Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση
[ocr errors]

Mr. CLARK. I cannot quite agree to that, that if anything is to be paid we ought to pay the award, if that is what the Senator means. Mr. NYE. The cost is to be paid. Mr. CLARK. If the cost is to be paid, we are to pay what is reported; but we have not to what the cost is come to an agreement it lays out of the case entirely the equities on the other side. Now, if you will constitute a board, and a fair board -I do not care who you take, whether they are builders, mechanics, or merchants, if they are fair people, and refer the matter to them with authority to say what ought to be paid under all the circumstances by the Government, then I might perhaps be willing to abide by that award; but I am certainly not willing to abide by an award which has been made showing only the cost, when so far as I can ascertain-and the Senator from Indiana will correct me if I am wrong-the committee did not receive any new testimony on that point. He will allow me to inquire whether there was any testimony before the committee going to show what deductions should be made other than what came from the report of the board.

Mr. HENDRICKS. In reply to the Senator I will say that at the last session of Congress the committee had before them two of the heads of bureaus in the Navy Department, the head of the Engineering Bureau and of the Construction Bureau, Mr. Lenthall and Mr. Isherwood, and also Superintendent Wood. They testified before the committee at the last session. What they testified at that time was incorporated into the report made by the committee at the last session, and it is extracted into the report made at this session. The committee had also before them a document certified to by Admiral Gregory who had charge of this work, showing the cost of labor and materials from time to time-the table which is appended to the report. I do not know whether that was before the board or not. do not know of any other testimony that was before the committee that was not before the board.

I

Mr. CLARK. I understand that at the last session, before the committee as then constituted, some testimony was given. I do not know whether the committee is the same now or not; probably it is nearly the same; but at this session, after this report from the board comes to them, they consider it and consider in addition what was said at the last session, and the evidence furnished them then. Now, I want to say one word in regard to the table, for I am satisfied that the table is not made up correctly in some instances. Take, for instance, the cost of pig iron in 1864. It is said to be in the month of January, forty-five dollars; in the month of February, fifty dollars; and so running through. I happen to have in my possession an affidavit, furnished by a house in New York, of actual sales, and they quote the sales from their books made through the months of 1864, all the months, and I have compared it with this table, and the actual sales which they made were from ten to fifteen per cent. lower than the prices quoted in the table. But I have not had the opportunity of examining the table further, because I had no means.

Mr. WILLEY. I ask the Senator from New Hampshire whether the iron, the sales of which be refers to, was the same kind of iron and of the superior quality required for these vessels. Mr. CLARK. I cannot say what quality it was. It is quoted as pig-iron, as the general quotation is here "American pig-iron." It does not appear from this table what the quality was.

Mr. HENDRICKS. It was a very superior quality.

Mr. CLARK. It may have been very superior, but I do not understand it to be so.

Mr. GRIMES. That would depend somewhat upon what it was used for in either case. Mr. CLARK. For common ordinary castings it would not require a very superior qual

ity.

Mr. GRIMES. If it was to go into the en

gines it would require extra iron. If the pigiron was to go into the dome of the Capitol it would not necessarily be very superior.

Mr. CLARK. But I was not proposing to comment on that, because I am willing to take the tables as I find them for the purpose of what say. I want attenwon of the Senator from in to call the first case reported here, to show what may be the equities on the one side and the other. If he will take the report and follow me a little while, I will call his attention to the case of the Iosco. It will be found that the contractors for building the hull of the Iosco were Larrabee & Allen, and they went on to construct the vessel, and they brought in their bill of costs, and their costs exceed the contract price and the extra work by $11,708 97. It is the first case upon the list. If the Senator will be kind enough to turn to page 10 of the report of the board he will find this case of the Iosco specially reported:

"Regarding the United States steamer Iosco, sidewheel, double-ender: on the part of the contractors and builders of the above vessel appeared before the board A. L. Allen, ship-builder, Bath, Maine, who under oath stated that the contract for the above vessel was signed by the Navy Department on the 9th day of September, 1862, in which he was allowed one hundred and twenty-six days to launch the vessel, or until January 13, 1863, but the vessel was not put into the water until March 20, 1863, the vessel being detained on the stocks by order of Admiral Gregory and Inspector Pook"

[ocr errors]

Now, this is the reason

as the engine builders were not ready to set up the engine; that the vessel was delivered to the Globe Works, South Boston, March 24, 1863; that thirty days, or until May 13, were allowed to erect the machinery on board, but the work was not completed until March 5, 1864, three hundred and forty-six days."

The engine builders were to have erected that work in the vessel in thirty days, and they took three hundred and forty-six days to do it.

Mr. JOHNSON. Is any reason given for the delay?

Mr. CLARK. There is no reason given for the delay here; I am going to go on a little further. Mr. Allen says further:

44

That his vessel could not have been ready for launching at the expiration of the contract, and they were in no fault for this delay or loss of time to Government; that the contract price for the vessel delivered at Boston amounted to $75,500: that the entire cost of the vessel was $91,845 91; that in addition to the contract price he has been paid by bureau for extra work $4,535 84; that the cost to him of the vessel over and above the contract and extra bills paid was $11,810 07; and would state that, in addition to the great extra expense to which he was placed by the delay of the engine builders to complete their work, he was obliged to keep watchmen and to furnish material and outfits at greatly increased prices and larger wages for labor.'

You see he was put to great extra expense by the delay of the engine builders.

Mr. JOHNSON. Permit me to ask whether the engine builder is allowed anything in this bill?

Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir. The engine builder is allowed, as I will show presently, something like thirty thousand dollars for the delay. I want to call the attention of the Senate to the contract for the hull and the contract of the

engine builder to show the injustice that is to

be done here. The contractor who built the hull clearly ought to be paid; he was delayed by somebody; Admiral Gregory and Constructor Pook kept the vessel on the stocks until it was necessary for her to be sent to the Globe Works to have her machinery put in, and then when she got there thirty days were to have been consumed in putting in that machinery so that he could have finished his vessel, and yet these engine builders took in the whole three hundred and forty-six days to put in that engine, and he was put to this delay. The board have rightfully awarded him, probably, eleven thousand and odd dollars for that delay, but the question is who should pay it. Do you propose that the Government should it when the engine builders caused that delay, not the Government; the Government were in no fault.

pay

Mr. JOHNSON. I suppose the engine builder contracted with the Government, not with these parties.

Mr. CLARK, Yes, with the Government, so that the Government would have to stand between the contractor for the hull and the contractor for the engines, but in equity it should come out of the engine builder.

Mr. JOHNSON. In the end it should according to these facts; but you would not throw the builder of the hull on the engine builder.

Mr. CLARK. Certainly I would not; but if I had to pay $11,000 to the builder of the hull for the delay of this engine builder, I would not give this engine builder $30,000 extra over his contract for doing it.

Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly not.

Mr. CLARK. Now let us turn to page 15 of this report:

"Appeared before the board Daniel N. Pickering, treasurer of the Globe Works, South Boston, Massachusetts, on the part of the company, contractors for the machinery of the double-cnders Iosco and Massasoit. Under oath stated, that the contracts for these vessels were dated by the Navy Department August 15, 1862, in which they were allowed seven months, or until March 14, 1863”—

[ocr errors]

When the vessel was ready

'to complete the machinery and deliver the vessels to the Government, but the Massasoit was not so completed and delivered until the 9th of January, 1864, nor the Iosco until the 18th of January, 1864, the principal cause of delay being the difficulty in obtaining workmen, as the demand for the services of men in the Army and Navy was so great, and also on account of the number of vessels being built by the Government."

Because the Government was choosing to build vessels in other yards these people were delayed, and therefore you are to pay them for their delay. And now you allow for this engine of the losco the sum of $29,789 because they did not finish it until nearly a year after they agreed to do it. You compel the Government to pay $11,000 on the hull because they were not ready, and then give them $29,000 for that delay. That is the justice of this operation, and that is the "justice" to these contractors which the Senator from Indiana talks about.

I have got as strong a case as that in another instance. I have had time to examine only two or three of these cases, because one cannot go through forty-two cases in one day. Mr. JOHNSON. Is that the only excuse in that case?

I

Mr. CLARK. That is the only excuse. will read the whole of what was said. Mr. JOHNSON. You need not on my

account.

Mr. CLARK. They say that the demand for men for the Army and Navy, and the number of vessels being built by the Government, made it "impossible, with the scarcity of labor, to fulfill the contracts within the given time." There is the whole of it. Now, if the Senate will turn to the case of the Chenango, on page 4, they will find:

"Appeared before the board Jeremiah Simonson, ship-builder, and constructor of United States steamer Chenango, under oath stated the whole amount of cost of above vessel to have been $91.441 81; the amount of extra work allowed and paid by bureau, $3.528 17; the amount of contract, $75,000; and presented the accompanying sworn statement, marked 3, showing the cost of that vessel over and above the contract price and allowance paid for extra work to be $16,441 81."

And here in the table you find $16,441 81 for the steamer Chenango. Now, what was the occasion for that? Mr. Simonson's statement proceeds:

"That the contract for the hull was dated September 9, 1862, and the vessel to be launched on January 13, 1863, (one hundred and twenty-six days;) that tho hull was ready for launching at that time, but was detained on the ways by request of the naval constructor and inspector of hulls, S. M. Pook, to be hereafter shown, as the steam machinery was not ready."

The same excuse again; the steam machinery was not ready; this man was delayed because the steam machinery was not ready.

"That the hull was launched on March 19, 1863, and that no injury arose to the Government from delay on his part; that the contractors for the steam machinery were allowed until May 8 (fifty days) to erect on board the engines, &c., but occupied until December 30, 1863, (two hundred and eighty-four days."

It took two hundred and eighty-four days to get that machinery in.

Mr. JOHNSON. Where was the machinery to be built?

Mr. CLARK. I will show the Senator pres

ently; I do not now remember; but I will call his attention to it.

Mr. JOHNSON. I thought you had it before you.

Mr. CLARK. It is in another part of the volume, page 18. This was built at the Morgan Iron Works, New York. Now, I want Senators to bear in mind that there was no delay here on the part of the contractor for the hull. He was obliged to keep his vessel unfinished because the steam machinery was not erected in her, and was put to delay on that account, and they took two hundred and eighty-four days to erect that machinery, and he claims of the Government, and has been allowed by the board, the sum of $16,441 81 on account of the delay of these people in erecting that machinery in his boat. That is the sole cause of it. Now, let us turn over to page 18 of the report and see what the Morgan Iron Works, who were to build this machinery, did; here is the statement of Mr. Quintard, who is the man that got up the table appended to the committee's report:

"Appeared before the board, George W. Quintard, proprietor of the Morgan Iron Works, New York, and contractor for the machinery of the doubleenders Chenango and Ascutney; also for the hull and machinery of the iron-clad Onondaga. Under oath states, that the contracts for the Chenango and Ascutney were dated by the Navy Department August 15, 1862, in which he was allowed seven months, or until March 16, 1863, to complete the machinery of said vessels and deliver them to the Government, but the Chenango was not so completed and delivered until February 1, 1864."

The Chenango was not completed until February 1, 1864, ten months after he agreed to do it, and he had been keeping this hull all the time unfinished and putting the man who built it to expense because he failed in his

contract.

Mr. JOHNSON. What reasons did he assign?

Mr. CLARK. I will go on and read the reasons he assigned:

"The principal causes of the delay in completing the machinery of these vessels were scarcity of labor, difficulty of obtaining materials, strikes, and having to close his shop for two months on account of mobs in the summer of 1863.

Nothing in the world in which the Government was concerned, things likely to happen, perhaps, to any contractor; and yet he delayed that hull ten months, putting the Government to the cost of $16,000, and now he wants the Government to pay him for all that delay just what the machinery cost.

Mr. JOHNSON. How much is allowed him?

Mr. CLARK. For the Chenango there was allowed him extra for putting in that machinery, ten months after it should have been, $25,826 33. It is said that the Chenango blew up on her trial trip, but I am not talking to that point. I am taking this work as if it had been done well. I am speaking of the delay which he caused and his equity to have pay from the Government. Mr. Quintard says, further:

"That he was relieved by an act of Congress from the terms of his contract, so far as the time of completion was concerned, and that the Department was fully satisfied that it was finished as soon as possible; that the excess of cost over and above the contract price was on account of the continued rise in the price of labor and material; that the total cost of the machinery for both vessels, including charge of ten per cent. for use of shop, tools, &c., was $215,652 67; that the contract price of both vessels paid by the Government was $164,000, leaving a balance, the excess of cost to him, over and above the contract price, of $51,652 67."

That is $25,826 34 for each vessel; and this man who has delayed you ten months and put you to the expense of $16,000 on one vessel has the impudence to charge you ten per cent. on his whole stock and tools, and your commission allow it.

Mr. JOHNSON. For the ten months?

Mr. CLARK. It simply says ten per cent., without reference to time; and now there is an appeal to the equity and justice of Congress to pay that demand!

These are the only two cases in this whole report which I have examined, and I have no doubt that if I were to follow it through I should find others of a similar character. I took the

first and then took another at haphazard to see how they would come, and I find that result. Mr. JOHNSON. I do not see exactly how he could charge for the use of his shop and tools. That was included, I suppose, in the contract price.

Mr. CLARK. I suppose he kept some account of the labor and material he had put into this vessel, and then charged ten per cent. on the tools and shop as a part of the cost of the vessel.

Mr. JOHNSON. During the ten months he delayed it?

Mr. CLARK. I suppose ten per cent. for one year. I do not wish to be severe on these contractors. I only make these observations for the purpose of showing what injustice you are likely to do here to the Government and the people who pay the money; for while these contractors are to be protected, the taxpayer also is to be regarded. While you undertake to do justice to those who deserve it, you certainly cannot do it in this inconsiderate way, which encourages those who have no just claim to come here with the expectation that Congress will pay any amount which they make

out.

Now, I ask the Senate to pause; I do not know what is best to be done. I do not think the amendment of the Senator from Iowa reaches the case entirely, if you cut it down to twelve per cent. I doubt if some of these parties ought to have anything, and perhaps some ought to have fifty per cent. It is the indiscriminate lumping of forty-two cases in one bill that works the mischief. Give us one by one if it takes time, and let us consider each or establish a board that will consider the cases one by one, and give each man his due, not bring all up here in this omnibus which is to carry everything to the end of the journey and make you pay the fare.

Mr. President, I am opposed to this bill. I have heard all that has been said about war times; I have heard all that has been said about justice to mechanics; but let us be just to the country and to the constituency we represent, for you will bear in mind that the fortytwo gentlemen who claim here, though eminent gentlemen they may be and deserving consideration, are but a drop in the bucket of the great people who are interested in this matter. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President

Mr. TRUMBULL. Will the Senator from Maryland give way? I think we might as well adjourn. We shall hardly get through with this bill to-day. We are sitting very long.

Mr. JOHNSON. That would be very agreeable to me.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I move that the Senate do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

TUESDAY, April 17, 1866.

The House met at twelve o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. B. BOYNTON, The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

REV. RICHARD FULLER.

Mr. J. L. THOMAS asked leave to withdraw from the files of the House the petition and papers of Rev. Richard Fuller.

Leave was granted, and the papers were accordingly withdrawn.

RIVER AND HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS. Mr. ELIOT, from the Committee on Commerce, reported a bill making appropriations for the repair, preservation, and completion of certain public works, and for other purposes; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed.

EXCUSE FROM SERVICE ON A COMMITTEE.

Mr. SHANKLIN. Mr. Speaker, I desire to submit a proposition to the House. I ask to be discharged from further service on the

Committee for the District of Columbia. I feel, under the circumstances, that I can no longer hold that position with profit to the country or honor to myself. Therefore I ask to be discharged from further service on that committee.

The gentleman was accordingly excused.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana, asked and obtained leave of absence for his colleague, Mr. HILL.

SENATE BILL RETURNED. The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication from the Secretary of the Senate: IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, April 16, 1866. Resolved, That the Secretary be directed to request the House of Representatives to return to the Senate a bill of the House (H. R. No. 458) granting a pension ta Sarah E. Pickell, which was postponed indefinitely on the 13th instant. Attest: J. W. FORNEY, Secretary. According to the usage of the House, the bill was ordered to be returned to the Senate. Mr. SCHENCK. I call for the regular order of business.

The House accordingly proceeded to the regular order of business, which was the calling of the committees for reports, beginning with the Committee on Invalid Pensious.

ADVERSE REPORTS.

Mr. BENJAMIN, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported adversely on the following cases, and the same were laid on the table:

The petition of Elizabeth J. Brooks, widow of Thomas J. Brooks; and

The petition of George W. Bonnin.

JOANNA WINANS.

Mr. BENJAMIN, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported a bill granting a pension to Mrs. Joanna Winans, mother of George W. Winans, acting assistant paymaster of the United States Navy.

The bill was read a first and second time. It grants a pension, at the rate of twenty dollars per month, during her widowhood.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I call for the reading of the report.

The report was read.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I desire to inquire whether this case is not provided for by the general law.

Mr. BENJAMIN. It is not provided for by the general law, the absence not being on sick leave.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. What are the peculiar reasons for passing this special bill? I am pretty liberal in regard to this matter of pensions, but I would like to know something of the principles by which the Committee on Invalid Pensions are governed.

Now, I sent a case to the committee where a widow made an application for a pension on the ground that her son had been killed in the service. But a very short time before he was killed he had been married; if he had not been married, then his mother was in that position that she would have been entitled to the pension. His widow afterwards married and thereby forfeited her pension. Now, the mother comes in with her petition and asks that she may be entitled to the pension which she would have been entitled to had not her son been married.

I understand that the committee declined to report a bill of that kind, which was certainly one of the strongest cases I have seen presented to the House. I talked to the Commis sioner of Pensions about the case, and while he thought it came within the spirit of the law, it was not within the letter of the law, but he thought it one of the most appropriate cases upon which Congress could legislate.

Now, I desire to know the principle by which the committee are governed, whether it is fish for one and flesh for another.

Mr. BENJAMIN. That has nothing to do with the case under consideration. The report

of the committee now before the House stands by itself. I demand the previous question.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time and passed.

Mr. BENJAMIN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

ANN HETH.

Mr. PERHAM, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported back, with the recommendation that it do pass, bill of the Senate No. 201, for the relief of Ann Heth, widow of William Heth, of Harrison county, Indiana.

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to place the name of Ann Heth, widow of William Heth, of Harrison county, Indiana, who was killed by the rebel Morgan's men while resisting their advance upon Corydon, Indiana, upon the pension-roll at the rate of eight dollars per month, to commence on the 9th of July, 1863, to continue during her widowhood.

The report having been read, the bill was ordered to a third reading; and it was accordingly read the third time and passed.

Mr. PERHAM moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

MRS. MARTHA J. WILLEY.

Mr. STILWELL, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported a bill for the relief of Martha J. Willey; which was read a first and second time.

The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time.

The bill provides a pension of eight dollars a month, to Mrs. Martha J. Willey, widow of George W. Willey, late a corporal in company F, seventh regiment of New Hampshire volunteers, the pension to commence on the 18th of April. 1865, to continue during her widowhood, and in the event of her marriage or death, to go to the minor children of George W. Willey, subject to the limitations and restrictions of the pension laws.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask that the report be read.

The report was read. It states that George W. Willey enlisted at Dover, New Hampshire, about the 20th of December, 1861, reënlisted at Fernandina, Florida, in 1864, at which time he received a furlough for thirty days, before the expiration of which he died of congestion of the langs at Dover, New Hampshire, on April 18,

[ocr errors]

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time and passed.

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

The latter motion was agreed to.

MRS. MARY A. PATRICK.

Mr. STILWELL, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported a bill for the relief of Mrs. Mary A. Patrick; which was read a first and second time.

The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time. The bill grants a pension of twenty dollars per month to Mrs. Mary A. Patrick, widow of Mathew A. Patrick, who was a captain of the first artillery of the United States Army, the pension to commence on the 1st of January, 10, and to be continued during her widowLood.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask that the report shall be read.

been promoted to be a captain of the first artillery; his death being caused by disease contracted in the service while on special duty. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. If the report of the committee sets forth the facts of the case, I would like to know why this lady is not entitled to a pension under the general pension law. It is said that this Patrick died of disease contracted in the service while in the line of his duty. If that is so, why is it that there is any necessity for a special law in this case?

Mr. STILWELL. This old lady is now seventy-four years of age. She never made an application for a pension until this time, and now only asks that the pension to which she is entitled shall date back to January 1, 1860. The surgeon who attended her husband at the time of his death has since died; thus producing a break in the chain of evidence required by the general pension law. But the certificate of the Adjutant General is on file with the papers in this case establishing the facts.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. We are asked to do something which Congress has rarely if ever done before; granting a pension to date back before the passage of the bill. We are asked to grant a pension to this lady to date back six years. I do not know that it is of any use whatever to oppose any of these pension cases, no matter what principle may be involved. But I think this is going further than we have ever gone before under any state of circumstances.

Mr. STILWELL. This lady is strictly entitled to a pension from the 6th of March, 1834, when her husband died of disease contracted while in the service. But she does not claim that; only asks for a pension from January, 1860.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. If she was entitled to a pension, she has waived her right to it heretofore. And now she comes here, having waived her right, if it ever existed, and asks us to pass a bill to give her a pension dating back for six years.

Mr. STILWELL. She comes here now because she is poor and in indigent circum

stances.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I have no doubt this old lady may be a very meritorious subject for charity. But I contend that we have no right to legislate for charitable purposes. If we do the money in our Treasury might go out a little faster than it now does, and it might possibly give out. I do not see any principle upon which this bill can be passed.

Mr. BENJAMIN. This case, Mr. Speaker, is somewhat new to me. I was not aware that the committee had agreed to report a bill going back the length of time that this does, or even going back at all. I have been present at all the meetings of the committee that have taken place when I have been in the city, though there have been some meetings held when I was absent from the city. I ask the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. STILWELL] to consent to the postponement of the bill till the next call of the committee, one week hence. I would like to examine the matter further. I think the bill should be amended.

Mr. STILWELL. A majority of the committee have recommended the reporting of the bill. I have only carried out their instructions.

Mr. PERHAM. I feel that I ought to say that I have no recollection of any action of the committee agreeing that this bill should go back as far as is proposed. As to the merit of the case, I recollect it; and the committee, I believe, were unanimously in favor of a pension; but I am not aware that there was any authority to extend the pension back so far.

Mr. BENJAMIN. If it be in order, I will move to strike out the clause which provides that the pension shall take effect six years back.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. STILWELL] is entitled to the floor. My. STILWELL. I yield to my colleague,

The report was read. It states that Mathew 4. Patrick entered the Army in 1814, as ensign,[Mr. WASHBURN.] and died on the 6th of March, 1834, having

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I desire to

ask the chairman of the committee [Mr. PERHAM] whether he is not satisfied that a pension ought to be granted in this case.

Mr. PERHAM. That was our conclusion. Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. If this lady is entitled to a pension at all, she is entitled to one for thirty-two years back instead of six years. But, as I understand, she asks it for only six years back; and therefore the committee have reported the bill in that form. If justice were done, she should receive a pension from March 6, 1834. The bill provides for giving her a pension for six years back, as she does not ask more.

Mr. PERHAM. In answer to the gentleman from Indiana, I ought to say that our committee have had before them a large number of petitions for the enactment of a general law to give pensions to all who served in the war of 1812. The committee have declined to report favorably on that subject; but we have taken up and reported favorably many individual cases which appealed most strongly to our sympathies, and which we thought would meet the approbation of this House and of the other branch of Congress. They were cases which did not come under the provisions of any general law. They were isolated cases, the circumstances of which, as the committee thought, justified the granting of pensions. In this case, if we grant this lady a pension from the time of the passage of the act until her death, we shall, I think, be treating her as well as she could expect.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. As I understand, the idea of the committee was to report a bill, corresponding with other pension bills, the pension to take effect from the passage of the act.

Mr. TAYLOR. I hope that this bill will not be recommitted. The committee have had the case under consideration, and know as much about the circumstances as they would if they should attempt a reëxamination of the case. There seems to be some misunderstanding as to the date when this pension should commence. The bill proposes that it shall commence in 1860. There has been a rule established in the committee that all pensions of this kind shall commence from the passage of the act.

This case does not come within the general pension law, because of the absence of the record evidence of the death of this officerthe certificate of the surgeon. If that could be procured, the pension of this lady would date back from 1834. There is, however, satisfactory evidence in the case that the husband did die from disease contracted in the service; and in order that this case may be disposed of now, I move to amend the bill by striking out the words, "to take effect from and after the passage of the act."

Mr. STILWELL. I will consent to the

amendment; and I call the previous question.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the amendment was agreed to.

The bill, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time and passed.

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

The latter motion was agreed to.

AGNES W. LAUGHLIN.

Mr. PERHAM reported back, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, a bill (S. No. 241) entitled "An act directing the enrollment of Agnes W. Laughlin, the widow of a deceased soldier, as a pensioner."

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

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

The latter motion was agreed to.

MRS. SARAH E. WILSON.

Mr. PERHAM, from the same committee, also reported back Senate bill No. 252, granting a pension to Mrs. Sarah E. Wilson, with the recommendation that it do pass.

The bill, which was read, provides that the Secretary of the Interior be authorized and directed to place the name of Mrs. Sarah E. Wilson, widow of William H. Wilson, late acting surgeon United States volunteers, on the pension-roll, at the rate of seventeen dollars per month, to commence from the passage of this bill, and to continue during her widowhood.

It appears from the report, which was also read, that William H. Wilson, the husband of the applicant, was sergeant of company I, eighty-second regiment New York volunteers; that he was a practicing physician and surgeon of good standing in his profession; that at the battle of Bull Run, July 21, 1861, he was detailed to act in his professional capacity on the field; that while so acting he was taken prisoner by the enemy; that he remained in the hands of the enemy as a prisoner until the fall of that year, when he was paroled and returned to his home; that at the battle of Antietam, being still unexchanged, he reported to the proper authorities at Washington in his professional capacity, and was sent to the battle-field to assist in caring for the wounded; that he discharged that duty faithfully and well, and while in the discharge thereof contracted the disease whereof he died March 22, 1863.

The bill was ordered to a third reading; and it was accordingly read the third time and passed.

Mr. PERHAM moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

MRS. EMERANCE GOULER.

Mr. PERHAM, from the same committee, also reported back Senate bill No. 260, granting a pension to Mrs. Emerance Gouler, with the recommendation that it do pass.

The bill, which was read, provides that the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to place the name of Mrs. Emerance Gouler, widow of Charles Gouler, late a private in company F, ninth New Hampshire volunteers, on the pensionroll, at the rate of eight dollars per month, to commence from the passage of this bill, and to continue during her widowhood.

It appears from the report, which was also read, that Charles Gouler, the husband of the petitioner, was a private in company F, ninth regiment New Hampshire volunteers, and was admitted to Satterlee United States general hospital, Pennsylvania, on the 28th of May, 1864, suffering from fever. That on the 8th of October following he received a pass from said hospital to leave the premises for a few hours, and that no information was afterward received concerning him until November 29, 1864, when it was stated by soldiers that he had been drowned. Upon an investigation by a coroner over the body of a soldier found in the Delaware river at Pine street wharf, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, October 14. 1864, he was identified by the pass and other papers found on the body.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. If I understand this case, Mr. Speaker, this party was a soldier who was accidentally drowned. If that be so, I do not know why we should make this an exceptional case. If we are going to act on it we should pass a general law.

Mr. PERHAM. There is a whole class of cases which we have considered. I do not know whether this is one of them. The facts of one case are that a sick soldier was granted a sick furlough and was sent to New York in company with six or seven hundred soldiers. The vessel which he was on was sunk with nearly all on board. But I am not sure that is this case, though very much like it.

Mr. BINGHAM. I desire to bring to the attention of the honorable gentleman from Illi

nois that we are to pass upon these special cases which are not included under the general law. This case is upon a like state of facts referred to by the chairman of the committee.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I beg the gentleman's pardon. I ask the Clerk to read the report, so that the members of the House may hear it.

The report was again read.

Mr. PERHAM. This case has been examined carefully. It was discussed at length by the Senate, was passed and sent to us. The committee here, after investigation, approved it. It is now before the House, and I think ought to be passed. This man had a fever, contracted in the service, and if he had died in the hospital there would have been no difficulty about a pension. He received a furlough for five or six hours, and on being missed his body was found in the river.

Mr. BINGHAM. He was sick when he went out.

Mr. PERHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. WASHIBURNE, of Illinois. I do not see upon what ground you will grant this pension. This man did not lose his life while in the line of his duty.

Mr. BINGHAM. I do not think we should look narrowly into these cases. This soldier was suffering with fever and was in hospital. If, instead of perishing in the river, he had died in hospital the pension would have been granted under the law. He had a temporary furlough, and was found dead in the river. No one is able to say how he lost his life.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I beg the gentleman's pardon; there is no fact of that kind appears on the face of the report.

Mr. BINGHAM. The fact has been stated in the hearing of the House by the chairman of the committee, that he was suffering under his disease.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I presume the chairman of the committee knows nothing more about it than is stated in the report, and that states nothing of the kind.

Mr. BINGHAM. I take it for granted that he knows what he states-that he was still suf fering and got leave of temporary absence, and during that time he was found dead in the river. No one will deny that if he had died in the hospital his case would have gone on the pension-roll.

Mr. PERHAM. In regard to his suffering in consequence of disease, I have only to say this: the practice in the hospital is to discharge soldiers whenever they are in a condition to be discharged, and I suppose that this soldier was not in a condition to be discharged.

I have no desire to discuss this matter at further length. I am willing to submit it to the House. I call the previous question.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.

The bill was read the third time. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask for a division on its passage.

On the passage of the bill no quorum voted. The SPEAKER ordered tellers; and appointed Messrs. PERHAM, and WASHBURNE of Illinois.

The House divided; and the tellers reported -ayes 64, noes 38.

The SPEAKER. The Chair votes in the affirmative to make a quorum, and the bill is accordingly passed.

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

The latter motion was agreed to.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

Mr. TROWBRIDGE, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the following titles:

An act (H. R. No. 184) to authorize the sale of marine hospitals and of revenue-cutters; and An act (H. R. No. 25) for the relief of Thomas Hurly.

ORGANIZATION OF THE PENSION OFFICE.

Mr. PERHAM. The Committee on Invalid Pensions have instructed me to report back House bill No. 278, in amendment of the sev eral acts relating to the organization of the Pension Office, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute therefor.

The bill was read. It makes the salary of the Commissioner of Pensions equal to that of the Commissioner of Patents, and the salary of the chief clerk of the Pension Office equal to that of the chief clerk of the Patent Office.

The amendment reported by the committee in the nature of a substitute is as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passage of this act the salary of the Commissioner of Pensions shall be $4,000 per annum, and the salary of the chief clerk of the Pension Oflice shall be $2,500 per annum.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Interior shall appoint, from the fourth-class clerks in the Pension Office, one chief examiner of Army invalid pension claims, one chief examiner of Army pension claims of widows, mothers, and orphas, and one chief examiner of Navy pension claims; each of said chief examiners shall be allowed $200 per annum in addition to the salaries already allowed to clerks of the fourth class: Provided, That nothing in this section shall be so construed as to authorize the appointment of a larger number of fourthclass clerks than is now provided by law, including the examiners aforesaid.

Mr. PERHAM. I am directed by the committee to move to amend the substitute by striking out the second section.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I wish the gentleman would consent to have this bill recommitted, and have the bill, substitute, and amendment printed.

Mr. PERHAM. They are all printed. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I hope he will not press the bill this morning.

Mr. PERHAM. I wish to state briefly the considerations which have actuated the committee in making the recommendation which they do make. It will be seen by the substi tute, as it now stands, that it only applies to the Commissioner of Pensions and to the chief clerk. The salary of the Commissioner of Pensions now is $3,000, and that of the chief clerk $2,000. I need not say to any gentleman who has had business with the pension department, that the Commissioner of Pensions is one of the hardest worked officers in the whole of the Departments of the Govern ment. And I need not say that there has been a very great-increase of business in that bureau during the last three or four years, and that it becomes necessary for the Commissioner, in order to a proper discharge of his duties, to work very much outside of the regular business hours, even well into the night, and that there is very great responsibility devolved upon

him.

We are distributing now through this bureau something more than fifteen million dollars per annum-more than the whole expense of carrying on the Government up to the time of John Quincy Adams's Administration. The bills that are now in process of passage in Congress will increase the disbursements to more than twenty million dollars, and this is to be paid out in sums averaging less than one hundred dollars each in all parts of the country, and in almost every town in the country, making, aside from the necessity of a careful examination of all the cases that came before the Commissioner, a vast amount of business in keeping all these accounts with such a large number of persons, scattered over so very large a territory.

It is very true that the applications for pen; sions may now have reached the maximuni and that there may not be so large a number of applications for the next year as there has been for the last year. But it is also true that only the plain cases have been disposed of. There are a large number of cases remaining that are different entirely, cases that require a great deal of investigation and very much research, to which the Commissioner of Pensions must give his careful attention.

Many of the heads of bureaus have deputies, but we give him none. He is obliged to attend to all his duties himself. When the salaries of these heads of bureaus were first established,

[ocr errors]

they were just one half the salaries of Cabinet officers, $3,000, the salaries of Cabinet officers being then $6,000. We have increased the pay of Cabinet officers to $8,000, and this bill proposes to increase the pay of the Commissioner of Pensions to the same extent, giving him just one half the salary of a Cabinet officer, as we were in the habit of doing formerly.

I

Now, we found, when we came to examine the salaries of these heads of bureaus, that the Superintendent of the Coast Survey, for instance, receives a salary of $6,000 a year. am not familiar with the duties of that officer, but I presume they are very light as compared with those of the Commissioner of Pensions. We give the Comptroller of the Currency, who has a deputy to aid him, $5,000. We give the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who also has a deputy, $4,000.

When we come to the War Department, the heads of bureaus there, I believe, are generally brigadier generals, receiving the pay and commutation of brigadier generals, which, I think, amounts to $6,000 per annum. If I am wrong, some military gentleman will correct me.

When we come to the Navy Department, the head of the Bureau of Yards and Docks receives $4,000. And then the Commissioner of Patents receives $4,500.

Under all the circumstances the committee have come to the conclusion that it is very proper that the pay of this officer, who is obliged to stay here during the whole year, during the hot as well as the cold seasons of the year, and attending to his duties so assiduously, as it is necessary he should do to discharge them, shall be increased.

So far as the chief clerk of the Pension Office is concerned, we give the chief clerk of the Patent Office $2,500. I suppose the duties of the chief clerk in the Pension Office may be as arduous as those performed there.

There is another fact connected with this matter. While you give many of the other heads of bureaus deputies, you give the Commissioner of Pensions no deputy, and therefore the chief clerk must be a man competent to perform the duties of the Commissioner in case of his absence or sickness.

The committee came to the conclusion that we need a man whose services are worth this salary. The chief clerk now is obliged to assist the Commissioner very much in his duties, and in case of the sickness or absence of the Commissioner would be expected to take his place and perform his duties.

The committee have recommended the passage of this bill, believing that on the whole it is about right, and I am willing to submit the question to the House.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Let me

say one word.

Mr. PERHAM. I will hear the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr.WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have no fault to find with the manner in which the present Commissioner of Pensions performs his duties. I believe that he is a very faithful, conscientious, and able officer, and a very accommodating gentleman to do business with. But my point is against increasing these salaries. We are going on increasing, one after another, the salaries of ail these men about Washington. Why, sir, we have, within a few years, increased the salaries of the Assistant Secretaries of War and of the Superintendent of the Coast Survey. And now here is a proposition to increase the salary of the Commissioner of Pensions to $1,000, being an increase of $1,000 a year. The next thing that will come up, and with just as much merit as this, will be a proposition to increase the salary of the Commis sioner of the General Land Office, and the salary of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

And my friend from California [Mr. BIDWELL] is also very much to blame for not having brought in a bill to increase the salary of the Commissioner of Agriculture, the most laborious officer in the whole Government. And if we can judge from the votes of the House,

he is decidedly one of the most meritorious

officers that we now have.

provide in the House bill that there shall be fifty-five regiments of infantry.

That number is to be made up as follows: first, of the ten regiments now in existence in the old Army. Then there are nine regiments, consisting each of three battalions of eight companies, which regiments were created dur

I object to this whole thing upon the ground that we have already gone too far in the way of increasing the salaries of these officers. If we are to increase the salary of the Commissioner of Pensions, we ought for the same reason to go on and increase the salary of the Commis-ing the war. It is proposed to continue those sioner of the General Land Office, and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

[Here the hammer fell.]

The SPEAKER. The morning hour has expired, and this bill will go over till to

morrow.

COMMITTEE ON MINES AND MINING.

Mr. HIGBY. I find myself under the necessity of leaving the city for some days, and therefore I ask that the Committee on Mines and Mining, of which I have the honor to be the chairman, may be called after the rest of the select committees have been called, instead of being called in its regular order.

No objection being made, it was ordered accordingly.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. FORNEY, its Secretary, informed the House that the Senate insisted upon its disagreement to the amendment of the House to the concurrent resolution of the Senate concerning the sale of liquor in the Capitol building, and agreed to the request of the House for a committee of conference upon the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and had appointed Messrs. WILSON, SHERMAN, and GUTHRIE, the committee on the part of the Senate.

Also, that the Senate had passed without amendment House joint resolution No. 102, for the relief of Alexander Thompson, late United States consul at Maranham..

Also, that the Senate had passed a bill (S. No. 190) to incorporate the District of Columbia Canal and Sewerage Company, in which he was directed to request the concurrence of

the House.

ORGANIZATION OF THE ARMY,

Mr. SCHENCK called for the regular order of business.

The SPEAKER. The first business in order is the consideration of the bill for the reorganization of the Army.

The House accordingly resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 361) entitled "An act to reorganize and establish the Army of the United States."

The following section was under consideration:

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the infantry regiments herein provided for shall consist of the first ten regiments of infantry, of ten companies each, now in service; of twenty-seven regiments to be formed by adding two new companies to each of the twenty-seven battalions comprising the remaining nine regiments; of ten regiments to be raised and officered as hereinafter provided for, to be called the Veteran Reserve corps; and of eight regiments of colored men, to be raised and officered as hereinafter provided, to be known as the United States colored troops.

The pending question was upon the motion of Mr. DAVIS, to amend the section by striking out the following words:

Of ten regiments to be raised and officered as hereinafter provided for, to be called the Veteran Reserve

corps.

Mr. SCHENCK. The amendment now proposed to this fourth section would strike out all that portion of the section which relates to the organization of the Veteran Reserve corps. I desire, before any vote is taken upon the amend ment, that the House shall fully understand the length and breadth of that proposition.

I stated at the beginning of the consideration of this bill, that in fixing the number of infantry regiments we have adopted the idea of the War Department and of the Lieutenant General, though some of us believed that the number of regiments should be greater. We have settled upon the number here named as perhaps the number most proper to be selected under all the lights we now have, and under all the necessities of the country. And therefore we

nine regiments, and by adding two companies to each battalion, to make a regiment of ten companies of each of these battalions, or twentyseven regiments in all from these nine regiments. These twenty-seven regiments, with the old ten regiments will give thirty-seven regiments of the fifty-five to be provided.

That leaves eighteen of the fifty-five regiments still to be accounted for. Of these ten are to be regiments which shall constitute the Veteran Reserve corps, and eight regiments are to be made up of colored troops.

Now, the proposition is to reduce the whole number of infantry regiments by striking out the ten regiments to be organized as a Veteran Reserve corps, and the reasons have been assigned, by gentlemen who have discussed this subject, why this should be done. I think, however, the general reason for the opposition to this corps has not been assigned.

Originally fifty-five regiments of infantry were proposed, with the assent of all persons representing the interests of the regular Army. But when it was found that the House insisted that ten of these should be regiments officered by those who have been wounded in the service of their country, it was suddenly discovered that there were too many regiments of infantry provided for. And it was then proposed to drop five regiments, bringing the number down to fifty regiments, the other five to be added to the regular Ariny in the ordinary

way.

Now, I am not at all surprised at the course which has been pursued here, and I shall not be surprised at any course which may hereafter be pursued toward this feature of the bill of the House. There is a general hostility cultivated, pressed, urged, spread around Congress, coming from those who are opposed to any Veteran Reserve corps at all. And it is not to be supposed but what it will have its influence and be felt here.

Before I speak of that, however, I want it distinctly understood what is proposed by the Committee on Military Affairs of this House. Gentlemen have spoken as if the committee were proposing to transfer the present Veteran Reserve corps bodily to the Army. There is no such provision in the bill. The present Veteran Reserve corps consists of twenty-four regiments, of whom there remains yet in service about six hundred officers, some four hundred of whom are employed at present in the Freedmen's Bureau. What is proposed by the committee is not that there shall be a Veteran Reserve corps of twenty-four regiments, but that of the fifty-five regiments of infantry, ten shall constitute a Veteran Reserve corps, and that they shall be officered, not by taking exclusively the officers of the Veteran Reserve corps, but by selections from among them, upon proper and thorough examination, and from among all other officers who have been wounded in the Union cause during the rebellion. In this way, officers are to be provided for this limited number of ten regiments. Before gentlemen conclude to vote for or against the proposition to strike out these lines from the fourth section, I invite their attention to the provision contained in the fifth section:

The Veteran Reserve corps shall be officered by selection from the officers of the present Veteran Reserve corps, and by appointment from any officers and soldiers of volunteers who have been wounded in the line of their duty while serving in the Army of the United States in the late war, or have been disabled by disease contracted in such service, and may yet be competent for garrison or other duty, to which that corps has heretofore been assigned.

It is, therefore, a misrepresentation, or at the least a misapprehension, to speak as if there were to be a transfer of the Veteran Reserve corps. The bill contemplates no such thing. The provision is for the creation of ten regi

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »