Mr. YEAMAN. What number of States can amend the Constitution?

Mr. PENDLETON. In some particulars, where the power is granted, three fourths of the States can. In other particulars it cannot be done except by the consent of all of the States bound by it.

Mr. YEAMAN. That brings me to the question I wish to ask the gentleman, and that is this: what is there in this particular amendment which makes it an exception to the general rule, and takes it out of the operation of the amending power?

at the door of other people; I said to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS,] and if the gentleman from Rhode Island stands beside him he too may regard it-I said to him, let him beware how he pushed the doctrine that a compact broken in one part is broken in all, lest it might be found that in the past the compact of confederation has been broken elsewhere than in the South.

ment in order that in all future time it might be the subject of no question whatever.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Nobody at that time, I think, denied the power of Congress and the people to amend the Constitution in this regard.

Mr. PENDLETON. Upon that point we dif fer entirely. The gentleman sat here and so did I. We had our own views of public policy, as we have now. It may be that we understood dif

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Will the gentleman ferently the positions which various gentlemen yield to me for a moment?

Mr. PENDLETON. I must decline for the present. I should have concluded what I had to say but for these interruptions.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Just one moment. Mr. PENDLETON. Well, I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I find in the Congressional Globe of 1860-61 a proposition, made, I think, from the committee of thirty-three to amend the Constitution by interposing this article:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

On looking over the yeas and nays upon that amendment I find that the gentleman from Ohio voted for the amendment.

I wish to inquire of him, if in the winter of 1860 and 1861 it was necessary to amend the Constitution by putting into it an article thereafter prohibiting such an amendment of the Constitution as would interfere with slavery, why it is that we cannot now adopt an amendment prohibiting slavery?

He says that we are in a condition of war, and that war absolves all compacts. It deprives the citizens of seceding States of their rights under the Federal Government, and absolves the Federal Government and the people of the adhering States from the obligations imposed by the Constitution; and, therefore, he told us, and with an emphasis we could all understand, that no State should be readmitted into the Union unless t came back carved by the Federal Government out of territory conquered by the sword.

Now, I would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] to be careful how he asserts that doctrine too far. He would go upon the maxim that what is broken in one thing is broken in all. "Fracta in uno fracta in omnibus." Let him be careful lest he may find that it will dissolve the tie which binds these northern States one to the other, and they be remitted to their original position of independence. Let him be careful, lest when the passions of these times be passed away, and the historian shall go back to discover where was the original infraction of the Constitution, he may find that sin lies at the door of others than the people now in arms. Mr. JENCKES. May I interrupt the gentleman to ask him a question?

Mr. PENDLETON. Certainly, if the gentleman will not consume too much of my limited time.

Mr. JENCKES. I understand the gentleman from Ohio to say that when the history of this time should be written that the sins of and the cause of this rebellion might be laid to the doors of others than those who are now in arms against the Republic. I ask him in the presence of this House and of the American people, at whose door that sin shall be laid, wherein that sin consists, and by whom it was committed? Let the gentleman place it on the records of the history of this country.

Mr. PENDLETON. I am not surprised that the gentleman is touched by what I have said upon this subject. It might be he misunderstood somewhat the exact force of the words I used. But there have been in the neighborhood of the gentleman, there have been within his own State or near it, there have been in the northern States, within the free States, attempts constantly to infract this Constitution; and that I believe, as I believe I stand here to-day.

Mr. JENCKES. Name the men. Mr. PENDLETON. I could do so, but I did not say that the sin of this rebellion might be laid

Several MEMBERS. Oh, na; you are mistaken. Mr. PENDLETON. Was it not offered by Mr. Adams? Well, it was offered at all events to test the good faith of the Republican party. [Here the hammer fell, the hour having expired.]

Mr. ASHLEY. I move that the gentleman have leave to proceed.

Mr. PENDLETON. Idesire but five minutes

more.

and parties occupied at that time.

Mr. COX. I will simply say in answer to what has fallen from my colleague, that at the time those resolutions were pending this question of power was discussed, and for one, I held then as I hold to-day, that we had the power under this amendatory clause to reach slavery pro or con, and the only question is whether we shall use that power as then for the benefit of the country or abuse it as now it is sought to be abused.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. The gentleman is cor rect in regard to that, and, as I said before, nobody denied the power. The slaveholders upon the floor of Congress at that time themselves admitted the power, and were constantly charging that we intended to exercise that power. For the purpose of quieting their fears in that regard, the committee of thirty-three was raised, who reported this article, and it was passed through the House by the requisite two-thirds vote. It was done for the purpose of quieting the fears of the slaveholders who were then threatening to dissolve the Union because they charged us with the intention of interfering with slavery by an amendment of the Constitution, which they all admitted we had the power to do.

Mr. PENDLETON. I dissent entirely from the proposition of my colleague, as well as from that of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. FARNSWORTH. The gentleman and I differ about it. We cannot settle it. I say, and I am prepared to show by the debates that took place at that time, that the same claim was made then which I make to-day. It was because it was believed that that opinion was not assented to by the extreme gentlemen who had just then come into the administration of the Government, that it was deemed necessary by themselves to put forth this declaration confirmatory of the absence of power on the part of three fourths of the States.

But my colleague from Ohio, [Mr. ASHLEY,] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS,] and the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. MORRILL,] differing on many particulars, agree in this, that the power of their logic is such that no honest man can dissent from their conclusions, and that those who do not intend to vote with them for this amendment are actuated either by sympathy with slavery or by sympathy with the rebellion. Sir, I repel with indignation the insinno."]uation; I repel it with that honest warmth which is consistent with the personal respect which those gentlemen know I feel personally for them. I say it is unworthy of them; that it is unworthy their high character, unworthy of their position in this House. It is the art of the demagogue to ascribe unworthy motives to an act which may in itself be honest.

By unanimous consent the leave was granted. Mr. FARNSWORTH. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment? [Cries of "Oh Mr. PENDLETON. Well, not if it is to press the point, which I have already answered. Mr. FARNSWORTH. I do not think the gentleman from Ohio has answered the point. Mr. PENDLETON. Sir, I will hear the gentleman.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I understand that at that time the power to amend the Constitution so as to interfere with slavery was not denied. I find that the vote of the gentleman from Ohio for this amendinent of the Constitution which should prohibit and prevent further amendment of it allowing us to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the States was an admission by him of the power of Congress and of the people to.so amend the Constitution. If it was not, why did he vote for the amendment?

This Constitution demands the highest admiration of my intellect. It has received the profound homage of my heart. The oath which I have taken commands me to perform that duty which my intellect and my heart impose upon me; and I intend, through evil and through good report, through whatever storm of popular disfavor, to stand by it, as I understand it, even to the end. I love my whole country, South as well as North; and it is because I love it that no act of mine shall retard the restoration of peace or the reconstruction of that Union which made it all my country. I am a northern man; I have their prejudices; I love my section; I love its people; I love its institutions; I am jealous of its honor; and no act of mine shall stain the luster of the fame of its good faith. I am a citizen of Ohio. It was the home of my fathers, as it is the home of my children; and I will stand by this Constitution because I wish to preserve forever the rights and dignities of my State, and maintain forever the liberties of its citizens.

Mr. PENDLETON. As I said before, the gentleman ought to know, if he does not know, that the power of amendment in this particular was not then admitted by anybody who agreed with me. Some gentlemen claimed it; quite a large body of men claimed it; but I will venture to say that he will not find in the debates that preceded the vote on that amendment the admission of any member who sat upon this side of the Chamber or of a dozen men who sat upon that side of the Chamber, that the power resided in three fourths of the States to make this amendment. They denied that the prohibition was ne- I am not influenced, therefore, by any peculiar cessary; but, admitting that there was no power, love for the people of the South; by any peculiar they did agree, inasmuch as it was not expressly regard for their institutions. I stand unmoved stated in the Constitution, to vote for that amend-by the considerations which have been addressed

may.

But, Mr. Speaker, if I were influenced by the motives which gentlemen on the other side attribute to me, it would be easy for me to fall into the current of public opinion which is carrying them so rapidly away. It is because I am not that occupy the position I do to-day. The time is fast passing away when under the influence of your policy and your legislation the southern States or people will have the least interest in your laws. Your legislation has turned to ashes the golden fruits of your military success. Your policy has verified the alleged causes of secession. Gentlemen must not be misled by the syren voices that come up to them from captured cities of the South. They woo you but to ruin. If you misunderstand them they will lead you as willing victims upon quicksands and rocks.

If you drive the southern people by your military power to the last extremity, and superadd, as the majority of this House desire, emancipation of slaves, confiscation of property, destruction of local governments, destruction of State constitutions, division of territory-if that be your policy, they will liberate their slaves, they will arm their negroes, they will break down the only barrier that separates them from the sympathies of all Europe, and, aided by the moral force, if || not the material power of Europe, they will establish their independence, and your Union President will sign the treaty of dissolution. And then, in exchange for free Maryland with her slaves enfranchised and her white citizens enslaved; in exchange for free Missouri with her slaves enfranchised and her white citizens decimated by the vengeance of the guerrillas, we will Have given up this Union with all its benefits, and have subverted a form of government the fairest and freest, the most bountiful in blessings in the past and the most hopeful of blessings in the future, that God in His mercy ever vouchsafed to

man.

Mr. JENCKES. Mr. Speaker, I am not sorry to have heard, in this House of Representatives of the American people, as a finality, as I believe, of the controversy which has divided and distracted our land, the proposition stated by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. PENDLETON.] He has improved upon the school of his master. He looked upon a dissevered and divided Union, a compact of States. We have now a phrase by which this nation is designated by one who expected to have been one of its chief executive officers as "a compact of confederation." For the first time, I believe, in the history of this country has that phrase been used with reference to this form of government. And I am astonished that he, a citizen of Ohio, a State sovereign and independent, as I understood him to say, should have used a phrase like that in defining his position when departing from the councils of the nation. Well is it for the nation that those of that school should not be retained in its councils. If we are not a nation, what are we? "A compact of confederation?" I doubt, if the gentleman had weighed the meaning of those words, whether he would have used that phrase.

But let me make the point upon him which I did in the question that I put. I ask him, and ask all who may follow him on the same side, to answer my question. I do not agree with what he says in reference to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS,] "broken in one thing, broken in all," referring to the Constitution. I arraign before the American people the gentleman from Ohio and all who are of his school of politics, and I ask him or them to frame an indictment against a man, a State, or a party in this whole country that has committed, I will not say a fracture of

FRIDAY, JANUARY 13, 1865.

the Constitution, because that would be a matter of fact, but that has done anything to break the Constitution. Let us hear what it is, here and now. While we are attempting to amend the Constitution let them place it upon record. Time and time again we have asked them for it. Now we have that accusation from the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. PENDLETON.] Let him put it upon record in such phrase as he chooses. He knows well how to do it; no one better. Let him answer it now, or let him and all who are with him stand mute.

NEW SERIES.....No. 15.

priations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending the 30th day of June, 1865, and for other purposes," so far as the same relates to witnesses in the courts of the United States, was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

PRINTING OF A BILL.

Mr. COLLAMER. There was a bill (S. No. 390) introduced by me yesterday relating to the postal laws which I desire to have printed. It is somewhat lengthy, and the committee need it printed for the purpose of understanding it. I therefore move that it be printed with the letter of the Postmaster General accompanying it. The motion was agreed to.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. WILSON presented the petition of Jane G. Swisshelm, praying that provision may be made for the employment of women as corresponding, reading, briefing, and copying clerks in the Departments; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

He also presented the petition of citizens of Philadelphia, officers of the Loyal League of that city, praying for a modification of the existing laws in relation to the raising of troops by means of local bounties; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

But the question now before the House seems to be simply this: can we amend the Constitution in the way in which the Constitution itself says it may be amended? Whatever it may be called, written compact between the States, a declaration of the rights of the people, a convenient expression of what the people meant to be their rights forever thereafter; describe it in whatever phrase you please, can any one say that it cannot be amended in the precise way in which those who framed it intended it should be amended? What answer have we to that? Why, sir, the answer of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cox] is that that power is to be used but not abused. Abused! abused! to amend the Constitution in this manner? I say to that gentleman, and all who are with him, not only before this House and this country, but before the world, that it is a Mr. FARWELL presented a memorial of the misuse of language in this age of the world to Board of Trade of Portland, Maine, praying for an charge us with abuse of power when we place appropriation to place steam whistles upon Cape ourselves in the direct line of the eternal forces Elizabeth, Matinicus Rock, and Quoddy Head, acting out God's justice upon this earth. for the better security and protection to the navAgain, I say to gentlemen-and when I say itigation upon the coast of that State; which was simply mean to raise the points that they may referred to the Committee on Commerce. be answered, and that the answers may be placed Mr. HENDRICKS presented the memorial of upon record if any one chooses to give them-Dennis Nolan, representing that he occupies a why, as a matter of expediency, should this not be done? I heard the venerable gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY] say, the other day, with lamentations, almost with tears, that the result of this thing was to use those enfranchised people as a political power in the States. Has not slavery been an element of power ever since it had a recognized existence in this country, ever since it was first tolerated by this Government? And shall it be objected to by the friends of freedom that the freedmen, the enfranchised men, will be an element of power in a republican Government? Strange language is that, it seems to me.

I

But in this contest slavery commenced the fight; it chose its own battle-feld; it has fought its battle, and it is dead. In the course of our victorious march that battle-field has come into our possession, and the corpse of our dead enemy is upon it. Let us bury it quickly, and with as little ceremony as possible, that the foul odor of its rotting carcass may no longer offend us and

the world.

Mr. SMITH obtained the floor, and then, (at twenty minutes past four o'clock, p. m.,) on motion of Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, the House adjourned.

IN SENATE. THURSDAY, January 12, 1865. Prayer by Rev. B. H. NADAL, D.D., of Washington, District of Columbia. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION.

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a message from the President of the United States communicating, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of the 15th ultimo requesting information concerning an arrangement limiting the Secretary of State on the subject. naval armament on the lakes, a report from the

On motion of Mr. SUMNER, the message and accompanying papers were referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and ordered to be printed.

HOUSE BILL REFERRED.

The bill (H. R. No. 657) to amend the third section of an act entitled "An act making appro

strip of land, not susceptible of cultivation, between the inclosure of the light-house and the shore of Lake Michigan, at Michigan City, and proposing to buy or lease it from the Government; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

PAPERS WITHDRAWN.

On motion of Mr. FOOT, it was.

Ordered, That the petitioners have leave to withdraw the papers in the case of Nott & Co.

On motion of Mr. DIXON, it was

Ordered, That Henry Kellogg have leave to withdraw his papers in relation to his claim for indemnification for losséa sustained in preparing to make and making bricks for the Washington aqueduct.

REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.

Mr. CHANDLER, from the Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 388) further to provide for the verification of invoices, reported it without amendment.

BRIDGE ACROSS THE OHIO RIVER. Mr. POWELL. The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the petition of James Guthrie, president of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, and D. Ricketts, president of the Jeffersonville railroad, praying that the act of Congress entitled "An act authorizing railroad bridges across the Ohio river" may be so amended in the fourth section thereof as to permit them to consruct a railroad bridge at the head of the falls of the Ohio fifty-four or fifty-six feet above low-water mark without the required span of three hundred feet, and that it be made a postal route for the United States mail, have instructed me to report it back to the Senate and ask to be discharged from its further consideration. The committee think it is a matter that properly belongs to the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads. I therefore move that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be referred to the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads.

The motion was agreed to,

Mr. POWELL. I now ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to introduce a bill, without previous notice, in relation to the subject of that petition.

By unanimous consent, leave was granted to introduce a bill (S. No. 392) supplementary to an act approved July 14, 1862, entitled "An act to establish certain post roads;" which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, and ordered to be printed.

EXTRA SESSION OF CONGRESS.

Mr. TRUMBULL. The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred a resolution asking if any legislation is necessary to enable the President to call an extra session of Congress without giving sixty days' notice, have instructed me to report it back to the Senate, and recommend its indefinite postponement. In making this report I will state that there seems to be a misapprehension in regard to sixty days' notice being necessary in convening an extra session of Congress. I have been unable to find any law requiring any definite notice to be given, and believe that no legislation is necessary, inasmuch as the President may convene an extra session of Congress upon such notice as he thinks proper as the law now stands.

The report was concurred in, and the resolution was indefinitely postponed.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. POMEROY asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 391) authorizing an adjustment of the claims for lands heretofore confirmed to any State; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. DIXON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 393) to authorize the corporation of Georgetown to levy certain taxes; which was read twice by its title,

and referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

Mr. COWAN asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 394) for the relief of the parties in a cause pending in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, wherein Emily F. Wiley is plaintiff and Marshall Brown and others, defendants; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

COUNSEL FEES PAID BY THE DEPARTMENTS. Mr. TRUMBULL. I offer the following resolution, and ask for its present consideration:

Resolved, That the Secretary of State, of the Treasury, of War, of the Navy, of the Interior, the Postmaster General, and the Attorney General, be each directed to inform the Senate what amount was paid or allowed in his Department for attorneys or counsel fees of every kind and description, exclusive of the regular salaries paid to the Autoricy General and the respective district attorneys during the fiscal year ending June 30, 164, and, so far as practicable, from that period to the 1st of January, 1863, giving a list of the names of the persons employed, the amount paid each, and out of what fund.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.

Mr. HALE. I did not hear the whole of the resolution, and I do not know but that I should be in favor of it; but I think it would be well to add at the close "and the services for which those fees were paid."

Mr. TRUMBULL. I have no objection to that except that I think it will make the report very voluminous.

Mr. HALE. I think we had better have those words in the resolution. I have some particular reasons for wanting them in.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I shall make no objection to adding those words in the appropriate place.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Illinois modifies his resolution by inserting the words suggested by the Senator from New Hamp

shire.

The resolution, as modified, was adopted.

COMMITTEE ON VENTILATION.

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

Resolved by the Senate, (the House of Representatives concurring,) 1. That the joint committee on ventilation and improvement of the Halls of Congress be authorized to examine witnesses and employ a reporter.

2. That the members of the Committees of the two Houses upon Public Buildings and Grounds be added to the said joint committee upon ventilation, &c., for the purpose of deciding upon any plea or proposition of improvement which may be before said committee for consideration.

SALE OF INDIAN LANDS IN MINNESOTA.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I desire to call up Senate joint resolution No. 92 that it may be acted upon at the present time. When it is taken up I can in a single moment explain to the Senate the necessity for immediate action upon it.

The motion was agreed to, and the joint resolution (S. R. No. 92) to postpone and prevent the sale, for less than their appraised value, of certain Indian lands in Minnesota was read a second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole. It provides that so much of section three of an act for the removal of the Winnebago Indians, and for the sale of their reservation in Minnesota for their benefit, approved February 21, 1863, as provides that no portion of their reservation shall be sold for a sum less than their appraised value before January 1, 1865, nor for a less price than $1 25 per acre, unless otherwise provided by law, shall be amended so that it shall not be lawful to sell any portions of the lands within the limits of the reservation for a less price than their appraised value prior to January 1, 1866, nor shall any preemption claim (unless already attached) to any portion of the lands be held to be valid unless such claim shall be established and the purchase-money for such claim paid prior to the 1st of January, 1866.

The second section provides that so much of section three of the act of March 3, 1863, entitled "An act for the removal of the Sisseton, Wahpaton, Medawankaton, and Wahpakoota bands of Sioux, or Dakota Indians, and for the disposition of their lands in Minnesota and Dakota," as provides that no portion thereof "shall be sold for a sum less than their appraised value $1 25 per acre, unless otherwise provided by before January 1, 1865, nor for a less price than law," shall be amended so that it shall not be lawful to sell any of the lands for a less price than their appraised value prior to January 1, 1866; nor shall any preemption claim, not already attached to any portion of the lands, be held to be valid unless such claim shall be established and the purchase-money for such claim paid prior to January 1, 1866.

Mr. POMEROY. I do not precisely understand the reason for the postponement of these sales. I presume the chairman of the committee can state it to the Senate and perhaps satisfy everybody about it. I have always noticed that when sales of this kind are postponed with a view of getting more than $1 25 an acre for the land we hardly ever get it. We have had considerable experience on this subject. If these lands can net to the Indians, as I understand they can, $1 25 an acre, in my opinion that is as much as they will ever get. I have seen two or three instances where postponements have been made without effecting any good.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I will state to the honorable Senator from Kansas that since these lands were surveyed there has been but a very brief period, as I am informed from the Department, for the lands to be offered for sale at their appraised value.

Mr. POMEROY. How long?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. But a few weeks after the schedules were made out and put in such shape that the lands could be advertised.

Mr. RAMSEY. If the Senator will allow me, the appraisement on the lands on the Sioux reservation only reached the Department since the 1st day of January, 1865; so that the object of the law is entirely defeated, and the Indians would not get one cent above $1 25 an acre, although the land is worth three or four times that amount. Hence, this resolution is indispensably necessary in order to prevent the sacrifice of those lands.

Mr. POMEROY. If it is only to extend the time for a short period, I will not object to the resolution; but I want to know of the Senator from Wisconsin, if these lands are occupied, whether there are preemptors upon them now?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I will explain to the Senator and to the Senate in a single moment the whole purpose and scope of this resolution.

The act of 1863 provided that none of these lands should be sold at less than their appraised value previous to the 1st of January, 1865, which is the first day of the present month. It has been but a very short time since these lands were advertised, or any portion of them put into market

so that they could be offered and sold at their appraised value. But the 1st day of January having arrived, the lands since that date have been open to preemption, and I suppose that some persons perhaps in Minnesota may have entered on some of these lands after that date, and their rights to preemption may have attached in such a way that it is impossible for us by legislation to deprive them of their rights which have accrued. The resolution itself, therefore, excepts those which have already attached; but it proposes to postpone and prevent any more preemptions attaching to these lands for one year, so that they may be sold at the appraised value. Winnebago tribe of Indians were not at all inIt will be remembered by the Senate that the volved in that war in Minnesota; yet there was such a feeling of hostility aroused by the war which was brought on by the Sioux, that there seemed an absolute necessity of taking some measures for the removal of the Winnebagoes as well as the Sioux. The Winnebagoes have been removed from the State of Minnesota, and these lands are the fund by which we are still to support these Winnebagoes; and it seems to me it would be very wrong to allow preemption claims to attach to these lands until there is a fair opportunity for them to be sold, one year at least.

So, also, in relation to the lands belonging to the Sioux, the same provision is contained in this joint resolution. I think it but just. The Department are urgent to save these lands, or the Indians. I think there can be no objection to its funds to grow out of them, for the benefit of these

passage.

Mr. HARLAN. I think there is a little am

biguity about the language of the resolution as it now stands, and I therefore desire to propose a couple of amendments to it. In section one, line fifteen, I move to strike out all after the word "claim" to the end of the section, in the following words:

(Unless already attached) to any portion of said lands be held to be valid unless such claim shall be established and the purchase-money for such claim paid prior to the 1st day of January, A. D. 1866.

And to insert in lieu thereof:

Be valid made after the passage of this act.

So that the clause will read:

Nor shall any preemption claim be valid made after the passage of this act.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HARLAN. I now move a similar amendment in section two, to strike out all after the word "claim" in the fourteenth line to the end of the section, in the following words:

Not already attached to any portion of said lands, be held to be valid unless such claim shall be established and the purchase-money for such clain paid prior to the 1st day of January, A. D. 1866.

And to insert:

Be valid made after the passage of this act.
So that the clause will read:

Nor shall any preemption claim be valid made after the passage of this act.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I see no objection to these amendments if the Senator thinks they make the resolution clearer and more satisfactory. The amendment was agreed to.

The joint resolution was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in. The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

RECIPROCITY TREATY.

Mr. SUMNER. I now move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution relating to the reciprocity treaty.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H. R. No. 56) authorizing the President of the United States to give to the Government of Great Britain the notice required for the termination of the reciprocity treaty of the 5th of June, A. D. 1854, the pending question being on the passage of the joint resolution.

Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, when the Senate adjourned yesterday I had just submitted some figures giving an exhibit of the actual lumber export of Canada as compared with the lumber product of the United States. I desired, if I could, to persuade the Senate and to persuade the country that there was no danger that $95,000,000,

which is the value of the American product, would be swallowed up by $10,000,000, which is the value of the Canadian export. But it must be remembered that this quantity of lumber which I have already given as the export of Canada does not all come here, by any manner of means. On the contrary, of the $8,500,000, in round numbers, which was the export of Canada in 1859, only something over $3,000,000 found its way to the United States. Of the $10,000,000 which was exported by Canada, in 1860, something over $3,800,000 worth found its way to the United States; and of the $8,600,000 which was the export of Canada in 1861, only $2,065,870 found its way to the United States. And yet Senators here seem to be alarmed that the lumber interests of the United States are to be overwhelmed by this slight and insignificant importation from Canada. In point of fact this $2,000,000 of lumber in value is received at different points and melts away in the vast consumption of the United States, and I dare say is little felt anywhere.

The port of Chicago, which is one of the great lumber markets in the country, the greatest lumber market in the Northwest, which would be likely to feel this importation as soon as almost any point, makes this return of the Canadian lumber trade: in 1860 there was received at that port, from Canada, of lumber unmanufactured $11,453 in value; in 1861, $15,710; in 1862, $19,425; in 1863, $43,268; in 1864, $92,378. Of manufactured lumber not a foot has been received in that port for five years.

I feel, therefore, great confidence in saying that this new-born sympathy for the lumber interests of the United States is not called for. They do not stand in need of it. They are doing very well; and I think the lumbermen of this country will feel much less grateful for this sympathy when they are made to understand what it really leads to; for what is the proposition that was submitted to us yesterday? They propose to rid the American lumber interest of a competition which arises from an importation of about two million dollars in value. For what? To put the Government in a position in which it can levy a tax on the American product of five per cent. In other words, you propose to drive $2,000,000 of Canadian lumber out of our market, and save our Jumber interest from that amount of competition; and the equivalent for doing this is that you will take $5,000,000 directly from the pockets of our manufacturers. The lumber product of the United States is not less than $100,000,000, and if you put five per cent. upon that, they have to pay directly $5,000,000 as a consideration for being relieved from this competition of $2,000,000. I think the lumbermen of the United States can do without this sympathy. I am sure they cannot do with it.

Yesterday we were told that we should repeal this treaty of 1854 to enable us hereafter to lay duties on our imports from Canada, and to enable us also to impose taxes on our productions which are named in the treaty. That was urged by the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER;] that was urged by the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. SHERMAN,] neither of whom I see in his seat; that was urged by the Senator from Vermont [Mr. COLLAMER] also, who is not in his seat.

The argument falls from the Senator from Ohio very naturally. To impose taxes seems to be his forte. He has an idea, I think, that the normal condition of man is to pay taxes. [Laughter.] I have never known him to avow a willingness that anything should go untaxed except perhaps Catawba wine and silver spoons. When he urges us to repeal this treaty in order that he may get a new hold of the pockets of the people, it is all right; but I insist that we have a right to milder doctrines from the Senator from Massachusetts. He has no right to be so greedy.

Besides, sir, if we must have money, do you conceive it to be absolutely necessary that the money should be collected off these specific items? Senators tell us that the Treasury is needy. Well, supply the Treasury. Must you wait until some commodity comes to you from Canada before you pay your taxes? I once heard of a Massachusetts lawyer who insisted that a fee was so essential to enable a lawyer to do business correctly that he never would trust himself to draw a deed for himself without taking a five dollar note from his wallet and putting it in his vest pocket. [Laughter.] I never really believed the statement; but since I have found a Massachusetts statesman who insists that he cannot pay his dues to the Government until he has been furnished a foreign commodity on which to pay them, I am less incredulous about the story of the Massachusetts lawyer.

Why, sir, if these duties are paid, we have got to pay them, and I would just as soon pay them before the commodity comes here, and without any regard to the commodity, as to pay them now. The truth is-and some time the American people will be made to comprehend it, and when they do the American Legislature will be made to comprehend it-that this method of levying taxes by way of duties is the most cruel and inhuman mode you could contrive, because it is the most expensive mode. Every million of dollars you put into your Treasury by that method takes, not less than a million, but more than a million and a quarter out of the pockets of the people. That will come to be known some time.

So far, sir, I have been considering objections, not as they were made here in the debate of yesterday, but as I had found them stated elsewhere, before any objections were presented to the Senate. I have taken them from the lips of a Representative who is understood to be the author of this measure.

I thought it fair to infer that if he could not sustain the resolution it could not be sustained, and I think I have succeeded in showing that his defense falls very far short of sustaining the resolution. Yesterday the resolution was advocated on this floor, and somewhat different grounds were urged in support of the resolution.

as high as you tax any other manufactured article; and I think the hop-growers will be content with paying taxes in these two methods and will not insist upon a direct tax being levied upon their production. The whole policy of our revenue laws so far is to avoid laying taxes on raw prod

ucts.

The Senator from Vermont also urged yesterday that he wanted to get rid of this treaty because he did not like the way in which the treaty was made. He tells us he does not like this way of regulating trade or commerce by treaty. He thinks it had better be done by Congress. Very likely the regulation of our own commerce with foreign countries had better be done by our own Legislature rather than the treaty-making power; but it happens that if you want to regulate our trade with foreign countries you are obliged to do it through the treaty-making power, for the authority of your Legislature does not extend so far. Your Legislature can determine what duties they will impose on the importations from foreign coun

tries, but your Legislature cannot prescribe what duties shall be imposed on those articles you export to foreign countries. It was the object of this treaty not merely to regulate the trade of Canada with us, but to regulate our trade with Canada; not merely to fix the rate of duties on our imports, but to fix the rate of duties on our exports. That must be done through the treaty-making power, and cannot be done through the Legislature. It was conceded here, as it has not been conceded elsewhere, that the treaty is constitutional; in other words, that the President and Senate had authority to make it, had authority to regulate trade in this way. If they have the authority to do it, then the only question is whether they did as wisely as the Legislature could.

The Senator from Vermont also told us that it must have been a bad bargain for us, since we opened to Canadian productions a market of thirty million people, and they have opened to us a market of but three million. He insisted that that must be a bad bargain for us; that a market of thirty million must be more valuable than a market of three million. The argument is a plausible one, but an unsound one; for the value of a market does not depend upon the number of purchasers found in it: it depends upon the demands, the needs of the market. Here are thirty million people purchasers of cotton; thirty million are the consumers of cotton; but of what use is it to open that market to Canada, for we have more cotton than we know what to do with, or had when this treaty was formed. The value of the market, as I said before, depends upon its necessities; and whether we shall buy more or sell more to Canada depends not upon the question whether our population is larger than theirs, but whether we have a larger surplus than they. It is, however, unnecessary to argue this matter with the Senator from Vermont or with anybody else. It is put beyond the reach of argument by established facts. The established fact is, that notwithstanding we have thirty million to buy, and they have but three million, yet we sell more to them than they do to us, and have done so since this treaty was made. We sell more to the three million than the three million sell to our thirty million.

Now, sir, 1 have done what I could to show that every objection taken to the treaty in debate here and elsewhere is unsound, is untenable. I have argued from the official returns that we have showing the state of this trade. The Senator from Vermont said yesterday that the people living where he did, in the State of Vermont, did not need any reference to any tables whatever on this subject; they knew that the treaty was injurious to us; they could see that every day. Well, sir, I never lived in Vermont. I know that Vermont touches the Canadian line at one point about as big as a man's foot, and it is barely possible that because of that contact they may know there how this trade affects the whole country stretching along the whole frontier of Canada. I should not suppose so. I do not believe that if you go out and put your hand on one of the telegraph wires you can tell what is passing over all the telegraph wires in the country; and I do not believe that by placing yourself in contact with the Canada line at one point you can know exactly what the trade is between the two countries throughout the whole extent of their bounds. I, however, did not assume to know anything from any such quarter. I have given you facts and figures as they are reported to us officially, and I have shown that if it be objected to this treaty that you export more free goods since the treaty was adopted than you did before, that Canada does the same, and that such was the very design of the treaty itself. I have shown you that if it be objected that the balance of trade was in our favor before the treaty was adopted and has been against us since the treaty was adopted, that that is a mistake. The balance of trade has been in our favor ever since the treaty was adopted as it was every year before the treaty was adopted. If it be objected against the treaty that you have exported less of the articles named in it than you have imported, I have admitted that that was very true when the treaty was first adopted, such was the undeniable fact then, but even that evil I have shown you is cured; so that in the last years of the operation of the treaty we have exported more of articles named in it than we imported..

.

The last evil objected to in the treaty, therefore, has been cured. I have shown you that if the Treasury needs more revenue there are other ways in which it can be supplied without depriving the people of the advantages they derive from this treaty. To cut down their trade is not the way in which to prepare the people to be taxed. It is not a sound argument to adduce here or elsewhere to say that when you have deprived the people of the United States of this trade which now amounts to $40,000,000 annually they will be in a better position to pay your taxes and sustain the public credit.

But the argument so far, if ever so successful, has only shown that the reasons urged against the treaty are untenable. I now beg the indulgence of the Senate for a few moments while I name three reasons which, in my judgment, forbid the repeal of this treaty.

Sir, what is the reciprocity treaty? It is a compact entered into between this Government and the Government representing Canada and the adjacent British provinces lying on our northern border, by which they agree to exchange certain articles of produce of the respective countries, and to admit into the respective countries those articles without any duty. The articles enumerated included nearly all the kinds of raw material which are produced in the United States and in the British provinces respectively. They are:

"Grain, flour, and breadstuffs of all kinds; animals of all kinda; fresh, smoked, and salted meats; cotton-wool, seeds, and vegetables; undried fruits, dried fruits; fish of

all kinds; products of fish and of all other creatures living in the water; poultry, eggs, hides, furs, skins, or tails undressed, stone or marble in its crude or unwrought state; slate; butter, cheese, tallow; lard, horns, manures; ores of metals of all kinds; coal; pitch, tar, turpentine, ashes; timber and lumber of all kinds, round, hewed, sawed, unmanufactured in whole or in part; firewood; plants, shrubs, and trees; pelts, wool; fish oil; rice, broom-corn, and bark; gypsum, ground or unground; hewn or wrought or unwrought burr or grindstones; dyestuffs; flax, hemp, and tow unnianufactured; unmanufactured tobacco; rags."

These articles, which are the produce of the United States, are by the treaty admitted into all these British provinces free of duty, and the like articles, the products of those provinces, are under the treaty admitted into the United States free of duty. Beyond this, and for this, the Canadas agree to pay something like boot as a condition, or as an equivalent for entering into this compact. They give to our commerce the use of the St. Lawrence river, and of the Canadian canals upon the same terms under which the Canadian commerce enjoys that use. They give to us the use of the St. John's river for floating down our lum ber cut upon its head waters; and they give us a common fishery throughout all their bays and their coasts.

words, they have purchased from us more than they have sold to us every year since the treaty was enacted. I do not believe, therefore, that that was the purpose for which the treaty was made. I do not undertake, myself, to know why it was made; but I do know what the treaty did, and I will tell you.

Before the treaty, our whole import from all the British provinces was about six millions a year. In 1855, the very first year after the treaty was adopted, we imported from Canada alone in wheat and other varieties of grain and flour, $10,840,204. Four million dollars over what our whole importation had been from all the provinces prior to the adoption of the treaty were imported from Canada alone, in the first year after the adoption of the treaty, in breadstuffs which we ought to have raised ourselves. That is what the treaty did.

Sir, I was born in New England, and I understand those people. I never knew them to be beaten much by any combination of accidents. Whatever happens to them is generally designed by them; and since it happened as the result of this treaty that their manufacturers were enabled to purchase in a new market free of duty, and bring in here $10,000,000 of the agricultural products of this country, I think they designed that very operation of the treaty. It will be remembered that so long as we were importing this large amount of breadstuffs and sending abroad under the treaty but very little, we heard no complaint about the treaty. Nay, sir, it was said by a Representative from Vermont, in discussing this subject the other day, that such of the eastern States as failed to produce their own breadstuffs, or their butcher's meat, or their wool, or their horses, would not be likely to protest against supplies from Canada and the consequent reduction of prices. They did not produce them; there was no complaint heard about the treaty then; and I infer from all this that it was the very object and design of the makers of this treaty to enable the manufacturing districts to purchase their food in the Canadian markets and bring it here without duties.

It will be remembered that in 1854, when this treaty was made, the Northwest, the really agricultural districts of the United States, were a great deal further from the eastern markets than they are now. It was about that time, if I remember right, that the first railroad from the East reached Chicago. Since then we have a large number of railways reaching to Chicago, and reaching far beyond Chicago. Our means of communicating with the eastern markets are much more abundant now than they were then; and our production also is vastly increased. The agriculture of the United States in 1854 was in its cradle, and it is not the fault of this treaty that it was not strangled in its cradle.

The first reason I have to present why this treaty should not be repealed now is, that under it our trade with these provinces has increased from $16,000,000, which was its value in 1852, to over $50,000,000, which was its value in 1862. In 1852 our exports to them were $10,509,016, and our imports $6,110,299. In 1862 our exports to Canada alone were $25,173,151, and our imports from Canada were $15,063,730. Our trade with the provinces was something over $12,000,000, making an aggregate of over $52,000,000, which was the amount of our trade with all the British provinces in 1862.

The Senator from Massachusetts, in his speech yesterday, admits the fact of the immense increase of that trade, but affects to doubt that it is the re

Now, Mr. President, to say for a moment nothing about the value of this fishery, nothing about the value of the use of the St. John's, nothing about the value of the navigation of the St. Lawrence, what is the compact so far as it relates to the exchange itself? Canada puts herself and her productions named in the treaty upon a par with us. She says, 66 we are willing to compete with you; you can produce more cheaply than we can, more abundantly than we can; if you can undersell us we are your purchasers; if we can produce more cheaply than you, if we can undersell you you are our purchasers." Believing as fully as do in the capacity of this country, I should not say it was a very bad bargain of itself; and if we got no boot I think we could afford to abide by that contract. I should think so irrespective of any actual returns showing its operation. The Senator from Vermont told us yesterdaysult of the treaty. He admits that it followed the that he thought he knew why the treaty was made. He thought it was made for the purpose of preventing the annexation of those provinces to this country. I cannot say that it was not, but I do not see anything in the treaty which has that tendency, and certainly there is nothing shown of the operations of the treaty which could have that tendency. The Senator says they were uneasy because they had no outlet for their prod-population, because our population in that time ucts; that by this treaty an outlet was provided, a market was opened to them, the discontent was all allayed, and Canada has been content with her old allegiance. Well, sir, we have seen by all the figures which have been cited here that there was no market created for them. True, they have sent some certain commodities here, but they have received a larger amount in value from us. In other

adoption of the treaty, but does not seem prepared to admit that it was caused or affected by the treaty. I cannot prove that it was. He suggests that it might have been the effect of our increase of population, or that it might have been the effect of our railway system. I respectfully insist that it cannot be the effect of either of those causes. It cannot be the effect of our increase of

increased only about twenty-five per cent. and our trade increased three hundred per cent. It cannot be the effect of our railway system, because the direction of it is such that it would prevent this trade between the States and the Canadas. Our railways and their railways run from east to west, from western communities to eastern markets; and it is no more their tendency to send trade from one

country to the other than it is the tendency of this railway along Pennsylvania avenue to send its cars along the streets at right angles with it. These railways are grooves, so to speak, holding, so far as their influence goes, that trade and commerce right along their lines, and their tendency is to prevent its diverging either from the Canada tracks into our country or from our tracks into theirs.

I think it is very easy, therefore, to see that this vast increase in that trade is not the result of either of the causes suggested by the Senator from Massachusetts. That it is the direct and necessary result of the treaty itself, as I said before, I cannot prove. When you take off duties and cheapen importation you always notice that trade does increase; but I cannot prove that it is a consequence of that policy. I have noticed all my life that every time the sun rises clear there is light shining about us; but I do not know how I can prove that the light is the consequence of the sun rising. I would like to have that believed; I always have believed it myself; and I would like the Senator from Massachusetts to admit if he can, through the exercise of faith, if not through the exercise of his reason, that this increase of trade is the direct and necessary result of the treaty itself.

The repeal of the treaty will destroy that trade. It will prevent you from purchasing these $15,000,000 and from selling that $25,000,000. You had some trade, it is true, before your treaty was adopted; but then your duties were lower and their duties were lower than they are now. Your duties have been very much advanced and theirs very much advanced since this treaty was adopted. Strike down the treaty and leave that trade to the mercy of your present rates of duties, and this interchange of commodities must stop altogether. Then you have $25,000,000 of goods for which you have not this market, and they have $15,000,000 of goods which we want and which we cannot have.

That is the first effect of repealing the treaty. That is an effect upon the trade of the country generally. But it will have an effect upon the agricultural interest which I should deprecate as the representative of an agricultural community, and which I think we all ought to deprecate; for, representing what communities you may, there is no one to be found anywhere whose prosperity does not depend primarily upon the prosperity of the agricultural interest. I have already told you, Mr. President, that in the first year after this treaty

was made we imported from Canada of breadstuffs alone $10,840,204. In that year we exported but $1,599,040. That was a heavy blow to the agricultural interests of the United States. That was sending abroad for a clean $9,000,000 in value of breadstuffs which we produced and which we ought to have consumed at home. But we have outlived that. In 1863 we imported from the Canadas but $6,117,890 of breadstuffs, while we exported $9,588,390 to the Canadas, and we exported to the other provinces $4,948,871. There were more than $14,000,000 of breadstuffs which in 1863 we exported under the provisions of this treaty.

Mr. GRIMES. Will the Senator yield me the floor for a moment?

Mr. HOWE. Certainly.

VICE ADMIRAL FARRAGUT.

Mr. GRIMES. Mr. President, the Senate is honored by the presence of one of the most distinguished of our citizens at this moment, to whom every Senator, I presume, desires to pay his respects; I mean Vice Admiral Farragut, the first person holding that high position in the American service. I therefore move that the Senate take a recess of ten minutes in order that the members of the body may have an opportunity of a few minutes' intercourse with that eminent citizen.

The motion was unanimously agreed to; and Senators were individually introduced to the gallant sailor and to his chief executive officer, Captain Drayton, who accompanied him, who had been admitted to the privileged seats of the Senate Chamber.

RECIPROCITY TREATY.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H. R. No. 56) authorizing the President of the United States to give to the Government of Great Britain the notice required for