in the House, but must first be discussed and considered in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, if any member makes objection to its consideration in the House now.

Mr. HOLMAN. I make the objection. Mr. STEVENS. I offer the following as an additional amendment:

For the purchase of ground adjoining the Brooklyn navyyard, $102,000.

Mr. HOLMAN. I make the same point of order upon that amendment.

The SPEAKER. The amendment must first be considered in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. STEVENS. Then, for the purpose of considering these two amendments, I move to go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I rise to a point of order. My point of order is, that the bill is out of the committee, that the committee has been discharged from its consideration, that it has been reported to the House with the recommendation that it do pass, and that it is not in order to go back into the committee for the purpose of considering amendments.

The SPEAKER. The Chair overrules the point of order. It is in the power of the House to recommit a bill as often as it pleases to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. But the gentleman's motion is not a motion to recommit the bill.

The SPEAKER. The Chair so understood it. Mr. STEVENS. I meant that. I move now that the bill, with the pending amendments, be recommitted to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, demanded tellers.

Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. SPALDING and COFFROTH were appointed.

The House divided; and the tellers reported— ayes 58, noes 35.

So the bill was recommitted to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. STEVENS. I now move that all general debate in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the bill and amendments be closed in five minutes.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. That is not in order. The bill has not yet been considered in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

The SPEAKER. It has been considered in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and general debate has been terminated upon it. The Chair therefore thinks that the five-minutes debate only will apply in the committee, although it is a new question, which has never been raised before.

Mr. HOLMAN. amendments?

The SPEAKER.

Does that apply to both

It does, and to any amendments that may be offered to the bill in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The bill generally having been debated, the closing of debate is a question as to which a majority of the House must decide.

Mr. WILSON. Does the closing up of debate apply to the amendments?

The SPEAKER. The five-minutes rule will apply to the amendments, and to any amendment that may be offered.

Mr. WILSON. I will suggest to the Chair that if that is to be the rule, all that the Committee of Ways and Means have to do, in order to shut off debate on appropriation bills, is to report one appropriation only in a bill, and, after that has been considered in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union and the bill reported back to the House, have it recommitted with amendments embracing the whole body of appropriations.

Mr. STEVENS. I have no doubt about it; but I withdraw the motion to close debate. ENROLLED BILL.

Mr. COBB, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported as truly enrolled joint resolution (H. R. No. 91) to terminate the treaty of 1817, regulating the naval force on the lakes; when the Speaker signed the same.

NAVAL APPROPRIATION BILL-AGAIN. Mr. STEVENS. Imove that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into

Insert the following:

For purchase of ground adjoining the Brooklyn navyyard, $102,000.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I raise the question of order that this bill, being recommitted, must be considered de novo. I call for the reading of the bill in extenso.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands the position of the bill to be this: after having been considered in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, it was reported back to the House, and in the House two amendments were proposed, and the whole bill recommitted with the amendments. That being the case, the Chair decides that the bill must be read, and that the whole question is open as if the bill were now referred to the committee for the first time.

Mr. STEVENS. I do not rise to appeal from the decision of the Chair; but what has been already decided in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union cannot be reconsidered in committee.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair may be mistaken as to the point of fact; but the Chair understands from the Clerk that the bill was recommitted with the amendments. If the bill has been recommitted, the Chair is still of opinion that the bill must be read.

Mr. STEVENS. For the purpose of considering amendments, of course.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. For the purpose of considering the whole bill.

The bill and amendments were read. Mr. HOLMAN. Do I understand that these amendments are now pending, without the bill being read by sections for amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair decides that, the bill having been considered in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union and reported to the House, and having been recommitted, together with amendments offered in the House, those amendments must be acted upon, and then the bill taken up clause by clause and considered.

Mr. HOLMAN. I hope this amendment as to the Boston navy-yard will not be adopted. At the last session of Congress the House passed a proposition of the same kind. The Senate struck it out of the bill, and the House afterward by a vote of 56 to 38 concurred in the action of the Senate. It did so on facts which were then exposed to the House as to the entire absence of any necessity for the purchase, and on account of the extraordinary and profligate price proposed to be paid for the land. For the purpose of getting all the facts before the committee that were before the House at last session, I ask for the reading of the affidavit of the original seller of the property to the present owners. The present

owners are Messrs. Oakman & Eldredge. They purchased it of Gustavus V. Hall not more than a year ago for $55,000, to which is to be added $6,000 for improvements, making the cost of the property to the present holders $61,000. They propose to realize a profit on the sale to the Government of $74,000.

'The Clerk read, as follows:

I, Gustavus V. Hall, of Charlestown, in the county of Middlesex, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on my oath say, that late in February, A. D. 1864, I was present at an interview between Mr. Oakman, of Charlestown, and Mr. Hittinger, who sold bim a wharf in said Charlestown, called Brintnall's wharf, wherein said Oakman told Mr. Hittinger that he paid a large price for the wharf, and that he would sell it back at any time within a year, if the Government did not take it, as he expected, for $10,000 less than he gave for it. GUSTAVUS V. HALL.

BOSTON, April 27, 1864.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk, ss:
Personally appeared Gustavus V. Hall, above named, and
made oath that the foregoing affidavit, by him signed, is true.
Before me,
JOHN Q. A. GRIFFIN,
Justice of the Peace for all Counties.

Mr. HOLMAN. Then I ask the Clerk to read

the following affidavit of the person who sold this property for $55,000, to which improvements worth $6,000 have been added, making $74,000 profit proposed to be paid for this property:

I, Jacob Hittinger, of Belmont, in the county of Middlesex, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on my oath, say: that I sold the wharf known as Brintnall's wharf, at said Charlestown, the third wharf situated westerly of the original line of the navy-yard; that I sold said wharf in the mouth of December, A. D. 1863, to Oakman & Eldredge; that I executed the deed thereof to them in the month of February, A. D. 1864; that I received therefor the sum of $55,000. Oakman & Eldredge had been lessees of said wharf under a lease which had expired about six months. before said sale in December, and perhaps earlier; and they were occupying at the time of the sale in December under an agreement for an occupancy of one year after the expiration of said first lease. Their occupancy, I think, was to terminate, by the terms of our agreement, about May 1, A. D. 1864. Oakman & Eldredge offered to sell me all the improvements they had put upon the premises and deliver them to me, including scales and railroad and all else, for $6,000; but I did not buy them for the reason that I thought the property not worth so much. On the day the deeds were passed, Mr. Oakman told me he would give me $10,000 to take the property back if his proposed sale to the United States failed, or was not consummated for any reason. Before this sale, I had owned this wharf twelve or fifteen years; had done business upon it; and for some eighteen years had done business on wharf property in that immediate neighborhood. I sold this because I thought I got a good price for it, and I had no other reason for selling it. Before the sale I had frequent conversations with Oakman & Eldredge about selling it to them, and their objection to buying it was that the price asked and finally paid was too great, and that the wharf was not worth it. They also said it was of less value than Caswell's wharf adjoining, which they had bought of Messrs. Lawrence & Sawyer.

JACOB HITTINGER.

BOSTON, April 27, 1864.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk, ss:
Personally appeared, Jacob Hittinger, above named, and
made oath that the foregoing affidavit by him signed is true.
Before me,
JOIN Q. A. GRIFFIN,

Justice of the Peace for all Counties.

Mr. HOLMAN. It will be perceived, from these affidavits, that this property actually cost these parties $61,000, and the profit proposed to be given them is the sum of $74,000. Now, for the purpose of showing more completely and entirely the want of any necessity for making this purchase, I ask that the Clerk shall read the following extract from a leading Republican paper published in Charlestown:

"The affidavits of a large number of the most experienced and competent men were furnished that the portion of the wharves proposed to be sold for $135,000 would be dear at $60,000; that the portion retained from the two wharves by Oakman & Eldredge was worth as much or more than that they proposed to sell; so that they would keep at least one half of the value they bought for $104,000, and sell the other half for $135,000! This evidence came from owners of wharf property in the same neighborhood, from merchants, from wharfingers, from wharf-builders, from gentlemen who own and sell real estate, in fact from the best citizens of the town having knowledge of practical affairs. But this was not all. The proofs summoned by the mayor established that many thousand feet of unsurpassed wharf property could be constructed on the premises already owned and inclosed by the Government, as cheaply at least, if not more cheaply,than that involved in the proposed sale could be repaired for and made fit for Government use and occupancy. This testimony canic from many sources, and among other deponents concerning it were certain officers in the navy-yard, of high character for integrity and good judgment and skill in their departments of the public service. The affidavits embracing these facts, and also setting forth the manner in which the sale to the United States of wharf property would affect the city of Charlestown, in withdrawing from commerce and from taxation property so greatly needed for both purposes, were by the mayor laid before the Senate, that had yet to pass upon the uppropriation of $135,000, which had gone through the House, wherein it had been advocated by Massachusetts members, and opposed only by Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois.”

Mr. HOLMAN. I have but a single additional fact to which to call the attention of the committee, and that is this: that these same parties, Oakman & Eldredge, in 1862, since the war began, have, I believe, sold property to the Government, for the purpose of increasing the capacity of this navyyard, to the extent of $123,000. That is to say, within the last three years we have appropriated $123,000 for the purpose of enlarging the navyyard at Charlestown. It is now proposed to enlarge it by paying to the same parties the sum of $135,000. And it will not escape the attention of the committee that the purchase of this land was made for the express purpose of selling it to the Government. It is sold to these parties and purchased by them for the express purpose of selling it to the Government; and those parties now propose to sell back to the parties from whom they purchased it this property at a loss of $10,000, unless they are enabled to drive this bargain with the Government. These are the influences which are at work

to force this upon the Government of the United States. I do insist that there is no evidence before this House, and never has been, that there was any necessity for this purchase, or that the capacity of the navy-yard at Charlestown was insufficient; but at the same time it is really true that the attempt to sell this property is influenced, not by a desire to promote any public interest, or for any purpose of enlarging the navy-yard, but to promote the private interest of these parties, who have already realized a handsome profit from the Government by the sale made in 1862. I trust the House will not make this appropriation.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I desire to add only a word to what has been already said by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HOLMAN] in regard to this subject. This whole question was up during the last session of Congress, when the proposition was introduced here. After it had passed, the patriotic and loyal citizens of the town of Charlestown, property-holders, men of the highest respectability, embracing all the city authorities, brought the subject to the attention of Congress, a committee came down here to protest against the purchase of this land, upon the ground that it was utterly unnecessary for the purposes of the navy-yard, and upon the further ground that the price was extravagant and outrageous; a piece of land which the party had bought for $61,000, and for one half of which the Government had agreed to pay $135,000. When the bill went to the Senate with this provision in it the Senate struck it out, and it came back to the House. I was not present during the debate, but it was fully debated here, and the House concurred with the Senate in striking out this provision by a vote of nearly two to one. I do not know what new facts have been brought forward which should justify us now in reviewing the action which we took at the last session of Congress upon a full and thorough investigation and understanding of the whole matter.

Mr. STEVENS. I do not intend to consume the time of the committee by any further discussion. I remember the discussion of last year, one party alleging that these affidavits were all from interested men, and the other that they were from disinterested men. Under those circumstances I had very little to say upon the subject, and cared very little about it. The mayor of Charlestown contended that that town would be very much injured if this purchase was made by the Government, while the Government said they must have it. I understand that he went before the

people upon that question at the late election, and he was left out. This is not exactly record evidence, but I understand such to be the fact. However, the committee, after a full examination of this question, after having the chief of the bureau before it, have reported that it is absolutely necessary that the Government should make these appropriations for both these navy-yards. But all I mean to say upon this subject is to ask that the Clerk will read a communication from the bureau, so as to show that the Committee of Ways and Means acted upon proper grounds in

this matter.

The Clerk read a communication from Joseph Smith, of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, of the Navy Department, recommending that the purchase be made.

Mr. STEVENS. In order that we may not consume the remainder of the day in discussion, I move that the committee rise, for the purpose of closing general debate.

Mr. WILSON. Before the gentleman makes that motion will he permit me to make a statement?

Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw the motion, and yield to the gentleman.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, the value of this property has been stated at various sums by parties interested and those who are not interested; and I think it is very difficult for this committee to make up a judgment as to what the property is really worth. Several of the citizens of Charlestown are certainly of opinion, as is shown by affidavits and statements forwarded by them to committees of this House and to members, that the price asked is exorbitant.

Now, sir, in order to avoid difficulties of this kind in relation to all cases, I wish to state that 1 hold in my hands a bill, which I am authorized

Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. SCHENCK in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the special order, the naval appropriation bill.

The amendment of Mr. STEVENS, with the modification proposed to be added by him, was read. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinors. I make the point of order that the gentleman cannot modify his amendment so as to include an appropriation.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman cannot modify his amendment, but must move it as an amendment to an amendment.

Now, sir, this will provide a means whereby the Government may ascertain by a jury, in a court of competent jurisdiction, the just and fair value of such property as it may deem necessary to appropriate to the public use. I hope, therefore, inasmuch as there is this difference of opinion in relation to the value of the property in this case, that this amendment may not be adopted, but that we shall abide by what may be the result of the action of Congress in relation to this system for the condemnation of private property for public use.

Mr. STEVENS. If I were sure that such a bill would pass in this House and the Senate, I would not urge the amendment. In order to provide for the possibility of such an act being passed, I propose to modify my amendment by adding to it the following:

Provided, That if an act shall be passed at this session of Congress providing for the condemnation of private property for public use, the appropriations herein contained, providing for additions to the navy-yards at Boston and Brooklyn, shall be inoperative and void.

I now move that the committee rise, for the purpose of closing debate.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. I ask the gentleman not to move that debate close immediately after the House again resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole, but that twenty minutes or half an hour be allowed for debate. The measure which I proposed has been grossly misrepresented by every gentleman who has spoken upon it, and my desire is to put it intelligibly before the House, not to repeat my previous argument or to restate facts which I have already presented,

and which have not been answered.

Mr. STEVENS. I move that the committee rise.

The motion was agreed to.

So the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. SCHENCK reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, having had under consideration, as a special order, the bill (H. R. No. 676) making appropriations for the naval service for the year ending 30th June, 1866, had come to no resolution thereon.

The SPEAKER. When the House was acting upon this bill a few moments ago, there was a point raised as to the right to close debate, which the Chair stated was doubtful. The Clerk will read from page 62 of Barclay's Digest.

The Clerk read, as follows:

"The proposition to close debate may be made at any time, taking precedence even of a motion to go into Committee of the Whole; but to be in order at all, the subject upon which it is proposed to close debate must have been previously taken up and considered by the committee."

The SPEAKER. As this subject has previously been considered by the committee, the Chair is still of the opinion formerly expressed with reference to the right to close debate.

Mr. STEVENS. I move that when the House again resolves itself into Committee of the Whole upon this bill, all debate on the pending amendment be closed in five minutes.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. I move that the House again resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and resume the consideration of the special order.

The motion was agreed to.

The House accordingly resolved itself into the

Mr. STEVENS. Very well, then.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The gentleman from Pennsylvania offered this amendment

contained an appropriation which must be first considered in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and the Speaker sustained that

Mr. STEVENS. The Speaker ruled that my amendment was in order, but that as it contained an appropriation it should have its first consideration in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. Then I moved to go into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has now taken testimony on both sides, and as he understands the fact, when this amendment was offered in the House the Speaker decided that it was in order as germane to the bill, but that it should be referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The bill and pending amendments were then referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The question is now on the amendment as offered in the House and referred to the committee, and it cannot be modified except by an amendment to the amendment. Mr. STEVENS. Then I move it as an amendment to the amendment.

The amendment and the amendment to the amendment were again read.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if this amendment is to pass, I want it to pass so that we may have a chance to see whether we cannot save something. I do think when the House has fully and deliberately considered a question of this kind and decided against it, that it ought not to stultify itself by now passing it, The gentleman spoke of the gentlemen from bers here who know those gentlemen say that Charlestown who came down here. The memthey are of the highest character. Mr. Griffin is a distinguished lawyer, and was the competitor that State. He came down here and I had a conof one of the present members of Congress from versation with him. He said that he was influenced solely by a desire to serve the public interest, and that he could not remain silent and see the Government swindled as it was proposed to swindle it by this appropriation. He told me some other things in regard to it which are not proper for me to state here.

The amendment to the amendment was adopted. The amendment as amended was then rejected. The next amendment was read, as follows: For the purchase of ground adjoining the Brooklyn navyyard, $102,000.

Mr. STEVENS. As the other amendment has been rejected, I will withdraw this one. Mr. ODELL. I object to that. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment cannot be withdrawn unless by unanimous consent. The amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will take this occasion to say that, by the authorities, when a bill is thus recommitted with amendments pending which have not been confirmed by the action subsequently of the House, all that has been done in the committee falls to the ground. The bill, therefore, will be taken up as originally reported from the Committee of Ways and Means and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. HOLMAN. I suppose there will be no objection to considering the amendments of the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union heretofore adopted as applying to this bill.

There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly.

The CHAIRMAN stated that the bill was open to further amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to insert the following, which was ruled out of the bill when it was in committee before:

For pay of clerks in the ordnance department at the several navy yards, in lieu of the present per diem pay, víz: For salary of one clerk at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, navy-yard, $1,200.

For salary of one clerk $1,200, and one at $1,000 per annum, at Boston navy-yard, $2,200.

Forsalary of one clerk at $1,200 per annum, and one clerk at $1,000 per annum, at the New York navy-yard, $2,200. For salary of one clerk at the Philadelphia navy-yard, $1,200.

For salary of one clerk at $1,400, one clerk at $1,000, one draughtsman at $1,600, one analytical chemist at $2,500 per annum, one assistant pyrotechnist at $1,400, and one keeper of magazine at $480 per annum, at the Washington navy-yard, $15,180.

Mr. HOLMAN. When the bill was in committee before, the point of order was made that those paragraphs contained independent legislation and were not for carrying out the existing law, and that point of order was sustained. It is now proposed to insert the very matter that was then ruled out. I make the point of order, first, that it is not competent for the gentleman to move to insert those words already stricken out; and secondly, if it is competent to do so, it is independent legislation and not in order to an appropriation bill,

Mr. STEVENS. I offered the amendment as one necessary to carry on one of the Departments

of the Government.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands the gentleman from Indiana to make the point of order that that portion of the bill having been ruled out when the House was in Committee of the Whole before, that no other ruling can now be had upon that part of the bill. The Chair overrules the point of order. Whatever occurred in the Committee of the Whole before has now no validity, but falls to the ground. The Chair will have read from Barclay's Manual the ground upon which he bases his decision.

The Clerk read, as follows:

"After a bill has been committed and reported, it ought not, in an ordinary course, to be recommitted; but in cases of importance, and for special reasons, it is sometimes recommitted; and usually to the same committee. If a report be recommitted before agreed to in the House, what has passed in committee is of no validity; the whole question is again before the committee, and a new resolution must be again moved as if nothing had passed."

Mr. HOLMAN. The other point I now make is that the amendment now submitted contains independent legislation, and that it is not for the purpose of carrying out any existing law. And upon that point I desire to have a precedent read. It was decided in a Committee of the Whole upon this very point raised.

Mr. STEVENS. This comes in under the ruling of the Speaker.

stand the matter, the occupant of the Chair, when the House was last in committee, decided that what the gentleman from Pennsylvania now offers as an amendment was not in order; and it was ruled out of the bill. No appeal was taken from that decision, and hence the decision stood, and that clause is no part of the bill. Hence, as it is no part of the bill, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania desires that it shall be, he now moves to amend the bill by inserting it.

The CHAIRMAN. When the House was in committee before, it was ruled that all that latter portion of the bill was not in order, on the ground that it was not for carrying out any of the operations of the Government, or anything provided for by law. But everything that was done in that previous Committee of the Whole having fallen to the ground, the bill is now considered the same as if it never before had been in Committee of the Whole. It does not need, therefore, any motion to restore that provision to the bill. But a motion can be made to amend it, or to strike it out. The Chair decides that the clause under consideration is already a part of the bill, and is before the committee.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. As the Chair rules that the matter proposed to be inserted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is already a part of the bill, I move to strike it out.

It changes the existing law by increasing the salaries of the clerks at the various navy-yards, how much I do not know. There is nothing in the present bill to show what their salaries are

now.

In terms, the clause provides for paying to the clerks in the ordnance department at the several navy-yards, in lieu of the present per diem compensation, the several sums mentioned in the clause, as follows: to one clerk at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, $1,200; to one clerk at Boston, $1,200, and to another $1,000; to one clerk $1,200 and to another clerk $1,000, at New York; to one clerk at Philadelphia, $1,200; and at the Washington navy-yard to one clerk, $1,400; to another, $1,000; to one draughtsman, $1,600; to one analytical chemist, $2,500; to one assistant pyrotechnist, $1,400; and to one keeper of magazine, $480. I would be glad to know what the present per diem allowance of these various clerks is.

Mr. HOLMAN. It was stated on a former day when this measure was before the House that the per diem was $3 50. It was so stated by the genileman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS,] or by some other gentleman upon this floor.

Mr. STEVENS. Only some of them. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I would be glad to know how many of them received a per diem, and what salaries the other clerks received. I think we are acting very much in the dark in this matter.

I think, sir, that if we are going into this business of raising salaries we should not go into it by piecemeal, but should go over the whole subject fully and fairly. I am opposed, first and last, to any increase of the salary of any person em

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. As the Chair has ruled the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania to be in order, I desire to call the attention of the committee to what the amendment is. I did not expect my strict construction ruling, in order to save money to the Treasury, would be the law of this House; but I made it a law to myself. This amendment provides for increasing the salaries of the clerks at certain navyyards. That brings up this whole question of the increase of salaries; and the committee has got to decide now whether it is willing, in the present state of the country, to enter upon this work of increasing salaries.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not understand that any amendment has been offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The clause which the gentleman from Illinois is now commenting on, being already in the bill, a motion to insert it is not requisite. It would be in order for the gentleman from Illinois to move to strike it out or to amend it.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. As I under

into it, let us go into it fairly and justly, and do justice to all parties systematically.

Mr. PRUYN. I wish to call attention to an error in the footing up of these appropriations. The amount is footed up fifteen thousand and odd dollars. It should be $8,380.

Mr. STEVENS. I did not foot it up myself. It was done by the clerk. I ask that it be corrected.

The correction was made.

Mr. BROOKS. I desire to suggest that while we are increasing these salaries-and I think we must do it in order to enable these men to livethere should be some stipulation that the increase shall continue only during the suspension of specie payment, because at the end of the war and the resumption of specie payment we shall otherwise have enormous salaries imposed upon the

change from a per diem to a permanent salary in most cases, and have fixed it at the lowest rate of salary, $1,200. The number of clerks is increased in some instances. There is one added at Philadelphia. And then they appoint one clerk at $1,400, which is not intended as a general rule, the general rule being $1,200; but this being a clerk of class second as clerks are classified in the Departments, they say that this is necessary to command the talent required to carry out these departments, and the Committee of Ways and Means thought it only reasonable, and so reported it.

Mr. BROOKS. In the case of the American Nautical Almanac we have increased the salary, and I have no idea that a scientific man, at the present rates of currency, could be obtained to do the work without that increase, but after the resumption of specie payment the increase of salaries ought not to continue.

Mr. STEVENS. It will be very easy to adjust the matter when that time arrives.

Mr. BROOKS. In order to test the sense of the House, I will move to add the following proviso to the clause proposed to be stricken out:

Provided, That the increase of salaries contained in this act shall continue only during the suspension of specie pay

ment.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I suggest to the gentleman from New York that that time may be pretty far distant, and that he had better fix upon some time, say the 1st of July, 1867.

Mr. BROOKS. I would not stake my sagacity on that as the period of time for the resumption of specie payment.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Then I move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from New York by striking out" during the suspension of specie payment" and inserting in lieu thereof after the 1st day of July, 1867.'

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind the gentleman from Illinois that there are two amendments already pending, and that an amendment in the third degree is not in order.

Mr. STEVENS. I desire to have what is said by the Department on this subject read. The Clerk read, as follows:

"The above salaried clerks are required for the proper performance of the duties of the ordnance department of the different yards. The ordnance stores and accounts were formerly kept in charge of the storekeeper, but are now entirely confided to the ordnance officer. This change of system and the vast increase in the labors of the ordnance department make it absolutely necessary that persons of ability and responsibility should be permanently attached to the ordnance office for the performance of the clerical and other duties connected therewith.

"The salaries are fixed at the very lowest amount at which it is thought possible to secure competent persons. The salary asked for the draughtsman is about the same as the pay now received by him.

"The services of a skillful analytical chemist are greatly needed in the ordnance department of the Navy. For want of such a person the department has frequently to resort to outside parties, and often suffers for want of chemical analysis and information, which, if furnished, would be of great service to the Government. Instead, therefore, of a pyrotechnist, who has been heretofore employed, the bureau ask for a skillful ana¶tical chemist and an assistant pyrotechnist. The keeper of magazines has heretofore been estimated for by the Bureau of Yards and Docks. "H. A. WISE, Chief of Bureau." The question was taken on Mr. BROOKS's amendment, and it was disagreed to.

The question being on Mr. WASHBURNE'S amendment, the Chairman ordered tellers, and appointed Messrs. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, and

GARFIELD.

The committee divided; and the tellers reported, -ayes 57, noes 40.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. I offer the following amendment, to come in at the end of the bill:

Provided, That no money appropriated for the naval service shall be expended otherwise than in accordance with the following provision, so far as it is applicable; that is to say, that the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint a Board of Admiralty, which shall consist of the vice admiral and one rear admiral, one commodore, one captain, one commander, and one lieutenant commander, over which the Secretary of the Navy or the officer highest in rank present shall preside; and when the subject under consideration shall appertain to the duties of any bureau in the Navy Department, the chief of such bureau shall be a member of the board, and entitled to sit and vote on the consideration of the subject.

SEC. And be it further enacted, That the board shall deliberate in common and advise the Secretary on any matters submitted by him relating to naval organization, naval legis-, lation, the construction, equipment, and armament of ves

sels, navy-yards, and other naval establishments, and the direction, employment, and disposition of the naval forces in time of war. All such opinions shall be recorded. SEC.. And be it further enacted, That no vessel-of-war shall be built or materially altered, nor any guns of new construction ordered or adopted, nor any engine for any vessel-of-war adopted or ordered, nor any permanent structure for naval service executed, until the plans, estimates, proposals, and contracts for the same shall have been subinitted to the board, and its opinion and advice thereon communicated in writing to the Secretary; nor shall any patented invention be bought or adopted for the naval service without first the opinion of the board thereon having been taken; and all experiments decided to test inventions and naval plans and structures shall be conducted under the inspection of the board, or members thereof named by the Secretary, and submitted to the board for its opinion thereon.

SEC.. And be it further enacted, That all invitations for plans or proposals for any of the works above mentioned shall be prepared by the board, subject to the approval of the Secretary; and all bids or offers r proposals for the same shall be opened in the presence of the board, and the award made by it, subject to the approval of the Secretary. SEC.. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary may add to the board from time to time other officers of the Navy eligible to the position of chief of bureau, not exceeding three at any time, for consultation on any of the above subjects. The board may take the opinion of eminent practical engineers, mechanics, machinists, and architects, in their respective branches of art or industry, when in their opinion the public service will be promoted by it, and pay them such reasonable compensation as the Secretary may approve.

The amendment having been partially readMr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, said: Mr. Chairman, I have heard enough of that amendment read to make me quite certain that it is out of order. Although when it was first offered the committee decided it to be in order, yet I believe it to be so flagrantly out of order that I raise the question again. I desire to say that I am in favor of the proposition, and would vote for it in the House; but I object to it because it is out of order. If we establish a precedent of this kind, there is nothing under heaven that cannot be got into a general appropriation bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The point of order cannot be properly raised till the amendment is before the committee; but as the gentleman from Illinois has anticipated, the Chair will decide that so much of it as has been read is in order. The Chair overrules the point of order so far as the amendment has been read. The further reading may disclose what will render the amendment out of order. The Clerk will proceed with the reading.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. I do not insist on the reading of the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of opinion that it is not in order to stop the reading of an amendment.

The reading of the amendment was concluded. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Has the Chair decided the point of order?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair decides that the remainder of the amendment is in order. [Laughter.]

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I appeal from

the decision ofthe Chair.

condition of armed rebellion for more than three years;" and insert in lieu thereof:

And were in such condition on the 8th day of November, 1854, that no valid election for electors of President and Vice President, according to the Constitution and laws thereof, was held therein on said day: Therefore.

Mr. YEAMAN. I desire to offer a substitute for the joint resolution.

Mr. WILSON. I desired to demand the previous question on the amendment.

Mr. YEAMAN. I object if I am not allowed to offer a substitute.

Mr. STEVENS. Then I move to go to business on the Speaker's table.

Mr. YEAMAN. I withdraw my objection and offer the following substitute for the joint resolution:

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the votes of the presidential electors of any State shall be counted when presented and verified in the ordinary and legal method; and it is incompetent and immaterial for Congress to go behind such verification, and inquire whether a part of the citizens of such State may have been in rebellion; and all laws and parts of laws and joint resolu tions incompatible with this are hereby repealed.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I raise the question of order that the amendment is not germane to the Senate amendment.

The SPEAKER. The only matter before the House is the Senate amendment; and any amendment, to be in order, must be germane to that. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky would be in order to the original bill, but is not in order to the Senate amendment.

Mr. YEAMAN. I offer it as a substitute for the matter before the House.

The SPEAKER. The joint resolution has been passed upon by both Houses, and is not susceptible of amendment, except so far as applies to the amendment of the Senate. The amend

ment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky is

not in order.

Mr. WILSON. I demand the previous question.

The demand for the previous question was seconded.

Mr. COX moved that the House do now adjourn.

The question was taken; and the motion to adjourn was not agreed to.

The question recurred upon ordering the main question; and being taken, the main question was ordered.

The question was then taken upon concurring in the amendment of the Senate, and it was agreed to.

Mr. WILSON moved to reconsider the vote by which the House concurred in the amendment of the Senate; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

Mr. DAVIS, of New York. I move that the committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

So the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. SCHENCK reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. No. 676) making appropriations for the naval service for the year ending 30th June, 1866, had come to no resolution thereon.

REPRESENTATION IN ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

Mr. WILSON. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the joint resolution (H. R. No. 126) declaring certain States not entitled to representation in the Electoral College, in order that the House may concur in the amendment made by the Senate.

There being no objection, the joint resolution was taken up, and the amendment was read, as follows:

Strike out of the preamble the words "and were in such

the Secretary of the Navy to advance to Paul S. Forbes $250,000 additional, out of the sum to be paid him under his contract for building a steam screw sloop-of-war, in which he was directed to ask the concurrence of the House.

Also, that the Senate had passed the joint resolution (H. R. No. 126) declaring certain States not entitled to representation in the Electoral College, with an amendment, in which he was directed to ask the concurrence of the House.

MANITOWOC, WISCONSIN.

Mr. ELDRIDGE, by unanimous consent, presented a joint resolution of the Legislature of the State of Wisconsin, to the Congress of the United States, in relation to the improvement of the harbor of Manitowoc, Wisconsin; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed.

MARRIAGES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. The SPEAKER. The Chair would call the attention of the House to the fact that the bill in relation to marriages in the District of Columbia, introduced on yesterday by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. PRICE] was by mistake referred to the Committee for the District of Columbia. If no objection is made the bill will be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

No objection was made, and the bill was referred accordingly.

AMENDMENT OF THE RULES.

Mr. WHALEY, by unanimous consent, introduced the following resolution:

Resolved, That rule 102 be amended as follows:

In line one strike out "seven," and insert "eight." At the end of the rule add: "A committee on so much of the public accounts and expenditures as relate to the De. partment of Agriculture."

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, moved that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Rules; which was agreed to.

And then, on motion of Mr. HOLMAN, (at four o'clock and thirty minutes, p. m.,) the House adjourned till Monday next.

IN SENATE.

MONDAY, February 6, 1865. Prayer by Rev. B. H. NADAL, D. D. The Journal of Saturday was read and approved.

HOUSE BILL REFERRED.

The bill (H. R. No. 691) provide for another term of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Arkansas, and for other purposes, was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

CREDENTIALS PRESENTED.

Mr. POMEROY presented the credentials of Hon. JAMES H. LANE, chosen by the Legislature of the State of Kansas a Senator from that State for the term of six years, commencing March 4, 1865; which were read, and ordered to be filed.

Mr. MORRILL presented the credentials of Hon. NATHAN A. FARWELL, chosen by the Legislature of the State of Maine a Senator from that

State to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resigna

tion of Hon. William Pitt Fessenden in the term which will expire on the 3d of March, 1865. The credentials were read, and the oath to support the Constitution having been administered to Mr. FARWELL, he took his seat in the Senate.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. POMEROY. I now present the petition which I submitted on Saturday from Mr. E. Bloodgood Beebe. Having read the petition, I see nothing in it which should deprive him of the right of petition, although what he asks is a very foolish and unwarrantable thing. The petition being respectful and well got up, I can see no reason why it should not be presented. I think we it, and I ask that it lie on the table. have no appropriate committee to which to refer

Mr. GRIMES. What is in it?

Mr. POMEROY. The petitioner desires that the opposing armies in the United States shall combine and fight the French out of Mexico, and then take Cuba and Canada, and by that time he thinks the Union will be so consolidated that they never will fight each other any more.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. MORGAN. I present a memorial of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, in favor of a bill establishing a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States, in which, speaking of the bill now before Congress, they say:

"Though admitting of improvement in several respects, the bill in its general outline and provisions seems drawn with signal ability and with a wise regard alike for the true interests of debtor and creditor, and your committee regard its passage as eminently desirable."

As the bill has been reported from the committee and is before the Senate, I move that the memorial lie on the table.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. MORGAN presented a memorial of merchants of the city of New York, praying the passage of the bill for the construction of a national ship-canal from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

Mr. WILSON presented the petition of Daniel J. Browne, agent to visit various parts of Europe to investigate and report on the production, manufacture, and commerce of the flax and wines of European countries, praying that an investigation may be had in relation to the exercise of unwarrantable power of one officer over another, and that he may be compensated for detention and

loss of time, which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

Mr. DIXON presented the petition of merchant tailors of Hartford, Connecticut, and those engaged in the millinery and cloak-making business, praying that a specific tax may be imposed on each of those classes of work beyond a certain exempted amount of each, and that the internal revenue law may be modified accordingly; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. HOWARD presented two petitions of citizens of Berrien county, Michigan, praying that one or more of the southern States may be set apart as a home for colored people; which were referred to the select committee on slavery and the treatment of freedmen.

Mr. CHANDLER presented the petition of J. Owen, praying the repeal of the act entitled "An act to regulate the admeasurement of the tonnage of ships and vessels of the United States;" which was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. GRIMES presented a petition of officers of the United States Government employed in the navy-yard in Washington, District of Columbia, praying for an increase of salary; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. HOWE presented a petition of citizens of the county of Manitowoc, Wisconsin, praying for an appropriation for the improvement of the harbor at the mouth of the Manitowoc river; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

He also presented the memorial of the Legislature of Wisconsin, in favor of the improvement of the harbor of Manitowoc, Wisconsin; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas, presented the petition of Andrew J. Gray, praying for a pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

He also presented a communication from J. G. Knapp, in relation to the transmission of printed matter and seeds through the mails to the Territories; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture.

tion, nor, as I have said, is there any committee to which the subject can be referred; but as the persons in interest are in the largest number connected with the military service of the country, I move that this petition be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia. The motion was agreed to.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication from the Commissioner of Patents, transmitting the annual report of the Patent Office for the year 1864; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

He also laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of War, transmitting, in answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 2d instant, a copy of the report of the Provost Marshal General, accompanied by copies of all papers in the possession of the War Department, relating to the quota of the State of Rhode Island. under the act for enrolling and calling out the national forces and the acts in amendment thereto; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

title, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

AGRICULTURAL CENSUS REPORT.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. The Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred the following resolution, have directed me to report it back to the Senate without amendment, and I ask for its present consideration:

Resolved, That two thousand copies of the agricultural part of the Census Report for 1860 be printed for the use of the Commissioner of Agriculture.

Mr. POMEROY. We have acted on a resolution of that character, during the absence of my colleague, offered by the Senator from Iowa, [Mr. HARLAN.]

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. This is that resolution. It was not acted upon by the Senate, but was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and is now reported back by them.

Mr. POMEROY. I thought it was pased by the Senate.

Mr. SUMNER. Should not that resolution go to the Committee on Printing? I think so, according to our rule.

Mr. HALE. Oh, no; it is a report from a committee.

He also laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of War, communicating, in obedience to law, a statement showing the expenditures of the appropriation for the contingent expenses of the military establishment for the year 1864; which was laid on the table.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message was received from the House of Representatives, by Mr. McPHERSON, its Clerk, resolution (H. R. No. 161) in relation to certain railroads, in which the concurrence of the Senate was requested.

Mr. NESMITH presented the petition of Albert J. Meyer, praying for an acknowledgment of his services in the invention and use of plans of signals in the military and naval service, and that he may receive the reward in rank and emoluments to which those services entitle him; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

Mr. POMEROY presented resolutions of the Legislature of Kansas, in favor of a grant of lands to aid in the construction of a railroad from Wyandott to the southern boundary of the State, and that the title of the Cherokee Indians to certain lands in that State be extinguished; which were referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and ordered to be printed.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Mr. WILSON, from the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 406) for the benefit of officers of the Army in the field, reported it with amendments.

Mr. MORRILL, from the Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the memorial of the Mechanics' and Traders' Bank of New Orleans, praying that the Secretary of the Treasury may be authorized to return to that bank the amount of money paid on dividends to stockholders in the city of New York by order of Major General Butler, which had been previously confiscated in the hands of the bank by agents of the rebel government, asked to be discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to.

Mr. WADE, from the committee on the conduct of the war, who were directed to inquire into the facts and circumstances concerning the attack on Petersburg on the 30th of July, 1864, submitted a report, which, with the accompany

Mr. SUMNER. I have in my hand, Mr. President, a petition most respectably signed by citizens of Boston, in which they ask Congress to enact a law preferring for appointment to all inferior offices persons honorably discharged from the military service of the United States who shall have served for a period of three years during the present rebellion, or who shall have suffered permanent disability while in the service, or who shall have been held for one year as prisoners of war, and that the tenure of such offices be for life or during good behavior. This petition is most respectably signed, as I have said; indeed, I have rarely offered a petition where the names were more entitled to consideration. They are among the most eminent citizens of Boston. There is no committee to which this subject can appropriately be referred, but I would state that some time during the last session I introduced a bill, which is now upon the Calendar, to revise the civil service of the country in order to secure a better class of officers. That bill has never been called up for considera

tion of Mr. ANTHONY, to print five thousand extra copies, was referred to the Committee on Printing.

TRADE WITH INSURRECTIONARY STATES. Mr. COLLAMER submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the President be requested to inform the Senate whether, since the 2d day of July last there have been granted to any individuals other than agents of the Treasury, any orders, permits, or licenses to buy, sell, control, or in any way to deal in cotton or produce in the seceded States, and if so, what has been the nature and extent of such licenses or permits, and to whom the same have been granted, and at whose solicitation, and what orders have been granted to military authorities to aid the same; and further to inform the Senate what rule of preference has been adopted as to the persons to whom such permits or licenses, if any, have been granted, whether any and what consideration has been paid for such personal and valuable privileges, and under what law such licenses or permits, if any, have been granted.

HOUSE BILL REFERRED.

The joint resolution (H. R. No. 161) in relation to certain railroads was read twice by its

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the consideration of the resolution at this fore the Senate. time? The Chair hears none, and it is now be

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. There is a letter from the Commissioner of Agriculture on the subject, which I ask to have read.

The Secretary read the letter, as follows: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D. C., February 1, 1865. SIR: I desire to ask the especial attention of your committee to the importance of having two thousand copies of the agricultural part of the report of the Census Bureau printed and given to the Department of Agriculture for the purpose of distribution to its chief correspondents of the condition and amount of the crops and farm stock. The necessity of this will be seen at once when your attention is drawn to the fact that the preliminary census report contained the summary of all the crops and stock for each State, but did not give the returns for each county. The correspondence of this Department consists of a chief and five assistants, the latter being farmers residing in different parts of the country. Through this organization the Department obtains information, the importance and reliability of which is now generally conceded, and the accuracy of this information is becoming greater as the correspondents become more experienced. Their zcal, too, keeps pace with that experience. For this information they receive no other compensation than a copy of my reports and some papers of seeds. Their labor is great, and they have often expressed their wish to have this report.

Apart from the fact that these persons are rendering this Important service, and that this service will become more valuable with the census returns of each county before them, there are no persons who would appreciate so highly the agricultural statistics of the report asked for, or who would disseminate it around them so much. I trust, therefore, that the request of a copy for each of the chief correspondents will meet with your approbation. With much respect, your obedient servant, ISAAC NEWTON, Commissioner. Hon. JAMES HARLAN,

Acting Chairman Senate Committee on Agriculture. Mr. LANE, of Kansas. It would be well to inform the Senate that the committee have information that the type is not yet distributed; the work is still in type.

Mr. ANTHONY.

Is the Senator from Kansas prepared to state the cost of the publication? Has there been an estimate?

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. No, sir. Mr. ANTHONY. It is customary for the Committee on Printing, and, indeed, the rule requires it, to obtain, before reporting a resolution for printing a work, an estimate of the cost. I preferred that this resolution should go to the Committee on Agriculture, because I thought that that was a more proper committee to consider it, the Committee on Printing having already reported in favor of printing the number they thought proper, without taking this into consideration. I think it would be better for the Senate to know precisely what the cost will be before acting upon this matter. It could be obtained in a short time from the Superintendent of Public Printing; and, indeed, I intended to ask him myself and inform the Committee on Agriculture upon the subject, but it escaped my memory.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I have no objection to having the resolution referred to the Committee on Printing.

Mr. ANTHONY. I do not wish to have it