Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

ernment refuses to take up its notes, and others
do likewise. These things cannot be without
a shock to public morals. Honesty ceases to
be even a policy. Broken contracts prepare
the way for crime, which comes to complete |
the picture.

Our foreign commerce is not less disturbed, for here we are brought within the sphere of other laws than our own. Gold is the standard of business throughout the civilized world. Until it becomes again the standard among us we are not, according to the familiar phrase of President Lincoln, "in practical relations" with the civilized world. We are States out of the great Union. Our currency has the stamp of legality at home; but it is worthless abroad. In all foreign transactions we are driven to purchase gold at a premium, or to adopt a system of barter, which belongs to the earlier stages of commerce.

Corn.

wheat, and cotton are exchanged for the products we desire, and this traffic is the coarse substitute for that refined and plastic system of exchanges which adapts itself so easily to all the demands of business. Commerce with foreign Powers is prosecuted at an incalculable disadvantage. Our shipping, which in times past has been the pride of the Nation, whitening every sea with its sails, is reduced in number and value. Driven from the ocean by pirate flags during the rebellion, it cannot struggle back to its ancient supremacy until the accustomed laws of trade once more resume their rule.

HOW TO ARRIVE AT SPECIE PAYMENTS.

There are few who will deny the transcendent evil which I have set forth. There are few who will advocate inconvertible paper as currency. How shall the remedy be applied? On this question, so interesting to the business and good name of the country there are theories without number; some so ingenious as to be artificial rather than natural. What is natural is simple; and I am persuaded that our remedy must be of this character.

The legal tender note, which we wish to expel from our currency, has two different characters; first, as mere currency, for use in the transactions of business; and, secondly, as real value from the assurance that ultimately it will be paid in coin, according to its promise, These two different characters may be sententiously expressed as availability and convertibility. The notes are now available without being convertible. Our desire is to make them convertible; in other words, the equivalent of coin in value, dollar for dollar. On the 1st of June last past these notes were $388, 645, 801 in amount.

Discarding theories, however ingenious, and following nature, I call attention to a few prac tical points before reverting to those cardinal principles applicable to this subject, from which there can be no appeal.

First. The present proposition for funding is an excellent measure for this purpose, being at once simple and practical; not that it contains any direct promise for the redemption of our currency, but because it places the national debt on a permanent footing at a smaller interest than is now paid. By this change three things, essential to financial reconstruction, are promoted; economy, stability, and national credit. With these once established, specie-payments cannot be long postponed.

Secondly. Another measure of immediate value is the legalization of contracts in coin, so that henceforth all agreements made in coin may be legally enforced in coin or its equivalent. This would establish specie payments wherever parties desired, and to this extent begin the much-desired change. Contracts in coin would increase and multiply, until the exception became the rule. There would for a time be two currencies; but the better must gradually prevail. The essential equity of the new system would be apparent; while there would be a charm in once more looking upon familiar faces long hidden from sight, as the hoarded coin came forth. Nor can any possible injury ensue. The legalization is appli- Il

But

cable only to future contracts, as the parties
mutually agree. Every citizen in this respect
would be a law to himself. If he chose in his
own business to resume specie payments, he
could do so. There would be a voluntary
resumption by the people, one by one.
this influence could not be confined to the
immediate parties. Beyond the contagion of
its example, there would be a positive neces-
sity on the part of the banks, that they should
adapt themselves to the exigency by the sub-
stitution of proper commercial equivalents;
and thus again we take another step in specie
payments.

Thirdly. Another measure of practical value
is the contraction of the existing currency, so
as to bring it on a par with coin, dollar for
dollar. Before alluding to any of the expe-
dients to accomplish this precious object, it is
important to arrive at some idea of the amount
of currency of all kinds required for the busi-
ness of the country. To do this, we may look
at the currency before the rebellion, when
business was in its normal condition. I shall
not occupy space with tables, although they are
now before me, but content myself with re-
sults. From the official report of the Treasury,
it appears that, on the 1st of January, 1860,
the whole active circulation of the country,
including bank circulation, bank deposits avail-
able as currency, specie in bank, specie in
Treasury, estimated specie in circulation, and
deducting reserves, amounted to $542,097,264.
It may be assumed that this sum total was
the amount of currency required at the time.
From the same official tables, it appears that,
on the 1st of October, 1867, the whole active
circulation of the country, beginning with
greenbacks and fractional currency, and includ-
ing all the items in the other account, amounted
to $1,245,138,193. Thus from 1860, when the
currency was normal, to 1867, some time after
the suspension of specie payments, there was
an increase of one hundred and thirty per
cent. Omitting bank deposits for both years
the increase was one hundred and forty-six
per cent. Making due allowance for the in-
crease of population, business, and Govern-
ment transactions, there remains a consider-
able portion of this advance, which must be
attributed to the abnormal condition of the
currency. I follow various estimates in put-
ting this at sixty or seventy per cent., repre-
senting the difference of prices at the two dif
ferent periods, and the corresponding excess
of currency above the requirements of the
country. Therefore, for the reduction of prices,
there must be a reduction of the currency;
and this must be to the amount of $300,000,000.
So it seems, unless these figures err.

Against the movement for contraction, which is commended by its simplicity and its tendency to a normal condition of things, we have two adverse policies; one the stand-still policy, and the other, worse yet, the policy of inflation. By the first the currency is left in statu quo-stationary-subject to the influence of other conditions which may operate to reduce it. Better stand still than move in a wrong direction. By the latter the currency is enlarged at the expense of the people-being at once a tax and a derangement of values. You pamper the morbid appetite for paper money and play the discarded part of John Law. You blow up a bladder, without thinking that it is nothing but a bladder, ready to burst. As the volume of currency is increased the purchasing power of each dollar is reduced in proportion. As you add to the currency you take from the dollar. You do little more than mark your goods at higher prices and imagine that they have increased in value. Already the price is too high. Do not make it higher. Already the currency is corrupted. Do not corrupt it more. The cream has been reduced to skimmed milk. Do not let it be reduced to chalk and water. Let there be national cream for all the people.

Obviously any contraction of the currency must be conducted with caution, so as to interfere as little as possible with existing interests.

It should be understood in advance, so that business may adapt itself to the change. Once understood, it must be pursued wisely to the end. I call attention to a few of the expedients by which this contraction may be made.

1. Any holder may have liberty to fund his greenbacks in bonds, as he may desire, so that, as coin increased, they would be merged in the funded debt and the currency be reduced in corresponding proportion.

2. Greenbacks when received at the Treasury may be canceled, or they may be redeemed directly, so far as the coin on hand will per

mit.

3. Greenbacks may be converted into compound-interest notes, to be funded in monthly installments, running over a period of years, thus reaching specie payments within a brief period.

4. Another expedient, more active still, is the application of the coin on hand to the payment of greenbacks at a given rate, say $6,000,000 a month-selecting for payment those holders who present the largest amount of five twenties for conversion into the long bonds at a low rate of interest, or shall pay the highest premium on such bonds.

I mention these as expedients, calculated to operate in the same direction-without violent change or spasmodic action. Under their mild and beneficent influence the currency would be gradually reduced, so that the final step when taken would be hardly felt. With so great an object in view, I do not doubt its accomplishment at an early day, if the Nation only wills it. "Where there is a will there is a way," and never was this proverb truer than on this occasion. To my mind it is clear that, when the Nation wills a currency in coin, then must this victory over the Rebellion be won; provided always that there is no failure in those other things on which I have also dwelt as the conditions precedent of this final victory.

CONCLUSION.

How vain it is to expect financial reconstruction until political reconstruction has been completed, I have already shown. How vain to expect specie payments, until the Nation has once more gained its natural vigor, and it has become one in reality as in name. Let this be, and the Nation will be like a strong man, in the full enjoyment of all his forces, coping with the trials of life.

There must also be peace within our borders, so that there shall be no discord between President and Congress. Therefore, so long as Andrew Johnson is President, the return to specie payments is impossible. So long as a great party, called Democratic, better now called Rebel, wars on that political reconstruction, which Congress has organized, there can be no specie payments. So long as any President, or any political party, denies the Equal Rights of the freedman, it is vain to expect specie payments. Whoso would have equity must do equity; and now, if you would have specie payments, you must do this great equity. The rest will follow. When General Grant said, "Let us have peace" he said also, "Let us have specie payments." Among all the blessed gifts of peace there is none more certain.

Nor must it be forgotten, that there can be no departure in any way from the requirements of Public Faith. This is a perpetual obligation, complete in all respects and just as applicable to the freedman as to the bondholder. Repudiation in all its forms, direct or indirect, whether of the freedman or the bondholder, must be repudiated. Both are under the same safeguard, and there is the same certain disaster from any repudiation of either. Unless the Public Faith is preserved, you cannot fund your debt at a smaller interest; you cannot convert your greenbacks; you cannot comply with the essential terms of reconstruction. Amid all surrounding abundance you are poor and powerless, for you are dishonored. Do not say, as an apology, that all should have the same currency. True as this may be, it is a cheat when used to cover dishonor. The currency of all should be coin,

and you should lift all the national creditors to this solid platform rather than drag a single citizen down. A just Equality is sought by leveling up instead of leveling down. In this way the national credit will be maintained, so that it will be a source of wealth, prosperity, and renown.

Pardon me, if now, by way of recapitulation, I call your attention to three things in which all others center. The first is the Public Faith. The second is the Public Faith. The third is the Public Faith. Let these be sacredly preserved, and there is nothing of power or fame, which can be wanting. All things will pay tribute to you, even from the uttermost parts of the sea. All the sheaves will stand about, as in the dream of Joseph, and make obeisance to your sheaf. Good people, especially all concerned in business, whether commerce, banking, or labor-our own compatriots or the people of other lands-will honor and uphold the Nation which, against all temptation, keeps its word.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

Mr. TRUMBULL. It is manifest that we cannot get through with this bill to-day, and as it is desirable to have an executive session I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

Mr. SHERMAN. Why not let us proceed with this bill a little longer?

Mr. TRUMBULL. It is after three o'clock on Saturday afternoon; and there is some business that ought to be done in executive session.

Mr. SHERMAN. We can have an executive session later in the day, say at half past four.

Mr. TRUMBULL. We cannot get through the executive business by beginning the executive session at half past four.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. ANTHONY in the chair.) The motion is not debatable.

Mr. SHERMAN. I ask for the yeas and We might just as well go on a little longer with this bill.

nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 33, nays 6; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Davis, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Harlan, Howard, Howe, McCreery, McDonald, Nye, Osborn, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Sumner, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey, Williams, and Yates-33. NAYS-Messrs. Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Sherman, and Stewart-6. ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Corbett, Cragin, Dixon, Doolittle, Drake, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Norton, Rice, Saulsbury,Sprague,Thayer, Wade, Welch, and Wilson-18.

So the motion was agreed to.

After more than two hours spent in executive session the doors were reopened.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed the joint resolution (S. R. No. 139) excluding from the Electoral College the votes of States lately in rebellion which shall not have been organized, with amendments, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate.

The message also announced that the House had disagreed to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 1284) to change and more effectually secure the collection of internal taxes on distilled spirits and tobacco, and to amend the tax on banks, asked a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and has appointed Mr. R. C. SCHENCK of Ohio, Mr. SAMUEL HOOPER of Massachusetts, and Mr. W. E. NIBLACK of Indiana, managers at the same on its part.

ELECTORAL VOTES OF LATE REBEL STATES.

On motion of Mr. EDMUNDS, the Senate proceeded to consider the amendments of the House of Representatives to the joint resolution (S. R. No. 139) excluding from the Electoral College votes of States lately in rebellion which shall not have been reorganized.

The amendments were read. They were in

lines four and five, to strike out the words "and which States are not now represented in Congress;" in line fifteen, to strike out the word "and" and insert "nor," and to add to the resolution the words, "Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to apply to any State which was represented in Congress on the 4th day of March, 1867;" so as to make the resolution read:

Resolved, &c., That none of the States whose inhabitants were lately in rebellion shall be entitled to representation in the Electoral College for the choice of President or Vice President of the United States, nor shall any electoral votes be received or counted from any of such States, unless at the time prescribed by law for the choice of electors the people of such States, pursuant to the acts of Congress in that behalf, shall have, since the 4th day of March, 1867, adopted a constitution of State government under which a State government shall have been organized and shall be in operation, nor unless such election of electors shall have been held under the authority of such constitution and government, and such State shall have also become entitled to representation in Congress, pursuant to the acts of Congress in that behalf: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to apply to any State which was represented in Congress on the 4th day of March, 1867.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on concurring in the amendments of of the House of Representatives.

Mr. TRUMBULL. It seems to me that the amendments put the resolution in a shape which the Senate several times voted down. The objection to the resolution as it originally stood was that it embraced States which had already been admitted to representation. That was the point upon which the discussion arose in the Senate, and the Senate repeatedly voted down this very proposition.

Mr. DRAKE. No.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Yes; I think, in substance, the very same thing. The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. THAYER] made a motion which saved the States of Arkansas and Florida by providing that the resolution should apply only to those States not now represented. The Senator from Nebraska moved the amendment so as to confine the resolution to those States not represented; and that was satisfactory to the Senate. The very difficulty we had in this body was that the original resolution reflected upon States already represented in Congress, and it was making a distinction, which many thought invidious, between the States of Arkansas and Florida and the States of Illinois and New York and Nebraska; and hence the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska was adopted by a very decided vote of the Senate. Now, the House of Representatives has stricken out that very provision which made the resolution satisfactory to the Senate. As there was so much trouble about it, I think it would be best to non-concur.

Mr. CONKLING. I was going to make that suggestion, that we non-concur and ask for a conference.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I move, if it be in order, that we non-concur in the House amendments and ask for a conference. I think that will be the better way, and then we shall arrive at a conclusion.

Mr. EDMUNDS. A motion to concur has precedence, and I make that motion. I have looked at the amendments of the House. Aside from the feeling of my friend from Illinois who has had it all the time-it has been chronic with him; and therefore it is to be expected that he will continue it-I think the resolution as amended by the House of Representatives comes nearer to harmonizing all the views that the Senate had than any other would. It leaves out the names of these States just as they were left out last night, and makes the sweeping declaration that none of the States which have been in rebellion shall be considered as having been restored out of the rebellion so as to vote until they shall have reached the point through the instrumentality of our reconstruction measures where they will be entitled to admission; that is, until they shall have adopted their new constitutions under the authority of Congress, submitted them to Congress for approval, have them approved, and then have ratified the four

teenth article; and then, in order not to include Tennessee in that, which was admitted before with a constitution formed prior to the 4th of March, 1867, the proviso is added. I do hope that on this mere question of form we shall not haggle with the House of Representatives, but concur in their amendments at once.

The question being put on concurring in the House amendments; there were, on a divisionayes 20, noes 12.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President

Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to have the yeas and nays on concurring in the House amendments. I think an important principle is involved.

[blocks in formation]

late. Mr. EDMUNDS. After the vote has been taken and announced?

Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senate does not want to give me the yeas and nays, be it so.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I should not have thought of suggesting that objection if the Senator had not been so exceedingly nice. I withdraw the objection.

Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senate will not give me the yeas and nays, be it so.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon addressed the Chair.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I was about to make a motion to adjourn; but if the Senator from Illinois wants the yeas and nays, of course I shall not make the motion now.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I think we had better have the yeas and nays.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I make no objection. The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 19, nays 15; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Cattell, Cole. Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Harlan, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Osborn, Ramsey, Ross, Stewart, Sumner, Tipton, Wade, Williams, and Yates-19.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Conkling, Davis, Ferry, Fowler, Henderson, Hendricks, Howe, McCreery, Morgan, Patterson of Tennessee, Thayer, Trumbull, Van Winkle, and Vickers-15.

ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Cameron, Chandler, Conness, Corbett, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Howard, McDonald, Morrill of Maine, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Rice, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, Welch, Willey, and Wilson-23.

So the amendments were concurred in. Mr. WILLIAMS. I move that the Senate do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

SATURDAY, July 11, 1868.

The House met at twelve o'clock m. The Journal of yesterday was partially read, when, on motion of Mr. BOUTWELL, the further reading was dispensed with.

UNITED STATES COURTS IN VIRGINIA.

Mr. BOUTWELL, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported back, with the recommendation that it do pass, the bill (H. R. No. 1370) to fix the time for holding the terms of the United States district court in Virginia.

The bill was read. It provides that the terms of the United States district court for the district of Virginia shall be held as heretofore at Richmond and Norfolk, and that the terms in Staunton shall be held on the second Tuesday of April and October, and at Wytheville on the fourth Tuesday of April and October in each year.

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

Mr. BOUTWELL 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. CAKE asked and obtained leave of absence for two days.

COURT OF CLAIMS-ARKANSAS.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, by unanimous consent, reported back from the Committee on the Judiciary, with a substitute, a joint resolution (H. R. No. 310) to extend the provisions of the act of July 4, 1864, limiting the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims to the loyal

citizens of the State of Arkansas.

The substitute, which was read, provides that the provisions of the act of July 4, 1864, entitled "An act to restrict the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims," is hereby extended to loyal citizens of the State of Arkansas, anything to the contrary notwithstanding in the act to declare the sense of an act entitled "An act to restrict the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, and to provide for the payment of certain demands for quartermaster's stores and subsistence supplies furnished to the Army of the United States," passed February 19,

1867.

The substitute was agreed to; and the joint resolution, 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. 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.

BRIDGE OVER MISSOURI RIVER.

Mr. CLARKE, of Kansas. I ask unanimous consent to have taken from the Speaker's table Senate bill No. 355, authorizing the construction of a bridge across the Missouri river upon the military reservation at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

No objection was made; and the bill was taken from the table and read a first and second time.

The question was upon ordering the bill to be read a third time.

Mr. CLARKE, of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. LOAN] to offer an amendment.

Mr. LOAN. I move to amend the bill by adding to it the following:

SEC. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the St. Joseph and Denver City Railroad Company, a corporation created by the laws of the State of Kansas, to build a bridge over and across the Missouri river at St. Joseph, Missouri; and all the rights and privileges conferred by sections one, two, four, and five, of this act are hereby extended, so far as they are applicable to the St. Joseph and Denver City Railroad Company, and the restrictions, limitatious, and conditions contained in said sections are hereby made applicable to said company.

The amendment was agreed to.

The bill, as amended, was then read the third time, and passed.

Mr. CLARKE, of Kansas, 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.

HAWAIIAN BRIG VICTORIA.

Mr. AXTELL, by unanimous consent, reported from the Committee on Commerce a joint resolution (H. R. No. 331) to authorize the issue of an American register to the Hawaiian brig Victoria; which was read a first and second time.

The question was upon ordering the joint resolution to be engrossed and read a third time.

The joint resolution, which was read, directs the Secretary of the Treasury to issue an American register to the derelict Hawaiian brig Victoria, said vessel being now owned by a citizen of San Francisco, California.

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

The question was upon the passage of the

bill.

Mr. LYNCH. I hope some reason will be given why this joint resolution should be passed.

Mr. AXTELL. This is a Hawaiian brig

which was wrecked in our waters and abandoned; but it does not come under the provisions of any general law by which an American owner of the vessel can obtain au American register. The Committee on Commerce had before them a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury explaining all the facts, and after examination the committee agreed unanimously that I should be allowed to report this joint

resolution to the House.

Mr. SPALDING. I will not oppose the passage of this joint resolution. What I object to is the Committee on Commerce singling out one or two cases where any of their own number are interested and excluding others. Some of us have introduced applications for registers of vessels as favorable as this can possibly be, and we hear nothing from them. I have nothing further to say except that I shall vote for

the resolution.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that if there should be a morning hour to-day the Committee on Commerce will be called for bills of a private nature.

Mr. ELIOT. I ask the gentleman from California [Mr. AXTELL] to yield to me for a moment that I may say a word in reply to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SPALDING.]

Mr. AXTELL. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. ELIOT. I wish to say to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SPALDING] that if he will at any time bring before the Committee on Commerce a case similar in principle to that now reported by the gentleman from California it will probably receive the same favorable consideration that this has received. I will say that the cases which have been submitted to the committee by the gentleman from Ohio are not cases deserving the favorable consideration of the committee; and so long as such cases come before us, and so long as the Committee on Commerce shall be constituted as it now is, the gentleman from Ohio must expect that adverse reports will be made. The case now reported is one which would fairly come within the provisions of the act of 1852, if the vessel had been wrecked on our coast. In point of fact, much more than the amount called for by that statute has been expended upon the vessel, which was an abandoned vessel, not a wreck. In other respects, the case would fairly come within the purview of that statute.

Mr. SPALDING. In reply to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ELIOT] I will say that I cannot tell whether the cases which have been referred by me to the Committee on Commerce deserve the favorable consideration of that committee; but I do say that they deserve the favorable consideration of all men of patriotism and good sense.

Mr. ELIOT. In the judgment of my most excellent and excitable friend from Ohio. The joint resolution was passed.

Mr. AXTELL 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.

SINKING FUND.

Mr. PHELPS, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolutions; which were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed:

Resolved, That the Committee of Ways and Means House a bill to carry into immediate effect the fifth are hereby instructed to report for the action of the section of the act of 1862, February 25, providing that the coin received for duties on imports shall, after paying interest on bonds and notes, be applied to the purchase or payment of one per cent. of the entire debt of the United States within each fiscal year, to be set apart, with the accruing interest, as a sinking fund.

2. That the said committee are also instructed to provide in said bill for the establishment of a board of commissioners of the sinking fund, to be composed of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Vice President of the United States, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, whose duty it shall be, without additional compensation, to make from time to time such lawful rules and regulations as may be necessary for the management of said sinking fund.

3. That said committee are further instructed to provide in said bill that all money which may accrue from taxes that may be imposed upon the bonds or coupons of the public debt shall be, from time to time, appropriated to the increment of the sinking

fund, and that all special funds held under the several Departments of the Government and not covered into the Treasury of the United States, be forthwith transferred and charged to the commissioner of the sinking fund, for the purposes thereof.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. GORHAM, its Secretary, announced that that body insisted to incorporate the Washington Target-Shooting upon its amendment to the bill (H. R. No. 344) Association in the District of Columbia, disagreed to by the House, asked a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and had appointed Messrs. HARLAN, CONKLING, and VICKERS conferees on the part of the Senate.

The message further announced that the Senate had agreed to the amendment of the House to the joint resolution (S. No. 107) in relation to the Maquoketa river in the State of Iowa.

Also, that the Senate had passed without amendment the bill (H. R. No. 1099) for the relief of Wait Talcott.

Also, that the Senate had passed a joint resolution and a bill of the following titles, in which the concurrence of the House was requested:

Joint resolution (S. No. 139) excluding from the Electoral College States lately in rebellion which shall not have been reorganized; and A bill (S. No. 589) to establish certain post roads.

WASHINGTON TARGET ASSOCIATION.

The SPEAKER. If there is no objection the House will reciprocate the request of the Senate for a committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment to the bill (H. R. No. 344) to incorporate the Washington Target-Shooting Association in the District of Columbia.

No objection being made, it was so ordered; and Messrs. BALDWIN, WELKER, and GLOSSBRENNER were appointed conferees on the part of the House.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

On motion of Mr. FARNSWORTH, by unanimous consent, the bill (S. No. 139) excluding from the Electoral College States lately in rebellion which shall not have been reorganized was taken from the Speaker's table, and referred to the Committee on Reconstruction.

MILITARY PEACE ESTABLISHMENT.

The SPEAKER. The House now resumes the consideration of the business unfinished at the adjournment last evening, being the bill (H. R. No. 1377) to reduce and fix the military peace establishment.

The pending section was the following:

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That no vacancy shall hereafter be filled in the office of brigadier general until the number of brigadier generals shall be less than eight, and thereafter there shall be but eight brigadier generals.

The pending question was upon the amendment offered by Mr. PAINE (renewed by Mr. LOGAN) to the amendment of Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts.

The amendment of Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts, was to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

There shall be but six brigadier generals; and the officers who shall retain their commissions as such shall be designated by the General of the Army without regard to seniority; and all others shall be mustered out of service on the 1st day of January next.

The amendment of Mr. PAINE was to substitute for the amendment of Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts, the following:

There shall be but six brigadier generals after the 31st day of March, 1869; and the officers who shall retain their commissions as such shall, after the 10th day of March, 1899, be designated by the President of the United States without regard to seniority, and all others shall be mustered out of service on the 31st day of March, 1869.

Mr. PAINE. I wish to submit a modification of my amendment. I have only changed the phraseology and not the substance.

The Clerk read as follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert the following:

After the 31st day of March, 1869, there shall be only six brigadier generals; and the President shall,

within ten days preceding said date, designate, without regard to seniority, the best six brigadier generals to remain in commission; and the others shall be inustered out of the service of the United States at said date, or within ten days thereafter.

Mr. GARFIELD. I trust that amendment will be voted down; and I will say a few words, as a good many members are now here who were not present last evening. The purpose of the committee is not to strike down absolutely any Army officers. The amendments proposed by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. PAINE] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] muster out officers absolutely, reducing them to a greater extent perhaps than the Committee on Military Af fairs deem necessary, beginning with major generals and going down to the lowest grade. It seems to me if we undertake this kind of policy we will inaugurate invidious legislation. It puts it upon the President of the United States to take the list of ten brigadier generals, some of the most distinguished generals ever in our Army, and select four who are not the best and order them to be mustered out absolutely. That is an invidious and difficult task to impose upon any President of the United States. Every one mustered out is to be mustered out upon the express condition that he is not ranked among the best brigadier generals in the service. It puts a stain, and it cannot be otherwise, upon the name and honor of every man who is mustered out. If the present President should be in power, and he should act on political grounds, then this side of the House would have good reason to feel aggrieved at his action. If, on the other hand, a President should be in power who was a Republican, and should do the same, this side of the House would feel justly aggrieved. I am unwilling to go into these political distinctions. I am unwilling to put upon the President of the United States a task so invidious as to declare who are not the best brigadier generals in a list of ten. Therefore, I trust the amendment will be voted down.

I am very

Mr. PAINE. I withdraw the amendment. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I renew it. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter, and I ask the attention of the House for a moment. The whole question is, shall we reduce the Army, or shall it not be reduced? The bill of the committee provides that there shall be no reduction in the number of generals until it is accomplished by death or resignation, or by dismissal for cause. anxious there should be a reduction of this Army, and I wish to begin with the generals. The amendment I offered puts it in the hands of the General to select. I am content it shall be done by lot, if you please, or in any other way to justly and fairly get rid of them when they are not wanted by the country. They cost, each one of them with his complement, $20,000 every year; and they are to be imposed upon the country when the committee themselves say some of them are useless, because they provide in their bill for less than eight; and the House last night agreed to the amendment to strike down the major generals to three out of five. This is in exactly the same proportion. I say again I am willing they should be struck out by lot; but I thought it was best to allow the selection to be done by the General of the Army.

Now, sir, when you pass this so-called bill to reduce the Army you pass what, in my judgment, is an "electioneering dodge" and nothing else. Talk about reducing! Why, sir, you have not reduced a man until you come to the privates, and you do not in fact reduce any there. The simple question is, are we in earnest? If we are not then we will vote to keep these men in. Otherwise strike them out in some way or other, because the committee agree they are not wanted and the country agree they are not wanted. The question is, is there any way to get rid of them?

I want for a moment to recur to what was said by the chairman of the committee last evening on this topic. He said he would never consent to do this "by the mere brutal force of num

bers." I have heard that phrase before. We have been told that we conquered the South by the "brutal force of numbers." We established great political right of freedom to all men by the "brutal force of numbers," and by the brutal force of numbers I trust we are to protect ourselves from unnecessary expense. It is agreed that these officers are not needed now, yet this bill provides that they shall remain in their places useless so long as they and each of them shall live, because it is invidious to make any discrimination among them.

Now, the amendment of my friend from Wisconsin, which I am bound to renew, but which I hope will be voted down, puts that over till next March for the action of the President who shall be chosen. That is speculating on the chances of the election. Now, I propose that these men shall be mustered out after six months and that the General of the Army shall select those who, in his judgment, are the best officers. Every general in the Army has had to do this very thing during the war. We had to consolidate regiments, and there were sent down orders mustering out the supernumerary officers. It is invidious, I agree, but it is necessary to get rid of these officers in some way, and I know no better way than this to do it. [Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. PAINE. I renew the amendment. The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that it requires the consent of the House to withdraw an amendment. If there is no objection the amendment will be considered as withdrawn, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. PAINE] will now renew it.

Mr. PAINE. I quite agree with my friend from Massachusetts as to the main principles involved in his amendment; that is to say, that there should be a reduction in the Army, carrying along with it a reduction of the number of brigadier generals. But I differ with him on three points, for my amendment contains three points which distinguish it from his.

In the first place I intrust to the President of the United States the power and impose upon him the duty of selecting the four brigadier generals who shall be mustered out of the service; whereas he intrusts that power to and imposes that duty upon the General of the Army.

In the next place, by my amendment, I extend the period of time for which these officers shall hold their commissions three months beyond the time allowed by his amendment.

In the third place I require the President of the United States to select as those who shall be retained, the best officers of this grade.

Now, to begin with the last distinction. I am surprised that the chairman of the committee should make this a ground of objection to my amendment. Why does he desire that the President should be authorized and required arbitrarily to select these brigadier generals and continue them in the Army without reference to their qualifications or merits? Is he unwilling that this question of qualification and merit shall be examined? Does he say that it touches the honor of these officers that they should be mustered out on an adverse decision as to their qualifications? Will he have them retained simply because they are senior in rank? Why, sir, I am amazed at the principle involved in that objection to my amendment. It strikes at the root of the efficiency of the Army. I can conceive of no more salutory provision on this subject than one which requires the President to select the best men among these generals and continue them in office.

Sir, I believe that it would appear invidious; that it would have a partisan aspect if we should intrust this matter to the General of the Army. It would impose upon him a duty which we ought not to require him to perform. If, on the other hand, we impose the duty upon the President of the United States, to be performed after the next presidential election, then if one candidate shall be elected it will become his duty, and if the other candidate shall

be elected it will become his duty, and no gentleman upon this floor can characterize this amendment as partisan in spirit. And let me say further, that while I desire this reduction of the Army and believe that it should be made as promptly as it can be made, I am satisfied that this difference between my amendment and the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, which postpones the muster-out for three months, is not a fault, but is rather a merit in my amendment. I hope, therefore, the House will accept it, not as a compromise between the committee and the gentleman from Massachusetts, but as a measure which on the whole will come nearer to meeting the views of all Representatives of both parties on this floor, and will at the same time secure to the greatest degree practicable one object which the committee themselves have in view, by avoiding undue rigor of treatment toward the officers mustered out.

Mr. GARFIELD. By agreement last night it was arranged that a vote should be taken to-day on the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] to the fourth section, to reduce the number of major generals from that provided in the bill. I suggest that we go back and take that vote now, because our determination on that will probably influence the vote of the House on this question.

Mr. PAINE. I must object. We can go back and reconsider if it shall become necessary.

The SPEAKER. The Chair would state to the gentleman from Ohio that as the House is considering the bill in Committee of the Whole a motion to reconsider is not now in order. When the bill is finished it will then be in the same condition as if reported from the Committee of the Whole, and then the motion to reconsider will be in order. A motion to reconsider is not in order while the bill is being perfected in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. PAINE. I withdraw my objection 10 the suggestion of the gentleman from Ohio that a vote shall be taken first on the amendment to the fourth section.

The SPEAKER. Then if there be unauimous consent the vote of last night agreeing to the amendment to the fourth section will be reconsidered. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and the question recurs on the amendment of the gentleman from Massachu setts [Mr. BUTLER] to the fourth section, to strike out all after the enacting words and insert what the Clerk will read.

The Clerk read as follows:

There shall hereafter be but three major generals; and the officers who shall retain their commissions as such shall be designated by the General of the Army without regard to seniority, and all others shall be mustered out of service on the 1st day of January next.

Mr. PAINE. I desire to offer an amendment to the amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.

Mr. GARFIELD. I make the point of order that an amendment to the amendment is not now in order. Last night it was agreed that the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] should be voted on to-day, but I do not understand that it is amendable.

Mr. PAINE. The gentleman seems to have forgotten what he asked the House to assent

to.

The amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts was adopted last night.

Mr. GARFIELD. With the understanding that the vote should be taken this morning because there was not a quorum. I desire to know if it is in order for the gentleman from Wisconsin now to offer to amend the amendment which was to be submitted to a vote of the House this morning.

Mr. PAINE. I make no such proposition, except as I supposed in accordance with the suggestion of the gentleman. I understood the gentleman to desire an amendment of this kind to be offered to the fourth section at this time, because it comes before the fifth section. If the gentleman objects to the amendment I have offered I will withdraw it.

Mr. GARFIELD. I understood the gentleman to move to amend the pending amendment to the major general section. It is upon that amendment to the amendment that I make my point of order.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state the condition of this question. Last night, the House being thin, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] asked consent that the vote be taken upon the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] to the fourth section when the House was full. The Chair responded to that suggestion that a motion to reconsider could be made, bringing the whole subject again before the House. The matter passed over on that statement.

Mr. PAINE. Then I insist upon my amendment to the amendment.

The SPEAKER. The Chair has not conIcluded his statement.

Mr. PAINE. I beg pardon; I did not intend to interrupt the Chair.

The SPEAKER. This morning, by unanimous consent, the vote by which the amendment to the fourth section was adopted was reconsidered. The fourth section, therefore, is again before the House, and like every other section is open to amendment. And the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. PAINE] proposes to amend the substitute offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BUTLER,] by striking it all out and inserting what will be read by the Clerk.

The Clerk read as follows:

That after the 31st day of March, 1869, there shall be only three major generals, and the President shall, within ten days preceding said date, designate without regard to seniority the best three major generals to remain in commission; and the others shall be mustered out of the service of the United States on said date, or within ten days thereafter.

Mr. GARFIELD. I move that debate on this section be now closed.

The motion to close debate was agreed to. The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. PAINE to the amendment of Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts; and it was agreed to. The question was upon the amendment, as amended.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, and Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts, called for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was then taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 79, nays 43, not voting 76; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Arnell, Axtell, Baker, Banks, Beatty, Benton, Boles, Brooks, Benjamin F. Butler, Sidney Clarke, Coburn, Cook, Cullom, Deweese, Donnelly, Ela, Eldridge, Ferriss, Fields, French, Getz, Glossbrenner, Golladay, Grover, Hamilton, Hopkins, Hulburd, Hunter, Johnson, Alexander H. Jones, Judd, Julian, Kelsey, Kitchen, Knott, Koontz, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Logan, Loughridge, Marshall, McCarthy, McClurg, McKee, Miller, Moore, Morrell, Mullins, Mungen, Niblack, Paine, Perham, Peters, Price, Roots, Ross, Sawyer, Scofield, Shanks, Smith, Stokes, Taber, Taffe, Thomas, Lawrence S. Trimble, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Van Trump, Ward, Henry D. Washburn, Welker, William Williams, John T. Wilson, and Windom-79. NAYS-Messrs. Anderson. Archer, Delos R. Ashley, Baldwin, Blair, Boutwell, Boyer, Bromwell, Cary, Churchill, Cobb, Dawes, Dixon, Driggs, Eliot, Garfield, Griswold, Hawkins, Higby, Hooper, Chester D. Hubbard, Mallory, Marvin, Maynard, O'Neill, Phelps, Pile, Plants, Poland, Pomeroy, Raum, Robertson, Schenck, Sitgreaves, Spalding, Starkweather, Stewart, Stone, Twichell, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Thomas Williams, and James F. Wilson-43.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Adams, James M. Ashley, Bailey, Barnes, Barnum, Beaman, Beck, Benjamin, Bingham, Blaine, Broomall, Buckland, Burr, Roderick R. Butler, Cake, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Cornell, Covode, Delano, Dodge, Eckley, Eggleston, Farnsworth, Ferry, Finney, Fox, Gravely, Haight, Halsey. Harding, Hill, Hinds, Holman, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Thomas L. Jones, Kelley, Kerr, Ketcham, Laflin, Lincoln, Lynch, McCormick, MeCullough, Mercur, Moorehead, Morrissey, Myers, Newcomb, Nicholson, Nunn, Orth, Pike, Polsley, Pruyn, Randall, Robinson, Selye, Shella barger, Aaron F.Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, Taylor, John Trimble, Van Auken, Robert T. Van Horn, Van Wyck, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Stephen F. Wilson, Wood, Woodbridge, and Woodward-55.

So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

The question recurred upon the amendment 40TH CONG. 2D SESS.-No. 249.

of Mr. PAINE to the amendment of Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts, to the fifth section.

Mr. GARFIELD. This is the same amendment in principle as the one just adopted to the fourth section relating to brigadier generals instead of to major generals. I will therefore not oppose this amendment. The amendment to the amendment was then agreed to; and the amendment, as amended, was then agreed to.

The next section was then read, as follows: SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That any vacancies which may hereafter occur in the office of Adjutant General Quartermaster General, Commissary General of Subsistence, chief of ordnance, chief of engineers, Paymaster General, Surgeon General, or Bureau of Military Justice, shall be filled by the appointmentor assignment of an officer who shall have the rank, pay, and allowances of a colonel of cavalry. And all laws and parts of laws authorizing the appointment of any officer of a higher grade than colonel in any of said offices shall cease and determine on the occurrence of a vacancy in each respectively.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I move to amend by striking out after the word "that" where it first occurs the words "any vacancies which may hereafter occur in;" and by adding at the end of the section the following:

Provided, That in the offices abovenamed the present incumbents may continue therein at the lastinentioned rank and pay; and the whole number of officers serving in the aboveuamed staff departments shall be reduced one half, the officers retained to be designated by the General of the Army.

So that the section will read, as follows: That the office of Adjutant General, Quartermaster General, Commissary General of Subsistence, chief of ordnance, chief of engineers, Paymaster General, Surgeon General, or Bureau of Military Justice, shall be filled by the appointment or assignment of an officer who shall have the rank, pay, ant allowances of a colonel of cavalry; and all laws and parts of laws authorizing the appointment of any officer of a higher grade than colonel in any of said offices shall cease and determine on the occurrence of a vacancy in each, respectively: Provided, That in the offices above named the present incumbents may continue therein at the last-mentioned rank and pay; and the whole number of officers serving in the above-named staff departments shall be reduced one half, the officers retained to be designated by the General of the Army.

Mr. GARFIELD. I ask the gentleman to withdraw for the present the last clause of his amendment, reading as follows:

And the whole number of officers serving in the above-named staff departments shall be reduced one half; the officers retained to be designated by the General of the Army.

The committee propose to offer hereafter a new section regulating in detail this whole subject of the staff corps. If the gentleman will waive for the present that part of his amendment we can, if it should be necessary, return to this section.

Very

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. well; I will withdraw for the present the last clause of my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment I have offered is designed to bring down, if we can, all these brigadier generals to the rank of colonels, so far as their pay and allowances are concerned. Before the war there never was any brigadier general in the office of Adjutant General, Quartermaster General, Commissary General, chief of ordnance, chief of engineers, Paymaster General, Surgeon General, or in the Bureau of Military Justice. In the present establishment these officers are all brigadier generals. This amendment is designed to bring them down to the rank and pay of colonels. If the amendment should be adopted another amendment will be necessary to bring down the colonels in the same manner; and such an amendment has already been prepared by the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. PAINE.] But it is first necessary to bring down these eight brigadier generals to the rank and pay of colonels.

Mr. GARFIELD. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] is somewhat different in principle from any other of the propositions which he has offered. It provides in effect that these eight officers, now holding the grade of brigadier general, according to law, may all continue in office, provided they shall hereafter be only colonels. In other words, it proposes to degrade-I use the word of course, in its etymo

logical sense-all these officers from the rank they now hold.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Ungrade. Mr. GARFIELD. It proposes to reduce by one grade all these eight officers now holding the rank of brigadier general. The gentleman made a mistake in saying that prior to the war none of these officers were of the grade of brigadier general. The Quartermaster General was, in 1860, a brigadier general, as will be seen by the Army Register for that year. The statement is correct as to the others. I believe that since the Mexican war the Quartermaster General has held the rank of brigadier general; but during the late war, from time to time, the laws authorized the increase of rank; so that these eight departments are now, in accordance with law, filled by officers holding the rank of brigadier general.

The Committee on Military Affairs thought that in this regard we ought to go back to the practice which prevailed before the war, and provide that hereafter no vacancy in any of those eight offices shall be filled by the appointment or assignment of any officer higher than a colonel. We placed the proposition in that form so as not to degrade or dismiss any officer now in service, because the persons who now hold those positions received them for meritorious service. The principle which the committee designed to introduce into the bill was that no officer should be mustered out of the service or degraded. The House, it is true, has indicated its perference for a different principle in regard to the single question of mustering out those officers. But the principle which the gentleman asks us to adopt is that these officers shall remain in service, but shall be put down one grade from that which they now hold. That is a new principle, one never before adopted in American legislation, and I shall be sorry if it is adopted now. Although the House has followed the gentleman from Massachusetts in his proposition in regard to major generals and brigadier generals, greatly to my regret, I trust the House will not follow him in this. This proposition is inconsistent with the previous sections already settled in the bill. Why did not the gentleman propose to reduce the rank of the major generals to that of brigadier general and of brigadier to that of colonel? The proposition would have been too bold when applied to such men as stand on the list of our generals.

Mr. PAINE. I am opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I am inclined to think if he will wait until the amendments proposed by the committee have been read to the House, so he could understand them, he would not himself insist upon his amendment. I will state to the House what the effect of these amendments is. In the first place section six provides in these several staff bureaus for the reduction of the grade or rank when vacancies occur in the office. With the consent of the chairman of the committee I have prepared an amendment which provides when vacancies occur in any of the staff departments the officers appointed or designated to fill such vacancies shall have the rank and pay of the cavalry grade next below that fixed by the act of 1866; the committee propose to muster out a small number of these staff officers.

Mr. GARFIELD. If the gentleman will permit me to correct him, it does not muster out absolutely.

Mr. PAINE. I am mistaken about that.

66

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Speaker, if possible, let me state the exact difference between myself and my friend from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Ohio. It is this, I propose to ungrade" not degrade certain officers. I propose this ungrading, so far as rank and pay goes, shall take place now. The committee and my friend propose it shall not take place until these men resign, and as a rule they will not resign until they die. That is the difference between us.

Mr. PAINE. I ask the gentleman from

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »