Mr. HOWE. And if that Legislature met to pass laws, could not that Legislature choose Senators in spite of the war? Will my colleague answer?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. My colleague is putting a case which of course it is impossible to suppose could exist. The confederate assembly met, making war on the United States. Is it supposable that they could elect or would elect Senators in Congress?

Mr. CONNESS. If they did what?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. But if they did elect Senators in Congress that were against this Government, could not this Senate take care of itself and keep them out? I will ask my colleague if he says that Florida was ever a State out of the Union. I wish he would answer my question categorically. Was Florida ever a State out of this Union?

Mr. HOWE. No.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I will ask him another question. If under the Constitution Florida was a State in this Union was she not entitled to two Senators in this body?

Mr. HOWE. While she was a State in the Union she was.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Very well.

Mr. HOWE. But to be a State in the Union, which entitles her to two Senators, it was necessary for her to have a government which could elect the Senators; and I have been trying to get my colleague to say whether during the war she had such a government or not. He says she could not elect because of the war; and the Senator from Oregon says that did not make it physically impossible, and my colleague repeated that it made it impossible. I asked him to confess whether Florida did or did not have a Legislature which met to enact laws? He says yes. I asked if when they met to enact laws they could not have gone through the form of choosing Senators. He seems to think that possibly they might; but he says if they did choose Senators the Senate could take care of itself and reject them. But what right has the Senate to reject them if the Legislature have a right to choose them and do choose them? Can the Senate reject representatives from States which have a right to elect and which do elect?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I think the Senate has shown that it has the right and the power to keep men out of this body for treason, or to expel them for treason. The Senate certainly has exercised that power to expel or prevent men from coming into this body when they were elected from States that had never been in the rebellion; and it would be most extraordinary if the Senate could not expel or keep out persons from States that were in actual war against the Government of the United States. I admit that when the State was in actual war against the Government of the United States, and the Legislature was at war with us, and their troops were at war, if it were not physically impossible that they should enter into an election of Senators to this body, it would be, in my judgment, morally impossible that they should attempt to do it; and, in the second place, if they did attempt to do it, as a matter of course it would be morally impossible to suppose that the Senate would permit men in arms against the Government to come in here and take places in the Senate.

But, sir, the point I make is this: in 1866, almost two years after the war was closed, after the rebellion was suppressed and Congress by law had admitted the fact that the rebellion was suppressed, the Legislature of Florida peacefully assembled and elected the gentleman whose credentials I have sent to the Chair. They certainly had the right to do it.

Mr. NYE. I suggest to my friend from Wisconsin [Mr. HOWE] that he shorten this debate. His colleague's opinions will be found in the last veto message, and therefore it is not worth while to prolong this discussion.

Mr. ANTHONY. I wish to ask, in no captious spirit, a question of the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. DOOLITTLE.] I wish to know

the theory upon which he proceeds. I do not know whether he was one of the Senators, almost the entire body, who voted at one time that Florida had not a right to be represented in the Electoral College?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. While the insurrection was going on. It was impossible for Florida to elect electors while a war was going on. So it would be in Rhode Island if there were a rebellion there.

Mr. ANTHONY. I do not understand that Congress resolved that it was impossible for Florida to elect, but that Florida had no right to elect, whether possible or not. If Congress assumed at a certain time that Florida had no right to be represented in the Electoral College-which depends, I take it, upon the same principle as representation in the two Houses of Congress-is not the Congress the power to decide when that disability ceases?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Before this election in Florida took place Congress had by law recog nized the proclamation of the President which proclaimed that the war had ceased and the rebellion was suppressed. Congress by law had recognized that fact before this election took place.

Mr. ANTHONY. But I understand that Congress resolved, and I think my friend from Wisconsin voted with the great body of the Senate-I think the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. DAVIS] and two others were the only ones who voted in the negative-that Florida had no right under existing circumstances to representation in the Electoral College, and Congress has not yet voted that it has the right to be represented; and I take it that the representation in the Electoral College depends precisely upon the same principle that should govern representation in the two Houses of Congress. Therefore, it seems to me, if Congress has a right to affirm the disability, it depends upon Congress to say when the disability

ceases.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I agree with the Senator that while the war was going on in 1864 Congress passed a joint resolution in which they declared that the electors chosen for President and Vice President in the States where the insurrection was, going on should not be counted in the Electoral College. They said substan. tially that in those insurrectionary States; but it only applied to that single time, and since that time the proclamation of peace and the passage of a law by Congress recognizing the proclamation of peace occurred before this election of Mr. Marvin in Florida.

