« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
whatever for drawing the distinction that is drawn by this amendment of the Senator from Vermont. I see no reason why it should not be applied as well in loyal States in the case of acts by military officers or soldiers as to the same acts when performed in rebel States or in any State under martial law. The reason is the same in both cases, the great object being the protection of the soldier or the officer in the discharge of his duty, and that is a duty which I hold devolves upon Congress. A soldier or an officer who is a subordinate must not omit to obey the order. If he refuses to do so it is always at the peril of his life or of imprisonment; and to expose a person thus situated to the consequences which might flow from a suit or prosecution in a community where there were strong prejudices against him is something I imagine which we ought not to do. The bill is nothing, in my judgment, but simple, naked justice, applicable to one case as well as to another, and to one locality as well as another.
not vote for this amendment. I cannot by my vote turn over an innocent officer or soldier of the Union, who has done such acts as are contemplated by this bill, to the verdict of a local jury. That would be the consequence, if I understand it, of the adoption of the amendment of the Senator from Vermont. It would be to expose defendants in all such cases to the political prejudices and personal prejudices which might happen to exist in the particular locality against the person who happened to be a defendant.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. If the Senator from Michigan will give away, I desire to suggest that this is a very important question; and I understand that it is desirable that there should be a short executive session. If the Senator will give way, I will move an executive session.
Mr. HOWARD. If I intended to make a speech of any length I would give way with great pleasure: but as I shall close soon, I hope the Senate will indulge me to the end.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. This is a very important question, and I should like to hear the Senator upon it.
Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, what is meant by "martial law" in the amendment of the honorable Senator from Vermont? What does it include? Is it the martial law that is to be established, or was established, by simple proclamation of the commander of the department or of the particular district? Is such a proclamation, even in a loyal State, the sole origin of martial law, and is it necessary in every case that there should be such a proclamation in order to justify the commander of the Union forces in the seizure of property that he might find absolutely necessary for the subsistence of his troops? Surely I did not suppose that the honorable Senator from Vermont would give such a narrow definition to the term "martial law." I do not understand it to be thus limited. Take the case of Illinois or of Ohio. Union troops have been marched and countermarched through those States; actual hostilities have existed in those States; battles have been fought in Ohio and in Pennsylvania, neither of which was proclaimed to be under martial law, and fought in particular localities where there is no pretense that martial law had thus been proclaimed. I ask the honorable Senator from Vermont whether there be not the same necessity in such cases to extend this protection to Union officers and Union soldiers as there was in localities subject to the formal proclamations of martial law.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not think there is. Mr. HOWARD. The honorable Senator from Vermont says he does not think there is that necessity. There may not be that necessity to the same degree in reference to all these States. I probably should not dissent from the honorable Senator in that view of the question; but that there is some necessity, that that necessity is of sufficient magnitude to justify us in passing this act, I have no doubt. What was the case in South Carolina, for instance, during Sherman's famous march to the sea? Was there martial law in South Carolina proclaimed by the commander? I never heard
Mr. EDMUNDS. It was not represented in Congress.
Mr. HOWARD. But that makes no difference as to the principle. Now, sir, the great object of this bill is, in every case where a soldier or officer has acted in good faith under an order addressed to him or intended for him, to extend to him the protection of the law as against the consequences of any act which he might do and perform under that order or under color of that order, and to enable the defendant in such case as that to transfer the prosecution or the suit (for the proceeding may be criminal or it may be civil) from the local or State tribunal to a Federal tribunal, thus giving the defendant an opportunity of presenting his case to a court and a jury not infected by the local prejudices of the place where the act was committed. I must confess that I see no ground or reason
tleman is somewhat mistaken in saying that I objected to the bill. I merely asked for the enforcement of the rule requiring bills making appropriations to go to the Committee of the Whole for their first consideration. While I do not object to taking the bill up, I do not say I will not object to its passage. Perhaps the bill is right in some aspects, but it is a bad precedent to pay a man for an office he never held.
Mr. PATTERSON moved that the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar be discharged from the further consideration of the bill.
The motion was agreed to.
The bill, which was read, provides that the Secretary of the Treasury be directed, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to pay to James G. Clarke the sum of $6,483 96, in full for services as acting chargé d'affaires of the United States at Brussels from June 11, 1857, to September 27, 1858.
The Clerk then proceeded to read the report. 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. PATTERSON 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.
Mr. MORRIS obtained the floor.
Mr. EGGLESTON. I ask the gentleman to yield to me for a question of privilege.
Mr. MORRIS. I will yield if it will not take five minutes.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Day before yesterday one of the Representatives of West Virginia [Mr. WHALEY] made a statement in reference to a paragraph in a newspaper, attributing the authorship of that paragraph to a constituent of mine, Mr. H. V. N. Boynton. That gentleman, wishing to set the matter right before the House, has sent me the following letter, which I ask the Clerk to read.
The Clerk proceeded to read the letter, as follows:
WASHINGTON, D. C., April 17, 1866.
DEAR SIR: It appears from this morning's Globe that Hon. KELLIAN V. WHALEY caused a newspaper paragraph, cut from the Cincinnati Gazette, to be read at the Clerk's desk yesterday, wrongfully intimating that Mr. WHALEY was not proficient in the elements of the Latin language; and that he then, in some very well chosen remarks, proceeded to denounce me by name as the writer of the paragraph. I desire to state to you, as representing the district in which I reside, that the article did not originate, either directly or indirectly, with any one connected with the Gazette, but that it was a mere selection without heading or signature, which has been published in nearly all the
DISTRICT COURTS IN NEW YORK. Mr. MORRIS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. DELANO.]
Mr. DELANO. I ask leave to introduce a bill (H. R. No. 134) to regulate the terms of the United States courts in the eastern district of New York, and for other purposes.
Mr. ANCONA. I demand the regular order of business.
Mr. MORRIS. Have I not the floor? The SPEAKER.The gentleman from New York [Mr. MORRIS] is entitled to the floor, but the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. ANCONA] objects.
Mr. ROSS. Then allow me to make a remark for a moment or two.
Mr. PERHAM. I will yield to the gentleman for a moment to make some remarks. Mr. ROSS. I have quite a number of constituents in my district who are capable of filling any of these offices, and they are willing to take them at the salaries which we have heretofore been in the habit of paying.
Now, at the last session of Congress I voted for some increase of compensation to public offiI did it for the reason that our currency was depreciated, and everything in the way of living was increased in price. But now the condition of the country is changed; the prices of articles are getting lower; our paper money is approximating more nearly to the value of coin; and I can see no necessity, in this juncture of our public affairs, when we take into consideration the condition of the people and the heavy burdens they have to bear, of our increasing the compensation of these officers.
Why, sir, I am astonished at the excuses which gentlemen make for increasing the compensation of these officers. They say that the Superintendent of the Coast Survey gets $6,000, and that the Comptroller of the Currency Bureau gets $5,000. Sir, as the Representatives of an oppressed and burdened people, are we, when we find out that an officer gets too high a compensation, to bring up the compensation of other officers to that standard? I should have supposed that my distinguished friend would rather have been disposed to cut down the compensation of all these officers instead of raising it. There is no necessity for an increase. You can get the best talent of the country to discharge the duties of these officers at the compensation heretofore paid by the Government, and it is placing unnecessary burdens upon our already over-taxed people to increase the compensation of officers now, when, instead of things rising in value, they are tumbling all the time.
Mr. MORRIS. I hope the gentleman will allow this bill to be submitted. It is of a local character, pertaining to the courts of New York.
Mr. ANCONA. I do not object to the gentleman introducing his own proposition, but I do object to his yielding to friends on that side and not to those on this side.
Mr. BOYER. I renew the demand for the regular order of business.
Mr. MORRIS. I have troubled the House very little.
Mr. BOYER. I shall not withdraw it.
ORGANIZATION OF THE PENSION OFFICE.
The House proceeded, as the regular order of business, to the consideration of the unfinished business of yesterday, being House bill No. 278, reported from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, in amendment of the several acts relating to the organization of the Pension Office, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute therefor.
The pending amendment was to strike out the second section of the substitute, as follows:
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 orphans, 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.
I have given the subject some little attention, and the chairman of the committee stated to the House yesterday morning the relative salaries of other officers in similar situations in this city. I was fully convinced, after hearing that statement, that it was my duty to vote for this increase of salary, and I hope that my friend from Illinois, [Mr. WASHBURNE,] who is always so watchful of the Treasury in this House, will not raise objection to the passage of this bill as it now stands.
I find on looking over the list of salaries that the Superintendent of the Coast Survey gets $6,000 per annum, the Comptroller of the Currency $5,000, the Treasurer of the United States $5,000, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue $4,000, and the Commissioner of Patents $4,500.
Now, I undertake to say that neither of the officers I have named have as many arduous duties to perform as has the Commissioner of Pensions. Every one acquainted with that department knows how well and faithfully that officer is daily attending to his duties. I have had some experience since I have been stopping in Washington as to the expenses here, and I am satisfied that $3,000 per annum will not meet those expenses, or come within a thousand dollars of it. I hope that in consideration of these facts each member will vote for this measure as it is just and proper.
Mr. PERHAM resumed the floor.
Mr. ROSS. I desire to move to amend the bill by striking out "$4,000" and inserting "$3,000.' Mr. PERHAM. I am unwilling to yield for an amendment of that kind.
Mr. PERHAM. I yield now to the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. KASSON.]
Mr. KASSON. I understood the chairman of the committee to say, as a reason for increasing the compensation of the chief clerk, that this Commissioner of Pensions has not a deputy. I believe there is no department of a like kind in the Government where the head of the bureau has a deputy; and inasmuch as the proposition is to raise the salary of the chief clerk beyond the amount that is allowed to the chief clerks in other bureaus, I think that we should set a bad precedent, and one that would be appealed to hereafter in other Departments to the detriment of the public service, or at least to the loss of economy in the service.
I believe the highest amount paid directly for a chief clerk of any bureau in the Departments is $2,000 a year. If this chief clerk has not that salary now, I will vote most cheerfully to give it to him. And I would give him more than that, if that was not equal to the amount now given to the chief clerks of the different bureaus of the various Departments of the Government.
In regard to the other point, the salary of
the Commissioner of Pensions, I am bound in candor to say that I agree with the chairman of the Committee on Pensions [Mr. PERHAM] that this officer's labors and responsibilities are fully equal to those who are receiving the proposed amount of salary. While I admit that a man without a family may live here in this city upon the salary the Commissioner of Pensions now receives, and that good men, single men, may be obtained to take the position with that salary, as suggested by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Ross,] I deny that the best talents and abilities of the country can be obtained for that amount of compensation.
Mr. ROSS. I will agree to furnish from my district good men at that salary.
Mr. KASSON. I fear that those men whom my friend from Illinois calls "good men" would not be regarded as those best fitted for the place by the people of the country.
We know that in point of fact this officer is a very able and a very faithful officer, and that the bureau, in years past, has never had more than one tenth of the business which it is now called upon to perform. Under these circumstances, I think, inasmuch as we have raised the salaries of some other officers, it is due to this one to raise his simply to a proper and corresponding amount, on no other ground whatever than that of just compensation for fitting and excellent services to the Govern
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Will the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. KASSON] allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. KASSON. I will yield for a question. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I desire to ask my friend from Iowa if the same reasons for increasing the salary of this Commissioner of Pensions do not apply to the heads of all the bureaus of the Government. Have not the duties of all the Auditors, for instance, been increased in very nearly the same proportion as the duties of the Commissioner of Pensions? And if you are going to undertake this thing, I ask, why stop here? Why not go further? Why not, as I said on yesterday, increase the salary of the Commissioner of Public Lands and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, as well as the salaries of all the Auditors, who now receive this very salary of $3,000 a year?
And let me say here that this is the time to meet this question of raising the salaries of officers, for this is perhaps one of the strongest cases that can be presented. There is no ob jection whatever to Mr. Barrett. As I said yesterday, he is one of the ablest and most conscientious officers that we have. But that is no reason why we should impose additional taxes upon our constituents to pay him an increased salary.
Mr. KASSON. In order that I may answer the question of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. WASHBURNE]-and I gave way for a question only, and not for a speech, for I heard this speech yesterday
Mr.WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Not all of it. Mr. KASSON. I think I heard the whole of it. But before I forget the questions of the gentleman I will answer them. The salaries of the other officers should not be raised now, because Congress has, in point of fact, raised them in many instances already, to meet the present emergencies, and it would be unjust to raise them again. But the salary of this officer has been left below the grade of the salaries of officers of corresponding bureaus of the Depart ments. I know heads of bureaus who now receive from five hundred to one thousand dollars more than this officer receives who do not perform more than one half the duties he is called upon to perform.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Then cut the salaries of the other officers down, and not raise the salary of this one.
Mr. KASSON. It is because it is just that the salary of this officer should be raised that the committee have reported in favor of raising it. If my friend from Illinois will introduce a bill to equalize the salaries of all these officers according to some just rule I will go
with him in reducing those that are too high and raising those that are too low. But I am opposed to a wholesale denunciation of a just and proper compensation to a worthy and faithful officer on the ground that it is setting a bad precedent. From the beginning of this Government to this day we have from time to time felt compelled to raise the salaries of various officers of the Government according to the increase of their duties. And I do not know but that it may be so in the future. I am opposed to going too fast upon the subject of raising salaries. But I do believe it necessary to provide just and proper compensation to secure faithful and fitting service for the Gov
As was remarked yesterday by the chairman of the committee, [Mr. PERHAM,] a vast amount of money is involved in the transactions of the Pension Bureau; and the very best order of talent is required for the discharge of the duties of Commissioner. It is admitted by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE] that we have that kind of talent at the head of the bureau at this time. We wish to retain that order of talent. We wish that the duties of that position shall hereafter be administered with the same ability with which they are now performed. Hence the committee believe that the salary of the Commissioner should be increased from $3,000 to $4,000. The latter amount is $500 less than the present salary of the Commissioner of Patents; yet no gentleman acquainted with the facts will deny that the amount of labor required of the Commissioner of Pensions equals, and I believe that it largely exceeds, the amount of labor required of the Commissioner of Patents.
Mr. HALE. I desire to inquire whether the objection taken by the gentleman from Illinois to the increased expenditure proposed by this bill cannot be obviated to the satisfaction of all parties by making the money payable out of the contingent fund of the House. I believe that will remove all objection. [Laughter.]
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. It might remove the objection of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. HALE,] but it would not remove mine.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. KASSON] is entitled to the floor.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I wish to inquire of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BENJAMIN] whether he is aware that the Government has found difficulty in commanding at the present salaries the requisite talent for any of these positions, or whether he has heard that any of the heads of bureaus have resigned recently Mr. KASSON. I have finished. because they do not receive enough pay. If The SPEAKER. Then the gentleman from there are any of these positions vacant on acMaine [Mr. PERHAM is entitled to the floor. count of such resignations, I give notice to the Mr. PERHAM. I will yield to the gentle-gentleman and to the country that there are man from Illinois, [Mr. WASHBURNE.]
several gentlemen in my district who would be glad to take these positions at the present salaries.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The gentleman from lowa [Mr. KASSON] has said, with some degree of truth, that I made substantially the same speech yesterday that I have made to-day. Sir. I believe that is the fact; for I have made that speech pretty often, and I am sorry to say with very little effect so far as regards my friend from Iowa. I have appealed
Mr. BENJAMIN. I will say, in reply, that I presume there can be found in my friend's district gentlemen who are ready to take and occupy seats in Congress without any compensation. I will not say that they are equal in point of talent to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. FARNSWORTH.] •
more than once to members of the House to set their faces against all such extravagant propositions as this, but with very little effect. This case is presented to us fairly and squarely,
Mr. STEVENS. I know some who are resigning in consequence of deficiency of salary. The Attorney General is about to lose the services of his assistant, a most valuable and efficient officer, because of the smallness of the pay. Unless some measure be passed we shall not be able to get along much longer.
and now let the House decide whether it will inaugurate this policy of raising salaries at a time when, as my colleague on the other side [Mr. Ross] has very properly said, the prices of everything appear to be going down. When the prices of living are decreasing, and we are, as I trust, reaching the gold standard, why should we commence a system of increasing salaries? These salaries when increased will continue undiminished for all time. I have never known a case in which a salary has been diminished.
Mr. BENJAMIN. I was saying, in answer to the gentleman from Illinois, when he drew the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, there was a comparison between this Commissioner and no increase of business in the Indian Bureau. It has not increased for ten years, and for the next ten years is likely to decrease. It is the same with the Commissioner of Public Lands.
Mr. PERHAM. I now yield to my colleague on the committee, the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. BENJAMIN.]
Mr. BENJAMIN. I agree with both the gentlemen from Illinois that this is a bad time for the Congress of the United States to commence a system of raising salaries. But, sir, there may be, and I think there are, exceptions to this rule. The present salary of the Commissioner of Pensions, $3,000, was fixed in 1848, eighteen years ago; and it was fixed in accordance with the rule adopted at that time that the head of a bureau should receive half the salary of a Cabinet officer. The salary of the Secretaries at the time was $6,000; and hence the salary of the Commissioner of Pensions was fixed at $3,000.
In 1848 the Pension Bureau, as we all know, was a small institution. There were comparatively few persons upon the pension roll. Now, that bureau has grown to an enormous 'extent; and the business of that bureau, I will venture to say, is more extended and important, and involves a larger amount of money, than the business of any other bureau of the Government. But the salary of the Commissioner, instead of being increased with the increase of business, has actually been diminished. How? We have provided in our taxlaws that $2,400 of his salary of $3,000 shall be taxed at the rate of five per cent.; and to that extent the salary has been reduced below the amount at which it was fixed in 1848.
The gentleman from Iowa is slightly mistaken in supposing the salary of this chief clerk corresponds with that of other chief clerks. It is $200 less than that of other chief clerks. They generally receive $2,200. We make this $2,500 because of the increase of the duties devolved upon this clerk, and believe it to be right.
Mr. KASSON. Is not the gentleman in error that the chief clerks of the bureaus receive $2,200? The chief clerks of Departments receive $2,200, and the chief clerks of the bureaus $2,000. In the Post Office Department the chief clerks receive $2,000.
Mr. BENJAMIN. The gentleman is correct; some of the chief clerks of bureaus receive only $2,000. Some I know receive $2,200. The amount is not uniform. This asks for an increase to $2,500. The whole increase amounts to the sum of $1,500 a year. I think it is the duty of this House to pay competent officers adequate compensation, and that is all that is proposed here.
Mr. PERHAM. I hope I shall not be asked to yield any further.
I wish to say, in answer to the question why the committee have not reported in favor of the increase of the salaries of the heads of other bureaus, that in the first place, no such propositions were referred to us for other bureaus; and in the second place, there was no other
YEAS-Messrs. Baldwin, Barker, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke, Coffroth, Davis, Delano, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eggleston. Farquhar, Garfield, Glossbrenner, Haje, Hayes, Holmes, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Jenekes, Kelley, Kelso, George V. Lawrence, Lynch, Marvin, MeRuer, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Morris, Myers, Newell, O'Neill, Perham, Samuel J. Randall, William II. Randall, Raymond, Rollins, Schenck, Smith, Stevens, Stilwell, Strouse, Taylor, Francis Thomas, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Welker, Whaley, and Williams-58.
NAYS-Messrs. Allison, Ancona, Delos R. Ashley, Baker, Beaman, Boutwell, Brandegee, Bromwell, Broomall, Chanler, Sidney Clarke, Conkling, Cook, Deming, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Ferry, Finck, Goodyear, Grider, Abner C. Harding, Henderson, Asahel W. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, James M. Humphrey,Julian, Kasson, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Latham, Loan, Longyear, Marshall, Marston, McCullough, McKee, Moulton, Niblack, Orth, Paine, Phelps, Price, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Scofield, Shanklin, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Spalding, Taber, Thayer, Thornton, Trowbridge, Ward, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, Wentworth, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, and Wright-63.
NOT VOTING-Messrs. Alley, Ames, Anderson, James M. Ashley, Banks, Baxter, Bergen, Blaine, Blow, Boyer, Buckland, Cobb, Cullom, Culver, Darling. Dawes, Dawson, Defrees, Denison, Dodge, Dumont, Eliot, Grinnell, Griswold, Aaron Harding, Harris, Hart, Higby, Hill, Hogan, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, James Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, Kerr, Laflin, William Lawrence, Le Blond, McClurg, McIndoe, Nicholson, Noell, Patterson, Pike, Plants, Pomeroy, Radford, Rousseau, Sawyer, Sloan, Starr, John L. Thomas, Trimble, Warner, William B. Washburn, Windom, Winfield, and Woodbridge-62.
So the bill was rejected.
During the roll-call,
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, stated that Mr. BLAINE was detained at his room by sick
Mr. ANCONA stated that if his vote would change the result he would vote in the affirmative; as it was he voted "no."
The result having been announced as above recorded,.
Mr. WENTWORTH moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was rejected; and also moved to lay that motion on the table. Mr. ANCONA. On that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken on laying the motion to reconsider on the table, and it was decided
in the negative-yeas 55, nays 62, not voting 66: as follows:
that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.
YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Delos R. Ashley, Baker, Beaman, Boutwell, Brandegee, Bromwell, Broomall, Chanter, Sidney Clarke, Cook, Dodge, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Ferry, Finck, Goodyear, Abner C. Harding. Henderson, Edwin N. Hubbell, Julian, Kuykendall, Latham, Loan, McClurg, McCullough, McKee, Moulton, Niblack, Orth, Paine, Phelps, Price, John H. Rice, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Scofield, Shanklin, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Spalding, Strouse, Thayer, Thornton, Trowbridge, Upson, Ward, Warner, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, Wentworth, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, and Wright-55. NAYS-Messrs. Ancona, Baldwin, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Boyer, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke, Coffroth, Conkling, Davis, Deming, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eggleston, Farquhar, Garfield, Glossbrenner, Hale, Hayes, Holmes, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, James M. Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, George V. Lawrence, Longyear, Lynch, Marvin, MeRuer, Mereur, Miller, Morris, Myers, Newell, Nicholson, O'Neill, William H. Randall, Raymond, Rollins, Rousseau, Schenck, Smith, Stevens, Stilwell, Taylor, John L. Thomas, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Whaley, Williams, Windom, and Woodbridge-62.
NOT VOTING-Messrs. Alley, Ames, Anderson, James M. Ashley, Banks, Barker, Baxter, Bergen, Blaine, Blow, Buckland, Cobb, Cullom, Culver, Darling, Dawes, Dawson, Defrees, Delano, Denison, Dumont, Eliot, Grider, Grinnell, Griswold, Aaron Harding, Harris, Hart, Higby, Hill, Hogan, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, James Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, Kerr, Ketcham, Laflin, William Lawrence, Le Blond, Marshall, Marston, MeIndoe, Moorhead, Morrill, Noell, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Plants, Pomeroy, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, Sawyer, Sloan, Starr, Taber, Francis Thomas, Trimble, and Winfield-66. So the motion to reconsider was not laid on the table.
The question recurred on the motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was rejected.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I demand the yeas and nays. Mr. PERHAM. Is a motion to recommit in order?
The SPEAKER. will have to be reconsidered first.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Is it in order to withdraw the motion to reconsider?
The SPEAKER. It is not, after the House has refused to lay it on the table.
Mr. INGERSOLL. If the motion to reconsider prevails, will it then be in order to move to recommit?
The SPEAKER. It will.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question being taken on the motion to reconsider, it was decided in the affirmativeyeas 63, nays 55, not voting 65; as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Ancona, Baldwin, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Boyer, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke, Coffroth, Davis, Dawes, Delano, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eggleston, Farqu har, Glossbrenner, Hale, Hayes, Holmes, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, Ketcham, George V. Lawrence, Lynch, Marvin, McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Morris, Myers, Newell, Nicholson, O'Neill, Perham, William H. Randall, Raymond, Rollins, Schenck, Smith, Stevens, Stilwell, Strouse, Taylor, John L. Thomas, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Whaley, Williams, and Windom-63.
the Pacific Railroad? The rejection of the bill
NAYS-Messrs. Allison, Delos R. Ashley, Baker, Beaman, Brandegee, Bromwell, Broomall, Chanler, Sidney Clarke, Cook, Deming, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Ferry, Finck, Goodyear, Abner C. Harding, Henderson, Edwin N. Hubbell, Julian, Kuykendall, Latham, Loan, Longyear, Marston, McClurg. McCullough, McKee, Moulton, Niblack, Orth, Paine, Phelps, Price, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Scofield, Shanklin, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Spalding, Taber, Thayer, Thornton, Trowbridge, Upson, Ward, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, Wentworth, James F. Wilson, and Wright-55. NOT VOTING-Messrs. Alley, Ames, Anderson, James M. Ashley, Banks, Barker, Baxter, Bergen, Blaine, Blow, Boutwell, Cobb, Conkling, Cullom, Culver, Darling, Dawson, Defrees, Denison, Dumont, Eliot, Garfield, Grider, Grinnell, Griswold, Aaron Harding, Harris, Hart, Higby, Hill, Hogan, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Demas Hubbard, John II. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, James Humphrey, James M. Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, Kerr, Laflin, William Lawrence, Le Blond, Marshall, McIndoe, Moorhead, Morrill, Noell, Patterson, Pike, Plants, Pomeroy, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, Rousseau, Sawyer, Sloan, Starr, Francis Thomas, Trimble, Warner, Stephen F. Wilson, Winfield, and Woodbridge-65.
The SPEAKER. The morning hour having expired, that motion is not in order.
So the motion to reconsider was agreed to. The SPEAKER. The morning hour has expired.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move
The question being put, there were-ayes 30, noes 40; no quorum voting.
Mr. CONKLING. If it is in order to ask a question for information, I would inquire if this is to be referred to the committee on reconstruction with the view of having them reconstruct this railroad? Or what branch of the business of reconstruction does this proposition come under?
The SPEAKER. That is hardly a point for the Chair to decide.
Mr. ROSS. It is for the purpose of never getting a report, I suppose. [Laughter.]
Mr. ANCONA. Is not the question first upon the motion to refer to the Committee on
The SPEAKER. The Chair did not understand that motion to be made.
Mr. ROLLINS. I made that motion, as I supposed.
The SPEAKER. The Chair inquired what disposition should be made of the paper. The gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. ROLLINS] suggested in his seat that it be referred to the Committee on the Pacific Railroad. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. WENTWORTH] arose in his place and moved that it be referred to the joint committee on reconstruction. The House is now dividing upon that question, upon the last vote no quorum voting.
Mr. STEVENS. By whom is the paper signed?
The SPEAKER. By the president of the Texas convention.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay it on the table.
The SPEAKER. The House is now dividing upon the motion to refer. If that motion shall be voted down the motion to lay on the table will be in order.
Mr. CHANLER. I rise to a point of order. Is debate or colloquy in order pending a division of the House upon a motion to refer?
The SPEAKER. The Chair sustains the Debate is not now in order. point of order. There was no quorum voting on the last vote, and the Chair will appoint tellers.
Messrs. WENTWORTH and BOYER were appointed tellers.
The House again divided; and the tellers reported-ayes five, noes not counted.
So the motion to refer to the joint committee on reconstruction was not agreed to. Mr. ROLLINS. I move to refer this paper to the Committee on the Pacific Railroad. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I desire to ask for information if it has not been the uniform custom of this House, from the commencement of this session to this day, to refer all such matters to the joint committee on reconstruction?
The SPEAKER. The order of the House is that all subjects relating to the representation of the so-called confederate States shall be referred to that committee. In regard to all other subjects the reference is to be decided by a vote of the House.
Mr. RAYMOND. Has the division of the House upon the motion to refer reached such a point as to prevent debate?
The SPEAKER. This debate has been tolerated by unanimous consent.
Mr. RAYMOND. Is the question of reference still debatable?
The SPEAKER. It is not, except by unanimous consent, as the House is now dividing, no quorum having voted on the last vote.
Mr. DAVIS. I think the question has not been fully understood. I would merely sug gest
The SPEAKER. The Chair will lay before the House an invitation addressed to the members of the House of Representatives. It will be read for information.
The Clerk read, as follows:
WASHINGTON, April 12, 1866.
To the honorable members of the House of Representatives : We, the undersigned colored citizens of the District of Columbia, most respectfully invite the members of the House of Representatives to be present at the celebration of the anniversary of the emancipation of slavery in the District, to take place in Franklin square, Thursday, April 19, at twelve o'clock m. ALFRED KIGER, EDWARD L. SAVOY, DANIEL G. MUSE. W. H. SHORTER,
Mr. ELDRIDGE. I think this should be referred to the joint committee on reconstruction, [laughter,] and I make that motion.
The motion was not agreed to.
Mr. ANCONA. Does the invitation include those members of the House who voted against the emancipation of slavery in the District of Columbia?
The SPEAKER. It includes all the members of the House of Representatives. It was read only for information, and not for any action of the House.
REORGANIZATION OF THE ARMY.
The House resumed the consideration of the bill (II. R. No. 361) entitled "An act to reorganize and establish the Army of the United States."
The fifth section was under consideration, having been amended so as to read as follows:
SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That the officers of the thirty-seven regiments of infantry, first provided for in the foregoing section, shall consist of those now commissioned and serving therewith, subject to such examination as the condition of their being retained in the service as is hereinafter provided for; and in making appointments to fill the original vacancies in the thirty-seven regiments thus provided for, and for a period of three years after the passage of this act, all first and second lieutenants and two thirds of the officers of each of the grades above that of first lieutenant shall be selected from among the officers and soldiers of volunteers who have served in the Army of the United States in the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and who have been distinguished for capacity, good conduct, and efficient service; but graduates of the United States Military Academy and enlisted men shall be eligible to appointment as second lieutenants in those regiments, as in the new regiments of cavalry, under the provisions of the third section of this act, and not otherwise; the Veteran Reserve corps shall be officered by appointment from any oflicers or soldiers of volunteers or of the regular Army 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.
The officers selected to fill original vacancies in the regiments of colored troops shall be taken from among those who have served as officers of colored troops in the Army of the United States in the late war. And all appointments of officers in the Veteran Reserve corps and in regiments of colored troops shall be made on examination, as hereinafter provided, having reference to capacity, good conduct, and efficient service in every case.
The pending question was upon the following amendment, moved by Mr. FARNSWORTH, to strike out the following:
The officers selected to fill original vacancies in the regiments of colored troops shall be taken from among those who have served as officers of colored troops in the Army of the United States in the late war.
And to insert in lieu thereof the following: The officers of colored troops herein provided for
shall be selected and appointed in the same manner provided herein for officering the six regiments of cavalry provided for in the third section of this act. The question was taken; and Mr. FARNSWORTH'S amendment was disagreed to.
The question recurred on the amendment offered by Mr. CONKLING as a proviso to the section, the vote on which had been reserved.
the provisions of this act, shall be on the same footing in reference to pay, relative rank, and promotion within the staff, corps, or arm of the service in which they may be appointed or retained.
Mr. HALE. I desire to make a motion to perfect the section before the vote is taken on that amendment. I desire, with the leave of the House, to enter a motion on which I do not now desire a vote. It is an amendment, the fate of which will depend upon the disposition to be made of a subsequent section, and for that I ask that it shall be reserved until the House shall have considered the thirty-third section. My motion is to strike out in lines four, five, and six the words, "subject to such examination as the condition of their being|| retained in the service as is hereinafter provided for."
I propose hereafter to move to strike out a provision in the thirty-third section, and if that motion shall succeed then this clause will have to be stricken out.
No objection was made, and the amendment was reserved.
Mr. GARFIELD. I desire to move to amend the fourth section of the bill by striking out the words "of ten regiments to be raised and officered as hereinafter provided for, to be called the Veteran Reserve corps," and to insert in lieu thereof the following:
And the Secretary of War is authorized and directed to enlist men for the service who have been wounded in the line of their duty while serving in the Army of the United States, or who have been disabled by disease contracted in such service, provided it shall be found, on medical inspection, that by such wounds or disability they are not unfitted for efficiency in garrison or other light duty; and such men, when enlisted, shall be assigned to such post, garrison, or other light duty, as the interests of the service may require: Provided, That there shall not be more than five thousand such enlisted men in the service at any one time.
The SPEAKER. That section is not now open to amendment. It has been passed under the operation of the previous question. The House now engaged on the fifth section, and can only go back by unanimous consent.
Mr. GARFIELD. I wish the House would allow me to go back for the purpose of offering that amendment. I propose to offer another amendment to the fifth section, and if that be adopted, this one ought to be.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio asks unanimous consent to go back to the fourth section.
Mr. SCHENCK. I must object to opening up that section again.
Mr. GARFIELD. I offer then the following amendment to the fifth section:
Strike out the following clause:
The Veteran Reserve corps shall be officered by appointment from any officers and soldiers of volunteers or of the regular Army 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. The officers selected to fill original vacancies in the regiments of colored troops shall be taken from among those who have served as officers of colored troops in the Army of the United States in the late war. And all appointments of officers in the Veteran Reserve corps and in regiments of colored troops shall be made on examination, as hereinafter provided, having reference to capacity, good conduct, and officient service in every case.
And insert in lieu thereof the following: In making up the Army list, in pursuance of the provisions of this act, there shall be appointed, in accordance with the provisions of the third section of this act, from any officers and soldiers of volunteers or regulars 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, not less than ten colonels, ten lieutenant colonels, ten majors, ten adjutants, ten regimental quartermasters, [ten regimental commissaries, Jone hundred captains, one hundred first lieutenants, and one hundred second lieutenants; and from any officers who have served as officers of colored troops in the Army of the United States in the late war, eight colonels, eight lieutenant colonels, eight majors, eight adjutants, eight regimental quartermasters, [eight regimental cominissaries] eighty captains, eighty first lieutenants, and eighty second lieutenants: Provided, That all officers appointed or retained in the Army, in pursuance of
Mr. Speaker, I desire to explain, in a few words, what this amendment is designed to accomplish. During the discussion of this bill thus far there has been developed in the House a decided purpose to follow the lead of the Military Committee in this: that those who have been wounded in the service and also a certain portion of the colored soldiers shall constitute a part of the Army. Now, what we want is to realize the wish of the House in such a way as shall come as nearly as possible to making our Army a harmonious unit.
The objection which I have to the mode in which this bill proposes to effect its purpose is that it gives us three kinds of Army: first, the Army proper, that will be known as par excellence the regular Army; second, a portion of the Army known as the Veteran Reserve corps, made up in a special and peculiar way, officered in a special and peculiar way, and kept distinct from the other branches of the Army; and third, an Army known as the colored troops of the United States, officered in a peculiar way, and kept entirely distinct from the other two classes.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that nothing can be worse for the efficiency and success of our Army than discordant elements in its organization-especially in its list of officerswalls of partition built up so that of one man it shall be said, "He is an officer in the regular Army;" of another, "He is an officer of the Veteran Reserve corps;" and of another, "He is an officer of the colored troops." I believe we can have all these elements, if the House so determines, and yet not have co nomine these distinctions, which, I am very sure, will, if adopted, be a source of infinite difficulty, dissension, and heart-burnings in the practical workings of the Army. We have seen, during the late war, how that spirit has been manifested between the volunteers and regulars. We have seen how much difficulty these distinctions have caused in every department of our Army.
What I desire is that we shall have one harmonious Army, so that between officers of the same rank there shall be no distinction in consequence of their belonging to different branches of the Army to which they belong. I desire that all officers, whether assigned to the command of colored troops or to the command of regular forces or to the command of soldiers of the Veteran Reserve corps, shall be equally eligible to promotion in any of the different departments of the Army. This is the object of my amendment.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. GARFIELD. Certainly.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I desire to ask the gentleman whether, under the bill as proposed by the committee, a major in a colored regiment, for instance, could not be promoted to a lieutenant colonelcy in one of the white regiments.
Mr. GARFIELD. I have no doubt it is the intention of the committee that that may be done. But I desire an affirmative statement in the law to that effect, so that there can be no doubt of it.
I believe we can carry out substantially all the ideas of the military committee, and still realize more effectually the unity of the Army, by not describing a Veteran Reserve corps, with its special class of officers; the colored troops, with their special class of officers; and the Regular Army, with its special classes of officers; but by simply declaring that there shall be so many colonels, so many lieutenant colonels, so many majors, so many officers of other grades, commissioned as a part of the official roster from among men who have been wounded or otherwise partially disabled, and that they may be assigned wherever the General-in-Chief pleases to assign them.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. GARFIELD. Certainly.
Mr. STEVENS. Was there any difficulty or discord in the French Army when it consisted of Old Guards, Young Guards, and the army proper?
Mr. GARFIELD. Well, Mr. Speaker, what was consistent and harmonious in the French army fifty years ago, under their peculiar situation of affairs, cannot justify us in making up our Army of such discordant materials as these. I am thoroughly and from principle opposed to establishing this sort of divisions by name in the Army of the United States.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I entirely sympathize with the gentleman in that desire, and I wish to have the bill so amended (if it is not now in that shape) as to permit the promotion of officers of colored troops to higher positions in the white regiments, and the promotion of officers of white troops to higher positions in the colored regiments; so that officers in one branch of the Army shall not be excluded from promotion in another branch.
Mr. GARFIELD. I have no doubt the Committee on Military Affairs will adopt any proposition that affirmatively embodies that principle.
Mr. CONKLING. I ask the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD]-and I am glad to see his attention has been called to the subject, for we recognize the weight of his authority-to state for the benefit of the House what will be the number of officers.
Mr. GARFIELD. It will be large enough to officer ten regiments of the class of men now designated in the bill as the Veteran Reserve corps and eight regiments designated as colored troops.
Under this bill the military authorities, in making up the Army, are required to take in as many disabled officers as are needed to officer ten regiments of disabled soldiers, and the whole is to be a separate organization, known by a separate name, the Veteran Reserve corps. My amendment adopts the spirit and policy of the bill so far as to allow these disabled men to enter the Army, but it proposes to do away with these separate and special organizations with distinctive names. When the President, under the committee's bill, appoints men for the colored regiments, he must appoint men who have served as officers of colored troops. Instead of saying just such men and none other shall be appointed to command these troops, my amendment throws open the door to all officers of the Army, whether they have served in colored troops or not, and any officer appointed will be liable to be put in command of colored troops. As the bill stands, we establish a colored department, and provide a special mode for the appointment of officers for that class of troops. We also establish a Veteran Reserve corps or invalid department, and provide a special mode for the appointment of a class of officers for it. By this separate origin and appointment of officers, to be known by special names, to be ordered to special duty, it seems to me we have built up separate and dissimilar organizations, which will produce endless confusion, and make a weak and disjointed army.
The Army of the United States, Mr. Speaker, should not be an open hand with outspread fingers, but rather a doubled fist, a unit, consolidated as nearly as possible into one homogeneous organization, so that a colonel of infantry shall be a colonel for all infantry purposes, and a colonel of cavalry a colonel for all cavalry purposes, without regard to color or sanitary condition of the soldiers he commands.
I believe the amendment I have suggested, while it will require a slight modification of a few sections of the committee's bill, will work harmoniously and remove the most serious objections to what is known as the Veteran Reserve corps.
Mr. WRIGHT. The honorable gentleman from Ohio intimated that he was willing to