and referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, the act (S. No. 407) to authorize the establishment of ocean mail steamship service between the United States and China.

Mr. WILSON. I object; and move that the House proceed to the business on the Speaker's table.

EVENING SESSION DISPENSED WITH.

Mr. MALLORY. I move to dispense with the evening session this evening, and that after tomorrow the House shall meet at eleven o'clock and adjourn at half past five.

Mr. STEVENS. Oh, I hope not. The Committee of Ways and Means would have no time to transact its business.

Mr. MALLORY. I suggest that the House would do more business between those hours

than it would by having a recess and an evening

session.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kentucky must know that the Committee of Ways and Means meets every morning, and that it cannot possibly get along with its business if the House meets at eleven o'clock.

Mr. MALLORY. I am aware that the Committee of Ways and Means does meet in the morning, but it can meet at nine o'clock.

Mr. STEVENS. I am afraid that if it did the gentleman from Kentucky would be a little behind time occasionally. [Laughter.]

Mr. MALLORY. Not at all. I will be there at half past eight.

The SPEAKER. The question must be first on the motion to dispense with the evening session.

The question was taken, and it was decided in the affirmative; there being, on a division-ayes

75, noes 25.

Mr. MALLORY. I now ask unanimous consent to move that, after to-morrow, the House shall meet at eleven o'clock and adjourn at half past five.

Several MEMBERS objected.

Mr. WILSON. I move to proceed to the business on the Speaker's table.

Mr. KELLOGG, of Michigan. I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. COX. I ask the gentleman from Michigan to withdraw that motion, that I may submit a resolution, and let it lie over.

Mr. STEVENS. I think we had better adjourn now.

ENROLLED BILL.

Mr. COBB, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported as truly enrolled an act for the relief of the heirs of Almon D. Fiske, deceased; when the Speaker signed the same.

Mr. WILSON called for the yeas and nays on the motion to adjourn; and for tellers on the yeas and nays.

Tellers were not ordered; and the yeas and nays were not ordered.

The motion was agreed to; and thereupon (at twenty-five minutes past four, p. m.) the House adjourned.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. COWAN presented a resolution of the Board of Trade of Philadelphia, in favor of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States which shall confer upon Congress the power to assess duties upon exports; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

He also presented a resolution of the Legislature of Pennsylvania in favor of the repayment by the United States of certain moneys advanced by that State to pay the volunteer militia of 1863; which was ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. HOWE presented the petition of Easton & Gage, contractors with the Navy Department to supply at the different navy-yards of the United States certain quantities of rice, beans, and sugar, during the year ending on the 30th day of June, 1864, praying to be relieved from the contract, and that it be settled upon just and equitable principles, and that they may be paid the twenty per cent. reserved on the contract; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. CHANDLER presented a petition of citizens of the State of Michigan, praying remuneration to John M. Stanley for the loss of his collection of Indian portraits, destroyed by fire at the Smithsonian Institution; which was referred to the Committee on the Library.

He also presented a petition of members of the Legislature of the State of Michigan, praying remuneration to J. M. Stanley for the loss of his collection of Indian portraits destroyed by fire at the Smithsonian Institution; which was referred to the Committee on the Library.

He also presented a petition of citizens of Detroit, praying for the establishment of a navyyard at Detroit; which was referred to the Com

mittee on Naval Affairs.

He also presented resolutions of the Legislature of Michigan, in favor of the establishment in the city of Detroit of a general naval recruiting and muster-in office for the State of Michigan; which were referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. POMEROY presented a petition of citizens of Kansas, praying that the mail route from Kansas City, Missouri, to Lawrence, Kansas, by way of Westport, Missouri, may be changed so as to run on the river road from Kansas City, Missouri, to Lawrence, Kansas, by way of the Junction House; which was referred to the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads.

Mr. RAMSEY presented resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Minnesota, in favor of the location of the north or Sioux City branch of the Pacific railroad westwardly as near as it may be along the parallel of forty-two and one half degrees of north latitude to a point of junction with the main trunk of the road; which were referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and ordered to be printed.

On motion of Mr. FOOT, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of yesterday's proceedings was dispensed with.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a message from the President of the United States, communicating a copy of a dispatch of the 12th ultimo, addressed to the Secretary of State, by the minister resident of the United States at Stockholm, relating to an international exhibition to be held at Bergen, in Norway, during the coming summer; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and ordered to be printed.

He also laid before the Senate a message from the President of the United States communicating correspondence in relation to the opening of an international exhibition in the city of Oporto, Portugal, during the coming summer; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and ordered to be printed.

He also presented a petition of citizens of Michigan, praying that remuneration may be made to John M. Stanley for the loss of his collection of Indian portraits by fire in the Smithsonian Institution; which was referred to the Committee on the Library.

He also presented a resolution of the Legislature of Michigan in favor of the establishment of a general naval recruiting and muster-in office for the State of Michigan, to be located in the city of Detroit; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Mr. COLLAMER, from the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, to whom were referred five petitions of citizens of Missouri, praying the establishment of a daily mail route from Macon City, Missouri, to Keosoqua, Iowa, asked to be discharged from its further consideration,

the route being already a post road; which was agreed to.

Mr. WILSON, from the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to whom was referred the petition of citizens of Boston, praying the enactment of a law preferring the appointment to all inferior offices of persons honorably discharged from military or naval service of the United States, submitted a report accompanied by a joint resolution (S. R. No. 111) to encourage the employment of disabled and discharged soldiers. The joint resolution was read and passed to a second reading, and the report was ordered to be printed.

Mr. SHERMAN, from the Committee on Finance, to whom was referred a bill (H. R. No. 683) making appropriations for the support of the Army for the year ending June 30, 1863, reported it with amendments.

Mr. HENDRICKS, from the Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred a bill (H. R. No. 558) to authorize the issuing of patents for certain lands in the town of Stockbridge, State of Wisconsin, and for other purposes, reported it

with amendments.

A MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed the joint resolution of the Senate (S. R. No. 42) to extend the time for the reversion to the United States of the lands granted by Congress to aid in the construction of a railroad from Pere Marquette to Flint, and for the completion of said road, with an amendment in which the concurrence of the Senate was requested.

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED.

The message further announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the enrolled bill (S. No. 112) for the relief of the heirs of Almon D. Fisk, deceased, which thereupon received the signature of the President pro tempore of the Senate.

FUNERAL OF SENATOR HICKS.

Mr. JOHNSON. I move that the Chair appoint a committee of arrangements to superintend the funeral of my late colleague, which will take place to-morrow.

The motion was agreed to; and the President pro tempore appointed Messrs. FOOT, ANTHONY, MORGAN, BUCKALEW, WADE, and WILLEY, as the committee.

ARMY RATION.

Mr. WILSON. I offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Secretary of War be directed to report to the Senate if any increase in the quantity of the Army ration is required for the comfort of the men or the efficiency of the service.

It will be remembered that at the last session of Congress we made a change of the ration, and there has been from some parts of the country complaint in regard to it. Some suggestions have been made that modifications are necessary. In order to know whether any change is really necessary, and if so, what, I desire to get a report from the Commissary General of Subsistence, and then we can have something official on which to act.

The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to.

STATE AND POLITICAL PRISONERS.

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

Resolved, That the Secretary of War be directed to inform the Senate whether or not he has furnished the judges of the circuit and district courts of the United States, and of the District of Columbia, a list of the names of the persous held as "State or political prisoners, or otherwise than as prisoners of war, as required by the second section

of the act entitled An act relating to habeas corpus, and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases, proved March 3, 1863.

ap

INTEMPERANCE IN THE ARMY. Mr. POMEROY submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia be instructed to inquire if the peculiar facilities afforded to officers of the Army to procure spirituous and intoxicating liquors does not tend to the increase of intemperance in the Army, and create insubordination and demoralization incompatible with the wholesome discipline of the soldier and detrimental to the public service, and report by bill or otherwise.

Mr. STEWART. I desire to call up a resolution which I offered several days ago, to amend the 34th standing rule by adding to the committees authorized by it a Committee on Mines.

Mr. SUMNER. I must ask the Senate now to proceed with the consideration of the unfinished business of the morning hour of yesterday, being the report of the conference committee on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses with regard to the bill establishing a Bureau of Freedmen.

Mr. STEWART. I think that report is the special order for half past twelve o'clock, and my resolution can be disposed of by that time.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair does not understand the report referred to to be a special order for half past twelve o'clock; but the motion to take it up is a privileged question, and it has precedence of the motion of the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I shall not oppose the proposition of the Senator from Massachusetts, for the matter that he wishes to take up has been under discussion for a day or two; but I desire to give notice to him and to other Senators that I hope they will allow me on Thursday, in the morning hour, to take up some Indian bills that will consume but little time, but which it is necessary should be acted upon as early as that day. On Thursday morning, with the leave of the Senate, I shall hope to be able to take up some Indian bills and have them disposed of.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Massachu

setts.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of 51) to

establish a Bureau of Freedmen's Affairs.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, at the last session the House of Representatives passed a bill "to establish a Bureau of Freedmen's Affairs." That bill was reported to the Senate, and the Senate passed what it denominated a substitute for the House bill. Although called a substitute, it was, in substance, simply an amendment. The main idea of the House bill was to establish a separate and distinct bureau on the subject of the freedmen and abandoned lands; the bill of the Senate called a substitute accepted almost literally that idea of the House bill, which is the pith and the substance of both bills.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1865.

offered antagonizing provisions, or from which it had otherwise dissented in its amendment. These latter matters being embodied in the amendment would be the pending questions between the two Houses, but not the question of establishing the bureau, because both Houses had agreed to that. It is only points of disagreement between the two Houses that are or can be referred to committees of conference. The matter, then, of the creation of this bureau was not referred to or before the committee of conference. That committee had no power to withdraw the bureau from the bill, to recommend to the two Houses its withdrawal, and to substitute a Department for it. It would have been as competent for the committee to have thus retired the bureau and to have recommended a court in its stead.

I read from the report of the committee: "The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H. R. No. 51), entitled An act to establish a Bureau of Freedmen's Affairs,' having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

"That the Senate recede from their amendment to the said bill"—

It was simply an amendment, although it was on its face called a substitute

"and the committee agree to the following as a substitute."

I will now read from the first section of the House bill and the Senate's amendment, both of the last session, for the purpose of showing that upon the matter of establishing a separate bureau for freedmen there was no dissent between the two Houses; that the provision in the House bill establishing the bureau was accepted by the Senate taking no negative action upon it, and passing an amendment which contained in substance the same provision to establish that bureau. Here is the first section of the House bill:

"That an office is hereby created in the War Department, to be called the Bureau of Freedmen's Affairs, and the President of the United States is hereby authorized to nominate, and with the advice and consent of the Senate to appoint, a Commissioner of Freedmen's Affairs, with an annual salary of $4,000, to whom shall be referred the adjustment and determination, under the direction of the Secretary of War, of all questions arising under this act, or under any laws now existing or hereafter to be enacted, concerning persons of African descent."

In the Senate's amendment, which in this reprovision in the first section: port is truly termed an amendment, there is this

"That an office is hereby created in the Treasury Department, to be called the Bureau of Freedmen, meaning thereby such persons as have become free since the beginning of the present war, under the care of a Commissioner, with an annual salary of $4,000, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and there shall be a chief clerk, acting also as disbursing officer."

And then it goes on to create an authority to the Commissioner of this bureau precisely parallel and equivalent to that which was instituted by the first section of the House bill.

The position which I now state is this: that the The question, then, arises, to what extent is House bill having established a separate and disthe bill of the Senate, although it is called a sub- tinct bureau, not a Department, for freedmen, and stitute, an amendment for the bill of the House? I that being the main idea and object of the bill, think this proposition is true, logically, and ac- and the Senate substituted an amendment having cording to parliamentary law, that where either accepted the same, and having agreed to the esHouse has passed a bill or joint resolution, and it is tablishment of this bureau, there is no dissent sent to the other House for its action, so far as the between the two Houses, and consequently both other House does not dissent from the bill or joint sections of the two bills establish the same buresolution that is sent to it, the measure is adopted reau. Either House may adopt a bill or joint resby it. Upon that principle, then, the Freedmen's olution passed by the other, in whole or part; Bureau being the principal subject of the House and, although its agreement was not in the same bill, being its leading idea, and that being accepted words, if it were in substance, there could be a by the Senate's amendment, which is called a sub- conference between them for no other purpose stitute, there was no question of disagreement be- than to make their language harmonize. The tween the two Houses in relation to that leading substance, sense, and meaning of their action beidea of a separate Freedmen's Bureau, no amending already in accordance, as to that there would ment to that provision of the House bill establishing the Freedmen's Bureau.

be nothing to harmonize. The only substantial point in which the Senate's amendment differed Then this question arises: was the idea and the from the House bill is that the latter created the provision of the House bill establishing a Freed-bureau as of the War Department, the former as men's Bureau accepted and agreed to by the Senate or not? If it was agreed to by the Senate, then the question of this bureau was closed by the accordance, although there might be other provisions of the House bill to which the Senate had

of the Treasury Department. Upon this point the action of the Senate was an amendment offered to the House bill; but as to the establishment it was no amendment-it was the same thing in different words.

NEW SERIES.....No. 50.

The two Houses agreeing substantially in their action to establish the Freedmen's Bureau, and no conference being asked to harmonize the differing language by which they had severally done it, the question of the bureau was not before the committee of conference for any purpose whatever; certainly not for its repudiation. In recommending the establishment of a separate and independent Department for it, the committee acted on a matter coram non judice, and the Senate repudiated that action and the committee's report of it.

In support of this position I will read the first joint rule of the two Houses:

"In every case of an amendinent of a bill agreed to in one House, and dissented to in the other, if either House shall request a conference, and appoint a committee for that purpose, and the other House shall also appoint a committee to confer, such committees shall, at a convenient hour, to be agreed upon by their chairmen, meet in the conference chamber, and state to each other, verbally or in writing, as either shall choose, the reasons of their respective Houses for and against the amendment, and coufer freely thereon."

Now, sir, according to this rule, what matter comes before a committee of conference? It is only the matter of the amendment which has been proposed in one House to a bill or joint resolution passed by the other. The rule is express, that upon this amendment the conference shall take place; and that amendment, so far as relates to the main and essential object and provision of the measure, I have attempted to analyze.

Now, sir, I will read the first clause of the report of the committee of conference:

That the Senate recede from their amendment to the said bill, and the committee agree to the following as a substitute:

An act to establish a Department of Freedmen and Abandoned Lands.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there is hereby established at the seat of Government of the United States a Department of Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, whose object shall be the good of the freedmen, and the administration of lands and other property falling to the national Government in the rebel States not heretofore appropriated to other uses. And this Department shall be under the care of a Commissioner, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, with an annual salary of $4,000.

It is thus shown that the committee transcended their authority by repudiating the bureau upon which the two Houses had accorded; and recommended in lieu of it a Department of which no mention had been made either in the bill passed by the House or in the Senate's amendment.

If the main subject of a bill can thus be shuffled out, a new, different, and more important one slipped in by the report of a committee of conference, and that report cannot be referred to a committee or divided like other propositions when the two Houses vote on its adoption, does it not change the essential forms of legislation as established by the Constitution and the rules of the two Houses? If this report should be adopted by the two Houses, I ask Senators if a bill to establish another Department of the Government, Department of Freedmen and Abandoned Lands,' has ever been introduced into either House of Congress, referred to one of its standing committees, read three several times, passed, and then reported to the other House and there referred to one of its standing committees, read three several times, and passed? Who can tell the mischiefs that would result from such a radical change in the forms of legislation?

66

So much, sir, upon that branch of the subject. Now I will proceed to an analysis and examination of the bill under consideration, and as I deem the twelfth section of most importance, I will first make my objections to it. That section is in these words:

SEC. 12. And be it further enacted, That all assistant commissioners, local superintendents, and clerks, as well as supervising special agents, shall be so far deemed to be in the military service of the United States as to be liable to trial by courts-martial or military commissions, to be ordered by the commanding general of the military department within which they act as such assistant commissioners, local superintendents, clerks, or supervising special agents. And for all offenses amounting to a felony; for any act of embezzlement, or willful misappropriation of

public or private property; for any willful act of oppression of any freedman, or of any loyal inhabitant; for any act of taking or receiving, directly or indirectly, any money or thing of valne on account of any act done or omitted by them in their official capacity; or for being in any manner interested in any purchase of cotton, tobacco, sugar, or any other article produced upon any lands leased or worked under the provisions of this net; or for any other willful violation of their official duties, upon conviction thereof, shall be subject to punishment by fine not exceeding $10,000, or imprisonment at hard labor for a period not exceeding five years, or by both such fine and imprison

ment.

That is a clause in the substitute bill; it is highly penal in its character; it creates a large class of offenses that are not military offenses, that are not cases arising in the land or naval forces of the United States, but that are civil offenses, to be perpetrated not by the soldiers or seamen of the United States in the military or naval service, but by civilians; and those offenses, with all of the severe punishments which are denounced against them, are not to be tried by the appropriate constitutional tribunals, the civil courts, according to the municipal laws, but by this section of the bill are handed over to the jurisdiction of military tribunals appointed by the commanding officer. Is it competent for Congress to pass a bill with such a provision in it? The honorable Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. COWAN] a few days ago brought up this question before the Senate, and with a power and force of argument far beyond anything that I can command, so far won its reason and judgment as that it voted by a decided majority to strike out a similar provision in another; and in lieu of it gave to the civil courts the trial of such offenders.

What has the Senate to do in order to reject this bill, with such a provision in it, but to follow up its action and the encouraging precedent which it set on that occasion? The learned Senator's reasoning and constitutional objections are more pointed and cogent in their application to the bill now under consideration than they were to the section which was assaulted with so much vigor and success by him. But, sir, I propose to examine this question a little myself. My honorable and early friend near me, [Mr. HOWARD,] whose ability as a lawyer, logician, and statesman, it is my pleasure to concede, and whose purity and patriotism of purpose I am far from questioning, differs so essentially from me in relation to what I conceive to be the most fundamental and vital principles of the Constitution -without which, or which practically overruled and disregarded, I would not give a farthing for the Constitution itself-that I feel it incumbent upon me to examine at some length these principles, and the provisions of the Constitution which bear upon this section of the bill.

Sir, the Senate is often engaged in the consideration of great questions, questions of permanent and immeasurable interest to the American people, to the present generation and to all posterity. In my humble judgment it never was engaged in the consideration of one of more essential and inappreciable importance than that now before it. Where had this important provision of the Constitution its paternity? What people devoted to constitutional liberty and jealous of their rights, and especially of the absorbing and domineering tendencies of military courts, suggested the first provision of the fifth amendment to the Constitution? It originated in the State of Massachusetts. It was prominent among the constitutional amendments which that great State, I will say in that early day of our history that enlightened and patriotic State, but now how deplorably fallen, presented for the adoption of all the States as an amendment to the Consitution, and is in these words:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces," &c.

Now, sir, let us examine this provision. My honorable friend from Michigan attempted a definition of the term "case" used in it a few days since. That is one of the essential words in this clause, the meaning of which ought to be clearly ascertained if practicable. Then the other important phrase "forces," a correct understanding of which is equally necessary to a proper construction of this important provision of the Constitution. Wi.at are cases arising in the land or naval forces? What is a case? All lawyers understand what a case in court is. I admit that the

term "case" here has a larger significance than the term "case" as it is applied to proceedings in court, but still "cases" here 66 means questions relating to persons or things.' That is the import, the meaning of the term, as it is used in this section of the Constitution. That is Johnson's definition of the term "case." That of Webster is "a state of facts involving a question for discussion or decision." Now, sir, I do not know how, with my limited knowledge of language, I could give a more precise and correct definition of the term "case" than is expressed in these two definitions. I should adopt the latter. It is a state of facts involving a question for discussion or decision. It seems to me that that was the sense in which the framers of the Constitution used the term, and I take it for true that that is sense. Now, with that definition of a "case," there were and necessarily would arise in the operations of the country and of the Government two great classes of cases, one civil and the other military. I hold that it was the purpose of our wise and watchful fathers who made this fundamental law of government to draw a clear distinction between the two classes of cases, and to provide a radically different treatment of the two classes of cases. In their distrust of and aversion to the tyranny of military power they chose to adopt this important principle, which in the language of Mr. John Quincy Adams, in my judgment "will abide the test of time, of talents, and of human scrutiny," that a mere civilian, at no time, upon no charge, under no state of case, should ever be put upon trial, for a capital or otherwise infamous offense, before a military court, where the law is the mere will of the court itself, or of the commanding officer who convenes it, where there is an utter, reckless abnegation of constitutional and of all the provisions of civil law, where, in the language of Wellington, "martial law is only the will of the commander-in-chief, and its effect is to overthrow all other law-to make the will of the commander-in-chief the supreme, unquestionable, unappealable law of the case.

BRIDGE ACROSS THE OHIO.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair must now interrupt the Senator and call up the special order, being the unfinished business of yesterday, which is the motion to reconsider the vote on the passage of the bill (S. No. 392) supplementary to an act approved July 14, 1862, entitled "An act to establish certain post roads."

Mr. SUMNER. I hope the Senator from Kentucky may have the privilege of finishing his remarks to-day on this matter.

Mr. CHANDLER. There is a special order for to-day at one o'clock, House bill No. 307, regulating commerce among the several States, which I hope will be taken up. The report which dently lead to a long debate, pro and con., and I has been under discussion this morning will evidesire to have this bill considered to-day. It has already gone over several times, and I am anxious to have it disposed of. I move that all other orders be laid aside and that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill which was made the special order for to-day.

Mr. POWELL. I hope the unfinished business will not be postponed. It is a matter of very great importance to have that bill passed. It is pending here on a motion to reconsider, and unless it be passed very soon there will not be time to get it through the House of Representatives. I hope it will not be postponed but will be acted upon. I do not think it will lead to much debate. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CowAN] will make a speech in favor of the motion to reconsider, and I propose to speak not over ten or fifteen minutes in reply, and then I am willing to submit the question to the vote of the Senate.

Mr. CHANDLER. I hope the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the bill which was made the special order for to-day.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Michigan to postpone all prior orders and proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 307.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I hope that motion will not be agreed to. The measure referred to by the Senator from Kentucky need not occupy much of the time of the Senate. It is very important that that bill shall be passed at this session, so that the railroads interested in the important work

which it provides for may be enabled to progress with the work during the coming summer. It is of prime importance to our States that it should be considered.

Mr. CHANDLER. I am in favor of that bill, but I hope that the Senators will not antagonize it with the measure in my charge, which has been laid aside for the consideration of bills from the Committee on Finance. Now, it is the special order for to-day, and I hope it will be proceeded with.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Allow me to suggest to my honorable friend from Michigan that the bill referred to by the Senator from Kentucky passed the Senate, and I made a motion to reconsider in order to allow the Senator from Pennsylvania to be heard. I understand that when he has been heard, and the Senator from Kentucky shall have replied, that subject will at once come to a vote, and then we can take up the bill which the Senator from Michigan desires to consider, and go on with it. I think that course will expedite busi

ness.

Mr. CHANDLER. I withdraw my motion, with the understanding that the bill to which I have referred shall be taken up next.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The unfinished business of yesterday is the motion of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. DOOLITTLE] to reconsider the vote by which the Senate passed the bill (S. No. 392) supplementary to an act approved July 14, 1862, entitled "An act to establish certain post roads."

Mr. COWAN. This bill, Mr. President, provides for the construction of a bridge across the Ohio river at Louisville. It provides that its height shall not be less than fifty-six feet above low-water mark; that ft shall be constructed with three draws sufficient 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 chutes, 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.

It is not necessary that I should remind the Senate of the importance of the Ohio river as a highway to the commerce of the great valley of the Mississippi. A thousand miles in length, carrying upon its current more in a single day than all the railroads of the country can carry in a month, it becomes of the greatest importance that that navigation should be free and unobstructed. Serators will remember that in 1862 this question came before the Senate upon a proposal to construct a railroad bridge across the Ohio river at Steubenville. It was very much investigated at that time, and a very considerable amount of testimony was adduced before the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads in order to ascertain in what way such a bridge might be constructed without injury to the navigation. The bill which passed on that occasion, and which was approved on the 14th of July, 1862, authorizing the Steubenville bridge, provided that it should be at least three hundred feet wide, and I think it was shown pretty conclusively before the committee that any other construction than that there would be an impediment to the navigation of the river.

That bridge was constructed there, nine hundred miles above the mouth of the Ohio river, with spans of three hundred feet and an elevation of ninety feet above the water. It was supposed at that time to be a final settlement of the question, so far as it could come before this Legisla ture. Here, however, we find a bill now which proposes to throttle this river, to narrow its capacity, some five hundred miles below, and the effect of which will be to compel the whole navigation of the river above to accommodate itself to the narrow passage under this proposed bridge.

The place where this bridge is proposed to be located is one of great importance. It will be observed by Senators that it is to be located at the head of the falls of the Ohio river, the most difficult and dangerous piece of navigation upon the whole river. It is to be located at a place where it requires great care and circumspection to achieve the channel at all, a place where it is impossible at certain stages of the water to land

heavy floats in order to prepare them for a passage through the draws which are to be constructed in this bridge; and I have no hesitation in saying that, if this bridge be erected, it will operate to cripple the navigation of the whole river above, and that for most obvious reasons. The ordinary boats on the river require a space of eighty-five or ninety feet high in order to enable them to pass under it-that is to say, a first-class boat, with its chimney, is from eighty to ninety feet high. It is not pretended that such boats can pass under this bridge; and, as a matter of course, they will be obliged to pass through the draw, and this draw-wide enough, perhaps, to allow them to pass-is to be opened and shut, and these boats have to detain themselves until that is done, and to detain themselves upon the very brink of the falls, the very place where it would be most difficult of all others to stop, and wait the adjustment of the draw; and if they are coming up the falls I cannot see how it would be possible that they could stop on such a place as that for such a purpose. I believe there are Senators who know something about a bridge that was built across the Mississippi river at Rock Island, and know something about the accidents which occurred there from the very causes to which I am now referring. At that bridge a very large amount of property was destroyed; and I believe it was considered by the country so much of a nuisance as required that it should be finally abated.

So far as the draws are concerned in this bridge at the falls, one hundred and fifty feet in width would do if it were possible and not dangerous to open and shut a draw of such length. If the Senate will suppose an arm of one hundred and fifty feet long to be stretched each side of a central pier, they will have an idea of the time that will be necessary to swing that draw, to open it, to turn those arms in the direction of the current, and then close them across the stream afterward. I suppose the larger boats, the passenger-carrying boats of the river, might stop to await this opening and shutting of the draw, and I suppose there is enough space so that they could get through; but the objection comes more particularly from a large number of people who are engaged in a different kind of carrying trade, coal and lumber. The passage that will be open to them at the widestand that is not in the channel because the draws occupy the channel-the spans over other parts of the river where they will be obliged to run through are limited here and cut down to two hundred and forty feet. It will be utterly impossible to conduct the navigation and trade of that river upon the same principle which is now adopted if you narrow these spans to two hundred and forty feet. The tows themselves are often wider than that; and they range from one hundred and eighty to two hundred and twenty feet. One not conversant with this kind of navigation might suppose it would be very easy to run a boat two hundred feet wide between a pair of piers that were two hundred and forty feet wide; but Senators must remember that the pilot who undertakes to achieve this task must begin a mile away from the passage, and then he must begin with the enormous weight of tows, some three or four hundred feet long and some two hundred feet wide, carrying the heaviest of all commodities, bituminous stone coal. These barges are one hundred feet long, six or seven feet draught, and twenty feet wide, all tied to a small tug-boat calculated simply to give the whole mass weight or momentum enough for the ordinary navigation of the river, but utterly unable to turn it readily and quickly so as to correct any error that the pilot might make in his calculation at that distance. I venture to say that nine out of every ten of the pilots upon that river, unless it is those who are constantly engaged in running it-I mean the ordinary pilots who run it in times of freshets when alone these heavy cargoes can go down the river cannot strike that passage, or know whether they are going to strike it until they are close to it. Even if you get the bow or fore part of this tow within that narrow strait, if you come into it aslant, before your boats get through, your sideways with the whole tow will be against the pier.

We have had some experience with regard to the Steubenville bridge where the spans are three hundred feet wide, and where the river is comparatively smooth and unobstructed, and without

any very rapid current, and the consequence there is that it requires the greatest skill and the greatest care to avoid accidents even with less cargoes than those that I have described.

Mr. President, I think it would be exceedingly unjust to the people inhabiting the States of Ohio, West Virginia, and the upper part of Pennsylvania, that this obstruction should be put here, particularly when you come to ascertain how very easy it would be to avoid all this difficulty.

The other day we authorized the construction of a bridge across the Ohio river at Cincinnati. That was a suspension bridge with a span of a thousand feet, and instead of being ninety feet above the water, as the Steubenville bridge is, it was one hundred feet. Nobody complained of it. Why not build this bridge in that way? Where is the necessity of narrowing the span upon this bridge to two hundred and forty feet, when it is obvious, and a matter of actual experiment, that the span can be made a thousand feet? Where is the necessity of putting it down to fifty-six feet above low-water mark when that at Cincinnati is built one hundred feet above lowwater mark? I know the answer to these questions; but what does it amount to? Simply this, that such a bridge would cost $200,000 more. I have no doubt that the trade of the Ohio river, with one mill upon its tonnage for a single year, would pay for that difference; and yet the whole trade and travel upon that river is to be obstructed and impeded, for the sake of what? To save that which, compared with the whole trade, is the merest mote in the sunbeam.

The honorable Senator from Vermont [Mr. COLLAMER] tells me that the length of this bridge is to be four thousand seven hundred feet. If that be so, it is only another argument in favor of the ease with which it can be made one hundred feet high. It is said that the banks of the Ohio river are so low at this point that the bridge cannot be built more than fifty-six feet above the level of the water. Why, sir, is there any difficulty about trestling up at the ends or embanking at the ends? In order to preserve such an immense interest at stake as the people of the three or four States I have named have in the free navigation of the Ohio river, an embankment of a mile on either side of the river, in order to attain the necessary elevation, would be the merest bagatelle in the world compared with the effect that this bridge will have upon all the navigation of that river. I have not a doubt about it in the world; and I speak, to some extent, knowingly upon this subject. I know the difficulties of the navigation of this river, and I know how immensely they would be increased by a wall across it, such as is proposed here. I know, too, what will be the feelings of the free citizen when he comes to an obstruction of that kind, which is utterly and totally unnecessary. It may be very convenient to the railroad company that builds it; it may save them two or three hundred thousand dollars, but it will save them that at a loss of millions upon millions on the trade of that river, and in all time, as long as it lasts. It is not to be a mere temporary obstruction; it is not to remain there for a month or a year, but it is to remain there for all time. This privilege, this right, which we are about to give away to private corporations and take from the whole people, is to endure and remain forever.

We may sit here and take no interest in this subject; we may suppose that it is a trifle; but if we remember the thousands and thousands of people with their property upon that river for more than six months in the year, and the stake they have in that property, oftentimes their all embarked in a single boat or tow, then it becomes another question, and it becomes us to protect them. They have a right unquestionably to the free navigation of the river. It is public property. It belongs to the whole people. It belongs to you and me and all of us; and are we to give it away? To whom? To give it away to private corporations to our own detriment. There might be some argument for it if it was absolutely necessary; but it is proposed to give it away to them to our own detriment, in order that they may be able to cross it by means of a cheap structure.

Now, I ask Senators what is to prevent them making a bridge of three hundred feet span just as well as they made such a bridge at Steubenville? What is to prevent these companies from constructing a bridge, that will meet with no op

1

position from anybody, of a thousand feet span and ninety feet above the water? Nobody has shown and nobody can show that such a thing is impossible.

It is said the banks of the river are low. I do not care how low they may be. This bridge now, it seems, can be fifty-six feet above the water. What you want, then, is to elevate it forty-four feet higher, to make it according to the Steubenville standard. What distance will you require. in order to attain that elevation upon an easy grade of railroad? Ninety feet to the mile is not a very heavy grade on a railroad. This river itself is over four thousand feet wide, four fifths of a mile, and even upon the bridge itself, by elevating it in the center, you might attain, perhaps, almost the elevation you require. But that is not necessary. It is not necessary that your railroad shall run at a dead level until you come to the bank of the river. You may commence half a mile back, if you please, and trestle up until you get to the proper elevation.

I take it that this Senate would be recreant to its duty here if it allowed any company to put a bridge across there that would obstruct the navigation when it is possible to put one there that would protect the navigation. I think that is not a question that Senators should be in doubt about at all. They should not come here and ask that a general right may be set aside to subserve a private interest, however much that private interest may connect itself with the public; but they ought to come with such evidence as would leave to every member of this Senate no doubt but that the great public right would be preserved.

Suppose these companies were to begin half a mile from the river bank on each side, in order to raise an embankment to get forty-four feet of elevation, what would that cost? By embankment itself it would not cost $200,000; and by trestlework it would not cost near so much; and shall you impede or impair or even threaten the navigation of this great highway for such a consideration as that? I hope not, sir. I should be exceedingly sorry to believe that such a thing would be agreed to by Senators who have had an opportunity of knowing these things, particularly when they have once been investigated here at great length, as the honorable Senator from Vermont [Mr. COLLAMER] will testify when his memory is refreshed by the provisions of the law of July 14, 1862, in relation to the Steubenville bridge, when it was absolutely shown that nothing short of a span of three hundred feet would satisfy the requirements of the navigation of that river; and since that time, as I have before stated, there is the most conclusive evidence in the world that a bridge can be built there that will be unexceptionable to everybody. I hope, therefore, that this bill will be reconsidered.

Mr. COLLAMER. Do you want to amend it? Mr. COWAN. I wish to make it precisely the same as the bill for the bridge across the Ohio river at Steubenville. It is manifest to everybody that all the people navigating this river must accommodate themselves to its narrowest passages. If you make the passage only one hundred feet wide, then they must cut down their floats to one hundred feet. There is no use in having a three hundred feet span at Steubenville if you have a two hundred and forty feet span below in one part of the river. There is no use of having a bridge with ninety feet elevation at Steubenville and one hundred feet at Wheeling and one hundred feet at Cincinnati, if at Louisville there is to be a bridge with but fifty-six feet elevation.

I propose to read the action of the Pittsburg Coal Exchange upon this subject; and this is the opinion of men who are engaged in this trade, and who understand this subject much better than men not engaged in it might be supposed to understand it:

"Whereas there is a bill now before Congress to authorize the construction of a railroad bridge across the Ohio river at the falls, near Louisville, on a plan which, in our opinion, would be ruinous to the navigation of the river, more particularly to those engaged in towing coal: Therefore,

"Resolved, That we respectfully but earnestly protest against the erection of said bridge on the plan mentioned in said bill, for the following reasons, namely:

"First. It does not specify at what point they intend to cross the falls."

I might remark that that very omission is fatak in this bill for a reason that they give below. "This is a serious matter, as there are points where the

erection of a bridge would stop navigation, while there are other points where it might be possible to place piers without interfering much with the navigation."

There are points where the erection of a bridge would not only hinder and impede the navigation but absolutely stop it entirely. If the bridge was located at a particular point on the falls where the river runs with almost lightning rapidity, it would be utterly impossible to stop a boat if the draw was not open, and if a railroad train was just passing, it would be impossible to open the draw in order to let the boat through, and then you would have the same accidents which have characterized the bridge at Rock Island across the Mississippi.

"Second. The height proposed is too low; there is no low-water mark on the falls "

Which may seem to be a paradox, but the water runs away so rapidly over the falls that the rise there, however much it may be above and below, amounts to nothing. It is very much like pouring molasses out of a pitcher: the stream may be as thick as your wrist at the spout, and yet by its accelerated velocity in falling, when it gets near the floor it is almost as thin as a hair from going so much more rapidly.

"The river rises sometimes thirty feet; and when it is safe for heavy boats to run over the falls it would not give forty feet above water, which would not let a steamer under without chimneys."

It would not let the boats on the Ohio river through even if they were to take off their chimneys entirely, and the chimneys themselves are from forty to fifty feet above the hurricane deck of the boats.

"Third. The proposed width of piers at the schutes of one hundred and fifty feet is entirely too little. Our towboats with their barges frequently require a width of two hundred feet, and seldom less than one hundred and twenty."

All this may seem strange to Senators, and yet it is nevertheless true, and sometimes they not only reach two hundred feet, but they have even gone down with a width of two hundred and seventy feet. There will be, perhaps, twenty or twenty-five of these barges all tied together, presenting a front of ten, twelve, and fourteen barges, and in the inside of them a tug-boat with an engine, driving that immense mass down the river, and when it has taken them down it returns and another set of barges are taken down in the same way. Can it be supposed that a boatman on one of these floats in a dark night, if you please, in a fog, in a storm, or in any of the thousand contingencies which assail the boatman in his perilous way, can hit with a boat two hundred feet wide a passage two hundred and forty feet wide? If he did hit it with an ordinary boat he would not be doing a bad business; but certainly he could not do it with the old broad-horn, the old flatboat. He might do it if he was out upon the land, if he was in a forest where he had plenty of landmarks, but when you throw him out in the midst of a river over four thousand feet wide, with nothing but the current, nothing but the smooth glassy surface of water to guide him, he may be two hundred and forty feet out of his way and be may be five hundred out of it, and he cannot know it until he is almost upon the obstruction.

It is not only the case with the piers in the river, but it is the case with islands in the river. Go down the river at any time you please, and at the head of these islands you will find wreck after wreck of boats; and why? Were they only two hundred and forty feet wide? The pier will be only twenty-five or thirty feet. But it is impossible to avoid these islands, presenting as they do for a long distance this immense front, and the boats run upon them; and yet here you suppose that men can safely narrow themselves down to a two hundred and forty feet channel in a river of this width. Sir, it is impossible; it is not in the nature of things. You may get up to it, because you come up very slowly, and if you do not happen to come up right, you can go back on the falls as fast as you want to do; but if you are coming down you cannot stop; you cannot change your direction; you are at the mercy of this enormous mass of floating matter, while your boat has not power enough and you cannot give it momentum enough to enable you to guide it or to turn it.

"Now the danger of running the falls without any artificial obstructions is very great; and we are satisfied that with piers placed as proposed, it would be nearly impossible to run with any safety. We have come to this conclusion, from our experience in ruuuing the piers of the Steu

benville bridge, which are three hundred feet apart; and this over a part of the river which does not run so wild as it does at the falls."

"Resolved, That we do not wish to say or do anything that would tend to hinder the erection of a railroad bridge at a proper place over or near the falls; but for the foregoing reasons we earnestly request our Representatives in Congress to use all their interest and powers to stop the passage of said bill until the party asking for the privilege shall locate it in such a place as those who are interested in the navigation of the river shall consider it safe."

Now, Mr. President, one word more. What is this question? What is the length and breadth of it measured in a pecuniary point of view? It is the carrying trade and travel of the Ohio river on the one side, and the cost of raising this bridge forty-four feet more on the other side. Compare the two-a mountain to a molehill, or rather a mountain to that which vanishes away into nothingness by the comparison. What would be $200,000 or $300,000 or $500,000, if you please, invested by these companies to raise the bridge above the water one hundred feet, as it is at Cincinnati, with a span of a thousand feet, compared with the navigation of this great highway? What right have they to claim it? As I said before, I have no doubt that in a single day that river, when it is in freshet, would carry and does carry more tonnage than all the railraods of the West in a month. Then there is the lumber trade, too, from western Pennsylvania; the rafts which go down the Ohio are more than one hundred and fifty and sometimes two hundred feet wide, and sometimes containing acres with houses, horses, and almost all the materials of civilized life on these great rafts. They are frequently compelled to go down the river in the night, because they cannot land; there are times when it is utterly impossible for them to land; when the shore is unsuited to them; when the wind is high; and they must go on, no matter whether it is in the fog or darkness or what may be the surrounding circumstances, and you propose to build a wall across it for the purpose of their running through two hundred and forty feet of space! Why, Mr. President, if this bill shall pass you might just as well say that six hundred miles of that river is to be cut off from the people above this bridge or else they must all go to work and adapt themselves to its restriction; they must wear its straitjacket in order to accommodate themselves to it for the simple purpose of saving to these railroad companies perhaps two or three hundred thousand dollars which would enable them to put a bridge there which nobody would complain of, and one that would affect no public right.

to the public interest that this railway bridge be constructed across the falls of the Ohio river.

It

is at that point that the roads from the Northwest and the roads from Kentucky running south meet. I have no doubt that every year since this war commenced this Government has lost over a million dollars in consequence of the obstruction of transportation of freight and munitions of war at that point. The two depots, the one of the Jeffersonville railroad and the other of the Louisville and Nashville railroad, are distant some half a mile or a mile from the river. The vast amount of provisions and other Army supplies that pass by rail to the Army south goes over the Louisville and Nashville railroad and reaches that point. Then you have to employ wagons to carry them to the river, and then they have to be ferried over the river, and from thence to be carried to the depot of the Louisville and Nashville road for transportation south. There have been as many as a thousand wagons employed at one time in hauling the Government trains across that river. The impediment, the delay, and the cost is immense. That is known to every gentlemen who lives upon that border. The Senate will bear in mind that there is no railway having connection with the South, Nashville for instance, that connects with the Northwest, other than the Louisville and Nashville railroad, and all the Government supplies, all the freights, and all the passengers that pass there, other than those connected with the Government that go by rail, have to pass over the river at this point. Hence it is a matter of very great importance and of great public interest that a bridge be built there, and built speedily.

The Senator from Pennsylvania is of the opinion that it will obstruct the navigation of the river. He is of the opinion too that the bridge is located in the wrong place; that the currents are swift there, and consequently the navigation will be more impeded by such a bridge there than it would be if built elsewhere. Allow me to tell the Senator that in that matter he is very greatly mistaken. I have investigated this matter in every aspect in which it could be presented. I have taken the opinions of the most sensible men who have been engaged in the navigation of the river; and since this motion to reconsider has been entered I have talked with some of the steamboat men who have been for thirty years engaged in the navigation of the Ohio. I have called their attention to the plan of this bridge, and they all tell me that it will not interfere with the navigation.

Mr. POWELL. I fully concur with the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania as to the great advantage and importance of the Ohio river being free and unobstructed, but I am very confident that the construction of this bridge in the manner indicated will not in any manner whatever affect or obstruct the navigation of the river. If I believed that it would I would not be the advocate of the bridge and the plan of construction proposed.

I live two hundred and twenty miles below the falls of the Ohio, on the banks of that river. I have been familiar with its navigation from my earliest boyhood. I have inquired of a large number of the oldest and most intelligent steamboat men concerning this bridge, and they all tell me that a bridge constructed in the mode prescribed in this bill will not obstruct the navigation of the river. The importance of the navigation of the river being kept unobstructed is a matter that must be well known to every Senator. I suppose there is not a Senator in this Chamber who would be for passing any law authorizing a bridge to be built across that stream that he thought would obstruct its navigation; but being entirely confident that the bridge will not obstruct the navigation of the river, I trust the Senate will refuse to reconsider it, and will let the bill go to the House for their consideration.

It is a matter of the very greatest importance

all except through the canal.

So far as the rapidity of the current there is concerned, allow me to tell the Senator that whenever the river is of sufficient height to allow boats to ascend and descend the river at the falls, there is no more current there, or very little more, than at other places. When the river is seven feet high at the head of the falls, then it is some fifteen or sixteen feet high below the falls. When the river is ten or twelve feet high at the head of the falls, then there is no greater current in consequence of the falls, because at that height the current is level. The falls of the Ohio are about two and a half miles in length. At that distance the fall is some twenty-six feet; but in consequence of the rapidity of the water passing over the falls at low tide, when the river rises, and in consequence of the narrows in the Ohio river, just below the falls where the river passes through tortuous rockybound hills, the river rises something over two feet below the falls, while it rises one foot at the head of the falls; and consequently a rise of ten or twelve feet obliterates entirely the increased current in consequence of the falls, because twelve feet at the head of the falls is over twenty-six feet below the falls.

I hold in my hand a petition accompanied by affidavits and statements upon that subject. The petition is signed by Mr. Guthrie, the president of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, and by Mr. Ricketts, president of the Jeffersonville Railroad Company, two very intelligent gentlemen, both of whom have lived for many years