Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

number of members upon that side of the House favorable to the motion, I give notice that the vote will be taken on the Monday following the day I first named.

INVALID PENSION BILL.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent of the House to take up and consider the bill of the House No. 597, in the House, and not in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

The SPEAKER. Yesterday the Committee of Ways and Means reported the invalid pension bill, which was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and made the special order for to-day. The gentleman asks unanimous consent that it may be taken up and considered in the House. The Chair hears no objection.

The bill (H. R. No. 597) making appropriations for the payment of invalid pensions of the United States for the year ending the 30th of June, 1866, was accordingly taken up for consideration, and read in extenso.

Mr. BROOKS. I presume there is nothing in this bill except what is contained in the estimates of the Department?

Mr. STEVENS. Nothing else.

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

Mr. STEVENS moved that the vote by which the bill was passed be reconsidered; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

CONSULAR AND DIPLOMATIC BILL.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask that bill No. 598, the consular and diplomatic bill, which was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and made the special order for to-day, be taken up and considered in the same way as the last.

There being no objection, the bill (H. R. No. 598) making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic expenses of the Government for the year ending the 30th of June, 1866, was taken up and read in extenso.

Mr. HOLMAN. I do not desire to have this bill read through again for amendments, for I presume there are few to be offered. I have, however, an amendment to offer to the last section of

the bill.

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection the bill will be considered as opened to amendment generally, The Chair hears no objection.

Mr. HOLMAN. I move to amend by adding at the end of the bill the following proviso:

Provided, however, That in the payment of the salaries provided for by this bill, the same shall be paid upon the basis of the currency of the United States, as other salaries are paid, including the usual exchange only.

The only question presented by the amendment is one which has frequently been before the House before; and that is whether these salaries of agents abroad shall be paid upon a gold basis, instead of the basis of the currency of the country. It has always seemed to me that there was no reason for this discrimination, and that these salaries ought to be paid upon exactly the same basis with other salaries of the country, and upon the same ground.

in lines thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen. I did it last session, and shall do it now in all probability with as little use as I did it then. It is a provision for missions in Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Honduras, and San Salvador, five of the Central American States, most of which have not a population as large as some of the wards of Cincinnati, Philadelphia, or New York. To those five States we have five distinct ministers, when one minister to Central America could transact all the necessary business. I make now the same proposition that I made last year, to strike out the names of these five States and insert " Central America."

Mr. STEVENS. It is impossible to get at what the gentleman desires in this way. We have a law authorizing the appointment of these ministers; they are appointed in pursuance of law, and we are bound to make the appropriation to pay them. We cannot change that law in an

appropriation bill. If the gentleman wishes to get at it, let him bring in a bill to repeal the law authorizing these several missions and concentrate them, and then we will make the appropriation accordingly.

Mr. BROOKS. I will say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that that is precisely what I propose to do. If he will look to the Statutes he will find that these missions were never created by any express statute law, but were created in this very appropriation bill. The missions were created here, and I propose to repeal them.

Mr. STEVENS. The gentleman is mistaken. The general law authorizes the Executive to send ministers to certain places, and to select those places.

Mr. BROOKS. I beg the gentleman from Pennsylvania to show me any other law except that in an appropriation bill.

Mr. STEVENS. I refer to the general law for the appointment of ministers.

Mr. BROOKS. The gentleman can show me no law whatsoever except in appropriation bills of precisely this character. The statute-books are before him, he has an assistant and a clerk, and I challenge him to produce any other law except laws in appropriation bills.

Mr. COX. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] is entirely right about the matter. There is a general law providing for these various ministers, and they are to be appointed by the President. Whenever the President chooses to send ministers to these various second-class missions he does so in pursuance of the general law.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. If the gentleman from Ohio will permit me, the power of the President of the United States is derived from the Constitution of the United States, as he will see by reading the second section.

Mr. COX. And the law passed in pursuance thereof.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. It has been decided over and over again that without any law, under the provisions of the Constitution, the President can send ministers anywhere.

Mr. BROOKS. And who is to pay them?

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The President having appointed a minister, under the Constitution, it then becomes the duty of Congress to appropriate the money to pay him.

Mr. BROOKS. That is the old story we had this morning over again-the same principlethat the President of the United States can do anything, that he can appoint a minister to any place whatsoever, and that all we have to do is to perform the clerk's duty of making a record of appropriations for such missions as he may direct.

Now, the President may have the power under the Constitution of the United States to send ministers anywhere abroad, but the right is reserved to this House-the great right of making an ap

Mr. STEVENS. I must oppose that amendment. This Government already, by one portion of its legislation, has created a distinction between different kinds of the lawful money of the United States, and by that we have made one article three times as valuable as the other, and by that legislation alone, as I contend. Now, by law there is no difference between coin and legaltender notes. The Government has a right to pay in whatever it chooses, and if it chooses to pay in legal-tender notes, it can do so; if it chooses to pay in coin it can do so. And there is no excep-propriation therefor or not making it as we deem tion to this rule except that we unwisely made it in the payment of duties and of interest on the public debt. I am unwilling to recognize any further distinction, and thus depreciate what we have declared to be lawful money and legal tender of the United States. I would leave the Government to make these payments according to their judgment.

The amendment was not agreed to.

Mr. BROOKS. I wish to call the attention of the House once more to the provisions contained

best.

Now, in reply to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Cox,] I wish him to show me a statute law which creates missions to Gautemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Honduras, and San Salvador

Mr. COX. The gentleman from New York is probably familiar with the law passed in 1861, I think, drawn by Judge Perkins, of Louisiana. That was while the gentleman was a member of Congress, and that law divides the missions up into various classes. That carries out the con

stitutional provision by the action of Congress and gives Congress control of the matter.

If the gentleman wants to get rid of these various missions, the way to do it is to repeal the law declaring these second-class missions and fixing the salaries thereof.

The gentleman proposes to unite all these several second-class missions into one mission to Central America. That was done a good many years ago, before we had any commerce on the Isthmus, before the railroad was made, and before commerce was quite as great as it now is in New York and other places. But at this time there are interests on the Isthmus and in Central America connected with all these Governments that require ministers at these various points. There are claims against these Governments, some of them no doubt held by constituents of the honorable gentleman, and treaties are to be made, and conventions are to be held, and these claims are to be adjusted.

There are claims springing out of the old troubles in Nicaragua, the troubles which occurred with General Walker, and in all of which our countrymen were more or less mixed up. All these matters are to be settled by ministers, and you cannot have one minister traveling all around in that volcanic and thinly settled region.

Mr. DAWES. We did have one.

Mr. COX. Yes; we had one traveling there once, who got lost, and did not turn up for four or five years after his time expired. But even if the objection raised by the gentleman from New York were rightly taken, it would not be proper, through an appropriation bill, to strike out these salaries, for the ministers are there now doing their duty, and that duty is very valuable to the Government.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I think we all understand how our ministers abroad are created and appointed. Their appointment is vested by the Constitution in the President. But Congress undertook to classify these ministers, to fix the point at which most of them should be kept, and to fix their salaries. The ministers to France and England have their salaries fixed by law, and so have the ministers to these Central American States. Until that law is repealed or changed the ministers appointed by the President are entitled to their salaries, and it is the duty of Congress to make appropriations to pay them. The Presi dent has a right to appoint them, and he has appointed them and sent them to their respective stations, their salaries having been fixed by Congress in an act passed twelve or fourteen years ago. Now what have we to do? Simply to make an appropriation to fulfill the law. The law says that these men shall have certain salaries. If the gentleman from New York will bring in a law repealing or changing that fixing these salaries of ministers, well and good. Then there will be no appropriations made to pay them. But, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cox] has well said, that would be very unwise in the present condition of our affairs and in the present condition of Europe, with Spain making war upon some portions of South America and France having designs upon other portions. It would be, I say, very unwise for us to withdraw our ministers at those places.

Now, as to fixing one particular place for a minister to Central America, where the interests of States are diverse, and where war constantly exists between them, it would seem to me very unwise and impracticable. I do not know but that it was the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SCHENCK,] the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, who was engaged in a two-years hunt to find the seat of government of the Argentine Confederation, and I believe he did not find it then, though he come upon some fresh symptoms of where it had recently been.

Mr. SCHENCK. The gentleman's illustration is not a good one. The Government of the Argentine Confederation was found and recognized, and treaties were made with it.

Mr. STEVENS. Well, there was somebody, I remember, though it could not have been the gentleman from Ohio, who was for three years engaged in hunting for some Central American Government.

A MEMBER. Mr. Smith.

Mr. STEVENS. Ah, yes-Mr. Smith. That is the man I mean. It is said that he never

returned, but is in search of that Government yet. [Laughter.] Ido not know how it is. I should be entirely satisfied if he never found it, and never returned. But I think we had better leave this thing as it is.

Mr. BROOKS. The idea of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Cox,] that Central America needs these five ministers because it is necessary to have somebody to do business at each place, is well answered by this very appropriation bill. If the gentleman will look over it he will find among the consulates, in schedule B, handsome appropriations made for a consul at Panama, at San Juan del Sur, at Balize, at Aspinwall, at San Juan del Norte, and at various other places-without entering into an enumeration of them-appropriations for a consulate in every part of Central America. Now, I can understand that which seems to be the argument of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS,] and will reply to it by and by, but I do not understand the argument of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr.Cox.] I can well understand why the gentleman from Pennsylvania does not desire to cut down missions, does not desire to deprive men of places, does not desire to bring home anybody who is enjoying the patronage and expenditure of this Government. And I cannot understand how the people on that side of the House, who pay income taxes, and taxes of all kinds, as well as those on this side of the House, should desire to keep up five expensive missions in Central America, to a people who have a consulate in every important port, or to States which, I repeat, have not so large a population as many of the wards in the several cities of this Union.

These missions were created at a very late period, and almost always, not only by the Democratic party, but by the Republican party, in order to provide places for certain office seekers; not because of any necessity that existed for the missions, but to give place to people who could not be provided for in Europe, Asia, Africa, or in South America, and for whom, therefore, places were invented in this Central America. The mission for Honduras, I think, was created especially for a gentleman from my own State, for whom no other place could be provided, and to whom this special mission was given, long after this general law of which the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cox] speaks. It was introduced here by a gentleman who was then a member of Congress from the State of Louisiana. The gentleman, I am quite sure, will not find any record of that mission in the general law he speaks of, if he searches through the statute from beginning to end.

Now, I have no wish to deprive any gentleman of place. There are places enough for everybody; there are good offices enough, in connection with our annual expenditure of $1,000,000,000, to provide places for almost everybody who is in search of them in our own domain, upon our own coast, to prevent the smuggling of goods into Canada and the provinces, and in connection with our own internal revenue. And if these gentlemen must have places, then I repeat they ought to be brought home, except one to preside over our interests in Central America, and the consulates to be left behind, and places given them upon the frontier of Canada to prevent smuggling, and in our own land to collect our internal revenue.

But I will not make any further opposition. I have brought this subject to the attention of members, and the responsibility is now upon the other side of the House.

Mr. KELLEY. The proposition of the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] is but a renewal

Mr. HOLMAN. I rise to a point of order; that further debate on this amendment is not in

order.

The SPEAKER. The point of order is well taken. The same rules in regard to debate upon this bill prevail in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, limiting debate to one speech on each side of the amendment.

Mr. KELLEY. Then I will move an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. HOLMAN. I will insist upon the rule, and that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] shall confine his remarks to his amend

ment.

Mr. KELLEY. I move to strike out "six"

instead of "five," and to insert the words "and to the Sandwich Islands."

Mr. COX. I raise the point of order upon the amendment of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS,] that there is no such place as Central America.

Mr. BROOKS. I suggest that the Sandwich Islands are already in.

Mr. KELLEY. Then I move to strike it out. Mr. COX. I would suggest to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] to move to insert"League Island." [Laughter.]

Mr. KELLEY. The proposition of the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] is one that came before us last year from the same source, and it seems to me that the objections that were raised against the proposed amendment then are peculiarly strengthened now. I do not know but the gentleman's objection to homogeneity influences him in this motion. He may be afraid that American ideas, the English language, our thoughts, our habits, our customs may become fixed in those American States. There never was a time for many reasons when we wanted the influence of America in each of those States so much as now. The influence of France is felt in every one of them.

It was but this morning that I was reading a letter at my desk from one of the most intelligent of our American people who have ever been engaged in the missionary cause in that section of the country, or upon this continent, deploring the fact that we had not those able statesmen, men speaking our language and the language of the country, to counteract the influence of France, which is penetrating and permeating those States.

And it struck me as the message of the President was read, that for once we had got a truly American message. It relates to the States of this continent, and one after another our relations to them are indicated and explained. France is only so far recognized as to say that civil war still exists in Mexico. The French empire is recognized as a belligerent only; and at this time the policy of the country should be to Americanize those States. The effort now making is a part of the general effort to prevent the extension of civilization, of republican ideas, and of American thought to the Central American States. The probability of homogeneity there has already been recognized. It is the old battle that was fought against Liberia and against Hayti. We were not to recognize them; we were not to treat with them. We were to have neither connection nor intercourse with them, because we did not like the complexion of the people.

And to strike from this bill those States which may receive a minister, those States which have people whose institutions and whose course of policy we may influence and control, and to insert the name of a Government which does not exist, which three ministers consecutively have been unable to find, is to say that for the coming year we shall be voiceless in Central Americathat we shall have no official agent to indicate to us the encroachments of France. And why? Is it because gentlemen believe that a great empire is yet to be constructed south of the Potomac? Is it because gentlemen have been impregnated with the views of Louis Napoleon in behalf of a Latin empire? Or is it for fear that the influence of our country in those States may show that "homogeneity" may be attained while freedom of religion prevails, while manifold forms of government prevail, and in spite of the fact that men in tropical climates intermingle irrespectively of the question of complexion.

I simply wished to renew this train of suggestion, which I presented when this same insidious move was made last year; and in doing so, I have accomplished my purpose.

Mr. MORRILL. I rise for the purpose of moving that the debate on the pending amendment be terminated in one minute; but, before making that motion, I desire to say a single word. I am opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. KELLEY,] as well as that of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS.] At the present time our relations with all these Governments are of the most friendly character; and it is very important to us that we shall keep them so. It would be a little singular, if we are to dispense with our missions to any point, that we should first select American re

publics, about which so much solicitude has been manifested in this House this morning.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that, at the present time, it is almost impossible for a minister at some of these Governments to do any duty in connection with others, in consequence of the difficulty of changing places of abode. The transit from one to another takes so much time that it would be utterly impossible for these ministers to discharge their duties acceptably, either to the Government or the parties interested, if they should be obliged to travel from one place to another in the attempt to perform duty in connection with several Governments.

I now move that all debate upon the pending amendment be terminated in one minute.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. KELLEY's amendment to the amendment of Mr. BROOKS was not agreed to.

Mr. BROOKS's amendment was not agreed to. Mr. COX. With the view of making a remark in reply to my friend from New York, I move to amend by striking out "Paraguay" and "Costa Rica." This is perhaps the only occasion on which we shall have the opportunity to discuss these matters with reference to these republics. The House seems to have declared, by the vote of this morning, that it is not within the province of Congress to look much, if at all, after foreign affairs; yet now we are at it, within scarcely more than an hour after the House has voted in that way.

I would remind my friend from New York that it is exceedingly important for us to continue all our ministers at these various points in Central America, if for no other reason than that suggested by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [MF. KELLEY.] Those Governments in Central America to-day stand well with all the world. They are improving, both in their stability and in their credit-Costa Rica especially.

The gentleman from New York is a little confused about his geography. He says that we have a consul at Panama, &c., and that those officers could attend to all the business connected with these various missions. The gentleman ought to understand that Panama is in South America, in the United States of Colombia, formerly New Granada; and he could not expect any business at Panama to refer to the Central American Siates.

We have, sir, other relations upon the Isthmus, besides those of Panama. We have relations growing out of the Nicaragua transit and canal; and just now it is exceedingly significant, after steps are being taken by the Central American States with a view to prevent French interference and French domination there, as well as in Mexico, that the present action should be proposed in this House. If there ever was a time when we should have American diplomats at all of those courts, it is now, when the power of the French emperor and the Archduke Maximilian is being pushed in those regions.

There are a great many matters in relation to those States yet to be determined by the State Department. That Isthmus is the most important part of the world, speaking commercially and diplomatically. There has been as much diplomacy about it as any of the larger empires of Europe, because it will be one day the great center of the oriental and occidental traffic of the world. We ought to have our ministers there strengthened at all times. It is the connecting link between our eastern or Atlantic and our Pacific States. It is important that we should have our ministers strengthened at every Government. It is not merely necessary that we should strengthen our consuls, because those Governments will not correspond with consuls on matters connected with arrests of traitors, with the passage of troops across the Isthmus, and with all of the questions growing up connected with our civil war. I submit that the proposition should not only be received with an earnest protest, but should be voted down.

I withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. STEVENS moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to

WITHDRAWAL OF GOODS.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I am instructed by the Committee of Ways and Means to report a bill asked by the Treasury Department, which it is necessary should be passed before the holidays or there will be a forfeiture of goods. If this is passed the Committee of Ways and Means will have no objection to an adjournment over till Monday next. It is a bill to extend the time allowed for the withdrawal of certain goods therein named from certain stores.

Mr. HOLMAN. Is this bill to be considered in connection with the act passed at the last session of Congress? How does it affect that act?

Mr. STEVENS. I will state in a single word the effect of the bill. By the law, as it now stands, all goods in the bonded warehouses were to be exported or sent to the Pacific coast within three years, the duties were to be paid, and they were to be debarred from the privilege of exportation. A great many goods were in the warehouses then, and the time virtually expired in January. Among these goods were arms and munitions of war. By the proclamation of the President, owners were prohibited from exporting these goods. They were compelled, therefore, to leave them where they were, and by the original law unless they were exported before January they were forfeited to the United States. All that is now asked is that the time during which, by the proc lamation of the President, they were prohibited from exporting them, shall not be counted against them, and that they shall be allowed the same time they would have had if the proclamation had never been made. In other words, it is asked that that time shall not be charged against them so as to work a forfeiture of their goods for not exporting them when they were unable to do it. Mr. HOLMAN. My impression was that this conflicted with the law of the last session; but I find it does not, and I therefore do not object.

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

Mr. STEVENS moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT OVER.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. After the statement that the Committee of Ways and Means has no more business to present, I move that when the House adjourns to-day it adjourn to meet on Monday next.

The motion was agreed to.

METROPOLITAN RAILROAD.

Mr. DAVIS, of New York. I ask unanimous consent to report from the Committee for the District of Columbia a bill to amend an act entitled "An act to incorporate the Metropolitan railroad of the District of Columbia," approved July 1, 1864.

The bill, which was read for information, provides that the seventeenth section of the act to incorporate the Metropolitan Railroad Company be amended so as to extend the time for the completion of said railroad for two years from the passage of said act; and furthermore repeals all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this bill. Mr. DAVIS, of New York, The company desires this for the reason that their vessel containing lumber has been carried out to sea, and they have not been able to get the lumber.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, objected. And then, on motion of Mr. STEVENS, (at twenty minutes past three o'clock, p. m.,) the House adjourned.

IN SENATE.

MONDAY, December 19, 1864. Prayer by Rev. THOMAS BOWMAN, D. D., Chaplain to the Senate.

Hon. JOHN P. HALE, of New Hampshire, appeared in his seat to-day.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. TEN EYCK. I ask leave to present the petition of Elias H. Chambers, praying to be indemnified for the loss of certain Treasury notes destroyed by fire. There are many cases of this kind occurring, and I think it would be well to

refer the petition to the Committee on the Judiciary, that they may inquire into the propriety of making some general law on this subject. I therefore move that the petition be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. RAMSEY. I present the memorial of ex-General Willis A. Gorman, who represents that an act passed at the last session giving R. G. Murphy $800, was accompanied by a remarkable and unusual averment, that "that account" was "charged to, and paid by him, as agent for the Sioux Indians upon false vouchers transmitted to the Indian Bureau by Willis A. Gorman, late superintendent of Indian affairs for the northwestern superintendency. He says this does him gross injustice, and that he has long been ready and able to make the matter clear, and he asks that he may be relieved from this imputation. I move that the memorial be referred to the Committee on Claims, from which the bill emanated. The motion was agreed to.

[ocr errors]

Mr. SUMNER. I present a petition which is in the following terms:

To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled:

We, the undersigned, your petitioners, pray you to enact a law to secure a republican form of government and abolish and forever prohibit slavery in the United States.

This is signed by Henry Ward Beecher, of No. 82 Columbia street, Brooklyn, New York, and

some three thousand citizens of New York. I move that it be referred to the select Committee on Slavery and Freedmen.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. WILSON presented two petitions of officers of the Army, praying for an increase of their pay and allowances; which were referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

Mr. GRIMES presented a petition of citizens of Henry county, Iowa, and a petition of citizens of Clayton county, Iowa, praying for a repeal of the reciprocity treaty with Great Britain as a matter of justice to the agricultural interests of the Northwest; which were referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

He also presented a petition of acting assistant paymasters of the Navy praying to be allowed the rank and pay of lieutenants in the Navy; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. ANTHONY presented the petition of Surgeon Benjamin Vreeland, United States Navy, praying to be allowed the difference between the compensation of a surgeon and a passed assistant surgeon from the date when he was entitled to his examination by law to the date of his passing the examination; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. TRUMBULL presented a petition of citizens of Cook county, Illinois, praying for the passage of a uniform bankrupt law; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. HENDRICKS presented a petition of citizens of California praying for the passage of House bill No. 560, to amend the "Act to grant the right of preemption to certain settlers on the Soscol ranche;" which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. HARLAN presented the proceedings of a meeting of citizens of Colorado Territory, urging the adoption of legislation by which the title to mineral lands may be confirmed to the occupants; which were referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

He also presented a memorial of the presbytery of Cincinnati, praying that the Constitution may be so amended as to recognize the existence of God; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. HENDERSON presented a memorial of the Western Associated Press, praying for a repeal of the duty on foreign printing paper; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.

Mr. WILSON, from the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 583) to amend the twenty-first section of an act entitled "An act to define the pay and emolument of certain officers of the Army, and for other purposes," approved July || 18, 1862, reported it without amendment.

He also, from the same committee, to whom

was recommitted the bill (S. No. 103) to define the pay and emolument of chaplains in the United States Army and volunteer forces, and for other purposes, asked to be discharged from its further consideration, the subject having been acted on at the last session of Congress; which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was recommitted the joint resolution (S. No. 20) extending the benefits of the bounty granted by the act of July 22, 1861, to certain soldiers who entered the service of the United States prior to May 3, 1861, asked to be discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was recommitted the bill (H. R. No. 261) to provide for the voluntary enlistment of any persons, residents of certain States, into the regiments of other States, asked to be discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was recommitted the bill (S. No. 231) concerning the subsistence and pay of the Army, asked to be discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to.

COMMITTEE SERVICE.

Mr. FOOT. I ask to be excused from service upon the Committee on the Judiciary. Being placed on four of the standing committees of the body, I find it impracticable to attend the meetings and the duties assigned to these several committees, and I therefore ask to be excused from that one.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont moves that he be excused from further service upon the Committee on the Judiciary. The motion was agreed to.

Mr. FOOT. I move that the vacancy be filled by the Chair.

The motion was agreed to by unanimous con

sent.

Vice.

Mr. HALE. I notice in the proceedings of the Senate, that during my absence the Senate have done me the honor to place me in the position of chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia. I must throw myself upon the indulgence of the Senate to excuse me from that serIn making this request, I do not ask to be discharged from serving on the committee; I am ready to render such service as I may to the Senate and to the committee; but it is a committee of which I have never been a member, and I have known nothing of its business, and I see upon the committee several gentlemen who have been for some years members of the committee, perfectly acquainted with the character of the business and its routine, and vastly better able to discharge the responsible duties of chairman of the committee than I am myself. I therefore hope the Senate will excuse me from serving as chairman of the committee.

The request was granted.

On motion of Mr. DIXON, it was

Ordered, That so much of the 35th rule of the Senate as relates to the appointment of the chairman of committees be suspended, as regards the appointment of the chairman of the committee on the District of Columbia, and that the said chairman be appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed the following bill and joint resolutions of the Senate:

A bill (S. No. 222) authorizing the holding of a special session of the United States district court for the district of Indiana;

A joint resolution (S. No. 83) tendering the thanks of Congress to Captain John A. Winslow, United States Navy, and to the officers and men under his command on board the United States steamer Kearsarge, in the conflict with the piratical craft the Alabama, in compliance with the President's recommendation to Congress of the 5th of December, 1864; and

A joint resolution (S. No. 84) tendering the thanks of Congress to Lieutenant William B. Cushing, United States Navy, and to the officers and men who assisted him in his gallant and perilous achievement in destroying the rebel steamer Albemarle, in compliance with the President's recommendation to Congress of the 5th of December, 1864.

The message further announced that the House of Representatives had passed the following bills

and joint resolution, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate:

A bill (H. R. No. 597) making appropriations for the payment of invalid and other pensions of the United States, for the year ending June 30, 1866;

A bill (H. R. No. 598) making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1866;

A bill (H. R. No. 601) supplementary to an act entitled "An act to enable the people of Nevada to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States;"

A bill (H. R. No. 603) to extend the time allowed for the withdrawal of certain goods therein named from public stores; and

A joint resolution (H. R. No. 124) explanatory of the act entitled "An act to provide internal revenue to support the Government, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes,' approved June 30, 1864.

[ocr errors]

ADJOURNMENT FOR THE HOLIDAYS. The message further announced that the House had passed the following resolution:

Resolved, (the Senate concurring.) That when this House adjourns on Thursday, the 22d of December, 1864, it adjourn to meet on Thursday, January 5, 1865.

DEFENSE OF THE NORTHERN FRONTIER.

Mr. DOOLITTLE asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 361) to enable the President to expend the sum of $10,000,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, in his opinion, in building fortifications and floating batteries to defend our northern frontier and the commerce of the lakes against the attacks of piratical and hostile expeditions organized in the British provinces by the enemies of the United States; which was read twice by its title.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I move that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. SUMNER. Should that go to the Committee on Finance?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. It is not material to me. Mr. HOWE. I suggest the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I am not on the Committee of Naval Affairs.

Mr. SUMNER. It seems to me it should go to the Committee on Military Affairs or the Committee on Foreign Relations. I think it had better go to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I have no objection to adopting the suggestion of the Senator from Massachusetts, and letting it go to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. SUMNER. I will suggest to the Senator that that question has already been submitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and this might therefore properly follow what has already been done.

Mr. SHERMAN. I think, probably, a reference to the Committee on Military Aflairs will be better; but I hope the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] will report speedily upon the subject of the general defenses of the lakes, and also upon the question of the reciprocity treaty. I do not wish to discuss it now; but there is a great deal of anxiety on the border, which is increasing daily, and which will probably lead to breaches of the peace and infractions of international law. I hope, therefore, the Senator will act on the question of the reciprocity treaty and those other questions as speedily as possible, in order to allay the apprehensions that are felt on the border.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion to refer the bill to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. HOWARD. I concur entirely with the Senator from Ohio in the expression of the hope that the committee to whom this bill shall be referred will make as early a report as practicable on the subject; for, as has been justly observed by the Senator from Ohio, there is indeed and in truth a state of very great anxiety and concern along the whole frontier, and we are in daily and almost hourly danger of repetitions from Canada of those raids and outrages which have been so frequently committed upon our peaceful people on the borders. I think it is high time that there should be an expression of opinion and of feel

ing on the part of the Congress of the United States, at least by way of remonstrance, against those raids and outrages to which I have referred. In order to keep peace along our border, we must show our power. The lion must show his teeth on this side of the border in order to preserve the peace, and teach those men who have been harboring these rebel vipers in their bosoms, that even Canada, with its so-called neutrality, cannot be permitted to be a place of refuge for such characters. I desire to say this on the present occasion, and when another occasion shall present itself I shall go more extendedly into a consideration of the subject.

Mr. FOSTER. I am sorry to differ from the honorable chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations if he thinks this subject should go to that committee; but it seems to me it is not the appropriate committee. This is a question which concerns the defenses of the country. It is true we have the reciprocity treaty before the Committee on Foreign Relations at the suggestion of the honorable chairman, and with great propriety. I observe that I was reported in one of the papers as suggesting that that subject should go to the Committee on Commerce. That suggestion did not come from me. I think the appropriate committee was the Committee on Foreign Relations, as the honorable chairman suggested. But, I repeat, a matter concerning the defenses of the country does not belong to us. I see no reason why the subject of the defenses on the lakes should be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations any more than the defenses on the Pacific coast or the Atlantic coast; and surely those do not belong to us. I hope the Senator from Massachusetts will concur in the motion to send this bill to the Committee on Military Affairs, the appropriate committee certainly to consider the matter of the defenses of the country. As it regards the reciprocity treaty, that concerns our relations with a foreign country by negotiation, and properly belongs to us, but not so as it regards the defenses of the country. That is a totally different question, and one which should be investigated by another committee.

rights and protect the honor of the United States. If these are seriously threatened at the present time, or if there is any well-grounded reason to suppose that they will be assailed hereafter, we should all be at once desirous of placing the United States in a situation to maintain that protection effectually.

I am not at all surprised that the citizens who are upon the border of Canada should be somewhat alive to the manifestations of hostility which from time to time have been made or threatened from that colony. I think, however, it may now be assumed as true that the colonial government itself is very far from justifying the acts of which we have so much reason to complain, and I cannot doubt but that the home Government, when they come to know exactly what is the situation of the colony toward the United States, will be equally desirous of doing all that their determination to observe a strict neutrality imposes as a duty upon them.

If these raids are continued, I think there is no doubt that under the law of nations, if the parties cannot be arrested within the limits of the United States, they may be pursued into the adjoining territory. I believe that right is just as firmly settled as any other question can be settled by the law of nations. It was under the impression that the right existed that the excellent and patriotic soldier, General Dix, issued the order authorizing his officers to pursue these raiders, if they should appear on this side of the border and they should prove unable to capture them on this side of the border, into the limits of Canada; but I see by the papers that the President of the United States, or the Secretary of State, better informed, I suppose, of the disposition of the Canadian government, and better informed as to what in all probability will be the conduct of the home Government, has directed General Dix to rescind that part of his order.

The country was a good deal excited, and naturally excited, by the release of those who made the piratical attack upon St. Albans. That judge apparently-for it is not fair to assume that he acted corruptly-acted honestly in the belief, strange as the opinion may be, that he possessed no jurisdiction over the matter. That that decision was clearly erroneous I was satisfied at the time it was announced to us, and I am now the better satisfied, because, as I see, the colonial government and all the officers of the colonial

erroneous, and they have directed writs to be issued for the rearrest of those parties. Whether that arrest can be made or not is doubtful. In all probability they have made their escape and gone elsewhere. But I cannot but believe that the whole power of the colonial government, and with the sanction of the mother Government, will be exerted to arrest these raids in the future; but still it is proper, perhaps due to ourselves, especially in the peculiar position in which we are, that we should take every possible measure which may be calculated in our opinion to prevent their repetition, or that failing, that will enable us to vindicate ourselves, either within our own limits or within the limits of the conterminous territory; for it can never be tolerated by the United States-it never should be, and I am sure never will be; certainly not by the Senate of the United Statesthat these inroads should be made upon the limits of the United States, and those acts of piratical warfare, thieving, and murder be carried on with impunity.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I was myself somewhat in doubt as to which committee this bill should be referred. My first impression was that it had better go to the Committee on Finance, as it involves the expenditure of a large sum of money; but the truth is, that either one of four committees could properly take jurisdiction of the subject-government hold that his decision was altogether matter contained in this bill. The Committee on Finance could properly take jurisdiction of it, for there is a large amount of money to be appropriated by it. So could the Committee on Military Affairs, for it concerns the erection of fortifications. So could the Committee on Naval Affairs, because it concerns the building of floating batteries. So, too, in my opinion, the Committee on Foreign Relations could very properly have the subject referred to them, in the existing state of the country and in the existing state of the business of the Senate. Other questions, growing out of our relations to the British provinces of Canada, have been referred to that committee; and what has transpired on the frontier, and the late issuance of an order from the executive department of the Government forbidding any persons coming into the United States from the British provinces without a passport, unless they are immigrants coming to reside in the United States, have raised questions involving our relations with those provinces, and, as a matter of course, as they belong to Great Britain, with Great Britain herself. To either of these committees, I think, this bill could very properly be referred. When I first asked that it should be referred to the Committee on Finance, I looked upon it mainly as an appropriation of money; but as the question of the reciprocity treaty is now pending before the Committee on Foreign Relations, and as I happen to be a member of that committee, and am not a member of either of those other committees, perhaps it would not be asking too much, on the whole, after what has been said, to ask that this bill be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. JOHNSON. I suppose it is in a great measure immaterial to whom the inquiry is submitted. Either of the committees suggested (which I am sure would be the case with the whole of the Senate) would at all times be willing to claim the

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President, the piratical expeditions by land which may be organized and carried out, if things are permitted to go on as they have gone on, on the Canadian frontier would be very disastrous, it is true, to the peace of our citizens and dangerous to their lives and their property; but those little land expeditions that might be organized in Canada along our frontier would be as nothing compared to what might be organized should they be able in the Georgian bay or some of the remote bays around Lake Huron to catch hold of a vessel and put on board of it cannon and all the enginery of war to destroy our cities and towns bordering upon the great lakes. One single vessel seized by those pirates upon the lakes could lay the whole city of Chicago in ashes; and the same is true of the city where I live and the city of Milwaukee, for there is no way in which we could prevent their passage through the

straits of Mackinaw, which are two or three miles broad, in deep water, running out into Lake Huron. It is therefore necessary for our safety that we should put it in the power of the Executive to build the floating batteries which may be necessary to defend the straits of Mackinaw and defend the commerce of Lake Michigan as well as the commerce of the other great lakes.

But, Mr. President, I will not enter into a discussion now. I hope for one that the Canadian government and the Canadian authorities are in earnest in their determination to prevent in the future any further hostile or piratical excursions from those provinces into the United States; but if they do not prevent them we all know what the consequence is-it is war. God grant that war may be averted! I hope and trust it may be, and will labor and do all in my power consistent with the honor of the country to prevent it and to save the peace of this Government and to save civilization and the world from the great shock which must follow a war between the United States and Great Britain; but if the terrible necessity, through their negligence or smothered hostility or from any other cause, must come, let it come. We will end the question whenever it does come by perfect free trade between Canada and the United States, and by putting an end to the jurisdiction of Great Britain in any of these provinces in North America. But, sir, I desire no war; far from it. I would do all that can be reasonably done to prevent it, and I believe it can be prevented; but the wise mode in which to prevent ourselves from being involved is to be prepared for any contingencies.

I hope, sir, that the bill will be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. SUMNER. The question before the Senate is simply on the reference of this bill. It is a question of the order of business.

Now, looking at its character, it is plain that it concerns primarily and essentially our foreign relations. It is this circumstance that gives to it a peculiar interest. If it merely concerned an additional levy of troops, or the building of new forts, or a change in our commercial policy, there would have been no question with regard to its reference, nor would the Senator from Wisconsin have accompanied it by any remarks calling attention to the outrage at St. Albans. I assume, then, that it concerns our foreign relations, and, therefore, according to the usages of the Senate, should be referred to the committee having that subject in charge.

This is all that I have to say on the question of reference; but the Senate will pardon me if I glance for one moment at the outrage to which the Senator referred. Only a few weeks ago the village of St. Albans, in Vermont, was disturbed by a band of murderers, highwaymen, housebreakers, horse-thieves, and bank-robbers coming from Canada. After breaking open the banks and obtaining a certain amount of spoils, attended by the murder of a citizen, they succeeded in making their way back to Canada, where they declared themselves to be agents of the rebel government. Such are the main facts. Now, Mr. President, does any one suppose that these agents of the rebel government were moved to their criminal enterprise merely by considerations of plunder— that they risked life and everything merely to rob a bank? No such thing. Their object was much higher and more far-reaching. In one word, it was to embroil the Government of the United States with the Government of Great Britain. I cannot doubt that this was their object. To my mind it is as plain as noonday.

These agents, or rather the men behind who set them on, knew the sensitiveness of our people, and how naturally they would be aroused against the foreign country in which the enterprise had its origin. They saw that excitement, passion, anger on our part were inevitable; that out of these some complication or collision might ensue; that any such complication or collision must necessarily help the rebellion more than a victory on the field of battle. All this they saw, and acted accordingly. The whole proceeding was a trap in which to catch the Government of our country. It was hoped that in this way the rebellion would gain that powerful British intervention which would help restore its failing fortunes.

For myself, sir, I am determined not to be caught in any such trap. There are many things

which Great Britain has done since the outbreak of our rebellion which to my mind are most unfriendly; but I am unwilling that anything should be done on our side to furnish any seeming apology for that foreign intervention which has been so constantly menaced, and which was foreshadowed in the most hasty and utterly unjustifiable concession of ocean belligerency to rebel slavemongers who had but a single port or prize-court. Nobody sees the wrongs we have suffered more clearly than I do; but I see other wrongs also. While never ceasing to claim all our just rights, and reminding this Power always of duties which it has plainly neglected, I cannot forget that we are engaged at this moment in a war for the suppression of a long-continued and most virulent rebellion, which has thus far tasked our best energies. To this work let us now dedicate ourselves, without arousing another enemy, through whose alliance the rebellion may be encouraged and strengthened. Let us put down the rebellion. Do this, and we shall do everything.

Meanwhile I trust that the Senate will not be moved by passion into any hasty action on any of the measures now before it, but that each will be considered carefully and calmly on its merits, according to the usage of this body. This surely is the dictate of prudence, and I cannot doubt that it is the dictate of patriotism also.

Washington in his farewell address warns against "the insidious wiles of foreign influence;" but the "insidious wiles" of our rebels, seeking to embroil us with foreign Powers, are as deadly as any influence now brought against us. Forewarned is forearmed. Let us be steadfast against them.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator from Massachusetts alludes to only one of the troubles we have had on the border, and that the least significant. He alludes to the march of certain marauders into Vermont, and the capture of banks and the destruction of property there. He probably has forgotten for the moment a much more serious affair that took place almost within my own sight. I happened to be at Toledo at the time of the capture of the Philo Parsons and the Bay City. Senators will remember that an armed band entered on one of our vessels engaged in a peaceful commerce between the city of Detroit and the city of Sandusky, their arms concealed, partly on their bodies and partly in boxes, and when they had got upon the vessel, and the vessel in its usual course had gone into American waters, the arms suddenly appeared, the vessel was seized, was manned, and became at once a vessel of war under the confederate flag. Thus, in the course of a few hours, the confederate flag floated almost within sight of three respectable cities of the State

of Ohio.

Another vessel, the Bay City, also engaged in peaceful commerce, was seized on the same day; and these two vessels lay off the harbor of Sandusky, within ten miles of where three thousand rebel officers were held as prisoners of war. They were only guarded by the solitary vessel of war of the United States upon the lakes, the steamer Michigan; and it was a part of the plan of the raiders, marauders, or confederates to seize the steamer Michigan. They had made their arrangements with persons in the city of Sandusky and scattered along the lakes to seize that, the only vessel of war on the lakes. If they had accomplished their object they might have laid under tribute Detroit, Toledo, Sandusky, and Cleveland in twenty-four hours; they might have destroyed a commerce equal at this moment to our entire commerce on the ocean.

I desire the Senator when he considers this subject to remember another fact, that when, for some reason not yet disclosed, this plot failed, and these marauders went back into Canada from whence they came, the authorities there shielded them and discharged them from even an ordinary arrest, and they go this day equipped in Canada, and will be received almost anywhere in Canada with plaudits, while our citizens are watched with jealousy and suspicion.

Is it to be wondered at that the people of the border, when these things have occurred in their midst, should feel anxiety and care? Why, sir, if this plot had succeeded, property to an untold amount would have been destroyed; they might have seized vessel upon vessel. Hundreds of vessels were floating between Buffalo and Detroit at

that very time; and if they had succeeded in their plot so far as to capture the steamer Michigan they might have seized fifty or one hundred vessels upon the lakes, and we should have been entirely powerless. There is not an armed vessel on Lake Erie except this steamer Michigan; there is not a gun or a fort or any means of defense along that whole border; and when our Canadian neighbors will thus harbor pirates and desperadoes who seize our vessels in peaceful commerce, trading at their own ports, is it to be wondered at that we on the border should feel the deepest interest in this question?

For ten years our citizens have believed that they have been robbed by what is called the "reciprocity treaty." They know that lands in Canada have more than doubled in value under the operation of the reciprocity treaty. They know that under the peculiar provisions of that treaty the bargain is all on one side. But, as long as we were at peace, we did not care for that. The reciprocity treaty tended to develop our neighbor, tended to bring large colonies into Canada; we had no objection to it. I myself never moved in the matter, although I saw that the effect of that reciprocity treaty was all on one side. But when we find that these people who have been fed by our commerce, who have made money by our trade, will protect these pirates floating upon our common boundaries, then a different feeling springs up, and the people along the border will maintain and defend themselves.

I must express my sincere regret that the order of General Dix, which was in the very language of Mr. Phillimore, one of the best writers on international law, and an English writer, should have been revoked. I believe that the spirit of the order of General Dix is the only way in which we can meet these marauders; and now it is rather the fear of war-I will not say the fear of war, because no proud nation is influenced by that, but it is the fear of the consequences of war and the consequences of pressing this policy in Canada any further than will probably induce the Canadian authorities to respect our rights as a nation, and probably to punish and prevent like instances in the future. But until they show some such spirit, I think that our Government ought to as sume and exercise all the rights which, under the laws of nations, we have, to pursue pirates and robbers into any country that harbors them, whether it may be the kingdom of Great Britain or any other country.

I desire also to call the attention of the honorable chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations to a very significant article here before me, which probably he read two or three years ago, but which may have escaped his recollection. When there was some fear that we should be involved in difficulty with Great Britain on account of the Trent affair, the honorable Senator will remember that an article appeared in the London Times of the date of January 7, 1862, which was semi-official in its character, showing the advantages that Great Britain would have over us in the event of a collision, and among the rest referred to the treaty and arrangement that are now about to be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. By the treaty of 1815, it was agreed that the two Powers, Great Britain and the United States, should dismantle their fleets upon the lakes and their forts, and subsequently, by an arrangement made in 1817, not in the form of a treaty, and which was never ratified by the Senate, so far as I can find, a stipulation was made as to the amount of force which should be kept upon the lakes. Under that arrangement we have gone on, we have no vessels of war on the lakes; but on the other hand, while Great Britain has nominally kept this treaty intact, she has substantially enabled herself, by building canals around the falls, to throw upon the lakes within thirty days fifty or a hundred menof-war; and in this significant article I have before it is alluded to that Great Britain can, in case of a conflict with the United States, throw her gunboats from the river Thames right on to the upper lakes, and in thirty days make a more complete blockade of all our ports on the lakes than even now we maintain on the southern coast, and destroy our cities. This article is very significant. It speaks of the power of Canada to build rapidly vessels of war on the lakes, and also of our power to build rapidly vessels on the lakes, but very properly says that we have no means of throwing

me,

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »