The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 70, nays 61, not voting 63; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, Axtell, Banks, Barnes, Beck, Boyer, Buckland, Roderick R. Butler, Cary, Churchill, Coburn, Cook, Cornell, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eggleston, Eliot, Ferry, Golladay, Gravely, Grover, Higby, Holman, Chester D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Johnson, Julian, Kerr, George V. Lawrence, Loan, Mallory, Maynard, McClurg, McCormick, McKee, Moorhead, Mullins, Mungen, Myers, Newcomb, Niblack, Nicholson, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Peters, Pile, Plants, Poland, Polsley, Price, Raum, Sawyer, Shanks, Shellabarger, Stokes, Taber, Twichell, Van Aernam, Van Auken, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Henry D. Washburn, Welker, and Thomas Williams-70.

NAYS-Messrs. Bailey, Baker, Baldwin, Beaman, Beatty, Benjamin, Benton, Blaine, Boles, Boutwell, Bromwell, Benjamin F. Butler, Sidney Clark, Cobb, Covode, Cullom, Delano, Eckley, Ela, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Getz, Hawkins, Hill, Hinds, Hulburd, Kelsey, Ketcham, Koontz, William Lawrence, Loughridge, Marshall, Marvin, Mercur, Miller, Moore, Morrell, Perham, Pike, Pomeroy, Pruyn, Randall, Ross, Scofield, Sitgreaves, Smith, Spalding, Starkweather, Aaron F. Stevens, Stone, Taffe, Taylor, Thomas, Trowbridge, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elihu B. Washburne, William Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Woodbridge, and Woodward-61.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Adams, Allison, Ames, Archer, James M. Ashley, Barnum, Bingham, Blair, Brooks, Broomall, Burr, Cake, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Dawes, Dodge, Eldridge, Fields, Finney, Fox, Garfield, Glossbrenner, Griswold, Haight, Halsey, Harding, Hooper, Hopkins, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Hunter, Jones, Judd, Kelley, Kitchen, Knott, Laflin, Lincoln, Logan, Lynch, McCarthy, McCullough, Morrissey, Nunn, Phelps, Robertson, Robinson, Roots, Schenck, Selye, Thaddeus Stevens, Stewart, John Trimble, Lawrence S. Trimble, Upson, Van Trump, Van Wyck, Ward, William B. Washburn, John T. Wilson, Windom, and Wood-63.

So the section was ordered to be engrossed.

YEAS-Messrs. Bailey, Baker, Baldwin, Beatty, Benton, Blaine, Boles, Boutwell, Boyer, Buckland, Benjamin F. Butler, Coburn, Covode, Cullom, Delano, Eckley, Ela, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Getz, Hill, Hulburd, Johnson, Julian, Kelsey, Ketcham, Koontz, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Marshall,

Marvin, Mercur, Miller, Morrell, Niblack, Orth, Randall, Ross, Shanks, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Smith, Spalding, Aaron F. Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stone, Taffe, Taylor, Trowbridge, Van Auken, Van Trump, Elihu B. Washburne, Welker, William Williams, Stephen F. Wilson, Woodbridge, and Woodward-57.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Archer, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, Axtell, Banks, Barnes, Beck, Benjamin, Roderick R. Butler, Cary, Churchill, Cobb, Cook, Cornell, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eggleston, Eliot, Ferry, Garfield, Golladay, Gravely, Griswold, Grover, Hawkins, Higby, Hinds, Holman, Hopkins, Hotchkiss, Chester D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Jones, Loan, Loughridge, Lynch, Mallory, Maynard, McClurg, McCormick, McKee, Moorhead, Mungen, Myers, Newcomb, Nicholson, O'Neill, Paine, Perham, Peters, Pike, Pile,

Poland, Polsley, Pomeroy, Price, Pruyn, Raum, Saw yer, Scofield, Starkweather, Stewart, Stokes, Taber, Twichell, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, James F. Wilson, and Windom-81.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. James M. Ashley, Barnum, Beaman, Bingham, Blair, Bromwell, Brooks, Broomall, Burr, Cake, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Dawes, Dodge, Eldridge, Fields, Finney, Fox, Glossbrenner, Haight, Halsey, Harding, Hooper, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard. Hunter, Judd, Kelley, Kerr, Kitchen, Knott, Laflin, Lincoln, Logan, McCarthy, McCullough, Moore, Morrissey, Mullins, Nunn, Phelps, Plants, Robertson, Robinson, Roots, Schenck, Selye, Thomas, John Trimble, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Wyok, Ward,

Thomas Williams, John T. Wilson, and Wood-56, So the bill was not laid upon the table.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time.

Mr. ELIOT demanded the previous question on the passage of the bill.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I should like to have the amendments read over again. the amendments put on after the bill was I want the House and country to listen to through.

Mr. ELIOT. I hope the House will understand the gentleman himself voted for the amendments. [Laughter.]

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The gentleman from Massachusetts voted for them, but he did not vote with me to lay the bill upon the table. I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 80, nays 59, not voting 55; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Archer, Arnell, Delos R.Ashley, Axtell, Banks, Barnes, Beck, Roderick R. Butler, Cary, Churchill, Cobb, Cook, Cornell, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eggleston, Eliot, Ferry, Golladay, Griswold, Grover, Harding. Hawkins, Higby, Hinds, Holman, Hooper, Hopkins, Hotchkiss. Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Humphrey, Jenckes, Jones, Loan, Loughridge, Mallory, Maynard, McClurg, McCormick, McKee, Moorhead, Mullins, Mungen. Myers, Newcomb, Nicholson, O'Neill, Paine, Perham, Peters, Pike, Pile, Plants, Poland, Polsley, Pomeroy, Price, Pruyn, Robinson, Roots, Sawyer, Scofield, Starkweather, Stewart, Stokes, Taber, Twichell, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, RobertT. Van Horn, Cadwalader C. Washburn, William B. Washburn, and Windom-80.

NAYS-Messrs. Bailey, Baker, Baldwin, Beatty, Benjamin, Benton, Blaine, Boutwell, Boyer, Bromwell, Buckland, Benjamin F. Butler, Cake, Coburn, Covode, Cullom, Delano, Eckley, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Getz, Hill, Ingersoll, Johnson, Julian, Kelsey, Ketcham, Koontz, George V. Lawrence. William Lawrence, Marshall, Marvin, Mercur, Miller, Moore, Morrell, Niblack, Orth, Phelps. Randall, Ross, Shanks, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Smith, Spalding, Aaron F. Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stone, Taffe, Taylor, Trowbridge, Van Auken, Van Trump, Elihu B. Washburne, Welker, William Williams, Stephen F. Wilson, and Woodward-59.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. James M. Ashley, Barnum,

I desire that we should adjourn at the earliest moment, because we shall have neither money nor credit left if we go on in this way.

Mr. KELSEY. I move to amend so that it will read, "Adjourn their respective Houses on the 15th day of July, at noon, until the 15th day of September at noon.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I demand the previous question on the resolution and amendment.

Mr. SPALDING. I move to lay the resolution and amendment on the table.

The motion was disagreed to-ayes thirtyseven, noes not counted.

Mr. GARFIELD. Will the gentleman from Illinois allow an amendment to substitute the 10th for the 15th of July?

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Oh, no. The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.

The question being on the amendment of Mr. KELSEY, there were-ayes 30, noes 84. Mr. LOUGHRIDGE. I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were refused. Mr.LOUGHBRIDGE. I call for tellers. Tellers were refused.

So the amendment was disagreed to. The question recurred on the original resolution.

Mr. HIGBY. I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 91, nays 47, not voting 56; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Allison, Archer, Axtell, Baker, Banks, Barnes, Beatty, Beck, Blaine, Boyer, Buckland, Benjamin F. Butler, Roderick R. Butler, Cary, Churchill, Cook, Cornell, Delano, Dixon, Donnelly, Eggleston, Eldridge, Eliot, Ferriss, Garfield, Getz, Golladay, Grover, Harding, Hill, Hinds, Holman, Hotchkiss, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Humphrey, Ingersoll, Johnson, Jones, Julian, Kerr, Ketcham, Koontz, George V. Lawrence, Loan, Mallory, Marshall, Marvin, McCormick, Mercur, Moore, Mungen, Niblack, Nicholson, Orth, Peters, Phelps, Pike, Plants, Poland, Pomeroy, Price, Pruyn, Randall, Robinson, Ross, Scofield, Shanks, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Smith, Starkweather, Stewart, Stone, Taber, Taffe, Trowbridge, Twichell, Upson, Van Auken, Van Trump, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Welker, William Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Woodbridge, and Woodward-91.

NAYS-Messrs. Ames, Anderson, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, Bailey, Baldwin, Benjamin, Benton, Boutwell, Cake, Sidney Clarke, Coburn, Covode, Cullom, Driggs, Ela, Farnsworth, Ferry, Halsey, Higby, Hopkins, Jenckes, Kelsey, William Lawrence, Loughridge, Lynch, Maynard, McClurg, Miller, Moorhead, Morrell, Mullins, Myers, O'Neill, Paine, Perham, Pile, Raum, Roots, Sawyer, Aaron F. Stevens, Stokes, Taylor, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Henry D. Washburn, and Thomas Williams-47.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. James M. Ashley, Barnum, Beaman, Bingham, Blair, Boles, Bromwell, Brooks, Broomall, Burr, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Cobb, Dawes, Dodge, Eckley, Fields, Finney, Fox, Glossbrenner, Gravely, Griswold, Haight, Hawkins, Hooper, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Hunter, Judd, Kelley, Kitchen, Knott, Laflin. Lincoln, Logan, McCarthy, McCullough, McKee, Morrissey, Newcomb, Nunn, Polsley, Robertson, Schenck, Selye, Spalding. Thaddeus Stevens, Thomas, John Trimble, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Aernam, Van Wyck, Ward, John T. Wilson, Windom, and Wood-56.

So the resolution was agreed to.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

CUSTOM-HOUSE AT PITTsburg.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a communication from the supervising architect of the Treasury, relative to the condition of the building used by the Government at Pittsburg for a custom-house; which was ordered to be printed, and referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads. ELECTION CONTEST-SWITZLER VS. ANDERSON.

Mr. POLAND. I desire to say, for a variety of reasons, I have concluded to waive my right to call up to-day the election case of Switzler vs. Anderson, of which I have heretofore given notice, and I now give notice that I will call it up on Wednesday of next week after the morn ing hour. I yield the floor, therefore, to the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, who is very anxious to proceed to the consideration of the subject of which he has given notice.

Mr. BANKS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

PROTECTION OF AMERICAN CITIZENS.

Mr. NIBLACK, by unanimous consent, of fered the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:

Resolved, (as the sense of this House,) That the present session of this Congress ought not to adjourn until some more thorough and efficient provision is made by law for the protection of American citizens, both native and adopted, while traveling or temporarily residing abroad.

THE TREATY-MAKING POWER.

Mr. BANKS. Before moving to go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. DELANO.]

Mr. DELAÑO, by unauimous consent, submitted the following resolutions; which were referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and ordered to be printed in the Globe:

ELECTION CONTEST-HOGAN VS. PILE.

Mr. COOK. I desire to give notice that I will call up the contested-election case of Hogan vs. Pile on Wednesday next, or immediately after the case of Switzler vs. Anderson shall be disposed of.

REVENUE STAMPS.

Mr. BENTON, by unanimous consent, introduced a joint resolution (H. R. No. 320) in relation to affixing revenue stamps to written instruments; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. BANKS resumed the floor.

Mr. TROWBRIDGE. I rise to put a parliamentary question to the Chair. Does the yielding of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. POLAND] on the question of privilege to the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs deprive us of the morning hour? Before the gentleman proceeds I would like to make that point.

The SPEAKER. If the gentleman makes that point the Chair will have to sustain it.

Mr. BANKS. Unanimous consent was given that the subject of the purchase of Russian America should be considered to-day, and the morning hour was not reserved.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that he has examined the Journal, and that the

bill was made the special order for to-day after the morning hour, as all special orders have been made for after the morning hour.

Mr. BANKS. If it stands that way on the Journal, of course I do not object.

The SPEAKER. If the gentleman from Michigan insists upon it, the motion to go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the

Union is not in order until after the morning

hour.

Mr. TROWBRIDGE. I do insist on it. The SPEAKER. Then the morning hour commences, and reports are in order from the Committee on the Judiciary, which is entitled to another morning hour.

ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS, ETC.

Mr. ELDRIDGE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported back, with an amendment and with the recommendation that it do pass, the bill (H. R. No. 90) to authorize and||

cases and to punish perjury in connection therewith.

Resolved, That foreign Governments are presumed to know that the power to appropriate money is vested in Congress, and that no act of any one part of the Government can be regarded as a law until such act has the sanction of all Departments of the Government required by the Constitution to give it the force of law.

Resolved, That the integrity and limits of the territory of this nation cannot be altered or changed except by the will of the nation, given by express grant or implied by acquiescence; and therefore the treaty-making power has no authority under the Constitution to dispose of the nation's territory nor to acquire new territory without obtaining the assent of the nation therefor in one or the other of the forms herein indicated.

WILLIAM H. HARMAN.

Mr. BANKS. I now yield to the gentleman from West Virginia, [Mr. HUBBARD.]

On motion of Mr. HUBBARD, of West Virginia, by unanimous consent, the bill (S. No. 183) for the relief of William H. Harman was taken from the Speaker's table, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was referred; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

The bill was read. It authorizes the chairman or acting chairman of any standing, select, joint, or other committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States, whose duty or business it shall be by virtue of any law, resolution, or custom in either House to audit or approve any claim, demand, or account against the Government, to be paid out of the contingent or other funds of either House or otherwise, to require the person or officer making the claim or presenting the same to attach his affidavit thereto in writing to the effect that the same is just, due, and unpaid, and in accordance with the law pertaining thereto. It anthorizes such chairman or acting chairman to administer all oaths required in connection therewith, and it is made the duty of such chairman or acting chairman to require such affidavits in all cases where he believes, or has reason to believe, that the public interest will be promoted thereby, or where the majority of the committee direct him so to do. The second section provides that any person or officer who shall be guilty of perjury before any such committee in swearing to any such claim shall be liable to the pains, penalties, and disabilities prescribed for the punishment of willful and corrupt perjury.

The amendment reported by the Committee on the Judiciary was to strike out the words "and in accordance with the law pertaining thereto."

Mt. ELDRIDGE. The necessity for this

bill will probably strike the House as rather remarkable. In fact there is now no law authoriz ing the chairman of any committee to administer an oath to persons applying for payment out of the contingent fund. All this bill does is to authorize the chairman of a committee in his discretion to administer such an oath. The amendment was agreed to.

The bill, as amended, was then ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

The SPEAKER. The Chair would suggest to the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. ELDRIDGE,] that the fact being as he states, it would perhaps be well to refer this subject to the Committee on the Rules, in order that an additional rule may be adopted to remedy the difficulty should the Senate fail to act upon

this bill.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. Very well; I will adopt the suggestion of the Chair, and move that the Committee on the Rules be instructed to examine and report upon the subject of the administering of oaths by chairmen of committees of the House to persons claiming pay from the contingent fund of the House. The motion was agreed to.

JURISDICTION IN ADMIRALTY.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I have been instructed by the Committee on the Judiciary to report adversely upon House bill No. 849, to amend an act entitled "An act extending the jurisdietion of district courts to certain cases upon lakes and the navigable waters connecting the same," approved February 26, 1845.

