Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

This case, Mr. Speaker, presents something a little unusual, I might almost say remarkable. A very large majority of the Committee of Elections belong to the dominant party in this House-the Republicans--and this committee unanimously, with one exception, have reported against the sitting member, who also belongs to that party, a gentleman whom we all regard as a valuable member of this House, and whose association with us we should be glad to continue if we could find that he was legally elected. The committee, I say, are, with one exception, unanimous in this report. This exception is the gentleman from Missouri, Dr. McCLURG,] and I cannot but believe that if he had been as free from personal and political bias in reference to this case as were the other members of the committee he would have concurred with us in the result to which we arrived.

This case is in somewhat narrow compass. The ninth congressional district in Missouri comprises ten counties. At the election held on the 6th of November, 1866, for member of Congress, in all the counties of the district except the county of Callaway, George W. Anderson received 4,876 votes, and William F. Switzler received 4,698, making a majority for Anderson of 178 votes. The county of Callaway gave Anderson 163 votes and Switzler 1,463 votes. If the vote of this county had been added to the others Switzler would have been elected by a majority of 1,122 votes over Anderson. This case turns wholly upon the question whether the vote of the county of Callaway should have been counted. The secretary of State, who, by the statutes of Missouri, is the proper officer to open the returns and count the votes, or to use the precise language of the statutes, to cast up the votes given for members of Congress, took it upon himself to say that there had been no legal registration in this county of Callaway, and therefore he assumed the responsibility of throwing aside the vote of this county, and thus giving the election to his political friend, the sitting member. Whether the secretary of State had any legal right to go behind the return and say that the vote of that county should not be counted is one question. Another question is this: admitting he had not the right, is there sufficient in the evidence introduced in this case to show it is the duty of the House to disregard the vote of the county of Callaway so as to give the election to the sitting member? There is something certainly very curious in this case. The secretary of State took it upon him to reject the vote of Callaway on the ground there had been no legal registration of the votes of that county; upon the ground there was such a state of violence, not open violence, but such concerted or secret violence, such fear and intimidation on the part of the registrars in that county, that they were not able to do their legal duty in registering voters; and therefore the vote of that county was to be thrown out. It is conceded the registration in that county and the voting in that county was as peaceable as any registration or any voting in any county in New England or any county in the Union. There is not a particle of evidence there was an act of violence or even an act of threatened violence either in the registration or in the voting. Yet the majority for the contestant is to be set aside upon the ground there was intimidation, there was fear in that county; that it was impossible for the registrars to do their duty and there was no registration.

This is a queer state of things, a strange state of things, when it was conceded before the committee by the sitting member and his counsel, and the proof may be looked over ever so carefully and there is not a particle of evidence to show there was anything but quiet during the voting in that county. Still that vote is to be thrown aside.

It is proper I should allude for a moment to the law of Missouri in reference to registration. In the first place, the Governor of the State is to appoint a superintendent of registration in each county. The superintendent of registra

tion in each county is to appoint registers in the various election precincts whose duty it is to make the actual registration. The Governor of the State by whom the superintendents were appointed was a member of the same political party with the sitting member. The superin tendent of registration in the county was of the same political party with the sitting member. Every single district register, so far as the evidence shows anything about it, was the political friend of the sitting member. The entire machinery of this registration was in the hands of the political friends of the sitting member, and yet the secretary of State of Missouri took upon himself to say, and I say by entire usurpation of legal power, without having any kind of authority for it, he took it upon himself to say this registration was so illegal, so fraudulent, so affected by the power of violence, by intimidation because of threats of violence, as to throw aside the vote of this county. Now, sir, it is very singular, with the entire machinery of this registration, the entire control over the registration of that county in the hands of the sitting member, that such a complaint should lie in the mouth of the sitting member, or the members of his political party.

As the superintendent of this registration the Governor appointed for the county of Callaway William H. Thomas, and Thomas appointed the various district registrars. There is no question each one did not proceed in due legal form to perfect the registration, or that copies were not made and duly certified. In accordance with the laws of the State of Missouri the superintendent of registration and the registrars of the various districts, the superintendent being the president of the board, were to assemble to revise the registration of the district. When this was done, when this registration was supervised by this board, the copies of registration having been duly certi fied to them by the district registrars, then it became the duty of this superintendent to furnish a copy of the registration to the secretary of State of Missouri. A copy of the registration was duly certified and placed in the hands of Superintendent Thomas, and was carried by him to the capital of the State, where the secretary of State had his office. There, the evidence shows, the matter was discussed between the secretary of State, Rodman, and superintendent of registration, Thomas, whether there was not some mode by which the vote of this county of Callaway might be got rid of and leave the majority in favor of the sitting member. Thereupon this William H. Thomas, the superintendent of registration, appended to the registration of the county this certificate:

"I hereby certify that the above and foregoing list of registration is a correct copy as furnished me by the officers of registration' for the various election districts in and for Callaway county, Missouri,"

That was a proper and legal certificate, and there ended the duty of Mr. Thomas as the certifying officer of registration of that district. But in pursuance of this arrangement between Mr Rodman and the secretary of State, he went on to add something entirely beyond his legal power as a returning officer, and something that was entitled to no weight with the secretary of State or with the Committee of Elections or with this House, as evidence in relation to the validity of the registration. The residue of the certificate is as follows:

And I hereby further certify that the registration law in its letter and spirit was not carried out in any one of the electiondistricts of said county; that such a system of intimidation and threatening was carried on by the disloyal, and those opposed to the law, as to deter loyal men from undertaking the registration in most of the election districts, and was consequently intrusted to men who most shamefully disregarded the law.

In the few districts where men could be had who were willing to register according to the law, there was such intimidation and threatening used as to deter those who were willing to make objections to those they knew not to be entitled to registration as qualified voters, and, as a consequence, the law could not and was not carried out, as the certificates hereto appended show.

Given under my hand this December 12, 1866. WILLIAM H. THOMAS, Supervisor of Registration for Callaway County, Missouri.

In addition to this, Thomas procured three certificates or statements, one signed by H. S. Turner, who was appointed as registrar for Round Prairie township, and served one day and then resigned; another signed by James E. Turley, who was the registrar of Bourbon township, and another signed by John Yount, the registrar of Cedartownship, stating in substance what is stated by Thomas in his certificate.

Now, in the first place, Mr. Speaker, the committee report that this was no legal evi dence whatever. These men were not certifying officers for any such purpose as to make statements of this kind. They had simply the power by statute to certify to the registration. When it was completed they could certify that that was a legal registration, and they could also certify to copies of registration. But any statements beyond that they had no official power to certify, nor had the superintendent of registration himself any more power to certify facts to the secretary of State than had the district registrars to certify them to him.

I do not apprehend that it will be contested by the sitting member or by his friends, but that the secretary of State went entirely beyond his power when he undertook to go behind the returns and upon this evidence to decide whether there was a legal registration or not. But I conceive that it is not very important whether I am right or whether the committee are right in relation to this or not, because even conceding that the secretary of State had power to go beyond the returns, it is very clear that this House have no right to go behind them. But if the facts disclosed in the evidence before the committee in this case were sufficient to show that there was such a state of affairs, of violence and intimidation in that county as to prevent a fair and honest registration. why, then, I concede it would be entirely within the power of this House to determine that the registration was illegal and that the vote of the county ought not to be reckoned in determining who was elected from this congressional district. So that it becomes important to con sider the power of the secretary of State in this matter except as showing the purpose, the intent, the animus that existed on the part of this secretary of State and this returning officer, Thomas, when they undertook to mutilate the registration of this county and to blur and blot it for the purpose of inducing the secretary of State to throw the vote of the county aside, and give the certificate to the sitting member instead of the contestant who was elected.

Mr. LOAN. I desire to ask the gentleman this question: whether there is any evidence in the record that any registration was made by the board of registrars of the various townships in that county presided over by the supervisors of registration and certified to by them to the secretary of State, as required by law?

In

Mr. POLAND. I am very happy to answer the inquiry of my friend from Missouri. the first place, the statute of Missouri provides that after the appointment of these district registrars, and after they have performed their duty in making the registration in the various election precincts, it shall be their duty to come together and act as a board of registration, and the superintendent of registration is, by law, to act as president of the board. Now, if there were no evidence on the subject the legal presumption would be that the officials did their duty. Wherever there is no proof one way or the other the legal presumption is that the officers of the law did their legal duty. But appended to the registration of each of these election precincts there is a certificate of this sort:

I, Isaac D. Snedicor, officer of registration in and for the first election district in and for the county of Callaway and State of Missouri, do hereby certify that the foregoing list of registered voters is a true and perfect copy of the register of qualified voters in said election district, as ascertained and determined by the board of appeals and revision sitting for that purpose in and for said county, Given under my hand this 27th day of October, A. D. 1866. ISAAC D. SNEDICOR, Officer of Registration.

To the registration of each township or election precinct there was a certificate signed by the registrar in precisely those identical words.

Mr. LOAN. One word in this connection. I will state that I have diligently examined this record and that I can find in it nowhere any evidence that these officers did perform the duties devolved upon them by law, and as far as I am concerned I do not believe they ever did that thing.

Mr. POLAND. I cannot yield for a speech. Mr. LOAN. I believe there was no such board of registration held, and that there was no revisal of the lists and no copy of the regis tration forwarded to the secretary of State. The certificate of Mr. Snedicor just read, not being authorized by law, furnishes no evidence to the committee or to the House that any such board was held. Now, I ask the gentleman to state to the House whether that board of registration was held, and whether they supervised the registration and certified it to the secretary of State as required by law? Those are points I want answered.

Mr. POLAND. As I said before, if there was not a particle of evidence on the subject the legal presumption would be that these officers of the law did what the law made to be their duty. That is a principle that applies to public officials everywhere in relation to their official conduct, as everybody knows who knows anything about law. The familiar maxim is Omnia præsumuntur rite esse acta. So I say that if there is no proof upon the subject the fact is to be taken to be so. But more than that, here is this certificate. The district registers certify that the revisal took place and that they returned copies of the registration to the superintendent of registration of the county. And the superintendent of registration acknowledges this by his own certificate. He says:

"I hereby certify that the above and foregoing list of registration is a correct copy as furnished me by the officers of registration for the various election districts in and for Callaway county, Missouri."

[ocr errors]

That is the certificate of superintendent Thomas himself. He certifies that they are correct copies as furnished him by the officers of registration for the various election districts in and for Callaway county.

Mr. LOAN. The answer to that is that not being authorized by law it is of no force here or elsewhere.

Mr. POLAND. I say that not only the legal presumption but the legal evidence is that these several district registrars met as a board of appeal and were presided over by the superintendent, Mr. Thomas, and that the registration of each one of these election precincts was revised and corrected by the board of appeal. There is all the evidence which the law can furnish upon the subject. This record of registration could not have been legally completed without that. The only legal evidence that that was done was to be the certificates of the officers; because the law pro vides that they shall make such certificate, and that the certificate shall be evidence of the fact. So I say there is all the legal evidence that is necessary, and all the law can furnish in relation to the revision of the registration of that county. Therefore I say that the attempt of Mr. Thomas to slur over this registration by putting on this outside certificate, and especially when he took that registration and entered upon it, against several hundred names, that this man was a bushwhacker, that man was a rebel sympathizer, &c., he did what he had no right to do, and what the secretary of State for Missouri had no right to regard.

