elections of the South, to manipulate and control the southern States; and it costs, not the $1,500,000 as pretended here, not the $6,000,000, as alleged by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ELIOT,] but the $15,000,000 proved by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BOYER.] This enormous sum is to be imposed upon the tax-ridden dupes of the North, tools of the North in that respect. We are to be ground to powder by taxation solely for the purpose of keeping up northern electioneering agents in ten States of the South to manipulate and control elections in those States.

Mr. PIKE. I wish to ask the gentleman a question.

Mr. BROOKS. Not out of my time. time is precious.

Mr. ELIOT.

gentleman ask?

My

How much longer does the

Mr. BROOKS. Five minutes. Mr. ELIOT. I yield five minutes longer to the gentleman.

I

Mr. BROOKS. Why not move that it shall expire on the 1st of November or December next, when this Congress reassembles? Why have it expire at some indefinite time? The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ELIOT] is generally frank in his political maneuvers. will not use those words, but in his political manipulations and intentions. Why not, if he intends to end this bureau, end it December 1, in a frank and honorable way, instead of these ambiguous terms extending it over all time. And I tell the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ELIOT] he may as well end this Freedmen's Bureau at one time as another. Our northern countrymen, our western countrymen, cannot longer manipulate and control the negroes of the South. There is an instinct even higher than intelligence and education, because it is God given. The instinct of the negro is at last discovering that he is being used, as his donkey or mule or his horse is used, by northern adventurers for the purpose of riding into the capital of the United States from the plantations of the South. The Freedmen's Bureau had as well be ended at first as at last. Its day is over, or nearly over, and it will be hardly able to manipulate the negroes during the election. The instinct of the negro has discovered at last, as in Mississippi and southern Georgia, what is the object and intent of this Freedmen's Bureau, and there soon will be an end to it throughout the southern States. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for the opportunity he has given me, so seldom given to my side of the House.

Mr. ADAMS. I ask leave to offer an amend

ment.

Mr. ELIOT. I cannot yield for that purpose.
Mr. ADAMS. Allow it to be reported?
Mr. ELIOT. I will hear it read.

The Clerk read as follows: Strike out all after the enacting clause in section two, and insert the following:

That said bureau shall be immediately withdrawn and discontinued in all the States now represented in Congress, and shall be discontinued in the remaining States, as soon as they shall be restored to their former political relations with the Government of the United States.

Mr. ADAMS. Will the gentleman allow me five minutes to state why that amendment should be adopted?

Mr. ELIOT. There is no use, as I could not let the amendment be offered. The gentleman from Kentucky is opposed to the Freedmen's Bureau. He has been consistently opposed to it from the beginning, and I do not know but if I were in his situation and represented the political feelings he does on the general subjects embraced in the bureau I should feel as he does. I have been familiar also with the opinions of the distinguished gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS.] From the inception of the bureau to the present time he has been one of its most bitter opponents.

Now, sir, there have been some things said by the gentleman from New York which I heard indistinctly, but to which I propose to reply briefly. It is of no use, so far as the gentleman

and his political associates are concerned, for me to state again, as I have before, the precise expense which this bureau has been to the Treasury of the United States; because these same old stories are reiterated which have been commenced at the White House and reëchoed through the Democratic prints, that the expenses of the bureau have ranged from ten to twenty million dollars. Sir, on the 1st of January last, every dollar that had come out of the Treasury for the support of this bureau, from its commencement, was between three and four million dollars, beside the amount of stores and clothing issued from the quartermaster's department. In the bill passed in July, 1866, no appropriation at all in money was made. From the first inception of the bureau down to the present hour there has not been an appropriation by Congress of a sum equal to the smallest amount that the gentlemen have charged against it as its annual cost.

I wish to say in this connection that besides the speech which I had the honor to make here some time ago I took a great deal of care and pains to prepare a report upon this subject, showing the precise expenses and the operation of the bureau under General Howard; showing the good it had done and the evil it had prevented. Gentlemen will find in the folding room at their credit some twenty or thirty copies of that report, in which I assure them they will find material to answer all the charges which have been made against this bureau on account of its expenses. They will find moreover that, had it not been for the unprecedented and unexpected animosity which the measure received at the hands of the Executive, by the provision which was made in the first bill all the expenses that the bureau could have charged upon the treasury of the United States could have been paid out of funds which should have been appropriated to the bureau from rebel sources. It was designed that the rebellion which created the war should pay for the whole expense of this bureau, and that would have been the case but for the fact that the rebels, pardoned and unpardoned, with their hands red with the blood of Union men, property by the thousand was turned over by the President taken from the bureau under whose charge it was, in order that the expenses might be thus defrayed.

Now, sir, the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] will pardon me for saying he has made a statement unjust, unfair, and untrue againt the gentleman who now holds the office of Commissioner of this bureau, because he has recently been building a house for himself in the city of Washington. I do not, of course, impute to him the making of a statement that he does not believe. But, sır, I do not believe there can be found a man more upright in his dealing than the Commissioner of this bureau. I have known him long. I believe him to be a man of high integrity, and one of the last that would permit himself to be made richer by a single dollar from the public money that does not legitimately belong to him from the salary he receives as a major general of the Army.

Sir, when General Howard went into the Army he had a few thousand dollars. During the existence of the war he by great economy saved a few thousand dollars more out of which he has built a house, putting in it all he has, and being compelled to give security, as I understand, for the payment of the full indebtment. General Howard has laid on the battle-field of his country his right arm, and I believe he would consign the other in companionship with it before he would permit himself to be a party to any transaction involving a taint of pecuniary fraud. It is not fair because of certain personal hostilities which have grown up against him in the church with which he is connected, about which I do not propose to speak, that gentlemen ordinarily so careful should throw out slurs and reproach upon his private character. Gentlemen should not permit themselves to be organs of communication through this House to the country of stories like that to which allusion was made.

As regards the remark of the gentleman from New York in reference to the proviso contained in the printed bill, I will say to him that the bill on the Speaker's table does not contain that proviso. It was stricken out in the Senate, although it was reported to the Senate by the committee; so that the bill stands free from that objectionable featureobjectionable in the view of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS]-although I believe myself that the provision was wise and proper. The gentleman complains that this bill provides for the termination of the bureau. It is very well known that when the first law was passed creating it it was designed in its nature to be temporary. Why, sir, if it had not been for Andrew Johnson and those who have supported him the bureau would have ceased to exist before this time. It would have discharged all its work. It has been opposed and hindered at every step. That it has encountered the animosity of gentlemen from the southern States, such men as Wade Hampton and Forrest; that it has encountered the opposition of such men as General Rousseau of Kentucky, and all those men who were disposed to crush down the negro and permit the rebel to control now, after defeat in the field, as he did control before in council, I am not surprised. But I apprehend that there are gentlemen now on this floor who, if it were needful, would come to the rescue of this bureau and would show that the loyal men-the loyal white men in the South-have had no agency like that of this bureau to sustain them at home in their strife and struggle with rebels. This bill peremptorily terminates the life of the bureau on the 1st of January. is believed that under existing circumstances it would not be safe or prudent for the operations of this bureau to be discontinued at an earlier day than that. We were disposed to let the country see that although this measure in its character was temporary, although it has been continued against our desires, because of the animosity which has been exercised toward it, the hostility shown to it by the Executive and his friends, yet that we were disposed at the very first moment practicable to withdraw its operations, leaving the fate of the negroes and of the loyal whites in the hands of their own respective States.

Mr. ALLISON. I understand the gentleman to say that the bureau is to be absolutely withdrawn on the 1st day of January. I suggest that it would be better to strike out the words as soon as the same may be done without injury to the Government." I think that may not be quite clear.

66

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I hope the gentleman from Massachusetts will agree to that amendment.

Mr. ELIOT. The object of those words is simply this: if the provision is peremptory that on the 1st of January it shall be withdrawn, no fact, however important to the Government, could permit it to continue another day. I will consent, however, to the amendment being offered.

Mr. ALLISON Then I move to strike out the words "as soon as the same may be done without injury to the Government." That will require the Commissioner to withdraw the bureau absolutely on the 1st of January.

Mr. ELIOT. I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. ARNELL.] Mr. ARNELL. I hope sincerely that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. ALLISON] will not prevail, and in order to show the necessity for the continuance of the bureau, and that it is best that the time of its withdrawal should be left indefinite, I ask the Clerk to read an article from one of the Nashville papers received to-day.

The Clerk read as follows:

The Ku-Klux-Murders, robberies, and outrages by the Klan-School teaching and Bible reading proscribed. Accounts reach us from Giles, Marshall, Hamilton, and Bedford counties of fresh outrages perpetrated by the Ku-Klux on colored people. The horrors practiced by these wretches grow more intensely black every day. They roam through the country and per

petrate their crimes with apparent impunity and a satanic determination and disregard of consequences perfectly appalling.

From Giles county a dozen or more colored men arrived yesterday morning by way of the Alabama railway. Their narrative of suffering is heartrending. They all have families depending on them, are farmers who cultivated pieces of land, and were just housing their crops. They had from thirty to fifty acres each under cultivation besides other little property in the way of stock. They are men rugged and knotted up with ceaseless toil in an up-hill struggle, not only to make a little for future contingencies, but even to make bread whereon to live. Honest laborers, out in the fields from early dawn to dewy eve, earning, as they simply express it, "meat and clothes for their little ones." They all lived in the neighborhood of Cornersville, about twelve miles from Pulaski, in Giles county.

A Mr. T. Clark, a very mild and gentlemanly man, who used to teach school down there, was compelled to quit by the persecuting members of the Klan. He is even afraid to write about their doings. George Bose, a colored teacher, had a prosperous school of over forty children, was also compelled to give up his school, and is now in town. The Klan is represented as being perfectly reckless, and the house of one widow Gordon, twelves miles from Pulaski, and five from Cornersville, is said to be the headquarters. They meet there almost nightly, and hold deliberations and plan their infernal work of blood. The wives and families of these colored fugitives are now in the woods living in the best manner they can. They, too, are driven out of their houses. Giles county needs purging.

Assassination of the Registration Commissioner of Overton County.

Editor Press and Times:

On the 1st day of July five armed men appeared before the dwelling house of James Francis, commissioner of registration for Overton county, and pointing their guns in at the windows demanded his surrender. On being informed by Mrs. Francis that her husband was not at the house, they proceeded to search the premises, took what arms they could find, and such other articles as they chose to appropriate. By this time some confederates, who had concealed themselves on the farm, called to them to "come on, they had him." At this the ruffians left, taking their booty. A short time after they were gone Mrs. F. heard two guns fire, and supposing her husband had been shot, she and two neighboring women followed in the direction of the firing. Directly they heard other guns, and in a few minutes twenty or more shots were fired. Continuing to follow the trail she came upon a waste-house in an old field, some mile or more from her house, where she found her husband lying dead. His hands were tied, and he was literally riddled with ballet-holes.

Marshall County.

A letter from Marshall county of the 1st gives a fearful account of the resurrected rebels in that district: MARSHALL COUNTY, July 1.

We have gathered some further particulars about the cruel intentions of those infamous wretches, the Ku-Kluxes, or resurrected rebels, as they call themselves. On the night of the 15th of June those infamous wretches went to the house of Mr. Lewis Strickally and abused him, and we learn their calculations were to serve in a like manner the person of Berryman Scales, Mr. Willis, and also R. Royster, for the sole cause of boarding a teacher at his house. They expressed an intention to hang Mr. Jenkins for his habit of reading the Bible to those of his own race, thereby making them as wise as the white men, as they allege. Mr. Jenkins is the minister in this vicinity and is worthy of protection. He is allowed to preach but once a month. Five hard-working, honest citizens were dragged out of their beds in the night and maltreated in the most shocking manner. While the whipping was being done the cause given for it was that he voted for Brownlow, and if he did not vote the Conservative ticket next time he would be killed. John Street, one of the officers of Chapel Hill, openly declared that there never has been any peace, and that they only retired awhile to rest and gather force for another rebellion. The son of another squire has been engaged in these night law-breaking and citizen-terrifying expeditions. He had his right arm wounded. Three of the Klan have been wounded, one mortally, but they are busily recruiting, and have an immense amount of guns and revolvers, and they swear they will fight again. There is a regular war here between the whites and blacks.

Outrages in Bedford county.

SHELBYVILLE, July 7, 1868.

Editor Press and Times: The facts are simply these: Mr. Dunlap is a northern or western man, first sent here by some society to teach the colored people. He has been in our midst three or four years, leading a quiet, unobtrusivylife, well qualified to teach, devoted and correct in the work. He has never attempted to force himself upon the notice of the white people, but has attended to his own business, offering no contempt or insult, nor permitting it to be done by his pupils toward any person, but, on the contrary, as some of our best conservative citizens are ready to testify, readily and promptly rebuked and corrected any improprieties on their part that came to his knowledge or were suggested to him. He has been honest, upright, and just in all his dealings with white and black since he has been here. He has had no quar

rels or difficulties with any one so far as known to

us.

He was here during the cholera scourge of the fall of 1866, and Hon. Edmund Cooper has testified in public speeches that he kindly and faithfully waited upon the sick and dying, and was of great help to him in disbursing his charities and benevolence to the poor and needy where most others fled the dreadful plague.

On the 4th of July, Mr. Dunlap, as he had done on former occasions, formed a procession of his large school, and under the school bauners and stars and stripes, marched around the square and out to the grounds of Hon. William H. Wismer, where they had a large gathering and pic-nic. They sang, danced, and celebrated the glorious Fourth in a social gathering of their own race principally. Enough whites were present, the writer among the number, to testify that there was no disorderly conduct, profane swearing, or dissipation upon the ground.

After night, and when many had retired to repose, no friend of law, order, and peace dreaming of a raid from the Ku-Klux, they made their appearance on the square, about fifty in number, mounted on caparisoned horses, revolver in hand and whistle in mouth, and proceeded directly to Mr. Dunlap's house. He shut the door in their faces. They fired a shot into the house; forced the doors; promised to spare his life if he surrendered; disarmed him of hispistol, (and still have it,) and made him mount behind one of them.

They then went to the house of Jim Franklin, a colored man, and found him in bed; made him follow them. They returned to the square, gave three cheers for Andrew Johnson, and proceeding a short distance from town, stripped and whipped their victims with a strap most unmercifully, cruelly, and shamefully, and discharged them, with orders to Dunlap to leave immediately, or his life would be taken.

The supposed offense of the colored man was that he wore the sash of a marshal. Threats were made against others, and the brave and gallant troop left, no doubt vastly proud of their achievements.

LEWIS TILLMAN.

Mr. ARNELL. I desire to state that in Middle Tennessee the only guardian for these colored persons that is capable of ferreting out these outrages and bringing them to public

notice is this much-abused bureau. I hold in my hand two sworn statements from ex-Federal soldiers, who did gallant service in the Army.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. ELIOT. I now ask for a vote on the bill.

Mr. ADAMS. Is this bill to be pressed through without allowing the minority of the Committee on Freedmen's Affairs to say a word upon it?

Mr. ELIOT. I will yield five minutes to my colleague [Mr. ADAMS] on the Committee on Freedmen's Affairs.

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the cost of the Freedmen's Bureau, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ELIOT] has time and time again asserted in this House that only about three million dollars have been drawn from the Treasury for the purpose of supporting the operations of this bureau. Now, sir, I am prepared to prove to this House, if I had time, that this bureau has actually cost the Government, not in money appropriated and taken from the Treasury, but from various sources, taken altogether, the sum of $16,000,000 up to the 1st of January last. I have never seen the statement which the gentleman from Massachusetts has made in his report; but he has made the statement in the House, and repeated it time and time again, that only about three million dollars have been taken from the Treasury for this bureau. That statement was intended to leave upon the House and the country the impression that the entire cost of this bureau has been only $3,000,000. Now I say, as I said some time since, when I made some remarks upon this subject, that this bureau has cost the Government in property and in money over sixteen million dollars, and I am prepared to support that statement by the report and statements of General Howard himself.

be restored to their former political relations with the Federal Government. Why does not the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ELIOT] accept that amendment? What is the necessity for continuing this bureau, with all its vast expenditures, until the 1st day of January next? The reason assigned for its continuance heretofore has been that the southern States were in such a disorganized and disarranged condition that it was necessary to have this bureau in order to protect the freedmen in their rights and privileges; that the civil institutions and civil officers down there were not adequate to the protection of that class of people.

Now, there are to-day three of those States represented on this floor; three of them are now restored to all their relations with this Government, having State governments established which are competent to afford the most ample and abundant protection to the freedmen, giving them even greater civil and political rights than are given to the whites. Then where the necessity for continuing this bureau for a single hour in those States? If the gentlemen who have advocated this bill heretofore were sincere in the reasons they have assigned for the further continuance of this bureau, then I must say that those reasons no longer exist, at least so far as they apply to the States which have been already restored. I wish to ask what better reason will there be for withdrawing this bureau from those three States now represented here on the 1st of January next than exists to-day? None whatever. But there is one reason to which I desire to call the attention of the House as being the reason which prompts the chairman of the committee [Mr. ELIOT] and the majority on this floor to favor the continuance of this bureau, which is so plain that no one can mistake it. One of the reasons assigned by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ELIOT] for the continuance of this bureau was in a letter which he incorporated in his speech, and of which I will read an extract, as follows:

"3. The bureau should be continued one year longer to act as a sort of moderator between white and black during the exciting contest now impending over the whole country. It can thus assist wonderfully in reconstructing the South on a loyal basis. To continue the bureau one year more than is provided will cover most all the exciting political issues about to be made in the election for President, and this is of no little importance to the whole country." I have shown that the reason heretofore assigned for the continuation of this bureau, the protestion of freedmen in their rights, is not now applicable to some of these States, and will not be applicable to the others so soon as they shall be restored to their former politi. cal relations. Why should this bureau be continued in these States? Why should you not as to these States do now what you propose to do in January next? Why is it more appro priate to discontinue the bureau in January next than now, unless we intend the bureau to operate as a political machine to control political sentiments and to accomplish political ends in those States. Mr. Speaker, it is apparent and cannot be denied-the gentleman from Massachusetts knows it, and dare not deny it that all the reasons heretofore assigned for the continuance of the bureau have now ceased to exist. There is at this time no reason why this bureau should not be withdrawn from States so soon as they are reorganized and restored to their former political relations. I cannot see, therefore, why the amendment I have proposed should not be accepted, and why it should not be adopted by the House. But, sir, if the object is to have the benefit of this institution, as indicated by the corre spondent of the gentleman from Massachusetts, until after the presidential election, why not discontinue it on the first Wednesday after the presidential election, when they have realized the benefits and accomplished the ends desired instead of postponing until the 1st of January as proposed.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. ELIOT. Mr. Speaker, the only point that has been made by the gentleman from

Kentucky [Mr. ADAMS] is the same one attempted to be made by other gentlemen here in regard to the expense of the bureau. I have answered it two or three times already; and I only want to say now one word upon the point. The gentleman knows or ought to know that all the expenses of this bureau would have been defrayed from the collections of cotton made by the labor of freedmen under the operations of the bureau. Not one dollar of expense would have been imposed upon the Treasury of the United States if it had not been for the action of President Johnson in returning property, both personal and real, to the rebels from whom it had been taken. It is by that action, and that alone, that any expense for the support of the bureau has been put upon the Treasury of the United States.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I desire to know whether the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ELIOT] denies specifically the charge made by the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. ADAMS,] the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BoyER,] and the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS,] that the expense of this bureau has been within the time stated $16,000,000?

Mr. ELIOT. I deny it emphatically. The gentlemen have had before them the figures which would have shown them their statement is not correct.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. They all affirm that it is true.

Mr. ELIOT. Certainly; and the gentlemen's President has stated the amount at $20,000,000. There is no truth in any such

statement.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. President Johnson, I believe, stated the amount as $12,000,000.

Mr. ELIOT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. PAINE.]

Mr. PAINE. Mr. Speaker, by the second section of the thirteenth article of the amendments of the Constitution authorizing Congress to "enforce by appropriate legislation" the abolition of slavery, we are empowered to use for that purpose this bureau whenever it may be necessary. So long as it is impossible for the State governments in the South to do this it would seem to me to be reasonable to continue the Freedmen's Bureau, and I should be in favor of such continuance. But as a member of the Committee on Freedmen's Affairs, I am in favor of discontinuing this bureau just as soon as the people of those reconstructed States shall themselves be able to secure to the freedmen of the South that which it is the duty of the nation to see secured to them. The reconstruction of these States will, I trust, speedily be followed by such a condition of things in the South as will enable the States themselves to accord to the freedmen the protection to which under this thirteenth article they are entitled.

It

I am therefore in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. ALLISON.] making compulsory the discontinuance of this bureau on the 1st of January next. I should be in favor of discontinuing it in each of those States as fast as they are reconstructed but for the fact that it will require time for the State governments there to acquire the power to carry out to the freedmen the guarantees of this new amendment of the Constitution. will be our duty to furnish these State governments with the means of doing it. It will be our duty to furnish the militia of those States with arms which will enable them to protect these freedmen. Already measures have been inaugurated which will result in a provision for that necessity of the case, but time will be required to consummate these arrangements. Therefore it would be wrong for us to violate this constitutional amendment by discontinuing the Freedmen's Bureau at once. But I cannot see, if arms are furnished by the Federal Government to the militia of these States to enable them to protect themselves and the freedmen within their limits against outrages, why we cannot safely withdraw the Freedmen's Bureau and the Federal Army. I cannot see why the State of Tennessee hereafter cannot protect the

freedmen within the limits of the State of Tennessee. I trust the State of Tennessee will be able to do that. I confess, sir, I am a little surprised to hear gentlemen from Tennessee admit, as they seem to admit, the inability of the State government of Tennessee, of the loyal people of Tennessee, to afford this protection. Why are they not able? Is it because they have not arms in their hands to defend them against the outrages of these rebels? If that is the reason let us give them out of the immense supply of unnecessary arms now on hand, enough of arms so they can protect themselves and the freedmen against these outrages.

Unless there is some reason, then, not suggested on this floor to-day, I hope the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. ALLISON] will be adopted, and the Freedmen's Bureau be discontinued in every reconstructed State as soon as the 1st of January next.

Mr. BOYER. Will the gentleman from Massachusetts allow me to correct some of the fallacies in his calculation?

Mr. ELIOT. I cannot yield. I demand the previous question.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered.

Mr. ALLISON'S amendment was adopted. The bill, as amended, was ordered to a third reading, and it was accordingly read the third time.

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

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered.

Mr. BROOKS and Mr. BECK demanded the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the aflirmative-yeas 104, nays 31, not voting 53; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Bailey, Baldwin, Beatty, Benjamin, Benton, Blair, Boles, Boutwell, Bromwell, Buckland, Benjamin F. Butler, Roderick R. Butler, Churchill, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Coburn, Cook, Covode, Cullom, Dawes, Delano, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Ela, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Fields, French Garfield, Griswold, Hamilton, Higby, Hinds, Hooper, Hopkins, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Hunter, Jenckes, Alexander H. Jones, Judd, Julian, Kelsey, Ketcham, Kitchen, Koontz, William Lawrence, Lynch, Mallory, Marvin, Maynard, McCarthy, MeClurg, McKee, Mercur, Miller, Moore, Moorhead, Mullins, Myers, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Perham, Peters, Pike. Pile, Plants, Poland, Pomeroy, Raum, Robertson, Roots, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shanks, Smith, Starkweather, Thaddeus Stevens, Stokes, Taylor, Thomas, Trowbridge, Twichell, Van Aernam, BurtVan Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Van Wyck, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Thomas Williams, William Williams, and John T. Wilson-104.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Archer, Axtell, Beck, Boyer, Brooks, Cary, Chanler, Eldridge, Getz, Glossbrenner, Golladay, Grover, Haight, Hawkins, Johnson, Thomas L. Jones, Kerr, Knott, George V. Lawrence, Marshall, Mungen, Niblack, Phelps, Randall, Ross, Sitgreaves, Stewart, Taber, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Auken, and Van Trump-31.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Anderson, Baker, Banks, Barnes, Barnum, Beaman, Bingham, Blaine, Broomall, Burr, Cake, Reader W. Clarke, Cornell, Deweese, Dodge, Eggleston, Ferry, Finney, Fox, Gravely, Halsey, Harding, Hill, Holman, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Ingersoll, Kelley, Laflin, Lincoln, Loan, Logan, Loughridge, McCormick, McCullough, Morrell, Morrissey, Newcomb, Nicholson, Nunn, Polsley, Price, Pruyn, Robinson, Selye, Shellabarger, Spalding, Aaron F. Stevens, Stone, Taffe, John Trimble, Upson, Ward, Cadwalader C. Washburn, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, Wood, Woodbridge, and Woodward-63.

So the bill was 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.

NORTH CAROLINA MEMBERS.

Mr. DAWES. I rise to a question of privilege. The Committee of Elections, to whom were referred the credentials of Nathaniel Boyden and Oliver H. Dockery, claiming seats from the third and seventh districts of North Carolina, instruct me to report they find the credentials in due form of law, but that these gentlemen are unable to take the oath of office prescribed by the statute of July 2, 1862, because

one of them, Mr. Boyden, was a member of the Legislature of North Carolina under the confederate government, and the other, Mr. Dockery, served in 1863 for three months in the confederate army. The disabilities incurred by these acts have been removed by act of Congress, and therefore the committee recommend that these gentlemen be admitted to their seats upon taking the oath of office required by the act prescribing an oath of office to be taken by persons from whom legal dis abilities shall have been removed.

The SPEAKER. The President of the United States having notified the House of his approval, on the 11th of July, of the act referred to, it has therefore now become the law. The question is on agreeing with the report of the Committee of Elections.

The report of the committee was agreed to. Mr. NATHANIEL BOYDEN and Mr. OLIVER H. DOCKERY then appeared, and were duly qualified by taking the oath prescribed by the act of July 11, 1868.

Mr. BROOKS. A very sensible oath.

BRIDGE IN BOSTON HARBOR.

Mr. MOORHEAD obtained the floor, but yielded to Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts, who asked unanimous consent to offer a joint resolution for the appointment of an additional commissioner on the commission relative to a bridge in Boston harbor.

The SPEAKER. The joint resolution will be reported; after which the Chair will ask for objections, if any.

The joint resolution was reported. It authorizes the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy to appoint an additional commissioner from civil life to determine the question of the feasibility and propriety of throwing a bridge across a portion of Boston harbor called "Maverick bridge," so that said commission shall consist of five.

Mr. PIKE and Mr. BANKS objected.

NIAGARA FALLS SHIP-CANAL.

Mr. JUDD. I desire to offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That the bill providing for the construction of a ship canal around the Falls of Niagara, now in Committee of the Whole, he postponed to the 10th day of December next, and made the special order immediately after the morning hour.

Mr. KELSEY. I object.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. There will be no objection, I take it, to a simple postponement.

Mr. JUDD. I will strike out so much of the resolution as makes it the special order if the gentleman will withdraw his objection. Mr. KELSEY. I still object.

Mr. JUDD. I move to suspend the rules. Mr. MOORHEAD. I cannot yield for that. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The gen tleman will have a right to move to suspend the rules for a special purpose which would override the objection of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

The SPEAKER. The Chair is not aware of any such rule in the Digest. Two motions to suspend the rules cannot be made at the same time if the maker of the first motion insists upon it.

SOLICITOR AND NAVAL JUDGE ADVOCATE.

Mr. SCHENCK, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1430) to abolish the office of solicitor and naval judge advocate, and for other purposes; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, and ordered to be printed.

REMISSION OF DUTY ON BELLS.

Mr. GRISWOLD, by unanimous consent, reported from the Committee of Ways and Means a joint resolution (H. R. No. 339) authorizing the remission of the duties on a chime of bells imported for presentation to the Episcopal church at Hoosack, Renssellaer county, New York; which was read a first and second time.

The joint resolution was ordered to be en

grossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. GRISWOLD 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.

ROSWELL BATES.

On motion of Mr. MILLER, by unanimous consent, the Committee on Invalid Pensions were discharged from the further consideration of the memorial of Roswell Bates, asking for a pension from 1817 to 1852; and the same was referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions and of the War of 1812.

THE TARIFF BILL.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I now move that the rules be suspended, and the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, for the purpose of considering the tariff bill; and pending that motion, I move that all general debate on the bill be closed in thirty minutes.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. Cannot the gentleman say thirty-one minutes?

Mr. MOORHEAD. No, sir.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I think he ought to give us another minute.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Not at this stage of the session.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. Surely on a bill of this importance he might let us have thirty-one minutes. I move to amend his motion so as to make the time thirty-one minutes.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move to amend the motion so as to close debate in two hours.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. As the gentleman from Illinois is so liberal, I withdraw my amendment. The question was put on the amendment; and there were-ayes 57, noes 46.

Mr. MOORHEAD demanded tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Mr. MOORHEAD and Mr. GOLLADAY were appointed.

The House divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 60, noes 56.

So the amendment was agreed to. The motion to close debate, as amended, was then agreed to.

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

The latter motion was agreed to. Mr. CULLOM. Is it in order to move to postpone the bill until next session?

The SPEAKER. It is.

Mr. CULLOM. Then I make that motion. The SPEAKER. The motion to postpone will be reserved until the vote is taken on the motion to suspend the rules to go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, as that motion, if adopted, would suspend the rule allowing the motion to postpone to be made.

Mr. CULLOM. I demand the yeas and nays on the motion to suspend the rules.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that the House or the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union can take a recess at any time they please, but the House will meet at half past seven o'clock this evening in Committee of the Whole (Mr. CULLOM in the chair) for general debate exclusively.

The question was taken on Mr. MOORHEAD'S motion; and it was decided in the affirmativeyeas 81, nays 56, not voting 60; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Ames, Anderson, Archer, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baldwin, Banks, Benton, Blair, Boles, Boutwell, Boyden, Boyer, Buckland, Roderick R. Butler, Churchill, Covode, Dawes, Dixon, Dockery, Driggs, Eckley, Ela, Ferriss, Fields, Garfield, Getz, Griswold, Haight, Hamilton, Higby, Hinds, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Jenckes, Alexander H. Jones, Kelsey, Ketcham, Kitchen, Koontz, George V. Lawrence, Lynch, Mallory, Marvin, Maynard, McCarthy, McClurg, McKee, Mercur, Miller, Moore, Moorhead, Mullins, Myers, O'Neill, Perham, Pile, Plants, Poland, Pomeroy, Randall, Robertson, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Selye, Smith, Spalding. Starkweather, Stokes, Taylor, Trowbridge,

Twichell, Upson, Van Auken, Burt Van Horn, Van Wyck, Ward, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Thomas Williams, and Stephen F. Wilson-84.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Allison, Axtell, Baker, Beatty, Beck, Benjamin, Bromwell, Brooks, Benjamin F. Butler, Cary, Chanler, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Cook, Cullom, Donnelly, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Glossbrenner, Golladay, Grover, Hawkins, Hopkins, Hunter, Johnson, Thomas L. Jones, Judd, Julian, Kerr, Knott, William Lawrence, Loan, Logan, Loughridge, Marshall, Mungen, Niblack, Nunn, Orth, Paine, Peters, Phelps, Pike, Ross, Shanks, Sitgreaves, Stewart, Taber, Taffe, Thomas, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Trump, Elihu B. Washburne, William Williams, and James F. Wilson-56.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Bailey, Barnes, Barnum, Beaman, Bingham, Blaine, Broomall, Burr, Cake, Reader W. Clarke, Coburn, Cornell, Delano, Deweese, Dodge, Eggleston, Eliot, Ferry, Finney, Fox, French, Gravely, Halsey, Harding, Hill, Holman, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asaliel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Ingersoll, Kelley, Laflin, Lincoln, McCormick, McCullough, Morrell, Morrissey. Newcomb, Nicholson, Polsley, Price, Pruyn, Raum, Robinson, Roots, Shellabarger, Aaron F. Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stone, John Trimble, Van Aernam, Robert T. Van Horn, Cadwalader C. Washburn, John T. Wilson, Windom, Wood, Woodbridge, and Woodward-60.

So the motion was agreed to.

The rules were accordingly suspended; and the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. DAWES in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 1349) to increase the revenue from duties on imports and tending to equalize exports and imports.

The CHAIRMAN. By order of the House all general debate on the bill is closed in two hours.

The pending paragraph of the bill was as follows:

That from and after the passage of this act, in lieu of the duties heretofore imposed by law on the articles hereinafter mentioned, there shall be levied, collected, and paid on the articles herein enumerated and provided for, imported from foreign countries, the following specified duties and rates of duty, that is to say; on all copper imported in the form of ores, three cents on each pound of fine copper contained therein; on all regulus of copper, and on all black or coarse copper, four cents on each pound of fine copper contained therein; on all old copper, fit only for remanufacture, four cents per pound; on all copper in plates, bars, ingots, pigs, and in other forms not manufactured or herein enumerated, five cents per pound.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I am not at all surprised at the vote that has just been taken, nor will I be surprised at any motions that may be made to delay action on this bill. I congratulate the country and the House upon the fact that we have now reached this bill, and that the Representatives of the people will now have a chance to express their views upon this subject.

I do not intend to make a speech; I do not want any speaking. It is now so late in the session that the time for action has arrived; and I want voting and not speaking. But I deem it proper to spend a few minutes in calling the attention of the House to the history of the action of the Thirty-Ninth Congress upon the tariff question. These facts are somewhat important, and I invite the attention of the House to them; and particularly I urge upon gentlemen here who are in favor of the tariff to examine those facts. During the Thirty-Ninth Congress, at every time and at every step when we had action on this subject, we had a large majority; just about as large a majority as we have on the vote to-day. Time after time, again and again, the yeas and nays were called, and votes were had, and on each occasion we had a large majority. But by superior financiering of some kind, we were intercepted at every step, and finally failed to get a tariff bill passed into a law.

I will proceed very briefly to give the history of the tariff bill of the last Congress, House bill No. 718. On the 25th of June, near the termination of the long session, the Committee of Ways and Means reported that bill to the House. It was passed through the House and sent to the Senate. The Senate postponed the bill until the commencement of the next session, until the December following. And I believe they postponed it mainly at the suggestion of the gentleman who occupies the position of Special Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Mr. ALLISON. I should like to know the gentleman's reason for the statement he has just made, that the Senate postponed the tariff bill at the instance of the Special Commissioner of Internal Revenue. I never heard of it before.

Mr. MOORHEAD. If the gentleman will only be cool and keep his seat, I will endeavor to give him all the light I have on the subject; and which, perhaps, may be all he will want to know.

The gentleman to whom I referred, who has the title of Special Commissioner of Internal Revenue, represented to the Senate that the bill of the Committee of Ways and Means, which was a small, delicate, genteel bill, as the House may see by examining the files of the last Congress, merely amending the tariffhe represented that that was not a perfect bill; that we wanted an entirely new tariff bill, one that should contain every article upon which any tariff duty was imposed. The Senate supposed there was something in that, and agreed to postpone the bill, with the understanding that he would prepare the details, the outlines, the groundwork of an entire tariff bill, and have it ready for them at the commencement of the next session.

At the commencement of the next session here was his bill, containing three times as much as the bill which passed the House, which was merely a bill amendatory of the tariff. In his bill there were included hundreds of articles upon which the tariff was not changed at all, neither enlarged nor reduced. They were put in merely as a make-weight, as I believe, put in merely to kill the bill, to prevent its passage during that Congress. And it had that result most effectually. I have frequently told that gentleman that he had drugged that bill to death.

There were hundreds, perhaps thousands of drugs named in that bill; and every drug was named and carried out with its rate of duty, either ad valorem or specific. The rates in more than two thirds of the cases were not changed, yet they were all inserted, and had to be gone over and considered. The result was that so much time was occupied in the Senate that, Congress meeting early in December, the bill was not reported to the Senate until January, 11, 1867. It was then ordered to be printed. That bill afterward came to the House.

But before leaving this point, as my sensitive friend, the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. ALLISON,] seemed a little anxious about the Special Commissioner of Internal Revenue, to whom I unfortunately referred in this connection, I deem it proper to say to the House and to the country that if it is necessary or important that this Government should keep an othcer in its service at a large salary for the purpose of guarding the interests of the foreign manufacturer, the foreign importer, the foreigu agent in New York, then the Secretary of the Treasury has been signally fortunate in the selection he has made, and Mr. Wells is the proper man for the place. I want to put that on the record before leaving this point.

Mr. ALLISON. Mr. Chairman

Mr. MOORHEAD. I cannot yield to the gentleman. There are two hours allowed for general debate, and he will have a portion of that time.

This bill came from the Senate to the House. We had to take it up-how? Not as in the form of amendments to our bill. It was an amendment, it is true; but it was a single amendment, because the Senate struck out all after the enacting clause and inserted a new bill. I am not a parliamentarian nor a tactician. I have been in this House a considerable time; but I have not yet learned all the rules, and I do not expect that I ever shall But under the ruling made by our very abi Speaker, (and I do not doubt its correctness,} when that bill came in here it required a twothirds vote to take it up. The bill had passed this House and gone to the Senate. The Senate had adopted the plan of Mr. Wells, making

an immense bill. They had passed upon everything embraced in our bill and a thousand things beside. Yet, although as to nearly all the articles embraced in the original bill both Houses agreed upon the same rates we were not able to enact the bill into a law, because we could not get the Senate amendments considered here without a two-thirds vote.

This is a fact in the history of this measure. It is new, perhaps, to some gentlemen who were not here at that time.

It is not new to the old members; it is not new to you, Mr. Chairman; it is not new to the Speaker of this House; for we tried every method to get the bill up. Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont, who was then chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, implored the House on different occasions to take up the bill, and made various motions with that object. By reference to page 1658 of the Congressional Globe for the second session of the Thirty-Ninth Congress it will be found that on the 28th of February, 1867, after the Committee of Ways and Means had reported the bill back to the House, a motion was made to suspend the rules, on which the yeas were 106, the nays 64. We could not obtain quite the necessary two thirds, and hence the bill could not be taken up. On the same day we made another effort, and on a similar motion the yeas were 102, the nays 69; there being all the time, as will be seen, a large majority in favor of considering the bill.

I have thus referred to the history of this measure for the sake of calling the attention of the tariff men here to the facts of the case. I do not want them to allow themselves to be hoodwinked in that way again. We have got this bill now in such a position that a majority can put it through, and I ask the tariff men of the House to put it through. I do not want to make a speech; but I have here some statistics which show the importance of passing this bill. They exhibit the immense drain of gold which has been going on from this country, showing that something must be done to stop this drain unless we wish to go into bankruptcy, and demonstrating that this bill is a step in the right direction. I ask the Clerk to read the statistics which I send to the desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

"The drain of gold and the tariff.-The published statements of our imports and exports for the eleven months ending May 31, 1868, show of imports $223,241.417 against about two hundred and fifty-eight million for 1867, and about two hundred and eightythree million for 1866. Our receipts of revenue on these imports are $102,503,849, against about one hundred and twelve millions for the same period in 1867 and $123,000,000 in 1866. Of these imports, $73,000,000 in gold values were dry goods. Our exports, exclusive of specie, for the same period were $163.249,520, as against about one hundred and sixty-five million for the same period in 1866-67, and $205,000,000 in 186566. The balance of trade against us was paid for by an export of gold amounting to $41,979,398, in the eleven months ending with May, 1866; $34,642,660 in the same period ending with May, 1867, and the enormous sum of $64,486,258 for the like period ending with May, 1868, nearly twenty millions more than our export of gold has ever reached before in the same period. Mr. J. Ross Browne, in his report of our production of the precious metals, estimated our total annual product of both gold and silver at $75,000,000. Taking into account the amount of specie leaving directly for Europe from San Francisco it is evident we are draining every dollar of gold we are producing to pay for these imports.

The balance of trade against this country has been $723,266,717, gold since 1861. To meet this we have exported $136,301,029 of Government bonds, and $286,965,688 of coin above our imports. From 1860 to 1861, both inclusive, our importations were $476,928,616 in excess of our exports, and the excess of our coin export over import was $124,551.794, making a balance of trade amounting to $1,002,195,331 against us for eighteen years, with a loss of coin amounting to $711,517,667, or an amount equal to the whole gold and silver product of the country for that period. The consumption of foreign goods in 1866 was equal to $12 22 per capita for a population of thirty-five millions, and all of our factories were stopping for a lack of support. In 1867 this consumption amounted to $11 15 per capita, whereas it was only $11 81 per capita in the crash of 1857, and averaged but $5 44 under the tariff of 1842,

There is no other country on the face of the earth, not even excepting opulent Great Britain, that could have endured such a drain on its gold and such a tax on its industry as is shown by the above figures to have been sustained through a term of years by this. The fact that we have sustained it and live only proves the extent and variety of our resources and our ex

ceeding vitality. To remedy our losses and build up that prosperity we so much need, there is no other instrumentality than the one now presented. It must either be improved, and at once, or the losses must continue, and prosperity be remitted for another doubtful term. To prevent this, and to garner what is so essential for the country and for all its parts, we trust that Congress will not adjourn before the opportunity afforded by partisan zeal has been wisely and effectually improved."

Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, the facts set forth in the statistics just read by the Clerk ought to be carefully examined and pondered upon; and they should satisfy any man, or any set of men, that unless we can stop this drain of gold to foreign countries we must go into bankruptcy. I know of but one way to stop that, and that is through the tariff. I have been the advocate of a tariff for many years. I have been denounced frequently for my advocacy of the principle of protection to our home industries. Some of the free-trade papers have gone so far as to say "MOORHEAD has tariff on the brain." Well, Mr. Chairman, I have, and I will continue to have it upon the brain until I can induce the whole country to stand up in favor of the development of our great national resources, and until we lift the country out of the mire into which it has been thrown by freetrade doctrines.

Now, sir, I want to read a little myself. I will read a short paragraph which appeared in a New York paper, for which I am indebted to the able report of my colleague [Mr. MORRELL] on the warehousing system; and I should like very much to have the House listen to it. I do not expect I can get the House to give me its attention for any great length of time; and therefore I shall be brief.

Now listen to what this New York paper

says:

One of the immediate effects of a high tariff is to keep up the price of labor, which is more than four times as high in this country as it will average in Europe. I am for unqualified free trade. I would sell out the custom-houses, discharge the leeches that swarm around them, and allow people to sell and buy products and goods wherever they found it for their interest to do so. This will bring us to a true and normal condition. I see clearly what the effect would be. Commercial disturbance would be the natural result, for it would be a great and radical change. We should be on an entirely new foundation. The first effect would be to stop manufacturing here, and the country would be filled with foreign goods, many of which Europe would never see her money for. A commercial revulsion would follow, laborers would be out of employment, and the price of labor would come down, down, down, until it touched the European standard."

Shall I read the last words? "And then success is secured." Think of that, Mr. Chairman! After you bankrupt the country, get labor down, down, down, until it touches the European standard, and then success is secured! Why, sir, it puts me in mind of a story I heard when I was a boy: a simple-minded woman was raising a child of her own, and some wag, not contemplating the result of his advice, asked her why she did not teach her child to live without eating. She went to work to practice the advice. She kept her child without eating on and off, trying to teach it to do entirely without eating for weeks, and at last the child died. The woman lamented the death of the child, for, said she, "How sad it was I lost the child just as I had taught it to do without eating." [Laughter.]

Now, here is the free trade doctrine, they endeavor to teach us to do without a tariff, and just as we get well enough learned, so that, according to this writer, success is attained, we are literally dead to all prosperity.

But I did not intend to say half as much as I have on this subject. I only wanted a few minutes to appeal to members of the House, and then let the discussion go on, hoping that when it is ended we shall get at a speedy vote. I have shown members of the House that during the last Congress when we had a majority we did not succeed in getting a tariff bill through. Now, I appeal to members not to succumb to that same kind of influence that defeated us before. I expect there will be all sorts of amendments offered. You will find one gentleman who thinks he will strike a

hobby by moving to take the duty off tea and coffee. He will get up and appeal to you about the poor people who pay the duty on these articles. You will find a great many other amendments of various sorts offered. But I ask my tariff friends to scrutinize these amendments, and when you find them coming from an enemy of the bill vote them down. This bill is by no means perfect; it is far from what I would have had it. The sub-committee to which this subject was referred some months ago when the tax bill was in the way, could not do anything about it until that was disposed of. That is the only apology I can make for bringing this in so late. We reported to the Committee of Ways and Means a pretty good bill, about the size of the one reported by the entire committee last year. The committee postponed that bill till December next, but from the pressing necessity for action upon the subjects of copper, lumber, and some other articles, the sub-committee were authorized to prepare a small bill which we have reported, and which is now before the Committee of the Whole. It consists of only ten pages, and it can be passed in half an hour. I ask the friends of the tariff to stand by it, and vote down amendments unless they are recommended by the committee. That is asking a good deal, I know, but the bill which was postponed till December next I trust will be taken up when all the various other subjects will be acted upon. But I will not spend any more time. I yield to my colleague on the committee [Mr. GRISWOLD] for two minutes.

Mr. GRISWOLD. I did not wish the gentleman to yield to me for the purpose of discussing this bill, but merely to express for his special benefit, as well as that of the House, my regret that he should have felt called upon to invite attention to the fact that the Special Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Mr. Wells, was, in his judgment, inimical to the tariff question. I feel bound, for one, to raise a demurrer to that interpretation of the acts and sentiments of that gentleman. It is unlike my colleague on the committee thus to characterize the motives and opinions of a man holding such a position. I am bound to say, from the intimate knowledge I have derived from association with the Commissioner, I feel entirely certain that while we may differ with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and upon some points possibly with me, he is not opposed to a tariff, but that on the other hand he is as much in favor of a proper tariff as either the gentleman from Pennsylvania or myself. I have felt that I could not resist the sense of duty which impelled me to express these sentiments in regard to that gentleman.

man.

Mr. MOORHEAD. In reply to my worthy and esteemed colleague, I must say that I feel justified in what I have said about that gentleIt is the result of long examination and investigation, and I am as perfectly satisfied of what I say as ever I was of anything in the world. I said it knowing what I was saying, and I am ready here and anywhere to take the responsibility of it.

Mr. CULLOM. I desire to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania whether the majority of the Committee of Ways and Means authorized him to report this bill.

Mr. MOORHEAD. If I should answer the gentleman exactly as he deserved, I might say that his question was not a proper one. But I have already stated that I was authorized by the committee to report it, and so it appears on the record, and no member of the committee will say I was not authorized to report it.

Mr. CULLOM. The gentleman seems to intimate that I put an impertinent question. I do not see it in that light. It seems to me this House has a right to know whether the bill that is now before the committee was the result of the action of the majority of the Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr. MAYNARD. If the gentleman will allow me, I suppose he means to inquire whether this bill was reported by a majority of