The bill was laid on the table.

the

The bill, which was read, provides that the district courts of the United States shall be authorized to possess and exercise the same jurisdiction in matters of contract and tort, arising in, upon, or concerning, steamboats and other vessels of twenty tons burden and upward, enrolled and licensed for the coasting or other trade, and at the time engaged in the business of commerce and navigation between ports and places in different States and Territories upon the lakes and navigable waters connecting said lakes, or upon any of the inland navigable rivers or other waters of the United States, as is now possessed and exercised by the said courts in the cases of the like steamboats and other vessels employed in navigation and commerce upon the high seas or tide-waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and in all suits brought in such courts, in all such matters of contract or tort, the remedies and the forms of process, and the modes of proceedings shall be the same as are or may be used by such courts in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; and the maritime law of the United States, so far as the same is or may be applicable thereto, shall constitute the rule of decision in such suits, in the same manner, and to the same extent, and with the same equities as it now does in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, saving, however, to the parties the right of trial by jury of all facts put in issue in such suits where either party shall require it; and saving, also, to the parties the right of a concurrent remedy at the common law where it is competent to give it, and any concurrent remedy which may be given by the State laws, where such steamboat or other vessel is employed in such business of commerce and navigation; provided, that whenever in any such case or controversy any such district court shall first obtain jurisdiction in any litigation over any such steamboat or vessel, such jurisdiction shall be exclu

sive of the jurisdiction of all State courts in such case.

The amendments of the committee were to strike out "twenty" and insert "ten" before the words "tons burden and upward;" also to add to the bill the following:

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the matters of contract mentioned in the foregoing section shall be held to extend to and embrace all cases of contracts for repairs to materials or supplies furnished for steamboats or other vessels of the class therein described, enrolled and licensed in the coasting trade, and employed in the business therein mentioned; and the maritime laws shall extend against such steamboats and vessels for such repairs, materials, and supplies, to be enforced in admiralty, subject to the right of trial by jury and the concurrent remedies provided in the foregoing section.

The question was upon agreeing to the amendments reported from the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. WOODWARD. I want to know a little more about this bill. I have listened to the reading of it by the Clerk, and if I understand it-I am told by gentlemen around me that I do not understand it-this bill extends admiralty jurisdiction to every canal-boat on all the canals of this country. I observe that there is a most unskillful jumble in the bill about trial by jury. Now, trial by jury is unknown in admiralty jurisdiction. But how you are going to extend the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States to all the interior waters of the country, carrying with it trial by jury, I do not see very well. Surely that provision does not take away the objection I have to the bill. If I understand this bill-if I do not the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. ELDRIDGE] will correct me-this is a proposition to subject all the navigable waters of the United States to the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I do not think it has that effect. The gentleman evidently misapprehends the scope, meaning, and effect of this bill.

Mr. WOODWARD. Allow me to say that I have only heard the bill read.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. If the gentleman had read the act of 1845 he would find in it all the objections which he suggests to this bill. In my judgment this bill does not extend the admiralty jurisdiction of the courts of the United States at all; it is simply a limitation upon that admiralty jurisdiction. It is intended to explain a discrepancy or a misapprehension which has existed in regard to the act of 1845, and in regard to the jurisdiction conferred by the act of 1787. By the Constitution of the United States and the act of 1787 the admiralty court, in my judgment, possesses all the jurisdiction that is sought to be conferred by this bill. This bill is to explain and to apply the provisions of the act of 1845 to the lakes and the connecting waters of the lakes, as it was intended by that act to apply it.

Mr. WOODWARD. What the gentleman says about my not understanding this bill may be correct, for I never heard it or of it until I heard it read at the Clerk's desk. But I submit that a bill which is so much misunderstood as the gentleman from Wisconsin says this bill is ought to be the subject of more deliberate consideration than he proposes we shall give this bill. It cannot harm any possible interest if the bill be postponed to some future day, that we may have an opportunity to learn what it is, that we may have an opportunity to study its relations to previous laws and the decisions of the Supreme Court upon the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States. If I understand the bill, I regard it as one of most mischievous consequence. I should be sorry to see it passed without proper consideration under the lead of my friend from Wisconsin. This is not the way that this side of the House ought to legislate on important questions. We ought to have an opportunity to consider such questions.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania does not see fit to enlighten the House upon the subject of the bill, and admits his inability to do so, I think he ought to have forborne to say that this bill is such a terrible "jumble" as he represents it to be. Now, I

40TH CONG. 2D SESS.--No. 227.

insist that the bill is no "jumble' at all; but the law as it has existed seems to be a good deal jumbled up in the head of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and he does not seem quite ready to apply the principles of this bill to the law as it now exists. I insist that the law as it stood under the Constitution and the act of 1787 extended the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States to all our navigable waters, rivers, lakes, and everything else. But in the minds of some persons it was supposed to have been limited to those waters where the tide ebbs and flows, corresponding with the doctrine held in England. The act of 1845, while it was intended to extend the jurisdiction of the admiralty courts, was in fact a limitation upon it. The act of 1845 limited that jurisdiction to vessels of twenty tons burden, whereas by the law of 1787 it had been extended to vessels of ten tons burden. The act of 1845 was therefore to that extent a limitation. In addition to this that act limited the jurisdiction to vessels employed in commerce and navigation between ports and places in different States. This bill is intended to do away with what was supposed in that bill to be a limitation by extending the jurisdiction to those boats and vessels which ply between ports of this country and the ports of Canada. I do not apprehend that it will have, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania supposes, any such effect as to extend this jurisdiction to canal boats.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. KERR,] who, I think, will satisfy my critical friend from Pennsylvania that this bill is not such a "jumble" as he supposes it to be.

Mr. KERR. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I shall be able to satisfy my distinguished friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. WOODWARD] with reference to the provisions of this bill; but I am sure that if he understood it he would not be opposed to it.

I had the honor to introduce the bill, and I desire now to state the reasons for its introduction. Prior to 1851 it was held in this country that the State courts of the Union had jurisdiction in all matters arising upon our inland navigable waters, which, if they had arisen elsewhere, upon tide-water, or perhaps || on our great lakes, would have been proper subjects of maritime and admiralty jurisdiction. But in 1851, in the famous case of the Genesee Chief, (12 Howard R., 457,) all of the previous decisions limiting the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal courts to tide-water were overruled by the same court, and the broad doctrine declared that that jurisdiction extends where ever ships float and navigation successfully aids commerce, whether internal or external. That case rose out of a collision between two vessels on Lake Ontario. Its doctrine has been many times affirmed by the same court in subsequent cases. In some cases this jurisdiction

has been exercised by Federal courts in the avowed execution of State statutes, and not under any claim of a general common-law power in these courts to such a jurisdiction.

It was not, however, in any of the cases prior to 1866 decided by the Supreme Court that the jurisdiction of the district courts in admiralty and maritime cases arising on our inland rivers was exclusive of the jurisdiction hitherto constantly claimed and exercised by the State courts. On the contrary, it was either not denied or it was in terms conceded that the jurisdiction of the State courts over all such cases was concurrent with that of the district courts of the United States. The State courts along our western rivers have, therefore, continued to exercise uninterrupted, if not unquestioned, jurisdiction in such matters. Being always conveniently accessible to suitors engaged in such commerce, they have afforded more prompt and satisfactory remedies than more remote Federal courts could do.

I cannot persuade myself that the denial of their jurisdiction is not a great public misfortune to the people of the country, whether that denial be legal or illegal. Their jurisdiction has been acquiesced in and approved for more than half a century, and the beneficent results of its

exercise greatly promoted the prosperity and happiness of the people.

But it is now denied and declared never to have had any legal existence. By a sweeping edict of superior judicial power and construction it is absolutely annulled and destroyed. In the cases of the Moses Taylor, from California, and The Hine vs. Trevor, from Iowa, the Supreme Court of the United States, in December, 1860, decided that

"1. The admiralty jurisdiction, to which the power of the Federal judiciary is, by the Constitution, declared to extend, is not limited to tide-water, but covers the entire navigable waters of the United States.

2. The originaljurisdiction in admiralty exercised by the district courts, by virtue of the act of 1789, is exclusive not only of other Federal courts, but of the State courts also.

"3. And that, therefore, State statutes, relating to western inland rivers, which attempt to confer upon State courts a remedy for marine torts and marine contracts, by proceedings strictly in rem. are void, because they are in conflict with that act of Congress."-4 Wallace Reports, pp. 411, 555,

Mr. Chairman, it will be readily seen and fully appreciated by the House to what a radical extent the jurisdiction of the State courts has been divested and that of the Federal courts extended and enlarged by the course of decisions to which I have referred. It will also be seen how important it is to the interests of the people that Congress shall give thought to the duties imposed upon it by these great changes.

But it may be alleged that the power does not exist in Congress to confer jurisdiction upon State courts over cases arising in any part of the country which properly belong to admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. If this were now an original proposition I should feel compelled to deny the existence of any such power. It is not, however; but, on the contrary, is res adjudicata, at least in the Federal courts. In this bill it is proposed to recognize and continue by express enactment the con. current jurisdiction of the State courts over cases of this kind which arise " upon the lakes and navigable waters connecting said lakes, or upon any of the inland navigable rivers or other waters of the United States."

In the case of The Hine vs. Trevor, already referred to, the Supreme Court say:

"2. The grant of admiralty powers to the district courts of the United States by the ninth section of the act of September 24, 1789, is coextensive with this grant in the Constitution as to the character of the waters over which it extends.

"3. The act of February 26, 1845, is a limitation of the powers granted by the act of 1789 as regards cases arising upon the lakes and navigable waters connecting said lakes in the following particulars:

1. It limits the jurisdiction to vessels of twenty tons burden and upwards, enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade, and which are employed in commerce and navigation between ports and places in different States.

***2. It grants a jury trial if either party shall demand it."

Now, I desire to say here to my learned friend from Pennsylvania that the Federal courts have repeatedly held that law valid; that it is competent to give suitors in the Federal courts the right of trial by jury in admiralty cases, and it has been enforced in all the States bordering upon the lakes.

"3. The jurisdiction is not exclusive, but is expressly made concurrent with such remedies as may be given by State laws."

It thus appears that the right of Congress to make jurisdiction in such case concurrent between the Federal and State courts is fully recognized by the Supreme Court, and may, for the purposes of this argument, be considered established. But the act of February 26, 1845, only makes such jurisdiction concurrent where the cases arise out of commerce upon the lakes and their connecting waters. In the case just mentioned that court say:

"The grant of original admiralty jurisdiction by the act of 1789, including, as it does, all cases not covered by the act of 1845, is exclusive, not only of all other Federal courts, but of all State courts.'

