested. Sir, they were no mob. They were men who shared the honors and the defeats of this war, men who are scar-worn now, and whose fidelity to this Union never failed in the darkest hour of its necessity, men whose character and reputation, both public and private, would not suffer in comparison with those of any Senator on this floor. Therefore, I insist upon it, whatever the honorable Senator's objection may be to the passage of this bill, that he was not at liberty to treat those who shared in this effort with that apparent contempt which his language would indicate.

But, sir, let us go a little further. I know something of the West and of the necessities of the western States and Territories. I assert here that any man who will sit carefully down and read the act organizing one of these Territories will find that it is not broad enough nor deep enough nor wide enough to protect the interests of a mighty growing people like that of Colorado or Nevada, with the new interests which those enactments did not contemplate; and therefore, as a matter of protection, they require a State government. Sir, I have not yet reached that point that I despise the day of small things. The growth of Nevada or the growth of Colorado will not be like the growth of Vermont by any means. Vermont has been growing for a century, and she is not overgrown yet, but these Territories and these States leap at once, by the indisputable power of the rush of emigration, into manhood. The broad fields of the West for pastoral and agricultural purposes invite emigration, and to-day more bushels of grain are grown in Colorado than in Vermont. Vermont is a purchaser of Colorado. In addition to her precious metals Colorado has far more inviting fields, her acres are broader and deeper; and therefore the growth of Vermont furnishes no parallel by which the honorable Senator can judge of these new States. Look at the city of Cheyenne to-day upon the plains in a newly-organized Territory, and it equals any city almost in the State of Vermont. In point of population Cheyenne to-day will equal, and more than equal, Burlington or Bennington, or any of those towns. Vermont's most energetic sons, save the honorable Senator himself, are going there, and they will be Vermonters there.

But, sir, I have heard whispers here of a growing jealousy of the West, and it all comes from one direction. I share in none of these prejudices. I appeal to Senators on this floor; I appeal to the Senators from Massachusetts and the Senators from New York, if my vote has ever been cast up on any such ground of jealousy of the East. No, sir; our growth is the growth of the East. In the State of Nevada will be found Massachusetts' most enterprising sons; and they bring with them their institutions and the love for them that