Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

mitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:

Resolved, that the President be requested to instruct the minister oft e United States to the Sublime Porte to ure up n the Government of the Sultan the abolition of all restrictions and charges upon the passage of vessels of war and commerce through the Straits of the Dardanelles and Bosphorus to the Black Sea, and to endeavor to procure the perfect freedom of navigation through those straits to all classes of vessels.

SOLDIERS' BOUNTIES.

Mr. SHANKS, by unanimous consent, submitted the following preamble and resolution; which were read, considered, and, on motion of Mr. GARFIELD, referred to the Committee on Military Affairs:

Whereas a large number of soldiers entered the service for the term of three years and were mustered out with their regiments by general orders on account of expiration of their term of service, the musterout taking place a few days short of the three full years, and the pay department rules that under existing laws such persons are not entitled to the $100 additional bounty, but only entitled to the fifty dollars additional bounty; and whereas there are stoppages of the payment of additional bounty in many cases for the reason that at some time during their service entries of desertion appear on the rolls against the applicant though there has been no trial or conviction and the soldier has faithfully served out his time and received an honorable discharge; and whereas the act of Congress of February 21, 1868, does not allow the heirs of discharged soldiers the additional bounty if the soldier died prior to the act of July 28, 1866; and whereas soldiers enlisting in 1861 and subsequently, who were discharged before serving two years on account of disabilities contracted in the service, received no original bounty and are not al owed additional bounty; and whereas soldiers who enlisted in 1861, 1862, and 1863 for three years, and served over two years, and were discharged to accept promotion, having received the original bounty are now not entitled to any additional bounty; Therefore

Be it resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs be hereby instructed to investigate these several above-named subjects of alleged inequalities of the law touching bounties, and if corrections are necessary to the full and equal disposition of justice to all concerned, to report to this House for its action by bill or otherwise.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent to offer a joint resolution.

Mr. VAN HORN, of Missouri. I object.

VACANCIES IN EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS.

Mr. BOUTWELL, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported back with an amendment in the form of a substitute, a bill (S. No. 352) to authorize the temporary supplying of vacancies in the Executive Department.

The substitute was read. It provides in the first section that in case of the death, resig nation, absence or sickness of the head of any Executive Department of the Government, the first or sole assistant thereof shall, unless otherwise directed by the President of the United States as subsequently provided, perform the duties of such head until a successor be appointed or such absence or sickness shall

cease.

The second section provides that in case of the death, resignation, absence, or sickness of the chief of any bureau, or of any officer thereof whose appointment is not in the head of an executive Department, the deputy of such chief or of such officer, or if there be no deputy, then the chief clerk of such bureau, shall, unless otherwise directed by the President of the United States as subsequently provided, perform the duties of such chief or of such officer until a successor be appointed or such absence or sickness shall cease.

The third section provides that in any of the cases before mentioned it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, in his discretion, to authorize and direct the head of any other executive Department, or other officer in either of those Departments, whose appointment is, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, vested in the President, to perform the duties of the vacant office until the appointment of a successor, or until the sickness or absence of the incumbent shall cease. But nothing in this act is to authorize such supplying of a vacancy for a longer period than ten days when such vacancy shall have been occasioned by death or resignation; and the officer so performing the duties of the office

temporarily vacant is not to be entitled to extra compensation therefor.

The fourth section provides for the repeal of all laws inconsistent with the provisions of this act and of all acts heretofore passed on the subject of temporarily supplying vacancies in the Executive Departments, or which empower the President to authorize any person or persons to perform the duties of the head of any executive Department or of any officer in either of the Departments in case of vacancy therein or inability of such head of a Department or officer to discharge the duties of his office.

Mr. BOUTWELL. Mr. Speaker, this bill was reported by order of the Judiciary Committee. It relates to appointments by the President ad interim, and limits those appointments to ten days, but provides, whenever there is a vacancy in the secretaryship of any of the Departments or in the headship of any of the bureaus by operation of law, that then the person next in office shall take charge and perform the duties; in case of the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary, or in case of the head of a bureau, the chief clerk. The power of the President to appoint a person ad interim is limited to ten days. If he desires to fill the vacancy he can send in the name to the Senate.

The bill we propose as a substitute for the Senate bill applies to the bureaus in the various Departments the principle which in the Senate bill is applied to the Departments. This is a fair statement of the purport of the bill; and I now demand the previous question.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the substitute was adopted.

The bill, as amended, was ordered to a third reading; and it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. BOUTWELL moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

CIVIL APPROPRIATION BILL.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, from the Committee on Appropriations, reported back the amendments of the Senate to House bill No. 818, making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending the 30th of June, 1869, and for other purposes, with a report; which were referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, made the special order for to-mor row after the morning hour, and the report ordered to be printed.

DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION BILL.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I am not well, and before leaving the House I desire to make some arrangement in reference to the deficiency appropriation bill. I move that its further consideration be postponed until Friday next. There are two amendments which I wish to offer. One is the appropriation for payments to the city of Washington, which was stricken out because of an obnoxious provision. I propose to offer that appropriation again and another amendment, and then let the bill be postponed until Friday next.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I do not think we ought to postpone the deficiency appropriation bill. It can be taken up and acted on at an earlier day, and we ought to get these appropriatiou bills before committees of conference as soon as possible. If we do it this week we will be ready to adjourn at the end of next week.

One word further. We may as well settle another matter here. There were points of order made on two provisos. One was made by my colleague [Mr. INGERSOLL] in regard to the appropriation to pay for improvements in the city of Washington. I understand he is willing to withdraw his objection so that the proviso shall stand.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I do so in view of the fact that those to whom the money is due are very much in need of it.

The SPEAKER. If there is no objection it will be considered as pending with the proviso which was ruled out in Committee of the Whole. Mr. MAYNARD. I object.

Then I

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. ask that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] may take up the bill in order that I may move to suspend the rules for the purpose of adding that proviso to the bill.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I cannot yield for that. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I hope the gentleman will not object. I have consulted the city authorities, and they agree to what I have now stated.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I will give notice, then, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MOORHEAD] delines to yield, that I shall, as soon as an opportunity offers, move to suspend the rules in order to have that proviso added.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I hope it will be agreed to after my colleague has made his motion.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I move that the rules be suspended and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, with a view of laying aside everything that has precedence of the tariff bill.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. How many bills are there preceding the tariff bill?

The SPEAKER. The Chair has not counted them. Gentlemen can see for themselves by reference to the Calendar.

The question being put on the motion of Mr. MOORHEAD, there were-ayes 56, noes 33; no quorum voting.

Tellers were ordered; and the Chair appointed Messrs. MOORHEAD, and WILSON of Iowa. The House divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 65, noes 36.

So the motion was agreed to.

The House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. DAWES in the chair,) and proceeded to the consideration of business on the Calendar of the Committee of the Whole.

MEETING OF CONGRESS.

.The CHAIRMAN. The first business on the Calendar of the Committee of the Whole is the bill (H. R. No. 81) in regard to the meeting of Congress.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I move to lay aside that bill for the purpose of reaching the tariff bill. The question being put on the motion of Mr. MOORHEAD, there were-ayes 52, noes 27; no quorum voting.

Tellers were ordered; and the Chair appointed Messrs. MOORHEAD, and WASHBURNE of Illinois. The committee divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 65, noes 22; no quorum voting.

Under the rule the roll was then called, and the following members failed to answer to their

names:

Messrs. Adams, Archer, Arnell, James M. Ashley, Axtell, Baldwin, Barnes. Barnum, Beaman, Beck, Bingham, Blaine, Boyer, Bromwell, Brooks, Broomall, Buckland, Burr, Roderick R. Butler, Cary, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Cook, Cornell, Covode, Dixon, Dodge, Eckley, Eggleston, Eldridge, Ferriss, Fields, Finney, Fox, Getz, Glossbrenner, Golladay, Gravely, Haight, Halsey, Harding, Hawkins, Hill, Holman, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Jones, Kerr, Ketcham, Knott, Laflin, Lincoln, Marshall, McCormick, McCullough, McKee, Morrell, Morrissey, Mungen, Myers, Newcomb, Niblack, Nicholson, Nunn, Phelps, Polsley, Pruyn, Randall, Robertson, Robinson, Ross, Scofield, Selye, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Starkweather, Stokes, Taber, Thomas, John Trimble, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Aerman, Van Auken, Van Trump, Van Wyck, Ward, Welker, John T. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Wood, and Woodward.

The committee then rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. POMEROY reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union having had under consideration House bill No. 81, in regard to the meeting of Congress, and finding itself without a quorum, had directed the roll to be called and the names of the absentees to be reported to the House.

The SPEAKER. One hundred and one members having answered to their names, being one more than a quorum, the committee will resume its session without further question.

The Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union accordingly resumed its session, (Mr. DAWES in the chair.)

The CHAIRMAN stated that the pending question was on the motion to lay aside the bill (H. R. No. 81) in regard to the meeting of Congress.

The tellers, Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, and Mr. MOORHEAD, resumed their places.

The committee again divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 61, noes 35; no quorum voting. Mr. MOORHEAD. As there appears to be a difficulty in getting a quorum, and as the day is very hot, I move that the committee do now 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 the Union generally under consideration, and particularly the bill (H. R. No. 81) in regard to the meeting of Congress, and had come to no resolution thereon.

DEFICIENCY BILL.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I now move to suspend the rules so as to make it in order for me to offer two amendments to the deficiency bill. The first amendment is in regard to payment for the improvement of streets in Washington, with a proviso repealing the law on that subject; and the second amendment is a proviso which was objected to on Friday by the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. POLAND.] The proviso, which has been modified so as to be satisfactory to the gentleman from Vermont, is for the purpose of putting an end to this practice of Government officers entering into contracts for public buildings without authority of law.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Iobject. We have not been able to get a quorum to-day to do other business, and I object to going on with this busi

ness.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. Let these amendments come in so as to be pending and then we will adjourn.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I want to have the tariff bill pending.

The SPEAKER. That could not be pending in the House.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Well, I withdraw the objection.

The question was taken on Mr. WASHBURNE'S motion, and there were ayes 67, noes 11; no quorum voting.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. BENJAMIN.

do now adjourn.

I move that the House

The question was taken and there were-ayes 36, noes 51.

