the information of the violation of the law for which recovery is had.

Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I think those words have been stricken out already.

The CHAIRMAN. The clause has just been amended. The Clerk will report it as it now stands.

The Clerk read as follows:

And the penalty recovered shall be awarded and distributed by the court between the United States and the informers, if there be any, as provided by law.

Mr. WRIGHT. My motion is to strike out that clause as amended, and I am moved to do it because I think the principle is a wrong one. Mr. SCOFIELD. rise to a point of order. The clause objected to has just been voted in,

and a motion to strike it out is not in order.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair sustains the point of order. The amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey is not in order.

Mr. MYERS. In line twenty-two hundred and eighty-one I move to strike out the words one twentieth of one per cent.," and to insert in lieu thereof the words "at the rate of one cent for every $100;" so that the clause will read:

And there shall be paid on all sales by commercial brokers of any goods, wares, or merchandise, a tax at the rate of one cent for every $100 upon the amount of such sales, &c.

Mr. Chairman, I use these words because they are the words used in the tax provided for on page 99 in reference to stock-brokers and gold-brokers. There is no reason why commercial brokers should pay five times as much as stock-brokers; neither is there any reason why they should pay five times as much as commission merchants are required to do by another section of this act.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I concur entirely with my colleague.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is not in order in concurring. [Laughter.]

say

Mr. MORRILL. Mr. Chairman, I may

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I did not concur in my colleague's amendment, but only in some of his expressions.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair so understood the gentleman, and the floor has been given to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. MORRILL. I will give the gentleman from Pennsylvania a part of my five minutes. Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. Which part? [Laughter.j

Mr. MORRILL. [Laughter.]

Well, the first part.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I move to strike out "one twentieth" and insert "one fortieth," so as to make the tax "one fortieth of one per cent." I do it because I think the amendment of my colleague [Mr. MYERS] goes further than the House is willing to go. I think the House would be willing-I hope so at least to go for one fortieth of one per cent.

A few moments ago I stated the burdensome character of the tax imposed on commercial brokers by this section. Out of $2,500 profit the commercial broker has to pay one tenth part, or $250. My amendment proposes that he shall only pay $125.

Mr. MORRILL. Let me have the rest of my five minutes.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I think that this is a burdensome tax, and I hope the House will so amend the section as to take only $125 instead of $250.

Mr. MORRILL. I cannot give the gentleman any more of my time.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I will give you as much time as you wish. [Laugh

ter.]

Mr. MORRILL. I wish to say that I had a letter yesterday from one of the largest commercial brokers in New York, and the tax here imposed is entirely satisfactory to him.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I can explain that.

Mr. MORRILL. I hope the committee will not reduce the tax.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania.

Let me

||

answer that reference to the New Yorker. The New Yorkers charge the tax to the owners, whereas in all other cities it is not charged to the owners.

The amendment to the amendment was disagreed to.

The amendment of Mr. MYERS was then disagreed to.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I move the following amendment:

Provided further, That the provisions of this section shall not apply to sales of flour, wheat, pork, and beef.

Mr. Chairman, I move that for the reason the articles mentioned are articles of prime provisions every man has to have. And this necessity for poor men. They are substantial tax comes out of the men who produce them or who consume them. In either case it is unjust. The farmers in the West are taxed most un

They

mercifully. [Laughter.] Gentlemen who own large manufactories in the East may laugh, but I repeat there are no people so unmercifully taxed as the farmers of the West. They are taxed upon all the articles of husbandry. They are taxed upon everything they wear. are taxed upon every particle of leather and every stitch of clothing. You tax the farmer again and again; he is taxed upon his income, and if he has a large family you do not allow enough above a thousand dollars to support them. You tax them upon every bushel of wheat. You tax them upon every hog they raise for market. You tax them on the sale of all these articles of beef, pork, and flour. These sales are always managed through brokers. Beef, pork, and flour are shipped to Chicago and Buffalo to be sold by these brokers, and this tax reverts and is deducted from the value of the goods to the producer. It is out of the producer or the consumer and is wrong in either case.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. MORRILL. This is an old acquaintance which has been thoroughly discussed and every time defeated. The taxing of these articles when sold by brokers does not come out of the producer, but the sales reached are those made for the purposes of speculation. Daily in New York these contracts are made as in gold or bullion for the purposes of speculation. Beef, pork, and flour largely change hands in expectation of a rise or fall in the market. It is such sales as these that this tax reachessmall on legitimate trade and none too very large when it reaches speculators in bread and meal. I hope the amendment will be rejected. The amendment was rejected. The Clerk read as follows:

That section one hundred be amended by striking out all after the enacting clause, including schedule A and Inserting in lieu thereof the following. No amendment being offered, The Clerk read as follows:

That there shall be levied, annually, on every carriage, gold watch, and billiard table, and on all gold or silver plate, the tax or sums of money set down in figures against the same, respectively, or otherwise specified and set forth in schedule A, hereto annexed, to be paid by the person or persons owning, possessing, or keeping the same on the 1st day in May, in each year, and the same shall be and remain a lien thereon until paid.

Mr. GRISWOLD. I move to strike out the words "gold watch," "gold and silver plate." I do this because I regard it as a petty, annoying tax, unworthy the system we are inaugurating at the present time. I find the whole revenue from gold watches was only $9,000, and from gold and silver plate $117,000.

Mr. GARFIELD. I am sorry to see the distinguished gentleman from New York de

serting the committee. What can better bear taxation than gold watches, gold and silver plate, and luxuries indulged in by rich people? The amendment was disagreed to. The Clerk read as follows:

transportation of merchandise, valued at exceeding $300 and not above $500 each, including harness used therewith, six dollars.

No amendment being offered,
The Clerk read as follows:

Carriages of like description, valued above $500, each ten dollars.

On gold watches, composed wholly or in part of gold or gilt, kept for use, valued at $100 or less, each one dollar.

On gold watches, composed wholly or in part of gold or gilt, kept for use, valued at above $100, each, two dollars,

Billiard tables, kept for use, ten dollars.

Provided, That billiard tables kept for hire, and upon which a special tax has been imposed, shall not be required to pay the tax on billiard tables kept for notwithstanding." use, as aforesaid, anything herein to the contrary

Mr. ROSS. I move in line twenty-three hundred and twenty to insert after the word "use" the word "each."

The amendment was agreed to.
The Clerk read as follows:

On plate, of gold, kept for use, per ounce troy, fifty cents. On plate, of silver, kept for use. per ounce troy, five cents.

No amendment being offered,

The Clerk read as follows:

Provided, That silver spoons or plate of silver used by one family to an amount not exceeding forty ounces as aforesaid, belonging to any one person, plate belonging to religious societies, and souvenirs and keepsakes actually given and received as such and not kept for use; also, all premiums awarded as a token of merit by any agricultural society, corporation, or association of persons, for any purpose whatever, shall be exempt from duty.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to insert in lieu of the last word "duty" the word "tax." The amendment was agreed to.

The Clerk read as follows:

That sections one hundred and one and one hundred and two be, and the same are hereby, repealed.

Mr. MORRILL. I offer the following as a substitute for the next paragraph in the bill. It contains a few changes:

That section one hundred and three be amended by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following: that every person, firm, company, or corporation owning or possessing or having the care or management of any railroad, canal, steamboat, ship, barge, canal-boat or other vessel, or any stage-coach or other vehicle engaged or employed in the business of transporting passengers for hire, or in transporting the mails of the United States upon contracts made prior to the passage of this act, or any canal, the water of which is used for mining purposes, shall be subject to and pay a tax of two and one half per cent, of the gross receipts from passengers and mails of such railroad, canal, steamboat, ship, barge, canal-boat, or other vessel or such stage-coach or other vehicle: Provided, That the tax hereby imposed shall not be assessed upor receipts for the transportation of persons or mails between the United States and any foreign port; but such tax shall be assessed upon the transportation of persons from a port within the United States through a foreign territory to a port within the United States, and shall be assessed upon and collected from persons, firms, companies, or corporations within the United States, receiving hire or pay for such transportation of persons or mails: Provided also, That any person or persons, firms, companies, or corporations, owning, possessing, or having the care or management of any toll-road, ferry, or bridge, authorized by law to receive toll for the transit of passengers, beasts, carriages, teams, and freight of any description, over such toll-road, ferry, or bridge, shall be subject to and pay a tax of three per cent. of the gross amount of all their receipts of every description; but when the gross receipts of any such bridge or toll-road, for and during any term of twelve consecutive calendar months, shall not exceed the amount necessarily expended to keep such bridge or road in repair, no tax shall be assessed upon such receipts during any month next following any such term: And provided further, That all such persons, firms, companies, and corporations shall have the right to add the tax imposed hereby to their rates of fare whenever their liability thereto may commence, any limitations which may exist by law or by agreement with any person or company which may have paid or be liable to pay such fare to the contrary notwithstanding: And provided further, That no tax under this section shall be assessed upon any person, firm, company, or corporation whose gross receipts do not exceed $1,000 per annum,

Mr. WILSON, of lowa. If I understand this proposition it will impose this tax upon the gross receipts of the railroads, steamboats, or canal companies for carrying passengers or freights. That is the effect of it. It will require the payment of two and a half per cent. upon the gross receipts from the carrying of freights and passengers. The object of the committee is, I suppose, to assess the tax merely on the receipts from passengers.

Mr. HOTCHKISS. There is one feature of this amendment that I would like to understand. I do not understand that this is a tax upon these companies. It provides

That all such persons, firms, companies, and corporations shall have the right to add the tax imposed hereby to their rates of fare whenever their liability thereto may commence, any limitation which may exist by law or by agreement with any person orcompany which may have paid or be liable to pay such fare to the contrary notwithstanding.

This is simply a tax upon their customers. I would like to have it explained by the chairman of the committee.

Mr. MORRILL. I will modify my amendment by inserting after the words "gross receipts" the words "from passengers and mails." I have only to say that the law is left exactly as it now is with the exception of exempting all freights, and the provision objected to by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. HOTCHKISS,] which authorizes the railroads to add this tax to their rates of fare, is one that has always existed, and is more required in the gentleman's own State, New York, than in any other.

Mr. SPALDING. I desire to ask the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means a question.

Mr. MORRILL. Wait until I have answered the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SPALDING. Well, let us vote down the amendment.

Mr. MORRILL. If the gentleman will keep his temper until I reply to the gentleman from New York, he shall have a chance. The gentleman from New York knows very well that in his own State the roads are restricted[Here the hammer fell.]

If I

Mr. SPALDING. I hope this amendment will not prevail. I am opposed to it. understand it correctly, it is the very provision we discussed here two years ago for one or two days, and the chairman of the committee then yielded to us and put this tax in another shape in his bill. It now purports to be a tax upon the gross receipts of steamboats, railroads, &c., from passengers, but really, according to the amendment, there is very little difference made between passenger steamers and freight steamers. It will be a tax of two and a half per cent. upon the gross receipts of all railroads, freight steamers, canal-boats, and everything else. The bill which is sought to be amended is tolerably distinct.

Mr. MORRILL. The gentleman will see that, as modified, it only applies to receipts from passengers and mails.

Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman from Ohio yield to me for a moment?

Mr. SPALDING. Certainly, sir.

Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. This is a very important section, and I suggest that it be passed over informally, and that in the mean time the amendment offered be printed.

Mr. HOTCHKISS. I have moved an amendment to strike out the provision which imposes a tax upon passengers. The gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. MORRILL,] the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, says that in my State we need this provision. In that he is mistaken. In my State we have restricted the railroad companies to a certain charge upon passengers per mile, and we intend to hold the companies to that charge.

Mr. MORRILL. That was before any tax was levied.

Mr. HOTCHKISS. Precisely, and this steps in between the company and its passengers and changes the contract. We have provided by the legislation of the State of New York that these companies must abide by the provisions of their charters. We have more recently provided that no men shall ride upon their roads without paying their fares. I ask that my amendment be printed, together with that of the gentleman from Vermont.

The section was then passed over informally.

Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. Would

it be in order to ask the consent of the committee that the amendments offered be printed? The CHAIRMAN. The committee can give their consent, but that would not be an order to print.

The Clerk read as follows:

That section one hundred and seven be amended by striking out all after the enacting clause, and inserting in lieu thereof the following: that any person, firm, company, or corporation owning or pessessing or having the care or management of any telegraphic line by which telegraphic dispatches or messages are received or transmitted, shall be subject to and pay a tax of three per cent. on the gross amount of all receipts of such person, firm, company, or corporation.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to amend by adding to the paragraph the following proviso : Provided, That no returns shall be required of receipts not subject to tax.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Clerk read as follows:

That section one hundred and eleven be amended by inserting after the words "proprietors, managers, or agents of lotteries" the words "and all lottery ticket dealers."

No amendment being offered,
The Clerk read as follows:

That section one hundred and ten be amended by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting in licu thereof the following: that there shall be levied, collected, and paid a tax of one twentyfourth of one per cent. cach month upon the average amount of the deposits of money, subject to payment by check or draft, or represented by certificates of deposit or otherwise, whether payable on demand or at some future day, with any person, bank, association, company, or corporation engaged in the business of banking; and a tax of one twenty-fourth of one per cent. each month, as aforesaid, upon the capital of any bank, association, company, or corporation, and on the capital employed by any person in the business of banking beyond the amount invested in United States honds; and a tax of one twelfth of one per cent. each month upon the average amount of circulation issued by any bank, association, corporation, company, or person, including as circulation all certified checks and all notes and other obligations calculated or intended to circulate or to be used as money, but not including that in the vault of the bank, or redeemed and on deposit for said bank; and an additional tax of one sixth of one per cent. each month upon the average amount of such circulation, issued as aforesaid, beyond the amount of ninety per cent. of the capital of any such bank, association, corporation, company, or person. And on the first Monday of each month a true and accurate return of the amount of circulation, of deposit, and of capital, as aforesaid, and of the amount of notes of State banks or State banking associations paid out by them for the previous month, shall be made and rendered in duplicate by each of such banks, associations, corporations, companies, or persons to the assessor of the district in which any such bank, association, corporation, or company may be located, or in which such person may reside, with a declaration annexed thereto, and the oath or affirmation of such person, or of the president or cashier of such bank, association, corporation, or company, in such form and manner as may be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, that the same contains a true and faithful statement of the amounts subject to tax as aforesaid, and shall transmit the duplicate of said return to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and within twenty days thereafter shall pay to the said Commissioner of Internal Revenue the taxes by law prescribed upon the said amounts of circulation, of deposits of capital, and of notes of State banks and banking associations paid out as aforesaid; and for any refusal or neglect to make or to render such return and payment as aforesaid, any such bank, association, corporation, company, or person so in default, shall be subject to and pay a penalty of $200, besides the additional penalty and forfeitures in other cases provided by law; and the amount of circulation, deposit, capital, and notes of State banks and banking associations, as aforesaid, in default of the proper return, shall be estimated by the assessor or assistant assessor of the district as aforesaid, upon the best information he can obtain; and every such penalty, together with the taxes, maybe recovered for the use of the United States in any court of competent jurisdiction. And in the case of banks with branches, the tax herein provided for shall be imposed upon the circulation of each branch, severally, and the amount of capital of each branch shall be considered to be the amount allotted to such branch; and so much of an act entitled "An act to provide ways and means for the support of the Government," approved March 3, 1863, as imposes any tax on banks, their circulation, capital, or deposits, other than is herein provided, is hereby repealed: Provided, That this section shall not apply to associations which are taxed under and by virtue of the act to provide a national currency secured by a pledge of United States bonds. and to provide for the circulation and redemption thereof." And the deposits in associations or companies known as provident institutions or savings banks, having no capital stock and doing no other business than receiving deposits to be loaned or invested for the sole benefit of the parties making such deposits, without profit or compensation to the association or company, shall be exempt from tax or

duty on so much of their deposits as they have invested in securities of the United States, and on all deposits less than $500 made in the name of any one person: And provided further, That any bank ceasing to issue notes for circulation, and which shall deposit in the Treasury of the United States, in lawful money, the amount of its outstanding circulation, to be redeemed at par, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, shall be exempt from any tax upon such circulation.

Mr. MORRILL. I will say to the committee that I do not expect that we shall be able to get through with this paragraph to-night. But I desire to offer some amendments which I think will not be objected to by any one, and then I will move that the committee rise. I move to amend the paragraph near the beginning by inserting the word "average" before the words "amount invested in United States bonds.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to amend by inserting the words "paid out" after the words "and the amount of circulation, deposit, capital, and notes of State banks and banking associations," near the middle of the paragraph.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. And in the same sentence I move to amend by striking out the words "together with the taxes,' ," before the words may be recovered for the use of the United States in any court of competent jurisdiction." The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to amend still further by inserting at the close of the first proviso the following:

But the returns required to be made by such provident institutions and savings banks after July, 1866, shall be made on the first Monday in January and the first Monday in July in each year, in such form and manner as may be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. THAYER. I would suggest to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL] that. another amendment should be made, so as to make the proviso read, "associations or companies known as provident institutions, savings banks, savings funds, or savings institutions." These associations are known by that name Of course it will make no differamong us. ence in the operation of this act. Mr. MORRILL. I have no objection. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. I now move that the committee rise.

The motion was agreed to.

So the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. DAWES reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had under consideration the Union generally, and particularly the special order, being bill of the House No. 513, to amend an act entitled "An act to provide internal revenue to support the Government, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1864, and acts amendatory thereof, and had come to no resolution thereon.

And then, on motion of Mr. DAVIS, (at five minutes to ten o'clock p. m.,) the House adjourned.

PETITIONS, ETC.

The following petitions, &c., were presented under the rule and referred to the appropriate committees:

By Mr. COBB: The memorial of M. Bolles, and others, for an increase of import duties on metallic zinc.

By Mr. CULLOM: A petition signed by numerous citizens of Sangamon county, Illinois, in favor of protection of American wool.

Also, another petition from citizens of same county, calling upon Congress to impose a tax of two dollars upon dogs.

By Mr. RICE, of Maine: The petitions of E. F. Bradbury, and others, and J. W. Wood, and others, of Dexter, Maine, asking for amendment of tariff laws so that American laborers in manufacturing establishments shall be protected "to the extent of the difference of the cost of capital and labor here and abroad, with the addition of the taxes paid by American industrial products from which the foreign are free."

IN SENATE.

WEDNESDAY, May 23, 1866. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E. H. GRAY. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. MORGAN presented a memorial of manufacturers of stoves, praying that the tax on stoves may be reduced; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. COWAN presented the petition of employés in John Wood & Brother's Pennsylvania Iron Works at Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, and the petition of Samuel Riddle, Wright Turner, and others, of Delaware county, Pennsylvania, praying for an increase of the tariff for the protection of American industry; which were referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. HENDERSON presented additional papers to accompany the petition of J. H. Ellis, paymaster, United States Army, to be reimbursed for Government moneys stolen from him at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; which were referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. WILSON presented a petition of citizens of the State of Oregon and Washington Territory, praying for an appropriation by Congress for the payment of the claims growing out of the war to repel Indian invasions in 1855 and 1856, in accordance with the award of a commission authorized by act of Congress; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana, presented the petition of Margaret A. Farran, praying for a pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Mr. CHANDLER, from the Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred a bill (H. R. No. 492) making appropriations for the repair, preservation, and completion of certain public works heretofore commenced under the authority of law, and for other purposes, reported it with amendments.

Mr. MORRILL, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred a bill (H. R. No. 564) to annul the thirty-fourth section of the declaration of rights of the State of Maryland, so far as it applies to the District of Columbia, reported it without amendment. Mr. WILSON, frota the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to whom were referred sundry petitions and memorials, praying for the equalization of bounties to soldiers in the late war, asked to be discharged from their further consideration; which was agreed to.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of Mrs. Sarah A. Brewer, widow of Major Brewer, late paymaster United States volunteers, praying for a pension, reported adversely thereon.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Sarah A. Holland, praying for a pension, reported adversely thereon.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Mary Good, praying for a pension, reported adversely thereon.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. MORRILL asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 337) to incorporate the National GasLight Company; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

Mr. RAMSEY asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 338) for the relief of Henry Greathouse and Samuel Kelly; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representa tives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced

THE METRIC SYSTEM.

CORNELIUS B. GOLD.

Mr. CRAGIN. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 453. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. No. 453) for the relief of Cornelius B. Gold, late acting assistant paymaster United States Navy.

It directs the proper accounting officers of the Government, in the settlement of the accounts of Cornelius B. Gold, late acting assistant paymaster United States Navy, to allow a credit of $510 09 for clothing abstracted from a storeroom in his charge while on duty in Mobile bay in the spring or summer of 1865; but no credit is to be allowed until the proper officers of the Government shall be satisfied by full and complete proof of the loss of the clothing

herein referred to.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED.

The following bill and joint resolution from the House of Representatives were severally read twice by their titles, and referred as indicated below:

A bill (H. R. No. 598) to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

A joint resolution (H. R. No. 142) authorizing the Postmaster General to pay additional salary to letter carriers in San Francisco-to the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads.

BRIDGE AT WINONA.

Mr. NORTON. I now move to take up Senate bill No. 263.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. No. 263) to authorize the Winona and St. Peter's Railroad Company to construct a bridge across the Mississippi river and to establish a post route, the pending question being on the amendment of fered by Mr. Howe, in section line nine, one, after the word "Wisconsin" to insert "" between La Crosse, in the State of Wisconsin, and the opposite bank of said river, in the State of Minnesota, as may be agreed by the Legisla

or

tures of Minnesota and Wisconsin;" so as to make the section read:

That the Winona and St. Peter's Railroad Company, a corporation existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Minnesota, be, and the same is hereby, authorized and empowered to erect, maintain, use, and operate a bridge across the Mississippi river, between the city of Winona, in the State of Minnesota, and the opposite bank of said river, in the State of Wisconsin, or between La Crosse, in the State of Wisconsin, and the opposite bank of said river, in the State of Minnesota, as may be agreed by the Legislatures of Minnesota and Wisconsin,

subject to the conditions and limitations hereinafter

provided, &c.

Mr. NORTON. I do not desire to discuss this amendment any further. The Senate perhaps will remember all that was said on the subject the other day. I will state, however, that the effect of this amendment will be to open a controversy between the Legislatures of the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota that

must inevitably result in a failure to construct a bridge at all connecting the roads either at La Crosse or at Winona. I hope the amend ment will not be adopted.

Mr. HOWE. I cannot assent to that view of the effect of this amendment. It is not offered with any such design. It is offered for the simple purpose of allowing each of the two States to have a voice in settling the point at which these crossings shall be made. If the effect, however, were to be such as the Senator from Minnesota suggests, it seems to me that would be a conclusive reason why the Senate should not refuse to adopt it, because then the Senate would be inevitably placing itself in the atti tude of imposing a burden upon one State in behalf of another or of a locality in another State, which I take it the Senate does not choose to do.

Mr. NORTON. Just one word. The railroad systems of the State of Minnesota and of the State of Wisconsin have settled the points at which these crossings ought to be; and it does not depend, and it ought not to depend, upon the Legislature of either of these States. The construction of the railroads of the State of Minnesota, according to the system of that State, makes it necessary to have a bridge at Winona; the railroad system of the State of Wisconsin may make it necessary to have one at La Crosse. The systems of these two States ought to settle the question as to the points where bridges are necessary, and it ought not to be made to depend upon the local interests or a clashing between the interests of the two States. As I said the other day, the Senate will remember, there is no company in the State of Minnesota authorized to construct a

road on the west bank of the river from Winona to La Crosse; and without that, the proposition to Minnesota to make the crossing of the Winona and St. Peter's railroad at La Crosse would be simply nonsense, because we have no company in Minnesota authorized to construct a road there.

Mr. HOWE. The fact that there is no company in Minnesota authorized to build a road down the west bank of the river to a point opposite La Crosse is an argument which may be brought to bear in its full force upon the Legislature of Wisconsin, and it is to that Legislature I wish it referred. I do not wish the Senate of the United States to be influenced by that argument. If under the influence of it the Legislature of Wisconsin see fit to accept a bridge across the river at Winona they can do it; but it is not an argument why the Senate should impose one upon the State against her wish. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Several SENATORS. What is the question? Mr. HOWE. Senators tell me they do not know what the question is. I will state it. The bill as it stands authorizes the building of a bridge across the Mississippi river at Winona. If this amendment be adopted it will authorize the building of a bridge either at Winona or at La Crosse, which is about twelve miles due points as shall be agreed upon by the Legisla south from Winona, at one or the other of these

tures of the two States.

Mr. MORRILL. Suppose the Legislatures cannot agree?

Mr. HOWE. In that event it would not authorize the building of a bridge at either point; but we suppose that the two States know better for themselves than we can know whether they want a bridge across the river and where they want it.

Mr. NORTON. For the purpose of correcting a false impression that might be made by the remark of the Senator from Wisconsin that La Crosse is twelve miles due south of Winona, I desire to state that the fact is that by the course of the river it is forty miles from Winona to La Crosse, the river running in a southeasterly direction. The distance is forty miles; at least it has been so understood ever since I have been in that country.

Mr. RAMSEY. By land it is thirty-five miles according to recent survey.

Mr. NORTON. To get to the point on the La Crosse road at which we wish to intersect the La Crosse road on the east side of the river is fifteen miles further by La Crosse than it | would be to build a bridge at Winona and go from there to that point on the La Crosse road, || so that if the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin is adopted Minnesota will be so far in the power of Wisconsin that she may possibly, in order that we may get an eastern connection, compel us to build fifteen miles more of road and at an expense of nearly three quarters of a million dollars more. That will be the position in which Minnesota will be if the amendment of the Senator be adopted.

Mr. HOWE. As to the geography of that country, I have stated that one of these points was twelve miles due south of the other. La Crosse, to be sure, is further east than Winona, but both of these roads are tending east. Just how far it is by the river I am not prepared to say. I understand it is twenty-nine miles. I concede that the Senators from Minnesota ought to know better than myself about that, however; they have traveled it oftener. But I hold in my hand a township map. There are two roads making to the Mississippi river, one touching opposite to La Crosse, and one at Winona. Due south of Winona these two roads are about a township and a half apart, being about nine miles distant from each other. That one touches the river further east than the other makes no figure in the case, because let the traffic come in on which road it will, it wants to come East, and it is not of any importance to that traffic whether it crosses the river on one meridian of longitude or the other.

Mr. NORTON. It makes no difference whether we cross at one point or the other, provided we have a road built, or some company has authority to build one to that point. We have no company in Minnesota authorized to build a road from Winona down to La Crosse.

Mr. HOWE. Provided the two States should agree to cross the river at La Crosse, then it would impose upon the St. Peter's company, which is the company now desiring to cross at Winona, the obligation of building nine miles to connect with the southern road instead of building twenty-seven miles, I think it is, to connect with the La Crosse road on the east side of the river.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 17, nays 18; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Clark, Conness, Ed

munds, Fessenden, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Morgan, Morrill, Poland, Pomeroy, Sumner, Wade, Wilson, and Yates-17.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Cragin, Davis, Foster, Grimes, Guthrie, Hendricks, Johnson, Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Norton, Ramsey, Riddle, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, and Williams-18. ABSENT-Messrs. Brown, Chandler, Creswell, Dixon, Doolittle, Harris, Lane of Indiana, Nesmith, Nye, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, and Wright-14.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. HOWE. I should like to offer another amendment providing that the bill shall not take effect until the consent of the Legislature of Wisconsin is obtained.

Mr. NORTON. I have no objection to that amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin moves further to amend the bill by inserting at the end of the third section the following proviso:

Provided, That this act shall not go into effect until the consent of the Legislature of Wisconsin is first obtained.

The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended.

Mr. HENDERSON. I move to amend the second section of the bill by striking out all after the word "act" in the twenty-first line down to and including the word "bridge" in the twenty-fourth line; also, by striking out the word "it" in the twenty-fifth line and inserting the word "and" and then by striking out all of the section after the thirty-first

line. I ask the Secretary to read the section as it will stand if amended as I propose.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The first question will be on concurring in the amendments made as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. HENDERSON. I do not wish the Senate to concur in the amendment made in Committee of the Whole to the second section. I propose to amend that amendment. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. As an amendment to the amendment made in Committee of the Whole, the motion of the Senator is of course first in order. The proposed amendment will be read.

The Secretary read the amendment, which was after the word "act" in the twenty-first line of the second section to strike out the following words: "may, at the option of the company building the same, be built as a drawbridge, with a pivot or other form of draw, or with unbroken or continuous spans; provided, that if the said bridge;' in line twenty-five to strike out the word "it" and insert the word "and;" and also to strike out the proviso beginning at the thirty-second line in the following words:

And provided also, That if any bridge built under this act shall be constructed as a draw-bridge, the same shall be constructed as a pivot draw-bridge with a draw over the main channel of the river at an accessible and navigable point, and with spans of not less than one hundred and sixty feet in length in the clear between piers on each side of the central or pivot pier of the draw, and the next adjoining spans to the draw shall not be less than two hundred and fifty feet; and said spans shall not be less than thirty feet above low-water mark, and not less than ten above extreme high-water mark, nearing to the bottom chord of the bridge, and the piers of said bridge shall be parallel with the current of the river: And provided also, That said draw shall be opened promptly upon reasonable signal for the passage of boats whose construction shall not be such as to admit of their passage under the permanent spans of said bridge, except when trains are passing over the same; but in no case shall unnecessary delay occur in opening the said draws after the passage of trains.

So that the section will read:

That any bridge built under the provisions of this act shall be made with unbroken and continuous spans, and shall not be of less elevation in any case than fifty feet above extreme high-water mark as understood at the point of location; to the bottom chord of the bridge, nor shall the spans of said bridge be less than two hundred and fifty feet in length, and the span over the main channel of the river shall be three hundred feet in length, and the piers of said bridge shall be parallel with the current of the river.

Mr. HENDERSON. I should like to have a direct vote of the Senate upon the proposition of building draw-bridges upon the Mississippi river, and the motion that I now make to amend the second section of this bill presents that naked question. If my amendment be adopted, no draw-bridge can be built at this point. The Senate passed a bill a few days ago enabling a company to build a draw-bridge or a bridge with continuous spans at Quincy; but I hope, from what I understand, that it will not meet with the concurrence of the other branch of Congress, if it be in order thus to refer to that branch, or at least it is somewhat doubtful. I desired, when that bill was before the Senate, to prevent the construction of drawbridges upon the river at all; and I should like very much now for the Senate to come to a direct vote upon the question of the propriety of building draw-bridges upon that river.

I do not wish to detain the Senate, but I will state in addition to what I said the other day when a similar question was pending, that I learn that a gentleman at St. Louis proposes to construct there a bridge with continuous spans of four hundred feet, and guaranties the passage over it of the heaviest freight trains that are run upon any roads whatever.

Mr. COWAN. The Niagara bridge is eight hundred feet.

Mr. HENDERSON. But he proposes to do it with an iron truss bridge, not a wire bridge; and I understand he states that he prefers building a continuous span of four hundred feet to building two spans of two hundred feet each, and being required of course, as he would be, to build an additional pier in the river, that he can do it with much less cost of construction than would be required to put down the additional pier. I understand that one of the best

mechanics in the State of Missouri, and a man who has proved his ability to comply in every respect with his contracts, has consented to enter upon the work. I know it was objected, a few days ago when this question was under consideration, that such a bridge could not be built. This bill proposes only a span of three hundred feet. That fallacy has been disproved in the building of the bridge at Steubenville, Ohio. It is demonstrated beyond doubt that the most perfect structure can be made with spans of three hundred feet, and that it will have sufficient strength to bear the very heaviest burdens.

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. RAMSEY] has proposed a resolution that I think this body ought to adopt before going into this business of bridging with pontoon bridges, as it were, the Mississippi river. He proposes to have a scientific board established to go out and examine the Mississippi river, and see at what points it may be safely bridged, and report the character of the bridges that under the circumstances ought to be constructed. It was strenuously urged the other day when a similar proposition was before the Senate that one bank of the Mississippi is always low, and that therefore it will be impossible to build these high Bridges. It seems to me better to intrust the matter to a board of scientific men, a board of engineers. It could be done without cost to the Government, because we have the engineers here and we are paying them their salaries. They could very well discharge that duty. Let them go out and report to this body at the next session whether this thing is practicable or not. But, strange to say, the Senate of the United States, without ever having suffered a thing of this sort to be done before in all our history, all at once enters upon a scheme of bridge building upon the Mississippi river, laying down, as it were, pontoon bridges of a permanent character over that river at almost every conceivable point. Now, it is seen that so soon as the proposition of the honorable Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] has been adopted to build a bridge at Quincy, my constituents of course ask that one be built at Hannibal, within thirty miles of that town. It is then proposed by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. GRIMES] to build a bridge also at Burlington, and immediately upon the passage of that proposition a movement is made by the honorable Senator from Minnesota [Mr. NORTON] for a bridge at Winona, and of course the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Howe] desires that La Crosse shall have the same privilege. We shall have propositions for not less than one hundred bridges across this river.

I will state further that there is no use of haste in this matter. The Mississippi river is now perhaps as high as it usually gets at this season of the year. It is all over the bottom lands everywhere. It is very high at the points where it is now proposed to throw these structures. Nothing can be done this summer toward bridging. No progress can be made in bridging the Mississippi river between now and next December; and why not let the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. RAMSEY] press his resolution, and have a board to go and examine, and let us act with some prudence, with some caution, with some discretion, when we act upon a question of such great importance as the bridging of that stream?

The commerce upon the Mississippi river today is more than all the foreign commerce of this country. There are not less than from thirty to forty thousand miles of navigable water upon the Mississippi river and its tributaries-not less than thirty-two thousand miles of navigable waters; and we propose, by estab lishing the precedent in the case of bridging the Mississippi, to allow the bridging of every one of those streams. It is a question of very great importance and I see no necessity, while the water is now from five to six feet over the bottom lands of the Mississippi river, for the Senate hastening to a conclusion upon this subject.

I do not object to the railroads of this coun

try having every facility for crossing the navigable streams of the country. Indeed, I desire that it shall be done. I certainly want communication from the West to the East, and while I am acting as a member of this body or in any other capacity I will do nothing to obstruct commerce in its way from the West to the East or from the East to the West. It is a thing we want; but is it not going too far to say that the Mississippi river, a great river navigable for three thousand miles by the largest class of steamers, shall be covered over at every little town with a permanent pontoon bridge? Our eastern friends ought not to ask that, with the idea that it will largely benefit the railroads that point in their direction, and that it will facilitate commerce in that direction instead of toward the southern country.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Is it the East that is proposing to do this?

Mr. HENDERSON. No, it is our western friends. The Senator from Maine suggests very properly that it is not so much our eastern friends who are urging the passage of these measures as unfortunately the inhabitants of the little towns along the Mississippi river. I do think that our western friends ought to act with a little more prudence and a little more caution in matters of this character. Nothing can be lost between now and next December, and let us adopt the proposition of the Senator from Minnesota, [Mr. RAMSEY,] and if the engineers report between now and next December that it is impossible to build other than draw-bridges upon the Mississippi, I shall consent to do it.

I do not know that I can add anything more to what I have said. I regret very much that I have to trouble the Senate on this subject. I feel a very great interest in it, but I have no other interest than any other citizen of the great West. I have no interest in any railroad company or steamboat company upon the earth, not a dollar's worth of interest in anything of the sort; but as a western man I do feel an interest in preventing the pontoon bridging of the Mississippi river. I know that draw-bridges have been built upon navigable waters; but originally when that was done it was required that the draw should always be open except when trains were crossing on the bridge. I allude to this in order to show Senators what progress we are making on this subject. I say that originally it was required that the draw should remain open at all times except when trains were crossing the bridge, and then, and then only, was it closed, so as to leave the river open to navigation. But how is it in this bill? How was it in the bill which we passed the other day? The draw is required to be closed at all times except when steamboats are passing. We are conferring privileges upon the railroad companies and gradually making inroads upon the navigable waters of this country and closing them up. It cannot be denied that this is the course now being pursued. Perhaps the railroad companies deserve these privileges; it may be that they offer facilities for trade and travel to further the commercial intercourse of the country that the rivers do not offer; but I beg leave to differ from Senators when they thus insist. I know that all heavy freight can be carried upon the Mississippi river for one third of the money that any railroad company can carry it. I know that a barrel of pork or a barrel of whisky can be carried from St. Louis to New Orleans, and from New Orleans around to the city of Boston, for one third of the money for which it can be carried by any railroad company in this country directly; and it can be carried in that way for one third of the money, even after you have bridged the Mississippi river. "That shows most clearly that we ought to be prudent and careful how we close up this great navigable thoroughfare. We are navigating the Missouri river now by a regular line of packets, thirty-two hundred and forty miles above the city of St. Louis, up to Fort Benton, and even above Fort Benton; and why are these great streams to be closed up by low bridges, the draws of which are required

at all times to be closed, except when steamers are passing? If bridges can be built with a continuous span of three hundred feet, so as to accommodate the railroads, I say it ought to be done. I have before stated to the Senate that a mechanic has asserted at St. Louis that he will build bridges with a span of four hundred feet, and they now propose to go on and construct a bridge at St. Louis with continuous spans of four hundred feet and fifty feet above high-water mark. That will accommodate the steamboat interest and the railroad interest, too.

Mr. President, if my proposition is adopted it only requires these bridges, if built between now and next December, to be built with continuous spans. I hope the Senate will consider the matter a little more seriously than it considered the proposition pending the other day. It can do this bridge company no harm, because they can do nothing between now and next December except to procure stone for the building of the piers, and that will answer just as well for a continuous-span bridge as for a bridge with a pivot and draw. The Mississippi river is so high that no pier can be built between now and next December. The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. NORTON] will scarcely contradict me on this point. Nothing can be done between now and next fall. The consent of the Wisconsin Legislature has yet to be obtained, as I understand, before this bridge can be built at all, by an amendment already adopted, and I wish to inquire of the Senator from Wisconsin when the Legislature of that State again meets.

Mr. HOWE. In January.

Mr. HENDERSON. In January next. This consent, then, cannot be had before next January. My amendment cannot harm the object of the Senator from Minnesota. If it be the desire of western members on this great river to bridge it in this way, I must submit; but I do enter my most solemn protest, as I have aiready entered it, against this work of constructing pivot and draw-bridges on that great river.

I have alluded to the increasing commerce of the country. In thirty years from to-day we shall all see how unnecesary and how idle and how absurd it was to construct these bridges, because by that time it will have been demonstrated by the American mechanics that bridges can be built with a span of four hundred feet to accommodate both the steamboat and the railroad interests of the country. It will have been demonstrated by that time that there was no necessity for building these pontoon bridges and fastening them to the banks of the river, thus obstructing the current ofthis great stream. This will be demonstrated in the next thirty years, and then we shall have to regret our folly in having filled the river with these struct

ures.

The Legislature of Wisconsin does not meet till next January, so that nothing can be lost by my proposition. Let us send some engineers out to the Mississippi river, and let the Senate be informed on the subject. If continuous-span bridges can be erected, let that commission so report, and I for one shall say amen, and pledge the Senate that I shall make no further opposition to bridging the river. If they say that pivot and draw-bridges can be built, be it so; but if they say that continuousspan bridges can be built, I ask whether there is a Senator in the hearing of my voice who will then consent to construct these low bridges. I hope not. Sir, you are now putting in the way of the great lumber interest of Wisconsin obstructions that will seriously damage the lumbermen of that State and seriously damage the commercial interests of that great northwestern country; and yet Senators seem to think they are hastening to do them a great benefit. I cannot so think. I wish I could so think, provided they are right and I am wrong; but until I am further satisfied, I cannot believe that we are doing any good to the Northwest and the West by this course of proceeding.

The board proposed by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. RAMSEY] can report by next

December; and as the Legislature of Wisconsin does not meet until January, the Senate may be informed on the subject long before permission to build the bridge can be obtained from the State of Wisconsin. Of course no company would be foolish enough to proceed with the construction of this great bridge under an act of Congress alone. They must have an abutment upon the soil of Wisconsin, and they must get the consent of the State of Wisconsin before they dare put an abutment upon her soil or within the jurisdiction of that State, and her consent cannot be obtained before next January.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Could they not erect the bridge if they owned the land on each side? Mr. HENDERSON. I doubt that very much. I do not think a man by merely owning land within the sovereignty of a State has a right, by virtue of that, to erect a corporation endowed with the franchise of constructing a bridge and taking tolls on it. I think, under all the circumstances, that if this company insist on building the bridge between now and next January, if they insist on getting a part of the material there, it should be with the understanding that it shall be a continuous-span bridge until we can know more about this mat

ter.

It is of very great importance, in my judgment of vast importance; and yet we considered it the other day in the course of an hour and passed a bill setting the precedent for bridging this great stream with these pontoon bridges, as I call them. They are an immense obstruction; I have been so told since the passage of that bill by steamboat men. In fact the Chamber of Commerce of St. Louis has sent a large delegation here to protest against it in the name of the people of the West. I cannot say how far they represent the interest of the people of the West, but they are very earnest about it. Gentlemen may say it is because St. Louis is deeply interested in this matSt. Louis has no more interest in it than any other part of the great West; any other portion of it is just as much interested as St. Louis; but they come here protesting and saying that with a span of one hundred and sixty feet, as we provided the other day, bridges on the river will materially and permanently injure commerce upon the river.

ter.

We can lose nothing by adopting my amend ment and saying that if this company proceed to build at all until we can get a report, it shall be a continuous-span bridge, and I hope the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. RAMSEY] will push his resolution, urge it forward, and let the board proceed to the West to report upon this important question. It is an important matter, and it ought to be looked into with more care than we seem disposed to look into it now. I know that the learned Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. CowAN,] three years ago, discussed the question on behalf of his State in regard to the bridging of the Ohio river. Now they are proceeding to put up the right sort of structures on the Ohio river. Why not compel it to be done upon the Mississippi river? They are not putting up pivot and draw-bridges upon the Ohio river, but bridges that accommodate the commerce upon that river as well as the commerce across the river. It can be done, and done easily, and done to the great satisfaction, not only of the people of the West, but the people of this entire country. These great navigable streams, made by nature, are better than the railroads, even if they were made by the hand of the Almighty. As I have before said, you have nothing to do but to construct the cars to run upon these navigable streams, and companies and individuals can carry freight and passengers cheaper than the railroads, yea, for one third the cost of carrying them upon railroads.. Why, then, shall we obstruct these great arteries of commerce made to our hands by nature and by the beneficence of the Almighty? Why shall we, in our puny efforts to make better the commercial channels made by Him, go to work and obstruct those channels, and say to man that we have improved upon the works of