issue upon which the consciences and the judgments of the House may sustain them in their action. But if we hold upon the deficiency bill to the issue made on that, and hold it by itself, we have a clear, defined issue upon which I have no doubt that the heart, and the conscience, and the judgment of the House will be with us and against themselves when it comes to be discussed. There is perhaps a little feeling of pride, because a resolution has passed and the money has been appropriated by some of the officials; but the danger is that if we put the deficiency bill on to the legislative bill, we may change the issue, which is now clear and distinct, about which there can be no question, into an issue that the House may say and some of them conscientiously believe that we are trespassing on their constitutional prerogative. Now, without going into the discussion of that point, I think by this course we shall raise a question we had better avoid. Let us stand distinctly upon our position on the deficiency bill and let us take the responsibility. Let us stand fast, and by a unanimous, united voice of the Senate show that we cannot yield on that point. It is impossible for us to yield and allow the House, contrary to law, to pay their employés twenty per cent, more than the law allows. We cannot yield that without doing the same thing by our employés, and the employés around the House and the Senate are better paid I believe than any other employés of the Government. If we yield as to them, we are compelled to yield as to the whole, and there is no end to it. I do not intend to discuss the question further than to express my hope that the Senator from Ohio will not insist on putting this deficiency bill upon the legislative appropriation bill. Let us meet the issue square on the deficiency bill by itself and pass the legislative appropriation bill.

cost of the building, and the cost of Adams presses as shown in the price list of R. Hoe & Co.

Mr. ANTHONY. One of two things must be done in regard to the public printing: either a larger amount than is now done outside of the office must be done-for a considerable amount is now done outside of the office-or the office must be enlarged. It is the opinion of the Superintendent, who is a very careful man, and I think one of the most economical men connected with the Government, that, at the present rates of printing, the expenditure which is called for by this amendment will be saved in about two years over the cost of doing the work out of the Government building; and if the presses shall not be wanted at the termination of the war they are always of considerable value, and probably would be worth one half or two thirds of their actual cost.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ANTHONY. From the same committee I offer this amendment, to come in after line one hundred and sixty-nine, on page 8:

And the Superintendent of Public Printing is hereby authorized to pay the foreman of the binding the same compensation now paid to the foreman of the printing.

I am as reluctant as any Senator can be to make any increase in salaries. The compensation of this officer now is $1,500; that of the foreman of the printing is $1,800. The Superintendent assures me that $1,800 is as low as is paid by other establishments. The officer whom he has with him, and whom he considers very valuable, has offers to go to private establishments for that compensation. The Senate understands that this compensation is to a skilled laborer, and I have no doubt that the difference between a man capable of doing the work and an ordinary man is a great many times the salary paid.

The amendment was rejected; there being, on a division-ayes 15, noes 16.

Mr. SUMNER. I am directed by the Com

ment to come in on page 11, under the head "incidental and contingent expenses of the Department of State," after line two hundred and forty-three:

Mr. ANTHONY. I am directed by the Committee on Printing to offer the following amendment, to come in on page 8, after line one hundred and seventy-two:

For addition to the Public Printing, Office and the necessary presses, machinery, and fixtures, $61,000.

The Committee on Printing have, with a good deal of reluctance, come to the conclusion to recommend this large appropriation, and the reasons for it perhaps will be as well understood from the reading of the letter of the Superintendent of Public Printing as in any other way. I send the letter to the desk to be read.

The Secretary read the following letter:

OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT PUBLIC PRINTING, WASHINGTON, February 2, 1865. DEAR SIR: Your letter making inquiry as to the best means to be adopted to facilitate the public printing has been received, and I hasten to reply.

The Government is the owner of sixty-eight feet front on I street running back one hundred and seventy-five feet. An addition to the present building of fifty-eight feet front (leaving a ten-foot alley for light and passage) and running back seventy-five feet, four stories high, would not exceed $25,000 in cash. This would give room on the ground floor for eighteen Adams book presses if found necessary. I think, however, twelve would be sufficient. These would cost, put up, about $3,000 each. The appropriation necessary for the addition and presses would be $61,000. With this outlay, the public work could be done promptly. After the decrease of work for the Executive Departments, which must take place at the close of the war, a daily record of the proceedings and debates in Congress (similar to the Congressional Globe) could be printed at a much less cost

For the payment of the first annual installment of the proportion contributed by the United States toward the capitalization of the Scheldt dues, to fulfill the stipulation contained in the fourth article of the convention between the United States and Belgium on the 20th of May, 1863, the sum of $55,584 in coin, and such further sum as may be necessary to carry out the stipulations of the convention providing for the payment of interest on the said sum and on the portion of the principal remaining unpaid.

This is based on an estimate that has been furnished to me from the Department of State.

Mr. SHERMAN. I understand it is to carry into effect a treaty.

Mr. SUMNER. It is to carry into effect an existing treaty.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SPRAGUE. I submit this amendmentas an additional section:

And be it further enacted, That the compensation of each Senator, Representative, and Delegate in Congress shall be $10,000 for each Congress, and mileage as provided by the act approved August 16, 1856, and other laws pertaining thereto; and that the provisions of this section shall apply to the present Congress, and each Senator, Representative, and Delegate shall be entitled to receive the difference only between their compensation already received under the law now in force, and the compensation provided by this act; and that all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of this act be, and the same are hereby, repealed.

Mr. FOOT. I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment. I think that is all the argument it is necessary to present to the Senate. The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. HALE. I move to amend the amendment by striking out that part of it which makes this increase applicable to the present Congress.

lication.

is against the whole proposition; but I think if it is entertained we should not be excluded from it. The amendment to the amendment was rejected. Mr. SHERMAN. I ask if the amendment is in order.

Mr. FOOT, and others. Never mind; let us have the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the call will proceed.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 10, nays 31; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Davis, Hendricks, Lane of Kansas, Nesmith, Powell, Richardson, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sprague, and Wright-10.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Clark, Collamer, Conness, Cowan, Farwell, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Lane of Indiana, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Ramsey, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Willey, and Wilson-31.

ABSENT-Messrs. Brown, Carlile, Chandler, Dixon, Doolittle, Harding, Hicks, McDougall, Pomeroy, and Van

Winkle-10.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. HARLAN. I offer the following amendment as a new section:

And be it further enacted, That from and after the passage of this act the public lands in the State of Nevada shall, for surveying purposes, be attached to and included in the surveying district of California.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HARLAN. There will be a slight verbal amendment now necessary. On page 20, in line four hundred and seventy-two, I move to strike out "Nevada," and in line four hundred and seventy-eight to insert "and Nevada" after "California."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Those verbal amendments will be made, to carry out the previous vote of the Senate.

Mr. JOHNSON. I move to amend the bill by striking out lines eight hundred and fifty-nine, eight hundred and sixty, eight hundred and sixtyone, eight hundred and sixty-two, and eight hundred and sixty-three.

The Secretary read the words proposed to be stricken out, as follows:

For legal assistance and other necessary expenditures in the disposal of private land claims in California, $10,000. For special and other extraordinary expenses of California land claims, $10,000.

66

Mr. JOHNSON. We have from first to last appropriated between two and three hundred thousand dollars for the settlement of these land claims. I think it is time we stopped it. The 'legal assistance" which is here provided for is not only legal assistance in California, where the claims originate, but assistance in the Supreme Court of the United States. It has always seemed to me extraordinary that the Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General have not been entirely competent-perhaps I ought to speak in a different way; I suppose they are competent, I will say willing-to argue all these causes.

Mr. GRIMES. Do they not argue them? Mr. JOHNSON. No. During the last Administration-and it has been so during the present Administration, as well as I recollect-not a single one of these cases was argued by the Attorney General; and he has paid away as much as $200,000 for assistance. Whatever may have been necessary in the beginning because of the character of these cases, it certainly cannot be necessary now that there should be any extraordinary help. When these cases were first brought before the courts the questions were comparatively new; indeed, perhaps altogether new. They involved the mining laws as they existed under the Spanish and Mexican Governments; and then there were a great many questions of fraud, actual or alleged, which required very great labor either to make out the allegation in point of fact or to disprove it, and that required perhaps very extraordinary efforts which the proper officers of the Government were not in a situation to make. But that is all over now. There is not, as I think, a quèstion that can now arise in any of these cases that has not been so far settled, analogically, at least, by cases that have already been before the Supreme Court, that every Attorney General competent to discharge the duties can very fully represent the interests of the United States; and I have no doubt that the present incumbent of the office, who is a man of ability and a man of great industry, will be found altogether equal to the discharge of these duties.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON. I move further to amend the bill by striking out the word "one" in the eight hundred and seventieth line and inserting "three;" so as to read, "for traveling expenses of the judge assigned to the tenth circuit, for attending session of the Supreme Court of the United States, $3,000."

Mr. HOWARD. I should like to hear some

explanation of this amendment from the honorable Senator from Maryland. It is a very large || amount for traveling expenses.

Mr. JOHNSON. I was about to state why I offered it. The judge of that circuit now, by your recent legislation, is to attend the circuit court in the State of Oregon, and he will have to attend one in Nevada. You give him now $1,000 for the purpose of paying his expenses in coming here. The currency which is used in that country, fortunately for them, is altogether a currency of coin; the notes of the United States are really not negotiable except as an article of barter and sale. As I have understood-not from him; I have heard it from others, but I am sure it is true-the salary, which is $6,000, I think, and then $1,000 for travel, making $7,000, he was obliged to sell, and could only get for it $2,400. Now, it seems to me to be bad policy every way that we should pay a judge of the Supreme Court, whose duties are not only of the highest character to be discharged here, but whose duties require him to go to those three States, only what, in point of fact, in the present condition of the country, is but about twenty-four hundred dollars. I believe the Senators from Nevada and the Senator from California [Mr. CONNESS] and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. NESMITH] will concur in the opinion which I state that it is altogether inadequate to defray his expenses.

Mr. STEWART. Knowing something about the matter spoken of by the Senator from Maryland, I will state for the information of the Senate that it is much more expensive to travel from here to Nevada or Oregon by the way of California than might at first be supposed. Coming this way, the steamship line on both sides demands coin. I believe that in going from here they take currency from New York to the Isthmus, but on the Pacific side coin is used. Then, in the present condition of traveling, there are many incidental expenses. In going between here and California, a fair average would be at least $200 in coin. If there is any extra baggage, as there always must be with gentlemen traveling, it is twenty cents a pound across the Isthmus. If a gentleman is going to travel continuously, every year, and live for any considerable length of time on the steamers, particularly those on this side, he must have some extras, and must have food that he does not get at the regular table, and he must give something to the servants, unless Vanderbilt's line on this side is reoganized. Perhaps a very healthy man could stand it for one or two trips, but a judge of the Supreme Court cannot live for a term of years and travel over that route without having different supplies from what is ordinarily to be had on the steamships.

I think a gentleman would ordinarily spend in going from here to California, $500 in coin. I do not think that any gentleman in this body could go there and back for less than $1,000 in coin, taking into account all the incidental expenses of the trip. To get that amount of coin would take over $2,000 of your currency. To go from San Francisco to Nevada to hold one term of the court would cost not less than $300 in coin, and about the same to go to Oregon.

Mr. CONNESS. He could not go to Oregon and back for that.

Mr. STEWART. I think it is a very low estimate; $3,000 a year in currency will not defray the necessary traveling expenses of the judge who presides over that circuit. It will no more than place him on an equal footing with the judge on the bench, whose circuit is most remote from this place, but the next to his, and who receives no allowance for traveling fees.

I look at the question in this light: if the Senate is satisfied that this judge ought to have this amount of money in order to enable him to perform the functions which are assigned to him, it is its duty to make this appropriation. I presume the Senate does not wish to call upon a judge of the Supreme Court to defray the legitimate expenses of the Government; that is, to hold courts to accommodate the people and defray his own expenses. If we cannot in that remote region have judges paid so that they shall not be objects of charity, placing themselves under pecuniary and other obligations to litigants as they pass through the country; if we cannot have judges who can by economy live independent of litigants or of borrowing from friends, we had better have

no courts. We have had some experiments in paying judges not sufficient to live upon in that western country, and we would not ask for this increase of appropriation if it was not absolutely necessary. If you will not make the necessary appropriation to defray the ordinary expenses of these courts, it is better not to have the courts, or to declare at once that nobody but a man of fortune shall hold a judgeship. I am perfectly confident that a little reflection and a little counting of the cost on the part of the Senate will satisfy every one that $3,000 is as small an allowance as we ought to make, and that the judge in attending upon the duties of this circuit incurs $3,000 of extra expense over the necessary expenses of the judge of any other circuit in the United States.

Mr. NESMITH. I think there is a manifest justice in this amendment, and I hope to see it adopted. When the bill was originally passed which provided for the compensation of the member of the Supreme Court for California, it was declared that in addition to his salary he should have $1,000 a year for traveling expenses. Since that time the currency has not only become very much depreciated, but we have added very largely to his duties. He is now required not only to make the trip from here to California and back annually, but he is compelled to make the trip from San Francisco to Portland in Oregon, and thence returning, to make the trip from San Francisco to the capital of Nevada. This is an increase of duty over what was contemplated by the original law. I think there should be a consequent increase of compensation.

have had some experience in traveling over that route, and I know that it is utterly impossible for any gentleman to travel from Oregon to Washington city upon $1,000 in the present currency. It may be possible for him to make the trip from New York to Oregon with that amount; but under any circumstances $3,000 will no more than compensate the ordinary expenses of the trip from here to San Francisco, and from San Francisco to Portland, and thence back to San Francisco, and from there to the capital of Nevada, and then back to San Francisco and thence to this city again.

I desire to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that the distinguished member of the Supreme bench for the Pacific States, who discharged his high duties with such distinguished ability, is not in the condition of a member of Congress. A member of Congress from that coast receives a much greater mileage than is provided for even by this amendment, and he is not compelled to return to his constituents during the recess of Congress; but the judge is compelled to hold his courts in California, in Nevada, and in Oregon, during the recess of the Supreme Court. There is no possibility of his evading that duty or avoiding its performance. He is necessarily compelled to make the trip. I introduced a bill some time ago providing that the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States should be allowed the same mileage as members of Congress. I think that is the least we should give them; but inasmuch as the Senate thinks differently from me on that subject I am satisfied to take the best I can get. I trust this amendment will be adopted, so as to afford compensation for the actual traveling expenses.

Mr. HALE. I want to raise a question of order. Is the amendment in order under the 30th rule of the Senate?

Mr. CONNESS. I would not read that rule now. That question was determined yesterday. Mr. HALE. I rather think not. The 30th rule is that

"No amendment proposing additional appropriations shall be received to any general appropriation bill, unless it be made to carry out the provisions of some existing law, or some act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during that session, or moved by direction of a standing or select committee of the Senate, or in pursuance of an estimate from the head of some of the Departments."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair was aware of the rule, and is inclined to the opinion that this is not an amendment proposing an additional appropriation. It is an appropriation proposed to be increased, but is not within the rule an additional appropriation, as the Chair understands. The Chair, however, will take the sense of the Senate on the question if the Senator desires.

Mr. HALE. Let the amendment be read.

The Secretary read the amendment, to strike out in line eight hundred and seventy the word "one" and insert "three;" so as to make the clause read:

"For traveling expenses of the judge assigned to the tenth circuit for attending session of the Supreme Court of the United States, $3,000."

Mr. HALE. Is not that an additional appropriation?

Mr. CONNESS. I understand the Chair has decided the question.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will take the sense of the Senate on the question.

Mr. SHERMAN. I should like information on this point for myself. The question must have been raised many times in the Senate as to whether an increase of an appropriation already in the bill is prohibited by the rule. Is that an additional appropriation? It certainly is additional in amount; but is it an additional or new appropriation?

Mr. HALE. The words of the rule are, "no amendment proposing additional appropria

tions."

Mr. CONNESS. As I understand, the Chair has decided the question, and the Senator has not appealed.

Mr. HALE. I do not understand the Chair to have made a decision, but to have said that he would take the sense of the Senate on the point.

Mr. CONNESS. I understand it to be the duty of the Chair to decide, and that the Chair did decide, but said to the Senator that if he appealed the Chair would take the sense of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair gave his own impression; but at the same time said he would take the sense of the Senate, if the Senator desired, which may clearly be done under the rules.

Mr. GRIMES. I trust the Chair will take the sense of the Senate. If the views of the Chair on this occasion are carried out, as I understand them, culminating on the decision made this morning, we shall understand exactly where we

are.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will put the question in this way; Is this an additional appropriation?

Mr. GRIMES. If it is not, if the point of order is not well taken by the Senator from New Hampshire, I confess I do not understand the English language.

Mr. CONNESS. I regret very much that this new application of the rule is proposed in this case. This slight appropriation is proposed for causes sufficient, I think, as has been stated, and directly after an appropriation of $20,000 applicable to California has been stricken from the bill without any objection from us, showing clearly that our purpose is not to take money from the Treasury and give it to any case applicable to California. Upon a proposition to add a necessary amount to sustain one of the highest magistrates in the land in the performance of a duty to which he is appointed, and to enable him to go to the distant parts of his circuit and to come here annually to transact the important business of his office, this rule is invoked. I trust the Senate will not sustain the point of order. Certainly we give no evidence here of seeking a wasteful appropriation of money for our region of country.

Mr. NESMITH. The provision of the 30th rule just relied on is that "no amendment proposing additional appropriations shall be received to any general appropriation bill, unless it be made to carry out the provisions of some existing law." Now, there is a law which was passed at the time this judgeship was provided for, making provision for the payment of his salary. Since he was assigned to that position his duties have been augmented by the action of both branches of Congress. It is a question to my mind whether a strict construction of the rule would prohibit this appropriation. The payment of his expenses is provided for by law. It is ascertained that the sum is inadequate. Now we propose to appropriate a sum which is adequate to carry out the very provisions of the law, and not in contravention of the law.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I wish to inquire what is the decision of the Chair on the question of order.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair

proposes to take the sense of the Senate on the question.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I thought the Chair had decided the question.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair gave an opinion, but said he would take the sense of the Senate on the question whether the amendment was admissible on the point of order.

Mr. SHERMAN. I am very much in favor of giving Judge Field an additional allowance for traveling expenses; I have talked with him about it, and therefore would be in favor of this proposition; but if the question of order is submitted to be decided upon the rule, I do not see how any other conclusion can be arrived at but that this is within the rule. The law not only allows him for traveling expenses, but fixes the amount at $1,000. The amount is fixed by law. Now, this is to appropriate money not allowed by law, an additional sum beyond the amount authorized by law; so that if the legal question is submitted to us, Ishall be bound to vote that it is within the rule. I can suggest to Senators that it would be very easy to have this matter referred to the Judiciary Committee and have it examined. If the amount is too low, in some subsequent appropriation bill the Judiciary or some other Committee can report the proper amendment. That is the true way. I feel bound by my position to enforce the rule, and if the question is submitted to us, shall decide the question according to the rule as I read it. I think the amendment is clearly out of order under the rule, though I should be glad to

vote for the allowance.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Shall the amendment be received within the 30th rule?

· Mr. STEWART. It seems to me that this is rather a strict construction of this rule. We have increased several appropriations. If the construction now urged be correct, the only thing we can do is to cut out and cut down appropriations after they are reported.

Mr. GRIMES. Those amendments came from committees. This does not come from a committee.

Mr. SHERMAN. I will say to the honorable Senator from Nevada that the objection is this: it does not come from a committee. A committee may report an amendment raising an amount, but the rule requires that it should be acted on by a committee. Until that is done, it is within the rule.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on receiving the amendment.

Mr. HALE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will state that the question is not on the amendment, but whether it can be received under the rule.

Mr. HENDRICKS. On that proposition I wish to make this suggestion: this is clearly not an additional appropriation but an addition to a proposed appropriation. It is an amendment to a proposed appropriation of the committee. It is a proposed addition instead of an additional appropriation.

I do not understand it so. My opinion is that if the item itself is in the bill, if the subject of appropriation is in the bill, you may add to the amount without reference to the restriction of the rule. The whole purpose of providing that an amendment shall come from a committee before it can be incorporated into an appropriation bill in the Senate, is that the committee may decide upon the propriety of introducing some new matter into the bill. That is not proposed here. The bill already proposes to give $1,000 for this purpose. The Senator who makes this point of order supposes that you can reduce the appropriation to any amount, but cannot add a dollar to it, because the addition of a dollar is an additional appropriation. Diminishing it a dollar is in one sense an appropriation; that is, it is appropriating less than the bill appropriated before. I submit to the Senate that there is nothing in the rule inconsistent with the amendment which I have suggested, and I do not understand that there is on the part of the Senate any objection to the amendment upon its merits.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 23, nays 18; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Buckalew, Clark, Conness, Cowan, Dixon, Doolittle, Hendricks, Howard, Johnson, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Nesmith, Nye, Pomeroy, Powell, Ramsey, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Wilkinson, Willey, Wilson, and Wright-23.

NAYS- Messrs. Brown, Chandler, Collamer, Davis, Farwell, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Henderson, Howe, Morgan, Morrill, Saulsbury, Sherman, Ten Eyck, and Trumbull-18.

ABSENT Messrs. Anthony, Carlile, Foot, Harding, Hicks, McDougall, Richardson, Riddle, Van Winkle, and Wade-10.

So the Senate decided that the amendment was receivable under the rule.

Mr. HALE. I am opposed to this amendment for one reason, if for no other, and that is, that the amendment on its face does not speak the truth. In saying that, I of course mean no disrespect to the Senator who moves it. I say so because on its face it proposes to give this judge $3,000 for his expenses in traveling to attend the sessions of the Supreme Court, and it is manifest to the Senate, and to everybody else, who will take the trouble to look into it, that the sum already provided by law will pay those expenses.

Mr. JOHNSON. It does not pay anything like them, as the Senator from Nevada has stated. Mr. HALE. Let the amendment be again read. The Secretary read the amendment.

Mr. HALE. It is now proposed to assign him $3,000 for his traveling expenses in attending the sessions of the Supreme Court; and if it shall be found hereafter that that does not cover more than one third of his traveling expenses, we shall be called on to pay more. If the Senate are determined to pay Judge Field this salary, if they think it due to him, I have no objection to it; but I have objection to the Senate voting to pay a man $3,000 for performing a journey which does not cost $1,000. I am opposed to it for that reason, and I am opposed to it because I do not think this is the time to increase salaries. We decided just now by a very large vote not to increase our own salaries. Most of the argument that is presented for this increase to Judge Field might be presented for the increase of our own salaries. The Senate have, not uniformly, but in a great many instances, refused to raise any salary unless it was put in the shape of "the rank, pay, and emoluments of a

pretty certain to go through. But I think this is not the time to raise salaries; and if it was, it is not the time to pay for a thing three times what it costs.

Mr. JOHNSON. Before the vote is taken, I will say that it appears to me very clear that it is not in conflict with the rule. I should be entirely confident of that if some of the Senators around me did not entertain a different opinion. To construe the rule as they would have it construed is to place the Senate in this situation: on these general appropriation bills the Senate could do noth-brigadier general;" put in that shape, it has been ing in relation to any of the items except to reduce the amount; they could not increase the amount. I suppose the object of the rule is to prevent any additional item being brought into the appropriation bill, any additional subject. It would be most extraordinary that when we are authorized to amend bills, (for this rule is not against the power of amendment,) when we are authorized to amend appropriation bills as well as other bills, our whole charge over the appropriation bill with reference to the items contained in the bill should be to reduce the amount and not to increase it. If you add a dollar to any single item, it is against the rule, provided it be true that that makes an appropriation within the meaning of the rule. Can that be so? Is that the purpose of the rule? Do the Senate mean to tie up their hands in relation to all the appropriation bills so that they shall consider nothing that does not lessen the amount appropriated for each item?

Mr. CONNESS. I regret to be compelled to say anything in this case which shall amount to a contradiction of what a Senator has said in debate; but I am bound to state that the Senator from New Hampshire is in error and mistaken in what he has stated in regard to the expenses of the persons spoken of and to whom this amendment is applicable. And I would remind the Senator that, although he sometimes advocates economy, as he does at present, such is not always his course. Recently, if I am not mistaken-1 saw it in a printed record-he had $2,000 paid him for going to Halifax.

Mr. HALE. I call the Senator to order. I do not wish to get into any personal controversy here, but I want the rules enforced. I raise a question of order.

Mr. CONNESS. Very well, sir. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire will state his point of order. Mr. HALE. The point of order is that he has no right to impeach my motives or conduct in any way, nor to refer to my private history for an illustration of his argument.

Mr. CONNESS. I believe I have not impeached the Senator's motives. I certainly declare that that was not my intention. I think if the Senator has raised a question which involves a matter of expenditure he should not be an exception to the rule which illustrates it.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If the point of order is insisted upon, it is not debatable. If the Senator from California would confine himself to the matter before the Senate, the Senator from New Hampshire perhaps would not insist on the point of order.

Mr. CONNESS. I suppose it is in order to state that the Senator recently advocated the increase of the salary of the consul at Halifax. I am satisfied (and I say that to the credit of the Senator) that he would never have done that if he had not ascertained it to be necessary, perhaps by going there. I hope I do not trench on the rules of order in stating this much. This economy that is spasmodic in its character is not the kind to follow.

I have called the attention of the Senate to the fact that we consented to a motion to strike out $20,000 of appropriations from this very bill applicable to our State, thus illustrating clearly that our purpose is not to expend public money in behalf of persons from that country. I know that if the Senator was as well aware as I am of the expenses incurred by this magistrate, he would not take the position he has taken here. I know that from his generosity of character. And I will take leave to say here that there is nothing more difficult than to have gentlemen on this side of the continent understand that it costs more to travel, more to live, more to buy any necessary or comfort or luxury connected with life, on the Pacific coast than it does here. This magistrate has not only to travel back and forth annually and live at this expensive capital, where others have got to live, but he goes to Oregon, he goes to Nevada, and the incidental expenses connected with his performance of duty cannot be and are not paid by his salary and the mileage allowed. It is within my personal knowledge, which I have avoided stating here thus far, that he cannot sustain himself and does not sustain himself from the salary that he receives. I will not state here the details and invade his privacy from whence it comes. Suffice it to say that a purer-minded gentleman does not exist on earth. I say it is not right to impose absolute suffering and want upon such an officer through what is very near akin to parsimony.

We are not here as advocates of increase of salaries or the wasteful expenditure of money. It cannot be charged upon us. I regret very much that I have been called upon even to respond thus in reply to the Senator. I will say, before I take my seat, that I had no intention of invading the courtesies due to the Senator, nor of impeaching his motives. I have no doubt that the Senator on the occasion to which I referred rendered a quid pro quo.

Mr HENDERSON. I move that the Senate take a recess until seven o'clock. ["No," "No."] I desire to state that the Senator who has this bill in charge, the chairman of the Committee on Finance, is exceedingly anxious to get through with it this week and to-morrow is assigned for District of Columbia business.

Mr. CONNESS. Let us vote on this amendment.

Mr. WILKINSON. I move that the Senate adjourn.

Mr. SHERMAN called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered,

Mr. FOSTER. I wish to ask whether the Senator from Ohio, who has charge of this bill, de sires the Senate to remain here until it shall be disposed of. I shall be governed by his views on that subject, because he knows what the wants of the country are in reference to this bill.

Mr. SHERMAN. If we can pass the bill to morrow, I shall be perfectly content; I think we ought to pass it this week; we are getting behind hand.

Mr. HOWARD, and others. We will pass it

to-morrow.

Mr. SHERMAN. But the special order for to-morrow is in the way.

Mr. COLLAMER. This business is more important than that.

Mr. SHERMAN. With the understanding that I shall have to-morrow for this bill, I have no objection. ["Agreed."]

Mr. TRUMBULL. Let the call for the yeas and nays be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The call may be withdrawn by unanimous consent.

The motion of Mr. WILKINSON was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, February 10, 1865.

The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by Rev. E. H. GRAY.

On motion of Mr. WILSON, by unanimous consent the reading of the Journal was dispensed with./

APPOINTMENT OF A COMMITTEE.

The SPEAKER announced as the select committee appointed under the resolution of the day before yesterday to investigate charges against the Patent Bureau, Messrs. HIGBY, FRANK, CRAVENS, ANCONA, and NORTON.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message was received from the Senate, by Mr. HICKEY, one of their clerks, announcing that they had passed a bill (S. No. 424) entitled "An act to facilitate the collection of certain debts due the United States;" in which they requested the concurrence of the House.

Also, that the Senate had passed the following resolution:

Resolved, That a committee of one member of the Senate be appointed by that body to join a committee of two members of the House of Representatives, to be appointed by that House, to wait upon Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois, and to notify him that he has been duly elected President of the United States for four years, commencing with the 4th day of March, 1865; and also to notify Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, that he has been duly elected Vice President of the United States for four years, commencing with the 4th day of March, 1865.

And ordered, That Mr. TRUMBULL be the said committee on the part of the Senate.

PRIVILEGES OF MEMBERS.

Mr. J. C. ALLEN. I desire to propound an inquiry to the Chair touching the privileges of certain members to the floor. I understand that the House last evening passed a resolution ordering the arrest of certain members who were absent upon a call of the House. I am not able myself to give to that resolution an interpretation which satisfies me that those members who are under arrest by virtue of that resolution have a right to participate in the proceedings of the House until they have purged themselves of contempt. The question I desire to propound to the Chair is, whether the members absent last night will be permitted, under that resolution, to participate in the proceedings of the House to-day?

The SPEAKER. The Chair knows of nothing that would prevent them from participating in the proceedings of the House until one o'clock, or as soon thereafter as possible-five minutes after one-when they are to be presented at the bar by the Sergeant-at-Arms.

BRIDGE OVER THE OHIO RIVER.

On motion of Mr. ARNOLD, by unanimous consent, bill of the Senate No. 413, to establish a bridge across the Ohio river at Cincinnati, Ohio, a post route, was taken from the Speaker's table, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Roads and Canals.

Mr. HOLMAN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was referred; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

NATIONAL CURRENCY.

Mr. BROWN, of West Virginia, presented resolutions of the Legislature of West Virginia, asking an amendment of the act to provide a national currency, approved June 4, 1864; which was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed.

PACIFIC RAILROAD.

Mr. COLE, of California, from the select committee on the Pacific railroad, to whom was referred the bill of the House (No. 593) granting lands to aid in the construction of certain railroads in the State of California, reported back the same; which was recommitted to the committee, and ordered to be printed.

CENSUS REPORT.

Mr. BALDWIN, of Massachusetts. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to offer the following resolution:

Whereas we are now in the year of our Lord 1865, and it appears nowise likely that the remaining portions of the report of the census of 1860 will be completed before the next census is taken: Therefore,

Resolved, That the Committee on Printing be directed to consider the expediency of a joint resolution ordering a discontinuance of all work on the report of the census of 1860, after the volume now in the hands of the printer is completed."

Mr. ANCONA. I object.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of the Interior, recommending an appropriation to pay indebtedness incurred on account of Indian affairs in Arizona; which was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed.

The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the

Secretary of the Interior recommending that appropriations made for the Chippewas of Lake Superior under treaty stipulations be made special, &c.; which was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS.

Mr. ORTH submitted the following resolution; which was read, and referred to the Committee on Printing:

Resolved, That there be printed thirty thousand copies of the report of the Commissioner of Patents, twenty thousand for the members of the House of Representatives and ten thousand for the Commissioner of Patents.

MILEAGE OF MEMBERS.

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

Resolved, That the Committee on Mileage be directed to inquire into the expediency of reducing the rate of mileage to ten cents per mile, with a view to equalizing the compensation of members, and that they be directed to report by bill or otherwise.

Mr. ANCONA moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS.

On motion of Mr. HALE, by unanimous consent, leave was granted for the withdrawal from the files of the House of the papers in the case of William G. Sheldon,

On motion of Mr. WINDOM, by unanimous consent, leave was granted for the withdrawal from the files of the House of the papers in the case of A. M. Clenny.

The SPEAKER announced as the regular order of business the calling of committees for reports of a private nature.

SAMUEL NOrris.

Mr. BOYD, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, reported a bill for the relief of Samuel Norris, accompanied by a report in writing thereon; which bill was read a first and second time, referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and, with the report, ordered to be printed.

ANNA MARIA AMAN.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported adversely upon the petition of Anna Maria Aman, widow of Laurens Aman, a soldier who was drowned while bathing, August 6, 1862; and moved that the committee be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be laid on the

table.

The motion was agreed to.

JACOB GATES.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported ad

versely upon the petition of Jacob Gates, praying for a pension on account of wounds received during the war with Great Britain, in 1813; and moved that the committee be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be laid on the table.

The motion was agreed to.

HENRY L. MYERS.

Mr. PERHAM, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported adversely upon the petition of Henry L. Myers for allowance of pension; and moved that the committee be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be laid on the table.

The motion was agreed to.

MARY F. B. LEVELY.

Mr. PERHAM, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, also reported adversely upon the petition of Mary F. B. Levely, widow of Henry Levely, captain of the private armed schooner Nonsuch, praying for allowance of arrears of pension; and moved that the committee be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be laid on the table.

The motion was agreed to.

D. H. FITCH, AND OTHERS.

Mr. PERHAM, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, also reported adversely upon the petitions of D. H. Fitch, D. W. Lunsford, and sundry other soldiers of the war of 1812, praying for the allowance of pensions; and moved that the committee be discharged from their further consideration, and that they be laid on the table. The motion was agreed to.

ABRAM BRAGAW.

Mr. LAW, from the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, reported adversely upon the petition of Abram Bragaw for a pension; and moved that the committee be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be laid on the table. The motion was agreed to.

CHARITY HARROW.

Mr. HERRICK, from the Committee on Rev

olutionary Pensions, reported adversely upon the petition of Charity Harrow, praying for an increase of pension; and moved that the committee be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be laid on the table.

The motion was agreed to.

SARAH P. MATHER.

Mr. NOBLE, from the Committee on Patents, reported adversely upon the petition of Sarah P. Mather; and moved that the committee be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be laid on the table.

The motion was agreed to.

PHEBE ANN FISK.

Mr. NOBLE, from the Committee on Patents, also reported back Senate bill No. 112, being “An act for the relief of the heirs of Almon D. Fisk, deceased," with a recommendation that it pass.

The bill was read at length. It provides that Phebe Ann Fisk, or the heirs of Almon D. Fisk, deceased, who obtained a patent for a new and useful improvement in coffins, dated November 14, 1848, for fourteen years, which has now expired, shall be authorized to apply, within thirty days after the approval of this act, for an extension of said patent for seven years, which application must be decided by the Commissioner of Patents within ninety days after it shall have been filed; provided that nothing in the act shall give authority to prosecute persons for damages for use of the patented article between the expiration of the patent and the approval of this act.

Mr. NOBLE moved the previous question. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I hope the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. NOBLE] will not call the previous question on a bill which taxes the ashes of our dead soldiers.

Mr. NOBLE. I will withdraw the motion for the previous question, and ask that the accompanying report be read,

the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. NOBLE] if the fact is not true that parties are now engaged all over this country in the manufacture of this article, and whether anything in the bill protects the rights of the persons thus manufacturing? Heretofore it has been usual when there has been a lapse of patent, and parties have engaged in the manufacture of patented articles, to give them a release and protection against the prosecution of the patentee.

Mr. NOBLE. I would answer the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL] by saying that it is not true that parties all over the country have engaged in the manufacture of this improvement, nor is it true that they or any of them thus engaged object to the reissue of this patent. Neither is it true that this case comes within the spirit of the new rule in reference to the issuing of patents. This patent was issued under the old law, and in all such cases patents are even now suffered to be extended under the patent law. This widow, who has not been recompensed for the invention of her husband, made application, as Hhave stated, in due form of law; but, by reason of a mistake made by the Commissioner of Patents, the extension was not granted. The Commissioner of Patents to-day acknowledges that mistake. Any lawyer who understands the facts must agree that this woman is entitled by law to this extension.

Mr. MORRILL. From the reading of the report I understand the facts to be very different from what they would appear by the statement of the gentleman from Ohio. He says that this patent was not reissued by reason of a mistake of the Commissioner. I infer from the report that it was not reissued in consequence of the fraud of the applicant in claiming as the invention more than could rightfully be claimed.

Mr. NOBLE. Mr. Speaker, in answer to that allegation I will say that I do not so understand the case. The original patent was reissued in 1860, and that reissue embraced no more than was conLained in the original patent. But the Commissioner, when the objection was made, did decide that it embraced more; the objection was suffered to prevail, to the detriment of the applicant for the extension. These are the facts of the case. The Commissioner is satisfied to-day that he made an error, and so are all the members of the committee. The object of this bill is, not to give this woman any more than justly belongs to her, but to reinstate her legally in the possession of her rights, of which she was deprived by a mistake of the Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I hope that the previous question will not be seconded. This question is of more importance than some members appear to think it.

The SPEAKER. Debate is not in order pending a demand for the previous question.

On seconding the previous question there were, on a division-ayes 48, noes 37; no quorum voting. The Speaker, under the rule, ordered tellers; and Mr. NOBLE, and Mr. WASHBURNE of Illinois, were appointed.

The House divided; and the tellers reportedayes 59, noes 36.

So the previous question was seconded. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move that the bill be laid on the table; and on that motion I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 51, nays 86, not voting 45; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Arnold, Ashley, Baxter, Beaman, Boutwell, Boyd, Brandegee, William G. Brown, Ambrose W. Clark, Freeman Clarke, Cole, Dawes, Deming, Eckley, Farnsworth, Garfield, Higby, Hooper, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Julian, Kelley, Knox, Longyear, Marvin, McClurg, Morrill, Amos Myers, Charles O'Neill, Orth, Perham, Edward H. Rollins, James S. Rollins, Schenck, Scofield, Shannon, Smithers, Spalding, Starr, Stevens, Upson, Wadsworth, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Williams, Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge, and Worthington-51.

NAYS-Messrs. James C. Allen, Ancona, Anderson, Baily, Augustus C. Baldwin, Blair, Bliss, Blow, Broomall, James S. Brown, Chanler, Clay, Cobb, Coffroth, Cox, Cravens, Thomas T. Davis, Dawson, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Edgerton, Eldridge, Eliot, English, Finck, Ganson, Grider, Griswold, Hale, Hall, Harding, Charles M. Harris, Herrick, Asahel W. Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Jenckes, Philip Johnson, William Johnson, Kalbfleisch, Kasson, Orlando Kellogg, King, Law, Lazear, Le Blond, Littlejohn, Long, Mallory, McAllister, McBride, McDowell, Mclndoe, McKinney, Middleton, James R. Morris, Morrison,

Leonard Myers, Nelson, Noble, Norton, Odell, John O'Neill, Perry, Pomeroy, Pruyn, Radford, William H. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, Jolm H. Rice, Rogers, Scott, John B. Steele, William G. Steele, Stiles, Strouse, Thayer, Thomas, Townsend, Van Valkenburgh, Webster, Whaley, Wheeler, Joseph W. White, Winfield, and Yeaman-86. NOT VOTING-Messrs. William J. Allen, Alley, John D. Baldwin, Blaine, Brooks, Creswell, Henry Winter Davis, Denison, Dixon, Eden, Frank, Gooch, Grinnell, Harrington, Benjamin G. Harris, Holman, Hotchkiss, Hutchins, Francis W. Kellogg, Kernan, Knapp, Loan, Marcy, Samuel F. Miller, William H. Miller, Moorhead, Daniel Morris, Patterson, Pendleton, Pike, Price, Samuel J. Randall, Robinson, Ross, Sloan, Smith, Stuart, Sweat, Tracy, Voorhees, Ward, Chilton A. White, Wilder, Benjamin Wood, and Fernando Wood-45.

So the House refused to lay the bill on the table. The question recurred on ordering the main question to be put.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask permission to make a statement in reference to this matter.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I rise to a question of order. I understand that the gentleman from Illinois is in arrest for contempt of the House, and I insist that he is not entitled to take part in our proceedings.

The SPEAKER. The Chair has decided in reference to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. J. C. ALLEN] that the order of the House does not operate until the Sergeant-at-Arms, at five minutes past one o'clock, presents the members in arrest at the bar of the House. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE] answered on the second call, and is not included in the order of arrest.

The main question was then ordered to be put. The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and it was accordingly read the third time. Mr. NOBLE demanded the previous question on the passage of the bill.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, demanded the yeas and nays, and tellers on the yeas and nays. Tellers were not ordered, and the yeas and nays were not ordered.

The bill was passed.

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

PENSION LAWS.

Mr. WHALEY. I ask unanimous consent to report from the Committee on Invalid Pensions a bill supplementary to the several acts relating to pensions, that it may be recommitted and ordered to be printed.

Mr. HALE. That is not a private bill; it is a public bill, and is not in order to-day. I object.

MAJOR HENRY M'FARLAND.

Mr. FARNSWORTH, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported back House joint resolution No. 145, for the relief of Major Henry McFarland.

The joint resolution provides that $1,000 be paid, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Major Henry McFarland, that being the amount expended by him as a reward for the detection and conviction of a clerk who had stolen a large amount of Government money.

The report states that Major McFarland, an additional paymaster of the Army, on the evening of August 4, 1863, had stolen from his room in Washington city the sum of $40,000, (United States Treasury notes,) which he had on that day drawn from the Treasury for the payment of United States troops; that Major McFarland was under orders to go to the Army with this money on the following morning; that the money was necessarily drawn on that day, as he could not get it in the morning in time for his departure, and the regulations of the Treasury Department were such that he was not allowed to deposit this money after it was drawn; that this money was stolen by the clerk of Major McFarland, in whose custody he left this money for a short time while McFarland went to the post office, about half past eight o'clock p. m.; that the money was in the paymaster's safe; that immediately upon discovering the theft McFarland offered a reward of $1,000 for the detection of the thief and recovery of the money; and that, stimulated by this offer, the Metropolitan police of Washington detected the thief and recovered the money.

Mr. HOLMAN. There is one point to which I wish to call the attention of the gentleman from

Illinois. I do not see any statement of the circumstances under which this clerk was employed. What reason had McFarland to believe he was a man of integrity to whom could be intrusted this money Mr. FARNSWORTH. These clerks are employed with the approval of the War Department. The Clerk will read what I have marked. The Clerk read, as follows:

The court of inquiry beforementioned reported that the clerk [McCarter] "had a proper reputation at the time his services were engaged by Major McFarland," and that all due precautions were observed in selecting him; also "that it is a custom of the service, and is necessary for paymasters to intrust their clerks at times with the custody of safes wherein moneys are contained."

WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, WASHINGTON, September 18, 1863. SIR: I am directed by the Secretary of War to say that the court of inquiry in your case has exonerated you from any blame for the loss or the money stolen by your clerk.

*

Mr. ROLLINS, of New Hampshire. The clerk was tried by court-martial, and convicted and sentenced to Albany penitentiary. He had been previously employed by the Department, and McFarland had a right to suppose that he was an honest man. The money was recovered. And I am informed that Colonel Baker also offered a reward of $1,000. Major McFarland paid this money, which it is proposed to refund to him.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I demand the previous question.

Mr. GANSON. I wish to inquire whether these detectives in the employ of the Government were paid for their services at the same time.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. No, sir; it was the Metropolitan police that received the reward.

Mr. ROLLINS, of New Hampshire. The money was paid over to the parties who detected the scoundrels.

The question being on seconding the demand for the previous question,

Mr. ANCONA demanded tellers.

Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. ROLLINS of New Hampshire and ANCONA were appointed.

The House divided; and the tellers reported— ayes sixty-eight; noes not counted.

So the previous question was seconded. The main question was ordered to be put, and under the operation thereof the resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time. question on the passage of the resolution. Mr. FARNSWORTH. Idemand the previous

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered to be put.

The question recurring on the passage of the resolution,

Mr. J. C. ALLEN demanded tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Mr. J. C. ALLEN and Mr. FARNSWORTH were appointed.

The House divided; and the tellers reportedayes 49, noes 49.

The SPEAKER. The Chair votes in the affirmative, and the resolution is passed.

Mr. FARNSWORTH moved that the vote by which the resolution was passed be reconsidered; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

ENROLLED BILLS.

Mr. COBB, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled an act (H. R. No. 431) for the relief of Solomon Wadsworth; and a resolution (H. R. No. 106) providing for the compilation of a Congressional Directory at each session of Congress; when the Speaker signed the same.

PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE CALL.

The SPEAKER. The morning hour having expired, the Sergeant-at-Arms will execute the order of the House of last evening. The Clerk will report the resolution under which the House

is now about to act.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms be directed to bring the members now absent without leave before the bar of the House at one o'clock to-morrow, Friday, February 10, quired to show cause why they shall not be declared in 1865, or as soon thereafter as possible, and that they be recontempt of the House, and abide the order of the House.