majority of the Senate is in favor of the substance of the bill we had better pass it in the language used by the House of Representatives. I have no objection to the amendment except that it tends to delay and possibly produce the defeat of the bill.

Mr. JOHNSON. Personally, as a member of this body, without meaning to reflect at all on the House of Representatives or any member of it, I should be very unwilling to vote for the bill in the form in which it comes from that House. We are responsible for the phraseology of our legislation as well as that House itself. If, as I understand was the fact, the House was very decided in opinion that the tax should be levied on the 1st of January instead of the 1st of February, it will at once adopt the amendment if the bill be returned with the amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN. I submit again to the Senate whether we had not better, as it is merely a question of phraseology, only a choice of words, take the substance of the proposition, if we are in favor of it, and not amend it.

its laws ought to be in obedience to the will and to the interests of the people, and especially ought to be in obedience to the rule of good faith with the people.

I hope that this measure will not pass either in the form of the amendment proposed by the Senator from Maryland or in the form of the bill as reported by the chairman of the Committee on Finance. I trust that stability in legislation and good faith to the people will be adhered to in relation to this matter and all other matters of law and legislation by Congress.

As I understand the object of the bill, it is to obtain an increased revenue by imposing fifty cents additional tax upon whisky which shall be manufactured during the next month. I was not at all satisfied with the legislation on this subject at the last session of Congress. We have lost the entire revenue which might have been derived from whisky during the last six months, as `I understand. I know that in the State of Illinois, where a great deal of whisky had been manufactured previously, the distilleries have all stopped. If any of them are in operation now I am not aware of it. Certainly they are not in operation to any very considerable extent.

Mr. RICHARDSON. I will state to my colleague, having investigated that matter, that there are three, out of hundreds that have been running. Mr. TRUMBULL. Running to their full ca

The people who were interested in the whisky trade have made themselves familiar with this provision of the law; they have adapted their contracts and their business to it; and you cannot change the law now by imposing the tax in February instead of January, thus giving it practical operation a month sooner than by the law as passed it was to go into operation, without seriously deranging the business of some men, and probably a great many of them, and producing considerable loss to them. All the dealers in this article-and they are very numerous, and their transactions are very large and valuable to themselves and to the country generally, but especially to themselves-have made their contracts and their arrangements with a view to the fact that this increased tax was to take effect in February. I think that the consideration of stability in legislation ought to induce Congress to forego the amount of increased revenue that might be obtained by giving this clause in the law a month's earlier operation.

The other principle to which I referred is the question of good faith on the part of the Government to the people in its legislation. No man who has any information or intelligence in relation to this subject can suppose that this proposed change in the law can take effect without producing very serious loss to many individuals. If Congress in passing the original law had established the date of January, no man would have had the right to complain; every man would have been duly notified of the law some months before it went into operation, and he would have had time to conform his contracts and his interests to the law and to the time fixed by Congress for its taking effect. But when Congress has passed the law in this form, pledged its faith to one date, and has thus induced traders and dealers in this great article to make their contracts and arrangements with a view to that date, it seems to me that it would not be good faith, on the contrary it would be bad faith, in Congress now to change the law and subject these men to the loss that must be inevitable upon the change.

Gentlemen in the Senate speak as though all the property in the country belonged to the Government, and the Government had the sovereign right to dispose of all the property of the people, so far, at least, as regards imposing taxes upon it, according to its sovereign will and pleasure. Now, sir, my principle is that the property of the people of the United States belongs to the people themselves, and not to the Government, and it is their option, their will, that votes any of this property in the form of taxes or in any other form whatever to the Government. The Government is not the master, it is the agent, it is the servant, and its action and

an increased tax at some future day of the session, it had better be done now. The course pursued in regard to this article has facilitated speculation in the country and has not brought that revenue which another policy, in my judgment, would have produced. I think it is to the interest of the people, as well as of the Government, that we should know whether this is to be all the legislation on the subject of whisky taxation for the session.

Mr. SHERMAN. I answered the inquiry when the Senator from Indiana was not present, when it was put to me by the gentleman who now occupies the chair, [Mr. POMEROY,] but I have no objection to answer it again. I would not have introduced any bill on the subject of the tax on whisky, but would have left it to the law of last year, if I had my own way, and I will reply now to the Senator from Maine. He was not present when this subject was considered at the last session, and I may perhaps say that if it had not been for his distinguished predecessor the result might have been different. I was then, as I am now, in favor of taxing whisky on hand; I think we lost a very large source of revenue in delaying the tax; but that has passed by. This bill comes to us from the House of Representatives in its present form. I cannot state what is the understanding of that House, but I presume, from what I hear and what I see in the newspapers, that this bill was rather the result of a compromise of the various conflicting interests. It was first introduced in the form of a bill taxing the stock on hand, which was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, with instructions to report back that bill. The Committee of Ways and Means reported back this bill with a second section containing a tax upon the stock on hand;|| and the first section of the reported bill,which is the bill now before us, was finally adopted by the other House, perhaps not as a compromise altogether, but as a kind of settlement of the matter. This is what I gather from the debates of Congress. As a matter of course any Senator or any member of the other House may introduce the question at any time, and invoke the uction of the committees of the two Houses and force us to consider it. I cannot, therefore, say that this is a final settlement. I can only say for myself that I hope it is a final settlement, and that 1, certainly, as an individual Senator, will not introduce the subject again.

Mr. TRUMBULL. This bill comes before the Senate without any very strong endorsement by the chairman of the committee who brings it to our notice, and I think there was a great deal of force in what was said by the Senator from Kentucky, and I propose to state in a very few words why I shall vote against it.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Not at all. I will state, if my colleague will permit me, that they are awaiting the action of Congress. Any change of the law is detrimental to the revenue which the Government will derive from that source.

Mr. TRUMBULL. That is not different from what I had supposed. I was not aware, however, that there were even three distilleries in operation in the State of Illinois, but it seems that those are not running to their full capacity. Now, sir, having adopted the legislation which we did. at the last session of Congress, I think it would be very injudicious and prejudicial to interfere with it at this time in the mode proposed. It has been stated in the Senate that our legislation at the last session led to speculation in this article of whisky. It is known to every one that the distilleries were running to their fullest capacity for some time previous to the legislation of Congress, in anticipation of that legislation; and vast fortunes are understood to have been made out of whisky by speculators. If you now pass this bill, what will be the effect? It will add the amount of the tax, or very nearly that, to the value of the whisky on hand. No considerable amount of whisky will be manufactured between now and February, I apprehend. The Senator from Ohio shakes his head. Experience ought to teach us about that. If it will be manufactured between now and February, why has it not been manufactured the last month, and the month before that? Why have all the distilleries in the country stopped? Because the quantity on hand was sufficient to supply the demand for such a length of time that the manufacturers could not afford to manufacture it, so as to compete with those who held it on hand, and hold the manufactured article till the quantity on hand should be exhausted so that they could demand for it a price that would justify their paying the tax. November and December are as good months as any in which to manufacture whisky. I think there is no danger of any considerable quantity of whisky being manufactured between now and February for the purpose of escaping the additional tax. Whisky has been worth very little more than the tax that is now laid upon it for the last three months. It has run up within a few days in anticipation of this very legislation. The men who have the whisky on hand want the tax increased on that which is to be manufactured hereafter. They would be willing to have a tax of five dollars a gallon imposed. They have made fortunes already, and if you put a tax of five dollars per gallon on all that shall be manufactured after to-morrow, they will make additional fortunes on what they now have, and none will be manufactured until the whisky on hand is exhausted.

Sir, I think you will gain but little, in fact nothing, to your revenues by the passage of this bill, while you adopt an unstable mode of legislation and swell the fortunes of speculators who have dealt in this article and have large quantities of it on hand, for they are to be benefited by the passage of this law rather than your revenue.

For these reasons, without going any length into the subject, I shall vote against the bill.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator from Illinois correctly says that the proposition is not pressed very strongly by the Committee on Finance, because they were divided on the question. All the considerations that he has now presented were considered by us, and I think I can reply at least to some of the suggestions made by the Senator from Illinois, perhaps satisfactorily to him.

We saw that the effect of this legislation would be to add to the price of the article on hand, and thus add to the profits of the holders of whisky on hand. Our previous legislation had done that, and this was an argument, certainly, which would tend to prevent us from doing anything for their special benefit. But, on the other hand, we became convinced by examination that if this bill was not passed, a very large amount of whisky would be manufactured in the month of January, the information being very clear that nearly all the distillers in the United States were prepared to run and would commence running as soon as it was certain that Congress would not put a tax upon the stock on hand. We are informed, and I have no doubt it is true, that what has kept the price of whisky below the natural standard is the fact that holders were afraid that Congress at the present session would review its action of the last session, and put a tax upon spirits on hand; and that fear has operated to keep down the price of spirits. I have no doubt that but for that fear the price of spirits would have advanced above two dollars a gallon. The only reason and the strong reason why I am in favor of this proposition is that if it is not passed at once, a very large amount of whisky will be manufactured between now and the 1st of February; from ten to twenty million gallons may be manufactured by the distilleries in the country; they will be run night and day, and they will supply the market for a long time, paying but a dollar and a half revenue to the Government, and then on the 1st of February, when the two-dollar tax goes into operation according to the present law, the business will stop and no more will be manufactured for several months afterwards. It is true that during the month of January, under the operation of the present law, the Government will get a very large revenue. If ten million gallons should be manufactured in January the Government would derive $15,000,000 revenue from the article during that month; but if then the revenue should be entirely cut off for some time to come, we should lose a great deal more than we should gain by continuing the duty at a dollar and a half. On the whole the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and I may say all the officers of the revenue, were satisfied that it would be more for the interest of the Government at once to commence to lay the tax of two dollars on the 1st of January, and then consider the matter settled, so that all persons may arrange their trade and business on that basis, and adapt themselves to a fixed tax of two dollars from the 1st of January. As I said before, there are considerations which make me hesitate somewhat, but that was the result of my deliberate judgment after mature reflection. If, however, a majority of the Senate shall come to a different conclusion, I shall not complain.

The bill was ordered to a third reading, and was read the third time.

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

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 23, nays 12; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Collamer. Conness, Dixon, Farwell, Foot, Foster, Hale, Harlan, Henderson, Howard, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Wilkinson, and Willey-23.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Grimes, Hendricks, Johnson, McDougall, Powell, Richardson, Saulsbury, Trumbull, and Van Winkle-12.

ABSENT-Messrs. Carlile, Chandler, Clarke, Doolittle, Harding, Harris, Hicks, Howe, Morrill, Nesmith, Riddle, Wade, Wilson, and Wright-14.

So the bill was passed.

WEARING OF UNIFORM.

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

Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia be directed to inquire into the expediency of requiring by law that all oflicers not on leave of absence be required to carry on their persons their uniform.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. HALE asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 366) to remit certain duties on clothing materials imported for the use of the Sisters of Charity of St. Joseph; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana, asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a joint

resolution (S. R. No. 87) in reference to paymasters' accounts; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

WASHINGTON GAS-LIGHT COMPANY.

Mr. DIXON. I now move to take up the bill (S. No. 363) to amend the charter of the Washington Gas-Light Company.

Mr. SUMNER. Will not that displace the bill of my colleague, which is the order of the day? The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. POMEROY.) The motion of the Senator from Connecticut is to postpone all prior orders and take up the bill indicated by him.

Mr. SUMNER. My colleague went a few moments ago to the House of Representatives with the understanding that I should be allowed to call up the joint resolution which was postponed yesterday from the Committee on Foreign Relations, and which it is desired should be acted on to-day.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The order of business is in the control of a majority of the Senate.

Mr. DIXON. If the bill to which I have referred be taken up, I shall offer an amendment which I think will obviate all objections to it; and it is a bill which ought to be acted on now if at all.

Mr. SUMNER. I think the Senator had better let it come up after the public business to which I have referred.

Mr. DIXON. I beg the Senator's pardon; this is public business. I insist upon my motion. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. No. 363) to amend the charter of the Washington GasLight Company.

Mr. DIXON. It was objected yesterday that this bill does not fix a definite price for gas, to be charged by this company, but refers to the price in other cities as the standard. I propose to amend the bill by fixing as a maximum price forty cents per hundred feet, with a deduction of ten per cent. for the Government and five per cent. for private consumers, bearing the price of $380 per thousand to private consumers and $3 60 to the Government as the maximum. My amendment is to strike out the following words in the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth lines of the bill:

The average net or cash price which may be charged, as aforesaid, in the capitals of the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, and that from the above price five per cent. shall be deducted on all gas furnished to the General Government.

And to insert in lieu of them the following: Forty cents per hundred cubic feet, subject to a discount of ten per cent. on all bills for gas furnished to the Government, and five per cent. on all bills for gas furnished to other consumers, if paid at the office of the company within seven days from the rendition thereof.

Mr. JOHNSON. I did not hear the honorable chairman of the District Committee, and I should like to know what is the increase upon the present rate that the company will be authorized to charge.

Mr. DIXON. The present rate on bills charged to the Government is $2 52 per thousand feet, and on bills to private consumers $2 70. The Senator can very readily see what the increase is. It is a little over one dollar per thousand. The bill makes the rate $3 60 per thousand feet for the Government and $3 80 for private consumers, which I believe is less than the average price charged in most cities in the Union where coal is cheaper than here.

Mr. SHERMAN. I have here a letter from the president of the company, in which he says the present rate is $2 61. This will be an increase of about fifty per cent. This is a letter from Mr. Bartol-I do not know him, but he signs himself as president-in which he says the price of gas in 1860 was $3 50, and now the average is $2 61.

Mr. DIXON. That is after the deduction. It is $2 52 to the Government and $2 70 to private individuals; $2 61 is the average.

The amendment was agreed to.

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

Mr. HALE. I do not see why there should be hot haste in pushing that matter through to-day. I am opposed to it; I am decidedly opposed to it. I do not want to make any factious opposition to it, but I think it is hardly fair to go into so important a measure as that at this time. I wish to have it lie over. I understand if the notice is given there is nearly a year and a half before the treaty can be terminated.

Mr. SUMNER. A year from the 16th of March next.

Mr. HALE. Then there can be no harm done by letting this resolution lie over until the 1st of January. I desire to examine a little into the operations of the treaty. In my humble judgment this is a step that the Senate ought not to take, and particularly ought they not to take it under an excited state of feeling which exists now in consequence of what we conceive to be a great wrong inflicted on us by the authorities of some of those provinces that are particularly affected by this treaty. I know that when this treaty was negotiated, when the reciprocity principle was established, it was looked upon by the enlightened statesmen of this country and of England as an advance in the social progress of society, and as a step in the onward march which should unfree the shackles of commerce, and give greater liberty and greater progress to commercial intercourse between this country and those provinces. The objections which were suggested the other day by the honorable Senator from Maine [Mr. FARWELL] in regard to its operations upon the fisheries of New England exist at the present time only because of an accidental, temporary circumstance, to wit, the duty that, we have felt compelled by the necessities of the Government at this time to impose on salt. That is a difficulty growing not out of the subject itself but out of the accidental state of things incident to and dependent upon the war which unhappily rages in this country.

Mr. President, there are very important privileges secured to the people of the United States, and especially to some of the eastern States, by this treaty, which it is proposed now rashly and inconsiderately, in my humble judgment, to throw away and to give up. Let me state one of them. In the first place, by this treaty the people of the United States, and all the United States, have the free use of the navigation of the St. Lawrence and of the canals which are made around Niagara falls, and by which the commerce of all the West may find free egress to and ingress from the ocean. That is one thing. The matter of the fisheries I alluded to yesterday, and there is another important privilege

Mr. SUMNER. I suggest to the Senator that if the resolution shall be taken up, as he desires to speak, he can then speak upon it, because what he is saying now is rather pertinent to the main question than to the mere question of taking up.

Mr. CONNESS. I desire simply to suggest that the course proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts be taken, that the resolution be taken up, and that the Senator from New Hampshire address the Senate on the subject-matter, as he really is doing.

Mr. HALE. The difficulty is that I am not prepared at this time to do that. I am mention ing some of the considerations that would be pertinent, but I do not know what has been the operation of this treaty. It will appear from our published reports of Commerce and Navigation coming from the Secretary of the Treasury. I have not had time to examine them; I am not prepared at this time to discuss this matter, and I did not suppose it was to be taken up at this time.

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask if it is the purpose of the Senator from Massachusetts to press a decision on the resolution now.

Mr. SUMNER. I hope to have a vote at once. Mr. CONNESS. Why not?

Mr. JOHNSON. I have no objection individually to taking it up and having it considered at this time; but I hope that the honorable chairman will not press it to a vote to-day. Perhaps

it is desirable, and I individually think it is, that the subject should pass over until we meet again after the holidays. There is some uneasiness in the public mind already because of wrongs which we have suffered as it is supposed in consequence of the failure to do its whole duty on the part of the colonial authority in Canada. Whether that is justifiable or not, I am not prepared to say; but if we pass this resolution at this time terminating this treaty, it might be considered as rather an unfriendly act now-not that we have not a right to do it under the treaty. But I submit to my friend from Massachusetts whether it would not be better under all the circumstances to consider it more maturely than it can be considered as I suppose during the short period that the session of to-day will continue.

I have not the slightest objection, as I repeat, to taking up the question, and as I said in committee I say again, whether notice shall be given or not is a matter on which I am without a very settled opinion. My impression was when the treaty was entered into that it would be very beneficial to the country, and for a long time it was considered to operate advantageously to the country. I know that Mr. Webster was of opinion that it was a very advantageous arrangement. Whether it has ceased to be advantageous now, because of its intrinsic character, or whether it has become so because of subsequent legislation on the part of the colonial government, is a matter upon which I have no settled opinion.

Mr. FOOT. Mr. Webster died before the treaty was made.

Mr. SUMNER. Several years before.

Mr. JOHNSON. I understand that perfectly well; but he expressed his opinion about it long before; he talked about it to me over and over. I ought to have said that his statement was that such an arrangement would be very advantage

ous.

Mr. SUMNER. I would simply remark that I was instructed by the committee to ask for immediate action on this resolution, and there was a reason for it in this circumstance: that it had been long pending before both branches of Congress and before the committee itself, and that during the present session the other House has already acted, and the resolution reported by the committee is in the nature of a substitute for that of the House, and it was desirable that we should complete the action on the matter before the adjournment for the holidays. I hope there will be no question, but that we may proceed with it.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to con sider the joint resolution (H. R. No. 56) authorizing the President of the United States to give to the Government of Great Britain the notice required for the termination of the reciprocity treaty of the 5th of June, A. D. 1854.

The amendment reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations was to strike out the original preamble and resolution, in the following words: Whereas under the treaty made by the United States with Great Britain, proclamation of which was made by the President of the United States on the 11th of Septemiber, 1851, for the purpose of extending reciprocal trade between the British North American colonies and the United States, nearly all the articles which Canada has to sell are admitted into the United States free of duty, while heavy duties are now imposed upon many of those articles which the people of the United States have to sell, with the intention of excluding them from the Canadian markets; and whereas the President of the United States, in the first session of the Thirty-Sixth Congress, caused to be submitted 40 the House of Representatives an official report setting forth the inequality and injustice existing in our present intercourse with Canada, subversive of the true intent of the treaty, owing to the subsequent legislation of Canada; and whereas by the fifth article of the treaty provision was made that it should remain in force for ten years from the date on which it should go into operation, and further until the expiration of twelve months after either of the high contracting parties should give notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same, each of the high contracting parties being at liberty to give such notice to the other at the end of the said term of ten years, or at any time afterwards; and whereas by a further proclamation issued by the President of the United States, bearing date the 16th day of March, 1855, it was declared that the said treaty should go into effect and be observed on the part of the United States; and whereas it is desirable that friendly relations should be continued between the United States and the British North American provinces, and that commercial intercourse should be hereafter carried on between them upon principles reciprocally beneficial and satisfactory to both parties: Therefore,

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That

the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized and requested to give to the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland the notice required by the fifth article of the said reciprocity treaty of the 5th of June, A. D. 1851, for the termination of the

same.

And in lieu thereof to insert:

Whereas it is provided in the reciprocity treaty concluded at Washington, the 5th of June, 1851, between the United States of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland of the other part, that this treaty "shall remain in force for ten years from the date at which it may come into operation, and further until the expiration of twelve months after either of the high contracting parties shall give notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same;" and whereas it appears, by a proclamation of the President of the United States, bearing date 16th March, 1855, that the treaty came into operation on that day; and whereas, further, it is no longer for the interests of the United States to continue the same in force: Therefore,

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amerien in Congress assembled, That notice be given of the termination of the reciprocity treaty, according to the provision therein contained for the termination of the same; and the President of the United States is hereby charged with the communication of such notice to the Government of the United Kingdour of Great Britain and Ireland.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SUMNER. I had originally intended, on the consideration of this proposition, to review the whole subject, and to exhibit at length the history of the reciprocity treaty, and the existing reasons for its termination. But after the debate of a few days ago, and considering the apparent unanimity in the Senate, I have felt unwilling to occupy the time by any protracted remarks. They are not needed.

The people of the United States have been uneasy under the reciprocity treaty for several years; I may almost say from its date. There was a feeling that it was more advantageous to Canada than to the United States; that, in short, it was unilateral. This feeling has of late ripened into conviction. At the same time the exigencies of the present war, requiring so large an expenditure, make it unreasonable for us to continue a treaty by which the revenues of the country unquestionably suffer. It is such considerations as these which have brought the public mind to its present position. The unamicable feelings manifested toward us by the people of Canada have had little influence on the question, unless, perhaps, they may have conspired to compel us to look at it in the light of reason rather than of sentiment.

The question of the fisheries is included in this treaty. But it is not doubted that before the termination of the treaty some arrangement, either by reciprocal legislation or by further negotiation, can be made on this matter so far as it may be needed.

The committee, after careful consideration at a full meeting, was unanimous in its report. And as the committee represents all parts of the country and all sentiments of the Senate, I have thought that perhaps there might be a similar unanimity among Senators. Therefore I forbear all further remarks, and ask for a vote.

Mr. FARWELL. I wish to say one word in reference to this subject. I regard the matter of the fishing interest as having very little to do with it any way; but there are many reasons which might be adduced, I think conclusive reasons, why this reciprocity treaty should be terminated. I only propose to allude to one reason. Owing to the condition of our country, it has been found necessary to put very heavy taxes upon many articles which are brought from the provinces. Take, for example, the article of friction matches, upon which, by our internal revenue law, a duty of $1 44 a gross is imposed. The consumption is very great, and the manufacture would yield a very large revenue to the Government if they were made at home; and heretofore they have been largely manufactured in our country. By the reciprocity treaty, however, they can be made in the provinces and brought here duty free, and we cannot tax them. There are many other articles in the same position, if I am not mistaken, and the Government will suffer very much by the continuance of the present state of things, and the manufacturers of these articles will be driven from the business. In fact, I am informed that some manufacturers of matches and goods of that description have actually broken up their establishments in the States, and have moved into the provinces, and are there manufacturing and sending them to the States for sale. I believe

there is no doubt about the opinion of the Senate, and therefore I do not regard it as necessary to enter into the discussion.

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

Mr. HALE. Can this resolution be read a third time to-day without unanimous consent?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It can. It' has been read twice on a previous day. The third reading is the only reading to-day.

Mr. HALE. I do not wish to complain of this course, nor to ask for any delay. I believe that this is an important step; it is a step that does not accord with my judgment; but if the Senate think it is of such importance that it should be passed at once, I shall simply content myself with voting against it.

Mr. SUMNER. I call for the yeas and nays on its passage.

Mr. HALE. I want to express my views upon it. I do not care about the Journal. I suppose there are not many people who read the Journal. This is the first time that I have ever known so important a measure as this pressed through the Senate under these circumstances; but I do not know that it is of any great consequence. I do not know whether the rule of the Senate with reference to these matters is the same in regard to a member just going out as one coming in, but I am ready to submit to the practice, whatever it is.

Mr. SUMNER. The Senator knows the fact that I would not be guilty of discourtesy to him. I feel embarrassed by his suggestion, but in the responsibilities of public business which have been cast upon me I think I ought to press this resolution to a vote.

The joint resolution was read the third time. Mr. HALE. I move to postpone the further consideration of this resolution until the 6th day of January.

Mr. DAVIS. I concurred in this resolution being reported, and I expect to vote for its passage, but I think, in all courtesy, the Senator from New Hampshire ought to have time to examine the subject and to address the Senate upon it. I hope that the motion he makes will be allowed.

Mr. FOSTER. As a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations I was in favor of this resolution, and am' in favor of its passage now; but whether it passes to-day or the 6th of January can make no difference to the public interests, in my belief. The Senator from New Hampshire requests an opportunity to address the Senate on the subject. I have never known such a request denied under like circumstances, even where, as it would seem, it sometimes made a very considerable difference to the public interests. To me it seems apparent that it will make none now. I, therefore, shall certainly vote to postpone it at his request.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I was surprised, after the statement made by the Senator from New Hampshire, and the little experience I have had in the Senate, to see an attempt to press this resolution to a vote to-day. Like the Senator from Connecticut, I have never known an instance where a measure of this character, regarded as important in the country, has been brought to the notice of the Senate, and on a member rising in his place and stating before it was taken up that he wished to examine it, and that he asked but a reasonable time to make his examination and address the Senate upon it, his application was refused. I shall certainly vote to postpone the resolution until the Senator from New Hampshire can have a reasonable opportunity to address the Senate in reference to it. I would not vote to postpone it for any factious opposition; but where there is no such spirit displayed, but a reasonable request, as I conceive, and one that I never saw refused in the Senate, I shall vote for the postponement.

Mr. FOOT. I am in favor of the proposition before the Senate, and I represent a people who I think are unanimously in favor of terminating what they regard as an unequal and one-sided contract between this country and the provinces of Great Britain. But, sir, as I understand it, whether the joint resolution is passed to-day, or a fortnight hence, or a month hence, makes no sort of difference as to the period of time within which this contract can be terminated; and as a matter of courtesy to the Senator from New

but was temporarily laid aside to take up other business. I move now to proceed to the consideration of that joint resolution.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (S. No. 82) to encourage enlistments and to promote the efficiency of the military forces of the United States.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

Mr. SUMNER. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. That will leave the resolution of my colleague the order of the day for to-morrow. There is important business which must be acted on to-day in executive session.

The motion was agreed to; and after some time spent in the consideration of executive business, the doors were reopened, and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

WEDNESDAY, December 21, 1864. The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. W. H. CHANNING. The Journal of yesterday was read.

CORRECTION OF THE JOURNAL.

Mr. COX, I rise to a question of privilege. I move to strike out such portion of the Journal as refers to the resolution offered yesterday by the gentleman from New Hampshire, [Mr. RoLLINS,] with reference to retaliation upon rebel prisoners for the treatment of our prisoners in their hands. I am placed in the predicament, according to the report of the Globe, of having acquiesced in the passage of the resolution. I was cut off by the objection of the gentleman from New Hampshire before I could make the objection. My friend from New York [Mr. PRUYN] also sought the floor to make objection, and I think if the House understood the tenor of the resolution they would reject it at once.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. What is the question before the House?

Mr. COX. I move to correct the proceedings of the House, under the rules, so as to strike out all the proceedings with reference to the resolution of the gentleman from New Hampshire, [Mr. ROLLINS.]

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman state that the Journal is incorrectly made up by the Journal clerk?

Mr. COX. I am not talking on that question. The SPEAKER. Then the Chair decides that the gentleman's motion is not in order.

Mr. COX. I move to expunge that resolution from the Journal.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I raise the question of order that that motion is not in order.

The SPEAKER. The Chair sustains the point of order. The Chair will state to the gentleman from Ohio that the 39th rule requires that every written motion made in the House shall be inserted on the Journal, and that the Speaker shall revise and correct the Journal every morning before it is read to the House. There is a question of privilege if the charge is made that the Speaker has mutilated the Journal. That was decided in the Thirty-First Congress to be a question of privilege. If the gentleman wishes to expunge the resolution he must wait until resolutions are in order. But the Journal must state what occurred, and it is not a question of privilege to move to strike out what did occur.

Mr. COX. I call the attention of the Speaker to that rule which says that the House may judge of what are or are not its proceedings. I hope, in the interest of humanity, that the House will look at this resolution and reject it.

The SPEAKER. The rule just quoted does not apply to this point.

Mr. PRUYN. I hope the gentleman from Ohio will permit me to make a statement on this point, inasmuch as he has referred to me.

The SPEAKER. The Chair decides that this is not a question of privilege. The Chair has no objection to this conversational debate if the House has none. But if the point is made by any member debate must be arrested.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I believe the gentlemån from Ohio did not object to the resolution yesterday. I see so in the Globe.

Mr. COX. That is it. I wish to correct that.

I intended to have objected to that resolution, but the Speaker was rather prompt, I think, upon me. I have no complaint, however, to make of his general good conduct, but I think that if the House had heard the resolution of the gentleman from New Hampshire read again, there would have been a whole chorus of objections. I am induced now to make this motion by gentlemen upon both sides of the House.

The SPEAKER. There is no question before the House. The Chair must state that so far from being over-prompt on the gentleman from Ohio, the rule states that no resolution shall be debated on the day on which it is presented, and no debate was therefore allowable. The gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. ROLLINS] asked the unanimous consent of the House to offer a resolution. The gentleman from Ohio rose and debated it at some little length, giving his views in regard to the proposition. The Chair was not disposed to check him until the gentleman from New Hampshire rose and objected to debate. The Chair then asked the gentleman from Ohio if he objected or not, and the gentleman did not object, and the Chair then put the question to the House.

Mr. PRUYN. I desired and asked for a second reading of the resolution, because it was so imperfectly heard by me at the distance that I sat from the Chair that I did not understand its entire purport. The Speaker, of course, did not hear me express the desire to have the resolution read a second time. I certainly should have objected if

I had understood its character.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I call for the regular order of business.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state, in reply to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. PRUYN,] that probably the reason why the gentleman was not recognized was because the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cox] was speaking, as he was from the moment the resolution was introduced by the gentleman from New Hampshire. Mr. PRUYN. I did not mean to impute to the Chair any discourtesy; certainly not.

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.

The SPEAKER appointed Messrs. ELIOT, KELLEY, and NOBLE managers on the part of the House of the conference committee on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill of the House (No. 51) to establish a Bureau of Freedmen's Affairs.

DUTIES ON TOBACCO.

Mr. KASSON. I ask leave to introduce a bill for reference to the Committee of Ways and Means.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE] has demanded the regular

order of business.

Mr. KASSON. I ask the gentleman from Illinois to withdraw the call for the regular order of business.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I withdraw it.

Mr. KASSON then, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill for an act to levy duties upon tobacco and its manufactures; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed.

MUSTERING OF SUBSTITUTES.

Mr. COFFROTH asked unanimous consent to offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Military Committee is hereby instructed to report, by bill or otherwise, an additional section to "An act further to regulate and provide for the

enrolling and calling out the national forces, and for other purposes," approved July 4, 1864, to allow any person or persons drafted or subject to draft to muster into the ser vice of the United States substitutes at any place where a mustering officer is stationed, and such substitute shall be credited to any town, township, ward of a city, precinct, or election district of the congressional district in which the person or persons reside at the time said substitute is accepted.

Mr. SCHENCK. That resolution instructs

the committee absolutely to report. I will object

to it unless it be modified so as to instruct the committee to inquire into the propriety of reporting.

Mr. COFFROTH. I will modify it in that

sense.

The resolution was accordingly modified; and there being no objection, it was read, considered, and agreed to.

NAVAL EXPENDITURES.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of the Navy, transmitting the report of the First Comptroller, showing the appropriations and expenditures of that Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1864; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

ENROLLED BILL.

Mr. COBB, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported as truly enrolled an act for the relief of Charles M. Pott, and an act to extend the time allowed for the withdrawal of certain goods therein named from public stores; when the Speaker signed the same.

POST OFFICE EMPLOYÉS.

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

Resolved, That the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads be instructed to inquire into the expediency of prohibiting by law all persons connected with the Post Office Department, as postmasters or carriers of the mail, from having any pecuniary or business interest in any express office or express company for the transfer of express matter, and report their conclusions to the House by bill or otherwise.

LETTER-CARRIER SYSTEM.

Mr. BALDWIN, of Massachusetts, by unanimous consent, introduced the following resolu

tion; which was read, considered, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads be directed to consider the expediency of repealing so much of the existing postal laws as requires and provides for the free delivery of letters in cities and large towns, and restoring the system of delivery which existed previous to the enactment of the Thirty-Seventh Congress.

CLAIMS OF NAVAL CONTRACTORS.

Mr. PERHAM. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a joint resolution authorizing the appointment of a commission to settle and adjust the claims of certain contractors with the Navy Department.

Mr. CHANLER. I object.

Mr. HOLMAN. I call for the regular order of business.

EXCHANGE OF NAVAL PRISONERS. Mr. RICE, of Massachusetts. I hope the gentleman from Indiana will withdraw that call. Mr. HOLMAN. I withdraw it.

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

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be requested to communicate to the House, if not inconsistent with the public welfare, what measures, if any, have been taken to exchange the officers and men belonging to the United States Navy now held as prisoners by the rebels, and what obstacles, if any, now exist to the exchange of such pris

oners.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I suggest that the resolution be amended by striking out the word "requested" and inserting the word "directed."

The SPEAKER. Is there any objection to the introduction of the resolution?

Mr. WILSON. I object, unless the change suggested by the gentleman from Illinois be made. Mr. RICE, of Massachusetts. I accept the modification.

There being no objection, the resolution, as modified, was read, considered, and agreed to. Mr. COX. What has become of the other resolution on the subject?

The SPEAKER. It has been laid over under the rule.

Mr. COX. Is not this a resolution to the same purport?

The SPEAKER. It is.

Mr. COX. Well, I object, unlessThe SPEAKER. The Chair thinks the objection is too late. The resolution has been introduced and agreed to.

DUTY ON PRINTING PAPER.

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

Resolved, That the Committee of Ways and Means be requested to inquire into the expediency of reducing or suspending the import duties upon printing paper; and that they be, and are hereby, requested to report by bill or otherwise at an early day.

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEVADA. Mr. HIGBY stated that Mr. HENRY G. WORTHINGTON, member-elect from the State of Ne