but he did not move to substitute for the whole resolution and preamble the resolution as it would read with the names of the States in. Merely striking out the names from the preamble, as the Senator from Illinois remarked, left the resolution with no meaning, and therefore some Senators voted against it. But the present proposition of the Senator from Kansas is simply to indicate what is desired, that these States shall not be counted in the College, leaving out the preamble; for there seems to be some difficulty about the recitals in the preamble. This presents the question in a different point of view from that in which it was presented yesterday.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not see what is to be gained by striking it out. It is proposed to take the names of the States out of the preamble and put them into the resolution. Will it be any better then? It is just taking up time. I hope the Senate will adhere to the resolution as it is, and vote down all amendments which are proposed.

we ought to state why we exclude them. For that reason I shall vote against this amendment. Mr. COWAN. The objection of the honorable Senator from Maryland, I think, is fatal to this kind of legislation. This is not really a law, at any rate; it is simply a decision. Being a decision, it is insisted that the opinion of the judge shall contain the reasons on which the law is based. It strikes me this ought to be sufficient to show us the fallacy of this mode of legislation. That which we are now deciding ought to be decided next Wednesday in the joint convention. We have got now just to that point when it is evident that this, instead of being a law, is simply a decision legislative in its character.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. We have spent several days here trying to satisfy ourselves that a rule should be adopted for the control of the joint convention that is to meet next Wednesday. Now, I should like to learn from the Senator from Maryland if it is usual to give a reason for a rule to govern legislative action, in this or any other le

Mr. JOHNSON. It does not.

shall not be entitled to have their electoral votes counted on next Wednesday, and we desire to say so now, in order to prevent confusion and disorder on that occasion. We have heard from several distinguished Senators that the object is to prevent the recurrence of a disorder that oc

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first question is on concurring in the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole to the preamble as that amendment has been amended.

The question being taken by yeas and nays resulted-yeas 32, nays 6; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Buckalew, Clark, Collamer, Conness, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Farwell, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Henderson, Hendricks, Howard, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Nesmith, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Wilson, and Wright-32.

NAYS-Messrs. Cowan, Foot, Johnson, Ten Eyck, Van Winkle, and Willey-6.

ABSENT-Messrs. Carlile, Chandler, Harding, Hicks, Howe, Lane of Indiana, McDougall, Powell, Richardson, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sprague, and Wilkinson-13.

So the amendment as amended was concurred in. Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I now move to strike out the preamble, and to strike out after the word "States," in the third line of the resolution, the words "mentioned in the preamble," and to insert in lieu of them "" Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, and Tennessee; ;" and on this amendment I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. JOHNSON. As far as the mere object is concerned, which is to exclude the votes of these States, whether the resolution pass in its present form or in the form now proposed makes no difference; but it seems to me singular legislation to resolve that the votes of certain States shall not be counted, without assigning any reason why they shall not be counted. How is the President to know why they should not be counted? How is the House of Representatives to know why they should not be counted? How is the public to know why they are not counted? You have just as much right to say that the vote of any other State in the Union shall not be counted, looking to the face of the resolution alone, if it embraced any other State than those named. It appeared to ine individually, and I think it appeared to the members of the committee, as evidently as it appeared to the other House, that when we are excluding certain States from voting Il

sir, I want to save the loyal people of Arkansas and Louisiana and Tennessee from having their feelings further wounded. So far as one of those States is concerned, we drove their Senators from our doors last session. I am one of the men who believe that a State organization is indispensable to the protection of the Union men in those States. I am one of those who believe that the bringing back of any of the seceded States into the Union does more to demoralize our opponents and to close out this rebellion than any other act that we can accomplish. It is worth more than all the victories which can be gained in the field. I want these States brought back; I want to encourage the Union men in all the seceded States when they evince that there is any Union feeling within their borders.

Mr. JOHNSON. The honorable member is mistaken in supposing that this is a mere rule. A rule may be determined perhaps by the convention, or certainly by the concurrent action of the two bodies that constitute the convention. What we propose to do now is to pass a law, to which the President's assent is necessary before it becomes operative, declaring what electoral votes shall be counted legally. If we have the authority to pass such a law-and I do not propose to discuss that question now; I think very clearly we have the authority-when it is passed by both bodies and approved by the President, it is binding on the members of the convention when they meet together. It is therefore no rule; nor is it a decision, as the honorable member from Pennsylvania supposes. A decision of what? It

is a declaration which is itself a law that those votes are not legitimate votes. Those who think it has no operation will vote against it in any form; but if it operates at all, it operates as a law. Then the only question with me is whether it is proper in Congress, having authority in certain cases, as I think, to exclude votes of electors, to declare that the votes of any particular State are to be excluded without stating why they are excluded.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I should like to ask the Senator from Maryland if a concurrent resolution, that does not require the signature of the President, would not be just as potent on this subject as a joint resolution?

Mr. JOHNSON. A concurrent resolution requires the approval of the President.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. A resolution of each branch separately composing the joint convention would be as potent as this law for this purpose.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. This preamble contains a recital which meets the views of some gentlemen and is opposed to the views of others, and there are some gentlemen on this floor who have avowed their determination to vote in favor of the proposition to exclude Louisiana upon this other ground, that Louisiana has no representation in Congress, and not having any representation in Congress should not be represented in the Electoral College. The learned Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN]

based his argument entirely on that ground. It seems to me it would be better, without a recital. that these States continue in rebellion or that they continue in any condition, to declare simply, for reasons satisfactory to each one voting for the proposition, that the votes of these States shall not be counted in the Electoral College; and then the preamble would have no embarrassing effect or any entanglement connected with it upon the free action of any member of either House in relation to any other question that may arise whether the members from Louisiana or Arkansas shall be admitted or not. It seems to me that it is wise to strike out the preamble and leave the proposition itself, and then each one who votes for it can satisfy himself with his own reason.

Mr. TEN EYCK. I have persistently voted "nay" on all the various propositions submitted to-day for the amendment of the preamble, although some of them, I believe, are improvements upon the preamble as originally reported. Being opposed to the preamble and to the resolution itself, so far as it affects certain of the States mentioned, it might perhaps, according to the ordinary method of parliamentary proceedings, have been esteemed excusable or proper in me to have voted "yea" on several of these propositions looking toward an amelioration of the charge made in the preamble as to the condition of all these States; but as I am persistently opposed to the whole measure, so far as it applies to at least one of these States, if not more, I think it more consistent to vote "nay" in relation to all these amend

ments.

Now, sir, if I were not prepared to say that the State of Louisiana or Tennessee was in such a state of rebellion on the 8th day of November last as that there could be no legal election held there, how could I be prepared to say that in consequence of this rebellion, on the 8th day of November last they were in such a condition that they could not vote? I would much rather meet the question fairly and squarely and say that they were in a state of rebellion, than simply to evade the question, and say that they were in some sort of condition that I do not undertake to decide in this high place. I would not strip a State of her rights in this Union without having the boldness to assign a cause.

That consideration regulates and controls my action in my vote on the amendment now proposed by the Senator from Kansas. I am not prepared to vote barely and squarely that these States shall not be counted in the Electoral College, without assigning any reason under heaven for my action. I think it is due to the people there, if there be a corporal's guard of loyal men, that we should assign here the reason why we will not allow them to have an electoral vote cast, after they have endeavored to do all that they could do to resume their position in the Union. I am opposed to the whole proposition from beginning to end, and have voted, and I shall vote, consistently I think, "nay" throughout.

Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, I have not taken much part in this discussion, and do not propose to take much; but I intended to say two or three words before the final vote should be taken on the passage of this resolution, and I believe I may as well say those few words now as at any time.

It strikes me as a most peculiar feature of this debate that we have spent four days, I think, in discussing, not whether we shall pass the resolution or not, but what reason we shall assign for passing it. Ordinarily when you are agreed us to what law you will enact, you are in the habit of putting that in the bill, and looking there for the law and looking into the Congressional Globe for the reasons to be given for it. But to me this whole debate seems very significant that the Senate were conscious that they were about to do an extraordinary thing, and therefore they felt it incumbent on them to assign the reasons upon which they acted with a great deal of care and accuracy, and hence you have been debating for four days as to the question what reason you shall assign for enacting this law. I do not think you have occupied any more time than was absolutely neces sary in order to assign a good reason for it.

Mr. President, here is the Constitution of the United States, so it is denominated, declaring that "each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators

and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in Congress." "" That the Constitution declares, When I came here you required me to step to your desk and take an oath to support it; and now you ask me to vote for a resolution which declares that eleven States shall not vote, shall not appoint electors of President and Vice President. I do not want to do it. I have sworn that I will not do it; or if I have not sworn that exactly before, I swear it now.

Mr. President, that the people living in South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee, and those other States, had no right in fact, had no equitable right, to choose electors in November last, I believe; but I believe it because there were no American States there. But you ask me to vote for a resolution which says that they are States, and yet which says that they shall not vote for President. Wherever there is a State in fact, there is the right, and there is the evidence of it, to give a number of votes for President and Vice President equal to the number of Representatives in Congress in both Houses to which that State is entitled. That is my judgment. During the last session of Congress I had occasion to call attention to this very subject, and to say then that it seemed to me the fitting time to fix the relations of these communities before the election was held, before we knew what would be the significance of their action. That was declined. Your law still said those are States; three of them actually did vote, we are told, did choose electors; and now you ask me to vote for a resolution which says that they are States and yet which says that their votes shall not be counted.

And now, Mr. President, look one moment at the reasons which have been assigned. The committee assign for a reason that there was no valid choice of electors in those States in November last. The committee say so; they ask me to say so; they ask the Senate to say so, that there was no valid choice of electors. Sir, is the law-making power of the United States made the judge of what is a valid election of presidential electors? "Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." The Legislature is made the judge of the manner of choosing electors. It seems to me that the State itself is the final judge as to what is a valid election. There cannot be any other. The right is given in full to the State itself. Therefore I cannot agree to say that there was no valid election in these States. I think it belongs to these States respectively to determine that question.

But if there was no valid election, there was some reason for it. What was the reason? The committee say because the people of those States were in a state of rebellion on that day. That may be, if true, a good reason why a valid election could not be held; but yet, right here in the Senate Chamber, while you are debating this resolution, there is an issue of fact formed as to whether it is true or not. The Senator from Kansas, who has opportunities for knowing the fact as well as any one, and who is competent to testify, tells you that there was no such state of rebellion as prevented the people from making a valid election. That is his testimony upon the question of fact as to which we are at issue. Now, is it not dangerous legislation when you concede that the law you are about to pass depends for its validity on the reasons you assign for it, when in assigning reasons you differ not only upon the law as to what is a good reason, but differ upon the fact as to what reasons exist?

I wish now to call attention to one more remarkable debate we have had. The committee recite these facts as the ground upon which you shall proceed to disfranchise eleven States. They recite them as facts, present them as reasons why you should do it The amendment which has created more debate than any other was the amendment moved by the Senator from Vermont, the effect of which was mainly to present as a reason for enacting this law, not anything that we affirmed to be a fact, but something that the President has affirmed to be a fact. The committee say, disfranchise those States because their people were in November in a state of rebellion; the amendment moved by the Senator from Vermont asked us to disfranchise the people of those States because the President said they were in rebellion; and that was really the breadth of that issue, as I understood it. If you have a right to disfran

chise the people of a State, does it matter whether you and I agree upon the fact for which we do it, or whether we act upon something that the President or some other agent of the Government has said?

unsized, used for books and newspapers exclusively.

Mr. SHERMAN. I now move that its fur-. ther consideration be postponed to and made the special order of the day for Monday next at one o'clock.

The motion was agreed to by a two-thirds vote. Mr. SHERMAN. I desire now to make the same order in regard to the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill and the immigration bill. I do not believe these bills will excite discussion, and I want to get them out of the road.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I have no sort of objection to the order, but the Senator from Ohio must know that he can always get his appropriation bills up by a vote of the Senate.

But you do not rely upon that; the fact of rebellion you do not insist upon as a sufficient reason for passing this law, and therefore you put in another one. The rebellion is not a ground for disfranchising the people of a State, but the rebellion was the circumstance which prevented a valid election from being held. Why do you want to assign the reason why a valid election was not held? If you are made the judges of what is and what is not a valid election, why do you not say there was no valid election in those States, and let it stand there? It is because you are not made the judges of a valid election that you think it incumbent on you to bolster up your judgment by some very extraordinary reason. This is the way it looks to me. I distrust this whole method of legislating. If you will take hold of the question of the political relations of these communities, and if you will tell what is the truth, and has been the truth since 1861, that there are no State organizations there, no State governments, I am with you. When you establish that, you know what they may and what they may not do.

The question being taken by yeas and nays resulted-yeas 7, nays 30; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Cowan, Doolittle Harris, Lane of Kansas, Nesmith, Van Winkle, and Willey-7.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Buckalew, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Conness, Davis, Dixon, Farwell, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Henderson, Hendricks, Howard, Johnson, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Powell, Ramsey, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, and Wright-30.

ABSENT-Messrs. Carlile, Foot, Harding, Hicks, Howe, Lane of Indiana, McDougall, Pomeroy, Richardson, Riddle, Sprague, Stewart, Wilkinson, and Wilson-14.

So the amendment was rejected.

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the joint resolution to be read a third time. It was read the third time.

Mr. WADE. I ask for the yeas and nays on the passage of the joint resolution.

The yeas and nays were ordered, and being taken, resulted—yeas 29, nays 10; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Buckalew, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Conness, Davis, Dixon, Farwell, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Henderson, Hendricks, Howard, Johnson, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Powell, Ramsey, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, and Wright-29. NAYS-Messrs. Cowan, Doolittle, Harris, Howe, Lane of Kansas, Nesmith, Saulsbury, Ten Eyck, Van Winkle, and Willey-10.

ABSENT-Messrs. Carlile, Foot, Harding, Hicks, Lane of Indiana, McDougall, Pomeroy, Richardson, Riddle, Sprague, Wilkinson, and Wilson-12.

So the joint resolution was passed.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. SHERMAN. I now move to take up the joint resolution fixing the duty on paper, and I desire to make this statement to the Senate: there are four bills of a general character from the Committee on Finance which I do not think will excite much discussion; the one I now call up will probably excite the most. I hope the Senate will indulge me in getting these bills passed out of the way, so that they may not clog the business of the session at this late period. One of them is a general appropriation bill.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution (H. R. No. 141) reducing the duty on printing paper,

mittee on Finance, and I have failed until this

moment.

Mr. TRUMBULL. It is only because of the Senator's good nature he has given way. If he will press a vote on an appropriation bill, I never

knew it to fail.

Mr. SHERMAN. I insist on my motion to take up the bill to amend the act in regard to immigration.

Mr. POWELL. I hope that bill will not be made a special order for Monday. I have already a special order fixed for Monday at one o'clock. I do not wish to antagonize it with the Senator's appropriation bills, but I am utterly unwilling that it should be put out of the way by this bill about immigration.

Mr. SHERMAN. We can take it up in the morning.

Mr. POWELL. I hope it will not be made a special order for Monday. I would vote with the Senator to fix its consideration for any other day.

Mr. JOHNSON. I should like to know what the rule is on the subject of special orders. I suppose the rule is that the one first made is the one to be first taken up.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on taking up the bill, not on making it a special order.

Mr. GRIMES. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

Mr. SHERMAN. I hope the Senator will allow this bill to be taken up informally before that motion is put.

Mr. GRIMES. I insist on my motion.

Mr. DIXON. I appeal to the Senator from Iowa to withdraw that motion for a moment for the purpose of permitting me to call up a bill of very great importance to the city of Georgetown, which ought to be passed, and which, I think, will not probably occupy the Senate five minutes; at any rate but a very short time. It is the bill authorizing the city of Georgetown to lay a tax for the purpose of paying their direct tax. With the consent of the Senator from Iowa I will move to take up that bill.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I desire to make a motion which I believe supersedes all others. It is evident that we are going to do no business to-night. The Senator from Ohio has got one of his bills made a special order, and we all know he can get up the others at any time. It is Saturday afternoon -past three o'clock. I therefore move that the Senate do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

SATURDAY, February 4, 1865.

The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. W. H. CHANNING. The Journal of yesterday was read and agreed to.

UNIFORM WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. Mr. PATTERSON. I ask unanimous consent to offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That the National Academy of Sciences he requested to consider and prepare a plan for a uniform international system of weights and measures, and to report thereon on or before the 30th day of January, 1866. Mr. HOLMAN. I object.

CIRCUIT COURT IN ARKANSAS.

Mr. WILSON, by unanimous consent, reported back from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an amendment, a bill (H. R. No. 641) to provide for another term of the circuit court of the

United States for the district of Arkansas, and for other purposes, and moved that the House proceed to the consideration of the bill.

The motion was agreed to.

The bill was read. The first section provides that a term of the circuit court of the United States shall be holden at Little Rock, in the eastern district of Arkansas, on the second Monday in October in each year.

The second section provides that the judge of the district court of the United States for the district of Arkansas may, whenever in his opinion the public interest requires it, hold a term of said court at Helena, at such time as said judge shall appoint by a notice to be published for four consecutive weeks in some weekly newspaper printed at Little Rock, and also in a newspaper published at Helena, if one be published there.

The third section provides that the clerk of the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Arkansas may appoint a deputy, who may exercise the same official powers as his principal; and where the clerk of said district court shall be clerk also of the circuit court for said district, his deputy may act as deputy clerk for both courts. The deputy clerk shall take the oath of office prescribed for his principal, which, together with his appointment, shall be entered at large on the records of the court, and the sureties on his official bond shall be liable for the acts of such deputy. The clerk or judge may revoke the appointment of any deputy at pleasure.

The fourth section provides that in lieu of the salary now paid to the judge of the district court of the United States for the district of Arkansas, there shall be allowed and paid quarterly to said judge, out of the Treasury of the United States, the sum of $3,500 per year.

The amendment proposed by the Committee on the Judiciary, which was to strike out the fourth section, was agreed to.

ENROLLMENT OF VESSELS, ETC.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill relating to the enrollment and license of certain vessels; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

FEES OF CUSTOM-HOUSE OFFICERS.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, by unanimous consent, also introduced a bill to regulate the fees of custom-house officers on the northern, northeastern, and northwestern frontiers of the United States; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Com

merce.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, moved that the bill and accompanying letters be ordered to be, printed.

The motion was agreed to.

TREATMENT OF SICK AND WOUNDED SOLDIERS.

Mr. BALDWIN, of Michigan, by unanimous consent, introduced the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:

Whereas an article appeared in the New York city papers of the 3d instant alleging that "on Thursday of last week a transport filled with sick and wounded soldiers discharged them at the wharf near Fort Schuyler, that they were taken out of their berths on board, carried out upon the wharf and laid there in rows without bed or coverings, exposed to all the bleakness of the January winds, from four o'clock in the evening till midnight; that ten of them died during this time, and that of those who were removed twenty-five died on account of the prostration by exposure before morning:" Therefore,

Be it resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs be instructed to inquire into the facts of this charge and report to this House as soon as possible.

ARMAMENT ON THE LAKES.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move concurrence in the amendment of the Senate to House joint resolution No. 91, passed at the last session, giving notice for the termination of the convention of 1817 relative to the armament upon the lakes. The Senate have modified the House resolution so as to make it conform to the exist

Mr. WILSON. I do not see any inconsistency. This bill proposes to do for Arkansas what has been done for several other States heretofore declared to be in rebellion. At the last session a similar provision was made in reference to Tennessee; and at this session legislation has been had in relation to the circuit court for the district of Virginia. Various acts have been passed at the Thirty-Seventh as well as at the Thirty-Eighth Congress in reference to these States. The judges are there and have been holding courts. They are holding them in Tennessee, and perhaps they are holding them in Arkansas. This is for the convenience of the courts, and for the convenience of suitors. I demand the previous question.

Mr. STEVENS. I had hoped that we would have some logic in our action.

Mr. WILSON. The logic is that of consistency. I insist on the demand for the previous question.

The House divided; and there were-ayes 30, noes 11; no quorum voting.

The SPEAKER ordered tellers, and appointed Messrs. WILSON and ENGLISH.

The House again divided; and the tellers reported-ayes forty-five, noes not counted.

So the previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered.

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

Mr. WILSON demanded the previous question on the passage of the bill.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the bill was passed.

Mr. WILSON 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.

INCREASE OF SALARY.

Mr. DUMONT, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to increase the salary of the judge of the United States district court for the district of Indiana; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

President; and the Committee on Foreign Affairs recommend that the House concur in the amendment of the Senate.

The amendment was concurred in.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland, moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was concurred in; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

PEACE.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I I ask unanimous consent to introduce the following resolution:

Whereas it is alleged that informal negotiations are now pending between the United States and the so-called confederate States with a view to a restoration of peace: Therefore,

Be it resolved, That it is the deliberate and emphatic opinion of this House that no enduring peace can or should be made which shall ever recognize the traitorous leaders of this rebellion as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal rights, privileges, and immunities with the loyal people thereof under the Constitution of the United States. Mr. LE BLOND. I object.

Mr. STEVENS. I understand that the negotiations are no longer pending, that the parties have separated, as nothing admissible was allowed. Such is my information this morning.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Mr. BENNET. I ask unanimous consent to spread the following paper upon the Journal of the House: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, February 1, 1865. Representing Territories which must soon become States, as Delegates deprived of the inestimable privilege of voting in this House, feeling a deep interest in the proposition to amend the Federal Constitution forever prohibiting slavery within the jurisdiction of the United States, demanded alike by the exigencies of the times, the voice of the loyal people, and by our efforts in the field to suppress a rebellion inaugurated and sustained for the purpose of perpetuating slavery, we cannot do less than state that the measure meets our unqualified approbation.

H. P. BENNET, Colorado.
J. F. KINNEY, Utah.

S. G. DAILY, Nebraska.
CHARLES D. POSTON, Arizona.
J. B. S. TODD, Dakota.
W. H. WALLACE, Idaho.
FRANCISCO PEREA, New Mexico.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I object,

SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Mr. WILSON, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to reestablish the supremacy of the Constitution in the insurrectionary States; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

SALE OF INDIAN LANDS IN MINNESOTA.

On motion of Mr. WINDOM, and by unanimous consent, the joint resolution (S. R. No. 92) to postpone and prevent the sale for less than their appraised value of certain Indian lands in Minnesota was taken from the Speaker's table, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

Mr. BROOKS moved that the vote by which the resolution was referred be reconsidered, and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

DUTY ON IMPORTED PAPER.

Mr. SCHENCK, by unanimous consent, presented a joint resolution of the Legislature of Ohio, instructing their Senators and requesting their Representatives in Congress to use their influence for the removal or diminution of the duty on imported paper; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

BANKRUPT LAW.

Mr. SCHENCK, also, by unanimous consent, presented a joint resolution of the Legislature of the State of Ohio, instructing their Senators and requesting their Representatives in Congress to oppose the passage of any bankrupt law; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

NAVAL APPROPRIATIONS.

Mr. STEVENS, 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 upon the special order.

The SPEAKER. Pending that motion the question arises on the motion made yesterday that all debate be terminated in one hour after the committee resumes the consideration of the bill. Mr. PIKE. It was understood yesterday that this was to be a free debate.

Mr. STEVENS. But I did not understand that it was to be an eternal debate. If the gentleman wishes the time enlarged half an hour longer I will not object.

Mr. PIKE. I suppose the gentleman from New York [Mr. FERNANDO WOOD] wants an hour himself.

Mr. STEVENS. He only wants half an hour. Mr. FERNANDO WOOD. I shall probably occupy only fifteen or twenty minutes.

Mr. STEVENS. I modify my amendment, and make the time one hour and a half. Mr. HOLMAN. This will terminate only the general debate?

The SPEAKER. That is all.

Mr. PIKE. I ask the gentleman to make the time two hours.

Mr. STEVENS. I will do so; though I am. anxious to get at the appropriation bills.

The motion, as modified, was agreed to. The motion to go into committee was then. agreed to.

The House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole, (Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the special order, being a bill (H. R. No. 676) making appropriations for the naval service for the year ending June 30, 1866.

The pending question was upon the amendment submitted by Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland, being to add the following to the bill:

Provided, That no money appropriated for the naval service shall be expended otherwise than in accordance with the following provision, so far as it is applicable; that is to say, that the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint a Board of Admiralty, which shall consist of the vice admiral and one rear admiral, one commodore, one captain, one commander, and one lieutenant commander, over which the Secretary of the Navy or the officer highest in rank present shall preside; and when the subject under consideration shall appertain to the duties. of any bureau in the Navy Department, the chief of such bureau shall be a member of the board, and entitled to sit and vote on the consideration of the subject.

SEC.. And be it further enacted, That the board shall deliberate in common and advise the Secretary on any matters submitted by him relating to naval organization, naval legislation, the construction, equipment, and arma ment of vesscis, navy-yards, and other naval establish

ments, and the direction, employment, and disposition of. the naval forces in time of war. All such opinions shall be recorded.

SEC. And be it further enacted, That no vessel-ofwar shall be built or materially altered, nor any guns of new construction ordered or adopted, nor any engine for any vessel-of-war adopted or ordered, nor any permanent structure for naval service executed, until the plans, estimates, proposals, and contracts for the same shall have been submitted to the board, and its opinion and advice thereon communicated in writing to the Secretary; nor shall any patented invention be bought or adopted for the naval service without first the opinion of the board thereon having been taken; and all experiments decided to test inventions and naval plans and structures shall be conducted under the inspection of the board, or members thereof named by the Secretary, and submitted to the board for its opinion thereon.

SEC.. And be it further enacted, That all invitations for plans or proposals for any of the works above mentioned shall be prepared by the board, subject to the approval of the Secretary; and all bids or offers or proposals for the same shall be opened in the presence of the board, and the award made by it, subject to the approval of the Secretary.

SEC.. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary may add to the board, from time to time, other officers of the Navy eligible to the position of chief of bureau, not exceeding three, at any time, for consultation on any of the above subjects. The board may take the opinion of eminent practical engineers, mechanics, machinists, and architects, in their respective branches of art or industry, when in their opinion the public service will be promoted by it, and pay them such reasonable compensation as the Secretary may approve.

The CHAIRMAN. Upon this question the gentleman from New York [Mr. FERNANDO WooD] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. FERNANDO WOOD and Mr. PIKE then addressed the committee. [Their speeches will be published in the Appendix.]

Mr. GRISWOLD. I do not propose to prolong this discussion by considering the amendment which is proposed by the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. DAVIS;] but I feel it due to myself, as a member of the Committee on Naval Affairs, and also as one possessing some knowledge which I am sure the gentleman from Maryland would be glad to be possessed of, to say a word or two upon the question under discussion.

So far as the gentleman's very able remarks were concerned, I, for one, failed to discover that they were really advocating the amendment which he has offered. It seemed to me, so far as his argument was applicable, that it was aimed directly and exclusively, not at the system, but at the men who administer the affairs of the Navy Department. He proposes, by way of rectifying the difficulties which he alleges to exist there, not to remove inefficient or incompetent persons, but, as I understand it, to embarrass and incumber the Department by still greater and still more intricate and minute machinery. Now, it seems to me that if there is any argument at all, the gentleman should have confined himself, not to the theory, but to the manner in which it should be carried out in practice.

The gentleman from Maryland charges upon the Naval Committee, among other things, that it has frittered away its time, and that the bill which he introduced has had no consideration by that committee, partly because the committee has been traveling about the country with reference to locating sites of naval depots. As a member of that committee I beg to have a resolution read by the Clerk, to indicate in some degree how the time of the Committee on Naval Affairs has been occupied during the past and present sessions of Congress.

The Clerk read, as follows:

THIRTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, January 7, 1864. On motion of Mr. H. W. DAVIS, Resolved, That the Committee on Naval Affairs do investigate, without delay, and report to this House, the facts in relation to the plans and structure of the marine engines constructed and now in course of construction for the Navy; and in what essential particular they differ from the marine engines heretofore used in the Navy and now used in the commercial steamers and the navies of France and England; whether their inadequate power and speed are caused by such differences, and by whose authority and on what experiment, and under whose supervision such changes were introduced; and whether any unfair practices were resorted to by any person in or under the authority of the Navy Department, in the mode of manning or handling the engine of the Pensacola, with a view to break it down and bring it and the plan on which it was constructed into disrepute; and whether any person connected with the Navy Department has received any fees or commission or compensation of any kind from any contractor for engines for the Navy, or compelled any payment of fees for patented improvements to persons not entitled to them, by persons contracting for engines or parts thereof; and that the committee be authorized to require the opinion of the Academy of Sciences on any scientific question involved in their investigations and necessary to be solved in order to arrive

at a satisfactory result; and that they have power to send for persons and papers, and leave to report at any time. Attest: EDWARD MCPHERSON, Clerk.

boat; that in her first passage from New York to Fortress Monroe she broke down; and that she lies to-day a helpless hulk. Now, as I said, the gentleman will be glad to know that upon all these

Passing over that, Mr. Chairman, and not to dwell on the character of the amendment which the gentleman proposes, I desire to say, for one, that instead of dividing the responsibility, as the head of the Navy Department would be able to do by the creation of the board as provided in the amendment, I believe, looking at it from a practical stand-point, that there is far greater security in holding the Secretary of the Navy and the heads of the various bureaus of the Navy Department to a direct accountability, than in dividing their responsibility.

But I pass over that. In listening to the gentleman's two-hour speech, able and eloquent and ingenious as that gentleman always is, I confess I felt grieved that a member of this Congress should see fit, for the purpose of accomplishing the object which he had in view, to hold up the American Navy, at this critical period of our national history, as being entirely inefficient and powerless; to advertise to the nations of the world that they need have no hesitation as to any interference that they may deem advisable in our affairs, and no fear of any aggression from the Navy of the United States. I regretted to hear it from the distinguished gentleman from Maryland; but, of course, it is not for me to question either the good taste or judgment of that distinguished gentleman.

I should be glad, Mr. Chairman, to go over in detail, and to have read professional and unprofessional statements in regard to the various facts alleged by the gentleman from Maryland; but the shortness of the time allowed to me, and the fact that other gentlemen desire to occupy a portion of that limited time, compel me to refrain from it. I pass over the commentary which the gentleman made on the attack at Charleston, but should be glad to have an opportunity of showing that what he asserted as true, namely, that in that brief encounter half of that little iron fleet was incapacitated for action, was entirely unfounded and destitute of truth. It will be recollected, Mr. Chairman, that the whole iron-clad fleet to which the gentleman alludes as having attacked Charleston on the occasion referred to, consisted only of eight little monitors. They were created entirely, from stem to stern, and completed and put in action, in the brief period of about six or seven months. The whole fleet cost only about as much as any one single ship-of-war built on the old plan. It cost less than one of those iron-clad ships of England, to which the gentleman points with such admiration. The entire number of men employed upon them was one half what is requisite for an ordinary ship-of-war. Instead of that attack exhibiting their incapacity, it is a memorable fact that, though two thousand shot struck that little fleet, yet, instead of being disabled, they were ready to go into action the following day.

But I pass over all these things, Mr. Chairman, and will confine myself more especially to certain representations which were made in regard to the Dictator; and I am sure that the gentleman from Maryland will be glad to be disabused of the errors under which he is resting. I am sure that he will be glad to know that so important an arm of our national defense is not the entire failure which he alleges. I beg to say to him and to this House, in connection with what he has said with reference to the Dictator, that he is entirely at fault. If I remember correctly, the gentleman alleged that the Dictator was built for a sea-going vessel; that she cost an untold amount; that she is incapable of taking coal across the ocean; that her speed is not over five knots an hour; that she is entirely unworthy to be considered a sea-going

Now, sir, so far as her capacity for coal is concerned, she is capable of storing seven hundred and fifty tons, (to attain seven knots per hour she requires three thousand pounds of coal, or thirtytwo tons in twenty-four hours,) a supply for twenty-five days, and adequate to a distance of fortytwo hundred miles. I speak now of the actual running of the vessel, and make no assertion that cannot be vindicated by the record. Thus much for her capacity for fuel.

As to her sea-going properties, I desire to read a very brief extract from a letter received from Superintending Engineer W. Cosgrove, dated "On board the Dictator, Hampton Roads, Virginia, January 8, 1865.' "In concluding his report, he says:

"It blew a gale of wind yesterday, with a heavy sea on, and we went through like a pilot boat, part of the time in company with a good-sized steamer that seemed to be laboring heavily, while we were not heeding either wind or tide. It is really a magnificent sight to see the Dictator in a sea-way."

In regard to her speed, the passage from New York to Fortress Monroe was made under positive instructions not to exceed eight knots per hour-a very proper prudential restriction to be placed on the running of new and very heavy machinery. She went from New York to Fortress Monroe without a consort, and encountered very rough weather; yet in that first passage she attained an average speed of nearly eight knots an hour. Instead of her machinery breaking down, and the vessel lying now a helpless hulk, the whole difficulty arose from the fact that in the main shaft a defect was discovered: one of those defects in forging which no human skill or foresight can guard against, and which can be detected only by the test to which the machinery was subjected.

The defective shaft has been replaced, and the vessel is now, or will in a very short time, be ready for any service that she may be called upon to perform. Allegations have been made as to the steering qualities of the vessel. Upon this point it is sufficient to say that, while this has been regarded as an unavoidable defect in all the ironclads of England and France, no vessel afloat, iron-clad or other, responds to the rudder more promptly and with less power than the vessel in question.

The London Times of December 24 publishes an account of a recent experimental trip of the new British iron-clad Achilles. Under a full pressure of steam this vessel required twenty-one men at the rudder, while the Dictator requires but two. The Achilles requires for her turning a circle of three thousand feet; the Dictator seven hundred feet, or about twice her length; an achievement that will be regarded as a marvel by the naval architects of the world.

In short, Mr. Chairman, I allege without the fear of contradiction that the indications tend to prove that the Dictator is as perfect a sea-going vessel as has yet been built for the American or the navy of any other country, and that there is not a single particular in which she fails to realize the utmost expectations of those who were most sanguine in regard to her. With the indications of speed which she has already exhibited, her utter impregnability to all ordnance yet devised, and with the capacity of carrying a fifteen or twenty-inch gun, and hurling against her adversary a solid shot of four hundred and fifty to six hundred pounds, she may well defy any-I had almost said all-of the ships-of-war that can be brought against her.

This, sir, is the vessel which the gentleman from Maryland would consign with so much nonchalance to the obscurity of a failure. We are told that with a board such as is proposed by the