« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
United States equal to that which the larger States were to receive. The States that were then the largest-New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia-were not only through their delegates in the Convention, but with, I believe, almost the unanimous opinion of the people of those several States opposed to giving the smaller States an equal voice in the Senate of the United States. It was said that such an equality was not republican, that it as hostile to all the ideas of republican liberty entertained at that period; and it was not until they became satisfied that the Constitution would not be adopted without it, that they agreed to give the smaller States an equality of representation in this body, counteracting the admitted mischief of that inequality by providing for a numerical representation in the other branch of Congress.
I think, therefore, Mr. President, it may safely be said that if it had been proposed in that Convention that any State should thereafter be admitted with a population anything like as small as is the population of Colorado, rating it at the highest number which the friends of this measure say is to be found there, it would not have received the vote of a single member of that Convention; it would not have received the vote of the members who represented the larger States. They consented to give to the smaller States the equality of representation only because they became satisfied that without it the Union would not be formed which they had so much at heart; and the smaller States had the larger ones practically in their power, looking to the object which the larger States had in view as well as the smaller States. Each of these States, small as well as large, was at that time perfectly independent; each was a nation of itself, invested with all the attributes of nationality; and there was no means by which the larger States could enforce a union or could persuade the smaller States to adopt a constitution by which that Union was to be formed and perpetuated, as they hoped the Union which they wished to form would be, except upon the condition that they would listen to the demands, in the particular of equal representation in the Senate of the United States, made by the smaller States.
At that time there were but thirteen States in the Union, or about to come into the Union. They had gone through a common struggle. Each had brought to the contest which resulted|| in our independence an equal loyalty and an equal patriotism, and all felt, the large as well as the small, a natural solicitude that there should be no separation in the future. Having gone through as one people the perils of the Revolution, they were willing, more than willing, they were anxious, that they should remain as one people. While, therefore, the larger States were of opinion, and for a long time unwillingly advocated it, that there should not be equality of representation in this body, they finally yielded it because in the past the smaller and the larger States had constituted practically but one nation.
Mr. GRIMES. If the Senator will give way, I move that the Senate adjourn.
Mr. WILSON. I hope not.
Mr. GRIMES. I withdraw the motion merely for the purpose of saying that it must be evident to the gentlemen who have charge of this bill that there is no desire to speak against time. Two thirds of all the speaking that has been done to-day has been by the friends of the bill. It is past the usual hour of adjourning. I do not know of anybody who desires to speak at all on the subject except the Senator from Maryland. I therefore move that the Senate do now adjourn.
Mr. SHERMAN. I call for the yeas and nays, because there is a pressure of public business, and this thing has occupied now several days. I think the discussion has gone as far as is necessary.
Mr. GRIMES. I trust we shall have the yeas and nays, and let us see whether or not members of this body are afraid to have their names recorded when a gentleman rises at this
period of the day and asks for an adjournment to enable him to be heard.
Mr. SHERMAN, The gentleman from Maryland does not ask it.
Mr. JOHNSON. I am in the hands of the Senate.
Mr. GRIMES. The Senator yielded the floor to me to move an adjournment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. POMEROY. I understood the Senator from Maryland to say that he was willing to go
Mr. JOHNSON. I said I was in the hands of the Senate.
Mr. POMEROY. If he is willing to go on I shall vote against adjourning.
The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. Mr. STEWART. I desire to say that Mr. HARRIS and Mr. HENDERSON have paired off.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I desire to state that Mr. DIXON, and Mr. LANE, of Kansas, have paired off.
The result was announced-yeas 14, nays 21; as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Doolittle, Edmunds, Foster, Grimes, Guthrie, Hendricks, Johnson, Morgan, Poland, Riddle, and Sumner-14. NAYS-Messrs. Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cragin, Creswell, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, Willey, Williams, and Wilson-21.
ABSENT-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Dixon, Fessenden, Harris, Henderson, Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Morrill, Nesmith, Norton, Saulsbury, Wright, and Yates-14.
So the Senate refused to adjourn.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rather regret that the motion was made because we have lost so much time by it. Perhaps I am as able to go on now as I should be in the morning. I made no request of the Senate to adjourn, because I was unwilling to put the Senate to any inconvenience or to keep them from voting upon this bill, if they were desirous of voting upon it at this time. I am the more willing to go on now, because I have some reason to believe that some of the Senators are in a better condition than some others. They perhaps have dined.
I was saying, Mr. President, when the motion was made that if the proposition had come from any member of the Convention that States thereafter to be admitted might be admitted if they had a population such as is the population of Colorado, the suggestion would not have received the sanction of any other member of the body. Now, what is this population? The largest number that I have heard it estimated at is 35,000. Of that 35,000, 6,000 at least, some have stated it to be 10,000, consists of the original population of the Territory, Mexicans by birth, wholly unacquainted with our institutions, and who I understand, so far from joining in the application to have this Territory admitted as a State, are against it. But in relation to the population of 35,000, I think it will be found that in point of fact the population is much below that number. I found that opinion upon the vote which has been given upon the several occasions when a vote has been given in this Territory. The usual estimate is, and I believe it is found to be true, that for every vote there are in addition some four persons; that is to say, five persons furnish one vote. That is because in the general and in most of the older States the voters are heads of families or connected with families. The Senate must see that the emigrants to these new Territories for the most part do not take their families with them; they are for the most part young men, men in search of fortune, experimenting with a view to fortune, and they leave behind them their families, those who have them; but for the most part those who go into the wilderness in search of a new home go without families, and particularly those who go into a country where gold or silver is supposed to exist.
Mr. RAMSEY. Will the honorable Senator from Maryland, now that he is speaking on the point of the voting population as the test of the real population, allow me to call his attention to what has occurred in the State of
Minnesota? In the year 1864 there were polled upon the presidential contest 42.238 votes. In the year 1865, in the contest of that year for Governor, there were polled but 31,000 votes, and yet in that year the census of the State evidenced a population of 250,000.
Mr. JOHNSON. What is the conclusion to which the honorable Senator comes from those facts?
Mr. RAMSEY. I arrive at this conclusion: that notwithstanding the increase of popula tion there was a diminution of votes. There is a difficulty in these new and frontier States in the people getting to the polls, so that sometimes there is a diminution of votes when there is not of population.
Mr. JOHNSON. But does the honorable member deny the fact which I have stated, that for the most part the emigrants, particularly to a Territory such as Colorado, are emigrants without families? That I suppose we all know to be true beyond all doubt; and the general rule as to the proportion of voters to people does not apply to such a population as is in one of these Territories. But independent of that, if you deduct the six or ten thousand Mexicans who form now a part of the population of that Territory from the 35,000 claiming to be there, and suppose that one half of those who did vote were voters without families, you find the population to be in all probability not more than 15,000. But suppose it to be 35,000. It is true that the Constitution of the United States in no part of it, with reference to the admission of new States, prescribes any number of population of which the State is to consist; but if they had contemplated as possible that the Congress of the United States under that authority would have admitted any State with a population such as is the population of Colorado, supposing it to be the largest number which any person has stated it to be, they would have prevented it, in my judgment, by constitutional prohibition. What did they do? A great many of the members of the Convention were members of the First Congress. In 1790 Congress directed the first census to be taken. In 1792, when they came to apportion the members the States were to have, they directed that there should be only one Representative for every thirty-two or thirty-three thousand of the population, so that the very men, or most of the leading men who constituted the Convention, when they came to act upon the question how the people were to be represented, provided that 33,000 should be necessary in order to be represented by one Representative. And now what are we about to do? To let these twenty or thirty thousand persons be represented by one member certainly in the House of Representatives, although the number now required as the basis of representation in that House is 127,000, and to give them two Senators on this floor, and why? I do not speculate as to motive; I have no right to speculate as to motive; but why is it necessary? Is it to protect the people of the Territory? Cannot we protect them by our own legislation? What is the condition of the people of this District, numbering now more than 100,000? They are not to constitute a State at any time. We are their representatives, and under the Constitution we are alike the representatives of all who may settle in these Territories before they are in a condition to be received into the Union of States.
In my judgment, the admission of States into this Union is a high function and a very impor tant function. Some of the honorable gentlemen who are favoring this bill may, perhaps, not consider it so important as I do, because they give a latitudinarian construction to the Constitution, of which, in my judgment, it does not admit. They seem to believe that they can legislate for the States after they get into the Union. My opinion is that the moment the State is admitted it is wholly independent of any legislation that Congress may adopt, except such as falls within its delegated powers; that nearly the whole sphere of subjects with which the local rights of the State are con
cerned, or the business of the people of the State is concerned, is to be submitted to the legislation of the State, and entirely independent of that which Congress may think proper to adopt. And I submit to those who are about to vote for this proposition that it is not republican in point of form. I do not mean upon the ground upon which my friend from Massachusetts places it, or on which the Senator from Vermont places it; but in the true sense of a republican government, it is not right in principle to give to fifteen or twenty thousand people an equal voice in this body with one or two or three millions.
The time may come when those who are for receiving now the State of Colorado, with that limited population, may regret the precedent that will be established if she shall be received. The admission of States is not to terminate with that of Colorado. There is an immense territory yet to come in when it comes to be sufficiently peopled. There is in some of these States now territory enough and population enough to make a dozen States. If the Union is restored actually to-morrow, and the whole of the southern States come in, they may have a policy of their own. They may think it necessary, in order to carry out that policy, to divide their own States; to make of Texas four; to make of Georgia just as many almost as they may think proper to make, for she has forty times the population of Colorado; to make of Virginia as many; and what will the States of New England be able to say in opposition if Colorado should be admitted? Virginia will insist, because it is sure to be so in the end, that having a population of five or ten millions she ought to be represented upon this floor by more than two Senators, and insist upon a division of her State into as many States as her policy for the time may dictate. How can you refuse to allow it? In the first place, you cannot refuse her on principles. In the second place, upon the hypothesis which I have assumed, you will not be able to refuse her by votes. What is to become of the New England States and the smaller States which are here upon the sea-board? I do not mention it by way of a threat, for threats are thrown away, as I trust, upon the members of this body; I appeal to it merely for the purpose of bringing to the attention of the Senate a fact which I think should enter into their deliberations as statesmen upon the possible tendency of this measure.
The honorable member from Nevada [Mr. NYE] who spoke so well yesterday-and the same thing has been said in substance by others-seemed to suppose that these people have a right to be admitted because of the extent of this Territory and the extent of the mineral wealth. That is not my idea of a State, Mr. President; and that is not the idea that our fathers had. The States that they designed were States to be composed of men and not of mere wealth. Otherwise the city of New York might furnish fifty States if wealth only was to be the test by which States are to be constituted. It is not the wealth in the mountains or the wealth in the pockets of the citizens; it is the citizens. The mere suggestion that twenty or thirty thousand people of all sorts, constituted of men, women, and children, native Mexicans, and others, are to be put upon the same footing in this body with the great State of New York seems to me-I was about to say to be so absurd-to be so anti-republican that the people of the country will never sanction it. If you can let a State in with 15,000, why not let her in with 5,000? The honorable member from Oregon stated that there was nothing in the Constitution which limits the number of people that is to constitute a State. That is true. Well, if in the absence of any particular provis ion on that subject in the Constitution, you can let in Colorado although she has a population of only fifteen or twenty thousand you could other territorial possession that we have if it should turn out to have a population
of 3,000 and should ask for it.
It is, therefore, upon the ground of the want of population principally that I am opposed to
enabling act as was passed in 1864, rejecting the present application to be admitted and put the question again to the people of Colorado, they will vote against coming into the Union. I have said, Mr. President, substantially what I rose for the purpose of stating, not as well perhaps as I should have stated it
the measure, but there is another reason which operates influentially with me. There is nothing to show that the people of the Territory even desire it-nothing satisfactory to my judgment. The only majority claimed is 155 out of a vote of some 6,000, and I suppose it is perfectly legitimate to infer that in the 6,000 who voted not one of the native Mexican pop-in the morning if there had been an adjournulation is to be found. And how was the election held? Not held under your enabling act of March, 1864. They did not pretend to hold it under that enabling act.
Mr. HOWARD. Mr. PresidentMr. JOHNSON. It is pretty late to be interrupted.
Mr. HOWARD. I was merely going to make a correction.
Mr. JOHNSON. What is the correction? I will hear the correction.
Mr. HOWARD. I was going to say that the documents which are before us show that the Mexican population in those two counties to which the Senator refers voted at the most recent election of members of the Legislature of Colorado, participated fully in that election, and also voted on the question of adopting the constitution itself. They cast a very large
Mr. JOHNSON. I understand, outside of the constitution itself and the record of the actual vote, that the whole Mexican population are decidedly opposed to the admission of the State.
Mr. HOWARD. They were opposed to becoming part of the United States. Mr. JOHNSON. But they are a part of the United States now, I presume.
Mr. RAMSEY. I think the only votes in Colorado against the constitution were the votes of that Mexican population. The American population all voted for it.
Mr. JOHNSON. All? That is not my information.
Mr. RAMSEY. Substantially all.
Mr. JOHNSON. But how was the election held? You passed the enabling act in March, 1864, and you provided specially how it was to be held, and you were very cautious in those provisions. They were intended to guard against fraud; they were designed that notice should be given to everybody; there was protection against improper voting. How has this constitution been adopted? Rejected at the election held under your enabling act of 1864 by a majority of 3,000 or 4,000 in a vote of not more than 7,000, it is now carried by 155; but how was that election held? The Territorial Legislature itself, even, did not pass an act authorizing the convention to be held. The presiding officers of the partisan committees, as I understand, or those who represented the political parties into which the population of the Territory was supposed to be divided, got together and themselves devised the mode by which the convention should be elected; but provision as to who was to vote, under what sanctions the vote was to be given, how fraudulent attempts at voting were to be frustrated, how they were to be punished if successfully attempted, is nowhere to be found, and nobody can tell whether the whole of that majority of 155 was not the result of illegal voting.
It would seem to be hard, very hard, that you should force upon such a minority as voted against this constitution a State government. They think, and think properly, that they may be taxed beyond their ability to meet it. They think it is better for them to remain in a territorial condition. Some of the most thoughtful, some of the most loyal to the Territory think so. We all know how these conventions are got up. Gentlemen are anxious to come to Congress, to the Senate and to the House; anxious to receive the offices which will be at the disposition of the Executive after they are admitted; but the body of the people have no such interest. It is better for them, until they have a fixed and permanent existence as a people, that they should remain in a territorial condition; and I have no doubt that if you pass such an
ment; and now close, by saying that I shall not vote on the question, because I have paired off with one of the Senators from Illinois who is not now in his seat, [Mr. YATES.]
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. CLARK in the chair.) The question is, Will the Senate reconsider the vote by which they refused to order the bill to be engrossed for a third reading? And on that question the yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. SUMNER. I had intended to say something before the debate closed in reply to dif ferent Senators who have spoken. What I said yesterday has been alluded to by various Senators and has been criticised. I do not wish to occupy the time of the Senate. I hope I have not abused its indulgence; but I feel strongly on this question, and I feel that the Senate is about to make a great mistake. I make no question with regard to the motives of Senators. I concede freely to all about me what I claim for myself. I feel, however, that they are about to make a great mistake; but it is too late for argument; I know that nothing I could say would influence a vote; and my only motive now in speaking would be to vindicate myself. There is nobody out of this Chamber that at this moment I care to reach on this question; I only wish to reach my associates in this body; I wish to appeal to them and to plead with them not to make the sacrifice which it seems to me they will make if they take the step which is now proposed. I will not detain the Senate, however, by another word.
The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. Mr. WADE. I ought to state that I have paired off with the Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. CowAN.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I was requested to state, by the Senator from Connecticut, [Mr. DIXON,] that he had paired off with the Senator from Kansas, [Mr. LANE.] He would have voted nay "the Senator from Kansas would have voted " yea.'
Mr. GRIMES. By the authority of the Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN] I secured a pair for him with the Senator from Oregon, Mr. WILLIAMS.] Had he been here he would have voted in the negative.
Mr. STEWART. I am requested by Mr. HARRIS to state that he is paired off with Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. HARRIS would have voted against the reconsideration, Mr. HENDERSON for it.
Mr. JOHNSON. As I said just now, I am paired off with Governor YATES, of Illinois.
Mr. RIDDLE. My colleague [Mr. SAULSBURY] has paired off with the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. NORTON] on this question. He would have voted "nay" if he were here.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I am paired with Mr. FESSENDEN.
EMMCDOUGALL. Permit me to ask a question for information. Do pairs count? Do they help to make a quorum? The PRESIDING OFFICER. They are not counted.
The result was announced-yeas 19, nays 13; as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Chandler. Clark, Conness, Cragin, Creswell, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, and Wilson-19.
NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Davis, Doolittle, Edmunds, Foster, Grimes, Guthrie, Hendricks, MeDougall, Morgan, Poland, Riddle, and Sumner-13. ABSENT-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Cowan, Dixon, Fessenden, Harris, Henderson, Johnson, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, Nesmith, Norton, Saulsbury, Wade, Williams, Wright, and Yates-17.
So the motion to reconsider was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is now before the Senate and open to amendment. If no amendment be proposed, the question is,
Shall the bill be engrossed and read a third time?
Mr. SUMNER. I hope the Senate will now adjourn. There are a couple of amendments which I have to move to the bill. I do not wish to move them to-night.
Oh, yes; move them
Senators say, "Oh, yes,
move them now. I hope the Senate will adjourn. I move an adjournment.
The motion was not agreed to.
Mr. SUMNER. I have an amendment to move. It is to add at the end of the bill the following proviso:
Provided, That this act shall not take effect, except upon the fundamental condition that within the State there shall be no denial of the elective franchise or of any other rights on account of color or race, but all persons shall be equal before the law. And the people of the Territory shall, by a majority of the voters therein, at such places and under such regulations as shall be prescribed by the Governor thereof, declare their assent to this fundamental condition, and the Governor shall transmit to the President of the United States an authentic statement of such assent whenever the same shall be given, upon the receipt whereofhe shall, by proclamation, announce the fact; whereupon, without any further proceedings on the part of Congress, this act shall take effect.
On that I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and being taken, resulted-yeas 7, nays 27; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Edmunds, Foster, Grimes, Howe, Morgan, Poland, Sumner-7.
NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cragin, Creswell, Davis, Doolittle, Guthrie, Hendricks, Howard, Johnson, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, McDougall, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Riddle, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, Williams, and Wilson-27.
ABSENT-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Cowan, Dixon, Fessenden, Harris, Henderson, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, Nesmith, Norton, Saulsbury, Wade, Wright, and Yates-15.
So the amendment was rejected.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time. Mr. SUMNER. I ask for theyeas and nays on the passage of the bill.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. Mr. GRIMES (when Mr. FESSENDEN'S name was called) said: I desire to repeat what I stated before. It is known to the members of the Senate that Mr. FESSENDEN has been confined to his house for some ten days or two weeks by indisposition. At his instance I secured a pair for him on this question. Had he been here he would have voted against the bill.
Mr. JOHNSON (when his name was called) said: I am paired on this question.
Mr. WADE (when his name was called) said: I am paired as I stated before.
Mr.WILLIAMS (when his name was called) said: I have paired off with Mr. FESSENDEN. If he were here, he would vote "nay," and I should vote "yea."
Mr. SPRAGUE. The Senator from Kansas [Mr. LANE] desired me to say that he was paired off with the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. DIXON,] as has been already announced by the Senator from Wisconsin. The Senator from Kansas would have voted "yea."
The result was announced-yeas 19, nays 13; as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cragin, Creswell, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, and Wilson-19.
NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Davis, Doolittle. Edmunds, Foster, Grimes, Guthrie, Hendricks, McDougall, Morgan, Poland, Riddle, and Sumner-13.
ABSENT-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Cowan, Dixon, Fessenden, Harris, Henderson, Johnson, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, Nesmith, Norton, Saulsbury, Wade, Williams, Wright, and Yates-17.
So the bill was passed.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.
A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. McPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed a bill (H. R. No. 511) imposing a duty on live animals.
on live animals was read twice by its title and read a first and second time, and referred to referred to the Committee on Finance. the Committee of Claims.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I move that the Senate adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, April 25, 1866.
The House met at twelve o'clock m. Prayer by Rev. HENRY N. BELLOWS.
The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.
TELEGRAPH TO THE WEST INDIES.
Mr. ELIOT. I ask unanimous consent to report from the Committee on Commerce Senate bill No. 26, concerning telegraphic communication between the United States and the island of Cuba, and other West India islands, and the Bahamas.
Mr. CHANLER. I object.
DUTIES ON IMPORTS.
Mr. BOUTWELL. I ask unanimous consent to introduce a bill to amend an act entitled "An act further to provide for the collection of duties on imports."
Mr. ROSS. Does it increase the duties on imports?
Mr. BOUTWELL. No, sir. This bill has been drawn with great care by well-informed persons on the subject, and the committee wish the benefit of having it printed.
The bill was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. SHANKLIN. I rise to make a personal explanation. I discover that I am reported by the Chronicle and National Intelligencer a few days since as having perpetrated a long written speech in the House on last Saturday, a thing, sir, that I never did, never expect to do, and do not know that I could do. My colleague [Mr. RITTER] is entitled to the honor of having made the speech referred to. And while I am unwilling to appropriate any of the laurels of a gentleman of his eminent ability, I am equally unwilling that he shall bank on my capital or make speeches in my name. I hope, therefore, that that will be corrected.
Another error in the same report. I am reported as having followed my colleague on my right, [Mr. SMITH,] a matter which I am satisfied never entered the head of any gentleman here. I will say that I have always found my colleague [Mr. SMITH] a very agreeable gentleman when met with, but the idea of following him, or the idea of expecting him to follow anybody long, certainly never entered my mind or the mind of anybody that knows him as well as I do. [Laughter.] I hope that may also be corrected.
Mr. SMITH. I wish merely to say that if my colleague would follow so good a leader as myself he would not have gotten into so many rebellious scrapes and bad company as he has done during the last few years.
WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF MUSIC.
Mr. DONNELLY, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to incorporate the Academy of Music, of Washington city, District of Columbia; which was read a first and second time and referred to the Committee for the District of Columbia.
SALE OF ARMS, VESSELS-OF-WAR, ETC. Mr. ORTH, by unanimous consent, introduced a joint resolution, authorizing the sale and transfer of arms, munitions and vessels-ofwar; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. HUBBELL, of Ohio, by unanimous consent, introduced a joint resolution for the relief of Isaac Ramsey, internal revenue colThe bill (H. R. No. 511) imposing a duty lector of the eighth district of Ohio; which was
HOUSE BILL REFERRED.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS. Mr. BLAINE. I ask the unanimous con. sent of the House to make a personal expla
No objection was made.
Mr. BLAINE. Mr. Speaker, in the debate yesterday on the Army bill in relation to the Provost Marshal General, there was some personal controversy between the gentleman from the Utica district of New York [Mr. CONKLING] and myself. That gentleman has been longer a member of Congress than myself, but I have understood
Mr. WARD. I would inquire if my colleague from the Utica district is in his seat.
Mr. BLAINE. He is here. I should not have sought to make this explanation if he had been absent. I supposed the member was equally familiar, with myself, with the rule understood to obtain among members in respect to the Globe reports of personal controversies. I understand, as I presume we all do, that it is quite allowable for a member who makes a speech here not affecting any personal interest, to alter the reporter's notes and place them in such form as is most agreeable to himself. have equally understood that in personal controversies between gentlemen it is a point of honor that as the reporter puts down what takes place it shall be printed, or that if alterations are made they shall be made by mutual understanding and knowledge.
I called at the Globe office this morning, and on reading the Globe at twelve o'clock I found essential alterations, and upon inquiry at the Globe office of the proper person, I was told that those alterations were made by the member from New York, [Mr. CONKLING,] and are in his handwriting. I now hold the report of his remarks in my hand, and there is scarcely a page but what has been altered. But I do not intend to comment upon the alterations at any length. I merely want to call the attention of the House to one point, where the gentleman sought by an alteration to take away the entire point of my reply to him. I characterized some of his bravado as "cheap swagger" when he talked about meeting me "here or elsewhere." The gentleman eliminates that important part of his speech and inserts instead these words:
"I have stated facts for which I am willing to be held responsible at all times and places."
Now, the phrase "here and elsewhere" is a phrase well known in Congress; it is the phrase of bullyism. It was a phrase upon which I commented, and which I denounced and justly denounced, and which the gentleman had no right to alter at the Globe office.
I desire to say that I never saw the notes of my remarks of yesterday. I did not know what the reporters had put in the Globe, and I should have considered that I was violating the first principles of honor which should exist between gentlemen had I ventured to do it.
Mr. CONKLING. I hope the member will yield to me for a moment to ask the loan of the sheets which he has obtained from the Globe office.
Mr. BLAINE. There was nothing surreptitious about it; they were obtained openly; and I hope the gentleman will give them back to me, as I am responsible for them to the Globe office.
Mr. CONKLING. I place myself under obligations to the gentleman by asking him not to give me that pile of manuscript, but to indicate to me the sheets to which he refers where alterations have been made.
Mr. BLAINE. On page of the manuscript No. 188 he says, as reported, that he is entirely responsible "not only here but elsewhere," and that is cut out.
Mr. CONKLING. I ask merely to see the sheet. Before looking at it or making any remarks upon it I wish to say that I do know, what the member from Maine announces as if it were new to somebody or especially appreciated by
himself, that no member of this House has a right by any alterations, even of his own remarks, in any respect to affect the rights or the position of any other member with whom he has had a discussion, whether in the way of controversy or not. And I hope that it is unnecessary for me to.assure any gentleman with whoin I am acquainted that I am as incapable as the gentleman from Maine [Mr. BLAINE] pretends to be, of doing anything in violation of the rule which I state.
I deny entirely, speaking at a venture of all these sheets which are here-and I challenge a refutation of what I say-I deny that in any respect or particular have these notes been so altered by me as to change at all the position of any gentleman in this House, whether he took part with me in the debate or not. And I affirm-speaking of this sheet which I will look at particularly in a moment; and speaking of every other sheet upon which the debate of yesterday was reported; and speaking also of every other sheet of Globe reports that ever came into my hands-that I have made no alterations, none whatever, except those alterations which all gentlemen make, rejecting the surplusage and diffusive style which will always enter, more or less, into extemporaneous speaking, so as to prune down a little, into fewer words, the sense which was expressed.
Now, sir, I made no such intimation. I had no such intention. I made no such statement. But on the contrary, I said what I will proceed now to read as it stood originally upon this paper; and then I will state to the House the alteration which has been made; and I will submit whether I will be compelled to sit at the feet of the gentleman from Maine and derive from him instruction as to what is gentlemanly and honorable.
Now, this sheet, which is handed to me without what precedes it, commences in the middle of a sentence. I would like to have the commencement of the sentence.
Mr. BLAINE, (handing a page of manuscript.) I will say hereMr. CONKLING. No, Mr. Speaker; I would like to continue my statement so far as to read this sheet.
Mr. BLAINE. I hope the gentleman will state what is in his own handwriting.
Mr. CONKLING. Mr. Speaker, I shall understand which is my own handwriting; and I shall be very frank and very fearless in stating all the particulars about this matter. If the gentleman will only be quiet he will find that he will lose nothing of the truth by waiting to hear my statement.
This the gentleman says is in my own handwriting, as it is:
"I say to him further, that I mean to take no advantage, such as he attributes, of the privileges of this place, or of the absence of General Fry."
I believe that is not the alteration complained of.
On yesterday there was properly before this House the public administration of a public officer. It was a suitable theme for discussion. At all events, whether it was so or not was a question addressed to every gentleman for himself. I commented upon the public administration of this public officer and his subordinates; I spoke lieve that not much is lost by that variation. of facts of which I had the right to speak, because I had investigated them, and I thought I knew whereof I affirmed.
The member from Maine, [Mr. BLAINE,] with frivolous impertinence, put into the debate an imputation upon my motives; and attributed to me dishonorable personal resentment. Suppose what he said had been true; what had that to do with the matter which we were discussing? What light did an imputation cast upon me throw upon the question whether the Bureau of the Provost Marshal General ought to be petrified forever in the military system of this country?
Not only did he make a statement, which I repeat was frivolously impertinent and personal
to me, but he made a statement in which he was mistaken. He added, in substance, that I traduced this officer in his absence, and that I did it here; thereby meaning to put upon me the further imputation that skulking behind the constitutional privileges of debate I was defaming an absent man.
In answer to that I said that I had no such intention; that I stated what I believed; that I was ready to state it here or elsewhere, and to be responsible for it, not only here but anywhere else. The gentleman says those are technical words. I did not know that they were technical words. I have heard them used here repeatedly. I heard them used the other day by a gentleman to whom I will not refer more especially; he said, in the precise phrase which I did not use on yesterday, that he would be responsible, not only here but elsewhere. What I said was that I was ready to stand by the statement I made; not to shelter myself behind the privileges of debate, but to be responsible to any person who should be aggrieved, everywhere and whenever he might see fit to raise the question.
Now, it was rather a cheap mode of clawing off from an ungentlemanly passage in the debate for the member from Maine to rise here and pretend to this House that he understood I meant to talk in the language of the duelist or to intimate in any way that I sought a personal controversy with him. I beg to assure him that my observation of him, if nothing else, would remove far distant from me the impression that in that way or in any other way it was worth while to attempt to get out of him any such controversy as that.
'On the contrary, I am ready to avow what I have here declared anywhere." Not elsewhere," but "anywhere." I be
"I have stated facts for which I am willing to be held responsible at all times and places.".
The alteration, complained of, as I understand, is that instead of avowing a willingness to be held responsible here or elsewhere, which he says the phrase was, I say, "I am willing to be held responsible at all times and places.'
Well, sir, if there is any diminution of responsibility here; if, by this alteration, making the declaration cover all space and all time, there has been avoided any responsibility which was assumed by saying "here or elsewhere," then I admit that I am subject to the censure of gentlemen whose position and character are such questions. such as to entitle them to give instruction upon
Now, the words stricken out, in lieu of which those words are inserted, appear thus in the reporter's notes:
"I am responsible, not only here but elsewhere, for what I have said and what I will say of the Provost Marshal General,"
That I understand to be the alteration complained of. The notes were, "I am responsible not only here but elsewhere;" while, in making the correction I have said, "I am willing to be held responsible at all times and places. Speaker, I stand by that alteration. I will not undertake to say whether it is more or less precise than the original utterance. I will undertake to say, and I submit it to every gentleman in this House, that not only is there no alteration here which puts the gentleman from Maine in any different position from that which he occupies, but there is no alteration by which I relieve myself from any responsibility to any human being which in the original utterance
Now, sir, having said this much, I conclude by saying that I throw back to the gentleman any sort of imputation which he seeks to cast upon me; and I say to him that the time will be far hence when it will become necessary for him to dispense to me any information or instruction with regard to those rules which ought to govern the conduct of gentlemen.
Mr. BLAINE. Mr. Speaker
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Maine asks unanimous consent to make a personal explanation. The Chair hears no objection.
Mr. BLAINE. I desire to say a single word. The reporters of the Globe, with their usual atcuracy, have reported me in my rejoinder
with the phrase "here and elsewhere" in quotation marks. I want members to understand the precise point of my complaint. Though I am reported, and correctly reported, as referring to the gentleman's phraseology "here and elsewhere," and commenting upon the bravado of his manner, yet a person reading the debate might be led to ask what I was replying to when I quoted a phrase of that kind, the very mild phrase "at all times and places" having been cunningly substituted in the remarks of the gentleman from New York.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I never expected to make a personal explanation in this House in my life. As to courage I am like the Methodist deacon about his piety-I have none to speak of. If I had I should be loath to introduce it in competition with a gentleman who left such a brilliant reputation for courage in the Thirty-Seventh Congress.
Mr. CONKLING. I beg to say one word, that I did not see, of course, as gentlemen will understand, the remarks of the gentleman from Maine.
Mr. BLAINE. I am told at the Globe office he took the notes and did not return them till twelve o'clock and one o'clock this morning. That is said on my responsibility from Mr. Lewis, the superintendent of the composing room in the Globe office.
Mr. CONKLING. The member's zeal outruns his discretion, which perhaps is not the first occurrence of that kind in his life. Mr. Lewis, I undertake to say, and no other man who stands respectably in the community, told the member from Maine that I had for one moment the sheets containing his rejoinder or any part of them. So far from that, one of the Globe reporters, Mr. Lord, handed to me here for the first time, between nine and ten o'clock, during the evening session, the sheets upon which my remarks appeared, and those alone, and not all even of the sheets upon which my remarks appeared. They contained nothing else except the point of order submitted to the Chair and the remarks made by the then occupant of the chair [Mr. DAWES] in deciding that point of order. I took those notes in haste, went into a committee-room, read them over rapidly, and corrected them. I never saw the notes of the gentleman from Maine. I did not know they contained any statement about "here or elsewhere." I did not think there was the slightest significance in those words more than in any other for this purpose. I say the statement he makes, that I had his notes until midnight or any other time, is without any shadow of foundation in truth.
But, Mr. Speaker, a member of this House capable of doing precisely that which upon four marked occasions during this session I have detected in the gentleman from Maine is capable of saying precisely what he said here, and putting me in a position when I answer it which makes me feel I owe an apology, if not to myself, to the members of this House, for detaining them one moment on such a matter.
DUTY ON LIVE ANIMALS.
Mr. MORRILL. I ask unanimous consent to report from the Committee of Ways and Means a bill imposing a duty on live animals imported from foreign countries, and that it be acted upon by the House at this time.
The bill was read.
Mr. MORRILL. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we shall act upon the internal revenue bill, which will be reported to-day, before we can act on the tariff bill, it seems to the committee to be necessary and proper to report this in advance, for the reason that there is at the present time no duty on any live animals whatever. We understand the Canadians have adopted something of Yankee ingenuity, and are driving over their herds to this side of the line, keeping them here until shorn and then driving them back again. This is to prevent practice like that. I suppose there will be no objection to the immediate passage of the bill.
The bill was read a first and second time, ordered to be engrossed and read a third time,
and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time and passed.
Mr. GARFIELD moved to reconsider the vote just taken; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
NATIONAL BANKS AND CURRENCY.
Mr. DARLING, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to amend the act in relation to national banks and currency, approved June 3, 1864; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency.
REBEL COTTON LOAN.
Mr. KASSON, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:
Resolved, That the President be requested to communicate to this House, if not incompatible with the public interest, any negotiations that have been enered into by or proposed to the executive department of this Government respecting the rebel debt known as the cotton loan or any other rebel indebtedness.
Mr. LATHAM, by unanimous consent, introduced a joint resolution to extend to the counties of Berkeley and Jefferson, in West Virginia, the provisions of an act approved July 4, 1864, entitled "An act to restrict the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims and to provide for the payment of certain demands for quartermaster's stores and subsistence supplies furnished to the Army of the United States;" which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee of Claims.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania, presented papers in relation to the contested election in the twenty-first congressional district of Pennsylvania; which was referred to the Committee of Elections.
RAILROAD IN MINNESOTA.
Mr. JULIAN, from the Committee on Public Lands, by unanimous consent, reported House bill No. 497, granting lands to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the city of Yancton to the west line of the State of Minnesota, in the Territory of Dakota; which was ordered to be printed, and recommitted.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was recommitted, and to lay that motion on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to.
Resolved. That the Committee on Commerce be requested to inquire what legislation is necessary to prevent vessels from foreign ports carrying an undue and disproportionate number of passengers and emigrants to their ship accommodations, and whether any precaution should be adopted to prevent the introduction into this country of cholera and other infectious diseases in such overloaded vessels.
DEFENSE OF MONTANA TERRITORRY. Mr. SMITH. I ask unanimous consent to introduce a bill to provide arms and ammunition for the defense of the inhabitants of Montana Territory.
Mr. SPALDING. I object.
ESCUTCHEONS OF WEST VIRGINIA AND NEVADA.
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following report from the Commissioner of Public Buildings; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations:
OFFICE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS, CAPITOL OF THE UNITED STATES. WASHINGTON, April 25, 1866. SIR: In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the United States of February 13, 1866, I have caused to be painted and placed in two of the panels of the ceiling of the House of Representatives the escutcheons of the States of West Virginia and of Nevada.
I am, with high respect, your obedient servant, B. B. FRENCHI, Commissioner of Public Buildings. Hon. SCHUYLER COLFAX, Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States.
NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I call for the regular order of business.
The House accordingly proceeded, as the regular order of business, to the consideration. of the unfinished business of last evening, being House bill No. 414, to secure the speedy construction of the Northern Pacific railroad and telegraph line, and to secure to the Government the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes.
The pending question was the question raised by Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, on the reception of the report, upon which the previous question had been seconded and the main question ordered, and the yeas and nays ordered.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I understand the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. PRICE] expresses a willingness, if the report shall be received, to give full and ample time for discussion. I therefore waive all objections to the acceptance of the report. Mr. WENTWORTH.
How long will he
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. He is willing to give until August if necessary. Mr. WENTWORTH. Does he say so? [Laughter.]
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Oh yes, sir. He means by that, of course, a reasonable time.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I want to be heard on this question.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I have the pledge of my friend from Iowa [Mr. PRICE]
and I will indorse it.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I would rather have the Speaker's indorsement. [Laughter.]
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I withdraw objection to the reception of the report.
The SPEAKER. The question then is, Shali the bill be engrossed and read the third time?
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I now raise the question of order whether the bill is before the House-whether after it was recommitted to the committee they reported back the bill which was before the House or another bill.
The SPEAKER. The question of reception is withdrawn, and now the question of order is raised in regard to the bill being properly before the House.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. My point
of order is that the bill before the House was never referred to the committee; that they never had it in their possession, and did not report it back.
The SPEAKER. That involves the question of reception. The Chair will decide the point of order. The subject of a Northern Pacific railroad having been referred to the Com mittee on the Pacific Railroad by petitions and bills, that gave them jurisdiction of the question, and they had a right to report the bill referred to them or any other bill on the subject. The Chair, therefore, overrules the question of order and the bill is before the House.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I call for the reading of the bill, reserving the right to raise a question of order upon it when it has been read.
The bill was read.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.
A message from the Senate, by Mr. FORNEY, their Secretary, informed the House that the Senate insisted upon their amendments, disagreed to by the House, to the bill of the House No. 238, to amend an act entitled "An act relating to habeas corpus and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases," approved March 3, 1863, and agreed to the conference asked by the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon; and had appointed Mr. CLARK, Mr. TRUMBULL, and Mr. HENDRICKS the conferees on the part of the Senate.
NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD-AGAIN.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. It will be remembered that last night, when this bill was presented, I raised the point of order that
it was an appropriation bill. Since that time I have conferred with many gentlemen, both those who are favorable to this measure and those who oppose it, and I have heard from them but one opinion, and that is that the Speaker, in giving his opinion and sustaining the point of order, was clearly correct.
The bill as now reported again differs in no material manner from the bill reported last evening. I therefore raise the same point of order, that this is an appropriation bill and must go to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.
The SPEAKER. The bill now contains the following proviso:
Provided, however, That no money shall be paid on account of this bill until an appropriation shall be made for that purpose.
The Clerk will now read from the Globe a decision made upon this point by one of the predecessors of the present occupant of the Chair in the year 1863.
The Clerk read as follows:
"The SPEAKER. It has always been held that in order to bring a bill within the rule, the appropriation must be sufficient, without requiring further legislation, to take money out of the Treasury."
That has been the uniform ruling of various occupants of the chair, and as this bill will not, without further legislation, take any money out of the Treasury, the Chair overrules the point of order and decides that this is not an appropriation bill.
Mr. PRICE obtained the floor.
Mr. WENTWORTH. I ask the gentleman from Iowa to let the report be read.
Mr. PRICE. I am not aware of there being any report.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the stress of weather by which this bill has been incumbered is clearing up, the fog is lifting, and its friends feel pleasure in finding it on the open sea of free discussion.
I will say at the commencement that I do not propose to indulge in any attempts at oratory or eloquence in reference to this bill. I am of opinion that it is a matter of dollars and cents, facts and figures. Unless the facts and the figures will establish the other important fact that the bill has merits of its own and ought to pass this House, then I, as one of the advoreport it to this House, am perfectly willing to cates of the bill, as one of the committee who
see it voted down.
This Northern Pacific railroad was chartered at the first session of the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and gives an extensive grant of lands to been done by the company up to this time, for the company. Nothing, as I understand, has the reason that the lands granted cannot be made available for the purposes intended. They now come forward and ask additional assistance in the shape of a guarantee of a certain amount of stock to enable them to make the grant available. I want gentlemen to remember that it is a limited amount of stock for a limited time.
The only question to be settled in reference to this matter is, whether the guarantees that the Government is to give to the company who agree to the construction of this road will be repaid to the Government and the country by the benefits derived from it. On the first three hundred and eighty miles of this road the bill proposes to guaranty stock to the amount of $20,000 per mile. I will be obliged to gentlemen who feel an interest in this bill, either for or against it, if they will give their attention to these figures. Figures, as gentlemen know, will not lie, unless they be put down wrongly; and it is the business of members to see whether I put them down wrong or not.
On the next six hundred and twenty miles of this road the bill proposes to guaranty stock to the amount of $25,000 per mile, making the guarantee upon the stock $20,000 per mile and $25,000 per mile for the first thousand miles of the road, the average being $22,500 per mile. The interest upon that stock at six per cent., the rate specified in the bill, which interest is to be paid in currency,