amendment which I offer, it would be impossible for any railroad company to take the responsibility of transporting a bale of cotton. Mr. MORRILL. I think the amendment is right.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to amend by striking out the word "and" in the twenty-seventh line of the fifth section, and inserting in lieu thereof the word "or."

The amendment was agreed to.

The next section was read, as follows:

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That upon articles manufactured exclusively from cotton, when exported, there shall be allowed as a drawback an amount equal to the internal tax which shall have been assessed and paid upon such articles in their finished condition, and in addition thereto a drawback or allowance of as many cents per pound upon the pound of cotton cloth, yarn, or other articles manufactured exclusively from cotton and exported, as shall have been assessed and paid in the form of an internal tax upon the raw cotton entering into the manufacture of said cloth or other article, the amount of such allowance or drawback to be ascertained in such manner as may be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury; and so much of section one hundred and seventy-one of the act of June 30, 1864, to provide internal revenue to support the Government, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes, as now provides for a drawback on manufactured cotton, is hereby repealed.

Mr. LYNCH. I move to amend by striking out, in the second line of this section, the words "when exported ;" and also the words "and exported," in the eighth line.

Mr. Chairman, as has been said by one gentleman, a member of the Committee of Ways and Means, the consumer of the cotton goods must finally pay this tax as provided by the bill. The effect of my amendment will be to relieve the consumer from this tax, and place it only upon such portions of the crop as is exported. It will accomplish what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] seeks to accomplish by a constitutional amendment, the success of which is, I think, very doubtful.

This bill is presented as one designed to reduce the taxes of the people; yet it is proposed to put a tax of five cents per pound on cotton goods, which are consumed mainly by the poorer classes of the people. The wealthy people use silks, linens, &c., while the poor use more of the cotton goods. If this amendment be adopted, the consumers of cotton goods in this country will be relieved of the tax, while it will be placed on the exported cotton. I presume this will satisfy those persons who go for an export tax upon cotton, and also that class of gentlemen here who are in favor of reducing the tax; for it will reduce the tax to just the amount of the drawback upon the amount manufactured in the United States. You raise revenue simply on the amount exported. As to the amount consumed in this country, the tax upon it would be paid finally by the consumer here."

Mr. MOORHEAD. The gentleman's proposition would amount to a tax on exports. Mr. LYNCH. Certainly it would. Mr. MOORHEAD. Can you do that constitutionally?

Mr. LYNCH. I suppose no one will doubt the constitutional power to collect the tax in the first place; and I think there can be no doubt that the Government has the right to remit this tax by way of drawback.

It seems to me we ought not to put this heavy tax upon the poorer class of the community, while we are reducing the taxes generally in this bill.

Mr. MORRILL. I am somewhat surprised at the motion of the gentleman from Maine. Although he has always said he was in favor of the tax, yet in his motion he is in favor of refunding the tax we are proposing to levy.

Mr. LYNCH. I will say that I intended to propose an increased tax of ten cents per pound, and then to have given this drawback. But I did not get an opportunity to offer that amendment.

Mr. MORRILL. The gentleman not having had an opportunity to offer that will see that he ought not to have offered this. Of

course we understand on whatever we consume or manufacture of this cotton we pay a tax; but the object is to get not only a tax upon that used by ourselves, but on what is consumed and purchased by others.

There is another objection. We have been desirous to avoid all constitutional scruples as to levying this tax. If we levy it upon our own people they have to pay the precise tax paid by those abroad. We obviate all objection on the ground that this is an export duty in disguise.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I move to make the drawback six cents.

The CHAIRMAN. That is not germane to the pending amendment.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I move to strike out the words "when exported."

I understand the effect of this proposition to give this drawback in favor of manufactured goods which are exported is to give a premium to the manufacturers of cotton goods. It holds out an inducement to manufacture cotton goods for exportation, and will of course increase the manufacture of cotton goods in this country to some extent.

If they can make four cents by exporting it, or whatever the amount may be, it is to that extent a discrimination in favor of the manufacturer sending his goods to a foreign market. Or he will charge that on the consumers at home. With the heavy tax upon cotton it will not be exported at all. It will amount to fifty per cent. of its cost. The manufacture of cotton goods will then be done almost entirely in this country, because it will be done fifty per cent. cheaper in this country than in England. It will be sufficient to put it into manufactured goods before exported. These cunning gentlemen will manufacture every bale into goods and get the drawback.

With the increased price who gets the money? The manufacturer. He takes the cotton bales and turns them into cotton padding or any thing else he pleases. That is the effect of this bill. We will get no revenue. As soon as they get the spindles at work they will turn them into rope or something else for exportation.

The principle upon which the revenue law is passed is violated by this provision. We tax that article which enters into the consump tion of every man, woman, and child, white or black, in the country, and especially the largest portion is used by the poorer classes. The tax is heaviest upon those who wear coarse cotton goods. They must pay this tax, and they almost exclusively, as has been said by the gentleman from Maine, although those who have the means of paying these taxes are by these means exempted. The tax will ultimately be extracted from the toiling millions of the country.

I protest against indirect taxation of the absolute necessaries of life. My constituents are clothed almost exclusively in cotton goods. They use some woolens but mostly cotton goods. They sleep on cotton, they walk in cotton, and no matter what the price of corn is they must pay the tax. I am opposed to it. I am opposed to anything like these drawbacks on cotton goods. If manufacturers turn this cotton into the manufactured article let it go to foreign countries without drawback. By making a discrimination between cotton goods and the raw cotton you do violate the principles

referred to.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. PAINE. I rise to ask the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL] a single question. He stated that he was in favor of imposing a tax on cotton manufactured in the United States and consumed in the United States so that a tax might also be imposed upon cotton exported to foreign countries.

Mr. MORRILL. Upon raw cotton exported. Mr. PAINE. I understand him now as in favor of imposing a tax on manufactured cotton made in the United States so that he may be able to impose a tax upon raw cotton exported to foreign countries. Now, it seems to

me that all constitutional objections to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Maine [Mr. LYNCH] could be obviated if the gentleman from Vermont would state, as I understood him to state, that he is in favor of imposing a tax on cotton manufactured in the United States and consumed in the United States, in order to be able to impose such a tax on cotton manufactured in the United States and consumed abroad. If that should be done, then if a drawback is allowed on cotton exported to foreign countries manufactured in the United States, it might with equal propri ety be allowed on cotton manufactured in the United States and consumed at home. Because, if no discrimination is made in cotton manufactured and consumed here and against cotton manufactured here and consumed abroad, there can be no evasion of the constitutional provision. And it seems to me if we can, without invading the constitutional provision, do something for the poor men of the country who consume cotton manufactured here we ought to do it.

Now, it is true, as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HARDING] has said, that most of the consumers of cotton in this country are poor men. They do not wear silks and broadcloths as do the rich; and if a tax is imposed upon cotton manufactured in this country and consumed here, it must ultimately be paid by those who are least able to bear it.

I am in favor of fostering the manufacture of cotton. I shall vote for protection here whenever the opportunity shall offer. But I cannot see why we should take this mode of fostering domestic manufacture, whether in cotton or anything else, by a discrimination in favor of the purchaser in a foreign market and against the purchaser in our own market; in favor of the foreign consumer and against the home consumer.

I am in favor of the proposition of the gen tleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS,] and I desire, as he does, to foster domestic manufactures; but I do not wish to do it at the expense of home consumers and for the benefit of foreign consumers. I would do it in such a way that the poor people of this country who consume cotton goods mainly may not have this heavy burden to bear.

The CHAIRMAN. Debate is exhausted on this amendment.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I withdraw it. Mr. STEVENS. I move to strike out the word "exported." I believe it is there somewhere.

I agree with the gentleman from Maine [Mr. LYNCH] if you could fairly reach what he is at; that is, if he would make it ten cents, and then withdraw the home duty so as to leave it on the exported article, it would come to just what I propose in my constitutional amendment which I sent to the committee the other day. I think there never was a grander time in the world for the manufacturing of all the cotton for the world wherever civilized man exists. An export duty of ten cents on cotton would give to your home manufactures the markets of the world. That is the true way to protect home industry and to wrest from for eigners a revenue which shall pay off your national debt. That is what ought to be done.

I suggest to the gentleman from Maine [Mr. LYNCH] that I would go for an amendment of ten cents provided it was not liable to the objection, as a gentleman here suggests, of chasing the old fellow around the stump; for it is whipping the devil around the stump there is no mistake. [Laughter.]

Mr. LYNCH. No matter, if you can only hit him. [Laughter.]

Mr. STEVENS. Now, as to the effect which the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HARDING speaks of, I should be glad if this measure did have that effect, if it did induce our people to manufacture every dollar's worth of the cotton we raise, and send it abroad in a manufactured shape. I should be glad if our institutions and laws were so framed that in Illinois there would be hundreds of thousands of spindles; that the

engines which in Europe do the work of twenty million men should be planted all over this country to do the work here, so as to increase still further the necessity for laboring men and augment their wages.