But this Mr. Thomas seems to be the very soul of this case on the part of the sitting member. He not only got the secretary of State to throw aside this registration upon his certificate, but he is the great witness relied upon by the sitting member, before the Committee of Elections, for the purpose of prov ing the fact he has put in his certificate. What do they claim here? That there was an illegal and invalid registration; that there was such a system of fear and intimidation that these

registrars felt themselves in such peril that they dared not to go on and do their legal duty. He not only certified this county out, and got the secretary of State to disregard it, but he is the principal witness by which the sitting member undertook to establish the fact before the committee, and to have us find it and report it to the House.

Now, I will recur for a moment to the testimony in relation to this matter as to the fact, without taking any more time to discuss the legal question as to whether the Secretary of State had any right to do as he did do, to throw out the returns from Callaway county. Let us now come to the fact itself, as if the secretary had counted the vote of Callaway county; as if the case between those parties was reversed; as if Switzler had received the cer tificate of election, as he ought to have received it, and his seat was contested by Mr. Anderson, who is now the sitting member. Is it established that there was such a system of intimidation and fear in Callaway county that there could not be and was not a legal registration of voters? Now, as I said, the important witness, the principal witness on the part of the sitting member to establish this, is this same William H. Thomas. The only evidence introduced for the purpose of showing a disregard of the provisions of the law by any of the district registrars is that of William H. Thomas, as to the registration in Fulton township, of which J. D. Suedicor was registrar, and appointed by Thomas. Thomas testifies that he was present and saw Snedicor register a number of persons. He says:

"I thought his whole movements were contrary to law, in this, that he subscribed the names of the applicants instead of their subscribing their own names as the law directs; and that he merely asked them if they could take the oath, instead of administering it; and that he totally failed to administer the additional oath given under the attorney general's instructions, by which to ascertain the true qualifiations of applicants. I protested against the proceeding as being illegal, became disgusted, and left the office."

That is the only evidence there is in the case in relation to improper conduct on the part of any district registrar. On the other side Snedicor, the registrar of that district, says there was no person registered who did not take the oath. That, perhaps, deserves some explanation. Every man who applies for registration in Missouri is obliged to take the test oath, the strict test-oath prescribed by the Missouri statute. He cannot even be allowed an examination before the registering officer until he has first taken that test oath, which any gentleman who will take the trouble to read it will find to be a very strict one. Mr. Snedicor says that no man was registered who did not take that oath. He says:

"There were about twenty-five-not exceeding twenty-five of the first who registered to whom I explained the oath, and asked them if they took the oath, and upon being answered that they did, I had them subscribe their names.'

Now, I apprehend that there is no lawyer in this House who will say that this was not a legal administration of an oath. I am not aware that any statute in force in Missouri, or anywhere else provides the form of administering the oath. The laws merely provide for an oath; and when a man appears before the proper officer and the oath is explained to him, and he subscribes it, the officer duly certifying that he took the oath, that I take it is a legal administration of the oath. According to my apprehension, there is no propriety in sticking about forms. Whether the person tak ing the oath shall hold up his hand or kiss the book is not a matter of statute regulation; it is a matter of usage everywhere.

Now, in relation to this registration in Fulton township, and as to whether there were irregularities there, the evidence is that of Thomas upon the one side and of Snedicor, the registrar, upon the other; and so far as appears in this case there is quite as much ground to believe that Mr. Snedicor is an honest and truthful man as that Mr. Thomas is such a man. I know nothing of Mr. Thomas, except as he appears in this case, but there

[blocks in formation]

Mr. LOAN. I cannot believe that the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. POLAND] would intentionally make any statement not strictly correct, and I ask him to read the testimony of Mr. Garner in regard to this man Snedicor, and the character of the men who registered, and then I desire to know whether he undertakes to indorse the character of Snedicor in comparison with that of Mr. Thomas or anybody else.

Mr. POLAND. Mr. Speaker, I cannot go into all the details of the evidence. It is several months since the case was examined by the committee and this report presented to the House.

Mr. LOAN. The gentleman was speaking of Mr. Snedicor as a man who stands fairly before the House upon the evidence presented, and I want him to refer to the evidence of Mr. Garner, which will show

Mr. POLAND. My friend from Missouri will have abundant opportunity to present to the House the facts about Mr. Thomas, and about all parts of this case.

Mr. MILLER. I desire to inquire whether any of these men, notwithstanding they were registered, had participated in the rebellion.

Mr. POLAND. Very few. There is evidence that perhaps half a dozen of those who were registered-I think not more than thatwere disloyal persons and ought not to have been registered. Upon this registration Mr. Thomas, before he delivered it over to the secretary of State, made various minutes and memoranda, and on page 4 of the report of the committee we present a copy of an entire page of this registration, with the comments made upon it by this Thomas, superintendent of registration. This is a specimen :

"Agee, James H., enrolled disloyal in 1862. "Allen, James G., enrolled disloyal in 1862. "Atkinson, C. O., enrolled disloyal in 1862; required to take the oath of allegiance.

"Atkinson, J. A,, required to take oath of allegiance.

[ocr errors]

Bailey, William H., disloyal, rebel sympathizer; refused to take convention oath as clerk of court, now county clerk elect.

[ocr errors]

Barnes, T. S., enrolled disloyal.

"Bartley, Joseph D., has been in rebel or bushwhacking service; registered in Fulton, lives in St. Aubert.

"Basket, Martin, enrolled disloyal.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

Berry, John G., enrolled disloyal.

(H. S.

"Berry, Samuel H., influential rebel sympathizer. Blackamon, James, been in rebel army. Turner, witness.)

Blackamon, James A., rebel sympathizer, notoriously disloyal. (H. S. Turner, witness.)

"Blackburn, Thomas, enrolled disloyal; under bond of $2,000; stated on oath he could not take the oath as juror at circuit court.

Blagg, William D., enrolled disloyal; took Judge Ansell's two horses in 1861; said they were for Porter."

Mr. Thomas, in his testimony, says that he copied some of these memoranda from some military record, or a copy of a military record that he had found, which does not appear to have been made under any authority of law, or to be authenticated in any form. Hence, I say there is no evidence, except as to a very small number of persons, that those registered as qualified voters were really disloyal.

But to come to the evidence particularly as to the question of intimidation, whether there was such a state of feud and intimidation in that county that the district registrars dared not do their duty. I have already referred on the part of the sitting member to the evidence of Thomas, the man who certifies the vote of this county out in the first place, and now undertakes to swear it out. I have referred to him. Then there is the testimony of James E.

Turley; and I ask to take a little time to read the testimony of this lion-hearted Turley, this man who says he could not do his duty because he was intimidated. I wish gentlemen to listen; for, saving the testimony of Thomas, it is the most minute testimony on the part of the sitting member to show there was fear and violence on the part of the registrars, so they could not do it. Here is a good picture of the man and a good picture of the state of things, and a good picture of the pretenses upon which the vote of this county was thrown out by the secretary of State. James E. Turley, the regis trar for Bourbon township, whose statement or certificate to the secretary of State has before been referred to, was called as a witness by the sitting member, and was asked as follows:

"Question. In signing the certificate to your registration for Bourbon township, did you believe that the law was faithfully carried out?

"Answer. I did then, sir; and if I had to do it again would do just as I did then; but I heard after I sigued the certificate things which if I had known when I registered I would not have signed the certificate.

"Question. Was there not a system of intimidation in the county at the time?

"Answer. There was against me, sir. I was intimidated by fear of being interrupted."

On his cross-examination by the contestant, he was examined as to the grounds of his fear, and what was said, and by whom, and as he is the only one of the registrars who claims to have been prevented by fear from doing his proper duty, his testimony on that subject is worthy of attention:

you?

Question. What did the people say that scared Answer. When you (the contestant) spoke in the court-house, you asked if the supervisor was present, and when told that he was not, you then asked if any registrars were present, and he told them that we were in a very delicate situation, and to be careful.

Question. What other persons said anything to scare you?

Answer. James K. Sheely made another very frightful remark to me.

Question. When and where did Sheely make the remark, and what was it?

Ansicer. It was after I was appointed, in front of his office, in Fulton. He said if this registration law was carried out according to Radical rule there would be five hundred law suits in Callaway county.

Question. Did not you carry out the registration according to the Radical rule?

"Answer. I do not think I did, as I had to skin between two parties, as it was rather a zigzag course, liable to a suit from either party.

Question. Were there any suits brought against

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Question. Are these all that scared you?

Answer. These were all the important ones; there was some neighborhood chat of minor importance.' H. S. Turner, whose certificate to the secretary of State has been quoted, was appointed registrar for Round Prairie township, and after registering one day resigned the position. He was asked:

"Question. What were your reasons for so doing? [resigning.]

Answer. I found I could not execute the law properly.

Question. What were the difficulties you had to contend with?

"Answer. A great many refused to be questioned as to their qualifications.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

I have taken the trouble, Mr. Speaker, to read the testimony of this witness at length because, aside from Mr. Thomas, this lionhearted Turley is the great witness of the sitting member. Now, sir, is it not perfectly ridicu lous for a sober and serious man to undertake to say this officer of registration was prevented from doing his duty; that he dared not do his duty; that he dared not include men who were entitled to registration; that he dared not regis ter men who were entitled to vote, and all this upon the ridiculous pretense we have here? Is there any man here, any man upon this floor, upon this side, who, to serve a political friend, or with any idea of serving his political party, will stand upon so ridiculous a ground as this? Then we have the testimony of J. J. P. Johnson, who said:

"I think there were some who said they would

have a free election or a free fight."

Next we have John Yount:

'Were threats made against officers of registration?

'Nothing, except lawsuits; they said around they would have a free election or a free fight.

Were objections made to those registering? No, sir; some told me they were afraid to act as witnesses. Witnesses said they would not attend, and I did not think it safe to risk it myself."

Abram Suithen testified as follows:

"I thought it not safe to object to registration. They said if they could not vote others should not.' William H. Thomas said:

"It was the general talk throughout the country among the disloyal that they intended to have a free election or a free fight; and they intended to register anyhow or have a fuss over it. That kept men from going to the place of registration and laying in objections."

J. S. Henderson, of Fulton, was applied to to be registrar, but declined, and was asked for his reasons:

"I did not wish to register the township.

[ocr errors]

Did you believe you could properly enforce the law? "I did not know that I could not; but didn't wish to have any conflict with the inhabitants. Thought it would be an unthankful and unprofitable business to enforce the law."

Then, on the other hand, John Vinson, reg. istrar of Nine-Mile Prairie, says there was no opposition or interference with registration; not threatened and heard of no threats by anybody; everything was quiet.

Thomas II. Beeding, of Round Prairie, heard of no threats, and does not think persons would have been in any danger by appearing and making objections. He heard Turner say he had no fears; but people did not like the way he questioned them.

A. B. Maupin, registrar of Round Prairie, was not threatened or interfered with; does not think persons would have been in danger of insult or violence who made objections; heard nothing of the kind.

T. J. Ferguson, registrar of Cote Sans Deddein, was not threatened or interfered with in any way.

L. B. Hunt, registrar of Aux Vasse, was not threatened or intimidated or in any way inter-, fered with in making the registration.

John Yount, registrar of Cedar, was threatened only with lawsuits. Some men said if they were not registered there would be a lawsuit about it; but they never brought any.

John K. Boyd, of Round Prairie, says the registration was quiet, peaceable; no disturbance; does not believe persons would have met any difficulty by objecting to persons registering.

George A. Moore, registrar of St. Aubut, was not threatened, intimidated, or interfered with in any way in registering.

M. T. Moore, of Cedar, does not know or believe there was any threats or intimidation used to retard or interfere with registration.

Morgan B. White, of Nine-Mile Prairie, says

the same; was present every day; never saw it more quiet.

Martin Baker, of Bourbon, says the same in substance.

Rawdon H. Hood, of Liberty, was present at registration; it was quiet and orderly; heard of no threatening or intimidation; registrar said he had met no difficulty.

John Wilson, of Cedar, says the registration ing or intimidation; men were not deterred was quiet and peaceable; heard of no threatenfrom voting or making objections.

James W. Overton, of Cedar, says so far as Thomas's certificate applies to his town it is false.

William King, sheriff of the county, was a good deal among the people during the canvass; heard of no threatening or intimidation to interfere with the registration law, except some men said if registrars did not carry out the law they would sue them; heard Turley say twice after the session of the board of appeals that he had got along as well as any registrar in the county, and his books did not show a scratch.

Isaac D. Snedicor, registrar of Fulton, had derly; says Thomas's certificate is false as to no difficulty; registration was quiet and orhis township.

But, Mr. Speaker, as I said in the outset, all that is conceded. They do not deny it on the other side. It was conceded by the gentleman who argued the case before the committee for the sitting member, and who I suppose will make a speech in reference to the case before the House, that there was no violence and no appearance of violence. It all resolves itself into a certain fashionable color a few years ago called invisible green. It was violence that nobody saw. One piece of evidence that is relied upon on the part of the sitting member to establish this, is the state of things that existed in that county during the war. Several witnesses have testified that the general sentiment of that county during the war was disloyal. They estimate, I think, from one hundred and fifty to two hundred persons in that county who were rebel sympathizers. There is no pretense that it is shown in the testimony that there was any such proportion of the people of the county who were guilty of any disloyal acts, but it is claimed that they were rebel sympathizers. That has come to be, not only in the political, but in the legal world of Missouri, a very important phrase.

Mr. LOAN. I ask the gentleman if he does not understand that the law of Missouri disfranchises rebel sympathizers?

Mr. POLAND. Yes, sir; I do. That is the law of Missouri. Whether wisely or unwisely they undertook to say that people shall not vote merely upon matters of conscience and opinion. The committee have not under

taken to decide here that the State of Missouri did wisely or unwisely in passing such a law. It is the law of Missouri and we have not undertaken to gainsay it. But when you undertake to apply this in practice, when you undertake to get witnesses to estimate the number of persons who sympathized with the rebellion and who cast their votes, the result will be that they will estimate just as many such persons as voted against the candidate of their choice. Practically that is the result of such a law as this which undertakes to exclude men from voting on the ground of having sympathized with the rebellion, not for illegal acts, but for entertaining wrong opin ions. The witnesses that you call on one side or the other will limit their testimony to the number that voted for or against their choice.

Mr. LOAN. I would like to ask the gentleman if he would be willing to take the contestant's estimate of the number of rebel sympathizers and the number of loyal men in that county?

Mr. POLAND. I have nothing to say about

that.

Mr. LOAN. I am willing to take his statement.

Mr. MULLINS. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. POLAND] has said that there were

men there who sympathized with the rebellion, whose hearts were set on rebellion, but who did not take any active part in the rebellion. Now, admitting that their hearts were set upon rebellion, how much more would it take to make rebels of them?

Mr. POLAND. I do not think the gentleman and myself will differ about that. I stated the other day here in the House that I was as willing to vote for the man who fought for the rebellion as for the man who prayed for it. But the difficulty is that when you undertake to throw out the vote of a county or a township upon the estimate of somebody as to the number of persons there who entertain bad opinions, every man will estimate that number according to the number who vote with him or against him. That is the great difficulty of going into the consciences of men and taking their standard of belief as the test of their right to vote. That is the practical evil of such a system. I do not say that the Legislature of a State may not say that a man shall not vote because he entertains improper or erroneous opinions upon any subject. But I say that practically, when you come to the case of a contest between representative men of different parties, and to the question of who are entitled and who are not entitled to vote in a township or county, if you undertake to decide that question upon the basis of men's consciences and opinions, that estimate will be made just as the exigencies of party require.

Mr. LOAN. The contestant in this case has made his estimate, and it is upon the record of this case as evidence. Will the gentleman place that estimate before the House?

Mr. POLAND. The gentleman is satisfied with it?

Mr. LOAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. POLAND. I say this: the estimate of the number of persons in that whole county who sympathized with the rebellion, as really put in evidence, is wholly upon the part of the sitting member. According to the opinion of this witness a very large majority were of that class. He does not leave more than two hundred and fifty or two hundred and eighty persons who entertained such proper and loyal sentiments as would entitle them to be voters.

Now, as I have said, and I have undertaken to give some reason for it, that species of evidence is entirely unreliable; no sort of dependence can be placed upon it. The Committee of Elections upon this subject have undertaken to mete out equal and exact justice. There was one case before them previous to this, which was decided by the House-the case of Birch vs. Van Horn of Missouri. Between twenty-five hundred and three thousand persons voted for Birch, more than enough to give him the election. And he had plenty of witnesses who were ready to swear that in their opinion those persons did not entertain such disloyal sentiments, and had not been guilty of such disloyal acts as, by the law of Missouri, would preclude them from being voters. But the committee said they could not take any such general estimate at all. If a man relies upon the fact that persons had been registered who were not entitled to be registered, then he must show who those persons were. We say now that we cannot go upon any general estimate. We decided in that case that Mr. VAN HORN was entitled to his seat, although there was no evidence on his side, and there were abundant witnesses on the other side who were willing to testify that in their judgment more than twenty-five hundred men had voted for Birch who were not disloyal. We struck out all that testimony in that case, and we apply the same principle in this case to a man of our own party, whom we would be glad to retain on the floor of this House if we believed him to have been elected.

