our own employés, to those who are around us and most attached to us, without at the same time allowing this extra compensation to extend to all the Executive Departments. No reason can be given for increasing the pay of our employés here that will not equally apply to all the Departments. The proposition now before the Senate applies only to the employés of the House, and is confined to the House. Why should the pay of the employés of the House be increased and not those of the Senate? Why should the pay of the employés of Congress be increased and not those of the Departments? How could we approach this question of increase of compensation to our own employés alone, when we have petitions from thousands of officers, especially line officers of the Army, who are suffering from the deficiency of their pay owing to the condition of the currency? The Committee on Finance deemed that they could not in justice to the country, and in justice to their own reputations, increase the pay of the employés of Congress when we refuse to increase the pay of the Army and Navy. Under these circumstances we had but one course left, and that was to strike out the appropriation and to insist that it should be left out. Let us approach the question of the increase of the compensation of the officers of the Government as a separate and distinct proposition. If we are compelled by the circumstances of the time to increase the pay of any one, we certainly ought in the first instance to increase the pay of those who are suffering from an inadequacy of pay in the Army, the line officers of the Army; but to increase the pay of the employés of the House of Representatives alone, without providing for any other officers of the Government, seems to be unjust and improper; and therefore it was that the conferees on the part of the Senate insisted that this appropriation should be omitted. If, however, the Senate think differently, we have nothing to say. I submit the question now to the Senate, so that we may take a vote upon it. The motion I now submit is to still further insist and to allow the House of Representatives to have another vote. That does not defeat the bill, because the House may recede from this appropri ation. I cannot say what the House may desire to do. It does seem to me that the House will not, in the face of the absolute want of the money appropriated in the bill for the benefit of the Army, insist on delaying the bill for this matter. The Secretary of War told me yesterday that one or two of these appropriations are now indispensably necessary, that he wants them to-day or to-morrow, and that the bill should be passed at once. The spectacle of hanging up this bill in order to secure the passage of twenty per cent. additional pay to a few civil employés of the Government is one certainly which I do not wish to regard. We may recede and pay these employés, but if we do so we enter upon a course which, in my judgment, will be injurious to the public service, and dangerous in the extreme in the present condition of our finances. I feel disposed, therefore, although the amount is comparatively small, to make a point of it and stand upon it.

There is another thing. Neither House ought to put upon an appropriation bill a measure that does not receive the free assent of the other. Every portion of the appropriation bill ought to be assented to freely by both Houses. Certainly after the Senate has deliberately acted on the question, we ought not to be required to take from the national Treasury this sum of money against our will merely to secure the passage of the deficiency bill. It seems to me that is the correct principle; it is one upon which I have always acted as a member of Congress, that where either House objects to any independent appropriation bill, to abandon it, because the appropriation bill ought not to be used as a medium to force through Con. gress an objectionable proposition to either House.

bill. That is a matter of fact. They are not properly compensated. We having been playing the demagogue in both Houses of Congress and voting high compensation to the privates and nothing to the officers, because there are a great many privates to every officer. I think the increase of compensation to the clerks is a matter of justice, as would be the increase of compensation to officers of the Army; but because one is right and the other is right, and one is presented first, that is no good reason why the first should be ignored. There is good reason why it should be done; and when the time comes for giving proper compensation to officers of the Army so that they may be able to live and not have to draw on their friends at home for necessary current expenses, I will vote for that

Mr. TRUMBULL. Without at this time going into the question whether we should increase generally the salaries of officers of the Government in consequence of the depreciation of the currency in which they are paid, I think there are other reasons entirely sufficient why the Senate should not accede to a proposition to add twenty per cent. to the compensation of the House employés. I very well recollect since I have been in the Senate the difficulty that arose out of this species of legislation, and the action which gave rise to the passage of the law of 1858 referred to by the Senator from Ohio. In the closing hours of the session there would always be found some member of the body who, in the superabundance of his kindness to the employés about the Senate, (that have always since I have been here been very accommodating and kind and have ingratiated themselves into the good feelings of the members of the body,) would make a motion of this character, that twenty per cent. additional be paid them as a compensation. It was always exceedingly unpleasant on the part of any member of the Senate to object to such motions, and they were suffered to prevail at several sessions against the better judgment of members, because of the disinclination there was to interpose an objection in a small matter of that kind; but finally Congress, in 1858, determined to relieve itself of this legislation by providing that money should not be paid on a resolution of this character passed by either House. The salary of the officers was fixed at what was thought to be a proper sum, and it was determined to leave it there, and I believe that this body, and so far as I am aware the House of Representatives, for the last six or seven years, has refused, until the present occasion, to pass a vote of this character. Now, sir, if we concur in this provision of the bill adopted by the House of Representatives, we open the door again; and I do not care what you fix the pay of the employés of the two Houses at, there will, at the conclusion of a long session, when we all feel the services that have been rendered by the employés of the body, be somebody who, in his kindness, will move to give them extra compensation; and it would be done almost as a matter of course, done usually on the last night of the session, perhaps not half a dozen Senators present sometimes when it is done, and thus we should fall into the old practice again.

If it is necessary to raise the salaries it ought not to be done in this way. It is not in accordance with the law that it should be so done; and I rejoice that the Committee on Finance of this body has taken the position it has taken, and I am sure that the House of Representatives will not insist upon the defeat of a bill of importance to the country rather than lose an appropriation made in this particular way, because the appropriation may be brought up in a bill if it is thought desirable hereafter to increase the pay of the employés of the two Houses of Congress, or of either House. The refusal to concur in this provision of the bill will not prevent the passage of a law that shall give them additional pay if it is thought advisable to pass it; but I am quite sure that the House of Representatives will not insist upon a resolution being enacted into a law which all must admit who examine the legislation of the country was passed contrary to the law. I hope the vote of the Senate will be unanimous in sustaining the action of the committee of conference on the part of the Senate in refusing to agree to this proposition of the House of Representatives.

Representatives, but of the Senate. In addition to that I am in favor of making additional compensation to the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. I am in favor of paying a just and reasonable salary to every class of officers and every officer of the Government who does not receive such compensation. I have been in both Houses when the additional compensation at the close of the session referred to by the honorable Senator from Illinois has been usually voted; but that is totally a different case from the one under consideration.

There was then no depreciation of the money of the country in which those officers were paid, and the extra allowance that was made to the officers of the House of Representatives in such states of case as that referred to by the honorable Senator was simply a bounty or an act of special justice. Now, sir, I am in favor of an act not only of enlarged but of universal justice to every officer and every employé of the Government.

The honorable Senator from Ohio remarked that the officers of the Army were more poorly paid than any other class of officers or employés under the Government. I do not think so. I think the members of the two Houses of Congress, who can engage in no other business, all of whose time for the year is necessarily absorbed by their service in Congress, and who have families at home or here to support, are the most poorly compensated of all the officers or employés of the Government. I believe in charity, and I believe in the old proverb, that charity begins at home. I am in favor of an additional compensation to the members of the Senate for two reasons: first, because it is just; and second, because I feel that I am entitled to more money than I receive, and I am in need of it.

We were promised $3,000 compensation per annum in money, and there is nothing that is money but gold or silver, and all the legislation of Congress cannot make any other thing money than gold or silver, and the commercial world will not receive anything but gold or silver as money. Now, what have we been paid for, the last two years for that compensation that is tendered by an act of Congress to the members of the two Houses? Between forty and fifty cents for each dollar. I say that that is an injustice to the members of Congress. I say that members of Congress cannot live upon that compensation. I say that that is a less rate of compensation than has been contracted by the Government to pay them, and I say that it is a less rate of compensation than the Government ought to pay.

Now, sir, for one, I am willing to vote justice to every class of officers, and, as I said before, to every officer and every employé under the Government. If you satisfy my reason that such a class or such an officer does not receive a fair compensation, I am always ready to vote for a sum that will make it a just and a reasonable compensation. The members of the two Houses of Congress who live within a short distance from the metropolis, and who get little or nothing in the way of mileage, are, I think, most unjustly dealt with by the present compensation which they receive. It is a matter of imperative justice and right to them that they should receive an additional rate of compensation. I believe that the officers of the House of Representatives ought not to have been grouped together, but that the members of the two Houses and the officers of the two Houses ought to have been put together in a joint resolution or a bill for that purpose, and that a fair and adequate compensation should have been provided collectively for them all. I prefer that the matter should take that course.

If the officers of the Army do not receive a fair and adequate compensation it is the duty of Congress to afford it. It is the right of the officers of the Army that they should have a fair compensation, one that will enable them to live and to support their families; but because the proposition does not embrace the officers of the Army it is no reason why justice when it may be done shall not be done to the officers of the House or of the Senate or to the members of the two Houses. I will vote myself that the Senate adhere to its position for the purpose of getting this question as it relates to the members of the two Houses of Congress and the officers of both Houses before the two Houses in a more legitimate mode, by a joint resolution or by an act to be passed for that

purpose, which shall establish such a rate of compensation as shall be fair and reasonable. I am not going to vote against such a proposition because it does not include all the classes of officers that ought to be embraced by such a measure. would vote to pass a measure in that form and then you might bring up all the residue of the officers of the Government, either by classes or in

I

CONDUCT OF GENERAL PAINE AT PADUCAH.

Mr. NESMITH. The Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to whom was referred a resolution introduced by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. PowELL] calling for the report of a military commission appointed to investigate the conduct of Brigadier General Paine, have directed me to report it back with an amendment and recconsideration.

twice by their titles, and referred as indicated below:

A joint resolution (H. R. No. 139) of thanks to Major General George H. Thomas and the army under his command-to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

A bill (H. R. No. 631) to provide for holding courts in the western district of Missouri, and to the Judiciary.

measure of compensation to them all.

Mr. MORGAN. In order to test the sense of the Senate on the motion of the honorable Senator from Ohio, in which I fully concur, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. FOOT. Before the vote is taken, 1 deem it due to my colleague [Mr. COLLAMER] to say that he is detained from his seat and attendance in the Senate on account of sickness.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 35, nay 1; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Davis, Dixon, Farwell, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Ilale, Harlan, Harris, Henderson, Hendricks, Howe, Lane of Indiana, Morgan, Morrill, Nesmith, Pomeroy, Powell, Richardson, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wilkinson, Willey, and Wil

on-35.

Mr. WILKINSON. I move that the bill (S. No. 295) making additional grant of lands to the State of Minnesota, in alternate sections, to aid in the construction of a railroad in said State, which was introduced at the last session and referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and by that committee reported back, as I understand, without any action upon it, be taken up and recommitted to the Committee on Public Lands. The motion was agreed to.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana, from the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to whom was referred the memorial of the Legislature of Oregon, in favor of the location of a national foundery, arsenal, and manufactory of arms at the falls of the Willamette, near Oregon City, in that State, asked to be discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to.

Mr. TRUMBULL, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the memorial of William A. Hammond, late Surgeon General of the United States Army, praying that inquiry may be made into all the circumstances connected with his recent trial and dismissal, and that the Senate will suspend action in the matter of confirming his successor in office until such inquiry shall have been made, asked to be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia; which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 404) to secure impartiality in the administration of justice in the District of Columbia, reported adversely, and moved the indefinite postponement of the bill; which was agreed to.

Mr. DAVIS, from the Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the joint resolution (H. R. No. 102) for the relief of Captain M. M. Hawes, submited an adverse report; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. SHERMAN, from the Committee on Finance, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 689) to provide for Acting Assistant Treasurers and depositaries in certain cases, reported it with an amendment.

PRINTING OF A BILL.

On motion of Mr. SHERMAN, it was Ordered, That the bill (S. No. 403) to amend the act enitled "An act to encourage immigration," approved July 4, 864, and the act entitled "An act to regulate the carriage f passengers in steamships and other vessels," approved Jarch 3, 1855, and for other purposes, be printed for the pe of the Senate.

Mr. CLARK. I desire to inquire of the Senator from Oregon if that resolution is likely to lead to any debate?

Mr. NESMITH. I think not. There was a pretty general discussion on the subject a few days since, and it seemed to be conceded that the resolution should pass with proper amendments.

Mr. CLARK. I have no objection to its present consideration, provided it does not lead to debate, and with the understanding that if it does lead to debate it shall be laid aside.

Mr. NESMITH. I think it will not lead to debate.

By unanimous consent, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.

The amendment of the Committee on Military

Affairs and the Militia was to strike out all after the word "resolved" and insert the following:

That the Secretary of War be directed, if not incompatible with the public interests, to transmit to the Senate the report and evidence taken by the military commission, of which Brigadier General Speed S. Fry was president, appointed to investigate the conduct of Brigadier General Paine, of the United States Army, in and about Paducah, Kentucky; the defense of Brigadier General Paine; the review of Judge Advocate Holt, and all the papers relating to the case.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. POWELL. I think the resolution ought to be further amended by striking out the words "if not incompatible with the public interests," so as to make it in the usual form.

The VICE PRESIDENT. That amendment will be made, if there be no objection. The Chair hears none.

The resolution, as amended, was agreed to.

MINERAL LANDS.

Mr. HARLAN. A few days before the close of the last session a joint resolution (H. R. No. 99)"reserving mineral lands from the operation of all acts passed at the present session granting lands or extending the time of former grants,' was passed by the Senate, but through some inadvertence was not sent back to the House of Representatives, so that it failed then to become a law. In order to secure the object now, some amendments are necessary, which I am authorized by the Committee on Public Lands to propose; and to reach that stage I move first to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution was passed.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. HARLAN. I now move to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution was ordered to a third reading.

The motion was agreed to.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The resolution is now open to amendment.

Mr. HARLAN. The committee propose to strike out the words "present session" and insert "first session of the Thirty-Eighth Congress," and to add to the resolution "unless otherwise specially provided in the act or acts making the grant,' so as to make the resolution read:

That no act passed at the first session of the ThirtyEighth Congress granting lands to States or corporations to aid in the construction of roads, and for other purposes, or to extend the time of grants heretofore made, shall be so construed as to embrace mineral lands, which in all cases shall be and are reserved exclusively to the United States, unless otherwise specially provided in the act or acts making the grant.

The amendments were agreed to.

The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the resolution to be read the third time.

The joint resolution was read the third time, and passed. Its title was amended by striking out the words "present session" and inserting "first session of the Thirty-Eighth Congress.'

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED.

The following bills and joint resolution from the House of Representatives were severally read

A bill (H. R. No. 659) making appropriations for the service of the Post Office Department during the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1866 to the Committee on Finance.

A bill (H. R. No. 664) for changing the time for holding circuit courts in the district of Virginia-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

A bill (H. R. No. 677) to amend an act entitled "An act to provide ways and means for the support of the Government, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1864-to the Committee on Finance.

A bill (H. R. No. 692) in reference to prosecutions for libel in the District of Columbia-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses A bill (H. R. No. 649) making appropriations of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1866-to the Committee on Finance.

NEW YORK CUSTOM-HOUSE.

The joint resolution (H. R. No. 140) authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to give the necessary notice stipulated pending the intention of the United States to purchase the building known as Merchants' Exchange, New York city, now used for custom-house purposes, was read twice by its title.

Mr. CLARK. I desire to say that the matter of that resolution was before the Committee on Finance this morning, and they were unanimously of opinion that it is desirable to purchase the property, and I ask the consent of the Senate to pass the resolution at once, as the time of giving the notice expires in the present month.

By unanimous consent the joint resolution was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It was reported to the Senate, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

HENRY A. BRIGHAM.

Mr. DAVIS desiring to move a reconsideration of the vote by which the bill (S. No. 212) for the relief of Henry A. Brigham was passed, a message was directed to be sent to the House of Representatives requesting the return of the bill, and on its being returned, the motion to reconsider was made by Mr. DAVIS and entered.

SLAVES TAKEN INTO THE ARMY.

Mr. POWELL submitted the following resolution, and asked for its present consideration:

Resolved, That the Secretary of War be directed to inform the Senate why he has not appointed “a commission in each of the slave States represented in Congress charged to award to each loyal person to whom a colored volunteer may owe service a just compensation, not exceeding $300 for each colored volunteer," as he was directed to do by the twenty-fourth section of the act approved February 24, 1864, entitled "An act to amend an act entitled An act for enrolling and calling out the national forces and for other purposes,"" approved March 3, 1863.

Mr. CONNESS objecting to the consideration of the resolution, it lies over under the rules.

CONTRACTS OF TREASURY AGENTS.

Mr. GRIMES submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to communicate to the Senate a full statement of all contracts executed by one Hanson A. Risley, an agent of the Treasury Department or of the United States Government, since the 4th day of July last, specifying the name or naines of the parties with whom the contracts were made, tho name or names of the persons at whose solicitation or upon whose recommendation the contracts were made, the date of each contract, the amount and description of goods, property, or material thus contracted for, where to be procured, or where represented to be situated at the date of the contract, when to be delivered to the agent of the Treasury, and at what price.

Resolved further, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to communicate to the Senate the same particulars in relation to any other contracts made by Treasury agents that have been returned to or that are known to the Department.

INTERNAL REVENUE COLLECTIONS. Mr. WILSON submitted the following resolu

tion; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolred, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and is hereby, directed to furnish the Senate, on or before the 15th day of February next, a statement showing the amount of collections in each internal revenue collection district, and the amount of moneys deposited in authorized deposifories or paid to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on drafts or otherwise by the collectors of each district from the date when the excise act went into operation to the 30th day of June, 1864, with the differences between the amounts collected and the amounts deposited or paid over as aforesaid by the collectors in each district, and the total differences in the amounts for said period.

GOVERNMENT DEPOSITS IN NATIONAL BANKS.

Mr. WILSON submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and is hereby, directed to furnish the Senate, on or before the 15th day of February next, separate and detailed statements showing the amount of public moneys deposited and the amount withdrawn from each of the national banks during each month from the date of their organization to June 30, 1864, with the difference between the sums deposited and withdrawn monthly, in each case, and the amount of the differences.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. WILSON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 406) for the benefit of officers of the Army in the field; || which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

Mr. MORRILL asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, to introduce bill (S. No. 407) for the relief of Lieutenant Commander: Cilley, of the United States Navy; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. DIXON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a joint resolution (S. R. No. 101) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The proposed amendment is to insert in lieu of the fifth paragraph of the ninth section of the first article of the Constitution this clause: Congress shall have power to lay a tax or duty on articles exported from any State."

66

Mr. MORRILL asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a joint resolution (S. R. No. 103) for the relief of A. G. Bodfish; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. CLARK asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a joint resolution (S. R. No. 102) declaratory of the sense of Congress upon negotiations and terms of settlement with the rebels; which was read twice, and ordered to be printed. It declares that no negotiations, terms of settlement, concessions, or compromises should be entered into, proposed, yielded, or made with the rebels, directly or indirectly, until they have manifested their implicit and unconditional submission to the authority of the Government; and that, however much peace may be desired, the present war must be waged with all the energy and resources of the Government until such submission shall be secured, and the supremacy of the Constitution and laws established over the entire territory of the United States as heretofore claimed.

SPENCER AND HUBBARD.

tucky, [Mr. Davis,] was, as he says, arrested by my act, the morning hour having expired while I was on the floor. I move now that that bill be taken up, so that it may be disposed of.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 94) for the relief of Isaac R. Diller, the pending question being on the amendment of the Committee on Claims to reduce the appropriation from $3,655 55 to $3,000.

Mr. HALE. I do not wish to say much about this bill. It is a bill to pay an old consul for services rendered prior to the coming in of this Administration. was remarking when I was on the floor the other day that the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations had told us that there were applications, some of them very urgent and pressing, coming from all parts of the world where we have consuls, stating that their compensation is inadequate now; but the Senate, on a case brought before them, where there was a unanimous report from the Committee on Commerce, and the recommendation of the Secretary of State, refused to increase the salary of one of these officers, the consul at Halifax. It was understood then to be the general policy of the Senate not to increase compensation at this time. I simply want to say that as we have refused to pay for present services, I think that to go back and open an old account will be setting a worse precedent than would the increase of compensain that all

who

make these applications now, when their com pensation is confessed to be inadequate, will have a vastly better claim upon our successors than the present ones have upon us. I hope the bill will not be passed.

Mr. DAVIS. I hope this bill will be passed. I think it is much safer to legislate for the dead than for the living, and that there will be a much less amount put up as claims due the dead than to the living. But I will state one or two facts in connection with this claim. Mr. Diller was consul at Bremen; his consular duties there were very heavy and expensive. His rate of compensation was $2,000 a year. Since he went out of office the compensation for that consulship has been increased to $3,000. It is in proof in the case that the actual amount which he paid for clerk hire was over $3,300, and that this clerk service was indispensably necessary to enable him to get along with the duties of his office. This claim originated in the payment of clerk hire and in the advance of money by the consul to American sailors who were in a destitute condition and who applied to him for assistance to return to their native country. The other House passed this bill for his benefit, appropriating over $3,600. The Committee on Claims reduced the amount to $3,000. The case was before the Committee on Foreign Relations two years ago, and the chairman of that committee made a very elaborate report setting forth all the facts. It was submitted by that committee to the State Department, and the Secretary of State recommended an appropriation of $3,000 for extra compensation to this consul. The Committee on Foreign Relations considered the subject. The learned and laborious chairman examined it very attentively and made a very elaborate report, which was read a few days ago to the Senate, and that vigilant and able and economical chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations himself recommended an appropriation of $3,000 to satisfy the claims of all descriptions of Mr. Diller. In my own judgment, for clerk hire and for money advanced to indigent seamen, he is fully entitled to the $3,655 55 which the House of Representatives agreed by the bill which it passed to pay him. In obedience, however, to the instructions of the Committee on

ISAAC R. DILLER.

Mr. HALE. On Thursday last a private bill, which was reported by the Senator from Ken

Claims, I reported the bill with an amendment reducing the amount to $3,000. In my judgment, that is considerably less than this man is entitled to upon the sheerest principles of justice. I hope the bill will pass.

HALE. I move that the bill be indefinitely postponed.

The motion was not agreed to.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment reported from the Committee on Claims reducing the sum from $3,655 55 to $3,000.

The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended,

and the amendment was concurred in and ordered to be engrossed.

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

Mr. HALE. I ask for the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. ANTHONY. I understand that this bill is to pay for disbursements actually made for destitute American seamen in the port where this man was consul, and I shall therefore vote for it.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 26, nays 9; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Carlile, Clark, Conness, Cowan, Davis, Harris, Henderson, Hendricks, Lane of Indiana, Morgan, Morrill, Nesmith, Pomeroy, Powell, Richardson, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sprague, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wilkinson, and Willey-26.

NAYS-Messrs. Chandler, Dixon, Farwell, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, and Wilson-9.

ABSENT-Messrs. Brown, Collamer, Doolittle, Harding, Hicks, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Laue of Kansas, McDougall, Ramsey, Sherman, Wade, and Wright-14. So the bill was passed.

THANKS TO GENERAL TERRY.

The Senate proceeded to consider the amendments of the House of Representative to the joint resolution of the Senate (S. No. 98) to present the thanks of Congress to Major General Terry and the officers and men under his command, which were in line four before the words "major general" to insert the word "brevet," and to amend the title of the resolution by inserting the word "brevet" before the words "major general."

Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to inquire of some member of the Committee on Military Affairs, as I do not see the chairman in his seat at present, whether that amendment is in accordance with the facts. I do not know whether it is or not. Perhaps the Senator from Indiana [Mr. LANE] can give the information.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. He is a full brigadier general in the regular Army, and a brevet major general of volunteers.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Then the amendment of the House is in accordance with the facts? Mr. LANE, of Indiana. Yes sir.

Mr. SUMNER. Is it customary to insert those details?

Mr. DIXON. I think it is not. I think it is improper to insert the word "brevet." Mr. SUMNER. I think so too. Mr. DIXON. General Terry has the rank of a major general, but does not receive the pay.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. He has been confirmed as a brevet major general, and will go on the Army Register with that rank, and certainly in giving him a vote of thanks we should be precisely correct as to his title.

The amendments were concurred in.

CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I desire to give notice that to-morrow I shall call up the joint resolution from the House of Representatives, No. 18, to amend a joint resolution explanatory of "An act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of rebels, and for other purposes, "approved July 17, 1862. That resolution was reported back from the Committee on the Judiciary adversely. When the resolution comes up to-morrow, if I can get the attention of the Senate to call it up, my object will be to offer an amendment to it to repeal so much of the joint resolution to which this refers, passed in 1862, as limits the confiscation of the real estate of rebels to the life estate, so that their estates may be absolutely confiscated. I give notice of it now, because there was a difference of opinion in the Committee on the Judiciary, a majority being opposed to the repeal of the joint resolution of 1862. When this House resolution shall come up I intend to move, as a substitute for it, a clause repealing the joint resolution of 1862.

Mr. SUMNER. I will remind the Senator that, on his motion, the Senate has already adopted that proposition and attached it to the bill known as the Freedmen's Bureau bill. That bill is at this moment before a committee of conference of the two Houses. That committee has had a session to-day, and ane on Saturday and one on Friday, and we hope to be able to report at an early day; and in our report, I have no doubt, we shall preserve the proposition moved by the Senator.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I was not aware that a committee of conference was acting on that bill. It is immaterial to me how we attain the object. I will not press action upon this joint resolution under those circumstances until the committee shall have had time to act.

ST. LOUIS ARSENAL.

Mr. GRIMES. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 382, to provide for the better organization of the pay department of the Navy.

Mr. BROWN. If the Senator will permit me, I should like to call up a local bill, which it will not take more than a moment to pass.

Mr. GRIMES. This is a general bill. Mr. BROWN. Mine is a special bill to repeal an old law in relation to the St. Louis arsenal, and it is desirable it should be passed at once. 1 do not wish to interfere with general legislation, but I do not think it will take more than a second to pass the bill,

Mr. GRIMES. Very well. I withdraw my motion for the present.

Mr. BROWN. I move to take up Senate bill No. 402.

The motion was agreed to, and the bill (S. No. 402) to repeal an act entitled "An act to remove the United States arsenal from the city of St. Louis, and to provide for the sale of the lands on which the same is located," was read a second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. BROWN. I will simply state in explanation of this bill that, prior to the breaking out of the war, a law was passed at the instance of gentlemen who thought their property was more interested in getting rid of this arsenal than anything else, and, perhaps from some other motives, authorizing the sale of the ground and the removal of this arsenal. The law, however, has remained a dead letter; but it conflicts with certain arrangements and improvements that are necessary there, and I have been applied to by the officer in charge of the ordnance department at that place to have this law repealed, so that the arsenal may not be embarrassed in its operations by it. The bill meets with the unanimous concurrence of the Committee on Military Affairs, and I presume there will be no objection to it.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

PAY DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.

On motion of Mr. GRIMES, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. No. 382) to provide for the better organization of the pay department of the Navy.

The bill provides that, from and after its passage, the active list of the pay corps of the Navy shall consist of one hundred paymasters, fifty passed assistant paymasters, and fifty assistant paymasters. Paymasters are to be regularly promoted and commissioned from passed assistant paymasters, and passed assistant paymasters from assistant paymasters, subject to such examinations as are required by law and such as may be established by the Secretary of the Navy.

The second section provides that passed assistant paymasters shall give bonds for the faithful performance of their duties in the sum of $15,000, and that their annual pay shall be, at sea, $1,500; on other duty, $1,400; on leave or waiting orders, $1,100.

The third section provides that if any pay officer, or any other officer, or agent, or employé, or servant connected with or in the employment of the Navy Department at the time the offense was committed shall have defrauded, or attempted, or been privy to any attempt to defraud the Department in any manner whatever, he shall, upon conviction before a naval court-martial, be fined in any sum not exceeding $10,000, and be imprisoned in some penitentiary in the United States not exceeding ten years.

The Committee on Naval Affairs reported the bill with an amendment to strike out in section three, line five, the words "or attempted," and after the word "been" to insert the words "accessory or," and in line six to strike out the words "attempt to defraud" and to insert "fraud committed upon," so that the section will read:

"That if any pay officer, or any other officer or agent, or employé, or servant connected with or in the employment

of the Navy Department at the time the offense was committed, shall have defrauded or been accessory or privy to any fraud committed upon said Department in any manner whatever, he shall, upon conviction thereof," &c.

The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended; and the amendment was concurred in.

Mr. GRIMES. Though there does not seem to be much attention paid to the bill, I think it is my duty to explain it to the Senate.

In the first place, in regard to the duties of a paymaster in the Navy, all those who are familfar with the subject, I suppose, understand that the duties are those which are performed in the Army by the paymaster, the quartermaster, and the commissary. He has charge of all the stores of every description that are put on board ship, and turns them out to the men, to the ward room, and to the different messes as they may be required. He is required to draw for money if it may be necessary in order to discharge the expenses of the ship, or to pay the men or officers their salaries, and to pay it over, and to keep his regular accounts.

There are in the service to-day, or were on the 1st of the present month, one hundred paymasters and assistant paymasters established by law. There were sixty-four paymasters and thirty-six assistant paymasters, and there are three hundred and ninety-six, or nearly four hundred acting assistant paymasters. It is proposed by this bill to enable the President, or the Secretary of the Navy, to select out from among these four hundred young men who are acting assistant pay

masters one hundred of them who shall have best exhibited their capacity for the proper discharge of these duties, and attach them to the Navy proper as assistant and passed assistant paymasters, and for this reason: it is not supposed that there will be any time in the future when there will not be required at least two hundred paymasters. If we keep one hundred vessels in the service in commission, we shall require about two hundred paymasters, because we have established a rule now for the employment of paymasters in various places on shore. We have paymasters at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, District of Columbia, Norfolk, Newbern, Beaufort, North Carolina, Port Royal, Key West, Pensacola, New Orleans, Cairo, Mare Island, and Panama, New Grenada, which are naval depots of provisions, clothing, and small stores, making sixteen in all on shore. We then have a paymaster at Macao, in China, one at Callao, in Peru, and one in the Potomac flotilla. When you reserve the proper number of relays or reserves to take the place of paymasters when they come home from a cruise you will not have, according to the estimation of the Department, when you have increased the number to two hundred, more paymasters than will be necessary; certainly not if you maintain your Navy at the standard of one hundred vessels, while you have now got nearly seven hundred.

The bill also creates a new grade, that of passed assistant paymasters. The regulations and the law as it now stands require that every young man who is appointed an assistant paymaster shall undergo a thorough clerical examination, besides bringing testimonials as to his capacity and moral qualities. After having served a certain length of time, his returns to the Department having shown to be correct, and his capacity being guarantied by the exhibition which he has made of himself, he is then to be sent before another board of examination, just as our surgeons and our engineers are now sent before boards, and if he passes that second examination, he is to be made a passed assistant paymaster with the pay of $1,500 and one ration, corresponding in rank and in title also with the passed assistant surgeon.

I believe that is the purport of the bill. I will say that the bill has coure to the Committee on Naval Affairs with the approval of the Depart

ment.

Mr. POMEROY. I wish to inquire of the Senator from Iowa whether by this bill any reference is had to the age of the assistant paymasters for the acting assistant paymasters. The law now provides that assistant paymasters shall be under twenty-six, but acting assistant paymasters may be of any age. In appointing assistant paymasters from the list of acting assistant paymasters

under this bill as it is now framed, can the appointments be made from those who are over twentysix?

can.

Mr. GRIMES. I do not understand that they This bill is merely cumulative, and authorizes the creation of a certain number more in the rank of assistant paymasters, and creates the grade of passed assistant paymasters.

Mr. POMEROY. The bill as it now stands says they shall be "subject to such examinations as are required by law and such as may be established by the Secretary of the Navy." That may perhaps be a sufficient guard that they shall not be over twenty-six years of age.

Mr. GRIMES. Do you mean the passed assistant paymasters?

Mr. POMEROY. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRIMES. When an assistant paymaster goes into the Navy, he is required to be of a certain specific age. This bill does not specify what the examinations of this officer shall be, for they are already established by law; but then, after speaking of the assistant paymasters, the bill

says:

And passed assistant paymasters from assistant paymasters, subject to such examinations as are required by law and such as may be established by the Secretary of the Navy.

It is not possible for us to establish the age for passed assistant paymasters, and for this reason: we may have our grade full to-day, and peace be declared to-morrow. If so, promotion will be exceedingly slow in those grades, and the man now at the foot of the list as an assistant paymaster may be forty-five years old before he becomes a passed assistant paymaster. Hence it is not practicable for us to establish any age that the passed assistant paymaster shall attain at the time he is appointed.

Mr. POMEROY. I merely wanted to have the bill so guarded that the assistant paymasters, not the passed assistant paymasters, shall come within the law, that they shall not be over twentysix years of age.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I desire to call the attention of the chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs to the third section of this bill, which provides:

That if any pay officer, or any other officer, or agent, or employé, or servant connected with or in the employment of the Navy Department at the time the offense was committed, shall have defrauded or been accessary or privy to any fraud committed upon said Department in any manner whatever, he shall, upon conviction thereof before a naval court-martial, be fined in any sum not exceeding $10,000, and be imprisoned in some penitentiary in the United States not exceeding ten years.

I submit to the Senator from Iowa whether it is competent to do that. That would be punishing for a past offense. Ought not the language to be changed? The words, shall have defrauded or been accessary or privy to any fraud committed upon said Department," would punish an act committed before the passage of this bill. The bill as it stands would, if passed, be an ex post faclo law. If it meets the approbation of the Senator, I suggest that the word "have" be stricken out, and "defrauded" changed to "defraud," and the word "was" altered to "is." I make that motion, to strike out the word "was" in the fourth line, and in lieu of it to insert the word "is;" to strike out the word "have" at the end of the fourth line, and change the word "defrauded" to "defraud," and the word "been" in the fifth line to "be;" and after the word "fraud" in the sixth line, to insert the word "hereafter;" so that the section will read if amended as I propose:

That if any pay officer, or any other officer, or agent, or employé, or servant connected with or in the employment of the Navy Department at the time the offense is committed, shall defraud or be accessary or privy to any fraud hereafter committed upon said Department in any manner whatever, he shall, upon conviction thereof, &c.

These alterations will only make the bill prospective instead of retrospective.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not think there is any objection to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Illinois. The construction then of this section would be what it would be in its present phraseology. I do not think the amendment proposed will change the construction of the section, but perhaps it will make it a little clearer. I have no objection to it.

Mr. TRUMBULL. If I understand the section as it now stands, it is in the past tense, that if any officer "shall have defrauded" the Gov

ernment he shall be liable to punishment. As I propose, it will read, "if any person shall defraud or be accessary or privy to any fraud committed upon said Department, he shall be punished." If the amendment I suggest does not accomplish the object, I think it should be further amended. It now clearly provides for the punishment of an offense heretofore committed, and would be manifestly unconstitutional.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment proposed by the Senator from Illinois.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HALE. I confess that for one I do not see the necessity for this bill. When this war commenced we had no paymasters. They were then called pursers. I do not remember the precise number of them; I believe we had somewhere about sixty. Soon after the war commenced, we increased the corps from sixty to one hundred, but we increased it, I think, by making an addition of a new grade, to wit, assistant paymasters. That made them one hundred in number, and they have remained at that number from that day to this. This bill proposes to increase that number one hundred per cent. more. In the first place we made an addition of about fifty per cent., increasing the number to one hundred; and we now propose to make it one hundred per cent. more. And let it be remembered that this proposition increases the assistant paymasters sixteen, and makes an additional corps of fifty new officers, at an annual compensation which is named in the bill, and these are to be put upon the Navy as a permanent addition. I suppose there is no man who hopes, or expects, whatever may be the condition of the country after the war is over, that the number of these officers will ever be lessened if they are now attached permanently to the Navy. It seems to me that it is the part of wisdom not, under the pressure of a great emergency like that which we are now in, to make such a permanent increase as this to the officers of this particular branch of the naval service.

The chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs spoke of what was now required of paymasters in the Navy. According to my judgment a good many of the duties that are imposed upon them have been imposed by regulation and not by law; and the tendency of the action of the Naval Department is to increase the number and the scope of the subjects over which these officers have exclusive control. I do not know that I am correct in the matter, but I have been informed that the Navy Department within the past year have suspended several Navy agents from their places upon allegations of fraud, and have conferred their duties upon paymasters in the Navy. I believe that was the case at the navy-yard at Brooklyn and also at the navy-yard at Philadelphia. The Navy agents there were removed upon the ground of fraud, and their duties conferred upon these paymasters, who are now in the exercise of those duties.

However that may be, whether it is so or not, here is an addition of one hundred per cent., doubling this corps of officers which we have already increased fifty per cent. since the war commenced, and we are to fasten them upon the Navy for all time. I am not a convert to the doctrine that the way to put down this rebellion is to increase these officers and increase their compensation. I think it would be wise to wait before such an addition as this is made until this war is over, when there will be a revision and reduction both of the naval and land forces, and we can then fix a permanent peace establishment. It will be much more difficult to get rid of any officers than it is to put them in.

In addition to that, where is the necessity for this measure? The Secretary of the Navy now has an unlimited power of creating acting assistant paymasters just exactly to any extent that he thinks the public service requires, and he exercises it with a liberal hand. As he has this power, and the public service cannot suffer, where is the necessity at this time of creating this additional corps of officers, who will be fastened upon us forever? In my judgment it would be unwise and injudicious, and therefore I shall vote against the bill.

Mr. GRIMES. In answer to the last inquiry of the Senator from New Hampshire, as to the

necessity for this measure, I will read the reply of the chief of the bureau:

"Forty-five acting assistant paymasters resigned during the last year, and many other resignations are on file which cannot properly be accepted until the officers shall have returned and rendered their accounts, as it is difficult and embarrassing to detach a paymaster while on a cruise. Many of these were excellent officers, who might have been retained, though their pay was small, ($1,300,) had there been a reasonable expectation of obtaining permanent positions in the service."

It is true, as has been stated by the Senator, that various duties have been assigned to paymasters by regulation. As an example, it was not until the commencement of the present war that this country has ever had fleets. We had squadrons in foreign service, but we never had any of these large squadrons, and never operated in that capacity. It has been found expedient by the Navy Department to establish fleet paymasters. The purpose in appointing fleet paymasters is this: that there may be some man in each fleet to look after the service in that department, and see that all the paymasters properly discharge their duties, and make regular, monthly reports to the Department here. If there is any pay master who does not properly turn over to the men the rations required, does not see that they regularly receive their pay, or does not keep his books in proper order, it is the business of the fleet paymaster to supersede him, and send him home.

Mr. HALE. That is already provided for by law.

Mr. GRIMES. That is a new class of officers that has been created since the war began when we had only sixty paymasters, as has been said by the Senator from New Hampshire. I have here a list of officers who are required to be taken from the number of paymasters:

"One chief of bureau; six fleet paymasters for the North and South Atlantic, the East and West Gulf, the Mississippi, and Pacific squadrons; six inspectors in charge of provisions and clothing at Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Norfolk, and Cairo ; two superintendents of bread and flour at Boston and New York; one paymaster at Mare Island; two paymasters at Cairo for the station and receiving ship."

Making eighteen in all, in addition to those that I named when I was up before. I do not understand that anybody says it is not necessary that these paymasters should be assigned to this particular duty at these stations. I do not understand that anybody says it is not very essential that we should have these inspectors of provisions and clothing at these various yards. In consequence of having kept up this organization I am free to say-I think I say it with truth-that there has been no bureau of this Government where there has been so much money passed through it that has been so admirably managed and so accurately as the bureau of provisions and clothing. From the commencement of this war down to the present moment I have not heard a single complaint against it; and I apprehend it is in part because of the organization that has been made in it by the selection of the proper men for these various offices of inspectors and paymasters at these particular depots and by the selection of proper men as fleet paymasters to supervise all the subordinate acting paymasters that were within their particular jurisdiction, seeing that each one of them performed his duty.

It will be observed that of the one hundred paymasters now authorized by law under your present organization, some twenty-five or thirty of them are used in this way. Is it probable that we shall reduce our Navy below one hundred vessels? Is it probable that we are going to do it very speedily? If it is probable, if you propose to do it, do you not think it is advisable to hold out this inducement to these young men who are now in the service, and who are resigning, as we are told by the chief of the bureau, because the inducement of a permanent position is not held out to them, and when the war is over, if we have too many, we can then get rid of those who are most incompetent.

Mr. HALE. I agree to everything that the Senator has said about the administration of the bureau of provisions and clothing, and I think one great reason, and a very important and prominent reason, is, because there is at the head of that bureau an honest-and I want to speak that with all the emphasis that can be imagined-an honest, vigilant, and faithful man. I believe that; and I

believe that he attends to his duties. If there has been under the present machinery and administration of the office no fault found, not a word of complaint, as the chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs says, from any quarter, and there being no possible place in any Government where so much money has been distributed and none lost, it seems to me the urgency of the case cannot be so great as that we are required to multiply these officers one hundred fold at the present time, when the Department have unlimited power to appoint just as many acting assistant paymasters as they please.

Mr. President, it is a bad time to make these permanent additions to the Navy. The chairman of the Committee on Finance says they want all the money they can get. We have refused to increase, perhaps not the number, but the compensation of consuls who are constantly complaining. If this branch of the service has had resignations I do not know whether they are peculiar or not; but I should like to have the Secretary of the Navy, or whoever urges this bill, tell us what is the list of applicants well vouched for for business capacity and integrity for appointments to this very class of assistant paymasters. I happen to know something about how it was some time ago. There were men who had every qualification, so far as they could show it by recommendations, for the place, whose names were not reached for consideration for more than a year after they were put on the list; and I apprehend it is so to-day,

But, sir, I do not know that I can do any good or any hurt by talking about this bill. I have a duty to perform to myself, and I have done it in expressing the objection I entertain to this bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time.

Mr. HALE. I ask for the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill.

The yeas and nays were ordered, and being taken resulted-yeas 27, nays 4; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Carlile, Clark, Conness, Cowan, Dixon, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Harlan, Harris, Hendricks, Howe, Lane of Indiana, Morgan, Morrill, Nesmith, Pomeroy, Powell, Riddle, Sherman, Sprague, Summer, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle, and Willey-27.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Davis, Farwell, and Hale-4. ABSENT-Messrs. Brown, Chandler, Collamer, Doolittle, Harding, Henderson, Hicks, Howard, Johnson, Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Ramsey, Richardson, Saulsbury, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilson, and Wright-18. So the bill was passed.

RETALIATION ON REBEL PRISONERS. Mr. WADE, I move to take up Senate resolution No. 97.

Mr. SUMNER. What is it about?
Mr. WADE. About retaliation.

Mr. SUMNER. I would not go on with that to-day.

Mr. WADE. You would if you were in prison. [Laughter.]

The motion was agreed to; and the joint resolution (S. R. No. 97) advising retaliation for the cruel treatment of prisoners by the insurgents was read the second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole.

As it has come to the knowledge of Congress that great numbers of our soldiers who have fallen as prisoners of war into the hands of the insurgents have been subjected to treatment unexampled for cruelty in the history of civilized war, and finding its parallels only in the conduct of savage tribes; a treatment resulting in the death of multitudes by the slow but designed process. of starvation and by mortal diseases occasioned. by insufficient and unhealthy food by wanton exposure of their persons to the inclemency of the weather, and by deliberate assassination of innocent and unoffending men, and the murder in cold blood of prisoners after surrender; and as a continuance of these barbarities, in contempt of the laws of war and in disregard of the remonstrances of the national authorities, has presented the alternative of suffering our brave soldiers thus to be destroyed, or to apply the principle of retaliation for their protection; the resolution declares that, in the judgment of Congress, it has become justi fiable and necessary that the President should, in order to prevent the continuance and recurrence of such barbarities, and to insure the observance by the insurgents of the laws of civilized war, resort at once to measures of retaliation; that in the opinion of Congress such retaliation ought to be