Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

vessels from the sea into the lakes. We cannot do that, but they can.

With this threat, made at a time when we were in danger of war, staring us in the face, I ask whether it is not the part of prudence and of caution, even dealing with a friendly nation, that we should place ourselves on equal terms. If Great Britain can throw vessels upon the upper lakes in derogation of a treaty which was made to prevent this force of mutual invasion and recrimination, I say we ought to prepare ourselves for the like security; and there is no other preparation that I know of except to give the President full authority and means to place suddenly upon the lakes the necessary force.

I do not anticipate a war with Great Britain. I would dread it. I think no man ought to say anything that would contribute to the hostile feeling between this country and Great Britain. When Great Britain and the United States fight with each other, as they may in the course of the future, though I trust not, it will be a battle of giants. We have shown by our power in this war our ability to carry on war fearfully and with great physical strength; and when we come to fight England again, if in the course of Providence we ever do, it will not be a fight such as the war of 1812, or the war of the Revolution; but it will be a fight between the two greatest physical Powers of the globe, with the single exception, probably, of France. Such a war ought to be avoided, and no man in public life ought to say anything that would excite feelings of hostility between these two great nations speaking the same language; but yet it is a mark of prudence, it is a mark of caution, to prepare ourselves for this exigency; and therefore I think there is nothing that will go before the Committee on Foreign Relations which will be more important, or which ought to demand more careful consideration, than the question raised by the reference now moved by the honorable Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. SUMNER. Will the Senator please read the article to which he has alluded?

Mr. SHERMAN. The article is a long one, but for the purpose of recalling it to the memory of Senators, I will read it. It is, as I have said, from the London Times of January 7, 1862.

"THE NAVAL RE-ENFORCEMENTS FOR NORTH AMERICA. -If praise is due to the War Department for their rapid and energetic action in sending out military stores and reenforcements for Canada, the same tribute can unquestionably be claimed by the Admiralty for the rapidity which they have shown in preparing for the impending struggle, strengthening our fleet on the North American station, and bringing forward the vessels that will be fit for service on the lakes of Canada. It is just five weeks since we laid before our readers a list of the naval force, under the command of Admiral Milne, on the North American and West India stations. That list comprises five line-of-battle ships, ten first-class frigates, and seventeen powerfully armed corvettes and sloops, all steamers, and mounting in all eightyfive guns. This fleet is, in fact, equal to the whole Federal Navy, whether steam or sailing. As we have said, only five weeks have elapsed since that list was given, and already the preparations are far advanced toward reenforcing this fleet with two line-of-battle ships, twenty-three of the largest, fastest, and heaviest screw frigates, and eight powerful corvettes, mounting among them one thousand guns. Some of these vessels have sailed, and are already on the station, others are on their way out, others only await their sailing orders to start at a moment's notice; some are in commission and will be ready and off in a very short time, and only one or two, such as the Black Prince, though rapidly fitting, are not sufficiently forward to be commissioned yet.

"Of the squadron of frigates, each vessel has been carefully chosen for its great sailing speed, high steam power, and heavy armament, and never yet has such a fleet of picked cruisers been sent against any enemy. Among them are the Shannon, 51 guns; Leander, 51; the Euryalus, 51; Sutlej, 51; Orlando, 51; Severn, 51; Phœbe, 51; Warrior, 40; Black Prince, 40; Galatea, 26, (sister to the formidable Ariadne;) Defiance, 22; Defense, (iron,) 22; Resistance, (iron,) 22; Satellite, 21; Orpheus, 21; Barrosa, 21; Pylades, 21; Rattlesnake, 21; Chanticleer, 17; Greyhound, 17; Zebra, 17; and Magicienne, 16. The two line-of-battle ships are the Hero, 91 guns, and the Meeance, 81. The sloops, very heavily armed, are the Styx, 7 guns; Stromboli, 7; Devastation, 7; Petrel, 11; Rapid, 11; Rosario, 11; Pandora, 5; and Vigilant, 4. All these ships, like those already on the stations, are screws or paddies, so that by the beginning of February, Admiral Milne will have at his disposal sixty five sail-namely, seven line-of-battle ships, thirty-three frigates, and twentyfive corvettes and sloops. Of the seven line-of-battle ships, four-the St. George, Conqueror, Donegal, and Hero-both steam and sail as fast as the best frigates in the service. With such a force a total and most effective blockade of all the Federal ports could be established in a single week; for, unlike the coast line of the confederate States, which is protected by myriads of little islands, and countless inlets and channels leading to the great rivers beyond, all the great Federal harbors have such narrow entrances that a single vessel would be sufficient to stop all passage in or

out. With the Warrior at Sandy Hook, what could enter New York, or rather what effectual resistance could Fort Hamilton and the batteries on Staten Island offer to a combined attack of the four iron frigates, in case the Government wished to force the passage, and dictate their own terms of peace by laying the fleet broadside on to the streets of New York and Hoboken? That the Warrior and Black Prince, Resistance and Defense, could engage and destroy these batteries without the smallest risk to themselves, the experiments against the Warrior target have proved conclusively. A single vessel at each port closes Boston and Portland, and two off Cape May would be ample for the Delaware river and the trade of Philadelphia. Admiral Milne, we believe, has already made very complete arrangements as to the disposition of his squadron, so that, in the event of war, the Federal cruisers off the southern coast may be promptly and satisfactorily accounted for. "The worst part of the struggle, however, will not be on the north Atlantic seaboard, but on the great lakes of Upper Canada and North America. It was said truly in the last war that whoever was master of these lakes would be the master of all. The knowledge of this may have led to the clause in the treaty of 1815, by which both Powers agreed to build no war vessels on the lakes in time of peace, and this clause again accounts for the fact that the New OrJeans, eighty-four guns, commenced in 1814 in Sackett's Harbor, on Lake Ontario, has remained unfinished to this day. Of course, from this vessel, left unfinished nearly fifty years ago, (though it is to this hour reckoned in the Federal Navy List as an effective line-of battle ship,) we have nothing to fear. It is, however, most important to remember that the Federals have a navy yard on Lake Ontario, and that, to avert the ravages of war from Upper Canada, we must be careful to maintain as absolute a supremacy on Lakes Eric and Ontario as we shall do on the American coast, from the Bay of Fundy to the Chesapeake. This, as concerns our success in the struggle, is a point of vital interest, and we are glad, therefore, to be able to tell our readers that this danger has been foreseen and amply provided against, and that within a week after the breaking up of the ice in the rivers and canals a whole fleet of gunboats, with the most powerful of the screw corvettes sent out to Admiral Milne, will carry the protection of the English flag from Montreal to Detroit.

"Between Lake Ontario and Montreal the navigation of the St. Lawrence is rendered difficult and somewhat dangerous to vessels coming down the stream by the rapids of Long Sault, the Cedars, Cascades, and Lachine, places where there are sudden rapids formed by a series of declivities in the bed of the river, and where the waters rush down, sometimes for a distance of one or two miles, with a velocity of from twenty to nearly twenty-five miles an hour. Until within the last few years these rapids were considered too dangerous for any vessel to attenipt to descend them, and, of course, getting up them again is impossible. To overcome the obstacles which these currents offered to water communication by the great highway of the St. Lawrence to the lakes above, the Canadian government, with British assistance, have formed a series of canals with innumerable lock-gates above Montreal, by which the rapids are avoided, and easy communication obtained with Lakes Ontario, Erie, and Michigan. The first canal is about two miles long, through the southern extremity of the island of Montreal, and this avoids the rapids of Lachine. The next, in order to avoid the Cascades and Cedars rapids, is much longer, and, unfortunately, it is made on the right or American bank of the river, and only some twelve or fifteen miles distance from the frontier itself. This extends from Beauharnais to Hungry bay, and is called the Beauharnais canal. The next, the Cornwall canal, extends from Cornwall to Dickenson's landing, to avoid the Long Sault. Beyond this are short detached canals at Farrand's Point, the Platte, Iroquois, and Galops rapids. After these the navigation is clear through the Thousand Islands into Lake Ontario. The tall, wide, three-storied river steamers which ply between Ontario and Montreal go up these canals every day; and up these canals, too, the gunboats, sloops, and corvettes must pass to protect the shores and trade of Western Canada. They may do so with ease, since all the locks in these canals are built to pass vessels one hundred and eighty-six feet long, forty-four and a half feet beam, and nine feet draught.

"On this important point we can speak with certainty, as we have an official engineer's plan, with the dimensions of the locks and canals, before us. All our smaller twentyone-gun frigates, such as the Pylades, Rattlesnake, Barrosa, Satellite, &c., could, we think, with perfect case pass up these locks, if lightened of their heavy stores and armaments, which could, of course, be taken up with them on timber rafts, or flat-bottomed country boats. Once on the waters of Lake Ontario, all our difficulties would be at an end, for at the western extremity of Lake Ontario is the Welland canal, connecting Port Dalhousie, on Lake Ontario, with Port Colborne, on Lake Erie. The length of this canal is about thirty-five miles, and it passes entirely through British territory. The lock-gates on this are capable of passing vessels of one hundred and forty-two feet long, twenty-six feet beam, and ten feet draught, an ample accommodation for the heavy-armed six-gun screw dispatch gunboat vessels like the Flying Fish, or even for the heavyarmed eleven gun sloops of the class to which the Rapid, Petrel, and Rosario belong. From Lake Erie the River St. Clair leads direct between Detroit, on the American side, and Chatham, on the Canadian side, into Lake Michigan. Across Lake St. Clair and down the St. Clair river two thirds of the corn and provision traffic between the States of the far West and the Atlantic seaboard is carried on, and one or two corvettes on Lake St. Clair would be sufficient to stop it all. The Grand Trunk railway has a line to the settlement of Sarnia, on Lake Huron, around the shores of which grows any quantity of the finest timber. If shipwrights were employed to build a few gunboats at this place, (their machinery and armaments could be forwarded by rail,) they could steam at once, by a passage as wide as the straits of Dover, into Lake Michigan, and find not only the enormous traffic of this great lake, but even such towns as Chicago and Milwaukee, entirely at their mercy. It may be said, perhaps, that in case of war it is

equally open to the Federalists to do all this as to ourselves, but this is not so. Undoubtedly, if we built gunboats on Lake Huron, the Federals could build others to check them on Lakes Michigan and Superior quite as fast. But it is equally certain that they cannot possibly build steam frigates and corvettes on Lakes Erie and Ontario as fast as we can send them up through the canals we have mentioned ready built, manned, and equipped. There is, moreover, only one practicable means of communication between Ontario and Erie, which is through the Welland canal we have spoken of, held by the British. As soon as the ice breaks, therefore, if the war goes on, we may expect to find these lakes covered with cruisers, and each Federal port on them as closely blockaded as Boston and New York.

"It must not be supposed, however, that the Federals will quietly acquiesce in our supremacy. In the time that would intervene between the declaration of war and the thawing of the canals on the St. Lawrence, the Federals would be masters of the situation, and would be certain to fit out something like the mosquito fleet that swarmed over the West India station when the sensation' as to the slaver right of search ran high. Such vessels, however ridiculous when opposed to steam frigates, would be very formidable when there was nothing to resist them, and we cannot meet them in the lakes before next April. Kingston, with its Fort Henry and some still more formidable batteries, à fleur d'eau, can take care of itself, and a couple of guns on the long spit of land which shuts in the splendid harbor of Hamilton would well shield that fine town. But Whitby, Coburg, Belville, even Toronto itself, might be laid in ashes by a couple of ferry-boats carrying long-range guns, if immediate steps are not taken to defend them with earthworks when it is first seen that war is inevitable. However, as the Canadian government have direct telegraphic communication with Lord Lyons at Washington, we inay trust they are not likely to be taken by surprise on this point.

"But there are other means of carrying the war into the enemy's territory besides by the Welland and St. Lawrence canals. Lake Ontario can be reached from Montreal by the Ottawa and Rideau canal. This is the longest in Canada or America, about one hundred and twenty miles in length, running from Ottawa to Kingston. The locks on this accomodate vessels of one hundred feet length, nineteen feet beam, and five and a half feet draught, so that by this route our gunboats might gain Ontario and Erie, while the corvettes and short frigates came up by the St. Lawrence. At Sorel, also, about twenty miles below Montreal, is a river which leads through the St. Ours lock and through the Chambly canal direct on to the head of Lake Champlain. The locks on this canal admit ships of one hundred and thirteen feet length, twenty-two and a half feet beam, and six and a half feet draught-so that by this route also any number of gunboats might be sent into Lake Champlain, on the waters of which there is not a single vesse! larger than a steam ferry, and on the shores of which are large, rich, and utterly unprotected towns, such as Burlington, New Haven, &c. All these canals are British property, on British soil, and held by the Canadian government as the keys which give access to our ships to the most distant provinces of the West. In our previous notice of the military reënforcements for Canada we omitted, in speaking of the high efficiency of the military train, to mention the name of Colonel McMurdo, to whom, as having been intrusted with its organization from the commencement until very recently, so much praise is most justly due."

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, there are two additional topics which the Senator from Ohio has introduced into the discussion on which I wish to make a single remark, not by way of argument, not even to express any difference from that Senator. He has called attention to the recent order of General Dix, and has averred that it is supported by the eminent authority of Mr. Phillimore, the latest English writer on the law of nations. The words of Mr. Phillimore have been quoted in the Canadian press and also in They some of the newspapers of our country. do seem to sanction the order of General Dix. But perhaps the Senator from Ohio has not had his attention called to another authority of our own country which is in a different sense. refer to the recent work of General Halleck on the law of nations, which, take it all in all, is perhaps the best practical manual on that subIf Senators refer to that, they will ject extant. see that this writer, after quoting the very words of Mr. Phillimore, takes exception to them as too broad, and doubts whether any enterprise in pursuance of that authority would be sustained by the law of nations. In short, he says that anything done in that sense would be an act of war.

Now, sir, I do not intend myself on this occasion to express any opinion on that question. There is no occasion for it.

Mr. HOWARD. Will my honorable friend from Massachusetts have the goodness, if the book of General Halleck is at hand, to read the passage to which he refers? It is certainly a very important principle that General Halleck an

nounces.

Mr. SUMNER. The Senator knows very well that the debate has come up to-day accidentally; I have not the book of General Halleck here. I dare say it is in the Congressional Library, and I can have it within a reasonable time, and I shall

[ocr errors]

have great pleasure in calling the attention of the Senator to the passage and section on this subject. Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator from Massachusetts pardon me for asking if General Halleck cites any authority for the opinion?

Mr. SUMNER. I think he does not; I think he goes into a criticism of the English authority. Mr. JOHNSON. He is clearly wrong.

Mr. SUMNER. As I say, I do not wish now to be drawn into any opinion on the question; I merely call attention to the difference of opinion among important authorities, and I show that while the Englishman would seem to sustain General Dix, the American authority does not sustain him; that is all.

There is one other topic to which the Senator from Ohio referred, and that is the naval forces on the lakes. He is aware that the " arrangement" on that subject is anomalous, abnormal in its character; that it does not appear to have ever received the sanction of the Senate; that in the statute-book it is only printed in small type; it is a small type arrangement; that it does seem to have been proclaimed at the time by the President; but the origin, and history, and character of that arrangement are still subjects of doubt. It was on this account that only the other day I introduced a resolution into the Senate calling for all information on the files of the Department of State with reference to that anomalous paper, as it may be characterized. When that information is received, the Senate will then have the proper information to proceed, as they should, to annul it. I have no doubt that they will act promptly as soon as ever they are in a condition to act at all.

Mr. GRIMES. There is one subject that has been introduced into this debate to which I de

lakes we have ten tons of shipping where the
British have one; we own nearly all the steam-
boats that ply there, and we shall continue to
own them so long as we maintain our present navi-
gation laws, giving to our own people the power
to transport the traffic of that country. All you
want, whenever difficulties shall occur between us
and Great Britain, is to have armaments which you
can immediately throw on board these vessels.
Take possession of the mouth of the Welland
canal, and what power will the British have?
Where the necessity, therefore, of deciding in ad-
vance that we must go and build fortifications at
the mouth of every river, or near every harbor on
the whole upper lakes?

Mr. President, the true way to settle this whole
thing is to repeal the reciprocity treaty. Great
Britain is not going to fight for Canada. Canada
was an apple ripe and ready to drop into our
hands when the reciprocity treaty was agreed to.
It was consummated through the instrumentality
of the men who are now in rebellion against this
Government, with a little aid that was furnished
to them by the people of the North. Repeal the
reciprocity trealy and you will find that in less
than twenty-four months the people of the Cana-
das and of the British provinces generally to the
north and northeast of us will be clamorous to
come back to us. I trust that the Committee on
Foreign Relations will direct their attention spe-
cially to that branch of the subject that is com-
mitted to them.

Mr. SUMNER. The committee meet to-morrow expressly to consider that.

Mr. GRIMES. I am glad to hear it, and I hope we shall have speedy action on that matter. Sir, the newspapers tell us that there is a panic in Canada. I have no doubt of it. It does not

sire to direct the special attention of the Commit-proceed from any fear that they have of war; it
tee on Foreign Relations when this question shall
be referred to them, and that is as to the truth of
the allegations set forth in the editorial of the
London Times. In the language which has been
quoted by the Senator from Ohio, the article says:
"But it is equally certain that they [the United States] can-
not possibly build steam frigates and corvettes on Lakes
Erie and Ontario as fast as we can send them up through
the canals we have mentioned, ready built, manned, and
equipped."

Now, I assert that Great Britain has not got a corvette, or a sloop, or any steam vessel of war that has the capacity to go through the canals into the upper lakes.

Mr. SHERMAN. If my friend from Iowa will allow me to read an extract from that same editorial he will find that it gives information on that very point. It speaks of the Welland canal connecting Lakes Erie and Ontario, which is the smallest of the canals, and says of it:

"The length of this canal is about thirty-five miles, and it passes entirely through British territory. The lock gates on this are capable of passing vessels of one hundred and forty-two feet long, twenty-six feet beam, and ten feet draught an ample accommodation for the heavy-armed six-gun screw dispatch gunboat vessels like the Flying Fish, or even for the heavy-armed eleven-gun sloops of the class to which the Rapid, Petrel, and Rosario belong."

Thus the writer gives the size of the locks of the canal and designates the class of vessels that can pass through those locks, and quite a number of vessels are named as those that could go through into the upper lakes.

Mr. GRIMES. Then the writer goes on and speaks about the capacity of the British to send through frigates and corvettes. Everybody knows that they cannot send those through; and everybody who is familiar with the British navy knows that the class of gunboats they built during the Crimean war and which had capacity to go through these canals, have now been entirely broken up and destroyed. I remember having had my attention called to this matter when the project of building a ship canal from the Atlantic to the Mississippi was under consideration, and it was urged in the section of the country in which I reside that it was necessary that we should expend millions of dollars to build a ship canal in order that we might have in that a counterpoise for the power which Great Britain had in her canals; and my attention having been thus directed to it, I satisfied my own mind that Great Britain had not the power to molest us in this way.

The true mode, Mr. President, to defend ourselves on the northern frontier and on the lakes is to have arsenals and armories there. On the

proceeds from the fear that they have of their
pockets. The moment you repeal the reciprocity
treaty, that moment the stock of every railroad
in all Canada will become utterly worthless; every
man of wealth and means there will become bank-
rupt. It is caused by the fear they have of the
repeal of that treaty which gives them the carry-
ing trade of the produce from the West, and gives
them the power to compete with us in the eastern
markets, which is very much to our injury.

Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, before this prop-
osition goes to any committee, I want to avail
myself of the occasion to make two, possibly
three remarks, if I do not forget the third.

an avenue open, you will not have to keep useless fortifications or useless fleets there.

The third remark I wish to make is that I do not believe with the Senator from Iowa [Mr. GRIMES] that the repeal of the reciprocity treaty will afford ample protection either to the States adjacent to the great lakes or to any other portion of the country. If it is to be conceded that the repeal of the reciprocity treaty must be had, if that is a foregone conclusion, which I shall regret very much to know as a single individual, I trust no one will be persuaded either by the Senator from lows, or in any other way, to rest with the repeal of that treaty. I think other measures will be just as necessary for our protection after that is repealed as before. The repeal of a treaty. which it is said has proved beneficial to these provinces, our neighbors, I do not think will make them any more friendly to us. If I believed that that treaty was more beneficial to them than to us I should say that of itself was a good reason for the repeal of the treaty; but the repeal of the treaty is no reason why these other measures of defense should not be prosecuted.

Mr. HALE. I rise, Mr. President, to say a word in regard to a matter which has incidentally been brought in. I entirely agree with the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Howe] in regard to the reciprocity treaty, and I wish to make one or two suggestions to the Senate on that subject. I think that at the last session an attempt was made very perseveringly, and I may say obstinately, to repeal the fishing bounties. It was resisted in this body, and successfully resisted, on the ground that those bounties were necessary in order to encourage the fisheries as a school for seamen. Now, sir, the reciprocity treaty encourages the fisheries of our northeastern States ten times what all your fishing bounties do, and I hope that the representatives in the Senate from those States will see what it is before they consent to its repeal. The very first article in the treaty, and one of the most important, is in these words:

"It is agreed by the high contracting parties that, in addition to the liberties secured to the United States fishermen by the above-mentioned convention of October 20, 1818, of taking, curing, and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North American colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in common with the subjects ofher Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind, except shell-fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbors, and creeks of Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward's Island, and of the several islands thereunto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the shore, with permission to land upon the coacts and shores of those colonies and the islands thereof, and also upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish."

This is one of the most important privileges ever secured to the fishing interest of this country, and the Senator from Maine before me [Mr. FARWELL] knows it as well as I do. I was recently in the office of the American consul at Halifax, and I think I speak within bounds when I say that of the American captains who called there for the purpose of exhibiting their manifests and making their entries, more than nineteen twentieths of all the commerce that was thus officially

The first is that I am glad at last to see attention called, for some reason or by any means, to the defenseless condition of our northern lakes. It is said that there is a panic in Canada. I hope there is no panic here to prevent our considering the subject coolly and calmly, and with a tolerable share of wisdom. When the first fortification bill that ever I heard considered in the Senate was under consideration here, in the winter of 1862, I then took occasion to call the attention of the Senate to the very condition of things which we hear spoken of to-day, and I then called the attention of the Senate to the very article which the Senator from Ohio has read this morning. It seemed to be then the general opin-registered at the office of the American consul at ion of the Senate and of the country that the Northwest was all oak, and could stand alone, and therefore no provision whatever was made for our protection or our defense. It seems to be now admitted that a hostile fleet thrown in on those lakes could operate disastrously on other portions of the country than the Northwest itself; and it is of national importance, it seems to be conceded this morning, that there should be some protection to that section of the country. That is all I have to say upon that head.

The next suggestion I want to make is by way of reminder to the Senate that for the last two years you have had almost the whole country here knocking at the doors of the Legislature and begging you to make an appropriation (and I believe they have never asked for more than one third of the appropriation which is contemplated by this bill) in order to provide an avenue through which you can throw gunboats from the Hudson river into the lakes as readily and as promptly as they can be thrown by way of the St. Lawrence canals. Those calls have not been heeded. My deliberate judgment is that that is the cheapest mode of defending the northern lakes and the countries adjacent thereto. When you have such

Halifax consisted of fish. It is a very important item, and it was an item that was placed first in consideration in the treaty.

Again, sir, another provision should be borne in mind in view of the present high price of coal,. which is an article of prime necessity for the people of this country, and especially for the poor people. That article, under this treaty, comes into the United States free of duty; and anybody who is acquainted with the necessity that humanity itself demands in the matter of fuel in the cities and on the northeastern coast will be slow, I think, before consenting to repeal a treaty which has so beneficent a provision in it as that which allows coal to come in free of duty. This treaty gives us coal, and gives our fishermen a privilege which they never had before, and I should look upon it as one of the most unwise measures this nation could possibly adopt, if we were to repeal the reciprocity treaty for the purpose of inflicting any injury upon the British colonies. The fact is we shall injure ourselves ten times more than we shall the inhabitants of those provinces by repealing the reciprocity treaty. I hope that whatever else we may do, we shall not, in any fancied feeling of wrong that we have suffered at the hands

of those colonies, undertake to repeal so beneficent a measure for ourselves as is the reciprocity treaty. It may in some cases, in some localities, and in regard to some interests, have operated disadvantageously; I do not doubt that it has, because that seems to be the judgment of some gentlemen; but in a great national point of view, and particularly with reference to that great national consideration, the nurture of seamen, the privilege that this treaty gives to the fishermen of the United States of fishing within three miles of the British coasts and going upon British territory to cure their fish, is a privilege that I think Massachusetts and Maine will deliberate a very long time before they will consent to give up.

Now, Mr. President, while I am up I want to say another word in regard to the matter of this bill. I do not care much to what committee it may be referred, but I do hope that the Senate will consider, and consider maturely, the condition of things; and that because we are smarting under the unjust decision of a British magistrate in a matter in regard to which the public mind has been exceedingly excited, we will not, under a temporary irritation for this cause, enter upon a system of hasty legislation, one that will be calculated to excite rather than to allay the animosities of these contiguous peoples.

Sir, I believe to-day that the sentiment of the authorities in the British provinces is for discharging their duty in regard to this country. I know that in some parts of the provinces the feeling among the people is different; and I can explain something of what makes it so. Go into Halifax, for instance, which is the great depot for blockade runners at the present time, where they load their vessels to go to Bermuda and Nassau, and then take the chance of running them into Wilmington. At Halifax they get their supplies of groceries, meat, and everything of that sort. The consequence has been to raise the market price of those articles in the British ports; and those who deal in them, and find the prices of them raised, necessarily have their sympathies and their feelings enlisted on the side that puts money in their pockets, more than on the other side. But that there is any settled feeling of hostility to this country among those who control the provincial governments, or control public sentiment there, 1 do not believe,

I regret as much as anybody the things that have occurred; I feel as indignant as anybody, and I have felt so for a long time; but I think the time has gone by for us to get angry without reason. The time was when we could have got mad with grace and dignity, and it was when the insolent demand was made by Great Britain upon

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

The whole matter was that Great Britain had practiced upon one interpretation of national law when her cruisers took her alleged subjects out of our vessels, and when our vessels undertook to apply the same rule, to take men that owed allegiance to this country and were in rebellion against it out of her vessels, she assumed another and a totally different policy, and the Senator from Massachusetts construed that as an abandonment of the piratical doctrine that she had lived upon for so many years before. He will excuse me (for nobody has more respect for him than I have) when I say that that is an answer to his whole speech, beautiful as it was, though it may be presumptuous for me to suppose that an off-hand utterance of mine can answer so elaborate an argument as that; but it is there, sir. We ought to have resisted that, and we ought to have resisted it the more for the insolent and the threat

ening manner in which it was made. If we had stood up then we should have had the sympa thies of the civilized world with us, because we should have then said "we will not submit to have a rule one way for you and another way for

us.

[ocr errors]

Mr. President, let no man say anything lightly that will have a tendency to provoke a war between these two great countries; let no man and no body of men do anything lightly that shall have a tendency to disturb the relations of peace between this country and Great Britain. I should look upon it as one of the greatest calamities that could befall the civilized world. But, sir, we are now at war, we are in the desperate contingencies of national life or death, and I say that if national life cannot be preserved with national honor, then come national death; the loss of national honor can never be retrieved. I say, therefore, we should not hastily, even by any words of debate, say anything which shall have a tendency to excite such a feeling and to provoke such a result.

Mr. President, I believe that by wise counsels, and by prudent and by firm counsels, we can do everything that the emergencies of the time require. I rejoice to notice in the papers which have come to hand since the order of General Dix was made, and before the order of the President countermanding it, that the tone of the leading presses in the provinces, in Canada especially, was one of justification of General Dix's order. They did not feel that it was an infringement upon the dignity or the power of Great Britain, but, so far as I have seen, and I have seen numbers of them, the tone of the press in the Canadas was almost universal in sustaining_the_position which General Dix had taken. The President thought differently, and I am content with that.

But, sir, while we would do nothing rashly, and while I would counsel nothing rashly, I would counsel firmness; and i confess I regret (though upon the whole I agree with the general tenor of the letter) that our minister at Brazil, in the communication which he made touching the seizure of the vessel Florida by our cruiser, admits so boldly and so baldly as he does that we had submitted to wrong and insolence from Great Britain because we were not in a situation to resent it. It may possibly be true; but if it be true, it should have been kept in the most secret recesses of the patriotic heart, and never should have been uttered until we were in a situation to enforce that which we believed to be our right.

Now, Mr. President, I have said thus much because I have totally disagreed with those who would repeal this reciprocity treaty. I think it is a great measure of good, not only to the comfort but to the military ability and to the naval force of the country. Now, when everybody feels

us, in an insolent manner, for the surrender of Mason and Slidell. Then we could have stood before heaven and earth, and we ought to have stood there. That was my opinion then, it is my opinion now. Great Britain demanded the surrender of Mason and Slidell, and in the same breath in which she made the demand she sent her troops in a threatening aspect into her provinces here, ready to back up by force of arms the demand which she had made. My honorable friend from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] made on that occasion, as he always makes, a very able speech on that subject; and it was my intention, in my poor way and with such feeble suggestions as I could make, to suggest the fallacy and the infirmity of the argument which he submitted to the Senate. But, sir, I did not want, even by implication, to do anything which should add fuel to the flames that seemed to be threatening a general conflagration. Let me tell the Senator here now, however, though I have not read his speech, I am sorry to say, since it was deliv-aggrieved, when everybody feels that we have ered, that Great Britain had been in the habit of doing the very same thing year after year and year after year. She had met American vessels sailing under the American flag, and claimed the right to stop them and to take anybody that the captain of the British cruiser judged to be an English subject from under the protection of our flag and transfer him to theirs. The Senator says is true," that is. what they had done. The infirmity of his argument was this, that when Great Britain came to have that very same thing practiced on her, then she would not submit; then it was another bull that had gored the ox, and she was prepared to examine the question, and if, and if, and if, and so on. Now, sir, what was it?

"that

been treated by the subordinates of the Canadian government as no independent nation should submit to be treated, I hope that in such an hour and such a time as this, while we take counsel of that patriotic indignation which burns in every American breast at this great outrage, we will still take counsel of prudence, as well as firmness. I believe that this feeling of indignation at the treatment we have received from Canada, although unofficial, is not confined to this country; I believe it is the universal expression of the public mind of the best classes and of the leading classes in the Canadas; and I hope, to say the least, that this Government, or the Senate, or any official of this Government, will not commit itself to any

action until we have heard from the imperial Government and seen what they say on the other side of the water in regard to the wrongs that have been inflicted upon us. Let us not do what our minister at Brazil complains that Great Britain did. He complains that when the rebellion broke out, before our minister had been received, before there had been an opportunity to say a word from this Government in regard to the state of things, in hot haste, as soon as the war commenced, Great Britain acknowledged the rebels as belligerents. Well, sir, it was a great wrong, it was a great outrage; but let us not do what amounts to the same thing in a similar case. Let us not put ourselves in any position that can be construed as offensive to Great Britain, until we know how Great Britain herself looks upon the transaction of which we complain.

Mr. FARWELL. I did not propose to take any part in this discussion; but as the Senator from New Hampshire has called upon me, I will state for the information of that Senator and of the Senate that my impression is that the fishermen of New England would be very well content to have the reciprocity treaty repealed. To be sure, the reciprocity treaty gives them some priv ileges which were denied them under former treaties; for instance, the privilege of fishing within three miles of the coast of the provinces; but, upon the other hand, the duty on salt which our fishermen have to pay is at this time very heavy. Salt costs on board fishing vessels this year one dollar a bushel. Then they are obliged to go on the coast of the provinces to get their fares of fish, with considerable loss of time and expense. The provincial fishermen put their salt on board at about one third the cost of ours; they go out from their own harbors right upon the coast and catch their fares of fish; they bring them duty free into our market to compete with our fishermen. Therefore I think that our fishermen would be the last men to complain of the repeal of the reciprocity treaty.

I was content with the reference of this question to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and I wish to say here that I have great admiration for the manner in which the foreign relations of this country have been managed, both by the executive department and by the two Houses of Congress. If by any forbearance short of the loss of national honor we can prevent at this time any collision or any complication of our affairs with foreign countries, it is not good policy to bring about any such collision or complication.

This discussion has taken a wide range, and I propose now to allude to one or two things which have occurred here without any remark from me. A resolution of inquiry was presented last week in regard to making a list of vessels destroyed by the pirates which have been fitted out from England, and calling upon England to pay us for those vessels. The people of my State are very much interested in that subject. We have had a good many vessels destroyed by these pirates, and I hope the time will come when England will pay every dollar of the value of our vessels destroyed; but I would not advise the making of a claim directly on England for the payment of those vessels at the present time. If the Government should collect the money, to whom would it be paid? To whom does it belong? As a general thing the vessels that have been destroyed were insured. The insurance companies have paid for them.

The insurance companies have collected the money in the shape of war premiums from the whole commerce of the country. It is, therefore, a loss to the commerce of the country, and not to the men who have individually lost the vessels or to the insurance companies which have paid for them; but there may be cases of individual hardship, where Congress may think proper to grant relief. I hope to see this money collected in another way. I have noticed a movement in the other House for the repeal of that clause of the Constitution which prohibits the laying of an export duty, and I hope the prohibition may be repealed. More than forty years ago cotton was proclaimed king in this country, and it was king; but now, like another king that we read of, it is driven out to eat grass for a season. But, sir, it will be king again, it will be crowned again as king, and this country is to rule the king that will rule the world; and, sir, when this vast southern country shall be opened, and when free labor shall

go down and occupy it, when cotton can be produced for eight or nine cents a pound, and laid down in our harbors ready for export, then it will be for the interest of the men who raise the cotton, and the interest of this whole country, to put an export duty of at least five cents a pound upon cotton. Then, sir, instead of England controlling the market for cotton by taking the great bulk of the crop, the manufacturing interest both North and South will spring up, and at least half the crop will be manufactured at home, and the price will not be exclusively in the control of British merchants and British manufacturers, where with cheap money they hoard up their millions of bales and hold them in order to govern the price. Sir, I trust that all our vessels which have been destroyed will be paid for, together with a large amount of the interest of our debt, by an export duty upon cotton.

But, sir, if there shall be war between England and this country, it will be a war upon the ocean, and I wish here to say one word to Senators upon this topic. The legislation of the last two years has been extremely cruel to our commerce. Hemp, iron, copper, everything that goes into the construction of ships is highly taxed, and then there is a special tax laid upon the construction, a tonnage duty laid every time a vessel comes into port; and further, Congress has required every man who owns a ship which has been once measured and registered by the Government to go on at a large expense and have her remeasured for the pleasuse of the Government, or for their accommodation, or for some other purpose, unasked for by the commercial men of the country. The result has been, with the war premiums which we are obliged to pay not only on the hull but practically upon every cargo carried, for no merchant will ship his goods in an American bottom unless he gets the freight enough cheaper to cover the extra war premium on the cargo-the result practically is that we are unfitting ourselves for a war with England; we are driving commerce from the country; our shipping is being sold every day to foreigners, and what is not being sold is being denationalized by a transfer to a foreigner and a foreign flag hoisted over it.

Senators will see by looking at the report of the Secretary of the Navy that we have now fifty one thousand sailors in our Navy, and I think there can be but very few more than that now engaged in the commercial marine of the country. Nearly half of all the sailors are taken from the commercial marine and transferred to the Navy. Then, besides all the other obstacles in the way of the commercial marine of the country, is the great advance in wages caused by the high bounties and the large inducements offered for men to go into the Navy. I trust that the committee who are to have this subject under consideration will as far as possible endeavor to relieve the commerce of the country from all charges which are not paid by foreigners with whom we have to compete. I

would, however, assure our friends at the West //

that they need not be alarmed in the event of a rupture with England. At the first speck of war, with our superior land force to any she can put on foot on this continent, we should take possession of the ingress to the lakes, and with our commercial marine, our steamers so easily converted into war vessels, we should have entire control of the lakes.

Mr. SUMNER. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. HOWARD] asked me to read to the Senate the important words of General Halleck to which I referred in debate. I told him that I had not the book then with me. Since then I have sent to the Congressional Library, and I now have it before me. I do not wish to trespass upon the time of the Senate, but perhaps it would not be uninteresting to Senators to hear the precise statement of this learned authority on the question which is now one of practical interest to the whole country. General Halleck begins on page 94 by citing the words of Mr. Phillimore, the English authority, as follows:

"A rebellion, or a civil commotion, it may happen, agi tates a nation; while the authorities are engaged in repressing it, bands of rebels pass the frontier, shelter themselves under the protection of the conterminous State, and from thence, with restored strength and fresh appilances, renew their invasions upon the State from which they have escaped. The invaded State remonstrates. The remonstrance, whether from favor to the rebels, or feebleness of the Executive, is unheeded, or, at least. the evil complained of remains unredressed. In this state of things

the invaded State is warranted by international law in cross-
ing the frontier, and in taking the necessary means for her
safety, whether these be the capture or dispersion of the
rebels, or the destruction of their stronghold, as the exi-
gencies of the case may fairly require.”

These are the words of the English authority,
already referred to by the Senator from Ohio,
quoted by General Halleck. He then proceeds:

"This is certainly a very extraordinary pretension; let us examine the reasons by which it has been attempted to sustain this right of extra-territorial jurisdiction. (Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 1, § 213; Phillimore, letter to Lord Ashburton, p. 27, et seq.)

"Mr. Phillimore has himself pointed out what he conceives to be the principle of international law, from which he derives this pretended right of one State to transgress the borders of its neighbor's territory in time of peace, not as an act of hostility, but as a kind of pacifico-belligerent right of territorial violability; pacific with respect to the State whose territory is invaded, and belligerent with respect to the particular powers and places attacked or destroyed."

He then proceeds to quote some other words from Mr. Phillimore, and goes on as follows:

"The defect of Mr. Phillimore's argument consists in
the assumption of a false principle for its basis, and his
erroneous premises necessarily lead him to an erroneous
conclusion. There can be no conflict of rights, stricti juris,
between States in time of peace. No such principle is
admitted in the code of public international law. It is a
maxim of that law that every right is followed by corre-
sponding duties and obligations. If, therefore, one State has
a right to violate the territory of a neighbor in time of peace,
for what it sees fit to consider the purposes of self-defense,
that neighbor is bound to permit its territory to be so vio-
lated as often as the other party may conceive that the
necessity exists. But it is an established principle that
every sovereign State has a right to protect the inviolability
of its territory, and that any invasion of it is an act of hos-
tility which may be repelled by force. So, the other party
may also enforce, with arms, if need be, its own right of
territorial transgression, incident to its paramount right of
self-defense! Here, then, we have force repelling force

in the pacific exercise of established public international
rights! This is the legitimate and necessary consequence
of Mr. Phillimore's argument. Its defects are too mani-
fest to require any extended discussion. (Webster, Off.
and Dip. Papers, pp. 104-120, 140-222; Phillimore on Int.
Law, vol. 1, §§213,218; Wildinan, Int. Law, vol. 1, ch. 2.)”

But the author does not consider us without a
remedy. He proceeds:

"But it may be asked, shall the State, which is suffering from the piratical incursions organized in and emanating from a neighboring State, do nothing in self-defense and for self-preservation? Must she wait till the invading force crosses her own borders before she can attack or destroy it? Not at all. If the neighboring State, from the want either of the will or of the ability, neglects to prevent such excursions, or to suppress such organizations, the threatened State may cross the frontier and attack or destroy the threatened danger. But the act is one of hostility, and she performis it in the exercise of her belligerent rights, not in the exercise of a pacific right of self-defense. It is not necessary that such act should be preceded by a declaration of war, nor, indeed, that it should be followed by a public and solemn war in form; nevertheless, it is a belligerent act, justifiable, perhaps, by the circumstances of the case and the culpable neglect of the other party, and, as such, belongs to that class of hostile operations known in international jurisprudence as imperfect war, and which will be more particularly discussed in another chapter. (Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 2, ch. 1, §13; Grotius, de jur. Bel. ac Pac., lib. 1, cap. 3, § 1; Burlamaqui, Droit de la Nat., &c., tome 5, pt. 4, ch. 3; Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 2, ch. 6, 72.)"

My object is simply to call attention to the words of this learned writer, without myself expressing any opinion upon the point in question.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as I supposed the fact to be, from recollection, no authority is cited by Halleck in support of his criticism on Phillimore. And, in truth, it will be seen that he differs with Phillimore as to the character of the right rather than as to the right itself, as to its proper designation rather than its existence. Phillimore considers it as a peaceful remedy, a peaceful right, of which the Government whose territory is invaded cannot justly complain. General Halleck considers it a belligerent right, and if it be a belligerent right it cannot be a just subject of complaint. Whether, therefore, it be called a belligerent right or a peaceful right is perfectly immaterial. All that I maintained, and all that General Dix evidently thought when he issued his order, was that there existed a right in the United States to take the course which he directed his officers to take.

A word in relation to what fell from the honor

able member from New Hampshire, [Mr. HALE.]||
It is very desirable, of course, that while we are de-
termined to exact justice of all nations, we should
see that we are not doing injustice ourselves in the
particular of which we may complain. The honor-
able member says that our Government was wrong
in surrendering Slidell and Mason. Perhaps the
general sentiment of the people of the United States,

at that time was in accordance with that opinion. He supposes that the surrender was not justified; that England had no right to demand it, because she had been, before our war with her of 1812, in the habit of taking from the protection of our own flag those whom she claimed to owe allegiance to her. It is true that she made such a claim and acted upon it, but we never admitted it; on the contrary, from the first we denied it, and finally we went to war because of it; and although the asserted right was not formally surrendered by her at the termination of that war, yet in point of fact she has never since exercised it. It is indeed as effectually extinguished as if it had been expressly renounced, and I think the honorable member will find, if he will read the correspondence that passed between England and the United States in relation to her once asserted right, that the fixed opinion of the American people and Government was that such right was entirely without foundation.

A word more. It has been over and over again asserted by the press, and by many of our public men, that England did us great wrong in recognizing the confederate government at all as an existing government, and as such entitled to belligerent rights; that she did this too speedily. Now, we should remember that the doctrine is perfectly well settled with us that in the case of a civil revolution, if the revolting people are presented before the world as having a government in fact, and evincing a determination to maintain it intact, and apparently an ability to maintain it, its existence is to be admitted by all foreign nations, and all the consequent belligerent rights recognized. We did it in the case of South America. We have done it, and are now doing it, as the President tells us, if I recollect, in his message, in a much more recent instance. Maximilian put upon the throne, or attempted to be put upon the throne of Mexico by Napoleon, and a civil war waging between him and the former republic, the President tells us that he recognizes and observes strict neutrality between the two. This is precisely what England has done in our civil war, and it was done at the earliest moment, too, by us.

Now, I submit, under all the circumstances, can we justly complain that England acted too speedily? We should not forget what we have done ourselves. But what have we done in our war? This insurrection began in April, 1861. In July, 1861, the Congress of the United States by legislation recognized the existence of the war, and the Supreme Court in their decision in the prize cases at December term, 1862, relied upon that act as conclusive that the confederate government was a government de facto, and that we had the right to proceed against it by embargo, or by blockade, or in any other way known to the laws of nations, the same that we would have against a foreign nation with whom we might at any time be at And from that day to this, and indeed even before the 13th of July, 1861, when your first act was passed, we have recognized the confederate government as a government de facto, giving us for the time being every belligerent right. We have, therefore, been very quick in our own movements in following the example of Great Britain in the matter; in truth, we anticipated her, and that being the case, perhaps it would be as well for us not to complain very bitterly of what she has

war.

done.

The motion to refer the bill to the Committee on Foreign Relations was agreed to.

NOTICE OF A BILL.

Mr. WILSON gave notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce a bill to increase the num

ber of cadets in and raise the standard of admission to the Military Academy.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. GRIMES asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 358) to establish the grade of vice admiral in the United States Navy; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. HENDERSON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 359) to reimburse the State of Missouri for moneys expended for the United States; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Commmittee on Military Affairs and the Militia, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas, asked, and by unanimous consent ok tained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 360) to enable the people of Colorado 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, and referred to the Committee on Territories.

He also asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a joint resolution (S. R. No. 85) authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to issue certain bonds to the Secretary of the Interior for feeding the refugee Indians; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

Mr. HENDRICKS asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 362) to amend the third section of an act entitled "An act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1865, and for other purposes," approved July 2, 1864; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. HENDERSON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a joint resolution (S. R. No. 86) to provide against periodical rebel invasions of Missouri, and to protect the interests of the Government on the western border; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

DEPARTMENT OF ARKANSAS.

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

Resolved, That the Secretary of War be directed to transmit to the Senate, if not incompatible with the public service, the report made by Major General Herron, in compliance with orders instructing him to inspect the military department of Arkansas.

ARRESTS IN KENTUCKY.

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

Resolved, That the President be requested to communicate to the Senate all information in his possession bearing on the arrest and imprisonment of Colonel Richard J. Jacobs, Lieutenant Governor of the State of Kentucky, and Colonel Frank Woolford, one of the presidential electors of that State; particularly by whose order they were arrested and imprisoned, where they are at present confined, and what offenses are charged against them.

Mr. WILSON objected to the consideration of the resolution, and it lies over under the rules.

ADJOURNMENT FOR THE HOLIDAYS.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I move to take up the resolution which came from the House of Representatives this morning, proposing an adjournment over from Thursday next.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution of the House of Representatives:

Resolved, (the Senate concurring,) That when this House adjourns on Thursday, the 22d instant, it adjourn to meet on Thursday, January 5, 1855.

Mr. HOWE. If there be no objection, I prefer to have the resolution so amended that when the two Houses adjourn on Wednesday next, they adjourn over. ["Oh, no."] Very well, I will not move the amendment.

Mr. BROWN. I ask that the resolution be again reported.

The Secretary read the resolution.

Mr. BROWN. Cannot the resolution be so amended as to include both Houses?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Undoubtedly it is in the power of the Senate to amend it as they may choose.

Mr. SHERMAN. It has been usual at different sessions to amend it in that way. The House of Representatives usually, under the Constitution, ask leave of the Senate to adjourn themselves, and it is usual for the Senate to amend it so as to include both Houses. I move to amend the resolution so as to make it read:

That when the two Houses adjourn on Thursday, the 224 instant, they adjourn to meet on Thursday, January 5, 1865.

The amendment was agreed to, and the resolution, as amended, was concurred in.

NATIONAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY. Mr. HARLAN. I move to take up for consideration the bill (H. R. No. 517) to incorporate the National Union Insurance Company, of Washington.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is informed that that bill has not been reported from the Committee on the District of Columbia, to which it was referred.

Mr. HARLAN. I move that the committee be discharged from the further consideration of the bill.

The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill is now before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. GRIMES. This bill was passed by the House of Representatives, and referred by the Senate to our Committee on the District of Columbia at the last session, according to my recollection. By that committee it was referred to a special sub-committee, consisting of the Senator from Maine [Mr. MORRILL] and another member. I think the Senator from Maine prepared some amendments to be submitted, which he thought were necessary as checks and guards to secure the public interest and to protect the persons who might be insured. I suggest to my colleague that he let the bill lie over until the Senator from Maine returns. I know that it was the sentiment of the committee that the bill as it came from the other House was defective. It does not correspond with the best regulated charters granted in the States, and it confers some extraordinary powers on the corporators.

Mr. HARLAN. I will say to my colleague that I conversed with the Senator from Maine, to whom he refers, at the close of the last session, and at that time he was prepared to vote for the bill, and would have reported it from the committee, and asked for its consideration by the Senate, if time had allowed; but lest I may be in error now, lest since then he may have discovered something that needs amendment, I will conform to the suggestion of my colleague, and move that the bill be postponed until to-morrow.

The motion was agreed to.

DISQUALIFICATION OF COLOR.

On motion of Mr. SUMNER, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. No. 62) to remove all disqualification of color in carrying the mails, the pending question being on the amendment submitted by Mr. PoWELL to the amendment reported from the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, after the words "United States " to insert the words, "in all cases for robbing or violating the mails of the United States;" so that the amendment of

the committee will read:

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That in the courts of the United States, in all cases for robbing or violating the mails of the United States, there shall be no exclusion of any witness on account of color.

Mr. SUMNER. I propose that the amendment of the Committee be non-concurred in, as a bill on that subject has already been passed.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The first question is on the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I wish to suggest to the Senator that a proposition of that sort became a law at the last session, I think.

Mr. SUMNER. I have already stated-the Senator perhaps did not hear what I said-that the amendment of the committee is now the law of the land, and therefore I propose that the Senate non-concur in the amendment and pass the bill. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. The amendment as amended was rejected. Mr. POWELL. I should like to have the bill read as it stands.

The Secretary read it, as follows:

Be it enacted, &c., That from and after the passage of this act no person, by reason of color, shall be disqualified from employment in carrying the mails, and all acts and parts of acts establishing such disqualification, including especially the seventh section of the act of March 3, 1825, are hereby repealed.

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

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

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted--yeas 26, nays 5; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Clark, Conness, Dixon, Doolittle, Farwell, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Harlan, Harris, Henderson, Howe, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Van Winkle, Wilkinson, Willey, and Wilson-26.

NAYS-Messrs. Davis, Powell, Richardson, Riddle, and Wright-5.

ABSENT-Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Chandler, Collamer, Cowan, Hale, Harding, Hendricks, Hicks, Howard, Johnson, McDougall, Morrill, Nesmith, Saulsbury, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, and Wade-18.

So the bill was passed.

Mr. JOHNSON. Perhaps I am too late to vote. I came in for the purpose of voting.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The result had been announced before the Senator addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask leave to vote with the consent of the Senate.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. The Senator from Maryland was in the Chamber before the result was announced, and I hope he will be permitted

to vote.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will read the rule.

Mr. FOSTER, (to Mr. JOHNSON.) The rule is positive.

Mr. JOHNSON. Then I waive the motion. I understand it is against the rule.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The rule is very explicit. The Chair will read it for the information of the Senator.

"17. When the yeas and nays shall be taken upon any question, in pursuance of the above rule, no member shall be permitted, under any circumstances whatever, to vote after the decision is announced from the Chair."

Mr. JOHNSON. In point of fact I was making the motion before the result was announced. I should have voted "ay;" that is all.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It might have been possible that the Chair did not hear the Senator.

MARY SCALES ACCARDI.

Mr. FOSTER. There are on the Calendar a few private bills, mostly House bills, reported from the Committee on Pensions. They are not of great public importance, but they are of very much importance to the individuals interested, and if they can be passed before the holidays, they will make a good many hearts glad. I hope the Senate will indulge me in calling them up. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration Scales Accardi. of House bill No. 394, for the relief of Mary

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to place the name of Mary Scales Accardi, the widow of Salvador Accardi, upon the roll of widows of invalid pensioners, and that she be paid a pension, at the rate of six dollars per month, commencing with the date of the decease of her husband.

The Committee on Pensions reported the bill with an amendment to strike out the words "with the date of the decease of her husband," and to insert "July 1, 1862."

The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in and ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a third time. It was read the third time, and passed.

HARRIS WELCHI.

On motion of Mr. FOSTER, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. No. 542) to grant a pension of eight dollars per month to Harris Welch. The bill provides that Harris Welch, of Charlestown, Massachusetts, a sergeant of company B, in a New York regiment of volunteers known as the Leslie Guards, shall be entitled to a pension of eight dollars per month, to commence from the 1st day of October, 1861, and to be continued and paid to him during his life.

Mr. FOSTER. This bill has been reported adversely by the Committee on Pensions. I therefore move that it be indefinitely postponed. The motion was agreed to.

EMILY A. LYON.

On motion of Mr. FOSTER, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. No. 390) for the relief of Emily A. Lyon, which had been reported from the Committee on Pensions with an amendment, to strike out all of the original bill after the enacting clause, in the following words:

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he hereby is, authorized and directed to place the name of Emily A. Lyon, widow of Alfred M. Lyon, late a sutler in the twenty third fowa regiment of infantry, and who died in the

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »