We know that they are powerful, but we whipped them once. Let them try again to pull down this Government that we build up. Let them laugh at the carpet-baggers" as much as they please. We intend to declare most distinctly and unequivocally that States organized and represented here shall vote in the Electoral College, and none others. That is what we did in 1864, and that is what we intend to do now. We have seen all the schemes they concocted vanish into thin air. We know Seymour. He is not ready to revolutionize. I hold in my hand a speech of his made in 1863 which has enough sophistry, if it had been accompanied by the courage of a Hampton or a Forrest, to have plunged the North into civil war. He dare not lay his hand upon a State that we reorganize. Frank Blair is a braver man and an honester man, and he told plainly what they would like to do; but I tell you, sir, the Democracy dare not come up and say that they will tear down a single State of this Union. They dare not go before the people on that issue. Let us declare that we will stand by all the States of the Union that are entitled to representation, that we will receive their ballots, that we will stand by the loyal people of the South; and let the Democracy take issue on that ground if they dare. This bill is a simple declaration that we will stand by the States which are represented, and that no disorganized rebel State shall vote until it shall have been reorganized.

This is no new doctrine. It has been discussed over and over in this Hall. Let the Democracy, if they dare, go before the country saying that they will tear down and put out of the Union the seven reorgarized States. I should like to have them sound the tocsin of war and see if the American people are prepared for another revolution. What Frank Blair says means revolution. These men cannot be turned from these Halls except by violence; these State organizations cannot be overthrown except by the shedding of blood.

Mr. HOWARD. It cannot be done in that way either.

Mr. STEWART. It cannot be done by modern Democracy in that way; and when they dare announce any such purpose they will have fewer followers than they had on a former occasion. I have before me their platform. They are going to pretend to the ignorant and the vicious that this means 66 we will wipe out of existence every State that has been redeemed," and when they meet a man who has a little money and does not want to go to war they will

66 say we are opposed to violence and willing to let things take their course."

Now, we want to declare affirmatively the ground we stand upon. We are the aggressive, we are the progressive party. We the party that have dared to declare our principles from the beginning. We have had to take advanced ground all the time, and I wish now to make the declaration contained in this bill. If the Democratic party dare say on the stump in any of the northern States that they will pull down a single State, even little Florida, they will have fewer followers than they had in 1864; they will have fewer followers than they ever bad in any contest before.

I want to pass this bill beforehand. I do not want to wait until after the election has taken place and then pass a law which they will call ex post facto. I do not want to see them going through the farce of a rebel elec. tion in Virginia, and I do not want any election there until Virginia is reorganized. I do not want to deceive anybody. I want all the issues in this campaign understood. I want the people to know exactly what they are voting on, and who has a right to vote, before the election, so as to avoid any unpleasant consequences. The people of the United States want no more revolution, no more war. The people of the South do not believe they can subjugate us. They do not believe they can reverse the verdict of the war. They cannot humiliate the Union soldiers who sustained the old flag, and reverse the verdict of the

war, place the country under rebel rule, hurl seven States from their places in these Hallswhoever has laid that flattering unction" to his soul will be undeceived next fall. It can not be done.

Now, what is there in this bill? It is simply a declaration that the States represented in Congress that have been organized shall vote in the Electoral College, and none others. The Senator from Pennsylvania says that unless the disorganized vote the organized shall not; that unless you allow Texas to vote Arkansas shall not; that unless you allow Mississippi to vote Alabama shall not; that unless you let the three disorganized States that have not yet complied with our terms, that are not represented in Congress, vote, the represented States shall not vote. What does that mean? The Democratic party will not let organized States, States represented in these Halls, vote. not discuss the power of Congress, but I say there is not power enough in the Democratic party, with the Executive at their head, to maintain the position that they can put one of these States out of the Union. How are you going to prevent one of these States from voting? How are you going to prevent South Carolina from voting? How are you going to prevent her vote from being counted? In no other way than by putting her out of the Union.

I will

If that is the position, if that is the new declaration of war, if that is the new rebellion we are to meet, let us know the issue now, and let us fight the battle before the people on that issue. The necessity of this bill has become apparent from this discussion. We want to know what are the purposes of this party, whether they mean revolution or whether they mean peace; whether they mean war and rapine and plunder and overthrow of the Government, and the prevention of the represented States from voting, or whether they mean to submit to the law. I think the Democratic party have had enough of war. I think they have had enough of tearing down States. But perhaps the ovation which the rebel generals received in New York has inspired them with new hope, and they think the "little unpleasantness" did not amount to much after all. Perhaps they are prepared to join the northern Democracy in another effort to put States out of the Union, and to overthrow State organizations; but I think they will hesitate a little. They do hesitate in their platform. They have a long sentence there on the subject that nobody can understand. Nobody can tell from the platform what they intend to do, and you cannot get any of their speakers on any stump before a promiscuous audience to say whether they intend to submit to the law or whether they intend to overthrow these governments. You can no more get a direct answer on this point than you can get a clear, straightforward idea out of their platform.

It is well enough for us to make the declaration contained in this bill, so that the people will know where we stand; but it is not to be supposed that the Democratic party are going to declare anything affirmatively on such a question. After having destroyed their best men by the two-thirds rule, and having got men that we are accustomed to, that we know all about, we have no apprehensions. We all know the connection of Seymour with New York politics during the war. We know how he acted during the New York riots. We know how his appeals to his friends in the city of New York affected the patriotic masses of the country. We know how we in the West felt at the obstruction of Seymour to the progress of the war. We know what power he had then, and we believed that he evinced a disposition, if he had had the requisite courage to back his disposition, to plunge the whole country in war. We have seen him go as far up to the verge of revolution as he dare go, but he has had a little experience since then.

Mr. NYE. Will my colleague allow me to ask him a question?

The

Mr. BUCKALEW. I was in New York at that time, and saw him in consultation with the present Senator from New York [Mr. MonGAN] and the mayor of the city, acting together day by day in concert and perfect accord. result of his visit to the city and of his extraordinary exertions was to preserve the peace. When he was addressing a large crowd inculcating peace, he spoke to them in a friendly inanner, "My friends," just as any other gentleman would. His conduct on that occasion was that of a patriot and of a faithful chief magistrate of his State, and there never was anything impeaching his conduct except little newspaper slanders without the slightest foundation.

Mr. STEWART. I hold in my hands now a speech of Hon. Horatio Seymour, delivered on the 4th of July, 1863, a speech that I have read on several occasions. It is too long to read now. It is a speech full of fault-finding with the Government, full of suggestions with regard to the evil ways of the Government, putting ideas in the minds of the people to make them dissatisfied, complaining of your sectional strife and your sectional war, reminding the people of what he had told them before, calculated in every way to breed discontent; and this, too, when the country was in the most imminent peril. At that critical time, instead of coming forward and vindicating the authority of the Government, we find Horatio Seymour filling the minds of the people with distrust and reverting to the mistakes of the Government. He failed on that occasion most signally in that heroic duty which every American citizen owes to his country when it is in peril. When peril has come, when war is upon him, it is the duty of every American to say,

My country, right or wrong," and to stand up for his country. With a stern Governor of New York, such a Governor as Indiana had, there would have been no New York riots. With such a Governor as Ohio had there would have been no New York riots. The country felt the weight of Horatio Seymour as a thousand tons upon our hopes, and many graves can be laid to his charge. The weight of that great State, the moral influence of the Governor of that great State, was thrown against the cause of the Union in such a manner and at such a time as to prolong the war, I verily believe, more than one whole year. That Governor had all his predictions falsified, for he predicted failure all the time. After having seen our arms ride triumphant over a thousand battlefields; after having seen the rebellion put down; after having seen the loyal Congress engaged for four years in reconstruction and restoration, he is now the candidate of those opposed to the gallant leader of the armies that saved the nation. That noble man is at the head of the great party who conducted the war, and who have been endeavoring, against the efforts of rebels, Democrats and the Executive, to restore this Government. I say that after all this Seymour has not the nerve to do what this platform intimates that the Democracy will do, namely, tear down the States that have been built up.

Mr. BUCKALEW. The platform says nothing about tearing down States.

Mr. STEWART. That is a refinement of language. It speaks of them as so called

States, "usurpations," "mongrel governments;" and their Representatives are spoken of as carpet-baggers, and the Democracy talk of disregarding them. Frank Blair says it is the duty of the Executive to disregard them. || I tell you that Horatio Seymour has not the nerve to carry out the programme. He will insinuate that it is all right; but when it comes to the sticking point he will back out.

Now, I want to place the Democratic party on one side or the other of this issue. The States that are represented in Congress ought to vote, and they will vote. We say they shall vote. The Democratic party say they shall not vote. We had better have that one of the the issues in the campaign, so that it shall not be said afterward that any snap judgment is given. It is better to say it now instead of hereafter.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Mr. President, I did not say a word about Horatio Seymour in my speech. The Senator's assault upon him is entirely volunteer. I rose to correct him upon a question in regard to the New York riots, and he goes off into some speech. I am afraid it is too long to be discussed at this time of night. All I desire to call attention to at the close of this heated debate is the fact that the Senator from Indiana assailed the second gentleman on the ticket without any provocation to-day, and the Senator from Nevada to-night has assailed the first without any provocation, either. So far as I am concerned, I do not care to enter into a general political discussion. I have confined myself to this bill and to the elaboration of a single point in connection with it. All the matters to which the Senator from Nevada has referred no doubt will be discussed in due time and in a more appropriate place. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ques tion is on the amendment of the Senator from New York.

Mr. CONKLING. I hope there will not be a vote on that amendment to-night. There is not a quorum here, and when it is to be voted upon I should like to have an expression of the Senate about it.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Then we had better adjourn.

Mr. CONKLING. Unless son some Senator wishes to occupy the floor, I move that the Senate adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, July 9, 1868.

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

On motion of Mr. CAKE, the reading of the Journal of yesterday was dispensed with.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. CAKE. I desire to make some reports from the Committee on Printing,

The SPEAKER. The Committee on Printing are authorized to report at any time.

Mr. PAINE. Is it not necessary that the House should dispose of an order adopted some days since, that the vote should be taken on the Alaska bill to-day, immediately after the reading of the Journal?

The SPEAKER. It will be necessary, if the gentleman desires to interfere with the reports of the Committee on Printing.

Mr. PAINE. Will the reports of the Committee on Printing, if now received, displace the order in regard to the Alaska bill? The SPEAKER. It will not.

Mr. PAINE. Then I will not object.

DEMOCRATIC PROTEST.

Mr. CAKE, from the Committee on Printing, reported the following resolution :

Resolved, That twenty thousand copies of the protest of the Democratic members of the House against the representation of Arkansas be printed for the use of the House.

The question was taken upon adopting the resolution; and upon a division, (called for by Mr. SCOFIELD,) there were-ayes 22, noes 20; no quorum voting.

The SPEAKER. It is probable there is no quorum yet present.

Mr. CAKE. I will withdraw the resolution.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I desire to move to lay the resolution on the table.

The SPEAKER. The resolution has been withdrawn.

REPORT ON MANUFACTURES.

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

Resolved, That there be printed for the use of the House three thousand extra copies of the report of the Committee on Manufactures.

Mr. CAKE moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

TARIFF BILL.

Mr. CAKE, from the Committee on Printing, also reported the following resolution; which was read, considered, and adopted: Resolved, That there be printed for the use of the House one thousand extra copies of the tariff bill.

Mr. CAKE moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion, to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

BRIDGES ON MAQUOKETA RIVER, IOWA. On motion of Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, a joint resolution (S. No. 107) in relation to the Maquoketa river, in the State of Iowa, was, by unanimous consent, taken from the Speaker's table, and read a first and second time.

The joint resolution proposes to give the assent of Congress to the construction of bridges across the Maquoketa river, in the State of Iowa, with or without draws, as may be provided by the laws of the State of Iowa.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I move to amend the joint resolution by adding the following as a new section:

And be it further enacted, That dams and bridges may be constructed across the Iowa river, in the State of Iowa, above the town of Wapello.

The amendment was agreed to.

The joint resolution, as amended, was ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

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

The latter motion was agreed to.

CONNECTICUT AVENUE, ETC., RAILWAY Co. Mr. VAN HORN, of New York. I ask the House, by unanimous consent, to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H. R. No. 420) to incorporate the Connecticut Avenue and Park Railway Company in the District of Columbia, that we may concur in a few slight amendments.

Mr. SPALDING. I object to taking up out of their order any of the bills on the Speaker's table. I am willing that we shall go to the Speaker's table for the consideration of those bills in their order.

THOMAS W. WARD.

Mr. ELIOT. I ask unanimous consent to report from the Committee on Commerce, for consideration at the present time, a bill (S. No. 542) for the relief of Thomas W. Ward, late collector of customs in the district of Corpus Christi, Texas.

Mr. SPALDING. I object, and call for the regular order.

Mr. ELIOT. Except by the unanimous consent of the House there will be no opportunity to report this bill this session.

Mr. SPALDING. I demand the regular order.

LOYAL CHOCTAW AND CHICKASAW INDIANS. The SPEAKER. The first business in order is the consideration of the bill (II. R. No. 1376) for the relief of the loyal Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians, which was pending at the

Mr. SCOFIELD. I would like to ask the gentleman a question which he can answer whenever convenient in the course of his remarks. As a member of the Committee on Indian Affairs I have given my assent to this bill; but since the bill was acted on by the committee I have been informed that the agents of these Indians have a contract with them by which they are to get forty per cent. of this whole fund. If the gentleman has any information on that subject I hope he will give it to the House?

Mr. WINDOM. Does the gentleman allude to the agents of the loyal Indians or the others? Mr. SCOFIELD. The agents of the loyal Indians.

Mr. WINDOM. I will answer the question now. I have no information whatever on that point. I do not know whether the agent of these Indians is to get one per cent. or forty per cent. I suppose that, as a matter of course, he is paid for being here two years attending to this matter; but I do not know about that. I have no knowledge of this matter, nor has such a statement as that referred to by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOFIELD] ever been brought to my ears by anybody.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I do not wish to state it as a fact; but the statement I have mentioned was made to me on the floor this morning, and I presume it is likely to be made to other members in a quiet way. Hence I desired the chairman of the committee to state anything he might know about the matter.

Mr. WINDOM. I will say that there never has been anything before the committee on that subject, nor have I any personal knowledge of any such statement having been made.

Mr. SCOFIELD. Another allegation made to me this morning is, that certain men have bought this entire claim, or nearly the whole of it, from these loyal Indians, and that the passage of this bill will really inure to the benefit of some speculators, and not to the benefit of the Indians. Having now made these two statements as I have heard them, I wish to say that so far as the bill itself is concerned it seems to me unobjectionable, and I know no reason why it ought not to pass. But if the fact is as alleged, then it should be amended so as to leave it in the control of their own

men.

He says

Mr. WINDOM. So far as the last question is concerned I am equally in ignorance as on the first. I am ignorant whether any one has bought this claim, except this: when the question was asked General Blunt, who represents them, he flatly denied it to be true. the Indians hold the whole claim. Mr. Speaker, it is one of the easiest things in the world to cast suspicions upon a bill of this kind by some outside whisperings that some one has bought the claim, or that there is a large amount of speculation in it some way or the other. I know from my experience in such matters that such charges are brought by persons who are anxious to have a share in the speculation, one way or the other; and they go and whisper in the ears of members that something is wrong. The whole motive is they do not get anything for themselves. I do not know how the case is here. I will state to my friend from Pennsylvania, [Mr. SCOFIELD,] who I know is honestly for the bill, it has been pending already two years, and these Indians have been unable to get their pay; but if it is defeated and put over for two more years longer there is no doubt these Indians in their great necessity will be compelled to sell for whatever they can get. The best way to take this money from the parties here and to place it in the hands of speculators is to postpone, year after year, the appropriation for paying it. If the gentleman will propose an amendment which will avoid

any difficulty he fears I will yield to have it

offered.

Mr. MULLINS. I ask the gentleman to yield to me.

Mr. WINDOM. I yield to the gentleman for two minutes.

Mr. MULLINS. The point now under consideration is to dispose of this money to the parties having interest in it. I sat down to draw up an amendment which I think will obviate all objection. It is that there should be appointed an agent who should take this fund into his own hands and notify these parties in the Indian country to come up within a given time and each receive the sum he is entitled to. If it is all paid out in that way, well and good. Whatever remains let it go back into the Treasury. Let this agent be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. That will relieve it of every difficulty. It is suggested by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LAWRENCE] this attorney gets forty or fifty per cent. I do not know what he gets. I do not suppose he works for nothing. It is legitimate that he should have pay for his services.

Mr. WINDOM. I have no doubt he is paid. Mr. MULLINS. I do not know of any combinations to defeat these worthy parties. It has been carried on for two dreadful, bloody years. My amendment will make the thing all right.

Mr. WINDOM. I wish to add a word, and then I have nothing further to say unless other gentlemen wish to be heard. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. SHANKS] proposes an amendment to increase the amount to be paid to these Indians $234,000, the amount stipulated to be paid under this compromise being $150,000. It seems to me the gentleman must modify his amendment in some way to make it consistent with the bill. The bill provides for carrying out certain agreements and compromises entered into between these Indians. That fixes the sum of $150,000. He proposes $234,000, which is inconsistent with that compromise. I said yesterday I had no objection to the amount he fixes if it were practicable. The treaty provides the award shall not be paid until it is ratified by the Secretary of the Interior. Until that is done we have no power to make an appropriation, but, sir, I believe we have the right to ratify any agreement between the parties themselves. If you pass the bill as reported by the committee these Indians who have been in a suffering condition will get this money, at least a large portion of it. If the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana prevails they will get no money, but will have to wait for years longer and until they will be compelled to sell out to speculators. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana five minutes.

Mr. SHANKS. Mr. Speaker, the claim, as allowed by the commissioners, against the Chickasaws was $234,000. I am now simply asking that this House authorize the Secretary of the Interior to settle with these men at the exact amount which the commissioners made the award. These agents or attorneys have proposed to reduce that to $150,000, striking out $84,000 of the award made by the commissiouers to the loyal Indians. I am now asking that the amount be raised to the amount of the award. I am not asking the interest to be added either in case of the Choctaws or the Chickasaws. But the chairman of the committee says these tribes have made this compromise. I insist that it has been made by agents in the city of Washington who have not seen the Indians since the proposition was made by the Secretary of the Interior to these agents. The contract to reduce these claims has been made here in Washington, and not by the authority of the parties in interest. They have their treaty, and under the treaty a commission was appointed, with power to examine witnesses, and both the Choctaws and Chickasaws have been heard in that examination.

I call attention to a remark made by the chairman of the committee on this subject on

yesterday. He said these parties had no attorney before the commission that examined these claims. This was an error. The Choctaws had three attorneys and the Chickasaws one. That will be found on the record. They cross-examined the witnesses. The case was heard before the commissioners, and was reported under oath. Now, I insist that the allowance that was awarded shall be made. The gentleman said I volunteered my defense of these loyal men. If I have, I hope I shall have at least the credit of being in earnest in what I say. But if I have volunteered, it is only as a Representative standing here that I speak for these men who have no person to speak for them, and whose agents have decided to take $84,000 out of their pockets without consulting them about it. Against this I protest, and against this I speak. The agent has no authority to act in this case. We have no evidence to-day to show that these men are satisfied with that proposition. They know nothing about it, and will only know it when the action of this House is reported to them. This money does not come out of the Treasury of the United States. It is to be paid by those who wronged these men, and I insist that the entire amount should be paid. When the question goes back to the Secretary of the Interior for his decision, if he insists upon not only overruling the commissioners and the sworn proof, but the action of Congress, and still persists in deciding that the amount shall be reduced, then we will have another hearing of the case. For the present let the House decide that these loyal inen shall have their full pay according to the award and according to the testimony in the case and I will be satisfied.

Mr. WINDOM. I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. MUNGEN. I have only a word or two to say on this question. As I got back this morning I learned that the matter had been compromised by the reduction of $84,000, and that the Indians are willing to pay the balance. I hold that if the matter goes through as agreed upon it will save to the Indians $84,000. As to the question of loyalty, I would not give a snap of my finger for it. A big man, called Hopothoyouholo, or some other big Indian" name, went there, and, claiming to be a prophet, he frightened them by telling them that they would be overrun by the troops of the North, which made them leave the country. Chepika, his brother-in-law, believing in his power as a prophet, induced a band of which he was chief to accompany the other big Indian and his band. It was not a question of loyalty or disloyalty by any means. They were not forced away at all; they went away of their own free will. They concluded they would go to Kansas, and on their way some of them were frozen to death, and many of them suffered great hardships. The object seems to be to punish these Indians who had nothing to do with putting them out of the country, and to give a bonus to the men who went away of their own free will. I am opposed to this whole thing; but inasmuch as the matter has been settled by the parties themselves, according to the best information I can get, I shall support this compromise, and save to these Indians $84,000. Perhaps it will keep it from going into the hands of somebody else than the Indians who are claiming it. I do not like this thing; I think it is all wrong; but the thing has been adjudicated, and I do not think it will work much harm if we pass the bill as reported, without the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. SHANKS.] I am opposed to the amendment, because I think it is nothing but a proposition to give $84,000 to some one who is no more entitled to it than I am.

Mr. SCHENCK. Will the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. WINDOM] allow me to offer an amendment to this bill?

Mr. WINDOM. I will hear it read. The SPEAKER. It will require unanimous consent to offer an amendment to the bill now, as the previous question is operating.

Mr. WINDOM. I had forgotten that. Mr. SCHENCK. Let it be read for information.

The amendment was read, to add to the bill the following:

And provided further, That no payment shall be made nor bond delivered under the provisions of this act, except in every case to the person actually entitled in his own right to receive the same; nor shall any contract or power of attorney relating to the same be regarded or held as of any validity unless signed and executed after the passage of this act.

Mr. WINDOM. I certainly would have no objection to that amendment if it did not require every one of these Indians to make a trip to Washington, or the Secretary of the Interior to make a trip to the Indian country.

Mr. SCHENCK. It will not require that. Mr. WINDOM. I do not see how else it can be done.

Mr. SCOFIELD. The regulations of the Department at present are such that you cannot go to an Indian, pay him a certain sum for his claim, take his receipt for the full amount of the claim, and then go to an Indian agent and get the money for it. The regulations require that the money shall be paid by the Indian agent directly to the Indian entitled to it.

Mr. SCHENCK. I hope this amendment will be added to the bill by unanimous con

sent.

The SPEAKER. The Chair understood the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. WINDOM] to object.

Mr. WINDOM. I will not object to the amendment if no one else objects.

Mr. MUNGEN. I object to the amendment. Mr. SCHENCK. I move to reconsider the vote by which the main question was ordered, so that I may have an opportunity to offer the amendment I have indicated.

The motion to reconsider was agreed to. Mr. SCHENCK. I now move the amendment which has been read.

Mr. MUNGEN. I withdraw my objection to the amendment; I did not understand thefull effect of it.

The SPEAKER. The amendment will be regarded as pending.

Mr. WINDOM. I now call the previous question upon the bill and amendments.

Mr. MULLINS. Will the gentleman yield to me for a few minutes?

Mr. WINDOM. I cannot yield further. The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.

66

The first question was upon the amendment of Mr. SHANKS, to strike out $150,000" and insert "$234,000;" so that that portion of the bill would read:

And to the Chickasaw claimants the sum of $234,000. The amendment was not agreed to; upon a division there being-ayes twelve, noes not counted.

The next question was upon the amendment of Mr. SCHENCK, to add to the bill the following:

And provided further, That no payment shall bo made, nor bond delivered, under the provisions of this act, except in every case to the person actually entitled in his own right to receive the same; nor shall any contract or power of attorney relating to the same be regarded or held as of any validity unless signed and accepted after the passage of this act. 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.

Mr. WINDOM 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.

REDUCTION OF THE ARMY.

Mr. GARFIELD, by unanimous consent, reported from the Committee on Military Affairs a bill (H. R. No. 1377) to reduce and fix the military peace establishment; which was read a first and second time, ordered to be printed, and recommitted.

RETIRED OFFICERS OF THE ARMY.

Mr. GARFIELD, by unanimous consent, also reported from the Committee on Military Affairs a bill (H. R. No. 1378) declaring the meaning of the several acts in relation to retired officers of the Army; which was read a first and second time, ordered to be printed, and recommitted.

PURCHASE OF ALASKA.

The SPEAKER. The House will now resume the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 1096) making an appropriation of money to carry into effect the treaty with Russia of March 10, 1867, which bill was to be considered to-day in Committee of the Whole immediately after the reading of the Journal. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BANKS] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. BANKS. Iyield to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SCHENCK.]

REAPPRAISEMENT OF FOREIGN MERCHANDISE.

Mr. SCHENCK. I ask unanimous consent to report back from the Committee of Ways and Means, adversely, the petition of certain New York merchants in relation to the reappraisement of foreign merchandise imported. The petition is accompanied with drafts of two bills. The committee recommend that no such bills be passed. I will ask the reading of a short letter on this subject from the Secretary of the Treasury.

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection, the letter will be read.

There was no objection; and the Clerk read as follows:

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 11, 1868. SIR: I have the honor to return herewith the petition of certain New York merchants and the drafts of two bills in relation to foreign merchandise, which were submitted by you on the 6th instant for my views thereon.

The legislation prayed for would, in my opinion, jeopardize the revenue from impost to an almost inconceivable extent, and would overthrow the whole revenue system and the laws and regulations governing it. Among the signers to the petition are to be found the names of firms who have been detected in heavy frauds upon the revenue, and the manifest object of the parties is to deprive the Government of the salutary checks it now holds over the unserupulous importer.

I am, very respectfully,

H. McCULLOCH, Secretary of the Treasury.

Hon. JAMES K. MOORHEAD,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. The SPEAKER. If there be no objection, the petition and accompanying papers will be laid on the table.

There was no objection.

TONNAGE DUTIES ON SPANISHI VESSELS.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury; which was read, as follows:

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 8, 1868. SIR: Permit me to call the attention of the House to a communication addressed to you from this Department on the 11th of February last respecting the laws governing tonnage duties chargeable against Spanish vessels in ports of the United States. The law upon this subject is, in my opinion, in urgent need of early amendment; and I may be pardoned for expressing an earnest hope that action will be taken upon it during the present session. Very respectfully,

Hon. SCHUYLER COLFAX,

H. McCULLOCH, Secretary of the Treasury.

Speaker of the House of Representatives. The communication was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS.

Mr. ECKLEY asked and obtained leave to withdraw from the files of the House papers in the case of Benjamin Deford & Son.

THOMAS W. WARD.

Mr. ELIOT, by unanimous consent, reported back, from the Committee on Commerce, a bill (S. No. 542) for the relief of Thomas W. Ward, late collector of customs for the district of Corpus Christi, Texas.

The bill was read. It authorizes and directs the proper accounting officers of the Treasury

to audit and settle the accounts of Thomas W. Ward, late collector of customs for the district of Corpus Christi, Texas, from March 5, 1867, to July 1, 1867, and to allow him the same compensation and emoluments as if he had been legally collector of customs for that district for the period named, and that the deputy collector appointed by Ward on the 7th of March, 1867, be recognized as the legal deputy collector of the district; and the accounting officers are authorized to settle the accounts of the deputy in the same manner as if he had been legally appointed and all his acts were legal.

The bill was ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

Mr. ELIOT 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.

PUBLIC LANDS IN NEVADA.

Mr. JULIAN, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill H. R. No. 1379) to aid in ascertaining the value of certain public lands in Story county, in the State of Nevada; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on the Public Lands.

TAXATION AND PUBLIC DEBT.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1380) to equalize taxation and reduce the interest on the public debt; which was read a first and second time, and

referred to the Committee of Ways and

Means.

REFERENCE OF BILLS, ETC.

Mr. UPSON. I move to reconsider the various votes by which bills and joint resolutions have been referred this morning, and also move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

DONATION OF MARBLE COLUMNS.

Mr. O'NEILL, by unanimous consent, introduced a joint resolution (H. R. No. 328) for the donation of certain columns; which was read a first and second time.

The joint resolution was read. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to donate to such cemeteries as have been in whole or in part dedicated to the burial of soldiers and sailors who lost their lives in the service of the United States, or to such volunteer associations of citizens as attended to their wants and comforts while living, six columns taken from the old Pennsylvania bank building, provided only one column shall be donated to such cemetery or association in any one State and the same shall be used as a monument.

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

Mr. O'NEILL moved to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

ARKANSAS TAX COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. ROOTS. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table Senate bill No. 564, concerning tax commissioners for the State of Arkansas.

There was no objection, and the bill was taken up and read a first and second time. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move that that bill be referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.

The motion was agreed to.

PURCHASE OF ALASKA-AGAIN.

Mr. BANKS. I now resume the floor, and will state that my purpose is to ask the House to postpone the vote on the Alaska bill until Tuesday next. A large number of members on the other side are absent attending the Democratic convention in New York city, while a large number on this side are absent

attending the Republican convention at SyraMany who are here are paired off.

cuse.

It

is scarcely possible, therefore, that a quorum is present. I desire there shall be a full House when this question is decided, whatever the decision may be. I ask that the vote shall be taken on Tuesday next, under the same arrangement that we are now under.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I object. The SPEAKER. The House, by unanimous consent, ordered this bill should be taken up in the Committee of the Whole and voted on after the reading of the Journal. It was postponed by a bill on which the previous question was called last evening, but which is now disposed of. The gentleman from Massachusetts moves to postpone with the same priority to Tuesday next, after the reading of the Journal.

Mr. PAINE. I rise to amend the motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I rise to a question of order. This bill was set down by unanimous consent for a vote to-day, and it is not in the power of a majority to postpone it. It can only be postponed by unanimous consent.

The SPEAKER. The Chair overrules the point of order. On page 182 of the Digest it will be found that "a special order may be postponed by a majority vote." It then goes on to state that according to the usage whenever the time arrives for the consideration of a special order in Committee of the Whole the same may be postponed by a vote in the House. Mr. BANKS. The motion to postpone is always in order.

The SPEAKER. The bill having been reached for consideration in the Committee of the Whole, it may be postponed with the same priority. There was a precedent this session. The tax bill first reported from the Committee of Ways and Means was made a special order from day to day after the morning hour. The House will recollect the question being asked by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] whether each day, when the time arrived to go into committee, the bill could be postponed. The Chair stated that it could, as the bill was within the control of the House.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. There is a difference between that state of facts and where the matter has been set down by unani

mous consent.

The SPEAKER. Special orders are made by a two-thirds vote when the rules can be suspended, but when the rules cannot be suspended by unanimous consent. The tax bill was also made the special order by unanimous consent.

Mr. PAINE. I move the following as a substitute for the present motion.

The following is the proposition, only the first two lines of which were read:

Whereas it is one of the first duties of every Government to assert the just demands of its citizens against other Governments; and whereas Ann B. Perkins, administratrix, a citizen of Massachusetts, has petitioned the Government of the United States for its intercession with the Government of Russia for the adjustment of a certain demand for muskets and gunpowder sold to the Government of Russia during the Crimean war, which demand has been examined and pronounced just by the Secretary of State of the United States; and whereas in the treaty of the purchase of Alaska no provision is made for the adjustment of any demands of citizens of the United States against the Government of Russia; and whereas an opportunity ought to be afforded to the President of the United States to invite the Government of Russia to an examination and adjustment of the said demand of Ann B. Perkins: Therefore,

Resolved, That the further consideration of the appropriation for the payment for Alaska be postponed until the second Monday of next December.

The SPEAKER. It is not in order to the pending motion to postpone to move a proposition with "whereases."

Mr. PAINE. Let it be read. There is something more than "whereases." Mr. WOODBRIDGE. I object. Mr. PAINE. So much as is unobjectionable I suppose I have a right to have reported. The SPEAKER. If the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BANKS] yields, the gentleman can have it reported.

Mr. PAINE. I claim that I have a right to offer it.

The SPEAKER. When the Chair decided that the amendment was not in order, that took the floor from the gentleman from Wisconsin and gave it to the gentleman from Massachusetts. When a member offers a proposition which is not in order under the rules he cannot hold the floor to make a subsequent proposition.

Mr. PAINE. My proposition changes the day.

The SPEAKER. That is a new proposition. If the gentleman from Massachusetts yields it will be reported.

Mr. BANKS. Will the gentleman tell me what day he wishes to substitute?

Mr. PAINE. I rise to a point of order. The gentleman moved to postpone to a certain day. I proposed to amend by changing the day upon which a vote is to be taken.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman has not stated precisely the fact according to the recollection of the Chair. The gentleman from Massachusetts moved to postpone the further consideration of the bill till Tuesday next, immediately after the reading of the Journal. The gentleman from Wisconsin moved to amend. The Clerk commenced reading the amendment which commenced with a "whereas," being an argument and not a motion to change the time. A motion to postpone with an argument is not privileged. The Chair so stated. The gentleman then asked that the proposition be read. The Chair said it would be if there was no objection. Objection being made, the Chair gave the floor to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. PAINE. That does not cover my point. I insist I have now a right to move an amendment.

The SPEAKER. The Chair overrules the point of order, as the floor came into the possession of the gentleman from Massachusetts when the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin was ruled out of order. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts yield to allow the amendment to be offered?

Mr. BANKS. I do not.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Will it be in order to move to amend by substituting another day certain?

The SPEAKER. It will be if the gentleman from Massachusetts yields, or if the previous question is not sustained on the motion now pending.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Then I hope the House will vote down the previous question.

Mr. BANKS. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to occupy the time. My only reason for moving to postpone is that there shall be

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Is this motion debatable?

The SPEAKER. It is within narrow limits. The Clerk will read the rule.

The Clerk read as follows: "The motion to postpone to a day certain under the practice admits of but very limited debate."

The SPEAKER. This has always been the rule. Limited debate, not touching the merits of the bill, but as to the question of the propriety of postponing it to some future day is allowable.

Mr. BANKS.

My only reason for moving to postpone this bill is that there may be a full vote upon this question. It is a public question of great importance, and the House should be full when it is decided. There are members on both sides of the House absent, and other members who are present are paired with them. It is doubtful even if there is a quorum here to day. I think the public interest requires that this question should be decided by the vote of a full House. I therefore ask that it may be postponed until gentlemen who are absent on public business, may have an opportunity to return. It is immaterial to me whether Saturday or Tuesday be the time fixed, except that I believe Tuesday will be

the first day when the members of the House will generally be back here.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I hope we shall adjourn on Wednesday.

Mr. BANKS. I move that the further consideration of this bill be postponed until Tuesday next, immediately after the reading of the Journal.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I desire to move that it be postponed until the second Monday of December next.

Mr. BANKS. I do not yield for that amendment; I wish to have this question postponed till such time as members will be here.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. They will be here on the second Monday of December

next.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I would ask the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BANKS] to make it Saturday next.

Mr. BANKS. If gentlemen are willing to agree to that I am willing to so modify my amendment.

Mr. PAINE.

We are not willing.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. If this bill is put off till Tuesday next it will delay the adjournment several days.

Mr. BANKS. We will not adjourn on Wednesday next.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I hope we shall.

Mr. BANKS. I call the previous question on the motion to postpone.

The question was taken upon seconding the previous question; and upon a division, there were-ayes 77, noes 30.

Before the result was announced,

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts, called for tellers.

Tellers were not ordered.

The previous question was accordingly seconded.

The main question was then ordered. Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I call for the yeas and nays on the motion to postpone.

The question was taken upon ordering the yeas and nays; and upon a division, there were twenty-two in the affirmative.

So (the affirmative being one fifth of the last vote) the yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was then taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 96, nays 35, not voting 67; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Ames, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Axtell, Bailey, Baldwin, Banks, Barnes, Beck, Benjamin, Benton, Blair, Boles, Boutwell, Cake, Cary, Churchill, Sidney Clarke, Dawes, Deweese, Dixon, Donnelly, Eckley, Eliot, French, Garfield, Glossbrenner, Golladay, Griswold, Grover, Hawkins, Higby, Hill, Hinds, Hopkins, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Hunter, Jenckes, Johnson, Alexander H. Jones, Thomas L. Jones, Julian, Kitchen, Koontz, William Lawrence, Loughridge, Mallory, Marshall, Marvin, Maynard, McClurg, McKee, Miller, Moorhead, Morrell, Mullins, Mungen, Myers, Nicholson, Nunn, O'Neill, Orth, Phelps, Plants, Poland, Pomeroy, Raum, Roots, Ross, Sawyer, Selye, Shanks, Sitgreaves, Smith, Spalding, Starkweather, Thaddeus Stevens, Stewart, Stokes, Stone, Taber, Taffe, Taylor, Thomas, Twichell, Upson, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, William Wiliams, John T. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge-96.

NAYS-Messrs. Allison, Baker, Beatty, Bromwell, Benjamin F. Butler, Cobb, Coburn, Cook, Cullom, Delano, Ela, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Hamilton, Holman, Judd, Kelsey, George V. Lawrence, Logan, McCarthy, McCormick, Mercur, Moore, Paine, Perham, Peters, Price, Schenck, Scofield, Trowbridge, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elihu B. Washburne, Welker. Thomas Williams, and James F. Wilson-35.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Archer, Barnum, Beaman, Bingham, Blaine, Boyer, Brooks, Broomall, Buckland, Burr, Roderick R. Butler. Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Cornell, Covode, Dodge, Driggs, Eggleston, Eldridge, Ferry, Fields, Finney, Fox, Getz, Gravely, Haight, Halsey. Harding, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Ilubbard, Humphrey, Ingersoll, Kelley, Kerr, Ketcham, Knott, Laflin, Lincoln, Loan, Lynch, McCullough, Morrissey, Newcomb, Niblack, Pike, Pile, Polsley, Pruyn, Randall, Robertson, Robinson, Shellabarger, Aaron F. Stevens, John Trimble, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Aernam, Van Auken, Van Trump. Van Wyck, Ward, Stephen F. Wilson, Wood, and Woodward-67.

So the motion to postpone was agreed to.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania. I desire to make an inquiry in regard to the effect of this vote? Will it cut off debate on this

bill?

The SPEAKER. It will, unless debate should transpire previous to Thursday next.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Pennsylvania. Then I ask leave to print in the Globe such remarks as I may desire to make on this bill.

No objection was made. [See Appendix.] Mr. BANKS. I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to postpone was agreed to; and I also move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

ELECTION CONTEST-SWITZLER VS. ANDERSON.

Mr. POLAND. Mr. Speaker, I had designed to call up this morning the report of the Committce of Elections on the case of Switzler ts. Anderson, from the ninth district of Missouri; but for very much the same reason as that which has induced the postponement of the Alaska bill I have concluded not to press that case at this time, there being so many members absent. I give notice that I shall call up this case on next Tuesday after the morning hour.

MISSION BUILDING, SAULT STE. MARIE.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of War, transmiting a communication from the corresponding secretary of the American Baptist Home Mission Society, respecting a mission building erected on the military reserve at Sault Ste. Marie, and asking relief; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I move that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for the purpose of proceeding to the consideration of the tariff bill.

The SPEAKER. The motion in that form would require unanimous consent.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Well, I move then simply that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; and I give notice that in Committee of the Whole I shall move to lay aside all other bills to get at the tariff bill.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Was not the deficiency appropriation bill, Mr. Speaker, made a special order for to-day?

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state the position of business. There has to-day been no morning hour. The morning hour would now commence, but the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MOORHEAD] rises to a privileged motion, that the rules be suspended and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole, his object being to lay aside all other bills in order to take up the tariff bill. The deficiency appropriation bill, in reference to which the gentleman from Illinois inquires, was made a special order for to-day after the morning hour and from day to day until disposed of; but if there should be no morning hour that bill will not be reached to-day.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I insist on my motion; and I give notice to the friends of the tariff bill that if they want it passed at this session now is the time to take it up.

On the motion of Mr. MOORHEAD there were-ayes 47, noes 49; no quorum voting. The SPEAKER, under the rule, ordered tellers; and appointed Mr. MOORHEAD and Mr. MARSHALL.

The House divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 62, noes 53.

So the motion was agreed to.

The House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. DAWES in the chair.)

MEETING OF CONGRESS.

The CHAIRMAN. The pending question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. MOORHEAD,] to lay aside the pending bill, being bill (H. R. No. 81) in regard to the meeting of Congress. At the last sitting of the committee tellers had been