Now, the very object of this bill is to extend the provisions of the act of 1845 to our inland navigable rivers and other inland navigable waters, as well as to the lakes and their con. necting waters; so that the local State courts in the vicinity of our great western water

highways shall retain and continue to exercise jurisdiction in the exceedingly numerous cases which arise out of the commerce carried on upon those streams, which is nearly equal to all the other commerce of the entire country in extent, value, and importance. It is another object of this bill to secure the right of a trial by jury in such cases. This right exists under all the systems of State laws for the regulation of such jurisdiction. But, I admit, the remedies in admiralty, which are derived from the civil and not from the common law, do not allow or include the right of jury trial. This, however, by no means justifies the conclusion that the right ought to be denied in such cases. It is in harmony with our general jurisprudence || to allow that great right in all cases. There is nothing in the nature of the cases which arise in connection with our vast inland water commerce to distinguish them in any material respect from the general classes of civil actions which engage the attention of our courts. The extension of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, by a sort of judicial legislation to all the inland waters of our country on which "vessels float and navigation successfully aids commerce," has entirely destroyed the intrinsic difference between such jurisdiction and the general civil jurisdiction of the courts.

The right of trial by jury ought therefore to be secured. This bill does not propose to give that right in cases in admiralty which arise out of the external commerce of the country, and cannot be tried in any State tribunals, but only in Federal courts.

Now, we are in this anomalous condition in this country. Under this and other decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal courts is exclusive of the entire judicial power of the States over every case of this kind, whether it arise upon the gulf or open waters of the world, or upon any of our inland rivers navigable by steamboats, except cases arising on the lakes and their connecting waters. We are in that peculiar condition in which one of these cases may arise upon one of the lakes, and then the jurisdiction of the local State courts is concurrent with that of the Federal courts, and the right of trial by jury is secured; but, if the case arise upon any of our great western rivers, then the jurisdiction of the Federal courts is absolutely exclusive, and the right of trial by jury is denied. This condition ought not to continue a single day. It is injurious to the country, unjust to the people, unequal in its effect upon different sections, and absurd in itself. It arises out of and results from the decisions to which I have referred. It can have no remedy except by congressional legislation. This bill provides a remedy, makes the law equal and just, saves the right of suitors to seek their remedies in the State courts, and secures the right of trial by jury.

The object of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to carry out the doctrine established in the act of 1845 as to the lakes, and to give to the local tribunals of the States concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal tribunals, to the end that jus tice may be cheapened and made more convenient and accessible to the people, and so that we may maintain and reëstablish the very jurisdiction for which my friend from Pennsylvania is so anxious to have security in his bill. The object of this bill is to continue in operation the well-considered systems of State laws for the regulation of such cases in the State courts, and to suspend the effect of the judicial repeal of them by the Supreme Court.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. My friend from Indiana has made a good speech. I have understood no one has any difficulty about this bill but my distinguished friend from Pennsylvania; and now that it is shown not to be "a jumble," and that the act of 1845 provided for a jury, now that it is relieved of this difficulty, I demand the previous question.

Mr. MUNGEN. For the purpose of information, I desire to ask the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. ELDRIDGE] a question touching the effect which this bill will have if passed.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. Certainly. What is the question?

Mr. MUNGEN. Will this bill, if passed, compel litigants to seek redress for trivial wrongs on inland waters in the Federal courts of the different judicial districts of the United States? If two canal-boats collide on any of the "raging canawls" of Ohio or Indiana, and the cook or any other man aboard sustains a slight personal injury, will the cook aforesaid be compelled to go into a Federal court where the costs and expenses of litigation are so enormous to seek for damages? There certainly are modes of redress pointed out and provided for in regard to such wrongs in our different State courts. If this be the intention of the bill, I am opposed to it.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. The gentleman is entirely mistaken. That is the very question which troubled my friend from Pennsylvania.

Mr. MUNGEN. If so, I am glad of it. I only asked for information, not having heard the gentleman's remarks on the bill. With the understanding that its object is to give State courts jurisdiction and lessen the expense of litigation I am for the measure, and will support it with my vote.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I am only the agent of the committee, and the gentleman must not blame me for insisting, as there are a number of bills to be reported, on the demand for the previous question.

Mr. WOODWARD. I did not intend to invoke any lecture from the gentleman from Wisconsin by simply asking time enough to understand this bill. That is the front of my offending. I have asked this legislative body shall allow one of its members to understand this bill. I do not say I shall vote against it. From hearing it read at the desk it seemed to me to be a bill eminently worthy to be examined; and I think my honorable friend, my testy friend from Wisconsin, should allow us time to understand this bill before being called upon to vote on it.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. This bill has been on the gentleman's file for four months, and he has had ample time to study it and make himself acquainted with it. He did not know or understand the position in which I am placed or he would not get angry and scold me because I cannot yield him further time. He cannot know I am the agent of the committee in reporting this bill, or he would not have accused my friend from Indiana with jumbling up matters in this bill. He says he is not familiar with it, and from what he said I am sure he does not know anything about it.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I object to the gentleman from Wisconsin yielding further.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I demand the previous question.

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

Mr. WOODWARD. Idemand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and
nays were not ordered.
The bill was passed.

Mr. ELDRIDGE, moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

ADVERSE REPORT.

Mr. ELDRIDGE, from the same committee, also reported back adversely House bill No. 182, extending the provisions of the act entitled "An act fixing the compensation of bailiffs

and criers of the courts for the District of Columbia ;" and the same was laid on the table.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEEDS.

Mr. WOODBRIDGE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported adversely on the bill (H. R. No. 6) further to provide for the acknowledgment of deeds in the District of Columbia; which was laid on the table.

TITLES TO LAND WARRANTS.

Mr. WOODBRIDGE, from the same.committee, reported back a bill (H. R. No. 568) explanatory of the act entitled "An act declaring the titles to land warrants in certain cases," with a recommendation that it do pass.

The bill provides that the act referred to, approved June 3, 1858, shall be so construed as to authorize the legal representatives of the deceased claimants to file the proof necessary to perfect the claims.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. WOODBRIDGE moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

PRIZE MONEY.

Mr. WOODBRIDGE, from the same committee, reported back a bill (H. R. No. 501) explanatory of an act entitled "An act to regu late prize proceedings and the distribution of prize money, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1864; which was ordered to be printed, and recommitted to the committee.

Mr. WOODBRIDGE. I desire to enter a motion to reconsider.

The motion to reconsider was entered.

COURTS IN IDAHO AND MONTANA. Mr. CHURCHILL, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported back a bili (H. R. No. 263) amendatory of the organic act of Idaho, extending jurisdiction of justices of the peace, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute therefor.

The substitute was reported. It provides that the organic act of the Territories of Idaho and Montana, and the acts amending the same, so far as they relate to the jurisdiction of probate courts and of justices of the peace, be amended as follows: the probate courts in said Territories in their respective counties, in addition to their probate jurisdiction, are hereby authorized to hear and determine civil causes wherein the debt or damage does not exceed $2,000, and also such criminal cases arising under the laws of said Territories as do not require the intervention of a grand jury; provided that said probate courts shall not have jurisdiction in any matter in controversy wherein the title or right to the peaceable possession of land may be in dispute, nor of chancery or divorce cases. And provided further, that in all cases an appeal may be taken from any order, judgment, or decree of said probate courts to the supreme court of the Territory. The judge of each probate court in Montana, when the population shall exceed six thousand, may, if the Legislative Assembly of the territory so authorize, appoint a clerk for said court, who shall hold said office during the session of the court, and shall receive such fees as may be fixed by law. The probate courts in Montana where the Legislative Assembly shall have authorized the appointment of a clerk as herein provided shall be courts of record. Section two provides that justices of the peace in said Territories in actions and proceedings of which they now have jurisdiction by the laws of said Territories, and the acts hereby amended, are authorized to hear and determine matters in controversy wherein the debt or sum claimed shall not exceed the sum of $300.

Mr. CULLOM. I would inquire if this bill has been considered by the committee?

Mr. CHURCHILL. This substitute was

drawn substantially by the chairman of the committee, and is approved by the committee. It extends to the probate courts of these two Territories, and also to the justices of the peace, the same jurisdiction that has been exercised for the last five years by the same courts in the Territory of Colorado, and which has been found to work very beneficially. I call the previous question.

The previous question was seconded and the

main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the substitute was agreed to.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was · accordingly read the third time, and passed.

On motion of Mr. CHURCHILL, the title of the bill was amended so as to read, "A bill extending the jurisdiction of probate courts and of justices of the peace in the Territories of Idaho and Montana."

Mr. CHURCHILL moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

MISSOURI JUDICIAL DISTRICTS.

Mr. CHURCHILL, from the same committee, reported back with amendments the bill (H. R. No. 348) to provide for holding terms of the United States district court for the western district of Missouri at St. Joseph in said State. The bill was read. It proposes to enact that the western district of Missouri, as defined by an act of Congress, approved shall be sep

arated into two divisions, as follows: all that part of the district which is included in the counties of Jackson, Ray, Carroll, Chariton, Macon, Sullivan, and Putnam, and all that lies to the north and west thereof, shall compose the western division of the district, and regular terms of the United States district court within and for the western district of Missouri shall be held at St. Joseph, in that division, on the first Mondays of May and November in cach year; and adjourned terms of the court, as now authorized by law, may also be held at St. Joseph.

The second section provides that the clerk of the court shall appoint a deputy, whose duty it shall be, in addition to his other duties, to reside at St. Joseph, and to keep an office there, and authorizes and empowers him to do and perform in the name of his principal all acts and things which the clerk canor lawfully may do. And the marshal for the western district of Missouri is required to keep an office in St. Joseph, and in person or by deputy to be ready, at all reasonable times, to execute the process of the court in that division, and to perform all other duties devolving on him as marshal for said district.

The third section provides that all that part of the western district of Missouri which is not included in the western division thereof, as defined by this bill, shall constitute the eastern division of the district, in which terms of the United States district court, as now provided by law, shall be held.

The fourth section provides that all suits not of a local nature, may be brought in that division of the district in which the defendants, or one of them resides, and duplicate writs shall be served upon the other defendants before they shall be required to appear to the suit or other proceeding.

The Committee on the Judiciary reported the following amendments:

Amend the first section by striking out, in lines twelve and thirteen the words "on the first Mondays of May and November in each year," and inserting in lieu thereof the words on the fourth

Monday of May in each year, and at the city of Kansas, in said division, on the 4th day of November in cach year;" and add at the end of the section the words and the city of Kansas."

Fill the blank in the fourth line by inserting March 3, 1857," and fill the blank in line five by inserting the words an act to divide the State of Missouri into two judicial districts."

Amend the title by inserting after the words "St. Joseph" the words" and the city of Kansas.” Mr. SPALDING. I would like to know what the necessity is of this measure?

Mr. CHURCHILL. The State of Missouri at the present time is divided into two judicial districts, much the larger proportion of the territory being included in the western district. The terms of the United States district court in that district are now all held at Jefferson City, which is nearly on the eastern limit of the district. The cities of Kansas and St. Joseph, which are near the western limit, have becoine cities of considerable population and

business, and much the larger portion of the business of the court arises in that portion of the State. The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States by which the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States courts has been extended over the rivers has largely increased the necessity felt by the people of those cities for a term of the court to be held there, and it is for the purpose of accommodating that necessity that this bill has been introduced.

Mr. SPALDING. I did not know that it was the policy of our Government to extend Federal courts into every county. Where there are two divisions in a State it is commonly thought to be enough. Now, if business has fallen off at one place, let them transfer the seat of justice to another. I object to increasing the number of district courts in a State above two.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I would like to know what the increased expense will be? Mr. SPALDING. The expense is nothing. I am against the policy of the law.

Mr. CHURCHILL. I will say, in reply to the gentleman from Ohio, that Jefferson City, where the courts are now held, is the capital of the State, and it would be proper that some terms of the court should be held there, while the city of St. Joseph is two hundred miles distant. I demand the previous question.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.

The amendments were severally agreed to. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. CHURCHILL moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

DISTRICT COURTS OF NEW YORK.

Mr. CHURCHILL, from the same committee, reported back, with an amendment, House bill No. 446, to amend an act entitled "An act to create the castern judicial district of the State of New York," approved February 25, 1865.

The first section of the bill provides that the section of the act entitled "An act to create the eastern judicial district of the State of New York" shall be amended by striking therefrom the word "Suffolk" and inserting in place thereof the word "Richmond."

facilitate the dispatch of business in the courts of the United States in the port of New York the judge of the southern district of New York shall hereafter reside within the limits of the city of New York; and the judge of the eastern district of New York shall hereafter reside within the limits of the city of Brooklyn; and in addition to the monthly terms of the district courts now required by law to be held in said cities, there shall be held by one of said judges a daily sitting at chambers in the city of New York, except Sundays, holidays, and the summer vacation; and any cause which may or can by law be determined without a jury may be then heard at chambers with like effect as if heard at a regular term of the court. And the marshals of the districts above mentioned shall hereafter, out of the sums allowed for the expenses of the courts in their respective districts, pay quarterly to said judges respectively a sum sufficient to make the yearly compensation of said judges, including the salaries now payable to them by law, equal to the yearly compensation of the judges of the supreme court of the State in and for the city and county of New York; which sums shall be allowed in the accounts of such marshals.

The fourth section provides that whenever it shall appear to any district or circuit court of the United States, upon the last day of any term thereof, that the grand jury of such court have before them business then unfinished but proper to be concluded by such jury, the court may, by order, continue such grand jury and the sittings thereof to the next term of the court; and thereupon the acts and proceedings of the grand jury so continued shall have the same validity and effect as if such grand jury had been originally summoned and sworn for the term to which they have been so continued.

The amendment of the committee was to strike out the portion of the third section authorizing the marshals to pay the judges a certain sum necessary to make their annual compensation equal to the compensation of the judges of the supreme court of the State of New York, and to insert in lieu thereof the following:

The salaries of each of said judges shall be the same as that of the district judge of the district of California, to wit, $5,000 a year.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I suppose the salary is now fixed twice. I move to strike out one of the clauses.

Mr. CHURCHILL. That is stricken out of the bill.

York.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I will ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. CHURCHILL] what is the present salary of those judges?

Mr. CHURCHILL. The salary of the judges of the first and second district is $4,000. This bill makes it $5,000.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I desire to move to strike out the provision making that increase.

The second section provides that any civil action or proceeding arising out of any revenue law of the United States, which may Mr. SPALDING. I notice from the readhave been instituted or be pending in the cir- ing of the bill that it proposes to increase the cuit court of the United States for the south-salary of the district judges in the city of New ern district of New York, or in the eastern district of New York, may at any time before final judgment in the district court in which it is pending, or on motion of the district attorney, be transferred to the district court of the same district; and upon the order to that effect being entered in any such cause it shall be the duty of the clerk of the circuit court forthwith to transmit to the district court all the papers, documents, and proceedings in such cause; and upon the entry of any such order the said district court shall have full power and authority to proceed with said cause, and hear and determine the same, and make all orders, take all proceedings, and render all decrees which said circuit court might have made, taken, or rendered had not such cause been transferred as aforesaid; and any such cause instituted or pending in the district court of the United States for the southern district of New York, or in the district court of the United States for the eastern district of New York, may also,|| in like manner and with like effect, be transferred from such district court to the circuit

court for said district; and for all purposes of appeal or writ of error every cause so transferred shall be regarded as a cause originally commenced in the court to which it shall be so transferred.

The third section provides that in order to

Mr. CHURCHILL. The bill as originally framed proposed to give the district judges in the city of New York the same compensation now paid to the judges of the State of New York residing in the city, $10,000. But that provision has been struck out, and we propose simply to make the salary of these judges the same as that of the judge of the district of California, which is $5,000.

I rose

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. to move to strike out all that part of the bill referring to salary, leaving it as fixed by the present law, $4,000.

Mr. SPALDING. salaries last year.

We raised all these

Mr. CHURCHILL. Mr. Speaker, when the salaries of these judges was fixed two years ago, the salary of the judge of the district of California was fixed at $5,000; the salary of the judge of the district of Louisiana at $4,500;