I

Mr. WADE. I do not remember that the Senator said one word of that kind. I will not say he did not, because I did not treasure up much of what he said. I did not think it very important then, nor do I now. But enough as to that gentleman. He is the peculiar defender of the President! I fear the President will fare very hard unless he has better support, as I said before; but I care nothing about that; it is between him and the President. The President, I suppose, will stand on his own foundation and I shall endeavor to stand on mine. I have not attacked the President. Sometimes when I have thought the President was wrong, I have attacked the thing he has done that I believed to be wrong. I think the Senate of the United States has some independent duties of its own to perform. do not think that it always consists with the honor even of the President that we should be his mere servants, obeying everything that we may ascertain to be his wish and will, because he is not always wiser than the whole of us or a majority of us. I have not said he was unwise, nor have I said he was wise. I have not criticised the President at all. I have criticised some of his acts, and I have disapproved of some of them; and the Senator believes that is a violent attack upon the President which needs rebuke here! Why did he not turn to me and make that rebuke at first? He got up and made his statements and did not apply them to me until he was rebuked from higher quarters, and then he turned around and went back to his old speech and recapitulated it and said that he meant me by the old speech, and thereby sought to get rid of the new one today. That is what he was after; and he was properly rebuked for it.

What is more arrogant than for any Senator to rise on this floor and arraign the whole body as being in hostility to the President of the United States merely because a resolution of inquiry is offered? The Senator says we have no right to question the President for anything; it is an impeachment of his wisdom to do so. Why, sir, resolutions of this kind are the business of almost every morning hour. It is this peculiar "friend" of the President, one of "the king's friends,' that must rise here in opposition to it. The President is not opposed to it that ever I heard of. I suppose the President is perfectly willing-nay, I am not certain but that he is anxious, and I have understood that he is anxious-to give the Senate such information on this subject as they may ask of him. I have heard from a gentleman-as good a "friend," who ought at least to be quite as good a friend as the Senator-that the President rather desired and wished to give us the information called for by this resolution. I will not say that the fact is so, but I have been so informed. Whether it be so or not, however, the President has initiated a proceeding of the utmost consequence to the nation; he has held a conference with leading enemies of the country with regard to the great question of peace or war. Is the Senate of the United States not interested in such questions? When these tremendous issues are pending, are we to be told that the Senate of the United States has no right to look into them? The Senator seems to suppose so.

pertinent in the opinion of "the king's friend;" but, sir, the "king" himself does not consider it So. Abraham Lincoln never objected to a fair inquiry like this, nor, in my judgment, will he thank his "friend" for interposing in his behalf in a case of this kind.

Sir, I did say on a former occasion that I thought there was great impropriety in this meeting, and I have not altered my mind on that subject. I wish to God that the President had taken a different view from that by which he seems to have been actuated. I wish the President had conceived it incompatible with the high position he holds as the President of the United States to proceed to meet the emissaries of the rebel chief. I think it was a condescension not very honorable to the nation, on his part; but he has done it, and good may come of it for aught I know. He took one view of the subject and I another; but being a Senator upon this floor, I entertain my opinion as strongly and as firmly as the President does his. He may be right and I may be wrong, but there is nothing in the relation between the President and the Senate that requires me to get on my knees and humiliate myself before him, and say these great questions of public interest do not belong to me as well as to the President. I am responsible to the State of Ohio, nay, to the whole nation, as much as he is, for the way that this thing shall come out. I want to know what he is doing. We have invested him with vast powers, says the gentleman. So we have; and is it not the business of a free people, is it not the business of the Senate of the United States, to watch the President, and see how he exercises the vast powers we have conferred upon him? I know of nothing more important in our position than that, although we have the utmost confidence in the President, on these great questions we shall look into his acts; we shall call for all the facts, because we are ultimately to act upon them, as well as the President of the United States. Why should we not respectfully ask him, "Sir, if there is nothing incompatible with the public interest in telling us what you have done, let us know what it is." Is there anything more important than to know what propositions he did make to the rebels, on what terms he did agree that there should be an amnesty; what offers on our part they so arrogantly rejected? These are questions that the Senator thinks we have nothing to do with; these are questions which he thinks do not interest the Senate of the United States. He thinks this interview was a mere personal amusement of the President, with which the Senate has nothing to do, and in regard to which it is impertinent to inquire. Sir, I scout all such

ideas.

demagogism in order to provoke a controversy between me and those who are disposed to agree with me upon a certain proposition that we suppose to be right! How did he suppose that a gentleman worthy a seat upon this floor was going to be swayed by such an appeal as that?

Sir, I rejoice when on the other side of the Chamber I find gentlemen who agree with me in regard to any great question that concerns the country. I am glad we are not divided always. We have been divided, we frequently are divided in opinion, so that we have to battle sharply to maintain our different positions. I regret that always; and nothing pleases me more than when I think I am right to be confirmed in that opinion by finding that statesmen on the other side of the Chamber rise and express their agreement with me and their intention to vote in company with me. On the occasion referred to more than two thirds of the Senate voted as I did; and yet I am to be arraigned here as the enemy of the President, and the Senator says his remarks applied to nobody but me. Because I advocated a position which commanded the votes of more than two thirds of the Senate, and because the Senator from Kentucky and some other gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber agreed to a proposition which it was so manifest to everybody ought to pass, I am to be arraigned. He is particular to tell the Senate that he means the Senator from Ohio, and the attack is made on me for agreeing with a Senator on the other side! I say again, the Senator thus appeals to the low, miserable prejudices of party spirit on the floor of the Senate; and he tells us that he hurls his anathemas not at the Senate, but at the Senator from Ohio; and yet I was speaking the sentiments, if I understand the vote, of two thirds of the members of this body. I was content with the substance. My position was maintained strongly against all he could say, and I thought I might well set off the vote sustaining me against a poor, miserable, demagogical speech that anybody might make anywhere. The substantial thing was that a triumphant vote of the Senate of the United States sustained me in my position; and the Senator says he gave me a sound thrashing for holding such opinions, and that he did not mean to attack any other members of the Senate. Did not others argue the same question? Did not others give the same vote? Did not his remarks as well apply to them as to me? If I was Pilate and the Senator from Kentucky was Herod, were there not a great many Pilates and Herods on both sides of this Chamber on that same subject? The Senator from Kentucky and myself do not disagree more than the Senator from Wisconsin disagrees with a large majority of the Senate of the United States. But I am to be singled out, and old things that have slept for a year are to be brought up against me, because another Senator properly sees fit to rebuke the Senator from Wisconsin for his unprovoked attack upon the Senate itself, and he parries it by saying, "I, the the other day, attacked the Senator from Ohio; I attacked him personally; I did not speak for the Senate; I did not speak for the country; I hurled my anathemas at the Senator from Ohio, and the rest of you ought not to complain, because I did not mean you." The Senate agreed with me in my argument; but he did not mean to attack the Senate, he meant to attack the Senator from Ohio!

I should like to know what the Senator thinks the people of Wisconsin have sent him here for. Has he anything to do for them? Has he any judgment of his own to exercise upon any question? and if upon any question, what more important than that in the midst of this gigantic war, we shall know what kind of negotiations have been' entered into, what offers have been made pro and con., what are the probabilities of the result? The whole nation stands on tiptoe to ascertain. The people know that questions of the most vital interest have been pending between the President of the United States and the emissaries of the rebel chief. What offers did he make, and what offers did they reject? Can any question more import-be provoked by this uncalled-for attack of the ant than this arise before the American people, and is a Senator to be rebuked upon this floor and told that he is doing something which does not belong to him, that he is an intermeddler with the private business of the President, when he assumes to ask him in respectful language, "Sir, if the public interest is not opposed to it, please

to communicate to the Senate of the United States what passed there at that conference between you and the enemies of the country?" This is im

Senator, repeating his old speech against me, and trying to make it offensive by saying that he meant me, and me alone, or the Senator from Kentucky and myself. What a poor miserable appeal to what he supposes to be the prejudices that exist on one side and the other of this Chamber! What fine statesmanship for a "friend" of the President here, instead of undertaking to make peace and conciliation in this great council of the United States, to descend to the lowest depths of ||

Sir, in an hour like this, when the nation is engaged in a gigantic struggle with the worst enemies that the world ever saw, and we are delib

from this condition, I envy not the Senator who so far forgets his duty to the country and to the Senate itself as to rise here and make a speech of an hour and a half or two hours barely to lecture the Senator from Ohio or anybody else. Poor "friend" of the President! Miserable prop, to maintain his dignity by an attack on me! It does not make much difference to the President whether the attack succeeds or fails. The President will not care much about it either way. But that is the Senator's excuse. He made the longest, fiercest, most vindictive speech I have heard in the Senate since the rebels ran away; and now he says he meant it nearly all for me, and a little portion of it for the Senator from Kentucky, who seemed to care as little about it as I did. That Senator handled the subject so well that if I had been disposed to say anything afterward I could not have

added a word to what I believe, in the judgment of the Senate, was his triumphant vindication of himself and, I thought, incidentally of me. So I dropped it; and now I drop it again, hoping that this resolution will pass, because I believe that things transpired in that conference which the Senate of the United States ought to know. I think the President ought to tell us what propositions he made to these scoundrels, and what they rejected, that the whole country may know how we stand related to them. Did they maintain their old arrogance? Did they reject propositions that were most reasonable to be made? Or did the President fail to make any propositions or terms that ordinary men should have complied with? Are not these things matters that the Senate ought to know; and if they ought to know them, how else can they reach that knowledge, except by a resolution like this, respectful in its terms, calling on the President to disclose to us whatever transpired, that, in his judgment, it is not incompatible with the public interest to let us know? That is all there is of it; and the Senator from Wisconsin thinks that is a violent attack on the President against the peace and dignity of the country. Sir, there is nothing wrong about it.

There is nothing in it that the President would not agree to. I have made no attack on the President. I maintain this resolution without fear of any rebuke from the President of the United States or anybody else, except the Senator from Wisconsin. And, sir, I have done with him. I have marked his course a long time. I do not know why he has become so venomous toward me. I have never had anything to do with him. I have no disposition to enter into any negotiations with him on any subject whatever. I am willing here to leave him the defender of the President. Whenever I see fit to attack the President when he is wrong, I shall do it just as quick if this Cerberus stood in the way barking as though there was no opposition wliatever; it would make no difference with me.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President, this denunciation of the Senator from Ohio will not provoke my temper. I have never expressed my self as angry to the Senator from Ohio. I have spoken to the Senator from Ohio in earnestness, and I usually speak in earnestness on every subject when I address the Senate. I said in reference to the Senator from Ohio that in the language which he used in his speech he did attack the Administration and the President in the strongest terms possible to be used; but have I used any expression of anger toward the Senator from Ohio? Not at all. I have spoken of his language toward the Administration and the Executive; I have denounced the language, denounced the position, and I have done it heretofore; I shall do it hereafter, undoubtedly. When the Senator assumes that I stand here to speak as the special friend of the Executive, he is entirely mistaken. I admit that I am one among the friends of the Executive, and when I think the Executive is right in the course that he pursues, I propose to defend him against all the denunciations the Senator from Ohio can make, has ever made, or may hereafter make, when he is wrong in making them.

Now, Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio in this very speech says the President was wrong in consenting to go down to Fortress Monroe to listen to the propositions of any individuals on the subject of peace; that it was undignified and unbecoming his great presidential office which he fills to do so. The Senator the other day in the midst of his denunciatory and inflammatory speech, went on to declare to the Senate, in denunciation of that proceeding, that he desired to know, and he vowed that he would know if there was power enough in the Senate to compel the knowledge to be given, what transpired between the President and those gentlemen. Sir, when that gentleman asks and prays for peace here among the friends of the Administration is it for him to begin war on the Administration; war on its friends, denunciation of the Executive in advance, without knowing the circumstances under which he met those gentlemen, denouncing it in ignorance of all that has occurred, and declare that the power of the Senate was to be used to compel the truth of all that to be disclosed to the Senate and the country? I suppose the honorable Senator from Ohio is thinking about "running" this Administration by the committee on the conduct

of the war, assuming that instead of the President of the United States controlling the Army, granting amnesty, listening to propositions for peace, for laying down the arms of the rebels, the committee on the conduct of the war must be consulted; the Senate must exercise its power and go into all this administration and see what amnesty ought to be tendered by the President, whether pardon should be granted if their arms should be laid down, or upon what terms!

Let me say to the honorable Senator from Ohio, once for all, that I claim no more to be a supporter of the Administration than any other genileman on this floor; and I am no more a supporter of the Administration than he, in my judgment, ought to be in good faith, from the position that he holds, because I believe that the interests of this country and the interests of the Government depend upon our giving the Administration a fair, a cordial, and a united support in the great struggle through which we are passing. I do not ask the Senator from Ohio to go against his own convictions and to sustain what he does not believe; I do not ask him to do wrong, to violate his own conscience; nor do I expect to violate my own conscience, nor will I support any measure which I believe to be wrong. I claim for myself the same independence which I am willing to give to him; but what I say to the Senator from Ohio is, that he has no right to begin a denunciation in advance of the action of the Executive when he knows nothing of the facts, as he did time and again, the other day, in his speech denouncing this whole proceeding by which the President of the United States has, it is said, held these conferences with those gentlemen and listened to the proposals that they made. Why should the Senator from Ohio denounce it in advance? Why should he threaten the Executive with the whole power of the Senate to compel the disclosure of all that occurred between them? Why all these muttering threats from the Senator from Ohio in advance of his knowing what had occurred?

the Senator. If I am supposed to be guilty of all these improprieties what has he to do about it particularly? What charge has he over me?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I claim no authority over the Senator from Ohio, but the Senator from Ohio must not make war on me if he expects to have peace.

Mr. WADE. I wish barely to say that in all the things about which the Senator accuses me, I had not mentioned his name or thought of him; and why does he talk about my attack on him? He seems to consider what he calls an attack on the President as an attack on him. I have not mentioned his name, nor would I do so now but for the fact that having got into a little controversy with another Senator, he turns around and repeats his old speech and says he meant it all for me then and now. I care nothing about it. He says there may be peace or war between

us.

It will not disturb me very much whether there be peace or whether there be war. I reckon I shall always " pursue the even tenor of my way" here very much as I have done heretofore, and I doubt whether I shall think of the Senator three times during the whole session, and certainly not unless he wakes me up as he has done now when I was not dreaming of him at all, and had not for a month.

The resolution was agreed to.

POSTAL LAWS.

Mr. WILSON. I ask unanimous consent to introduce a bill with a view to reference.

Mr. COLLAMER. I object to everything until my little bill is finished.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. FOSTER.) The bill (S. No. 390) relating to the postal laws is before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. COLLAMER. In pursuance of the request of members I had the honor to go through with the bill, explaining its various provisions, until I reached the last section, the seventeenth. In 1863, Congress, on the recommendation of the

Now, sir, I come to speak to the Senator from Ohio. He says that I have no right to speak particularly of him. I think I have some right when the Senator connects me personally with the Executive in a public charge circulated all over the country, alleging that I had been in some conspiracy with the Executive to defeat the proper action of Congress upon a bill that was then pending. I tell the Senator from Ohio that I never passed one word with the President on the subject of the bill to which he referred until it had passed. I complain of that.

But the Senator says that is an old matter that has been asleep. Having expressed myself on it, if the Senator so desires, it can sleep. If the Senator thinks that upon this floor, between all parties here who claim to support the Government in this great crisis, it is our duty that we should be at peace one with another, I am ready for peace. But in order that that peace may be maintained, I insist that the Senator from Ohio shall not, in every speech that he makes on this floor, travel out of the record unnecessarily to denounce the Executive as wanting nerve, wanting blood, failing in the performance of his duty, denouncing him for this very proceeding which is called for by the resolution as undignified, not comporting with the presidential office, and threatening in advance that he will bring the power of the Senate to compel the disclosure of all that has there occurred.

Mr. WADE. I want to put one question to

him to put in operation the free-delivery system, and in order to do that it was provided that on all drop letters two cents postage should be prepaid, and with that money it was thought he would procure the free-delivery of mail matter in most of our cities and large towns. It was in consequence of that assurance that the law was passed. The present head of the Department finds, as he thinks, under the experiments made by his predecessor and himself, that the two cents which is received on drop letters does not anything like pay the expense of the system of free delivery, and therefore he cannot carry on that system in many of the cities and towns where it has been established, and he has been compelled to suspend it. He so construes the law which provided for free delivery that he cannot have a penny post to deliver letters, as formerly was the case, and the seventeenth section of this bill is to so construe that law as not to forbid that. It is so framed as to say that the act of 1863 shall receive that construction.

The committee on examining the subject were willing that where he could not sustain his freedelivery system he might have the penny post, but that in such cases he should have but one cent postage on drop letters. The additional cent was given to pay for the delivery, and if there is no free delivery we think the postage should be but one cent on drop letters. That is to say, for instance the people in Dover or Salem shall not pay two cents on their drop letters in order to enable Boston and New York to have theirs delivered free. We therefore propose in this section to amend the law by providing that the Postmaster General may set up a penny post where he does not have free delivery, in his discretion; but that in that case the postage on the drop letters shall be but one cent. It is further provided that in those cities in which there are at least fifty thousand population he shall establish the free-delivery system; meaning thereby that if it cannot be made efficient for that purpose we shall not have it at all.

There is also an additional section recommended as an amendment by the committee, beyond the seventeenth section as printed in the original bill. This new section may perhaps well claim some attention, and it may be liable to some objection. It is now proposed to be inserted in the form in which the Department recommended. I am not

perhaps entirely satisfied with it. It is said that our mails are made the vehicle for the conveyance of great numbers and quantities of obscene books and pictures, which are sent to the Army, and sent here and there and everywhere, and that it is getting to be a very great evil. This section is drawn with a view to prevent that. The first part of it provides that if such publications are in the mails the postmasters may take them out; and the latter part provides a penalty and a punishment for those who put them into the mails. The Senate may adopt the whole of this section, or the latter part of it without the first part.

Mr. JOHNSON. If they are sent in envelopes, how does the postmaster know what they are?

Mr. COLLAMER. Printed publications are always sent open at one end. It will not require the breaking of seals.

Mr. JOHNSON. You do not propose to let the postmaster break the seals?

Mr. COLLAMER. There is not a word said about "seals" in the section. If gentlemen are not satisfied with that part of it which authorizes the postmaster to throw them out, that part of the section can be stricken out; and I take it the objection would be mainly that it might be made a precedent for undertaking to give him a sort of censorship over the mails and allow him to discard matter which was not satisfactory, politically, to some party-like throwing out the abolition papers that used to be talked about. If it is thought that it may furnish a bad precedent to that extent, the first clause of the section may be stricken out, and then the amendment will merely make it penal for anybody to deposit such matter in the mails. The provision is reported as the Department wished it; but I shall be quite as well satisfied personally if the first clause is rejected.

Mr. JOHNSON. I move to strike out the first clause. The precedent is a bad one, I think.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first question is on the amendments reported by the committee.

Mr. JOHNSON. Will my motion be in order after those amendments shall have been disposed

of?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be.

Mr. COLLAMER. This section of which I have just spoken is an amendment of the committee; but there is one before it which should first be acted upon.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will read the next amendment of the committee in order.

The Secretary read the amendment, which was to strike out the thirteenth section of the bill, in the following words:

SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That nothing contained in the act entitled "An act to establish a postal money-order system," approved May 17, 1864, or in any other act, shall be so construed as to prevent deputy postmasters at moneyorder offices from depositing in the national banks designated by the Secretary of the Treasury as public depositories, to their own credit and at their risk, money-order funds in their charge, under the direction of the Postmaster General, nor to prevent their negotiating drafts, orders, or other evidences of debt through these banks, as they may be instructed and required by the Postmaster General, in order to facilitate the working of the money-order system. And in lieu thereof to insert:

And be it further enacted, That nothing contained in the act entitled "An act to establish a postal money-order system," approved May 17, 1864, or in any other act, shall be so construed as to prevent deputy postmasters at moneyorder or other offices from depositing in the national banks designated by the Secretary of the Treasury as public depositories, to their own credit as deputy postmasters, money-order or other funds in their charge, under the direction of the Postmaster General, nor to prevent their negotiating drafts, orders, or other evidences of debt through these banks, as they may be instructed and required by the Postmaster General.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was to add to the seventeenth section the following proviso:

Provided, nevertheless, and it is hereby further enacted, That the system of free delivery shall be established in every place containing a population of fifty thousand within the delivery of the office thereof, and at such other places as the Postinaster General in his judgment shall direct: And further provided, That the prepayment postage on drop letters in all places where free delivery is not established shall be one cent only.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was to add the following as an additional amendment:

And be it further enacted, That no obscene book, pamphlet, picture, print, or other publication of a vulgar and indecent character, shall be admitted into the mails of the

United States; but all such obscene publications deposited in or received at any post office, or discovered in the mails, shall be seized and destroyed, or otherwise disposed of, as the Postmaster General shall direct. And any person or persons who shall deposit or cause to be deposited in any post office or branch post office of the United States, for mailing or for delivery, an obscene book, pamphlet, picture, print, or other publication, knowing the saine to be of a vulgar and indecent character, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, being duly convicted thereof, shall, for every such offense, be fined not more than $500, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, according to the circumstances and aggravations of the offense.

Mr. JOHNSON. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the first part of it, so as to leave it merely to create an offense on the part of those who deposit in the mails these books or other publications. It seems to me—and in that I believe the chairman of the Post Office Committee, in a great measure, if not wholly, concursthat it would be establishing a very bad precedent to give authority to postmasters to take anything out of the mail. It is true that most of the printed matter that is sent is sent without being covered or sealed up; but if there is any danger of this kind those who send this species of publications will no doubt soon begin to seal them, and then the postmaster, whenever he suspects that the envelope contains anything which is obnoxious to objection, will break the seal. It does not appear to me to be at all necessary to the accomplishment of the purpose; for after the postmaster takes the material out, what is he to do with it? May he circulate it if he thinks proper? It is sufficient, as I think, to accomplish the end, which is a laudable end in itself, to make it a misdemeanor on the part of him who seeks to send through the mail matter of this description. That will be done if the first part of the section is stricken out. I move to strike out all of the section after the enacting clause down to, and including the word "and" in line seven.

Mr. SHERMAN. I would much prefer, if the Senator would be satisfied, with simply striking out the second clause of the first paragraph. I think the prohibition against publications of this character going into the mails ought to stand. We are well aware that many of these publications are sent all over the country from the city of New York with the names of the parties sending them on the backs, so that the postmasters without opening the mail matter may know that it is offensive matter, indecent and improper to be carried in the public mails. I think, therefore, the legislative prohibition against carrying such matter when it is known to the postmasters should be left. Probably the second clause allowing him to open mail matter should be struck out; and I suggest to the Senator to modify his amendment by merely moving to strike out the words "but all such obscene publications deposited in or received at any post office, or discovered in any mail, shall be seized and destroyed or otherwise disposed of, as the Postmaster General shall direct."

Mr. JOHNSON. I have no objection to that, and I so modify my amendment.

The amendment, as modified, was read.

Mr. HALE. I wish to suggest a mere verbal amendment. I think, in the third line, it would be well to say that none of them shall be delivered or admitted into the mail. This simply says they shall not be admitted.

Mr. COLLAMER. The other part goes on to make the offense of putting in such matter for mailing or delivering a misdemeanor.

Mr. HALE. Well, I do not care about it. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. The amendment, as amended, was agreed to. Mr. COLLAMER. That ends all the amendments proposed by the committee.

Mr. SHERMAN. There is one amendment, verbal in its character, which I wish to suggest. On page 5, in the fourth line of section seven, as it now stands the original section eight-the reference to the section should be stricken out, and the word "preceding" inserted, so as to make it definite. It refers now to "the seventh section of this act," but by the changes made the original seventh section is now the sixth section.

Mr. COLLAMER. It ought to be "the sixth." Mr. SHERMAN. Say "the preceding section."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That mistake will be corrected as a clerical error.

Mr. SHERMAN. 1 desire also to call the

Senator's attention to the maximum of expense allowed to special agents. In the seventh section, as it is now, the amount allowed to special agents for traveling and incidental expenses is four dollars a day, and in the preceding section it is five dollars. I think it ought to be uniform.

Mr. COLLAMER. It is five dollars a day in the Pacific States and Territories.

Mr. SHERMAN. While the present sixth section applies to the special agent on the Pacific coast, it also authorizes the appointment of " two additional special agents to superintend postal matters connected with the railway mail service of the United States," and their maximum allowance for traveling and incidental expenses is five dollars a day, while the next section fixes the allowance for all special agents at four dollars a day. I think that ought to be increased to five dollars.

Mr. COLLAMER. I have no objection. Mr. SHERMAN. I move to amend the present seventh section by striking out "four" and inserting "five."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HALE. I now propose an amendment which is of some consequence, and I want the attention of the chairman to it. I move to strike out the third section. It is the section which compels the postage on every newspaper sent through the mails to be prepaid at the place of publication. I think that will operate to the ruin of a great many country papers. It will be destructive to that interest and will operate exceedingly partially. I suppose the very large papers that circulate by fifties and hundreds of thousands, such as the New York Herald, Tribune, and World, and some of the Philadelphia papers, pay no postage, but are transmitted by express outside of the mails and are sold by newsboys. They are thus free from the burden of postage. The country papers that are sent to their subscribers go through the mails; and now, in addition to the taxes you have imposed on them for advertising and everything else, you propose to require the publisher to pay the postage in advance at the place of publication. I think the small country papers are sufficiently burdened, and that this further tax upon them will be very severe, and in many cases ruinous.

A great many of the country papers do not receive all their subscription money, or anything like it, in cash, but circulating in the country they are paid for in barter, by the country produce of the farmers who take them; and my friend from Maine [Mr. FARWELL] suggests, what I have no doubt is true, that a great many of the subscribers never pay at all. To impose on the editor the necessity of paying in advance the postage upon these papers, for many of which he never gets any pay, it seems to me would be burdensome. It is a new feature. I think that the arrangement of making the subscribers pay quarterly is well enough. If you choose, you may require them to pay quarterly in advance.

Mr. FARWELL. It is so now.

Mr. HALE. If that is properly enforced by the Post Office Department, it is enough, and this section is not necessary.

Mr. COLLAMER. The law is now that the postage on all papers that go through the mails must be paid. This section visits no new burden on anybody. Instead of having the postage paid by the quarter, at the end of the quarter, and collected at the office of delivery, it provides, in order to secure the money, that the postage shall be paid at the place where the paper is mailed. That will not make any country paper pay any more than it does now. Instead of having the postage collected from the subscribers through the postmaster, the publisher will pay the postage when he puts it in the post office, and the subscriber will pay the publisher, instead of paying the postmaster. That is all. There is nothing in the idea that this will visit any new burden on anybody. It is no new burden. It creates no new amount of postage for anybody to pay. It is only to secure the Government that we may get the money we charge for our postage, and the subscribers will pay the postage in advance to the printer, and he will pay it to the postmaster, instead of their paying it to the postmaster. They have got to pay the printer for the paper, and they may as well pay him the postage at the same time.

But the Senator says that some of the large papers that issue great editions send their papers outside of the mails. Undoubtedly they do. This section creates no new law about that. We do not tax by this law papers that do not go into the mails. Under the law now, we do not charge postage on those which do not go into the mails. do not, therefore, see that there is any new burden created. As I have already explained, i it is nothing more nor less than a provision to get the postage already provided for by collecting it in a different manner.

Mr. ANTHONY. I think that while this proposition certainly does not increase the burden, it makes it much more inconvenient. It is an inconvenience, certainly, because many of the country papers, as has already been suggested, are not paid for in money; they are paid for in barter, in country produce. It is so with many papers in the Senator's own State; and if the publisher is obliged to pay the postage in advance he will not send the paper. It is very desirable for the country that these small papers that just live should be kept alive. They are very useful in the circulation of intelligence, very useful for town and county purposes, and they are very useful in stimulating the patriotism of the country at this time, and I think this would be felt as a very considerable burden on them. It would not be of any consequence to the papers in the large cities, because most of them are distributed by news men, and those that go to individual subscribers are almost always paid for in advance. It is not so with country papers; they are not generally paid for in advance; but at the end of the time a farmer comes in with a load of wood, or a barrel of potatoes, and settles with the publisher. If this section of the bill be retained it will tend very much to curtail the circulation of small country papers.

Mr COLLAMER. It happens that I live in the country, and the gentleman lives in a city; I understand the country press. The talk of paying for papers in country produce, a practice which existed some twenty, thirty, or forty years ago, has nothing in it. There is not an article of country produce anywhere in our country now that is not cash at the door. No man is obliged to run around to try to get the printer to take his wood for the paper. He can have his dollar for his wood any day, anywhere. There is no such thing now as paying in produce for papers. No country printer could get butter for his family in that way. The system is all money. So far from being any injury to the publisher, this will be a benefit. It will be a benefit that the credit system, which is almost entirely done away with throughout our country, shall cease with printers as well as other people. This will enable the printer to say to his subscribers, "I have to prepay this postage; now you must prepay me. I do not believe it will injure them in the least. Certain it is, that as the matter is now regulated, we are losing a large amount of our postage which is not collected, and this is the only way in which we can secure its collection.

Besides, while we keep up the practice of sending printed matter through the mails without prepayment, we are obliged to keep up this great system of accounts to which I have already called attention. The accounts of the postmasters for what they collect all over the country cannot be kept in postage stamps. We have now more than twenty thousand quarterly returns; and by continuing the practice of carrying newspapers without prepayment we still keep up that system, and all that immense number of accounts must be managed and manipulated in the Department here. We never can simplify that system of accountability in the office in any other manner than by making prepayment uniform on printed matter as well as on written matter.

Mr. ANTHONY. I have no doubt that there is great force in the argument in regard to the simplification of accounts; but I think there is nothing at all in regard to postage. I think at the present price of paper the papers that are forfeited for the non-payment of postage are fully equal to the postage. I think they would sell for that.

Mr. COLLAMER. The very same difficulty arises that we never get any accounts of them.

Mr. ANTHONY. Then I think you ought to have honester postmasters, and the country pa

pers ought not to suffer for that deficiency. It is true that the Senator lives in the country and I live in a city; but almost the only thing about which I pretend to know as much as the Senator is newspapers, and I can assure him that if this section passes he will hear from the country press all over the country, and the voice will be such as I predict, not such as he does.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I desire to inform the chairman of the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads that in my opinion, and I live in the country, the workings of this section will be to suspend all our weekly papers. The papers are sent to the country people on credit frequently. The editors cannot prepay the postage. The average circulation of our weekly newspapers is four or five hundred. The editors cannot prepay the postage on four or five hundred papers every week. It is as much as they can do to live now. I can assure the Senator that the section will have a very serious effect on the papers in our State. I want to give my vote so that it shall be understood, and I ask for the yeas and nays. ["Oh, no." Well, I withdraw the call for the present. Mr. HALE. I renew the call.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 31, nays 7; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Buckalew, Carlile, Clark, Cowan, Doolittle, Farwell, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Hendricks, Howe, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Nesmith, Nye, Powell, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Wilkinson, Willey, Wilson, and Wright-31.

NAYS-Messrs. Collamer, Conness, Henderson, Johnson, Pomeroy, Ramsey, and Van Winkle-7.

ABSENT-Messrs. Chandler, Davis, Dixon, Foot, Harding, Hicks, Howard, Lane of Indiana, McDougall, Richardson, Stewart, Trumbull, and Wade-13.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. FARWELL. Was the first section stricken from the bill?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first section has been stricken out.

Mr. FARWELL. I propose to offer an amendment to that section, but I can do it when the bill is reported to the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be amendable in the Senate.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended. Mr. FARWELL. I have examined the first section that was stricken out in Committee of the Whole, and I propose to offer an amendment to it, and then retain the section as amended as a part of the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will first put the question on concurring in the remainder of the amendments made as in Committee of the Whole, excepting the first.

The remainder of the amendments were concurred in.

Mr. FARWELL. I move to amend the first section by inserting in line nine, after the word "stamps" the words "which stamps shall be canceled by the postmaster in presence of the person paying the same.

I will state in a word the reason of my offering this amendment. It is clear from the idea the committee had in the first draft of this bill that there were two objects sought to be attained. One object was to secure the revenue of the Post Office Department against any neglect of the postmasters to return moneys that might be collected for unpaid postage, or for box rents, or any other miscellaneous matters where money might come into the hands of the postmaster in any way. Another was to simplify the accounts, to prevent, if possible, the necessity of the quarterly returns of these accounts. The chairman of the committee, when the question was up upon striking out the first section, stated as one of the leading objections, that it would make it necessary to have all his quarterly accounts furnished to the Department, and to be there examined and passed upon by the Department. I hold that if this section is retained with the amendments proposed by me, it will accomplish both the objects which, evidently, the committee wished to accomplish. It will effectually prevent the postmaster from keeping back any of the money that belongs to the Department; and, in the second place, it will do away with the necessity of making returns to the Department of the moneys received not only for business, but for the newspapers included in the section which has been stricken from the bill.

The amendment that I propose provides that all moneys for unpaid postage, which will include

the newspapers, shall be paid in postage stamps. The committee were right, so far as that section went, in deciding that it gave no protection. A man goes into a post office and pays his postage stamps, and the postmaster receives them as so much money, and he may sell them again and may put the money into his pocket. But the amendment which I have proposed says that he shall, in the presence of the party paying him those stamps, cancel and destroy them. It may be objected that it will be neglected, that it will not be done, or that there will be some trouble in doing it, but I hold that it will not be neglected. When it is made the duty of the postmaster, (and it will soon be known to every man, woman, and child in the land that it is his duty,) when any stamps are paid him for any of these purposes, in their presence to cancel and deface those stamps, he will do it. I think, perhaps, it would be well to add a penalty to this section, providing that if he shall fail to do it, a penalty shall be inflicted on him for not doing it.

I think I am understood. If I am, that is all I wish to say on the subject. I believe the amendment will accomplish the whole view that the committee had in mind when they drew the bill, and will also remove the objections stated by the chairman of the committee upon the proposition to strike out the first section.

Mr. COLLAMER. I think I need add nothing to what I have heretofore said on this subject. It is said that we shall have some security if we provide that the postmaster shall take these postage stamps and cancel them in the presence of the persons who pay them; but, sir, what security have we that those persons will stay there? They are not bound to stay there, and there is no way to keep them there.

Mr. FARWELL. It is usual, when a postmaster takes money for box rents, to give a receipt, and the person waits for it though he is under no necessity to do so; and if the law provides that he shall cancel these stamps in the presence of the person who pays them, they will be likely to stay

there and see it done.

Mr. COLLAMER. There is no law requiring the person to stay there when he pays box rent until he gets a receipt, and in all probability he goes away and cares nothing about a receipt. The great probability is that the person who pays the postage stamps will go right away without waiting to see whether the stamps are canceled or not. He does not care anything about that. The Senator says that if the postmaster is bound to cancel them he will do it; but suppose he does not, there is no possible way of knowing who you are to call on for evidence. The Department are not informed who paid them in. They do not know who were present when they were canceled, and never can know. There is no way to call upon these persons, over whom we have no control and no knowledge, whom we cannot tell anything about. If they are obliged to pay in postage stamps, you will still have to trust to the postmaster's accounts; you will still have to trust to his integrity entirely. You may as well trust him by having him render his accounts as by having him cancel the stamps.

Mr. CONNESS. I was unfortunate in not hearing the first part of the remarks made by the chairman of the committee, but I will state this as an apparent objection to the amendment: the persons sent to the post offices to do business are frequently servants and children. What is their testimony worth in regard to the cancellation of the stamps? No cancellation made in their presence can amount to a check. Nothing can be a check that is not a matter of record between the officer who does the business and the Depart ment. It is there that checks can occur; but nothing that can be done, or be required to be done, in the presence of a third party can amount to a check.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment to the first section before the question is taken on striking it out.

The amendment was not agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on concurring in the amendment made in Committee of the Whole, striking out the first section.

The amendment was concurred in.

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

REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.

Mr. CLARK, from the Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the memorial of Alfred Spink and Daniel Wolf, submitted an adverse report; which was ordered to be printed.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the memorial of Henry Rudd, submitted an adverse report; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. WADE. The Committee on Territories, to whom was referred the 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, have directed me to report it back to the Senate without amendment, and I should like to have it taken up now and passed, for I believe nobody will object to it.

It requires

The PRESIDIng officer. unanimous consent to consider the bill now, it having been just reported.

Mr. POWELL. I object.

EVENING SESSIONS.

Mr. JOHNSON. I submit the following resolution; and I give notice that I shall call it up on some future day for consideration:

Resolved, That on and after Tuesday next the Senate will take a recess every day from four o'clock p.m. to seven o'clock p. m.

Mr. SUMNER. Let that lie over. Mr. JOHNSON. I have already said that I do not ask its consideration now.

BRIDGE ACROSS THE OHIO RIVER. Mr. POWELL. I move to take up Senate bill No. 392, the bill to provide for building a railway bridge across the falls of the Ohio river.

Mr. WILSON. I propose to move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

Mr. POWELL. I want my bill taken up first. We can pass it in a few minutes.

Mr. CONNESS. I desire to inquire whether there was any objection made to the request of the chairman of the Committee on Territories; and if so, by whom? The bill that he asked the consideration of will not occupy an instant. It concerns the Senators from Nevada, who have had no opportunity to get the attention of the Senate to it. It will excite no debate, and if taken up I think will be passed with unanimity. I hope that it will be allowed to be taken up at the present time.

Mr. POWELL. I cannot consent to it. I have yielded my bill for three weeks. I have no doubt I shall vote for the bill indicated by the Senator; but I think my bill is one of that kind also, and I want it to be acted upon now.

Mr. CONNESS. We will take that bill up afterwards.

Mr. POWELL. I think I can get my bill through when taken up in a few moments.

Mr. WADE. I do not care which is taken up first, and I do not think that either will give rise to debate; but I should like to have that bill in regard to Nevada taken up. They can both be acted upon, I think, this afternoon.

Mr. POWELL. I move that the bill indicated by me be now taken up.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. No. 392) supplementary to an act approved July 14, 1862, entitled "An act to establish certain post roads." It proposes to amend the act of Congress of July 14, 1862, so as to authorize the Louisville and Nashville Railroad

Company and the Jeffersonville and Indianapolis Railroad Company (stockholders in the Louisville Bridge Company) to construct a railroad bridge over the Ohio river at the head of the falls of the Ohio, subject to all the provisions of that act; but the bridge may be constructed at a height not less than fifty-six feet above low-water mark, and with three draws, suficient to pass the largest boats navigating the Ohio river; one over the Indiana chute, one over the middle chute, and one over the canal. The spans of the bridge are not to be less than two hundred and forty feet, except over the Indiana and middle chute and the canal. The bridge is to be constructed with draws of one hundred and fifty feet wide on each side of the pivot pier over the Indiana and middle chutes, and

ninety feet wide over the canal; and the bridge and draws are to be so constructed as not to interrupt the navigation of the Ohio river.

The second section provides that the bridge erected under the provisions of this act is to be a lawful structure, and is to be recognized and known as a post route.

The Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads reported the bill with two amendments: in line five, after the word "be," to insert the words "and the same is hereby;" and in line six, after the word "Jeffersonville," to strike out the words "and Indianapolis;" so that it will read:

That the act of Congress approved July 14, 1862, entitled "An act to establish certain post roads," shall be, and the same is hereby, so amended as to authorize the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, and the Jeffersonville Railroad Company, &c.

The amendments were agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I move to postpone the further consideration of the bill until to-morrow. My colleague is absent, and I do not know where he is.

Mr. POWELL. I hope that motion will not prevail.

with the thirty-seventh degree of north latitude; thence due west along said thirty-seventh degree of north latitude to the eastern boundary line of the State of California; thence in a northwesterly direction along the said eastern boundary line of the State of California to the forty-third degree of longitude west from Washington; thence north along said forty-third degree of west longitude, and said eastern boundary line of the State of California, to the forty-second degree of north latitude; thence due east along the said forty-second degree of north latitude to a point formed by its intersection with the aforesaid thirty-seventh degree of longitude west from Washington; thence due south down said thirty-seventh degree of west longitude to the place of beginning.

Mr. WADE. That the Senate may understand really what this bill is, I will remark that the State of Nevada is bounded on the east by Utah Territory; they lie side by side; and this bill proposes to take one degree of longitude from Utah Territory and annex it to the State of Nevada; about sixty-nine and a half miles, I suppose, or thereabouts. I have not measured it; but from the eye it seems that Nevada and Utah will then be about equal in point of territory.

The motion was not agreed to. The bill was passed.

not

BOUNDARIES OF NEVADA.

Mr. WADE. I believe it is not objected to now. Mr. SHERMAN. I do not object to it. Mr. WADE. We will take up the other bill afterward.

Mr. HENDERSON. I should like to inquire of the Senator from Ohio if the bill will give rise to debate?

Mr. WADE. I presume not. I have no idea that it will. The Senators from Nevada are very anxious that it shall be passed now, in order that we may get it through the other House. I do not think it will give rise to debate. If it does, I will give way. I am as much interested in the next bill as my colleague is, and I want it to pass; but the Senators from Nevada want this bill passed now, and I am anxious to accommodate them.

Mr. HENDERSON. What is the next bill?

Mr. WADE. It is a bill similar to the one just passed for a bridge over the Ohio.

Mr. SHERMAN. It is to declare the Cincinnati and Covington railroad a post road.

Mr. WADE. There will be no debate on either of them, I presume.

Mr. CONNESS. I hope the Senator from Missouri will allow this bill to be taken up. It will only occupy a moment of time.

Mr. HENDERSON. Certainly, I am perfectly willing to yield. I have no idea that I shall be able to get up my bill; my friend from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] to-morrow at one o'clock takes up the bills reported from the Finance Committee, and I do not see any hope at all of getting my bill considered.

There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the 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. The bill proposes to amend the second section of the act to which it is an amendment, so as to read as follows, to wit:

That the said State of Nevada shall consist of all the territory included within the following boundaries, to wit: commencing at a point formed by the intersection of the thirty-seventh degree of longitude west from Washington

Mr. TRUMBULL. I rise merely to inquire of the Senator from Ohio whether the Latter Day Saints have been consulted in regard to this encroachment upon their borders.

Mr. WADE. I believe not; I do not know that they were. The committee had no evidence of it.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Then it is done without

consulting them at all?

Mr. WADE. I do not know that they understand it, or know anything about it, and I do not know but they do. The committee had no such evidence.

Mr. JOHNSON. I suppose the territory that will be added to the State of Nevada by this bill has some population and constitutes portions of Utah may be divided, and there may be suits some of the counties into which the Territory of pending there. There is no provision in this bill for the transfer of those cases to the courts in Nevada. I think perhaps it would be well, therefore, and I suggest it to the honorable members from Nevada, to let the bill lie over in order that they may make a provision that will cover all such cases. It can be done in the morning. I do not know whether there is any population there.

Mr. NYE. Mr. President, I am quite familiar with the ground described in this bill. There are no inhabitants in that portion of the Territory of Nevada. Next year, in all probability, there will Utah that we propose to annex to the State of be quite a large population there; but not Mormons. The object in getting this bill passed through Congress at the present session is with a view of determining the status of those people who shall then be there. The boundary as it now lies runs through a valley that is well adapted to agricultural purposes, and about in the center of the valley running from the north to the south of the Territory. The boundaries as we now propose will run through a desert, and it will be a more distinct and plainer boundary.

territory should be annexed to Nevada, it will As I remarked, if this bill should pass, and this have this advantage: it will not be settled by Mormons. The Latter Day Saints have called in all their subjects and followers and brought them in and about Salt Lake and further north and east. They have withdrawn entirely from this portion of territory. The valley in which it lies and the mountain on the eastern side has lately been discovered to be a mining region, and the miners will get there. Their rights will be bettered by this annexation. It is well known to this body that no laws recommended by the Governor of Utah can be passed if they come at all in collision with the will and dictum of the reigning power there, Brigham Young. Therefore, if this dis