So the House refused to adjourn. The question was then taken on Mr. WASHBURNE'S motion; and there were yeas 97, nays 9, not voting 92; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Bailey, Baker, Beatty, Benjamin, Benton, Blair, Boles, Boutwell, Benjamin F. Butler, Cake, Churchill, Sidney Clarke, Coburn, Cullom, Dawes, Delano, Deweese, Donnelly, Driggs, Ela, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ferry, French, Garfield, Griswold, Halsey, Hamilton, Hawkins, Higby, Hinds, Hooper, Hopkins, Hulburd, Hunter, Ingersoll, Jenckes. Alexander H. Jones, Judd, Julian, Kelley, Kelsey, Kitchen, Koontz, George V.Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Loughridge, Lynch, McCarthy. McClurg, Mercur. Miller, Moore, Moorhead, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Perham, Peters, Pike, Pile, Plants, Poland, Pomeroy, Price, Raum, Roots, Sawyer, Schenck, Shanks, Smith, Spalding, Aaron F. Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stewart, Stokes, Taffe. Taylor, Thomas, Trowbridge, Twichell, Upson, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Cadwalader C. Washburn. Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, William Williams, James F. Wilson, and Woodbridge-97.

NAYS-Messrs. Cobb, Grover, Chester D. Hubbard, Mallory, Marvin, Maynard, Mullins, Stone, and Windom-9.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Adams, Archer, Arnell, Axtell, Baldwin, Banks, Barnes, Barnum, Beaman, Beck, Bingham, Blaine, Boyer, Bromwell, Brooks, Broomall, Buckland, Burr, Roderick R. Butler, Cary, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Cook, Cornell, Covode, Dixon, Dodge, Eckley. Eggleston, Eldridge, Ferriss, Fields, Finney, Fox, Getz, Glossbrenner, Golladay,

Gravely. Haight, Harding, Hill, Holman, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Johnson, Thomas L. Jones, Kerr, Ketcham, Knott, Laflin, Lincoln, Logan, Marshall, McCormick, McCullough, McKee, Morrell, Morrissey, Mungen, Myers, Newcomb, Niblack, Nicholson, Nunn, Phelps, Polsley, Pruyn, Randall, Robertson, Robinson, Ross, Scofield, Selye, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Starkweather, Taber, John Trimble, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Aernam, Van Auken, Van Trump, Van Wyck, Ward, Welker, Thomas Williams. John T. Wilson. Stephen F. Wilson, Wood, and Woodward-92.

So (two thirds voting in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the amendments were received as pending before the House.

Mr. O'NEILL stated, during the roll-call, that Mr. MYERS was detained at home by indisposition.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I now move to postpone the further consideration of the bill and amendments until Thursday next after the Alaska bill shall be disposed of.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask that the two amendments which have just been entertained under a suspension of the rules may be considered adopted.

Mr. COBB. Oh, no; they have not even been read.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I have no objection to those two amendments being considered as adopted.

The SPEAKER. If there is no objection, they will be so considered.

Mr. MULLINS. I object.

The SPEAKER. The amendments are pending.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I insist on my motion to postpone.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. SCHENCK. I move that the House now adjourn.

Mr. FERRY. I hope the gentleman will withdraw that motion, to allow me to submit a preamble and resolution, which will give rise

to no debate.

Mr. SCHENCK. I will withdraw the motion to adjourn.

OTTOWAS AND CHIPPEWAS OF MICHIGAN.

Mr. FERRY submitted the following preamble and resolution; which were read, con sidered, and adopted:

Whereas under a treaty made between the United States and the Ottowa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan, concluded July 31, 1855, certain public lands therein described were withdrawn from sale for the benefit of said Indians, and five years granted in which to make selections by the persons entitled thereto; with the further term of five years within which all such lands unappropriated or unselected were then subject to entry, by Indians only, in the usual manner and rate per acre as other adjacent public lands, and that at the expiration of said ten years all lands thus remaining unappropriated or unsold became disposable in the same manner as other public lands of the United States: and whereas, in consequence of the non-payment of full stipulated annuities by the Government to said Indians, they were deprived of means to avail themselves of rights now unavailable by limitation; and whereas other citizens, accepting the termination of the period within which such lands were so reserved, and by the express terms of said treaty believing that they were then to be subject to entry as other public lands purchased, and under preemption and homestead,entered more or less ofsaid lands; and whereas the reservation of such a tract of valuable and accessible land for over twelve years having greatly retarded settlement, obstructed communication, and materially arrested the industrial growth of that region of the State: Therefore, to finally adjust and equitably distribute rights and interests involved and fully restore to market the remainder of such reservations as lie within the fourth congressional district of said State, Be it resolved, That the Committee on the Public Lands are hereby instructed to examine into the expediency of submitting a plan for such final adjustment upon the following basis, to wit: that the Commissioner of the General Land Office be authorized to issue patents for all lands appropriated for or selected by Indians under said treaty and for other purchases by regular entry, and to confirm to settlers all such lands to which bona fide preemption or homestead rights have attached up to this date, and the then residue of such reservations to be offered at public sale, of which due notice be given, and thereafter at private entry, but in no case sold at a less minimum than $2 50 per acre, the proceeds thereof to be disposed of as follows: one half to be equitably distributed to the Indian claimants under said treaty, within said district, and the other half to be appropriated toward the construction of a lakeshore railroad traversing and extending along the shore of said congressional district in the lower peninsula, and that the committee report by bill or otherwise.

NIGHT SESSION FOR PENSION BILLS. Mr. MILLER. I ask unanimous consent for the consideration of the following resolution at this time:

Resolved, That there be a session of this House on Wednesday evening next, to consider reports from the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will inform the gentleman that the Committee of Elections have notified the House that they intend to call up two contested-election cases from Missouri on Wednesday next.

Mr. MILLER. I will change the time to Thursday evening next.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Let the resolution provide that the business of that session shall be limited to the consideration of pension bills.

Mr. MILLER. Very well; I modify my resolution so as to provide for a session on Thursday evening next, to be confined to the consideration of reports from the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

The resolution, as modified, was then agreed to by unanimous consent.

CIVIL SERVICE BILL.

Mr. JENCKES. I ask unanimous consent that it be ordered that the civil service bill shall be taken up for consideration immediately after the House shall have disposed of the appropriation bills which have just been postponed.

Mr. COBB and Mr. KELSEY objected.

Mr. JENCKES. I move that the rules be suspended, and that it be ordered that the civil service bill be taken up for consideration as soon as the pending appropriations bills shall have been disposed of.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I hope the gentleman will include in his motion all the appropriation bills. I am in favor of the civil service bill, but I do not want it to antagonize with the appropriation bills.

Mr. JENCKES. I do not intend that it shall. I will modify my motion in accordance with the suggestion of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. WASHBURNE.]

The SPEAKER. The Chair begs leave to state that it will be difficult to tell when the bill will be reached.

Mr. COBB. There are some of us who are opposed at any and at all times to taking up bills out of their regular order.

Mr. SCHENCK. I would ask the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. JENCKES] to except the tax bill, also, should it come back from the Senate before the appropriation bills are all disposed of.

Mr. JEÑCKES. I will agree to that. I move that the rules be suspended, and that the civil service bill be assigned for consideration in the House as soon as the appropriation bills shall have been disposed of, and also the tax bill, should it come back from the Senate before the appropriation bills have been disposed of.

The SPEAKER. The Chair cannot tell when the bill will be reached. However, the House has heard the motion of the gentleman, and it is for members to decide.

The question was then taken upon the motion to suspend the rules; and upon a division there were-ayes 51, noes 38; no quorum voting.

Mr. JENCKES. I call for the yeas and nays on the motion to suspend the rules. The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I move that the House now adjourn.

The question was taken upon the motion to adjourn; and upon a division there were ayes 51, noes 36.

So the motion was agreed to; and accordingly (at four 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. CLARKE, of Kansas: A memorial of W. R. Laughlin, for himself and on

behalf of settlers on the Cherokee neutral lands in Kansas, praying that they may be protected in the right to acquire a title to the lands they occupy under the preemption laws of the United States.

By Mr. GROVER: The petition of Patrick Cody, of Louisville, Kentucky, for pension.

By Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania: The petition of citizens of French descent, for the adoption of the postal system for the transmission of money from the United States to France.

By Mr LOGAN: Petitions for pensions from John Hines, private company H, twenty-sixth Illinois volunteers; Joseph Fiedler, sergeant major Thielman's battalion Illinois cavalry; Andrew J. Cornelison, private company G, fifty-sixth Illinois volunteers; Edmund H. Winters, private company A, thirty-first Illinois volunteers.

Also, additional papers in the case of Thomas Mason, petitioner for pension.

Also, petition for passage of a bill granting invalid pensions withheld from March 3, 1865, to June 6, 1866.

Also, the petitions of J. C. Bradley, of Alabama, and George Alcorn, of Mississippi, asking for removal of political disabilities.

By Mr. SAWYER: A resolution of the Board of Regents of the State University of Wisconsin, relating to officers of the United States Army detailed for military instruction in the universities and colleges of the different States.

IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, July 7, 1868.

Prayer by Rev. E. H. GRAY, D. D.

On motion of Mr. WILSON, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of yesterday was dispensed with.

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED.

The bill (H. R. No. 396) for the relief of Samuel Tibbetts was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

The joint resolution (H. R. No. 326) for the relief of Henry B. St. Marie was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. MORGAN presented a memorial of citizens of New York, protesting against the ratification or confirmation by Congress of any conveyance of any part of the Yosemite valley by the State of California to individuals; which was referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims.

Mr. HOWE. I present the petition of the board of regents of the University of Wisconsin, asking for a change of the law so that officers in the Army detailed for the purpose of military instruction in the colleges and universities in different parts of the country may be allowed, when on that service, the same pay as when on military duty. I move the reference of this petition to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia; and I take occasion to say that I wish that committee would attend to the subject, for I think the prayer of the petition is eminently just.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. SUMNER presented a petition of persons, former slaves of William D. V. Downing, of Louisiana, praying for aid to relieve him from the deprivations of extreme poverty; which was referred to the Committee on Claims.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Mr. STEWART, from the Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill S. No. 444) granting lands to the State of Nevada to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Central Pacific railroad to the Colorado river, reported it without amendment.

Mr. HOWE, from the Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Mrs. L. T. Potter, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill (S. No. 596) for the relief of Mrs. L. T. Potter.

The bill was read and passed to a second reading, and the report was ordered to be printed.

Mr. VAN WINKLE, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of Rebecca C. Meeker, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill (S. No. 597) granting a pension to Rebecca C. Meeker. The bill was read and passed to a second reading, and the | report was ordered to be printed.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Mary Scott, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill (S. No. 598) for the relief of Mary Scott. The bill was read and passed to a second reading, and the report was ordered to be printed.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 1313) granting an increase of pension to Sarah Hackleman, widow of Brigadier General Pleasant A. Hackleman, moved its indefinite postponement; which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 527) for the relief of the widow of Colonel T. B. Ransom, and mother of the late brevet Major General T. E. G. Ransom, moved its indefinite postponement; which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, to whom were referred the following petitions, asked to be discharged from their further consideration; which was agreed to:

The petition of John H. Finlay ;

The petition of Brevet Lieutenant A. Liebschutz;

The petition of Washington J. F. Martin; and The petition of Mrs. Rehuma Brown.

He also, from the same committee, to whom were referred the petition of Lewis John and the petition of Barney Carney, asked to be discharged from their further consideration, and that they be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia; which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, to whom were referred the petition of Elizabeth S. Lathrop and the petition of Louisa J. Simpson, reported adversely, and moved their indefinite postponement; which was agreed to.

Mr. MORGAN, from the Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 1119) for the registration or enrollment of certain foreign vessels, reported it without amendment.

BILL RECOMMITTED.

On motion of Mr. DRAKE, the bill (H. R. No. 941) to amend certain acts in relation to the Navy and Marine corps was recommitted to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. ROSS asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 599) granting a pension to Mary Pearce; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. CONKLING asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a joint resolution (S. No. 155) regulating representation in the Electoral College; which was read twice by its title, and ordered to be printed.

AMENDMENTS TO APPROPRIATION BILLS. Mr. FESSENDEN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to the bill (H. R. No. 1341) making appropriations and to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the service of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

He also submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to the bill (H. R. No. 1046) making appropriations for the repair, preservation, and completion of certain public works; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

SETTLEMENT OF ENGINEERS' ACCOUNTS.

Mr. WILSON. I ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to take up House joint reso

lution No. 154, and put it on its passage. It is a small matter, but a very important one.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Let it be read for information.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The title of the joint resolution will be read.

The CHIEF CLERK. "A joint resolution (H. R. No. 154) in relation to the settlement of the accounts of certain officers and agents who have disbursed public moneys under the direction of the chief of engineers.'

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there any objection to the present consideration of the joint resolution?

Mr. EDMUNDS. I object until I can hear it read, as I asked for information.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will be read through.

The Chief Clerk read the joint resolution. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury in the settlement of the accounts of Captain George W. Cullum, Captain James B. McPherson, Captain Charles E. Blunt, and Lieutenant John C. Palfrey, of the corps of engineers, to allow to the credit of Captain Cullum the amount receipted for to him by Charles H. Bigelow; to the credit of Captain James B. McPherson and Captain C. E. Blunt the amounts receipted for to them respectively by Abiel W. Tinkham; and to the credit of Lieutenant John C. Palfrey the amount receipted for to him by John J. Lee; and to the credit of John J. Lee the amount receipted for to him by L. H. Eaton; but Charles H. Bigelow, Abiel W. Tinkham, John J. Lee, and L. H. Eaton are each to be held to the same accountability to the United States for the amounts transferred to them, respectively, at the time of transfer, and for advances made to them from the Treasury, as was at the time of transfer required by law and regulations from officers of the corps of engineers. This authority is to have no further application than to such accounts as have been already examined and approved by the chief of engineers, and are found to contain a full and satisfactory accounting for all the public money which came into their hands, namely: C. H. Bigelow, $38,351 74; J. J. Lee, $3,508 95; A. W. Tinkham, $12,910 13; L. H. Eaton, $90 85, all of which money has been expended upon the fortifications of the States of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine.

There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the joint resolution.

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

DISTRICT JUDGES IN CIRCUIT COURTS. Mr. TRUMBULL. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 449.

The motion was agreed to; and the bill (S. No. 449) to revive and continue in force the act of the 29th of July, 1850, and the act amendatory thereof of the 2d of April, 1852, was considered as in Committee of the Whole.

The Committee on the Judiciary reported the bill, with an amendment to strike out all after the enacting clause, in the following words:

That the act of Congress entitled "An act to provide for holding of the courts of the United States in case of sickness or other disability of the judges of the district court," passed July 29, 1850, and an act amendatory of the same, passed April 2, 1852, be, and the same are hereby revived, and to continue in full force and effect from and after this.

And to insert in lieu thereof the following: That the act of Congress entitled "An act to provide for holding the courts of the United States in case of the sickness or other disability of the judges of the district courts," passed July 29, 1850, except the fifth section thereof, and an act amendatory of the same, passed April 2, 1852, be, and the same are hereby declared to be in full force and effect.

Mr. TRUMBULL. As the bill refers to former acts without setting them out I will state what it is. It is a bill that authorizes the justices of the Supreme Court under certain circumstances to call in judges of district courts from other districts. There is a question in the minds of some whether the passage.

of a law a year ago regulating the salaries of judges of the United States courts and repealing so much of the former acts recited in this bill as authorized pay to the district judges who were called in out of their districts did not repeal the rest of the law and take away the power of the justices of the Supreme Court to call in judges from the other districts. The object of this bill is simply to declare that that power exists, but to repeal specifically that clause which authorized extra compensation. That is all there is of it.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I will inquire if there was a law providing extra compensation for a district judge when he performed circuit court duties which this bill proposes to repeal?

Mr. TRUMBULL. There was such a law formerly, but that law was repealed a year ago when we increased the salaries of the district judges. We then repealed expressly the law that authorized any extra compensation to be made to a district judge who performed services out of his district.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I will inquire of my friend whether there was any law authorizing extra compensation? Was it anything more than the actual expenses?

Mr. TRUMBULL. That is extra compen sation. That was the form of the law, compensation in the way of expenses.

