Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

mittee on Ordnance, which was constituted at the first session of the present Congress. The committee have performed a very great amount of labor, and had numerous meetings on the subject referred to them, and called before them a great number of witnesses, whose testimony they have taken; and the amount of documentary proofs which they will in the course of this session be able to submit to Congress is quite large. The expenses of the committee of course have been considerable; and Congress having made no appropriation at all to pay the expenses of the committee for short-hand reporters, and traveling expenses and attendance of witnesses, &c., they have been obliged, through the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate, to obtain an advance from one of the banks of this city to the amount at present of between seven and eight thousand dol lars, which is justly due to the bank. We suppose that $15,000 will something more than cover the whole expenses of the committee; but we thought it best to ask for that amount, in order to be sure that we get a sufficiently large appropriation. I think there can be no hesitation about the propriety of the appropri

ation.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Of course, Congress having authorized a committee, is bound to pay the expenses; and if the Senator will state precisely what that sum is, that should be the sum appropriated.

Mr. HOWARD. It is impossible at present to state the exact amount, because the committee are not yet discharged from their duties. They are still pursuing the inquiries which were referred to them. The amount of expenses which they have already incurred must be somewhere about nine thousand dollars; perhaps even ten thousand dollars; I cannot state with precision. The amount which they have borrowed from a bank in this city is $7,000, and I think a little upward. That has been paid out to witnesses, clerks, &c., for labor actually performed. I think $15,000 will fully cover the expenses, and perhaps leave a small balance that will not be drawn. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CORBETT. I desire to offer the following amendment, to come in after line two hundred and forty-two; I report it from the Committee on Commerce:

For the construction of a building to be used as a custom-house and United States court-room and post office at Portland, Oregon, $50,000.

Will the Sena

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. tor be good enough to tell us whether that is recommended by the Treasury Department?

Mr. CORBETT. I have inquired at the Treasury about the construction of such a building. I have a communication from the United States district attorney and the grand juries of two sessions of the courts asking for an appropriation for the construction of a courthouse in Oregon. They represent that the present room they occupy is totally unfit; that it makes persons sick who are compelled to be there; it has no windows, and is lighted by a skylight. It really is unfit to be occupied for the purpose for which it is used. The post office is a small wooden building with no security for the valuable letters that are constantly being sent from there, and is totally inadequate to the wants of the second commercial city on the Pacific coast. I have here a statement from Mr. Mullett that there is no public building of any kind in that city for custom house uses. I have also an estimate from him that such a building as we desire will probably cost from eighty to ninety thousand dollars, but $50,000 will be adequate for the present year to put the building in process of construction and push it forward.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I do not see in the papers submitted by the honorable Senator any recommendation either from the Treasury or the Interior Department.

necessary to go to all the various Departments
having charge of those matters. I sent to the
Interior Department the papers relative to the
court room, and received for answer that they
could not make any other provision. Now, a
small room is rented there, and they have no
power to make better arrangements.

ing due in thirty years shall bear interest at four and a half per cent.; and bonds falling due in forty years shall bear interest at four per cent.; which said bonds shall be exempt from taxation in any form by or under State, municipal, or local authority, and the same and the interest thereon, and the income therefrom, shall be exempt from the payment of all taxes or duties to the United States, other than such income tax as may be assessed upon other incomes; and the said bonds and the proceeds thereof shall be exclusively used for the redemption, payment, or purchase of, or exchange for, an equal amount of any of the present interest-bearing debt of the United States, other than the existing five per cent. bonds and the three per cent. certificates, and may be issued to an amount, in the aggregate, suflicient to cover the principal of all outstanding or existing obligations as limited herein, and no more, but not to exceed $700,000,000 shall be of the issue redeemable in twenty years.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. All I can say is
that these papers did not authorize the Com-
mittee on Appropriations to move this amend-
ment to the bill, and I think I may say to the
Senator from Oregon that it is not usual to
make appropriations of this kind upon such
papers. These papers are simply letters from
the district attorney in Oregon, and petitions
from the grand jury, and they have been, it
seems, in the Department of the Interior; but
the misfortune is that the Secretary of the In-
terior does not send them back with a recom-
mendation, and the Secretary of the Treasury
gives us no information on the subject. It
will be seen that this building is to combine a
court-house and a custom-house. Such appro-
priations are usually backed by a recommend-
ation from the Department, with plans from
the architect showing what the character of the February 25, 1862.
building is, what its probable cost is to be, and
what the demand for it is. All these particu-
lars in this case seem to fail.

Mr. CORBETT. I had this proposition
referred three or four days ago to the Com-
mittee on Commerce, and I did not learn from
them that it was necessary to procure such
recommendations. If I had I could have done
so, no doubt. This is the place where my col-
league and myself reside, and he knows the
importance of such a building, and how much
the interests of the Government and the con-
venience of citizens suffer by the want of it.
It is the largest commercial city on the Pacific
coast north of San Francisco, and pretty much
all the custom duties collected in the State of
Oregon are collected there, and of all the taxes
collected in the State not less than one half
are collected in Portland.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Suppose the
Senator allows this matter to go over until

to-morrow.

Mr. CORBETT. I desire a vote on this question.

Mr. WILLIAMS. of to-day?

Will this bill be disposed

Mr. SHERMAN. I apprehend not.
Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. There will prob-
able be time for this to-morrow.

Mr. CORBETT. The amendment which the
Senator from Ohio intends to offer will lead to
a long discussion.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator will have a chance afterward, if that amendment is disposed of. I desire

Mr. WILLIAMS. This amendment proposed
by my colleague may be temporarily withdrawn
for the purpose of ascertaining if the Depart-
ment will recommend this appropriation, with
the understanding that it is to be renewed
before any final action is taken on the bill.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Certainly.
Mr. CORBETT. I withdraw my amend
ment under those circumstances.

