referred to the Committee on Printing; but I think we ought to know what it is going to cost before we vote for it.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. In order that that information may be had, I will move that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Printing. Mr. ANTHONY. That is not necessary. If the Senate will let the resolution lie over until tomorrow, I can obtain the information.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. Very well. Mr. COLLAMER. I wish to make a single remark. I suggest to gentlemen, as the expense of printing this report of the Census Bureau will be very heavy at the present price of material, labor, &c., whether it would not be advisable to take some portion of the numbers already printed which have not been distributed, and give them to that Department, instead of making a new edition of two thousand copies. I desire to have the information suggested by the Senator from Rhode Island, but I think when the information is obtained we shall hesitate about incurring this very great additional expense.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. Let the resolution lie over until to-morrow.

The VICE PRESIDENT. It will lie over.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. RAMSEY asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 429) to establish additional offices for the assay of gold and silver, and for other purposes; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Finance, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. STEWART asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 430) to amend "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;" which was read twice by its title, refered to the Committee on Territories, and ordered to be printed.

REPRESENTATION AMONG THE STATES.

Mr. SUMNER asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a joint resolution (S. R. No. 108) to provide for submitting to the several States an amendment of the Constitution of the United States; which was read twice by its title.

Mr. SUMNER. I should like to have the resolution read at length for the information of the Senate.

The Secretary read it, as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two thirds of both Houses concurring,) That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of such Legislatures, shall become a part of the Constitution, to wit:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to the number of male citizens of age having in each State the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature. The actual enumeration of such citizens shall be made by the census of the United States.

I ask the reference of the joint resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary, and I content myself with remarking that that amendment, or something like it, seems to become necessary now since the adoption of the other constitutional amendment by which slavery is prohibited throughout the United States.

The VICE PRESIDENT. will be made.

That reference

CONFERENCES WITH REBELS. Mr. SUMNER. I offer the following resolution, and ask for its immediate consideration: Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested, if in his opinion not incompatible with the public interest, to furnish to the Senate any information in his possession concerning recent conversations or communications with certain rebels said to have been under executive sanction, including communications with the rebel Jefferson Davis, and any correspondence relative thereto.

Mr. SAULSBURY. I object. I want to have that information, but I wish to offer an amendment to the resolution.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Objection being made, the resolution will lie over, under the rules.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that

the Speaker of the House had signed the enrolled joint resolution (H. R. No. 97) to terminate the treaty of 1811 regulating the naval force on the lakes; which thereupon received the signature of the Vice President.

METROPOLITAN RAILROAD.

The VICE PRESIDENT. There being no further morning business, the unfinished business of the morning hour of Saturday is now before the Senate.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. No. 411) to amend an act entitled "An act to incorporate the Metropolitan Railroad Company in the District of Columbia," the pending question being on the amendment proposed by Mr. SUMNER to add the following as a new section:

And be it further enacted, That the provision prohibiting any exclusion from any car on account of color, already applicable to the Metropolitan railroad, is hereby extended to every other railroad in the District of Columbia.

Mr. SAULSBURY. On that I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. DIXON. I wish to say in regard to this amendment, that I opposed it on Saturday on the ground that it seemed to conflict with the rights of another company not now before the Senate; but since that time I have seen the managers and controllers of that company, and find that they are unwilling to contend on this subject with what they considered to be the public opinion. They therefore make no objection to it; and I shall

make none.

Mr. SUMNER. Then I do not wish the yeas and nays.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secretary will call the roll.

Mr. RAMSEY. I am requested to state that my colleague [Mr. WILKINSON] is confined to his room by indisposition.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 26, nays 10; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Collamer, Conness, Dixon, Doolittle, Farwell, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Harris, Howard, Johnson, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Pomeroy, Ranisey, Stewart, Sumner, Wade, Willey, and Wilson-26.

NAYS-Messrs. Cowan, Davis, Henderson, Hendricks, Nesmith, Powell, Richardson, Saulsbury, Van Winkie, and Wright-10.

ABSENT Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Clark, Hale, Harding, Harlan, Hicks, Howe, McDougall, Riddle, Sherman, Sprague, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, and Wilkinson-15. So the amendment was agreed to.

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

AMENDMENT TO ENROLLMENT ACTS.

On motion of Mr. WILSON, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. No. 408) in addition to the several acts for enrolling and calling out the national forces, and for other purposes..

Mr. WILSON. It will be remembered that the amendment reported by the Committee on Military Affairs, in the nature of a substitute for the original bill, was read when the bill was up before. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment reported by the committee.

Mr. WILSON. I hope it will be adopted at

once.

Mr. GRIMES. If that amendment be adopted, will it then be susceptible of amendment?

The VICE PRESIDENT. Not in the text. Additional sections may be added, but if the text of the amendment is amended it must be before its adoption.

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask for the reading of the amendment.

The Secretary read the amendment, which was to strike out all after the enacting clause of the bill and insert the following:

That from and after the passage of this act, any person enrolled and liable to be drafted, may be accepted as a substitute for a drafted person, and such drafted person shall be exempt from service for such time as the substitute shall be held to service under the terms of his enlistment.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That no person owing military service shall be exempted from liability to perform the same on account of furnishing a substitute for the Navy, unless the substitute is presented in person to the board of enrollment by which the principal is enrolled, and is accepted by said board of enrollment.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That any recruiting agent, substitute broker, or other person, who shall enlist, or cause to be enlisted, as a volunteer or substitute, any

insane person or person in a condition of intoxication, or a deserter from the military or naval service, knowing him to be such, or who shall defraud or deprive any volunteer or substitute of any portion of the State, local, or United States bounty to which he may be entitled, shall, upon conviction by any court-martial or military commission, be fined not exceeding $1,000, or imprisoned not exceeding two years, or both, at the discretion of such court-martial or military commission.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That any officer who shall muster into the military or naval service of the United States any deserter from said service, or insane person, or person in a condition of intoxication, knowing him to be such, shall, upon conviction by any court-martial or military commission, be dishonorably dismissed the service of

the United States.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That all State and local bounties hereafter to be paid to any volunteer or substitute upon entry into the military or naval service of the United States shall be paid in installments, as follows: one third at the time of the muster into service of such volunteer or substitute; one third at the expiration of half the term of service; and one third at the expiration of the term of such service, unless sooner discharged by reason of wounds received in battle. And in case of his death while in service, the residue of his bounty unpaid shall be paid to his widow, if he shall have left a widow; if not, to his children, or, if there be none, to his mother, if she be a widow.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That the remainder of the term of service of any person who shall hereafter enter the military or naval service as a volunteer or drafted man, and shall desert therefrom, or be discharged by reason of physical disability, existing prior to such entry into service, shall be added to the amount of service due from the district to which such volunteer or drafted man shall have been credited, and the same shall be filled up from such district by enlistment or draft.

Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That, in addition to the other lawful penalties of the crime of desertion from the military or naval service, all persons who have deserted the military or naval service of the United States, who shall not return to said service or report themselves to a provost marshal within sixty days after the passage of this act, shall be deemed and taken to have voluntarily reJinquished and forfeited their rights of citizenship, and their rights to become citizens; and such deserters shall be forever incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under the United States, or of exercising any of the rights of citizens thereof, and all persons who shall hereafter desert the military or naval service shall be liable to the penalties of this section.

SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That the President is hereby authorized and required forthwith, on the passage of this act, to issue his proclamation setting forth the provisions of the preceding section.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I move to strike out the fifth section of the amendment. I am not able to see either the policy or the right of the proposi tion contained in that section. I do not see what the Government of the United States has to do with bounties that are paid by State, county, or other local authorities. That is a matter altogether between the local authorities and the volunteer. What right have we to prohibit a State or a county or a city from paying the entire bounty down? I do not care to discuss the matter, I merely make the motion to strike out the section.

Mr. WILSON. Before this provision was inserted in our amendment, the members of the Military Committee consulted some of the most eminent lawyers in the Senate, and they agreed that we had the power to do it. So much for that objection. Now, in regard to the provision itself, there is certainly no way to enforce it unless the Government should conclude not to muster into service any person thus enlisted. I do not object to striking out this section, and I was inclined to do so in reporting the bill from committee; but it is very evident that the local bounties are the means rather of filling quotas than of filling up the Army. The enormous bounties that have been offered by individuals and local authorities have been carried to an extent that rather induces men to desert than to go into the Army and serve. I shall not, however, oppose the striking out of this section.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. Mr. WILLEY. I offer by way of amendment this additional section:

And be it further enacted, That every soldier who shall have enlisted in any regiment or battery previously organized, under a distinct promise or assurance given by the recruiting or mustering officer, or by the Governor or adju tant general of the State where such soldier enlisted, that such enlistment should only be for the unexpired term of service of such regiment or battery, shall be entitled to his discharge at the expiration of such term, anything in the mustering-in roll of such soldier to the contrary notwithstanding; and if such regiment or battery shall have been mustered out of the service, such soldier shall be entitled to be discharged forthwith. And it shall be the duty of the Secretary of War, subject to the approval of the President of the United States, to immediately provide all proper rules for carrying this provision into effect.

I suppose it is hardly necessary to explain the design of this amendment, for I imagine every

Senator has been besieged by applicants who have been mustered into the service, through some misapprehension of the recruiting or mustering-in officer, for a longer term than the soldier enlisting really supposed he was engaging to serve the country. It makes no difference, as to the justice and necessity of such legislation as is asked for by the amendment, whether the recruiting officer or the officer mustering the soldier in acted under an honest misapprehension of his duty, or whether he acted fraudulently; it is a fraud upon the soldier entering the service. Many regiments have thus been filled up, and it was desirable that they should be thus filled for the purpose of serving out the term for which the regiment was originally enlisted. The recruiting officer held out the inducement to men, that if they would enter the service for the remainder of the term for which the regiment was enlisted, they, too, should be discharged at that time; and it is operating very unjustly and very harshly on men who have thus been entrapped into a longer term of service than they supposed they were undertaking to render at the time they enlisted. It seems to me this amendment proposes no more than absolute justice. I have almost daily petitions and applications from various portions of the Army, from men who have been thus entrapped into the service, complaining of the injustice and hardship of their position, and I trust it will be the pleasure of the Senate to give them a relief so manifestly right and expedient.

Mr. BROWN. I trust the amendment which has been offered by the Senator from West Virginia will not be adopted, for I think it will have the effect of breaking up the Army altogether. It will do more to demoralize and destroy it than perhaps any other amendment that could be placed on the bill. I have received numerous applications from persons who say that they were enlisted for a shorter term, or that false representations were held out to them by persons connected with enlistment; but certainly we cannot afford to set the precedent here of permitting all the statements of all the agents, all those who have assisted in enlisting men into the service, to override the laws of Congress and the regulations of the military service. There would be no use in establishing laws, no use in providing regulations, no use in instructing officers, if the laws, regulations, and instructions are to be overthrown and destroyed at the will and option of any officer who sees fit to violate them by making a promise beyond those that he was authorized to make by the Articles of War and by the regulations of the service.

I say that if this amendment were adopted the result of it would be that it would put it in the power of any officer and any man colluding to operate to discharge that man, and it would also in nine cases out of ten go to effect the release of men who do not deserve to be released.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I think there is a joint resolution of the Legislature of Indiana on this subject upon the Secretary's table, before him. If so, I should like to have it read. If I recollect it aright, it expresses the desire of the Legisla- | ture that a proposition such as is submitted by the Senator from West Virginia should be adopted.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secretary informs the Chair that no such document is on his table.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I believe such a memorial or resolution from the Legislature was presented to the body through the Presiding Officer.

The VICE PRESIDENT. If so, it is on the files of the Senate.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I know that the Legislature has adopted such a memorial, and my judgment is with the proposition; because it is certainly very hard to make men serve a term of three years when they were induced by the recruiting officer to suppose that they were entering the service for the unexpired term of the regiment. It has occurred in many cases. The Secretary of War has authorized the discharge of one company where the company entering the service under like circumstances were mustered in according to the understanding. Certainly the claim of those who were mustered in contrary to their 'understanding, to their bargain with the Government, is as strong as the claim in the other case. I wished merely to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that the State of Indiana, which has furnished her full quota of troops at all times during the war, has expressed a desire that a propo

sition such as is submitted by the Senator from West Virginia should be adopted.

over it for ten days, and when he did, found himself put in the service of the United States, with the promise of $1,200, of which he got $100. We have any quantity of these things going on in the country. I am opposed to the amendment, and in favor of this bill, for the reason that it is intended to correct some of these abuses.

that some recruiting agents deceived men in this matter, as they have in many others, and the bill Mr. WILLEY. I do not see the force of the before us is intended to bear heavily on the subobjection made to this amendment by the Senator stitute brokers and others who are enlisting men from Missouri, [Mr. BROWN.] The amendment all over the country, and cheating them beyond itself provides that these discharges from service measure. Many a man has been enlisted under shall be made under such regulations and rules as the promise of $1,000 or $1,200 or $1,500 bounty the War Department shall prescribe, and it will who has received scarcely a farthing, while the be perfectly competent and within the power of substitute broker has pocketed the money. I saw the War Department to make rules and regula- a man the other day, a man of character, of standtions that will obviate all danger of improper dis-ing, of family, a business man, who, while passcharges and of fraud upon the service by pro-ing to New York, was drugged, and did not get curing the discharge of men on false pretenses. Certainly it is not the desire of the amendment to lead to any such effect as that; but the object is the contrary; it is to do justice to men that through the regularly-appointed agents of the Government have been deceived into a service which they in point of fact never engaged to render; and now I say it is but justice on the part of the Government to relieve the men that have thus been entrapped into the service of the country either through ignorance or through the fraudulent agency of the officer. I do not think it will demoralize the service to do justice to men who are in the service; nor do I apprehend that the operation of this amendment will go to the extent supposed by the Senator from Missouri. That quite a number of men have thus been enlisted and mustered into the service of the United States I admit, and it is on their behalf that I speak; but that it will de-pired term of regiments that had been in the sermoralize the Army, that it will tend to break up the service, I have no apprehensions at all. I think the tendency of it will be rather to strengthen that arm of our service, and the confidence of the country and of the men already enlisted in the service, and of those we expect to enlist in the service, if they see a readiness on the part of the Government to do justice to men who have fulfilled their actual engagements in the service of the United States and to the country.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The morning hour having expired, it becomes the duty of the Chair to call up the special order of the day.

Mr. WILSON. I hope that will be passed over until we act on this bill. It is of great importance to pass the bill if we are going to have a draft.

Mr. GRIMES. The chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs is mistaken as to a state- * ment of fact. It is true that enlistments have been made, as has been stated by the Senator from West Virginia, with the approbation and under the direction of the War Department for the purpose

Mr. WILSON. They had no right to do it. Mr. GRIMES. I say that it is true that under the direction of the War Department enlistments were made for the purpose of filling up the unex

vice for six or twelve months at the time when these recruits were obtained. The Senator says that the War Department had no right to do any such thing. Are we going to repudiate the action of our agents in a matter of this kind? Are we going to say that these men, notwithstanding the representations that were made to them by the War Department, shall be compelled to fulfill a contract which they did not make? Is it not better, more manly, more generous, and more noble for us to impose draft after draft, and let these men be discharged according to the stipulations that our agents made with them at the time they enlisted?

Why, sir, I happen to know that in the State of which I am a citizen authority was given to the Governor of the State, and the adjutant gen

Mr. SHERMAN. I have no objection to thateral, to make this representation in order to fill

course.

Mr. WILSON. I think we can pass this bill in a short time.

Mr. POWELL. If my bill, which was made the special order for to-day, does not lose its place, I have no objection to the suggestion of the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. SHERMAN. Let the special order be passed over informally.

The VICE PRESIDENT. If there be no objection, the special orders will be passed over informally, subject to be called up at any moment. The bill of the Senate (No. 408) is still before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole, the question being on the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia to the amendment reported by the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. WILSON. I am opposed to this amendment, and I believe it will have a most disastrous effect if adopted. In the first place, no man had a right to make any such promise as is here spoken of. Ifany man made such a promise he made one which he had no right to make, and made it for deceptive purposes. In the next place, the papers show that the men were mustered in for three years, and they signed the muster rolls on which that was expressed, thus agreeing to go in for three years. No man in the country was authorized to take them for any less time; but it has become a universal complaint of men who enlisted and went into old regiments that their time should expire with that of the regiment. There is no authority for it. If you put such a provision in the bill you will have a clamor all over the country to release all the men whose regiments have gone home. These men received their bounty for three years, and they are in the service. Here and there possibly a man was deceived; but not one was deceived where you will find a hundred who will claim that this promise was made to them.

I think the adoption of this amendment will have a very disastrous effect. We had better stand on the law as it is, and hold the men responsible to what they agreed, what they took bounty for, what the papers they signed stated. I dare say

up some three-year regiments, one year of whose time had already expired, and the men who were thus recruited have been discharged by the authority of the War Department, between certain dates; but the persons who were enlisted by the same agents in Iowa, one, two, and three days before the first date named in the order of the War Department, and two, three, and four days after the last day in it, are still retained in the service, the representation made to these recruits having been made by the same authority, by the same officers, and in the same manner. There is not anything that is more manifestly unjust. It seems to me that there is not anything more calculated to demoralize the service than to keep these mea in the service after the time for which they enlisted and agreed to serve, under the direction and according to the agreement entered into between them and our own agencies.

Mr. BROWN. If I understand the operation of the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia, it will be simply this: that the enlistment of every soldier in the Army shall be opened up to be explained by him as to any contract, understanding, or agreement made between him and a recruiting agent or officer. I say if that door. is opened, it lays your service open to be demoralized utterly. If, as the Senator from Iowa says, you are to assume that the person has been enlisted with the agreement that his term should expire when the term of the regiment expires; if that is to be carried out, and you are to discharge him, why shall you not carry it further, and say that if a soldier has been enlisted under a promise that he shall be made an officer, under a promise that he shall go into a specific branch of the service, under a promise that he shall be in the artillery, or cavalry, or any other different branch from that in which he is; why shall not he also be discharged because of the failure to carry out that promise? Is not the promise as specific in the one case as in the other? May not the inducement be as great to him to enlist in the one case as in the other? And if you are going to open up the question of enlistments to be determ

ined and interpreted by private understandings and arrangements that have been made by officers who had no authority to do so, why will you stop at the one point and not proceed to the other? Why will you say that the one promise shall be carried out and not every promise shall be carried out?

It seems to me there is nothing in the character of the amendment to commend it to those who are anxious and solicitous to maintain the force and effect of our armies. I trust that the amendment will not be adopted.

Mr. CONNESS. There is a more serious objection in my mind to this amendment, which is, that it deprives you of the old regimental organizations. It was argued when these enlistment bills were before us on former occasions that the great gain we were to receive was from placing new troops in old organizations. Now, sir, if you have your regiments composed of veterans and more newly enlisted men, and the latter class are to be discharged when the term of service of the former shall come to its termination, simply, as suggested by the Senator from Missouri, upon the basis of private understandings, how are you going to preserve the framework of your regimental organizations? Who are to be your veterans in these regiments? How are you to educate your newly enlisted men? How are they going to become effective in the field? In fact, if you adopt the rule suggested by this amendment, it appears to me that in every respect you adopt one that could not be followed except by the destruction of your armies.

Mr. HENDRICKS. The State of Indiana seems to feel a good deal of interest in this question, and I feel it to be my duty to read very briefly from the memorial of the Legislature upon this subject. This memorial states the facts, and upon these facts I cannot see how any Senator can vote against discharging these men:

To the Senate and

House of Representatives in Congress assembled: The General Assembly of the State of Indiana respectfully beg leave to memorialize your honorable body upon matters herein set forth, and which your memorialists deem of great importance to many citizens of the State, and to which your immediate attention is earnestly requested.

Prior to the 1st of January, 1863, the ranks of the old regiments then in the field had become so greatly decimated by hard service and frequent engagements with the enemy, that it became necessary, in order to preserve such organization, that a general anxiety was felt, both by the people and the authorities, that they should be speedily filled up with recruits.

This anxiety greatly stimulated enlistments, and the prospect of serving in companies with experienced comrades encouraged volunteering.

The men thus recruited in the State of Indiana had the full understanding that they were enlisted for the unexpired time of the old organizations into which they were mustered, and that they would be mustered out of the service at the expiration of the original term of service of such old organizations.

In this understanding the volunteer, the recruiting officer, the State authorities, and the people, fully participated, and in the absence of any order from the War Departinent affecting the subject, and for reasons following, this view of the matter was not unreasonable.

1. At the time these enlistments were made the impression prevailed generally in the Army and among the people that the war would end and the soldiers be discharged even before the expiration of the original term of service of the organizations into which such recruits were mustered.

2. The recruiting was carried on for particular regiments, and not for the service generally, there being no general system of recruiting for the Army established, thus naturally producing a belief that no service outside of or beyond the term of these regiments would be exacted.

3. The advantages of maintaining old organizations and placing recruits among old experienced associates under the command of tried officers, were apparent to all, and it was equally apparent that no recruits could be induced to enlist in any organization that would terminate prior to the expiration of the term for which said recruits were to be mustered, thereby separating such recruits from their former comrades and officers, and without their consent attaching them to organizations in which they would be total strangers.

4. Whole regiments had been enlisted and accepted into the service for terms no greater, thus inducing the belief that soldiers were desired without particular reference to the term of service.

5. The impending draft of that year was for a term of nine months, which induced the belief that volunteering for a much longer period, as was the case with such recruits, would be a judicious arrangement for the Govern

inent.

6. At the time these enlistments were made no system of recruiting had been devised or talked of, and of course there could be no intimation that any regiment would be continued beyond the time of its original enlistment.

With these views recruiting officers invariably informed such recruits that they were to be discharged at the expira tion of the term of service of the old organizations into which they consented to be mustered, and this was agreed to and concurred in by the mustering officers then on duty.

Recruiting and mustering officers were strengthened in this view of the case from the general tenor of certain orders of the War Department, providing for and regulating recruiting for old regiments, which orders, when critically considered, were not as explicit as might have been desired, but nevertheless were apparently on the hypothesis that the recruiting was for the old regiments, and not for the general service, and that they would be discharged at the expiration of the term of such old regiments. One of the orders reads as follows:

Now I ask the attention of the chairman to this order, when he says that the recruiting officers had no authority to receive a recruit for a term less than three years:

[General Orders, No. 108.]

WAR DEPARTMENT,

ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 28, 1863. I. Whenever volunteer troops are mustered out of service, the entire regiment or other organization will be considered as mustered out at one time and place, except prisoners of war, who will be considered as in service until their arrival in a loyal State, with an allowance of time necessary for them to return to their respective places of enrollment.

By order of the Secretary of War:

E. D. TOWNSEND, Assistant Adjutant General.

This is not very clear, as the Legislature say in their memorial; yet it did cause the opinion to be entertained that the entire regiments, including the new recruits, would be mustered out at one time.

Nor was this understanding, as your memorialists are advised, confined to the people of the State of Indiana, but it prevailed extensively in other States, and this general prevalence of such views tended to strengthen the same with the people of Indiana.

The following official document was extensively published in the public journals, and greatly tended to increase the probability of the correctness of the views generally entertained by the people

I suppose this is the communication referred to by the Senator from Iowa

WAR DEPARTMENT,

ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, WASHINGTON, September 26, 1862. SIR: In reply to yours of the 21st instant, stating the number of regiments raised and to be raised in your State, and also making suggestions in reference to filling old regiments, I am directed to say that recruits for old regiments of volunteers for three years, or during the war, will be discharged at the expiration of the term for which the regiment was originally enlisted. By order of the Secretary of War:

C. P. BUCKINGHAM, Brigadier General and A. A. G. His Excellency Governor KIRKWOOD, of Iowa.

Here is an express promise by the War Department as early as 1862 that the men who enlisted for the unexpired term of a regiment would be mustered out when the regiment was mustered out, and I cannot see that there is a question about it any longer. This is a communication to the Governor of the State of Iowa, informing him by the authority of the Secretary of War that these men would be discharged at the expiration of the term of the regiment.

Mr. COLLAMER. Will the gentleman have the goodness to read that communication again? Mr. HENDRICKS. Yes, sir.

WAR DEPARTMENT,

ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, WASHINGTON, September 26, 1862.

SIR: In reply to yours of the 21st instant, stating the number of regiments raised and to be raised in your State, and also making suggestions in reference to filling old regi ments, I am directed to say that recruits for old regiments of volunteers for three years, or during the war, will be discharged at the expiration of the term for which the regiment was originally enlisted.

By order of the Secretary of War: C. P. BUCKINGHAM, Brigadier General and A. A. G. His Excellency Governor KIRKWOOD, of Iowa.

I cannot say that I am particularly fascinated with the composition and clearness of the communication, and yet it caused the people to believe that these recruits would be discharged at the expiration of the term of the regiment:

"The foregoing facts your memorialists believe to he sufficient to establish the fact that recruits enlisted in old organizations, at the time referred to, were fully under the impression that they were only to serve for the unexpired term of the organization into which they were mustered, and that their retention in the service after such time works a great hardship upon them, and is greatly calculated to discourage and dishearten them. Your memorialists are fully aware that the muster-rolls which said recruits signed described an enlistment for three years or during the war, but at the same time are informed, and believe, that such averments in said rolls were explained to them as being mere technical forms, and would in nowise interfere with the understanding upon which they were enlisted, and thus did not disturb the conviction in their minds that they would be discharged with the regiments they were assigned

to; but, on the contrary, that the Government would, in good faith to her soldiers, execute fully the agreement made with them by the recruiting officers."

The memorial is of some length, and I will not read further. This memorial from the Legislature of the State of Indiana is certainly entitled to very much respect. It relates to a subject in which many soldiers from that State are deeply interested. I have received communications on the subject, and have applied to the War Department and succeeded in procuring the discharge of one company that was mustered in in terms according to the understanding of the men.

I do not think it is a sufficient answer to say that it would produce trouble in the Army. If the assurance was given by the War Department to these men at the time they enlisted that they would be discharged when the term of the regi ment expired, it ought to be carried out. Thes men expected it, and I think it is but right it should be done.

Mr. BROWN. If the Senator from Indiana will permit me a moment, I will call his attention to a very wide distinction between the case which he cites and the cases covered by the amendment proposed by the Senator from West Virginia. The case which he cites was one which was authorized by the War Department itself, presumably by its head. The other case covers every one in which a recruiting officer may have made any promise to that effect; two very different things. I have no doubt that if the case which the Senator from Indiana represents is properly reported to the War Department, and is properly substantiated, it will be treated with every courtesy, and he will receive justice on that subject. It is competent now for the War Department to discharge soldiers when proper evidences are furnished. I do not think it is advisable that we shall here strip the Department of all discretion which can be governed by a sense of justice, and establish a general, sweeping law which will put it in the power of any individual acting outside of his official capacity by making promises to deplete the Army and deprive us of those we have so much trouble to enlist.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I offer an amendment to come in as a new section:

And be it further enacted, That the third section of the act entitled "An act further to regulate and provide for the enrolling and calling out of the national forces, and for other purposes," approved July 4, 1864, be, and the same is hereby, repealed.

I send to the desk to be read the section which I propose to repeal.

The section was read, as follows:

"SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the Executive of any of the States to send recruiting agents into any of the States declared to be in rebellion, except the States of Arkausas, Tennessee, and Louisiana, to recruit volunteers under any call under the provisions of this act, who shall be credited to the State, and to the respective subdivisions thereof, which may procure the enlistment."

Mr. BUCKALEW and Mr. CARLILE called for the yeas and nays on the amendment to the amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. WILSON. I should be very glad to hear the reasons why this proposition is made by the Senator from Pennsylvania. I do not know that this law has worked evil to the country in any way, and I am confident that it has given some thousands of men to the service.

Mr. SAULSBURY. As my friend from Pennsylvania does not respond, before the roll is called I wish to know from the Senator from Massachusetts whether a statement which I saw some time ago is correct. That statement was, that immediately upon the fall of Savannah, the Governor of Massachusetts had agents there to recruit so as to fill up the quota of Massachusetts, and that that was done before any permission was given by the authorities in Washington; and as the papers slate, after the slaves were enlisted and were on shipboard and had started for Massachusetts, Governor Andrew made application to the President of the United States for permission to recruit in Savannah, and, as the papers state, the President graciously granted his request. Is that true? If it be true, it gives great advantages to certain States over others. In our State what is done when a draft is made? I am informed by my col

league, who has paid more attention to this subject than I have, that our State has already furnished more than her quota, and gets no allowance for it. When our people are drafted they have to go; we have no such facilities; we have no agents in the seceded States; we want none; but our young men have to leave their homes and go to the battlefield, young white men. When the terrible calamity of war is upon us, and when the young men of the country are called to go to the battle-field, we have a right to demand that the sons of Massachusetts and of other States shall go and share its perils. I should like the Senator from Massachusetts to answer the question whether the statement to which I have referred, as it appeared in the papers, be true. If it be true, it is an argument plain and powerful why the proposition of my friend from Pennsylvania should be adopted.

Mr. WILSON. I am not able to answer the question of the Senator from Delaware, but I can say that the Governor of Massachusetts believes in enlisting men in the rebel States; he believes in taking men from the cause of the rebellion and giving them to the cause of the country. He is an earnest, prompt man, and I have no doubt took the earliest possible action in this as in every other case affecting the interests of the country; and if he did not have an agent first at Savannah to enlist colored men, I think the reason must be that his agent took a slower vessel to reach there than tire agent of any other State, for I am sure he would be as soon to send him, and as soon to ask authority, as the Governor of any other State.

Mr. SAULSBURY. In support of the remarks that I have made I will read an extract from a paper called the Commonwealth published in Boston, which is understood to be the organ of a distinguished member of this body, and which I suppose always states what is exactly correct in these matters. The extract reads in this wise:

"PROMPT AS USUAL.-Immediately on the fall of Savannah, Governor Andrew dispatched agents to that city to recruit black loyalists for the national Army, to be credited to the quota of the State. He then asked permission from the Secretary of War to do so, which was cheerfully accorded, and the documents will arrive out about the time the first squad is on its way to Massachusetts."

I appeal to the American Senate, is that right, is it fair? When the young men of my State, of Pennsylvania, and of other States, are compelled under your conscription law to leave their homes and go to the battle-field, is it right that the Governor of Massachusetts, or the Governor of any other State-I make no assault upon Massachusetts-shall be allowed to send agents into the southern States, waiting, perhaps, until some city falls, that they may recruit and enlist into their service the ignorant, degraded slave, and to count him as a man against the educated young man of my State? No, sir. If this direful war is to continue; if, as judging from the indications of the time I presume we are, we are to have twenty or fifty years of blood y fratricidal war in this country, I have a right to second the demand of the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania, and ask that you send your sons and your brothers to the field, when we are compelled to send there our sons and our brothers. Do not send your agents into the southern States to pick up the poor degraded African to fill your quota, and keep your sons and your brothers and the husbands of your daughters in your own midst to enjoy all the pleasures of life while ours are drawn away from

Why, Mr. President, if this thing is to be continued, there are certain States in this Union whose wealth is being daily increased by the continuance of this war, that can very well smile when our households are bathed in tears. The fathers of New England will not feel as the fathers of our sons feel when they are dragged from their homes. The mothers of your sons will not go down to their graves weeping, as Rachel of old, because they are not. Why? Because in the place of your sons you send the degraded African. Our households may be filled with mourning; the habiliments of woe may be witnessed in every household with us; but you can rejoice and thank God that you are growing rich on the profits of a war supported by your votes, but the afflictions of which none of you personally feel.

Mr. GRIMES. It will be recollected by the Senate that this question was before it at the last session, and by several decisive votes it was decided that the law as it now stands ought not to be

the law of the country. In other words, we refused upon several occasions to allow any State to go into any other State for the purpose of recruiting and filling up its quota. There was disagreement between this body and the House of Representatives, and the question was referred to a committee of conference, and in some way, after I left the city, this provision was adopted, contrary to the expressed opinion by a yea and nay vote several times made, of the Senate, and by very decisive votes. I trust now, sir, when we have the opportunity to do so, that we will put ourselves right on the record in this regard, and that we shall declare that if there are colored men in Savannah or in any other place to be recruited, they shall be recruited into the service of the United States and not into the service of any particular State; that we will clothe them, we will feed them, we will give them the bounties, we will furnish them with arms, we will become responsible, politically and morally, for their safe-keeping, and not allow this State or that State to assume to become the superintendent of these men, and claim them upon their quotas, and compel the other States that do not liappen, perhaps, to have quite as prompt a Governor as the Senator from Massachusetts says they have, to fill up their quotas with the young white men of their States. These colored men in the rebel States are a fund that belong to all of us, and neither the State of Massachusetts, nor the State of Iowa, nor any other State, should be permitted to go and draw upon that fund so as to fill up its own quota, and thereby impose the necessity of a still greater druft upon the States which do not see fit to do this, or have not the opportunity to recruit these colored men. It is manifestly unjust, and I trust the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania will be adopted.

Mr. WILSON. I desire to say a word or two in answer to the Senator from Delaware, to which I desire his attention.

The United States have called upon Massachusetts for 117,624 men. Massachusetts had furnished, and was credited by the War Department up to the 22d of December last, in response to this call for 117,624 men, 125,437 three-years men, making a surplus of 7,813 more three-years men than the Government had called for. She has furnished on the call for 117,624 men, 153,486 of all kinds; but counting them as three-years men, she has furnished 125,437, being nearly 8,000 more than the quota asked for of three-years men. Massachusetts last year furnished 45,446 recruits to the Army.

Mr. SHERMAN. How many of those were credits for the naval service?

Mr. WILSON. I believe 16,625 during the war, of this number of men furnished in response to these calls, 10,672 out of 125,437 were foreignborn men. There has been a great deal said about importations of men to fill up the quota of Massachusetts. Nine hundred and seven men were imported from Germany and put into four Massachusetts regiments; of the number of black men put into service by Massachusetts, taking the whole number, those enlisted at home as well as those enlisted in all the rebel States, she has put in 4,731, and of this number about 1,200 were enlisted in the rebel States. Thus it will be seen, out of the 125,437 three-years men furnished by Massachusetts, but 15,000 of them were born outside of the United States or were colored persons. The Governor of Massachusetts, in his last message, speaking in regard to these colored troops, says:

"If we have accepted colored volunteers who have come to Massachusetts for the purpose of becoming soldiers, and turned them over as soldiers of the United States, it is because when we began to accept them and until we had raised the equivalent of two regiments, no other opportunity for them existed in the country. We believed in colored men; others did not. We obtained permission to offer them. We assumed the hazards of the enterprise, but the country reaps the reward of its brilliant and assured success."

A great deal has been said in regard to the calls that have been made upon Massachusetts, and the troops that have been furnished by her. 1 venture to say here, without knowing what are the proportions furnished by the other States, that of the one hundred and fifty-three thousand men who have gone into the service from Massachusetts, quite as large a proportion were men who were born in New England, and lived in the State as can be found in any other State of the Union.

Here is the record in regard to the black troops furnished by Massachusetts. They number less than five thousand. During the last few weeks we have enlisted, perhaps, a few hundred more; for we believe in enlisting those men; we believe in using them; we are anxious to enlist them wherever we can find them; and we pay them a State bounty of $325, and we treat them in all respects like men.

Mr. SAULSBURY. If the Senator from Massachusetts supposed that in my remarks I meant any reflection upon the State of Massachusetts, or any other State, he is very much mistaken. I never have, since I have been a member of this body, made an assault on any State. I do not think it is my province to assail Massachusetts, or any other sovereign State of this Union; and I do not think it is in the province of any other Senator to assault my State, or any other State. I had no object of that kind in view. But I had this object: to call the attention of the country to the fact that while the young white men of my State were being drawn against their will, dragged into the Army of the United States, I had, in their be half, a right to demand that the young educated white men of other States should go to the battlefield, and that a negro from a southern plantation should not be allowed to answer to the requirements of the draft so as to be put upon an equality with the young white men from my State. If the State of Massachusetts, or any other State in this Union, is so patriotic that it wishes to fill up the armies of the United States, and will send its agents South to gather up negro recruits and put them into the Army, and not ask that those negro recruits shall stand in the place of their own sons, I have no objection. De gustibus non est disputandum.

Mr. SUMNER. I merely wish to make one remark on this proposition. I am not aware that any abuses or evil consequences from the existing law have been shown.

Mr. GRIMES. Does the Senator recollect the letter of the distinguished General Sherman upon that subject?

Mr. SUMNER. What was the date of the letter? Does the Senator remember?

Mr. GRIMES. I cannot remember the precise date, but I remember distinctly it was after the passage of the law which is now sought to be repealed, and after some of the States had sent their recruiting agents down into General Sherman's army for the purpose of recruiting, thus coming in collision with the United States recruiting officers who were attempting to recruit the same men to go into United States regiments.

Mr. SUMNER. I am inclined to think the letter was written before the passage of this law. Mr. NESMITH. The letter was written after the fall of Atlanta.

Mr. SUMNER. Very well. It was a good letter. I remember very well that it was a wellwritten letter, rather pointed, and seemed to be written rather with the point of the sword than with the pen, I thought, as I read it at the time. But, sir, I am not aware, notwithstanding the letter to which my friend from Iowa calls the attention of the Senate, that any abuse has been shown, nor any evil consequences, nor any evil example. I therefore submit to the Senate that inasmuch as the law exists, as it is already on our statute-book, it should not be hastily removed, unless some reason can be shown for the removal. The burden, therefore, is on the Senator from Pennsylvania, who makes this motion, to show. that something wrong has occurred under this law.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I explain by saying that I desire each State to raise its own troops within its own limits, establishing a principle of equality, and that no State, by favoritism of the War Department, or of the President, or of generals in the field, shall be permitted to fill up its quota

from the South.

Mr. SUMNER. The Senator now brings forward another point. He speaks of favoritism, and says that no State by favoritism of the President or of the War Department should be allowed to recruit in the South. I will ask the Senator what favoritism there can be under this statute?

Mr. BUCKALEW. I refer to the paper already read in the presence of Senators. Mr. SUMNER. I say what favoritism can

Is it not no State

there be under the law as it exists? open to all the States alike? There is that may not send its agents there, precisely as it is said Massachusetts has sent hers. Let us understand each other. Do not let us vote ignorantly. The Senator says that the law as it now exists operates unequally; that it opens the way to favoritism, either from the President or from the Secretary of War. Sir, he can show no such thing. The law as it exists operates equally throughout the whole country. If one State is more active in its recruiting agents, if it rushes swiftly to that field of exertion, there is no favoritism in it. That is from the activity and the energy of the State, and not from any favoritism or indulgence here in Washington. Therefore, sir, that argument of the Senator I put aside.

I come back, then, to the question with which I began when I was interrupted by the Senator from Iowa, what abuse, what evil example has been shown? Not one. Senators, if they vote for this proposition, must vote under the influence of prejudices and not of reason. There are Senators, I know, who have prejudices against the enlistment of colored troops; but I make an appeal to the patriotic Senators on this floor; those who love their country, and who hate belligerent slavery, not to yield to any such prejudice. I can understand that the Senator on the other side who smiles, the able Senator from Indiana [Mr. HENDRICKS] might follow his friend from Pennsylvania, because the Senator from Indiana always does vote against the employment of colored troops. He, therefore, if he sustains the proposition of his friend, will act naturally and in harmony with all he has done and said on this floor. I am sorry that he feels obliged to take that course. It is not for me, however, to criticise him. But how other Senators who do not follow the lead of the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Pennsylvania can strike at this enactment when no abuse under it has been shown, when, in point of fact, no reason has been adduced for its repeal, I am at a loss to understand.

I have said that nothing has been brought against the existing law. I may add now that something can be said in its favor. It has stimulated recruiting; it has secured to the public service certain soldiers who otherwise would not have borne arms for their country; and that alone, sir, is an all-sufficient reason for keeping it still longer on the statute-book.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, I am one of those who believe that a white soldier is more efficient than a negro soldier.

Mr. TRUMBULL. With the consent of the Senator from Kentucky I will ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to make a report from the joint committee appointed to canvass the vote for President and Vice President the day after tomorrow. It is indispensably necessary that we have action upon it as soon as possible. The House will have to concur in it. If the Senate will now consent to let the report be submitted and acted upon, it will take, I apprehend, but a few minutes-I think there will be no objection to it-and the House will then concur, so that we shall be ready to take action on the subject on Wednesday next.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Illinois asks the unanimous consent of the Senate to submit a report from the joint committee on the subject indicated. The Chair hears no objection.

COUNTING OF PRESIDENTIAL VOTE.

Mr. TRUMBULL. With the consent of the Senate I will read the report, as the handwriting is more legible to me than to the Clerk.

The joint committee to whom was referred the subject of ascertaining and providing a mode for canvassing and counting the votes for President and Vice President of the United States have in

structed me to report the following joint rule in part in the discharge of their duty:

Resolved by the Senate, (the House of Representatives concurring therein.) That the following be added to the joint rules of the two Houses, namely:

The two Houses shall assemble in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of one o'clock, p. m., on the second Wednesday in February next succeeding the meeting of the electors of President and Vice President of the United States, and the President of the Senate shall be their Presiding Officer. One teller shall be appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the

President of the Senate, the certificates of the electoral votes; and said tellers having read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses then assembled, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been counted, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote and the names of the persons, if any, elected, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with the list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses.

That is the usual form, as far as I have read, of the resolutions heretofore adopted. The committee have proceeded further to provide for a contingency:

If, upon the reading of any such certificate by the tellers, any question shall arise in regard to counting the votes therein certified, the same having been stated by the Presiding Officer, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and said question shall be submitted to that body for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall in like manner state the question to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no question shall be decided affirmatively, and no vote objected to shall be counted, except by the concurring vote of the two Houses, which being obtained, the two Houses shall immediately reassemble, and the Presiding Officer shall then announce the decision of the question submitted; and upon any such question there shall be no debate in either House. And any other question pertinent to the object for which the two Houses are assenibled may be subinitted and determined in like

manner.

At such joint meeting of the two Houses seats shall be provided as follows: for the President of the Senate, the Speaker's chair; for the Speaker, the chair on his left; for Senators, the body of the Hall on the right of the Presiding Officer; for Representatives, the body of the Hall not occupied by Senators; for the tellers, Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House of Representatives, at the Clerk's desk; for other officers of the two Houses, in front of the Clerk's desk and upon either side of the Speaker's platform.

Such joint convention shall not be dissolved until the electoral votes are all counted and the result declared, and no recess shall be taken unless a question shall have arisen in regard to the counting of any such vote, in which case it shall be competent for either House, acting separately in the manner hereinbefore provided, to direct a recess not beyond the next day at the hour of one o'clock, p. m.

Mr. JOHNSON. I understood the Senator from Illinois to say that the latter part of the report is not to be found in the reports heretofore made by which these conventions have heretofore been

governed, and if I recollect the reading aright it provides only for a single contingency; that is to say, the contingency of votes being objected to. It appears to me it would be desirable to provide that in the event of any other question being

made

Mr. TRUMBULL. It does so provide. provides specifically for any other question pertinent to the matter for which the two Houses are assembled.

Mr. JOHNSON. I did not understand it so. Mr. TRUMBULL. It so reads.

Mr. COWAN. There is one difficulty I would suggest to the honorable Senator from Illinois. It is provided that when questions shall arise in the joint convention, the Houses shall separate and consider the matter separately. Now, suppose there is a question there whether the vote of Louisiana shall be counted. The Senate retires to its Chamber and decides that it shall; the House of Representatives organize and decides that it shall not; how is the question then to be decided? Mr. JOHNSON. It falls, of course, and would not be counted.

Mr. COWAN. I think there is a fundamental mistake at the bottom of this provision..I think it belongs to the Houses in joint convention to decide that question when it arises. It is evident that they are there with some power and authority over it. They cannot be supposed to be mere idle and indifferent spectators, because otherwise the votes might be counted separately in the separate Chambers. Therefore I think that that provision is objectionable. Any one of the Houses, then, could disfranchise a State according to the construction that is to be put upon it.

Mr. TRUMBULL. The question then has to be decided by the concurrent action of the two Houses, and I suppose committees of conference, may be resorted to to bring that about. It has to be decided somehow, and this provides a mode when the question arises by which it shall be settled. If the Senator from Pennsylvania chooses to suppose that you must take a vote per capita, the Constitution provides no means for any such action. The only way the two Houses of Congress can act is independently of each other. It was the unanimous opinion of the committee that it could not be done by voting en masse, as in a

public meeting. That question was very claborately discussed the other day. I hope no discussion is to spring up on this report, because it is important that we have action upon it at

once.

Mr. COWAN. I ask the honorable Senator whether there is any other case in which the two Houses go into joint convention except this one.

Mr. TRUMBULL. They do not go into joint convention here. They meet together simply to provide for the counting of the vote; but there is no provision for their taking action as a joint body. They go there to see the votes opened, and then Congress provides by law how they shall proceed. This is my view of it.

Mr. COWAN. That assumes the very point in dispute. The allegation of some of us is that they do go into joint convention; that the phrase which gives them power and authority to do so is a general phrase. The mode and manner in which it is to be exercised of course must be fixed by law, or must be fixed by rules to be adopted for the governance of this convention itself; and to show that it is a convention, and to show it conclusively, the resolution offered by the committee to-day provides for its organization, provides that it shall have a Presiding Officer, provides some rules at least for its governance, provides for the appointment of tellers.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Each House appoints the tellers, not the joint convention.

Mr. COWAN. Then I think the joint convention should appoint the tellers.

Mr. TRUMBULL. It never was done since the Government was formed. That part of the resolution is similar to the one we have always acted under since Washington was elected President.

Mr. COWAN. Then we encounter the mischief I suggested a moment ago. If there was a partisan majority in the Senate opposed to the counting of the votes of a particular State, all it had to do would be to stand firmly upon its resolve that they should not be counted, and that State would be disfranchised by the act of the Senate alone. The House would have the same privilege precisely. Was that ever contemplated?

Mr.TRUMBULL. If the Senator from Pennsylvania will allow me to put a question to him he will see that there is nothing in the question

he asks.

Mr. COWAN. Certainly; I shall be very glad to see it.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Suppose either House obstinately refuses to go there at all. If you are to suppose that the Senate of the United States is determined to break up the Government, they will not meet at all. You might just as well suppose that as to suppose that it will obstinately refuse to perform any other duty.

Mr. COWAN. I have heard that argument, repeatedly before, and it comes very badly from the mouth of one who provides for a proposition of the kind. I admit you have no right to presume it; but you have no right to provide that they may do it. You have no right to put the Senate in such a position as that it may do it. You have a right to foresee the mischief before it happens; but by the adoption of these rules it is a tacit admission that the Senate may do that thing. There is no presumption that the Senate will not go into joint convention, although I am very sorry to say that such a mode of procedure is too common now among the States, among men who think by that means they can gain an ad vantage from the country when they are overthrowing the very fundamental laws which underlie its institutions. I think this matter should be left. with the joint convention; that in that convention all questions which arise as to the validity of votes there to be counted by that convention should. be determined.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the report of the committee. The report was agreed to.

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the Speaker had signed the enrolled joint resolution (H. R. No. 126) declaring certain States not entitled to representation in the Electoral College; which thereupon received the signature of the Vice President.