The SPEAKER. The motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. WASHBURN] has priority, under the rule, to be found on page 151 of the Digest, which will be read by the Clerk.

The Clerk read as follows:

"A motion to go into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union may be entertained on private-bill day; but the motion to go into a Committee of the Whole House takes precedence.'

The House divided; and there were-ayes 63, noes 38.

Mr. MOORHEAD demanded tellers.
Tellers were not ordered.

So the motion of Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts, was agreed to.

The House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, Mr. ELDRIDGE in the chair.

RICHARD CHENERY.

The first business upon the Private Calendar was Senate joint resolution No. 40, to provide for the payment of the claim of Richard Chenery.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Is this objection day?

The CHAIRMAN. It is not.

Mr. SCHENCK. Then the gentleman's vocation is gone. [Laughter.]

I

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. move that joint resolution be passed over for the present.

The motion was agreed to.

BOUNTIES FOR MISSOURI TROOPS

The next business upon the Private Calendar was House joint resolution No. 147, placing certain troops of Missouri on an equal footing

with others as to bounties.

Mr. McCLURG. The same subject has been referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and it will come up in another shape. I move, therefore, that it be passed over. The motion was agreed to.

IRON-CLAD CONTRACTORS.

The next business upon the Private Calendar was Senate bill No. 307, for the relief of certain Government contractors.

I

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. move that be laid aside to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it do pass.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Let it be read. The bill was read. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to Secor & Co., and Perine, Secor & Co., the sum of $115,539 01; to Harrison Loring, $38,513; to the Atlantic Iron Works, of Boston, Massachusetts, $4,852 58; to Aquilla Adams, $4,852 58; to M. F. Merritt, the sum of $4,852 58; to Tomlinson, Harteepee & Co., $15,171; to Harlan & Hollingsworth, the sum of $38,513; and to Poole & Hunt, the sum of $3,694 81; being the amount found to be due to each of the parties herein respectively named by the Secretary of the Navy under an act of Congress entitled An act for the relief of certain contractors for the construction of vessels of war and steam machinery," approved March 2, 1867, which shall be in full discharge of all claims against the United States on account of the vessels upon which the board made the allowance, as per their report, under the act of March 2, 1767.

་་

The com

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the circumstances of this case will be recollected by the members of the ThirtyNinth Congress. We had what was called an "iron-clad bill" that came before the Committee of Claims. It was before that committee at both sessions of Congress. mittee were of the opinion that it ought not to pass. It gave to these contractors twelve per cent. on the contract price for the vessels they built. The committee were of the opinion that if the Government had, by alterations of plans or delays, caused loss to these contractors it should be reimbursed to them. We believed the Government was bound to that extent. So far as the increase of price of

material, &c., is concerned, which would apply to all the contractors of the country, we believed the Government could not be held bound. Accordingly, the Committee of Claims reported back that bill with a resolution, the terms of which were as follows: that a board should be appointed by the Navy Department, before which board should appear all these contractors, to ascertain whether any of the increased price of these various vessels had been caused by the Government on account of alterations or delays which had not been paid for by the Government; and if they could show that on account of the action of the Government, not provided for in the contracts, alterations had been made increasing the cost to the contractors, which had not been paid for, on that point this board should report to this Congress and this Congress would act upon it. The result was that the Navy Department appointed a board, notified all these various before them, and, on the basis of that resolu contractors-forty-eight in number-to appear tion, to show any claim they might have for additional compensation. They accordingly appeared, and after an examination it was found that but eight out of the forty-eight contion, the aggregate amount being some two tractors were entitled to additional compensa

hundred thousand dollars. All the rest of the contractors being entitled to nothing.

The board made their report to Congress. The Senate examined it, acted upon and confirmed it by a joint resolution which, after having passed that body, came before the Committee of Claims of the House. That committee examined it and unanimously reported that the resolution ought to pass, and for this reason: those of us who opposed what was called the omnibus bill did so upon the ground that a resolution of the House upon the subject had been adopted. Now, that board has been appointed by the Navy Department, and the result of the action of the board is the

joint resolution now before us. Believing it to be right and just, and upon the basis of the resolution which the committee of the last Congress reported, and which this House adopted, we unanimously report this joint resolution with a recommendation that it do pass.

