the further consideration of a memorial of the Legislature of the State of California, asking indemnity for property destroyed by Indians, and that the same be referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

The motion was agreed to.

ELLA M. GUY.

Mr. GARFIELD also moved that the Committee on Military Affairs be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Ella M. Guy, praying relief for supplies furnished the United States Army, under the command of Lieutenant General Grant, in 1862, and that the same be referred to the Committee of Claims.

The motion was agreed to.

RIVER AND HARBOR BILL.

The House resumed the consideration of the river and harbor bill, the third section being under consideration.

The question was upon the amendment of Mr. GROVER.

Mr. EGGLESTON. I am sorry there has been made a motion to strike out this section in relation to the Louisville and Portland canal. I am also sorry that the motion was made by my colleague, [Mr. SPALDING,] who enjoys one of the finest harbors on the lakes, and made so by Government appropriations. It is now in perfect order. He is from the northern part of the State, while this section relates to an improvement a little further south, and below the boundaries of the State of Ohio. I hope my colleague, after hearing the debate on the subject, will withdraw his motion.

Mr. SPALDING. Does not this section contemplate purchasing a work from a private company?

MEGGLESTON. No, sir; and that shows how much the gentleman knows about the matter.

Mr. SPALDING. Is not this canal the property of a private company?

Mr. EGGLESTON. It is not; and I am glad the gentleman has asked the question. If the gentleman will call for Miscellaneous Document No. 83-my five minutes' time will not allow it to be read-he will find that the Louisville and Portland canal to-day belongs to the United States, except $500 owned by five individuals, who have that much stock in order to enable them to become directors of the company. In the year 1855 the accounts between the United States and this canal were balanced. By examining the document I have referred to it will be found that the United States have received $24,278 more than it ever invested there. Then they owned the canal, and it is free and clear, except enough belong ing to these five individuals to enable them to manage its affairs. From 1855 down to 1860 these directors managed the canal economically and accumulated some three or four hundred thousand dollars. How was that obtained? By putting a toll upon the commerce of the great Ohio valley fifty cents per ton upon the tonnage that passed through the canal. In 1860 the company had accumulated in the neighborhood of three hundred thousand dollars. Between 1850 and 1860 they frequently came to Congress and asked Congress to do something with the work. Nothing could be done up to 1860. On the 24th of May, 1860, the Congress of the United States passed a resolution which I ask the Clerk to read.

The Clerk read as follows: "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That the president and directors of the Louisville and Portland Canal Company be, and they are hereby, authorized, with the revenues and credits of the company, to enlarge the said canal, and to construct a branch canal from a suitable point on the south side of the present canal to a point on the Ohio river, opposite Sand Island, sufficient to pass the largest class of steam vessels navigating the Ohio river: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall authorize said president or directors, directly or indirectly, to use or pledge the faith or credit of the United States for the said enlargement or construction, it being hereby expressly declared that the Government of the United States shall not be in any manner liable for said enlargement or construction: Provided further, That when said canal is enlarged, and its branch canal is

that resolution the directors of that canal company borrowed $1,567,000.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. GROVER. I withdraw the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, obtained the floor.

Mr. EGGLESTON. I hope the gentleman from Illinois will yield to me, that I may conclude my remarks. He can obtain the floor afterward.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. EGGLESTON. I renew the amendment to the amendment. Mr. Speaker, according to the statement of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. GROVER] these bonds will come due in equal amounts in 1871, 1876, 1881, and 1886. By this section of the bill the Government assumes the payment of the bonds. Gen. eral Weitzel was ordered by the Secretary of War, under a resolution of Congress, to make a survey and ascertain the cost of the enlargement of the canal. General Weitzel reports that it will cost $900,000 to make the enlargeThe company will be compelled to go on and do this work, if we do not make this appropriation. Now, Mr. Speaker, the five gentlemen who have charge of the canalMr. SPALDING. Do they not own the

ment.

work? Mr. EGGLESTON. They do not own the work. The Government owns it. Mr. SPALDING. They have the control of it.

Mr. EGGLESTON. No, they have not the control of it. The Government can take it out of their hands whenever it may please. With the same propriety the gentleman might say that the Secretary of War owns this Government because he has charge of the War Department.

But, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be diverted from my argument. These five individuals have no personal interest in this work. The Government of the United States owns the canal. We propose in this bill that the Government shall take charge of the canal, pay off the indebtedness, and finish the enlargement, so that the largest boats may go through.

Now, sir, I desire for a few minutes the attention of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. WASHBURNE,] the chairman of the Committee on Commerce. I ask that gentleman why he should oppose the improvement of the canal around the falls at Louisville, when Congress has granted an appropriation to improve the rapids at Des Moines? If, when we made the appropriation for the Des Moines rapids, the appropriation for the Louisville canal had been proposed, I know the gentleman would not have undertaken to oppose the latter appro. priation. But when I brought the subject up before the Committee on Commerce it was said, "There has been no survey. ?? So I had to content myself with going before the Department and asking a survey, which, under a resolution of Congress, has now been made. We now come and ask this Congress to do for the Louisville canal just what it did for the canal around the Des Moines rapids. When the canal around the Des Moines rapids is completed the navigation is to be free. Yet, when boats traversing the Ohio river pass through the Louisville canal they must pay a toll of fifty cents per ton. And the chairman of the.Committee on Commerce proposes that this state of things shall continue. I know he would not have made such a proposition in the ThirtyNinth Congress when the appropriation for the Des Moines rapids was asked.

Without going into the figures I undertake to say that three steamboats pass through the canal or over the falls at Louisville for every one that passes around the falls or over the rapids at Des Moines. Yet the gentleman from

Illinois would have us strike out this provision for the Louisville canal. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that it will not be done. I trust we shall not continue to tax the commerce of fifteen States to sustain this work which should be made free by the action of the General Government. I trust we shall not inflict the injustice proposed upon the commerce of the Ohio river. [Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment to the amendment. I am opposed to this section, not because of the "economical streak" which the gentleman says has come over me particularly at this time, but for various other reasons. In the first place, this is a section which has no business in this bill. It has no proper place in a river and harbor bill. It is a matter belonging expressly to the Committee on Roads and Canals, and to that committee the subject should have been referred for examination and for full and elaborate report. If the matter had been referred to that committee it could not have been "log-rolled" with the river and harbor bill which we have now before us.

Now, sir, I am opposed to it, not only because it is not right in this place, but I am opposed to it because it takes from the Treasury $450,000 and assumes an indebtedness of $1,567,000, demanding of us here, who represent the people, under a five-minutes debate to add over two million dollars to the burdens of the already oppressed people of this country. Yes, sir, in a five-minutes debate, without any report from the Committee on Commerce, going over this whole subject, we propose to buy this canal from the State of Kentucky and tax our constituents for that purpose in a section of seventeen lines. Why, sir, if this should pass at all it is a subject which should have been most thoroughly considered, most thoroughly and elaborately provided for in a bill by itself, and previously a commission should have been appointed to examine into the whole subject and report to Congress. But, sir, that was not considered necessary. It was supposed if they got it into a bill with seventy-five or eighty other items, in which every section was interested, it would go through, as I presume it will go through this House. Mr. MUNGEN rose.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I cannot yield now.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friends on this side of the House-I know my friends on the other side may go for these appropriationsthat we are piling up wrath against the day of wrath at the hands of the people. We are responsible for it, and no man on this side of the House who votes for these extravagant appropriations can go home without being called upon to defend himself from votes of this character.

What, sir, is proposed here? Look at the bill before the House. It is to carry on works already begun-at least it is so advocated. What is this here? For a breakwater at Block Island, Rhode Island; $74,000, a new work entirely, and yet in this haste we of the West are called upon now to initiate these new works in the East. I am willing to go as far as any man in this direction. I am in favor of protecting our commerce and clearing out the rivers where these are national works; but, sir, I am opposed to taking money out of my constituents' pockets for the purpose of building a harbor for lumbermen in the district of my friend from Michigan, [Mr. FERRY.] I am opposed to such appropriations. We have some meritorious works provided for in this bill, and therefore I have voted against laying the bill upon the table, hoping that we may so adjust it as to secure all our votes in its favor. [Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. GROVER. I withdraw the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. CARY. I renew it.

Mr. Chairman, whatever may be thought of other appropriations in this bill, there can be no improvement more national in its character or more far-reaching in its results than this.

Not those only who live on the borders of the Ohio, which is navigable for over one thousand miles, but those on the upper and lower Mississippi and its tributaries, who require the manufactures of Pittsburg, Cincinnati, and the countless cities and villages on either side of the Ohio-those who use lumber, coal, iron, and salt-those who consume the grains and fruits and vegetables so abundantly produced along this great highway of commerce, require that this obstruction should be removed. The commerce of the Ohio the past year, two thirds of which must pass the falls at Louisville, amounted to $398,000,000. There are upon this river (without including some large boats which never get above the falls) three hundred and sixty-six steamboats and ninety-one model barges, with a capacity of 183,372 tons They make an average of eighteen trips per annum, transporting 3,300,696 tons of merchandise. By reason of the limited length of the present locks boats of only eight hundred tons capacity can pass through-by the enlargement of the canal to correspond with the new locks now completed and ready for use boats of a capacity of thirty-two hundred tons will be accommodated. These eight hundred ton boats are now necessarily constructed solely with reference to capacity, and all advantages of models, so as to secure speed, are sacrificed. By the enlargement of the canal the tonnage capacity of the boats may be quadrupled, but with better model their speed, will be greatly increased. Now, from ten to fourteen days are required to make the trip from New Orleans to Cincinnati, when with improved model, which is now sacrificed to pass this obstruction, the trip could be made in eight or nine days.

Again, the expense of running a boat of eight hundred tons capacity is nearly as great as the running of one of thirty-two hundred tons. The officers are the same. The larger boat requires more fuel, an increase in the number of the crew, and a larger supply of stores. The principal difference is in the expense of loading and unloading cargo. All these disadvantages are more than overcome by the increase of speed, and consequent saving of time; so that the freights could be reduced three fourths without diminishing the profits of the steamboat owners. The large boat would have the same margin of profit with freights at twelve and a half cents per hundred pounds as the small boats now have with freights at fifty cents per hundred. When the Ohio river is high, so that large boats can pass the falls without using the canal, the price of carrying cargo from Cincinnati to New Orleans, a distance of fifteen hundred and ninety miles, is only twenty-five cents per hundred pounds, and corresponding rates are charged between other cities using this river as a highway. Let this improvement be completed, and the average freights through the year would be greatly reduced and the commerce greatly enlarged. The East, as well as the West and South, are deeply interested in this enlargement. The price charged for carrying cotton from Memphis to Cincinnati is $1 50 per bale; complete this work and it could be transported at forty cents. With this reduction in expense immense amounts of this staple would find its way through this channel to its eastern or European market, avoiding the perils of a voyage by sea. Sugar, molasses, and other productions would also be distributed to the points of trade at less expense.

The entire expense of this enlargement, including what has been expended and the appropriation contemplated, will be $2,017,000.

The section provides that hereafter there shall be no tolls charged except a pittance to operate the locks and keep them in repair; but the value and importance of the enlargement may be seen from a comparison of the tolls if present rates were imposed.

As two thirds of the merchandise transported on this river passes this point, or two million tons per annum, or one million custom-house measure at the present rate of tolls, (fifty cents per ton,) we would realize $500,000, or twenty

five per cent. per annum, on the entire cost of the work. It is reasonable to suppose that the commerce would be increased one half, which would, at the same rate, yield $750,000 per annum, paying the entire cost of the work in three years. With or without tolls this impediment in this great national highway should be at once removed.

Mr. SHANKS. Mr. Chairman, my purpose in taking the floor at this time is not so much to oppose the amendment as to call attention to the latter part of this section where it is proposed to retain the present tax on the commerce of the country of the upper Ohio and its tributaries. I think it is a great wrong done to the people of that vast region watered by the Ohio river. I think it is unjust that while the Government is spending money in all parts of the country, opening rivers, clearing harbors, and making other public improvements with money taken from the public Treasury of the people, that there should still be a tax imposed upon the commerce of the Ohio river. I hope the provision will be stricken out, and that the commerce of that river shall be unrestrained. Strike out all after the word "tribute" in the fourteenth line of third section of the printed

bill.

Mr. ELIOT moved that all further debate on the pending section be closed.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. CARY withdrew his amendment to the amendment.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 44, nays 78, not voting 72; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bailey, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Beatty, Benton, Boutwell, Bromwell, Sidney Clarke, Cobb. Covode, Cullom, Delano, Ela, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Getz, Haight, Halsey, Hinds, Hulburd, Ketcham, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loughridge, Marvin, Miller, Morrell, Pomeroy, Randall, Ross, Scofield, Smith, Spalding, Starkweather, Aaron F. Stevens, Taffe, Taylor, Thomas, Trowbridge, Van Wyck, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elihu B. Washburne, and Stephen F. Wilson-44.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Archer, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, Axtell, Barnes, Beck, Boles, Buckland, Roderick R. Butler, Cary, Churchill, Coburn, Dixon, Driggs, Eggleston, Eldridge, Eliot, Ferry, Garfield, Golladay, Grover, Harding, Hawkins, Higby, Holman, Hotchkiss, Chester D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Jenckes, Johnson, Jones, Julian, Kerr, Loan, Mallory, Marshall, Maynard, McClurg, McCormick, McKee, Moorhead, Mungen, Myers, Newcomb. Niblack, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Perham, Phelps, Pike, Pile, Plants, Poland, Polsley, Price, Raum, Robinson, Sawyer, Shanks, Shellabarger, Stewart, Stokes, Lawrence S. Trimble, Twichell, Upson, Van Aernam, Van Auken, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Van Trump, Henry D. Washburn, Welker, William Williams, John T. Wilson, and Woodward-78.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Allison, Ames, James M. Ashley, Barnum, Beaman, Benjamin, Bingham, Blaine, Blair, Boyer, Brooks, Broomall, Burr, Benjamin F. Butler, Cake, Chanier, Reader W. Clarke, Cook, Cornell, Dawes, Dodge, Donnelly, Eckley, Fields, Finney, Fox, Glossbrenner, Gravely, Griswold, Hill, Hooper, Hopkins, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Hunter, Ingersoll, Judd, Kelley, Kelsey, Kitchen, Knott, Koontz, Laflin, Lincoln, Logan, Lynch, McCarthy, McCullough, Mercur, Moore, Morrissey, Mullins, Nicholson, Nunn, Peters, Pruyn, Robertson, Roots, Schenck, Selye, Sitgreaves, Thaddeus Stevens, Stone, Taber, John Trimble, Ward, William B. Washburn, Thomas Williams, James F.

Wilson, Windom, Wood, and Woodbridge-72.

So the motion to strike out the third section was disagreed to.

ENROLLED JOINT RESOLUTION SIGNED.

Mr. HOLMAN, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled the joint resolution (H. R. No. 316) extending the time for the completion of the Northern Pacific railroad; when the Speaker signed the

same..

RIVER AND HARBOR BILL—AGAIN. The Clerk then read the fourth and last section of the bill, as follows:

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of War is hereby directed to cause examinations or surveys, or both, to be made at the following points, namely; at the harbor of Black Rock, Connecticut; at the entrance of Cuttyhunk harbor, Vineyard sound, in view of the erection of breakwater; at Passaic river, and at Absecom inlet, in New Jersey; at Christiana river, Delaware; at the harbor of

Chester, Pennsylvania; at Waukegan, Illinois; at the Illinois river, from its mouth toward the western terminus of the Illinois and Michigan canal; at the mouth of Menomonee river, dividing the States of Wisconsin and Michigan; at the harbor of Port Washington, in Wisconsin; at the Osage river, Missouri; at Reedy Island and Liston's Tree, in Delaware river and bay; at and above the mouth of Schuylkill river, in view of the removal of bars. And the Secretary of War shall make full report thereof to Congress, with plans and estimates of cost, and with such recommendations in regard thereto as the interests of navigation shall require.

Mr. HINDS. I move to amend by inserting after the word “breakwater,” in line six, the words "at Ouachita river, Arkansas."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I move to insert at the end of line fourteen the words "and at and above the mouth of the Wabash river as far as Lafayette, Indiana."

The amendment was agreed.to.

Mr. CORNELL. I move to insert after the word "Jersey," in line seven, the words "at the entrance of Rondout harbor, on the Hudson river, New York."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. AXTELL. I move to insert after the word "bars," in line fifteen, the following:

At the mouth of Eel river; and at the port of San Pedro or Wilmington, on the coast of California, with reference to the improvement of said harbors; and at the point near the mouth of the Sacramento river known as the "Hog's back "with reference to removing said bar.

Mr. ELIOT. I hope that amendment will not prevail. I think we have now about as many points in the section as the money appropriated will cover.

Mr. AXTELL. As a member of the Committee on Commerce I hope the gentleman who has charge of this bill will not object to my amendment. I desire to say to him that the Senate has passed a joint resolution, which has been referred to our committee, including these points, together with some others on the coast of California. They are points of very considerable importance, and particularly Wilmington or San Pedro. I regret that my absence in California prevented my meeting with the committee at the time when these points were being considered. At San Pedro the Government ships all its goods to Arizona, and some improvements there would save to the United States a great deal of money now expended on landing goods. The point on Eel river has been recommended by our Legislature as well as San Pedro. My friend from the second district [Mr. HIGBY] presented the resolutions of the State Legislature in relation to both these points. The point on the Sacramento river where it enters into the bay of San Francisco relates to the whole commerce of that great stream, and is constantly needing and receiving from private companies some assistance. We bring down from the mountains such vast amounts of earth by means of our mining that a bar is being formed there that certainly ought to be removed and looked after by the General Government for fear we should lose the navigation of that great river. My amendment asks simply for a survey, and I think it ought not to be objected to. I hope the House will pass favorably upon it.

Mr. ELIOT. I ask a vote on the amendment; and I move that all debate upon this section be closed.

The motion to close debate was agreed to. The question was then taken on Mr. AXTELL'S amendment; and it was agreed to.

Mr. McCORMICK. I move to insert after

the word "river," in line thirteen, the words "and at Big Black river.”

The amendment was disagreed to.

Mr. LYNCH. I move to amend this section by adding to the first sentence, after the words "removal of bars," the words "at the harbor of Cape Porpoise, Maine."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MILLER. I move to amend this section by inserting at the proper place the following:

And also from the mouth of the Susquehanna river at the Chesapeake bay, to Lake Ontario, in the

State of New York, to ascertain the probabilities of a slack-water navigation between said points for steamboats, &c.

The question was taken on the amendment of Mr. MILLER; and, upon a division, there were -ayes twelve, noes not counted.

So the amendment was not agreed to.

Mr. SAWYER. I move to amend this section by striking out the words "Menomonee river, dividing the States of Wisconsin and Michigan," and inserting the words "Ocontee river, Wisconsin." The clause in this section, as it now stands, was inserted by mistake. My amendment is merely for the purpose of correcting that mistake.

The amendment of Mr. SAWYER was agreed to. Mr. ROOTS. I move to insert after the amendment just adopted the following:

At the White river in Arkansas, from its mouth to Batesville, and the Black river from its mouth to Pocahontas, in the same State.

This is for a river eight hundred miles long, and the natural channel of commerceMr. SPALDING. I object to debate. The SPEAKER. Debate is not in order. The amendment of Mr. RoOTS was agreed to. Mr. ARNELL. I move to amend this section by adding to the first sentence the words

66

to survey the Harpeth shoals, on the Cumberland river, with a view to the improvement of said river."

The question was taken; and upon a division there were-ayes thirty.

Before the result of the vote was announced, Mr. ARNELL called for the yeas and nays. The question was taken upon ordering the yeas and nays; and, upon a division, there were five in the affirmative.

So (the affirmative not being one fifth of the last vote) the yeas and nays were not ordered. The amendment of Mr. ARNELL was not agreed to.

66

Mr. McKEE. I move to amend this section by adding to the first sentence the words at Big Sandy river, from its mouth to Piketon." The amendment was not agreed to.

Mr. McCORMICK. I move to amend this section by adding to the amendment adopted on motion of the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Roors] the words "and to Poplar Bluff, on Black river."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MILLER. I move to amend the bill by adding what I send to the Clerk's desk to be read.

The Clerk read as follows:

SEC.. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of War be, and is hereby, authorized and directed to cause a survey to be made from the mouth of the Susquehanna river at the Chesapeake bay to Lake Ontario, in the State of New York, in order to ascertain the practicability of a slack-water navigation for steamboats, &c.

Mr. MILLER. Is this amendment debatable?

The SPEAKER. It is not. After the previous question has been ordered on the last section of a bill, all additional sections are regarded as amendments to that section.

Mr. MILLER. I ask unanimous consent to have a memorial read.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I object. Mr. MILLER. My amendment does not call for any appropriation.

The SPEAKER. No debate is in order. The amendment of Mr. MILLER was not agreed to.

No further amendment was offered to the bill.

Mr. ELIOT. I call the previous question

on the bill as amended.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.

The question was upon the engrossment of the bill.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE] has reserved the right to demand, under the rule, a separate vote on each item of appropriation contained in the first and third sections of this bill.

Mr. RANDALL. I would ask the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ELIOT] what

amount of money is appropriated by this bill as it now stands?

Mr. ELIOT. As originally reported by the Committee on Commerce, about four million one hundred and thirty thousand dollars. Mr. RANDALL. How much has been added by the House?

Mr. ELIOT. I have not the aggregate of the figures; I should say from one hundred and fifty to one hundred and seventy thousand dollars.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. How does the gentleman make out only $4,000,000?

Mr. RANDALL. Does the gentleman include in his statement the Louisville canal bonds?

Mr. ELIOT. They are not included. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. That makes the amount over six million dollars.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Indefinite leave of absence was granted to Mr. POLSLEY.

Leave of absence was granted to Mr. RANDALL for one week after Thursday next. Indefinite leave of absence was granted to Mr. BINGHAM.

Leave of absence was granted to Mr. HAIGHT for ten days after to-morrow.

Indefinite leave of absence was granted to Mr. ELDRIDGE after Wednesday next.

Indefinite leave of absence was granted to Mr. WOODWARD after Tuesday next. Indefinite leave of absence was granted to Mr. HUMPHREY after Wednesday next.

Indefinite leave of absence was granted to Mr. KERR after Thursday next.

Mr. NIBLACK. I ask leave of absence after Tuesday next.

Mr. MAYNARD. Will the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. NIBLACK] inform us how long he expects to be absent?

Mr. NIBLACK. That depends very much on circumstances.

Leave was granted.

Mr. TRIMBLE, of Kentucky, asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence after today.

Mr. BARNES and Mr. GROVER asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence after Wednesday next.

Mr. BECK asked and obtained indefinite leave of absence after to-morrow.

Mr. TROWBRIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I desire to inquire how far the members now in attendance exceed a quorum?

The SPEAKER. Considerably more than a quorum are in attendance,

Mr. ELDRIDGE. If gentleman on the other side think they cannot get along without us, they had better adjourn over. We want to attend the Democratic convention.

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED.

Mr. HOLMAN, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled a bill of the following title; when the Speaker signed the

same:

An act (S. No. 522) to authorize the proper accounting officers of the Treasury to settle the accounts of Andrew S. Core.

RIVER AND HARBOR BILL.

The SPEAKER. The House resumes the consideration of the river and harbor bill. In accordance with Rule 121, relating specially to bills making appropriations for internal improvements, a separate vote may be demanded on the engrossment of any item. The portions of the bill on which a separate vote is not demanded will be regarded as ordered to be engrossed. The Clerk will report the bill.

The Clerk proceeded to read the bill. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, called for a separate vote on the engrossment of the following clause:

For improvement of the Wisconsin river, $40,000. On a division, there were-ayes 48, noes 42. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, called for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 63, nays 60, not voting 71; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Allison, Anderson, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, Axtell, Banks, Roderick R. Butler, Churchill, Cobb, Cornell, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eggleston, Eldridge, Eliot, Ferry, Garfield, Harding, Hawkins, Higby, Hinds, Hotchkiss, Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Loan, Loughridge, Maynard, MeClurg, McKee, Miller, Moorhead, Mullins, Newcomb, Niblack, O'Neill, Paine, Perham, Peters, Pike. Pile, Plants, Poland, Pomeroy, Price, Pruyn, Sawyer, Starkweather, Stewart, Stokes, Lawrence S. Trimble, Twichell, Upson, Van Aernam, Van Auken, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Henry D. Washburn, James F. Wilson, and Windom-63.

NAYS-Messrs. Ames, Archer, Bailey, Baker, Beatty, Benjamin, Benton, Bingham, Boutwell, Bromwell, Buckland, Cary, Coburn, Cullom, Delano, Eckley, Ela, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Getz, Golladay, Haight, Holman, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Jones, Julian, Kelsey, Ketcham, Kitchen, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Mallory, Marshall, Marvin, Mercur. Morrell, Myers, Orth, Randall, Raum, Ross, Scofield, Shanks, Shellabarger, Spalding, Aaron F. Stevens, Taffe, Taylor, Thomas, Van Trump, Van Wyck, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Welker, Thomas Williams, William Williams, Stephen F. Wilson, Woodbridge, and Woodward-60.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. James M. Ashley, Baldwin, Barnes, Barnum, Beaman, Beck, Blaine, Blair, Boles, Boyer, Brooks, Broomall, Burr, Benjamin F. Butler, Cake, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cook, Covode, Dawes, Dodge, Fields, Finney, Fox, Glossbrenner, Gravely, Griswold, Grover, Halsey, Hill, Hooper, Hopkins, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Hunter, Johnson, Judd, Kelley, Kerr, Knott, Koontz, Laflin, Lincoln, Logan. Lynch, McCarthy, McCormick, McCullough, Moore, Morrissey, Mungen, Nicholson, Nunn, Phelps, Polsley, Robertson, Robinson, Roots, Schenck, Selye, Sitgreaves, Smith, Thaddeus Stevens, Stone, Taber, John Trimble, Trowbridge, Ward, John T. Wilson, and Wood-71.

So the clause was ordered to be engrossed. Mr. RANDALL. I think that we have wasted money enough to-day. I move that the House adjourn.

Mr. ELIOT. I hope the motion will not be agreed to. We want to pass this bill to-day and get it out of the way.

On the motion there were-ayes 53, noes 54. Mr. RANDALL. I call for tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Mr. RANDALL and Mr. ELIOT were appointed.

The House divided; and the tellers reported— ayes 57, noes 62.

So the motion to adjourn was not agreed to. The Clerk resumed the reading of the bill, and read the following:

For improvement of Marquette harbor, Lake Superior, $20,000.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I call for a separate vote on the engrossment of that clause. It will take $385,000 to finish that

work. Mr. ELIOT. The work is now under way, and this appropriation is needed.

On a division there were-ayes 54, noes 46. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, called for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I move that the House adjourn.

The motion was not agreed to; there beingayes 58, noes 65.

The question recurred on ordering the engrossment of the clause for the improvement of Marquette harbor, Lake Superior.

The question was taken; aud it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 75, nays 49, not voting 70; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, Axtell, Banks, Barnes, Beck, Boles, Buckland, Roderick R. Butler, Churchill, Cobb, Coburn, Cornell, Dixon. Donnelly, Driggs, Eggleston, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ferry, Garfield, Grover, Harding, Higby, Hinds, Hotchkiss, Chester D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Kerr, Loan, Lynch, Maynard, McClurg, McCormick, McKee, Moorhead, Morrell, Mullins, Myers, Newcomb, O'Neill, Paine, Perham, Peters, Poland, Pomeroy, Price, Pruyn, Raum, Robinson, Roots, Sawyer, Scofield, Smith, Spalding, Starkweather, Aaron F. Stevens, Stokes, Trowbridge, Twichell, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Kobert T. Van Horn, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Henry D. Washburn, Thomas Williams, James F. Wilson, and Windom-75.

NAYS-Messrs. Bailey, Baker, Beatty, Benton, Bromwell, Benjamin F. Butler, Cake, Cary, Cullom, Delano, Eckley, Ela, Ferriss, Getz, Golladay, Haight, Hawkins, Holman, Hulburd, Johnson, Jones, Julian, Kelsey, Ketcham, Kitchen, George V. Lawrence,

William Lawrence, Loughridge, Marvin, Mercur, Miller, Niblack,Orth, Phelps, Randall, Ross, Shanks, Shellabarger, Taffe, Taylor, Thomas, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Auken, Van Trump, Elihu B. Washburne, Welker, William Williams, Stephen F. Wilson, and Woodward-49.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Archer, James M. Ashley, Baldwin, Barnum, Beaman, Benjamin, Bingham, Blaine, Blair, Boutwell, Boyer, Brooks, Broomall, Burr, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cook, Covode, Dawes, Dodge, Eldridge, Fields, Finney. Fox, Glossbrenner, Gravely, Griswold, Halsey, Hill, Hooper, Hopkins, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Hunter, Judd. Kelley, Knott, Koontz, Laflin, Lincoln, Logan, Mallory, Marshall, McCarthy, McCullough. Moore, Morrissey, Mungen, Nicholson, Nunn, Pike, Pile, Plants, Polsley, Robertson, Schenck, Selye, Sitgreaves, Thaddeus Stevens, Stewart, Stone, Taber, John Trimble, Van Wyck, Ward, William B. Washburn, John T. Wilson, Wood, and Woodbridge-70.

So the clause was ordered to be engrossed. Mr. HOLMAN moved that the House do now adjourn.

The House divided; and there were-ayes 60, noes 56.

Mr. JULIAN demanded tellers.

Tellers were ordered; and Mr. JULIAN and Mr. HAIGHT were appointed.

The House again divided; and there wereayes 67, noes 57.

Mr. PRICE demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were not ordered.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that this bill will be resumed immediately after the reading of the Journal to-morrow.

So the motion was agreed to; and (at four o'clock and thirty-eight minutes p. m.) the House adjourned.

PETITIONS, ETC.

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

By Mr. PRUYN: The petition of John Ahern, of Albany, asking indemnity for the loss sustained by him in furnishing certain supplies to the Army in the year 1863.

By Mr. ROBINSON: The petition of John T. Hildreth, of Brooklyn, asking an appropri ation to erect a monument in Fort Green, Brooklyn, to the memory of the victims of the Jersey prison ship.

By Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania: The petition of 48 citizens of Columbia, Pennsylvania, setting forth that the productive interests of the country are suffering and its industry paralyzed for want of efficient protection against the cheaper labor and capital of foreign countries, and praying that Congress will resume its consideration of the tariff bill, which passed the Senate and failed in the House March, 1867, and enact it into a law at the earliest practicable moment.

Also, the petition of 47 iron-workers in St. Charles furnace, Columbia, Pennsylvania, setting forth that, owing to foreign competition, their industry is greatly depressed, and many of the trade are out of employment, and praying for additional protective duties.

Also, the petitions of 148 iron-workers at Marietta, Pennsylvania, setting forth that, owing to foreign competition, their industry is greatly depressed and many of the trade are out of employment, and praying for additional protective duties.

Also, the petition of 28 workers in Lancaster cotton mills, Pennsylvania, setting forth that, owing to foreign competition, their industry is greatly depressed and many of the trade are out of employment, and praying for additional protective duties.

Also, the petition of 100 nickel miners in Gap mines, Lancaster county, Pennsylvania, praying for such increase of protective duties as will revive manufactures and restore prosperity to the country.

Also, the petition of W. H. Eagle and 42 others, citizens of Marietta, Lancaster county, Pennsylvania, praying for additional protective duties.

By Mr. VAN AERNAM: The petition of Emily B. Bidwell, widow of Brigadier General Daniel D. Bidwell, for increase of pension.

By Mr. WILSON, of Pennsylvania: The

petitions of Howard Iron Company and Valentine & Co., iron manufacturers in Centre county, Pennsylvania, employing, when in full operation, 260 workmen, 100 of whom are now idle, setting forth that the industry of the country is paralyzed for want of efficient protection against the cheaper capital and labor of foreign countries; that much of the distress now prevalent and daily increasing, would be relieved by the passage of the tariff bill, which failed in the House, March, 1867, and praying Congress to resume consideration of that measure and enact it into a law at the earliest practicable

moment.

IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, June 30, 1868.

Prayer by Rev. E. H. GRAY, D. D.

On motion of Mr. CONNESS, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of yesterday was dispensed with.

MILITIA FORCE IN TEXAS.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore presented resolutions of the constitutional convention of Texas, asking Congress to authorize that convention to organize a militia force in that State to act in conjunction with and under the military commander therein for the protection of the lives and property of the citizens; which were referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

SENATOR FROM FLORIDA.

Mr. HOWE. I desire to submit to the Senate a certified copy of an ordinance of the Legislature of Florida ratifying the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution of the United States, and to submit with that the credentials of Hon. T. W. Osborn, a Senator-elect from that State. I ask that the credentials be read, and that the oath of office be administered to the Senator-elect. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The credentials will be read.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

EXECUTIVE OFFICE, STATE OF FLORIDA, TALLAHASSEE, June 18, 1868. This is to certify that in accordance with the provisions of the act of Congress entitled "An act to regulate the times and manner of holding elections for Senators in Congress," approved July 25, 1866, the Senate and Assembly of the State of Florida, chosen under and by virtue of the constitution framed in accordance with the reconstruction acts of Congress, did this day convene in joint Assembly and proceeded to elect a Senator in the Congress of the United States to fill the term expiring on the 3d day of March, A. D. 1873.

And I do further certify that Thomas Ward Osborn received a majority of the votes of the said joint Assembly, a majority of all the members elected to both houses being present and voting.

And I do further certify that the said Thomas Ward Osborn has been nine years a citizen of the United States and two years a citizen of the State of Florida, and is a registered voter.

Therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me, and in pursuance of the requirements of the constitution of the State, I do hereby accredit the said Thomas Ward Osborn, as Senator in the Congress of the United States, to fill the said term expiring on the 3d day of March, A. D. 1873.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the great seal of the State of [L. S.] Florida. HARRISON REED, Governor. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection, the Senator-elect from Florida will advance to the desk and take the oath.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I am not aware of all the facts with reference to the State of Florida, whether it is in a condition to have a Senator admitted. I will inquire if that matter has been examined into by any committee? There are certain conditions to be complied with. I wish to be informed about it.

Mr. HOWE. I have just laid on the table the evidence that the State had complied with the conditions. The act specified that they should be admitted when they had ratified the fourteenth article. The ordinance of the State ratifying the thirteenth and fourteenth articles I have just laid upon the table.

Mr. FESSENDEN. If the Senator has examined the subject, and is satisfied that everything is right about it, I shall not object. Mr. HOWE. I have no doubt about it.

Mr. DRAKE. The honorable Senator from Wisconsin says that the ordinance of the State is there ratifying the constitutional amendment. I suggest that we know nothing of the ordinance of a State passed by a State Legislature. I wish to have the ratification of the constitutional amendment, if it exists at all, read.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will be read if there be no objection.

The Secretary proceeded to read the paper; but before concluding,

Mr. DRAKE. I do not care to have the whole of that document read through. The point upon which I wished information was that which was involved in the statement of the Senator from Wisconsin, that the ordinance of that State was here. I presume that that is a ratification of the constitutional amendment; but I would rather that the document should be referred to a committee to ascertain and report upon that fact before these Senators are admitted. It may be that the constit■tional amendments are there set out correctly; it may be that they are not; but this is too grave a matter to be left to any doubt or uncertainty; and as that investigation could be made in the course of an hour or two, or less perhaps, I move that the credentials of the Senator or Senators elect from Florida, together with the document now purporting to be a ratiproduced before us, be referred to the Comfication of the constitutional amendment, and mittee on the Judiciary, merely for the purpose of examining whether all the facts exist which entitle these gentlemen to be sworn in. The committee can better examine it than we can in open session.

Mr. FESSENDEN. There is another question whether the ratification has been, according to law, communicated to the Department of State. I believe the Secretary of State is by law required to announce when a sufficient number of States have ratified a constitutional amendment to make it a part of the constitution. Mr. HOWARD. I do not think that ancient statute applies to the seceding States.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It is a general statute, and must apply to all the States.

Mr. HOWARD. I think the papers had better be referred to the committee.

Mr. FESSENDEN. And I wish the committee to inquire into that fact also.

Mr. HOWARD. I beg also to call the attention of the committee especially to the language in which this ratification is couched. The Constitution requires the Legislatures of the several States to "ratify" an amendment of the Constitution of the United States. I observe that in the present instance the Legislature of Florida have used the word "adopted:"

"Resolved by the people of the State of Florida in Senate and Assembly represented, That the following proposed amendments to the Constitution, known as articles thirteen and fourteen, be, and the same are hereby, adopted."

I should rather think upon first blush that would be a sufficient ratification, but still I desire to call the attention of the Judiciary Committee particularly to that language, in order that we may be informed whether that word is a perfect compliance with the constitutional requirement.

Mr. FERRY. The motion now is that the credentials of the Senators-elect, and the ratification of the constitutional amendments, be both referred to the Judiciary Committee. I would suggest to the Senator from Missouri that the credentials lie upon the table, and the ordinance of ratification alone be referred to the Judiciary Committee, as we refused the other day to refer the credentials of the Senators from Arkansas. I move that amendment.

Mr. DRAKE. There is a reason for referring the credentials along with the supposed resolution of ratification. An act of Congress requires that in the election of Senators the two houses of the Legislature of any State shall first vote separately for Senators. That applies to this State as well as every other. Now, the question is presented here whether the Senate will recognize credentials of Senators which do

not show that fact. These credentials, if I heard them read correctly, indicate that the Legislature of Florida, in the first instance, met in joint session for the election of a Senator. I wish that matter to be investigated by the Committee on the Judiciary. I wish it distinctly understood, though, Mr. President, that I do not make this motion for the purpose of interposing any difficulty in way of the admission of Senators from Florida; all that I want is that we should see and know what we are about; that we should know that they are entitled to admission, and as soon as we know that fact admit them. I think it is better that both the credentials and the supposed resolution of ratification go to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, I dare say the Senator from Florida, now on the floor and awaiting admission, has no particular objection to having his credentials and this act referred to any committee of the Senate, if the Senate sees fit to do so. I believe that step was not taken in the case of the representatives who appeared here the other day from the State of Arkansas. It is not ordinarily done with credentials which are brought here by the representatives of States. It should not be done except upon some grave doubt as to the propriety of the individuals taking their seats. The Senate will remember that I have not been one of those who have hungered and thirsted for representatives from these southern States. The two Houses have declared solemnly, however, that when they did ratify, not as the Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN] seemed to suppose when the fourteenth article became a part of the Constitution of the United States, but when these several States by their Legislatures should ratify the fourteenth article, they should be admitted and have the same right to representation that New York or any other State had. I have submitted what I supposed was evidence that the Legislature of Florida had ratified the fourteenth article; I have submitted what I supposed were the credentials of that State attesting the election of the gentleman whose name is borne on the face of the paper. If Senators who have insisted on having this State admitted at once still say they doubt the right of this man to represent the State, or doubt the right of the State to have a representative, I shall give way to that doubt, and in order to solve it shall consent to let these credentials and this act go to a committee; but until a Senator he does doubt the propriety either of one or the other. I think you ought to treat it as a State, and this gentleman as the representative of that State.

Mr. POMEROY. I think the credentials do not show that the Legislature of the State went into joint convention on the first balloting. They show that they went into a joint convention according to the act of Congress, and therefore it could not have been at first. The language of the credential is that under the act of Congress they proceeded in joint convention to elect Senators; and if they proceeded under the act of Congress of course they voted the first day in separate houses. I have no objection to the matter being referred to a committee if we can have an immediate report. I do not want any unfriendliness manifested when any State comes now to be represented under our system and form. I hope this will not be regarded as an unfriendly act; and if it is simply to see that everything is correct I have no objection to its being referred, but I want an early_report.

Mr. DRAKE. I expressly stated that it was not unfriendly on my part.

Mr. MORTON. These credentials evidently refer to the joint convention provided by the act of Congress to take place on the second day. Perhaps it was not thought necessary to set forth that they had met in separate houses on the first day and proceeded to vote, but it refers only to the joint convention which declares the election.

Mr. WILSON. They did vote the first day in separate houses, and made no choice.

Mr. MORTON. The credentials make this statement:

"In accordance with the provisions of the act of Congress entitled 'An act to regulate the times and manner of holding elections for Senators in Congress,' approved July 25, 1866, the Senate and Assembly of the State of Florida, chosen under and by virtue of the constitution framed in accordance with the reconstruction acts of Congress, did this day convene in joint Assembly and proceeded to elect a Senator in the Congress of the United States."

Mr. DRAKE. "Proceeded to elect!" Mr. MORTON. Yes, sir. I suppose they regarded the declaration or election made in the joint convention of the Legislature as the thing to be referred to. It says the election was held in accordance with the act of Congress. It may have been that there was no election the first day; the two houses may not have agreed.

Mr. WILSON. That was the case. They voted separately on the first day, and there was no choice; and they then went into convention the next day.

Mr. MORTON. So that that makes the language perfectly exact and legal in accordance with the act of Congress. If the two houses fail on the first day, then they come together in joint convention, and if a majority of both houses are present they then proceed to elect according to the old manner of holding the election. The language is perfectly

correct.

Mr. HOWARD. I do not understand that the act of 1866, relating to the election of Senators to Congress, is applicable to the reconstructed States. All these proceedings which have resulted in elections, so far as there have been elections in the recently rebel States, have been taken under the reconstruction laws, all of which were passed subsequently to the general act of 1866, and it is impossible to give that act a strict application to the state of things existing in those States. These elections are had under the reconstruction acts, and not under the act of 1866, so that I entertain myself no doubt at all as to the right of one of these rebel States to elect their Senators according to their own ideas without any strict reference to the act of 1866. Then the question comes up before the Senate regularly as to the fairness and propriety of the elec tion. We are not bound, and I do not think those States are bound, by the statute of 1866, in reference to the election of Senators. But still I care but very little about the form of the credentials. What concerns me most at the present time is the peculiar form of the ratification which comes before us. The Legisla ture of Florida do not say that they "ratify" these amendments to the Constitution, but that they "adopt" them. That is not strictly constitutional language, and I wish to have a reference of the papers to the Committee on the Judiciary for the very purpose of calling their attention to the peculiar phraseology of this ratification. If it is all right I shall be quite content to admit the Senators. That is a point of great importance to me.

We

Mr. SUMNER. I will remind my friend, the Senator from Michigan, that though the Constitution uses the term " ratify," yet common usage does use the term "adopt." familiarly speak of the "adoption" of the constitutional amendment; and I think we may reasonably conclude that the Legislature of Florida in using the common language meant the constitutional idea. Indeed, I cannot doubt that they have used language which is operative for the purpose; and yet, as a learned Senator has suggested a doubt on the subject, I think it is well worthy of inquiry. I agree with him, therefore, in thinking it better that this document should be referred to the Judiciary Committee for a report. It is the first of a series, and we cannot be too careful in seeing that it is right.

I

Mr. CONKLING. I wish merely to make a suggestion as to the economy of time. Several Senators prefer a reference of these credentials. The Judiciary Committee meets in the morning to-morrow, and can make a report to-morrow, so that no delay will ensue. suggest that as half the morning hour has gone already on this subject, it might be agreeable to everybody, as the committee is to meet so soon, to allow the credentials to be referred and reported back, as they will be, promptly.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I have looked at these papers, and I see no earthly object in referring them. We may as well act upon them now as

to-morrow.

Mr. CONKLING. We shall save time at least by referring them.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not know that we shall. I do not know that the Judiciary Committee can satisfy the Senator from Michigan whether the "adoption" of the constitutional amendment by a Legislature means its "ratification" or not. The credentials are here in due form. I do not see myself why the act of Congress relative to senatorial elections cannot apply to States lately in rebellion as well as any others. It provides for the election of Senators, and this paper recites that in pursuance of that act of Congress these persons have been elected. We have presented here in an authentic form the evidence of the ratification of the constitutional amendment. Now, what is the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire into? Has anybody suggested any. thing? The Senator from Michigan has suggested that the "adoption" by the Legislature of Florida of the constitutional amendment may not be a "ratification" of it. If that is the opinion of the Senate, I do not think it can be changed by a report. It seems to me we may as well dispose of this subject now as to refer it. I see nothing in the world to be made by referring these papers. The only object of referring the papers is to inquire into something. There are no facts here to be inquired into which are not perfectly open to the whole country. Everybody knows the condition of Florida and the terms of the act we have recently passed. I think we had better dispose of the question now.

Mr. DRAKE. Mr. President, this is one of those questions in regard to which time is a matter of no consequence. The question is, whether a State has complied with the terms of the act upon which it was to be admitted into the Union again. I am satisfied in my own mind, and should so vote now if called upon, that the resolution which has been presented here, as adopted by the Legislature of Florida, is not a ratification of the constitutional amendment.

Now, sir, I wish to call the attention of the Senate to this fact: the law, as it stands now, requires those resolutions or acts of rati fication to be deposited in the office of the Secretary of State; and most strangely and unaccountably he is the individual who is to promulgate the final adoption of the constitutional amendment. The Congress of the United States, according to the law as it stands, has nothing to do with declaring the amendment adopted or ratified by the requisite number of States. He is the individual who

publication as a part of the fundamental law of the land, as any gentleman will find who will consult the statutes on that subject. Now,