Obrazy na stronie

but gentlemen must recollect that there are a hundred thousand other families that have suffered just as much consequent upon this rebellion.

charitable, as that which is here proposed to
those who have shown so much bravery as this
McCook family. It was proposed that the Gov-
ernment should be put to an expense of over
fifty million dollars annually to keep up a Freed-
men's Bureau for the support of a class of
persons who are unwilling to earn their own
living. The gentleman from Iowa who pre-
ceded me was willing to vote that, while he is
unwilling to vote for this small stipend to a fam-
ily whose members have behaved so gallantly
in defense of the Union. I am not only not
afraid to vote for this proposition for this poor
woman, but I am willing to support the widows
and orphans left behind by our brave soldiers.
I am willing also to grant bounty, so far as the
financial condition of the country will allow,
to all of our brave soldiers who have periled
their lives during the war while other men were
sitting at their ease in safe places.

Mr. SCHENCK. And when "copperheads" were assailing them in the rear.

Mr. ROGERS. It is immaterial to me whether these parties are "copperheads" or not, so long as they did their duty gallantly. I do not care in these cases what a man's poli-States ties may be. I understand the father of this family, although too old to be enlisted, lost his life while in service against one of Morgan's raids, while many who were better able to bear arms shirked their responsibility. I hope no man on either side of the House will have the meanness to record his vote against this brave family which has done its duty to the country 80 well.

Mr. SCHENCK. I said these men were fighting the rebels in front while copperheads were attacking them in the rear. I did not call the soldiers "copperheads.


Mr. ROGERS. I understand this old man McCook served in the Army although he could not be drafted, when those who oppose this measure were safe at home in palatial residences.

Mr. TAYLOR. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia, [Mr. WHALEY.]

Mr. WHALEY. I rise to indorse what has been said by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. EGGLESTON,] and I wish to say that I for one am willing to vote to tax the people to the utmost extent in behalf of the suffering widows and mothers of our brave soldiers. And I regret to see that members on this floor are opposed to granting relief to this old lady. I am not here to speak in praise of the McCooks. Their history is too well known. Their brav ery is shown by the fact that there were ten sons in the Army, three of whom were generals, all of whom, I believe, rose from the ranks. Such a remarkable family in that respect, perhaps, was never known in history.

I would not oppose this increase of pension to this lady on the ground that she may not need it. The fact is she does need it, otherwise there would have been no application to Congress for it.

It is said that this is a celebrated family. In regard to that I am not going to take issue with any one. But for that they should receive the same consideration that every other celebrated family is entitled to, no more and no less.

It is said that the McCook family have contributed the entire male portion of it to the Army of the United States. I can tell gentlemen that there are thousands of families that have done the same thing in various parts of the country. I can point to families of constituents of mine every male member of which has laid down his life for his country in this war, and those who survive are in the greatest penury, and yet not one of them can obtain relief under the pension laws. And not only have they suffered in this way, but they have lost every vestige of property that they had. All has been destroyed, and perhaps a weeping mother is left in penury and want. Before I vote for this bill I wish to see these other thousands who are in need provided for by the Government of the United States.


There is no pretense that the McCook family are in destitute circumstances. One of them is now occupying a high position in the United Army, an officer of high rank. Certnly one, and I do not know but more than one. There is no pretense that Mrs. McCook is in want at all. For that reason, if for no other, I am opposed to setting aside the thousands who are in actual want and providing for this particular case.

I am not disposed to detract anything from the merits of this family. They are entitled to all the credit that is accorded to them; but they are no more meritorious than many another family that has done as much and suffered as much during the war as this.

Then, again, I am opposed to setting a precedent in the passage of this bill, which proposes to grant an annuity, not a pension. I am not aware that there is a case in the history of this Government of the character here proposed.

Mr. TAYLOR. I will yield now to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. BINGHAM.]

Mr. BINGHAM. I desire to address the House for a few minutes only upon this question. It was my good fortune to represent for years the district in which this family resided and in which all the sons of this lady were born and raised. I have been acquainted with this family from my boyhood. I never was associated with them politically. I come before the House to-day, as I trust I shall come before the House upon all occasions upon questions of this sort, to insist that something like equal justice be done by this Government in granting special pensions. I do not see the distinction, and I do not think the people of this country will see the distinction, that is attempted to be made here between widows who are to have special pensions for services rendered by their husbands and sons during the war and their loss by battle. If gentlemen have any trouble on the subject of the word "annuity" Mr. TAYLOR. I yield for five minutes to in this bill, let it be stricken out and the word the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. BENJAMIN.] "pension "substituted. The words are conMr. BENJAMIN. As one of the members vertible terms, and amount to one and the of the Committee on Invalid Pensions, I was same thing. But there are gentlemen here unable to agree with the majority of the comwho object to this bill because of the word mittee who reported this bill. Here is a prop-annuity," simply because they claim that osition that is very unusual in its character in the grant of annuities is a departure from the the legislation of this country. Mrs. McCook general rule in granting the pensions. It is is already in the enjoyment of a pension of further objected that the grant of a special $300 a year, granted to her by the Depart pension is a dangerous departure from the ment in consequence of the death of her hus-general policy of the country and a bad prece dent. If gentlemen will refer to the records of the Congress of the United States they will find that special pensions have frequently been granted, and that even in the last Congress this very departure from the general law was made in three instances: in the case of General Baker, who had been a colonel and was a brigadier general by brevet, which he never accepted; in the case of General Berry, and in the case of General Whipple. The last Congress allowed a pension of $600 annually to the widows or families of each of these offiI would like to know why this discrim- I



It is said that this is a fighting family. For that they are entitled to the same consideration that the hundred thousand other fighting families of this country are entitled to. It is said that this family suffered greatly during the war. That is undoubtedly true;

ination is to be made in this case against this lady. Do gentlemen say that the wife of a fallen hero is entitled to more consideration than the mother who bore him?

Gentlemen talk here about remembering the poor. I trust they will remember the poor, and that the American people will remember the poor among the survivors of the heroes of this war for the life of the Republic.


A message from the Senate, by Mr. FORNEY, its Secretary, informed the House that the Senate had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the naval appropriation bill.

The message further informed the House that the Senate had passed a bill for the relief of Elisha W. Dunn, a paymaster in the United States Navy, in which the concurrence of the House was requested.


Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this ladyand it is certainly not to her discredit to say it --was left, when her husband fell upon the field, without any property of any kind, and dependent exclusively upon the affection which might be shown her by her surviving children.

It is but justice that I should further say that one of her sons, as I was informed by her daughter, protested against his mother accepting any pension from the Government, and claimed the privilege of being himself her protector and supporter when he took her, in her widowhood, to the shelter of his own roof-tree, where she is to-day.

But, sir, there is a peculiar reason why it is that this additional pension is asked by this old lady at the hands of the American Congress. It is this: she has not only lost her husband and her three sons, all of whom either fell in battle or perished of honorable wounds received in battle, but she has cast upon her care and keeping to-day another of those heroic sons, who, after going through thirty-eight battles in the late war for the Union, and being twice wounded nigh unto death, was brought home to her shattered in every nerve of his organization, and as helpless as a child.

Mr. PERHAM. Has not he a pension? Mr. BINGHAM. Not that I know of. I have never inquired. I know that this lady had received no pension from the Government, and no proposition was made to grant her any until within the last ninety or hundred days, after I introduced this bill for her relief. Her sands of life are well-nigh run, and I want to know of gentlemen who voted to give $600 a year to the widow of General Baker, and the same pension to the widows of General Berry and General Whipple, how they can go before the American people dickering about the difference between $250 and $60 a year. That is the question, and the only question, now before the House on the reports of the committee. The Committee on Pensions, both the majority and minority, report in favor of an increase of pension. The majority report in favor of an increase of $250 annually of this lady's pension, and the minority report in favor of increasing it only sixty dollars annually; the whole committee, therefore, agree that there ought to be an increase of her pension.

The simple question, therefore, is, whether or not we shall adopt the suggestion of the minority of the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and thereby save the sum of $190 annually and no more, on account of this increased pension proposed by the majority. That is the only question before us. With all respect, it seems to me that to reject the majority report in order to save annually the sum of $190 by withholding it from this lady is not a wise


Now, in regard to the services of this family. I beg leave to say that I was here in my place in the discharge of my public duty when the first battle was fought in Virginia in the great struggle for the preservation of the Republic.

This old man, Major McCook, the husband of this lady, without belonging to any company whatever, rushed to the front upon his own account and upon his own responsibility, and participated in the battle of the 21st of July, 1861, from its beginning to its close. Upon the retreat, when near Centreville, his young son Charley, aged seventeen, who had volunteered from his school-room at Gambier, Knox county, Ohio, to fight for the Union, was overtaken by the pursuing rebels and ordered to surrender. His father called to him, "Charley, surrender." The boy's voice was heard to respond, "Father, I can never surrender to traitors." And he fell, pierced with the bullets of the enemy, one of the first martyrs of the Republic. I went with his stricken-hearted mother to lay his mangled body in its last resting-place in the Congressional burying-ground.

From that day forward to the end of the struggle, every male member of this household was found in the ranks of the defenders of the country; being the surviving seven brothers and the father. Three of them have also fallen in battle, and one is now at home in the care of his mother, his constitution shattered, a miserable wreck, never again to enjoy health and comfort in this life.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Will the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE], allow me to say a word right here?

[blocks in formation]

Mr.WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary, I trust, while opposing this bill, for any gentleman on this floor to say that he does not fail to bear full and ample testimony to the courage of this McCook family, or of any member of it. For one, I most cheerfully bear my testimony to that effect. I knew the father of these children who fought so bravely and so well. I knew some of the children; one of them was the colonel of an Illinois regiment, and distinguished himself on all the fields where he served.

But this is a question that rises somewhat above these personal considerations; and I trust the House will understand this matter before they establish the precedent here recommended.

My friend from Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] is a little mistaken, I perceive, in one particular. I have before me the joint resolution introduced by him; it is in his own handwriting. It is not like the one to which he referred as forming a precedent for the passage of this joint resolution. His joint resolution provides that there shall be paid to Mrs. Martha McCook a pension to the amount of $300 per annum, not on account of the services of her husband, who, it is alleged, fell in the service, but on account of the loss of two unmarried sons, therein named, who fell in the war against the rebellion. That is the joint resolution introduced by the gentleman from Ohio. Isay it is entirely exceptional, and that no such bill has ever, to my knowledge, been passed by Congress.

The Committee on Invalid Pensions have reported a substitute which the House is now called upon to pass, which substitute is also exceptional.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Certainly. Mr. BENJAMIN. When the joint resolution was introduced to which the gentleman from Illinois has referred, Mrs. McCook was drawing no pension, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] has already stated. That joint resolution was intended to provide her a pension. Since then she has obtained the sion the joint resolution asked for, and the substitute of the majority now proposes to give her $250 per annum in addition.


[ocr errors]

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Then the object of my friend from Ohio has already been accomplished.

Mr. BINGHAM. Not at all; she never got the pension asked for. The joint resolution asked for a pension for the loss of her sons.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Then the gentleman from Ohio wants a double pension? Mr. BINGHAM. Certainly I do.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Then we come to the substitute reported by the majority of the committee. I say it is exceptional, and if the House establishes that precedent Io not know what point we may ultimately reach.

Mr. Speaker, whatever I might be disposed to do for Mrs. McCook in the way of voting a sum of money absolutely, as a testimonial from Congress in consideration of the bravery of her sons, I must object to the passage of any such bill as this. I would be willing to vote in favor of giving Mrs. McCook a sum of money absolutely. Such a proposition would be much preferable to this.

Mr. BINGHAM. All that I desire is that justice shall be done in this matter; and I am willing to move an amendment providing that there be paid to Mrs. McCook a gratuity of $1,500, instead of the yearly sum here proposed.

The SPEAKER. not be in order now. stitute, to which an fered. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The amendment might be received by unanimous consent. Mr. CONKLING. Such a proposition as that could not receive unanimous consent. I must object, for one.

That amendment would There is pending a subamendment has been of

Mr. HARDING, of Kentucky. Will the gentleman from New York [Mr. TAYLOR] now yield to me?

Mr. TAYLOR. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman, but he wishes to advocate the amendment emanating from the minority of the committee. I have already given two gentlemen of the minority an opportunity to advocate their views, and I must decline to yield further.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. HARDING, of Kentucky. I hope that the previous question will not be sustained.

pension; but that word was rejected for the express purpose of making that a case distinct from all others, precisely what this joint resolution proposes with reference to this McCook family.

I cite also the case of the widow of Commodore Perry, who, in 1821, was granted an annuity of $400 a year during life, and also an annuity of $150 for each of four children. That also is a case analogous to this. Gentlemen, therefore, need not urge the objection that the passage of this joint resolution will establish a precedent, because the precedent has already been established years ago.

I desire also to call the attention of the House to the fact that no longer ago than the last session of Congress, pensions of $600 each were granted to the widows of three distinguished generals-Generals Baker, Berry, and Whipple. The annuity of $250 which this resolution proposes to give Mrs. McCook will, with the pension which she is already receiv ing, make $550-fifty dollars less than the annuity granted in similar cases by the last Congress.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BENJAMIN] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. WASHBURNE] have said that there is no precedent for the action proposed in this bill. Those gentlemen are at fault in their knowledge of the legislation of the country. It will be found that in 1814, a gratuity of $200 a year during life was granted to Mrs. Mary Cheever, on account of the distinguished services of her two sons, who were seamen on board the frigate Constitution, and were killed in the capture of the British frigate Java. This, so far as I know, is the only case exactly in point. In the course of the discussion of that case in Congress, it was proposed to make it a

Mr. Speaker, I now demand the previous question.

Mr. HARDING, of Kentucky. I appeal to the gentleman to withdraw the call for the previous question, so that the whole case may be heard.

Mr. TAYLOR. But a few minutes of the morning hour remain, and I must insist on the previous question.

On seconding the previous question, there were-ayes 49, noes 26; no quorum voting. The SPEAKER, under the rule, ordered tellers; and appointed Messrs. TAYLOR and PERHAM.

The House divided; and the tellers reported -ayes sixty-three, noes not counted.

So the previous question was seconded. The main question was ordered, which was upon the amendment of Mr. PERHAM to the substitute reported by the committee.

Mr. HARDING, of Kentucky, called for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 48, nays 69, not voting 66; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Baker, Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Boutwell, Brandegee, Cobb, Conkling, Cook, Defrees, Farnsworth, Ferry, Grider, Grinnell, Hale, Aaron Harding, Abner C. Harding, Henderson, Holmes, Edwin N. Hubbell, Ketcham, Laflin, Latham, Longyear, Lynch, Marvin, McKee, Mercur, Moulton, Paine, Perham, Pike, Price, John H. Rice, Ritter, Rollins, Shanklin, Smith, Stevens, Trowbridge, Upson, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Williams, James F. Wilson, and Windom-48.

NAYS-Messrs. Ancona, Barker, Bidwell, Bingham, Boyer, Buckland, Bundy, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Coffroth, Davis. Dawson. Delano. Deming, Denison, Donnelly, Eckley, Eggleston, Eldridge, Eliot, Farquhar, Finck, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Hayes, Hill, Hogan, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, James M. Humphrey, Kelley, Kelso, George V. Lawrence, Loan, Marshall, MeClurg, McRuer, Miller, Moorhead, Morris, Myers, Niblack, O'Neill, Orth, Phelps, Samuel J. Randall, Raymond, Rogers, Ross, Rousseau, Scofield, Shellabarger, Spalding, Stilwell, Taber, Taylor, Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Thornton, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Warner, Henry D. Washburn, Welker, and Whaley-69.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Alley, Ames, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Banks, Bergen, Blaine, Blow, Bromwell, Broomall, Sidney Clarke, Cullom, Culver, Darling, Dawes, Dixon, Dodge, Driggs, Dumont, Garfield, Griswold, Harris, Hart, Higby, Hooper, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, James Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Johnson, Jones, Julian, Kasson, Kerr, Kuykendall, William Lawrence, Le Blond, Marston, McCullough, McIndoe, Morrill, Newell, Nicholson, Noell, Patterson, Plants, Pomeroy, Radford, William H. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, Saw yer, Schenck, Sitgreaves, Sloan, Starr, Strouse, Trimble, Wentworth, Stephen F. Wilson, Winfield, Woodbridge, and Wright-66.

So the substitute of the minority was disagreed to.

During the vote,

Mr. HALE stated that Mr. WOODBRIDGE was detained from the House by illness.

The vote was then announced as above recorded.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

the amendment of the House to the twelfth amendment of the Senate and agree to the same.

That the House recede from their amendment to the sixth section of the bill in the following words: "if approved by the Secretary of the Navy. JAMES W. GRIMES, E. D. MORGAN,

The substitute of the majority of the committee was adopted.

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

Mr. TAYLOR demanded the previous question on the passage of the joint resolution. The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered.

Mr. SMITH demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 78, nays 42, not voting 68; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Ancona, Barker, Bidwell, Bingham, Boyer, Bromwell Buckland, Bundy, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Coffroth, Cook, Davis, Dawson, Delano, Deming, Denison, Donnelly, Eckley, Eggleston, Eldridge, Eliot, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Finck, Glossbrenner, Hayes, Henderson, Hogan, Hotchkiss, Asabel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, James M. Humphrey, Kelley, Kelso, Latham, George V. Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marshall, McClurg, MeRuer, Miller, Moorhead, Morris, Myers, Niblack, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Phelps, Pike, Samuel J. Randall, Raymond, Rogers, Ross, Rousseau, Scofield, Shellabarger, Spalding, Stilwell, Taber, Taylor, Thayer, Thornton, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Warner, Welker, and Whaley-73.

NAYS-Messrs. Baker, Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Boutwell, Brandegce, Cobb, Conkline. Detrees, Ferry, Goodyear, Grinnell, Hale. Aaron Harding, Abner C. Harding, Harris, Hill, Holmes, Edwin N. Hubbell, Ketcham, Marvin, McKee, Mereur, Patterson, Perham, Plants, Price, Ritter, Rollins, Shanklin, Smith, Stevens, Trowbridge, Upson, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Wentworth, Williams, James F. Wilson, and Windom-42.

So the joint resolution was passed.

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

The latter motion was agreed to.


Mr. FARNSWORTH. I rise to a privileged question. I desire to make a report from the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the naval appropriation bill. I ask that it be read.

The Clerk read, as follows:

These were the principal points of difference; the House receded in reference to the Annapolis appropriation, and the Senate receded in reference to the wharf purchase.

The other amendments were in the main merely verbal.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Alley Allison, Ames, An-
derson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Banks,
Bergen, Blaine, Blow, Broomall, Sidney Clarke, Cul-
lom. Culver, Darling, Dawes, Dixon, Dodge, Driggs,
Dumont, Garfield, Grider, Griswold, Hart, Higby,
Hooper, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, James
R. Hubbell, Hulburd, James Humphrey, Ingersoll,
Jenckes, Johnson, Jones. Julian, Kasson, Kerr,
Kuykendall, Latin, William Lawrence, Le Blond,
Marston, McCullough, McIndoe, Morrill, Moulton,
Newell, Nicholson, Noell, Pomeroy, Radford, Wil-
liam H. Randall, Alexander II. Rice, John H. Rice,
Sawyer, Schenck, Sitgreaves, Sloan, Starr, Strouse,priations are now made by the bill for the navy-
Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Trimble, Stephen
F. Wilson, Winfield, Woodbridge, and Wright-68.

Mr. CHANLER. I did not distinctly hear what are the provistons made by the report in reference to the navy-yard on the Gulf. I would therefore ask the gentleman what appro

yard at Pensacola.

The committee of conference on the disagreeing Totes of the two Houses on the amendments to the bill H. R. No. 122) making appropriations for the naval service for the year ending June 30, 1867, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend, and do recommend, to their respective Houses as follows:

Mr. FARNSWORTH. There is an appropriation of $50,000 for the necessary repairs for preserving the navy-yard at Pensacola, but there is no appropriation for rebuilding the benavy-yard at that point.

I do not think further discussion is necessary; and I demand the previous question.

The previous question was seconded and operation thereof the report of the committee the main question ordered; and under the of conference was agreed to.

Mr. FARNSWORTH moved to reconsider the vote by which the report of the committee of conference was agreed to; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

That the House of Representatives recede from their disagreement to the amendments of the Senate numbered one, five, six, ten, and eleven, and agree

T. A. HENDRICKS, Managers on the part of the Senate. N. P. BANKS.

J. F. FARNSWORTH, CHARLES E. PHELPS, Managers on the part of the House."

to the same.

That the Senate recede from their fourth amend


Mr. FARNSWORTH. My colleague on the committee of conference, the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BANKS,] being sick and unable to attend the session of the House today, has sent me the papers and requested me to make the report. That is the reason why I make the report instead of the chairman of the committee of conference on the part of the House.

That the Senate recede from their disagreement to the amendment of the House to the third amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same. That the House recede from their disagreement to the seventh amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows:

Strike out all of said amendment and and also the lanse of the bill to which it was attached, and insert ta following in lieu thereof: "For the preservation 2nd Becessary repairs of the property of the United States at the Pensacola navy-yard, $50,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary."


That the Senate agree to so much of the amendment of the House to the eighth amendment of the Senate proposes to strike out of said amendment the following words: "the same as those rates received at New York, and Washington:" and agree to The matter proposed to be inserted by the House, and that the House agree to the same as so modified.


at the House recede from so much of their amendment to the ninth amendment of the Senate as proBoes to strike out the second clause of said amendent; and that the Senate agree to so much of the amendment of the House to said Senate amendment is proposes to strike out the words "foundery and," in the fourth clause of said amendment. That the Senate recede from their disagreement to

[blocks in formation]

QUARANTINE STATION, NEW YORK. The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of War, in compliance with a resolution of the House of the 14th of March last, stating that he has no data by which to form an opinion as to the effect that the erection of a quarantine station will have upon the navigable waters of New York harbor; which was laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed.


The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of War, in reply to a resolution of the House of the 10th instant, in regard to the findings of the commissions in the case of the rewards for the capture of J. Wilkes Booth and David E. Harold; which was laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed.


On motion of Mr. FARNSWORTH, by unanimous consent, the Committee on Appropriations was discharged from the further consideration of a letter from the Secretary of War stating the amounts paid to, and still claimed, by the Illinois Central Railroad Com


pany for transportation, &c., for the Government, and the same was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.


A message in writing was received from the President of the United States, by Mr. WILLIAM G. MOORE, his Secretary.

Also, informing the House that he had approved and signed bills and a joint resolution of the following titles, namely:

An act (H. R. No. 207) to amend an act to provide ways and means to support the Government, approved March 3, 1865;

An act (H. R. No. 223) to amend an act to incorporate the Mutual Fire Insurance Comof the District of Columbia; pany

An act (H. R. No. 60) to reimburse the State of Pennsylvania for moneys advanced Government for war purposes;

Augustin Amiot, his legal assigns and repreAn act (H. R. No. 364) to confirm unto sentatives, a certain lot of ground in the city of St. Louis, in the State of Missouri;

An act (H. R. No. 349) for the relief of the estate of E. W. Eddy; and

Joint resolution (H. R. No. 105) giving construction to the law in relation to bounties

payable to soldiers discharged for wounds.


The SPEAKER stated that the next business before the House was the consideration of the special order, being the bill to reorganize and establish the Army of the United States, reported by the Committee on Military Affairs. Mr. CONKLING. I would inquire if the question before the House is not upon the substitute reported by the committee for the Senate bill.

There is no Senate bill

Mr. SCHENCK. before the House.

Mr. CONKLING. Is not this a substitute for the Senate bill?

Mr. SCHENCK. Oh, no; it is a House bill. The SPEAKER. The Senate bill is not now before the House. This is a House bill reported back with an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

The Chair will state that if there is no objection it will greatly facilitate business to have the substitute treated as an original bill reported by the committee; if treated as a substitute, but one amendment can be offered at a time.

Mr. SCHENCK. I was about to make that very suggestion. This bill which the committee report is in fact an original bill.

The SPEAKER. If, then, there be no objection it will be treated as an original bill, and

an amendment and an amendment to an amendment will be entertained.

No objection was made.

Mr. RAYMOND. I would like to inquire of the Chair to what subject the message just received from the President of the United States relates.

The SPEAKER. It has not yet been jour nalized by the Journal Clerk, but it is in regard to the fisheries.

Mr. RAYMOND. If it is not too long, I would like to have it read.

Mr. SCHENCK. I must object to that, as the Army bill is the special order for to-day.

The SPEAKER. Then the gentleman from New York can move to proceed to the business on the Speaker's table, and that will take the gentleman from Ohio off the floor.

Mr. SCHENCK. Does the gentleman only want it read?

Mr. RAYMOND. That is all.

Mr. SCHENCK. I object to its being taken up for the mere purpose of reading. If a motion is made to take it up for action and I cannot resist that motion I must of course give way. I have no feeling about the matter, but the Army bill was made the special order for to-day, and it should not be shoved aside now.

Mr. RAYMOND. I will not press my request.

Mr. SCHENCK. I desire to suggest to the House, in behalf of the Committee on Military Affairs, a mode of procedure in regard to the

consideration of this bill which I trust will be satisfactory to all sides.

I propose that the bill, important as it is admitted upon all sides to be, shall first be read through, and then read section by section for amendment, as though in Committee of the Whole. When it shall have been read I shall ask the attention of the House for, I think, not more than fifteen or twenty minutes, in order that I may give the House some idea of the general features of the bill, of the line of legislation that the House committee has thought proper to pursue, as contradistinguished in some points from that which we find in the bill which has been sent to us from the Senate, and which has also been referred to the Committee on Military Affairs; and, as I do not mean to be interrupted during that fifteen minutes by anybody, I trust no gentle. man will consider me discourteous if I do not yield the floor to him. But in order that every one may have a fair opportunity I propose not to call the previous question on the bill, but that it shall be considered section by section, so as to give gentlemen an opportunity to bring forward their amendments and present their views to the House. That, I think, is but fair. I propose, however, that the debate shall be limited by general consent to ten-minute speeches, for five minutes is scarcely long enough. And I will not call the previous question except it be upon some particular section, the previous question to apply only to that particular section, if the discussion seems to run to an unreasonable length upon it, just as in Committee of the Whole the motion is made that the committee rise for the purpose of closing debate on a particular section.

My object is to secure a fair consideration to this bill, and upon the part of the Committee on Military Affairs to invite the aid of members of the House on all sides to perfect the bill and put it in such a shape as will secure the best organization for this great arm of the public defense. I will ask that this may be the general understanding.

Mr. THAYER, Mr. DAVIS, and Mr. CHANLER objected.

Mr. SCHENCK. Very well; then if it shall become necessary, where it appears that this bill is made a peg to hang long speeches upon, I shall be compelled to call the previous question on the entire bill.

that he shall have an opportunity to do so before the proposed arrangement shall be entered into. Then the gentleman from Ohio can bring forward his ten-minute limitation, and have the bill debated under that rule.

Mr. THAYER. I will withdraw my objec tion to the arrangement proposed by the gentleman from Ohio, if he will agree to have speeches limited to fifteen minutes instead of ten minutes.

Mr. CHANLER. I desire to submit a suggestion to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SCHENCK.] There may be more persons on this side of the House who by the arrangement he proposes may be cut off.

The SPEAKER. If objection is made to the suggestion of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SCHENCK,] it cannot be adopted.

Mr. CHANEER. I only desire to have the arrangement fully understood before it is completed. And therefore I would suggest to the gentleman from Ohio before this arrangement is made

Mr. CONKLING. I appeal to my colleague [Mr. CHANLER] to withdraw his objection. Mr. CHANLER. Well, I was about to do so without any appeal.

Mr. CONKLING. If my colleague will allow, I will say that it seems to me that the suggestion made by the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs is a very fair one. If my colleague across the way [Mr. CHANLER] and my colleague nearer to me [Mr. DAVIS] wish to make remarks to an extent greater than ten minutes they can make them now, and agree afterward to the suggestion of the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, and then we can go on and consider the bill.

Mr. CHANLER. I am very much obliged to my colleague [Mr. CONKLING] for his usual courtesy and kindness in taking the very words out of my mouth while I am upon the floor. I was about to make exactly the same suggestion. The only object I had in rising was to make the very suggestion, and in the very words that he has just made. I do not wish to debate the bill at large, but if any gentleman desires to debate it at large I propose

Mr. SCHENCK. I thought that when I was willing to limit myself to fifteen minutes in the general explanation of the bill, ten minutes upon each amendment would be enough for members. My desire is to economize the time of the House, and to make this a business debate. It is not the desire of the committee, and certainly it is not my desire, that this Army bill shall be made a peg upon which to hang long speeches upon general subjects. And I do not think my friend from Pennsylvania has any desire to indulge in any such debate. If he thinks that ten minutes upon each amendment is not enough, then I will consent to the limitation of fifteen minutes.

Some gentlemen, taking a different view, will doubtless claim that there ought to be either no standing army at all, or a very small one, perhaps not larger than that which existed before the war for the suppression of the rebellion, to serve only as a nucleus for expansion into such force as may be needed by the addition of the militia and volunteer forces of the country that may be called out in any emergency.


Mr. ELDRIDGE. I suggest to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK] that we first hear the bill read through. We can then ascertain whether there is any desire for any general debate longer than the time which he has proposed.

Mr. SCHENCK. That was my proposition, that the bill be first read through, then I would make a brief explanation of the general character and object of the bill. After which the bill will be read section by section for amendment, during which time debate shall be limited to speeches of ten minutes each.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. Let the bill be read through before that arrangement is made.

Mr. SCHENCK. Then I give notice that I will submit that proposition to the House as soon as the bill shall have been read.

The bill was then read at length.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio has suggested that the bill be read by sections for amendment, and that debate be limited to fifteen minutes. Is there any objection?

There was no objection.

ever, yield my own opinion upon that subject to the high authority of the Lieutenant General, whose view is concurred in by the Secretary of War in his report, and sanctioned, I believe, by the President in communicating to us that report. I have been willing to take the standard which they propose, and which has been embodied as one of the general features of this bill.

Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for me to speak of the importance of the bill which we have now before us for consideration. It relates to the great arm of the public defense, to the number, classification, and condition of the troops necessary to constitute that arm as it shall hereafter be preserved for the public defense. This bill, embodying after much investigation and consideration the views of the Committee on Military Affairs, has been brought by them before the House with a request, heretofore made to the House and which I now repeat, that we shall have, as we progress with the bill, the aid of the Representatives here assembled in putting the bill, by any requisite amendments, in such a shape as will best accomplish its great objects and the good of the country, for which it is intended.

I have very little to say in regard to the general features of the bill except as they shall disclose themselves as we proceed in its consideration section by section, as the House has resolved to do. I will make, however, the general remark that this bill is framed in conformity to the views of the Lieutenant General of the Army, sanctioned by the Secretary of War, in so far as it regards the number of the standing Army proposed to be provided for the future protection of the country. According to the recommendations of those officers, it provides for an Army which shall consist of fifty thousand men, but with an organization capable of expansion to eighty-two thousand six hundred. Gentlemen may differ with each other and with the committee in regard to what should now be the number of the standing Army of these United States. I confess that the impression which has been upon my mind for many months, and which is not yet entirely removed, is that we ought to preserve an Army of at least one hundred thousand men. I, how

Without going into a detailed statement of the reasons which led to the conclusion arrived at by the Lieutenant General, by the Secretary of War, and by the committee, it will, in my opinion, be found that, in view of the vast extent of our sea-coast, requiring garrisons at different points, not only upon the Atlantic but also upon the Pacific, including the whole coast of California; considering also the numerous interior posts of the country, and the probable necessity, owing to the disturbed condition of the country, of keeping up here and there the nucleus of a force to be mobilized if occasion should require in the southern districts of this country, the general number agreed upon is by no means too great. Taking in view all these elements of calculation, bearing in mind the garrisons that will be necessary for all our military posts and for the Indian frontier, and the force that will be required for the various expeditions which must from time to time be undertaken, and the troops that may be requi site in different parts of the country for securing and preserving the public peace, the aggre gate cannot properly be less than that which the committee have made the basis of their bill.

The bill which has been passed by the Senate, and which is now before the Committee on Military Affairs, does provide for a smaller number, but only in this one particular: the Senate proposes fifty as the number of infantry regiments, while we have provided for fiftyfive, the latter being in accordance with the bill as originally proposed in the Senate, and in accordance with the recommendations of the Lieutenant General and the Secretary of War, this reduction of five regiments being apparently for the purpose of crowding out and getting rid of the Veteran Reserve corps. We retained the fifty-five regiments, using ten of them for the Veteran Reserve corps. They would have but fifty regiments, and have the whole fifty to the exclusion of that corps, or in providing for new officers outside of that corps hereafter to be retained in the service of the


Then as to the cost of the Army we propose, any gentleman who has looked at the public documents laid before the House is familiar with the fact that the appropriation made for the support of the Army and forces in the field during the last year of the rebellion was $516,000,000. The estimate, subject, however, to some small deductions for the reduction of officers made in our bill-the estimate submitted for an army to be retained such as we propose now by the bill before the House-was $33,000,000 in the aggregate, being about the sixteenth part of what it cost the country to retain the Army during the last year of the


Another feature in this bill, in which there is a slight difference, (and gentlemen have requested me to state the differences between this and the bill which passed the Senate,) is in the number of colored troops retained. The Senate propose eight regiments of colored troops. The House proposes eight regiments of colored troops so far as infantry are concerned. Two regiments, cf the twelve regiments of cavalry provided for in both bills, in the Senate bill it is provided shall be col

[ocr errors]

ored cavalry. We have no such provision in the bill before the House.

We do not adopt any such feature in the bill now proposed. And to avoid all possible mistake we have inserted in lieu of it a section providing that no officer of the regular Army who has commanded volunteer forces during the war, shall on that account be held to be a volnnteer.

The bill, as I have already intimated, reserves for use in the service of the country a body called the Veteran Reserve corps, made up of ten of the fifty-five regiments of infantry, eight others of the fifty-five being colored. Í am aware there will be objection made in some quarters to this preservation of that organization, to this provision for its being continued. I will not now, but will in the course of the debate on the section, go into any argument in respect to the retention of that corps. I will but say that this corps, which sprung from the necessities of the war, which had its birth in the exigencies of that struggle, consisted of twenty-four regiments. It is proposed by the House bill, the features of which gentlemen desire to understand, to continue the Veteran Reserve corps, not to the number of twentyfour regiments, as provided for until the men were discharged on their election, but of ten regiments only, the officers to be taken from these regiments, not exclusively those who were officers of the twenty-four regiments which heretofore existed, but to be selected, by examination, from those officers and from all other wounded volunteer officers who may have the requisite qualifications; the corps to have among its members, so far as the enlisted men are concerned, such enlisted men as may be found fit for light or garrison duty of any kind to be assigned for the purpose in this corps, together with such others as may be required to make up the whole corps, and who would be rejected on medical inspection without any such provision of law.

Another feature of the bill is the preservation, as a distinct bureau, of the Provost Marshal General's office, the Provost Marshal General, and his assistants. That section is one which will be the subject of objections by gentlemen. It will be for consideration when we come to that section whether it shall be retained or not as a part of the bill. I only pause to say in regard to it now, as it will be fully discussed hereafter, that this was a great means for recruiting and keeping up the Army, and the committee thought some such bureau was necessary for the purpose of recruiting, as the mode of procedure heretofore in the Army has been for the most part a decided failure.

It will be observed that the committee has departed from another general feature as exhibited in the bill which the Senate has laid upon our table. I am only doing justice by say ing that in the last modification to the bill which passed that branch the Senate introduced the same thing proposed by the Committee on Military Affairs of the House. We have not confined the selections of officers to be appointed

fill up original vacancies in the various arms f the service to volunteer officers as was originally done, but it is proposed to extend them to all volunteers, whether officers or soldiers, who can by examination prove themselves possessed of the requisite qualifications, having regard to services in connection with those qualifications.

There is another provision that is new-a provision for revising the whole Army list, as it now stands, in order to determine what officers may properly be retained in the service. This may be thought very radical. It may be thought that men who have enjoyed the advantage of their commissions in the regular Army, whether appointed from the Military Academy, or from civil life, or from volunteers since the war began, should, by reason of be. ing found now in the Army, continue there until regularly dismissed by court-martial, and in that manner alone.

The committee have thought otherwise, and that now, in this transition period, when we are establishing a new army as it were, taking the old Army and expanding and solidifying it, one mode of making the Army serviceable would be to have a general revision of all those who now constitute its officers, in order to determine whether they should all, or only a part of them, be retained. Accordingly we have introduced a provision which will not by any possibility interfere with many of the officers, and which may not interfere with any. And it is not a star-chamber mode of procedure, but a fair mode by which every Army service shall be represented in a general council of officers, who shall allow the whole Army list to be retained; certainly all against whom there is no objection. Then, in regard to others, they are to report, not that a particular officer shall be dismissed or deprived of his commission, but simply that he shall come before the board and have his whole case fairly examined, after which the board shall resolve whether he shall continue in the Army or not.

Mr. SCHENCK. Upon the whole, I prefer to withhold any further explanation now, and to make it upon the sections as they are reported.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will be entitled to the floor on each section.

The first section was reported, as follows:

I have no desire whatever to do any injustice to any man who has served under this Government during this war. But I wish to see the Army of the United States efficient, whether at post or in the field. And therefore I believe public policy demands that we should pension those who have been unfortunate, and keep up the most efficient organization it is possible for us to do in the field.

This bill contemplates that this Reserve corps shall be kept on post duty. Of course the officers of the regular Army are to be sent off into the field, where they will have no opportunities for the ordinary recreations or enjoyments which they may occasionally have under the present system of service. Now, this thing should be equalized; regiments which have been stationed in hot climates or at sickly posts in one season should be transferred to other posts as has been the practice of the

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. HALE. I move that the time of the Department heretofore, and thus we should gentleman be extended. have uniformity and fairness in the disposition of the Army.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the military peace establishment of the United States shall hereafter consist of five regiments of artillery, twelve regiments of cavalry, fiftyfive regiments of infantry, the professors and corps cadets of the United States Military Academy, and such other forces as shall be provided for by this act, to be known as the Army of the United States.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, this bill creates an army of fifty-five regiments of infantry. The bill that passed the Senate on the 6th of March last provided for the organization of fifty such regiments, and I have understood from officers of the Army that that number is deemed ficient for the purposes of the country.

I have taken the trouble to ascertain what additional amount of expense this Government will be subjected to by reason of the increase from fifty to fifty-five infantry regiments. If you look at the pay proper of these five regiments alone, without regard to subsistence, clothing, and equipment, or to any. thing else, the number of men being limited to fifty in each company, as it is proposed to limit it by this bill, then the annual additional || will be $828,869 90. expense Then there are a great many contingencies connected with that service which have not gone into this computation, such as equipment, rations, forage, and everything of that


There is another feature in the Senate bill differing very much from that contained in the substitute. There is a provision contained in one section of the Senate bill in regard to selections for the filling up of the officers of these newly organized regiments, that where two thirds shall be taken from the volunteer officers and soldiers, and the other third shall be selected at the discretion of the President from the regular Army and elsewhere, all the regular Army officers who have during the war commanded volunteer troops shall be counted either as regular Army officers or as volunteers. It struck the committee of the House that here was a provision by which it might be possible, though I do not say it was so, for the regular Army officers who had not been in command of volunteer troops during the war, to carry away the first third of the prizes, and then remit to the enjoyment of the other two thirds these regular Army officers who had commanded

olunteer troops.

But if the regiments are filled up to the maximum it will add $400,000 more for pay alone, making the whole amount upwards of one million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the additional five regiments, besides the expense of supporting them and keeping them in the field.

These are the only remarks I desire to make on this section. I will move to strike out "fifty-five" and insert the word "fifty" before the words "regiments of infantry.'


Mr. BLAINE. Without debating all the points raised by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. DAVIS,] I would suggest to him to observe that this first section is rather a preamble to the bill, as it may be termed, than a part of the bill itself. The point at which he aims is entirely embraced in the fifth section of this bill; the question in regard to retaining the Veteran Reserve corps in service comes up directly in the consideration of that fifth section. And therefore I suggest to him to waive his motion to amend this first section, and make it when the fifth section shall be up for consideration. If his amendment shall be adopted there, of course the first section will be altered accordsuf-ingly, as we alter the preamble to a bill or res

olution after having changed the bill or resolution by amendment. I think if he will do that it will be more pertinent and more intelligible to the House.

Now, sir, if these five regiments proposed by this bill are not necessary for the country, I for one feel desirous that it should be relieved from this additional expense.

I am told, I do not know whether it be true or not, that this increase of regiments is in reference to the organization of the Veteran Reserve corps, and that it is designed to be the means of furnishing employment and subsistence to men in that corps. I submit that when it is known, as I believe every gentleman when he comes to reflect upon it will see and know, that this Veteran Reserve corps is composed of men who have been disqualified for active service in the field, and who are pronounced to be unfit for anything but light duty in fortifications, it will be seen that it will be wisdom. on the part of the Government to increase the pensions of these men rather than to incur this additional expense for the purpose of putting men into the field who are not competent for the duties of the field.

I have made this computation upon the basis of the minimum number provided by this bill.

Mr. DAVIS. Before I sit down, I desire to send up to the Clerk's desk a substitute which I propose to offer for this entire bill; it is the Senate bill on this subject.

The SPEAKER. The substitute cannot be acted upon now; it must be reserved until this bill shall have been perfected section by section. The gentleman can give notice of his intention to move a substitute at the proper time.

The question was upon the amendment of Mr. DAVIS to the first section, to reduce the number of regiments from fifty-five to fifty.

Mr. BLAINE. Let me make a suggestion. The motion of the gentleman from New York [Mr. DAVIS] involves a very wide discussion at à premature point. Now, I hope the gentleman will heed my suggestion, which is, that the point he desires to accomplish can be more directly reached by moving an amendment to the

« PoprzedniaDalej »