Mr. ANTHONY. The Senator will allow me to say that he does not meet my question. His argument is that the time had come when Congress ought to declare this disability had ceased; but Congress, I presume, is to judge of that time for itself; and although it may be true that Congress ought to have declared that Florida was entitled to representation before, yet inasmuch as Congress did not so declare, if the first affirmation of disability was valid is it not necessary that Congress should remove that disability before Florida is entitled to representation? I wish to know what is the theory of the Senator upon that point, and I do not ask in any captious spirit.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I will state to the Senator in a single word that my theory is precisely this: each House has a perfect right to judge of the election, qualifications, and returns of its members; the Senate for itself, the House of Representatives for itself. If a man applies to be admitted here as a Senator this House will judge, and has the right to judge, whether the State which purports to send him was in a condition to elect him or not. Precisely so in relation to a district represented in the House of Representatives. If, for instance, an insurrection is existing in a single congressional district of a State the election in that district may be void, because it is impossible to hold an election. Take the case of the State of my honorable friend from Maine. The British captured one congressional district in that State in 1812. They could not elect a member of Congress at

that time who could be admitted to the House, for they were not in a condition to elect. Suppose they had captured two or three or four districts of the State of Maine, it could not prevent the other districts from electing a member of the House, and the House is to judge whether the election has taken place fairly or unfairly; whether the people have had a fair opportunity to elect and have elected. The House will judge for itself. The Senate will not judge for the House, nor the House for the Senate. That is precisely the true theory, in my judgment.

I did not intend to make a speech nor take up the time of the Senate; but gentlemen have put questions to me on this matter, and I have answered, endeavoring to be as brief as possible. I have no disposition to prolong the debate.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, Shall the Senator-elect from Florida now be permitted to take the oath with a view to admission to his seat in the Senate of the United States?

Mr. DRAKE. I wish to make another effort to send this supposed resolution of the Legislature of Florida ratifying the constitutional amendment to the Committee on the Judiciary. I do not exactly know whether a motion of that kind is in order at this moment or not. Mr. EDMUNDS. Certainly it is.

Mr. DRAKE. The Senator from Vermont

says certainly it is." All I want is that we shall delay action upon the credentials of the Senator from Florida until we have a report upon this supposed ratification. That is what I wish to get at; but I do not know exactly how to do it unless it be to make a double motion to lay the credentials of the Senator from Florida on the table and to refer the resolution of the Legislature of Florida to the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. EDMUNDS. A simple motion to refer would take them both there.

Mr. DRAKE. That motion has already been put and negatived.

Mr. EDMUNDS. But after debate you can move to refer again at any time.

Mr. DRAKE. If it is in order, I make that motion, to lay the credentials of the Senator from Florida on the table, and to refer the resolution of the Legislature of Florida to the Judiciary Committee. Those are

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. two separate motions.

Mr. DRAKE. There are two separate papers, and we must deal with them, it seems, separately. They are both presented in support of the claim of the gentleman to be admitted as a Senator on the floor. Now, the question is whether I can make a motion that relates to both of the papers or a separate motion for each paper.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no doubt the Senator can move to lay either or both on the table.

Mr. DRAKE. Then, for the purpose of getting at an authoritative expression on the part of the Senate by its Judiciary Committee as to whether this constitutional amendment has been ratified, and with a view to send that resolution of the Legislature of Florida to that committee, I move, in the first instance, to lay the credentials of the Senator from Florida on the table.

Mr. CORBETT. I ask if it would not be in order to move a reconsideration of the vote by which the motion to refer the credentials to the Committee on the Judiciary was negatived?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Of course that would be in order if any Senator chooses to make the motion.

Mr. CORBETT. Then, if the Senator from Missouri will withdraw his motion, I will move to reconsider that vote.

Mr. DRAKE. I will withdraw it, of course, All I want is to get the matter before the committee.

Mr. CORBETT. I voted against the reference of this question to the Judiciary Committee, but I think the points made by the Senator

from Missouri are well taken, and therefore shall now support his motion to refer to the Judiciary Committee.

My own impression is that perhaps the setting out of the adoption of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments sufficiently describes them; but certain important errors have crept into the copy of the fourteenth amendment in that resolution, and I desire the opinion of the Judiciary Committee, not only on this case, but for future cases that may arise. I think that errors may be found hereafter in the constitutional amendment as adopted by other States, and as a precedent I desire to have this referred to the Judiciary Committee. I therefore move to reconsider the vote by which the Senate refused to refer the credentials to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONNESS. Upon that motion I make the question of order that the motion is not in order, because there is a pending motion that the Senator-elect be admitted to take the oath, which is a motion of superior privilege because first made. And upon that motion, also, I wish to say that it is competent for the Senate to settle this whole question. If there be a majority of the Senate in favor of his taking || the oath there is a majority against a reference. I make the question of order.

Mr. HENDRICKS. If the motion to reconsider prevails, then the motion to allow the oath to be administered will go with the credentials to the committee.

Mr. CONNESS. It will not.

Mr. HENDRICKS. The Senator from Cal. ifornia is unusually positive. If he decided that alone, it would be settled; but as I think it is competent for the Senate to send to a committee a motion as well as a paper, that motion can go with the paper, and ought to go there. I submit to Senators, although they may be convinced that there is nothing wrong in the credentials, nothing wrong in the ratification of the amendment, that they are all right, there is no delay by this motion. We have spent more time this morning about it than would have been spent in the whole business if it had been referred to the Judiciary Committee. The committee meets to-morrow in the regular course of its business, and I submit,|| to facilitate the business of the Senate, this motion had better prevail.

Mr. CONNESS. I propose that we proceed in order. I make the question of order and ask the decision of the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair understands that. There is a motion pending, the motion of the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. HowE,] to permit this gentleman to take the oaths, on which the yeas and nays have been called, and which must be disposed of before another independent motion can be put. One has no precedence over the other.

Mr. ANTHONY. I understood the Senator from Oregon to move to reter that motion to the Committee on the Judiciary. That certainly I presume to be in order.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion of the Senator from Oregon was to reconsider the vote by which the Senate refused to refer the credentials to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. ANTHONY. I move, if that motion is not pending, that this motion be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. I prefer to have the motion of the Senator from Oregon to reconsider; I think that is the better way to take the sense of the Senate; but if we are put upon parliamentary tactics we will take advantage of them; that is all.

Mr. CONNESS. I make the question of order that when a motion is made which is a privileged question-that is, which has the privilege of being put-it cannot be disposed of by another motion to refer the preceding motion to a committee. If it can then we can do no business at all.

Mr. ANTHONY. I agree to that fully. Mr. CONNESS. I ask the Chair to decide. Mr. ANTHONY. I will not interrupt the Chair certainly.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no privileged motion here. Neither of those motions has a privilege over the other.

Mr. CONNESS. I understand that. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. They are entirely independent motions, and the first made must be disposed of first. The question now is, Shall the Senator-elect from Florida be admitted to take the oaths and take his seat? || The Senator from Rhode Island moves that that motion be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. I can hardly think that that is in order, because you never could get a decision in that way. Motion after motion might be put, and the last one would have to go to a committee. I know of no case where motions of that kind have been referred, and I think I can see great difficulty in establishing such a rule.

Mr. DRAKE. I now renew my motion to lay the credentials of the Senator from Florida on the table.

Mr. ANTHONY. Will the Senator withdraw that for a moment? I certainly do not mean to differ from the Chair but with great respect; but I understand that every motion may be, on the demand of the Chair or of any Senator, reduced to writing. Suppose this motion, that the Senator be admitted to take the oath, be reduced to writing; then is it not in order to refer that to the Committee on the Judiciary? I do not desire to make that motion. I much prefer that the other motion made by the Senator from Oregon shall be put, which will fairly test the sense of the Senate. The Senate have decided not to refer this question to the Judiciary Committee. Since that decision there have been other and, it seems to me, pretty important reasons why it should be done brought before the Senate; and I think it would be fair if my friend from California would allow that question to be put. But if he will not allow that to be put, I respectfully submit to the Chair if I have not the right to demand that the motion that is made be reduced to writing, and when reduced to writing, if I have not a right to move that it be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary? That is a course I do not wish to take, because I think the other course the most natural and more in accordance with the good-natured way in which we transact business here.

Mr. CONNESS. My position is this: reducing a motion to writing gives it no extra validity. A motion orally made is substantially the same as if it were reduced to writing, and there is no privilege, by being reduced to writing, existing on the part of the Senator to refer it. It is the privilege of the Senate when a motion is made to vote upon that motion; and the Senator must see that if a majority of this body are in favor of applying the oath, that decides the whole question. Why are not gentlemen content to take that decision and let us vote?

Mr. CORBETT. I am as anxious for the admission of Florida as any other Senator on the floor; and I have no doubt that if the Senator from California will withdraw this objection and allow us to test the question of reconsidering the vote on the motion to refer these papers to the Committee on the Judiciary we shall sooner dispose of the question. If he does not I shall be obliged to vote against the admission of the Senator from Florida until they are referred. It seems to me it is important as a precedent for the future that these papers should be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, as these errors clearly show that there may be errors hereafter committed in the ratification by other States, and they should be adjudged by the Judiciary Committee. I hope my friend from California will withdraw his objection.

Mr. CONNESS. Why will not the Senator from Oregon permit the question to be taken? If a majority of the Senate refuse to have the oath administered, then his motion can be put. If a majority of the Senate are in favor of administering the oath, certainly they ought to be permitted to do so.

Mr. CORBETT. For the very reason that

there are many Senators here who do not desire to vote against allowing the Senator from Florida to take the oath. I, for one, do not. But I desire to refer this matter to the Judiciary Committee. It can there be examined, and the Senator-elect can be admitted to-morrow. It is merely a form.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We have occupied so much time on this matter that I hope we shall conclude it now if it takes all day. As to referring it to the Judiciary Committee, there is no reason given for it. When I was up a few minutes ago, I said I had no doubt that if we examined the ratifications by other States there would be found the same inaccus racies. I have examined the ratification of four States, Pennsylvania, New York, Wiscon sin, and Michigan, and there are inaccuracies in those four; and I presume if I went on and made the examination I should find like inaccuracies in each certificate.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Material ones?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Some of them material. The reason that I object to this going to the Judiciary Committee is that I am opposed to the Congress of the United States making their fundamental law to rest upon the accuracy or inaccuracy in these minor particulars of the copy of a resolution. In the ratification of the State of Wisconsin, in one sentence, there are four or five errors.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Point out one or two of them.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I will read one sentence:

"But whenever the right to vote at any election for electors of President and Vice President."

I ask the Senator from Illinois to be good enough to read from the statutes. Mr. TRUMBULL. The resolution, as it reads in the statutes, is:

"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors."

The words "the choice of" are left out in the Wisconsin certificate. Then in the statutes it proceeds:

"For President and Vice President of the United States."

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In this it reads "of President and Vice President." The words "of the United States" are left out.

Mr. TRUMBULL. And the word "for," before "President," in the resolution is "of," as it is copied there.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. "Or for United States Representatives in Congress." Mr. TRUMBULL. Instead of" for United States Representatives in Congress," the act says Representatives in Congress."

66

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Executive or judicial officers."

Mr. TRUMBULL. "Executive and judicial officers of a State." And so you

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. might go through all of them. Mr. EDMUNDS. All those mean precisely the same thing on the face of it.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In the ratification of the State of Pennsylvania instead of its being "the laws" it is "the law;" and that of the State of New York has two or three inaccuracies.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question of order is made and it ought to be decided. The Chair has already stated that in his opinion a motion to refer another motion is not in order. It takes nothing with it in this case. There are many motions that may be made that can be referred because they take some substantial thing along with them to be deliberated upon and decided by the committee. But here is a motion to admit this Senator to take the oath. A motion to refer that motion to a committee takes nothing with it; there is nothing for the committee to consider; and therefore, and because of its inconvenience, the Chair believes it not to be in order; that it would establish a bad rule. If Senators think that is a wrong decision, and probably it may be, they will take an appeal and settle the question.

Mr. DRAKE. Is my motion to lay the matter on the table in order?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Certainly it is.

Mr. DRAKE. I made that motion some time ago, and a debate for fifteen or twenty minutes has followed upon it. I insist upon my motion to lay the credentials on the table, and on that I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator moves that the credentials be laid on the table with a view to make another motion. Mr. DRAKE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOWE. I rise to a question of order. I submit that if the credentials be laid on the table it does not interfere with administering the oath to the Senator-elect, and therefore, as it does not, the motion to administer the oath must take precedence of the motion to lay on the table.

Mr. DRAKE. I take it that is not a correct view of the order in the case.

Mr. MORTON. I suggest that the question now before the Senate is not upon the credentials at all. It is upon the question of admitting this gentleman to a seat. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on swearing in the Senator.

Mr. DRAKE. I move to postpone that question until to-morrow, and I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion. I do this merely to get at the other question of referring the resolution of the Florida Legislature to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The Chief Clerk called Mr. ANTHONY's name. Mr. ANTHONY. I desire to say, as the yeas and nays are called, that I am as much in favor of admitting the Senators from Florida as any member of this body. I desire, however, that when they come in they shall come in correctly, and in such a way that neither we nor they will have any occasion to regret it. I think there is fair ground of presumption that there is some irregularity in the proceedings, although I am inclined to think it will be found, upon investigation, that they are sufficiently regular for them to be admitted as Senators, and if I were obliged to vote on the subject to-day I should vote to admit them; but I prefer that these papers should be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary; and I should prefer that every State now coming in that has been separated from us should have the credentials of its Senators referred to the same committee. I vote yea.

Mr. POMEROY. I was going to sayThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. Debate must stop here. The call of the roll has commenced.

Mr. POMEROY. I think it hardly fair for the Senator from Rhode Island to make a speech and then respond to the roll.

Mr. ANTHONY. I do not think my vote ought to count. I think, having spoken, my name should have been called again.

Mr. POMEROY. I was only going to say that I never knew before, where a motion was made to lay on the table and then a motion to postpone, that the motion to postpone took precedence of the motion to lay on the table.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 13, nays 31; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Corbett, Davis, Doolittle, Drake, Edmunds, Fessenden, Hendricks, McCreery, Morrill of Vermont, Norton, and Vickers-13.

NAYS-Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling. Conness, Cragin, Ferry, Frelinghuysen. Harlan, Howard, Howe, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates-31.

ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Dixon, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Johnson, Patterson of Tennessee, Rice, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, and Van Winkle-12, So the motion to postpone was not agreed to. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is, Shall the Senator from Florida be permitted to take the oaths with a view to take his seat in the Senate of the United States? on which question the yeas and nays have been ordered.

Mr. CORBETT. I desire simply to say that considering the question as having been decided by the Senate, I shall now vote for the admission of the Senator from Florida.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 34, nays 6; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler. Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates-34.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Davis, Doolittle, Johnson, McCreery, and Vickers-6.

ABSENT-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Dixon, Edmunds, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Rice, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, and Van Winkle-16. So the motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator-elect from Florida will please come forward and receive the oaths.

Mr. OSBORN advanced to the desk of the President pro tempore, and the oaths prescribed by the Constitution and the act of July 2, 1862, having been administered to him he took his seat in the Senate.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The morning hour having expired, the unfinished business of yesterday, being the bill (S. No. 529) to establish rules and articles for the government of the armies of the United States, is before the Senate.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I take it it was not the purpose of the Senator from Massachusetts, when he moved for an evening session yesterday, to displace the appropriation bill. I trust, therefore, he will have no objection to allowing this bill to be laid aside.

Mr. WILSON. It was not my purpose to interfere with the appropriation bill, but I believe the debate is now over on this bill, and it will take no time. I think it can be disposed of in a few minutes.

Mr. ANTHONY. I hope both Senators will allow the ordinary morning business to be disposed of.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Allow my bill to come up first, and then I will yield.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If it be the pleasure of the Senate to go through the morning business, it will be done.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I should like to have the appropriation bill taken up first.

It is

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. moved that all prior orders be postponed for the purpose of taking up the bill (H. R. No. 818) making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1869, and for other purposes. The motion was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Now I have no objection to the ordinary morning business being disposed of.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. CLINTON LLOYD, its Chief Clerk, announced that the House had passed the following bills, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate:

A bill (H. R. No. 90) to authorize and require the administration of oaths in certain cases, and to punish perjury in connection therewith;

A bill (H. R. No. 293) to regulate and limit the admiralty jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States in certain cases; and

A bill (H. R. No. 568) explanatory of the act entitled "An act declaring the title to land warrants in certain cases."

The message also announced that the House had passed the following resolution, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate:

Resolved, (the Senate concurring.) That the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives adjourn their respective Houses without day on Wednesday, the 15th of July next, at noon.

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED.

The message further announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the enrolled

bill (S. No. 522) to authorize the proper accounting officers of the Treasury to settle the accounts of Andrew S. Core; and it was thereupon signed by the President pro tempore of the Senate.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. SUMNER presented the petition of Margaretta S. Morse, administratrix of the estate of Isaac E. Morse, deceased, praying for compensation for services rendered by Isaac E. Morse as commissioner to New Granada; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. SUMNER. I also offer a petition signed by merchants of Boston, in which they represent that it is now proposed under an act of the Legislature of Massachusetts to build a bridge called the Maverick bridge across the harbor of Boston. They set forth that this would curtail the area of the harbor-already smallfor the anchorage of ships; cut off the United States navy-yard and all wharves above the contemplated bridge from open communication with the sea; and in other ways would seriously injure the harbor, and through that would injure the commerce of Boston. On that account they ask that Congress will not give its sanction to the erection of that bridge. move the reference of this petition to the Committee on Commerce.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. CAMERON presented a remonstrance of citizens of Pennsylvania, protesting against any action of Congress which would tend toward the reduction of the present duty upon coal, as such action would be disastrous to a large number of citizens of the United States and would benefit none, besides which the United States Treasury would suffer a loss of revenue to the extent of any reduction that was made; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

He also presented a petition of citizens of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, praying that pensions be granted to the soldiers and sailors of the war of 1812 and to the widows of such as have died; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

PAPERS WITHDRAWN AND REFERRED.

On motion of Mr. BUCKALEW, it was' Ordered, That Chauncey Smith, guardian of the minor children of Presley N. Guthrie, have leave to withdraw his petition from the files of the Senate. On motion of Mr. HOWE, it was

Ordered, That Mrs. C. S. Wilson have leave to withdraw her petition from the files of the Senate, and that it be referred to the Committee on Claims. On motion of Mr. CORBETT, it was Ordered, That Henry Bailey have leave to withdraw his petition and papers from the files of the Senate.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Mr. STEWART, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 564) for the relief of Hulings Cowperthwaite and Enoch H. Vance, and for other purposes, reported it with amendments.

Mr. FESSENDEN, from the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 1325) for the relief of Benjamin B. French, late Commissioner of Public Buildings, reported it without amendment.

SALE OF SURPLUS DOCUMENTS.

Mr. MORGAN. I am instructed by the Committee on the Library to report a joint resolution (S. R. No. 153) authorizing the sale at public auction of certain surplus books and documents now in the custody of the Secretary of the Interior, and recommend its passage, and if there be no objection I ask for its consideration at this time.

The joint resolution was read the first time by its title.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there any objection to the present consideration of the joint resolution?

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I do not like to interpose. If it leads to no debate, I will not

object; but if it does, I shall be compelled to do so.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. No objec tion being made, the joint resolution will be read through.

The Chief Clerk read the joint resolution, which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, under the direction of the joint Library Committee of Congress, to sell at public auction such books and documents now in the custody of his department and published by the order of Congress or of any officer or department of the Government as are not needed for distribution under existing laws or to supply deficiencies in the Library of Congress or in the Library of either House, and the net proceeds of such sale are to be deposited in the Treasury of the United States.

Mr. ANTHONY. I should like to have some explanation of this resolution. These documents have been ordered by various resolutions to be distributed; but it has been found, I think, in some cases impracticable to carry the resolutions into effect. The intention of leaving these documents with the Secretary of the Interior was that there might be a fund for supplying new State libraries when new States are organized, and also for supplying other deficiencies; that there should be a supply there in case other depositories should be destroyed. I have not examined this matter.

Mr. MORGAN. The matter has been up once or twice, and was finally referred to a sub-committee of the joint Library Committee, and after a good deal of consideration they concluded to report in favor of this disposition of the books. The Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. HowE,] was one member of the sub-committee and a member of the House another. It will be seen that by the language of the resolution they will be under the control of the joint Committee on the Library if the resolution passes.

Mr. ANTHONY. Will the Senator state what books they are and how many there are?

Mr. MORGAN. It is impossible for me to tell what they are. I have not seen them.

Mr. ANTHONY. A great many of them, I believe, are the Annals of Congress, which would bring nothing at all at auction.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I hope the Senator from New York will allow this resolution to go over.

Mr. MORGAN. If it is objected to I must do so.

Mr. ANTHONY. I do not object to it, but before it is passed I should like to understand what it is. A large portion of these documents I presume to be the Annals of Congress, very valuable documents, but which would not bring any more than their value as waste paper at public auction.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I call for the regular order.

Mr. SUMNER. There is another document which I think will be found among them, and that is the second series of the State Papers.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. As this joint resolution is leading to debate, the regular order is called for, and the appropriation bill must be taken up.

ARMY REGISTER.

Mr. ANTHONY. I ask the Senator from Maine to allow me to make two or three reports for the printing of documents such as the public convenience requires should be disposed of now, as the type is standing. The Committee on Printing, to whom was referred a resolution to print additional copies of the Army Register, have directed me to report it back without amendment, and recommend its passage, and I ask for its present consideration. Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I cannot agree to that.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection being made it cannot be considered.

Mr. ANTHONY. There is no objection to the resolution. The type is standing and the public convenience and public economy will be promoted by disposing of it at once.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. If it takes no time I will not object.

Mr. ANTHONY. The Senator from Maine withdraws his objection. He always does; he is so good-natured.

The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to, as follows:

Resolved, That two thousand copies of the Army Register for 1868 be printed for the use of the Senate.

NAVY REGISTER.

Mr. ANTHONY. The same committee, to whom was referred a resolution to print additional copies of the Navy Register, have instructed me to report it back without amendment, and recommend its passage, and I ask for its present consideration.

The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to, as follows:

Resolved, That one thousand copies of the Navy Register for 1868 be printed for the use of the Senate.

TRADE WITH BRITISH PROVINCES.

Mr. ANTHONY. I am instructed by the same committee to report back the following resolution without amendment, and recommend its passage:

Resolved, That five thousand additional copies of Executive Document No. 240 H. R., parts one and two, and No. 295 II. R., be printed for the use of the Senate.

I ask for the present consideration of the resolution.

Mr. MORTON. What are those documents? Mr. RAMSEY. A report on the trade with the British provinces.

The CHIEF CLARK. "A letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a supplemental report on trade with the British American provinces.

Mr. ANTHONY. It will only cost sixtyfive dollars.

The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to.

BILL INTRoduced.

Mr. RAMSEY asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 583) in relation to the transportation of United States mails by railroad companies; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, and ordered to be printed.

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED.

The following bills, received from the House of Representatives, were severally read twice by their titles aud referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:

A bill (H. R. No. 90) to authorize and require the administration of oaths in certain cases, and to punish perjury in connection therewith;

A bill (H. R. No. 292) to regulate and limit the admiralty jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States in certain cases; and

A bill (H. R. No. 568) explanatory of the act entitled "An act declaring the title to land warrants in certain cases."

FINAL ADJOURNMENT.

The concurrent resolution of the House of Representatives providing for the adjournment sine die of the two Houses on the 15th of July, was, on motion of Mr. SUMNER, ordered to lie on the table.

PACIFIC RAILROAD.

Mr. HOWARD. I ask leave to lay before the Senate certain papers relating to the Pacific railroad, containing a statement of the amount of bonds issued to the Union Pacific railroad and its branches, with the amount of interest paid upon those bonds to those companies, and interest repaid by the companies to the Government; and I ask that they may be printed for the information of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That order will be made.

CIVIL APPROPRIATION BILL.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 818) making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year

ending June 30, 1869, and for other purposes; the pending question being on the amendment reported by the Committee on Appropriations, to strike out the following clause from line four hundred and fifty-six to line four hundred and sixty:

For care, support, and medical treatment of sixty transient paupers, medical and surgical patients, in some proper medical institution in the city of Washington, under a contract to be formed with such institution, $12,000, or so much thereof as may be

necessary.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore put the question on the amendment, and declared it to be agreed to.

Mr. HARLAN. I must ask for a division. Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I hope the Senator will let it go. Provision will be made for it in the other bill, to which I alluded yesterday.

Mr. HARLAN. I shall not insist on the call, with the understanding that the committee will see that it comes in on some other bill. Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Certainly; there is not the slightest danger of it.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amend ment is agreed to. The reading of the bill will be continued.

The reading of the bill was concluded.

The next amendment of the Committee on Appropriations was to insert at the end of the

bill:

To enable the Secretary of the Interior to pay for fitting necessary shelving, and for record books furnished or ordered for the office of register of deeds of the District of Columbia, during the period when Edward C. Eddie was such register. $550.

Mr. HARLAN. I do not know from where that amendment sprang, but under existing laws the register of deeds in the District of Columbia furnishes his own stationery. The law provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall provide him with a suitable room in which to keep the records, but from the foundation of the office up to this time the register has furnished his own books and stationery. I should like, therefore, to know what the reason is for giving this additional pay to the estate of the late incumbent.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. This amend ment is proposed on the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior, who represents that this expenditure was made for the purposes indicated in this amendment. A part of the money proposed to be appropriated is to pay for "necessary shelving," which I suppose would be covered by the statement of the Senator that the Department furnish the room. Mr. HARLAN. I think that part of the proposition is right.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. It also includes another item, "and for record books." I presume the stationery would naturally enough be covered by the perquisites of the office, but probably an appropriation is needed for the permanent record books.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I will say to the Senator from Iowa that last year we made, on his recommendation as Secretary of the Interior, an appropriation for this purpose to Mr. Hall, who was register. The money which this appropriation proposes to refund was paid by Mr. Eddie for record books, which remain in the office and are now used there. I trust no

objection will be made to the appropriation; it is a very small sum.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was to add to the bill the following clause:

To enable the Secretary of the Senate to complete the alphabetical list of private claims to the end of the second session of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and to pay outstanding claims for services rendered in the preparation of said work under a resolution of the Senate of March 16, 1866, $2,000.

The amendment was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amend ments reported by the Committee on Appropriations are now through with.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Ou the sixteenth page, in line three hundred and seventy-one, I move to strike out the word " eight" and insert "twelve," and again in the same line to strike out the word '' seven " and insert "ten," and

in line three hundred and seventy-two to change the aggregate appropriation from $25,000 to $10,000; so as to make the clause read:

For surveying the public lands of Colorado at rates not exceeding fifteen dollars per lineal mile for standard lines, twelve dollars for township, and twelve dollars for section lines, $40,000.

This will make the rates for surveying in that Territory precisely what they are in all the other Territories mentioned in the bill. This

amendment it is understood is assented to by the House committee, and I do not know how the error occurred in the amount. I have here an official report from the land department on this subject, but I believe there is no objection to the amendment, and therefore I will not go into the details.

Mr. POMEROY. I do not understand exactly under what rule this amendment is moved.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I submitted it yesterday, and had it referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. POMEROY. It is not reported on recommendation of any committee.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I gave notice of it yesterday.

Mr. HARLAN. I inquire whether the surveyor general of Colorado has been unable to procure the work at the rates that now stand in the bill. As I understand, the Senator's motion is to increase the price for surveying the public lands in Colorado.

Mr. BUCKALEW. To make it the same as in the other Territories. The surveyor general, who was formerly a citizen of my State, was here and gave a statement and exhibit of the whole case. It is well understood by the House committee at present, but the explanation was not made in time.

Mr. POMEROY. I did not know that an individual Senator, giving notice of it yesterday, brings it within the rule. That was the point I made.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I offered the amendment in writing, and it was referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. POMEROY. I admit all that; but our former rule was that no amendment of this nature to a general appropriation bill could be moved excepting upon the recommendation of a committee or on an estimate of the head of a Department. Now the rule is amended that all such recommendations shall be referred one day in advance to the Committee on Appropriations; but if this amendment could not have been received under the rule form

the State of Nebraska and the State of Kansas than in the Territories.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I examined this question by myself this morning to see whether there had been any communication from the General Land Office making a complaint of the sum fixed by the committee of the House, for the committee of the Senate followed the committee of the House; and I had not plaint of the appropriation for the service as observed before that that office made any com. thus fixed. I ought, perhaps, in justice to the Senator from Pennsylvania and to the Senate, to read a communication from the Commissioner of the General Land Office, in which he expresses his solicitude that the sums estimated for in the general estimates should be preserved, all of them. He says:

"This morning I received another bil!, No. 818, making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1869, now before the Committee of the Whole House, containing reduced appropriations on account of the surveying service, which, if not restored to the sums estimated by this office as the lowest possible consistent with the exigencies of the prosecution of the public surveys, there will result great impediments in the carrying out of public requirements under sundry laws both in the field and office work in the office of the surveyor general."

On that statement I should say that it will be necessary to raise this appropriation. It is necessary, in the estimation of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, that the sum appropriated for this service should be increased.

Mr. HARLAN. I beg to express the hope that the Commissioner's recommendation may be followed. Without intending to eulogize that officer, I know he has been very careful in the expenditure of the public money, and in making his estimates for expenses, and has always placed them at the lowest figure since the war began which he thought was compatible with the public interests. I think that his estimates ought to be followed.

Mr. BUCKALEW. The surveyor general of this Territory informs us that he is utterly unable to get the work done for the rates proposed in the bill; and if it should not be amended, surveying such as is contemplated in this clause will have to stop until the action of Congress hereafter.

erly, it cannot now, under the rule as latterly

modified.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Certainly the first part of the amendment fixing the rates does not come under that rule; it would only affect the latter branch increasing the amount of the appropriation. I supposed that the committee agreed to this amendment

Mr. POMEROY. I do not insist on the point. If the Committee on Appropriations are for the amendment I will not object; I will waive the rule so far as I am concerned.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I was looking to see on what principle this could be moved; I had not raised the point about the authority to move it. There is a long list of rates fixed for the several Territories. I see that in Nebraska, for the same service, the rates for standard lines are fixed at not exceeding ten dollars; Colorado, for the same service, is fixed at fifteen dollars in the bill. I do not know that the Senator observed that. He will see that Colorado stands five dollars for standard lines higher than Nebraska. I think it is the same as Idaho, the same as Nevada, the same as Arizona. On the township lines it is less.

Mr. BUCKALEW. The Senator will observe that there is a difference between the States and Territories. The rates are less in

object.

Mr. POMEROY. The proposition is to increase the appropriation from $25,000 to $40,000.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. That is it, and that puts it on the same footing as Nevada and Arizona and Idaho. The Senate will judge for themselves whether they ought or ought not to be about the same.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. FESSENDEN. By direction of the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, I have some amendments to offer. I move first, after line three hundred and ten, on page fourteen, to insert

For heating the Rotunda, the old Hall of the House of Representatives, and the offices and stairways connecting therewith, $15,000.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I move this amendment, to come in after line three hundred and twelve, on the same page:

For painting the exterior of the eastern portion of the City Hall, in Washington, $1,400.

For resetting steps, calking cornice, &c., $750.
For repairing roof, $100.

For repairs to tin-roof and rain-spouts, $200.

For sundry brick and carpenters' work, $350. For renovating and ventilating court-room, $400. Provided, The corporate authorities of the city of Washington appropriate and expend a like sum for painting and repairs of the western portion of said building.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I should like to ask the Senator whether. he understands that by law, or by usage, or both, the Government of the United States appropriate for the erection and for the repairs of this building. Is that our obligation?

Mr. FESSENDEN. I understand that to be sa. The United States paid for building one half, I believe, of the City Hall, and they were to have the occupation of it for their own purposes. They have been in the habit, also, since of paying for the repairs of that part which they occupy. The City Hall is now in very bad condition; it is made of very soft stone; it has not been painted; and it is disintegrating, and it is very much out of repair. So is the roof. I have a letter from the architect of the Capitol extension, who examined it thoroughly, and made the calculations of the amounts necessary, and he states, to use his own expression, that the building is almost in a tumble-down condition. It ought to be repaired. There is no doubt of the necessity, no doubt about the practice, and none of the obligation. I make it dependent, as the city is rather remiss on its appropriating like sums to repair its part. It wants thorough painting outside and renovating in several particulars. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I offer this amendment, to come in after line four hundred and seventy-six, on page 20:

For continuing the United States twenty-inch water main from its present terminus on north B street on the east side of Delaware avenue to the United States branch twelve-inch main on First street east, $10,000.

This is a much-needed improvement, as there are great complaints of the scarcity of water in all that portion of this city east of the Capitol during the day, owing to the large quantity used as a motive power at the shops of the navy-yard. By connecting the two mains specified this difficulty will be obviated.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Was this matter considered by the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds?

Mr. FESSENDEN. Yes, sir. It is absolutely necessary to make this provision. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I desire now to offer an amendment that comes from the Committee on Commerce, to come in after line one hundred and seventy-five on page 8:

For a new light-house on Half-Way Rock, on-the coast of Maine, $50,000.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Is that recommended by the Light-House Board?

Mr. FESSENDEN. It is recommended by the board and recommended by the Committee on Commerce.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HOWARD. I offer an amendment to come in at the close of the bill which is recommended by the joint Committee on Ordnance, which was constituted by a vote of the two Houses. I gave notice of my amendment yesterday:

That the sum of $15,000, or as much thereof as may be necessary, be, and the same is hereby, appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated to defray the expenses of the joint Committee on Ordnance; and that the same shall be drawn from the Treasury upon the order of the Secretary of the Senate as it shall be required; and any portion of the amount hereby appropriated that shall be allowed by the said joint committee to witnesses attending before it, or other persons employed in its service, for per diem travel or other necessary expenses, and paid by the Secretary of the Senate in pursuance of the order of said joint committee, shall be accordingly credited and allowed by the accounting officers of the Treasury Department.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I should like to have the Senator make some explanation of that.

Mr. HOWARD. I will say, then, that this amendment is recommended by the joint Com