« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 45, nays 63, not voting 75; as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Barker, Bergen, Bundy, Chanler, Conkling, Darling, Davis, Dawson, Defrees, Denison. Eldridge, Finck, Goodyear, Grider, Aaron Harding, Hart, Holmes, Asahel W. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Kerr, Kuykendall, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, Le Blond, Marshall, Mercur, Miller, Morrill, Niblack, Pike, Ritter, Rogers, Schenck, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Stevens. Strouse, Taber, Trimble, Burt Van Horn, Henry D. Washburn, Whaley, Stephen F. Wilson, and Windom-45.
NAYS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Baxter, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall, Cobb, Cook, Dawes, Deming, Donnelly, Dumont, Eckley, Eggleston, Farnsworth, Garfield, Abner C. Harding, Hayes, Henderson, Hooper, Chester D. Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Hulburd, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelso, William Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Marston, McKee, Moorhead. Orth, Paine, Patterson, Perham, Plants, Price, William H. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, Rollins, Ross, Sawyer, Smith, Spalding, Stilwell, Van Aernam, Ward, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Welker, Williams, James F. Wilson, and Woodbridge-63.
NOT VOTING-Messrs. Ancona, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, Beaman, Blaine, Blow. Boyer, Brandegee, Buckland, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Coffroth, Cullom, Culver, Delano, Dixon, Dodge, Driggs, Eliot, Farquhar, Ferry, Glossbrenner, Grinnell, Griswold, Hale, Harris, Higby, Hill, Hogan, Hotchkiss, Edwin N. Hubbell, James Humphrey, James M. Humphrey, Ingersoll, Johnson, Jones, Kelley, Ketcham, Latham, Lynch, Marvin, McClurg, McCullough, McIndoe, McRuer, Morris, Moulton, Myers, Newell, Nicholson, Noell, O'Neill, Phelps, Pomeroy, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, Raymond, John H. Rice, Rousseau, Scofield, Shellabarger, Sloan, Starr, Taylor, Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Thornton, Trowbridge, Upson, Robert T. Van Horn, Warner, Wentworth, Winfield, and Wright-75.
So the resolution was not agreed to.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move to reconsider the vote just taken; and also move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
OHIO CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE.
Mr. DAWES, from the Committee of Elections, submitted a report in the case of Follett against Delano, accompanied by the following
Resolved, That Hon. Columbus Delano is entitled to the seat occupied by him in this House as a Representative from the thirteenth district of Ohio in the Thirty-Ninth Congress.
The report was laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.
A message was received from the Senate, by Mr. FORNEY, its Secretary, notifying the House that that body had passed a bill and joint resolution of the House of the following titles with amendments, in which he was directed to ask the concurrence of the House:
An act (H. R. No. 280) making appropriations for the Post Office Department during the fiscal year ending 30th of June, 1867, and for other purposes; and
A joint resolution (H. R. No. 130) carrying into effect the bill to provide for the better organization of the pay department of the Navy.
Also, that the Senate had passed a joint resolution and bills of the following titles, in which he was directed to ask the concurrence of the House:
A joint resolution (S. R. No. 88) authorizing the Secretary of War to grant the use of certain lumber for a fair of a Soldiers' and Sailors' Home;
An act (S. No. 127) for the relief of Jonathan W. Gordon, late major in the eleventh regiment of infantry; and
An act (S. No. 310) to change the place of holding the courts of the United States for the northern district of Mississippi.
CENSURE OF A MEMBER.
Mr. SCHENCK. I rise to a question of privilege, and submit the following resolution: Resolved, That JOHN W. CHANLER, & Representative from the seventh district of the State of New York, by presenting this day a resolution to be considered by this House in the following terms: Resolved, That the independent, patriotic, and constitutional course of the President of the United States, in seeking to protect by the veto power the rights of the people of this Union against the wicked and revolutionary acts of a few malignant and mischievous men, meets with the approval of this House and deserves the cordial support of all loyal citizens of the United States," has thereby attempted a gross insult to the House, and is hereby censured therefor.
Mr. Speaker, I ought perhaps to have proposed a resolution of expulsion, but did not, simply because I doubted whether the member from New York was capable of comprehending fully the offensiveness of the language used in his resolution.
I have also, it will be observed, described his insult as being not offered to the House but attempted, that being about as far, I think, as he was able to go. Mr. ROGERS.
I think the other side had better expel him as they hardly have members enough over there.
Mr. SCHENCK. The occurrence was so recent there is no necessity for argument, and I therefore demand the previous question.
Mr. FINCK. It is too late to introduce the resolution; it ought to have been done at the moment; other business has intervened.
The SPEAKER. If the gentleman will refer to the rule be will find it refers to words spoken in debate.
Mr. CHANLER. I hope the point of order will be withdrawn. I do not seek any technical protection.
Mr. ROGERS. Does the resolution reflect on any person?
Mr. SCHENCK. If the gentleman does not comprehend it I cannot enlighten him.
Mr. ROGERS. It names no members of Congress.
Mr. LE BLOND. I appeal to my colleague not to insist on the call for the previous ques tion; to let the resolution be printed, and lie over for consideration and discussion."
guage clearer than it is. It is a gross attempt at a gross insult, which only falls harmless because of the incompetency of the member from New York.
Mr. SCHENCK. There is no possible discussion to my mind which can make this lan
The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.
Mr. CHANLER. Is the member accused to have no hearing?
The SPEAKER. No debate is in order, the previous question having been seconded. Mr. DARLING. I hope my colleague will be allowed to be heard.
Mr. LE BLOND. I move that the resolution be laid upon the table; and on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Mr. SCHENCK. I suppose it is perfectly proper for me to make a remark.
The SPEAKER. Debate is not in order after the demand for the previous question. Mr. SCHENCK. I do not propose any debate.
Mr. CHANLER. Mr. Speaker, what object lies behind the resolution of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK] it is impossible for me or this House to discern. What motive actuated myself in presenting that resolution I alone know; and for him to assume and to declare in the form of a resolution that the words which I have presented to this House constitute an insult to the House; for him to make that assertion puts the charge of offering the insult upon himself. If he feels the sting, let him suffer. I am not called upon to retract one word, and not one word will I retract. What I meant I will not reveal, for the reason that the words of that resolution are so plain and simple that no politically honest man, who believes in the right of free speech and of free debate, and who respects the privileges of this House, will for one moment consider exceptionable, or fail to understand as having a general political meaning. If I did mean to insult this House it would be a presumption far beyond any merit that I have ever assumed to have.
When the veto of the President of the United States fell upon this House like a thunderbolt he may have insulted this House. He may be so charged by the partisans of those who moved to sustain the previous question, and had he been a member of either body of Congress he would have been expelled for expressing the opinions contained in his veto, as he is now threatened with assassination, as he is now threatened with impeachment, and as he has to meet the hostility of the whole body of men organized as a majority on this floor. But that I should have the good fortune, through the mischievous malignity of any member of the House, by a resolution of censure, to be placed in a position of champion of the President for sustaining the policy of the Administration as displayed by the acts of the Executive, I am too proud to feel for one moment regret, although utterly unworthy of the honor. meant not to thrust myself into a prominence so invidious, and into a position which I do not deem myself called upon to take, or capable to maintain. The responsibility of that position belongs to those who elected the Chief Magistrate. And if, because of the conscientious discharge of his duty, he is assailed here by
shall not hold us responsible, those of us who offer resolutions of this character are held up as worthy of censure.
Now, what have these few constituting this committee done? Have they offered to this body one single reason for their course, one argument for their report, or introduced one legislative act which will enable the Executive, in the discharge of his public duties, to use the powers which the Constitution gives him to save the people. That, sir, is the select few, that is the body of men against whom that resolution was hurled, those and the people who support it; against those few in comparison with the great body of the people outside of this House who support the action of that select committee.
those who elected him, and defended here by those who had naught to do with his election, I cannot see the reason, logic, or political sequence in any form that will make a member reprehensible for rising in his seat and presenting a resolution as I have, admitted by the Presiding Officer of this House to be in order, and to be subject only to the action of the House. Sir, that any member should be held accountable and liable to censure for such action is a compliment, and as such I accept it.
And, sir, what have been the precedents offered by that side of the House in the treatment of public opinion as expressed by the Opposition? What course has been pursued with regard to the humble few who claim the right on this floor of opposing encroachments made by the majority upon the Constitution, as we honestly believe? Is there any language that can be found in Billingsgate or Hudibras, any low term of political reproach, any indecent slang, any hateful anathema, that is not made use of toward the minority here day after day, and put upon the wings of the press and carried to every quarter of this country?
Sir, is this done by one who is spotless or free from the reproach which he would apply to the humblest member on this side? Who is insulted when a Representative on this side is branded as unworthy? That member? No, sir. This House? No, sir; but the people-the people whom we represent; the constituency for whose interest we come here and in whose behalf we speak and vote. And if the people that I represent deem, as I believe they do, that the course of mischievous men has interfered with the wise, constitutional policy of the President, I will declare it, day by day and hour by hour, though all the forces of the opposite party here concentered were to seek by every rule allowed by the practice of the House to stop my speech. What care I for the paper resolutions of any political organization in any political body, if I here conscientiously discharge my duties as a Representative? And I claim, in that capacity, to stand without reproach. I have never given a vote here or raised my voice in debate here without keeping within the rules and regulations of the House. What mistakes may be made in the impetuosity of debate, in the eagerness to fulfill our duty toward our constituents is aside from the motives with which we may be actuated. But no act of mine has ever cast reproach upon the constituency I represent, and no act of the member from Ohio can cast infamy on me. As to any personal rebuke which may fall upon myself, I look it as upon too ridiculous to need serious consideration. I regret, Mr. Speaker, that my resolution was not allowed to take the usual course without involving me in these personalities. I wish to say in regard to the resolution that it is as harmless a resolution as was ever introduced into this House.
The resolution only meets the line of argument which the majority on this floor have advanced from time to time by condensing what I deem a fitting reply in a few words. That is all there is in the resolution. Such resolutions are often presented. Why this stringent cord drawn around this particular resolution? Why the bow-string and the knout here? Why this lash which has driven the majority here to vote with such unanimity?
Do you suppose that your lash can reach any man on this side of the House? If you do, you are very much mistaken. The action of the few men who control this Congress and this Government is subject to very strict criticism; it is worthy of denunciation; it is worthy of the loudest anathemas; and as a Representative on this floor, had I the power of eloquence, I should seek to crush the majority by all the stinging and searching arguments which their own acts offer me.
Gentlemen seem to think that because they hold seats here in the majority they rule this country. They think that the powers which have descended them from the hands of upon the people, according to the forms of the Constitution, give them unlimited control for all time to come. They think that the great plea of necessity under which, during the turmoils of war, they controlled the acts of the Government is valid now, and gives them the right to carry on a system of government they then established, a system peculiar in itself, opposed to the Constitution, and pronounced by an Executive chosen by themselves to be unconstitutional. Your term of office is limited, and the power you exercise is limited, and its end is near.
Mr. SPALDING. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment?
We are few in numbers here, but not as few as the peculiar body which controls the action of both branches of Congress, contrary to the established rules and practice of American legislation. And because we oppose the action of this select committee and declare that it
So much for that portion of the resolution. I have not at any time addressed the House upon that select committee, because it was like talking to the idle wind or firing at the insensible rock.
Now, with regard to the second part of the resolution
Mr. CHANLER. Certainly.
Mr. SPALDING. I desire to ask the gentleman if in his resolution he intended to malign the majority of this House or any portion of that majority.
Mr. CHANLER. Not at all. There is not a word in the resolution that applies to any organization or set of men whatever. I drew up that resolution with special view to avoid any such inference, and the Speaker, in his ruling, most justly remarked that it was a question for the action of the House. If I had insulted the body over which he presides, is he not competent, and has he not always shown a prompt readiness to do so, to check the consideration of the resolution at the very start? Of course I meant no personality whatever, and nothing but a malignant feeling on his part could have prompted the resolution of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SCHENCK,] and I thank the other gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SPALDING] for directing that question to me. I did not deem it necessary for me to make such an avowal, for there is nothing in the resolution that calls for a motion of censure.
Mr. DAWES. Will the gentleman from New York [Mr. CHANLER] yield for a question? Mr. CHANLER. Certainly.
Now, sir, I wish that the true motives which actuated me in this case should not be misunderstood. I do not wish to delay the House, or to disturb or interrupt the proceedings before it. But it is due to this House and to myself that they should understand that there is a potent power and an admirable use in a minority. A minority of one man, if he is conscientious in the discharge of his duties, is as able a check upon improper parliamentary proceedings as a minority of fifty or of any number. Now, if the constituency which I represent upon this floor is to be turned upon and censured by the majority for saying what it thinks through its agent, why in the name of reason do you invite them to send a Representative here? If the majority of this House are to show this thin-skinned sensitiveness to the utterances of truths, how is there to be any minority worthy of that name in the system of American government? Are we, because we differ from them to cringe, and gather thrift by fawning?
.Mr. DAWES. I desire to read to the gentleman from New York a portion of one of the resolutions, and then ask him in good faith what he means by that portion of it:
Resolved. That the independent, patriotic, and constitutional course of the President of the United States in seeking to protect by the veto power the rights of the people of this Union against the wicked and revolutionary acts of a few malignant and mischievous men, &c.
Now, I desire to ask the gentleman from New York to whom he refers by the expres sion, "a few malignant and mischievous men," against whose "wicked and revolutionary acts" the "President of the United States is seeking to protect by the veto power the rights of the people of this Union."
Mr. CHANLER. Every malignant and malicious individual, [laughter,] collectively, connected with this Government or any other, who attempts to interfere with the President's power to protect the people, without regard to race or color, particularly the light brown.
Mr. DAWES. I wish the gentleman to answer me directly whether he meant by his resolution to refer to the majority of Congress who voted for the acts which the President has vetoed. Will he state whether he did or did not intend to include that majority or any portion of them?
Mr. CHANLER. In just so much as they did interfere with the rights of the people.
Mr. DAWES. I ask the gentleman whether he intended to include them.
Mr. CHANLER. No more and no less than I have stated. I have already made my declaration, in answer to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SPALDING,] that I meant nothing whatever in the form of insult or personality as applied to this House or any member. It was a "glittering generality;" that is all.
Mr. DAWES. Will the gentleman answer one more question?
Mr. CHÂNLER. Certainly.
Mr. DAWES. Will the gentleman please to state to the House in what manner it is possible to include anybody else than the members of the House and of the Senate who voted for the acts against which he says the President is defending the people by the exercise of his veto power?
Mr. CHANLER. I allude to those who influence the men on the other side. I allude to those to whom the majority in Congress are responsible. I allude to those mischievous and malignant men who, using the pulpit for fulminating revolutionary and wicked doctrines, have roused the people to acts of incendiarism and bloodshed. I mean all those infamous and wicked men who, for political purposes, have perverted every avenue to honor that they may gain wealth and position. Is the gentleman satisfied? Does the language apply to him? Does the galled jade wince, or does he feel that his withers are unwrung?
Mr. DAWES. If the gentleman has no objection to answering one more question, will he be kind enough to state to the House whose acts the President vetoed?
Mr. CHANLER. He can veto only the acts of Congress. The President, acting as Presi dent, can by his veto power strike only the acts of Congress. Every one must see that the gentleman's question is utterly useless. But what I mean is, that in these vetoes the President has struck broader and deeper than any act of Congress. He has roused in the hearts of the American people throughout this whole country a hope that had almost ceased to exist. He has struck a forcible blow against what I deem a most dangerous combination against the welfare of the country. I did not mean to say that any man on this floor is any more incendiary or revolutionary in his conduct than myself. Gentlemen on the other side daily indulge in charges against gentlemen on this side, calling them traitors, &c.; and am I to be called to account because I reply in a gen eral assertion which touches no individual?
burn, Welker, Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, and Woodbridge-72.
NAYS-Messrs. Bergen, Darling, Davis, Dawson, Denison, Eldridge, Finck, Goodyear, Grider, Aaron Harding, Hogan, James R. Hubbell, Kerr, Laflin, Le Blond, Marshall, Niblack, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Rousseau, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Smith, Strouse, Taber, Trimble, Burt Van Horn, Ward, and Henry D. Washburn-30.
Am I to be arraigned here by a system of crossquestions because as a member I have said what I think?
Sir, the President stands before you to-day as a giant, and there is no David in ranks your to bring him down. I do not presume to be his defender. I do not claim to be your superiors, but I do claim to be your equals, and I am not over proud of it either.
There is nothing more hostile to my inclinations and more at variance with the intention I had when this resolution was offered than the personality which has grown out of this debate. I hope my friends [turning to the Democratic members] are satisfied that while I boldly announced in the resolution what I believed true, I as boldly have maintained it in the foregoing remarks. I retract not one word. I accept the question of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SPALDING] as the suggestion of a friend. It enabled me to remove all impression that the resolution was meant to be obnoxious. I will answer no more questions. I mean no wrong, and I will suffer no wrong. I care not for the persecution of the malignant member from Ohio, [Mr. SCHENCK,] or for the political censure of the majority of the Republican party in or out of this House. If by my defiance I could drive your party from this Hall I would do so. If by my vote I could crush you, I would do so, and put the whole party, with your leader, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS,] into that political hell surrounded by bayonets, referred to by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] in his argument on Thursday last.
Now, vote upon this resolution of censure. Mr. ELDRIDGE. I understand the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LE BLOND] does not press the motion to lay upon the table, as the gentleman from New York prefers a direct vote on the resolution.
The question recurred on the adoption of the resolution, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 72, nays 30, not voting 81; as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Barker, Baxter, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Blaine, Blow, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Cook, Cullom, Dawes, Deming, Eckley, Garfield, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Hayes, Henderson, Higby, Holmes, Hooper, Chester D. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Hulburd, Julian, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marston, McClurg, McKee, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Orth, Paine, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Plants, Price, Alexander II. Rice, Rollins, Sawyer, Schenck, Spalding, Stevens, Van Aernam, Warner, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Wash
NOT VOTING-Messrs. Ancona, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, Banks, Beaman, Boyer, Brandegee, Buckland, Chanler. Coffroth, Conkling, Culver, Defrees, Delano, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eggleston, Eliot, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Glossbrenner, Grinnell, Griswold, Hale, Harris, Hill, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, James Humphrey, James M. Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Johnson, Jones, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Latham, Marvin, McCullough, McIndoe, McRuer, Morris, Moulton, Myers, Newell, Nicholson, Noell, O'Neill, Phelps, Pomeroy, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, William II. Randall, Raymond, John H. Rice, Scofield, Shellabarger, Sloan, Starr, Stilwell, Taylor, Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Thornton, Trowbridge, Upson, Robert T. Van Horn, Wentworth, Whaley, Windom, Winfield, and Wright-81.
So the resolution was adopted.
Mr. SCHENCK moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE MEMPHIS RIOT.
The SPEAKER announced the following as the select committee on the Memphis riot ordered this morning: Messrs. WASHBURNE of Illinois, BOUTWELL of Massachusetts, and LE BLOND of Ohio.
On motion of Mr. KASSON, the House took from the Speaker's table House bill No. 397, to authorize the coinage of a five-cent piece, and concurred in the amendment of the Senate thereto.
Mr. KASSON moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was concurred in; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
NEW YORK POST OFFICE, ETC.
On motion of Mr. DARLING, the House took up and concurred in the Senate amendments to House joint resolution No. 66, relative to the courts and post office of New York city.
TAXING NATIONAL BANKS.
Mr. BLAINE, by unanimous consent, introduced the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:
Whereas, by reason of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, stock of national banks is made subject to the same rate of taxation with other property by State and municipal authority: Therefore,
Resolved, That the Committee of Ways and Means be instructed to inquire into the expediency of removing all taxes levied by the national Government on said banks, except the half per cent. per annum on the average amount of their deposits.
Mr. BLAINE moved to reconsider the motion by which the resolution was agreed to; and also moved to lay that motion on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.
Mr. HOLMES, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill for the relief of William Joslin, of Vermont; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
GEORGE R. FRANK.
On motion of Mr. COBB, by unanimous consent, leave was granted to withdraw from the files of the House the papers in the case of George R. Frank, copies being left.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
Mr. FERRY asked and obtained leave of absence for his colleague, Mr. BEAMAN, for ten days.
Mr. PRICE asked and obtained leave of absence for his colleague, Mr. GRINNELL, for ten days.
POST OFFICE APPROPRIATION BILL. On motion of Mr. STEVENS, the amendments to the Post Office appropriation bill by
the Senate were taken up from the Speaker's table and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
UNITED STATES COURTS IN MISSISSIPPI.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table Senate bill No. 310, to change the place of holding the courts of the United States for the northern district of Mississippi for action at the present time.
The bill was read a first and second time, and ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was read the third time and passed.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
Mr. HUBBARD, of Connecticut. I desire to state that when the vote was taken on Thursday last on the proposed amendment to the Constitution I was unavoidably absent. Had I been here I would have voted for it.
Mr. VAN AERNAM. I notice in the proceedings as reported in the Globe that I am recorded as not voting on the motion ordering the main question. I was here and voted.
Mr. DENISON. Mr. Speaker, I ask to be allowed to record my vote on the constitutional amendment.
Provided further, That the Secretary of the Treasury shall be, and he is hereby, authorized to fix such additional rates of compensation to be made to assessors and assistant assessors in cases where a collection district embraces more than a single congressional district, and to assessors and assistant assessors, revenue agents, and inspectors in Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Texas. Arkansas, North Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Missouri, California, and Oregon, and the Territories, as may appear to him to be just and equitable, in consequence of the greater cost of living and traveling in those States and Territories, and as may, in his judgment, benecessary to secure the services of competent officers; but the rates of compensation thus allowed shall not exceed the rates paid to similar officers in such States and Territories respectively.
ant assessors are paid five dollars a day, as they have been for some time, I believe, it will not increase the expenses of the internal revenue department to any large amount, but in various portions of those States which are not yet reconstructed, if we would obtain any revenue, it is absolutely indispensable to allow for a small increase of pay; and as we heard from the gen tleman from California [Mr. HIGBY] the other day, it always has been necessary there to have a provision of this kind in order that we may collect taxes there, for they pay higher rates of wages there than we do on the Atlantic coast.
I trust the gentleman from Rhode Island will be content with the amendment I propose and will not insist on striking out the proviso. In Missouri, I believe, there are officers now appointed in all the congressional districts, and it may be possible, although somewhat inconvenient, to get along in that State without this increase of pay.
Mr. JENCKES. I should be better contented if the gentleman would extend this power over the whole United States and not restrict it as he proposes. This proviso gives the Secretary power to regulate the compensation of these officers in thirteen States and all the Territories. The inequalities in compensation arising out of the inequalities in service are as great in the States omitted as they can be in the States enumerated; and if the Secretary is to have the power of fixing the salaries of these officers in this large number of States and in all the Territories, why not extend the power to all the States and all the congressional districts?
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I move to insert the word "Nevada" after the word "California."
Mr. MORRILL. If the gentleman desires an answer, I will say to him that, of course, we do not expect that this will be more than a temporary provision. Congress will meet again next December, and it is hoped that by that time we may be able to strike out a large part of the proviso, but until these States are in a better condition than they now are, it seems to me eminently proper that the proviso should remain.
Mr. JENCKES. This proviso is not clear enough. It says the rates of compensation thus allowed shall not exceed the rates paid to similar officers in such States and Territories respectively."
That does not seem to me to be a clear limitation. If the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. MORRILL,] representing the Committee of Ways and Means, will move a distinct limitation of these rates of compensation, that they shall not exceed in any State a certain sum, either per diem or of annual compensation, it might obviate to a great extent the objection I make to this proviso.
Mr. MORRILL. How does the gentleman propose to amend it?
Mr. JENCKES. I propose no amendment; I ask the gentleman to fix a rate, either per diem or of annual compensation. Under this proviso, where these officers are paid an annual compensation, the Secretary may fix it at ten or twenty thousand dollars.
Mr. MORRILL. I shall have no objection to the gentleman's amendment if he will offer one to meet that difficulty.
Mr. JENCKES. I ask the gentleman who has had this subject under consideration to move a distinct limitation of pay, and then I will withdraw all objection to the proviso.
Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I move to insert in the proviso, after the word "California," the word "Nevada."
The CHAIRMAN. That is not in order. There are two amendments already pending. The question was taken on Mr. MORRILL'S amendment to strike out the word "Missouri;" and it was agreed to.
Mr. MORRILL. I move now to amend the proviso by striking out the words "but the rates of compenstion thus allowed shall not exceed the rates paid to similar officers in such States and Territories respectively," and to insert in lieu thereof the words "the sum of $5,000 per annum."
The amendment was agreed to.
That portion of the paragraph will then read: And there shall be allowed and paid to each assistant assessor four dollars for every day actually employed in collecting lists and making valuations, the number of days necessary for that purpose to be certified by the assessor, and three dollars for every hundred persons assessed contained in the tax list, as completed and delivered by him to the assessor, and twenty-five cents for each permit granted to any tobacco, snuff, or cigar manufacturer; and the several assistant assessors in cities of more than ten thousand inhabitants shall be allowed, in the settlement of their accounts, a sum not exceeding $300 per annum for office rent; but no account for such rent shall be allowed or paid until it shall have been verified in such manner as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall require, and shall have been audited and approved by the proper officer of the Treasury Depart
If this amendment shall be adopted, it will give the assistant assessors, during the time in which they are engaged in performing the duties of their offices, the sum of five dollars a day. The provision as it now stands is that they shall have four dollars a day, and one dollar additional for each day they are performing duties outside of the town in which they reside.
A great deal of complaint has been found in my own district, in regard to the pay of assistant assessors; and a great many petitions have been presented asking Congress to increase their compensation. It is certainly the poorestpaid office, for the responsibility devolving upon the person who holds it, of all the offices under the Government. Although the provision here proposed may be sufficient in the cities, where the assessors are living at their homes, and where the duties of their offices keep them employed every day in the year, I am sure it will be unjust in its operation upon assistant assessors who live in the rural districts.
Now the proposition to give them a dollar a day extra for each day they are engaged in the duties of their office outside of the town in which they reside does not really provide what is just for these men. When these men, in a county like my own, are called upon to go out of the town in which they reside to perform the duties of their office, having no railroad communications to accommodate them, they are obliged to take a conveyance, either their own or one hired. And if they hire a conveyance, the price they will be compelled to pay for it will be equal to at least the half of the five dollars a day which they shall receive.
lieu of office rent, which they can account for as office rent or for any other necessary purpose. Mr. WOODBRIDGE. I think my amend ment is preferable.
Mr. MORRILL. I do not rise to oppose the amendment. It was thought by the Committee of Ways and Means that these officers should receive some additional pay, and they proposed it in the shape of an allowance for office rent. The most of them are compelled to have an office, and this sum of $300 would enable the most of them to rent an office or a house sufficiently capacious to accommodate their families and furnish an office. I agree with my colleague [Mr. WOODBRIDGE] that it is necessary for us to have competent, vigilant men for these offices, men of integrity. And I do not object to the proposition in the form in which my colleague has offered it, if the House shall deem it more desirable than the form reported by the committee.
The amendment of Mr. WoOODBRIDGE Was then agreed to.
Now, I think that justice should be done to these officers. They are very important officers of the Government, and should be well enough paid to prevent there being any inducement held out to them either to do wrong or to neglect the duties imposed upon them. If my amendment is adopted, they will receive five dollars a day during the time they are engaged in the duties of their office, whether at home or elsewhere. The addition of one dollar a day for services in adjacent towns of the district by no means meets the additional expenses the officers are obliged to incur in procuring conveyances.
I think my amendment is a just one, and I hope it will meet with no opposition from my friend, the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, [Mr. MORRILL.]
Mr. DARLING. I think another amendment could be made to this paragraph which will give these assistant assessors the additional pay which is deemed necessary for them. It is to strike out the word "for" before the words "office rent" and insert the words "in lien of;" thus giving them the sum of $300 in
Mr. COOK. I move further to amend this paragraph by inserting after the words "and for postage actually paid on letters and documents received or sent, and relating exclusively to official business," the words, "and for money actually paid for publishing the notices required by this act;" so as to pay back to these officers the money they are actually required to pay out for the publication of the notices.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DARLING. I move to amend by striking out in line two hundred and ninety the word "for" before the word "office," and inserting in its place the words "in lieu of;" so that the clause will read as follows:
And the several assistant assessors in cities of more than ten thousand inhabitants shall be allowed, in the settlement of their accounts, a sum not exceeding $300 per annum in lieu of office rent.
This amendment will make the amount definite; and I think it is just and proper. These assistant assessors are very inadequately paid. In the city of New York men of the requisite ability can scarcely be induced to take these places. It is the poorest kind of economy to undertake to execute a law requiring so much official fidelity as this law requires, and at the same time, in consequence of offering paltry compensation, go begging for competent men to accept these offices. Such system is calculated to invite into these positions a class of men who ought not to hold them.
Mr. SPALDING. This amendment, as I understand, proposes to give to the assistant assessor $300 for office rent whether he hires an office or uses his own dwelling. Mr. DARLING. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPALDING. I am in favor of that. Mr. DARLING. It is just and proper, and there can be no reasonable objection to it. There is necessity for such a provision, not only in the city of New York, but in all other places where talent and efficiency are required in the execution of this law, which demands so much intelligence and fidelity on the part of the assistant assessors. Why, sir, I think it would be proper to give these men a salary of $2,500 or $3,000 per annum. I think that the Government would make money by paying such salaries, because more taxes would be collected and fewer frauds would be committed if the Government would induce the acceptance of these offices by a class of men who are now prevented from taking them because of the paltry compensation paid.
Why, sir, let the Government do as prudent men everywhere do in their business-employ the best talent for the execution of duties requir ing talent and fidelity, and pay liberal salaries. The niggardly economy which is urged by many as the proper policy for the Government can only defeat the very object which the Govern ment has in view--the obtaining of the largest amount of revenue. If more attention were given to obtaining officers possessing the requisite qualifications, paying them salaries commensurate with their abilities, our revenue law
Mr. ALLISON. I move the following amendment in line three hundred and twenty-seven: Amend section twenty-five by adding the following at the end of the section:
Provided further, That in calculating the commissions of assessors and collectors of internal revenue in districts whence cotton or distilled spirits are shipped in bond, to be sold in another district, one half the amount of tax received on the quantity of cotton or spirits so shipped shall be added to the amount on which the commissions of such assessors and collectors are calculated; and a corresponding amount shall be deducted from the amounts on which the commissions of the assessors and collectors of the districts to which such cotton or spirits are shipped are calculated.
would be better executed and we should hear less of collusion and fraud and corruption in the administration of the law. I trust, therefore, that the amendment which I have offered will prevail.
Mr. MORRILL. I trust that the amendment will not prevail. There are a great many districts in which the renting of an office is not necessary; yet under this amendment $300 for this item would be paid in all cases. If the amendment should not prevail I shall offer an amendment striking out in line two hundred and eighty-nine the words "a sum" and inserting "such sum as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may approve." I think that this will make the provision more acceptable to the House and perhaps to the gentleman from New York.
The amendment was not agreed to.
Mr. MORRILL. I now move to amend by striking out in line two hundred and eighty-nine the words "a sum" and inserting in lieu thereof the words, "such sum as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall approve;" so that the clause will read :
And the several assistant assessors in cities of more than ten thousand inhabitants shall be allowed, in the settlement of their accounts, such sum as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall approve, not exceeding $300 per annum for office rent.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MORRILL. I move further to amend by inserting after the word "authorized" in line three hundred and ten the following:
Provided further, That the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may, under such regulations as may be established by the Secretary of the Treasury, after due public notice, receive bids and contract for supplying stationery, blank books and blanks to the assessors, assistant assessors, and collectors in the several collection districts.
Mr. Chairman, all other Departments of the Government, I believe, are now required by
law to advertise for bids and contract with the lowest bidder for materials of this sort. There
appears to be no reason why this Department
should not conform to the same rule.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WOODBRIDGE. I move to amend by striking out in lines two hundred and eightyseven and two hundred and eighty-eight the words "in cities of more than ten thousand inhabitants."
Sir, it is now provided by the second section that in cities of more than ten thousand inhabitants there shall be allowed to the assistant Assessor, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, a sum not exceeding $300 per annum for office rent.
I think this distinction is invidious. I happen to reside in probably the smallest but certainly the oldest city in New England, and in my judgment the most respectable one I am acquainted with. [Laughter.] Now, the assistant assessor in my district ought to have an office as much as the assistant assessor in New York. I am not aware why a man liv ing in the oldest city in New England should do duty in his kitchen or in his parlor for the public, instead of having an office for that pose. I do not know why those who live in populous places are better entitled to have an office than those who live in smaller places. The latter certainly should be allowed some reasonable sum for office rent. If you have a population of nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine under the law you can have no allowance for office rent. It is a distinction in a republican form of government I do not believe in. I believe in every assessor being on an equality in respect to having some place where he can attend to his public duties. If I were an assessor I am quite sure I would not have an office in my house, which, as my castle and that of my family, must be held sacred, but would like to have some place elsewhere as an office. This distinction as to population is wrong. I believe whether the population be nine thousand or three hundred thousand the assessor should have an office in which to do his business.
The amendment was agreed to.
39TH CONG. 1ST SESS.-No. 162.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Clerk read as follows:
That section twenty-six be amended by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following: that in the adjustment of the accounts of assessors and collectors of internal revenue which shall acerue after the 30th of June, 1864, and in the payment of their compensation for services after that date, the fiscal year of the Treasury shall be observed; and where such compensation, or any part of it, shall be by commissions upon assessments or collections, and shall during any year, in of a new appointment, be due to more consequence than one assessor or collector in the same district, such commissions shall be apportioned between such assessors or collectors; but in no case shall a greater amount of thecommissions be allowed to two or more assessors or collectors in the same district than is or may be authorized by law to be allowed to one assessor or collector. And the salary and commissions of assessors and collectors heretofore earned and accrued shall be adjusted, allowed, and paid in conformity to the provisions of this section, and not otherwise; but no payment shall be made to assessors or collectors on account of salaries or commissions without the certificate of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that all reports required by law or regulation have been received or that a satisfactory explanation has been rendered to him of the cause of the delay.
Mr. MORRILL. I desire to ask unanimous consent that this paragraph be reserved until after we have come to the part relating to the salaries.
accordingly. There was no objection, and it was ordered
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent to go back. I move to amend in the two hundred and thirty-ninth line, so that it will read, "where the receipts of the collection district shall not exceed the sum of $100,000," &c.
Mr. DARLING. I suggest to the gentleman that he insert as follows: "Where the receipts of the collection district shall not exceed
$100,000 one per cent." That will carry out the gentleman's idea, and I think will be equitable.
Mr. STEVENS. I modify my amendment as follows:
Strike out, in line two hundred and forty, these words: "Shall exceed $100,000 and," and also the words "in excess of."
Mr. MORRILL. That amendment has already been voted down when moved before by the gentleman's colleague, [Mr. THAYER.] The amendment was disagreed to.
The Clerk read the next paragraph, as follows:
That section twenty-eight be amended by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following: that each of said collectors shall, within twenty days after receiving his annual collection list from the assessors, give notice, by advertisement published in each county in his collection district, in one newspaper printed in such county, if any such there be, or otherwise in some newspaper in any adjacent county, and by notifications to be posted up in at least four public places in each county in his collection_district, that the said duties have become due and payable, and state the time and place within said county at which he or his deputy will attend to receive the same, which time shall not be less than ten days after the date of such notification. And if any person shall neglect to pay, as aforesaid, for more than ten days, it shall be the duty of the collector or his deputy to issue to such person a notice, to be left at his dwelling or usual place of business, or be sent by mail, demanding the payment of said duties or taxes, stating the amount thereof, with a fee of twenty cents for the issuing and service of such notice, and with four cents for each mile actually and necessarily traveled in serving the same. And if such persons shall not pay the duties or taxes, and the fee of twenty cents and mileage as aforesaid, within ten days after the service or the sending by mail of such notice, it shall be the duty of the collector or his deputy to collect the said duties or taxes, and fee of twenty cents and mileage, with a penalty of ten per cent. additional upon the amount of duties. And with respect to all such duties or taxes as are not included in the annual lists aforesaid, and all taxes and duties the collection of which is not otherwise provided for in this act, it shall be the duty of each collector, in person or by deputy, to demand
payment thereof, in the manner last mentioned, within ten days from and after receiving the list thereof from the assessor, or within twenty days from and after the expiration of the time within which such duty or tax should have been paid; and if the annual or other duties shall not be paid within ten days from and after such demand therefor, it shall be lawful for such collector or his deputies to proceed to collect the said duties or taxes, with ten per cent. additional thereto, as aforesaid, by distraint and sale of the goods, chattels, or effects, including stocks, securities, and evidences of debt, of the persons delinquent as aforesaid. And in case of distraint it shall be the duty of the officer charged with the collections to make, or cause to be made, an account of the goods, chattels, or effects distrained, a copy of which, signed by the officer making such distraint, shall be left with the owner or possessor of such goods, chattels, or effects, or at his or her dwelling or usual place of business, with some person of suitable age or discretion, if any such can be found, with a note of the sum demanded, and the time and place of sale; and the said officer shall forthwith cause a notification to be published in some newspaper within the county wherein said distraint is made, if there is a newspaper published in said county, or to be publicly posted up at the post office, if there be one within five miles, nearest to the residence of the person whose property shall be distrained, and in not less than two other public places, which notice shall specify the articles distrained, and the time and place for the sale thereof, which time shall not be less than ten nor more than twenty days from the date of such notification, and the place proposed for sale not more than five miles distant from the place of making such distraint. And said sale may be adjourned from time to time by said officer, if he shall think it advisable to do so, but not for a time to exceed in all thirty days. And in any case in which any person, bank, association, company, or corporation, required by law to make return to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, shall refuse or neglect to make such return within the time specified, the amount of tax or duty shall be estimated by the proper assessor or assistant assessor, and shall be certified by him to the Commissioner. And in all cases in which the person, bank, association, company, or corporation, required by law to make payment of taxes to the Commissioner, shall neglect or refuse to make such payment within the time required, the Commissioner shall certify the amount of tax due by such person, bank, association, or corporation, with all the penalties, additions, and expenses accruing to the collector of the proper district, who shall collect the same by distraint and sale, as in other cases. And the same proceedings may be had to enforce the collection of taxes which have already accrued and which still remain unpaid. And if any person, bank, association, company, or corporation, liable to pay any tax or duty, shall neglect or refuse to pay the same after demand, the amount shall be a lien in favor of the United States from the time it was due until paid, with the interests, penalties, and costs that may accrue in addition thereto, upon all property and rights to property belonging to such person, bank, association, company, or corporation; and the collector, after demand, may levy, or by warrant may authorize a deputy collector to levy upon all property and rights to property belonging to such person, bank, association, company, or corporation, or on which the said lien exists, for the payment of the sum duo as aforesaid, with interest and penalty for non-payment, and also of such further sum as shall be sufficient for the fees, costs, and expenses of such levy. And in all cases of sale, as aforesaid, the certificate of such sale shall transfer to the purchaser all right, title, and interest of such delinquent in and to the property sold; and where such property shall consist of stocks, said certificate shall be notice, when received, to any corporation, company, or association of said transfer, and shall be authority to such corporation, company, or association to record the same on their books and records, in the same manner as if transferred or assigned by the person or party holding the same in lieu of any original or prior certificates, which shall be void, whether cancelled or not, and said certificates, where the subject of sale shall be securities or other evidences of debt, shall be good and valid receipts to the person holding the same, as against any person holding, or claiming to hold, possession of such securities or other evidences of debt. And all persons, and officers of companies or corporations, are required, on demand of a collector or deputy collector about to distrain or having distrained on any property and rights of property, to exhibit all books containing, or supposed to contain, evidence or statements relating to the subject or subjects of distraint, or the property or rights of property liable to distraint for the tax so due as aforesaid: Provided. That in any case of distraint for the payment of the duties or taxes aforesaid, the goods, chattels, or effects so distrained shall and may be restored to the owner or possessor if prior to the sale payment of the amount due or tender thereof shall be made to the proper officer charged with the collection of the full amount demanded, together with such fee for levying, and such sum for the necessary and reasonable expense of removing, advertising, and keeping the goods, chattels, or effects so distrained, as may be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; but in case of non-payment or tender, as aforesaid, the said officer shall proceed to sell the said goods, chattels, or effects at public auction, and shall retain from the proceeds of such sale the amount demandable for the use of the United States, with the necessary and reasonable expenses of distraint and sale, and a commission of five per cent. thereon for his own use, rendering the overplus, if any there be, to the person who may be entitled to receive the same: Provided further, That there shall be exempt from distraint the school-books and apparel necessary for a family; also arms, one