But the theory of the sitting member proves altogether too much. It is said that this fear was so universal and all-pervading that it need not be put in evidence, that everybody knew it without being told. Now, sir, a recurrence to a very few facts will show how fallacious

this is. In the first place, the vote of this county fell short by eight or nine hundred votes of that which was cast in 1860. [Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. BENJAMIN obtained the floor.

Mr. POLAND. If the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BENJAMIN] will yield to me a moment I desire, as the contestant in this case may, in a certain contingency, desire to address the House, to move that he be permitted, if he should desire it, to do so under the rules of the House.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. BENJAMIN next addressed the House. Before the conclusion of his remarks he yielded for the transaction of other business. His speech, when concluded, will be published entire.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

Mr. HOPKINS, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the same:

An act (H. R. No. 631) amendatory of an act approved July 26, 1866, entitled "An act to authorize the construction of certain bridges, and to establish them as post roads ;" and

An act (H. R. No. 818) making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1869, and for other purposes.

COMMITTEE ON EMIGRATION.

Mr. CHANLER, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolutions; which were referred to the Committee on the Rules:

Resolved, That Rule 74 be amended so as to add to the standing committees to be appointed at the commencement of each Congress, and to consist of nine members, a Committee on Emigration; said amendment to take effect after the close of the present session of the Fortieth Congress.

Resolved, That the following be added to the standing rules of the House from and after the close of the present Congress:

RULE. It shall be the duty of the Committee on Emigration to take into consideration all propositions relative to emigration to or from this country as shall be presented, or shall come in question and be referred to them by the House, and to report their opinion thereon, together with such propositions relative thereto as to them shall seem expedient.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. GORHAM, its Secretary, announced that the Senate had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses upon 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.

The message also announced that the Senate had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses upon the bill (H. R. No. 678) making appropriations for the payment of invalid and other pensions of the United States for the year ending June 30, 1869.

The message further announced that the Senate had agreed to the amendment of the House to the bill (S. No. 355) authorizing the construction of a bridge across the Missouri river upon the military reservation at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

The message also announced that the Senate had passed without amendment the bill (H. R. No. 941) to amend certain acts in relation to the Navy and Marine corps.

The message further announced that the Senate had passed House bill of the following title, with an amendment, in which the concurrence of the House was requested :

An act (H. R. No. 761) to construct a wagonroad from West Point to Cornwall Landing, all in the county of Orange, State of New York.

INTERNAL TAX BILL.

Mr. SCHENCK. I rised to a privileged question, and submit the following conference report.

The report is as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, on 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, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend, and do recommend, to their respective Houses as follows:

That the House recede from their disagreement to the amendments of the Senate numbered 2, 3, 6, 7, 9. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 581, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 874, 88 88, 89, 891, 90, 901, 901, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 163, 101, 106, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 115, 116, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 130, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 153, 1531, 154, 155, 157, 153, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 173, 171, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 183; and the House agree to the

same.

That the Senate recede from their amendments number: 1, 26, 50, 79, 80, 128, 129, 143, 144, 145, 156, 181.

That the House recede from their disagreement to the fourth amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with amendments, as follows: in line one of said amendment of the Senate strike out the word "and," and insert in lieu thereof the words "the tax on brandy made from grapes shall be the same and no higher than that upon other distilled spirits; and."

In line four of said Senate amendment, after the word "such" insert the word "other."

That the House recede from their disagreement to the fifth amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: strike out all of the fifth line of said Senate amendment down to and including the word "be," in the eighth line, and insert in lieu of the same the words "furnish and attach, at his own expense, such meter, meters, or meter-safes, as may have been prescribed for use at his distillery, and."

That the House recede from their disagreement to the eighth amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with amendments, as follows: strike out a'l after the word "construed" in said amendment and insert the words "to apply to fermented liquors;" and in lines twenty-four, twenty-five, and twentysix, page 5, strike out the words or shall have been lawfully imported into the United States and the duties thereon paid."

That the House recede from their disagreement to the forty-ninth and a half amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: strike out the word "produce" inserted by the Senate and insert in lieu thereof the word "production."

[ocr errors]

That the House recede from their disagreement to the fifty-third amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: strike out the words proposed to be inserted by said Senate amendment together with the words spirits produced from the materials used shall be ascertained" and insert in lieu of the same the words "materials used for the production of spirits shall be ascertained."

That the House recede from their disagreement to the fifty-fourth amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: strike out the word "and" in said Senate amendment and insert in lieu thereof the words "together with the special tax of."

That the House recede from their disagreement to the fitty-fifth amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: strike out the word by" in said amendment and insert the word "under."

That the House recede from their disagreement to the seventy-seventh amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: strike out the words "which branding and cancellation shall be done under such rules and regulations as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may prescribe."

That the Houso recede from their disagreement to the seventy-eighth amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with amendments, as follows: insert the words proposed to be stricken out by the Senate, and in line forty three, page 35, after the word "affixed" insert the words "aud the number of proof gallons;" and at the end of line forty-nine, page 35, insert "proof gallons."

That the House recede from their disagreement to the seventy-eighth and a half amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with amendments, as follows: insert the words proposed to be stricken out by the Senate, and in line fifty-eight, page 56, after the word "affixed" insert "and the number of proof gallons;" and at the end of line sixty-four, page 5, add the following: "proof gallons."

That the House recede from their disagreement to the eighty-fourth amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: strikeout the word "they" proposed to be inserted, and insert in lieu thereof the word "there."

