Mr. WADE. Then I will ask the Senator in that connection, why did he quote those passages of Scripture which seemed to deny the right to retaliate?

Mr. HENDERSON. I did quote some from the Sermon on the Mount. I believe there were some gentlemen present on that occasion who expressed very great astonishment at the doctrines then proclaimed; and it seems the Senator from Ohio is equally astonished as was the multitude who gathered round upon that occasion.

Mr. WADE. Then the Senator invoked the Scriptures barely for the purpose of showing his learning in that direction, [laughter,] and not to affect the argument, if I understand him. He holds that we have a right to retaliate, and yet he invokes the Christian doctrine to show that we ought not to retaliate. He evidently does it, then, for our benefit. When we want that benefit we will make a preacher or a chaplain of him. [Laughter.]

Mr. HENDERSON. I desire to ask the Senator if he does not believe that the code of morals as taught in the Sermon upon the Mount is correct, and that it ought to be followed by mankind?

Mr. WADE. I do, but I think you most egregiously misapply it. I do not think it applies to any such case as this. If the Senator does, what becomes of his argument for retaliation, which he says he holds to?

Mr. HENDERSON. I am very glad indeed that my friend from Ohio is a believer; but he ought to remember that "the devils also believe and tremble." [Laughter.]

Mr. WADE. I do not see any trembling in that quarter, and I am sure there is none in this. [Laughter.] But, Mr. President, putting all that aside, I do not really know what the Senator intended by the long argument he made. I am sincere in saying that I watched his argument, and when he got through I could not tell whether he was for retaliation or against it; because he said he was for retaliation and then he proceeded to quote Scripture-which he said he believed in -to show that it was altogether wrong and ought not to be resorted to. I thought I saw an inconsistency, and I think so now. I see, however, or think I see, that we can propose no sort of retaliation to which he will agree. He says he is opposed to retaliation in kind. There is nothing in any of these resolutions which says it shall be in kind. The resolution reported by the committee was merely advisory, not mandatory; my amendment makes it mandatory but does not prescribe the measure or form of the retaliation to be practiced. I leave that with the President. I say he shall retaliate in such a way as in his judgment will be effectual to accomplish the end we have in view. I go for that. If the rebels cannot be deterred from atrocities by the threat, I am for putting the threat into execution. The Senator from Connecticut need not point to me as a man whose nerves will quail before such a duty. I tell you, sir, I would starve the whole rebellion unless it becomes effectual so that they release our men from this jeopardy. I have no mincing of matters here. I say to you they shall be protected. I do nothing through wantonness. When they release our men from this barbarity, I am willing to say, "Hands off," and to make peace on this subject; but until they do I will make the South a desolation, and every traitor shall lose his life, unless they treat our men with humanity. That is my docrine.

I know of no limitation to this principle. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] said there was a limitation; but I say that if you begin it, there is no limitation until it has the effect to remedy the evil complained of. You may begin moderately, if you please, as my amendment leaves the President a right to do; you may begin mildly; but unless what you do is effectual, I would censure the President if he did not follow it up with sterner and sterner measures until the effect should finally be produced, even if it condemned to death every rebel in the southern States.

There, sir, I stand; for, by the eternal God, our soldiers, defending their country, shall be protected, let it cause what evil it may to the other side. These are my doctrines. These are the doctrines of international law; they do not originate with me. They are doctrines as old as civ

ilization, and interposed against barbarism as an effectual remedy, and as the only remedy that the wisdom of man has yet devised.

Mr. President, I say again that I hope this resolution will not be recommitted, because I believe that every one is satisfied that at present, as I propose to amend it, it is free from all these sidebar arguments that have been made against it. Almost every Senator has announced himself in favor of some kind of retaliation. Some say we shall give notice beforehand that we intend to retaliate in the future, and that we should let bygones be bygones. Others say that if we retaliate in kind, we shall starve their prisoners to death, and that will not do. The resolution, as I propose to amend it, runs clear of all these things. It is that the President shall retaliate for these offenses to the extent that he thinks will be effectual; and he is to make the retaliation effectual, let it cost what it may. I would not enter upon a system of retaliation unless I intended to make iteffectual. The Senator from Connecticut greatly misunderstood me when he supposed that I offered the proposition barely in terrorem without intending to carry it out. Sir, I am not a man of shams. I get up no scarecrows here. I tell the rebel authorities, "We will punish your men until you reform." I no more want to see cruelty practiced than do other Senators; but I want to rescue our brave soldiers from the accursed cruelty to which they are subjected. That lies at the bottom of my efforts, and in order to rescue them I am willing to incur any denunciations that Senators or others may attempt to pour out upon my head, if I can in any degree release or relieve our poor soldiers from the accursed barbarism that is practiced upon them. They shall have my support and my aid and my voice. I will go to an extreme in that direction. There is scarcely anything that I would not be willing to do in order to effect this great purpose of protecting those whom it is our bounden duty to protect.

What, sir! stand here voting for conscription bills to compel the young, vigorous men of our country to take their lives in their hands and go forth to defend the nation against these accursed rebels, and then, when they are cruelly tortured to death by our barbarous foe, fold our arms and leave them to their fate! No, sir, no. I never was guilty of an act like that, and I never will be. They shall be rescued if my voice and my vote can effect it. I leave it to others to say that we, having left them in the hands of their enemies without an effort to rescue them for two long years, will not now interfere in their behalf. You may recommit this resolution; you may put it in your pockets if you will; but my voice is for retaliation until we reach a remedy which is the proper and legitimate object of what we aim at.

Mr. FOSTER. If I have understood the honorable Senator from Ohio aright, he construed some remarks which I made yesterday as holding him up here as a person more barbarous than any of the rest of us, and as advocating acts of barbarity toward prisoners of war. If I misun

derstood him, I wish he would say so.

Mr. WADE. I will say to the Senator that I did not suppose he really intended to say anything wrong; but I think the tenor of his remarks was calculated to show that we who were advocating this measure were stirring up a pretty barbarous remedy, and one that we should not be warranted in resorting to, for he turned to me to know if I would stand by and see a man starve to death. My answer is that the death might be out of my sight, and not in it, and if the death is to occur, I would rather it should be the death of a rebel than of a Union soldier.

Mr. FOSTER. So far from imputing to the honorable Senator the barbarity to which he alludes, I very sedulously avoided saying anything of the kind, because I had no such belief or impression on my mind; but now, from the explanation of the Senator, I see that the wrong I did him was in supposing that he would not stand by and starve a man to death. I expressly said yesterday that I did not believe it. It seems that in that I was mistaken, for he now avows that he would. Of course he has a right to make the decision for himself; it is not mine, but his. I must, however, still beg his pardon for believing that I knew his mind in that respect, when it should come to the point, better than he does himself, and that, notwithstanding the impulse under

which he speaks, he would not stand by deliberately and hold a prisoner of war in his custody and starve him to death.

Mr. WADE. Not as a remedy for our starving prisoners in their hands?

Mr. FOSTER. Not as a remedy for anything. The Senator would not do it, in my belief. If he insists that he would, and that I am at the same time charging him with barbarity, or holding him up to the Senate as encouraging acts of barbarity, he will see that it is he who does it and not I.

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not rise, Mr. President, for the purpose of making an effort to influence the vote of any member of the Senate either upon the original proposition or upon the suggested amendments, because it is very evident that upon the whole subject the mind of the Senate is already made up. It could not well be otherwise, because the argument on both sides has been in a great measure, if not entirely, exhausted. My principal object is to state, as briefly as I can, the reasons that will influence my own vote; and before I proceed in that purpose I may be permitted to say that neither of the members of the committee by whom the original resolution was reported need have disavowed any inhuman purpose either on the part of the committee or on the part of any individual member of the committee. Those of us who know them, and their constituents who know them, and the country, will hardly for a moment credit even the suspicion that they design by this measure anything inhuman in the ordinary acceptation of the term, or anything else than such as they may deem proper to arrest the inhumanity which has been practiced upon our own soldiers.

I have another remark to make before I proceed further, as preliminary. We are now in the month of January, 1865. The only evidence that I am aware of, that is before the Senate or the country, of these outrages perpetrated upon our prisoners, was made known to the Senate and to the country by the report of a committtee of our own made in May last. The honorable Senator from Ohio who shows so much zeal, and has discussed his side of the question with so much ability, was I think a member of the committee before whom the evidence was taken, and of course was a party to the report. Tifat report as I find was submitted to the Senate on the 5th of May, 1864.

Mr. WADE. I will remind the Senator that there was a previous report made on another occasion, which showed these barbarities, long before that.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am aware of that, and that makes the argument stronger, I think, for the purposes for which I propose to use it. There was, then, a report made before 1864 on the same subject, and that report also disclosed to the country and to the Senate the existence of these barbarities. Now, I do not understand that, at least from the 5th of May, 1864, down to the present time, these barbarities have been continued. I have no evidence before me, and I do not believe that the evidence is to be obtained anywhere, that this conduct on the part of the rebels now exists.

Mr. FOSTER. Allow me to assure the honorable Senator that he is entirely mistaken. The last officer who escaped from Richland jail, in Columbia, South Carolina, left there as late as the 24th or 28th of December; he was ten days in getting down the river, and he has arrived here in the North in the month of January, within fifteen days past, and he stated to me, as I told the Senate yesterday, that the ration of the officers then confined, when he left there, on the 24th or 28th of December, (I am not certain which,) was one pint of Indian meal per day and a few pinches of salt, and occasionally a little sorghum; and that was the whole ration for a day.

Mr. JOHNSON. The honorable member misunderstood me.

Mr. SUMNER. If the Senator from Maryland will yield, I will move that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of executive business, which will leave this question in order for

to-morrow.

Mr. JOHNSON. I have no objection, provided it is understood that I have the floor to-morrow. ["Certainly."]

Mr. WADE. Before the question is put on the motion of the Senator from Massachusetts, I wish to ask that the amendment I have offered to this resolution be printed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That order will be made.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

On motion of Mr. SUMNER, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business; and after some time spent in executive session the doors were reopened, and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

THURSDAY, January 26, 1865.

The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. W. H. CHANNING. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

PREEMPTION RIGHTS IN COLORADO.

Mr. BENNET, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill in relation to preemption rights in Colorado Territory; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

SETTLEMENTS ON THE PUBLIC LANDS.

Mr. BENNET. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Committee on Public Lands be instructed to inquire into the propriety of so changing existing laws as to legalize the settlement by loyal citizens upon any and all the public domain of the United States to which the Indian title has been or may be extinguished, and report by bill or otherwise.

Mr. HOLMAN. I shall not object to the resolution if the words "except mineral lands" be inserted.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Accept that modification.

Mr. BENNET. Oh no, the resolution is intended to cover that.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I desire to move to postpone the consideration of the special order, being the motion submitted by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. PENDLETON,] to reconsider the vote of the House at the last session upon the joint resolution in relation to the admission of heads of Executive Departments on the floor of the House. As the gentleman entitled to the floor [Mr. Cox] is not now present, I move to postthe special order until after the morning hour. We can get through some important busi

ness in that time.

The SPEAKER. The motion to reconsider, the consideration of which was pending at the time the House adjourned on yesterday, is not a special order. But being a motion to reconsider, it is a privileged question.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Then I move to postpone its further consideration until after the morning hour. I want to get at the regular order of business.

Mr. PENDLETON. I hope the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. WASHBURNE,] instead of pressing the motion to postpone, will go on with whatever he may have to do until my colleague [Mr. Cox] comes in. The Committee of Ways and Means are striving very hard to get in some of their bills; and if the gentleman will just go on with the ordinary business of the House, that will answer his purpose.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Very well; that is all I want.

No objection was made.

NATIONAL CURRENCY.

Mr. STEVENS, by unanimous consent, reported from the Committee of Ways and Means a bill to amend an act entitled "An act to provide a national currency secured by the pledge of United States bonds, and to provide for the circulation and redemption thereof."

Mr. STEVENS. I ask that the bill be printed, and postponed until a week from next Monday, and made the special order for that day after the morning hour, and from day to day until disposed of.

The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.

INSPECTORS OF CUSTOMS.

Mr. STEVENS also, by unanimous consent, reported from the Committee of Ways and Means a bill to amend an act entitled "An act to increase the compensation of inspectors of customs in certain ports," approved April 29, 1864. Mr. STEVENS. I think there will be no objection to this bill after hearing it read.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I cannot consent to have the bill taken up and acted upon at this time; I am willing to have it introduced, and postponed.

Mr. STEVENS. Then I move that the bill be postponed till Wednesday next, and made the special order for that day after the morning hour, and from day to day until disposed of. The motion was agreed to.

COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS.

Mr. STEVENS, by unanimous consent, reported from the Committee of Ways and Means a bill for the relief of collectors and surveyors of customs in certain cases.

Mr. STEVENS. I do not think that after the reading of this bill any objection will be made to its consideration and passage at this time. I therefore ask unanimous consent to take this bill up and consider it at this time.

The bill was read at length. It provides that in all cases in which any collector or surveyor of customs has paid or accounted for, or is charged with duties accruing under the joint resolution to increase temporarily the duties on imports, approved April 29, 1864, and in which the Secretary of the Treasury shall be satisfied that the collection of said duties was omitted by said collector or surveyor in consequence of not being informed of the passage of said resolution under which said duties have accrued, the Secretary of the Treasury, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, shall remit or refund, as the case may require, said duties to such collectors.

No objection was made to the consideration of

the bill.

Mr. STEVENS. I will state in a few words the object of this bill. We passed an act, dated the 29th of April, 1864, signed at that time by the President. But it was not promulgated until the 30th of the month. In the mean time it took effect from the day of its being signed. Several collectors in different parts of the country did not hear of the passage of the act for two days after it was signed, and went on in the old way, omitting to collect the new duties imposed by the

act.

The collector of the customs at Chicago was one; and the collectors in all the western country are in the same condition. This bill is intended to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to release them and not hold them responsible for the non-collection of duties under those circum

stances.

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

Mr. STEVENS moved to reconsider the vote just taken; and also moved that the motion to

reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I desire to make some reports from the Committee on Com

merce.

Mr. HOLMAN. Is it the understanding that the motion to reconsider, pending at the time of adjournment yesterday, has been passed over informally?

The SPEAKER. Passed over until the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cox] who is entitled to the floor upon that question shall come in.

Mr. HOLMAN. I desire to have the privilege of making the ordinary point of order upon the business as reported. If the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE] asks unanimous consent to report his bills, then of course the question comes up. I call for the regular order of business.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The regular order of business will suit my case exactly. I move to postpone the regular order until the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cox] comes in.

Mr. HOLMAN. I withdraw the call for the

regular order, at the request of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. PENDLETON.]

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I desire to make regular reports from the Committee on Commerce, which the gentleman can hear from the Clerk's desk.

The SPEAKER. The privileged question of the motion to reconsider having been passed over informally, the Illinois ship-canal bill will come up before the regular order of business.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Then I move to postpone the Illinois ship-canal bill until the time fixed for the consideration of the Niagara ship-canal bill.

The motion was agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The next business in order is the regular call of committees for reports, commencing with the Committee on Commerce.

UNITED STATES MINT AT DALLES CITY. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I am directed by the Committee on Commerce to report back the bill to relocate the United States branch mint at Dalles city, provided for by the act approved July, 1864, and to ask that they be discharged from the further consideration of that bill, and that it be referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.

The motion was agreed to.

FOG-BELL ON GOVERNOR'S ISLAND, NEW YORK.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I am directed by the Committee on Commerce to report a bill which is founded on a letter by the Secretary of the Treasury and a report of the LightHouse Board, to appropriate $500 for the erection of a fog-bell or a fog-trumpet on Governor's island, in the harbor of New York. There seems to be a necessity for the erection of a fog-bell there. It is recommended by the Secretary of the Treasury, by the collector of the port of New York, and by the Light-House Board. If any gentleman objects, it must go to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. If not, then I would ask to have the bill passed now. The bill was read at length.

Mr. PIKE. I will not object to the consideration of this bill at this time if the gentleman will accept an amendment I desire to offer.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I have no authority to accept an amendment, for this bill is a report from a committee.

Mr. PIKE. Then I object.

The bill was received and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

ASSISTANT INSPECTORS OF STEAMBOATS.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I am instructed by the Committee on Commerce to report back a bill (H. R. No. 667) to provide for two assistant inspectors of steamboats in the city of New York, and for two local inspectors at Galena, Illinois, and to ask for its consideration at this time..

The bill was read at length.

Section one provides for the appointment of two assistant inspectors of steamboats in the city of New York, with an annual compensation of $1,200 each; and two local inspectors at Galena, Illinois, with an annual compensation of $800 each; whose duties shall be the same that are prescribed by the steamboat act of August 30, 1862.

Section two provides that in lieu of the fees for inspection now collected, there shall be levied and collected the sum of twenty-five dollars for each vessel of one hundred tons, and five cents for each additional ton.

Section three provides for the repeal of all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions

of this bill.

Mr. SPALDING. I want to move to strike out the two inspectors at Galena, Illinois.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois is entitled to the floor.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I do not yield for that purpose.

Mr. MORRILL. As I am in favor of economy I would like to ask the gentleman from Illinois whether there is any necessity for these inspectors at Galena. I understand that the channel at that point does not afford a current for any steamboat of more than two feet draught.

Mr. STEVENS. I hope the gentleman will allow the bill to be postponed.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I will state

to the House the provisions of the bill; and then, if a majority of the House do not wish to pass the bill, they can refuse to do so.

Mr. STEVENS. 1 understand it has not been

printed.

is the same as those proposed to be paid at Galena.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The salary at Buffalo, as now fixed by law, is $1,200 per aunum. The memorial asks an increase of this

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. No, sir; it|| salary to $2,000. That memorial has not yet is not printed.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I believe I am entitled to the floor.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois declines to yield, and must be allowed to proceed without interruption.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I send to the Clerk a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, which I ask may be read.

The Clerk read, as follows:

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 23, 1865.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 11th instant, transmitting a copy of a bill introduced into the House of Representatives, creating two assistant local inspectors of steamboats for the district of New York, and a new local board for the district of Galena, Illinois, with a request that I communicate any suggestions I have to make upon the subject.

You also request a statement of the amount of fees received under the amendment of the steamboat law approved June 8, 1834.

The board of supervising inspectors in their last annual report say two assistant inspectors for the district of New York, and a new local board for the port of Galena, filinois, will be required, in addition to those already authorized by law. I think their suggestion should be complied with; and I am also of the opinion that the salaries of the Assistant inspectors at New York should be larger than ure provided for in the bill inclosed by you.

In compliance with the request of the cominittee ap pointed by the board of supervising inspectors at their last annual meeting; and in a reply to a communication of the 12th instant from the chairman of the Commitee on Commerce of the United States Senate, asking for information relative to the necessity and propriety of Senate bill No. 371. To regulate the salaries of steamboat inspectors on the Pacific coast of the United States, and for other purposes,' becoming a law. I transmitted on the 14th instant to the ehairman of that committee a draft of a bill, a copy of which, with the letter accompanying it, is herewith inclosed.

The return of fees received under the "act to create an additional supervising inspector of steamboats," &c., approved June 8, 161, can only in part be given, as complete returns have not yet been made to this Department.

I will take this occasion to suggest that the sixth section of the act last referred to be amended by the passage of the sections herewith inclosed.

With great respect,

W. P. FESSENDEN,

been acted upon by the committee. In framing this bill, the Committee on Commerce, in consideration of the larger amount and the greater importance of the business at New York, have fixed the salary of the assistant inspectors at New York at $1,200, and the salary of the same officers at Galena at $800.

Mr. PIKE. The tonnage tax spoken of in the bill pertains, I suppose, to steam-vessels altogether.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Yes, sir. Mr. PIKE. The bill, so far as i observe, does not specify. Would the gentleman object to inserting the word "steam before the word "vessels?"

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I have no objection to that amendment.

Mr. PIKE. Then I move to amend by inserting the word "steam" before the word "vessels." The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SPALDING. I desire to ask whether the committee, in fixing the salary of the assistant inspectors at Galena at $800 have not made it higher than the average pay of steamboat inspectors on the western rivers and lakes. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I think not. I think the salary at St. Louis is $1,500. Mr. SPALDING. Out where I live, the pay,

I know, is five hundred or five hundred and fifty dollars. But I believe there is now before the committee, of which the gentleman is chairman, a petition for an increase of those salaries. If the gentleman proposes to raise all these salaries in proportion to the pay of these officers at Galena, I have no objection.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. If the gentleman thinks that the salary proposed in the bill is too much, I will yield the floor that he may move to amend.

Mr. SPALDING. I move to amend by striking ont eight hundred," and inserting "six hundred."

66

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I have no objection to that amendment. I yield the floor to have that amendment submitted.

The SPEAKER. The amendment is pending. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I now demand the previous question.

Mr. GANSON. I hope the gentleman will withdraw the demand for the previous question, to allow me to ask him a question.

Secretary of the Treasury. Hon. E. B. WASHBURNE, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives of the United States. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The object of this bill is to create two assistant inspectors in the city of New York, and two local inspectors at Galena; and the second section is in relation to the tax upon tonnage. The attention of the Committee on Commerce was called to this subject by the report of the bourd of supervising inspectors, who have this whole matter in charge.it They report to the Secretary of the Treasury, (1 will read it for the benefit of my friend from Vermont,) that "two assistant inspectors for the district of New York and a new local board for the port of Galena, Illinois, will be required, in addition to those already authorized by law."

I will state to my friend from Vermont why this additional board is necessary. The district of the supervising inspector for that district extends from the mouth of the Illinois river to the Red river of the north and the northern boundary of the country. The law of last session requires the inspection of all ferry-boats, all tow-boats, and all tug-boats; and it has been found utterly impossible for the supervising inspector of that district to inspect all these classes of boats.

And in regard to the question of economy, let me say to my friend from Vermont that the law of last session provided for a very heavy inspection fee; so that this steamboat law, which formerly cost the Government $80,000 per annum, has, by the legislation initiated by the Committee on Commerce at the last Congress and at the last session of this Congress, been made almost a self-sustaining machine. I addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury asking the amount of fees which had been received under this law. He replies that he cannot tell, because the returns have not been received. But I have a memorial from the inspectors of the city of Buffalo, in which they state that in that port alone the fees which they have returned into the Treasury amount to more than ten thousand dollars.

Mr. MORRILL. I would like to ask the genaleman from Illinois whether the salary at Buffalo

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I withdraw for that purpose.

Mr. GANSON. I presented a memorial from the local inspectors of Buffalo, and I want to know whether this relates to inspectors of that char

acter.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. It does not. Mr. SCHENCK. Ishould like to know what is the reason for providing that these inspectors shall be located at Galena, Illinois. May not there be other points where more vessels arrive and depart than at Galena?

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. If my friend from Ohio had been present when I made my statement I think that he would have been satisfied without asking the question. The district extends from the mouth of the Illinois river to St. Paul and above. Galena is about midway between the two boundaries of the district.

Mr. SCHENCK. I ask the gentleman whether the inspector is required to make his headquarters at any particular place, or whether he is merely appointed for the district? Here it is provided that these inspectors shall be located at specified places. I desire to know from the chairman of the Committee on Commerce whether this bill harmonizes with the law in other cases.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. It does. The inspectors are appointed for districts, and they have to be located somewhere.

Mr. SCHENCK. The gentleman does not answer my question. Inspectors are appointed for districts, but the gentleman's bill goes further, and provides that these inspectors shall be located at Galena.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. My friend does not seem to comprehend this matter. By

the steamboat law the United States are divided into nine supervising districts; there is a supervising inspector for each district, and in each district there are local inspectors to aid the supervising inspectors. These supervising inspectors have charge of this whole matter, and recommend to Congress, through the Secretary of the Treasury, what is required for the public good. They recommend where boards should be established. This is not merely a matter for position. The bill only carries out the object of the steamboat law.

I will say to the gentleman from Ohio that the duties of the supervising inspector have so increased by bringing in tug-boats, ferry-boats, and tow-boats, that it is impossible for him to perform them without this assistance.

As to the question of the expenditure under the law which we passed at the last session of Congress, I will add that the fees more than pay all the expenses.

Mr. WILSON. As this is not a matter of office, but of convenience for the district, I ask the gentleman whether he is willing to allow me to offer an amendment fixing one of these inspectors at Dubuque, Iowa?

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I do not know that there is any local question here. I hope that my friend will not interfere with a matter of this kind.

Mr. SPALDING. I withdraw my amendment. Mr. BLAIR. I hope that my friend will permit me to move an amendment, to appoint inspectors at Parkersburg and Wheeling, West Virginia.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I will state to my friend from West Virginia precisely the state of this question. There were no less than four boards in that district; at Cincinnati, Wheeling, Louisville, and Pittsburg. The supervising inspectors recommended that the board at Wheeling should be discontinued because there was no necessity for it, and Congress at the last session accordingly repealed that portion of the act. They said that there was no necessity for a board at Wheeling, as there was one at Pittsburg, within one hundred miles, one at Cincinnati, and one at Louisville.

Mr. BLAIR. I ask the gentleman from Illinois whether, if there were none in his State, he would think it right and just. We have none in our State at all, and it is not right that we should be thus deprived of that privilege.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. If any of the gentleman's constituents at Wheeling desire to have their boats inspected they can in twentyfour or in twelve hours get a local inspector from Pittsburg down there.

Mr. HUBBARD, of Iowa. I desire to ask the gentleman from Illinois how many of the steamboats navigating the upper Mississippi pass by Galena.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I wish to state that it is within my personal knowledge that the abolition of the board of inspectors at Wheeling has caused great inconvenience, as the inspectors at Pittsburg have had to leave their business there and go to Wheeling. I hope the board at Wheeling will be restored.

Mr. BROWN, of West Virginia. I hope the gentleman from Illinois will allow an amendment to that effect to be offered. It is right and just that we should have one board of local inspectors in that State. The idea that the people of West Virginia must go to Pittsburg to have their boats inspected is preposterous.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I demand the previous question.

Mr. BROWN, of West Virginia. Then I hope the bill will be voted down.

Mr. GARFIELD. I would inquire of the gen tleman where Galena is situated?

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I can tell the gentleman; it is in the third congressional district of Illinois; it is the residence of the greatest military hero of the age, General Grant. [Laughter.] I demand the previous question.

Mr. MALLORY. I ask the gentleman to yield to me a moment to offer an amendment. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I cannot. Mr. MALLORY. I ask that the bill may be read again. I was not in when this matter came up; and the gentleman from Illinois is acting very unkindly.

The bill was again read.

Mr. MALLORY. Now I move that the bill be laid on the table.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Will the gentleman from Kentucky allow me to ask him a question? Does he desire to have the bill postponed for the purpose of having it printed?"

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. I object to all discussion.

Mr. MALLORY. I asked the gentleman from Illinois to withdraw the demand for the previous question to enable me to offer an amendment. He declined, and now let the bill meet its fate.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was put; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 69, nays 58, not voting 55; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. William J. Allen, Ancona, Augustus C. Baldwin, John D. Baldwin, Blair, Bliss, Boyd, Broomall, William G. Brown, Clay, Cox, Cravens, Henry Winter Davis, Thomas T. Davis, Dawson, Deming, Denison, Donnelly, Eden, Edgerton, Eldridge, Frank, Ganson, Garfield, Griswold, Hale, Harding, Harrington, Herrick, Hutchins, Philip Johnson, William Johnson, Kalbfleisch, Kernan, King, Knox, Law, Lazear, Long, Mallory, McAllister, McClurg, McDowell, William H. Miller, Moorhead, James R. Morris, Morrison, Nelson, Noble, Jolm O'Neill, Pendleton, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, Robinson, Rogers, James S. Rollins, Schenck, Scofield, Smith, William G. Steele, Stevens, Stiles, Strouse, Tracy, Wadsworth, Wheeler, Chilton A. White, Joseph W. White, and Winfield-69.

NAYS-Messrs. James C. Allen, Alley, Allison, Arnold, Baxter, Beaman, Blow, Boutwell, Brooks, James S. Brown, Chanler, Ambrose W. Clark, Cobb, Cole, Dawes, Dixon, Driggs, Eckley, Eliot, Grinnell, Benjamin G. Harris, Higby, Hooper, Asahel W. Hubbard, John II. Hubbard, Ingersoll, Orlando Kellogg, Longyear, Marvin, McBride, Meindoe, Samuel F. Miller, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Norton, Odell, Charles O'Neill, Orth, Patterson. Perham, Pike, Price, William H. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, John II. Rice, Edward H. Rollins, Ross, Shannon, Sloan, Smithers, Spalding, Stuart, Thayer, Townsend, Upson, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, and Wilson-58.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Ames, Anderson, Ashley, Baily, Blaine, Brandegee, Freeman Clarke, Coffroth, Creswell, Dumont, English, Farnsworth, Finek. Gooch, Grider, Hall, Charles M. Harris, Holman, Hotchkiss, Hulburd, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Knapp, Le Blond, Littlejohn, Loan, Marey, McKinney, Middicton, Morrill, Leonard Myers, Perry, Pomeroy, Pruyn, Scott, Starr, John B. Steele, Sweat, Thomas, Vai Valkenburgh, Voorhees, Ward, Webster, Whaley, Williams, Wilder, Windom, Benjamin Wood, Fernando Wood, Woodbridge, Worthington, and Yeaman-55,

So the bill was laid on the table.

Mr. PENDLETON. I now demand the regu, lar order of business.

The SPEAKER. The regular order of business is the motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill of the House, No. 214, was recommitted to the select committee. Before that subject is taken up the Speaker asks unanimous consent to present several executive communications.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of State transmitting, in compliance with the act of August 26, 1842, a report of the incidental expenses of the State Department for the year ending June 30, 1864; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

Also, a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury transmitting, in accordance with the act of April 2, 1792, an account of the receipts and expenditures of the United States Mint for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1864; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

Also, a communication from the War Department in relation to the appointment of commissioners to award compensation to the owners of slaves enlisted as volunteers; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. As the reports made by the Committee on Commerce this morning were by unanimous consent, of course this morning is not considered as one day charged to that committee.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that the committee was called in its regular order, after first postponing the bill in reference to the shipcanal. The committee, however, have had but two fractions of morning hours, yesterday and to-day, and if there is no objection the Chair will consider the committee entitled to another morning hour.

Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Speaker, I must require that the Committee on Commerce be called in order, and that it shall not be called again until the other committees have had their turn.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The Committee on Commerce have had but one morning. The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks otherwise. The committee was called yesterday and it was called again to day. Yesterday the committee was regularly called, and it reported one bill. Today it would have been called by unanimous consent but the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HoLMAN] objected. Then the Chair proceeded to call the regular order of business, which was in relation to providing that the heads of executive Departments may occupy seats on the floor of the House of Representatives. Thereupon, upon the motion of the gentleman from Illinois, that was passed by for the present, and the bill in relation to the ship-canal was postponed, and then the Committee on Commerce was called in its regular order. The Chair, therefore, thinks that they have had two morning hours, although very short ones on each day.

Mr. WILSON. I desire to say to my friend from Ohio that the bills which I propose to introduce are to be referred to committees that will meet to-morrow, and I desire to introduce them for reference merely.

Mr. COX. I have no objection to yield if debate does not arise.

OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERALS.

Mr. WILSON, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to provide for the publication of the opinions of the Attorney Generals of the United States; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD.

Mr. WILSON also, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to aid in the construction of a railroad in the State of Iowa, for the purpose of facilitating the construction of the Union Pacific railroad; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the select committee on the Pacific railroad.

Mr. PENDLETON. I now call for the regular order of business, and object to everything

else.

Mr. DRIGGS. I ask the gentleman to allow me to introduce a bill for reference.

Mr. PENDLETON. I would be glad to yield to all these gentlemen, but I am bound to the Committee of Ways and Means not to yield any

more.

TRADE WITH THE REBEL STATES.

The SPEAKER. The Committee on Military Affairs was discharged yesterday from the further consideration of the subject of trade between the rebellious and loyal States heretofore referred to them, but that subject was not referred to the Committee on Commerce. If there be no objection, it will be referred to that committee. No objection was made.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. McBRIDE. Allow me to make an inquiry of the Chair in reference to the order of business. House bill No. 691, to authorize and aid in the construction of a railroad connecting the Pacific railroad in California with the Columbia river, in Oregon, and Puget sound was postponed till this day.

The SPEAKER. It was postponed until Thursday, the 26th of January, and it will come up in regular order.

Mr. McBRIDE. I understand that it was made the special order.

The SPEAKER. It was not made a special order, according to the Calendar.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. FORNEY, its Secretary, informed the House that the Senate had passed bill of the House No. 621, making appropriations for the support of the Military Academy for the year ending the 30th of June, 1866, with amendments, in which he was directed to ask the concurrence of the House.

Also, that the Senate had passed without amendment bill of the House No. 659, making appropriations for the service of the Post Office Department during the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1866; and bill of the House No. 659, to amend an act entitled "An act to provide ways and means for the support of the Government, and for other purposes," approved the 30th of June, 1864.

Also, that the Senate had passed a bill (S. No. 212) for the relief of Henry A. B igham, in which he was directed to ask the concurrence of the House.

Also, that the Senate had adhered to their fourth amendment to the bill of the House (No. 620) to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the service of the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1865, disagreed to, and such disagreement adhered to by the House.

CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS.

The House then proceeded to the consideration of the motion to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution of the House (No. 214) to provide that the heads of Executive Departments may occupy seats on the floor of the House of Repre sentatives was recommitted to the select committee upon that subject, and upon which Mr. Cox was entitled to the floor.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, the House is under obligations to the committee for presenting this measure. Great good and no harm will come from a free and full discussion of the distribution of the powers of the Government. In all innovations the burden is upon those who propose them to show their utility. The committee have proposed to change the machinery of our Government in two ways: first, that the heads of Departments shall have at all times the right to occupy seats and participate in debate upon all matters relating to the business of their Departments; secondly, that on two days of the week they shall attend the House and give information on all questions submitted to them.

The details of legislation to carry out these views I shall not consider. If the principle be adopted the measures will soon lose any strin gency by amendments, and the coalescence of the executive and legislative will become, as in England, as perfect as the institutions of each country will permit.

I propose to discuss the question in the following order: first, to answer the report; second, to show the dangers of this innovation.

1. To answer the report. Under this head I consider, first, the constitutionality of the measure.

The committee entertain no doubt on this head. There is no provision against it in the Constitution, and it is regarded as a part of that power by which "each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.' "I will not contest our power to pass the resolution. But the discussion of its merits will show that its passage will be an infraction of the spirit if not of the letter of the Constitution, which provides that "no person holding any office under the United States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office."

The same reasoning upon which this clause of disqualification is founded should forbid the admission of the Cabinet into Congress, either to debate or answer inquiries. I shall show that there is a stronger reason for the rejection of this measure than for the rejection of the Cabinet as members. That stronger reason is, that in case of membership they are liable to expulsion and censure, responsible to their constituents, who hold over them the rod of public opinion, backed by suffrage; while in the other case they are responsible to no one for their official tenure but the Chief Executive, whose subordinates and servants they are. A hundred censures cannot move them from their places. So long as they suit the President they can contemn the severest criticism and loudest anathemas of Congress.

When this clause of disqualification for membership was adopted it met with no opposition in the convention. So says Judge Story. He adds

further:

"It has been deemed by one convention an admirablo provision against venality, though not perhaps sufficiently guarded to prevent evasion. And it has been elaborately vindicated by another with uncommon earnestness." -Story, page 310, sec. 440.

And here it may be proper to say that the committee have invoked the wisdon and learning of Judge Story to sustain their views. This is a mistake. The committee have quoted only the argu ments presented in favor of that side. He states, with equal point, the arguments upon the other, leaving the decision to the judgment of the student. The committee have not done justice to the question in thus partially presenting the case. I will

supply the omission by citing the omitted portions:

"The other part of the clause, which disqualifies persons holding any office under the United States from being members of either House during their continuance in office, has been still more universally applauded; and has been vindicated upon the highest grounds of public policy. It is doubtless founded in a deference to State jealousy and a sincere desire to obviate the fears, real or imaginary, that the General Government would obtain an undue preference over the State governments. It has also the strong recommendation that it prevents any undue influence from office, either upon the party himself or those with whom he is associated in legislative deliberations."

And after the passage quoted by the committee, he proceeds to say:

"Such is the reasoning by which many enlightened statesmen have not only been led to doubt, but even to deny the value of this constitutional disqualification. And even the most strenuous advocates of it are compelled so far to admit its force as to concede that the measures of the executive government, so far as they fall within the immediate department of a particular office, might be more directly and fully explained on the floor of the House. Still, however, the reasoning from the British practice has not been deemed satisfactory by the public; and the guard interposed by the Constitution has been received with general approbation, and has been thought to have worked well during our experience under the national Government. Indeed, the strongly inarked parties in the British Parliament, and their consequent dissensions, have been ascribed to the non-existence of any such restraints; and the progress of the influence of the Crown, and the supposed corruptions of legislation, have been by some writers traced back to the same original blemish. Whether these inferences are borne out by historical facts is a matter upon which different judgments may arrive at different conclusions; and a work like the present is not the proper place to discuss them."-Story, pages 313, 314.

So that we may draw from these citations, these reasons against the measure proposed by the committee: first, extreme party dissensions, owing to the presence of the executive agents in the House; second, the progress of the undue influence of the Executive; third, the corruptions of the Legislature; fourth, a well grounded jealousy of Federal predominance over State governments. But to me the principal reason is the undue and corrupting influences of such a connection upon both Cabinet and Congress. If this reasoning be found valid, then the Constitution is violated in its essential spirit by the disturbance of that healthful equilibrium between the legislative and executive which it was designed by the framers of the Constitution to avoid. of these points I will speak particularly hereafter. Second, the practice and precedents appealed to by the committee.

But

the practice, so deleterious when secret, will lose its deformity when open. Executive influence upon legislation is wrong, dangerous, and subversive of freedom; it exists, but is now covert and dangerous; let us make it open, bold, and authoritative, and it will be innoxious.

If the means were constitutional and it would dignify and purify the executive influence, I might vote for it. But I cannot see that because you increase the opportunities of executive contact with the legislature you diminish the contagion and the fatal corruption as its consequence. Because you debar the Cabinet member from a vote do you prevent his influence in the House? If you require open debate do you stop secret intrigue? Did not Walpole debate and corrupt the House? Did not the younger Pitt defy Parliament even in debate, and coerce the Commons? The whipper-in on a division, the manager of the House, were not these incident to open and authorized discussion? The Government felt more interest in the result of the vote, because it had been called directly to the bar. It stopped at no means to secure its triumph. The threats of the third George again and again to leave the island and to place those under the royal ban who voted against his measures, was the accompaniment of the fiercest wrangles of Parliament and the most open arraignment of ministers. I admit that if the influence of the Executive is desirable in our legislation, it should be open, declared, and authorized, rather than secret, concealed, and unauthorized. But this resolution facilitates the secrecy and authorizes the influence which we deprecate and should prevent.

Fourth, as to the information to be derived from the admission of the Cabinet, and the cases cited by the committee.

Two objects are sought by this measure, say the committee: first, general debate; second, information from Cabinet officers. Both are included in the second specification. If the object were only information, we have the means provided already.. Conferences by committees with the Departments furnish one medium. The citations appended to the report of the committee show that this is almost always a prerequisite to the maturing of measures. In the cases cited on pages 11, 12, 13, et seq. of the report, the complaints were, not that the Departments would not furnish information or recommend measures, but that in those particular instances the information was not definite or the recommendation made in writing, But the debates in those cases showed that such information and recommendation were easily obtained. In the cases of the legal tender and gold bill, the debate brought out the letters of the Secretary of the Treasury. In the case of the loan bill, the instance cited is most unfortunate as an argument for this measure. The appearance of the Secretary and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury upon the floor of the House had the effect of subverting the judgment of the House. The gentleman from Pennsylvania had moved that the interest of the bonds should be paid in currency. It was carried by twenty-one major

defeated 59 to 81, a change of forty-two on a question as to which the House were informed of the facts, as to which the executive officers only expressed their wish and opinion! What humiliation! No undue arguments were used; no bribe or corruption is charged. Simply their presence on the floor turned the heads of fortytwo statesmen! If their casual visit and the expression of a wish without argumentation could work such wonders, what sort of a body would we become with the presence of the Cabinet here twice a week for information and at all times for debate and influence? The other instance cited is senatorial, on the bounty question. The only trouble in that case was that the chairman of the Military Committee had missed seeing the Secre

authentic letter or recommendation of the Department. No one doubted but he might have received the information. The points were, not that the recommendation was not made, but, as Senator CLARK said, (page 17,) the information had not been asked for, and, as Senator GRIMES said, there had been no action of the Administration on the subject, or at least no unity of action. Afterward, the letter of Mr. Stanton was read, and the difficulty properly obviated.

So far, then, as the Congress require information and advice from the Departments, they can always obtain it, perhaps in over-abundance. If it come not in the graces of oratory it will come in the more pithy, and, in this age, more useful, and, in this House, indispensable, form of writing and printing. If the ordinary reports of the Departments and the answers to resolutions of inquiry are not sufficient, will not these informal interviews of members and committees with the heads of Departments answer every purpose? If the object of the measure is information, we have the media now. If it be to influence action, that influence must be for good or evil. If for good, always and inevitably, Congress is utterly inconsequential and insignificant-a registering body, a contemptible and expensive nonentity, worse than the fifth wheel to a coach. For what, sir, is the need of Congress, if all the recommendations of the Executive are to be invariably followed? Better dispense with all legislation, or make our system conform to those cited by the committee from Europe and South America, where, except in England, (owing to peculiar circumstances hereafter considered,) the Legislature is the tool of the ministry as the ministry is too often the tool of the monarchy. If the Cabinet influence is generally good and only exceptionably vicious, we have the means already of reaching its valuable suggestions, and I do not propose to enlarge its sphere of evil. But if the influence of the Executive is generally evil, corrupting to both Cabinet and Congress, aggrandizing unduly one department of power to the detriment of another, and consequently to the derangement of our system, and if it is only occasionally good, then we are bound not only to prevent but to guard with extreme jealousy every attempt to encroach with such influence upon the province of the Legisla

ture.

In the remarks which I have submitted, I meet the two propositions of the committee as elaborated by them: first, that Congress should avail itself of the best possible means of information in relation to measures; for do we not have at our command all that we could get by the presence of the Cabinet in the House? Second, as to the character of the influence of the Executive upon the Legislature; for have I not shown that this measure will not prevent it being secret, corruptive, or unauthorized?

Fifthly, a few words as to the argument ab inconvenienti. The committee somewhat anticipate this objection. They say (page 5) that "it has been said that the time of the Secretaries would be so engrossed that they could not attend to the discharge of their other duties. If this shall prove true, they must have more assistance." It is answer enough to appeal to members as to the condition of their own business now before the Departments. They are nearly all behind. We must have the ear of the heads of Departments; and if they are compelled to attend here, and take part in debates, what time will they have, even with the aid of the assistants we have already given, to attend to Department business? But I leave to others the elaboration of this argument. I say nothing now about their appearance and speaking here delaying our own labor. would appropriately come under the argumentum ad misericordiam, [laughter,] for it would be intolerably irksome to have their explanations and speeches here on all questions raised.

That

II. Imight rest the argument here. But I believe this measure is fraught with great danger. It is a step toward the absorption of the power of Congress by the Executive, and therefore a step not to be countenanced either at this time or at any other time.

On this head I consider its effect, first, on State rights. If, as I assume, this measure increases the executive influence and absorbs the legislative, it tends to aggrandize and consolidate power in the Federal Executive, and makes the array against the States much more formidable, and subtracts from them their proper influence in the economy of our Government. Some of the committee are looked upon as strong defenders of the reserved rights of the States. They look with apprehension on the encroachments of the Federal Government upon the ungranted domain of the States. It is for such that Judge Story's argument is emphatic, when he says that "the restrictions upon executive connection with the