My friend from Wisconsin [Mr. PAINE] says that he wants to see the provision so fixed as to favor the poor men who are clothed in cotton. Who makes the cotton? Who manufactures it? Is it not the poor man? Why not so arrange it that you can raise his wages? You can do it by increasing the manufacturing interests of this country. When you have done that, when you have given the laborer his wages, he can afford to pay for what he consumes, and when you have done that you will double the price of the products of Wisconsin and Illinois; you will have a market at home for your products and not have to send them abroad to feed the laborer of Europe. But I do not despair of seeing the constitutional amendment allowing an export duty on cotton passed before the close of the session; if my friend from Iowa [Mr. WILSON] will only report it back, I am sure we shall pass it, and that the country will approve it, and then our country will become the great hive of manufacturing industry for all the civilized nations of the world this side of the Indies.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. MARSHALL. I move pro forma to strike out all after the word "drawback" in the third line and insert in lieu thereof "one half cent per pound." I do it merely for the purpose of submitting a remark or two in regard to the subject of taxation upon cotton.

I am opposed on principle to the whole tax; at least I think if there is any at all, it should be very small in amount. And it is for this reason: in raising revenue to support the Government, we should endeavor, as far as possible, to impose the burdens of the Government upon the wealthy, and not upon the poor.

The effect of this tax upon cotton is manifestly to shift the burdens of the Government from the rich to the poor. The cotton fabrics of the country are consumed almost exclusively-the heavy articles especially-by the laboring white men of the country, and by the poor freedmen. By reducing the tax upon incomes, and increasing it upon cotton, you are shifting the burdens of the Government from the rich to the poor, and putting the tax directly upon the poor men of the country which ought to be imposed upon the wealthy men of the country.

This tax upon cotton will not be felt by the wealthy monopolist whose family are clothed in silks and satins, and in expensive imported goods from foreign countries. He will pay no part of it. The wealthy man who can afford to wear fine linen will pay no part of it; but the poor and humble men at the South, at the West, and at the East, and all over the country will bear the burden of the tax that is imposed by this provision of the bill. And I must say here, that while there are many features of this bill of which I approve, if these clauses are retained I shall feel compelled to vote against the entire bill when it is submitted for the determination of a vote of the House.

This clause which we are immediately considering I regard as exceedingly objectionable. What is the effect of it? You propose to raise the tax to five cents per pound on the raw cotton of the country; and when it is manufactured here, and the poor man of the country buys his shirt or his calico or the humble garments to clothe his wife and children, he must bear the burden of this tax; but when it is exported to Germany or France, or any other foreign country, you take off this tax; you lay the burden upon the poor men of this country, while you are furnishing shirts and other garments to the men of other countries, at a lower price than you are furnishing them for to the citizens of your own country. It is an unjust and, it seems to me, a most outrageous dis

crimination against the poor of the country, in favor of the rich of this country and the people of foreign nations.

It seems to me that the system of legislation here for the last few years has been to discriminate in favor of the wealthy, in favor of the manufacturers, in favor of the bondholders, in favor of the capitalists and monopolists of the country, and to impose the burdens of the Government upon the agriculturists, upon the poor men of the West and of the South, and even the poor men of the East, shifting it from the shoulders of the wealthy who ought to bear the principal burden of the Government. [Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. GRISWOLD. The main object, I suppose, of the bill under consideration is the raising of revenue, and I presume it will be conceded by all that the more generally you can distribute the tax the less onerous it is.

Now, I desire, for the information of the gentlemen who have made use of the argument that this tax will oppress the poor of the country, that the Clerk will read from the report of the revenue commission the extract I have marked showing the bearing of this tax on

cotton.

The Clerk read as follows:

"The above proposed rate of taxation on cotton, it is believed, will not prove in any degree detrimental to any national interest, and will yield a revenue, at twenty-two dollars per bale, of $22,000,000 for every million bales produced and sold for consumption. With a erop of three million bales, and a tax of five cents per pound, the Government might derive an annual revenue of $66,000,000; or of $88,000,000 on a crop of four million bales, which would be less than the crop of 1859-60. Of this sumif the consumption of the United States shall reach, in either of these years, the consumption of 1860-the inhabitants of the United States would pay about twenty-one million dollars; and it is believed that there are few taxes which can be levied which would be so slight a burden to the consumer. The consumption of cotton per head in the United States, at the highest point ever attained to, has not exceeded twelve pounds. A tax of five cents per pound would therefore be an average of about sixty cents to each individual per annum. (See Special Report No. 3.) As the crop of the present year, in the opinion of competent persons consulted by the commission, is not likely to be less than two million bales, and if good seed can be obtained may exceed this figure, the commission are of the opinion that the Government may safely rely for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1867, upon a revenue from this source of at least $40,000,000.

"With an increase of the crop, in subsequent years, beyond two million bales per annum, accompanied by a consequent reduction of the market price of the same, a corresponding reduction of the proposed rate of tax may probably be found expedient; but, in any event, the commission believe that for the future an average revenue from cotton of at least $50,000,000 may undoubtedly be relied upon.'

Mr. MARSHALL. I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. ALLISON. I move to strike out this entire section.

The CHAIRMAN. That motion is not germane to the amendment of the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. LYNCH,] which is pending, to strike out the words "when exported" and also the words "and exported."

Mr. RAYMOND. Is debate exhausted on the pending amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. It is.

Mr. RAYMOND. I move, pro formâ, to strike out the word "exported" from the amendment of the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. LYNCH.] I do it merely for the purpose of having an opportunity of saying that I think there is much in the argument of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MARSHALL] that is entirely misplaced. The appeal that he makes on behalf of the poor of this country is entirely misplaced, is based on a wrong estimation of the facts.

He asserts that cotton goods are used exclusively by the poor, while the rich use linen, silk, and other expensive articles. Now, while it is true that the poor use little but cotton, it is also equally true that the rich use far more cotton than the poor do, and pay far more of the tax upon cotton in proportion.

Now, I desire to call the attention of the gentleman and of the House to this fact in addition. If this section of the bill stood by itself, and there were no compensating clauses

in other parts of the bill, there might be some force in the argument of the gentleman. But as we go on through the bill we will find various sections bearing almost exclusively upon the wealthier classes of the community. It is not right, therefore, to make an argument against any particular section because it applies to a certain class more than to another. When we come to the portion relating to the income tax we will find enough to offset anything that may be in this section.

I trust the argument brought to bear against this particular section will not be considered to have any special weight. It seems to me that it is important to allow a drawback on cotton exported when manufactured in order to enable our manufacturers to compete with the manufacturers of other nations in foreign markets. We have hitherto had access to the markets of China and the Indies for our poorer qualities of cotton goods, and have held our own there against the looms of England and other nations. In order to maintain that ascendency we must allow a drawback on goods exported. It seems to me but simple justice to our manufacturers, who export to foreign markets where they must contend with the manufacturer of England, to allow the drawback here proposed. It is not an excessive drawback. All those who testified in favor of a tax upon cotton also testified that in order to maintain our foothold in those markets a drawback equivalent to the excise tax will be absolutely necessary.

I now withdraw my amendment to the amend

ment.

Mr. MORRILL. Before the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. RAYMOND] is withdrawn, I desire to say a few words. The debate has wandered widely from the proposition of the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. LYNCH.] But it may be as well to confess that upon this section rests the whole question in relation to the imposition of a productive tax upon cotton. So far at least as I am concerned it certainly does. I shall not be in favor of the tax if we so hamper it as to secure all the trade in cotton manufactures now and forever to British looms and spindles.

The question arises here, and it is suggested by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. HARDING,] that we are made to pay more for our cotton goods at home, in consequence of allowing this drawback upon manufactures exported. Now, with all respect for that gentleman, I do not conceive that to be the fact of the case.

Mr. UPSON. Will the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL] allow me to ask him a question?

Mr. MORRILL. I prefer not to be interrupted now. If we do not allow this drawback, then the result will be that we shall not manufacture the amount of cotton we have hitherto done, or shall not manufacture any increased amount to send abroad. Now, would it not be to the advantage of this country if we were to admit raw silk, and the means of manufacturing it, and laborers to manufacture it, to come here and manufacture a large amount of silk goods such as we now import from abroad, even if we allowed them to be exported and reimported to this country? Would not so much added to the industry of the country be a public benefit? Would it not be a blessing to the State of Wisconsin and the State of Illinois to have one hundred thousand more laborers

employed than they now have consuming their products? Certainly that would be a desirable result.

As to this drawback making our products here any higher for our people, I say, with all respect, that that proposition is an absurdity; for the only duty that is levied upon our goods is levied upon the raw cotton and upon the manufactured cotton. Does it make any dif ference in regard to the prices of what we consume, whether there shall be one million more bales of cotton manufactured in this country or not? Certainly not. But by the introduction of improved machinery and the employment of a larger force of laborers in manufac

By Mr. McINDOE: The petition of C. Moser, and others, asking that a mail route be established from Alma, Buffalo county, Wisconsin, to Durand, Pepin county, Wisconsin,

Also, the petition of Hugh Douglas, and others, asking for the extension of mail route No. 131154 from Melrose, Jackson county, Wisconsin, to Sparta, Monroe county, Wisconsin.

Also, the petition of O. L. Maxson, asking that mail route No. 13166, from Reed Landing, Minnesota, to Bay City, be extended to Prescott, Wisconsin; also, for the establishing of a mail route from River Falls, Pierce county, Wisconsin, to Brooksville, St. Croix county, Wisconsin.

Also, the petition of Otis B. Lapham, and 310 others, in relation to the disposition of the grant of land to the State of Wisconsin to aid in the construction of a railroad from Portage City, or Berlin, or Fond du Lac, or Doty's Island, to Bayfield, on Lake Superior.

Also, the petition of H. Lewis, and 63 others, praying for the passage of a law for the regulation of inter-State insurance.

Also, asking a mail route from Manston, Juneau county, Wisconsin, by Germantown, to Werner, Juneau county, Wisconsin.

By Mr. MORRILL: The petition of Isaac H. Morgan, and others, citizens of Poultney, Rutland county, Vermont, praying for an additional tariff on foreign Wool.

Also, the petition of J. R. Parish, and 55 others, citizens of Randolph, Orange county, Vermont, praying for an additional tariff on foreign wool.

Also, the petition of Hon. R. M. Bell, and 36 others, citizens of Topsham, Orange county, Vermont, praying for an additional tariff on foreign wool.

Also, the petition of Hon. Augustus P. Huntoon, and 42 others, citizens of Bethel, Windsor county, Vermont, praying for an additional tariff on foreign wool.

Also, the petition of T. A. Roundy, and 103 others, citizens of Windsor county, Vermont, praying for an increase of tariff on wool equal to protection given to the manufacturers of woolens.

By Mr. ORTH: The petition from officers and soldiers of Indian brigades, asking for bounties.

By Mr. PAINE: The petition of George W. McCalvy, and others, citizens of Wheatland, Kenosha county, Wisconsin, for inercase of duty on foreign Wools.

Also, the petition of Thomas Slade, and others, citizens of Wheatland, Kenosha county, Wisconsin, for increase of duties on foreign wools.

By Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts: The petition of Franklin Childs, and 41 others, tobaccogrowers in the town of Conway, Massachusetts, asking for increased protection against the importation of cigars.

Also, the petition of George W. Groves, and 33 others, tobacco-growers in the town of Sunderland, Massachusetts, for the same purpose,

By Mr. WOODBRIDGE: The petition of William H. Hull, and 80 others, citizens of Wells, Rutland county, Vermont, praying for an additional tariff on foreign wool.

Also, the petition of Seymour Harwood, and 58 others, citizens of Rupert, Bennington county, Vermont, praying for an additional tariff on foreign Wool.

Also, the petition of Horatio Templeton, and others, citizens of Washington county, Vermont, praying for an additional tariff on foreign wool.

Also, the petition of Jason P. Lord, and 42 others, citizens of Reedsboro, Bennington county, Vermont, praying for an additional tariff on foreign wool.

Also, the petition of S. W. Webster, and 42 others, citizens of Stamford, Bennington county, Vermont, praying for an additional tax on foreign wool.

Also, the petition of Charles M. Bruce, and 44 others, citizens of Danbury, Rutland county, Vermont, praying for an additional tariff on foreign wool.

IN SENATE.

WEDNESDAY, May 9, 1866. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. H. GRAY. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. MORGAN presented the petition of Charles W. Whitney, praying for additional compensation for building the iron-clad gunboat Keokuk; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. Mr. COWAN presented the petition of John A. Wood, and others, representing that they are engaged in running coal to market down the Ohio river from Pittsburg, and that in the prosecution of that business they are much annoyed and suffer great loss of property by the bad navigation of the upper Ohio river, and praying that Congress will grant the necessary assistance for the purpose of preventing the evil of which they complain; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

He also presented twenty-one petitions numerously signed by citizens of Delaware county, Pennsylvania, praying for such a modification of the internal revenue laws as will tend to relieve the manufacturing and laboring interests from the oppressive burdens under which 39TH CONG. 1ST SESS.-No. 156.

they now suffer; which were referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. WILLEY. I present the memorial of one hundred and sixty-two citizens of Harper's Ferry, West Virginia, setting forth the fact that they purchased homesteads in that village from the Government of the United States, and contributed to the building up of the town, with the assurance of the Government that the armory established there would be permanent; but in consequence of the results growing out of the war the armory has ceased to employ any hands there in the service of the Government, so that work has been discontinued, and they are nearly ruined in consequence of the depreciation of their property growing out of these facts; and they conclude by asking that the Government may dispose of the property owned by it at the junction of the rivers to a manufacturing company or otherwise, so that the property may be still valuable, otherwise they will be utterly ruined. I ask the reference of this memorial to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

It was so referred.

Mr. CRESWELL presented the petition of George C. Cooper and John G. Mitchell, on behalf of a large number of citizens of Prince George county, Maryland, praying for the establishment of a post route from Buena Vista to Mitchellsville and Coopersville, in that county; which was referred to the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads.

Mr. POMEROY presented the memorial of Lucy B. Armstrong, in behalf of certain stewards of the Wyandot and Quindaro mission, Kansas conference of the Methodist Episcopal church, praying for an appropriation of $6,000 for the purpose of building churches and enclosing the graveyards of the Wyandot Indians with permanent enclosures; which was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

PAPERS WITHDRAWN.

On motion of Mr. STEWART, it was Ordered, That John Graham have leave to withdraw his petition and other papers from the files of the Senate.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of Enos Kellsy, of Napoli, Cattaraugus county, New York, setting forth that he has not a dollar's worth of property in the world, and that of seven sons who entered the service of the United States at the outbreak of the rebellion, he lost three, and praying that he may be granted a pension, asked to be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia; which was agreed to.

Mr. WADE, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred a bill (S. No. 289) to provide for the probate of and for the recording of wills of real estate situated in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, reported adversely thereon.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred a bill (H. R. No. 482) to incorporate the Howard Institute and Home of the District of Columbia, reported it without amend

ment.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of Mrs. Sarah J. Purcell, praying for a pension, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill, (S. No. 314,) for the relief of Sarah J. Purcell. The bill was read and passed to a second reading, and the report was ordered to be printed.

Mr. CLARK, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the petition of George W. Martin, praying for an investigation of an alteration which he alleges to have been made in the executive record of the Senate, whereby the confirmation of his nomination as a military storekeeper in the Army was not communicated to the President, in consequence of which he failed to receive his commission, submitted a report thereon, accompanied by the following resolution:

Resolved, That immediately upon the close of each

session of Congress, the Secretary of the Senate shall make a list of all nominations not acted upon by the Senate, and after having made a record thereof, shall transmit the same to the President.

The report was ordered to be printed.

Mr. GRIMES, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred a joint resolution (H. R. No. 130) to carry into immediate effect the bill to provide for the better organization of the pay department of the Navy; reported it with an amendment.

Mr. WILLEY, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred a bill (S. No. 295) repealing the thirty-fourth section of the declaration of rights of the State of Maryland so far as the same has been recognized or adopted in the District of Columbia, reported it without amendment.

Mr. EDMUNDS, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred a bill (S. No. 72) for the relief of Ruth Ellen Grelaud, widow of John H. Grelaud, deceased, submitted an adverse report thereon; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. MORRILL, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred a bill (S. No. 97) in addition to the several acts for establishing the temporary and permanent seat of government of the United States, and to resume the legislative powers delegated to the cities of Washington and Georgetown and the levy court in the District of Columbia, reported it with amendments.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred a bill (S. No. 265) to protect the manufacturers of mineral waters in the Dis

trict of Columbia, and for other purposes, reported it with amendments.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred a bill (H. R. No. 510) to incorporate the Academy of Music of Washington city, reported it with an amendment.

Mr. MORRILL. The same committee, to whom was referred a bill (S. No. 305) to amend an act entitled "An act concerning notaries public in the District of Columbia," approved April 8, 1864, have instructed me to report that legislation on the subject is inexpedient. I move that the bill be indefinitely postponed. The motion was agreed to.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I have received a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, relating to the Sioux Indians, accompanied by a bill. I ask leave without previous notice to introduce the bill that it may be read twice, referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs, and printed.

There being no objection, leave was granted to introduce a bill (S. No. 312) to restore to certain bands of Sioux Indians the balance of certain annuities heretofore confiscated; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. CHANDLER asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 313) to regulate the transportation of nitroglycerine, or glynoin oil; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. HENDERSON asked, and by unanimons consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 315) to regulate appointments to and removals from office; which was read twice by its title.

Mr. SUMNER. I should like to have that bill read at length, if there be no objection. Several SENATORS. Oh, no; let it be printed. Mr. SUMNER. As the subject is under discussion before the Senate now, I should really like to have it read.

Mr. HENDERSON. It is not lengthy. Mr. SHERMAN. It is very unusual to read bills at length when they are introduced. I ask that it be printed.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The order to print will be entered, if there be no objection. Mr. EDMUNDS asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 316) to establish a post route from West Alburg, Vermont, to Champlain, in the State

of New York, and for other purposes; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

NATIONAL THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE.

Mr. WADE. I am directed by the Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 352) to incorporate the National Theological Institute, to report it back without amendment, and recommend its passage, and I am requested to ask for its immediate consideration. Those who have it in charge are exceedingly anxious that it should pass now on account of the great synod that is about to be held here in reference to it. If there be no objection-and there can be no objection to it that I can see-I ask that it be put on its passage now.

There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill. It proposes to create and declare Abram D. Gillette, Edgar H. Gray, Edmund Turney, Zalmon Richards, Robert J. Powell, William T. Johnson, Henry Beard, Charles H. Morse, Joseph C. Lewis, John S. Poler, David Rees, D. W. Anderson, Daniel C. Eddy, Leonard A. Grimes, Justice D. Fulton, William R. Williams, Isaac Westcott, Howard Malcom, Joseph H. Kennard, Newton Brown, T. Dwight Miller, and all persons who shall or may be associated with them, and their successors, a body corporate and politic, in deed and in law, by the name of "the National Theological Institute," with the usual powers of a corporation. The object and purpose of this corporation is to be for the education of persons for the Christian ministry, and those associated with them as assistants, in such course of theological and general studies as may be deemed proper for that purpose; but no person is to be excluded from the advantages of education afforded by the institute on account of theological belief.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment.

Mr. POMEROY. I simply want to inquire of the Senator reporting the bill whether this is a corporation confined to this District by its

terms.

Mr. MORRILL. It is.

Mr. POMEROY. I listened to the reading of the bill, and I thought that by its terms it was not confined to the District. It simply says that they may have a right to do anything not inconsistent with the laws of the District; but if I heard it aright, it is not confined to the District by express terms.

Mr. WADE. Their principal place of business is here, and if they do business in other States they expect to get acts of incorporation

for it.

Mr. SHERMAN. I do not like, even by implication, to assent to the proposition that the Congress of the United States cannot do as much in this District as any State may do within a State.

Mr. WADE. Of course they can. Mr. SHERMAN. In every State of the Union corporations are incorporated by a general law, and they go all over the United States and have the rights of persons. So far as this bill is concerned I do not raise the point, but I do not for a moment admit, even by implication, that Congress ought to surrender the power that we have in this District, to make corporations with the power of corporations all over the United States of America or Europe, Asia, or wherever they may choose

to go.

Mr. WADE. There is nothing unusual in this corporation. It is a mere ordinary church corporation for the establishment of a theological institute, and has nothing in it that does not relate to that particular thing. It locates it in the District, and that is all there is about it. Where they will do business, I do not know, and I do not care.

Mr. POMEROY. I hope the Senator will not consider that I was objecting to the bill. I only thought that if he intended to confine it to the District, he ought to say so in the bill itself. I do not object to it,

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

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House of Representatives had passed the following bills, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate:

tion by chasing ashore on the island of Cuba the
insurgent steamer General Rusk alias Blanche.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

Hon. GIDEON WELLES, Secretary of the Navy.
The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended; the amendment was concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time and

A bill (H. R. No. 567) to amend an act to establish the grade of vice admiral in the Uni- || passed. ted States Navy; and

A bill (H. R. No. 568) to repeal section twenty-three of chapter seventy-nine of the acts of the third session of the Thirty-Seventh Congress relating to passports.

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED.

The message also announced that the Speaker of the House of Representatives had signed an enrolled joint resolution (H. R. No. 137) to provide for the exemption of crude petroleum from internal tax or duty, and for other purposes; and it was thereupon signed by the President pro tempore of the Senate.

COMMANDER CHARLES HUNTER.

Mr. GRIMES. I am instructed by the Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 307) authorizing the restoration of Commander Charles Hunter to the Navy of the United States, to report it back with an amendment.

Mr. ANTHONY. I hope the Senator will ask for the present consideration of that bill. There will be no objection to it.

Mr. GRIMES. I ask the Senate now to

proceed with its consideration.

By unanimous consent, the bill was considered as in Committee of the Whole. The amendment of the Committee on Naval Affairs was to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to restore Charles Hunter, late a commander in the Navy, to the position which he held on the retired list of the Navy when dismissed therefrom.

Mr. GRIMES. I will state that at the outbreak of the rebellion, Commander Charles Hunter was an officer of the Navy on the retired list. He was appointed to the command of a vessel which was employed in keeping up the blockade. In the discharge of his duties he pursued a blockade-runner, and ran her ashore upon the coast of Cuba, and destroyed her while he was within a marine league of the shore. The Spanish Government took umbrage at that action of an officer of this Government,

and, in obedience to their demand upon this
Government, he was dismissed from the service.
It is now deemed proper by the Administration
that he should be restored to his former posi-
tion; and it is but justice to Captain Hunter
that I should send to the table, to be read by
the Secretary of the Senate, a 'letter from the
Secretary of State, and also one from the Sec-
retary of the Navy, upon this subject.
The Secretary read the following letters:
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
WASHINGTON, May 5, 1866.
SIR: I have the honor to propose for the consider-
ation of the Committee of the Senate on Naval Af-
fairs a resolution authorizing the President to restore
Charles Hunter to the position which he held on the
retired list of the Navy.

The inclosed copy of a letter from the honorable Secretary of State explains the circumstances under which it was deemed proper to remove Commander Hunter from the public service. As no other reason than one of "public policy" required his separation from the service, and no such reason now forbids his reinstatement, it would seem but just. by restoring him to the Navy, to remove any undeserved stigma which his dismissal might attach to him.

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, GIDEON WELLES, Secretary of the Navy. Hon. J. W. GRIMES, Chairman Committee on Naval Affairs, United States Senate.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE. WASHINGTON, April 16, 1866. SIR: In the opinion of this Department, no reason of public policy now exists against the restoration of Commander Charles Hunter to the position in the Navy of the United States which he held when he was cashiered pursuant to a complaint of the Spanish Government for violating its territorial jurisdic

SMITHSONIAN REPORT.

Mr. ANTHONY. The Committee on Printprinting extra copies of the Report of the Smithing, to whom was referred the resolution for sonian Institution, have instructed me to report it back with an amendment, by way of substi tute, and to ask for its present consideration.

By unanimous consent, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution; and the amendment reported by the committee was agreed to; so as to make the resolution read as follows:"

Resolved, That five thousand additional copies of the Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution for the year ending 30th June, 1865, be printed; two thousand for the use of the Smithsonian Institution and three thousand for the use of the Senate: Provided, That the aggregate number of pages contained in said report shall not exceed four hundred and fifty pages, without wood-cuts or plates except those furnished by the Institution.

Mr. POMEROY. I should like to inquire of the Senator from Rhode Island if he can give any assurance to the Senate about the time we shall get this Report in printed form. I make this inquiry because about three months ago, on his motion, we voted for printing a large edition of Bancroft's oration, and we have not yet got them. I have no objection to voting this order if we can be assured that we shall have the copies during this session, or, indeed, at any time during our lives. We voted also for printing another oration, delivered by my friend from Maryland, [Mr. CRESWELL,] and we have not got that yet. It occurs to me that we ought not to increase this public printing if we cannot get it done.

Mr. RIDDLE. As a member of the Committee on Printing, I will answer the question of my friend from Kansas. The difficulty in getting out the oration of Mr. Bancroft arose from the fact of the printers not having been able to get the steel plate of Mr. Lincoln to put in the book. The delay is not the fault of the fere with other printing. printing office. That, however, does not inter

Mr. ANTHONY. I presume this will be printed with the usual rapidity. The pressure on the printing office has been very great during the war, but it is now in a very great degree removed, though not entirely. Unless Congress should be disposed to enlarge the facilities for the public printing, it is impossi ble that the work can all be done as rapidly as it used to be in quiet times. The Senate yesterday reduced sixty per cent. a very large document, and I think now that the work which is ordered will go on as rapidly as practicable. My friend from Delaware has explained the reason of the delay in printing the oration of Mr. Bancroft. They have been waiting for a steel plate of the late President. The oration delivered by my friend from Maryland [Mr. CRESWELL] will be out very soon. The Public Printer received only a few days ago a single order to print three million blanks for the internal revenue branch of the Treasury Department.

Mr. GRIMES. I thought they had a printing office of their own.

Mr. ANTHONY. Not for such purposes as that, only for engraving.

Mr. GRIMES. They print reports. Mr. ANTHONY. They have a little printing office there; but this job I speak of will employ seventeen presses for some time. This is the usual resolution that has been adopted every year.

The resolution was agreed to.

Mr. ANTHONY. I am instructed by the Committee on Printing, to whom was referred a resolution to print one thousand copies of