That the House recede from their disagreement to the ninety-seventh, ninety-seventh and a half, ninety-eighth, ninety-ninth, one hundredth, one hundred and first and one hundred and second amendments of the Senate, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: strike out the words proposed to be inserted, and all from line four inclusive, down to and including the word "business," in line fifteen, (printed bill,) and insert in lieu thereof the words not exceeding twenty-five officers to be called supervisors of internal revenue, each one of whom shall be assigned to a designated territorial district to be composed of one or more judicial districts and territories, and shall keep his office at some convenient place in his district to be designated by the Commissioner, and shall receive in addit's a to expenses necessarily incurred by him and allow i and certified by the said Commissioner, as a compcz

sation for his services such salary as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may deem just and reasonable, not exceeding $3,000 per annum.'

That the House recede from their disagreement to the one hundred and fifth and one hundred and sixth amendments of the Senate and agree to the same with the following amendments: strike out from and including line four of said one hundred and fitth amendment down to and including line fifteen of the bill, (section fifty,) and insert in lieu thereof the following: employ competent detectives, not exceeding twenty-five in number at any one time, to be paid under the provisions of the seventh section of the act to amend existing laws relating to internal revenue and for other purposes,' approved March 2, 1867; and he may, at his discretion, assign any such detective to duty under the direction of any supervisor of internal revenue, or to such other special duty as he may deem necessary; and that from and after the passage of this act no general or special agent or inspector, by whatever name or designation he may be known, of the Treasury Department in connection with the internal revenue, except inspectors of tobacco, snuff, and cigars, and except as provided for in this act, shall be appointed, commissioned, employed, or continued in odlice, and the term."

That the House recede from their disagreement to the one hundred and seventh amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: insert in lieu of the words stricken out the following:

So. And be it further enacted, That from and after the passage of this act no assessor or collector shall be detailed or authorized to discharge any duty imposed by law on any other collector or assessor, but a supervisor of internal revenue may within his territorial district suspend any collector or assessor for fraud or gross neglect of duty, or abuse of power, and shall immediately report his action to the ComInissioner of Internal Revenue, with his reasons therefor in writing, who shall thereupon take such further action as he may deem proper.

That the House recede from their disagreement to the one hundred and eleventh amendment of the Senate and agree to the same, with the following amendment: before the word "distillery" insert "bonded or.'

That the House recede from their disagreement to the one hundred and seventeenth amendment of the Senate and agree to the same, with the following amendments: strike out on line seven, page 69, all after the word "spirits," down to and including the word "required," in line ten, and insert in lieu thereof the words: "which shall be due and payable only after the proper entries and bonds have been executed and filed and all other conditions complied with as hereinafter required, and thirty days after the vessel has actually cleared and sailed on her voyage with such spirits on board."

In lines fifteen and sixteen, strike out the words "and rum on which no internal tax shall have been paid," and insert in lieu thereof the words,

rum.

or

Page 72, line fifty-four, strike out the word "internal.'

That the House recede from their disagreement to the one hundred and eighteenth and one hundred and nineteenth amendments and agree to the same with amendments, each, as follows: strike out "twelve" and insert nine.'

That the House recede from their disagreement to the one hundred and thirty-first amendment of the Senate and agree to the same, with the following amendments: in line ninety-one, page 80, strike out the word "any;" in line ninety-two, page 80, strike out the the word "two" and insert "ten;" in line ninety-three, page 80, after the word "dollars," insert the words "of sales of such spirits, wines, or liquors." In line ninety-four, page 80, after the word "dollars," insert, "and on other sales shall pay as wholesale dealers, and such excess shall be assessed and paid in the same manner as required of wholesale dealers."

In line ninety-five strike out all after the word "liquors" down to and including the word "made," in line ninety-seven, and insert the words "whose annual sales shall exceed $25,000.

[ocr errors]

That the House recede from their disagreement to the one hundred and thirty-second amendment of the Senate and agree to the same, with the following amendment: strike out the word proposed to be inserted and insert after the words "retail dealer," in line one hundred and forty-two, page 82, the words liquor dealer."

That the House recede from their disagreement to the one hundred and thirty-third amendment of the Senate and agree to the same, with an amendment, as follows: after the word "four," in line six, page 86, insert the word "six."

That the House recede from their disagreement to the one hundred and forty-second amendment of the Senate and agree to the same, with an amendment, as follows: insert in lieu of the words proposed to be stricken out the words "the manufacturer's name and place of manufacture, or the proprietor's name and his trade-mark, and.'

That the House recede from their disagreement to the one hundred and forty-ninth amendment of the Senate and agree to the same, with an amendment, as follows: insert in lieu of the words proposed to be stricken out the words "the proprietor's or manufacturer's name," and in line seven, page 93, strike out the word "his" and insert the word "the."

That the House recede from their disagreement to the one hundred and fifty-second amendinent of the Senate and agree to the same, with the following amendment: strike out the words "provided that any" and insert "any."

That the House recede from their disagreement to the one hundred and fifty-eighth amendment of the Senate and agree to the same, with an amendment,

"

as follows: at the end of said amendment add "when weighing exceeding three pounds per thousand, five dollars per thousand;" and in line six, page 106, section eighty, strike out the words "and cheroots.' That the House recede from their disagreement to the one hundred and seventieth amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: add to the said Senate amendment the following: "But in no case shall such renewal or change extend to an abandonment of the general character of the stamps provided for in this act nor to the dispensing with any provisions requiring that such stamps shall be kept in book form and have thereon the signatures of revenue officers."

That the House recede from their disagreement to the one hundred and seventy-second amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with the following amendment: add to said Senate amendment the words "or officer acting as such, with his reasons therefor.

That the House recede from their disagreement to the one hundred and eightieth amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with amendments, as follows: in line two of said amendment strike out the word "revenue;" in line three strike out the words" for denoting the tax thereby imposed;" in line fourteen strike out the word "revenue;" in lines fourteen and fifteen strike out the words "for denoting the tax thereby imposed."

That the House recede from their disagreement to the one hundred and eighty-second amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: "But distillers and refiners of mineral oils shall be considered as manufacturers and subject to the tax on sales provided for in the fourth section of the act to exempt certain manufactures form internal tax, and for other purposes,' approved March 31, 1868."

ROBERT C. SCHENCK,
S. HOOPER.

WILLIAM E. NIBLACK, Managers on the part of the House. JOHN SHERMAN,

JUSTIN S. MORRILL, C. R. BUCKALEW, Managers on the part of the Senate.

regard to the removal of spirits in bond and in regard to bonded warehouses generally?

Mr. SCHENCK. The system adopted by the House remains. There is to be no removal in bond and only drawback allowed to the amount of sixty cents per gallon. There are some few verbal amendments to make the matter clear and precise, but there is no change in principle.

Mr. GARFIELD. In the same connection I desire the gentleman to state what time is allowed for the removal of spirits now in bond?

Mr. SCHENCK. On that question there was a compromise between the committees on the part of the two Houses. The House having required the removal in six months from the present bonded warehouses by the payment of tax thereon, of all spirits that might be now deposited there and the Senate having extended the time to twelve months, a compromise was made by fixing nine months as the time within which the spirits must be removed under penalty of forfeiture.

Mr. BECK. I desire to ask what will be the loss to the revenue by the striking off of the tax on petroleum?

Mr. SCHENCK. The original tax on petroleum having amounted to some four or five million dollars when it was fixed at twenty cents, and having been reduced to ten cents, I should think the reduction would amount to more than two million dollars. That amount would be lost except for the fact that we get rid of all the machinery which was kept up for this single article similar to that which prevails in relation to distilled spirits. This was the only remainarticle upon which such a tax was collected in that way.

Mr. DELANO. I hope the gentleman will explain the action of the committee of confering

ence.

Mr. SCHENCK. I have every disposition to give whatever explanation gentlemen may ask in regard to this report. I propose to call for the previous question on the adoption of the report; but I am ready to answer any question gentlemen may ask in regard to particular amendments.

Mr. PETERS. How about the tax on banks?

Mr. SCHENCK. The committee agree to strike out all that part of the bill in conformity with the amendment of the Senate, being entirely satisfied no bill could pass the Senate at this session which contained a provision in regard to banks, such as the House agreed to. Mr. KOONTZ. What action was had in reference to the payment of storekeepers? Mr. SCHENCK. They are to be paid by the United States.

Mr. UPSON. What about special agents? Mr. SCHENCK. That stands in this condition the Senate amended the provision in regard to supervisors of revenue limiting the number to twenty. It has been agreed to extend the number to twenty-five, their territorial districts to be made up by composing those districts of judicial districts.

The next section, which provided for repealing any law authorizing the appointment of general agents and special agents, stands with this addition. We also repeal the appointment of inspectors with the exception of inspectors of tobacco, snuff, and cigars; and instead of any of these officers we authorize the appointment of not exceeding twenty-five detectives at any one time, the number now being unlimited, who shall be assigned to duty in the different divisions of supervisors. The whole appointment of those officers, who have roving commissions to enter districts and interfere with local officers, has been swept away.

Mr. SCOFIELD. Has the whole tax been removed from petroleum?

Mr. SCHENCK. The distillers and refiners of petroleum or mineral oil are to pay the same price as other manufacturers. The House conferees agreed to the Senate amendment with an amendment to make it clear they should pay the tax other manufacturers did, which was not before clear in the Senate amendment. Mr. SCOFIELD. No tax per gallon? Mr. SCHENCK. No tax except on sales. Mr. GARFIELD. What has been done in

I will say in this connection that so far as a part of this machinery is concerned-the inspectors of oil-the payment of the inspectors' fees was made not by the Government, but by dealers in oil; but we get rid of a very great abuse so far as that is concerned. The committee found that in the allowance of a certain amount per gallon to these inspectors, as their fees for gauging and inspecting oil, they were in many parts of the country, especially in New York and Brooklyn, receiving many thousands of dollars per annum. In one instance they were equivalent from month to month to $56,000 a year.

Mr. KOONTZ. I would inquire if the conference committee have fixed the same amount of special tax to be paid by distillers as was fixed by the House.

Mr. SCHENCK. That remains as before. It is due to the House I should say that the Senate having reduced the tax upon the sales of wholesale dealers in liquor to one fifth of one per cent., putting them on the same footing as other dealers, whereas the House had made it three per cent., we succeeded in getting a compromise by which wholesale dealers in liquor are to pay on their sales one per cent., which is five times as much as the Senate had agreed to.

Mr. GETZ. I wish to inquire whether the phraseology of the section defining what shall constitute a distiller has been relieved of the ambiguity which it was alleged to contain, under which brewers were fearful they might be classed as distillers.

Mr. SCHENCK. Yes, sir; there is a phrase introduced to prevent its application to producers of fermented liquors.

Mr. O'NEILL. I will ask the gentleman again, do I understand that these twenty-five inspectors or detectives are in the place of all the present inspectors and detectives?

I am

Mr. SCHENCK. No; the gentleman does not quite understand it. At present the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is permitted to employ, upon such terms as he pleases, and pay out of any appropriation made for that purpose, an unlimited number of detectives. speaking of the present law. There are four classes of inspectors by the existing law: first, general inspectors, of whom there are some two hundred and fifty-five, I think, altogether; second, inspectors of distilled spirits; third,

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »