the matter continued from 1809 till 1833, no canal being completed by either of these organizations.

The corporation sought to be created by this act has no authority to take one cent's worth of property which belongs to the city of Washington or to any individual except by paying the full value of the property, to be ascertained in the usual mode when private property is taken for public uses.

The committee have proposed by this bill to authorize the construction of this canal by this corporation and to give it whatever rights or interest the United States Government has in this old canal. If the Government of the United States has any interest in it the committee have failed to see that it is of any advantage or of any value to the United States. If the corporate authorities of the city of Washington own the canal and it is of any value to them the bill provides that this corporation shall pay every dollar that it is worth before they appropriate it.

It is objected, as I have heard, that this bill authorizes this corporation to take all the land that may be made or reclaimed out of the waste land lying along the line of the canal for its own use. There is not one word of truth in it. The bill simply provides that this corporation shall have eighty feet in width for the canal and six feet additional on each side for a tow path, and nothing more. Any land beyond that that now belongs to the city of Washington or to the Government of the United States is reserved to the city of Washington or to the Government, so that this corporation does not get one single rod of ground additional.

It is objected, as I understand, by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. F. THOMAS] that this bill proposes to seize several hundred thousand dollars' worth of the property of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company. Now, I cannot for my life see wherein or by what provision of this bill such a statement is warranted. It does provide that this corporation shall have power to construct a canal from Seventeenth street west to Rock creek. I will admit that some forty years ago or more, when the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company was chartered, the charter authorized that company to build their canal to Seventeenth street west, and that it did extend it to that point and used it for a time. But there is a provision in that charter, also, that if the company shall fail to use any portion of the canal or keep it in repair for commercial purposes it shall forfeit its charter to that extent, at least that is my view of the law. The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company has the terminus of their canal at Rock creek, in Georgetown, one mile and a quarter west of Seventeenth street.

In 1833, this city corporation made some kind of purchase-for what consideration I know not; neither does the committee, nor do the corporators of the old canal. Those corporators had a capital stock of $150,000, but what price they sold out for to the corporation of the city of Washington I do not know. But in 1832 or 1833 the city of Washington presented a bill to Congress declaring that they had made a bargain and purchase from this canal corporation, and asking Congress to vest in them whatever rights the United States had in this canal, because they believed, by reason of the neglect of that corporation to perform the duties imposed upon them by the charter, they had forfeited all rights to the canal to the Government of the United States in the canal. So an act was passed in 1833 giving to the city of Washington whatever rights the United States had in the canal, and the canal became the proporty of the city of Washington; but on the condition, mark you, that it should go on and complete the canal within one year from and after the passage of the act. Years rolled around and the city of Washington did next to nothing. They never made it a commer cial canal. They never did anything, except to get money from the United States. They received $20,000 on two different occasions to clean out the canal or to make some repairs. On another occasion, the city of Washington obtained $150,000 out of the Treasury of the United States for the purpose of liquidating the debt they had contracted on the purchase of the canal from the original corporators. The Government of the United States has never received any consideration from the city in return for this expenditure, but the city has from that time up to the present collected wharfage and rent to the amount of several thousand dollars per year. The canal has been used for no other purpose than to spend money on or to get money out of the Treasury.

These men who seek to be incorporated claim that the city of Washington has never paid a dollar for the canal; if there was any money paid to the original corporators it was paid by the Government under act of Congress. The city of Washington has never paid a dollar. Instead of performing the conditions of the charter or the agreement with the Government it has violated them. Yet, sir, notwithstanding the fact, the city has had undisputed control of this "old ditch" or canal for nearly thirty-five years. They have done nothing with it except on three different times to receive from the Treasury of the United States $190,000 in the aggregate. They may have spent some of it in cleaning the canal, but little for the purpose of constructing a canal which would be of any benefit to com

merce.

The committee believe to leave this canal as it is it will never benefit any one-it will never benefit the city of Washington. The committee believe the city of Washington has forfeited whatever rights it had in it. It never had real right. It made a contract with any the original corporators, but subsequently Congress appropriated $150,000 to pay that claim of the original corporators on the sale of the canal to the city. I suppose it paid the money to the original corporators, or put it into their own pockets or into the city treasury. There has been no money paid by the citizens of Washington or the city of Washington in its corporate capacity for this purchase of the canal. So the city of Washington loses nothing by the bill, but gains immeasurably if these parties construct a commercial canal in accordance with the provisions of the bill. It will be a source of revenue, and of great benefit to the city. It will cheapen the price of coal and building material of all kinds.

And so that we shall not trespass upon the rights of any person or body-politic, it is provided that whatever rights, public, private, or corporate, in or to this canal shall be protected. I

Twenty years have elapsed since the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company have used this part of their canal. It is now filled with sand, mud, and rubbish of one kind and another to such an extent that there has not a canal-boat passed through it for that length of time, as I am informed. There is at Seventeenth street an old lock with a gate, but it is filled up with earth to such an extent that it has not been opened for nine years. But yet the gate-keeper stays there, and he told me the other day that the gate had not been opened for nine years. And yet the company keep him there and pay him a salary. No wonder they pay no dividends if they conduct business in that manner.

If, however, the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company have any vested right in this old canal, which they have not used for twenty years, whatever right it has is still reserved. The bill does not propose to take anybody's property in any other manner than is usually done when you incorporate a company and give it authority to take and pay for such property as it may require to carry out the purposes of the incorporation. This company must have some right to take property, but it must be so guarded as to protect the rights of individuals and be compelled to pay for all the property taken before it is applied to the use of the corporation.

in the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company to this portion of the old canal it will not be deprived of them. It simply authorizes the construction of a canal and the condemnation of property with payment therefor. If this old canal is in such a condition that it cannot be used, and if the right of the city in it is one of those rights that cannot be invaded by a corporation of this kind, all they have got to do is to apply to a court for injunction and stop this work at once. And precisely the same thing may be done by the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company. This bill confers no extra privilege and no extra rights upon this corporation. None whatever. It simply authorizes the construction of a canal just as if no "ditch" had ever been built through the city, and provides for the payment of all property, whether of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, the city of Washington, or of private persons. They are all protected.

The object of the bill is to give this city a commercial canal that will connect the coal regions of Maryland with this city. It is proposed, as a part of the contemplated improvement, to construct a canal from the Anacostia or Eastern branch to Annapolis, and from there there is a water communication by the Chesapeake bay from Annapolis to Baltimore, and so on to Philadelphia, and by canal already open to New York, which will shorten the distance to New York by water two hundred and fifty miles. It saves a sea voyage of five hundred and seventy miles from Georgetown to New York if these twenty miles of canal between the Anacostia and Annapolis shall be completed.

These are some of the objects sought to be attained by this bill, and in my opinion the work will be done. So far as the committee can judge, the men who propose to do the work are men of energy and ability. The committee have no idea that the city of Washington or the Government of the United States will ever build the work. This company propose to build it without a dollar's tax on the city of Washington or taxing the United States Treasury one farthing.

Mr. Speaker, as I wish to pass this bill this morning, I will yield in two minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. F. THOMAS.]

Such are the provisions of the bill under consideration. If there are any vested rights

Mr. F. THOMAS. Oh, no, sir; I could not accept the time. The gentleman intends it as a very polite proposition, and I have no doubt it is made in a very kind spirit.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I said that in two minutes from this time I would yield to the gentle

When the Committee for the District of Columbia was organized at the commencement of this session we were importuned by the authorities of the city of Washington to take this canal off the hands of the city; they besought the committee to take the old canal, which had been a disgrace and a nuisance, and fill it up, or dig it out, or do something with it in order to relieve the city from it. A proposition was made to build a sewer within the canal and then cover it all over with earth, and destroy it forever for any commercial purposes. All sorts of propositions were made to the committee; and when this bill was introduced into the Senate two months ago we heard no objection to it. It was carefully examined and considered, and it passed the Senate by an almost unanimous vote. After it had been considered by the committee of this House the city of Washington said, all at once, that some right of immense value was being disposed of to their injury.

Now, so far as Congress is concerned, I do not suppose it cares who makes the canal

particularly on the other side, to which the soldier has always looked for justice and favor, who desire to be heard at length in favor of the bill; but as I and all the committee reporting the bill are willing to forego any discussion of the subject, and desire to make no speeches whatever, but to put the bill on its passage, I trust there will be general consent on both sides to that treatment. If gentlemen have prepared speeches on this subject, I suggest those speeches be yet made on some Saturday afternoon, as they will, I have no doubt, have influence on the minds of Senators when the bill goes to that body.

The substitute was read, as follows:

SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That in case the payments shall be made in the form of a check, order, or draft upon any paymaster, national bank, or Government depository in or near the district wherein the claimant may reside, it shall be necessary for the claimant to establish by the affidavits of two credible witnesses that he is the identical person named therein; but in no case shall such checks, orders, or drafts be made negotiable until after such identification.

That instead of any grant of land or other bounty, there shall be allowed and paid to each and every soldier, sailor, and marine who faithfully served as such in the Army, Navy, or Marine corps of the United States, and who has been, or who may hereafter be, honorably discharged from such service, the sum of eight and one third dollars per month, or at the rate of $100 per year, as hereinafter provided, for all the time during which such soldier, sailor, or marine actually so served, between the 12th day of April, 1861, and the 19th day of April, 1865. And in the case of any such soldier, sailor, or marine, discharged from the service on account of wounds received in battle, or while engaged in the line of his duty, the said allowance of bounty shall be computed and paid up to the end of the term of service for which his enlistment was made. And in case of the death of any such soldier, sailor, or marine, while in the service, or in case of his death after discharge and before the end of his term of enlistment, if discharged on account of being wounded, as before provided, the allowance and payment shall be made to his widow, if she has not been remarried, or if there be no widow, then to the minor child or children of the deceased who may be under sixteen years of age.

allowed by this act.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That no bounty, under the provisions of this act, shall be paid to or on account of any soldier, sailor, or marine who served as a substitute in either the Army or Navy, or who was a captured prisoner of war at the time of his enlistment, nor to any one who was discharged on his own application or request, unless such discharge was obtained with a view to reënlistment, or to accept promotion in the military or naval service of the United States, or to be transferred from one branch of the military service to another, and who did actually enlist or accept promotion or was so transferred. And no bounty shall be paid to any soldier, sailor, or marine, discharged on the application or at the request of parents, guardians, or other persons, or on the ground of minority.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That every petition or application for bounty made under the provisions of this act shall disclose and state specifically under oath, and under the pains and penalties of perjury, what amount of bounty, either from the United States or from any other source, and what amount of prize money, if any, has been paid or is payable to the soldier, sailor, or marine, by whom or by whose representatives the claim is made.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That whenever application shall be made by any claimant, through any attorney or agent, the post office address of the claimant shall be furnished, giving the name of the county and State in which it is situated, and the amount of commission or fee which the attorney or agent is to receive for his service in the settlement of the claim, which charges in no case shall exceed the sum of five dollars; and every such application shall be accompanied by the written affidavit of the attorney or agent, that he has not charged, nor agreed for, and will not accept, more than such sum of five dollars for his services in the case. The Paymaster General, or proper accounting officer of the Treasury, upon ascertaining the amount due, shall cause to be transmitted to such claimant the full amount thereof, less the fee to be paid to the attorney or agent, which fee shall be paid to the attorney or agent in person, or transmitted to such address as the attorney may direct.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That in computing and ascertaining the bounty to be paid to any soldier, sailor, or marine, or his proper representatives, under the provisions of this act, there shall be deducted therefrom any and all bounties already paid, or payable under existing laws, by the United States, or by any State, county, city, town, or other municipal organization, or by any voluntary association, so that in no case shall the aggregate amount of bounty allowed and paid from all sources exceed eight and one third dollars for each month of actual faithful service, or at the rate of $100 per year. And in the case of any sailor or marine to whom prize money has been paid, or is payable, the amount of such prize money shall also be deducted, and only such amount of bounty paid as shall, together with such prize money and any other bounty paid or payable by the United States, or by any State, county, city, town, or

Mr. SCHENCK. In the first place amendment is not in order under the rules, as there is an amendment pending to an amendment; and in the second place the Committee on Military Affairs, with great unanimity and cordial

other municipal organization, or by any voluntary ity, agreed to report and have it acted on as it

amount in the aggregate

sum

now stands. I demand the previous question. The House divided; and there were-ayes 81, noes 24.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That any attorney or agent who shall receive from any claimant a sum greater than five dollars for the prosecution of any claim under the provisions of this act, upon conviction thereof shall pay a fine not to exceed the sum of $1,000, or imprisonment for a term not less than one year, or both, as the court or jury may adjudge, and shall be forever thereafter excluded from prosecuting claims of any nature whatever against the Government of the United States.

•

Mr. SCHENCK. I move the following amendment: page 3, line six, after the word "request," insert "prior to the 9th day of April, 1865." If members will look at the printed substitute they will find we exclude from bounty those who were discharged on their own application or request. The committee, on reconsideration, thought it ought to apply only to those who did not wait until the It will relieve from exclusion those who did not make the request to be discharged from the Army until after Lee's surrender.

war was over.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I would like to offer the following amendment: strike out from the sixth line of section two all after the word "States" down to the word "association" in the seventh line. In the ninth line strike out the word "all" and insert "such." Mr. WARD. I ask the gentleman to let me move an amendment.

So the previous question was seconded. Mr. WARD. Is there to be no means of discussing a bill which involves an expenditure of $200,000,000?

The SPEAKER. Not when the previous question is seconded.

The amendment of the committee to the substitute was agreed to.

Mr. JULIAN. If the substitute be voted down, then the vote will come up on the original bill.

On motion of Mr. STEVENS, the original bill was read in extenso.

The question recurred on agreeing to the substitute for the original bill.

Mr. WARD. I ask the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs to permit me to have an amendment reported which I desire to offer.

The question was put; and there were-ayes 93, noes 36.

Mr. SCHENCK. I have no power over this subject; it is with the House; but I am perfectly willing the gentleman shall have his amendment read, if that is the point he desires. Mr. ELDRIDGE. Mr. Speaker, is this offering of amendments going to be allowed generally?

The SPEAKER. It is not. It can only be amended, after the third reading, by a motion to recommit with instructions.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I would inquire whether the previous question is still operating. The SPEAKER. It is; and no debate is in order except by unanimous consent. Mr. ELDRIDGE. I object to debate, unless it can be made general.

Mr. BLAINE. I object also.

Mr. JULIAN. Idemand the yeas and nays on agreeing to the substitute.

The yeas and nays were not ordered.

Mr. ROGERS. Idemand the yeas and nays. The SPEAKER. They have already been refused:

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I demand tellers. Tellers were ordered; and the Speaker appointed Messrs. WILSON, of Iowa, and SCHENCK, The House divided; and the tellers reported -ayes 84, noes 33.

So the substitute was agreed to.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed; and being engrossed, it was ordered to be read a third time.

Mr. WARD. Is it in order now to move to recommit with instructions?

The SPEAKER. It will be if the previous

question is not seconded.

Mr. BANKS. I hope the chairman of the committee will state the operation of this bill as compared with the original bill.

Mr. THAYER. I object to discussion. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio, who reported the bill, has a right to occupy one hour.

Mr. SCHENCK. If the House will second the previous question I will go on and explain it. First, let us have the previous question seconded.

The previous question was seconded—ayes 75, noes 34-and the main question ordered. Mr. ANCONA. I demand the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill.

Mr. SCHENCK. I propose very briefly, as many gentlemen request it, to state the differences between the substitute and the original bill. First, as to the original bill I shall say nothing, because it has been printed and on the tables of gentlemen for some time past.

The first change made in the bill is in the first section, at the close, where in limiting the direction to be given to this bounty to minor children, there is added the further clause that it shall be given only to those who are under sixteen years of age. The idea of the committee was that in this country when childreu arrive at the age of sixteen they are able to obtain some kind of employment sufficient at least to sustain themselves. It is in conform

ity with the pension law, limiting the extension of the bounty to those minors only who are under sixteen years of age. It saves many millions of dollars, though that was not the exclusive object.

In the second section the committee concluded, in their revision, to insert a provision that there should be taken into the computation, in order to determine whether a man had a sufficient bounty, whatever he had received from local authorities or from local voluntary associations got up by subscription for the purpose of relieving from the draft by putting men in the Army. This some gentlemen have seriously objected to. The reasons which prevailed with the committee were these: in the first place, there is a fairness about it. A man comes forward and asks to be put, as far as possible, upon the same footing as others that is, to get under the provisions of this bill $300 at least for his services in the Army, in addition to his pay and other allowances. The Government which he approaches in this way says to him, through its officials, "How much have you received from various sources?'' If he has already received over $300, which is what we propose to give, it is not a case of peculiar hardship. In dispensing this bounty we should not add anything to the sum already paid where a man has received $300. All we promise is to make up the bounty to $300.

Now, that will fall not hardly on those who entered the Army late in the war and got all the local bounties, for it so happens that those who got the local bounties got also the bounty from the Government and are outside of the provisions of this bill. The truth is that the bill only applies to and affords help to those

who enlisted in 1861 or in the early part of 1862 throughout the whole Union. Those who went into the Army in 1861 or early in 1862 got little or no bounty of any kind, and got from the General Government only either $100 or nothing at all. Now, to those who received nothing this bill gives $300, and to those who received $100 enough to make up the amount to $300. Later on in the war large local bounties were paid, while at the same time the Government of the United States was paying bounties. Such men are cut off from the operation of this bill.

Mr. HOTCHKISS. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?

Mr. SCHENCK. No, sir; I cannot. With all due deference to the gentleman from New York, I detest these interruptions. At the end of my remarks I will answer any questions that gentlemen desire.

which the law allows. This is to prevent collusion between the attorney and the claimant, when the claimant finds the attorney unwilling to act under the law without such secret understanding.

There is another effect of this amendment. If, by the legislation of Congress, you equalize bounties to the extent of taking care that every man shall at least have $300 out of the United States Treasury, if he has not obtained it from any other source, and then turn these soldiers over to their States you will find them in every State going to their Legislatures and saying, "See here what the Congress of the United States has done; now we want you to equalize the bounties at home; and as some men have been paid $1,000 and $1,500 and others only $300 or $400, we want you to follow the example of the Government of the United States and equalize the bounties in the State as Congress has done throughout the United States;" and it will be very hard to resist that appeal when made under such a precedent; so that by taking the whole thing into account, we relieve the States from calls that may be made hereafter to equalize bounties in the States as Congress has equalized them throughout the United States.

Leaving the reference to that change, I come to the next alteration made. We cut off from the benefits of the bill substitutes. We have taken the ground that where a man was hired at some enormous cost to go into the Army for another, he went into the Army taking all the chances and has no proper claim on the Government for equalization of bounty with other soldiers who were either compelled to go or went voluntarily.

There have been such cases as this before the Committee on Military Affairs: a man being drafted, a relative, without hope of reward, volunteered to go in his place; in another instance, a returned volunteer, seeing the tears of the family of a poor man who was drafted and was unable to pay for a substitute, volunteered his services and took that man's place. But these are exceptional cases. We can only legislate for classes, and leave such men to the reward of an approving conscience and the kindness of their neighbors, who, instead of petitioning Congress, had better subscribe the $300 for these men.

We have made another alteration. It was provided in the original bill that if a man had been discharged on his own application or request he should be cut out from the advantages of the bounty. In the revision we have inserted the words, "prior to the 9th day of April, 1865," which was the date of Lee's surrender, so as not to cut off from the bounty those men who thought the fighting was all over, and finding it very easy on application to the War Department at that time to get out of the Army, naturally did so. We save the bounty to every man who was discharged even at his own request and upon his own application, provided he did not make that application before the fighting was done.

We have inserted another provision, to which I suppose no gentleman will object, requiring that the attorney or agent, where one is engaged in the case, shall, in filing the papers of the applicant, file along with them his own statement verified by oath, under the pains and penalties of perjury, that he has not charged and will not accept any more than the fees

I believe that I have stated now all the material differences between the substitute and the original bill; and I am now ready to answer the question of my friend from New York, [Mr. HOTCHKISS.]

Mr. HOTCHKISS. The inquiry which I desire to make is this: in many cases in my own district, in 1861, the State paid to the soldier seventy-five dollars bounty, and the local authorities $225 bounty. In such cases, what is the soldier going to get under this bill? If the soldier in such a case gets nothing, are we to be subjected to taxation to pay bounties to soldiers raised in communities that gave no bounty?

Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Speaker, I think I have anticipated an answer to that inquiry. I have said that the bill declares plainly

Mr. HOTCHKISS. Let me ask furtherMr. SCHENCK. I trust the gentleman will wait a moment till I have answered the question he has already put.

Mr. HOTCHKISS. I am charged and primed, and I cannot stop till I have discharged the whole load. [Laughter.] I want to know whether, where we in our State have paid more than three hundred dollars bounty, the soldiers of the State of New York will be obliged to pay back anything.

Mr. SCHENCK. I suppose the gentleman is now through, unless he is a revolver. [Laughter.]

Now, as to the first branch of the inquirythe first barrel of the gentleman's gun-the bill itself answers it. The bill is framed entirely with this view: that every man who presents himself asking for this bounty of $300 shall be interrogated as to how much he has received from various sources as bounty for serving his country in addition to his regular pay. If he has received $300 or more, he is not to receive anything under this bill. While we do not propose to give any one more than $300, nor to pay any one less than that amount, our object is that every man who has not received $300 shall be raised up to that standard.

These remarks will serve to answer to a great extent the second branch of the inquiry; and my echo to the report of that second barrel of the gun, showing that it is only a blank cartridge, will be this

Mr. HOTCHKISS. Perhaps I owed the gentleman an apology; but there is nothing in his Army bill against the use of revolvers. [Laughter.]

bounty, whether the colored soldier and his master together will not receive more than the white soldier. And I ask him whether he will not accept an amendment providing for the repeal of the law which provides for a com mission to take proof of the fact of the slaves of loyal masters having entered the service, so that compensation may be made. I appre hend that before we give any additional bounty that law should be repealed.

Mr. SCHENCK. Well, that certainly is a revolver! [Laughter.] I do not know whether I can recollect the whole of the question. But to begin at the close of the gentleman's inquir ies, I will say that I cannot accept any amend ment, because the bill at its present stage cannot be amended, as I understand the rules, without a recommitment for that purpose, unless by unanimous consent.

In the next place, I will say that the bill does not provide for paying anything to the former owner of a man who was a slave and was enlisted as a soldier of the United States. The bill is specific in its terms, and provides only for payment to the soldier, sailor, or marine himself.

Mr. SCHENCK. The gentleman asks whether those who have received more than $300 bounty will be compelled to disgorge. The reply to that is found also in the bill. There is nothing in the bill about paying back. There is nothing in the bill that can be construed to require that those who have received the bounties either of the General Government or of a State government or of any volunteer association or municipal organization of any kind shall pay back any part of that which they have received. I think the gentleman is now fully answered.

Mr. WARD. I desire to ask the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs whether this bill does not provide for giving bounty to colored soldiers.

Mr. SCHENCK. Unquestionably it does. We hold that a soldier, a sailor, or a marine is one who belongs to the organized forces of the United States, wearing its uniform. We have therefore said nothing about color, because the bill covers them all.

Mr. WARD. So I understand. Now, I desire to ask the gentleman another question. I ask him whether there is not now in force a law by virtue of which the loyal owner of a colored man who volunteered in the United States service is entitled to recover $300 for such colored man; and such being the law, the master being entitled to $300, and the colored man being entitled, under this bill, to a

Mr. WARD. That I understand.

Mr. SCHENCK. The gentleman asks, further, whether if the loyal owner has already received his bounty of $100

Mr. WARD. Of $300.

Mr. SCHENCK. Or of $300, whether he will not get something under this bill. I an swer, no; he cannot possibly do so. There might possibly be a construction put upon the law by which the owner having got $300 the negro could get $300 more, on the ground that the negro, who had rendered the service, had received nothing. That is a question of construction. But being a question of construction for the courts, under the law as it now stands no subsequent legislation upon this subjeot can affect the contract, though we might so amend the bill, which I am unwilling to do, as to provide that where the master has re ceived bounty, that bounty shall be deducted and paid to the negro. I do not suppose that the gentleman would desire that.

Mr. WARD. No, sir.

Mr. SCHENCK. But the gentleman says he would like to have passed an act repealing the law with reference to compensation of loyal owners of slaves enlisted, so that there shall be no further action under it.

Mr. WARD. Exactly.

Mr. SCHENCK. So would I; and I am perfectly willing to unite with the gentleman in securing the passage of a bill of that kind as a separate enactment; for I think there would be no difficulty in passing it; or I believe it very probable that members of the other branch of Congress, upon suggestion being made to them, would be willing to procure the insertion of such a provision in this bill. But, at the present time, the amendment of this bill cannot be effected without the delay of recommitment, with the necessity of going over this whole subject again. I prefer, therefore, that this bill shall now be passed, trusting that some repealing act may hereafter be adopted as a separate measure, or that a provision for the purpose may be incorporated in this bill as an amendment when the bill shall be considered by the Senate.

Mr. WARD. Will the gentleman allow me a moment to state the amendments which I intended to offer to this bill?

Mr. SCHENCK. I have no objection to per mitting the gentleman to have his amendments read-or, at least, he might hand them to the reporters, and let them be incorporated in his remarks, so that he may be enabled to show what was the object he had in view, in which, so far as concerns the last point, I entirely

concur.

Mr. WARD. The first amendment which I desired to offer was an amendment giving to the widowed mother who was entirely depend ent upon a soldier now deceased the bounty to which he would have been entitled. I desired a further amendment striking out that

portion of the bill which charges the soldier with the local bounties. In addition to that, I desired to offer the further amendment which I have indicated. That is all that I wished to

The vote was then announced as above recorded.

The question then recurred on the passage of the bill.

Mr. ANCONA demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 139, nays 2, not voting 42; as follows:

say.

Mr. BANKS. Will the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK] now yield to me for a moment?

Mr. SCHENCK. Yes, sir.

Mr. BANKS. I understand from the statement of the honorable chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, from which this bill is reported, that as the bill now stands, the House having adopted a substitute, any State that has paid bounties up to the amount of $300 will get nothing, under this bill, while it will be compelled to insist in paying the bounties to the soldiers of those States that have not granted any bounties. I ask the gentleman whether I am correct in my understanding of the effect of this bill.

Mr. SCHENCK. I apprehend that there are very few States in which bounties have not been given at all, either by the State or by the counties or other municipal organizations or by voluntary associations, and where the aggregate local bounty has not exceeded $300. Where that is the case, of course no benefit will be obtained under this bill.

Mr. BANKS. I understand it to be this: that the State which has paid bounties to the amount of $300 gets nothing, and is compelled at the same time to pay, or assist in paying, the bounties of States which have not paid them.

Mr. SCHENCK. Those States have the satisfaction of having treated their soldiers well.

Mr. BANKS. It is a surprise to the House that we should be called upon to vote for or against appropriations of this kind.

Mr. SCHENCK. I call for the vote.

Mr. ANCONA demanded the yeas and nays. Mr. BANKS. I move to reconsider the vote

by which the main question was ordered; and on that motion I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCHENCK. I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

The House was divided; and there wereayes 68, noes 42.

Mr. BANKS demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 77, nays 62, not voting 44; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ancona, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baxter, Blaine, Boyer, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke, Cobb, Darling, Dawson, Defrees, Delano, Denison, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eggleston, Eldridge, Garfield, Grider, Hale, Aaron Harding, Higby, Hogan, Holmes, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, James R. Hubbell, Ingersoll, Kelley, Kelso, Kerr, Kuykendall, George V. Lawrence, Le Blond, Longyear, Marston, Marvin, McClurg, McKee, MeRuer, Moorhead, Morrill, Myers, Newell, Niblack, O'Neill, Paine, Patterson, Plants, Price, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Ritter, Rousseau, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Sloan, Spalding, Strouse, Thayer, Trimble, Trowbridge, Upson, Welker, Williams, Stephen F. Wilson, and Woodbridge-77.

NAYS-Messrs. Alley, Ames, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Beaman, Bergen, Brandegee, Bromwell, Chanler, Sidney Clarke, Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Davis, Dawes, Deming, Dixon, Dumont, Eliot, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Goodyear, Abner C. Harding, Henderson, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Demas Hubbard, James Humphrey, James M. Humphrey, Julian, Ketcham, Laflin, William Lawrence, Loan, Lynch, Marshall, McCullough, Morris, Nicholson Perham, Phelps, Pike, Radford, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Rogers, Rollins, Ross, Stevens, Stilwell, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Ward, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Whaley, James F. Wilson, and Wright-62.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Barker, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Blow, Boutwell, Broomall, Coffroth, Culver, Dodge, Finck, Glossbrenner, Grinnell, Griswold, Harris, Hart, Hayes, Hill, Hulburd, Jenckes, Johnson, Jones, Kasson, Latham, McIndoe, Mercur, Miller, Moulton, Noell, Orth, Pomeroy, Raymond, Shanklin, Smith, Starr, Taber. Taylor, Thornton, Robert T. Van Horn, Warner, Elihu B. Washburne, Wentworth, Windom, and Winfield-44.

So the motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.

During the vote,

Mr. CULLOM stated that Mr. ОRTH, was confined to his room by illness.

YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Ancona, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Baxter, Beaman, Bergen, Bidwell, Blaine, Boyer, Bromwell, Buckland, Bundy, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Darling, Davis, Dawes, Dawson, Defrees, Delano, Deming, Denison, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eggleston, Eldridge, Eliot, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Garfield, Grider, Griswold, Hale, Aaron Harding, Abner C. Harding, Henderson, Higby, Hogan, Holmes, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asabel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, James R. Hubbell, James Humphrey, James M. Humphrey, Ingersoll, Julian, Kelley, Kelso, Kerr, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Le Blond, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marshall, Marston, Marvin, McClurg, McCullough, McKee, McRuer, Moorhead, Morrill, Morris, Myers, Newell, Niblack, O'Neill, Paine, Patterson, Perham, Phelps. Pike, Plants, Price, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Ritter, Rogers, Rollins, Ross, Rousseau, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Sloan, Spalding, Stevens, Stilwell, Strouse, Taylor, Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Ward, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Whaley, Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Woodbridge, and Wright-139,

NAYS-Messrs. Nicholson and Trimble-2. NOT VOTING-Messrs. Barker, Benjamin, Bingham, Blow, Boutwell, Brandegee, Broomall, Coffroth, Culver, Finck. Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Grinnell, Harris, Hart, Hayes, Hill, Hulburd, Jenckes, Johnson. Jones. Kasson, Latham, McIndoe, Mercur, Miller, Moulton, Noell, Orth, Pomeroy, Raymond, Shanklin, Smith, Starr, Taber, Thornton, Robert T. Van Horn, Warner, Elihu B. Washburne, Wentworth, Windom, and Winfield-42.

So the bill was passed.
During the roll-call,

Mr. CULLOM said: The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. ORTH, is ill. If he was here he

would vote for the bill.

ference committee on House bill No. 85, in relation to the donation of lands in the southern States for homesteads, and Mr. ANCONA was appointed in his place.

ADJOURNMENT OVER.

Mr. SPALDING. I move that when the House adjourns to-day it adjourn to meet on Monday.

Mr. MORRILL. I desire the House should be long enough in session to finish the tax bill this week.

The motion was not agreed to.

TAX BILL.

Mr. MORRILL moved that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the special order.

The motion was agreed to.

So the rules were suspended; and the House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Unión, (Mr. DAWES in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the special order, being a 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.

The pending paragraph was as follows: Tin cans used for preserved meats, fish, shell-fish, fruits, vegetables, jams, and jellies.

Mr. KELLEY. I move to strike out all after the word "for" and insert the words "for packing purposes only;" so that it will read,

tin cans used for packing purposes only." We have already included "packing-boxes made of wood." Now, packing-boxes are used for a variety of articles, and the amendment simply proposes to embrace all tin vessels made for packing purposes only. It may be said that crackers and other articles are sent out in tin cans. That is very true. There is no reason why they should not be, nor any reason why the box containing them, if made of tin, should be taxed while a wooden box in which they might be sent is exempt from tax.

Mr. MORRILL. These tin cans for preserved meats, fish, fruits, &c., are exempted because we have placed a stamp duty on those articles. The gentleman proposes to exclude from taxation by his amendment a great variety of articles-not only boxes and cans for crackers, but for such articles as blacking, soda powders, ground mustard, sardines, pill-boxes, and other articles too numerous to mention. Mr. KELLEY. I suggest a modification. Mr. MORRILL. My modification is to reject the amendment. The amendment was not agreed to.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I move to strike out the word "and", and to insert "spices and medicines."

The amendment was not agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to add the following as a new paragraph:

Sugar, molasses, or sirup made from beets, sugarmaple, or from sorghum or imphee.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. With the leave of the com. mittee I will here offer such amendments as have been agreed upon by the Committee of Ways and Means, so that members may understand what are to be offered by the committee and what not, and where they are to come in.

Mr. THAYER. I have no objection if it is understood that we have not passed this paragraph.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to insert after line eighty-five "muriatic, nitric, and acetic acid." The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. In line eighty-six, after the word "alum," insert "aluminous cake, patent alum, and sulphate of aluminum." The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. After line ninety-two insert "nitrate of lead."

The amendment was agreed to.