Mr. FESSENDEN. If they were called into another district they were paid the actual expenses incurred in the performance of that duty.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Their expenses were allowed them, about ten dollars a day or something like that, ordinarily; but a year ago we added to the salaries of the district judges, increasing most of them from $2,000 to $3,500, and when that increase of salary was made, the law authorizing the payment of expenses, if you please to put it in that form, to judges called out of their districts, was repealed expressly; and now when a judge performs duty outside of his district his.expenses are not paid by the United States. But some of the justices of the Supreme Court had doubts whether the authority to call a judge out of his district was not also repealed by implica tion when we repealed that portion of the law allowing him his expenses. In order to make that certain, about which I do not think there is now any uncertainty, but others think differently, this bill is introduced by which so much of the law as authorizes a judge of a district court to be called out of his district under certain circumstances is declared to be in full force. That is all there is of this bill.

Mr. JOHNSON. The bill is rendered necessary by a doubt entertained by the judge for the circuit embracing the State of New York, Mr. Justice Nelson. He is of the opinion, and he has been acting upon the correctness of that opinion, that he cannot now call any judge out of the particular district in which he may be holding a circuit court, to discharge the duties of a judge within the district of New York. The original authority was given in terms, and it provided that the judge who was so called was to be paid his experses, I think not to exceed ten dollars a day. That being repealed, Mr. Justice Nelson supposed that the authority to call upon a judge to perform such duty was also repealed. Whether he is right or wrong in that opinion-I concur with the chairman of our committee that he is in error is immaterial. He honestly thinks such is the effect of the law which we have passed, and the result is, the business of New York is suffering very much. That will be corrected by the bill proposed by the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think this bill ought to be amended so as to provide that when district judges are requested to go out of their districts to hold a circuit court, and they go in compliance with that request, they shall have their necessary expenses paid, notwithstanding the alleged increase of salaries. The district judge of the State of Oregon, for two successive years, has been to San Francisco, and

held the circuit court there, in the absence of Judge Field, spending some two or three months at a time in holding that circuit court, at very great expense to him. He is only paid, I believe, $3,500 in greenbacks for his ser vices, in consequence of which he is unable to defray the necessary expenses of this journey and of this service in San Francisco and his other expenses. I have made an ineffectual effort here to have his salary increased as it ought to be. It will be remembered that the expenses of traveling and other expenses on the Pacific coast are much larger than they are here, because there a dollar in greenbacks only counts as seventy cents, and if a man pays his expenses at a hotel in greenbacks, the money that he receives from the Government, he is compelled to discount every dollar thirty cents on the dollar. In this way it is impossible for that district judge to meet his necessary expenses, particularly when he performs these circuit court duties.

It has been necessary, I suppose, Judge Field being absent here in Washington attending the Supreme Court, and unable to attend the circuit court in San Francisco, for the convenience of suitors and for all the public interests involved, that the district judge of Oregon should attend to that court, and he has performed a large amount of business in that capacity at that court. He is compelled to pay his traveling expenses, going a distance of some seven or eight hundred miles. He is compelled, while he is in San Francisco for three or four months, to pay hotel and other expenses, which are very heavy. To require him to perform these duties and at the same time deny that he shall have his expenses paid, it seems to me is doing an act of injustice. If additional duties are imposed upon a district judge, if he is required to hold a circuit court, and perform the duties of a circuit judge, I do not see any reason why he should not at least have his expenses paid. I move to amend the amendment reported by the Committee on the Judiciary by adding:

Provided, The district judge of Oregon shall be allowed his traveling and other reasonable expenses in attending the circuit court of the United States in California.

Mr. COLE. I have been acquainted with the case to which the Senator from Oregon has made allusion, and concur with him in the opinion that it is but right and just that the district judge who comes from Oregon down to San Francisco to hold the circuit court should be paid his reasonable expenses. His salary is but very small at best, payable in greenbacks. I believe it is but $3,000 a year; and it certainly is putting upon him a very great and unreasonable burden to require him to go that great distance, nearly a thousand miles, to hold a court without any extra compensation. Several of the most reputable lawyers of San Francisco have communicated with me by letter on this subject, realizing the great hardship that it is upon this Oregon judge, Judge Deady, to come to San Francisco and hold this court. I hope, therefore, that the amendment which the Senator from Oregon proposes will be readily adopted by the Senate. it is only an act of justice in this case.

Mr. CORBETT. I had the honor to present a bill for the increase of the salary of Judge Deady in the fore part of the session, which bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The Committee on the Judiciary did not feel disposed to report the bill back, as they feared that they might be obliged to raise the salaries of other judges, although it only proposed to give him the same salary that was given to the judges of California. The judge from Oregon, Judge Deady, informed me it was impossible for him to live upon his salary, it being paid in greenbacks, while his expenses were all payable in gold. Three thousand dollars in greenbacks, if that be his salary, would amount, with greenbacks at seventy cents, to about two thousand one hundred dollars in gold. That will not support his family. He has quite a large family. He is a very able man, and of course he must live

in accordance with his station and his position in society. He is not an extravagant man. I assure Senators that it will be nothing more than justice to him, a very worthy and very able lawyer and judge, to adopt this amend

ment.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I wish it to be understood by the Senate that this bill that is introduced here has nothing to do with salaries at all. It is not a bill either increasing or dimin ishing salaries. It is a bill requiring the judges of district courts to perform this service when called upon by the justices of the Supreme Court. I think that is the law now; but there is some question about it in the minds of some of the justices of the Supreme Court. This bill is only to make that specific; and I am sorry that there is this attempt to embarrass it by increasing compensation, either by way of paying expenses or otherwise, to any of these judges.

Let me say to the Senators from Oregon that the salaries of the district judges were put up only a year ago, most of them $1,500, a much larger sum than their expenses would be, and the bill provided at that time that that was to be all their compensation. If you are to listen to every letter that is written here by a lawyer or a clerk of a court recommending the increase of the salary of a judge, you will have to increase the salaries of all the judges. They are not satisfied with them. You cannot put on this provision in regard to Oregon without having the same in reference to Rhode Island and Vermont and New Hampshire and Connecticut, and every other State whose district judge is sometimes called out into a neighboring district, perhaps at an expense of fifty or one hundred, or possibly five hundred dollars; and yet within a year we have given nearly every one of them $1,500 increase of salary, which was intended at the time to be a full compensation. Let me say to the Senators from Oregon that, in my judgment, that bill increasing these salaries $1,500, and some of them $2,000, never could have passed unless it had been understood that that was to be all the compensation that the district judges were to have. I hope no attempt will be made in this bill to increase salaries.

Mr. CONNESS. The honorable Senator from Illinois is always clear and exact when he knows the facts connected with the subject upon which he speaks. That he does not in this case, he will permit me to say, is evidenced by what he has said while up. In place of discussing the exact facts, as stated by the Senators from Oregon, he goes into a general denunciation of the proposition, and involves it in connection with all the district judges of the United States and laws passed for the increase of their salaries. I will say to the Senator that all he may say on this subject does not meet the facts stated nor controvert them. The facts stated are exactly correct. There is but one district judge in California, Judge Hoffman, sitting at San Francisco. The second district has been abolished; and there is now a bill to create a second district before the committee of which the honorable Senator is chairman. It is simply impossible for Judge Hoffman to hold Judge Field's circuit court, because his own docket is behind hundreds of cases, and this condition of things cannot be changed until there is an increase of judicial labor given and provided for. Judge Deady cannot come down from Oregon upon his salary and hold court there; and yet he has done it, not feeling it to be his duty to refuse, and thus prevent the administration of justice in California. He has done it at an immense expense to himself. No $100, I will tell the Senator, nor $500, pays Judge Deady's expenses for coming down from Oregon and returning there, and living three months at the city of San Francisco. If you could by any means transfer the honorable Senator to one of these judgeships, he would understand the matter at once, and he would find out how far $100 in greenbacks go toward paying the expenses of a United States district judge on that coast.

But, Mr. President, we may talk until we get hoarse here and state facts. They are not always listened to unless we succeed by personal appeals to Senators. The case stated yesterday from that country was voted down as inconsiderately as if it were not all surrounded by facts; but the honorable Senator's mode of discussing this subject does not appear to me to meet the facts of the case at all.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I wish to correct an impression conveyed by the Senator from Illinois, who stated that these salaries have been raised $1,500. It was impossible to have the salaries of the district judges of Oregon and Nevada raised more than $500. Their salary is now $3,500 each.

Mr. TRUMBULL. What was the former salary?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Three thousand dollars originally; $500 was added, making it $3,500, which is paid in greenbacks.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Will not $500 pay his expense from Oregon to California and back? Mr. WILLIAMS. I think not; it will a little over pay the passage-money from Portland to San Francisco; not very much more than that, the passage-money being paid in gold. I wished simply to correct the state

ment.

Mr. CORBETT. It should be recollected that the distance between San Francisco and Portland is about as far as from New York to Charleston. It is quite a distance for a judge to go out of his district to attend court.

Mr. CONKLING. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois stated that he did not believe the increase of salary could have been passed but for the assurance that it would be in lieu of this extra compensation. I think he made a very mild statement in saying that, and I venture to bear a little testimony on that subject, having been a member of the conference committee by which the present statute was adjusted, and having had a good deal to do actively with the adoption of the provision by the House of Representatives. The truth is, Mr. President, not on'y that the provision would not have met with acquiescence in the House without this assurance, but that it was adopted upon that ground, I may say, solely. The argument for the increase of salaries at that time, when the decadence of prices had commenced, began and ended with the allegation that all of these recipients of increased salary were to take the salary in lieu of per diem and expenses for services rendered outside their districts. In the case of the judge in Oregon, the increase was, I believe, $500; in the case of some of the eastern judges it was $1,000, and in two or three cases $1,500; and, as I say, it proceeded not only largely, but, according to my recollection, entirely upon this idea.

There has been, Mr. President, several times in committee and in both Houses allusion made to the condition of the courts in California, and especially the condition, as we have heard this morning, of the district court in California, of which Judge Hoffman is the judge. Feeling, I presume, as I think he had a right to do, aggrieved by a good many of the statements which had been made, he wrote me a letter, a portion of which on this subject I beg to read to the Senate, in order that they may see what Judge Hoffinan does, and what are the exactions and burdens which he bears. He says:

"The district court of this district is not overburdened with business; the labors of the judges are far lighter than those of either of the State district judges in this city. The calendar is at this moment nearly cleared."

Mr. HOWARD. What is the date of the letter?

Mr. CONKLING. The date of the letter is March 9, 1868:

"The calendar is at this moment nearly cleared. The district attorney informs me that the United States cases will all be disposed of this week. I am not informed what civil cases are ready for trial; certainly not more than two or three. I think it

quite probable that in the course of next month the court will adjourn for want of business."

I presume nobody will doubt that Judge Hoffman is an intelligent witness on this subject, and we have, therefore, the fact that the district judge in California is not burdened at all, but the reverse; is far more at liberty than the district judge of the district in which I reside to hold the circuit court, for he is, as he says, greatly overburdened. So are others of the district judges; but here seems to be a marked example to the contrary.

Now, this gentleman in Oregon has received an increase of salary of $500 since the time when the cost of living was grievous, since the time when we commenced the descending scale of prices, and with the district judge of California, as able a man as Judge Hoffman is, and as pure a man, and situated as he is, I cannot conceive an exigency in California for the holding of the circuit court beyond the time which Judge Hoffman can give to it, for which $500 will not be a suitable compensation, looking to traveling bills during the session of penses an; hotel hope, considering how recently this matter was readjusted, and considering the liberality with which the present tariff of salaries was fixed, as we then supposed, the honorable Senator from Oregon will allow it to stand as it is, and let us at some future time, and more deliberately recast all these salaries, if, in truth, any alteration is necessary.

I

Mr. WILLIAMS. I should like to inquire of the Senator whether Judge Hoffman indicates his willingness or ability to hold the circuit court in the city of San Francisco? Has the letter any reference whatever to that subject?

Mr. CONKLING. The letter was not written especially to that point; but I submit to the honorable Senator that when a judge himself says that his calendar is clear, that his court is about to adjourn for want of business, it is not necessary when speaking to lawyers for him to add that he is then in condition, if need be, to hold a court going by another name in the same place. It is his duty to hold this court, as far as he has time to do it; and when he says himself that his occupation is light, that indeed he is at leisure at this time-for that is what this letter amounts to-surely it is not necessary for him to go further and say that he is now in condition to have the law act upon him which says he is to hold this court when he can.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I, of course, do not know the circumstances under which that letter was written, or the objects for which it was written, but I am very confident that Judge Field would not request the district judge of Oregon to attend the circuit court in California unless he conceived that there was a necessity for it, and that necessity arose out of the fact that Judge Hoffman was otherwise engaged. Now, it seems reasonable, whatever the representa tions in that letter may be-and certainly they are contrary to what I have always heard from other sources in reference to that matterthat in the State of California, where there is so much litigation about Mexican land titles and other matters of that description, there should be an accumulation of business in the district court when there is but one court of that description for the entire State. It may be that at that particular time to which Judge Hoffman referred, that particular season of the year, business had declined; but the circuit court continues there for some two or three months, and the district judge for the State of Oregon for two successive years, on account of the absence of Mr. Justice Field in Washington attending the Supreme Court, has held the circuit court for the State of California.

Mr. CONKLING. If the Senator will allow me, I can answer his question now more intelligently. It was some little time since I had been looking at this letter; and while the Senator has been speaking I have read it again,

and I beg now to read an additional passage to the Senate, following in order after what I before read:

"I do not, however, wish to be understood as say ing that the district judge can readily dispatch all the business of the circuit court in addition to that of his own court. Some assistance in the former court is necessary. This has heretofore been furnished by Judge Deady, of Oregon, a gentleman of high character and capacity. He is now holding a circuit court here. In November last the term of that court was held by me, and all causes ready for trial were disposed of. Judge Deady will no doubt in the course of six weeks or two months dispatch all the business which has since accumulated. If a term of from two to three months be held annually by him, the business of both courts can with the utmost ease be disposed of, and with far less than the law's usual delay.

"These are the facts, notorious here to every member of the bar. I state them to you because I do not choose," &c.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am much obliged to the Senator for the information which that letter conveys, for it shows that in the judg ment of Judge Hoffman it is necessary that the district judge of the State of Oregon should attend in s to fold the circuit or url, and that San Francisco for two or three months they proceed upon the expectation that he will regularly each year attend to the circuit court in the city of San Francisco, traveling a distance of seven or eight hundred miles at a large expense, remaining there two or three months, holding that court, and then return to the State of Oregon; and it is claimed that under these circumstances when he is required, not occasionally but regularly, to perform the duties of a circuit judge for the circuit upon the Pacific coast, he shall not be 'allowed his traveling and other necessary expenses in addition to his moderate salary of $3,500.

Mr. CONKLING. Will not $500 pay his hotel bills and traveling expenses?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not know exactly how much the expenses of traveling from Portland to San Francisco, remaining there, and returning may be ; but the passage money alone from Portland to San Francisco has been in the neighborhood of $100 in gold. Then there are his individual expenses, to say nothing about the expenses of his family. He has a considerable family, whose expenses he must defray all the time. His hotel expenses in San Francisco must be at least four or five dollars a day in gold. The Senate, then, can very readily see how far $500 goes toward paying his expenses. I think that it is no

more than fair under all the circumstances that this amendment should be adopted.

Mr. CONNESS. Mr. President, I feel that it is due to myself, on account of what has been said and the production of this letter by the Senator from New York, to say a few words in regard to it. I do not know, as the Senator from Oregon said he did not, for what purposes this letter was written. If it was to affect a bill which is pending in this body for the creation of a second district in the State of California, which is most likely the case from the tenor of that portion of the letter which I have heard read, then it is very strange, indeed, that the judge should not address either one of the Senators from his own State, and that the information should come to the Senate through this particular channel. I think, sir, that I would be the last person in the country to advocate the unnecessary creation of a judicial district there. My information on the subject of the amount of business existing in the district court is diametrically contrary to the statement of the district judge contained in that letter. I stepped into the office of the Secretary of the Senate with a view of getting a statement from that gentleman, who was recently clerk of that court, to ascertain what the state of the docket was at the time he left the office; but he happened to be temporarily at the other House. Judge Field, before he left here last year-and whatever persons may think of his political opinions it can hardly be questioned that he would make a correct statement as to facts of that kind-said to me that Judge Hoffman's docket had from two to three hundred cases

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »