ple. It merely extends the provisions of the act of 1851 for one year from the passage of this bill. There is not a line or a letter in the bill that establishes any new principle whatever, or any principle different from what has been established by the acts of 1851 and 1860, and that principle was simply to distinguish and discriminate between what were public lands in the State of California and what were private lands. These parties only ask to be allowed to go into the courts and establish as between themselves and the United States whether they hold a valid grant under the Mexican or Spanish Government? There has been a variety of claims presented, which, owing to the expiration of the act of 1851, could not be adjudicated.

Some objections were made yesterday to this bill by some of the gentlemen from California; but those objections have now been obviated by the adoption of the proviso offered by the gentleman from California, [Mr. JoHNSON.] I will state that this bill has been thoroughly examined by two committees of this House, and they have reported unanimously in its favor. The committee that I represent supposed and believed that the proviso that they had incorporated in the bill accomplished the very object contemplated by the gentleman from California, [Mr. JOHNSON,] and also by his colleague, [Mr. HIGBY.] This bill interferes with no vested rights whatever. It disturbs no man's possessions. It disturbs no man's rights. It merely gives to citizens of the United States the right to go into the courts and establish their title by existing law. What possible objection there can be to the bill I cannot see. I will state that if there is any settler upon the land who has any valid title, by the very terms of the bill he is protected, and the court has to settle that question. It is, in fact, only a bill to open the doors of the Supreme Court of the United States to our own citizens where they have been closed by the lapse of time under the original act as against the United States and nobody else. This bill does not attempt to settle conflicting claims between private individuals. It does not touch or trench on any man's rights. It simply says to the citizens of California, if you have any valid grant derived from the Mexican or Spanish Government that you can prove beyond a doubt before the courts the doors of the courts shall be open to you. The time prescribed by the original act was too short for a State of the magnitude of California. It was found absolutely necessary once before to extend the time to allow all the persons in interest to go into the courts. Mr. BOUTWELL. I would like three or five minutes upon this matter before the question is taken.

Mr. STONE. I would yield to the gentleman with great pleasure, but I have had a great many applications for the floor, and I have had to decline them. I am merely the organ of the committee, and time is pressing. I must therefore decline.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I will venture to state to the House that this bill ought not to pass. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Has the previous question been seconded?

The SPEAKER. It has not.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Cannot there be some discussion on a matter of this kind?

The SPEAKER.

that question.

The Chair cannot answer

Mr. HIGBY. I wish to correct one statement of the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. STONE,] if he will allow me.

Mr. STONE. I will yield.

Mr. HIGBY. The gentleman from Maryland stated that this proviso was satisfactory to all the members from California. He was mistaken in reference to myself. I have not said decidedly that I was not in favor of this bill with the proviso, nor have I said that I was in favor of it. I have no right to debate this question, because the gentleman from Maryland has not yielded to me for that purpose.

Mr. BOUTWELL. There are various points in this proviso to which I understand the gentlemen from California have assented, to which I wish to call their attention, because, in my judgment, it will not accomplish what they think it will accomplish. All the squatters on these lands, if the Mexican titles should be upheld, will be driven out in defiance of this proviso and of the homestead and preemption laws of the United States.

Mr. STONE. I have not distinctly heard what was said by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BOUTWELL.]

Mr. BOUTWELL. If the gentleman from Maryland will give me his attention I will say that my point is this: that the proviso which has been here introduced will not accomplish, I think, what the person who proposed it [Mr. JOHNSON] intends to have accomplished by it. If a person has settled upon land claimed under a Mexican grant, the title to which may hereafter be established in the courts of the United States under this bill, then he will not be upon these lands under the preemption laws of the United States, but he will be upon lands to which the United States had no title when he entered upon them, and therefore he cannot avail himself of the preemption laws of the United States, but will be subject entirely to the will of the person who may prevail in the court. But I have a more serious objection, which is this: that by a general law we ought not to open these questions of land titles in California under grants from Mexico. By the law of 1851 a commission was established for the examination of these claims. Parties had a right to appeal.

Mr. STONE. I must resume the floor. Mr. BOUTWELL. Very well; I hope the House is satisfied that this bill ought not to pass.

Mr. STONE. I cannot understand the force of the objection of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BOUTWELL.] The United States by a treaty, in accordance with the law of nations, bound themselves to respect all Mexican and Spanish land grants. The commission which the United States created was merely the mode by which the evidence of these grants was brought to the knowledge of the Government. The Government, by these solemn treaty stipulations with Mexico, pledged itself that it would respect all Mexican and Spanish grants that existed at the time of the date of that treaty and the cession of California to the United States. That is all that this bill asks. All that this bill asks is an opportunity for the citizens of California to show that they do hold valid grants. That is the whole object of the bill.

As I have before said, this bill does not decide any right at all, but simply presents the broad question of allowing the citizens of California to go into court and show their rights under these grants. It strikes me, with all due deference to the gentleman, that it would be a most outrageous breach of faith on the part of the Government toward those who hold these valid Mexican grants to deny them an opportunity to prove them in the only mode known to the law, in the courts of the United States. I now call the previous question on the passage of the bill.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.

The question was then taken upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time; and upon a division there were-ayes 50, noes 25; no quorum voting.

Tellers were ordered; and Mr. STONE and Mr. BOUTWELL were appointed.

The House again divided; and the tellers reported that there were-ayes 66, noes 36.

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

The question being on the passage of the bill,
Mr. WINDOM called for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
Mr. WINDOM called for tellers.
Tellers were not ordered.
The bill was passed.

Mr. STONE 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.

Mr. ORTH obtained the floor, but yielded to Mr. BLAIR, who asked unanimous consent to report from the Committee on Foreign Af fairs a bill for the relief of Nott & Co.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I object. Mr. BLAIR. I hope the gentleman from Pennsylvania will withdraw that objection. The bill will occupy but a moment.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the bill, after which there will be an opportunity for objection.

The bill, which was read, directs the Secretary of State to examine the claim of Nott & Co., American merchants doing business in China, against the Chinese Government for losses of coin sustained in 1847 by the capture and robbery of the vessel called the Neva; and if in the opinion of the Secretary of State the claim ought to be paid he is authorized and instructed to pay the same, with the rate of interest allowed on other claims, from the time of such loss, out of any funds received from the Chinese Government under the treaty of 1858 for the payment of losses sustained by American citizens; and that the amount be paid to Nott & Co., or the surviving copartner or copartners, or any person duly authorized to be their agent or attorney. The second section provides that the decision of the Secretary of State as to the right of the claimants to be paid, as to the amount to be paid, and as to the parties entitled to receive the same, shall be final and conclusive.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I do not see anything in this bill that goes to show that there has been any settlement or liquidation with the Chinese Government by which it appears that that Government has in its hands money of ours to pay this claim. I cannot consent to the consideration of the bill at this time.

The SPEAKER. Objection being made, the bill cannot now be reported.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Leave of absence was granted to Mr. STOKES till next Tuesday, and to Mr. ADAMS for one week.

E. R. AND S. W. CLARKE.

Mr. ORTH. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Private Land Claims has but one more bill before it, the bill (S. No. 347) to confirm the title of Ethan Ray Clarke and Samuel Ward Clarke to certain land in the State of Florida claimed under a grant from the Spanish Government. This matter was by the committee referred for investigation to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. WOODBRIDGE.] I received a note from that gentleman this morning, stating that in eonsequence of serious illness in his family he is obliged to go home. He left the papers in my hands, but the report is not yet finished. I ask unanimous consent of the House that this bill may be reported on some day next week during the morning hour.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I object. Mr. BENJAMIN. I also object. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Mr. ORTH. Then, Mr. Speaker, at the suggestion of the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. POLAND,] who when a member of the Senate examined this bill, I report the_bill now, and ask its passage at this time. In connection with the bill, I report the petition of the Messrs. Clarke, which I ask the Clerk to read. The Clerk partly read the petition, when Mr. ORTH said: It is unnecessary for the Clerk to read that document further.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I insist that the reading shall be concluded.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman_cannot insist on that. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ORTH] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. The gentleman presented the petition as part of the

report of the committee. I desire to hear the remainder of it read; and I do not think any gentleman has the right to interfere with the reading.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts can no more insist upon the reading of the entire petition than he can demand that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ORTH] shall finish an hour's speech after he has commenced speaking.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Can the reading be stopped in the midst?

The SPEAKER. The floor is in the possession of the gentleman from Indiana, who can control how his time shall be occupied. The bill will be read.

The bill provides that the title of Ethan Ray Clarke and Samuel Ward Clarke to a tract of land five miles square on Black creek, south of St. Mary's river, in the State of Florida, and bounded as follows: upon one side by the St. Mary's river, and upon the other side by vacant lands, being the same lands to which an exclusive right to take the timber was granted by the Spanish Government to John Underwood, and upon which he erected a saw-millin 1805, and which was kept up and continued for many years, shall be confirmed: provided, that nothing herein contained shall operate to the prejudice of any claim which may be set up to said land by reason of any previous sale thereof; nor shall this act in any way prejudice any claimant under the said John Underwood, or any person deriving title or claim thereto under said Underwood, his heirs or assigns, or of any person or persons who may be entitled to preemption rights under any existing laws of the United States.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I should like to have the report read or to have some explanation made.

Mr. ORTH. I will attend to that.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. If the gentleman from Indiana had seen as much as I have in reference to the confirmation of these private land claims, such as the Houmas claim

Mr. ORTH. I do not yield. I know what I am reporting here this morning as well as the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill arising under the treaty of Florida. It has been before the Senate, and has been very thoroughly examined by the Committee on Private Land Claims in the Senate at the time my neighbor, the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. POLAND,] was a member of the committee. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont, who is more familiar with the facts than I am. Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. How much land does this embrace?

Mr. ORTH. Something over forty sections. Mr. POLAND. The gentleman from Indiana is making a most unexpected demand upon me. All I can say is that while I was a member of the other branch of Congress this was before the Committee on Private Land Claims, of which Judge Harris was chairman and I was a member, and we gave the case a very full and careful consideration. It was unanimously reported by the committee of the Senate, and it passed the Senate, and only failed to pass the House by some disarrangement of the papers, the division of them between two committees. It seems that one year ago a bill of this same character was examined by the committee of the House and passed by the House; it was really passed by both Houses.

ask the

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. gentleman from Vermont whether there was not a bill passed in this Congress many years ago for the purpose of having these men go before the United States court in Florida, giving them full power to test their right there? They have never done so. The petition, which was not read, sets forth the facts. It shows these parties have never been before the courts; but they come here for us to legislate away the rights of other parties in that land, which were never tried before the courts, without giving us a chance to hear the report read or the petition

read upon which it is founded. If men's rights can be taken away in that way let it be understood. I tried to get the petition read. They got relief to go to the courts, but they refused to go to the courts, and now come here for a new bill. The bill was asked to be put off because it had not been fully considered.

Mr. POLAND. I do not know whether the gentleman is addressing his inquiry to me or to the chairman of the committee. As I understand it, these petitioners came to Congress in 1856 applying for the passage of a law like the one now reported, and it was passed in one House, but while pending in the other Mr. Yulee, a gentleman of whom we have all heard something-Mr. Yulee, in the interest of some adverse petitioners, not in the interest of these petitioners or their rights, but of those setting up an adverse interest-had a bill passed giving the privilege to the parties to go into the courts. I do not know these parties were called upon to commence litigation in the courts of Florida more than it was incumbent upon those who were represented by Mr. Yulee. There is as much ground to say the title of these parties is foreclosed in consequence of their failure to go into the courts of Florida as

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. Who is the occupant of the land?

Mr. POLAND. I understand these parties are in possession.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. Then what do they want anything for unless somebody brings an adverse claim? If they are not in possession, why not bring a suit to get possession?

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. When they have got an act of Congress allowing them to do so.

Mr. POLAND. I understand these persons have been in possession of the land all the while, but by the treaty these Florida titles required confirmation, and it is for that purpose, in order to remove a cloud upon their title, that this bill is introduced. Being in possession they could not commence a litigation, and nobody could commence a litigation against them.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. There is somewhere an act of Congress providing that where anybody occupies lands claimed by two parties either party may bring a suit to test his title.

Mr. ORTH. This is a case arising under the treaty of Florida, by which the United States agreed to confirm titles to all persons who held grants under the Spanish Government prior to that treaty, and it confirms them in their grants.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I inquire whether that ipse dixit of the treaty is not a confirmation, requiring nothing more?

Mr. ORTH. I can only answer that by stating that the practice of the Government has been invariably the other way. In all cases where lands have been owned by individuals prior to the cession of any particular territory, Congress has provided for the coufirmation of the titles by special act. This applies not only to lands in Florida, Louisiana, and Missouri, but in California and New Mexico. Time and again have acts of Congress been passed confirmatory of these titles. The practice, as I have learned during this session of Congress, has been about this: after a territory has been ceded to the American Government, we have required of the original owners of any portion of it the surrender of their title-papers that they might be recorded among the archives of this Government. Then upon the surrender of such title-papers an act was passed in the case of California for the establishment of land commissioners, and in the case of New Mexico for the establishment of the office of surveyor general in that Territory, and the duty in each case was to collect the titles which the parties had to the lands in controversy, and upon the report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, in pursuance of the act of Congress, a confirmation

of title was made and a patent issued. That is all that is asked for in the present case, as I understand it. I therefore call the previous question.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield to me a moment?

Mr. ORTH. Yes, sir.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I desire to say that the petition in this case sets forth in these words:

That a bill was passed by said Congress [that is, in 1859] referring the matter to the district court of the United States for the southern district of Florida for determination; and that no action was had on this act up to this date."

Now, this Congress has passed an enabling act to allow these parties to go into court and litigate their titles. They slept upon them from 1859 to 1861, and then, after being interrupted by the rebellion, they slept upon them from 1865 to 1868. Now, why should we, without any knowledge of the matter, legislate the title into one man and out of another? Mr. ORTH. We do not do that.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. Does the treaty specify any mode by which we can confirm these titles?

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I do not know that it does.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I understood that it provided it by act of Congress. Mr. ORTH. No, not by any mode; but we have confirmed them by act of Congress.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. The case stands in this way: here is a treaty some fifty years old or upward, and here is an attempt to establish rights under it after there has been an act of Congress allowing them to come into the courts. Now it is said that this case was examined by a committee of the Senate; that it was passed through the Senate, then that it came to this House and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and they did not see fit to report it.

Mr. ORTH. That is so.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. That being so, I think this bill should go to the Committee on the Judiciary for the purpose of having this question examined, because we have no report on this question.

Mr. ORTH. Oh yes; here is a report. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. No report that has been read.

Mr. ORTH. But then there is a report. Mr. POLAND. It seems to me that the argument that is put forth by my friend from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] is entirely fallacious, and instead of being a reason why the bill should not pass it is the very reason why it should pass. These petitioners and the persons under whom they claim have been in possession of these lands for a great number of years. I do not understand that there is any law by which they can sue a man who sets up some claim to the lands, they being in possession. But for the purpose of removing any cloud upon their title they wanted the usual congressional confirmation. They came here to Congress for it and obtained it in the Senate. Thereupon Mr. Yulee, who was then a member of Congress and who represented some adverse interests, procured the passage of a law by which persons setting up an adverse claim might go into the courts of Florida and have the title settled. They have never seen fit to do so in this long lapse of time.

Mr. ORTH. I yield for a moment to the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BANKS.] Mr. BANKS. I do not know the merits of this precise claim. If it has the approval of the committee of this House, and has passed the Senate, I can believe that upon the facts it is equitable and just. But there is a question of public policy on which I wish to say a word. Where private rights have been claimed under a treaty, and the courts have not been able to award them under the treaty, or where the parties have been in pos. session and their claim has been resisted, it has been the uniform practice of the Govern

ment to pass acts of Congress to meet the facts so far as they were just in those cases.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I would ask whether where one party claims and another party claims against him they have ever came to Congress to have the question settled?

Mr. BANKS. Under the treaty of 1803 acts of Congress of this character have been passed up to 1867, settling the principles of interpretation by which the treaty was to be adjudicated. Under the treaty of 1818 there have been, and there must be, acts of legislation enabling parties to maintain themselves in possession or enabling the courts to decide the claims of parties under that treaty. This I judge to be a case of that sort.

Mr. STEVENS, of Peunsylvania. Then pass a general law.

Mr. ORTH. I merely wish to say that this bill reserves the rights of these adverse claimants. It provides that this act shall not in any way prejudice the rights of any claimants under Underwood, or of any person or persons who may be entitled to preemption rights under the existing laws of the United States. I demand the previous question.

The question was put on seconding the demand for the previous question; and there were-ayes 59, noes 21; no quorum voting.

Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. ORTH, and BUTLER of Massachusetts, were appointed. The House divided; and the tellers reportedayes seventy-two, noes not counted.

So the previous question was seconded. The main question was then ordered to be put.

The bill was ordered to a third reading; and it was accordingly read the third time.

The question was put on the passage of the bill; and there were-ayes 55, noes 24; no quorum voting.

Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. ORTH, and WASHBURNE of Illinois, were appointed. The House divided; and the tellers reportedayes 75, noes 29.

So the bill was passed.

Mr. ORTH 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.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Mr. WELKER and Mr. BUCKLAND asked and obtained leave of absence until Tuesday

next.

Mr. MARSHALL and Mr. JOHNSON asked and obtained leave of absence for one week.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I would like to know how many leaves of absence have been granted.

The SPEAKER. Five this morning and seven yesterday.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. GORHAM, its Secretary, announced that the Senate had passed a bill (S. No. 486) to facilitate the settlement of certain prize cases in the southern district of Florida, in which the concurrence of the House was requested.

The message further announced that the Senate had passed, without amendment, the joint resolution (H. R. No. 312) relating to the pay of the Assistant Librarian of the House, and the bill (H. R. No. 1129) for the relief of the widow and children of Colonel James A. Mulligan, deceased.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

Mr. WILSON, of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled a bill of the following title; when the Speaker signed the same:

An act (H. R. No. 780) for the relief of Martha N. Jones, administratrix of Samuel T. Jones.

ABELARD GUTHRIE.

Mr. WINDOM asked and obtained leave to

withdraw from the files of the House, leaving copies, the papers of Abelard Guthrie, in the case of the Wyandotte claim.

IRON-CLADS.

Mr. PILE, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and adopted:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be directed to communicate to the House the report of Captain James B. Eades on the iron-clads of Europe and of this country.

CLERKS, ETC., OF INTERIOR DEPARTMENT.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a letter from the disbursing clerk of his Department, relative to certain reductions from the amount estimated as necessary for clerks and watchmen in that Department; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

TEMPORARY CLERKS IN INDIAN BUREAU.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, also faid before the House a communication from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a communication from the Commissioner on Indian Affairs, asking for an appropriation of $29,600 for extra and temporary clerks in the Indian Bureau, for the year ending June 30, 1869; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

GEORGE ABBOTT.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, also laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of War, transmitting papers in the case of George Abbott, late provost marshal of the twelfth district of Illinois, to be relieved from certain responsibility for bounty money; which was referred to the Committee of Claims.