Mr. BENJAMIN. I wish to put a question right here. I desire to know whether any portion of this appropriation is for extra pay for the iron-clads Catawba and Oneota?

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. No, sir; those contractors receive nothing in this bill.

Mr. BENJAMIN. I see the names of the contractors of those vessels in this bill. I ask the gentleman what vessels it is for which this extra compensation is allowed? One of the names I see is Secor & Co.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. Swift & Co., I understand, made the vessels to which the gentleman refers.

Mr. BENJAMIN. parties.

Secor is one of the

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. Not at all; he is not connected with Swift & Co. Mr. BENJAMIN. If the gentleman will look at the testimony taken by the Retrenchment Committec in connection with the sale of these vessels he will find that Secor is a member of that firm.

Mr.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. Chairman, I wish to state to this House that we have spent many days' time in the last Congress, and much time in this, in examining this matter, and Secor & Co. had nothing to do with Alexander Swift & Co., and nothing to do with these vessels. I know what the gentleman refers to, but it has no connection with this matter. Secor & Co. never were interested with Swift & Co. either directly or indirectly. All the gentleman can show, so far as Swift & Co. are concerned, is that they made a trade with the Government for these vessels and proposed to sell them to the Government of Peru, and that that Government, feeling that they were unacquainted with Swift & Co.,

and wanting some one to indorse them, got the indorsement of Secor & Co. Knowing that they were old manufacturers, they said to the agent of Swift & Co., "If you can get Secor & Co. to indorse the bond that you are to give for the performance of your contract, we will make the contract with you." Accordingly, Swift & Co. got the indorsement of Secor & Co. But, I repeat, Secor & Co. are not interested either directly or indirectly in either of these iron-clads nor with Swift & Co., and never have been.

But what I am saying is this: many of these contractors do not desire this resolution passed. Why? Because that under the original board the sum of $2,300,000 was awarded to these men as the cost of the vessels above the contract price, and the old omnibus bill of the Senate gave them $1,500,000.

Mr. DELANO. One million eight hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. These contractors agreed to go before the board appointed by the Navy Department and submit their claims on the basis of our resolution. They have done so, and the result of the action of that board is that forty out of the forty-eight get nothing. Accordingly the contractors generally would prefer that this bill should not pass, but the committee were of the opinion, as we had offered that resolution and agreed to stand upon it, and as the doings of this board seemed to be just, so far as they were concerned, that this money was due to these men and that we ought to report this bill.

It is for the interest of the Government to act upon it and to stand by our own resolution, and I cannot see how any member of Congress-I care not who he is and where he comes from-who looks to the interests of the Government and knows the trouble and difficulty we have had with these cases, can fail to see the necessity of carrying out our contract and standing upon that resolution.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I would ask the gentleman what is the difference between the original Senate bill and the present award? How much do we save between the two bills?

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. The original bill gave $1,500,000.

Mr. WOODBRIDGE. One million eight hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. Yes, $1,800,000; and this gives a little over two hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. ALLISON. I desire to offer the following amendment:

Provided, That the several sums hereby appropriated shall be accepted by the several parties in full satisfaction of all claims against the United States arising out of the construction of vessels by the several parties herein named.

I

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. cannot yield for that amendment. There is a provision attached to this bill by the Senate that if the contractors receive this award it is to be in full.

Mr. ALLISON. I think that is not very fully stated.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. That question was discussed in the Senate.

Mr. PIKE. Let the last clause of the bill be read.

Mr. ALLISON. My idea is that if the contractors receive this amount it is to be a final settlement.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. I ask the Clerk to read the last clause of the bill. The Clerk read as follows:

Which shall be in full discharge of all claims against the United States on account of the vessels upon which the board made allowances as per their report under act of March 2, 1867.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. I now yield five minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SPALDING.]

Mr. SPALDING. I want to say to the committee that in the Thirty-Eighth Congress this whole subject came before the Committee on Naval Affairs of which I was then a member. It was then an omnibus claim. All these

iron-clad contractors combined together and presented a united claim of $7,000,000. We looked into these claims and we found the truth to be that they had made their contracts with the Secretary of the Navy, built their vessels and got their pay according to their contracts. Not only so, but they had afterward charged for extra work, and brought in their bills and received their pay for extra work. Now, what was this $7,000,000 for? It was for an alleged claim against the Government because the materials and labor which entered into these iron-clads had increased in price after they had made their contracts, and they, therefore, did not make as much money as they supposed they would. Now, if these claims that are about to be passed upon are for increased price of labor or increased price of materials, I object to paying them, because we shall never get through paying such claims. But if they are claims for delay on the part of the Government in enabling them to carry out their contracts, why then I will go with the gentleman in paying them.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. The gentleman will recollect that the committee rejected these claims on the grounds which he has stated, and simply reported a resolution that if they could show that the action of the Government had caused delay, and that they had not been paid for the delay and the alterations which the Government had caused, and which were not provided for in the contracts, they might do so. And that is all this bill proposes to pay. I yield for a moment to the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. PIKE.]

Mr. PIKE. I merely wish to remind the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SPALDING] of the action of the Committee on Naval Affairs at the time to which he has referred. He and I coincided and acted together, but a majority of the committee reported in favor of those claims.

Mr. SPALDING. Oh, I beg your pardon. In the first instance there was a majority with us, but from day to day they turned over to the other side.

Mr. PIKE. A majority of the committee, through Mr. Brandegee, of Connecticut, reported in favor of the claims to a very large

amount.

Mr. SPALDING. At first they were opposed to them.

Mr. PIKE. I cannot say about that. I am only speaking of the report of the majority of the committee. The minority of the committee were quite willing to have accepted a proposition of this kind, and would have been glad to have got off in this way. Although they thought some amount was due, they did not think it was right to grant so large an amount. I would be glad to get rid of these claims by passage of this bill.

the

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. now yield to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. DELANO.]

I

Mr. DELANO. I feel anxious that this bill should pass; and I think if the House will listen to the history of this matter there will be no difficulty about it. There was originally introduced in the Senate, at the close of the Thirty-Eighth Congress, a resolution which was adopted

Mr. PIKE. During the extra session of the Thirty-Ninth Congress.

Mr. DELANO. I am corrected. A resolution was adopted appointing a committee to inquire into the claims of certain contractors for the construction of iron-clads during the war. Under that resolution forty-eight contractors came forward and had their accounts and claims examined by the committee. And according to my recollection that committee reported in favor of appropriating about two million five hundred thousand dollars to satisfy these forty-eight claims. Besides those fortyeight claimants there stood behind them an indefinite number-I do not know how many more-who did not come before the first naval board established by the Senate. But they stood ready to come forward the moment a principle was adopted which would let them in.

As I said, the Naval Committee reported upon the claims of these forty-eight contractors to the amount of $2,500,000. A bill was introduced in the Senate, based on that report, which resulted in the passage by the Senate of a bill allowing about one million eight hundred thousand dollars to these forty-eight contractors. The $7,000,000 alluded to by my colleague [Mr. SPALDING] embraces the claims of the large number of contractors who stood back ready to come in with their claims whenever the principle was adopted which would allow them to come in. The bill appropriating $1,800,000 for the benefit of the forty-eight contractors came to this House and was referred to the Committee of Claims. Upon examination we found that it rested upon this theory: that, in consequence of the war, prices for labor and materials had advanced, and as the advance had been occasioned by the inflation of the currency by the action of the Governernment to put down the rebellion, therefore the Government was responsible for that result, and ought to pay enough more to meet the advance in prices.

The committee repudiated that theory, and adopted as a rule for all these cases substantially this: that where by action of the Government, causing a delay in the construction of a vessel, or an alteration in the form of the structure, any damage or loss had resulted to the contractor, or any increase of expense had ensued, then in those cases, and in those only, the Government would be responsible in justice and in equity. A joint resolution was introduced as a substitute for the Senate bill referred to us, in which we set forth the rule I have stated, and also directed the Secretary of the Navy to appoint a new commission to examine into the claims of these forty-eight claimants, and all others that might present claims on the basis I have stated. That commission was appointed and proceeded to act, and found that out of the forty-eight claimants to which I have alluded, there were only eight who had meritorious claims. And this bill is based on that report, making an aggregate of about two hundred thousand dollars. Now, it seems to me that it is right that this amount should be paid. It seems to me that it is judicious to pay it, because it will be saying to those contractors, "We live up to the principle which we have declared to be right." It seems to me that we will be also saying at the same time, when we pay this amount, that we do not intend to go back and reëxamine those claims on the basis that they are entitled to damages for the increase of prices of labor and materials caused by the inflation of the currency.

I regard the passage of this bill as an act of justice in these cases and as necessary to protect the Government against the presentation of these claims hereafter. If we now recede from the contract that we virtually made when we established in the Thirty-Ninth Congress the rule that we would make compensation where damages had resulted from the action of the Government; if we fail to comply with that rule we open this whole matter, and these claims will be pressed upon us hereafter, when, judging the future from the past, no man can tell how much may be allowed. I have made a simple statement of facts, which I hope will induce the House to pass this bill.

Mr. BENJAMIN. I ask the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. WASHBURN] to yield to me that I may offer an amendment and make some remarks upon it.

I

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. yield to the gentleman five minutes. I cannot permit him to offer an amendment; but I am willing it shall be read.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Mr. Speaker, the amendment which I desire to offer is to strike from the bill all that portion relating to Secor & Co., Perine, Secor & Co., and M. F. Merritt. will give my reasons for proposing to strike out the names of these parties.

It will be recollected that this House a short time ago instructed the joint select Committee on Retrenchment to investigate the sale of the

iron-clads Oneota and Catawba. That investigation has been made, and the report of the committee in relation to the sale of those vessels has been laid before this House. I presume gentlemen have not given much attention to that report; but I will say that it discloses one of the most gigantic frauds ever perpetrated upon this Government.

One of the first things that the committee endeavored to ascertain was, to whom were those vessels sold? Ostensibly they were sold to the firm of Alexander Swift & Co. We desired to ascertain who constituted that firm. I send to the Clerk's desk, to be read, a part of the evidence upon that point.

The Clerk read as follows:

"Question. The question now simply is, Who are your associates in the firm? That is all I am now asking.

"Answer. You mean the firm of Alexander Swift & Co.? Mr. Merritt is not a member of that firm. "Question. I ask who else besides yourself, Merritt, and Swift are concerned in the firm of Alexander Swift & Co., either as partners, or as holding the anomalous condition that you describe yourself and Mr. Merritt to hold?

'Answer. The firm of Alexander Swift & Co. was composed of Mr. Seth Evans and Mr. Swift. They started the manufacture of iron under that firm name several years ago, and it has been continued ever since. Mr. Evans went out I think in 1864, but the name of the firm has been continued right along. Nobody but Mr. Swift and myself have been since connected with the house of Alexander Swift & Co., proper, but I have not been a partner, as I have explained to you my position. As connected with Alexander Swift & Co.in the sale of these ships there are some other parties.

Answer. Not directly.

"Question. What do you mean by that?

Answer. Mr. Swift's son has a little interest in the business, which I did not think of at the time; but there is no party of any account."

Mr. BENJAMIN. That testimony discloses that these Secors were members of the firm of Alexander Swift & Co., who, by means of a system of chicanery, the like of which has rarely been known in the history of this Government, got these two iron-clads from the Government for $755,000, when at the time of the purchase they had a contract to sell them for $2,000,000. These iron clads are down in New Orleans today. They have been refused a clearance and cannot sail from that port. This committee has reported that sale was fraudulent and void. Now, sir, when we have a large unsettled account against Merritt and Secor for a large sum of money I do object to appropriating this sum to reimburse them, or rather to pay them an additional sum for their work, and that, too, when they have been the perpetrators of so great a fraud as this. I hope, therefore, I will be allowed to offer the amendment I have indicated, and I hope it will be adopted so as to strike out Secor and Merritt.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. I do not yield for the amendment. As I have said already, Secor is not one of the firm at all. It has been so expressly stated again and again. Neither Secor nor Merritt is a member of the firm of Swift & Co. But so far as that matter is concerned it has nothing to do with this case whatever. I understand the only connection Secor & Co. had with that transaction, and so it was understood by the Government, was, in order to carry out the contract, they simply indorsed the bond and certified Alexander Swift & Co. were good men to carry out the contract, that they were reliable men. But it has nothing to do with this case. Nothing, sir, has been allowed on those vessels. The contractors of those vessels do not receive a dollar. But, sir, suppose what the gentleman says to be true, has that anything to do with this claim?

Mr. WELKER. Does not the bill the gentleman has reported pay Mr. F. Merritt

Immediately following this the whole of said cotton was taken possession of by Captain Samuel Lappin, assistant quartermaster of volunteers in charge of steamboat and water transportation at Mobile, and who was on duty shipping captured cotton from that port under the authority of the military commander and the supervising special agent of the Treasury Department. As soon as claimants were informed that their cotton was being loaded on vessels to be shipped away they remonstrated with Captain Lappin, and showed to him that their cotton was private property, brought to the city under a safe conduct from General Granger, and stored and to be protected under the permit and order of that officer, who was then absent from the city. Captain Lappin stated in reply that when he loaded the cotton he supposed it was a portion of that captured, and that as it was now mostly loaded he would furnish them with a bill of lading on the part of the United States, and they could proceed to New York, claim the cotton, and the agent there would undoubtedly turn it over to them. Accordingly, claimants procured insurance on the same, paying premium of $4,000 therefor, and proceeded to New York and claimed the amount as stated in their bill of lading. The Secretary of the Treasury declined to turn over the cotton to them at once, but had it stored in warehouses, when claimants again procured insurance on it, and awaited the final action of the Secretary. And finally the cot

ton was ordered to be sold, and the proceeds thereof to be separately accounted for; so that the claim could be more easily adjusted after it was thoroughly investigated.

The committee, after citing the testimony of General Granger as to the title to the cotton and his own action concerning it, say that the voluminous evidence submitted shows conclu

sively that few men suffered greater indignities and fiercer persecution on account of their loyalty to the United States than these claimants, and few did more to aid the cause of the Union than they. Every sacrifice seems to have been endured by them but the actual submission to the attempted coercion of marching in rebel ranks. Imprisoned and threatened with death, the halter prepared to facilitate that dread event, the age and feebleness of the parties, became their only protection. Their fortunes mostly confiscated and destroyed, the remnants of all they possessed are found in the nine hundred and twenty-five bales of cotton here in question. Now upward of seventy years of age, the claimants have neither hope for the future nor means of subsistence for the present, except in the justice of their Government, to which they appeal to restore to them their own and their all.

Under these circumstances, and from the considerations which follow, the Committee of Claims, after a most careful examination, have unanimously agreed to recommend the passage of the bill, restoring to claimants the value of the cotton taken and sold, deducting the charges and expenses of the United States as found and stated at the Treasury Department.

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House, with the recommendation that it do pass.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. move that the committee do now rise.

I

Mr. MAYNARD. I hope the gentleman will not insist on that motion. We may as well go through the Calendar.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. Well, I withdraw the motion.

CAPTAIN A. G. OLIVAR.

The next bill on the Calendar was the bill (H. R. No. 1366) for the relief of Captain A. G. Olivar.

The bill was read. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to Captain A. G. Olivar, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $2,010, being the full amount that the said Olivar had stolen from him the 13th of May, 1864, which was Government funds.

The bill was laid aside to be reported to the House with the recommendation that it do pass.

DENT, VANTINE AND COMPANY.

The next bill on the Calendar was the bill (H. R. No. 1374) for the relief of Dent, Vantine & Co., for provisions furnished to the Indians in California during the years A. D. 1851 and 1852.

The bill was read. It directs the Secretary of the Interior to pay to Dent, Vantine & Co. for provisions furnished to the Indians in California during the years 1851 and 1852, the sum of $25,327 30; and appropriates that amount for the purpose out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

Mr. KELSEY. I move that the committee do now rise.

Mr. WINDOM. I hope not. I hope this claim which has been hanging here for a year or two will now be considered.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I hope we shall hear something about this bill before we rise.

The question was taken on Mr. KELSEY'S motion; and it was agreed to-ayes 27, noes 18. So the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. ELDRIDGE reported that the Committee of the Whole House had had under consideration the bills on the Private Calendar, and had directed him to report to the House, with the recommendation that they do pass, the bill (S. No. 307) for the relief of certain Government contractors, the bill (H. R. No. 1320) for the relief of L. Merch

ant & Co., and Peter Rosecrantz, and the bill (H. R. No. 1366) for the relief of Captain A. G. Oliver.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting, in compliance with the resolution of the House of the 9th instant, a copy of General Dodge's report to the President of the Union Pacific Railroad Company; which was referred to the Committee on the Pacific Railroad, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. I call for the previous question on the bills just reported from the Committee of the Whole. The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.

CONTRACTORS FOR IRON-CLADS.

The bill (S. No. 307) for the relief of certain Government contractors, was ordered to a third reading; and it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts, 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.

L. MERCHANT AND CO.-P. ROSECRANTZ.

The bill (H. R. No. 1320) for the relief of L. Merchant & Co. and Peter Rosecrantz, was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts, 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.

CAPTAIN A. G. OLIVER.

The bill (H. R. No. 1366) for the relief of Captain A. G. Oliver, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

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

The latter motion was agreed to.

Mr. ALLISON. I move that the House now take its recess.

The motion was agreed to; and the House (at four o'clock and fifteen minutes p. m.) took a recess till half past seven o'clock p. m.

EVENING SESSION. The House reassembled at half past seven o'clock p. m., and was called to order by the Speaker, who announced the business in order to be bills and reports from the Committee on Military Affairs.

PURCHASE OF ALASKA.

Mr. ORTH, Mr. BLAIR, and Mr. CULLOM obtained leave to have printed as part of the debates, speeches on the bill (H. R. No. 1096) making an appropriation of money to carry into effect the treaty with Russia of March 10, 1867. [See Appendix.]

COLORADO MILITIA.

Mr. GARFIELD, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported back a letter of the Secretary of War, transmitting a statement of the settlement of the accounts of the Colorado militia for 1864 and 1865, and moved that it be laid on the table.

The motion was agreed to.

SUBSISTENCE DEPARTMENT.

Mr. GARFIELD also, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported adversely upon joint resolution (H. R. No. 13) authorizing the subsistence department to furnish sutler's goods; which was laid on the table.

SUTLERS IN THE ARMY.

Mr. GARFIELD also, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported adversely upon a resolution relative to reestablishing the office of sutler in the Army; which was laid on the table.

MILITARY ROAD IN THE TERRITORIES.

Mr. GARFIELD also, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported adversely upon the bill (H. R. No. 758) to reopen the military road over the Cœur d'Alene mountains; which was laid on the table.

FORT RILEY MILITARY RESERVE.

Mr. GARFIELD also, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported adversely upon a concurrent resolution of the Legislature of the State of Kansas memoralizing Congress for a donation of a portion of Fort Riley military reserve; which was laid on the table.

TRANSPORTATION OF MILITARY SUPPLIES.

Mr. GARFIELD also, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported adversely upon the bill (H. R. No. 406) to facilitate the transportation of United States supplies and prevent the loss of United States property in New Mexico; which was laid on the table.

Mr. GARFIELD also, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported adversely upon a bill (H. R. No. 404) to facilitate and cheapen the transportation of military supplies in Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico; which was laid on the table.

INDIAN AFFAIRS IN TEXAS.

Mr. GARFIELD also, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported adversely upon the petition of J. M. Comparet, of Fredericksburg, Texas, late colonel one hundred and forty-third Indiana infantry, in relation to the condition of Indian affairs in that State, and asking for military protection; which was laid on the table.

CLAIMS OF COLORED SOLDIERS.

Mr. GARFIELD also, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported adversely upon a bill (H. R. No. 635) in relation to claims of colored soldiers; which was laid on the table.

WAGON-ROAD IN NEW MEXICO.

Mr. GARFIELD also, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported adversely upon the bill (H. R. No. 708) to construct a wagonroad from Cimarron to Virginia City, New Mexico; which was laid on the table.

TROOPS FOR ARIZONA.

Mr. GARFIELD also, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported adversely upon the memorial of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona, asking that the Gov

ernor of the Territory be authorized to raise a regiment of volunteer troops; which was laid on the table.

COMMITTEE ON ENROLLED BILLS.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. GOLLADAY] declines further service on the Committee ou Enrolled Bills. The Chair appoints to fill the vacancy the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. TRIMBLE.]

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. GoRHAM, its Secretary, announced that the Senate had passed a joint resolution (H. R. No. 201) in relation to the Rock Island bridge, with an amendment, in which the concurrence of the House was requested.

The message further announced that the Senate had insisted upon its amendment, disagreed to by the House, to the bill (H. R. No. 554) making a grant of land to the State of Minnesota to aid in the improvement of the navigation of the Mississippi river, had agreed to the conference asked by the House, and had appointed as conferees on the part of the Senate Messrs. RAMSEY, HENDRICKS, and POMEROY.

UNMUSTERED ARMY OFFICERS.

Mr. BOYER, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported back, with a recommendation that the same do pass, a joint resolution (H. R. No. 288) amendatory of joint resolution for the relief of certain officers of the Army, approved July 26, 1866.

The question was upon ordering the joint resolution to be engrossed and read a third time. The first section of the joint resolution, which was read, provides that the joint resolution entitled Joint resolution for the relief of certain officers of the Army," approved July 26, 1866, shall be so construed and amended that, in all cases arising under the same, the persons to whom the commission shall have issued shall be considered as actually commissioned to the grade named therein, immediately upon the arrival of said commission at the headquarters of the regiment to which such person so commissioned belonged or was at the time attached, or, if a staff officer, at the headquarters of the department in which he was serving, with like effect as if such commission had been received into the actual possession of the person so promoted; provided, however, that a non commissioned officer or private so promoted shall be considered as commissioned, within the meaning of said joint resolution, from the date when his commission was actually issued by competent authority, provided at the time he was performing the duties of the grade to which he was commissioned, or from such time after the issuing of his commission when he actually entered upon such duties.

The second section provides that this resolution shall not be construed to apply to cases in which, under the laws and Army regulations existing at the time, there could have been no lawful muster into service even after the actual receipt of the commission.

Mr. BOYER. I ask that the report be read. The report accompanying the bill was as follows:

The committee in reporting the resolution amendatory of joint resolution for the relief of certain officers of the Army, approved July 26, 1866, have done so with the expectation that it will include most of those cases in which further relief should be granted on account of the delay or absence of regular muster into the military service.

The committee are aware that it is not practicable by the terms of any general law to provide for every meritorious case; but they are impressed with the belief that special legislation ought to be avoided unless in very exceptional cases, as always likely to involve great irregularity, mistakes, and uncertainty. There is a large and somewhat varied class of claims, arising out of cases in which commissions were issued to persons who were either never mustered into service, or mustered in after long delay, for which they were not personally responsible. If ail these claims were allowed it is estimated that it would require the appropriation of about twenty million dollars to pay them.

In many of these cases the claimants never performed any duty in the grades to which they were respectively commissioned, because by reason of capture, wounds, or sickness, they were either absent from their commands or unfit for actual service.

In other cases a long time elapsed from the same

causes before the claimants could present themselves for muster agreeably to the regulation of the service, but the muster having finally taken place, back pay is claimed for the whole time lost between the commission and the muster.

In some instances there was no vacancy in the rank to which the promotion was made, and another person was filling the rank and drawing the pay, but absent on recruiting service, or on account of sickness or other cause.

In other cases the regiment or company in which the promotion was made had been reduced below the minimum, or was consolidated with some other regiment or company. In most of these cases your committee is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for relief.

It must be remembered that in nearly all the cases of this description which come before Congress for special legislation, the muster could not take place because prohibited by some Army regulation in force at the time.

It is also to be borne in mind that the regimental and company organization of the volunteer forces was such that the Governors of States issued the commissions, and the United States paid the officers. General regulations for muster and pay were absolutely necessary for the protection of the General Government, and it by no means followed that because a person was commissioned he should be at once advanced to the rank to whica he had been promoted, and mustered in and paid accordingly. Nor is it always equitable that a second lieutenant who does the duty of a first lieutenant, or a first lieutenant who acts as a captain, &c., should each be paid as of the higher rank in which the duties were performed. That one officer should often exercise the authority of a higher rank than that in which he is commissioned, is a common and honorable incident of the service, and does not generally carry with it any well-founded claim to increased pay and emoluments.

Still less is the equity in favor of a commissioned officer who while in captivity was promoted to a higher grade, but was unable by reason of his situation to receive his new commission, or to perform any of the duties it devolved upon him, which in the mean time were necessarily discharged, if discharged at all, by some other person.

The committee have, however, recognized as a class of persons entitled to additional relief those who, while performing the duties incident to the rank to which it was intended to commission them, were excluded from the muster solely because, by some accident over which they had no control, their commissions, actually issued, were not promptly received. And they have also considered themselves justified in making a slight discrimination in favor of noncommissioned officers and privates, promoted to be commissioned officers under the circumstances recited.

The joint resolution was then ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

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

The latter motion was agreed to.

MISSOURI VOLUNTEERS.

Mr. PILE, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported back, with a recommendation that the same do pass, Senate joint resolution No. 81, placing certain troops of Missouri on an equal footing with others as to bounties.

The question was upon ordering the joint resolution to be read a third time.

recognized in an act entitled "An act making The joint resolution provides that the troops appropriations for completing the defenses of Washington, and for other purposes," approved February 13, 1862, shall be placed on an equal footing with volunteers as to bounties, and that all laws relating to bounties shall be applicable to them as to other volunteers.

Mr. PAINE. Of course I have no desire to throw any obstacle in the way of the passage of any bill to-night that ought to pass. But inasmuch as this joint resolution does not show the real state of facts as they are, I would like to have some explanation of it.

Mr. SPALDING. We all know about it. Mr. PILE. This joint resolution has received the unanimous approval of the Committee on Military Affairs of this House. It has been twice examined by the Military Committee at previous sessions of Congress, and it has passed the House twice. It simply proposes to place certain classes of troops in Missouri upon the same footing with other volunteers. Those troops were mustered into the service, paid by the United States, and they served just as other volunteers, and it is a simple act of justice to them to place them upon an equal footing with other volunteers.

Mr. PAINE. Does this joint resolution allow bounty for any shorter period of service than is allowed to other volunteers?

Mr. PILE. Not at all.

The joint resolution was then read the third time, and passed.

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

The latter motion was agreed to.

NEW YORK WAR CLAIMS.

Mr. KETCHAM, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported back, with the recommendation that the same do pass, House bill No. 1278, providing for the appointment of a commission to examine and report upon certain claims of the State of New York.

The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time.

The first section of the bill, which was read, provides that the President shall appoint three commissioners, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, who are not residents of the State of New York, whose duty it shall be to ascertain the amount of moneys expended by the State of New York in enrolling, organizing, uniforming, equipping, subsisting, quartering, supplying, transporting, and paying such troops as were called into service by the Governor in pursuance of any request or proclamation of the President of the United States, or at the request or upon the order of the Secretary of War, since the 15th day of April, 1861, to act in concert with the United States forces in the suppression of the rebellion against the United States.

The second section provides that the commissioners so appointed shall proceed, subject to regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of War, at once to examine all the items of expenditure made by said State for the purposes herein named, or such portion thereof as yet remains unallowed or unadjusted, allowing only for disbursements made and amounts assumed by the State for enrolling, organizing, uniforming, equipping, subsisting, quartering, supplying, transporting, and paying such troops as were called into service by the Governor in pursuance of any request or proclamation of the United States, or at the request or upon the order of the Secretary of War, since the 15th day of April, 1861, which may have been employed or used in suppressing the rebellion against the United States; and no allowance shall be made for any troops which did not perform actual military service in full concert and coöperation with the authorities of the United States and subject to their orders.

The third section provides that in making up said account, for the convenience of the accounting officers of the Government, the comexpended, respectively, for enrolling, equip missioners shall state separately the amounts ping, arming, subsisting, transporting, and paying said troops.

The fourth section provides that in the adjustment of accounts under this act the commissioners shall not allow for any expenditure or compensation for service at a rate greater than was at the time authorized by the laws of the United States and the regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War in similar