Senate will perceive, transposes the words which otherwise need not be inserted.

I will say further that the committee had a correspondence with the Pension Bureau on this subject, and a classification and gradation of pensions was made out, and I had the honor to report a bill prepared at the Pension Bureau for that purpose to the Senate; but after the House bill came to us we supposed that we could incorporate the valuable provisions of the Senate bill in this bill, and adopt their bill generally as it stands. I think the Senate can have no doubt that there are disabilities as gross as those of the loss of both hands, or both legs, or both eyes. There are numerous such cases. There are those who are suffering from disease by which they are perfectly and entirely helpless, so that, as one of the amendments states, they need the constant personal aid and attendance of another person. Those we put with the highest class. Those who are incapacitated for performing any manual labor, but not so much so as to require constant personal aid and attention, are placed in the second class, and those otherwise so disabled as to inaterially interfere with the performance of manual labor without wholly incapacitating them therefor are made a third class, including those who lost one hand, and so on, while the fourth class is composed of those who receive the regular pension of privates, eight dollars per month.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment reported by the committee.

The amendment was agreed to.

- Mr. VAN WINKLE. The amendment just agreed to is on transposing those words, I suppose.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The first amendment that was read, striking out the word "now" is the one on which the Senate has just voted. The next amendment in order will be read.

The Secretary read the next amendment, which was in section one, line twelve, after the word "who" to insert "while in the military or naval service and in the line of duty." The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in section one, line fifteen after the word "same" to strike out the words "in the military or naval service, and in the line of duty," and to insert: Or otherwise so permanently and totally disabled as to render them utterly helpless, or so nearly so as to require the constant personal aid and attendance of another person.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in section one, line twenty-three, after the word "same," to insert the words:

Or otherwise so disabled as to be incapacitated for performing any manual labor, but not so much so as to require constant personal aid and attention. The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in section one, line twenty-eight, after the word "same," to insert the words "or otherwise so disabled as to materially interfere with the performance of manual labor, without wholly incapacitating them therefor."

The amendment was agreed to.

The first section of the bill as amended reads as follows:

That section five of an act entitled "An act supplementary to an act entitled An act to grant pensions,' approved July 14, 1862," approved July 4, 1864, and section three of an act entitled "An act supplementary to the several acts relating to pensions," approved March 3, 1865, be, and the same are hereby, repealed, and the following shall stand in lieu thereof. That from and after the passage of this act all persons by law entitled to a less pension than hereinafter specified, who, while in the military or naval service and in the line of duty, shall have lost the sight of both eyes, or who shall have lost both hands, or been permanently and totally disabled in the same. [in the military or naval service and in the line of duty,] or otherwise so permanently and totally disabled as to render them utterly helpless, or so nearly so as to require the constant personal aid and attendance of another person, shall be entitled to a pension of twenty-five dollars per month; and all persons who, under like circumstances, shall have lost both feet, or one hand and one foot, or been

totally and permanently disabled in the same, or otherwise so disabled as to be incapacitated for performing any manual labor, but not so much so as to require constant personal aid and attention, shall be entitled to a pension of twenty dollars per month; and all persons who, under like circumstances, shall have lost one hand or one foot, or been totally or permanently disabled in the same, or otherwise so disabled as to materially interfere with the performance of manual labor, without wholly incapacitating them therefor, shall be entitled to a pension of fifteen dollars per month.

The next amendment was to insert as an additional section the following:

SEC. 11. And be it further enacted, That nothing in this or any other act shall be so construed as to repeal or modify the sixth section of an act entitled 'An act supplementary to an act to grant pensions approved July 14, 1862," approved July 4, 1864, or to entitle a person to receive more than one pension at the same time.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. In reference to that amendment, I send to the Secretary a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, which he will please read down to the pencil marks on the third page.

The Secretary read, as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D. C., April 4, 1866. SIR: I notice that the bill supplemental to the existing laws in relation to pensions has passed the House of Representatives and been reported to the Senate.

I have the honor to invite your attention to the accompanying draft of two additional sections. A few words will suffice to explain their nature and object.

The fourth section of the act of 1865 was drawn up in this Department and was designed to define more clearly the rights of the children of a soldier, sailor, or officer who dies leaving a widow. Serious doubts were entertained whether under the preexisting law the children were entitled to a pension if he left a widow, although she died or remarried before the children attained the age of sixteen years. The words "if there be no widow" were construed to refer to the period of the soldier's death. The section was therefore incorporated in the bill and is a substantial reenactment of a corresponding provision of the act of 1862, making only such changes as were required to determine with more precision and clearness the rights of the children where there was a widow, or in the event of her subsequent marriage or death. It was not intended to affect the sixth section of the act of 1864, which is justly regarded by the Pension Bureau as a salutary provision. It may, however, have such effect, and the first section of the draft was prepared to obviate that construction.

It also declares that no person shall receive more than one pension at the same time; the act of 1862 contains such a provision, but it is sometimes contended that it relates only to pensions authorized by that act. The words in the draft are sufficiently broad and comprehensive to relieve the question from all doubt.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment of the committee was to insert as an additional section the following: SEC. 12. And be it further enacted, That so much of the fourth section of an act entitled "An act supplementary to an act entitled An act to grant pensions,' approved July 14, 1862," approved July 4, 1864, as authorizes and empowers the Commissioner of Pensions to detail clerks in his office be, and the same is hereby, repealed, and the Secretary of the Interior shall hereafter detail clerks in the Department, or in one of the bureaus thereof, for the purposes in said section mentioned, or to secure the more effectual execution of the pension laws and the rights of pensioners; but clerks so detailed shall not for any special service be entitled to additional compensation beyond the customary per diem and mileage.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I ask the Secretary to read the balance of the letter that I sent to the desk.

The Secretary read, as follows:

You will perceive that the remaining section repeals a part of the fourth section of the act of July 4, 1864, and substitutes another provision. It is not proposed to repeal the whole section, as that would revive the twelfth section of the act of 1862, which was found in practice to be objectionable. The provision which is substituted confers upon the Secretary of the Interior, who, as you are aware, has the supervisory control over the Pension Bureau, the power to detail clerks, which that section confers, for certain specific purposes, upon the Commissioner of Pensions. This power should, in my opinion, be exercised by the head of the Department; and I am not aware of another instance in our legislation where it has been withdrawn from him and vested in a bureau office. The power to detail clerks to examine and report in regard to any branch of the public service, under the charge of a Department, may justly be considered as incidental to the authority vested by law in the head of such Department, and I respectfally submit that such power should not be lodged elsewhere. The first clause of the second section of the draft repealing in part the fourth section of the act of 1864, might perhaps accomplish the purpose, but it may be proper that the power of the Secretary to detail a clerk for the purposes mentioned in the draft should be unequivocally recognized by Con

gress. The concluding portion of the draft excludes the claim of such clerk to any additional compensation for such special service, and allows him nothing beyond his traveling and other incidental expenses. In that respect it conforms to the existing usage of the Department.

I recommend the adoption of these two sections. I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, JAMES HARLAN, Secretary. Hon. HENRY S. LANE, Chairman Committee on Pensions, United States Senate.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. This amendment and the preceding one were brought to the notice of the committee after they had agreed to report this bill, and a majority of the committee assented to them and ordered them to be reported with the bill. I was one of those so assenting. As there was no discussion, or not much discussion of the matter in committee, I cannot repeat the views of the other members of the committee who are here to speak for themselves. But since I gave my assent to this amendment I have reflected somewhat on the subject, and, while I cannot say I have come to a different conclusion, I think there are some doubts as to Previous to the the propriety of this change. act of 1862 relating to pensions, these agents were clerks appointed by the Commissioner of Pensions. The act of 1862 provided for the appointment of special agents where frauds were suspected upon the pension laws to go and examine into them; and as the Secretary of the Interior states in his letter, and as I have been assured by the Commissioner of Pensions, it was found not to work well. These special agents having no familiarity with the business of the office, with the papers, or anything else connected with it, were not able to discharge the duties as efficiently as those who were better acquainted with the office, or to make as intelligent a report as the service of the office required. Accordingly, at the instance of the Pension Bureau, I believe a section was added in the law of 1864, placing the thing back where it had stood previously, without any law, and authorizing the Commissioner of Pensions to detail clerks in his Department to go and inspect the various pension offices if he should think there was occasion for it.

The Secretary of the Interior in his letter asks that this be changed, and that the appointment or designation of those clerks for this purpose may be given to him instead of the Cammissioner of Pensions, and if I recollect rightly, he places it on the ground that being the head of the Department he ought to have that power and it ought not to be exercised by one of his subordinates. The doubt that has arisen in my mind arises from the peculiar construction of the Interior Department. In the Treasury, Post Office, and other Departments, all the actions of the various bureaus are converging to one point as it were; but in the Interior Department it seems to be different. The Pension Office, the Patent Office, the Land Office, and perhaps others, seem to be almost separate and independent offices. It appears to me that in those cases where the head of the bureau is charged with the administration, as it were, of the whole law in relation to a given subject, such as pensions, patents, or lands, where there is a peculiar responsibility devolving upon him, particularly in relation to the detection of frauds, he should have the power of appointment. Without saying that I have fully come to the conclusion that this change should not be made, that is the present tendency of my mind, and I should like to hear the views of those who are more experienced, or at any rate that the subject should receive the consideration of the Senate before the amendment is adopted.

Mr. GUTHRIE. I am satisfied that the Secretary of the Interior should have the authority that this amendment provides for. I cannot conceive of a Department being properly carried on where there is independent action on the part of one bureau of the others and of the Secretary. It is perfectly easy for

the Commissioner to consult the Secretary, and to hear any objections that he may have. Where this is done, where the heads of the

bureaus act under the superintendence of the Secretary, all goes on right, and there is no trouble; but where they act independent of him, there is room for complaint. There must be one man at the head of every one of these Departments to wield control over it and all

the bureaus in it.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. The nature of this amendment is just this: for the first fifty years under the administration of the Pension Bureau the Commissioner of Pensions had a right to appoint special agents to investigate frauds. Some two years ago that right was given to the Secretary of the Interior. Last year that was repealed and it was placed back again in the hands of the Commissioner of Pensions. Now, this is a proposition to place the power to appoint these agents in the hands of the Secretary of the Interior. That is the amendment founded upon the letter of the Secretary of the Interior. I myself think these appointments should be made by the head of the bureau. He is more familiar with the character and qualifications of his own clerks than any one else can be. If frands are perpetrated in the bureau, he, and no one else, is responsible for those frauds. Another reason is that the clerks in that bureau are familiar with the details of that office and more efficient than any one detailed from the whole of the Interior Department could possibly be. Without having any feeling about it, my impression is that the amendment should not be adopted. It was reported by the committee simply to get the sense of the Senate as to whether this power should be given to the Secretary of the Interior or remain with the Commissioner of Peusions.

Mr. POMEROY. I think the amendment as it was reported from the committee is right. This idea of allowing heads of bureaus to send off agents, independent of the Secretary, may work very well when we have good heads of bureaus; but all these heads of bureaus have to report to the Secretary; he is the real head, and responsible for the transaction of the whole besiness of the department.

Mr. JOHNSON. How is it now?

Mr. POMEROY. As the law now stands, the heads of the different bureaus may send out their clerks without consulting the Secretary of the Interior. As the law is to be, if this amendment should be adopted, the Secrctary of the Interior will send them out. Of course he is the man that ought to do it, as he is responsible for the whole Department, and ought to be allowed to send out such clerks as he may choose. I think the amendment is clearly right.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I will ask the Senator from Kansas whether there has been any abuse daring the last year that requires a change of

the law.

Mr. POMEROY. I do not know that there has been any abuse; but this amendment, giving the Secretary of the Interior charge over this subject, makes the Interior Department in harmony with the other Departments of the Government. In the Treasury Depart

stand it. I know that is so with regard to the Internal Revenue Bureau, and I suppose it is true of the others.

Mr. HENDRICKS. My point is this: I cannot see any necessity for changing a law against which there is no complaint. I am perfectly willing to give this power to the Secretary of the Interior; but to take it away from the Commissioner, who has special charge of this business, would seem to be a reflection upon him, and I should be reluctant to change a little matter of this sort when there is no complaint of the law as it now stands.

Mr. POMEROY. I suppose the Secretary of the Interior did not consider it a reflection on him when it was taken away from him by the law passed two years ago. I know of no reason why it should be so considered.

ap

Mr. VAN WINKLE. The Senator from Kansas is mistaken in saying that the power has been taken away from the Secretary of the Interior. Previous to the act of 1862 it was a mere usage which had grown up in the Department, and it is not proposed to change what was then done, except as to the mode of pointment. But in 1864, as I have already stated, a law was passed authorizing the appointment of special agents for this purpose; but, as stated by the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of Pensions, it was found not to operate well in practice, and then they returned to the old usage, but under the sanction of law. It is no reflection in that way. The Commissioner of Pensions is now by law authorized to appoint examining surgeons and other officers connected with the details of his office; and it appears to me, as has been already suggested, that this is a matter that is entirely within the proper duties of the Pension Office. It is not like sending Treasury agents to go South and investigate cotton sales and things of that kind, but it is the overseeing of the various pension agents throughout the country, and that devolves, it appears to me, especially upon the Commissioner of Pensions, he being in fact the responsible man for all that is done. In that view I am inclined to think that he should have the selection of these agents.

Mr. GUTHRIE. I have already said that in my judgment it is proper that this amendment should be adopted, and that the Secretary of the Interior should be recognized as the chief officer of that Department, without whose sanction nothing could be done. This idea of setting out independent bureaus here and giving them authority independent of the Secretary of the Interior will lead to no good, but must necessarily lead to harm. Ambitious individuals will draw to themselves the patronage which the chief of the Department ought to have. I can say for myself, that there never was a time, when I was in the Treasury, where I had a good officer that I did not consult him upon the propriety of all selections of this sort. At that time officers were appointed to examine the various ports of the country, to investigate frauds, to investigate the coinage, and everything of that kind, and while I was in the ment no particular bureau sends off a man to investigate a fraud, but the Secretary of the Department all this was done under my sancTreasury does it. He details clerks from the tion, but not without consultation with the indiDepartment; and why the Secretary of the vidual who had charge of that particular branch Interior should not have the same right that ought so to work. of the Department. It worked well, and it No man in any of our Demother heads of Departments of the Gov- partments should feel himself in any respect ement have I cannot understand. I recol-independent of the head of that Department. let that two years ago we passed a law giving this power to the Secretary of the Interior. You cannot have one of the Departments govSabsequently, in some way or other, that law erned well unless it is under the control of the man who is at the head of it. You hold him repealed, and it was given to the Com-responsible, and he ought to be held responsisioner of Pensions. Now, the proposition ble, and he ought to know everything that is s to restore it again to the Secretary of the Ierior, and I think that is where it should be. done in the office, who is sent out and who is Mr. HENDRICKS. I will ask the Senator not sent out, and what the qualifications of the if the Treasury Department the heads of the persons sent out are. It is proper that he should National Currency Bureau and the Internal know it, and in order that everything may be venue Bureau do not conduct their own done right, it is necessary that he should irs and make their own appointments. know it.

Mr. called for the yeas and

POMEROY. I think not; only through nays on the amendment, and they were ordered;

the Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. HENDRICKS.

Mr. POMEROY. That is the way I. under

Are you sure of that?

and being taken resulted-yeas 18, nays 11; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Chandler, Clark, Cragin,

Fessenden, Guthrie, Howard, Johnson, Kirkwood, Morrill, Norton, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sprague, Stewart, Trumbull, Willey, and Williams-18.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Cowan, Foster, Grimes, Hendricks, Lane of Indiana, Morgan, Van Winkle, Wade, and Yates-11.

ABSENT-Messrs. Conness, Creswell, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Harris, Henderson, Howe, Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Nesmith, Nyc, Poland, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sumner, Wilson, and Wright-20.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I offer, not on behalf of the committee, an amendment which I send to the Chair, to insert as an additional section the following:

And be it further enacted, That the fourteenth section of an act entitled An act supplementary to an act entitled 'An act to grant pensions,' approved July 14, 1862," approved July 14, 1864, be, and the same is hereby, repealed, and that the widows and children of colored soldiers and sailors who have been, or may be hereafter, killed, or who have died, or may hereafter die, of wounds received in battle, or of disease contracted in the military or naval service of the United States and in the line of duty, shall be entitled to receive the pensions provided by law without other evidence of marriage than proof satisfactory to the Commissioner of Pensions that the parties had habitually recognized each other as man and wife, and lived together as such for a definite period, not less than two years next preceding the enlistment of the man; and the children born of any marriage so proved shall be deemed and taken to be the children of the soldier or sailor and the party thereto: Provided, however, That if any such soldier or sailor and the woman alleged to be his widow, resided, previously to the enlistment of the former, in any State in which the marriage between them might have been legally solemnized, the usual evidence of marriage shall bo required.

My attention was called to this subject by a proposition introduced by the junior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WILSON] the other day in reference to the bounties of colored soldiers. I had in fact shown him this amendment, which I believe met his approbation. The necessity for it arises from several considerations. Some change in the nature of things was required since the original provision on this subject was passed. Perhaps I can more shortly explain it to the Senate by stating wherein this amendment differs from the law that was passed in 1864; and, with the permission of the Senate, I will state a little history of that provision.

A bill came from the House of Representatives, I think, containing a provision in reference to these marriages. There was a third committee of conference on the bill, of which I was a member, and the Senator from Vermont who died recently [Mr. Foor] was the chairman or leading manager on the part of the Senate. There was a great difference of opinion among the mauagers when they came together. I went into an explanation of the nature of these marriages, and of the way these people lived together. The Senator from Vermont seized upon the idea and prepared the section upon which not only that committee unanimously agreed, although it included some of those who were supposed to be inimical to these soldiers, but it met the immediate approval of the Senate and the House. I remember it was about midnight when we went into committee.

I propose, as one change, to introduce into this act sailors as well as soldiers. I propose, also, to confine the time to the period of two years next preceding the enlistment of the man; and I do that upon this consideration:

by the accidents of the war many of these

people were driven from their homes, and probably driven into States where their marriages might have been legally solemnized; but, under the circumstances, it was hardly to

be expected that their attention would be called to it. Again, I think it is very probable, although they have been taken in charge now by others, and have been free for some time, that those marriages have not been solemnized as rapidly, perhaps, as they should have been. This is therefore drawn to meet that case, that if they lived previous to the enlistment in any where marriage have been planized, then this proof will not be sufficient.

I have also introduced a provision that the children born of any marriage so proved shall be deemed and taken to be the children of the

soldier and the party thereto. That does not clearly appear in the section drawn up by the Senator from Vermont, and it may arise in cases where there is no widow or where the wife is dead; so that it would let in the same kind of proof of marriage in the case of the children applying for a pension to which they would be entitled under the law, as in the case of the widow.

It will be observed that the proviso declares: That if any such soldier or sailor and the woman alleged to be his widow resided previously to the enlistment of the former in any State in which the marriage between them might have been legally solemnized the usual evidence of marriage shall be required.

I have there introduced the words "previously to the enlistment," which I explained a moment since.

Mr. JOHNSON. Permit me to ask whether that is to be evidence that there is no other wife entitled to claim a pension.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. The section of the law as it now stands provides that it is to be proved by the affidavits of credible witnesses, which would necessarily imply two witnesses. I have changed that in this amendment, so as to make it proof satisfactory to the Commissioner of Pensions. If the man and woman have lived together for two years next preceding the enlistment of the man, and recognized each other as man and wife, that is to be received as sufficient proof of marriage when that fact is established.

Mr. JOHNSON. But what I want to know, with the indulgence of my friend from West Virginia, is, whether that is to be considered as evidence that there is no other wife. It is only evidence that she was the last wife; but these people because of the condition in which they have been placed in the past, not knowing there was any immorality in it, and being prohibited to some extent from marrying at allwere in the habit of having some four or five wives. As they were sold from master to master, or went from State to State, they contracted, according to their mode of contracting, a marriage. Many of these men I suppose really have wives, in the sense in which the term is used in this amendment, in half a dozen of the States. I wanted to know whether the amendment provides that it is to be the last only who is to receive the pension, so as to exclude antecedent ones,

Mr. VAN WINKLE. Yes, sir. The Senator from Maryland is well aware, I presume, though many Senators may not be, that in the State of Virginia, for instance, there was no law prohibiting the marriage of slaves, but the common law would not recognize a contract made by a slave, either of marriage or anything else. They were, while slaves, in the habit of going through the forms of marriage. Some other negro would perhaps read from the printed ceremonies of one of the churches, and they acknowledged one another as man and wife, and, if virtuously inclined, lived together as man and wife, and conducted themselves seemly in that regard. They had, as the Senator from Maryland says, the idea that when they changed their location they could take another wife; and they have been doing it not very far from here, even since the war commenced. They are now getting the knowledge that the ceremony must be solemnized between them, or they will not be recognized; and that great evil of the system of slavery will, of It would be hard, where a man course, cease. and woman have lived together, considering themselves as man and wife, raising children and recognizing them as their children, that this woman, who was a wife in everything except the legal ceremony, and the children who, if that marriage could be recognized, were legitimate children, should be cut off from the benefit of the pension laws on account of this want of formality in the marriage of the parents.

Mr. JOHNSON. The Senator does not understand me. I do not want to cut them off at all. I only want to know whether more than one woman can receive a pension for the services of one man.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. Certainly not, only the woman with whom, he lived a definite period, at least two years next preceding his enlistment. Those provisions are in the law already. I merely want to expand them a little so as to apply them a little further. As Senators are getting impatient, and as this subject may be one, looking at the source from which it comes, that should receive further investigation, I will move that the further consideration of the bill be postponed until Monday next, and that in the meanwhile this amendment be printed.

The motion was agreed to.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

Mr. BROWN. I move that the Senate do now adjourn.

Mr. RAMSEY. I hope not. I ask the Senator to withdraw the motion. It is very important that we should have an executive session for a few moments, and if the Senator from Missouri will withdraw the motion to adjourn, I will make that motion.

Mr. BROWN. I withdraw it.

Mr. RAMSEY. Then I move than the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

The motion was agreed to; and after some time spent in executive session the doors were reopened, and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, April 13, 1866.

The House met at twelve o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. B. BOYNTON. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

STEAMER DIANA.

Mr. DENNY, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to issue an American register to the steamer Diana; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

CHOLERA.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, by unanimous consent, moved that the Committee on Commerce be instructed to inquire what legislation, if any, is necessary to prevent the introduction of the cholera into the ports of the United States.

The motion was agreed to.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. As I am somewhat unwell, I ask leave of absence for one week. There was no objection, and it was granted accordingly.

COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES.

Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I was absent yesterday when the Committee on Territories was called. I ask now that it shall have two morning hours week after next.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I object to two morning hours, as it has already had one. Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. It will displace no other committee.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I leave that matter to be decided when it comes up. Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. Say Thursday

week.

Mr. STEVENS. Suppose they are not called, will they come in?

The SPEAKER. The committee is now being called; it will come in again next Tuesday. The Chair hears no objection, and the committee will have next Thursday week.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. SCOFIELD. personal explanation.

I ask leave to make a

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOFIELD] asks unanimous consent to make a personal explanation. The Chair hears no objection.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I find in the Titusville Herald of April 9, 1866, a report signed by J. T. Sawyer and E. W. Matthews, a committee, so styling themselves, of the oil producers of western Pennsylvania. They state in that

report that they came to Washington on the 12th of February, and remained here until the 24th of March, using their best endeavors to secure the repeal of the tax on crude petroleum. In another part of their report it is stated that they found on the part of the Representatives from western Pennsylvania entire indifference to the petroleum interest, and they conclude thus:

"Thus it appears that the producers of petroleum in Pennsylvania are not represented by men from their own vicinity, not even by men from their own State, but they are almost exclusively dependent for the protection of their interests in Congress upon the courtesy of Representatives from other States, among whom General JAMES A. GARFIELD, of Ohio, is particularly deserving of the gratitude of every inhabitant of this section of country, since whatever prospects there may be for the repeal of this burdensome tax, they are due to his faithful and persistent efforts, and from present appearances he is the only advocate of this measure through whom any relief may be expected in the future."

I wish to say, in relation to this, that prior to the 12th day of February, when this committee say they came here, upon consultation with the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, I was informed that the entire tax upon crude petroleum would be removed by the commitThe chairman said that that was his own opinion, and from his consultation with the other members of the committee he was sure that it would be agreed to.

tee.

I never saw Mr. Matthews to my recollection, and Mr. Sawyer only once, and then he called me out during the session of the House. I gave him then the information which I had derived from the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means. I never saw him again, and as it was unnecessary for him to remain, I sup posed he had gone home. This charge of negligence against the Representatives of western Pennsylvania, (I can speak not only for myself, but my colleagues also) is entirely groundless. I have frequently consulted with them upon the subject, and all agreed in pressing the removal of the tax on crude petroleum. I wish now to ask the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, who knows something of what I have done in relation to this subject, whether I have, either at this session or during the last Congress, neglected in any way the interest of the oil producers, and whether I have not on all occasions, in season and out of season, beset them to remove this tax on crude petroleum as well as reduce that on refined.

Mr. MORRILL. Those members who were present whenever this subject has been acted upon heretofore will all bear witness to the zeal of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOFIELD] in endeavoring to remove or to reduce the tax upon petroleum. Early in the present session he was several times at my desk in relation to this subject, and I gave him distinctly to understand that it was in my opinion the intention of the Committee of Ways and Means to entirely remove the tax on crude petroleum, and he need therefore have no anxiety on the subject.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I ask the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means of the last Congress [Mr. STEVENS] a similar question.

Mr. STEVENS. We all recollect-all the members of the committee-that during the last Congress we were, I will not say importuned, but very much visited by the gentleman from the Erie district [Mr. SCOFIELD] upon this subject, protesting against the tax we were then about to put upon crude petroleum. The committee, however, agreed to the tax finally fixed, and it may be within the recollection of others than myself that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOFIELD] made not only a persistent but some of us thought unreasonable effort to have the tax reduced or taken off. And I will say further, although he may not think it much in his praise, that when he did not succeed he became somewhat offended, and by several subsequent motions which were made sought to retaliate upon those who went against him on the taxing of petroleum. I thought for one that he was too persistent in his efforts in favor of that interest.

Mr. GRINNELL. Let me say that at the last session I denominated the gentleman from the Erie district [Mr. SCOFIELD] the "free-light man," and I think he deserved the honor.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I yield now for a few moments to my colleague, [Mr. LAWRENCE.] Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania. I desire to say for myself that on more than one occasion I have called on the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means on this very subject, and have submitted a memorial on the subject to that committee. I have conversed, also, with General GARFIELD, of Ohio, on the subject.

Intelligent gentlemen from my district have been here, and have been at my room over and over again. I gave them the same assurance that my colleague from the Erie district says he gave these gentlemen who have misrepresented the action of the Representatives from western Pennsylvania. I have talked with all of them, and it is the universal opinion of the delegation that this tax should be reduced or perhaps entirely abrogated. These gentlemen have done injustice, and I presume intentional injustice, to the members from western Pennsylvania.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I now yield for a few moments to my colleague from the Pittsburg district, [Mr. MOORHEAD.]

Mr. MOORHEAD. I want to say a word upon this subject, but not for the purpose of excusing myself for anything I have done or failed to do. At the last session of Congress when the question of taxing petroleum crude was before the House I was in favor of the tax and advocated it strongly, and know that in so doing, I incurred the displeasure of the gentlemen who have made this report and the persons they represent. I thought then that this petroleum interest should contribute something toward the payment of the interest on our debt. I was in favor of the tax for that reason. I have found that in practice it works badly and operates very unfavorably on small wells and small dealers. I think the taxation should be laid on the large wells only, and I would like to see something of that kind done. I do not see, however, how it can well be done. The gentlemen who have made this report through the newspapers, when they were here called on me, and I gave them the same assur

aces which my colleague from the Erie district gave them; I told them that, from my intercourse with other members of the Com mittee of Ways and Means, I had reason to believe that the tax would be repealed. I told them that I was in favor of taking it off, and that I had no doubt the Committee of Ways and Means would so report. I can only say that I am astonished that they should have male such a report as they have. The gentleman from the Erie district talked with me very frequently on this subject, urging the taking off of the tax, even before he had any knowledge of this committee being here; and he had arances from me and from other members of the Committee of Ways and Means that we believed it would be taken off.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I have only to say further that I do not wish in any way to detract from the credit given to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. GARFIELD.] He deserves, perhaps, all that is said of him, and the delegation from Western Pennsylvania deserve none of the shader that is heaped upon them.

M. GARFIELD. Will the gentleman from New York allow me to say a word?

Mr. TAYLOR. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. GARFIELD. I desire to say in regard to this matter, that I knew of no such report as this being in the newspapers until the gen fan from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOFIELD] read tas morning. As a member of the committhis subject was in part referred to me, and to delegations came on here from Pennsyl Tina. some of the members of which were persally known to me, and they came to me. I sted them in getting facts from the internal department, as I would have done any other committee, and I assured them also that

I had looked into the subject and believed that crude petroleum ought to be exempted from duty.

I am surprised at these statements made reflecting on the members from Pennsylvania, because I know that three of them have spoken to me several times upon the subject.

service, and by their long and distinguished services and many sacrifices proved their earnestness and enduring devotion to the Union

cause.

Major Daniel McCook, the lamented husband of Mrs. Martha McCook, was mortally wounded at the battle of Buffington Island, Ohio, and died July 21, 1863.

Captain John James McCook served on General Crittenden's staff, and was severely in

CULVER] has hardly been in his seat this session. Mr. SCHENCK. I call for the regular order. The SPEAKER. The first business in order is the call of committees for bills of a private nature, commencing with the Committee on Invalid Pensions, where the call rested on last Friday.

JOSEPH BRAGDON, JR.

On motion of Mr. SPALDING, by unanimous consent, the Committee on Appropriations was discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Joseph Bragdon, jr.; and the same was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

Mr. TROWBRIDGE, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled a bill (S. No. 31) entitled "An act to reimburse the State of Missouri for moneys expended for the United States in enrolling, equipping, and pro

ioning militia forces to aid in suppressing the rebellion;” when the Speaker signed the

same.

Mr. COBB, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the following titles; which were thereupon signed by the Speaker:

An act (H. R. No. 150) for the relief of the administrators and securities of Almon W. Babbitt, late secretary of Utah; and

An act (H. R. No. 471) to provide that the "Soldier's Individual Memorial" shall be carried through the mails at the usual rate of printed matter.

MRS. MARTHA M'COOK.

Mr. TAYLOR, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported back House joint resolution No. 46, for the relief of Martha McCook, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

The joint resolution was read. It provides a pension of $300 per annum to Mrs. Martha McCook, of Jefferson county, Ohio, during her natural life, on account of the loss of her unmarried sons, Charles M. McCook and Brigadier General Robert L. McCook.

The substitute proposes to give Mrs. Martha McCook an annuity during her natural life of $250 per annum, to be paid semi-annually, in consideration of the services of her husband and eight sons in the late war, four of whom have died of wounds received in service.

The question was upon agreeing to the substitute.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, in submitting this resolution it seems proper that I should state briefly the reasons which have actuated the committee in recommending to the House its favorable consideration.

The resolution proposes to grant to Mrs. Martha McCook an annuity of $250 per annum during life. The distinguished services of the McCook family and their sacrifices are familiar to every reader who has kept pace with the rapid events which have passed in such quick succession during the past five years, yet I deem it not out of place, as it is the base upon which this resolution stands, to recapitulate what may be, and I have no doubt is, familiar to every member of this House.

At the commencement of the recent war, when the unity and perpetuation of our Government were threatened by the rebellion of the so-called confederate States, nine of this fam

ily, all of its male members, with that patriotic impulse which characterized the uprising of the people of the loyal States, promply entered the

Major Latimore A. McCook, acting assistant surgeon of the thirty-fifth Illinois volunteers, was wounded twice.

Colonel George W. McCook, ninety-sixth Ohio volunteers, organized five regiments, and took the field himself.

Major General Alexander McDowell McCook commanded the right wing of the army of the Cumberland, and is still in the service.

Brevet Brigadier General Edwin Stanton McCook was wounded three times, and while engaged before Vicksburg was stricken down with sunstroke, from the effects of which he will never recover. This officer was engaged in thirty-eight battles.

Private Charles Morris McCook, company F, second Ohio volunteers, was mortally wounded at the first battle of Bull Run, July 21, 1861, and died two days after, he at the time being but seventeen years of age.

Brigadier General Robert L. McCook, when sick and on his way to a hospital, was capby his captors August 6, 1862, he having been tured in his ambulance and savagely murdered engaged in many battles.

Brigadier General Daniel McCook was mortally wounded at Kenesaw Mountain June 27, 1864, and died July 18, 1864.

Midshipman J. J. McCook died on board the flagship Delaware, March 30, 1842.

Including the last named we have ten out of one single family who have been actually engaged in the military and naval service of the country, four of whom were killed or died from wounds received in action, one died from sickness, three severely injured or wounded in the service, and but two of the ten escaping unharmed from the casualties of war.

Mr. Speaker, this is a record of which a nation may well feel proud. I do not know that in the history of the world there is a parallel case, none I am certain in the history of our own country, where so many of one family have rendered such distinguished service, and so many, by their own merit, bravery, and gallant conduct on the field, entitled themselves to the high and elevated rank which many of them attained.

The object of this resolution is that the nation should, in a substantial and fitting way, acknowledge the unparalleled services of a single family to the country in the hour of its peril, and to express its gratitude to a lady who gave birth to so many children, and to condole with her in her bereavement for the loss of husband and sons whose lives have been given that their country might live.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard of but one objec tion to the passage of this resolution, and that is its tendency to open the way for admitting applicants for annuities for like services and sacrifices. This objection may in truth be well founded. Ofthis, however, I have many doubts; but if it be so, I shall be thankful and rejoice to know it, and will take great pleasure in doing what I can to recognize their services in as publie and as substantial a manner as this resolu tion proposes to recognize the proud record of the family of the McCooks.

Now, unless some gentleman desires to speak upon this joint resolution, I will call the previous question.

Mr. PERHAM. I trust the gentleman from New York [Mr. TAYLOR] will not call the previous question until the minority of the committee have been heard.

Mr. TAYLOR. I withdraw the call for the previous question for the present.

Mr. PERHAM. I desire to submit a minority report, which I ask to have read.

The report was read. It states that while the minority of the Committee on Invalid Pensions recognize fully the distinguished services of the McCook family, they are unable to see why, from all the widows and mothers who have given their husbands and sons to their country's cause, this one should be selected to receive this compliment and substantial aid. The precedent would be a dangerous one, and if followed and a similar gratuity given to all who might as reasonably claim it, the draft upon the national Treasury would be very large. Many thousands of fathers and mothers who have given all their sons to the service will feel that their claims are as good as this. Some have already applied for pensions, and their applications must be responded to favorably or they will feel that injustice has been done them. Mrs. McCook is now in the receipt of a pension of $300 per annum, to which she is entitled by the death of her husband in the service. The minority of the committee therefore recommend that Mrs. McCook be allowed to take, instead of the amount she now receives, a pension for the loss of her son, Brigadier General Robert L. McCook, which would be $360 per annum; and report an amendment to that effect.

The amendment of the minority was read. It directs the Secretary of the Interior to place upon the pension-roll the name of Mrs. Martha McCook, the widow of Daniel McCook and the mother of Robert L. McCook, at the rate of thirty dollars per month during her widowhood, in lieu of the pension she now receives of twenty-five dollars per month.

Mr. PËRHAM. I was one of the minority committee who were unable to come to the same conclusion to which the majority of the Committee on Invalid Pensions arrived in regard to this subject. I have no reason to detract at all from the just meed of praise that is due to this McCook family. I am willing to grant all that is claimed in that respect.

But the question arises whether this country, in its present financial embarrassment, is in a condition to allow this class of stipends to all the mothers and fathers who have given their sons to the service of their country. There are thousands of instances of poor mothers who have been left, it may be, with a large family of small children on their hands for support, who are receiving pensions of but eight dollars per month, yet who have given to the country all they had to give. Many of them have lost sons in the service, and the minority of the committee are unwilling to select this one case, this one lady, this one mother, however worthy she may be, and give to her this stipend of the Government while others are excluded. The committee already have submitted to them for consideration one case very similar to this in regard to which they have presented an adverse report. They have now before them the case of a father who claims that he has given to the service seven sons and one grandson, and he asks that some consideration of this kind be granted to him. The minority of the committee fear the precedent which would be established by the passage of the bill now under consideration, and therefore they object to its passage.

Mr. THAYER. Does the gentleman mean to say that in the instance he referred to the seven sons and a grandson were killed in the service?

Mr. PERHAM. They were not killed but were in the service.

Mr. THAYER. That is a very material difference; and that distinguishes very decidedly the case which he puts from the case now under consideration.

Mr. PERHAM. The gentleman will bear in mind that all the sons of Mrs. McCook were not killed.

Mr. THAYER. Four of them were killed in addition to her husband.

Mr. PERHAM. The minority of the committee desire that this question shall be presented distinctly, and shall be decided by the House with a full understanding of the prece

dent which will be established by the passage of this bill. The action of the House on this case may be regarded as an instruction to the committee in similar cases which we now have before us, and others which must come before us. The minority of the committee propose that the pension which Mrs. McCook is now receiving shall be increased from twenty-five to thirty dollars per month, thus giving her the pension to which she would be entitled in consequence of the death of her son, who was a brigadier general, instead of the pension for the death of her husband, who was a major.

Mr. EGGLESTON. It is very seldom, Mr.. Speaker, that I attempt to say anything in this House; but on a question of this kind, in relation to which I have some knowledge of the facts of the case, I cannot remain silent and hear gentlemen on this floor depreciate the services of the brave and noble family to whom allusion has been made. The McCook family are, in Ohio, truly called the "fighting family."

Mrs. McCook has lost four sons in this war; and last of all, by a dispensation of divine Providence, her husband was taken while trying to stay the ravages of that desperado Morgan, who marched through the State of Indiana, and nearly through the State of Ohio. I say that this House should indorse the report of the majority of the committee, and thus signify our appreciation of the patriotism of this family. The majority propose that we shall give this widow $250 per annum, in addition to the twenty-five dollars per month which she is now receiving; and this proposition should receive the approval of the House. There need be no fear that any other case like this will ever come before this Congress. The records of this war may be searched in vain to find another family like the McCook family. I for one, as a Representative from Ohio, shall take pleasure in voting for the proposition submitted by the majority of the committee; and if any gentleman in this House can present any similar case or cases I am ready to vote for a like appropriation in such cases.

Mr. GRINNELL. Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have the credit, whether I deserve it or not, of being very liberal in my votes in this House, and I desire to be so on this occasion. But before I vote, I desire to inquire in regard to another very large class for whom I do not see any immediate prospect of provision being made. I wish to inquire in regard to the poor widows and mothers of private soldiers and maimed men with large families receiving eight dollars per month. Here is the case of a noted woman, honored in being the mother of a numerous, brave family. She is now receiving something like $300 a year from the Government. That is well. But when it is proposed to double this pension because this lady had the honor to be the mother of such sons, one of whom now enjoys a lucrative foreign mission, while there are so many others who are deserving and absolutely indigent, I cannot see the propriety of supporting such a proposition; certainly when it sets a precedent which may involve the expenditure of millions of dollars.

Now, sir, I wish to state a fact in regard to my own State in connection with this proposed liberality. When we were raising troops one thousand brave men of our State, mainly above forty-five years of age, some of whom had sons, and even grandsons in the service of the country, were willing to enlist for the war. They supposed, of course, that they would receive the same treatment in reference to bounty, &c., as other troops. So far did this understanding extend that even the paymaster gave them a portion of their bounties. But when they were mustered out of service, one third and more of their number having died or become unfit for duty, the bounty which they had received was deducted from their pay, being at once a mortification and a hardship.

By a bill we have sought to redress this wrong to the sacrificing "grey-beards" of the war above forty-five years of age, many of whom went home, or the place they left as home, to

find their houses burned in some instances, and their property gone, thus left poor, dependent upon their relatives, or thrown back years financially. Now, the Government has not the charity or the justice even to give back to these men a part of the bounty.

Now, sir, before I vote this to the mother or the father of any major general, I shall ask justice to be done to these " grey-beards," men, though above forty years of age, doing their duty well. I tell you there are poor men now dependent upon scanty means we should first look to. I tell you they were brave men, and deserve something from the Government if we have charities to bestow. But here is the difference in this case. It is for the private soldier, for the poor, that we are called to legislate. Let us do that before we double the pensions of those who are now already well to do in this world, and who can rest upon their honors until families in absolute want are provided for.

I ask the Clerk to read what I send up. Mr. MOULTON. It is a case from Illinois, and I want her to be heard from. The Clerk read, as follows:

ASSESSOR'S OFFICE,

UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE,

SEVENTH DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS,
PARIS, March 8, 1866.

MY DEAR FRIEND: I see by the papers that some gentleman of your House has been introducing some resolution of thanks or compliments to some gentleman that had five sons in the Union Army. Now, I wish to put in your hands this case: Mrs. Imogene Buckingham, of this county, had eight sons and three grandsons in the Union Army, two were killed at Shiloh, the other six lived through, and were all honorably discharged. One of her grandsons was badly wounded at Kenesaw. The names of these sons are as follows, namely:

Samuel Buckingham, company A, seventh regiment Illinois cavalry: Edson Buckingham, in a California regiment; John Buckingham, in thirteenth Missouri regiment; Joseph Buckingham, in an Iowa regiment; Benjamin Buckingham, in twentieth Illinois regiment, dead; Charles M. Buckingham, in twenty-ninth Illinois regiment, dead; Jacob Buckingham, in twenty-ninth Illinois regiment; Elijah Buckingham, in twenty-ninth Illinois regiment.

She is a widow, and has been for sixteen years, and in abject poverty; is sixty-seven years old; a woman of fine native sense; was born in Fairfield county, town of Brookfield, Connecticut; her maiden name was Imogene Campbell; married 3d of August, 1817, in Brookfield, Connecticut, to Philip Buckingham.

She is now living all alone, about five miles from this place; has lived in this county about twenty-five

servant,

O. W. RIVES, Assessor Seventh District Illinois. Hon. S. W. MOULTON, Washington, D. C. I indorse the above statement as true to the best of my knowledge and belief, T. C. W. SALE,

Mr. GRINNELL. I have had cases presented to my consideration where there were six, and in one case seven, in one family who have served as privates, when the family itself was poor. Should I not appeal in vain to this House for money for them? I choose to consider the claim of our "grey-beards" and those with unequal bounties and the most needy first.

Mr. TAYLOR. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, this case, which strikes me as an extraordinary one, is in my judgment just; and it will give me great pleas ure to vote for the report of the majority of the committee, and I think the time has now come in the affairs of the country when we should' turn our attention to those who have labored in defense of the Union when our Government was sorely imperiled.

I am told, sir, that this family of McCook, consisting of ten, had all of its male members engaged in this war. I believe that it is a sacred trust confided to us to reward the widows and orphans our brave soldiers have left behind them. It is our duty to do so for the invaluable services the soldiers have rendered the country. We are spending millions of dollars for purposes not half so humane, not half so