RIGGS, BASS, AND PILKENTON.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, also laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of War, transmitting a report by the Adjutant General respecting the claims of J. B. Riggs, William Bass, and William Pilkenton; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

DESTITUTE OSAGE INDIANS.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, also laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a letter from the Commissioner of Indian Af fairs, relative to the destitute condition of the Osage Indians in Kansas; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

The SPEAKER. The Chair has not asked that those communications be printed, as it is so late in the session. Should any of these communications be of such a character as to justify their printing, the committees to which they have been referred can ask it.

WASHINGTON AND GEORGETOWN RAILROAD.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, also laid before the House a communication from the president of the Washington and Georgetown Railroad Company, transmitting, in compliance with the act of incorporation, his annual report for the year ending January 1, 1868; which was referred to the Committee for the District of Columbia, and ordered to be printed.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. PERHAM. There are some twenty or more House bills granting pensions, to which the Senate have made amendments. Those bills are now on the Speaker's table. It is too late in the session for them to be referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions with any hope that the committee will get an opportunity to report upon them. The committee have informally examined those amendments, and have instructed me to ask that amendments to certain bills be agreed to, and that other amendments be not agreed to, but that a committee of conference be asked. No debate will be required, and I ask unanimous consent

that those Senate amendments be acted upon at this time.

No objection was made.

ALMIRA WYETH.

The amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 411) for the relief of Almira Wyeth was then taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendment was to strike out all of the bill after the enacting clause, in these words: That the name of Almira Wyeth, widow of James M. Wyeth, late a private in company I, seventyfifth regiment Illinois volunteers, be placed on the pension-roll in pursuance of existing law in such cases, commencing on the 5th day of March, 1863. And in lieu thereof insert:

That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized and directed to place the name of Almira Wyeth, widow of James M. Wyeth, late a private in company I, seventy-fifth regiment Illinois volunteers, on the pension-roll, and allow and pay her a pension at the rate of eight dollars per month, from the 5th day of March, 1863, to continue during her widowhood.

The amendment was agreed to.

JAMES S. TODD.

The amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 523) granting a pension to James S. Todd was taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendment was to add to the bill the following:

And to allow and pay him a pension at the rate of eight dollars per month, to commence from the passage of this act, and to continue during his natural life.

The amendment was agreed to.

ELIZABETH KANEDAY.

The amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 671) granting a pension to the widow of Henry Kaneday was taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendment was to make the bill read as follows:

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Elizabeth Kaneday, the widow of Henry Kaneday, late a private in eompany I, fifteenth regiment Iowa infantry, and to pay her a pension at the rate of eight dollars per month, commencing May 5, 1862.

The amendment was agreed to.

REBECCA JANE KINSEL.

The amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 775) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of Erastus Kinsel were taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendments were to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Rebecca Jane Kinsel, the only child under sixteen years of age of Erastus Kinsel, late a private in company A, one hundred and twenty-fifth regiment Pennsylvania volunteers, and to pay her a pension at the rate of eight dollars per month, commencing April 7, 1863, and to continue until she attains the age of sixteen years.

Also to amend the title so as to read, "A bill granting a pension to Rebecca Jane Kinsel."

The amendments were agreed to.

Mr. PERHAM. As to the other pension bills on the Speaker's table the Committee on Invalid Pensions recommend non-concurrence in the amendments of the Senate.

JEREMIAH T. HALLETT.

The amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 525) granting a pension to Jeremiah T. Hallett was taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendment was to insert after the word "infantry" the words "and to allow and pay him a pension at the rate of twenty-five dollars per month;" so that the bill will read:

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Jeremiah T. Hallett, late a member of company I, first United States infantry, and to allow and pay him a pension at the rate of twenty-five dollars per month, commencing March 10, 1864.

The amendment was non-concurred in.

MAHALA A. STRAIGHT.

The amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 373) to place the name of Mahala A. Straight upon the pension roll of the United States were taken from the Speaker's table. The amendments were to strike out "A" after "Mahala" and insert "M;" to insert after the word "deceased" the words "late a private in company E, one hundred and twentyinth regiment Illinois volunteers ;" to insert after the words "United States" the words and to pay her a pension at the rate of eight dollars per month, to commence on the 5th day of September, in the year 1862, and to continue during her widowhood;" also to amend the title by striking out "A" after "Mahala" and inserting "M."

The amendments were non-concurred in.
JOHN W. HUGHES.

The amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 825) granting a pension to John W. Hughes was taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendment was to insert after the word "volunteers," in line seven, the words "and to pay him a pension at the rate of fifteen dollars per month."

The amendment was non-concurred in.
WILLIAM H. M'DONALD.

The amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 773) granting a pension to William H. McDonald was taken from the Speaker's

table.

The amendment was to insert after the word "volunteers," in line seven, the words "and to pay him a pension at the rate of fifteen dollars per month."

The amendment was non-concurred in.

JOHN D. LAY.

The amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 771) granting a pension to John D. Lay was taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendment was to insert after the word "Missouri," in line six, the words "and to pay him a pension at the rate of fifteen dollars per month."

The amendment was non-concurred in.

JOHN H. FINLAY.

The amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 770) granting a pension to John H. Finlay were taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendments were to strike out in line seven, the word "commencing" and insert the words "and to pay him a pension at the rate of eight dollars per month from ;" and to add at the end of the bill the words "until June 6, 1866, and thereafter at the rate of fifteen dollars per month."

The amendments were non-concurred in.

THOMAS CONNOLLY.

The amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 676) granting a pension to Thomas Connolly was taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendment was to add at the end of the bill the words "and to pay him a pension at the rate of fifteen dollars per month, commencing on the 30th day of June, 1865."

The amendment was non-concurred in.

HENRY H. HUNTER.

The amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 666) granting a pension to Henry H. Hunter were taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendments were to strike out in line seven the word "and;" and in line eight, after the word "cavalry," to insert the words "and to pay him a pension at the rate of fifteen dollars a month."

The amendments were non-concurred in.

W. W. CUNNINGHAM.

The amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 522) granting a pension to W. W. Cunningham was taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendment was to insert in line six, after the word "roll," the words "and to allow and pay him a pension at the rate of fifteen dollars per month."

The amendment was non-concurred in.

GEORGE F. GORHAM.

The amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 518) granting a pension to George F. Gorham, late a private in company B, twenty-ninth regiment Massachusetts volunteer infantry were taken from the Speaker's table. The amendments were as follows:

In section one strike out in lines seven, eight, and nine, the words paid the same amount of peusion allowed in similar eases, subject to the provisions and limitations of the general pension laws," and insert allowed and paid a pension at the rate of twenty-five dollars per month.'

In section two, line second, strike out the words and his father, John J. Gorham, appointed guardian;" and also strike out the word "said" and insert "his," in the fourth line."

The amendments were non-coneurred in. MINOR CHILDREN OF PLEASANT STOOPS. The amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 456) granting a pension to the minor children of Pleasant Stoops was taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendments were to insert in line five the names of "David Henry Stoops, Pleasant Stoops, and Sturges Stoops;" in line six to strike out the word "minor" before children," and after the word "children" to insert "under sixteen years of age;" and in line eight, after the word "infantry," to insert

and to pay to them or their legally-authorized guardian or guardians a pension of eight dollars per month;" so that the bill will read:

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and instructed to place upon the pension-roll the names of David Henry Stoops, Pleasant Stoops, and Sturges Stoops, the children, under sixteen years of age, of Pleasant Stoops, late a member of company F, eighteenth regiment of United States infantry, and to pay to them or their legallyauthorized guardian or guardians a pension of eight dollars per month, to date from the day of his death, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws.

The amendments were non-concurred in.

SOLOMON ZACHMAN.

The amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 521) to place the name of Solomon Zachman on the pension-roll were taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendments were to insert in line six after the word "roll" the words "and to pay him;" in line seven to strike out the words "commencing on" and to insert the word "from;" in lines eight and nine to strike out the words "subject to the limitations and requirements of the pension laws," and to insert "to the 6th day of June, 1866, and thereafter at the rate of fifteen dollars per month during his natural life;" so that the bill will read:

That the Secretary of the Interior be authorized and directed to place the name of Solomon Zachman, of Marion county, Ohio, formerly a member of company D, eighty-second Ohio volunteers, on the pension-roll, and to pay him at the rate of eight dollars per month, from the 30th day of May, 1864, to the 6th day of June, 1866, and thereafter at the rate of fifteen dollars per month during his natural life. The amendments were non-concurred in.

HEIRS OP WILLIAM CRAFT.

The amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 661) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of William Craft were taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendments were to strike out in line five the word "the" and to insert "Susan F. Craft;" and also to strike out the words "and minor children" and to insert and the child under sixteen years of age;" in line six to strike out the words "the late;" in line seven to strike out the letter "H" and to insert "D;" and in line eight, after the word "regiment," to insert "and to pay her a pension at the rate of ten dollars per month;" so that the bill will read:

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll the names of Susan F. Craft, widow, and the child under sixteen years of age of William Craft, late of company D, eighty-second Pennsylvania regiment, and to pay her a pension at the rate of ten dollars per month, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, to commence April 6, 1865.

The amendments were non-concurred in.

HEIRS OF GEORGE R. WATERS.

The amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 662) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of George B. Waters were taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendments were to insert in line six the name of "Mary Waters," and also to insert the words "the three," and to strike out the word "minor," before "children," and after the word"children" to insert the words "under sixteen years of age; in line eight to strike out the word "fiftieth" and insert "fifteenth," and also to strike out the word "engineers" and to insert the words " 'volunteers, and to pay her a pension at the rate of fourteen dollars per month;" so that the bill will read:

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the names of Mary Waters, the widow, and the three children under sixteen years of age, of George R. Waters, late a member of the fifteenth regiment New York volunteers, and to pay her a pension at the rate of fourteen dollars per month, commencing November 17, 1864.

The amendments were non-concurred in.

MINOR CHILDREN OF CHARLES GOULER. The amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 664) granting a pension to the minor children of Charles Gouler were taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendments were to strike out in section one, line six, the words "the minor" before "children" and to insert "Willie, Ellen, and Tellis Gouler," and after the word "childdren" to insert "under sixteen years of age;" in line eight, after the word "volunteers," insert and to pay them a pension at the rate of eight dollars per month;" and in line ten to insert "to continue until they severally attain the age of sixteen years;" so that the first section will read :

to

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the names of Willie, Ellen, and Tellis Gouler, children under sixteen years oflage of Charles Gouler, late a private in company F, ninth New Hampshire volunteers, and to pay them a pension at the rate of eight dollars per month, commencing April 18, 1866, to continue until they severally attain the age of sixteen years.

The amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 663) granting a pension to Cyrus K. Wood, the legal representative of Cyrus D. Wood, were taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendments were to strike out in line four the words "pay to Cyrus K. Wood, of Auburn, Maine, father and legal representative of," and to insert the words "place on the pension-roll the name of;" and in line seven, after the word "infantry," to insert the words "and to pay to him a pension at the rate of;" so that the bill will read:

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll the name of Cyrus D. Wood, late of company H, tenth regiment of Maine volunteer infantry, and to pay to him a pension at the rate of eight dollars per month from the 8th day of May, 1863, to the 6th day of June, 1866; and twenty-five dollars per month from said 6th day of June, 1866, to the 8th day of April, 1867.

The amendments were non-concurred in.

HEIRS OF MYRON WILKLOW. The amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 669) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of Myron Wilklow were taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendments were to insert in line six the name "Sarah A. Wilklow;" and also to strike out the word "minor" and insert "Almira, Emma, and Mary Wilklow;" in line seven, after the word "children," to insert "under sixteen years of age;" and in line nine, after the word "volunteers," to insert the words "and to pay her a pension of fourteen dollars per month;" so that the bill will read:

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is

hereby, authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension iaws, the names of Sarah A. Wilklow, the widow, and Almira, Emma, and Mary Wilklow, children under sixteen years of age, of Myron Wilklow, late a member of company B, forty-seventh Ohio volunteers, and to pay her a pension of fourteen dollars per month, commencing June 2, 1865. The amendments were non-concurred in.

HEIRS OF ANDREW HOLMAN.

The amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 670) granting a pension to the widow and children of Andrew Holman were taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendments were to insert in line six the name "Kezia Holman," and also to strike out the word "minor" and insert the word "three;" in line seven, after the word "children," to insert the words "under sixteen years of age;" and in line nine, after the word "infantry," to insert the words "and to pay her a pension at the rate of fourteen dollars per month; so that the bill will read:

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the names of Kezia Holman, the widow, and the three children under sixteen years of age, of Andrew Holman, late a private in company G, twenty-ninth regiment of Ohio volunteer infantry. and to pay her a pension at the rate of fourteen dollars per month, commencing March 26, 1865.

The amendments were non-concurred in.

HEIRS OF CHARLES W. WILCOX.

The amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 672) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of Charles W. Wilcox were taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendments were to insert in line six the name of "Martha J. Wilcox," and also to strike out the word "minor," and insert "James W., Clarinda I., Ira E., and Charles E. Wilcox; in line seven, after the word "children," to insert "under sixteen years of age ;" and in line nine, after the word "volunteers," to insert "and to pay her a pension at the rate of sixteen dollars per month; so that the bill will read:

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the names of Martha J. Wilcox, the widow, and James W., Clarinda I., Ira E., and Charles E. Wilcox, children under sixteen years of age, of Charles W. Wilcox, late of company B, ninetyseventh Illinois volunteers, and to pay to her a pension at the rate of sixteen dollars per month, commencing March 16, 1863.

The amendments were non-concurred in.

HEIRS OF JOHN S. PHELPS.

The amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 673) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of John S. Phelps were taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendments were to insert in line six the name "Saffrona C. Phelps;" and also to strike out the word "minor" and insert "Caleb S. Phelps;" in line seven to strike out the word "children" and insert "child under sixteen years of age; in line eight to insert the word "second" before "lieutenant;" in line nine, after the word "volunteer," to insert" and to pay her a pension at the rate of fifteen dollars per month for herself during widowhood, and two dollars per month for the said child until he shall attain the age of sixteen years; so that the bill will read:

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the names of Saffrona C. Phelps, the widow, and Caleb S. Phelps, child under sixteen years of age of John S. Phelps, late a second lieutenant in the thirty-fifth regiment of Kentucky mounted infantry, and to pay her a pension at the rate of fifteen dollars per month for herself during widowhood, and two dollars per month for the said child until he shall attain the age of sixteen years, commencing July 23, 1863.

The amendments were non-concurred in. HEIRS OF CORNELIUS L. RICE. The amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 675) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of Cornelius L. Rice were taken from the Speaker's table.

The amendments were to insert in line six the name of" Elizabeth Rice;" and also to

strike out the words "minor children" and insert the words "William T. S. Rice, the child under sixteen years of age; and in line nine, after the word "volunteers," to insert the words "and to pay her a pension of ten doldollars per month; so that the bill will read:

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the names of Elizabeth Rice. the widow, and William T. S. Rice, the child under sixteen years of age, of Cornelius L. Rice, late a member of company B, ninety-first regiment Pennsylvania volunteers, and to pay her a pension of ten dollars per month, commencing December 4, 1866.

แ

The amendments were to insert in line six the names of Joseph, Sarah, Loami, Francis, and James Heatherly;" in line seven to strike out the word "minor" before the word "children;" and after the word "children" to insert the words "under sixteen years of age; in line nine, after the word volunteers," to insert and to pay them a pension at the rate of eight dollars per month;" in lines ten and eleven, to strike out the words "December 19, 1866," and insert "January 24, 1865, and to continue until they severally attain the age of sixteen years;" so that the bill will read:

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to place on the pension-roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the names of Joseph, Sarah, Loami, Francis, and James Heatherly, the children under sixteen years of age of James Heatherly, late of company E, eleventh West Virginia volunteers, and to pay them a pension at the rate of eight dollars per month, commencing January 24, 1865, and to continue until they severally attain the age of sixteen years.

The amendments were non-concurred in.

Mr. PERHAM. I move the apppointment of a committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the pension bills just acted on by the House.

The motion was agreed to.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I rise for the purpose of moving that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union upon the Senate amendments to the bill (H. R. No. 605) making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending the 30th of June, 1869. Before making that motion I desire to move that when the House shall resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, all general debate shall terminate in twenty minutes, leaving only the five-minutes debate pro and con. on amendments.

desire to have considered first the amendments to the legislative appropriation bill, as it is desirable the bill should go to a committee of conference as early as possible.

Mr. SPALDING. Are there not two small appropriation bills pending in Committee of the Whole?

The SPEAKER. There are; but they are not general appropriation bills, which have priority in Committee of the Whole over all other business.

Mr. SPALDING. But I had an understanding with the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations that he would give way to allow those bills to be taken up.

The SPEAKER. No understanding can change the order of business in Committee of the Whole unless it is the understanding of the committee itself or of the House.

LEGISLATIVE, ETC., APPROPRIATION BILL. The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Illinois, that when the House shall resolve itself into Committee of the Whole all general debate upon the Senate amendments to the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill terminate in twenty minutes.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move resolve itself into Committee of the Whole that the rules be suspended, and that the House executive, and judicial appropriation bill. on the state of the Union upon the legislative,

The motion was agreed to.

So the rules were suspended; and the House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, in the chair,) and proceeded to the consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill, (H. R. No. 605) making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending the 30th of June, 1869.

Mr. SPALDING. I move that this bill be laid aside. My object is to have the committee take up two bills making appropriations for benevolent institutions in this District. The motion was not agreed to.

Mr. BLAINE. We have entered, Mr. Chairman, upon a new fiscal year, and the last appropriation bill to provide for its expenditures has been reported and is now before the House. The occasion seems a fit one for a brief survey of our financial situation and for a pertinent answer to the many misrepresentations so industriously set afloat in regard to governmental expenditures. A very labored attempt has been made throughout the country by certain parties and partisans to create the impression that the expenditures of this Congress are on a scale of heedless and reckless extravagance. I propose to show that such is not the fact, but that, on the contrary, the expenditures are made with far more regard to economy than distinguished the last Democratic administration that was in power in this coun

argument, and hence I proceed at once to the figures.

The SPEAKER. If there is no objection, the Chair will regard the Alaska bill as postponed in Committee of the Whole until next Tuesday morning after the morning hour, that bill now having priority by unanimous consent. There was no objection.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I wish to understand what is now the order of business in Committee of the Whole?

The SPEAKER. The first business in order in Committee of the Whole is the deficiency bill.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. Does the gentleman from Illinois propose to take up that bill?

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. No, sir; I

It is important at the outset, to a clear understanding and clear comparison of Government expenditures at the present time and the period immediately preceding the war, to distinguish between those expenditures which were the inevitable consequence of the rebellion, and therefore unavoidable, and those which may be to a certain extent controlled by the discretion and the fidelity of Congress. Of those expenditures, which are the direct outgrowth of the rebellion, I count the interest on the war debt and the pensions and bounties to soldiers and sailors. These are expenditures which are not discretionary but are imperstively demanded, unless the nation is prepared on the one hand to defraud its creditors, or on the other to turn its back on the brave men who risked everything that the Republic might survive.

The annual interest on the public debt amounts to one hundred and twenty-nine mil