number of officers with a judge advocate; shall be liable to the same restrictions and challenges, and shall possess the same powers and privileges for regulating their proceedings and compelling the attendance of parties and witnesses at courts-martial. And the sentences of such military commissions may be confirmed and executed by the officer ordering the court or his successor in office, or by a common superior, who shall have power also to pardon or to mitigate such sentences, as provided in the case of courts-martial.

Now, I suppose that a military commission would be authorized to dismiss a general from office by its sentence; a court-martial would not. If it were to deprive an officer of his rank, dismiss him from the service, or sentence him to death, before that sentence could be executed the whole proceeding would have to be sent to the Judge Advocate General, to be laid, through the Secretary of War, before the President for his approval. Such is not the requisition in reference to sentences of military commissions. If they dismiss an officer who is of the grade of general from the Army, the officer who ordered the convening of the mili itary commission would have the power to confirm the sentence without any appeal to the President, or without giving him any opportunity of revising and reversing the sentence. seems to me there is an incongruity between the two provisions, and that the regular courtsmartial would have a better right to have their sentences absolute and unrepealable than the military commissions. I think that ought to be corrected.

It

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on striking out this article.

The amendment was rejected.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in.

Mr. DAVIS. There is one feature in these articles that I do not like. I have not had an opportunity of reading them carefully; and if I had that opportunity, whether I should object to them or not would be a matter of very little moment. But the first article, which regulates the oaths that are to be taken by Army officers, amounts to an absolute proscription of all men who were engaged in the rebel service. I do not think that is very wise justice, although it may be stern justice. I think that the subject of bringing men who were engaged in rebellion into the Army of the United States may be safely left to the appointing power, the President and the Senate; but this form of oath forever proscribes every man who was engaged in the rebel service. I think it is time for the obduracy and the extremity of that feeling to relax. I admit that there are not many of them that I at present would be willing to bring into the military service of the United States; but I know a few in whose fidelity to the Government, if they were brought in, I would trust as soon as I would that of most men. But it seems to me that it is time that a great conquering party were exercising clemency. We have all read of Cæsar, one of the greatest men and one of the greatest military commanders that the world has ever produced. Of all his great and noble qualities his clemency was that which commended him most to the consideration and esteem of the Roman people. I think that it looks too proscriptive, too inexorable, too unrelenting to introduce these oaths into the Rules and Articles of War; and I think that everything that could be necessary in the exclusion of men who went into the rebel service might be fully accomplished by leaving the whole subject-matter to the appointing power of the Government. Gentlemen, no doubt, would differ with me. merely express this sentiment with a view of announcing that which I feel, and for no other purpose.

Mr. BUCKALEW. By the eleventh article it is provided that

General courts-martial shall have jurisdiction over all military offenses and offenders.

Then by the ninety-seventh article it is provided that

All officers, soldiers, teamsters, or other persons whomsoever, receiving pay or hire in the service of the United States in connection with the Army, as also all sutlers, traders, Army contractors, and other 40TH CONG. 2D SESS.-No. 225.

followers of the Army, and all citizens voluntarily residing or entering on any of the military and Indian reservations with clearly-defined boundaries, shall be governed by these rules and articles, and shall be subject to be tried by courts-martial or military commissions in like manner with the officers and soldiers in the service of the United States."

There you have a complete claim of jurisdiction conferred in strong general terms. Now, what I desire to call particular attention to is the twelfth article, which reads as follows: In time of war or public dangerwhich may not be a time of war

military commissions may be constituted, and shall have jurisdiction over all offenses and offenders against the laws of war not recognizable by courtsmartial.

That is a very extraordinary article. I venture to say that nothing like that will be found in the Rules and Articles of War heretofore adopted in this country. The article goes on

to say:

Such courts shall be appointed in the same manner and by the same authority; shall consist of the like number of officers, with a judge advocate; shall be liable to the same restrictions and challenges; with further provisions for the enforcement of the sentences. Now, sir, we are familiar with the system which is provided for by the eleventh and ninth articles. All military offenses and military offenders may be taken possession of by courts-martial, and by the ninety-seventh article we extend that jurisdiction over teamsters and camp-followers, Army contractors, and persons who may be temporarily within military possessions or within camp limits. What, then, is the necessity for the twelfth article?

Mr. WILSON. If the Senator desires to strike out the words "public danger" I have no objection to that; but certainly within the limits of the Army in time of war it is necessary to have some such provision as that, and the Supreme Court have settled the question outside of the limits of the Army in the decision made in the Indiana case.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I will move to strike out the words "public danger."

Mr. FERRY. And insert "insurrection" in lieu thereof.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Yes; so as to read " war or insurrection." Insurrection would be war, or might be war.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on that amendment in article twelve, line one, to strike out the words "public danger" and insert "insurrection;" so as to read: "In time of war or insurrection military commissions may be constituted," &c.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BUCKALEW. That will remove one

objection to the article. I suppose it is unnecessary for me to raise the question of these military commissions as distinct from courtsmartial, and point out the absence of any necessity which can justify their institution. I have simply called attention to this article with a desire of expressing my view upon it.

Mr. CONKLING. I do not know precisely how far the Senator having this bill in charge means to shut the door. But particularly as a question has been raised upon it, I think it is well to examine this article a little in one or two other respects which I have been thinking of. Now, although "insurrection" is substituted for "public danger".

Mr. POMEROY. If the Senator wants more time I will move an executive session, and let this bill go over until to-morrow.

Mr. CONKLING. I do not wish much time; and I will remind the Senator that this is the first time I have made a suggestion about this bill, and I intend to make it very brief.

Mr. POMEROY. I only made the suggestion with a view to having an executive session in case the Senator desired time.

Mr. CONKLING. I do not wish to interfere with the bill at all; but I desire to make a single suggestion about this point, which, I think, it is well to think of now. Although "insurrection" has been substituted for the expression "public danger," it will be observed, first, that military commissions are not to be

confined to the theater of war at all, and for this purpose I assume that the provision is that they shall exist only in time of war. That limits them in time; but speaking of space, they may range the realms. There is nothing confining their action to the theater

of war, actual or constructive. That is one proposition.

There is another suggestion to which I ask the attention of the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs. The provision is, that these tribunals shall have jurisdiction over all offenses and offenders against the laws of war not cognizable by courts martial. It will be absurd that if only those instances of offense were contemplated covered by the eleventh article and the ninety-seventh article, this article would be entirely surplusage. If the Senator from Massachusetts will give me his attention at this moment I shall be obliged to him, because this is a matter which has been very much discussed, and which has led to great disturbance and ill-feeling in the portions of the country with which I am most familiar. I say that there is nothing confining the operation of this article to persons connected with the military service or in the military service. If it were so confined, it would be entirely surplusage, because article eleven and article ninety-seven bring within the jurisdiction of courts-martial every offense known to the Rules and Articles of War committed by a person subject to those articles, so that the Senator will see that it follows that this article is specially leveled at men who in no sense are subject to the Rules and Articles of War; so that standing as it does the section may, and I think should, be construed to mean that in time of war or insurrection a civilian, a private citizen, wholly disconnected with military operations or military obligations, and widely removed from the theater of war, may be tried for an offense committed against these articles, or denounced by the articles before a military commission. If that is the intention of the committee, the design is to take issue with a very powerful current of sentiment and of somewhat enlightened opinion in this country.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEŇ. I would ask the Senator from New York whether the difficulty would not be met by adding after "courtsmartial" the words, "committed within the theater of war?"

Mr. CONKLING. Yes, sir; I think that would be a very wholesome restriction, if the honorable chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs has no objection to it.

Mr. WILSON. I am willing to accept that. That is what I suppose, according to the decis ion of the Supreme Court, would be the construction of it.

Mr. EDMUNDS. It would be so construed; but you had better put those words in.

Mr. CONKLING. I think it is very well to put them in; and if they may be put in by consent, I wish to make one other suggestion which will take but a moment. It will be observed, that even with that addition, improving the section very much, as I think it does, there is still room for this criticism: persons within the theater of war so disconnected with military operations that they do not fall within the range of the constitutional provision on that subject, nor within the range of these other articles, are still amenable to trial and punishment before a military commission. That may be right; but let us see what it means before we do it. Here was the case of Clement L. Vallandigham, which would fall, as I understand it, precisely within this article as it stands. Perhaps that case should fall within it; but by parity of reasoning the Senator will see that other cases of a much milder type than that would be, geographically and in point of jurisdiction, so placed that this section would operate upon them. Unless that be absolutely necessary, I think we had better keep off that ground.

Mr. WILSON. The Senator, I think, does not mean to say that we do not need such a provision as that. I think this country would

have had a very hard struggle if we could not have organized military commissions, to try offenses.

Mr. CONKLING. I did not mean to go into the discussion, and I do not mean to do it now; but in answer to the Senator I will make one remark. Inever could understand the philosophy of many exhibitions that I saw during the war, with discerning men, intelligent men, and lawyers-exhibitions of extreme feeling, of deep disturbance which were made in reference to what were termed arbitrary arrests. I thought that many arrests were made which were denounced as arbitrary that should have been made, and, as the Senator says, we should have been in great difficulty without the power to make them and the exercise of that power; and yet I am free to say here that in time of war or insurrection, and constructively within the theater of war, in my belief the genius of our Government requires us to try offenders before civil tribunals wherever the civil triThis secbunals are open and are free to act. tion impairs the integrity of that idea, because it does mean undoubtedly that albeit civil tribunals are open, a man who might there speedily and effectually be tried may, nevertheless, at the election of his prosecutors, be brought before a military commission and subjected to that species of trial. Now, my suggestion is that some qualifying words which shall reduce the operation of this article within those limits which can be advocated on the ground of necessity would be desirable, and not leave it unrestricted except as the honorable Senator from New Jersey has restricted it by his sug gestion, which I think is a very good one as far as it goes, because it may still be said that the design is here to create a special tribunal unknown to the military law in its strict sense, and unknown to the genius of our Government, except so far as necessity in the first instance, and legislation following that, brought it into being.

I say in place of creating such a tribunal not only to try offenses upon which its operation may be necessary, but also to try offenses which are tryable in theory and in actual practice elsewhere, seems to me a mistake; and I will suggest myself, if it be agreeable to the Senator, some restrictive words, or I will leave it to him.

Mr. WILSON. I ask the Senator from New York if he desires to move an amendment?

Mr. CONKLING. I believe the amendment which is pending has not yet been voted upon. Mr. WILSON. I certainly have no objection to restricting this article within the narrowest limits of necessity, but I think it would be very hard to strike it out.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ques tion is on the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey, to insert after "courtsmartial, in line four of the twelfth article, the words "committed within the theater of

war.

Mr. CONKLING. I ask the Senator from New Jersey to look at the text of the bill before adopting that phraseology. He will see that the phrase is "all offenses and offenders;" so that he can hardly say "committed within the threater of war,' "because that would apply to "offenders" as well as "offenses." 1 sug gest to him to vary the phraseology.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. "Committed and being.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Allow me to suggest an amendment in the third line, after the word "offenders".

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. An amendment is pending.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I am suggesting to the Senator from New Jersey to locate it in another place. I suggest to him to insert after the word "offenders," in the third line, within the theater of military operations, and where the civil tribunals cannot act.

Mr. DAVIS. I, sir, am a worshiper of liberty according to the Constitution and the law. I have been protesting against the jurisdiction of military tribunals over citizens who

are not attached to the Army or to the Navy, for more than five years, and I intend to keep up my protest as long as I have the privilege to make one. Now, the ninety-seventh article

reads:

All officers, soldiers, teamsters, or other persons whomsoever receiving pay or hire in the service of the United States, in connection with the Army, as also all sutlers, traders, Army contractors, and other followers of the Army, and all citizens voluntarily residing or entering on any of the military and Indian reservations with clearly defined boundaries, shall be governed by these rules and articles.

That embraces many classes of men who by the express provisions of the Constitution are exempted from the jurisdiction of military tribunals. It covers all sutlers, all Army contractors.

An Army contractor may be anywhere in the United States, but if he were within the lines of the Army he would not be subject to trial by a military court at all. That is one of the constitutional liberties of the people of the United States. That instrument provides

"That no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces," &c.

To give a military tribunal jurisdiction to try any man for any offense, he must be in the naval or military forces. That is the plain and literal meaning of the provision of the Constitution, and its reason is obvious. It was never intended by the framers of the Constitution that mere civilians who had no connection with the Army, no proper responsibility to it, should be deprived of the trial by jury after a presentment or indictment of a grand jury and brought before a military tribunal and tried by the arbitrary proceedings of a court-martial. I know that during the late war many contractors were arrested upon the ground that they had committed frauds upon the United States in their contracts for the Army. They no doubt were culpable and deserved punishment; but they did not merit punishment before military tribunals, because they were exempt from trial by military tribunals by the Constitution of the country. Sir, I never have voted, and I never will vote, for any bill or any provision in any bill that will subject a civilian to trial by a military court or a military tribunal of any kind. This ninety-seventh article does. The purpose or the effect of it is to sanction and confirm those irregular trials during the war. Sir, it is one of the rights of a citizen of the United States who is not in the land or the naval service of the Government, that if he is charged with any offense whatever, any violation of the law, he shall be brought before a civil court and tried by a jury of his peers according to the modes of proceedings under the common law; and because this article violates that article of the Constitution, I am opposed to it.

Mr. THAYER. It seems to me that this article is altogther too comprehensive in its terms, and embraces classes of persons which should not be included in it. For instance, it embraces all Indian reservations, and includes all persons who are on Indian reservations. The military have nothing to do with those reservations, and no control whatever over them. Why should it be made to reach them? I see no reason for the article itself. I certainly am opposed to taking persons who are not in the military service, but are simply connected with it, as civilians in the employment of the quartermasters or commissary departments, and subjecting them to the Rules and Articles of War or trial by court-martial and military commission. I should prefer that the whole article should be stricken out unless it is necessary to retain a part of it.

Mr. WILSON. This article has nothing to do with such persons. This article applies to civilians in no way connected with the Army. I should like to know how in Heaven's name we could have maintained the lives, the rights, and the liberties of the people over vast sections of this country where they had no civil courts, or punished murderers or spies and men committing every degree and grade of crime, except by military commissions during the rebellion? This is what it means; and 1

Mr. THAYER. I was alluding to the ninetyseventh article.

Mr. WILSON. I misunderstood the Senator; I thought he was speaking of the twelfth article.

Mr. THAYER. Not at all; I made no reference to it. Article ninety-seven provides:

All officers, soldiers, teamsters, or other persons whomsoever, receiving pay or hire in the service of the United States, in connection with the Army, as also all sutlers, traders, Army contractors, and other followers of the Army, and all citizens voluntarily residing or entering on any of the military and Indian reservations with clearly-defined boundaries, shall be governed by these rules and articles, and shall be subject to be tried by courts-martial, or military commissions, in like manner with the officers and soldiers in the service of the United States.

That applies clearly to a state of peace, and embraces classes of persons who were not embraced by the old Articles of War prior to the late war, and whom it was never contemplated to military commissions. For instance, as I remake subject to trial by courts-martial_and marked just now, the article includes. persons on Indian reservations. The military have nothing to do with the Indians upon the rescrvations. What control have they over a citizen who goes upon a military reservation, for that is also included? If a citizen goes upon a military reservation and commits an offense is he to be caught up and tried by court-martial or military commission? That is not done even in regard to offenses committed by soldiers in our Army; they are brought in and tried by the United States district courts. I certainly am opposed to embracing that class of persons. I want these rules and articles to relate only to officers and soldiers; and I move to amend that article by striking out all except the following words-

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is an amendment pending.

Mr. THAYER. Very well, then; I will move it again.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I move to strike out the twelfth article.

Mr. WILSON. I hope not.

The motion was not agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey, [Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.]

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Now I move to add at the end of that amendment the words "and where the civil tribunals cannot act;" so as to make the article read:

In time of war or insurrection military commissions may be constituted, and shall have jurisdiction over all offenses and offenders against the laws of war not cognizable by courts-martial, committed and being within the theater of war and where the civil tribunals cannot act.

Mr. DRAKE. I feel a great deal of disinclination to enter into any discussion with regard to this bill; but I have seen too much of the condition of things in a time of insurrection to allow this amendment to be adopted without expressing my dissent to it. If this amendment is inserted, in my opinion t article amounts to nothing, and although we may be surrounded and confronted on every side by rebellion, as we were for four years, the military power is shorn of its strength as to everybody who is not in the Army or within the immediate lines of the Army. If the amendment is made, I take it that in the event of another rebellion it would constitute a license for rebels outside of the region of the rebellion to engage in every description of scheme for

the purpose of furthering the rebellion and aiding it with no power in the military of the country to deal with them as rebels and traitors.

My doctrine is that when there is an insurrection in a country aid and comfort may be given to that insurrection from every part of the country, whether from the theater of war or not, and that every man who engages under such circumstances in giving aid and comfort to the rebellion, no matter whereabouts in the country he may be, should be subjected to the military power and brought within the range of its influence and effect; that if there is an insurrection in Virginia, and New York city is filled with traitors plotting and contriving to give aid and comfort to that insurrection, the military power of the Government should be able to put its hand upon them there; that if, what is much more likely to be the case, another rebellion should ever spring up in the Gulf States, and thousands and tens of thousands of men in Kentucky should band together for the purpose of giving aid and comfort to that rebellion, as they did during the late rebellion that we have passed through, the Government should be able to put its military hand upon them there.

Now, sir, for one, I do most earnestly protest against this emasculation of the Government of the United States in its military department by such a provision as this. In the event of another rebellion, what would be the value of the civil tribunals in the suppression of efforts of traitors away from the theater of war to give aid and comfort to that rebellion?

Mr. WILSON. About as much as they were in the late rebellion.

Mr. DRAKE. I was just going to ask how much they were worth during the rebellion through which we have passed? Sir, they were worth just about as much as the court of piepoudre in England would be. Talk about going before justices of the peace and getting Constables to serve their warrants, and going before criminal courts infected, perhaps, with the rebelism and treason that the man had been guilty of who was brought before them! Talk about going before grand juries made up of sympathizers with the rebellion, as they were found all through this country! Send there to punish a rebel! Sir, I protest against this whole thing; and if there is no other way of defeating this amendment at this time I will call for a division of the Senate upon it, if I can get it. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CONKLING. Let us hear it reported. Mr. BUCKALEW. As the amendment seems to be resisted-I understood it was substantially acceded by the chairman of the Military Committee

Mr. DRAKE. No; he objected to it.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I was going to observe that if it is to be resisted I shall insist upon dividing the Senate. It is too important a principle.

Mr. CONKLING. Let us hear it read.

The Chief Clerk read the amendment, which was to insert after the provision adopted on the motion of Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN the words "and where the civil tribunals cannot act."

Mr. CONKLING. I think the amendment is located in the wrong place; it ought to come in after the word "shall," in the second line; so that the clause will read:

Military commissions may be constituted, and shall, within the theater of war, &c.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I think it would

come in better there.

Mr. CONKLING. Now, I will make this as a suggestion or substitute for the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania, to come in the fourth line after the words "courtsmartial:"

But such jurisdiction shall not within the United States attach to any person disconnected with the military service, unless the civil tribunals before which such person would usually be triable shall be interrupted or impeded by war or insurrection.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I have no objection to that.

Mr. DRAKE. May I ask the honorable Senator from New York, with regard to that, if the operation and effect of it is to be this: that in the event of another southern rebellion, or a northern one either, away from the immediate theater of the war, those engaged in raising supplies to send to the rebels, in com. municating privately information of the movements of the Government troops to them, or in any other form of treason to their country and Government, are to be turned over to the civil tribunals? Is that the effect of the honorable Senator's amendment?

Mr. EDMUNDS. Treason must be tried by a jury.

Mr. DRAKE. To be tried by a jury of their own fellows in the crime, perhaps.

Mr. CONKLING. No, Mr. President; I do not think that is the effect of the amendment; certainly it is not the intention of the amendment. The design of the amendment is to provide that where there are courts which will act as in the Indiana case, open and ready to be appealed to, an appeal shall be taken to those courts in place of going before a military tribunal in the first instance. To meet the Senator's suggestion I will add to the amendment these further words, "or shall refuse to administer justice ;" so that it will read :

Shall be interrupted or impeded by war or insurrection, or shall refuse to administer justice.

Mr. FERRY. If the Senator from New York will allow me, I wish to make a single suggestion. I am satisfied, from an examination of the first clause of article twelve, that an effort has been made here by the Military Committee to accomplish an impossibility, to wit, to define the jurisdiction of military commissions. Although military commissions have been known both in the mother country and in our own country, their jurisdiction has never been defined by statute. They grow out of the exigencies of war. Their jurisdiction is attempted to be defined by the law books written upon the laws of war, but it is necessarily undefined, because necessarily adapted to the circumstances and exigencies which arise during times of war or insurrection. The suggestion which I have to make is this: after these amendments have been voted upon, I propose to strike out all after the word " constituted" in the first clause, and insert "according to the laws and usages of war;" so that the first clause will read :

In time of war or insurrection military commissions may be constituted according to the laws and usages of war.

If you attempt to define it nearer than that you will fail.

Mr. EDMUNDS. It is quite obvious that we cannot get a vote to night. There is less than a quorum here, and there will undoubtedly be a division. This immediate point that is under discussion is one of great importance to have it adjusted with entire propriety to the satisfaction of everybody and of all political parties, so that there shall be no feeling about it. Therefore, I move that the Senate do now adjourn.

Mr. WILSON. I hope the Senator will withdraw the motion for a moment.

Mr. POMEROY. I ask the Senator to withdraw it. I want to have an executive session for ten minutes.

Mr. EDMUNDS. There are only twenty Senators here. That will not do.

Mr. WILSON. I wanted to know of Senators whether they objected to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Connecticut?

Mr. EDMUNDS. That ought to be thought of a little. I am not sure that that will reach the object. There are only twenty Senators here and there will be a division. I make the motion to adjourn.

Mr. POMEROY. If the Senator will withdraw that motion we can have an executive session and accomplish what we want in ten

minutes.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If the amendment suggested by the Senator from Connecticut is acceptable we can pass this bill.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ques tion is on the motion to adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; there being on a division-ayes 11, noes 6; and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, June 29, 1868.

The House met at twelve o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. B. BOYNTON.

The Journal of Saturday last was read and approved.

The SPEAKER. This being Monday, the first business in order is the call of the States and Territories for bills and joint resolutions for reference to their appropriate committees, not to be brought back into the House by a motion to reconsider, commencing with the State of Maine. Under this call, memorials and resolutions of State and territorial Legislatures may be presented.

RAILROAD SUBSCRIPTION BY GEORGETOWN, D.C.

Mr. WELKER introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1328) to authorize the corporate authorities of Georgetown to subscribe the sum of $300,000 to build a branch railroad to connect said city with the Alexandria, Loudoun and Hampshire railroad, and to levy a tax therefor; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee for the District of Columbia.

W. R. SILVEY.

Mr. STOKES introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1329) for the relief of the heirs of W. R. Silvey, late of company B, second Tennessee infantry; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

WILLIAM E. BYRD.

Mr. BUTLER, of Tennessee, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1330) for the relief of William E. Byrd, of Tennessee; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee of Claims.

NANCY COOK.

Mr. BUTLER, of Tennessee, also introduced a bill (II. R. No. 1331) for the relief of Nancy Cook, of Tennessee; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

BARBARA STOUT.

Mr. BUTLER, of Tennessee, also introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1332) for the relief of Barbara Stout, of Tennessee; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

POST ROUTE IN TENNESSEE.

Mr. BUTLER, of Tennessee, also introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1333) to establish a post route in Tennessee; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

LIEUTENANT GEORGE A. MILLER. Mr. BUTLER, of Tennessee, also introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1334) for the relief of Lieutenant George A. Miller, of Tennessee; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. M'HENRY BRAY.

Mr. BUTLER, of Tennessee, also introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1335) for the relief of McHenry Bray, late first lieutenant company I, eighth Tennessee infantry; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.

Mr. HINDS introduced a joint resolution (H. R. No. 315) to extend the provisions of the act in regard to agricultural colleges to the State of Arkansas; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on the Public Lands.

STENOGRAPHER FOR UNITED STATES COURT

Mr. PILE introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1336) to provide for the employment of a stenographic reporter for the district court of

the United States for the eastern district of Missouri; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

MRS. FRANCES T. RICHARDSON.

Mr. TROWBRIDGE introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1337) granting an increase of pension to Frances T. Richardson, widow of the late Major General Israel B. Richardson; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

PACIFIC RAILROAD.

Mr. LOUGHRIDGE introduced a bill (H. || R. No. 1338) to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Rio Grande to the Pacific ocean; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on the Pacific Railroad, and ordered to be printed.

NEW LAND DISTRICT IN NEBRASKA. Mr. TAFFE introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1339) to establish a new land district in the State of Nebraska; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on the Public Lands.

MAJOR G. CHAPIN.

Mr. CLEVER introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1340) for the relief of Major G. Chapin, United States Army; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee of Claims.

KRYOLITE FREE OF DUTY.

Mr. BINGHAM introduced a joint resolu tion (H. R. No. 316) to admit kryolite into the United States free of duty; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

The SPEAKER. The next business in order, during the remainder of the morning hour, is the call of the States for resolutions, commencing with the State of Iowa, where the call rested at the expiration of the morning hour on Monday last.

NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD.

Mr. PRICE introduced a joint resolution (H. R. No. 317) extending the time for the completion of the Northern Pacific railroad; which was read a first and second time.

Mr. PRICE. I demand the previous question.

The joint resolution was read. It amends section eight of an act entitled "An act granting land to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from Lake Superior to Puget sound on the Pacific coast," so as to read as follows:

That each and every grant, right, and privilege herein are so made and given to and accepted by said Northern Pacific railroad upon and subject to the following conditions, namely: that said company shall commence the work on said road within two years from and after the 2d day of July, 1868, and shall complete not less than one hundred miles per year after the second year thereafter; and shall construct, equip. furnish and complete the whole road by the 4th day of July, A. D. 1877.

Mr. PRICE. May I ask a parliamentary question?

The SPEAKER. The Chair will entertain a parliamentary question.

Mr. PRICE. It is in reference to the business on the Speaker's table. There is on the table a joint resolution which has passed the Senate exactly similar to this, except that this limits the time for the completion of the road to a shorter time by one year. I desire to know whether it is likely we can reach the busiuess on the Speaker's table before the 2d day of July? Because unless the resolution is passed by that time the charter expires.

The SPEAKER. As there is a special order intervening by unanimous consent, and questions of privilege likely to come up, there is some doubt whether that business will be reached.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. I wish to ask the gentleman a question.

Mr. PRICE. I do not know that I can yield.

The SPEAKER. If the point of order is

made no debate can be allowed, or the resolution must go over.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. If the gentleman will not allow a question, I hope the previous question will not be sustained.

The SPEAKER. If there is no objection the question can be entertained.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Wisconsin. I understand this resolution gives this road two years longer time without doing any work whatever. It is now four years, and it has not struck a spade in the soil.

Mr. PRICE. This, in fact, limits the time in place of extending it, and

Mr. ROBINSON. I object to debate.

Mr. JULIAN. I desire to amend this bill by providing that the lands granted be sold to actual settlers only, in quantities not greater than one hundred and sixty acres, and for a price not exceeding $2 50 per acre.

Mr. PRICE. I object.

The previous question was seconded-ayes 73, noes 26-and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read

the third time.

Mr. PRICE. I demand the previous question on the passage.

The previous question was seconded-ayes 70, noes 28.

Mr. PIKE. I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 96, nays 33, not voting 65; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Anderson, Archer, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, Bailey, Baldwin, Barnes, Beck, Benjamin, Benton, Bingham, Blaine, Boles, Bromwell, Buckland, Benjamin F. Butler, Roderick R. Butler, Cake, Churchill, Cornell, Dixon, Donnelly, Eckley, Ela, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Ferry, Golladay, Gravely, Griswold, Grover, Higby, Hinds, Hotchkiss, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, Kelsey, Kerr, Ketcham, George V. Lawrence, Loan, Lynch, Mallory, Marshall, Marvin, Maynard, McClurg, McCormick, McKee, Miller, Moorhead, Mullins, Mungen, Myers, Newcomb, O'Neill, Paine, Perham, Peters, Pile, Plants, Poland, Polsley, Pomeroy, Price, Pruyn, Raum, Robinson, Roots, Sawyer, Smith, Spalding, Starkweather, Aaron F. Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stokes, Taffe, Thomas, Trowbridge, Twichell, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn. Cadwalader C. Washburn, Henry D. Washburn, William Williams. John T. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge, and Woodward-96.

NAYS-Messrs. Baker, Beatty, Boutwell, Cary, Cobb, Cullom, Delano, Eggleston, Ferriss, Garfield, Getz, Haight, Harding, Holman. Jenckes, Julian, William Lawrence, Loughridge, McCarthy, Mercur. Niblack, Orth, Pike, Randall, Scofield, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Stewart, Van Auken, Van Wyck, William B. Washburn, Thomas Williams, and James F. Wilson.-33.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Adams, Ames, James M. Ashley, Axtell, Banks, Barnum, Beaman, Blair, Boyer, Brooks, Broomall, Burr, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Coburn, Cook, Covode, Dawes, Dodge, Driggs, Eliot, Fields, Finney, Fox, Glossbrenner, Halsey. Hawkins, Hill, Hooper, Hopkins, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Hunter, Ingersoll, Judd, Kelley, Kitchen, Knott, Koontz, Laflin, Lincoln, Logan, McCullough, Moore, Morrell, Morrissey, Nicholson, Nunn, Phelps, Robertson, Ross, Schenck, Selye, Shanks, Stone, Taber, Taylor, John Trimble, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Trump, Ward, Elihu B. Washburne, Welker, and Wood-65. So the joint resolution was passed.

Mr. PRICE 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.

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED.

Mr. HOLMAN, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled an act (S. No. 251) for the relief of Captain Charles N. Goulding, late quartermaster of volunteers; when the Speaker signed the same.

APPOINTMENTS AND REMOVALS.

Mr. ALLISON. I offer the following preamble and resolutions, upon which I demand the previous question:

Whereas a statement, purporting to be prepared by the Secretary of the Treasury from the official records of his Department, has been published in the National Intelligencer, and also sent to the public through the Associated Press, in which it is stated that in one

hundred and nineteen collection districts removals were made during the year 1867 upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in which districts the average falling off of internal revenue, as compared with the year 1866, was $160,942 81 per district; and that in the same year, 1867, removals were made in twenty collection districts by the President, without the recommendation of said Commissioner, in which the falling off of revenue is only $46,470 37 per district: Therefore,

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to inform this House whether any such statement was prepared by him or by his direction from the official records of his Department, and whether it was published by his direction, and if so, that he be further directed to furnish this House with a copy of the statement so prepared, and of any report made by him to the President in relation to removals and appointments herein referred to.

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury inform this House in what collection districts removals and appointments of assessors and collectors were made, if any, upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, during the fiscal year 1867, the names of such officers removed and appointed, with copies of all correspondence or recommendations of said Commissioner relating

thereto.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.

Mr. HOLMAN. I call for a division of the

question, so as to have a separate vote on the preamble.

The question was taken on the resolutions, and they were agreed to.

The question was then taken on the preamble, and it was adopted.

Mr. ALLISON moved to reconsider the vote by which the preamble and resolutions were adopted; and also moved that the motion to

reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

TAXATION OF INTEREST ON BONDS.

Mr. COBB. I offer the following resolution, upon which I demand the previous question :

Resolved, That the Committee of Ways and Means be, and they are hereby, instructed to report without unnecessary delay a bill levying a tax of at least ten per cent. on the interest of the bonds of the United States, to be assessed and collected annually by the Secretary of the Treasury and such of his subordinates as may be charged with the duty of paying the interest on the bonded indebtedness of the United States.

Mr. PRICE. I desire to ask the gentleman whether the resolution includes bonds held in foreign countries?

Mr. COBB. It is intended to include all bonds.

Mr. PRICE. It does not so specify. Mr. ALLISON. Is that a resolution of instruction or of inquiry?

The SPEAKER. It is mandatory in its character.

The question was put on seconding the previous question; and there were-ayes 35, noes

57.

Mr. COBB. I demand tellers.

Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. COBB and PRUYN were appointed.

The House divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 55, noes 57.

So the House refused to second the call for the previous question.

Mr. MILLER. I move to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. SHANKS and Mr. HOLMAN demanded the yeas and nays.

Mr. GARFIELD. Is it in order to move to refer the resolution to the Committee of Ways and Means?

Mr. MAYNARD. Is it in order to move to amend the resolution so as to make it a resolution of inquiry into the expediency instead of one of instruction?

The SPEAKER. It is not in order either to move to refer or to move to amend the resolution pending the motion to lay it on the table.

Mr. HOLMAN. Is debate in order?

The SPEAKER. It is not, but the Chair is answering parliamentary questions. If the motion to lay on the table shall be voted down, a motion to refer the resolution will be in order. Mr. MIL! ER. I withdraw the motion to lay on the table.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I renew it.

YEAS-Messrs. Arnell, Bailey, Banks, Boutwell, Cake,Churchill, Cornell, Dixon, Driggs, Eckley, Eliot, llarding, Higby, Jenckes, Mallory, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead. Myers, O'Neill, Perham, Plants, Pomeroy, Spalding, Starkweather, Thaddeus Stevens, William B. Washburn, and Woodbridge-28.

NAYS-Messrs. Allison, Anderson, Archer, Delos R. Ashley, Axtell, Baker, Barnes, Beatty, Beck, Benjamin, Benton, Bingham, Blaine, Boles, Boyer, Bromwell, Buckland, Roderick R. Butler, Cary, Cobb, Coburn, Covode, Cullom, Donnelly, Eggleston, Ela, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Ferry, Garfield, Getz, Golladay, Gravely, Griswold, Grover, Haight, Hawkins, Hinds, Holman, Hotchkiss, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, Julian, Kerr, Ketcham, Kitchen, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Loughridge, Lynch, Marvin, Maynard, McCarthy, McClurg, McCormick, McKee, Morrell, Mullins, Mungen, Newcomb, Niblack, Orth, Paine, Pike, Pile, Polsley, Pruyn, Randall, Raum, Roots, Ross, Sawyer, Scofield, Shanks, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Smith, Aaron F. Stevens, Stewart, Stokes, Stone, Taffe, Taylor, Thomas, Lawrence S. Trimble, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Van Auken, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Van Trump, Van Wyck, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elibu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, Welker, William Wiliams, James F. Wilson, John T. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, and Woodward-107.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Adams, Ames, James M. Ashley, Baldwin. Barnum, Beaman, Blair, Brooks, Broomall, Burr, Benjamin F. Butler, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cook, Dawes, Delano, Dodge, Fields, Finney, Fox, Glossbrenner, Halsey. Hill, Hooper, Hopkins, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Hunter, Ingersoll, Judd, Kelley, Kelsey, Knott, Koontz, Laflin, Lincoln, Logan, Marshall, McCullough, Moore, Morrissey, Nicholson, Nunn, Peters, Phelps, Poland, Price, Robertson, Robinson, Schenck, Selye, Taber, John Trimble, Twichell, Ward, Thomas Williams, Windom, and Wood-59. So the motion to lay the resolution on the the table was not agreed to.

Mr. GARFIELD. I move that the resolution be referred to the Committee of Ways and Means; and upon that motion I call the previous question.

Mr. RANDALL. Will the gentleman accept a modification of the resolution, and instruct the committee to report forthwith?

Mr. COBB. To report at any time. The SPEAKER. By the rules they have a right to report at any time for commitment.

The previous question was then seconded and the main question ordered upon the motion to refer.

Mr. HOLMAN, and Mr. BUTLER of Massachusetts, called for the yeas and nays on the motion to refer.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. WOODWARD. Is it in order to make a parliamentary inquiry?

The SPEAKER. The Chair will answer a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WOODWARD. This is a resolution of instructions.

The SPEAKER. It is.

Mr. WOODWARD. What will be the effect of referring such a resolution to the Committee of Ways and Means?

The SPEAKER. The effect will be to refer it without instructions. By a parity of reasoning, as the gentleman will see, when a bill is introduced appropriating $100,000 to a person, if it is agreed to by the House it becomes so far a law; but if it is merely referred to a committee it is referred without instructions. This resolution is not more mandatory than a bill would be.

Mr. ALLISON. In what condition will this resolution be if the motion to refer is not agreed to?

The SPEAKER. The House is now acting under the previous question. If the motion to refer is not agreed to the question will then be upon adopting or rejecting the resolution. The previous question does not exhaust itself upon the motion to refer, if that motion is not agreed to.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I would inquire of the Chair if it is not evidently the object of gentlemen to kill this resolution by referring it?

The SPEAKER. The Chair cannot answer that question.

Mr. ALLISON. The committee can report at any time.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Everybody knows they will not.

Mr. MAYNARD. I move to reconsider the vote by which the main question was ordered; and upon that I call the yeas and nays. That will be a test question.

Mr. ALLISON. It is no test question at all. The question was taken upon ordering the yeas and nays; and there were thirteen in the affirmative.

Mr. MAYNARD. I ask for tellers on ordering the yeas and nays.

The question was taken upon ordering tellers; and there were fourteen in the affirmative. So (the affirmative not being one fifth of a quorum) tellers were not ordered.

The yeas and nays were not ordered, the affirmative not being one fifth of the last vote. The question was then taken upon reconsidering the vote by which the main question was ordered; and it was not agreed to.

The question recurred upon the motion of Mr. GARFIELD, to refer the resolution to the Committee of Ways and Means.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 61, nays 80, not voting 53; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Arnell, Bailey, Baldwin, Beatty, Bingham, Blaine, Boutwell, Cake, Churchill, Cornell, Delano, Dixon, Driggs, Eckley, Eliot, Ferriss, Garfield, Griswold, Halsey, Higby, Hooper, Hulburd, Jenckes, Ketcham, Loan, Lynch, Mallory, Marvin, Maynard, McCarthy, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Myers, O'Neill, Paine, Perham, Peters, Plants, Poland, Pomeroy, Price, Sawyer. Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Smith, Spalding, Starkweather, Trowbridge, Twichell, Upson, Van Aernam, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Thomas Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, and Woodbridge-61.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Archer, Delos R. Ashley, Baker, Barnes, Beck, Benton, Boles, Boyer, Buckland, Benjamin F. Butler, Roderick R. Butler, Cary, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Coburn, Covode, Cullom, Donnelly, Eggleston, Ela, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Ferry, Getz, Golladay, Gravely, Grover, Haight, Hawkins, Hinds, Holman, Hotchkiss, Chester D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, Julian, Kerr, Kitchen, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Logan, Loughridge, Marshall, McClurg, McCormick, McKee, Mungen, Newcomb. Niblack, Orth, Pike, Polsley, Pruyn, Randall, Raum, Roots, Ross, Scofield, Shanks, Aaron F. Stevens, Stewart, Stokes, Stone, Taylor, Thomas, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Auken, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Van Trump, Van Wyck, Henry D. Washburn, Welker, William Williams, John T. Wilson, Windom, and Woodward-80.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. James M. Ashley, Axtell, Banks, Barnum, Beaman, Benjamin, Blair, Bromwell, Brooks, Broomall, Burr, Chanler. Reader W. Clarke, Cook, Dawes, Dodge, Fields, Finney, Fox, Glossbrenner, Harding, Hill, Hopkins, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Hunter, Ingersoll, Judd, Kelley, Kelsey, Knott, Koontz, Laflin, Lincoln, McCullough, Moore, Morrell, Morrissey, Mullins, Nicholson, Nunn, Phelps, Pile, Robertson, Robinson, Schenck, Selye, Thaddeus Stevens, Taber, Taffe, John Trimble, Ward, and Wood-53.

So the motion to refer the resolution to the Committee of Ways and Means was not agreed to.

The question then recurred on agreeing to the resolution.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts, and Mr. PIKE called for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. GARFIELD. I would suggest that the tax on these bonds be made one hundred per cent. That will fill our Treasury still more rapidly.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. The tax which the resolution proposes is the same that the English Government imposes on its bonds. Mr. BLAINE. Why not improve on the English example and make the tax fifty per cent., taking one half?

Mr. COBB. I object to debate.

The question was taken on agreeing to the resolution; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 92, nays 54, not voting 48; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Archer, Délos R. Ashley, Axtell, Baker, Barnes, Beck, Benjamin, Benton, Bingham, Boles, Boyer, Buckland, Benjamin F. Butler, Roderick R. Butler, Cary, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Coburn, Cornell, Covode, Cullom, Donnelly, Eggleston, Ela, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Ferry, Getz, Golladay, Gravely, Grover, Haight, Hawkins, Hinds, Holman, Hotchkiss, Chester D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Ingersoll, Johnson, Jones, Julian, Kerr,

George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Logan, Loughridge, Marshall, McClurg, McCormick, McKee, Mercur, Mullins, Mungen, Newcomb, Niblack, Orth, Phelps, Pike, Polsley, Pruyn, Randall, Raum, Robinson, Roots, Ross, Scofield, Shanks, Aaron F. Stevens, Stewart, Stokes, Stone, Taber, Taffe, Taylor, Thomas, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Auken, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn. Van Trump, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, Welker, William Williams, John T. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodward-92.

NAYS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Arnell, Bailey, Baldwin, Banks, Beatty, Blaine, Boutwell, Bromwell, Cake, Delano, Dixon, Driggs, Eckley, Eliot, Garfield, Griswold, Halsey, Harding, Higby, Hooper, Hulburd, Jenckes, Kelsey, Loan, Lynch, Mallory, Marvin. Maynard, Miller, Moorhead, Myers, O'Neill, Paine, Perham, Plants, Poland, Pomeroy. Price, Sawyer, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Smith, Spalding. Starkweather, Trowbridge, Twichell, Upson, Van Aernam, William B. Washburn, Thomas Williams, James F. Wilson, and Woodbridge-54.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Anderson, James M. Ashley, Barnum, Beaman, Blair, Brooks, Broomall, Burr, Chanler. Churchill, Reader W. Clarke, Cook, Dawes, Dodge, Fields, Finney, Fox, Glossbrenner, Hill, Hopkins, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Hunter, Judd, Kelley, Ketcham, Kitchen, Knott, Koontz, Laflin, Lincoln, McCarthy, McCullough, Moore, Morrell, Morrissey, Nicholson, Nunn, Peters, Pile, Robertson, Schenck, Selye, Thaddeus Stevens, John Trimble, Van Wyck, Ward, and Wood-48. So the resolution was agreed to.

Mr. COBB moved to reconsider the vote just taken; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. BINGHAM. I would like to have the resolution reconsidered, that it may be amended so as to provide that the tax on interest arising from the bonds may be in lieu of the income tax, and be the same as the tax on private securities.

Mr. MAYNARD. I call for the yeas and nays on laying on the table the motion to reconsider. The yeas and nays were not ordered. Mr. MAYNARD called for tellers. Tellers were not ordered.

The motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider was agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The morning hour has expired.

RECONSTRUCTION EXPENSES.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of War, asking a further appropriation of $5,000 for reconstruction purposes in the third military district, recommended by Major General Meade; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed.

SIOUX INDIANS.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, also laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a letter from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, relative to Indian affairs in the central superintendency, and the immediate necessity of an appropriation to carry out treaty stipulations with certain Sioux Indians; which were referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Mr. MCKEE was granted leave of absence for ten days after to-morrow.

Mr. VAN WYCK and Mr. PRUYN were granted leave of absence indefinitely. Mr. ROBINSON was granted leave of absence on account of ill health.

EXPORTATION OF RUM.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I desire to offer a joint resolution, to correct a mistake in a bill which passed the House and Senate the other day. The mistake was discovered by the chairman of the Committee on Enrolled Bills. I ask leave to make an explanation. It is a joint resolution (H. R. No. 318) to correct an aet entitled "An act for the relief of certain exporters of rum."

The joint resolution was read. It provides that the word "and" where it occurs in said act after the word "export" and before the words "actually contracted for" be changed to "or;" so it will read, when corrected, "intended for export or actually contracted for." Mr. HOLMAN. That seems to be clerical

error.

Mr. ALLISON. I object.