the Senate have adopted at the instance of the Senator from New Hampshire, in the eighth section, still leaves unprovided for, as I think, the manner in which the four fifths of the stock not subscribed at first shall be thereafter subscribed. If it is left without a provision of that sort the president and directors may by by-law make that provision. If they can give the right exclusively to the then subscribers they are not required to open the books again as I understand. Mr. WADE. I suppose not. Mr. JOHNSON. I have some reason to believe that the stock will be very valuable, at least that is the impression of those who profess to have some knowledge on the subject. I have none of my own, of course; but if the stock is to be very valuable- Mr. WADE. I have no objection to that being changed if it is thought necessary to change it. For myself I was looking much more to the public interest than I was to the private interest. Mr. JOHNSON. I have no doubt about that. I only suggest to my friend from Ohio that perhaps it would be as well to provide that the books shall be opened again unless all the stock is taken at the beginning. Mr. WADE. What amendment would the Senator propose to accomplish that? Mr. WILLEY. Has the Senator from Maryland adverted to the provision in the third section, line fifteen, "and said books shall be kept open until the whole amount of said stock shall be subscribed?'' Mr. JOHNSON. That will do. I was only asking if there was a provision on the subject. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended and the amendments were concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed. PROTECTION OF UNITED STATES OFFICERS. Mr. CLARK. I move to take up for consideration House bill No. 238, to amend an act entitled "An act in relation to habeas corpus and regulating judicial proceedings in certain time, referred to the joint committee on reconstruction, and ordered to be printed. PAYMENT OF NEW YORK MILITIA. Mr. WARD introduced a bill providing the means for the payment of the militia of the State of New York for their service in the war of 1812; which was read a first and second time, ordered to be printed, and referred to the Committee on Appropriations. CATHARINE WELSHI. Mr. COOK introduced a bill for the relief of Catharine Welsh; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. RECORDING OF DEEDS. Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, introduced a bill authorizing non-residents to have deeds recorded in the office of the clerk of the United States district and circuit courts, &c.; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. NIAGARA FALLS SHIP-CANAL. Mr. PAINE introduced a bill to provide for the transportation of vessels around the falls of Niagara; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Roads and Canals. GRANT OF LANDS TO MINNESOTA. which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. DISTRIBUTION OF STATE PAPERS. Mr. HAYES introduced a joint resolution to authorize the distribution of a portion of the surplus copies of the American State Papers in the custody of the Secretary of the Interior; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on the Library. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. Mr. HAYES also introduced a joint resolution extending the privileges of the Library of Congress to certain officers of the United States; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on the Library. The SPEAKER next proceeded to call the States for resolutions, commencing with the State of Ohio. FRAUDULENT CLAIM AGENTS Mr. HAYES submitted the following resolu tion; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs be instructed to inquire into the expediency of providing by law for punishing, by imprisonment or otherwise, any person who as agent or attorney shall colleet from the Government money due to officers, soldiers, or sailors, or to their widows or orphans, for services in the Army or Navy, or for pensions or bounties, and who shall fraudulently convert the same to his own use; and to report by bill or otherwise. Mr. HAYES moved to reconsider the vote which the resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. Mr. DONNELLY introduced a bill making a grant of lands to the State of Minnesota to aid in the construction of the Hastings, Min-by nesota River, and Red River of the North railroad; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Public Lands. NEBRASKA PENITENTIARY, Mr. HITCHCOCK introduced a bill to provide for the creation of a penitentiary in the Territory of Nebraska; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Territories. REMOVAL OF SURVEYOR GENERAL'S OFFICE. Mr. HITCHCOCK also introduced a bill to remove the office of surveyor general of the States of Iowa and Wisconsin to Plattsmouth, Nebraska; which was read a first and second. time, and referred to the Committee on Public Lands. ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. Mr. JENCKES introduced the following joint resolution: Joint resolution relating to the passage of a law making regulations for the mode of electing members of Congress. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Americe in Congress assembled, That it is expedient for Congress to exercise the power granted in section four, article one, of the Constitution for making regulations concerning the times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives by general statute, with a view to prevent the recurrence of contested-clection cases in either House arising out of elections conducted under State laws; and also with a view of securing the election of members of Congress by loyal constituencies. Resolved further, That as means toward the attainment of such results in the election of members of the House of Representatives, it is expedient to include among such rules and regulations in substance the following: 1. A registration of all the electors in each district having the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature in the State in which such district is situated. 2. A provision that such elections shall be conducted independently of the State elections, under the direction of officers whose mode of appointment and whose duties shall be defined in such statute: and that such elections shall be held on the same day in cach district in the United States. 3. A requirement that at such elections those registered electors only shall be permitted to vote who shall have proved, in manner to be provided in the regulations, their constant and continuing loyalty to the Government of the United States. 4. Provisions prescribing the conditions upon which those who were excluded for disloyalty may be readmitted to their right of suffrage for members of Congress at such clection at some future period. The joint resolution was read a first and second time, ordered to be printed, and referred to the committee on reconstruction. LIEUTENANT A. II. PEARL. The latter motion was agreed to. EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION. Mr. PLANTS submitted a joint resolution of the State of Ohio relative to exemption from taxation; which was ordered to be printed, and referred to the Committee of Ways and Means. WIRZ TRIAL. Mr. GARFIELD submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the Secretary of War be requested to have prepared for publication the proceedings of the trial of Henry Wirz, in which shall be embraced, as nearly as practicable in the Janguage of the witnesses, a summary of the testimony given, and the decisions, findings, and sentence of the court, together with the address of the Judge Advocate and that made in defense of the prisoner. Mr. GARFIELD moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. The latter motion was agreed to. NORTH CAROLINA UNION SOLDIERS. Mr. SCHENCK submitted the following reso lution, and demanded the previous question: Resolved, That the Secretary of War be directed to communicate to this House a report of the Judge Adyocate General, and such other information as may be of record or on file in his Department, on the subject, which will show what are the facts in the case, and what steps have been taken to bring to justice and punishment the murderers of the following-named Union soldiers belonging to the first and second regiments of North Carolina loyal infantry, alleged to have been tried and executed by orders of the rebel Generals Pickett and Hoke, under the pretext of their being deserters from the confederate service, namely: Jesse Summerell, Hardy Dougherty, Stephen Jones, David Jones, William Haddock, John Freeman, John Broek. Sergeant Joseph Fulcher, William D. Jones, Charles Cutherall, Kellum. Mitchel Busick, Louis Freeman, Joseph Haskett, William Irvine, Amos Aymett, Stephen H. Jones, and J. J. Brock. The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the resolution was adopted. Mr. SCHENCK moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was agreed to; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. The latter motion was agreed to. MEXICO. Mr. McKEE submitted the following resolu tion; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Mr. BUCKLAND introduced a joint resoResolved, That the President be requested to comlution for the relief of Lieutenant A. H. Pearl;sistent with the public interest, any correspondence municate to this House, if in his opinion not incon with the French Government in regard to the withdrawal of its forces from Mexico, which may have been exchanged since the correspondence communicated to the House with the President's message of January 5, 1866; whether that correspondence has been published by the French Government among the official documents communicated to the French Chambers or not, and specially any correspondence in regard to any specific promise from the French Emperor to put a stop to his proceedings in our sister republic of Mexico and discontinue imperialism there. AMENDMENT OF THE RULES. Mr. PAINE offered the following resolution, and demanded the previous question: Resolved, That the Committee on the Rules be instructed to inquire into and report upon the expediency of providing by amendment of the rules, that when the House shall have under consideration a bill or resolution which shall have been returned by the President with his objections to the House in which it originated, neither the motion to lay on the table nor the motion to postpone indefinitely shall be in order. Mr. DAVIS. Iobject, ifobjection is in order. The SPEAKER. The resolution is introduced under the regular call of the States. On seconding the demand for the previous question, no quorum voted. The SPEAKER ordered tellers; and appointed Messrs. PAINE and DAVIS.. The House divided; and the tellers reported -ayes 60, noes 41. So the previous question was seconded. Mr. ELDRIDGE. I move to lay the resolution on the table. The question was put; and there were-ayes Mr. FINCK. I demand the yeas and nays. The question being taken, it was decided in YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Beaman, Bingham, Boyer, NOT VOTING-Messrs. Alley, Ancona, Anderson, So the resolution was not laid on the table. The main question was then ordered, and the resolution was agreed to. Mr. PAINE moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was agreed to; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table. The latter motion was agreed to. EIGHT-HOUR SYSTEM. Mr. INGERSOLL offered the following preatable and resolution: Whereas it is one of the paramount duties of all legislative bodies to lighten as much as possible the burdens upon the laboring classes and promote the general welfare: Therefore, Committee for the District of Columbia be instructed Beil resolved by the House of Representatives, That the to inquire into the expediency of establishing by law the eight-hour system, as it is called, as constituting aday's work in the Distrtet of Columbia, and that aaid committee be authorized to report by bill or otherwise at any time. to the committee being allowed to report "at any time." Mr. INGERSOLL. I will strike that out. Mr. FARNSWORTH. I move to amend by inserting six hours and a half instead of eight, if that is in order. Mr.. INGERSOLL. If the gentleman includes himself among the laboring classes I will accept the amendment; if he does not I do not accept it. Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I would inquire whether the resolution embraces laborers in the employ of the Government. Mr. ÎNGERSOLL. It includes everybody so far as this city is concerned. Mr. WILSON of Iowa. So far as the employés of the Government are concerned, the Committee on the Judiciary have agreed upon a report. Mr. INGERSOLL. I am aware of that. This resolution goes further than the one that is before that committee. It proposes to establish the system by law for the laboring classes in this District. The SPEAKER. If it gives rise to debate it goes over. Mr. STEVENS. I would inquire whether if they work nine hours there is any penalty. Mr. INGERSOLL. Not yet. I demand the previous question. The question being put on seconding the demand for the previous question, no quorum voted. The SPEAKER ordered tellers; and appointed Messrs. MCCULLOUGH and INGERSOLL. The House divided; and the tellers reported -ayes 35, noes 47; no quorum voting. Several MEMBERS. Withdraw it. Mr. INGERSOLL. I do not propose to withdraw it. I move a call of the House. I want a quorum here. The SPEAKER. rum present. There is evidently a quo Mr. INGERSOLL. You cannot prove it by Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I ask that the Chair count the House so as to ascertain if there is a quorum present. The SPEAKER counted the House and announced that there were one hundred and eleven members present. Mr. BOYER. I rise to a privileged question. The SPEAKER. That cannot interrupt the morning hour on Monday. Mr. BRANDEGEE. I hope the tellers will be required to resume their places. Mr. FARNSWORTH.. Is it in order to move to lay the resolution of my colleague upon the table? The SPEAKER. It is in order. Mr. FARNSWORTH. Then I make that motion. Mr. INGERSOLL. I demand the yeas and nays on that motion, and call for tellers on the yeas and nays. Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. INGERSOLL and DEMING were appointed. The House divided; and the tellers reported— ayes twenty-four, noes not counted. So the yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 15, nays 92, not voting 76; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Davis, Farnsworth, Goodyear, Grinnell, Aaron Harding, Edwin N. Hubbell, Jenckes, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, McKee, Mercur, Moorhead, Price, Shanklin, and Stevens-15. NAYS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Delos R. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Boyer, Brandegee, Bromwell, Buckland, Bundy, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Cook, Defrees, Deming, Donnelly, Eggleston, Eldridge, Eliot, Finck, Glossbrenner, Halo, Abner C. Harding, Hayes, Henderson, Higby, Hill, Hogan, Holmes, Hooper, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, James M. Humphrey, Ingersoll, Kelley, Kelso, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Latham, Loan, Longyear, McClurg, McCullough, MeRuer, Miller, Morris, Moulton, Myers, Niblack, Nicholson, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Patterson, Perham, Plants, William H. Randall, Raymond, Alexander II. Rice, John H. Rice, Rogers, Rollins, Ross, Schenck, Scofield, Sitgreaves, Spalding, Taber, Taylor, Thayer, John L. Thomas, Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I object pornton, Ward, Warner, Elihu B.Washburne, Henry 39TH CONG, 1ST SESS.-No. 124. D.Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Whaley, Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge-92. NOT VOTING-Messrs. Alley, Ancona, Anderson, James M. Ashley, Banks, Barker, Bergen, Blaine, Blow, Boutwell, Broomall, Coffroth. Cullom, Culver, Darling, Dawes, Dawson, Delano, Denison, Dixon, Dodge, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Farquhar, Ferry, Garfield, Grider, Griswold, Harris, Hart, Hotchkiss, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, James Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, Julian, Kasson, Kerr, William Lawrence, Le Blond, Lynch, Marshall, Marston, Marvin, McIndoe, Morrill, Newell, Noell, Phelps, Pike, Pomeroy, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, Ritter, Rousseau, Sawyer, Shellabarger, Sloan, Smith, Starr, Stilwell, Strouse, Francis Thomas, Trimble, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Went worth, Winfield, and Wright-76. So the House refused to lay the resolution upon the table. During the roll-call, Mr. LONGYEAR said: Mr. DRIGGS is absent in consequence of illness. Mr. HOGAN said: My colleague, Mr. NOELL, is absent in consequence of sickness. I presume he would vote "no "' if here. Mr. ELDRIDGE said: I desire to say that Mr. LE BLOND is paired for two weeks with Mr. CULLOM. Mr. SHANKLIN said: I desire to state that my colleague, Mr. TRIMBLE, is paired for two weeks from Friday last with Mr. ALLEY, of Massachusetts. The result of the vote having been announced as above recorded, The SPEAKER stated that the morning hour having expired, the resolution would go over until next Monday. Mr. WENTWORTH. I move to proceed to the business on the Speaker's table. The motion was agreed to. SALE OF LIQUORS IN THE CAPITOL. The House accordingly proceeded to the consideration, as the first business on the Speaker's table, of the amendments of the House, disagreed to by the Senate, to the concurrent resolution prohibiting the sale of spirituous and other liquors in the Capitol building and grounds. The action of the Senate on said amendments was read, as follows: IN SENATE, April 13, 1866. Resolved, That the Senate disagree to the amendments of the House of Representatives to the foregoing resolution. Mr. WENTWORTH. I move that the House insist on its amendments and ask a committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and on that motion I move the previous question, as there are a large number of gentlemen here who have business to bring forward. Mr. NIBLACK. I hope the gentleman from Illinois will withdraw his demand for the previous question until I can make a single suggestion. Mr. WENTWORTH. I must decline to do so as there are many gentlemen here who have business to present. The previous question was seconded. Upon ordering the main question there were, upon a division-ayes 51, noes 18; no quorum voting. Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. WENTWORTH and ELDRIDGE were appointed. reported-ayes sixty-three, noes not counted. The House again divided; and the tellers So the main question was ordered. The question was upon the motion of Mr. WENTWORTH that the House insist upon its amendments to the concurrent resolution, and ask for a committee of conference; and being taken, it was agreed to. Mr. WENTWORTH moved to reconsider the vote just taken; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to. The SPEAKER subsequently appointed Messrs. WENTWORTH, PRICE, and RANDALL of Pennsylvania. ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED. Mr. TROWBRIDGE, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the House of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the same: An act (H. R. No. 122) making appropriations for the naval service for the year ending 30th of June, 1867; An act (H. R. No. 218) for the relief of Charles Youly; An act (H. R. No. 264) granting a pension to Mrs. Altazera L. Willcox, of Chenango county, in the State of New York; An act (H. R. No. 266) granting a pension to Mrs. Isabella Fogg, of the State of Maine; An act (H. R. No. 267) granting a pension to Virginia K. V. Moore; An act (H. R. No. 268) for the relief of Albert Nevins; An act (H. R. No. 443) granting a pension to Mrs. Elizabeth York, widow of Shubal York, late a surgeon in the fifty-fourth regiment Illinois infantry volunteers; An act (H. R. No. 444) granting a pension to Lewis W. Dietrich; and An act (H. R. No. 446) for the relief of Nicholas Hibner, late a private in the sixth regiment Missouri State militia. WASHINGTON DAILY CHRONICLE. Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent to submit the following resolution for action at this time: Whereas it is important that our legations abroad should be kept truly advised of the state of the country: Therefore, Be it resolved by the House, (the Senate concurring,) That the Clerk of the House be directed to furnish three copies of the Morning Chronicle to each of our foreign legations, consular agents, and commercial agents, for the use of said legations and attachés, and that he pay for the same out of the contingent fund of the House. Mr. ROSS. I object. Paine, Perham, Price, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Spalding, Stevens, Thayer, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Elihu B. Washburne, Welker, Wentworth, Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge-60. NAYS-Messrs. Baker, Boyer, Brandegee, Buckland, Chanler, Coffroth, Davis, Defrees, Eldridge, Finck, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Grider, Hale, Aaron Harding, Hayes, Hogan, Chester D. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, James M. Humphrey, Kasson, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Laflin, Latham, McCullough, McRuer, Niblack, Nicholson, Phelps, Raymond, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Stilwell, Taber, Taylor, Thornton, Burt Van Horn, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, and Whaley-44. NOT VOTING-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Ancona, Anderson, James M. Ashley, Baldwin, Banks, Barker, Bergen, Bingham, Blaine, Blow, Broomall, Conkling, Cullom, Culver, Darling, Dawes, Dawson, Delano, Deming, Denison, Dixon, Dodge, Driggs, Dumont, Eggleston, Farquhar, Ferry, Garfield, Griswold, Harris, Hart, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, James Humphrey, Jenckes, Johnson, Jones, Kerr, William Lawrence, Le Blond, Marshall, Marston, Marvin, McIndoe, McKee, Morrill, Newell, Noell, Patterson, Pike, Plants, Pomeroy, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, AlexanderH. Rice, John H. Rice, Rollins, Rousseau, Sawyer, Sloan, Smith, Starr, Strouse, Francis Thomas. John L. Thomas, Trimble, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Warner, Winfield, and Wright-79. So the rules were not suspended, two thirds not voting in the affirmative. PAY OF NAVAL OFFICERS. in connection with the heading of the paper, "A very laughable incident occurred last week in Congress. An account, submitted by the Committee on Agriculture, contained a large number of expenditures charged to various members of the committee, closing with considerable charged up to et al. Mr. HUBBARD objected, and said he did not know who 'Mr. Et Al' was, but supposed he was some friend of the Commissioner of Agriculture, or of the committeeman from West Virginia, Mr. WHALEY. This sally 'brought down' the House in roars of laughter, and sorely disturbed WHALEY, who begged the floor for an explanation. He is a rather ignorant man, and took the matter seriously, and therefore protested that Mr. Et Al' was none of his appointments, as be had recommended only soldiers or their families. The effect upon the House may be imagined." Mr. SPALDING. Will the gentleman from Mr. SPALDING. I wish to say that that mistake was brought about to some extent through my agency. When the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. HUBBARD] spoke of et al., I supposed that it was the name of a man. I called the attention of my friend from West Virginia to the matter, and asked whether that man was one of his appointees.. In doing so, I was in error. [Laughter.] . Mr. WHALEY. Mr. Speaker, I believe the Mr. ROGERS, by unanimous consent, presented joint resolutions of the Legislature of New Jersey asking an increase of the pay of naval officers; which were referred to the Com-reporters who have seats here in this House mittee on Naval Affairs, and ordered to be printed. PRINTING OF TESTIMONY. Mr. BOUTWELL. From the joint committee on reconstruction, I report additional testimony relative to the States of Alabama, Geor Mr. STEVENS. I move to suspend the gia, Mississippi, and Arkansas. I move that rules to enable me to submit this resolution at this time. Mr. ROSS. I call the yeas and nays upon the notion to suspend the rules. Mr. HALE. I rise to a point of order. My point of order is this: that a transaction of this kind, appropriating the contingent fund of the House to a purpose entirely outside of the organization and duties of the House, is out of order. The SPEAKER. The Chair overrules the point of order. In the appropriation bills there is a sum set apart for the contingent expenses of the House. It is for the House to determine by their votes how that contingent fund shall be distributed, not for the Chair. Mr. HALE. My point of order is that the House can only appropriate that fund to expenses which properly pertain to the duties and business of the House. The SPEAKER. That is a matter of argument and goes to the votes of the members of the House. It is not for the Chair to decide. Mr. STEVENS. This is for the business of the House. There is an attempt made in some quarter to smother up in the country a knowledge of what the House is doing; and this is for the purpose of giving publicity to the business of the House. Mr. ROGERS. Is debate in order? The SPEAKER. The motion to suspend the rules is not debatable. Mr. ROGERS. I rise to a point of order: that this makes an appropriation, and should go to the Committee of the Whole. The SPEAKER. Appropriation bills must go to the Committee of the Whole. This is not an appropriation bill, but merely a resolution directing the distribution of a portion of a fund already appropriated. The question was upon suspending the rules. The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 60, nays 44, not voting 79; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Delos R. Ashley, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bidwell, Boutwell, Bromwell, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Cook, Donnelly, Eckley, Eliot, Farnsworth, Grinnell, Abner C. Harding, Henderson, Higby, Hill, Holmes, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Julian, Kelley, Kelso, George V. Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Lyneh, McClurg, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morris, Moulton, Myers, O'Neill, Orth, of this testimony there be printed the same number of copies as of the testimony previously reported. The SPEAKER. That motion will be re ferred, under the rule, to the Committee on Printing. PORTAGE AND SUPERIOR RAILROAD. Mr. ELDRIDGE, by unanimous consent, presented joint resolutions of the Legislature of Wisconsin, instructing the Senators and Representatives from that State to use their endeavors to procure the necessary legislation to change the route of the land-grant road from Portage to Superior; which were referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and ordered to be printed. Mr. COBB, by unanimous consent, presented joint resolutions of the Legislature of Wisconsin, relating to the construction of the Portage and Superior railroad; which were referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and ordered to be printed. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. PRICE, by unanimous consent, asked leave of absence for Mr. GRINNELL for one week. Leave was granted. Mr. SHANKLIN, by unanimous consent, asked leave of absence for Mr. TRIMBLE until next Friday week. Leave was granted. CONFISCATION OF LANDS. Mr. FARNSWORTH, by unanimous consent, presented the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to: Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire whether any and what action is necessary to confiscate the titles to lands which were purchased by the late confederate States, and used for prison camps and other purposes. PERSONAL EXPLANATION. Mr. WHALEY (having obtained unanimous consent to make a personal explanation) said: Mr. Speaker, I regret exceedingly that for the first time since I took my seat on this floor, in July, 1861, I have found it due to myself and my friends to rise to make a personal explanation. I wish to call the attention of the House to an article from the Cincinnati Gazette of April 7. I ask the Clerk to read that article, are either employed and paid by the House, or assigned to places in the reporters' gallery by the consent and order of the House. I believe indirectly they have seats assigned to them by the Speaker. Let me say the able reporter for the Gazette, Mr. Whitelaw Reid, has been gone from this city for four months. I have known him for many years, and I have regarded him as an excellent gentleman and an able correspondent. His successor, H. V. N. Boynton, is a son of the Chaplain of this House. Every member of this House must willingly confess that we have all profited by the pious prayers of our Chaplain ; but when his son, occupying a seat by the courtesy of the House, sends forth an article so unkind, so ungenerous, so unfair, and so unjust, against me as a member of the House, it is a duty I owe to myself and to my friends to set the matter right here and before the country. I appeal to the old members that no personal attack could be made upon me because of any personal misconduct on my part. I feel assured all will agree I have done my duty. Members with whom I have associated know that I have been uniformly courteous in debate, that I have been kind by nature; therefore the attack upon me must be ascribed to some political motive, and to nothing else. Now, I deserved better treatment at the hands of the Union men of Ohio. When the rebellion was powerful, with others I made an effort and succeeded in throwing up a barrier which saved the border counties of Ohio from the pillage and ravages of the hordes of secession. I have only done my duty in so doing, but it deserved some better return than this malicious attack. I will say, in conclusion, that it has grown too common for correspondents who have been assigned seats here to slander members of Congress. I do not fear them where I am known. My associates know I have done my full duty. Who will deny my earnest effort to discharge my duty to the country when contemptible rebels attempted to destroy it? During the death-struggle I was the uncompromising enemy of the rebels and the contemptible doctrine of secession. And what I have done I have done to the best of my ability; no one could do any more. I thank the House for its attention. LEAVE OF ABSENCE GRANTED. Mr. HOLMES moved that leave of absence be granted to his colleague, Mr. HOTCHKISS. The motion was agreed to. BANKRUPT LAW. Mr. ROGERS. I ask the gentleman from Ohio to yield to me for three minutes. Mr. SCHENCK. I yield to the gentleman for that time. Mr. ROGERS. I ask the Clerk to read an extract from the New York Times. The Clerk read, as follows: "BANKRUPT BILLS.-The statement in the correspondence of the Herald that Mr. CONKLING, of New York, had, upon the defeat of Mr. JENCKES'S bankrupt bill, introduced another 'which cannot be picked to pieces,' and which is as near perfect as the legal acumen of the first lawyers in Congress can make it, does Mr. JENCKES gross injustice, inasmuch as the bill in question is a verbatim copy of the one introduced and advocated by Mr. JENCKES, and which was bitterly opposed by Mr. CONKLING. He now takes Mr. JENCKES's bill and introduces it as his Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, my object in rising is to set the honorable gentleman from New York [Mr. CONKLING] right in regard to this transaction. The offering of a new bill by him was more at my suggestion than perhaps at that of any other person. I consulted with the honorable gentleman from Rhode Island, [Mr. JENCKES,] after his bill was defeated, in order that he might get up another bill before the House. He proposed to me I should offer the bill, but, as I was on the weaker side of the House, I thought it best not to do so. I went to the gentleman from New York and asked him to offer a bill of the same character to be referred and amended in such manner as to meet the objections which had been stated in the debate by some gentlemen who were disposed to vote for such a measure. It was manifest to me a bill drawn with different machinery would meet the views of gentlemen on the other side who refused to vote for the bill which had been pending. It was through no discourtesy to the gentleman from Rhode Island that it was proposed to submit another bill to be referred to the committee. He suggested, in the first place, I should offer the bill, and, as I have said, I induced the gentleman from New York to offer it. I went to him as he was known as an able lawyer and had taken an interest in the matter. I make this explanation, not for the purpose of relieving myself from responsibility, for I am not ashamed of my vote for the bill. I have considered the subject, and think a bankrupt law necessary. So does the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CONKLING. And it was a mere matter of courtesy, and nothing else, toward myself and other members who urged him to offer the bill, that he did offer it, not intending in any way to take away any of the prestige which belonged to the gentle man who introduced the bill. And when the bill is returned the chairman of the present committee will have control of it the same as before. Mr. GRINNELL. I would inquire if we have the gentleman for an ally on this bill. [Langhter.] The SPEAKER. The Chair will state he has always given information to gentlemen in regard to parliamentary questions when they have asked it, as is his duty, and that after the rejection of the bankrupt bill the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. ROGERS,] and some other gentlemen, asked him how it could again be brought up, and the Chair stated that the committee would be revived by the introduction of a new bill. Mr. CONKLING. Before the regular order proceeds I beg to express my obligations to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. ROGERS] for making this statement. An act of justice or of public courtesy from a political opponent is always rather a refreshing episode in the monotony and asperities of politics, and none the less so when induced by the malice of those who do not hold themselves as open adversa ries. As I am on my feet I will add that I have satisfied myself that the somewhat malicious, and indeed venomous, paragraph from the New York Times which has been read, was not originated and telegraphed to that paper by its avowed or ostensible Washington correspondent. From an acquaintance of some length with one of those correspondents I should be surprised had he thus defamed any member of this House. And I am glad, as attention has been called to the matter, to be able, speaking upon my belief, to exonerate the regular Washington correspondents of the Times from all part in originating the groundless imputation which the House has heard read. Mr. JENCKES. Will the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs [Mr. SCHENCK] allow me simply to say that I believe the fact to be as stated by the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. ROGERS,] and confirmed by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CONKLING?] When the act was done I happened to be absent from the House, and the gentleman explained to me immediately afterward the reason why it was done, for which he then received my thanks and now does. I never saw this paragraph until this morning. I had no connection whatever with it, either with the originating or the publishing of it. Mr. RAYMOND. Mr. Speaker, I rise neither to make a disclaimer nor an admission. I rise simply in consequence of the somewhat peculiar language which my colleague saw fit to apply to a paragraph which he says was in the New York Times. This is the first time, so far as I know, that that paper has been brought into this controversy. The paragraph read at the Clerk's desk was, as I understood, from another paper. The gentleman says that a paragraph somewhat peculiar and venomous in language appeared in the New York Times, and he acquitted two gentlemen of the responsibility for that paragraph. Whether these gentlemen are obliged to him for his volunteer acquittal is their concern, not mine. I did not know but that from some peculiarity in the gentleman's manner and emphasis he meant to throw the responsibility of what he styled the peculiar venom of the paragraph upon me as the known editor of that paper. When he will be more plain and explicit upon that point, I shall be glad to make such an answer as the case will permit. Mr. CONKLING. I will make what I say explicit. I ask the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. ROGERS] whether I am right in stating that the paragraph just read at the Clerk's desk was read from the New York Times. Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir; from the Times of April 13. Mr. CONKLING. That is explicit as to that. Repeating that I believe the regular correspond ents are blameless, I now ask my colleague [Mr. RAYMOND] if he sees or feels anything in the matter as it stands before the House which calls upon him to admit or to deny having telegraphed or inspired a libel upon one of his colleagues. If he did it, I do not know the fact, but I repeat that I have reason to believe that neither of the ordinary correspondents of his paper did it. I believe I have been sufficiently explicit now for the present. Mr. RAYMOND. I do not feel disposed to disclaim or admit anything on the strength of such an appeal as the gentleman has seen fit to make; merely upon the strength of that appeal I shall not admit or disclaim anything to him in this matter. I had not seen this paragraph or heard it read until this moment. I supposed when it was read from the Clerk's desk that it was from the New York Herald, as that was the name of the paper I understood the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. ROGERS] to mention. I paid very little attention to it. If I can see the paper, of course if there is anything to be said about it, I am ready to say it here or elsewhere. All that I know about the matter is that I was informed immediately after the gentleman introduced the bill, by another gentleman who was more concerned in the bill than he himself was or than I was, that after killing that bill he had reintroduced it in precisely the same form. I presume I repeated that fact to several persons. I do not remember whether I repeated I repeated nothing more than that fact, and I had it from authority which my colleague would not question or dispute for a moment. If there was anything "venomous" in that act I suppose he is welcome to the circumstance. I can only say that I never had any feeling against him in regard to that matter or any other. I have never expressed it in correspondence, or, so far as I am aware, in conversation. As the paragraph is not before me I do not feel called upon to say anything more on the subject. Mr. CONKLING. If the House will indulge me, I wish to make for myself an emphatic disclaimer. My colleague does not like to disclaim anything. I wish to disclaim making any appeal whatever to him upon this question. He iterates and reiterates the word "appeal;" I remind him that I have made no appeal to him; and if he feels called upon to say any thing touching his own connection with this matter it must be in consequence of promptings other than any suggestions of mine. One word further, Mr. Speaker. The bill which I introduced was sent me, it seems, by the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. ROGERS,] at the request of the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. JENCKES] and others of the select committee. I did not look at it but simply complied with the request made of me, not only by the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. ROGERS, but, in substance, by several other members of the select committee. A number of gentlemen appealed to me to do something to revive the bill, that it might be further amended. This I was willing to do upon receiv. ing the assurance that the committee would accept certain amendments. The chairman of the committee supposed a motion to reconsider would accomplish the purpose, and to satisfy him upon this point I put a question to the Chair which drew from the Speaker the statement that the only way to keep alive the committee, and repossess it of the subject, was to introduce a bill anew and have it referred. This I expressed my willingness to do with the understanding that it should be rendered acceptable to those who thought with me as to alterations to be made. This understanding was assented to by at least three members of the committee, and some one of them was to bring the bill to my seat. It was brought to me as I have said, and without looking at it at all to see whether it was one man's bill or another man's bill, I sent it to the Clerk's desk and asked leave of the House to introduce it. The leave being granted, I suggested to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. JENCKES] that it might be well to ask the Speaker to recognize him, that he might enter a motion to reconsider, so as to be able to call up the motion and the bill at his pleasure, as his committee might not soon be called for reports. My whole purpose was, as will be seen, to do my utmost to aid the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. JENCKES] and his committee, and to give them absolute control of the subject. This act of courtesy, so ordinary that I think no member of the House would claim credit for having done it, or would have felt himself excused had he refused to do it when requested, has been seized on by some one and perverted into a dishonorable proceeding. A telegraph has been sent to one of the great papers which is malicious and venomous. The venom is easily discoverable, and particularly in the statement that Mr. CONKLING having bitterly opposed the bill, now takes it and introduces it as his own. Does not every man of honor see the animus of that? Did not every reader of the paper see in it an accusation that the person referred to had been paltering in a double sense; that he had bitterly opposed a measure and had then sought to claim it as his own; that he had appropriated another man's labor, had sought to deprive another of his just dues, and had attempted to palm off as original something not his own? it to any correspondent of my own newspaper All this of false suggestions, and more, is or of any other. I understood that to be the fact; contained in this telegraphed libel. I repeat that it was an extraordinary statement, a venomous statement, and I stand by what I say. I also repeat my belief that the gentlemen who ordinarily telegraph to the New York Times, and whom the, public hold responsible for what appears there as "telegraphic dispatches from Washington," did neither of them either inspire or write this dispatch. There, if others are content to leave it, I am content to leave it. Mr. RAYMOND. I am not quite content to leave it just there. The remarks about appealing to me now to disclaim related to the manner rather than to the fact. The gentleman did not see fit, in any way which I thought I could with propriety notice, to say or intimate that I was responsible for that paragraph. The only reason that I alluded to it at all was because of some intimation in his manner and tone that he, perhaps, looked on me as responsible for the paragraph. That was the reason I declined to explain or make any explanation on that particular point. I think now he has made the matter of his own feeling in this case a little more manifest than it was at first. And I beg now to say, as I said before, that I am in no sense responsible for that paragraph, except that in conversation with others I may possibly have made myself responsible for the facts stated in it, namely, that the gentleman, having opposed the bill before the House at that time, and contributed to its defeat, immediately reintroduced the same bill. That is a fact that he himself admits. And in the absence of any explanation on his part, I beg leave to say to him that it gives rise to a certain construction which may or not be venomous, but is certainly not complimentary to the one that does it. Now, I put no such construction upon it; but I take the liberty of saying here that I know others did place that construction upon it. The explanation of the gentleman of the way in which the bill was reintroduced and the motives that led him to reintroduce it is perfectly satisfactory to all persons, I suppose, as it seemed to be to the gentleman who was the author of this bill, [Mr. JENCKES.] With that explanation the matter is clear now; without it I submit to him that it was not clear before. Mr. CONKLING. Does the gentleman know that the bill that was reintroduced was the identical bill reported from the committee? Mr. RAYMOND. I do not know that fact. But, as I said before, I was assured by a member that it was the same bill verbatim, et literatim, et punctuatim. Mr. CONKLING. I do not know how the fact is, either. And I repeat that the bill was sent or brought to me by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. ROGERS,] as it turns out, or rather I think two bills were brought to me, one of which I sent to the Clerk's desk, and the other I returned, without looking into either. Mr. RAYMOND. With that explanation, as I said before, it is entirely satisfactory. Mr. ROSS. I demand the regular order of business. The SPEAKER. The first business in order is the consideration of the bill for the reorganization of the Army. CONTINGENT EXPENSES OF NAVY DEPARTMENT. The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of the Navy, submitting a detailed statement of the expenditures of the contingent fund of that Department for the year ending June 30, 1865, agreeably to the act of Congress of August 26, 1842; which was laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed. MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. FORNEY, its Secretary, announced that the Senate had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the bill (H. R. No. 184) entitled "An act to authorize the sale of marine hos- || pitals and of revenue cutters." The message also announced that the Senate had passed, without amendment, the bill (H. R. No. 25) entitled "An act for the relief of Thomas Hurly." The message also communicated the following extract from the Journal of the Senate: IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, April 16, 1866. Resolved, That the Secretary be directed to request the House of Representatives to return to the Senate a bill of the House (II. R. No. 458) granting a pension to Sarah E. Pickell, which was postponed indefinitely on the 13th instant. Attest: J. W. FORNEY, Secretary. RAILROAD TO THE PACIFIC. Mr. PRICE, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on the Pacific Railroad, reported back, with certain amendments, a bill (S. No. the construction of a railroad and telegraph 20) entitled "An act granting lands to aid in line from the States of Missouri and Arkansas to the Pacific coast," and moved that the same be recommitted, and be ordered to be printed. The motion was agreed to. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was recommitted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to. REORGANIZATION OF THE ARMY. consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 361) entiAgreeably to order, the House resumed the tled "An act to reorganize and establish the Army of the United States." The pending question was upon the motion tenants," in the twelfth line of the third secof Mr. HALE, to insert after the word "lieution, the following: And that after the original vacancies are filled, enlisted men of the regular Army who shall have served at least six months shall in like manner be eligible to appointment as second lieutenants. one Mr. SCHENCK. I suggest to the gentleman from New York [Mr. HALE] the propriety of inserting in his amendment the words year' instead of "six months," in order to prevent an abuse, by which men without proper claims may be enlisted for the very purpose of getting commissions, an abuse which has prevailed to some extent, and for which a door ought not to be opened. Mr. HALE. I see no objection to that. I modify my amendment in that way. Mr. PAINE. I desire to make a suggestion to the gentleman from New York, which I think will improve his amendment, and will, I believe, meet his approval. My proposition is that enlisted men should be eligible to second lieutenancies after one year's service, as suggested by the gentleman from Ohio, in the regiments in which they are serving, and not in other regiments. The language of the amendment as it now stands would allow an enlisted man of one regiment to be enlisted in another. Mr. HALE. I do not see the objection to allowing these men to be transferred. I understand that this corresponds with the ordinary practice of the Department. It is deemed better, I believe, that when appointments are made the appointees should be transferred to new regiments in which they have not served. Mr. PAINE. With regard to the general rule the gentleman is right, but if he will consider the effect of that rule as applied to this case he will see that it ought not to be adopted. Now, there are six new regiments of cavalry for which we are now providing; but there are in the Army fifty-five regiments of infantry and six regiments of artillery, in addition to twelve regiments of cavalry. Now, the rule which he proposes will allow enlisted men from all those regiments to be commissioned in these six new regiments of cavalry. It will be observed that it is only in these six new regiments of cavalry that the most desirable vacancies can be found in the Army. The six regiments of artillery are already full or are provided for; the six old regiments of cavalry are already full or are provided for. It is only in these six new regiments that there will be vacancies; and if we allow enlisted men of the Army, who have served as volunteers during this war, to be transferred from any one of these eighty regiments into these six regiments, but a very small chance, it seems to me, will be left for volunteers who have served either as enlisted men or as officers during the war and have by such meritorious service earned the right to commissions in these regiments. I move to amend the amendment by adding to it the words "in the regiments in which they shall have served." Mr. HALE. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. PAINE] should not be adopted. I understand that it has ordina rily been found the true policy, in making appointments from the rank and file of the Army, to transfer the appointees to regiments in which they have not served, for the simple reason that one who has served as a private is less likely to exercise the proper discipline and control among men with whom he has been familiar as a companion and an equal than among strangers. I do not think that the gentleman from Wisconsin has any good reason to fear that these regiments will be filled up from the rank and file of the whole Army. I am not aware that the War Department in appointments or commissions has ever manifested any such favor itism on behalf of the rank and file of the Army as to lead to the belief that there will be an abuse of power in this respect hereafter. I think there is no reason to apprehend these regiments will be unduly flooded by appoint ments from the rank and file. This same provision is to be made, of course, in regard to the infantry regiments, and it seems to me they ought to be left on an equality. The question recurred on Mr. PAINE's amend ment to the amendment. The House was divided, and there wereayes nine, noes not counted. So the amendment to the amendment was disagreed to. The question then recurred on Mr. HALE'S amendment. Mr. PAINE demanded the yeas and nays. The question recurred on Mr. SCHENCK'S motion to reconsider the vote by which the House agreed to insert after the words "shall be eligible" the words "without having served as volunteers." Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Speaker, I will assign as briefly as I can my reasons for moving the reconsideration of that amendment. It was an amendment which was adopted to come in the eleventh line of the third section, after the word "eligible," so as to make the section read: That graduates of the United States Military Academy shall be eligible, without having served as volunteers, to appointment as second lieutenants. I am more than ever satisfied that the bill as originally reported was very much nearer right than it will be with any such amendment. That amendment, if it have any effect at all, at least does not carry out the intention of the section in that clause, nor avoid the evil intended to be guarded against. As provided now by the section, two thirds of the officers above the grade of first lieutenant are to be selected from the volunteers, and all the subalterns, that is, the first and second lieutenants, from the volunteers. The proviso was put in to save the graduates of West Point, the object being to enable the young men who have been educated there to come in, notwithstanding this third section allows only volunteers in these subor dinate appointments. Without that provision they will be excluded. Now, if we put in these words, if graduates may come in without having served as volunteers, it can only have some such effect as this: none of the graduates who are yet to come from West Point have served either in the volunteers or the regular Army, and it must be intended to cover graduates who have been sent out from that Academy in former years. Now, every graduate of West Point living during this war either served in the volunteers, or in the regular Army, or did not serve at all. If he has served in the volunteers he is provided for as a |