Mr. SHERMAN. I wish now to submit the
amendment of which I gave notice yesterday.
I am not anxious to press an immediate vote
on it, because it is an important one and will
excite discussion; but as I have to be absent
from_the_Senate I desire to offer the amend-
ment, and then if the Senate is willing to let
other amendments be taken up I shall not
object. But I desire to offer the amendment
from the Committee on Finance.

The amendment was read. It was to add to the bill the following additional sections:

SEC. - And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to issue coupon or registered bonds of the United States in such form and of such denominations as he may prescribe, redeemable in coin at the pleasure of the United States, after twenty, thirty, and forty years, respectively, and bearing the following rates of

Mr. CORBETT. The proposed building is to be used for a custom house, a post office, yearly interest, payable semi-annually in coin, that

and a court-room, and I did not think it was

is to say: the issue of bonds falling due in twenty
years shall bear interest at five per cent.; bonds fall-

SEC.. And be it further enacted, That there is hereby appropriated out of the duties derived from imported goods the sum of $135,000,000 annually, which sum during each fiscal year shall be applied to the payment of the interest and to the reduction of the principal of the public debt, in such a manner as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treas ury, or as Congress may hereafter direct; and such reduction shall be in lieu of the sinking fund contemplated by the fifth section of the act entitled "An act to authorize the issue of United States notes, and for the redemption or funding thereof, and for funding the floating debt of the United States," approved

SEC. And be it further enacted, That the holder of any lawful money of the United States to the amount of $1,000, or any multiple of $1,000, may convert the same into bonds for an equal amount, aurules and regulations as the Secretary of the Treasthorized by the first section of this act, under such ury may prescribe; and any holder of any of the bonds provided for in the first section of this act may present the same to the Treasurer of the United States and demand lawful money of the United States for the principal and accruing interest thereon, and the Treasurer shall redeem the same in lawful money of the United States, unless the amount of United States notes then outstanding shall be equal to $400,000,000; and such bond shall not be so redeemable after the United States have resumed the payment of coin for their notes.

SEC.. And be it further enacted, That any contract hereafter made, specifically payable in coin, shall be legal and valid, and may be enforced according to its terms, anything in the several acts relating to United States notes to the contrary notwithstanding.

Mr. HENDRICKS. If the Senator does not wish to make an argument on his amendment, I will ask that it be postponed that I may offer

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. PoмEROY in the chair.) Does the Senator from Ohio move this as an amendment to the appropriation bill?

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, sir; but I am will. ing the Senate shall do as it pleases in regard to having a vote at this time. I want to have it pending.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I propose to raise a question, if not a question of order under the rule to which we have had occasion to refer, under the general principles of legislation that this is not allowable, that it has no reference to the subject of this bill; it is not germane in any sense whatever; does not relate to it in general or particular. This is an appropriation bill strictly, and subjects to have relation to it must be of that character. They must either be matters of appropriation or they must have reference to the subject-matter of appropriation in some way; and a bill which is utterly foreign to such a subject I conceive is obnoxious to the general objection that it is not germane, which, according to all sound principles of legislation, I believe obtains everywhere. This is a matter of general legislation upon a subject entirely distinct from the one we are considering. It has no more relation to it, I conceive, than the bill of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts which was before the Senate last night, which was a bill making rules and regulations for the government of the Army of the United States; and if this bill prevails my honorable friend from Massachusetts may with equal propriety, I submit, propose that bill as a rider; and so you may go on to the end of the session; there is no conceivable measure either of a general or special character which may not properly go upon this bill.

Now, the question I submit, Mr. President, is to the judgment of the Senate, whether they are willing upon a general bill which involves simply a question of appropriation to consider

a matter of general legislation, and so general as to embrace the great subject of the entire funding system of the Government of the United States. Certainly the Senate is not here to perform any such function as that. Certainly the moment it is moved the functions of the Committee on Appropriations are at an end. So far as we have any functions in regard to the recommendation of appropriations for the service of the Government of the United States we stop right here.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. РoмEROY.) Does the Chair understand the Senator to be discussing a point of order? Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. suppose that is debatable.

Yes, sir; I

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is unwilling to call the Senator to order; but at the same time such a point of order cannot be discussed unless by unanimous consent. Still if no Senator objects the Chair will not interpose.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Mr. President

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will state his point of order the Chair will decide it.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I make the point of order that this is not admissible because it is not germane to the subject under consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Clerk will read the thirtieth rule.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I do not claim that the thirtieth rule has any application. I rest my point on general principles.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that there is no specific rule of the Senate against this amendment; but the amendment can hardly be said to be germane to the bill, and under common parliamentary law it is not to be considered by the Senate; but there is no special rule of the Senate on the subject. The Senate has never held hitherto that such amendments could not be considered on an appropriation bill. We put on the amendment in reference to banks, I remember, once. The Chair decides that such amendments are not in harmony with parliamentary law and a good system of legislation.

Mr. SUMNER. I would inquire if it has not been the habit of the Chair to submit to the Senate the question whether an amendment was in order or not?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. I was going to do that. While that is the opinion of the Chair, he would not like to decide the question without referring it to the Senate; and if the Senator from Ohio has no objection, the Chair will submit the question to the Senate at this time whether the Senator has the right to move this amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN. That point, then, I suppose becomes debatable?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A point of order referred to the Senate is debatable.

Mr. SHERMAN. It is admitted that the rules of the Senate do not exclude this amendment. Now, what is the parliamentary law of this Senate? Where is it to be found? Is it to be found in Jefferson's Manual? Is it to be found in the practice of the English Parliament, or in the practice of our House of Reppresentatives? Not at all; it is to be found in the practice of the Senate, as continued from the foundation of the Government to this hour; and down to this hour no amendment to an appropriation bill was ever excluded that had any bearing whatever on the general safety. I can show my friend from Maine innumerable precedents for this. Generally I am opposed, on grounds of policy, to all amendments of a legislative character to appropriation bills. No one has objected to it more strongly than myself; and but for special reasons and strong grounds I would not encumber the appropriation bills with legislative amendments. But so far as the practice is concerned, from the foundation of the Government to this time, there is no doubt that such amendments are in order, and must be decided by the vote of the Senate.

For instance, I find that to the very last civil appropriation bill that was pending in the Senate last year several amendments were attached; one abolishing the office of Commissioner of Public Buildings; another regulating the LightHouse Board; another fixing the salary of the general appraiser at New York; another for the pay of the clerk of pardons in the State Department; another authorizing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to select the newspapers for the publication of the laws; another notifying the heads of the executive Departments that they are to publish advertisements only in certain newspapers; another fixing the rate to be paid for publishing the laws; another authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to sell custom-houses at Alexandria, Norfolk, &c.; another authorizing certain officers to report upon public buildings in New Mexico; another fixing the pay of clerks in the arsenals, and so on.

I take this single instance to show how universal by the judgment of the Senate is the practice of putting legislative amendments of various kinds on appropriation bills. There are times when it becomes absolutely necessary for the Senate to maintain its right to amend the appropriation bills of the House of Representatives by legislative amendments. It ought never to be done unless there is good reason for it; and when we come to debate the question of the necessity of putting on this appropriation bill these provisions relating to the public debt I shall be prepared to discuss that question. So far as the point of order is || concerned there is no doubt according to the practice of the Senate. From the foundation of the Government to this time the Senate has always maintained its right to put amendments of a legislative character on appropriation bills; and it is a right which ought never to be sur rendered; but it ought to be exercised with care, with caution, and only upon sufficient

reason.

So far as the point of order is concerned there can be no doubt what is the parliamentary law of the Senate on such questions. It is not necessary for me to discuss what may be the parliamentary law of the House of Commons. Each legislative House has its own mode of conducting its business. The House of Representatives, by a rule, exclude amend ments of a legislative character from the appropriation bills; that is their law. This would not be in order in the House of Representatives, because their rule expressly forbids it; but in the Senate it has never been so, and I trust the Senate will never change its rule merely to avoid a vote upon one amendment This amendment is in order in accordance with the regular practice of the Senate. As a matter of course it ought not to be put on this bill unless a majority of the Senate are clearly of opinion not only that it is right in itself, but that it is right as an amendment to and as a part of this bill.

Mr. MORTON. Will the Senator state the reasons that induced the Committee on Finance to report it?

Mr. SHERMAN. I do not feel at liberty to do that on the question of order. The rule confines me to the discussion of the question of order, and I do not wish to go beyond that at present.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question submitted to the Senate is whether the amendment of the Senator from Ohio is in order and should be received.

Mr. SHERMAN. I have confined the debate solely to that.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I understood the Chair to say that under the rules of the Senate, the amendment was in order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair said that under the rules it was not out of order, technically speaking.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I understood the Chair to express the opinion that an amendment of this sort was not consistent with prudent legislation and that, therefore, the Chair would submit to the Senate whether the Senate, in

the exercise of its judgment and discretion, would entertain this as an amendment to this bill. I suggest to the Chair, therefore, that that is the question which ought to be submitted to the Senate, and not the arbitrary question whether the amendment is in order or not in order. I suppose, according to the usage of the Senate, it is a proper question for the Senate to decide whether, in the exercise of its discretion and judgment, it will entertain a proposition not germane to this bill, and that is the question I ask the Chair to submit.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question presented to the Senate is purely a question of order. No other question can be submitted.

Mr. CONKLING. Mr. President, the question is whether it is in order, or whether the Senate will hold it to be in order, to take up the financial affairs of the country generally, and put a bill into which provision for them is to be incorporated as a rider upon an appro priation bill. That is a question of order, and I submit with great respect to the Senator from Ohio that that question is not with him for the reasons which he has given to the Senate.

First of all I remark that those instances to which the Senator refers are just as applicable to the House of Representatives as they are here. He will find that over and over again such provisions as he has cited have been put in the House of Representatives upon appro priation bills. Why? First, because they were not objected to; the question of order was not raised; and that was because they were single sections, mere items, propositions which did not belong appropriately upon any separate bill, unless a joint resolution was to be passed for the single purpose of directing the sale of a particular piece of property, which has been the exception when bills were under consideration embracing general subjects. The same thing will be found in the British Parliament. Looking at Cushing, or looking at May, it will be found that appropriation bills continually pass which contain provisions such as the Senator has referred to.

Let me remind him that there is no rule of the House of Representatives against this. The rule of the House to which he refers is that a provision shall not be put into an appropriation bill changing existing laws, and that an appropriation shall not be made for which there is no existing law. That is not the point made here, and I submit to the Senator it has nothing to do with the point made here. The question here is whether the amendment is not wholly foreign, entirely destitute of the ele ments which make it germane to this bill. Now, I should like to see any rule of the House of Representatives on that subject. I never heard one read there, and never knew one to be enforced. The parliamentary law is enforced there, which requires that subjects moved as amendments shall be cognate and germane to the thing in hand, or else they are out of order. The Senator says we have a right to put upon appropriation bills fresh matter, and that right ought not to be surren dered. Certainly not, and nobody draws that right in question here.

I should like to inquire of the Senator from Ohio or any other Senator familiar with the usage of this body, for the instance in which the Senate has held, the point of order being raised, that any other bill, however remote the subject might be, could be incorporated into an appropriation bill. If there has been such a precedent as that, that precedent is influential in this case. It would be a very extraordinary precedent. There are persons within and without this Chamber waiting with great patience for the consideration of bills which ought to be considered. I have a bill in mind now relating to patents, the want of consideration of which imposes great hardship upon a number of persons. I feel very much interested in it myself; and if this is the order of business in the Senate, I wish to give notice, and to have it referred to the Committee on Appropriations so as to be within the other rule, that on to-mor

row I will propose that bill extending a patent as an amendment to this appropriation bill; and surely there is no bill pending in the Senate which would not be in order for the same reason.

Now, Mr. President, one word upon the matter of discretion, which, as the Senator from Indiana truly says, is one of the elements of this question. Suppose it were in order, in some sense, to consider a subject not germane to the appropriation bill, ought we to take up a subject great and complex, in itself perhaps the most important subject of legislation, and mingle that with an appropriation bill, and undertake to have it go through as a sort of codicil or addendum to this bill? It seems to me that that line of proceeding would be unworthy of the subject and unworthy of the Senate.

The bill which is proposed as an amendment of course will lead to discussion and investigation and to consideration just as much aloof from the present subject as can possibly be. What is the motive for attaching it to this bill? What do we all know is the motive? If possible to obtain its successful passage through the two Houses as a rider to this bill which must necessarily be passed, when, if it stood alone, it would not be adopted. Is there any motive for it? Certainly there can be none; and therefore I submit that the matter of discretion, assuming that it was strictly in order, is against || the motion; but I insist, and shall so vote, that it is entirely out of order, either here or in the House of Representatives, until precedents can be shown establishing that this body has adopted the usage, when the objection was made and the point of order was insisted upon, of taking up subjects distinct by themselves and utterly independent of all matters contained in an appropriation bill, and legislating upon them by way of rider to it.

As I said before, the instances referred to by the Senator of directing the sale of a hospital here, of doing something else there, have occurred in both Houses, occurred by consent, and occurred, perhaps, where objection has been made, though I do not remember it, for the reason that they were within the general scope of the bill. But this proposition is to go beyond all possible intendments of the present bill as to the subjects to which it relates, and take up a matter independent and complex in itself, and ingraft upon this bill, tack upon it, in the language of Colonel Benton, an entirely different subject. I submit that such a practice ought not to prevail, and I hope it will not prevail.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. President, the appropriation bill being under consideration, the Senator from Ohio moves to amend it by inserting the provisions of the funding bill, and the question whether he is at liberty to do so is before the Senate for decision. I desire now simply to state the question, for I think if it is fairly stated to the Senate it need not be argued. Upon an appropriation bill it is proposed to ingraft legislation entirely foreign to it. Although there is no technical rule of the Senate against it, because the Senate always has the largest liberty and can always exercise the largest discretion, it is a vicious system of legislation and ought not to be indulged in. I should regard it as a most unfortunate precedent for the Senate to set. It never yet has set a precedent of this character, at least not of this magnitude. It frequently on appropriation bills directs how certain sums shall be expended, but a system of funding never was introduced on an appropriation bill, and it is in no way germane to it. It is bad legislation to admit it, and it ought not to be admitted.

Mr. SHERMAN. The statutes are full of precedents on this question, and to those who have been in the Senate for any length of time it is not necessary for me to produce them. I have before me a law passed in 1863, the civil appropriation bill, containing twenty-five different sections, among which is a law regulating the habeas corpus, another reorganizing the Signal corps of the Army, and so on. These provisions were in a mere civil bill providing for miscellaneous expenditures. So far as pre

cedents are concerned, there is no doubt that this amendment is in order. If I felt at liberty to show the importance of acting upon the funding bill, I think I could convince every Senator, or nearly every Senator, that we ought to act upon it at this session. Mr. POMEROY. I admit the importance of it.

Mr. SHERMAN. Now, I say that my desire is, and I intend to present squarely to the Senate the proposition whether or not they will adjourn this session of Congress without making some provision for the reduction of the burden of the public debt. I do not want to do it on the point of order, because, as a matter of course, unless the Senate are satisfied not only first of the correctness of this proposition, but second, that it ought to be put for reasons that shall be given on an appropriation bill, they will vote against it. If they have doubts about either the merits of the proposition or the propriety of putting it on an appropriation bill, they will vote against it on the final vote; but on the question whether it is in order according to the practice of the Senate, I cannot think that any person who has been here any considerable length of time can doubt for a

moment.

this is altogether a question of order, and the objection made to the amendment, it appears to me, must fall to the ground unless reference can be made to some rule by which it is excluded. It may be inexpedient to offer such an amendment; but will the Senate decide that a proposed amendment is not in order because in their judgment it is inexpedient to attach it to the pending bill or to adopt it? Suppose the Senate should decide now that this amendment is not in order, what sort of a precedent would that constitute? Is it to be assumed now, for the first time in the history of the legislation of the Senate, that any amendment which does not relate to the matter of appropriation shall not be incorporated into a bill of this description?

I submit that the Senate is not willing at this time to debar itself from that privilege, for it does become absolutely necessary at times to put upon a miscellaneous appropriation bill some provision of law which does not relate to appropriations, and the Senate must be afraid of itself, must be afraid of its own judgment, if it establishes a rule which invariably debars it of the privilege of putting on any such amendment.

I hope that this great question, and it is one of immense magnitude to this country, as it seems to me, will not be decided upon a mere point of order. I do not see how it can be affirmed that this amendment is not in order. If it cannot be so affirmed, then it strikes me to be very unwise for the Senate, without considering the merits of the proposition, or the neces

The rule in the House of Representatives referred to by the Senator from New York does exclude it there, because no amendment can be put upon an appropriation bill in the House which changes the existing law. Even where new items of appropriation are proposed they cannot be put on an appropriation bill there, because they are in the nature of new legislasity for it, to refuse to consider it. tion. Almost every legislative act changes.an existing law, and the House rule forbids that being done on the appropriation bills; but in the Senate we have never practiced upon that. On the contrary, we seek the appropriation bills sometimes, not only to carry convenient amendments, but to assert great principles; and I might go to many instances in the history of this Government where the Senate have attached important legislative provisions to appropriation bills, and have presented them in that way forcibly to the country. I say that if there ever was a case for it this is the one.

The singular spectacle is presented in this country of the United States paying six per cent. interest in gold on over due bonds which we have a right to redeem, while at the same time our notes held by each of us, and which we compel the people of the United States to take, are below the par of anything else issued by the United States, and cannot buy any bond or security issued by the United States, and are now worth in gold but sixty to seventy cents on the dollar. While that condition of affairs stands we are justified in proposing to remedy it, and I think we ought to avail ourselves of every medium to present that question to the House of Representatives, and I am satisfied that this proposition will receive the sanction of the House of Representatives if it is passed here. That is my opinion, but I may be mistaken. As a matter of course, I would not force this proposition on the House of Representatives. If it receives a majority of the votes of the Senate and a majority of the votes of the House of Representatives it becomes the law of the land on this appropriation bill as well as anywhere else. If it should not receive a majority of the House of Representatives, as a matter of course the Senate would not insist on the amendment; but that we ought to present this question and do something to carry out this view I have no doubt.

I feel cramped in attempting to debate a question of this kind on a point of order, and I will not do it. I think the Senate ought to assert its right, its power, its rule, its custom, its law to put on an appropriation bill any amendment of a legislative character. When that right is asserted I am then willing to show that this amendment comes within any rule the Senate may choose to prescribe; that it is in the highest degree important, necessary, vital, and defensible.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I suppose

Mr. CONKLING. The Senator from Oregon will allow me to make a suggestion. He treats this as if the question were whether this subject, which he styles a great one, shall be considered in connection with this bill or not at all. Will the Senator explain to me why it is, if we are allowed to finish this bill without it, the subject to which he refers cannot then be taken up separately just as well as to be appended to this bill?" What is the point about that? I ask for information. I do not understand.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I have reasons for insisting upon adding this amendment to the bill which I suppose it is not proper for me to state to the Senate, as they relate to matters in the other branch of Congress.

Mr. POMEROY. I hope the Senator from Oregon will not think that because Senators vote that this amendment is not in order they are therefore opposed to the funding bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS. It amounts to that. Mr. SHERMAN. I will state to the Senator from Kansas that there is no other prospect of passing any funding bill.

Mr. POMEROY. I do not know about that. I will not vote to put that measure on the appropriation bill, although I will vote for it on its merits.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I will simply say in reference to that remark that it seems to me a Senator who, with a reasonable conviction on his mind that such a bill as this, which is of this vast importance, ought to pass, votes that it shall not be passed upon a mere matter of form, is sacrificing the interests of the country to a mere matter of form in the Senate; and it seems to me that is not wise or judicious legislation.

Mr. POMEROY. It is, no more germane to this bill than a bill for a railroad in Oregon would be or a bill to extend a patent, as the Senator from New York said.

Mr. WILLIAMS. That may be true; but it does not follow that every proposition which is not germane to the bill is not in order. Although I am not familiar with the practice of the Senate, I undertake to say that no precedent for excluding this amendment can be found in the history of the Senate.

Mr. SHERMAN. I will state to the Senator that during the Mexican war a loan bill was attached to an appropriation bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I believe this is the first time. I have ever undertaken to discuss a ques

tion of order in the Senate; but the importance of this legislation impels me to insist that upon this mere matter of form the proposition shall not be rejected. I know it is not strictly germane to the subject-matter of the bill; but is that a conclusive objection?

Suppose there had been some omission in the legislation of Congress during the present session, that in the enactment of some law Congress had failed to incorporate into that law the necessary means for its execution, and the miscellaneous appropriation bill was the last bill before Congress, and it was necessary to insert a provision there relative to the execution of that law, not germane to the miscellaneous appropriation bill. Will the Senate deprive itself of the right to make such an amendment, if, in its judgment, there is any necessity for it? If the Senate decides now that this amendment shall not be received because it is not germane to the bill, the Senate decides, unless it is to vary from day to day in its practice upon the question, that hereafter, no matter what may be the exigency or the imperious necessity requiring it, the Senate will not put on a miscellaneous appropriation bill anything that does not touch the matter of the bill.

Mr. CONKLING. I beg to make a suggestion to the Senator there. In the House of Rep. resentatives, as the Senator from Ohio says-in the result I agree with him, although we understand the rule differently-there is an express rule standing all the time upon the book that in an appropriation bill such legislation shall not occur as changes existing laws; and yet in just such cases as the Senator now speaks of the House does it continually, as continually as the Senate. Why? Because the rules are always under control, and whenever any such instance as he speaks of arises, the rule is waived for that purpose. There is a rule there, among other things, that, during the last ten days of the session a motion is always in order to suspend all the rules. When, therefore, the last day comes, or the last day or two and something has been omitted that it is necessary to put in a bill, although strictly out of order, the majority do it, having the rules under their control. But the question here is, without any such emergency as that, why we should carry a dispensation of the rule to such an unheard of extent as this. The Senator says he has reasons which he is not at liberty to disclose, and of course I cannot discuss them.

Mr. POMEROY. I suppose it is impossible to get a vote; and after consultation with the Senator from Maine, and with his approval, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

Mr. SHERMAN. I hope not till we dispose of this point.

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

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, June 30, 1868.

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

The reading of the Journal of yesterday's proceedings was, by unanimous consent, dispensed with.

AGRICULTURAL REPORT.

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

Resolved, That there be printed for the use of the members of the House of Representatives one hundred and eighty thousand extra copies of the annual report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for the year 1857, and twenty thousand copies for the Commissioner of Agriculture.

TRADE WITH THE BRITISHI PROVINCES.

Mr. CAKE, from the same committee, also reported the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:

Resolved, That two thousand extra copies of the report from the Treasury relative to trade with the British provinces be printed for the use of the House.

CIVIL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES.

Mr. CAKE, from the same committee, also reported the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:

Resolved, That three thousand extra copies of the report of the Committee on Retrenchment in the civil service of the United States be printed for the use of the House.

Mr. CAKE moved to reconsider the votes by which the several resolutions were adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

LAND OFFICE REPORT FOR 1867.

Mr. HIGBY, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, and, under the law, referred to the Committee on Printing:

Resolved, That there be printed for the use of the members of the House twenty thousand copies of the report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office for the year 1867.

PUBLIC DEBT, ETC.

Mr. BOUTWELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit a bill which I give notice I will move as.a substitute for the bill to be reported from the Committee of Ways and Means under the resolution adopted yesterday in reference to the taxation of interest on United States bonds. The proposed substitute is as follows:

A bill relating to the public debt and the payment of interest thereon.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized to issue bonds, either coupon or registered, upon the faith and credit of the United States, in sums of not less than fifty dollars each, to the amount of $800,000,000, principal and interest, payable in coin, and upon the following terms and conditions, namely:

First. The interest on said bonds shall be at the rate of five and one half per cent. per annum, payable semi-annually.

Second. Said bonds shall be issued to citizens of the United States only, and shall be wholly void in the hands of any person not a citizen of the United States, or in the hands of any person who, at the time of receiving any such bonds, had knowledge or good reason to believe that the same had been issued or transferred to any person not a citizen of the United States; and this condition shall be expressed upon every bond issued under the provisions of this section. Third. The bonds hereby authorized shall not be subject to State or local taxation, in any manner, nor by the United States at a rate exceeding one half of one per cent. of the income of the bonds on which such taxes are levied.

Fourth. Said bonds shall be made so payable that $50,000,000 thereof shall become due on the 1st day of January, A. D. 1888, and a like sum of $50,000,000 shall become due on the 1st day of January of each year thereafter.

Fifth. Holders of bonds known as five-twenty bonds may exchange such bonds for the bonds in this section, specified at any time previous to the 1st day of July, A. D. 1869, and applicants for an exchange of bonds may, within the limits prescribed by this act, designate the time when the new bonds issued to them shall be made payable.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized to issue, upon the faith and credit of the United States, coupon bonds, registered or not registered, as may be desired, in sums of not less than $100 each, to the amount of $500,000,000, principal and interest payable in coin, and upon the following terms and conditions, namely:

First. The interest on said loan shall be at the rate of four per cent., payable semi-annually.

Second. The principal and interest may be made payable in the United States, or at Frankfort or London, at the option of the person to whom the bonds are issued.

Third. Said bonds shall be made so payable that $50,000,000 thereof shall become due on the 1st day of January, A. D. 1900, and a like sum of $50,000,000 shall become due on the 1st day of January of each year thereafter.

Fourth. The bonds by this section authorized shall not be subject to State or local taxation in any manner; nor shall the bonds authorized by this section, or the interest thereon, be subject to taxation or abatement of any kind by the United States. When such bonds are owned by citizens of any foreign country, resident in such foreign country, but in the hands of citizens or residents of the United States, the income of such bonds shall be subject to taxation at the rate prescribed in the first section of this act. Fifth. Holders of bonds known as five-twenty bonds may exchange such bonds for the bonds in this section specified at any time previous to the 1st day of July, A. D. 1859, and applicants for an exchange of bonds may, within the limits prescribed by this act, designate the time when the new bonds issued to them shall be made payable,

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby is, authorized and directed to use the sum of $25,000,000 of coin in the

Treasury and not otherwise appropriated in the purchase of five-twenty bonds at the market price as hereinafter provided, the same to be held by the Treasurer of the United States as a sinking fund in accordance with the provisions of the fifth section of an act passed February 25, 1862, entitled "An act to authorize the issue of United States notes and for the redemption or funding thereof, and for funding the floating debt of the United States."

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury, the Treasurer of the United States, and the Attorney General be, and they hereby are, constituted a commission for the purchase of bonds as required in the preceding section. The Secretary of the Treasury shall, from time to time, give public notice for proposals for the sale of said bonds to the United States, and said commissioners may accept such proposals as they deem advantageous to the public interests. The bonds so purchased shall be legibly and indelibly marked, "The property of the Loan Sinking Fund of the United States." The Treasurer shall cause the interest to be paid upon such bonds, and the amount thereof shall in like manner be invested in the bonds of the United States.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That the purchases of bonds herein authorized shall be made during the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1868.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, required togive public notice, whenever the amount of coin in the Treasury, belonging to the United States, exceeds $20,000,000 in addition to the amount appropriated by the third section of this act, that he will anticipate the payment of interest then first to become due upon the bonds of the United States to an amount as near as may be of the excess over said $20,000,000; such payments to be subject to a rebate of interest at the rate specified in the bonds.

SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, prohibited from making sales of gold for any purpose whatsoever. The proposed substitute was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

PETER AND ANSON B. NODINE.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of War, transmitting a report from the Quartermaster General, relative to the claim of Peter and Anson B. Nodine for tolls collected by the United States during its use of their ferry franchise at Charlestown, West Virginia; which were referred to the Committee of Claims.

INDIAN HOSTILITIES IN CALIFORNIA.

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a communication from the Third Auditor of the Treasury, relative to certain expenses incurred by the State of California in Indian hostilities; which was ordered to be printed, and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

JANE M'MURRAY AND HANNAH COOK. On motion of Mr. MILLER, the Committee on Invalid Pensions was discharged from the consideration of the bill (S. No. 546) for the relief of Jane McMurray, and the bill (S. No. 545) granting a pension to Hannah Cook; and the same were referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions and of the War of

1812.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, moved to reconsider the vote just taken; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Indefinite leave of absence was granted to Mr. PHELPS.

PROTEST OF DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I ask unanimous consent to offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Committee on Printing be directed to report at once on the resolution referred to it providing for printing fifty thousand copies of the protest of Democratic members.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I object.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I did not suppose there was any good faith intended when the resolution was offered the other day by the gentle man from Massachusetts, [Mr. BUTLER.]

TRIAL OF E. WHITTLESEY AND OTHERS.

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

Resolved, That the Secretary of War be directed to transmit to the House a transcript of the records of a military court held at Raleigh, North Carolina, in the summer of 1866, for the trial of E. Whittlesey and others, of which Major General John M. Palmer was president.

EXPENSES OF COLLECTING REVENUE. Mr. GETZ. I ask unanimous consent to offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Committee of Ways and Means are hereby instructed to inquire into the expediency of reducing the present enormous expense of collecting the internal revenue by the abolition of the offices of collectors, assessors, and other agents employed by the internal revenue department, and assessing the amount of direct taxes required to be raised from domestic sources upon the several States in proportion to the taxable population of each, to be collected by the authorities of the same in the same manner that State taxes are now collected, or by such other means as the several State governments may adopt for the purpose herein indicated; and that the said committee make report to the House by bill or otherwise at the next session of Congress.

Mr. LOUGHRIDGE. I object. Mr. GETZ. It is only for reference. There is to be no action until December next.

Mr. LOUGHRIDGE. I withdraw the objection.

The resolution was agreed to.

PAY OF A CONTESTANT.

Mr. MAYNARD. I ask unanimous consent to offer the following resolution for reference to the Committee of Elections:

Resolved, There there be paid out of the contingent fund of the House to Joseph Powell, contesting the seat of Hon. R. R. BUTLER, a Representative from the first congressional district of Tennessee, in full for his expenses in taking testimony under the direction of the Committee of Elections, the sum of $2,000. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I object.

CLOSE OF THE SESSION.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I desire to offer a privileged resolution, that the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives adjourn their respective Houses on Wednesday, the 15th of July, at twelve o'clock m.

The SPEAKER. That would require unanimous consent, as the House is acting under the operation of the previous question on the river and harbor bill."

Mr. MAYNARD. I object.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Then I give notice that I will move that resolution as a matter of privilege as soon as the river and harbor bill is disposed of.

MEMBER-ELECT FROM FLORIDA.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I present the credentials of Hon. Charles M. Hamilton, Representative-elect from the State of Florida, and I ask that he be sworn in.

Mr. MAYNARD. I move that the credentials take the usual course, and be referred to the Committee of Elections.

The motion was agreed to.

SOLDIERS DISCHARGES.

Mr. COVODE, by unanimous consent, introduced a joint resolution (H. R. No. 319) in regard to charges of desertion in cases of soldiers honorably discharged from the service; which was read a first and second time.

The joint resolution provides that in all cases where private soldiers in the late war for the Union served out the term of their enlistment

and were honorably discharged from the service it shall be the duty of the Secretary of War, upon the application of the parties, to remove any charges of desertion that may stand upon the rolls against such soldiers where there has not been a conviction for desertion by a courtmartial.

The joint resolution was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

EXPENSE OF COLLECTING THE REVENUE. Mr. MUNGEN. I ask unanimous consent to offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be requested to inform this House at the earliest moment he can conveniently do so the actual cost and expense ofcollecting the internal revenue of the United States each and every year since the revenue law of 1862 was passed by Congress, specifying the amount in the aggregate in each collection district and the total amount collected in each of said years.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I object; all that information is in the reports.

Mr. MUNGEN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is certainly mistaken. There is a

jumbled up kind of statement in regard to cost of collection in the reports to which he refers; but it cannot be ascertained the exact cost of collection in each district.

The SPEAKER. The resolution is not before the House.

A. R. THOMAS.

Mr. PAINE, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1342) for the relief of A. R. Thomas; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, moved to reconsider the various votes of reference; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be

laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

RIVER AND HARBOR BILL.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I call for the regular order.

The SPEAKER. The regular order is House bill No. 1046, making appropriations for the repair, preservation, and completion of certain public works, and for other purposes; upon which the previous question has been seconded and the main question ordered. At the time the House adjourned yesterday the bill was being read by clauses for engrossment. The Clerk will resume the reading of the bill by clauses, and if a separate vote is desired upon any item of appropriation it will be indicated.

The Clerk resumed the reading of the bill.
The following clause was read:

For improvement of White river harbor, Michigan, $75,000.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask for a separate vote on that item.

Mr. FERRY. I merely wish to state that the Board of Trade of Chicago passed a resolution urging this appropriation.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I object to debate.

The SPEAKER. Debate is not in order. The question was then taken upon engross ing the clause just read; and upon a division there were-ayes 48, noes 41.

Before the result of the vote was announced, Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, and Mr. HOLMAN called for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was then taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 63, nays 48, not voting 83; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Axtell, Barnes, Churchill, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Cook, Cornell, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eggleston, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ferry, Garfield, Griswold, Grover, Higby, Hinds, Hooper, Hopkins, Hotchkiss, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Humphrey, Jenckes. Johnson, Kitchen, Loan, Lynch, Mallory, Maynard, McCarthy, McClurg, McCormick, McKee, Miller, Moore, Moorhead, Morrell, Mullins, Mungen, Newcomb, O'Neill, Paine, Plants, Poland, Pomeroy, Price, Roots, Sawyer, Smith, Starkweather, Aaron F. Stevens, Stokes, Taber, Trowbridge, Twichell, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, and Windom-63.

NAYS-Messrs. Ames, Archer, Bailey, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Beatty, Boles, Boutwell, Benjamin F. Butler, Coburn, Delano, Eckley, Ela, Eldridge, Ferriss,

Golladay, Hill, Holman, Kelsey, Ketcham, Koontz,

George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Marshall, Marvin, Mercur, Niblack, Perham, Phelps, Polsley, Randall, Scofield, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Spalding, Thaddeus Stevens, Stewart, Stone, Taylor, VanTrump, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Thomas Williams, Stephen F. Wilson, and Woodward-48.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Adams, Allison, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Barnum, Beaman, Beck, Benjamin, Benton, Bingham, Blaine, Blair, Boyer, Bromwell, Brooks, Broomall, Buckland, Burr, Roderick R. Butler, Cake, Cary, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Covode. Cullom, Dawes, Dodge, Fields. Finney, Fox,Getz, Glossbrenner,Gravely, Haight, Halsey, Harding, Hawkins, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Hunter, Ingersoll, Jones, Judd, Julian, Kelley, Kerr. Knott, Laflin, Lincoln, Logan, Loughridge, McCullough, Morrissey, Myers, Nicholson, Nunn.Orth, Peters, Pike, Pile, Pruyn, Raum, Robertson, Robinson, Ross, Schenck, Selye, Shanks, Taffe, Thomas, John Trimble, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Auken, Robert T. Van Horn, Van Wyck, Ward, Cadwalader C. Washburn, William Williams, James F. Wilson, John T. Wilson, Wood, and Woodbridge-83. So the clause was ordered to be engrossed. The following clause was read:

For improvement of Pentwater harbor, Michigan, $25,000.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask a separate vote on that clause.

The question was then taken upon ordering the clause just read to be engrossed; and upon a division there were-ayes 28, nocs 38; no quorum voting.

Tellers were ordered; and Mr. HOLMAN and Mr. FERRY were appointed.

The House again divided; and the tellers reported that there were-ayes 61, noes 43. So the clause was ordered to be engrossed. The following clause was read:

To improve the river from Chattanooga, Tennessee, to Decatur, Alabama, $90,000.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask a separate vote on that clause.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I would inquire if all the clauses just read by the Clerk are amendments to the bill?

The SPEAKER. Not all; some of them

are.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I move that the bill be laid on the table.

The SPEAKER. That motion is now in order.

Mr. RANDALL and Mr. SPALDING called for the yeas and nays on the motion to lay the bill on the table.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] to withdraw his motion until we get further along in the bill.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. It is so big now that it would break down an elephant's back; but I will withdraw for the present the motion to lay the bill on the table.

Mr. PAINE. It is not so large as the appropriation we made for the State of Pennsylvania.

The SPEAKER. No debate is in order. The gentleman from Illinois demands a separate vote on the item which has just been read by the Clerk.

On ordering the clause to be engrossed there were ayes seventy, noes not counted.

So the clause was ordered to be engrossed. The following clause was read:

For improvement of the Des Moines rapids, $900,000. Mr. GETZ. I ask for a separate vote on that item.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move to amend the clause by striking out "nine" and inserting "four," so as to make the appropriation $400,000.

The SPEAKER. An amendment at this stage will require unanimous consent.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask unanimous consent.

Mr. PRICE. I object.

Mr. GETZ. I call for the yeas and nays on the engrossment of the clause which has just been read.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 72, nays 61, not voting 61; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnell, Banks, Benjamin, Boles, Boutwell, Bromwell, Roderick R. Butler, Cake, Cary, Churchill, Cobb, Cook, Cullom, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eggleston, Eliot, Ferry, Garfield, Gravely Grover, Higby, Hinds, Hopkins, Hulburd, Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Ketcham, Loan, Loughridge, Lynch, Mallory, Maynard, McCarthy, McClurg, McKee, Moorhead, Morrell, Mullins, Mungen, Myers, Newcomb, O'Neill, Paine, Pile, Poland, Pomeroy, Price, Pruyn, Ross, Sawyer, Smith, Starkweather, Stewart, Stokes, Trowbridge, Twichell, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, James F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge-72.

NAYS-Messrs, Archer, Bailey, Baker, Baldwin, Barnes, Beatty, Beck, Benton, Buckland, Benjamin F. Butler, Coburn, Cornell, Covode, Delano, Eckley, Ela, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Getz, Golladay, Hawkins, Hill, Holman, Chester D. Hubbard, Johnson, Julian, Kelsey, Kitchen, Koontz, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Marshall, Marvin, MeCormick, Mercur. Miller, Moore, Niblack, Nicholson, Orth, Perham, Plants, Randall, Scofield, Shanks, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Spalding, Aaron F. Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stone. Taylor, Thomas, Van Auken, Van Trump, Welker, Thomas Williams, William Williams, Stephen F. Wilson, and Woodward-61.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Adams, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Axtell, Barnum, Beaman, Bingham, Blaine, Blair, Boyer, Brooks, Broomall, Burr, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Dawes,

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »